Vol II Noise and Vibration Study.p

Project Amakhulu - EIA - Noise and
Vibration Study
Sappi Saiccor
09 February 2005
QM
Issue/revision Issue 1 Revision 1 Revision 2 Revision 3
Remarks Final
Date 9 February 2006
Prepared by Andrew Colthurst
Signature
Checked by Chris Wood
Signature
Authorised by David Maundrill
Signature
Project number 12101531/001
File reference 12101531/R1.v3m
WSP Acoustics
Buchanan House
24-30 Holborn
London
EC1N 2HS
Tel: +44 (0)20 7314 5000

Fax: +44 (0)20 7314 5005
Contents
Executive Summary 1
1 Introduction 2
2 Baseline Conditions 7
3 Noise and Vibration Impacts during Construction 11
4 Noise and Vibration Impacts during Operation 18
5 Residual Effects 31
Appendix A Noise and Vibration Terminology 35

Appendix B Noise and Vibration Standards and Criteria 37
Appendix C Noise Monitoring Locations 45
Appendix D Noise Monitoring Results 46
Appendix E CONCAWE Calculation Sheets 47
Executive Summary
This assessment has considered the potential impact that noise and vibration emissions
from the proposed development at the Sappi Saiccor site, and from traffic on the main
road and rail access routes into the site from the east, may have on occupiers in affected
residential areas.
Existing levels of ambient and background noise, invariably including the contribution
from the Lignotech plant, have been measured at representative locations around the
site in the morning, daytime, evening and at night. These levels have been rated
according to the guidance in relevant national standards (except for construction where
appropriate British Standards have been employed) and the results of predicted noise
levels for the various noise sources involved in the construction and operation of the new
development compared with these. The results have been assessed using the guidance
in relevant South African National Standards,
Temporary construction noise impacts have been predicted to be from none to slight at
even the closest residential property both for the average and worst case situations.
The adoption of best practicable means and the development of and adherence to an
environmental management plan for the construction programme are proposed to
mitigate these slight impacts.
Vibration arising from construction activity is predicted to be of no significance at any

residential property.
The increase in noise predicted from additional rail freight movements is very small and
predicted to be barely perceptible and of only slight impact.
Heavy vehicle traffic associated with the development will increase by a more significant
35% but in terms of noise and vibration impact this will represent a relatively small
change that is rated as having only a slight impact.
Vibration from road traffic is not anticipated to be a problem at any residential property.
Operational noise from additional freight handling activity on the site will result in no
perceptible change to the existing noise climate at any of the residential receptors.
Noise rating limits for electrical and mechanical plant have been proposed to facilitate
the specification and design of new plant for the proposed development.
12101531 Project Amakhulu - N&V Chapter 1

1 Introduction
1.1.1 This study considers the potential noise and vibration impacts associated with
the proposed development. The aspects of the development that could give rise to
noise and vibration are the demolition and construction works, additional road and rail
traffic, including heavy goods vehicle (HGV) movements, operations within the
development site, such as the arrival and unloading of freight vehicles and operation of
new production plant associated with the increased capacity of the facility. This study
identifies the type, source and significance of the potential noise and vibration impacts
and identifies the measures that should be employed to minimise these impacts.
1.2 INTERPRETING NOISE

1.2.1 Noise is defined as unwanted sound. The human ear is able to respond to
sound in the frequency range 18 Hz (deep bass) to 18,000 Hz (high treble) and over the
audible range of 0 dB (the threshold of perception) to 140 dB (the onset of pain). The
ear does not respond equally to different frequencies of the same magnitude, but is
more responsive to mid-frequencies than to lower or higher frequencies. To quantify
noise in a manner that approximates the response of the human ear, a weighting
(filtering) mechanism is used. This reduces the importance of lower and higher
frequencies, approximating the response of the human ear.
1.2.2 Furthermore, the perception of noise may be determined by a number of other

factors, which may not necessarily be acoustic. Noise can be perceived to be louder or
more noticeable if the source of the noise is observed; e.g. roads, trains, factories,
building sites etc. In general, the impact of noise depends upon its level, the margin by
which it exceeds the background level, its character and its variation over a given period
of time. In some cases, the time of day and other acoustic features such as tonality may
be important, as may the disposition of the affected individual. Any assessment of noise
should give due consideration to all of these factors when assessing the significance of a
noise source. Various noise indices have been derived to describe the fluctuation of
noise levels that vary over time. Usually, these noise indices relate to specific types of
noise, and as such different noise indices are used to describe road traffic noise,
background noise, construction noise, etc.
1.2.3 The weighting mechanism that best corresponds to the response of the human
ear is the ‘A’-weighting scale. This is widely used for environmental noise measurement
and the levels are denoted as dB(A) or dB LAeq,T, LA90,T, etc, according to the parameter
or index being measured.
1.2.4 The noise index used in this report to describe all noise sources is the LAeq,T,
the equivalent continuous noise level. This can be defined as the level of a notional
steady sound that, if continued over the time period (T), would contain the same amount
of sound energy as the actual, possibly fluctuating, sound that was recorded during that
same time period.

1.2.5 The decibel scale is logarithmic rather than linear. As a result of this, a 3 dB
increase in sound level represents a doubling of the sound energy present. Judgement
of sound is subjective, but as a general guide a 10 dB(A) increase can be taken to
represent a doubling of loudness, whilst an increase in the order of 3 dB(A) is generally
regarded as the minimum difference needed to perceive a significant change. The
following Table 1 demonstrates a few examples of noise levels typically experienced
during everyday activities.
Table 1: Typical Sound Levels found in the Environment
Sound Level Example
0 to 10 dB(A) Threshold of hearing

10 to 20 dB(A) Broadcasting studio
20 to 30 dB(A) Quiet bedroom at night
30 to 40 dB(A) Living room during the day
40 to 50 dB(A) Typical office
50 to 60 dB(A) Inside a car
60 to 70 dB(A) Typical high street
70 to 90 dB(A) Inside a factory or noisy pub
100 to 130 dB(A) Pneumatic drill
140 dB(A) Threshold of Pain
1.3 INTERPRETING VIBRATION

1.3.1 Vibration is defined as a repetitive oscillatory motion. Groundborne vibration
can be transmitted to the human body through the supporting surfaces, the feet of a
standing person, the buttocks, back and feet of a seated person or the supporting area
of a recumbent person. In most situations, entry into the human body will be through the
supporting ground or through the supporting floors of a building. Vibration from road
traffic can also be airborne. Such airborne vibration is transmitted as a low-frequency
sound wave and is often perceived when the sound wave causes windows or other
objects to rattle.
1.3.2 Vibration is often complex, containing many frequencies, occurring in many

directions and changing over time. There are many factors that influence human
response to vibration. Physical factors include vibration magnitude, vibration frequency,
vibration axis, duration, point of entry into the human body and posture of the human
body. Other factors include the exposed persons experience, expectation, arousal and
activity.
1.3.3 Experience shows that disturbance or annoyance from vibration in residential

situations is likely to arise when the magnitude of vibration is only slightly in excess of

the threshold of perception. The threshold of perception depends on the frequency of
vibration. The human body is most sensitive to vibration in the frequency range 1 Hz to
80 Hz and especially sensitive to vibration in the range 4 Hz to 8 Hz. As with noise, a
frequency weighting mechanism is used to quantify vibration in a way that best
corresponds to the frequency response of the human body. For occupants within
buildings, the frequency-weighting curve is defined in British Standard BS 6472:1992
‘Evaluation of Human Exposure to Vibration in Buildings (1 Hz to 80 Hz)’. In general,
vibration is only perceptible in residential situations when the building is close to a
railway, construction site or very close to a road that carries large and heavy vehicles.
1.3.4 A glossary of noise and vibration terminology is provided in Appendix A.
1.4 METHODOLOGY
1.4.1 The assessment considers the noise and vibration that will be generated by
both the construction and use of the development. Throughout, the assessment has
been undertaken with reference to both local and national South African Standards, and
where no local or national guidance exists, appropriate British and other International
guidance on noise impacts. In particular, the assessment is consistent with the
guidance contained within SANS 10103:2004 in respect of the Noise Limitations set for
the development. Appendix B provides more detail on the standards and criteria against
which this assessment has been carried out.
1.4.2 Before conducting the assessment a plan of study for the Environmental
Impact Assessment (EIA) was undertaken and submitted to the Department of
Agriculture and Environmental Affairs. That plan of study for the EIA outlined the
assessment methodology in order that the relevant authorities could review the
methodology and ensure that it met with their approval. This methodology was
expanded to incorporate the following:
• that the assessment of noise from road and rail traffic should be based on criteria
developed specifically for road and rail noise and not on the criteria adopted for
industrial noise;
• that the assessment of road and rail noise should consider appropriate time periods
as set out in the relevant criteria;
• that the noise impacts of road traffic should be based on traffic flows derived from
the model used in the Transport Assessment;
• that the traffic noise assessment should consider the Year of Opening (2007) and
15 years after opening (2022);
• that the assessment should consider the intensification of use of the railway;

• that the assessment should consider the potential for vibration impacts during the
construction works; and
• that the assessment should make reference to a ‘code of construction practice’.
1.4.3 These comments have been taken into account during the preparation of the
following assessment.
1.4.4 In drafting this Chapter an assessment has been made of the baseline situation
and the impact of the proposals. Where appropriate, environmental advantages and
disadvantages have been identified and recommendations made for possible mitigation
measures and/or scheme changes to offset potentially adverse environmental impacts.
1.4.5 The potential sources of additional noise and vibration that have been
considered in this assessment include noise and vibration from the site clearance and
construction works, additional road and rail traffic (including HGV and freight
movements), operations within the development site (such as the arrival and unloading
of freight vehicles) and building services plant associated with the extended production
facility.
1.4.6 Existing levels of environmental noise were measured during a noise survey
undertaken on Friday 2 December 2005. The noise survey included the measurement
of morning, daytime, evening and night-time noise levels at each of four different
locations. The noise levels measured during this survey have been used to inform the
assessment. Those properties and locations that could potentially be affected by noise
and vibration during construction activities and production operations on the site were
identified, and topographical information that could affect the propagation of sound was
obtained.
1.4.7 Noise levels from the site clearance and construction of the development have
been calculated using the methodology contained within British Standard BS 5228:
Part 1: 1997 ‘Noise and Vibration Control on Construction and Open Sites: Part 1: Code
of Practice for Basic Information and Procedures for Noise and Vibration Control’. The
calculated construction noise levels have then been assessed against the guidance
contained within the former UK Department of the Environment Advisory Leaflet (AL) 72:
‘Noise Control on Building Sites’ and other relevant guidance documents. The
assessment of vibration from the construction works has been informed by the guidance
contained within BS 5228: Part 4: 1992: ‘Noise and Vibration Control on Construction
and Open Sites: Part 4: Code of Practice for Noise and Vibration Control Applicable to
Piling Operations’ and BS 6472: 1992: ‘Evaluation of Human Exposure to Vibration in
Buildings (1 Hz to 80 Hz)’.
1.4.8 Calculations using the methodology contained within SANS 10210:2004

“Calculating and predicting road traffic noise” and the UK’s ‘The Calculation of Road
Traffic Noise’ (CRTN) have been used to determine the level of noise generated by road

traffic associated with the development. The predicted noise impacts from road traffic
have been assessed against the criteria suggested in the UK’s Institute of Acoustics /
Institute of Environmental Assessment (IOA/IEMA) Working Party on Noise Impact
Assessment guidelines and by comparison with existing ambient noise levels.
1.4.9 An assessment of the potential for vibration to be generated by any additional

road traffic has been informed by the guidance contained within relevant TRL1 research
reports (as referenced in paragraphs 3.2.2 and 4.3.4 following) and BS 7385: Part 2:
1993 “Evaluation and measurement for vibration in buildings – Part 2: Guide to damage
levels from groundborne vibration”.
1.4.10 Calculations using the methodology contained within the ‘The Calculation of
Rail Noise’ (CRN) have been used to determine the level of noise generated by rail
movements associated with the development. The predicted noise impacts from rail
traffic have been assessed by comparison with existing background noise levels.
1.4.11 The level of noise generated by on site activities such as the arrival and
unloading of goods vehicles has been quantified from data concerning the anticipated
increase in usage of the site and the results of noise measurements undertaken for
similar activities at other unrelated sites. The assessment of this noise has been
undertaken by comparison with existing ambient noise levels and the guidance
contained within South African National Standard SANS 10103:2004 “The measurement
and rating of environmental noise with respect to land use, health, annoyance and to
speech communication”.
1.4.12 The assessment of noise levels from new mechanical plant that will be included
in the scheme also has been informed by the guidance of SANS 10103:2004.
1.4.13 The assessment of cumulative noise impacts associated with all of the above
has been undertaken in accordance with the draft guidance of the IOA/IEMA document.
1
The UK company TRL is what used to be the UK Government’s Transport and Road Research
Laboratory.

