Gasfired power station just to close and noisy local man says

I refer to your article "Meeting called on power station" published on 14 August 2015. I would like to comment the following:

The July 2015 Modification Request states "The gas-fired power station was approved in 2009 neither the Department nor the Minister has the ability to revoke the approval or or prevent the development from being undertaken." I think that is why the NSW Planning Assessment Commission is calling for another Public Meeting despite:

1) The Wellington Council saying that the power station should not be built inside 8 km from the township.

2) The petition with 1384 signatures requesting the Minister to rescind the Approval at this site as it is too close to the town.

3) Even the quietist models are too noisy, not only for the nearest residences but also for the township. ERM stated as late as 4 June 2015 that their estimated noise level value of their latest 2 turbine version, (The Department doesn't know whether it is 2 x 225 or 2 x 255 MW) will exceed the "station shut down" value of 35dB(A) in the Wellington township 2 km away. ERM argues that due to a change in their assessment methodology, it now includes a specific low frequency licence condition as opposed to an arbitrary 5dB(A) to be applied to the project if the 2014 modification is approved? Why would EPA even consider this, as they know that the true measured background value of 25 dB(A) would in reality be exceeded by 13dB(A) and even the excess over the deemed background of 30dB(A) is 8dB(A). EPA does not normally licence excess over 5dB(A). ERM on 4 June 2015 indicated that the Wellington township noise 2 km away from their latest 2 turbines without any penalties is 33dB(A), making it 38dB(A) under the EPA's current penalty procedure of 5dB(A) for each annoying noise character. Of course it will be much louder during adverse conditions. You should never forget that when ERM designed their latest power station at Uranquinty their measured values after construction exceeded the predicted pre construction values in the township by 18dB(A) devastating the town morale with various property acquisitions.

4) In reference to Potential Operations time annual capacity factor %, ERM stated on 4 June 2015 that they cannot prescriptively forecast Wellington operations, Except Oakey and Neerabup are representative of Wellington with the following statistics: During 4 financial years between 2011 and 2014 Oakey was operating 0.9%, 0.4%, 1.0% and 2.0% and Neerabup 2.3%, 7.2%, 1.3% and 2.7% of time respectively. The mean yearly operating time for Oakey and Neerabup over the past 4 completed years was only 1.7%. If Wellington is going to be operated the same way, why did the Department allow ERM to hedge their operations % not only from 4% to 40% but with the option to go to 100%. ERM are not true power providers, they just scoop the cream when the genuine providers make mistakes with their load estimations demanding hundreds of times higher charges from peak load power rates. How can a company make profit for years on end by working only 1.7% of time and demand to be called as essential/critical infrastructure?

5) Why was this project given Critical Infrastructure status? It has been on foot about 10 years. Now we are arguing if the construction has started or not and should ERM be given another 5 years to extend the lapse date and unsettle Wellington's future business confidence with more empty shops.

6) ERM claims in July 2015: "There has been neither significant change to the receiver environment, nor a chance to the noise (or other) guidelines that would change the outcomes of any new assessment, and it is therefore not considered necessary". So why to have another Public Meeting without any new assessments and to make sure of poor attendance to have it on Monday at3pm? 

7) The Peak Load is needed only to cool Sydney's Western Suburbs during extremely hot days. Typically, when it is 30 degrees in Sydney it is going to be 40 degrees in far, far away Wellington. We should have the plant in nearby coastal areas where the temperature is 20 degrees. Think of this in terms of providing cold water. We lose 70% of the "coldness" in the hot plumbing before it even gets to the end users in Sydney. Surely, the Department of Planning should have seen the utter madness of this inefficiency in placing the plant at Wellington.

It would be nice if The NSW Planning Assessment Commission would care to respond to this letter indicating what they hope to accomplish from this surprise meeting?

Yours sincerely,

Martin Sannikka