Technical Assistance Consultant’s Report · ERW Safety Officer would provide advice regarding ERW remediation certification and ERW mitigation requirements, conduct small area clearance

Technical Assistance Consultant’s Report

This consultant’s report does not necessarily reflect the views of ADB or the Government concerned, and ADB and the Government cannot be held liable for its contents. (For project preparatory technical assistance: All the views expressed herein may not be incorporated into the proposed project’s design.

Project Number: 48480 December 2017

Nauru: Sustainable and Climate-Resilient Connectivity Project Financed by the Asian Development Fund

Prepared by Cardno Emerging Markets

Fortitude Valley, QLD, Australia

For Ministry of Finance Implementing agency

GRANT 6005-NAU: UXO Clearance, Geotechnical Investigations, Surveys and Detailed Engineering Services Final Interim Report – UXO Assessment Report

GRANT-6005 NAU - Final Interim Report - UXO Assessment Report.docx 21 September 2016 Page 12 of 20

Figure 4 : Four Separate ERW Remediation Environments (from Appendix D - Part B ERW Risk Assessment and Mitigation Plan - Plate 2)

31. ERW Remediation in Area 1, which is bordered by the Waterfront Road in the west and the project boundaries in all other directions, is problematic due to existing structures and building detritus. These structures and the surrounding detritus will interfere with the operation of detection equipment and severely limit its use. Removal of all structures and debris under the direction of Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD) Technician and then a 100% area coverage Geophysical ERW Survey or a 100% area coverage Analogue ERW Survey depending on the surface conditions post structure removal is recommended. On completion of the survey the data would be processed and a team of EOD Technicians would investigate every discrete ferrous anomaly to determine whether it is ERW or otherwise. Dependent on the Senior EOD Technician’s judgment, all ERW would be either removed, rendered safe and removed, or disposed of in place. This is considered impractical at this early stage of the project to be generally undertaken in the port area where reinforced concrete floor slabs exist in buildings which are scheduled for demolition in the near future. In areas where geotechnical testing is necessary, it is recommended.

32. Area 2 comprises the beach and reef zones. The eastern section which abuts Area 1 was not able to be processed into valid data due to the presence of building and other domestic detritus. There is a significant amount of metallic debris in the area (above and below ground) as indicated in Figure 5 below. At this early stage of the project removal of debris and further



investigation are not warranted for locations other than for borehole positions, but these can be relocated to avoid positions of anomalies.

Figure 5 : Northern Section Area 2 - Processed Magnetic Data Plot (from Appendix D - Part B ERW Risk Assessment and Mitigation Plan)

33. Area 3 is the crossover zone on the edge of the reef between land and marine and is an especially difficult area. It is too shallow for a towed marine survey and water surge provides a difficult working environment for divers. To clear this area, divers are recommended with underwater magnetometers be used. However for the drilling of boreholes, relocation of the borehole to an adjacent position is suggested.

34. Area 4 is the offshore area where no construction would be required and needs no further consideration.

3.2.3 ERW Risk Matrix

35. Due to the problematic conditions present on the site, high levels of non-ordnance related ferrous waste, the surf zone, and the small size, yet still hazardous nature of some ordnance types, there will always remain a small residual risk of ERW contamination on the site.

36. A qualified EOD Technician should be engaged as an ERW Safety Officer and should be present on-site for any construction phase of the ADB Nauru Port Development Project. The ERW Safety Officer would provide advice regarding ERW remediation certification and ERW mitigation requirements, conduct small area clearance for unanticipated works outside the ERW remediation certified area, and also provide an immediate response to any ERW finds. The Project Risk Matrix is presented below.

Figure 6 : Project Risk Matrix (from Appendix D - Part B ERW Risk Assessment and Mitigation Plan)



37. However any intrusive work conducted during the investigative stages of this project would require the presence of an EOD Technician to conduct small area ERW avoidance searches.



4 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

38. ERW remediation is difficult in Area 1 where existing structures and obstacles interfere with the operation of detection equipment and severely limit its use. Dependent on the Senior EOD Technician’s judgment, all ERW would be either removed, rendered safe and removed, or disposed of in place. This is considered impractical at this early stage of the project to be generally undertaken in the port area where reinforced concrete floor slabs exist in buildings which are scheduled for demolition in the near future. In areas where geotechnical testing is necessary, it is recommended.

39. Area 2 comprises the beach and reef zones where there is a significant amount of metallic debris in the area (above and below ground). At this early stage of the project removal of debris and further investigation are not warranted for locations other than for borehole positions, but these can be relocated to avoid positions of anomalies.

40. Area 3 is the crossover zone on the edge of the reef between land and marine and is too shallow for a towed marine survey and water surge provides a difficult working environment for divers. To clear this area, it is recommended that divers with underwater magnetometers be used as the project proceeds beyond the preliminary stage. However for the drilling of boreholes, relocation of the borehole to an adjacent position is recommended.

41. Area 4 is the offshore area where no construction would be required and needs no further consideration.

42. A senior EOD Technician has been approved to attend geotechnical drilling to provide monitoring of any ERW present.



Appendix A: UXO Survey Extent

DateRev. Verif. Appd.

Scale

Status

Client

XR

EF

's: C

onto

urs

Drawing Number Revision

DA

TE

PLO

TT

ED

: 11

Aug

ust 2

016

3:35

PM

BY

: E

RW

IN F

RA

NC

ISC

O

Des.

Size

Project

Title

Drawn Date

Checked

Date

Date

DateVerified

Approved

Description

A1

CA

D F

ile: W

:\AC

M94

1036

Nau

ru P

ort D

evel

opm

ent P

roje

ct -

PD

A\(

3) D

esig

n &

Doc

umen

tatio

n\C

AD

\Ske

tch6

.dw

g

NAURUNAURU PORTS DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

AIWO PORT

UXO SURVEY EXTENT BOUNDARY

DATUM

WGS84 AS SHOWN

AC86100-PD-0102 A

MR 28/06/2016

Designed

Cardno Limited All Rights Reserved.This document is produced by Cardno Limited solely for the

benefit of and use by the client in accordance with the

assume any responsibility or liability whatsoever to any third

party arising out of any use or reliance by third party on the

content of this document.

®

Cardno (Qld) Pty Ltd | ABN 57 051 074 992

Fortitude Valley, QLD 4006

Tel: 07 3369 9822 Fax: 07 3369 9722

Web: www.cardno.com.au

1 28/06/2016 ISSUED AS DRAFT TO CLIENT FOR DISCUSSION

NOT TO BE USED FOR CONSTRUCTION PURPOSESFOR CONCEPT APPROVAL

NORTH

400200

SCALE 1:10000

600 800 1000m0

@A1

0 75m

SCALE 1:750

15 30 45 60

@A1GENERAL LAYOUT PLAN SCALE 1:750

NAURU

EXISTING

AIWO PORT

NAURU

EXISTING

AIWO PORT

SITE LOCATION PLAN NTS

LOCALITY PLAN SCALE 1:10000

NOTE:

PORTION 208 IS INDICATIVE LOCATION AND OUTLINE ONLY AND

SHALL BE VERIFIED DURING ACTUAL TOPOGRAPHIC SURVEY.

PORTION 208



Appendix B: UXO Site-Specific Environmental Management Plan (SEMP)

Government of Nauru

UXO - Site Specific Environmental Management Plan (SEMP)

GRANT Number: 6005-NAU

Date: 28 July 2016

Nauru: Port Development Project– Project Design Advance (48480-002)

UXO Clearance, Geotechnical Investigations, Surveys and Detailed Engineering Services

Prepared for:

Government of Nauru

Asian Development Bank

Nauru Port Authority

Prepared By:

Cardno Emerging Markets (Australia) Pty Ltd Level 11, 515 St Paul's Terrace, Fortitude Valley, Queensland 4006 Australia

Milsearch Pty Ltd Level 1, Unit 4-5, 30 Mawson Place, Mawson, ACT, Australia, 2607

GRANT 6005-NAU: UXO Clearance, Geotechnical Investigations, Surveys and Detailed Engineering Services UXO – Site Specific Environmental Management Plan (SEMP)

GRANT- 6005 NAU - UXO SEMP-Rev5.docx 28 July 2016 Page 1 of 19

ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS 2

1 INTRODUCTION 3

1.1 PROJECT BACKGROUND 3

1.2 SCOPE OF WORKS 3

1.3 SUMMARY OF THE SEMP 5

2 ENVIRONMENTAL AND OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY (OH&S) POLICY 6

2.1 ENVIRONMENTAL POLICIES 6

2.2 ENVIRONMENTAL AND OH& S PROJECT OBJECTIVES 6

2.3 ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS 7

3 ORGANIZATIONAL ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES 8

3.1 ORGANIZATIONAL CHART 8

3.2 ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES 8

4 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PLAN 9

5 GRIEVANCE REDRESS MECHANISM (GRM) 15

APPENDIX A: MILSEARCH PROJECT HEALTH, SAFETY AND ENVIRONMENTAL PLAN – NAU53916 – ADB PORT

DEVELOPMENT PROJECT NAURU 17

APPENDIX B: MONITORING AND REPORTING CHECKLIST 18

GRANT 6005-NAU: UXO Clearance, Geotechnical Investigations, Surveys and Detailed Engineering Services UXO – Site Specific Environmental Management Plan (SEMP)


ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS

ADB - Asian Development Bank

DCIE - Department of Commerce, Industry and Environment

DGPS - Differential Global Positioning System

EHSG - Environmental Health and Safety Guidelines

EIA - Environmental Impact Assessment

EMP - Environmental Management Plan

ERW - Explosive Remnants of War

GRM - Grievance Redress Mechanism

GoN - Government of Nauru

HS&E - Heath, Safety and Environment

IEE - Initial Environmental Examination

NPA - Nauru Port Authority

NESD - National Emergency Services Department

NPDP - Nauru Port Development Project

OH&S - Occupational Health and Safety

PAD - Planning Aid Division

PDA - Project Design Advance

PPTA - Project Preparatory Technical Assistance

PRIF - Pacific Regional Infrastructure Facility

SEMP - Site Specific Management Plan

ToR - Terms of Reference

UXO - Unexploded Ordnance

NOTE

In this report, “$” refers to US dollars unless otherwise stated

UXO CLEARANCE, GEOTECHNICAL INVESTIGATIONS, SURVEYS AND DETAILED ENGINEERING SERVICES

GRANT 6005-NAU

1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Project Background

1. The Asian Development Bank (ADB) through technical assistance from the Pacific Regional Infrastructure Facility (PRIF) is assisting the Government of Nauru (GoN) to upgrade and improve the infrastructure and services of the Nauru Port and the Nauru Port Authority (NPA).

2. Through the ADB a number of reports have been commissioned pertaining to the redesign of the port and its land based structures and includes the potential environmental impacts that require suitable environmental management actions developed and implemented to ensure the project meets the ADB safeguard requirements and laws and regulations of Nauru.

3. In particular, the potential presence of Unexploded Ordnances (UXO) resulting from World War II hostilities within the port site and the structural competency (geotechnical assessment) of the port site. Both actions need to be assessed before the Project Preparatory Technical Assistance (PPTA) phase of the project is initiated. This report focuses only on the environmental safeguard requirements associated with UXO assessment component.

1.2 Scope of Works

4. The specific scope of works as identified in the ADB objectives of the Project Design Advance (PDA) is to undertake an “Assessment of unexploded ordnance (UXO) – ahead of any investigation/survey works to ensure safety of personnel”.

5. Milsearch Pty Ltd has detailed the procedures and protocols it will undertake to assess the NPA site for the potential presences of UXO based on the projects original Terms of Reference (ToR). Details of this approach and actions to be undertaken includes;

i. Project Planning – the generation of all project specific safety and operational documentation;

ii. Focused Historical Review – all World War II activities related to Nauru, characterization of likely Explosive Remnants of War (ERW) contamination;

iii. Survey – a 100% coverage of all available areas of the project footprint; iv. Risk Assessment – based on the results of the Historical Review and the

Geophysical Survey data Milsearch will create a Risk Matrix; v. Explosive Remnants of War (ERW) Risk Mitigation Management Plan

developed – an overarching life of project plan using the Risk Matrix to ensure that the hazard of ERW is considered with all activities and the appropriate risk mitigation actions are taken;

vi. Consolidated Report – a two part report with Part A providing the methodology and results of the Historical Review and the Geophysical Survey, and Part B consisting of the ERW Risk Mitigation Management Plan and Risk Matrix

Nauru: Port Development Project (48480-002) UXO Clearance, Geotechnical Investigations, Surveys and Detailed Engineering Services

Site Specific Environmental Management Plan


6. The detailed process for the Geophysical Survey (step 3 above) includes the following:

i. Milsearch will deploy a 2-person team employing Geometrics G858 digital technology to conduct the 100% coverage, Geophysical Survey of all available areas of the project footprint. One team member will be nominated as the on-site Project Manager. The Project Manager will be a qualified Level 4 Explosive Ordnance Disposal Technician. Both team members however will be fully qualified and highly experienced in ERW survey procedures and the operation of the Geometrics Dual Sensor G858 Magnetometer.

ii. The Geometrics Dual Sensor G858 Magnetometer has been selected over Electromagnetic (EM) detection systems due to the conductive saline environment of the project footprint.

iii. The Team is expected to spend six days on-site. The Geophysical Survey would be Project Managed on-site by Mr. Mark Reynish.

iv. The true density of contamination within the identified area is unknown; however there is a high probability that hazardous ERW contamination is present within the project footprint. The minimum target size for the Geophysical Survey will be driven by the results of the Historical review.

v. In order to validate the Historical Review process, and to assess the future remediation requirement, Milsearch would conduct a 100% coverage, Geophysical Survey of all available areas of the project footprint.

vi. In conducting the survey operation, Milsearch shall ensure the following 100% survey methodology is undertaken:

Prior to undertaking the search operations, the Milsearch Project Manager, utilizing a sub-meter accurate Differential Global Positioning System (DGPS), will record and mark the client agreed search boundary points;

To achieve control, the search polygon may be broken into 50m blocks and marked as such with temporary wooden markers;

All available areas of the project footprint shall be systematically and progressively subjected to a 100% digital survey along parallel transect lanes utilizing the Geometrics G858 magnetometer;

Areas which cannot be surveyed due to existing structures, cadastral issues, or other impediments will be clearly demarked and DGPS recorded as a limitation to the survey coverage;

The data from the survey will be processed and interpreted by the Milsearch Chief Geophysicist Torbjorn von Strokirch;

vii. The interpreted data will be provided as a DGPS plotted map and an accompanying Anomaly Sheet(commonly referred to as a ‘Dig’ Sheet);

viii. The ‘Dig’ Sheet provides DGPS Coordinates, estimated ferrous mass, and estimated depth of all anomalies which fall into the target size and require investigation;

ix. Part A to the Consolidated Report will, as a minimum, contain:

A description of the search and equipment and methodologies employed during the project;

A full color geophysical plots of anomalies which require investigation;

‘Dig” Sheets for all anomalies which require investigation;

A description of the conduct and effectiveness of the internal and external (if conducted) Quality Management of the survey;

x. An electronic map showing:

The boundary of the areas subjected to survey;

Areas where effective survey could not be conducted;




Relevant photographs, and Any further recommendations.

7. If UXO are located during the assessment the following actions as detailed in the pre-construction IEE and in the tender proposal will be initiated. This includes;

i. All work will cease and the site will be cleared of all unnecessary personnel; ii. The appropriate initial safety distance will be evacuated and secured; iii. The National Emergency Services Department (NESD) will be contacted

and informed of the munitions type and location; iv. The President’s office will be contacted and informed; v. The Nauru Police force will be contacted, and informed of the munition type

and location (the police may be used to secure the site and evacuate residences as required);

vi. The Australia High Commissioner will be contacted and alerted of the situation;

vii. If required a formal request for assistance from the Australia High Commissioner to mobilize military EOD assets may be made;

viii. The Nauru Rehabilitation Corporation (NRC) will also be informed whom may also be used to assist;

ix. The Milsearch PM can provide professional advice in order to assist with the UXO identification, condition/hazard assessment, and best course of action (safe to move or destroy in place) decision process; and

x. Milsearch will not be responsible for the final action.