2 Baseline Conditions
2.1 SENSITIVE RECEPTORS
2.1.1 The following residential area have been identified as being sensitive to any
noise and vibration that may be generated by the development and are used in the
assessment that follows.
• Magabeni township to the northwest of the Saiccor plant. The southern

side of the township comprises a number of scattered homesteads on the
hillside across the Mkomazi River. These properties, elevated above the
river, have a clear view to the development site. The closest properties,
close to the riverbank, lie within approximately 300 m of the plant.
• Residential properties along Umkomanzi Drift, to the southwest of the

plant. The closest property to the Saiccor plant is approximately 500 m
from the main gate and receptor location S02 (see below) is 1,250 m from
the site’s western boundary, on the hillside from where there is the most
direct view over the plant to the main development area.
• Residential properties on the north-western perimeter of Umkomaas town.

These properties are close to the main access road to the Saiccor plant.
• In addition to the above, there are a number of scattered homesteads on

the hillside to the east across the Mkomazi River. The closest of these lie
approximately 500 m from the eastern boundary of the Saiccor plant.
2.2 AMBIENT NOISE SURVEY

2.2.1 The plant is located at approximately 10 m above mean sea level over
approximately 42 ha. The plant area is level with a slight slope from north to south.
LignoTech, located adjacent to Sappi Saiccor to the north east, is level, whilst the area
further to the east rises slightly before dropping off into the Mkomazi River. On the
opposite bank of the Mkomazi River, the land rises sharply to a height of 106 m above
mean sea level. The areas to the north and west of the plant are gently to steeply
undulating, rising to heights of 15 m (the ridge between the plant and Magabeni).
2.2.2 The surrounding land use includes a mixture of industrial, agricultural and
residential (both high and low density) areas. A band of sugarcane (approximately
30 ha) is farmed between the plant and the Umkomaas River. Small areas of sugarcane
are farmed to the south and east, and informal farming is taking place adjacent to the
banks of the river to the south east of the plant. Pockets of plantation are a feature of
the surrounding landscape, with much more extensive plantations located to the south
east of Sappi Saiccor.

2.2.3 Existing levels of environmental noise were measured during a noise survey
undertaken on Friday 2 December 2005. The noise survey included the measurement
of critical period (morning, daytime, evening and night) noise levels over a typical
24 hour period at each of four different locations.
2.2.4 Noise levels were measured at the following positions:
• Position S01 – North west side of Umkomaas overlooking the bend on the
railway line.
• Position S02 – West south west of the Sappi Saiccor site on the
Umkomanzi Drift.
• Position S03 – Hillside east of Mkomazi river and the Sappi Saiccor site.
• Position S04 – Magabeni hillside north west of the Sappi Saiccor plant
looking across the river.
2.2.5 The noise measurement and assessment locations detailed above are shown
in Appendix C. The instrument used for the survey was a Casella CEL type 430
precision integrating sound level meter, the microphone of which was fitted with a
windshield. All measurement positions were free-field and at a height of 1.5 m above
ground level. The meter was calibrated prior to and upon completion of the survey and
had been calibrated to traceable National and International standards on 5 July 2005 by
an independent laboratory.
2.2.6 The sound level meter was programmed to record a number of different
parameters and indices over discrete 10 minute periods. The sound level meter was set
to the "fast" time weighting.
2.2.7 The indices measured were as follows:
• LAeq,10m The A-weighted equivalent continuous noise level over the

10 minute measurement period.
• LA10,10m The A-weighted noise level exceeded for 10% of the time during the
10 minute measurement period. This index often is used to
describe road traffic noise.
• LA90,10m The A-weighted noise level exceeded for 90% of the time during the
10 minute measurement period. This index often is used to
describe background noise.
• LAmax,10m The maximum value of the A-weighted noise level during the
• LAmin,10m The minimum value of the A-weighted noise level during the
2.2.8 The weather during the survey was conducive to the measurement of noise, it
being dry and the west north westerly wind either calm or a breeze.

2.2.9 The full results of the baseline noise survey are presented in Appendix D
including the time of each measurement and relevant weather conditions, etc. A
summary of the measured noise levels is presented in the following Tables. All
measured noise levels are free-field.
Table 2: Summary of Measured Noise Levels at 1.5 m High, Free-Field
Measured Noise Level, dB (free-field)
Location Time of day LAeq,10m LA10,10m LA90,10m LAmax,10m LAmin,10m

Morning 58.0 59.5 47.5 77.9 45.7
Daytime 62.9 66.0 47.5 85.4 44.6
S01
Evening 56.7 57.5 52.5 78.3 49.7
Night 60.2 63.5 48.0 74.7 44.5
Morning 53.3 54.5 52.0 63.4 50.2
Daytime 53.1 55.5 49.5 63.7 47.3
S02
Evening 55.6 57.0 53.0 67.1 51.2
Night 50.8 52.0 48.5 57.2 47.0
Morning 59.9 61.0 58.5 66.6 56.7
Daytime 52.6 54.5 49.5 61.5 47.8
S03
Evening 60.0 61.5 58.5 68.2 57.0
Night 59.0 60.5 57.0 64.6 55.1
Morning 61.6 63.0 56.5 75.5 55.2
Daytime 63.7 65.0 59.0 79.7 56.7
S04 Daytime (1 hour) 60.4 62.0 57.0 76.9 54.4
Evening 62.2 62.5 59.0 88.5 56.7
Night 58.1 59.0 57.0 67.4 55.8
Note: The additional daytime 1 hour period measurement made at Position S04 covered a shift change
for staff undertaking the measurements.
2.2.10 The background noise and dominant contribution to the ambient noise at
locations S02, S03 and S04 was found to be from the operation of the Sappi Saiccor
production facility, although some noise from rail and air traffic was audible at the time of
the survey. At S01 vehicular traffic, invariably including LignoTech SA operations, was
the dominant source.
2.2.11 The daytime LAeq,T measurement at location S03, which was some 6 dB(A) to
7 dB(A) less than any of the other measurements at that position, was influenced by the
meteorological conditions prevailing during the daytime when there was a north easterly
(74°) breeze compared with calm conditions for the other periods.
2.3 ASSESSMENT OF BASELINE NOISE LEVELS

2.3.1 In order to provide an assessment of the existing noise climate, reference is
made to the World Health Organisation (WHO) document “Guidelines for Community
Noise” and to SANS 10103:2004 “The measurement and rating of environmental noise
with respect to land use, health, annoyance and to speech communication”.
2.3.2 The World Health Organisation guidelines suggest that, to protect the majority
of people from being seriously annoyed during the daytime, the sound pressure level on
balconies, terraces and outdoor living areas should not exceed 55 dB LAeq,T for a steady,
continuous noise. To protect the majority of people from being moderately annoyed
during the daytime, the outdoor sound pressure level should not exceed 50 dB LAeq.
2.3.3 At both locations S03 and S04 it is apparent from the LAeq, LA90 and LAmin results
that the noise level due to the mill was in excess of 55 dB(A). At location S01 the results
indicate that the steady contribution of noise from the mill was below 50 dB(A) and the
most influential noise source affecting the LAeq, LA10 and LAmax results appears to have
been road traffic. Location S02 was subject to noise levels of between 51 dB(A) and
56 dB(A) LAeq a significant proportion of which apparently arose from the works, the
LA90,T being no more than 3.6 dB below the LAeq,T for the corresponding period for any of
the measurements there.
2.3.4 Taking the LA90,T measured background noise levels as most representative of
the steady noise from the plant, a comparison has been made of the measured existing
noise levels (with a +5 dB(A) tonal character penalty correction, Ct, added) in the nearest
residential districts with the “acceptable rating levels” detailed within Table 2 of
SANS 10103.
Table 3: Noise Rating Levels of Existing Plant Noise
Outdoors equivalent continuous rating

level (LReq,T) for noise in dB(A)
Day-night Daytime Night-time
LR,dn LReq,d LReq,n
Acceptable rating levels for rural districts 45 45 35
Acceptable rating levels for urban districts 55 55 45
Acceptable rating levels for industrial districts 70 70 60
Measured rating level for location S01 59 55 53
Note: Daytime = 06:00 to 22:00 and Night-time = 22:00 to 06:00 (as per SANS 10103, paragraph 3.22)
2.3.5 From this comparison of the measured noise levels with the guidance
contained within the WHO guidelines and SANS 10103, it can be seen that the existing
daytime noise climate in the vicinity of the development site, whilst below the acceptable
rating level for industrial districts is significantly higher than recommended for rural
districts and in almost every case higher than recommended for urban districts,
particularly for the closest homes in an arc from the north west round to the south east of
the plant.
2.4 BASELINE VIBRATION LEVELS

2.4.1 Vibration was not perceptible at any time during the baseline noise survey, as
was expected by virtue of the distance and topography between vibration sources at the

site and potentially sensitive residential properties. Therefore, measurements of existing
levels of vibration were not undertaken.
3 Noise and Vibration Impacts during

Construction
3.1.1 It is inevitable with the construction of any new development that there will be
some disturbance caused to those nearby during the site preparation and construction
phases. However, disturbance due to construction is a localised phenomenon and
temporary in nature. In general, only people living within 100 m or so of the construction
works are likely to be seriously bothered by noise; one study has found that whilst half of
people living within 50 m of a site boundary were seriously bothered by construction
works in one form or another, at distances of greater than 100 m from the site boundary
fewer than 20% of people were seriously bothered.
3.1.2 Although there are techniques available to predict the likely noise and vibration
effects from site clearance and construction operations, such as those contained within
BS 5228: Part 1 (1997) and Part 4 (1992) ‘Noise and Vibration Control on Construction
and Open Sites’, they are necessarily based on quite detailed information on the type
and number of plant being used, their location and the length of time they are in
operation. These details are not available at this stage. However, an estimate of the
likely effects of noise from the site clearance and construction phase has been made for
those properties that have been identified as being sensitive to noise and vibration. The
predictions are based on the methodology contained within BS 5228 and are in terms of
the LAeq,T (equivalent continuous A-weighted sound pressure level) over the core working
day. The predictions are worst case in that it is assumed that any mitigation measures
(such as those identified later in this report) have not been implemented.
3.1.3 In order to undertake these predictions, certain assumptions about the

construction activities, the noise sources associated with the works and the factors that
will affect the propagation of noise from the works site to the noise sensitive properties
have been made.
3.1.4 The assumptions about the construction activities that are to be undertaken are
based on WSP Acoustics’ experience of measuring noise levels from other construction
projects.
3.1.5 Noise predictions have been undertaken for five distinct activities or phases of
the works. These are:
• site preparation, including any demolition of existing buildings, earthmoving and site
profiling;
• piling and foundation works;
• concreting works for the ground slabs;

