Noise Surveys done in Mines

Noise Surveys in India and

Abroad A brief compilation of various Noise Surveys

conducted in India and abroad.

Noise Impact Assessment and Control Assignment 1

Department of Mining Engineering

National Institute of Technology, Rourkela

ABHIJEET DUTTA

711MN1172

1

CONTENTS 1. Introduction ............................................................................................................................................... 5

2. Adani Mining Pty Ltd ............................................................................................................................... 5

2.1. Legislative Basis ................................................................................................................................ 6

2. 2. Construction Noise Criteria .............................................................................................................. 6

2.3. Low frequency noise .......................................................................................................................... 7

2.4. Construction Noise Assessment ....................................................................................................... 11

2.5. Rail siding noise level ...................................................................................................................... 13

2.6. Airstrip noise level ........................................................................................................................... 13

2.7. Water supply infrastructure noise level ........................................................................................... 13

2.8. Background Noise ............................................................................................................................ 15

2.9. Aircraft noise levels ......................................................................................................................... 17

3. Nandira colliery, Talcher ........................................................................................................................ 26

3.1. Description ....................................................................................................................................... 26

3.2. Instrumentation ................................................................................................................................ 26

4. Open and Underground Mines of WLC, Turkey .................................................................................... 29

5. Middleton Mine, Derbyshire, England ................................................................................................... 31

5.1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 31

5.2. Survey Details .................................................................................................................................. 31

5.2. Caliberation ...................................................................................................................................... 31

5.3. Survey Date ...................................................................................................................................... 31

5.4. Meteorological Conditions ............................................................................................................... 31

5.5. Results .............................................................................................................................................. 32

6. Wilpinjong Coal Mine, Australia ............................................................................................................ 34

6.1. Noise Management Plan .................................................................................................................. 34

6.2. General Noise Management Measures ............................................................................................ 34

6.3. Continuous Real-time Noise Monitoring ......................................................................................... 34

6.3.1. Noise Investigation Triggers ..................................................................................................... 34

6.3.2. Equipment Stand-downs during Implementation of Response Protocols ................................. 35

6.4. Background Noise ............................................................................................................................ 37

6.5. Noise Mitigation and Management Measures.................................................................................. 38

6.6. WCM Mobile Equipment and Fixed Plant Sound Power Levels .................................................... 39

6.7. Road traffic Noise Impact Assessment ............................................................................................ 39

6.8. Operating Noise Impact Assessment ............................................................................................... 41

6.9. Traffic Noise Cumulative 2014 plus WCM Increment ................................................................. 43

2

7. Cowal Gold Mine, Central New South Wales, Australia ........................................................................ 44

7.1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................................... 44

7.2. Ambient Noise Monitoring 2010 to 2013 ........................................................................................ 45

7.3. Background Noise and Amenity Levels for INP Assessment Purposes .......................................... 45

7.4. Road Traffic Noise ........................................................................................................................... 45

7.5. Measured Night Time Noise Levels ................................................................................................ 46

7.6. Plant and Equipment Sound Power Levels ...................................................................................... 46

7.7. Mine Operating Noise Impact Assessment ...................................................................................... 48

8. Camberwell Village, London, England ................................................................................................... 51

8.1. Ashton Coal Mine ............................................................................................................................ 56

8.2. Mt Owen Coal Mine ........................................................................................................................ 56

8.3. Glendell Coal Mine .......................................................................................................................... 56

8.4. Ravensworth Complex ..................................................................................................................... 57

8.5. Integra Underground Coal Mine ...................................................................................................... 57

8.6. Integra Open Cut Coal Mine ............................................................................................................ 57

8.7. Rixs Creek Coal Mine ...................................................................................................................... 57

8.8. Summary of Existing Noise Contributions ...................................................................................... 57

9. References ............................................................................................................................................... 60

3

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1: Monitoring location A Doongmabulla homestead ........................................................................ 8

Figure 2: Monitoring location B Labona homestead ................................................................................... 8

Figure 3: Potential Sensitive Receptors and Noise and Vibration Monitoring Locations ......................... 10

Figure 4: Aircraft noise sensitive receptors ............................................................................................... 18

Figure 5: Measured Sound pressure levels at Nandira Colliery,Talcher ................................................... 28

Figure 6: Sample 24 Hour Real-time Noise Monitoring Chart .................................................................. 35

Figure 7: Real-time Noise Management Example and Recorded Mine Noise Levels ................................ 36

Figure 8: Machinery Lost Hours due to Noise Trigger Investigations 2012 .............................................. 36

Figure 9: Night-time year 2011 LAeq(15minute) intrusive noise contour (800c/100 m temperature

inversion) .................................................................................................................................................... 49

Figure 10: Night-time year 2013 LAeq(15minute) intrusive noise contour (800c/100 m temperature

inversion) .................................................................................................................................................... 50

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1: Acoustic quality objectives for dwellings ...................................................................................... 6

Table 2: Project (Mine) specific noise levels ................................................................................................ 7

Table 3: Unattended noise logger details .................................................................................................... 9

Table 4: Indicative construction equipment and sound power levels (SWL) ............................................. 11

Table 5: Rail siding sound power levels dB(A) ........................................................................................... 13

Table 6: Pump sound power levels dB(A) ................................................................................................... 13

Table 7: Proposed site noise source sound power levels SWL (Leq, re: 20Pa) ..................................... 14

Table 8: Proposed site noise source sound power levels SWL (Lmax, re: 20Pa) ................................... 15

Table 9: Summary of noise monitoring results monitoring location A Doongmabulla ........................... 16

Table 10: Summary of noise monitoring results monitoring location B Labona .................................... 16

Table 11: Summary of noise monitoring results ........................................................................................ 17

Table 12: Attended noise survey summary ................................................................................................ 17

Table 13: Aircraft noise levels ................................................................................................................... 17

Table 14: Project (Mine) Specific Noise Levels (Revision, 2012) Table 15: Indicative Construction

Equipment and Sound Power Levels (SWL)(Revision,2012) ...................................................................... 19

Table 16: Rail Siding Sound Power Levels dB(A)(Revision, 2012) Table 17: Pump Sound Power Levels

dB(A) .......................................................................................................................................................... 21

Table 18: Proposed Site Noise Source Sound Power Levels SWL (re: 20Pa) (Revision, 2012) ............. 22

Table 19: Summary of Noise Monitoring Results Monitoring Location A Doongmabulla (Revision,

2012) .......................................................................................................................................................... 23

Table 20: Summary of Noise Monitoring Results Monitoring Location B Labona (Revision, 2012) ..... 24

Table 21: Summary of Noise Monitoring Results (Revision, 2012) ........................................................... 24

Table 22: Attended Noise Survey Summary (Revision, 2012) .................................................................... 25

Table 23Noise Survey in Nandira Colliery (Below ground) ....................................................................... 26

