November 2004 (PDF 11.6 MB) - Barrick Gold Corporation

8 Negotiation process8.1 The process leading to negotiationThis chapter deals with that part of the overallprocess shown in Figure 1.1 in the box under theheading ‘Decision-making process’.Any unacceptable impacts from a developmentproposal that are likely to persist after noise-mitigationaction has been taken can be dealt with throughnegotiation—either by improved mitigation or bytrade-offs with benefits.Negotiation can be:• between the proponent and the regulator—the traditional approach• between the proponent and the affectedcommunity (which is in the best position forevaluating the trade-offs).In the latter case negotiation is designed to beavailable to those people whose amenity is potentiallyaffected by non-achievement of the projectspecificnoise levels. This type of negotiation process,which leads to the determination of an achievablenoise limit, is in addition to the type of directconsultation that typically occurs between theproponent and the community throughout theimpact assessment process in defining the importantproject parameters.8.2 Negotiation between proponentand regulatorWhere proposed mitigation measures will notreduce noise levels to the project-specific noiselevels, the proponent should seek to negotiate withthe regulatory/consent authority to demonstratethat all feasible and reasonable mitigation measureshave been applied. The regulatory/consent authoritycan choose to accept the level of impact proposed,or negotiate for a better level of control wherethis is considered achievable.Where, in the final analysis, the level of impactwould still exceed the project-specific noise levels,the economic and social benefits flowing from theproposed development to the community should beevaluated against the undesirable noise impacts.Where it can be demonstrated by the proponent thatthe development offers net benefits, a regulatory/consent authority may consider these as groundsfor applying the achievable noise levels, rather thanthe project-specific noise levels, as the statutorycompliance limit.Negotiation on what represents the best achievablelevel that is practicable for a development is oftenan iterative process involving both the proponentand regulator/consent authority and the proponentand affected community. Where the proponent isseeking to demonstrate to the regulator/consentauthority that all feasible and reasonable noisemitigation measures have been applied, the proponentshould include the results of their discussionswith the affected community in the package ofproposed noise mitigation measures. Beyond thispoint, the proponent might want to initiate additionalcommunity-based negotiation where there ispotential for trade-offs attractive to the affectedcommunity. Typically, where the amenity criteria setthe project-specific noise levels for a project, negotiationsbetween the proponent and the regulatorwould occur when site noise levels are between theacceptable and recommended maximum L Aeqlevelspresented in Table 2.1.The section below outlines a checklist that can beused as a guide by EPA officers to determine anacceptable level of residual noise impacts whensetting statutory noise conditions, based on theconsideration of social and economic costs andbenefits.8.2.1 Residual level of impact: checklistIt is important that, as far as possible, the noiseassessment quantifies any remaining or residualimpacts that exceed the project-specific noise levels,after applying feasible and reasonable mitigationstrategies.The acceptability of the residual noise impactsshould be evaluated by taking into considerationfactors such as:1. Characteristics of the area and receiverslikely to be affected, for example:NSW industrial noise policy43