Mod 4 - Sound Power Levels

It was a mistake in the first place to approve the mine and the mine has had devastating impacts on the Maules Creek Community. It is disgraceful to consider allowing Whitehaven to escape the consequences of noise levels that are damaging to the community. There need to be strict regulations on the mine, this is not the time to be loosening the restrictions.

It makes no sense to ease restrictions on the moribund coal mining industry at the expense of our health, wellbeing and environment.

I am a regular visitor to the Maules Creek area and always stay with 2 friends who own farms on Black Mountain Creek Rd, Maules Creek. I am surprised that I can hear the mine at night even though we are 10 to 20 km away from the mine. On some nights, usually in winter, the mine noise can be so loud it can keep you awake. I have had many conversions with residents on Black Mountain Creek Rd over the last few years and they all say the mine is much louder than they ever thought it would be. I object to this modification because residents in the area, and myself when I am visiting, want to see every effort made to reduce the noise impact from the mine and think it is disgraceful that the mine is requesting the opposite.

Maules Creek coal mine Modification 4
The Maules Creek coal mine is causing distress and sickness among the people that live surrounding it. Its blast fumes, dust plumes and grinding and banging noise have changed Maules Creek forever.
The mine has breached its conditions of approval numerous times and been given too many chances and excuses by Government agencies. Because of its compliance problems, it's now one of three mines in NSW given the highest environmental risk rating.
Unable to comply, Maules Creek coal mine has applied to the Department of Planning to remove one of the conditions imposed on it when it was granted approval.
This condition (Condition 12a of Schedule 3) stipulates that the Sound Power Levels (SWLs) of fixed and mobile machinery at the mine must be "equal to, or better than, the indicative SWLs adopted for modelling purposes in the Maules Creek Coal Project Environmental Assessment"
In other words, the Environmental Impact Statement that assessed the impact the mine was likely to have on the environment back in 2011 assumed certain noise levels coming out of the trucks, plants and other equipment at the mine and modelled the effect on surrounding residents based on those "sound power levels."
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 are now experiencing noise impacts that are ruining their lives.

This submission is an objection to the Maules Creek Coal Mine Modification.
I object to the watering down of noise limits for Whitehaven Maules Creek Coal Mine. This will have a disastrous effect on an already suffering community.
The mine has been down graded by the EPA to one of the poorest performed mines in the state, with increased compliance and monitoring required; this watering down of noise limits is the completely wrong way forward, particularly for the neighbouring community members.
The community has had its expectations managed down by Whitehaven year after year, with noise, dust and blast dust/fumes detrimentally effecting surrounding neighbours. This company has tried to comply for years, and simply can't meet the standards, laid out to the community in its 2012 approval.
There has been no consultation with the community as to why the modification is sought. Whitehaven should be making more of an attempt to comply with noise restrictions. If Whitehaven are successful in amending this clause, I fear the precedent will be set, and other mines will seek to drop or amend pre required standards, to the detriment of the health and wellbeing of their neighbours.
Whitehaven have already had an official noise related warning issued by the EPA, breach's and complaints levelled at them by neighbours, and had to admit in their Environment reports they weren't complying with sound conditions.
The community needs more protections from this non-compliant company, and the company shouldn't get off on bare minimum standards required.
As a cattle producer/ farming neighbour to Whitehaven Werris Creek coal mine - I don't have a problem per se with the company, but gravely fear when neighbours do have problems with these Multi national behemoth companies. Standards and expectations should be respected, nurtured, and ultimately improved upon, not let slide for - at the end of the day - a company's bottom line and corporate shareholder benefit.
Whitehaven must be held to the promises made to the community.
If a tree falls in the woods and no one is around to hear it, does it still make a sound?

I am writing to object to the proposed modification of condition 12A, schedule 3 of the project approval 10_0138 of the Maules Creek coal mine.

I find it extremely concerning that a breach of the approval conditions of this mine could result in the removal of that condition altogether. Surely, a more appropriate response would be to ensure that Whitehaven coal undertake measures necessary to meet the original conditions of approval. The community in proximity to the mine have a right to expect continued improved environmental management of this mine - not a consistent weakening of conditions the mine can be held accountable to. For the matter to be resolved in this fashion sends a clear signal that proponents need not take seriously the conditions of approval related to their developments.

