Metro Mining Appendix G - Noise and Vibration Technical Report … · 2018. 8. 9. · CDM Smith...

Metro MiningBauxite Hills Project

Environmental Impact Statement

Metro MiningChapter 21 - References

Environmental Impact Statement

Metro MiningAppendix G - Noise and Vibration Technical Report

Melbourne • Sydney • Adelaide • Perth • Brisbane • Hunter Valley • Tasmania • Singapore • Hong Kong • Dubai

Vipac Engineers & Scientists Ltd.

Level 2, 146 Leichhardt Street, Spring Hill, QLD 4000, Australia

PO Box 47, Spring Hill, Qld, 4000 Australia

t. +61 7 3377 0400 | f. +61 7 3377 0499 | e. [email protected]

w. www.vipac.com.au | A.B.N. 33 005 453 627 | A.C.N. 005 453 627

Vipac Engineers & Scientists

CDM Smith

Bauxite Hills

Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment

70Q-14-0405-TRP-519637-0

5 April 2016

CDM Smith

Bauxite Hills


5 April 2016

Page 2 of 52

Commercial-In-Confidence

70Q-14-0405-TRP-519637-0

NOTE: This is a controlled document within the document control system. If revised, it must be marked SUPERSEDED and returned to the Vipac QA Representative. This document contains commercial, conceptual and engineering information that is proprietary to Vipac Engineers & Scientists Ltd. We specifically state that inclusion of this information does not grant the Client any license to use the information without Vipac’s written permission. We further require that the information not be divulged to a third party without our written consent

Noise and Vibration Impact Assessment Bauxite Hills

DOCUMENT NO: 70Q-14-0405-TRP-519637-0 REPORT CODE: TRP

PREPARED FOR: PREPARED BY: CDM Smith Vipac Engineers & Scientists Ltd.

Level 4, 51 Alfred Street Level 2, 146 Leichhardt Street,

Fortitude Valley, Queensland, 4006, Australia Spring Hill, QLD 4000,

Australia

CONTACT: Craig Streatfeild

Tel: 0432 949 073 Tel: +61 7 3377 0400

Fax: +61 7 3828 6999 Fax: +61 7 3377 0499

PREPARED BY:

Author: Date: 5 April 2016

Michelle Clifton

Consulting Scientist

REVIEWED BY:

Reviewer: Date: 5 April 2016

Jackson Yu

Senior Engineer

AUTHORISED BY:

Date: 5 April 2016

Virginia Short

Senior Office Administrator

REVISION HISTORY Revision No. Date Issued Reason/Comments

0 5 April 2016 Initial Issue: 5 Mtpa

1

2

3

DISTRIBUTION Copy No. 2 Location

1 Project

2 Client (PDF Format) Uncontrolled Copy

KEYWORDS: Mining, Bauxite, Noise Assessment

CDM Smith

Bauxite Hills


5 April 2016

Page 3 of 52


70Q-14-0405-TRP-519637-0

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Vipac Engineers and Scientists Ltd (Vipac) was commissioned by CDM Smith Australia Pty Ltd (CDM Smith) to prepare a noise and vibration impact assessment for the Bauxite Hills Project, located 95 km north of Weipa, Queensland.

The purpose of this assessment was to evaluate the potential impacts of noise and vibration generated from the construction and operation of the Project and to provide recommendations to mitigate any potential impacts that might have an effect on nearby sensitive receptors in accordance with EIS Information Guideline – Noise and Vibration and the Model Mining Conditions.

Raw noise measurement data was provided from a previous assessment for a nearby mine and Vipac analysed the data to determine the existing noise levels in the area and define the applicable noise criteria for the operational stage of the Project. Noise modelling was undertaken to predict noise levels from the Project activities at the sensitive receptors.

Based on the noise prediction results, noise levels for the operation are expected to comply with the EHP Model Mining Conditions at all noise sensitive receivers in Mapoon under both average and worst case meteorological conditions. Noise levels are also predicted to comply with low frequency noise criteria. The predicted noise levels at the Skardon River Bauxite Project mine village exceed the applicable criteria in some circumstances and mitigation measures have been proposed to reduce noise impacts.

The cumulative impacts from the Bauxite Hills and Skardon River Bauxite Projects comply at all sensitive receptors in Mapoon, However the Skardon River Bauxite Project did not provide predictions for the airport or the accommodation village therefore cumulative impacts can’t be derived due to the proximity of these receptors to the Skardon River Bauxite Project. Overall, terrestrial noise should not be considered a constraint to the approval of this Project.

CDM Smith

Bauxite Hills


5 April 2016

Page 4 of 52


70Q-14-0405-TRP-519637-0

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1 INTRODUCTION ..............................................................................................................................6

2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ...............................................................................................................6

2.1 Location and Resources ...................................................................................................................6

2.2 Proposed Operations ........................................................................................................................7

2.3 Production ScHedule ........................................................................................................................7

2.4 Topography .......................................................................................................................................9

2.5 Sensitive Receptors ..........................................................................................................................9

3 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK .................................................................................................... 12

3.1 Model Mining Conditions ............................................................................................................... 12

3.2 World Health Orgiansation ............................................................................................................. 13

3.3 EnHealth Council 2004 .................................................................................................................. 13

3.4 Deriving Project Specific Noise Criteria ......................................................................................... 13

4 METHODOLOGY .......................................................................................................................... 15

4.1 Fieldwork ........................................................................................................................................ 15

4.2 Noise Prediction Methodology ....................................................................................................... 15

4.2.1 Modelling Software ........................................................................................................................ 15

4.2.2 Meteorological Conditions ............................................................................................................. 15

4.2.3 Modelled Weather Scenarios ......................................................................................................... 18

5 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT .......................................................................................................... 20

5.1 Environmental Values .................................................................................................................... 20

5.2 Existing Sources of Noise .............................................................................................................. 20

5.3 Noise Monitoring At Mapoon ......................................................................................................... 20

5.3.1 Weather Conditions ....................................................................................................................... 20

5.3.2 Insect Noise ................................................................................................................................... 20

5.3.3 Summary of Noise Levels .............................................................................................................. 21

6 NOISE MODELLING DETAILS ..................................................................................................... 23

6.1 Phases of the Project Modelled ..................................................................................................... 23

6.2 Equipment ...................................................................................................................................... 23

6.3 Location of Sources ....................................................................................................................... 24

6.4 Sound Power Levels ...................................................................................................................... 26

7 IMPACT ASSESSMENT ............................................................................................................... 27

7.1 Daytime Noise Predictions ............................................................................................................. 27

7.2 Evening Noise Predictions ............................................................................................................. 30

7.3 Night time Noise Predictions .......................................................................................................... 30

CDM Smith

Bauxite Hills


5 April 2016

Page 5 of 52


70Q-14-0405-TRP-519637-0

7.4 Low Frequency Assessment .......................................................................................................... 32

7.5 Cumulative Impacts ....................................................................................................................... 34

7.6 Significance of Impacts .................................................................................................................. 34

8 IMPACTS ON FAUNA ................................................................................................................... 36

9 NOISE CONTROL AND MITIGATION OPTIONS ........................................................................ 38

9.1 Noise Control Hierarchy ................................................................................................................. 38

9.2 Best Practice Noise Control ........................................................................................................... 38

9.3 Monitoring Programme .................................................................................................................. 39

10 CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................ 40

11 BIBLIOGRAPHY ........................................................................................................................... 41

Glossary ......................................................................................................... 42 Appendix A

Yearly Mining Schedule .................................................................................. 43 Appendix B

Noise Monitoring at Mapoon (Receptor R32) ................................................. 44 Appendix C

Noise Prediction Contours .............................................................................. 49 Appendix D

CDM Smith

Bauxite Hills


5 April 2016

Page 6 of 52


70Q-14-0405-TRP-519637-0

1 INTRODUCTION

Vipac Engineers and Scientists Ltd (Vipac) was commissioned by CDM Smith Australia Pty Ltd (CDM Smith) to prepare a noise and vibration impact assessment for the Bauxite Hills Project, located approximately 95 km north of Weipa, Queensland.

The purpose of this assessment is to evaluate the potential impacts of noise and vibration generated from the construction and operational stages of the Project and to provide recommendations to mitigate any potential impacts that might have an effect on nearby sensitive receptors in accordance with EIS Information Guideline – Noise and Vibration (Department of Environment and Heritage Protection, No Date).

2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION

Aldoga Minerals Pty Ltd (Aldoga), a 100% owned subsidiary of Metro Mining Limited (Metro Mining), proposes to develop the Bauxite Hills Project (the Project) located on the western coastline of Cape York, Queensland, approximately 35 kilometres (km) northeast of Mapoon. The Project will include an open cut operation, haul roads, barge loading facility, transhipping and will produce and transport up to 5 million tonnes per annum (Mtpa) of ore over approximately 12 years. The mine will not be operational during the wet season.

The Project is characterised by several shallow open cut pits that will be connected via internal haul roads. The internal haul roads will be connected to a main north-south haul road that will link with the Mine Infrastructure Area (MIA) and barge loading facility located to the north of the pits on the Skardon River. Bauxite will be screened in-pit and then hauled to the product stockpile using road train trucks.

Bauxite from the Project is suitable as a Direct Shipping Ore (DSO) product (i.e. ore is extracted and loaded directly to ships with no washing or tailings dams required). Bauxite will be transported by barge via the Skardon River to the transhipment site, approximately 12 km offshore, and loaded into ocean going vessels (OGVs) and shipped to customers. No dredging or bed-levelling for transhipping is proposed as part of this Project

OGVs of between 50,000 to 120,000 tonne (t) each will be loaded at the transhipment anchorage site. Vessels will be loaded and bauxite will be transported to OGVs 24 hours per day with barges having an initial capacity of approximately 3,000 t to meet early production volumes, increasing up to 7,000 t as the Project reaches a maximum production volume of 5 Mtpa.

The construction of the mine is due to commence late in 2016 and is expected to take seven months to complete. The first shipment of bauxite is planned for Q4 2017. The Project will operate over two 12 hour shifts per day for approximately eight months of the year and is expected to employ up to 254 employees during peak operations. In addition to the workforce, it is expected that the Project will result in the employment of additional workers through local and regional businesses servicing the accommodation camp and the construction and operation of the mine.

2.1 LOCATION AND RESOURCES

The Bauxite Hills Mine (the ‘Project’) within Exploration Permit for Minerals (EPM) 15376 and 16899, located approximately 95 km north of Weipa on the Western Cape York, Queensland.

The bauxite resource lies in two main plateaus (referred to as BH1 and BH6) between Skardon and Ducie Rivers and five kilometres from the existing port at Skardon River, as shown in Figure 2-1.

CDM Smith

Bauxite Hills


5 April 2016

Page 7 of 52


70Q-14-0405-TRP-519637-0

2.2 PROPOSED OPERATIONS

The resources will be extracted by open cut mining utilising front-end loaders for loading and trucks for hauling. The material does not need any drilling and blasting. The bauxite will be hauled to the product stockpile using road train trucks. Waste will initially be stored Ex-Pit, with In-Pit waste dumping expected to commence within six months of production. The surface haul roads will be dual lane with a width of 40 m to accommodate the proposed B-Triple vehicles.

Other on-site infrastructure will include the accommodation camp, power and communications equipment, waste management facilities, water management facilities, and the Mine Industrial Area (MIA) where all the mine support facilities are located including the barge loading facility, stockpiles, conveyors, workshops, stores, administration buildings, fuel storage and ancillary facilities.

