Noise, Vibration and Blasting Assessment

80t

ABN: 46 114 162 597

Prepared by

Wilkinson Murray Pty Limited

April 2013

Specialist Consultant Studies Compendium Volume 1, Part 1

Noise, Vibration and Blasting

Assessment

This page has intentionally been left blank

ABN: 46 114 162 597

Noise, Vibration and Blasting

Assessment

Prepared for: R.W. Corkery & Co. Pty Limited 1st Floor, 12 Dangar Road PO Box 239 BROOKLYN NSW 2083

Tel: (02) 9985 8511 Fax: (02) 9985 8208 Email: [email protected]

On behalf of: Gloucester Resources Limited Level 37, Riverside Centre

123 Eagle Street BRISBANE QLD 4000


Prepared by: Wilkinson Murray Pty Limited Level 4, 272 Pacific Highway

CROWS NEST NSW, 2065


April 2013

GLOUCESTER RESOURCES LIMITED SPECIALIST CONSULTANT STUDIES

Rocky Hill Coal Project Part 1: Noise, Vibration and Blasting Assessment

Report No. 806/04

1 - 2

DOCUMENT CONTROL

Version Status Date Prepared By Reviewed By

A Draft 17 September 2012 Adam Bioletti Rob Bullen

B Draft 5 October 2012 Adam Bioletti

C Draft 27 October 2012 Adam Bioletti Rob Bullen

D Final for Client Review 30 November 2012 Adam Bioletti Rob Bullen

E Final for Adequacy 11 December 2012 Adam Bioletti Rob Bullen

F Final for Client Review 21 February 2013 Adam Bioletti Rob Bullen

G Final 5 March 2013 Adam Bioletti/

Rob Bullen Barry Murray

Note All materials specified by Wilkinson Murray Pty Limited have been selected solely on the basis of acoustic performance. Any other properties of these materials, such as fire rating, chemical properties etc. should be checked with the suppliers or other specialised bodies for fitness for a given purpose. The information contained in this document produced by Wilkinson Murray is solely for the use of the client identified on the front page of this report. Our client becomes the owner of this document upon full payment of our Tax Invoice for its provision. This document must not be used for any purposes other than those of the document’s owner. Wilkinson Murray undertakes no duty to or accepts any responsibility to any third party who may rely upon this document.

Quality Assurance We are committed to and have implemented AS/NZS ISO 9001:2008 “Quality Management Systems – Requirements”. This management system has been externally certified and Licence No. QEC 13457 has been issued.

AAAC This firm is a member firm of the Association of Australian Acoustical Consultants and the work here reported has been carried out in accordance with the terms of that membership.

Celebrating 50 Years in 2012 Wilkinson Murray is an independent firm established 50 years ago originally as Carr & Wilkinson. In 1976 Barry Murray joined founding partner Roger Wilkinson and the firm adopted the name which remains today. From a successful operation in Australia, Wilkinson Murray expanded its reach into Asia by opening a Hong Kong office early in 2006. 2010 saw the introduction of our Queensland office and 2011 the introduction of our Orange office to service a growing client base in these regions. From these offices, Wilkinson Murray services the entire Asia-Pacific region.

This Copyright is included for the protection of this document

COPYRIGHT

© Wilkinson Murray Pty Limited, 2013 and

© Gloucester Resources Limited, 2013

All intellectual property and copyright reserved.

Apart from any fair dealing for the purpose of private study, research, criticism or review, as permitted under the Copyright Act, 1968, no part of this report may be reproduced, transmitted, stored in a retrieval system or adapted in any form or by any means (electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise) without written permission. Enquiries should be addressed to Wilkinson Murray Pty Limited.

SPECIALIST CONSULTANT STUDIES GLOUCESTER RESOURCES LIMITED

Part 1: Noise, Vibration and Blasting Assessment Rocky Hill Coal Project

Report No. 806/04

CONTENTS Page

1 - 3

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY......................................................................................................................... 1-9

ES.1 INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................. 1-9

ES.2 NOISE ENVIRONMENT ................................................................................................... 1-9

ES.3 OPERATIONAL NOISE ASSESSMENT CRITERIA ...................................................... 1-11

ES.4 ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY ................................................................................. 1-11

ES.5 NOISE MODELLING ...................................................................................................... 1-12

ES.5.1 Noise Assessment Scenarios ............................................................................ 1-12

ES.5.2 Meteorological Data used for Noise Predictions ............................................... 1-13

ES.5.3 Noise Affectation Zone and Noise Management Zone ..................................... 1-13

ES.5.4 Operational Noise Modelling Key Outcomes ..................................................... 1-16

ES.6 CUMULATIVE NOISE ASSESSMENT .......................................................................... 1-16

ES.7 SLEEP DISTURBANCE ................................................................................................. 1-17

ES.8 PROJECT CONSTRUCTION NOISE ............................................................................ 1-17

ES.9 BLASTING ...................................................................................................................... 1-17

ES.10 ROAD TRAFFIC NOISE ................................................................................................. 1-17

ES.11 RAIL NOISE ................................................................................................................... 1-18

ES.12 NOISE MANAGEMENT MEASURES ............................................................................ 1-18

ES.13 CONCLUSION................................................................................................................ 1-19

GLOSSARY OF ACOUSTIC AND BLASTING TERMS ...................................................................... 1-20

ACRONYMS .......................................................................................................................................... 1-22

1. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................... 1-23

1.1 SCOPE ........................................................................................................................... 1-23

1.2 OBJECTIVES OF THIS ASSESSMENT ........................................................................ 1-23

2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION .......................................................................................................... 1-29

2.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW .................................................................................................. 1-29

2.2 PROJECT TIMETABLE .................................................................................................. 1-31

2.3 ROAD TRAFFIC ............................................................................................................. 1-32

2.3.1 Site Establishment and Construction Phase ..................................................... 1-32

2.3.2 Operations ......................................................................................................... 1-33

2.4 BLASTING ...................................................................................................................... 1-33

2.5 PRODUCT DISPATCH .................................................................................................. 1-33

2.6 HOURS OF OPERATION .............................................................................................. 1-34

2.6.1 Site Establishment and Construction Hours ...................................................... 1-35

3. NOISE RECEPTORS AND SURROUNDING LAND USES ...................................................... 1-36

4. EXISTING NOISE ENVIRONMENT............................................................................................ 1-44

4.1 NOISE SOURCES ......................................................................................................... 1-44

4.2 BACKGROUND NOISE MONITORING ......................................................................... 1-44



Report No. 806/04

CONTENTS Page

1 - 4

4.3 NOISE MEASUREMENT PROCEDURES ..................................................................... 1-45

4.3.1 Unattended Continuous Noise Logging ............................................................. 1-45

4.3.2 Operator-attended Noise Measurements .......................................................... 1-47

4.4 INSTRUMENTATION AND MEASUREMENT PARAMETERS ..................................... 1-47

4.5 UNATTENDED NOISE MEASUREMENTS ................................................................... 1-48

4.6 ATTENDED NOISE MEASUREMENTS ........................................................................ 1-49

5. OPERATIONAL NOISE ASSESSMENT CRITERIA .................................................................. 1-50

5.1 INTRUSIVENESS AND AMENITY CRITERIA ............................................................... 1-50

5.2 ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY ................................................................................. 1-54

5.3 CRITERION FOR THE PREVENTION OF SLEEP DISTURBANCE WITHIN RESIDENCES ................................................................................................................ 1-54

5.4 WORLD HEALTH ORGANISATION CRITERIA TO PROTECT THE HEALTH OF THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY ............................................................................. 1-55

5.5 CRITERIA FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF LOW FREQUENCY NOISE (INCLUDING INFRASOUND) ............................................................................................................... 1-56

5.5.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 1-56

5.5.2 DEFRA Approach .............................................................................................. 1-57

5.5.3 A Simple Outdoor Criterion ................................................................................ 1-57

5.5.4 Adopted Low Frequency Noise Approach ......................................................... 1-58

6. OPERATIONAL NOISE ASSESSMENT .................................................................................... 1-59

6.1 NOISE MODELLING METHODOLOGY ......................................................................... 1-59

6.1.1 Noise Assessment Scenarios ............................................................................ 1-59

6.1.2 Meteorological Data used for Noise Predictions ............................................... 1-62

6.2 INVESTIGATION OF FEASIBLE AND REASONABLE NOISE MITIGATION MEASURES .................................................................................................................... 1-65

6.3 FLEET LIST AND SOUND POWER LEVELS ................................................................ 1-66

6.4 PREDICTED OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVELS ............................................................. 1-67

6.4.1 Introduction ........................................................................................................ 1-67

6.4.2 Mining Operations .............................................................................................. 1-68

6.4.3 Overland Conveyor .......................................................................................... 1-106

6.4.4 Rail Load-out Facility ....................................................................................... 1-109

6.4.5 Combined Mining, Conveying and Rail Load-out Operations ......................... 1-112

6.4.6 Noise Levels in Gloucester Township ............................................................. 1-113

6.4.7 Noise Affectation Zone and Noise Management Zone .................................... 1-113

6.5 LOW FREQUENCY NOISE ASSESSMENT ................................................................ 1-115

6.6 CUMULATIVE NOISE ASSESSMENT ........................................................................ 1-116

6.7 PRIVATELY-OWNED LAND NOISE ASSESSMENT .................................................. 1-117

6.8 NEW MINE NOISE ....................................................................................................... 1-118

6.9 POTENTIAL FOR SLEEP DISTURBANCE WITHIN RESIDENCES ........................... 1-119



Report No. 806/04

CONTENTS Page

1 - 5

6.10 NOISE MANAGEMENT MEASURES .......................................................................... 1-119

6.10.1 Noise Management Zone ................................................................................ 1-119

6.10.2 Noise Affectation Zone ................................................................................. 1-120

6.10.3 General Management Measures ..................................................................... 1-120

6.10.4 Noise Monitoring Requirements ...................................................................... 1-121

6.10.5 Noise Management Plan ................................................................................. 1-121

7. TRANSPORTATION NOISE AND VIBRATION ....................................................................... 1-123

7.1 ROAD TRAFFIC NOISE ............................................................................................... 1-123

7.1.1 Traffic During Site Establishment and Construction Phase ............................ 1-123

7.1.2 Traffic Throughout Operations ........................................................................ 1-123

7.1.3 Road Traffic Noise Criteria .............................................................................. 1-124

7.1.4 Road Traffic Impacts ....................................................................................... 1-124

7.1.5 Road Traffic Impacts ....................................................................................... 1-125

7.2 ROAD TRAFFIC VIBRATION ...................................................................................... 1-127

7.3 RAIL NOISE ................................................................................................................. 1-127

7.3.1 Rail Noise Criteria ............................................................................................ 1-127

7.3.2 Criteria for Cumulative Rail Noise ................................................................... 1-128

7.3.3 Rail Noise Impacts ........................................................................................... 1-129

8. CONSTRUCTION NOISE ......................................................................................................... 1-132

8.1 CONSTRUCTION NOISE CRITERIA .......................................................................... 1-132

8.2 PREDICTED CONSTRUCTION NOISE LEVELS ........................................................ 1-133

8.3 CONSTRUCTION MITIGATION MEASURES ............................................................. 1-134

9. BLASTING ASSESSMENT ...................................................................................................... 1-136

9.1 AIRBLAST OVERPRESSURE NOISE AND VIBRATION CRITERIA .......................... 1-136

9.1.1 Criteria for the Minimisation of Human Annoyance from Blasting ................... 1-136

9.1.2 Criteria for the Prevention of Structural Damage to Buildings ......................... 1-137

9.2 MANAGEMENT, MITIGATION AND CONTINGENCY MEASURES ........................... 1-137

9.2.1 Blasting Impacts on Residents ........................................................................ 1-137

9.2.2 Building Damage ............................................................................................. 1-138

9.2.3 Blasting Impacts on Livestock ......................................................................... 1-138

9.2.4 Rail Load-Out Facility ...................................................................................... 1-138

9.2.5 Fly Rock ........................................................................................................... 1-138

9.2.6 Cumulative Impacts ......................................................................................... 1-138

9.3 PREDICTION OF AIRBLAST OVERPRESSURE AND VIBRATION LEVELS ............ 1-139

9.4 PREDICTED OVERPRESSURE AND VIBRATION LEVELS AT RECEPTORS ........ 1-139

9.4.1 Residential Receptors ..................................................................................... 1-139

9.4.2 Building Damage ............................................................................................. 1-145

9.4.3 Livestock .......................................................................................................... 1-145

9.4.4 Vibration from Road Traffic .............................................................................. 1-146

9.4.5 Rail Load-out Facility ....................................................................................... 1-146

9.4.6 Fly Rock ........................................................................................................... 1-146

9.4.7 Cumulative Impacts ......................................................................................... 1-147



Report No. 806/04

CONTENTS Page

1 - 6

9.5 AIRBLAST OVERPRESSURE AND VIBRATION MITIGATION .................................. 1-147

9.6 BLAST MONITORING .................................................................................................. 1-147

10. CONCLUSION .......................................................................................................................... 1-148

10.1 GENERAL ..................................................................................................................... 1-148

10.2 PROJECT OPERATIONAL NOISE .............................................................................. 1-148

10.3 CUMULATIVE NOISE .................................................................................................. 1-150

10.4 SLEEP DISTURBANCE ............................................................................................... 1-150

10.5 PROJECT CONSTRUCTION NOISE .......................................................................... 1-150

10.6 BLASTING .................................................................................................................... 1-150

10.7 ROAD TRAFFIC NOISE ............................................................................................... 1-151

10.8 RAIL NOISE .................................................................................................................. 1-151

11. REFERENCES .......................................................................................................................... 1-152 APPENDICES

Appendix 1 Statistical Ambient Noise Levels .................................................................................. 1-155

Appendix 2 Predicted Noise Level Tables ....................................................................................... 1-289

Appendix 3 Predicted Cumulative Noise Contours ......................................................................... 1-357

FIGURES

Figure ES-1 Surrounding Noise-Sensitive Receptors ........................................................................ 1-10

Figure 1.1 Proposal Location ........................................................................................................... 1-24

Figure 2.1 Proposed Site Layout ..................................................................................................... 1-30

Figure 3.1 Surrounding Noise-Sensitive Receptors ........................................................................ 1-37

Figure 3.2 Noise-Sensitive Receptors in Gloucester Township ...................................................... 1-39

Figure 4.1 Noise Monitoring Locations ............................................................................................ 1-46

Figure 5.1 Noise Catchment Areas .................................................................................................. 1-51

Figure 6.1 Percentage Occurrence of Varying Strength Temperature Inversions .......................... 1-63

Figure 6.2 Percentage Occurrence of Temperature Inversions 3°C/100m or Greater During Winter .................................................................................................................. 1-64

Figure 6.3 Year 0.5 Day Plant Layout .............................................................................................. 1-70

Figure 6.4 Year 0.5 Day – Predicted 10% Exceedance .................................................................. 1-71

Figure 6.5 Year 0.5 Evening Plant Layout ....................................................................................... 1-72

Figure 6.6 Year 0.5 Evening – Predicted 10% Exceedance............................................................ 1-73

Figure 6.7 Year 2.5 Day Plant Layout .............................................................................................. 1-76

Figure 6.8 Year 2.5 Day – Predicted 10% Exceedance .................................................................. 1-77

Figure 6.9 Year 2.5 Evening Plant Layout ....................................................................................... 1-78

Figure 6.10 Year 2.5 Evening – Predicted 10% Exceedance............................................................ 1-79



Report No. 806/04

CONTENTS Page

1 - 7

Figure 6.11 Year 2.5 Night Plant Layout ........................................................................................... 1-80

Figure 6.12 Year 2.5 Night – Predicted 10% Exceedance ................................................................ 1-81

Figure 6.13 Year 4.25 Day Plant Layout ........................................................................................... 1-84

Figure 6.14 Year 4.25 Day – Predicted 10% Exceedance ................................................................ 1-85

Figure 6.15 Year 4.25 Evening Plant Layout ..................................................................................... 1-86

Figure 6.16 Year 4.25 Evening – Predicted 10% Exceedance ......................................................... 1-87

Figure 6.17 Year 4.25 Night Plant Layout ......................................................................................... 1-88

Figure 6.18 Year 4.25 Night – Predicted 10% Exceedance .............................................................. 1-89

Figure 6.19 Year 7.75 Day Plant Layout ........................................................................................... 1-92

Figure 6.20 Year 7.75 Day – Predicted 10% Exceedance ................................................................ 1-93

Figure 6.21 Year 7.75 Evening Plant Layout ..................................................................................... 1-94

Figure 6.22 Year 7.75 Evening – Predicted 10% Exceedance ......................................................... 1-95

Figure 6.23 Year 7.75 Night Plant Layout ......................................................................................... 1-96

Figure 6.24 Year 7.75 Night – Predicted 10% Exceedance .............................................................. 1-97

Figure 6.25 Year 13 Day Plant Layout ............................................................................................ 1-100

Figure 6.26 Year 13 Day – Predicted 10% Exceedance ................................................................. 1-101

Figure 6.27 Year 13 Evening Plant Layout ...................................................................................... 1-102

Figure 6.28 Year 13 Evening – Predicted 10% Exceedance .......................................................... 1-103

Figure 6.29 Year 13 Night Plant Layout .......................................................................................... 1-104

Figure 6.30 Year 13 Night – Predicted 10% Exceedance ............................................................... 1-105

