Watson Moss Growcott (WMG) was, and presumably still is, man X, man Y and CASACIR’s acoustic consultant company, performing monitoring for the Neerim North quarry. The work done by WMG’s employee, Neville Goddard, was charged through and paid to WMG, so he was acting for them and all references to Goddard are made in respect of WMG. The fact remains that WMG went out of its way to greatly assist man X, man Y and CASACIR ignore the conditions and legislation, and it was done through a number of measures over time.
Accuracy or otherwise of acoustic predictions
McWhinney noted in his 11 June 2008 report to council that noise predictions were uncertain[1] and not a guarantee[2]. Even WMG specified that the site was not amenable to simple predictions[3]. In fact, WMG admitted to using information from other quarries in order to assist itself in making predictions[4]. While this might be acceptable in some circumstances, the topography at Neerim North is unusual in that the quarry is in a lopsided bowl, with a higher rim on the north and northwest sides, with the lower side facing a valley where there was a lot of echoing[5]. The reality is that, whatever WMG, man X, man Y and CASACIR say to the contrary, the quarry actually acted as an amphitheatre to those who lived nearby. Yet WMG seemed to present its predictions as faultless and made absolute statements that certain noise levels would not be exceeded.
Amenity to be retained and not reduced
Man X, man Y and CASACIR unequivocally claimed that the quarry “[would] not cause detrimental off-site impacts by way of noise” – yet it most definitely did, even from the very beginning, and this included before they actually received either their planning permit or their work authority (they had multiple heavy haulage deliveries of machinery and equipment and the like, and they had multiple drillings, all of which they knew, or should have known, would be impacting the background noise environment).
The EPA document N3/89 stated: “When in the opinion of the Authority a particularly quiet area should be preserved it may establish more stringent limits” and man X, man Y and CASACIR’s permit condition 9 stated [emphasis mine]: “…or any more stringent standard that may be required by legislation”.
The planning scheme, which is legislation, specifically stated that noise had to be controlled so as to minimise impacts on nearby dwellings and to ensure that amenity was not reduced by noise i.e. our amenity was not to bereduced![6] In fact, McWhinney of council stated that the planning scheme demanded that the amenity, health and well-being of residents be protected[7].
Noise in Rural Victoria (NIRV) (EPA doc 1411) stated that it was typical that rural area were quiet. Even Byard, the 2010 tribunal member who was so set against us in the cases before him) noted the quietness[8]. McWhinney further noted the quietness, idyllic and scenic attributes, and the quietness[9].
However, WMG disregarded legislation and the need for the protection of the noise environment as it was prior to the quarry, i.e. when WMG did their pre-quarry monitoring, they did this by having excused man X, man Y and CASACIR’s proposed noise and detrimental impacts, and then went on to not only excuse but to even cover-up for man X, man Y and CASACIR when they changed the noise environment significantly and detrimentally. For WMG to assert that the quarry would not, or would be unlikely to, impact on us or others belied reality and its attempt to join man X, man Y and CASACIR in gaslighting us was shocking.
The 2008-tribunal members noted the impacts if the quarry proceeded[10], and even McWhinney acknowledged the impact and that it would be long-term and would cause land-use conflicts[11]. In spite of WGM’s claims to the contrary, the tribunal and McWhinney revealed the truth of the real impacts (particularly remembering that we were only 140m from the quarry according to man X, man Y and CASACIR’s own documents).
Noise limits
In spite of claims that noise levels would be complied with, WMG later admitted that there could have been times where the noise limit would have been exceeded, and even Byard of the 2010 tribunal noted an over-the-limit noise reading of 57 dB(A)[12]. Even a so-called small infraction is still an infraction – the reality is that man X, man Y and CASACIR had finished building the bund and were therefore in full blown extraction at the time of the exceedence; infact, the exceedence occurred over a year after they were into full blown extraction, so the limit was actually 45dB(A), and the exceedence on that day at that time was therefore 12 dB(A), which was equivalent to being over 10 times more intense and over 2 times louder than that “allowed”.
Wind directions
In its acoustic report of 27 November 2007, WMG considered the Noojee (Silvar) Bureau of Meteorology site to be the ant’s pants and the must go to for relevant wind data at the quarry site. However, that site is in a valley, on the other side of the hill facing the opposite direction, as is at 275m above sea level, i.e. at a little less than half the altitude of the quarry site (which is at an altitude varying between 484m and 420m).
However, when instructing Goddard to prepare a witness statement of its behalf a year later, WMG found that the Mt Baw Baw BoM site to be “more relevant to the elevated location of the subject site”. This is very strange because the Mt Baw Baw BoM site is over 70km away, is at 1515m i.e. well over 3 times the quarry altitude, and is in an alpine region with very different climatic conditions to that of the quarry. Further, the quarry is on the south side of a hill, with the hill stopping the majority of wind effects from Mt Baw Baw – if the effects were relevant at all.
Clearly, WMG was desperate because it had actually very little knowledge of the real conditions at the site because it had not used any of those real conditions. I am sad to say that the use of either the Noojee (Silvar) or Mt Baw Baw site smacks of desperation because it had no real idea of the facts.
