The Environment Protection Act 2017  (the Act) and the Environment Protection Regulations 2021  (the Regulations) change the way noise emissions are assessed and managed in Victoria.

The Act introduces a duties-based framework, with the general environmental duty (GED) at its centre. The GED requires any person engaging in an activity that may give rise to risks of harm to human health or the environment from pollution or waste to minimise those risks so far as reasonably practicable. Pollution can include the emission of noise.

In addition to these GED obligations, under section 166 and section 168 of the Act respectively, a person must not emit, or permit the emission of, 'unreasonable noise' or noise prescribed to be 'aggravated noise' from a place or premises that are not residential premises.

Purpose

This guide provides general guidance on how to recognise potentially unreasonable noise. It also contains general information on how the duties under the Environment Protection framework relating to noise may be complied with. It is intended for business operators and regulators.

Scope

This guide provides general guidance on what may constitute unreasonable noise from non-residential premises, including:

• commercial, industrial and trade premises
• indoor entertainment venues
• outdoor entertainment venues and events
• construction and demolition sites
• transport infrastructure such as roads and railways.

It also covers aggravated noise from:

• commercial, industrial and trade premises
• entertainment venues
• events.

Noise from residential premises is not within the scope of this guide. Find out about unreasonable noise from residential premises on Residential noise and the law.

This guide does not:

• provide detailed industry-specific guidance on controlling risks associated with noise emissions. For industry-specific guidance see part 8 of this guide.
• cover other laws and regulations that apply to noise in Victoria, for example, the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008, local laws made under the Local Government Act 2020, and Victoria’s planning system.

The Act and its subordinate legislation do not set standards for hearing conservation. This is addressed by occupational health and safety legislation.

Should EPA become aware of potentially unreasonable noise, EPA will act in accordance with its Compliance and Enforcement Policy based on the specific circumstance and the available evidence.

Find out more about EPA’s approach to compliance and enforcement on How we approach compliance and enforcement.

5.1. What is noise?

Section 3(1) of the Act defines noise as including sound and vibration.

Sound is energy from vibrations that travel through the air or other media (including water, ground or structures) that can be heard. Vibrations can sometimes also be felt. Noise can be unwanted in various circumstances, for example when it is unpleasant, loud, or disturbing.

Why noise is an issue

Noise can impact the environment, health and wellbeing of people and animals (considered to be sensitive receivers) and interfere with the enjoyment of a place when not managed appropriately. It can disturb sleep, interfere with domestic and recreational activities, affect children’s learning and development, and otherwise pose a risk to environmental values. In certain circumstances, noise can lead to anxiety and stress.

5.2 Unreasonable noise

Environmental noise is a part of everyday life. The amount of noise a person experiences will depend on where they live and what is happening in their local environment at that time. EPA acknowledges that some noise is inevitable and cannot be eliminated. It is a by-product of human activity of all kinds. Whether noise is unreasonable noise will be considered in this context.

Under section 166 of the Act, a person must not emit or permit the emission of unreasonable noise from a place or premises that are not residential premises.

Unreasonable noise is defined in section 3(1)(a) of the Act as noise that is unreasonable having regard to the following:
(i) its volume, intensity or duration 
(ii) its character 
(iii) the time, place and other circumstances in which it is emitted  
(iv) how often it is emitted
(v) any prescribed factors.

Unreasonable noise may also be defined as noise that is prescribed in the Regulations to be unreasonable noise or prescribed to be not unreasonable noise.

These definitions provide 3 separate and independent ways of determining if the noise emitted is unreasonable noise:

• when noise is unreasonable having regard to the factors listed in (a)(i) to (v), or
• when noise is prescribed in the Regulations as unreasonable noise (that is, exceeds the relevant noise limit determined during a detailed noise assessment)
• when the noise is prescribed in the Regulations not to be unreasonable noise.

This means that even when a person has complied with the provisions with respect to prescribed unreasonable noise under paragraph (b) of the definition, that noise could still be found to be unreasonable under paragraph (a). This could be relevant when the impact the noise may have is not well represented by the assessment method in EPA publication 1826 Noise limit and assessment protocol for the control of noise from commercial, industrial and trade premises and entertainment venues (the Noise Protocol). For example, sporadic or low frequency noise.

There will also be circumstances where a noise source cannot be assessed under paragraph (b) of the definition as it is emitted from a source listed under regulation 117 (such as intruder alarm or construction noise). These noise sources will be assessed by the factors in paragraph (a) of the definition. Refer to part 6.3 of this guide for more information on regulation 117, the Noise Protocol and detailed noise assessments.

There are therefore 2 independent ways in which noise can be determined to be unreasonable as shown in Figure 1.

(Figure 1: Pathways for determining if the noise emitted is unreasonable noise).

See part 6 of this guide for further information on the factors of unreasonable noise under paragraph (a) and prescribed unreasonable noise under paragraph (b).

