11• .11 TISHER LINER FC LAW - Planning · AUSTlll\Ul\N ACOUSTICAL CONSULTAN rs A.C.N. 005 446 579 ... and control issues arising from the proposal to extend the underground rail

$Page 1: 11• .11 TISHER LINER FC LAW - Planning · AUSTlll\Ul\N ACOUSTICAL CONSULTAN rs A.C.N. 005 446 579 ... and control issues arising from the proposal to extend the underground rail$
)

11• TISHER LINER FC LAW . 11 BUSINESS PROPERTY LITIGATION

PRINCIPAL: Alan Goldstone DIRECT EMAIL: [email protected]

22 August 2016

Melbourne Metro Rail Project cl- The Panel Coordinator Planning Panels Victoria Level 5, 1 Spring Street MELBOURNE VIC 3000

And by email: [email protected]

Dear Sir/Madam,

OUR REF: AG: MH: 153868 YOUR REF:

Re: Melbourne Metro Rail Authority Project Enquiry and Advisory Committee

We act for Legend Properties Pty Ltd, the owner of the property at 67 Swanston Street Melbourne.

Reference is made to the Preliminary Witness Statement from Douglas Growcott forwarded to you on 12 August 2016.

Attached is final report from Douglas Growcott, which report and expert evidence will be relied upon at the Panel Hearings commencing on 22 August 2016.

Twenty copies of this expert report are being provided to Planning Panels Victoria and accompanies this letter.

Yours faithfully TISHER LINER FC LAW PTY per:

Alan Goldstone Principal

Enc.

s:\affdocs\lege-pro\ 153868\lege-pro_ 153868_035.docx

Accredited Specialists in Property Law, Commercial Litigation, Business Law, Family Law and Mediation ~t Level 2, 333 Queen Street Melbourne Victoria 3000

DX 181 Melbourne Telephone (03) 8600 9333 Email [email protected] Facsimile (03) 9670 6359 Website www.tlfc.com.au

Tisher Liner FC Law Pty Ltd ABN 96 236 404 070

· ~ Wat::?onMossG1-owcott ., Acoustics

CONSULTANTS: ACOUSTICS, NOISE & VIBHAl lON CONTROL

)

MEMBER FIRM OFlHE ASSOCll\TiON OF AUSTlll\Ul\N ACOUSTICAL CONSULTAN rs

A.C.N. 005 446 579 ABN 44 445 257 249

WATSON MOSS GROWCOIT ~coustics pty ltd SUITF 7, 696 HIGH STREFT, KF.W EAST

VICTORIA. AUSTRALIA 3102 TELEPHONE: (03) 9859 9447

FACSIMILE: (03) 9859 5552 EMAIL: recept1on .. ••wmgacoustics.com . .iu

PO BOX 201, KEW EAST. 31 02

MELBOURNE METRO ENVIRONMENT EFFECTS STATEMENT

Review and Opinion Regarding Noise and Vibration Aspects in Relation to the Buildings at 67 Swanston Street, Melbourne

Prepared for: Legend Properties Pty Ltd

C/Tisher Liner FC Law

Level 2, 333 Queen Street Melbourne VIC 3000

Ref. 11909-1 .1dkg.docx 19 August 2010

~ ~

· • WatsonMossGrowcot t Acoustics

CONSULTANTS: ACOUSllCS, NOISE & Vl!lRfl flON CONTROL

A.C.N. 005 446 5 79 ABN 44 445 257 249

)

Witness Statement

Name:

Douglas Keith Growcott

Address:

Suite 7, 696 High Street, East Kew, Victoria, 3102.

Professional Qualifications:

Diploma Mechanical Engineering Swinburne 1970 Member of the Australian Acoustical Society Firm Delegate Australian Association of Acoustical Consultants.

Professional Experience:

• Founding Director of Watson Moss Growcott Acoustics Pty Ltd 1978 - present. • Ron Carr Consulting 1976 - 1978 • Carr Wilkinson Consulting 1973 - 1976 • Insulation Materials and Services 1969 - 1971

Relevant Experience:

• Noise Effects Assessments and associated Noise Control requirements • Traffic noise measurement and calculation • Noise Barrier Design • Noise Propagation Modelling and Prediction for Trains, Traffic, Industry and Mining. • Ground Vibration Measurement from trains operating in underground tunnels and on surfaces. • Analysis of ground induced train vibration and Noise. • Develop of Specifications for building foundation vibration reducing systems to control train

vibration induced into residential and commercial buildings. • Mechanical equipment noise measurement and control • Application of State Environment Protection Policy (Control of Noise from Commerce, Industry and

Trade) No. N-1.

Expertise to Prepare this Report:

My training and experience over 43 years qualifies me to comment on the noise and vibration sources, assessments, and control issues arising from the proposal to extend the underground rail network under Melbourne and particularly adjacent to 67 Swanston Street, Melbourne.

Instructions which defined the scope of this report :

The writer was instructed by Mr Alan Goldstone of Tisher Liner FC Law on behalf of Legend Properties owners of the property at 67 Swanston Street, Melbourne.

The task was to review available Environment Effects Statement documents pertaining to noise and vibration effects and potential controls where deemed relevant in relation to the property at 67 Swanston Street. The late commissioning and the quantum of material to be reviewed has necessitated that this report was prepared as a preliminary report completed by 121h August 2016, with the final report issued on191h August 2016.

