Adani Appendix E5a – Noise and Vibration Technical Reports3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/adani/pdf/eisdoc_e5a-noise-and... · Acoustics Vibration Air Quality Mechanical & Structural

Adani Appendix E5a – Noise and Vibration Technical

Report

Abbot Point Coal Terminal 0 EIS • Adani

Terminal 0 Environmental Impact Statement

�Acoustics � Vibration � Air Quality � Mechanical & Structural Systems � Fluid Mechanics � Sustainability � Building Technologies

CDM Smith Australia Pty Ltd

Abbot Point Terminal 0

Noise & Ground Vibration Assessment

Report No. 70Q-12-0143-TRP-513006-3

18 January 2013

Page 2 of 69 Page

CDM Smith Australia Pty Ltd Abbot Point Terminal 0


Commercial-In-Confidence

18 January 2013

Ref: 70Q-12-0143-TRP-513006-3

DOCUMENT CONTROL

Abbot Point Terminal 0


REPORT NO:

70Q-12-0143-TRP-513006-3

PREPARED FOR: PREPARED BY:

CDM Smith Australia Pty Ltd Vipac Engineers & Scientists Ltd

21 McLachlan Street 146 Leichhardt Street

Fortitude Valley Qld 4006 Spring Hill, QLD 4000

AUSTRALIA

Contact: Kim Delaney e: [email protected]

Phone: +61 7 3828 6923 t: +61 7 3377 0400

Fax: +61 7 3828 6999 f: +61 7 3377 0499

AUTHOR:

Michelle Clifton Date: 18 January 2013

Consulting Scientist

REVIEWED BY:

Chris Lunney Date: 18 January 2013

Reviewing Engineer

ISSUED BY:

Martin Wilson Date: 18 January 2013

QA Representative

REVISION HISTORY:

Revision No. Date Issued: Reason/Comments:

3 18 January 2013 Project Changes

2 12 October 2012 Response to comments

1 27 September 2012 Response to comments

0 28 August 2012 Initial Issue

DISTRIBUTION:

Copy No.___2__ Location

1 Project

2 Client (PDF Format) Uncontrolled Copy

NOTE: This is a controlled document within the document control system. If revised, it must be marked SUPERSEDED and returned to the VIPAC QA Representative.

Page 3 of 69 Page




18 January 2013

Ref: 70Q-12-0143-TRP-513006-3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Vipac Engineers & Scientists Ltd (Vipac) was commissioned to undertake a noise and ground

vibration assessment for the Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed extension of

The Port of Abbot Point’s Terminal 1, known as Terminal 0 (T0).

The purpose of this report was to evaluate the potential environmental noise and vibration

impacts generated from various construction and operational activities associated with the

proposed extension.

The prediction of noise was undertaken using SoundPLAN noise modelling software, which

incorporated the ISO 9613 prediction methodology. A number of scenarios were modelled,

throughout the construction, and operational phases of the Project and the predicted noise

levels were compared to the relevant criteria.

The impact assessment identified that the predicted noise levels at all sensitive receptors

complied with the recommended criteria as outlined by Ecoaccess, World Health

Organisation, and Queensland Rail.

Best practice noise control principals have been recommended to minimise the noise

emissions from the site, as no specific mitigation measures are required for compliance.

Overall, the assessment has predicted that there will be no exceedance of the relevant

criteria and it is not expected that the amenity of the Marine Park will be reduced when the

Project is operational.

Page 4 of 69 Page




18 January 2013

Ref: 70Q-12-0143-TRP-513006-3

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................ 7 1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION............................................................................................. 7 1.2 PROJECT COMPONENTS ........................................................................................... 7 1.3 OVERVIEW OF T0 OPERATIONS.................................................................................. 9

2. LEGISLATION ...........................................................................................10 2.1 OVERVIEW OF LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK FOR NOISE ..................................................... 10 2.2 NOISE FROM CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES.................................................................... 10 2.3 NOISE FROM OPERATIONAL ACTIVITIES...................................................................... 10

2.3.1 Rail Noise Criteria............................................................................... 11 2.3.2 Ecoaccess Guideline - Planning for Noise Control ................................ 11 2.3.3 Ecoaccess Guideline - Low Frequency Assessment .............................. 13

2.4 WORLD HEALTH ORGANISATION .............................................................................. 13 2.4.1 Lnight ................................................................................................... 13 2.4.2 LAmax................................................................................................... 14

2.5 ENHEALTH COUNCIL 2004 ..................................................................................... 14 2.6 NOISE CRITERIA SUMMARY..................................................................................... 14 2.7 GROUND VIBRATION CRITERIA................................................................................. 14

3. METHODOLOGY ......................................................................................16 3.1 FIELDWORK METHODOLOGY ................................................................................... 16 3.2 DESKTOP METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................... 17

3.2.1 Noise Prediction Software .................................................................. 17 3.2.2 Meteorological Conditions at Site....................................................... 17

3.3 MODELLING DETAILS............................................................................................. 18 3.3.1 Meteorology ...................................................................................... 18 3.3.2 Phases................................................................................................ 18 3.3.3 Seasonality of Wetlands & Ground Attenuation.................................. 19 3.3.4 Modelled Sound Power Levels ............................................................ 19

4. EXISTING ENVIRONMENT ........................................................................21 4.1 WEATHER CONDITIONS.......................................................................................... 21 4.2 SUMMARY OF NOISE MONITORING RESULTS ............................................................... 23 4.3 DETERMINING THE PLANNING NOISE LEVELS................................................................ 24

5. POTENTIAL IMPACTS ...............................................................................25 5.1 CONSTRUCTION PHASE .......................................................................................... 25 5.2 OPERATIONAL PHASE ............................................................................................ 26 5.3 MARINE PARK IMPACTS ......................................................................................... 28 5.4 LOW FREQUENCY ASSESSMENT ................................................................................ 28 5.5 AUDIBILITY OF NOISE SOURCES ................................................................................ 28 5.6 SUMMARY OF NOISE LEVEL CRITERIA COMPLIANCE ....................................................... 29 5.7 GROUND VIBRATION IMPACTS................................................................................. 30 5.8 IMPACTS ON FAUNA.............................................................................................. 30

5.8.1 Terrestrial Animals – General Consensus ............................................ 30 5.8.2 Turtles................................................................................................ 30 5.8.3 Birds – Literature Review.................................................................... 31 5.8.4 Birds - Cumulative Impact Assessment Criteria ................................... 31

Page 5 of 69 Page




18 January 2013

Ref: 70Q-12-0143-TRP-513006-3

5.8.5 Conclusion ......................................................................................... 31 6. NOISE CONTROL AND MITIGATION OPTIONS ..........................................32

6.1 BEST PRACTICE .................................................................................................... 32 6.2 MONITORING PROGRAMME.................................................................................... 33

7. SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS......................................................................34

8. CONCLUSION...........................................................................................34

9. REFERENCES ............................................................................................35

APPENDIX A : GLOSSARY ...............................................................................37

APPENDIX B : BASIC ACOUSTIC PRINCIPALS...................................................40

APPENDIX C : WIND ROSES............................................................................43

APPENDIX D : NOISE MONITORING DETAILS..................................................47 D.1 SALISBURY PLAINS ................................................................................................ 48 D.2 FORMER COLINTA HOMESTEAD................................................................................ 50 D.3 WETLANDS ......................................................................................................... 52 D.4 ROAD/RAIL BRIDGE .............................................................................................. 54

APPENDIX E : DETERMINING PLANNING NOISE LEVELS..................................55

APPENDIX F : NOISE CONTOUR PLOTS...........................................................57

APPENDIX G : NOISE IMPACTS ON BIRDS – LITERATURE REVIEW...................66

LIST OF FIGURES & TABLES

FIGURE 1-1: SITE LOCATION AND LAYOUT.....................................................................................8 FIGURE 1-2: FLOW CHART OF ACTIVTIES ......................................................................................9 FIGURE 3-1: STAGES OF NOISE ASSESSMENT ...............................................................................16 FIGURE 4-1: MONITORING LOCATIONS ON GOOGLE EARTH .............................................................23 FIGURE 5-1: AUDIBILITY OF NOISE AT SALISBURY PLAINS (LAEQ, 1HOUR) ................................................29

TABLE 2-1: THRESHOLD LEVELS FOR NIGHTTIME NOISE (WHO).......................................................10 TABLE 2-3: EPP (NOISE) ACOUSTIC QUALITY OBJECTIVES FOR DWELLINGS .........................................11 TABLE 2-5: RECOMMENDED OUTDOOR BACKGROUND NOISE PLANNING LEVELS (MINLA90,1HOUR)..............12 TABLE 2-7: ESTIMATED MAXMIMUM VALUES OF PLANNING NOISE LEVELS FOR PROPOSED NOISE SOURCES 12 TABLE 2-9: NOISE AND VIBRATION CRITERIA SUMMARY.................................................................14 TABLE 2-11: SUMMARY OF VIBRATION CRITERIA FOR HUMAN ANNOYANCE AND BUILDING DAMAGE ........15 TABLE 3-1: MODEL METEOROLOGY (WORST-CASE)......................................................................18 TABLE 3-3: MODELLING SCENARIOS ..........................................................................................19 TABLE 3-5: SOUND POWER LEVELS FOR SIGNIFICANT NOISE SOURCES................................................20 TABLE 4-1: WEATHER OBSERVATIONS DURING MONITORING PERIOD ...............................................22 TABLE 4-3: SUMMARY OF NOISE MONITORING RESULTS ................................................................24 TABLE 4-5: PLANNING NOISE LEVELS AT MONITORING LOCATIONS....................................................24 TABLE 5-1: PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS DURING THE NIGHT-TIME PERIOD FOR CONSTRUCTION PHASE ........25 TABLE 5-3: PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS DURING NIGHT TIME PERIOD FOR ALL CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES .....26 TABLE 5-4: PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS DURING THE NIGHT-TIME PERIOD FOR OPERATIONAL PHASE ..........27

Page 6 of 69 Page




18 January 2013

Ref: 70Q-12-0143-TRP-513006-3

TABLE 5-6: PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS DURING A 24-HOUR PERIOD FOR TRAIN NOISE ...........................27 TABLE 5-7: PREDICTED NOISE LEVELS DURING NIGHT TIME PERIOD FOR ALL OPERATIONAL ACTIVITIES .......27 TABLE 5-8: SUMMARY OF CRITERIA COMPLIANCE .........................................................................29 TABLE 7-1: SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS .......................................................................................34

ABBREVIATIONS

APSDA Abbot Point State Development Area

BAT Best Available Technology

BOM Bureau of Meteorology

CSIRO Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation

DERM Department of Environment, Resources and Management (now Department

of Environment & Heritage Protection)

EHP Department of Environment & Heritage Protection

Mtpa Million Tonnes per Annum

SR Sensitive Receptor

TAPM The Air Pollution Model

WHO World Health Organisation

Page 7 of 69 Page




18 January 2013

Ref: 70Q-12-0143-TRP-513006-3

1. INTRODUCTION

Vipac Engineers & Scientists Ltd (Vipac) was commissioned to undertake a noise & ground

vibration assessment for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the proposed

extension of The Port of Abbot Point’s Terminal 1, known as Terminal 0 (T0). Mundra Port

Pty Ltd (part of the Adani Group) is developing plans for the T0 Project, situated on strategic

port land at the Port of Abbot Point adjacent to the Abbot Point State Development Area

(APSDA).

The purpose of this report is to evaluate the potential environmental noise and ground

vibration impacts generated from various construction and operational activities associated

with the proposed extension on humans. This assessment also provides recommendations to

control noise emissions and minimise any potential impacts that might have an effect on the

surrounding community.

A glossary of acoustic terms is detailed in APPENDIX A, and the basic principals of acoustics

are discussed in APPENDIX B.