1.3 Summary of the SEMP

8. Therefore, this report details the Site Specific Environmental Management Plan (SEMP) approach and details mitigation and monitoring actions Milsearch Pty Ltd will deploy during the assessment of the Nauru Port site for the presence of UXO.

9. Milsearch has read and fully understand the environmental safeguard requirements of the project in relation to the UXO assessments and has subsequently designed the assessment approach to ensure compliance with the project Pre – Construction Initial Environment Examination (IEE) management and mitigation Environmental Management Plan (EMP). This includes the twelve (12) potential pre-construction management actions detailed in the report.

10. The actions presented in this SEMP are to be implemented to minimize any adverse environmental impacts resulting from the assessment and to articulate the roles and responsibilities of these actions on site. These actions will ensure the pre-construction IEE conclusions of no identifiable environmental significant impacts are justified.




2 ENVIRONMENTAL AND OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH AND SAFETY (OH&S) POLICY

2.1 Environmental Policies

11. Milsearch considers no phase of operations or administration to be of greater importance than injury and illness prevention for all staff and ensuring environmental integrity is maintained and compliance is attained.

12. Milsearch Environmental and Occupational Health and Safety (OH&S) policies and specific plan for this project has been detailed in a separate report (see Appendix A). This report details the company’s corporate commitment to ensuring a safe and health work environment whilst preventing potential impacts to the environment. Information detailed in this report reflects this commitment and forms a subsidiary document to the SEMP. The environmental and OH&S policies shall be communicated through formal and informal meetings to all employees throughout the course of the assessment.

13. The assessments scope of works associated with this project will be undertaken in a manner that meets or exceeds the intent of:

i. Relevant Jurisdictional HS&E Legislation, regulations, advisory standards, Codes of Practice (CoP) and guidance notes;

ii. Australian HS&E Legislation, regulations, advisory standards, COP and guidance notes;

iii. Milsearch Health and Safety Policy;

iv. Milsearch Environmental Policy; v. Milsearch Integrated Management System; and vi. Current or site specific Health, Safety and Environmental requirements.

2.2 Environmental and OH& S Project Objectives

14. Consistent with the Milsearch Environmental and OH&S policies, the objectives and expectations for this project include:

i. Develop, implement and maintain an effective and efficient Environmental

Management Plan; ii. Identify and comply with environmental regulations, law and contractual

requirements; iii. Ensure minimum impact to the surrounding environment and community

(zero damage to property); iv. Increase environmental awareness amongst all employees; v. To give OHS&E priority over all Project activities and to intervene when an

unsafe act or unsafe condition is observed; vi. Zero harm to Milsearch employees, subcontractors, including employees

of subcontractors, communities and visitors; vii. To identify and implement HS&E legislation, regulations and codes of

practice applicable to this project; viii. To establish and maintain operational procedures that identify hazards

associated with the work carried out and to implement effective mitigation

measures;




ix. To provide adequate emergency response to incidents and to ensure all incidents are properly investigated and reported and appropriate

corrective/preventative actions are taken and evaluated; x. To outline key performance indicators to monitor performance and report

HS&E matters to all relevant Project stakeholders; xi. To ensure roles and responsibilities are clearly identified and

communicated to individual Project employees; xii. To establish Project specific training requirements to enable all

stakeholders to be competent to perform tasks safely, to be aware of and understand HS&E hazards and risks associated with their work activities

and he control measures necessary to manage them; xiii. To engage subcontractors who share the values outlined in this Project

HS&E Plan; xiv. To implement an audit program to ensure compliance and continuous

improvement; and xv. To create and nurture a positive HS&E culture that empowers and supports

Project employees in accordance with this Project HS&E Plan.

2.3 Environmental Management Requirements

15. Milsearch requirements for environmental management are based on the ADB Nauru Port per construction IEE and the company’s environment and social policies. They include:

i. Prevent contamination of, and harm to the environment; ii. No activity results in breach of the provisions of the legislation or

authorities’ requirements associated with the project;

iii. Compliance with the Client’s requirements as stipulated in the contract; iv. Recognition of environmentally sensitive issues and implement controls; v. Review the processes, activities and tasks to establish suitable risk

management strategies and controls; vi. Use Site Inductions, Specific Training and Tool Box Talks to communicate

the environmental requirements to all personnel; vii. Develop and implement appropriate environmental project instructions,

were relevant;

viii. Establish relationships with other contractors on the site; ix. Ensure personnel are qualified to perform the work assigned to them; and

x. Periodic review of implementation to assess compliance with SEMP.




3 ORGANIZATIONAL ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES

3.1 Organizational Chart

Figure 1: UXO Team Organizational Chart

3.2 Roles and Responsibilities

16. Implementation of internationally recognized good environmental and OS&H practices forms the basis of Milsearch approach to this contract and is reflected in the SEMP.

17. Milsearch’s Senior Operations Manager, Alan McKeown is the Project Director for this Project. He will be providing overview and direction to the project team. Dallas Evans is the appointed Project Quality Manager. He will be administering the Company Integrated Management System, ensuring that Milsearch maintains their current certification under the AS/NZS ISO 9001 Quality Management Systems, Occupational Health and Safety Management OHSAS 18001 and Environmental Management under the AS/NZS ISO 14001. Torbjorn von Strokirch is the Project Geophysicist who will be having overall responsibility for all technical aspects of the Geophysical Survey. The geophysical survey will be project managed by Mark Reynish and John Allen will be the Magnetometer Operator throughout the duration of the geophysical survey.

18. The designated staff member responsible for oversight of Milsearch’s OHS protocols and requirements will be the project team leader, Barry McFadyen. He will also be responsible for ensuring that the SEMP is implemented appropriately and provision of updates to the client.




4 ENVIRONMENTAL MONITORING PLAN

19. The UXO Environmental Monitoring Plan (EMP) (Table 1 below) is based on the ADB Port project’s IEE for pre-construction EMP activities. This report documented that the Nauru Port Development Site (NPDS) is a “highly modified industrial area which has no significant impacts or value on neither native biodiversity nor individual terrestrial, or coastal/marine ecosystems of Nauru” and reports that there “are no rare, endangered or threatened terrestrial or marine flora or fauna recorded within the project area of influence, nor does the proposed site area have any impacts on communities or individual food security”.

20. The UXO assessment will be undertaken within the entire port site, which includes both the coastal land, foreshore and intertidal exposed reef flat as detailed in section 1.2 above.

21. The assessment in summary requires 2 individuals to walk over the site carrying equipment. There will be no intrusions to the ground nor any vegetation removal. Therefore the UXO assessment has almost no impact on the environment of the site. There will be no removal of UXO is located, however the site will be clearly marked and exclusion measures should be implemented. The exclusion measures may include a barrier to prevent access to the location only.

22. Of the twelve potential Environmental impacts identified in the IEE nine (9) are directly relevant to the UXO site assessment and are addressed below, including specific actions Milsearch will undertake to ensure minimal environmental impacts will arise from the assessment. The original table format used by the IEE project is retained.

23. The Environmental Monitoring Checklist to be used is shown in Appendix B.

Table 1: SEMP Matrix incorporating the activities, impacts, mitigation measures required to address the impacts, and monitoring requirements for the UXO assessment for the Nauru Port Development Project

Environmental Issue Project Activities

Mitigation Measures Monitoring Plan

Measures and Actions Responsible to Implement

Monitor Parameter

Frequency & Verification

Responsible to Monitor

PRE-CONSTRUCTION (DESIGN) PHASE

Protection of Sensitive & Ecological Important Areas/Sites

The initial on ground site assessment undertaken during the pre-construction IEE clearly indicates the NPDP site is located on highly modified industrial land and therefore there was no significant sensitive or natural ecological areas present.

Nevertheless Milsearch through its environmental policy and professional due diligence will during its initial site inspection identify and report any potential environmentally sensitive / natural areas within the NPDP.

If any site is located the following actions will be undertaken; Locate optional construction sites/activities away from

them. Ensure construction personnel are aware of locations of

sensitive areas and avoid them and If the proposed construction passes close to these

areas, include temporary fences to restrict machines and activities from encroaching in the area.

Milsearch.

A briefing note to be provided once preliminary assessment completed indicating yes or no if any ecological sites were located.

Environmental Approval if any sensitive areas are located.

Before contract work begins.

DCIE to evaluate if any sensitive ecological sites are located.

Cardno to monitor.

Encroachment on known Cultural &

The initial on ground site assessment undertaken during the pre-construction IEE clearly indicates the NPDP site has no known cultural and/or historic sites.

Nevertheless Milsearch through its environmental policy and professional due diligence - will during its initial site

Environmental Approval if any cultural and/or


DCIE to evaluate if any sensitive ecological







Monitor Parameter



Historical sites.

inspection identify and report any cultural and/or historic sites within the NPDP.

If any site is located the following actions will be undertaken; Do not damage any existing or newly discovered cultural

and/or heritage sites. Regularly consult with local people and government

during design phase activities regarding any presence of archaeological monuments

Milsearch.

A briefing note to be provided once preliminary assessment completed indicating yes or no if any sites were located.

historic sites are located.

sites are located.

Cardno to monitor.

Development Consent and Permit Acquisition

Ensure PAD & DCIE approved the SEMP before work is initiated for the UXO site assessment.

If UXO located during assessment detail information as highlighted in section 1.2 and await further instructions from client and government on how to proceed. The removal of any UXO is outside the scope of this assessment.

PAD, DCIE Environmental Approval


DCIE and Cardno

Climate Change Adaptation Measures evaluated and incorporated into the design.

Not relevant for the UXO on site assessment.







Monitor Parameter



General Ecological Principles Applied to Design.

No design work required for this assessment, however due diligences is to be undertaken during assessment to ensure minimal disturbance of surrounding ecosystems.

Environmental best practices are to be exercised.

Contractor Milsearch

On-site inspections

During assessment contract.

Cardno

Environmentally Responsible Procurement.

Milsearch corporate environmental and OH&S policies suitable to implement, manage, and monitor environmental and safety issues associated with the UXO assessment.

Milsearch herein has developed the projects SEMP based on the projects pre-construction EMP.

Milsearch Monitor compliance against SEMP.


Cardno

Environmental Capacity Development

Funds have been secured through the project to oversee the SEMP implementation for the UXO assessment, including workers orientation on SEMP provisions.



Cardno

UXO Detection, Management and Removal

Assessment of entire terrestrial and intertidal shallow water marine (reef flat, crest) areas of the NPDP site by means of a 2 –person team employing Geometrics G858 digital technology to conduct the 100% coverage.

Strict adherence to Nauru Government UXO safety and management guidelines and Milsearch Environment and OH&S policies and procedures.

No removal of UXO to be undertaken – if located follow procedures outlined in the SEMP, herein.

Confirmation from UXO assessment that all NPDP sites are safe (no UXO) before constructions phase of NPDP can be undertaken.


During contract work.

Cardno







Monitor Parameter



Geotechnical Assessment of Site Suitability.

Not relevant for the UXO on site assessment.

Port Project Occupational Health and Safety

Milsearch has provided its corporate Environmental and OH&S policies, guidelines, and protocols (annex 1). Including:

Allocation of responsibility for safety inspections to a designated, qualified and experienced Health and Safety Officer (HSO) within the Contractor’s staff;

Education and Training of staff and/or workers on safety precautions, including implementing emergency procedures applicable to this assessment will be undertaken;

Provision of protective clothing and equipment to workers as appropriate;

Equipment operators are properly licensed and trained; First aid and sanitation facilities have been arranged for

staff at the site performing the assessment. Emergency evacuation procedures and site specific

regular safety checks of equipment have been developed.

Provision of hazard warning signs at the all construction sites; and

A Contractor (Milsearch) will maintain a register of accidents detailing date, circumstances, severity, action taken and outcomes.



Cardno

Potential risks due to public

The projects GRM is to be developed by the Cardno team not Milsearch.







Monitor Parameter



not well informed on the Grievance Redress Mechanism (GRM) and how it is operated.

Milsearch will comply with the projects GRM.

Social Disruption and Public Health and Safety Risks.

All assessment activities undertaken within the grounds of NPDP and therefore no disruption to non-port business, communities or individuals.

Milsearch will consult and work with port staff during the assessment including staff awareness of activities.

Milsearch will implement its environmental and OH&S protocols and ensure professional codes of conduct at all times.

Consider erecting temporary barriers to prevent NPA staff entering areas during the of assessment,

Consider erecting suitable signage to inform NPA staff of the activities and requirements/protocols to follow during the assessment.


Before and during contract work begins.

Cardno


5 GRIEVANCE REDRESS MECHANISM (GRM)

24. A Grievance Redress Mechanism (GRM) will be established to receive, evaluate and facilitate the resolution of affected people’s concerns, complaints and grievances about the environmental and social performance of the Project. The GRM is to be based on accepted practices in Nauru including previous experience on ADB projects and provides an accessible, time-bound and transparent mechanism for the affected persons to voice and resolve social and environmental concerns linked to the Project.

25. A NPDP GRM has been established to address any concerns, complaints and grievances arising during the course of implementing all aspects of the project including the UXO assessment. Members of the public may perceive risks to themselves or their property, or have concerns about the environmental performance of the project. These issues may relate to any aspects of the UXO assessment and therefore they will have rights to file complaints for the contractor (Milsearch) and/or Ministry of Finance/Cardno to address promptly and sensitively, and for complaints to be made without retribution.

26. The GRM for the UXO assessment includes the following;

i. The Contractor (Milsearch) will maintain a register of any community grievances and that register will record the grievance and the resolution measures taken. Cardno’s Team Leader, Barry McFadyen will also be the Liaison Officer (LO) who will be frequently on site and will receive and register complains in the first instant. The register will be made available for inspection by all authorized representatives of the project and government.

ii. There will be a dedicated landline number installed by the NPDP. This compliant spread sheet will also be made available for inspection by the authorized representatives of the project and employer.

iii. Any land grievances associated with the UXO assessment will follow the same procedure of communication where the complaint will be registered by the Liaison Officer or by contacting the dedicated landline established by the project.

27. For all general GRM associated with the UXO assessment the following mechanisms will be used for all grievances (diagrammatically represented in Figure 2).

i. All minor land related grievances that can be resolved immediately on the site. Other land related grievances would be handled separately. The focus of the GRM is to resolve issues in a customarily appropriate fashion at the community stakeholder level.

ii. Community concerns, complaints and grievances will be taken and registered into the Complaints log by the Liaison Officer. Should the LO or an individual not be satisfied with any aspect of their communication in relation to issue on site, the matter will then be taken to the Cardno's site manager (Team Leader). If the Site Manager cannot resolve the issue, then it will be referred to the projects Team Leader or higher, until the grievance is resolved.

iii. It is unlikely that non-land related grievances would progress beyond the Site Manager level for resolution. Should a grievance proceed to the Project Management Level and resolution not be achieved at that level, then the Team Leader would have no option but to withdraw the Contractor (Milsearch) from the site and for the grievance to be handled through legal processes.


iv. The Milsearch will maintain a register of any community grievances and that register will record the grievance and the resolution measures taken. Any authorized representatives of the Cardno will make the register available for inspection. Milsearch will inform the Team Leader of all grievances received including those that have been resolved.