11909-1 .1 dkg.docx Page 2

MEMBER FIRM OF THE ASSOCIMION OF AUSTRALIAN ACOUSTICAL CON~Ul.lAN TS ~

~

~ WatsonMossGrowcott CONSULTANTS: ACOU~ 1 ICS, NOISE & ViBRAI ION CONTROL W' Acoustics A.C.N. 005 446 579 ABN 44 445 257 249

Past Facts, Matters and Assumptions Relied Upon:

• Contents of Chapters 13 of the April 2016 addition of the Melbourne Metro Rail Authority

Environmental Effects Statement and the Appendix I and the associated sub appendices relating to

Noise and Vibration.

• Association of Australian Acoustical Consultants 'Guideline for Rail Noise and Vibration'

• EPA Vic 'State Environment Protection Policy (Control of Noise from Commerce, Industry and

Trade) No. N-1 (SEPP N-1)'

• EPA publication 1254 - 'Noise Control Guidelines'

• Melbourne City Council: ' [Construction] Noise and Vibration Management Guidelines'

• 'Assessing Vibration: a technical guideline' NSW DEC

• NSW 'Interim Construction Noise Guideline', DECC NSW

• BS 6472.1 :2008 'Guide to evaluation of human exposure to vibration in buildings. Vibration sources

other than blasting'

• FT A Handbook 'Transit Noise and Vibration Impact Assessmenr

• BS 7385-2:1993 'Evaluation and measurement for vibration in buildings. Guide to damage levels

from groundborne vibration'

• AS 2436-2010 'Guide to noise and vibration control on construction, demolition and maintenance

sites'

• DIN 4150-3 ( 1999-02) 'Structural vibration - Effects of vibration on structures'

• ASHRAE Handbook - 'HVAC Applications' 2015

• The Association of Noise Consultants 'Measurement & Assessment of Groundborne Noise &

Vibration'.

Identity of Persons Undertaking the, reviews, analysis, and reporting:

Douglas Growcott and Neville Goddard

) We have made sufficient enquiries that we believe were desirable and appropriate, and no matters of significance, which I regard as relevant, have to my knowledge been withheld from the Panel.

DOUGLAS GROWCOTT WATSON MOSS GROWCOTT acoustics pty ltd

11909-1 .1dkg.docx Page 3

M-MBER FIRM OF THE ASSOCIATION OF AUSTl1AUAr~ ACOUSTICAL CONSULTAN rs rm1llll

[!1!11111

•

WatsonMossGrowcott CONSULTANTS: ACOUSTICS, NOISE & VIBllATION CONTROL

Acoustics /\ C.N. ODS 446 579

/\BN 4·1445 257 249

)

Table of Contents 1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................... ...... .......... ............ ........................... ... ....... ........ 5

2. NOISE and vibration ASSESSMENT TERMINOLOGY ....... .... .............. .. .. .. ......... ...... .. .. ................ 6

3. CONSTRUCTION STAGE: AIRBORNE NOISE .. ... .................... .. ........................... ....... ...... ........... 6

3.1 Standards and Criteria ............................................................... ......................................... ..... 6

3.2 Prediction Methodology and Results ..... ...... ...... .... ............... .... ....... ...................... ........ .......... 6

3.3 Mitigation and Assessment of Impact.. .. .... ............ ... .. .. .... ............ .... .. ............... ...... ................ 7

4. CONSTRUCTION STAGE: GROUND BORNE NOISE AND VIBRATION ........ .. ........................... . 8

4.1 Standards and Criteria .... .. ........................................... ................. ................... ................ ..... ... 8

4.2 Prediction Methodology and Results ...................... .................... ...... ...... ................... .. ............ 8

4.3 Mitigation and Assessment of Impact ............ .. ............ ......... .. .... ........................................... 11

5. OPERATIONAL STAGE: AIRBORNE RAIL NOISE .. .... .......... .. ... ....... .............. ............................ 12

5.1 Standards and Criteria ...... ... .. ...... ............... .. ..... ................................... ........ .......... ... .. .......... 12

5.2 Prediction Methodology and Results ...................................................................... ... ........... . 12

5.3 Mitigation and Assessment of Impact.. .......... .... .. .. ..................... .. .. .... .. ......... .......... .. ......... ... 12

6. OPERATIONAL STAGE: FIXED INFRASTRUCTURE AIRBORNE NOISE .................. .......... ..... 12

6.1 Standards and Criteria .................................................... ...... .... .... ....................... ........ .......... 12

6.2 Prediction Methodology and Results ...................................................................... ...... .. .... ... 12

6.3 Mitigation and Assessment of Impact.. .......... ........ ............ .. ....... ............ .. .... ................. .. .. .. .. 13

7. OPERATIONAL STAGE: GROUND BORNE NOISE AND VIBRATION .. ........................... .. ........ 13

7 .1 Standards and Criteria ....... ...... ..... .... ..................................................................................... 13

7 .2 Prediction Methodology and Results ..... ............... .... .. .. ........... .. ................... ............... .......... 13

7.3 Mitigation and Assessment of Impact... ................................................... .............................. 13

8. DISCUSSION ... .. .. ...... .. .. ................. .. ......... ...... .. ....................... ... .... ...... ............ ............................ 14

8.1

8.2

Noise and Vibration Arbiter ................................................ ...... ............................. ...... .. .. .. ..... 14

Spoil Trucks ............... ....... ......................... ........................ ....... ...... ...... ............... ... .. ... ...... .... 14

8.3 Vibration Quantity Descriptor. ........................ .. .. ... ...... ... ....... .... ........ ...... .. ............... ... .. ....... .. 15

9. OVERVIEW ........... .... ...................................... ...... .. ......... .... .......... .... ............. ........ ................ ....... 16

11909-1.1 dkg.docx

M[MUCR FIRM OF rnE ASSOCIATION OF AUSTlll\LIAN ACOUSTICAL CONSULlAN JS

Page 4

•

WatsonMossGrowcott CONSULl/INTS: /ICOUS ncs. NOISE & VIBRATION CONTROL

Acoustics /I C N 005 4'16 579

/IBN 4·1 44 5 257 249

)

1. INTRODUCTION

Written submissions forming the Environment Effects Statement (EES) for the Melbourne Metro Underground Rail Project dated April 2016 have been reviewed in regard to the potential Noise and Vibration during construction and operation impacts on the property described as 67 Swanston Street, Melbourne.

