Maules Creek Sound Power Level Modification - Submissions ... · Maules Creek Coal Mine Sound Power...

MAULES CREEK COAL MINE

SOUND POWER LEVEL MODIFICATION

RESPONSE TO SUBMISSIONS REPORT

DECEMBER 2017 Project No. WHC-16-48

Document No. 00894734

Maules Creek Coal Mine Sound Power Level Modification – Response to Submissions Report

TABLE OF CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION 1 2 OVERVIEW OF THE EXHIBITED MODIFICATION 2 3 ANALYSIS OF SUBMISSIONS 4

3.1 OVERVIEW 4 3.2 SUMMARY OF GOVERNMENT AGENCY SUBMISSIONS 4 3.3 SUMMARY OF NON-GOVERNMENT ORGANISATION SUBMISSIONS 4 3.4 PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS 4 3.5 KEY ISSUES RAISED IN SUBMISSIONS 5

4 ACTIONS TAKEN FOLLOWING EXHIBITION OF ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 6 4.1 ENGAGEMENT ACTIVITIES 6 4.2 FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT 6

5 CHANGES TO THE MODIFICATION 7 6 RESPONSES TO SUBMISSIONS 8

6.1 PART A – RESPONSES TO GOVERNMENT AGENCY SUBMISSIONS 8 6.1.1 Noise Management 8 6.1.2 Government Policy 11

6.2 PART B – RESPONSES TO NON-GOVERNMENT ORGANISATION AND PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS 11 7 PROJECT EVALUATION 33 8 REFERENCES 34

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 Noise Management and Noise Monitoring Locations

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1 Responses to NGO and Public Submissions

LIST OF GRAPHS

Graph 1 Summary of All Submissions Graph 2 Summary of Public Submission Locations

LIST OF ATTACHMENTS

Attachment 1 Maules Creek Coal Project Sound Power Evaluation (Global Acoustics, 2017) Attachment 2 Register of NGO and Public Submitters Attachment 3 Plates

00894734 i


1 INTRODUCTION The Maules Creek Coal Mine (MCCM) is a joint venture between Aston Coal 2 Pty Limited (a wholly owned subsidiary of Whitehaven Coal Limited [Whitehaven]) (75 percent [%]), ITOCHU Corporation (15%) and J-Power Corporation Pty Limited (10%). The MCCM is managed by Maules Creek Coal Pty Ltd (MCC), a wholly owned subsidiary of Whitehaven. The approved MCCM includes the construction and operation of an open cut coal mine and associated infrastructure located approximately 50 kilometres (km) north-northeast of Gunnedah in New South Wales (NSW). The MCCM is approved to extract up to 13 million tonnes per annum (Mtpa) of run-of-mine (ROM) coal until the end of December 2034 in accordance with Project Approval 10_0138 and Commonwealth Approval EPBC 2010/5566. MCC (2017) prepared the Maules Creek Coal Mine Sound Power Level Modification Environmental Assessment (the EA) that is being assessed under the NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979 (EP&A Act). The EA was placed on public exhibition by the NSW Department of Planning and Environment (DP&E) from 28 September 2017 to 13 October 2017. During this period, Government agencies, Non-government organisations (NGOs), businesses and members of the public were invited to provide submissions on the EA to the DP&E. The DP&E has requested that MCC reviews and respond to the range of submissions that were received on the EA. MCC’s responses to submissions have been structured as follows: • Part A – Responses to Government agency submissions (Section 6.1).

• Part B – Responses to Non-Government Organisation (NGO) and Public Submissions (Section 6.2).

This Response to Submissions Report has been structured generally consistent with the Draft Environmental Impact Assessment Guidance Series June 2017 – Responding to Submissions (DP&E, 2017)

00894734 1


2 OVERVIEW OF THE EXHIBITED MODIFICATION The MCCM Project Approval (Project Approval 10_0138) includes a range of conditions relating to operational noise that protect the amenity of the community surrounding the MCCM. The conditions include: • The provision of mitigation or acquisition upon request for relevant noise affected receivers

(Conditions 2, 2A, 3, 8, 9 and 11, Schedule 3).

• Limits for the level of noise experienced at privately-owned residences (Conditions 7 and 10, Schedule 3).

• Requirements for the implementation of noise suppression/attenuation (Condition 12, Schedule 3).

• Requirements for annual testing of attenuated plant to maintain the effectiveness of attenuation (Condition 13).

• General operating conditions (Condition 15, Schedule 3), including requirements to:

− implement best management practices to minimise noise;

− operate a comprehensive noise management system;

− ensure attenuated plant is deployed preferentially in locations close to sensitive receivers;

− minimise noise impacts during meteorological conditions when the noise limits for the MCCM do not apply; and

− coordinate noise management with the mines within the Leard Forest Mining Precinct to minimise cumulative impacts.

• Preparation and implementation of a Noise Management Plan (Condition 16, Schedule 3) that addresses the above noise-related conditions.

The condition requiring the implementation of noise attenuation (i.e. Condition 12, Schedule 3) includes reference to the sound power levels (SWL) adopted for noise modelling purposes in the Maules Creek Coal Project Environmental Assessment (Hansen Bailey, 2011), requiring that all equipment at the MCCM delivers SWLs that are equal to or better than the SWLs assumed for the assessment conducted in 2011. Compliance with noise criteria at privately-owned receivers is not solely related to SWLs. Received noise levels are dependent on several factors in addition to the SWLs of equipment, including meteorological conditions, topography (e.g. shielding associated with natural or developed landforms), distance to receiver and operational mitigation measures. The Modification therefore proposes amendment of a single condition of Project Approval 10_0138, Condition 12a, Schedule 3, as follows:

The Proponent shall: (a) ensure that:

• all mining trucks and water carts used on the site are commissioned as noise suppressed (or attenuated) units;

• ensure that all equipment and noise control measures deliver sound power levels that are equal to or better than the sound power levels identified in the EA, and correspond to best practice or the application of the best available technology economically achievable;

• where reasonable and feasible, improvements are made to existing noise suppression equipment as better technologies become available; and

00894734 2


The Modification would remove an unnecessary constraint on the MCCM as well as duplicity within the Project Approval (i.e. the implementation of best practice noise management is prescribed by Condition 15, Schedule 3 of Project Approval 10_0138, which would remain unchanged), while maintaining conditions that protect the amenity of nearby private receivers. MCC would continue to operate the MCCM in accordance with all other noise-related conditions of Project Approval 10_0138, and the revised Condition 12a, including: • operating the MCCM noise management system;

• implementing noise management measures to facilitate compliance with noise criteria at privately-owned receivers;

• undertaking annual SWL testing of attenuated equipment;

• commissioning attenuated mining trucks and water carts; and

• improving noise attenuation equipment as better technologies become available. The Modification would therefore not lead to any material increases in noise levels received by the surrounding community.

00894734 3


3 ANALYSIS OF SUBMISSIONS

3.1 OVERVIEW A total of 116 submissions on the Modification were received from Government Agencies, NGOs, and members of the public. Graph 1 presents a summary of the number of submissions by submitter category.

Graph 1 Summary of All Submissions

3.2 SUMMARY OF GOVERNMENT AGENCY SUBMISSIONS A total of three submissions were received from NSW Government Agencies, all of which were in the form of comments or suggested conditions. It is noted that DP&E also provided a letter to MCC dated 17 October 2017 requesting a response to submissions report be prepared and submitted.

3.3 SUMMARY OF NON-GOVERNMENT ORGANISATION SUBMISSIONS A total of 16 submissions were received from NGOs, generally from environmental organisations. All of the submissions from NGOs objected to the Modification. A register categorising the issues raised within NGO submissions is included in Attachment 2.

3.4 PUBLIC SUBMISSIONS A total of 97 submissions were received from members of the public. All of the public submissions objected to the Modification. A register categorising the issues raised within public submissions is included in Attachment 2.

00894734 4


Locations of Public Submitters The locations of public submitters by locality are presented on Graph 2. Graph 2 indicates the majority of public submissions (approximately 57%) did not originate from the local area (i.e. Maules Creek, Boggabri and other nearby towns such as Gunnedah).

Graph 2 Summary of Public Submission Locations

3.5 KEY ISSUES RAISED IN SUBMISSIONS The most commonly raised issues or concerns in commenting or objecting submissions pertained to: • existing noise levels and noise management practices;

• the appropriateness of previous noise assessment for the MCCM;

• assessment of the noise impacts associated with the Modification; and

• the appropriateness of government policy and planning processes. A number of submissions were also received that raised concerns not directly linked to the Modification (e.g. greenhouse gas emissions).

00894734 5


4 ACTIONS TAKEN FOLLOWING EXHIBITION OF ENVIRONMENTAL

ASSESSMENT

4.1 ENGAGEMENT ACTIVITIES Since the lodgement of the application, MCC has met with the DP&E regarding the Modification on 26 October 2017. This meeting included a discussion of the range of concerns raised in the submissions, and MCC’s proposed approach to address key concerns. Both preceding and following submission of the EA, MCC has continued to engage with NSW regulatory agencies with respect to the ongoing regulation of the MCCM in the specific areas of regulatory agency responsibility. Since the lodgement of the application, a general meeting of the MCCM Community Consultative Committee (CCC) was held on 1 November 2017 which enabled engagement relating to the Modification. MCC provided further correspondence to the CCC regarding SWLs of MCCM equipment on 5 October during the exhibition period, in addition to a briefing letter provided on 12 September regarding the Modification.

4.2 FURTHER ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT No further environmental assessment has been required to address the submissions received on the EA. Notwithstanding, a review of MCCM SWLs conducted by Global Acoustics (2017), while not directly related to the Modification, included an assessment of the off-site contributions of plant with SWLs above those required by Condition 12a of Project Approval 10_0138 (Attachment 1). Of relevance to the Modification, Global Acoustics (2017) concluded:

Overall, this assessment concludes that providing attenuation to plant items that are higher than relevant NMP sound power targets would not significantly alter off site noise levels at private receiver locations, and further attenuation of these plant items is not reasonable or justified.

00894734 6


5 CHANGES TO THE MODIFICATION No changes to the proposed Modification are proposed as a result of MCC’s review of the various Government, NGO and public submissions on the Modification. A number of clarifications to address concerns that were raised on the basis of alternative interpretations of some figures or text in the EA are presented where relevant in Section 6.

00894734 7


6 RESPONSES TO SUBMISSIONS

6.1 PART A – RESPONSES TO GOVERNMENT AGENCY SUBMISSIONS Responses to issues raised by Government agencies are provided in the sub-sections below. The Gunnedah Shire Council had no specific queries or concerns regarding the Modification and therefore no specific response is required. Both the NSW Environmental Protection Authority (EPA) and Narrabri Shire Council provided specific comments regarding the Modification and these are addressed in the sub-sections below. Where relevant, supporting or generally positive comments from Government agencies are also referred to in the following subsections.

6.1.1 Noise Management Both the EPA and Narrabri Shire Council raised issues regarding noise management at the MCCM. It is noted that the EPA (2017a) in its submission on the Modification stated, consistent with the Modification EA, that:

Removing reference to sound power levels in condition 12(a) does not diminish or affect the expectation that noise generated at the site will be managed to ensure noise at all privately-owned residences will not exceed 35dB(A) LAeq(15min) during the day/evening/night period and 45 LA1(1min) during the night period.

In addition, the Narrabri Shire Council (2017) in its submission on the Modification stated:

Council does not raise objection to the principle on which the Modification is proposed. Achieving compliance with acceptable noise limits at private receivers is the critical measure of negative impacts on adjoining land owners.

Retain Elements of Condition 12a Relating to the Implementation of Best Practice Issue The EPA (2017a) recommended that instead of the proposed amendment to Condition 12a, Schedule 3 of Project Approval 10_0138, the portion of Condition 12a relating to the restriction of SWLs should be removed, however the portion relating to the implementation of best practice should be retained. Response The intent of removing this wording is to reduce duplication as similar wording already exists elsewhere in Project Approval 10_0138.

00894734 8


It is noted in addition to Condition 12a, Conditions 15a and 16b, Schedule 3 of Project Approval 10_0138 require the implementation of best practice:

15. The Proponent shall: (a) implement best management practice to minimise the construction, operational, low

frequency, road and rail traffic noise of the project; ... 16. The Proponent shall prepare and implement a Noise Management Plan for the project to the

satisfaction of the Secretary. This plan must: ... (b) describe the measures that would be implemented to ensure:

• best management practice is being employed; The Independent Environmental Audit required under Condition 10d, Schedule 5 of Project Approval 10_0138 also includes assessment of the implementation of best practice for noise management. As described in Section 4.2, a review of MCCM sound power levels conducted by Global Acoustics (2017), while not directly related to the Modification, included an assessment of the off-site contributions of plant with SWLs above those required by Condition 12a of Project Approval 10_0138 (Attachment 1). Global Acoustics (2017) relevantly concluded:


MCC therefore contends the Modification is well justified as it would remove duplicity in the Project Approval and would not significantly alter off-site noise levels at residences. Implementation of the New England North West Regional Plan 2036 Issue The Narrabri Shire Council (2017) requested the DP&E specify actions that would be initiated to deliver on the commitments in the New England North West Regional Plan 2036 including but not limited to ongoing independent and transparent monitoring of compliance with the noise related conditions of Project Approval 10_0138. Response MCC understands that this is a request made of the DP&E, however, notes and supports the implementation of the New England North West Regional Plan 2036. Attended noise monitoring to determine compliance with the noise criteria provided in Project Approval 10_0138 is conducted by noise specialists commissioned by MCC (i.e. MCC does not undertake the noise measurements that are used to confirm [or otherwise] compliance with the noise criteria provided in Project Approval 10_0138). The results of attended compliance monitoring are published on the MCCM website both monthly (in accordance with the requirements of Environment Protection Licence [EPL] 20221) and annually in the Annual Review, in accordance with Condition 4, Schedule 5 of Project Approval 10_0138. Results are also provided to the MCCM CCC on a quarterly basis.

00894734 9


Noise Mitigation Measures Issue The Narrabri Shire Council (2017) states that Project Approval 10_0138 should include conditions that require MCC to implement noise mitigation measures, including attenuation of plant, as required, to achieve compliance with the noise criteria. Response MCC suggests this concept is already included in the conditions of Project Approval 10_0138. The intent of the Modification is to reduce duplication as similar wording already exists elsewhere in the Project Approval. MCC would continue to operate the noise management system required by Condition 15b, Schedule 3 of Project Approval 10_0138 and implement noise management measures to facilitate compliance at private receivers in accordance with Project Approval 10_0138 (i.e. Conditions 7 and 10, Schedule 3 of Project Approval 10_0138). Furthermore, MCC would continue to operate in accordance with the revised Condition 12a, Schedule 3 of Project Approval 10_0138 by: • commissioning all trucks and water carts for use on-site as noise suppressed (or attenuated)

units; and

• continuing to make improvements to existing noise suppression equipment as improved technologies become available where reasonable and feasible.

