336 Maria Cashmore ·~~~~·--~r..~--~----m.----~~~----.a·------·--~~W..~Mn~~------From: Malcolm Hunt
Maria, Thank you for sending the comments by Mr Jepsen on our Horoi Rd noise assessment. We are not sure all the issues raised are important for your Council to be worried about, as we explain below, none of the clarifications sought would have any impact on the overall assessment. Some points raised seem minor and dis not need to be highlighted in the way Mr Jepsen has chosen to do so. I will cover the points he has raised as follows with further detail to be set out within the noise evidence to be presented at the hearing.
At Section (i) ofMr Jepsen's report refers to Figure 3 ofthe MHA report which is a diagram presenting information on the sound emission levels ofthe proposed drilling rig. This diagram shows both the unweighted octave band and overall dBA sound power level of Rig 19. The octave band levels are in units dB (not dBA as mistakenly labelled on theY axis). Thus, the diagram shows no unusually high levels of low frequency sound. It is normal for sound level in the lower frequency ranges when depicted as unweighted sound levels. The decibel values shown in Fig 3 are "conceptual" as they are "sound power" values which cannot be heard or assessed against audible sounds as sound power levels are therefore theoretical only. This is why the term "conceptual" was used.
Heavy Vehicle noise- due to the technical restrictions of the relevant NZ acoustic Standards, noise generated by vehicles on public roads in NZ is excluded from assessment under Council's district plan noise criteria for activities in rural areas, or indeed any kind of noise assessment against the District Plan or NZ Stds. Instead of including vehicle nosie in the modelling, we have separately calculated (not modelled) traffic noise from heavy vehicles associated with the proposed activity operating on public roads as 24 hour Leq sound levels and compar,ed the increase due to the project to criteria for noise from new or altered roads in NZ. The key is the difference between "modelling'' and 11 Calculation". The sentence makes perfect sense once this distinction is made. Section 7.4 implies the calculated increase in 24 hour road traffic noise is less than 1 dB. We regret that Mr Jespen was not able to understand that (but we think he does, as any nomal reader would).
One should also have regard for the low levels of potential noise effects associated heavy vehicles associated with the project which Mr Jepsen has not acknowledged. Firstly, Tale 5 of the MHA report confirms noise from HCV vehicles accessing the site operations will mainly arise during the construction phase. The District Plan clearly signals high noise limits are acceptable for construction activities in rural areas. The effects of the low number ofHCV vehicles per week during the drilling and production stages (if any) is quite minor. This will be covered in the noise evidence to be pres~:nted at the hearing.
Mr Jespen notes the samples of ambient sound presented in the report are for short periods. The results shown are but small samples of the readings taken over longer periods as part of our field work. In complaining about the brevity of information contained in the report regarding ambient sound levels, it needs to be acknowledged that there are no requirements for assessments of environmental noise effects to include results of any ambient sound levels readings. Mr Jepsen has not made it clear that under the recommendations of the relevant NZ acoustic standards, or the district plan, there is no mandatory requirement to provide any results of the ambient sound climat'! currently existing in the area. The results we did present are as additional information to demonstrate the general nature of daytime sound 1 levels only. Levels of daytime or night time noise currently found in the area have no bearing on whether 337 expected noise effects would be acceptable in terms of the guidance set out under the District Plan or the relevant NZ Stds. Both these assessment guidelines rely on achieving compliance with stated decibel noise limits at noise sensitive dwelJ.ing sites in the area. The brevity of ambient sound readings has no implications for determining compliance with these guideline limits. In Section IV, Mr Jepsen comments that data on ambient sound readings is not supported by the data given in figure 11. However, our text was referring to the general range of sound levels we found in the area including Lmax and L90 levels. There is a typo as we should not have included the term "L90" on the 3rd and 4th to bottom lines on Page 15 of the MHA report. This reflects the fact that we were generally discussing the full range of levels of sound found in the area during the site visit.
Please advise if you require any further information.
Regards, Malcolm Hunt
At 04:17p.m. 23/01/2014, Maria Cashmore wrote:
Hello Malcolm As discussed, the Noise Assessment Report you prepared relating to the above consent was peer reviewed by Neil Jepsen, Council's Noise Consultant. Mr Jepsen has provided his Peer Review which includes a few matters that requires clarification. Can you please address these matters? Please refer to the attached document. If you are able to address them before the Hearing, I am ablle to include your response with my rc~port. Otherwise, you are able to address this during the Hearing. I have CC'd Neil Jepsen to keep him in the loop. Regards Maria
Maria Cashmore Plan:aerl South Taranaki District Council 105-111 Albion St, Private Bag 902, Hawera 4610, NZ Phon~: +64 6 278 Q?.55 I Fax: +64 6 278 8757 I www.soutbtaranaki.com ,.. '·r:!:; «'-"f Wi"'>-- .. ·~:~" ~·. 'l'..i ~~ ... ·• - ':t~.}~ .....c .....
This e-mail and any attachments may contain confidential ~md privileged information. If you are not the intended recipient, please nodfy the sender immediately by return e-mail, delete this e-mail and destroy any copies. Any dissemination or use of this information by a person other than the intended recipient is unauthorised and may be illegal. Please note that this communication does not designate an information system for the purposes of the Electronic Transactions Act 2002.
Malcolm Hunt Associates P 0 Box 11 -294 WELLINGTON
1st floor, 47 Cuba Street, Wellington.
Ph 04 472 5689 Fax 04 473 0456
2 338
APPENDIX 5: NOISE ASSESSMENT REPORT (MHA REPORT) 339
Appendix 7 - Nla!colm Hunt Assoc1ates -noise assessment 340
ss ent H or~oi Well Site South Taranaki Distr"ict
Prepared for: Taranck1 Ventures I! Limif'ed
Prepar4~d by: 1\1alcolmHttntAssociates .,. __....,.~~ ,.. ~~--= Fir
~\ijoise Assessment Report 341 Horoi We!ll Site South Taranalk; Distrh:t
lVIalcolmHunt,j~ssociates
Quality Control
O~te of Issue: 7 July 2013
Taranaki Ventures II
Client Name:
.. Ne•-, l.eela.OO E~y Corp.
Project Reference: 4384/3
\\Servermha\wolklng d ocuments\! to P\MINE+O.UARRYtEXTRACTION\.__WELLS\NEW ZEALAND ENERGV N;une of File: ODRP\Horoi\Reportlnc\Nolse AsseS&ment_Horoll Well Site_droft V2.0.doc
Document version: Rev.4
Document Status DRAFT For Review
Tar.makl Ventures ll [Client] Document Rele;1se NM Associates [Client Planning Agent] Statham Traffic Solutions [Traffic Englne1ers]
Document Prepered By: Undsay Hannah and Malcolm Hunt
Document Review/Sign off Malcolm Hunt
,. J f. .. / ~-{.., I ,-: . I. i .c . •-··' / Document Sign off: Lindsay Hennah Malcolm Hunt Senior Consultant/Acoustic Engineer Principal Acoustic Engineer
Bachelor of Building Sdence B.Sc PGDipSci [Acoustics [dist]] M.E [mech] MPhll [Sc] [Acoustics] [Hans]] Dip Pub. Health RSH Dip. Noise Control
MASNZ. MNZEIH MASNZ. MNZIEH
' .
-c -: .- ..
