Protecting sensitive sites: Noise and vibration rules

by tanya_martins | January 7, 2025 2:09 pm

By Todd Busch

[1]

In the United States and Canada, three places are uniquely regulated by government authorities for construction noise and/or vibration. These include the City of New York, the State of California, and the City of Toronto. The regulations require studies before construction activity and/or noise and vibration monitoring during construction. The underlying objective of these regulations represents either a commitment to avoiding damage 
to structures 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, odor, heat, sound, vibration, radiation, or combination resulting directly or indirectly from human activities that may cause an adverse effect. As such, a statutory basis exists for extending the depth and breadth of regulation that applies to construction noise and vibration.

This is not just about the nuisance factor of industrial noise/vibration but also about the more overt health effects that may accrue from human exposure. Representative of such adverse effects are elevated blood pressure, heart rates, and sleep disturbances. Current regulations do not consider the potential for significant and adverse impacts on healthcare facilities, research laboratories, and microelectronics manufacturing operations, where sensitive instrumentation and equipment may be used. In these cases, the noise and/or vibration control requirements should often be much more restrictive.

City of New York

[2]

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

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 that construction equipment has noise emissions that achieve the average manufacturer’s operating specifications at peak loading. The DEP uses stipulated software for assessing noise complaints, the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Roadway Construction Noise Model (RCNM), published in January 2006. The RCNM and the Construction Rule’s contents use 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 of securing after-hours times through a permit. The DEP has the power to require additional noise mitigation. The contractor is expected to coordinate work hours to minimize the predicted noise impact on schools, hospitals, places of worship, and homes for the aging.

Businesses in the construction industry, commercial, cultural, and manufacturing establishments producing plainly audible sound above the sound of the immediate vicinity should become familiar with Local Law 113: Noise Code. 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 construction equipment makes and models as the preferred options. Local Law 113 does not establish specific noise-level limits for construction activity. Rather, as described above, it prescribes mitigation of various kinds and sets a general expectation on the effectiveness when techniques are implemented.

State of California 

[3]

California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) 1970.

The CEQA³ is 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 aesthetic 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 the opportunity for public review and input.

A range of feasible alternatives defines a “project” within an EIR, 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 environmental damage. The resulting project is then defined to include the required mitigation, and a “mitigation monitoring plan” will 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 the generation of noise levels higher than standards established in the local general plan, 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.

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

Overview of regulations City of Toronto

[4]

Toronto Municipal Code, chapter 363, Building Construction and Demolition, Article 5, Construction Vibrations.

Unlike comparable jurisdictions in Canada and the 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. 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.

[5]

The construction equipment is assessed for vibration concerns within a “zone of influence” (ZOI), 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 describe sensitive structures or infrastructure in the ZOI. Where necessary, mitigation is recommended.

[6]

Chapter 363 requires pre-construction consultation with owners within the ZOI, which will be included in the form. Thus, the owner of a vibration-sensitive facility has an opportunity 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 of dealing with vibration-sensitive facilities involves selecting appropriate vibration impact criteria. In most cases, the owners/operators of such facilities will not have in-house expertise in this area. They may have to retain experts to defend their facilities from intrusive construction activities.

The municipal code chapter requires a monitoring program to document compliance. The mitigation and monitoring program must be described in 
the documentation submitted for a construction work permit. A professional engineer must investigate complaints.

Lessons learned

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

• 
Construction noise is subject to pervasive mitigation requirements in the City of New York, but there is no comparable regulation of construction vibration. This omission extends statewide. Federally, within the Department of Transportation (DOT), guidelines are offered to address construction noise and vibration by the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), Federal Railroad Administration (FRA), and Federal Transit Administration (FTA). These guidelines are only applied when projects are undergoing assessment via the National Environmental Protection Act (NEPA). Other projects are exempt.
• 
Construction noise and vibration are subject to environmental study before 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 agreeing to them.
• 
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.
• 
Documentation of the possible environmental effects before project construction is as follows for these three places:
• 
City of New York: Construction Noise 
Mitigation Plan.
• 
State of California: Environmental Impact Report.
• 
City of Toronto: Preliminary study and vibration control form.

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) undertaking the work, including licensing as a professional engineer (P.Eng.). The resulting deliverables are typically subject to review and approval by regulatory authorities before permitting 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 before and during work periods at a site. (The time to comply 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 usually required and highly recommended.

Distilled to its simplest message, the best solutions in the future include better and quieter equipment, better processes and better barriers for noise and vibration. Some companies that design and manufacture construction equipment have acoustical engineers among their staff who presumably can exert some influence over noise emissions and vibration characteristics. Specialists maintain an inventory of state-of-the-art instrumentation to measure construction noise and vibration and 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 project proponent would typically bear the cost of such monitoring. In some cases, owners/operators of vibration-sensitive facilities may already have such instrumentation to support quality-control activities.

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

Notes

¹ Review New York City’s local law at nyc.gov/html/dep/html/noise/index.shtml

² See California Environmental Quality Act at 
oag.ca.gov/environment/ceqa

³ Learn more about Toronto’s municipal code chapters at toronto.ca/legdocs/municode/1184_363.pdf and toronto.ca/legdocs/municode/1184_591.pdf

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. He has a master of applied science degree in mechanical engineering focusing on acoustics and an additional certificate in construction management. He is the owner of Todd Busch Consulting. Busch has been involved in various projects across many sectors, including environmental noise analysis and mitigation, offices, research facilities, exhibition and convention centers, auditoriums, commercial, hospitality, educational institutions, highways, railways, aviation, etc. In the last 28 years of his career, he has worked on various technical tasks covering architectural acoustics, mechanical noise and vibration, construction noise and vibration, and ground-borne vibration. Busch is affiliated with the Institute of Noise Control Engineers USA, the Audio Engineering Society (AES), and other international organizations. He has published more than 50 articles through various media outlets, including conference proceedings, peer-reviewed journal articles, and magazines.

Key Takeaways

This analysis examines unique construction noise and vibration regulations in New York City, California, and Toronto. These regulations mandate pre-construction studies and/or monitoring to prevent structural damage and public annoyance but often overlook impacts on sensitive facilities such as healthcare, research labs, and microelectronics manufacturing.

Source URL: https://www.constructionspecifier.com/construction-noise-vibration-regulations/

---