Mod 4 - Sound Power Levels

I have concern with a mine that has repeatedly breeched its operating conditions being able to just change those conditions to suit itself. What will happen to the surrounding inhabitants? Of further concern is the precedent this sets for the mine operator in future mining developments, it can submit an EIS that satisfies the authorities then at a future date ask to set aside any conditions it doesn't like.

Armidale Branch
National Parks Association
PO Box 372
Armidale NSW 2350
To the NSW Department of Planning and Environment
Thank you for the opportunity to respond to the Maules Creek Coal Mine Modification 4

This submission is an objection to the Maules Creek Coal Mine Modification 4 with regard to the following:

The Department of Planning has not responded adequately to the concerns of the Maules Creek and wider community. Concerns and objections were ignored prior to the mine being approved. The healthy rural lifestyle previously enjoyed by this community is already severely compromised and will be further negatively impacted by Whitehaven's proposed expansion to the west (due in February), and north (exploration A346, Wollondilly).
Maules Creek community require protection against mine noise. Maules Creek Mine had the Mandatory Noise Audit imposed because the mine has a poor record of mine compliance. Their Environmental Protection Licence has recently been downgraded to level 3.
As only the 3 worst out of 49 coal mines in NSW have this low grading, it confirms that there is unnacceptably poor environmental compliance.
This performance should not be rewarded with permitted increased noise level allowances.
In May 2016, the Department of Planning issued Maules Creek mine with an advisory letter and with `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 secret action plan is not publicly available. This is not acceptable. We require a written response from our government as to why this is the case and to publish the information.
The proposed modification should be refused due to lack of supporting documentation as "internal analysis" is not acceptable as it is not transparent information for the concerned community.
Whitehaven have consistently breached conditions, and should not have the Modification 4 approval.
Armidale Branch of National Parks Association, established in 1974 has a respected reputation for considered responses to environmental issues locally and state-wide, and we trust that your department will be honorable in a clear and not-a-political-spin response to our submission and concerns.

Yours sincerely
Lynne Hosking
Vice-President
Armidale NPA

This submission is an objection to the Maules Creek Coal Mine Modification 4.
This submission is from Knitting Nannas New England North West, this loop of KNAG includes the community of Maules Creek.
The Department of Planning already let down the community at Maules Creek by ignoring community concerns and objections prior to the mine being approved. The community have long argued that false and misleading noise modelling was provided by Whitehaven Coal in its original Environmental Assessment in order to gain approval.
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 calling your department- Department of Planning give them this Modification 4. Whitehaven should instead meat the conditions for noise.
EPA staff have repeatedly told Maules Creek community members that the Government has had to direct considerable resources to monitoring environmental compliance of Maules Creek Coal Mine and that this mine is a drain on the resources of the EPA.
Noise filters that filter out certain sound frequency levels are not being correctly or appropriately applied. Whitehaven refuses to disclose the filters being used to the community. The Maules Creek Mine Mandatory Noise Audit was imposed because the mine did not have a strong record of mine compliance. For this reason also Whitehaven must manage noise and dust to protect the community.
Whitehaven Coal has poor social licence standing, and has been informed explicitly by the Boggabri Business and Community Progress Association "Whitehaven does not have a social license in this town." This is due to Whitehaven ignoring community concerns, as they continue to do in applying for the Modification 4 rather than controlling noise levels.
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.
Therefore this Modification should be refused as the company's performance does not justify the changes proposed.
Cliff Wallace
Knitting Nannas against Gas, New England North West Loop
[email protected]

I oppose the modification to the "sound power level" condition.

Instead Whitehaven should make good on its stated commitment to review its plant and equipment to reduce noise.

There was a reason for having a noise impact condition in the approval for mine operations before, why should regulations be loosened now? Impact on community and people's lives should be a priority.

I object to the Mauls Creek Coal Mine Modification 4. The condition 12a of Schedule 3 was accepted as part of the mining consent and should be complied with, not removed.