The current Environment Effects Statement dated 201h April 2016 has been prepared on the basis that the subject property would likely be sold to become part of the Project. Notations on maps of the area surrounding the subject site indicate the potential for the buildings to be converted or demolished to create an excavation to become an alternative entry for the new underground station to be known as CBD South.

On July 26 2016 the Melbourne Metro Rail Authority (MMRA) Technical Note 14 issued for the Project confirmed a decision not to pursue the purchasing of the Property at 67 Swanston Street.

As a consequence the MMRA will need to update the EES to reflect this change and the associated maps and noise and vibration modelling prediction outcomes that results from this decision.

The Project, in relation to the subject property, will include an underground station constructed within an excavation created on the eastern side of Swanston Street directly opposite the site.

The rail tunnel, which will be excavated from underground using a road header machine and not the Tunnel Boring Machine which will complete the tunnelling at most other locations will be aligned substantially down the centre of Swanston Street.

A construction period will be in the order of 4 years. During the early stages of the construction the construction works will occur in the open above the open square opposite the subject site. As the works proceed the station excavation and the construction process will be located within a custom built large enclosure designed to contain noise emissions.

The CBD South Station construction site will be a location where waste material excavated from underground tunnel and the station excavation will be transported off site by road going "spoil trucks". It is expected that typically 150 truck movements (to and from the site equals 2 x truck movements) will occur during a 24 hour construction cycle for substantial periods of the construction process. Up to 210 truck movements have been described as being necessary during peak times.

The EES has considered the following noise and vibration issues:

1. Airborne Construction and Operational Noise generated above the ground. 2. Ground borne Construction and Operational Noise radiated by building surfaces resulting from

construction and operational processes which generate vibration which will be transferred into the ground and into foundations of nearby buildings.

3. Ground Borne Construction and Operational vibration transferred into buildings where the residual magnitude of vibration in nearby building will be sufficient to create feelable vibrations in the buildings as well as the possibility of creating superficial damage.

The EES document doesn't provide definitive design details or in detail management protocols to ensure that the project will minimize potential impacts.

The EES document sets design objectives and on occasions criteria for assessing the above effects.

11909-1 .1 dkg.docx

IA[MIJ[R FIRM OF THE /ISSOCl/lflON OF AUSTRALl/lf\. ACOUSTICAL CONSULlANTS

Page 5

~ WatsonMossGrowcott CONSULT/IN rs: llCOU) rics, NOISE & VIBH/\TION CONJ ROL

., Acoustics /\ C N 005 446 519

/\llN ·14 44 5 25 7 249

)

2. NOISE AND VIBRATION ASSESSMENT TERMINOLOGY

The following terms are used in this report:

dB(A) Decibels recorded on a sound level meter, which has had its frequency response modified electronically to an international standard, to quantify the average human loudness response to sounds of different character.

Lgo the level exceeded for 90% of the measurement period, which is representative of the typical lower levels in a varying noise environment. It is the noise measure defined by the EPA as the measure of the background noise level to use in determining noise limits.

L 10 the level exceeded for 10% of the measurement period. It is representative of the typical higher noise levels occurring on a repeatable basis.

Leq the equivalent continuous level that would have the same total acoustic energy over the measurement period as the actual varying noise level under consideration. It is the noise measure defined by the EPA as the measure of the noise to use in assessing compliance with noise limits.

VDV Vibration Dose Value a calculated number which has been developed to quantify the human response to vibrations of different magnitudes which continue for differing periods of time.

Velocity Vibration expressed as the speed of ground or building surface movement and commonly used for ranking building or ground vibrations with regard to potential damage or human perception. Units are millimetres per second (mm/s)

Acceleration Vibration expressed as the acceleration of ground or building surface movement and commonly used for as a component for the ranking of building or ground vibrations with regard to potential damage or human perception. The main parameter used in the calculation of the VDV. Units are millimetres per second squared (mm/s2>

3. CONSTRUCTION STAGE: AIRBORNE NOISE

3.1 STANDARDS AND CRITERIA

The review has indicated that the adopted standards and criteria will generally be appropriate.

There is some concern in relation repeated references in the EES to the EPA 1254 Guidelines that allow for 'unavoidable works' to continue through the night if required without noise restrictions.

It is highly likely that what the EPA had in mind when they adopted this description was an occasional concrete pour that would continue overnight, not works continuing for weeks.

3.2 PREDICTION METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS

The review has indicated that the prediction methodology will be generally appropriate, which provides some confidence in the results .

However, some of the source noise data appear to be unrealistically low.

11909-1 .1 dkg.docx

MEMC ER FIRM OF TME ASSOCIATION OF /\USTllALlllN ACOUSTICAL COt~SULT/\NTS

Page 6

~ WatsonMossGrowcott CONSULTANl S ACOUSTICS. NOISE & VIBRATION CONTROL

., Acoustics AC N 005 446 579

Al3N 44 445 257 249

)

In the tabulation of source noise levels, the following items have been assigned sound power levels that in the experience of WMG Acoustics are approximately 1 OdB too low( twice as loud) :

• Material delivery trucks , listed with a sound power level of 95dB(A}, in WMG's experience would typically be closer to 105dB(A) sound power level.