28. For the UXO assessment GRM the following mechanisms will be used for all grievances:

i. A consent between NPA, Nauru government and key community stakeholders (including landholders) has been signed in which the stakeholders have agreed to the UXO assessment being undertaken. Any minor land related grievances associated with the Contractor’s site assessment would be handled using the mechanism shown above. Any other land related grievances are not the responsibility of the Contractor (Milsearch) or Cardno field staff (Liaison Officer, Site Manager or Team Leader) to resolve.

ii. Land related grievances, other than minor grievances described above, would be managed in accordance with the relevant legislation. The following principles have been developed to ensure the successful UXO assessment implementation, these include;

Mechanisms and procedures will provide for two-way communication;

Culturally and gender appropriate communication and consultation mechanisms will be used;

Existing communications methods will be used where they meet the individual communication need;

Complaints handling procedures will be established and will provide a process for dissatisfied complainants to take their complaints to a higher level;

Communication and consultation will be treated as a routine procedures; and Communications procedures will be refined as necessary throughout the life of

the PVUDP.

Resolution

No resolution

Individual or group

Liaison Officer

Site Manager

Team Leader

Project Management

Figure 2: General Grievance Mechanism Flow Chart for the PVUDP


Appendix A: Milsearch Project Health, Safety and Environmental Plan – NAU53916 – ADB Port Development Project Nauru

PROJECT HEALTH, SAFETY

& ENVIRONMENT PLAN

NAU53916 – ADB Port Development Project

Nauru

Prepared By

Milsearch Pty Ltd

Level 1, Unit 4-5, 30 Mawson Place,

Mawson, ACT, Australia, 2607

ABN: 44 007 106 881

Ph: (02) 6286 8299

Fax: (02) 6286 8266

www.milsearch.com.au

Document Status

Version 1

mailto:www.milsearch.com.au

Project Reference: NAU 53916 Page 1 of 26Version 1 [22 July 2016]

Document Control

Role Name Date Signature

Prepared by Alan McKeown MIExpE 22 July 2016

Authorised by Mike Ransom MIExpE 22 July 2016

Document History

Version Issue Date Description/Changes

1 DRAFT 19 July 2016 For Peer Review

1 22 July 2016 Amendment to Section 6.

Distribution of Copies

Copy Date Issued Issued To Format Quantity

1 22/07/2016 Matt Box (Cardno) PDF 1

2

3

4

Any changes to this Plan that are not editorial in nature will not be permitted unless approved by the Project

Director or their delegate. All editorial changes are to be in accordance with the Milsearch Document Control

Procedure (P-101).


Table of Contents

Document Control ............................................................................................................................................. 1

Document History ............................................................................................................................................. 1

Distribution of Copies ....................................................................................................................................... 1

List of Tables...................................................................................................................................................... 3

List of Plates ........................................................................................................ Error! Bookmark not defined.

List of Figures .................................................................................................................................................... 3

1.1 General .............................................................................................................................................. 4

1.2 Purpose ............................................................................................................................................. 4

1. Commitment and Accountability ............................................................................................................. 4

2.1 Health, Safety and Environmental Policy ......................................................................................... 4

2.2 Project Health, Safety and Environmental Objectives .................................................................... 5

2.3 Milsearch HS&E Management .......................................................................................................... 6

2.4 Project Health and Safety Organisation ........................................................................................... 6

2.5 Training and Competency ................................................................................................................. 9

2.6 Health, Safety an Environment Plan Induction ................................................................................ 9

2.7 Incident Management ...................................................................................................................... 9

2. HS&E Performance and Management ................................................................................................... 11

3.1 Regulatory Requirements ............................................................................................................... 11

3.2 Positive Performance Indicators and HS&E Objectives ................................................................. 11

3.3 Consultation and Communication .................................................................................................. 13

3.3.1 Project Management HS&E Meetings .................................................................................... 13

3.3.2 HS&E Alerts and HS&E Briefings ............................................................................................. 14

3. HS&E and Risk Management .................................................................................................................. 14

4.1 Legal and Other Requirements ....................................................................................................... 14

4.2 Additional Project Requirements ................................................................................................... 14

4.3 Project Site HS&E Rules .................................................................................................................. 15

4.4 Site Layout and Orientation ........................................................................................................... 15

4.5 Daily Tool Box Talk .......................................................................................................................... 17

4.6 Fitness for Duty ............................................................................................................................... 17

4.7 Housekeeping .................................................................................................................................. 18


4.8 Personal Protective Equipment ...................................................................................................... 18

4.9 Smoking ........................................................................................................................................... 18

4.10 General Hazards .............................................................................................................................. 18

4.11 Management of Change ................................................................................................................. 22

5 Emergency Management .................................................................................................................... 22

5.1 What to do in an Emergency .......................................................................................................... 22

5.2 Hospital / Medical Facility Information ......................................................................................... 23

5.3 Work Health and Safety Regulators ............................................................................................... 23

6 Injured Marine life .............................................................................................................................. 23

7 HS&E Functional Management System Documentation ................................................................... 23

Annex A - Emergency Action Plan .............................................................................................................. 24

Annex D – HS&E Documents .......................................................................................................................... 26

List of Tables

TABLE 1: ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES ..................................................................................................................... 6

TABLE 2: POSITIVE PERFORMANCE INDICATORS AND HS&E OBJECTIVES ..................................................................... 12

TABLE 3: GENERAL HAZARDS AND PREVENTATIVE MEASURES.................................................................................... 19

TABLE 4: EMERGENCY CONTACTS........................................................................................................................... 25

List of Figures

FIGURE 1: MEDICAL EMERGENCY RESPONSE FLOW CHART ........................................................................................ 24


Introduction

The provisions of this Health, Safety and Environment Plan (Project HS&E Plan) are mandatory for all

Milsearch personnel and employees of Milsearch subcontractors. The implementation of this Project HS&E

Plan ensures the delivery of the following core Milsearch HS&E principles to our employees and employees

of our sub-contractors.

We are empowered to stop unsafe acts;

We take respo si ility for our o a d each other’s safety;

We plan our work in order to avoid unsafe situations;

We improve from lessons learnt; and

Our sub-contractors support our vision and principles.

1.1 General

Milsearch is totally committed to upholding and enforcing these principles that form the backbone of our

Health, Safety and Environment (HS&E) Management System. The Project Manager retains the right to

suspend/stop work for any infraction of this Project HS&E Plan. This may result in disciplinary action taken

against Milsearch employees or employees of Milsearch engaged sub-contractors.

This Project HS&E Plan is to be read and implemented in consultation with other Project Management Plans,

where applicable, Client specific HS&E requirements and other Milsearch specific HS&E Management System

documentation.

1.2 Purpose

This Project HS&E Plan aims to identify the processes to be implemented for the management of HS&E within

the agreed Project scope. The Project HS&E Plan has been developed to:

Meet the re uire e ts of Milsearch’s HS&E Policy’s;

Align with and deliver on the performance requirements of our HS&E Management System;

Describe the processes in place to effectively manage the HS&E operational elements of the Project;

and

Meet any other HS&E requirements included in the Project, (e.g. legal, client, etc.).

1. Commitment and Accountability

2.1 Health, Safety and Environmental Policy

It is the policy of Milsearch to provide a safe work environment for all its employees. Milsearch considers no

phase of operations or administration to be of greater importance than injury and illness prevention. Safety


takes precedence over expediency. Milsearch believes every accident and every injury is avoidable. Every

reasonable step will be taken to reduce the possibility of injury, illness or accident.

This Project HS&E Plan has been developed to facilitate works undertaken which have the potential to impact

health, safety and the environment. The projects works will be undertaken in a manner that meets or

exceeds the intent of:

Relevant Jurisdictional HS&E Legislation, regulations, advisory standards, Codes of Practice (CoP) and

guidance notes;

Australian HS&E Legislation, regulations, advisory standards, COP and guidance notes;

Milsearch Health and Safety Policy;

Milsearch Environmental Policy;

Milsearch Integrated Management System; and

Current or site specific Health, Safety and Environmental requirements.

2.2 Project Health, Safety and Environmental Objectives

Consistent with the Milsearch Health and Safety and also, Environmental Policies, the HS&E objectives and

expectations for this Project are:

To give HS&E priority over all Project activities and to intervene when an unsafe act or unsafe

condition is observed;

Zero harm to Milsearch employees, subcontractors, including employees of subcontractors and

visitors;

Zero impact to the surrounding environment and community and zero damage to property;

To identify and implement HS&E legislation, regulations and codes of practice applicable to this

project;

To establish and maintain operational procedures that identify hazards associated with the work

carried out and to implement effective mitigation measures;

To provide adequate emergency response to incidents and to ensure all incidents are properly

investigated and reported and appropriate corrective/preventative actions are taken and evaluated;

To outline key performance indicators to monitor performance and report HS&E matters to all

relevant Project stakeholders;

To ensure roles and responsibilities are clearly identified and communicated to individual Project

employees;

To establish Project specific training requirements to enable all stakeholders to be competent to

perform tasks safely, to be aware of and understand HS&E hazards and risks associated with their

work activities and he control measures necessary to manage them;

To engage subcontractors who share the values outlined in this Project HS&E Plan;


To implement an audit program to ensure compliance and continuous improvement; and

To create and nurture a positive HS&E culture that empowers and supports Project employees in

accordance with this Project HS&E Plan.

2.3 Milsearch HS&E Management

Milsearch is certified under International Standards (ISO) and AS/NZS and as required by these standards is

committed to continual improvement.

Milsearch is certified to the following Health, Safety and Environmental Standards:

OHSAS 18001: Occupational Health and Safety Management Systems; and

ISO 14001: Environmental Management Systems.

Milsearch Project Management Systems are also certified to ISO 9001: Quality Management Systems.

U der Milsearch’s Health, Safety and Environmental Management System, all Milsearch employees, are

required to participate in the operation and continual improvement of the system.

2.4 Project Health and Safety Organisation

It is essential that Project roles and responsibilities are clearly defined. Table 1 describes the Project roles

and their respective health and safety responsibilities.

All Project personnel are responsible for performing job tasks in a safe manner by abiding with the

requirements of this Project HS&E Plan.

Table 1: Roles and Responsibilities

Role Responsibility

Project Director

(Alan McKeown)

Responsible for all HS&E matters relating to this project, and maintaining

regular liaison with the Project Manager and Client representative;

Ensure that only trained and competent people are assigned Project roles;

Ensure sufficient planning and resources are assigned to the project;

Validate and approve Project specific F-128 (Register of Risks)

Validate and approve Project specific F-156 Safe Work Method Statements (SWMS);

Verify compliance with this Project HS&E Plan with Milsearch expectations and

requirements; and

Ide tify a d co u icate cha ges i Milsearch’s HS&E requirements.

Project Manager

(Mark Reynish)

Manage the daily communications, cost tracking and deliverables;

Has the Primary responsibility for overseeing the implementation of the project HS&E

Plan, and satisfying corporate, contractual and legislative requirements in relation to

the project;

Project HS&E Plan review;

Overall responsibility for site operations;


Role Responsibility

Ensure all Project personnel are aware of their HS&E responsibilities and are familiar

with the contents of this Project HS&E Plan;

Ensure only trained and competent employees are assigned project based work and all

required training is completed;

Ensure the F-128 Register of Risks is developed and reviewed and approved by the PD

or their suitably appointed delegate (refer P-117);

Ensure the F-156 Safe Work Method Statements (SWMS) are developed for each site

activity undertaken on the Project and reviewed and approved by the PD or their

suitably appointed delegate;

In conjunction with the Site Safety Officer (SSO) if appointed, at the frequency

prescribed in the Project Quality Objectives Table (F-115), conduct site inspections

using the Site OHS Inspection Checklist (F-168B);

In conjunction with the SSO, at the frequency prescribed in the Project Quality

Objectives Table (F-115), ensure all planned HS&E audits are completed;

In consultation with the SSO, conduct accident investigations and to ensure that

corrective actions identified are implemented and appropriate;

Implementation of the site Emergency Response Plan;

All subcontractors engaged by Milsearch to undertake Project work have completed a

F-167 Contractor OHS&E Questionnaire and have been approved on the F-125

Approved Suppliers Register (Refer to P-110 Approved Supplier procedure);

Conflict resolution;

HS&E performance reports are provided to the PD as required; and

Stop-action authority.

Site Safety Officer

(SSO)

PM/SSO will be a

Joint role for Project

NAU 53916

(Mark Reynish)

Project HS&E Plan review and concurrence;

Project HS&E Plan modification/deviation concurrence;

Project HS&E Plan compliance confirmation;

Safety inspections and audits;

Recording and reporting accidents or injuries in accordance with project specific

policies;

Site Investigation procedures;

Maintaining the training registers and records;

Issuing a copy of this Plan and relevant SWMS to each sub-contractor;

Issuing a copy of each amendment of this Plan and relevant SWMS to each sub-

contractor;

Conducting daily safety meetings with Milsearch and Sub-contractor field personnel;

At the frequency prescribed in the Project Quality Objectives Table (F-115), monitor

Project work practices to ensure compliance with the appropriate SWMS. All non-

conforming work practices shall be reported to the Project Manager;

At the frequency prescribed in the Project Quality Objectives Table (F-115), conduct

site inspections using the Site WHS Inspection Checklist (F-168B). Any issues arising out

of the Site Inspection shall be reported to the Project Manager;

Ensuring that employees and visitors to the site are inducted in accordance with the

OH&S and Environmental Induction Brief;

Conducting the training required by this Plan;

Ensuring that all injuries/illnesses/accidents and near misses are investigated in

accordance with this Plan;

Conducting accident investigations and reviewing accident investigation reports to

ensure that corrective actions identified are implemented and appropriate.


Role Responsibility

Ensuring that employees have and use the proper tools, training and equipment;

Ensuring that employees understand the PPE requirements for all phases of the project

and are compliant with these requirements;

Ensure that adequate quantity of appropriate PPE is available and that the PPE

complies with Work Safe Australia standards;

Providing the Project Manager with guidance on the requirements and effectiveness

of this Plan;

Overseeing and coordinating all communications with Commonwealth, State and local

safety and health agencies;

Monitoring areas of responsibility to ensure that changing conditions do not result in

human, situational, or environmental factors capable of causing accidents. Developing

and implementing corrective actions to eliminate or mitigate hazards;

Monitoring the effectiveness of this Plan, making recommendations to improve it;

Monitoring and interpreting changes relating to health and safety in the contract,

relevant regulations, techniques, technology, project execution and work practices;

Routinely evaluating this Plan in relation to these changes and reporting the results to

the Project Manager with recommended changes to ensure this Plan is current;

Evaluating health and safety equipment needs for the project and reporting these

results with recommended changes to the Project Manager;

Ensuring all HS&E monitoring devices are operating in accordance with this Project

HS&E Plan (Drager BAC Test equipment);

Ensuring that the medical surveillance requirements, if any, within this Plan are

identified and implemented;

Implementing any monitoring programs in accordance with this Plan (daily BAC testing

of 100% of all personnel);

Developing and/or providing input on all health and safety-related policies and

procedures;

Providing technical advice on HS&E issues to the Project Manager;

Counselling and, if necessary, disciplining employees who ignore safety rules and

practices despite having received and acknowledged training;

Maintaining the incident and accident register and notifying appropriate agencies

when incidents occur;

Assist the Project Manager with day-to-day tasks that arise;

Reporting of activities undertaken;

Directing sub-contractors;

Ensuring that housekeeping in all areas is up to the required level;

SMWS review and concurrence; and

Stop-action authority.

