uxo risk assessment - major projects

COMMERCIAL-IN-CONFIDENCE


UXO RISK ASSESSMENT

JORDAN SPRINGS PUBLIC SCHOOL SITE JORDAN SPRINGS, NSW

Document Reference: CSG/RCC/190523/RA

Version Date of Issue Issued To

1.0 24th May 2019 Mr Tom Hemmett, Site Engineer, Richard Crookes Constructions, Artarmon

CSG DEMINING CONSULTANTS 151 Golf Links Road

MAIDEN GULLY Victoria 3551 AUSTRALIA Telephone: +61-3-54462408 Mobile: +61-417-527264

EMail: [email protected] Website: www.csgdemining.com

mailto:[email protected]

COMMERCIAL-IN-CONFIDENCE -i- CSG UXO Risk Assessment-Jordan Springs Public School Site-Ver 1.0


TABLE OF CONTENTS

GLOSSARY OF TERMS and ABBREVIATIONS ii EXECUTIVE SUMMARY iv

SECTION ONE: INTRODUCTION 1

BACKGROUND 1

THE SITE 2

SECTION TWO: OBJECTIVE AND CONDUCT OF THE UXO RISK ASSESSMENT 2

OBJECTIVE 2

CONDUCT 2

CSG RISK ASSESSMENT PROCESS 3

SECTION THREE: HISTORY OF THE SITE 4

SECTION FOUR: PREVIOUS REMEDIATION AT THE JSPS SITE 6

SECTION FIVE: POTENTIAL FOR UXO CONTAMINATION 7

SECTION SIX: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION 7

BIBLIOGRAPHY 8

COMMERCIAL-IN-CONFIDENCE -ii- CSG UXO Risk Assessment-Jordan Springs Public School Site-Ver 1.0


GLOSSARY OF TERMS and ABBREVIATIONS

Term Definition

Explosive Ordnance (EO) All munitions containing explosives, nuclear materials and biological and chemical agents.

Explosive Ordnance Disposal (EOD)

The detection, identification, evaluation, render safe, recovery and disposal of Unexploded Ordnance (UXO).

Explosive Ordnance Waste (EOW) All material, including packaging and fragmentation, resulting from the transportation, preparation and functioning of Explosive Ordnance.

Risk The function of the probability of the occurrence of harm and the severity of that harm.

Safety The reduction of risk to a tolerable level. Small Arms Ammunition (SAA) Ammunition of less than 20 millimetre calibre used in pistols,

rifles and machine-guns.

Unexploded Ordnance (UXO) Munitions that have been primed, fused or otherwise prepared for use and that have been fired, thrown, dropped or otherwise propelled and have failed to operate as intended. UXO items contain energetic material in sufficient quantities to potentially cause harm to personnel or property.

UXO Remediation Another term for UXO Clearance i.e. the process of removing all UXO of a specific minimum size from a particular area to a specified depth.

UXO Risk Assessment The analysis of all available data and information to determine the potential for UXO, by type, to be present in a specific area and to identify the threat such contamination poses to planned activities within the boundaries of the assessed area.

COMMERCIAL-IN-CONFIDENCE -iii- CSG UXO Risk Assessment-Jordan Springs Public School Site-Ver 1.0


DISCLAIMER AND COPYRIGHT NOTICE

Basis of the Assessment This UXO Risk Assessment has been developed on the basis of information obtained by CSG Demining Consultants (CSG); information provided by Richard Crookes Constructions (RCC) and its employees, contractors and consultants and information in the public domain. CSG accepts no responsibility or liability for any errors or omissions in the information provided to CSG. The UXO Risk Assessment is based on the best information available, the known conditions at the project site and the known plans for the site at the time of the Assessment. CSG accepts no responsibility or liability for changes to these conditions, plans or information that may materially affect the validity of this UXO Risk Assessment. Client

This UXO Risk Assessment has been prepared for use by Richard Crookes Constructions, its employees, contractors, consultants and clients in accordance with generally accepted Consulting Practice. It may not contain sufficient information for the purposes of other parties or for other uses. CSG accepts no responsibility or liability for use of this UXO Risk Assessment by any other party or for purposes other than for which it was conducted. Assessment to be Considered in Entirety

This UXO Risk Assessment should be read in its entirety. CSG accepts no responsibility or liability for any outcomes resulting from use of only part of this UXO Risk Assessment. Copyright

CSG is the owner of the copyright subsisting in this UXO Risk Assessment. No part of this document shall be reproduced without the express permission of CSG – except for reproduction allowed under the Licence it has granted to Richard Crookes Constructions and its client. Licence

CSG grants to Richard Crookes Constructions and its client a non-exclusive licence to use and reproduce this UXO Risk Assessment for its internal purposes.