1.1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

In 2011, the Port of Abbot Point underwent significant expansion (known as X50) to increase

capacity to 50 million tonnes per annum (Mtpa). The T0 Project will initially provide an

additional 35 Mtpa eventually increasing up to 70 Mtpa capacity. The terminal is positioned

directly adjacent to the existing T1 terminal.

Located approximately 25 km north of Bowen, as shown in Figure 1-1, the Port of Abbot

Point is Australia’s most northerly coal port. The Port of Abbot Point is of significance to both

the Commonwealth and the State as there are few locations along Queensland’s eastern

seaboard where deep water (>15 m) is so close in-shore.

Presently, the Port of Abbot Point maintains coal handling and stockpile areas, a rail in-

loading facility, a single trestle jetty and a conveyor that is connected to a berth and ship

loader 2.75 km offshore. Coal is brought to the Port by rail from Newlands, Collinsville and

Sonoma mines as well as small volumes from the Goonyella rail system.

1.2 PROJECT COMPONENTS

The T0 Project will entail the following elements:

• Expansion of the existing T1 Terminal referred to as T0 (35-70 Mtpa);

• Rail receiving infrastructure including two narrow gauge rail loops located within the

existing T1 rail loop;

• Train unloading facilities;

• Six coal stockpile bunds and associated infrastructure;

• Six stacker/reclaimers with each of the three bunds supporting two

stacker/reclaimers;

• Two outloading conveyor streams from the coal terminal tranches to port facilities;

• Berthing and ship loading facilities;

• Land for lay down areas and support industries; and

Page 8 of 69 Page




18 January 2013

Ref: 70Q-12-0143-TRP-513006-3

• Site and common user infrastructure including but not limited to roads, phone,

electricity, water supply and storage and sewage treatment.

Figure 1-1: Site Location and Layout

Page 9 of 69 Page




18 January 2013

Ref: 70Q-12-0143-TRP-513006-3

1.3 OVERVIEW OF T0 OPERATIONS

An overview of operational activities is shown in Figure 1-2. Each activity is also described in

this section.

Figure 1-2: Flow Chart of Activties

Train Arrival and Unloading

The development of T0 will require up to 20 trains per day to deliver a throughput of 35

Mtpa. Once at full capacity, each coal train servicing the Port is a maximum of 2,760 m in

length and have an average capacity of 10,000 tonnes. Rail access to the Terminal is via a

dedicated coal freight line owned and operated by Aurizon (formally QR National).

The bottom dumping trains drop the coal into the coal hoppers, which are located

underneath the surface. The unloading occurs in a partially enclosed building, with doorway

openings to allow for access. If the coal is ‘sticky’ and does not immediately drop from the

wagon, a wagon vibrator automatically shakes the wagon until the coal is removed. This

shaking can last up to 30 seconds per wagon. The typical period for unloading is

approximately 70 minutes, however, if the wagon vibrator is used on each train wagon, the

time can increase up to 150 minutes per train.

Conveyors & Coal Bunds

A 5.7 km network of land conveyors will transport the coal from the coal hoppers

underneath the surface to the coal bunds and from bunds to a ship. Occasionally, the coal

will by-pass the bunds and is transported directly to an awaiting ship. The maximum speed

of a conveyor is 5.5 m/s, moving 6,000 tonnes/hour. Terminal 0 will comprise of three coal

bunds serviced by three conveyors with stackers/reclaimers.

Ship Loading

The offshore infrastructure presently comprises two offshore berths located at the pinnacle

of a 2.75 km long trestle jetty, which is serviced by a conveyor and ship loader. The period to

load a ship of 104,000 tonne capacity at a rate of 10,000 tonnes per hour is approximately

11 hours.

Train Arrival

Train Unloading

Conveyor Coal bund Ship Loading

Page 10 of 69 Page




18 January 2013

Ref: 70Q-12-0143-TRP-513006-3

2. LEGISLATION

2.1 OVERVIEW OF LEGISLATIVE FRAMEWORK FOR NOISE

The following section discusses the relevant noise and vibration criteria applicable in

Queensland. The relevant Department of Environment and Heritage Protection (EHP)

(previously DERM) legislation and guidelines are:

• Environmental Protection Act 1994;

• Environmental Protection Regulation 2008;

• Environmental Protection (Noise) Policy 2008 (EPP);

• Ecoaccess Guideline - Planning for Noise Control; and

• Ecoaccess Guideline- Assessment of Low Frequency Noise.

International criteria are outlined in the World Health Organisation (WHO) guidelines for

sleep disturbance whilst enHealth Council criteria developed by the Australian Department

of Hearing and Aging supplements the need to control noise for health reasons.

2.2 NOISE FROM CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES

The Queensland Environmental Protection (Noise) Policy 2008 does not include construction

noise limits (other than those which apply to blasting). In lieu of no construction guidelines

for Queensland, personal communication with DERM, by telephone in June 2012, has

determined that best practice is to apply the noise criteria contained within the World

Health Organisation’s (WHO) ‘Night-time Noise Guidelines for Europe’ during the evening

and night-time periods. Table 2-1 outlines the noise criteria for threshold levels for the

observed health effects as determined by WHO. Refer to section 2.4 for more details.

Table 2-1: Threshold Levels for NightTime Noise (WHO)

Effect Description Indicator Threshold (dB(A))

Waking up during the night and/or too early in the

morning

LAmax

Inside property 42

Sleep

Quality Increased average movement when sleeping

Lnight

Outside property 42

LAnight refers to the equivalent outdoor sound pressure level during night-time (23:00-07:00)

LAmax refers to the maximum outdoor sound pressure level associated with an individual noise event

2.3 NOISE FROM OPERATIONAL ACTIVITIES

The Environmental Protection (Noise) Policy 2008 is designed to protect the acoustic

environment for health and well-being. Section 8 and Schedule 1 of the EPP (Noise) outlines

these acoustic quality objectives as shown in Table 2-2.

Page 11 of 69 Page




18 January 2013

Ref: 70Q-12-0143-TRP-513006-3

Table 2-2: EPP (Noise) Acoustic Quality Objectives for Dwellings

Acoustic Quality Objectives

(measured at receptor) dB(A) Sensitive Receptor Time of Day

LAeq,adj,1hr LA10,adj,hr LA1,adj,1hr

Environmental Value

Dwelling (outdoors) Daytime & evening 50 55 65 Health & Wellbeing

Daytime & evening 35 40 45 Health & Wellbeing Dwelling (indoors)

Night-time 30 35 40 Sleeping

The time periods referred to in the EPP (2008) are defined as: Day: 7 am to 6 pm, Evening: 6 pm to 10 pm,

Night: 10 pm to 7 am

2.3.1 Rail Noise Criteria

Queensland Rail’s (QR) ‘Code of Practice – Railway Noise Management’ details the different

noise levels for ‘beneficial assets’ as follows:

• 65 dB LAeq, 24 hour; and

• 87 dB LAmax.

These levels are applicable one metre in front of the façade of a sensitive receptor.

2.3.2 Ecoaccess Guideline - Planning for Noise Control

The methods and procedures described are applicable for setting conditions relating to noise

emitted from industrial premises, commercial premises and mining operations, and are

intended for planning purposes. The guideline is applicable to sounds from all sources,

individually and in combination, which contribute to the total noise at a receptor.

Two noise criteria need to be satisfied for noise emission:

• Specific noise level; and

• The maximum planning noise level.

The Specific Noise Level (SNL) is based on the existing background noise and is summarised

by the following equation:

LAeq, 1 hour ≤ minLA90, 1 hour + 3 dB

Note: minLA90, 1 hour is the adjusted Rating Background Level (RBL), which is defined as the

median value of the measured Assessment Background Levels (ABL) for each period

(day/evening/night). ABL is the tenth percentile measured background noise level (LA90,T)

during each measurement period (day/evening/night) for each 24 hours.

The design criterion for the project is then taken to be the lower of the SNL and maximum

Planning Noise Level (PNL) for each period (day, evening, night).

Design Criterion = LAeq, 1 hour – K1 – K2

Note: K1 – tonal adjustment, K2 – impulse adjustment

Under the Ecoaccess Guideline, a threshold background noise level of 25 dB(A) is applicable

if the measured RBL is below 25 dB(A); on the basis that it is not possible to maintain

background levels below 25 dB(A) as development occurs. Recommended outdoor

background noise levels are shown in Table 2-3.

Page 12 of 69 Page




18 January 2013

Ref: 70Q-12-0143-TRP-513006-3

Table 2-3: Recommended Outdoor Background Noise Planning Levels (minLA90,1hour)

Background Noise Level, minLA90,1hour (dB(A)) Receiver Land Use

Receiver Area Dominant Land

Use Day Evening Night

Very rural 35 30 25

Rural residential, church, hospital 40 35 30

Shop or commercial office 45 40 35 Purely residential

Light industry 50 45 40

Residential, church, hospital,

school 45 40 35

Shop or commercial office 50 45 40

Residential area on a

busy road or near

industrial or commercial

areas Light industry 55 50 45

Residential, church, hospital,

school 50 45 40

Shop or commercial office 55 50 45 Industrial area

Factory office or factory 60 60 60

Passive recreation area Picnic grounds, public beaches

bush walks, public gardens etc. 35 35 35

The PNL is based on the measured ambient noise level (LAeq, 1 hour) at the receptor. Maximum

noise levels from industrial noise sources for the type of noise receptor area are shown in

Table 2-4.

Table 2-4: Estimated Maxmimum Values of Planning Noise Levels for Proposed Noise Sources

Maximum Hourly Sound

Pressure Level, LAeq,1 hour (PNL)*

Noise

Area

Category

Description of Neighbourhood

Day Evening Night

Z1 Very rural, purely residential. Less than 40

vehicles an hour 40 35 30

Z2 Negligible transportation. Less than 80 vehicles

an hour 50 45 40

Z3 Low-density transportation. Less than 200

vehicles an hour 55 50 45

Z4 Medium density transportation (< 600 veh/hr)

or some commerce or industry 60 55 50

Z5 Dense transportation (less than 1400 vehicles

an hour) or some commerce or industry 65 60 55

Z6 Very dense transportation (< 3000 veh/hr) or in

commercial or bordering industrial districts 70 65 60

Z7 Extremely dense transportation (>3000 veh/hr)

or within predominantly industrial districts 75 70 65

* Daytime: 0700 and 1800 hours, Evening: 1800 and 2200 hours, Night-time: 2200 and 0700 hours and Sundays

and public holidays, daytime is defined as from 0900 to 1800 hours.

The PNL from Table 2-4 is then adjusted based on the measured ambient noise level from

which the maximum PNL is determined by a set of conditions as outlined in the guideline.

Page 13 of 69 Page




18 January 2013

Ref: 70Q-12-0143-TRP-513006-3

Where the existing noise level from specific noise sources is close to the maximum planning

level, the noise level from any new source(s) must be controlled to preserve the amenity of

an area. If the total noise level from specific sources already exceeds the maximum planning

level for the area in question, the LAeq,1hour noise level from any new source should not be

greater than:

• 10 dB(A) below the maximum planning level if there is a possibility that existing levels

may be reduced in the future; or

• 10 dB(A) below the existing level if there is no such possibility that existing levels will

fall (for example in cases where surrounding areas are fully developed) and no

significant changes to land use are expected.

A comparison of the Ecoaccess Guideline – Planning for Noise Control and the Environmental

Protection (Noise) Policy have identified that both policies produce low criteria for rural

environments with very low existing background noise environments. The EPP (Noise) does

not provide a threshold background noise level, instead it recommends a night-time internal

criteria for dwellings of 30 dB(A). Without a threshold background noise level or criterion,

unreasonable criteria could result. In contrast, the Ecoaccess Guideline provides a threshold

background noise level of 25 dB(A), and therefore prescribes a minimum criterion of Leq

28 dB(A).

