Hillside Project Extended Feasibility Study Environmental Noise Impact Assessment

Transcription

1 Report Date: Monday, 31 August 2015 Reference: A15399RP1, Revision A

2 Document Information Project Client Report title Project Number Author Hillside Project Rex Minerals A15399 DarrenJurevicius Technical Director p m darren.jurevicius@resonateacoustics.com Reviewed by Jon Cooper Revision Table Report revision Date Comments 0 25 August 2015 First Draft A 31 August 2015 Final Draft

3 Glossary A-weighting Characteristic Continuous noise level Day db db(a) Frequency (Hz) Indicative noise level L 90 L eq L max Night Noise source Quiet locality A spectrum adaption that is applied to measured noise levels to represent human hearing. A-weighted levels are used as human hearing does not respond equally at all frequencies. Associated with a noise source, means a tonal, impulsive, low frequency or modulating characteristic of the noise that is determined in accordance with the Guidelines for the use of the Environment Protection (Noise) Policy (Noise EPP) to be fundamental to the nature and impact of the noise. A-weighted noise level of a continuous steady sound that, for the period over which the measurement is taken using fast time weighting, has the same mean square sound pressure as the noise level which varies over time when measured in relation to a noise source and noise-affected premises in accordance with the Noise EPP Between 7 am and 10 pm as defined in the Noise EPP Decibel a unit of measurement used to express sound level. It is based on a logarithmic scale which means a sound that is 3 db higher has twice as much energy. We typically perceive a 10 db increase in sound as a doubling of that sound level. Units of the A-weighted sound level. The number of times a vibrating object oscillates (moves back and forth) in one second. Fast movements produce high frequency sound (high pitch/tone), but slow movements mean the frequency (pitch/tone) is low. 1 Hz is equal to 1 cycle per second. Indicative noise level determined under clause 5 of the Noise EPP. Noise level exceeded for 90 % of the measurement time. The L 90 level is commonly referred to as the background noise level. Equivalent Noise Level Energy averaged noise level over the measurement time. The maximum instantaneous noise level. Between p.m. on one day and 7.00 a.m. on the following day as defined in the Noise EPP Premises or a place at which an activity is undertaken, or a machine or device is operated, resulting in the emission of noise A locality is a quiet locality if the Development Plan provisions that make land use rules for the locality principally promote land uses that all fall within either or both of the following land use categories: (a) Residential; (b) Rural Living;

4 Table of Contents 1 Introduction Project description Noise-sensitive receptors Pre-construction noise monitoring Assessment criteria Mineral Lease Conditions Environmental outcomes Environment Protection (noise) Policy Noise modelling methodology Noise modelling software Meteorological conditions Equipment sound power levels Information supplied by Rex Minerals Noise modelling scenarios Noise Assessment Predicted noise levels L Aeq Meteorological effects Analysis of site data Noise mitigation measures Overview Control of noise at the source Noise shielding within the propagation path Summary Conclusion Appendix A Appendix B Appendix C Appendix D... 47

5 Executive Summary A noise impact assessment of the Rex Minerals Hillside Project has been carried out by Resonate Acoustics. The proposed mining operation will utilise an open-cut pit and an onsite facility to process the raw material into a copper-gold concentrate. The design of the mine is for an initial 13+ year mine life at a processing rate of 6 million tonnes per annum (Mtpa). Rock storage facilities and a tailings dam surround the pit and processing facility and will provide noise attenuation, particularly in the later years of operation. The assessment has considered the worst-case noise impact of four stages of mining operations occurring over different years, namely Years 0, 1, 5 and 9, and compared the results to the requirements of the Mineral Lease conditions. Our predictions show that exceedances of the noise criteria are not expected for the Hillside Project over any years of operation. However, the Department of State Development (DSD) requires that mining operations minimise noise nuisance where practical as part of their social license to operate. Rex Minerals is therefore required to mitigate noise emissions, specifically the presence of annoying noise characteristics where reasonable and practical. Mitigation measures have been identified to proactively minimise the potential for noise nuisance. In summary, these are: Dilligent selection and purchase of the preferred haul truck fleet, with confirmation of the following: - actual measured sound power levels and spectral characteristics - ensure that no obvious annoying noise characters occur e.g. planetary gear tonal noise emission under load, excessive retard grid blower noise, or cooling fan noise. Adoption of operational controls and management measures that consider the prevailing meteorological conditions to minimise unnecessary noise nuisance. No rock breaking activities allowed in the night time. Locate rock breaking activities furthest from residences and sited to make use of ground topography for noise shielding where practical. Limiting the reverse gear selection of tracked bulldozers to no higher than second gear during the night to minimise dozer track slap impulsive noise. It is concluded that with the above noise mitigation measures in place, noise emissions from the Hillside Project can meet the requirements of the Mineral Lease and achieve an acceptable environmental outcome. 1

6 1 Introduction Resonate Acoustics has been engaged by Rex Minerals to assess the operational noise impact of the Hillside Project (Hillside) upon the neighbouring residences. This report outlines the operational noise assessment that includes the modelling of four mining stages representative of 13 years of future mining operations. The assessment has been prepared in accordance with the EPA s Environment Protection (Noise) Policy 2007 (Noise EPP). 1.1 Project description The Hillside Project is situated 12 kilometres south of the township of Ardrossan on the Yorke Peninsula, South Australia. The location of the Hillside mineral lease area is shown in Figure 1. Following the SA Governments original issue of the Mineral Lease Tenement Document to Rex Minerals (September 2014), a drop in commodity prices, particularly for iron ore, caused Rex Minerals to change its focus towards an initial copper-gold only project with lower capital investment and higher copper head grades. This work has been termed the (EFS). The Hillside EFS involves: A stand-alone copper-gold project with an initial 13+ year mine life at a processing rate of 6 million tonnes per annum (Mtpa). Annual average production over first 12 years of 129,000 tonnes of copper concentrate containing payable metal of: - 35,000t copper - 24,000ozs gold. A construction workforce of close to , reverting to approximately 500 when in operation. The proposed mining operation will utilise an open-cut pit and an onsite facility to process the raw material into a copper-gold concentrate suitable for shipping. Rock storage facilities and a tailings dam also surround the pit and processing facility. 2

7

8 2 Noise-sensitive receptors The types of land uses typically considered sensitive to noise impacts include developed residential properties as well as educational institutions, childcare centres, kindergartens and nursing homes. In the areas surrounding the Hillside mining lease area, the nearest sensitive receptors are residential properties. The closest of these are shown in Figure Pre-construction noise monitoring To provide context to the predicted noise levels, pre-construction measurements of existing noise levels in the areas surrounding the Hillside mine are summarised in Table 1 for the corresponding receptor shown on Figure 2. These measurements were carried out by AECOM during the period August 2012 (refer AECOM report A12K01RP). We consider these measurements to be representative of the existing conditions and therefore no further noise measurements have been undertaken. Table 1 Summary of noise logging results Receiver Maximum L Aeq,15min Minimum L Aeq,15min Median L Aeq,15min Max Night time L Amax R R R R R In summary, the results are generally representative of a rural environment. 4