Subcontractors Not Applicable

All Project Personnel Meeting the requirements of this Project HS&E Plan and cooperating with the Project

Manager and SSO to ensure a safe work environment for themselves and others is

maintained;

Complying with this Project HS&E Plan while performing work. No person may work in

a manner that conflicts with the requirements of the safety precautions expressed in


Role Responsibility

this Plan. After due warnings, Milsearch will dismiss from the site any person who

violates safety procedures;

Complying with all health and safety practices;

Performing all work in a safe and efficient manner;

Using required personal protective equipment (PPE);

Providing feedback and suggestions to the Project Manager on omissions and

modifications to this Project HS&E Plan;

Seeking training in any area where questions exist as to the safest and most effective

way to work or use equipment;

Understanding the policies and procedures specified in this Plan, and to seek

clarification of those areas where their understanding is incomplete;

Notifying the Project Manager of unsafe conditions and acts; and

Reporting all injuries, illnesses, accidents, and near misses immediately.

2.5 Training and Competency

Milsearch responses that all Project employees must receive the necessary HS&E training to ensure adequate

understanding of this Project HS&E Plan and critical hazards with the Project. In accordance with P-112 -

Competency and Training Procedure, Project Managers are to verify Project specific training requirements

before the commencement of work on the Project. They are to ensure that all Project employees (including

subcontractors when required) illustrate completion and currency of training associated with the hazards of

the Project.

All training records are to be maintained on the F-214 Register of Qualifications.

2.6 Health, Safety an Environment Plan Induction

Project Managers or their appointed delegate will coordinate mandatory inductions into this Project HS&E

Plan for all Project employees. The induction will convey essential Project information including:

Information on the requirement and expectations included in this project HS&E Plan;

Information on the specific roles and responsibilities of Project employees working under this Project

HS&E Plan; and

Communication of key Project risks and controls identified in the Project HS&E Risk Assessment.

Site specific induction will not be required for will be provided by the Project Manager.

The Project Manager or there appointed delegate shall also ensure the Induction training records are

maintained on the F-113 Site Induction Register.

2.7 Incident Management

Milsearch commits to prompt action in the event that Project employees fail to comply with internal and

client HS&E expectations. The process for managing disciplinary action is described within the Milsearch


Employee Handbook. System and Project related HS&E issues and non-conformances (including

subcontractors) will be recorded in the F-171 Register of Injury and Incident Reports and the F-124 Register

of NCR, CPAR and Complaints.

I the u likely e e t that a i cide t is dee ed notifiable incident the following reporting protocol must

be implemented to ensure that all necessary regulatory authorities are notified within a timely manner.

A notifiable incident is defi ed as a e e t hich results i :

The death of a person;

A person requiring medical treatment within 48 hours of exposure to a substance;

A person requiring immediate medical treatment for a serious injury or illness such as but not limited

to:

o Amputation;

o Head injury;

o Eye injury;

o Electric shock;

o Spinal injury;

o Loss of bodily function;

o Serious laceration;

o Broken or fractured limb;

A Dangerous incident that exposes an employee in the immediate vicinity to an immediate risk such

as (but not limited to):

o Failure of Pathfinders to visually locate surface ordnance;

o Other activities occurring in ERW contaminated areas in close proximity to project personnel

such as logging and road works; and

o Transit incident caused by either the Milsearch vehicle or other road user.

The proposed protocol for dealing with and reportable incident is:

Provide assistance/first aid to injured employees and notify onsite first aid personnel and external

health and emergency departments if required;

Make the scene of the incident safe;

All works are to cease and where possible, preserve the incident site for subsequent investigation;

Initial investigation to be conducted by the most senior Milsearch person present or delegated to the

SSO;

Notify the Project Director;

Project Manager to notify the Client; and


The Project Manager or delegate is to notify the appropriate Lao regulators and follow their advice

regarding written/online notification.

Environmental Incidents - An environmental incident is not only necessarily when an event caused by

Milsearch or its sub-contractors, but one that occurs on a site under Milsearch’s control or management.

Environmental incidents for the project NAU 53916 Site Visit could involve (but are not be limited to) the

following:

Any adverse health or well-being impacts on persons due to activities by Milsearch or its sub-

contractors causing adverse environmental conditions; and

Unauthorised damage or interference to vegetation, threatened species, endangered ecological

communities or critical habitat.

The proposed protocol for dealing with a reportable incident is:

All works are to cease and where possible, preserve the incident site for subsequent investigation;

Initial investigation to be conducted by the project Manager/Site Safety Officer, recording the

findings on the F-248 Environmental Incident Report;

Notify the Project Director;

Project Manager to notify the Client.

2. HS&E Performance and Management

3.1 Regulatory Requirements

Milsearch will identify and comply with all relevant HS&E related legislation and any Project specific

requirements (e.g. client or site specific) during the Project planning phase.

New or amended legal and other requirements material will be identified through on-line subscription

notifications and implications will be evaluated and as required, replicated within this Project HS&E Plan,

relevant SWMS and communicated accordingly.

3.2 Positive Performance Indicators and HS&E Objectives

Positive Performance Indicators (PPIs) are measures of actions or initiatives introduced to prevent workplace

injury and disease.

HS&E performance measurement has traditionally focused on measuring the outcomes of poor HS&E

practices. PPIs are proactive measures that are used to control loss or damage.

PPIs can be used as a gauge of good practice by measuring how well arrangements for workplace health and

safety are performing.


The Project Manager is to pay particular attention to achieving the outcomes listed in Table 2 below – HS&E

Positive Performance Indicators.

Table 2: Positive Performance Indicators and HS&E Objectives

PPI or Objective Measure Milsearch

Benchmark

Hazard Assessment Checklist

(F-192)

Hazard assessment completed at the start of Planning for each

project.

100%

Register of Risks

(F-128)

Register completed and risk treatments planned, e.g. SWMS,

redesign of work.

100%

Safe Working Method

Statements (SWMS)

(F-156)

Employees are to be briefed on the relevant SWMS before work

commences. Completed after consultation and before work

starts. Signed by all using the SWMS.

100%

SWMS – Subcontractor Reviewed by Project Manager before work starts. N/A

Site OHS Inspection Checklist -

Project

(F-168A)

Percentage of inspections completed as per F-115 Project

Quality Objectives Table.

100%

Site Specific Induction Brief –

Employees

Percentage of employees given the brief before they start work

as per Project HS&E Plan.

100%

Site Specific Induction Brief –

Subcontractors

Percentage of subcontractor employees given the brief before

they start work as per Project HS&E Plan.

N/A

HS&E Training Percentage of employees/ managers that have completed OHS

training appropriate to their HS&E responsibilities.

100%

Toolbox Talks Percentage of toolbox talks completed as identified in the

Project HS&E Plan.

100%

Hazard Rectification Percentage of reported hazards rectified within the time set by

the Project Manager but in less than one working day.

100%

Incident Reporting

Incident Management

Procedure (P-115)

Percentage of incidents handled as per P-115 Incident

Management.

100%

Incident Reporting – Senior

Management

Percentage of incidents reported and acknowledged by senior

management within one working day.

100%

Death and Serious Injury No death or serious injury to occur to employees, visitors and

public.

100%

Alcohol and Drugs

(Policy 07)

No breaches of Policy 07 Alcohol and Drugs. 100%

OH&S Induction Briefing All personnel have received the briefing before commencing

work.

100%

Safety Consciousness All personnel can state their right to stop work if safety is at risk. 100%

Clear communications of Project HS&E expectations and performance will be provided to all Project

employees through:


The Project HS&E Plan;

The Project induction process;

SWMS and daily Tool Box meetings;

Position, role, hazard based jurisdiction or client specific training;

As required, scheduled Project HS&E meetings;

Project HS&E Plan reviews;

Incident reports and investigation outcomes;

Audits; and

HS&E alerts and HS&E briefings.

3.3 Consultation and Communication

In accordance with Policy 02 - OHS and R Policy, Project employees will be regularly consulted about their

work activities and the potential HS&E hazards or risks that may be present.

HS&E issues raised by the Project team (including subcontractors) will be recorded in the ‘egister of NC‘’s, CPA‘’s a d Co plai ts (F-124) and considered by the Project Manager in a transparent and consultative

manner. Project employees will be provided with feedback and the outcomes of any decision reported to

the Project management team.

3.3.1 Project Management HS&E Meetings

Milsearch recognises that a fundamental aspect to establishing and maintaining a positive HS&E culture on

the Project is efficient communication and consultation with Project employees. All Project employees under

the control of Milsearch will be provided with clear direction and guidance with regard to HS&E expectations.

This will be provided through HS&E meetings as described below. Additional meetings to these described

below may be required by the Client.

Pre-mobilisation meeting. Where possible, a pre-mobilisation meeting will be completed prior to

e ployee’s o ilisi g to site. All on-site senior Milsearch staff, and where necessary, relevant stakeholder

personnel will attend these meetings. The intent of the meeting is to ensure that critical HS&E, logistical and

technical elements have been considered and where applicable implemented. Records of these meetings

are to be maintained within the Project Daily Dairy, including any decisions or outcomes. For the Milsearch

Project NAU 53916 Site Visit this will occur via telecom from the Milsearch HO.

Daily Tool Box Meeting. A Daily Planning Meeting will be held before any works commence on site and

documented on the F-161 Daily Planning Meeting-Tool Box. All site based Project employees (including

subcontractors and visitors) will attend this daily tool box talk for the purpose of discussing:

Previous day’s activities and HS&E issues (if any);

Scheduled activities of the day;


Any changes to the site specific scope of work;

Any HS&E atters rele a t to the day’s acti ities;

Any relevant HS&E alerts or lesson learnt reports;

Provide feedback from any hazard, observations, near misses and incident reports; and

Records of these meetings will be maintained within the Project records folder.

3.3.2 HS&E Alerts and HS&E Briefings

HS&E alerts will be distributed and/or awareness sessions will be held for all Project employees in the event

there is:

Serious potential incident/near miss;

A serious incident (e.g. MTI, LTI, Major Environment, Significant Environment);

HS&E developing trend based on incident or hazard reports, suggestions or observations; and

A HS&E briefing will be distributed where there is a:

o Relevant change to Project scope or this Project HS&E Plan;

o New HS&E legislation impacting the Project;

o Client request to circulate an internal HS&E (or contract) alert to the Project management

team.

3. HS&E and Risk Management

4.1 Legal and Other Requirements

Electronic externally hosted HS&E legal requirement subscriptions provide Project teams with quick and easy

access to legal and other requirements on a hazard by hazard basis. These are to be used by employees

when developing risk management documentation such as F-128 Register of Risks and F-156 Safe Work

Method Statements (SWMS).

4.2 Additional Project Requirements

Permit, licenses and approval requirements will be identified, managed and listed on the Project F-128

Register of Risks (where required) and individually listed on SWMS prior to work commencing on those

activities.

Where required by client, jurisdiction or other appropriate requirement, Milsearch will develop a Project

specific Environmental Management Plan, Security Risk Assessment, specific registers, etc.

Project Reference: NAU 53916 Page 15 of 26Version 1 [22 July 2016

Otherwise, the Project Manager will ensure that the SWMS identify the controls (conditions) required to

ensure the parameters of these requirements are adhered to. This includes obtaining and/or renewing

approvals, licenses and permits.

4.3 Project Site HS&E Rules

All Project employees (including subcontractors) under Milsearch control will comply with and be

communicated the site HS&E rules outlined below and in SWMS and any amendments will be communicated

via the tool box talks. The Milsearch Project team will also adhere to site HS&E rules developed by the client

or site controller. All Project members will implement the following Milsearch rules:

1) Project HS&E Plan. Comply with the requirements of the Project HS&E Plan, associated processes

and client requirements;

2) Risk Management. Follow all HS&E risk controls identified in the Project F-128 Register of Risks

and/or SWMS;

3) Daily Tool Box Talks/Inductions. Attend induction and all Daily Tool Box talks prior to the

commencement of work;

4) Training. Hold the relevant certificates of competency, licenses and training to safely undertake

the activity;

5) Incident/Hazard Reporting. Report all incidents/hazards (including near miss incidents)

immediately to the Project Manager (F-170 Incident Report Form) and submit to Head Office via

the PD. Head office will record in the incident in the F-171 Register of Injury and Incident Reports;

6) HS&E Breaches. Correct identified HS&E breaches of legislative requirements without delay;

7) Alcohol and Other Drugs (AOD). All Milsearch employees must be fit for work in accordance with

the requirements of Policy 07 - Alcohol and Drugs. All employees must adhere to the AOD programs

adopted by the client or Site Controller, where applicable;

8) Plant/Machinery and Equipment. Is only to be used for its intended purpose by licensed operators

a d i accorda ce ith a ufacturer’s i structio s;

9) Personal Protective Equipment (PPE). All Project employees will wear PPE as per the requirements

of the SWMS;

10) Housekeeping. High standards of housekeeping are to be maintained to create safe access and

egress, including access to emergency equipment, remove slip and trip hazards and ensure the safe

storage of materials; and

11) Horseplay and Practical Jokes. Never engage in any horseplay or practical jokes that may put

people’s safety at risk.

4.4 Site Layout and Orientation

The Project Manager is responsible for determining the layout and positioning of site facilities as follows;

Site Office (Not applicable, administrative work will be conducted from the hotel);


Toilet Facilities (to be confirmed);

First Aid Kits and facilities;

Traffic Routes (secure transport provided by Cardno);

Smoking Areas;

Fire Fighting Equipment and fire muster locations;

Vehicle Parking Areas(transport provided by Cardno); and

Emergency muster points.

The location of the facilities above and the emergency procedures shall be briefed to all employees,

subcontractors and site visitors by Milsearch.

F-156 Safe Work Method Statements

F-156 Safe Work Method Statements (SWMS) are developed in consultation with the Project team and are

approved by the Project Director or their delegate for all site activities.

SWMS under the control of Milsearch identifies the following information:

Work activity;

Sequential task steps;

Hazard identification and potential risks;

Risk rating for identified hazards;

Risk control measures;

Allocation of responsibilities for control implementation;

Necessary training;

Legislative compliance requirements;

Details of statutory and non-statutory certificates, permits and approvals;

Emergency arrangements;

Personnel and environmental protective equipment;

For the Milsearch Project NAU 53916, there will be no sub-contractor generated SWMS. All SWMS will be

subject to the Milsearch PD approval.

Approval and communication acknowledgement of the SWMS. It is the responsibility of the Project Manager

to confirm that Project employees have completed the relevant training and have the required protective

equipment in accordance with the SWMS prior to commencing activities on the site.

SWMS are to be reviewed by the Project Manager at the end of each week or if the activity, work

environment, equipment or employees change. All updates to SWMS are to be authorised by the Project

Director or their delegate and communicated to all relevant stakeholders via a daily Tool Box talk.


A copy of all signed SWMS and Daily Tool box talks can be found on the Project file.

4.5 Daily Tool Box Talk

Daily Tool Box talks (pre-work assessments) is the daily consultative methodology used by Milsearch to

review the SWMS, identify new HS&E hazards or altered conditions that may affect the safe delivery of site

activities and communicate this information to the Project team under the control of Milsearch.

The Project Manager or their delegate is responsible to deliver the Daily Tool Box talk in consultation with

employees under the control of Milsearch (including subcontractors and visitors).

A Tool Box talk is to be undertaken each day prior to commencing any work and at any other times during

the day where site conditions have altered (e.g. due to weather conditions, incident occurring or external

controls affecting site, etc.) and captured on the SWMS (part 4).

4.6 Fitness for Duty

Milsearch is committed to providing a healthy and safe workplace and will take all practicable actions to

identify, evaluate and control those factors in the workplace which cause, or have the potential to cause

injury or ill health.

Fit for duty means that an individual is in a satisfactory physical, mental and emotional state to perform

assigned duties competently and in a manner that does not compromise or threaten the safety and health

of themselves or others.