• Spoil trucks, listed with a sound power level of 91dB(A}, in WMG's experience would typically be closer to 105dB(A) sound power level.

• Loaders/backhoe listed with a sound power level of 96dB(A}, in WMG's experience would typically be closer to 105dB(A) sound power level.

With such a large number of truck movements per day in close proximity to 67 Swanston Street, under-stating the sound power level of each truck by something in the order of 1 OdB could have a significant impact on the re predicted construction noise levels outside 67 Swanston Street.

There has not been a good indication given of the duration per working day or in terms the number of days, weeks or months that the significant truck noise during critical times of building occupancy would occur.

3.3 MITIGATION AND ASSESSMENT OF IMPACT

It is considered that the full extent of truck noise impacts has not been acknowledged by the EES. A significant aspect of truck noise mitigation is source noise control, ensuring that trucks make no more noise than absolutely necessary in carrying out their tasks.

Despite the fact that the EES noise data for trucks understates the noise contribution of trucks, there is the potential for truck noise to be an even more significant issue than it need be if trucks are allowed to work on the project making more noise than necessary.

Two significant components of this are exhaust noise and reversing beepers. The following are recommended for adoption as part of a construction management plan:

• Trucks to be used to access the construction site for deliveries or removal of spoil must be fitted with broadband reverse alarms that vary their noise output.

• Contractors wishing to be part of the project must provide evidence that trucks to be used on the project comply with the EPA in-service noise requirements, with respect to exhaust noise.

The EES includes provision for additional mitigation measures under circumstances when significant construction noise impacts cannot reasonably and feasibly be controlled.

When reasonable and feasible mitigation measures do not achieve compliance with the construction Guideline Targets or when no limits apply then Additional Mitigation Measures may be appropriate to manage impact. There is no guidance in Victoria with respect to Additional Mitigation Measures, however guidance is provided in Construction Noise Strategy PE-ST-15711.0 2011 prepared by the NSW Transport Construction Authority.

The Additional Mitigation Measures include: x Alternative accommodation (AA) x Monitoring (M) x Individual briefings (18) x Letter box drops (LB) x Project specific respite offer (RO) x Phone calls (PC) x Specific notifications (SN)

11909-1.1dkg.docx

MEMl3(R FIRM OFTHE ASSOCIATION OF AUSTRALIAN ACOUSTICAL CONSUUANTS

Page 7

~ WotsonMossGrowcott CONSULTANTS: ACOUSTICS, NOISE & VIBRATION CONTROL W' Acoustics A C.N 005 446 579 Al3N 44 445 257 2·19

)

All of these 'additional mitigation measures' except Alternative Accommodation and Project Specific Respite Offers (whatever form that might actually take) are really no more than appropriate actions to take in conducting a project that could reasonably be expected to impact significantly on residents.

There are no described trigger levels in the EES which would determine when alternative accommodation maybe implemented. Trigger levels need to be described ideally using relatively simple velocity measuring instruments. This is a case where an independent arbiter could avoid unnecessary frustration on the part of the Contractor and those impacted.

4. CONSTRUCTION STAGE: GROUND BORNE NOISE AND VIBRATION


The review has indicated that the adopted standards and criteria are generally appropriate.


The EES identifies exceedance of the adopted targets for both vibration and ground borne noise associated with road header operation in the vicinity of 67 Swanston St for both residential and commercial uses during both the day and night.

Review of this aspect of the EES has been made difficult by what appears to be inconsistent treatment of emissions to 67 Swanston St associated with uncertainty as to whether 67 Swanston St was to become part of the project in the form of an alternative entrance to the CBD South Station.

Figure B.91 below shows 67 Swanston St to be an excavation.

...... .... ....... I.;,;;. -- --- l .,. ..... , _ . . . . .,. - . -- ) n._ M;lbourne Metro Rail Project ",."".._~ 1 ,.,._,,. •II' ' "' .. ' ~~~:guAHl :-::,-.·~'· ..:.•·•· ,., ·~_... ,.. !

• ~ I ',::,:~:.~ · -•· ·- i I l ...... ._ ...... ·- /·· · 1

.JAC008 I I ' ' • . .oo

· ····.·· .,t ·~ ....__,___ 1.:. .1 ...... ~::---~ 0 " - -- , .~ .. -· [L-1 . ·- __ .... _. - - - - _ ... __

Legtno

~ _ .......... ,,..,_ "' •• ::· ... -4, ...................... .....

• 'fl- .... ... ,, '""""·~ "'""' ....... J',..11'• ' •>0"

• -~;~,·#~'", t~•l:~.•U•' .,_ .lo . .' ... ~:: ;~'. .:·.:~ .... ...,. -~

11909-1.1dkg.docx Page 8

MFMB~R FIRM OF HIE ASSOCIATION OF /\IJSTRALIAN ACOU~ TICAL CONSULTANTS ~

~

•

WatsonMossGrowcotL A coustics

CONSULTANTS: ACOUS ncs. NOISE & VIBRAJ ION CON rHOL

AC N. 005 446 579 ABN ·1·1 445 257 249

)

Since preparation of the EES, it has been decided not to proceed with the alternative access to the CBD South Station via the site at 67 Swanston St, so the building will remain.

An implication of this appears to be that 67 Swanston St has not been considered as a receptor location when predicting construction stage vibration and ground borne noise levels at relevant commercial and residential receptors.