9 3 Assessment criteria 3.1 Mineral Lease Conditions The following is a reproduced extract from the Tenement Document for the Mineral Lease (ML), issued 16 th September 2014, pertaining to noise conditions of approval. 10. Subject to Condition 11, the Tenement Holder must ensure that noise generated from mining operations on the Land: Is measured, for or at, all sensitive receivers in accordance with the Environment Protection (Noise) Policy 2007, under the Environment Protection Act 1993 of South Australia; and does not exceed the following noise limits, at those sensitive receivers: db(a) between the hours of 7am and 10pm and 49 db(a) between the hours of 10pm and 7am within a Primary Production Zone (as delineated in the Yorke Peninsula Council Development Plan at the date that the Mining Tenement was granted, set out in the Seventh Schedule of this Tenement Document); or db(a) between the hours of 7am and 10pm and 47 db(a) between the hours of 10pm and 7am within a Settlement Zone (as delineated in the Yorke Peninsula Council Development Plan at the date that the Mining Tenement was granted, set out in the Seventh Schedule of this Tenement Document). 11. The Tenement Holder can only exceed the noise levels stipulated in Condition 10 if the Director of Mines: Is satisfied, on the basis of information provided to him by an acoustic engineer, that the noise from the mining operation will not cause an adverse impact at the sensitive receiver due to the existing influence of ambient noise, or the limited duration and/or frequency of occurrence of the activity, and provides prior approval for the exceedence. 12. The Tenement Holder must monitor noise levels on a continuous basis and report that data and meteorological monitoring data acquired by the Tenement Holder in real time to the public on an unrestricted internet site. The monitoring data must be retained and remain accessible on the unrestricted internet site for the life of the mine. 13. In the event that monitoring shows that Condition 10, subject to Condition 11, has been breached, the Tenement Holder must immediately cease the activity that resulted in the breach. The ML noise criteria are summarised in Table 2. Table 2 Noise criteria applicable to the Hillside Minerals Lease Receiver zone Noise criteria Day (7am to 10pm) Night (10pm to 7am) Primary Production L Aeq 56 db(a) L Aeq 49 db(a) Settlement (Pine Point & Rogues Point) L Aeq 54 db(a) L Aeq 47 db(a) 5

10 3.2 Environmental outcomes Noise Outcome 6. The Tenement Holder must, in construction and operation, ensure noise emanating from mining operations is in accordance with the current amenity as defined by the Yorke Peninsula Council Development Plan at the date that this Mineral Lease was granted. Noise Strategies 7. The Tenement Holder is required to address the following matters for the purposes of Regulation 65(2)(c) of the Regulations in relation to the outcome in Sixth Schedule Clause 6: 7.1. Ensure the strategies associated with the design, control and management of all noise sources mitigate, or eliminate noise characteristics as defined by the relevant environment protection noise policy At a minimum, implement all noise mitigation strategies described in the Proposal and Response Document Investigate and implement further additional design and engineering measures or strategies to ensure achievement of the outcome in Sixth Schedule Clause 6, specifically in relation to the mitigation and elimination of noise characteristics as defined by the relevant environment protection noise policy The presence, or otherwise, of tonal/modulating/impulsive/low frequency noise characteristics must be verified by a suitably qualified independent acoustic engineer (approved by the Director of Mines) within 3 months of the commencement of earthworks, or at a time as the Director of Mines may specify by notice in writing. The acoustic engineer must prepare a report of the findings of the verification, and this report must be provided to the Director of Mines within 1 month of the completion of the verification Undertake continuous noise and meteorological monitoring to inform decisions for operational response and contingency measures to be implemented to prevent exceedence of compliance criteria. Noise criteria 8. The Tenement Holder is required to address the following matters for the purposes of Regulation 65(2)(d) of the Regulations in relation to the outcome in Sixth Schedule Clause 6; 8.1. criteria must include calculated noise limits as derived from the Environment Protection (Noise) Policy, and be consistent with Second Schedule Condition Mine noise measured at, or for, noise-affected premises must be adjusted in accordance with the relevant environment protection noise policy by the inclusion of a penalty for each characteristic where tonal/modulating/impulsive/low frequency characteristics are present as identified by an acoustic engineer. 3.3 Environment Protection (noise) Policy The ML noise conditions (clause 10) and environmental outcomes (clause 8) are based the EPA s Environment Protection (Noise) Policy 2007 (Noise EPP). Details on how the criteria have been derived in accordance with the Noise EPP are provided in Appendix B. Note that under Part 5, Clause 20(6) of the Noise EPP, exceedence of the recommended criterion does not necessarily mean that the development will be non-compliant. Some of the following matters should be considered when considering compliance: the amount by which the criterion is exceeded (in db(a)) 6

11 the frequency and duration for which the criterion is exceeded the ambient noise that has a noise level similar to the predicted noise level the times of occurrence of the noise source the number of persons likely to be adversely affected by the noise source and whether there is any special need for quiet the land uses in the vicinity of the noise source. 7

12 4 Noise modelling methodology 4.1 Noise modelling software Noise emissions from site have been modelled in SoundPLAN Environmental Software v7.3 program, using the Conservation of Clean Air and Water in Europe (CONCAWE) algorithms. The model takes into consideration: attenuation of noise source due to distance barrier effects from buildings, topography and the like air absorption ground effects weather conditions (wind speed, wind direction, time of day, and cloud cover). CONCAWE has six difference weather categories CONCAWE weather category 1 represents weather conditions that are least conducive to noise propagation (best case situation with the lowest predicted noise levels), CONCAWE weather category 4 represents neutral weather conditions, and CONCAWE weather category 6 represents weather conditions that are the most conducive to noise propagation (the worst case situation with the highest predicted noise levels). 4.2 Meteorological conditions In accordance with the Guidelines for the use of the Environmental Protection (Noise) Policy 2007, CONCAWE weather category 4 for daytime and category 6 for night time has been used. Category 6 conditions are worst case and correspond to the following conditions: Night time Less than 50 per cent cloud cover Light wind blowing toward the receiver from the source direction at up to 3 meters per second Moderately stable atmospheric conditions (Pasquil atmospheric stability class F or G). Note that CONCAWE Category 6 conditions can also occur at wind speeds > 3m/s. However, at higher wind speeds there is typically increased masking noise from the local environment (wind in trees, etc.), and so noise from distant environmental noise sources is less audible. 4.3 Equipment sound power levels The sound power levels for the proposed equipment operating on the Hillside mining lease are based on Resonate Acoustics database of mining equipment or data obtained from the equipment manufacturer. Generally we have assumed the typical highest sound level for each equipment item. A schedule of sound power spectrums for each equipment item used in the noise modelling is provided in Appendix C. 8

13 4.4 Information supplied by Rex Minerals Table 3 provides a summary of the information supplied by Rex Minerals for the noise impact assessment. Table 3 Information supplied by Rex Minerals Information Date File Name Meteorological and dust data 2015_17_17 Metrological data (Met one) Weather monitoring Dust monitoring Minerals Lease document 2014_09_16 Minerals lease conditions Site overview map 2015_07_15 Map Mine Site Process Plan Layout 2015_02_ Mine Site Process Plant_Layout Equipment schedule for EFS from cost model 2015_07_08 Equipment schdeule for EFS from cost model Receptor location for modelling 2015_07_28 Receptors July15_ModellingSubset (zip file) Processing plant layout 2015_07_ _07_ _05_29 3x.dxf files: InternalRoadExtension_DraftConcept_MT_exported.dxf _Tonkin_InternalEntranceRoad_exported. dxf _PlantLayoutSummary_black_exported.d xf 3D pdf of the plant 2015_08_ LG-Plant_3D_model.pdf Pit and site ground contours 2015_07_31 5x.dxf files: DUST_YR0_CONT_5X5.dxf DUST_YR1_CONT_5X5.dxf DUST_YR2_CONT_5X5.dxf DUST_YR5_CONT_5X5.dxf DUST_YR9_CONT_5X5.dxf Rock storage facilities (year 0-13 and post mining) 2015_07_01 15x.dxf files. 9

