7.1. Case study 1: controlling noise using the factors in paragraph (a) of the definition of unreasonable noise in combination with the GED

This case study explores how a business operator addresses their obligations under the GED and avoiding unreasonable noise based on the factors in the definition of unreasonable noise under the Act (as prescribed noise limits for commercial, industrial and trade premises do not apply to construction and demolition noise).

Stephen is a project manager for a construction company completing construction works on a commercial factory. As works to public infrastructure required for this project, Stephen consulted with his Health and Safety officer. The Health and Safety officer confirmed that for a few weeks the works to public infrastructure must be conducted at night, including weekends, to minimise disruptions to traffic and adhere to safety requirements. After reviewing part 4.4 of EPA publication 1834 Civil construction, building and demolition guide, Stephen determined that these works outside the normal working hours are unavoidable. As such, Stephen forms the opinion that the factors of time, place and other circumstances mean the night noise will not be unreasonable so long as all other reasonably practicable measures to reduce the risk of harm have been taken.

Stephen has prepared a noise management plan for the construction works as part of his obligations under the GED. Stephen has also reviewed his other obligations under the GED. Stephen wants some of the works to be undertaken continuously overnight and during the day while public infrastructure is disabled due to safety considerations.

As per the procedures set out in his noise management plan, Stephen contacted the residents located at sensitive receiver locations near the intended works to advise them of the times that the works would be undertaken, the duration, and details for who to contact if they have concerns about the levels of noise.

Stephen is aware that residents further away have raised concerns about the night works. In response he completed a noise and vibration assessment consistent with the noise management plan and implemented controls to minimise the noise at these locations. Stephen has so far as reasonably practicable reduced the risk of harm to human health and the environment from noise.

On a Saturday morning, a resident living about 200 metres away from the site contacted Stephen to report hearing music from the site. The resident was disturbed by the noise as it could be heard across their property and they were trying to rest after the noisy night works. Stephen looked into the resident’s concerns and found that the site workers were playing music on the site radio, which spread across the residential area. Music noise was not accounted for in the noise management plan or the noise and vibration assessment.

Stephen is aware that this may be considered unreasonable noise under section 166 of the Act due to its volume and the circumstances in which it was emitted. Volume is a relevant factor since the noise spread across to residential areas up to around 200 metres away. Also, the circumstances in which the music noise was emitted were unrelated to the unavoidable works that were justified as needing to be conducted outside normal working hours.

By failing to ensure unreasonable noise is not emitted from the construction activity, the duty to reduce risk of harm as far as reasonably practicable has not been complied with. In order to account for this non-compliance Stephen called a site meeting to advise of the appropriate use of radios and music players at site. He documented the complaint and issue in the record system and advised his site workers to have the radio playing at a lower volume so as not to be heard by residents living nearby. Stephen introduced a procedure to minimise the use and volume of radios and music players and updated the noise management plan.

7.2. Case study 2: controlling noise by achieving compliance with the GED and without conducting a detailed assessment using the regulations.

This case study explores an EPA authorised officer responding to a noise pollution report and working with the business operator to use common noise controls to reduce the impact so far as reasonably practicable.

Roy operates a business that spray paints kitchen cabinets. A neighbour calls EPA to report loud noise from Roy's factory.

An EPA authorised officer inspects Roy’s factory and hears loud noise from an ageing compressor located at the back of the factory. The officer observes that machinery causing the noise reported is the one Roy has failed to maintain or install suitable controls on.

During the inspection, the officer also detects that the noise emissions from the machinery have a tonal characteristic and that the volume of the noise is loud at the neighbour’s home. As the noise is emitted almost constantly while Roy works in his factory, the officer considers that the combined duration, tonal character, and volume are enough to form a reasonable belief that the noise is unreasonable as defined in ‘unreasonable noise’ under paragraph (a) of the Act definition.

Based on observations of a lack of maintenance of, and lack of standard controls on, noise emitting machinery, and the risk of harm created by the how the noise is emitted noise’, the authorised officer forms a reasonable belief that Roy is contravening the GED. Based on the officer’s assessment of the noise, the officer also determines Roy is contravening the duty not to emit unreasonable noise under section 166 of the Act.