Table 24: Equivalent noise levels for various workplaces of WL C. ......................................................... 29

Table 25: Instrumentation used in Middleton Mine ................................................................................... 31

Table 26: Noise Survey at 3 Main Street Table 27: Noise Survey at 41 Rise End ................................... 32

Table 28: Noise Survey at 5 Hillside ......................................................................................................... 32

Table 29: Summary of Noise Survey at Middleton Mine ............................................................................ 33

Table 30: Unattended Noise Monitoring Results 2004 (dBA re 20 Pa) Table 31: Unattended Noise

Ambient Monitoring Results 2012 (dBA re 20 Pa) .................................................................................. 37

4

Table 32: Measured Night-time LAeq(15minute) and LA1(1minute) Noise Levels (dBA re 20 Pa) ........ 38

Table 33: Fixed and Mobile Equipment for Modification 3 and Existing WCM 24 hours per day .......... 40

Table 34: Evening Cumulative (LAeq(4hour)) Noise Amenity Levels (dBA re 20 Pa) ............................ 41

Table 35: Cumulative Night-time (LAeq(9hour)) Noise Amenity Levels (dBA re 20 Pa) ........................ 42

Table 36: Ulan Road Adjacent Residential Dwellings .............................................................................. 43

Table 37: Nominal Off-set Distance to Meet the Total Traffic Noise Criteria .......................................... 43

Table 38: Daytime Measured LAeq(15minute) Intrusive Mine Level (dBA re 20 Pa) ............................. 44

Table 39: Evening Measured LAeq(15minute) Intrusive Mine Level (dBA re 20 Pa) ............................. 44

Table 40: Night-time Measured LAeq(15minute) Intrusive Mine Level (dBA re 20 Pa) ......................... 45

Table 41: Ambient Noise Environment 2010 to 2013 (dBA re 20 Pa) .................................................... 45

Table 42: Background Noise and Amenity Levels for Assessment (dBA re 20 Pa) ................................. 45

Table 43: Calculated LAeq Total Traffic Noise Levels February 2013 (dBA re 20 Pa) ......................... 46

Table 44: Measured Night-time LAeq(15minute) and LA1(1minute) Noise Levels (dBA re 20 Pa) ........ 46

Table 45: Plant and Equipment Sound Power Levels ................................................................................ 47

Table 46: Year 2014 Intrusive LAeq (15minute) and LA1 (1minute) Noise Levels (dBA re 20 Pa) ....... 48

Table 47: Calm (Neutral) and Noise Enhancing Meteorological Modelling Parameters .......................... 49

Table 48: Measured LAeq,period Noise Levels ......................................................................................... 51

Table 49: Camberwell Village Noise Monitoring - 31 March/1 April 2009 .............................................. 52

Table 50: Attended noise measurement results (1 June 2009) .................................................................. 53

Table 51: Attended noise measurement results (15 June 2009) ................................................................. 54

Table 52: Attended noise measurement results (17 June 2009) ................................................................. 55

Table 53: Attended noise measurement results (22 June 2009).................................................................. 56

Table 54: Summary of Existing Noise Contributions, Camberwell Village ............................................... 57

Table 55: Management Strategies for areas around Camberwell Village ............................................... 59

5

1. Introduction

The following surveys reported were conducted over past few years since 2006. Some recent

reports have also been collected like Adani Pty Ltd, (2013, 2014). All the following reports are a

brief compilation of various noise sources in mines including areas near mines such as roadways,

railways, background noise compilation, water supply infrastructure noise levels and other

detailed investigations. Apart from the case studies, some reports of successive managerial steps

being taken by the industry head have also been compiled.

2. Adani Mining Pty Ltd

Adani Mining Pty Ltd (Adani, the Proponent), commenced an Environmental Impact Statement

(EIS) process for the Carmichael Coal Mine and Rail Project (the Project) in 2010. On 26

November 2010, the Queensland (Qld) Office of the Coordinator General declared the Project a

significant project and the Project was referred to the Commonwealth Department of

Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities (DSEWPaC) (referral No.

2010/5736). The aim of the assessment was to determine potential noise and vibration impacts

associated with the construction and operation of the open cut and underground mining areas, on

mine infrastructure and associated mine processing facilities (the Mine) and the Mine (offsite)

infrastructure including a workers accommodation village and associated facilities, a permanent

airport site, an industrial area and water supply infrastructure Acoustic modelling was undertaken

using CadnaA Version 4.2 and implementing the CONCAWE algorithm to predict the effects of

construction and operational related noise from the Project (Mine). The revised noise modelling

was conducted for mining operation scenarios Year 2015, Year 2026, Year 2049 and Year 2071.

Operational industrial noise from the Project (Mine) also includes noise generated from the

proposed industrial precinct.

Noise model results indicate construction noise is not expected to cause any significant impacts at

noise sensitive receptors. Results indicate that predicted construction noise levels outside of

normal hours are expected to be well under the 55 dB(A) World Health Organisation criteria for

sleep at all sensitive receptors. Operational noise modelling results including low frequency noise

and traffic noise indicate that received noise levels are expected to comply with the project specific

criteria at all assessed sensitive receptors under assessed neutral and adverse weather conditions.

Predicted results indicate the estimated construction and operational noise level at the nearest

potentially affected receptor due to vehicle movements along Elgin Moray Road is expected to be

well under the Department of Transport and Main Roads (DTMR) 68 dB(A)L10,18hr criteria.

Based on the provided traffic volumes, the buffer distance to comply with the criteria is

approximately 45 m from the nearest edge of the road. Aircraft noise was assessed with reference

to AS2021 Acoustics Aircraft noise intrusion- Building siting and construction (2000). Aircraft

noise levels at sensitive receptors fall below the indoor design sound levels (50 dB(A) to 60 dB(A))

for existing buildings and below

6

2.1. Legislative Basis

The Environmental Protection Act 1994 (EP Act) provides for the protection of environmental

values, including environmental values relating to maintenance of public amenity. The EP Act

establishes a number of environmental protection policies. In relation to noise, the EP Act is

supported by the Environmental Protection (Noise) Policy 2008 (EPP (Noise)). The EPP Noise

Section 7 outlines the key environmental values for the acoustic environment, as set out below:

Table 1: Acoustic quality objectives for dwellings

2. 2. Construction Noise Criteria

The construction phase for the Project (Mine) will include works such as construction of the open

cut and underground mining operations, coal handling process plant (CHPP), workshops,

equipment storage, administration building, and other components within the Mine infrastructure

areas (MIA), and associated roads and offsite infrastructure. The majority of construction will 14

| GHD | Carmichael Coal Mine and Rail Project SEIS - Updated Mine Noise and Vibration

Assessment, 41/26422 occur over a period of 36 to 48 months however, will continue until the

mine reaches full production in 2022. Construction activities will occur 24 hours per day, 7 days

per week. In Queensland, it is generally accepted that construction activities should be in

accordance with general building work hours as described under section 440R Building Work

of the EP Act.