14 Information Date File Name Topsoil and subsoil stockpiles 2015_07_24 3x.dxf files: EFS_STOCKPILE_Y0.dxf EFS_STOCKPILE_Y2.dxf (assume this is the same in year 5) EFS_STOCKPILE_Y9.dxf Haul road vehicle paths and splits to each location 2015_07_31 18x.dxf files: DUST_HAUL_PATHS_YR0_Q1.dxf DUST_HAUL_PATHS_YR0_Q2.dxf DUST_HAUL_PATHS_YR0_Q3.dxf DUST_HAUL_PATHS_YR0_Q4.dxf DUST_HAUL_PATHS_YR1_M1.dxf DUST_HAUL_PATHS_YR1_M2.dxf DUST_HAUL_PATHS_YR1_M3.dxf DUST_HAUL_PATHS_YR1_M4.dxf DUST_HAUL_PATHS_YR1_M5.dxf DUST_HAUL_PATHS_YR1_M6.dxf DUST_HAUL_PATHS_YR1_M7.dxf DUST_HAUL_PATHS_YR1_M8.dxf DUST_HAUL_PATHS_YR1_M9.dxf DUST_HAUL_PATHS_YR1_M10.dxf DUST_HAUL_PATHS_YR1_M11.dxf DUST_HAUL_PATHS_YR1_M12.dxf DUST_HAUL_PATHS_YR5.dxf DUST_HAUL_PATHS_YR9.dxf 4.5 Noise modelling scenarios The noise modelling was chosen to be undertaken on mining years 0, 1, 5 and 9. These years were selected as they represented the maximum potential noise impact to the receivers. This was determined using: The proximity of activity to receivers. The amount of activity i.e. the maximum number of haul trucks operating in a given area. The amount of noise mitigation from the development of the rock storage facilities. Scenario Year 0 Year 0 is the first year of operation of the site, in which the infrastructure is established and only a small amount of ore is mined but not processed. In Year 0 the pit is commenced near the centre of the Hillside site, at the northern end of the final pit. Rock from the pit used to construct the ROM pads in the centre of the site, the beginnings of the wall of the tailings dam on the west of the site, and the north east and south east rock storage facilities (RSF) are established. The majority of the nosy activities are occurring towards the centre of the site in Year 0, rather 10

15 than on the boundaries near the receivers. However, the RSF are not yet established, and so there is less screening of noise from the receivers than in later years of the project. A map showing the layout of the site in Year 0 is included as Figure 2. Figure 2 Year 0 site layout Significant noise sources The items of plant and equipment that are potentially significant noise sources and which have therefore been included in the noise model of the site for Year 0 are summarised in Table 4. Also included is the location that the noise source has been included in the noise model and the overall sound power level of each item of that plant. The sound power spectra used in the noise modelling for the items of plant included in Table 4 are provided in Appendix C. 11

16 Table 4 Items of plant and equipment included in the noise model for Year 0 Item Manufacturer / model Number included Location Day / Night operation Sound Power Level, db(a) Excavator Hitachi EX Pit Day + Night 118 Dozer CAT D10T 5 3x pit, 1x Rom, 1x West RSF Grader Water Truck Mine Truck John Deere 872GP Hitachi EH3500-3_WTR Hitachi EH5000AC-3 Day + Night Haul roads Day + Night Haul roads Day + Night As described in section following this table. Day + Night 116 Wheel Dozer Caterpillar 854K 1 Pit Day + Night 113 Wheel Loader CAT 992K 1 ROM pad Day + Night 114 Blasthole Drill CAT MD Pit Day + Night 118 Front End Loader John Deere 644K 1 Processing plant Day + Night 108 Mobile Mixing Unit (Explosive Truck) IEE 2 Pit Day + Night 99 Compactor CAT 825H 2 1x South-east RSF, 1x Northeast RSF Day + Night 110 Pump Hitachi 2 Pit Day + Night 113 Fuel Truck Hitachi EH x Pit, 1x Processing plant Lighting Tower N/A 22 4x RSF, 4x ROM, 14x pit Light Vehicles Toyota 24 12x RSF, 8x Processing plant, 4x Haul roads Vehicles on entry road Day + Night 116 Day + Night 85 Day + Night 100 N/A 40 Entry road Day + Night 95 B-double Truck N/A 1 Entry road Day + Night 105 Excavator with rock breaker John Deere ZX470 with Rock/breaker 1 Pit Day

17 Item Manufacturer / model Number included Location Scraper CAT x South-east RSF, 1x West RSF, 1x Northeast RSF Day / Night operation Sound Power Level, db(a) Day 119 Dozer CAT D8 1 North-east RSF Day 111 Excavator 85t 1 Processing plant Day 109 Excavator 30t 1 South-east RSF Day 104 Dump Truck CAT x South-east RSF, 1x West RSF, 1x Northeast RSF, 1 x Processing Day 112 Vibrating roller Padfoot 15t 1 Processing plant Day 108 Water Cart ADT 6x6 2 1x South-east RSF, 1x Northeast RSF Day 112 Loader CAT x West RSF Day 108 Haul Truck locations The proportion of the time spent by the haul trucks in the pit, on the surface haul roads, and on the RSF was provided by Rex Minerals, and is summarised in Table 5. Table 5 Proportion of haul truck time in various locations for Year 0 Location Percentage of time In the pit 48% Surface haul roads 26% On rock storage facility (RSF) 26% In addition to the breakdown of time spent in the pit, on the surface and on the RSF s, a breakdown of quantity of material transported to the various RSF and ROM pads was provided by Rex Minerals, and is summarised in Table 6. The information in Table 5 in combination with the further breakdown in Table 6 was used to distribute all of the haul trucks across the mine site, based on the time spent at each location. The line sources used to include this information in the noise model are visible as black-bordered white lines in Figure 2. Due to relatively large distances between the haul routes and surrounding receivers a minor change in the location of the haul route on site will not significantly alter noise levels at any of the receivers. 13

18 Table 6 Breakdown of volume to each ROM or RSF, and haul vehicle time on each haul route for Year 0 Destination Percentage of movements by volume Surface haul road length (metres) Resulting percentage of surface haul road time to each destination ROM pad lower pad 16% 800 8% ROM pad upper pad 21% % North-eastern RSF 33% 1,700 38% South-eastern RSF 16% 2,300 25% Western RSF east side 10% 1,800 12% Western RSF south-east side 0% - 0% Western RSF western side 0% - 0% Western RSF northern side 3% 2,200 5% Total 100% - 100% Scenario Year 1 Year 1 is the first year of processing of ore at the site, following the completion of construction in Year 0. In Year 1 the pit is deepened and extended further south. Rock from the pit is used to increase the height of the tailings dam walls, and to construct the south-east RSF along the length of the south-eastern boundary. The activity along the south-eastern boundary results in this year having the highest predicted noise levels in Pine Point. This RSF along the south-eastern boundary provides shielding of Pine Point from noise in future years. A map showing the layout of the site in Year 1 is included as Figure 3. 14

19 Figure 3 Year 1 site layout Significant noise sources The items of plant and equipment that are potentially significant noise sources and which have therefore been included in the noise model of the site for Year 1 are summarised in. Also included is the location that the noise source has been included in the noise model and the overall sound power level of each item of that plant. The sound power spectra used in the noise modelling for the items of plant included in Table 7 are provided in Appendix C. Table 7 Items of plant and equipment included in the noise model for Year 1 Item Manufacturer / model Number included 15 Location Day / Night operation Sound Power Level, db(a) Excavator Hitachi EX Pit Day + Night 118 Dozer CAT D10T 5 3x pit, 1x ROM, 1x South-east RSF Day + Night 114

