Mod 4 - Sound Power Levels

Approval conditions for this mine should not be modified just because Whitehaven is having trouble complying with them. Existing noise levels are already cause for many complaints from the local area and should not be allowed to increase, especially given that activity level and hence the noise level is expected to be ramped up over the next 12 months. Local communities deserve more regulatory support than that.
Please reject this modification.

I object to this modification.

It's clear the mine cannot operate without breaching and that it is harming nearby residents. Modifying the conditions under which it was approved is not the solution. The regulators must bring this mine into compliance under the already approved conditions or it should be shut down.

The Department of Planning has already failed the community at Maules Creek by ignoring community concerns and objections prior to the mine being approved.

The Rejection of this modification must demand compliance with the Approval Conditions and a stop on the depopulating of the local community as a way to achieve noise compliance.

Dear Mr. Riley,

I am writing to object to Maules Creek Coal Mine's application to modify condition 12(a) of Project Approval 10_0138 and thereby reduce the requirement on the company to comply with the conditions of their original approval as assessed.

I am deeply concerned that the practice of "approval creep", whereby mining companies over-promise, under-deliver, and then seek to modify conditions with which they are unable to comply, has become commonplace. In particular, the proponent has a poor record of compliance with the conditions of their approval, having recently had their environmental risk level to level three.

The present application can be compared to a previous (successful) application to modify traffic conditions that they similarly could not or were not willing to meet. Within six months, the company will be required to demonstrate that they have complied with an EPBC condition to offset the damage to critically endangered ecological communities in the Leard State Forest. Expert opinion suggests that it will not be possible to offset that damage because there is insufficient Whitebox Gum woodland to offset the impacts - the implication being that an ecological community will be driven closer to extinction because the proponent made unrealistic promises during the assessment process.

Noise conditions are no small matter, particularly in a rural agricultural region such as Maules Creek. Having regularly travelled to Maules Creek over the past several years it is clear that the worsening noise and dust conditions in the region are causing severe distress to landholders - a process which is also distressing to observe. Those landholders derive little comfort from the company's insistence that the noise impact is minimal or lower than in other mining regions. In particular I have met a number of landowners who, having previously supported the initial mine proposal, have changed their view just because the noise impacts were not what was "written on the box". Sadly, it seems unlikely now that their concerns will make a material difference to their situation. Having trusted that the mining company was providing accurate information and having been reassured by government departments, their trust in both the company and the Department has now been broken.

To approve a variation of the mine's approval at this stage would send a message to other proponents that they can agree to conditions to the point of approval, only to fail to comply and have them modified at a later stage. That is particularly the case given the company's poor track record of compliance with its conditions. Such a decision would also damage the reputation of the Department as well as the ability to solicit accurate information from proponents at the beginning of a mine's life.

The proponent has said that they are capable of meeting condition 12(a). Whether this would cause additional costs to the proponent is immaterial given the impact that the mine is already having to surrounding landowners. Whether such mines would affect the profitability of the mine's operation is entirely a matter for the proponent - it is not a relevant consideration for the Department - or if it is, it should be weighed against broader economic and social considerations.

Furthermore, I do not accept that the acquisition of properties and removal of farmers from the landscape is an acceptable way to mitigate against noise nuisance, especially if there ways to mitigate those impacts in a way that creates a more appropriate balance between the proponent's and its neighbours' interests.

I also have significant concerns about the lack of transparency involved in keeping documents of public interests out of the public domain.

I hope my concerns will be taken into consideration in the Department's consideration of this matter.

Kind regards,
Jonathan Moylan

This submission is an objection to the Maules Creek Coal Mine Modification 4.

Dear Sir / Madam,

I wish to express my deepest objection to the proposed Maules Creek Coal Mine Modification 4.

I am a regular visitor to my family who live in the Maules Creek area. Each time I have visited in the last 3 years, noise from the Maules Creek mine has been increasing. It is particularly evident at night where there is less background noise - the sound of engines roaring and trucks dumping loads goes into the night and causes disturbed sleep for my family, children, parents and siblings during our visits.

I find it outrageous that Whitehaven agreed to these conditions when the mine was approved, but now it has become apparent that they can't meet their obligations, therefore they wish to remove these conditions from their approval. What they are seeking to do is to remove the burden and cost of compliance associated with these noise conditions, and transfer this burden and cost on the local Maules Creek community in the form of more noise, disturbance, lost sleep and associated declines in the general well being and mental health of local residents.

Whitehaven have a terrible record for compliance. Its a disgrace that they should seek to change approval conditions because they see them as too onerous. THAT'S THE WHOLE IDEA OF "STRICT CONDITIONS", ie, ensuring that the impact of mining on the local community is minimised.

