CASE STUDY: BATEA AND THE IMPLICATIONS FOR NOISE POLLUTION ... · Coal Handling and Processing...
Transcript of CASE STUDY: BATEA AND THE IMPLICATIONS FOR NOISE POLLUTION ... · Coal Handling and Processing...
APPENDIXA–LEARDFORESTRESEARCHNODESUPPLEMENTARYSUBMISSIONVICKERYCOALPROJECT
1
CASESTUDY:BATEAANDTHEIMPLICATIONSFORNOISEPOLLUTIONCONTROL
ACostComparisonofMaulesCreekCHPPandBoggabriCoalCHPP
MaulesCreekMineCHPP
APPENDIXA–LEARDFORESTRESEARCHNODESUPPLEMENTARYSUBMISSIONVICKERYCOALPROJECT
2
INTRODUCTION
Publiclyavailableinformationhasbeenusedtocomparethelevelofinvestmentthatwasmadeby(then)AstonResourcesLtd(nowWhitehavenCoal)ondesigningandconstructingtheMaulesCreekCoalHandlingandProcessingPlant(CHPP)vstheinvestmentbyIdemitsuResourcesinthedesignandconstructionoftheBoggabriCoalCHPP,whichisnearbyintheLeardStateForestCoalMiningPrecinct.
PURPOSEOFCOMPARISON
ThisCaseStudyistoexaminethecostsofWhitehaven’slow-costCHPP,extensiveexceedanceswhichwasincludedinanEPAorderedMandatoryNoiseAudit.NoiseCondition12(a)oftheMaulesCreekMineConditionsofApproval,whichreads:
“AttenuationofPlant12.TheProponentshall:
(a)ensure...allequipmentandnoisecontrolmeasuresdeliversoundpowerlevelsthatareequaltoorbetterthanthesoundpowerlevelsidentifiedintheEA,andcorrespondtobestpracticeortheapplicationofthebestavailabletechnologyeconomicallyachievable”
TheintentionofthePlanningAssessmentCommissionininsertingthisConditionistorequireMaulesCreekminetoimplementcontinuousimprovement.Theuseoftheterm“bestavailabletechnologyeconomicallyachievable”–orBATEA-isanexplicitrequirementthatwasnotaccidentallyinserted,andaimstoensurethatasthemineevolves,thecompanycontinuestoimproveitsenvironmentalperformance.
In2017,followingtheMandatoryNoiseAudit,WhitehavenCoalattemptedaModification(MOD4)toremoveCondition12(a)butafterafloodofsubmissionsbythecommunityarguingagainstsuchModification,itwassubsequentlywithdrawn.
WhitehavenCoalhasregularlytolditsshareholdersthatitaspirestobe“Australia’slowestcostcoalproducer”.
InthehearingconductedbytheNSWIndependentPlanningCommission(Dec2018)withWhitehavenCoalanditsconsultants,noiseconsultantJohnWassermanofWilkinsonMurraysaidthemodellingfortheVickeryExtensionProjectusedanassumptionoftechnologybeing“reasonablyfeasible”.
TheLFRNargues“reasonablyfeasible”isnotinthepublicinterestandahigherstandard,beingBATEA,shouldbeusedinnoisemodellingofVickeryExtensionProject.
WeareconcernedthatthelowerstandardoftechnologyusedinthemodellingishavingamisleadingeffectonthenoiseimpactsmodelledfortheVickeryExtensionProject.
WecallontheIPCtoinstructtheApplicanttore-modelthenoiseimpactsusingadifferentassumption,beingthatofBATEA.
APPENDIXA–LEARDFORESTRESEARCHNODESUPPLEMENTARYSUBMISSIONVICKERYCOALPROJECT
3
COMPARISONOFDESIGNANDCONSTRUCTIONCOSTS
WeusedpubliclyavailableinformationtoascertaintherelativeinvestmentmadeintheCHPP’sofMaulesCreekandBoggabriCoalminescomparedwiththeirproductionoverthelifetimeofthemines.
Hereisthecomparisonofdesignandconstructioncosts:
PROJECTCHPP DESIGN CONSTRUCTION TOTAL$MMCCM $18.5M(Sedgman) $100M(Downer) $118.5MBOGGABRI $186M(Thiess-SedgmanJV) $186M
COMPARISONOFTOTALCHPPCOSTPERLIFEOFMINEPRODUCTION
ThelifetimeproductionoftheMaulesCreekmineisknowntobe362MtonnescomparedwithBoggabriCoal’s200Mtonnesofrecoverablecoal,makingMaulesCreek
PROJECTCHPP COALRESERVES TOTAL$M CHPPCOST/MILLIONTONNESMCCM 362Mtonnes $118.5M $0.33MBOGGABRI 200Mtonnes $186M $0.93M
Conclusion:TheinvestmentbyIdemitsuResourcesintheBoggabriCoalCHPPisalmost3xtimespermilliontonnesofrecoverablecoalproducedoverthelifeofthemine,thanthesimilarinvestmentbyWhitehavenCoalinMaulesCreekCHPP.
ThedifferencebetweentheinvestmentmadeatBoggabriCHPPvsMaulesCreekCHPPisclearlyofaveryhighorder,reflectingWhitehaven’sstatedgoalofbeing“oneofAustralia’slowestcostcoalproducers”.
Wesubmitthatthisgoalofbeinglow-costhashadademonstrableeffectonthecompany’sabilitytomitigatethenoiseimpactsofitsMaulesCreekCHPP,whichisasignificantsourceofthemine’snoiseproblems.