MCC would also continue to undertake annual SWL testing of attenuated plant in accordance with Condition 13a, Schedule 3 of Project Approval 10_0138. Applicable Meteorological Conditions Issue The Narrabri Shire Council (2017) requests the DP&E consider meteorological conditions that may increase noise levels during assessment of the Modification and ensure that the conditions of consent include acceptable noise levels at private receivers under an appropriate range of meteorological conditions. Response In accordance with Condition 17, Schedule 3 of Project Approval 10_0138, G class inversions presently apply to the measurement of noise at the MCCM. It is also noted the Noise Policy for Industry (NPfI) (EPA, 2017b) includes new noise level limits for very noise enhancing meteorological conditions1 based on the limit derived under standard or noise-enhancing conditions (whichever is adopted in the assessment) plus 5 dB.

1 Meteorological conditions outside of the range of either standard or noise-enhancing meteorological conditions as adopted in the noise impact assessment.

00894734 10


6.1.2 Government Policy Exhibition Period Issue The Narrabri Shire Council (2017) raised concern regarding the length of the exhibition period of the Modification. Response MCC understands this is a comment addressed to the DP&E. Better Communication of Specific Planning Issues Issue The Narrabri Shire Council (2017) stated that the EA report submitted with the Modification included complex technical information that is difficult for the majority of the community to understand. The Narrabri Shire Council therefore requested that specific planning issues be communicated in a format that the public can understand. Response It is understood that this comment is addressed to the DP&E. Notwithstanding, MCC will continue to make relevant detail available to the public and to present technical detail in plain English, where possible. MCCM also met with representatives of the Narrabri Shire Council on 24 July 2017 to provide a simplified overview of the Modification. Noise Policy - Background Levels used for Assessment Purposes Issue The Narrabri Shire Council (2017) requested the DP&E explain the appropriateness of applying the methods described in the Industrial Noise Policy (INP) (EPA, 2000) and the NPfI (EPA, 2017b) to rural areas, particularly in relation to background noise levels. Response MCC understands this is a comment addressed to the DP&E. Notwithstanding, MCC notes the NSW EPA website2 includes additional background information, application notes and frequently asked questions in regard to the INP (EPA, 2000) and the NPfI (EPA, 2017b). 6.2 PART B – RESPONSES TO NON-GOVERNMENT ORGANISATION AND PUBLIC

SUBMISSIONS Responses to issues or concerns raised by businesses, NGOs and the general public are addressed in Table 1. Attachment 2 provides a reconciliation of the submissions received from NGOs and members of the public including the locality of the submitters.

2 https://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/your-environment/noise/industrial-noise

00894734 11


Table 1

Responses to NGOs and Public Submissions Issue

ID Raised

by Subject Issues Raised Response

01 NGOs, Public

Noise

Concerns that the EA has not considered noise impacts associated with the Modification.

Concerns that the EA does not provide justification for the Modification.

As described in detail in Section 2, the MCCM Project Approval (Project Approval 10_0138) includes a number of noise-related conditions that protect the amenity of the community surrounding the MCCM.

The Modification seeks amendment of a single condition of Project Approval 10_0138, and MCC would continue to operate the MCCM in accordance with all other noise-related conditions of Project Approval 10_0138, including: • operating the MCCM noise management system;

• implementing noise management measures to facilitate compliance with noise criteria at privately-owned receivers;

• undertaking annual SWL testing of attenuated equipment;

• commissioning attenuated mining trucks and water carts; and

• improving noise attenuation equipment as better technologies become available.

As described in Section 4.2, a review of MCCM sound power levels conducted by Global Acoustics (2017), while not directly related to the Modification, included an assessment of the off-site contributions of plant with SWLs above those required by Condition 12a of Project Approval 10_0138 (Attachment 1). Global Acoustics (2017) relevantly concluded:


As highlighted in Section 6.1.1, both the EPA (2017a) and the Narrabri Shire Council (2017) concurred with the justification for the Modification provided in the EA. That is, compliance with the noise criteria provided in Conditions 7 and 10, Schedule 3 of Project Approval 10_0138, which protect the amenity of privately-owned receivers, is not dependent on any constraints on the SWLs of mobile equipment or fixed plant.

The Modification would therefore not lead to any material increases in noise levels received by the surrounding community.

00894734 12


Issue ID

Raised by Subject Issues Raised Response

02 NGOs, Public

Noise Concerns that existing noise (including low frequency) impacts on the community and nearby receivers are already unacceptable, are affecting amenity, and would worsen with the Modification.

Concerns that properties are not included in the affectation zone and experiencing impacts greater than 35 dBA.

As described in detail in Section 2 and in response to Issue 01, the MCCM would continue to be operated in accordance with a number of noise-related conditions within Project Approval 10_0138 that protect the amenity of the community surrounding the MCCM, and the Modification would not lead to any material increases in noise levels received by the surrounding community.

The LAeq,15min3 noise performance shows a strong record of compliance (i.e. only a single

1 A-weighted decibel [dBA] exceedance of the 15 min criteria [without the low frequency noise modifying factor adjustment] due to mine-only noise contribution) between August 2014 to June 2017 as described below:

• On 22 April 2015 there was a single 1 dBA exceedance of the relevant criterion. An investigation revealed that exhaust and engine noise from the MCCM was responsible.

• In accordance with the discussion in Section 11.1.3 of the INP (EPA, 2000), an exceedance of up to 2 dBA above a consent condition is not considered to be a non-compliance. Notwithstanding, this result was reported to the DP&E and EPA (MCC, 2016).

• No other exceedances resulted without the application of the modifying factor adjustment for low frequency in the NSW INP.

Conditions 1 and 2, Schedule 3 of Project Approval 10_0138 describe the land surrounding the MCCM subject to acquisition upon request (i.e. the affectation zone). EMM Consulting (2016), as part of the Mandatory Environmental Audit, confirmed that no additional properties are located within the 35 dBA contour in the Maules Creek Coal Project Environmental Assessment (Hansen Bailey, 2011).

3A-weighted equivalent continuous sound level over a 15 min period.

00894734 13


Issue ID


03 NGOs, Public

Noise Concerns that the existing noise monitoring regime:

• is unacceptable;

• is not conducted frequently enough;

• is not transparent;

• has been falsified;

• is conducted when mining equipment has been turned off; and

• has had different monitoring results compared to the Maules Creek Community Noise Pilot Study.

MCC operates a comprehensive onsite noise management system as described in the NMP. The noise management system utilises a combination of predictive noise and meteorological forecasting and real-time noise monitoring data to guide day to day planning of mining operations.

The compliance noise monitoring program (i.e. attended monitoring) is undertaken in accordance with the relevant conditions of Project Approval 10_0138 and EPL 20221 by noise specialists. Monitoring results are provided to the MCCM CCC and are included in publicly available reports on the MCCM website, such as Annual Reviews and monthly EPL monitoring summaries.

The noise monitoring regime was reviewed by EMM Consulting (Mr Najah Ishaac) as part of the Mandatory Environmental Audit. The EPA’s audit summary relevantly states (emphasis added) (EPA, 2017c):

During the site inspections the auditor observed pit and maintenance operations, inspected noise attenuation installed on mobile plant, the supervision of staff and communications protocols between various personnel, and the real time noise monitoring hardware and systems and processes. The audit found that these meet good industry practice.

Based on observations on site and examples inspected, it is considered that plant maintenance is suitable and effective, and serves to ensure plant are in good working order and noise emission specifications are likely to be met...

Noise detection systems include real time unattended and attended noise monitoring conducted on a monthly basis and in accordance with the site's EPL. The methods and communication procedures in the event of an exceedance are also used to control the site's emissions to within noise limits. The audit found these meet good industry practice.

The site adopts pre-emptive meteorological forecasting to assess potential for impacts 48 hours in advance. Implementation of further preventative maintenance and inspection programs is not required to remedying noise concerns, notwithstanding the recommendations in the audit report.

MCC has reviewed the Maules Creek Community Noise Pilot Study, and notes that whilst the study includes additional data to that obtained by MCC, there are no new outcomes or conclusions in respect of the MCCM’s acoustic performance from MCC’s review.

04 NGOs, Public

Noise Concerns that the MCCM has breached conditions of approval which it is currently required to comply with.

Concerns that the statement that MCCM has a strong record of compliance is false.

Concerns that the MCCM has been placed on Level 3 risk and should not be allowed concessions.

The LAeq,15min noise performance shows a strong record of compliance (i.e. only a single 1 dBA exceedance of the 15 min criteria [without the low frequency noise modifying factor adjustment] due to mine-only noise contribution) between August 2014 to June 2017.

The EPA’s risk characterisation of the MCCM is not relevant to Project Approval 10_0138 and in particular, the scope of the Modification.

00894734 14


Issue ID


05 NGOs, Public

Noise Concerns that the MCCM does not currently implement enough noise management and mitigation measures.

Concerns that requirements of Condition 12a are proving to be an effective proactive management measure. Concerns that other existing noise management and mitigation measures are reactive and not proactive.

The noise monitoring regime was reviewed by EMM Consulting as part of the independent Mandatory Environmental Audit. The EPA’s audit summary relevantly states (emphasis added) (EPAc, 2017):

During the site inspections the auditor observed pit and maintenance operations, inspected noise attenuation installed on mobile plant, the supervision of staff and communications protocols between various personnel, and the real time noise monitoring hardware and systems and processes. The audit found that these meet good industry practice.

MCC undertakes proactive noise management via real-time controls activated by noise triggers. The current real-time management actions in response to triggers (which are subject to change over time) include:

• Confirming that the prevailing weather conditions are relevant in accordance with Project Approval 10_0138 and EPL 20221 and that the noise criteria apply.

• Recording observations and reviewing available real-time audio.

• If MCCM noise is audible:

− Reviewing predicted weather conditions to identify if noise enhancing conditions are forecast for the rest of the shift.

− Reviewing predicted noise impacts for the shift against actual observations.

− Monitoring changes in noise levels.

− Reviewing noise generating activities and make preparations for moving into an acoustically protected area or temporarily shutting down equipment if noise levels remain elevated.

Recording and notifying the environment department and relevant production personnel of the trigger, including details of the investigation, type of response (if any required), real-time monitoring results and any actions taken.

06 NGOs, Public

Noise

Concerns that the MCCM should be held to previous commitments made in the EA and specified in the project approval.

Concerns that removing commitments as a solution to non-compliance is unacceptable.


As highlighted in Section 6.1.1 and in response to Issue 01, both the EPA (2017a) and the Narrabri Shire Council (2017) concurred with the justification for the Modification provided in the EA. That is, compliance with the noise criteria, which protect the amenity of privately-owned receivers, is not dependent on any constraints on the SWLs of mobile equipment or fixed plant.

00894734 15


Issue ID


07 NGOs, Public

Noise Concerns that the removal of Condition 12a is not in line with Whitehaven’s commitments to reviewing plant and equipment to reduce noise, and does not support continual improvement.

Consistent with Whitehaven’s commitments to reviewing plant and equipment to reduce noise and continual improvement, and as highlighted in Section 2 and in response to Issue 01, MCC would continue to operate in accordance with the revised Condition 12a, Schedule 3 of Project Approval 10_0138 by:

• commissioning all trucks and water carts for use on-site as noise suppressed (or attenuated) units; and

• continuing to make improvements to existing noise suppression equipment as improved technologies become available where reasonable and feasible.

Annual SWL testing of attenuated plant would also continue to be undertaken in accordance with Condition 13, Schedule 3 of Project Approval 10_0138.

Examples of noise mitigation installed are shown in Plates 1 – 3 (Attachment 3).

08 NGOs, Public

Noise Concerns that noise modelling in the original EA was inaccurate, misleading and unacceptable.

The original Maules Creek Coal Project Environmental Assessment Noise Impact Assessment was reviewed by Mr Najah Ishaac (EMM Consulting) as part of the independent Mandatory Environmental Audit. The EPA’s audit summary relevantly states (emphasis added) (EPAc, 2017):

The EA Acoustic Impact Assessment (AIA) (Bridges 2011) was reviewed as part of the audit and found to have been prepared in general accordance with the noise policies and guidelines which were relevant at the time of the assessment. Further, the AIA is generally considered to provide an adequate and fair representation of noise and vibration levels for assessment purposes at the planning stage. The audit found that the EA AIA is considered adequate.

...

A noise model validation exercise was completed as part of the audit. The results of the measured to modelled validation demonstrates the following:

• the measured to modelled comparisons for the four validation readings show strong correlation of between 1 dB to 2 dB;

• the EA meteorology was adopted in the validated model and results compared to EA Year 1 (the closest available operations to 2015 and 2016). The EA only provided predictions at a limited set of receivers and hence only one receiver of the validated model locations, location 108, was able to be compared. This comparison shows that the EA is within 1 dB (underestimates) of the calibrated model and hence in good agreement; and

• in summary the modelling tools used by the company is demonstrated to be in good agreement with measured data used for validation purposes as part of the audit and therefore presented predictions are considered within acceptable accuracy.

00894734 16


Issue ID


09 NGOs, Public

Noise Concerns that noise conditions should not be relaxed because peak noise levels would occur in the next twelve months and the mine is progressing closer to residences.

Concerns regarding noise from exploration activities to the north of the approved MCCM, and that MCC would seek further approvals for a northern extension of the MCCM in the future.


The extent of the mine is already at its approved northern limit (i.e. because the northern overburden emplacement area is already at its northern limits). MCC acknowledges that overburden emplacement has not reached the western limit of the approved emplacement, however development of the overburden emplacement in this area would continue to be undertaken in accordance with the exiting noise criteria at privately-owned receivers. In addition, the mining operation has progressed to the extent that some acoustic benefit could be derived from in-pit overburden emplacement opportunities, and a portion of the northern overburden emplacement area within the Travelling Stock Reserve would provide additional overburden emplacement opportunities which may also provide some acoustic benefit.

Figure 1 shows the general location of the abovementioned areas.

Exploration activities are undertaken during the daytime only and in accordance with any exploration approval conditions. This Modification does not propose any expansion of mining activities at the MCCM.

10 NGOs, Public

Noise Concerns that operations at the MCCM should not occur during night time hours.

Concerns that noise conditions are unacceptable during night time hours.

The MCCM is approved to operate 24 hours per day, seven days per week. Noise generated by the MCCM during the night-time is regulated by the night-time noise limits in Conditions 7 and 10, Schedule 3 of Project Approval 10_0138, which would not be changed for the Modification.

The LAeq,15min noise performance shows a strong record of compliance (i.e. only a single 1 dBA exceedance of the 15 min criteria [without the low frequency noise modifying factor adjustment] due to mine-only noise contribution) between August 2014 to June 2017.

00894734 17


Issue ID


11 NGOs, Public

Noise Concerns that the existing SWLs of fleet at the MCCM are unacceptable and may be allowed to worsen with the Modification.

It noted that the total site SWL (i.e. including mobile plant), based on the recorded SWLs and number of operating plant in 2016 (as documented in the 2016 Annual Review [MCC, 2017]), is approximately 3.6 dBA less than the total site SWL derived using the indicative levels and equipment numbers adopted for the modelling of Year 5 in the Maules Creek Coal Project Environmental Assessment (Hansen Bailey, 2011) (Year 5 was the worst-case year modelled in the Maules Creek Coal Project Environmental Assessment).

The total site SWL (i.e. the logarithmic sum of the individual SWLs for each item of plant) was estimated to be 135.1 dBA for 2016 operating plant (with operational controls incorporated) and 138.7 dBA based on the equipment numbers and SWLs assumed in the Maules Creek Coal Project Environmental Assessment noise modelling). At peak production of 13 Mtpa, the total site SWL is currently forecast to be about 136 dBA. It should be noted the total site SWL is an estimate of the potential total noise generated if all equipment was located in the same position, and does not reflect the spatial distribution of equipment or potential noise received at privately-owned receivers.