Milsearch employees and sub-contractor employees who work under the influence of controlled substances,

drugs, or alcohol may prove to be dangerous or otherwise harmful to themselves, other employees, clients,

the co pa y, the co pa y’s assets a d i terests, or the public. Milsearch does not tolerate illegal drug use,

or a y use of drugs, co trolled su sta ces, or alcohol that i pairs a e ployee’s or su -contractor

employees work performance or behavior. Onsite prohibitions include:

Use or possession of intoxicating beverages while performing work;

Abuse of prescription or non-prescription drugs;

Use or possession of illegal drugs or drugs obtained illegally;

Sale, purchase, or transfer of legal, illegal or illegally obtained drugs; and

Arrival at work under the influence of legal or illegal drugs or alcohol.

All Milsearch employees and sub-contractor employees are to be aware of the Milsearch Alcohol and Drug

Policy (Policy 7). This policy will be made available at the initial induction brief and held by the Project

Manager. Project employees suspected of being under the influence of alcohol or illegal drugs will be

referred to the Project Manager and excluded from tasks related to the Project.


4.7 Housekeeping

A strong focus will be placed on the housekeeping on Project sites and regular inspections of housekeeping

will be carried out. Rubbish is to be placed in designated sealed containers and emptied on a programmed

basis. Containers are not to be overfilled and rubbish will not be allowed to accumulate in or around the

Project works area.

Milsearch’s Project Ma ager reser es the right to stop ork here housekeepi g is dee ed to e elo the required standard.

4.8 Personal Protective Equipment

In controlling hazards, Personal Protective equipment (PPE) is the least favored and effective option and must

be accompanied by adequate training and education.

All PPE must be worn in the manner in which designers/manufacturers intended and as per the instruction

received, in the use, care and maintenance, at the time of issue.

The PPE requirements for all Project employees will be identified during the Project Risk Assessment and

outlined in the task specific SWMS. (Refer to the P-116 Personal Protective Equipment)

All PPE requirements are subject to Milsearch SSO approval.

4.9 Smoking

Smoking is prohibited in any area/room/vehicle on site that is enclosed (has a roof and three sides) and in

which direct tobacco smoke or environmental tobacco smoke (ETS, smoke that is exhaled from cigarettes

that is inhaled by another person) may affect the health of other people.

Smoking is also prohibited when:

Refuelling vessel, small boats, vehicles, or equipment.

Working on batteries or servicing any engine, hydraulic system etc.

Where any flammable substance is present.

Working near dangerous goods.

Smoking will be permitted in a designated outdoor smoking area. These areas must be no less than 10 metres

from any building entrances, windows or air-conditioning vents. Adequate waste receptacles will be

provided, which will be determined for each Project and identified during the induction process. There is no

smoking permitted in Milsearch vehicles.

4.10 General Hazards

The following hazards associated with this Project work may include but are not limited to:


Unexploded ordnance;

Road transits;

Physical security;

Manual handling;

Heat stress; and

Slips trips and falls.

Mitigation strategies to prevent exposure to the identified hazards are identified within the Register of risks

and SWMS related to each task.

A summary of the general hazards and their preventative measures are described in Table 3 below.

Table 3: General Hazards and Preventative Measures

Hazard Description Preventative Measure(s)

UXO During the survey

phase of project NAU

53916 it is not

planned to have any

physical contact with

UXO.

However accidental

contact with UXO

during the survey is

possible and could

result in serious

injury or death.

Reinforce ERW Hazard during safety briefs and daily toolbox meetings;

Project ERW works will be carried out in accordance with NAU 53916

SWMS and Milsearch Lao SOP.

PM to be qualified International Mine Action Standards (IMAS)

equivalent Explosive Ordnance Disposal Technician Level 4 (EODTL4)

If UXO is located

All work will cease and the site will be cleared of all unnecessary

personnel;

The appropriate initial safety distance will be evacuated and

secured;

The National Emergency Services Department (NESD) is to be

contacted and informed of the munition type and location;

The President’s office is contacted and informed;

The Nauru Police force is contacted, and informed of the munition

type and location (the police may be used to secure the site and

evacuate residences as required);

The Australia High Commissioner is to be contacted and alerted of

the situation;

If required a formal request for assistance from the Australia High

Commissioner to mobilise military EOD assets may be made;

The Nauru Rehabilitation Corporation (NRC) may also be used to

assist;

The Milsearch PM can provide professional advice in order to

assist with the UXO identification, condition/hazard assessment,

and best course of action (safe to move or destroy in place)

decision process; and

Milsearch will not be responsible for the final action.



Driving Transport Provided by Cardno

Exposure to

elements.

Extreme heat and

humidity

Conditions expected

for NAU 53916 are:

Temp 26 - 31ᴼC

Humidity 80 – 90%

Cloud Cover

Intermittent Rain

In addition to the controls required for exposure to environmental heat,

the following must be applied in extreme heat or humidity:

Regular breaks to be taken.

Employees should drink 150mL every 15 minutes during activity.

If someone is suffering from heat-related illness:

o Move the person to a cool area;

o Give the person small amounts of cool (not cold) water;

o DO NOT leave the person unattended;

o Immediately seek qualified medical assistance if the person

does not recover or their condition does not improve.

Heat stress - Wearing

PPE can increase the

risk of a worker

developing heat

stress.

Heat stress hygiene

practices are

particularly

important because

they reduce the risk

that an individual

may suffer a heat-

related disorder.

The key elements are

fluid replacement,

self-determination of

exposures, health

status monitoring,

maintenance of a

healthy life-style, and

adjustment of

expectations based

on acclimatisation

state.

Heat Stress Management Plan;

Adequate potable water or other re-hydration beverages are to be

made available to workers conducting heat stressful operations to

protect such workers from heat-related injuries;

The temperature of the drinking water should be at or below 24oC.

(Achieved by refrigeration or shading water supply) Note: Ensure that

any ice is not contaminated;

Water is to be supplied in a hygienic manner not from a shared

container like a drinking fountain where the water is delivered in an

upward direction. Supply disposable cups;

Workers will be closely observed for heat stress;

The monitoring methods, symptoms, and preventive measures for heat

stress should be communicated to project personnel during the health

and safety induction;

Inclement weather

(electrical storms)

Mo e a ay fro the ater’s edge. Bei g ear ater is e tre ely dangerous during a lightning storm. Use the 30 second rule: if the time

between a lightning flash and the resulting thunder is 30 seconds or less

(9.7 km or less), get to shelter immediately.

Find Shelter. Substantial, frequently inhabited buildings (those

grounded with plumbing, electrical systems, and, if possible, lightning

rods) are best.



If you ca ’t fi d a su sta tial structure, get i a car ith a etal roofand sides. If the car is struck, the metal body will conduct the electricity

around you, not through you. Make sure all windows are rolled up and

doors are closed. Be careful not to lean against any metal -- if you do,

the lightning will be conducted into your body if it strikes the car. Do

not use the radio.

Avoid small structures, such as stand-alone public restrooms. Open

covering and rain shelters are also not suitable. These structures will

attract lightning and provide no protection, making them more

dangerous to be around.

Standing under a tree is a very bad choice. Lightning strikes tall objects,

and if the tree you are standing under is struck, you may be struck as

well or injured by the tree.

Stay inside at least 30 minutes after the last strike. Do ’t go out justbecause the rain is starting to let up. There is still a significant risk of

lightning strikes from a departing storm.

UV radiation (sun

light)

Seek shade wherever possible.

Wear long sleeve clothing, long pants and a wide brim hat when

working outside.

Apply SPF 30+ sunscreen 20 minutes prior to commencing work and

then at least every 2 hours.

Wear appropriate sunglasses with protection at the front and sides of

the face. Ordinary sunglasses are suitable at the discretion of the PM if

there is no risk of impact or dust, otherwise UV rated safety eyewear

must be worn as part of the PPE requirement for the Task.

mosquitos Wear appropriate clothing long sleeves and pants;

Use high Deet content Insect repellent on skin and clothing.

Be aware of, and immediately report Malaria/Dengue symptoms such

as fever, headache, backache (flu like symptoms); and

Be especially careful duri g the dusk to da ’ period.

Slips, Trips and Falls High potential for trip hazards when walking across coral;

Ensure you pay attention to your foot placement; and

Wear appropriate shoes.

Manual

Handling &

Strain Injury

General Prior to conducting a manual task, an assessment to determine

whether it is hazardous ust e u dertaki g. If the a ual ha dli gtask is hazardous the a risk assess e t i accorda ce to the “afeWork Australia Code of Practice for Hazardous Manual Tasks needs to

be completed;

Warm up and stretch prior to work;

Use 2 people to share the workload, take breaks regularly; and

Where possible and practical, use mechanical means.

Injury from lifting

heavy items.

Refer Milsearch SWMS-02 Manual Handling;

Warm up and stretch prior to work;

Avoid bending/lifting;

Use SMART lifting technique:

o Size up the load,



o Move close to the load,

o Always bend your knees,

o Raise the object by using your legs, and

o Turn by moving your feet.

Electrical

shock

Use of electrical

equipment (if any)

Refer to the P-124 Electrical Equipment Management Procedure.

Electrical equipment registers must be maintained detailing a record of

the inspection and the condition of the piece of equipment at the time

of the inspection;

Be particularly aware of appliances at the hotel;

Electrical shock hazards may exist during equipment failure. Electrical

shock hazards will be minimized by use of the Lockout/Tagout

program, refer WI-65 - Lockout Tag-Out.

Safe Work Methods Statements are required for work carried out on or

near energized electrical installations or services.

4.11 Management of Change

All Project employees are required to formally assess the impact of changes to the Project and changes in

the work environment. Any changes to the Project, project employees, equipment, site conditions etc. will

have the HS&E implications assessed and approved by the Project Manager.

Any such changes should be discussed at the next scheduled Daily Tool Box talk and/or prior to re-

commencement of work. Changes will be incorporated into the Project HS&E documentation.

5 Emergency Management

5.1 What to do in an Emergency

If an emergency occurs, the person and or the persons involved in the emergency must raise the alarm as

quickly as possible and follow the emergency response flow chart which is located at Annex A to this plan.

Emergency Contact Details are located in Annex B.

During an emergency, it is important to note the following details:

Nature and Location of the emergency;

Number of personnel involved and their status;

Assistance that is required; and

Only current qualified first aid personnel are to provide appropriate emergency first aid.


5.2 Hospital / Medical Facility Information

The details for the nearest Hospital or Medical Facility for this Project is described in Annex B.

5.3 Work Health and Safety Regulators

Not Applicable for Nauru. Employees will be fully covered under Milsearch insurance policies.

6 Injured Wildlife

Wild animals become stressed by handling, so you should seek expert advice before handling an injured

animal. If you find a sick or injured animal, try to minimise the amount of exposure the injured animal has

to people and loud noises. Do not attempt to feed or treat it unless you have specialist knowledge or training.

There are no Nauru Marine Wildlife rescue/reporting authorities or organisations.

7 HS&E Functional Management System Documentation

The functional Milsearch HS&E Management System documents that directly relate to this Project are

listed in Annex C.


Annex A - Emergency Action Plan

Figure 1: Medical Emergency Response Flow Chart


Annex B – Emergency Contacts

Emergency Contacts

Table 4: Emergency Contacts

Organisation/Name Position/Role Contact

QBE Assist Milsearch Medical

Insurance

(State Company Name)

+61 8523 2523 (24/7)

+61 8523 2530 (Fax)

[email protected]

Emergency Services Police 110

RON Hospital 111

Fire 112

Preside t’s Office +674 557 3133

Nauru Rehabilitation Corporation (NRC) TBC

National Emergency Services Department

(NESD)

TBC

International SOS Primary (Sydney) +61 2 9032 2911

+61 2 9372 2468

International SOS Secondary (Singapore) +65 6338 7800

Australian High Commission MQ45 & MQ43 NPC OE

Aiwo District

Republic of Nauru

+674 557 3380

24-hour Consular Emergency Centre +61 2 6261 3305

mailto:[email protected]


Annex D – HS&E Documents

HS&E Functional Management System Documentation

The functional Milsearch HS&E Management System documents that directly relate to this Project are listed

below.

Document

Number

Title

Policy 01 Risk Management Policy - Version 4

Policy 02 OHS and R Policy - Version 8 - Current

Policy 06 Workplace Harassment and Bullying Policy - Version 3

Policy 07 Alcohol and Drugs Policy - Version 4

Policy 10 Personal Protection Equipment - Version 2

Policy 11 Environmental Policy Statement - Version 3

P-115 Incident Management Procedure

P-116 PPE Management Procedure

P-117 Risk Assessment and Management Procedure

P-137A or B Induction Procedure

WI-37 Visual Surface Search and Clearance of ERW

WI-38 Immediate Action on Finding Conventional ERW or EO

F-124 Register of NCR, CPAR and Complaints

F-128 Register of Risks

F-161 Daily Planning Meeting – Toolbox Talk

F-164 Vehicle Safety Checklist

F-170 Incident Report

F-174 Record of first Aid Kit Inventory Checks

F-189 Checklist for Site Specific Induction

F-191 Register of Access Control

F-192 Hazard Assessment Checklist

F-198 Project Daily Work Diary

F-199 Emergency Flowchart

F-248 Environmental Incident Report


Appendix B: Monitoring and Reporting Checklist

GOVERNMENT OF NAURU NAURU PORT DEVELOPMENT PROJECT

ADB GRANT 6005 – NAU: UXO Clearance, Geotechnical Investigations, Surveys and Detailed Engineering Services (48480 – 002)

Environmental Monitoring Checklist –

Nauru Port Site UXO Assessment Reviewers Name: Date:

ACTION REQUIRED AS PER CONTRACT

COMPLIANCE Target

Achieved Y/N

Remarks Further Action

Required?

CONTRACTOR: - Milsearch – Nauru Port Site UXO Assessment.

1. Protection of Sensitive & Ecological Important Areas/Sites

Initial visual site inspection to identify and report any potential environmentally sensitive / natural areas within the NPDP site.

If any site is located the following actions will be undertaken;

Locate optional construction sites/activities away from them.

Ensure construction personnel are aware of locations of sensitive areas and avoid them and


COMPLIANCE Target

Achieved Y/N


Required?

If the proposed construction passes close to these areas, include temporary fences to restrict machines and activities from encroaching in the area.

2. Encroachment on known Cultural & Historical sites.

Initial visual site inspection to identify and report any cultural and/or historic sites within the NPDP site.

If any site is located the following actions will be undertaken;

Do not damage any existing or newly discovered cultural and/or heritage sites.

Regularly consult with local people and government during design phase activities regarding any presence of archaeological monuments

3. Development Consent and Permit Acquisition

Ensure approved of the SEMP before work is initiated for the UXO site assessment.

If UXO located during assessment ensure detailed

information as highlighted in section 1.2 of the SEMP is provided.

All work at this site location is stopped await further instructions from client and government on how to proceed.


COMPLIANCE Target

Achieved Y/N


Required?

4. Environmentally Responsible Procurement.

Ensure Milsearch corporate environmental and OH&S policies detailed in the SEMP are being implement and managed at the site during the UXO assessment.

5. Environmental Capacity Development

Ensure the SEMP specific environmental actions are fully implemented during the UXO assessment, including workers orientation on SEMP provisions.

6. UXO Detection and Management

Ensure UXO assessment includes the entire terrestrial and intertidal shallow water marine (reef flat, crest) areas of the NPDP site.

Ensure strict adherence to Nauru Government

UXO safety and management guidelines and Milsearch Environment and OH&S policies and procedures have been implemented.

If any UXO are located ensure strict conformity to

the actions detailed in the SEMP. UXO are not to removed or tampered with – these actions are outside the specific TOR of Milsearch.

Upon completion of the assessment ensure official

confirmation form Milsearch based on the UXO assessment that the Nauru Port facility site has is safe (no UXO) and constructions phase of NPDP can be undertaken.


COMPLIANCE Target

Achieved Y/N


Required?