Part of my ethnographic research as a student at UNSW Australia in 2016 involved visiting Maules Creek and interviewing those people associated with citizen science efforts in the area. A key takeaway from my time spent in the area was that the mine is causing a great deal of stress for local residents, with reasons including, but not limited to, the loud noise emitted from the mine throughout the day and night. Indeed, staying at a nearby farm, I personally found it quite hard to get to sleep at night given the audible noise - and yet I only stayed for a brief period.

Given that the Maules Creek mine is expected to reach its peak impact on the community in the next 12 months, I contend that it would be inappropriate to approve the proposed amendment at this time. Whitehaven should be investing in technology to mitigate the noise emanating from the Maules Creek site, and should be held to an acceptable standard for the local community.

Thank you for considering my concerns.

Kind regards,

Breana Macpherson-Rice

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

With my family I run a cropping and grazing enterprise centred around Boggabri. We own land to the Southeast and West of Boggabri, and whilst we are not directly impacted by noise from the Maules Creek Coal Mine, we have strong in principle objections to the removal of regulatory conditions on this mine.
Whitehaven Coal, are seeking to remove a section from Condition 12a, Schedule 3 from their Planning Approval, that is the deletion of the wording and their 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;"
These mitigation measures have been included in the proponents licensing approval to provide protection for locals who have had this mine imposed on them. The removal of these protections will make a farce of the NSW planning approval process. It will basically enable the proponent to "re-write the rule book", destroying any confidence that we, the public, have in the approval and regulatory protections in place.
As landholders in the close vicinity to Whitehaven Coal's proposed Vickery extension, we have been told to trust the planning processes, and to have faith in the models provided by the proponent. In relation to this, the proposed modification immediately raises concerns with both of these statements.
Firstly as a business we need to have a level of confidence in planning for the future. What confidence can we have when the "goal posts" are continually being shifted? This tactic is continually used by Whitehaven Coal, as we have already witnessed at Vickery. Where immediately following the approval of the Vickery mine, they announced plans to more than double the size of the mine.
Secondly, we must ask questions of the noise modelling for MCCM. It appears that despite the proponents claims of high compliance in the application, they have continually failed to meet the sound criteria predicted in their models. This backs up long held claims by the Maules Creek community that noise modelling provided by Whitehaven Coal in its original EA was false and misleading in order to gain approval.
As with many other members of the community, we are growing tired of hearing Whitehaven Coal boasting about their "strong history of compliance". Recent media articles have made it publicly aware that WHC are one of the least compliant mining companies in NSW, with more than 50 licence breaches between 2010 and 2016, and having their Environmental Protection License downgraded at MCCM to risk level 3. It basically amounts to lying to the NSW Government and the public for the proponent to claim they have a strong history of compliance, and as such should be held accountable. This is a company that given their poor record, should be facing tougher regulations, not having regulations removed.
Are we to accept that under NSW planning laws, if a proponent continually fails to comply with conditions imposed on their approval, it is admissible that those conditions be altered or deleted to make the proponent compliant?

I object to any removal or weakening of environmental conditions to the Maules Creek Mine for the following reasons:

- The local community strongly objected to the original mine proposal and the destruction of NW NSW last whitebox woodland remnant. Approving this mine made a mockery of any attempts by the NSW government to conserve biodiversity and endangered ecologial communities. The Department of Planning let down the community at Maules Creek by ignoring community concerns and objections prior to the mine being approved.

- The local community has been strongly opposed to the mine development from the start and the strict environmental conditions placed on the Maules Creek mine approval should not be weakened or removed, especially as Whitehaven's mine proposal and noise modelling was criticised as inadequate in the original approval process. The company has a commitment to meet the sound power level targets and the enforcement of strict conditions must be ongoing. The local community deserves a solid commitment from the mines operator to reduce noise pollution to acceptable limits and ameliorate all environmental pollution concerns.

- This mining company could be accused of providing false and misleading statements when they applied to mine using promises and lies to gain an approval with no actual commitment to meet those stated conditions.