Rather than repealing this noise regulation in line with Whitehaven's proposed modification, I wish to request that the noise, dust, light and blast pollution conditions be strengthened at a time when Maules Creek Mine operations begin spreading to the north and west of the current hole in early 2018. The mines expansion will place it in closer proximity with members of the community including my own families residences, and the noise, dust, light and blast pollution must be reduced in order for people in the local community to maintain their basic human right to the "Quiet Enjoyment" of their residence and environment.

Please do not allow Whitehaven to weasel out of their noise pollution obligations and deny their attempt to have approval conditions deleted through the "Maules Creek Mine Modification request 4"

Regards,

Peter Todd
East Lynne
Boggabri NSW 2382

6 October 2017

Carolyn McNally
Secretary
Department of Planning and Environment
[email protected]

Dear Ms McNally,
Re: Maules Creek coal mine Project Application Number: 10_0138 Mod 4

The proponent Whitehaven Coal, are seeking to remove a section from Condition 12a, Schedule 3 from Planning Approval 10_0138 regarding the Maules Creek coal mine. That is the deletion of the wording and requirement to-

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

I objects to the Mod 4 and Whitehaven Coal removing a specific requirement for continuous environmental noise improvement by maintaining or reducing mining equipment sound power.

As it currently stands I am already suffering noise pollution from the mine in excess of allowable limits which is causing great distress to my family.

I believe that this will be bad for my family and strongly urge support the rejection of this Modification 4.

Yours sincerely

Peter Todd

This is ridiculous. Its an obvious attempt by Whitehaven Coal to bypass the conditions of approval because they can't keep the noise down.
* The Planning Assessment Commission that granted approval to the mine was particularly critical of the Department for adopting an "artificially high" background level against which to measure change in noise caused by mining projects. In some cases, this meant doubling of noise experienced by mine neighbours.
* Whitehaven's most recent annual environmental review in 2016 admitted that the company was not compliant with this "sound power level" condition. That report also details non-compliance with blast level criteria and blast monitoring requirements.
* The mine has also reported non-compliance with the relevant noise criteria for some nearby properties, but disregards non-compliant reading that are 2 decibels above the noise limit specified in its conditions. This effectively means that Maules Creek coal mine considers itself to be operating on a 37dbA limit, not 35dbA, as specified in its approval.
* Whitehaven has committed to reviewing its plant and equipment to reduce noise, so why are they seeking a change that would remove specific requirements to do this?
* In May 2016, the Department of Planning issued Maules Creek mine with an advisory letter and show cause letters regarding 2015 Sound Power Levels of mobile and fixed plant equipment. Maules Creek reportedly provided a written response and action plan, but this is not publicly available.
* The EPA recently conducted an audit of noise at Maules Creek mine because of the high level of complaints about it. That audit recommended that "A detailed assessment should be completed of plant with sound power levels remaining above EA levels" including assessment of each item's off-site noise contribution "to determine whether rectification work would result in a reduction of total site noise at privately owned residences."
* Despite all of this, the Environmental Assessment provided by Whitehaven for this modification claims there is a "strong record of compliance with mine noise limits at private receivers"
* The Environmental Assessment provided refers to modelling conducted to assess the impact of the proposed modification, but does not supply that modelling for public scrutiny.
* Maules Creek mine is expected in the next twelve months to reach the peak of its noise impact on the surrounding community. This is not a time to be watering down requirements for the mine to take any and all actions to reduce the noise burden it is inflicting on the Maules Creek community.
* The Rejection of this modification must demand compliance with the Approval Conditions and a stop on the depopulating of the local community as a way to achieve noise compliance.
* The argument that money would be better spent on other mitigation measures is false. Money must be spent on achieving the sound power level condition as well as the other mitigation strategies - as long as these strategies don't involve the lowering of health outcomes or the removal of farming and community members.
* This company must be held to their commitments and promises they made to the local community and the wider community of NSW when it obtained its approval, not be given a free pass by government because they can't achieve the conditions of that approval.

This is the first time I have written a submission and I do so to object to Maules Creek Coal Mine's application to the Department of Planning to allow a modification to remove the conditions imposed on it with regard to sound levels when it was granted approval.

I believe it is unreasonable of Whitehaven to expect to make as much noise as they like without taking the impact on local residents into account; especially when the level to which they agreed is that expected of other mines in the region.

I have traveled to the region and met many local residents, listened to their experiences
of living with a coal mine so close, also have experienced this for myself. I believe the impact of this mine is already intolerable and detrimental to physical and mental wellbeing. I am only glad that I do not live in the area and have to deal with the noise daily as the locals are forced to, day and night.