7. Port Project Occupational Health and Safety

Ensure Milsearch has implemented its corporate Environmental and OH&S policies, guidelines, and protocols as detailed in the SEMP. This specifically includes compliance to: Allocation of responsibility for safety

inspections to a designated, qualified and experienced Health and Safety Officer (HSO) within the Contractor’s staff;

Education and Training of staff and/or workers on safety precautions, including implementing emergency procedures applicable to this assessment will be undertaken;

Provision of protective clothing and equipment to workers as appropriate;

Equipment operators are properly licensed and trained;

First aid and sanitation facilities have been arranged for staff at the site performing the assessment.

Emergency evacuation procedures and site specific regular safety checks of equipment have been developed.

Provision of hazard warning signs at the all construction sites; and

A safety register for accidents detailing date, circumstances, severity, action taken and outcomes is marinated and available upon request.


COMPLIANCE Target

Achieved Y/N


Required?

8. Potential risks due to public not well informed on the Grievance Redress Mechanism (GRM) and how it is operated.

Ensure Milsearch is compliant to the SEMP GRM protocols and procedures.

Regular informal and formal discussions with key

stakeholders identify issues and/or grievance and address through positive actions.

9. Social Disruption and Public Health and Safety Risks.

Visual inspection of project sites to ensure public access in the vicinity of the assessment site is safe, and all public and Nauru Port staff project signs are clearly marked, accessible and readable.

Barriers are constructed with appropriate signage

to prevent general public and Nauru Port staff access to the active assessment areas within the site.

Liaise with NPA staff and community to highlight

concerns and action required by the contractor to undertake.



Appendix C: UXO Environmental Monitoring Checklist – Reviewed by Team Leader



Appendix D: UXO Consolidated Report

Reliability Achieved Through Knowledge, Safety, and Quality

REPUBLIC OF NAURU

ADB PORT DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (STAGE 1)

MILSEARCH CONSOLIDATED REPORT

Part A Section 1 ERW FOCUSED HISTORICAL DTR

Part A Section 2 ERW GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY REPORT

Part B ERW RISK ASSESSMENT AND RISK

MITIGATION MANAGEMENT PLAN

Milsearch Pty Ltd

Level 1, Unit 5, 30 Mawson Place

Mawson, ACT, Australia, 2607

ABN: 44 007 106 881

Ph: (02) 6286 8299

Fax: (02) 6286 8266


Project No: NAU 53916

Document Status Version 2


Milsearch Project Reference: NAU 53916

MILSEARCH CONSOLIDATED REPORT

Documentation History and Status

Version Issue Date Changes Approved By Signature

1 30 August 2016 Alan McKeown

2 31 August 2016 Part A, Sect 2 Page 6 – typo

Part A, Sect 2 Page 7 – typo

Part A, Sect 2 Page 10 – re-word




Remove Copyright

Part B, Page 6, 8, 17 - re-word

Alan McKeown



1 30 August 2016 Cardno Pty Ltd PDF 1

2

3

Document Details

Project Reference: NAU 53916

Document Title: NAU 53916 Republic Of Nauru ADB Port Development Project (Stage1)

Milsearch Consolidated Report

Client: Cardno Pty Ltd

Project Manager: Alan McKeown, Senior Operations Manager

Last Saved: 01 Aug 2016

Author: Michael Taarnby (LTCOL retd)

Torbjorn von Strokirch (Bachelor of Science (Hons))

Alan McKeown (MIExpE)

Document Version: Version 2

Copy 1

Reliability Achieved Through Knowledge, Safety, and Quality

REPUBLIC OF NAURU

ADB PORT DEVELOPMENT PROJECT (STAGE 1)

MILSEARCH REPORT - PART A

FOCUSED HISTORICAL REVIEW AND GEOPHYSICAL SURVEY IN RELATION TO EXPLOSIVE REMNANTS OF WAR

CONTAMINATION

Milsearch Pty Ltd

Level 1, Unit 5, 30 Mawson Place Mawson, ACT, Australia, 2607

ABN: 44 007 106 881

Ph: (02) 6286 8299 Fax: (02) 6286 8266


Project No: NAU 53916

Document Status Version 1

Page 1 of 64



SECTION 1 - FOCUSED HISTORICAL REVIEW

Documentation History and Status

Version Issue Date Changes Approved By Signature

1 12 August 2016 1 Alan McKeown



1 Cardno Pty Ltd PDF/Word 1

2

3

Document Details

Project Reference: NAU 53916

Document Title: Republic of Nauru ADB Port Development Project (Stage 1) - Milsearch

Report - Part A Focused Historical Review and Geophysical Survey in

Relation to Explosive Remnants of War Contamination

Client: Cardno Pty Ltd

Project Director: Alan McKeown, Senior Operations Manager

Last Saved: 01 Aug 2016

Author: Michael Taarnby (LTCOL retd)

Document Version: Version 1

Copy 1

Page 2 of 64

12 Aug 2016


DISCLAIMER

DISCLAIMER

This Document is an important legal document. The use of this report is governed by and subject to this

disclaimer.

Milsearch Client

The e tity that co issio ed this report, a d ho is Milsearch Australia Pty Li ited’s Milsearch client

is Cardno Pty Ltd the Clie t .

Purpose of This Report

This report was commissioned for the purpose of detailing the activities undertaken by Milsearch on the

Clie t’s “ite a d the results of those acti ities The Purpose .

Disclaimer

Milsearch accepts no responsibility or liability for any use of this report or any reliance upon this report

by any person, other than the use of the whole report by the Client consistent with the Purpose. Milsearch

accepts no responsibility or liability to any person who relies upon a part of this report. This report must

at all times be considered in its entirety.


LIST OF ACRONYMS AND DEFINITIONS

Acronyms and Definitions that may be used in this report:

Area of Interest (AoI): The geographic area encompassed by this study – i.e., the study area.

Armour Piercing (AP): Describes weapons specifically designed to penetrate armour.

Bottom or Ground Sea Mines: Mines which lay on the seabed. Generally these mines are influence

operated but may be contact in shallow water used to target landing craft.

Contact Sea Mine: An explosive device which requires the target to contact it in order to function. This

is as opposed to influence mines which function when influenced by the target.

Desk Top Review (DTR) An Historical Review of military activities focussed on ordnance types and likely

remaining contamination.

Explosive Ordnance (EO): All munitions containing explosives or chemical agents. This includes bombs

and warheads; guided and ballistic missiles; artillery shells, mortars, rockets and small arms

ammunition; all mines, torpedoes, depth charges and demolition charges; pyrotechnics, clusters and

dispensers; cartridge and propellant actuated devices; electro-explosive devices; clandestine and

improvised explosive devices; and all similar or related items or components explosive in nature.

Explosive Ordnance Disposal: The detection, identification, field evaluation, rendering safe and final

disposal of unexploded ordnance. It may also include the rendering safe and/or disposal of explosive

ordnance, which may have become hazardous by damage or deterioration.

Explosive Ordnance Disposal Book (EODB): US military publications dealing with Explosive Ordnance

Disposal procedures.

Explosive Ordnance Waste (EOW): Inert material remnant from the initiation or functioning of

explosive ordnance.

Explosive Remnants of War (ERW): Unexploded Ordnance (UXO) and Abandoned Explosive Ordnance

(AXO). (CCW protocol V). (IMAS-04-10 Glossary of mine action terms, Second Edition, Clause 3.100.)

General Purpose (GP) Refers to general purpose high explosive bombs as opposed to specific purpose

bombs such as incendiary, propaganda leaflet etc.

Influence Sea Mines: Sea mines which function when influenced by the target. Influences used to

function sea mines can be:

1. Acoustic/Seismic;

2. Magnetic;

3. Pressure, and

4. Combination of above influences.

Moored Sea Mines: Floating mines which are moored in position.

Nautical Miles (nmi) 1,852 metres

Semi Armour Piercing (SAP): Describes a weapon which has a dual role of penetrating armour and a

general purpose function.

Unexploded Ordnance (UXO): Explosive ordnance that has been primed, fused, armed, or otherwise

prepared for action, and have been fired, dropped, launched, projected or placed in such a manner as to

constitute a hazard to operations, installation, personnel, or materiel but remains unexploded either by

malfunction, design, or any other cause.

Page 4 of 64


PART A - SECTION 1 FOCUSED HISTORICAL REVIEW

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Milsearch Pty Ltd (Milsearch) was contracted by Cardno Pty Ltd (Cardno) to conduct a focused historical

desk top review (DTR) of all World War II activities related to Nauru. This was conducted in conjunction

with a geophysical Explosive Remnants of War (ERW) survey of all available areas within the project

footprint. The focused historical DTR and the ERW Survey were conducted in order to produce an ERW

Risk Assessment and ERW Risk Mitigation Management Plan for the proposed Nauru Port Facility

redevelopment project.

The focused historical DTR commenced on 25 July, and included multiple on-site visits to the National

Australian Library (NLA), the National Archives of Australia (NAA), the Australian War Memorial (AWM),

and global on-line sources. Additionally aerial photographs were obtained from Washington DC based

historian, Mr. Kevin Morrow. Concurrently, the geophysical ERW survey personnel and their equipment

commenced mobilisation to Nauru. The geophysical ERW survey of all accessible project footprint areas

commenced on 01 August and the geophysical ERW survey team de-mobilised over the period 08 to

12 August 2016.

Historical records clearly indicate that NAURU, and the project footprint area in particular, were

repeatedly bombed by air and sea throughout WW2. First by German naval raiders in 1940, then by

Japanese naval and air forces between 1941 and 1942, and then heavily and continuously by Allied naval

and air forces from mid-1943 through to the end of the war in support of Allied operations in the South

West Pacific Area (SWPA). A substantial Japanese military force was assembled on Nauru, and the island

was defended with the full range of weaponry available to the Japanese Imperial Forces ranging from

small arms, grenades and machine guns, up to and including Coastal Defence naval guns, light and

medium tanks, and fighter and medium bomber aircraft.

As a result of repeated, frequent, and at times continual military activity from 1940 through to the end

of the war, the likelihood of encountering hazardous ERW contamination during the ADB Port

Development Project is considered by Milsearch to be extremely high. In order to mitigate this risk,

Milsearch recommends that a 100% ERW remediation solution is conducted prior to Project

commencement.

Annex C details a listing of ERW which may be found within the Nauru Port facility AoI.

Plate 1: Project Area of Interest

Page 5 of 64


Part A – Section 1 Table of Contents

DISCLAIMER AND COPYRIGHT NOTICE ............................................................................................... 3

LIST OF ACRONYMS AND DEFINITIONS ............................................................................................... 4

1.0 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................. 5

2.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................................... 7

3.0 NAURU DURING WWII – AN OVERVIEW ................................................................................... 8

4.0 THE GERMAN ATTACKS............................................................................................................ 9

4.1 THE KOMET BOMBARDMENT OF NAURU ............................................................................... 10

4.2 SHIPS SUNK ........................................................................................................................... 10

5.0 JAPANESE OCCUPATION OF NAURU ....................................................................................... 10

6.0 THE AMERICAN OFFENSIVE .................................................................................................... 11

7.0 SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................ 15

8.0 CONCLUSIONS ....................................................................................................................... 15

ANNEX A - ALLIED AND AXIS MILITARY ACTION AGAINST NAURU ..................................................... 17

ANNEX B – ACTION REPORT 0010 ..................................................................................................... 23

ANNEX C – MUNITIONS IDENTIFICATION GUIDE ............................................................................... 28

ANNEX D – BIBLIOGRAPHY............................................................................................................... 64

List of Tables

TABLE 1: ALLIED AIRCRAFT PAYLOAD TYPES .......................................................................................................................... 17 TABLE 2: ALLIED NAVAL ARMAMENT ................................................................................................................................... 18 TABLE 2: CHRONOLOGICAL LIST OF MILITARY EVENTS (NOT EXHAUSTIVE) ................................................................................... 19

LIST OF FIGURES

FIGURE 1: PROPOSED NAURU PORT DEVELOPMENT CONCEPT .................................................................................................... 7 FIGURE 2: 75MM T13E1 CANNON MOUNTED IN THE NOSE OF THE B-25 MITCHELL ................................................................... 17

LIST OF PLATES PLATE 1: PROJECT AREA OF INTEREST .................................................................................................................................... 5 PLATE 2: USAAF BOMBING NAURU NOV 1943, B24 LIBERATOR VIEWING AIRSTRIP AND ADMINISTRATIVE AREA STRIKES .................. 12 PLATE 3: POST BOMB RAID DAMAGE, NAURU HARBOUR AREA ................................................................................................ 13 PLATE 4: BOMBING OF INDUSTRIAL AREA, NAURU ISLAND, USED IN FEBRUARY 1944 ISSUE OF IMPACT ........................................ 13 PLATE 5: BOMBS DROPPING DIRECTLY OVER THE PROJECT AOI ................................................................................................. 14

Page 6 of 64


2.0 INTRODUCTION

The Republic of Nauru was subject to both naval and aerial bombardment by both Axis and Allied forces

during the War in the Pacific. To this day Nauru remains, in areas, heavily contaminated with hazardous

Explosive Remnants of War (ERW). ERW contamination poses a severe threat to a variety of activities

including the safety of personnel and successful completion of infrastructure projects such as the Nauru

Port Development Project.

In order to mitigate this risk a focused historical Desk Top Review (DTR) of readily available historical

material to establish the likelihood and nature of ERW being present on the site of the proposed Nauru

Port Facility development has been undertaken.

Particular attention has been given to ordnance types used in the initial capture of the island, the

Japanese defence of the island, and the subsequent aerial and naval bombardments by Allied forces. In

o ert ith Milsear h’s geophysi al sur ey of the Area of I terest AOI , this histori al re ie is designed to contribute to the project risk assessment and the subsequent development of an ERW Risk

Management Plan, by characterizing the likely ERW contamination by location, type, ground

penetration, and ferrous metal content.

Figure 1: Proposed Nauru Port Development Concept

Page 7 of 64


3.0 NAURU DURING WWII – AN OVERVIEW

In December 1940 the German raider Komet used naval gunfire to target Nauru's phosphate mining

facilities, oil storage depots, ship-loading facilities, and together with German raider Orion sank five

allied merchant ships off Nauru.

The attacks on Nauru’s shippi g a d o er ial i frastru ture were the most effective operations

conducted by German raiders in the Pacific Ocean during World War II. They disrupted supplies of

phosphate to Australia, New Zealand and Japan, which impacted agricultural production in these

countries. In response, Allied naval vessels were deployed to protect Nauru and nearby Ocean

Island, and to escort shipping in the South Pacific. Small garrisons were also established to protect the

two islands1.

In August 1942, nine Japanese planes attacked the island. That same night two of their cruisers

bombarded the administration settlement. The following day the island surrendered to the Japanese.

On 26th

August 1942, three Japanese cruisers arrived and a landing force established a Headquarters in

the Commission's office building. Two days later, 208 of their marine corps arrived, with this force being

increased in early October by 300 more marines. Towards the close of 1942, the Japanese had

commenced constructing a landing strip for their planes. By the end of January 1943, the airstrip was

adequate for Japanese bombers and fighters to use. As part of implementing an island defence plan,

152mm Coastal Defence (CD) artillery guns were sited around the coastline, and 12.7mm anti-aircraft

guns were also installed by the Japanese.

On 7 March 1943, Captain Takenao Takenouchi arrived to take command of the garrison (known as 67

Naval Guard Force); he, however, was ill and bed-ridden throughout his tenure, and command was

effectively held by Lt. Hiromi Nakayama, who had led the initial landing force. On 13 July, Captain

Hisayuki Soeda arrived to replace Takenouchi as commander of 67 Naval Guard Force, a position he held

until the end of the war.2

US forces responded with a neutralising and denial campaign against the Japanese garrison on Nauru,

employing heavy bombing air raids from early 1943 until the end of the war. Before the end of 1943, all

Japanese planes on Nauru had been destroyed and the airfield put out of action. In addition to air

attacks allied warships commenced regular naval bombardment of Japanese positions on the island.