Under the EP Act, no audible noise is permitted:

Between 6:30 pm and 6:30 am Monday to Saturday

On Sundays and public holidays

The time restrictions are designed to strike a balance between protecting noise amenity and the

need to start construction activities early in the morning and also recognise the difficulties of

controlling some types of construction noise.

Table 2 shows the Project (Mine) specific noise criteria adopted for this assessment. Comparison

between the criteria shown in Table 2 and the EPP Noise external night-time criterion of 40 dB(A)

LAeq,adj,1hr indicates the PNC criteria are more stringent. The PNC criteria are therefore used in

this assessment. By GHD | Carmichael Coal Mine and Rail Project SEIS - Updated Mine Noise

and Vibration Assessment, 41/26422 | 15 default, adoption of the PNC criteria for the Project

(Mine) will ensure compliance with the EPP Noise 40 dB(A) LAeq,adj,1hr criteria.

7

Table 2: Project (Mine) specific noise levels

2.3. Low frequency noise

The Queensland Government Assessment of Low Frequency Noise Guideline (Ecoaccess, 2006)

is considered to address noise sources with inherent dominant infrasound or (very) low frequency

noise (LFN) characteristics. CHPPs have the potential to generate LFN components below 200

Hz. The procedure for the initial screening to determine if a more detailed assessment is required

is as follows:

uld not exceed 50 dB(Linear) to

minimise risk of complaints of LFN annoyance.

-

third octave band measurement in the frequency range 20 to 200 Hz should be carried out.

8

Figure 1: Monitoring location A Doongmabulla homestead

Figure 2: Monitoring location B Labona homestead

9

Unattended noise monitoring was undertaken using two Rion NL-21 environmental noise loggers

from 26 August to 6 7 September 2011 at two locations within the vicinity of the Project (Mine).

These loggers are capable of measuring continuous sound pressure levels and are able to record

LA90, LA10 and LAeq noise descriptors. The instruments were programmed to accumulate

environmental noise data continuously over sampling periods of 15 minutes for the entire

monitoring period. Prior to deployment, the loggers were calibrated with a sound pressure level of

94 dB at 1kHz using a RION NC-73 calibrator. At completion of the monitoring period, the loggers

were retrieved and calibration was rechecked. The difference was less than +/- 0.5 dB.

The data collected by the loggers was downloaded and analysed and any invalid data removed.

Invalid data generally refers to periods where average wind speeds were greater than 5 m/s, or

when rainfall occurred. Weather data over the monitoring period was collected from the Bureau

of Meteorology Emerald Airport Automatic Weather Station.

Table 3: Unattended noise logger details

Attended measurements were taken at unattended monitoring locations to supplement logger data.

Attended noise measurements were conducted on 26 August 2011 using a Rion NL-21 Sound

Level Meter (SLM). This SLM is capable of measuring continuous sound pressure levels and is

able to record LAmin, LA90, LA10, LAmax and LAeq noise descriptors. Prior to deployment, the

meter was calibrated using a Rion NC-73 calibrator with a sound pressure level of 94 dB at 1 kHz.

Calibration was checked prior to the commencement of measurements and at completion of the

measurements. The difference was less than +/- 0.5 dB. All sampling activities were undertaken

with due consideration to the specifications outlined in AS 1055 (1997) Description and

Measurement of Environmental Noise and the Queensland Government Noise Measurement

Manual (EPA, 2000).

10

Figure 3: Potential Sensitive Receptors and Noise and Vibration Monitoring Locations

11

2.4. Construction Noise Assessment

The Project (Mine) will use standard construction equipment, general trade equipment and

specialised equipment as required. Table 13 shows the indicative number and type of

construction equipment required, with the corresponding noise levels, based on GHDs noise

source database. Typical construction equipment noise levels have been obtained from AS

2436 2010, Guide to noise and vibration control on construction, demolition and maintenance

sites and GHDs noise database. In fact, construction machinery will likely move about the study

area altering noise impacts with respect to individual receptors. During any given period, the

machinery items to be used in the study area will operate at maximum sound power levels for

only brief stages. At other times, the machinery may produce lower sound levels while carrying

out activities not requiring full power.

It is highly unlikely that all construction equipment would be operating at maximum sound

power levels at any one time and certain types of construction machinery will be present in the

study area only for brief periods during construction. The predicted noise levels should therefore

be considered as conservative estimates.

Table 4: Indicative construction equipment and sound power levels (SWL)

13

2.5. Rail siding noise level

Predicted noise impacts due to the operation of the rail siding at the industrial precinct were

determined based on sound power levels measured by GHD for a similar facility (Nebo

Maintenance and Provisioning Facility, GHD, 2009).

Table 5: Rail siding sound power levels dB(A)

2.6. Airstrip noise level

Aircraft noise has been assessed with consideration to AS2021 Acoustics Aircraft noise

intrusion-Building siting and construction (2000). This standard is used to calculate aircraft

takeoff and landing noise levels at civil aerodromes and military airfields. Australian Noise

Exposure Forecast Charts (ANEF) are generally used to determine aircraft noise exposure for

major city airports, military aerodromes and for many country aerodromes. AS2021 indicates

that ANEF charts are preferable to predict aircraft noise exposure at a site, however in the

absence of ANEF charts for the proposed airport, the following methodology is provided in the

standard to determine building siting suitability.

2.7. Water supply infrastructure noise level

Noise emitting components of water supply infrastructure will primarily comprise of water pumps

to pump water to off-stream storage areas and then to the site for use. Typical sound power data

for a water pump has been sourced from measurements taken by GHD and is shown below in

Table 16. Based on a minimum separation distance of 1 km to the nearest sensitive receptor,

adverse noise impacts from water pumps are unlikely. As such, water supply infrastructure has

been excluded from the operational noise impact assessment of the Project (Mine).

Table 6: Pump sound power levels dB(A)

14

Table 7: Proposed site noise source sound power levels SWL (Leq, re: 20Pa)

15

Table 8: Proposed site noise source sound power levels SWL (Lmax, re: 20Pa)

2.8. Background Noise

The ambient noise level (LAeq) for each period, respectively, at monitoring Location A

Doongmabulla was recorded as 48 dB(A), 41 dB(A) and 43 dB(A). At monitoring Location B

Labona the ambient noise level for each period, respectively, was recorded as 44 dB(A), 41 dB(A)

and 39 dB(A). The noise level graphs shown in Appendix B and Appendix C indicate background

noise levels during night-time periods typically fall to below 25 dB(A) at monitoring Location B

Labona and to a lesser extent at monitoring Location A Doongmabulla. Noise levels at monitoring

Location A Doongmabulla are generally higher due to the influence of birdlife and cattle.

Notwithstanding this, both locations are dominated by natural noise sources including insects and

birds.