I urge the Department to ignore this new request and insist that Maules Creek Coal Mine fulfills their original agreement with regard to sound levels or desist mining activities during the night.

To Ms Carolyn McNally, the Secretary of the Department of Planning and Environment NSW,

I went on the Australian Student Environment Network road trip to the "sacrifice zones" of NSW to see for myself how rural communities are being affected by coal mine expansion.

We went to the town of Wollar, where we learned that the majority of property acquisitions by the Wilpinjong coal mine were triggered by excessive noise pollution. Wollar is now a ghost town, and the community reduced to a handful of residents. We met locals there who struggled to sleep due to the noise of the c//

We also toured Maules Creek, where we met with locals and studied first-hand the impacts of the Maules Creek coal mine (MCCM). We have learned that since the first year of operation of the MCCM, residents became aware that the "worst case" noise levels were regularly occurring at residences up to 8km distant from the worst case scenario boundary line, called the 35decibel contour.

Community members, frustrated at being ignored by the Dept of Planning resolved to purchase expensive noise instruments and have conducted 2 years of noise monitoring under challenging night-time conditions to provide evidence of the exceedances of the promised noise levels.

Therefore it comes as an affront to the community to learn that Whitehaven Coal, being unable to fulfil its conditions, is asking the State Govt to simply delete the conditions from the MCCM Project Approval.

As a result we wish to vehemently object to any such changes, and ask you to consider the following reasons:

Maules Creek coal mine Environmental Protection Licence has been downgraded to level 3 - only the 3 worst out of 49 coal mines in NSW have this bottom of the ladder status - confirming less than desirable environmental performance
Whitehaven Coal has poor social licence standing, and its supporters appear to be limited to those who have a pecuniary benefit from the Maules Creek mine. Even some who obtained pecuniary benefit privately speak of the disgust they have for Whitehaven Coal and its polluting ways, although they are prevented from speaking out due to contractual restraints on speech
The company's attitude is unreceptive to accommodating views of local communities; "my way or the highway", a philosophy that seems to permeate the organizational culture from top to bottom
Members of NSW EPA have repeatedly told community members that the State Govt has had to direct considerable resources to monitoring environmental compliance of MCCM because the company is not up to scratch, and that MCCM is a drain on the resources of NSW EPA
Noise filters are being incorrectly or inappropriately applied during monthly compliance monitoring, and Whitehaven refuses to disclose the filters being used to the community
A Mandatory Noise Audit revealed that in 2015 and 2016 again, many of the fixed plant at MCCM was unable to fulfil the promised noise levels that were provided to the NSW State Govt to gain approval.

Therefore this Modification should be refused as the company's performance does not justify the changes proposed.

I would also like to take this opportunity to point out that during our stay in Maules Creek we have also witnessed dust pollution and night-time light pollution.
Furthermore, from my understanding the grassy woodland habitat surrounding the coal mine is home to many native and endangered animals such as koalas, wallabies, kangaroos and cockatoos.

The group also paid a visit to the Siding Springs Observatory where we learned about the critical importance of the Dark Skies to astronomic research, and believe any light controls at the Maules Creek mine have failed. From the Siding Springs Observatory, the lights of the Maules Creek mine can be seen.

I strongly urge you to not consider making any changes to the conditions of the MCCM Project. Please consider the community in which this mine is built and the precious habitat surrounding it.

Regards,
Keira Dott.



I object to the modification because of the disturbance this will bring to the community, and the negative impact of the coal mine. The Department of Planning already let down the community at Maules Creek by ignoring community concerns and objections prior to the mine being approved, and now with this modification the community will be completely disregarded. This is not democracy!

This modification would remove a community right to expect continuous improvement over time, which is absolutely unacceptable. Maules Creek mine is expected in the next twelve months to reach the peak of its noise impact on the surrounding community. This is not a time to be watering down requirements for the mine to take any and all actions to reduce the noise burden it is inflicting on the Maules Creek community.


This company must be held to their commitments and promises they made to the local community and the wider community of NSW when it obtained its approval, not be given a free pass by government because they can't achieve the conditions of that approval.

I do not support any changes to Maules Creek Mine required sound levels at this time as a mine who has been placed on level 3 risk by the department and has had problems with noise in the past should not be allowed to change and down grade the standards they are required to work under.