Figure 6.31 Year 4.25 Night Concurrent Mining and Conveyor Operations – Predicted 10% Exceedance .................................................................................................................. 1-108

Figure 6.32 Year 4.25 Night with Concurrent Mining and RLF Operations – Predicted 10% Exceedance .................................................................................................................. 1-111

Figure 7.1 Residences Affected by Cumulative Rail Noise ........................................................... 1-131 TABLES

Table ES-1 Proposal Specific Criteria Summary .............................................................................. 1-11

Table ES-2 Project Noise Impact Assessment Methodology ............................................................ 1-12

Table ES-3 Summary of Potential Exceedances within Noise Management and Affectation Zones .................................................................................................... 1-14

Table ES-4 Summary of Highest Potential Exceedances throughout the Nominated Operational Scenarios .................................................................................................... 1-15

Table 1.1 Coverage of Noise-related Matters ................................................................................ 1-25

Table 2.1 Estimated Annual Overburden and ROM Coal Production ............................................ 1-32

Table 2.2 Traffic Movements During Site Establishment and Construction Phase........................ 1-32

Table 2.3 Operational Hours .......................................................................................................... 1-34

Table 2.4 Site Establishment and Construction Hours ................................................................... 1-35

Table 3.1 Receptors Considered in this Assessment (co-ordinates are MGA, zone 56) ............... 1-40



Report No. 806/04

CONTENTS Page

1 - 8

Table 4.1 Noise Monitoring Locations ............................................................................................ 1-45

Table 4.2 Summary of Unattended Noise Monitoring Results ....................................................... 1-48

Table 5.1 Intrusiveness Criteria For Privately-owned Receptors ................................................... 1-50

Table 5.2 Proposal Specific Noise Criteria for Privately-owned Receptors ................................... 1-53

Table 5.3 Project Noise Impact ...................................................................................................... 1-54

Table 5.4 Proposed Reference Curve for Assessment of Low-Frequency Noise .......................... 1-57

Table 5.5 Outdoor Criteria for the Assessment of Low Frequency Noise ...................................... 1-58

Table 6.1 Indicative Mobile Equipment List .................................................................................... 1-66

Table 6.2 Active Noise Management Strategy Year 0.5 ................................................................ 1-69

Table 6.3 Year 0.5 Noise Levels for Receptors where Exceedances are Predicted ..................... 1-74

Table 6.4 Active Noise Management Strategy Year 2.5 ................................................................ 1-75

Table 6.5 Year 2.5 Noise Levels for Receptors where Exceedances are Predicted ..................... 1-82

Table 6.6 Active Noise Management Strategy Year 4.25 .............................................................. 1-83

Table 6.7 Year 4.25 Noise Levels for Receptors where Exceedances are Predicted ................... 1-90

Table 6.8 Active Noise Management Strategy Year 7.75 .............................................................. 1-91

Table 6.9 Year 7.75 Noise Levels for Receptors where Exceedances are Predicted ................... 1-98

Table 6.10 Active Noise Management Strategy Year 13 ................................................................. 1-99

Table 6.11 Year 13 Noise Levels for Receptors where Exceedances are Predicted .................... 1-106

Table 6.12 Noise Predictions with Conveyor Operating ................................................................. 1-107

Table 6.13 Noise Predictions with Concurrent Mining and Rail Load-out Facility Operations ....... 1-110

Table 6.14 Summary of Potential Exceedances under Adverse Meteorological Conditions ......... 1-113

Table 6.15 LAeq,Period Cumulative Noise Predictions – Year 4.25 .................................................... 1-117

Table 7.1 Traffic Movements* During Site Establishment and Construction Phase .................... 1-123

Table 7.2 Traffic Movements* During Site Mine Operations ........................................................ 1-123

Table 7.3 Criteria for Traffic Noise – Residences ......................................................................... 1-124

Table 7.4 Existing Average Weekday Traffic Volumes ................................................................ 1-124

Table 7.5 Criteria for Traffic Noise – Residences ......................................................................... 1-125

Table 7.6 Predicted Road Traffic Noise Levels at the Nearest Receiver Setback ....................... 1-126

Table 7.7 EPA Rail Noise Assessment Trigger Levels ................................................................ 1-128

Table 7.8 Train Numbers and Rail Noise Levels at 15m .............................................................. 1-130

Table 8.1 Noise at Residences using Quantitative Assessment .................................................. 1-133

Table 9.1 Predicted Blasting Overpressure and Vibration 5% Exceedance Levels ..................... 1-140

SPECIALIST CONSULTANT STUDIES GLOUCESTER RESOURCES LIMITED Part 1: Noise, Vibration and Blasting Assessment Rocky Hill Coal Project

Report No. 806/04

1 - 9

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

ES.1 INTRODUCTION

The Site of Rocky Hill Coal Project (“the Proposal”) is located approximately 3.5 to 7km south-

east of the Gloucester urban area. It is bordered by Waukivory Road to the north, the Avon

River and Waukivory Creek to the west and south, and the Mograni Range to the east.

The Proposal comprises four principal components, namely:

1. four separate and/or contiguous open cut pits and a coal handling and

preparation plant (CHPP) within the Mine Area;

2. an overland conveyor for transporting product coal to the Rail Load-out Facility.

The overland conveyor is located within a 50m wide Overland Conveyor Corridor;

3. a Rail Load-out Facility (RLF) incorporating a rail loop and two coal storage bins;

and

4. two Power Line Corridors incorporating a re-located 132kV power line and a new

11kV power line external to the Mine Area.

This assessment addresses potential noise and blasting impacts associated with the Proposal.

ES.2 NOISE ENVIRONMENT

Noise which is currently audible at the residences surrounding the Site is attributed to a range

of sources including:

traffic on local roads and The Bucketts Way;

occasional trains on the North Coast Railway;

domestic noises such as lawn mowers;

rural noises such as tractors, insects and birds;

wind in the trees;

livestock/vehicles on properties and at the Gloucester Livestock Exchange

Centre;

a saw mill near the intersection of Jacks Road and The Bucketts Way; and

occasional light aircraft using the Gloucester airfield.

Operator-attended and unattended noise monitoring was undertaken over four periods

between July 2010 and July 2012 in order to establish the Rating Background noise level

(RBL).

The results of the monitoring established that the Site is located in a typical rural area with few

noise sources and generally low noise levels, particularly background noise levels. Ambient

noise levels in the vicinity of The Bucketts Way (Locations 11, 12 and 14 in Figure ES-1) were

elevated due to traffic noise. Within Gloucester township, daytime noise levels were

marginally above those outside the township, but generally below those at locations with

exposure to higher speed traffic on The Buckets Way. Evening and night-time noise levels

were generally consistent across all locations.



Report No. 806/04

1 - 10

Figure ES-1 Surrounding Noise-Sensitive Receptors


Report No. 806/04

1 - 11

ES.3 OPERATIONAL NOISE ASSESSMENT CRITERIA

Operational noise criteria were determined in accordance with the NSW Industrial Noise Policy

(INP). The most stringent criteria (INP Intrusiveness criteria) are expressed in terms of the unit

LAeq,15min, and are presented in Table ES-1.

Table ES-1 Proposal Specific Criteria Summary

Receptor Numbers (see Figure ES-1)

Receptor Area Description Criterion, dBA

Day Evening Night-time

21A, 21B, 24, 63, 65, 67J, 67P, 68, 70, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 90, 91, 92, 94

* 64, 66, 67A, 67B, 67C, 67D, 67E, 67F, 67G, 67H, 67I, 67K, 67L, 67M, 67N, 67O, 67Q, 69, 71, 72, 79, 89, S93, 95, 96

Exposed to Jacks Road, The Bucketts Way and some industrial noise from the nearby estate.

Similar to Monitoring Location 10.

36 35 35

98, 99, 100, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106A, 106B, 107, 108, 109, 110

* 97

Exposed to The Bucketts Way near the intersection with Jacks Road. Some existing industrial noise impacts the RBL.


43 35 35

112, 113, 114, 115, 117, 118, 119, 120, 122, 123, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 132, 133, 138, 139, 140, 159, 181B, 181C, 182B, 183, 184B

* 19B, 19C, 111, 116, 121, 124, 131, 162

Exposed to The Bucketts Way south of intersection with Jacks Road.


40 35 35

All others Rural with minimal transportation noise impacting the RBL.

35 35 35

Notes: Day: the period from 7:00 am to 6:00 pm Monday to Saturday; or 8:00 am to 6:00 pm on Sundays and public holidays

Evening: the period from 6:00 pm to 10:00 pm. Night: the remaining periods.

* Denotes land which was vacant at the time of preparing this assessment but would attract the stated criteria should sensitive receptors are established on the subject land in the future.

ES.4 ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

The NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure (DP&I) has historically recognised a

Noise Management Zone and a Noise Affectation Zone as defined in Table ES-2. These have

been adopted for the assessment of impacts.



Report No. 806/04

1 - 12

Table ES-2 Project Noise Impact Assessment Methodology

Assessment Criteria Noise Management Zone Noise Affectation

Zone Marginal Impact Moderate Impact

Intrusiveness

LAeq,15 minute 1 to 2 dBA above

project-specific criterion

3 to 5 dBA above project-

specific criterion

> 5 dBA above Project-

specific criterion Amenity

LAeq,Period

ES.5 NOISE MODELLING

Operational noise levels at nearby receptors have been calculated using the Environmental

Noise Model (ENM) prediction model which predicts the total noise at each receptor due to the

operation of the Proposal under a range of scenarios. The 10th percentile methodology was

used, whereby noise levels are predicted for all meteorological conditions experienced at the

Site and the 10th percentile exceedance level is reported.

A total of 161 noise-sensitive receptors were considered, being generally residences in the

area surrounding the Site. These are shown in Figure ES-1. Figure 3.2 (in the body of this

report) displays the locations of a range of noise-sensitive receptors in Gloucester township.

ES.5.1 Noise Assessment Scenarios

Noise modelling was undertaken for:

day and evening operating scenarios for Year 0.5 which effectively equates to

the site establishment and construction phase; and

day, evening and night operating scenarios for mining Years 2.5, 4.25, 7.75

and 13.

These years were chosen as they represent each of the distinct phases of the Proposal.

Each scenario was developed in consultation with the mine planner to reflect the nominated

production schedules and require restrictions upon equipment operations. It will remain up to

the Applicant through the real-time monitoring program to establish the exact number and type

of equipment in use at any one time and their location. In brief, there would be flexibility for

more equipment to be operated in areas with substantial topographic shielding than in areas

with lesser topographic or no shielding.


Report No. 806/04

1 - 13

ES.5.2 Meteorological Data used for Noise Predictions

The noise modelling presented in this assessment is based on meteorological data from the

GRL meteorological station for the period November 2010 through October 2011.

The modelling considered 133 meteorological conditions during the day and evening periods,

and 173 meteorological conditions during the night-time period. These conditions consisted of

the eight wind directions (45° segments); six wind speeds (0.5 m/s bins between 0m/s and

3m/s); and five temperature inversion strengths (none and 3.0°C/100m to 6.0°C/100m in

1.0°C/100m increments).

ES.5.3 Noise Affectation Zone and Noise Management Zone

Table ES-3 lists receptors predicted to be located in the respective noise affectation and

management zones.



Report No. 806/04

1 - 14

Table ES-3 Summary of Potential Exceedances within Noise Management and Affectation Zones

Scenario Time Period

Noise Management Zone Noise Affectation

Zone

1 to 2 dBA exceedance 3 to 5 dBA

exceedance > 5 dBA

exceedance

Year 0.5 (Mine Area)

Day 154, 193 6, 18, 19A

Evening 6, 56A, 154, 193 18, 19A


Day 23 6

Evening 7 6, 23

Night 7 23 6

Year 2.5 (Mine Area + Conveyor)

Day 18, 23 6

Evening 7 6, 18, 23

Night 7, 56A 18, 23 6

Year 2.5 (Mine Area + RLF)

Day 56A 23 6

Evening 7, 18 6, 23, 56A

Night 7, 163A, 163B, 183, 184B 23 6, 56A


Day 7 6, 23

Evening 6, 18, 56A, 163A

Night 6, 18


Day 7 18 6, 23

Evening 6, 56A, 163A 18

Night 6, 163A 18, 56A


Day 7, 18 6, 23

Evening 6, 18, 56A, 163A, 183, 184B

Night 6, 18, 154, 163A, 163B, 193 56A, 183, 184B


Day 19A, 23 6, 18

Evening 18

Night 18


Day 19A, 23, 56A 6, 18

Evening 56A 18

Night 56A 18


Day 19A, 23 6, 18

Evening 184B 18

Night 183 56A, 184B 18

Year 13 (Mine Area)

Day

Evening 18

Night 18

Year 13 (Mine Area + Conveyor)

Day 6, 18

Evening 18

Night 18, 56A

Year 13 (Mine Area + RLF)

Day 6

Evening 18, 183, 184B

Night 18, 163B, 183, 193 56A, 184B

Overall Day 6, 7,18, 19A, 23, 56A, 154, 193 6, 18, 19A, 23 6, 23

Evening 6, 7, 18, 56A, 154, 163A, 183, 184B, 193 6, 18, 19A, 23, 56A

Night 6, 7, 18, 56A, 154, 163A, 163B, 183, 184B, 193

18, 23, 56A, 183, 184B

6, 18, 56A

Table ES-4 presents the highest predicted noise levels for each of the residences nominated

in Table ES-3.


Report No. 806/04

1 - 15

Table ES-4 Summary of Highest Potential Exceedances throughout the Nominated Operational Scenarios

Year 0.5 Year 2.5 Year 4.25 Year 7.75 Year 13

D E D E N D E N D E N D E N

Criterion1 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35 35

Receptor No/Landowner

6 R. & L. Campbell

Mine 39 37 41 40 42 47 36 37 39 - - - - -

Mine and Conveyor - - 41 40 42 47 36 37 39 - - 36 - -

Mine & Rail Load-out Facility - - 41 40 42 47 36 37 39 - - 36 - -

7 L. Ansell/R. Murray

Mine - - - 36 37 36 - - - - - - - -

Mine and Conveyor - - - 36 37 36 - - - - - - - -

Mine & Rail Load-out Facility - - - 36 37 36 - - - - - - - -

18 J. Collins/M. Barrett

Mine 39 39 - - - - 37 36 39 39 41 - 37 36

Mine and Conveyor - - 38 39 38 38 39 40 40 40 42 37 39 40

Mine & Rail Load-out Facility - - - 36 - 36 37 36 39 39 41 - 37 37

19A A. & B. Boorer

Mine 38 39 - - - - - - 36 - - - - -

Mine and Conveyor - - - - - - - - 36 - - - - -

Mine & Rail Load-out Facility - - - - - - - - 36 - - - - -

23 S. & J. Yarnold

Mine - - 39 38 40 45 - - 37 - - - - -

Mine and Conveyor - - 39 38 40 45 - - 37 - - - - -

Mine & Rail Load-out Facility - - 39 38 40 45 - - 37 - - - - -

56A W. Fraser

Mine - 37 - - - - 36 - - - 39 - - -

Mine and Conveyor - - - - 37 - 37 38 36 36 37 - - 38

Mine & Rail Load-out Facility - - 37 38 43 - 37 39 - - 39 - - 39

154 I. & S. Jackson

Mine 37 36 - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mine and Conveyor - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Mine & Rail Load-out Facility - - - - - - - 36 - - - - - -

163A N. Bignell

Mine - - - - - - 36 - - - - - - -

Mine and Conveyor - - - - - - 36 36 - - - - - -

Mine & Rail Load-out Facility - - - - 37 - 36 36 - - - - - -

163B N. Bignell

Mine - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Mine & Rail Load-out Facility - - - - 37 - - 36 - - - - - 36

183 G. Channon & T. Edwards

Mine - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Mine & Rail Load-out Facility - - - - 36 - 36 38 - - 37 - 36 37

184B D. Andrews

Mine - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Mine & Rail Load-out Facility - - - - 36 - 36 38 - 36 38 - 36 38

193 Transport for NSW

Mine 37 37 - - - - - - - - - - - -


Mine & Rail Load-out Facility - - - - - - - 36 - - - - - 36

< Criterion Criterion to Criterion + 2dB Criterion + 3dB to Criterion + 5dB > Criterion + 5dB

Note 1. Receptors 183 and 184B have a daytime criterion of 40dB(A). All other criteria are 35dB(A) as indicated



Report No. 806/04

1 - 16

ES.5.4 Operational Noise Modelling Key Outcomes

A total of twelve receptors are predicted to receive noise levels exceeding criteria

under any circumstances, during any phase of operations.

Four receptors (6, 18, 23 and 56A) are predicted to be within the Proposal’s

Noise Affectation Zone.

Three receptors (19A, 183 and 184B) are predicted to experience noise levels

between 3-5 dB above criteria.

Five further receptors (7, 154, 163A, 163B and 193) are predicted to experience

noise levels between 1-2 dB above criteria.

Of the above receptors, three (163B, 183 and 184B) are predicted to exceed

criteria only whilst either the Rail Load-out Facility or conveyor are operating

concurrently with the operations within the Mine Area. These sources are not

continuous and as such the presented 10% exceedance levels may overstate

their impacts. In the case of the overland conveyor, given the operational

flexibility afforded by the product coal storage at the Rail Load-out Facility, it is

unlikely that it would be regularly operated at night or during unfavourable

meteorological conditions.

Construction of the Rail Load-out Facility and overland conveyor is expected to

generate noise levels above the Noise Affected Level at seven residences.