Buffers
A buffer is the distance between the most outward source (stockpile, bund, benches, vehicle, machinery, equipment, machinery, etc) of emission (noise, dust, odour, gases, exhaust, vapours, and air and ground vibrations, etc) and the most outward point at which the performance standards are met (45dB(A), 115dBL, 5m/sec, etc).
The planning scheme[13] stated that the proponents of new quarries (and this was a new one, as agreed by council, DPI and the 2008 tribunal) had to own or control the entire, and buffer and man X, man Y and CASACIR did not; nor did man X, man Y and CASACIR provide any mandatory “clearly defined buffer”. In lieu of any “defined” buffer, the work authority boundary was determined by the 2008-tribunal members to be the location where the performance standards had to be met[14].
The site boundary
A number of parties identified the fact that the work authority boundary was the site boundary (for example, Bignell (of the then DPI) said the work authority boundary was the buffer and that man X, man Y and CASACIR owned it[15]; the planning report endorsed as part of man X, man Y and CASACIR’s planning permit stated that Pearce Road was the southern boundary of the site[16]; man X, man Y and CASACIR’s air quality specialist advised that the southern site boundary was Pearce Road and/or the bund north of Pearce Road[17]; and man X, man Y and CASACIR’s traffic specialist agreed that the site boundary to the south was Pearce Road[18]) The fact is that the performance standards had to be met at the site boundary (i.e. the work authority boundary), but weren’t – and according to the tribunal, the permit must be cancelled because such failures would cause the quarry to be prohibited.
The WMG report[19] and the witness statement Goddard submitted on WMG’s behalf[20], both presented to the tribunal as fact, made it clear that WMG would be using other peoples’ dwellings, knowingly in buffers not owned or controlled by man X, man Y and/or CASACIR, for attempted compliance with noise levels. WMG’s use of dwellings for the measurement of noise is therefore grossly incorrect, regardless of what other documents “allow”. In demanding that the performance standards were to be met at dwellings owned and controlled by others, WMG was using the performance standards for existing, or old, quarries according to the planning scheme[21], and the real reason that (1) the readings were taken at dwellings in the ownership and control of others and (2) the tribunal members demands and legislation were ignored, was so that man X, man Y and CASACIR could make a lot more noise.
Overburden classification
It is interesting to note that WMG produced a report for the Montrose Quarry[22] where it was clear that the removal of overburden was an operational use,[23] and it quoted and agreed with the 2000 EPA document that the removal of overburden was a “use”/“operational” activity making the same claims. However, in spite of such clear and corroborated identification, WMG went against its own, and EPA’s, classification of overburden removal[24] in relation to the Neerim North quarry. By reclassifying the overburden at this particular quarry, WMG made sure that they allowed man X, man Y and CASACIR to produce an additional 10 dB(A), which was equivalent to being over 10 times more intense and over 2 times louder than that “permitted” for any time they claimed they were doing “construction”. It is horrific to recognise that WMG, in its support of man X, man Y and CASACIR, went to the extreme of blatantly contradicting its own and EPA’s previous claims. I contend that this was done in order to protect man X, man Y and CASACIR, and WMG thereby succeeded in allowing man X, man Y and CASACIR to use a much higher noise level for a very long time.
The construction and use noise levels and deliberately extending the construction phase
The 2008 tribunal members noted WMG’s suggestion that the construction period should be determined as being all activity on site that does not involve product going out the gate[25] – what a load of crock because that would mean that, apart from trucks actually taking stone out the gate, all other noise would be “construction” and therefore subject to much higher noise levels (concurring with WMG’s refusal to list overburden removal as “use” at that quarry)! However, thankfully for us, the members were not that gullible but were sensible and very clear that the conditions should be more specific. Instead of WMG’s lax suggestion, the members determined that all activities that were part of the process of extracting, drilling, moving, processing (including but not limited to rock crushing or breaking) and the transporting rock were “use” or “operational” activities and not a “construction” activity”[26]. In spite of that determination and the resulting concurring permit conditions, man X, man Y and CASACIR went totally against the member’s reasons and subsequent permit conditions and went with WMG’s much, much more lenient interpretation, allowing them to drill, blast, move rock, etc all at the construction’s significant higher noise level for a much, much, longer period of time – and WMG has approved of that by encouraging them (well, it certainly failed to discourage or chastise them).
Because of the almost constant removal of overburden, WMG’s turnaround on the determination of overburden allowed man X, man Y and CASACIR to accomplish an almost constant “construction” phase, with together with “use”/“operations’ happening at the same time. This was instead of having a defined “construction” phase and then a “use”/“operations’ phase – this was deliberate because WMG’s decision allowed man X, man Y and CASACIR to use the higher 10 times more intense and 2 times louder noise level at all such times (that is, when man X, man Y and CASACIR actually kept to within that limit and didn’t go over it even further, which they often did).