2.3 PRODUCTION SCHEDULE

The proposed mining schedule is shown in Table 2-1. Operations will be 24 hours per day; no operations will occur during the wet season.

Table 2-1: Mining Schedule [Metro Mining, March 2016]

Year Ore (tonnes) Waste (Volume)

BH1 BH6 Total Ore BH1 BH6 Volume

2017 - 1,072,922 1,072,922 - 180,666 180,666

2018 2,730,351 1,303,658 4,034,009 211,977 139,719 351,696

2019 4,950,002 - 4,950,002 308,774 - 308,774

2020 4,950,005 - 4,950,005 393,386 - 393,386

2021 4,950,003 - 4,950,003 478,723 - 478,723

2022 4,950,000 - 4,950,000 473,829 - 473,829

2023 4,895,777 - 4,895,777 779,134 - 779,134

2024 140,017 4,787,351 4,927,367 15,993 554,114 570,107

2025 - 4,950,005 4,950,005 - 531,376 531,376

2026 - 4,950,008 4,950,008 - 673,673 673,673

2027 - 4,498,720 4,498,720 - 795,858 795,858

This assessment will be based on the schedule for 2024 when the mining activities are at near full capacity but also located closest to the sensitive receptors. Appendix B presents the yearly mining schedule.

CDM Smith

Bauxite Hills


5 April 2016

Page 8 of 52


70Q-14-0405-TRP-519637-0

Figure 2-1: Bauxite Hills Project Location [CDM Smith, June 2015]

CDM Smith

Bauxite Hills


5 April 2016

Page 9 of 52


70Q-14-0405-TRP-519637-0

2.4 TOPOGRAPHY

The topography of the area is relatively flat with elevations varying from sea level to 27 m above the sea. Further inland the terrain increases to 90 m east of the Project site, as shown in Figure 2-2.

Figure 2-2: Local Topography of the Project Site and Surrounds [Web GIS, 2015]

2.5 SENSITIVE RECEPTORS

A thorough review of the area has identified 47 sensitive receptors within the locality of the proposed Project. The potential sensitive receptors are presented in Figure 2-3 and Table 2-2. The closest residential receptor (R44) is located approximately 18 km SW of the MLA.

Gulf Alumina, a neighbouring tenement holder, have an existing airstrip and mine camp facilities. Metro Mining would seek to utilise shared infrastructure wherever possible to minimise both economic and environmental impacts, however at present an agreement for Metro Mining to use the existing infrastructure does not exist. As such the airport and mine village are considered to be receptors. They will be assessed as external receptors for this report; however the barge area, which will be used solely by Metro Mining will not be assessed as it is not considered to be a sensitive receptor.

The Gulf Alumina’s barge loading area and MIA are not considered to be receptors. The existing barge loading area and MIA will use similar equipment and have comparable production rates as this project. The equipment at the Gulf Alumina’s barge loading area and MIA will have a higher noise impact on its own personnel than the noise generated by the Metro Mining equipment. Any personnel in this area are protected by occupational workplace legislation.

CDM Smith

Bauxite Hills


5 April 2016

Page 10 of 52


70Q-14-0405-TRP-519637-0

Figure 2-3: Sensitive Receptor Locations [CDM Smith, June 2015]

CDM Smith

Bauxite Hills


5 April 2016

Page 11 of 52


70Q-14-0405-TRP-519637-0

Table 2-2: Potential Sensitive Receptors [CDM Smith, 2015]

Receptor

ID Use

Location (UTM) Receptor

ID Use

Location (UTM)

Easting Northing Easting Northing

R1 Residential 599831 8668095 R25 Residential 596378 8674328




















R21 Residential 597195 8672488 R45 Airport 609931 8688034

R22 Residential 597145 8672605 R46 Mine Village 612967 8689835

R23 Residential 596798 8673017 R47 Offloading

Terminal 616653 8699937

R24 Residential 596513 8673761

CDM Smith

Bauxite Hills


5 April 2016

Page 12 of 52


70Q-14-0405-TRP-519637-0

3 REGULATORY FRAMEWORK

This section outlines the regulatory requirements the Project will be assessed against.

3.1 MODEL MINING CONDITIONS

The Queensland Environmental Protection Act 1994 (EP Act) provides for the granting of environmental authorities for resource activities – mining activities. In giving approval under the EP Act, the administering authority must address the regulatory requirements set out in the Environmental Protection Regulation 2008 and the standard criteria contained in the EP Act.

In December 2014, the ‘Guideline Mining - Model Mining Conditions (MMC)’ were published by the Department of Environment and Heritage Protection. The purpose of this guideline is to provide a set of model conditions to form general environmental protection commitments for the mining activities and the environmental authority conditions pursuant to the EP Act.

The Guideline states that the ‘model conditions should be applied to all new mining project applications lodged after the guideline is approved’, therefore this Project is subject to the noise criteria outlined in the guidelines. The methodology to derive the Project specific noise criteria is presented in Table 3-1.

Table 3-1: Noise Limits as Proposed by Model Mining Conditions [DEHP, 2014]

The holder of this environmental authority must ensure that noise generated by the mining activities does not exceed the criteria in Table D1 – Noise Limits of the EHP MMC at a sensitive place or commercial place.

Sensitive Place

Noise level dB(A)

measured as:

Monday to Saturday Sundays and Public Holidays

7am to 6pm 6pm to 10pm 10pm to 7am 9am to 6pm 6pm to 10pm 10pm to 9am

LAeq,Adj,15min CV = 50

AV = 5

CV = 45

AV = 5

CV = 40

AV = 0

CV = 45

AV = 5

CV = 40

AV = 5

CV = 35

AV = 0

LA1,Adj,15min CV = 50

AV = 10

CV = 50

AV = 10

CV = 45

AV = 5

CV = 50

AV = 10

CV = 45

AV = 10

CV = 40

AV = 5

Commercial Place

Noise level dB(A)

measured as:



LAeq,Adj,15min CV = 55

AV = 10

CV = 50

AV = 10

CV = 45

AV = 5

CV = 50

AV = 10

CV = 45

AV = 10

CV = 40

AV = 5

CV = Critical Value, AV = Adjustment Value

To calculate noise limits in Table D1:

• If background ≤ (CV – AV), then the noise limit = background + AV

• If (CV – AV) < background ≤ CV, then the noise limit = CV

• If background > CV, then the noise limit = background + 0

• In the event that measured background LA90,adj,15min is less than 30 dB(A), then 30 dB(A) can be substituted for the measured background level.

CDM Smith

Bauxite Hills


5 April 2016

Page 13 of 52


70Q-14-0405-TRP-519637-0

The Model Mining Conditions also provide noise and ground vibration criteria for blasting activities, however the Project will not include blasting activities, and therefore these criteria have not been presented and no vibration assessment is required. Additionally, vibration impacts from vehicle movements will not be considered due to the distances of the nearest receptors to the haul road and pit areas.

The MMC contains measurement and reporting requirements for low frequency noise complaints, these requirements are based on the Ecoaccess Draft Assessment of Low Frequency Noise Guideline (Department of Environment, Resources and Management, No date).

This assessment will assess the likelihood of low frequency noise complaints in accordance with the initial screening criteria as per the Ecoaccess Guideline:

‘Where a noise occurs exhibiting an unbalanced frequency spectra, the overall sound pressure level inside residences should not exceed 50 dB(Linear) to avoid complaints of low frequency noise annoyance. If the dB(Linear) measurement exceeds the dB(A) measurement by more than 15 dB, a one-third octave band measurement in the frequency range 10 to 200 Hz should be carried out’.

3.2 WORLD HEALTH ORGIANSATION

The ‘Night Noise Guidelines for Europe’ (World Health Organisation, 2009) present recent research into sleep disturbance and presents the 'observed effect level' (OEL) as the threshold criteria for sleep disturbance. The OEL is defined as 'the level above which an [health] effect starts to occur or shows itself to be dependent on the exposure level.' These thresholds are not binding, but recommended to prevent an increase in average motility (movement during sleep) when sleeping. There are two main thresholds, relating to sleep disturbance and well-being: Lnight and LAmax.

The Lnight,outside is the LAeq23:00-07:00 measured outside the most exposed façade, with a threshold of 42 dB(A). This threshold is based on a 25 dB attenuation provided by the facade of typical European building construction; in Queensland, the typical construction provides a conservative 7 dB facade noise reduction with windows open. Taking this into account, the adjusted external threshold for Lnight is recommended to be 24 dB(A). This noise level is 14 dB(A) below the existing (filtered) LAeq23:00-07:00 as presented in Table 5-1. This methodology is discussed in EIS Guidelines for Noise and Vibration (Department of Environment and Heritage Protection, No Date).

For intermittent noise sources, the most important descriptor is the LAmax,inside; the threshold for the LAmax is 42 dB(A) with no exceedences of the LAmax during any one night. In order to achieve this internal noise level, the external level should be adjusted taking into consideration typical building construction in Queensland. The adjusted LAmax outside is 49 dB(A) (7 dB(A) for transmission loss).

3.3 ENHEALTH COUNCIL 2004

The enHealth document ‘The Health Effects of Environmental Noise – Other Than Hearing Loss’ (Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing, 2004), presents a review of the health effects, other than hearing loss. The document also reviews both national and international measures directed at management of environmental noise, and provides recommendations on this aspect.

3.4 DERIVING PROJECT SPECIFIC NOISE CRITERIA

Based on the measured background noise levels (Section 5.3.3), the applicable noise limits according to the MMC are presented in Table 3-2.

CDM Smith

Bauxite Hills


5 April 2016

Page 14 of 52


70Q-14-0405-TRP-519637-0

Table 3-2: Site Specific Noise Criteria as per Model Mining Conditions Methodology [EHP, 2014]

Sensitive Receptor

Noise level dB(A)

measured as:



LAeq,Adj,15 min 35 35 30 35 35 35

LA1,Adj,15 min 50 47 37 48 45 41

Commercial Place

Noise level dB(A)

measured as:



LAeq,Adj,15 min 40 40 35 40 40 40

The operation of the Project will be 24 hours per day; therefore the Project will be subject to the daytime, evening and night time criteria presented in Table 3-2.

Table 3-2 shows that the LAeq, Adj 15 min daytime, evening and night time noise criteria is the same for Monday to Saturday operations, however the LA1, Adj 15 min criterion is lower on Sundays and public holidays than Monday to Saturday.

The applicable residential criteria for this assessment have been calculated as:

• Daytime: 35 dB LAeq, Adj 15 min and 48 dB LA1, Adj 15 min.

• Evening: 35 dB LAeq, Adj 15 min and 45 dB LA1, Adj 15 min.

• Night time: 30 dB LAeq, Adj 15 min and 37 dB LA1, Adj 15 min.

CDM Smith

Bauxite Hills


5 April 2016

Page 15 of 52


70Q-14-0405-TRP-519637-0

4 METHODOLOGY

This section outlines the methodologies for the fieldwork, noise monitoring data analysis and noise prediction used for this assessment.

4.1 FIELDWORK

Due to the remote location and low potential risk of the Project, project specific noise monitoring was not carried out specifically for this assessment, however raw noise monitoring data carried out by ASK for a nearby proposed bauxite mine was provided for this study. This is discussed further in Section 5.3.

ASK Consulting Engineers carried out a noise monitoring survey for Pisolite Hills Bauxite Project in January 2010. In the accompanying noise impact report, the noise monitoring data was assessed in accordance with Ecoaccess Guidelines ‘Planning for Noise Control’ (Queensland Environmental Protection Agency, 2008) and the Noise Measurement Manual (Department of Environment and Heritage Protection, 2013).