Strategies are recommended to mitigate this potential impact.

ES.6 CUMULATIVE NOISE ASSESSMENT

The Proposal would operate to the north of the existing Stratford Coal Mine and the proposed

Stratford Extension Project and in the area of approved Gloucester Gas Project (GGP).

Hence, in a worst-case situation, receptors may potentially be exposed to noise from all three

industrial sources simultaneously. A small gravel quarry is proposed approximately 2km east

of the Mine Area within the Mograni Range. However, the scale of the proposed quarry and its

location would not contribute to any cumulative noise impact from its operation.

The Stratford Extension Project EIS Appendix C Noise and Blasting Assessment details a

cumulative noise assessment. This assessment considers Stratford Extension Project, Duralie

Coal Mine and AGL’s Gloucester Gas Project (both the central processing facility and gas

field). Levels reported for each of these sources have been used (interpolated where

necessary) to assess cumulative noise impacts in the area potentially impacted by these

projects and RHCP.

For the purpose of assessing cumulative noise impacts, the above sources were modelled with

worst-case scenarios for the Proposal. Assessment was limited to the evening and night time

period, as information could be obtained from the Stratford EIS for these time periods (a similar

level of information was not included for the day period in the Stratford EIS). This is

appropriate because the evening and night time periods attract more stringent amenity criteria

(against which cumulative impacts are assessed) and as such the day time period is far less

likely to exceed criteria.


Report No. 806/04

1 - 17

RHCP Year 4.25 (see Section 6.4.2.3) was selected for assessment of both the evening and

night-time periods as these represent worst-case scenarios for the Proposal, and they are the

most likely to align with busy scenarios for the other projects which were included in the

cumulative assessment.

In each of the above cumulative noise scenarios, the overland conveyor and the Rail Load-out

Facility have been assumed to operate up to approximately 30 hours and 17 hours per week of

the time respectively, which corresponds to the maximum typical usage for each item.

ES.7 SLEEP DISTURBANCE

Modelling of LAmax noise levels at nearby receptors was undertaken for typical instantaneous

mine-site noise sources, such as the train load-out bin and loading of trucks by excavators.

This analysis indicates that predicted noise levels would not exceed the relevant screening

criterion of 45 dBA LA1,1 minute at privately-owned receptors.

ES.8 PROJECT CONSTRUCTION NOISE

Assessment of the potential for noise impacts from construction associated with the Rail Load-

out Facility and overland conveyor indicates that eight privately-owned receptors would be

‘noise affected’ as defined in the Interim Construction Noise Guideline (DECC, 2009). No

privately-owned receptors are predicted to be ‘highly noise affected’.

ES.9 BLASTING

All blasts would be designed to ensure that both airblast overpressure and ground vibration

levels are satisfied at all privately-owned receptors. During the early stages of the Proposal,

blasts would be initiated at considerable distances from the surrounding receptors and, over

time, the design of blasts would be reviewed in conjunction with monitoring results and the site

specific site law to ensure blast criteria are satisfied as blasting approaches the closest

surrounding receptors.

If the indicative maximum anticipated maximum instantaneous charge (MIC) were used for all

blasts, including those at the closest point to each receptor, standard prediction methods

indicate a potential theoretical exceedance of airblast overpressure criteria at four privately-

owned receptors. However, airblast overpressure can be managed to achieve compliance

through blast design (e.g. decking) to reduce the MIC, as well as other techniques.

No exceedances of vibration criteria are predicted to occur at any privately-owned receptors.

Measures would be put in place to avoid flyrock impacts on livestock on surrounding

properties.

ES.10 ROAD TRAFFIC NOISE

Road traffic noise along public roads has been assessed in accordance with the NSW Road

Noise Policy.

The assessment indicates that noise generated by vehicles travelling to and from the Mine

Area on Jacks Road and Waukivory Road (north of Jacks Road) would comply with relevant

criteria detailed in the Policy.



Report No. 806/04

1 - 18

ES.11 RAIL NOISE

Rail noise has been assessed in accordance with ARTC’s Environment Protection Licence and

EPA’s requirements for rail traffic-generating development.

The rail noise assessment focuses on two sections of the North Coast Railway Line, i.e. the

section between the Rocky Hill Rail Load-out Facility and the existing Stratford Coal Mine and

the Stratford Coal Mine to the Duralie Coal Mine.

Increases in rail noise due to the Proposal would be minor and always less than 2 dBA.

However, a site-specific cumulative impact assessment procedure, determined in consultation

with the EPA, indicates that there are five additional residences at which predicted rail noise

levels would exceed the EPA’s base criterion with the proposed rail movements travelling to

and from the Rocky Hill Rail Load-out Facility, but would be slightly below the criterion

otherwise.

ES.12 NOISE MANAGEMENT MEASURES

Noise management and mitigation has been considered from the outset of the Proposal. Of

the measures considered, the following key measures are recommended to achieve the

predicted noise levels in this report.

Selection of noise-attenuated mobile equipment and/or the implementation of

additional hard controls.

Establishment of a 25m-40m high (above ROM coal pad level) western and

northern visibility barrier extending the length of the western boundary and much

of the northern boundary of the Mine Area. This measure should be

implemented as soon as practicable, with the majority of work being completed

during the site establishment and construction phase.

Progressive development of central and eastern visibility barriers ahead of

proposed overburden placement.

Progressively filling behind (to the east of) the central and eastern visibility

barriers so that shielding is maximised.

Positioning haul routes as much as possible on the northern and western sides of

open cut pits in order to maximize shielding provided by each pit.

Positioning the northern haul road in cut during Years 2.5 to 4.5 and/or behind a

barrier of subsoil to maintain an 8m vertical separation between the road surface

and the top of the barrier to minimise acoustic exposure to the north.

Positioning the southern haul road as close as possible to the western and

northern visibility barrier and, in the segment rounding south of the Main Pit,

positioning the haul road in cut and/or behind a barrier so as to create a nominal

8m vertical separation.

Establishment of 5m high (above road level) barriers on the northern and western

sides of elevated haul routes such as those along the eastern visibility barrier.


Report No. 806/04

1 - 19

Maintaining topsoil and subsoil stockpiles close to operational areas to maximise

shielding.

Implementing active noise management systems whereby reduced and/or

revised operations are undertaken during adverse meteorological conditions.

Reduced or restricted operations during evening and night-time periods.

Mitigating conveyor noise at the source through selection of quiet systems and

partially enclosing the overland conveyor in exposed locations.

Locating the train load-out bin within the Rail Load-out Facility in deep cut,

thereby maximising shielding.

Operational noise impacts would be managed on an ongoing basis according to the DP&I’s

Noise Management Zone and Noise Affectation Zone protocols which provide strategies

involving community engagement, real-time noise monitoring, investigations into acoustical

mitigation measures, and if required, acquisition of property(ies).

ES.13 CONCLUSION

The proposed Rocky Hill Coal Project incorporates a number of measures to mitigate noise

impact at nearby noise-sensitive receptors, including equipment selection, significant use of

shielding by on-site bunds and barriers, restrictions on operations during evening and night

periods, and management of activities under certain meteorological conditions.

With these controls, operational noise from the Proposal is predicted to result in exceedance of

standard noise criteria at up to twelve residences, under adverse meteorological conditions, at

some period(s) during the life of the Proposal. Measures to mitigate this potential impact

would include real-time noise monitoring linked to active strategies to manage on-site

operations; investigation of any possible additional acoustical mitigation measures; and if

required, acquisition of property(ies).

Nevertheless, there would be some times when noise also from the Proposal was audible over

a wider area, including the township of Gloucester. This is likely to be the case for existing

mining operations.

Road traffic noise generated by the development is predicted to comply with criteria

promulgated by the NSW Road Noise Policy.

Noise from rail traffic associated with the project is predicted to marginally exceed relevant

criteria at some residences. Potential mitigation measures are discussed in the body of this

report.

Noise and vibration from blasting can be controlled to within relevant criteria at all potentially-

affected receivers through the use of appropriate blast designs.



Report No. 806/04

1 - 20

GLOSSARY OF ACOUSTIC AND BLASTING TERMS

Most environments are affected by environmental noise which continuously varies, often as a result of

sources such as road traffic, industrial noise, wildlife and insects. To describe the overall noise

environment, a number of noise descriptors have been developed and these involve statistical and other

analysis of the varying noise over sampling periods, typically taken as 15 minutes. These descriptors,

which are demonstrated in the graph on the following page, are defined below.

Maximum Noise Level (LAmax) – The maximum noise level over a sample period is the maximum level,

measured on fast response, during the sample period.

dB(A) – A-weighted decibels. The ear is not as effective in hearing low frequency sounds as it is hearing

high frequency sounds. That is, low frequency sounds of the same dB level are not heard as loud as

high frequency sounds. The sound level meter replicates the human response of the ear by using an

electronic filter which is called the “A” filter. A sound level measured with this filter switched on is

denoted as dB(A). Practically all noise is measured using the A filter.

Frequency – Frequency is synonymous to pitch. Sounds have a pitch which is peculiar to the nature of

the sound generator. For example, the sound of a tiny bell has a high pitch and the sound of a bass

drum has a low pitch. Frequency or pitch can be measured on a scale in units of Hertz or Hz.

Impulsive Noise – Having a high peak of short duration or a sequence of such peaks. A sequence of

impulses in rapid succession is termed repetitive impulsive noise.

Intermittent Noise – The level suddenly drops to that of the background noise several times during the

period of observation. The time during which the noise remains at levels different from that of the

ambient is one second or more.

LA1 – The LA1 level is the noise level which is exceeded for 1% of the sample period. During the sample

period, the noise level is below the LA1 level for 99% of the time.

LA10 – The LA10 level is the noise level which is exceeded for 10% of the sample period. During the

sample period, the noise level is below the LA10 level for 90% of the time. The LA10 is a common noise

descriptor for environmental noise and road traffic noise.

LA90 – The LA90 level is the noise level which is exceeded for 90% of the sample period. During the

sample period, the noise level is below the LA90 level for 10% of the time. This measure is commonly

referred to as the background noise level.

LAeq – The equivalent continuous sound level (LAeq) is the energy average of the varying noise over the

sample period and is equivalent to the level of a constant noise which contains the same energy as the

varying noise environment. This measure is also a common measure of environmental noise and road

traffic noise.

ABL – The Assessment Background Level is the single figure background level representing each

assessment period (daytime, evening and night time) for each day. It is determined by calculating the

10th percentile (lowest 10

th percent) background level (LA90) for each period.

RBL – The Rating Background Level for each period is the median value of the ABL values for the

period over all of the days measured. There is therefore an RBL value for each period – daytime,

evening and night time.

Sound Absorption – The ability of a material to absorb sound energy through its conversion into

thermal energy.

Sound Level Meter – An instrument consisting of a microphone, amplifier and indicating device, having

a declared performance and designed to measure sound pressure level.

Sound Pressure Level – The level of noise, usually expressed in decibels, as measured by a standard

sound level meter with a microphone.

Tonal Noise – Containing a prominent frequency and characterised by a definite pitch.


Report No. 806/04

1 - 21

Typical Criterion – Refers to the criterion which applies to the majority of surrounding receivers. In the

case of operational intrusiveness noise criteria, this level has been determined to be 35dBA for the

Proposal, which also corresponds with the minimum criterion derived under the INP for this purpose.

Overpressure – Instantaneous increase in air pressure caused by blasting

Peak Particle Velocity – the measure of ground vibration caused by blasting

Typical Graph of Sound Pressure Level vs Time

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

55

60

0:00 3:00 6:00 9:00 12:00 15:00

Monitoring or Survey Period (5 sec samples)

So

und

Pre

ssu

re L

eve

l (d

BA

)

L Amax

L A1

L A10

L Aeq L

A50

L A90



Report No. 806/04

1 - 22

ACRONYMS

The following acronyms appear throughout the report.

Terminology Description

AHD Australian Height Datum

ANFO Ammonium Nitrate Fuel Oil

CHPP Coal Handling and Preparation Plant

DP&I NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure

EA Environmental Assessment

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

ENM Environmental Noise Model

EPA NSW Environment Protection Authority

EP&A Act NSW Environmental Planning and Assessment Act, 1979

INP NSW Industrial Noise Policy

OEH NSW Office of Environment and Heritage

Mbcm Million bank cubic metres

MIC Maximum Instantaneous Charge

Mtpa Million tonnes per annum

PPV Peak Particle Velocity

RBL Rating Background Level

ROM Run-of-mine


Report No. 806/04

1 - 23

1 . I N T R O D U C T I O N

1.1 SCOPE

This assessment has been prepared for Gloucester Resources Limited (GRL). The Rocky Hill

Coal Project (the Proposal) is a proposed open cut mining operation located approximately 3.5

to 7km south-east of Gloucester urban area in New South Wales (NSW) as shown in

Figure 1.1.

This assessment addresses potential noise and blasting impacts associated with the Proposal.

1.2 OBJECTIVES OF THIS ASSESSMENT

The primary objective of this assessment is to investigate the potential noise and blasting

impacts associated with the Proposal by addressing the Director-General’s Requirements

(DGRs) issued by the NSW Department of Planning and Infrastructure (DP&I) on 24 April

2012. These are outlined as follows.

Noise, Vibration & Blasting – including a quantitative assessment of potential:

construction, operational and off-site transport noise impacts;

blasting impacts on people, livestock and property;

reasonable and feasible mitigation measures (including assessments of

restricted night time operations, not operating at night and not operating

during evening and night-time hours), including evidence that there are no

such measures available other than those proposed; and

monitoring and management measures, in particular real-time, attended noise

monitoring and predictive meteorological forecasting;

The NSW Environment Protection Authority (EPA), Gloucester Shire Council, NSW Health and

the Barrington-Gloucester-Stroud Preservation Alliance Inc. (BGSPA) also provided additional

matters for the noise and vibration assessment to address. These matters, together with those

identified by DP&I, and the section(s) where they are addressed in this assessment, are

outlined in Table 1.1.



Report No. 806/04

1 - 24

Figure 1.1 Proposal Location


Report No. 806/04

1 - 25

Table 1.1

Coverage of Noise-related Matters Page 1 of 4

Government Agency

Paraphrased Requirement Relevant Section(s)

NOISE

DP&I (24/04/12)

The EIS must include a quantitative assessment of potential:

construction, operational and off-site transport noise impacts;

8, 6, 7

blasting impacts on people, livestock and property; 9

reasonable and feasible mitigation measures (including assessments of restricted night time operations, not operating at night and not operating during evening and night-time hours), including evidence that there are no such measures available other than those proposed; and

6.2

monitoring and management measures, in particular real-time, attended noise monitoring and predictive meteorological forecasting.

6.10

EPA (02/04/12)

The proposed development should be assessed using the guidelines contained in the NSW Industrial Noise Policy (EPA, 2000) and Industrial Noise Policy Application Notes, as detailed on page 2 of the Interim Construction Noise Guideline (DECC, 2009).

5

Vibration from all activities (including construction and operation) to be undertaken on the premises should be assessed using the guidelines contained in the Assessing Vibration: A Technical Guideline (DEC, 2006).

9

Blasting during the construction or operational stages of the proposed development should be demonstrated to be capable of complying with the guidelines contained in Australian and New Zealand Environment Council- Technical basis for guidelines to minimise annoyance due to blasting over pressure and ground vibration (ANZEC, 1990).

9.1

Operational noise from the proposed mine (including private haul roads and private railway lines) should be assessed using the guidelines contained in the NSW Industrial Noise Policy (EPA, 2000) and Industrial Noise Policy Application Notes.

5

The EIS must determine the rating background noise level and ambient (LAeq,Period) noise levels in accordance with the NSW Industrial Noise Policy. The evaluation should take into account the construction and operational phases of the development over the "operating" hours proposed and take into account adverse weather conditions including temperature inversions. The assessment must identify any noise sensitive locations likely to be affected by activities at the site, such as residential properties, schools, churches, and hospitals.

4.5

The EIS needs to clearly document what activities will occur at what time and assess worst case impacts of that activity occurring.

6.1.1

The project specific noise levels for the site must be determined. For each identified potentially affected receptor, this should include:

a) determination of the intrusive criterion for each identified potentially affected receptor,

5.1

b) selection and justification of the appropriate amenity category for each identified potentially affected receptor,

5.1

c) determination of the amenity criterion for each receptor, 5.1

d) determination of the appropriate sleep disturbance limit. 5.3



Report No. 806/04

1 - 26

Table 1.1 (Cont’d)


Government Agency


NOISE

EPA (02/04/12)

The EIS needs to:

Include a detailed assessment of background noise levels throughout Gloucester township as well as in surrounding rural-residential estates and selected rural locations; and

4.5

Detail the number and location of residents who will likely experience a changed noise environment as a result of the proposal, that is, be able to hear mine noise for the first time.

6.8

The specific meteorologic conditions of the Gloucester Valley needs to be assessed and taken into account in the noise assessments.

6.1.2

The EIS will need to assess and demonstrate compliance with relevant noise limits in both normal and “adverse” weather conditions. The above assessment relating to the number and location of residents who will likely experience a changed noise environment also needs to consider the impacts during inversion conditions.

6.4, 6.8

The noise and vibration levels likely to be received at the most sensitive locations from construction and operational activities including road construction, blasting, pit construction, overburden handling, coal extraction, coal transportation and coal loading should be determined. Potential impacts should be determined for any identified significant adverse meteorological conditions.

