PUBLIC HEARINGS ON
       NOISE ABATEMENT AND CONTROL
Vol. Ill—Urban Planning, Architectural Design;
           and Noise in the Home
               Dallas, Texas
             August 18-19, 1971
    U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
           Washington, D.C. 20460

-------

-------
                      PUBLIC HEARINGS  ON
                NOISE ABATEMENT AND  CONTROL
        Vol. Ill—Urban Planning, Architectural Design;
                    and Noise in the Home
                         Dallas, Texas
                      August 18-19, 1971
                        Conducted by
                              the
            Office of Noise Abatement and Control
             £nv,[:, ,
                     '"
                        >~  •*•
             C'rr-r      .,   fro°m Street      J
                     -  -  -,'fiols   6060**      •<$
            U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
                    Washington, D.C. 20460
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price 75 cents

-------
PROTECTION AGLSfGZ

-------
                INDEX  OF   WITNESSES

                                                            Page
     Mr. Wes Wise     ..      -     	     1
     Mr. Edward C. Fritz       	     5
     Dr. Hal Watson,  Jr.  ....  	  	    14
     Mrs. Roger C. Fletcher	  	    19
     Mrs. Franklyn Wright _—.	    24
     Mrs. Robert Sapp       	    28
     Mrs. Charles M. Thompson ....  	  	    31
     Mrs. Henry Richardson 	    33
     Dr. Robert Finch           ....   ..  	    38
     Mr. J.  W. Joiner .    	  	    45
     Mr. Rod Rylander       	  	    51
     Mrs. Sharon Stewart   	    52
     Mr. Tom  Maddox        	    60
     Mr. Dan DeGrassi     	    64
     Miss Mary Anne  Mayer 	    66
     Hon. Joseph Allen  	  	    68
v-<    Mr. Bob Johnson ....   	    72
,    Mr. Robert H. Pish	    75
     Mr. John  Burdis .....  	    87
     Mr. Bart Spano 	    91
     Mr. Charles D. Parrott	   103
     Mr. Bailus Walker, Jr. 	   109
     Mr. Robert L. Wegner, Sr.	   115
     Mr. Gene  Schrickel 	   124
     Mr. David McCandless, Jr. 	   129
     Dr. Elmer Hixson 	   136
     Mr. Herbert Phillips 	   141
     Mr. John E. Dorn 	   146
     Mr. J.  E.  Duff 	   155
     Mr. E. B.  Thompson and Mr. W. G. Martin	   157
     Mr. Arthur E. Meling and Mr. W. Scott Bayless _  	  ..   164
                                 111

-------
                        PREFACE

  Under the Noise Pollution and Abatement Act of 1970  (Title
IV to the Clean Air Amendment of 1970  (PL 91-604)), the En-
vironmental Protection  Agency,  through the  Office  of  Noise
Abatement and Control, is required to hold public hearings.

  A series of eight hearings are being conducted in selected cities
to aid the Office of Noise Abatement and Control in  compiling
information relevant to its investigation of the Problem of Noise
Pollution. Further, these hearings present an opportunity for the
public and industry  to express their viewpoints on the general
subject  of noise control. The volumes in the  complete series will
be:

  Vol. I   —Noise in Construction

  Vol. II  —Manufacturing  and Transportation Noise  (High-
             way and Air)

  Vol. Ill  —Urban Planning,  Architectural Design; and Noise
             in the Home

  Vol. IV  —Standards and  Measurement Methods, Legislation
             and Enforcement Problems

  Vol. V  —Agriculture and Recreational use Noise

  Vol. VI  —Transportation   (Rail  and  Other), Urban  Noise
             Problems and Social Behavior

  Vol. VII —Physiological and Psychological Effects

  Vol. VIII—Technology and Economics of Noise Control;  Na-
             tional  Programs  and  their Relations with State
             and Local
                              IV

-------
      ENVIRONMENTAL  PROTECTION  AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING ON URBAN PLANNING, ARCHITECTURAL DESIGN
                 AND NOISE IN THE HOME
                WEDNESDAY, AUGUST 18,1971


  The hearing was convened at 9 a.m., Dr. Alvin F. Meyer, Jr.
Director,  Office of Noise Abatement and Control, Environmenta
Protection Agency, presiding as Chairman.

  Panel:  Theodore Berland,  Citizens Against Noise; Prof. Leoi
Cole, University  of  Texas;  Dr. Aram  Glorig,  Callier  Hearinj
and Speech Institute; Prof. Robert Newman, Massachusetts Insti
tute of Technology, Bolt, Beranek and Newman; Prof. W. Dixoi
Ward, University of Minnesota; Prof. Jack Westman, University
of Wisconsin.

-------

-------
                      PROCEEDINGS

  Dr. MEYER. I hereby call to  order the first session of the  En-
vironmental Protection Agency hearings on noise, held under a
mandate from the Congress in title IV of  Public Law 91-604.
I'm Dr.  Alvin  F.  Meyer, Jr., Director  of  the  Office  of  Noise
Abatement and  Control  of the  U.S.  Environmental Protection
Agency.

  Before starting this session, I'm most pleased and honored to
be in the presence of Mr. Wes  Wise, his excellency, the  mayor of
the city of Dallas. In communications with our Agency he has
indicated his interest in environmental matters and his under-
standing of the  matters  which we are  experiencing. He is  out-
standing as a public  official and leader of  one  of the Nation's
largest cities. Mayor Wise, I'm pleased to have  you here,  sir.
     STATEMENT OF MAYOR WES WISE, CITY OF DALLAS

  Mr. WISE. Thank you, Dr. Meyer. Thank you very much.

  Dr. Meyer, distinguished panelists, ladies and gentlemen, the
very fact, Dr. Meyer, that you are here and I am here and they
are there is encouragement, I think, that our Nation  and our
municipalities have individually  and collectively recognized  still
another very delicate and important ecological  imbalance, and I
hope that in the next few days and hours we will work together
to find an ultimate solution, which is the spirit of this meeting.
  I returned to the place of my birth about 25 years  ago and
looked upon what was once lovely pine tree fields of northwest
Louisiana where  I used to run.  The cool shade that covered me
before the days of air conditioning had been displaced by a harsh
summer  sun  and I was  personally offended. I returned to the
place of  my birth last month, and  once  again  the barren  fields
were covered with deep, green, tall, stately pines. The landscape
was even lovelier than it had been 25 years  before  during my
childhood. As  a  result of the  technology  of reforesting, the
ecological balance, which  is still a mystery to  many of us, has
been returned in  my home town  of Shreveport in this particular
place, and that is good. But what of the interim period, and what
happens  now?  Furthermore,  how many jobs  were produced  in
that 25 years in cutting the timber and trucking it and replanting
it? How many  little mouths were fed in its eventual use in con-
struction? How many members  of our  minorities were helped
out of poverty, taken off the welfare rolls, placed on the payrolls

-------
and the tax rolls? Now that that forest is ripe once again, what
are the rights  of the owner  of  the  property  on which  it now
thrives? He has paid  his taxes on the property that he owns. He
has paid Federal taxes, he's paid State taxes, and he's paid local
taxes faithfully, well and  on time. What responsibility does he now
owe  the general  community over and above making  it possible
for people  to have jobs and contribute to happy lives? Does he
owe  anything at  all to other little boys who would like to have
peaceful, tall pine forests in which to run ?
  Let's take another  true incident closer to home  and closer to
the subject perhaps of this meeting. During the recent mayorial
campaign  I  promised to fight  for  a reduction  in  crime.  Un-
doubtedly this  was the priority item in a list  of four problems,
which  also included, however, a  fight for environmental  quality
in the city of Dallas. Dallas experienced  a dramatic  percentage
decrease in crime in  my first  3 months in  office, for  which this
city  received a national  recognition, and more important, local
recognition from our citizens.  There is little doubt that  our
helicopter units have  been instrumental in prevention techniques
in crime.  But  in the  early  days of their use,  particularly,  city
hall  received a  rash of complaints about the noise of the whirring,
rasping engines of the police helicopters. But yet a lady in a high
crime incident  area of south Dallas called me just the other night
and  said she could now sleep more soundly at night when she
heard the same sound, which  was to her a lovely, beautiful hum.
And my teenagers continue to run outdoors to see the floodlights
from this  same helicopter, fascinated by the innovativeness and
imagination  of this crime detection technique which is proven
and  true.
   While still another citizen will undoubtedly find that that same
spotlight is an invasion of his or her property.
   Just how important is noise  in the overall ecological picture?
Tokyo went through  its  worst environmental crisis last  year. It
was discovered that  people  living near congested intersections
were badly affected by atmospheric lead  caused by  exhaust gas
from automobiles. A July incident of some 40 school girls sud-
denly  falling ill  by photochemical  smog on their  school ground
caused a national sensation and panic. In  October certain fields
producing rice in  suburban  Tokyo were found to be cadmium
contaminated; air pollution,  water and land pollution, all  of
these in Tokyo, and yet 5,496 complaints and grievances  received
 by the city government of Tokyo in 1969, of those some 5,000—ap-
 proximately 5500—57 percent concerned noise and vibration nui-
sances rather  than  the other  ecological factors.  This  included
noise  from motor vehicles, factories, construction jobs  and jet
planes.
   So the question in  noise abatement, as in other environmental
 considerations, Dr. Meyer,  in my  opinion,  centers on a balance
which must be  found between  promotion  of  the  citizens' eco-
logical health  and welfare on the one hand,  and the  citizens'
 economic  health and welfare on the other hand. Those  of  us

-------
in positions of some authority must not judge present day con-
siderations on what others have historically done,  for a number
of past occurrences  would certainly  be unthinkable in  today's
context. Certainly one may not  assess the performance of local
authorities of some 15 or 20 years ago  on the basis of present
day criteria.  We  in this  Nation, and especially in Texas  where
we still have the wide-open spaces and in  Dallas where preventive
measures can be  taken in this  field, just as they were made  in
the field of crime  as cited a moment ago, still have before  us the
time,  the opportunity and the challenge of preserving  and im-
proving clean air, clear water, quiet homes, and streets, and thus
also improving and preserving the minds and the bodies and the
health of all of us of the city.
   So  I welcome you, Sir, and I do feel that this conference will
bring out results, will bring  out factors that  we all need to  be
aware of, and as  we continue to be aware of them, that we will
address ourselves to  them in a spirit  of cooperation with the
citizens.
   Of  course,  that's the most important element. As both you and
I know, you  from the Federal standpoint and myself from the
local  standpoint,  I'm  sure we will accomplish this, we will find
the answers.
   Thank you very much.
   Dr. MEYER. Mr. Mayor, on behalf  of the Administrator of the
EPA, Mr.  Ruckelshaus,  and myself as one of his  key staff per-
sonnel, I want to thank you for  putting the noise problem  in
perspective as you did in your very excellent dissertation and
welcome you here. Thank you very much, sir.  I hope you  will  be
able to join us and watch our proceedings for a while.
   At this point, then, ladies and gentlemen, I would like to  in-
troduce the panel. And then I would like to explain to you  a little
bit about the purpose of these hearings, how  we conduct them
and what happens to the information obtained in their course.
   So  without further ado, I will introduce the gentlemen who, as
public-spirited citizens performing a public service, are serving
the Federal Government  on this panel.
   First is  Mr. Theodore Berland, who is the author of the book,
"The Fight for Quiet" and president of an organization  known
as Citizens Against Noise, of Chicaero, 111. Mr.  Berland.
   Next,  Prof. Leon  Cole of the University  of Texas,  who is
conducting an immense  amount of work in the field of environ-
mental activities. Mr. Cole.
   And next,  an eminent  member of the acoustical profession and
known, I presume, to many citizens of  Dallas, Dr. Aram  Glorig,
director of the Callier Hearing and Speech Institute, and  a long-
time  colleague.
   And next,  Dr. Robert  Newman, professor at the Massachusetts
Institute  of  Technology, and  a member of  the  firm of  Bolt,
Beranek and Newman,  an internationally known acoustical  en-
gineering and consulting firm.
   Next, Dr. W. Dixon Ward of the Hearing Research Institute of

-------
the University of Minnesota. Dr. Ward is the incoming chairman
of the National Research Council Committee on Hearing,  Bio-
acoustics and Biodynamics.
  Tomorrow we will be joined by Dr. Jack Westman from the
Department of Psychiatry of the University of Wisconsin.
  Now, let me briefly explain to you what these hearings are all
about.  As I indicated in opening this session, Congress late  last
year enacted into law the Noise Pollution and Abatement Act of
1970, which is title IV of Public Law 91-604. In that law, Congress
directed the  Administrator  of  the  Environmental  Protection
Agency to  make a study on noise problems  in the United  States
with a view to submitting recommendations to  the Congress as
to what programs  are needed for the correction of the problems
and what also might be done in relation to Federal,  State  and
local activities. In undertaking this study, Congress also directed
us to hold  a series of public hearings, of which this is one.  The
purpose of the public hearings  is  to do the following things:
first, find out what the public really thinks  about the noise prob-
lem, and how it affects them; second, to obtain information  as to
what can be done about the problems, and to identify those people
who are best fitted to do something about them, mainly industry,
professional groups and so on.  It involves obtaining information
on a wide segment of problems. As an example, in Atlanta,  Ga.,
we heard  about construction problems; in  Chicago,  we heard
about aircraft noise and highway noise and what the respective
industries  can do  about these  problems. Here we are going to
talk about the problems of urban planning, and also  what may
be done about noise in the home. Some experts are going to talk
to us  about these topics tomorrow.  At other hearings we are
going to be dealing with the problems of enforcement, measure-
ment,  and standard setting. We will  also  hear a lot about the
physiological  and  psychological effects of  noise, noise as  asso-
ciated  with agriculture and recreational use, and other aspects of
noise in urban situations. And we are going to have a  final hear-
ing in Washington dealing with the entire problem of technology
and economics.
   Now, in  holding these hearings,  I  am  joined by  a panel of
experts such as we have here. You have heard these  people
introduced; they are all eminent individuals, and they will assist
me by listening, digesting what they hear, and, if appropriate,
asking questions. We have adopted  the methods utilized  by the
House Committee on Government Operations  in field investiga-
tions by the House of Representatives of the  U.S. Congress. In
so  doing,  the witness  is asked to come,  sit,  and present his
testimony. We have asked, where possible, to receive a written
copy in advance. We do not—it may not sound like a very demo-
cratic process—but  we do not allow questions  to be directed to
the witness  from the floor. If any  of you hear something that
you feel is worthy of a question of general interest, you should
write  it on a piece  of paper and give it to one of our staff as-
sistants. It will be given to me, and  one of the panel members

-------
will direct the question to the witness or we'll arrange for you
to get the answer to your question.
  And so against that background, then, without taking up  more
of your time, let us proceed. I would like to invite Mr. Edward C.
Fritz  of  the Air Quality Coalition of North  Texas if  he would
come forward, sir, and let us hear from you. Welcome, Mr. Fritz,
and we look forward to hearing from you, sir.


  STATEMENT OF EDWARD C. FRITZ, AIR QUALITY COALITION
                OF NORTH CENTRAL TEXAS

  Mr.  FRITZ. Good morning, distinguished panelists, Dr. Meyer.
I am  president  of the Air Quality  Coalition  of  North Central
Texas, and we have had a board meeting on the subject of  noise
at which we were pleased to have Dr. Aram Glorig of  the panel
present and some of the EPA staff. We have  not  yet formulated
a policy  on noise although I believe that I  sensed the general
attitude  of the board members about their  deep concern about
noise. And so, what  I shall say today will not yet be the official
policy, if it ever is, of the Air Quality Coalition of North Central
Texas.
  The public of America was recently very concerned, and still
is concerned about what we call the Silent Spring,  because Rachel
Carson came out with that. And this had to do  with the death
that would  come to  much  of the life on account of pesticides.
Now,  the Federal Government  has done a  lot  of talk  about
pesticides, and  occasionally an agency will pass some kind of a
proscription about pesticides and then withdraw it or not enforce
it and so forth. Now, this is indeed unfortunate. We are now
faced with a noisy  summer, and the Federal  Government, I'm
happy to see, is making a lot of sound about that, and rhetoric.
And I have reason to hope that more will come  from this par-
ticular rhetoric than  has  yet  come of the  pesticide rhetoric,
because although many pesticides  have not yet been proven to
have an effect upon human beings and their health so far, at least
at the levels that we have yet reached, the noise has been estab-
lished to have effect  upon human health, physical and emotional,
at certain levels. So  we can hope that people will be more con-
cerned about insisting that  something be done. And second, I am
impressed by the dedication of the director of the Office of Noise
Abatement  and Control, Dr. Meyer. So  we'll look forward to
actually  getting some results in addition to the talk that we had
to start with here.
  Yes, we have come to a noisy summer, and this has been one
for me. First, around in Dallas in various neighborhoods we have
all kinds of racket taking place. There are power mowers, which
industry and   technology  are  efficiently building noisier  and
noisier and bigger and bigger. And it seems that the power mower
is something that is  a  status  symbol now, and the rate of status
depends  upon the amount of  noise that you are able to put out.

-------
You can impress more people up and down a further stretch of
the neighborhood if you get one of the biggest and loudest  ma-
chines. And also I guess that this has to do with the amount of
opulence you have, because you pay in accordance with how much
noise you put out, unless mufflers are ultimately required, which
we hope will be the case. And then you will pay $15 extra for a
muffler that will silence all the noise of as big a machine as  you
can get. And that amount will be reduced  as  mass  production
comes into  effect for mufflers on power mowers, for example.
  And then we have the minibikes  in particular being noisy,  and
some motorcycles that the kids do the same thing with. They take
off the muffler. Mufflers are now recently required by the  new
Dallas city ordinance, which I am glad to see, even on minibikes,
motorcycles and so forth as they have been on many other motor
vehicles, autos and trucks and all; but the  problem of catching
the kids and enforcing that is difficult. So we are going to have
to go further than that before we actually do stop the minibike
noise. I have not noticed any decrease in it since the new ordi-
nance went into effect.
   Then we happen to live about a mile from  Love Field.  And
anyone who has ever been anywhere near  Love Field—in fact,
if you are  in an  office downtown, unless  it's  one of  the most
heavily walled and air conditioned and all, you'll hear the racket
that comes  from the  airplanes there.  Many of our schools hear
the racket  and are put out of business for a minute at a time by
this noise.
   So  that to escape all these tremendous noises around the  city,
we went on a Sierra  Club trip to the Guadalupe Mountains. We
climbed that 2,700 feet up to the top where there is no human
development whatsoever, no people reside, nothing like that.  And
it was just glorious.  There was just the sounds of nature.  And
this is tremendously relaxing and relieving. And then—we started
early in the morning, and after a while, well, the airplanes began
to come over, and they were a little bit closer, being up there
where we  were  at 8,200 feet, than they  are on the ground, and
their noise was all the more  bothersome  without any other noise
going on. The airway, the official airway, is south of El Capitan
and south of  Guadalupe Peak,  the highest peak in Texas. But
the airplanes  come right over that in great frequency, at least,
right over the mountain.
   So one of the things that I hope will come from your studies is
 enforcement of the official airways and  placing them  in such  a
 way that they will not pass over the wilderness areas, the national
 parks and monuments, for example, and other key areas where
 people can go and escape from the manmade noise that we think
 is having a terrible impact.
   So then we went to Fort Parker State Park for a conservation
 meeting, and  unfortunately  the State Parks and  Wildlife Com-
 mission, in its wisdom, had  just decided  to put in minibike trails
 on an experimental basis in four  of our  State parks, and this
 was one of them. The minibikes are confined legally to the  trail

-------
which is off away from the campground. They are not permitted
to go into the campground. However, in a period of 1:30 p.m. to
10:30 p.m., during a meeting there, I counted  11 minibikes, loud
minibikes, and  motorcycles  without  mufflers going through  the
campground. And each time it would  annoy everybody at  the
meeting because this was being held in a cabin in the campground
there, an  open  cabin. So  I  talked to the park officials  about it
and they said, "Well, when they're there, well, these fellows will,
you know pull off and be quiet." But then they can't be  there all
the time in the campground. They have a lot of other parts of the
park to be covering and all  this. And so it's virtually unenforce-
able. This would  seem to  raise the problem of whether you can
have minibike trails at all in State parks without annoying every-
body entirely too much and ruining the State parks for practically
all purposes.
   So then we went  to the Big Thicket of Southeast Texas,  got
way out in the  woods where we soon shall have a national area.
And what did we hear? We  heard the powersaws whanging. And
that's the worst noise to me because it carries the added implica-
tion of  our  forests going down,  as Mayor Wise  so wisely com-
mented  upon earlier.
   Then last week we went  to High  Island on  the gulf  coast of
Texas and sat  at the water's  edge and heard the surf  booming
and roaring in  and enjoyed  this soothing sound of nature, which
didn't bother us at all. And  along the beach then  comes  a motor-
cycle with the muffler off,  just roaring and  making a terrible
racket,  and it actually did destroy the whole sound of the surf at
that time. And it was followed by a succession of other motor-
cycles and motorbikes and even some automobiles which did  not
have their mufflers on and were loud, although many other auto-
mobiles had their mufflers on, and the only bother there was the
disruption of any beach  games or the like  while everybody  got
aside for an automobile to come down  the sand. And then along
comes an airplane, and it comes right along the beach there. No
control  or regulation apparently is being enforced in regard to
what it does. And it creates a big racket that drowns out every-
thing for a while. A small plane, of  course, can have a giant
racket when it comes closer than the big planes ordinarily do.
And then a helicopter comes along with its bop-bop, and whatever
the soothing effect the helicopter has in the crime-ridden  city,
well, it doesn't have any  of that out there on the beach, I'll tell
you. It  just ruins everything for  a few minutes.
   But even so, the mountains  and  the beach were a pleasant
relief from  Dallas and the noises that I started to tell about. In
Dallas you have also the noises in your home about which a great
deal has been written recently, in particular. The dishwasher—
we want dishwashers to  be  controlled partly—I guess this would
have to be by appeal to public  response rather than by law—but
partly to preserve water as well. Just use them when you have a
full dishwasher,  and don't  feel you have to wash a few dishes
every time you have some in there.

-------
                              8

  And then the clothes washers and the power mowers and  the
minibikes. Well, inside the house there are many other pieces of
electrical equipment. So that it seems to me as if there is prac-
tically no escape from them, and it's no wonder that emotional
illness is rising.
  Now, urban noise has doubled since 1965, and  it's expected to
double again by 1984. And  I am  convinced that it's no  coinci-
dence that emotional illness is increasing along with urban noise.
I think that there's a causal factor there. Now, one index of
emotional disturbance is alienation from nature and a lot of man-
made noise can very definitely alienate a person from nature. To
most of us in the environmental movement, this emotional aspect
of noise is more insidious than loss of hearing. Emotional illness
is the  cause of or aggravates or delays recovery  from 90 to  100
percent of all illness. And  so the  effect that noise has on emo-
tional  illness is a tremendous impact upon human health.
  So government regulations are going to have to include  regula-
tions  of noise levels that bring about emotional response as well
as merely the 90 decibel level that has been pretty widely accepted
as the level that is—that is, for a certain  period of time—that
affects the actual hearing and other actual physical responses of
the human body. Now, I think that we should regulate noises all
the way down to 60 decibels, such as pneumatic drills and even
freeway traffic at  a 50-foot distance, and certain household ap-
pliances. What man has wrought,  man can  silence with mufflers.
And this can be done on the manufacturing level. Shortly I'll get
to which agency of government is most suited to handle each of
these  fields. And among the noise  sources which can be tech-
nologically and socially controlled,  and which should be regulated,
are a  vast number which were covered by L. S. Goodfriend in
"Noise In the Community." And I won't read all of them. I  pre-
sented that to the  panel, but the headings are  "Transportation
Noises," "Industrial Noises,"  "Commercial Noises," "Community
 Services  Noises,"  and  "Individual Activities,"  which  include
some of these items  I've mentioned around the  home and  also
include powersaws, lathes, tool shop activities and so forth. All
of these can be regulated and controlled,  actually in the manu-
facturing process primarily, and in other ways, which our next
witness, who has also been requested to speak for the Air Quality
 Coalition, Dr. Hal Watson, will cover from an expert viewpoint.
   Now,  the laws regulating noises of this nature should specify
 a maximum number of decibels so that manufacturers can design
their  equipment  accordingly.  Now, there is not  always  time
 though for the health officer to reach the source and set up this
 instrument and measure the  decibels,  and therefore  the  laws
 should also include alternative ground for enforcement, namely
 the time-honored standards of annoyance and the well established
 restriction of sale in case certain types of noise control equipment
 are not on the item, the source involved.
   Every city  should have a modern noise ordinance which covers
 all three of these factors: the decibel level, and this would include

-------
both ambient and specific, the  annoyance item, and the specific
equipment requirements.
  Dallas happens to have what I call an archaic ordinance because
it does not have the specific pressure levels, nothing in the field
of decibels, and this should be included. We should pass an ordi-
nance, and every  city in this region and every city in the United
States should pass  an  ordinance like the ones at Denver and
Chicago, which have been based upon careful study, and I believe
that one of the panelists had to do with the Chicago study. Now,
these bring it down, for example, to 65 decibels on power  lawn-
mowers and 55 decibels on ambient noise in residential  areas.
  Not all  noise is  in the city  limits,  and therefore  each  State
should pass a statute which covers the same three areas of noise
abatement.
  Now,  one of the  problems, though, of pollution control, and
this applies to air and water as well as to noise, is that there is
always—for example, each locality or forum, we call this forum
rivalry—there is  somebody in a city, for example, a city council,
in each State will be what it calls  very enterprising and will want
to attack industry regardless of the  results. And they've figured
out a way  how to do this. They can  go ahead and enact a strict
ordinance,  like a strict noise ordinance or air pollution ordinance
or the like, and then satisfy all the people that they are vigorous
and they are against pollution.  And then, what do they do? They
don't enforce it.  That's satisfying all  the  industries that they
want to attract into the cities  that the industries are safe. And
they  set up practically  a—well, such a complicated  enforcement
method, and such a long routine of nonenforcement in their city,
such as  tradition, and such an assurance that this same establish-
ment is going to continue to run the city forever that they feel
they can attract the industries and have it both ways, making the
people happy thinking that they are having pollution control, and
they  can  bring  in  the  industry too,  constantly increasing the
pollution.  And so what you have to have to beat  this, you have
to have a State level of standards and enforcement both. And the
States will  take  over where a  city fails to enact adequate ordi-
nances or to enforce them, either  way.
   So then, though, we come to another problem, and that is State
forum rivalry. And there will be some States where the powers
will feel that they want to attract  industry  and that they can
pull this same thing that I mentioned that the cities  do. So the
only way  to eliminate that is  to have a strong Federal standard
and enforcement. In my unexpert opinion, there is no reason why
we should not go right ahead with Federal standards on all these
fields immediately. Certainly we are going to have to have Federal
standards  on the manufacture of these  items  that come to us
because most of  them are made outside of our cities.  And if we
get them in this mass quantity of being offered here and no alter-
natives, then we  are going to  have the noise. So we have to have
good Federal standards and enforcement at the level of manu-
facturing,  the requirement of the mufflers and other noise control

-------
                             10

devices and  so forth.  I think that because of forum rivalry and
because of the general ineptitude of States like Texas in pollution
control  and  cities like Dallas in pollution control and enforce-
ment, that we are going-  to have to have  Federal regulation of
the whole noise field. And let's just start with it,  and not spend
all the time setting up all of these things that wasted so much
of our time waiting for  the States to do something about air
pollution and water pollution. We have already set now Federal
standards that are quick and  meaningful in  air pollution, the
statutes are  up for saying the same thing in water pollution, and
let's just start with that and not wait 6 years or  8 years in the
field of noise pollution.
  Now, there are some Federal laws.  The real solution to noise
pollution is enacting and strengthening some of the acts that are
now before  the  Congress for bringing Federal standards. And
the administration  has one of these acts. We  do have Federal
standards in occupational health and  safety, the  noises  in that
area. But for general  noises, we should pass the administration's
bill or strengthen it to incorporate  some of the provisions that
are in some of the other bills before Congress, or pass one of
these other bills, particularly H.R. 6002 by Congressman Tiernan,
and H.R. 6896 by Congressman Ryan. A good combination of all
the strong features of these bills would be wonderful.
  Now, the  Ryan bill has some features which should definitely
be included  in the act—any act which Congress passes, which we
hope will be  this session. It provides for  citizen suits  if the
Environmental Protection Agency fails to act against  a violation
for 60 days. And we think this  is good because  sometimes the
agency that is in charge of regulating  or looking after the public
interest deals so frequently with the industries involved that they
are supposed to  be regulating, that as a general rule I think it's
becoming almost a truism that agencies will ultimately  fail to
enforce the  law  vigorously against the people that they are deal-
ing with. So we want to keep open the citizen suits in case that
happens, and  also  as  a  supplement to  Federal enforcement or
State enforcement or city enforcement, for that matter,  because
when citizens are willing to bring some  of  these suits, it takes
some of the load off the  Federal or State or local agencies and
reduces some  of  the taxes that have to be paid for them having
to enforce it. Now, the reason  that we want strong enforcement
is not so we can put everybody in jail; it's so that everybody
will know—so that the outlaws will know. There are  outlaws in
the  field of pollution,  including noise pollution—will  know that
they have to  obey the law,  or that they will  have to suffer  a
penalty. And therefore they will comply with the law.  As long as
you don't enforce, well, then  there will be some outlaws that will
get by with it. And this is a disadvantage and an unfairness to
the law-abiding  persons who do want to obey laws.
   Now, the EPA, they have brought a few suits in air and water
pollution, and therefore I just have to  project that unless, Dr.
Meyer, you were an especially vigorous  and mean man  for  a

-------
                             11

Government official, why, I'm afraid that you wouldn't be able
to get the powers-that-be to bring  enough action  in the noise
pollution enforcement. And so we need this citizen action.
  Also, the Ryan bill requires specific  contract and procurement
rules to insure compliance on noise control by Federal contractors,
licensees and grantees. This is a good provision, and I hope that
the panel will discuss shortly—I read where possibly you think
that you can bring this  about under the present powers, but it
certainly wouldn't hurt to have Congress  give  you specific  au-
thority so that you wouldn't have any static on that.
  Now, what good does it do, though, to enact a good Federal law
or any other law, State or local, if we don't have the funds to put
it into effect? Now, for example, on the Federal level the Office
of Noise Abatement and  Control was established under the Clean
Air Act Amendments of 1970, and Congress appropriated a sub-
stantial fund for its operation. Well,  now, the administration, the
President, has requested only $1.15  million for  fiscal year 1972.
And this means that  the Office would have to  function on less
than  6 percent of the amount  now  authorized by  Congress. So
unless it provides funds, all the talk by the administration about
noise  control  is merely  increasing  the amount  of  useless noise
circulating around this Nation.
  We need noise legislation at all levels of government—now. We
can amend  these laws  in  the  future  as  science develops more
knowledge about noise.  It is all right for our  Government to
finance further studies  as is considered under the  existing law,
but we already  know enough about noise to enable us to enact
now the above-proposed legislation, which I have mentioned, and
to enforce, now, the ordinances and  statutes that are already on
the books. The  Environmental  Protection Agency  already  has
authority broad enough to require noise abatement equipment on
items purchased by the Federal Government, for example.
   So  I hope that this series of EPA hearings on noise leads to
some  prompt Federal action to reduce current noise levels.
   Dr.  MEYER. Mr. Fritz, thank you very much. The first part of
your discussion brought  to mind the quotation from Lord Byron
that I had called to my attention the  other day by George Gordon.
He said, in effect, that  the  peace and solitude of the mountains
were  wonderful, but the noise of the cities was intolerable. And
from  your comments it  is evident, as many of us know, that the
noise of man  is  intruding into the solitude of the mountains and
the seashore to  such an  extent that  Lord Byron would probably
find it rather unpleasant today.
   Before asking the panel if they  have any  questions, I would
like to point out one thing, since I am responsible for administer-
ing the present law, to set the record straight on the question of
funding. The  administration did indeed ask for only the amount
of money he mentioned, based primarily on our estimate of what
it would take to write this  report to Congress—which is all the
law really calls for today—to hold these hearings, and to prepare,
in effect, a program for implementation of whatever legislation

-------
                             12

Congress enacts. We made a very careful study of how much money
it would take to write the report and how much money it would
take to hold these hearings. It was not a bureaucratic decision,
"Well, you're entitled to $30  million; we're only  going to give
you $1 million." It was  really based on an estimate of exactly
how much money we would spend within the year or year and a
half in which we were entitled to do it.
  Mr. FRITZ. I  gather from that you  feel  that the new act gives
you authority only to hold hearings  and  write a  report  and to
recommend to the other Federal agencies what kind of equipment
they can  use. That's all you think you can do?
  Dr. MEYER. We've had this explored pretty carefully  by the
General Counsel and, as shocking as it may  seem, other than the
very  general authority that  the Agency has, this is  the only
authority that the EPA  has  in the field of noise  control at the
present time. Thus there is a sense of urgency in the Congress
about this. They recognize the problem.
  Mr. FRITZ. Yes.  I've been  surprised in  how noise seems to
strike a chord better than  some of the other phases  of environ-
mental control.
  Dr. MEYER. It seemingly does.
  Mr. FRITZ. And  yet it was  one of the later ones  to  really come
on into blooming.
  Dr. MEYER. Now, without further ado, panel, do you have any
questions ?
  Professor COLE. Mr. Fritz, I have a question on your suggestion,
on  city  ordinances and the citizens  suits to encourage Federal
enforcement agencies to  perform in  the matters so specified by
recent legislation. In these arguments, did you intend for the idea
of citizen suits  to be included at the local government level ?
  Mr. FRITZ. No. That is the  one level where I doubt if, generally
in most States,  there is constitutional  authority for the citizens to
give that right. But possibly  they could in municipal courts.  But
so far I have studied the State and Federal. I  wrote the bill for
the State of Texas, based upon the  Michigan bill, and I do know
that the State and the Federal Government  have that authority.
  Professor COLE.  Well, this citizen suits  provision, ultimately
what it amounts to, it relies on the courts,  the courts of law, to be
the ultimate enforcement.  And  have you given any thought to
some way  to get  at this kind  of  provision, access by citizens
directly,  but without crowding the courts?
  Mr. FRITZ. Oh,  yes.  Actually, you  know, there  are thousands
and thousands  of lawsuits brought  in courts over auto collisions
and divorces and all kinds of other things.  Michigan included it,
and now, in its almost  1 year of  operation, they have  had 12
lawsuits  filed in this field under the  citizens suit provision. And
so this will have no serious impact on the  courts whatsoever. The
courts can take this on just like all the other matters that involve,
in many  instances, much greater technical expertise to be  decided
by courts and juries than this subject would.
   Mr. BERLAND. I'd like to pursue  that  same point. Of  course,

-------
                              13

you are probably aware that the new British ordinance provides
exactly  this provision, that any two citizens may bring a suit
against  a noisemaker. But, of course, if you are talking at the
local level, then one would have to have some sort of legislation
that would enable the citizen, such as you and me, to bring suit
against, not only an airline, say, but also local people.
  Mr. FRITZ. Well, let me comment on  that. The State law—we
don't need a local law if you pass a State law. If it's pertaining
to a suit by the State, it's in the State court. If it's pertaining to
a suit by the Federal Government, it's in the Federal  courts. And
that covers all the courts. See,  the municipal courts  are subject
to the State courts'  rights. Now, of course, citizens already have
standing to sue if they are injured in  the current  definition  of
what is a compensable injury, or if they are threatened to  be
injured  under the injunctive process, the equity  process. And  so
this is just an extension beyond the current type of injury. Now,
the current type of  injury, for example, in Texas, includes emo-
tional illness  if accompanied by  physical illness. And those  in
the medical profession will have great difficulty drawing the line,
but  the courts have done it. But  this does not yet cover clearly
pure emotional  illness. That is, if you  don't show that you lost
your hearing or you got an ulcer as a result of this, you see, and
so such  a provision for standing to sue on  the State level and  the
Federal level would enable a citizen or citizens group  to protect a
community which, either  from ignorance or fear, had no citizen
who would go ahead and bring a suit for the injury.
   Mr. BERLAND. Well, the problem, of course, is that one can  sue
now in  the general  category of nuisance.  It's sort of vague and
doesn't  give much relief. One can also sue in terms of compensa-
tion for hearing loss, such as on the job, but again there are  all
kinds of roadblocks set up. And one of the severe road blocks in
terms of the citizen is the  cost. I think you will agree that we need
some sort of  technique  in terms of the  citizen, techniques  for
bringing such a suit.
   Mr. FRITZ.  Yes. And the cost will be another factor that will
deter a  mass of this type of lawsuits, I'll  assure you, because in
one case in Texas where we prevented the State Parks and Wild-
life Department from giving a free lease of land to a golf group
to destroy a vital natural area in Meridian State Park, it cost us
$3,000  to  carry on that  suit, most of  the attorney help being
volunteer, so that this had to be raised  from a large number of
citizens. Several hundred  citizens  put in  $5 or  $10  apiece, and
$100 or $200 apiece to raise that $3,000. So we won't be jumping
at every opening to file a lawsuit. It's a lot  of work  and a lot of
trouble. Because oftentimes  you are taking  on  not  only an  in-
dustry  that is causing this noise or other type of pollution,  but
you are taking on a government agency who hasn't prevented it,
you see.
   Dr. MEYER. Thank you very much, sir.  I assure you that your
comments will be most useful to us, particularly several of the
things  that you  just said. We  have a responsibility  for  getting

-------
                             14

our legislation and developing model laws and ordinances. I made
several notes on some of your thoughts here.  They will be most
useful to us. Thank you very much, sir.
  At this  point, I should  like to invite Dr. Hal Watson,  Jr., of
Southern Methodist University, associate professor of mechanical
engineering, if he would come forward and let us hear from him.


STATEMENT OF DR. HAL  WATSON, JR., SOUTHERN METHODIST
                         UNIVERSITY

  Dr. WATSON.  It's a  pleasure to be here, Dr. Meyer,  distin-
guished panel  members. I  have two statements which I have pre-
pared, and I have given you copies.  One is rather long, and the
other one  is rather short,  and in the interest of the schedule, I'll
stick to  the short one and  go through it in its entirety, and if any
time is left over, perhaps  read the abstract on the second one.
  Dr. MEYER.  Very well.  And we will insert  in the  record,  and
use for  our deliberation and study the entire text of your long
one. Thank you very much.
  Dr. WATSON.  The title  of the testimony is "Urban Planning
For Noise Control," and  since it is very short, there are many
gaps, and I hope at the end we can fill in some of these gaps with
questions, not only  from  the panel,  but  also from  the general
audience,  if possible.
  Generally speaking, noise control has been an afterthought of
urban planners. Some noise control measures have been incorpo-
rated into the  municipal  ordinances  but these do  not  usually
require  quantitative measurements of the offenders.  Zoning ordi-
nances are usually a little more comprehensive in that they require
that industries not exceed  certain noise levels, as measured in the
octave bands,  at the property boundary lines. While these noise
control measures are beneficial, they do not get at the  heart of the
urban noise problem. Some of the major noise offenders are not
included in the noise ordinances, these offenders being noise from
transport—aircraft,  trucks,  trains,  buses,   automobiles,  and
pleasure vehicles. While no one of these is a  particular problem
for an urban  area, the traffic density is the major contributor to
community background noise. Because cities are in a position  of
attracting outside commerce, freely moving transport  between
cities and States is a necessity. It is therefore necessary for the
Federal Government to control  these noise sources.  Construction
noise is another source of noise which is largely uncontrolled by
most cities during regular working hours and has been the cause
of at least one  major community protest,  such  as  in New  York
City.
   In  many communities  citizens and leaders  are  now  seeing
the need for noise control measures  as the quality of life is being
eroded around them. In the case of Dallas, interested citizens led
by city officials worked hard to develop a new list of priorities for
their city and  compiled the needs and  plans  into a "Goals  for

-------
                             15

Dallas," recently  published.  In this document is  a list of goals
for the purpose of noise  pollution  control.  These goals require
research and study in  noise pollution, implementation of a city
noise control authority, and the writing of  a new noise control
ordinance. However, due to lack of the necessary funds, trained
personnel have not been hired  to implement these  new programs.
All of the major urban areas have similar financial problems.
  Other noise control measures that are available to city planners,
such as better  routing and control of traffic, have been largely
overlooked. In addition, little use of building codes having noise
control design and material  requirements to  keep environmental
noise out of living and  working areas has been ignored for the
most part, except near airports, and an example of this is the new
Irving  Airport zoning ordinance.  Better  land  usage through
proper zoning  around  airports, such as that proposed for the
new regional airport by the airport zoning board, is needed.
  It is difficult to plan without data and feedback. One severe
need is for a systematic method of maintaining a continuous noise
survey of the urban area to  determine what needs to be done
about the noise problems and to provide a  way  of  determining
the effectiveness of noise control measures.  This could be done
by  means of permanent noise monitoring  microphone stations,
attached to telephone poles, transmitting noise data via telephone
wires from many locations throughout the urban area to a central
laboratory for analysis.
  On the next page are some noise level measurements which I
made in recent days in Dallas. As the levels indicate, Dallas, while
not an  extremely loud city, has need of the noise control measures
discussed by the planners in the "Goals for Dallas." For the sake
of comparison, New York noise levels, city noise levels, are much
higher than these by as much as 10 dB (A). Average conversation,
for reference purposes, is 45 to 55 dB(A). Speech interference oc-
curs at approximately 60 dB (A).
  For  the sake of those who do not have the prepared text, the
example of the noise levels is given.  These noise levels were taken
by  an  instrument  similar to this  one  (indicating),  somewhat
more sophisticated and a  little larger. This gives  you an idea  of
the type of instrument that  can be used to measure noise levels.
It's priced  in the neighborhood of $400 to $500 for this type  of
instrument and much more for the sophisticated ones.
  One  measurement was  made at Hillcrest  Memorial  Cemetery.
The deceased were enjoying a noise level of 46 dB(A), which I
might  add, would  be rather pleasant  in my  home if it could  be
achieved.
   On the S.M.U. campus, 55 dB (A).
   A University Park residential area, 56 dB (A).
   Central Expressway and Mockingbird, 75 dB (A).
   At Bachman Lake near the airport, which is a park, 80 dB (A).
   Downtown in a rather quiet period, 70 dB (A).
  These levels were measured during a period, August 2, 1971,
10 a.m. to 3 p.m.

-------
                             16

  Peak values—These were average values here. The peak values
were much higher. And I might add  that it's quite possible to
reduce these  noise levels given by as much as 5 to 10  dB(A) by
present technology, and perhaps more, and would certainly make
Dallas a much quieter and more enjoyable city in which to live.
  Dr. Meyer, at this point, I'd  like to answer questions on the
first statement.  I'll let you decide.
  Dr. MEYER. All right, fine.
  Panel? Mr. Berland, do you have any questions?
  Mr.  BERLAND.  Yes.  I was  interested in your statement  that
there were building codes which have  rather stiff requirements
near the airport. I was wondering how stiff they are.
  Dr. WATSON. You are referring to Love Field, and  I was re-
ferring to the  new regional  airport  which is presently under
construction, and certainly would  not  apply to Love Field.
  Dr. MEYER. Well, one thing I'd like:  If  you could arrange to
have somebody furnish me a copy of the "Goals for Dallas"  that
has this material that you mentioned  in it,  I'd like very much to
have that for our reference.
  Why don't you, at this point,  give us  a little of your abstract
on noise control and then  we'll  see if  the panel has any further
questions and discussion.
  Dr.  WATSON. All right. The second statement is much longer
than the  first and is entitled "Noise  Pollution Control" with a
subtitle "Are our actions based on pertinent facts?" and I'll  read
only the abstract, and if we need to go into any one section, we
can.
  Dr.  MEYER.  Since I  have glanced at  this very  quickly, would
you also mind, on page  5	
  Dr. WATSON (interrupting). Read the questions?
  Dr.  MEYER (continuing). Read the questions you have there?
  Dr. WATSON. Yes, I will.
  Noise  is an  insidious,  pervasive pollutant which invades and
degrades our environment. Although  we believe we are, "getting
used  to  it,"  noise causes us hearing loss  and  mental  anxiety.
Contrary to  the popular belief,  "noise is the price  of  progress,"
noise can be controlled. However, controlling noise means  con-
trolling technology and the technologists, who to the present time
have enjoyed a great deal of freedom  from such controls. Hence,
action to control noise  by  social action groups  usually meets stiff
competition  and the ensuing maddening political process leads to
confusion with the involvement of the activists, politicians,  busi-
ness  representatives,  private foundations, news  media, govern-
ment agencies  and the  general public—all acting with insufficient
information  and  communication and  with much propaganda,
allegations,  and  political  pressure.  Meanwhile,  the people  who
have a great deal to contribute, the unbiased experts, for one
reason or another, do not get  involved. The  panel is excepted.
Consequently,  the social issue is  politically compromised over a
base of insufficient information.  Thus,  a serious need is a national
supply of technical experts  with  social  consciences.  This  need

-------
                              17

could be supplied  through education with sufficient government
support.
  The text, of course, goes into the abstract in a little more detail,
and at the end I address two questions to the panelists for dis-
cussion.
  One:  What is missing in the educational programs of technical
people  which inhibits  their  voluntary  participation  in social
causes which need their expertise so very much?
  And two:  What causes professional technical  societies to be
reluctant to participate  in the resolution of social problems re-
lated to the fields of expertise they represent?
  Dr. MEYER. Dr. Watson, you obviously realize that we could
devote the entire remaining 2 days available to us for this hearing
just to  get into quite a dialogue and a discussion on those ques-
tions. It's fortunate, I think, that the panel has  members of the
academic  community  sitting  here.  And  for about the  next  5
minutes or so, I'd like at least one  or two of my academic col-
leagues to address themselves to one or the other  or both of these
questions. I feel very strongly,  as you do, that there is a problem
here.  The problem is  not only what goes on in the educational
institutions, but what goes on in professional societies. Perhaps
part of it is the reluctance of the Government to  intrude itself in
these areas. I would welcome  comments  from any  of  the panel
here on these two  questions, which I  think are very important.
  Dr. GLORIG. As far as the  medical profession  is concerned,  I
think that this question is very well put, and  I would like to
compliment the gentleman  on  his bringing it up, because as  a
medical man I have had a social conscience about  noise for some-
where in the neighborhood of 20 years. But due to the economics
involved with respect to the interest of medicine, there isn't really
much direct  payoff with respect to  this social conscience that I
have  developed. And my colleagues  look at me  as one of their
poorer colleagues because their medicine provides more economic
payoff than mine  does. So I think really that when you look at
this thing from the  actual facts of  the matter, the economics
involved are  considerable with respect to, all  right, we have this
social conscience. What do we get for it? Or, we have the ability
to perform surgery to cure things.  This  is a known fact  that we
can get from it. So  I know that in  medical school the stuff that
we had to learn is so much that some of these things that provide
community spirit and civic  attitude and social  conscience, as  you
very well call it, are  sort of left and relegated  to the terminal
ends of our education because the technical  side of it is so in-
volved and we only have a certain short time to live on  this earth
that we're in, and we don't have the time to learn some of these
things that you're asking for because there just isn't time enough
to get it.  But I agree that medical  people—and  this  is where I
speak from—should  be more involved in these community oriented
problems. And  I think that perhaps, with this kind of  attitude
in a citizens group, perhaps medical schools  will give a look at
not only problems involving noise, but the whole social conscience

-------
                             18

of the medical profession.
  Dr. MEYER. Well, of course, one of the things you touched on,
Aram, is that frequently the curriculum is so tight that there's
not time available, taking into  account the economics of going
to school and paying for an education. There isn't time to assem-
ble  all the needed scientific  and technical  material needed  and
also all the rest of it. Maybe we have to take that into account.
  Any other comments, panel ?
  Dr. WARD. What do you mean by "the rest of it" ?
  Dr.  MEYER.  The  whole business  of the total man,  the life
sciences, the social sciences.  All too often—particularly  in engi-
neering schools, of which I happen to be a graduate of years ago,
the pressure is on to do  the things  that are going to earn the
buck, without recognition  of the fact that the reason why you are
earning the buck and doing these things is to aid man.
  Dr. WARD. But I really don't know what—Would you encourage
that all engineers take some courses in social work or something?
This is a question. Social conscience  can't be really trained  into
some of us, it seems to me, at the university level. It's something
you have before you get to the university, it seems to me.
  Professor COLE. I have difficulty with that term also. I would
prefer social consciousness  rather  than social conscience, at the
university level anyway.  If you don't  have a conscience  by the
time you enter college, you are not going to learn it by	
  Dr. MEYER. I accept the criticism on that matter.
  Dr.  WARD. Could I say something about the second question?
  Dr. MEYER. Yes, sir.
  Dr. WARD. What causes professional technical societies to avoid
taking stands? Well, I've been involved in professional  societies
who have taken stands on these social issues. And I think that
the reason that the  more technical  ones  don't is  because these
movements are so often led by fanatics who clearly do not accept
evidence or deny  evidence or present evidence as  true  which is
still pretty ambiguous. And this is, I think, the reason you'll find
that the technical societies try to steer clear from the social issues
as  a group, because there is not unanimity  as to the facts among
the members.
   Dr. GLORIG. Well,  I have  a note which I wrote which agrees
with that; it says that because of the inexactitude of the social
sciences, the technical man sort  of avoids that, which is what you
are saying.
   Dr. WARD. Yeah, I mean this  whole question of annoyance, you
see. It's difficult to pin down.  You  are going to have  to spend
time wrestling with  it in these hearings and in any others. If I
 were out stomping on the lawn  in the early mornin"-, it  certainly
 doesn't have any high decibel rating, but if it w-kes you  up, it's
annoying.
   Professor COLE. Along that  same line,  I  think  you  are very
 unlikely to find, as you term it, an unbiased expert.
   Dr. WATSON. I thought that  might bring somebody out.
   Professor COLE. An expert is a person that is  dedicated to a

-------
                             19

rather systematic way and approach to a problem and has rather
rigorous and systematic methods of analysis  and checking out
truth or solutions. And  I think that this inexactitude is alien to
that person. I	
  Dr. MEYER. Well, I think—excuse me; go ahead.
  Professor COLE. You opened up the floor to  that question, and
now you've got to pay the price.
  Dr. MEYER. Well, I said for 5 minutes. We're counting now on
our sixth minute.
  Mr. BERLAND.  Did you want a nonacademic  comment?
  Dr. MEYER. Yes.
  Mr. BERLAND. I have  been called a fanatic already.
  Let me say that this business of inexactitude does  not set well
with me as a citizen. It seems to me the universities and the other
institutions  of higher education in this country have failed  if
they have not instilled in the people that they educate  some degree
of wisdom,  and  you can  call  it social conscience if you  want.
Because if they  are only educating  technical experts to  make a
living, a good living, with their expertise, then they have really
failed because the university or any institution of higher educa-
tion should also instill a little wisdom as to how to apply  this for
the good of man, and not just one man. And that's  why I think
we've got to get down to basics.
  Dr. MEYER. I'm sure  glad I  put that  5-minute time  limit on
there. You can see, ladies and gentlemen, that our  future hearings
with the questions of physiology and  psychology, and also the
relationships between the  various communities  of  interest are
going to be rather lively.
  Dr. Watson, thank you very much, sir. We  appreciate the op-
portunity of your opening up this lively discussion here.
  The next person to appear is Mrs. Roger C. Fletcher, represent-
ing the Arlington Conservation Council of Arlington, Tex.
  Mrs.  Fletcher.