5.3 Aggravated noise

Under section 168 of the Act, a person must not emit or permit the emission of noise prescribed to be aggravated noise. Under part 5.3 of the Regulations:

• noise from commercial, industrial and trade premises (other than noise from sources listed in regulation 117) is aggravated noise if the effective noise level exceeds the noise limit by the prescribed amount with reference to the whether the noise is emitted during the day, evening or night period (regulation 121)
• music noise from an indoor entertainment venue (other than noise from sources listed in regulation 124) is aggravated noise if the effective noise level exceeds the noise limit by a specified amount for the relevant operating time-period (regulation 127) (other than noise which complies with regulation 122)
• music noise from an outdoor entertainment venue or outdoor entertainment event is aggravated noise if the effective noise level exceeds 80dB(A) assessed as an L_Aeq of 15 cumulative minutes at any measurement point in a noise sensitive area at any time (regulation 131) (other than noise which complies with regulation 122).

The Noise Protocol contains procedures for taking measurements to determine if noise from the above sources can be considered aggravated noise.

Aggravated noise is a serious offence and significant penalties apply. EPA may take action for aggravated noise offences including issuing notices, or proceedings against the offender.

5.4. The general environmental duty

The GED (section 25 of the Act) is central to Victoria’s environment protection laws. Anyone engaging in an activity that may give rise to risks of harm to human health or the environment from pollution or waste, must minimise those risks so far as reasonably practicable. The GED applies to all persons in Victoria.

Pollution includes the emission of noise. As a result, people in management and control of an operation or activity that may create a risk of harm to people and the environment through the emission of noise must understand and proactively manage that risk. This could include implementing controls and systems to minimise the risk of harm from noise and its effects so far as reasonably practicable, using and maintaining those controls and systems responsibly. It also includes evaluating the ongoing effectiveness of noise controls, for example by checking the performance of noise control measures when they are installed and over time.

The GED is separate to, and operates independently of, the unreasonable noise provisions of the Act and Regulations. This means that compliance with the unreasonable noise provisions in part 7.6 of the Act or part 5.3 of the Regulations will not always mean compliance with the GED has been achieved.

For example, under the GED, a factory operator must assess and minimise risk of harm so far as reasonably practicable and consider additional controls to manage this risk. While this operator complies with their relevant noise limits under the regulations, the noise they emit has a character (thumping low-frequency noise in this example) that impacts a nearby resident’s ability to sleep at a level that could constitute 'harm'. The operator will need to consider if there are additional controls that can minimise this harm to nearby residents, so far as reasonably practicable.
Refer to EPA publication 1856 Reasonably Practicable for more information about what the term ‘reasonably practicable’ means under the Act and how to demonstrate it.

When the initial risk of harm has been minimised so far as reasonably practicable, the operator has an ongoing obligation to assess and manage that risk. This should include continual assessment of the risk, such as conducting regular plant inspections and maintenance, periodic assessment of noise emissions, and taking opportunities for ongoing improvement by upgrading controls when installing new machinery or components and replacing ageing equipment with quieter options over time.

For more information on risk management, refer to:

• EPA publication 1695 Assessing and controlling risk: a guide for business 
• Manage your environmental risk.

Duty holders should also consider any applicable noise limits and the factors in paragraph (a) of the definition of unreasonable noise under the Act when conducting risk assessments and planning how to minimise risk so far as reasonably practicable. By appropriately minimising the risk associated with noise emissions duty holders can reduce the likelihood of emitting unreasonable noise. See part 6 of this guide for further information on noise limits and the factors in paragraph (a) of the definition of unreasonable noise.

Case studies 1, 2 and 4 in part 7 of this guide provide examples of using the GED, in combination with unreasonable noise factors, to address noise emissions.

5.5. The environment reference standard

The Environment Reference Standard (ERS) is a tool made under the Environment Protection Act 2017. 

The ERS:

• identifies environmental values that the Victorian community want to achieve and maintain
• provides a way to assess those environmental values in locations across Victoria.

An environmental value is an aspect of the environment and how we use it that is important to us. It is an outcome Victorians want for human health and the environment. Sound levels that let us sleep at night are an example of an environmental value included in the ERS.

The ERS contains reference standards used to evaluate the level of protection of environmental values, with the reference standard for noise being ambient sound. The ERS provides indicators and objectives for this reference standard to protect the environment values in different areas. For example, there is an objective for ambient sound to be equal to or less than 35 dB(A) between 10 pm and 6 am in category IV land uses (described in part as lower density or sparse populations with settlements that include smaller hamlets, villages and small towns). The indicator for this objective is that the noise level is measured as an outdoor LAeq for the 8 hour period between 10 pm and 6 am. This objective is aimed at protecting the environmental value of sleep at night.

