MANAGING DIRECTORS MATTHEW PALAVIDIS VICTOR FATTORETTO DIRECTORS MATTHEW SHIELDS BEN WHITE 20161142.2/2909A/R0/MS 29/09/2016 Melbourne Metro - Panel Notes 1 CIRICULUM VITAE 1. Bachelor of Mechanical Engineering (Hons) (1997) 2. Institution of Engineers, Australia 3. Employment a. 2007- Current Director, Acoustic Logic Consultancy b. 1997 - 20027 Project Engineer, Acoustic Logic Consultancy c. 1996 to 1997 Project Engineer, Acoustic Dynamics 4. Construction noise and vibration – Examples of projects specifically a. 150 Queen Street – BAB expert witness evidence – Demolition phase b. City West Police Centre – Design and development and impact of MURL/City Loop on proposed development c. Multiple Projects along the City Loop / Melbourne Underground Rail Loop including Windsor Hotel, 36 Latrobe Street, 50 Latrobe Street, 280 Latrobe Street d. 1 Railway Parade Burwood – Rail noise and vibration impact assessment e. Hilton Hotel redevelopment – Construction noise and vibration assessment and monitoring f. 477 Collins Street – Construction noise and vibration management (current) g. 567 Collins Street – Demolition and construction h. Lane Cove North Estate – located above lane cove tunnel i. 8 Bourke Street Mascot (adjacent to Mascot Rail Station – Airport line) Rail noise and vibration impact MELBOURNE SYDNEY MELBOURNE BRISBANE CANBERRA A: 170 - 172 Montague Street LONDON DUBAI SINGAPORE GREECE South Melbourne VIC 3205 T: (03) 9272 6800 F: (03) 9645 7839 ABN: 11 068 954 343 The information in this document is the property of Acoustic Logic Consultancy Pty Ltd ABN 11 068 954 343 and shall be returned on demand. It is issued on the condition that, except with our written permission, it must not be reproduced, copied or communicated to any other party nor be used for any purpose other than that stated in particular enquiry, order or contract with which it is issued. I:\Jobs\2016\20161142\20161142.2\20160929MSA_R0_Panel Notes_Panel hearing.docx
2 SUMMARY OF FINDINGS/CONCERNS The location of the Westin Residences and the extended period that it will be exposed to construction activities that will for the majority of the program operate 24 hours a day, 7 days a week. The following are addressed. 1. EPA 1254 2. Interim Construction Noise Guidelines and Melbourne City Council Noise and Vibration Management Guidelines 3. Unavoidable works 4. Acoustic Shed 5. EPR’s Version 3 2.1 EPA - 1254 1. The NVIA – based assessment of noise – EPA 1254 2. EPA 1254 is an appropriate document to cover works generally for the subject site 3. Prescribes noise criteria for evening works and inaudibility for night time works 4. Excludes specific criteria for day time operation apart from stating that during the day time period noise may be considered unreasonable - does not provide prescribed noise criteria. 5. Incorporation within NVB of the NSW Interim Construction Noise Guidelines are suitable and assist in avoiding definition of unreasonable noise during daytime operation. 2.2 NSW INTERIM CONSTRUCITON NOISE GUIDELINES 1. Agree with the incorporation of the NSW Interim Construction Noise Guidelines. 2. City of Melbourne guidelines could alternatively be used as they are specifically developed for the City of Melbourne. 2.3 UNAVOIDABLE WORKS 1. Primary concern - Night time operation especially prior to the “acoustic shed” and unavoidable works. 2. Page 3 of EPA 1254 defines unavoidable works. Concern is the definition i.e. works which otherwise are expected to only during the normal construction hours will be not an exception but consistently be required to occur during the night time period and because of their nature be classed as unavoidable. 3. The intent of the night time provisions prior to the acoustic shed is that works undertaken during night time period are clearly exceptions to normal construction works. The processes undertaken should be such that the construction method selected can be undertaken during normal hours and that “ unavoidable works ” do not occur on a regular basis. 4. Unavoidable works – are to be an exception and clearly defined at this stage. Not adequately defined. 2.4 ACOUSTIC SHED 1. Concern - acoustic shed design will not comply with nominated night time criteria namely 55 dB(A) externally and inaudibility within habitable rooms. 2. Modelling assumes specific ratings to address noise emissions from the site once constructed. The rating assumed given the size of the shed is not a simple undertaking - recommended an independent review of the proposed construction of the acoustic shed be I:\Jobs\2016\20161142\20161142.2\20160929MSA_R0_Panel Notes_Panel hearing.docx 2