2.3.3 Ecoaccess Guideline - Low Frequency Assessment

The draft Assessment of Low Frequency Noise Guideline (EPA 2004) is applicable to low

frequency noise (frequency less than 200 Hz) emitted from industrial premises, commercial

premises, mining and extractive operations. The intent of the guideline is to accurately

assess annoyance and discomfort caused by low frequency noise within sensitive receptor

locations such as within dwellings.

2.4 WORLD HEALTH ORGANISATION

The World Health Organisation’s (WHO) ‘Night Noise Guidelines for Europe’ presents the

'observed effect level' (OEL) as the threshold criteria. The OEL is defined as 'the level above

which an [health] effect starts to occur or shows itself to be dependent on the exposure level.'

These thresholds are not binding, but recommended to prevent an increase in sleep

movement during the night-time period. There are two main thresholds, relating to sleep

disturbance and well-being: Lnight and LAmax.

2.4.1 Lnight

The Lnight,outside is the LAeq23:00-07:00 measured outside the most exposed façade, with a

threshold of 42 dB. This threshold is based on European building construction; in

Queensland, the typical construction provides a conservative 7 dB transmission loss with

windows open. Taking this into account, the adjusted external threshold for Lnight is

recommended to be 28 dB(A).

Page 14 of 69 Page




18 January 2013

Ref: 70Q-12-0143-TRP-513006-3

2.4.2 LAmax

For intermittent noise sources, the most important descriptor is the LAmax,inside; the threshold

for the LAmax is 42 dB with no exceedances of the LAmax during any one night. In order to

achieve this internal noise level, the external level should be adjusted taking into

consideration typical building construction in Queensland. The adjusted LAmax outside is 49

dB (7 dB for transmission loss).

It should be noted that these thresholds are not absolute but the noise levels at which the

increase in movement during sleep have been observed in the population. For the Lnight, the

threshold corresponds to the increase in sleep disturbance in <3% of the population.

2.5 ENHEALTH COUNCIL 2004

The enHealth document ‘The health effects of environmental noise – other than hearing loss’,

published in May 2004 presents a review of the health effects, other than hearing loss. The

document also reviews both national and international measures directed at management

of environmental noise, and to make recommendations on this aspect.

2.6 NOISE CRITERIA SUMMARY

Reviewing the above literature, the applicable noise criteria for this project are summarised

in Table 2-5.

Table 2-5: Noise and Vibration Criteria Summary

Noise Source Time Frame Noise Limit Noise Criteria

Terminal 0 Night 28 dB LAeq,1hr Ecoaccess Planning for Noise Control

steady state noise limit

Terminal 0 Night 28 dB(A) Lnight, outside* WHO Sleep Disturbance Threshold

Train Movement Day/Night 65 dB LAeq,24 hours Queensland Rail Noise Policy

Train Unloading Night 28 dB LAeq,1hr Ecoaccess Planning for Noise Control

steady state noise limit

Low Frequency Noise Day/Night 50 dB(lin) DERM draft Assessment of Low

Frequency Noise Guideline

* Adjusted for Queensland construction (see Section 3.4)

2.7 GROUND VIBRATION CRITERIA

Ground vibration can be caused by many different external sources, including industrial,

construction, and transportation activities. Vibration and its associated effects are usually

classified according to time duration as follows:

• Continuous vibration continues uninterrupted for a prolonged period (usually

throughout daytime and/or night-time);

• Impulsive vibration is an instantaneous build up to a peak followed by a damped

decay that may or may not involve several cycles of vibration. It can also consist of a

sudden application of several cycles at approximately the same amplitude, providing

that the duration is less than two seconds; and

• Intermittent vibration can be defined as interrupted periods of continuous (e.g. a drill)

or repeated periods of impulsive vibration (e.g. a pile driver), or continuous vibration

that varies significantly in magnitude.

Page 15 of 69 Page




18 January 2013

Ref: 70Q-12-0143-TRP-513006-3

In terms of impact, ground vibration levels during construction and operation can be

summarised into two categories; human comfort and annoyance, and damage to buildings.

In other words, ground vibration impact is separated into the response of humans and the

response of structures.

For each category, the guideline values differ depending on whether the vibration is

continuous or impulsive (short-term) as described above. Acceptable limits for these

categories are outlined in standards and guidelines identified in Table 2-6. The Table is

shaded in grey scale with the darkest colour for the most critical guideline (minimum

acceptable vibration amplitudes) to white for the least critical (maximum acceptable

vibration amplitudes).

Table 2-6: Summary of Vibration Criteria for Human Annoyance and Building Damage

Continuous Impulsive

Humans

NSW Department of Environment and

Conservation Guidelines ‘Assessing Vibration: A

Technical Guide’

British Standard BS 6472: Guide to Evaluation

of Human Exposure to Vibration in Buildings

British Standard BS 6472: Guide to Evaluation

of Human Exposure to Vibration in Buildings

Structures

British Standard BS 7385:2 Evaluation and

Measurement for Vibration in Buildings – Guide

to Damage Levels from Groundborne Vibration

German Standard DIN 4150-3: Structural

Vibration – Effects of vibration on structures

Australian Standard AS 2187: Explosives –

Storage and Use, Part 2: Use of Explosives

British Standard BS 7385:2 Evaluation and

Measurement for Vibration in Buildings – Guide

to Damage Levels from Groundborne Vibration

German Standard DIN 4150-3: Structural

Vibration – Effects of vibration on structures

Description of criteria contained within the individual standards identified in Table 2-6 are

not provided within this document, as the impacts from vibration are not a cause for

concern, as detailed in Section 5.7.

Page 16 of 69 Page




18 January 2013

Ref: 70Q-12-0143-TRP-513006-3

3. METHODOLOGY

This section outlines the methodologies for the fieldwork, noise monitoring data analysis,

and noise prediction used for this assessment. The flow diagram in Figure 3-1 shows the

main stages and inputs required to carry out this assessment for the fieldwork and desktop

study.

Noise Monitoring

Sensitive Receptor

Identification

Existing TerminalFieldwork

Desktop StudyNoise Model

Development

Noise Sources

Meteorology

Mapping including

topographyPrediction Scenarios

Map Contours &

Predictions at

Sensitive Receptor

Comparison with

Criteria

Determination of

Impacts

Noise Control/

Mitigation

Noise Monitoring

Sensitive Receptor

Identification

Existing TerminalFieldwork

Desktop StudyNoise Model

Development

Noise Sources

Meteorology

Mapping including

topographyPrediction Scenarios

Map Contours &

Predictions at

Sensitive Receptor

Comparison with

Criteria

Determination of

Impacts

Noise Control/

Mitigation

Figure 3-1: Stages of Noise Assessment

3.1 FIELDWORK METHODOLOGY

The fieldwork has been carried out in compliance with the following standards and guidance

documents:

• Australian Standard AS 1055-1997 Acoustics — Description and Measurement of

Environmental Noise. Parts 1-3. Standards Australia; NSW.

Page 17 of 69 Page




18 January 2013

Ref: 70Q-12-0143-TRP-513006-3

• Environmental Protection Agency. (2000). Noise Measurement Manual – For use in

Testing Compliance with the Environmental Protection Act 1994. Queensland

Environmental Protection Agency; Brisbane.

• The noise monitoring results have been processed and the resulting planning noise

levels have been determined using the Ecoaccess Guidelines ‘Planning for Noise

Control’ as detailed in Section 2.3.1.

3.2 DESKTOP METHODOLOGY

3.2.1 Noise Prediction Software

The prediction of noise in the environment requires the definition of the noise sources

including associated directivity for each source. The noise propagation is calculated for a

number of environmental parameters:

• Geometric spreading;

• Obstacles such as enclosures, barriers, and buildings;

• Meteorological conditions such as air absorption, wind effects, temperature gradient

effects; and

• Ground effects.

SoundPLAN noise modelling software has been used for this analysis.

For this assessment, International Standard ISO 9613 ‘Acoustics – Attenuation of Sound

during Propagation Outdoors’ methodology has been used. This standard predicts noise

levels under meteorological conditions favourable to propagation. Conditions favourable to

propagation are defined as ‘downwind propagation’ (wind speed between approximately 1

m/s and 5 m/s) or ‘propagation under a well-developed moderate ground based

temperature inversion, such as commonly occurs at night.’

The ISO 9613 methodology will be used in this study to ensure accurate prediction while

taking into account meteorological effects in barrier and ground attenuation calculations.

3.2.2 Meteorological Conditions at Site

Noise propagation can be affected by weather conditions, which can either increase or

decrease noise levels.

The Ecoaccess Guideline ‘Planning for Noise Control’ identifies that ‘when predicting the noise

level from a planned new source, due consideration must be given to the possible effects of

weather conditions and ground conditions on the sound propagation in the planned location.

The prevailing and worst-case meteorological conditions (wind, temperature, humidity and

temperature inversions) at the planned and receiver locations must be determined’.

The guideline presents the default parameters for temperature inversions (stability class F or

higher) where inversions are present for at least 30 percent of the total night-time period

during winter. The night-time period for determining inversion frequency is from one hour

before sunset to one hour after sunrise (taken to be 18:00 - 07:00 hours), which is the period

during which inversions are most likely.

Page 18 of 69 Page




18 January 2013

Ref: 70Q-12-0143-TRP-513006-3

For this project, the frequency of inversions has been determined by obtaining the weather

conditions at the proposed Project site from The Air Pollution Model (TAPM). TAPM is a three-

dimensional prognostic model developed and verified by Commonwealth Scientific and

Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO). It uses detailed meteorological data from the Bureau

of Meteorology (BOM), land use and terrain data to produce complex wind fields that account

for large and short scale meteorological effects. The TAPM meteorological data was compared

with the long-term EPA approved data for Townsville between 1965-1971. The comparison of

wind direction and wind speed confirmed the output of the TAPM generated data was

representative.

The weather conditions for the site at night-time (18:00-07:00 hours) during the winter

months and annual conditions have been analysed. It was determined that the worst-case

conditions (Stability Class F or worse) occur for 13.4% of the time during the night-time winter

months at site. Consequently, temperature inversions do not occur for 30% of the night-time

hours during the winter months and therefore inversions were not considered for worst-case

weather for the noise predictions, as per Ecoaccess guidelines.

Additional analysis of the wind speed was undertaken to determine if wind was a feature of

the local area. Ecoaccess defines a ‘wind feature’ to be where source-to-receiver wind speeds

of 3 m/s or below occur for more than 30% of the time in any assessment period

(day/evening/night) in any season. The wind roses for each season and for the whole year are

displayed in APPENDIX C. The wind roses show that wind speeds do not occur at or below 3

m/s for more than 30% in any season or full year between any source-to-receiver.

3.3 MODELLING DETAILS

This section outlines the Project phases and noise sources used in the modelling and the

impacts of these upon the sensitive receptors.

3.3.1 Meteorology

The noise modelling has been carried out using ISO 9613 propagation methodology,

calculating the correction for metrology (Cmet) from wind statistics for the winter season as

shown in APPENDIX C. The meteorological parameters for modelling are shown in Table 3-1.

The temperature and humidity data were obtained from BOM long-term statistics at Bowen

Airport.

Table 3-1: Model Meteorology (Worst-Case)

Summer Winter

Temperature (night) 20°C 10°C

Relative Humidity 70% 70%

Wind Statistics Summer Wind Rose Winter Wind Rose

Calm winds 0.02% 0.09%

For this assessment, noise levels during the winter and summer months were predicted as

the attenuation of noise due to atmospheric absorption (temperature and relative humidity

of the air) differs between seasons.

