Mod 4 - Sound Power Levels

Dear Ms McNally,

My family and I have been directly & immensely affected by the Maules Creek mine by living in such close proximity. The negative influences under the current noise restrictions are felt personally, by my family and the community. This already has an impact on our health including mental health.

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 would like to emphasise my deep concern and objection to the Mod 4 and Whitehaven coal removing these requirements for continuous environmental noise improvement by maintaining or reducing mining equipment sound power.
This will be detrimental to health, lifestyles, and the productivity of the family farms within the community.

Yours sincerely,

Julia Laird

Ms Carolyn McNally
Secretary
Department of Planning and Environment NSW

As a member of the Australian Student Environment Network and an environmental studies student, I find it unbelievably disappointing that this modification - obviously to subvert environmental responsibility - is seriously being considered. Having experienced for myself the "sacrifice zones" of NSW with the Australian Student Environment Network, it is abundantly clear rural communities are being killed off by aggressive coal mine expansion.

The MCCM is causing distress and sickness among people that live in the surrounds. Its blast and dust plumes and noise pollution have changed Maules Creek forever.

But the fact of the matter is, conveniently neglected in the EA, that in MC "worst case" noise levels are regularly occurring at residences up to 8km distant from the worst case scenario boundary line: the 35decibel contour. Especially considering the MCCM's lack of transparency and apparent ulterior motives, this modification would be a disaster.

I would like to take this opportunity to point out that during our stay in MC we have also witnessed dust pollution and night-time light pollution.

We went to 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.

i strongly object to this as i believe that enough noise is already being generated to disrupt my normal way of life, and to increase the limit will only do more damage to both individuals health and the community

This mine was approved under the current conditions after warnings from the local community that it would make their lives hell and destroy their health and wellbeing. This has been proved to be correct. The Department should reject this attempt by the company to get away with even more devastation of the environment and detrimental impacts on the community. The company has breached conditions of the approval to which they committed. They should not be allowed to continue to do so at the expense of nearby landholders.

Whitehaven should have a plan to reduce its destructive impacts rather than pushing to get approval to be even more dangerous.

I call on the Department to remind Whitehaven of its commitments and immediately adopt a plan to reduce their impact on the community and the environment. This application should be rejected.

I object to this proposal because sound levels coming from the Maules Creek mine are already causing significant suffering and distress to the Maules Creek community. The Department of Planning originally insisted on noise level caps in order to issue permits to the mine. These caps have been breached many times already, and the Department should not sacrifice the health of the community by giving the mine open slather. It should keep and stringently enforce the existing regulation. Although I am not local to the area I have strong ties to Maules Creek and visit regularly. I have heard of these issues from the people directly affected by the noise and dust from the mine.

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.

Maules Creek (Mod 4)

RE: Removing noise conditions

Please do not remove noise conditions.

Noise can impact on the health and well-being of the community. It is essential that the community is not adversley impacted on.

Members of the community have already provided concerns regarding noise impacts. Please do not ignore this or any subsequent breaches.

The burning of fossil fuels is an issue for climate change. We need to think more seriously about the health and well-being of our community.

Please do not publish my name, email, address or suburb

Dear Mr. Riley,

On behalf of 350.org Australia I am writing to object to Whitehaven's application to modify condition 12(a) of Project Approval 10_0138 which seeks to remove one of the conditions imposed on it when it was granted approval.

We are deeply concerned with the impact that a reduction in regulation would have on the surrounding community. The grinding and banging noises caused by machinery as well as the mine's dust and blast fumes have already caused distress and illness in the community.

A mine given the highest environmental risk rating possible in NSW should be required to lower its environmental risk rather than propose unfair mitigation strategies that leave the community suffering further impacts. Acquiring properties and removing farmers is not an acceptable solution. Money should instead be spent to ensure sound power levels are to code or on other strategies that won't damage public health or remove farmers and community members. The proponent claimed that the mine can meet condition 12(a), thus it should do so regardless of cost. The mine's profitability is not the concern of the Planning Department. Rather, the Department should be concerned with the well-being of the surrounding community and landowners.

While Whitehaven's Environmental Assessment for this modification claimed a "strong record of compliance with mine noise limits at private receivers," their actions have proven otherwise. Whitehaven's 2016 Annual Environmental Review admitted that the mine is not compliant with sound power level conditions, blast level criteria, and blast monitoring requirements. The mine is operating at a 37 dbA limit rather than the agreed 35 dbA.