While the ERS does not set compliance requirements, government decision makers use the reference standards for a range of regulatory purposes including, but not limited to:

• making new regulations or compliance codes
• conducting audits
• assessing applications for planning permits and to rezone land. 

5.6. Legislation outside of EPA’s noise framework

In addition to the Act and Regulations, noise in Victoria can be regulated by other legislation such as the Public Health and Wellbeing Act 2008, local laws made under the Local Government Act 2020, and Victoria’s planning system. Duty holders are responsible for ensuring that they comply with all applicable laws.

Noise from rolling stock (trains or trams used by a passenger transport company for the provision of a passenger service) is in certain circumstances excluded from the application of the Act (including the GED) and the Regulations (including the unreasonable noise and aggravated noise provisions). This is set out under section 251B of the Transport (Compliance and Miscellaneous) Act 1983.

However, while the Act and Regulations do not apply to noise from rolling stock, they can apply to the maintenance, cleaning or loading of rolling stock stabled in a siding, yard, depot or workshop. For further information, refer to the Commerce industry and trade noise guidelines.

The GED and unreasonable noise provisions also apply to the operation of rail and rail-related infrastructure, such as noise from transformers that service the rail.

6.1. Not all noise is 'unreasonable noise'

Many activities in our everyday lives create noise. It is not always possible to avoid noise affecting people as some noise is normal or may even be unavoidable. However, it is important to be aware of your responsibility to prevent the emission of unreasonable noise under the Act. This applies even when the general environmental duty (GED has been met.

When we assess whether reported noise is unreasonable, the EPA may consider factors such as unreasonable noise under paragraph (a) of the definition of unreasonable noise and any noise limits that apply.

If EPA determines that the noise is unreasonable, we will then take enforcement response in accordance with our Compliance and Enforcement Policy. 

In determining the appropriate enforcement response, the EPA take an escalating approach and consider the nature and seriousness of the non-compliance, the risk of harm that has arisen from the non-compliance, the characteristics of the person engaging in the activity, and other relevant criteria and factors (for example, public interest).

In the regulations, certain types of noise may be prescribed as not being unreasonable.

6.2. Factors that determine if noise is unreasonable noise

Create a noise pollution report

The Act states the factors we must consider when determining if noise is unreasonable (other than for prescribed unreasonable noise). This is set out in section 3(1)(a)(i) to (v) of the definition of unreasonable noise in the Act.

Factors include: volume, intensity, duration, character, time and place, and how often it occurs.

Volume

Volume refers to how far the noise spreads throughout the affected location, both indoors and outdoors.

High volume noise can travel throughout a building or a neighbourhood. Having nowhere to escape from the noise increases its impact on people. The noise does not need to be loud in all surrounding areas to be unreasonable. Volume considers the presence of noise throughout the affected location.

Intensity

Intensity refers to how loud the noise is.

More intense noise can be intrusive, can disturb sleep and interfere with hearing, such as listening to music, the television and having a conversation.

Intensity can also relate to the emergence of an intrusive noise over background sounds. When background noise levels are higher, a noise will need to be more intense to intrude over background sounds.

Lower intensity noise may not rise above other sounds in an environment and is unlikely to be considered unreasonable unless the noise also has other factors.

Duration

Duration refers to how long the noise continues.

The duration of noise can be a problem when it continues for long periods (for example, hours at a time) without breaks to provide rest and respite from the noise.

Short bursts of noise may not be considered unreasonable especially if the noise is not intense and/or is not emitted often.

Character

Character is an objective description of what the noise sounds like. For example, the character of the noise can be considered:

• tonal - if it can be described as squealing, whining, humming, droning or throbbing
• intermittent - if it suddenly becomes noticeably louder and maintains the louder level for at least one minute
• impulsive - if it has a sudden burst of sound that can be described as banging, hammering or thudding
• a rattle - if it has a rapid succession of short, sharp sounds, usually from something shaking or vibrating.

Noise with an unpleasant character is likely to be more disturbing than noise of the same intensity without that character. Some activities create noise with less intrusive characteristics which is less likely to be considered unreasonable.

The time, place and other circumstances in which noise is emitted

Time refers to when the noise occurs.

Noise at night and in the early morning can disturb sleep whereas that same noise during the day may not be unreasonable. Limiting times of operation of noisy equipment, vehicles, and operations to when they will be less disturbing is an effective way of reducing noise and vibration impacts and is less likely to trigger a finding of unreasonable noise.

Place refers to whether the noise would be expected to be heard within the context of nearby activities. For example, noise from some commercial activities, such as deliveries to shops, could reasonably be expected to be heard near a shopping centre. However, the business owner should also consider the time that truck deliveries occur and schedule deliveries to times that are less disturbing, so far as reasonably practicable.

Place can also refer to the land use zone of the location of the noise source in a planning scheme. For example, planning authorities may designate an area as an Industrial 1 Zone. As the types of activities permitted in an Industrial 1 Zone are expected to produce certain types of noise not common in non-industrial zones, a person may expect to receive more or less noise pollution, relative to their proximity to that industrial zone.