     STATEMENT OF MRS. ROGER C. FLETCHER, ARLINGTON
                  CONSERVATION COUNCIL

  Mrs.  FLETCHER.  I am really  not  representing the  Arlington
Conservation Council. I happen to be secretary of the organiza-
tion, but it  was  because I was invited by the president to come
to the briefing that I am here today,  because I  had a personal
experience that I wanted to complain  about. I presume you have
a copy  of my statement and it will be filed. I am speaking spe-
cifically of Public  Law  91-604, title IV,  section 402, paragraphs
A, C, D, E, G, the specific portions. It's part of the attachment.
  In great numbers,  industrial employees   defend  themselves
against work-produced  noises  and residents of urban areas pro-
test the intrusion of transportation,  industrial, and  construction
noises into  their environment. But there  aren't very many  of
us who can come forward to make a protest, to  protect the natural

-------
                             20

sanctuaries against the invasion of unnecessary sound. Mr. Fritz
has given several general experiences in the pursuit of "quiet,"
and I would like to give you one  specific experience. If you will
grant me the time to set the stage  for my  complaint, I would
like to make a few introductory remarks about my husband and
myself.
  Since we are subjected for 50 weeks of the year to the pressures
of urban existence, our  vacations are nearly  always spent in re-
mote, sometimes almost inaccessible  areas. It is, of  course, that
one twenty-sixth of the  year spent in quiet, natural settings that
rejuvenates us  sufficiently  to  endure the following 50 weeks  of
turbulent cacophony in the metropolitan region.
  For many years we have planned to walk to the bottom of the
Grand Canyon,  but have had to cancel or postpone our plans. But
last fall we finally managed to make  the trip. For several months
before that time,  during the summer  heat  of  Texas, and last
summer was a goodie, we ran a mile  or more  a day, either on the
streets or at least uphill on the treadmill, and walked from 2 to 8
miles with boots on as often as possible, and  survived that. Such
conditioning was necessary for us to negotiate  the  steep down-
slopes of the Kaibab  Trail, during which the route drops 4,500
feet in altitude over a distance of 71/2 miles and to walk back  up
the  Bright Angel Trail  where the altitude  is  recovered  over a
12-mile distance.
  Those of you who have statements,  one  of the attachments is
a map I have tried to redraw and emphasize, but it  isn't very
clear.
  At any rate, we set forth last  October to  culminate the gran-
diose plans we had. Walking  down the Kaibab  Trail on a brisk
fall  morning brought on  a feeling of  exhilaration—I'm sorry
about that "i" there—from breathing  the unpolluted air, from
viewing those tremendous vistas across  the canyon, and from the
feeling of near isolation, and also from the physical release of
the exercise itself. Exuberant is what we were at that point, until
we reached the Esplanade. At that time off to our right, we could
hear the staccato racket that  increased until we could see a heli-
copter chattering  its  way  into the recesses of the canyon. That
was our first irritant,  although at the time it  affected  us only
to the point that the occurrence deprived us  of  the possessive
attitude that we had acquired towards the exclusively ours-to-
enjoy trek separating  us from  the usual  urban  battering  of
sounds. Several times during the day  we had a repeat perform-
ance, which at  that time we really didn't let impress us too much.
   The next day we chose to remove ourselves  even further into
the  wilderness  by walking the Clear Creek Trail above Phantom
Ranch. Climbing a winding, steeply ascending trail for nearly a
thousand feet above Bright Angel Creek, we had almost reached
the  base of Sumner Point when  we were  aware of a cacophony
approaching us from overhead. Once more we sighted a helicopter
making its way around the so-called temples and buttes just above
the  inner gorge. As it came closer we were  aware that we were

-------
                             21

trapped  in  an acoustical chamber  from which there was nc
escape without jumping over the edge of the trail, and we almosl
considered that.  There was no place to run, there was no  place
to lie down, there was nothing to hide behind.
  Our  language—maybe  it's  only  my language—does not  have
words  which adequately describe  the sounds  produced  by the
machine  at that  point confined by the geologic formations both
below and above. With no vegetation to speak of, there is nothing
to baffle the reverberating sound waves. The flat, nearly vertical
walls of the Brahma Schist, which forms the walls of the  inner
gorge,  reflected the sound and funneled the waves onto the  small
ledge of  the  trail, physically battering  us with  sound. And at
the same time, the upper buttes and pinnacles served as fracture
chambers where the sound  was  cracked  back and  forth and
amplified in  the process, so to speak, from the reverberation. The
intensity of  the  sound was  not high enough to  cause actual
physical pain in  the ear, but was sufficient in volume to disorient
our balance until we were unsteady, and I wound up drunker than
my husband. Some sort of term  should be developed to describe
another  sensation. There  were  alternate  pressure-and-release
fluctuations  in the sound which felt like paddles striking the ear
drum but were  immediately followed  by a quick  vacuum. Al-
though I am sure it  lasted  only a  minute or so, the disturbance
was maddening  until the helicopter  moved around  behind  Zoro-
aster Temple far above us.  I think the top of it was about  5,000
feet above us. We could hear the noises for a time as the  craft
proceeded along a route which seemed  to include  Brahma and
Devi Temples.
  And then  the  second  time  that  we were attacked, we  were
positioned in a different resonance chamber. The fluctuating pres-
sure and vacuum sensations were repeated and another one was
added. The use of a metaphor like "chopper" really has a legiti-
mate origin.  The sound returning  to the "chopper" was literally
chopped  into fragments and  hurled back  at us  like shrapnel.
These noises created  near hysteria in anticipating what lay ahead.
The trail at  that point was  only  about that  wide (indicating)
with the trail sloped above and below us at about a  45° angle.
And I knew I could  not negotiate that trail any further  if we
had any more helicopter attacks.  And  noting the number of
helicopters we had seen the day before, we presumed that we
were right in the path of their route, and we just had to  give up
on getting over to the Clear Creek Trail.
  Now, I would like to  insert that I am  not unaccustomed to
noise. My husband has been in aircraft, from student to production,
flying, for 35 years. In addition, our house is under the intersect-
ing flight circles of the Great Southwest Airport, the  Arlington
Airport,  and the Grand Prairie Airport. I think this does establish
the fact  that I am not unduly sensitive and not a crochety old
woman.
  Naturally, at this time our interests were concerning our own,
but we  did  wonder  about  the  animals in that  canyon  being

-------
                             22

affected by the numerous  periods of strident sound  inflicted on
them. Was the sound greater along the trail? Had the wildlife
adapted to the harassment? Or had they all moved to another
area? Or  had they acclimated  themselves to the timing of the
invasion and  move about only during off hours for the helicopter
tours? Or  had they ceased to exist?
  We turned back to  retrace  our steps down to the Phantom
Ranch, and still another helicopter came  in close overhead and
prepared to land on the gravel bar on Bright Angel Creek.  Irate
at the shuttle service to the bottom of the canyon while we had
walked down anticipating a cloistral retreat, I girded myself to
let loose a blast of my  own. The passengers in the chopper  were
National  Park Service personnel, so  it  was evident that my
selected phraseology would fall  upon deaf ears. They did tell us,
though, that the men were  bringing in some sort of meteorological
equipment which was too  difficult to send down by mule. There
was  no shuttle service; only authorized, by National Park Service
officials, trips could be made  by helicopter to Phantom Ranch
at a price of $120 per passenger, and the  flights were  usually
limited to emergencies. We could not talk to  the ranger at the
station because it  happened to be his day off, but others at
Phantom Ranch assured us that the Park Service didn't have the
authority  to  prevent the sightseeing craft from flying above the
Grand Canyon although they were to stay at a considerable alti-
tude when over the Bright Angel and Kaibab Trails and to limit
the lower  elevation flights  to the area east of Bright Angel Creek,
which was in fact where we had observed them.
  I have added, as part of my documentation—and this is really
valid documentation—an advertisement from the helicopter com-
pany showing the route that they fly. However, it is not exactly
accurate because they  do make loops up around Brahma Temple
instead of turning left and going down  the river to the temple.
  Then we staggered on down  to the Colorado River to  eat our
lunch and found three inflated rafts there,  part of them with
passengers in them. The river  runs always stop there for lunch,
we understand. Two of the crafts were powered and the  third
was not.  The one craft was conducting feasibility  tests  to de-
termine if it was safe to  continue river runs without auxiliary
power units,  because,  it was explained, all float  trips had  to be
unpowered within  2 years because the  noise  interrupted the
solitude. Now, this explanation was incredible to us, for what little
sound the floats made  could seldom,  if  ever, be  heard above the
thundering,  rumbling, cavorting river  noises. We couldn't  even
talk to each other, just in  sign  language, alongside the river. But
it is an incongruous situation. The river trip would have  to be
unpowered if it was found that it was  feasible to do  so, while we
up on the trail had to give up because we were getting drunk
from the  helicopter invasion. Now, this statement is hearsay. We
do not  have  any documentation  except the slides that we took
showing that two of them were powered and one  was unpowered,
and just the  hearsay statement that this was the conversation.

-------
                              23

  But  it is obvious that I have outlined the conflicts of interest
which  now occur over the use of recreational  areas. Where can
the line  of demarcation be placed between the  rights of those
who desire near-solitude without danger of intrusion versus the
rights  of others to seek recreational pleasure while penalizing the
former group?
  And, of course, in this case I think I have a  big solution. I am
positive  that  I have earned  the right to  escape  for  that one
twenty-sixth of the year by withdrawal from the impacted com-
munity into the calm environment of  remote recreational  areas.
What right have others to pursue me in a mechanical monster to
rob me of the  benefits of my own endeavor? In my opinion those
sightseeing trips should be declared a public nuisance and elimi-
nated  immediately. Most of  the wilderness  areas should  be
afforded  the  same protection, summer and winter, and noisy
machines be permitted only in emergency cases.
  And just this past week  I  read  an ad trying to get a  group
of people together in the  wintertime to take  snowmobile  trips
into wilderness areas.  But this type of experience is already, I
think,  under the control of the Federal Government and National
Park Service. And before the helicopters get any bigger—and my
recent issue of "Winter Gateway" states that they have  added
huge 500 helicopters to these trips,  so we'll  have a real doozy of
a sound  experience down there in the canyon  now.
  This is an opportunity, of course, to present our complaint to
your group, although for this particular one I  had to go outside
the State to find.  But it is evidence of citizen and government
interest in the psychological as well as the  physiological hazards
of noise  proliferation. And how long will  it take to achieve a
rational  balance between progress and preservation? Where can
the line be drawn  between the objectionable and damaging noise
and noise that needs to be tolerated in the  benefit of the Nation
as a whole? It is hardly likely that those who are committing the
acts which generate the  damaging noise  will voluntarily  cease
their operations,  so their activities can become the problem of
groups like yours  which must collect, evaluate, and propose and
support legislation which will define the privileges and regulate
the prerogatives of those bent on leisure time activities. I think
that this report of  mine is  valid when considering  the  critical
point  between sanity and insanity brought on  by urban com-
pression. With your reports to the executive department  and
Congress, of course, we hope that legislation can be formulated
and passed  which will hold noise to a level  consistent  with a
tolerable existence.
  Thank you.
  Dr.  MEYER. Mrs. Fletcher, thank  you for bringing this to our
attention. Before  I  make a  couple  of  observations, I'll ask the
panel, does anybody on my left have a comment?
  Dr.  WARD. Well, yeah.  I'd like to make a comment that your
example  illustrates  the difficulty of  passing  good regulations.
Because  if you just ban all  internal combustion engines in all

-------
                             24

national parks, which  I don't think would  be a bad idea,  you
would be getting rid of these powerboats in the Grand  Canyon,
and it really isn't necessary. So you see, it's  very difficult,  unless
you judge each case on its  own merits, to pass a good law.  But
in my area, which I'm more concerned with, being from Minne-
apolis, motorboats  there, I'd just as soon see banned. But on the
Colorado,  as  you  say, the  noise  from the water itself  is so
thunderous that the boats don't make any noise. And my point
is, that it's very difficult to  pass something that is sensible in all
dimensions.
  Mr. BERLAND. It sounds to me a little like,  from the testimony,
that maybe the Federal Government ought to  set aside  national
solitude areas as well as national parks.
  Mrs. FLETCHER.  If it's above, though. If it's  above, how far up
does your authority go? We, of course, were  not allowed to leave
any  trash along the way.  We had to carry everything in  and
out.  In fact everything from Phantom Ranch is carried out by
muleback, all the tin cans,  all the  trash and the glass. And  this
is very consistent  with remote solitude, undisturbed areas.  But
how far up does it go ?
  Dr. MEYER.  Mrs. Fletcher,  and members of  the panel, I think
you'll all be interested in knowing that  my office, actually the
Environmental Protection Agency, has a contract  on some very
sensitive studies on noise problems in the  Grand  Canyon. This
problem had  been called to our attention, but not in the clear
and  specific terms you have presented it. Arizona  State College,
under a grant  from  us, is  doing some instrumentation, and we
are working with  the  National Park Service  to try to  get  this
thing taken care of under our very  limited powers.
  Also,  may  I ask your permission  to do  one thing? We are
having a hearing on recreation problems in  Denver and I would
like  to insert your statement in the record of  that hearing also,
if I may.
  Mrs. FLETCHER. Would you,  please. I'd appreciate it.
  Dr. MEYER. Thank you. We'll now  proceed  to testimony from
Mrs. Franklyn Wright. Mrs. Wright, welcome to our gathering.

          STATEMENT OF MRS. FRANKLYN WRIGHT

  Mrs. WRIGHT. I wish to thank  the Environmental Protection
Agency for involving us in  these hearings,  because  so  often
recommendations are made and standards are set and  laws are
passed, and the public is not involved and has  no real knowlegde
of what we, as citizens, really want. And through these  hearings
the EPA has become  the public ear through which we can all be
heard, and we are very grateful.
  Dr. MEYER. Thank you, Ma'am.
   Mrs. WRIGHT. And I was  just going to speak very briefly on
noise and on trees as one of the solutions to the problem. And if
I can,  quote just a very brief little thing from John Greenleaf
Whittier.

-------
                             25

  "Spirit of the forest, drop Thy still dews of quietness
  Till all our strivings cease;
  Take from us now the strain and stress,
  And let our ordered lives confess,
  The beauty of Thy peace."
  The public has always been concerned about the breaking of
the peace,  wherever  they  are indicated And way back  when,
Julius Caesar banned  evening chariot joy rides because they were
keeping the  people awake. And to date  we haven't improved
much, and our chariots are even  noisier. We  are the noisiest
generation  in history, a whirring, clatterous, continuous  motor
becoming our true national symbol.
  Noises everywhere; down in the Grand Canyon, factories, hos-
pitals, homes, and of course, in homes it's really sort of continuous
with  all  of our mechanized devices.  But you know, they  don't
seem to bother us too much; it's our neighbors noises that bother
us. We are more concerned about our neighbors mowing the lawn
than we are  ours. And of  course, even in the wilderness.  Today
the shattering shock of the sonic boom and the  arrumparoom of
the most dinsome, racketal pandemonium of all, the motorcycle.
My son just bought one; that's why I'm so mad about it. But they
negate the  peace of the general area. We should probably have a
national  solitude area. And of course,  we are going to discuss a
lot of things tomorrow that are a little more technical, the psy-
chological effects of continuous racket. The ultimate, of course, is
madness. The physiological effects, which are not yet completely
understood in detail except for hearing loss,  where the ultimate
is total deafness.
  But the alarming fact is that our world is  becoming noisier—
city noises probably increase one decibel each year.  For laymen
like myself—and I'm sure  no one needs a definition except me—
one decibel is the weakest sound the  normal human can  detect,
eighty decibels are  considered loud, one hundred  deafening, a
hundred and twenty  dangerous,  a  hundred and  forty extremely
painful, and  a hundred and sixty can kill small  animals.
  And since some areas are already dangerously  high, any  in-
crease, even  one decibel a  year, can be extremely dangerous.  To
ignore this danger is like the optimist that  fell ten stories.  At
each  window bar he  shouted  to  his friends,  "All right so far."
But we're not ready for that yet.
  Technical solutions will be described in detail tomorrow.  Today
I should like to discuss one rather simple method, the preserva-
tion of trees.
  In addition to being "As lovely as," trees are manufacturers of
oxygen, utilizers  of carbon dioxide, air  purifiers, food suppliers,
preventers of stream siltation, provide food, windbreaks, cooling
shade, soil conservation, watershed protection,  wildlife habitat.
They also serve us as sound barriers against traffic and industrial
noise.
  To a large extent we in Dallas have not utilized this natural
resource. Too often developers will bulldoze a forested area, build

-------
                             26

their buildings, then plant young trees which may take fifty or
more years to equal those destroyed. Too often our Public Works
Department, in the  name of flood control, has demolished count-
less numbers  through channelization,  a flood  control measure
which usually  rushes water through faster, creating additional
problems downstream. For these, and  many other reasons,  our
trees have been slaughtered,  a loss of not only shade and beauty,
but of actual anti-pollution devices.
  The  Agricultural Department says a 3 year  study near com-
pletion indicates unwanted noises can be cut as much as 65 per-
cent if trees and shrubs are  used  as  barriers. This is a high
percentage, and I'm sure would be  only through the use of the
shelter belt, the thick leaf plant, as opposed to trees. Trees are
good as noise barriers, but the 65 percent would probably mean
very thick rows.
  And I do believe the members  of  the  Dallas  City Council
recognize this  use of trees,  and I hope they will soon pass an
amendment to the city code  to protect  our trees. And I am sure
the EPA  will  include  tree preservation among their various
recommendations for noise abatement.
  Dr. MEYER. Thank you very  much. As a matter of fact, tomor-
row a representative of the American Institute of  Landscape
Architects  is going  to discuss this very subject in some technical
detail. Panel?
  Dr. NEWMAN. I'd like to comment. I'm a  great  admirer of
trees; they are marvelous. Unfortunately, they don't do anything
to noise. This  Department of Agriculture study is bunkum.
  Mrs. WRIGHT. Oh, is it? That's where I got it  from.
  Dr. NEWMAN. I know. I've  read  it,  and  I've written the  guy
down at the University of Nebraska.  It's very  sad, but it's  just
bunk.
  Mrs. WRIGHT. Well, I have some other sources quoting trees—
now, that one may be.
  Dr. NEWMAN. Let me tell you a little  story.
  Mrs. WRIGHT. OK.
  Dr.  NEWMAN. In Boston, the Boston Edison Company  has
transformers that serve neighborhoods, and they put them out in
residential areas. And they had one transformer that was  sur-
rounded by a  cyclone fence  with barbed wire on top. A railroad
track was  right behind this  group of transformers,  a main road
ran along here, and then a row of houses stood here. And a  lady
in one of these houses said, "You've got to stop that damn trans-
former;  it's making  so much noise it's keeping me  awake at
night."
   So we were hired  to go  out  and look at this noise, and we
found  that at about 2:00 in the morning, indeed you could hear
this transformer out in front of the house. So we recommended  a
very  elaborate noise control  procedure, which was  to build  a
building around this  transformer and put  in ventilation and so
on. The company  said, "That's too expensive; we  are going to
plant some trees."

-------
                             27

  We said, "It won't do any good."
  They said, "We are going to plant trees anyhow."
  They did. They planted  one  row of arborvitaes around three
sides  of  the transformer.  Of course the railroad  track didn't
matter because the trains weren't complaining.
  And the lady said, "Oh,  thank  you, Boston Edison. The noise
is all gone now and I'm so happy."
  And then  they  said,  "Now, you guys  said it wouldn't  do any-
thing. Go out there and measure it again and let's see."
  So we  did, and  indeed the noise hadn't changed a speck. Out of
sight, out of mind.
  And I think that the benefit  from the trees in  cutting  out
traffic  noises  is  considerable in  terms  of "out of  sight." But
unfortunately, you get very little benefit. When  I  tell  you it
doesn't do anything, it's quite accurate. But even a half a mile or
a mile of woods does very  little. I don't want to be all negative,
but that's the way I	
  From the  AUDIENCE. An  arborvitae is not a tree; it's a sort of
a hedge.
  Dr.  WARD. I think that  Mrs. Wright, in something she inter-
jected, said something that we should keep in mind. It's the noise
of others that annoys us; it's not the noise we make  ourself,
which may be obvious  to everyone. And yet, this means that it's
not the noise per se that's  annoying; it's  the fact that it's made
by somebody else. And as  I think about  it, I don't  really mind
hearing a jet plane passing over when I'm up in the wilderness in
Ontario  half  as  much  as I detest  meeting  another  group  of
hunters.  I think  that I'm off away from  everyone, and  the fact
that they are there really makes me  mad. But the jet—well, OK.
that's  the price you pay for civilization. I think that this is the
whole point. We're just getting  too crowded, and our  concern
with the annoyance value of noise may be inevitable. I mean, if
it wasn't the  noise aspect  of our many  neighbors,  it would be
some other aspect of their  simply being there that would bug us.
  Dr.  MEYER.  Well, perhaps what you are saying, and what  Dr.
Newman said, and also what Mrs. Wright was  saying  with
reference to the other aspects to the  tree problem, and perhaps—
I'm  not  going to try to  prejudge  the Institute  of Landscape
Architects tomorrow—but perhaps it is  the combined  effect of
visual contact and auditory  contact. When you reduce  some of
the visual contact, perhaps the sensory  mechanisms of the brain
operate  in such a way that the  harsher reality of  the  noise is
reduced  somehow.  This is one of  the  things  in our  research
program that  we hope to undertake very shortly, and we hope to
investigate to  some length.  Any other comments? Thank you very
much.
   Again, we are getting a little  stimulation of some  cross-con-
versation here that's most  useful. Thank you. We have two other
people scheduled  for this morning, and rather than taking a short
break at this point, I will go ahead and ask the remainder of the
morning witnesses if  they would go ahead, and then  we may

-------
                             28

possibly  be  able to end  up a few minutes earlier and have a
slightly longer lunch session, which, with all the other activities
going on  in the city, may be desirable.
  Is this  agreeable, now? Well, in that case, I should like to invite
Mrs.  Robert Sapp of  the  American Association  of  University
Women if she would let us hear from her.  Mrs. Sapp.
       STATEMENT OF MRS. ROBERT SAPP, AMERICAN
           ASSOCIATION OF UNIVERSITY  WOMEN

  Mrs. SAPP. Do you all have copies?
  Dr. MEYER. Yes. Thank you, Ma'am.
  Mrs. SAPP. By way of introduction,  I'm Mary Sapp, vice Presi-
dent of the Dallas Branch of the American Association of Uni-
versity Women, and I'm also  chairman  of the environmental
group.
  I believe, Dr. Meyer, that one of our  women testified in Chicago.
  Dr. MEYER. Yes, she did, and gave a very nice presentation.
  Mrs. SAPP. So I am  speaking  for a very, very large group.  I
don't have too many personal observations to make.
  In June of this  year the  American Association of University
Women held its national convention here in  Dallas. At that time
more than  1,200 delegates  who were in  attendance adopted  a
Federal legislative  program. Included in this program was  the
association's very strong support of measures that will conserve
and  improve the  environment,  particularly the  control  of  en-
vironmental pollution.
  It is in keeping with this program that  I submit  these views
to you.
  In preparation for this testimony, I felt it necessary to  gather
some first hand information. And, unlike that heard from other
testifiers, I did not have to  go out of my kitchen.  I would like
to treat you to the noises of my kitchen.
  (At this  point a tape recording was played by the witness.)
  Can you hear it?
  I think probably you've had enough.
  I think the saying should  be, "If you can't stand the noise, get
out of the kitchen." It would  seem that  appliances  and ma-
chinery are designed with noise in mind,  the more  power,  the
more noise. And one does not have to be an expert to see that
the  noise levels  are on the  increase  and  that we  are  being
bombarded and assaulted  with noise from all  directions. But
unlike the  air and  water pollution, noise pollution is not visible
and does not usually remain for extended periods. Therefore,  I
think the public as a whole  is unaware generally  of the problem.
Ironically,  noise pollution  often acts so  subtly  on the  human
mind that it has gained a form of acceptance as an inevitable by-
product of  technology and progress.
  In the report to the President on Noise  Abatement, Dr. Vern
0.  Knudsen, acoustical physicist,  states that the loudest noises

-------
                             29

to which we are exposed have increased some 20 decibels in the
past 20 years, and if this rate continues for another 20 years the
noises  will reach the lethal level. Authorities agree that perma-
nent hearing damage can be caused by exposure to noise levels
over 85 decibels  for extended periods and such damage is not
likely to be noticed until  too late.  It is significant to note now
that city  traffic levels  register 90  decibels,  subways  a  hundred
decibels,  motorcycles 120, jet planes 140,  with  many of  our fac-
tories,  construction sites, and kitchens ranging  about  a  hundred
decibels.
  Although sound is easily measured, its effects are  not. How-
ever, it is generally agreed that the extreme noise  can endanger
health, property value, buildings, and the general  quality of the
environment in which we live.
  Medical studies here and  abroad report numerous effects of
noise on the human body. These are: Increased level of cholesterol
in the  blood, constriction of blood vessels, higher blood pressure,
dilation of vessels in the brain causing headaches, increased flow
of stomach acids, and provoked emotions.  Because the  human ear
cannot be turned off, noise even affects people during their sleep.
In  laboratory animals the results of prolonged  exposure to high
noise levels are very dramatic, ending in  heart  failure.
   Courts have acknowledged the  existence of  noise damage by
awarding compensation to workers claiming hearing loss caused
by their jobs.
   The Veterans Administration pays $8 million a year in claims
to  service men whose hearing has been  damaged  by gunfire  in
training- and combat. According to the chief audiologist at Walter
Reed Medical Center,  more  than  half of the 500,000 men who
receive military  combat training each year suffer a significant
hearing loss.
   The World Health Organization estimates the cost of industrial
noise at $4 billion annually, this resulting from accidents, absen-
teeism, inefficiency, and compensation claims. Mental  illness and
irritability, although unmeasurable, are  surely enormous. The
psychological effects of noise should not be understated. Annoying
and uncomfortable sounds can  lead to poor functioning and  to
instability of the population.
   Material damage from  high  noise levels  is  also considerable.
The Air Force paid $115,112 in the fiscal year  of  1969  for sonic
boom  damages to 814 complainants. More than  $6 million  in
claims were filed. So here again,  a lot of people were hurt who
didn't win. In 1968, when the Air Force fighters  swooped over
the Air  Force Academy  during  graduation  exercises, $50,000
worth of windows were broken. In the cases of material damage,
however, reparation can be made. This is not the case with hear-
ing loss  or psychological damage.
   What  is being done about all of this ? The United States has  no
general  antinoise legislation. Although in 1970 the Federal Gov-
ernment  allocated $32  million for noise control,  $29 million  of
this was spent  on research of aircraft, leaving  very  little  for

-------
                             30

study of other transportation and  noise  sources. The  Federal
Aviation Administration  recommends  quiet  construction tech-
niques, but such countries as  Canada, Great Britain, West Ger-
many are way ahead with  national building codes.  European
cities had standards 30 years ago. Although the Federal Aviation
Administration allows only a maximum of  108 decibels, I believe,
now for new airplanes, instead of the  120 decibels, there is no
regulation of military  planes  or surface transportation. With a
projected U.S. population  of 300 million for the year 2000, with
four out of  every  five  of that projected population living in the
cities, with 70 million  cars on the road now, with traffic noises
registering 90 decibels in large cities, and with a projected figure
of 1,420 flights daily in 1980 at our own regional airport,  we can
no  longer wait for action that will  alleviate our present noise
problems and prevent further noise pollution.
  Obviously our noise  control is far behind our technology.  But
we do have  the expertise  to decrease and  eliminate most of the
excessive noises around us now. By way of example,  noisy  ma-
chines  can be enclosed and insulated,  streets can be  cut below
grade so the noise won't be as loud, airports can be built away
from population  centers  and can  have buffered  zones;  proper
construction techniques can soundproof buildings  and  dwellings,
and machinery can be  designed with built-in sound depressors.
General  Motors has already  developed a  quiet  garbage truck;
Bethlehem Steel has  developed a noiseless metal garbage can;
Ingersoll-Rand has a  whisperized compressor; and the  United
States  has silent submarines.  So technology can do these things.
We are not asking that they erase all these marvelous machines,
but build with noise in mind.
   Where does this leave us? Well, we  have the method and the
means, but we don't have the motivation. We fail to see that noise
has replaced quiet as an American value. And we feel that tech-
nology should support American values, not undermine them. The
burden falls on everybody; it falls on the public, who is going to
have to  demand  noise  control, and on the engineers and tech-
nologists who can design for noise control, and on the Government
officials to enact regulations and set standards. We hope that this
hearing and other public hearings will provide that motivation.
And we strongly  urge  active Federal legislation and  ordinances
now to control and improve noise levels.
   Thank you very much.
   Dr. MEYER. Thank you very much. Panel?
   MR. BERLAND.  (Playing tape.)  That's my dishwasher.
   Mrs. SAPP. Mr. Berland,  I'd like to thank you, and I'd like to
make a comment. When  I  was  trying to gather some  facts, I
found a real dearth of material in noise pollution, and  this struck
me—because I have done research on both water and air pollu-
tion, and it's so much sometimes that you can't cover it all. But I
think you will agree that there's very little on the noise problem
that has been written and substantiated today.

-------
                             31

  Dr. GLORIG. Well, I think I would disagree with that. There is
a lot been written, but very little substantiated.
  Dr. MEYER. I was going to venture the observations that a great
deal has been written, and  also that a lot of it has not  been
substantiated, and that a great deal has been written that's so
highly technical that the  general public has not had a chance to
really evaluate it. Could I ask one question of you, if I  might, be-
fore we proceed to the next witness? This question of noise in
home appliances is something that  some of the  industry people
are going to talk about tomorrow, about what they think they can
do about it, and what they are going to do about it,  and what
they have been doing, and what it will cost. I'm not trying to
embarrass  you  with this question  at all—but as a typical in-
dividual with knowledge  of  this in the  environment,  was there
anything when these items were purchased, did the thought about
noise or noise control at  that time enter into your decisionmak-
ing? And again, I'm not trying to embarrass you.
  Mrs. SAPP. It does now, in that I don't like to run my blender,
and I almost refuse to turn on the kitchen fan. And my husband,
who comes from a noise level of about 50 decibels to a  kitchen of
100 with kids screaming in  the background,  I  think this is  a
considerable concern  now. I  don't think  that this was  a  concern
before we had so many. One  is all right, but you put  on  two or
three and it's incredibly bad.
  Dr. MEYER. I think that's the point I was getting at.
  Mrs. SAPP. And our houses here  in Texas are so wonderfully
designed that the kitchen is right next to the den, which has all
of the noise units in it, the television, the hi-fi and the drum sets.
And daddy walks in the  back door and wow, you know.  So  I
think maybe—I can't say this medically, but your stomach acids
do flow.
  Dr. GLORIG. I am sure of that. Mine do too.
  Dr. MEYER. Thank you  very much.
  Mrs. SAPP. Thank you for the opportunity.
  Dr. MEYER. I'd now like to invite Mrs. C. M.  Thompson, who
has indicated a desire to  make a statement. Mrs. Thompson, are
you here?


        STATEMENT  OF  MRS. CHARLES M. THOMPSON

  MRS. THOMPSON. I live  at 4311 Vandelia, and in my block there
are seven men. Most of my friends have lady neighbors, but I have
seven men that live in my block. And this one was kind enough to
—he  didn't think I could come. I didn't think there was  anyone
who could read my handwriting. Anyway, this is it.
  I am a widowed homeowner at the above address, 4311 Van-
delia, Dallas, Tex., and wish to submit my testimony of our need
for noise abatement and control as follows:
  I have lived at 4311 Vandelia  Avenue for 46 years, and  Love
Field, now  the main airport of Dallas, is several  miles northwest

-------
                             32

of my home. My home is under the path which nearly all depart-
ing- planes take  from Love Field in the summer.  And one can
drive right up Cedar Springs Road from my home directly to
Love Field.
  July the 20, 1927, I gathered my two children and went to Love
Field to  see Col. Lindbergh, fresh from his  epochmaking solo
nonstop flight from New York City to Paris, France. There was
an  immense crowd at  Love  Field for  the  welcome.  And  we
Dallasites were then hopeful we would see many more airplanes
using the field.
  Our hopes have been  realized. Dallas airport is  now a  major
one of the United States. But alas, the noise.
  And I want to say, too, that when Col. Lindbergh gave his talk,
they said that was the last hero—he would be our last hero. Well,
I don't think the astronauts would  appreciate that.
  Now, during the last 15 years or so,  the noise  of jet  planes
over my home, one every few minutes, night and day, is deafen-
ing. It interferes with my telephone conversations and my  enjoy-
ment of my  television, and  makes it  impossible  to have  the
garden parties we used to enjoy so much. One can shut out the
noise when in one's home by using air-conditioning, but  I, an
ordinary resident, am  not wealthy enough to build an air-con-
ditioned dome over my  house  and  garden like the  Astrodome in
Houston, as some extremely wealthy persons elsewhere have done.
So I must suffer  on.
  Much deafness has been caused on my block on Vandelia Street
and on the next  street, Hall Street. Forty-five years ago I was in
the youth of old age.  Now I am in the old  age of youth, living
on the savings of my dear dead husband and that  relatives have
left me. There has been no deafness in my family.  My sister, 85,
has never lived around airplanes, and her hearing is perfect. But
now my hearing is becoming impaired,  and as I say, my  enjoy-
ment of my television and my garden  is spoiled,  and even  my
phone conversations with friends  are  being interfered with by
the  noise. And  thus I  am being  deprived of  even the meager
pleasures  of old age.
   Now, it's not only just with friends. The other day I was talk-
ing to the bank for my brother-in-law, who is an old, old man.
I was looking after him, and  I wanted to see that he got more
interest. He said, "You'll have to put it in for a certain number
of years."
   And I said,  "All right. Put  it 1972." Because I didn't want to
put his savings where I couldn't get to it when he needed it. And
they put it 1982, and sent me a notice that they had done that.
It's not 1982, it's 1972.  He and I won't even be alive by then.
   But anyway, there a lot of things like that that  take place.
   Please, Dr. Meyer, won't you and your organization help us to
abate this blight before  it is too late.
   Thank you for this opportunity to contribute my widow's mite.
   Yours truly, Marie Thompson.
   Dr. MEYER. Now, your widow's mite is received most gratefully.

-------
                             33

You have highlighted in some very distinct words what part of
the annoyance  problem of noise is—the interference with  the
desire to have occasional recreational activities and the ability to
innovate. And I think it was a very fine, public-spirited action
for you to come in yourself and do this. Panel?
  Mrs. THOMPSON.  Well, I think it's time to come because, you
know, old age has its compensations. And I'm not overly sensitive
to noise. I have  eight  grandchildren. No,  six,  and two great-
grandchildren.
  Dr. MEYER. So you do have some tolerance to noise. I under-
stand what you mean. Thank you so much.
  At this point,  then, I would like Mrs. Henry Richardson, if
she is here, to come forward and let us hear from her. It's nice
to have you here,  Mrs. Richardson.


          STATEMENT OF MRS. HENRY  RICHARDSON

   Mrs. RICHARDSON. Good morning, Dr.  Meyer  and panel mem-
bers. I am very grateful to you people for bringing this hearing
to Dallas and giving us the opportunity to appear. I do not have
a  written  statement  because until yesterday afternoon  it was
doubtful that I  could come.
   I live a little way from Mrs. Thompson, but not quite so close
to Love  Field.  I  live at 3323 Blackburn  Street, which parallels
Lemmon Avenue, across the  street  from  the Theater Center and
the high-rise apartment known as 3525,  and unfortunately is in
the  flight  pattern.  My family has  lived in this  block,  in this
particular  block,  since  1889,  so we certainly preceded  the air-
plane.
   Last night when  you  were  on Channel  13, and one of the feed-
back questions, a pilot's wife called in and said, "Why do people
move  into the  area of  airports?" Well,  we  were  there  first, as
were many other people. This area was completely developed. So
this is not quite  fair. We are, I would say, at least 4 or 5 miles
from Love Field. I'm not particularly susceptible to noises, I'm
not cranky about noise. There is a railroad track near  us, and  I
grew up there. The railroad  has never bothered me. And it isn't
just seeing,  because the jet  noises are  certainly not  visible.  I
realize that some urban noises are unavoidable, and since I choose
to live in an  urban  community, I am willing to put up with many
urban noises, but I do  feel that much of the airport noise could
be avoided. I'm not an  expert, but as a  lay person,  I would like
to give my ideas  and see if some of these are legitimate.
   As for home appliances, which one of the ladies mentioned, we
have a choice. We can either  cut them off or not buy them or run
them.  We have no choice about listening to the jet planes. At some
times  of the day—and  unfortunately,  you have been on at least
twice  that I know of since  you reached Dallas yesterday;  you
were on channel  13, which I  always watch at 6:30; you were on
News Eight, et cetera,  this morning at 7 o'clock, which  I always

-------
                             34

watch. And those are the two  times  of the day—I'm not an
inveterate TV watcher; I watch  the news and then I cut my TV
off. But those are the two times of the day when the planes are
almost incessant.  Before the sound of one dies away, another is
in the air. Now, if it happens to be an extremely hot or  an ex-
tremely cold  time of the  year and we have our room  air condi-
tioners on, it partially drowns out the noise. But during those
lovely times of the year to which we all look forward, spring and
autumn, the jet planes make life unbearable  for us.  This is not
simply psychological; this is a matter of  practical living.
  The weather report will come on and I will listen  carefully to
see if it's going to freeze tonight, if I need to cover some tender
plants or  if I need to take  precautions  about the plumbing,  or
how cold it's going  to be. Just as he gives the minimum, unless
I happen to be looking at the screen, the plane comes over and
I lose it. I'll  listen maybe to a joke, and just as he  reaches the
point, I lose  it. I never know the point of the joke.  I can live
without that,  but I'll always wonder  how it comes  out. I'll call
friends who don't live in the flight pattern and I'll say, "Did you
hear  so-and-so? What was the  point of that  joke,  because  I
missed it?"
  And on the telephone, I have  to put my hand over the mouth-
piece to keep the person on the  other end from being drowned
out, because it absorbs the sound of the plane going over. We can
no  longer entertain  in the yard.  Our son and  daughter-in-law,
who live about a block from us, are  a little hardier stock than
we are, and they still have their cookouts in  the yard. If we try
to cook out in the yard, we beat a hasty retreat into the house
to eat it, because  it's not pleasant to try to talk. We can stand as
close as I am to this microphone and  be  unable to be heard over
the sound of the  plane. And until you have been through it, you
may not believe me. But it is true.
   There are  other  little  inconveniences. We have  an intercom
system. Our  property goes farther than the sound  of our  voice
will carry, so we have an intercom system so I can call my hus-
band or some of  the family to the phone, or if I need to get in
touch with them. I  can't use that intercom  system  because the
planes, at certain times of the day, are  so noisy.  This intercom
system, I can turn it  on in the kitchen—the main station  is in
the kitchen.  All  the  stations around our place are always on.
When I turn on the kitchen, everything  else is on, so it picks up
any sound anywhere  in the yard. I can't bear the sound  of that
in the kitchen because it picks up the  airplane noises. Several
times my husband  has started  out the  door, the telephone has
rung, and it's, "May I speak to Mr.  Richardson?"  I run to the
door and call him, and he goes his merry way. He can't even hear
me. And I run a racetrack procedure to try  to grab him and to
touch him so that I can get him back, because there is a  plane
flying overhead.
   And you wait—you are standing there talking to someone, and
you wait  for  this plane to go over; it does you no good. Before

-------
                             35

the sound fades away, there is another one coming at certain times
of the day. The Theater  Center  goes  through it, North  Dallas
High  School goes through  it, Rusk Junior High School  goes
through it.
  Now, North Dallas was built before the jet plane. I listened to
Dr. White, who was then  superintendent of our Dallas  Inde-
pendent  School of District, make a talk to the PTA  at Rusk
Junior High, and  he had to  stop  several times while he  was
speaking. And he said,  "I've often  wondered why we built this
school where we did." For the information  of the North  Dallas
people, Rusk Junior High is about, I  would say, 2  miles from
the airport, about halfway  between our house and the airport,
maybe a little bit closer to the airport  than  our  house. My child
went  to school there. These residences,  as  I say, were  established
long before the airport came. Now,  what it is doing to areas like
this, it means a steady  deterioration of these parts  of  the  city.
The planes that are taking off seem to  give us more trouble than
the planes that are  coming in. I assume that it's because  they
have  more power. I have traveled quite  a  lot on jet planes. I
traveled  over the Pacific in a jet plane, and passengers would not
tolerate  the noise that  the  person  down  below  has to tolerate.
And this is unfair,  because many  more  people are affected  by
that jet plane as it flies  overhead than  are inside the jet plane.
  I am  wondering,  that since the  major portion of  this comes
in the early mornings and the late  evenings—and I  think  Mrs.
Thompson lives somewhere near  the flight  paths, so  she  knows
what  I'm talking about—I'm wondering  if these flights couldn't
be routed  over areas that are primarily  business or industrial,
that are not heavily populated at that time of day. And besides
that,  they are  generally filled with  buildings  that are insulated
and buildings that don't have open  windows and outdoor living
patterns that would not be so seriously  disturbed and  upset  by
these patterns.  Many of these planes that take off over our place
—we live south of the airport, and  my friends who live north of
the airport don't have  this trouble—many of these planes  go
across to Southeast Dallas and then veer off in another direction.
So  we get  not only the southbound planes, but the  eastbound
planes, and I'm afraid  some of the planes even that are west-
bound. Although the planes that  I have  seen westbound did not
go over our house, but I  think some of them do. Or I'm wondering
if they could not  climb more rapidly in their takeoff patterns. It
seems to be that there is a great variance  in the altitude at which
they pass our house—go over our house. And these are technical
matters  which  I am  not competent  to decide upon. But just as a
lay observer, I would like for some of you gentlemen to under-
stand what we have to  go through  and consider  it. Sometimes a
person who is standing down there on the  ground, who is perhaps
not technically equipped  to answer these  questions, may  have
some very simplistic thing that isn't so foolish after all.
  Now,  I'm wondering  also about  future development. We own
property, we own acreage which is about two and a half miles

-------
                             36

from the new regional airport. There was an article in Sunday's
paper, which I will leave with you gentlemen, which was signed
by Gloria Brooks,  which is an assumed name. But  it points out
very briefly: "While construction proceeds smoothly at the Dallas-
Fort Worth Airport, a source of real concern is obtaining com-
mercial and industrial zoning on the borders of the huge facility.
Towns and cities  bordering the  airport reportedly may be  in-
clined to zone for other uses. This could mean residential develop-
ment, noise complaints and other headaches that the airport hopes
to avoid."
  Now,  I have no axe to grind in coming here; I simply come as
a citizen. But I do  know from personal experience because within
the last 2 weeks the city in which our  property lies is trying to
purchase or acquire part of it, perhaps  through eminent domain
and condemnation. And in. this  process they  are trying to con-
vince us  that it isn't worth very much money after all. And they
have told us within the last 2 weeks  that we could  never hope to
get anything more than single family  zoning for this property.
We haven't asked for any zoning at all.  The property is not even
on the market. But this is being  used in many communities, I'm
sure, as this column points out by speculators and by persons who
have contact with some of these city officials. On  one side our
property will be  adjoined by a hospital and by the new Sears and
Roebuck shopping center. On the other side it  is already built up
with private homes, rather nice private  homes. And I can under-
stand their objection to business or commercial use next to them.
But this land is much  closer to the regional airport than our
residence in Dallas, and if this city follows this device, for what-
ever means, of establishing single family residences around  the
regional airport, we are going to be in trouble. Now, I don't know
that I—I don't know just how far the Federal Government should
go in this, but certainly they should counsel  with  local govern-
mental  agencies and local government departments,  and  some
warning should be issued to a developer, just  as in a flood plain,
that if  he develops  this area for single  family residences,  the
Government, the agencies, no one wants  to hear any complaint
from  the residents who build  there when they know that  the
airport is already there.
  So these are things approached from  two different ends, and I
hope that perhaps they have been of some use to you.
  I am  vice president  of the Women's Chamber of  Commerce
and director of  its legislative department, and I  have a highly
developed social consciousness  although I come speaking as an
individual this morning.
  Dr. MEYER. Well, thank you very  much. Your points and your
information tie  right in with the whole concept of the need for
the consideration  of noise as an element  of planes. Panel?
  Mr.  BERLAND. I have a question.  Mrs. Richardson, the city of
Dallas now owns Love Field; is that right?
  Mrs.  RICHARDSON. That's right.

