Building in silence: Noise and vibration rules

by tanya_martins_2 | August 21, 2024 9:28 am

By Todd Busch

[1]

In Canada and the U.S., there are three places where construction noise and/or vibration are uniquely regulated by government authorities. These include the City of Toronto, the City of New York, and the State of California. The regulations require studies prior to construction activity and/or monitoring of noise and vibration during construction. The underlying objective of these regulations represents either a commitment to avoiding damage to structures that are in proximity to a construction site, or the reduced probability of public annoyance.

The Province of Ontario has introduced an Environmental Protection Act (EPA) that defines a “contaminant” [as] any solid, liquid, gas, odour, heat, sound, vibration, radiation, or combination of any of them resulting directly or indirectly from human activities that causes or may cause an adverse effect. As such, there is a statutory basis for extending the depth and breadth of regulation that is applicable to construction noise and vibration.

To be clear, this is not just about the nuisance factor of industrial noise/vibration and more overt health effects that may accrue from human exposure. Current regulations do not consider the potential for significant and adverse effects on the operations of healthcare facilities, research laboratories, and microelectronics manufacturing, where sensitive instrumentation and equipment may be in use. In these cases, the requirements for control of noise and/or vibration should often be much more restrictive.

Overview of regulations City of Toronto

Toronto Municipal Code, chapter 363, Building Construction and Demolition, Article five: Construction Vibrations.

[2]

Uniquely among comparable jurisdictions in Canada and United States, Toronto has had a vibration municipal code chapter since May 27, 2008.¹ This regulation was recently updated as of March 1, 2023. There are no stated restrictions on the times of day when construction vibration may be created, however they are described in Chapter 591. There are no descriptions within the bylaw of exemptions for different types of construction activity and/or allowable vibration. Section 591-2.3. Construction, provides the following restrictions on noise:

No person shall emit or cause or permit the emission of sound resulting from any operation of construction equipment or any construction that is clearly audible at a point of reception:

(1) from 7 p.m. to 7 a.m. the next day, except until 
9 a.m. on Saturdays; and

(2) all day on Sundays and statutory holidays.

The construction equipment is assessed for vibration concerns within a “zone of influence” (ZOI) which is defined by a radius away from construction activity where the vibration amplitudes are excessive. Within this ZOI, the municipal code chapter defines “prohibited construction vibrations” to be those exceeding a stipulated peak particle velocity of 8 mm/s 
(0.31 in./s) below a frequency of 4 Hz, 15 mm/s (0.60 in./s) from 4 to 10 Hz, and 25 mm/s 
(0.98 in./s) for a frequency range above 10 Hz. An applicant for a permit must submit a vibration control form that relies upon a preliminary study, prepared by a professional engineer. The vibration control form identifies the places where the ZOI extends beyond the boundaries of the construction site and identifies any buildings designated or listed under the Ontario Heritage Act. It also must also describe sensitive structures or infrastructure in the ZOI. Where necessary, mitigation is recommended.

Chapter 363 requires pre-construction consultation with owners within the ZOI which will be included in the form, so there is an opportunity for the owner of a vibration-sensitive facility to state their maximum vibration limit. This is one mechanism whereby site-specific conditions may mandate lower vibration limits than the default values.

One potentially problematic aspect when dealing with vibration-sensitive facilities involves the selection of appropriate vibration impact criteria. In most cases, the owners/operators of such facilities will not have in-house expertise in this area and may have to retain their own experts as part of the process of defending their facilities from intrusive construction activities.

The municipal code chapter requires a monitoring program to document compliance. Both the mitigation and the monitoring program must be described in the documentation submitted for permitting of the construction work. Complaints must be investigated by a professional engineer.

City of New York

Local Laws of the City of New York for the year 2005, No.113, Noise Control Code and Construction Rule of January 18, 2007.