6, 7, 8, 9.4

Sound power levels measured or estimated for all plant and equipment should be clearly stated and justified. The expected noise level and noise character (e.g.: tonality, impulsiveness, vibration, etc.) likely to be generated from noise sources during the following phases should be determined:

- site establishment

- construction

- operational phases, including vehicle traffic, conveyors and any rail noise generated by the proposal.

6.3

The assessment should specifically address the noise generated from coal preparation plants with particular reference to nearby areas such as Forbesdale Estate.

6.1.1.2

Cumulative noise impacts from this proposal, combined with existing and proposed mining activities nearby needs to be assessed.

6.6

Rail noise from the proposed rail loop and in particular impacts on residents and private land (without houses yet) needs to be given specific attention in the EIS. In particular noise specific to this area, such as rail wheel squeal due to the radii of the rail loop, bunching and shunting noise, needs to be considered. EPA would like to see discussion in the EIS of the use of electronically controlled pneumatic (ECP) braking to reduce the potential for noise impacts from wagons bunching and stretching.

6.1.1.3


Report No. 806/04

1 - 27



Government Agency


NOISE

EPA (02/04/12)

As it is possible that noise from activities like: heavy vehicle movements; dozers on coal stockpiles; washery processing, conveyor operation and rail use could cause audible noise to a large number of residents, the ElS must include contour plots of cumulative noise in years 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17 and 20 of mine operations and compare this to the existing situation. These noise contour plots must be overlain over a figure showing the mine premises north to include all of the town of Gloucester and south to Craven. Contour plot figures must be included for normal and worst case weather conditions, including noise enhancing winds and temperature inversions.

Appendix 3

Noise on public roads from increased road traffic generated by the mine should be assessed using the guidelines contained in the Environmental Criteria for Road Traffic Noise (EPA, 1999). http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/noise/traffic.htm.

7.1 – assessed in accordance with RNP

Noise from new or upgraded public roads needs to be assessed using the Environmental Criteria for Road Traffic Noise (EPA, 1999). http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/noise/traffic.htm

N/A

Noise from increased rail traffic on the NSW Rail Network should be assessed using the environmental assessment requirements for rail traffic-generating developments available at http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/noise/railnoise.htm. The assessment should address LAeq(24hr) as well as daytime LAeq(15hr)

and night-time LAeq(9hr) descriptors. The assessment should compare levels to EPA and Australian Rail Track Corporation (ARTC) guidance, including the ARTC Environment Protection Licence noise limits covering their North Coast Railway operations. Particular attention should be given to any increased train movements at night-time as it is known that at least two residences along the North Coast Railway between Stratford and Wards River currently exceed the LAeq(9hr) ARTC night-time noise goal of 60dBA and approximately six receptors in this same area currently exceed the maximum train pass-by criterion of LAmax 85dBA. It will therefore be important to understand any additional residences that will not comply with guidance levels or if these residences would be subject to increased trains at the most sensitive time.

7.3.1

The EIS needs to detail all noise amelioration measures proposed to address any noise issues identified.

6.2, 6.10

The EIS needs to detail any noise monitoring proposed to assess compliance with relevant limits.

6.10



Report No. 806/04

1 - 28



Government Agency


NOISE

Gloucester Shire Council (02/04/12)

The EIS should examine all activities associated with the proposed mine in terms of potential noise disturbance. It also should be recognised that the Valley has a significant number of temperature inversions at various times of the year which have the potential to exacerbate noise impacts.

8, 6, 7, 6.1.2

The analysis needs to examine in detail and potential noise impacts from road traffic generated by the mine activity, and blasting, processing, transfer of coal, loading of trains and noise disturbance from rail transport over the proposed 24 hours of operation. The analysis should also include a detailed assessment of individual component machinery contribution to overall noise generated from the proposed activity, and opportunities for overall minimisation of noise generation from the mining activity.

Applies to many sections

The analysis should also identify how noise levels might be monitored and suggest appropriate compliance requirements.

6.10

The EIS should examine potential impacts on nearby buildings from mine related activities such as blasting and the increased road transport that will be generated from the site. The analysis should include recommendations for pre-mining assessment of nearby structures and measures for monitoring and compliance.

9.1.2, 9.4, 9.5, 7.1.3

NSW Health – Hunter New England Local Health District (29/03/12)

The EIS needs to clarify the definition of limited blasting. 9

The proponent should clarify in the EIS how issues with vibration will be mitigated and should vibration issues arise, how this will be managed.

9.5

The proponent needs to demonstrate in the EIS that there has been community consultation in relation to noise and acceptance of the community of noise they are likely to experience.

See Volume 4 Part 14 of SCSC

The EIS should also include measures to mitigate or reduce noise and indicate how noise will be managed should complaints in relation to noise be made during either mine construction or mine operational phases of the project.

6.2, 6.10

There is a need for the cumulative impacts of noise with respect to other activities conducted in the Gloucester Valley to be assessed and presented in the EIS for the proposed Rocky Hill Coal Project. Community consultation with respect to the cumulative noise impacts needs to be demonstrated in the EIS.

6.6, and see Volume 4 Part 14 of SCSC

Barrington-Gloucester-Stroud Preservation Alliance Inc. (26/03/12)

Insulation should be offered for houses in the risk area. Problem noise needs to be recorded inside the dwelling as well as outside but outdoors only is the current requirements demand.

6.10


Report No. 806/04

1 - 29

2 . P R OJ E C T D E S C R I P T I O N

2.1 PROJECT OVERVIEW

The Site of Rocky Hill Coal Project (“the Proposal”) is located approximately 3.5km to 7km

south-east of the Gloucester urban area. It is bordered by Waukivory Road to the north, and

lies to the east of the Avon River and east and north of Waukivory Creek. Rocky Hill lies to the

east of the Site within the Mograni Range.

The proposed Rocky Hill Coal Project comprises four principal components namely:

1. four separate and/or contiguous open cut pits and a coal handling and

preparation plant (CHPP) within the Mine Area;

2. an overland conveyor for transporting product coal to the Rail Load-out Facility.

The overland conveyor is located within a 50m wide Overland Conveyor Corridor;

3. a Rail Load-out Facility (incorporating a rail loop and two coal storage bins); and

4. two Power Line Corridors incorporating a re-located 132kV power line and a new

11kV power line external to the Mine Area.

Figure 2.1 displays the conceptual layout of the proposed Mine Area comprising the following

major components.

The mine entrance off McKinleys Lane, approximately 50m beyond the

intersection of Waukivory Road.

A private Mine Area access road to the site offices and amenities area, a road

aligned generally parallel to and immediately east of McKinleys Lane.

A site offices and amenities area off McKinleys Lane.

Four open cut pits varying in depth from approximately 70m to approximately

190m, with mining within the limits of the Main Pit initially involving the

development of two smaller, shallower sub-pits to enable some production of the

highest quality coals during the initial years of mining. Though based on current

mine planning, the depths nominated are approximate given the steeply dipping

nature of the seams and the extent of geological knowledge and, in such

situations, the potential effects of changes in controlling economic factors. The

ultimate depths of development in each open cut pit would reflect the optimisation

of coal quality, the outcomes of detailed mine planning as the mine progresses,

and market factors.

Three generally north-south trending short term or long term visibility barriers.

The barriers would either be stand-alone structures or comprise the western

margins of the out-of-pit emplacement as it is progressively developed.

A consolidated in-pit overburden emplacement and out-of-pit overburden

emplacement extending beyond the open cut pits. The out-of-pit emplacement

comprises a permanent section, and an interim section which would be removed

at the cessation of coal extraction to backfill the final void in the Main Pit.

A coal handling and preparation plant (CHPP) with associated run-of-mine (ROM)

and product stockpile areas, a switchyard, workshop and ancillary buildings.



Report No. 806/04

1 - 30

Figure 2.1 Proposed Site Layout


Report No. 806/04

1 - 31

The Proposal would involve the following principal operational components and activities.

Approximately 130 million bank cubic metres (bcm) of overburden and

interburden would be removed to gain access to the targeted coal seams within

the individual open cut pits. The overburden would be removed by a combination

of scrapers, and excavators and trucks following blasting, and be used to create

visibility barriers initially, with the remainder emplaced in, out of, or over the

exhausted pits either permanently or temporarily and used to form the final

landform.

The coal exposed in each open cut pit would be removed by excavator and

transported by haul truck to the ROM coal stockpile adjacent to the CHPP.

Annual ROM coal production is scheduled to be 2.0 million tonnes per annum

(Mtpa) although the maximum ROM coal production rate for which approval is

sought would be 2.5 Mtpa.

Processing of all ROM coal would take place at the CHPP. At the maximum ROM

coal production rate and an estimated peak yield (i.e. product coal as a

percentage of ROM coal processed through the CHPP) of 70%, 1.75Mtpa of

product coal would be produced.

Transportation of product coal would be via the overland conveyor to the Rail

Load-out Facility for despatch to the Port of Newcastle.

Other ancillary activities include clearing, stripping of topsoil and suitable subsoil

from the areas to be disturbed, equipment maintenance and rehabilitation.

A 267ha Biodiversity Offset Area on Company-owned land east of the proposed

area of disturbance within the Mine Area

2.2 PROJECT TIMETABLE

The Applicant currently plans to commence development of the mine following the receipt of

development consent and all necessary approvals, licences and leases and commence to

dispatch the first coal approximately 12 months later.

Table 2.1 presents the projected annual overburden and coal production throughout the life of

the Proposal. Beyond the cessation of mining activities, identified as Year 14 in Table 2.1, the

operational activities would primarily be restricted to backfilling of the remaining void within the

exhausted Main Pit and the completion of the remaining final landform creation and

rehabilitation activities.

In the event production levels in Table 2.1 are achieved, the life of the mine would extend for

approximately 16 years from the commencement of site establishment activities, through open

cut mining and final landform creation and completion of all rehabilitation activities. However,

to allow for any variations in production levels, approval is being sought for a maximum mine

life of 21 years.



Report No. 806/04

1 - 32

Table 2.1

Estimated Annual Overburden and ROM Coal Production

Year

Totals

Overburden (kbcm) ROM

Coal (kt)

1* 6 321 600

2 7 384 1 033

3 9 751 1 320

4 9 166 1 775

5 13 508 1 758

6 13 197 2 000

7 11 577 2 000

8 11 577 2 000

9 8 841 2 000

10 8 841 2 000

11 8 841 2 000

12 8 841 2 000

13 8 841 2 000

14 3 042 509

Totals 129 723 22 995

* Site Establishment and Construction Phase

2.3 ROAD TRAFFIC

2.3.1 Site Establishment and Construction Phase

The traffic movements during the site establishment and construction phase would initially

occur principally on Waukivory Road, via the northern intersection with The Bucketts Way and

on The Bucketts Way near the Rail Load-out Facility. A small proportion of the vehicle

movements would occur on Fairbairns Road primarily during the construction period for the

overland conveyor. It is noted that traffic movements along Jacks Road between The Bucketts

Way and Waukivory Road would commence following the completion of the construction of the

new bridge on Jacks Road crossing the Avon River, currently programmed for completion

approximately mid way during the site establishment and construction phase.

Table 2.2 lists the number of light vehicle and heavy vehicle movements likely to occur during

the site establishment and construction phase.

Table 2.2

Traffic Movements* During Site Establishment and Construction Phase

Light Vehicles (No. per day) Heavy Vehicles (No. per day)

Mine Area (off Waukivory Road) 20 - 210 0 - 10

Rail Load-out Facility (off The Bucketts Way)

10 - 50 0 - 20

Fairbairns Road 0 - 10 0 - 8

* 1 return trip generates 2 movements.


Report No. 806/04

1 - 33

2.3.2 Operations

The traffic movements during operations would occur principally to and from the Mine Area (off

Waukivory Road) and the Rail Load-out Facility (off The Bucketts Way). Limited vehicle

movements would occur on Fairbairns Road primarily during the daily checks and/or

maintenance of the overland conveyor.

Light vehicle traffic would be concentrated around shift start and finish times. Essentially, light

vehicles would enter the Mine Area during four 1-hour periods and leave the Mine Area during

four 1-hour periods and one ½ hour period. The indicative number of light vehicles entering or

leaving the Mine Area during each period would be as follows.

Entering Leaving

6:00am – 7:00am : 49 – 76 3:00pm – 4:00pm : 17 – 35

7:00am – 8:00am : 2 – 4 4:00pm – 5:00pm : 4 – 11

2:00pm – 3:00pm : 6 – 24 5:30pm – 6:30pm : 14 – 51

4:30pm – 5:30pm : 17 – 36 10:00pm – 10:30pm : 6 – 23

4:00am – 4:30am* : 17 – 20

* Excluding the Site Establishment and Construction Phase.

2.4 BLASTING

All overburden below the limit of weathering is likely to be blasted to enable it to be removed to

provide access to the coal seams. This would involve the drilling of 229mm diameter holes (or

similar) with nominally 80 to 160 holes per blast and hole depths of either 15m or 30m. It is

proposed that the maximum instantaneous charge (MIC) would generally vary from 688kg to

828kg (or larger in more distant areas where application of larger MICs could readily satisfy the

blasting amenity criteria). Where predictions indicate the possibility that airblast or ground

vibration criteria may be exceeded, MICs would be reduced by, for example, decking the

individual blast holes, to ensure compliance. Blasts would be initiated with either an electric or

a non-electric system. Each 30m blast would result in up to approximately 260 000bcm being

fragmented, whilst each 15m blast would fragment up to approximately 130 000bcm of

overburden.

The number of blasts will vary from approximately 20 to 100 in any one year with up to a likely

maximum of four blasts per week.

2.5 PRODUCT DISPATCH

All coal would be transported by rail to the Port of Newcastle. It is likely that one to three trains

per day would be despatched. For the purposes of this assessment, it is assumed three trains

per day would depart Rocky Hill Coal Project (i.e. six movements in total). It is understood

these could occur at any time of the day with the time of departure nominated by ARTC.



Report No. 806/04

1 - 34

2.6 HOURS OF OPERATION

Table 2.3 lists the proposed operational hours for the range of activities proposed within the

Site.

Table 2.3

Operational Hours

Activity Days* Hours Comments

Pre-start activities Monday – Saturday 6:00am – 7:00am

Mining Monday – Saturday 7:00am – 10:00pm

Monday – Saturday 10:00pm –4:00am Subject to confirmation by modelling and real-time monitoring that night-time and sleep disturbance criteria are satisfied at privately-owned receptors, mining would continue from 10:00pm on each of Monday to Saturday and extend to 4:00am on the following day. There would be no mining activity between 4:00am and 7:00am on any day.

CHPP Monday – Saturday 7:00am – 10:00pm Hours and days worked to match production

Coal Product Despatch (overland conveyor / train loading

Monday – Sunday Any time As required to satisfy ARTC product despatch schedule.

Maintenance Monday – Saturday 7:00am – 10:00pm

Sunday 8:00am – 10:00pm

Monday – Sunday All other hours If activities are not audible at privately-owned receptors.

* Public Holidays excluded

Operations within the Mine Area

Operations within the Mine Area and related activities would initially be undertaken between

7:00am and 10:00pm Monday to Saturday, public holidays excluded, with preparatory activities

including pre-start checks (limited personnel) to be undertaken between 6:00am to 7:00am.

Limited drilling and other activities would be undertaken between 10:00pm and 4:00am,

Monday to Saturday once the open cut pits have reached a depth below the natural ground

surface and/or behind constructed barriers where the noise modelling and real-time monitoring

confirm night-time and sleep disturbance criteria would be satisfied.

Operations within the Mine Area would be undertaken adopting a range of shifts throughout

the week. Most shifts would be either 8 hours or 10.5 hours depending on the year of

operation and the likely opportunity(ies) to operate equipment during the evening and night-

time periods. The 8 hour shifts would typically occur between 7:00am and 3:00pm and

between 2:00pm to 10:00pm. The 10.5 hour shifts would typically occur between 7:00am and

5:30pm and between 5:30pm to 4:00am.

During the early years of operation, the CHPP would likely operate on day shift only, with the

number of days and duration of operations increasing with the increase in ROM coal

production. In order to process the ROM coal at maximum production, the CHPP would

ultimately operate on two shifts from 7:00am to 10:00pm, Monday to Saturday.


Report No. 806/04

1 - 35

It is proposed that equipment maintenance be undertaken, when required, 24 hours per day,

7 days per week provided maintenance activities between 10:00pm and 7:00am are not

audible at any privately-owned receptor.

Operation of the Overland Conveyor

The overland conveyor would operate for a period of approximately 2.5 hours at a time to

deliver the coal from the product stockpile adjacent to the CHPP to the surge bin and TLO bin

within the Rail Load-out Facility. The use of the overland conveyor would be scheduled

whenever possible to occur between 7:00am and 6:00pm, or if required between 6:00pm and

10:00pm. Only in the event that train loading is undertaken between 10:00pm and 7:00am and

another train is scheduled for arrival prior to 10:00am on the following day would operation of

the overland conveyor and loading of the bins occur during the night-time period.

In the event that the overland conveyor is operated between 4:00am and 7:00am, the only

mobile equipment operating during the night-time period within the Mine Area would be a

rubber-tyred bulldozer or front-end loader within the product coal stockpile area.

Operation of the Rail Load-out Facility

The hours of operation for product despatch from the Rail Load-out Facility would be dictated

by the timetable nominated by the coal carrier on advice from ARTC (in conjunction with the

HVCCC) regarding the available train paths to the Port of Newcastle to satisfy shipping

schedules.