Additionally when the mine modified traffic conditions that it did not originally meet, it was required to, within six months, demonstrate compliance with the requirement to offset damage to the critically endangered ecological communities in Leard State Forest. Experts have suggested that this is not possible due to insufficient Whitebox Gum woodland to offset the impact, resulting in the ecological community being driven closer to extinction because Whitehaven made unrealistic promises during its assessment process.

If this modification is approved it will make other proponents believe that they can similarly over-promise by agreeing to certain conditions, under-deliver by failing to comply, then modify the conditions with which they are unable to comply later. This would lessen the community's trust in the Planning Department's ability to keep mining companies responsible for their actions.

We have seen the grave impact that mining companies and their projects have had on local and statewide communities as well as the surrounding ecology. The community must be given a fair chance in arguing their case to the Planning Assessment Commission and we hope that you take these points into consideration when deciding on the matter.

Sincerely,
Blair Palese
CEO, 350.org Australia
[email protected]
0414659511

To whom it does and should concern,

I have friends living adjacent to the Maules Creek mine, so this issue is of concern to me.

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 readings 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.

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.

Yours sincerely,

Nic Clyde

Whitehaven Coal never intended to comply with development conditions when the project was approved, and have demonstrated that they never will. The so called "strict conditions" that are trumpeted at the time of approval are a joke, and you know that. A request to "water down" any conditions are beyond a joke. Modification 4 must be rejected.

The Department of Planning must make sure the company sticks to the commitments it made when the approval was granted and not wind back the "sound power level" condition. The local community deserves protection from noise and air polutuon.

Please find submission attached.

I am writing to formally object to the planning modification proposed by Whitehaven Coal to remove sound power conditions from planning consent 10_0138.

This submission is an objection to the Maules Creek Coal Mine Modification 4 submitted on behalf of Armidale Action on Coal Seam Gas and Mining (AACSG&M). Thank you for the opportunity to participate.
AACSG&M believes that, since the mine is expanding considerably to the west and north, the impact of the mines on farms and residences in the immediate vicinity can only increase the need for more protection not less. This applies to both noise and dust.
Since the State Government is always reassuring us that there are strict regulations in place governing mining operations then, to retain credibility, the Government should be resisting watering down these regulations and be seen to be enforcing them; especially as Whitehaven Coal as not been able to comply with the existing rules.
Maules Creek Coal Environmental Protection licence has recently been down-graded to level 3 - only the 3 worst out of 49 coal mines in New South Wales have this bottom of the ladder status, confirming less than desirable environmental performance.
AACSG&M demands serious consideration of the future ramifications of any modification of the existing regulations.

Submission attached

The Maules Creek Community Council objects to the Mod 4 Environmental Assessment from Whitehaven Coal to remove a specific requirement for continuous environmental noise improvement by maintaining or reducing mining equipment sound power.

Please see PDF

Submission attached.

I DO NOT HAVE AN EMAIL ADDRESS. SUGGEST YOU CHANGE YOUR FORM SO THAT I DIDNT HAVE TO PUT AN INVALID EMAIL IN. SO DONT EMAIL ME AT [email protected] AND EXPECT AN ANSWER,

I ALSO ATTACH THE DATA FROM NOISE MONITORING ON 6TH JUNE 2016, WHICH IS REFERRED TO IN MY SUBMISSION.

Geoff Hunter
"Huntly"
Boggabri 2382

11th 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.

It is my understanding that noise limits are already continuously being breached by Whitehaven and so a reduction should not even be considered on these grounds alone. On top of this the mine expansion will mean it comes closer to my property and so noise will be getting worse for my family and I without an increase in the noise limit.

If Whitehaven cannot adhere to the conditions under which the mine was allowed maybe we should go back and have another look at whether the mine should have been approved in the first place. Rules are rules and these were some of the original issues we initially had regarding this mine and which Whitehaven agreed to limit and now once the mine is running they want to simply amend and reduce their requirements.

Please stop this creep in the goal posts and ensure Whitehaven are made accountable for what they agreed in the initial approval.

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


Yours sincerely

Geoff Hunter