16

Table 9: Summary of noise monitoring results monitoring location A Doongmabulla

Table 10: Summary of noise monitoring results monitoring location B Labona

17

Table 11: Summary of noise monitoring results

Table 12: Attended noise survey summary

2.9. Aircraft noise levels

Noise predictions indicate that aircraft noise is not expected to cause adverse impacts at noise-

sensitive receptors. Predicted results indicate that estimated aircraft noise levels at the nearest

potentially affected receptor range from

18

Figure 4: Aircraft noise sensitive receptors

19

Table 14: Project (Mine) Specific Noise Levels (Revision, 2012)

Table 15: Indicative Construction Equipment and Sound Power Levels (SWL)(Revision,2012)

21

Table 16: Rail Siding Sound Power Levels dB(A)(Revision, 2012)

Table 17: Pump Sound Power Levels dB(A)

22

Table 18: Proposed Site Noise Source Sound Power Levels SWL (re: 20Pa) (Revision, 2012)

23

Table 19: Summary of Noise Monitoring Results Monitoring Location A Doongmabulla (Revision, 2012)

24

Table 20: Summary of Noise Monitoring Results Monitoring Location B Labona (Revision, 2012)

Table 21: Summary of Noise Monitoring Results (Revision, 2012)

25

Table 22: Attended Noise Survey Summary (Revision, 2012)

26

3. Nandira colliery, Talcher

3.1. Description

The field experiment was carried out at Nandira colliery, Talcher. The main noise sources at the

projects were as follows: SDL (Side Dump loader), coal drill, auxiliary fans, main fan, belt

conveyers in surface & underground. The sound pressure levels of noise sources were taken at

different distances from the sources. The distances between the sources and the receivers at all

locations were changed during the fieldwork. The noise level was measured at a height of 1.6 m

from ground level. An average of five values of noise level of each source was taken. While, the

sound pressure level was measured at different distances from the noise sources.

3.2. Instrumentation

The instrument used was a standard CEL -283 integrating impulse sound Level meter (U.K) . It

measured noise levels produced both near the source and the operators level covering a range of

40 -120 dB(A) and had a selectable A/ Flat frequency characteristics .Fast slow time constants and

impulsive response. Workplace noise level measurements were taken on SLOW response. The A-

network was used in the present work, which approximates the human response.

Table 23: Noise Survey in Nandira Colliery (Below ground)

28

Figure 5: Measured Sound pressure levels at Nandira Colliery,Talcher

29

4. Open and Underground Mines of WLC, Turkey

In the open and underground mines of WLC located in the western part of Turkey, mining activities

include overburden stripping and coal winning for surface workings and mechanized longwall

excavation for subsurface workings. For overburden removal, an excavator, truck and dragline are

employed, whereas for coal winning, a hydraulic excavator and truck combination is used.

However, double drum shearer is utilized for coal excavation in mechanized longwall of

underground pit.

A survey of industrial noise was carried out in the Western Lignite Corporation (WLC) of the

Turkish Coal Board. All the data were taken 5 m from the rear of each machine while it was

working. Additionally, in situ measurements were taken 1.2-1.5 m above the floor level and 3.5 m

away from sound-reflecting structures in the work site. An AN SI S1.4 Type 2 digital sound level

meter complying with Turkish Standards 2711 2604 was used. The survey results were

transformed to the equivalent noise levels.

Table 24: Equivalent noise levels for various workplaces of WL C.

31

5. Middleton Mine, Derbyshire, England

5.1. Introduction

At the request of Tarmac Limited, Vibrock Limited were commissioned to undertake a background

noise survey at Middleton Mine, Derbyshire. This report outlines the findings of the baseline noise

survey that was undertaken at three residential locations around the site on Monday 23rd July

2007.

5.2. Survey Details

The following instruments were used for all noise measurements:

Table 25: Instrumentation used in Middleton Mine

At all locations the microphone was placed 1.5 metres above the ground and at least 3,5 metres

from the nearest reflecting surface in accordance with BS 7445:2001 Description and measurement

of environmental noise. The sound level meters were programmed to monitor over 15 minute

periods.

5.2. Caliberation

The sound level meters were calibrated with the electronic calibrator prior to commencement and

on completion of the surveys. No significant drift in calibration was observed.

5.3. Survey Date

Mr. Robin Monaghan of Vibrock Limited conducted the surveys on 23rd July 2007.

5.4. Meteorological Conditions

Monday 23rd July 2007 was mild with little or no breeze and an overcast sky. There was a short

period of very light drizzle at the beginning of the survey, this cleared by 11:00am.

32

5.5. Results

Table 26: Noise Survey at 3 Main Street

Table 27: Noise Survey at 41 Rise End

Table 28: Noise Survey at 5 Hillside

33

Table 29: Summary of Noise Survey at Middleton Mine

34

6. Wilpinjong Coal Mine, Australia

The WCM has an approved ROM coal mining rate of 15 Mtpa and saleable product rate of 12.5

Mtpa and operates 24 hours a day. Mining of ROM coal involves conventional drill and blast,

truck and shovel open cut extractive methods with on-site coal handling, washing and stockpiling.

Mining operations are supported by existing on-site facilities including a Coal Handling and

Preparation Plant (CHPP), infrastructure area, water management storages and rail loading

facilities. All product coal from the WCM is transported by rail to domestic electricity generation

customers and to the Port of Newcastle for export.

6.1. Noise Management Plan

The approved WCM Noise Management Plan (NMP) dated September 2011 describes the current

noise management regime for the WCM, which consists of five off-site operator-attended

monitoring sites, three off-site continuous real-time monitors together with the new on-site

Automatic Weather Station (AWS) and 60 metres (m) high Permanent Temperature Tower

(PTT).

6.2. General Noise Management Measures

WCPL implements general noise management measures as part of typical operations at the WCM,

including:

and contractors at the WCM.

activities to the least sensitive times of the day.

-time noise monitoring to assist in the implementation of

pre-emptive management actions to avoid potential non-compliances. A graphical summary of

the previous 24 hours noise levels (Figure 1) is sent to key WCM staff at 0700 hours each

morning for review and follow-up investigation (as required).

ia the on-site AWS and PTT and where adverse conditions are

experienced or predicted operational changes are made to avoid or reduce noise impacts.

6.3. Continuous Real-time Noise Monitoring

6.3.1. Noise Investigation Triggers

Noise investigation triggers are set at a level 2 dBA below the approved noise limit, and are used

between the hours of 2000 hours and 1000 hours (to minimise false triggers). As described above

the real-time monitoring is not used for compliance monitoring. The focus of real-time monitoring

is therefore on the periods when adverse weather conditions that increase noise propagation (eg

temperature inversions) are likely to occur, and sources of extraneous noise are less prevalent. The

noise investigation trigger sample period is conservatively set at 5 minutes (ie one third of the

compliance noise measurement period), which allows the operations to be modified in time to

achieve compliance with the 15 minute noise limits, as required. Response Protocol Figure 6

presents a sample period (27-28 August 2009) which demonstrates the effectiveness of the WCM

noise management strategy in maintaining mine noise below the approved noise limits. This

example is from real-time monitoring in Slate Gully. The approximate sequence of events can be

summarised as follows:

sent to the Open Cut Examiner (OCE) notifying of the exceedance.