3.3.2 Phases

The life of the Project can be categorised into broad phases, as defined in Table 3-2.

Page 19 of 69 Page




18 January 2013

Ref: 70Q-12-0143-TRP-513006-3

Table 3-2: Modelling Scenarios

Phases Variants Time Based Assessment for

Comparison with Criteria

Trestle 1 hour

Construction of Terminal 1 hour Construction

Track laying 1 hour

Operation Operation of Terminal Activities 1 hour

Terminal capacity at 100% 24 hours Train movements

Terminal capacity at 200% 24 hours

Note that these are not taking into consideration the operations of T1, T2, T3 or other projects

Due to the time-based criteria, the train movements will be modelled separately as assessed

to a LAeq,24-hour criterion whereas the terminal activities will be assessed to a LAeq,1 hour criteria.

3.3.3 Seasonality of Wetlands & Ground Attenuation

The Caley Valley Wetlands cover 35,500 hectares and is situated in between the proposed

development and the only occupied sensitive receptors at Salisbury Plains.

Ground attenuation is mainly the result of sound reflected by the ground surface interfering

with it propagating directly from source to receptor. This attenuation is determined

primarily by the ground surfaces near the source and receptor. Whilst the size of the

wetlands varies significantly between the summer and winter months, the difference in

noise levels is not expected to be of significance, as the ISO 9613 methodology only takes

into consideration the ground attenuation at the source and receiver, not the ground in

between.

For the model, ground attenuations (G) are as follows:

• Sea/Wetlands: G=0

• Earth: G=1

• Railways: G=1

• Roads: G=0

• Coal bunds: G=0.71

3.3.4 Modelled Sound Power Levels

The significant construction and operational noise sources used for this assessment are

identified in Table 3-3. The noise sources have been obtained from:

• Vipac’s own database, which includes noise measurements of plant measured at the

existing Terminal 1 at Abbot Point;

• Australian Standard AS 2436 (2010) ‘Guide to Noise and Vibration Control on

Construction, Demolition and Maintenance Site’; and

• British Standard BS 5228:1 (2009) ‘Code of Practice for Noise and Vibration Control on

Construction and Open Sites – Part 1: Noise’ which provides a comprehensive list and

associated noise emissions data of equipment used in construction sites globally.

1 Obtained through spectral data published by Savery & Associates Pty Ltd, Galilee Coal Project EIS

Page 20 of 69 Page




18 January 2013

Ref: 70Q-12-0143-TRP-513006-3

Table 3-3: Sound Power Levels for Significant Noise Sources

Frequency (dB(A)) Plant

63 Hz 125 Hz 250 Hz 500 Hz 1 kHz 2 kHz 4 kHz 8 kHz

Sound Power

Level

(dB(A))

100 kVA Generator 60 71 79 84 86 85 82 74 91

300 KVA Generator 65 76 84 89 90 89 86 79 95

600 KVA Generator 68 79 87 92 93 92 89 82 99

Backhoe 76 78 83 89 91 89 88 77 96

Ballast Regulator 77 91 96 102 102 100 94 84 107

Bobcat 76 78 83 89 91 89 88 77 96

Coal Wagon Vibrator 94 107 107 113 110 106 102 88 124

Concrete Batching Plant 75 85 96 101 100 99 94 89 106

Conveyor drives 63 73 83 90 93 95 85 73 103

Crawler Crane (150 t) 69 80 88 93 97 95 90 83 101

Diesel Welders 60 71 79 84 86 85 82 74 91

Dozer (D11) 91 101 101 106 107 109 102 93 113

Dozer (D7) 77 91 96 102 102 100 94 84 107

Elevated Work Platform 80 88 81 88 88 88 87 75 95

Excavator (30 t) 74 83 93 98 97 95 92 85 103

Excavator (45 t) 81 93 102 104 105 104 99 89 110

Field conveyor (per meter) 60 64 71 68 71 71 76 74 81

Forklift 68 74 77 82 86 81 88 75 110

Grader 82 97 107 108 109 107 101 93 114

Jack Up Barge 76 78 88 100 100 100 97 94 108

Loaders 84 94 90 98 97 96 95 85 104

Mobile Crane 82 84 90 92 93 91 86 76 98

Mounted Crane (100 t) 83 89 85 87 87 86 80 73 95

Mounted Crane (50 t) 83 89 88 92 90 89 90 78 98

Piling 89 105 104 112 111 109 104 99 116

Sleeper/Track layer 82 95 95 98 100 99 98 93 106

Stacker/Reclaimer 65 75 83 90 92 88 84 76 101

Tower Crane 84 89 99 101 94 95 85 77 104

Train (includes 2 locomotives) 86 99 102 111 118 112 108 101 120

Tug Boat 76 78 88 100 100 100 97 94 108

Vibrating Rollers 73 82 94 99 98 95 88 78 108

Welding Machine 69 80 88 93 97 95 90 83 101

Page 21 of 69 Page




18 January 2013

Ref: 70Q-12-0143-TRP-513006-3

4. EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

The existing noise environment has been determined through attended and unattended

ambient noise monitoring between the 25th

July 2012 and 2nd

August 2012 at three locations

close to Abbot Point.

The closest occupied sensitive receptor is located 11 km from the proposed Terminal, in

order to obtain an understanding of the background noise levels in and around Abbot Point,

monitoring was carried out at locations which are considered to be sensitive. The noise

monitoring locations have been identified as:

• Salisbury Plains Homestead - this is the only occupied sensitive receptor near Abbot

Point;

• Former Colinta Homestead - this homestead is currently unoccupied; and

• Wetlands – located adjacent to the causeway. It should be noted that due to heavy

rainfall, this location was chosen for access and safety reasons. It is not indicative of

the entire wetlands area. .

Additionally, a noise logger was located at the Road/Rail Bridge adjacent to both the railway

line and Abbot Point Road to capture the existing noise levels of the trains. This location is

not a sensitive receptor; therefore, noise-modelling predictions were not carried out for this

location. All monitoring locations are displayed on Figure 4-1 and APPENDIX D.

The main land uses at monitoring locations of Salisbury Plains and Former Colinta

Farmhouse are described as ‘purely residential’ and ‘very rural’ whereas the Wetlands site is

classified as ‘passive recreation area’ and ‘very rural’ as defined by Ecoaccess ‘Planning for

Noise Control’ as outlined in Table 2-3. The equipment used and the equipment setup for

each monitoring location is presented in APPENDIX D.

4.1 WEATHER CONDITIONS

Daily weather observations during the monitoring period were obtained from the Bureau of

Meteorology for Bowen, located at Bowen Airport (met station number 033257) for most

days with the exception of 3 pm data on 29th

July and 30th

July 2012. The data for these days

were obtained from Proserpine Airport (met station number 033247). The data is shown in

Table 4-1.

Page 22 of 69 Page




18 January 2013

Ref: 70Q-12-0143-TRP-513006-3

Table 4-1: Weather Observations During Monitoring Period

9:00 AM 3:00 PM Daily

Date Temp (°C) Direction

Speed

(km/h) Temp (°C) Direction

Speed

(km/h)

Temp (°C)

Range

Rainfall

(mm)

25/07/2012 18.8 SE 20 22.3 ESE 19 14.2 - 23.7 0

26/07/2012 19.8 SE 19 23.5 NE 15 11.8 - 24.2 0

27/07/2012 18.2 SW 13 22.9 N 19 11.4 – 25.0 0

28/07/2012 18 SE 11 20.8 NE 9 9.5 - 22.8 0

29/07/2012 16.7 SE 30 20.1 E 17 5.3 –20.8 0

30/07/2012 14 Calm 21.1 ESE 20 8.1-23.0 0

31/07/2012 18.7 SE 35 22.1 E 19 6.7 - 23.4 0

1/08/2012 15.6 SW 7 22 SE 22 7.7 - 22.9 0

2/08/2012 18.6 SSE 19 22.6 SE 15 8.1 - 23.4 0

The Pasquil stability classes during monitoring period could not be accurately determined, as

cloud cover data is not collected during the night-time period.

Page 23 of 69 Page




18 January 2013

Ref: 70Q-12-0143-TRP-513006-3

Figure 4-1: Monitoring Locations on Google Earth

4.2 SUMMARY OF NOISE MONITORING RESULTS

Table 4-2 provides the noise monitoring results for all of the days captured at each location.

It should be noted that all of the monitoring locations are free-field positions. The noise

monitoring data for individual days is shown in tabulated and graphical form in APPENDIX D.

5 km

Page 24 of 69 Page




18 January 2013

Ref: 70Q-12-0143-TRP-513006-3

Table 4-2: Summary of Noise Monitoring Results

Noise Level (dB(A))

Noise Descriptor Time Period Salisbury Plains

Former Colinta

Homestead Wetlands

LAMAX Night (10pm to 7am) 70.2 73.2 70.8

Day (7am to 6pm) 43.7 45.8 37.7

Evening (6pm to 10pm) 45.9 56.3 37.6 LAeq,T Average

Night (10pm to 7am) 42.1 51.4 34.9

Day (7am to 6pm) 34.9 36.8 27.0

Evening (6pm to 10pm) 35.0 45.0 31.0 LA90,T Average

Night (10pm to 7am) 28.7 44.6 27.8

The primary noise source observed at Salisbury Plains was distant traffic from the Bruce

Highway; the Former Colinta Homestead was dominated by noise from wind blowing

through trees and grass whilst the wetlands site was dominated by bird song and insect

noise. Site personnel determined that there are no sources of vibration within the proposed

Project area at present.

It should be noted that site personnel verified that at all monitoring locations, the activities

of the existing T1 were not discernable above the ambient noise environment.

The Project area is adjacent to the nationally important Caley wetlands; during the winter

months, the population of fauna (birds, insects, amphibians) inhabiting the wetlands is at its

lowest. The noise monitoring was carried out mid-winter to obtain to lowest background

noise levels for the sensitive receptors in order to determine the worst-case Planning Noise

Levels. Due to the seasonal nature of the wetlands, the criteria determined from the

monitoring period are considered conservative.

4.3 DETERMINING THE PLANNING NOISE LEVELS

In order to determine the planning noise levels, the noise monitoring data has been adjusted

as defined in the Ecoaccess ‘Planning for Noise Control’ based on the land uses, as detailed in

APPENDIX E. The resultant planning noise levels are shown in Table 4-3.

Table 4-3: Planning Noise Levels at Monitoring Locations

Planning Noise Levels (dB(A)) (RBL,adj)

Time Period Salisbury Plains

Former Colinta

Homestead Wetlands

*

Day 33 30 34

Evening 29 30 35

Night 28 28 35

* At monitoring location only

Page 25 of 69 Page




18 January 2013

Ref: 70Q-12-0143-TRP-513006-3

5. POTENTIAL IMPACTS

As discussed in Section 4 and APPENDIX D, the closest sensitive receptor is located 11 km

from the proposed Terminal. For the purposes of this assessment, predictions will be made

for all of the monitoring locations with the exception of the location referred to as Rail/Road

Bridge as this location was to capture train movements only.

As discussed in Section 4.5.1, ISO 9613 methodology takes into consideration the

attenuation of noise over distance from atmospheric absorption (temperature and relative

humidity of the air). For this assessment, noise levels during the winter and summer months

will be predicted.

During the modelling process, a number of assumptions were made:

• The train line alignment does not show the train line passing Salisbury Plains for T0;

• The conveyors from the train unloading facility will only operate for the duration it

takes to unload the train (70-150 minutes per train);

• Road traffic associated with the development will not be of significance, therefore it

has not been modelled;

• The speed of the train is 40 km/h on entry/exit of the spur line and 15 km/h along the

rail loop.