-------
                             37

  Mr.  BERLAND.  I  wonder if you brought any of these  noise
problems before the city council.
  Mrs. RICHARDSON. No, I have never complained before to any-
one, and that's the big reason I'm so glad to have  it here.  As
some of you  may or may not know, there were extensive suits
filed here in connection with the noise problem from Love Field.
I can't tell you exactly the outcome of those suits. I think some
were won,  some were lost and some were  dropped. I'm  not the
sort of person to go to court. The attitude of our city—getting to
your question—the attitude of our city has  been that of a highly
indulgent  parent  for Love Field for many, many years.  As you
probably know, our city  was very reluctant to  cooperate in the
regional airport. They would not cooperate in Amon  Carter Air-
port. It seemed that Love Field was a matter of fighting pride
with our city fathers.  And I don't mean to be  critical of them,
but they seemed unduly bent on maintaining Love Field. And I
have had the feeling that I might just as well go to an indulgent
parent and complain about their one and only child as to go and
complain about Love Field.
  Dr. MEYER. That's been a problem  elsewhere,  people feeling
somewhat frustrated with the system.  And this is  one of the
things  that our Agency is trying  to work with, in conjunction
with the Department  of Transportation  and with  States  and
cities, in order to get  a better approach  to the problem.  As a
matter of  fact, we usually try, when we hear a statement, such
as the one we just heard, about the routing, we try to contact the
appropriate elements of the Federal Aviation Administration. I
shall do that  in this case and get some information, and  I'll also
ask them to communicate with you on this.
  Mrs. RICHARDSON. Thank you very much.
  Dr. MEYER. Any other questions, panel? Well, thank you very
much, Mrs. Richardson. At this point,  I will recess  this  hearing
until 1 o'clock, at which point we will reconvene and continue
hearing from the witnesses  scheduled for the afternoon.  Thank
all of you for your attention and for being here.
  (At this point the hearing was recessed for lunch.)

-------
                             38

                     AFTERNOON  SESSION

  Dr. MEYER. Ladies  and gentlemen,  I'd like  to call the second
session  of  this public hearing on  noise to order. One of our
panelists is delayed, but we have a quorum, and so as with  other
hearings of this sort, we shall proceed.
  Now, I'd like to  ask Dr. Robert Finch  of  the  University of
Houston, if he's here, to come forward. Dr. Finch, we're happy
to have you here this afternon and look forward to hearing from
you, sir.

 STATEMENT  OF DR. ROBERT FINCH, UNIVERSITY OF HOUSTON

  Dr. FlNCH. Thank you  very much,  Mr. Chairman. I hope you
have copies of the remarks that I prepared.
  I had a little bit of a hard time deciding what one should say
today, and  since most of the technical papers of evidence is  being
given tomorrow, I thought that  I'd like to say something that  I
believe  impinges on the community rather more than the tech-
nical  things.  And I thought I'd like to talk about the role of the
university in  combating noise.
  I guess I was very slightly preempted in this idea this morning,
and I hope that I don't  put the cat among the pigeons too much,
so to speak.
  Dr. MEYER. Well, we  may unleash the kittens among the birds
as we did before.
  Dr.  FINCH. I think in simple terms one might say  that the
role or the function of the university is to generate knowledge.
And this function has two aspects:  One is the transmission  of old
knowledge to new heads. This, of course, is the traditional teach-
ing aspect of the  university. And second—and I think equally
important—the generation of new knowledge through research.
  I'd like to  discuss how the universities are contributing  to the
fight  against noise, both in terms  of teaching and research. I'd
like to mention some areas in which I feel that industry  and even
the general public  do not perhaps understand this  contribution
properly. And  conversely, I hope  to learn  in  what  ways a uni-
versity program, such as we have at  the University of  Houston,
might be improved.
  The formal  academic subject  area in which  noise  problems
are tackled is called acoustics. And it's an unusual field because
it really involves many disciplines: Physics, mechanical  and elec-
trical engineering, psychology, medicine, architecture, and others.
There are some 90 schools in this country and  Canada  which
offer some courses in  acoustics, usually at graduate level. For
those who are interested there is a listing of these schools in  a
recent edition of the Journal of the Acoustical Society of America.
  However, there are not many schools which offer an integrated
interdisciplinary program in the subject. We've been attempting
to  develop such a program at  the University  of Houston. At

-------
                             39

present our program  involves a core  curriculum  of  engineering
courses in vibrations,  transducers,  which is a technical name for
sound generators, sound radiation—which is often a complex sub-
ject  because sound travels in the form of a wave,  and sound
propagation in solids.  This core curriculum that we have is sup-
plemented  by specialized  courses  in  noise control,  underwater
acoustics, and so  on. Students may take courses in architecture,
speech and hearing, psychology,  music, and geology, which sup-
plement the core course offerings.
  Now, I mention these details because it comes as a surprise to
many people to know that such specialized training is available
and  that there are graduates from such programs seeking em-
ployment. I am a member of the  Education  in Acoustics  Com-
mittee of  the Acoustical  Society  of America and  one of the
projects  we've undertaken recently is to produce  a twice yearly
listing of acoustics graduates. This list is available free of charge
to any company  requiring to hire an acoustician. I have  some
copies  of the list with me for anyone who might be interested in
it.
  I think that it's appropriate  for me to  add to what I have
prepared previously, that the Education in Acoustics Committee
is always seeking ways in which  we can improve education in
acoustics.
  And I think it  would be very appropriate, sir,  for your office
to have representation with us at some time.
  Dr.  MEYER. When  we get  around  to the questions and  such,
I'll have to explore that.
  Dr. FINCH. I might add that the chairman of  this Education
in Acoustics Committee is also  a  Texan, Dr. David Blackstock
from the University of Texas.
  I should add, for the benefit of the members of the panel, that
I am also a Texan. I  come here  from Houston. And  if you have
trouble understanding my accent as compared  with that of Dallas,
I'm sure that that's the reason.
  I might add that the recent job squeeze for university graduates
that one has heard about so  much in the press has  not  been so
severe in acoustics. In fact, I believe there  is  a manpower short-
age  in this area. Dr. Johnson of the Pennsylvania State  Uni-
versity recently conducted a manpower needs survey for acoustics
which  showed the need -for about  350 B.S. level  graduates, 250
M.S. graduates and 250 Ph. D.'s in  1972. A manpower availability
survey by  Solomon and Lasky shows that the outputs  in  1971
will  be approximately 200, 170, and  120 in the same three cate-
gories.  So  you  see that  we are producing substantially less
graduates  in acoustics,  with  an acoustics background, than our
economy requires.
   I've been perturbed by the attitude  to the noise problem of
some—I say some, not all—but some companies. These companies
have been  recruiting young engineers with absolutely zero train-
ing in acoustics and giving them responsibility for solving what
are  sometimes quite  horrendous problems without  adequate fi-

-------
                             40

nancial  support or internal backing  in  the  company.  Another
remedy  is  to  assign  the  problem to a  maintenance or  safety
engineer who is already so hard worked that he  has no time to
handle the  problem, let alone get the  required training.
  I suppose this attitude stems from  twin beliefs that the furor
over noise  will  blow over and  that  magical  remedies exist to
quite noise. I cannot  tell if the public interest in environmental
issues will  fade or not, but it is clear to me that every growth
in transportation  speed and  volume  and every extra industrial
energy conversion  device produces more noise as a waste product.
  I want, again, to add something to the statement that I pre-
pared. I want to say that  on the other hand, I  don't believe that
saddling the engineering profession as a whole for  the  responsi-
bility for the noise problem that we have is entirely justified. I'd
like to point out to the members of the panel here today and the
people who have  testified before  this  panel,  there are  a very
substantial number of engineers among them.  And  I wouldn't be
in the least surprised that if you took a poll of the  audience you
will  find a  disproportionately large number  of  engineers present
here. And I'm not sure how many social  scientists we would find
or how many politicians,  but I don't think a  proportional rep-
resentation. I think that  the  blame  for the problem should be
placed where it really belongs.
  At any rate, I return to the question of the handling of noise
problems. I don't believe they can be solved either by magic or by
unqualified  personnel. The solution to  noise  problems requires
careful and systematic study.
  I  think the fact of the matter is,  a child  could use a sound
level meter or octave band analyzer if he could afford them. The
problem with noise is not so  much its measurement as what to
do about it. Now, please do not misunderstand  me. I'm not saying
that the first step  is not careful measurement—far from it. I am,
however, insisting that noise control requires systematic engineer-
ing work by qualified personnel. And  there are no short cuts.
   I am talking here primarily about noise from machinery, maybe
industrial,  maybe household, maybe transportation.
   I've wandered somewhat from my original theme of the role of
the  university, and  now  I wish to say a little  about research.
Again,  I use the University of Houston as an example. Not to say
that there  are not several  other excellent schools  in  acoustics, but
obviously because  I'm more familiar with our program.
   Our  noise research centers around our  anechoic  chamber, a
view of which is shown in the slide on the viewgraph, if  we can
arrange that.
   Dr. MEYER, Can we get  that slide, please?
   (At this point the testimony was supplemented by slides.)
   Dr. FINCH. For the benefit of laypeople in the audience,  I do
have a picture here which I'm afraid is totally invisible from the
 back of the room. But an anechoic room is essentially a concrete
box which is poured  at the time that the building is poured. The
one we have  is supported on air springs around  its perimeter.

-------
                             41

The whole room weighs about 325 tons, but you can  elevate it
from the ground to isolate it from ground vibration. And inside
it is lined with fiber glass wedges which absorb sound. We can
use that room for all sort  of sound control studies, and we made
every effort to get our students interested in acoustics  at that
time.
  Now, on the next slide here	
  Can the lights be dimmed ?
  Well, this shows a console of electronic equipment which we use
both for research purposes and to some extent for training stu-
dents. It includes what's  known as a  real time analyzer which
enables one to analyze transient sounds, such as, for instance, an
aircraft overhead, or some sort of impact noise.
  Now, our next picture  shows one of our students  measuring
sound levels from a train  in a switching yard. We've made quite
a lot of studies of urban noise in the Houston area, all forms of
transportation, including  some unusual ones such as noise from
speedways and from speedboats on the gulf.
  I thought you might be interested, in view of the remarks on
the airport, Love Field, to know  about what we found  at  the
Houston  Continental Airport. This is  a map which is called a
noise exposure forecast which was produced by a very well-known
firm of acoustical consultants, which I shall not name. I wouldn't
want to cause any embarrassment of anybody on the panel. This
noise exposure forecast was actually produced several  years  ago
before the Continental Airport in Houston was put into  operation.
We thought it would be rather fun to go up there and see just
how good a job  this well-known  firm of acoustical consultants
had done, particularly in  the way things  would be. And  I have
to report  to you that they had done an excellent job.  As far as
we could tell, this is just about the  way it is, except for  one thing.
Let me point out some of the things on the map for the benefit of
the laypeople here. The  noise exposure  forecast predicts that
there will be one zone close to the flight path where many com-
plaints will be heard from people living there. And on the others,
somewhat further out, from which there will be complaints,  but
not so many. In fact, in the first zone, it's recommended that  you
really shouldn't live there. Now, the situation with the Houston
Continental Airport is, it's way out of town.  There are some
subdivisions in the neighborhood, but in general, they  are  not in
the line of the flight path. I hate to mention this, but a second
or a third runway is about to be put into operation at Houston,
this one here  (indicating). This is not yet in operation. There is
a subdivision  right in the flight path.  Those people are going to
experience an unpleasant time.
  This is  another one of the research projects that we have been
involved in. This is actually a project that Dr. Hooks,  my  col-
league at the university,  undertook.  It's a  map  of  the  sound
levels around two  busy  thoroughfares in  Houston. If anybody
knows Houston, then let  me tell you that this is  the  Shamrock
Hilton Hotel  here  (indicating)  and this street here  is  Mason.

-------
                             42

Now, the way  in  which this  map  was produced was to  make
measurements of sound levels at various street locations and then
to go into a computer  program  which computes the proposed
sound levels at  other locations, and finally gives  you a printout
which is a contour of this map. They make them at different times
of the day and they produce a moving film, which shows the way
in which these contours shift around. Something like this,  I think,
could have some  application,  particularly  perhaps in the more
industrial noises, although gradually we are getting to use it more
for urban noise. They have also made maps  of this  sort around
speedways in Houston. They found some very interesting  shifts
in the patterns  from time to time that they haven't yet been able
to explain. We think they are probably due to winds  at a rather
higher altitude.
   But  I guess that's it for the time being.  That's all the slides I
have.
   There are one or two points I'd like to  make. We  try to work
closely with  people in our business,  as I have  mentioned.  Dr.
Falck  of our  speech  and  hearing department  we  work par-
ticularly closely with. He has facilities for audiological measure-
ments, and those have been extremely helpful.
   How can university research programs of this type  help in
combating noise? At the University of Houston we are trying to
concentrate our efforts to problems unique to our geographical
area. Texas, of  course, is a center for the petrochemical industry,
and there are  some problems that occur  here that are rather
special to that industry. We are particularly interested in control
valve and compressor noise and the transmission of  noise along
pipe lines and its radiation into the plant and surrounding com-
munity.  There  are some  problems  here for  which there are no
really  satisfactory solutions at present. We  recently started  re-
search projects involving two radically new—at least I think they
are fairly new. In view  of the experts present  I'll  modify the
record a little bit. I'll say I think they're new—concepts in muffler
design. We are also working on  methods of evaluating  the per-
formance of damping materials.
   I hope that these remarks that I've made here perhaps helped
to explain what we're trying to  do in the university.  And I've
certainly heard some interesting comments today  I think will help
us to improve what we are doing.
   But once again, I'd  like to take issue with the remarks about
engineering. The fact  of the  matter is that our  engineering  en-
rollment  at  the  present  time is  plummetting. And if the un-
fortunate attacks that are being made on  engineering are not
moderated with better understanding of what we're  trying to do,
then I predict that in two or  three  years time the output of
engineers from engineering schools is going to  be  one  third of
what  it is at the present time. I think we face a  very serious
 problem. And we  do need understanding as to what it is we can
 do, and the backing to do the things that we can  do.
   Thank you.

-------
                             43

  Dr. MEYER. Dr. Finch, thank you very much, sir.  I  think  I
would echo one thing that you have said here about the environ-
ment that is not just limited to noise. Clearly we're dealing with
problems and issues that are multidisciplinary in nature.  You
indicated at the outset of your presentation that acoustics was
somewhat of a unique science because it involves a whole variety
of disciplines. Well,  the whole  environmental  issue is the same
thing, requiring physical  sciences, life sciences,  social sciences.
And I share your  concern  about some of the public attitudes
towards  engineers, but also I  feel  that  some  of  those same
criticisms apply to almost any of the professions that haven't
taken the time or energy to learn the facts about man  and his
relationship to environmental stress.
  Before I follow that up  with some other comments, I will also
say that engineers are sometimes accused of being politicians, and
I guess I've had that same tar flung at me a time or two.
  But I would like to ask the  panel if they have comments or
questions.
  Professor COLE. Professor Finch, you mentioned in your pro-
gram of acoustics economics, and I wonder—it seems like to me
that noise, like so many other things, the solutions get down to  a
hard core nitty gritty problem of cost and cost  trade-offs.  And
it seems  that in training, this  allocation of economic resources
would be important  in such a field.  Do you have a comment on
that?
  Dr. FINCH. Well, I didn't admit it intentionally. We have had
some interaction with people in  the law school who are interested
in the legal aspects of drafting legislation. But  it's true, we have
not had a particular interaction with the economy.
  Dr. GLORIG.  Well,  I  think  that what Dr.  Finch said,  that
acoustics is a multidisciplinary discipline,  is very much true of
any discipline.  And I think what it really points  out is that any
of these ecological problems have to be attacked  by a team,  not
by any one of these.
  Mr.  BERLAND.  This morning we  had some  discussion about
social conscience in academics, and the matter of wisdom  as well
as education. And I was  just wondering if that's part  of your
program at Houston.
  Dr. FINCH. Courses in wisdom?
  Mr.  BERLAND. Yeah, courses in  wisdom, or  something  one
could take.
  Dr. FINCH. Well,  I guess that we don't have something like
that, and I don't know how we could do it. If  you could  tell me
how we could do it, then we would be willing to try it.
  Mr.  BERLAND.  Well, we're speaking in terms  of  social con-
science; in other words,  whether we're teaching people to use
noise meters,  or whether  we're also trying to  educate people to
do something about noise, not only through contracting jobs, but
through a  social conscience.  In other words,  an  application of
the articles of science for the good of society as well. Now, that
sounds rather lofty in words—

-------
                             44

  Dr. FINCH. Well, I guess I'm half disagreeing with you, because
what I was trying to find  out was that,  I think—my guess is,
there are a lot of engineers here. If the audience will bear with us,
we  could ask just how many engineers there are here. Now,  I
believe that that  will indicate whether or not engineers are in-
terested in this program. And I will venture a guess that you'll
find  that probably a third  of the audience is engineers. So I'm
disagreeing with you.
  DR. MEYER. Well, I  think that's  logical. One  of the  panelists
has said, "Let's check that guess". And, of course,  you know this
must be gaged like any other question; you really don't know the
validity of it. You  just see how many people hold  their hands
down and  how many  people stick  their  hands  up.  But in any
event, just for the  heck of  it, let's see. How many  people here
are engineers or physical scientists?
  Mr. BERLAND. That's pretty good. May I ask another question?
  Dr. MEYERS. Sure.
  Mr. BERLAND. How many are here on their own.
  Dr. WARD. Here on what?
  Mr. BERLAND. Here on their own, not as part of their job.
  Dr. MEYER. Engineers?
  Mr. BERLAND. Engineers.  Those who raised your hand who are
engineers,  how many of you are here on your own volition?
  Dr. MEYER. I have a question which is  more or less a question
that really cannot be answered. But  it was handed  to  me from
the floor and I'll certainly  introduce it into the record, and it's
one for all  of us to think about.
  The question is:  "Could  the reduction  of enrollments  in engi-
neering be due to the  lack of responsiveness of educational pro-
grams to social needs, and  thus do not appeal to social minded
young people?"
  Well, in the absence of an in depth survey, I  don't know how
we would  be able to answer that.  I think that may be part of
the problem. It's certainly  one that causes a lot of people at the
various levels  of the Federal Government, State governments
and universities, and  other elements of the Nation concerned
with education, a lot of concern. Of course, this discussion could
take up the whole afternoon, obviously, and we  do have a fairly
extensive schedule. I will say this: the area of concern that's been
expressed  by some members of the panel and by the witness  is
 one which certainly is going to be a matter of  concern  to the
Environmental Protection  Agency. We are deeply concerned at
the agency with the need for stimulating some new ways of look-
ing  at the whole question  of education as it  relates to  environ-
mental issues, not just to noise. To that extent, sir, with regard
to the Education in Acoustics Committee: yes, I'd like to follow
up with the acoustical societies for further  action on this. And
we'll appreciate  your so communicating back to the  committee.
   Also for the record, I wonder if you could have copies of your
printouts of your slides in black and white for us at a later date?

-------
                             45

If not, it will be all right. But I would like to have them included
in the record if at all possible.
  Any other questions, panel?
  Thank you very much, sir.
  Now,  the next  statement we will  hear is from  Mr.  J.  W.
Joiner—and I hope I'm pronouncing this right, and it's not the
French pronunciation—of Joiner, Pelton and Rose, Incorporated.
Mr. Joiner.

 STATEMENT OF J. W. JOINER, JOINER, PELTON AND ROSE, INC.

  Mr.  JOINER.  Thank you,  Mr. Chairman. You  had it correct.
Distinguished  panel, the remarks  that  I have here this evening
will not contain any revolutionary or new insights in the develop-
ment of noise  pollution and  its control.  However, we are hopeful
that the relating of some experiences that our company has had
concerning governmental jurisdictions may prove helpful to you
in your deliberations and your report.
  Now, it is not intended at all, that these observations be taken
as indicative of all jurisdictions and judicial levels in all the areas
of our country. Neither should they be considered as compositions
or taken out of context. We all know the dangers  that exist when
there is extremism, irregardless of its direction or  purpose or
its intent.
  For some 17 years my company has concerned itself with noise
abatement, analysis, and control. During this  period most of our
activity has been in the north Texas area and  in the field of noise
control in  multifamily dwellings,  noise  control  in  commercial
buildings, industrial noise control  and aircraft flyover noise.
  Part of  this period we were involved in the  manufacturing,
sale and application  of  hardware  items and materials used in
noise control. More recently, we have concerned ourselves  strictly
with the engineering and consulting aspect with no  proprietary
interest in any hardware or  materials whatever.
  Therefore, not only have \ve been exposed to the measurement
and analysis  of noise, but the design, manufacture,  sale, and
installation of devices and materials as well.  Most certainly this
does not serve to  make  us  an authority in the  field, but it has
proven helpful in enabling us to evaluate and appreciate responses
we have received  from a very wide range  of clients concerning
noise.
  We  read with interest the ASA  newsletter we received last
week in which  ASA President Johnson  referred to "would-be-
philosophers" saying that the national  priority in the 1970's will
be our environment. I'm not a philosopher, but it  is our judgment
that concern for our environment will have more impact on our
society in 1970  than  anything that we  have experienced to date.
If this fact is not recognized by our  Government,  and proper
consideration  given this important  parameter in our  planning,
there will  be  a  hodgepodge of rules, regulations, laws that will

-------
                             46

make the depression period of alphabet agencies look like child's
play.  Everyone will find  himself facing  an impossible task in
trying to determine just what agency, what law, or what guide-
lines apply to his particular problem.
  We are already well on the way  to just this sort of  dilemma,
and it is being complicated by those  who advocate approaches and
means that completely disregard economic realities on one hand,
while on the other, we have the industrialist whose concept of free
enterprise is to first make a profit and that anything that inter-
feres with his operation is infringing on his  rights as a citizen
of a free country.
  Again, we must be  careful  in not  permitting  ourselves to be
caught up in this  whirlwind of charges, counter charges  and
allegations.
  It is time  we recognized some very basic problems and  meet
them head on. We must be mindful that there is  no panacea and
that solutions must  be carefully considered.
  While  we  mentioned earlier the  two extremists we  have yet
another group that is even more difficult with which to deal. That
group is composed  of complacent and apathetical do-nothing in-
dividuals. This may include a building manager, a plant  manager,
building  contractor, architect, building inspector, a city official,
airport manager, regional planner, State  representative,  State
executive or indeed a Federal  agency. We have met with  them
all, and many times with the same disappointing results.
  Now let's just look at a few of these.
  A few weeks ago we were called  in by a manufacturer and his
architect  who were planning the construction  of an industrial
plant around which would be constructed some small homes for
the employees. The  guidelines  were Walsh-Healey for  the  plant
employees with  no  concern for the comfort of the families who
would be living nearby. If they wanted a  job they would tolerate
the noise produced  by the 24-hour operation of  the plant. The
architect  and his client wanted just  enough noise abatement so
they  would not be in violation of Walsh-Healey inside the plant.
And  we  were informed that if there were any local restrictions
concerning  community noise, they would just move to another
country  or  another region  or another State to  construct their
plant, or where such nonsense as this did  not exist. To many this
type  of thing is reminiscent of the early century textile mills and
the nearby substandard housings.
   Recently  we did  a  study for a  city concerning aircraft  gen-
erated noise that will come from the new  Dallas-Fort  Worth
Regional  Airport. We prepared a zoning  ordinance and building
code along with noise contours, et cetera. And when presenting
this material and recommendations to that city council in open
meeting, the only real opposition  was from a nearby developer.
who  incidentally controlled a considerable amount of  land, but
whose property was not  even in the city limits. It was actually
located in a higher noise zone than  any  part of the city under
consideration. His  unabashed statements  were that the publicity

-------
                             47

of expected noise  that would  come  from the  airport when it
opened in 1973 would decrease the value of his undeveloped land
that is being planned for residential purposes. He further stated
that such publicity concerning  noise  would make it difficult for
purchasers of homes in his community  development to secure
good financial terms from mortgage loan companies.
  Now, while speaking of  the  new  airport, we are acoustical
consultants to the  architects for the terminal buildings,  also for
the utility plant, the administration building and the communica-
tion building. These are  all separate architects, separate con-
struction. In each case the architect engaged our services to assist
him in dealing with aircraft noise as well as acoustical treatment,
mechanical equipment noise  and occupancy generated noise. When
we learned that the governing authority  of this 18,000-acre, one-
half of a billion dollar complex being designed for the 2000 A.D.
was considering a building  and fire code for all future construc-
tion within that boundary,  including proposed  hospitals, hotels,
offices, shops,  stores, and everything that it takes to make a city,
we contacted their chief planner to recommend that noise control
be a part of the document. We were bluntly  informed that noise
and airports are synonymous and that people  expected  noise in
that environment.  The greatest airport  in  the world with  no
consideration given its worse byproduct, noise.
  Now,  let's  look  a little  further  up the  government  ladder.
Dallas, our beloved  city, has one of the finest city  noise zoning
ordinances in the  country today. It is clear, thorough, and very
reasonable in its limits and language. The  ordinance has been
on  the books for  several years. And for some years after  its
enactment inquirers were  told that the city did not have a budget
for equipment and personnel for its enforcement. About  3 years
ago, an octave band analyzer was  purchased and an employee of
the city  health department  was instructed in  its use. This  em-
ployee has since resigned from the city because all of his  activity
was used in other environmental parameters rather than  this and
it had a very limited budget and  other  problems.  We contacted
the health department and offered free our services to the city to
train two or three of their employees in the use of sound level
instruments and interpretation of their readings for comparison
with the ordinance.  Our offer was declined with thanks. We next
contacted the assistant city manager with the same offer. This
was likewise turned down with the remark  similar to, "We are
afraid we might be opening a can of worms." He was  then  re-
ceiving two or three complaints a week from citizens concerning
possible  violations of the noise ordinance and that he  was  in-
forming, so he says,  the  callers of the  complexity of noise
measurement and enforcement of the provisions of the ordinance.
He said  for the time being he wanted to let well  enough alone.
Those were his remarks to me. We then  recommended to him, in
writing, that the  city give  consideration to the formation of a
board, a committee or commission  consisting of three  or four
knowledgeable and interested people that would be available to

-------
                             48

advise  our city council,  management, industry, developers, plan-
ning- boards,  unions, governmental agencies and insurance car-
riers on the state of the art on noise pollution analysis and control.
This would be a nonbudget item. Some 2  months later this sug-
gestion was turned down as not  being  practical. Dallas, the 1971
all-American  city, the home of the  famous Glorig-Callier Hearing
Center, a  city of a million  people, a scientific,  educational, com-
puter,  and technical  instrument  manufacturing center,  a fine
noise ordinance on the books, a  budget of $190 million a  year—
$189.9  million, to be exact—with 12,000 employees, and  not one
of them can make a noise survey.
  And now let's look at another area. Apathy does not stop at the
city level.  We have a North Central Texas Council of Govern-
ments  for an  11 county area and cities  in that area. Now,  I think
this is composed of 132  governmental agencies. This is a great
planning  group  and they function with  committees.  One  such
committee is now working  on  a  building and zoning code for
communities and cities to be affected by the  operation of the new
Dallas-Fort Worth Regional Airport.  Yesterday afternoon they
had their  third and  final  public hearing  and reading  of the
proposed document. Noise is not a part of that code. It is left to
the individual communities  if they wish  to pursue it. Can you
imagine one community saying,  "We do. We want  control." The
adjacent  community  then will not be  able to get the industries.
In all  fairness we must state that the regional council planning
staff is very responsive to noise studies and its control.
  Now, the State level can be even more difficult when it comes
to good and meaningful legislation. During the legislative term
just ended, we  understand that over 100  bills and resolutions
were introduced concerning our  environment. We further under-
stand that few, if any, ever got  out of committee, and  none were
passed. We have had  several conferences with Representatives
and Senators in addition to the  Governor and his planning staff,
recommending a committee or board to screen and evaluate noise
pollution problems with a view  toward meaningful legislation in
this  area.  Some representatives and  Senators seemed to favor
such an  approach. The Governor and his  planning  staff also
seemed to be making some progress when all at once  insurance,
fraud, banks, stocks, SEC, and maybe just a little bit of  politics
mixed in, completely took over and usurped  all  constructive plan-
ning.
  Inaction and indecision are not limited  to the industrialist, the
developer, the airport planner, the city, the regional area or the
State,  but extends into our Federal agencies and departments as
well. The  principle agencies with whom we have worked are GSA,
Corps  of Engineers,  FAA, FHA, and Labor Department.  And of
course, there are many others who  are concerned with  noise
pollution  and its  control. The  big  problem that always seems
to be  present  is  criteria,  jurisdictional control and technical
knowledge in noise. The end result here is, we are often receiving
the same  responses and cooperation—a  better word would  be

-------
                             49

noncooperation—as we have set out in the cases above.
  Mr, Chairman, these remarks may appear to be negative and
critical of our clientele, but this is  not our purpose at all. We
enjoy dealing with our clients,  we like our industry, we  think
that_ we  have competent personnel to perform a  worthwhile
service to our clients and  we have made  every effort not  to
polarize our thinking in environmental matters. We  discuss this
almost daily in our company.
  Our purpose and  desire is  to upgrade the industry,  and we
have  attempted  to demonstrate that this is almost impossible
when left to the many jurisdictions that are now  involved, re-
gardless of how competent and interested they may be. Of course,
we  strongly support the  early enactment and implementation  of
the Noise Control Act of 1971 as set out in  H.R. 5388.
  Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  Dr. MEYER. Mr. Joiner, thank you. Since you are in the delicate
position of an executive consultant, we appreciate your being  so
candid about your views  of some of the people  you have as your
customers. Panel?
  Dr. GLORIG. John, you and I have known each  other a long time.
Some of these things you say are very true, and I back you  up
100 percent. But there are some things  going on that you  might
not have  painted  quite so blackly.  The North Texas  Planning
Council has  a committee  on  noise in  the  environment,  and I
happen to be a member of it. It is active and  things are beginning
to come out of it, slow, I agree. But I have been chairman  of the
committee of the American National Standards Institute for  12
years, and we have finally gotten a brief document after 12 years
with  respect to industrial noise.  I  was chairman  of an  inter-
national  committee for the same number of years  and  now  we
have  a published standard for that. So, I think the thing that
you're not taking  into account, and probably rightly so because
of your enthusiasm,  is that there are many slips between the cup
and the lip, and it takes a long time to get  the cup to the lip in
some of  these things, and I have  a tendency to agree  with you
on  it. This  is no excuse. I am  merely  saying  that with all the
interests that are involved, with all the judgments that have to
be traded off, cross-trades with dollars  for  decibels and decibels
for dollars and all the rest, it takes a lot of looking at in order to
come up with something specific like a standard.
  Mr. JOINER. Dr. Glorig, you are correct, absolutely. And I be-
lieve of all of the six or seven  jurisdictions I was talking about, I
think that perhaps  COG was the  only one that I did  mention
here  that was  interested.  In fact, they  commissioned  us  in
preparation of this  building code, zoning code, concerning air-
craft noise, as we did for the city of Irving. It is also a  model
code that is available to the other cities in the  area, which hope-
fully they will adopt it as the time comes on. But we felt that the
provisions of this should have been in the  zoning code that is
now up for approval concerning that area. But I quite agree with
you on this.

-------
                              50

  Dr. MEYER. Well, I'm not familiar with the local  problems, so
I can't really comment on any specific point. I would have to say
that I, and most of the people that I know who are looking at the
problems  of the environment with  any degree of interest, feel
that it is a major problem and it isn't a flash in the pan. Mr.
Ruckelshaus, our Administrator, gave a talk not long  ago, and  I
will quote from it here. He echoed  that view, and also pointed out
something else which Aram Glorig pointed  out. And  I'd like to
just quote it for the panel and for the audience.
  Our hopes for this agency are high. We know all environmental problems
will not be solved this year and next. But if we remain flexible in approach
and firm in our commitments, we believe that we will be able to live tip to
the challenge that the 1970's  must  be  when  America pays  its  debt to the
past by reclaiming the purity of the air, water and living environment.
  I feel  that there is a debt to  repay here with regard to all
elements of the environment, including the noise part. As we go
through  these crisis situations, such as we are faced with na-
tionally from time to time, this is  still an underlying problem. At
the same time, a matter of real concern to us, they are doing the
planning for Federal legislation in support of the States and the
agencies on how to deal with this  multiplicity of jurisdictions, as
you  have mentioned,  and  still  not get the Federal Government
right down to  determine  what the noise  level  at the corner of
Mockingbird Lane and some cross street in  Dallas,  Tex.  We feel
that somehow or other, maybe through these councils,  the North
Central Texas Council and so on,  these  problems  ought  to be
approached on a local level with some very meaningful guidelines.
  I appreciate very much the  approach that you've taken here.
  Mr. JOINER.  I'd like to  respond to just one—or  clarify some-
thing, perhaps. I was a bit critical here of our city,  and this was
our  past  experience with  our  city. I would like to state in all
fairness to Mayor Wise that some week or 10 days  ago I was in
discussion with him and  I told him of my anticipated remarks
concerning Dallas, and that I appreciate very much the attitude
that he has taken in the 2 or 3  months since he has taken office. I
do hold a lot of hope for more concern on that  level for  our city
environment.
   Dr. MEYER. Before I pass it to my colleagues on the  extreme
right, I  will say that your remarks about the problems in  the
Federal  Government  are  also valid.  We are trying to work out
a better mechanism of coordination  of effort through our agency,
particularly on noise.
   Mr. JOINER. Yeah; we have too many bosses. I mean, we don't
know who to look to.
   Dr. MEYER. That's the chore that we're trying to come to grips
with right now.
   Professor COLE. Mr. Joiner, I  was just wondering, are you in
a position to elaborate on the  response by the  city  to your sug-
gestion for a commission  or a committee as being impractical?
   Mr. JOINER. I have a letter here, and they said that they thought
that it would have—that there would be a flurry of interest, and
then it would die down.  They thought that it needed to be ex-

-------
                             51

panded into—this is the assistant city attorney—city manager—
and that it would be impractical to consider at this time. He said
in summary, "We  find ourselves lacking- in legislative authority
and lacking in trained staff and lacking in clear definition of the
noise problem." Well, I think that's  really  what we're trying to
address ourselves to here.  "And at some future time—at some
time in the future  the advisory board might be helpful in  the
educational  process as well as identification  and hiring trained
technicians and so forth."
  Professor COLE.  Do you intend to raise that issue  again?
  Mr. JOINER. No. We are  strictly—while I have taken a rather
strong position here, or seemingly so, we are not politicians or
crusaders in any sense of the word. I was relating some problems
that I had conducting my business with various levels of govern-
ment, strictly, and I have no intentions of pursuing it  any further,
although I did give Mayor  Wise  a copy of the communications I
had pertaining to this.
  Dr. MEYER. Thank you  very  much,  sir.  We appreciate your
candor and also that of the panelists.
  The next person to talk to  us is Mr. J. A. Shirley.  Mr. Shirley,
are you  here, sir?  Is Mr.  Shirley among those present at this
time? If not, I'll hold the space open, and if he comes in we'll
invite him to come and talk to us.
  Mr. Rod Rylander of the Texoma Outdoor Club. Mr. Rylander.

       STATEMENT OF ROD  RYLANDER OF THE TEXOMA
                       OUTDOOR CLUB

  Mr.  RYLANDER.  Thank you,  Dr. Meyer,  panel. I come as a
representative from the club, and  also as a citizen of our great
country.  I want to say that I  believe that it is the inevitable right
of the individual to be provided an  environment on his private
lands and on public property that is inducive to his  good health,
welfare,  and pursuit of happiness.  This  right should include
clean air to breathe and a noise level  that enables him to protect
his precious sense  of hearing, to enjoy in particular areas  the
right to the absence of manmade noise, and the right to carry on
everyday business  without interference of excessive  noise.
  For instance, I   have an office on the highway,  and my  air
conditioner  went out. Upon  opening the door for  fresh air, I
was unable to carry on a conversation or hear on the telephone
due to the tremendous noise created by the trucks passing out in
front.
  Second, I bought  350 acres of trees  and hills to retreat to when
the noise and confusion of our civilized world becomes too annoy-
ing. The peace and  quiet of this preserve is broken by low-flying
aircraft  or the loud cracks from the guns of hunters.  I believe
that I should have the air rights high enough over my land to
prohibit  the origination of noise that is audible at  the surface.
Now, I'm not talking about the  long-distance airplanes that  are

-------
                             52

so high that I can't bear them. But I think I should have the air
rights  up to  the level where on the surface it  makes noises.  I
believe that the guns and other surface noises  should be silenced
to the point that the noise does not penetrate  into the adjoining
private or public lands. Now, this is not just my own, but in other
words, State lands and places that are retreats. I believe that this
is especially  important  within  our national parks, recreational
areas and wilderness and wild areas where citizens go  for  the
purpose to seek the  peace  and quiet  found  only in a  natural
environment. To help to  control noise in a park, I suggest that we
encourage the development  of  peripheral private lands  instead
of park lands and eventually eliminating all private vehicles from
the parks by  installing mass electric railways.  Also the minimum
height of aircraft should be raised to the distance  where  the
noise is inaudible on the surface.
  In order to insure that noise laws and regulations are  carried
out, if and when they do  pass, we should legally permit individuals
and groups to  bring injunction against responsible parties  de-
stroying  the  basic right of  the individual to  enjoy freedom of
noise pollution  on public terrain and on his own property. The
Government  should create  guidelines in the definition of noise
pollution in different situations.
  To sum up, I want to stress that I believe that it is the indi-
vidual  right  of the citizen  of  the United States of America to
live in an  environment free of air and  noise  pollution  in  his
pursuit of good physical and mental health and  happiness.
  A simple law—if I go out and slug somebody, he has a right to
bring an injunction against me even if the State does not. OK;
now, if I go  out to a home  and smash a window, action  can be
taken.  If I go out and put a huge loud noisemaker and the State
doesn't take action,  I think the individual should be able to take
action.
  Thank you.
  Dr. MEYER. Thank you very much,  sir, and I appreciate  the
way that you have concluded your remarks about comparison of
invasion  of your privacy and your personal  rights  with these
comparisons.
  Panel? Thank you very much, sir.
  The next person  who we have  scheduled to  discuss with  us
views on noise is Mrs. Sharron Stewart of the Citizen's Survival
Committee of Lake Jackson, Tex. Mrs. Stewart.

          STATEMENT OF MRS. SHARRON STEWART
               CITIZENS' SURVIVAL COMMITTEE

  Mrs. STEWART. Panel  members, thank you. You all have copies
of this?
  Dr. MEYER. Yes. Thank you, ma'am.
  My name  is  Sharron Stewart.  I  live  at 328 Redwood, Lake
Jackson,  Brazosport, Tex.  I'm  a housewife,  mother of  three,

-------
                               53

former school  teacher  and sometimes  artist.  Today, I am here
representing- the  Citizens'  Survival Committee whose corporate
office is at 124 West Mulberry, Angleton,  Tex. For the record,  I
have  three statements  from  our  members on  industrial  noise
pollution. My statement is based on noise in the home and school.
  On June 23d, 1971, the Houston Chronical printed a story by
Bruce Ingersoll of the Chicago Sun-Times, entitled "Noise May
Be  Breaking- Up  Families". Dr.  Westman, who  will  be here  to-
morrow, may recognize the title; it is an interview with him. As
I first read the article,  I felt a great  deal of personal identifica-
tion, and I am  sure did most people who read it. I shall quote only
the portion that concerns me most.
  "Tired mothers have all  the symptoms of combat fatigue, he said. Having
undergone  a noise  bombardment  all  day, running  the  vacuum cleaner,
quelling quarrelsome kids,  using the  electric mixer,  they  are short-fused,
depressed, done in. Their heads throb,  their  stomachs  churn.
  Having an extremely active child around  doesn't make a housewife's day
any easier,  said  Westman, Director of the  University of Wisconsin Medical
School's Child Psychiatry  Unit.  Such  a child, he said, is  easily distracted,
flounders in school and can be touched  off by the slightest noise.
  Noise spurs the child into obnoxious behavior, Westman explained. This
provokes the mother. She  cracks down.  The end  result, a  vicious  circle of
mutual annoyance.
  In school systems, the hardest position to fill and keep  filled is
that of the shop teacher, particularly  the introductory classes on
the seventh  and eighth grade  level.  Noise, combined with large
classes of 12-  and 13-year-olds,  usually  all boys and often pre-
dominately "problem"  students, create an untenable situation for
both the teacher  and child. As a teacher, it was difficult for me
to understand why  a boy  who was  well  behaved  during an art
class, or  a student who could  g-et by during  English,  became  a
holy terror during shop class. It  was equally difficult for  them to
understand why  I was  reasonable in one  situation and not in
another.
  At the time  I understood the effect of the noise and large classes
on  myself. Today,  as  the  mother of an  overactive  child,  I  can
better  understand  the effect  the  constant noise  in those  echo
chambers  called shops had on the students.
   The "hyperactive" child at best has developed deep psycholog-
ical problems by the age of 12  or 13 as a result of his "obnoxious
behavior" in  classroom situations, where it  is not appropriate
or tolerated.
   In literature put out by  the  Association  for  Children With
Learning  Disabilities,  it was stated that one in every three chil-
dren in the  United States  have some form of learning disability
and that of these three, one in every seven is hyperactive.
   It is not difficult to imagine the positive effect a great reduction
of  the noise level could  have on this large segment of students,
not to  mention the improved learning situation  for all.
   The sociological implications of the reduction of noise  levels in
 the schools should be taken into  account. We should not, we must
not,  neglect the  effect of  noise  on our  most important natural
resource, our children.

-------
                                54

  When considering the added cost  of building, or the  recon-
ditioning of old school buildings, it should  be pointed  out that
reduction of noise usually also results in lower utility costs, and
easier maintenance as byproducts.
  It is up to the experts such as  this distinguished panel to de-
termine the  proper  noise  level  in  the  classroom.  It  is  up  to
Congress to enact legislation on noise that adequately covers the
school room.  And up to  the ingenuity of  American  industry to
find and  use the best  noise reducing  materials, and up  to our
local school board to implement this  legislation.
  I've included  this  clipping for the record.  I'm sure  you will
have  much more adequate material  on this statement, but of  all
the things  I  have been able to find on noise pollution,  this was
the only thing I found  that did mention this  one specific  problem,
and it is growing, and it affects everybody.
  Dr. MEYER. We'll include that with the  statement.
  Mrs. STEWART.  The  other three  statements  I  have are short,
and they are on industrial  noise, and  specifically on industrial
noise in power plants. In our area, we have the largest industrial
power  plant  in the world.  Testimony before the Water Quality
Board on February 25 by a member of the  industry, a representa-
tive from our area stated that their power plant in operation at
that time would provide enough power for a city of 5!/o  million
people. They  have now  almost  doubled this  capacity with the
additional plant that is completed.
  Incidentally, there are 55,000  people living in our area, and
they  are not serviced by this power  facility.
   The first statement is by  Mr. George  W. Moore of the Citizens'
Survival  Committee.
  This statement is my personal  testimony  representing  my experiences,
feeling', and objective looks at industrial noise pollution. If you  can be ob-
jective after listening to it for many years.
  My experience ranges, the past 20 years, from operating unmuffled farm
machinery, pneumatic hard rock  mine drills and  detonating high  explosives,
to the present, which consists of working  around huge howling gear  reducing
machinery, large air blowers  and high pressure steam leaks.
  I am an industrial maintenance electrician, 39 years of age and  I  reside at
622 Mulberry Lane, Brazoria, Tex. I am presently employed at Dow Chemical
Co., Freeport, Tex.
  First, noise and its physical  effect. This is  a direct effect which  can lead
to tone deafness and even ultimately to  total deafness. All of this can be
branched off, to play a direct part in industrial  accidents,  inability to hear
warning sounds of danger.
  Second, the mental and  emotional effects of noise.  While this  problem is
perhaps not as easily denned, and much  harder  to pinpoint,  it may be the
most  devastating of all. A little baby jumps and cries from harsh noises. As
we grow older  we learn to hide and suppress this natural reaction, for what-
ever reason. However, it does not take a psychiatrist to tell you what this can
ultimately lead to, particularly when forced to work with it for 40 or more
hours a week.
  This is but a small digest  of my feelings on noise pollution. Thank you.
   The next  statement is  by Mr.  Leslie  Cartwright,  from  the
 Citizens' Survival Committee.
  I am an electrician,  and as such have  worked  in some form of industrial
plant for 15  years.
   One thing that all industrial plants have in common, regardless of their

-------
                                   55


product,  is noise. Of all the noises that I have heard, two  particular types
have left a vast impression on me. One  is high pitched steam noise and the
other is  a continuous  smothering- roar caused by  heavy machinery turning
at high  speeds. I  have worked with  men who were slowly becoming deaf
from the constant noise that they worked in every day. This is especially
true around  steam generated power  houses where the noise  levels are ex-
tremely high and constant 24 hours a day. I  worked in such a power house
for about IVa years, during which time I saw and heard one of the first gas
turbines  put into operation for generating electric power. This  machine turns
at 3,600  r.p.m.  and produces a high pitched whine  that can be heard almost
anywhere else  in  the  plant over all  the  other  industrial noise.  They  ran
noise level checks  in the area and issued orders  for anyone working around
this machinery to  wear ear protection.  The company  furnishes heavy duty
headset type ear muffs in  that area.  When I had to perform  work  in these
areas, I noticed a high increase in my own irritability and would find myself
gritting  my  teeth  until my jaws ached.  I also had to concentrate  very hard
to perform a simple job that would normally  be almost automatic.  I  would
often find myself  working  in what could  be described as frantic haste to
finish a job and get away from such  a high concentration of noise. It  seems
that when the  body is subjected  to extreme  noise that it tries to  rebel,  and
only by force of will can people perform their work.
  It is my conclusion that constant exposure to high frequency  noise  raises
the accident  rate,  causes loss of hearing, contributes to nervous disorders
such as ulcers  and metal  disturbance, hypertension and possibly high blood
pressure.