- This company must be held to their commitments and the 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.

- The company has committed to reviewing its plant and equipment to reduce noise, but now seeks a change that would remove specific requirements to do this. Please do not let Whitehaven off the hook. This modification would remove a community right to expect continuous improvement in the environmental management of the mine and in my book that is not just or fair.

- The local community deserves better from the mine operator and the government regulator.

When the Maules Creek mine was granted approval a number of conditions were set in place under which the mine would be allowed to operate. These conditions were imposed in order to give some level of protection to the local Maules creek community who would be seriously impacted by the development of this mine. I am writing to object to the proposed alteration of the condition regarding sound power levels.

Many of the concerns and objections expressed by the Maules Creek community prior to the mine being approved were ignored when approval was granted. It is essential that the imposed conditions and commitments made by the company in order to gain approval are upheld and the sound power condition complied with.
.
It is disturbing to read in Whitehaven's 2016 annual environmental review the admission that the company was non- compliant with the "sound power level" condition as well as non-compliance with blast level criteria and blast monitoring requirements.

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?

The modification sought would remove a community right to expect continuous improvement in the environmental management of the mine.

The company must be held to their commitments and promises made to the local community and the wider community of NSW when it obtained its approval. If they cannot adhere to the agreed original commitments work at the mine should be halted until it can achieve the conditions of that approval.

With Maules Creek mine expected to reach the peak of its noise impact on the surrounding community in the next twelve months, the company should be committed to taking serious steps to reduce its noise levels at this time. It shows a callous lack of consideration for the local community to be seeking a watering down of requirements for the mine to take any and all actions to reduce the noise burden it is inflicting on the Maules Creek community.
Do

Roselyn Druce
66 Teston Lane,
Maules Creek,
Boggabri NSW 2382

12th 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 proponent wants this wording deleted from their conditions so that they will no longer have to worry about compliance regarding Sound Power Levels on their site.

I strongly object to the Mod 4 and Whitehaven Coal removing a specific requirement recommended by the Planning Assessment Commission (PAC), for continuous environmental noise improvement by maintaining or reducing mining equipment Sound Power.

The Maules Creek Schedule 3 section in 12a;

"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;"

Why? Because they cannot comply with Sound Power levels emitted from their equipment on their mine site.

I am appalled that my local community is now suffering from excessive NOISE, because the department failed to take heed of the recommendations and concerns that the Maules Creek Community Council (MCCC) expressed in their submission, regarding excessive Sound Power noise levels in the modeling of the project that was put forward on behalf of the proponent in their submission prior to the Project Approval.

In Whitehaven Coal's (WHC) Sound Power Level Modification Environmental Assessment, they say that have had consultation, and yes, they have had consultation with the relevant agencies, but absolutely none with the people who would be most impacted if this deletion of consent conditions were to be allowed, that is, the local Maules Creek community.

Yes, and the usual reply to this is that the proponents don't have to consult with the community on lots of issues they wish to change. The fact that this issue does have a huge impact on the local surrounding community, I would think that as a responsible neighbour WHC should have had the decency to consult with the community, regardless of what they consider their responsibilities are to the locals. At the very least it may even restore a small amount of trust in a company that has a track record of many breaches and very little transparency.

There has been no contact or communication to indicate that this Modification was afoot, not even during any of the Maules Creek Coal Mine Community Consultative Committee (MCCM CCC) meetings.

No communication and no explanation as to why they require this Modification.

In light of the fact that a Merit appeal in the Land and Environment Court was extinguished, the local and surrounding community are now at the mercy of the compliance agencies to uphold the original approval conditions of the Maules Creek Project.

I can personally tell you that many of the locals spend more time reporting adverse conditions to the compliance bodies, writing letters of concern about possible breaches, dust, light and NOISE, only to receive replies stating that it is all within compliance levels. Many of these concerns are never fully addressed in the replies received, only a regurgitated response stating what all the guide lines are being followed, which is clearly not the case. The locals here are not stupid and we have read and know probably more of the rules and consent conditions than most of the compliance staff.