,_ ~ ·.;
New Zealat:Jd Energy Corp. P age J3 oise Assesstnent Report 342 Horoi Well Si ·e South Taranaki Dis rict MalcolmHuntAssociates ...... -~ ':-j-.,·, ~·
Glossary of Noise Terms
Decibel. A measurement of sound expressed as a logarithmic ratio of sound pressure level P to a reference pressure level, p, 20JlPa dB
A weighted Decibel. A measurement of sound which has its frequency characteristics modlfled by a fllter [A-weighted] so as to more closely approximate the frequency bias of the human ear. dB[A]
The level of sound exceeded for only 10% of the monitoring period. This level of sound therefore equates to an average maximum sound and is used widely In emission limits as the L correlates well LlOorlro 10 with the subjective reaction to sound. NZS6802:1991 Assessment of Environmental Sound and the District Plan sets maximum permissible noise levels for residentia I land uses In terms of the l 10 criteria.
The single highest sampled level of sound. Used In night time emission limits as a means of ensuring LmaxorLm.. sleep protection.
The time-averaged sound level [or equivalent sound level] that has the same mean square sound Leq or L.., pressure level as the time-varying sound level under consideration. Commonly referred to as an •energy averageN measure of sound exposure.
The level of sound exceeded for 90% of the monitoring period. This level of sound equates to an average background sound level, and Is Influenced by constant sources. Noise emission limits are not L90ori.go generally specified In terms of an L90 level, but it is used as a guide to the general background sound level.
NZ Standard 'Measurement of Environmental Noise' NZS 6801:1991
NZ Standard 'Assessment of Environmental Noise' NZS 6802:1991
SACs is an acronym for ~ecial ~udlble !;_haracteristiq which are qualities of environmental sound which make the sound additionally annoying. Sound that has special audible characteristics, such as tonality or impulsiveness, is likely to cause adverse community response at lower sound levels, than SACs sound without such characteristics.
Sound Power Level. The 'energy' created by a sound Is defined as its sound power. The ear cannot Sound Power hear sound power nor can it be measured directly. Sound power is not dependent upon its surrounding environment.
Sound Pressure Level Is defined as varying pressure fluctuations caused by sound waves. The ear converts these fluctuations into what we call audible sound, which is the sensation [as detected by the Sound Pressure ear] of very small rapid changes In the air pressure above and below a static value. This "static" value is atmospheric pressure.
New Zealand Energy Corp. 343 I ' orse Assessment Report •. ·-i Well Site South ·ra.ranaki District fvialcolmHuntAssociates ..~~ Table of Contents 1 Introduction ...... 5 2 Background ...... 6 2.1 Site and Surrounds ...... 6 2.2 Site development ...... 8 2.3 Noise Sources ...... 8 2.3.1 Drilling Activities ...... 8 2.3.2 Production Installations & Equipment ...... 9 2.3.3 Vehicle Noise ...... 10 2.3.4 Construction Noise ...... 11 3 Existing Ambient Sound Levels ...... 11 3.1 Results For Site 1 ...... 12 3.2 Results For Site 2 ...... 13 3.3 Results For Site 3 ...... 14 4 Noise Criteria ...... ,., ...... 16 4.1 Resource Management Act ...... 16 4.2 South Taranaki District Plan ...... 16 4.2.1 l 10 Measurement Unit ...... l6 4.2.2 Assessment Location ...... 16 4.3 NZ Standards ...... 17 4.4 Temporary Construction Noise ...... 17 5 Acoustic Modelling ...... 18 5.1 Method ...... 18 5.2 Sound Propagation Factors ...... 18 5.2.1 Topography ...... 18 5.2.2 Meteorological Effects ...... ~...... 18 5.2.3 Soft Ground ...... 19 5.2.4 Screening Effects ...... ; ...... 19 5.2.5 Directivity ...... 19 6 Prediction Results ...... 19 6.1 Construction Noise ...... 19 6.2 Operational Noise ...... 20 7 Assessment ...... · ...... 21 7.1 Operational Noise ...... 21 7.2 NZS6802:2008 Assessment Matters ...... 21 7.3 Construction Noise ...... 22 7.4 Traffic Noise ...... 22 7.5 Cumulative Noise Effects ...... 22 7.6 Overall Assessment ...... 22
8 Mitigation Methods ...... ~ ...... 23 9 Summary & Recommended Condi1tions ...... 23
New Zealand Energy Corp. 'oise Assessment Report 344 - ~ - ~ Well Site South Taranaki District MalcolmHuntAssociates
1 Introduction
Malcolm Hunt Associates [MHA] have been commissioned by Taranald Venture.s II Umited [TVIIL] a fully owned subsidiary of New Zealand Energy Corp [NZEC] to investigate and report on potential environmental noise effects associated with a proposal to conduct exploration activities including drilling of a number of wells, well testing, and production testing at the proposed Horoi directional well drilling site located approx 6 km east of the Township of Eltham. The assessment includes noise associated with temporary construction works taking place to prepare the site entranceway, the access track and to prepare the site itself.
This report sets out an assessment of potential environmental noise effects in accordance with the requirements of the 4th Schedule to the Resource Management Act [RMA]. The sensitivity of the receiving environment has been particularly investigated in relation to noise levels received at existing dwellings in the area.
The assessment is based on project information and specifications provided by the Applicant and/or their agents. All drawings and diagrams in this document are schematic and not to scale. The assessment has considered both night time and daytime noise effects [with differing noise criteria applying to each time period]. Methods used to predict and assess noise from the proposed activities are derived from District Plan and the relevant New Zealand Standards which are consistent with methods employed internationally for the prediction of sound levels in the environment.
The assessment below considers noise effects throughout the various activity periods including 24 hour drilling of four or more wells and lower-noise production activities. The results set out below indicate cumulative noise from the site as may affect each of the closest existing dwellings in the area. Sound levels will vary for different activities proposed for the site, however on all cases the calculations confirm noise levels at nearby dwellings will be below accepted daytime and night time guideline limits.
District Plan noise standards are not fully complied. However. This is because these limits must be achieved at the site boundary, instead of applying at the "notional boundary" to each dwelling. Compliance with noise limits applied at the "notional boundary" to all existing dwellings in the area will ensure all residents of the area are reasonably protected from adverse noise effects, including during night time, consistent with a relevant NZ Standard NZS6802:2008 Acoustics- Environmental Noise.
Noise mitigation measures incorporated into the activity have been identified as being consistent with best practicable option required under the Resource Management Act s.16 to avoid unreasonable noise.
The overall findings is that, providing the recommended mitigation measures are adopted, noise effects will remain no more than minor throughout the life of the consent. On this basis the overall assessment is that there are no reasonable noise-related grounds for the consent authority to withhold grant of consent for this activity, subject to recommended noise-related conditions as set out below.
New Zealand Energy Corp. P a g e 16
345 2 Background
2.1 Site and Surrounds
The Horoi well site is located approx 6 km east of Eltham in the South Taranaki District. The site and surrounds are predominately rural in nature with the surrounding land uses being predominantly pastoral forming. A number of existing well sites are located within the wider area. The terrain in the immediate area around the well site is predominantly flat with undulating terrain around the perimeter of the local area.
Figure 1 below shows the proposed well location. The existing environment includes a number of rural dwellings in the local immediate and wider area.
l WeiiSite
i ,.
' · - - ~. l /
~~ ., - ·-:-___..... : :;..\ • , •. ! , ~~ .f'l, ' . ' l egend \ ,•,:,1 " ,.... ··· o Rm•'i Zl1 .: ~ .:, o · -·~ - !