   The  last one  is by Mr. B. A.  Kelly, executive board,  Citizens'
Survival Committee.
  I wish to inform  you of several experiences with noise pollution at the
Dow Chemical  Company, Texas division, Freeport, Tex.
  During my  employment at the Dow Chemical Company, I  worked in
several areas where noise pollution presented adverse physical and personal
effects.
  I was an electrician in power house No. 1, located at plant A for 1%  years.
Power No. 1 has eight steam-driven generators, one gas turbine generator
and 11 boilers.  There are several  serious noise problems in this power house:
  The steam generators and 10 boiler fronts are located under one roof which
combines their  noise on workmen in the area.
  A steam pressure reducing station is also located in the same building.
  The decibel level around  the gas turbine is  extremely  high  and the force
draft fan for this generator has a special noise barrier built around it, which
provides  little or no help. Electricians  must oil the bearings on the motor for
this fan while it is in operation.
  Brushes  on  the  exciters  and  collector  rings  must be  changed  on  all
generators while in operation. They are engergized  at 250 volts and above,
and rotating at 3,600 r.p.m. This  in itself is very  dangerous and is multiplied
greatly by the  effects  of surrounding  noise.  The  number of  accident reports
will verify this.
  Dow provides ear plugs and ear muffs which  offer minute  protection for
their employees.
  In this same  relatively  small area, being about one-half the size of  a  city
block, there  are 20 induced draft  fans, 20 other force draft fans,  16 large sea
water cooling pumps, approximately 13 steam or electrical-driven boiler feed
water pumps and  nearly 200  other electrical-driven noise producing devices.
  The greatest effect of this  noise was on my family. During the workday,
I would mentally try to block out the many noises in the plant. This affected
me after work hours because my wife and children would have to  repeat what
they had said before I could understand what they were saying. I  was hearing
and yet  not  hearing at all.  Within 3 months after being transferred from
the powerhouse to the shop, I was able, once again, to hear and understand
what someone was saying the first time.
  Dow has  three  other powerhouses  with similar problems,  plus two  gas
turbine generators at the A-100  block, one gas turbine generator at chlorine

-------
                              56

No. 6 with two more to be built in the near future and two gas turbine
generators at the Oyster Creek Division. This added to the hundred or more
electrical, steam, and combustible engine-driven compressors, the power-
driven tools, and other process machinery add up to a lot of noise.
  The amount of noise created by leaking high pressure  air, steam, and
process  lines is beyond imagination. It would take a book to list the  many
noise problems at these plants, and yet one hearing them would be believing.
  No amount of $1 earplugs or $10 earmuffs will solve these problems. Only
basic and considerate plant engineering and equipment design will protect
the workmen in these plants from the many noises  that the executives, in
their properly insulated, air-conditioned and far-removed front offices do not
hear.
  So far, I suppose these are the  only  statements from  people
actually working  with the noise, and who are not complaining
when their air conditioning breaks  down. It points up another
problem, and that is the problem of industrial  shutdowns.  They
are almost nonexistent. If you design equipment to be effective at
100-percent efficiency,  how  can  it  be  effective when  it's  still
operating at 40-percent efficiency and  you have between   1- to
200-percent capacity that they are overproducing for  what the
equipment was designed for, and this is the general rule in the
State of Texas. I cannot say  about  other areas, but as far as ship
channel industry and the  Brazosport industrial area, these are
the only two areas I have had experience in, I can say that it is
generally true in that area.
  I had not planned to mention my own personal peeve today.
  Dr. MEYER. Please go ahead and  do so.
  Mrs.  STEWART.  Well, it goes back  to the Environmental  Pro-
tection  Act giving the citizens the right to  sue for injunctive
relief and not damages. I don't feel that point was made  ade-
quately clear this morning. This  injunction could be temporary,
and after a period of three trials, become permanent. If, after all
that long period of time—those of you who have had any dealings
with legal processes know it's a long time to become permanent.
   Now, this bill, which passed in Michigan and became law, had
several months'  lapsing period before  it went into  effect  on
November 1 of last year. Mr. Fritz mentioned that 12 suits had
been filed. I believe	
   Mr.  Fritz, isn't it right that eight of those were filed by existing
governmental agencies, or by citizens who were suing their own
municipalities  for improved sewage treatment, and no  citizen
sued industry?
   Because a funny thing happened; industry started cleaning up.
And in the county of Detroit, 26 percent in  9 months.
   Can  you  imagine the effect of the  reduction of the noise  level
in the  United States of America, 26 percent in 9 months? That's
something to think about. I think perhaps one  of the reasons is
that not only is industry subject to being closed down, which will
be  extremely expensive—if  one piece of machinery  is  out of
operation for an hour can cost  them a million dollars loss—I'm
sorry,  half a million dollars  loss—what would an injunction until
they clean up cost them? Therefore, they clean up immediately.
   We  Americans  are very, very competent people when we have

-------
                             57

to be. Look at the technicians in this room. The job can be done,
but it is about time that industry and the rest of us be reminded
that all of us too have rights,  and  the earth that we live on has
rights, and that if we don't regard  the earth's rights we won't be
living here.
   A lot of suggestions have been made about parks. It must be
remembered that national parks do not protect the land. If you
want to preserve an area in its natural state, you had better work
to get your State and Federal Government  to have  it made a
wilderness area and  state  its specific uses. One percent of Texas
parklands, I believe,  is a wilderness area, and that's all.
   And these are the  things that I noted from the meeting so far
today. And that's the end of my statement.
   Dr. MEYER. Mrs. Stewart, thank you very  much. Before you
leave, the panel may want to ask you a question  or two. Mr.
Berland?
   Mr. BERLAND. I'm wondering, some of the things you read in
terms of industrial noise,  I wonder if this doesn't fall under the
Walsh-Healey Act. I  don't know whether Dow does any work for
the Government or not.
   Mrs. STEWART. They certainly do.
   Mr. BERLAND. And  if so, wasn't some relief sought through
that medium?
   Mrs. STEWART. Enforcement is a problem in our area. Some of
this will also fall under the new Workmen's  Safety  Act which
goes into  effect the 27th of this month. We hope it is  enforced a
little better than the previous  act.  I don't know exactly how the
Walsh-Healey  Act works,  who is responsible for  enforcing it.
   Dr. MEYER.  Will  the lady  and  my fellow panelist yield  a
moment?
   Mrs. STEWART. Certainly.
   Dr. MEYER. Let me clarify  a couple of things  if I might. I
think they are important.  This matter  of industrial noise as  it
relates to total noise exposure is very important. I hope one of
the other panelists—if not, I will—come back to this in a moment.
Let me  be sure that  we understand a couple  of things. One, the
Walsh-Healey  Public Contracts Act applies to all work done by
industrial establishments  dealing with the Federal Government
involving  over  $2,,500. But the Walsh-Healey Act was  repealed
by the  Occupational Safety and Health Act  of  1970,  and the
Walsh-Healey  Act is no longer in  existence.  Everybody—I keep
hearing it all over the country—keeps talking about the Walsh-
Healey  Act. There is no Walsh-Healey  Act. It was repealed  by
the Occupational Safety and Health  Act which carried forward
all of the rules and regulations which  had been issued by the
Secretary of Labor, under that old act, relating to  Federal con-
tracts until  such  time as  he could issue  the  new  Occupational
Safety and Health standards and regulations under the new act.
The new  regulations simply say that all the standards relating
to hearing protection which were  applied  to Federal  contracts
now apply to any manufacturer  or any industrial operation en-

-------
                             58

gaged in commerce. Commerce being loosely defined in the mind
of the public as interstate commerce. So any industry which is
engaged  without any  dollar  limitation—maybe manufacturing
one product in its plant and shiping it to another State—could
conceivably be concerned  with interstate  commerce and  covered
by the Occupational  Safety and Health Act. But in the field of
noise control,  one of the  things that most people  become com-
pletely confused  on is that the employer  has an option. The  em-
ployer has the option of reducing the noise level in the plant so
that it meets the environmental conditions specified in  the regula-
tions ; that is, so that no employee is exposed continuously during
an 8-hour day to the equivalent of 90 decibels measured on  the
"A" scale of a standard  sound  level meter, or proportionately
higher levels for shorter periods of time. I won't go into  detail
on that. He can either do that,  or he can provide hearing pro-
tection which is  approved by the  Secretary—in this case,  the
Secretary of  Labor on the recommendation of the Secretary of
Health, Education, and Welfare—which will reduce the acoustical
energy reaching the ear canal to the levels provided for in  the
regulations. And there  are indeed some ear muffs and some ear-
plugs, or a combination of earplugs and muffs or helmets, which
indeed can be procured, and which for most industrial situations
will  provide for the  hearing protection.  Now, the problem here
is—and it's  a major problem—it ties in with something  that's
already been said earlier today about responsibility  for design
and how we teach people  about these things—include the under-
standing and requirement for engineering design  right at  the
start—in educating people to do this. A lot of this equipment has
been built, installed;  it's there. And so, as you said, you can shut
the plant  down.  The question comes up, what does  the employee
do? I'm not taking the  side of those  who  say,  "Well, close up."
I'm just pointing out a fact of life.  It would be very difficult for
that manufacturer to make a product and make a profit while his
plant is shutdown, and at the same time, it would be very difficult
for his employee to be drawing  a  salary while  he  is completely
rebuilding his plant.  So in many instances, he has to use hearing
protection until he can  progressively replace this equipment. The
problem you're raising  is, how to get this done, and done ade-
quately. This is  one  we have given a lot of attention to.
  Mrs. STEWART. That and another one, that of maintenance. I
think there should be enforced maintenance for all  plants where
they should all have to shut down periodically, and that it should
be supervised so that these breakdowns that they  let go and Jet
go—"Well, when we  shut  down 6 months from now, we'll fix  it."
But the 6 months came and went,  and they still haven't fixed it
and they still have this high pressure steam leak that I can hear
5 miles away at my house at night when  it's reasonably quiet, as
well as feel the vibration  from the plant any time of  the day or
night.
  Dr. GLORIG. Dr. Meyer,  you brought up a very important point
here. The original Walsh-Healey Act specified 90 dB(A)  and, at

-------
                             59

least as I read it,  said that the noise reduction  shall be  used
wherever  feasible,  and then the  other  shall be  done.  Is  that
different than the new Occupational Safety Act?
  Dr. MEYER. No, it's not different. It said it shall be done where
feasible. And as  you know, what happens is, they say it  isn't
feasible.
  Mrs. STEWART.  Who determines what's feasible?
  Mr. BERLAND. Mrs. Stewart, you know this is a hearing before
a Federal Agency. And I am wondering what sort of  relief you
have sought from local  agencies, if any.
  Mrs. STEWART.  Relief that we have sought? Well, the political
structure of our local agencies is such as it is in most  areas. We
have been working on air and water pollution because the Brazos
River is dead.  It's the largest  individual river  water shed  in
America in one State, and it's dead. It's the third largest outflow
into the Mississippi. And there  are  no bethic organisms in the
bottom mud. The  waste canals from Dow run at better than 5,000
cubic feet per  second, I believe, and the  river comes down to
4,000. So in other words, the waste is going into the river. Now,
the river used to  be much higher than that, but because of dams
up stream it has slowed down. There are four more being planned
right now, to slow  it even further. As one Federal person, who
came down and  looked  the situation over,  said,  "Your water
pollution is abominable, but your air pollution is  worse."
  We are concentrated in one area with the largest  industrial
plant in the world controlled by  one company. This is the largest
individual plant, and they are producing 90 percent of the world's
magnesium plus so many poly and vinyl-poly  and chloride prod-
ucts, it would be  impossible to even guess. And if all the figures
were in front of me on one page on the amount of  chemicals
produced there daily—I do have them, because they are of public
record, but I hadn't planned on speaking on this particular thing,
so I didn't bring  it. But it's so fantastic it's unbelievable. When
you get into figures that high you just don't believe them. You
can't comprehend it, but it's there.
  It can be cleaned, because every new plant they build, and they
keep expanding, is—they just finished one that's totally  recirculat-
ing, recycling,  and they even planned  for  breakdown prepara-
tions, labor safety,  noise. They put everything into account with
all  the new Federal standards that have been  enacted,  and  those
they have a feeling will be in the next few years.
  But there is relatively  no maintenance.  Their maintenance
schedule is not adhered to the way it's supposed to, even by law,
and it causes serious, serious problems. We have continual  daily
gas leaks.  And so the ship channel  area, either  in the Bayport
area—and these are the three main problem areas in the State of
Texas. I'm sorry  to say that the Dallas-Fort Worth, my old  home
area, has to rank about number five. You're just not  that  dirty
yet.
  Mr. BERLAND.  Are  you saying that the companies involved,
with which you  have had  experience,  do nothing in terms of

-------
                             60

cleaning up pollution—and I'm talking about  noise also—unless
forced to by law?
  Mrs. STEWART. Absolutely. And they will be in compliance the
minute the law is effective. They are leaders in all fields of pollu-
tion control procedures. In Michigan,  they were clean  when the
law went into effect. The Philoboskie River into which their plant
—which is smaller, but similar  to the Texas  division—was  re-
classified  as  a recreational stream,  at  their ecology council's
request, the day the law went into effect. And they were given
by State law 4 years to clean it up to where it would be classified
as a recreational stream.
  By the way, the Brazos River  is  classified by  the State of
Texas as a recreational stream for swimming, fishing, and con-
tact sports. We recently  measured the temperature at the "A"
canal outfall at a  114° when two young men lost their boat motor
there. And there was just no way of them diving for it. So I
don't think you would  want to participate in any contact sports
in our area.
  Dr. MEYERS. Mrs. Stewart,  before  you go, there is  one thing
I do want to point out; and I want to remind my  colleagues, some
of whom will be working with  me on problems  of psychology and
physiological effects of noise,  that one of the  points you raised
here, about the exteme  industrial noise  situation, we have to
keep in  mind that people exposed to noises  such  as  you have
described, and who then  drive home  in an automobile, and then
are subjected perhaps to some of these other noises we've heard
about, airplane noises, kitchen noises, and so  on that  may even
be  pretty low in intensity, may be a problem that we  need to
look at. I think it's well to have it interjected into this discussion
on  urban planning and the general noise problems. We are  re-
minded that we have to  look at a  continuum  of exposure to all
sorts of various things.
  Thank you very much for a  very stimulating presentation.
  Mrs. STEWART. Thank you.
  Dr. MEYER. Our next speaker, as Mrs. Stewart has  indicated,
will probably have some words to say  about natural environment.
He is Mr. Thomas Maddox, who I understand is  the chairman of
the north Texas  group of the Lone  Star Chapter of the Sierra
Club. Nice to have you here, sir.

         STATEMENT OF  TOM MADDOX, SIERRA CLUB

   Mr. MADDOX. Thank you. Mr.  Chairman and gentlemen of  the
panel. Before I read this  statement,  I'd just like  to make two
comments. First,  this typed  copy is very rough.  I would  ap-
preciate it if you would correct  spelling  and make  allowances.
   And  second, several people have mentioned 1970 as  possibly
being the D-day  of the environment. I might make the  predic-
tion that if it isn't, 1980 is going to be one hell  of a D-day for  the
environment.

-------
                              61

  And third, some of the things I have to say have already been
covered, but nevertheless, I'll go ahead and read it.
  Living,  as I do, close  to a sound generator that  can produce
extremely loud,  unexpected noise  at anytime of day or night,  I
have some first-hand, or first-ear, experience of the noise problem.
I live opposite a fire  station. This statement is a personal view
rather than specific policy of the Sierra Club, but it could repre-
sent the  view of club members in the north Texas  group in a
general way.
  The fire siren  is a necessity, of course, and because of the con-
sideration of the firemen and the  relatively infrequent occurrence
it is only a minor annoyance. The sound of the  railroad freight
yard  about a mile and  a  half away  is not unpleasant, though
people living close to it would  disagree.  The  noise of  the  jet
engines on their test beds several miles away—and I should add
here that  I live  in Fort  Worth, not Dallas  as is on that list—it
must be 6  miles away. It is both  persuasive and irritating. But
I consider myself fortunate to live in an area so free of obtrusive
external noise. The school  at which I  teach  is fortunate  too; on
only a handful of occasions in 6 years has aircraft noise  stopped
me  talking. And I have  students  who stop  me with very  great
frequency.  It is  intolerable to  try to  teach  or learn in a school
under airport flight  paths or alongside  busy  railroads.  And  I
have taught in a school in London by the side of a railroad station,
and at times it was utterly impossible to do. May I  suggest that
to demonstrate the psychological effect of noise you take an ele-
mentary school  class out  of their classroom  and into  a  noisy
environment.
  It is when I go on  weekend  outings or on vacation that noise
really begins to  disturb me. Last year at a  national  forest camp-
ground in  southeastern Colorado,  there was a seemingly endless
procession  of people of all ages driving trail and minibikes. Not
only on trails, but around and  around the circular path that ran
through the campsite. It was here,  incidentally, that  I saw  a
bazaar example  of multiple use.  Trails  were  sign  posted and
reserved for walkers, horses  and two-wheel vehicles.  I  never
actually witnessed a  confrontation between a horse and a trail
bike, fortunately for the horse. Though I think to be fair I think
the object  was to exclude  four-wheel-drive vehicles on the trail.
And at campgrounds  on the shores of lakes where water skiing
is permitted—and we have a number of these in Texas—the noise
of outboard motors is too evident.  And it seems—I hope you don't
mind my interjecting here—there are, let's  say, outboard motors,
trail bikes, snowmobiles  in the so called multiple use areas, their
dominant use seems to be the loudest, which is unfortunate. Now,
I personally go  to these areas for, as Mr.  Rylander said, some
discreet bird watching  and  just to  enjoy  myself in  the quiet
surroundings.
  Relatively quiet motorcycles and outboard motors have been
produced commercially, and there is little or no technical reason

-------
                             62

why all such engines should not conform to strict limits on noise
pollution.
  And may I interject again here? Most of these are  concerned
with people taking pleasure. I don't see why  they  should  take
their pleasure and discount my pleasure at the same time. In this
context then, where do economics come into it?
  The  enforcement of strict rules  for  snowmobiles might  well
reduce the  destructive behavior of some  of their users.
  Adequate Federal regulations would  be  given by the admin-
istration's  bill, S. 1016 and House of Representative's 5275,  with
amendments taken from Congressmen Tiernan's  and Ryan's bill
House  6002 and House 6986 respectively,  in particular—now,
this  has been mentioned on  several occasions—provisions for
citizen suits, and specific contract and procurment rules to insure
compliance  by  Federal  contractors,  licensees  and  grantees  of
Federal regulations. However, the gradual increase in noise levels
and the insidious nature of the associated health hazards have left
the general public woefully ignorant of  the danger to their well-
being. And I might include myself here and many conservationists
and environmentalists I know. People have the right to  know, and
provision should be made in any appropriation for  a  public in-
formation  campaign.  Something of the nature of your project
5000, the clean  water advertisements I've seen  on television, and
evolution. Of course, I think it's slightly out of context, but the
advertisements  on smoking were,  to my mind, beneficial to the
general well-being  and  public  health,  although  perhaps  not to
tobacco companies' profits.
  We all know  that laws are useless without  adequate enforce-
ment, as the lady who spoke before  me mentioned. We have many
laws. The  Corps of Engineers  is  recently  being—beginning to
issue permits on the 19th century law, and  I hope they do it
judiciously.
  Mr.  Ruckelshaus  has been commendably forth-right  in his
pronouncements on environmental  matters. It is hoped that he
will  be allowed  to match his words with actions. If the admin-
istration is as reluctant  to fund noise abatement measures  as it
has been in other environmental legislation, we can  expect more
noise rather than less.
  I hope this series of hearings is productive in this  respect. I
wish to thank the  Office of  Noise  Abatement  and Control,  and
wish them  success in their efforts.  We appreciate them.
  Dr. MEYER. Thank you very much.
  Panel?
  Dr. WARD. Well, I don't think we are going to do much about
the destructive behavior of snowmobiles or cut down  the noise.
I think the thing to do with snowmobiles is ban  them.
  Mr.  MADDOX. Well, now, I agree. But  a lot of people,  friends of
mine, enjoy them. I feel that this noise—they are terribly noisy—
seems to generate quite mad behavior.
  Dr. WARD. I don't believe that.

-------
                             63

  Mr.  MADDOX. Try taking young children out of a quiet con-
trolled classroom into a noisy  environment,  I think noise en-
courages rather outlandish  behavior.
  Dr. WARD. Now, this point has been made before by the  previ-
ous speaker, and  it sounds like  the sort of situation  that  would
lend itself to a reasonably  scientific investigation. There is a lot
of explanation of why children, who have been  cooped  up in  a
classroom and forced to sit quiet  for some time, when taken to any
other environment will start bouncing around, you see.
  Mr.  MADDOX. May  I make  one point? When I say,  "A well-
controlled classroom," I don't mean a classroom where kids have
to sit down and do what they're told. This isn't the  way  I per-
sonally work. They  have freedom to go where they want to, in a
reasonable way. Not to shout, you know, but to express  them-
selves, to move around. There is  no teacher raving at the pupil or
anything like that. It's a damn good  class where the teacher and
children get on well together. But I agree, there are other aspects.
For example, taking a class out of a small classroom into a  larger
space has a  similar effect. But  certainly taking children  into  a
noisy environment loosens them  up.
  Dr.  GLORIG. Can  we at  least  say  your experiments were not
very well controlled ?
  Mr.  MADDOX. Well, I agree. It's an observation from experience,
but I never had the  opportunity to do it.
  Dr. WARD. Well, in brief, speaking  of shops,  when the boys  go
to shop, for  instance: Well, shop is  usually  in the afternoon. I
just wonder, do these boys—I should ask her, unless she wants to
reply from the floor—but are there shop classes in the morning
as well as the afternoon ? And in that case, are or are not the boys
in the morning  classes less obstreperous than the ones  in the
afternoon?  If so, then you've got to  do  things  like  having the
children to  wear ear plugs and not  wear ear plugs to run the
experiments so you can determine whether what you observe  is
due to the noise or to some  other factor.
  Mr.  MADDOX. I  agree that it isn't a controlled situation. It's  an
observation that I've noticed and a lot of other people have. I'm
not unintelligent enough  to perhaps  account  for  this  by some
other phenomena. But it certainly occurs, and it seems—well, one
factor, just to talk  to each other, the kids speak louder  in doing
this. They have to get louder and louder in talking. But it's just
an observation of a teacher.
  Mr. BERLAND. I wonder  if you really meant to say that ;> fire
siren is a necessity?
  Mr. MADDOX. This particular  fire station, the entrance is on a
sideroad, directly off the corner of a  main road,  and  I really be-
lieve it is. Or at least, some warning to drivers. Because watching
the drivers  on the main road, I'd hate to take  a fire  engine onto
it without a warning in some way.
  Mr. BERLAND. I think we agree on the necessity for  warning
for traffic, but I  won't agree with you that an audible signal  is
the way to do it.

-------
                             64

  Mr. MADDOX. Well,  no, I didn't really mean to  imply that. I
should have said, some sort of warning. I must say  I'd appreciate
some other form. But  in fact, it doesn't trouble us too much.
  Dr. MEYER. Someone has  sent up a comment, a question, which
is one of these which is rather difficult to know how to handle.
  "Are we sure that noise produces madness, or madness results
from noise?" I think it's worthy to note that people are thinking
about this.
  Dr. WARD. I think we ought to put that question off until to-
morrow when we have the	
  Dr. MEYER. Yes, I was going to say we ought to wait until we
have our psychiatrist here.
  I think one thing we ought to keep in mind too, as long as we're
talking  about  total environment, is that as  a member  of  the
Environmental  Protection Agency,  although  my responsibilities
relate to noise, I have to be concerned about all aspects. And  one
thing the Federal  Government has really been quite  concerned
about is the  problems you and  some other people have raised,
about the use of gasoline propelled devices in park areas,  par-
ticularly those  that are  propelling two-wheel vehicles such as
minibikes, or vehicles such as the snowmobile, where  the effect
on the actual terrain in terms of tearing up and causing erosion
is very great. Now, I'm serving as the Environmental Protection
Agency representative on an interagency group that's going to
deal with this  problem and going  to come up with  some very
specific  regulations about the  use of minibikes and snowmobiles
in National  Park areas. This is  because, in addition to the noise
problem, there is almost as  serious a problem with the actual
terrain  erosion and the effect on vegetation and so on.
  Mr. MADDOX. Don't  overlook National Forests. There are prob-
ably greater allowances of usage than in the National Parks.  I
might add on this  question, at the National Wildlife  Refuge in
Oklahoma where, at the  time I watched this  occurrence,  it was
being considered  by  Congress as a wilderness  area,  an Army
helicopter from Fort Sill not  only—well,  they  fly  over there
quite a lot—landed in what was to  be  a  wilderness  area,  and
nothing was done about it.
  Dr. MEYER. Well, thank  you very much,  sir. At this point we
were going to take a few minutes'  break. Rather  than taking  a
long formalized break, might I suggest—if the panel will consent
—that we take about  a 5-minute intermission and  sort of take  a
stretch break so we can go ahead.
   (At this point a brief recess was taken.)
  Dr. MEYER. I should like to ask Mr.  Dan DeGrassi, conserva-
tionist of the city of Dallas, if he is present, to come forward.
  Dr. DeGrassi, glad to have you here, sir.

                STATEMENT OF DAN DeGRASSI

  Mr. DEGRASSI. Dr. Meyer, panel members, I'd  like  to address
myself  to two particular types  of noise pollution. One is some-

-------
                             65

what out of the ordinary, but it affects us all. This is the noise
that comes from cans, bottles, various types of containers of this
sort that  you can hear  rattling  across  the  dumps, the county
dumps all across the Nation. The  sounds of  them breaking and
falling, filling in the land, filling in the  open spaces, rings loud
in the ears of many persons across  the Nation.
  Now, here in  Dallas, there are two types of noise that aren't
quite so loud. One is the noise that comes from glass beverage
containers; the other is the noise that comes from aluminum and
metal beverage containers. Now, the reason for this is there is a
particular bottling company here in Dallas that has a recycling
program in which they  accept bottles and cans, beverage con-
tainers only, which is good. But I think that if this is going to be
effective, I think they ought to accept all types of glass and metal
containers, aluminum, all types of aluminum. I think the Environ-
mental  Protection Agency could assist the general public in this
way,  mainly through educational levels, educating the public,
and whatever influence they  might have in contributing toward
the general recycling program.
  And the other type of noise pollution I want to  speak on is
something that perhaps  is more evident. This is the noise that
comes  from  jet  aircraft,  particularly  commercial  airliners.  I
happen to live out by the airport, and I can tell when I've stayed
in bed too long because the early morning 747 takes off  for San
Francisco and lets me know  it's time to get up. There  are two
approaches to this problem I think that can be used. One is to
work with the Federal Aviation Agency to effectively muffle jet
aircraft, plan the airports outside  of urban areas,  as the South-
west Airport is being planned. The other approach, a more Jong
range  approach, but I think  it's perhaps more important, is to
reduce  the number of aircraft.  And the way to  do that is to
reduce the number of persons using aircraft.  And the way to do
that is to reduce the number of persons on the earth. And I think
the way to do that, the best way,  is through effective birth con-
trol, population control.
  That's it. Thank you.
  Dr. MEYER. Well, before you go—panel ?
  Dr. WARD. I agree. The best way to do it is to reduce the popula-
tion level.
  Professor COLE. That's rather a long-term suggestion. In the
interim, what are you going to do?
  Mr.  DEGRASSI. Well, you've got to start sometime, and I think
a Federal agency  is the  best place to start.  One  other  thing I
might  mention about—you want to talk  about pollution.  These
jets contribute not only to noise pollution, but air pollution. And
I notice the weather reports on the local  television news  stations
term the present conditions the last few days here in Dallas as
sort of hazy. Hazy is another word for smog. And not  only  can
I hear the jets,  but I can also see the  smog coming out of the
back of them.
  Dr. MEYER. Thank you  very much.

-------
                             66

  Dr. WARD. You know, I'm reminded in this regard of an article
that I read and reported on  recently. Noise may not be an un-
mitigated evil. In Italy they compared the size of families where
at least one of the parents worked in noise, women in textile mills
and men  in metal working shops, with a controlled group matched
at least for age. Where in the controlled group the percentage  of
families  with two or more children was 69 percent, and it was
only 28 percent in the noise-exposed group. And I concluded that
what this overpopulated earth needs is, if not more noise, at least
a more universal distribution  of it.
  Dr. MEYER. Thank you. Might I at this time ask if Miss Mary
Anne Mayer is present? Miss  Mayer, please let us  hear from you.

         STATEMENT OF  MISS MARY ANNE MAYER

  Miss MAYER. My name is  Mary Anne Mayer, and I'm a high
school student  here in  Dallas. I'd like to thank  the  panel for
allowing me to speak.
  Last spring on  a camping trip in East Texas  in a  National
Forest, I heard of the sound  of wind blowing through the trees.
It was the first time in my 16 years I had ever heard the sound of
just wind blowing through the trees. It is a very beautiful and
remarkable sound. And I wish  I could share the joy I  felt when
I heard that.
  Then again this summer I  experience much the same situation
as I glided  in  a canoe on a lake in the  Canadian wilderness.
Again, a wonderful experience.
  I am not so naive or idealistic to think that many people care
about such things as the sound of silence. Here in the city we learn
to adjust to the hectic  life of automobiles, high-speed travel,  et
cetera. We have to tune out certain things and we don't listen for
the sounds of the wind and that sort of thing.
  Nevertheless,  we must try to achieve an environment worth
living in. I'm not going to  dwell on that point as many environ-
mentalists do dwell on that point; that turns off a lot of people.
But I do have a few suggestions to  make, and I  hope that they
will be of at least some use.
  Unlike air and  water pollution, the effects of  noise  pollution
are felt directly and immediately. Though many people care little
about  the static or long-term  effects of  air  pollution, almost
everyone hates the many annoying  sounds of our technological
society. Because of this I feel there is a great wealth  of citizen
interest involving noise pollution that is yet to be drawn from.
  From  my  own  experience in air  pollution, I  know, as you
gentlemen surely know, there is a long road of compromise ahead
of you. To the citizen, the person in the street, it's the quality of
life  versus technological progress, and that's a long hard  row.
But from my experience in  air pollution—it's about 2 years—I
believe that citizen pressure  is  the key, and is the  only key,  to
implementation and enforcement of your findings.

-------
                              67

  My suggestions then—really one main suggestion—instead  of
being like a panel that listens to citizens, and then goes back to
offices, work with the  citizens, long  to cooperate with them.  I
think this will accomplish a lot.
  First of all, I think you might find success in the form of public
relations, by stimulating public interest in noise pollution. I think
you'll find favorable results in several areas. Citizen pressure for
enforcement will result, as well as pressure from  legislation.
  And second, consumers will respond, as far as  buying certain
things, from the publications of Environmental Action.
  In the cases where they claim there is no new technology, it is
often the purchaser and  not the manufacturer who is  at  fault.
A number of companies announced the  creation of quiet products
only to find that because of  a  slight  increase in  the price, they
were essentially unmarketable. Like  the  construction  industry
which pours out unbelieveable  quantities of noise, the housewife
is often  guilty. For instance, one large  company developed  a
near-silent vacuum cleaner which, it turned out, was rejected by
consumers because the silence  was equated with  ineffectiveness.
Typewriter manufacturers,  too, have learned  how to make ma-
chines quieter, but it's  been found that secretaries  won't use them
because the silence gives the  impression of slow typing.
  So here again, public  relations might help consumers to re-
spond. I  think that by  working with the citizens, you'll find good
results.
  And one of my pet peeves—I see Mr. Barnes out there.
  This is nothing personal. I don't know if you remember me or
not. But Mr.  Barnes, now director of the Air Pollution Depart-
ment in  Dallas, and about 2 years ago I invited  him to a girls'
meeting. And he talked and told  us  a little bit about pollution,
and then I said,  "Well,  what can we do ?" We were all enthusiastic.
  He said, "Well, I'm  sorry,  there's nothing I  can think of."
  And I have had many bitter thoughts about that since then,
because there's a lot we could have done, as  far as  writing legisla-
tors, or anything. Here we were, enthusiastic, idealistic and ready
to work.  I think you can use this as an example that young people
will—everyone,  many, many  people,  are  willing to  work  en-
thusiastically  and  work  with  you, rather than  just  give you
suggestions.
  Also, secondly,  there is a university in  Wisconsin—I believe
it's the University of Wisconsin at Winnepeg, I'm not sure—and
this university is entirely environmentally oriented. And the way
it has courses is much like you were talking about before, teaching
everything as social services, everything  as a  part of  man's
environment,  such as  engineering.  Everything is involved,  an
intregral part of the environment. I think this is  going to be the
answer in education, to make  people aware of the environment.
You know, not  as  something separate, but  as an intregral part
of life. And that includes engineering,  everything, science,  archi-
tecture, et cetera.

-------
                             68

  Again, I'd like to thank you for giving me this opportunity to
speak.
  Dr. MEYER. Miss Mayer, may I  ask you to wait a minute to
see if the panel has any questions or comments ?
  Panel?
  Dr. GLOEIG. I'd just like to say, sometimes I have a lot of mis-
givings about leaving our world to the youngsters, but when I see
them like this, I have no problems at all.
  Dr. MEYER. Amen. [Applause.]
  Does anyone else on the panel have a comment?
  Mr. BERLAND. Yes. I'd like to mention the lack of success in
quiet products. It seems to me that there's a dual responsibility
here, one of them, of course, is with the consumer. He must de-
mand quiet products. But I think also the commercial—those
who sell quiet products have to  spend  as much time, energy, and
money promoting the quietness benefits as much as the  noise.
They have always  equated  noise with  power, be it a vacuum
cleaner or an automobile. I think it's a question of value.
  Dr. MEYER. Miss Mayer, your comments have been most useful.
And I certainly echo what  Dr. Glorig has said. The point you
raised  about working with  young people,  particularly in the
noise control area, is  one that you can rest assured we'll take a
look at, because I think that a great deal of some of the problems
associated with motorcycles and some of the high energy  noise
sources can be dealt with by working with youth groups to teach
some of the users of these  things that they  are  indeed hurting
themselves as well  as others. There are many ways you can be
advocates for us, with the panelists and with the producers and
with everybody. So we're most pleased  in having your suggestions.
  Miss MAYER. But also, it's not just youth.  I mean, from all—
even big people.
  Dr. MEYER. That's what  I meant,  to work within the whole
structure here. Thank you very much, young lady.
  The Honorable Joe Allen of  the  Texas House of  Representa-
tives was going to  be here.  Unfortunately, Mr. Allen was called
away. He was actually here and then  had some emergency arise.
He asked that I insert in the record  his comments,  and it shall
so be done.

      STATEMENT OF STATE REPRESENTATIVE JOE ALLEN

  Representative ALLEN. Chairman Meyer, members of the hear-
ing board, I am, of course, honored  to have been invited to appear
before this panel to discuss the problems  of  noise pollution and
possible legislative remedies and controls.
  As you are, I believe, aware, as a member of the Texas  House
of Representatives, I introduced a bill in the last session  of the
legislature which would facilitate the  establishment of noise pol-
lution standards and control procedures.
   My bill, which, to my knowledge, was the first of its kind ever
introduced in the Texas Legislature, would authorize the existing

-------
                              69

Texas Air Control Board to promulgate rules, regulations, and
standards to control excessive noise and provide both civil penal-
ties and injunctive relief in cases of violations.
  The reasons for my sponsorship of this measure were several.
Foremost, I suppose, was my personal interest and concern with
environmental matters. As the text of my bill said, "The legisla-
ture finds that excessive noise  endangers physical and emotional
health  and  well-being,  interferes with legitimate business  and
recreational activities,  increases  construction  costs,  depresses
property values, offends the senses, creates public nuisances, and
in other respects reduces the quality of the environment."
  Those  words,  "the legislature finds," were  more  hopeful  de-
scription than accurate representation of the feelings of the ma-
jority in the legislative branch of Texas State government.
  Although this was among the first bills introduced in the last
session and although it was quickly  referred  to  the Committee
on State Affairs, one of the most  important and influential com-
mittees of the House, this proposed act never came to the floor of
the House for debate.
  That—in  view of the fact that  legislative bodies are  reluctant
to tread too quickly on  unexplored ground—was  not terribly
surprising. The  most disappointing aspect of this legislation,  so
far as I was concerned, however, was the fact that the committee
never granted me a hearing  on  the bill, never opened it  for
discussion, and never even considered reporting it to the floor.
  Thus, one of my principal objectives, short of  passage of  the
bill, was  not  achieved. I  had  hoped to  call attention to  this
neglected area of environmental concern.
  Pollution  is a much discussed subject these days. It has almost
achieved the status of a fad. Some of those individuals, industries
and organizations which have  done the most to destroy the  en-
vironment now even claim to be society's watchdogs against  our
pollution enemies.
  My impression  is that the words "pollution,"  "environment,"
and "ecology"  are being used more by people to keep  their profits
up, to establish lucrative  new  business  enterprises  and  to  get
elected or reelected to  public office than  by those who are gen-
uinely concerned about the problems and about finding solutions.
  It is a  tragic  fact, indeed,  that so  many are attempting to
capitalize  on a  very serious and complex problem—and upon
those who recognize it as such—for selfish personal and corporate
gain.
  Even those who are  most concerned  with, and  most dedicated
to eradicating, the threats of pollution, however,  are not always
aware of the intricacies of the problem or all the various types
of pollution.
  Everyone, by now, is presumably aware of air and  water pollu-
tion—the very visible types that we see  and smell and taste every
day. Most people are even cognizant of the litter problem, but do
not  connect litter  with the related,  but  monumentally greater
problem of solid waste pollution.

-------
                             70

  People have come to take for granted—to accept and not worry
about—certain aspects of our environment,  certain very tragic
things that we are doing1 to ourselves and the world around us.
  Garbage, for example. Most of us really do not think about our
garbage once  we have  put out the  trash for the sanitation men
to pick up. Most of  us do not ask  or care about where it goes.
After all, we do not have to  think about it  or concern ourselves
with garbage,  unless,  of  course, we happen to live next  to  a
garbage dump or a landfill site.
  We do not have to consider the fact that each of us  produces
tons of garbage each year—garbage which  has to  be put  some-
where. Tons  of trash which  must be burned or buried  or com-
pressed  or recycled or dumped  into the  sea or  piles  next to
someone's house.
  To paraphrase a recent comment of Governor Cahill  of New
Jersey, we must stop thinking about throwing our garbage  away,
because there just isn't any "away".
  That's solid waste pollution. Litter is a small part of it, but
we almost  literally cannot see the forest for the  twigs on the
trees.
  I mention it by way of an example to emphasize that there are
not simply one or two or three kinds of  pollution. There are
many—all inextricably intertwined. We  see pollution,  we smell
it, we taste it, we breathe it, we hear it, we feel it. With  every
sense we perceive that pollution is surrounding us,  cramping us,
making us  ill, and cutting off our life-giving natural resources.
  Pollution kills. If  it  does not kill the body, it must surely kill
the soul.
  Unfortunately, some forms of pollution  have existed for so
long that we have acclimated ourselves to them. We do not even
realize that they are harmful to us and to  other  living things.
And we do not notice that they are shaping our lives and reducing
the quality of life.
  Among the many  forms of pollution—like air pollution,  water
pollution, solid waste pollution, nuclear pollution, pesticide pollu-
tion, and others—noise pollution is perhaps  the most ignored.
   It is the neglected stepchild, if you will—even among pollution
buffs.
  The reasons again are many.  Chief among them, I suppose,  is
that we have become inured to noise.
   Because  we are  used  to it does not mean that noise cannot
be excessive or that it is not harmful. Indeed, it is—or can be—
very harmful.
   Although I am not,  and will  not pretend  to be,  an expert on
medical  or psychological  damage that can  occur as a result of
exposure to noise pollution and  will allow others to explore this
area more fully, I must comment briefly on some of the established
facts.
   Noise  pollution causes hearing loss. Permanent damage occurs
when a person is exposed  to a sound level of 85 decibels over a

-------
                              71

period of years, although he may not notice the hearing loss until
it is too late to do anything about it.
  It is probable that both the decibel level  and the duration of
exposure are important factors in how much damage is done.
The higher the decibel level of a given sound  or noise, the more
damage can be done in a  shorter period of time.
  Tolerance  for noise varies among individuals, but, for  most
people, prolonged or repeated exposure  to noise levels above 85
decibels is considered dangerous.
  Urban traffic sounds often reach  90 decibels  or more, and aver-
age city  noise levels appear to be increasing at the rate of about
1 decibel a year. At this rate, noise-induced deafness may affect
most city dwellers by the year 2000.
  Exposure, for even 1 minute, to  between 100 and  120 decibels
of noise  (such as the sound of a loud power mower, a motorcycle,
or a jet plane on a ramp) can cause temporary deafness.
  A shock  wave of 130 decibels or  more from  a riveting gun, an
air raid  siren or a jet  plane at takeoff can  conceivably cause
immediate, permanent damage. This measure of sound approaches
the threshhold of pain for most people.
  Various researchers have concluded that, in addition to hearing
loss, noise  causes a number of other undesireable  physiological
responses in  people,  such as heart problems and  nervous  dis-
orders. In  addition, a  host of psychological  responses  are at-
tributed  to noise, including annoyance, fear, speech  impariment,
sleep loss, anxiety, and feelings of loss of privacy.
  Noise is  said to cause  dream interruption,  which may result in
a variety of psychotic symptoms,  including paranoid  delusions,
psychoses,  hallucinations,  suicidal  tendencies, and  general in-
ability to cope with frustration.
  The dangers—at least  some of them—are clear.
  Automobiles,  trucks,  airplanes,  construction  equipment, fac-
tories, railroads, housecleaning  equipment,  and loud  music  all
contribute to the din which is characteristic of modern  American
communities.
  Like air  and water pollution, most noise pollution is  the result
of decisions to opt for particular technological possibilities with-
out considering fully their impact on people.
  Partly because it cannot be seen, partly because it  can often
be eliminated or evaded by turning off or moving away from the
source, and partly because its effects are not  fully known, noise
pollution has not received  the  degree of social concern that has
recently been devoted to air and water pollution.
  Yet  noise pollution  has  disrupted  the environment,  it  does
physical  and psychological harm to  humans and untold damage to
other creatures, and it  does require action  commensurate  with
air and water pollution control activities.
  More than 20 centuries ago—long before electronic and motor
technology  ruled and abused  the world—Julius Caesar  noticed
the existence of noise pollution and actually did something about
it. The clattering of chariots on the stone pavements of Rome

-------
                             72

was an annoyance, a nuisance, so  he  banned the vehicles from
the streets of that ancient city.
  With all the power of technology and a  wealth  of  scientific
knowledge at our disposal to correct the situation, we could react,
we should react, and we must react in similar  fashion to this
threat to our peace and tranquility. We have the ability to rid
ourselves of the dangers of noise pollution.
  And we must take legislative action—at the State level, the
Federal level, or both—to insure that we protect ourselves and
succeeding generations.
  Dr. MEYER. The next person I would like to ask to come forward
is Mr.  Bob Johnson  of the  Environmental Action Center  of
Dallas, Tex.
  Is Mr. Johnson here?

               STATEMENT OF BOB JOHNSON

  Mr. JOHNSON. I don't really have much of a statement to make,
except that the Environmental Action Center is located  a  mile
and a half from the Love Field terminal. And at times the con-
versations over the telephone are completely obliterated out there.
So we did some tapes to demonstrate.  I have them here.
  Dr. MEYER. Please go ahead, sir.
   (At this point recording tapes were played by the witness.)
  Dr. MEYER.  Mr. Johnson, what type of building  is that  that
you're making these recordings in?
  Mr. JOHNSON. It's an old residential building that's been con-
verted for office use. It's been zoned commercial.
  Dr. ME.ER. A wooden frame?
  Mr. JOHNSON. Right.
  Dr. MEYER. Wooden frame?
  Mr. JOHNSON. (Nods.)
  Dr. MEYER. You say it's a mile and half away?
  Mr. JOHNSON. Right.
  Dr. MEYER. About what time of day was this?
  Mr. JOHNSON. We did about two or three of them at 5 o'clock
and a little bit after. And the others were taped about 11:30 in
the morning.
  Dr. MEYER. Panel, any question or comment?
  Mr. BERLAND.  What  we heard, is  that what came  over the
phone?
   Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. We had to use  a microphone on the tele-
phone cup because, like we tried it with the telephone and all we
could get was something similar to what the person  on  the other
end  of the line would get. But we're  in a different  situation
because you hear the whole thing there with the use of the  mike
on the telephone.
   Dr. GLORIG. Was this in  the flight pattern, or what?
   Mr. JOHNSON. Yes. It's approximately two blocks down  from
being right under the flight pattern.
   Dr. MEYER. No other questions? Thank you very much.  That

-------
                             73

was a very good demonstration because it shows another one of
the problems of really how difficult some kinds of noise can be
when one is trying to do what one wants to do. Thank you very
much.
  Mr. JOHNSON. Thank you.
  Dr. MEYER. Ladies and gentlemen, this is the last witness we
have for the day. Tomorrow, beginning at 9 o'clock—and I hope
we'll start promptly  at  9  because we do indeed have  a long
session—we will be hearing from a series of witnesses who will
be talking  about both the importance of noise  in relation to
planning and how one does a better job of planning so that some
of the problems we've heard about today do not occur.  We will
also talk how to deal with some of the specific  problems  of noise
in residential living areas within the home or apartment  or other
occupied spaces. We think it will be an  interesting day and we
hope that those of you who can, will return.
  This session of this hearing is hereby recessed until  tomorrow.

-------
                            74
      ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
Public Hearing on Urban Planning, Architectural Designs and Noise
                         in the Home
                     PROCEEDINGS

                       August 19, 1971,

  Dr. MEYER.  Ladies and gentlemen, I call to order  the  second
day of the public hearing on noise, conducted by  the Environ-
ment  Protection Agency under title IV of Public  Law  91-604.
Many of the people in the audience were here yesterday, but there
are some new faces. And so that they and some of the participants
who also were not here yesterday are aware of  the  authorities
and purposes of this hearing, I will say  some brief words which
may be redundant, but I beg the indulgence of those who have
heard them before.
  The Environmental  Protection Agency is directed by the Con-
gress  to hold  a series of public  hearings relating to noise, and
to make a report to the Congress as to the facts about noise as an
environmental problem  and what might be done  about  it and
what  is needed to be done. In  preparing that report, the Ad-
ministrator  of the Environmental Protection  Agency was also
directed to hold a series of public hearings, and this is  one of
those  hearings. From these hearings we are receiving information
from  public witnesses, testifying as to their attitudes about how
noise, unwanted sound, affects them. We are also  receiving infor-
mation from a series  of specially invited participants who have
knowledge about  specific problems as to the  noise situation, or
what  may be done about it.
  Today's testimony before this group of experts, who are sitting
with me, is to help the Federal Government analyze the informa-
tion and provide advice and recommendations as related to urban
planning,  and, as a part of  urban  planning, the role of archi-
tecture. And also the other side of the problem, namely, what
goes on in the home.
  So  without further ado, I will  start this morning's  session  and
ask Mr. Robert Pish  of the Southwest Research Institute if he
would kindly  come and join us and give  us  some information
about noise as  seen  through the eyes  of this internationally
known research organization.