2.6.1 Site Establishment and Construction Hours

The proposed site establishment and construction hours are presented in Table 2.4.

Although activities would generally be undertaken within the “normal” hours nominated in

Table 2.4, limited activities may be required within the nominated contingency hours in the

event of periods of unfavourable weather which delay critical path construction activities, to

allow for the receipt of components from interstate and/or to enable the completion of particular

phases of installation or commissioning activity that cannot be readily terminated mid-stream.

Table 2.4

Site Establishment and Construction Hours

Construction Activity Normal Hours1, 3

Days

Preparatory activities (pre-start checks and administration)

6:00am – 7:00am Monday – Friday

Mine Area Earthworks and Infrastructure 7:00am – 10:00pm2 Monday – Saturday

CHPP and Workshop 7:00am -10:00pm

7:00am -1:00pm Monday – Friday

Saturday

Overland Conveyor 7:00am – 6:00pm 7:00am -1:00pm

Monday – Friday Saturday

Rail Load-out Facility 7:00am – 8:00pm Monday – Friday 7:00am – 1:00pm Saturday

Off-site Construction Activities 7:00am – 6:00pm (daylight hours)

Monday – Friday

1 Contingency hours for all on-site activities would be to 10:00pm.

2 Operational hours for earthworks in acoustically exposed areas would be limited to

7:00am – 6:00pm Monday – Friday and 8:00am to 1:00pm of a Saturday. 3

Only activities which comply with operational noise criteria (RBL +5dB(A)) would be undertaken outside the standard hours for construction activities.



Report No. 806/04

1 - 36

3 . N O I S E R E C E P TO R S A N D S U R R O U N D I N G L A N D

U S E S

Land use in the local area includes a mixture of agricultural operations, existing open cut coal

mining and rural and rural-residential areas.

The Site is located 3.5km to 7km southeast of the Gloucester urban area. To the south of the

Site are Stratford Coal Mine and the proposed Stratford Extension Project. The Gloucester

Gas Project involves the development of gas wells to the south, west, north and within the Site

together with a central processing facility and associated infrastructure. Immediately east of

the Site is the Mograni Range which extends up to in excess of 300m above the Gloucester

valley. “Rocky Hill” is a peak in this range immediately east of the Site which has an elevation

of approximately 440m AHD. To the north, west, and south of the Site there are a range of

resource company-owned and private rural/rural-residential receptors, all of which have been

considered in this assessment. These receptors are listed in Table 3.1 and shown on

Figure 3.1.

In addition to these receptors, the assessment has considered noise impacting the Gloucester

Township. This has been achieved through predictions to a selection of discrete sensitive-

receptor locations (schools, churches and health-care facilities) across the township. These

locations are shown in Figure 3.2. Noise levels at these locations are also representative of

noise levels in residential and commercial areas within the township.


Report No. 806/04

1 - 37

Figure 3.1 Surrounding Noise-Sensitive Receptors




Report No. 806/04

1 - 39

Figure 3.2 Noise-Sensitive Receptors in Gloucester Township



Report No. 806/04

1 - 40

Table 3.1

Receptors Considered in this Assessment (co-ordinates are MGA, zone 56) Page 1 of 4

Receptor ID. Easting (MGA) Northing (MGA) Landowner

Privately-owned Receptors

2 402346 6456613 I. Reeves

6 405555 6453564 R.B. & L.R. Campbell

7 403954 6455192 L.J. Ansell & R.K. Murray

11A 406712 6450141 A.S. Berecry

11B 406946 6449720 A.S. Berecry

18 402257 6451296 J.D. Collins & M.I. Barrett

19A 402107 6452036 A.K. & B.R. Boorer

21A 402339 6454911 E.J.A. & K.J. Robinson

21B 402357 6454840 E.J.A. & K.J. Robinson

22A 401135 6451967 G.H. Harris

23 405722 6453457 S.J. & J.G. Yarnold

24 401987 6454995 D.J & D.L. Bardwell

25A.1 403932 6456228 M.L. Green

25A.2 403807 6456176 M.L. Green

25B 404102 6455887 M.L. Green

25C 404106 6455725 M.L. Green

26 404024 6455845 W.A. Green

27 402765 6455321 B. & D. Hanson

28 402850 6455296 P. & L. Flanagan

30 403055 6455278 J. & D. House

31O 403008 6455129 Worrigee Developments Pty Limited

31P 403050 6455123 Worrigee Developments Pty Limited

33 403266 6455145 R. & M. Seale

36 402978 6454856 D. Warby

38 402891 6454887 G. & M. Hornsby

39B 402850 6454910 W. & V. Ejea

40 402799 6454927 G. & N. Fallon

43 402749 6454927 A.& C Field

44 402706 6454955 T. & L. Mason

45 402715 6455010 L. & L. Kearney

46 402758 6455064 A.& S. Wilson

47 402771 6455110 P. Warby

50 402927 6455048 R. & S. Vale

52 402945 6454968 G. Coates

53 403013 6454956 A. & C. Tate

56A 401066 6450614 W. Fraser

63 401730 6455487 S.J. Dark & V.M. Dark

65 402036 6455437 C.E. & D.M. Rodger

67P 401700 6455388 Jar Properties Pty Limited

67J 402510 6455074 Jar Properties Pty Limited

68 402280 6455381 D.M. Trinder & S.L. Ratley

70 402438 6455371 S.J. & M.C. Howlett

71 402700 6455332 L.A. & J.T. Tenbosch

73 402632 6455102 G.J. & S.G. Coles

74 402620 6455029 W.J. & P.L. Perry


Report No. 806/04

1 - 41

Table 3.1 (Cont’d) Receptors Considered in this Assessment (co-ordinates are MGA, zone 56)

Page 2 of 4



75 402633 6454960 K.F. & S. Lowe

76 402554 6455000 A.J. & R.L. Young

77 402614 6454909 E.D. Krestensen

78 402516 6454911 T.B. & A.M. Higgins

80 402421 6454996 D.W. & M.J. Schneider

81 402376 6455007 D. Bradbury & J. Richardson

82 402308 6455004 M.L. & K.M. Bonisch

83 402255 6455139 A.J. Gibbs

84 402196 6455047 H.V. & J Ellis

85 402043 6455088 D.W. & L.M. Elliott

86 401971 6455116 L.S. & M.E. West

87 401965 6455185 R.J. Yates & M.D. Moore

88 401807 6455156 D & K Reid

91 402151 6455278 A.J. Writer & F.M. Aitken

92 402305 6455245 T.J. & B.J Hamilton

94 402404 6455230 K.D. & S.A. Sage

98 401423 6455319 Laurie Earthmoving Pty Limited

99 401215 6455168 G. Maurer

100 401210 6455121 L.R. & J.R. Mitchell

102 401291 6455079 G. Salisbury

103 401242 6455054 M.R. Madden

104 401243 6455022 A.F.& K.L. Brown

105 401247 6455018 C.G. Johnston

106A 401228 6455100 A.P. & D.M. Bruce

106B 401255 6454998 A.P. & D.M. Bruce

107 401358 6455182 D.L. Genoli

108 401457 6455175 P.K. & J.M. Ballard

109 401304 6454923 A.G. & S.M. Young

110 401265 6454853 T.J.A. & M.F. Laurie

112 401246 6454544 R.E. & I.A. Waters

113 401188 6454588 R.J. Whalen

114 401184 6454563 K.A. Gardner

115 401186 6454533 N.K. Richards

117 401274 6454480 C.F. & C.J. Reynolds

118 401187 6454489 J. Burley

119 401195 6454468 E.M. Crawley

120 401189 6454447 T.M. Harris

121 401190 6454425 N.L. Fisher

122 401191 6454412 S.B. Freeman

123 401186 6454360 K.E. & S.J. Nash

125 401299 6454388 E.D.W. & L.M. Quinton, J.S. & K.J. Quinton

126 401260 6454273 W.J. Beggs & R.V. Edwards

127 401244 6454120 J.P. Dynes

128 401299 6454025 D.J. Wisemantel & J.M. Grady

129 401297 6453953 A.W. & R.A. Galvin



Report No. 806/04

1 - 42


Page 3 of 4



130 401241 6453887 F.J. Crawley

132 401275 6453557 B.C. Chong-Sun

133 401167 6453364 J.M. Sutherland

135 401477 6453436 G.C. & P.J. Morris

137 401266 6453285 C.W. & B.N.E. Franklin

138 401127 6453277 R. & R.L. Besier

139 401154 6453218 M., C.I. & H.A.W. Bowman

140 401018 6453042 M.J. & K.I. O'Brien

141 401171 6453045 B.A. & M.L. Steadman

142 401239 6452980 D.B. Hamilton

143 401253 6453123 K.J. Wardrop

144 401470 6453134 J.C.E. Heylink

145 401378 6453039 H.J.& P.F. Cox

146 401544 6453068 S.L. Ruse

147 401532 6453193 B.J. & D. Gilbert

148 401497 6453282 H.M. Evans

149 401654 6453068 C.E. & P.M. Reynolds

150 401715 6452958 B.J. & F.P. McKechnie

151 401576 6452968 M.J. & R.A. Edwards

152 401615 6452868 J.R. & L.M. Findlay

153 401653 6452809 R.J. & R.A. West

154 401768 6452723 I.A. & S. Jackson

155 401303 6452809 P.E. & S.J. Hedditch

156 401150 6452796 B. Harris

157 401054 6452833 A.I. Ross

158 401020 6452796 G.R. & D.C. Shore

159 400782 6452710 N.A. & E.M. Rumbel

160 401190 6452639 S. & U.L. Toth

161 401108 6452300 R.K. & B.J. Saunders

163A 400895 6449908 N.E. Bignell

163B 400426 6449695 N.E. Bignell

164A.1 400591 6448645 N.J. Williams

164A.2 400468 6448476 N.J. Williams

165A 399922 6447996 B.K., L.J., T.B., & L.M. Walker

172 407120 6452732 A.C. & K.T. Vintner

173 406402 6453321 N.R. & A.B. Sage

174A 406560 6453408 V.P. Predebon

174B.1 406866 6453177 V.P. Predebon

174B.2 407012 6453020 V.P. Predebon

179 400834 6453987 M. Barnes

180 400375 6454208 G. & J. Spokes

181A 399455 6454390 G. Harris

181B 400848 6453115 G. Harris

181C 399856 6452888 G. Harris

182A 400238 6452647 A. & G. Sopher


Report No. 806/04

1 - 43


Page 4 of 4



182B 400011 6452230 A. & G. Sopher

183 399291 6451848 G. Channon & T. Edwards

184A 400042 6452164 D. Andrews

184B 398455 6451659 D. Andrews

186 398656 6452803 Charnich Pty Limited

187 398693 6452350 V. & K. Pham

188 398588 6452152 T. Mott

189 399607 6451944 A. & S Kingston

191A 399049 6451431 Baker Place Investments Pty Limited

192A 401800 6450065 Pace Farm Pty Limited

193 399856 6452620 Transport for NSW #

Resource Company-owned Residences

1B 403924 6454975 Gloucester Resources Limited*

1C 403109 6454740 Gloucester Resources Limited*

1D 402966 6454672 Gloucester Resources Limited*

1E 403676 6454576 Gloucester Resources Limited*

1F 403780 6454484 Gloucester Resources Limited*

1K 402480 6451565 Gloucester Resources Limited*

1L 404629 6450352 Gloucester Resources Limited*

1M 404942 6450255 Gloucester Resources Limited*

1N 404315 6450214 Gloucester Resources Limited*

1O 403612 6449925 Gloucester Resources Limited*

1P 404652 6449933 Gloucester Resources Limited*

1Q 405083 6449724 Gloucester Resources Limited*

1R 405060 6449442 Gloucester Resources Limited*

3A 403784 6454363 Gloucester Resources Limited*

3B 402664 6453552 Gloucester Resources Limited*

4A.1 402799 6453735 Gloucester Resources Limited*

4A.2 402783 6453637 Gloucester Resources Limited*

5 404440 6452587 J.A. & L.N. Clarke (under option)

8 405744 6453274 Gloucester Resources Limited*

12A 404532 6450161 Stratford Coal Pty Limited

12B 404537 6449570 Stratford Coal Pty Limited

13 403881 6449498 AGL Upstream Investments Pty Ltd


15 402997 6450531 P.S. & B.C. Jackson (under option)





166A 401616 6447905 AGL Energy Limited

167A 402528 6448869 AGL Upstream Infrastructure Investments Pty Ltd

168A 402470 6447869 CIM Stratford Pty Ltd, Gloucester Coal Ltd


Please note: * Denotes Gloucester Resources Limited or subsidiary company

# Residence on this property is owned by G.P. Heard



Report No. 806/04

1 - 44

4 . E X I S T I N G N O I S E E N VI R O N M EN T

4.1 NOISE SOURCES

Noise which is currently audible at the residences surrounding the Site is attributed to a range

of sources including:

traffic on local roads and The Bucketts Way;

occasional trains on the North Coast Railway;

domestic noises such as lawn mowers;

rural noises such as tractors, insects and birds;

wind in the trees;

livestock/vehicles on properties and at the Gloucester Livestock Exchange

Centre;

a saw mill near the intersection of Jacks Road and The Bucketts Way; and

occasional light aircraft using the Gloucester airfield.

4.2 BACKGROUND NOISE MONITORING

A schedule of operator-attended and unattended noise monitoring was undertaken over four

periods between July 2010 and July 2012, namely in:

July 2010;

March 2011;

July 2011; and

July 2012.

The objective of the noise monitoring was to determine the background noise levels in the

absence of any mining or other activities related to the Proposal, in order to characterise and

quantify the acoustical environment in the area surrounding the Site.

The noise monitoring locations are listed in Table 4.1 together with the attended monitoring

programme.


Report No. 806/04

1 - 45

Table 4.1

Noise Monitoring Locations

Location Easting Northing Address

No. of Operator Attended Surveys

Daytime Evening Night-time

1 405527 6453610 633 Waukivory Road 3 3 3

2 403737 6454395 412 Waukivory Road 1 1 1

3 402911 6454666 188 Jacks Road 3 3 3

4 402056 6453058 20 Grantham Road 1 1 1

5 402102 6452066 176 Fairbairns Road 1 1 1

6 402465 6451574 237 Fairbairns Road 1 1 1

7 403951 6449504 508 Fairbairns Road 1 1 1

8 401164 6452031 124 Fairbairns Road 1 1 1

9 401168 6452628 30 Fairbairns Road 3 3 3

10 401940 6455206 1 Moonlight Crescent 4 4 4

11 401247 6455142 4566 The Bucketts Way 4 4 4

12 401351 6453945 4440 The Bucketts Way 4 4 4

13 402046 6458452 35 Tyrrell Street 2 2 2

14 401779 6457746 80 Barrington Street 2 2 2

15 401630 6456557 Clement Street 2 2 2

16 402144 6450914 3 Beech Close 2 2 2

The 16 noise monitoring locations listed in Table 4.1 are presented in Figure 4.1.

4.3 NOISE MEASUREMENT PROCEDURES

Noise measurement procedures were generally guided by the requirements of AS 1055-1997

“Acoustics - Descriptions and Measurement of Environmental Noise” and the EPA’s Industrial

Noise Policy (INP).

4.3.1 Unattended Continuous Noise Logging

Eight unattended noise loggers were positioned at a selection of the closest potentially

affected receptors to the Site, namely Location 1 and Location 3 to Location 9 (Refer to

Figure 4.1) for up to 16 days commencing on Thursday 1 July 2010. A ninth unattended noise

logger was positioned at a potentially affected receptor located to the north of the Site namely

Location 2 (Figure 4.1) for 11 days commencing on Tuesday 6 July 2010.

Three additional loggers were positioned in the vicinity of The Bucketts Way and the

Thunderbolt Estate at Locations 10 to 12 for 19 days commencing on Thursday 17 March 2011

in order to meet community expectations and re-assure relevant government agencies of the

rigour of the impact assessment process.



Report No. 806/04

1 - 46

Figure 4.1 Noise Monitoring Locations


Report No. 806/04

1 - 47

In July 2011, unattended monitoring was repeated at Locations 1, 9, 10, 11 and 12 in order to

understand some atypical results recorded during the March 2011 program, and to ascertain

the noise climate in the absence of insect influence. Measurements were repeated at

Location 3 during this survey in order confirm that the general noise environment was similar to

that of the previous monitoring.

Noise monitoring within the Gloucester township (Locations 13-16) was undertaken in July

2012 in response to regulatory government agency requirements nominated when the DGRs

were issued. Measurements were repeated at Location 10 during this survey in order confirm

that the general noise environment was similar to that of the previous monitoring.

4.3.2 Operator-attended Noise Measurements

A number of rounds of operator-attended measurements were undertaken at all monitoring

locations in order to qualify and quantify the noise environment in the vicinity of the Site. In

general, these measurements were undertaken during installation and/or collection of the

unattended noise monitors detailed above. The number of operator-attended surveys

undertaken at each location is shown in Table 4.1.

4.4 INSTRUMENTATION AND MEASUREMENT PARAMETERS

The noise monitoring equipment used for the unattended monitoring consisted of

environmental noise loggers set to A-weighted, fast response, continuously monitoring over

15-minute sampling periods. This equipment is capable of remotely monitoring and storing

noise level descriptors for later detailed analysis. The equipment calibration was checked

before and after each survey, and no significant drift occurred.