These bombardments continued until the surrender of the Japanese on 13 September 1945. A total of

2,681 Japanese soldiers and marines, together with 1,054 Japanese and Korean workers were on the

island at surrender.

1 Gill, G. Hermon (1957). Royal Australian Navy 1939–1942. Australia in the War of 1939–1945. Series 2 – Navy. Volume 1. Canberra: Australian

War Memorial. OCLC 848228.

2 Yuki Tanaka. "Japanese Atrocities on Nauru during the Pacific War : The murder of Australians, the massacre of lepers and the ethnocide of

Nauruans.

Page 8 of 64

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nauru

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pacific_Ocean

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Banaba_Island


https://www.awm.gov.au/histories/second_world_war/AWMOHWW2/Navy/Vol1/

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia_in_the_War_of_1939%E2%80%931945

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OCLC

https://www.worldcat.org/oclc/848228


4.0 THE GERMAN ATTACKS

The German attacks on Nauru refer to the two attacks in December 1940. These attacks were conducted

by auxiliary cruisers (armed merchant raiders) between 6 and 8 December and on the 27th of the

month. The raiders sank five Allied merchant ships and inflicted serious damage o Nauru’s economically important phosphate-loading facilities. Despite the significance of the island to the

Australian and New Zealand economies, Nauru was not defended and the German force did not suffer

any losses.

The two attacks on Nauru disrupted supplies of phosphate to Australia, New Zealand and Japan, which

reduced agricultural production in these countries. In response, Allied naval vessels were deployed to

protect Nauru and nearby Ocean Island and escort shipping in the South Pacific. Small garrisons were

also established to protect the two islands.

The raider captains intended to land a shore party and bombard Nauru's shore installations at dawn on

8 December, but bad weather forced them to concentrate on the ships that were off the island. On the

evening of 7 December, Komet—which had gone ahead to reconnoiter and was disguised as the

Japanese merchant ship Manyo Maru, sank the Norwegian merchant ship Vinni (5,181 long tons

(5,264 t))3 approximately 7.8nmi south of Nauru. While the raider was spotted from the shore, her

disguise was successful and she was assumed to be a merchant ship bound for Japan.4

Orion joined Komet off Nauru in the early hours of 8 December, and attacked and damaged Triadic

(6,378 long tons (6,480 t)) and sank Triaster (6,032 long tons (6,129 t)). Komet then tried to

sink Triadic with scuttling charges, but this was unsuccessful and Orion sank the merchant ship with

gunfire. Komet later sank the British steamer Komata (3,900 long tons (4,000 t)). Following these

attacks, the two raiders and Kulmerland withdrew and assembled 17nmi east of Nauru. As the weather

precluded a landing on the island, it was decided that Komet and Kulmerland would go to Ailinglaplap in

the Marshall Islands where Komet would refuel while Orion operated north-west of Nauru. Following

this the ships would meet off the island and make another attempt to land a raiding party.4 5

When the German force reassembled off Nauru on 15 December, the weather continued to be too bad

to permit a landing and the attack on Nauru was broken off. Further attacks on shipping were judged

impractical as the raiders had intercepted radio messages ordering vessels bound for Nauru and Ocean

Island to disperse. Instead, the three German ships proceeded to the Australian-administered island

of Emirau to disembark the 675 prisoners they were carrying.4 While Weyher refused to release any of

the European ethnic prisoners on board Orion as he believed that "trained officers and crews are as

much a problem for Britain as shipping itself", the ships landed 343 Europeans and 171 Chinese and

South Pacific-ethnic people.6

3 "MS Vinni's Story, Victim of Komet". Warsailors.com. Retrieved 2008-09-05

4 Gill op cit (1957), p. 281

5 “Mid-Pacific Outposts , Ellis, A. Sir 1946, AWM ID 016270

6 Waters, Sydney David (1956). The Royal New Zealand Navy. The Official History of New Zealand in the Second World War 1939–

1945. Wellington: Historical Publications Branch. p. 145

Page 9 of 64

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phosphate

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australia

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Zealand

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nauru


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Norway

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_attacks_on_Nauru#cite_note-Gill_281-10

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scuttling

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nautical_mile

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marshall_Islands

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emirau

http://warsailors.com/raidervictims/vinni.html

http://www.nzetc.org/tm/scholarly/tei-WH2Navy.html


4.1 The Komet Bombardment of Nauru

The Nauruan Administrator, Lieutenant Colonel Chambers, reported details of the 27th

Dec 1940

bombardment by the Ma yo Maru (later identified as the Komet) to the Australian Prime Minister7

on 28th

Dec 1940. The attack commenced at approximately 0630 and lasted for nearly two hours.

The Komet essentially promenaded up and down the SW coast of the island firing continuous salvos

of its t i . a al gu s a d or pompom guns at the phosphate processing facilities, the port,

and administration zones. This message noted that the oil fuel storages were destroyed, and that

the phosphate loading cantilever damaged.

4.2 Ships Sunk

by Komet

1940-12-06 Triona 4,413 Gross register tonnage (GRT)

1940-12-07 Vinni 5,181 GRT

1940-12-07 Komata 3,900 GRT

by Komet together with Orion

1940-12-08 Triadic 6,378 GRT

1940-12-08 Triaster 6,032 GRT

5.0 JAPANESE OCCUPATION OF NAURU

The first Japanese attack on Nauru took place on 9 December 1941; three planes flying from the Marshall

Islands bombed the wireless station at Nauru, but failed to cause any damage. The Nauruans warned by observers

on Ocean Island 350 kilometres to the east, managed to seek shelter before the attack. The following day, another

plane made a second attempt on the radio station. The third day, four planes made a low-altitude strike and

finally destroyed it. During these three days, 51 bombs were dropped on or close to the station. The Administrator

of the island, LTCOL Chalmers, sent a message to Canberra stating that he thought the Japanese hadn't destroyed

the phosphate production facilities as they intended to occupy the island for its resources.8

The Japanese occupation of Nauru covered the three year period from 26 August 1942 to 13 September 1945.

With the onset of the war, the islands that flanked Japan's South Seas possessions became of vital concern to

Japanese Imperial General Headquarters, and in particular to the Imperial Navy, which was tasked with protecting

Japan's outlying Pacific territories.

The Japanese hoped to exploit the island's phosphate resources, and to build up their military defences in the area.

They were unable to relaunch phosphate mining operations, but succeeded in transforming Nauru into a powerful

stronghold, which United States forces chose to bypass during their re-conquest of the Pacific. The most

important infrastructure built by the Japanese was an airfield, which was the target of repeated Allied air strikes.

The war deeply affected the local population. The Japanese enforced a harsh regime, particularly on Chinese

labourers whom they saw as being at the bottom of the racial hierarchy. Forced labour and brutal treatment were

commonplace. They decided to deport the majority of Nauru's indigenous population to the Truk islands,

hundreds of kilometres away, where mortality was extremely high. Still overpopulated with troops and imported

7 Natio al Ar hi es of Australia, Atta k o Nauru a d Nauru “hippi g, NAA ID

8 Wikipedia, WW Nauru : Garrett, Jemima (1996). Island exiles. Sydney: ABC books. p. 200. ISBN 0-7333-0485-0. pp. 13–20

Page 10 of 64

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_register_tonnage







https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canberra

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_General_Headquarters

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuuk_State

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Standard_Book_Number

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/0-7333-0485-0


labourers, the island was subject to food shortages, which worsened as the Allies' island-hopping strategy left

Nauru completely cut off.9

Operation RY was the name given by the Japanese to their plan to invade and occupy Nauru and Ocean

Islands. The operation was originally set to be executed in May 1942, immediately following Operation

MO (the invasion of New Guinea and the Solomon Islands), and before Operation MI (the attack

on Midway).

The first attempt to occupy Nauru began on 11 May, when an Imperial Japanese invasion force

consisting of a cruiser, two mine-layers and two destroyers, with Special Naval Landing Force units,

under the command of Rear Admiral Shima Kiyohide, departed Rabaul. The task force was attacked by

the United States Navy submarine S-42, leading to the loss of the minelayer Okinoshima. Attempts by

the rest of the task force to continue with the operation were called off after Japanese reconnaissance

aircraft sighted the American aircraft carriers USS Enterprise and Hornet heading towards Nauru.

A second invasion force departed Truk on 26 August, and three days later, a company of the 43rd Guard

Force (Palau) conducted an unopposed landing on Nauru, and assumed occupation duties. They were

joined by the 5th Special Base Force Company, which departed Makin Island on September 15 and

arrived at Nauru two days later.

Allied forces received unexpected eyewitness confirmation of the extent of Japanese forces deployed on

Nauru despite the American air and naval bombing campaign to neutralise the island. On 28 June 1945

two Japanese Labour Battalion workers (Nauru Setsueitai) from Nauru were picked up in mid ocean

between Nauru and Truk Island by an allied merchantman, after they spent several weeks at sea

attempting to get to Truk by raft. Their interrogation records noted that the Japanese forces on Nauru

were largely intact, consisting of some 3250 soldiers, and 1500 labour workers. The island was well

defended with deep tunnel systems and bunkers, ringed with twin barrel 150mm Coastal Defence guns

and smaller caliber guns and anti-air systems, 8 x Type 97 tankettes and 12 x medium tanks.10

6.0 THE AMERICAN OFFENSIVE

During 1943, the garrison on Nauru continued to improve its defences against assault, unaware that

American Forces, whilst preparing for OPERATION GALVANIC – the occupation of the Gilbert Islands, had already de ided to ypass the isla d due to U“N Ad iral Ni itz’s o je tio to the inclusion of an

assault on Nauru. Noting the military importance of Nauru’s airstrip a d Japa ese garriso that ould otherwise remain to the rear of the American advance towards Tarawa, it was resolved to invoke

vigorous actions to deny the Japanese use of their airstrip.11

12

13

Although spared a pitched battle, Nauru would be subject to regular aerial bombardment, while Allied

warships made it increasingly difficult for supply ships to get through to the island.

9 Stanley C. Jersey (2004-02-29). "The Battle for Betio Island, Tarawa Atoll"

10 National Archives of Australia, Defence – Recapture of Nauru and Ocean Island, NAA ID 102255 – Interrogation records of Fukujuri

NAMAMI and Hoichi HASHIMOTO 11

History of United States Naval Operations in World War II: Vol. 7 Aleutians, Gilberts, and Marshalls, AWM ID 038495, S.E. Morison,

pp83-85 12

The Ar y Air For es i World War , Vol , The Pa ifi – Guadal a al to “aipa , Edited by W.F. Craven & J.L. Cate, AWM:

R940.544973 A741v4, pp290-292 13

“The History Place – Timeline of the Pacific War , http://www.historyplace.com/unitedstates/pacificwar/timeline.htm

Page 11 of 64

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leapfrogging_(strategy)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_RY

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_MO

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_MO

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Midway

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_Naval_Landing_Force

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rear_Admiral

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shima_Kiyohide

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Navy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Submarine

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USS_S-42_(SS-153)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_minelayer_Okinoshima

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chuuk_Lagoon

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Makin_(islands)

http://www.tarawaontheweb.org/stanjersy1.htm


The first USAAF air-raid against Nauru was led by US General Hale on 20 April 1943, staging from

Funafuti Airbase in the southern Gilbert Islands. GEN Hale led a for e of B ’s a d deli ered x

1000lb General Purpose (GP) bombs, and 45 x 500lb fragmentation bombs. The raid encountered heavy

anti-air fire and fighter interceptors.

USAAF forces continued with regular bombing raids against Nauru for the balance of 1943, and

beginning in mid-November 1943, in support of their campaign in the Gilberts, pounded Nauru heavily

for six weeks, effectively destroying the airfield and much of the Japanese forces supporting

infrastructure. From December 1943 through January 1945, smaller-scale air raids continued on a

regular basis.14

Supplementing USAAF air-raids, USN forces routinely took the opportunity to strike

Nauru, with the aim of neutralising the island and in particular its airfield.15

A comprehensive listing of both Axis and Allied actions against Nauru are detailed at Annexes A and B.

In Annex A, Allied and Axis Military Actions against Nauru, detailed payload capacities/configurations

for the 90 plus air raids USAAF B24 and B25 aircraft used against Nauru are listed. Details of the naval

weapon systems aboard the major USN vessels that also regularly shelled Nauru are also shown.

Together, the USAAF and USN raids on Nauru would constitute the bulk of military explosive ordnance

dropped on Nauru.

Plate 2: USAAF Bombing Nauru Nov 1943, B24 Liberator viewing Airstrip and Administrative area Strikes

14

Craven & Cate, op cit, p286 15

S.E. Morison, op cit, pp189 and 307

Page 12 of 64


Plate 3: Post Bomb Raid Damage, Nauru Harbour Area

Plate 4: Bo i g of I dustrial Area, Nauru Isla d, Used i Fe ruary 1944 issue of I pa t

Page 13 of 64


Plate 5: Bombs Dropping Directly over the Project AoI

Page 14 of 64


7.0 SUMMARY

Nauru was actively militarily engaged throughout WWII. It was first attacked by German naval raider

for es i De e er , duri g hi h the isla d’s ad i istrati e a d port fa ilities a d British Phosphate Company ore loading facilities were heavily shelled by the German raider Komet.

Allied forces subsequently stationed a modest garrison force on Nauru, only to withdraw them during a

general evacuation of most non-Nauruans from the island shortly before the Japanese invasion in

August 1942.

Following the Japanese invasion in August 1942, most remaining Islanders were relocated from Nauru

whilst the Japanese fortified and prepared to defend the island. A substantial military force was

assembled comprising some 3,500 professional soldiers and 1,500 labourers. The island was defended

with the full range of weaponry available to the Japanese Imperial Forces ranging from small arms,

grenades and machine guns, up to and including ringing the island with 150mm twin barrelled Coastal

Defence naval guns. The Japanese quickly established an airfield on the southern side of the island and

deployed fighter and medium bomber aircraft.

Though the Allies decided not to retake Nauru, it was conscious of the threat to it of having such a

powerful enemy force to its rear as it advanced northwards through the then Gilbert Islands on its island

hopping campaign towards Japan. Accordingly, Nauru endured some 18 months of extensive aerial and

naval bombardment to neutralise its threat to the Allied advance in the South West Pacific.

8.0 CONCLUSIONS

During WWII Nauru was shelled by German forces and the ADB Nauru Port Development Project AoI

was targeted at this time by naval gunfire. Damage was sustained to the Nauru port administrative

area.

The island was subsequently first garrisoned by allied forces, albeit of modest size, and then by a

substantial Japanese military force for three years along with their complement of military hardware

and ordnance, including a full suite of small arms weaponry, heavy coastal defence and anti-air

batteries, light and medium armoured vehicles, and fighter and medium bomber aircraft.

As a consequence, Nauru endured continuous Allied shelling and bombing by air and sea for nearly two

years, as the allies neutralised the Japanese built airstrip, destroyed all the Japanese aircraft, and the

isla d’s supporti g administrative infrastructure, and in particular the ADB Nauru Port Development

Project AoI was severely damaged. There is little doubt that substantial Explosive Remnants of War

(ERW) is likely to remain within the ADB Nauru Port Development Project AoI.

The likelihood of encountering hazardous ERW contamination during the ADB Port Development Project

is considered by Milsearch to be extremely high. In order to mitigate this risk, Milsearch recommends

that a 100% ERW remediation solution is conducted prior to Project commencement.

Annex C, provides a detailed listing of what ERW may be found within the AoI.

Page 15 of 64


List of Annexes:

Annex A. Milsearch Summary Report: Allied and Axis Military Actions against Nauru.

Annex B. Reference Action Report 0010, USN Naval Bombardment of Nauru Island, 8

December 1943, by Charles M Paty Jr (revised 3 Nov 2000).