-------
                             75

         STATEMENT OF ROBERT H. PISH, SOUTHWEST
                    RESEARCH INSTITUTE

  Mr. PISH. Thank you for the plug.
  Dr. Meyer, gentlemen,  noise has long been recognized as an
unwelcome yet seemingly  unavoidable companion of our increas-
ingly mechanized and mobilized society. While the noise levels in
our communities have been growing steadily, first serious recogni-
tion of  the problem came from  industrial  and military  circles
where, of course, noise levels were most severe. This awareness
has now spread  to other  segments of  society, particularly from
the standpoint of community annoyance. The recent fervor  over
the environment and ecology  has heightened interest in many
of the problems  of noise,  and  in  perhaps providing some of the
public  and  political  impetus needed  to start  action to  reduce
noise, or at least to hold  its growth in  check. With  this public
recognition and  demand for control comes the allied problem of
just how quiet  our  environment should be, or more precisely,
just what criteria can be  used for judging and controlling noise
without imposing undue penalties on our private and industrial
activities.
  There are, of course, certain problems inherent in the awaken-
ing of a "sleeping giant."  We are seeing some of these problems
today as  public and political pressures are demanding  almost
instant  legislative action in areas where technical data is  scarce,
and demanding immediate and comprehensive programs for noise
reduction without a thorough assessment of the implications of
such reduction on product  cost and safety.
  Basically, if we confine  our discussion to residential  noise,  most
of the problems  center around noise annoyance. In this category
we might also include recreational noise. We are now seeing an
invasion of unwanted sound into virtually every facet of man's
activity and his leisure. The constant psychological tension placed
on  individuals by the noise surrounding them, while difficult if
not impossible to define  in quantitative terms,  most certainly
exists. The ultimate  effect of this continued stimulation depends
to a large measure  on other coexisting environmental conditions
and on  each individual's previous conditioning.
  There is general agreement that noise can  be annoying  and
that too much noise can be harmful to man's physical and psy-
chological makeup. Here general agreement ceases, however, and
disagreement reigns as to  how much noise man can stand without
ill effect,  just what  the effects are,  and how much variation in
sensitivity exists from man to man.  Some things are  clear,  how-
ever, at least qualitatively. The  annoyance value of noise  may
not be defined in purely physical terms of  pressure and  spectra.
Leaky faucets and babies'  crying very quickly dispel any attempts
at blaming annoyance totally on acoustic properties. The problem
of  preconditioning  has  plagued  researchers for years in  their
attempts to define noise annoyance factors, and even in statistical

-------
                              76

approaches, variations in individual susceptibilities have rendered
most  systematic  attacks  on the problem questionable  at best.
Probably the most effective approach has been the study of actual
case histories, but here  again the problem  of  the  uncontrolled
environment  has obscured  the  role of noise alone in inducing
annoyance. Perhaps the  most popular noise  criterion  is that by
Rosenblith and Stevens.
  Recognizing the inaccuracy of data on the effects of noise, many
legislative  efforts  in the field of community noise  control have
produced  relatively poor documents,  particularly  on the local
level. Many  of these are unenforceable,  unduly restrictive, or
technically impractical.  Such  specifications as "noise  cannot  ex-
ceed background levels"  or "residential  noise  must  be 40  dB"
where ambient levels are typically 45 dB only serve to  muddy
the water by establishing unsound precedents. In the cases where
legislation is unduly restrictive or technically  unachievable, an
obvious danger exists in hamstringing industry and  interfering
with  personal comfort and freedom.  In  other  situations  where
legislation lacks  technical preciseness, the regulation itself  be-
comes a nuisance.
  At this point I would like to inject a personal comment in that
yesterday quite a  number of individual citizens were  backing or
supporting H.R. 6002. While the text of this regulation is  in fact
very  good, certain  points which have been overlooked by  the
citizens are basically wrong or  faulty. One part sets noise levels
for vehicles at 86 dB (A)  without specifying a distance, a measure-
ment point or measurement condition. And I'm sure if we speci-
fied under the hood, we could keep most of the  cars off the road.
  Basically, we  may class community noise  as  originating from
any of three  major sources: Adjacent industrial facilities, traffic
—both ground and air, and residential equipment and  appliances.
  Industrial noise sources often provide a more or less continuous
background to community activities in many areas. The  sounds
of plant and  construction equipment are common in many neigh-
borhoods. However, while a list of these sources may be relatively
easy to compile, the implementation of effective control for this
noise will be both difficult and costly. The  suspension of such
activity must be considered only as a last resort. Are we really
ready to buy silence with unemployment?
  In many cases, black magic is not required to control industrial
noise. Control  techniques,  when  requested,  may be  engineered
within the state of the air with fairly predictable results. As an
example,  compare the stenographer's  recorder  here to the com-
mon  office typewriter.  The  problems are chiefly economic,  and
the  costs can become astronomical for some types of noise. In
fact, it is often cheaper to buy up adjacent property around noisy
items than reduce noise at  its source. In other cases, treatments
can be rather effectively and conveniently applied. The release of
high pressure steam in an  outside blowoff or vent stack, as
described by Mrs. Stewart yesterday, the control of engine noise,
or  many  other  types of plant noise can be controlled  if  sys-

-------
                             77

tematically analyzed and effectively engineered. Over the past 15
years,  in fact,  Southwest Research has  been deeply involved in
the control of such industrial noises, both from the standpoint of
protecting plant employees and controlling community annoyance.
Such work has entailed a rather wide range of problems for many
diverse industries. Unfortunately, the majority of our  work has
been remedial in nature because for most companies noise has not
been a problem until a  complaint was registered.  As a result of
many such studies, it is  possible to say that the control of noise is
significantly more economical in the design  stage because at this
point the  physical layout of the facility and the use of existing
terrain features is possible, both  of which are free.
  Traffic noise  is probably one of the most  commonly recognized
urban  noise sources. The majority of noise from surface vehicles,
however, is  usually related to operation at increased speed or
operation  in  dense traffic flows.  Wind  noise  and tire  noise are
both functions  of vehicle speed and, as such, usually confined to
major traffic arteries.  Aircraft  noise,  while more invading, is
usually confined similarly to particular air  and  approach routes.
  Because of this facet of vehicular noise, it appears likely that
careful planning, design, and construction of traffic arteries, both
air and water,  and surface,  can do much to eliminate this noise
at the  source in this case.
  The residential—and  as was  pointed out yesterday, the  rec-
reational noise  sources—present  a significant and heretofore un-
controlled problem to a peaceful environment. Unfortunately,  it
is in  the  residential area that noise and  the  control of noise
become limited by  the subjective  responses  that are evoked.
Typically, a  motorcycle enthusiast does not call  his  motorcycle
noisy.  While most will  agree  that the nonpersonal devices such
as garbage  disposers,  air conditioners, furnaces and  plumbing
make noise, this, however, is  where agreement stops.  For, over
the years, as yesterday's speakers testified, noise has been related
to power  and consumers will  purchase personal devices such as
tools, blenders, vacuum cleaners,  cars, and lawn mowers because
they sound powerful. In fact, manufacturers who have attempted
to market quiet  products have  run into  significant buyer  re-
sistance. One well known lawn mower manufacturer modified its
best selling  mower to  reduce  the noise  levels it radiated. After
selling many of  them,  they began to be returned because they
were  "underpowered,"  end quote, when in  actuality, the buyers
who could not  hear the machine  could not detect  that they were
overloading the lawnmower, and  as a result, were killing it.  In  a
similar example of man's dependence on noise, many of you have
driven new cars and seen suddenly the fire truck or the ambulance
rush past you or rush into the intersection  with you, not having
heard its approach. This is perhaps one of the better examples of
one adverse effect of noise reduction on personal safety. So we've
got both spectra  here, too much and too little noise. Many people
in driving a car  pay less than adequate visual attention, relying
on their sense  of hearing to alert them to danger. Removing the

-------
                             78

noise in this case has definitely impaired their safety, or at least
required them to reorient their information channels to different
senses, a requirement that most humans are not ready to handle.
  While it is impossible  to say quantitatively  how serious the
community annoyance problem  is, at this point we  need only
look at the symptoms. As  a result of widespread publicity, people
are becoming aware that noise is  not just something  that  auto-
matically  results from industrialization  that  must  be tolerated.
One need  only look at the large range of problems, both reported
and unreported, to see the impact that noise has on every  facet
of our daily lives.
  I will not  try to tie this increase in  noise to the  population
growth  rate or  to the hourly  rate increase in total energy con-
sumption,  but just  mention that  in some cases, the increased
sound levels  are not due to the increase in sound  level  of any
single device, but rather  to the ever increasing  number of such
devices.
  Obviously,  then, we must reduce the noise levels to  acceptable
levels within the realms  of possibility and feasibility. But  what
constitutes an acceptable level? The answer to  this question  is
not  simple and is definitely  not  easily legislated,  for there  is
insufficient research  to support any given noise level at this time.
As with all of the forms of pollution, we find a large  number  of
people willing to point the accusing finger rather than ask what
needs to be done. To place the blame entirely  on industry is a
mistake, for while it is true that power equipment manufacturers
have a  long way to  go in quieting their equipment, many others
have been very active in establishing noise programs and have
made significant  strides. Examples  are numerous, with  many
firms and professional organizations having  active  noise  pro-
grams dating back to the mid and early  1950's,  before noise was
a popular topic of concern.
   I'm not trying to say  here that industry does not share the
blame.  It must, however, be remembered that the corporate and
social responsibility is  a recent concept and,  in addition, that
manufacturers  can  only  sell  those  items  for which  they have
buyers. Unfortunately, with limited  exception until  recent years,
consumers have been unwilling to put a  premium on quiet equip-
ment. Simply stated, then, there appears to be three basic  needs
which  must  be  satisfied  before a  national noise abatement pro-
gram can succeed.
   First, we  must perform some research to  quantitize  man's
subjective response to noise in order that reasonable noise criteria
might be established.
   Second, public  education to the impact  of  noise  pollution and
the individual's responsibilities for  a quiet environment.
   Third, research into the application of available noise abate-
ment techniques to particular problems  in the urban  society.
   The first point has already  been discussed, and until this work
has begun, the nationwide effort to  reduce noise will continue to
be hampered by poorly written or unenforceable laws.

-------
                             79

  The second point, that of public awareness or education, bears
some  important consideration. For until the consumer is aware
that he  must demand apartments  with well treated ceilings and
walls  and  home  appliances which are quiet, industry—and by
"industry" I mean also home and apartment builders—will not
be required to further reduce noise levels. Here again,  it is going
to be required that the consumer break the long existing tie
between power and radiated noise. Individual education must be
oriented so that the ultimate user of the item will rely  on sources
other  than his ear to verify equipment performance.
  If we recognize the lack  of noise criteria and begin research to
develop them, we are still confronted  by the question of whether
or not equipment noise levels can be reduced to meet the criteria.
In answer to this question, it may be stated that while the  basic-
techniques exist for treating most types of noise, development of
the practical methods for applying these techniques in many  cases
requires considerable engineering skill and effort.  Practical ap-
plication techniques, as I have used  it here, includes the entire
spectrum  of the noise  reduction  problem.  That is to  say, the
application of  noise reduction  methods  must consider not  only
the absolute reduction in noise, but also the safety,  economic and
physiological impact of the abatement program.
  In conclusion, then, it appears that the need exists for a sys-
tematic attack on the urban  noise pollution within  our country.
While many  possibilities exist, we feel that at least  the points
below should be considered.
  As  a  first phase, or a first step, we should begin a  nationwide
program of equipment noise labeling.  This phase should establish
standard tests for consumer goods and industrial equipment—say,
noise levels in dB (A) or sones at 25 feet, or at 3 feet in the case of
blenders—in order that the consumer might have  the choice of
specifying- the quieter equipment. In most cases, legislative action
is not required because there are quite a number of existing noise
measurement standards in  the various professional organizations.
  Second,  we  must begin a program of consumer  education.
Industrywide efforts to label the noise levels of equipment will be
of little value unless the consumer is also educated into the mean-
ing of these figures.
  As  a sidenote,  one  lady yesterday mentioned  that pollution
levels had  been reduced 26 percent immediately as the result of
legislation. Reducing the noise level by 26 dB is roughly one, one
and a half db of noise reduction. We are not calling that adequate.
   DR. WAKD. I think she said 26 percent, not 26 dB (A).
   Mr. PISH. Oh, by 26 percent, I'm sorry. The 26 percent reduction
in noise is about a dB and  a half,  so we can't be satisfied with 26
percent. And  therefore, concurrent  with the requirement  for
equipment labeling, there should  be a nationwide program to
educate the consumer on  the meanings and the implications of
noise and noise specifications.
   And finally,  research activity. One  of the primary aims of the
initial research should be to quantitize man's subjective response

-------
                              80

to noise. This work will  allow us to  formulate realistic  guide-
lines for the nationwide noise abatement effort.
  In addition, simultaneous research should begin to develop the
application methods for existing and future noise reduction tech-
niques in such  consumer  areas  as home construction  and ap-
pliances. This research might ultimately lead to the formulation
of minimum  noise  specifications  or standards for housing con-
struction and also application notes and techniques for the control
of urban noise.
  As a second and final phase,  the  establishment of these recom-
mended levels for the environment will result naturally from the
work performed in phase I. With a little  review, some of the
existing  community noise  criteria might  even be  adopted  as
interim noise standards for community levels.
  As a result of the labeling requirement, industry will probably
have begun noise reduction programs in earnest in  an attempt to
maintain a competitive position.  As a result, when the realistic
guidelines for the environment have been set, industry should be
well on the way to achieving them.
  Finally, only when the consumer understands  that he shares in
the responsibility for having a quiet environment  can  a nation-
wide noise abatement program be effective.
  Thank you.
  Dr. MEYER. Mr. Pish, thank you very much for setting the stage
for today's discussions. You and your colleague,  Dr. Sparks, have
put together a statement which really puts this whole problem in
perspective. Panel?
  Dr. WARD.  I agree, this is an  excellent presentation, and leaving
the point of view that the basic plan should be rating the sounds
of these machines  in terms of  their sounds, and leaving it up to
the consumer, rather than by broad sweeping mandates banning
everything above a  certain level.
   I would like to question one statement that you  made, though,
which is, if I may call your attention to page 2 where you  say:
  The constant psychological tension placed on individuals by the noise sur-
rounding them, while  difficult if not  impossible to define in quantitative
terms, most certainly exists.
   How do you know it exists if you can't define  it in quantitative
terms?  Now, I realize that maybe you didn't have—you are not
responsible for  that particular sentence,  but since we now have
our  experts on  these things with  us, I'd like  to  bring this up
again, because it was something that was said many times yester-
day. You know, "everybody knows that," and  such-and-such  is
true, and yet where is the evidence?
   Mr. PISH. Well, this is—I'm  sure you're aware you are putting
me on the spot.  It was my assistant, by the way. Mr. Berland, in
his book, as  Mr. Baron  and several other writers, have claimed
physiological impacts of noise. Dr. Glorig, by contrast, has come
out in his writing  as having said that this is unsupportable. So
no matter what I answer, I'm going to be in trouble.
   Dr. MEYER. That's the purpose  of these hearings. Not to  get

-------
                             81

people in trouble, but to get some differences of opinion and fact
out in view.
  Mr.  PISH. I have two children;  however, they are not hyper-
active, they are normal children, and after a day at the office, I
come home, and if they're very exceptionally noisy, I cannot relax,
and to me, that's personal evidence.
  Quantitative evidence is going to be almost impossible to estab-
lish. But as far as my stomach is aware, my kids are a psycholog-
ical pressure in the home.
  Dr. GLORIG. This kind of evidence reminds me of  "they say." I
wonder who "they" is all the time. I've never been able to find
out who "they" is in these respects.
  Professor COLE. You know, you can turn the question around
and put the burden of proof on those who say it  doesn't exist.
Let them prove that it doesn't.
  Dr. GLORIG. Well, I think the point about that is, if it exists,
there should be some way of measuring it. Now, maybe not exactly
or precisely, but  certainly if  something exists, there  should  be
some  way  of pointing it out rather  than  saying,  "Well,  my
stomach gets in trouble when my children are noisy." How about
Sundays when you are not at the office? Does the noise do the
same thing?
  Mr. PISH. If they're noisy, it does.
  Dr. Newman's  comment about trees yesterday not having any
effect on noise quantitatively but psychologically quite drastically
affecting a listener's  rating of noise enters in here. If we can't
differentiate or we can't break that down or separate noise and
other stimuli in the home or in the urban environment, maybe the
fact that the kids are climbing all over  me while they're scream-
ing is  part of the problem.  But noise is in there with  them, and
I don't think we  will be able  to separate it completely. But it's
going- to be one of the catalysts.
  Dr. MEYER. Well, we indeed have with us on the panel a human
behavioral  science and medical specialist in this area.  Dr. West-
man, did you have any comment on this at this point?
  Dr.  WESTMAN. Well, I've been primed for my appearance at
the hearing today and I  understand that the panel is  divided in
its view of the significance  of home  noise, particularly that pro-
duced by appliances  and children.  And  rather  than avoiding the
issue and putting it off until later this morning, I'd like to tackle
it head on. We can continue our discussion at various  points.
  First of  all, I would agree that the burden of proof is  on those
who say that household noise  is not a problem. I think  the con-
sensus of those of us  who live in homes is sufficient in scope and
depth to indicate that we all, as citizens, are concerned about this,
so that the scientists must come to me as a father and tell me that
noise  is not a problem. So I think  the question should be turned
around.
  Second, we do  have clinical evidence available to us today—
and again for those of us who may not be familiar with the sig-
nificance of clinical evidence,  clinical evidence is  soft evidence.

-------
                             82

It's the kind of evidence that a doctor uses in treating a disease
that's not fully  understood. A doctor  is  faced with  a need to
handle a problem that comes to him, and rather than waiting for
the laboratory or the scientific  research to be completed, he has
to do something to solve the problem at hand.  So that what I'm
going to say now is not based on laboratory or research evidence
of a  hard  type,  but  it's  based on soft,  clinical  evidence. We
certainly do see children, as was pointed  out yesterday, and I
think that most  of us know, who flounder because of  the effects
of high sound input, both at home  and in the  school, but  more
importantly, we do see mothers  who  come to physicians  com-
plaining about everything but  noise in the home.  The  sensitive
physician finds that among many things, psychologically, per-
sonal relationships and so on, the most significant  thing that he
can do to help  that mother is to ask this question: "Is  your  home
set up to handle grownups who like low sound and low  activity
levels? Is it also set up to  handle children who like high sound
and high activity levels?" And looking at  it from this point of
view, which might be called psychoarchitecture, the tension level
of the mother can be  reduced by a little thought and a_ little
planning relative to the  areas  in the  home where the children
make the noise and the areas in the home in which she or father—
when you get home at night—attempt to uncoil from a busy day.
  Well, these are the things that I think can be brought to your
testimony as a father, as a physician who  works in this area.
  Dr. MEYER.  Thank you very much, Dr. Westman. Panel, any
more questions for this witness?
  Professor COLE. Yes. On your recommendations  on equipment
labeling of sound levels,  have you talked  to any  manufacturers
about this proposal, and if so, have you had any  response  from
them?
  Mr. PISH. Right at this moment, I, as well as my cohort, Cecil
Sparks,  are members  of the  Society  of  Automotive Engineers
Tractor Technical  Committee, which  is  seeking  to  develop a
labeling committee for tractors. Several other  Society of Auto-
motive Engineering criteria exist for labeling right now in the
automotive field.
  Professor COLE. Later on I think we have some witnesses to
testify from the home appliance manufacturers, and I would ap-
preciate it if  they would comment on these recommendations
which your testimony has given.
  Dr. MEYER.  We have two more questions. Do you have one?
  Dr. GLORIG.  I wanted to ask if you knew that there is an inter-
national standard on community response  that has been out now
for about a year, which  takes  into  account all  these  things you
have been talking about for an  interim standard? We  worked on
this for about 10 years or so, and we gave up  the  word "annoy-
ance" because it just could  not possibly be handled in such an
instance, and we changed it to "community response." There is a

-------
                             83

standard which purports to  measure community  response  with
respect to the rating of noise.
  Mr. PISH. I've seen  it.
  Dr. MEYER. Before you  answer,  there  was a question I was
going to ask, and I'd  like to add it to this. Could your statement
there be  construed as  saying—taking  Dr. Glorig's  statement
along with it—that you  feel that all of these existing standards
need—even though they  are the result of 10 years  work—some
further  extension and ought  to be  considered tentative? Is that
the thrust of what you're saying?
  Mr. PISH. Well, while  I'm not familiar  with this international
standards organization  or the research that went in  behind it,
most  regulations,  even  the  existing occupational hearing  loss
regulations, are based on  not completely strong and  thorough
scientific groundings.  In  talking to Herb  Jones about the Public
Health Service, he admits that  there is  some impreciseness or
some points of consolidation between industry and  the Govern-
ment that were used  in  arriving at the final levels, in that the
levels that are set are  compromises and are not  scientifically
correct facts.
  Dr. GLORIG. Having been the writer of the thing you are talking
about, I agree with you  completely. But this is the result of the
fact that any recommendation must be supported by  the  com-
munity, and not only  the scientific community but the industrial
community and the social community and  the medical community
and the  entire population that  is  going to be affected by the
regulation. Therefore, compromises must be made.
  Mr. PlSH. This is right. And one of the biggest fallacies we can
have—on some of the existing legislation that is pending right
now—is that occupational levels must be reduced to  80  dB, when
in fact, most industries  will  not be able  to do that in the near
future.  And  these are  not  compromises,  and not necessarily
wrongly based in any  practical sense or any practical  information.
  Dr. NEWMAN.  I'd like to make an observation on  it all, not
standards for noise or anything else. When we  talk about noise
control  in  any environmental situation,  we talk about levels of
noise that we can tolerate; kids screaming, planes making noise,
and so on. Any noise at reasonable noninjurious  levels is more
tolerable in a nonreverberant environment than  in a reverberant
one. And I think one of the  things  that  we vastly underdo in
houses is use—use of sound  absorbing treatment.  People talk
about, "This house is  so noisy." It's so noisy because it's all hard
white plaster and vinyl  asbestos  floors. And we need to realize
that almost any noise situation can be significantly mitigated by
the use  of sound  absorbing treatment, no matter what the level.
  Dr. MEYER. Ted, you had a question?
  Mr.  BERLAND.  Yes. First,  a comment on the  psychological
effects. I know that when I'm trying to hold a conversation and
an airplane flies overhead, it's not only noise, it's frustration, and
some other adjectives could be applied.  I  also know that when I
hear  a  siren, I have a  psychological reaction.  I'm sure those

-------
                             84

aren't imagined; I'm sure they're real. I think the burden has to
be on the other side.
  I do want to ask you  about a couple of comments. You said
something that is very attractive to me; you  said on page 5 that
one way to get at traffic noise, both air and surface, is proper de-
sign and construction  of traffic arteries. And you really did mean
air traffic as well; is that right?
  Mr. PISH. Right.
  Mr. BEKLAND. Would you care to elaborate, because that coin-
cides with a thought we've had.
  Mr. PISH. Probably Mr. Newman is more qualified in that area
than I, because he has worked more with aircraft noise than I
have, or  at least his  firm has. Basically though, the shortening
or the increase in the climb rate on takeoff within permissible
limits, the switching to  some of the newer  quited jet engines
is possible.  The use  of remote airports with rapid  transit to a
central point of dispersement is another feasible approach. How-
ever, the removal of  an  airport to a remote location,  as most
people in the field of noise control are aware, does not keep noise
away from the community because the  community builds  up
around the  airport. In most cases,  most airports  were  built out
in remote areas to begin with, and they have since been built up
around. And so it's as much the community's fault—not only the
developers,  but  also  the  purchasers of houses in the area—for
having these airport noises close above them.
   Mr. BEKLAND. I misunderstood what you said.  I thought that
you  were  saying that we should have  aircraft rights-of-way
established  so that airplanes fly over specific routes to get in the
airports, and  under those routes you could  have heavy  industry
and  whatever. For instance, we  have railroad rights-of-way es-
tablished.
   Mr. PISH. Well, this is one  of the many facets of  the problem,
obviously.  The overwater approaches to  the port cities of  San
Francisco  and New  York  have  reduced  community annoyance
aspects to  some  degree. And these  things,  in taking advantage
of existing terrain features,  ridge  lines  and the like, aircraft
approach arteries and takeoff arteries can be greatly silenced or
at least removed from our awareness. I want to make  one com-
ment back  to you, Mr.  Berland, in that you mentioned that a
siren definitely  does  annoy you  or produce  some psychological
reaction. In most cases,  some of  the noises that annoy  us, like a
baby crying  or a siren, don't evoke reactions  because of  the
absolute noise level, but because of the psychological fear of what
that sound  implies. So that there we're not reacting—we're  not
psychologically  reacting  to  the  noise  level, but rather to  the
implied fear from that.
   Mr. BERLAND. Well, I don't think that anyone can  say—and
I don't mean this as a pun—but I don't  think you  can say  that
noise can exist in a vacuum.
   Dr. MEYER. No; it doesn't. At least as far as  the members of
the panel know, it doesn't.

-------
                             85

  Mr. BERLAND.  It certainly doesn't exist in a physiological and
psychological vacuum. If I hear it, I don't just hear it with  the
architecture of my ear; I also hear it with my whole being. So I
think that that's right, it does not exist by itself.
  Somebody else mentioned yesterday that there's a lawnmower
manufacturer that sold a quiet lawnmower and bombed with it.
No one has named that manufacturer, and I wonder if you could?
I do also know  that Scott produces a quiet hand mower, and
apparently is very successful with it.
  Mr. PISH. Well, this is a recent	
  Mr. BERLAND.  Who produced the power mower that was  quiet;
do you know?
  Mr. PISH. To the best of my knowledge, it  was the Lawn Boy
Corp.
  Dr. WARD. "To the best of your knowledge?" Now,  you  are
putting- this into the record. I would prefer that  you	
  Mr. PISH. It was the Lawn Boy. In a similar example	
  Dr. WARD. Is  it printed,  this  experience, or is this word of
mouth concerning the Lawn Boy?
  Mr. PlSH. This is a known example from the manufacturer of
the Lawn Boy mower.
  Dr. NEWMAN. I get a hearing loss from my Lawn Boy when I
operate it for an hour.
  Mr. PlSH. It's  not silenced, is it?
  Dr. NEWMAN.  No; but damn it	
  Mr. PISH. OK. The other instances of just  this occurrence are
in the agricultural industry,  which  was the topic  of another
meeting. John Deere Tractor Works has developed a farm tractor
which reduces the noise level at the operator's ears with  a cab,
and  the  level is reduced to that of a residential area, a quiet
residential area, not necessarily a  Dallas residential  area. And
they are unable to sell them because their marketing research has
proven that they cannot market a tractor cab that sells for over
a thousand dollars, and a quiet cab will sell for considerably more
than that.
  Dr. MEYER. For the  panel's information  some information on
the subject of economics—at least, in the field of heavy construc-
tion  equipment—was adduced at our hearing in Atlanta  some-
what along the lines that have just been brought out. And I think
some of the panel members know that the  record does show  rather
clearly  in  the heavy construction  industry that  when a  manu-
facturer introduces quiet presses,  even at a modest premium
increase of about $200  on an item that's worth about $20,000, he
had difficulty in selling them.
  Any other questions,  panel?
  Dr. WARD. Can  I please have one last question?
  Dr. MEYER. You may indeed.
  Dr.  WARD. None of  my  compatriots  here  has attacked  this
notion that the burden  of proof is on the  negative. Are  we

-------
                             86

supposed to believe any proposition, no matter how preposterous,
until it is proven false?
  Professor COLE. No.

  Dr. WARD.  Well, the burden of proof has traditionally been on
the affirmative, and although this  is in the time of change and
upheaval and all sorts of things, it doesn't seem to me that this
is the time that we should put the burden of proof on the negative.
So I insist that in the realm of extra-auditory effects of  noise,
the burden of proof still remains  on the affirmative, those who
declare that in addition to hearing loss, that there are other long
term permanent changes that are caused by moderate noise. Now,
there is no question but what it is true  that sirens  annoy this
many. They annoy me, but there are some people it doesn't annoy
a bit. If they are not universal annoyances—if the annoyance
isn't universally true—do we have any right or reason to legislate
noises that are annoying only to  a few people? This is a question
that I think is very important.

  Dr. MEYER. Well,  I can see that our hearing in Boston dealing
with the problems of physiological and  psychological effects on
many are going to be quite stimulating. And if any of you want
to hear the rest of this interesting continued story, and can afford
to come to Boston in a few weeks, I'm  sure you will hear Dr.
Ward and some of these other people—not necessarily as panelists
but as witnesses and participants,  and also as panelists—in con-
tinuing this important subject, which we cannot resolve, of course,
in this hearing. But the points you are raising are well made. It
proves—in the  chairman's view, at  least—that there are  in  most
of these issues  dealing with the  environment, not just two sides,
but a number of sides. And one of the things that is my chore for
the Administrator and the Congress is to try to get as much fact
as I can on all sides of the issues.

  Thank you very much for helping us  get this off to what ap-
pears to be a  stimulating day.

  Now, since some trends in the discussions here were of the
nature that they were, I'd like to try to maintain some continuity.
And it is the chairman's prerogative to change the order, although
there is  a  logical sequence in  the way  we  have the witnesses
arranged. The  morning is devoted primarily to matters  relating
to planning- and architecture and  the afternoon is devoted pri-
marily to the things that  go into  the home. And there was  a
bridge, sort  of, between the two  somewhat distinct areas. But
since Mr. John Burdis of the Environistics Division, Instrument
Systems  Corp., has had  some experiences which sort of follow
right on  to the previous witnesses, I'm going to take the liberty
of asking Mr. Burdis to give his statement now, because I think
you'll see the logic of my making that  decision of having the
bridge here instead of later. Mr.  Burdis, nice to have you with us.

-------
                             87

     STATEMENT OF JOHN BURDIS, INSTRUMENT SYSTEMS
                       CORPORATION

  Mr. BURDIS. I suppose 1 could say I could make a great deal of
noise myself, being- an architectural  planner and a flier, but  I
prefer to stay in the planning field today and deal with a proposi-
tion  that I want to put forward as I  progress through my paper.
  We have  technically been able to totally analyze noise and
sounds as separate elements, or in  a  direct relationship to  a
specific function, i.e., to work at an industrial machine or a sonic
boom detector  that  the  Federal Aviation  Authority needs  in
measuring aircraft noises. These  are, however,  isolated, and like
most other investigations, unrelated  to the need for a systems
approach to change.  And change  is the one  fixed element in our
society. We must now assemble our known technology and remove
its blinkers to determine the lateral affiliations, direct and in-
direct associations, to our changing life styles.
  I am, then, creating a  new toolbox assembly  of mostly  known
components  to decide  a  new system, the esthetic  and  master
enviral plan  of sound as an integrated dimension of metro and
regional planning. In community land use, we have manmade and
natural elements, trees, houses, roads, factories, stores,  schools.
And in community noise we have assembled identifiable planned
components, frequency characteristics, day,  night, stationary  or
moving objects above and below ground, single  and multiple, the
sounds of comfort or intrusion. We  must integrate the noise  or
sound components with those of the master plan, and we must be
classified—they must be  classified, rather, by their  relationship
to land  use  and to physical buildings if we are to get a  totally
integrated solution. Let us then analyze the planned components
and identify their sounds in our environment.
  I would hasten to add that the natural elements of any plan
seem to consistently give off pleasant sounds in  our environment.
  I would hasten to add that the natural elements  of any plan
seem to  consistently give off  pleasant sounds,  the wind  in  the
trees, the waterfall, wildlife in their habitat, and I will not pre-
sume to judge  God's work.  Rather my evaluation will be man's
miserable attempts,  to quote, "better" his  environment in this
brave new world.
  So then  I'm talking about the esthetics  of  noise to  a large
extent broken  down into planned components  and  in the final
analysis, the measurements that we deal with in  planning as they
are related to zoning.
  Obviously, in transportation, we  have the automobile; it  is
here. It kind of got large; now it's  getting smaller.  And as we
get smaller, the varying types of motorcycle—I  have three in my
driveway—I find that as  the machine gets smaller, the noise gets
greater.
  But I'd like to talk about, not so much the vehicles themselves,
in which I think we're doing a great deal of work.  And I don't

-------
                             88

want to isolate this into a technical  discussion.  I want to talk
about the assemblage of all  of  these  things. That the actual
standards established in the  Federal  Government for highways
do not in any way take into account the question  of major
arteries being  depressed  rather  than  elevated.  That  in  itself
would have a tremendous effect on sounds in our urban scene. As
Planning Director in one of the largest counties  in the country,
Long Island,  we fought the issue  of grade separation of rail and
road grade crossing separations. Well, of course, it's cheaper to
elevate, but that to me  is not the answer. Are we talking  about
a capital investment—a capital expenditure,  rather, or are we
talking about an investment  in the value of  our environment.
Their argument was, "Well,  if you depress it, it fills with dirt.
If you elevate it, all the  land uses can go on underneath it." Well,
we did this. We had the Third Avenue El which used to go  along
the sidewalk. In those days, you had to  dodge out on the road to
get away from the sparks. They then  put it in the middle of the
road, and they finally got rid  of it altogether. Now, they are try-
ing to elevate it once more. Out in  Long Island they don't seem
to learn.
  And there is no question of noise; highway sounds are relatively
low as we have an average speed on the Long Island  Expressway
of about 4 and a half miles an hour.
  Coming to the airport yesterday, the man next to me wound
his window down and said, "Let me through. I have a message for
Grover Cleveland." Well, then if we take this whole question of
depressing our major arteries of roads and rails and getting to
a grade separation situation, I think  we'll alleviate a great deal
of the problems. Landscaping, not only is  an esthetically  im-
portant thing—and Robert Moses did a great job for us, especially
on Long Island, where he landscaped beautifully all the parkways.
Some people say they don't absorb noise. We have the year-round
rather dense  landscaping. Perhaps it visually absorbs noise. And
I volunteer that this is an element that is quite  important. Not
only that, they absorb a tremendous amount of dirt,  and  in some
instances they  keep down the teenage  sharpshooters  who  are
rather busy on our major arteries  in the last few years in this
great world of permissiveness.
  As far as planes are  concerned, I was faced 4 years ago with
the collision  course between—well,  not actually—but a collision
course between  Kennedy Airport and one  of the towns in my
domain, which was the town of Hempstead, the largest  single
township in the United States. We  were faced with  the problem
where  land  was  totally legislated  by a zoning  ordinance. The
zoning ordinance took into account easements and rights-of-way
and all the other elements that could affect its use. The zoning
ordinance controlled the setback of the buildings, the side yards,
the garages,  and  there are some 16 measurements you can  apply
to any individual lot under the enabling legsilation  in the State
of New York. But it did nothing for  any of the  space or the
air rights above  this piece of land, but it controlled everything

-------
                             89

below. I submit that we have to start—if we're talking about our
total environment, we have to start thinking three dimensionally
in what has been  a two dimensional legal world. The attorney
thinks only two dimensionally in the zoning ordinance  and it
has become a mathematical monotonizer of our land.  By thinking
three dimensionally, I submit that we can take in air rights to a
much greater degree.  Now, we do have  some moves  in this area
where air rights themselves—that is, the space above arteries—
may be used  for  certain  facilities. We have three masses  of
apartment buildings  built over the approaches  to  the  George
Washington Bridge. But  I want to go further than that and say
that the  airlanes—and it  was alluded  this morning earlier—
that the airlanes be mapped on all subdivision and  master plan
maps, and that they become just  as important  a component  as
the easements and the rights-of-way that the attorneys maintain
must be on all of the filed maps today.  In this way me can begin
to protect the airport, the ogre,  so to  speak. We can establish
aircraft lanes, for which there will  be  at various points  of ap-
proaches and takeoff fully determined patterns of land use which
are adopted in the  zoning ordinance and with an integrated build-
ing code that establishes sound levels in the building. In this way
we protect the airfield and, in many cases, I believe, the pilots
themselves in the  so-called evasive actions  they  have to take  on
takeoff.
   I also submit that the zoning ordinance itself is a  document in
our society that has to be drastically reorganized and  extended far
beyond  its present operation.  I said a  moment ago  that it must
become three  dimensional, and to become  three dimensional, it
has  to add to all  of its land  uses behavioral patterns in sound
which can be mathematically established so that we can determine
relationships between certain kinds  of land uses.
   I believe, then, that standards and criteria can be prepared for
all different  kinds of land uses,  for urban and suburban and
similar rura] settings, whereby the  zoning  ordinance can trans-
late sound needs in any master plan. And then the  municipality
that screams for home rule can  begin  to protect itself and the
residents  that it watches over.
   Thank  you.
   Dr. MEYER. Mr. Burdis, thank you very much for an extremely
fresh viewpoint on some of the problems which both the panel is
looking at today and which the Federal  Government, through our
Agency and the other agencies of the Government, must  address
itself to. Panel, questions?
   Mr. BERLAND. Yes.  Mr. Burdis, naturally,  I agree with the idea
about the airlines. You mentioned the problem of zoning. And  it's
the  view of many experts—maybe including yourself,  I don't
know—that the zoning  as practiced in the  United  States has
largely been a failure, largely because of lack of foresight. Would
you propose, or is it your idea that such  zoning, specifically in
terms of  the use  of air  rights in terms of airliners, would you

-------
                            90

propose that such zoning be thoroughly  controlled, or by some
governmental agency larger than, say, a community or county?
  Mr.  BURDIS.  Well, when you  talk  about  Federal controls, I
don't believe that zoning ordinances  can be properly federally
controlled. I think that the home rule element is fundamental to
good zoning. It's a  question of  level.  I personally  believe in
regional zoning. My county, Nassau, for example, has three towns,
two cities and 66 villages, all with their  own zoning ordinances,
along with some 342 special districts which included two elevated
districts for the Long Island Railroad. So you have a real problem
when you face this  type of thing.  So it is  a regional type of
thing. Perhaps the right  of control at the Federal or State level
can be applied to certain functions of our life, the services of our
life. Utility companies have a right  of eminent domain; perhaps
the FAA can have some domain, some domain  rights over the
precluding  of certain land uses on assigned  flight patterns,  and
then leave it to the local municipal authorities to create an ordi-
nance within that framework.
  Dr. MEYER. That's an interesting thought.
  Professor COLE. Mr. Burdis, I think separate from relating to
the terms of zoning ordinances and  regulations, I think what
you're—as  I understand  what you're  suggesting or recommend-
ing is something  that goes far  beyond zoning laws. I think you
should call it something  else, a land  use control mechanism of
some sort.
  Mr. BURDIS. I think that's why I emphasized zoning is, from a
practical viewpoint,  it's the only tool of manipulation we have
today.
  Professor COLE. Well, not completely.
  Dr. MEYER. Well, I think the point you're raising is a good  one.
We get hung up on semantics sometimes rather than what it is
we are trying to do.  Maybe that's one of the  things—you're  giv-
ing us some nudges—that we in the Environmental  Protection
Agency might take a look at, to make it up with the existing
system and still get the objective.
  Now, any other questions, Ted or Dr. Newman or anybody?
  Professor COLE. I have  one.
  Dr. MEYER. Oh, excuse me.
  Professor COLE. We have another—later on in the day we have
a witness from  a regional council of governments here,  and I
wish, if he  has the  time, to comment or react to Mr. Burdis'
suggestions.
  Dr. MEYER. I hope he will. Any other questions, panel?
  Mr.  BERLAND. Just one comment: I noticed Mr. Burdis  comes
from Jericho.
  Mr.  BURDIS. Well,  my  initials are J. C., but that doesn't  give
me any special	
  Dr. MEYER. Mr. Burdis, thank you so much. We'll be wanting to
talk to you some more about some of your ideas.
  We now turn to Mr. Bart Spano of Polysonics, who will  talk
to us at the other extreme of some of the problems more related

-------
                             91

to within the home, and then we'll get back to planning problems.
Mr. Spano, glad you could be here.

          STATEMENT OF BART SPANO. POLYSONICS
                  ACOUSTICAL ENGINEERS

  Mr. SPANO. If you don't mind, I'd like to talk standing.
  Dr. MEYER.  It's our pleasure for you to do what makes you
most comfortable, sir.
  Mr. SPANO. This is a bright environment, I must say.
  My name is Bart Spano; I'm a registered professional engineer
in acoustics. I'm with an acoustical consultant firm, Polysonics
Acoustical  Engineers, Washington, B.C.,  and I appreciate  the
opportunity to testify  before this group very much.
  I want to apologize  in  advance because, in part, I'll speak from
anger but with great  hope. I want to  talk about really two sub-
jects, quality and ignorance.  And I want to address it to the title
of the subject today, "The State of the Art, Home Noise". Home
noise, including both high rise  as well  as regular homes.
  I was impressed by  the two previous speakers for several rea-
sons: One, it  illustrated very  emphatically that priorities  are
necessary, very emphatically. There's  so much to be done, and
we  will have to be careful and do the right things first. Home
appliances are a nuisance, but  they are under  the control of the
individual who turns them on and  who turns them off,  and they
are temporary.  And they are not that critical.  There were some
questions about hard  evidence. I want to produce hard evidence
from many years of experience in listening to hard evidence, also
hearsay. And I'm glad Dr. Ward is on the panel. He strikes me
as the devil's advocate,  and I  think that's good. And  I'm glad
there is some disagreement on the panel.
  DR. MEYER. We constructed it that way purposely.
  Mr. SPANO. I'm sure you did.
  All right. A case  history.  A brand new apartment house in a
city of 3 million, just completed,  families  moved  into the lower
three floors. And one of the  points  in the advertisement,  the
promotion, was, "revolutionary soundproofing,"  and  they  put
great emphasis on it. Now, a  lot of people are more noise-sensitive
than others. And that attracted them,  and  they moved into this
apartment house only  to find that the noise, in  reality, was terri-
ble, worse than some  of the old tenement houses. And we were
called in to investigate. What had happened  simply was the load
bearing walls between apartments—every  fourth apartment had
load bearing walls instead of the usual column  and concrete slab,
flat slab construction.  And because of  these rather massive walls
that were to hold the building system and the rest of the building
up, between those two apartments they had 62 STC, which is a
very high  noise reduction between apartments. But where the
other three walls existed, they just had a 35 STC wall  that only
went to the ceiling that was  hung from above, a very poor design
system. And the floor system was  a steel  joist concrete topping

-------
                             92

system that was very bad on impact noise and very bad on air-
borne. And people moving into a high  rise normally expect the
flat slab construction with good resistance to impact noise, drop-
ping things on the floor  and being heard, and  fairly good on
airborne noise, loudspeaking or hi-fi  systems. But through this
floor system, why, the noise went through much worse than a real
poorly made house.
  So here is an owner who really believed what the architect told
him, that revolutionary soundproofing was taking place. And the
architect believed it. And they weren't aware that when they went
to this light floor construction, which was  now allowed by this
load bearing wall, that they  were going to  have a very poor
building in terms of impact noise and in terms of noise reduction,
airborne noise through the system. And also the other  walls that
they put in were unusually poor.
  Now, here is a building just finished,  the owner and the  archi-
tect really believed they were going to have  a great building, and
it's terrible. So ignorance is one of  the real problems we face
today. There are too many architects who go on building and are
oblivious of acoustical requirements, and the  state of  the  art is
beautifully defined.  There are plenty  of good floor systems that
are competitive; there are plenty of good dry wall  systems and
other systems for party walls, but somehow the architects don't
get the word. So the building owner is  victimized  in a sense un-
intentionally, but  the real  victim  is  the  tenant. Because  the
tenant moves in and  there's no one up above, no one on  either
side in this brand new building, and they are delighted, until the
children  move in above and start dropping  things, and then the
complaints and the hard evidence really rolls in. Threats to move
out immediately, sue them for all the moving costs, not pay rent
until  it's corrected, and the building owner in an absolute fit is
the second phase. The third phase, he's about to  go to FHA for
loans, he has to change the design, stop all the financial arrange-
ments, and a dilemma, an absolute  dilemma has occurred. So
there's hard evidence of this type all the time.
  And let's look at another case. A hospital built 4 years ago, and
the mechanical engineers and the mechanical contractors  were
advised, and the architect—now remember this is  a hospital that
has to be real  quiet,  ST  30, and  a  penthouse machinery room.
Well, the pumps were placed on a cork pad, and they decided
that to make sure they got good isolation, rather than put a little
corner pad between the pump and the floor,  they put a pad under
the entire pump. Now, it so happens  that isolation material has
to be loaded within a rather close tolerance,  50 pounds per square
inch. And when it gets that load, it acts as an isolator. But when
it gets 3 pounds per square inch, it might as well have been pine
boards. There is no isolation at all.
  So the owners of  the  hospital and  the  architect heard this
terrible noise of pure tone at 105 cycles, something like hum-m-m.
And the pure tone is  particularly annoying, more than the sound
level meters will say. And so they looked at the isolation and they

-------
                             93

said, "Now, there's plenty of isolation here.  The whole thing is
covered." So they went after the pump manufacturer. To make it
short, they spent 4 years  fooling around, and they finally  some-
how came to us. We looked at it, we put springs and three layers
of pads and corrected it immediately. It could have been done at
the very beginning, 4 years  ago. And there's all kinds of pay-
ments  held off, lawsuits were  pending against  the architect,  a
shambles of hard evidence. It happens all the time.
  We live really in an acoustical jungle, only because most people
who are building buildings around this country really don't know
what to do. And yet, the  know-how for these simple things are
existent, they are everywhere in terms of a few who know.  But
dissemination—and  EPA, we  look to  you to  send out little
pamphlets, little guides, do's and don't's in  isolating penthouse
machinery. Something simple, pictures, like "Do"—"Don't."
  Because we live in an idiot world,  construction  is being rushed
and it's being cheapened,  because every year the  costs are  going
up and buildings are always coming in  over budget.  And the
first thing that happens when they have to cut a building down
because it's over budget and the insurance company or lending
institution hasn't put up  that much money,  the  first thing that
goes is the acoustical isolation. The  basic things like heating  and
cooling and the fancy lobby  for market research analysis, that
stays.
  So it seems to me that one nice function that EPA could do is
little consumer bulletins directed to  a mass market, a mass  media
of mechanical engineers and the architects and  the mechanical
contractors, showing them some case histories, for example, like
the two I explained. Another—well, I don't want to go on with
too many of these; it hurts too much when I remember them.
  But  a couple of more cases. Post-tension concrete, a new con-
crete system whereby instead of laying steel rods for reinforce-
ment, they lay in cables that look like elevator cables, pretty hefty.
And they're laid  in  a packaged state in grease wrapped paper,
the concrete is  poured,  and then at  the end of the hardening of
the concrete and certain strength developing, they pull on these
cables  until there is 30,000 or 40,000 pounds of force. This cable
tends to pull the concrete together. You've got a layer of concrete,
a cable running through it every few feet and they are tightened
up at this end,  thereby post-tensioning the concrete to develop a
greater strength for the same  thickness.  So  the  first thing they
do, of  course, is they make it thinner. Then you start to go  into
a thin massless floor elastic system, and the  impact noise  rating
goes to pieces. So some of  the new systems keep coming in without
people catching up with them to warn of acoustical and vibration
problems. And here's another of the acoustical jungles.
   They decided that they  would go to 40-foot column spacing on
a high rise building, because the post-tension concrete gave them
so much greater strength that they  could  go  to this extreme
spacing. The penthouse machinery room had a slab with the same
40-foot spacing. As far as I'm concerned, as we look at it as

-------
                             94

acoustical engineers,  it wasn't  a  platform for  500 pounds  of
throbbing, vibrating machinery; it was a trampoline. Because it
virtually had a li/o-inch static deflection when it was fully loaded.
Well, •%-inch springs were put under the fans, and the first thing
you know, secretaries started to complain of dizziness on the top
floor because the building was vibrating so seriously.
  Now, I know we laugh at this, and I laughed at it too. But it's
a tragic  thing. It's really a tragic thing. This  is  a solid block
building, that is,  it covered an entire  block. It cost  about  14
million 2l/<>  years ago and was  one of the first with post-tension
concrete, and no one took into account that since the floor system
on which the pumps and fans and boilers and chiller compressors
would work would be working against an extremely limber floor
system, that if you  put in fairly  stiff  springs, the floor  would
act as a  spring and the springs would stay stiff.  And that's just
what happened. So the building vibrated violently. Now, the case
there, that was getting a little more sophisticated, changing from
•14-inch springs to 4-inch springs solved the problem.
  But again, a year and a half went by with tenants moving in
and out,  lawsuits by the mechanical contractor because he wasn't
being paid  his final payment  because the building vibrated too
much. Everyone pointed to everyone else as to who was at fault.
The pump people and the fan people were called in and they were
told that their fans were no good, that's why  there was so much
trouble.  And they fought with  them for a long period. Again,
this agonizing period before someone—an acoustical firm like my
own and so many  others could  have come in  with the knowledge
and straightened it out, and done  it quickly. So again, ignorance
and hard evidence.
  Labeling. That  was an interesting  point brought up earlier,
and I like it. I came up with this idea here a little while back. A
person moves into an apartment house  and they read, "Revolu-
tionary soundproofing." And they  may believe it. And they move
in,  and then later they find that  it wasn't so at all. But  again,
through  honest mistakes, through ignorance, and yet  what has
happened, here is a family that has moved, spent a lot of time and
effort, bought furniture and the various other things, and now
they're living in an environment  that  is really  upsetting them.
And what do you do to the building? Well, you can't do much to a
massless poured building. You can improve the  wall a little bit,
but you know, nothing really could be done. It's  one of those
things that  once the building is done, the best  you can do is lower
the rent, try to get non-noise-sensitive people to move into  it, and
struggle along with it, because we've never really seen a building
that was basically built wrong ever really acoustically  corrected.
   Now,  labeling. Why not EPA put out consumer guides, using
FHA standards, saying that if you get a 50 STC wall as a party
wall that's  not too  bad. And if you get a floor  that's a  6-inch
dense concrete slab and the column spacing is  not more  than, say,
25 feet both ways, you'll probably get a 75 STC, which is fairly
good. And why not start to propose the setting up of standards,