The officer advises Roy that there are a range of low complexity maintenance and improvement actions he can take to reduce the tonal character and the volume of the noise from the machinery, including installing a quiet-start compressor and a spray booth that has a silencer for the exhaust fan noise.

As Roy's failure not to emit unreasonable noise relates to his failure to reasonably maintain or control noise emissions, the officer issues an improvement notice to Roy to remedy the contravention under the GED. The officer advises Roy that as the action needed to remedy the GED contravention is low in complexity, if he assesses risk, installs controls that minimise the risk of harm to human health from the compressor noise so far as reasonably practicable, the factors that make the noise unreasonable will likely be reduced enough to remedy the unreasonable noise contravention. As such the officer determined that only one notice was required at that time.

The officer explains the GED and the risk management process to Roy. Roy replaces the ageing compressor with a new, efficient quiet-start compressor which he puts inside the factory and installs a large spray booth that has a silencer for the exhaust fan noise.

The neighbour can’t hear the new compressor or exhaust fan at their home.

The factory is an industrial premises and the noise limits under the Regulations apply. However, as the officer determined the noise was unreasonable based on paragraph (a) of the Act definition for ‘unreasonable noise’ and that these noise sources are very common and well understood, Roy wasn’t required to obtain a detailed noise assessment using the Regulations and Noise Protocol. Instead by installing reasonably practicable controls and meeting his GED obligation, the tonal character and volume which led to the noise emissions being considered unreasonable have also abated. As Roy is now compliant, the officer revokes the improvement notice.

Roy continues to keep the manuals and develops procedures for his staff for operating and maintaining the new equipment. Roy also trains his staff on what to do if there are noise complaints. He keeps records of the following (among other things):

• a concise hazard and risk register compiled in accordance with EPA publication 1695 Assessing and controlling risk: a guide for business
• a brief description of the activities on the site, along with environmental performance objectives
• equipment specification documentation (the equipment manuals)
• maintenance reports of any onsite equipment
• a record of any relevant training carried out by staff working at the site.

7.3. Case study 3: controlling unreasonable noise prescribed in the regulations by conducting a detailed noise assessment

This case study explores a business owner whose activities contribute to cumulative noise emissions in an industrial area. The issue is addressed by EPA as prescribed unreasonable noise and a noise assessment using the Regulations and the Noise Protocol is performed to identify noise limits and remedial options.

Rani owns a furniture-making business that operates day and night in an industrial area. While most other businesses in the area work only during the day, a nearby packaging business recently increased its hours to meet demand and now works throughout the night.

EPA receives reports of continuous night-time noise from a few separate residences about 500 meters away from the industrial area. The noise is described as intrusive humming and droning that affects the residents’ sleep.

An EPA authorised officer investigates and finds that both factories operate during the night period and each factory has a number of different noise sources. Due to the complexity of having multiple noise sources and the ambiguity about the exact source of the noise, the officer determines than assessment of compliance with the noise limits using the Regulations and the Noise Protocol is required.

On EPA’s direction, Rani engages an acoustic consultant who measures the noise from the packaging company at an alternative assessment location as described in EPA publication 1997 Technical guide: measuring and analysing industry noise and music noise.

The consultant finds that noise limits are 54 dB(A) for the day period, 47 dB(A) for the evening period and 39 dB(A) for the night period. The noise level due to Rani’s contribution is measured as LAeq 69 dB(A) at the alternative assessment location, with a prominent tone in the 160Hz 1/3 octave band for which a +5 dB must be added. The consultant concludes that this equates to an ENL of 46 dB(A) at the noise sensitive area.

At night the measured LAeq is 45 dB(A). The noise has a prominent tonal character attracting a +5 dB adjustment. The effective noise level (ENL) of the cumulative noise from both businesses operating is 50dB(A). The industry noise also exceeds the evening period noise limit.

The consultant advises Rani that the fan noise from the sawdust collection system is the main noise source at her business and the other noise sources – the saws, planes and sanders aren’t loud enough to be heard beyond the boundary of the premises. The acoustic consultant advises that the noise from the sawdust collection system can be reduced by 9 dB(A) by installing a silencer on each individual fan within the ductwork of the unit.