LIMITATIONS OF THE UXO RISK ASSESSMENT This UXO Risk Assessment DOES NOT PROVIDE A GUARANTEE regarding the

contamination by Unexploded Ordnance (UXO) of the Jordan Springs Public School site. However, in this Assessment, all relevant information has been analysed in order to make an

informed judgement as to the potential UXO risk within the area.

This UXO Risk Assessment relates only to the Jordan Springs Public School site. A separate UXO Risk Assessment should be considered for locations outside this site.

COMMERCIAL-IN-CONFIDENCE -iv- CSG UXO Risk Assessment-Jordan Springs Public School Site-Ver 1.0


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

i. In May 2019, RCC engaged CSG Demining Consultants to conduct a UXO Risk Assessment of the site of the proposed Jordan Springs Public School (JSPS). The UXO Risk Assessment is in response to a statement in an Environmental Investigation Services 2017 Preliminary Environmental Site Assessment that ‘Unexploded ordnance is another risk factor that could potentially pose a risk to site users.’

ii. The objective of the UXO Risk Assessment was to identify the likelihood of UXO being

present on the JSPS site and to make recommendation as to the UXO Remediation works necessary, if any, to deal with the assessed UXO risk.

iii. The UXO Risk Assessment was conducted during the period 22 – 24 May 2019 by Mr

Carl Chirgwin of CSG and comprised three phases: 1. Phase One – Initial Documentation Review and Site Reconnaissance: 2. Phase Two – Targeted Historical Research: 3. Phase Three - Analysis and Reporting:

iv. The JSPS lies within the western precinct of the former Australian Government’s St

Marys Munition Filling Factory. This factory, which filled and assembled small arms and cannon ammunition, fuzes, mortar bombs, artillery projectiles and pyrotechnics, covered an area of 1,545 hectares and was operational from 1942 until 1993. When the St Marys factory was operational, what is now the JSPS site, housed munition magazines that contained filled munitions and components.

v. Research has identified that UXO investigation of the general area of the JSPS site

commenced in the 1990’s and continued until approximately 2009. vi. Given the scope and scale of the UXO investigation and clearance conducted across the

JSPS site, coupled with the significant development rks around and across the site, it is assessed that the likelihood of UXO contamination in the JSPS site is negligible.

vii. It is further assessed that there is no requirement for further UXO investigation, survey,

clearance or other UXO works at the JSPS site. However, in order to conform to the recommendation of the NSW EPA that a Protocol be developed and implemented to deal with unexpected ‘finds’ of UXO, a Management Protocol is included as Enclosure 1 to this Report.

COMMERCIAL-IN-CONFIDENCE -1- CSG UXO Risk Assessment-Jordan Springs Public School Site-Ver 1.0


SECTION ONE: INTRODUCTION

BACKGROUND

1.1 In May 2019, Richard Crookes Constructions (RCC) engaged CSG Demining Consultants (CSG) to conduct an Unexploded Ordnance (UXO) Risk Assessment of the site of the proposed Jordan Springs Public School (JSPS) at Jordan Springs, New South Wales. The UXO Risk Assessment is in response to a statement in an Environmental Investigation Services 2017 Preliminary Environmental Site Assessment1 that ‘Unexploded ordnance is another risk factor that could potentially pose a risk to site users.’

1.2 The location of the JSPS site is shown below:

1 Environmental Investigation Services, Report to Hayball on Preliminary Environmental Site Assessment for Proposed New School Development at 14-28 Cullen Avenue, Jordan Springs, NSW, North Ryde, 28 August 2017, p.5.



THE SITE

1.3 The JSPS site is an area of vacant land approximately 3 hectares. The proposed development at the site will consist of the construction of a primary school in the south-east portion of the site and a playing field in the northern portion of the site.

SECTION TWO: OBJECTIVE AND CONDUCT OF THE UXO RISK ASSESSMENT

OBJECTIVE

2.1 The objective of the UXO Risk Assessment was to identify the likelihood of UXO being present on the JSPS site and to make recommendation as to the UXO Remediation works necessary, if any, to deal with the assessed UXO risk.

CONDUCT

2.2 The UXO Risk Assessment was conducted during the period 22 – 24 May 2019 by Mr Carl Chirgwin of CSG and comprised three phases: 1. Phase One – Initial Documentation Review and Site Reconnaissance:

a. CSG conducted an initial review of available documents to identify whether there was potential for UXO contamination on site.

2. Phase Two – Targeted Historical Research: a. CSG searched the Department of Defence online UXO Contamination database. b. CSG reviewed previous reports and studies including:

• URS Australia Pty Ltd2 (now AECOM Australia) St Marys Eastern Precinct Contamination Management Plan 48822-008/R01 dated 24 June 2003.

