Thermal and acoustic risks of Yakutsk International Airport expansion

Noise Pollution

Thermal and Acoustic Risks of New Airport Expansion

The Airport Services Limited Company has retained Bradford Environmental Consultants to conduct studies on the impact of thermal and acoustic risks associated with an expansion project at the Yakutsk International Airport. Airport Services Limited is one of the UK's premier freight forwarding and travel management companies (Airport Services Limited, 2007). It has decided to expand its commercial offerings to the Yakutsk International Airport.

The Yakutsk International Airport is located in a major oil field and in an area that is rich with many natural resources. This airport was of very little commercial interest in the past due to the harsh environment surrounding it. It is the only airport located in the permafrost zone (Yakutsk International Airport, 2007). Recent interest in the abundant natural resources in the areas has caused the population in the area to increase significantly.

Currently, the airport is shared by both military and civilian aircraft. Military aircraft take precedence, causing restricted civilian aircraft movements. Topographical and geological circumstances make it unfeasible to build an entirely new civilian airport. It has been agreed that a second runway and a new terminal building will be constructed adjacent to the existing runway. In the future, a third runway may be built if the need arises due to increased traffic. The existing runway will continue to be used by the military. Some civilian flights will be able to use it in case of overflow, but only if the military does not have an urgency.

The new runway will be dedicated to civilian aircraft. It is expected that it will take approximately 18 months to complete. This is an extremely high risk project from a health and safety standpoint. During construction of the new runway, the existing runway will continue to be used by both military and civilian aircraft. Approximately 60-70 combined aircraft movements are expected each day. This is expected to double when the new runway is completed.

Aside from the financial and operational risks associated with this project, there are many thermal and acoustic risks that will be associated with the project. Airport Services Limited has asked Bradford Environmental Consultants to conduct a study of the potential thermal and acoustic risks both during construction and after the new runway is operational. The following will assess these risks and make recommendations as to how to mitigate these risks so that they do not pose a threat to humans at any time during the construction phase, or in the long-term future.

Section 1.0: Legal Aspects of the Project

This project will intermarry three companies from different countries around the globe. Airport Services Limited is a company based in the UK. Our company, Bradford Environmental Services is a U.S. based company. The final location of the airport will be based in Yakutsk, Russia. Therefore, there are concerns regarding the ability to address all of the legal aspects of this international project. The following will examine the legal perspectives of the project and the pertinent legislation regarding thermal and acoustic hazards.

Russian Environmental Law

Environmental law in the former Soviet Union was non-existent. This regime simply ignored environmental devastation and the potential health effects on its population. However, in the 1990s, they began to pay closer attention to the link between declining health in the general population and pollution (Country-Studies, 2007). The prevailing philosophy of the government before this time was Russia had enough natural resources to waste (Country-Studies, 2007). In the 1990s it was discovered that 40% of Russia was under some form of ecological stress, no considering those areas with radiation contamination (Country-Studies, 2007). Russia has a long history of ecological disasters with little concern over them.

The environment has been of little concern to the Russian public. In a 1989 poll, citizens expressed concerns over local environmental issues that had an immediate impact on their lives, but they were unconcerned about global or national environmental issues. The survey revealed that they were unwilling to make economic sacrifices to help improve the state of the environment (Country-Studies, 2007). The political landscape in Russia concerning environmental issues is that economic concerns far outweigh any impact that they would have on the environment.

In 1991, Yeltsin signed Russia's first environmental law. The law was written in such as fashion that it gave the citizens general environmental right, without setting specific goals (Country-Studies, 2007). The law was worded in such as fashion as to make it difficult to enforce. In 1995, a law was passed that required an environmental impact assessment for new construction and development structures (Country-Studies, 2007). This report is being conducted in fulfillment of this requirement.

Many of the environmental laws that do exist in Russia are concerned with water, soil, and air pollution. There is little concern with thermal and acoustic pollution that are a part of this study. Russia has signed several international treaties such as the Tropical Timber Agreement (1983), Convention on International trade in Endangered Species (CITES, 19730. And the Montreal Protocol controlling substances harmful to the ozone layer (Country-Studies, 2007). However, none of these are of concern to this project.

The environmental laws that do exist in Russia are lax and often violations are overlooked (Innset, 2007). As far as this project is concerned, Russian environmental laws will have little impact on the outcome of the project. Therefore, in keeping with the good faith of the citizen, Bradford will rely on the laws that apply to their general contractor. The company will look to UK and U.S. laws to determine the safest methods for conducting this project.