The predicted noise levels contained within this Section are at the same locations where

ambient noise monitoring was conducted, as shown in APPENDIX D. The noise levels stated

are from the contribution of sources from the proposed Project and do not include

background noise at each receptor.

5.1 CONSTRUCTION PHASE

The construction phase is expected to be 24-hour operations and have been split into three

main activities;

• Construction of Terminal 0 (expected to begin Q3 2013 until Q3 2018);

• Construction of the trestle (expected to begin Q3 2013 until Q3 2017); and

• Construction of the new inner rail loop (expected to begin Q3 2013 until Q3 2018).

The predicted noise levels during the winter period were higher than the summer period,

therefore only the winter results have been presented in Table 5-1.

Table 5-1: Predicted Noise Levels During the Night-Time Period for Construction Phase

Predicted Noise Levels (dB LAeq, 1hour)

Sensitive Receptor

Noise

Criteria

(Ecoaccess) Inner Rail Loop Terminal 0 Trestle

Salisbury Plains 28 0 <10 0

Former Colinta Homestead 28 13.5 20.1 <10

Wetlands* 35 11.1 20.4 10.8

* At monitoring location only

Page 26 of 69 Page




18 January 2013

Ref: 70Q-12-0143-TRP-513006-3

The noise predictions during the construction phase are significantly below the night-time

criterion of 28 dB LAeq, 1 hour. During the construction of the trestle, piling operations, which

will be intermittent in nature, dominate the noise levels and the results presented here are

based on a worst-case hour. Overall, the construction activities will be not impact upon the

Salisbury Plains homesteads due to the distances between the noise sources and sensitive

receptors. The winter noise contours are shown in APPENDIX F.

The noise levels presented in Table 5-1 are for the winter months; the predictions for the

summer meteorology are between 0.1-1.4 dB(A) below the predicted noise levels during the

winter months as shown in Table 5-1. As discussed in APPENDIX B, an increase or decrease in

1.4 dB(A) is not perceptible to the human ear.

If all the construction activities were to be carried out concurrently, as the schedule

indicates, the night-time noise criterion will still be met at all sensitive receptors. As such, it

can be concluded that compliance during the night-time period will be achieved throughout

the year even if the construction activities are carried out at the same time. The predicted

noise levels for the combined construction activities are detailed in Table 5-2.

Table 5-2: Predicted Noise Levels during Night Time Period for All Construction Activities

Predicted Noise Levels (dB LAeq, 1hour) Sensitive Receptor

Noise Criteria

(Ecoaccess) Winter Summer

Salisbury Plains 28 <10 <10

Former Colinta Homestead 28 21.2 20.1

Wetlands* 35 21.3 20.2 * At monitoring location only

From the Table, it can be determined that the noise levels are considerably below the

criteria. The combined predicted level at Salisbury Plains is <10 dB(A), which is barely audible

to most humans.

5.2 OPERATIONAL PHASE

During the operational phase, which is expected to commence in 2016, the potential noise

impacts will arise from two main activities:

• Train movements; and

• Trains unloading (includes wagon vibrator) and noise directly related to the unloading

(conveyors and stack/reclaimer).

The predicted noise levels at sensitive receptors during the night-time period when trains

are unloaded and coal is conveyed around the terminal are shown in Table 5-3. The results

show that the greatest impact will be on the Former Colinta Homestead, which is

unoccupied and the Wetlands sensitive receptors during the winter period. The highest

predicted noise level is 25.9 dB LAeq, 1 hour, which is below the Ecoaccess criteria of 28 dB(A).

The noise levels expected to be experienced at Salisbury Plains, the only receptor that is

presently occupied, is 14.0 dB LAeq, 1 hour during winter and 14.6 dB LAeq, 1 hour during the

summer months. The noise contour plots for the winter period are shown in APPENDIX F.

Page 27 of 69 Page




18 January 2013

Ref: 70Q-12-0143-TRP-513006-3

Table 5-3: Predicted Noise Levels During the Night-Time Period for Operational Phase


Unloading & Conveyors Sensitive Receptor

Noise

Criteria

(Ecoaccess) Winter Summer

Salisbury Plains 28 14.0 14.6

Former Colinta Homestead 28 25.8 25.6

Wetlands* 35 25.9 25.6 * At monitoring location only

The number of trains per day has been determined based on throughput of 35 Mtpa (100%)

and 70 Mtpa (200%). The train line servicing T0 runs from the south into the Port; therefore,

the train line used by the T0 will not pass near Salisbury Plains homestead. The predicted

noise levels for the train movements are detailed in Table 5-4. The results confirm that the

operation of the train line at 100% and 200% capacity will not exceed the ‘beneficial asset’

criteria as detailed in Environmental Protection (Noise) Policy 1997 and Queensland Rail

Noise Policy criteria of 65 dB LAeq, 24 hour at any of the sensitive receptors. Furthermore, the

noise levels predicted for all receptors are below 10 dB(A), which is barely audible to most

humans. The predicted noise level at Salisbury Plains is 0 dB(A) due to the vast distances

involved. The modelling contours in APPENDIX F detail the full impact.

Table 5-4: Predicted Noise Levels During a 24-Hour Period for Train Noise


Train Movements – 100%

Capacity

Train Movements – 200%

Capacity Sensitive Receptor

Noise

Criteria

(QR)* Winter Summer Winter Summer

Salisbury Plains 65 0 0 0 0

Former Colinta Homestead 65 <10 <10 <10 <10

Wetlands** 65 <10 <10 <10 <10

* Queensland Rail criteria is 65 dB LAeq, 24 hour at one metre from the façade of a residential property **

At monitoring location only

The combined predicted noise levels for train movements, and unloading and conveyors at

each sensitive receptor location are shown below in Table 5-5. The results determine the

strict 28 dB(A) criteria will not be exceeded at any of these locations. The modelling contours

are shown in APPENDIX F.

Table 5-5: Predicted Noise Levels during Night Time Period for All Operational Activities


100% Capacity 200% Capacity Sensitive Receptor

Noise

Criteria

(Ecoaccess) Winter Summer Winter Summer

Salisbury Plains 28 14.0 14.6 14.0 14.6

Former Colinta Homestead 28 25.9 25.6 25.9 25.7

Wetlands* 35 25.9 25.6 26.0 25.6 * At monitoring location only

Page 28 of 69 Page




18 January 2013

Ref: 70Q-12-0143-TRP-513006-3

5.3 MARINE PARK IMPACTS

The Port of Abbot Point is located close to the Great Barrier Reef Marine Park, which is

classified as being of ‘National Environmental Significance’ under the Environmental

Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. The boundary of the Marine Park is

located 600 m east of the project boundary at the trestle.

The most significant terrestrial noise impacts on the Marine Park will occur during the

construction of the trestle extension. The modelling has predicted that during this phase the

noise level will be 39 dB LAeq,1 hour. The construction of the trestle will be temporary, as such,

it is recommended that noise controls be implemented to control noise at source (see

Section 6).

Throughout the operational phase, the noise level from the train movements have been

calculated to be less than 29 dB LAeq, 24 hour when the trains operate at 100% capacity. This

noise level has been calculated for the closest distance from the train line to the boundary of

the Marine Park and is not considered to be at a level to have any noticeable impact.

The noise from Terminal 0 activities are predicted to be 34 dB LAeq, 1 hour. In addition, the

noise from the conveyors loading the ships are predicted to be 35 dB LAeq,1 hour. These noise

levels are not considered a significant impact on the Marine Park.

5.4 LOW FREQUENCY ASSESSMENT

For compliance with Ecoaccess, a low frequency screening assessment has been carried out

to determine the compliance of the noise levels with the criteria of 50 dB(lin). The highest

predicted noise level is 14.6 dB LAeq, 1 hour at the Salisbury Plains Homestead during the

combined operational activities of train movements (200%), train unloading and conveyors

noise. When this noise level is calculated as linear for comparison with the low frequency

criteria, the highest value is 34.9 dB(lin), which complies with the criteria of 50 dB(lin).

5.5 AUDIBILITY OF NOISE SOURCES

Figure 5-1 provides a pictorial representation of the frequency and sound pressure level

boundaries of the audible range for the average human adult without hearing impairment.

Analysis of the frequency spectra of the noise levels predicted at Salisbury Plains during the

construction and operational phases of the Terminal in winter has been plotted. The

ambient frequency noise spectrum for Salisbury Plains as monitored has also been plotted

for comparison.

Page 29 of 69 Page




18 January 2013

Ref: 70Q-12-0143-TRP-513006-3

Figure 5-1: Audibility of Noise at Salisbury Plains (LAeq, 1hour)

The plotted lines clearly identifies that the existing ambient noise at Salisbury Plains is higher

than the predicted noise levels for all operational activities (train movements, unloading and

conveyor noise). Figure 5-1 shows that the unloading of trains and conveyors noise will be

just above the audibility curve at 100 Hz, however, the noise produced by the operations at

Abbot Point is 10 dB below the existing ambient noise levels and is unlikely to be audible at

the nearest sensitive receiver. Additionally, the noise from the construction activities are

unlikely to be audible by the residents of Salisbury Plains, therefore it can be concluded that

the operational and construction noise of the Terminal will not have a negative impact on

the residents of the only occupied property, Salisbury Plains.

5.6 SUMMARY OF NOISE LEVEL CRITERIA COMPLIANCE

Table 5-6 shows the compliance for the sensitive receptors with the specific criteria. It can

be seen from the Table that all criteria are met at all sensitive receptors during each phase of

the proposed Project.

Table 5-6: Summary of Criteria Compliance

Sensitive Receptor Construction

(All Scenarios)

Operation –

Terminal 0

Operation -

Trains Low Frequency

Criteria Ecoaccess/WHO Ecoaccess/WHO EPP/QR Ecoaccess

Salisbury Plains � � � �

Former Colinta Homestead � � � �

Wetlands � � � �

Page 30 of 69 Page




18 January 2013

Ref: 70Q-12-0143-TRP-513006-3

5.7 GROUND VIBRATION IMPACTS

Due to the distances between source-and-receptors, the vibration levels associated with the

equipment as identified in Section 3.3.4, are not high enough to cause any disturbance to

any of the sensitive receptors.

5.8 IMPACTS ON FAUNA

Whilst the wetlands at Abbot Point the Caley Valley Wetlands (also known as the Kaili Valley

Wetlands) are not classified under the Ramsar Convention; they still play a role during the

migration of waterbirds as identified by their designation under the Directory of Important

Wetlands of Australia. The closest Ramsar protected wetlands is Bowling Green Bay, located

approximately 100 km north of Abbot Point. Bowling Green Wetland is intertidal marshland,

with salt flats and mangrove swamps covering 35,500 hectares. Bowling Green Wetland is a

significant breeding area for waterbirds and have an ‘outstanding variety of species present’

(RAMSAR, 2012).

Presently, there are no government policies or accepted guidelines in respect to the

acceptable noise levels for wildlife, particularly migratory birds. In Australia there are no

studies that deal with noise impacts on native species for long-term exposure, therefore a

general literature review has been carried out.

5.8.1 Terrestrial Animals – General Consensus

There is minimal literature available on the impact of noise and vibration on wildlife,

particularly Australian wildlife. In general, Radle (2007) states that the consensus is that

terrestrial animals within the vicinity of the proposed Project will avoid any industrial or

plant or construction area where noise or vibration presents an annoyance to them.

Additionally, Radle (2007) observed many animals react to new noise initially as a potential

threat, but quickly ‘learn’ that the noise is not associated with a threat. Most wildlife is

generally mobile and will act to avoid noise and vibration if it is perceived to be annoying.

In assessing the impact of the project on wildlife the following can be said that the primary

noise sources from the operational phase of the Project will be fixed plant, for example the

wagon unloader and conveyors. The available literature suggests that interference with

communication between animals is a key aspect of noise impact. Noise from the Project is

not expected to be of a level or frequency (as discussed in APPENDIX G) to interfere with the

communication between animals. Impacts observed during a construction phase of Botany

Bay are highlighted in APPENDIX G.