This Condition was specifically put in place due to the concerns of the PAC in 2012. This was done to ensure that there would be a continuous improvement of environmental noise performance over the life of this mine and that it would be enforceable.

Instead we the community are left with the possibility that this mining company can just put its hand up, provide their side of the argument to the compliance agencies, and have Approval conditions just wiped out, simply because they can't comply, or its too expensive to alter equipment and comply with these Consent Conditions, or as in the case of the final void, it is `uneconomical' to fill.

Both the other two mines (Boggabri Coal & Tarrowonga) in the Leard Forest Precinct have the exact same condition in their approvals, and yet they seem able to comply. My concern is that if this Modification 4. is to be allowed, then the other mines would also expect to be on the same level playing-field, and insist that they would not have to comply with these conditions; Boggabri Coal Schedule 3 section 9a.; Tarrowonga Schedule 3 section 9a.

Residents, are already suffering from an extreme level of many collective amenity issues that arise from the WHC site. Noise is a constant reminder and can be very intrusive.

Low Frequency Noise coming from the mining site can be one of the most debilitating when it affects the individuals' health, due to lack of sleep.

`Noise-induced sleep disturbances are regarded as most deleterious as undisturbed sleep of sufficient length is undoubtedly essential for performance, for well-being and health' (World Health Organization 2009, 2011)

Interestingly, it may be the sounds we aren't even aware we're hearing that are affecting us the most, in particular, those we `hear' when we're asleep. The human ear is extremely sensitive, and it never rests. So even when you sleep, your ears are working, picking up and transmitting sounds which are filtered and interpreted by different parts of the brain. It's a permanently open auditory channel. So although you may not be aware of it, background noises of traffic, aircraft, or music coming from a neighbour are still being processed, and your body is reacting to them in different ways.
The most obvious is interrupted sleep, with its flow-on effects of tiredness, impaired memory and creativity, impaired judgement and weakened psychomotor skills.
But there is another, more serious outcome. Even if you don't wake up, it appears that continual noise sets off the body's acute stress response, which raises blood pressure and heart rate, potentially mobilising a state of hyperarousal. It is this response that can lead to cardiovascular disease and other health issues.

http://waubrafoundation.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Broner-The-effects-of-low-frequency-noise-on-people.pdf

Inversion layers are very common in the Maules Creek valley, due to the topography.
The affect is to concentrate dust and noise in the lower atmosphere against the Nandewar Range which traps cool morning air blowing from the south until a stronger breeze disrupts and lifts the cool air in the lower atmosphere. Hence the local community experiences noise and dust that `covers the local area' whenever these inversions occur.

In fact, when driving back from Narrabri, (approximately 43km's away) it is not unusual to see these inversion layers, albeit in the guise of a layer of dust `hanging over' the entire Maules creek district.

Under Department of Planning Consideration, the proponent is Seeking to remove class G inversion layers from noise conditions, against the wishes of the community. As explained above, this would be intolerable for this community due to the many inversion events experienced.

A re-rating of the environmental compliance risk rating in Sept 2017 by the EPA to the
maximum rating of 3. One of only 3 mines in the state.

This is evidence that the proponent does not have a strong record of compliance which was
confirmed when the EPA advised that it raised the risk level to maximum due to;
1. Non-compliance of environmental management and
2. The company failing to supply to records.

Recommendations:

* I suggest that the proponent adopt a more proactive role and aim to focus on improving the mines environmental noise performance, not lower the standards by having part of the original Environmental Assessment deleted.

The focus should be on "equal to or better than the sound power levels identified in the Environmental Assessment".

If anything needs to be deleted to ensure that WHC stay focused on achieving consent conditions then it is suggested that the last part of the targeted paragraph be removed, leaving clear objectives for them to follow regarding the Sound Power levels. (i.e. the wording in bold type).

"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)"

* Independent research into noise impacts and management practices of large mining operations in rural NSW, especially the impact of Low Frequency Noise, on humans. This should be a priority, as there are no Health Impact Assessments included in Major Approval EA's.