EPA issues a remedial notice to Rani’s furniture-making business to require installation of noise controls on the sawdust collection system as recommended in the acoustic consultant’s report. EPA also issues a remedial notice to the packaging company that requires the business to reduce the noise from the premises to not exceed an effective noise level of 64 dB(A) when measured at the alternative assessment location. The packaging business seeks advice from an acoustic consultant who makes recommendations which the business follows.

The residents report they can still hear the noise at their homes, but the droning sound has stopped, and the noise is less intense. When EPA reassesses the noise at the noise sensitive area, the effective noise level is 38 dB(A). The cumulative industry noise complies with the noise limits set under the Regulations. While the remaining industry noise is audible at the residential area it doesn’t exceed the relevant noise limits.

As Rani has also taken all steps to control any harm associated with the noise emissions so far as reasonably practicable, the EPA authorised officer determines there is no further remedial action required at that time and revokes the remedial notice issued to Rani.

7.4. Case study 4: minimising risk of harm from noise proactively by implementing controls from EPA guidance

This case study explores a large infrastructure project proactively managing the risk of harm from noise by implementing noise controls outlined in EPA guidance under the GED.

When preparing to undertake a large-scale infrastructure construction project, the company’s environmental manager, Helen, planned how both vibration and airborne noise would be managed to minimise the risk of harm, so far as reasonably practicable. To do this, Helen produced an Environmental Management Framework (EMF) which contained environmental performance requirements for the project, including for contractors.

When writing the EMF, Helen reviewed EPA publication 1834: Civil construction, building and demolition guide (EPA publication 1843) to assess the duties of those involved in the project under the Environment Protection Act 2017 and the controls to manage risk that would be suitable for the project. As the project was significant in scale and budget, Helen determined that the project could use a suite of high quality controls to minimise the risk of harm so far as reasonably practicable.

The intent of the environmental performance requirements were:

• That during construction, the project was expected to minimise the risk of harm to human health and the environment from noise and vibration at all times, so far as reasonably practicable in accordance with the GED. This would be done by identifying and implementing effective controls in accordance with the GED, both during planning and construction phase.
• Specifically, Noise from construction would be managed with consideration of Section 9 of the Construction – Guide to preventing harm to people and the environment (EPA publication 1820.1), and Chapter 4 of EPA publication 1834, which included assessing the risk to environmental values for ambient sound set out in Part 3 of the Environmental Reference Standard.
• If an additional risk of harm from noise was identified during the construction phase, a risk assessment would be conducted in accordance with Assessing and controlling risk: a guide for business (EPA publication 1695) and the appropriate contingency measures, if deemed necessary, would be applied.

Several months after the construction commenced, an EPA authorised officer contacted Helen regarding a report of noise pollution. The complaint detailed that construction noise, described as engine rumbling, had been audible in the reporter’s bedroom between 4 am to 6 am on a Thursday morning. Helen reviewed the works schedule and identified that the time and place of the report corresponded to unavoidable works which had required the temporary shut-down of a roadway.

Helen and the works manager met with the EPA officer and explained the environmental performance requirements which had been applied to the activity in question:

1. The works had been verified by an independent environmental auditor to meet the description of ‘unavoidable works’ in EPA publication 1843, owing primarily to the activities likelihood of disrupting the public roadway and the risk to worker safety should the road remain open. As such, it was considered necessary for those works to occur during the night period.
2. The works had been scheduled to occur between 4 am to 6 am rather than between 1 am to 3 am to minimise the impact on sleep so far as reasonably practicable.
3. Materials needed for the work had been off-loaded during normal workhours the day before to minimise loud bangs and crashes (impulsive noise character) occurring during the night period.
4. Residents in the area around the works, including all residences in the street the complaint originated from, had been notified the week prior of the reason for, and details of, the works.

The EPA officer considered how, if at all, these actions might have been relevant to the factors of unreasonable noise. The EPA officer then determined that the noise was not unreasonable noise in this instance. The officer also determined that the GED has the improvement notice.