UK Law

Noise pollution is a growing issue in both Common and Statutory law in the UK. (Sneider and Phil, 2005). Noise pollution can be a problematic health issue in the workplace and at home. However, UK law only examines issues related to noise pollution in the workplace (Sneider and Phil, 2005). UK law, as applied to the scope of this project would not answer issues dealing with the problem of noise as it affects housing in the surrounding community. It would cover issues dealing with the workers themselves and the exposure of terminal staff. However, UK law would only be limited to dealing with those issues (Sneider and Phil, 2005).

In the UK, noise is regulated under several different agencies. It is regulated under the Environmental Protection Act 1990 (EPA). In England and Wales, the authority of the local power stems from Section 80 of the EPA. In Scotland, the Control of Pollution Act 1974, section 58 governs noise ordinances. In Northern Ireland, the Pollution Control and Local Government Act sets forth certain steps that local authorities will take when they become aware that a noise nuisance exists (Sneider and Phil, 2005). As one can see, in the UK noise reduction and nuisance comes under the control of local authorities.

This contrasts with the situation in Russia where control is on a National level. In Russia, there is no mention of noise in laws concerning the environment. Under UK law, no particular authority would have the jurisdiction necessary to intervene in a project that takes place in another country. Furthermore, UK law only requires that when a nuisance noise is found, the person or entity must only prove that they are taking reasonable steps to reduce the noise nuisance.

This legislation, like that in Russia leaves much up to the interpretation of local authorities. It would be difficult to write such legislation in such a manner that it would cover each and every circumstance that would arise. Therefore, laws can only make suggestions as to what an amicable resolution would look like. There are likely to be circumstances where the people do not feel that enough has been done and where authorities insist that they are doing the best that they can. This is the situation that has potential to arise in the course of this project. However, it is felt that this situation can be avoided if due consideration is given to the distance and building design in the new terminal.

The design specifics will have to be addressed in conjunction with others on the planning team, but it is important to stress that noise issues could be a potential source of controversy among the citizens and Russian authorities.UK law gives us few helpful suggestions when considering the potential noise issues in the construction and occupation of the new terminal and runway.

US Law

The United States has some of the most specific and stringent laws in the world regarding noise control. Title 42, Chapter 65 of the U.S. Code specifically addresses noise control, legal remedies for violations, and definitions to help determine safe public noise levels. Unlike UK laws that deal primarily with residential noise, the U.S. Code specifically addresses industrial noise. Several sections of Title 42 address noise from aircraft and other moving sources. The standards set specific levels and minimal protection for passengers and workers (U.S. Code, Title 42, Chapter 65).

The negative health risks to humans associated with long-term noise exposure are well documented in the U.S. However, Russia continues to treat noise exposure as a minor problem. American physicians have associated some seemingly unrelated conditions to sound exposure. Long-term exposure to transportation noise has been associated with increased cardiovascular risk (Babisch, 2006). Hearing loss can occur at even low levels of sound that occur for an extended time (Sisto et al., 2007; Reuter et al., 2007; Dobie, 2007). Noise related hearing loss can occur in a variety of work settings (Mrena et al., 2007; Trost and Shaw, 2007; Moon 2007).

). Therefore, every work situation needs to be evaluated for the potential to cause hearing loss. Many of the ill effects of noise may be linked to loss of sleep (Rios and daSilva, 2005; Robertson et al., 2007; Lu et al., 2005).

Although the limits set by Title 42 are not requirements by Russia or the UK, they will be used as guidelines in the design of the structure. In the U.S. The Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) sets guidelines for workers during an 8-hour workday (OSHA, 2007). This facility will not be subject to inspection by OSHA, but its regulations set an excellent standard for worker safety. Therefore, it is in the best interest of the workers to use OSHA guidelines as the guiding principles for this project. Using U.S. standards will assure that the passengers and workers are afforded the highest level of protection possible. Even though this is not a requirement, the project will adhere to the most stringent set of rules in reference to sound protection issues.

Thermal Pollution

Thermal pollution typically refers to an effluent that is released into a stream or other body of water. The effluent causes a rise in the temperature of the water, places wildlife at risk. There are no streams or waterways surrounding the airport that would be affected by thermal pollution from aircraft. As always, one has to be careful with fuels, petroleum products and other materials to assure that they are handled and disposed of in a safe fashion. However, in this project there is little risk of a thermal pollution problem.

