Maria Cashmore Maria, Thank You for Sending the Comments By
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
336 Maria Cashmore ·~~~~·--~r..~--~----m.----~~~----.a·--------------·--~~W..~Mn~~------- From: Malcolm Hunt <[email protected]> Sent: Thursday, 23 January 2014 11:01 p.m. To: Maria Cashmore; [email protected] Cc: Neil Jepsen [email protected]); [email protected] Subject: Re: RML13090: Proposed Oil and Gas Exploration and Production Facility at 110 Horoi Road, Rawhitiroa 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<t tlom, .\r,·u Hou;c•. ,7 \ :ubo ~trcet , 1'0 Bnx 11-!'l·l, \'i 'dlin~t<m Tdcphnnc (H ,i-! )(,!!') !':is U·l !~J 0-i)(> • mha~i' noisc.co.nz www.noise.co. nz p ~\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.