This analysis assists to demonstrate that a focus on reducing SWLs for individual items to the indicative levels adopted for modelling purposes in the Creek Coal Project Environmental Assessment does not reflect the reality of noise performance or how best to achieve effective noise performance, and reinforces that predictive modelling includes a level of conservatism with a tendency to over-predict potential noise impacts.

Notwithstanding, MCC has adopted a proactive and targeted approach to plant noise reduction to reduce noise levels of plant having the most effect at receptors (e.g. trucks travelling to the overburden dump, which is closer to receptors most affected by operational noise, thereby providing the most effective reduction in experienced noise at these receptors).

Attachment 3 shows acoustic screening that has been installed by MCC at the train load-out.

00894734 18


Issue ID


12 NGOs, Public

Noise Concerns the Coal Processing Plant (CPP) has not been properly engineered to reduce noise impacts and does not represent best available technology economically achievable.

The SWL of the CPP, as measured during the 2015 SWL testwork, has been found to exceed the indicative SWLs in the Maules Creek Coal Project Environmental Assessment (Hansen Bailey, 2011) (by 8 dBA for the south-east facade and 3 dBA for the north-west facade).

MCC has recently completed screening and panel installation at the CPP (Attachment 3).

As described in the EA, while some individual components of the CPP have measured SWLs higher than the levels assumed for modelling in the Maules Creek Coal Project Environmental Assessment (Hansen Bailey, 2011), the total SWL for the CPP is generally consistent with the total SWL for the CPP derived from the assumed SWLs.

Global Acoustics (2017) reviewed site SWLs and assessed whether complying with the Maules Creek Coal Project Environmental Assessment SWLs would make a material difference to total site SWLs. Global Acoustics (2017) concluded:

Investigation of these items showed that reducing the sound power of each item to NMP sound power target levels would not make a significant difference to site total sound power, or, to noise levels received at off site private receiver locations. The maximum estimated reduction to off site noise levels is 0.2 dB. Such reductions are insignificant, indicating further attenuation of these plant items is not reasonable or justified;

00894734 19


Issue ID


13 NGOs, Public

Noise Concerns that the 2 dB ‘negligible’ exceedance results in the MCCM operating to a 37 dBA management level, rather than 35 dBA.

While the issue raised is not of direct relevance to the scope of the Modification, MCC notes the premise of the issue raised is incorrect. MCC’s noise management triggers are set below 35 dBA, as described in the NMP (2016 revision). The current real-time management actions in response to triggers (which are subject to change over time) include:

• Confirming that the prevailing weather conditions are relevant in accordance with Project Approval 10_0138 and EPL 20221 and that the noise criteria apply.

• Recording observations and reviewing available real-time audio.

• If MCCM noise is audible:

− Reviewing predicted weather conditions to identify if noise enhancing conditions are forecast for the rest of the shift.

− Reviewing predicted noise impacts for the shift against actual observations.

− Monitoring changes in noise levels.

− Reviewing noise generating activities and make preparations for moving into an acoustically protected area or temporarily shutting down equipment if noise levels remain elevated.

• Recording and notifying the environment department and relevant production personnel of the trigger, including details of the investigation, type of response (if any required), real-time monitoring results and any actions taken.

As described in response to Issue 03, the compliance noise monitoring program (i.e. attended monitoring) is undertaken in accordance with the relevant conditions of Project Approval 10_0138 and EPL 20221 by noise specialists.

00894734 20


Issue ID


14 NGOs, Public

Noise

Concerns regarding the 5 dB low frequency noise modifying factor adjustment.

While the issue raised is not of direct relevance to the scope of the Modification, MCC notes until October 2017, noise monitoring at the MCCM has considered the application of the low frequency noise modifying factor adjustment stipulated in the INP (EPA, 2000). This modifying factor adjustment is triggered where the difference between ‘C’ and ‘A’ weighted decibels is greater than 15 dB, whereby a 5 dB (upward) adjustment is made to the attended monitoring result.

The INP system for establishing the low frequency modifying factor is not considered a scientifically valid method for determining low frequency noise.

In October 2017, the EPA released the NPfI. Within this document, a revised method of low frequency noise assessment is proposed based on:

• the measurement of overall ‘C’ weighted and ‘A’ weighted level; and

• one-third octave measurements in the range 10–160 Hertz (Hz), with the one-third octave measurements based on the DEFRA curve method.

Two penalties (5 dB and 2 dB) are nominated in the NPfI, depending on one-third octave measurements. From October 2017, all attended noise monitoring conducted at the MCCM will consider the revised low frequency noise methodology in the NPfI.

Notwithstanding, operational measures to manage noise will remain in place as described in Section 2.3.2 of the EA and in response to Issue 05.

00894734 21


Issue ID


15 NGOs, Public

Noise Concerns regarding the reporting of exceedances during G class inversions.

Concerns regarding noise management of the MCCM during G class inversions.

Other concerns regarding inversions and impacts to noise levels.

While the issue raised is not of direct relevance to the scope of the Modification, MCC notes in accordance with Condition 17, Schedule 3, G class inversions presently apply to the measurement of noise.

The application of G class inversions was reviewed as part of the independent Mandatory Environmental Audit (EMM Consulting, 2016):

It is therefore recommended that project approval Schedule 3 Condition 17 (and the relevant sections of the EPL) be modified to the following:

The noise criteria in project approval Schedule 3 Table 3 and Table 5 are to apply under all meteorological conditions except the following:

i) average wind speeds greater than 3 m/s measured at 10 m above ground level;

ii) atmospheric stability class G temperature inversion conditions; and

iii) temperature inversion conditions of atmospheric stability class F and wind speeds greater than 2 m/s at 10 m above ground level.

Consistent with the above, MCC has sought endorsement from EPA and DP&E to exclude G class inversions as described in Condition 17, Schedule 3. The outcome of the process is currently pending.

It is also noted that the NPfI (EPA, 2017b) includes new noise level limits for very noise enhancing meteorological conditions based on the limit derived under standard or noise-enhancing conditions (whichever is adopted in the assessment) plus 5 dB.

16 NGOs, Public

Noise Concerns that noise filtering required for noise monitoring (e.g. to achieve dBA monitoring) is being applied incorrectly.

While the issue raised is not of direct relevance to the scope of the Modification, MCC notes, as described in response to Issue 03, the compliance noise monitoring program (i.e. attended monitoring) is undertaken in accordance with the relevant conditions of Project Approval 10_0138 and EPL 20221 by noise specialists (i.e. measurements are undertaken by suitably qualified personnel).

In regard to the site real-time noise monitoring, results at Maules Creek are displayed on MCC’s website (https://www.whitehavencoal.com.au/environment/maules_creek_site_monitoring_reporting.cfm), noise levels are filtered as described in the note on the website:

LF is the estimated equivalent mining noise (LA90 + 3db) (LF = low frequency for band pass 20-630 Hz).

The results are filtered to exclude the influence of excessive wind speed (> 3m/s) and rainfall.

00894734 22

https://www.whitehavencoal.com.au/environment/maules_creek_site_monitoring_reporting.cfm


Issue ID


17 NGOs Noise Concerns that the objectives and actions of the New England North West Regional Plans have not been met/undertaken.

MCC understands that this is a request made of the DP&E however notes and supports the implementation of the New England North West Regional Plans.

18 NGOs, Public

Noise Concerns that modelling was not conducted for the Modification, or that noise modelling results (e.g. from the Mandatory Environmental Audit or modelling commissioned in 2016) are not presented.

As described in Section 4.2, a review of MCCM sound power levels conducted by Global Acoustics (2017), while not directly related to the Modification, included an assessment of the off-site contributions of plant with SWLs above those required by Condition 12a of Project Approval 10_0138. Global Acoustics relevantly concluded:


19 NGOs, Public

Noise Concerns that Condition 12a was included in the development consent to recognise the impact of mining where background noise levels are below 30 dB.

Concerns regarding the adoption of higher background levels than the pre-mining environment, which has allowed SWLs to be louder than required without exceedances at receivers.

The Planning Assessment Commission (PAC, 2012) does not link Condition 12a to background noise levels, as described in the excerpt below:

The underlying issue is the magnitude of the impact experienced at rural residences if the Department’s approach of acquisition at ≥ 5 dB(A) above the PSNL is adopted. Because the background noise level in rural areas is typically difficult to measure, a default value of 30 dB(A) is allowed to be used rather than a measured background. This means that the PSNL is set at 35 dB(A) and the acquisition right at 40 dB(A). The real background is often much lower than 30 dB(A), which means the difference in perceived noise at the residence is often much greater than 10 dB(A), particularly in the evenings and at night, when the difference may be 20 dB(A) or more. At these noise levels a difference of 10 dB(A) is approximately a doubling of the noise. The Commission considers that imposition of this level of impact on rural residences without providing an acquisition option is unacceptable.

20 NGOs, Public

Noise Concerns that the Mandatory Environmental Audit has been a result of multiple complaints and noise exceedances.

While the issue raised is not of direct relevance to the scope of the Modification, MCC notes that in response to community feedback in late 2015, MCC proposed to conduct a voluntary noise audit.

However, the EPA elected to undertake this voluntary initiative as an independent Mandatory Environmental Audit of EPL 20221. In issuing the draft audit requirements on 15 December 2015, EPA stated:

While EPA agrees with the principle of the proposed voluntary audit, the EPA believes a Mandatory Audit is more appropriate. This will be a more transparent process and will provide the community with surety that the audit will be fully independent.

The independent Mandatory Environmental Audit was undertaken in 2016 and the key findings are presented on the EPA’s website.

00894734 23


Issue ID


21 NGOs Noise Concerns that the Mandatory Environmental Audit found that the mine was employing “good” rather than “best” industry practice (i.e. as required by Condition 15a).

While the issue raised is not of direct relevance to the scope of the Modification, MCC notes the independent Mandatory Environmental Audit was undertaken for the purposes of the EPL and was not an audit against Project Approval conditions. Therefore, this was not an audit in relation to Condition 15a, Schedule 3:

During the site audit systems, procedures and control measures that affect noise emissions were examined and reviewed against good practice for the mining industry in the context of relevant conditions within the Protection of the Environment Operations (POEO) Act that relate to offensive noise.

22 NGOs Noise Concerns that a detailed assessment of plant with SWL remaining above EA levels, including assessment of each item’s off-site noise contribution, has not been undertaken.

As described in Section 4.2 and in response to Issue 18, a review of MCCM sound power levels conducted by Global Acoustics (2017), while not directly related to the Modification, included an assessment of the off-site contributions of plant with SWLs above those required by Condition 12a of Project Approval 10_0138. Global Acoustics relevantly concluded:


23 NGOs, Public

Noise Concerns that the advisory letter, show cause letters, and subsequent responses and action plans from the proponent have not been released.

MCC complies with its various responsibilities and requests from the EPA and DP&E. The EPL, annual returns, Mandatory Environmental Audit findings and penalty notices are available on the EPA’s website (www.epa.nsw.gov.au). Public availability of other material is a matter of the EPA and DP&E.

24 NGOs, Public

Noise Concerns that MCC should meet the current Condition 12a requirements regardless of actual noise levels at receivers and the cost to implement measures to achieve these requirements.

As described in Section 4.2 and in response to Issues 18 and 22, a review of MCCM sound power levels conducted by Global Acoustics (2017), while not directly related to the Modification, included an assessment of the off-site contributions of plant with SWLs above those required by Condition 12a of Project Approval 10_0138. Global Acoustics relevantly concluded (emphasis added):


In addition, MCC notes, as highlighted in Section 6.1.1, both the EPA (2017a) and the Narrabri Shire Council (2017) concurred with the justification for the Modification provided in the EA. That is, compliance with the noise criteria provided in Conditions 7 and 10, Schedule 3 of Project Approval 10_0138, which protect the amenity of privately-owned receivers, is not dependent on any constraints on the SWLs of mobile equipment or fixed plant.

00894734 24

http://www.epa.nsw.gov.au/


Issue ID


25 NGOs Noise Concerns that Aston/Whitehaven has previously stated (in the response to submissions prepared for the EA SWLs) that the SWLs modelled in the original assessment incorporated feasible and reasonable noise control measures that should therefore be economically achievable.

Global Acoustics (2017) reviewed site SWLs and assessed whether complying with the EA SWLs would make a material difference to total site SWLs. Global Acoustics (2017) concluded:

Investigation of these items showed that reducing the sound power of each item to NMP sound power target levels would not make a significant difference to site total sound power, or, to noise levels received at off site private receiver locations. The maximum estimated reduction to off site noise levels is 0.2 dB. Such reductions are insignificant, indicating further attenuation of these plant items is not reasonable or justified;

26 NGOs Noise Concerns that noise monitoring has not been undertaken in accordance with the INP as specified in Condition 7 of the consent.

The compliance noise monitoring program (i.e. attended monitoring) is undertaken in accordance with the relevant conditions of Project Approval 10_0138 and EPL 20221 by noise specialists (i.e. measurements are undertaken by suitably qualified personnel).

Attended monitoring was reviewed as part of the independent Mandatory Environmental Audit. EMM Consulting (2016) concluded:

Attended noise monitoring is conducted on a monthly basis and in accordance with the site's EPL. A detailed review of the reports on attended noise monitoring is provided in Section 3.3.1. The methods and communication procedures in the event of an exceedance are also used to control the site's emissions to within noise limits. In my professional opinion these meet good industry practice.

27 NGOs Noise Concerns that the Mandatory Environmental Audit identified several properties/receivers which have not been modelled or assessed.

While the issue raised is not of direct relevance to the scope of the Modification, MCC notes these receivers and has since undertaken extensive field observations to confirm receivers in the region. In reference to the newly identified receivers not owned by MCC, the Mandatory Environmental Audit Report (2016) notes these are “not within the 35 dB noise contour shown in EA Figure 16”. These will be incorporated in future noise modelling of the MCCM.

00894734 25


Issue ID


28 NGOs Noise Concerns that the SWLs of fleet have never been independently validated.

Site SWL monitoring is conducted by Global Acoustics. SWL testwork was reviewed in the independent Mandatory Environmental Audit. EMM Consulting (2016) concluded (emphasis added):

Based on my site observations of plant operations and operator practices, review of maintenance logs and the age and condition of plant, there is no evidence that activities are not being carried out in a competent manner. Plant and equipment appear to be maintained and operated in a proper and efficient way. Therefore these exceedances are a combination of some low sound levels being adopted in the EA and the selection of site plant and equipment. The resulting off-site noise levels are addressed elsewhere in this audit report.

…

For plant remaining above EA levels, provide a detailed assessment of each item's noise contributions at noise sensitive locations (using modelling and monitoring that includes a spectral analysis) to determine whether rectification work would result in total site noise being reduced. If it can be demonstrated that contributions from these do not alter total off site noise at privately owned residences then no further action is required. Where this is not the case, rectification on some or all plant, based on a prioritised list, should be completed until this offsite contribution can be satisfied.

MCC contends that the modelling undertaken by Global Acoustics shows that there are no material offsite consequences of the higher SWLs relative to the Maules Creek Coal Project Environmental Assessment, and that therefore, consistent with the findings of the independent Mandatory Environmental Audit, no further action is required.