-------
                             95

not only as FHA has  for guaranteed loans,  but all,  a national
recommended code where walls up to a certain rental rate would
have to be at least 50  STC,  floors at least 55 STC and so forth.
At least a recommended code, because  getting a law  passed  is
going to take a long time; and we need it, we need it right away.
So a recommended code, you  don't need authority or congressional
action, and I hope that you start  getting out recommended codes
of that type.
  And then recommendations about labeling. When they  say,
"Revolutionary soundproofing," if I can use this phrase, put their
money where their mouth  is. What is the  STC? And was  it
actually tested? Because very  often they will start off designing
a building, and  they'll  put  good  walls  in  the design, but then
when it's over budget,  they pull the  fiberglass out of the cavities,
electrical boxes go in back-to-back, and the first thing you know,
what  started out great turns  out to be  a  poor building. So you
need  inspections  and you need  someone to  check the building
afterwards, and  then put down  what the  wall ratings are and
what  the floor ratings are. And also how much noise the fan coil
units  make.
  I have another interesting comment,  and I was very pleased
to hear Dr. Newman speak about  overly  reverberant rooms being
a problem. One of the  solutions in an apartment house that has
these massless bar joist concrete topping  floors  is impact noise
is very poor, meaning footfalls, spike heels, dropping things, you
hear  it as a blow below. Now, our proposal was, in  their next
phase to get rid of wood flooring—they had parquet wood floors—
instead, put carpeting  in directly. Because invariably there is a
requirement saying that 85 percent  of the  walking areas have  to
be covered by carpet. So it means  that you  put in a wood flooring
system  at  45  cents  a  square foot, and immediately  upon the
tenant's moving  in,  they have to cover  85  percent  and it's never
seen again. Now, when you  add  carpet  and you get less impact
noise, that is, not hearing blows  or things dropping  above, you
get an adequate isolation by adding the carpet by  the lease re-
quirement, the floor underneath is now serving no purpose, except
having cost 45 cents a square foot.  Now, what we are urging—
and this nationally—is  that wood floors are archaic and vestigious
in apartments—in high rise  apartment construction—and instead
they should be furnished with carpet by the owner to  start with.
Now, this has a lot  of interesting possibilities:  One,  instead  of
walking in when you have,  say, a young couple just starting out
and  you have a  large  apartment or  a moderate  sized  one, no
carpets, very little furniture, the rooms are extremely reverberant
and very uncommodious. If the apartment is furnished with carpet
the minute you move in, the  reverb time is substantially lowered;
it's an acoustically softer room, and it's much more commodious.
Now, many people may walk into a hard  room,  find  it uncom-
modious, and not know why, not know that it was just excessive
reverberation. But  it's a  very real fact  that when  your little
computer is working up here and you're  subconsciously looking

-------
                             96

at a room, and you're saying to yourself, "It's not very  nice."
Certainly reverberation must be one of the major factors in that
programing of the computer. So by putting in carpet, getting rid
of the wooden floors, on a two-bedroom apartment it would only
run $5 a month for a 3-year period and then the carpet is com-
pletely paid for. Now, what does this do? It guarantees a good
impact noise rating; that is, isolation from dropping things to
the people  below. It gives a soft,  comfortable room to move  in,
it gives you a touch of luxury rather than hard floors.  So I'd like
to suggest that EPA look into this and see if they can get builders
to break away from this feeling, "Oh, you've got to have wood
floors." I don't think this is the way it should  be. I  think that
since they  show model  apartments, they could show them with
carpets. There are a lot of  colors. They  don't see the  apartment
before they move into it, the physical apartment, generally. They
look at model apartments. So they won't be going into an  apart-
ment with  a concrete floor waiting for the carpet. That's  one of
the arguments that builders have.  Another thing is, carpets are
getting better and cheaper and easier to clean all the  time.
   I have a note here that if the Government requires by  law that
a  30 cent  can of soup has to  identify everything  that's  inside,
why can't  apartments that cost several thousand  dollars enjoy
equal rights?
   One other thing I want to point out quickly on the blackboard.
Noise  sensitivity—and  it was one of Dr.  Newman's men that
started me off on this a number of years ago, and I found it to
be so real.  Now, this is, the percent of people and this is relative
noise sensitivity. Now, it  so happens—oversimplifying tremen-
dously—that 10 percent of the people in the United  States  are
really  noise sensitive,  and you could never design an  apartment
house  or other things that would really suit them.  That's this
10 percent over here, ultrasensitive. Also, roughly, there's another
10 percent  in the United  States  who are  totally  insensitive to
noise.  It just doesn't bother them; they  might even like it. This
10 percent. Then there's the 80 percent,  the great mass of all of
us, right in the middle. And gradually, from people who are  not
sensitive to noise at all, you start to get more  and more  people
becoming increasingly more noise sensitive, and this is the norm
for which  we design. If it's a  low rent  house, young people, we
might design over here. If it's a luxurious condominium where
people are exacting in everything, including high   acoustical
privacy, we may start to design over here. The higher  the rent,
the more this curve obviously shifts to the right. So people should
find out, are they noise sensitive  or not. Under this consumer
guide labeling system, they  start looking for apartments. Because
if they're not noise sensitive, they  might find a lower  cost apart-
ment where the noise doesn't bother them  and where lower rat-
ings would be completely adequate. If they're noise sensitive, they
may start to realize they  may have to pay for  it in  terms of
better construction.
   There is one other thing that needs work, and that is walls that

-------
                             97

we've used for a while,  50  and 55 STC as party walls—that's
about a 50 or 55 decibel reduction under the standard test system,
STC—have been all right, but they have been based on speech. A
husband shouting at a wife, for example, a 55 STC wall might
handle it and you just hear a "hum-hum," at  the other end, an
unintelligible blur that's not so  noisy,  but there's something  new
on the scene  that now says the STC system is not working, and
that's stereo. There are too  many  bass boost fiends around  that
will turn up their stereo to a 110 at very low frequency, and  the
low frequencies pulse through the most massive wall systems and
are causing very serious  problems. Now,  stereos  are  becoming
more commonplace all the time, and this business of using just the
human voice  frequency range as a criteria as to how to  rate a
wall to give  good privacy between apartments  is beginning to
come apart with too many stereos around. And we have to change;
greater stiffness probably is  one of the things that would improve
the wall system. And  I think that  EPA should get a little work
going on that and stir up a little fuss. It would be a real help.
  Now, I said at the beginning I was  going to talk about quality
and  ignorance. I think I've talked enough about the ignorance.
Now, quality.
  We want to improve the quality  of  our environment. We want
apartments that when we go home  at night is a refuge. We stand
the noise of the  office and downtown,  but when we get home we
feel, "Boy, I'm going  home.  I'll have  some  quiet. I can recover."
And we want to improve the quality of that refuge we have. Now,
quality costs  money, and that's  all  there is  to it.  And every  time
we talk about the environment as poor, it's because  we're  in a
competitive society  where to sell a new product,  you have to sell
it cheaper. And when you sell it cheaper, things start to degrade.
They will meet their  original performance, like  centrifugal  fans
in a building, in  the cooling system of a high rise apartment. The
first thing that starts  to fail is that when they build it a little less
costly, it gets noisier. That seems  to be one of the penalties you
pay. And in  today's high building costs, we are running into a
real problem, and that a competition  is very  stiff, the costs are
going  up all  the time because of the  way the  economy has  been
going, and we now find that the builder or owner or mechanical
engineer starts to pick the little less  costly fan. And as he does
this, he is building a noisier building.  And  once the fan is in and
all closed in  and the building is turned on  and it's too noisy, it's
plain trouble for a long time trying to correct it.  Now, this whole
business of competition  in  our society  is  a great thing,  but in
some areas it does not work. Take automobiles. I would think that
if there weren't safety standards which are severe and numerous,
tremendous numbers of them, that cars would be cheaper and 10
times  more dangerous.  Now, I don't say  that as  anything pro-
vocative. Well, I guess it is provocative. It's just thai I'm theoriz-
ing. I'm simply trying to use that  in the abstract as a point that
competition is great, but when  you want certain  minimum stand-

-------
                             98

ards, competition will not do it for you. You have to establish
the minimum standards.
  Now, it seems to me that there should be something like NC 35
established, first by EPA as a recommended standard for anything
that's running in a  building, fans, compressors, and boilers, and
the like, to avoid this constant cheapening and increase of  noise
and  vibration.  Now, unfortunately, there are a lot  of cheaper
products coming on the market all the time. Centrifugal fans are
one that give us a great deal of trouble. They are very difficult
to correct once they are in a building, closed up; and there are
a number of others. One of them, for example, is plastic waste
pipe. Now, plumbing noise is one of the worst problems we have
in high rise apartments. We have good walls, we have good floor
systems, we can isolate our machinery  fairly well if we're careful,
but plumbing noise, hearing the toilets flush, hearing the sinks,
hearing the showers going off, in high rise apartments, do not
to this day—at least on the domestic  supply side, that's the hot
and cold running water—have a  real  practical, more  reasonable
solution. And it needs work, it needs work badly. Now, this is one
area where, for once something good has come along. And that is,
the waste pipe system,  traditionally this cast iron, lead, oakum
joint always has done a reasonably good job because it has very
high mass in the cast iron. And it's relatively hard to vibrate and
has relatively thick walls so that flushing noise and  other ob-
noxious noise would not go through the wall and then, touching
whatever  it may, radiate out a sound  into your apartment.  Now,
a new system came out 3 years ago where the lead oakum was
replaced by a rubber gasket, and this rubber gasket  provides a
vibration break at every joint. Now, this is tremendous  and almost
too good to  be true because by changing from lead oakum to the
neoprene gasket, we found that builders didn't find  an  increase in
cost. And when we asked to change to this  isolation system, we
got it at no change in cost. And we were guaranteed an isolation
system in the whole waste pipe.
   Now, obnoxious noises, personal noises, are more aggravating
than the  impersonal noises. Like a disposer going off is,  to an
extent, impersonal, or a sink being run. But a toilet being flushed
is a personal obnoxious noise and can carry more complaints than
the impersonal noises. So the waste pipe system is an area that
has been  one that  could have some improvement  in  it,  and we
have that improvement.
   Now, I have here—I  also have some slides. I  wonder  if we
could set up that slide system.  And I wonder if we could take the
screen and put it here and take the slides and put them right over
there.
   May I take off my coat, please ?
     Dr. MEYER. You may.
     Mr. SPANO. Thank you.
   This is the  traditional lead  oakum joint used  in  waste pipe
systems, and here is cork oakum driven in with a hammer  and  a
chisel  or  a  tamper, and then lead is poured in, and that gives  a

-------
                             99

very compact joint. It's been used for many, many years and it's
a very successful system. The way it  has  been changed simply
is that instead of having  to have the lead hot and caulking, a lot
of handwork, a simple rubber gasket made  of neoprene, which is
a very high quality, very resistant material, is simply slipped in
between, and the pipe is driven in. This system allows a vibration
break at every joint. And where you have a  disposer, for example,
and a  disposer is turned on in the apartment, you can  hear it
sometimes  for five or 10 apartments around this entire area of
where  the  disposer goes  off. Vibration goes into  the waste  pipe
system, runs along the pipe walls, and  then where it touches the
apartment wall, excites them in a vibration manner, causing them
to radiate it out as sound. Now, with this  system, that disposer
problem has essentially vanished, because we can get as high as 5
to 15 decibels drop per joint. Now we were very interested because
for  the first time  we found a product had come on the market, it
didn't  cost any more,  and it gave us  a tremendous  amount of
isolation. And it was in one of the areas, plumbing noise, that's
high in apartment noise complaints.
  So we undertook a series of tests to  compare how much better
this was than the old  lead joint.  What  was the vibration  level
that went  through galvanized  steel, through copper  pipe  used
as a waste system and through this plastic  pipe system, to see in
hard numbers whether this was hearsay, or just an evaluation by
sight, or whether we could get these hard evidence numbers. And
I'd like to show the results.
  Now, I might say this is a report—we wrote a report on this
project.
  Dr.  MEYER. Would you have somebody  shift that  blackboard
away so the panel can also see the screen.
  Mr. SPANO. What I'm  going to  show in  these slides—and I'm
going to speed it up—is results of a test program we ran, compar-
ing the  vibration drop  that's caused  by  the rubber joint or
neoprene joint as compared to all the other existing systems. It's
contained in that report.
  Can I have the first slide, please? It's so  small, I wonder, could
we move that table over there? I think we ought to move the table.
  Dr.  MEYER. We can  see it all  right,  Mr. Spano. Go  ahead. Do
you have that focused as well as you can get it?
  Mr. SPANO. Now, this is typical cast iron  waste pipe every-
where. This is the hub, this fits in, and it used to be a rigid  joint
with  lead  oakum. A neoprene gasket  now fits in between,  and
there is no rigid tie between this joint, as that you have  a vi-
bration drop.  Now, another  system was devised that also  was
very interesting; this is the no-hub system. Now, you will notice
that in this, the common system  we know today, there's a  male
part and then there's a hub, and one part through the gasket fits
into the hub.  Now, that hub is a little extra  thick,  and it's not
desirable that waste pipes touch  walls.  Because if there's  any
vibration within a pipe, and it touches a wall  which is relatively
a limber diaphragm, it  will  radiate the vibration  out as noise

-------
                             100

and cause noise problems. A system was devised where, instead
of having a hub  and the male part,  a simple  coupling is used.
This is  a stainless steel  coupling-, and it has a neoprene sleeve
inside. And this is  simply inserted—assuming a joint is being
made—the clamp is then placed over  it, a torque wrench is then
inserted. Now, this is a loaded torque wrench, so that whenever
it  starts to snap, you  put in  a  positive torque of—the  value  I
don't remember  right now—the unit  is permanently sealed and
the connection is made. It's done very quickly, and can even be
done  by the homeowner. And it's a  very neat and very good
system  in the sense that it takes a  very  small  extra diameter
at the joint. Now, you'll  notice here also—well, in  this picture
you can't see it—but the neoprene prevents the metal-to-metal
contact, and you also get an isolation  joint  as well as a relatively
simple system to use.
   Can I have the next slide, please?
   This is our series of the materials that were tested.
   Can you hear me when I get  away from the microphone in
back?
   Dr. MEYER. Yes, fine. Go ahead.
   Mr. SPANO. All right. On top is a plastic pipe system, the second
one is copper, this is the compression gasket system, the no-hub,
the stainless steel collar, the galvanized steel, and then lead oakum
and cast iron. Those are  some of the test specimens.
   Next, please.
   This  is simply a diagram of how we introduced vibration into
a pipe and how we measured it.
   Next, please.
   That's just a laboratory  setup showing how the testing was
done.
   Next, please.
   That just shows various test rigs.
   Next, please.
   Now, this shows a  standard test group. We decided  that we
would like to have a bend in the test rig. What we did do, we took
a  lot of short pieces so that we would  have  a lot of vibration drop
in a relatively short run. Then we wanted to see what happened
when the vibration came to an elbow,  and then another elbow wa_s
laid out the other side.  So  that we had a variety of test condi-
ditions.
   Next, please.
   Now, this shows some of the results. I think we can go through
quickly  on these. Plastic specimens—I think  it's out of focus.
Copper pipe.
   Next, please.  Well, those are upside down. Why don't you go
through the next four and  turn  them upright? At that  point,  if
you will, just turn everything upside down.  I'm way  over time;
 I'm sorry. Well, I think we'll suspend with the slides.
   Dr. MEYER. Will  you submit those  charts for the record?
   Mr. SPANO. Yes,  I'll be glad to  do that. I don't want to take any
more of your time.

-------
                             101

  What we found was that the compression  gasket, this system
here, gave about 5 dB at a 125 cycles per second, and about 15 dB
at about two thousand. We found that this system did not give as
much, and as we would expect, because there is less neoprene and
greater compression. But it still gave about 3 or 4 dB at a hundred
and twenty-five and about 10 dB at each joint. So that these two
system in waste  pipe will prevent transmission  of  vibration
through the waste pipe system.
  We found surprisingly that  the plastic systems were very bad
in the sense that, if you were  to run, say 50  feet of ABS plastic
and introduce vibration levels and measure it all the way along
at points, that there would be essentially no drop at all in a 50-foot
run. We also found copper pipe, which doesn't show up any more
because it's  too expensive,  we found that it  also was very poor
and would transmit vibration. Galvanized iron is also poor with
the rigid coupling joints.
  Well, it's  all in this report, and I have a limited number of
copies, and I'll be happy to leave them on the back table for those
who are really interested, because we just have a few copies.
  Dr. MEYER.  Could  we have a copy for our record?
  Mr. SPANO.  I think the summary of what we found here—and
it's contained  in the very  beginning—is simply that cast  iron
with its  traditional  high  mass has always done a  good  job in
keeping the noise from getting through the wall. And now with
the vibration  joint, or break at each joint, it's a better system
than ever.  The use of plastic  pipe, copper pipe, galvanized or—
well, those types are particularly poor systems and have virtually
no vibration drop across their joints.
  Let me conclude very quickly by saying that EPA could do a
tremendous amount of good in dissemination of available informa-
tion on architectural design on isolation. I think that they could
send out simple consumer bulletins that would lead  and help the
consumer understand. I think that they should act as a clearing-
house  for  new  products that come along that  will help build
quieter houses, such as this particular product. And it would be
a great thing if they had some media through which they could
reach the builders of homes, which  are the environment builders.
If you could reach the builders through some simplified type of
do-don't corrective mechanisms, that this would be a great thing,
and that it could be put into effect very quickly. And I think that
time is a great concern. We've been  trying to get corrective action
for years, and just  the other day—we'll  go  to another job  and
we'll  say, "Oh, no. Another acoustical jungle." The same dumb
mistakes. And it's very, very  frustrating. So I have a feeling or
a sense of urgency that I would like to convey to the EPA in the
dissemination of consumer  information and  design  guides.
  Thank you very much.
  Dr.  MEYER. Thank you Mr. Spano. Your suggestions through-
out your testimony about the role EPA can play  fall on  very
receptive ears here. I jotted down numerous suggestions  and
thoughts, and in this regard, I can assure you that we are going

-------
                            102

to take those suggestions very seriously. In fact, one of my staff
who is here  with me is deeply  involved in  public affairs,  and
another member of our technical  staff is concerned with technical
publications.  We will certainly  explore these ideas  thoroughly,
including  how to best  get to the consumer, the National Asso-
ciation of Home Builders, and other folks  such as  that. We do
appreciate your presentation.
  Now, any questions?
  Mr.  BERLAND. I noted what I thought was an inconsistency,
Mr.  Spano. Maybe  I misunderstood you. You referred  several
times to the role EPA could play  in terms of providing pamphlets
and information to contractors and a guide to consumers. And yet,
on the other hand, you said that automobiles never had any safety
equipment until standards were  set by the  Federal  Government.
I found that  inconsistent unless  you meant that the  EPA would
also have  to set some requirements in terms of the STC in walls
and so forth.
  Mr.  SPANO. Yes, you're right. From the  way you  stated it, it
did appear inconsistent. I simply want to establish  a concept of
our society, and that is that in a free, competitive society things
tend to get built lower in cost to  increase your sales, and you can
get to a point where you are making a product that is going to be
poorer environmentally and that someone  has  to draw the  line
somewhere to say that  fans will not create more than so many
sones or so many dB,  and I was simply saying that I saw EPA
as an  agency that would establish those minimum  standards.  I
simply used automobiles as a case in fact where the Government
did set the standards.
  Professor COLE. Somewhat related to that, don't you feel  that
a great  inhibitor  to the increased use  of these new kinds  of
joints that you described is not  so much—would not be  so much
the lack  of  dissemination  of information  about these kind  of
things by EPA, but the rigidity of local  building codes might
prevent this kind of thing.
  Mr.  SPANO. You hit  on a very important point. That's exactly
what happened  the first time we tried to  get this compression
gasket system in. Building code  people are a great  group. Many
years ago they started  putting fire escapes in, and buildings have
a great level  of safety today that were built, you know, within the
last 10 or 20 years. But they  have, in my opinion, tended  to
become rigid, and where we now need to start coming up with
innovative designs for  better acoustical  privacy, we run across
these rigid codes and these rigid  thinking building people in these
city departments and the like. And the first thing they'll  say is,
"Well, where is it installed? Where is it working?"
   We'll say,  "Well, we don't have  one, but  we can  assure you
that it's safe and there is no problem."
   And they  say, "Yes, but we  can't  take  a chance.  Show me
where it is already in place."
   So you  get the country's  building people saying, "Show me
where it's in place somewhere else, and there's no  problem."

-------
                             103

  So we have fallen on this.  We plead for a special permit on
one building only to install this under close supervision, and we'll
give them  letters showing our engineering and everything else
involved and hope that they'll relent a little bit and live danger-
ously, as they see it. But there is one place that EPA could be of
tremendous help. If a good system  is being stopped because the
building people say, "Well, I'm not going to try it on my building.
I want to be sure it's going to work somewhere  else," they  are
scared. This is the greatest defeat  of progress that we need so
badly for better privacy. EPA should start to  come  up with
systems, maybe evaluate them,  perhaps,  research contracts or
through some means. And then give it a certain blessing, so that
a building official in Tonawanda, N.Y., takes a look at it, he won't
be scared to death.
  Dr. MEYER. Thank you very  much, sir. We appreciate your
extensive presentation.
  I think the Chair will call about  a 5-minute recess for sort of
a standup break, following which we will  hear from Mr. Charles
Parrott, who is the  director of the redevelopment authority at
La Crosse,  Wis. He has some very interesting comments to make.
   (Whereupon a brief recess was taken.)
  Dr. MEYER. If you will all take your seats, we'll proceed.
  After this brief recess, we'll now proceed to hear  from Mr.
Charles Parrott. Mr. Parrott is  the executive director  of  the
redevelopment authority of La Crosse, Wis., and  has  had some
extensive experience in  certain aspects of planning as it  relates
to noise. We are very happy you could take time to get here, sir.

    STATEMENT OF CHARLES D. PARROTT, REDEVELOPMENT
               AUTHORITY OF LA  CROSSE, WIS.

  Mr. PARROTT. Thank you.
  Dr.  Meyer, distinguished members  of  the panel, ladies and
gentlemen, incorporating increasing provision for protection from
sound into the urban planning process is an inevitable action that
has a direct impact on the habitability of  American cities.
  The selected  placement  of potential major noise  producing
activities is the initial step necessary to protect the urban dweller
and his neighborhood environment.  Regulatory measures govern-
ing intensity of land use, control limits on sound  producing de-
vices, and sound reduction engineering and architectural designs
for transportation  facilities and certain other forms of land  use
are required to supplement  selective placement. With the sys-
tematic application of these controlling factors and the public's
understanding  of  the need  for  such measures,  the  mounting
threat of sound pollution can be reduced.
  The current emphasis on salvaging our  natural environment is
providing a public awareness of  problems some urban planners
have had to deal with for many years and, hopefully,  providing
all planners with an additional incentive to incorporate expanded

-------
                             104

provisions for environmental protection and restoration in their
professional activities.
  The urban planner is in a unique position. His activities often
are well covered by the news media, and he has an opportunity to
help educate the public, in  addition to the elected and appointed
officials he may be serving-. A decade ago the planner could con-
sider it a significant  accomplishment if he  was able to convince
his community to adopt a municipal ordinance which included at
least industrial performance standards as a means for providing
some measure  of environmental protection. Today it is  not so
uncommon  to  have  performance  standards  setting maximum
limits for various undesired characteristics of urban development,
including light, smoke and  noise, incorporated  into municipal
codes with respect to  industrial districts and even commercial and
residential districts.
  The city  of Madison, Wis.,  adopted a code earlier this  month
setting  maximum  noise levels for all  stationary and moving
noise-producing devices  in all zoning districts and public ways
with the only apparent exceptions  being emergency vehicles and
fireworks displays. Yet,  we have a deficiency,  as  I see it,  in the
planning profession because we  are  unable to get every  city to
adopt and  enforce such  criteria, important as it may be  to the
welfare and safety of existing and future generations.
   It appears to many lay citizens that if we are not going to allow
an industry to locate in a residential area because of the noise
pollution and air pollution  which this  industry may produce and,
thereby, adversely affect residential  neighborhoods, transporta-
tion  planners  should not  be  preparing-  plans for communities
which call  for the construction of high-speed freeways and ex-
pressways in association with residential land use. Such highways
can be expected to produce noise levels to an average of 70 to 75
dB(A) at grade, 350 feet from the center line of the nearest mov-
ing lane for at least 50 percent of the time of every 24 hour day on
a continuing basis.  When  this  factor is  coupled  with  the air
pollution resulting from freeways, the physical removal of thou-
sands of dwelling units,  with land  acquisition, relocation  and
construction costs which reach into the tens of millions of dollars
or more, in addition to  taking millions  of dollars of real estate
off the tax rolls, it might appear to some people that those en-
gaged in transportation planning are concerned  only with the
movement of traffic or at least far less concerned with the human
and community disruption and environmental destruction result-
ing from their proposals.
   Any freeway network in  an urban  area may  pass through
commercial, industrial,  residential, agricultural and other types
 of land use areas. Normal  noise levels from freeway sources may
 be acceptable in an  industrial area;  these same  levels would be
 less acceptable in a commercial area, and might be considered
 very unacceptable in a residential area. From the  economic stand-
 point, it is difficult to justify the  costs of purchasing additional
 widths  of  right-of-way to protect  residents from the  adverse

-------
                             105

effects of high-speed freeway facilities at this point in time. With
the enactment of Public Law 91-646,  the Uniform Relocation
Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, it
may well  be that because of the increased relocation assistance
and payments required under this uniform policy,  transportation
planning will take a longer,  harder look at where freeways are
to be placed.
  In some cases, the optimum efficiency in traffic movement might
now receive not primary emphasis, but equal emphasis with other
considerations  such  as residential and business relocation, right-
of-way acquisition costs, environmental disruption  involved with
construction, and the  long-range adverse environmental  effects
on nearby residents  and property values  that might be caused by
the proposed facility.  This  condition is becoming apparent  in
many states and Wisconsin is  now feeling the brunt of  citizen
objection  to the placement of high-speed trafficways.
  Proposed facilities involving  cities stretching all  the way from
Green Bay to Milwaukee in the eastern part of the State, and the
area of La Crosse in the western portion of the State, are being
hotly contested by the citizenry, local governments, and those who
desire to preserve the remaining natural environment existing in
these areas. A recent experience  in La Crosse found the general
plan adopted by the local  governmental  agencies.  The plan  in-
volved a proposed north-south  freeway crossing interstate high-
way 90, then passing  through one primary wetland area; then
through a major portion of the community itself, displacing some
2,000 people; and from there  into the  heavily forested  Upper
Mississippi River National Wildlife Refuge. In the Refuge,  among
a great many other things, the facility  would eliminate  several
of the most productive spawning  beds for game fish in the Upper
Mississippi River Valley, and would destroy one or more  Ameri-
can Lotus beds, which are a  nationally protected wildflower.  The
redevelopment authority, which is also the city's relocation agency
—or  central relocation agency—although  not a part of the  city
government itself, challenged the proposed location of this free-
way facility from the standpoint  of the community's questionable
ability to  absorb this magnitude of low- and  moderate-income
residential  displacement in  any particular  length of time, an
undefined cost benefit ratio, coupled with the enormous envi"on-
mental disruption potential that could result from the construction
of this facility, and the massive dredging that would be required
to make construction possible.
  Immediately thereafter the Common Council of  the City of La
Crosse by resolution called for the State department  of trans-
portation to prove its case and supply the local government with
environmental evaluations, relocation  feasibility  analyses,  and
complete cost analyses comparing the cost factors  of all available
alternatives and design types of  freeway facilities that could  be
utilized to move traffic through the city  in the future. Further,
they  requested that the Department of  Transportation provide
written assurances  that no corridor hearings  would be scheduled

-------
                             106

until the above studies  are completed to the satisfaction of and
approved by the Common Council of the City of La Crosse, Wis.
These studies are not a  normal part of the general plan prepara-
tion, but it was made very clear that these studies must now be
done to provide information necessary to justify the proposals in
the general plan before  any further actions are taken that would
move the transportation plan closer to implementation.
  The  potential  noise question as it  relates to  various  freeway
alternative corridors and design types of  freeway  facilities was
first discussed in La Crosse on July 28, when I made the presenta-
tion at the hearing of what could  be expected along each of the
alternative freeway corridors. There was one corridor which was
proposed by  the State  department of transportation, and two
other corridors that were proposed by local professions.
  People generally have little  or  no knowledge of the  possible
effects  that various types of installations  can have on their en-
vironment until the conditions are experienced, and then it is too
late. Therefore,  it is important that  the planning  profession be
sufficiently informed on  all  environmental  considerations and
take these  factors into  account in  their studies, in  their reports,
and in  their explanations to the public and  public officials. Only in
this way can the confidence in the planning process be continued
as we attempt to solve ever-increasing urban  problems.
  One  action which  may help in this  regard could be to  in-
corporate specific requirements for social,  financial, and  environ-
mental  evaluation  relating  to major transportation  planning
proposals into federally assisted  701 transportation  planning
programs.
  For  many years, planners have attempted to regulate land use
around major airports and  military installations  where sound
pollution and possible danger  from falling aircraft exists on a
continuing basis. Because of the magnitude of airport operations,
employment  and  often cheaper  area land  prices, residential
development  will occur as close to airport facilities as will be
allowed by the communities in which they are located. A combina-
tion of possible solutions from the standpoint of noise and safety
hazards are apparent.
  Land use controls, density controls, public property acquisition,
and building code soundproofing requirements for construction in
undeveloped areas near freeways and airports can employ limited
defensive measures against excessive sound.
  The  problem near transportation facilities  already surrounded
by  urban development is significantly more complicated.  The de-
velopment  is there and any  attempt to modify it  will  result in
immediate practical and legal  questions. Unless the level of the
noise can be limited by controls on the noise producing devices,
or in the case of freeways, limited by sound shields, it is doubtful
that the noise factor alone can economically justify more severe
public  actions such as  public redevelopment to less intense land
uses. As we have learned so many times in the past,  preventive

-------
                             107

measures, however unpopular, are far less costly and difficult than
corrective actions.
  I was delighted to learn that the effects of noise on wildlife and
on humans are being studied in St. Louis and Memphis in coopera-
tion with the Environmental Protection Agency.  It is important
that this type of information, when available,  be distributed  to
the professional planners so that they might utilize this technical
data on  a daily basis  in  their work  activities.  It is important,
also, that the Environmental Protection Agency itself undertake
a public  educational program to  inform the  public of the ways
that they might be adversely affected by activities that are taking
place  in the urban and, in some cases, rural areas of the nation.
Many planners are becoming increasingly  involved in the same
questions that your agency  is struggling with  at this time, and
the only way we are going to find better solutions to the problems
with  which  we are confronted is  through cooperation,  under-
standing and research.
  As  the extent of temporary and permanent damage to hearing,
sight, the nervous  system  and other body functions from varying
levels and sources of sound become more  widely identified and
discussed, it is reasonable to expect that a variety of changes in
planning concepts  will  evolve. Many urban sound sources  exceed
the recommended  maximum of 85 decibels, cited by Theodore
Berland to be the  safe limit that the components of the human
body can experience.
  In  view of the documentation from the Acoustical Society  of
America that the average  community sound levels are increasing
at a rate  of 1 decibel per year, we  can no  longer afford to treat
noise  as a minor urban  problem.
  If the 85-decibel level is reached by 1979 as projected, we have
less than 8  years to develop  effective  protective measures and
enact  meaningful controls.
  Our profession is  aware that requirements for moving  traffic
and aircraft will be greater in 1990 and the year 2000 than they
are today; but, also, we must acknowledge  that the requirements
for preserving our environment will be much greater than they
are now. Somewhere we must turn the corner and make planning
for the integrity of our natural environmental resources and the
people they serve  and  protect  as commonplace as the planning
for residential, industrial, and commercial areas,  and transporta-
tion facilities.
  We must  have adequate traffic  circulation. We must have air-
ports. We must have adequate  housing, and we must take those
responsible, necessary  actions to see to it that the people in the
communities which  we  are planning  are protected  from  the
adverse environmental effects which so often result from imple-
mentation of plans we have prepared.
  I don't believe in the view that a  modern society means people
versus environment. I  am confident that the planning profession
can fit its activities into the environment without destroying it,

-------
                             108

but it  will challenge our  sensitivity,  intelligence,  and resource-
fulness.
  Thank you.
  Dr. MEYER. Mr. Parrott, I certainly agree with the thesis that
you have enunciated at the  conclusion of your statement. And I
also appreciate the challenge that you and some of the previous
witnesses have given to the Agency with regard to our role of
leadership  and providing more  information. Please be  assured
that the staff and myself  are going to take that into account as
we review the results of this hearing.
  Panel ?
  Professor COLE. Mr. Parrott,  is that  common council—is that
the city council?
  Mr.  PARROTT. Yes.  In Wisconsin, they are referred to as the
common council.
  Dr. MEYER. Panel?
  Dr.  WARD. What's this documentation,  the Acoustical Society
says everything is going up 1 dB (A) a year ? I've heard this bandied
about  many times  and as far as I know, it was originated  by
Nugent, who,  of  course, is  a member of the Acoustical  Society.
But I don't think—I don't believe it, in  the first place, because it
means doubling the sound energy every 3 years, and it  seems a
little  extreme.  I don't think we should  blame the  Acoustical
Society for that statement.
  Mr.  PARROTT. I don't think it's a detrimental statement  from
the standpoint of	
  Dr.  NEWMAN. If it's not so, it's improper.
  Mr.  PARROTT. Mr. Berland, do  you have any remarks regarding
that particular statement?
  Mr.  BERLAND.  Well, in  terms  of it not doubling every 2 or 3
years,  I think you could say  it isn't.
  Dr.  MEYER. If all the gentlemen will yield for a minute, the
chairman will say that we have heard this testimony before from
other  people using Verne Nugent's figures, which he gave in a
speech. In fact, we had to go really and track down the speech.
I don't know what the figures are, but  one of the things we are
trying to do as part of the report to Congress that we're  working
on, is, through a couple of  our  supporting contracts, going back
and finding some  municipal surveys on  noise that were done
several years ago,  some of  them going  back 10 or 15 years ago.
We're trying to replicate those  now to get some measure  of the
differences in the acoustical environment  covered  by those sur-
veys. I'm not sure what we're going to find when we get through
with it or how meaningful it will be. I think all of us will agree—
and Dixon, you can disagree because you are entitled to  disagree
—but  all of us would generally  concede that there  is an  increase
in  acoustical  energy  across man's  environment  in  the United
States, going up at an accelerated rate over the last several years,
and is a matter of real concern.
   Does that seem to be a fair statement?
   Dr.  WARD. Oh, yes.

-------
                            109

  Dr. MEYER. All right.
  Dr. WARD. But one dB a year is too much.
  Dr. MEYER. Well, we won't argue the details, but I believe we
do agree on that.
  Any other questions, panel?
  Mr. BERLAND. Just one thing here. Maybe it's really more  of a
comment—or two comments. First of all, I'm very happy to hear
that planners such as yourself are including environmental  pro-
tection in your planning. I think the fact that they are is com-
mendable. On  the  other hand, it seems sort of remarkable  that
you  had  to  go to all this trouble because  there  are  so  many
sources of noise. One would think that another way to solve the
problem is to attack the place of noise. But we are going to hear
more about that later. I felt I had  to make  that comment.
  Dr. MEYER. Thank you, Ted.
  I certainly appreciate your coming, Sir. And as I said, I will
accept the challenge that  you  and  others are laying  down. We
are going to be making some plans on how to get this through to
the institutional process, to the institutes of planners  and archi-
tects and  others, and the more  general process. Thank you for
a very fine presentation.
  Now I'd like  to ask Mr. Bailus  Walker, Jr., the Deputy Health
Commissioner for Environmental Health for the city of Cleveland
to come forward. We are very happy to have you here,  Sir, and
look forward to hearing your statement.

  STATEMENT OF BAILUS WALKER, JR., HEALTH COMMISSION,
                    CITY  OF CLEVELAND

  Mr. WALKER. Mr. Chairman,  members of the panel, on  behalf
of Mayor Carl  Stokes and  the people of Cleveland, I am pleased
to have this opportunity to  express our concern about noise pollu-
tion as it  relates to the health and welfare of our community.
  I think we in Cleveland,  recognize that noise pollution has not
reached the crisis stage of other  contacts of the physical environ-
ment such as air, water and solid waste, and we have no  evidence
in Cleveland to support findings elsewhere  which  suggest  that
rats under prolonged exposure to noise have turned homosexual,
nor are there indications that all Clevelanders will be stone  deaf
by the year 2000  as some "well-informed"  scientists have  pre-
dicted.
  But, the people in our  community  do sense the noise as a
growing nuisance which spans the entire spectrum of community
life, from home, to work, to school, or recreational activities, and
they fully agree that something  should be done about it.
  I think the fact that the Environmental Protection Agency is
conducting these hearings  this  week would  indicate that some-
thing can be done, and we  applaud this initial effort.
  Since our concern today is urban planning, architectural  design
and  noise in the home, allow me  to comment on these areas from

-------
                             110

the vantage of a local environmental  administrator whose area
of responsibility  spans from insect and rat control to housing
hygiene and radiological health.
  The problem of indoor noise did not  emerge suddenly in  Cleve-
land or any other urban center, but it developed over the years
with  progress in industrialization  and  mechanization of  our
society.
  The older dwellings, by virute of their more  massive construc-
tion,  larger rooms,  numerous  doors,  hand operated  appliances
and heavy sound absorbent furnishings, were comparatively quiet
places in which to live.
  In contrast, the modern dwelling with its light-weight construc-
tion, open plan design and multitudes of  noisemakers, provides
very little protection from  noise generated within or intruding
from-the outside.
  The Cleveland Department of Public Health  recently surveyed
a cross section of our community to determine the extent of local
concern about noise.
  Data from the  survey of some one thousand  residents indicate
that 80 percent were disturbed by noise outside the building and
16 percent by noise from adjoining apartments.
  Of those  interviewed, only 1 percent were  not disturbed by
noise in their own home. Interestingly, these findings are in close
agreement with similar studies in London.
  Major  property  management  firms  report  that  noise  trans-
mission is one of the most serious problems facing managers and
owners of apartment buildings.  They  readily admit that market
resistance is not only increasing as a result of excessive noise
transmission, but that lack of acoustical privacy and  noise control
are among  the greatest objections to  apartment  living. Similar
concern is expressed by owners of hotels, motels and office build-
ings which  lack adequate insulation and noise control.
  The fundamental  causes of the noise problems of buildings  in
my community are  the  same as they are in other cities: poor
workmanship, poor acoustical design, lack of mandatory acoustical
criteria  and enforcement,  higher  cost of sound  insulated  con-
struction.
  These have been discussed in some detail  in several publications,
both  governmental and  nongovernmental,  and  will  not be elab-
orated upon here.
  Although the building industry is to be complimented for some
of its achievements, the facts remain  that conventional building
techniques  have produced  some of the noisiest buildings  in ex-
istence.  As  a  consequence,  there is a  strong  and increasing de-
mand for noise  control in residential housing, particularly  in
multiple dwellings.
   But, part of the  problem lies in the fact that designers and
builders of  houses and offices are not  sufficiently aware of noise
control.
   Strangely enough, much of the  interior noise  can be  readily
prevented without undue cost by the simple use of basic principles

-------
                             Ill

which  govern the generation and  transmission of noise. It re-
quires  no great prescience  to recognize that appliances that go
into residential  buildings can usually be  modified  to  provide  a
quieter household convenience. But dishwashers, air-conditioning
units, garbage grinders and commodes still generate a significant
noise level, which may impair hearing if the exposure were eight
hours daily for the usual work week.
  Another concern of  Cleveland residents is the traffic  noises,
especially those radiating from the freeways and  expressways.
  Of all  the types  of vehicles traveling Cleveland  expressways,
the trailer truck is  perhaps the unit which prompts more citizen
complaints to our office. In fact, it is probably the most notorious
noise producer.
  At expressway speeds a single truck may generate more than
100 decibels, while  a  long line of traffic, which  is fairly common
in our community, may  produce noise levels  in excess  of  150
decibels.
  This usually occurs late at night when the ambient noise is at
a minimum and thus the noise  appears to be much louder and
more disturbing to the residential environment.
  It is extremely unfortunate  that highway engineers and city
planners have given  little consideration to the effects of traffic
noise on a community.
  When asked to explain the routing of highways through quiet
residential neighborhoods, some planners and engineers resort to
the old cliche we heard years ago  about air pollution: "It's the
price we must pay for progress."
  While  current criteria,  including  socioeconomic factors and
land acquisition costs, are valid considerations  in locating high-
ways and expressways, the health and well-being of the com-
munity, value depreciation of property along noisy expressways,
and  the  high cost  of sound proofing' homes,  schools, churches,
hospitals and other facilities  should,  at the  outset, be weighed
carefully in the  routing of surface transportation.
  Some effort has  been made to reduce the noise levels  within
passenger automobiles,  but there is a need for more emphasis on
the suppression of  noise radiated by  trailer trucks.  The action
should extend beyond recent improvements in muffler design and
tire tread design.
  Since these are "local problems," it may  justifiably be  asked
what local activities  are underway to remove or  reduce these
disturbances ?
  As for legal tools, the Cleveland Penal Code contains a  section
prohibiting "unnecessary noise." It states:
  It shall be unlawful  for any person to make, continue or cause to be made
  within the  City of  Cleveland any reasonably  loud, disturbing and un-
  necessary noise. . . .
  This is followed  by a listing of acts which are declared to be
disturbing and unnecessary noises.
  The  penalty is not to exceed a $50 fine  or 30 days  in  the
Cleveland workhouse.

-------
                             112

  As  you might suspect, this ordinance is extremely  difficult  to
enforce and it has been largely ineffective because  of economic,
social, and political  considerations and the problems with de-
tection or proof of violation.
  Passed  in 1941, the Cleveland ordinance, like many  other local
antinoise  ordinances is weakly phrased and open to  ambiguous
interpretation and deals with a limited number of common noise
violations but overlooks control  of major noise producers.
  Indeed it is another  example of the wide variation among local
noise  control ordinances, which  range from being overly restric-
tive and impractical to  ineffectual.
  While this ordinance was probably  developed without expertise
or accepted techniques of  measurement, evaluation and rating  of
noise, it does represent a sincere effort by local officials at that
time to denounce noise and  minimize its intrusion  in populated
areas of the community.
  With an equal  degree of concern, suburban communities near
airports have passed stringest laws governing the decibel levels
permitted for airplanes flying over their boundaries. These, too,
are difficult to enforce unless a town employs its  own pursuit
plane force. And airlines  complain, and justifiably so, that it is
unreasonable to  expect them to conform  to  dozens of  widely
differing local ordinances.
  From a practical standpoint I have serious doubt that criminal
prosecution  under a  nuisance type ordinance will ever serve as a
deterrent to  the ever-mounting volume of urban  noise.
  Private suits at common law  have also been suggested as  an
approach to noise abatement. Our experience would  indicate that
this  is  not  sufficient  since  suits are  fortuitously  brought and
damages great enough  to warrant an injunction are often difficult
to prove.
  And  finally,  zoning ordinances are of  limited value  in con-
trolling urban noise, as they simply aggregate smiliar land-use
activities, as residential, commercial, and industrial and tend  to
ignore peripheral areas and  factors such as transportation.
  It seems,  then, that we have  reasonable grounds  on which  to
question the adequacy of local  government, left  to its own  re-
sources, to control urban noise effectively.
  In fact, the alleviation of the noise  problem frequently requires
action that  transcends political boundaries and thus  a broad
based, coordinated attack on the problem must involve the Federal
and State levels of Government.
  It is practical and highly  desirable to establish Federal stand-
ards for some items moving in  interstate commerce to eliminate
noise producing features at the point of origin or at the point of
manufacture rather  than  expect  local  control once the equipment
is operating in a community.
  The critical areas of continuing research, manpower training
and  development  criteria, demonstrations  and  funds  for local
surveillance and monitoring certainly  require the full and effective
leadership of the Federal Government. This  contention is rein-

-------
                             113

forced by a review of the  current financial constraints of State
and local governments and educational institutions.
  In summary, there are shortcomings in our present knowledge
and programs for noise control,  and if we are to minimize addi-
tional environmental stresses on  community living, a coordinated
attack on the problem must be developed now.
  It is essential that we develop nationally  accepted techniques
for the measurement, evaluation, and rating of noise and its effect
on human  health, and to accomplish this  will require scientific
talent, trained technicians,  and additional facilities and financial
resources at all levels of government.
  We should hope that these hearings will  ultimately result in
these necessary inputs.
  Mr. Chairman  and members of the panel, thank you for the
opportunity to offer these observations.
  Dr.  MEYER. Thank you  very  much, particularly for some of
the points you have raised  with  regard to legislation and needed
research.  I'll comment  on  that  when the other panelists  have
their questions, and I'm quite sure there  is at least one.
  Dr.  GLORIG.  On page 4, did  you  really  mean 150 decibels?
Maybe it's  115, maybe misheard by the typist.
  Mr. WALKER. No; we didn't mean 150.
  Dr. MEYER. No; that's a typographical error. A hundred and
fifty would be pretty rough.
  Mr. WALKER. Right. I'll apologize for that.
  Dr. MEYER. Any other comments?
  Dr. WARD. I was a little surprised here as I read this, if this
is also—maybe it doesn't belong here. It says,  "Of those inter-
viewed only 1 percent were not  disturbed by noise in their  own
home." Does that mean that  99 percent of the  people were dis-
turbed by noise in their own home?
  Mr. WALKER. That is correct.
  Dr. WARD. And yet, only 16 percent—well, only 8 percent were
disturbed by noise outside the building? That seems  strange to
me.
  Mr. WALKER. Dr. Ward,  those surveys were conducted by some
of our friends at the University of Minnesota.
  Dr.  WARD.  I couldn't care less.  It doesn't  seem  reasonable
because usually  people are less disturbed  by  the noises  they
generate themselves than by those that come from outside. That's
why it seems strange.
  Dr.  GLORIG.  Are  you sure that  "not"  isn't  a typographical
error?
  Dr. WARD. Is this report  published ?
  Mr. WALKER. No; it's not published.
  Dr. MEYER. Would you  accept that it's  possible and certainly
there's no  criticism meant—it's  entirely  possible that that's been
transposed?  I'm  willing to believe  anything these days,  sub-
stantiated  by the appropriate evidence.  And under certain cir-
cumstances,  I know that what one thinks is the absolute truth,
based on their own frame of reference may prove false; somebody

-------
                            114

goes and does a study some place else, and this proves that people
all across the Nation aren't necessarily reacting- always the same.
  Mr. WALKER. One of the enterprising reporters for the Cleve-
land Press did his own survey and came  up with similar findings.
I'd like to enter that in the record.
  Dr. MEYER.  Are there  any other  questions? Because  this  is a
forthright statement of municipal approach  to  the problem.
  Mr. BERLAND. Amen.
  Dr. GLORIG. I'd certainly like to  compliment the group there
for their attitude toward the whole problem. It's the first  real
shining light we've seen so far.
  Dr. MEYER. The  thing that's very interesting  to  me is  the
recognition—not that I'm a Federal bureaucrat trying to build
a Federal bureaucracy—but you highlight some of the real prob-
lems that  exist in  coming to grips with  this problem in an
effective way.  It was brought out as  an example, that Chicago,
one of your neighboring communities, in setting some standards,
community lines, city property  lines, administrative and judicial
jurisdiction lines, found that it was entirely possible for an in-
dividual, say,  running a  lawnmower in his  front lawn in com-
pliance  with  the  law in  another political subdivision,  to be in
violation of a law in Chicago,  the  subdivision right across the
street.  Also, with due deference to the problems associated with
aircraft, the fact was noted that he  might be arrested and be
fined for running an automobile that violated the Chicago ordi-
nance,  while  at the same  time an airplane flies  overhead  and
drowns him out. So that we do have to recognize, as you have
done here,  and call our attention again, to  the need for getting
to grips with this in some  sort of cohesive manner.
  Professor COLE. Mr. Walker, did you mean  to imply in your
statement that efforts by local governments and  local communities
to improve their capacity to control noise pollution in  their own
areas should be downgraded or  abandoned in lieu of a more State
or federally oriented approach?  Or are you suggesting  a  mix,
with the heavy priority on the  Federal  and  State side? Or could
you elaborate on that?
  Mr.  WALKER. No; I did not intend to convey  the  impression
that we downgrade local control. I think there is a limit as to
what we can do locally. I think this is borne out by our experience
in air and water pollution.  I feel that  we need a substantial  Fed-
eral input, as  we have had in air and water pollution, if we are
going to surmount this mounting problem.
  Dr. MEYER.  We at the Federal level certainly believe in a  mix,
with the Federal Government doing those things  which it ought
to do,  and ought to do  well, but with  the  major burden of re-
sponsibility still being vested  in the  State  and city. Thank  you
very much, Sir.
  Mr. WALKER. Thank you.
  Dr. MEYER. The  next witness who  I  should like to have come
forward is Mr. Robert Wegner, who is the director of regional
planning with the North Central Texas Council of Governments,

-------
                             115

and also a member of the American Institute of  Planners. I'm
sure that in  view of  some of the comments  about airports and
aircraft, that you'll have some words to say in this regard.

