13.07.2015 Views

Monorail Removal Project - Review of Environmental Factors (REF)

Monorail Removal Project - Review of Environmental Factors (REF)

Monorail Removal Project - Review of Environmental Factors (REF)

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

IDnumberMitigation measureand lead paint, would be identified by the contractor prior to the commencement <strong>of</strong> works.Procedures would be prepared for handling contaminated materials, including licensedcontractor involvement as required, record keeping, site personnel awareness and wastedisposal in accordance with Workcover requirements. Any unexpected finds would follow thesame procedures.Machinery would be checked daily to ensure that no oil, fuel or other liquids are leaking.Refuelling <strong>of</strong> plant and equipment would not be undertaken within the proposal site.Storage <strong>of</strong> chemicals or fuels would comply with relevant Australian Standards and MaterialSafety Data sheets. Spill kits would be provided on-site, and <strong>of</strong>f-site bunded areas would beestablished for liquid storage, managed in accordance with relevant guidelines, including theOEH’s guidelines:- Storing and Handling Liquids - <strong>Environmental</strong> protection participant’s manual (DECC2007)- <strong>Environmental</strong> Compliance Report Liquid Chemical Storage, Handling and SpillManagement Part B - <strong>Review</strong> <strong>of</strong> best practice and regulation (DEC 2005).Contingency plans would be developed to deal with any spills during removal works.All staff would be inducted in relation to the incident emergency procedures and made aware<strong>of</strong> the location <strong>of</strong> where the emergency spill kit would be kept.InfrastructureJ.1 Service searches and consultation with service providers would be undertaken by the contractorprior to commencing works to accurately locate services.J.2 Measures to minimise impacts to services would be developed in consultation with serviceproviders, including:marking services on plans and avoiding undertaking works in the vicinity <strong>of</strong> these servicesservice relocationtemporary connections.J.3 Works planning would take into consideration the potential for impacts on all infrastructure andservices. Work methods would be developed in consultation with service providers, and workswould be scheduled to minimise the potential for impacts to or on the use <strong>of</strong> infrastructure andservices.J.4 Any impacts to infrastructure and services would be made good by the contractor at thecompletion <strong>of</strong> works.J.5 Work being undertaken on or around infrastructure would be clearly signposted and appropriatelyfenced.Flora and faunaK.1 Any fauna species found inhabiting the proposal site would be removed and relocated by anappropriately qualified wildlife handler.K.2 Appropriate approvals would be sought from City <strong>of</strong> Sydney if any tree removal is required onDarling Drive.Aboriginal heritageL.1 <strong>Removal</strong> works and machinery would be restricted to the designated work areas.L.2 If an item or suspected item <strong>of</strong> indigenous heritage is discovered during works, all work in that areawould cease and the contractor or project manager would inform the Transport for NSW<strong>Environmental</strong> Manager as soon as possible to determine the appropriate course <strong>of</strong> action.CumulativeGHD | Transport for NSW - <strong>Monorail</strong> <strong>Removal</strong> <strong>Project</strong> <strong>REF</strong> | 139

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!