-time audio recording, the OCE confirmed that the trigger was due to

35

WCM activities.

-down mobile equipment operating in Pit 2, including one excavator, three haul

trucks and one dozer, plus one dozer operating on a waste emplacement area.

update indicates that the ambient noise level has reduced to just below the

noise limit (of 39 dBA) for the nearby private receiver, but is still above the trigger level (of 37

dBA). Subjectively, the real-time audio stream indicates that the ambient noise level is controlled

by WCM activities.

-down all mobile equipment.

only the WCM washery mine hum is discernible on the real-time audio.

-line starting with equipment operating in Pit 5

and ROM area, followed by Pit 2 and dozer fleets.

-time audio and ambient noise levels are monitored by the OCE for the remainder

of the night-time period, with equipment turned-off and on (primarily equipment in Pit 2 and

dozers on waste in Pit 5), as required, throughout the period based on both subjective and objective

observations by the OCE.

Figure 6: Sample 24 Hour Real-time Noise Monitoring Chart

The above example demonstrates how the WCM noise levels are actively managed to maintain

mine noise below approved noise limits including when weather conditions are outside those

nominated in the WCM approvals.

6.3.2. Equipment Stand-downs during Implementation of Response Protocols

As described above, in response to noise from the WCM exceeding noise investigation triggers,

equipment is stood-down as required. During the 2012 reporting period a total of 1,193 excavator

and associated machinery hours were lost as a direct response of noise investigation triggers being

36

exceeded. Figure 3 presents the monthly machinery hours lost due to noise investigation triggers

and associated stand-downs (between 2000 hours and 1000 hours).

Figure 7: Real-time Noise Management Example and Recorded Mine Noise Levels

Figure 8: Machinery Lost Hours due to Noise Trigger Investigations 2012

37

Figure 8 shows the concentration of lost excavator and associated machinery hours during the 2012

winter season (ie 653 hours) coinciding with the increased strength and frequency of temperature

inversions. It is noted that at the end of 2012, there were no longer any private landholdings in

Slate Gully. The real-time monitor in Slate Gully was therefore relocated in November 2012. The

Slate Gully real-time noise monitoring was previously a large contributor to the above excavator

lost hour totals.

6.4. Background Noise

Comprehensive background noise surveys to characterise and quantify the pre-mine noise

environment in the area surrounding the WCM were conducted in August and September 2004.

The measurement methodology and analysis procedures are described in the Wilpinjong Coal

Project Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). The unattended background noise logger data from

each monitoring location, together with the on-site weather conditions are presented graphically

on a daily basis in Report 30-1313R1 Wilpinjong Coal Project, Construction, Operation and

Transportation Noise and Blasting Impact Assessment (Heggies Pty Ltd, 2005). The ambient noise

data was then processed in accordance with the requirements of the INP to derive the ambient

noise levels presented in Table 30.

Table 30: Unattended Noise Monitoring Results 2004 (dBA re 20 Pa)

38

Table 31: Unattended Noise Ambient Monitoring Results 2012 (dBA re 20 Pa)

Table 32: Measured Night-time LAeq(15minute) and LA1(1minute) Noise Levels (dBA re 20 Pa)

6.5. Noise Mitigation and Management Measures

WCPL is obligated to manage noise levels from the WCM in accordance with the noise limits

specified in Project Approval 05_0021 using reasonable and feasible mitigation measures. The

Noise Impact Assessment prepared for Modification 3 identified that it was reasonable and feasible

to replace some existing unattenuated mobile plant items at the WCM with attenuated mobile plant,

as required, in order to comply with noise limits at privately owned receivers. WCPL has not been

required to introduce attenuated plant at the WCM, as the obligation to meet the noise limits

specified in Project Approval 05_0021 has been achieved through a combination of the following:

Property acquisition which has had the effect of reducing the number of privately owned

receivers that could potentially be affected by noise impacts from WCM operations.

For the remaining privately owned receivers, the implementation of the noise management

strategy as per the NMP, including the use of real-time noise monitoring to manage noise levels

during the night.

This would include the continuation of real-time monitoring (eg at Wollar), and the stand-down of

equipment, as required, as part of the response to an exceedance of noise investigation triggers.

On this basis, the noise modelling for the Modification incorporates real-time noise controls under

particular adverse meteorological conditions (eg equipment stand-downs) in accordance with this

commitment, and to reflect existing operations at the WCM. Given the successful implementation

of the noise management strategy for the existing operations, WCPL does not propose to attenuate

the existing owner-operated fleet to comply with Project Approval noise limits.

39

6.6. WCM Mobile Equipment and Fixed Plant Sound Power Levels

The potential for machinery to emit noise is quantified as the sound power level (SWL). At the

receptor, the received noise is quantified as the sound pressure level (SPL). In general terms, any

variation in the on-site plant and equipment SWLs will produce a similar variation in the off-site

SPL at the receiver (eg an increase of 5dBA in the SWL of equipment operating at a site may result

in a corresponding 5dBA increase in SPL of intrusive noise at the receiver, when averaged over

the same 15 minute period).

The LAeq SWLs given for each item of mobile equipment do not include noise emissions which

emanate from alarms or communication horns. It is noted that WCPL have installed broad-band

quacker reversing alarms on the majority of the WCM mobile equipment fleet. Further,

implementation of positive radio communication is being progressed in place of horns, where safe

to do so.

6.7. Road traffic Noise Impact Assessment

It is noted that residential dwellings are also located adjacent to Ulan Road south of the study area,

however, total traffic flows also increase with distance south on Ulan Road. Hence the section of

Ulan Road south of the Cope Road and in the vicinity of Cooks Gap was adopted as the study area,

as WCPLs traffic as a proportion of total traffic is the highest in this section of Ulan Road. In

practice, noise level increases of less than 2 dBA are generally achieved when the percentage

increase to the existing light and heavy traffic is no greater than 60%. The RNP describes a number

of steps for applying the criteria. In general accordance with these steps, this assessment has:

(south of the Cope Road in the

vicinity of Cooks Gap) with the adjacent residential dwellings presented in Table 36.

sources and the WCM incorporating the Modification.

40

Table 33: Fixed and Mobile Equipment for Modification 3 and Existing WCM 24 hours per day

41

6.8. Operating Noise Impact Assessment

Table 34: Evening Cumulative (LAeq(4hour)) Noise Amenity Levels (dBA re 20 Pa)

42

Table 35: Cumulative Night-time (LAeq(9hour)) Noise Amenity Levels (dBA re 20 Pa)

The following are some conclusions of traffic noise levels recorded:

noise from the WCM incremental traffic in

comparison to the (measured) traffic in 2012.

comparison to the projected 2014 traffic.