20 Item Grader Water Truck Mine Truck Manufacturer / model John Deere 872GP Hitachi EH3500-3_WTR Hitachi EH5000AC-3 Number included Location 3 2x Haul roads, 1x West RSF Day / Night operation Sound Power Level, db(a) Day + Night Haul roads Day + Night As described in section following table. Day + Night 116 Wheel Dozer Caterpillar 854K 1 Pit Day + Night 113 Wheel Loader CAT 992K 1 ROM pad Day + Night 114 Blasthole Drill CAT MD Pit Day + Night 118 Front End Loader John Deere 644K 1 Processing plant Day + Night 108 Mobile Mixing Unit IEE 2 Pit Day + Night 99 Compactor CAT 825H 2 1x South-east RSF, 1x West RSF Day + Night 110 Pump Hitachi 1 Pit Day + Night 113 Fuel Truck Hitachi EH x Pit, 1x ROM pad Lighting Tower N/A 22 4x RSF, 4x ROM, 14x pit Light Vehicles Toyota 36 20x RSF, 12x pit, 4x Haul roads Vehicles on entry road Excavator with rock breaker Day + Night 116 Day + Night 85 Day + Night 100 N/A 40 Entry road Day + Night 95 John Deere ZX470 with Rock/breaker 1 Pit Day 120 Primary crusher Jaw 1 Edge of ROM Day + Night 119 Hopper N/A 1 Edge of ROM Day + Night 107 SAG mill N/A 1 Processing plant Day + Night 121 Copper regrind N/A 1 Processing plant Day + Night 109 Conveyor N/A 260 m Processing plant Day + Night 75 /m Conveyor motor N/A 1 Processing plant Day + Night 94 Tailings pumps N/A 1 Processing plant Day + Night 111 B-double Truck N/A 1 Entry road Day + Night

21 Haul Truck locations The proportion of the time spent by the haul trucks in the pit, on the surface haul roads, and on the RSF was provided by Rex Minerals, and is summarised in Table 8. Table 8 Proportion of haul truck time in various locations for Year 1 Location Percentage of time In the pit 61% Surface haul roads 16% On rock storage facility (RSF) 23% In addition to the breakdown of time spent in the pit, on the surface and on the RSF s, a breakdown of quantity of material transported to the various RSF and ROM pads was provided by Rex Minerals, and is summarised in Table 9. The information in Table 8 in combination with the further breakdown in Table 9 was used to distribute all of the haul trucks across the mine site, based on the time spent at each location. The line sources used to include this information in the noise model are visible as black bordered white lines in Figure 3. Due to the relatively large distances between the haul routes and surrounding receivers a minor change in the location of the haul route on site will not significantly alter noise levels at any of the receivers. Table 9 Breakdown of volume to each ROM or RSF, and haul vehicle time on each haul route for Year 1 Destination Percentage of movements by volume Surface haul road length (metres) Resulting percentage of surface haul road time to each destination ROM pad lower pad 14% % ROM pad upper pad 7% 900 5% North-eastern RSF 0% - 0% South-eastern RSF 56% % Western RSF east side 10% 2,000 17% Western RSF south-east side 6% 2,300 11% Western RSF western side 5% 2,700 13% Western RSF northern side 2% 1,900 4% Total 100% - 100% 17

22 Scenario Year 5 In Year 5 the pit is extended south west. The plant is modelled to be working close to surface level in the pit, and is also at the closest point to receivers south of the mine site (R29 and R32). Rock from the pit is being added to the western RSF and south-eastern RSF, although the works on the south-eastern RSF are towards the northern end of the RSF and so are relatively well shielded from residences to the south. The combination of shallow pit depth, close proximity to southern receivers and activity on the western RSF will result in the highest modelled noise levels at receivers to the south and south west. A map showing the layout of the site in Year 5 is included as Figure 4. Figure 4 Year 5 site layout Significant noise sources The items of plant and equipment that are potentially significant noise sources and which have therefore been included in the noise model of the site for Year 5 are summarised in Table 10. Also included is the location that the noise source has been included in the noise model and the overall sound power level of each item of that plant. The sound power spectra used in the noise modelling for the items of plant included in Table 10 are provided in Appendix C. 18

23 Table 10 Items of plant and equipment included in the noise model for Year 5 Item Manufacturer / model Number included 19 Location Day / Night operation Sound Power Level, db(a) Excavator Hitachi EX Pit Day + Night 118 Dozer CAT D10T 5 3x pit, 1x Rom, 1x West RSF Grader Water Truck Mine Truck John Deere 872GP Day + Night Haul roads Day + Night 113 CAT 24M 1 Haul roads Day + Night 110 Hitachi EH3500-3_WTR Hitachi EH5000AC-3 2 Haul roads Day + Night As described in section following table. Day + Night 116 Wheel Dozer Caterpillar 854K 1 Pit Day + Night 113 Wheel Loader CAT 992K 1 ROM pad Day + Night 114 Blasthole Drill CAT MD Pit Day + Night 118 Front End Loader John Deere 644K 1 Processing plant Day + Night 108 Mobile Mixing Unit IEE 2 Pit Day + Night 99 Compactor CAT 825H 2 1x West RSF, 1x North-east RSF Day + Night 110 Fuel Truck Hitachi EH x Pit, Day + Night 116 Lighting Tower N/A 22 4x RSF, 4x ROM, 14x pit Light Vehicles Toyota 36 20x RSF, 12x Pit, 4x Haul roads Vehicles on entry road Excavator with rock breaker Day + Night 85 Day + Night 100 N/A 40 Entry road Day + Night 95 John Deere ZX470 with Rock/breaker 1 Pit Day 120 Primary crusher Jaw 1 Edge of ROM Day + Night 119 Hopper N/A 1 Edge of ROM Day + Night 107 SAG mill N/A 1 Processing plant Day + Night 121 Copper regrind N/A 1 Processing plant Day + Night 109 Conveyor N/A 260 m Processing plant Day + Night 75 /m Conveyor motor N/A 1 Processing plant Day + Night 94

24 Item Manufacturer / model Number included Location Day / Night operation Sound Power Level, db(a) Tailings pumps N/A 1 Processing plant Day + Night 111 B-double Truck N/A 1 Entry road Day + Night 105 Haul Truck locations The proportion of the time spent by the haul trucks in the pit, on the surface haul roads, and on the RSF was provided by Rex Minerals, and is summarised in Table 11. Table 11 Proportion of haul truck time in various locations for Year 5 Location Percentage of time In the pit 59% Surface haul roads 14% On rock storage facility (RSF) 27% In addition to the breakdown of time spent in the pit, on the surface and on the RSF s, a breakdown of quantity of material transported to the various RSF and Rom pads was provided by Rex Minerals, and is summarised in Table 12. The information in Table 11 in combination with the further breakdown in Table 12 was used to distribute all of the haul trucks across the mine site, based on the time spent at each location. The line sources used to include this information in the noise model are visible as black-bordered white lines in Figure 4. Due to relatively large distances between the haul routes and surrounding receivers a minor change in the location of the haul route on site will not significantly alter noise levels at any of the receivers. Table 12 Breakdown of volume to each ROM or RSF, and haul vehicle time on each haul route for Year 5 Destination Percentage of movements by volume Surface haul road length (metres) Resulting percentage of surface haul road time to each destination ROM pad lower pad 8% 900 4% ROM pad upper pad 7% 900 4% North-eastern RSF 20% 1,700 20% South-eastern RSF 22% 1,900 25% Western RSF east side 14% 2,000 16% Western RSF south-east side 29% 1,800 31% Western RSF western side 0% - 0% Western RSF northern side 0% - 0% 20