[3]

The City of New York has enacted a “local law” whose objective is citywide mitigation of construction noise.² To comply, every construction site with activity must submit a Construction   Noise Mitigation Plan (CNMP) to the Department of Environmental Protection (DEP). The permit holder for construction work is expected to offer a formal noise mitigation training program to benefit supervisors.

The contents of the CNMP include a self-certification explaining the construction equipment has noise emissions that achieve normal manufacturer’s operating specifications at peak loading. The DEP itself makes use of stipulated software for assessing noise complaints, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM), as published in January 2006. The RCNM and the contents of the Construction Rule make use of a defined set of noise emissions for a wide range of construction equipment. Within the Construction Rule, authorized work hours range from 7 a.m. to 6 p.m. on weekdays, with the possibility for securing after hours times through a permit. The DEP has the power to require additional noise mitigation. The contractor is expected to co-ordinate hours of work to minimize the expected noise impact on schools, hospitals, places of worship, and homes for the aging.

The Construction Rule provides a set of stipulations for noise mitigation in conjunction with the presence of any of five defined classes of construction equipment:

• 
Impact equipment:
• 
Pile drivers, jackhammers, hoe rams, blasting.
• 
Earth moving devices: Vacuum excavators.
• 
Construction trucks: Dump trucks.
• 
Stationary devices: Cranes, auger drills, street plates, backup alarms.
• 
Manual devices: Concrete saws.

For each of these classes of construction equipment, the stipulations include source controls, such as quieter models, mufflers and/or silencers; noise pathway controls, such as noise barriers, enclosures and/or curtains. Noise barriers, both permanent and temporary, must be built to achieve a sound transmission class (STC) rating of 30 or greater with a general expectation that noise levels at sensitive receptors will be reduced by 5 dB or more. The Construction Rule even recommends specific makes and models of construction equipment as the preferred options.

[4]

State of California

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) 1970.

The CEQA³ is a legislation that defines “environment” as the physical conditions that exist within the area which will be affected by a proposed project, including land, air, water, minerals, flora, fauna, noise, or objects of historic or esthetic significance (CEQA 21060.5). It defines “noise” as a part of the environment. Both the long-term operations of projects and short-term construction activity are subjected to study before a project begins through the preparation of a comprehensive environmental impact report (EIR) that is subject to review by a lead agency, such as a state, county, or city, along with opportunity for public review and input.

A “project” within an EIR is defined by a range of feasible alternatives, each potentially requiring different mitigation. One of these is designated as the preferred alternative. In the case of construction noise and vibration, the objectives of an EIR are to document whether there is a “significant effect on the environment” when considering a quantitative “threshold of significance.” Where there is a significant effect (i.e. “impact”), mitigation will be developed to prevent or minimize damage to the environment. The resulting project is then defined to include the entirety of the required mitigation and a “mitigation monitoring plan” will also be implemented during construction.

The following excerpt from a CEQA checklist is typically applied when assessing whether project noise or vibration would result in either “no impact,” “less than significant impact,” “less than significant impact with mitigation,” or a “potentially significant impact” by asking whether the project would result in:

• 
Exposure of persons to generation of noise levels more than standards established in the local general plan or noise ordinance, or applicable standards of other agencies.
• 
Exposure of persons to or generation of excessive ground-borne vibration or ground-borne noise levels.
• 
A substantial temporary or periodic increase in ambient noise levels in the project vicinity, above levels existing without the project.

[5]

Although CEQA is very comprehensive in terms of required analysis of construction noise and vibration prior to short-term construction and long-term operation, the lead agency would need to stipulate any and all thresholds of significance that are acceptable for determinations of impact due to construction activity. Similarly, the development of mitigation by the project sponsor will rely upon the defined thresholds of impact. The extent to which the definition of a threshold of impact can rely upon a noise ordinance would vary with jurisdiction.