Although there is little risk of thermal pollution via the typical routes, there is some risk that aircraft activity may place the permafrost at risk. This problem was first addressed by Dingman, Weeks, and Yin-Chao (1967). However, there has been little research conducted in this area since that time. There are few inhabitants or human concerns in the permafrost region. This airport is an exception to the rule. The key problem that is of concern to this project is that thermal pollution does not melt the permafrost causing instability in the substrate. It is not expected that this will be a significant problem, but a monitoring program will be instituted as a part of this project in order to make certain that thermal pollution does not become a problem in the future.

Conclusion

Russian and UK laws give us few clues that will help to resolve the potential noise problem that may arise during the construction and occupation of the new terminal and runway. The legislative role on the issue of noise pollution is one of guidance, rather than strict regulation. Laws in all three countries that will be involved realize that there is no way to predict every circumstance that could arise from the issue. Therefore, common sense and concern for the occupants, neighbors and other stakeholders must be the guiding principle that governs the control of thermal and noise issues throughout the project.

The ultimate goal of this firm is to consider all of the perspectives of the may stakeholders that will be affected by the project. It will attempt to ascertain the optimal building materials to be used and will suggest locations for structures based on maximizing the distance between the sound source and the listener. It will have to consider many perspectives from a daily exposure standpoint. For instance, it will have to consider the exposure of a passenger that is only exposed to a noise for a short time and that of a worker that will be exposed to a sound to 8 hours, 5 days a week or more. The analysis will consider these factors for all of the groups involved in the project.

Noise abatement is a concern throughout the project. However, noise abatement will have to be considered along with all of the other design issues that arise. One of the most difficult tasks in this project will be to convince Russian authorities of the potential dangers and attention that needs to be payed to the noise issue. They have taken a rather non-chalant attitude towards worker exposure to noise in the past. However, as a U.S. firm, noise is a serious consideration in any project. This may represent a potential clash during the project that will have to be handled when the time comes. However, going armed with the latest statistics on the harmful effects of noise and the costs associated with it should help to make the Russians more aware of the problem and its importance. The consulting firm will have to be proactive in its approach to the importance of the noise issue. It can anticipate that it will have to overcome a lack of concern on the part of the Russian authorities.

Section 2.0: Why Noise is a Concern on This Project

One of the key problems in dealing with noise from a legal perspective is that what constitutes "noise" is difficult to define. The definition of noise is subjective and will differ depending on whom one asks. Noise, by the strictest definition means sound that passes from one space to another (Sneider and Phil, 2005). However, not every sound that passes from one space to another is considered to be noise. Some sounds are considered pleasurable and not bothersome at all. In order to be considered "noise" the sound has to be considered bothersome in some manner to someone. However, when a noise becomes bothersome is also highly subjective. One person may consider a sound to be noise, while it barely bothers another. This question of what constitutes "noise," as opposed to simply "sound" has confounded the UK legal profession for decades. Legal professionals in the United States are confronted with a similar dilemma.

The most commonly accepted definition of "noise" means a sound that poses a potential health risk. A sound that can damage hearing would definitely be considered to be "noise" by most definitions. However, it may be noted that individuals differ in their sensitivity to pressures in the ear caused by sound (Sneider and Phil, 2005). However, there are known averages under which damage typically occurs to hearing. These averages are used to determine minimum and maximum allowable sound levels to ensure health and safety.

Research has found that the environment has a considerable amount to do with how sound effects one's susceptibility to hear. The type of building materials and their acoustic properties, dampness, condensation, thermal insulation and heating all contribute to how sound effects individuals in the space (Sneider and Phil, 2005). Therefore, when we begin to discuss the new terminal, these factors will have to be considered from a design perspective. The choice of building materials will have to take into account the acoustic properties of the material.

Several attributes of human hearing will have to be taken into account in the design of the buildings. One is that the human ear notices high frequencies more easily than low frequencies. The second is that two sounds being heard simultaneously have an additive effect as far as loudness is concerned (Sneider and Phil, 2005).

Airport noise is treated differently from standard noise, such as construction noise. Loudness, in terms of decibels is only one aspect of the potential for noise to cause damage. Low, middle, and high frequency noises are treated differently by sound engineers (FICAN, 2007). The reason for this is that the human ear is better suited to hearing mid to high frequencies. Sounds in this range are more annoying than those that lie outside the human range of hearing. Therefore, special consideration will have to be given to sounds in this range.

The a-weighted sound level (dBA) is used to measure the pressure caused by sounds within the average human hearing range (FICAN, 2007). This classification helps to distinguish between damaging sound and that which is outside of the human hearing range. This distinction helps engineers design sound reduction systems that are the most effective in dampening the types of sound that will be the most bothersome. a-weighted sound levels will be used to help target the design of the sound insulation so that it will be the most effective.