Noise monitoring
WMG claimed to have set up a number of locations where they were doing monitoring prior to the quarry commencing [27], however, they apparently actually only used only one location. I consider claiming to have been using multiple locations when they were only using one was deceptive and it was only found out because they admitted cattle damaged the sole microphone[28]. The fact is that WMG failed to take proper noise reading prior to the quarry commencing, believing that 2 days monitoring was sufficient. A quiet rural area is generally 30dB(A)[29]. WMG’s readings over those 2 days were 25-27dB(A) being the measurements detected during the day-time showed that we were, prior to the quarry, in a quiet rural area, thereby well and truly putting us, prior to the quarry, into the “quiet rural area” category. The 45dB(A) that has been “allowed” for operations is an effective 100 times more intense and 4 times louder than the 26dB(A) average[30], and the construction limit of 55dB(A) is an effective 1,000 times more intense and 8 times louder than the 26dB(A) average! Even the difference between the 45dB(A) and the 55dB(A) means that 55dB(A) is effectively 10 times more intense and 2 times louder than 45dB(A)! For those who are unaware of noise levels, 45dB(A) is about the level of an average person’s normal speaking voice – so imagine someone speaking to you or around you without your permission almost non-stop from 7am to 6pm 5 days a week, and from 7am to 1pm on Saturdays, and that will give you an idea of the noise level that drives you mad and causes such anxiety and depression.
WMG’s acoustic report 27 November 2007 (endorsed as part of the planning permit and was part of the work plan and work authority – and was presented to both the 2008 and 2010 tribunals as fact) states “Prediction of noise levels at residential locations due to noise emission from a quarry requires the following information: *The source noise level of stationary and mobile noise sources; *The nature of topography between the noise sources and receiver locations; *The presence or absence of noise barrier elements; *The influence of weather conditions on sound propagation, especially light breezes. Noise source characteristics provide the starting point for calculating noise emission from the site”. Very few of those stated requirements were actually provided in the subsequent monitoring reports.
WMG stated “SEPP N-1 required that the noise must be measured so as to obtain an Leq that is representative of the noise over a 30 minute period”. But then, in a subsequent report, said that the monitored Leq “was stable from minute 11 to minute 23 at 40dB(A)” – that is not providing the information of the Leq over the legally required 30 minutes. Further, WMG did not specify how many different Leqs it used over what period of time (perhaps thee was only the one) – WMG is the specialist/expert company that should know better.
Anyway, it is my opinion that the Leq was “fixed” at what they all wanted it to be and the noise making vehicles, equipment and machinery were selected and limited to accomplish that – regardless, the whole exercise was a blatant breach of the condition!!
WMG failed to follow its own table for noise monitoring by failing to monitor while “construction” was in progress, and it in fact stated that no-one from WMG had been present during construction activities for monitoring in spite of man X, man Y and CASACIR’s condition 12 demanding 2 assessments for the construction period. WMG further failed to show where it said in the conditions that the conditions could be changed or ignored if there are other circumstances that WMG or man X, man Y and CASACIR thought warranted it.
Again WMG failed to follow its own table for noise monitoring by failing to monitor at all required locations, and even said that the noise would not have been exceeded at 565 Neerim North Road in spite of taking no measurements, and in spite of producing a table which indicated that an exceedence at that dwelling was indeed a probability. WMG again further failed to show where it said in the conditions that the conditions could be changed or ignored if there are other circumstances that WMG or man X, man Y and CASACIR thought warranted it, because the environmental management plan (appendix to man X, man Y and CASACIR’s work plan – and therefore must be complied with) demanded: “Noise – …Within 12 months of commencing each Stages 1 thru 4 noise monitoring at 140 Pearce Road, 140 Palmer Road & 565 Neerim North Road…” – this property was not monitored, yet it is claimed that the condition is complied with!!
In spite of WMG listing 370 Neerim North Road in its 27 November 2007 report[31] as one of the important dwellings to be monitored, it then totally ignored the need for that property to be assessed or protected. In spite of the fraudulent claim that the property was 1,000m away from the nearest point of extraction, it is actually less than 300m!!! In fact, WMG provided data expecting exceedences at this property when only the drill was operating (in stage 4, and close to the limit in stage 3).
Further, the 29 October 2010 WMG report stated that the monitoring reading at our property was purported to be 40dB(A) – with the wind blowing away from us, and thereby significantly reducing the noise! The question is what would the noise level have been if the wind was blowing from the north or north-west (i.e. towards us, as is often the case)? I wonder if the day was chosen because of the wind direction. And then there was an admitted failure to monitor at 565 Neerim North Road, yet it was claimed that the monitoring met the condition! How very, very, strange!
Identification and monitoring of noise sources
Noise in Rural Victoria (NIRV) (EPA doc 1411) states [emphasis mine]: “•Noise from multiple sites should be accounted for during approvals and compliance decisions. •Some types of noise are not subject to the recommended levels but also need to be considered in approvals and compliance decisions…. 2.2 Consistent with the requirements of SEPP N-1, clause 18, the recommended levels apply to the total of all industrial noise emissions affecting a noise-sensitive area”. In spite of being aware of the requirements, WMG separated out noise from other sources when the real reading has to be for all combined sources[32], and WMG did this so that man X, man Y and CASACIR would be under the limit in the noise reports and give an unrealistic measurement.
