Wambo Coal AEMR 2010-2011 - Peabody Energy

Wambo Coal Pty Limited2010-2011 AEMRRegister of Community Complaints1 July 2010 – 30 June 2011NoDate & TimeReceived1 13/07/105.10pm2314/08/1011.00am17/08/109.54pmNature of ComplaintNoiseNoiseLighting4 15/09/10 Mud on public road567805/10/102.45am25/10/101.30pm08/11/1011.30am16/11/108.23pmNoiseBlasting (dust)NoiseOperational NoiseAction Taken By WamboWCPL received a noise compliant in relation to machine noise. Investigations indicated no unusualactivities occurring at the time of the complaint and the pumps on South Dam were not in operation. Audiofiles did not indicate excessive machine noise as described by complainant and noise limits were notexceeded.WCPL received a noise compliant from a nearby resident indicating noise between 6.00am and11.00amexceeded the noise limits for their property. Investigations indicated no unusual activities occurring at themine at the time and the pumps on South Dam were not in operation. The audio files did not indicateexcessive / intrusive noise as described and noise limits were not exceeded. High wind levels wererecorded during the time of the complainant’s reports.WCPL received a compliant in relation to light shining towards complainant’s house. Environment &Community Manager contacted Open Cut Examiner (OCE) via phone & UHF radio. OCE investigated andwithin ½ hour had re-directed lighting station away from complainant’s property (South of Operations)Open Cut GM organised subject to be raised amongst all crews during Tool Box Talk to ensure futurelighting plants are not directed South from the operation.Anonymous community member raised concern via contract drillers for Wambo and NuCoal about red mudthat had been tracked onto the sealed public road (Jones Reserve Road) – message passed on to WamboE&C Section. The community member then rang NuCoal representative about the mud who contactedWambo saying he planned to have a water cart to wash off the mud. Drillers and geotechnical consultantswere reminded of importance of ensuring mud is cleaned from tyres and not tracked in to Jerrys Plains.Geotech consultants said they had taken action to avoid tracking mud into town that morning.WCPL received a noise enquiry in relation to a loud siren which woke complainant at 0245am. Aninvestigation concluded the u/g alarm was not triggered. Wind at 1m/s from the ESE at the time of thesiren, and low cloud cover, may have contributed to noise transmission.WCPL received an enquiry in relation to the dust generated by blasting. Community member indicated theimpact of dust on drinking water and household gutters. Community member indicated they would notnormally complain however they believed the dust cloud to be excessive.WCPL received a noise enquiry from a nearby resident in relation to excessive machinery noise.Investigations found there were no unusual activities occurring at the mine at the time of, or leading up to.Although audible, audio files did not indicate excessive mining noise.WCPL received an enquiry from a nearby resident in relation to excessive operational noise. Investigationsindicate there were no unusual activities occurring in the open cut or u/g for the night of 16/11/2010, norwhere there unusual activities at the CH&PP and at the time of the alleged excessive noise incident therewere no trains loading. Although audible, audio files did not indicate excessive mining noise and the mainsource of noise was from local non-mining sources (crickets, frogs, cows, barking dogs, etc).Appendix 4: Register of Community Complaints