4.2 NOISE PREDICTION METHODOLOGY

4.2.1 MODELLING SOFTWARE

Noise level predictions have been assessed using the SoundPLAN noise modelling software using the CONCAWE (Manning, 1981) noise prediction methodology. The CONCAWE method was originally developed for predicting the long-distance propagation of noise from petrochemical complexes in the United Kingdom. It is especially suited to predicting noise propagation over large distances as it accounts for a range of atmospheric conditions that can significantly influence the propagation of noise over large distances, as required by the ‘EIS Information Guideline – Noise and Vibration’ (Department of Environment and Heritage Protection, No Date).

The prediction of noise in the environment requires the definition of the noise sources and sensitive receptors. A number of environmental parameters affect noise propagation, including:

• Geometric spreading;

• Obstacles such as enclosures, barriers, and buildings;

• Meteorological conditions such as air absorption, wind effects, temperature gradient effects; and

• Ground effects.

The SoundPLAN software and calculation methodology allows the environmental parameters identified above to be modelled.

4.2.2 METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS

Noise propagation over long distances can be significantly affected by the weather conditions, mainly source-to-receiver winds and temperature inversions, as both these conditions can increase noise levels at sensitive receptors.

The CONCAWE methodology can predict to one of six meteorological categories (CAT). To determine which category is modelled, the Pasquill Stability Classes need to be determined for the Project. For this assessment the weather conditions, including stability class frequencies at the proposed Project have been obtained from The Air Pollution Model (TAPM). TAPM is a three-dimensional prognostic model developed and verified by Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation (CSIRO). TAPM data was generated for the air quality assessment has been used for uniformity. The wind parameters were compared for the BOM and TAPM data and were found to be very similar.

CDM Smith

Bauxite Hills


5 April 2016

Page 16 of 52


70Q-14-0405-TRP-519637-0

Atmospheric stability refers to the tendency of the atmosphere to resist or enhance the motion of noise. The Pasquill-Gifford Stability Classes define the amount of turbulence in the air, of which the most widely used categories are Classes A-F. The TAPM generated meteorology determined the stability class for each hour of the year. The frequency of each stability class occurrence is shown in Table 4-1. Temperature inversions are defined as Class F, these conditions only occur with clear and calm conditions during the evening and night time periods. During temperature inversions noise emissions from distant sources can be amplified. During the evening period (18:00-22:00 hours), Class F occurs 46.5% of the hours.

Table 4-1: Annual Stability Class Distribution Predicted [TAPM, 2014]

Stability

Class Description

Frequency of Occurrence (%) and Average Wind Speed (m/s)

Annual Day Evening

Freq. Wind

Speed Freq.

Wind

Speed Freq.

Wind

Speed

A Very unstable low wind, clear skies,

hot daytime conditions 0.4% 2.7 0.9% 2.7 - -

B Unstable clear skies, daytime

conditions 11.0% 3.5 24.0% 3.5 - -

C Moderately unstable moderate

wind, slightly overcast conditions 20.7% 4.3 45.1% 4.3 - -

D Neutral high winds or cloudy days

and nights 26.5% 2.8 30.0% 3.2 38.1% 3.0

E Stable moderate wind, slightly

overcast night-time conditions 9.6% 2.6 - - 15.4% 2.6

F Very stable low winds, clear skies,

cold night-time conditions 31.8% 2.8 - - 46.5% 2.9

The wind roses are presented in Figure 4-1 and Figure 4-2 for the Mine site. Figure 4-1 shows that the dominant wind direction is from east and ESE during spring, autumn and winter, whilst in summer the wind is strongest from the NW. The nearest receptors, as shown in Figure 2-3, identify that the winds will transport the pollutants away from the receptors of concern.

A comparison of the wind roses at 09:00 and 15:00 hours was undertaken with the BOM long-term wind roses at Weipa Aerodrome, approximately 90 km from the Project site. The 09:00 hours wind roses from BOM and TAPM are very similar with slight differences in the percentage of time the wind blows from the East; the BOM wind rose, based on 6491 observations, identifies easterly winds accounting for 45% of the time whereas TAPM identifies the easterlies accounting for 53%. The 15:00 hours wind roses are similar; the BOM wind rose shows a higher frequency of south easterly winds (18%) to TAPM (10%) as well as westerly winds. These slight differences in wind are not considered to be of concern for this Project as the winds do not blow the pollutants towards the sensitive receptors. Overall, the meteorological data generated by TAPM is considered to be representative of the site.

CDM Smith

Bauxite Hills


5 April 2016

Page 17 of 52


70Q-14-0405-TRP-519637-0

Annual (Calm – 0.38%)

Spring (Calm – 0.14%)

Summer (Calm – 0.83%)

Autumn (Calm – 0.46%)

Winter (Calm – 0.10%)

Figure 4-1: Site-Specific Wind Roses by Season for 2014

CDM Smith

Bauxite Hills


5 April 2016

Page 18 of 52


70Q-14-0405-TRP-519637-0

00:00-06:00 (Calm – 0.35%)

06:00-12:00 (Calm – 0.27%)

12:00-18:00 (Calm – 0.35%)

18:00-00:00 (Calm – 0.55%)

Figure 4-2: Site-Specific Wind Roses by Time of Day for 2014

4.2.3 MODELLED WEATHER SCENARIOS

The EIS Information Guideline for Noise & Vibration (Department of Environment and Heritage Protection, No Date) requires the prediction of noise for ‘different times of under both average and worst-case climatic conditions’.

Reviewing the site specific wind speeds, wind direction and stability classes, it has been determined that the sensitive receptors are upwind of the noise sources. For the average assessment, this will be applied, however for the worst case assessment; source to receptor winds will be applied.

Taking into consideration of the time of day the Project will be operating the following weather scenarios have been assessed:

Daytime Assessment:

• Class D occurs for 30% of the time during assessable daytime hours, with an average wind speed of 3.19 m/s. Class D is considered to be neutral and assumed to have zero meteorological influence on noise propagation (Bies & Hansen, 2009). For this assessment, Class D will be modelled as ‘average’ weather conditions, including the dominant wind direction as presented by the wind roses; and

CDM Smith

Bauxite Hills


5 April 2016

Page 19 of 52


70Q-14-0405-TRP-519637-0

• Class C occurs for 45% of the time during assessable daytime hours, with an average wind speed of 4.27 m/s. For this assessment, Class C will be considered to be the ‘worst-case’ meteorological conditions during the daytime period including direct source to receptor winds.

Evening Assessment:

• Class D occurs for 38% of the time during assessable evening hours; however this stability class has zero meteorological influence on noise propagation (Bies & Hansen, 2009). Therefore prediction using stability Class D have not been assessed;

• Class E occurs for 15% of the time during assessable evening hours, with an average wind speed of 2.6 m/s. For this assessment, Class E will be considered the ‘average’ weather conditions including the dominant wind direction as presented by the wind roses in Figure 4-1;

• Class F occurs for 47% of the time during assessable evening hours, with an average wind speed of 2.9 m/s. Class F, or temperature inversions, are considered to be the worst case conditions for noise propagation and therefore will be assessed as the ‘worst case’ including direct source to receptor winds.

CDM Smith

Bauxite Hills


5 April 2016

Page 20 of 52


70Q-14-0405-TRP-519637-0

5 EXISTING ENVIRONMENT

This section describes the existing environment in terms of the environment values of the surrounding area, existing noise sources, which may be of concern and the noise monitoring details.

5.1 ENVIRONMENTAL VALUES

The area surrounding the proposed Project comprises predominately Darwin stringybark (Eucalyptus tetradonta) open forests, with some areas of wetlands, rivers and mangroves (Metro Mining, 2015). The mining area is considered to be of low biodiversity and is generally classified as ‘not of concern’ by the Queensland Government.

5.2 EXISTING SOURCES OF NOISE

There are minor activities associated with the Gulf Alumina mine, including the airstrip which generates noise in the vicinity of the Project site. However these noise sources will not be audible at the sensitive receptors and are considered low risk at the Project site. Other sources of noise include recreational boating on the Skardon River, camping at the mouth of the Skardon River, recreational hunting and the intermittent burning of illegal fishing boats by Carpentaria Infrastructure. All of these noise sources are also considered to be low risk.

5.3 NOISE MONITORING AT MAPOON

Noise monitoring was undertaken by ASK Consultants for the Pisolite Hills Project in January 2010.

The raw noise monitoring data was provided to CDM Smith for Vipac to analyse. Whilst using noise monitoring data from another project is not optimal, due to limited noise sources in the area, sparsely populated township of Mapoon and logistical issues associated with the Project Site, it was determined that existing noise monitoring data could be used to derive existing background concentrations.

Noise monitoring was carried out at Mapoon (Receptor ID R32 in Table 2-2 between Wednesday 27th January 2010 and Sunday 7th February 2010. Full details of the monitoring site are presented in Appendix C.

5.3.1 WEATHER CONDITIONS

The weather station was co-located at site with the noise logger and provides standard weather conditions in 15 minute intervals. A review of the weather conditions identifies the total rainfall was 30.8 mm, in small quantities and the maximum wind speed was 3.1 m/s.

5.3.2 INSECT NOISE

The EIS Information Guideline states that noise measurements should be undertaken during the winter months when background noise is less affected by insect noise. The noise measurements undertaken by ASK Consultants were obtained during the summer months and therefore the data needs to be filtered to remove the influence of insect noise.

According to the noise report by ASK for Pisolite Hills, insect noise was filtered by removing the 4 kHz frequency band. Reviewing the raw data, elevated noise levels at 3.15 kHz and 5 kHz were also identified. In Vipac’s experience these frequencies are also associated with insect noise and as such these frequency bands have also been removed from the LAeq, LAmax, LAmin and statistical data.

CDM Smith

Bauxite Hills


5 April 2016

Page 21 of 52


70Q-14-0405-TRP-519637-0

A review of the noise monitoring data collected at Mapoon for the Pisolite Hills Project determined that the overall noise levels were unusually high for a residential area even with the insect noise removed. A review of the noise monitoring data indicates that the background noise levels are mostly likely affected by mechanical equipment, i.e. air conditioners. Additionally, the weather station co-located with sound level meter states that no winds were >5 m/s. The cause of the elevated noise levels is unknown.

5.3.3 SUMMARY OF NOISE LEVELS

In accordance with EIS Information Guideline for Noise and Vibration (Department of Environment and Heritage Protection, No Date), the insect noise was removed from data as identified in Table 5-1. The noise data with frequencies 3.15 kHz – 5 kHz removed presents a more representative background noise level based on other monitoring data in similar locations.

Noise monitoring information and daily analysis of the data is presented in Appendix C. It should be noted that applying a higher background noise level will generate higher noise criteria against which the Project will be assessed. In order to derive the noise limits for the Project, the filtered data for 3.1 kHz – 5 kHz has been used as these noise levels are much lower than the unfiltered data and therefore a lower criterion will be derived. The removal of these frequencies provides data more representative of the existing environment in accordance with EIS Information Guideline for Noise and Vibration. The filtered noise logging results are shown in Figure 5-1 and the resulting noise criteria are presented in Section 3.4.