Other circumstances include consideration of other things that were occurring at the time of the noise emission. It may include the reason why the noise was emitted. For example, noise emitted in an emergency situation can be necessary to alert people to a hazard. Exactly what may be considered an ‘other circumstance’ may change from case to case and is therefore difficult to list exhaustively.

How often the noise is emitted

This factor refers to how often the noise recurs.

Noise occurring frequently can be a problem, particularly when it happens for multiple days.

Noise that recurs infrequently is less likely to be deemed unreasonable, especially if it is of short duration. 

Any prescribed factors

Regulation 120 prescribes frequency spectrum as a prescribed factor for the purposes of paragraph(a)(v). This prescribed factor applies only to noise from commercial, industrial and trade premises.

Frequency spectrum means 'the distribution of the energy or the magnitude of a sound across each frequency component'. Frequency is defined in the Regulations as ‘the property of sound that measures the rate of repetition of the sound wave, in Hertz (Hz) or cycles per second’.

EPA publication 1996 Noise guideline: assessing low frequency noisecan be used to determine whether the emission of low frequency noise from commercial, industrial and trade premises is unreasonable noise based on the frequency spectrum. It provides threshold levels and a method for assessing low frequency noise. The threshold levels are not noise limits.

Consider how factors work together

Noise can be unreasonable based on any factor or combination of factors. However, when assessing any one factor, EPA will balance consideration in the context of the other factors. A noise may have high volume and intensity, but short duration, and/or may not be emitted often, or there may be other circumstances that mean that the emission of noise at the volume and intensity was unavoidable.

For example:

• A high-pitched tonal droning noise that can be heard within the living room and bedrooms of a home may be unreasonable noise because of what the noise sounds like (its character) and because it spreads widely throughout a house or a neighborhood (its volume). However, in other circumstances, a high-pitched tonal droning noise from alarms sounding during an emergency may be necessary and unlikely to be considered unreasonable noise (other circumstance).
• A crashing sound from dropping metal may be so loud (its intensity) that it disturbs sleep. If this happens rarely, the noise may not be unreasonable noise (how often it is emitted). But if the crashing noise is emitted frequently, such as a few times each night, and it disturbs sleep, it may be unreasonable noise.

Case study 1 in part 7 of this guide provides an example of using the factors in paragraph (a) of the definition of unreasonable noise.

EPA Victoria published guidance may also be used to inform an assessment of unreasonable noise (see part 8 for further resources including guidance).

If EPA determines a person or business has emitted or permitted the emission of unreasonable noise, EPA may investigate, provide advice or take compliance and enforcement action (for example, issue a remedial notice under the Act) to resolve the contravention. EPA acts in accordance with its Compliance and Enforcement Policy.

Find out more about EPAs:

• Regulatory approach.
• Compliance and Enforcement Policy.

6.3. Environment Protection Regulations 2021

As discussed in section 3.3 of this guide, the Regulations prescribe what is unreasonable noise for the purposes of paragraph (b) of the definition of unreasonable noise in section 3(1) of the Act from:

• commercial, industrial and trade premises (regulation 118(1))
• indoor entertainment venues (regulation 125(1))
• outdoor entertainment venues and events (regulation 130).

This is intended to provide greater certainty to duty holders and the community and creates a second pathway for determining if noise from the above sources is unreasonable for the purposes of section 166 of the Act. Under Division 3 of Part 5.3 of the Regulations:

• noise from commercial, industrial and trade premises (other than noise from sources listed in regulation 117) is unreasonable noise if the effective noise level exceeds:
• the noise limit that applies at the time the noise is emitted, or
• the alternative assessment criterion that applies at the time the noise is emitted if the assessment of the effective noise level is conducted at an alternative assessment location in accordance with the Noise Protocol.

For further information on how prescribed unreasonable noise applies to commercial, industrial and trade premises, see Commerce industry and trade noise guidelines.

Under Division 4 of Part 5.3 of the Regulations:

• music noise from indoor entertainment venues is unreasonable noise if the effective noise level exceeds:
  • the noise limit that applies at the time the noise is emitted, or
  • the alternative assessment criterion that applies at the time the noise is emitted if the assessment of the effective noise level is conducted at an alternative assessment location as specified in the Noise Protocol

  but this does not include music noise emitted if the entertainment venue complies with the live music entertainment venues provisions set out in clause 53.06 of the Victorian Planning Provisions and the noise limit that applies to that venue (regulation 122).