• Environmental Investigation Services3 Preliminary Environmental Site Assessment for Proposed New School Development at 14-28 Cullen Avenue, Jordan Springs, NSW E30718KPrpt dated 28 August 2017.

• WSP Australia Pty Ltd4 Jordan Springs Public School Environmental Site Assessment dated 03 January 2019.

• NSW Environment Protection Authority5 SSD9354-Jordan Springs Public School-Environmental Impact Statement dated 28 March 2019.

c. CSG discussed previous UXO clearance works at the former St Marys site with G-tek Australia Pty Ltd6 – a UXO Clearance contractor and member of the Department of Defence Environment and Heritage Panel (UXO Component).

3. Phase Three - Analysis and Reporting: a. CSG analysed the information and data obtained during Phases One and Two to

determine the likely potential for UXO contamination within the site. This

2 URS Australia Pty Ltd, St Marys Eastern Precinct Contamination Management Plan 48822-008/R01, North Sydney, 24 June 2003. 3 Environmental Investigation Services, loc.cit. 4 WSP Australia Pty Ltd, Jordan Springs Public School Environmental Site Assessment, Sydney, 03 January 2019. 5 NSW Environment Protection Authority, SSD9354-Jordan Springs Public School-Environmental Impact Statement, Sydney, 28 March 2019. 6 G-tek Australia Pty Ltd, Email-Jordan Springs School, Dural, 23 May 2019.



analysis, and the outcomes flowing from it, is contained in this UXO Risk Assessment report.

CSG RISK ASSESSMENT PROCESS

2.4 The actual Risk Assessment process undertaken by CSG was based on commonly-accepted practice and comprised: 1. Recognition of the activities likely to be undertaken at the site and the potentially

harmful incidents that could result should UXO contamination be present. 2. Identification of the highest probable Consequence, in any of the categories shown

in Table 1 below, should such an incident occur.

CONSEQUENCE Level Performance Health &

Safety Asset Safety Schedule Cost Reputation

Insignificant Minimal consequence to objectives/goals

Discomfort or nuisance

Asset has no sign of physical damage

Does not impact on project schedule

Minimal impact on project cost

Defence reputation not affected

Minor Minor consequence to objectives/goals

First Aid event

Asset has cosmetic damage only and requires minimal repair

Minor delay to task but no slippage of critical path of task or project

Increase in project cost of less than 2%

Defence reputation affected internally at regional level

Moderate Unable to achieve a particular objective/goal, but remaining objective goals represent better than minimum success or outcome

Lost Time injury of less than 1 month. Minor reversible health effects of concern.

Asset has damage and is repairable

Major delay to task and minor slippage of less than 0.5 months of critical path of project

Increase on project cost of 2% - 10%

Defence reputation affected internally at National level

Major Unable to achieve multiple objectives/goals but minimum required success can still be achieved

Lost Time Injury more than one (1) month. Severe reversible health effects of concern.

Asset is substantially damaged but repairable with significant repairs

Critical path of project slips by 0.5 - 3 months.

Increase in project cost of 10% - 20%

Defence reputation affected externally at Regional level

Catastrophic Unable to achieve multiple objectives/goals and minimum required success can’t be achieved

Permanent disability or fatality. Irreversible effects of concern.

Asset is significantly compromised and requires major repair or is destroyed.

Critical path of project slips by more than 3 months or one or more critical milestones cannot be met

Increase of more than 20% to project cost

Defence reputation affected externally at National level



3. Identification of the Likelihood, as shown in the Table below, of the incident occurring.

LIKELIHOOD Level Criteria (read as either/or)

Almost Certain

The consequence will occur. The consequence may occur many times during the project. Probability approximately 95%

Likely The consequence will occur under some circumstances and may occur a number of times during the project. Probability approximately 60%

Possible The consequence is expected to at least once during the project. Probability approximately 25%

Unlikely The consequence may occur once in life of the project. Probability approximately 5% - 10%

Rare The consequence may occur in exceptional circumstances but is not expected to occur during the life of the Project. Probability less than 1%

4. Combination of the Consequence and Likelihood to identify the severity of the Risk

for a given activity.

SEVERITY OF RISK Likelihood Consequence

Insignificant Minor Moderate Major Catastrophic Almost Certain High High Extreme Extreme Extreme Likely Moderate High High Extreme Extreme Possible Low Moderate High Extreme Extreme Unlikely Low Low Moderate High Extreme Rare Low Low Moderate Moderate High

5. Determination, using the severity of Risk, of the nature of the Corrective Action

required to negate or, if negation is impractical, to mitigate the Risk.

SECTION THREE: HISTORY OF THE SITE

3.1 The JSPS lies within the western precinct of the former Australian Government’s St Marys Munition Filling Factory. This factory, which filled and assembled small arms and cannon ammunition, fuzes, mortar bombs, artillery projectiles and pyrotechnics, covered an area of 1,545 hectares and was operational from 1942 until 1993. The

CORRECTIVE ACTION Severity Priority Type of Corrective Action Required

Extreme 1 Cease activity or task, detailed research and planning required.