• construction of the new production buildings; and
• installation of new processing plant.
3.1.6 Where possible, source noise data and details of the plant likely to be used
have been taken from measurements undertaken by WSP Acoustics during other
construction works. Where this has not been possible, source noise values have been
taken from the maximum values allowed under the relevant EC Directive or from
BS 5228. The assumed source noise levels are as follows:
• The noise sources associated with the site preparation are assumed to be two
dozers, two excavators and four lorries to remove or distribute spoil. The source
sound power level for these items together, taking into account the likely ‘on-time’ of
the plant, is taken to be 114 dB LWA.
• It is assumed that any piling works that may be necessary for the building
foundations will use a rotary bored or continuous flight auger method. It is therefore
assumed that the noise sources associated with the piling operations will be two
continuous flight auger piling rigs, two (tracked) support cranes, one concrete truck
mixer, one concrete pump, two vibratory pokers, two small generators and a small
site dumper. The source sound power level for these items together, taking into
account the likely ‘on-time’ of the plant, is taken to be 115 dB LWA.
• The noise sources associated with the concreting works for the construction of the
ground slabs/substructure are assumed to be one concrete pump, one lorry
mounted crane, four poker vibrators, a compressor, two small generators and four
concrete truck mixers supplying materials. The source sound power level for these
items together, taking into account the likely ‘on-time’ of the plant, is taken to be
108 dB LWA.
• The noise sources associated with the erection of steel frames for new plant and
buildings and the installation of new plant are assumed to be a mobile crane, a
welding generator, compressor, angle grinder, hammering, electric hand tools, steel
delivery wagons and a site forklift. The source sound power level for these items
together, taking into account the likely ‘on-time’ of the plant, is taken to be
111 dB LWA.
3.1.7 Assumptions about the factors that will affect the propagation of noise are
based on WSP Acoustics’ previous experience of predicting noise from major
construction projects and also of monitoring noise levels from those same construction
projects after the works commence.
3.1.8 Noise propagation is assumed to be hemispherical and with no obstructions

between source and receiver. The intervening ground between the construction site and
the receptor locations is assumed to be acoustically absorbent grass or vegetation. No
attenuation from atmospheric absorption is assumed. The predicted noise levels are
those under neutral weather conditions. A 3 dB(A) façade reflection at receivers is
assumed.
3.1.9 The prediction of noise levels from mobile plant (including dozers, excavators,
and a site dumper) is undertaken using the method for mobile plant in a defined area,
described within BS 5228. For these predictions, it is assumed that the plant traverses a
maximum length of 100 m in any one day.
3.1.10 Noise predictions are made in terms of the ‘worst case’ and ‘average’ LAeq,T
noise levels that will be experienced at each receptor location, where the LAeq,T noise
level represents the average noise level over a typical working day. The predicted ‘worst
case’ noise levels are those that would occur when the construction works are being
undertaken at the closest part of the construction site to the relevant receptor location.
The predicted ‘average’ noise levels are those that would occur when the works are
being undertaken at the approximate centre of the construction site.
3.1.11 A summary of the predicted noise levels at the façade of noise sensitive
properties from construction noise alone is provided in the following tables.
Table 4: Predicted ‘Worst Case’ LAeq,T Construction Noise
Predicted ‘Worst Case’ Noise Level LAeq,T dB, facade

Location Preparation Foundation Concreting Erection
S01 39 40 34 36
S02 48 49 42 44
S03 51 54 48 50
S04 53 54 48 50
Table 5: Predicted ‘Average Case’ LAeq,T Construction Noise
Predicted ‘Average Case’ Noise Level LAeq,T dB, facade

Location Preparation Foundation Concreting Erection
S01 38 39 33 35
S02 46 47 40 43
S03 50 51 45 47
S04 51 52 46 48
3.1.12 To quantify whether the above noise levels represent a significant impact,
reference is made to the former DoE Advisory Leaflet (AL) 72 ‘Noise control on building
sites’. This document implies that for rural areas a level of 70 dB façade LAeq,12h is
appropriate, the 12 hours referring to the length of the working day.

3.1.13 It can be seen from the above table that the predicted noise levels from the
construction works will not exceed 54 dB LAeq,12h at residential properties during any
phase of the works. The ‘average case’ noise levels that would be more typical are
predicted to be no greater than 52 dB LAeq,12h during all phases of the works.
3.1.14 The predicted construction noise levels will also be less than the existing
ambient noise levels at each of the noise sensitive properties. As the table below shows
the changes in existing ambient noise levels that will arise from the additional
construction noise are very slight, even for the worst case. The construction noise has
been added to the existing ambient noise and the change in the latter shown by the
figure in brackets.
Table 6: Predicted ‘Worst Case’ LAeq,T Noise Levels During

Construction (Construction + Baseline Noise)
Façade Predicted ‘Worst Case’ Noise Level LAeq,T dB, facade

Baseline
Location LAeq,T dB Preparation Foundation Concreting Erection
S01 65.9 65.9 (0) 65.9 (0) 65.9 (0) 65.9 (0)
S02 56.1 56.7 (1) 56.8 (1) 56.3 (0) 56.4 (0)
S03 55.6 57.0 (1) 58.0 (2) 56.3 (1) 56.6 (1)
S04 63.4 63.8 (0) 63.9 (1) 63.5 (0) 63.6 (0)
Table 7: Predicted ‘Average Case’ LAeq,T Noise Levels During

Construction (Construction + Baseline Noise)
Façade Predicted ‘Average Case’ Noise Level LAeq,T dB, facade

Baseline
Location LAeq,T dB Preparation Foundation Concreting Erection
S01 65.9 65.9 (0) 65.9 (0) 65.9 (0) 65.9 (0)
S02 56.1 56.5 (0) 56.6 (1) 56.2 (0) 56.3 (0)
S03 55.6 56.7 (1) 57.0 (1) 55.9 (0) 56.1 (1)
S04 63.4 63.7 (0) 63.7 (0) 63.5 (0) 63.5 (0)
3.1.15 For the nearest residential receptors, taking into account the short-term nature
of the construction works, these effects are considered to represent an impact that is
from no impact to slight impact even under worst case predictions.
3.2 CONSTRUCTION VIBRATION

3.2.1 The distance between the construction activity and the nearest residences is
such that it is highly unlikely that vibration will be tangible at any sensitive premises off-
site. The only construction activities that could lead to perceptible levels of vibration
would be the bored piling works.

3.2.2 In order to determine the likely levels of vibration that will be generated by the
construction works, predictions have been carried out according to the methodologies
contained within British Standard BS 5228: Part 4: 1992:’Noise and Vibration Control on
Construction and Open Sites: Part 4: Code of Practice for Noise and Vibration Control
Applicable to Piling Operations’ and the UK Transport Research Laboratory Report 429:
‘Groundborne Vibration Caused by Mechanised Construction Works’.
3.2.3 The principle behind these prediction methodologies is to use measurement

data from similar operations and to extrapolate the results to other sites, taking into
account, wherever possible, any differences in ground conditions and site geometry.
The measurement data should include the recorded value of the peak particle velocity
(ppv) vibration level at various distances from the vibration source. From these data, the
rate of attenuation of vibration with distance is calculated, allowing the prediction of the
level of vibration in the ground at any given distance from the vibration source. Where
the vibration sensitive receptor is located within a building then the transfer function
between the ground and the internal floors of the building needs to be accounted for.
3.2.4 For the purposes of calculating the vibration impact from the piling works,
measurement data has been taken from BS 5228: Part 4.
3.2.5 For the purposes of calculating the vibration levels affecting people inside
buildings, it is assumed that there will be an attenuation of x0.5 in vibration level as the
vibration propagates from the ground to the building foundations. A worst case
amplification in vibration level of x3 as the vibration propagates from the building
foundation, through the building and on to the internal floors of any two storey
residences has also been calculated. For the worst case assumption this will account
for the fact that some internal floors exhibit a natural frequency in the range 5 Hz to
30 Hz; a range of frequencies at which vibration from the construction works will be
significant.
3.2.6 The predicted maximum level of vibration at each of the vibration sensitive
receptors is detailed in the table below. The predicted vibration levels are those that
would occur when the piling is being undertaken at the closest point to each of the
sensitive receptors. The predictions are in terms of the peak particle velocity (ppv).

Table 8: Predicted Peak Particle Velocity Vibration Levels
-1
ppv Vibration Level (mms )
Activity Location S01 Location S02 Location S03 Location S04
Bored Piling – 0.00 at foundations 0.01 at foundations 0.02 at foundations 0.02 at foundations
Driving Casing
0.02 on internal 0.06 on internal 0.12 on internal 0.12 on internal
floor floor floor floor
Augering
Auger Hitting
Base of Hole
Spinning-off
3.2.7 The above predicted levels of vibration have been assessed for both the
potential to cause damage to buildings and for the potential to cause human annoyance.
3.2.8 An assessment of the above vibration levels (as predicted at the foundations)
against the criteria contained within British Standard BS 7385: Part 2: 1993: Evaluation
and Measurement for Vibration in Buildings – Part 2: Guide to Damage Levels from
Groundborne Vibration reveals that the predicted vibration levels are far below those that
could cause even the most minor cosmetic damage.
3.2.9 In order to assess the potential for human annoyance, reference is made to
British Standard BS 6472: 1992: Evaluation of Human Exposure to Vibration in Buildings
(1 Hz to 80 Hz). This Standard uses the concept of a vibration dose value (VDV) that an
occupant would receive over the course of a 16 hour day or 8 hour night-time period,
and provides guideline values for which the likelihood of the vibration causing adverse
comment is low, marginal or high.
3.2.10 In order to compare the predicted peak particle velocity (ppv) vibration levels
with the guidance contained in BS 6472, the guideline values of VDV as contained in the
standard have been converted to ppv by assuming that the vibration is continuous,
sinusoidal or near sinusoidal and at a frequency of 8 Hz or greater. This will be the case
for the vibratory roller and also for the bored piling. The table below summarises the
values of the VDV, and the equivalent values of the ppv, above which BS 6472 states
that the likelihood of adverse comment is low, marginal or high.

Table 9: VDV and ppv Vibration Level Ranges Corresponding with
Potential Levels of Adverse Comment (Based on BS6472)
Adverse Comment Unlikely Adverse Comment Possible Adverse Comment Probable

-1.75 -1 -1.75 -1 -1.75 -1
Residential 0.4 ms 0.56 mms 0.8 ms 1.12 mms 0.8 ms 1.12 mms
Properties VDV ppv VDV ppv VDV ppv
Note: Conversion from VDV to ppv assumes continuous sinusoidal vibration at a frequency of
>8 Hz
3.2.11 A comparison of the predicted vibration levels (at the internal floors) with the
above limits reveals that there is a low probability of receiving adverse comments about
vibration. Indeed, in most instances the predicted levels of vibration are below the
threshold of perception. As such, the vibration impact of the construction works is
considered to be negligible.
3.3 NOISE AND VIBRATION MITIGATION DURING CONSTRUCTION

3.3.1 It is recommended that the contract documents supplied to contractors should
require that the effects of environmental noise and vibration be considered during the
design and execution of the works. This might be implemented by means of a noise and
vibration control plan that provides a management system tailored to the specific needs
of the construction works, the site and the surrounding area. As a minimum, any noise
and vibration control plan should cover:
• procedures for ensuring compliance with statutory or other identified noise control
limits, or with local codes of construction practice where they exist;
• general induction training for site operatives to provide a general level of awareness
of noise and vibration issues; and
• liaison with the Local Authority and the community.
3.3.2 The adoption of Best Practicable Means is usually the most effective way of
controlling noise and vibration from construction sites and should be enforced rigorously.
In order to demonstrate the adoption of Best Practicable Means to control noise and
vibration emissions from the site, the following conditions and measures could be
imposed on the construction works.
3.3.3 The contractors should bring to site and employ on the works only the most
environmentally acceptable and quietly operating plant and equipment compatible with
the safe and efficient execution of the works. The noise emitted by any plant item
should be no greater than the relevant values quoted in the current version of BS 5228.
All items of plant operating on the site in intermittent use should be shut down in the
intervening periods between use.
3.3.4 All plant items should be properly maintained and operated according to
manufacturers recommendations in such a manner as to avoid causing excessive noise.
All plant should be sited so that the noise impact at nearby noise sensitive properties is
minimised. Local hoarding, screens or barriers should be erected as necessary to shield
particularly noisy activities.
3.3.5 Problems concerning noise from construction works can sometimes be avoided
by taking a considerate and neighbourly approach to relations with the local residents.
Unless the requirements for traffic management in the area dictate otherwise, works
during the preparatory work (with a duration of several months) will not be undertaken
outside of the usual core hours of the construction industry, which are generally taken to
be 07.00 to 19.00 hours Monday to Friday and 07.00 to 13.00 hours on Saturday.
During the three weeks of the shut down of the plant for final works and tie-ins there will
be some 24-hour, 7-day installation work.
3.3.6 Experience from other sites has shown that by implementing these measures,
typical noise levels from construction works can be reduced by up to 5 dB(A). This
would represent a worthwhile reduction in the impact of the construction works. If these
measures were adopted, it is anticipated that there would be no noise impact at
residential properties.
4 Noise and Vibration Impacts during

Operation
4.1 APPROACH TO ASSESSMENT
4.1.1 The potential sources of additional noise and vibration from the operation of the
proposed development include additional road and rail traffic (including HGV
movements), operations within the development site (such as the arrival and unloading
of freight vehicles) and new production plant associated with the increased capacity of
the facility. Each of these potential noise sources is addressed in turn before
considering the cumulative impacts of all of these sources together.
4.1.2 For each source of noise and vibration the assessment considers first the
‘worst case’ impact, assuming that no measures are put in place to reduce noise and
vibration. The assessment then goes on to consider the potential measures that will be
put in place to reduce the levels of noise and vibration generated by the development
and then considers the impacts after the introduction of these mitigation measures.
4.2 NOISE FROM HGV MOVEMENTS ALONG THE ACCESS ROAD

4.2.1 It is usual practice when undertaking a noise impact assessment for roads to
consider traffic flows for both the scheme opening year and the worst-case year in the
first fifteen years after opening. For this particular development the production capacity
is anticipated to remain constant throughout this time scale, therefore traffic flow data
has been provided for the existing situation and for the year of opening (assumed 2007).