25 Destination Percentage of movements by volume Surface haul road length (metres) Resulting percentage of surface haul road time to each destination Total 100% - 100% Scenario Year 9 In Year 9 the majority of the rock is removed from low in the pit, and transported the southern part of the north-eastern RSF and northern end of the south-eastern RSF. The location of the plant and haul routes result in a large reduction in noise to the south of the site, when compared to Year 5. A map showing the layout of the site in Year 9 is included as Figure 5. Figure 5 Year 9 site layout 21

26 Significant noise sources The items of plant and equipment that are potentially significant noise sources and which have therefore been included in the noise model of the site for Year 9 are summarised in Table 13. Also included is the location that the noise source has been included in the noise model and the overall sound power level of each item of that plant. The sound power spectra used in the noise modelling for the items of plant included in Table 13 are provided in Appendix C. Table 13 Items of plant and equipment included in the noise model for Year 9 Item Manufacturer / model Number included Location Day / Night operation Sound Power Level, db(a) Excavator Hitachi EX Pit Day + Night 118 Dozer CAT D10T 5 3x pit, 1x Rom, 1x North-east RSF Grader John Deere 872GP Day + Night Haul roads Day + Night 113 Grader CAT 24M 1 Haul roads Day + Night 110 Water Truck Mine Truck Hitachi EH3500-3_WTR Hitachi EH5000AC-3 2 Haul roads Day + Night As described in section following table. Day + Night 116 Wheel Dozer Caterpillar 854K 1 Pit Day + Night 113 Wheel Loader CAT 992K 1 ROM pad Day + Night 114 Blasthole Drill CAT MD Pit Day + Night 118 Front End Loader John Deere 644K 1 Processing plant Day + Night 108 Mobile Mixing Unit (Explosive Truck) IEE 2 Pit Day + Night 99 Compactor CAT 825H 2 1x South-east RSF, 1x Northeast RSF Day + Night 110 Pump Hitachi 3 Pit Day + Night 113 Fuel Truck Hitachi EH x Pit, Day + Night 116 Lighting Tower N/A 22 4x RSF, 4x ROM, 14x pit Light Vehicles Toyota 36 12x RSF, 16x Pit, 8x Haul roads Vehicles on entry road Day + Night 85 Day + Night 100 N/A 40 Entry road Day + Night 95 22

27 Item Manufacturer / model Number included Location Day / Night operation Sound Power Level, db(a) Primary crusher Jaw 1 Edge of ROM Day + Night 119 Hopper N/A 1 Edge of ROM Day + Night 107 SAG mill N/A 1 Processing plant Day + Night 121 Copper regrind N/A 1 Processing plant Day + Night 109 Conveyor N/A 260 m Processing plant Day + Night 75 /m Conveyor motor N/A 1 Processing plant Day + Night 94 Tailings pumps N/A 1 Processing plant Day + Night 111 B-double Truck N/A 1 Entry road Day + Night 105 Excavator with rock breaker John Deere ZX470 with Rock/breaker 1 Pit Day 120 Dozer CAT D8 1 South-east RSF Day 111 Excavator 85t 1 Processing plant Day 109 Excavator 30t 1 South-east RSF Day 104 Dump Truck CAT x South-east RSF, 1x West RSF, 2x Northeast RSF, 1 x Processing Day 112 Vibrating roller Padfoot 15t 1 North-east RSF Day 108 Water Cart ADT 6x6 2 West RSF Day 112 Loader CAT South-east RSF Day 108 Haul Truck locations The proportion of the time spent by the haul trucks in the pit, on the surface haul roads, and on the RSF was provided by Rex Minerals, and is summarised in Table 14. Table 14 Proportion of haul truck time in various locations for Year 9 Location Percentage of time In the pit 40% Surface haul roads 44% On rock storage facility (RSF) 16% In addition to the breakdown of time spent in the pit, on the surface and on the RSF s, a breakdown of quantity of material transported to the various RSF and Rom pads was provided by Rex Minerals, and is 23

28 summarised in Table 15. The information in Table 14 in combination with the further breakdown in Table 15 was used to distribute all of the haul trucks across the mine site, based on the time spent at each location. The line sources used to include this information in the noise model are visible as black-bordered white lines in Figure 5. Due to relatively large distances between the haul routes and surrounding receivers a minor change in the location of the haul route on site will not significantly alter noise levels at any of the receivers. Table 15 Breakdown of volume to each ROM or RSF, and haul vehicle time on each haul route for Year 9 Destination Percentage of movements by volume Surface haul road length (metres) Resulting percentage of surface haul road time to each destination ROM pad lower pad 4% % ROM pad upper pad 7% % North-eastern RSF 84% % South-eastern RSF 5% 1, % Western RSF east side 0% - 0.0% Western RSF south-east side 0% - 0.0% Western RSF western side 0% - 0.0% Western RSF northern side 0% - 0.0% Total 100% % 24

29 5 Noise Assessment 5.1 Predicted noise levels L Aeq The results of the noise modelling for each of the four modelled scenarios is provided in Appendix D. Results are provided in the form of tables for both day and night predictions at all receivers, and as noise contour plots for night time predictions only (i.e. night is worst case). A summary of the receivers where the predicted night time noise level is greater than 35 db(a) during any of the modelled scenarios is provided in this Section. The noise level provided for Pine Point and Rogues Point in this Section is the highest of the predicted noise levels at any of the receivers in those settlements. Predictions are provided for the worst case atmospheric conditions for the propagation of noise to the receivers (CONCAWE weather category 6), and for neutral atmospheric conditions (CONCAWE weather category 4). Further discussion and analysis on the frequency of occurrence of the various weather categories is provided in Section 6. Scenario Year 0 A summary of the predicted night time noise levels for Year 0 under worst case and neutral weather conditions for the propagation of noise to the receivers is provided in Table 16. Table 16 Predicted night time noise levels for Year 0 Receiver location Noise EPP criteria, L eq db(a) Predicted night level, L eq db(a) Night CAT 4 (neutral) CAT 6 (worst case) R R14 - unoccupied R R R Rogues point R R R R R R R33 - unoccupied Pine Point R The predicted noise level meets the Noise EPP night time criteria at all receivers under worst case conditions for propagation of noise, with the highest predicted noise level in Year 0 being 45 db(a) at R26. 25

30 Scenario Year 1 A summary of the predicted night time noise levels for Year 1 under worst case and neutral weather conditions for the propagation of noise to the receivers is provided in Table 17. Table 17 Predicted night time noise levels for Year 1 Receiver location Noise EPP criteria, L eq db(a) Predicted night level, L eq db(a) Night CAT 4 (neutral) CAT 6 (worst case) R R14 - unoccupied R R R Rogues point R R R R R R R33 - unoccupied Pine Point R The predicted noise level meets the Noise EPP night time criteria at all receivers under worst case conditions for propagation of noise, with the highest predicted noise level in Year 1 being 47 db(a) at receivers R26 and R29. Scenario Year 5 A summary of the predicted night time noise levels for Year 5 under worst case and neutral weather conditions for the propagation of noise to the receivers is provided in Table 18. Table 18 Predicted night time noise levels for Year 5 Receiver location Noise EPP criteria, L eq db(a) Predicted night level, L eq db(a) Night CAT 4 (neutral) CAT 6 (worst case) R R14 - unoccupied R R R Rogues point