Man X, man Y and CASACIR’s work plan specifically listed a number of sources of noise, some of which are[33]: “5.1 the mobile fleet varies as demand dictates. The mobile crushing plant will consist of a track mounted primary crusher and screening unit. The mobile fleet comprises front wheel loaders (FEL) and excavators for primary production and sales, a truck for carting primary raw feed, and a permanent water cart for dust suppression. The mobile equipment on site may include a dozer, grader and hydraulic drill rig. Additional machines may be brought in as required for specific activities such as overburden removal and rehabilitation works”, “6.2.1 Typically, soil and overburden stripping will involve an excavator loading haul trucks but may also include dozers and FEL’s [sic]” and “6.7 The plant will consist of crushers and screen…” Their planning report states: “3.10 plant & equipment – the mobile plant used on-site will include front-end loaders, dump trucks, hydraulic excavators which can be fitted with a rock breaker, haul trucks and a water cart… As the need dictates, a bulldozer, grader and hydraulic drill rig will be brought on-site” and “Additional machinery will be brought on-site for overburden removal …” and “4.6 Noise will be controlled… all engine powered equipment will be fitted with mufflers and spark arresters. … highly unlikely that these sensitive uses will be adversely impacted by off-site noise.”] All up, they identified a large number, and types, of equipment, machinery and vehicles that were proposed to be used on site and/or were operating on site: hydraulic rock drills (both silenced (undertaken to be used in all circumstances) and unsilenced (undertaken to notbe used at all)), rock breaker/hammers, on-site fuel truck (implied as not being used at all), multiple excavators, bulldozers, graders, front wheel loaders (FEL), track mounted primary crushers, secondary crushers, screening units, sieves, scaplers, conveyors, haul trucks, utes and 4WDs, water carts, pumps, spray units, generators, and with additional machines and equipment brought in as required. In addition, there are the many road transport trucks per day (often 10 to 20 quad dogs and trailers, many being 40+ tonne), heavy haulage prime movers (bringing or removing machinery and/or equipment), as well as trucks delivering things such as fuel and the like. All causing noise (some causing frequent and horrendous noise – in spite of the work authority conditions demanding that [emphasis mine] “[Man X, man Y and CASACIR] must ensure that noise emissions are minimised as far as is practicable and comply with the requirements of the approved Work Plan” and “[Man X, man Y and CASACIR] must avoid causing unacceptable noise”), and many not being part of the monitoring in spite of their use at the time, etc! In addition, there was no “fitting [of] broadband smart beepers that adjust beeper levels in accordance with the ambient noise environment” to “all mobile equipment” because the reversing beepers on a number of vehicles and pieces of machinery and equipment were very loud and clearly heard from hundreds of metres away.
In relation to the WMG 15 April 2010 report of “monitoring” performed on 21 January 2010, while WMG gave descriptions of exactly what machinery and equipment was in use, and what each piece of machinery and equipment was doing at the time of monitoring, it failed to give details of where each of the limited vehicles, machinery and equipment were located during the monitoring. WMG further used the singular for each piece – the quarry generally operated with multiples of many of the items most of the time, such as 3 excavators, 2 front end loaders, a number of road trucks coming, being filled, and then leaving, as well as other machinery and vehicles in use at the same time such as dozers and haul trucks creating bunds, or water carts tearing about as they did, or any other items, at all. Nor did WMG specify whether the road truck was being loaded or not, whether the truck was full and how slow it was travelling up or down the haul road. If these were not included, how can the measurements be representative of the true state? Regardless, it was not the “full” early stage operations of the quarry because not all the activities were represented, just those man X, man Y and CASACIR (and perhaps MWG) thought would keep the noise level under the required level for the time of monitoring. Further, the quarry had been operating for 6 months and was past the “early stage” even though they were still using construction works (ably assisted by WMG’s determination of overburden) to give themselves significant noise leeway.
In relation to the WMG 15 April 2010 report of “monitoring” done on 11 March 2010, WMG specified that the monitoring was done for the drill the next time it was on location after the 21 January monitoring – but this is incorrect in that the drill was on site on 23 & 24 February and 9 & 10 March. In other words, there were 4 earlier days in which the monitoring could have been performed – so the day was specifically chosen, and if not by WMG then by man X, man Y and CASACIR? While WMG gave descriptions of the drill in use (i.e. the ordinary drill with a plastic cover WMG (without any proof as to its quality) very generously called a custom built sound attenuated cover[34]), WMG failed to state what direction it was pointing (man X, man Y and CASACIR have the driller change the drill’s direction depending on where the drilling is taking place). I suggest that the direction on the day was chosen so as to provide the best noise levels at the time of monitoring. WMG also failed to identify the period of time over which the monitoring was undertaken. I consider those failures to be unprofessional. WMG had committed to man X, man Y and CASACIR using the Atlas Copco silenced SmartRig drill, but WMG made no apology for them using the wrong drill and, in fact, excused it.