The latter is based on the traffic associated with the production of 810,000 tons/annum
of speciality cellulose. Details of the expected traffic flows may be found in the Traffic
Impact Assessment but for convenience are summarised in the following table.
Table 10: Anticipated Road and Rail Traffic Flows
Present Imvula Future Amakhulu

Production case: at Peak Mix
570k t/a 810k t/a
1
Arriving rail trucks per month 1,312 1,463
1
Arriving rail trucks per day 43 48
Arriving road trucks per day1 183 247
1
Road trucks in per hour (basis 24 h/d) 8 10
Road trucks leaving the site per hour1 8 10
Passenger cars per day 386 386
Passenger cars per hour (basis 24 h/d) 16 16
2
Passenger cars per peak hour 257 257
1
Notes: Includes empty trucks arriving and loaded trucks leaving and vice versa.
2
Includes the 30 minutes either side of a shift change.
4.2.2 In order to assess the noise impact of HGV and other vehicle movements on
the main access road into and out of the site, the prediction algorithms contained within
the South African National Standard SANS 10210:2004 ‘Calculating and predicting road
traffic noise’ have been used to calculate the levels of road traffic noise at the most
exposed facades of each of the noise sensitive locations identified earlier.
4.2.3 The prediction methodology contained within SANS 10210 incorporates the
effect of vehicle flow, vehicle speed, percentage of heavy goods vehicles, topography
and ground cover between the road and the receiver and characteristics of the road
surface to calculate the LAeq,1h noise level.
4.2.4 Vehicle speeds on internal site roads and on the external roads assessed are
assumed to be 15 kph and 45 kph respectively. The road surface is assumed to be
random distributed chippings in a bituminous surface as a worst case although generally
roads offsite in the area are either dense bituminous or hot rolled asphalt. The
topography, ground cover, angle of view and distance between road and receptor are
set according to the circumstances for each of the noise sensitive locations. The
calculations are undertaken for a point located at a distance of 1 m in front of the ground
floor window (i.e. at a height of 2 m) on the most exposed façade.
4.2.5 The distance of three of the four assessment locations from the main access
road to the site is sufficient that the contribution of road traffic noise to the overall noise
from the plant is insignificant and therefore excluded from further consideration in this
Environmental Statement.

4.2.6 Prediction location S01 however has properties within approximately 20 m of
the main access route to the site. The predicted noise levels from mill associated traffic
on this access road and affecting adjacent properties are detailed in the following table.
Table 11: Predicted Façade Noise Levels 20 m from Access Road –

Without Mitigation
Existing Future Change

Receptor Location LAeq,1h façade LAeq,1h façade
(dB) (dB) dB(A)
Location S01 average hour 57.4 58.2 +0.8
Location S01 peak hour 60.8 61.0 +0.2
4.2.7 The predicted noise levels from traffic on the access road and from existing
noise sources (based on the lowest measured free-field LAeq,10m of 56.7 dB + a 3 dB
façade correction) are shown in the following tables. Also shown in the tables is the
change in total noise level due to the increased traffic flows of the access road.
Table 12: Measured Existing and Predicted Future LAeq,1h Façade Noise
Levels after Increase in Traffic Flows – Without Mitigation
Lowest Noise Existing Existing Future

Existing Level Ambient Ambient Noise Change
Receptor Location LAeq,1h from Mill - no Mill + Mill Level
(dB) Traffic Traffic Traffic LAeq,1h (dB)
LAeq,1h LAeq,1h LAeq,1h (dB)
(dB) (dB) (dB)
Location S01 average hour 59.7 57.4 55.8 59.7 60.2 +0.5
Location S01 peak hour 59.7 60.8 55.8 62.0 62.2 +0.2
Note: Measured existing noise levels include for a +3dB(A) façade correction.
4.2.8 The calculations have been based on the lowest LAeq,T measured at
location S01. From this has been deducted (logarithmically) the predicted contribution
from Mill related road traffic in an “average hour”. To assess the change that could
occur in a “peak hour” the predicted existing and future traffic noise levels have been
added to the assumed minimum underlying ambient noise in the absence of Mill related
traffic (i.e. 55.8 dB(A)).
4.2.9 It can be seen from the above tables that at the worst affected location, the
dwellings at the north west side of Umkomaas adjacent to the main access road, the
increase in the LA10,18h noise level due to traffic on the new access roads will be up to
0.5 dB in an “average hour”, i.e. during a period between the peak hours that occur with
shift changes. Under the IOA/IEMA guidelines such small changes would be considered
likely to be barely perceptible and represent no more than a slight impact.

4.3 VIBRATION FROM HGV MOVEMENTS ALONG THE ACCESS ROAD
4.3.1 Situations where vibration from the passage of vehicles on a public or private
highway has given rise to either an actionable nuisance or detectable physical damage
to residential property are rarely if ever encountered. Reports relating to studies of the
effects of vibration on residential property published by the company TRL (what used to
be the UK Government’s Transport and Road Research Laboratory) and the experience
of WSP over many years of investigating complaints from residents and property owners
who have experienced vibration both at levels that were described as disturbing and that
they alleged was, or might be, causing structural damage, bear this out.
4.3.2 Human perception of vibration is very sensitive and usually vibration would be
causing real discomfort and concern to someone within a property well before there was
any question of levels reaching the point of damage. From observations made by WSP
during their own investigations and those of TRL studies, the level of vibration generated
in a building by the slamming of doors within a property significantly exceeds that of
even the heaviest road traffic. In most situations the vibration from passing vehicles is
difficult to discriminate when measured within property closest to the road unless there is
a marked discontinuity in the road surface such as a pot hole or other irregularity.
4.3.3 In addition to ground borne vibration, which is that generated by the direct
transmission of energy from passing vehicles to the road surface and thence to the
foundations of a building via the intervening ground, there may sometimes be noticeable
vibration of lighter building elements by low frequency sound from passing vehicles.
Usually this results from bus or lorry traffic rather than lighter vehicles but is the result of
sound pressure exciting the windows of a house for example and not the same
mechanism as for ground borne vibration. The energy imparted to the structure in the
case of low frequency sound is very small but if the windows happen to be loose, ill
fitting sash windows for example, then the windows are quite likely to respond to sound
at their resonant frequency.
4.3.4 To provide an indication of the minimum distance at which building damage

effects might be induced reference may be made to TRL research into vibration from
road humps2 which gives “predicted minimum distances between road humps and
dwellings to avoid vibration exposure”. For a range of soil type the conclusion is that to
avoid minor damage (BS 73853) the distance from the source to the receiver is less than
1 m and that for “superficial cracks from sustained exposure” the distance ranges
between less than 1 m to at most 3 m depending upon the type of soil and type of road
hump. Generally the softer the soil type the greater the vibration transmission. The
2
DoT Traffic Advisory Leaflet 10/00: Road Humps: Discomfort, Noise and Ground-borne Vibration.
3
British Standard 7385: Part 2 provides guide threshold values of vibration exposure which may give
rise to minor cosmetic damage to buildings. The threshold relates to very minor damage such as the
formation of hairline cracks on plaster finishes or in mortar joints and the spread of existing cracks.

speed of traffic also has an effect, the greater the speed the greater the vibration when a
vehicle hits the hump.
4.3.5 Road humps are a relatively extreme example of a road irregularity and I would
not expect a road in normal repair to produce ground-borne vibration levels anything like
as high as those from a speed hump.
4.3.6 The effect in any particular location may vary due to the specific ground
conditions, distance from source to receiver, vehicle axle weight, vehicle suspension
type, vehicle speed, smoothness of the road surface and of course the density of traffic
on the road in question. The advice outlined above is generally true for heavily trafficked
roads and for that reason may be assumed to represent worse case in most common
situations.
4.3.7 Only at Umkomaas, where the nearest dwellings to the access road are at a
distance of approximately 20 m, would there be any risk of traffic vibration being
detectable and even then only if there were a significant road surface irregularity in the
vicinity of homes. With effective routine maintenance of the road, it can be assumed that
there will be no change in vibration impact from traffic on the new access road.
4.4 MITIGATION OF NOISE AND VIBRATION FROM ACCESS ROAD

4.4.1 The predicted increase in road traffic noise at the potentially sensitive
location S01 does not indicate the necessity for mitigation measures such as low noise
road surfacing, the erection of noise barriers or the sound insulation of existing
properties. The most practicable means of control of both noise and vibration at
location S01 will be the maintenance of the road surface to avoid the development of
potholes and other surface irregularities which are a potential consequence of increased
HGV traffic. The enforcement of speed limits on the lengths of the road passing closest
to residential property is also an important measure in the control of noise and vibration.
Neither of these measures is directly within the control of the site operators.
4.5 NOISE AND VIBRATION FROM INCREASED RAIL MOVEMENTS

4.5.1 There is no national South African calculation model for the determination of
train noise. However, in this particular case the railway and the sidings already exist and
the trains serving the facility will be similar to those currently operating. For those
reasons it is possible simply to calculate the change in the railway noise level that the
additional rail traffic would produce.
4.5.2 This has been done assuming 43 trains per 24-hour period in the current
situation and 48 trains per 24-hour period under the worst case future scenario.
4.5.3 The predicted noise levels from the railway are detailed in the following table.

Table 13: Predicted Change in Noise Levels from Railway - Without
Mitigation
Existing train Future train Train noise level

numbers numbers change (dB)
Day Night Day Night Day Night
All receptor locations 29 14 32 16 +0.5 +0.5
4.5.4 These changes are very slight and using the IOA/IEMA guidelines it is
considered that the noise impact from the increased rail flows should be classified as
barely perceptible and of slight impact.
4.6 MITIGATION OF NOISE FROM INCREASED RAIL MOVEMENTS

4.6.1 Generally speaking newer classes of diesel locomotive are quieter as are
rolling stock with disk braking systems. However, for a change in traffic levels of only
12% and a resultant assessment of “slight impact” the consideration of changes to
locomotives or rolling stock would not be justified other than in the normal course of the
specification of new stock when such issues should be reviewed.
4.7 NOISE FROM FREIGHT HANDLING ACTIVITIES

4.7.1 Noise levels from freight handling activities within the site have been predicted
using the noise calculation model presented in the Oil Companies International Study
Group for Conservation of Clean Air and Water - Europe (CONCAWE) report 4/81: “The
Propagation of Noise from Petroleum and Petrochemical Complexes to Neighbouring
Communities”. Although the title of this document refers to petrochemical complexes, it
is the industry standard noise calculation model for the prediction of noise from all multi-
source industrial sites. The CONCAWE model contains algorithms for calculating noise
levels in the octave frequency bands between 63 Hz and 8 kHz.
4.7.2 Source noise emission data for the most significant freight handling activities
have been obtained from measurements undertaken at other sites. The predictions
have considered the noise emissions from the following plant and activities, these being
the most significant noise sources:
• stationary or slow moving locomotives;
• cranes for loading and unloading containers;
• reachstackers for loading and unloading containers; and
• manoeuvring HGV vehicles (including reversing bleepers).
4.7.3 In addition to the above, there is also likely to be some noise from audible
warning and alarm systems; these noise sources are considered separately to the freight
handling activities below.