Figure 1 : District Plan Mop of proposed well site. Reference Mop 10 [South Taranak.i District Plan]. Top right insert: Site location mop. Ref: Google Maps.
Figure 2 below shows the site and rural dwellings found in the local area.
The well site is located with low ridgelines just to the south of Horoi Rd and west of Maata Rd, with the well site itself located on the flat, in a low lying area of what was formerly the southern part of the Ngaere swamp. Appendix D indicates a 3 dimensional representation of the existing terrain in the area. These ridgelines and terrain influence the shape of contours of predicted noise from the site {see Appendix C).
New Zealand Energy Corp. 346
Figure 2: Aerial Photo of proposed well site showing closest dwellings. Shaded green areas are the elevated land areas 5 metres or more above the flat land (ex-swamp). Reference Google Maps & Terralinl< Terrain data.
The distance from the well site to the 20 metre notional boundary of the closest dwellings identified above are listed as follows; Approx Distance Dwelling Referenc::e To Notional Boundary of (As Fisure 2] Dwellins Address [metres- as the crow flies]
1 118 Horoi Road 538m 2 190 Horoi Road 649 m 3 677 Maat a Road 1,129 m 4 102 Horoi Road 864m 5 110 Horo1 Road 784m 6 760 Maata Road 887m 7 677 Maata Road 1,313 m 8 896 Maat a Road 1,189 m
Table 1: Approx distance from well site to closest existing rural residential sites.
New Zealand Energy Corp. f> age I 8
2.2 Site development 347
Site development phases are described as:
l) Earthworks to enable the site to be established including formation of a flare pit. hard stand areas, construction of a new access road (650 metres long) and entrance gatewoy. The construction works will also involve grassing and planting of worked areas
2) Drilling activities including rig delivery and setup, establishment of allied facilitie1s and equipment, completion of well[s], rig and infrastructure taken off-site
3) Initial and production testing phases, including work-over rig operations [if required]
Other operational facilities include a flare pit to the east of the well head, site offices and ri~1 crew facilities, onsite vehicle circulation, parking areas and ge~teway/access way upgrade.
The Horoi well site will be developed to enable a series of up to six production wells and includes site preparation to establish the site and drill site. Only one well is drilled at a time. A planned drilling schedule will see these wells [hypothetically] being drilled over a 3-4 week cycle with the 24hr drilling operations over approximately 15 days with gaps between. This time line is subject to unexpected delays and has been adopted as a guide only.
As signalled above, well drilling, gas flaring, and aspects of the production activities may take place over 24 hour periods i.e. during both night time and daytime[l], whereas all other activities are generally daytime only. Disposing of gas via a thermal oxidiser is a 24 hour activity but is not genmally a noisy activity [depending on various factors including the volume of gas being disposed ofJ. Flming of gas is a temporary activity only likely to be undertaken during initial well testing and again at times when the wells ore re-conditioned and cleaned up. Production activities involving a waste gas oxidiser ore 24 hour activities, but involve lower sound levels, An assessment of potential cumulative~ noise effects are assessed below, particularly simultaneous opt::trotion of some aspects of the activities.
2.3 Noise Sources
2.3.1 Drilling Activities
Noise effects from well drilling hove been modelled on the Rig 19 drilling rig or similar. Noise sources associated with Rig 19 includes the draw works, brake work over and other auxiliary plant such as diesel motors used to run generators and pumping equipment $et out as follows;
ENGINES: One (1) General Motors 8V·71N 300 HP diesel engine with Allison CLT-750 5 speed transmission.
GENERATOR: One [1)100kva, 240-415V 50 Hz generator for lighting and accumulator drive, powered by Caterpillar 03304 diesel engine.
MUD PUMPS: One [1) HT 400 4.5° x 6" triplex with GM V8 92 diesel engine and 5 speed manual transmission.
AIR COMPRESSOR: One [1] - Boge 520-2 oil injected screw "super silenced" portable air compressor with 20 HP Electric motor. Output 91 cfm.
GENERATOR: One. (1) - Atlas Copco QAS 18 diesel powered "silencedu portable generator with Van mar dies.ei engine. Output 19 kVa.
DRAW·WORKS: Cabot 1287 Double Drum with a Parkersburg 15" double hydromatic brake. Table 2: Plant and relatecl no1se sources.
The Applicant has signalled a smaller, {quieter) drilling rig may be finally selected for Horoi, however no rig finally selected for this site would be noisier than Rig 19.
' As per the District Plan, daytime is the period 7:00am to lO;OOpm and night time is 10:00pm to 7:00am.
New Zealand Energy Corp. P i e I 9
Noise associated with possible alternative ''\vork over" drilling [sometimes required as part of the 348 process to develop a viable production well] will result is a lesser effect. taking only short periods of time [during daytime] with noise at source around 10 dB below that generated during the main exploratory drilling programme.
Noise from drilling activities are predicted for this site based on information obtained from measurements of sound levels taken in the vicinity of Rig 19.
Figure 2 indicates sound spectrum of total Rig 19 noise in terms of sound power levels used within the acoustic model. These are conceptual decibel values used to quantify sound at source and do not represent sound levels present in the environment surrounding the site [which register as sound pressure levels, and are of much lower decibel levels).
140
120 iii "CC IT Gl 100 ~ Qi >Gl -' 80 ...Cll ..:s Ill"' a..... "CC 60 I::s 0 Ill 40
20 31.5Hz 63Hz 125Hz 250Hz 500Hz 1kHz ZkHz 4kHz 8kHz dBA
figure 3 indicates dBA levels and octave band sound spectrum of total Rig 19 noise including rig noise mitigation measures.
The following sound power levels in Table 3 were used within the acoustic modelling set out below to account for noise during each phase [and total maximum worst case]:
Scenario Sound Power Rating L,. diA
Production lwl06dBA
Drilling lwllO dBA
DriiDng+ Production lwlll.5 dBA [Worst Case Cumulative Noise]
Flaring or Gas oxldiser Lw 101 dBA {low noise operation]
Table 3: Total sound power levels employed WJfhln vanous operating scenanos.
2.3.2 Production Installations & Equipment
If production testing establishes commercially viable zones then the proposed Horoi project would include production equipment within the site to enable the product to be trucked off-site for processing at the Waihapo Processing Station.
New Zealand Energy Corp. Pc;g e jlO
On-site production equipment will ultimately operate 24 hours a aoy to nandie product produced from any or all of the wells on site however this is a relatively law-noise operation. Product is tronsfer~ed from 349 the well into on-site storage with an oil separator, an oil heating system and electrically powered pumps being the main noise sources. A flare box or similar thermal combustion technology is often employed as part of production activities.
The production equipment is used to load road tanker trucks which export the product from the site. The acoustic modelling for production noise levels totals 106 dB A which includes the sound from two oil tanker trucks operating concurrently on the site.
2.3.3 Vehicle Noise
Vehicle noise will be produced from light and heavy vehicles accessing the site via Horoi Road. This will be a temporary effect in so far as vehicle activity associated with establishing the access itself, and vehicles associated with rig mobilisation [and de mobilisation] will be present for limited time periods. On-going use of the site will most frequently emit noise from mainly light vehicles associated with staff movements which will result in only low sound levels being emitted from the site.
The following table, from the traffic engineer's report [2] summarises the neighbouring roading network in terms of traffic volume and growth.