In relation to its 1 October 2010 monitoring, WMG stated that “The following activities were included in the noise measurements: “full quarry operational activities including the following: [excavators, primary crusher, loading road truck, [and] Atlas Copco factory ‘silenced’ rock drill operation at the uppermost [top] bench at the present stage of quarry development” – this is a blatant breach of condition 9iv to use the drill in that location at the same time as other machinery. The condition is clear: “when the rock drill is being operated at the top benches of stages 1,3 & 4 …, no other machinery or equipment must be used or operated at the same time” – but that didn’t matter to WMG, especially since man X, man Y and CASACIR only had limited vehicles, equipment and machinery operating on the day, and certainly not the full contingent.
WMG told the tribunal that the silenced ROCD9C SmartRig drill was available in Australia and that man X, man Y and CASACIR had undertaken to use it and would be using it – but then excused them for not using it. WMG did not insist on engineering specifications or rating for the “acoustic cover” / “custom built sound attenuation on the boom of the rig” when WMG deliberately and knowingly did at least one of its monitoring reports with the wrong drill in use. WMG also failed to identify where in the permit conditions it allows for a drill that does not meet the criteria of the Atlas Copco silenced SmartRig to be used.
As acoustic specialists, WMG would have been familiar with the EPA Noise Control Guidelines publication 1254 which stated for example: “The following measures apply: *Where work is conducted in a residential area or other noise-sensitive location, use the lowest-noise work practices and equipment that meet the requirements of the job. *All mechanical plant is to be silenced by the best practical means using current technology. Mechanical plant, including noise-suppression devices, should be maintained to the manufacturer’s specifications” – the question is: did WMG remind man X, man Y and CASACIR that they had to use the Atlas Copco silenced SmartRig drill that was WMG told the tribunal man X, man Y and CASACIR had undertaken to use for all drilling,, and did they suggest changes to comply with best practice?
WMG stated that it was the “Atlas Copco factory ‘silenced’ rock drill rig” that was used on 1 October 2010 – it was not used at many other times, and certainly not on 22 October 2010 – 21 days after this assessment. It was also a blatant breach of condition 9iv to use the drill in that location at the same time as other machinery. The condition is clear: “when the rock drill is being operated at the top benches of stages 1,3 & 4 …, no other machinery or equipment must be used or operated at the same time”, yet the WMG report states that the monitoring was specifically done so as to measure noise with the drill and other machinery and equipment working.
In a WMG report dated 29 October 2010 (presented to the 2010 tribunal as fact), it stated that further assessments were done. The report listed the following as being part of the monitoring process: an “excavator loading primary crusher, primary crusher operating, secondary crusher operating, excavator loading secondary crusher, wheeled loader loading sales truck, sales trucks driving in and out of quarry [and] Atlas Copco factory ‘silenced’ rock drill operation at the uppermost bench at that stage of the development”. However, the following were still being used at the time (but perhaps not on that particular day) but were missing from being monitored: screening units, sieves, conveyor, grader, water cart, utes, bulldozers, fuel truck, other vehicles around the site, pumps, scaplers, spray units, generators, additional crushers, additional excavators [there were often two or three working on the overburden and moving rock as well as those loading the crushers – all at the same time], additional road trucks [there are often a number coming, being loaded , and going at the same time] – so it was not anywhere near a full contingent of what should have been monitored (again, no surprises there)!
Best practice in noise reduction requirements
As previously identified, best practice was required at the quarry. Additionally, the work plan (endorsed as part of the planning permit and which is the basis of the work authority – and therefore must be complied with) stated “The methods and equipment outlined in this proposal are current good practice, however, given the reserved and operating life of this site they will be changed as necessary to ensure they remain the best practice” and “Noise will be controlled”, and the environmental management plan (appendix to work plan and which was endorsed as part of the planning permit and is the basis of the work authority – and therefore must be complied with) statesd: “Noise – …Fit all equipment with broadband smart beepers…” and “Noise – …All rock drill [sic] to utilise silenced rock drill…”
Further, the planning permit demanded that, in order to comply with the sound limits, the following must apply: “9.… All noise must comply with the requirements of the Work Authority granted pursuant to the Extractive Industries Development Act 1995 and must be operated in accordance with the approved work plan. … the following (not exclusive) techniques must be employed: (i) fitting all mobile equipment with broadband smart beepers that adjust beeper levels in accordance with the ambient noise environment; (ii) all haul trucks operating on the site must include modification of the trays to reduce the noise contribution of rock impacting on the tray body; (iii) all hydraulic rock drilling must utilise a silenced drill rig (as demonstrated in the Atlas Copco SmartRig brochure) and where necessary, localised acoustic shielding; (iv) when the rock drill is being operated at the top benches of stages 1,3 & 4 and at the top bench and second top bench of stage 2, no other machinery or equipment must be used or operated at the same time; (v) any rock breaker/rock hammer used on the land must utilise best available noise reducing technology”; and Noise in Rural Victoria (NIRV) (EPA doc 1411) stated: “In addition to meeting the recommended levels, industry should take reasonable opportunities to further reduce noise”. NIRV (EPA doc 1413) stated: “EPA expects industry to act on reports of excessive noise from their premises and reduce noise to a reasonable level”, “… the industry needs to propose best-practice measures to reduce noise”, “The applicant will … present … best-practice measures”, and “Some industry uses may be obliged under an approval document or the planning scheme to maintain a ‘buffer’ of land around their site where sensitive land uses are restricted. For example, quarries have obligations under clause 14.03–2 of the Victoria Planning Provisions”.