4.7.4 The relevant noise emission data for the above plant and activities, obtained
from the measurements undertaken at other rail facilities, are as follows.
Table 14: Noise Emission Data for Freight Handling Activities –

LW (dB re.10-12W)
Octave Band Centre Frequency

Noise Source 63 125 250 500 1k 2k 4k 8k A
Stationary Loco 102 94 95 95 90 89 86 75 96
Reachstacker 107 107 109 105 104 101 96 89 109
Crane Lifting 102 98 96 96 94 90 85 82 98
HGV Arriving 103 96 93 96 96 91 84 77 99
HGV Reversing 106 95 98 86 86 84 89 79 95
4.7.5 For the purpose of calculating noise levels at the nearest dwellings, the
following assumptions have been made, chosen to represent a typical scenario in
normal operation.
• The HGVs and reachstackers will have an effective source height of 2.5 m above
local ground level. The locomotives will have an effective source height of 4.5 m.
The crane will have an effective source height of 6.0 m.
• The number of HGVs entering the facility and pulling up before reversing into the
loading bays, being loaded and driving away is taken to be 16 per hour currently and
20 per hour in the future. The effective “on-time” for each HGV pulling up and
driving away is taken to be 5%; i.e. 3 minutes in every hour. The effective on-time
for the reversing bleepers is taken to be 2%; i.e. approximately one minute per
reversing manoeuvre. It is assumed that the HGVs do not have their engines
running whilst they are being loaded.
• It is assumed that there will be a reachstacker and crane operating continuously in

the present situation and two reachstackers and two cranes operating continuously
in the future scenario. It is also assumed that there will be one locomotive stationary
and idling in the facility at any one time currently, and two locomotives in the future,
post development.
• The receptor height for the houses is taken to be 2 m above ground (i.e. equivalent
to a ground floor window).
• Attenuation due to distance is calculated for the simple geometric divergence of

sound waves (point source radiation). This is valid for the given dimensions of the
noise sources relative to the propagation distances involved.
• There is unobstructed propagation of sound between the noise sources and

receivers, except where the noise sources are located behind one of the new or

existing buildings on the site. There will be no acoustic barriers to reduce noise,
other than the buildings.
• All noise sources are assumed to be omni-directional.
• The intervening ground between the noise sources and the receivers is assumed to
be acoustically soft for 80% of the line between the source and location S03, the
River being regarded as reflective.
• Attenuation due to atmospheric absorption is calculated for the worst case

conditions of 30 degrees Celsius and 95% relative humidity.
• Calculations are performed for the CONCAWE meteorological category 6, which

relates to the condition for which the prevailing meteorological conditions has the
most unfavourable effect on the propagation of sound.
• There are no other significant sound attenuation mechanisms.
• All calculations are performed in accordance with the CONCAWE noise propagation
model.
4.7.6 Applying the various “on-times” and vehicles numbers to the data in Table 16
above results in the following noise emission data sets.
Table 15: Noise Emission Data for Existing Freight Handling Activities
Corrected for On-time, Source Height and Vehicle Numbers
LW (dB re.10-12W)

Stationary Loco 102 94 95 95 90 89 86 75 96
Reachstacker 107 107 109 105 104 101 96 89 109
Crane Lifting 102 98 96 96 94 90 85 82 98
HGV Arriving 102 95 92 95 95 90 83 76 98
HGV Reversing 98 87 90 78 78 76 81 71 87
Table 16: Noise Emission Data for Future Freight Handling Activities
Corrected for On-time and Vehicle Numbers
LW (dB re.10-12W)

Stationary Loco 105 97 98 98 93 92 89 78 99
Reachstacker 110 110 112 108 107 104 99 92 112
Crane Lifting 105 101 99 99 97 93 88 85 101
HGV Arriving 103 96 93 96 96 91 84 77 99
HGV Reversing 99 88 91 79 79 77 82 72 88

4.7.7 These data have been used as the source noise data for the existing and future
scenarios calculated according to the CONCAWE method.
4.7.8 The predictions have been undertaken for the two noise sensitive receptors
identified previously that are most likely to be affected by activity in the freight handling
area on the east side of the site. The predictions relate to the LAeq,1h noise level, as used
for assessment purposes in South African National Standard SANS 10103:2004 “The
measurement and rating of environmental noise with respect to land use, health,
annoyance and to speech communication”.
4.7.9 The results of the noise calculations, in terms of the predicted overall
A-weighted noise level at each receptor location, are summarised in the following tables
and more details of the calculations are provided in Appendix E to this report. The
figures presented in the tables are free-field. A +3dB correction must be applied to
obtain façade levels.
Table 17: Predicted Noise Levels from Freight Handling – without

Mitigation
Predicted Source LAeq,1h Noise Level, free-field dB
Existing Future Change

Location S01 19.6 22.4 +2.8
Location S03 43.1 45.8 +2.7
Table 18: Comparison of Noise Levels from Freight Handling with

Minimum Existing Ambient Noise Levels – without Mitigation
Measured Predicted Ambient LAeq,1h Noise Level, free-field dB

Ambient
LAeq,T in dB Future source Future ambient Change
Location S01 56.7 22.4 56.7 0
Location S03 52.6 45.8 53.4 +0.81
1
Note: For the more typical minimum ambient LAeq,T of 59.0 dB at location S03 the noise levels
from freight handling would have no effect being more than 10 dB(A) less than the existing
ambient noise level.
4.7.10 In order to assess the significance of the above predicted noise levels,
reference is made to South African National Standard SANS 10103:2004 “The
measurement and rating of environmental noise with respect to land use, health,
annoyance and to speech communication”.
4.7.11 The procedure contained in SANS 10103 for assessing the likelihood of
complaint is to correct the measured or predicted noise level from the source in
question, the ‘specific noise’, immediately outside the dwelling, to better represent any
significant characteristic and then to compare the resultant ‘rating level’, LReq,T, with the
guidance on acceptable rating levels for noise in districts given in Table 2 of the
Standard. Where the noise contains ‘audible tones such as whines, whistles, hums,
music, etc,……(e.g. if the noise contains discernible pitch)’ then a correction of +5dB is
added to the ‘specific noise’ level to obtain the ‘rating level’ (see 5.1.6.4 of
SANS 10103).
4.7.12 In Annex E of SANS 10103 guidance is offered on an objective measure to

determine whether a source contains a tonal character where it is not clear by simple
observation. However, given the nature of the plant and activities at Umkomaas it is
considered unlikely that any of the freight handling noise sources will display a tonal
character. The tonal character ‘penalty’ correction Ct =0 has therefore been used in the
assessment as advised in the Standard.
4.7.13 The likelihood of noise provoking complaints is assessed by comparing the

rating level of the new noise with the ‘acceptable rating level’ (see 3.1 of
SANS 10328:2003) for the type of area and for either daytime or night time or a
combined day/night rating level. SANS 10103 states in clause 4.6.4 that:
‘It is probable that the noise is annoying or otherwise intrusive to the

community or to a group of persons if the rating level of the ambient noise
under investigation exceeds any of the following:
a) the rating level of the residual noise (determined in the absence of the
specific noise under investigation); or
b) ’the maximum rating level for the ambient noise given in table 1; or
c) the acceptable rating level for the ambient noise for the applicable
environment given in table 2.
The probable community/group responses to the excess (∆LReq,T) is given in

table 5. [See Appendix B, 5 of this report].
4.7.14 For both the daytime and night time periods the predicted noise level has been
assumed to be unchanged, other than in terms of its rating by virtue of the +10 dB(A)
correction at night. Day and night are defined in the Standard as generally being 06.00
to 22.00 and 22.00 to 06.00 respectively.
4.7.15 The predicted rating levels from the proposed development are compared with
existing rating levels (taken to be existing ambient noise levels + a Ct of 0) and assessed
according to SANS 10103 in the following tables.

Table 19: SANS 10103 Daytime Noise Rating Assessment – without
Mitigation
Noise Level, Free-field dB(A)

SANS 10103 Future Measured Predicted Excess of Excess of
Acceptable Total Existing Future Predicted Predicted
Rating Level Freight Rating Rating ∆LReq,T Over ∆LReq,T
Receptor LReq,d Handling Level Level Rural District Over
Source LReq,T LReq,T Acceptable Existing
Industrial
Noise Rating Level Rating
Urban
Rural
Level LReq,d Level
LAeq,T LReq,T
Rural Urban
S01 45 55 70 21.5 57 57 12 2 0
1
S03 45 55 70 45.8 53 53 8 -2 0
2
S03 45 55 70 45.8 60 60 15 5 0
1
Note: Minimum measured LAeq,T.
2
More typical minimum ambient LAeq,T of 60 dB measured at location S03 during
the morning and evening periods.
Table 20: SANS 10103 Night Time Noise Rating Assessment – without
Mitigation
Noise Level, Free-field dB(A)

SANS 10103 Future Measured Predicted Excess of Excess of
Acceptable Total Existing Future Predicted Predicted
Rating Level Freight Rating Rating ∆LReq,T Over ∆LReq,T
Receptor LReq,d Handling Level Level Rural District Over
Source LReq,T LReq,T Acceptable Existing
Industrial
Noise Rating Level Rating

Urban
Rural
Level LReq,d Level

LAeq,T LReq,T
Rural Urban
S01 35 45 60 21.5 60 60 25 15 0
S03 35 45 60 45.8 59 59 24 14 0
4.7.16 The conclusion drawn from the tabulated data is that the excess of the
predicted rating level over the acceptable rating level for a rural district during the day
lies within the estimated community/group response categories ‘little’ to ‘medium’ and for
an urban district is within the ‘little’ category. At night time for a rural district the excess
is clearly within the ‘very strong’ category of estimated community/group response, it is
between ‘medium’ and ‘strong’ for an urban district classification. However, overall there
will be no change in the situation resulting from the additional freight handling
movements associated with the new development.

4.8 MITIGATION OF FREIGHT HANDLING NOISE
4.8.1 The predictions have assumed that all of the truck and rail traffic is within direct
line of sight from location S03. Whilst screening diesel locomotives, for which the
primary noise source will be the cooling fans on the roof (usually taken to be at a height
of 4 m above the rail head and assumed to be 4.5 m for this assessment), can be
difficult there may be scope for providing localised screening of the area used for
unloading delivering trucks. The engine noise source on a truck and indeed on the
reachstacker has been assumed to be 2.5 m high. Either by positioning the unloading
are immediately behind a relatively long building that is at least high enough to obstruct
the line of sight between source and receiver or by providing a purpose built screen the
noise from this activity could be reduced by approximately 10 dB(A) if a line of sight
between the activity and the receiver location were prevented by the screen.
4.8.2 The reachstacker is the most significant single contributor to the noise from
freight handling being nearly 10 dB(A) noisier than any other single vehicle or item of
plant. If the existing reachstacker could be replaced with a super silenced model and
any additional reachstacker similarly specified, then it is very probable that the reduction
in noise from this one source alone could be greatly reduced, probably by as much as
10 dB(A).
4.8.3 For the purpose of these noise predictions it has been assumed that stationary
diesel locomotives in the marshalling yard would be left idling continuously. In practice
this may not be necessary and if engine running time can be minimised this would
reduce the noise level contribution from this source.
4.8.4 Adoption of such mitigation measures would of course have potential effect in
reducing noise from the existing freight handling activity, albeit that its contribution to the
noise emitted from the site as a whole appears to be relatively insignificant.
4.9 NOISE FROM NEW PRODUCTION PLANT

4.9.1 No detailed information is available regarding the noise emission
characteristics of the electrical and mechanical plant that is to be installed as part of the
proposed expansion of the facility. However, Project Amakhulu is understood to allow
Sappi Saiccor to increase their dissolving pulp production from approximately
560 000 tons per annum to about 800 000 tons per annum.
4.9.2 The project will include the following activities:
• New internal road transport logistics and weighbridge;
• Relocation and expansion of the log storage area;
• Installation of a new chipping line
• Conversion of two calcium digesters to liquor storages facilities and one as a spare
magnesium digester;
• Conversion of one calcium digester to a maintenance/swing magnesium/calcium
digester;
• New set of 11 magnesium cooking digesters and associated chip loading and silo;
• New evaporator plants;
• New magnesium oxide and sulphur dioxide recovery plant and boiler;
• New chimney stack;
• New turbine/generator set to match the new recovery boiler capacity;
• New oxygen delignification and bleach plant;
• New pulp drying machine designed for 800 tons per day average;
• Upgrade to the existing chlorine dioxide plant and chillers;
• Addition to Eskom Rayon Substation, transformer yard and switchgear; and
• New air compressors and driers.
4.9.3 It can be assumed that the warehousing and office buildings will require air
extraction units, cooling and ventilation plant, boilers and, possibly, a standby generator.
4.9.4 Since the detailed plant design has not yet been undertaken, it is assumed that
there will be some scope within the design to select suitably selected production plant or
to locate ventilation or other fixed plant so as to be screened from the nearest dwellings
in order that it will have minimal effect on increasing background noise levels at the
dwellings.
4.9.5 Currently noise from the site, as heard at residential property, is dominated by
the sound of the chippers. The noise from these is both tonal and at times impulsive in
character – features which would attract corrections of +5 dB for each when deriving the
rating level using the methodology of SANS 10103. The chippers are clearly the most
significant noise generating items of plant on the site.
4.9.6 It is recommended that the new chipper to be provided as part of the

development proposals should be housed within a high performance acoustic enclosure.
To maintain the sound reducing potential of such a structure it is important that openings
for ventilation as well as for the entry and exit of materials and personnel be provided via
sound attenuated routes. In the case of ventilation this may be by means of proprietary
attenuators but staggered plenum arrangements at openings to the building with the
internal surface of the plenum lined with suitable sound absorbent material may offer a
solution for some or all of these potential acoustic weak points.