I - . ;. ,-~~~c: . 'l'otlT~-.•--. -. 1~~ -. i ~ ('tPcrl+ (~} . I -~ 1~~~· t---.. 5-0a-.-=-! ·-,-_--- .--_-••-~ -'/-...-_ -=-:
la'le 20 ~<:Z.7 I
~ 111. 1~ :;29 r, ~ 2.75 ea King & •ard Sf?oot 21anes 307 i§''". ~ Rl.:i,;.. J eruf:lt't"t.,IVE.t ::.2 ":'5 ea K,•;g Edmr
Table 4: Traffic volume and growth for surrounding roading neiwork
The following table illustrates the traffic engineer's summary of traffic demand associated with key stages of the development of wells on the site.
2. (F6gl 8r~ 1 ~2- 4 20 5 32 ~
3. f::Mdirg tl 2.0 4 -:a 4 38 a
4. (Rig) Take4oMi 1 12 4 20 5 32 :)
5. Testi119 3 8 4 10 5 18 D
6. Pre-P <~., 4 2:U 4 5 2 25 II COnst:-LX:OOr>
7. P "Od~Ctio'l Urt~m 4 2. 16 8 20 ~ 0 Tobie 5: Traffic demand associated with various stages of development.
The traffic engineers report refers to maximum activity as up to 24 non-HCV movements may occur per day with a peak hour of six (6) non-HCV movements and 38 HCV movements per day with a peak hour of 14 HCV movements. Noise effects associated with vehicles operating off the site and on public roads have not been specifically modelled; however the assessment set out in Section 7 below
2 Table reproduced with permission from Statham Consulting Limited Traffic Impac t Assessment, Horoi- Horoi Road. June 2013.
New Zealand Energy Corp. P a g e I ll
provides an assessmenr of potential no;se effects ::ssocia~eci vvith aadi~io n a l -vehicie mc~e:-r1enh c..r. ~r-,e local reading network. 350 2.3.4 Construction Noise Construction noise will arise during site preparation involving the use of on excavator to form the v'ell pad, etc. and also during the erection and dismantling of the rig. Although these sources ore more appropriately classified as "construction activities" with noise levels assessed under the New Zealand construction noise standard [NZS6803:1999, see Section 5.4 below]. Earthworks would take place during daylight and are anticipated to involve 2-3 weeks' work over 5-6 days per week. assuming favourable weather. Heavy vehicle traffic is generated during the earthworks and construction phase, including the metal delivery and placement of base course. For assessment purposes, construction noise effects may be considered to be short term daytime noise resulting in maximum noise levels no greater than those predicted for daytime drilling operations.
3 Existing l\mbient Sound Leveis
Measurements have recently been taken of existing ambient noise levels at three locations [Sites I , 2 and 3 shown in Figure 4 below] in order to assess the existing environment, particularly conditions currently experienced near dwellings in the area.
Measurements were performed in accordance with the methods set out within NZS6801: 1991 using B&K 2260 Sound Level Meter complying with lEC 651 Type l specifications for precision grade sound level meters. Field calibration was checked before and after measurements. Measurement settings were:
o A weighting, fast response A-weighting o Measurement range= 40 to l 00 dB
Measurements were performed on Friday 31 51 May 2013 under predominantly fine, calm conditions [wind <2m/sec from the north]]. Weather summary details are attached as Appe~dlx A.
Measurement equipment details are attached as Appendix 8. Measurements were taken of the un weighted [Z-weighted] third octave band sound spectra as well as the A weighted Leq sound level.
Figure 4: Aerial photo of proposed well site location, the location of the closest rural residential dwellings also showing close-up of the three sites where ambient sound level measurements were undertaken [SITES 1,2, and 3].
New Zealand Energy Corp. .w ~
Sound Pressure Level dBA ::a ..... t..J w .b IJl 01 ft) N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -.. SOUND PRESSURE lEVEl dB (I) Ill ,__, Ill ur t w ~ V1 0'1 t: iii 15:12:52 c: 0 o 0 0 0 0 0 ;::; ::Ja. 15:12:58 $ 1 Ill m !-!': 91 -,, ::J 15:13:04 rn Ol nmz m • 0 ~1 15 :13 :10 3 ""' ~ U l V' n 1 ~:13:16 0 1Dj ;;' 15:13:22 , -? Q. [J" _ •• ~ 15:13:28 0 + I ---- n ; 15:13:34 7'<' I a ·- .r CO' ~ ~ 15 :13 :40 0 g i • : .t. • .:.• .• 0 00~ 15:13 :46 J\ ... .. :X: 15:13:52 "'0 ~I ::::r- 0 0 15:13:58 , a:1 ::J. . 0 2.""' 15:14:04 0.0 ! .. I Q !l j Q. :;a 15:14:10 W O I I ~ (/) 0 :"' .., Q) -I -::::~ it ::f5:14:16 r-" r- ·-·-+ ;;: ;+ l'tl c.. ~ ~ t1) i <'3 .£1 ~15:14:22 c ' 0 c ' .....\. , f ~ ~ ...-.) -<::J tD . 15:14:28 I o.!J:)' "'a. ~ .. 6: ou < c 15:14:34 "' --. ...= • '< 1!.:14:40 w ~ ,. ~ II: ~ 15:14:46 (iJ s: iii 0 1'd4 :52 < • '< 15:14 :58 ~ . . ~ "' I 15:15:04 0 · ~ 15:15:10 ... i 15:15 :16 I ¥1 >!Sf'£ 15:15:22 ~17
~<:; 1~:1~:28 rl g , ~£·g 15:15:34 .., 9.1 >\8 .. 15:15:40 V> 'lOT .. 15:15:46 it ID '>IS'i:t ---• .... N
w en ~ Pa g e l l3
Figure 6: Sample of background time va:ying sour"Jci pressure le~ei sample as L' oc one L-"' ~ jB 01 Sire Friaay 3 ;" ,Jioy 201 3. 352
3.2 Results For Site 2 - 190 Horoi Road
Photo 2: Photo of Site 2- Friday 31•1 May 2013.
60 ------Site2 __ _
50 . ·····-·------.
10
- 0 - - ,._, ..,. 11 tv lv J-> .t> 0'1 co 1- ..... rv 0'1 00 ~ >- '-" .... v.- >- 1- r~ ..., :,., .c. \]1 00 ...... ;.., lv • L'1 0\ 0 V1 0 0 0 0 Ci'l 0 1- 0 0"' 0 ;.- 7<'" ,... ,.- :..- 0 " 0 0 0 0 \]\ 0 0 ""'0 0 ;... a, J1 ..... w"' .., 7<" T ._, """ "' "" ;r .,.. "" "'r Fre-quency Hz ------~------·- ---- .. Figure 7: Sample of background third octave sound pressure level sample as L.._eq dB at Site 2 Friday 31 •t May 2013.