Table 5-1: Comparison of Noise Monitoring Results at Mapoon from 27th January to 7th February 2010

CDM Smith

Bauxite Hills


5 April 2016

Page 22 of 52


70Q-14-0405-TRP-519637-0

Noise

Descriptor Time Period for All Days

Overall Noise Levels dB(A) with Difference in Brackets

Unfiltered Data Filtered Data

(4 kHz removed)

Filtered Data

(3.1 to 5 kHz removed)

LAMAX Night (10pm to 7am) 72.9 72.2 (-0.7) 71.9 (-1.0)

LAeq,T Average

Day (7am to 6pm) 45.3 45.0 (-0.3) 44.4 (-0.9)

Evening (6pm to 10pm) 49.0 48.2 (-0.8) 43.6 (-5.4)

Night (10pm to 7am) 47.5 46.1 (-1.4) 40.8 (-6.7)

LA1,T Average

Day (7am to 6pm) 53.7 53.5 (-0.2) 52.5 (-1.2)

Evening (6pm to 10pm) 53.5 52.6 (-0.9) 46.5 (-7.0)

Night (10pm to 7am) 53.3 51.7 (-1.6) 44.8 (-8.5)

LA10,T Average

Day (7am to 6pm) 44.9 44.6 (-0.3) 44.0 (-0.9)

Evening (6pm to 10pm) 48.3 47.5 (-0.8) 40.6 (-7.7)

Night (10pm to 7am) 48.7 47.3 (-1.4) 39.6 (-9.1)

LA90,T Average

Day (7am to 6pm) 38.4 38.2 (-0.2) 37.5 (-0.9)

Evening (6pm to 10pm) 39.3 38.1 (-1.2) 35.0 (-4.3)

Night (10pm to 7am) 42.1 40.1 (-2.0) 38.6 (-3.5)

Figure 5-1: Noise Logging Results with 3.15 - 5 kHz Frequency Bands Removed

CDM Smith

Bauxite Hills


5 April 2016

Page 23 of 52


70Q-14-0405-TRP-519637-0

6 NOISE MODELLING DETAILS

This section details the noise sources used in the prediction of the noise levels at the sensitive receptors, including the proposed equipment, location of the equipment and the associated sound power levels (SWL).

6.1 PHASES OF THE PROJECT MODELLED

Preparation of the site for construction of infrastructure involves clearing and burning of vegetation. These activities have the potential to cause high levels of noise if not appropriately managed, however the noise will be relatively short in duration. During the construction phase less equipment will be utilised, therefore the noise impacts during construction are likely to be less than the predicted operational levels. As such the construction phase is not considered significant and has not been assessed. This approach is common place where sensitive receptors are far away from the development and the temporary nature of the construction phase.

Operational activities that have potential to cause noise impacts include:

• Airstrip;

• Extraction, transport, screening and dumping of material from mining areas;

• Material transfers along haul roads, and associated activities including stockpiling at the barge loading area;

• Barge and ship movements; and

• Electricity generation for the mine and accommodation camp.

Noise emissions from mining operations are largely dependent on the site layout, extraction methods, transportation methods, and vehicle fleet. The production schedule has been reviewed and it is expected production will be consistent year on year with a maximum annual output of 5 Mtpa, following a short ramp up period. Hence a single scenario has been assessed for this expected throughput.

6.2 EQUIPMENT

Metro Mining provided the equipment list schedules for the life of the Project for the mobile plant as detailed in Section 2. These noise sources have been included in the model, as presented in Table 6-1 and Table 6-2.

CDM Smith

Bauxite Hills


5 April 2016

Page 24 of 52


70Q-14-0405-TRP-519637-0

Table 6-1: Equipment Quantity by Year

Location and

Equipment

Quantity of Equipment by Year

17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

MINING 5 7 8 8 8 8 8 7 8 8 8

Cat 992 Pit 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 2 2 2

Cat 992 Ore - - - - - - - - - - -

Cat 992 Waste - - - - - - - - - - -

Cat 992 Rom 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Rom Screen 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Rom Stacker 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Cat 992 Portloader1 1 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

Cat 992 Port Loader 2 - - - - - - - - - - -

TRUCKS 3 5 7 7 8 8 8 5 5 4 4

Ore Trucks 2 4 6 6 7 7 7 4 4 3 3

Scrapers 637 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

ANCILLARY 5 5 6 6 6 7 7 5 5 6 5

Grade16m 1 1 2 2 2 2 2 1 1 1 1

D10 1 1 1 1 1 2 2 1 1 2 1

Water Truck 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Service Truck 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Fuel Truck 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

SUPPORT MACHINES 10 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14 14

WA380 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Lighting Towers 4 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8

Roller 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Crane 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1

Dewatering Pumps 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3

6.3 LOCATION OF SOURCES

The noise sources have been modelled to reflect the mining schedule as shown in Appendix B for 2024. This is when the production is at 4.9 MTPA but also closest to the sensitive receptors. The locations of sources are presented in Figure 6-1.

CDM Smith

Bauxite Hills


5 April 2016

Page 25 of 52


70Q-14-0405-TRP-519637-0

Figure 6-1: Location of Noise Sources as Modelled for the Mining Years 2024

CDM Smith

Bauxite Hills


5 April 2016

Page 26 of 52


70Q-14-0405-TRP-519637-0

6.4 SOUND POWER LEVELS

The significant operational noise sources used for this assessment are identified in Figure 6-1 and Table 6-2. The following sources have been referred to in establishing associated sound power levels (SWL) noise sources:

• Vipac’s database, which includes noise measurements of plant measured at existing mine sites;

• Caterpillar (CAT) provided SWL data;

• Noise report for Pisolite Hills Bauxite Project (ASK Consulting Engineers, 2010); and

• Australian Standard AS 2436 (2010) ‘Guide to Noise and Vibration Control on Construction, Demolition and Maintenance Site’ which includes the database of construction and open sites as provided in British Standard BS 5228:1 (2009) ‘Code of Practice for Noise and Vibration Control on Construction and Open Sites – Part 1: Noise’.

The noise impacts from the barge will be insignificant compared to the other operational noise sources. As the barge loading area is the furthest away from the sensitive receptors the impacts will not contribute to the overall noise levels experienced at the sensitive receptors. Additionally, aircraft noise sources have not been modelled due to the infrequent use of the airstrip compared to the typical mining operations.

Table 6-2: Modelled Sound Power Levels

Plant Frequency (dB(Z)) SWL

(dB(A)) 63 Hz 125 Hz 250 Hz 500 Hz 1 kHz 2 kHz 4 kHz 8 kHz

FEL (CAT 992) 107 117 104 109 107 106 100 95 112

Excavator (CAT 329) 101 105 106 106 105 104 100 93 111

Tracked Dozer (CAT D10) 117 116 109 109 107 107 100 94 113

Wheeled Dozer (CAT 834) 107 117 104 109 107 106 100 95 112

Grader (CAT 16H) 109 114 116 111 109 106 100 94 114

Water Truck (CAT 773) 113 108 99 99 98 96 87 79 102

Service Truck 113 108 99 99 98 96 87 79 102

Lighting Plant 131 118 108 101 97 95 93 91 109

Dewatering Pump 96 95 96 99 102 100 96 90 106

B-Triples 114 113 109 103 104 104 102 99 118

Generator (250 kW) 96 97 97 100 103 104 100 91 108

Generator (500 kW) 99 100 100 103 106 107 103 94 111

Conveyor 91 85 85 76 76 75 80 82 86

Conveyor Drive 99 97 96 99 103 95 91 85 105

Stacker/Reclaimer 117 105 100 97 94 86 83 85 100

Screen 107 106 105 102 98 95 90 86 104

CDM Smith

Bauxite Hills


5 April 2016

Page 27 of 52


70Q-14-0405-TRP-519637-0

7 IMPACT ASSESSMENT

This section details the results of the noise modelling exercise and the impacts at the sensitive receptors. As discussed in Section 4.2.3 the following scenarios were modelled for the daytime and evening periods:

Daytime Assessment:

• Class D has been modelled as ‘average’ weather conditions, including dominant wind directions; and

• Class C has been modelled as the ‘worst-case’ meteorological conditions during the daytime period, including direction source to receptor wind directions.

Evening and Night-time Assessment:

• Class E has been modelled as ‘average’ weather conditions, including dominant wind directions; and

• Class F has been assessed as the ‘worst case’ meteorological conditions during the evening time period, including direction source to receptor wind directions.

7.1 DAYTIME NOISE PREDICTIONS

As discussed in Section 6.1, during the construction phase less equipment will be utilised, therefore the noise impacts during construction are likely to be less than the predicted operational levels. As such the construction phase is not considered significant and has not been assessed.

Table 7-1 and Table 7-2 present the predicted noise levels at sensitive receptors for the operational phase of 5 Mtpa. The associated noise contour maps are presented in Appendix D.

The results show that the noise levels from the Project for the daytime period are predicted to be well below the applicable criteria for the LAeq and LA1 at all sensitive receptors, with the exception of the mine village.

Residential Receptors in Mapoon:

• The highest daytime noise level at residential receptors will occur at R4, which is located at the southern end of the mouth of the Ducie River. This has been attributed to the topography and the reflective nature of the larger water body.

• The highest noise level at a residential receptor in Mapoon is predicted to be 18 dB LAeq, day, which is below the 35 dB LAeq, day criterion; and

• During the daytime period, the highest noise level at residential receptors will occur at R4, with a predicted LA1, day noise level of 23 dB(A). A review of the LA1, day has identified that the noise spectrum at these receptors will be below 160 Hz. At these receptors, the road trucks dominate the overall noise source contributions.

Gulf Alumina Accommodation Camp:

• The noise levels at the existing Gulf Alumina accommodation camp exceed the criteria for the daytime period; and

• The highest daytime LAeq is 62 dB(A), which is a 27 dB(A) exceedence of the 35 dB(A) criterion.

CDM Smith

Bauxite Hills


5 April 2016

Page 28 of 52


70Q-14-0405-TRP-519637-0

Airport:

The noise levels generated by the airstrip have not been assessed due to the relative infrequency of the flights. As the noise levels associated with the use of the airstrip will have a greater impact upon the airport users than the impacts of the mining operations.

• A review of the results has shown that the second highest daytime LAeq and LA1noise level will occur at the Airport receptor, however these noise levels will comply with the applicable criteria; and

• A review of the LAeq, day results has identified that the highest source contributions to the noise levels at the airport are generated from the haul truck movements and electricity generators contributing 22 dB(A) and 12 dB(A) respectively. These sources will dominate the noise environment at the airport.