5.8.2 Turtles

Marine turtles have no external ears and very little is known about noise levels and

associated frequencies that cause injury or behavioural responses in marine turtles. It has

been reported that behavioural changes are likely to occur at levels above 120 dB. In water,

sea turtles respond to frequencies of 100 Hz to a maximum of 500 Hz in water whilst on land

the frequency range is between 200 Hz to 400 Hz (Moein Bartol & Ketten 2006). The impacts

of noise upon fauna are discussed in the underwater acoustic assessment.

Page 31 of 69 Page




18 January 2013

Ref: 70Q-12-0143-TRP-513006-3

5.8.3 Birds – Literature Review

A comprehensive literature review has been carried out to determine if there are any known

impacts of man-made noise on birds. The review is detailed in APPENDIX G and determines

that the noise impact on birds is species specific and at present, the audiogram for only one

Australian bird (Australian Grey Swift) is known. The case study of construction noise at Port

Botany supports this, indicating that a detailed assessment should be undertaken by an

avian ecologist in order to determine the noise sensitivity of species within the locality of the

project.

5.8.4 Birds - Cumulative Impact Assessment Criteria

A Cumulative Impact Assessment (CIA) was undertaken by SLR Consulting in 2012 to

determine the overall noise impact upon the wetlands fauna from all the projects at Abbot

Point (T0, T1, T2, and T3). The report identifies the noise levels at which terrestrial fauna are

alerted (50-65 LAeq,15 min), alarmed (65-85 LAeq,15 min) and where areas are avoided by fauna

(>85 LAeq, 15 min).

The CIA report identified that the percentage of the wetlands where noise levels from only

T0 construction would exceed the criteria are as follows:

• Alert Level (50 dB LAeq) – exceedance of this level would occur for three to seven

percent of the wetlands area; and

• Alert/Flight Level (65 dB LAeq) – exceedance of this level would occur for <0.5 percent

of the wetlands area.

The combined noise modelling results of the T0 construction activities contained within this

report show that the 50 dB LAeq contour does not encroach in to the wetlands outline, as

shown in APPENDIX F.

Whilst the CIA has used a different prediction methodology and included the operational

activities of T1 rail corridor, when comparing the noise modelling contours of this

assessment to the CIA (maps 20 and 21 of the CIA – Construction Noise Appendix D), the

contours are very similar. With the main differences arising from the inclusion of the T1 rail

corridor.

5.8.5 Conclusion

As discussed, there are limited studies carried out to determine the impact of noise on

Australian fauna. It is recommended that a management plan should be designed by an

Ecologist to ensure no noise and vibration impacts from the Project affect the fauna in the

area.

Page 32 of 69 Page




18 January 2013

Ref: 70Q-12-0143-TRP-513006-3

6. NOISE CONTROL AND MITIGATION OPTIONS

No mitigation measures were implemented in the noise modelling; therefore any mitigation

measures identified in this Section would represent best practice noise control and would

further improve the noise reduction.

Section 9 of the EPP (Noise) Policy outlines the hierarchy preference in which noise should

be dealt with. In the first instance, the Policy recommends that:

1. Noise be avoided; however if this is not possible,

2. The minimisation of noise through either:

a. Reorientation of an activity or

b. Use of Best Available Technology (BAT); and

3. Management of noise.

The predicted noise results detailed in Section 5 have concluded that noise levels will not

exceed the applicable criteria. This section outlines general noise control principals to

manage noise emissions to ensure noise complaints are not received.

6.1 BEST PRACTICE

Many general measures can reduce noise levels at the source such as:

• Training staff to operate the equipment in order to minimise unnecessary noise

emissions. This could be achieved during site inductions and regular training

programs;

• Avoiding unnecessary revving of engines and switch off equipment when not

required;

• Keeping internal roads well maintained;

• Using rubber linings in or constrained layer damping on, for example, chutes and

dumpers to reduce impact noise;

• Minimise the drop heights of materials;

• Use ultra-low noise idlers on the conveyors; the noise reduction associated with

these are generally 5-10 dB(A);

• Start up plant and vehicles sequentially rather than all together. The movement of

plant onto and around the site should have regard to the normal operating hours of

the site and the location of any sensitive receptors as far as is reasonably practicable;

• Audible reversing warning systems on mobile plant and vehicles should be of a type

which, whilst ensuring that they give proper warning, have a minimum noise impact

on persons outside sites. Some audible warning systems can provide 2-3 dB(A) noise

reduction. When reversing, mobile plant and vehicles should travel in a direction

away from sensitive receptors whenever possible;

• As far as reasonably practicable, sources of significant noise should be enclosed. The

extent to which this can be done depends on the nature of the machine or process to

be enclosed and their ventilation requirements. A typical enclosure can provide 10-

20 dB(A) depending on the material;

Page 33 of 69 Page




18 January 2013

Ref: 70Q-12-0143-TRP-513006-3

• Plant should always be used in accordance with manufacturers’ instructions. Care

should be taken to site equipment away from noise sensitive areas. Where possible,

loading and unloading should also be carried out away from such areas;

• Machines such as cranes that might have intermittent use should be shut down

between work periods or should be throttled down to a minimum. Machines should

not be left running unnecessarily, as this can be noisy and wastes energy;

• Plant from which the noise generated is known to be particularly directional should,

wherever practicable, be orientated so that the noise is directed away from noise-

sensitive areas; and

• Acoustic covers to engines should be kept closed when the engines are in use and

idling. If compressors are used, they should have effective acoustic enclosures and be

designed to operate only when their access panels are closed.

6.2 MONITORING PROGRAMME

In addition to the above best practice controls, it is recommended that if occupants of

Salisbury Plains Homestead make noise complaints about the construction of T0, a real-time

monitoring programme to be implemented. The implementation of a monitoring system will

assist in the reduction of noise nuisance upon Salisbury Plains Homestead, although the

predictions identified in Section 5 of this report identify that complaints are highly unlikely.

The data collected by the monitoring system could be made available to the Queensland

Department of Environmental Heritage and Protection, if requested.

Page 34 of 69 Page




18 January 2013

Ref: 70Q-12-0143-TRP-513006-3

7. SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS

This section describes the residual impacts that may continue to exist when selected and

appropriate noise control principals have been implemented. The significance of the impact

has determined using the noise criteria as detailed in 2.6.

Table 7-1: Significance of Impacts

Scenario Sensitive Receptor(s) Impact Significance

Salisbury Plains No impact

Former Colinta Homestead Negligible*

Wetlands No impact Construction

Marine Park No impact

Salisbury Plains

Former Colinta Homestead

Wetlands

Negligible* Operation – Terminal 0

Marine Park No impact

Salisbury Plains Negligible*

Former Colinta Homestead

Wetlands No impact Operation - Trains

Marine Park No impact*

*The predicted impacts are considered negligible when compared to the existing noise environment and the

noise levels are below the criteria.

The implementation of general mitigation measures will contribute to maintaining that the

noise levels are below the predicted levels identified within this assessment.

8. CONCLUSION

Vipac Engineers & Scientists Ltd (Vipac) was commissioned to undertake a noise and ground

vibration assessment for the Environmental Impact Statement for the proposed extension of

The Port of Abbot Point’s Terminal 1, known as Terminal 0 (T0).

The purpose of this report was to evaluate the potential environmental noise and ground

vibration impacts generated from various construction and operational activities associated

with the proposed extension.

The prediction of noise was undertaken using SoundPLAN noise modelling software, which

incorporated the ISO 9613 prediction methodology. The predicted noise levels at sensitive

receptors were all below the recommended criteria as outlined by Ecoaccess, World Health

Organisation.

Best practice noise control principals have been recommended to reduce the noise

emissions from the site, as no specific mitigation measures are required for compliance.

Overall, the assessment has identified that there will be no exceedance of the relevant

criteria and it is not expected that the amenity of the Marine Park will be reduced when the

Project is operational.

Page 35 of 69 Page




18 January 2013

Ref: 70Q-12-0143-TRP-513006-3

9. REFERENCES

Asia-Pacific Migratory Waterbird Conservation Committee (2001). Asia-Pacific Migratory

Waterbird Conservation Strategy: 2001–2005. Wetlands International Asia Pacific. Kuala

Lumpur, Malaysia 67 pp.

Baulderstone Honibrook (2008). Monthly Environmental Monitoring Report for Port of

Botany Expansion.

Bies, D. A. & Hanen, C. H. (1996). Engineering Noise Control: Theory and Practice, 2nd

Edition.

E & FN Spon; London.

British Standards Institution. (1992). BS 6472: Guide to Evaluation of Human Exposure to

Vibration in Buildings (1 Hz to 80 Hz). BSI; London.

British Standards Institution. (1999). BS 7385:2: Evaluation and Measurement for Vibration in

Buildings – Guide to Damage Levels from Groundborne Vibration. BSI; London.

British Standards Institution. (2009). BS 5228:1: Code of Practice for Noise and Vibration

Control on Construction and Open Sites – Part 1: Noise. BSI; London.

Building & Civil Engineering Standards Committee. (1999). German Standard DIN 4150-2:

Structural Vibration – Human Exposure to Vibration in Buildings.

Department of Environment, Resources and Management. (No date). Ecoaccess: Assessment

for Low Frequency (Draft). DERM: Brisbane.

Dooling RJ, Fay RR, Popper AN, (2000). Comparative Hearing: Birds and Reptiles. Springer-

Verslag.

Dooling, RJ. (2002). Avian hearing and the avoidance of wind turbines. National renewable

energy laboratories; Colorado.

Dooling RJ, Popper AN, (2007). The Effects of Highway Noise on Birds. Environmental

BioAcoustics LLC for the California Department of Transportation, Division of Environmental

Analysis.

International Organisation for Standardisation. (1993). ISO 9613-1 ‘Acoustics – Attenuation

of Sound during Propagation Outdoors. Part 1: Calculation of the Absorption of Sound by the

Atmosphere’. Geneva, Switzerland.

Moein Bartol, S. and D. R. Ketten, Eds. (2006). Turtle and Tuna Hearing. Sea Turtle and

Pelagic Fish Sensory Biology: Developing Techniques to Reduce Sea Turtle Bycatch in

Longline Fisheries, U.S. Dep. Commer., NOAA Tech. Memo., NOAA-TM-NMFSPIFSC-7

Queensland Rail. (2007). ‘Code of Practice for Railway Noise Management’.

Radle, A. L. (2007). ‘Effects of Noise on Wildlife: A Literature Review’. Retrieved from

http://wfae.proscenia.net/

RAMSAR. (2012). ‘RAMSAR Report for Bowling Green Wetland’. Retrieved from

www.wetlands.org

Saunders JC, Cohen YE, Szymko YM, (1991). The Structural and Functional Consequences of

Acoustic Injury in the Cochlea and Peripheral Auditory System: A Five-Year Update. Journal of

the Acoustical Society of America , 90 (1), 136-146.

Slabbekoorn H, Peet M, (2003). Birds Sing at a Higher Pitch in Urban Noise. Natur: 424, 267.

Page 36 of 69 Page




18 January 2013

Ref: 70Q-12-0143-TRP-513006-3

Thompson, J. J. (1992). Spatial and Temporal Patterns of Shorebird Habitat Utilisation in

Moreton Bay, Queensland. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of Queensland, Brisbane.

World Health Organisation. (1999). Guidelines for Community Noise. World Health

Organisation; Geneva.

World Health Organisation. (2009). Night Noise Guidelines for Europe. World Health

Organisation; Geneva.