Also, man X, man Y and CASACIR’s work authority conditions stated: “19.1 [Man X, man Y and CASACIR] must ensure that noise emissions are minimised as far as is practicable and comply with the requirements of the approved Work Plan” and “19.2 [Man X, man Y and CASACIR] must avoid causing unacceptable noise”, however, they were certainly causing unacceptable noise and this was caused in part by failing to use any “noise reducing technology” on the “rock breaker/rock hammer” because it sounds like a loud demented bell bird, and they used un-silenced drills for both “use” and “construction” activities (and this was acknowledged by man X), and Noise in Rural Victoria(NIRV) (EPA doc 1411) states: “SEPP N-1, clause 19 advises that, when equipment is to be replaced or new equipment installed, the quietest equipment available should be used where a significant reduction in noise exposure can be expected to result. This obligation also applies under this document”, and “Industry should also apply routine noise control measures where these will have a demonstrable reduction in noise at sensitive areas”, however, this was not done and there is nothing in the WMG reports to imply that it even suggested to man X, man Y and CASACIR that they do so.
As previously identified, the area where we had our property was acknowledged (prior to the advent of the quarry) by McWhinney, as well as by the 2008 and 2010 tribunal members, as being both idyllic and quiet – however, this fact was ignored by man X, man Y and CASACIR and the authorities, and certainly by WMG. Further, the requirement was for all noise sources to be taken into account – but this was not only ignored (in fact, the noises from other sources are being actively removed from monitoring so that the quarry noise was the only noise assessed), and not all the quarry noise sources were used in the assessments. Also, in spite of the following undertakings and claims, there was no apparent attempt to replace equipment, machinery or vehicles with the quietest or best available (as evidenced by the past significant use of unsilenced drills, the haul trucks not lined, the continued use of machinery with no broadband beepers, the continued use of the rock-breaker with no silencing, …)
WMG stated through Godard’s witness statement (presented to both the 2008 and 2010 tribunals as fact): “The applicant has now undertaken to use a ‘silenced’ drill rig, recently introduced to the Australian market, at the site”, “Rock breakers with reduced noise emission are becoming available… use of a ‘silenced’ rock breaker is recommended in order to minimize the contribution of rock breaking noise to overall noise emission from the site…. It is recommended that developments that [sic] further reduce rock-breaking noise be investigated as they arise in order to minimise noise impacts and maximise flexibility of operations”, “Lining of haul truck bodies has the potential to reduce noise due to rock on steel impacts as rock is placed into the haul truck”, and “…there is little doubt that the use of conventional beepers at the site would have the potential to cause adverse off-site noise impacts. Therefore, the use of broadband reversing safety alarms that adjust to the ambient noise environment is recommended”.
What happened though? Best practice was not employed in all areas (and I am not actually sure where it was employed at all), because: *regular and noisy reversing beepers were often used in spite of the requirements of conditions 9 & 10, and man X, man Y and CASACIR’s own undertakings that broadband smart beepers would be used to keep down the noise levels; *there were drillings without any sort of shielding or “silencing” during at least the first 4 or 5 months (and this was acknowledged under oath at the tribunal), and there were many drillings with a plastic so-called “cover” that did not enclose the noisy mechanisms of the drill; *there appeared to be no attempt to lower the noise level of the rock breaker; *the haul trucks were not lined; *rock was dropped from a height into road trucks and this was exceptionally noisy; *rock was dropped from a height into the crushers , *etc. Where was “best practice” in any of that? What was undertaken to be done had significantly not been implemented. In addition, as far as “… given the reserves and operating life of this site they will be changed as necessary to ensure they remain the best practice” goes, that was proved not to be accurate either because, as said, there were things that were definitely not “best practice”. Yet those undertakings and claims were presented to the tribunal as fact, and would likely have had a bearing on the tribunal’s decision to grant the permit. What more needs to be said other than the previously identified requirements, and the above undertakings and claims, were not complied with to a significantly large extent.
Wind direction and velocity in mornitoring
WMG performed its monitoring when the wind direction was not such that it would provide the worst-case scenario. So the question has to be asked: what would the real noise level have been at our property if the wind had been from the north or northwest? A further question that needs to be asked is: how did WMG measure the wind speed? You would have thought that a thorough monitoring report would detail these things.
Aspersions on my noise monitoring
I assume that WMG’s comment on the “simple overall dB(A) meter” was a go at me and my monitor. However, I turned the unit off every time there was anything other than the quarry noise in spite of not actually needing to do so.
WMG said that the locations I took measurements were unsuitable because I took the measurements at various places. Unlike WMG, I did indeed take measurements as many locatios, including at the boundary of the site because the performance standards had to be met at the site boundary, as seen above. How does that make the locations unsuitable other than me further proving man X, man Y and CASACIR were over the noise limit?