60 Site 2 lAcq ci B 50 <( al "C 'i 40 :> ....Q/ Q/ 5 30 "' "'~ a. "C 20 c: ::J 0 Ill 10
0 rf"\OC'-Nli)0').-1 New Zealand Energy Corp. P a g e 114 3.3 Results For Site 3 - 577 Maata Road 353 Photo 3: Photo of Site 3 - Friday 31 st May 2013. ----·-· ------ 60 50 ltl "'tJ.... ~ 40 ...... a: ~ 30 !3 a: Q. ~ 20 ::) 0 II\ 10 - 0 ,_ N V'1 m 00 ...... ~- ~ lJ I-> ...... ~-4.,1 ~ l.f1 0'1 00 ,_, lllH~n~ N en o ""' 0 0 w 0 7<" ,... ,__. ~ ~ 0 i-.. "' w ~- "'0 U1 0 0 0 0 ,- ,.,.- V'1 ~~ "'" .,.,.-V' "' "'"'" ,... frequency Hz "' Figure 9: Sample of background third octave sound pressure level sample as LAeq dB at Site 3 Friday 31•1 May 2013. 60 ,,, ______----- Site 3 - ... .- ...... -·------~---- · - LAcqdB ~- LAMaxdB so -!------ <( ~40 ~ ~.. ~30 !:l ...~ "Cl § 20 0 VI 10 ------ 0 ..... ,...... ,., ...... m .... ,..... N') ...... ,..... C'· .r ..... ,...... , U) 0 0 .-1 ..... N') 0 0 N ...... "' '!l "' "' ~ "' ..."' .;.;"' "' r:~ "" ~ '!l ~ ~ "'9. "' ,:,; m ..., ... "'.:,; ' New Zealand Energy Corp. ,. o t!i IE: I .&...ii 354 Measurements of the A weighted time-varying ambient sound level were made in terms of the L~mo> .• LAeo, L,. 10 and L.... 90. A comparison of the results obtained at SITEs 1. 2 and 3 is set out as follows: 60 ;; ~ 50 ' -..'tl Ci ::...... (II -to ...(II :I "' (II"' 30 a.... 'tl c :I 0 lO VI "i5.. (II ::. 10 0 0 lA10d8 LA90d8 l.l.maxdS LAeq dB • sitl!'l .t5 ~6 57 .t3 • sitel .tl ~.t .t8 '.\8 Site 3 jS 2.~ 32. Figure Jl: Sample of overall background sound p~essure level~ acrcss all sites in terms of the L...,,.,=. L.,_...;. L .. G ::Jr::l LA90. A comparison of the sound spectrum of the measured LA.eq [dB] ambient sound at SITE 1. 2 and 3 is set out as follows; 60 50 - S1kl - S•tc2 Sitc3 ,Ol (II 40 :> ....(II (II.... ;. a., 3o ; ~ ,0.. j § 20 i ~ 10 0 N tv (.I.J ...... t-.1 N Lu (J'I 01 ...... !» \Jl 0'1 00 .... .::. co ...... N LU .!» \Jl Ol co ...... 0'1 0 Ln 0 0 w 0 0 t...r C"' 0 \Jl ...... 0 0 LU 0 ;;<" !"-' ;;<" ;..; ;;<" 0 r.... !-' V1 Vl ;..... r \Jl ;..... Lv ,.... Vl 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ~ V1 ,... ;;<" V1 ~ \Jl ""' ""' ""' Frequency Hz Figure 12: Sample of third octave background sound pressure levels across all sites in terms LAeq dB. These samples of the existing daytime sound levels taken at three sites in the local area indicate appreciable sound is present during daytime, including distant vehicle noise and animal sounds. Ambient daytime LA9o sound levels registered around 54 to 58 dBA, with up to 60 dBA near Horoi Road with sound levels dropping to LA9D 44 dB at Site 1, further from buildings and established uses in the area. During night time it is expected these LA9D sound levels would drop to 33 dBA or lower under calm conditions. New Zealand Energy Corp. Page 116 4 Noise Criteria 355 4.1 Resource Management Act Section 16 of the RMA places a general duty on all occupiers to adopt the best practicable option [BPO) to ensure noise emitted from any site does not exceed a reasonable level. What constitutes a "reasonable level" is not prescribed by the Act. Noise limits prescribed in the District Plan have be used as a guide on limits of acceptability. Further to Section 16 it is important to note Section 17 of the Act. Section 17 states that every person has the general duty to avoid remedy or mitigate potential adverse effects, including noise. 4.2 South Taranaki District Plan Objective 5.1 of the South Taranaki District Plan seeks to maintain and where practicable improve the social, cultural, and physical health, safety and well-being of the residents and communities of the District. The explanation to this policy states; 4 • '~ '"J C.l ...· ~ ' ' . . . ._. This assessment considers the effects on sleep and amenity as relates specifically to the rural dwellings where people eat, relax, sleep and recuperate. The District Plan permitted activity noise standard for activities in the Rural Zone are set out in Rule 10.02.1 which states; [Underlining added] - ~ . - ., ~ ! · ;:·u,:, ,,.-, ~.... -- Two issues arise noise rules written in this manner, the measurement unit and the location of the assessment. Each is discussed in turn; 4.2.1 L10 Measurement Unit The "L10" noise unit is used in the District Plan whereas the predictions are based on 1509613-Part 2 which employs l...eq sound levels. The l...eq, Tor LAeq.r sound level is the averaged sound level [or equivalent sound level] that has the same mean square sound pressure level as the time-varying sound level under consideration. Commonly referred to as an "energy average" measure of sound exposure. In terms of the assessment, leq sound levels provide a good indication of all sounds energy captured during the measurement period, including high level sounds and low level sounds. L10 has a statistical base and is being phased out nowadays. Generally speaking the difference between the Leq and lw are within a few decibels i.e. 1-2 dB. Under the 2008 versions of the relevant acoustic Standards, LAeq is the preferred descriptor for the measurement of the type of sounds under investigation. The difference t>etween these two units would measure within 1 dB of each other for constant type sounds such a well drilling or processing activities. 4.2.2 Assessment Location Compliance with District Plan noise performance standards is assessed "at or within the boundary of any other Rural Zoned site" which does not coincide with where people experience potential noise effects and unfortunately can lead to excessive costs and difficulties meeting compliance at thi~ New Zealand Energy Corp. I' ag e 11.1 location. when in fact, no sensitive receivers are located on the land adjacent to the site. The approach of the District Plan seems inconsistent with the effects-based approach of the RMA as noise 356 limits are set at the site boundary at reduced limits, adequate to protect human health and welfare. yet no people are living or experiencing sound around the rural site perimeter. Rather the noise sensitive residential activities requiring protection take place in and around the rural dwelling. This is the location where assessment of effects should focus. Almost all other Council's in NZ consider noise is best managed in rural zones by assessing effects in a accordance with the relevant NZ Standards only in the vicinity of the location of rural dwellings. As the well site is located close to the boundary with other rural sites. it is not possible to achieve compliance with the above District Plan noise limits, which adopt low limits normally applied to protect residential sites. While compliance with the District Plan noise performance standard cannot be achieved at the closest boundary locations, the overall noise effects on people will not be significant owing to the available buffer distances. Thus, to ensure a balanced approach is token, the assessment below has considered compliance with District Plan noise limits both at the boundary of adjacent sites in the zone, as well as when applied at the 20 metre notional boundary to existing rural dwellings in the area. 4.3 NZ Standards District Plan Rule 10.01.1 expressly provided for noise to be measured and assessed in accordance with NZS6801:1991 "Measurement of Sound" and NZS6802:1991 "Assessment of Environmental Sound". This is the basis of the assessment set out below, however reference has also been made to the more recent 2008 versions of these Standards where appropriate. NZS 6802:2008 provides methods for accounting for any additional annoyance caused if the sound under investigation contains sounds with special audible characteristics. It is important to take into account the quality of the sound in terms of characteristics that may make the sound more annoying than it would otherwise be without that characteristic. A noise with a special audible characteristic is defined as likely to arouse adverse community response at lower levels as noise without such characteristics. An assessment below outlines the potential for sound to be emitted from the site to contain special audible characteristics. 