29 NGOs Noise Concerns that SWL testing is necessary to ensure that best noise levels and outcomes continue to be achieved.

Concerns that removing Condition 12a would remove the requirements of annual testing of any plant that is not attenuated (i.e. some equipment would be excluded from testing if the Modification is approved).

As described in detail in Section 2 and in response to Issue 01, the MCCM would continue to be operated in accordance with a number of noise-related conditions within Project Approval 10_0138 that protect the amenity of the community surrounding the MCCM, including the amended Condition 12a and annual SWL testing in accordance with Condition 13a, Schedule 3 of Project Approval 10_0138.

30 NGOs Noise Requests that the proponent provide historic and real-time unattended noise monitoring results on the MCCM website, including weather conditions at the time of monitoring.

While the issue raised is not of direct relevance to the scope of the Modification, MCC notes in accordance with EPA requirements, MCC commissioned EMM Consulting to undertake the independent Mandatory Environmental Audit. In addition, monthly attended monitoring results and daily real-time results at Maules Creek are displayed on MCC’s website.

31 NGOs Noise Concerns regarding the time lag of annual reporting. While the issue raised is not of direct relevance to the scope of the Modification, MCC notes Condition 4, Schedule 5 of Project Approval 10_0138 requires that the Annual Review is prepared by March each year. MCC complies with the stipulated timeframe.

00894734 26


Issue ID


32 Public Noise Concerns that unique local topography and meteorological conditions (including temperature inversions) have not been properly modelled or assessed.

While the issue raised is not of direct relevance to the scope of the Modification, MCC notes local topography is included in the noise model and meteorological effects are incorporated in accordance with the INP.

The original Maules Creek Coal Project Environmental Assessment Noise Impact Assessment was reviewed by Mr Najah Ishaac (EMM Consulting) as part of the independent Mandatory Environmental Audit. The EPA’s audit summary relevantly states (emphasis added) (EPA, 2017b):

The EA Acoustic Impact Assessment (AIA) (Bridges 2011) was reviewed as part of the audit and found to have been prepared in general accordance with the noise policies and guidelines which were relevant at the time of the assessment. Further, the AIA is generally considered to provide an adequate and fair representation of noise and vibration levels for assessment purposes at the planning stage. The audit found that the EA AIA is considered adequate.

...

A noise model validation exercise was completed as part of the audit. The results of the measured to modelled validation demonstrates the following:

• the measured to modelled comparisons for the four validation readings show strong correlation of between 1 dB to 2 dB;

• the EA meteorology was adopted in the validated model and results compared to EA Year 1 (the closest available operations to 2015 and 2016). The EA only provided predictions at a limited set of receivers and hence only one receiver of the validated model locations, location 108, was able to be compared. This comparison shows that the EA is within 1 dB (underestimates) of the calibrated model and hence in good agreement; and

• in summary the modelling tools used by the company is demonstrated to be in good agreement with measured data used for validation purposes as part of the audit and therefore presented predictions are considered within acceptable accuracy.

00894734 27


Issue ID


33 NGOs, Public

Health Concerns that health impacts (i.e. impacts from sleep disturbance) on the community are unacceptable and would worsen with the Modification.


EMM Consulting (2016) reviewed site noise monitoring results in respect to sleep disturbance and concluded:

To date, the sleep disturbance noise limit in the project approval and EPL has rarely been breached according to the 19 attended compliance monitoring reports reviewed in this audit. One breach of the sleep disturbance limit of 1 dB was recorded in June 2015 at NM4 (refer to Table 3.1).

34 NGOs, Public

Community Concerns that issues raised by the community are being ignored by the MCCM and the government.

Concerns that the noise impacts on the community from the MCCM operations are forcing residents to leave the local area.

In response to community feedback in late 2015, MCC proposed to conduct a voluntary noise audit.

The EPA elected to undertake this voluntary initiative as an independent Mandatory Environmental Audit on EPL 20221. In issuing the draft audit requirements on 15 December 2015, EPA stated:

While EPA agrees with the principle of the proposed voluntary audit, the EPA believes a Mandatory Audit is more appropriate. This will be a more transparent process and will provide the community with surety that the audit will be fully independent.

The Mandatory Environmental Audit was undertaken in 2016 and the key findings are presented on the EPA’s website.

MCC will continue to proactively address the concerns of local residences in consultation with DP&E and EPA.

35 NGOs Community Requests that the proponent provides funding for independent noise monitoring by the community.

In accordance with EPA requirements, MCC commissioned EMM Consulting to undertake the independent Mandatory Environmental Audit. In addition, all monthly attended monitoring results and daily real-time results are displayed on MCC’s website.

36 NGOs, Public

Consultation Concerns that consultation regarding the Modification was not undertaken or unacceptable.

The DP&E placed the EA on public exhibition between 28 September to 13 October 2017, providing members of the public with an opportunity to review the EA and provide comments. In addition, MCC provided a briefing letter to the CCC.

Consultation regarding the Modification is outlined in Section 1.1 of the EA, while additional consultation following exhibition of the EA is outlined in Section 4.1.

00894734 28


Issue ID


37 NGOs Consultation Request that Global Acoustics advise the community when monitoring is being conducted.

Request that Global Acoustics present and explain noise monitoring results to the CCC.

Requests that Mandatory Environmental Auditors, EPA Inspectors and DP&E compliance staff refrain from notifying the proponent that noise monitoring is being conducted.

Requests that Mandatory Environmental Auditors, EPA Inspectors and DP&E compliance staff advise the community after monitoring has been conducted and present results to the CCC.

While the issue raised is not of direct relevance to the scope of the Modification, MCC:

• Advises that attended noise monitoring events are subject to change at the last moment due to weather (e.g. cannot occur when raining) and noise monitoring personnel availability and hence specific dates/times cannot be provided in advance.

• Will arrange for Global Acoustics to attend the CCC and outline the latest results at the next available opportunity. Results are currently provided to the CCC quarterly and also available on the MCC website.

• Advises that EPA and DP&E inspectors/compliance officers often attend site unannounced.

• Encourages auditors, EPA and DP&E to attend CCC meetings and will facilitate these opportunities when requested.

38 NGOs, Public

Other The DP&E would not meet its obligations to the community if the Modification is approved.

MCC understands this is a comment addressed to the DP&E. Notwithstanding, it is noted that the EPA (2017a) in its submission on the Modification stated, consistent with the EA, that:

Removing reference to sound power levels in condition 12(a) does not diminish or affect the expectation that noise generated at the site will be managed to ensure noise at all privately-owned residences will not exceed 35dB(A) LAeq(15min) during the day/evening/night period and 45 LA1(1min) during the night period.

In addition, the Narrabri Shire Council (2017) in its submission on the Modification stated:

Council does not raise objection to the principle on which the Modification is proposed. Achieving compliance with acceptable noise limits at private receivers is the critical measure of negative impacts on adjoining land owners.

MCC contends that the Modification is justified as it does not affect compliance with off-site noise criteria.

39 NGOs, Public

Other Concerns regarding the exhibition period with the Modification.

MCC understands that this is a comment addressed to the DP&E. This document has been prepared in response to the submissions made during the exhibition period.

40 NGOs, Public

Other Concerns that the MCCM should operate to the same conditions as other mines in the region.

Concerns that the Modification would create precedence for less stringent conditions being imposed at other mines.

It is noted that conditions similar to the existing Condition 12a, Schedule 3 are not standard conditions for State Significant Developments.

Nevertheless, similar conditions were imposed in the Tarrawonga Coal Project and Boggabri Coal Continuation Project Approvals.

Tarrawonga Coal Pty Limited had a modification approved in May 2017 which resulted in a similar revision of the Project Approval as sought for the Modification.

00894734 29


Issue ID


41 NGOs, Public

Other Concerns that collusion is occurring between Global Acoustics, the EPA and Whitehaven to avoid reporting in the correct form required by the `INP.

MCC rejects any accusations of collusion. Monitoring is conducted in accordance with relevant government policy and reviewed by the EPA and DP&E. Attended monitoring was reviewed as part of the independent Mandatory Environmental Audit. EMM Consulting (2016) concluded:

Attended noise monitoring is conducted on a monthly basis and in accordance with the site's EPL. A detailed review of the reports on attended noise monitoring is provided in Section 3.3.1. The methods and communication procedures in the event of an exceedance are also used to control the site's emissions to within noise limits. In my professional opinion these meet good industry practice.

42 NGOs, Public

Other Concerns that Whitehaven has not met previous other commitments, including offsets to Critically Endangered Communities due to impacts to the Leard State Forest.

Other responses address MCC’s compliance with noise criteria. Compliance with other matters (e.g. biodiversity) are outside the scope of the Modification.

43 NGOs Other Concerns regarding proposed changes to state noise policies.

This issue is outside of the scope of the Modification as it relates to state government noise policy.

44 NGOs, Public

Other Concerns that this Modification has been lodged independently of several other modifications submitted recently or in the future (i.e. does not consider the cumulative effect of modifications to the MCCM and consent).

This issue is outside of the scope of the Modification as it relates to government regulation.

45 NGOs, Public

Blasting Concerns that blasting impacts are currently unacceptable, and would worsen with the Modification.

Concerns that the MCCM has breached its approval conditions relating to blasting.

This issue is outside of the scope of the Modification as it relates to blasting impacts.

46 NGOs, Public

Air Quality Concerns that air quality impacts are currently unacceptable, and would worsen with the Modification.

This issue is outside of the scope of the Modification as it relates to air quality impacts.

47 Public Greenhouse Gases

Concerns that the Modification is not consistent with Australian Government commitments and global efforts to reduce greenhouse gas emissions and address climate change.

This issue is outside of the scope of the Modification as it relates to greenhouse gas impacts.

48 Public Night Lighting Concerns that night lighting impacts are unacceptable and would worsen.

This issue is outside of the scope of the Modification as it relates to night lighting.

49 NGOs, Public

Security Concerns that there is an excess of security guards who cause local residents to feel uncomfortable.

This issue is outside of the scope of the Modification as it relates to security.

50 NGOs, Public

Environment Concerns that operations at MCCM are impacting local biodiversity and adding to environmental pollution.

This issue is outside of the scope of the Modification as it relates to biodiversity.

00894734 30


Issue ID


51 NGOs, Public

Information Retention

Concerns that the MCCM and government agencies are not disclosing promised information to the public.

This issue is outside of the scope of the Modification. MCC’s monitoring results are displayed on MCC’s website.

52 NGOs, Public

Cumulative Assessment

Concerns the cumulative impacts from other mines in the region have not been considered.


In accordance with Condition 16g of Schedule 3 of Project Approval 10_0138, the Leard Forest Mining Precinct Noise Management Strategy has been developed to address cumulative noise issues. This strategy was approved by the DP&E in June 2017.

53 NGOs Original Approval

Concerns regarding the legitimacy of the original project approval.

Concerns that merit appeal rights for the original project were removed.

This issue is outside of the scope of the Modification as it relates to the original Project Approval.

00894734 31

!

!

!

!

!!

!

!

!

!

!

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

#*

BoggabriCoal Mine

TarrawongaCoal Mine

WERRIS CREEK

RAILWAY

B

B

B

Maules CreekCoal Mine

Maules Creek Road

Road

ML 1701

ML 1719

In-pit Overburden Backfill OpportunitiesAvailable from February 2019

Northern Overburden Emplacement AreaDeveloped to its Northern ExtentFormer Travelling Stock Reserve

Available for Overburden Emplacementafter March 2018

LEARD STATE FOREST

Leard CCA Zone 3 State Conservation Area

Rangari Road

KAMILAROI HIGHWAY

Harparary

Leard

s Fore

st Ro

ad

CL 375

MUNGINDI

Therr

ibri

Road

Browns Lane

Mal

lee La

ne

Trantham Road

Upper

Henriendi Lane

Thornfield Crossing Road

Thunderbolts Road

Teston Lane

Blai

r Ath

ol La

ne

Ellerslie Road

Old Narrabri Road

Goonbri Road

Goon

bri

Creek

Barbe rs Lagoon

Maules Creek

Back Creek

NAMOI RIVER

Bollol Creek

NM1

NM2

NM3

NM4

NM5NM6

RT1

RT2

RT3

RT4

RT5

220000

2200

00

230000

2300

00

6610000 6610000

6620000 6620000

WHC-16-48 SPwL Mod_RtoS_201B

Noise Management andNoise Monitoring Locations

Figure 1

M A U L E S C R E E K C O A L M I N E±GDA 1994 MGA Zone 56

LEGEND

State Forest

NPWS Estate

Crown Land

Whitehaven Coal

Terms Agreed for MCC Purchase Whitehaven Coal/Boggabri Coal

Boggabri Coal

Private Landholder

Mining Lease Boundary (CL and ML)

Project Boundary

Maules Creek Project Surface Development Extent Railway

Noise Monitoring Types

#* Attended Noise Monitoring Site*

#* Real Time Noise Monitoring Site*

0 2

Kilometres

* Noise monitoring locations at the time of writing, which may be relocated as required in future

(e.g. due to changes in land ownership)

Source: NSW Department of Land and Property Information (2016); NSW Department of Industry (2016); Office of Environment and Heritage NSW (2016); Whitehaven Coal Limited (2016)


7 PROJECT EVALUATION Based on MCC’s consideration of the submissions by regulatory agencies, NGOs and members of the public, MCC considers that the justification for the Modification provided in the EA remains unchanged. Noise modelling undertaken by Global Acoustics (2017) further demonstrates that adherence to SWLs adopted for modelling purposes in the Maules Creek Coal Project Environmental Assessment is not material to compliance with off-site noise criteria.

00894734 33


8 REFERENCES EMM Consulting (2016) Maules Creek Coal Mine EPL 20221 E3 Mandatory Environment Audit

Global Acoustics (2017) Maules Creek Coal Project Sound Power Evaluation.

Maules Creek Coal Pty Ltd (2016) Maules Creek Coal Mine 2015 Annual Review.

Maules Creek Coal Pty Ltd (2017) Maules Creek Coal Mine 2016 Annual Review.

Narrabri Shire Council (2017) Maules Creek Modification (Mod 4) – Sound Power Levels.

NSW Department of Planning and Environment (2017) Guideline 5; Responding to Submissions of the Draft Environmental Impact Assessment Guidance Series June 2017.

NSW Environment Protection Authority (2000) NSW Industrial Noise Policy.

NSW Environment Protection Authority (2017a) Maules Creek Coal Mine – Modification 4 (10_0138 MOD 4) – Sound Power Level Modification.

NSW Environment Protection Authority (2017b) Noise Policy for Industry.

NSW Environment Protection Authority (2017c) Mandatory Environmental Audit Summary Of Conclusions.

Planning Assessment Commission (2012) NSW Planning Assessment Commission Review Report Maules Creek Coal Project.