  STATEMENT OF ROBERT L. WEGNER. SR., NORTH CENTRAL
             TEXAS COUNCIL OF GOVERNMENTS

  Mr.  WEGNER.  Thank you,  Dr.  Meyer. In  the interest  of the
patience of the audience, I am going to skip some of the intro-
ductory remarks.
  Dr.  MEYER. Fine. We'll include your entire statement  in the
record.
  Mr.  WEGNER.  I'm speaking as an individual professional plan-
ner, and I hope that the remarks I make about the  North Central
Texas  Council of Governments,  for  which I  am the director  of
regional planning,  are  primarily  matters  of fact, so  I will  be
reporting about those.
  This organization, the North Central Texas Council of Govern-
ments' specific interests in the subject of  these hearings  began
in September 1968, when  its executive board gave high priority
to the  regional airport environs study. This study was  designed
to help local governments deal effectively with the challenges and
opportunities  posed by the  new Dallas/Fort Worth  Regional
Airport, which was then in the planning stage and which is now
under  construction, with operations  scheduled to begin  in 1973.
This new airport, a joint venture by the cities of Dallas  and Fort
Worth, is, in many  respects, an airport of superlatives.  Covering
over 16,500  acres, it is  by far one of the  largest airports under
construction in the world today.
  I might add parenthetically that there  are other larger ones
in the planning stage; Montreal, for example.
  It is designed in ultimate capacity to accommodate 300 aircraft
movements per peak hour, which is equal to one instrument land-
ing or  take  off every  12  seconds,  which exceeds the present
capacities of all three  airports serving the New York City region.
  Among the key immediate challenges to which the  regional
airport environs study addressed itself was the  matter  of the
impact  of aircraft sound on the development  of surrounding
land. An aircraft sound exposure map was prepared by NCTCOG
—which is a short acronym for the North  Central  Texas Council
of Governments—with  the  assistance of  the Federal  Aviation
Administration.  A brief, simple explanation  of the significance
of the three sound zones depicted on that map was prepared for
use by local officials  concerned with  land development  in the
areas immediately adjacent  to the regional airport site. A copy
of this explanation and  a  small-scale facsimile  of the  larger
aircraft-generated sound exposure map is  attached to  the copy
of this testimony for entry into the record.
  Because of the technical nature of  this subject, three  seminars
were held during the summer of 1969  for planners, administrators
and other technical personnel  of cities—I'd  like  to  note here

-------
                             116

principally building inspectors—of the cities directly affected by
aircraft sound exposure and/or by height  or  flight obstruction
regulations. These cities  included  Arlington,  Coppell,  Euless,
Flower Mound,  Fort  Worth,  Grand Prairie, Grapevine,  Irving,
and Southlake. Through these seminars technical representatives
of each of these cities were given  technical facts and guidance,
including the map of aircraft sound exposure, a listing of recom-
mended land uses related thereto, and general technical informa-
tion  about acoustical  treatment for buildings.  In September of
that  year  a similar seminar was held for representatives of the
eight independent school districts in the immediate impact area
of the airport. These representatives were provided with informa-
tion  similar to  that  given the  city representatives, but  with
emphasis on school location and construction.
  All of this work was accomplished, incidentally, with financial
assistance from the Department of Housing and Urban Develop-
ment, under what is called  a "701" urban planning grant. It was
accomplished with active cooperation from the Federal Aviation
Administration,  the Regional Airport Board and  its staff, the
Department of  Housing and  Urban  Development,  several  in-
terested State  agencies and the affected cities.
  I'd like  to  add here—inject  again—that these  groups  were
represented on the two advisory committees, one a policy develop-
ment advisory committee,  the other a technical advisory  com-
mittee.
  NCTCOG's  second  major effort to deal  with the impact of
aircraft generated sound  from  the  new  regional  airport was
performed in  cooperation with the city of Irving. I believe you
have already heard a report yesterday from Mr. Joiner about part
of this. This  was done under a special  project funded  by the
Department of  Housing and  Urban Development,  entitled the
"Cooperative  Program of  Planning for Airport Impact."  This
project was designed to help the cities most directly affected by
the new regional airport to carry on local planning in response to
airport impact. Irving—the city of Irving—chose to develop  an
airport zoning ordinance and soundproofing modifications to  its
building code.  I am furnishing you, if you don't already have one,
with  a copy of this particular study prepared  by Joiner-Pelton-
Rose, Inc., of Dallas, Tex., consultants in acoustics.
  Dr. MEYER.  We don't, and I'd like to have that for the record,
sir.
  Mr. WEGNER.  All right.  I have  also appended to  my remarks
here a copy of the brief summary from this report that I would
like to quote at this time.
  The construction of the Dallas-Fort Worth  Regional Airport
in a  relatively undeveloped area has given the  surrounding com-
munities the opportunity to plan the land development with the
airport in mind. To  obtain  maximum utilization   of the  land,
prohibitive  zoning of the land  should  be used  together  with
soundproofing of the buildings to allow a larger variety of activi-
ties to be compatible with the  sound exposure that will exist.

-------
                             117

  Normal land use activities are classified into four groups with
different sound exposure sensitivities. The first group  given here
in the table is insensitive. The typical activities are industry and
warehousing, and the maximum indoor composite noise rating is
95.
  The moderately sensitive group contains retail and offices, with
a maximum indoor CNR of 85.
  The sensitive group,  typical  activity  being residential, has an
indoor CNR of 80.
  And the very sensitive group, typified by hospitals and schools,
has an indoor CNR maximum of 70.
  The city is divided into zones, by sound exposure, which con-
trols the type of activity that may locate there. Activities may be
allowed in the  next two higher  noise zones when  the building is
soundproofed.
  The  soundproofing modifications  will  not  be  required  of all
construction  in the high noise  areas. Nor will it be required of
noise-sensitive  activities, such as hospitals and schools, through-
out the  city. It will only be required where needed.
  The soundproofing modifications require that:
  1. Exterior  walls and  roofs be  masonry  or  underlaid with
gypsum sheathing.
  2. The lowest floor must be slab on fill or below grade.
  3. Additional resilient ceilings are required in sleeping areas.
  4. Mechanical ventilation must be provided to maintain a satis-
factory  environment with all doors  and windows closed.
  5. Openings  in the wall or roof over 4 inches in diameter must
be  connected to the interior by metal ducts lined with  sound-
absorbing material.
  6. Single glazed  openings must  be nine thirty-seconds of an
inch sound-retardant glass.
  7. Double  glazed openings  must use  double  strength glass
spaced 2 inches apart, and
  8. Exterior doors must be hollow metal.
  These provisions will add from 2 to 10 percent to the cost of  a
building, depending on its type  and size.
  To create  a  soundproofing building  code that could easily be
understood and enforced by nonacoustical personnel, with a mini-
mum of training, a material type code  was chosen. This requires
that the code be periodically updated to allow contractors to use
the most economical materials as they become available. As there
are  many ways to soundproof a   building,  exception  to these
particular specified methods should be allowed if the owner or
contractor can  prove  to the city's satisfaction  that  the intent
of the code is being met by other techniques.
  Height restrictions have been determined for the major run-
ways, and these have been indicated on a map of the  city.
  That's the end of the appended  sheet from the Joiner-Pelton-
Rose report.
  NCTCOG  is  now engaged  in  another HUD-assisted  special
project, which  we call  simply the Cooperative Planning- program,

-------
                             118

in which we are preparing a number of model codes and ordi-
nances and guidelines for local governments to use in improving
their local planning capability. Among these is one study directed
to the problems of land  development in the airport environs,  in
which we will attempt to spell out in more detail guidance regard-
ing the types of land use which are most compatible with  different
levels of aircraft-generated  sound. When  this study  has been
completed,  we  will  be  pleased  to provide  the  Office  of Noise
Abatement and Control with copies of this report.
  Dr. MEYER. Would you please do so.
  Mr. WEGNER. With possibly few exceptions, my remarks so far-
have been limited to matters of fact. Now,  as a member  of the
American Institute of Planners, I would like to express my per-
sonal and professional opinion in  response  to the objectives  of
these hearings  as set forth in the "Plan  for National Hearings  on
Noise  Abatement and Control."  Both  preventive  and  remedial
measures to  control, reduce and/or eliminate the harmful  effects
of noise  is and properly  should be the concern  of all professional
planners and all official  planning agents—public planning agen-
cies, if you will—involved in maintaining and improving environ-
mental quality. Planners, by nature of their profession, and  by
virtue of their  concern with the environment, and planning agen-
cies, by virtue  of their authority under law,  are in the best posi-
tion, I believe, to develop proposals for preventive measures  by
anticipating possible adverse effects from noise and by developing
proposals to avoid or minimize  these adverse effects.  They are
also in a position to analyze problems  and recommend  solutions
which  would remedy  existing noise-harmful  situations.  In ad-
dition, in the  State of  Texas,  which is recognized to have  an
excellent communications system between State and local govern-
ment, via the Governor's office and through the regional councils,
such as NCTCOG, a network already exists for  providing effective
communications on noise problems and noise control requirements,
as well as for eliciting further information about interests in and
current efforts dealing with the  noise problem. In this  regard, I
would  suggest that you  contact Mr.  Dan S. Petty,  Director, Di-
vision of Planning Coordination, Office of the Governor, in Austin,
Tex. I'm quite sure that Dr. Cole, being very familiar, could help
you further with this.
   Dr. MEYER. We'll do that.
   Mr. WEGNER. To plan  preventive and remedial measures noted,
professional planners and planning agencies  require  legal au-
thority,  political sanction, technical guidance and assistance, and
financial assistance. I venture to say  that most planning agencies
possess broad  enough powers to  enable them to undertake noise-
related studies and plan  preparations.
   The other three ingredients, however, may frequently be lack-
ing. Accordingly, I would like to  see incorporated in the Noise
Control  Act of 1971,  Senate bill  1016,  or similar legislation,
provision made for technical training and  assistance, as  well as
financial assistance, and incentives for noise  control and abate-

-------
                             119

ment  planning- at State, regional, and  local levels as an integral
part of the environmental protective activities at each  of these
levels. Approximately $6 million per year—I want to stress this,
"per year." Not one time  or not for a  few years, but per year—
would provide an  average  of $25,000 to each  of  the 240-odd
standard  metropolitan  statistical areas  in  the  United States.
Assured funding of this type, matched by a nominal amount of
State  and  local  funds, would  establish a sound  foundation  and
a substantial start  toward deliberate,  continuing environmental
protection activity at the regional level, which is only haphazardly
supported today.
  I'm adding  to my comments here by adding this: We do not
need,  and cannot afford—I'm  talking  about regional planning—
We do not need  and cannot now afford full time permanent staff
specialists  in noise  control. We do need environmental protection
generalists schooled in several aspects of  environmental protec-
tion,  including noise, who can communicate  with the technical
experts on the one hand, and with  the  planners, public admin-
istrators and officials on the other, not to mention the lay public
at large.
  Thank you  for the opportunity to present these facts and my
views. I'd like to say that Dr. Cole mentioned that I might respond
to the remarks by Mr. Burdis. I believe I'd prefer if you would
give me a specific question to respond to.
  Dr. MEYER.  Professor Cole?
  Professor COLE. When did I  say that?
  Dr. MEYER. Well, earlier you said something about you wanted
one of  the planners to  make  some comment  about his—Burdis'
concept of the air corridor and integrated approach to planning,
three  dimensional planning.
  Professor COLE.  Well, I think your comments have  talked in
and around those ideas.
  Mr. WEGNER.  I will be  more direct and say this:  Specific sug-
gestions about including, or  making  the requirement  that the
airway traffic lanes, or whatever you might call them, be depicted
on all subdivision plats and all maps  for planning to  me is an
excellent idea. I think part of the function of the plan  is to put
the public and public officials on notice as to what is the  situation
that exists today. And if that's part of  the situation that exists, it
should be  depicted  on that plan  map.  And it should also be in-
cluded on the official legal filed plat, recorded plat, so that indi-
vidual property owners themselves are warned and apprised in
advance of what the situation might be.
  Dr. GLORIG. I notice in the  report from Joiner that you  used,
the composite noise rating system,  you have some  numbers in
there. Do you know the source of those numbers, or is someone
from  Joiner here that can tell us ?
  Mr. WEGNER.  Well, I'm sorry that I cannot tell you, sir.
  Dr. MEYER. I'd appreciate it if you  could find  that out for us.
It's not clear whether these are based on International Standards
Organization's recommended standards for community noise ex-

-------
                             120

posures, or what. It would be useful to know whose CNR we are
using. In  fact,  part of your testimony indicates a  need  for the
Federal Government getting- more research and standardizing the
needs of specification of a noise environment. This  is an area  we
are deeply concerned about because there are so many different
ways of approaching the problem.
  Dr. GLORIG. In your  planning, have you provided for enforce-
ment of these zonings that you are talking about with respect to
breakovers? I know Los Angeles  had a similar plan, and then the
land became available for residential  areas,  and they  went
through all that trouble, and they're having the same trouble at
Palmdale  right  now with the new, large airport. They are trying
to zone it  for light industry and  so on, but the real  estate agents
and communities are putting  a  lot of pressure on them to sell
it for residential areas. Are you having the  same problem here?
If you are, how are you going to prevent it?
  Mr. WEGNER. Yes, I'd say that I might go back to the  part of
my remarks which I did not read here. I want to point out that
the Council of Governments, like most if not all  regional councils,
is limited  in its  capabilities. It's a powerless authority. It's limited
to making plans  and  recommendations and  to  rendering advice
and technical services  to  its  member governments. This is one
aspect of  home rule mentioned  earlier today which  allows the
decisions of this type to be made at the local  level, and at  present
all we can do is to bring matters to  the people's  attention and
to make recommendations to them. Now, we have one opportunity
where we can  comment a little  more forcefully, and that is in
the so-called D-95 process, which requires review of some several
96 different programs in the Federal Government in which aid is
granted to local or State entities for construction and  acquire
property and so forth. And if any of these involved  matters have
an environmental impact, then we may comment on them. And
even though we only comment on them, these comments are con-
sidered rather  seriously, I understand, by the Federal funding
agency; so that is the extent of our capability to influence action.
  Dr. MEYER. Panel, on my left, any  questions or comment?
  Dr. WESTMAN. Well, Mr. Wegner, I'm  most impressed  by the
process that has gone in the planning for  the new airport facility
here and would like very much to support your recommendation
at the end that  there be Federal  funding  to carry  out  and imple-
ment  regional planning and to get people talking together, and
I'd like to call attention  to what may  seem  to  be detail; I'm
curious as to what lies behind  this. We heard about the need for
consumer  education, and we've heard  from  Mr. Spano very
clearly about the need for professional education. We've got to
help people learn how to put in the right  joint and things of that
nature. And the third thing that  you have called attention to here
is to build a communication network, and you are fortunate in
Texas here in having such a network spanning the various gov-
ernmental levels. Now, on page 3, you refer to three seminars
that were held  during  the summer of 1969.  And these seminars

-------
                            121

were attended,  I gather, by planners,  administrators and  other
technical personnel of the cities involved. Do you think that these
seminar experiences  would be another vehicle for implementing
the things that we would  like to  carry out from  the  point  of
noise abatement? Do you think that these  seminars  were critical
points  in  the process of  getting  the  planning done?  Was the
interaction that occurred there—well, let me turn it around the
other way. If these three seminars had not been held, would the
planning process have slowed down or gone less smoothly?
  Mr.  WEGNER. Yes, if these seminars had not been held, the
planning process,  I think,  would have been very, very ineffective
and very inadequate.  I must add one other facet to this. Besides
the technical nature  of the subject, the legal implications of the
subject made it almost mandatory  that we have these seminars.
  Dr. GLORIG. I don't know why Dr. Westman is surprised.  What
did you expect  from  America's  number one city?
  Mr.  BERLAND. I think at one  end of the  spectrum you have the
problem—and I don't know the answer to  it—who wanted the
airport? Was it the local communities  that felt the need for the
airport?
  Mr.  WEGNER. This  is  a very  interesting story by itself. And I
say this not very facetiously, because if any of  you  had a chance
to read the study that was  made on it—and  there are some more
studies being made  on  it, of course, by  special aviation  study
groups—but I'd say that it came about through the efforts of the
CAB,  the Civil Aeronautics  Board, who determined—I'm just
giving a general, simplified version of it—that it would be not
possible, and not be  feasible, to expand Love Field to take care
of projected traffic.  And  therefore,  a new  site,  a  new facility,
either  in addition to  Love Field or in place  of Love Field, would
be desirable. This was in about the middle 1960's, 1964,  I believe,
when  the order was first  issued.  As  a matter of interest, the
response to this was  rather rabid in terms of public action. And
Dallas and Fort Worth, which had long been renowned for being
competitors, got together and  did enter this joint venture, and
they now have something underway, and  it's going to be in  op-
eration in 2 or  3 years.
  Mr.  BERLAND. Now, at the other end, there is no requirement,
as you point out, that either Fort  Worth or Dallas, or the  inter-
vening communities  respect any of these  zoning or other recom-
mendations you have made.
  Mr.  WEGNER.  Well,  no.  Our  recommendations are  purely
advisory.  We don't have any means to compel  or to bring  force.
This is by design, to preserve home rule.
  Mr.  BERLAND. There is  a  gap in my understanding, because
there  are other communities  involved  besides Dallas and Fort
Worth.
  Mr.  WEGNER. That's right. There are at least ten others. What
we have is a case of fragmentation. We have one body, the airport
board, responsible for  developing the airport  site and all that
happens there. And  then  we  have  a number  of  other bodies,

-------
                            122

corporate entities, responsible for reacting and feeding in and so
forth. But all we have is our voluntary association, NCTCOG, to
help bring about some kind of accommodation among these differ-
ent interests. But there are also one to one representatives to the
airport board in this city and the airport board in that city, so
there are several arrangements or relationships that are in being
right now.
  Dr. MEYER. Ted, would you yield a minute?
  Mr. BERLAND. Yes.
  Dr. MEYER. I just want to get this clarified. First, the  airport
board is a State authorized entity; is that correct?
  Mr. WEGNER. I don't know that there  was a  specific State law.
It is a lawful body; I'll say this.
  Dr. MEYER. I mean, I'm trying to see where its authority is
derived from.
  Mr. WEGNER. It  is more  popularly  denned as a  contract or
agreement between the cities of Dallas and Forth Worth.
  Dr. MEYER. Under their powers derived under the Texas State
Constitution ?
  Mr. WEGNER. Yes.
  Dr. MEYER. Is it a member of the North Central Texas  Council
of Governments ?
  Mr. WEGNER. It is not a member, but both  cities are.  And so
both cities constitute that body.
  Dr. MEYER. Ted, any other questions?
  Mr. BERLAND. I have a lot of questions on the whole thing.
But in terms of environment, it also seems to me, Mr. Chairman,
that perhaps one of the pursuits of your office would be to some-
how get cooperation between EPA and CAB and FAA and all the
other organizations, particularly involved in aviation as  well as
other transportation, because we keep hearing  this testimony and
it keeps coming up all the time.
  Dr. MEYER. Well, this is one of the chores that the President's
bill now pending in Congress would assign to the administrator
of  the EPA, that  is,  that he coordinate all  Federal activities
related to noise. In addition, even under our  existing authority,
we do have  some  channels  of communication and coordination
to exercise, which we are beginning to do at the present time. So
the point is  well made; we do have to accept that responsibility.
  Any other comments, panel?
   Mr.  WEGNER. Yes, sir. I'd like to append one other remark. If
you're interested in  pursuing the question of the seminars further,
you might make inquiries of Mr. Norman Graff, whom you will
be  hearing from, I  believe, in November in Washington.  He was
the instructor  at the seminars. He helped  us, as a  consultant,
structure this program.
   Dr. MEYER. One last thing: Your recommendation at the end,
of  course, is very interesting, and  I'm  pleased to note that you
were not just homing in on noise, but on the entire environmental
situation. And  I also noticed that, as a  good planner, you costed
it out with what it would take. But quite seriously, that comment

-------
                             123

shall be referred to the appropriate people in Washington in our
Agency to take a look at.
  Thank you very much, sir.
  At this point, we're  almost back on schedule, and I will recess
this hearing to reconvene—and I'm saying promptly—at 1:15.
And I hope all of you will come back to hear from the people who
put noise into the home, as well as several other people associated
with planning. We'll have our landscape architects at that time.
  Thank you very much.

-------
                             124

                     AFTERNOON SESSION
  Dr. MEYER. Ladies and gentlemen, I call to order the afternoon
and final session of this hearing on noise.
  Without further ado then, I'd like to ask  Mr.  Gene Schrickel
of the American Society of Landscape Architects, who has been
most considerate, if he would give us his testimony. I thank you,
sir, for understanding the problems of the late hour.
  Mr. SCHRICKEL. I do.

  STATEMENT OF GENE SCHRICKEL, AMERICAN SOCIETY  OF
                  LANDSCAPE ARCHITECTS

  Mr. SCHRICKEL. Mr.  Chairman, I'm kind of like  the  person
putting  on cosmetics, as  a landscape  architect.  I  was kind of
hoping I'd be No. 6 or No.  7 before lunch so I could  illustrate a
point.
  But I am a landscape architect and I am here today represent-
ing the American Society of Landscape  Architects  to delineate our
views related to noise control through appropriate land use  plan-
ning.
  It has been suggested  by many authors on this subject that land
use planning is the most effective tool in controlling or separating
activities which produce excessive noise.  We endorse this view
and are hopeful that land use policy legislation currently before
Congress will result in proper  land use  for areas that require
unique considerations,  such as  excessive noise. Once  these  areas
are determined, we are hopeful that compatible  uses can be de-
fined wherever possible. Recognition of the limitations of this con-
cept leads to the problem solving at a later stage  of development.
  While the professional  landscape architect is  concerned with
all  aspects  of  land use  planning—from that noted above to
physical site design—we feel uniquely  qualified to discuss design
elements used in site design that affect noise  reduction such as
earth forms, paving, walls, sculpture,  water elements and  plant
materials. Our concern with the latter has led to our expressed
interest in publishing information  on the subject.
  A year ago, the American  Society  of Landscape  Architects
Foundation  received a grant to publish a document related to the
functional uses of plant materials. Developed in cooperation with
the National  Park  Service, this  document is scheduled  to be
released this fall through the  U.S.  Government  Printing  Office.
It is an attempt to bring together all of the fragments  of informa-

-------
                             125

tion on functional uses of plant materials of which noise control
is, of course, a primary part.
  Virtually all elements of a design affect noise and the meaning-
ful placement of these  elements and  an understanding  of  how
they affect noise will have  greater importance as pressures in-
crease on our patterns of land use. Like we were talking about
this morning on the airport land use,  the peripheral  use  of  land
around a major airport.  This effort to pull  together information
on the subject  has provided only the  most basic information
especially related to the problems of  noise. If we are to utilize
landscape elements to alleviate such problems as  noise, we must
encourage broadscale research to better understand the functional
properties of  these elements  and equip today's  designers  with
the tools that will enable them to properly design  specifically for
functional considerations.
  As we see it, the problem up to now has been the failure to
recognize some of  today's  environmental  considerations as a
functional need. The elements comprising site design are normally
the first  to be cut  when  financial limitations  are imposed.  The
technical aspects of reducing noise are fairly well  known and
documented.  Attenuation of noise by distance and  by air and
ground absorption, deflection, reflection, defraction and masking
enables us to design with some intent of noise reduction.
  Where plant materials are concerned, we know less than we
would  like to.  We have been  derelict in  this  particular facet.
Studies,  however, have  shown that plant materials for the  most
part have certain sound absorptive properties. Plants, when  used
with landforms,  have materially increased effectiveness  in  con-
trolling unwanted  sound. They are more  effective, however,  as
noise scatterers at both high and low frequencies. Studies  have
also shown that while plants are somewhat effective as acoustical
screening elements, they are most  effective at frequencies critical
to the well-being of man. We know,  to, that ground  covers and
grasses,  in particular, have very  high absorptive qualities.  Be-
yond  this, criteria  have been  for  the most  part nonexistent.
Through the  American  Society of Landscape Architects Founda-
tion  we are encouraging further research that will substantiate
the limited information we have compiled to  date.
  Incidentally, we  are  a small  national organization, perhaps
5,000 strong. And through the history of the development of the
United States,  I would  say  probably  an embryonic organization,
even though  we have  celebrated our  hundredth  anniversary of
concerned landscape architecture in 1964.
  This knowledge  is a  beginning step in aiding the designer
concerned with noise reduction. To be effective, his resource  base
must be broadened  and we would applaud efforts by the Environ-
mental Protection  Agency  to encourage  research  and  develop
pilot studies  that would establish  a broad-scale resource  base.
  We are delighted to find the EPA so deeply involved with the
fundamentals of environmental protection. As landscape archi-
tects, we feel  strongly  that  quality  land  planning  deals  with

-------
                             126

consideration of all elements, from the  most fundamental  land
use studies to waste disposal  to noise to aesthetics.
  And here's where I could  insert the cosmetic designers. Un-
fortunately, the  history of most landscape architects'  work has
been that of cosmetics or that of coming- in on the tail end of a
project  rather than at the beginning  for the functional  use  of
land in the proper special relationships of objects and the  proper
special relationships between objects.
  Our society's membership has been involved in several projects
where noise reduction was a  critical consideration.  In  the weeks
ahead we hope to be able to transmit documents concerned with
site planning and noise abatement. We are  pleased to have had
the opportunity  to express our views  and  concerns here  today,
and we would look forward to working with you further.
  Thank you.
  Dr. MEYER. Thank you, sir. Before I ask a couple of questions,
panel? On the left? On the right?
  Could I ask a  question with regard to  certain aspects of land-
scape architecture? Have you personally, or  the association, been
involved with the considerations of what ought to be done when
you put a highway in a cut? You know, there's a lot of discussion
now about—in fact, one of  the  other witnesses was inferring
something about freeways being  lowered. There is also a great
tendency to avoid erosion simply by concreting the whole surface.
Have you made any studies at all that would indicate that perhaps
proper landscaping and setbacks	
  Mr. SCHRICKEL. Mr. Chairman, there  have been some  studies
regarding-  this.  I believe, without  quoting numbers, which  I
mentioned to Dr. Ward here  prior to lunch,  I'm not real  versed
in decibel chronological sequence.  It has been, I believe,  proven
that by  depression the slope of the land does have effectuation  on
the sound that occurs in the corridor of  the freeway, mainly where
the pavement  is, and the noise from the tires and the vehicles.
I'm going to suggest this may be a 95 percent scientific fact. I've
heard figures  that, with  regard  to  slopes  and with  regard  to
landscape materials  on slopes  and depressions where we have
cut areas through the earth, that the grass slope will double the
reduction of sound, versus  pavement.  And, of course,  you're
familiar with the typical scene as you pierce the urban core  of
the need for minimum land, and suddenly enter a paved slope and
the sound just keeps on reverberating. So, yes, sir, there has been
some work done on that. There's been some research done on the
mass planting of shrubs  in order to absorb some  sound. I can
quote a figure, I believe. A privet hedge,  a low dense shrub—
depending on  what part  of  the  country you are  from—7 feet
high, supposedly reduced noise by 3 decibels. And there are other
numbers, oh, like a hundred feet of forest might have  the ability
in the first 25 feet to reduce noise 25 decibels—I'm sorry.  I think
it's 7 in 25 feet.
  Would you believe that ?
  Dr. NEWMAN. No.

-------
                            127

  Dr. MEYER. Dr. Newman has some firm views on that.
  Mr. SCHRICKEL. Right.
  Dr. MEYER. Do you have a question, Ted?
  Mr. BERLAND. It was just along these lines. After hearing what
Dr. Newman said  and hearing about the grass and the other; are
you saying that no  one  has established—all right, you've got
forest and you've got privet hedge; what about all the  other
things ?
  Dr. NEWMAN. He mentioned land forms here.
  Mr. SCHRICKEL. Right.
  Dr. NEWMAN. That's what you deal with, land forms.
  Mr. SCHRICKEL. Right.
  Dr. NEWMAN. Solid things that will really stop noise, but let's
stop this bologna about planting.
  Mr. SCHRICKEL. You didn't hear me say that plant material was
the sole  answer.
  Dr. NEWMAN. The land forms, that's the thing that does it.
  Dr. MEYER. That's an important consideration.
  Mr. SCHRICKEL. For example, there's a misnomer about  trees.
Trees really do not  do a great  amount of  absorbing; they do
scattering more than anything else. They do do some good towards
the psychological end of it, in that you think that it's not as noisy.
But this has been done and, oh, I guess because we're probably
not big  enough, strong enough, smart enough in trying to  catch
up, that's  why you get some information in fault.
  Dr. MEYER. I'm most anxious to receive that document.
  Dr. NEWMAN. I'd just like to comment that in Baltimore a new
throughway of some sort  has recently been planned, and in that,
some  substantial percentage—and I'm not  sure whether it's one,
two or  three, some substantial  percentage—of that highway  is
going into land forms, which will  mitigate the  effects of that
roadway through  the city of Baltimore from an acoustical stand-
point.
  Mr. SCHRICKEL. This  is  another  misnomer. One  of the most
beneficial  things from the cuts  and fills of roadways which the
highway and road engineers have been involved in for years, is
that the cuts and  fills must balance. Well, I question the need  of
this balance when we're  talking about cost factors  with regard
to a pleasant way to drive, a sound refraction means, a  safety
factor from a head-on collision with another factor.  So these are
the kind of things that are being done now. We're making some
strides  now,  and  we as  a  profession are just encouraging the
Environmental Protection Agency to keep going, and we'll supply
some  help and you supply some help.
  And I have a few other comments that aren't in the text that
I would like to mention with regards to the ordinances and the
comments about the zoning that I've heard this morning.
  Dr. MEYER. Well,  if you would be so kind as to make them right
now, sir, we'll be happy to hear them.
  Mr. SCHRICKEL. Fine. I'd like to answer Dr. Westman's question
to Bob  Wegner regarding the seminars and the airport environ-

-------
                            128

ment  study. I happen to have been  a consultant for a  school
district that was in the process of locating schools—school sites
for future schools. I happen to have been a member of a group
that asked  this airport authority, "What are the sound zones?"
I don't know anything about them.  Even today, I would love  to
go into a room and find out what really is 1 decibel and what's
22 with somebody. And I question how many of us in here really
know this. But I had to take the expertise of the sound authorities
with regards to recommendations to a  school district based on the
seminars as to where to locate a 3,000 complement  senior high
school, a 750 complement elementary school in a growth area out
here near the Fort Worth-Dallas Airport. So, from  a standpoint
of, did the public or the people on the other end gain any benefit
from  the seminar, I would say this was very definitely so. One
thing that  I observed this morning was that, we were talking
about the improvement of caulking for sewer pipes and the thick-
nesses of walls for apartment views, and the things that the
automobile  industry has done for sound; I had the feeling sitting
there that  probably we should open  the door real  quickly and
race into the building. And I wonder what is  really  supposed  to
happen between the auto and the building, you know,  where we
spend some of our time. So this point  should be considered in the
way of what  kind of controls will we have  in  public housing
projects and all subdivision plats that are approved by the cities
with regards to the level of noise between the building unit and
the all-powerful automobile.
  Dr. MEYER. A very good point, sir.
  Mr. SCHRICKEL.  That's our open space  that we're  trying  to
protect in  cities today. And when  you have  been  clobbered  as
many times as some of us have with  landscaping for beautifica-
tion alone,  you really kind of get a little sensitive to these kind
of things when you know that when someone says, "I'm going  on
vacation," there's  not a soul that goes to an arid desert covered
with concrete where there is a lot of noise. He goes to the  nicest
place he can go. So where does mankind really go ? He goes where
the noise level is down, where the environment is fine.  Of course,
I think our profession is one that  is trying to make  the city a
good place to live and to work and to play.
   Dr. MEYEK. Well, you know, you raised the point—this occurred
to us around the  country at other hearings, and  it was brought
out with one of the witnesses  here earlier yesterday—about  80
percent of the American  public lives in these two  hundred and
some odd metropolitan areas and spend most of their time  there.
And you used the phrase a minute ago that strikes home; to a
lot of people,  the  open space is the space between the points of
transportation and the points of work and domicile.  We forget
that,  those of us who were raised in  this part of the world as I
was and those of you who are living here where there are a  lot
of  open spaces. But you hit your point right solidly; we've got
to look at the noise and the mutual attributes as well in the whole
environment.

-------
                            129

  Mr. SCHRICKEL. Well, you know,  it seems like I'm constantly,
since I have been practicing in  the  Southwest—and incidentally,
I'm a private practitioner representing the national organization
just because of the local convenience of distance between my home
base and the public hearing spot.  But for years, there's been this
constant relationship of  a  small open  space, like Rockefeller
Square in New York City. Every time you go to a zoning hearing
or a public  hearing for open space in remote areas such as Dallas
and Fort Worth where we're trying to preserve this and prove
the kind of value  that open space  has. And of course, again,  as a
profession,  we're not too large in numbers. We're certainly happy
to see somebody arrive on the scene that can give some input and
value to such things as a better place to live in America.
  Dr. MEYER. Thank  you very  much,  sir.  I appreciate your
comments.
  Now, we  have  another element of the architectual profession
now to  hear from, Mr.  David  McCandless of McCandless Asso-
ciates and also visiting professor of architecture at the University
of Texas, Austin.  Nice to  have you here, sir.

STATEMENT OF DAVID McCANDLESS, JR., UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS

  Mr. McCANDLESS. Thank you, Dr. Meyer.
  Panelists, ladies and gentlemen, before I  begin my  talk, I'd
like to take you back and think for a minute  here about the re-
marks of Bart Spano. He came up with a lot of examples; I'm not
going to give any examples, really, not the kind that he gave. But
I think his was a  very good beginning to some of the things I'm
going to say today. I think he threw a little mud at the architects,
and being an architect I've got to catch some of that mud.  And
being sidetracked into acoustics  now,  I'm going to throw some
more mud back to the architects. I  think a few of the architects
can bat it back again.
   There is  plenty of data available, as well  as our own experi-
ences, to convince us that many of our buildings and our homes
are a lot noisier than they should be. And many of us know how
to solve those problems when approached  specifically. The more
basic question that comes to mind is, rather,  why  do we have to
have these problems to begin with? Is there anything we can do
through education,  enforcement, or creation  of new  trends or
public demands, to improve the acoustical  environment in which
we live?
   I want to present several observations which I have made over
the past 9  years  working as  a  consultant in  architectural acous-
tics, serving many  architects  in many States. Since I  am also
an architect with 2 years of teaching  and 10 years of practice
before involvement in acoustics, I am very sensitive to the archi-
tect's education, his design approach, and his present professional
problems relating to acoustics.
   Probably the first problem relating to noise control  in archi-
tectural design is the general  lack of emphasis on acoustics in

-------
                             130

the training of our architects. A few colleges have good courses
in acoustics for architects, but that varies with both curriculum
and quality of instruction. Many  colleges give  our future archi-
tects  very little  useful  instruction in acoustics,  if any at all.
Whether this condition is a result of the architects' own emphasis
on visual design, or the lack of constant demand by the consumer
for better building acoustics, is hard to say. The problem does
exist. The schools must not compromise their emphasis on visual
design, but they don't have to do that if they  would strengthen
their  emphasis in functional  design by greater awareness of the
acoustical environments they are  creating.  To make this point
more clear, I wish to quote a phrase I have often used in  architect
and student-architect groups:  "When an architect designs a build-
ing he can see it in this mind's eye. He should also be able to
hear it in his mind's ear."
  Such an ability to anticipate the acoustical characteristics of a
building  requires both  an  understanding of room acoustics and
noise control  and the experience  of listening  knowledgeably to
many architectural-acoustical environments.  It is my firm con-
viction that developing this facility, which makes acoustics more
of a design element in the architect's creative process, is the best
way to make  a positive improvement in the control of noise in
and around the buildings our architects design. There  will also
be improvement in that other aspect of architectural acoustics,
the environment that is created by the volume, the shaping, the
finishes, and furnishings of rooms.
  This ability to anticipate the acoustical  characteristics  of  an
architectural  design should properly be fostered in the colleges
of architecture. Instruction must  include more than the typical
lecture course. It should pervade all the classes in design, and it
should be taught by faculty who also teach  architectural design,
so that it can be placed in proper perspective and more relevant in
the design process.
  I am not recommending that the architect do his  own acoustical
consulting any more than I would  recommend that he do his own
structural engineering.  Without  the  engineer, for example,  we
would not have our great structural spans and multi-story build-
ings ; but without the architect's understanding of steel framing,
prestressing,  posttensioning  and  so forth,  we would  not  have
these engineering feats properly  incorporated into  the creative
design process.
  There  are  many architects with whom  we've  consulted who
have  a respect for the acoustical problems of buildings, and who
are aware that their buildings will have acoustical  characteristics
as well as visual characteristics.  These architects, however, are
only a small percent of those who are practicing. The majority
of architects,  unfortunately, show a lack of awareness  of what
they  are creating, acoustically. We have usually found  that the
architect  is  only concerned  and  will get  help  only when the
building is designed for concerts, or for some such acoustical use,
when the client  has an obvious  concern to which the  architect

-------
                             131

needs to respond, when  the architect  is aware,  sometimes  by
personal experience, that the mechanical systems, adjacent activi-
ties, or outside  noise  could  cause serious disturbance, or when
such  legislation  as  the Walsh-Healy  Act,  and its successors,
creates  specific  limitations.  Unfortunately,  too  many buildings,
of all sizes  and  qualities,  have been  designed  without these
constraints.
  Now, in defense of the architect, there are at least three major
factors  affecting the practice of architecture that are, we believe,
direct causes of the excessive noise in our buildings today.  These
are factors  over which  even  the  most  acoustically concerned
architect has little  control.  They indicate  why consultation  is
used so  little.
  First, very few architects can afford  to hire a competent con-
sultant  regularly, and  when they do they  often  negotiate only
for what they consider the  important  acoustical  problems. The
only consultants which the  architect is  obligated  to retain  in
standard practice are the structural, mechanical,  and electrical
engineers. In the past 25 years,  however, the architect has had  to
include  such other additional consultants  as food  service,  archi-
tectural concrete, lighting  specialists, stage  equipment,  and
acoustical,  to name a few. The  architect has also had to develop
new services within his own organization including  programing
of building uses and  construction progress, and  even financial
planning for the client's benefit. Without these additional services
from within and from  outside their own organization, the archi-
tects  cannot possibly  produce the complicated structures  which
our society demands today.  It is not surprising that the  cost  of
practicing  architecture has  gone up more  than the increase  in
fees which the architect receives. Unfortunately,  acoustical con-
sultation is too often  one of the additional services that  is not
afforded, and the architect is seldom able to persuade the client
to pay for this extra service,  as the client should.
  Sometimes  the architect  makes  his  mechanical  engineer  re-
sponsible for the noise control  of the  mechanical equipment  in
the building. This seems  appropriate,  but  the engineers,  as a
group,  seldom have any  more  understanding of  acoustics than
the architect, and their fees are so  much smaller that they are
not able to pay for an acoustical consultant. As a result of this
situation, we have been pair! by the architect to  work with the
mechanical  engineer on  most  of our  mechanical noise  control
projects.
  A  second  factor  which often causes excessive noise  in our
buildings is  the cost  of  actually incorporating the  proper con-
struction,  treatment,  vibration  isolation  and  so  forth, that  is
required for adequate noise abatement and control. If the building
budget  is very tight, or if the bids for construction are higher
than  anticipated, it is customary to eliminate  the  frills in the
design.  Very often  the appropriate noise control  measures are
compromised or eliminated in this process.
  Unfortunately, it usually costs much more to correct acoustical

-------
                             132

problems when they  are finally  heard in the finished  building
than it would to control  them by proper  construction in the be-
ginning, including the cost of proper consultation.
  The  third  factor which often causes  excessive  noise in our
buildings is the technical progress  we've made in  building con-
struction. This factor  is also one of economics. We have developed
lighter and cheaper materials for both structures and enclosures,
and we have  developed more and more mechanical and electronic
equipment  to  do our  work and to control our physical  environ-
ment. The architect is forced to design with the lighter  building
materials and for the least  construction  labor possible to keep
building costs within  the budgets the clients can afford.
  Unfortunately,  the  light  construction transmits noise  and
vibration more easily than the older construction,  and  the new
mechanical and electronic equipment has  turned  out  to  be  a
source of more serious noise disturbances than we had before.
It is regrettable that our progress  in construction can  often be
considered  a backward step  as far as our acoustical environment
is concerned.
  We become more aware of the effect that  the client's budget
has on the quality of the acoustics in our  architectural designs
when we consider the successful acoustics in the new technique
of office landscape planning. Actually  there is  nothing new  to the
acoustical  principles of efficient  absorption, space, baffles, back-
ground masking noise and so forth which are used in this open
arrangement of office space.  But the advantage to the client is one
of much increased efficiency of  operation and  the ease of making
changes in  space arrangement.  These are obvious financial gains
for the client, and if he can apply office landscape planning to his
business operation, he will afford the required acoustical guidance
and interior treatment that is necessary to make the office land-
scape planning work.
  Another  factor of client influence affecting improvement  in the
acoustics of architectural design is the part played by some in-
surance companies  as investors  in hotel, office, and  apartment
projects. The insurance  companies are requiring  evidence that
the architectural plans  and specifications provide  for certain
basic acoustical standards  or  criteria before they  will  finally
provide their share of the financing of the project. If such a trend
could spread  to all such investors, mortgage bankers, and others,
we would  see a significant improvement in the architectural
acoustics of enough buildings to set new standards of performance
generally.
  In our consulting work we have found a specific misunderstand-
ing of some  basic acoustical principles held by a  small percent
of the architects and most  of  the  contractors and suppliers.  It
is the idea  that acoustics are something you can apply or install,
like  insulation. I  believe that the misunderstanding comes from
a simple lack of knowledge on two basic points.
  First, you  must recognize whether your  problem is  in the
same room with you or transmitted from some other space. The

-------
                             133

problems of room acoustics require different solutions  from the
problems of transmitted noise.
  Second, you can't insulate against noise transmission  as you
do to stop heat  transmission.  Glass  fiber blankets and  foam
materials are poor barriers by themselves. It takes mass,  limp-
ness, and an airtight installation, and  very often a discontinuity
between the faces of a wall. When  sound vibrations can't pass
through the studs easily  the  insulation materials  may then be
used for a little advantage.
  This misunderstanding  about acoustical insulation  is  much
more complex than we can go into here. I  believe that it is  basic
to many  of our problems in architectural acoustics,  and that a
very broad instructional program at all levels, including the con-
sumers, is  required to  make a  meaningful change in our  noisy
acoustical environment.
  We can be thankful that the manufacturers of gypsum products,
insulation  materials,  and  acoustical  ceiling tile  have research
programs and advertising campaigns that are quite  educational
on specific  related issues. In fact, their efforts  are essentially a
search for  individual ways to  solve the problems  we've  created
with our  lighter materials and noisier equipment. While  their
work is of great benefit, it is on specific issues,  not the broad
concepts, and it is directed at few others than the  architects.
  The major problems I have  discussed have  related  acoustics
to education and building costs. Whether these  problems can be
improved through anv legislation, I do not know.  I am not opti-
mistic. More relevant  education in acoustics  for  student archi-
tects, for practicing architects, and for mechanical engineers is
required to achieve a  significant improvement  in  the  acoustical
environment  through  architectural  design. But  even  with  the
education, the architect and mechanical engineer will often need
the acoustical consultant. The private citizen, various foundations,
and  the Government will eventually have  to support the educa-
tion, the consultation,  and the  necessary improvements in build-
ing construction  if we  are to achieve  progress  in  the quality of
our  acoustical  environment. Unless these  educational and cost
problems are solved, we cannot effectively use our technical know-
how in acoustics.
  Thank you.
  Dr. MEYER. Mr. McCandless, thank you for giving us  some real
economics  and facts. Panel on the  right, any  questions?  Left?
Ted?
  Mr. BERLAND. You  say,  "Few architects can  afford  to hire
competent  consultants," when  you were talking about  various—
well, you mentioned acoustics.  But then you say that in the past
25 years the architects have had to include these. Nowr, who made
them?
  Mr. MCCANDLESS. Sometimes it's a  pressure from the client,
sometimes it is a result of their own experiences  and they  know
they have  to  do a better job,  various and sundry things. But
when I say there aren't very many architects who use  them,  I'm

-------
                            134

speaking of the great majority. It could be answered, I suppose,
by percentage, if we knew exactly what percentage they are.
  Mr.  BERLAND. I  was really  concerned with  what  pressures
caused the change. There were no legal requirements?
  Mr. McCANDLESS. Not really.
  Dr. MEYER. I have two questions.
  Anybody else on the panel ?
  I'm sure that as an aside, I could ask one or two of our panelists
what percentage of their  budget—not dollar wise, but perhaps
workload—was involved. I'll ask that privately because  we do
have some consultant people with us.
  But the question I'd like to ask, number one,  is: have you any
feel  for the additional cost associated  with one or two average
projects, requiring an architect  experienced  in providing and
obtaining acoustical  consultation, ranging, say,  from  a tract
builder of a large  FHA project  involving two or three hundred
individual homes up  to,  say, a  job  such as building the First
National Bank Building  of  Dallas—percentage  wise, not dollar
wise? Do you have any feel for this?
  Mr. McCANDLESS. Golly, it's so variable. The  amount of work
that needs to be  done  from  one project to  another  is really
variable. A lot of it may depend on  original planning as to how
much really needs to be done. And you might  say remedial  in
the  sense of taking the plan scheme and making it workable
before it goes out  for bids. Remedy  the plan itself. But you can
start even earlier. It's very difficult  to put some sort of a price
or some sort of a percentage on that, and I suppose the closest
thing we could come to is to go back to some of the remarks made
by—for instance,  the zoning building code that was mentioned
this morning. If I remember correctly,  some place from 2 to  10
percent increase in the cost made  these buildings more sound
proof.
  Dr. MEYER. Yes.
  Dr. NEWMAN. Dave,  I might add a comment.  You want  to
know  what—you're talking about the cost for doing  acoustic
studies?
  Dr. MEYER. Yes. What are the additional	
  Dr. NEWMAN. In the most sophisticated, complicated, one  of
a kind—not  the repetitious,  where  obviously the  costs are way
down—sort of study, for example, an involved multiuse municipal
auditorium with a sound  system and noise control and all this,
the  acoustical consultant fee can, at maximum, get to be a half
of 1 percent of the cost of the building, that order of magnitude.
It could be less.  And in a big office building or school, Lord
knows, it's a hell of a lot less than that.
   Dr. MEYER. Well, that's what I  was driving at. What is the
magnitude of getting the  type  of  consultation that you say is
necessary? One  of the things we're interested in is getting a feel
for the economics of environmental control, which includes every-
thing from the basic design to the actual application.
   Mr. McCANDLESS. If you took the architects' fee as being some-

-------
                             135

thing  like  6 or  7  percent—and,  of  course, that  can vary
considerably  with the size and  type of building—and consider
that he has to put out a few percent for his mechanical engineers
and so forth, and if he has all these additional services that were,
say, a quarter of a percent or something like that, pretty soon he
doesn't have any profit at all.  In fact, maybe he can't cover his
overhead.
  Dr. MEYER. Well, something—Excuse me, Ted. Go  ahead.
  Mr. BERLAND. But doesn't he  get  more business if his clients
can tell each other, you know, "He really builds quiet  buildings or
apartments or whatever" ? Wouldn't it advantage him profession-
ally?
  Mr. McCANDLESS. He  would certainly like to think so, but  I
think the advantages or results or rewards  are so intangible that
they don't really affect the price.
  Mr. BERLAND. There are no quiet  architects by reputation, or
noisy  architects?
  Mr. MCCANDLESS. I'm  afraid not.  Maybe that's what we need.
You know, we've been talking about consumer awareness.
  Dr. MEYER. Well, without belaboring the issue and  taking up
too much time, I would like to ask you one  other question. About
what  percentage of time—or whatever way you want  to answer
the question, be it percentage of time  or  contact hours or semester
hours or  what—do you think ought to be devoted to environmental
considerations in the  architectural curriculum? Maybe you want
to answer that later for the record, but I need some  information
for our deliberations in this. Have you thought  about this at all?
  Mr. McCANDLESS. Yes, I certainly  have. I've thought about it  a
great deal, and  I hope I can answer it quickly. I think  that what
the architects need is a degree  of very pertinent facts,  plus  a
lot of experience while he is in school.  In other words, maybe  a
3-hour lecture course  at some appropriate point when he still
has 2 or 3 more years  of  architectural design  problems with
somebody on the faculty—or  hopefully many  of the faculty—
aware of the factors pertinent to good acoustical design, so that
as the student's design projects are juried, the comments from
the faculty will  include  what they see of  the  considerations of
acoustics in his work.
  Dr. MEYER. Very good, sir.
  Dr. GLORIG. When  we built the Callier Hearing  and  Speech
Center here—and I'm not the ordinary customer when it comes
to acoustics,  obviously—but I  did demand that we have acoustic
consultation and did  lay some prespecifications on  paper prior
to the actual  construction. And the cost of this varied somewhere
between  3 and 4 percent additional cost to the building.
  Dr. MEYER. Thank you very much,  Dr. Glorig.
  Thank you, sir.
  We'll now  proceed to a topic of considerable interest and  im-
portance to the panel,  and that is the  question of noise isolation in
low-cost  housing. Dr.  Elmer Hixson,  also from the University of
Texas, will give us a presentation on this subject.