Bias
Because man X, man Y and CASACIR reprimanded me for not contacting specialists before writing my former website, I sent WMG a letter on 15 July 2012. The letter asked the following information: about the silenced ROCD9C SmartRig drill and when it was available; about the unsilenced drill that man X, man Y and CASACIR were using instead of the silenced one they had undertaken to use; about the number and type of machinery and equipment that was being used when WMG did its 21 January 2010 and 11 March 2010 reports; about the non-use of broadband reversing beepers in spite of the demand for their use; about the actual weather conditions on those days; about why WMG allowed Goddard to disagree with its own and the EPA’s decisions about overburden being a “use” or “operational” activity instead of a “construction” activity; about all noise contributing to the noise limit, and not just the quarry noise; and about its opinion on the well-established knowledge that as the bund becomes less effective the higher the works go and the further they are from the bund. Unsurprisingly, no response was ever received.
Taking all the above into consideration, it is very clear that WMG were significantly biased so as to allow man X, man Y and CASACIR to get away with as much as they could. In fact, Goddard was listed as a person who had downloaded my former website, but was (1) either not approached to be a witness, or was not willing to say what was expected of him under oath, or (2) did not want to be questioned by me as to what he had allowed and approved of in his unwavering support of man X, man Y and CASACIR.
[1] Page 14 “The noise impact assessment itself qualifies its predictions noting the “the quarry site and surrounds occupy complex topography, not amenable to simple noise prediction methods”.”
[2] Page 14: “Modelling is not a guarantee and cannot be taken as such”
[3] WMG report dated 27 November 2007, clause 6.1: “The quarry and surrounds occupy complex topography, not amenable to simple noise prediction methods”.
[4] WMG report dated 27 November 2007, clause 5 “[The noise source data] is based on measurement data obtained from previous quarry noise studies”.
[5] Neighbours one kilometre away across the valley proved they could hear us at our house which was just 140m from the southern quarry site boundary.
[6] “13.04-1 Noise Abatement: the Objective is To assist the control of noise effects on sensitive land uses”
[7] Pages 12 and 16: “”“Whilst a prosperous economy is encouraged by the scheme, the scheme also requires the protection of the environment, amenity, landscape values and health and well-being”, “it is … important to protect the amenity of residents and the scheme requires this”
[8] “the evidence indicates that this is a relatively quite environment”.
[9] McWhinney’s report to council dated 11 June 2008, pages 15 & 16, 12 & 13, and 20: regarding the “quietness and scenic qualities of the location”, that “part of the attraction of the area and cited as such by objectors is the quietness”, and that, “The vehemence of concern on this aspect is in part a reflection of the main focus of residents in living in the location. Again it is understandable that people have chosen to live in this location substantially as a lifestyle choice taking advantage of the idyllic landscape attributes”.
[10] “76 We acknowledge that the proposed development will significantly alter the noise environment experienced by residents in adjoining properties during the hours of operation. The extent of the noise impact within the local area will be sufficient to impact on land at a distance of up to 1 kilometre away”.
[11] “[opening and operating a quarry would entail] the physical removal of rock from the ground potentially changing the landscape, involving blasting, large quarry trucks on roads, noise, vibration, dust, fly rock, pollution issues, safety issues and so on, all on a large scale”, “The quarry will clearly result in land use conflicts … This is a long term impact if it goes ahead”, “for the residents of the dwellings to the south and west of the quarry site the psychological sense of the “nearness” of the quarry will be accentuated by its being located higher on the hill and to an extent the mounding provided to reduce the visual and aural impact of the quarry operations will accentuate this”, “One can certainly empathise with the sentiments of residents in the locality. Most people would prefer not to have a quarry in their backyard. Their objection is understandable and it is accepted that a quarry would significantly detract from their lifestyle and residential amenity, just the knowledge and physical evidence would do this”.
[12] Reasons at [53], although he did ignorantly claims that it was a minor infraction – this is why man X, man Y and CASACIR could get away with what they liked. The police are very clear that having an alcohol reading of 0.05 is an offence, let alone anything over that – imagine the anarchy if they were equally whimsical about what was worthy of actions against a driver.
[14] The 2008 tribunal members said the performance standards had to be met at the boundaries of the site [emphasis mine] “71 In any event in determining whether or not to issue a permit we need to be certain that the required performance standards can be met at the boundaries of the site and if increased activity on the site resulted in these standards being breached then such activity would be prohibited”, “138 The issue that then remains is whether the operations on the site can meet the required standards at the site boundary”, and “159 The Tribunal is satisfied that the required performance measures can be met at the boundaries of the site”.
[15] [emphasis mine] “The buffer is considered to be the area between the proposed extraction limit to the point at which performance standards appropriate to the adjoining sensitive land use are attainable and are as required by the various statutory authorities. WA1347 proposal is that this criteria is met at the WA boundary or within. This should not to be misconstrued as the proposal claiming the Boundary Setback as the buffer. The proposed buffers are controlled and owned by [man X, man Y and CASACIR]”
[16] [emphasis mine] “2.1 … The site abuts the Neerim North Road to the west and Pearce Road forms the southern boundary”.
[17] [emphasis mine] “2. The initial phase of Stage 1 will include the construction of earthen bunds along the southern and western boundaries of the quarry site”, and the southern bund is north of Pearce Road.