conducted prior to construction to ensure that compliance with the noise assessment criteria be achieved. 2.5 EPR’S / NOISE MONITORING 1. We have reviewed the current EPR’s and comment as follows a. Concur with the inclusion of the criteria nominated under NVB and the changes (page 33) b. NV3 provides general guidance to modelling and provision of a Construction noise and vibration assessment report but does not specifically address the Westin. c. Given the location of the Westin and as indicated in the Joint report comments under NV3 monitoring specifically at the Westin should be incorporated into the EPR’s. This could be accommodated within NVB under sub section Monitoring. 2.6 VIBRATION 1. Criteria used are acceptable. 2. Based on inspection and construction of the site vibration particularly during the demolition stage are likely to impact the Westin apartments. 3. As the existing forecourt and subsequent carpark below the City Square and structurally tied to the Westin we have recommended that the slab and hence structure be decoupled along the western boundary of the site by implementation of a saw cut. This will significantly reduce tactile and structure borne noise transfer the Westin and is a practical measure that will provide significant reduction in vibration transfer. 4. The Westin development should be specifically nominated as a monitoring location for vibration in the new NVB. 2.7 OTHER ISSUES – TECHNICAL NOTE 043 1. The proposed Residential Impact Mitigation Guidelines (RMIG) document provides a framework for contractors to address residual impacts on residential amenity 2. The Westin Apartments are adjacent to one of the key construction sites namely the CBD South Station. 3. Primary concern is the potential impact during the evening and particularly the night period. 4. Effectively ameliorative options apart from notification or Earplugs are only proposed where noise levels are greater than 30 dB(A) above background noise levels during the night time period. 5. In addition, the proposed offers only apply if the occurrence happens for 2 consecutive nights or more than 40 days in a 6-month period. 6. As was indicated during Mr Andersons evidence the criteria appear to be a unique guideline that proposed to adopt the RIMG with respect to building management 7. Concern rests with the criteria applicable at night time and the extent of qualification to which actual mitigation measures will be provided. 8. Given the mitigation measures are based on prediction only the assessment is based on assumptions. If during the construction process this changes then it may occur that the level of 40 nights is exceeded and/or the period where consecutive days occurs may be exceeded. 9. Based on the above we recommend that given the proximity of the Westin Apartments to the site acoustic treatment be provided to apartment bedrooms. This provides both a reduction in noise levels within bedrooms but ensures that if the predicted noise levels are exceeded or the frequency of events is exceeded the project will not be impacted in terms of operation. I:\Jobs\2016\20161142\20161142.2\20160929MSA_R0_Panel Notes_Panel hearing.docx 3
2.8 OPERATIONAL COMPLIANCE In my opinion the criteria proposed are acceptable and can be achieved and the MMRP-NVIA adequately addresses this at this stage of development. 3 SUMMARY 1. The use of EPA 1254 and the incorporation of the NSW Interim Construction Noise Guideline are acceptable. 2. Monitoring at the Westin both from noise and vibration should be incorporated as a specific location within NVB. 3. We recommend that the physical mitigation measures nominated under Technical note 43 given the location of the Westin should be applied to bedrooms which addresses both accuracy of predicted noise levels and predicted exceedances. Given the time frame to implement physical treatment this could be adopted upon commencement such at the treatment is in place prior to major works being undertaken on site. I:\Jobs\2016\20161142\20161142.2\20160929MSA_R0_Panel Notes_Panel hearing.docx 4
Recommend
More recommend