Section B.6.6 commencing on page 116 of the Noise and Vibration Appendix B provides a discussion in relation to vibration and ground borne noise effects of the construction of the CBD South Station.

In this section, 31-41 Swanston St is provided as an example of commercial premises and 233-239 Collins St as the example for residential premises.

67 Swanston St includes both commercial and residential uses, the residential use being in the form of a hotel.

233-239 Collins St is considerably further from the CBD South Station construction site than 67 Swanston St, meaning that the residential component of 67 Swanston St will be exposed to significantly higher vibration and ground borne noise than 233-239 Swanston St, used in the EES as an example of impacts on residential premises in the vicinity of the CBD South Station construction site.

67 Swanston St has a similar proximity to the CBD South construction site as 31-41 Swanston St. Therefore, the predicted vibration and ground borne noise levels at 31-41 Swanston St can be used as an indicator of the likely levels at 67 Swanston St, but for 67 Swanston St these levels should be compared with the residential targets not the commercial targets applied to 31-41 Swanston St.

The relevant results are displayed on page 118, included below.

11909-1 .1 dkg.docx

MEMBER FIRM OF THE ASSOCIATION OF AUSTBAU,~N ACOUSTICAL CONSULTANTS

Page 9

•

WatsonMossGrowcott A coustics

CONSULTANTS: ACOUSTICS, NOISE & VI BHAT ION CONTROL

AC N 005 1\46 579 ABN 4·1 44 5 25 7 249

)

Residential location: level 1, 233·239 Collins St, Melbourne VOV (Day) caused by road headers In station cavern

-IMC~~~

-~~~r

·• H-c-•ortO..·l'l'f'ferrlfd~1t&tft.,.._klf~Mlt<'ltxtiotll

--- ~N(Ofrlfon01"f'·~•"'"'-~~tcllle'll.ifor,..•n~~Kl>.>il

--- lol\ornt11 Comfort~ • 2•Muitnunll~N _,,.. lol MW!lf;......,,t..CtlOtll

-- - Hll!Tllfl(ornforto..,.-4x M••lmvm!t.rqtftdltwl form1n1,gemtnl;tt1ior)

Commercial location: 31-41 Swanston St, Melbourne VDV (Day) caused by road headers in station cavern

-OaitoadHHdff

-w.ir.~HiHdtt'

• Hu_,COIRfOAOiY•!'ritftnHWat110'le dJor11111,..._1<1kMI)

••• Mu-c:.omronoa., .Mu"""""[VICll'IM!ewffornu.·1~.talon.I

.... .. H-Comf or1 0 1y. i~ Moftll.ll" (lrigir<-f d """"' rornu~.-mffl ttt10t1)

- - - Hu~n COll'lfort 04~ • 4~ "•li.11!,lf!I l •rUt-ttd ~I ror m1n-..t mu1 kflOll)

uo . .

1M> ~~t~:m~-~~~~~~~-----f---------,.---------+----~ ruo

i l-20 µ;e,~~~'"'ii"if.~.t LOO

f :uo 1_ ~JOl'lltMfllj areprcblble t l.00 '

\ •so :,~.::.::t~-:~:,;::.:;:·~·=:·:~-~ = ·-·=··==-·! ~ o.ao r----r-------------------+--·-·----·---------+ ... -.... ~ ! ci oo .~~~'!.•~~tn! s4ar_tiws~[l

~ o~o -r.:;;.:k.;;;:,;;;,:C-~~;;,;n7;°"'--- '. -- ---------+----4 010~-~ ·

0 .00 "' . - •

" COOKlNCtielri O'Y

Resident ial location: level 1, 233-239 Colllns St, Melbourne VOV INliht) caused by road heade rs In station cavern

-l.-:"°NHndtr

-wtiill.NdHHdtr

.........,..,_lott~·..,.ltt"rtdftria,t1.ct..,.lil>r~e....,.11tK1..,J

- -- ...._C-lot\'5sJIC - MllifNlrn (lril&tffdlt"'l•kwfllMl~lll:Kticlrl)

........ ~COl'lllorlNIChl:·l•M~dmvnt(\lllfff""'°"ll::....-s""""t~~

- - - ~COftll1ool1trtcht·4~ Mntmllftl4tt~dltwlJOlm>na,-t.KriDo'll

A<ivtrK , Ofl'lf'l\tl'IU•ft¥tryliltd !'

C.IO f--.......... --+-------..--------+--------------~---•·

• I ' ~ 1.00 ~ ... .. .. 1 .. ... .... :. ..

010 li.owpro~~i · ~~e~·

0.00 - - .. Commercial location: 31-41 Swanston St, Melbourne VDV (Night) caused by road headers in station cavern

-WtM~IMidott"

~"~Jfs)ic-P'lcffffdl\l•&CC"..ii...C"11vt-~""~

........ MwunCoinbtNicJit·~lll(Vi&Pttil..,_.f0t-l~Klionl

........ ~nC..,.,Nlf:Jl(•Zll"Ml...,...{11CSCml~lfo"~.cti....)

- - - Kuni.in (omfl)tl Hlf:loc • 4i; Mt"'"""' (11ae1t1:1 INl'fot fl"lll'lll-Kt-I

J ~ r ~~~~~~~~e:t!!!C.."!_I~!. ....................... ;, ............ t------ .. ... .... -----1.00 ..

~uo r j

200 AdYtt,comme"'s~pr~('

~ ... t··-···-··7-----------·-------•---···--··-----····, j Alf••rstl(OMl'Jl('~!.a1('po$~1blt I

~ 1.00 r ----~ ............ !. ................. _ ..... .. .. ..

o.so~~~ • ... ;:;. :;::;;::::":::'"'"::;:"':::'""""'::"'"-"'"

~------------- - ~

,.