• music noise from outdoor entertainment venues or outdoor entertainment events is unreasonable noise if:
  • the effective noise level exceeds the noise limit that applies to that venue or event at the time the noise is emitted, or
  • the effective noise level exceeds the alternative assessment criterion that applies at the time the noise is emitted if the assessment of the effective noise level is conducted at an alternative assessment location as specified in the Noise Protocol, or
  • the music noise is audible within a noise sensitive area outside the times in any relevant permit issued by EPA or, if there is no permit, outside the relevant standard operating hours in the Regulations, or
  • the music noise from a concert is emitted without a permit issued by EPA that is required for the venue or event

but does not include music noise emitted if the live music entertainment venue complies with the live music entertainment venues provisions set out in the Victorian Planning Provisions and the noise limit that applies to that venue (regulation 122).

For further information about how unreasonable noise applies to entertainment venues and events, see Entertainment venue and outdoor event music noise guidelines.

The Regulations do not prescribe what is unreasonable noise for construction and demolition sites, transport infrastructure or other sources of noise listed in regulation 117. Those sources must comply with section 166 of the Act by reference to paragraph (a) of the definition of unreasonable noise and the GED.

For further information on how industries including construction and demolition, agriculture, manufacturing, mining and quarrying, retail, waste and recycling and wind energy facilities can meet their obligations under the framework, see part 8 of this guide.

6.4. The noise protocol

The Noise Protocol is incorporated into the Regulations. This means its content is considered to form part of the Regulations.

The Noise Protocol sets out how to conduct the following noise-related assessments to determine unreasonable noise from commercial, industrial and trade premises (regulation 118), indoor entertainment venues (regulation 125) and outdoor entertainment venues and events (regulation 130):

• noise limits
• background levels
• alternative assessment criterion at an alternative assessment location
• effective noise levels.

The noise limits are not intended to be levels a person can ‘pollute up to’ and must not be interpreted as noise levels below which no action is required. This is because that noise may still be unreasonable having regard to the factors in paragraph (a) of the definition of unreasonable noise and the duty holder is required under the GED to minimise risks of harm to human health and the environment so far as reasonably practicable.

When is a noise-related assessment under the Regulations and Noise Protocol encouraged?

When the source of noise emissions is complex, duty holders are encouraged to engage a suitably qualified and experienced acoustic engineer or consultant to conduct a detailed assessment.

This will assist the duty holder to understand the noise being emitted and ways to minimise any potential impact it may have. Detailed assessments can be necessary to assess compliance with the noise limits:

• during the design of new facilities or an extension to existing premises
• when a premises has many different noise sources, and the controls are complicated, requiring specific detailed design to ensure the risks are minimised and the noise limits are not exceeded
• when multiple commercial, industrial and trade premises emit, or are likely to emit noise that contributes to the effective noise level (cumulative noise), and each of the premises needs to take reasonable steps to ensure the combined contribution from all the premises does not exceed the noise limits (see regulation 119).

Detailed noise assessments can also assist a duty holder wanting to understand what controls are appropriate to minimise the risk of harm so far as reasonably practicable. In addition to the quantitative noise limits, duty holders should also request consultants to consider the qualitative factors under paragraph (a) of the definition of unreasonable noise and controls that can be implemented to meet the GED.

Case study 3 in part 7 of this guide provides an example of addressing unreasonable noise prescribed in the Regulations by conducting a detailed noise assessment.

A detailed noise assessment to assess compliance with noise limits may not be necessary when a source is very common and well understood, with risks known to be controllable using certain techniques or technologies. Case studies 1 and 2 in part 7 of this guide provide examples of controlling noise without conducting a detailed assessment using the Regulations.

7.1. Case study 1: controlling noise using the factors in paragraph (a) of the definition of unreasonable noise in combination with the GED

This case study explores how a business operator addresses their obligations under the GED and avoiding unreasonable noise based on the factors in the definition of unreasonable noise under the Act (as prescribed noise limits for commercial, industrial and trade premises do not apply to construction and demolition noise).

Stephen is a project manager for a construction company completing construction works on a commercial factory. As works to public infrastructure required for this project, Stephen consulted with his Health and Safety officer. The Health and Safety officer confirmed that for a few weeks the works to public infrastructure must be conducted at night, including weekends, to minimise disruptions to traffic and adhere to safety requirements. After reviewing part 4.4 of EPA publication 1834 Civil construction, building and demolition guide, Stephen determined that these works outside the normal working hours are unavoidable. As such, Stephen forms the opinion that the factors of time, place and other circumstances mean the night noise will not be unreasonable so long as all other reasonably practicable measures to reduce the risk of harm have been taken.

Stephen has prepared a noise management plan for the construction works as part of his obligations under the GED. Stephen has also reviewed his other obligations under the GED. Stephen wants some of the works to be undertaken continuously overnight and during the day while public infrastructure is disabled due to safety considerations.

As per the procedures set out in his noise management plan, Stephen contacted the residents located at sensitive receiver locations near the intended works to advise them of the times that the works would be undertaken, the duration, and details for who to contact if they have concerns about the levels of noise.