In 2012 the Gunnedah Basin Health Impact Steering Committee, constituted of community groups and organizations in the Gunnedah Basin, were commissioned to study the health and welfare risks of mining and gas extraction in that basin. This draft Health Impact Assessment (HIA) proposal was developed because of the need and concern by locals living in an ever- expanding Coal mining and CSG area. The outcome of this extensive study and development of the draft proposal was to have it included in any future State Significant Major Project, alongside their Environmental Assessments. By first gathering Base line data prior to Project Approval, this would allow monitoring of health of the surrounding area, hence ensuring that the health of the community was not being compromised by impacts brought about by the Major Project.

https://www.maulescreek.org/gunnedah-basin-health-impact-assessment/

Thank you for this opportunity to submit my Objections to this Modification 4. by Whitehaven Coal.


Yours sincerely
Roselyn Druce.

Submission to Maules Creek Modification (Mod4) - Sound Power Levels

Thank you for this opportunity to respond to the Maules Creek Modification. I have spent a good deal of quality time in the Maules Creek area and met many members of the local community.

I know that the community has been negatively affected by the mine since it's inception. They and the public are dismayed at the constant betrayal of the government to provide clean air and water by retrospective fitting of mining approvals.

Original mining approvals are no longer taken seriously either by mining companies or the government's environmental officers. They clearly exist as a facade sold to the local communities and the public.

Please enforce the Whitehaven Mine original sound restrictions for the credibility of the Department of Land and Planning as well as the farms and communities affected.

It is for these reasons I object to the this modification of Maules Creek sound power levels.

Sincerely
Claudia Caton

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.

To whom it may concern,

I would like to voice my opposition to Whitehaven Coal being exempted from their EIS approval conditions relating to noise pollution.

This project is objectionable for a number of reasons, most significantly its contribution to climate change which is threatening a safe futute for humanity, alongside the destruction of culturally significant sites for local Aboriginal people, potential groundwater depletion and pollution, and the destruction of critically endangered ecosystems.

The noise and dust pollution generated by this mine are a significant source of discomfort for local residents. It is outrageous that Whitehaven are seeking to excuse themselves for their poor record in this area. I object to Whitehaven being exempted from the conditions of approval for this project as i feel this is an affront to the local community and to the efficacy and fairness of our planning process.

Please reject their application.

Objection

As a Landholder south of Whitehaven Maules Creek Coal mine site I do not believe that they should be granted any modification to their existing approval.
MCC HAVE NEVER ADHERED TO BMP and they do not aspire to improve or reduce the negative environmental impacts on our community. If the expended as much energy acknowledging their shortfalls as they do denying them they gain some credibility or support.
Taking in to account the results published in MCC ANNUAL REVIEW and the huge discrepancy and validity of the modelling method used they should be made to adhere to bmp rather than change the rules to suit their practices.
When Whitehaven Maules Creek can act in good faith when dealing with our community and demonstrate they deserve a social licence to operate, then it is expected a modification
could be considered.
I would also suggest that if MCC IS SUPPOSEDLY OPERATING UNDER THE ACCEPTED CRITERIA STANDARDS FOR NOISE, DUST OR BLASTING IT IS NOT ACCEPTABLE TO THOSE OF US WHO ARE EXPERIENCING THE IMPACTS AND EXCESSES AND THE CRITERIA NEEDS TO BE REVIEWED BY THOSE LIVING IN VICINITY OF THE MINE NOT EXPERTS SITTING COMFORTABLY IN A CLIMATE CONTROLLED OFFICE IN AN UNAFFECTED CITY. they don,t have a clue!
We can be thankful our other two mines, Boggabri Coal and Tarrawonga are prepared to accept responsibility and strive to meet the communities expectations
Yours Faithfully
Julie Heiler

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

We have big concerns with the proponent Whitehaven Coal seeking to remove a section from COndition 12a, Schedule 3 from Planning Approval 10_0138.

With expansion plans of the Mine ahead we need more, certainly not less protection against Whitehaven which have not been known for strong compliance ( rather the opposite!)

Whitehaven are generally not showing a great attitude towards the concerns of local communities. We are doubtful and worried why they would seek the removal of part of Condition 12a. It seems sure this will not be in the best interest of the surrounding communities and essentially result in even more horrendous noise levels to deal with.