CDM Smith

Bauxite Hills


5 April 2016

Page 29 of 52


70Q-14-0405-TRP-519637-0

Table 7-1: Predicted Daytime Noise Levels from Proposed Operations

Receptor ID

Daytime

Criteria

(LAeq/LA1)

Predicted Noise Level (dB)

LAeq, 07:00-18:00 hours


LA1, 07:00-18:00 hours Compliance with Criteria

Class C Class D Class C Class D LAeq LA1

R1 35/48 14 11 19 16 � �

R2 35/48 14 11 19 16 � �

R3 35/48 14 13 19 18 � �

R4 35/48 18 18 22 23 � �

R5 35/48 14 12 19 16 � �

R6 35/48 14 12 19 16 � �

R7 35/48 14 12 19 16 � �

R8 35/48 14 12 19 16 � �

R9 35/48 15 13 19 17 � �

R10 35/48 14 12 19 16 � �

R11 35/48 14 12 19 17 � �

R12 35/48 14 12 19 17 � �

R13 35/48 14 12 19 17 � �

R14 35/48 14 12 19 17 � �

R15 35/48 14 12 19 17 � �

R16 35/48 14 12 19 17 � �

R17 35/48 14 12 19 17 � �

R18 35/48 14 12 19 17 � �

R19 35/48 14 12 19 17 � �

R20 35/48 14 12 19 17 � �

R21 35/48 14 12 19 17 � �

R22 35/48 14 13 19 17 � �

R23 35/48 14 13 19 18 � �

R24 35/48 14 13 19 18 � �

R25 35/48 14 12 18 17 � �

R26 35/48 14 13 19 17 � �

R27 35/48 14 13 19 17 � �

R28 35/48 14 13 19 17 � �

R29 35/48 14 12 19 16 � �

R30 35/48 14 13 19 18 � �

R31 35/48 14 13 19 18 � �

R32 35/48 14 13 19 18 � �

R33 35/48 15 14 19 18 � �

R34 35/48 15 13 19 18 � �

R35 35/48 15 14 19 18 � �

R36 35/48 15 14 19 18 � �

R37 35/48 15 14 20 18 � �

R38 35/48 15 14 20 19 � �

R39 35/48 14 12 19 16 � �

R40 35/48 15 14 20 19 � �

R41 35/48 15 14 20 19 � �

R42 35/48 16 14 20 19 � �

R43 35/48 16 15 20 19 � �

R44 35/48 14 12 19 16 � �

Airport 40/- 27 26 31 31 � �

Village 35/48 41 44 45 47 � �

CDM Smith

Bauxite Hills


5 April 2016

Page 30 of 52


70Q-14-0405-TRP-519637-0

7.2 EVENING NOISE PREDICTIONS

As discussed in Section 6.1, during the construction phase less equipment will be utilised, therefore the noise impacts during construction are likely to be less than the predicted operational levels. As such the construction phase is not considered significant and has not been assessed (see Section 6.1 for more information).

Table 7-1 and Table 7-2 present the predicted noise levels at sensitive receptors for the operational phase of 5 Mtpa. The associated noise contour maps are presented in Appendix D.

The results show that the noise levels from the Project for the evening period are predicted to be well below the applicable criteria for the LAeq and LA1 at all sensitive receptors with the exception of the mine village.

Residential Receptors in Mapoon:

• The highest noise level at a residential receptor in Mapoon is predicted to be 18 dB LAeq, evening, which is below the 35 dB LAeq, evening criterion.

• The highest evening noise level at residential receptors will occur at R4, R42 and R43; and

• During the evening period, the highest noise level at residential receptors will occur at R4, with a predicted LA1, evening noise level of 28 dB(A). A review of the LA1, evening has identified that the noise spectrum at these receptors will be below 160 Hz. At these receptors, the road trucks dominate the overall noise source contributions.

Gulf Alumina Accommodation Camp:

• The noise levels at the existing Gulf Alumina accommodation camp exceed the criteria for the evening period. The noise levels at the camp are dominated by the haul truck movements;

• The highest evening LAeq is 62 dB(A), which is an 27 dB(A) exceedence of the 35 dB(A) criterion;

• The Gulf Alumina accommodation camp is located relatively close to the airport, however the aircraft movements associated with this Project will not be as frequent as the haul truck movements.

Airport:

The noise levels generated by the airstrip have not been assessed due to the relative infrequency of the flights. The noise levels associated with the use of the airstrip will have a greater impact upon the airport users than the impacts of the mining operations will have on the airport users.

The second highest predicted evening LAeq and LA1 noise level, generated by mining operations, will occur at the Airport receptor; however the noise levels will comply with the applicable criteria.

7.3 NIGHT TIME NOISE PREDICTIONS

The night time predicted noise levels are the same as the evening predicted noise levels as the meteorological parameters modelled are the same. The only difference is the assessable criteria for the night time period which is 30 dB(A) LAeq, night and 37 dB(A) LA1, night for all receptors except the airport which remains at 40 dB(A) LAeq, night. The highest noise level at a residential receptor in Mapoon is predicted to be 18 dB LAeq, night, which is below the 30 dB LAeq, night criterion.

The associated noise contour maps are presented in Appendix D.

CDM Smith

Bauxite Hills


5 April 2016

Page 31 of 52


70Q-14-0405-TRP-519637-0

Table 7-2: Predicted Evening Noise Levels from Proposed Operations

Receptor ID

Evening

Time

Criteria

(LAeq/LA1)


LAeq, 18:00-22:00 hours


LA1, 18:00-22:00 hours Compliance with Criteria

Class E Class F Class E Class F LAeq LA1

R1 35/45 11 11 20 21 � �

R2 35/45 11 11 20 21 � �

R3 35/45 16 13 26 22 � �

R4 35/45 18 18 28 27 � �

R5 35/45 12 12 21 21 � �

R6 35/45 12 12 21 21 � �

R7 35/45 12 12 21 21 � �

R8 35/45 12 12 22 21 � �

R9 35/45 13 13 17 17 � �

R10 35/45 12 12 22 21 � �

R11 35/45 13 12 22 21 � �

R12 35/45 13 12 22 21 � �

R13 35/45 13 12 22 21 � �

R14 35/45 13 12 22 21 � �

R15 35/45 13 12 23 21 � �

R16 35/45 14 12 23 21 � �

R17 35/45 14 12 23 21 � �

R18 35/45 14 12 23 22 � �

R19 35/45 14 12 24 22 � �

R20 35/45 14 12 24 22 � �

R21 35/45 15 12 24 22 � �

R22 35/45 15 13 24 22 � �

R23 35/45 16 13 25 22 � �

R24 35/45 16 13 25 22 � �

R25 35/45 16 12 25 22 � �

R26 35/45 16 13 25 22 � �

R27 35/45 16 13 26 22 � �

R28 35/45 16 13 26 22 � �

R29 35/45 11 12 20 21 � �

R30 35/45 16 13 26 22 � �

R31 35/45 17 13 26 22 � �

R32 35/45 17 13 26 22 � �

R33 35/45 17 14 26 23 � �

R34 35/45 17 13 26 23 � �

R35 35/45 17 14 26 23 � �

R36 35/45 17 14 26 23 � �

R37 35/45 17 14 27 23 � �

R38 35/45 17 14 27 23 � �

R39 35/45 11 12 21 21 � �

R40 35/45 17 14 27 23 � �

R41 35/45 17 14 27 24 � �

R42 35/45 18 15 27 24 � �

R43 35/45 18 15 27 24 � �

R44 35/45 12 12 21 21 � �

Airport 40/- 27 27 36 36 � �

Village 35/45 61 62 61 62 � �

CDM Smith

Bauxite Hills


5 April 2016

Page 32 of 52


70Q-14-0405-TRP-519637-0

7.4 LOW FREQUENCY ASSESSMENT

A low frequency screening assessment was undertaken at all noise sensitive receivers as shown in Table 7-3.

The overall sound pressure level inside residences should not exceed 50 dB(Linear) to avoid complaints of low frequency noise annoyance. If the dB(Linear) measurement exceeds the dB(A) measurement by more than 15 dB, a one-third octave band measurement should be carried out’.

Low frequency impacts are not expected at any of the residential receptors in Mapoon during the daytime, evening or night time periods.

The Gulf Alumina accommodation camp is predicted to exceed a linear noise level of 50 dB(Z), however the predicted level is less than 15 dB(A) above the LAeq prediction, therefore a one-third octave band assessment is not required and low frequency is not expected to be an issue at the Gulf Alumina accommodation camp.

Noise levels are also predicted to comply with low frequency noise criteria at the airport where noise impacts are not expected to be significant as the airport will only be in use when flights are scheduled and the airport is a source of low-frequency noise during operation.

CDM Smith

Bauxite Hills


5 April 2016

Page 33 of 52


70Q-14-0405-TRP-519637-0

Table 7-3: Low Frequency Night Time Noise Level from Proposed Operations

Receptor ID

Low Freq.

Criteria

(dB(Z))

Predicted Night

Noise Level (dB)

LZeq, 22:00-07:00 hours

Predicted Night

Noise Level (dB)

LAeq, 22:00-07:00 hours

Difference Compliance with

Criteria

R1 50 32 11 21 �

R2 50 32 11 21 �

R3 50 33 13 21 �

R4 50 42 18 25 �

R5 50 33 12 21 �

R6 50 32 12 21 �

R7 50 33 12 21 �

R8 50 33 12 21 �

R9 50 34 13 22 �

R10 50 32 12 21 �

R11 50 33 12 21 �

R12 50 33 12 21 �

R13 50 33 12 21 �

R14 50 33 12 21 �

R15 50 33 12 21 �

R16 50 33 12 21 �

R17 50 33 12 21 �

R18 50 33 12 21 �

R19 50 33 12 21 �

R20 50 33 12 21 �

R21 50 34 12 21 �

R22 50 34 13 21 �

R23 50 34 13 21 �

R24 50 34 13 21 �

R25 50 33 12 21 �

R26 50 33 13 21 �

R27 50 33 13 20 �

R28 50 33 13 21 �

R29 50 32 12 21 �

R30 50 33 13 21 �

R31 50 33 13 21 �

R32 50 34 13 21 �

R33 50 35 14 21 �

R34 50 34 13 21 �

R35 50 34 14 21 �

R36 50 34 14 21 �

R37 50 35 14 21 �

R38 50 35 14 21 �

R39 50 32 12 21 �

R40 50 35 14 21 �

R41 50 35 14 21 �

R42 50 35 15 21 �

R43 50 36 15 21 �

R44 50 33 12 21 �

Airport 50 49 27 23 �

Village 50 65 62 4 �

CDM Smith

Bauxite Hills


5 April 2016

Page 34 of 52


70Q-14-0405-TRP-519637-0

7.5 CUMULATIVE IMPACTS

In order to assess cumulative impacts, the potential impacts from the Skardon River Project have been reviewed. The Skardon River Project is located adjacent to the Bauxite Hills Project, however the Skardon Mine extends further south towards the sensitive receptors in Mapoon. The Skardon River Project has an expected peak production rate of 5 Mtpa.

The Skardon River EIS Noise Impact Assessment (Matrix Acoustics, 2015) has identified “the maximum noise impact from simultaneous operations at the southern-most extent of the Project area, the port, power generation, and an aircraft at take-off power at the airport was calculated to be 18.6 dB(A)” at R1

The predicted noise levels from the Skardon River Project were not available for all receptors, in the absence of predicted noise levels for each receptor; the results from the Skardon River Project have been rounded up to 19 dB(A) and applied to all receptors to present a worst-case scenario.

The cumulative impacts are presented in Table 7-4 and show that the cumulative impacts from Bauxite Hills and Skardon River Projects comply at all sensitive receptors in Mapoon. The Skardon River Project did not provide predictions for the airport or the accommodation village; therefore cumulative impacts can’t be derived due to the proximity of these receptors to the Skardon River Project.

The noise levels at all sensitive receptors are expected to be dominated by the noise sources associated with the Skardon River Project due to its closer proximity to the receptors in Mapoon.

7.6 SIGNIFICANCE OF IMPACTS

Predicted noise levels from project operations show that noise levels are unlikely to impact nearest noise sensitive receivers located in Mapoon. Predicted noise levels are also much lower than the measured background noise levels (as shown in Table 5-1) where the background noise level during the evening for the whole monitoring period (with frequency bands 3.1 – 5 kHz removed) was 35 dB LA90, evening. It is unlikely that noise from the Project will be audible at noise sensitive receivers in Mapoon, which are located approximately 18 km from the Project.

