Noise Impact Assessment and Control

Assignment 1

Department of Mining Engineering

National Institute of Technology, Rourkela

Noise Surveys in India and

Abroad
A brief compilation of various Noise Surveys
conducted in India and abroad.

ABHIJEET DUTTA
711MN1172

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
1

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

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
3

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

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 <80 dB(A) to <85 dB(A) for new building sites. Hence, noise
mitigation measures are not specifically required against aircraft noise at the sensitive receivers.
Although adverse noise impacts are not predicted, a range of management measures are provided
in this report as corrective actions if noise impacts do occur and/or valid noise-related complaints
are received.

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.

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.

Figure 1: Monitoring location A Doongmabulla homestead

Figure 2: Monitoring location B Labona homestead

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).

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

10

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)

11

12

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)

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)

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.

15

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

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

16

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 noisesensitive receptors. Predicted results indicate that estimated aircraft noise levels at the nearest
potentially affected receptor range from <44 dB(A) to <51 dB(A). These values are significantly
lower than those stipulated by the standard (<80 dB(A) to <85 dB(A) for 20 or less flights per day)
for new building sites and hence, no further noise mitigation measures are required. Aircraft noise
levels for Boeing 737s and general light aircraft are provided:
Table 13: Aircraft noise levels

17

Figure 4: Aircraft noise sensitive receptors

18

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

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

19

20

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)

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

24

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

25

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 Anetwork was used in the present work, which approximates the human response.
Table 23: Noise Survey in Nandira Colliery (Below ground)

26

27

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

28

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.

29

30

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.

31

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

32

Table 29: Summary of Noise Survey at Middleton Mine

33

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
34

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
35

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

36

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)

37

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.

38

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.

39

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

40

6.8. Operating Noise Impact Assessment

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)

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.

42

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.

43

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)

44

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.
45

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).

46

Table 45: Plant and Equipment Sound Power Levels

47

7.7. Mine Operating Noise Impact Assessment

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

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

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.

51

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

52

Attended noise measurements were made between 8:25 pm and 11:00 pm on 15 June 2009 at
Camberwell village. The results of the measurements are presented in Table 6-5. The weather was
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)

53

Attended noise measurements were made between 8:25 pm and 11:00 pm on 15 June 2009 at
Camberwell village. The results of the measurements are presented in Table 6-5. The weather was
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 51: Attended noise measurement results (15 June 2009)

Attended noise measurements were made between 9:10 pm and 10:30 pm on 17 June 2009 at
Camberwell village. The results of the measurements are presented in Table 6-6. The weather was
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.
54

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

Attended noise measurements were made between 8.05 pm and 10:30 pm on 22 June 2009 at
Camberwell village. The results of the measurements are presented in Table 6-7. The weather was
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.

55

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

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.

56

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

57

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 (4244 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;
58

 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.

59

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. 110, 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.

60

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.

61