00894734 34


ATTACHMENT 1

MAULES CREEK COAL PROJECT SOUND POWER EVALUATION (GLOBAL ACOUSTICS, 2017)

00894734

Maules Creek Coal Project________________________________________

Sound Power Evaluation

Prepared for

Maules Creek Coal Pty Ltd________________________________________

Maules Creek Coal Project - Sound Power Evaluation Page i

Maules Creek Coal Project

Sound Power Evaluation

Reference: 17435_R02_Draft03

Report date: 23 November 2017

Prepared forMaules Creek Coal Pty Ltd

Therribri Road

Boggabri NSW 2382

Prepared byGlobal Acoustics Pty Ltd

PO Box 3115

Thornton NSW 2322

Prepared: Jeremy Welbourne

Acoustics Consultant

QA Review: Tony Welbourne

Director

Global Acoustics Pty Ltd ~ Environmental noise modelling and impact assessment ~ Sound power testing ~ Noise

control advice ~ Noise and vibration monitoring ~ OHS noise monitoring and advice ~ Expert evidence in Land and

Environment and Compensation Courts ~ Architectural acoustics ~ Blasting assessments and monitoring ~ Noise

management plans (NMP) ~ Sound level meter and noise logger sales and hire

Maules Creek Coal Project - Sound Power Evaluation Page ii

Table of Contents

1 INTRODUCTION........................................................................................................................................................1

1.1 Terminology...........................................................................................................................................................1

2 PROJECT APPROVAL AND NOISE MANAGEMENT PLAN...........................................................................2

2.1 Maules Creek Coal Project Approval.................................................................................................................2

2.2 Maules Creek Coal Noise Management Plan...................................................................................................2

3 MOBILE EQUIPMENT EVALUATION...................................................................................................................3

3.1 Mobile Equipment Sound Power Targets.........................................................................................................3

3.2 Mobile Equipment Sound Power Test Results.................................................................................................3

3.2.1 Excavators.......................................................................................................................................................3

3.2.2 Haul Trucks....................................................................................................................................................4

3.2.3 Water Trucks..................................................................................................................................................4

3.2.4 Dozers.............................................................................................................................................................4

3.2.5 Graders............................................................................................................................................................5

3.2.6 Wheel Loaders.................................................................................................................................................5

3.2.7 Drills...............................................................................................................................................................5

4 FIXED PLANT EVALUATION...................................................................................................................................6

4.1 Fixed Plant Sound Power Targets.......................................................................................................................6

4.2 Fixed Plant Sound Power Test Results..............................................................................................................6

4.3 Fixed Plant Sound Power Reduction Evaluation.............................................................................................7

4.3.1 CPP (Prep Plant)..........................................................................................................................................10

.................................................................................................................................................................................13

4.3.2 Secondary Sizer.............................................................................................................................................15

4.3.3 Train Load Out.............................................................................................................................................16

4.3.4 Train Load Out Transfer Station.................................................................................................................18

4.3.5 Raw Coal Transfer Station...........................................................................................................................19

4.3.6 Product Coal Transfer Station......................................................................................................................21

5 TOTAL SITE NOISE EMISSION............................................................................................................................23

5.1 Model Prediction Evaluation.............................................................................................................................23

Maules Creek Coal Project - Sound Power Evaluation Page iii

5.2 Sound Power Evaluation...................................................................................................................................24

5.2.1 Project EA Sound Power..............................................................................................................................24

5.2.2 Site Sound Power..........................................................................................................................................24

5.2.3 CHPP Evaluation Scenarios.........................................................................................................................26

5.2.4 Site Total Evaluation Scenarios....................................................................................................................26

5.2.5 Whole of Site Scenario Results.....................................................................................................................27

5.2.6 CHPP Scenario Results................................................................................................................................28

6 SUMMARY..................................................................................................................................................................29

AppendicesA MOBILE EQUIPMENT SOUND POWER TEST RESULTS..............................................................................31

Maules Creek Coal Project - Sound Power Evaluation Page 1

1 INTRODUCTION

Global Acoustics was engaged by Maules Creek Coal (MCC) to provide acoustic advice regarding sound

power of plant and equipment operated at Maules Creek Coal Project (MCCP). This report compares fleet

sound power listed within the Maules Creek Coal Project Environmental Assessment (the Project EA) (Hansen

Bailey, 2011) against those equipment with sound power levels above Project EA sound power, and whether

further attenuation of this plant will provide a reduction in total off-site noise at privately owned residences.

Additional consideration is given to possible reductions in off site noise levels, via modelling, that could

result from attenuation of plant and equipment having higher than Project EA sound power levels.

1.1 Terminology

Some definitions of terminology, which may be used in this report, are provided in Table 1.1.

Table 1.1: TERMINOLOGY & ABBREVIATIONS

Descriptor Definition

dBDecibels. For sound pressure level this is 10 times the logarithm to the base 10 of the

ratio of the mean-square sound pressure to the square of the reference sound pressure (20micro-pascals)

dB(A)Noise level measurement units are decibels (dB). The “A” weighting scale is used to

describe human response to noise.

SPLSound pressure level (SPL), fluctuations in pressure measured as 10 times a logarithmic

scale, the reference pressure being 20 micro-pascals.

LWLinear sound power level, expressed in decibels, is the logarithmic ratio of the soundpower of a source in watts (W) relative to the sound power reference base of 10-12W

LWA A-weighted sound power level.

LAeq The average A-weighted noise energy during a measurement period, in dB

ROM Run of Mine.

CPPCoal Preparation Plant, also know as the wash plant or prep plant. Refers to the physical

building where raw coal is washed and prepared as final product.

CHPPCoal Handling and Preparation Plant. Includes the CPP and all related infrastructure

from the ROM bin to the train load out bin.


2 PROJECT APPROVAL AND NOISE MANAGEMENT PLAN

2.1 Maules Creek Coal Project Approval

The most current approval associated with activities at Maules Creek Coal is the 'Maules Creek Coal Project,

Project Approval 10_0138' (MOD 3, January 2017). Conditions 12 and 13 of the MCCP Project Approval list

conditions regarding attenuation of plant. These conditions are reproduced below:

2.2 Maules Creek Coal Noise Management Plan

The MCCP Noise Management Plan (NMP) specifies that each piece of mobile equipment is to be sound

tested at least once per year. MCCP sound power targets are derived from the Maules Creek Project

Environmental Assessment, Acoustics Impact Assessment (the AIA), (Bridges Acoustics, 2011), and provided in

Table 8 and Table 9 of the NMP for mobile and fixed plant respectively.

Section 5.1.4 of the NMP outlines sound power control strategies. This section is reproduced below.


3 MOBILE EQUIPMENT EVALUATION

This section outlines mobile equipment sound power targets, test results, and evaluation of site total noise

with consideration of additional mitigation for non-compliant items.

3.1 Mobile Equipment Sound Power Targets

Mobile plant sound power targets are derived from the Project EA; sound power targets, sourced from the

NMP, are presented in Table 3.1. These are the same as adopted for Project EA noise modelling.

Table 3.1: MOBILE EQUIPMENT SOUND POWER TARGETS – LAeq dB

Code Equipment Target

E1 Shovel 1000t 123

E2 Excavator 600t 123



T1 Truck 330t 117

T2 Truck 230t 117

T3 Truck 185t 117

Dz Dozer, no track noise 115

Dzt Dozer with track noise 127

Dr Drill 118

G Grader 112

W Water cart 777 115

L Loader 992 115

3.2 Mobile Equipment Sound Power Test Results

Overall sound power levels for individual mobile equipment items determined from measured sound

pressure levels (SPL) are presented in Appendix A. Equipment for which the measured sound power was

higher than its target are investigated. Sound power results presented in this report are consistent with

sound powers reported by MCC in the 2016 Annual Review unless noted otherwise, and may be either from

annual sound power screening surveys, or, compliance testing undertaken following delivery of new

equipment.

3.2.1 Excavators

Excavator dynamic sound power test results are presented in Appendix A. All excavators complied with the

NMP sound power target. Fleet logarithmic average sound powers are 4 dB and 5 dB below the NMP target

for 350t and 800t classes respectively. These fleet classes operate well below sound power levels adopted in

the Project EA. No further investigation is required.


3.2.2 Haul Trucks

Haul truck sound power test results are presented in Appendix A. Results are consistent with sound powers

reported by MCC in the 2016 Annual Review, with the exception that results presented in this report are

from either uphill loaded or full power sound power screening test configurations, whereas Annual Review

sound powers were based on an average of uphill and downhill modes of operation. It should be noted that

results presented in this report are conservative, as haul trucks do not operate at full power 100 percent of

the time. When travelling on flat terrain, downhill, unloaded, and when decelerating for corners or traffic

interaction, trucks operate at less than full power. Trucks also spend a proportion of of each cycle idle while

queuing at the loading unit and while being loaded. Therefore, results presented in this report overestimate

site noise emission, as results reflect sound power of the truck fleet when operating with maximum noise

output.

All trucks complied with the NMP sound power target. The logarithmic average for the truck fleet is LAeq

115 dB, which is 2 dB below the NMP target. No further investigation is required.

Further evaluation assessing the impact of a simulated scenario where 20 percent of the truck fleet exceeds

the fleet average is included in Section 5.2.4.

3.2.3 Water Trucks

Water truck sound power test results are presented in Appendix A. Results are consistent with sound

powers reported by MCC in the 2016 Annual Review, with the exception that results presented in this report

are from either uphill loaded or full power sound power screening test configurations, whereas Annual

Review sound powers were based on an average of uphill and downhill modes of operation. As discussed

for haul trucks these results are conservative, as water trucks do not operate at full power 100 percent of the

time. Therefore, results presented in this report overestimate noise emission, as results reflect sound power

of the water truck fleet when operating with maximum noise output.

One water truck exceeded the NMP target by 1 dB. The logarithmic average for the water truck fleetincluding this result is LAeq 114 dB, which remains 1 dB below the NMP target. Reducing the sound power

for this water truck to the target reduces the fleet average by an insignificant 0.2 dB, which would have no

discernable impact on site total noise emission or noise levels received at private receiver locations. As the

fleet average is already less than the NMP target, any reductions are not deemed reasonable nor justified.

3.2.4 Dozers

Stationary and dynamic (1st gear reverse) dozer sound power test results are presented in Appendix A.

Stationary test results complied with the 'no track noise' sound power target, and first gear reverse test

results complied with the 'with track noise' sound power target. No further investigation is required.

Further evaluation assessing the impact of a simulated scenario where 20 percent of the dozer fleet exceeds

the fleet average is included in Section 5.2.4.


3.2.5 Graders

Grader dynamic sound power test results are presented in Appendix A. All graders complied with the NMP

sound power target. No further investigation is required.

3.2.6 Wheel Loaders

Wheel loader dynamic sound power test results are presented in Appendix A. Results are consistent with

sound powers reported by MCC in the 2016 Annual Review, with the exception that results presented in this

report are the logarithmic average of forwards and reverse operation. All wheel loaders complied with the

NMP sound power target. No further investigation is required.

3.2.7 Drills

Drill sound power test results are presented in Appendix A. All drills complied with the NMP sound power

target. No further investigation is required.


4 FIXED PLANT EVALUATION

This section outlines fixed plant sound power targets, test results, and evaluation of site total noise with

consideration of additional mitigation for non-compliant items.

In this report, the acronyms CPP and CHPP are used. CPP refers to the Coal Preparation Plant, also know as

the washery, prep plant or wash plant. CHPP stands for Coal Handling and Preparation Plant, which is the

entire infrastructure area surrounding the CPP, which includes the CPP, crushing plant, transfer stations,

conveyors, stackers, reclaimers, and train load out infrastructure. CHPP infrastructure other than the CPP is

also referred to as yard plant.

4.1 Fixed Plant Sound Power Targets

Fixed plant sound power targets are derived from the Project EA; sound power targets, sourced from the

NMP, are presented in Table 4.1.

Table 4.1: FIXED PLANT SOUND POWER TARGETS – LAeq dB

Code Equipment Target

PP Prep Plant (CPP) 117

C2 Conveyor 200m 108

C5 Conveyor 500m 112

Pri Primary sizers 109

Sec Secondary sizers 112

Sk Stacker 104

Rec Reclaimer 115

Ta Transfer station 103

Lo Locomotive 96

TB Train load out 103

X Train on rail spur 108

R Access road 95

4.2 Fixed Plant Sound Power Test Results

Overall sound power levels determined from measured sound pressure levels (SPL) are listed in the

following sections. Equipment for which an exceedance of the sound power target was measured are

investigated.

Due to the nature of in-service testing and the layout and operation of the MCCP CHPP, it was not always

possible to measure each fixed plant item in isolation. Feed/product conveyors and other transfer stations

could not always be isolated, which at times increased background noise levels near other items and reduced

the possible measurement positions available. Fixed plant were measured with the CPP not running where


possible.

Table 4.2: MCCP FIXED PLANT SOUND POWER RESULTS – LAeq dB

Equipment Type Sound Power Target Exceedance

CPP (prep plant) 117 117 Nil

Conveyor C2 (200 m) 106 108 Nil

Conveyor C5 (500 m) 109 112 Nil

Primary Sizer 109 109 Nil

Secondary Sizer 113 112 1

Stacker 102 104 Nil

Reclaimer 105 115 Nil

Raw Coal Transfer Station 105 103 2

CHPP Product Transfer Station 105 103 2

Train Loadout Transfer Station and Conveyor Drives 1 114 103 11

Train Loadout 2 115 103 12

Notes:

1. Measured sound power includes conveyor drive contributions as these cannot be separated from the sound power of the train loadouttransfer station; and

2. Train load out assessed from measurements of initial impact of coal into train wagons. Nine wagons filled in a worst-case 15 minutes hasbeen assumed based on observation.

4.3 Fixed Plant Sound Power Reduction Evaluation

The following sections investigate potential whole of site reductions resulting from sound power attenuation

for individual fixed plant items that exceed NMP sound power targets. For each of these items, potential

reductions to site total noise emission has been undertaken by evaluating model predictions with and

without attenuation applied to these plant items. Adjustments were applied to octave bands where

reductions would be required in order to reduce sound power totals to NMP targets. Predictions for

locations representative of key private receiver locations were then determined for a strongly enhancing

meteorological condition to determine reductions to site total noise emission resulting from the simulated

attenuation. The meteorological condition adopted consisted of a southerly gradient wind at 2 m/s,

combined with a positive vertical temperature gradient of 4 degrees Celsius per 100 metres, which is

strongly enhancing for key private receivers located generally north of the mine.

Compliance monitoring locations were used to represent the nearest privately owned residences to the mine;

these are shown in Figure 1. The model used for assessment was prepared for another project for MCC, and

was developed using GPS trace data for a specific time period. The model was calibrated using attended

measurement results and meteorological data measured at the MCC Automated Weather Station during the


period of interest.

Each of the following sections includes a table of results presenting measured linear sound power spectra,

and shows corrections applied to octave band frequencies. This is to simulate an attenuated sound power

with mitigation applied to reduce the sound power to the NMP target. Subsequent table sections then

present model predictions for key compliance monitoring locations for:

• the relevant plant item in isolation (prior to attenuation simulation);

• site total with the relevant plant item at the measured sound power; and

• site total with the relevant plant item at the simulated attenuated sound power.

The final table section provides predicted reductions to site totals due to application of simulated noise

attenuation to the relevant item. All spectra provided in these tables are linear (no frequency weightings

applied).


Figure 1: Land Ownership and Compliance Monitoring Locations Figure (adapted from MCC Bush Fire Management Figure 5a)


4.3.1 CPP (Prep Plant)

The CPP did not exceed the NMP sound power target. No further investigation is required. It is noted thatthe LAeq sound power of the CPP is equivalent to that of a single truck.