Annex C. Munitions Identification Guide.

Annex D. Bibliography.

Page 16 of 64


Annex A - Allied and Axis Military Action Against Nauru

Table 1: Allied Aircraft Payload Types

Aircraft Type Weapons Carried Notes

B-24D Liberator Bombs Various: 100lb, 300lb, 500lb,

600lb, 1,000lb, 1,100lb, & 2,000lb.

The number and combination of bombs to be

carried is interchangeable.

The maximum load for the B-24 is 8,600lbs.

Bombs include: fragmentation, Armor Piercing

(AP), Semi Armor Piercing (SAP), and General

Purpose (GP).

The 75mm Cannon ammunition consists of 15lb

projectiles HE and various.

B-24J Liberator Bombs Various: 500lb, 1,000lb, 2,000lb,

& 4,000lb.

B-25 Mitchell 75mm T13E1 cannon

2,150lb Torpedo

Bombs Various: 500lb, 1,000lb, &

1,600lb

Allied Missions (Press Release)

12 x B-25 aircraft left Butaritari on Thursday the 29th June 1944. After gaining height while circling

above the lagoon and formatting up into four flights of three planes each, the Group set a course of 329

degrees true and headed for Nauru. Eight of the twelve B-25s on this particular flight were the G model

of which only 200 were built, making it a very rare bird. These G’s were the most heavily armed plane

ever built for their size because of the 75mm Cannon installed in the nose.

The guns at Cliff Lodge, the guns on Command Ridge, the guns at the rubbish dump and the guns at both

ends of the airfield were the targets for the four groups that day. The bomb load for each plane was

1200lbs of general purpose high explosive 100 pounders.

Figure 2: 75mm T13E1 Cannon Mounted in the Nose of the B-25 Mitchell

Page 17 of 64


CINCPAC PRESS RELEASE NO. 186, DECEMBER 5, 1943

A group of Liberators of the Seventh Army Air Force raided Nauru on December 4. An oil dump was set

afire. There was no air interception, although three enemy planes departed the area as our planes

arrived. All of our aircraft returned. One was slightly damaged by antiaircraft fire.

CINCPAC COMMUNIQUÉ NO. 24, DECEMBER 9, 1943

Strong forces of the Pacific Fleet attacked Nauru Island with carrier aircraft and ship bombardment on

December 8 (West Longitude Date) details are not now available.


Our battleships and carriers which bombarded Nauru Island on December 8 (West Longitude Date)

started large fires throughout the target area and destroyed nine planes on the ground and one in the

air. We lost two aircraft. One of our destroyers received one hit from enemy shore batteries suffering

minor damage.


Navy medium bombers of Fleet Air Wing Two made a low altitude attack on Nauru at dusk on Christmas

Eve (East Longitude Date) setting Installations on fire. One of our planes is missing.

CINCPAC RELEASE NO. 214, DECEMBER 29, 1943

Navy medium bombers of Fleet Air Wing Two which raided Nauru on the morning of December 29

(West Longitude Date) destroyed an ammunition dump and started several fires. Several of our planes

suffered minor damage. One Navy Liberator while on a search mission in the Marshalls on December 27

damaged a tanker.

Table 2: Allied Naval Armament

Vessel Type Weapons Carried

USS Indiana - South Dakota-class Battleship 9 × 16" Mark 6 guns

20 × 5" guns

24 × 40mm guns

16 × 20mm cannons

USS North Carolina - North Carolina-class Battleship

9 × 16" Mark 6 guns

20 × 5 guns

16 × 1.1 anti-aircraft guns (later replaced by 15

quad 40mm antiaircraft guns and 46 single 20mm

cannons)

Page 18 of 64

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Dakota-class_battleship_(1939)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battleship

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=16%22(406mm)/45_caliber_Mark_6_guns&action=edit&redlink=1

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=5%22(127mm)/38_cal_guns&action=edit&redlink=1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battleship

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=16%22(406mm)/45_caliber_Mark_6_guns&action=edit&redlink=1

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5%22/38_calibre_gun

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-aircraft_gun

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiaircraft_gun


USS Alabama

On 8 December 1943, Alabama, along with five other fast battleships, carried out the first Pacific gunfire

strike conducted by that type of warship. Alabama's guns hurled 535 rounds into enemy strong points,

as she and her sister ships bombarded Nauru Island, an enemy phosphate-producing center, causing

severe damage to shore installations there. She also took the destroyer USS Boyd (DD-644), alongside

after that ship had received a direct hit from a Japanese shore battery on Nauru, and brought three

injured men on board for treatment.

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/ships/battleships/alabama/bb60-al.html

South Dakota, with five other battleships, formed another task group on 6 December to bombard Nauru

Island. A joint aerial attack and shore bombardment severely damaged enemy shore installations and

airfields there. South Dakota retired to Efate on 12 December 1943 for upkeep and rearming.

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/nav_legacy.asp?id=125

American Missions against Nauru and Nauru Airfield

http://www.pacificwrecks.com/airfields/nauru/missions-nauru.html#us

Table 3: Chronological List of Military Events (not exhaustive)

Date Event Details

December 27, 1940 German Raider Komet bombards the island (particularly the Phosphate Mine).

December 1940 Throughout December, Komet and Orion sank five Allied merchant ships off Nauru.

August 25, 1942 Nine Japanese twin-engine bombers attack Nauru destroying a medical clinic.

January 28, 1943 (7th AF) One B-24 flies photographic reconnaissance over Nauru.

February 9, 1943 (13th AF) Lost on a reconnaissance mission over Nauru is B-17F "My Lovin' Dove" 41-

24450, crew rescued 50 days later.

March 26, 1943 (7th AF) B-24's bomb the airfield on Nauru Island.

April 20, 1943 (7th AF) 22 B-24's, from Funafuti, carry out a photo-bombing mission over Nauru.

Several direct hits on runways and the dispersal areas are claimed.

(Note: The Army Air Forces in WWII, Vol , The Pa ifi – Guadal a al to “aipa , Edited by W.F. Craven & J.L.

Cate, AWM: R940.544973 A741v4, Lists this raid as the first raid by USAAF against Nauru, and not the 26 Mar

1943 listing above)

Page 19 of 64

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/ships/battleships/alabama/bb60-al.html

http://www.navy.mil/navydata/nav_legacy.asp?id=125

http://www.pacificwrecks.com/provinces/nauru.html

http://www.pacificwrecks.com/airfields/nauru/index.html

http://www.pacificwrecks.com/airfields/nauru/missions-nauru.html#us

http://www.pacificwrecks.com/aircraft/b-17/41-24450.html



June 19, 1943 (7th AF) During the night of 18/19 Jun, B-24's bomb Nauru Island.

June 28, 1943 (7th AF) A bombing mission against Nauru is hampered by engine trouble and bad

weather, only two B-24s bomb the target with unobserved results.

September 18, 1943 (7th AF) B-24's bomb Naru Airfield and attack a phosphate plant and radio station on

Nauru.

November 21, 1943 (7th AF) B-24's from Funafuti Atoll and Nanumea in the Ellice bomb Nauru in the

Gilberts.

November 28, 1943 (7th AF) 11 B-24's from Nanumea bomb Nauru.

December 4, 1943

(7th AF) 8 B-24's from Funafuti attack Nauru.

December 8, 1943 (USN) A striking force of two carriers, six battleships including USS Massachusetts BB-

59, and 12 destroyers bombed and bombarded enemy installations on Nauru. Shot

down by anti-aircraft fire over Nauru are F6F Hellcat 26088 and TBF Avenger 47589.

January 27, 1944 (7th AF) Six B-25's bomb Nauru.

March 12, 1944 (7th AF) B-24s bomb Nauru.

May 12, 1944 (7th AF) Twelve B-25s bomb Nauru.

May 16, 1944 (7th AF) B-25s bomb Nauru.

June 2, 1944 (7th AF) B-25s bomb Nauru.





Page 20 of 64

http://www.pacificwrecks.com/ships/usn/BB-59.html

http://www.pacificwrecks.com/ships/usn/BB-59.html

http://www.pacificwrecks.com/aircraft/f6f/26088.html






June 29, 1944 (7th AF) B-25s bomb Nauru, lost is B-25G "Coral Princess" 42-64977.

July 6, 1944 (7th AF) B-25s bomb Nauru.




August 6, 1944 (7th AF) B-25s bomb Nauru.

August 12, 1944 (7th AF) B-25s bomb Nauru




September 2, 1944 (7th AF) B-25s bomb Nauru.




Page 21 of 64







October 1, 1944 (7th AF) B-25s bomb Nauru.

October 5, 1944 (7th AF) B-25s bomb Nauru Airfield runways and gun positions.

October 10, 1944 (7th AF) Twelve B-25s bomb Nauru Airfield runways and adjacent AA positions.




October 26, 1944 (7th AF) 15 B-25s bomb Nauru Airfield area.


Page 22 of 64

Revised 3 Nov 2000

The Bombardment of Nauru Island

8 December 1943

Task Unit 50.8.5

Reference Action Report 0010

Narration by Charles M Paty Jr

This bombardment was a part ofthe original "Galvanic" operation which was the planned recovery of the Gilbert

Islands. The plan originally called for the invasion and occupation of Nauru Island.

Nauru is an oval shaped coral island about 40 miles (65 kilometers) south ofthe equator with an area of only 8 square

miles.' The island was a phosphate mining center and was riddled with holes and caves. There was a small indigenous

population (about 9000 in 1992).

The rep~blk ~f,Nauru inBAt h e c e n t r a l J > a c i f i¢ , is . , t h e

i t,hlrfl , s f lJ a H ~ s t¢ P IJ ~ '{ t l , y ; ip

tlie\\I9r1d. , ¥ o s to r ' t b ~ ' i~ .

{ " '> l in d . is·i;1!Pla~e~uth:at:'\.i:'',, ,',-contahisdep(,lsits:df.'· ... '

pfwsphates; ':. ":' 'f . - • - • •

; ! " !

I "People and Places" by World Book Inc, 1992

Page 23 of 64

ANNEX B - Action Report 0010

A number of Army Air Force bombing and reconnaissance raids revealed a small Japanese garrison and fortifications

plus a small landing strip. As the operation plan progressed through various staff reviews it was determined that the

Nauru invasion and occupation was not a worth while part of the plan. It was therefore decided to delete the invasion

and substitute a heavy bombardment by fast battleships in order to neutralize the landing strip and other fortifications.

Following the Tarawa operation, theIHGFEDCBAN o r t h C a r o l i n a headed South and refueled from the fleet tanker N E C H E S { A 0 4 7 ]

on 28 Nov 1943.

At 2304 on 7 December, the N o r t h C a r o l i n a crossed the equator at 168°-35.8' E. and maintained a base course of350°,

speed 18 knots, This ship was in column 1000 yards astern ofthe W a s h i n g t o n ( B B 5 6 ) .

2

Page 24 of 64


. .~ i .BA~ ~ - - - - - I

. . .

Idoa

III' II

• • jihgfedcbaZYXWVUTSRQPONMLKJIHGFEDCBA

3

Page 25 of 64


On the morning of the 8th

the sea was calm and surface wind was S knots from 020 true. Visibility was excellent. At

0420 radar contact was made with the island of Nauru, 170° True, 22 miles. At 0448 Task Unit SO.8.S left the

formation and at OS2S crossed the Equator, North to South at 167°10'.S" E. Changing course the ship again crossed the

Equator going South to North at 167°-09' .S" E. At OS40 the ship went to General Quarters. OSSOthe Carriers launched

attack groups. At 0603 the battleships formed in column, distance IS00 yards, with theIHGFEDCBAN O R T H C A R O L I N A number

two in the column following the W A S H I N G T O N ( B B 5 6 ) . Three destroyers took station in the van and three in the rear

of the column. At 0600 we arrived off the Island of Nauru. We were in company with Battleship Divisions

6, 8 and 9 plus six destroyers.

At 0604BAM fire was seen against one of the battleship observation aircraft. At 0607 the island was sighted visually.

During the approach this ship again crossed the Equator going North to South. At 0619 we launched one OS2U float

plane with Lt. Dowdle as pilot and Paska, ARM3c as radioman. This was followed at 0629 by catapulting Ens. Burns

and his radioman, Hill, I W, ARM3c. Nauru contained a Japanese airfield and had been bombed by Navy aircraft in

recent weeks. Ships aircraft noted that one "Betty' and two fighters took off from strip #2 at 064S. No enemy aircraft

were encountered during this action although there was some anti-aircraft fire at our observation planes. At 0701 an all

battleship salvo of 16" commenced bombardment. This was a salvo of S4 16" guns resulting in enormous amount of

weight and explosive falling on the island at one time. We closed the range to 10000 yard and commenced firing the

secondary battery at the air strip at 071S. Ceased firing main and secondary battery at 0729. Secured from General

Quarters at 0813 and recovered our observation air craft at 0844.

The B O Y D ( D D 544) was directed to pickup two pilots who had crashed near the island and she left the formation at

103S. She was damaged by shore battery fire during this rescue.

At 1213 Japanese Bomber "Betty' sighted on the horizon bearing 120° True. The M O N T E R E Y ( C V L 2 6 ) reported the

"Betty' was shot down by their combat air patrol. At ISOS set boiler condition 32.

All battleships had launched two OS2U aircraft, one to spot shot fall and one antisubmarine patrol. The A L A B A M A

( B B 6 0 ) OS2U did a little strafing of it's own, setting fire to some barracks.

We fired 13S rounds ofl6" projectiles and 403 rounds ofS" projectiles.

4

Page 26 of 64


TbeIHGFEDCBAU S S I N D I A N A ( B B 5 8 ) ruing a salvo during tbe bombardment of Nauru. Tbis pboto taken from SKY ONE

on the U S S N O R T H C A R O L I N A looking aft. The balance oftbe battlesbip column are ruing 16" salvos at

random. This pboto is "Enclosure G" of Action Report #0010.

Following is a summery of ammunition expenditure on targets:

Main Battery

9 Rounds on Oil Storage tanks and Barracks in grid area B3

45 Rounds into fuel storage and troop concentrations Northwest of landing strip # 1 in area B2 and C2

27 Rounds on to radar station and reported gun emplacements on top of cliff in grid position D727 and D827

27 Rounds on to revetments, storage dumps, gun positions, and control tower south of landing strip # 1

27 Rounds on underground fuel storage, revetments and defense installations adjacent to, and north oflanding strip #1

Secondary Battery

130 Rounds on landing strip and adjacent installations in grid areas C2, DI and D2

273 Rounds on landing strip and adjacent installations in grid areas Oland 02

This concluded a successful bombardment of the target area by all battleships, this was not a significant target. It did

provide an excellent training for the fast battleships in operating together in an operation of this type.

5

Page 27 of 64


4

US Mk 1 20mm HEI NEQ: 12gm

Length with fuse: 82mm

Total weight: 132gm

Carry bag for Mk1 20mm HE

Page 28 of 64

5

JAP Type 96 model 2, 25mm HE ammunition

NEQ: 23g

Length without fuse: 91 mm Total weight of projectile: 200 gm

Length of cartridge: 164 mm Diameter of cartridge base: 42 mm

Page 29 of 64

6

US M51B1 37mm AP with Cap

NEQ: Nil

Length with cap and windshield: 162mm Length w/o cap and windshield: 118mm

Total weight: 872gm

Page 30 of 64

7

US M59 37mm AP with Cap NEQ: Nil

Length: 117mm

Total weight: 867gm

Page 31 of 64

8

US M63 37mm HE NEQ: 39gm

Length: 150mm

Total weight: 735gm

Page 32 of 64

9

US Mk 1 Mod 5 40mm NEQ: 68gm

Length: 180mm

Total Weight: 900gm

Page 33 of 64