4.4 Temporary Construction Noise District Plan Rule 10.01.4 states that sounds generated by construction, maintenance and demolition activities which shall be assessed, managed and controlled by reference to NZS6803P:1984 The Measurement and Assessment of Noise from Construction, Maintenance and Demolition Work. In this case a newer Standard NZS 6803:1999 "Acoustics -Construction Noise" has been developed and although similar in effect, has a more precise and certain application and outcome. Under NZS6803: 1999 the following noise limits apply to construction noise; Time or Time Duration of work• WC't"k pr1iod Typiclll Short-trim Long-trl'm duntdon duradon duradon dBA dBA dB A Leu Lmax Lru Lmax Lect Lmax 0630-0730 60 75 65 75 55 75 WC't"kdays 0730.1800 15 90 80 95 70 85 1800-2000 70 85 75 90- 65 80 1000-0630 45 75 -ts 75 -15 75 0630.0730 -15 75 -15 75 -15 75 Satunlllys 0730.1800 75 90 80 95 70 85 1800.1000 45 75 -15 75 -15 75 -"U00-0630 -15 75 45 75 -15 75 ·0630-0730 -15 75 -15 75 -15 75 Sunda~~ 0730.1800 55 85 55 85 55 85 andpubUc 180()..2000 -15 75 -15 75 45 75 hoUday~ 1000-0630 -15 75 45 75 45 75 " "'Duration of work"" in this table for: (i). "short-term'" means construction work at any one loc.ati011 for up to 14 calendar davs: tii). "typical dl~tion" means coustniCtiOil wodc at any one location for mot-e than 14 calendar days but less than 20 weeks: and (iii). ··Jong-teml" means cow;tmction work at any one location with a dtn·dtion exceeding 20 weeks. Table 6: NZS6803:1999 construction sound level limits and related durations. New Zealand Energy Corp. Pa~:e 118 Construction works associated with this project are proposed to be assessed using this more up to date 357 procedure based on the 1999 Standard. The construction activities will be limited in extend and duration and are shown below to be able to fully comply with the noise limits set out in the above table. 5 Acoustic IVIodelling Acoustic modelling has been carried out in order to quantify the levels noise emitted from the site during various phases of the work. 5.1 Method Predictions are based on sound power levels at source propagating over a range of distances to receiving sites in the area. Predictions have been carried out using the following base equation: 2 Lp = L.., - 1OLog {2TtR ] ...... (Equation 11 Where: Lp =The sound pressure level of noise received [in dBA] at distance R Lw =The sound power level of noise source[s] [in dBA] R = distance belween the source and the receiver [in metres] Equation l is based on a similar equation in 1509613:1996 which states at Clause 1 that the method predicts sound under meteorological conditions favourable for the propagation of sound, including under downwind conditions, specifically those set out in Clause 5.4.3.3 of 1501996-2:1996. The New Zealand Standard 6801:2008 "Acoustics Measurement of Environmental Sound" at Section 7 .1.2 states that in order to appropriately justify positive sound propagation conditions the upper limits of the met window should be used. The predictions below take account of slightly enhanced sound propagation in all directions. Although this cannot occur in real life, it provides for the upper limits of expected sound levels at all noise sensitive sites. The predictions are in line with the requirements of predictions of distant received sound levels being based on the use of ISO 9613-2:1996[3) Acoustics- Attenuation of sound during propagation outdoors Part 2: General method of calculation. This standard specifies an engineering method for calculating the attenuation of sound during propagation outdoors in order to predict the levels of environmental noise at a distance from a variety of sources. The method predicts the equivalent continuous A weighted sound pressure levels. In this case, LAJO sound levels have been estimated from LAeq sound levels+ 2 dB. There are a number of effects and conditions that can affect the received sound levels. These are described as follows; 5.2 Sound Propagation Factors 5.2.1 Topography Acoustic modelling has been based on a detailed digital terrain model for the area that ensures the reduction in sound propagation have been taken into account where there is no line of sight between the source and the receiver. The maps and terrain data have been gee-referenced to NZTM. A 30 representation of the terrain found in the area is shown attached as Appendix D. 5.2.2 Meteorological Effects Meteorological factors may influence the propagation sound, as follows; Wind Effects 3 ISO 9613-2 Acoustics -Attenuation ofsound during propagation outdoors- Part 2: General Method of Calculation. International Organisation for Standardisat ion 1996, Geneva. New Zealand Energy Corp. The effects of wind on sound propagating outdoors are to cast a sound "shadow" during up-wind propagation and to augment levels downwind. The assessment takes account of slightly 358 enhanced wind conditions i.e. adjustment of sligt1tly enhanced propagation due to wind has been assumed. Wind direction was taken into account to ensure a worst case, which assumes, for every receiver, that the wind is blowing directly from source to receiver [i.e. downwind towards the receiver]. This represents a worst case for all wind directions. Temperature The formation of temperature inversions may cause sound to refract causing sound levels at distance to be higher than expected. There are no known temperature inversion effects at the site however the predictions are for worst case conditions which includes enhanced sound propagation conditions such as a moderate temperature inversion. Air Absorption Attenuation due to atmospheric absorption has a slight effect on reducing sound levels over distance. The effect is frequency dependent and is only slightly related to the temperature and humidity of the air [4]. In this case, values adopted are those set out table 2 of 1509613-2:1996 for 10 degrees Celsius and 70% humidity [atmospheric pressure of 101.325 kPa]. Atmospheric absorption effects have been included within the noise predictions which amount to 2 to 3 dBA at distances of 300 to 500 meters. 5.2.3 Soft Ground 1509613-2:1996 describes three ground surfaces being hard, porous and mixed ground. The ground surface between the well site and closest dwellings is substantially grass however by ignoring the ground absorption effects; a worst case [over estimate] received noise level is derived. 5.2.4 Screening Effects As above, acoustic screening caused by the undulating terrain has been included in the calculations. No reductions due to screening by vegetation or buildings on the well site have been included in the modelling. Some vege1'ation is found near dwellings however in practice any screening effect of vegetation would be between minor [between 0 and 1 dB] for the closest residential sites. 5.2.5 Directivity 1509613 allows for adjustment due to directivity of sound radiation where l1igher levels of sound may be produced in one direction compared to others. In this case all sound sources are assumed to radiate sound hemispherically, however the modelled effects of purpose built screens and barriers, as well as undulating terrain have a major effect the way sound propagates away from the site. 6 Prediction Results 5.1 Construction Noise As above, construction activities are limited in extent. The sources are typical heavy truck, excavator and earthmoving equipment which operate during daytime only. For limited daytime periods construction equipment would be preparing the access track and road intersection. Predicted daytime construction noise levels due to operation of on-site equipment including a 20 tonne excavator and heavy vehicle operation are less than LAeq 50 dB for the closest dwellings. Construction activities are intermittent and will occur during daytime only. This means noise during construction periods may be detectable for short daytime periods. Table 5 [above] indicates significant vehicle activity associated with site construction. Dwellings in the area are sufficiently remote that intermittent noise frorn construction traffic including from heavy vehicles entering and exiting the site via access road will not be likely to exceed LAeq 50. The relevant noise limits for construction noise are set out in below. Our assessment of construction noise effects is contained in Section 7.3 below. 