CDM Smith

Bauxite Hills


5 April 2016

Page 35 of 52


70Q-14-0405-TRP-519637-0

Table 7-4: Cumulative Impacts of Bauxite Hills and Skardon River Mine

Receptor

ID

Highest Predicted Noise Level (dB)

LAeq, 07:00-18:00 hours

Highest Predicted Noise Level (dB)

LAeq, 22:00-07:00 hours

Compliance

with

Criteria Bauxite Skardon Cumulative Bauxite Skardon Cumulative

R1 14 19 20 11 19 19 �

R2 14 19 20 11 19 19 �

R3 14 19 20 16 19 21 �

R4 18 19 21 18 19 22 �

R5 14 19 20 12 19 19 �

R6 14 19 20 12 19 19 �

R7 14 19 20 12 19 19 �

R8 14 19 20 12 19 20 �

R9 15 19 20 13 19 20 �

R10 14 19 20 12 19 20 �

R11 14 19 20 13 19 20 �

R12 14 19 20 13 19 20 �

R13 14 19 20 13 19 20 �

R14 14 19 20 13 19 20 �

R15 14 19 20 13 19 20 �

R16 14 19 20 14 19 20 �

R17 14 19 20 14 19 20 �

R18 14 19 20 14 19 20 �

R19 14 19 20 14 19 20 �

R20 14 19 20 14 19 20 �

R21 14 19 20 15 19 20 �

R22 14 19 20 15 19 20 �

R23 14 19 20 16 19 20 �

R24 14 19 20 16 19 20 �

R25 14 19 20 16 19 20 �

R26 14 19 20 16 19 21 �

R27 14 19 20 16 19 21 �

R28 14 19 20 16 19 21 �

R29 14 19 20 12 19 19 �

R30 14 19 20 16 19 21 �

R31 14 19 20 17 19 21 �

R32 14 19 20 17 19 21 �

R33 15 19 20 17 19 21 �

R34 15 19 20 17 19 21 �

R35 15 19 20 17 19 21 �

R36 15 19 20 17 19 21 �

R37 15 19 20 17 19 21 �

R38 15 19 20 17 19 21 �

R39 14 19 20 12 19 19 �

R40 15 19 20 17 19 21 �

R41 15 19 20 17 19 21 �

R42 16 19 20 18 19 21 �

R43 16 19 20 18 19 21 �

R44 14 19 20 12 19 19 �

CDM Smith

Bauxite Hills


5 April 2016

Page 36 of 52


70Q-14-0405-TRP-519637-0

8 IMPACTS ON FAUNA

The DEHP EIS Information Guideline – Noise and Vibration requires that a fauna assessment “should assess the potential environmental impacts of noise and vibration on terrestrial and marine animals and birds, including migratory species and on any nearby protected areas – also addressing amenity”.

There are no current government policies or other accepted guidelines that provide recommended noise level thresholds or limits in relation to noise impact on terrestrial fauna. In Australia there are no noise studies presently available that deal with noise impacts on native species for long-term exposure, therefore a general literature review has been carried out for potential fauna impacts.

There is limited knowledge or understanding of the effects of noise on fauna given that the research and studies on animals to date has been limited to small, disconnected, anecdotal or correlational studies as opposed to coherent programs of controlled experiments (Manci et al (1988), Larkin, (1996), Radle, (1998), Wyle (2003), Warren et al, (2006), Dooling and Popper (2007) and (Dooling, Fay, and Popper (2000). Noise may adversely affect wildlife by interfering with communication, masking the sounds of predators and prey and causing stress or avoidance reactions, and in some cases may lead to changes in reproductive or nesting behaviour. At sufficiently high levels, noise could cause temporary or permanent hearing damage.

In general, Radle (2007) states the consensus that terrestrial animals will avoid any industrial or plant or construction area where noise or vibration presents an annoyance to them. Additionally, Radle (2007) observed many animals react to new noise initially as a potential threat (potentially followed by startle/fright and avoidance), but quickly ‘learn’ that the noise is not associated with a threat. Most wildlife is generally mobile and will act to avoid noise and vibration if it is perceived to be annoying.

The response to noise by animals can depend on a wide variety of factors including noise level, noise spectrum (frequency distribution), noise characteristics (such as impulsiveness, rate of onset, tonality, modulation etc.), duration, temporal variation, number and type of events, level of ambient noise, time of day/season/year, and the animal’s age, sex, type of activity at the time, breeding situation and past experience, and the type of animal species/genera, hearing thresholds, individual differences etc.

Studies have shown the reaction to noise can vary from species to species, including those that are known to have adapted to human activity. Environment Australia (1998) suggests that unusual noise, in combination with close proximity visual stimulation, is enough to disturb any animal, including humans. In addition, any sudden and unexpected intrusion, whether acoustic or of another nature, may also produce a startle or panic reaction.

Studies of the impact of the sonic boom on domestic and wild animals show that these species are unaffected by repeated booms and farmers have reported birds actually perching on scare guns after only a couple of days operation (Environment Australia, 1998). From a literature review, it has been considered that noise levels up to 60 dB(A) do not result in negative or adverse response to impacted animals or livestock. Noise levels up to 80 dB(A) can generate startle responses in birds and animals, and noise levels in excess of 90 dB(A) may cause negative impact such as behavioural responses.

The predicted noise levels from the Project operations are typically below 60 dB(A) at the MLA boundary and these noise levels are not expected to cause adverse response to impacted animals or livestock. The highest LAeq within the MLA boundary is predicted to be 96 dB(A). Typically, animals will avoid high noise areas and it is expected that animals will relocate away from such areas. In addition, the relatively low level of impulsive or low frequency noise at distance from mine operations is not likely to cause effects on domestic or wild animals. The noise and vibration from haul truck movements could potentially produce the most likely occurrence of impact on animals (that are located near the haul road at the time of such truck passby events).

CDM Smith

Bauxite Hills


5 April 2016

Page 37 of 52


70Q-14-0405-TRP-519637-0

To summarise, the impacts of noise on animals is generally inconclusive. In general, there is no or little evidence of cause and effect regarding behavioural or physiological effects on domestic animals, and possibly slight evidence of some effects on some types of wild animals (especially for high or impulsive levels of noise). Finally, it is noted that animals tend to habituate to disturbances over time, particularly when it is steady and associated with non-threatening activity.

CDM Smith

Bauxite Hills


5 April 2016

Page 38 of 52


70Q-14-0405-TRP-519637-0

9 NOISE CONTROL AND MITIGATION OPTIONS

Noise modelling results indicate noise levels from the Project are likely to comply with the criteria, and no mitigation measures would be required. However general noise control measures have been discussed in this section to present best practice for noise control and minimisation noise emission.

9.1 NOISE CONTROL HIERARCHY

Section 9 of the EPP (Noise) Policy (Queensland Government, 2008) outlines the hierarchy preference in which noise should be dealt with. In the first instance, the Policy recommends that:

1. Noise be avoided; however if this is not possible, 2. The minimisation of noise through either:

a. Re-orientation of an activity or b. Use of Best Available Technology (BAT); and

3. Management of noise.

9.2 BEST PRACTICE NOISE CONTROL

Many general measures can reduce noise levels at the source such as:

• Training staff to operate the equipment in order to minimise unnecessary noise emissions. This could be achieved during site inductions and regular training programs;

• Avoiding unnecessary revving of engines and switch off equipment when not required;

• Keeping internal roads well maintained;

• Using rubber linings in or constrained layer damping on, for example, chutes and dumpers to reduce impact noise;

• Minimise the drop heights of materials;

• Use ultra-low noise idlers on the conveyors; the noise reduction associated with these are generally 5 - 10 dB(A);

• Start-up plant and vehicles sequentially rather than all together. The movement of plant onto and around the site should have regard to the normal operating hours of the site and the location of any sensitive receptors as far as is reasonably practicable;

• Audible reversing warning systems on mobile plant and vehicles should be of a type which, whilst ensuring that they give proper warning, has minimum noise impact on persons outside sites. Some audible warning systems can provide 2 - 3 dB(A) noise reduction. When reversing, mobile plant and vehicles should travel in a direction away from sensitive receptors whenever possible;

• As far as reasonably practicable, sources of significant noise should be enclosed. The extent to which this can be done depends on the nature of the machine or process to be enclosed and their ventilation requirements. A typical enclosure can provide 10 - 20 dB(A) depending on the material;

• Plant should always be used in accordance with manufacturers’ instructions. Care should be taken to site equipment away from noise sensitive areas. Where possible, loading and unloading should also be carried out away from such areas;

CDM Smith

Bauxite Hills


5 April 2016

Page 39 of 52


70Q-14-0405-TRP-519637-0

• Machines such as cranes that might have intermittent use should be shut down between work periods or should be throttled down to a minimum. Machines should not be left running unnecessarily, as this can be noisy and wastes energy;

• Plant from which the noise generated is known to be particularly directional should, wherever practicable, be orientated so that the noise is directed away from noise-sensitive areas; and

• Acoustic covers to engines should be kept closed when the engines are in use and idling. If compressors are used, they should have effective acoustic enclosures with self-closing doors and be designed to operate only when their access panels are closed. The performance of the acoustic covers should be reviewed to ensure the highest level of acoustic attenuation especially at lower frequencies.

The accommodation village exceeds the applicable criteria and mitigation measures such as acoustic building treatments and noise barriers should be considered to reduce the noise impact on the village.

9.3 MONITORING PROGRAMME

Given predicted noise levels are well below the noise criteria, a monitoring programme is not considered necessary. However, in the event that a complaint is made, it is recommended that the monitoring is undertaken in accordance with the Model Mining Conditions, as detailed in Table 9-1.

Table 9-1: Noise Monitoring and Reporting in Accordance with the MMC [DEHP, 2014]

Noise monitoring and recording must include the following descriptor characteristics and matters:

• LAN,T (where N equals the statistical levels of 1, 10 and 90 and T = 15 mins);

• Background noise LA90;

• The level and frequency of occurrence of impulsive or tonal noise and any adjustment and penalties to statistical levels;

• Atmospheric conditions including temperature, relative humidity and wind speed and directions;

• Effects due to any extraneous factors such as traffic noise;

• Location, date and time of monitoring; and

• If the complaint concerns low frequency noise, Max LpLIN,T and one third octave band measurements in dB(LIN) for centre frequencies in the 10 – 200 Hz range.

CDM Smith

Bauxite Hills


5 April 2016

Page 40 of 52


70Q-14-0405-TRP-519637-0

10 CONCLUSIONS

The purpose of this assessment was to evaluate the potential impacts of noise and vibration generated from the operation of the Project and to provide recommendations to mitigate any potential impacts that might have an effect on nearby sensitive receptors in accordance with EIS Information Guideline – Noise and Vibration and the Model Mining Conditions.

Raw noise measurement data was provided from a previous assessment for the nearby Pisolite Hills project and Vipac analysed the data to determine the existing noise levels in the area and define the applicable noise criteria for the operational stage of the Project. Noise modelling was undertaken to predict noise levels from the Project activities at the sensitive receptors.

Based on the noise prediction results, noise levels for the operation are expected to comply with the EHP Model Mining Conditions at all noise sensitive receivers in Mapoon under both average and worst case meteorological conditions. Noise levels are also predicted to comply with low frequency noise criteria. The predicted noise levels at the mine village exceed the applicable criteria and mitigation measures have been proposed to reduce noise impacts.

The cumulative impacts from the Bauxite Hills and Skardon River Projects comply at all sensitive receptors in Mapoon, However, the Skardon River Project did not provide predictions for the airport or the accommodation village therefore cumulative impacts can’t be derived due to the proximity of these receptors to the Skardon River Project. Overall, terrestrial noise should not be considered a constraint to the approval of this Project.