43

Table 36: Ulan Road Adjacent Residential Dwellings

Table 37: Nominal Off-set Distance to Meet the Total Traffic Noise Criteria

6.9. Traffic Noise Cumulative 2014 plus WCM Increment

The daytime cumulative 2014 traffic is predicted to increase by approximately 3% due to the

incremental WCM 2014 traffic and result in a negligible 0.1 dBA increase in daytime LAeq(15

hour) traffic noise levels. The night-time cumulative 2014 traffic is predicted to increase by

approximately 4% due to the incremental WCM 2014 traffic and result in a negligible 0.2 dBA

increase in night-time LAeq(9 hour) traffic noise levels. Based on the off-set distances presented

in Table 37 a total of three residential dwelling in the study area (ie numbers 6, 8 and 10) are within

45.5 m of the Ulan Road and therefore likely to receive night-time Leq(9hour) traffic noise levels

above the total traffic noise criteria of 55 dBA due to the predicted cumulative 2014 traffic

excluding the WCM incremental traffic. Based on the off-set distances presented in Table 37 one

residential dwelling in the study area (ie number 10) is within 26.5 m of the Ulan Road and

therefore likely to receive daytime Leq(15hour) traffic noise levels above the total traffic noise

criteria of 60 dBA due to the cumulative 2014 traffic excluding the WCM incremental traffic.

44

7. Cowal Gold Mine, Central New South Wales, Australia

7.1. Introduction

The Cowal Gold Mine (CGM) is located approximately 38 kilometres (km) north-east of West

Wyalong in New South Wales (NSW)). Barrick (Cowal) Limited (Barrick) is the owner and

operator of the CGM. Gold production commenced in 2005 and the extent of the existing/approved

surface development together with the proposed extension areas. The mining method used at the

CGM is typical of open pit mining operations. Waste rock (ie rock containing no commercial gold)

and ore is broken through a routine sequence of in-pit drilling and blasting. Broken rock is loaded

into large rear dump trucks using hydraulic excavators and is then hauled from the pit to be placed

within the dedicated waste emplacements or, in the case of ore, direct to the primary crusher or

run-of-mine (ROM) ore stockpile. Gold is extracted from the ore on-site using a conventional

carbon-in-leach cyanide leaching circuit.

Table 38: Daytime Measured LAeq(15minute) Intrusive Mine Level (dBA re 20 Pa)

Table 39: Evening Measured LAeq(15minute) Intrusive Mine Level (dBA re 20 Pa)

45

Table 40: Night-time Measured LAeq(15minute) Intrusive Mine Level (dBA re 20 Pa)

7.2. Ambient Noise Monitoring 2010 to 2013 Table 41: Ambient Noise Environment 2010 to 2013 (dBA re 20 Pa)

7.3. Background Noise and Amenity Levels for INP Assessment Purposes Table 42: Background Noise and Amenity Levels for Assessment (dBA re 20 Pa)

7.4. Road Traffic Noise

The road traffic flow and noise measurement results from traffic noise monitoring conducted in

February 2013 have been used to quantify the near-field total traffic noise adjacent to the primary

mine access route to the CGM (for employees, major deliveries and heavy vehicles). The data were

then processed in accordance with the requirements of the RNP to derive the total traffic noise

levels presented in Table 43.

46

Table 43: Calculated LAeq Total Traffic Noise Levels February 2013 (dBA re 20 Pa)

7.5. Measured Night Time Noise Levels Table 44: Measured Night-time LAeq(15minute) and LA1(1minute) Noise Levels (dBA re 20 Pa)

7.6. Plant and Equipment Sound Power Levels

The potential for machinery to emit noise is quantified as the sound power level (SWL). At the

receptor, the received noise is quantified as the sound pressure level (SPL). In general terms, any

variation in the on-site plant and equipment SWLs will produce a similar variation in the off-site

SPL at the receiver (eg an increase of 5 dBA in the SWL of equipment operating at a site may

result in a corresponding 5 dBA increase in SPL of intrusive noise at the receiver, when averaged

over the same 15 minute period).

47

Table 45: Plant and Equipment Sound Power Levels

48

7.7. Mine Operating Noise Impact Assessment

Table 46: Year 2014 Intrusive LAeq (15minute) and LA1 (1minute) Noise Levels (dBA re 20 Pa)

49

Table 47: Calm (Neutral) and Noise Enhancing Meteorological Modelling Parameters

Figure 9: Night-time year 2011 LAeq(15minute) intrusive noise contour (800c/100 m temperature inversion)

50

Figure 10: Night-time year 2013 LAeq(15minute) intrusive noise contour (800c/100 m temperature inversion)

51

8. Camberwell Village, London, England

The LAeq, period noise levels near the New England Highway for day, evening and night-time,

are also quite high ranging between 56-60dBA. By comparison the LAeq, period levels further

from the New England Highway are substantially lower. This indicates that parts of Camberwell

experience a significant exposure to high levels of road traffic noise.

Attended noise measurements were made between 8:40 am and 10:34 am on 1 April 2009 at

Camberwell Village. The results of the measurements are presented in Table 6-3. The weather was

clear with light wind from the east to south-east. Some sites were more exposed to the wind than

others which were blowing from the New England Highway. There appeared to be relatively high

truck numbers. Table 48: Measured LAeq,period Noise Levels

The topography and alignment of the Highway is such that the village has a long and exposed line

of sight to it. The audibility of a single truck was able to be tracked for some 35 seconds. The road

is elevated with respect to the village, with a slight descent to the north, which causes the engine

brakes of some vehicles to activate. The posted speed limit is 100 kph with a chip seal road surface.

At the time of monitoring the surface was damp. At the time of the site visit there had been

extremely high rainfall and mine noise was not audible. What was however quite noticeable was

that Camberwell Village has a high exposure to road traffic noise from the New England Highway.

52

Attended noise measurements were made between 10:00 pm and 11:00 pm on 1 June 2009 at

Camberwell village. The results of the measurements are presented in Table 6-4. The weather was

cold and overcast with no real wind observable. At some sites there was extraneous noise mainly

from frogs. In general there was also significant road traffic noise, with a constant background

from Integra. Maximum noise events were attributable to passbys of heavy vehicle on the New

England Hwy and train horn noise. Ashton was not mining and no noise from its plant was audible.

Table 49: Camberwell Village Noise Monitoring - 31 March/1 April 2009

53



cool and overcast (~ 70%) with a slight breeze from Ashtons direction. After 10pm the wind had

reduced to still and there was approximately 50% cloud cover. Temperature was cool. There was

very little extraneous noise, however in general there was significant road traffic noise, with a

constant background from Ashton. No mine noise was identified as coming from any other mine.