Page 37 of 69 Page




18 January 2013

Ref: 70Q-12-0143-TRP-513006-3

APPENDIX A: GLOSSARY

Page 38 of 69 Page




18 January 2013

Ref: 70Q-12-0143-TRP-513006-3

Ambient noise – the totally encompassing noise in a given situation at a given time; it is

usually composed of noise from many sources, near and far.

Attenuation – a general term used to indicate the reduction of noise or vibration, by

whatever method or for whatever reason, and the amount in decibels, by which it is reduced.

A-weighting – a frequency weighting devised to attempt to take into account the fact human

response to sound is not equally sensitive to all frequencies.

dB(A) – the A-weighted sound pressure level.

dB(Z) or dB(lin) – the linear or unweighted sound pressure level.

Decibel (dB) – the logarithmic-scaled unit used to report the level or magnitude of sound.

Hertz (Hz) - the unit of frequency.

L (Level) – the sound pressure level (Lp); it implies the use of decibels related to the ratio of

powers or the power related quantities such as sound intensity or sound pressure.

L10 – level that is equal to or exceeded for 10% of the time interval considered in the absence

of the noise under investigation. The L10 is considered representative of road traffic noise.

The A-weighted background level is denoted as LA10.

Loudness – the measure of the subjective impression of the magnitude or strength of a

sound.

Noise descriptors – A noise descriptor is a measure of noise used to define a specific

characteristic of noise, e.g. average energy, variation (maximum and minimum) and

annoyance. Noise descriptors are based on measurements of the sound pressure level.

Common noise descriptors are provided below:

LAeq,T Time–average A-weighted sound pressure level

LA90,T Background A-weighted sound pressure level

Max LpA,T A-weighted maximum instantaneous sound pressure level, obtained using

time weighting F

Min LpA,T A-weighted minimum instantaneous sound pressure level, obtained using

time weighting F

LAmax,T Maximum A-weighted sound pressure level, obtained by arithmetically

averaging of the maximum levels of the noise under investigation

LAmax,adj,T A-weighted sound pressure level, obtained using time-weighting F, and

arithmetically averaging the maximum levels of the noise under investigation,

during time interval ’T’ and adding adjustments for tonality and impulsiveness

LAmin,T Minimum A-weighted sound pressure level, obtained by arithmetic averaging

of the minimum levels of the noise under investigation

LAbg,T A-weighted sound pressure level, obtained using time weighting F and

arithmetically averaging the lowest levels of the ambient sound pressure

level, during time interval T

Noise limit – a maximum or minimum value imposed on a noise index e.g. a legal purpose.

Sound power – the sound energy radiated per unit time by a sound source, measured in

watts.

Page 39 of 69 Page




18 January 2013

Ref: 70Q-12-0143-TRP-513006-3

Sound propagation – the transfer of sound from one point to another.

Velocity – a vector quantity that specifies the time derivative of displacement.

Vibration – oscillating motion of matter about a fixed equilibrium position.

Page 40 of 69 Page




18 January 2013

Ref: 70Q-12-0143-TRP-513006-3

APPENDIX B: BASIC

ACOUSTIC PRINCIPALS

Page 41 of 69 Page




18 January 2013

Ref: 70Q-12-0143-TRP-513006-3

This Appendix discusses basic acoustic principles.

Sound

Sound is a pressure variation that the human ear can detect. Noise can be defined as any

unwanted sound.

Noise Level

The range of pressures audible to the human ear is very large, approximately between

0.000020 Pa (threshold of hearing) and 20 Pa (threshold of pain). The human ear is more

sensitive to proportional increases in sound pressure rather than the absolute level of sound

pressure. To accommodate this and produce a meaningful measure of noise, a logarithmic

scale with the unit decibel (dB) is used to describe noise levels (loudness).

The Sound Pressure Level is the most commonly used measure of acoustic strength of a

sound or noise. It is the most basic unit used and is measured with a sound level meter.

Table B-1 shows typical noise levels of various common noise sources.

Table B-1: Sound Pressure Level of Common Noise Sources

Noise Source Typical Sound Pressure Level, dB(A)

Jet engine at 25 meters 140

Rock and Roll concert 120

Car horn 110

Leaf blower 95

Lawn mower 90

Vacuum cleaner 85

Heavy truck traffic 80

Business offices 70

Conversational speech 60

Library 50

Bedroom 40

Secluded woods 30

Whisper 20

Human Perception of Noise Level

An increase of 3 dB is equivalent to a doubling of the actual sound energy level. However, to

the average human ear, this amount of change is “just perceptible.” A 5 dB change in noise

level would be “quite noticeable” to the ear. An increase of 10 dB is typically perceived as a

doubling of loudness. Hence, a noise level of 80 dB will sound twice as loud as noise at 70

dB. Table B-2 shows the changes in noise level and their corresponding perceived changes.

Table B-2: Perceived Change in Noise for a Given Change in Noise Level

Change in Noise Level (dB) Perceived Change to the Human Ear

±1 Not perceptible, except under laboratory conditions

±3 Just perceptible

±5 Clearly noticeable and significant

±10 Twice (or half) as loud

Page 42 of 69 Page




18 January 2013

Ref: 70Q-12-0143-TRP-513006-3

Noise Propagation

Sound occurs as a series of regular air pressure waves emitted from an object. The pattern

produced by propagating pressure waves is similar to that produced by propagating waves in

water, after a stone has been thrown into the water.

Noise attenuates with distance as it travels from the source of noise. The degree of

attenuation depends on a variety of factors, although it is predominantly related to the

geometric spreading of the sound pressure energy (i.e. the distribution of the energy over an

increasingly larger area as the sound wave propagates). Environmental factors such as wind,

temperature, humidity, ground absorption/reflection, air absorption and atmospheric

stability also affect noise attenuation with distance.

Sound Power

Sound power is a measure of the rate at which acoustic energy leaves a source. It is

measured in units of Watts and is defined as the average intensity measured on an

imaginary surface surrounding a source, multiplied by the imaginary surface area.

The sound power of a noise source is an inherent property of the noise source. The sound

power value of a noise source often does not change with time, although, in some cases, can

vary over time, depending on the noise generation mechanism (e.g. cyclic loading of

machinery or vehicles operating at different speeds). The sound power level of a source is

defined as ten times the logarithm of the sound power divided by a reference level of 10-12

Watts.

The sound power level ‘LW’ is defined as:

dBW

WL

refW

= 10log10

Where Wref = 1 pico Watts

Frequency

Noise is not usually composed of a single frequency but a composite of frequencies. Noise at

different frequencies behaves differently, as follows:

• Attenuation over distance: Low frequency noise tends to attenuate less over distance.

Thus, the frequency composition of noise tends to change as noise propagates to

have a relatively higher low frequency content at greater distances from a noise

source. This is due to energy at higher frequencies being absorbed more during

propagation than energy at lower frequencies.

• Diffraction: Low frequency noise tends to diffract or ‘bend’ around objects more

easily than higher frequency noise. Thus, the frequency composition of noise that has

diffracted around an object (i.e. when there is no direct line of sight between source

and receiver) changes to have a relatively higher low frequency content.

Page 43 of 69 Page




18 January 2013

Ref: 70Q-12-0143-TRP-513006-3

APPENDIX C: WIND ROSES

Page 44 of 69 Page




18 January 2013

Ref: 70Q-12-0143-TRP-513006-3

Annual

Year: 1965-1971 Time: 00:00-23:00

Days: Jan 1-Dec 31 Hours: 8760

Wind Speed Direction: Blowing From Calm Winds: 0.06%

Spring

Year: 1965-1971 Time: 00:00-23:00

Days: Sept 1-Nov 30 Hours: 2184

Wind Speed Direction: Blowing From Calm Winds: 0%

Page 45 of 69 Page




18 January 2013

Ref: 70Q-12-0143-TRP-513006-3

Summer

Year: 1965-1971 Time: 00:00-23:00

Days: Dec 1 – Feb 28 Hours: 2160


Autumn

Year: 1965-1971 Time: 00:00-23:00

Days: Mar 1-May 31 Hours: 2208

Wind Speed Direction: Blowing From Calm Winds: 0.14 %

Page 46 of 69 Page




18 January 2013

Ref: 70Q-12-0143-TRP-513006-3

Winter

Year: 1965-1971 Time: 00:00-23:00

Days: Jun 1-Aug 31 Hours: 2208


Page 47 of 69 Page




18 January 2013

Ref: 70Q-12-0143-TRP-513006-3

APPENDIX D: NOISE

MONITORING DETAILS

Page 48 of 69 Page




18 January 2013

Ref: 70Q-12-0143-TRP-513006-3

D.1 SALISBURY PLAINS

Monitoring Details

Coordinates: 148°00.143E, 19°58.542S Microphone Height: 1.35 m

SLM Time/Frequency weighting: Fast/A Measurement Period: Both 15 and 60 minutes

Instrument: Larson Davis 831 Serial Number: 2056

Instrument last calibrated by lab: 23rd

Apr 2012 Calibration level: 94 dB pre and post measurement

Site Comments

On site observations identified that the most dominant noise source was traffic on the Bruce

Highway. Abbot Point activities could not be heard at this location.

Location

The monitoring location is shown by a red dot below. The monitoring location was free field

and representative of the homesteads at Salisbury Plains. This map should be reviewed

concurrently with Figure 4-1. The noise logger was positioned approximately 680 m from the

Bruce Highway and 11.2 km from Terminal 1.

The data is shown in Table D-1 and Figure D-1.

Table D-1: Monitoring Results at Salisbury Plains Homestead

Noise Descriptor Time Period

25

-Ju

l-1

2

26

-Ju

l-1

2

27

-Ju

l-1

2

28

-Ju

l-1

2

29

-Ju

l-1

2

30

-Ju

l-1

2

31

-Ju

l-1

2

1-A

ug

-12

LAMAX Night (10pm to 7am) 67.8 69.0 71.4 70.4 72.9 71.6 72.3 65.9

Day (7am to 6pm) 48.1 41.8 43.2 44.7 44.0 44.7 44.0 43.5

Evening (6pm to 10pm) 49.0 48.8 47.5 39.6 42.3 46.6 46.3 47.3 LAeq, Average

Night (10pm to 7am) 42.7 42.1 43.6 41.9 41.3 43.0 41.3 40.8

Day (7am to 6pm) 34.7 34.8 31.6 36.3 34.9 35.9 34.7 35.8

Evening (6pm to 10pm) 40.3 37.4 38.2 26.6 30.3 36.0 35.1 36.1 LA90, Average

Night (6pm to 10pm) 33.9 25.8 36.5 20.9 24.3 29.6 26.2 32.2

Page 49 of 69 Page 49 of 69




18 January 2013

Ref: 70Q-12-0143-TRP-513006-3

Figure D-1: Time History of Salisbury Plains Homestead Monitoring Data

Page 50 of 69 Page




18 January 2013

Ref: 70Q-12-0143-TRP-513006-3

D.2 FORMER COLINTA HOMESTEAD

Monitoring Details




Instrument last calibrated by lab: 7th

Dec 2011 Calibration level: 94 dB pre and post measurement

Site Comments

On site observations identified that the dominant noise source was from wind blowing

through the vegetation. Abbot Point activities were not audible at this location.

Location


and representative of the former Colinta Homestead. The monitoring location complied with

the requirements of AS 1055.1. This map should be reviewed concurrently with Figure 4-1.

The noise logger was positioned approximately 2.2 km from the Bruce Highway and 5.5 km

from Terminal 1.