As a citizen living in an area that will likely be further impacted by coal ming I expect agreed conditions to be to be enforced not removed when then they are not being met.

As a nearby neighbor to the Maules Creek Coal mine (MCCM) (about 14km as the crow flies) I attended community sessions held prior to mine approval, about the likely impacts of the mine. I was the artists impression image of a small line of white overburden in the distance that would be the main impact.

This past winter, the noise impacts from the mine have become obvious and more frequent at our home. There were several days when we could hear mine noise whilst in our garden, cattle yards or paddocks.

I oppose this Modification and am extremely concerned about it for three main reasons. Firstly I believe that should this Modification be approved we will be further impacted by noise at our farm (especially as the mine grows) and secondly because I believe its sets a dangerous precedent for other mines. Finally, and most importantly I do not believe a company with the proven non-compliance record that Whitehaven has and a mine with such an atrocious noise record as MCCM has, should be allowed to even entertain the idea for an application for Modification on noise conditions.

Locally, we are very aware that the proponent of Modification 4, Whitehaven Coal (WHC) has lost respect and social license within the community. Their extremely poor treatment of neighbors, continual breaches of conditions and broken promises from their approval conditions has left a very bad taste in our mouths.

The NSW Government has relegated MCCM to a level 3 risk category, alongside only two other notoriously bad environmentally performing mines in NSW. MCCM is in the top 6% of the poorest performing mines in the state. We reject the assertion made by WHC on page 6 of the Modification 4 Application that they have a "strong record of compliance" and believe they should be reprimanded for such blatant lies.

Whilst a mine has such a dubious record for environmental issues and as long as it remains a risk 3 category, no applications for Modifications to their Environmental Approval should be even considered. This modification must be rejected.

Maules Creek Coal Mine also has a very poor record when it comes to noise.

A Mandatory Noise Audit was imposed on MCCM precisely because there were suspicions of non-compliance of their noise conditions. How can a change in noise conditions be even considered when it was forced to have a Noise Audit so recently?
The MCCM Mandatory Noise Audit concluded that condition 12 (a) (the same condition that is requesting to be modified) is being contravened and has been continuously breached since the Maules Creek mine commenced operation. The Mandatory Noise Audit from that 2015 sound power levels from 32 items of plant exceeded the Environmental Approval (EA) and in 2016, retesting showed 12 items remained above the EA.

It would appear that WHC's solution to this continuous record of non-compliance is to modify the approval condition, regardless of the impacts to community and surrounding bushlands and farmlands.

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.

In June 2016 MCCM received a formal caution over the non-compliance with the EA sound power levels of its train load out plant. Not only is it disappointing that this is the only compliance action undertaken, it is galling to now find the proponent seeking to change the rules that it has consistently broken for the last few years.

A major component of the non-compliant sound power levels generated at Maules Creek is due to the Coal Processing Plant. In the Mandatory Noise Audit section 3.8, page 40 confirmed the Coal Processing Plant is not properly engineered to reduce noise impacts. It has recently come to the community's attention that the Plant that has been built is different to the one used in the planning and the application for approval and cannot be properly retrofitted to meet the sound power conditions.

It is simply inconceivable that a company with such a dreadful reputation, with current problems still to be sorted out and continual breaking of the rules, could even entertain the idea that they should be allowed to change the rules.

My family plays the great Australian sport of polocrosse. When we sign on for the season we agree to a range of rules to ensure the safety and enjoyment of all players and spectators. If we were to break similar rules time and time again, even being reprimanded by the umpires, maybe even being spoken to by the Chief State Umpire, and yet we continued to break the same rules, weekend in, weekend out, our fellow players and spectators would get very annoyed. However if we then went to the Chief State Umpire and asked for those rules to be changed because we want to continue to play in this unsafe way, how would our fellow players and spectators respond? I have no words.