31 Receiver location Noise EPP criteria, L eq db(a) Predicted night level, L eq db(a) Night CAT 4 (neutral) CAT 6 (worst case) R R R R R R R33 - unoccupied Pine Point R The predicted noise level meets the Noise EPP night time criteria at all receivers under worst case conditions for propagation of noise, with the highest predicted noise level in Year 5 being 49 db(a) at receiver R29 (i.e. borderline compliant with noise criteria). Scenario Year 9 A summary of the predicted night time noise levels for Year 9 under worst case and neutral weather conditions for the propagation of noise to the receivers is provided in Table 19. Table 19 Predicted night time noise levels for Year 9 Receiver location Noise EPP criteria, L eq db(a) Predicted night level, L eq db(a) Night CAT 4 (neutral) CAT 6 (worst case) R R14 - unoccupied R R R Rogues point R R R R R R R33 - unoccupied Pine Point R

32 The predicted noise level meets the Noise EPP night time criteria at all receivers under worst case conditions for propagation of noise, with the highest predicted noise level in Year 9 being 43 db(a) at receivers R22, R26, R29 and R32. 28

33 6 Meteorological effects The propagation of sound to receivers located hundreds or thousands of metres from a noise source is dependent on atmospheric affects. At 1000 metres from a noise source the difference in noise level due between very favourable conditions (worst-case conditions) for the propagation of sound and very unfavourable conditions for the propagation of sound is in the order of about 15 db(a). The CONCAWE noise modelling algorithm was developed to allow these affects to be modelled, and has been used to provide predictions of noise levels at the residences around the Hillside Mine. The propagation over large distances can be determined by the CONCAWE algorithm on the basis of the relative wind speed towards or away from the receiver and the level of stability in the atmosphere, which is described using the atmospheric (Pasquill) stability class. The atmospheric stability class is in turn dependent on a range of factors including the level of incoming solar radiation, wind speed, and degree of cloud cover. The CONCAWE prediction method is able to predict the propagation of sound for six categories of propagation, with CONCAWE meteorological category 1 resulting in best case (lowest) noise levels at receivers, CONCAWE meteorological category 4 resulting in neutral conditions for the propagation of sound, and CONCAWE meteorological category 6 providing worst case (highest) noise levels at surrounding receivers. Predicted noise levels are provided for the CONCAWE cat 6 and CONCAWE cat 4 conditions in Section 5.1 and Appendix D. Note that the worst case conditions for the propagation of sound will not occur at all receivers simultaneously, as receivers on one side of the site are upwind while those on the opposite side are downwind. The worst case modelling results provided in Appendix D adopt the worst-case and unrealistic assumption that all receivers are located downwind from all noise sources simultaneously. 6.1 Analysis of site data An analysis of hourly wind speeds, directions and atmospheric stability class at the Hillside site has been provided to us by Pacific Environment Limited for the calendar year of We have used this data to determine the percentage of time that worst case conditions occur for the propagation of sound to receivers to the north, west and south of the site. A wind rose summarising the distribution and speed of wind experienced at the Hillside site are provided as Figure 6. The percentage of time that the wind blows from each of the wind directions, for all data and for winds in various speed ranges is shown in Figure 6. From this Figure, a large proportion of the winds at the site are from the south-south-east, and west-south-west. A relatively large proportion of the wind from the east-south-east is at wind speeds of 6 m/s and greater. While these conditions will be conducive to the propagation of sound towards the north-west and north of the site, the high wind speeds will result in the increased background noise at receivers, and therefore a reduced audibility of the mine noise during these times. A further breakdown of the distribution of wind speeds at the site is provided in Figure 7. 29

34 Distribution of Wind Direction with Speed NW NNW 14% 12% 10% N NNE NE 8% WNW 6% 4% ENE 0-3 m/s 2% 3-6 m/s W 0% E 6-9 m/s >9 m/s All Speeds WSW ESE SW SE SSW S SSE Figure 6 Distribution of wind direction and associated wind speed at the site 12% Distribution of wind speeds 10% Occurance (%) 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% Wind Speed (m/s) Figure 7 Distribution of wind speed at the site It is likely that periods of CONCAWE meteorological category 6 and relatively low wind speeds (less than 3 m/s) will result in the most audible mine noise at surrounding receivers. The review of data from the year 2014 indicates that wind speeds of less than 3 m/s occur for only 25% of the time, for both the total data set and night time only data set. 30

35 An analysis of the percentage of time that the various CONCAWE meteorological categories occur at receivers located to the south, west and north of the site has been undertaken based on the provided stability class, wind speed and wind direction data, and is presented in Table 20. A further analysis of the proportion of time that the various CONCAWE meteorological categories are experienced by residences near the site during only the night time period is provided in Table 21. Table 20 Proportion time of the various CONCAWE meteorological classes, for all data Receiver location / Percentage of time CONCAWE Cat. South West North 1 (best case) 1% 0% 0% 2 34% 27% 20% 3 16% 15% 12% 4 (neutral) 15% 17% 12% 5 12% 23% 16% 6 (worst case) 22% 18% 40% Total: 100% 100% 100% Table 21 Proportion time of the various CONCAWE meteorological classes, during night time only Receiver location / Percentage of time CONCAWE Cat. South West North 1 (best case) 0% 0% 0% 2 23% 27% 20% 3 17% 19% 12% 4 (neutral) 17% 18% 14% 5 15% 18% 19% 6 (worst case) 28% 18% 35% Total (Of night period): 100% 100% 100% The above results indicate that worst case conditions for the propagation of sound are experienced at residences to the south, west and north of the site for 28%, 18% and 35% of the night time period respectively. As noted above, the periods with CONCAWE meteorological category 6 and relatively low wind speeds (less than 3 m/s) are likely to result in the most audible mine noise at surrounding receivers, as the masking noise is likely to be less during the periods of low wind speed. A further analysis was undertaken to determine the proportion of the night time period that the various CONCAWE meteorological categories could be expected with wind speeds of less than 3 m/s, with the results provided in Table

36 Table 22 Proportion time of the various CONCAWE meteorological classes, during night time with wind <3m/s Receiver location / Percentage of time CONCAWE Cat. South West North 1 (best case) 0% 0% 0% 2 0% 1% 0% 3 3% 3% 3% 4 (neutral) 11% 11% 7% 5 5% 5% 5% 6 (worst case) 6% 5% 10% Total (Of night period): 25% 25% 25% Table 22 indicates that at receivers to the south and west the worst case conditions for the propagation of only noise in combination with low (less than 3 m/s) wind speeds will occur for only 5% 6% of the night time period. The percentage of time that these conditions are experienced at receivers to the north of the site will be approximately 10% of the night time period, but we note forecast noise levels at these receivers are 5 db 10 db quieter than at receivers to the south and west under these worst case conditions. 32