Stephen is aware that residents further away have raised concerns about the night works. In response he completed a noise and vibration assessment consistent with the noise management plan and implemented controls to minimise the noise at these locations. Stephen has so far as reasonably practicable reduced the risk of harm to human health and the environment from noise.

On a Saturday morning, a resident living about 200 metres away from the site contacted Stephen to report hearing music from the site. The resident was disturbed by the noise as it could be heard across their property and they were trying to rest after the noisy night works. Stephen looked into the resident’s concerns and found that the site workers were playing music on the site radio, which spread across the residential area. Music noise was not accounted for in the noise management plan or the noise and vibration assessment.

Stephen is aware that this may be considered unreasonable noise under section 166 of the Act due to its volume and the circumstances in which it was emitted. Volume is a relevant factor since the noise spread across to residential areas up to around 200 metres away. Also, the circumstances in which the music noise was emitted were unrelated to the unavoidable works that were justified as needing to be conducted outside normal working hours.

By failing to ensure unreasonable noise is not emitted from the construction activity, the duty to reduce risk of harm as far as reasonably practicable has not been complied with. In order to account for this non-compliance Stephen called a site meeting to advise of the appropriate use of radios and music players at site. He documented the complaint and issue in the record system and advised his site workers to have the radio playing at a lower volume so as not to be heard by residents living nearby. Stephen introduced a procedure to minimise the use and volume of radios and music players and updated the noise management plan.

7.2. Case study 2: controlling noise by achieving compliance with the GED and without conducting a detailed assessment using the regulations.

This case study explores an EPA authorised officer responding to a noise pollution report and working with the business operator to use common noise controls to reduce the impact so far as reasonably practicable.

Roy operates a business that spray paints kitchen cabinets. A neighbour calls EPA to report loud noise from Roy's factory.

An EPA authorised officer inspects Roy’s factory and hears loud noise from an ageing compressor located at the back of the factory. The officer observes that machinery causing the noise reported is the one Roy has failed to maintain or install suitable controls on.

During the inspection, the officer also detects that the noise emissions from the machinery have a tonal characteristic and that the volume of the noise is loud at the neighbour’s home. As the noise is emitted almost constantly while Roy works in his factory, the officer considers that the combined duration, tonal character, and volume are enough to form a reasonable belief that the noise is unreasonable as defined in ‘unreasonable noise’ under paragraph (a) of the Act definition.

Based on observations of a lack of maintenance of, and lack of standard controls on, noise emitting machinery, and the risk of harm created by the how the noise is emitted noise’, the authorised officer forms a reasonable belief that Roy is contravening the GED. Based on the officer’s assessment of the noise, the officer also determines Roy is contravening the duty not to emit unreasonable noise under section 166 of the Act.

The officer advises Roy that there are a range of low complexity maintenance and improvement actions he can take to reduce the tonal character and the volume of the noise from the machinery, including installing a quiet-start compressor and a spray booth that has a silencer for the exhaust fan noise.

As Roy's failure not to emit unreasonable noise relates to his failure to reasonably maintain or control noise emissions, the officer issues an improvement notice to Roy to remedy the contravention under the GED. The officer advises Roy that as the action needed to remedy the GED contravention is low in complexity, if he assesses risk, installs controls that minimise the risk of harm to human health from the compressor noise so far as reasonably practicable, the factors that make the noise unreasonable will likely be reduced enough to remedy the unreasonable noise contravention. As such the officer determined that only one notice was required at that time.

The officer explains the GED and the risk management process to Roy. Roy replaces the ageing compressor with a new, efficient quiet-start compressor which he puts inside the factory and installs a large spray booth that has a silencer for the exhaust fan noise.

The neighbour can’t hear the new compressor or exhaust fan at their home.

The factory is an industrial premises and the noise limits under the Regulations apply. However, as the officer determined the noise was unreasonable based on paragraph (a) of the Act definition for ‘unreasonable noise’ and that these noise sources are very common and well understood, Roy wasn’t required to obtain a detailed noise assessment using the Regulations and Noise Protocol. Instead by installing reasonably practicable controls and meeting his GED obligation, the tonal character and volume which led to the noise emissions being considered unreasonable have also abated. As Roy is now compliant, the officer revokes the improvement notice.

Roy continues to keep the manuals and develops procedures for his staff for operating and maintaining the new equipment. Roy also trains his staff on what to do if there are noise complaints. He keeps records of the following (among other things):

• a concise hazard and risk register compiled in accordance with EPA publication 1695 Assessing and controlling risk: a guide for business
• a brief description of the activities on the site, along with environmental performance objectives
• equipment specification documentation (the equipment manuals)
• maintenance reports of any onsite equipment
• a record of any relevant training carried out by staff working at the site.