When measuring sound, the most common measurement takes into account the cumulative noise exposure from a single sound event. For instance, an aircraft flyover produces many different sounds at several different frequencies. The total accumulative effect of these sounds is referred to as the Sound Exposure Level (SEL). This measurement is the sum of the sound energy over the duration of the event (FICAN, 2007). The SEL is normalized to one second, but for most sound events the duration will be longer.

Lmax is the top allowable SEL for a single noise event to ensure that it does not cause damage. Sounds that exceed the Lmax could cause potential hearing damage. Most aircraft related events exceed the Lmax, both in loudness and in duration (FICAN, 2007). It is difficult to alter the length of an aircraft related sound event. Therefore, the SEL must be reduced by taking measures to reduce the loudness of the event. In order to do this, engineers must concentrate on the reduction of a-weighted sound.

A sound meter is the most common way to measure sound in a way that can be quantitatively compared. A sound is perceived as loud it the level changes, relative to the previous level. The following table illustrates how the human ear perceives changes in the loudness of sound.

Table 1.0 Human Perception in Changes in Sound Level

Changes in sound level Change in loudness

1 dB Barely Perceivable

3 dB Requires close attention to notice

5 dB Quite noticeable

10 dB Dramatic: nearly twice as loud

20 dB Striking: fourfold change

Source: (Sneider and Phil, 2005, p. 20).

The loudness (measured in decibels, dBA) decreases as the source of the sound gets farther away. This is an important concept the evaluation of noise caused by both the construction phase of the new expansion and the increased air traffic once it is completed. Situating the sound source as far from others who might be harmed is advisable. However, it is recognized that in some circumstances, this might not be possible due to topographic and geologic constraints on the site. For this reason, other measures will have to be considered in addition to distance from the source in the design of the project. The following table demonstrates the affect of distance on the decibels heard by a listener.

Table 20 the Affect of Distance on Sound

Distance between talker and listener

Noise level dBA

Normal voice Raised voice

Source: (Sneider and Phil, 2005, p. 21).

As one can see from the chart a distance of 8 meters reduces the sound level of the listener by 68%. The distance of an airplane taking off does not have to be great in order to result in a significant reduction in sound to the listener. When one is talking in terms of thousands of meters, as is the case with this project, the noise reduction factor is increased at an even greater rate. When combined with other noise reduction measures such as sound barrier walls and utilizing the best possible acoustic material for the terminal, noise levels for passenger, workers, and the surrounding neighborhood will be significantly reduced.

One has to be worried about the harmful effects of sound from two different scenarios. Sound can harm if it is only for a short time, but is of high decibel levels. It can also harm if it is experienced for a prolonged period of time, but at lower decibel levels. In the UK, the Health and Safety at Work Act requires that noise levels in the work place be limited to less than 90 dB during a typical 8-hour work day. The following table gives a comparison between various sounds and the decibel level that would be perceived by a listener.

Table 3: Comparative Sound Levels noise levels and the way individuals perceive them.

Changes in sound level

140 Threshold of pain

120 Aircraft taking off (at 25 m)

110 Pneumatic drill

100 Noisy factory

90 Inside underground

80 Inside bus

70 Average traffic on main road (at kerb)

60 Normal conversation (at 1 m)

50 Typical office

40 Living room in suburban area

30 Library

20 Bedroom at night

10 Insulated broadcasting studio

Threshold of hearing

Source: (Sneider and Phil, 2005, p. 22).

One of the most important facts to consider in building design where people will be working for an 8-hour day, is that as the dBA level increases, the exposure time to damage decreases. For instance, a person may be safely exposed to a dBA level of 80 for an 8-hour day. However, if the dBA level is raised to 105, the amount of time that a person is allowed to be exposed according to UK law is 15 minutes. This is perhaps one of the most important concepts that must be considered in the design of the new terminal. The farther the terminal is located from the runway, the lower the exposure risk to employees and passenger. However, this must be taken in consideration of the constraints of the aircraft. These issues will have to be discussed with other elements of the design team so that they will be at least considered in the final building design.

The Day-Night Average Sound Level (DNL) is another term used to describe aircraft related sound. The DNL is the average sound as it occurs over a 24-hour period. Typically noise events occurring at night are perceived to be 10 dB louder than they actually are when measured by a sound device (FICAN, 2007). This is because the human ear compares the sound to ambient noise. The DNL helps to determine the health impact of sound on the life around the airport. If the noise level is constant, it will have different health effects than sound that occurs only one or two times per day. This project will take into consider the DNL before the construction phase and after the new terminal is completed. The goal will be to introduce measures that reduce the DNL, especially where the surrounding apartments are concerned.