The loggers determined LA1, LA10, LA90 and LAeq levels of the ambient noise. The LA1, LA10 and

LA90 levels are the levels exceeded for 1%, 10% and 90% of the sample time respectively. The

LA1 is indicative of maximum noise levels due to individual noise events such as the occasional

pass by of a heavy vehicle. The LA90 level is used to derive the Rating Background Level

(RBL) which is used to determine the various noise criteria. The LAeq level is the Equivalent

Continuous Sound Level and has the same sound energy over the sampling period as the

actual noise environment with its fluctuating sound levels. The LAeq is used for the assessment

of operational noise and traffic noise.

Attended monitoring was conducted using Class/Type 1 Sound Level Meters (SLM).

All acoustic instrumentation used throughout the monitoring programme complied with the

requirements of AS IEC 61672.1 2004 "Electroacoustics – Sound Level Meters –

Specifications", which replaces AS 1259.2 - 1990 “Sound Level Meters”, and carried current

NATA calibration certificates.

Instrument calibration was checked before and after each measurement, with the variation in

calibrated levels not exceeding the acceptable variation of ±0.5 dB (AS 1055).



Report No. 806/04

1 - 48

4.5 UNATTENDED NOISE MEASUREMENTS

The unattended ambient noise logger data from each monitoring location are presented

graphically on a daily basis in Appendix 1.

The ambient noise data have been processed in accordance with the requirements of the INP

in order to derive the ambient noise levels, as presented in Table 4.2. The most relevant

dataset for each monitoring location is presented. Relevance was determined by the degree of

affectation from extraneous noise sources such as insects and the nearby Gloucester

Livestock Exchange Centre etc.

Table 4.2

Summary of Unattended Noise Monitoring Results*3

Location RBL – dBA*1

LAeq(Period) – dBA*1

Day Evening Night Day Evening Night

1 30 28 27 46 36 36

2 27 28 26 46 43 38

3 26 25 22 46 42 45

4 30 28 27 47 42 39

5 26 24 23 50 44 43

6 27 27 27 46 39 39

7 26 26 26 47 49 44

8 30 27 26 60 45 51

9 29 25 24 48 42 42

10*2 31 27 25 48 42 43

11 38 29 27 58 53 52

12 35 27 27 52 50 48

13 32 28 26 50 42 36

14 35 28 27 51 42 41

15 32 28 26 50 42 36

16 30 30 27 57 41 42

Notes *1: (dB(A) re 20μPa)

*2: 5 days recorded

*3: Results are presented for the most relevant monitoring undertaken at each location (i.e. considering extraneous noise influence from sources such as insects and the nearby Gloucester Livestock Exchange Centre etc.)

Continuous weather data was obtained from the GRL weather station located within the Mine

Area (installed and operational as of Thursday 1 July 2010), in order to identify periods of

adverse weather during the unattended noise logging. Data corresponding to periods of high

winds (i.e. greater than 5m/s) and/or rain were excluded from the background noise analysis.

The removal of the weather affected noise data did not significantly affect the resulting

background noise levels.

The results of the monitoring established that the proposed activities are located in a typical

rural area with few noise sources and generally low noise levels, particularly background noise

levels.


Report No. 806/04

1 - 49

Ambient noise levels in the vicinity of The Bucketts Way (Locations 11, 12 and 14) were

elevated due to traffic noise. This was particularly evident during the daytime period when

traffic levels are greatest. The consistency of traffic noise during the day is reflected by

elevated RBLs during this time period, as compared to other locations. During the evening

and night time periods, when traffic is less consistent, little difference was observed between

RBLs determined across all locations.

Noise monitoring undertaken during March 2011 showed higher noise levels than July 2010

and July 2011 during the evening and night-time periods, ranging between 9-18 dB higher.

The elevated noise levels reflected the presence of insects and thus were not considered in

the derivation of criteria as per the INP. Whilst reliance has not been placed upon the

March 2011 noise levels when establishing noise criteria, the results identify the levels of

background noise that are already present in the surrounding community during those periods

of the year when insects are present.

At Locations 13-16, within Gloucester township, daytime RBLs were marginally above those

outside the township, but generally below those at locations such as Locations 11 and 12 with

exposure to higher-speed traffic on The Buckets Way. Evening and night-time levels were

once again consistent with those at other locations.

4.6 ATTENDED NOISE MEASUREMENTS

These measurements were used largely to confirm the sources of noise measured in the

unattended monitoring. At Locations 11, 12 and 14, noise from other industrial sources was a

significant contributor to the measured ambient noise levels but only in the daytime. However,

in those cases, the estimated contribution from other industrial noise was well below levels

requiring inclusion in an analysis of cumulative noise impacts, under the INP.



Report No. 806/04

1 - 50

5 . O P E R ATI O N A L N O I S E A S S E S S M E N T C R I T E R I A

This Section of the report details criteria for operational noise generated on the Site (including

Mine Area, Overland Conveyor Corridor and the Rail Load-out Facility). For all other

emissions, including rail and road traffic on public infrastructure, relevant criteria are detailed in

the sections addressing those components.

5.1 INTRUSIVENESS AND AMENITY CRITERIA

The INP specifies two noise criteria:

an intrusiveness criterion which requires that the equivalent continuous noise

level (LAeq,15 minute) from a specific industrial source should not exceed the

background noise level by more than 5 decibels; and

an amenity criterion which aims to maintain noise amenity over the whole

daytime, evening or night-time period where it is subjected to cumulative noise

from a number of industrial sources.

Based on the existing Rating Background Noise Levels (RBLs) for day, evening and night

periods presented in Table 4.2, the derived intrusiveness criteria are presented in Table 5.1.

RBLs for monitoring locations having significant exposure to traffic noise (e.g. The Bucketts

Way) were observed to be elevated during the daytime period, when traffic is consistent.

RBLs measured at these locations have therefore been adopted for receptors having similar

exposure to these sources.

RBLs at all other locations were equal to or below 30 dBA, which constitutes the minimum RBL

adopted under the INP. Therefore, all locations other than those identified as having

significant exposure to traffic noise have been assumed to have an RBL of 30 dBA for day,

evening and night periods.

Table 5.1

Intrusiveness Criteria For Privately-owned Receptors, dBA

Receptor Number Receptor Area Description Day Evening Night

21A, 21B, 24, 63, 65, 67J, 67P, 68, 70, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 91, 92, 94

Exposed to Jacks Road, The Bucketts Way and some industrial noise from the nearby estate. Similar to Monitoring Location 10.

36 35 35

98, 99, 100, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106A, 106B, 107, 108, 109, 110

Exposed to The Bucketts Way near the intersection with Jacks Road. Some existing industrial noise also impacts the RBL. Similar to Monitoring Location 11.

43 35 35

112, 113, 114, 115, 117, 118, 119, 120, 122, 123, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 132, 133, 138, 139, 140, 159, 181B, 181C, 182B, 183, 184B

Exposed to The Bucketts Way south of intersection with Jacks Road. Similar to Monitoring Location 12.

40 35 35

All others Rural with minimal transportation noise impacting the RBL.

35 35 35

Notes: Day: the period from 7:00 am to 6:00 pm Monday to Saturday; or 8:00 am to 6:00 pm on Sundays and public holidays. Evening: the period from 6:00 pm to 10:00 pm. Night: the remaining periods.


Report No. 806/04

1 - 51

Figure 5.1 Noise Catchment Areas



Report No. 806/04

1 - 52

The amenity criteria are relevant in the context of controlling cumulative noise impacts

resulting from the concurrent operation of the Proposal and the other sources of industrial

noise (for example, the Stratford Mine and/or Expansion Project, the Gloucester Gas Project

and the proposed Waukivory Road Gravel Quarry). Given the results of the attended noise

monitoring, which indicate that existing industrial noise in the area is at a very low level, these

existing and future projects are the only potential sources of cumulative noise that require

consideration.

The amenity criteria set upper limits to control the total LAeq,Period noise levels at a given

receptor from all industrial sources over the daytime, evening and night-time periods. In this

case, the surrounding receptors are situated in an area which would be classified as “Rural”

under the INP, and the relevant recommended “acceptable” amenity criteria for LAeq,Period are

50, 45 and 40 dBA for daytime, evening and night-time periods, respectively.

In addition, the INP also stipulates a recommended “maximum” amenity level of 5 dBA above

the “acceptable” levels.

The INP describes the ‘Project-specific noise criterion’ as being the lower (i.e. more stringent)

of the intrusiveness and amenity criteria. Consistent with this approach, this assessment uses

intrusiveness criteria to assess noise from the Proposal, and amenity criteria to assess

cumulative noise.

The INP does not promulgate criteria for the assessment of noise emissions impacting vacant

land. However, DP&I and EPA have historically adopted an acceptability criterion as being

that the LAeq,15min noise level should not exceed 40 dBA on more than 25% of the property.

In view of the above, Table 5.2 summarises the criteria used in this assessment for all

privately-owned land.


Report No. 806/04

1 - 53

Table 5.2

Proposal Specific Noise Criteria for Privately-owned Receptors

Receptor Numbers

Criteria Type Day Evening Night-time

21A, 21B, 24, 63, 65, 67J, 67P, 68, 70, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 90, 91, 92, 94

* 64, 66, 67A, 67B, 67C, 67D, 67E, 67F, 67G, 67H, 67I, 67K, 67L, 67M, 67N, 67O, 67Q, 69, 71, 72, 79, 89, S93, 95, 96

INP Intrusive 36 LAeq,15 minute (dBA) 35 LAeq,15 minute (dBA) 35 LAeq,15 minute (dBA)

INP Amenity 50 LAeq,Period (dBA) recommended acceptable

55 LAeq,Period (dBA) recommended maximum

45 LAeq,Period (dBA) recommended acceptable




98, 99, 100, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106A, 106B, 107, 108, 109, 110

* 97








112, 113, 114, 115, 117, 118, 119, 120, 122, 123, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 132, 133, 138, 139, 140, 159, 181B, 181C, 182B, 183, 184B

* 19B, 19C, 111, 116, 121, 124, 131, 162








All others INP Intrusive 35 LAeq,15 minute (dBA) 35 LAeq,15 minute (dBA) 35 LAeq,15 minute (dBA)







All privately-owned land

Industry Standard

40 LAeq,15 minute (dBA) on more than 25% of the land



Notes: Day: the period from 7:00 am to 6:00 pm Monday to Saturday; or 8:00 am to 6:00 pm on Sundays and public holidays

Evening: the period from 6:00 pm to 10:00 pm

Night: the remaining periods.

* Denotes land which was vacant at the time of preparing this assessment but would attract the stated criteria should sensitive receptors are established on the subject land in the future.



Report No. 806/04

1 - 54

5.2 ASSESSMENT METHODOLOGY

The INP states that intrusiveness and amenity criteria have been developed to protect at least

90% of the population living in the vicinity of the industrial noise sources from the adverse

effects of noise for at least 90% of the time (Environment Protection Authority [EPA], 2000).

Provided the criteria in the INP are achieved, it is unlikely that most people would consider the

resultant noise levels excessive.

In those cases where the criteria are not achieved, it does not automatically follow that all

people exposed to the noise would find the noise unacceptable. Equally, even where criteria

are achieved, there will be a small proportion of the affected population who may still find the

noise unacceptable. In subjective terms, exceedances of the project-specific noise

assessment criteria can generally be described as follows:

Negligible: noise level increase <1 dBA (not noticeable).

Marginal: noise level increase 1 to 2 dBA (not noticeable by most people).

Moderate: noise level increase 3 to 5 dBA (not noticeable by some people but

may be noticeable by others).

Appreciable: noise level increase >5 dBA (noticeable by most people).

Table 5.3 presents terminology that has historically been used to describe zones of noise or

noise impact for mining and similar projects.

Table 5.3

Project Noise Impact

Assessment

Criteria Noise Criteria

“Noise Management Zone” “Noise

Affectation

Zone” Marginal Moderate

Intrusiveness

LAeq,15 minute Refer Table 5.1 1 to 2 dBA above

project-specific

criteria

3 to 5 dBA above

project-specific

criteria

> 5 dBA above

Project-

specific criteria Amenity

LAeq,Period Refer Table 5.1

5.3 CRITERION FOR THE PREVENTION OF SLEEP DISTURBANCE

WITHIN RESIDENCES

To protect people against being awoken from their sleep, the EPA recommends that 1-minute

LA1 noise levels (effectively, the LA,max or maximum noise level) should not exceed the

background noise level by more than 15 dBA when measured or computed at the location of a

building façade. The “sleep disturbance” criterion is only applicable to night-time (10.00 pm to

7.00 am) operations.

Where the existing rating background level (RBL) is less than 30dBA, the INP states that a

minimum RBL of 30 dBA should be adopted. Given this, the sleep disturbance criterion when

assessed external to any surrounding noise sensitive receptors (Figure 3.1) is 45 dBA

LA1,1 minute.


Report No. 806/04

1 - 55

5.4 WORLD HEALTH ORGANISATION CRITERIA TO PROTECT THE

HEALTH OF THE SURROUNDING COMMUNITY

The NSW INP has been developed to regulate noise from industrial sources such as mining

projects. Among the INP’s stated objectives is to “protect the community from excessive

intrusive noise and preserve amenity for specific land uses”. The policy is primarily aimed at

controlling noise annoyance rather than noise which could directly affect health. Levels at

which direct health effects, such as noise induced hearing loss, may occur are much higher

than criteria which to limit noise annoyance effects.

The World Health Organization (WHO), in “Guidelines for Community Noise” (WHO, 1999),

considered many direct and indirect health implications of excessive noise, using a definition of

“health effects” that includes impacts such as annoyance. Among the effects1 considered by

the guidelines were:

interference with speech perception;

hearing impairment;

sleep disturbance;

annoyance; and

effects on social behaviour.

Considering the above health effects, the WHO guidelines set out values deemed appropriate

for the protection of the community. The LAeq,8hour values prescribed for dwellings are:

35 dBA internally for the protection of speech intelligibility and limiting noise to

cause moderate annoyance; and

30 dBA inside bedrooms to protect a person’s ability to sleep (applicable during

the night time only).

These guideline values correspond to external goal levels of 40-45 dBA (applying a 10 dB

attenuation from outside to inside with windows partly open), which exceed the INP derived

intrusiveness criteria identified in Table 5.2.

With regard to night-time noise and its effects on a person’s ability to sleep, the WHO (Europe)

has published Night Noise Guidelines (NNG) for Europe (WHO Europe, 2009). This guideline

presents alternative assessment criteria to those presented in the WHO’s Guidelines for

Community Noise (WHO, 1999) on the basis of more recent and more relevant research. The

NNG recommends an LAeq approach to the assessment of night noise, averaged over all night

time periods for a one-year period.

On the basis of the health effects considered by the studies founding the NNG, the guideline

concludes that the recommended night noise guideline value to protect health is the A-

weighted night time noise level averaged over a one-year period – Lnight,outside – 40 dBA, with an

interim target of Lnight,outside 55 dBA. Note that the WHO assumes an outside to inside

attenuation of 15-21 dB. This outside to inside attenuation relates to cultural and regional

differences, such as percentage of open windows and building construction, and is more

readily accepted as 10 dB in Australia.

1 For more information on these effects consult the guidelines.



Report No. 806/04

1 - 56

Therefore in Australia the WHO’s NNG targets would be nearer to Lnight,outside 35 dBA, with an

interim target of Lnight,outside 50 dBA to maintain the same noise level at the occupant’s ear. This

can be directly compared with an INP intrusiveness criterion of Lnight,outside = 35dBA (although

the intrusiveness criterion is generally calculated on a per-season basis rather than over an

entire year). For the Rocky Hill Coal Project assessment, the intrusiveness criterion of LAeq,15min

35 dBA (applied to a 10% exceedance limit) is more stringent than both interim and long-term

WHO targets.

Considering the above, we consider that the INP derived criteria summarised in Table 5.2

represent noise levels that would typically protect the surrounding community from health

impacts associated with noise.

5.5 CRITERIA FOR THE ASSESSMENT OF LOW FREQUENCY NOISE

(INCLUDING INFRASOUND)

5.5.1 Introduction

Low frequency noise has the potential to cause annoyance, even at A-weighted levels which

may not themselves be considered annoying. Low frequency noise is typically defined as

frequencies within the audible range below 100 Hz.

For low frequency noise, the INP recommends that an assessment be conducted in terms of

the difference between C and A weighted levels of noise from the source, and if a 15 dB

difference or more exists, a correction of 5 dB should be applied.

Current research suggests that this approach of applying a penalty based upon the difference

between C-weighted and A-weighted noise levels may be inappropriate. Broner (2011)

suggests that “the (C-A) level difference is only an appropriate starting metric for indicating

when a potential [Low Frequency Noise (LFN)] problem may become a significant source of

annoyance to the public”. Broner also suggests that “if it is necessary to utilise a (C-A) sound

pressure level difference at all, it is recommended that a (C-A) difference of at least 20 dB be

used to indicate the presence of a potential LFN noise problem.”

Furthermore, Leventhall (2003) states that the use of a (C-A) difference is not suitable when

the noise levels are low, since the low frequencies may then be below threshold of hearing

levels. In addition, a (C-A) difference only accounts for noise within the audible range. It has

been suggested that infrasound, i.e. “sound” below the audible range (below 20 Hz), can

negatively impact wellbeing. The DEFRA approach discussed below includes third-octave

frequencies as low as 10 Hz and thus considers some infrasound.