7.3. Case study 3: controlling unreasonable noise prescribed in the regulations by conducting a detailed noise assessment

This case study explores a business owner whose activities contribute to cumulative noise emissions in an industrial area. The issue is addressed by EPA as prescribed unreasonable noise and a noise assessment using the Regulations and the Noise Protocol is performed to identify noise limits and remedial options.

Rani owns a furniture-making business that operates day and night in an industrial area. While most other businesses in the area work only during the day, a nearby packaging business recently increased its hours to meet demand and now works throughout the night.

EPA receives reports of continuous night-time noise from a few separate residences about 500 meters away from the industrial area. The noise is described as intrusive humming and droning that affects the residents’ sleep.

An EPA authorised officer investigates and finds that both factories operate during the night period and each factory has a number of different noise sources. Due to the complexity of having multiple noise sources and the ambiguity about the exact source of the noise, the officer determines than assessment of compliance with the noise limits using the Regulations and the Noise Protocol is required.

On EPA’s direction, Rani engages an acoustic consultant who measures the noise from the packaging company at an alternative assessment location as described in EPA publication 1997 Technical guide: measuring and analysing industry noise and music noise.

The consultant finds that noise limits are 54 dB(A) for the day period, 47 dB(A) for the evening period and 39 dB(A) for the night period. The noise level due to Rani’s contribution is measured as LAeq 69 dB(A) at the alternative assessment location, with a prominent tone in the 160Hz 1/3 octave band for which a +5 dB must be added. The consultant concludes that this equates to an ENL of 46 dB(A) at the noise sensitive area.

At night the measured LAeq is 45 dB(A). The noise has a prominent tonal character attracting a +5 dB adjustment. The effective noise level (ENL) of the cumulative noise from both businesses operating is 50dB(A). The industry noise also exceeds the evening period noise limit.

The consultant advises Rani that the fan noise from the sawdust collection system is the main noise source at her business and the other noise sources – the saws, planes and sanders aren’t loud enough to be heard beyond the boundary of the premises. The acoustic consultant advises that the noise from the sawdust collection system can be reduced by 9 dB(A) by installing a silencer on each individual fan within the ductwork of the unit.

EPA issues a remedial notice to Rani’s furniture-making business to require installation of noise controls on the sawdust collection system as recommended in the acoustic consultant’s report. EPA also issues a remedial notice to the packaging company that requires the business to reduce the noise from the premises to not exceed an effective noise level of 64 dB(A) when measured at the alternative assessment location. The packaging business seeks advice from an acoustic consultant who makes recommendations which the business follows.

The residents report they can still hear the noise at their homes, but the droning sound has stopped, and the noise is less intense. When EPA reassesses the noise at the noise sensitive area, the effective noise level is 38 dB(A). The cumulative industry noise complies with the noise limits set under the Regulations. While the remaining industry noise is audible at the residential area it doesn’t exceed the relevant noise limits.

As Rani has also taken all steps to control any harm associated with the noise emissions so far as reasonably practicable, the EPA authorised officer determines there is no further remedial action required at that time and revokes the remedial notice issued to Rani.

7.4. Case study 4: minimising risk of harm from noise proactively by implementing controls from EPA guidance

This case study explores a large infrastructure project proactively managing the risk of harm from noise by implementing noise controls outlined in EPA guidance under the GED.

When preparing to undertake a large-scale infrastructure construction project, the company’s environmental manager, Helen, planned how both vibration and airborne noise would be managed to minimise the risk of harm, so far as reasonably practicable. To do this, Helen produced an Environmental Management Framework (EMF) which contained environmental performance requirements for the project, including for contractors.

When writing the EMF, Helen reviewed EPA publication 1834: Civil construction, building and demolition guide (EPA publication 1843) to assess the duties of those involved in the project under the Environment Protection Act 2017 and the controls to manage risk that would be suitable for the project. As the project was significant in scale and budget, Helen determined that the project could use a suite of high quality controls to minimise the risk of harm so far as reasonably practicable.

The intent of the environmental performance requirements were:

• That during construction, the project was expected to minimise the risk of harm to human health and the environment from noise and vibration at all times, so far as reasonably practicable in accordance with the GED. This would be done by identifying and implementing effective controls in accordance with the GED, both during planning and construction phase.
• Specifically, Noise from construction would be managed with consideration of Section 9 of the Construction – Guide to preventing harm to people and the environment (EPA publication 1820.1), and Chapter 4 of EPA publication 1834, which included assessing the risk to environmental values for ambient sound set out in Part 3 of the Environmental Reference Standard.
• If an additional risk of harm from noise was identified during the construction phase, a risk assessment would be conducted in accordance with Assessing and controlling risk: a guide for business (EPA publication 1695) and the appropriate contingency measures, if deemed necessary, would be applied.

Several months after the construction commenced, an EPA authorised officer contacted Helen regarding a report of noise pollution. The complaint detailed that construction noise, described as engine rumbling, had been audible in the reporter’s bedroom between 4 am to 6 am on a Thursday morning. Helen reviewed the works schedule and identified that the time and place of the report corresponded to unavoidable works which had required the temporary shut-down of a roadway.