Maximum noise events were attributable to passbys of heavy vehicles on the New England Hwy.

Ashton was mining prior to 10pm but only using its prep plant after 10pm. It was noted that shortly

after 9pm noise which appeared to be coming from dozers became less obvious and it is likely this

is because they moved to lower levels in the pit.

Table 50: Attended noise measurement results (1 June 2009)

54



cool and overcast (~ 70%) with a slight breeze from Ashtons direction. After 10pm the wind had

reduced to still and there was approximately 50% cloud cover. Temperature was cool. There was

very little extraneous noise, however in general there was significant road traffic noise, with a

constant background from Ashton. No mine noise was identified as coming from any other mine.

Maximum noise events were attributable to passbys of heavy vehicles on the New England Hwy.

Ashton was mining prior to 10pm but only using its prep plant after 10pm. It was noted that shortly

after 9pm noise which appeared to be coming from dozers became less obvious and it is likely this

is because they moved to lower levels in the pit.




cool and overcast (varying from 30 - 90%). There was no wind. No noise was audible from Ashton

although it was working. Mine noise was difficult to distinguish from the high traffic noise but

appeared to be coming from Rixs Creek, possibly the drag line.

55


Attended noise measurements were made between 8.05 pm and 10:30 pm on 22 June 2009 at


cool with clear skies. There was a slight mid strength breeze from the direction of Ashton

experienced at McInernys but it was calm in the lower parts of the village. After 10pm the wind

had reduced to still and there was approximately 50% cloud cover. Temperature was cool.

56


8.1. Ashton Coal Mine

Attended compliance noise monitoring is conducted quarterly by Spectrum Acoustics Pty Ltd for

the Ashton Coal Mine. Attended noise monitoring conducted at the Stapleton and Clark residences

indicates a range of noise levels that change with meteorological conditions. The noise levels

attributable to Ashton coal are:

Daytime - inaudible to 36-40 dBA LAeq(15minutes)

Evening - audible to 34-49 dBA LAeq(15minutes)

Night time - audible to 34-49 dBA LAeq(15minutes).

The monitoring reports also comment that other coal mines can contribute noise levels between

31 to 40 LAeq(15minutes).

8.2. Mt Owen Coal Mine

Compliance noise assessments for Mt Owen Coal Mine are conducted by Umwelt (Australia) Pty

Ltd. The reported noise level attributable from Mt Owen Coal Mine at Camberwell village ranges

between 29-30 LAeq(15minutes) under adverse meteorological conditions.

8.3. Glendell Coal Mine

Xstrata in its submission to the DoP regarding the cumulative noise study suggests that ambient

noise levels in Camberwell Village measured using the real time noise monitors indicate

thatLAeq,period noise levels are above DECCW amenity criteria and that the main noise

contribution is from road traffic. Xstrata also suggests that Glendell Coal Mine contributes

between 36 to 39 LAeq(15minutes) under adverse meteorological conditions.

57

8.4. Ravensworth Complex

Xstrata in its submission to the DoP suggests that the Narama Mine currently provides a low

contribution to noise levels within Camberwell village of less than 20 LAeq(15minutes). It is

suggested that even with planned increases in production noise from Narama Mine operations

would only contribute between 20 to 27 LAeq(15minutes) under adverse meteorological

conditions.

8.5. Integra Underground Coal Mine

Integra is currently proposing to expand its underground operations. The noise assessment in the

EA currently under assessment suggests that the future contribution to noise levels within

Camberwell village would be between 28-36 LAeq(15minutes).

8.6. Integra Open Cut Coal Mine

Integra is also currently proposing to expand its open cut operations. The noise assessment within

the EA suggests that the future contribution to noise levels within Camberwell village would be

between 41-46 LAeq(15minutes).

8.7. Rixs Creek Coal Mine

Documented noise level calculations or measurements of noise contributed by Rixs Creek to

Camberwell village have not been able to be located. However, noise measurements conducted at

Camberwell village as part of this study suggest that the noise contribution from Rixs Creek could

be between 30-33 LAeq(15minutes).

8.8. Summary of Existing Noise Contributions

The following is a summary of above stated Noise Survey reports in Camberwell village and

surrounding areas.

Table 54: Summary of Existing Noise Contributions, Camberwell Village

58

Glendell Coal Mine, Ravensworth East Coal Mine, Mt Owen Coal Mine and Integra Coal Mine

all have cumulative noise conditions in their approvals (See Appendix A). The noise criteria are

based on the recommended acceptable noise levels for rural areas from the INP, namely:

LAeq(11hours) 50 dBA Day;

LAeq(4hours) 45 dBA Evening; and

LAeq(9hours) 40 dBA Night.

The conditions state that each proponent shall take all reasonable and feasible measures to ensure

that the noise generated by their project, combined with noise generated by other mines, does not

exceed relevant the noise criteria. However, the cumulative noise level from coal mines in

Camberwell village estimated in this report (42-44 LAeq, period), may, on occasion, exceed the

recommended night limit of 40 LAeq(9hours). Additionally the approval conditions for Glendell

Coal Mine, Ravensworth East Coal Mine, Mt Owen Coal Mine and Integra Coal Mine have

cumulative noise conditions that require acquisition of noise effected properties if noise levels

exceed:

LAeq(11hours) 53 dBA Day;

LAeq(4hours) 48 dBA Evening; and

LAeq(9hours) 43 dBA Night.

The cumulative noise level from coal mines in Camberwell village estimated in this report of (42-

44 LAeq,period) appears to be very close to the recommended acquisition noise limit at night of

43 LAeq(9hours) and could often exceed the cumulative noise limit of 40 LAeq(9hours). That

said, it should be noted that the night time and evening LAeq,period noise levels from coal mines

in Camberwell village in this report are estimates only and assume a worst case scenario.

Furthermore, these limits apply under relevant requirements and exemptions (including certain

non-typical meteorological conditions), of the INP, which are reflected in these approvals and

consents. Therefore, they should not necessarily be thought of as an automatic non-compliance

with any particular noise limit in a project approval or development consent. Nonetheless these

estimates indicate that the cumulative mining noise levels in Camberwell village are quite high

and nearing noise limits for Glendell Coal Mine, Ravensworth East Coal Mine, Mt Owen Coal

Mine and Integra Coal Mine as presented in their project approvals or development consents.

Ashton Coal Mine, one of the major noise contributors to Camberwell village, does not have a

similar cumulative noise condition in its consent. The cumulative noise conditions in the Glendell

Coal Mine, Ravensworth East Coal Mine, Mt Owen Coal Mine and Integra Coal Open cut appear

to have been derived from a template first developed for the Mt Arthur Coal Mine, near

Muswellbrook. The rural amenity criteria and the cumulative acquisition criteria (3 dB higher)

appear to have been first developed for that project.