37 7 Noise mitigation measures 7.1 Overview Our predictions show that exceedances of the noise criteria are not expected for the Hillside Project. However, the Department of State Development (DSD) requires that mining operations minimise noise nuisance where practical as part of their social license to operate and to achieve the required environmental outcomes. Rex Minerals is therefore required to mitigate and/or manage noise emissions, specifically the presence of annoying noise characteristics (refer Section 3.2) where reasonable and practical. Reasonable and practical in simple terms means that an appropriate balance should be reached between the levels of noise reduction that can be achieved versus viable project cost. Mitigation measures can be implemented in three key areas and preferably in the following order of priority: 1. control of noise at the source (including operational management) 2. noise shielding within the propagation path 3. control of noise at the receiver. The first two mitigation measures are relevant for Hillside and discussed below. 7.2 Control of noise at the source Our assessment has indicated that the pit rock breaker and general haul truck movements are the controlling noise sources at the nearest affected receiver (R29). Rock breaker The rock breaker has been positioned in the pit for noise modelling purposes away from the pit walls in a relatively central location to represent worst-case. However, the rock breaker noise source could be positioned closer to the south-east corner pit wall to provide increased noise shielding to receiver R29. Rex Minerals have advised that the operation of the rock breaker will be limited to daytime operation only, particularly given the impulsive annoyance characteristics typical of rock breaking activities. Note that in some cases, the rock breaker may relocate to the ROM pad, in which case the source will be further from receiver R29 and less of a potential controlling noise source. Haul trucks The currently selected haul truck model has a sound power level of 116 db(a), which is midway between what is typically considered a loud truck (119 db(a)) and quiet truck (113 db(a)). Further reduction of the haul truck noise emission is possible, however at significant cost to the project, which is not considered reasonable for this case. However, prior to final selection and purchase of the preferred haul truck fleet, confirmation should be required of the following: actual measured sound power levels and spectral characteristics ensure that no obvious annoying noise characters occur e.g. planetary gear tonal noise emission under load, excessive retard grid blower noise, or cooling fan noise. 33

38 Operational management In light of the meteorological analysis presented in Section 6.1, operational controls and management measures should consider the prevailing meteorological conditions, to avoid noisy activities near receivers at times when worst case propagation conditions are occurring in that direction. For example, operational controls such as: diverting haul trucks to alternative rock storage facilities or stockpiles relocating rock breaking activities limiting the reverse gear selection of tracked bulldozers to no higher than second gear during the night to minimise dozer track slap noise (which is an annoying impulsive noise characteristic). The meteorological effect on noise is primarily due to either wind distribution or vertical temperature gradient, or both. In reality, the fluctuating meteorological conditions will have a significant effect on the perceived noise level at the sensitive receptor locations. This means that the received noise level can reduce from the predicted worst case noise enhancing condition (Category 6) by as much as 15 db(a) at the frequencies of interest. Table 22 (refer Section 6.1) indicates that at receivers to the south and west the worst case conditions for the propagation of only noise to the receivers in combination with low (less than 3 m/s) wind speeds will occur for only 5% 6% of the night time period. The percentage of time that these conditions are experienced at receivers to the north of the site will be approximately 10% of the night time period, but we note forecast noise levels at these receivers are 5 db 10 db quieter than at receivers to the south and west under these worst case conditions. Therefore, implementing operational controls and management measures that consider the prevailing meteorological conditions are likely to ensure that noise nuisance is appropriately managed while also ensuring compliance with the regulated noise criteria and environmental outcomes. 7.3 Noise shielding within the propagation path Rex Minerals have designed the rock storage facilities (RSF) to provide a barrier effect, shielding haul roads, pit and processing plant in the later years. The noise attenuation benefits provided by the strategically located RSF s are significant. The use of additional barriers or noise berms in addition to shaping of the RSF s is considered unfeasible for the majority of the site, given that considerable height and length of the barriers that would be required to shield haul roads. The siting of barriers on RSF s would also prove difficult given the continuing construction of the RSF s up until rehabilitation and closure phases. 7.4 Summary We are of the opinion that with implementation of the above noise mitigation measures, Hillside will meet the requirements of the Mineral Lease at all sensitive receiver locations. 34

39 8 Conclusion An environmental noise impact assessment has been undertaken for the proposed Hillside Mine situated 12 kilometres south of the township of Ardrossan on the Yorke Peninsula, South Australia. This assessment has demonstrated that, with implementation of the noise mitigation measures detailed in this report, the noise emissions from the operation of the proposed mining operation will comply with the requirements of the Mineral Lease and achieve an acceptable environmental outcome. 35

40 Appendix A Summary of modifications from the Mining Lease Proposal to Extended Feasibility Study Results 36

41 Project Component MLP EFS Commodities & Mining Rate 75kt Cu, 60koz Au & 1.2Mtpa Fe-ore. 35kt Cu & 24koz Au. No Fe being processed. Reduction in tonnage and increase in copper grade. Material Movements 1,400Mt (1,219Mt + 181Mt) 685Mt (603Mt + 82Mt) Production Rate (ave) 100 Mtpa 55 Mtpa LOM strip ratio 7.1:1 7.4:1 RSF Volumes 1400Mt 604Mt TSF Processing Ore Stockpile (max) Transportation of Ore Processing Plant 511ha (catchment area 378 ha) 7 lifts 189 final RL Mt Slurry pipeline & sea-shipping out of Ardrossan Port. 2 ball mills (120dBA each) 1 SAG mill + Cone crusher 241ha (catchment area 172 ha) 5 lifts 69 final RL 120 Operational parameters remain unchanged, although rate of rise reduced. 12Mt (removal of crushed ore stockpile) Concentrate to be transported by truck from site to Port Adelaide using "rotainer" system. B-double (42.9t) trucks to be utilised. 1 SAG mill only Jaw crusher Mining Stages 7-stage 5-stage Roads Redding Road required to be closed. Redding Road closure no longer required. Receptors Not modelled as receptors Three additional residences (receptors) to now be considered on the western side of Redding Road. Open Pit 223 Ha (2.4km x 1.2km x 450m deep) 167 Ha (2.3km x 1.1km x 450m deep) Underground Mining Underground included Open pit only, underground now presented as an expansion/future opportunity. Haul Trucks Year 1: 36 trucks Year 9: 62 trucks CAT 793D (218t) Year 1: 9 trucks Year 9: 16 trucks (maximum number) Hitachi EH5000AC-3 (116dBA engine, 296t) Blasting (ave) 600k per blast 320kt per blast (60% less) 37

42 Project Component MLP EFS Mine Life 15+ years 13+ years Workforce 600 average LOM 480 average LOM Accommodation Emergency camp 120 beds No camp Diesel Storage 2.4ML 0.6ML Energy Usage (annual) 583GWh/a 180GWh/a (Reserve a function of future commodity prices) Water Usage & Source 170 L/s make-up sea water for processing pumped from Ardrossan Port. 600ML pa fresh water. 86L/s make-up sea water for processing pumped from groundwater bore field within the Mining Lease. 300ML pa fresh water. Native Vegetation Clearing 40ha Clearing 34 ha 38

43 Appendix B Noise criteria derivation 39

44 General environmental duty Section 25 of the Environment Protection Act 1993 provides the following General Environmental Duty: A person must not undertake an activity that pollutes, or might pollute, the environment unless the person takes all reasonable and practicable measures to prevent or minimise any resulting environmental harm. In order to assess environmental noise impacts against the general environmental duty, the Environment Protection Authority (EPA) has developed the Environment Protection (Noise) Policy 2007 (Noise EPP). Environment Protection (Noise) Policy 2007 The Environment Protection Authority (EPA) provides noise goals for noise sources in order to satisfy the general environmental duty as defined by Section 25 of the South Australian Environment Protection Act (1993). Noise goals are set in accordance with the Environment Protection (Noise) Policy 2007 (Noise EPP) and are determined based on the land uses principally promoted by the relevant development plan (i.e. Yorke Peninsula Development Plan). The land uses primarily promoted by the zones in the Development Plan are used to determine the environmental noise criteria with the indicative noise factors shown in Table 23 and Table 24. Note that the indicative noise factors in Table 23 (Noise EPP Table 1) are used where the noise source and noise affected premises falls within the same land use category (being only General Industry and Special Industry). In all other cases the indicative noise factors in Table 24 (Noise EPP Table 2) are to be used. Table 23 Excerpt from Noise EPP Table 1(subclause(1)(a)) Land use category Indicative noise factor db(a) Day (7 am to 10 pm) Night (10 pm to 7 am) General industry Special industry Table 24 Excerpt from Noise EPP Table 2(subclause(1)(b)) Land use category Indicative noise factor db(a) Day (7 am to 10 pm) Night (10 pm to 7 am) Rural living Residential Rural industry Light industry Commercial General industry Special industry