[18] [emphasis mine] “2.1 The site is essentially rectangular in shape with frontages to Neerim North Road and Pearce Road… Pearce Road south of the quarry …. … 2.2 Pearce Road runs east from Neerim North Road along the southern boundary of the site. … 3.1 An internal access road will be constructed parallel to Pearce Road along the southern boundary of the site”.
[19] “(1) …determine noise control measures if necessary in order to achieve compliance with relevant noise limits at existing residential locations” and “(3.1) The N3/89 document … (Measured at residential premises)” and “(3.1) Noise measurements, as detailed in the following section, have indicated that the ‘low background’ noise limits under the N3/89 Guidelines, will be applicable at the houses in the vicinity of the quarry” and “(5) …the assessment of noise emission at residential locations” and “(6.2) …in order to comply with noise limits at all residential locations. … noise modelling scenarios have been developed in order to predict calculated the resultant noise levels at the residential locations…”
[20] “(6) The initial work identified the potential for operation of a ‘standard’ hydraulic rock drill on the most exposed quarry benches to generate noise levels in excess of the noise limits at a number of houses”.
[21] The then clause 14.03-2: “Provide buffer areas between existing extractive industries and sensitive land uses, determined on the following principles: * The buffer areas are determined so that appropriate limits on effects can be met at the sensitive locations using practical and readily available technology”
[22] Boral Quarry, Montrose Proposed Extension Environment Noise – Technical Report for Environment Effects Statement, dated January 2007
[23] “4.2 Overburden removal is nominated to be included in normal activities which would be subject to the normal noise limit …. Normal noise criteria: *General quarrying, *Overburden removal ”
[24] If WMG say that they did not allow it, they certainly did nothing about it, which amounts to the same thing.
[25] “90. Mr Goddard’s suggestion was that the construction period should be activity on site that does not involve product going out the gate”
[27] WMG report dated 27 November 2007, clause 4 [emphasis mine and note the plurals]: “The measurement locations were chosen to obtain background levels representative of the background levels at the houses, taking the characteristics of the surrounding environment into account”.
[28] Ibid, “Background noise levels were measured with an unattended noise logger over a period of 13 days. Unfortunately, after two days of noise monitoring, cattle damaged the microphone. However, sufficient data were [sic] obtained before the damage occurred to enable conclusions regarding the background noise level in the area to be reached” – note the singular, and the cattle’s proximity to the monitor which would have elevated the noise level!
[29] IAC Acoustics state in their document Comparative Example of Noise Levels, and with the EPA N3/89 document (section 3) additionally stating that 30dB(A) is a very low day-time sound level.
[30] Converting Decibels to sound Intensities, dated October 29 2016 by Neil Bauman PhD
[31] clause 6.1; “In the case of the Neerim North quarry, the nearest receiver locations (i.e. houses) are located … northwest… of the quarry, as indicated on the plan of the are attached as Appendix Three. This implies that the winds that have a potential to enhance sound propagation from the quarry to the houses are from the … southeast… Bureau of Meteorology historical wind date from the Noojee (Silvar) and Noojee observation sites has been reviewed in order to assess the frequency of occurrence of winds of up to 10kph blowing from these directions. The wind rose data (Appendix Four) confirms a frequency of occurrence of light breezes blowing from the quarry in the direction of each house”.
[32] WMG said that the overall noise level on both 21 January and 11 March 2010, was dominated by insects, but does not specify the type of insect. Further, I had never in my 12 years there had any time where there was anything much in the way of insect noise, and certainly not constant insect noise (in fact, I could only remember about an hour and a half on one day in 2007 where there was any insect noise, and it was the rustle of grasshoppers moving through). In relation to its 1 October 2010 monitoring, WMG said “The acoustic environment in the area of the quarry was dominated at times by noise due to birds”. In the 12 years I was there, I had never heard birds in any but a minor way, with the odd chirping or the excessively few times a flock of cockies would fly over and then be gone. Possibly WMG thought it best not to claim insects yet again – I don’t know, but claims of both insects (on 2 totally different days months apart) and birds, all being so loud and constant so as to necessitate action to remove them from the monitoring completely goes against my experience there. In a further WMG report dated 7 September 2010, clause 5, it again makes the extraordinary claim that there were “extraneous noise contributions due to insects, which have been observed to be prominent on every site visit” – so, on the 2 visits they made, there was supposedly insect noise (although it actually looked as if they had forgotten to remove the reference in the 11 March report because it was a direct copy/paste of the 21 January report, with one additional sentence). I have been to the site on 3 occasions and have never heard insects at the site, and I have never heard man X, man Y and/or CASACIR ever mention them, including sworn testimony or affidavits. Further, WMG tried to delete noise from cattle, and deleted noise from other machinery operating around the area (including on quarry land).
[33] Note the plurality of many of the pieces of machinery and equipment, yet only a singular piece of a few limited types were in use for the monitoring
[34] Expert Witness Statement – Assessment Of Noise Emission During Early Stages Of Operation, dated 7 September 2010 (NG7 to Goddard’s affidavit), page 5