Lessons learned

To summarize, the following can be learned by considering the regulations in places for these two cities and a state:

• 
Construction vibration is subject to quantitative limits in the City of Toronto, whereas construction noise is addressed within a municipal code chapter in less strict terms.
• 
Construction noise is subject to very extensive mitigation requirements in the City of New York, but there is no comparable regulation of construction vibration.
• 
Construction noise and vibration, both, are subject to environmental study prior to project approval and permitting in the State of California. Quantitative thresholds of significance for construction noise and vibration are developed on a case-by-case basis by the project sponsor, with the lead CEQA agency having to agree to them.
• 
Documentation of the possible environmental effects prior to project construction is as follows for these three places:
• 
City of Toronto: Preliminary study and vibration control form.
• 
City of New York: Construction Noise Mitigation Plan.
• 
State of California: Environmental Impact Report.

[6]

In all three jurisdictions, the studies and analysis are generally assigned to consultants retained by a project proponent, such as the project owner. In the case of the City of Toronto, the requirements include credentials for the person(s) that undertake the work include licensing as a professional engineer (P.Eng.). The resulting deliverables are typically subject to review and approval by regulatory authorities prior to the permitting of a project.

Conclusion

In the three cases cited in this article, the expectation is for construction/demolition contractors to comply with the regulations and produce documentation both before and during periods of work at a site. (The time to start complying with regulations is long before the actual building process begins.) The engineering expertise required to generate such documentation is generally outside the expertise of a construction contractor—to deliver quality projects, on time and on budget—which is why outside assistance is generally required and highly recommended.

Distilled to its simplest message, the best solutions going forward include better and quieter equipment, better processes and better barriers for noise and vibration. Specialists maintain an inventory of state-of-the-art instrumentation that is used to measure construction noise and vibration, as well as experienced, professional staff to help clients achieve regulatory compliance. Such instrumentation for monitoring may be prudent in situations not explicitly considered by regulations, including, for example, healthcare facilities, research laboratories and microelectronics manufacturing.

The cost burden for such monitoring would typically be carried by the project proponent; although in some cases, owners/operators of vibration-sensitive facilities may already have such instrumentation in place to support quality-control activities.

Author’s note: This article documents the first-hand experiences of the author working with regulatory requirements in several jurisdictions that govern allowable construction noise and vibration. The observations may be of interest for consultants seeking methods of assessment and/or those in a position to amend noise/vibration regulations in other jurisdictions.

Notes

¹ Learn more about Toronto’s municipal code chapters at toronto.ca/legdocs/municode/1184_363.pdf and toronto.ca/legdocs/municode/1184_591.pdf.

² Review New York City’s “local law” at nyc.gov/html/dep/html/noise/index.shtml.

³ See California Environmental Quality Act at 
oag.ca.gov/environment/ceqa.

Author

[7]

Todd Busch is an invited committee member for the Canadian Board for Harmonized Construction Codes (CBHCC), sound and vibration task force. He has extensive experience as an acoustical consultant, senior engineer, and senior project manager with a master of applied science degree in mechanical engineering with a focus on acoustics, and an additional certificate in construction management. He is the owner of Todd Busch Consulting. Busch has been involved in a variety of projects across many sectors, including environmental noise analysis and mitigation, offices, research facilities, exhibition and convention centres, auditoriums, commercial, hospitality, educational institutions, highways, railways, aviation, etc. In the last 28 years of his career, he has worked on a wide range of technical tasks covering architectural acoustics, mechanical noise and vibration, construction noise and vibration, and ground-borne vibration. Busch is affiliated with Institute of Noise Control Engineers USA, Audio Engineering Society (AES), and other international organizations. He has published more than 50 articles through a variety of media including conference proceedings, peer-reviewed journal articles, and magazines.

In the three cases cited in this article, the expectation is for construction/demolition contractors to comply with the regulations and produce documentation both before and during periods of work at a site.

Source URL: https://www.constructioncanada.net/construction-noise-vibration-regulations-toronto-nyc-california/

---