We ask to keep Whitehaven accountable towards using best management practices and therefore ensure the maintaining or reducing of current noise levels by keeping the condition as is.

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

We live and are raising our children on our family farm and in the Boggabri community. We are extremely concerned with the expansion of the mines due to a number of issues, but especially the level of noise.

After living in such a quiet environment for such a long period of time, we and the committee will notice the increased noise levels in the area. A major concern that I have is in relation to the overall health issues that can arise in children. The below has been taken from the Development Near Rail Corridors and Busy Roads - Interim Guideline In relation to noise:


3.2 heAlth implicAtiOns Of ADverse nOise levels

Adverse levels of noise, whether the source is road or rail, rarely causes damage to hearing, but rather has psychological and physiological effects such

as fatigue due to sleep deprivation. Although the research into the effects of noise on sleep is limited with varying results, it is generally considered that noise may interfere with sleep in a number of ways:

awakening - it can cause a person to awaken repeatedly, resulting in poor sleep quality as well as other impacts

alter sleep pattern - noise may cause sleep to change from heavier to lighter sleep



reduce the percentage and total time in rapid eye movement (REM) sleep

affect slow wave sleep

increase body movement

change cardio vascular responses

These changes can affect mood and performance the next day and may have longer term effects. This is particularly the case for sensitive groups such as young children where it can decrease their ability to learn and can impact on long-term health. The effects of high levels of noise on child cognition can include:

* reduced attention span;
* dif culties in concentrating;
* poorer discrimination and perception of speech;

* poorer memory of complex spoken information; and

* poorer reading ability and school performance.

Again, we 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.

Regards,

Kate Groves

11 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.


I live on the property. "Roslyn" in Maules Creek with my family. On a daily basis we are exposed to continuous noise from the Maules Creek mine. The noise particularly at various times of night is very disruptive to my Sleep. This causes anxiety and stress.

I believe that Whitehaven are unable to comply with existing noise limits, which are a condition of their approval to mine. I don't see how any watering down of condition 12(a) allowing them to increase noise limits, would be any advantage to Me, in fact it would make life worse for my family or anyone else living in the vicinity of the Maules Creek mine.

Our family has been living in Maules Creek for 5 generations, the impacts of the mine is affecting our quality of life. I do not wish this to deteriorate any further.

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

Yours sincerely

Your Name
Address

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.








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

Yours sincerely

Dear Ms McNally,

Re: Maules Creek coal mine Project Application Number: 10_0138 Mod 4

I spent my childhood growing up in the Maules Creek valley, my parents, however, continue to live in Maules Creek in very close proximity of the Maules Creek coal project.

Having frequently paid visits to them over the last few years, I've observed both the gradual onset of the mining noise & activity, as I've simultaneously witnessed a growing sense of disruption to my family's way of life, their mental & physical health & the efficiency of their agricultural production.

All of these negative influences which I've felt personally & have seen affect my family have occurred under current noise restrictions.

I would like to express my deep objection to the Mod 4 and Whitehaven Coal removing a specific requirement for continuous environmental noise improvement by maintaining or reducing mining equipment sound power. These restrictions were initially applied for sensible reason - to maintain minimal noise pollution on surrounding homes & industries.

The removal & weakening of these restrictions will continue to aggravate community discontentment towards the mine, while also negatively affecting human health, lifestyle & primary industries.

Yours faithfully,
Angus Laird

I have visited the Maules Creek area a couple of times and during these visits I have had the opportunity to speak with local residents of the area. I was disturbed to hear about the level of noise and dust pollution that these residents had to endure.

More disturbing, however, is the fact that Whitehaven is now seeking to modify the noise restrictions in the Maules Creek coal mine Project Approval. This follows years of non-compliance with the noise restrictions currently in place, as revealed by the noise monitoring undertaken by community members.

This modification should be refused as Whitehaven has continually shown that it does not perform to the environmental standards. The 2016 environmental review revealed that Whitehaven does not comply with blast level criteria and blast monitoring requirements nor does it comply with noise criteria for nearby properties.

This company cannot and should not be trusted with complying with environmental or community standards and as such this modification should be refused.