CPP Attenuation

Attenuation screens have recently been installed on the third level of the CPP (north western side), directly

in front of the coal screening apparatus. These are shown in Figure 2. This area was identified in previous

CPP investigations as emitting the greatest acoustic energy.

Investigation of reductions achieved by this attenuation is ongoing. Preliminary results indicate a reduction

in sound power of up to 2 dB may be achieved.

Targeted Attended Monitoring

Targeted attended monitoring was undertaken during May 2016 to evaluate noise emission characteristics

from the MCCP. Attended measurements were taken concurrently at locations close to the mine, and, at

compliance monitoring locations, with the site operating in a range of configurations. Full details of that

investigation are included within previous studies completed for MCC.

Figure 3 shows measured spectra at compliance monitoring locations NM1 and NM4 during a period when

the CHPP was operating in isolation with the open cut shut down. The 16 and 25 Hz one-third octave band

Figure 2: CPP Attenuation


components of the CPP emission spectrum are evident; however, all contributions less than 50 Hz are well

below the threshold of audibility.


both the CHPP and open cut were operating concurrently. Similarly, all contributions less than 50 Hz are

well below the threshold of audibility.


both the CHPP and open cut were operating concurrently, but the CPP (wash plant) was shut down. It can

be seen that the 16 and 25 Hz components associated with the CPP are absent. All contributions less than

50 Hz remain well below the threshold of audibility.

Compliance Monitoring

The low frequency noise assessment report included an evaluation of all attended compliance measurementdata at that point in time for which an MCC LAeq greater than or equal to 30 dB was measured. Figure 6

presents measured spectra in the range 12.5 to 160 Hz for those measurements. Results are compared with

an audibility threshold. Results indicate MCC noise levels were below the audibility threshold at all off site

locations at one-third octave frequencies less than 50 Hz.

Real-time Data Analysis

Real-time noise monitor data recorded over a two month period (March and April 2016) were analysed to

identify periods where a clear mining noise trend was evident. 176 15-minute intervals were analysed for

monitor RT2, and 186 15-minute intervals for monitor RT4. Figure 7 and Figure 8 present measured spectra

for these intervals in the frequency range 20 to 160 Hz for monitors RT2 and RT4 respectively. Each data set

is graphed against the threshold of audibility. Results show MCC noise levels were below the audibility

threshold at one-third octave frequencies less than 50 Hz at all times during the two month period when

clear mining noise trends were evident.

Conclusion

Each of these evaluations indicate that noise emission at frequencies less than 50 Hz is inaudible off site.


Figure 3: CHPP including wash plant (with feed), excluding pit

Figure 4: Pit and CHPP, including wash plant (with feed)

Audibility Threshold (ISO389-7 diffuse)



Figure 6: Historic Attended A-weighted Spectra with Audibility Threshold

Figure 5: Pit and CHPP, excluding wash plant




Figure 7: RT2 Real-time Noise Monitor Data Against Audibility Threshold (linear)

Figure 8: RT4 Real-time Noise Monitor Data Against Audibility Threshold (linear)




4.3.2 Secondary Sizer

Measured sound power of the secondary sizer is higher than the NMP target by 1 dB. Whilst not considered

a significant exceedance, further analysis is undertaken to evaluate potential reductions should attenuation

be installed to reduce sound power to the target.

Table 4.3 presents evaluation results for the secondary sizer. Results indicate:

• no reduction to site total noise emission would result for receivers NM1, NM2, NM4 or NM5; and

• a minor 0.1 dB reduction to site total noise emission could result for receiver NM4b.

Such reductions are insignificant, indicating further attenuation of this plant item is not reasonable or

justified.

Table 4.3: SECONDARY SIZER MITIGATION EVALUATION – Leq dB

Condition 31.5 63 125 250 500 1k 2k 4k 8k Total LAeq

Linear Sound Power

Unattenuated 113.7 112.9 112.7 112.6 110.5 108.2 105.0 99.0 88.0 113.1

Correction 0.0 0.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 0.0 -

Attenuated 113.7 112.9 111.7 111.6 109.5 107.2 104.0 98.0 88.0 112.1

Unattenuated Sizer Model Prediction

NM1 19.8 23.1 20.1 15.0 8.2 -5.1 -33.5 -103.0 -99 10.4

NM2 30.0 21.9 25.8 21.1 20.0 9.9 -15.6 -83.9 -99 19.3

NM4 25.9 22.4 25.1 17.6 16.3 3.9 -25.9 -103.0 -99 15.9

NM4b 25.0 15.9 21.3 17.9 12.0 -2.5 -33.6 -103.0 -99 13.0

NM5 13.3 8.9 9.4 -1.8 -9.2 -27.3 -62.6 -103.0 -99 -4.1

Site Total Model Prediction With Unattenuated Sound Power for Sizer

NM1 46.7 44.7 38.6 29.7 23.2 12.1 -20.1 -68.9 -99.0 27.0

NM2 56.1 48.1 44.9 38.2 37.5 28.6 4.4 -52.5 -99.0 37.2

NM4 53.2 47.3 43.8 35.5 35.0 24.7 -0.5 -59.6 -99.0 34.8

NM4b 51.6 40.4 38.7 29.4 27.5 16.1 -15.5 -68.9 -99.0 28.2

NM5 41.6 42.1 37.9 27.1 24.3 11.5 -16.0 -68.9 -99.0 26.1

Site Total Model Prediction With Attenuated Sound Power for Sizer

NM1 46.7 44.7 38.6 29.7 23.2 12.1 -20.1 -68.9 -99.0 27.0

NM2 56.1 48.1 44.9 38.2 37.5 28.6 4.4 -52.5 -99.0 37.2

NM4 53.2 47.3 43.8 35.5 35.0 24.7 -0.5 -59.6 -99.0 34.8

NM4b 51.6 40.4 38.7 29.3 27.5 16.1 -15.5 -68.9 -99.0 28.1

NM5 41.6 42.1 37.9 27.1 24.3 11.5 -16.0 -68.9 -99.0 26.1



Site Total Reduction With Attenuated Sound Power for Sizer

NM1 0.00 0.00 -0.01 -0.03 -0.03 -0.02 -0.04 0.00 0.0 0.0

NM2 0.00 0.00 -0.01 -0.02 -0.02 -0.01 -0.01 0.00 0.0 0.0

NM4 0.00 0.00 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0

NM4b 0.00 0.00 -0.02 -0.06 -0.03 -0.01 -0.01 0.00 0.0 -0.1

NM5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0

Note: Receiver locations are shown in Figure 1.

4.3.3 Train Load Out

Measured sound power of the train load out is higher than the NMP target by 12 dB. This result warrants

further analysis to evaluate potential reductions should attenuation be installed to reduce sound power to

the NMP target.

Table 4.4 presents evaluation results for the train load out. Results indicate:

• no reduction to site total noise emission would result for receivers NM1, NM2, NM4 or NM5; and

• a minor 0.1 dB reduction to site total noise emission could result for receiver NM4b.

Such reductions are insignificant, indicating further attenuation of this plant item is not reasonable or

justified. Further attenuating this plant item would have no significant effect on off-site receivers.

It is noted that noise emission from the train load out facility is primarily generated by coal release from the

loading bin into empty train wagons. The sound power spectrum shows that noise emission is primarily

high frequency in nature, with frequencies 1000 Hz and up driving the A-weighted total. These frequencies

are readily attenuated over distance due to molecular absorption, resulting in low received levels at off site

private receiver locations. Whilst the sound power is higher than the NMP target, providing further

attenuation to this plant item would not be reasonable because the frequencies that would primarily be

reduced by further attenuation are mitigated by molecular absorption anyway.

Screening panels were installed on the train load out facility during 2016 to provide attenuation and reduce

noise propagation to the west and north-west. These are shown in Figure 9.


Table 4.4: TRAIN LOAD OUT MITIGATION EVALUATION – Leq dB


Linear Sound Power

Unattenuated 99.5 102.9 106.5 104.6 107.3 110.0 109.3 106.6 97.3 114.8

Correction 0.0 0.0 0.0 4.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 12.0 -

Attenuated 99.5 102.9 106.5 100.6 95.3 98.0 97.3 94.6 85.3 103.4

Unattenuated Train Load Out Model Prediction

NM1 8.9 10.1 15.6 7.3 6.4 -2.3 -28.6 -103.0 -99 6.4

NM2 17.6 14.0 17.5 17.0 17.7 15.3 -6.1 -63.6 -99 18.5

NM4 13.2 11.6 19.9 10.3 14.2 8.2 -16.1 -88.3 -99 13.6

NM4b 6.4 4.4 12.8 2.0 5.7 -3.3 -31.4 -103.0 -99 4.7

NM5 0.5 6.4 5.9 -3.5 -6.5 -17.3 -51.3 -103.0 -99 -5.3

Site Total Model Prediction With Unattenuated Sound Power for Train Load Out

Figure 9: Train Load Out Screens



NM1 46.7 44.7 38.6 29.7 23.2 12.1 -20.1 -68.9 -99.0 27.0

NM2 56.1 48.1 44.9 38.2 37.5 28.6 4.4 -52.5 -99.0 37.2

NM4 53.2 47.3 43.8 35.5 35.0 24.7 -0.5 -59.6 -99.0 34.8

NM4b 51.6 40.4 38.7 29.4 27.5 16.1 -15.5 -68.9 -99.0 28.2

NM5 41.6 42.1 37.9 27.1 24.3 11.5 -16.0 -68.9 -99.0 26.1

Site Total Model Prediction With Attenuated Sound Power for Train Load Out

NM1 46.7 44.7 38.6 29.7 23.1 11.9 -20.7 -68.9 -99.0 27.0

NM2 56.1 48.1 44.9 38.2 37.5 28.4 4.0 -52.8 -99.0 37.2

NM4 53.2 47.3 43.8 35.5 35.0 24.6 -0.6 -59.6 -99.0 34.8

NM4b 51.6 40.4 38.7 29.4 27.5 16.1 -15.6 -68.9 -99.0 28.1

NM5 41.6 42.1 37.9 27.1 24.3 11.5 -16.0 -68.9 -99.0 26.1

Site Total Reduction With Attenuated Sound Power for Train Load Out

NM1 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.02 -0.09 -0.15 -0.62 0.00 0.0 0.0

NM2 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.02 -0.04 -0.19 -0.38 -0.33 0.0 0.0

NM4 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.01 -0.03 -0.09 -0.11 -0.01 0.0 0.0

NM4b 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.03 -0.05 -0.11 0.00 0.0 -0.1

NM5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0


4.3.4 Train Load Out Transfer Station

Measured sound power of the train load out transfer station is higher than the NMP target by 11 dB. This

result warrants further analysis to evaluate potential reductions should attenuation be installed to reduce the

sound power to the target. It should be noted that the measured sound power includes noise contribution

from adjacent conveyor drives, as these cannot be isolated from the measurement due to dependence of the

transfer station on them to operate. It is likely that if the transfer station could be measured independently,

compliance with the NMP target would be achieved. Notwithstanding this, an evaluation of the total

combined sound power measured for the transfer station and conveyor drives follows.

Table 4.5 presents evaluation results for the train load out transfer station. Results indicate:

• a minor 0.1 dB reduction to site total noise emission could result for receivers NM1, NM2, NM4, and

NM4b, with no reduction for NM5.

Such reductions are insignificant indicating further attenuation of this plant item is not reasonable or

justified.


Table 4.5: TRAIN LOAD OUT TRANSFER STATION MITIGATION EVALUATION – Leq dB


Linear Sound Power

Unattenuated 112.3 115.0 114.4 112.0 112.0 110.1 105.3 98.0 91.6 114.2

Correction 3.0 5.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 11.0 -

Attenuated 109.3 110.0 103.4 101.0 101.0 99.1 94.3 87.0 80.6 103.2

Unattenuated Train Load Out Transfer Station Model Prediction

NM1 22.0 20.4 24.3 14.6 9.9 -1.8 -34.2 -103.0 -99 12.1

NM2 29.1 24.5 28.3 21.0 22.8 13.5 -13.1 -75.6 -99 21.7

NM4 26.0 22.4 27.1 16.7 19.7 6.6 -22.1 -101.5 -99 18.4

NM4b 19.4 14.7 19.3 10.0 8.8 -5.0 -40.1 -103.0 -99 8.7

NM5 14.1 17.3 13.6 3.4 -2.4 -18.1 -57.7 -103.0 -99 1.1

Site Total Model Prediction With Unattenuated Sound Power for Train Load Out Transfer Station

NM1 46.7 44.7 38.6 29.7 23.2 12.1 -20.1 -68.9 -99.0 27.0

NM2 56.1 48.1 44.9 38.2 37.5 28.6 4.4 -52.5 -99.0 37.2

NM4 53.2 47.3 43.8 35.5 35.0 24.7 -0.5 -59.6 -99.0 34.8

NM4b 51.6 40.4 38.7 29.4 27.5 16.1 -15.5 -68.9 -99.0 28.2

NM5 41.6 42.1 37.9 27.1 24.3 11.5 -16.0 -68.9 -99.0 26.1

Site Total Model Prediction With Attenuated Sound Power for Train Load Out Transfer Station

NM1 46.7 44.7 38.4 29.6 23.0 11.9 -20.3 -68.9 -99.0 26.9

NM2 56.1 48.1 44.8 38.1 37.4 28.5 4.3 -52.5 -99.0 37.1

NM4 53.2 47.3 43.7 35.4 34.9 24.6 -0.5 -59.6 -99.0 34.7

NM4b 51.6 40.4 38.7 29.4 27.4 16.1 -15.5 -68.9 -99.0 28.1

NM5 41.6 42.1 37.9 27.1 24.3 11.5 -16.0 -68.9 -99.0 26.1

Site Total Reduction With Attenuated Sound Power for Train Load Out Transfer Station

NM1 -0.01 -0.01 -0.15 -0.13 -0.19 -0.17 -0.16 0.00 0.0 -0.1

NM2 0.00 -0.01 -0.09 -0.08 -0.14 -0.13 -0.07 -0.02 0.0 -0.1

NM4 0.00 -0.01 -0.09 -0.05 -0.12 -0.06 -0.03 0.00 0.0 -0.1

NM4b 0.00 -0.01 -0.05 -0.05 -0.05 -0.03 -0.01 0.00 0.0 -0.1

NM5 0.00 -0.01 -0.01 -0.02 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0


4.3.5 Raw Coal Transfer Station

Measured sound power of the raw coal transfer station is higher than the NMP target by 2 dB. Whilst not

considered a significant exceedance, further analysis is undertaken to evaluate potential reductions should

attenuation be installed to reduce the sound power to the target.


Table 4.6 presents evaluation results for the raw coal transfer station. Results indicate that no reduction to

site total noise emission would result for any receivers, indicating further attenuation of this plant item is not

reasonable or justified.