The MCCM has plans to expand west in February and north (at Wollondilly) which will further encroach towards residences. We believe we will receive further noise impacts following the February expansion into the TSR. In light of these expansions, it is critical that the community is assured of more noise controls, not less. This must also be taken into consideration when assessing the Modification. None of these changes happen in isolation and together have far greater impacts than separately.

This Modification seeks 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;"

The removal of this statement means Whitehaven Coal will no longer have to try to work towards best practice. It also means other mines across NSW will see this condition removed and wish to do the same. I believe it sets a very bad precedent towards mines seeking to not try and achieve best practice and this is a slippery slope towards a lowest common denominator.

I understand that under your leadership, Ms McNally there is a desire to make these projects more acceptable to the community and seek to ascertain some level of livability near massive coal mines. This utopia can only have the slimmest chance of being reached if Environmental Approval conditions are set that protect the community, that these conditions are adhered to by the proponents and when proponents breach these conditions (even just once) they are swiftly and severely impacted. Currently this is not happening.

Approval of this Modification will once again reinforce the community's dawning understanding that the planning approval process is not protecting them.

This is an extreme example that can be utilised to help increase the community's faith in the approval process. I urge you to utilse this opportunity.

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

I live on the property Wilga Valley on the Wave Hill Rd. From the start of the construction of the Maules Creek mine to now, the noise level has been from sound of loud machinery noise to what is now a rumble noise in the distance. Loud enough to wonder "what is that noise"?

My family live about 15 kilometres from the Maules Creek mine. With the mine expansion to the west and with more exploration to the north I am apposed to any removal of a condition that ensures the mine improve its environmental performances. Noise and sleep disturbance and the dust from the overburden. Dust that I believe aggravated my asthma that has been controlled with a preventative the last 40 years and resulted in me being hospitalised for a week.

I understand the company's annual environmental returns for 2015 and 2016 and the mandatory noise audit found that the fixed plant and ther equipment were exceeding the original modelling the mining company submitted for their Mine Approval proccess.

I ask that you reject this modification and ensure the mine uses other ways to reduce sound power impacts.

I do not see any reason to modify the original noise level commitment made in the Maules Creek coal mine approval. The community has already been adversely impacted by the mine's sound power levels and taking away these requirements will certainly make the situation worse, particularly as the mine is expected to reach its peak noise levels in the next year. The local community has suffered enough.

I fully object to this further modification of the Maules Creek mine approval. The Maules Creek mine was largely opposed by the local community and traditional owners of the land while still in development stage, and since that point, Whitehaven have since broken many of the original approval conditions, including the noise level restrictions. The NSW government owes the local community an assurance that this development will adhere to the conditions of its operation, and I see no reason why the mine should be granted license to further disrupt the local area with excessive noise pollution.

Please consider that the mine is projected to soon reach its maximum noise impacts, and therefore, state government must foresee that a further liberalisation of these regulations will only lead to further disruption of the environment and residents of the local area, for no benefit.

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.

Submission of Objection
Maules Creek Coal Mine Modification 4
Sound Power Levels

I strongly object to this proposal to alter the conditions of consent relating to the management of mine noise from Maules Creek Coal Mine

The impact of this mine on the surrounding environment and the Maules Creek Community has been very significant. The requirement to constrain the noise levels to those used in the modelling is the very least that should be happening. This conditions the approval.
Compliance with conditions in fact should be mandatory for ongoing approval. "No compliance" should mean "no approval"

The issue of failure to comply by Maules Creek Mine cannot be legitimately resolved by removing the condition. The Department of Planning and the Environment must take their responsibility to protect the health and wellbeing of the community seriously. The Public Assessment Commission was critical of the use of the NSW Industrial Noise Policy background baseline level of 30 decibels in remote rural areas, and rightly so, some neighbours now have to live with noise twice as loud and also unrelenting, now that the mine is there.