Helen and the works manager met with the EPA officer and explained the environmental performance requirements which had been applied to the activity in question:

1. The works had been verified by an independent environmental auditor to meet the description of ‘unavoidable works’ in EPA publication 1843, owing primarily to the activities likelihood of disrupting the public roadway and the risk to worker safety should the road remain open. As such, it was considered necessary for those works to occur during the night period.
2. The works had been scheduled to occur between 4 am to 6 am rather than between 1 am to 3 am to minimise the impact on sleep so far as reasonably practicable.
3. Materials needed for the work had been off-loaded during normal workhours the day before to minimise loud bangs and crashes (impulsive noise character) occurring during the night period.
4. Residents in the area around the works, including all residences in the street the complaint originated from, had been notified the week prior of the reason for, and details of, the works.

The EPA officer considered how, if at all, these actions might have been relevant to the factors of unreasonable noise. The EPA officer then determined that the noise was not unreasonable noise in this instance. The officer also determined that the GED has the improvement notice.

EPA publishes guidance to enable businesses to meet their obligations under the environment protection framework. These publications range from explaining key concepts and provisions of environment protection to industry-specific environmental control guidance.

General noise resources

• Environment Protection Regulations 2021
• Commerce industry and trade noise guidelines
• Entertainment venue and outdoor event music noise guidelines
• Environment Reference Standard
• Guide to the Environment Reference Standard (publication 1992)
• Noise limit and assessment protocol for the control of noise from commercial, industrial and trade premises and entertainment venues (publication 1826)
• Technical guide: Measuring and analysing industry noise and music noise (publication 1997)
• Noise guidelines: Assessing low frequency noise (publication 1996)
• Summary of noise framework (publication 1757)
• Assessing and controlling risk: a guide for business (publication 1695)
• Reasonably practicable (publication 1856)

Source and control specific resources

EPA’s website provides information on controlling noise from business. It includes factsheets on:

• Acoustic louvres (publication 1885)
• Barriers and enclosures (publication 1886)
• Duct attenuators/silencers (publication 1887)
• Manage noise from reverse beepers (publication 1890)
• Manage truck noise (publication 1891)
• Mufflers/exhaust silencers (publication 1888)
• Pipe lagging (publication 1889)
• Site planning and management (publication 1884)
• Vibration isolation (publication 1892).

Industry-specific resources

EPA also publishes guidelines for industries including: 

• Agriculture – Guide to preventing harm to people and the environment (publication 1819)
• Civil construction, building and demolition guide (publication 1834)
• Construction - Guide to preventing harm to people and the environment (publication 1820)
• Manufacturing – Guide to preventing harm to people and the environment (publication 1822)
• Mining and quarrying – Guide to preventing harm to people and the environment (publication 1823)
• Retail – Guide to preventing harm to people and the environment (publication 1824)
• Waste and recycling – Guide to preventing harm to people and the environment (publication 1825)
• Wind Energy Facility Turbine Noise Regulation Guidelines.

For more information, visit Noise.

Accessibility

Contact us if you need this information in an accessible format such as large print or audio.

Please telephone 1300 372 842 or email contact@epa.vic.gov.au

Interpreter assistance

If you need interpreter assistance or want this document translated, please call 131 450 and advise your preferred language. If you are deaf, or have a hearing or speech impairment, contact us through the National Relay Service.

Provisions defined in the Environment Protection Act 2017 and the Environment Protection Regulations 2021.

Terms	References
aggravated noise	Act section 168, regulations 121, 127 and 131
alternative assessment criterion	regulation 4
alternative assessment location	regulation 4
commercial, industrial and trade premises	regulation 4
concert	regulation 4
day period	regulation 116
day and evening period	regulation 123
effective noise level	regulation 4
environmental value	Act section 3(1)
evening period	regulation 116
frequency	regulation 4
frequency spectrum	regulation 4
general environmental duty (GED)	Act section 25
harm	Act section 4
indoor entertainment venue	regulation 4
major urban area	regulation 4
music	regulation 4
music noise	regulation 4
natural areas	Environment Reference Standard clause 4
night period	regulation 116 (noise from commercial, industrial and trade premises) regulation 123 (music noise from indoor entertainment venues)
noise	Act section 3(1)
noise limit	regulation 4
noise protocol	regulation 4
noise sensitive area	regulation 4
operating time periods	regulation 116 (noise from commercial, industrial and trade premises) regulation 123 (music noise from indoor entertainment venues)
pollution	Act section 3(1)
residential premises	Act section 165
rural area	regulation 4
standard operating hours	regulation 128 (outdoor entertainment venue) regulation 129 (outdoor entertainment event)
unreasonable noise	Act section 3(1)