SOURCES:
MaulesCreek
Sedgmanwins$18.5millioncontractforAstonResources’MaulesCreekProject
“LeadingresourcesectorservicescompanySedgmanLimited(ASXCode:SDM)todayannouncedithasbeenawardedan$18.5milliondesigncontractforaCoalHandingandPreparationPlant(CHPP)atAstonResourcesLimited’s(ASXCode:AZT)MaulesCreekProject.
The$18.5milliondesigncontractiswithMaulesCreekCoalPtyLtd,anAstonResourcesLimitedsubsidiary,whichisthemanageroftheMaulesCreekProject.”
APPENDIXA–LEARDFORESTRESEARCHNODESUPPLEMENTARYSUBMISSIONVICKERYCOALPROJECT
4
http://www.whitehavencoal.com.au/wp-content/uploads/pdf/SDM_Sedgman%20wins%20$18.5%20million%20contract%20for%20Maules%20Creek.pdf
Contractawardedhttps://www.australianmining.com.au/news/downer-wins-whitehaven-coal-maules-creek-chpp-construction-contract-2/
Boggabri
https://www.thiess.com/news/2013/thiess-sedgman-jv-wins-186m-chpp-contracthttps://www.australianmining.com.au/news/186m-contract-for-theiss-sedgman-jv/
EVIDENCETHATMAULESCREEKCOALMINECHPPISNOT“BATEA”
TheMaulesCreekmineMandatoryNoiseAuditwasimposeduponMaulesCreekminebytheNSWEPAinFebruary,2016.Throughout2015(thesecondyearofoperationofMCCM)over100exceedanceshadbeenrecordedbytheEPAatoneneighbouringpropertycausingtheEPAtoformtheviewthatit“reasonablysuspected”furtherexceedances.TheMandatoryNoiseAuditwasimposedbecause:
“(a)thelicenseehas,ononeormoreoccasion,contravenedtheconditionsofthelicenceinrelationtonoise;and
(b)theallegedcontraventionshavecaused,orarelikelytocause,harmtotheenvironment;
(c)activitiesatthepremiseshavebeenandarebeingcarriedoutinanenvironmentallyunsatisfactorymannerwithinthemeaningofsection95oftheAct”
AccordingtotheMaulesCreekMineMandatoryNoseAudit(section3.8.p40):
”ThesiteinspectionconfirmedthattheCoalProcessingPlantisnotenclosedandisessentiallyopenonallsideswithapartialroofcover...Nophysicalnoisecontrolmitigationwasthereforeevident.Wewereadvisedthatthebuildingstructurecouldnotsupportanenclosureretrospectively.”[Emphasisadded]
SincethensomeminormodificationshavebeenmadetoscreenthetrainloadoutfacilitywhichaccordingtotheGMMCCM,resultedina4dBreductionatsource,buthewouldnotanswerquestionsfromtheMaulesCreekCCCabouthowthismighthavetranslatedintoareductionatthereceiver.HetoldtheCCCthecompanydidnothavethecapabilitytotell,whichatthegiventimeisunlikely,asthecompanyhadreal-timenoisemonitoringwithaudiocapacity.
Inanycase,claddingandscreensarenotBestPractice.TheMandatoryNoiseAuditrecommends(atp.42)somemoresophisticated,engineeringbasedsolutionstothenoiseproblem,notjustscreens.However,Whitehavenhasneveradoptedsuchmeasures.
APPENDIXA–LEARDFORESTRESEARCHNODESUPPLEMENTARYSUBMISSIONVICKERYCOALPROJECT
5
ThefactthattheCHPPwasunder-engineeredandcannotberectifiedobviouslycontradictsthestandardof“BestAvailableTechnologyEconomicallyAchievable.”Whitehavenisaprofitablecompanythatearnedover$525Mprofitlastfinancialyear(2018)andpridesitselfonbeingoneofthelowest-costcoalproducersinAustralia.
TheMaulesCreekCommunityConsultativeCommittee(CCC)wasinformedthattheCHPPisnotthesamedesignastheonewhichwasoriginallymodelledintheEA,whichwasmerelyan“indicative”design.ThiswasdisclosedtotheCCCbywayofexplanationastowhythesoundpowerlevelsarenotthesameastheEA.
ThisraisedthequestionofwhytheDepartmentofPlanningapprovedaCHPPsubstantiallydifferenttotheEAdesignthatithadchangedthesoundpowerlevelssosignificantly.
WedonotwanttoseearecurrenceofthisatVickery.
WHITEHAVENCOAL’SRESPONSETOSUBMISSIONSTOORIGINALMAULESCREEKPROJECT
IntheResponsetoSubmissions“Acoustics”,Whitehaven(thenreferredtoas“Aston”)stated1:
“AnumberofsubmissionswerereceivedinrelationtotheProjectchangingthequietruralcommunitytobeagiantindustrialzone.Further,OEHsubmitsthattheydonotagreewiththecommitmenttomeetthepredictednoiselevelswithinTable23oftheEAanddisagreethatfeasibleandreasonablenoisemitigationandmanagementmeasureshavebeenappliedtooperations.”[Emphasisadded]
Whitehaven/Astonwentontostate:“AsdescribedinSection7.3.4oftheEA,AstonhasdemonstratedthatfeasibleandreasonablenoisecontrolandmitigationmeasureshavebeenincorporatedintothenoisemodellingfortheProject.”
ThissuggeststhatWhitehavenarenottakingtheirnoisemitigationseriouslyandwefearthesamethingcouldhappenwiththeVickeryExtensionProject.
DespitetheOEH’ssubmissionthatitdidnotagreewiththeProponent’s“commitment”tomeetthepredictednoiselevels,anddisagreedthatfeasibleandreasonablenoisemitigationandmanagementmeasureshadbeenappliedtooperations,theMaulesCreekminewasneverthelessapproved,andexceedancescommencedalmostimmediatelydespiteonlybeinginYear1ofproduction.
1At4.3