4.9.7 In order to ensure that ambient noise levels at the closest dwellings do not
increase significantly, the total combined noise level from all plant would be substantially
lower than the existing LAeq,T noise level at those dwellings. The acceptable rating levels
for rural areas cited in SANS 10103 would be the preferred target level except where
best practicable means and the existing noise levels make such an approach
inappropriate.
4.9.8 In order to set appropriate daytime and night-time noise limits for electrical and
mechanical plant, the lowest recorded LAeq,T daytime and night-time noise levels have
been used, in accordance with SANS 10103.
4.9.9 In order to ensure that existing ambient noise levels do not rise, the plant
should be designed to meet the following noise limits with the proviso that where
practicable meeting the appropriate acceptable noise rating levels for a rural zone in
SANS 10103 should be the aim (i.e. free-field LAeq,T 45 dB(A) by day and 35 dB(A) by
night).
Table 21: Noise Limits for Electrical and Mechanical Plant
Overall Combined Noise Rating Limit for Electrical and

Mechanical Plant, LAeq,T (dB), Measured as a Free-field Level
Assessment Location Daytime 06.00 to 22.00 hrs Night-time 22.00 to 06.00 hrs
S01 45 43
S02 47 44
S03 54 52
S04 54 52
4.9.10 This analysis is based on the existing plant noise rating levels given in Table 3
of this report. No night time correction of –10 dB(A) has been applied, the logic being
that this would have no beneficial effect on existing ambient noise levels. However, if
the new plant noise has a distinct impulsive or tonal character, irrespective of whether
this is similar to existing plant, the maximum noise level specified for the relevant item
should be reduced by a further 5 dB(A) to achieve the required rating level.
5 Residual Effects
5.1.1 This assessment has considered the noise and vibration aspects of the
proposed development at the Sappi Saiccor site potentially impinging on the residential
areas around the site and the main road and rail access routes into the site from the
east.
5.1.2 Existing levels of ambient and background noise, invariably including the
exsiting contribution from the Lignotech plant, have been measured at representative
locations around the site in the morning, daytime, evening and at night. These levels
have been rated according to the guidance in relevant national standards (except for
construction where appropriate British Standards have been employed) and the results
of predicted noise levels for the various noise sources involved in the construction and
operation of the new development compared with these. The results have been
assessed using the guidance in relevant South African National Standards,
5.1.3 Construction noise impacts have been predicted to be from none to slight at
even the closest residential property both for the average and worst case situations.
The adoption of best practicable means and the development of and adherence to an
environmental management plan for the construction programme are proposed to
mitigate these slight impacts.
5.1.4 Vibration arising from construction activity is predicted to be of no significance

at any residential property.
5.1.5 The predicted increase in rail freight movements is only 12% and the resultant
noise impact from the increased rail flows will be barely perceptible and of slight impact.
5.1.6 The additional heavy vehicle traffic associated with the development at the
Sappi Saiccor site amounts to a 35% increase in terms of numbers but this is only one
element of the traffic flow on the main access road and is predicted to be barely
perceptible and represent no more than a slight impact. This is based on the impact
predicted for properties at 20 m from the access road which has been taken as
representative of the worst case for the route of the road along the north side of
Umkomaas.
5.1.7 Vibration from road traffic is not anticipated to be a problem at any residential
property, however, it is possible that the additional heavy vehicle traffic will increase the
importance of regular maintenance of the road by the local authority to avoid the
development of surface irregularities that can be the cause of vibration from passing
traffic.
5.1.8 Operational noise from additional freight handling activity on the site will result
in no change to the existing noise climate at any of the residential receptors. Noise from
loading and unloading activity could be minimised by screening local to the source and
between it and potentially sensitive dwellings; this is particularly the case for the east
side of the site where generally there is no intervening site building.
5.1.9 Specification and design of new plant for the site introduced as part of this
development should meet the proposed noise rating limits for electrical and mechanical
plant. These represent the total noise contribution of such sources and have been
determined on the basis of not increasing existing ambient noise rating levels at the
receptor locations considered.

5.1.10 The conclusions of the noise impact assessment have been summarised in the
table on the following page.

12101531
Potential Nature of Significance
Residual Significance
Impact Impact Severe, Substantial, Moderate, Mitigation / Enhancement Severe, Substantial, Moderate,
Permanent or Slight or None
Table 22:
Measures Slight or None

Temporary (Positive or Negative)
(Positive or Negative)
Noise during Temporary Slight negative The adoption of “best practicable None to slight negative at nearest
construction of means” and an environmental plan residential properties
the facility for the construction works
Vibration Temporary None None None

during
construction of
the facility
Noise during Permanent Slight negative Noise limits for specification and None to slight negative at nearest
operation of design of fixed plant. Local residential properties
the facility screening in freight handling area
Road traffic Permanent Slight negative None Slight negative

noise during
Summary Impact Table for Noise Issues
operation
Road traffic Permanent None Road surface maintenance None

vibration
during
operation
Rail traffic Permanent Slight negative None Slight negative
Project Amakhulu - N&V Chapter

noise during
operation
34
Appendix A Noise and Vibration
Terminology
Sound Pressure Sound, or sound pressure, is a fluctuation in air

pressure over the static ambient pressure.
Sound Pressure The sound level is the sound pressure relative to a
Level (Sound Level), standard reference pressure of 20 µPa (20x10-6
LpA Pascals) on a decibel scale.
Decibel (dB) A scale for comparing the ratios of two quantities,
including sound pressure and sound power. The
difference in level between two sounds s1 and s2 is
given by 20 log10 ( s1 / s2 ). The decibel can also be
used to measure absolute quantities by specifying a
reference value that fixes one point on the scale. For
sound pressure, the reference value is 20 µPa.
A-weighting, dB(A) The unit of sound level, weighted according to the A-
scale, which takes into account the increased sensitivity
of the human ear at some frequencies.
Noise Level Indices Noise levels usually fluctuate over time, so it is often
necessary to consider an average or statistical noise
level. This can be done in several ways, so a number of
different noise indices have been defined, according to
how the averaging or statistics are carried out.
LAeq,T A noise level index called the “equivalent continuous A-
weighted sound pressure level” over the time period T.
This is the level of a notional steady sound that would
contain the same amount of sound energy as the actual,
possibly fluctuating, sound that was measured.
LReq,T The “equivalent continuous rating level”, which is the
LAeq,T plus specified adjustments for tonal character,
impulsiveness of the sound and the time of day.
LR,dn The “equivalent continuous day/night rating level”, which
is the LAeq,T over a 24-hour reference time interval plus
specified adjustments for tonal character, impulsiveness
of the sound and the time of day.
Lmax,T A noise level index defined as the maximum noise level
during the period T. Lmax is sometimes used for the
assessment of occasional loud noises, which may have
little effect on the overall Leq noise level but will still
affect the noise environment. Unless described
otherwise, it is measured using the 'fast' sound level
meter response.
L90,T A noise level index. The noise level exceeded for 90%
of the time over the period T. L90 can be considered to
be the ‘average minimum’ noise level and is often used
to describe the background noise.
L10,T A noise level index. The noise level exceeded for 10%
of the time over the period T. L10 can be considered to
be the ‘average maximum’ noise level. Generally used
in the UK to describe road traffic noise.

Free-Field Far from the presence of sound reflecting objects
(except the ground), usually taken to mean at least
3.5 m
Fast Time Weighting An averaging time used in sound level meters. Defined
in BS 5969.
Ambient Noise Level The totally encompassing sound in a given situation at a
given time, usually composed of sounds from many
sources both distant and near (LAeq,T).
Vibration Vibration is an oscillatory motion. The magnitude of
vibration can be defined in terms of displacement how
far from the equilibrium something moves, velocity (how
fast something moves), or acceleration (the rate of
change of velocity).
Peak Particle The maximum instantaneous velocity of a particle at a
Velocity (ppv) point during a given time interval, measured in mms-1.
Vibration Dose value A measure of the accumulated level of ground vibration
(VDV) over a period, measured in ms-1.75.

Appendix B Noise and Vibration Standards
and Criteria
DOE ADVISORY LEAFLET (AL) 72: NOISE CONTROL ON BUILDING SITES

1.1 A figure that is often quoted as being an acceptable level of noise from
construction or roads maintenance sites is LAeq,T 75 dB measured at the external façade
of an occupied building over the normal working day. This figure was first suggested in
the Wilson Report of the Committee on the Problem of Noise, published in 1963, and
subsequently replicated in the DoE Advisory Leaflet (AL) 72 Noise Control on Building
Sites. The limits set out in AL 72, which is now out of print, are;
• 70 dB(A) in rural, suburban and urban areas away from main road
traffic and industrial noise, and;
• 75 dB(A) in urban areas near main roads and heavy industrial areas.
1.2 The above limits are both measured over a 12-hour working day.
1.3 Given the predominantly rural setting of the site, it is proposed to assess the
construction works against a daytime noise level of LAeq,12h 70 dB(A).
BRITISH STANDARD BS 5228: 1992/1997

Code of practice for the control of noise on construction and open sites
2.1 The standard is a substantial series of documents providing methods and data
for predicting the noise and vibration levels to be expected from particular construction
activities using a limited range of plant selected from the tables of data given for typical
or specified circumstances.
2.2 Reference is made to the need for the protection of persons living and working
in the vicinity of construction sites and other open sites, as well as for the protection of
those working on the sites, from noise and vibration. It recommends procedures for
noise and vibration control and aims to assist architects, contractors and site operatives,
designers, developers, engineers, local authority environmental health officers and
planners, regarding the control of noise and vibration. It draws attention to the
provisions in the Control of Pollution Act 1974 relating to the abatement of nuisances
caused by noise and vibration. The standard offers examples of good practice, although
adherence to its guidance does not ensure immunity from legislative requirements.
Although it stops short of recommending precise noise limits, allowing for some flexibility
to accommodate particular circumstances, it does give general guidance. The prediction
method and the criteria adopted for the assessment of construction noise from the
proposed Project Amakhulu development have been based on BS 5228 and commonly
adopted construction noise limits.
2.3 Typical control limits for construction noise measured at noise sensitive façades
of residential property are as detailed in the following table:

Table 1 Typical construction noise control limits
Measurement Noise Limit

Day of the Week Working Hours
Period T (hours) LAeq,T (dB)
Monday to Friday 0700-0800 1 70
Monday to Friday 1800-1900 1 70
Monday to Saturday 0800-1800 10 75
2.4 At all other times no work on the site should be audible at the curtilage of any
occupied residential property.
TRL REPORT 429 - GROUNDBORNE VIBRATION CAUSED BY MECHANISED