Table 4.6: RAW COAL TRANSFER STATION MITIGATION EVALUATION – Leq dB


Linear Sound Power

Unattenuated 104.6 103.0 102.3 100.9 101.3 100.5 98.7 93.5 80.9 105.1

Correction 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 -

Attenuated 104.6 103.0 101.3 98.9 99.3 98.5 96.7 91.5 80.9 103.2

Unattenuated Raw Coal Transfer Station Model Prediction

NM1 10.3 13.6 9.8 3.0 -0.4 -13.9 -41.5 -103.0 -99 0.2

NM2 20.2 12.3 16.8 8.5 10.5 2.1 -20.4 -85.8 -99 9.6

NM4 16.5 13.2 14.4 5.8 7.2 -3.4 -32.6 -103.0 -99 6.3

NM4b 15.7 6.9 12.0 5.3 3.3 -9.0 -39.7 -103.0 -99 3.1

NM5 7.7 4.9 3.4 -6.9 -10.5 -26.3 -59.1 -103.0 -99 -8.7

Site Total Model Prediction With Unattenuated Sound Power for Raw Coal Transfer Station

NM1 46.7 44.7 38.6 29.7 23.2 12.1 -20.1 -68.9 -99.0 27.0

NM2 56.1 48.1 44.9 38.2 37.5 28.6 4.4 -52.5 -99.0 37.2

NM4 53.2 47.3 43.8 35.5 35.0 24.7 -0.5 -59.6 -99.0 34.8

NM4b 51.6 40.4 38.7 29.4 27.5 16.1 -15.5 -68.9 -99.0 28.2

NM5 41.6 42.1 37.9 27.1 24.3 11.5 -16.0 -68.9 -99.0 26.1

Site Total Model Prediction With Attenuated Sound Power for Raw Coal Transfer Station

NM1 46.7 44.7 38.6 29.7 23.2 12.1 -20.1 -68.9 -99.0 27.0

NM2 56.1 48.1 44.9 38.2 37.5 28.6 4.4 -52.5 -99.0 37.2

NM4 53.2 47.3 43.8 35.5 35.0 24.7 -0.5 -59.6 -99.0 34.8

NM4b 51.6 40.4 38.7 29.4 27.5 16.1 -15.5 -68.9 -99.0 28.2

NM5 41.6 42.1 37.9 27.1 24.3 11.5 -16.0 -68.9 -99.0 26.1

Site Total Reduction With Attenuated Sound Power for Raw Coal Transfer Station

NM1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.01 0.00 -0.01 0.00 0.0 0.0

NM2 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.01 0.00 0.0 0.0

NM4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0

NM4b 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.01 -0.01 0.00 -0.01 0.00 0.0 0.0

NM5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0



4.3.6 Product Coal Transfer Station

The measured sound power of the product coal transfer station is higher than the NMP target by 2 dB.

Whilst not considered a significant exceedance, further analysis is undertaken to evaluate potential

reductions should attenuation be installed to reduce the sound power to the target.

Table 4.7 presents evaluation results for the product coal transfer station. Results indicate that no reduction

to site total noise emission would result for any receivers, indicating further attenuation of this plant item is

not reasonable or justified.

Table 4.7: PRODUCT COAL TRANSFER STATION MITIGATION EVALUATION – Leq dB


Linear Sound Power

Unattenuated 107.1 105.7 108.0 105.4 101.8 100.6 97.7 91.8 79.5 105.4

Correction 0.0 0.0 1.0 2.0 3.0 3.0 2.0 2.0 0.0 -

Attenuated 107.1 105.7 107.0 103.4 98.8 97.6 95.7 89.8 79.5 103.0

Unattenuated Product Coal Transfer Station Model Prediction

NM1 15.6 13.5 16.7 7.9 0.6 -12.3 -42.3 -103.0 -99 4.3

NM2 23.6 15.1 22.1 13.6 13.0 2.8 -20.9 -83.0 -99 12.7

NM4 20.4 13.7 20.9 10.1 8.6 -2.7 -30.2 -103.0 -99 9.3

NM4b 14.0 6.1 13.5 2.4 -0.1 -14.4 -45.9 -103.0 -99 1.2

NM5 8.8 8.5 7.2 -2.9 -12.2 -27.5 -62.3 -103.0 -99 -6.1

Site Total Model Prediction With Unattenuated Sound Power for Product Coal Transfer Station

NM1 46.7 44.7 38.6 29.7 23.2 12.1 -20.1 -68.9 -99.0 27.0

NM2 56.1 48.1 44.9 38.2 37.5 28.6 4.4 -52.5 -99.0 37.2

NM4 53.2 47.3 43.8 35.5 35.0 24.7 -0.5 -59.6 -99.0 34.8

NM4b 51.6 40.4 38.7 29.4 27.5 16.1 -15.5 -68.9 -99.0 28.2

NM5 41.6 42.1 37.9 27.1 24.3 11.5 -16.0 -68.9 -99.0 26.1

Site Total Model Prediction With Attenuated Sound Power for Product Coal Transfer Station

NM1 46.7 44.7 38.6 29.7 23.2 12.1 -20.1 -68.9 -99.0 27.0

NM2 56.1 48.1 44.9 38.2 37.5 28.6 4.4 -52.5 -99.0 37.2

NM4 53.2 47.3 43.8 35.5 35.0 24.7 -0.5 -59.6 -99.0 34.8

NM4b 51.6 40.4 38.7 29.4 27.5 16.1 -15.5 -68.9 -99.0 28.2

NM5 41.6 42.1 37.9 27.1 24.3 11.5 -16.0 -68.9 -99.0 26.1

Site Total Reduction With Attenuated Sound Power for Product Coal Transfer Station

NM1 0.00 0.00 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 0.00 0.0 0.0

NM2 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.01 -0.01 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0

NM4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0



NM4b 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0

NM5 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.0 0.0



5 TOTAL SITE NOISE EMISSION

5.1 Model Prediction Evaluation

Sections 4.3.2 to 4.3.6 evaluate potential reductions to site total sound power due to attenuation of individual

plant items. This section evaluates potential cumulative reductions due to attenuation of all fixed plant

items that exceed NMP sound power targets.

Sound power of individual plant items, octave band corrections, model parameters and adopted

meteorological conditions are consistent with parameters used in Section 4.3.

Table 5.1 presents results of the cumulative sound power reduction analysis. Results indicate that if all

fixed plant items were attenuated to NMP sound power target levels:

• a 0.1 dB reduction to site total noise emission could result for receivers NM4, NM4b and NM5; and

• a 0.2 dB reduction to site total noise emission could result for receivers NM1 and NM2.

Such reductions to total noise emission are insignificant and consistent with outcomes presented in Sections

4.3.2 to 4.3.6, confirming further attenuation of these plant items is not reasonable or justified. Further

attenuating these plant items would have no significant effect on off-site receivers.

Table 5.1: WHOLE OF SITE MITIGATION EVALUATION – Leq dB

Receiver 31.5 63 125 250 500 1k 2k 4k 8k Total LAeq

Site Total Model Prediction With Unattenuated Sound Power for All Plant

NM1 46.7 44.6 38.6 29.7 23.2 12.1 -20.2 -68.9 -99.0 27.0

NM2 56.1 48.1 44.8 38.2 37.5 28.6 4.4 -52.5 -99.0 37.2

NM4 53.2 47.3 43.8 35.5 35.0 24.6 -0.5 -59.6 -99.0 34.8

NM4b 51.6 40.3 38.7 29.4 27.5 16.1 -15.5 -68.9 -99.0 28.2

NM5 41.6 42.1 37.9 27.1 24.2 11.5 -16.0 -68.9 -99.0 26.1

Site Total Model Prediction With Attenuated Sound Power for Non-compliant Plant

NM1 46.7 44.6 38.5 29.5 22.9 11.7 -21.0 -68.9 -99.0 26.8

NM2 56.1 48.1 44.7 38.1 37.3 28.2 3.9 -52.9 -99.0 37.0

NM4 53.2 47.3 43.6 35.4 34.9 24.5 -0.6 -59.6 -99.0 34.7

NM4b 51.6 40.3 38.6 29.3 27.4 16.0 -15.7 -68.9 -99.0 28.1

NM5 41.5 42.1 37.8 27.1 24.2 11.5 -16.0 -68.9 -99.0 26.0

Site Total Reduction With Attenuated Sound Power for Non-compliant Plant

NM1 -0.01 -0.01 -0.17 -0.19 -0.33 -0.36 -0.89 0.00 0.00 -0.2

NM2 0.00 -0.01 -0.11 -0.12 -0.21 -0.35 -0.48 -0.36 0.00 -0.2

NM4 0.00 -0.01 -0.11 -0.08 -0.17 -0.17 -0.15 -0.01 0.00 -0.1


Receiver 31.5 63 125 250 500 1k 2k 4k 8k Total LAeq

NM4b 0.00 -0.01 -0.07 -0.12 -0.12 -0.10 -0.14 0.00 0.00 -0.1

NM5 0.00 -0.01 -0.02 -0.02 -0.01 -0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 -0.1


5.2 Sound Power Evaluation

The primary objective of this element of the assessment is to consider various combinations of equipment

sound power to evaluate:

1. site total sound power with current equipment quantities and sound power levels relative to that

adopted for the Project EA; and

2. implications of having a certain proportion of equipment within key equipment categories up to

2 dB higher and/or lower than target levels, and subsequent effect on site total sound power.

Evaluation of sound power in this assessment is through calculation of site total sound power levels for

various scenarios. Scenarios were selected to allow quantification of site total sound power change due to:

• various operating configurations for the CHPP;

• having a proportion of haul trucks 2 dB higher than the current fleet average;

• having a proportion of dozers 2 dB higher than the current fleet average;

• having a proportion of haul trucks 2 dB higher than and a proportion 2 dB lower than the current

fleet average; and

• having a proportion of dozers 2 dB higher than and a proportion 2 dB lower than the current fleet

average.

Site total sound power is calculated by logarithmically summing the sound powers of all equipmentincluded in each scenario.

5.2.1 Project EA Sound Power

For calculation of the Project EA site total sound power, sound power of each equipment category wassourced from Table 6 of the AIA. Equipment quantities were sourced from both Table 6 the Project EA mainvolume, and, from Appendix B of the AIA. Project EA main volume quantities are assumed to representtotal quantities on site. Modelled sound powers from the AIA are assumed to represent 'in-service'quantities after application of equipment utilisation rates. Results are presented for 'in-service' quantities.

5.2.2 Site Sound Power

For calculation of site total sound power, sound power of each equipment category was based on fleet


average sound powers presented in this report. Equipment quantities are consistent with Table C-1 of the2016 Annual Review. Typical utilisation rates were applied to total equipment quantities to account forequipment undergoing maintenance.

Table 5.2 lists equipment categories and type, Project EA sound power levels, and equipment category soundpowers used in this assessment.

Table 5.2: EQUIPMENT CATEGORIES AND SOUND POWER LAeq dB

ID Equipment Category Equipment Type Project EA SoundPower

Fleet Average SoundPower

E1 Excavator large NA 122.9 NA

E2 Excavator medium EX8000 122.9 118

E3 Excavator small EX3600 119.2 115

E4 Excavator smallest NA 119.2 NA

T1 Truck large EH5000 117.1 115

T2 Truck medium EH4000 117.1 115

T3 Truck small EX3500 117.1 115

T4 Truck small CAT789 117.1 115

RTD Rubber tyred dozer CAT834 112.0 112

Dz Dozer (no track noise) NA 115.0 NA

Dzt Dozer (+track noise) CATD10T 126.7 115

Dzt Dozer (+track noise) CATD11T 126.7 115

Dr Blast hole drill various 117.5 117

G1 Grader CAT24M 111.9 106

G2 Grader CAT16M 111.9 106

W1 Water truck CAT777 115.1 114

W2 Water truck CAT773 115.1 114

L1 Loader CAT992 115.0 111

L2 Loader CAT996 115.0 111

L3 Loader WA1200 115.0 111

PP CPP (prep plant) - 116.7 117

C2 Conveyor 200m - 108.3 106


ID Equipment Category Equipment Type Project EA SoundPower

Fleet Average SoundPower

C5 Conveyor 500m - 112.3 109

Pri Primary sizer - 109.3 109

Sec Secondary sizer - 112.1 113

Sk Stacker - 104.0 102

Rec Reclaimer - 115.4 105

TR1 Transfer - 103.4 105



Lo Locomotive - 96.2 96

TB Train load out - 102.8 115

Notes: 1. NA denotes not applicable.

5.2.3 CHPP Evaluation Scenarios

Table 5.3 outlines the scenarios considered to evaluate various CHPP plant inclusion configurations in

conjunction with the open cut.

Table 5.3: CHPP SCENARIOS

ScenarioID

Open Cut CPP 1 TLO 2 CHPP other than CPP/TLO

Comments

CHPP01 yes yes yes yes Base case, considers entire site operating

CHPP02 yes yes no yes Considers effect of TLO not operating

CHPP03 yes no yes yes Considers effect of CPP not operating

CHPP04 yes no no yes Considers effect of both TLO and CPP not operating

CHPP05 yes no no no Considers effect of whole of CHPP not operating

Notes:

1. “CPP” stands for Coal Preparation Plant (washery building); and

2. “TLO” stands for train load out facility.

5.2.4 Site Total Evaluation Scenarios

Table 5.4 outlines the scenarios considered to evaluate various whole of site configurations, with varying

proportions of the trucks and dozer fleet '20 percent above' and '20 percent below' current fleet averages.


Table 5.4: WHOLE OF SITE SCENARIOS

ScenarioID

CHPP % of trucksabove target

% of trucksbelow target

% of dozersabove target

% of dozersbelow target

Comments

SC01 yes 0% 0% 0% 0% Base case, all equipment at average soundpower

SC02 yes 20% 0% 0% 0% 20% of trucks 2 dB greater than fleetaverage

SC03 yes 0% 0% 20% 0% 20% of dozers 2 dB greater than fleetaverage

SC04 yes 20% 20% 0% 0% 20% of trucks 2 dB greater than and 20%less than fleet average

SC05 yes 0% 0% 20% 20% 20% of dozers 2 dB greater than and 20%less than fleet average

5.2.5 Whole of Site Scenario Results

Table 5.5 presents in service site total sound power for the five scenarios described in Table 5.4. The

difference relative to Year 5 Project EA site total sound power is presented. Comparison with Year 5 is

made, as this stage of the Project EA is the nearest to the current operations in terms of duration from

commencement.

Table 5.5: WHOLE OF SITE SCENARIO RESULTS LAeq dB

Scenario ID Year 5 Project EA Site Total Current Site Total Difference

SC01 136.0 134.7 -1.3

SC02 136.0 134.9 -1.1

SC03 136.0 134.8 -1.2

SC04 136.0 134.8 -1.2

SC05 136.0 134.7 -1.3

Results for the whole of site scenarios indicate the following:

• site total sound power for the base case scenario is 1.3 dB lower than Year 5 of the Project EA,

indicating the mine currently operates with a lower total sound power than modelled for the Project

EA;

• site total sound powers for all other scenarios remain less than Year 5 of the Project EA;

• having 20 percent of trucks with sound power 2 dB higher than the current fleet average would

increase the site total sound power by approximately 0.2 dB; and

• having 20 percent of dozers with sound power 2 dB higher than the current fleet average would

increase the site total sound power by approximately 0.1 dB.


Overall, these results show that, based on sound power results reported in the 2016 Annual Review, the site

operates with a total sound power close to, but lower than modelled for the Project EA. Increasing 20

percent of either the truck or dozer fleet 2 dB above current fleet averages does not significantly increase site

total sound power, and totals remain less than the Project EA site total sound power. All differences are less

than 0.5 dB, which is a very insignificant margin. To all intents and purposes, current site total sound power

is generally consistent with indicative sound powers modelled for the Project EA.