45 The proposed Hillside Project spans the Primary Production Zone and the Coastal Conservation Zone (under the Yorke Peninsula Development Plan consolidated 6 November 2014) requiring an average Indicative Noise Factor to be calculated for the noise source. Additionally, the Coastal Conservation Zone land use category is assumed to be Rural Rural Living, based on advice received by the EPA. The nearest noise-sensitive receivers are located within the surrounding Primary Production Zone, with some noise-sensitive receivers located within Settlement Zones in Pine Point and Rogues Point. The Development Plan provides the following objectives and principles for the assessed zones: Primary Production Zone Objective 1: Objective 2: Objective 3: Objective 4: Objective 5: Objective 6: Settlement Zone Objective 1: Objective 2: Objective 3: Objective 4: The long term continuation of primary production. Economically productive, efficient, and environmentally sustainable primary production. Allotments of a size and configuration that promote the efficient use of land for primary production. Protection of primary production from encroachment by incompatible land uses and protection of scenic qualities of rural landscapes. Accommodation of wind farms and ancillary development. Development that contributes to the desired character of the zone. A mixed use village environment with small collection of low-density dwellings, holiday accommodation, recreation and community facilities. Small-scale services and facilities grouped together to service the requirements of the local community and visiting public. Low density residential development contained within the boundaries of the settlement. Development that contributes to the desired character of the zone. Coastal Conservation Zone Objective 1: To enhance and conserve the natural features of the coast including visual amenity, landforms, fauna and flora. Objective 2: Low-intensity recreational uses located where environmental impacts on the coast will be minimal Objective 3: Limited agricultural activity undertaken in such a manner so as to protect existing native vegetation and sensitive areas such as sand dunes and cliff tops. Objective 4: Development that contributes to the desired character of the zone. 41

46 The land uses that the Council have advised to be principally promoted for these zones correspond to the Noise EPP land use categories listed in Table 25. Table 25 Land use categories for York Peninsula Development Plan Zones Zone Primary Production Settlement Coastal Conservation Noise EPP Land Use Category Rural Industry Residential Rural Living The Noise EPP in Clause 5 states: (4) If the land uses principally promoted by the relevant Development Plan provisions for the noise source and those principally promoted by the relevant Development Plan provisions for the noise-affected premises all fall within a single land use category, the indicative noise level for the noise source is the indicative noise factor for that land use category. (5) Subject to subclause (6), if the land uses principally promoted by the relevant Development Plan provisions for the noise source and those principally promoted by the relevant Development Plan provisions for the noise-affected premises do not all fall within a single land use category, the indicative noise level is the average of the indicative noise factors for the land use categories within which those land uses fall. The derivation of the applicable Noise EPP criteria is particularly dependent on the Council land use zones that Rex Minerals proposed Minerals Lease (ML) spans. In this case the proposed ML spans the Primary Production Zone and the Coastal Conservation Zone requiring an average Indicative Noise Factor to be calculated for the noise source. The corresponding Noise EPP land use category applied to the Coastal Conservation Zone could be interpreted as either the Rural Living or Rural Industry or a mix of the two, which can affect the noise criteria outcome. Based on consultation with the EPA, a mix of the two land use categories was adopted. Receivers in the Primary Production Zone The Noise EPP indicative noise levels are: L Aeq 56 db(a) during day time periods (7am 10pm) [((57 + (57+47)/2)/2 + 57)/2 from Table 2 gives 56 db(a)] L Aeq 49 db(a) during night time periods (10pm 7am) [((50 + (50+40)/2)/2 + 50)/2 from Table 2 gives 49 db(a)] Receivers in the Settlement Zone The Noise EPP indicative noise levels are: L Aeq 53 db(a) during day time periods (7am 10pm) [((57+(57+47)/2)/2 + 52)/2 from Table 2 gives 53 db(a)] L Aeq 48 db(a) during night time periods (10pm 7am) [((50+(50+40)/2)/2 + 45)/2 from Table 2 gives 46 db(a)] 42

47 The applicable noise criteria for receivers surrounding the mine site are summarised in Table 26. Table 26 Derived noise criteria under the Noise EPP Receiver zone Day (7am to 10pm) Noise criteria Night (10pm to 7am) Primary Production L Aeq 56 db(a) L Aeq 49 db(a) Settlement (Pine Point & Rouges Point) L Aeq 53 db(a) L Aeq 46 db(a) Planning penalty The EPA generally require that proposed new industrial noise sources assessable under the Development Act (1993) are designed to meet the indicative noise level criteria less 5 db(a) where reasonable and practicable. However, following the Hillside Project government consultation process, it was agreed that the planning penalty does not apply for the Hillside mining operation, particularly given that the Hillside minerals lease is assessable under the Mining Act (1971) and not the Development Act (1993). Annoying noise source characteristics Penalties can be applied to a noise source for a variety of characteristics, such as impulsive, low frequency, modulating or tonal characters. For a characteristic penalty to be applied to a noise source it must be fundamental to the impact of the noise and dominate the overall noise impact. The potential for a characteristic penalty to apply has been discussed in the noise emission assessment. Operational noise measurements carried out and compared against the Indicative noise levels, under the Noise EPP, can be adjusted by the following amounts if the noise source contains modulation, tonal, impulsive, or low-frequency characteristics: - +5 db(a) if the noise source contains 1 characteristics - +8 db(a) if the noise source contains 2 characteristics db(a) if the noise source contains 3 or 4 characteristics. 43

48 Appendix C Schedule of Sound Power Spectrums 44

49 Table C1 Octave band sound power spectrums used for the noise modelling Item Manufacturer / model Octave Band Sound Power Level, db Overall, db(a) 31 Hz 63 Hz 125 Hz 250 Hz 500 Hz 1 khz 2 khz 4 khz 8 khz Excavator Hitachi EX Dozer CAT D10T Grader John Deere 872GP Grader CAT 24M Water Truck Hitachi EH3500-3_WTR Mine Truck Hitachi EH5000AC Wheel Dozer Caterpillar 854K Wheel Loader CAT 992K Blasthole Drill CAT MD Front End Loader John Deere 644K Mobile Mixing Unit (Explosives Truck) IEE Compactor CAT 825H Pump Hitachi Fuel Truck Hitachi EH Lighting Tower N/A Light Vehicles Toyota Vehicles on entry N/A

50 Item Manufacturer / model Octave Band Sound Power Level, db Overall, db(a) Excavator with rock breaker 31 Hz 63 Hz 125 Hz 250 Hz 500 Hz 1 khz 2 khz 4 khz 8 khz John Deere ZX470 with Rock/breaker Primary crusher Jaw Hopper N/A SAG mill N/A Copper regrind N/A Conveyor N/A / m Conveyor motor N/A Tailings pumps N/A B-double Truck N/A Scraper CAT Dozer CAT D Excavator 85t Excavator 30t Dump Truck CAT Vibrating roller Padfoot 15t Water Cart ADT 6x Loader CAT

51 Appendix D Noise Modelling Results 47

52

53

54

55