It is unreasonable to permit the activities of this company to impact further to the detriment of the local community. They have by their own admission breached noise control requirements on many occasions. The existing conditions should be enforced not removed or lessened

This submission is from the group Wando Conservation and Cultural Centre, Maules Creek.
This submission is an objection to the Maules Creek Coal Mine Modification 4.
The Department of Planning has already let down the community at Maules Creek, and environmentalists who realized the importance of the ecology of Leard State Forest, by ignoring community concerns and objections prior to the mine being approved.
Document relating to this modification is insufficient for a decision to be made. "internal analysis" is not appropriate documentation. The community at Maules Creek has long argued that false and misleading noise modelling was provided by Whitehaven Coal in its original Environmental Assessment in order to gain approval and the community are now experiencing noise impacts that are ruining their lives. The Wando Conservation and Cultural Centre purchased noise monitoring equipment, and had very much elevated noise results that of Whitehaven Coal.
The Whitehaven mine has also reported non-compliance with the relevant noise criteria for some nearby properties with reading that are 2 decibels above the noise limit specified in the conditions. This effectively means that Maules Creek coal mine considers itself to be operating on a 37dbA limit, not 35dbA, as specified in its approval.
This mine has breached its conditions of approval numerous times. As the mine has constant compliance problems it is now one of three mines in NSW given the highest environmental risk rating.
With this record Mod 4 should be refused, and the Maules Creek community protected from further disturbance and health risks related to their mining operations.

The Department of Planning let down the community at Maules Creek by ignoring community concerns and objections prior to the mine being approved - now they need to make sure the company sticks to the commitments it made when the approval was granted and not wind back the "sound power level" condition.

Whitehaven's most recent annual environmental review in 2016 admitted that the company was not compliant with this "sound power level" condition. That report also details non-compliance with blast level criteria and blast monitoring requirements.

The mine has also reported non-compliance with the relevant noise criteria for some nearby properties.

Whitehaven has committed to reviewing its plant and equipment to reduce noise, so why is it seeking a change that would remove specific requirements to do this? This modification would remove a community right to expect continuous improvement in the environmental management of the mine.

This company must be held to their commitments and promises they made to the local community and the wider community of NSW when it obtained its approval, not be given a free pass by the government because they can't achieve the conditions of that approval.

Maules Creek mine is expected in the next twelve months to reach the peak of its noise impact on the surrounding community. This is not a time to be watering down requirements for the mine to take any and all actions to reduce the noise burden it is inflicting on the Maules Creek community.

I object to Mod 4 at Maules Creek, due to the already appalling state of the air quality there.
This eco-destructive company cannot be allowed to further destroy the area.

I would like to submit my objection to the Maules Creek coal mine.
There are so very many reasons that this Mine should NOT go ahead. A very few of them are:

Whitehaven's most recent annual environmental review in 2016 admitted that the company was not compliant with this "sound power level" condition. That report also details non-compliance with blast level criteria and blast monitoring requirements.

The mine has also reported non-compliance with the relevant noise criteria for some nearby properties.

Whitehaven has committed to reviewing its plant and equipment to reduce noise, so why is it seeking a change that would remove specific requirements to do this? This modification would remove a community right to expect continuous improvement in the environmental management of the mine.

This company must be held to their commitments and promises they made to the local community and the wider community of NSW when it obtained its approval, not be given a free pass by the government because they can't achieve the conditions of that approval.

Dear DoPE

This mine is destroying the lives of hard working Australian farmers and their beautiful community.

*The Department of Planning let down the community at Maules Creek by ignoring community concerns and objections prior to the mine being approved - now they need to make sure the company sticks to the commitments it made when the approval was granted and not wind back the "sound power level" condition.


*Whitehaven's most recent annual environmental review in 2016 admitted that the company was not compliant with this "sound power level" condition. That report also details non-compliance with blast level criteria and blast monitoring requirements.


*The mine has also reported non-compliance with the relevant noise criteria for some nearby properties.


*Whitehaven has committed to reviewing its plant and equipment to reduce noise, so why is it seeking a change that would remove specific requirements to do this? This modification would remove a community right to expect continuous improvement in the environmental management of the mine.


*This company must be held to their commitments and promises they made to the local community and the wider community of NSW when it obtained its approval, not be given a free pass by the government because they can't achieve the conditions of that approval.


*Maules Creek mine is expected in the next twelve months to reach the peak of its noise impact on the surrounding community. This is not a time to be watering down requirements for the mine to take any and all actions to reduce the noise burden it is inflicting on the Maules Creek community.

Simon Clough

The Department of Planning let down the community at Maules Creek by ignoring community concerns and objections prior to the mine being approved - now they need to make sure the company sticks to the commitments it made when the approval was granted and not wind back the "sound power level" condition.