Section 3.0: Conclusions and Recommendations

Recommendations

There are many considerations in relation to sound reduction and thermal heat reduction in this project. Thermal heat poses little potential harm to the environment. The airport is located on a permafrost tundra where there is little chance of damage to nearby waterways or stream wildlife. There may be some limited local damage to plants around the runways, but these risks are expected to be minimal. In the areas that will be affected by the thermal pollution emitted by the aircraft, the plant life will be removed and replaced with gravel.

This airport is located in a harsh environment that has permafrost as a substrate. This creates a tricky building environment. It is difficult to establish permanent or temporary structures in this type of substrate. Activities such as drilling holes in the permafrost can create friction and alter the shape of the structure. These types of limitation will have to be discussed with the engineering staff during the final design phase of the project. Any materials used for sound reduction will have to be able to withstand the average temperatures in this frigid zone.

This project will involve two types of sound reduction structures. The first will be the construction of a permanent sound-reducing wall that will surround the existing terminal. There may be limitations that will prevent it from continuing around the entirety of the building. Breaks in the wall may be necessary for utilities or some other concern. The sections that will be built will be strategically placed so that they produce the maximum benefit in reducing the greatest amount of sound possible. The first permanent sound reducing wall will be built around the old terminal. However, the new terminal will also include a sound-reducing wall, similar to the one used in the original terminal.

In addition to the permanent wall to reduce outside sounds, the original terminal will receive an upgrade to the existing sound-reducing materials on the inside of the building. The existing interior materials were installed when the original terminal was built. The methods used have now been improved. Many of the materials in the old building are outdated. In addition, they are in need of repair. A double-wall system will be installed, paying particular attention to areas where passenger and staff spend a considerable amount of time. A double-wall sound reducing system will be a part of the original design of the new terminal.

It is recognized that during the construction phase of the project, sound sources will change as the construction progresses. In order to mitigate danger from these sounds, temporary sound reducing walls will be constructed. They will be erected and moved as needed. This will require monitoring in order to make certain that the walls are where they are needed, at the time that they are needed.

One of the key difficulties that can be anticipated in a sound reduction program at the airport is the lack of concern for the dangers of sound. Russian politics have only recently shown concern for the environment. It can be argued that this recent surge in concern is the result of outside political pressures, rather than stemming from a sincere concern from Russian officials. Noise pollution has not yet been considered to be a problem by the Russian government. This attitude could prove to be a hindrance throughout the course of the project.

Education as to the problems and health concerns associated with noise pollution will be one of the key tools to help convince Russian officials of the need for the additional expenditures for the reduction of sound. They will also be made aware of the cost savings associated with a reduction in worker claims from sound related hearing loss. As this airport becomes more oriented towards the general public as a customer, noise will become an increasing issue. The fact that noise reduction measures will make a more comfortable environment for passengers will mean increased sales revenue for Russia. These points will be major selling points to convince Russian officials of the necessity of the sound-reducing measures.

The company that will be occupying the building will be of UK origin. Therefore, in order to accommodate the requirements of UK workers and an international clientele, the Russian facility will have to meet the standards of that country. Although Russia is the host country, they cannot expect UK workers to be exposed to noise levels that would be unacceptable in their own country without consequence.

The most stringent noise pollution regulations and standards stem from the U.S. This was one of the key reasons for hiring a U.S. design team for the noise reduction portion of the project. As a U.S.-based design team, our firm must design a system that complies with U.S. laws. Regardless of the relaxed attitudes of the Russian contingencies, a U.S. firm cannot design a building that is not up to code in its own country of origin without expecting to face consequences. Therefore, regardless of the attitudes expressed by Russian or UK components of the team, the building design will comply with strictest set of laws. This will not only be the safest move from a legal perspective, but will result in the safest environment for the workers, passengers, and other occupants of the airport.

This approach to the project will result in the highest safety factor for those that will occupy the building. It is difficult to foresee every circumstance that will arise during the course of a project, but the philosophy being adopted by this firm for the completion of the project will allow the flexibility to adjust to changes as they are needed. The most difficult aspect of this project lies beyond the technical issues that will be faced throughout the various stages of construction. The most difficult task will be the marriage of three different attitudes regarding the importance of sound reduction and worker protection. This design firm is legally and morally obligated to keep public safety at the top of its priority list. This philosophy will be the driving force behind the strategies adopted both now and in the future regarding this project.