P•itt 118 .. ~~,l('l.') .... ~·"-n!'>ltn:IDll ~,.-.,. 1 lt~:IDll M""°"CI

For the day period the predicted VDV results at 31-41 Swanston St reach just under 1.0 and just over 1.5 m/s1·75 for the eastern and western road headers respectively. Comparison of these vibration magnitudes with the residential criteria on the residential location (233-239 Collins St) chart indicates that the likely levels at 67 Swanston St would be in the 'adverse comments are probable' range, 2 to nearly 4 times the maximum human comfort level.

For the night period , the predicted vibration at 31-41 Swanston St, indicative of likely vibration at 67 Swanston St, is marginally lower than for the day period. Translating these to the residential chart for 233-239 Collins St gives results in the 'adverse comments are very likely' range, just under 4 to nearly 8 times the maximum human comfort level.

The discussion in the EES therefore does not reflect the magnitude of impact at 67 Swanston St , now that it is to remain rather than become part of the project.

In a similar manner, the discussion in relation to ground borne noise does not reflect the magnitude of impact at 67 Swanston St as it focuses on 233-239 Collins St, where the resultant ground borne noise levels will be lower.

The predicted ground borne noise levels for 233-239 Collins St are on page 120 of the EES Noise and Vibration Appendix B, included below.

11909-1 .1dkg.docx Page 10

MEMOEH FIHM OF THE ASSOCIATION OF AllSTllALIAN ACOUSTICAL CONSULTANTS rm1lll

t!I!llfl

~ WatsonMossGrowcott CONSlJLTflN 1 S: ACOU~ llCS, NOISE & VIBRMION CONTBOL

., Acou stics fl C.N . 005 ·l46 519

AUN +1 ·145 257 249

Resfdential l oc:atlon: Lh'el 1, llJ...239 Collins 51, Melboume Ground·bom e Noise u used by road headers In station civern

:: 7c::=-: ~~-----------~ · 7 - . ~· ~

M Ackllilona l Construcllon Woolics

n,.,. are a, small~ ot ros.dcntiot bf.ildlngs flat or• loc.alod Wnmedaaldy ~ to !he- Flinck:ts1Swan$lon Hcavatlon where •xc:it~ ol ~ gr~nt noiM: t&rptt' are predided ~ne letgets lor ground-home noiH •• Mso Pfedicted to be u:i;eedmd al Ille W•tin Hot• ,neat ~City Square ••Grnlbon} and 8t MO ruidonria1 t:iuikinQ's (nMf i\t proposed 65-73 SWWIAOn StrMt *'°Q\'"10\~ I: 5- pJ.oil:".ed that 1i. Ni'f, gulddrle large! d JS d8A WOUkS be ~ Vllhen npptfl are ~ wiltan a saope chs.!enct ol 2S m and ~n rockbr8.Jke1' •r• worlillng IMfVT1 a sk>pc chi.vice SS m o/ from residential receivers Tho llYWling l.IW91!'t (40 d9A) woukl be e 11oeeded y,tien rippers are~ v.ilhln 1 slope distance of 17 m and roekbrflakers ZM"e ww;)O(lng wi1hin a tlope d1 ~aooe oj 40 m It is e1pectEl'd !hat 1n. Proponeol WOIJO mitiQalt oround-oom. noise O.\~edanc:es by mitinlalning tho$e bllfler distances <h.lnng the ever1ng and nigN.

.. ... . .. .... ... __ ..... f" ..C .. __ __ ., _ _ _ .. .. 1

)

A comparison of the vibration and ground borne noise results suggests that the corresponding ground borne noise levels at 67 Swanston St may be in the order of 10 dB(A) higher than at 233-239 Collins St, and the duration of exceedance of the trigger levels for management action approximately double that at 233-239 Collins St.

The vibration and ground borne noise levels need to be re-evaluated at 67 Swanston St and the results considered in relation to mitigation measures.

It is important to note that 67 Swanston St includes both commercial and residential components. The residential component is a hotel rather than apartments, which has implications for the mitigation measures as discussed in the section below.


The EES correctly notes on page 99 of the Noise and Vibration Appendix B that 'Mitigation of ground-borne noise from TBMs is very challenging and there are few options available aside from changing the tunnel alignment to increase distance from the affected receivers .' It is implicit that changing the tunnel alignment is not actually under consideration.

The EES goes on to note that 'Mitigation of ground-borne noise from the road header work is again very challenging but it may be possible to reduce hours of operation and/or modify the construction sequencing and operating practices to reduce impacts in some circumstances.'

11909-1.1dkg.docx

MEMBEH FIRM OF THE ASSOCIATION OF AUSTRALIAN ACOUSTICAL CONSULTANTS

Page 11

~ WatsonMossGrowco t t CON SULTANTS: l\COU~ l lCS, NOl~E & VIBlll\TION CONTROL

., A coustics I\ C N 005 446 5 79

AUN 44 ·1'1'.i 257 249

)

As identified in section 4.2 above, the EES has under-identified the magnitude of vibration and ground borne noise at 67 Swanston St arising from operation of road headers excavating the CBD South Station cavern.

Under the 'Recommended Mitigation' heading of the table on page 125, the following is included: 'If vibration and/or ground-borne noise guideline targets are exceeded and the level and duration of disturbance is considered unacceptable, then temporary relocation may be an option.'