Table D-2: Monitoring Results at Former Colinta Homestead


25

-Ju

l-1

2

26

-Ju

l-1

2

27

-Ju

l-1

2

28

-Ju

l-1

2

29

-Ju

l-1

2

30

-Ju

l-1

2

31

-Ju

l-1

2

LAMAX Night (10pm to 7am) 73.2 65.2 - - - - -

Day (7am to 6pm) 46.1 46.2 46.3 45.4 50.2 47.7 47.4

Evening (6pm to 10pm) 57.0 55.7 59.2 56.5 - - - LAeq, Average

Night (10pm to 7am) 51.4 38.6 - - - - -

Day (7am to 6pm) 38.8 39.8 33.3 33.9 38.8 37.3 41.1

Evening (6pm to 10pm) 48.0 42.0 48.0 34.4 - - - LA90, Average

Night (6pm to 10pm) 44.6 29.0 - - - - -





18 January 2013

Ref: 70Q-12-0143-TRP-513006-3

Figure D-2: Time History of Former Colinta Homestead Monitoring Data

Page 52 of 69 Page




18 January 2013

Ref: 70Q-12-0143-TRP-513006-3

D.3 WETLANDS

Monitoring Details





Nov 2011 Calibration level: 94 dB pre and post measurement

Site Comments

On site observations identified that the most dominant noise source was bird song. Abbot

Point Terminal 1 was not audible at this site.

Location


and representative of the Wetlands. This map should be reviewed concurrently with Figure

4-1. The noise logger was positioned approximately 4.3 km from the Bruce Highway and 4.5

km from Terminal 1.


Table D-3: Monitoring Results at Wetlands


25

-Ju

l-1

2

26

-Ju

l-1

2

27

-Ju

l-1

2

28

-Ju

l-1

2

29

-Ju

l-1

2

30

-Ju

l-1

2

31

-Ju

l-1

2

1-A

ug

-12

LAMAX Night (10pm to 7am) 64.9 64.0 81.4 64.1 67.1 79.1 69.1 76.4

Day (7am to 6pm) 39.3 36.1 34.8 37.9 42.2 36.2 38.4 38.3

Evening (6pm to 10pm) 38.9 38.6 36.7 32.5 39.4 37.4 40.5 36.4 LAeq, Average

Night (10pm to 7am) 35.5 34.5 46.1 31.4 30.7 34.9 32.1 34.2

Day (7am to 6pm) 28.8 28.2 25.4 23.7 28.5 26.8 28.9 27.4

Evening (6pm to 10pm) 35.2 34.2 32.6 26.8 28.4 31.3 30.2 29.1 LA90, Average

Night (6pm to 10pm) 33.0 30.3 31.0 24.0 24.8 25.0 24.3 30.1





18 January 2013

Ref: 70Q-12-0143-TRP-513006-3

Figure D-3: Time History of Wetlands Monitoring Data

Page 54 of 69 Page




18 January 2013

Ref: 70Q-12-0143-TRP-513006-3

D.4 ROAD/RAIL BRIDGE

Monitoring Details





Dec 2011 Calibration level: 94 dB pre and post measurement

Site Comments

On site observations identified that the most dominant noise source was road traffic on

Abbot Point Road (16 m from logger) and train movements on the railway (26 m from

logger).

Location


and representative of the homesteads at Salisbury Plains. This map should be reviewed

concurrently with Figure 4-1. The noise logger was positioned approximately 5.9 km from

the Bruce Highway and 5.5 km from Terminal 1.

Page 55 of 69 Page




18 January 2013

Ref: 70Q-12-0143-TRP-513006-3

APPENDIX E: DETERMINING

PLANNING NOISE LEVELS

Page 56 of 69 Page




18 January 2013

Ref: 70Q-12-0143-TRP-513006-3

The Rating Background Levels (RBLs) have been derived from the noise monitoring data and

correspond to the median of the 10th

percentile of the background (LA90) noise levels for

each daytime, evening and night period.

In order to prevent background creep, the noise criteria is adjusted where the RBLs approach

the ROBs listed in Section 2.3.2. The adjustments to the recommended RBLs as defined in the

Ecoaccess ‘Planning for Noise Control’ based on the land uses. The RBL,adj is detailed in

brackets for each monitoring location.

Table E-1: Rated Background Noise Levels at Monitoring Locations

RBL Noise Level (dB(A)) Time Period

Salisbury Plains Former Colinta Wetlands

Day 33 (30) 37 (27) 26 (31)

Evening 36 (26) 45 (25) 31 (33)

Night 31 (25) 45 (25) 29 (35)

The Planning Noise Levels (PNL) are set 3 dB(A) above the RBL,adj provided they do not exceed

the PNL guidelines in Table 2-4. For this assessment, the monitoring locations have been

identified as Category Z1, as defined in Table 2-4.

The resultant planning noise levels are shown in Table E-2.

Table E-2: Planning Noise Levels at Monitoring Locations

Planning Noise Levels (dB(A)) (RBL,adj) Time Period

Salisbury Plains Former Colinta Wetlands

Day 33 30 34

Evening 29 28 35

Night 28 28 35

Page 57 of 69 Page




18 January 2013

Ref: 70Q-12-0143-TRP-513006-3

APPENDIX F: NOISE

CONTOUR PLOTS





18 January 2013

Ref: 70Q-12-0143-TRP-513006-3





18 January 2013

Ref: 70Q-12-0143-TRP-513006-3





18 January 2013

Ref: 70Q-12-0143-TRP-513006-3





18 January 2013

Ref: 70Q-12-0143-TRP-513006-3





18 January 2013

Ref: 70Q-12-0143-TRP-513006-3





18 January 2013

Ref: 70Q-12-0143-TRP-513006-3





18 January 2013

Ref: 70Q-12-0143-TRP-513006-3





18 January 2013

Ref: 70Q-12-0143-TRP-513006-3

Page 66 of 69 Page




18 January 2013

Ref: 70Q-12-0143-TRP-513006-3

APPENDIX G: NOISE IMPACTS

ON BIRDS – LITERATURE

REVIEW

Page 67 of 69 Page




18 January 2013

Ref: 70Q-12-0143-TRP-513006-3

Presently, there are no government policies or accepted guidelines in respect of the

acceptable noise levels for wildlife, particularly migratory birds. In Australia there are no

noise studies presently available that deal with noise impacts on native species for long-term

exposure, therefore a general literature review has been carried out in order to appreciate

the potential impacts of noise on birds.

Noise Impact Determination

Human activities can impact on birds more than 200 m away (Thompson 1992) and the

effects of disturbance vary among shorebird species. Disturbance can force shorebirds to

abandon traditional roosts and may affect their use of whole estuaries. When waterbirds

take flight because a person, animal, vehicle, or vessel disturbs them, they use up critical

energy. This means the birds might not gain enough weight required for migration and/or

breeding; repeated disturbances exacerbate this problem. Disturbances to migratory

waterbirds are most critical if they occur prior to the waterbirds departure or when they

return and are recovering. Potential effects of man-made noise on birds can be divided into

two categories; impacts on avian hearing ability and communication, and the impact of noise

on behaviour.

The Avian Ear

In order to appreciate the potential impacts on migratory birds it is important to understand

the basic hearing capabilities of birds. The avian ear consists of an external tympanic

membrane, a single-boned middle ear, and an inner ear (Dooling et al 2000). The single-

boned middle ear has a large influence on hearing capabilities as it generally limits high

frequency hearing to approximately 10 kHz. In addition, birds generally detect a narrower

range of frequencies than mammals (Dooling and Popper 2007), which is most likely the

result of the basilar papilla (auditory sensory organ) being shorter and different in structure.

The median audiogram for bird species based on 49 behavioural audiograms recorded over

the past 50 years is compared with the human audiogram (Figure G-1) (Dooling et al 2000).

Figure G-1: Bird and Human Audiogram (Source: Dooling & Popper, 2007)

Page 68 of 69 Page




18 January 2013

Ref: 70Q-12-0143-TRP-513006-3

It can be seen that bird hearing is typically most sensitive at frequencies between 1-5 kHz.

This frequency range overlaps with the spectrum of bird vocalisations, indicating that birds

usually hear best in the range of their species-specific vocalisations. Absolute hearing

thresholds approach 0 to 10 dB, within the most sensitive frequency range between 2-4 kHz.

The low frequency cut-off of hearing is about 300 Hz while the high frequency cut-off is

about 6 kHz.

Impacts on Hearing Ability

Similar to human hearing, when birds are exposed to a high level of sound for a specific

duration the sensory hair cells begin to fatigue and do not immediately return to their

normal shape, causing a temporary threshold shift (TTS) as the hearing loss is temporary. If

the noise exposure exceeds the critical energy level, the hair cells become permanently

damaged and the effect is called permanent threshold shift (PTS).

The avian ear has the ability to regenerate damaged hair cells after acoustic trauma,

suggesting that PTS from noise is most likely not a significant concern for the majority of bird

species (Saunders et al 1991).

Continuous noise levels between 93 and 110 dB(A) may cause TTS, with higher levels

possibly resulting in PTS. For impulsive noise, such as piling noise, levels above 140 dB(A) for

single pulses or 125 dB(A) for multiple pulses were estimated to cause hearing damage

(Dooling and Popper, 2007).

Changes in Communication

Dooling (2002) has identified the noise levels required for birds to detect tones and noise in

high background noise:

• Detection of Tones in Noise: For the average bird, a pure tone in the region of 3 kHz

must be at least 28 dB above the spectrum level of noise in order to be detected. This

is not the case for the budgerigar, the great tit, or the barn owl. For the human, the

same pure tone need only be about 22 dB above the spectrum level of noise to be

heard.

• Detection of Noise in Noise: For humans, a noise needs to be about 0.5 dB greater

than the background noise to be detected, while birds require an added noise to be

at least 1.5 dB above the background noise to be detected.

The Table G-1 shows the signal-to-noise levels that must be exceeded for a bird to detect

different types of signals—either pure tones or a broadband noise.

Table G-1: Signal/Noise in dB to Be Exceeded for Detection of Tones and Noise for an Average Bird

Signal 1 kHz 2 kHz 3 kHz 4 kHz Broadband

Signal/Noise dB 24 dB 27 dB 28.5 dB 30 dB 1.5 dB

Slabbekoorn and Peet (2003) found that birds could vocalise at higher frequencies to avoid

masking of communication signals by man-made noise at low frequencies.

Page 69 of 69 Page




18 January 2013

Ref: 70Q-12-0143-TRP-513006-3

Australian Case Study

There are few studies on the long-term impacts of industrial noise on birds, however a case

study of construction noise on shorebirds during the Port Botany Expansion, undertaken by

Avian Ecologist Hazel Watson (Baulderstone Honibrook, 2008) is an example of short-term

impacts.

Watson identified that there was a decline in the presence of the smaller shorebirds on the

western shore, with Red-necked Stints being recorded less frequently, and Red-capped

Plovers present in smaller numbers.

Conversely, Watson states that heavy machinery did not displace Bar-tailed Godwits from

their feeding habitat and similarly, shorebirds continued to feed on the mudflats while the

mangrove workers were present. In some cases Black-winged Stilts were observed feeding

within 30 m of workers using brush-cutters. It was also observed that shorebirds were more

likely to take flight if workers walked along the shore towards them. Additionally, the

behaviour of other birds such as making alarm calls or taking flight was seen to be impacting

on the behaviour of shorebirds.

Overall, Watson concluded that responses vary among species; Bar-tailed Godwits are quick

to take flight, whereas the smaller shorebirds such as Red-capped Plovers may be seen to

freeze or crouch low to the sand as a defensive predator-avoidance strategy. This type of

disturbance appears more likely to force some species to leave the estuary area completely

rather than moving a short distance, and post-disturbance recovery time appears to be

much longer, with the shorebirds remaining alert for a longer period before resuming their

original behaviour.

Documents

Adani Appendix E5a – Noise and Vibration Technical Reports3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/adani/pdf/eisdoc_e5a-noise-and... · Acoustics Vibration Air Quality Mechanical & Structural