4 L Sutherland. "A review of experimental data in support of a proposed new method for computing atmospheric absorption losses", OOT-TST-75-87, 1975. New Zealand Energy Corp. P e g e I zo 359 6.2 Operational Noise Sound level predictions are depicted as contours of equal sound pressure [LA 10 dB] in Appendix C. For comparison purposes, South Taranaki District Plan imposes noise limits applying at the boundary of adiacent sites5 summarised as follows; Assessment Period Permitted Activity Noise Standard 7:00am to !O:OOpm 55 dBA Lw 1O:OOpm to 7:00am 45 dBA Lw 1O:OOp m to 7:00am 75 dBA Lrnox The following Table 7 sets out predicted LAw sound levels for representative operations, as received at the closest rural dwellings. Drilling Production Activities Activities Cumulative Single Event Sounds [Z4Hr] [Drilling+ Production] ~rnudB l.uodB l.,w, dB l.uodB Boundary Of Adjacent Site 664w 62 L..w 674w 86L..mn [District Pian Compliance Location] Dwelling! < 35 L..w <35 L..w <35 L..w <55 L..m .. Dwelling2 41L..w <35 L..w 44L..w 57 L..n,.,. Dwelling3 <35 L..w <35L..w 37 L..w <55L..mu Dwelling4 < 35 L..w <30 L..w <30l.,.,w <55 L..ma• DwellingS < 35 l.uo < 35 L..w <35 L..w <55~..,., •• Dwelling6 40 l..1o 37 L..w 42 L..w 57 L..max Dwelling7 <35 L..w <35L..w <35 L..1o <551..,., .. DwellingS 35 L..w < 35 L..1o 37 L..w <55l,w.,. Table 7: Pred1cted LAlo dB and LAmax sound pressure levels for production oct1vit1es, ng operation and cumulative sound at the boundary of adjacent sites [worst case), and at 20 m notional boundary to the closest dwellings [dwellings numbered as per Figure 2]. See also sound level contour diagrams set out in Appendix C. LAw levels shown in Table 7 are for well drilling [24 hour activity] and cumulative sounds due to well drilling and processing activities which is a hypothetical worst case situation representing the expected worst-case noise levels likely to occur over the life of the project. Lrnax sound levels are discussed below. The results set out in Table 7 indicate cumulative noise from the well site will NOT comply with Rule 10.02.1 LA1o and LAmax noise limits as set out in the District Plan for daytime and night time. The LAJO 55 dBA {daytime compliance limit) and 45 dBA (night time compliance limit) contours shown in Appendix C both extend beyond the well site boundary, indicating non-compliance with the District Plan {as explained above). However, the indicated non-compliance extends no more than around 700 metres from the site, and does not include any residential site within the contour areas ostensibly indicating the extent of non-compliance in a geographic sense. However, that is not to say the noise effects will be unacceptable. Potential adverse effects of noise are most appropriately assessed at the dwelling in rural areas, a fact confirmed within the 2008 version of NZS6802. An assessment of noise effects is set out below in Section 7.0, including a comparison of these predicted cumulative site noise levels with typical daytime and night sound levels experienced in the area and the relevant guideline limits set out in the relevant New Zealand acoustic standards. ~ The location of the closest boundaries of adjacent sites ore shown in the contour diagram in Appendix C. New Zealand Energy Corp. 360 7 Assessment 7.1 Operationall~loise Well drilling and production activities take place over 24 hours and therefore need to be assE~ssed alongside the night time limit of the District Plan. Worst case cumulative noise levels set out above in are predicted to be received at dwellings not on the same site as the proposed activities at levHis no higher than LAw 44 dB during well drilling and production operations. Conceming LAmax sound levels, these are predicted to be received at levels no more than 1 0 to 12 dBA above the predicted worst case LAeq levels. This would place the maximum LAmax levels no more than LAmox 56 dB at the notional boundary of the most affected dwellings. Maximum recommended noise limits to protect health and amenity at residential sites are specified in New Zealand Standard NZS6802:2008 Acoustics- Environmental Sound. The noise units are specified in terms of the LAeq levels. Recommended upper limits of sound exposure for any residential site is as follows; DAYTIME 55 dBA LAeq NIGHTTIME 45dBA LAeq Maximum recommended night time single event sounds are recommended not to exceed LAmax l5 dB at residential sites in order to adequately protect sleep. According to this Standard referenced within the District Plan, health and amenity values are preserved at these upper limits of noise in residential areas. 7.2 i~ZS6802:200~1 Assessment Matters The assessment of the character of the sounds likely to be emitted from the site indicates the sounds of engines and gas flaring is likely to be the predominant sources. These are "broadband" type sounds which are not usually considered as possessing "special c1udible characteristics" in terms of assessment under NZS6802:2008. Experience with noise from other well drilling sites indicat1es a potential for brake "squeal" on rig draw works, and some impact type sounds [steel on steel] mcty also occur. However drilling operators are aware of techniques to minimise drilling rig noise such as; o Ensure the brake systems are maintained so as to avoid brake squeal; o Pipe strings and other impact sounds are avoided as far as possible by considerate handling techniques. The type of sound emitted from the site [once construction works are complete] will be predominantly low-level engine and exhaust sounds with sounds at times emitted due to flaring of gas. There are~ also expected to be pump sounds in addition to intermittent vehicle and maintenance sounds. None of these sounds have a high potential to contain special audible characteristics. No correction has been applied under NZS6802:2008 for special audible characteristics of the sound, as these characteristics are not likely to arise in practice. If present, experience shows these typ,es of sounds con be dealt with to remove the offending souncls. Potential impact sounds from the work on the rig are able to be controlled by operators so that Lmox levels of no greater than about 55 dBA will be able to be achieved at all dwellings in the area. Assessment of duration of the sound is required to be taken into account under NZS6802:2008. Although the sounds emitted from the site would be constant at times, the sources of noise will be present intermittently during daytime most of time durin~l the project. No downward adjustment to account for intermittent noise source duration has been appried within this report. New Zealand Energy Corp. Pag e 1 22 7.5 Construction Noise 361 Calculations based on sound power levels referenced to Annex C NZS6803:1999, cumulative sound levels representing truck, excavator, compactor and front end loader sound levels are predicted to be received at less than LAeq 55 dBA at the location of any existing dwelling in the area. OveralL construction noise levels will not exceed the "long term' noise limit for construction noise received at residential sites set out within NZS6803: 1999 and therefore will satisfy District Plan requirements to comply with NZS6803P: 1984 The Measurement and Assessment of Noise from Construction, Maintenance and Demolition Work. Construction activities, being daytime based, are unlikely to give rise to adverse noise effects. 7.4 iraffic Noise Noise from on-site vehicle movements have already been included within the noise predictions for the site set out within Section 6 above. Noise levels for added vehicle traffic on local roads has been investigated for representative roadside locations, for both the current and future traffic scenarios when the site is operating at its busiest [in terms of light and heavy vehicles accessing the site]. In New Zealand traffic noise is measured using the 24 hour LAeq unit in decibels "A weighted" [dB) reflecting the overall subjective response on a daily basis, rather than reaction to isolated noise events [e.g. the passage of individual heavy vehicles). Calculations have been based on a traffic noise prediction model which has been widely applied in New Zealand. This model was originally developed in the United Kingdom (Calculation of Road Traffic Noise UK Dept of Transport 1988] but has undergone extensive testing and has been modified for use in New Zealand. In New Zealand alternative corrections for the effects of road surface are applied. The results of these predictions indicates traffic noise experienced at roadside positions are less than 1 dB with a greater change in noise levels expected due to "natural" traffic growth over the next 3 to 5 years. Overall, in the context of existing traffic using public roads in the area, additional noise impacts due to traffic associated with the proposed well site will not be likely to give rise to no significant noise effects at any existing dwelling located in the area. 7.5 Cumulative Noise Effects The effects of cumulative noise arise when