The review set out in section 4.2 suggests that it is highly likely that the guideline targets would be exceeded at 67 Swanston St by greater magnitudes and for more significant durations than identified in EES for 233-239 Collins St, prompting consideration of temporary relocation for residential premises at 67 Swanston St.

The issues for 67 Swanston St in relation to 'relocation' are very different as a hotel than if it was an apartment building. It is likely that 'residents' would not need to be relocated as they would simply not be there - potential patrons of the hotel would choose accommodation in other locations not subject to adverse levels of vibration and ground borne noise.

Therefore 'mitigation' in terms of the residential component of 67 Swanston St is more likely to be in terms of compensation for lost revenue rather than providing alternative accommodation for residents.

5. OPERATIONAL STAGE: AIRBORNE RAIL NOISE




It is a reasonable conclusion that airborne rail noise will not be a significant factor at 67 Swanston St.


Given that it has been reasonably predicted that airborne operational rail noise will not be a factor in the vicinity of CBD South Station and will therefore not adversely impact on 67 Swanston St, no mitigation measures are required in relation to operational airborne noise emission .

6. OPERATIONAL STAGE: FIXED INFRASTRUCTURE AIRBORNE NOISE


The review has indicated that the adopted standards and criteria are generally appropriate-.

6.2 PREDICTION METHODOLOGY AND RES UL TS

The EES acknowledges that equipment selections have not been made which would allow indicative noise control requirements to be defined, but anticipates that compliance with the use of conventional sound attenuation technology.

11909-1.1 dkg.docx

MCMBCR FIRM OF THE ASSOCIATION OF AUSTllALIAN l\COUSTICAL CONSULJAN TS

Page 12

•

WatsonMossGrowcot t Acoustics

CONSULTANTS: ACOUSTICS, NOISI: & VIBllAl ION CONTllOL

A.C N 005 '146 579 ABN 44 4'15 257 249

) 7.

)

However, given that things such as ventilation systems are likely to be of significant magnitude it should be a priority sooner rather than later to do at least some preliminary equipment selections and sound power level determinations to work through the noise attenuation sufficiently to gain an appreciation of the magnitude of sound attenuation required, and the feasibility of incorporating this into the spatial allowances that have been made for the project.


The project should not underestimate the magnitude of the task in appropriately attenuating noise associated with fixed infrastructure.

It is likely that conventional noise control measures will be able to adequately attenuate noise emission from fixed infrastructure associated with the project. but work on this component needs to be undertaken at an early stage in order to avoid finding that conflicts develop if the noise control is 'added in' at a late stage in the design.

OPERATIONAL STAGE: GROUND BORNE NOISE AND VIBRATION

7 .1 ST AND ARDS AND CRITERIA


7 .2 PREDICTION METHODOLOGY AND RESULTS

A thorough process of obtaining source data from the existing Melbourne Underground Rail Loop has been undertaken, with equally thorough investigations to enable estimation of vibration propagation through the ground and transmission into buildings, leading to estimates of likely vibration and ground borne noise at locations where they may be perceived by residents.


The EES has foreshadowed several likely forms of rail vibration reducing systems, in principle, including in the vicinity of 67 Swanston Street.

Based on the experience of the writer these predictions will be estimates based on science and art and it will be important as soon as possible to validate using prototype testing that the predictions will be valid. It will likely be impractical to provide vibration isolation upgrades if the predictions prove to underestimate the actual noise and vibration. Any predictions must make allowance for practical roughness conditions for both rail and train wheel surfaces.

Based on provided tunnel depth alignments it is expected that the foundations of the buildings on the site will be in the order of 25 metres from the base of the tunnels. Based on previous projects it would be expected that one of the track isolation systems proposed will provide sufficient control of ground transferred vibration to result in acceptable residual noise and vibration conditions in the buildings located on the subject site.

11909-1 .1 dkg.docx Page 13

M:MlJ(R FIRM OF THE ASSOCl1\TION OF AUSTRALIAN ACOU~ TICAL CONSULTANTS (UJlll

~

•

WatsonMossGrowcott CONSULTANTS: ACOUS flCS, NOISE & VIBHATION CONTHOL

Acoustics A.C N. 005 446 579

MN 4,1 445 257 249

)

8. DISCUSSION

8.1 NOISE AND VIBRATION ARBITER

The EES has been written as an over view document. It doesn't profess to provide any detail design solutions for the exact way the construction and operations will proceed to achieve adequate control of the potential adverse noise and vibration effects from the development.

The EES documents describe various noise and vibration design objectives and criteria. There was mention for the need to develop noise and vibration management plans particularly during construction and then the final operational phase.

Accepting for the moment that the noise and vibration standards adopted are fair and reasonable there will continue to be pressure on the Contractor to build.

The attitude of the Contractor when responding to adverse noise and vibration impact complaints during the construction process, which will inevitably occur, will likely determine the tolerance of residents and retailers nearby to events which may at times exceed the adopted noise and vibration criteria.

The writer suggests that the Project should be encouraged to employ an independent noise and vibration arbitrator set up to response to and resolve noise and vibration issues considered unreasonable by nearby residents and/or retailers during the construction process. This arbitrator should have some basic knowledge of noise and vibration issues but should be able to obtain professional assistance when deemed necessary.

8.2 SPOIL TRUCKS

A particular issue that may give rise to construction noise complaints which has currently not been addressed in any detail in the current EES noise sections relates to "spoil" truck movements.

The documents describe that spoil truck movements will occur for extended periods during the 24hour seven days per week construction cycle. At some stage during the construction process a noise controlled construction shed will be built above the CBD South Station Excavation.