CONSTRUCTION WORKS
3.1 The most recent guidance for the prediction and assessment of construction
vibration is contained in TRL Report 429 ‘Groundborne vibration caused by mechanised
construction works’. Published in 2000, it details the results of research undertaken by
the Transport Research laboratory (TRL) to provide guidance on the control and
mitigation of vibration to prevent damage or intrusion without the imposition of over-
conservative limits and to aid selection of appropriate plant. The report presents and
reviews data mostly in terms of peak particle velocity (ppv) which is a parameter referred
to in the current British Standards relating to both building damage criteria and human
perception and disturbance. It includes a comparison of various national standards in
terms of the recommended ppv limits for z-axis (i.e. parallel to the spine) vibration during
the daytime. By reference to the base curves 2 and 4 of Table 5 in British Standard
BS 6472 : 1992 the acceptable daytime limit within residential property may be
described as being between 0.804 and 1.608 mms-1.
3.2 Vibration from construction activity is transient and tends to be irregular. The
following maximum vibration limits have been derived from experience on construction
sites where demolition, piling and compaction activities have affected the occupiers of
residential property.
3.3 Based on the available guidelines and Standards, for different levels of adverse
comment the general ranges of peak particle velocity vibration level associated with
potential levels of adverse comment are as follows:
Table 2 Peak particle velocity vibration level ranges corresponding with
potential levels of adverse comment
Adverse Adverse Adverse

Building Use Comment Comment Comment
Unlikely Possible Probable
Residential or Office (day) >0.56 mms-1 ppv >1.12 mms-1 ppv >2.24 mms-1 ppv
3.4 The above assessment is based on the available data on human response to
vibration. It does not take into account other factors such as the potential for the
vibration to cause objects to rattle, etc.
3.5 For building damage criteria the following table sets out limits for primarily
transient vibration above which cosmetic damage could occur. It is drawn from
BS 7385: Part 2: 1993 “Evaluation and measurement for vibration in buildings - guide to
damage levels from groundbourne vibration”.
Table 3 Cosmetic damage guide values for transient vibration
Peak particle velocity (mms-1)

Building Type
in frequency range of predominant pulse
Reinforced or framed
structures.
50 mms-1 at 4 Hz and above
Industrial and heavy
commercial buildings.
4 Hz to 15 Hz 15 Hz and above
Unreinforced or light
framed structures. 15 mms-1 at 4 Hz 20 mms-1 at 15 Hz
Residential or light increasing to 20 mms-1 at increasing to 50 mms-1 at
commercial type 15 Hz 40 Hz and above
buildings.
3.6 The above vibration limits relate to the maximum ground vibration occurring in
any one of three mutually perpendicular axes (one of which will be vertical). As a
practicable means of control for construction works the vibration normally would be
measured at the foundation of the building being monitored or alternatively a point low
on the main load bearing wall at ground level. Where human disturbance is a particular
concern then measurements at a point mid span on an upper floor are likely to be more
representative if access is available and measurements will not be unduly influenced by
activity within the building.
3.7 Criteria for the assessment of vibration are to be found in the following
reference sources:
• BS 7385 : Part 1 : 1990 Mechanical vibration and shock – vibration of buildings
- guidelines for the measurement of vibrations and evaluation of their effects on
buildings;
• BS 7385 : Part 2 : 1993 Evaluation and measurement for vibration in buildings -
guide to damage levels from groundbourne vibration;
• DIN 4150 : Part 3 : 1986 Structural vibration in buildings - Effects on structures;
• BS 6472 : 1992 : Evaluation of human exposure to vibration in buildings (1 Hz
to 80 Hz);
• BS 6841 : 1987 British Standard Guide to measurement and evaluation of
human exposure to whole body mechanical vibration and repeated shock; and
• BS 5228 : Part 4 : 1992 British Standard Code of Practice for noise and
vibration control applicable to piling operations.
SOUTH AFRICAN NATIONAL STANDARD SANS 10328 : 2003

Methods for environmental noise impact assessments
4.1 This Standard covers procedures for environmental noise investigations and
assessments.
4.2 It sets out the need for and structure of a scoping report and, where relevant, an
environmental impact report. The introduction of new noise sources or the upgrading of
existing ones are identified as issues that could have acoustical implications, together
with the establishment of new noise sensitive development and changes of land use.
4.3 A “plan of study” for discussion and agreement by the interested and affected
parties is required as a prelude to the scoping investigation. The scoping investigation
itself involves an estimation of the noise impact based on a series of steps set out in the
standard. The results are assessed and tested against two questions:
a) Would the estimated expected rating level of the planned development
possibly have a significant effect on the acceptable sound levels in the
target area?
b) Would the estimated expected rating level have a significant effect on the
planned development?
4.4 If the answers to both questions are negative the acoustical impact is unlikely to
be significant and the scoping report would reflect that assessment. Conversely if either
answer is in the affirmative the acoustical impact is likely to be significant and
alternatives should be considered.
4.5 The environmental noise impact investigation procedure is described in
section 7 of the Standard and includes determination of the sound emission from the
identified noise sources with references to appropriate procedures provided for:
1 individual static noise sources;
2 combined static noise sources;
3 air traffic;
4 road transport; and
5 rail traffic.
4.6 From these sound emission data the expected rating level is calculated for
assessment against appropriate rating level for outdoor conditions (table 2 of SANS
10103:2003 - note that the current version is SANS 10103:2004) any legal requirements
or the probable community response judged from table 5 of SANS 10103:2003.
4.7 Again the same questions posed in 4.3 above should be asked and if necessary
alternatives investigated.
4.8 Finally the minimum content of the environmental noise impact report is set out.

The measurement and rating of environmental noise with respect to land use,
health, annoyance and to speech communication
5.1 The Standard is intended to ensure that a common method is employed to rate
the intrusion of environmental noise with respect to health, land use, annoyance and to
speech communication. It provides a general guideline that “no member of the
community should be required to reside in areas where the equivalent continuous
day/night rating levels exceed 55 dB(A)” and that above these levels members of the
community may be affected.
5.2 Guidelines are provided for ambient noise indoors (table 1 of the Standard),
acceptable noise in various districts for land use purposes (table of the Standard), noise
and speech communication (tables 3 and 4 of the Standard) and assessment of
annoyance (table 5 of the Standard – reproduced below).

Table 4: Categories of Community/Group Response (Table 5 of
SANS 10103)
1 2 3
Excess Estimated community/group response
∆LReq,Ta
dBA Category Description
0 – 10 Little Sporadic complaints
5 – 15 Medium Widespread complaints
10 – 20 Strong Threats of community/group action
>15 Very Strong Vigorous community/group action
a ∆LReq,T should be calculated from the appropriate of the following:
1) ∆LReq,T = LReq,T of ambient noise under investigation MINUS LReq,T of the residual
noise (determined in the absence of the specific noise under
investigation).
2) ∆LReq,T = LReq,T of ambient noise under investigation MINUS the maximum rating
level for the ambient noise given in table 1.
3) ∆LReq,T = LReq,T of ambient noise under investigation MINUS the acceptable rating
level for the applicable district as determined from table 2.
4) ∆LReq,T = Expected increase in LReq,T of ambient noise in an area because of a
proposed development under investigation.
NOTE Overlapping ranges for the excess values are given because a spread in the
community reaction may be anticipated.
5.3 Finally the Standard sets out the steps in determining the equivalent continuous
rating level (LReq,T) and the exposure rating level (LRE,T) including details of measurement
and calculation procedures.

Calculating and predicting road traffic noise
6.1 The Standard describes a procedure for calculating and predicting road traffic
noise under typical South African traffic and sound propagation conditions, in terms of a
one-hour-equivalent continuous A-weighted sound pressure level (LAeq,1h) for any chosen
time interval (in multiples of one hour). The procedure relates both to traffic operating on
uninterrupted flow road facilities and to stop-start conditions on interrupted flow road
facilities.
6.2 SANS 10210 sets out a step-by-step method for predicting road traffic noise
levels (LAeq,1h) at a distance from the highway. Firstly the “basic noise level” for the traffic
flow on the road under a set of standard conditions at a reference distance of 10 m from
the source line is calculated. This is then corrected for the significant features of the
actual situation under consideration taking into account such factors as traffic speed and
percentage heavy vehicles, gradient, road surface texture, road configuration,
intervening ground cover between source and receiver, screening (barriers, buildings
and topography), angle of view of the traffic and reflections from façades.
IEMA/IOA GUIDELINES FOR NOISE IMPACT ASSESSMENT

7.1 A Consultation Draft of this document was published by a joint working party of
the Institute of Environmental Management & Assessment (IEMA) and the Institute of
Acoustics (IOA) in April 2002. The guidance is intended to cover all aspects of noise
impact assessment and set good practice standards for the scope, content and
methodology of noise impact assessments.
7.2 The guidelines do not provide precise guidance on what is ‘significant’ on the
basis that no two situations will be the same in terms of their noise effects. Nevertheless
the guidance does offer an example of how the significance of the basic noise change
might be categorised and this is reproduced below. However it stresses that other
characteristics of the noise should be taken into account when determining the most
appropriate categorisation of any particular noise.
7.3 These findings are not yet complete but, as an example, the working party has
indicated that the change in noise level could be assessed against the criteria given in
the following table:
Table 5 Example of categorising the significance of the basic noise change
Change in Noise
Subjective Response Significance
Level dB(A)
0 No change No impact
0.1 - 2.9 Barely perceptible Slight impact
3.0 - 4.9 Noticeable Moderate impact
5.0 - 9.9 Up to a doubling or halving in loudness Substantial impact
More than a doubling or halving in Severe impact
10.0 or more
loudness
7.4 The criteria above reflect commonly accepted benchmarks that relate to human
perception of sound. A change of 3 dB(A) is generally considered to be the smallest
change in noise that is perceptible. A 10 dB(A) change in noise represents a doubling or
halving of the noise level. The difference between the minimum perceptible change and
the doubling or halving of the noise level is split to provide greater definition to the
assessment of changes in noise level.
7.5 It is considered that the criteria specified in the above table provide a good
indication as to the likely significance of changes in noise level in this case. Therefore,
the noise threshold levels and significance statements above have been used to assess
the impact of the construction of the development proposals.
WHO GUIDELINES FOR COMMUNITY NOISE (1999)

8.1 The World Health Organisation has derived guidelines with the aim of protecting
people from the harmful effects of noise in non-industrial environments. Table 1 of the
WHO document provides guideline values for community noise in specific environments
and in the context of this proposed scheme the following would be relevant:

Table 6 WHO Guideline Values for Community Noise in Specific
Environments.
Specific Time base LAmax

Critical health effect(s) LAeq (dB)
environment (hours) fast (dB)
Outdoor living Serious annoyance, daytime 55 16 -
area and evening
Moderate annoyance, daytime 50 16 -
and evening
Dwelling, Speech intelligibility & 35 16 -
indoors moderate annoyance, daytime
& evening
Inside bedrooms Sleep disturbance, night-time 30 8 45
Outside Sleep disturbance, window 45 8 60
bedrooms open (outdoor values)
Industrial, Hearing impairment 70 24 110
commercial,
shopping and
traffic areas,
indoors and
outdoors
Public Hearing impairment 85 1 110
addresses,
indoors and
outdoors
BRITISH STANDARD BS 8233: 1999

Code of practice for sound insulation and noise reduction for buildings
9.1 BS 8233 is a compilation of noise standards and guidelines drawn from a
number of authoritative sources which is intended to be used as a design manual for
“use by non-specialist designers and constructors of buildings and those concerned with
building control, planning and environmental health.” The most appropriate guidance in
the present context is that relating to dwellings and offices. In Table 5 of BS 8233 limits
of steady noise for good conditions and reasonable conditions, in spaces when they are
unoccupied, are given as follows:

Table 7 Guidelines for Indoor Ambient Noise Levels in Spaces when they
are Unoccupied
Design range LAeq,T (dB)

Criterion Typical situations
Good Reasonable
Reasonable speech Cafeteria, canteen, kitchen 50 55
or telephone Wash-room, toilet 45 55
communications
Corridor 45 55
Reasonable listening Library, cellular office 40 50
conditions for study Staff room 35 45
and work requiring
concentration Meeting room, executive 35 40
office
Reasonable listening Classroom 35 40
conditions Lecture theatre 30 35
Reasonable Living rooms 30 40
resting/sleeping Bedrooms a
30 35
conditions
a
For a reasonable standard in bedrooms at night, individual noise events (measured with F time-
weighting) should not normally exceed 45 dB LAmax.
9.2 It should be noted that primarily these limits are for steady noise such as that
due to road traffic, mechanical services or continuously running plant. It should be the
noise level in the space during normal hours of occupation but excluding any noise
produced by the occupants.
9.3 These internal criteria must be related in some way to corresponding external
noise levels in order to be useful and the standard offers typical weighted sound
reduction index (Rw) values for the sound insulation of windows (which are always the
weakest element of a facade in the acoustic sense):
i) any type of window in a facade when partially open 10-15 dB
ii) single glazed windows (4 mm glass) 22-30 dB
iii) thermal insulating units (6-12-6) 33-35 dB