one or more operation is conducted on-site at the same time. Cumulative noise levels have been carried out for dwellings in the local area. For the closest dwellings additional noise due to production and I or gas flaring are typically expected to be within 3 to 5 dB of drilling noise levels, although higher levels may occur if the gas oxidizer is needed to operate at high flow rates. Total noise [drilling + processing] will be experienced at dwellings in the area at l.Aeq 45 dB or less as a worst case. Cumulative noise levels at the closest will be subjected up to around LAeq 44 dB, however this is not inconsistent with measured ambient sound levels measured in the area. Lower levels of cumulative noise occur at residential locations located further from the well site. 7.6 Overall Assessment This assessment finds that due to the nature and scale of the operations, and attributes of the site [being relatively remote from rural dwellings in the area], will mean that rural dwellings in the area will receive only modest levels of noise during the construction and operational phases of the project. District Plan noise standards set out in Rule 10.02.1 cannot be complied with at all times, however this is not a function of the levels of noise emission but an artefact of a rule which sets limits on noise received at the closest point of the site boundary (even though no dwellings are located at such locations). The above finding is based on a worst case assessment of maximum cumulative noise received under weather conditions favourable for the propagation of sound from the source towards the rural dwellings located in the area. Noise mitigation measures are set out in Section 8.0 below. No significant adverse noise effects are envisaged at any existing dwelling in the area provided the mitigation measures set out below are adopted. During construction, District Plan noise limits are able to be complied with at all times. Note, these limits apply at the location of the rural dwelling. New Zealand Energy Corp. Pag e I 23 362 8 fVHtigatio11 f'VIethods Section 16 of the Resource Management Act 1991 states that eve!)' person has the general duty to avoid, remedy or mitigate potential adverse effects, including noise. Noise mitigation methods described below are consistent with the Best Practical Option [BPO] for managing the potential effects of noise of the proposed upgrade. The best practicable option is defined as follows: "... the best method for preventing or minimising the adverse effects on the environment having regard, among other things, to a) lrhe nature of the discharge or emission and the sensitivity of lfhe receiving environment to adverse effects; and b) The financial implications, and the effects on the environment, of that option when compared with other options: and c) The cu«ent state of technical knowledge and the likelihood that the option can be succe~ : sfully applied." There are a number of mitigation measures included within the proposal which are to be taken into account. These mitigation methods are in-line with the requirements of the BPO for the site and activities, being summarised as follows: Noise mitigation measures include the following precautions to reduce noise: o The location of the well site with good buffer distances to the closest dwellings o Effective silencers being fitted to the diesel engim~s used as power plants o Enclosure with doors fitted to the power generator o Engines and other noise sources have been oriented as far as practical to reduce noise emissions in the direction of the nearest residence o The flare pit is to be constructed to a depth of 3m. The operators have been informed of the need to adopt best practice and moderate noise levels so as to control noise at source. The applicant has undertaken to instruct operators to check sound levels when establishing on-site activities and if found to be non-complaint undertake measures to minimise the emission of unreasonable noise. Overall the operators shall adopt all possible mitigation measures during the site set-up and drilling to control noise at source. We also understand the operators will undertake sound level checks themselves to assist in detem1ining compliance. 9 SuiTii1'iar'l & Recommended Conditions An acoustic assessment has been carried out regarding noise emissions associated with the establishment and operation of the proposed Horoi well site. The assessment finds that noise limits set out within the District Plan applying to permitted activities in the rural zone cannot be met at all times as these limits apply at the boundary of the site, close to working machinery, but located well away from residential dwellings. An alternative assessment location has been adcJpted within the proposed conditions, but adopting a similar limit on noise as per the District Plan criteria. The proposed conditions also adopt the 2008 versions of NZS680 1 and NZS6802, two essential standards referenced in the District Plan to ensure consistency with best practice in this area (older versions of these Standards ore referred to within the District Plan). New Zealand Energy Corp. P a 11 e j 24 The predictions show with noise control measures in place, noise will only affect a limited area of land surrounding the site. Worst case cumulative noise emissions do not appear likely to generate significant 363 adverse noise effects particularly owing to available buffer distances to dwellings. On the basis that the proposal includes measures to limit and control potential adverse noise effects to reasonable levels as received at the notional boundary of all existing dwellings in the area, there appear no noise-related reasons why consent cannot be granted, subject to attaching the following conditions of consent; A Excluding construction activities, all activities on the proposed site shall be conducted so that noise levels measured and assessed within any 20 metre notional boundary of any dwelling, except where the dwelling is situated on land under the some ownership of the application site, or where the owner or occupier has supplied signed Affected Persons Approval, does not exceed the following limits; lam to 10 pm daily LAeqSS dB 10 pm to 7 om daily lAeq 45 dB 10 pm to 7 am daily LAmoxlS dB Noise levels shall be measured in accordance with NZS680 I :2008 Acoustics - Measurement of Sound, and assessed in accordance with NZS6802:200B Acoustics -Environmental Noise. B. Noise from construction activities on the site authorised by this consent shall comply with the "Long Term" noise limits set out within Table 2 of NZS6803:1999 Acoustics- Construction Noise, when measured and assessed in accordance with that Standard Malcolm Hunt Associates New Zealand Energy Corp. Appendix A 364 VVeather Summary DetaUs Background Sound Leve! Monitoring The following illustrates an overview of the summary weather for Friday 31 '' May 2013. 15 •.: ------.-... ~. - . ,__ ---· ... ------...... ,.;, ~t~ 1 r. •.a.n .m ~;· , ..... Api:Jentii..: B Equipment Su!nmary Details Sackground Sound b~\lei IV~cnitoring Equipment Manufacture and Type Serial Number/Details Bruel and Kjaer 2260 Investigator Sound Bruel and Kjaer Serial Number; 1933856 Level Meter 2260 investigator Firmware BZ7202 V1.1/BZ7219 Vl.O Sound Level Meter Sound Level Meter complying with IEC 60651 Type 1, IEC 804 Type 1, and I EC1260 Class 1 specifications for Sound Level Meters Acoustic Research laboratories Pty Ltd Australia El316 Sound Level Meter [Type/Class 1) SLM No. 16-707-003 Next Calibration Due August 2013 Bruel and Kjaer Calibrator Type 4230 Bruel and Kjaer Calibrater Bruel and Kjaer Calibrator Type 4230. 94 dB @1000Hz. Next Calibration Due 26111 November 2013 Serial Number: 622678 Inner and Outer Wind Screens 90 mm Foam Wind Screen type UA237 and Bruel and Kjaer 200m foam wind screen Weather System Apparatus Equipment Manufacture and Type Hand Held Digital Thermometer Holy Oak Air Management Solutions Sh02 Hand Held Digital Anemometer Skywatch Xplorer 2 JID Instrument Global Positioning System Apparatus Equipment Manufacture and Type Garmin GPS Unit Garmin GPS 60 Navigator Garmin GPS Software Garmin GPS 60 Navigator Software New lea/and Energy Corp. P a fl. e I 26 365 Appendix t: Horoi - Noise Predi~:tion Results \f\JORST CJ\SE Cumulatiive Well Drilling & Prc~duction Noise L'-AlO dB] New Zealand Energy Corp. 366 (!} ; 0 c..l- c: :~ ·-ro '- ~ 0 - cv .~ -c rt') I : cv Qi;J ..... ·-(,/) ~...... ~ s:Q) ·c; :...... 0 ~