High 2 Program attention; immediate corrective and preventative action required.

Moderate 3 Management responsibility assigned; corrective and preventative action plan developed.

Low 4 Manage by routine procedures; accept risk.



boundaries of the former St Marys factory, and the location of the JSPS site within them, are shown below.

3.2 When the St Marys factory was operational, what is now the JSPS site housed munition

magazines that contained filled munitions and components. An aerial photo of the site, taken in 1991 a short time before the factory ceased operations, is below:



SECTION FOUR: PREVIOUS REMEDIATION AT THE JSPS SITE

4.1 The investigation and remediation of the St Marys area began in the 1990’s and, for several small areas within the Eastern Precinct, has continued until 2017.

4.2 Discussions with G-tek Australia7 have identified that UXO investigation of the general

area of the JSPS site commenced in the 1990’s and continued until approximately 2009. Australian Defence Industries (ADI) conducted a series of shallow searches using metal detectors around and under former munition magazines in the 1990’s and searches using TM4 and EM61 digital magnetometers at a line-spacing width sufficient to locate burial sites rather than individual items. A current senior manager with G-tek Australia was part of the ADI team conducting the searches and recalls that no UXO or Explosive Ordnance (EO) items were found.

4.3 In approximately 2009, G-tek Australia conducted a digital magnetometer search of the

site for a new transformer to the north-east of the JSPS site. No UXO or EO items were found.

4.4 An image showing the location of the earlier searches around the JSPS site, with the

100% shallow searched shown in dark brown, black grids designating the areas of the TM4 searches, blue grids designating the areas of the EM61 searches and the multi-coloured grid designating the transformer site search, is below:

4.5 In its 2003 Contamination Management Plan8, URS Australia noted that ‘The majority

of the site has been remediated to a level where the site is considered to pose a negligible 7 Telephone conversation CSG Demining Consultants and G-tek Australia of 23 May 2019. 8 URS Australia Pty Ltd, loc. Cit., p.1-4.



risk to the public or the environment with regard to chemical contamination or explosive ordnance. The risk of uncovering a recognisable piece of ordnance on the majority of the property is 1 in 250,000 and the probability of explosive ordnance with a hazardous content being discovered is less than 1 in 1,000,000. Furthermore, for this to be hazardous there would need to be mechanical or chemical changes imposed on the item.’

SECTION FIVE: POTENTIAL FOR UXO CONTAMINATION

5.1 The primary sources for UXO contamination in a site are: 1. The burial of defective, surplus or life-expired munitions. 2. The firing of High Explosive (HE) and other munitions containing energetic material

into Impact Areas within the site. 3. The conduct of military exercises and actual military conflict.

5.2 The main activities conducted at the JSPS site, and across the wider St Marys Filling

Factory area, were the storage and testing of munitions and pyrotechnics and their components. There is no evidence of the firing of HE munitions or the conduct of military exercises within the area and obviously there has never been any actual military conflict in the area of the JSPS site.

5.3 There has been extensive UXO investigation and clearance works across the wider St

Marys Filling Factory area and the JSPS site. Further, there has been extensive development, entailing significant civil and earthworks, around and across the JSPS site.

SECTION SIX: CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION

6.1 Given the scope and scale of the UXO investigation and clearance conducted across the JSPS site, coupled with the significant development around and across the site, it is assessed that the likelihood of UXO contamination in the JSPS site is negligible.

6.2 It is further assessed that there is no requirement for further UXO investigation, survey,

clearance or other UXO works at the JSPS site. However, in order to conform to the recommendation of the NSW EPA that a Protocol be developed and implemented to deal with unexpected ‘finds’ of UXO, a Management Protocol is included as Enclosure 1.

Carl G.Chirgwin UXO Consultant Enclosure 1. Management Protocol – Unexpected UXO Finds.



BIBLIOGRAPHY

Environmental Investigation Services

Report to Hayball on Preliminary Environmental Site Assessment for Proposed New School Development at 14-28 Cullen Avenue, Jordan Springs, NSW, North Ryde, 28 August 2017.

G-tek Australia Pty Ltd Email-Jordan Springs School, Dural, 23 May 2019. NSW Environment Protection Authority

SSD9354-Jordan Springs Public School-Environmental Impact Statement, Sydney, 28 March 2019.

URS Australia Pty Ltd St Marys Eastern Precinct Contamination Management Plan 48822-008/R01, North Sydney, 24 June 2003.

WSP Australia Pty Ltd Jordan Springs Public School Environmental Site Assessment, Sydney, 03 January 2019.

uxo risk assessment - major projects

Documents