The condition to manage sound power levels of fixed and mobile machinery at the mine was based on the modelling inputs used for the project noise assessment. The condition was to mitigate the impact. The legal mitigation of the noise impact should be improved not removed. There is no justification for the proposal to remove the condition

It is morally bankrupt to even propose the removal of Schedule 3 Condition 12a. And it does not even make sense given that Whitehaven has committed to reviewing its plant and equipment to reduce noise. The likely rationale is that in this coming year of mining operations, the peak year according to the mine plan, there would be way too much non-compliance of noise limits , even for Whitehaven who seem to think that they can write their own rules. I understand that they consider that a noise level of 37 decibels is close enough to the 35 decibel noise limit of their approval to not constitute a non-compliance.

Whitehaven must be made to comply. Step one is to refuse the application for a modification to their approval for the Maules Creek Mine.

It would be ridiculous for DoPE to set a precedent of changing noise limit conditions, particularly in such an unsupportable situation as the Maules Creek Mine! Many more mines would step forward to try to ease their burden of having to deal with noise affected neighbours.
DoPE should reject this application, otherwise the precedent would be creating a rod for its own back.

I am agsinst the modification whitehaven is seeking
They have destroyed a peaceful quiet area of Maules Creek which was full of wildlife and have turned it into a noisy dusty dead zone of a toxic coal mine

spend energies and time and money on bio film for sun's energy capturing and or methane energy and salt for storage. Please stop digging up or earrh

I object to the application to raise sound levels at the Maules Creek Mine. The sound levels are already doing great damage to the town, to people, animals, wildlife and the amenity of the town. This is an unnecessary change that should be rejected.

I strongly oppose this mine, including any expansions or modifications

Groundswell Gloucester strongly objects to the proposal to alter conditions of consent relating to the management of noise emanating from the Maules Creek Coal Mine.

The Maules Creek Coal Mine was approved after a lengthy assessment process. The issue of noise impacts on the surrounding rural community was a key issue for the project.

The consent condition to manage sound power levels of fixed and mobile machinery at the mine was based on the modelling inputs used for the project noise assessment and was a fundamental basis of the project's approval. The Planning Assessment Commission stipulated that sound power levels be improved over the life of the project.

The removal of Schedule 3 Condition 12a as proposed in this Modification 4 of the Maules Creek approval is completely unacceptable. If the project cannot be managed under the criteria used in the noise modelling, it should not have received approval.

Groundswell Gloucester strongly objects to the proposed modification because it sets a precedent in the management of mine noise. It removes an important consent condition that recognizes the impact of 24-hour mining operations in rural areas where the background noise level is well below the default baseline of 30 decibels as set by the NSW Industrial Noise Policy.

There is no justification provided for this proposal. It must be rejected as a backward step in the management of mine noise. The Department of Planning and Environment has a responsibility to protect the health of surrounding landholders from the impacts of mine noise.

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.

As a voting member of the public and with friends in the bogabri area I expect the proposed changes to noise level requirements be scrapped and furthermore you are tasked with up holding the towns peoples right under the current laws to a certain level of QUIET the mining company must be made to adhere to the sound levels as set by the rules under which their mining permit was awarded

I am making a submission against allowing changes to the Maules Creek Mine conditions of approval.
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 am writing this submission to voice my strong objection to this modification removing the noise control condition.
Prior to the mine's approval, the local community made known their concerns about the inaccurate noise modelling used for the Environmental Impact Statement. This modelling was strongly considered for the mine's approval. This Department should not disappoint the community again. Whitehaven cannot be allowed to renege on its promises.
Their non-compliance with the noise level time and time again is simply unacceptable. With noise levels predicted to continue increasing to its peak, it is vital that the company is complying with the approval conditions. If they are changed as proposed, it will continue to burden the community and cause distress and sickness for its people.
The company has committed to reviewing its plant and equipment to reduce noise. Yet, unable to comply with its approval, they are seeking to change the very conditions that require these reviews. The community to expects continuous improvement of noise levels from these operations. This is a very reasonable expectation. Yet, this modification is a backwards step in this regard.
Once again, I am strongly opposed to this modification that would water-down compliance conditions. The company made promises to the local community, this Department should be firm in holding Whitehaven to them.