It is the author of this reports opinion that cumulative noise impacts should be assessed according

to the INP. The INP states that The acceptable and recommended maximum LAeq noise levels

can provide a guide to applying the negotiation. While negotiation between the proponent and the

community for an agreed noise level can occur at any time, typically the proponent would negotiate

with the EPA where noise-level emissions fall between the acceptable and recommended

maximum. For site levels beyond the recommended maximum levels, the proponent would need

to negotiate directly with the community. Therefore, future cumulative noise criteria could use a

similar approach so that currently used in project approvals for intrusive noise, namely:

An exceedance of the acceptable amenity criteria by 2 dB is considered to be a negligible

impact, as such an exceedance is not generally noticeable to people;

59

An exceedance of the acceptable amenity criteria by 3 to 5 dB is considered a moderate

impact as such an exceedance is noticeable by some people but not all; and

An exceedance of the maximum amenity criteria is considered significant (>5 dB)

The following management strategy can be used:

Table 55: Management Strategies for areas around Camberwell Village

A similar process was put forward by Integra Coal for its current open cut expansion proposal. It

shall be noted that this proposal does not deal well with issues of equity, in that the last project

may be held accountable for cumulative impacts from many existing industrial activities. This is a

complex policy issue that can not be resolved by this review. However, one option could be that

for the operator of the proposed project to be responsible for a particular cumulative impact, the

noise level must:

contribute more than 35dBA;

result in a cumulative increase of more than 1dBA; and

result in a cumulative exceedance of the relevant management or acquisition criteria.

60

9. References 1. Scott D. F., Gray Son R. L., Edward A. Disease and Illness in U.S. Mining, 1983-2001. J. of

Occup. & Env. Medicine 46 (12), 1272, Dec. 2004.

2. U.S. Dept. of labor, Noise Control A Guide for Workers and Employers, Occup. Safety &

Health Administration, p119.

3. Sensogut, C., Cinar, I. An Empirical Model for the Noise Propagation in Open Cast Mines

A Case Study, Applied Acoustics, 68, 1026, 2007.

4. Chen, J.D., Tsai, J.Y. Hearing Loss among Workers at an Oil Refinery in Taiwan. Archives

of Environmental Health, ISSN 003-996, 58, (1), 55, 2003.

5. Poltev M. K. Occupational Health and Safety in Mining Industries. Mir Publishers, Moscow,

5, 117, 1985.

6. Al Joe W. W., Bobick T. G., Redmond, G. W., Bartholomae R.C. The Bureau of Mines

Noise Control Research Program, a 10-Year Review, Bureau of Mines Information Circular,

IC9004, 1985.

7. International Labour Organization, Safety & health in small-scale surface mines a

handbook, pp. 13, ISBN 92-2-112475-4, 2001.

8. Shier et. al . Holes human anatomy and physiology, 7th edition, TM Higher Education

Group, Inc., 1996.

9. Sensogut C. Industrial Noise in Mines and Labour Health. [In Turkish] Symp. on Labour

Health in Mining Industry, Karaelmas University, Zonguldak, pp. 73-77, 1998.

10. Unver B, A study on the effects of noise experienced during mining cctivities on the health

of labour. Conference on Safety in Mines and Environmental Protection, ISGUM, Ankara [In

Turkish], pp. 83-98, 1995.

11. Noise Control Regulations of Turkey, Official Gazette, 25325, 2003.

12. Banach J. D. Mine safety & health administration announces new health standard. CAOHC

update, pp. 2-3, Spring 2000.

13. Grella G., Patrucco, M. Environmental noise from a new surface mining project. Proceedings

SWEMP96, Edited by R. Ciccu, Cagliari, pp. 1089-1096, 1996.

14. TS 2606. Acoustic, the Evaluation of Noise from the Point of Social Life, Turkish Standard,

March Issue, pp. 1-6, 1977.

15. TS 2711. General Principles for Sound Level Meters, Turkish Standard, April Issue, pp. 1-

10, 1977.

16. TS 2604. Sensitive Sonometers, Turkish Standard, March Issue, pp. 7-10, 1977.

17. Cinar, I. Noise Monitoring, Modelling and Mapping in Mining, PhD Thesis, Graduate School

of Pure and Applied Sciences, Selcuk University, Konya, pp. 141, 2005.

18. Fausti, S., Wilming Ton, D., Helt, W., Konradmartin, D. Hearing Health and Care: The Need

for Improvised Hearing Loss Prevention and Hearing Conservation Practices. Journal of

Rehabilitation Research & Development, 42(4), 45, 2005.

19. Hartman, L. Howard (1992) SME Engineering Handbook, Colorado, Vol. I, Chapter - 11.9,

pp. No .1127-1132.

20. M. (1990) Mine Environmental Engineering. Florida, Vol. I, Chapter -1 Noise, pp.7-9, 21,

chapter 2. Illuminance-pp-25.

61

21. Ghatak.S, S. (1997). A Study of Mine Management Legislation and General Safety, 4th

Edition, pp -101-106.

22. D. Trotter, (1982)'The Lighting of Underground Mines'. Trans Tech Publications, West

Germany.

23. H. W. Lewis. (1986) 'Underground Coal Mine Lighting Handbook, Part 1: Background'. US

Bureau of Mines Information Circular 9073, Chapter -3, pp-20-22.

24. H W Lewis. (1986) 'Underground Coal Mine Lighting Handbook, Part 2: Application'. US

Bureau of Mines Information Circular 9074, Chapter -1, pp-2-4.

25. Aruna, M., Rao, Y.V., Harsha Vardhan and Karmakar, N.C.(2004) Some Problems in Mine

Lighting. Light Newsletter, IV, pp 34 38.

26. Wells, C. (1997). Personal communication on illumination and lighting legislation &

Standards in India. Calcutta, India.

27. Crooks, W.H. and Peay, J.M. (1981). Developing luminance requirements for underground

metal and nonmetal mines. In Bureau of Mines Information Circular IC 8866.United States

Department of the Interior.

28. European Coal and Steel Community. (ECSC) 1990. Guidelines on the ergonomics of

underground illumination in coal mines. Community ergonomics Action Report No15, series

3.pp-92.

29. Odendaal, E.P.S. (1997). The Consequences of Poor Illumination on Underground Mine

Workers and the Subsequent Effects on productivity and Safety. NOSHCON97, Annual 84

NOSA Occupational Health, Safety and Environment Convention, Kempton Park, 14-16

May. Johannesburg: NOSA.

30. Davis, J. (1997).Personal communication on illumination and lighting legislation & standards

in NSW, Australia. International Mining Consultants Pty Ltd, New South Wales, Australia.

Noise Surveys done in Mines

Documents

background noise

airstrip noise level

construction noise assessment

noise impact assessment

construction noise criteria

low frequency noise

aircraft noise levels

rail siding noise level