CDM Smith

Bauxite Hills


5 April 2016

Page 41 of 52


70Q-14-0405-TRP-519637-0

11 BIBLIOGRAPHY

ASK Consulting Engineers. (2010, May 17). Pisolite Hils Bauxite Project - Draft Noise & Vibration Impact Assessment . Brisbane, Queensland, Australia: ASK Consulting Engineers.

Australian Government Department of Health and Ageing. (2004, May). The Health Effects of Environmental Noise - Other Than Hearing Loss. Canberra, ACT: Commonwealth of Australia.

Bies, D. A., & Hansen, C. H. (2009). Engineering Noise Control (Fourth Edition). Abingdon, London: Spon Press.

British Standards Institute. (2009). BS 5228:1 - Code of Practice for Noise and Vibration Control on Construction and Open Sites - Part 1: Noise. London, United Kingdom: BSI.

Department of Environment and Heritage Protection. (2013, August). Noise Measurement Manual (EM1107). Brisbane, Queensland: Department of Environment and Heritage Protection.

Department of Environment and Heritage Protection. (2014, November 21). Guideline - Model Mining Conditions (EM944). Brisbane, QLD, Australia: Queensland Government.

Department of Environment and Heritage Protection. (No Date). EIS Information Guideline - Noise and Vibration. Queensland: Department of Environment and Heritage Protection.

Department of Environment, Resources and Management. (No date). Ecoaccess: Assessment for Low Frequency. Brisbane, Queensland: DERM.

Manning, C. J. (1981). The Propagation of Noise from Petroleum and Petrochemical Complexesto neighbouring Communities. CONCAWE Report No. 4/81.

Matrix Acoustics. (2015, May 14). Skardon River EIS - Noise Impact Assessment Report. Matrix Acoustics.

Metro Mining. (2015, February 26). Bauxite Hills Pre-Feasibility Study Report.

Queensland Environmental Protection Agency. (2008). Ecoaccess Guideline - Planning for Noise Control. Brisbane, QLD, Australia: Queensland Government.

Queensland Government. (1994). Environmental Protection Act . Brisbane: Queensland Government.

Queensland Government. (2008). Environmental Protection (Noise) Policy. Queensland: Queensland Government.

Queensland Government. (2008). Environmental Protection Regulation. Brisbane, Queensland: Queensland Government.

Standards Australia. (2010). Australian Standard AS2436 - Guide to Noise and Vibration Control on Construction, Demolition and Maintenance Site. Canberra: Standards Australia.

World Health Organisation. (2009). Night Noise Guidelines for Europe. Denmark: World Health Organisation.

CDM Smith

Bauxite Hills


5 April 2016

Page 42 of 52


70Q-14-0405-TRP-519637-0

GLOSSARY Appendix A

Ambient noise – the totally encompassing noise in a given situation at a given time; it is usually composed of noise from many sources, near and far.

Attenuation – a general term used to indicate the reduction of noise or vibration, by whatever method or for whatever reason, and the amount in decibels, by which it is reduced.

A-weighting – a frequency weighting devised to attempt to take into account the fact human response to sound not equally sensitive to all frequencies.

Background noise level - The INP defines the background noise level as ‘the underlying level of noise present in ambient noise when all unusual extraneous noise is removed’. Additionally, the INP states that ‘sound levels contributing to background levels can include sound from nearby traffic, birds, insects, animals, machinery and similar sources if these sounds are a normal feature of the location’.

dB(A) – the A-weighted sound pressure level.

dB(Z) – the Z-weighted (linear) sound pressure level.

Decibel (dB) – the logarithmic-scaled unit used to report the level or magnitude of sound.

Hertz (Hz) - the unit of frequency.

L (Level) – the sound pressure level (SPL); it implies the use of decibels related to the ratio of powers or the power related quantities such as sound intensity or sound pressure.

Loudness – the measure of the subjective impression of the magnitude or strength of a sound.

Noise descriptors – A noise descriptor is a measure of noise used to define a specific characteristic of noise, e.g. average energy, variation (maximum and minimum) and annoyance. Noise descriptors are based on measurements of the sound pressure level. Common noise descriptors are provided below:

LAeq,T Time–average A-weighted sound pressure level

LA90,T Background A-weighted sound pressure level. Corresponds to the level that is exceeded for 90% of the measured time interval

LAmax,T Maximum A-weighted sound pressure level, obtained by arithmetically averaging of the maximum levels of the noise under investigation

LAmin,T Minimum A-weighted sound pressure level, obtained by arithmetic averaging of the minimum levels of the noise under investigation

LA10,T Level that is exceeded for 10% of the measured time interval. The L10 is typically used to measure road traffic noise

LA1,T Level that is equal to or exceeded for 1% of the time interval considered in the absence of the noise under investigation. The L10 is considered to be representative of road traffic noise. The A-weighted background level is denoted as LA10.

Noise criteria – a maximum or minimum value imposed on a noise index e.g. a legal purpose.

RBL – Rating Background Level: Statistical noise descriptor used to describe the lowest noise levels (background) on site.

Sound power – the sound energy radiated per unit time by a sound source, measured in watts.

Sound propagation – the transfer of sound from one point to another.

Velocity – a vector quantity that specifies the time derivative of displacement.

CDM Smith

Bauxite Hills


5 April 2016

Page 43 of 52


70Q-14-0405-TRP-519637-0

YEARLY MINING SCHEDULE Appendix B

This assessment is based on the mining year 2024 when the mining activity is located closest to the sensitive receptors.

CDM Smith

Bauxite Hills


5 April 2016

Page 44 of 52


70Q-14-0405-TRP-519637-0

NOISE MONITORING AT MAPOON (RECEPTOR R32) Appendix C

Noise monitoring was undertaken by ASK Consultants for the Pisolite Hills Project in January 2010. Due to limited noise sources in the area, the raw noise monitoring data was provided to CDM Smith for Vipac to analyse.

Monitoring Details Coordinates: 141°53.353 E, 11°58.397 S Microphone Height: 1.5 m

SLM Time/Frequency weighting: Fast/A Measurement Period: 15 minute

Instrument: Larson Davis 831 Serial Number: 1968

Instrument last calibrated by lab: Not provided by ASK Calibration level: Not provided by ASK

Location

The monitoring location is shown in relation to the MLA by a blue marker below.

Noise Monitoring Data

As discussed in Section 5.3.2, the raw noise monitoring data was provided by ASK Consulting Engineers.

The following tables present the daily noise levels for:

• The raw unfiltered data;

• The insect noise filtered data with 4 kHz frequency band removed as per the ASK report for Pisolite Hills; and

• The insect noise filtered data for the frequency bands 3.15 kHz, 4 kHz and 5 kHz.

Where no levels are presented, there was insufficient data to derive the noise level for the required time period. This occurs on the days where the noise logger was commissioned and decommissioned.

CDM Smith

Bauxite Hills


5 April 2016

Page 45 of 52


70Q-14-0405-TRP-519637-0

Table B-1: Detailed Noise Monitoring Results for 27th January 2010

Noise



Unfiltered Data 4 kHz Filtered Data 3.15-5 kHz Filtered Data


LAeq,T Average

Day (7am to 6pm) - - -

Evening (6pm to 10pm) - - -

Night (10pm to 7am) 46.6 47.3 (-1.9) 44.1 (-5.1)

LA1,T Average



Night (10pm to 7am) 52.9 52.6 (-1.8) 48.3 (-6.0)

LA10,T Average



Night (10pm to 7am) 50.1 48 (-2.2) 43.5 (-6.6)

LA90,T Average



Night (10pm to 7am) 41.0 38 (-1.8) 34.6 (-5.3)


Noise





LAeq,T Average

Day (7am to 6pm) 46.2 46.0 (-0.2) 45.3 (-0.9)

Evening (6pm to 10pm) 61.3 61.2 (-0.1) 61.2 (-0.1)

Night (10pm to 7am) 49.8 48.7 (-1.1) 47.7 (-2.1)

LA1,T Average

Day (7am to 6pm) 54.9 54.7 (-0.3) 53.9 (-1.1)

Evening (6pm to 10pm) 54.6 54.5 (-0.1) 54.3 (-0.3)

Night (10pm to 7am) 55.9 55.1 (-0.8) 54.0 (-1.9)

LA10,T Average

Day (7am to 6pm) 46.9 46.7 (-0.3) 46.0 (-0.9)

Evening (6pm to 10pm) 47.3 47.2 (-0.1) 47.0 (-0.4)

Night (10pm to 7am) 50.3 49.3 (-1.0) 48.0 (-2.3)

LA90,T Average

Day (7am to 6pm) 33.2 33.0 (-0.2) 32.5 (-0.6)

Evening (6pm to 10pm) 31.5 31.2 (-0.4) 30.4 (-1.1)

Night (10pm to 7am) 39.1 39.1 (0.0) 38.6 (-0.6)


Noise




LAMAX Night (10pm to 7am) 73.9 74.5 (0.6) 74.0 (0.1)

LAeq,T Average

Day (7am to 6pm) 47.4 47.2 (-0.3) 46.6 (-0.8)

Evening (6pm to 10pm) 48.7 48.0 (-0.7) 46.5 (-2.2)

Night (10pm to 7am) 52.4 51.8 (-0.6) 50.8 (-1.7)

LA1,T Average

Day (7am to 6pm) 55.4 55.0 (-0.4) 54.2 (-1.2)

Evening (6pm to 10pm) 55.6 54.5 (-1.1) 52.3 (-3.3)

Night (10pm to 7am) 57.1 56.2 (-0.9) 54.4 (-2.7)

LA10,T Average

Day (7am to 6pm) 48.9 48.6 (-0.4) 47.8 (-1.2)

Evening (6pm to 10pm) 50.6 50.0 (-0.6) 48.0 (-2.6)

Night (10pm to 7am) 52.5 51.7 (-0.8) 49.8 (-2.8)

LA90,T Average

Day (7am to 6pm) 38.4 38.2 (-0.3) 37.5 (-0.9)

Evening (6pm to 10pm) 41.5 41.1 (-0.3) 39.4 (-2.1)

Night (10pm to 7am) 42.7 41.8 (-0.9) 40.2 (-2.5)

CDM Smith

Bauxite Hills


5 April 2016

Page 46 of 52


70Q-14-0405-TRP-519637-0


Noise





LAeq,T Average

Day (7am to 6pm) 48.5 48.2 (-0.3) 47.6 (-0.8)

Evening (6pm to 10pm) 48.8 47.8 (-1.0) 44.3 (-4.5)

Night (10pm to 7am) 48.1 46.6 (-1.5) 43.7 (-4.4)

LA1,T Average

Day (7am to 6pm) 54.9 54.5 (-0.5) 53.6 (-1.4)

Evening (6pm to 10pm) 54.7 53.5 (-1.1) 48.2 (-6.5)

Night (10pm to 7am) 53.3 51.9 (-1.3) 48.8 (-4.5)

LA10,T Average

Day (7am to 6pm) 49.4 49.1 (-0.4) 48.3 (-1.1)

Evening (6pm to 10pm) 50.3 49.3 (-1.0) 43.5 (-6.8)

Night (10pm to 7am) 49.7 48.3 (-1.3) 44.5 (-5.1)

LA90,T Average

Day (7am to 6pm) 38.8 38.5 (-0.2) 38.0 (-0.8)

Evening (6pm to 10pm) 39.3 38.1 (-1.2) 34.6 (-4.6)

Night (10pm to 7am) 41.1 39.8 (-1.3) 36.0 (-5.1)

Table B-5: Detailed Noise Monitoring Results for 31st January 2010

Noise





LAeq,T Average

Day (7am to 6pm) 52.6 52.5 (-0.1) 52.1 (-0.6)