5.2.6 CHPP Scenario Results

Table 5.6 presents in service site total sound power for the five scenarios described in Table 5.4. Step change

relative to the base case scenario (CHPP01) is also presented.

Table 5.6: CHPP SCENARIO RESULTS LAeq dB

Scenario ID Year 5 Project EA Site Total Current Site Total Difference relative to CHPP01

CHPP01 136.0 134.7 NA

CHPP02 136.0 134.6 -0.1

CHPP03 136.0 134.6 -0.1

CHPP04 136.0 134.5 -0.2

CHPP05 136.0 134.4 -0.3

Results for the CHPP scenarios indicate:

• omitting the train load out reduces site total sound power by 0.1 dB;

• omitting the CPP (but not TLO) reduces site total sound power by 0.1 dB;

• omitting both the CPP and the TLO reduces site total sound power by 0.2 dB; and

• omitting the entire CHPP reduces site total sound power by 0.3 dB.

These results indicate the CHPP is not a primary contributor to site total sound power. Omitting the entire

CHPP (including train load out) reduces site total sound power by a minor 0.3 dB, which is insignificant.


6 SUMMARY

Global Acoustics was engaged by Maules Creek Coal (MCC) to provide acoustic advice regarding sound

power of plant and equipment operated at Maules Creek Coal Project (MCCP).

Key outcomes of this assessment are outlined in the following points.

• One water truck exceeded the NMP sound power target. However, as the fleet average was less

than the relevant NMP target, no further action is considered necessary;

• All other mobile equipment complied with relevant NMP sound power targets;

• Five fixed plant items exceeded relevant NMP sound power targets, including:

• secondary sizer;

• raw coal transfer station;

• CHPP product transfer stationary;

• train load out transfer station and conveyor drives; and

• train load out.

• Investigation of these items showed that reducing the sound power of each item to NMP sound

power target levels would not make a significant difference to site total sound power, or, to noise

levels received at off site private receiver locations. The maximum estimated reduction to off site

noise levels is 0.2 dB. Such reductions are insignificant, indicating further attenuation of these plant

items is not reasonable or justified;

• Evaluation of attended and real-time monitoring data showed that noise emissions at frequencies

less than 50 Hz are inaudible off site. Of significance, prominent 16 and 25 Hz one-third octave band

components of the CPP emission spectrum are below the threshold of audibility at compliance

monitoring locations, which are representative of the nearest private receiver locations;

• Based on sound power results reported in the 2016 Annual Review, the site operates with a total

sound power 1.3 dB lower than modelled for the Project EA;

• Having 20 percent of trucks with sound power 2 dB higher than the current fleet average would

increase the site total sound power by approximately 0.2 dB;

• Having 20 percent of dozers with sound power 2 dB higher than the current fleet average would

increase the site total sound power by approximately 0.1 dB; and

• The CHPP is not a primary contributor to site total sound power. Omitting the entire CHPP


(including train load out) reduces site total sound power by a minor 0.3 dB, which is insignificant.

Overall, this assessment concludes that providing attenuation to plant items that are higher than relevant

NMP sound power targets would not significantly alter off site noise levels at private receiver locations, and

further attenuation of these plant items is not reasonable or justified.

Global Acoustics Pty Ltd


APPENDIX

A MOBILE EQUIPMENT SOUND POWER TEST RESULTS


ExcavatorsTable 6.1 and Table 6.2 present excavator dynamic sound power test results.

Table 6.1: 350t EXCAVATOR SOUND POWER RESULTS – LAeq dB

Equipment ID Equipment Type Sound Power Target Exceedance

EXC221 Hitachi EX3600 117 119 Nil





Fleet Average (logarithmic) 115 119 Nil

Table 6.2: 800t EXCAVATOR SOUND POWER RESULTS – LAeq dB







Haul TrucksTable 6.3 presents haul truck sound power test results.

Table 6.3: HAUL TRUCK SOUND POWER RESULTS – LAeq dB


RDT001 Hitachi EH5000 117 117 Nil


































RDT101 Caterpillar 789D XQ 113 117 Nil




RDT874 Caterpillar 789C - EMECO - RD259 111 117 Nil


RDT882 Caterpillar 789D - EMECO - RD280 114 117 Nil












Water TrucksTable 6.4 presents water truck sound power test results.

Table 6.4: WATER TRUCK SOUND POWER RESULTS – LAeq dB


501 777G 109 115 Nil

502 777G 111 115 Nil

503 777G 113 115 Nil

801 773E 116 115 1

802 773E 114 115 Nil

803 777D 114 115 Nil

814 773E 113 115 Nil

821 777D 115 115 Nil


DozersTable 6.5 and Table 6.6 present stationary and dynamic (1st gear reverse) dozer sound power test results

respectively.

Table 6.5: DOZER STATIONARY SOUND POWER RESULTS – LAeq dB


DOZ301 Caterpillar D10T 110 115 Nil



















Table 6.6: DOZER DYNAMIC SOUND POWER RESULTS – LAeq dB



















GradersTable 6.7 presents grader dynamic sound power test results.

Table 6.7: GRADER SOUND POWER RESULTS – LAeq dB


GRD401 Caterpillar 16M 106 112 Nil








Wheel LoadersTable 6.8 presents wheel loader dynamic sound power test results. Results are consistent with sound

powers reported by MCC in the 2016 Annual Review, with the exception that results presented in this report

are the logarithmic average of forwards and reverse operation.

Table 6.8: WHEEL LOADER SOUND POWER RESULTS – LAeq dB


WLO806 Caterpillar 992K 109 115 Nil

WLO811 Caterpillar 992G 112 115 Nil

WLO812 Caterpillar 992K 111 115 Nil


DrillsTable 6.9 presents drill sound power test results.

Table 6.9: DRILL SOUND POWER RESULTS – LAeq dB


DRG451 Caterpillar MD6290 116 118 Nil





DRG830 SK50F - CJC Drilling - 1V68L71 116 118 Nil

DRG837 SK50I - CJC Drilling - 1Z69546 116 118 Nil



ATTACHMENT 2

REGISTER OF NGO AND PUBLIC SUBMITTERS

00894734


Table A2-1

NGO Objections

ID Name Location Issue Raised 227168 Lock the Gate Alliance Newcastle 02, 04, 06, 07, 08, 09, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 34, 38, 50 227449 350.org Surry Hills 02, 04, 13, 24, 42 226324 Armidale Action on CSG & Mining Armidale 02, 04, 46

227413 Boggabri Business & Progress Association Boggabri 33, 34, 46

227049 Groundswell Gloucester Gloucester 01, 06, 19, 33, 40 226464 Hunter Communities Network Singleton 01, 07, 19, 33, 40 227273 Hunter Environment Lobby Inc East Maitland 02, 04, 06, 08, 09, 13, 18, 19, 23, 24, 33, 34, 45, 46 226915 Knitting Nannas Maules Creek 06, 08, 13, 16, 20, 34

227085 Leard Forest Research Note Maules Creek 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 07, 08, 09, 10, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 23, 25, 26, 27, 28, 33, 34, 36, 39, 41, 43,

43, 44, 46, 49, 52

227216 Country Women's Association of NSW - Maules Creek Branch Maules Creek 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 09, 10, 11, 12, 29, 33, 36, 37,

44, 51

226515 Maules Creek Community Council Maules Creek 01, 02, 03, 04, 07, 11, 18, 20, 30, 34, 35, 36, 37, 40, 44, 50, 51, 53

227127 Namoi Water Narrabri 03, 04, 05, 07, 24, 31, 51 226910 National Parks Association Armidale 01, 04, 09, 23, 33, 34 226879 New England Greens Armidale 09, 16, 23, 34, 40 227404 Sustainable Living Uralla 02, 04, 11, 50

226791 Wando Conservation and Cultural Centre Armidale 04, 08, 13, 33, 34

00894734 A2-1


Table A2-2

Public Objections

ID Name Location Issue Raised 226729 Name withheld Ashfield 02, 04, 06, 07, 09, 34, 38 227400 Name withheld Albion Park 02, 33, 47 226519 Name withheld Armidale 02, 06, 33 226891 Name withheld Attunga 02, 04, 11, 45, 46 226245 Name withheld Bigola Plateau 02, 04, 05, 06, 09, 10, 33, 46 228471 Name withheld Bigola Plateau 02, 06, 33, 34, 38 226769 Name withheld Boggabri 04, 06 226905 Name withheld Boggabri 04, 06, 40 226960 Name withheld Boggabri 02, 04, 05, 06, 07, 09, 12, 33, 34, 38, 40 226987 Name withheld Boggabri 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 09, 15, 14, 19, 33, 38, 39, 41, 45, 46, 48 227007 Name withheld Boggabri 33 227246 Name withheld Boggabri 05, 06, 09, 38 227268 Name withheld Boggabri 02, 04, 34 227289 Name withheld Boggabri 02, 07, 10, 33 227293 Name withheld Boggabri 33 227297 Name withheld Boggabri 02, 03, 04, 33 226781 Name withheld Broadbeach 02, 04 226797 Name withheld Burwood 04, 06, 07, 09, 34, 38, 45 226811 Name withheld Congarinni 04, 06, 07, 34, 38, 45 227041 Name withheld Glenalta N/A 227317 Name withheld Marrickville 02, 04, 06, 45, 46 226940 Name withheld Marsfield 06, 07 226861 Name withheld Maules Creek 01, 02, 03, 04, 05, 08, 09, 10, 11, 12, 14, 16, 34, 38, 41, 51 226964 Name withheld Maules Creek 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 10, 33, 38, 40, 49 226991 Name withheld Maules Creek 02, 03, 04, 06, 10, 33, 34, 46, 51 227002 Name withheld Maules Creek 02, 04, 07, 34 228441 Name withheld Maules Creek 07, 09, 33, 38 228465 Name withheld Maules Creek 03, 10, 11, 19, 33 228467 Name withheld Maules Creek 02, 04, 06, 09, 33, 46, 49 228469 Name withheld Maules Creek 02, 04, 06, 08 228463 Name withheld Moore Creek 03, 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 14, 15, 16, 34, 38, 51 226979 Name withheld Tarriaro 04, 07, 33, 46 226842 Name withheld Whale Beach 04, 06, 07, 09, 34, 38, 45 227087 Name withheld Woollahra 06 226505 Alan Leslie Bulga 04, 06, 08, 09, 13, 18, 20, 23, 33, 34, 45, 51 227321 Alev Saracoglu East Killara 01, 02, 06, 33, 46, 48 226777 Alistair Todd Boggabri 01, 02 227208 Andrew Darley Boggabri 02 227250 Andrew Mason Concord 02, 46, 47 227315 Angus Laird Maules Creek 06, 07, 33, 34 227146 Breana Macpherson-Rice Dulwich Hill 02, 05, 07, 09, 10, 33, 40 227305 Brian Keeler Blue Vale 04, 06, 08 227489 Bronwen Evans Sydney 04, 38 227382 Bronwyn Vost Hurlstone Park 02, 04

00894734 A2-2


Table A2-2 (continued)

Public Objections

ID Name Location Issue Raised 227409 Carolyn Nancarrow Boggabri 04, 06, 34 227238 Claudia Caton O'Connor 06, 34, 38 227242 Curtis Morton Hamilton 04, 06, 07, 09, 38, 45 227155 David Watt Boggabri 04, 06, 07 227487 Derek Finter Blaxland 06 227240 Elizabeth O'Hara Armidale 04, 06, 08, 09, 13, 45 226983 Emma Briggs Suffolk Park 09, 11 227204 Errol Darley Boggabri 04 225991 Evans Johanna Kyogle 04, 38 226868 Gaynor McGrath Armidale 04, 07, 08, 09, 16, 34, 38, 51 226771 Geoff Hunter Boggabri 02, 04, 06 227198 Gill Burrows North Sydney 04, 06, 07, 09, 34 226763 Graeme Leys Boggabri 01, 02, 04, 07, 08, 09, 14, 15, 16, 19, 34, 38, 39, 45, 46, 48 227179 Grant Mcllveen Gunnedah 04, 06, 34, 38, 52 226985 Ike Schwartz Newtown 04, 09 227252 James & Nicole Barlow Boggabri 04, 05, 06, 07, 08, 40 225970 Jane Judd Coonabarabran 02, 06, 09 226001 Jonathan Moylan Dulwich Hill 03, 04, 05, 34, 38, 40, 42, 44 227228 Judith Leslie Bulga 02, 04, 05, 06, 08, 11, 33, 45 227319 Julia Laird Boggabri 07, 33 227254 Julie Heiler Boggabri 06, 07, 08, 34 227323 Kaleb Druce Boggabri 02, 33 227270 Kate Groves Boggabri 09, 33 226543 Keira Dott Tighs Hill 03, 04, 05, 10, 33, 34, 46, 48 227039 Lisa Costello Tuntable Falls 02, 46, 50 228451 Lochie Leitch Boggabri 02, 03, 04, 05, 06, 08, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 32, 33, 38, 46, 51 226801 Lock Barker Byron Bay 46 227057 Lucy Hurley Hornsby heights 06 227017 Marg McLean Singleton 02, 04, 06, 07, 09, 19, 38, 40 227331 Marie Flood Alexandria 04, 34 226858 Mark Ross Annerley 34, 44 227097 Matthew Murray Frenchs Forest 33 227170 Meredith Stanton Dorrigo 02, 06, 07, 08, 34, 50 227055 Mike Bailey Cessnock 04, 06, 07, 34 227458 Nic Clyde Sydney 01, 02, 04, 06, 09, 13, 23, 34, 45 226257 Peter Todd Boggabri 02, 33 226537 Peter Watson Boggabri 03, 04, 06, 07 227111 Peter Wills Breeza 02, 04, 06, 36, 40, 45, 46 226237 Phil Laird Boggabri 03, 04, 07, 15, 36, 39, 40, 44 227015 Richard Stanford Randwick 07 227059 Robert McLaughlin Bulga 04, 06, 07, 09, 34 227210 Roselyn Druce Boggabri 02, 04, 07, 11, 15, 33, 36, 40 227107 Sam Bragg Coonabarabran 02, 04, 08, 11, 33 227045 Sarah Green Narrabri N/A

00894734 A2-3


Table A2-2 (continued)

Public Objections

ID Name Location Issue Raised

226035 Scott Daines Doctor George Mountain 04, 05, 06, 09, 13, 24, 34

227079 Shannon Kelleher Strathfield 04, 07, 08, 33 226819 Simon Clough Lismore 04, 06, 07, 09, 34 227043 Susan Ambler Katoomba 02, 50 227103 Tom Mullaney Kensington 02, 07, 10 226840 Trish Leitch Boggabri 02, 06, 15 227386 Warren Birkinshaw Arcadia 04, 06, 07, 09, 38 226952 Wendy Wales Muswellbrook 06

N/A Name Withheld (Late Submission) Unknown 01, 04, 07, 34, 38, 51

00894734 A2-4


ATTACHMENT 3

PLATES

00894734


Plate 1: Shielding installed at the CPP

Plate 2: Train Load Out Shielding

00894734 A3-1


Plate 3: Earthen Noise Bund Installed Next to Haul Road

00894734 A3-2

Maules Creek Sound Power Level Modification - Submissions ... · Maules Creek Coal Mine Sound Power...

Documents

Transcript of Maules Creek Sound Power Level Modification - Submissions ... · Maules Creek Coal Mine Sound Power...