The noise from noise is getting louder, and it’s something the mining industry should be paying close attention to.
Under the Canadian Environment Assessment Act, certain projects with federal government involvement are subject to environmental impact assessments (EIAs). The law’s intent is to identify, gauge the impact, and evaluate environmental and health consequences arising from a project in environmentally sensitive areas. In some areas of Canada, projects may also be required to perform an assessment to satisfy provincial legislation.
Since 1998, noise issues have grown in importance in EIAs for new mines or changes to existing operations. Even in remote areas, First Nations are voicing concerns over the effects of noise on animals such as caribou and fur-bearing species. Non-governmental organizations such as Greenpeace and the Sierra Club are also focusing more on noise issues.
For its part, Health Canada is increasingly concerned about the impact of noise both “inside the fence” (that is, in mining camps) and in the surrounding environment.
These concerns are not surprising. Consider, for example, that today’s mining and purification techniques make it much more economical to process ore in a plant situated outside the perimeter of a mine. This can involve the movement of up to a thousand tonnes of ore daily — some 40 trailer loads. Small wonder, then, that regulators are concerned about the movement of heavy trucks through the communities near a mine.
Low-frequency noise is particularly suspect, because levels are hard to predict and often depend on the design specifics of the completed installation. Low-frequency sounds are the tones that travel the farthest from a facility, and they are the most difficult to control. Conversely, high-frequency noises, because they attenuate more quickly, are easier to control.
The most common sources of low-frequency noise are motors and engines; others are processing plants with pipe infrastructures, and stacks on power plants in remote facilities.
To be sure, the current concern over noise is not sudden. As far back as 1989, Health Canada issued national guidelines for controlling noise in the natural environment. But as recently as seven years ago, environmental assessments were addressing noise concerns indirectly, as a component of physical disturbance to the environment.
For example, there is no direct mention of noise in relation to the physical and biological environment, or the social and economic environment, in the environmental assessment guidelines issued in 1998 for the Diavik Diamonds project in the Lac de Gras region of the Northwest Territories.
Barely three years later, however, the environmental assessment terms of reference for
By 2004, noise had become a health issue that frequently came up in public reviews. As part of
Having asked questions about noise once, it was inevitable Health Canada would ask them again, so it is no surprise, really, that the terms of reference for the Mackenzie gas project contain noise-related requirements; these include how much baseline information needs to be collected and exactly what needs to be assessed.
To address noise issues, Health Canada is working on a new guidelines document, National Guidelines for Environmental Assessment: Health Impacts of Noise. The guidelines will address characterization of the noise environment, standards for determining whether health impacts are significant, the severity of the effects, and mitigation measures. Health Canada has struck a working committee led by notable acoustics expert Stephen Bly to formulate the new guidelines.
Regulatory activity on noise issues is ongoing. “The efficiency and transparency of environmental noise impact assessment need to be improved,” writes a group of acoustic experts in a recent edition of Canadian Acoustics. “The current situation is problematic because the number of assessments across Canada has increased considerably.” As well, there are wide variations in the information and analyses used to assess the health effects of project-related noise.
The governments of Alberta and Quebec are updating their noise legislation, and at the municipal level there is a move from qualitative generic bylaws prohibiting “excessive” noise to quantitative ones citing offensive noise levels in numerical terms.
What’s also clear is that the impact of noise has become a global issue. For instance, the World Bank has developed exacting noise standards, and these were applied to
Involvement at the conceptual design stage allows consultants to identify what commitments are required to control noise. Even at the advanced design stage, sophisticated computer models can predict sources and levels of high- and low-frequency noise.
Solutions to noise problems can vary considerably in their complexity and cost. In some cases, an extra silencer will do the trick; in other cases, more sophisticated solutions are required. To determine just how expensive solutions will be, it is essential that we pay heed to regulatory requirements. Again, these can vary both nationally and globally.
True, mines in remote areas cannot be subject to the same restrictions as industrial operations in residential areas, but that does not mean miners do not have to pay more attention to noise.
— The author is a noise professional with Golder Associates and can be reached at teresa_drew@golder.com
Be the first to comment on "Rising noise levels may cause concern for miners"