Therefore, on the basis of the current evidence, we conclude that the INP approach of applying

a 5 dBA penalty when C-weighted levels exceed A-weighted levels by 15 dB is inadequate for

the assessment of low frequency noise as it is defined by an unduly stringent (C-A) level

difference and also because it neglects the absolute magnitude of the noise. More appropriate

approaches, and the approach adopted for this assessment, are discussed in Sections 5.5.2

to 5.5.4.


Report No. 806/04

1 - 57

5.5.2 DEFRA Approach

The UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA) has developed a new

procedure to assess low frequency noise. The proposed criteria and assessment procedure

are detailed in the following publications:

Proposed criteria for the assessment of low frequency noise disturbance, 2005,

Prepared for DEFRA by Dr Andy Moorhouse, Dr David Waddington, Dr Mags

Adams; and

Procedure for the assessment of low frequency noise complaints, 2005, Prepared

for DEFRA by Dr Andy Moorhouse, Dr David Waddington, Dr Mags Adams.

A measurement of Leq, L10 and L90 is taken in third octave bands between 10Hz and 160Hz,

within a potentially-affected residence. If the Leq taken over a time when the noise is said to be

present exceeds the reference spectrum in Table 5.4, it may indicate a source of low

frequency noise that could cause disturbance. The character of the sound should be checked,

if possible, by playing back an audio recording at an amplified level.

Table 5.4

Proposed Reference Curve for Assessment of Low-Frequency Noise

Hz 10 12.5 16 20 25 31.5 40 50 63 80 100 125 160

dB, Leq 92 87 83 74 64 56 49 43 42 40 38 36 34

If the noise occurs only during the daytime, then a 5dB relaxation may be applied to all third

octave bands. Similarly, if the noise is steady, then a 5dB relaxation may be applied to all third

octave bands. A noise is considered steady if either of the conditions below is met:

L10 – L90 <5dB; or

the rate of change of sound pressure level (fast time weighting) is less than 10dB

per second.

The above parameters are evaluated and compared with the above reference spectrum, with

an exceedance of the reference curve requiring the reduction of the low frequency noise level.

Though this methodology represents the latest research into the assessment of low frequency

noise, it is impractical to implement at an impact assessment stage of a project as it relies on

precise knowledge of the prevailing noise levels at each receptor and also the acoustic

properties of each residential dwelling.

5.5.3 A Simple Outdoor Criterion

It is more convenient for predictive assessments to be undertaken using outdoor criteria.

Broner (2011) recommends the following criteria for the assessment of low frequency noise,

based on a review of “many case histories and the literature”.



Report No. 806/04

1 - 58

Table 5.5

Outdoor Criteria for the Assessment of Low Frequency Noise

Sensitive Receptor Range Criteria Leq (dBC)

Residential

Night time or plant operation 24/7 Desirable 60

Maximum 65

Daytime or Intermittent (1-2 hours) Desirable 65

Maximum 70

Commercial/ Office/ Industrial

Night time or plant operation 24/7 Desirable 70

Maximum 75

Daytime or Intermittent (1-2 hours) Desirable 75

Maximum 80

Note: Night-time is taken to be the same as that defined by the INP (i.e. 10.00pm-7.00am). Daytime is taken to represent the remaining period from 7.00am-10.00pm (i.e. Day and Evening periods under INP)

A 5 dBC penalty is suggested if the C-weighted sound pressure level (SPL) is fluctuating by +/-

5 dBC. The C-weighted criteria are to apply in addition to the ordinary A-weighted criteria.

From Table 5.5, the appropriate “desirable” criteria would be 65 dBC and 60 dBC during the

day and night periods respectively.

5.5.4 Adopted Low Frequency Noise Approach

In practice, it is difficult to assess low-frequency noise at the planning stage of a project. The

outdoor criteria promulgated by Broner (2011) (Section 5.5.3) and the dBA-dBC difference test

detailed in the INP serve as useful screening criteria to identify whether low-frequency noise is

likely to be a source of annoyance. As such, these criteria are adopted as screening criteria

for the Rocky Hill Coal Project.

While the third-octave spectral analysis suggested by DEFRA represents current best-practice,

it is of little use at the EIS stage. For the purpose of evaluating low-frequency noise and

infrasound once the Proposal is operational, and thus when measurements can be undertaken

at receptors, we recommend that the DEFRA approach be adopted.


Report No. 806/04

1 - 59

6 . O P E R ATI O N A L N O I S E A S S E S S M E N T

6.1 NOISE MODELLING METHODOLOGY

Operational noise levels at nearby receptors have been calculated using the Environmental

Noise Model (ENM) prediction model (a proprietary computer program from RTA Technology

Pty Ltd). This modelling software has been accepted by the EPA for use in environmental

noise assessments. The assessment models the total noise at each receptor from the

operation of the Proposal. Total predicted operational noise levels are then compared with the

relevant operational noise criteria presented in Table 5.2.

6.1.1 Noise Assessment Scenarios

Noise modelling was undertaken for:

day and evening operating scenarios for Year 0.5 which effectively equates to the

site establishment and construction phase; and

day, evening and night operating scenarios for mining Years 2.5, 4.25, 7.75

and 13.

These years were chosen as they represent each of the distinct phases of the Proposal. Each

scenario modelled incorporates was developed in consultation with the mine planer to reflect

the nominated production schedules and require restrictions upon equipment operations. It will

remain up to the Applicant through the real-time monitoring program to establish the exact

number and type of equipment in use at any one time and their location. In brief, there would

be flexibility for more equipment to be operated in areas with substantial topographic shielding

than in areas with lesser topographic or no shielding.

For each relevant scenario and time period, noise levels are calculated for three cases:

mine operation without operation of either the overland conveyor or the Rail

Load-out Facility;

mine operation in conjunction with the overland conveyor; and

mine operation in conjunction with the Rail Load-out Facility.

The first case represents the majority of the operating time. As described in Sections 6.4.3

and 6.4.4, both the overland conveyor and the Rail Load-out Facility will operate for up to

approximately 30hrs and 17hrs of the time week respectively, and times when they would

operate simultaneously would be very rare.



Report No. 806/04

1 - 60

The EPA assessment requirements provided to the DP&I for inclusion with the DGRs

requested noise modelling to be undertaken in Years 1, 3, 5, 7, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17 and 20. The

selected scenarios above closely resemble the requested scenarios for the early stages of the

mine’s life, up to Year 7. This represents the period when the mine would be most dynamic.

Beyond Year 7.75, the majority of mining-related activity would be confined to the Main Pit. In

the intervening period between Year 7.75 and Year 13, the Main Pit would be progressively

developed northwards, with backfilling occurring in the southern portions. During the period

between the cessation of projected coal extraction activities (Year 14) and the end of the

mine’s life, operational mobile plant numbers would decrease.

Between the end of coal extraction activities and the end of the completion of all pit backfilling,

activities would progress towards the surface again, producing a similar scenario to that

assessed by Year 0.5, though having less mobile plant. Therefore, we consider that the

assessed scenarios adequately represent the range of mine operations requested by the EPA.

The outcomes are presented in Section 6.4.

6.1.1.1 Extraction Operations

Overburden Management

Based on the drilling results, it is anticipated that the upper weathered section of the profile

within each open cut pit would be amenable to free-digging or removal by scrapers, with the

underlying consolidated material requiring blasting prior to its removal. Blasted overburden will

be removed via excavator and haul truck.

Overburden will initially be removed from the open cut pits and used to create visibility (and

noise shielding) barriers. Once these initial barriers are completed, further overburden would

be transported to overburden emplacement areas, primarily behind the barriers. The barriers

would be progressively extended northwards with the placement of overburden behind the

barriers also moving northwards. When pits are sufficiently developed to permit emplacement

of overburden within the pits, in-pit placement would be undertaken tactically enabling noise-

sensitive haul routes not to be used during adverse meteorological conditions. Overburden

placement would be undertaken using haul trucks and dozers.

Coal Recovery

The coal exposed in each open cut pit would be removed by excavator and transported by

haul truck to the ROM coal stockpile adjacent to the CHPP. Some coal may be dozed or

scraped off due to the steep dips of the seams. Limited low energy blasting may also be

undertaken to fracture the coal exposed in the pit floor once the main floor level is achieved,

thereby potentially enabling the excavator to remove up to a further 15m of coal down the dip

of the seam without any substantial additional overburden removal.


Report No. 806/04

1 - 61

6.1.1.2 CHPP

A 12ha pad will incorporate the CHPP buildings, workshop and associated facilities, and ROM

and product coal stockpiles. The pad would be on the western side of the Mine Area, east of

and adjacent to the western and northern visibility barrier. The pad would be constructed to an

elevation of approximately 115m AHD, i.e. approximately 25m to 40m below the top of the

adjacent western and northern visibility barrier, using cut and fill methods to maximise the

visual and acoustic benefits of the adjacent visibility barrier.

With the exception of the crushing station, rejects stockpile or bin and thickener, the major

plant components would be enclosed within two buildings with a combined floor area of

approximately 1,500m2. The main building would have an overall height of approximately 21m,

with the smaller building which contains the belt filters having a height of approximately 6m.

The CHPP building would be shielded visually and acoustically to the north, west and

southwest by the western and northern visibility barrier. Furthermore, cladding would be

installed on the upper decks, as a minimum, in order to further reduce noise.

The CHPP will be designed such that it is not a significant contributor to the total Mine Area

noise at the most affected receptors. Based on measurements of similar facilities, Wilkinson

Murray considers that a SWL of 110 dBA is achievable for the CHPP, and this has been

included in noise modelling scenarios for periods that the CHPP is proposed to be operational.

6.1.1.3 Overland Conveyor and Rail Load-out Facility

All coal products would be transported to an export terminal at the Port of Newcastle. The

dispatch of coal would involve a two-stage process within the Site. Firstly, product coal would

be conveyed via an overland conveyor to a surge bin and train load-out (TLO) bin within the

Rail Load-out Facility, and secondly, the loading of coal from the TLO bin into trains to be

transported from the Site to the Port of Newcastle. Both activities would operate independently

of each other given sufficient storage capacity would be available in the surge bin and TLO bin

to load one train.

Loading of coal onto the overland conveyor would be achieved by bulldozer or front-end loader

pushing the desired product or product mix from the product coal stockpile into below ground

pan feeders or a similar recovery system which would deposit the coal onto the overland

conveyor.

The products would be conveyed to the Rail Load-out Facility using the overland conveyor at a

rate of approximately 1,500tph.

The coal products would initially be delivered to the surge bin after which they would be

conveyed to the TLO bin at a rate of approximately 3,500tph. Transfer of coal products from

the product coal stockpile would cease once both bins are full.

Trains with a nominal capacity of 3,000t would arrive at the train loop and, after leaving the

North Coast Railway Line, would approach the TLO bin on the uphill grade, thereby enabling

loading to be carried out under tension and minimising shunt/coupling noise. The empty

wagons would be sequentially filled, with the telescopic loading chute lowered to a pre-

determined loading position at the commencement of filling.



Report No. 806/04

1 - 62

Loading of the wagons would be completed within a period of approximately 1.5 hours. The

train would then leave the rail loop at its allocated time to return to the Port of Newcastle.

6.1.2 Meteorological Data used for Noise Predictions

6.1.2.1 Modelling Methodology

The INP generally directs the use of a single set of adverse meteorological data in the

assessment of noise impacts (EPA, 2000). However, for noise modelling in this and other

projects, Wilkinson Murray has adopted the more rigorous approach of predicting noise levels

at nearby receptors for a range of meteorological conditions based on meteorological data

obtained for the locality. The noise modelling presented in this assessment is based on

meteorological data from the GRL meteorological station for the period November 2010

through October 2011. Statistical occurrences of meteorological conditions are then used to

calculate a 10th percentile exceedance noise level (i.e. the level that is exceeded 10% of the

time), which is then compared with relevant criteria.

This alternative assessment procedure involves significantly greater computational complexity

than the use of a single set of meteorological conditions. However, we believe it provides a

more rigorous method of assessing noise exposure, and one that is more easily understood by

the community. In the present case, because meteorological conditions are often more

adverse than the “default” adverse conditions specified the INP, the use of a 10th percentile

exceedance noise level results in a more conservative (that is, a higher) predicted noise level

than would be obtained by strict application of the INP. The approach of using the 10th

percentile calculated noise level as a measure of noise impacts has been accepted by the EPA

for previous similar mining project assessments.

6.1.2.2 Wind Speed and Direction

The data for wind direction and wind speed are classified into eight directional intervals and

five speed intervals (between 0.5 m/s and 3 m/s - with all other instances of wind speed

ascribed as “calm”) in accordance with the INP.

6.1.2.3 Temperature Inversions

Temperature profiles were provided by Pacific Environment Limited. The temperature profiles

for the Gloucester Valley in the vicinity of the Site were extracted from a diagnostic

meteorological model. From these temperature profiles, the temperature inversion strength

(an input parameter into the ENM calculation) was determined by the temperature gradient

between the 10m and 100m heights. This is considered to be a more reliable method than

estimating inversion strength from the Pasquil-Gifford stability class using the method detailed

in Appendix E of the INP. In particular, the Pasquil-Gifford method would limit the possible

inversion strengths to 3°C/100m, whereas using the model outputs, inversion strengths of up

to 8°C/100m were found (although occurrences of inversion strength over 6°C/100m were

rare).


Report No. 806/04

1 - 63

Figure 6.1 presents the calculated occurrence of temperature inversions throughout the year.

Temperature inversions are clearly expected to be a feature of the area and their prevalence is

such that they would likely dictate the 10th percentile noise level (which is used for comparison

with criteria). The relative prevalence of temperature inversions among seasons is as

expected, with winter exhibiting temperature inversions far more often than summer and the

intermediate seasons, spring and autumn.

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

20%

Day Evening Night

Ind

ivid

ual

Invers

ion

Str

en

gth

s (

co

lum

ns)

-20%

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

To

tal

Invers

ion

Occu

rren

ce (

lin

e)

3

4

5

6

7

8 or greater

Total (3 or greater)

Figure 6.1 Percentage Occurrence of Varying Strength Temperature Inversions (°C/100m)

Figure 6.2 shows the predicted percentage occurrence of temperature inversion strengths

equal to or greater than 3°C/100m, in winter. Notably, temperature inversions greater than

4°C/100m are predicted to occur during 39% of the night-time periods, and temperature

inversions greater than 3°C/100m are predicted to occur during 9% of the evening periods. It

is these conditions that will dictate the 10th percentile noise levels for these periods. Had the

Pasquil-Gifford stability class method suggested by the INP been used, temperature inversions

greater than 4°C/100m would not have been considered. In this respect, the methodology

adopted in this assessment is considered more conservative.



Report No. 806/04

1 - 64

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

18%

20%

Day Evening Night

Ind

ivid

ual

Invers

ion

Str

en

gth

s (

co

lum

ns)

-10%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

To

tal

Invers

ion

Occu

rren

ce (

lin

e)

3

4

5

6

7

8 or greater

Total (3 or greater)

Figure 6.2 Percentage Occurrence of Temperature Inversions 3.0°C/100m or Greater During Winter

Data from the GRL meteorological station, including temperatures at 2m and 10m from the

ground, were used to investigate the time distribution of temperature inversion conditions. Note

that these data are not considered as reliable as the modelling data used for estimating the

strength of inversions (because they are from a single site and cover a limited range of

heights) but, because these data have better time resolution, they allow understanding of the

temporal pattern of inversion formation. This is particularly important during the evening, as it

can indicate the time at which an inversion will generally begin to become apparent.

The data are for winter only (21 May to 12 July) and therefore represent the worst case for

inversions. The data show that, if the inversion strength is less than 3°C/100m for the hour

beginning 6:00pm, then there is only a 20% chance that the strength will exceed 3°C/100m

over the evening. Conversely, if the inversion strength exceeds 3°C/100m for the hour

beginning 6:00pm, the average for the evening was always above that value.

Our conclusion is that under a monitoring regime requiring changes to operations depending

on meteorological conditions, the likely outcome is that operations would be allowed or not

allowed for an entire evening period based on conditions in the early evening, rather than

being allowed for the early part of the period but not later.

6.1.2.4 Final Modelling Conditions

Modelling of operational noise impacts included consideration of 133 meteorological conditions

during the day and evening periods, and 173 during the night-time period. These were derived

from a full set of 240 conditions – eight wind directions (45° segments); six wind speeds (0.5

m/s bins between 0m/s and 3 m/s); and five temperature inversion strengths (none and

3°C/100m to 6°C/100m in 1°C/100m increments) – after removing combinations that occur so

infrequently as to have no impact on the 10th percentile noise level.


Report No. 806/04

1 - 65

6.2 INVESTIGATION OF FEASIBLE AND REASONABLE NOISE

MITIGATION MEASURES

The Site’s proximity to surrounding noise-sensitive receptors dictated that noise mitigation and

management measures be considered from the outset.

Where feasible and reasonable, proposed operations within the Site have been modified to

reduce potential noise emissions. The noise management measures adopted for all stages of

the Proposal include the following.

Selection of noise-attenuated mobile equipment and/or the implementation of

additional hard controls.

Establishment of a 25m-40m high (above ROM coal pad level) western and

northern visibility barrier extending the length of the western boundary and much

of the northern boundary of the Mine Area. This measure should be implemented

as soon as practicable, with the majority of work being completed during the

construction phase.

Progressive development of central and eastern visibility barriers ahead of

proposed overburden placement.

Progressively filling behind (to the east of) the central and eastern visibility

barriers so that shielding is maximised.