It is envisaged that the empty trucks will arrive at the construction site, will enter the construction shed via sound lock entry, be loaded with spoil within the shed and then leave the site first onto the external construction site land then onto Swanston Street and then to other public roads beyond.

The EES correctly points out that the noise from the spoil trucks will not be assessed while on public roads using the procedures described in State Environment Protection Policy No. N-1 "Control of Noise from Commerce, Industry and Trade".

The documents describe 170 truck movements over 24hours at the CBD South site. This quantity of movements of 10-20 tonne spoil trucks on the road outside the hotel has the potential to disturb the occupants in rooms in the hotel facing Swanston Street particularly those occurring during evenings, night-time and early mornings.

In Appendix A of the ESS document the noise modelling allowance for the spoil trucks is described as having a sound power level of 91dB(A). This value would suggest a sound pressure level of 57dB(A) at 20metres and in the opinion of the writer to be half as loud as the values typically adopted by the writer's firm in similar assessments.

11909-1.1 dkg.docx

MEMBER FIRM OF THE ASSOCIATION OF AUSTHALI AN ACOUSTICAL CONSULTANTS

Page 14

~ WatsonMossGrowcott CONSUL f/\NTS: /\COUS TICS, NOIS[ & VIUR/\I ION CONTROL

., Acoustics A CN. 005 446 579

/\BN44 ·1115 257 249

The writer believes this aspect needs to be considered as part of the potential adverse noise effects and also to consider the acceleration phase of leaving trucks , and airbrakes and the rattling of empty trucks arriving during late evenings , night-time and early mornings.

The movement of the truck outside of the acoustic shed must eliminate the likelihood of trucks having to reverse outside because of added aggravation to residents that can be caused by tonal reversing beepers, even a relatively low noise volumes.

If reversing cannot be avoided it should be compulsory for all trucks operating during evenings and night, at least, to be fitted with "broad band" frequency reversing beepers It is envisaged that the spoil trucks will be owned by individual operators and practical protocols must be developed and implemented so that noisy truck not complying with an agreed maximum value will be excluded from spoil removal. .

8.3 VIBRATION QUANTITY DESCRIPTOR

)

11909-1.1dkg.docx

The vibration guideline limit for assessing comfort for residents or retailers has been based on a complicated calculated term described as the "Vibration Dose Value"(VDV). This term has been developed to provide better correlation with human response to vibrations of different magnitudes and well as durations during any assessment period. In the opinion of the writer this parameter is a valid choice.

There are instruments that can measure the VDV value directly for a vibration event or events. However there are many more instruments that can measure the velocity of vibrations which could be readily available to experienced or semi experienced operators to enable them to at least rate the level of vibration being experienced on a feelability ranking scale before registering assessing a specific complaint.

Hence it is recommended that the guideline and criteria for assessing both construction and operational vibration adjoining the project work add to the criteria values adopted with approximately equivalent vibration Velocity values.

The Inquiry and Advisory Committee in their document Preliminary Matters and Further Information Item 7 Noise and Vibration questioned whether the Peak Particle Velocity measurement parameter for building vibration might not be a more appropriate value for rating and ranking vibration. The writer has no particular lean to either velocity or VDV values on a technical basis but accepts that direct velocity measurement values will likely be more practical on a day to day basis.

Page 15

MEMBCR flRM OF THE ASSOCl1\TIOI~ OF AUSTRALIAN ACOUSTICAL CONSULlANTS - '

.

•

WatsonMossG1-owcott CONSULTANTS: ACOUSTICS, NOISE & VIBRAI ION CONTROL

Acoustics A C N. 005 446 579

ABN 44 445 257 249

9. OVERVIEW

In the opinion of the writer the Noise and Vibration Sections for the EES for the Metro Rail Project have identified most of the significant noise and vibration sources.

The creators of the noise and vibration sections for the EES have adopted guidelines and criteria values for assessing and predicting the residual magnitudes of these phenomena on humans and at buildings have chosen from a variety of possible sources as there are few regulated values or techniques described in Victorian legislation,

There would be general agreement with engineers working in the field that the chosen sources for guidelines and criteria would be at least as valid as others that might have been chosen.

Since the issuing of the Environment Effects Statement the land at 67 Swanston Street it has been decided that the subject land will not be acquired for use as part of the project. As a consequence some aspects of the noise and vibration investigations for the site will need to be reassessed and up dated predictions produced for further review.

In the opinion of the writer the EES has not addressed the potential disturbance to hotel patrons at 67 Swanston Street from the noise of spoil trucks arriving and leaving the CBD South Construction Site during late evenings, night-time and early mornings. Protocols for truck operating procedures and truck and driver selections need to be developed to minimize disturbance to nearby residents.

The EES is also substantially lacking in relation to the assessment of construction stage vibration and ground borne noise at 67 Swanston St. Review of the information available in the EES has indicated that the magnitude and durations of construction stage vibration and ground borne noise impacts are highly likely to be sufficient to impact significantly on the habitability of the hotel at 67 Swanston St.

Given that 'relocation' may not be a relevant concept in relation to a hotel, a framework for compensation for lost revenue due to patrons choosing not to stay at the hotel will need to be implemented.

DOUGLAS GROWCOTT WATSON MOSS GROWCOTT Acoustics Pty Ltd

11909-1.1 dkg.docx Page 16

MEMDER FIRM OF THE ASSOCIATION OF AUSTRALIAN ACOUSTICAL CONSULTANTS ~

~

Documents

11• .11 TISHER LINER FC LAW - Planning · AUSTlll\Ul\N ACOUSTICAL CONSULTAN rs A.C.N. 005 446 579 ... and control issues arising from the proposal to extend the underground rail