Appendix C Noise Monitoring Locations

12101531
Sappi Saiccor
Community Noise Survey
Date: 02/12/2005
Run duration: 10 minutes
Site Start Temp Wind Sound Level Readings (dB) Comments

Time (°C) Condition LAFmx LAFmn LAFeq LAF10 LAF90
Appendix D
S01 01:52:05 20 Calm 74.7 44.5 60.2 63.5 48.0 Barking dog, light vehicular traffic
S01 06:03:15 18 Calm 77.9 45.7 58.0 59.5 47.5 Vehicle traffic, aeroplane
S01 11:43:17 32 Breeze 85.4 44.6 62.9 66.0 47.5 Vehicle traffic, train in distance
S01 20:30:09 25 Calm 78.3 49.7 56.7 57.5 52.5 Vehicle traffic
S02 02:13:52 20 Calm 57.2 47.0 50.8 52.0 48.5 Mill in background
S02 06:24:01 18 Calm 63.4 50.2 53.3 54.5 52.0 Bird calls, mill in background
S02 12:04:44 32 Breeze 63.7 47.3 53.1 55.5 49.5 Aeroplane, mill in background
S02 20:52:37 25 Calm 67.1 51.2 55.6 57.0 53.0 Aeroplane, mill in background
S03 06:47:15 18 Breeze 66.6 56.7 59.9 61.0 58.5 Aeroplane, mill in background
S03 12:26:35 32 Breeze 61.5 47.8 52.6 54.5 49.5 Siren from mill
S04 02:52:01 20 Calm 67.4 55.8 58.1 59.0 57.0 Mill nearby
S04 07:06:28 18 Breeze 75.5 55.2 61.6 63.0 56.5 Trucks driving past
S04 12:43:24 32 Breeze 79.7 56.7 63.7 65.0 59.0 Trucks driving past, front-end loader on sand
S04 21:31:48 24 Calm 88.5 56.7 62.2 62.5 59.0 Light vehicle traffic
Shift Change
Noise Monitoring Results
Date: 02/12/2005
Run duration: 1 hour
Site Start Temp Sound Level Readings (dB) Comments

Time (°C) LAFmx LAFmn LAFeq LAF10 LAF90
S04 15:33:48 30 Breeze 76.9 54.4 60.4 62.0 57.0 Trucks & light vehicle traffic on adjacent road
46
12101531
CONCAWE RESULTS SHEET Location S01 Existing
Octave Band Centre Frequency (Hz) dB dB

Using Lp = Lw + D - Sum (K1:K7) 63 125 250 500 1000 2000 4000 8000 lin A
Lw Sound Power Level at Source (dB Linear) 109.0 107.0 109.0 105.0 105.0 101.0 96.0 89.0 114.6 109.1
D Directivity Index 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
Geometric Spreading
Appendix E
K1 Source to Receiver Distance in metres 3100 80.8 80.8 80.8 80.8 80.8 80.8 80.8 80.8
Atmospheric Absorption
K2 Temperature in degrees Celcius (0-30 in steps of 5) 30
Relative Humidity (55-100 in steps of 5) 95 0.0 0.3 1.2 4.7 15.2 37.2 66.3 125.6
Ground Attenuation
K3 Absorbent Ground Cover (y/n)? y
If yes, Percentage Absorbent? 80 6.3 11.0 15.8 8.5 4.4 4.9 5.8
Meteorological Correction
K4 Pasquill Stability Category (A-G, default D) D
Vector Wind Speed (0.5m/s steps, default 0m/s) 3
Meteorological Category 6 -2.5 -4.2 -6.4 -7.2 -5.0 -4.6 -7.3
Source and/or Receiver Height Correction

K5 Source Height in metres (ground/actual) 2.5 2.5
Receiver Height in metres (ground/actual) 2 30 -1.8 -2.6 -3.2 -1.1 -0.6 -0.9 -0.4
Note: Calculations are for sources that are 2.5 m above ground level
Barrier Attenuation
K6 Barrier (y/n)? n
If yes, is the barrier discrete (y/n)? n
Barrier Height in metres (ground/actual)
Barrier to Source in metres
Path Difference n/a
Shadow, Illuminated or Grazing n/a 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0
In-plant Screening
K7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Sum (K1:K7) 82.8 85.4 88.1 85.6 94.8 117.4 145.3 206.4
CONCAWE Calculation Sheets
47
Lp Predicted Sound Pressure Level at Receiver (free-field) 26.2 21.6 20.9 19.4 10.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 28.9 18.8
12101531
CONCAWE RESULTS SHEET Location S01 Future

Geometric Spreading
Ground Attenuation

Barrier Attenuation
K6 Barrier (y/n)? n
Path Difference n/a
In-plant Screening
K7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Sum (K1:K7) 82.8 85.4 88.1 85.6 94.8 117.4 145.3 206.4
48
12101531

Geometric Spreading
Ground Attenuation
If yes, Percentage Absorbent? 80 -1.5 4.7 9.8 8.4 4.5 2.4 1.1

Receiver Height in metres (ground/actual) 2 30 0.0 -3.7 -6.8 -4.9 -2.2 -0.7 0.0
Barrier Attenuation
K6 Barrier (y/n)? n
Path Difference n/a
In-plant Screening
K7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Sum (K1:K7) 62.5 64.0 64.4 64.9 66.7 70.8 73.7 90.9
49
12101531

Geometric Spreading
Ground Attenuation

Barrier Attenuation
K6 Barrier (y/n)? n
Path Difference n/a
In-plant Screening
K7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Sum (K1:K7) 62.5 64.0 64.4 64.9 66.7 70.8 73.7 90.9
50
12101531

Geometric Spreading
Ground Attenuation

Barrier Attenuation
K6 Barrier (y/n)? n
Path Difference n/a
In-plant Screening
K7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Sum (K1:K7) 82.7 85.2 88.0 85.5 94.7 117.4 145.3 206.4
51
12101531

Geometric Spreading
Ground Attenuation

Barrier Attenuation
K6 Barrier (y/n)? n
Path Difference n/a
In-plant Screening
K7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Sum (K1:K7) 82.7 85.2 88.0 85.5 94.7 117.4 145.3 206.4
52
12101531

Geometric Spreading
Ground Attenuation

Barrier Attenuation
K6 Barrier (y/n)? n
Path Difference n/a
In-plant Screening
K7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Sum (K1:K7) 62.5 63.9 64.2 64.8 66.6 70.8 73.7 90.9
53
12101531

Geometric Spreading
Ground Attenuation

Barrier Attenuation
K6 Barrier (y/n)? n
Path Difference n/a
In-plant Screening
K7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Sum (K1:K7) 62.5 63.9 64.2 64.8 66.6 70.8 73.7 90.9
54
12101531

Geometric Spreading
Ground Attenuation

K5 Source Height in metres (ground/actual) 6 6
Note: Calculations are for sources that are 6 m above ground level
Barrier Attenuation
K6 Barrier (y/n)? n
Path Difference n/a
In-plant Screening
K7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Sum (K1:K7) 82.6 85.1 87.8 85.5 94.7 117.4 145.3 206.4
55
12101531

Geometric Spreading
Ground Attenuation

Barrier Attenuation
K6 Barrier (y/n)? n
Path Difference n/a
In-plant Screening
K7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Sum (K1:K7) 82.6 85.1 87.8 85.5 94.7 117.4 145.3 206.4
56
12101531

Geometric Spreading
Ground Attenuation

Barrier Attenuation
K6 Barrier (y/n)? n
Path Difference n/a
In-plant Screening
K7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Sum (K1:K7) 62.5 63.8 64.1 64.7 66.6 70.8 73.7 90.9
57
12101531

Geometric Spreading
Ground Attenuation

Barrier Attenuation
K6 Barrier (y/n)? n
Path Difference n/a
In-plant Screening
K7 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0 0.0

Sum (K1:K7) 62.5 63.8 64.1 64.7 66.6 70.8 73.7 90.9
58

Vol II Noise and Vibration Study.p

Încărcat de

Informații document

Descriere originală:

Drepturi de autor

Formate disponibile

Partajați acest document

Partajați sau inserați document

Opțiuni de partajare

Vi se pare util acest document?

Este necorespunzător acest conținut?

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Vol II Noise and Vibration Study.p

Încărcat de

Drepturi de autor:

Formate disponibile

Project Amakhulu - EIA - Noise and

Issue/revision Issue 1 Revision 1 Revision 2 Revision 3

Date 9 February 2006

Prepared by Andrew Colthurst

Checked by Chris Wood

Authorised by David Maundrill

Project number 12101531/001

File reference 12101531/R1.v3m

Tel: +44 (0)20 7314 5000

3 Noise and Vibration Impacts during Construction 11

4 Noise and Vibration Impacts during Operation 18

Appendix A Noise and Vibration Terminology 35

Vibration arising from construction activity is predicted to be of no significance at any

12101531 Project Amakhulu - N&V Chapter 1

1.2 INTERPRETING NOISE

1.2.2 Furthermore, the perception of noise may be determined by a number of other

12101531 Project Amakhulu - N&V Chapter 2

Table 1: Typical Sound Levels found in the Environment

Sound Level Example

0 to 10 dB(A) Threshold of hearing

1.3 INTERPRETING VIBRATION

1.3.2 Vibration is often complex, containing many frequencies, occurring in many

1.3.3 Experience shows that disturbance or annoyance from vibration in residential

12101531 Project Amakhulu - N&V Chapter 3

1.3.4 A glossary of noise and vibration terminology is provided in Appendix A.

12101531 Project Amakhulu - N&V Chapter 4

• that the assessment should make reference to a ‘code of construction practice’.

1.4.8 Calculations using the methodology contained within SANS 10210:2004

12101531 Project Amakhulu - N&V Chapter 5

1.4.9 An assessment of the potential for vibration to be generated by any additional

12101531 Project Amakhulu - N&V Chapter 6

• Magabeni township to the northwest of the Saiccor plant. The southern

• Residential properties along Umkomanzi Drift, to the southwest of the

• Residential properties on the north-western perimeter of Umkomaas town.

• In addition to the above, there are a number of scattered homesteads on

2.2 AMBIENT NOISE SURVEY

12101531 Project Amakhulu - N&V Chapter 7

2.2.4 Noise levels were measured at the following positions:

2.2.7 The indices measured were as follows:

• LAeq,10m The A-weighted equivalent continuous noise level over the

12101531 Project Amakhulu - N&V Chapter 8

Table 2: Summary of Measured Noise Levels at 1.5 m High, Free-Field

Measured Noise Level, dB (free-field)

Location Time of day LAeq,10m LA10,10m LA90,10m LAmax,10m LAmin,10m

2.3 ASSESSMENT OF BASELINE NOISE LEVELS

Table 3: Noise Rating Levels of Existing Plant Noise

Outdoors equivalent continuous rating

2.4 BASELINE VIBRATION LEVELS

12101531 Project Amakhulu - N&V Chapter 10

3 Noise and Vibration Impacts during

3.1.3 In order to undertake these predictions, certain assumptions about the

• piling and foundation works;

• concreting works for the ground slabs;

• installation of new processing plant.

3.1.8 Noise propagation is assumed to be hemispherical and with no obstructions

Table 4: Predicted ‘Worst Case’ LAeq,T Construction Noise

Predicted ‘Worst Case’ Noise Level LAeq,T dB, facade

Table 5: Predicted ‘Average Case’ LAeq,T Construction Noise

Predicted ‘Average Case’ Noise Level LAeq,T dB, facade

12101531 Project Amakhulu - N&V Chapter 13

Table 6: Predicted ‘Worst Case’ LAeq,T Noise Levels During

Façade Predicted ‘Worst Case’ Noise Level LAeq,T dB, facade

Table 7: Predicted ‘Average Case’ LAeq,T Noise Levels During