Whitehaven's most recent annual environmental review in 2016 admitted that the company was not compliant with this "sound power level" condition. That report also details non-compliance with blast level criteria and blast monitoring requirements.

The mine has also reported non-compliance with the relevant noise criteria for some nearby properties.

Whitehaven has committed to reviewing its plant and equipment to reduce noise, so why is it seeking a change that would remove specific requirements to do this? This modification would remove a community right to expect continuous improvement in the environmental management of the mine.

This company must be held to their commitments and promises they made to the local community and the wider community of NSW when it obtained its approval, not be given a free pass by the government because they can't achieve the conditions of that approval.

Maules Creek mine is expected in the next twelve months to reach the peak of its noise impact on the surrounding community. This is not a time to be watering down requirements for the mine to take any and all actions to reduce the noise burden it is inflicting on the Maules Creek community.

Whitehaven Coal accepted the original conditions imposed on it when it was granted permission to operate. Done, finished, final. If it is no longer "happy" with the conditions it agreed to, it is welcome to "shut up shop", and move on.

"Death by a thousand cuts" seems to be the order of business for large corporations. Get in, get the basic approvals, then completely disregard the local community, and lobby to erode the said conditions imposed, which were the ONLY reason they were allowed to proceed in the beginning.

The Department of Planning needs to deny this request, and remind Whitehaven Coal that they AGREED to proceed with this condition in-place,and in-place it will remain.

Maules Creek Coal Mine Modification 4

This submission is an objection to the Maules Creek Coal Mine Modification 4.

My objections are the following:
* the mine is expanding to the west (imminently i.e. in February) and north (by actively exploring A346, Wollondilly) and this will lead to encroachment towards residences -
* "with expansions plans ahead, we need MORE, NOT LESS protection against the mine".
* This is a brazen and disgraceful ask of a company with a poor noise record.
* I was surprised to read of Whitehaven gloating about its "strong record of compliance" (at page 6 of the Modification 4 Document).
* The Maules Creek Mine Mandatory Noise Audit was imposed precisely because the mine did not have a strong record of mine compliance.
* Maules Creek coal mine Environmental Protection Licence has recently been downgraded to level 3 - only the 3 worst out of 49 coal mines in NSW have this bottom of the ladder status - confirming less than desirable environmental performance.
* The Department of Planning already let down the community at Maules Creek by ignoring community concerns and objections prior to the mine being approved.
* We have long argued that false and misleading noise modelling was provided by Whitehaven Coal in its original Environmental Assessment in order to gain approval and it appears we were correct.
* The company is required to do "continuous improvement using best available technology" so why are they seeking a change that would remove specific requirements to do this?
* The modification document has no supporting information, citing "internal analysis" as the basis for this change- this is sloppy.
* In May 2016, the Department of Planning issued Maules Creek mine with an advisory letter and show cause letters regarding 2015 Sound Power Levels of mobile and fixed plant equipment. Maules Creek reportedly provided a written response and action plan, but this is not publicly available. I wonder what they found to keep it secret?
* A recent request at the Maules Creek Community Consultative Meeting from the community for the EPA to conduct independent sound power assessments has resulted in Whitehaven having calling the Department of Planning to help them and give them this Modification.
* The company's attitude is unreceptive to accommodating views of local communities; "my way or the highway" is the prevailing attitude.
* EPA staff have repeatedly told community members that the Government has had to direct considerable resources to monitoring environmental compliance of MCCM and that MCCM is a drain on the resources of the EPA.
* Noise filters - that filter out certain sound frequency levels- are being incorrectly or inappropriately applied during monthly compliance monitoring, and Whitehaven refuses to disclose the filters being used to the community.
* A Mandatory Noise Audit revealed that in 2015 and 2016 again, many of the fixed plant at MCCM were unable to fulfil the promised noise levels that were provided to the Department to gain approval.
* If this condition comes out, what conditions would be imposed to give people confidence that removing condition 12 (a) will not lead to an increase in noise impacts? Why is this information not available?

Therefore this Modification should be refused as the company's performance does not justify the changes proposed.

Gaynor McGrath

I object to Maules Creek Coal Mine Modification4.
The sound power level, blast level and general noise are already intolerable for residents. I have found the noise shocking when I have been to Maules Creek - enough to make me wake and bolt upright with adrenaline rush.The community has a right to expect Whitehaven Coal to adhere to existing noise restrictions yet Whitehaven Coal has already shown failure in this area. The proposed easing of noise restriction is not okay when already residents and visitors are distressed by constant noise, blast fumes and dust plumes.I find it challenging during short term visits. Some residents are becoming unwell. Maules Creek Coal Mine Modification 4 is unacceptible.