Positioning haul routes as much as possible on the northern and western sides of

open cut pits in order to maximize shielding provided by each pit.

Positioning the northern haul road in cut during Years 2.25 to 4.25 and/or behind

a barrier of subsoil to maintain an 8m vertical separation between the road

surface and the top of the barrier to minimise acoustic exposure to the north.

Positioning the southern haul road as close as possible to the western and

northern visibility barrier and, in the segment rounding south of the Main Pit,

positioning the haul road in cut and behind a barrier so as to create a nominal 8m

vertical separation.

Establishment of 5m high (above road level) barriers on the northern and western

sides of elevated haul routes such as those along the eastern visibility barrier.

Maintaining topsoil and subsoil stockpiles close to operational areas to maximise

shielding.

Implementing active noise management systems whereby (in conjunction with

real-time monitoring) reduced and/or revised operations are undertaken during

adverse meteorological conditions.

Reduced or restricted operations during evening and night-time periods.

Mitigating conveyor noise at the source through selection of quiet systems and,

as a minimum partially enclosing the overland conveyor in exposed locations.

Locating the train load-out bin within the Rail Load-out Facility in deep cut,

thereby maximising shielding.

The assessment has been based on the above mitigation and management measures.

Measures that are specific to individual stages of the mining operations are discussed

Section 6.4.



Report No. 806/04

1 - 66

Further measures to manage noise impacts at those residences nominated to be located

within either the noise management zone or noise affectation zone are outlined in

Section 6.10.

6.3 FLEET LIST AND SOUND POWER LEVELS

Table 6.1 presents the list of equipment, plant sound power levels and the period of operation

of plant (i.e. day/evening or night) used during the various periods of mine operations. The

sound power levels given in Table 6.1 are conservative in that they are based on plant

operating at maximum capacity for an entire 15 minutes.

The equipment operating in each scenario has been matched with the anticipated material

movement (overburden and ROM coal) for each of the distinct phases. If the ROM coal

production rate is increased to the maximum of 2.5 Mtpa from the 2Mtpa considered in the

modelled scenarios, this would be achieved through a reduction in overburden movement. As

such the mobile equipment would remain essentially unchanged and predicted levels would be

very similar to those of the assessed scenarios.

It is noted that the two types of haul trucks to be used on site each have a sound power level

of 113dB(A). As such, the Applicant would be able to use either type of truck on the assessed

haul routes.

Table 6.1

Indicative Mobile Equipment List

Year 1 Years 2 – 4 Years 5 – 8 Years 9 – 14

Overburden Moved (Annual bcm) 6 554 000 7 848 000 – 8 466 000

12 353 000 – 13 424 000

9 367 000

Coal Extracted (Annual t) 600 000 1 330 000 – 1 700 000

1 983 000 – 2 000 000

2 000 000

Type Model SWL

(dB(A))

Year 1 Year 2 – 4 Year 5 – 8 Year 9 – 14

D E D E N D E N D E N

Drill Rotary SKF12 118 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 0-1 2 2 2

Excavator 40t (345D) 107 1 0 1 0 0 1 0-1 0-1 1 1 0

120t (PC1250) 115 1 0 1 0-1 0 1 1 0-1 1 1 1

200t (994-200) 116 1 1 1 1 0 1 1 0-1 1 1 0-1

350t (EX3600) 116 1 1 1 1 0-1 1-2 1-2 0-2 2 2 0-2

Haul truck Cat 789XQ and Haulmax

113 8 6-8 9-12 6-12 3-4 12-14 12-14 8-13 15-16 15-16 4-6

Scraper 657G 114 3 0 3 0 0 1-3 0 0 1 0 0

Grader 14M 108 1 1 1 1 1 1-2 1-2 1 1-2 1-2 1

Front end Loader

Cat 988 112 0 0 1 0-1 0 1 1 0-1 1 1 0

Bulldozer D10/D11 111/113 2 1 3 1-2 0-1 3 3 2 3 3 1-2

Rubber Tyred 844RTD

111 1 1 1 1 0 1-2 1-2 0 2 2 0-1

Water Cart

Road Truck and Cat 777C

107 114

2 1-2 2 1-2 1-2 2 2 2 2 2 1-2

Bobcat 107 0 0 1 0-1 0 1 1 0-1 1 1 0

D = Day E = Evening N = Night


Report No. 806/04

1 - 67

The INP includes a number of “modifying factors” which may result in adjustment to the

effective sound power level of noise sources. The factors that may potentially be relevant in

this case are for tonal, impulsive and low-frequency noise.

In the case of tonal noise, the only significant potential sources are reversing alarms. In this

respect, GRL has committed to using broad-band reversing alarms for all equipment used on

the site.

For impulsive noise, the most important potential sources are impacts occurring during train

loading. Much of the impact noise will be mitigated by ensuring that all loading of wagons will

be undertaken under tension, as noted in Section 6.4.4. Any residual impulsive noise would

form a relatively minor part of the total noise emission from the Site, and the overall noise as

heard at privately-owned residences would not meet the definition of “impulsive” noise in the

INP.

As required by the EPA, low-frequency noise is considered separately and in detail in

Section 6.5, using more sophisticated assessment techniques than those in the INP. There it

is concluded that additional impacts due to low-frequency noise content are unlikely.

6.4 PREDICTED OPERATIONAL NOISE LEVELS

6.4.1 Introduction

The predicted 10th percentile LAeq,15 minute operational noise levels at each receptor are

presented in the following subsections for each of the modelled scenarios.

Following initial investigations, an active noise management strategy was determined for each

of the five operational scenarios, under which operations would be restricted under certain

meteorological conditions, with unrestricted operations at all other times. This was determined

on the basis of maximising the noise benefit of the strategy while minimising the disruption to

all on-site operations and was undertaken in consultation with the Applicant’s mine designers

and planners. The restrictions on operations, together with the predicted percentage of time

within each season during which the restrictions would be likely are presented in Tables 6.2,

6.4, 6.6, 6.8 and 6.9. The applicable restrictions are shown separately for each stage. Noise

levels were calculated assuming these restrictions are in place, and the 10th percentile

exceedance value was calculated at each receptor over all seasons. The maximum 10th

percentile value in any season is then compared with relevant criteria. Predicted noise levels

are rounded to the nearest 1 dBA.

With regard to evaluating predicted results against criteria, the rationale detailed in Section 5.2

is applied herein. The results tables (i.e. Tables 6.3, 6.5, 6.7, 6.9, 6.11, 6.12 and 6.13) are

presented using the following convention.

Light Green – predicted to be within criteria.

Yellow – predicted to exceed criteria by 2 dB or less, which represents a level

difference which is unlikely to be perceptible by most people. These predictions

are also within the accepted error associated with the modelling process, which

typically is slightly conservative. These receptors represent those in the “Noise

Management Zone”.



Report No. 806/04

1 - 68

Orange dots – predicted to exceed criteria by 3-5 dB, which represents a

moderate exceedance. These receptors also represent those in the “Noise

Management Zone”.

Pink/Rose striped – predicted to exceed by greater than 5 dB. These receptors

represent those in the “Noise Affectation Zone”.

Noise contours have been produced from a single adverse meteorological condition and are

indicative of the 10% exceedance level. For this reason, there may be some discrepancy

between noise contours and discrete receptor predictions in the figures and tables presenting

results. In all cases, the discrete receptor predictions presented in the tables should be relied

upon over the noise contours. In presenting noise contours, the 35 dBA contour is highlighted

as the “typical criterion”, as it represents the most stringent noise criterion for the majority of

potentially-affected privately-owned receptors.

6.4.2 Mining Operations

6.4.2.1 Year 0.5

This scenario represents the early stages of the Proposal. Though this stage is akin to a

“construction” stage, the Interim Construction Noise Guideline (ICNG) states that activities

such as bulk earthmoving etc., which are consistent with the operational activities of the mine,

should be assessed against operational noise criteria detailed in the INP. This is the approach

which has been taken in the present section. There will also be activities associated with

construction of the overland conveyor and Rail Load-out Facility that are clearly distinct from

operational noise sources within the Mine Area, and these are assessed in Section 8 under the

ICNG’s guidelines for construction noise.

Some aspects of this stage necessitate mobile plant operating in exposed locations whilst

constructing noise mitigation barriers. It is proposed to control noise emissions during this

construction as much as possible through active noise management, however temporarily

elevated noise levels would at times be unavoidable. The EPA has, in the past, accepted

exceedances associated with such activities which are required to provide a subsequent

environmental benefit.

The main earthmoving activities undertaken during this stage primarily relate to:

stripping topsoil and subsoil;

removal of overburden; and

transportation and placement of overburden to form the western and northern

and eastern visibility barriers.

The active noise management strategy determined for this scenario is detailed in Table 6.2.


Report No. 806/04

1 - 69

Table 6.2

Active Noise Management Strategy Year 0.5

Meteorological Conditions and/or Times

Activities / Measures

Percentage Occurrence

Aut

%

Spr

%

Sum

%

Win

%

Daytime

E / SE / S wind >0.5m/s or NE wind >1.5m/s; or

Temperature inversions > 3.0°C/100m.

Do not operate scrapers in exposed areas (as indicated in Figure 6.3); and

Operate [Rubber Tyred Dozer] and [Drill Rig] in location shielded to the north and west (e.g. not atop the western barrier).

14 9 13 15

Evening

All met conditions

Operate a reduced fleet comparable to Figure 6.5.

Operate [Rubber Tyred Dozer] and [Drill Rig] in location shielded to the north and west (e.g. not atop the western barrier).

100 100 100 100

Evening

E / SE wind >1.5m/s or S wind >2m/s;

Temperature inversions > 3.0°C/100m with E / SE wind >1.5m/s or S wind >2m/s;

Temperature inversions > 4.0°C/100m with NE / E / SE wind >0.5m/s or S wind > 1m/s; or

Temperature inversions > 5.0°C/100m.

Do not operate D11.

15 16 14 19

Night-time No significant night operations. -

Figure 6.3 and Figure 6.5 respectively show the locations of the mobile plant for the purpose

of noise modelling the Year 0.5 Day and Evening scenarios. No activities are proposed during

the night-time period.

Figure 6.4 and Figure 6.6 respectively present the predicted noise levels for the Year 0.5 Day

and Evening scenarios. Each of the dots represents a receptor and the colour of the dot

indicates the predicted noise level (see figure legend for ranges). Noise levels for the

maximum of all seasons for each period are shown (e.g. for the day period, the maximum of

autumn day, spring day, summer day and winter day noise levels are shown).

Table 6.3 presents a summary of predicted noise levels at the six receptors predicted to

experience exceedances of criteria. Predictions for each time period and season are

presented.

Predicted noise levels for all receptors are included in Appendix 2.



Report No. 806/04

1 - 70

Figure 6.3 Year 0.5 Day Plant Layout


Report No. 806/04

1 - 71

Noise contours have been produced from a single adverse meteorological condition and are indicative of the 10% exceedance level.

Figure 6.4 Year 0.5 Day – Predicted 10% Exceedance LAeq,15min (dBA)



Report No. 806/04

1 - 72

Figure 6.5 Year 0.5 Evening Plant Layout


Report No. 806/04

1 - 73


Figure 6.6 Year 0.5 Evening – Predicted 10% Exceedance LAeq,15min (dBA)



Report No. 806/04

1 - 74

Table 6.3

Year 0.5 Noise Levels for Receptors where Exceedances are Predicted

Residence No.

Criteria (Day/Eve)

Predicted 10% Exceedance LAeq,15min (dBA)

Summer Autumn Winter Spring

Day Evening Day Evening Day Evening Day Evening

6 35 / 35 39 33 39 36 39 37 38 34

18 35 / 35 39 39 39 38 39 38 38 39

19A 35 / 35 38 39 37 38 38 38 36 39

56A 35 / 35 35 37 35 35 35 36 34 36

154 35 / 35 37 36 37 36 37 36 36 36

193 35 / 35 37 37 37 37 37 37 36 37


The results show that in the worst-case season for all modelled receptors:

noise levels are predicted to be within criteria at the majority of noise-sensitive

receptors;

during the daytime, noise levels at two privately-owned receptors (154 and 193)

are predicted to exceed the criteria by less than 2 dB (yellow), and three

privately-owned receptors (6, 18, and 19A) by 3-5 dB (orange dots); and

during the evening, noise levels at four privately-owned receptors

(6, 56A, 154 and 193) are predicted to exceed criteria by less than 2 dB (yellow),

and two privately-owned receptors (18 and 19A) by 3-5 dB (orange dots).

It should be noted that these results indicate a typical worst case snapshot of the construction

period, when it would be necessary to operate the mobile plant in unshielded positions,

particularly during the construction of the western and northern visibility barrier.

The modelled Year 0.5 scenario reflects a time when the western visibility barrier is partially

constructed and its construction is progressing northward. It is anticipated that this scenario

will be representative of noise emissions for the majority of the visibility barriers construction.

However, more elevated noise levels may be experienced by receptors to the north when

construction is at its most northern extent. Predictions indicate that noise levels in Avon River

and Thunderbolt Estates during these periods could be approximately 1 dBA greater than

those presented for the Year 0.5 scenario. As with all operations at the mine, the noise

emissions will be managed through the use of real-time noise monitoring and management,

however, some exceedances may be temporarily unavoidable as the construction of this

critical noise mitigation feature is undertaken. It is proposed that construction activities on the

northern section of the barrier exceeding operational noise criteria, which would be undertaken

over a maximum period of six months, will be undertaken within EPA standard construction

hours (Section 8.1). Any work outside these standard construction hours will be managed

within operational noise criteria through the proposed real-time noise monitoring system.

Given the prevalence of winds from the north east in summer and, to a lesser extent in spring,

to the extent practicable, barrier construction activities in the north should be programmed

during these seasons or during periods when noise propagation is away from the residences in

the Avon River and Thunderbolt Estates.


Report No. 806/04

1 - 75

6.4.2.2 Year 2.5

This scenario represents the early stages of significant coal recovery. The active noise

management strategy determined for this scenario is shown in Table 6.4.

Table 6.4

Active Noise Management Strategy Year 2.5

Meteorological Conditions and/or Times

Activities / Measures

Percentage Occurrence

Aut

%

Spr

%

Sum

%

Win

%

Day

S wind >0.5m/s, NE / E / SE wind >1m/s or NE wind >2.5m/s; or

Temperature inversions > 3°C/100m.

Do not operate scrapers in exposed areas (as indicated in Figure 6.7).

16 12 13 18

Evening

All met conditions

Operate a reduced fleet comparable to Figure 6.9. 100 100 100 100

Night

All met conditions

Operate a reduced fleet comparable to Figure 6.11. 100 100 100 100

Figure 6.7, Figure 6.9 and Figure 6.11 respectively show the locations of the mobile plant for

the purpose of noise modelling for the Year 2.5 Day, Evening and Night scenarios.

Figure 6.8, Figure 6.10 and Figure 6.12 respectively present the predicted noise levels for the

Year 2.5 Day, Evening and Night scenarios. Each of the dots represents a receptor and the

colour of the dot indicates the predicted noise level (see figure legend for ranges). Noise

levels for each season for each period are shown (e.g. for the day period, the maximum

autumn day, spring day, summer day and winter day noise levels are shown).

Table 6.5 presents a summary of predicted noise levels at the three receptors predicted to

experience exceedances of criteria. Predictions for each time period and season are

presented.

Predicted noise levels for all receptors are included in Appendix 2.



Report No. 806/04

1 - 76

Figure 6.7 Year 2.5 Day Plant Layout


Report No. 806/04

1 - 77


Figure 6.8 Year 2.5 Day – Predicted 10% Exceedance LAeq,15min (dBA)



Report No. 806/04

1 - 78

Figure 6.9 Year 2.5 Evening Plant Layout


Report No. 806/04

1 - 79


Figure 6.10 Year 2.5 Evening – Predicted 10% Exceedance LAeq,15min (dBA)



Report No. 806/04

1 - 80

Figure 6.11 Year 2.5 Night Plant Layout


Report No. 806/04

1 - 81


Figure 6.12 Year 2.5 Night – Predicted 10% Exceedance LAeq,15min (dBA)



Report No. 806/04

1 - 82

Table 6.5

Year 2.5 Noise Levels for Receptors where Exceedances are Predicted

Res. No.

Criteria (D/E/N)

Predicted 10% Exceedance LAeq,15min (dBA)

Summer Autumn Winter Spring

D E N D E N D E N D E N

6 35 / 35 / 35 41 39 39 41 40 40 41 40 42 41 39 40

7 35 / 35 / 35 34 32 33 35 35 36 35 36 37 34 34 35

23 35 / 35 / 35 39 36 37 39 38 39 39 38 40 38 37 38


The results show that in the worst-case season for all modelled receptors:

noise levels are predicted to be within criteria at the majority of noise-sensitive

receptors;

during the daytime, noise levels at one privately-owned receptor (23) are

predicted to exceed the criteria by 3-5 dB (orange dots) and another privately-

owned receptor (6) by greater than 5 dB (pink/rose striped);

during the evening, noise levels at one privately-owned receptor are predicted to

exceed criteria by less than 2 dB (yellow), and two privately-owned receptors (6

and 23)by 3-5 dB (orange dots); and

during the night, noise levels at one privately-owned receptor (7) are predicted to

exceed criteria by less than 2 dB (yellow), one privately-owned receptor (23) by

3-5 dB (orange dots) and another privately-owned receptor (6) by greater than

5 dB (pink/rose striped).

Documents

Noise, Vibration and Blasting Assessment