Evening (6pm to 10pm) 49.6 47.6 (-1.9) 42.5 (-7.0)

Night (10pm to 7am) 48.9 47.1 (-1.8) 40.7 (-8.2)

LA1,T Average

Day (7am to 6pm) 59.3 59.1 (-0.2) 57.9 (-1.4)

Evening (6pm to 10pm) 55.3 53.6 (-1.6) 47.8 (-7.4)

Night (10pm to 7am) 54.5 52.6 (-1.9) 44.7 (-9.8)

LA10,T Average

Day (7am to 6pm) 49.8 49.5 (-0.2) 48.7 (-1.0)

Evening (6pm to 10pm) 50.5 48.7 (-1.8) 42.2 (-8.2)

Night (10pm to 7am) 50.6 48.9 (-1.6) 41.1 (-9.4)

LA90,T Average

Day (7am to 6pm) 36.4 36.2 (-0.2) 35.8 (-0.7)

Evening (6pm to 10pm) 36.9 36.4 (-0.5) 35.0 (-1.9)

Night (10pm to 7am) 42.1 40.1 (-2.0) 35.3 (-6.9)

Table B-6: Detailed Noise Monitoring Results for 1st February 2010

Noise





LAeq,T Average

Day (7am to 6pm) 44.6 44.5 (-0.2) 43.9 (-0.7)

Evening (6pm to 10pm) 47.9 47.2 (-0.7) 40.1 (-7.8)

Night (10pm to 7am) 46.0 44.7 (-1.3) 38.7 (-7.3)

LA1,T Average

Day (7am to 6pm) 53.9 53.7 (-0.2) 52.7 (-1.2)

Evening (6pm to 10pm) 53.1 52.0 (-1.1) 44.5 (-8.6)

Night (10pm to 7am) 51.4 49.7 (-1.7) 42.6 (-8.8)

LA10,T Average

Day (7am to 6pm) 45.1 44.8 (-0.3) 44.1 (-1.0)

Evening (6pm to 10pm) 48.7 48.1 (-0.6) 40.5 (-8.2)

Night (10pm to 7am) 47.7 46.5 (-1.2) 39.4 (-8.4)

LA90,T Average

Day (7am to 6pm) 35.8 35.5 (-0.3) 35.0 (-0.8)

Evening (6pm to 10pm) 35.3 34.9 (-0.4) 33.5 (-1.8)

Night (10pm to 7am) 41.7 39.7 (-2.0) 32.9 (-8.7)

CDM Smith

Bauxite Hills


5 April 2016

Page 47 of 52


70Q-14-0405-TRP-519637-0

Table B-7: Detailed Noise Monitoring Results for 2nd February 2010

Noise




LAMAX Night (10pm to 7am) 69.7 69.9 (0.2) 69.4 (-0.3)

LAeq,T Average

Day (7am to 6pm) 42.8 42.6 (-0.2) 42.0 (-0.8)

Evening (6pm to 10pm) 47.2 46.9 (-0.3) 41.3 (-5.9)

Night (10pm to 7am) 46.8 45.9 (-0.9) 36.4 (-10.4)

LA1,T Average

Day (7am to 6pm) 52.3 52.0 (-0.2) 51.1 (-1.2)

Evening (6pm to 10pm) 52.7 52.2 (-0.5) 44.6 (-8.1)

Night (10pm to 7am) 51.8 50.5 (-1.3) 39.8 (-12)

LA10,T Average

Day (7am to 6pm) 43.1 42.9 (-0.2) 42.3 (-0.9)

Evening (6pm to 10pm) 47.7 47.4 (-0.3) 38.8 (-8.9)

Night (10pm to 7am) 48.3 47.5 (-0.9) 35.4 (-13.0)

LA90,T Average

Day (7am to 6pm) 32.2 32.0 (-0.2) 31.6 (-0.6)

Evening (6pm to 10pm) 32.0 31.5 (-0.5) 30.4 (-1.6)

Night (10pm to 7am) 40.3 37.8 (-2.5) 27.7 (-12.6)

Table B-8: Detailed Noise Monitoring Results for 3rd February 2010

Noise





LAeq,T Average

Day (7am to 6pm) 43.8 43.6 (-0.2) 43.0 (-0.8)

Evening (6pm to 10pm) 46.8 46.0 (-0.8) 40.3 (-6.5)

Night (10pm to 7am) 45.5 43.7 (-1.8) 37.0 (-8.6)

LA1,T Average

Day (7am to 6pm) 53.0 52.8 (-0.2) 51.9 (-1.1)

Evening (6pm to 10pm) 52.7 51.8 (-0.9) 44.3 (-8.4)

Night (10pm to 7am) 52.7 50.3 (-2.4) 40.6 (-12.1)

LA10,T Average

Day (7am to 6pm) 42.0 41.7 (-0.2) 41.2 (-0.7)

Evening (6pm to 10pm) 47.3 46.2 (-1.1) 37.5 (-9.7)

Night (10pm to 7am) 46.4 44.8 (-1.6) 35.0 (-11.4)

LA90,T Average

Day (7am to 6pm) 28.7 28.4 (-0.2) 27.9 (-0.8)

Evening (6pm to 10pm) 29.7 29.2 (-0.5) 28.7 (-1.0)

Night (10pm to 7am) 40.5 38.5 (-2.0) 26.6 (-13.9)

Table B-9: Detailed Noise Monitoring Results for 4th February 2010

Noise





LAeq,T Average

Day (7am to 6pm) 43.8 43.7 (-0.1) 43.2 (-0.7)

Evening (6pm to 10pm) 46.4 45.4 (-1.0) 40.2 (-6.2)

Night (10pm to 7am) 46.6 45.1 (-1.4) 37.9 (-8.6)

LA1,T Average

Day (7am to 6pm) 53.2 53.0 (-0.2) 52.3 (-0.9)

Evening (6pm to 10pm) 52.1 50.9 (-1.2) 43.2 (-8.9)

Night (10pm to 7am) 52.9 50.8 (-2.1) 40.7 (-12.2)

LA10,T Average

Day (7am to 6pm) 43.6 43.4 (-0.2) 42.8 (-0.7)

Evening (6pm to 10pm) 46.7 45.9 (-0.9) 36.8 (-9.9)

Night (10pm to 7am) 46.5 44.9 (-1.6) 34.5 (-12.0)

LA90,T Average

Day (7am to 6pm) 31.0 30.9 (-0.2) 30.4 (-0.6)

Evening (6pm to 10pm) 29.1 28.8 (-0.3) 27.3 (-1.8)

Night (10pm to 7am) 41.0 38.2 (-2.8) 26.6 (-14.4)

CDM Smith

Bauxite Hills


5 April 2016

Page 48 of 52


70Q-14-0405-TRP-519637-0


Noise





LAeq,T Average

Day (7am to 6pm) 39.6 39.4 (-0.2) 38.8 (-0.8)

Evening (6pm to 10pm) 46.3 45.5 (-0.8) 42.1 (-4.2)

Night (10pm to 7am) 44.8 43.0 (-1.8) 35.8 (-9.0)

LA1,T Average

Day (7am to 6pm) 53.2 53.0 (-0.2) 52.3 (-0.9)

Evening (6pm to 10pm) 52.1 50.9 (-1.2) 43.2 (-8.9)

Night (10pm to 7am) 51.3 49.7 (-1.6) 38.7 (-12.6)

LA10,T Average

Day (7am to 6pm) 43.6 43.4 (-0.2) 42.8 (-0.7)

Evening (6pm to 10pm) 46.7 45.9 (-0.9) 36.8 (-9.9)

Night (10pm to 7am) 47.2 45.7 (-1.5) 32.5 (-14.7)

LA90,T Average

Day (7am to 6pm) 31.0 30.9 (-0.2) 30.4 (-0.6)

Evening (6pm to 10pm) 29.1 28.8 (-0.3) 27.3 (-1.8)

Night (10pm to 7am) 38.2 34.4 (-3.8) 23.5 (-14.7)


Noise





LAeq,T Average

Day (7am to 6pm) 49.5 49.2 (-0.3) 48.7 (-0.8)

Evening (6pm to 10pm) 49.6 48.7 (-0.8) 40.9 (-8.7)

Night (10pm to 7am) 44.6 43.1 (-1.6) 35.6 (-9.0)

LA1,T Average

Day (7am to 6pm) 51.6 51.3 (-0.3) 50.4 (-1.2)

Evening (6pm to 10pm) 53.5 52.7 (-0.8) 44.0 (-9.5)

Night (10pm to 7am) 51.4 49.5 (-1.9) 40.0 (-11.4)

LA10,T Average

Day (7am to 6pm) 41.8 41.6 (-0.2) 41.1 (-0.7)

Evening (6pm to 10pm) 48.6 48.0 (-0.7) 37.3 (-11.3)

Night (10pm to 7am) 46.0 44.3 (-1.7) 32.0 (-13.9)

LA90,T Average

Day (7am to 6pm) 27.8 27.5 (-0.3) 27.0 (-0.8)

Evening (6pm to 10pm) 27.5 27.1 (-0.4) 26.1 (-1.4)

Night (10pm to 7am) 38.2 35.2 (-3.0) 21.6 (-16.5)


Noise




LAMAX Night (10pm to 7am) - - -

LAeq,T Average

Day (7am to 6pm) 38.9 38.7 (-0.2) 37.8 (-1.1)

Evening (6pm to 10pm) 46.4 45.8 (-0.6) 39.6 (-6.7)

Night (10pm to 7am) - - -

LA1,T Average

Day (7am to 6pm) 49.3 49.0 (-0.2) 47.7 (-1.5)

Evening (6pm to 10pm) 52.4 51.5 (-0.9) 45.0 (-7.4)


LA10,T Average

Day (7am to 6pm) 39.3 39.1 (-0.3) 38.4 (-0.9)

Evening (6pm to 10pm) 47.0 46.4 (-0.6) 38.2 (-8.8)


LA90,T Average

Day (7am to 6pm) 25.0 24.7 (-0.3) 24.3 (-0.7)

Evening (6pm to 10pm) 27.0 26.5 (-0.6) 24.8 (-2.3)


CDM Smith

Bauxite Hills


5 April 2016

Page 49 of 52


70Q-14-0405-TRP-519637-0

NOISE PREDICTION CONTOURS Appendix D

Contour plots illustrate the spatial distribution of noise levels across the modelling domain for each time period of interest. However, this process of interpolation causes a smoothing of the base data that can lead to minor differences between the contours and receptor model predictions.

Parameter

LAeq

Assessment Period:

Day

Assessment Type:

Worst Case Conditions

Criteria:

35 dB(A)

Comment:

5 Mtpa with no noise controls

CDM Smith

Bauxite Hills


5 April 2016

Page 50 of 52


70Q-14-0405-TRP-519637-0

Parameter

LA1

Assessment Period:

Day

Assessment Type:


Criteria:

48 dB(A)

Comment:


CDM Smith

Bauxite Hills


5 April 2016

Page 51 of 52


70Q-14-0405-TRP-519637-0

Parameter

LAeq

Assessment Period:

Night

Assessment Type:


Criteria:

30 dB(A)

Comment:


CDM Smith

Bauxite Hills


5 April 2016

Page 52 of 52


70Q-14-0405-TRP-519637-0

Parameter

LA1

Assessment Period:

Night

Assessment Type:


Criteria:

37 dB(A)

Comment:


Date post:	11-Sep-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	1 times
Download:	0 times

Metro Mining Appendix G - Noise and Vibration Technical Report … · 2018. 8. 9. · CDM Smith...

Documents