-------
                             136

  STATEMENT OF DR. ELMER HIXSON, UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS

  Mr. Chairman, members of the panel, ladies and gentlemen, I
really come here to document a case of the situation where noise
isolation has been ignored in low-cost housing. We probably don't
need to document this sort of thing-, since it is so widely ignored,
but I think in the case of low-cost housing, it really should be an
important factor, and I  think that psychologists and the authori-
ties on the panel could certainly  speak more to this than I.  But
let me read from what I have written here.
  Dr. MEYER. Yes, sir.
  Dr. HIXSON. In late 1968,  10 single-family  dwellings were
constructed  in  Austin, Tex., under the sponsorship of the  U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development. The purpose of
this Austin Oaks project  was to develop architectural  design,
building materials, and construction methods to provide large
numbers of single-family  dwellings within the financial reach of
low-income families. The University of Texas was asked  to pro-
vide architectural,  engineering,  psychological,  and sociological
evaluations of these houses. Noise isolation studies were conducted
as part of the engineering evaluation. And this is what I want to
talk about today.
  Standard  FHA specifications were  waived to allow innovation
in the plans of these houses. Many plans were submitted;  I think
in the order of  80 or so. Ten plans utilizing a  wide  range of
materials and  construction methods  were chosen. Most of the
acoustic  tests  were made  after the houses were occupied by the
purchaser. Test results  for six of the houses are presented here.
It is the purpose of this report to point out the wide range  and
generally low values of noise isolation and the lack of considera-
tion for  noise isolation.  In some cases simple changes that would
add little to the cost could have resulted in large improvements.
In one house, excellent isolation could have been obtained.  Finally
it is concluded that noise isolation should be a major consideration
in housing for low-income families who are in the greatest need
to enhance the quality of life.
  The measurements that  were made were of three kinds as
specified by the American Society for Testing Materials. One of
these was the field transmission loss which would be an engineer-
ing characteristic of a  wall partition.  The second was isolation
between rooms, which was a  subjective measure  with  the house
as  lived in. And the insertion loss, which is a measure  of  how
well the house discriminates against outside noise. In all cases
an interior bedroom wall was evaluated for the field transmission
loss. A sound source was placed  in the kitchen-living room  area,
which is expected to be  the  noisy part of the house, and  then
measurements made in each room. Insertion loss was  measured
for only one bedroom in each of the houses. Then for the  interior
wall, a field transmission class was noted from the data.  Results
for six of the  10 houses are given here, and those are chosen to

-------
                             137

show,  (1), a conventional material  as  a reference, and  (2), a
wide variety of the characteristics of unconventional materials
that were used.
  Now, I'll need the viewgraph to present some of the slides here.
But before we  see this, I should point  out  that the  field trans-
mission—the field sound transmission class is  analogous to  the
sound transmission class, which  is measured in a laboratory,  but
these were measured in the field  in a house that was constructed.
  Some recommendations  by HUD give 40 decibels as the mini-
mum value  of  the sound  transmission class for a wall between
bedrooms, and  42 decibels for a wall between a bedroom and a
living room. They also recommend 4 to 8 dB higher than that for
houses in quiet  residential  areas.  So keep that in mind, and as you
see the slides, I  think you'll have a comparison.
  Mr. Chairman, this is an example of what I would call common
practice in this part of the country. This home was concrete block
exterior walls with sheetrock on two  by  fours for interior walls.
And those  are the  main things  to note.  The  wall that was
measured between two bedrooms, characteristics  of this sort,
which are typical I think of these walls.  The main thing to notice
here is  that this gives a sound transmission class of 38, as com-
pared with  a recommended 40 to 42, which comes  pretty close
to the recommended practice.
  Now, when you measure the noise isolation between rooms,  you
would expect it to be almost as good  as the walls. However,  you
see that the bathroom and  bedroom No. 1 were closest to  the
noise source, and we see in the order of 15 dB isolation, indicating
that the doors  and other  paths completely made—made the wall
completely ineffective. So  that one could improve it by improving
the doors and other paths.
  Now, when you measure the  insertion loss, you  would expect
a concrete block wall, which is about 6 or 8 inches thick, to be a
pretty good isolation from  the  outside.  But you see  it's in the
order of 15 dB or better. But all of the houses had  windows in
each room, as you would expect, and I would recommend in  this
case that a double pane window be used. It's not common practice
in this part of  the country, but would greatly improve the acous-
tic  characteristics, and also  the  thermal characteristics, at prob-
ably not much extra cost.
  Now, here is a more unconventional  construction.  This was a
sort of a tmitized arrangement of extrusions  that  were spaced
about 16 inches and then had panels in between, and the whole
house was put  together of these little posts and panels, as they
call them. The mass  of  this  wall was  about  the same as the
previous wall,  and you would  expect the characteristics to be
about the same. But  the  field transmission  loss,  as shown here,
was about 8 dB less. The same  characteristics, but certainly not
as effective, possibly because of  the wall not being quite as rigid
as  a standard  wall. The  noise  isolation, again,  very ineffective
between the rooms, and having  many flanking  paths, I am sure.
The insertion loss in the  same order as the concrete block wall,

-------
                             138

but not nearly as massive. Here was a home that was basically
a mobile home, very light weight construction. The wall material
was about 3 pounds per square foot, which was very small. The
walls tested  here  between two bedrooms—and  we'll  see  the
characteristics of that. The field transmission class was  about
25; probably not too bad for as light a wall as it was. The noise
isolation in this  case in the same order as the characteristics of
the wall, which indicated  that better doors wouldn't have helped
this; it would have  taken better walls as well. The isolation from
outside was almost nothing. You could  hear your  neighbors as
well as the kids in the living room.
  Here was  an  extreme  case. This wall was made of twenty-
seven thousandths of an inch  thick aluminum panels with card-
board  in between them.  The weight of the wall was about one
and a quarter pounds per square foot. And the whole house was
built of  this. The  ceiling—it  actually had no ceiling—the roof
was of the same material, and it  was  a vaulted  ceiling.  This
house  was practically acoustically transparent. As you would
expect, the transmission class was 19 for that wall. The noise
isolation between rooms, the two closets rooms were the bathroom
and bedroom No. 3, and as you can see, were in the same order as
the wall characteristics. A little further away, you gain another
10 dB. I might mention that the owners of the homes said, "You
should be here when it rains." Again, the isolation from outside
was almost nothing.
   Here was  another form.  This had  a  unitized construction in
which  this part  of the  house, the bath, the kitchen, the plumbing,
and so forth, were  premanufactured and set into place. Then the
interior walls were actually vinyl-covered cardboard on 2 by 2's.
The exterior walls were cast concrete.  They were cast in place at
the building site, and  should  have  been very effective as far as
outside characteristics are concerned. Surprisingly,  the  inside
characteristics on this very thin wall  were quite good, although
I don't believe my data too  well. It was  marginal  at best, and
there  were indications of flanking paths  disturbing  the  data.
So I can't speak too highly of it. The sound transmission class
was 31 dB, which is surprisingly good. Now, here is an indication
of a very serious acoustical oversight. Over each of the bedroom
doors there was about 1-foot by 3-foot space covered by an open
grille for the return air. And as you  see, all of those bedrooms
open directly into  the living-dining room  area, and the  sound
isolation was about 15 dB. So just a  return air duct instead of
those open grilles would have improved the quality of this house
considerably. Now, the insertion loss to external noise was fairly
good in this case,  but I  suspect that improved windows  would
have caused a much greater improvement.
   Finally, here's a case in which the designer could have made
a very good acoustically tight and noise isolated house if he had
taken  advantage of the materials he was using. This house was
built of concrete sacks that were essentially dipped in water and
laid up like brick. You may have heard of this method. He ended

-------
                             139

up with a wall of solid concrete around 6 or 8 inches thick, and
the mass would predict the sound transmission of around 60 dB
for this wall.  Well, the exterior  walls were made this way and
one interior wall. We tested the interior wall  expecting to get a
very good sound transmission class from it. Unfortunately, as you
can see, here's one example of the flanking path. He  put a  light
stop across  the top  of the wall to keep  the light from  going
through. Now, if this had been an acoustic  seal here and the
doors had been well sealed and heavy, he would have  had  a  good
room. Unfortunately, there were so many flanking paths, we really
couldn't  measure the field  transmission loss. There  were  only
three points indicated, and  I don't believe that.  So we ended up
with  a  transmission  class  of  28. The noise  isolation between
rooms was  actually a  little  better in that bedroom  with the
massive wall than the one that didn't have the massive wall. The
others were quite poor. Then finally, externally you would expect
to get good insertion loss because of the massive outside walls,
but unfortunately, this  didn't occur either. And in  fact,  during
the test, standing in the room, you  appeared  to hear the sound
coming  from overhead from the  roof.  So  the roof was the  weak
part of the design.
  Well, that's  the extent I would like to show of the data. Then in
conclusion, I'd like to say  that  improved noise isolation  could
provide better rest and sleeping conditions for children,  addi-
tional privacy for parents, could  provide better  family relations.
This is  in the psychological areas, but from my own experience,
I think I could verify that. And particularly I think  that such
conditions are needed for low-income families to improve  their
quality of life.
  Finally, we  also need to  know that their houses are not  sub-
standard. Thus, I'd like to recommend that improved noise isola-
tion specifications be  required for housing for low-income fami-
lies, particularly those that are built with public funds.
  Thank you.
  Dr. MEYER.  Thank you very  much.
  Panel ?
  Dr. WESTMAN. Dr. Hixson, I would like to  underscore  your
conclusion, and add even more strength to your length of interior
housing conditions.  Certainly the  incidence of  disruption of
marriage and  the incidence of disruption from the point of view
of behavior of children is concentrated in  the low-income group.
From the point of view of the expenditure of  public  money, it
makes really more sense to have the highest quality of housing.
And although  we learned this morning that money doesn't always
buy good acoustical  conditions, I think your  point  is  very well
taken. It's in  this precise location that the social problems are
breeding, and certainly the living conditions are one of the im-
portant factors producing those things.
  Dr. MEYER. Thank you. Anybody else on the left? Right?
  Professor COLE.  Professor  Hixson, do  you know  when this
project was started—when these six houses were designed and

-------
                             140

built—was there someone  to  consider the noise levels  in  con-
struction ?
  Dr. HIXSON. No, sir; I don't believe there was any consideration
given. The main thrust  of  the project was to develop materials,
building methods, so that they could be projected to what it would
cost  to  build many of these houses in one  location. The  loans
were guaranteed by FHA,  but the specifications were waived so
that people could try different things.
  Professor COLE. Is it fair to say from your general conclusion
that these could still be low-cost houses following these  tech-
niques ;  they could be greatly improved  acoustically with  very
little money?
  Dr. HIXSON. I think that they could be improved considerably
with very simple things, even, for instance,  the very thin  walls
in which they had the quarter-inch plywood on 2 by 2 studs. Now,
you could  improve that  wall considerably  by just staggering the
studs and  separating the two sides. They were  already flimsy,
you know, you could push  on them. That wouldn't make  them
much more so if you just staggered the studs. The quality of the
fixtures, such as doors and windows and airducts, would greatly
improve the characteristics.
  Dr. MEYER. Sounds to me, too, Professor Hixon, like some of
the things that you highlighted there would  be sort of common-
sense. And again,  I guess what you're emphasizing is that  we've
got a job to do to  educate people as to  when  they ought to  apply
this commonsense.
  Dr. HIXSON. Yes. I don't want to sound like I'm  faulting the
designers  or construction people  here, because historically, they
have had no  consideration  and have not been asked to have con-
sideration for these factors. So they did as you might expect.
  Mr. BERLAND. Along  this line,  has your study been published
or presented to the professional architects or builders?
  Dr. HIXSON. One presentation, which was at a national  meeting
for considerations in low-cost housing held in Missouri  about a
year ago.
  Dr. MEYER. It's published now. It will be in the Government
Printing Office. Incidentally, this  is another purpose of the hear-
ings, getting into  the public domain a  lot of information of this
sort.
  Dr. HIXSON. I think one  of our usual  problems  is,  the data has
been presented to  the Acoustical Society of America, but we just
talk to each other and we don't talk to people who could  do  some
good about this.
  Dr. MEYER. Well, thank you very much,  sir.
  And  now, I'd  like to move on. We  started off  this morning
dealing with the outside of the home, and what ought to be done
about the  communities, and some of the problems  of highways
and airports, and what the planners did. And now  we've talked
about the shell around which  the living environment is enclosed.
Now, I'd  like to ask  Mr. Herbert Phillips of the Association of
Home Appliance Manufacturers if he would  be so kind as to tell

-------
                             141

us a little bit about some of the things that have been done and
might be done about noise associated with home products.

  STATEMENT OF HERBERT PHILLIPS, ASSOCIATION OF HOME
                APPLIANCE MANUFACTURERS

  Mr. PHILLIPS. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
  Panelists, ladies and gentlemen, I appreciate the opportunity to
come and talk at  these hearings about home appliances.
  My name is Herbert Phillips. I am the technical director of the
Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers. I have a bachelor
of science  degree in mechanical engineering from  Purdue Uni-
versity and I am  a registered professional engineer in a number
of States. I have spent all my professional career, over 25 years,
as a practicing engineer in the home appliance industry. However,
I am not an acoustical specialist.
  The Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers, known as
AHAM, represents United States' manufacturers of such products
as room  air conditioners, refrigerators  and freezers,  dehumidi-
fiers, food waste disposers, dishwashers, ranges, humidifiers, and
portable  appliances  such as  irons, toothbrushes, shavers and so
on. Its representation includes over 90 percent of the total pro-
duction of these products in the United States.
  In reviewing very recent data on sound pressure level measure-
ments of some  31 home products, 20  of  which are those  manu-
factured  by members of AHAM,  the results show a variation
starting  from 43 decibels to a maximum of 75 decibels on  the
"A" scale measured at 3 feet.
  It has been estimated that  the  hearing  of  18  percent  of  the
population would be impaired by exposure to the threshold of
hearing damage,  80  to  90 decibels, continuously for at least 8
hours daily.
  It is  my understanding that this is the basis for setting sound
level limits in the Walsh Healey  Act to  control noise in  manu-
facturing plants doing work for the U.S.  Government.
  Therefore, in dealing with the sound of appliances, the industry
has been  dealing primarily with  consumer preference and  ac-
ceptance.
  In cases such as food waste  disposers, industry has produced
products which are  dramatically quieter, at a slight increase in
retail cost, but the product has not met an enthusiastic reception
in the marketplace.  It appears that the  consumer  is not willing
to pay  even a small  premium  for  reduced noise from  a product
that operates perhaps less than a minute daily.
  Vacuum cleaner manufacturers have told us that they have
been unable to  sell quieter vacuum cleaners because their users
do not believe these appliances are doing  an adequate cleaning
job simply because of the absence of the typical vacuum cleaner
noise.
  We know that  a deluxe, low sound level room air conditioner
has been withdrawn from the market because the increased price

-------
                             142

versus the lower sound level was not attractive to the purchasing
consumer. These statements support one that I understand was
made by a high school student yesterday. Dr. Fritz made a point
of this also.
  The industry, in its concern for its  customers, has formed
MACAP, the Major Appliance Consumer Action Panel. MACAP
is sponsored  by AHAM, the Gas  Appliance Manufacturers As-
sociation, and the American Retail Federation.  It is an industry-
wide, but  totally independent, organization  formed to represent
consumers in their dealings with the appliance industry.
  Panel members are consumer experts from education, consumer
finance, law  and  communications. They analyze correspondence
from consumers and forward complaints, with their recommenda-
tions, to top  management of the individual  firm whose products
are involved.
  Only  5Vo percent, 41 of the 751 complaints received this year
concerned noisy appliances. With rare exception these noises
were in conjunction with another complaint  and were  manifested
by a failure that indicated need for repair, such as water in the
transmission of a washing machine or  the abnormal vibration of
refrigerator tubing, which is easily adjusted.
  It is  evident from the foregoing that consumers  are giving
little indication of a desire for quieter products in their homes.
Consequently, manufacturers hesitate to make  large investments
in research,  engineering and  manufacturing that will  result in
quieter, more costly products.
  However, each manufacturer has conducted research and de-
veloped means for making his product operate  quieter for at
least the last 25 years that I  have been a part of this industry
and, as a result, home appliances have and are  becoming pro-
gressively quieter. Today, home appliance manufacturers, due to
recent interest from  Government, environmental  protection or-
ganizations,  and  others, are taking a  closer look at this total
program,  and if it appears that there is a convincing need for
even quieter  products in the home, it will cooperate to the fullest
with interested parties such as the Noise Abatement program and
its Environmental Protection Agency.
  Our focus to  date has centered around the room  air  conditioner
because sound  from this appliance can annoy a neighbor rather
than the owner. Would you believe that on a hot, humid, miserable
night, it is not those conditions that keep a neighbor without a
room air  conditioner awake;  it's  the  noise  from  his  neighbor's
air conditioner that's preventing that  person in that  room from
sleeping confortably. And on  a  night  which is quite  tolerable,
it is not the noise of that very same  room  air conditioner that
is permitting that man to sleep. And as a matter of fact, it is that
very same room air conditioner  that is  permitting  its user to
sleep when the aggrieved neighbor is having one hell  of a  party.
  To date the industry, through its trade association, AHAM, has
developed a sound rating standard for room air conditioners. It
is presently  working on an application  standard  which can ac-

-------
                            143

curately predict from the sound rating standard the noise output
of a room air conditioner operating- under virtually every  in-
stallation condition.
  The  Association  of  Home Appliance  Manufacturers, in  co-
operation  with the Air Conditioning and  Refrigeration Institute,
AIR, has also developed a model sound ordinance for municipali-
ties to assist them in the development of ordinances for the noise
control  of machinery  such  as  condensing units  and  room  air
conditioners.
  The  home appliance industry represented by AHAM does $8
billion  of  business  annually and has, over the years, proven that
it does respond to the needs of the consumer, and its responsi-
bility to the consuming public will not be reduced when it comes
to developing quieter products  for the home.
  Dr. MEYER. Thank you, Mr. Phillips.
  Panel, left?
  Dr. WARD. Well, I think this is an excellent presentation. I just
wish we had a little better  documentation of  the  failure  of  the
garbage disposer. But  I mean, it sounds reasonable.
  Mr. PHILLIPS. I  can  give you names, if you want them, sir.
  Dr. WARD. And  so one of  the  problems may be, in regard to
home appliances, it may be a tempest in a teapot, so to  speak,
because until the people are  willing to pay for  what must cost
more money, there is nothing that manufacturers can do. Except,
of course, if the Government were to legislate and  say they can't
be any louder, so it really doesn't matter whether it's necessary
or not.
  Dr. NEWMAN. Some of these things, like the garbage grinder,
can affect neighbors as well, even if the person himself doesn't
give a damn.
  Mr. PHILLIPS. But nevertheless, it's the person who uses it that
has to  pay for it, and doesn't consider his neighbor.
  Dr. MEYER. Ted ?
  Mr. BERLAND. I find some of your remarks absolutely incredible,
Mr.  Phillips. I'm  less restrained than my academic  colleagues.
First of all, when  you talk  about consumer  preference and  ac-
ceptance,  I consider it a great deal  of presumption on the part
of the appliance manufacturers to say that they can leave it up
to the consumer by setting  up a so-called panel.  I wonder how
much communication the manufacturers  have had  with such true
consumer organizations, Consumers Union, for example, in getting
their opinion of the noise and other qualities of home  appliances.
  Mr.  PHILLIPS. May I answer that, sir.
  Mr.  BERLAND. Go right ahead.
  Mr.  PHILLIPS. Of course,  we are in close communication with
the Consumers Union. But by the same  token, MACAP, I think,
gets more comments from consumers for  home appliance products
than the Consumers Union does.
  Mr.  BERLAND. I don't understand what  your mechanisims  for

-------
                            144

getting these complaints  are. It's the first I've heard  of it, and
I'm a consumer.
  Has anyone?
  Mr. PHILLIPS. Well, many consumer  magazines,  newspapers,
syndicated  columnists say that  if you're having trouble of any
sort with your home appliance,  first contact the person from
whom you bought it. If you do not get  satisfaction, contact the
manufacturer. And  then  if  you do not  get  satisfaction contact
MACAP. Now, on  the AHAM  products, there  have been 751
communications  from  consumers  since   the  first  of  the year.
MACAP has been in operation—I think this is their second year.
In addition, they get communications from customers  that have
products  other  than home  appliances that  the  Gas  Appliance
Manufacturers Association handles, as well as the American Re-
tail Federation.
  Mr. BERLAND. Seven hundred  and fifty-one complaints in eight
months for a population  of—pardon me. I never heard of this
before. And believe me, I have complained.
  Mr. PHILLIPS. Well, we  will be  more than  happy to have
you	
  Mr. BERLAND. I  know  people that have complained. Further-
more, next, I take some exception to the premise that it has to be
more expensive to be quieter. A member of  this panel at lunch
was telling me how, for a matter of $2,  he was able to quiet his
dishwasher considerably.  Furthermore, it seems to me  that—and
engineers have  told me—that there  are   many ways of making
appliances  quieter without  any  more money. A vacuum cleaner
is a very good example, by redesigning the impeller.  Now, I keep
hearing these statements about, "Well, we tried quieter  appliances
on the market—" like the lawnmower yesterday morning—"but
it really  bombed out." I  don't  know, sir, when  you bought  an
appliance last, but  when  you go to  buy a vacuum cleaner,  the
salesman will invariably  say to the housewife  or the husband,
"Listen to that power." If you go to buy  an automobile, the same
thing, or if you  go to buy a blender. "Listen to the power of that
blender. That can really  chew  up things." It seems to me that
part of the consumer preference and education also  has  to  be
done at the retail level. I  would  think that if somebody came out
with a good line of  quiet  appliances that would not cost anymore
just because they were designed to be  quiet and someone sold
them to the consumer as such, like Ford  sells quiet cars, it would
be acceptable.
  Dr. WARD. But not necessarily preferable.
  Mr. PHILLIPS. Right. And also I mentioned that	
  Dr. WARD. I would, yes; you would, but does  that  mean that
the  average consumer would? Why are we  going to  force  our
essentially aesthetic opinions on  everyone else?
  Mr. BERLAND. Why would you think that the ordinary consumer
would not?
  Dr. GLORIG. I've had some experience in the chain  saw	

-------
                            145

  Dr. MEYER. OK. Wait a minute. We'll start with Dr. Glorig and
come back down the line.
  Mr. PHILLIPS.  Mr. Berland, you are too willing to overlook one
of the statements I made, and that is that appliances are becoming
quieter each year.
  Mr. BERLAND. I do not find that they are. As a matter of fact—
all right. Have you got any documentation for that?
  Mr. PHILLIPS. OK. Compare  a room air conditioner of equal
capacity 10 years ago with one  of the same capacity today.
  Dr. GLORIG. The chain saw industry is a good example of what
can be done to reduce the noise. McCullough engineers, whom I
worked  with for several years when we were  out in California,
designed a muffler. It would reduce the noise about 17  or 18 dB,
which is a hell of a reduction. But when they put this saw on the
market, the market did not want it for two reasons. First, it was
an extra cost; second, it added  about 6 pounds of weight to the
saw. So it seems to me that the answer to this sort of thing,
unless some sort of controlling  recommendation or legislation—
and I hate to use legislation if we can get away with it—says
that you've got to do this.  Then your competitors  are  not going
to have  a cheaper saw because they don't do the same thing you're
doing. This is actual facts in the chain saw industry.
  Dr. WESTMAN. And  so the parallel there  would be the use of
safety glass, that really has to  be legislated, even though people
ought to know better.  I'd like to take advantage of this oppor-
tunity to follow Dr. Ward's  desire  for hard data, and  get the
names of the vacuum cleaner and the air conditioner. I have used
this example myself, and I've never been sure that I was talking
about the right one.
  Dr. MEYER. Would you mind furnishing that for the record, sir?
I have  to agree with the  members  of the  panel. We  get these
things, in truth, by repetition. First, somebody says it in a speech,
then it  gets printed, then it gets quoted, and the next thing you
know we do have truth  by assertion. Some folks  have  sort of
forgotten that a  number  of years  ago another nation's leader,
who was antagonistic  towards  us,  made great use of truth by
assertion. So, I do think it  would be most useful to get this.
  Mr. PHILLIPS. I'd  like to mention now, if  I may, the people at
Sunbeam have told  me that they have actually produced such a
vacuum cleaner, and it  worked perfect. And  after it was  used, it
was returned  simply because they  thought  it wasn't  doing the
job it should do.
  And in the case of the air conditioner, it  was a Frigidaire air
conditioner.
  Dr. MEYER. Well,  we're  going to hear  from General Motors-
Frigidaire in just about another minute or two, so maybe they'll
want to address themselves to this specific experience.
  Thank you  very  much,  sir.  I  appreciate your willingness to
come and expose yourself to pointed questions.
  We'll now hear some specifics  from one of the member com-

-------
                             146

panies. Is Mr. John Dorn, representing  the Frigidaire Division
of General Motors, present?
  Mr. Dorn, I'm  very  happy to see you. I hope you're going to
continue to be happy to be with us.

          STATEMENT OF JOHN E. DORN, FRIGIDAIRE

  Mr. DORN. Shall I talk about the room air conditioner first, or
my prepared statement?
  Dr. MEYER. Why don't you go ahead with your prepared state-
ment, and at the right  point interject the best comments that you
feel would be appropriate.
  Mr. DORN. I  didn't really plan on talking about our quiet—or
our superquiet room air conditioner, but I will.
  Mr.  Chairman and  members  of the panel,  I am John Dorn,
product safety director for Frigidaire Division of General Motors.
My responsibilities at  Frigidaire include all national, State, and
local standards which  affect our Frigidaire products, and there-
fore I  appreciate the  opportunity  to present Frigidaire's views
with respect to possible regulation of home appliance noise.
  In the home appliance market, Frigidaire produces 12 products
which are major appliances as opposed to small or portable ap-
pliances. We also produce automotive air-conditioning compres-
sors and controls.
  Frigidaire is but one manufacturer of over 60 manufacturers
in a fiercely competitive  industry  that produces a variety of ap-
pliances. These manufacturers market units, for  example, such
as knife sharpeners, radios, hair curlers on one end of the spec-
trum, all the way to refrigerators, freezers, and microwave ovens
on the other end.
   Prices range from approximately $10, for instance for  a knife
sharpener,  to  over $700,  for  instance the 25-cubic-foot food
freezer. As  I will explain later, this variety of products and wide
range of consumer prices bears importantly upon the cost-benefit
ratio of proposed noise reduction programs for a given appliance.
   At the  beginning, it is  important to qualify my remarks as
they relate  to the various  levels of noise from home appliances,
and also as they relate more particularly to Frigidaire's products.
While I do not wish to hold myself out as an industry expert, it
is my understanding, basically, that the home appliance industry
has reduced the  noise from its products to a level where most
observers would feel it does not constitute a threat or annoyance
to anyone's  hearing.
   Experts do not  agree  on specific threshold values for noise
levels at which normal close conversation is impaired, or at which
hearing loss is threatened. However, it would not be inaccurate
to note that many place  the threshold values  for impaired con-
versation at the range  of 70 to 75 db on the "A" scale, and  possible
hearing loss at the range of 80 to 85 db on the "A" scale.
   A recent  survey of Frigidaire's products indicates that we have
reduced the noise from all of our appliances to where they are at

-------
                             147

or below these values. Most of our appliances  are  significantly
below. Of course, some of our appliances, such as electric ranges,
emit no noise at all. This survey, conducted in test rooms not
dissimilar to  the average home—your  home  and  my home—
indicate that our highest reading under maximum noise emitting
conditions is in  the area of 70 dB on the "A" scale. Our lowest
reading is at 35 dB.  Many of our more popular appliances range
between 45  and  55 decibels, at least 20  decibels below the level
where some experts  have said  normal conversation begins to be
disturbed.
  In this perspective, consequently,  the public  welfare  is not at
issue when a manufacturer considers whether to market a "super
quiet" model in addition to a current model which is already free
of annoying noise. On the contrary, it may  be  classified simply
as an  experiment to explore whether the consumer interest, which
is already protected from annoyance or harm, is responsive to a
new feature of performance.
  Right at this  point I can talk about our super quiet room air
conditioner. About 4 years ago, we designed  and developed what
we  called our prestige line of room air conditioners, which con-
sisted of two models, 8,000 B.t.u.'s and 12,000 B.t.u.'s. They went
on  the  market  and  were  advertised  nationally  as  being quiet,
engineered  for  quiet.  Pin drop  quietness.  There  were  several
phrases such as this in the national ad. The unit has  been dis-
continued last year  because  of low sales volume.  There was a
cost penalty of $40 per unit  as compared with the same size of
our other units and our competition, that is  either 8,000  B.t.u.'s
or 12,000 B.t.u.'s. This is the reference which the earlier speaker
—this is the instance the  earlier  speaker referenced. These are
facts.
  This is quite a different ball game from the noise considerations
which are applicable to products  and  activities producing levels
about 85 and 90 dB.  I question whether regulation in the case of
the great majority of home appliances would produce any needed
public benefit. The  voluntary, competitive  forces  which  have
brought our industry to its basic  position, as I have described it,
are sufficient to bring further  improvements  as they  become
technically feasible and are of sufficient value to the consumer to
gain public acceptance.
  Frigidaire carries on its own  research programs in order to
continually  improve  our product line.  In this respect, noise  is no
different from any other design problem.
  While there are areas in which  we routinely depend  upon out-
side noise laboratories for special evaluation studies, by far our
major research effort is an in-house effort. It is  one of the main
responsibilities of each of our  project engineers who direct and
design the  development work of one of our appliances  to reduce
noise  from  the operation of his  product.
  Now, that is a component or a complete appliance.
  This effort is  a continuing, daily  effort which, in an industry
as competitive as is  the home appliance  business, is an essential

-------
                             148

element of good management  policy.  It would  be  difficult to as-
sess a design objective more significant than noise reduction at
Frigidaire, unless it is product safety. The fact that our customers
live with  our  products many hours a  day and throughout the
night, forces a rigid discipline upon the designer to assure there
is virtually nothing annoying about the product in use. At night,
when environmental noise drops  to very  low levels, our auto-
matically  operated appliances must  frequently operate  within
hearing distance of sleeping customers. This makes it mandatory
that the noise emissions  of  these units not detract from that
activity.
  Thus, each project engineer must become very knowledgeable,
in fact an acoustical expert, about the noise emissions from his
product.  To facilitate this continuing program, we have a noise
laboratory at Frigidaire available for our work.
  Finally,  we  participate with other member  companies of the
American Home Appliance Manufacturers (AHAM), in  special
research and study programs to  solve problems of an  industry-
wide significance.
  As a result  of  the current low  noise levels of most home ap-
pliances, it appears to us that the public does not feel it has a
noise problem with  respect to the great majority of appliances
in the home.
  Of course, there may be exceptions to a general statement such
as this. There  are no doubt a few appliances  which, in operation,
approach annoying noise levels. Also, some people are more sensi-
tive to noise than others.  You remember the curve this morning
that was drawn on the board. However, it is my experience that
even in those  marginal cases, the public feels there  is no noise
problem for the Government to regulate, and by that, I mean in
home appliances.  Appliances  in  this  catagory are  used  infre-
quently and only for a brief period of time, normally only a few
seconds,  as with a waste disposer. You turn  it on for 5 or 10
seconds,  it's finished its load and  it's running  quietly. Moreover,
they are used only at the signal  of the  user, so he  is expecting
some noise. If you turn on your clothes washer, you  expect to
hear something happen.  Thus, the annoyance factor is further
minimized.
   This  general attitude  on the part of the public has made it
difficult  for experimental noise reduction  programs to succeed,
such  as  the type  I referred to  previously, where  super  quiet
appliances are introduced into the market at  some cost penalty.
   The reluctance, thus far, of the public to purchase super-quiet
home appliances has sharpened the cost-benefit  issue considerably.
Because of this, it will not be easy to demonstrate benefits which
will justify the added cost to the consumer for more quiet  ap-
pliances. This will be true whether new noise reduction programs
are voluntarily motivated or forced by Government regulation.
   At Frigidaire,  we are already at  a relatively high level of
achievement. Our work in noise  suppression has followed a pat-
tern often  seen in the case of other control programs. Some of

-------
                             149

our first efforts provided  significant results at little cost to the
consumer. As we proceeded,  however, we found  that additional
improvements came in smaller magnitude and at higher cost.
  Further noise reductions from our current levels, while in some
cases  technically feasible, are likely to add significant costs to
the consumer. Even so, we would be the last to suggest that there
could  be no further noise reductions on our products. As I've said
earlier,  the  great continuing thrust of our  design  and develop-
ment  work is to improve our products in every way, yet we have
to remain competitive. This includes  a major effort in the field
of noise.
  What I am stressing  is that these improvements can come at
a forced pace, as would be true under Government regulations, or
they can continue to come voluntarily, as they  have come in the
past.
  Since the  Government cannot give full consideration  and effect
to all  the variable lead-time requirements of  more than 60 manu-
facturers  in the home  appliance  industry,  the forced pace of
Government edict is likely  to add unnecessary costs to the product.
These costs  would result from  crash programs to  meet new
standards and effective dates.
  On  the other hand, competition will exert pressures on manu-
facturers to continue noise control development.  As other speakers
have  indicated, we are living in a competitive society and this is
very  true of the home appliance industry. Without the wasteful
programs made necessary by early  mandatory effective dates. In
these  circumstances, the likeliehood is  that improvements can be
phased  in with little or  no new cost to the consumer. Moreover,
since  the  home appliance industry has already achieved a  low
level of noise emissions, the voluntary route will not impose any
risk of  health  or welfare loss to the  public.  Once again, I am
talking home appliances.
  I suggested earlier that the wide range of  prices for various
home appliances may present a difficult problem  if  individual
appliances are forced to lower noise levels.  By way of explana-
tion,  some appliances thought  to have a noise problem cost as
little  as $10. A great many others are priced in the $200 range,
while others cost as much as $700.  If a noise reduction program
costs  $5 or $50, depending upon the type of appliance, it is there-
fore more likely to  appear as a disproportionately large share
of the total purchase price in  the  home appliance  field than in
other fields where the purchase prices are much higher. In short,
the consumer may be more" likely to notice and resent costs added
to his home appliance purchase. He is also less likely to observe
meaningful improvement.
  As  I reviewed the possible  participation of Government in this
field, I concluded:
  1. That discretionary  power might be granted to an administra-
tive agency  to promulgate noise standards where a  demonstrated
need exists and where they can be justified on a cost-benefit basis,
and

-------
                             150

  2.  That technically sound testing- procedures might be issued
where none are available at the present time.
  With respect to No. 1, this would permit government to exempt
or by pass areas where voluntary efforts have achieved sufficient
low  reduction  levels.  As a  parallel consideration, the  agency
would not be forced to issue standards where the costs  outweigh
the benefits which might be expected to  follow the regulation.
  With respect to No. 2, it would permit government to contribute
where  industry has not established a uniform  test procedure.
This would  bring reliability to consumer  information on noise
levels which are now subject to some variation depending upon
the various test procedures followed.
  Where standards are issued, it is important that they be on a
national basis, so  that manufacturers of appliances, which  are
produced  on one assembly  line,  will  not have to meet  several
different and  perhaps conflicting  levels of  regulation. In  this
regard, I would echo the testimony of witnesses at previous
regional  hearings  that a strong  Federal preemption clause be
written into the bill.
  Finally, may I say for Frigidaire that  government noise stand-
ards do not appear necessary in the home appliance  industry.
For those few exceptional appliances where the noise levels might
be considered  objectionable,  the  forces of  competition will be
adequate to bring the desired change. I'm speaking from history;
it's been proven out. Any forced noise reduction which is imposed
upon the entire home appliance industry is  not likely to provide
benefits which are justifiable on the basis of  added cost to the
consumer.
  Thank you.
  Dr.  MEYER. I want to thank  you.  Before I ask a  couple of
questions, I'll  see if the members of the panel have any comments
or questions. I'll start this time on the extreme right.
  Professor COLE.  Mr. Dorn, we  heard this  morning the  sug-
gestion that  appliances be  labeled  specifically  with  a  precise
sound  emission,  or something of this  sort. I presume this  is
simply a  part of  the  specifications plan on appliances. Do you
have anything on that suggestion ?
   Mr.  DORAN. I can speak as an individual manufacturer, not as
representing  the complete industry. Yes;  we've considered the
labeling aspects, and we know that the  proposed legislation has
an act that's  in this field and so forth. Our thoughts would be
something like this: We would object to a label that would be a
specific of, say, 55 dB on a clothes washer. We would not object
to a label that would show a range or a rating, such as class A. In
other words, if a regulation  would impose a class of ratings for
a good reason, such as being below some specific level, and you
would have class A and class B and class C, Frigidaire would not
object to  this type of labeling. But to have  a specific label, such
as 55  dB on a clothes washer or a refrigerator or a dryer, this
would impose upon us added legal responsibility. We would then
have to test it. We would be tied into  the  warranty from  that

-------
                            151

day on. Therefore, we would object to this type of labeling. I'm
speaking as an individual manufacturer.
  Dr. MEYER. I'd  like  to come back  to  that one  in  a minute.
Aram?
  Dr. GLORIG. In your  testimony, you stated, "On  the  contrary,
it may be classified simply as an experiment to explore whether
the consumer interest, which is already protected from annoyance
and harm, would be responsive." What do you mean  by, "pro-
tected from annoyance"? Have you got some sort of criteria that
says that they are not annoyed, or how  did you  base—what is
this based on ?
  Mr. DORN. I was basing this on these levels I mentioned earlier,
that when you reach a harmful effect	
  Dr. GLORIG. You didn't say, "harmful noise." They  aren't the
same thing at all.
  Mr. DORN. The  harmful effect, of course, has a higher level.
This is the 85 dB that I referenced,  and I'm sure you heard from
other witnesses. The annoyance level is something lower than
that, and would depend, of course, on the  user. This can vary far
more  than the  harmful level.  Many people, as we've  indicated,
are much more sensitive to noise than others. It's our experience
from our own surveys on our customer reactions, that  our users
are not annoyed by the appliances.
  Dr. GLORIG. This is what I  wanted.  How did you know they
were  protected from annoyance? Did you ask them  or  survey
them, or what?
  Mr. DoRN. Yes.  This  would  be the individual survey that the
manufacturer conducts. Frigidaire conducts such a survey.
  Dr. MEYER. Panel on the left, any questions?
  Mr. BERLAND. Yes; I have two questions. One is: Between the
manufacturer and the consumer, besides  the wholesaler,  is the
salesman. And we  talked yesterday  and today a great deal about
education. And I know from  buying things, and  everybody has
had the experience, if you go to buy something, a  salesman will
say,  "You don't want that; you want this." And I know, when
manufacturers come out with a new line, such as color televisions,
they have a rather extensive  sales  education drive. I  wonder if
there was any sort of movement  along this line with the intro-
duction of your quiet air conditioner?
  Mr. DORN. I  might add that  if there was, it  wasn't  sufficient.
I'd  say that, yes, there  were some  plans made, certainly, to
advertise to that segment of the public who would be interested
in the superquiet appliance, such as  our room air conditioner, our
prestige line.  And evidently,  it was  not sufficient. It was not
recognized as having added benefit to the consumer.  The sales
volumes were very low and we discontinued it.
  Mr. BERLAND. Okay.  The other question was: As a member of
AHAM, and since  Frigidaire has, as you indicated, done a great
deal of research in quieting  appliances,  has Frigidaire  recom-
mended an industrywide thing? I mean, if everybody made quiet
air conditioners, then  we would  have  quiet air conditioners.

-------
                            152

That's rather obvious. If everybody made quiet food  disposers,
we would have quiet food disposers. Has this ever been proposed
—you were talking about voluntary controls—through your or-
ganization?
  Mr. DORN. The answer is "Yes and no." Yes, in the  case of
the room air conditioner. We have recommended  an  industrywide
program, it's  going on  today.  We have  a sound  standard,  as
indicated earlier by the previous witness, in room air conditioners.
The  answer is no on the other appliances. We  do not  see the
need of an  industrywide  program on the other appliances on the
noise levels.
  Dr. GLORIG. Do you differentiate need from demand?
  Mr. DORN. I would say they would be very compatible.
  Dr. MEYER.  Panelists on the left?
  Dr. WESTMAN. I did not respond initially because  I wasn't sure
of my data. But I've pulled out a study carried out  on  household
appliances  that indicated a finding that might be of interest. My
understanding is there will be  a subsequent hearing devoted to
the psycho-physiological  aspects  of sound. But  the information
that we have available to us to this date would indicate  that there
is a response in the central nervous system that can be measured
through heart rate  blood pressure, changes in the size of pupils
and so on, at levels of sound about 60 decibels. And the annoyance
level has been regarded as 50 decibels.  Now, my  question is  this:
If these findings are substantiated  and  we can add  the third
point—you're talking about you don't want to injure your health
from the point of view of reducing hearing. You don't  want to
injure relations between people by  interferring-  between  con-
versation. Now, if there's a third piece  of  information that comes
along, namely that we're all being affected by sound, whether we
realize  it or not, then I think this is a very important point.
Consumers may not be aware of the contribution that  this  noise
is making.  As I indicated earlier this morning, most of  the people
we work with talk about nervous tension,  and are  really not
aware of the  contribution that  sound has to this. If this can be
substantiated, what would the  reaction of Frigidaire  be to this
point that  arises  not from  consumer need or  from consumer
demand, but from health research?
  Mr. DORN.  If this third level, as you're indicating, could be
substantiated, then we would take it  as a need, as I indicated
earlier. And yes, I  believe our company would  initiate,  through
AHAM, an industrywide program. At least, we  would certainly
request it.  We are,  of course, one member, but we would request
such a program.
  Dr. WARD. Don't  concede too  much here before they prove this.
  Mr. DORN. I said, "If."
  Dr. MEYER. He said, "If."
  Dr. WARD. Because there is quite a difference between affected
and  adversely affected. And the fact that these things are demon-
strated at 60 dB—given  a couple of  electrodes  and  physical
recording  equipment, I can demonstrate changes in the nervous

-------
                            153

system at 10 or 15  dB.  Does that mean that they are adversely
affected? Not at all.
  Dr. GLORIG. You  can  demonstrate the same  effect when you
turn on a light in a dark room. My voice is making more than  60
dB at my ear now. Am I being affected by it?
  Dr. WESTMAN. Yes.
  Dr. MEYER. Well,  I hope everybody  realizes that we're still
trying to get all the facts.
  Ted, do you have a question?
  Mr. BERLAND. Well, if—if this is proven or indicated,  then we
have to say, at what level does it become indicated? At what level
—not only will Dr. Ward be happy—I know he will have his own
answer—but at what level will Frigidiaire say, "Okay. These are
the finding's; these are the levels where we start doing something."
How does that happen ?
  Mr. DORN. Well, I think this goes back to  the need or demand
factor that we  talked about earlier. I couldn't say exactly what
the level would be, whether it would be 45, 50, 55, 60, 65. I think
it has to be proven somewhere that there is  a need for this type
of activity. That need could depend upon various factors. This is
what has to be shown. It has to be  shown there is a need.
  Dr. MEYER. Ted, may I?
  A couple of questions I'd like to  ask are  somewhat technical,
perhaps.  And  so you'll understand the thrust of my question—
one has to do with the circumstances under which you conducted
your tests,  the results of which you gave as the values that you
reported—before you answer, let me tell you what the thrust of
it is. Those of us who know a little bit about acoustics know that
the method of installation can either reduce noise or enhance the
generation  of  the acoustical  energy. Let's take the dishwasher,
for example. Do  you have special  mountings or typical mount-
ings?
  Mr. DORN. In other words	
  Dr. MEYER.  When you set up in  the  test room,  were the ap-
pliances specially mounted, or were they mounted the  way the
average contractor might mount them. Or how?
  Mr.  DORN. Well,  the  readings I  gave you earlier—now, let's
take the dishwashers. The readings I gave you earlier include not
only our Frigidaire  laboratory kitchen, but also readings  from
a dozen customers  of their Frigidaire  dishwasher. The typical
installation in your kitchen and my kitchen. They  were not the
same. The readings were varied then in a range, such as 40 to 50
decibels,  under those conditions, at  a 3-foot distance.
  Dr. MEYER. This is the point I wanted to get. These are average
readings?
  Mr. DORN. Yes.
  Dr. MEYER.  Then this leads into my  next  question. Has Frigi-
daire Division of General Motors or this AHAM acronym—and
I'm not poking fun at it  because	
  Mr. DORN. I  understand  that the  Government has  many  more
of these than we have.

-------
                             154

  Dr. MEYER. I was going to say, interestingly enough, the official
governmental office symbol for the Office of Noise Abatement and
Control of the Environmental Protection Agency is not ONAC;
it is A-M-E-N, AMEN. But  to get back to  my question:  Have
you undertaken to provide information to builders, architects,
and even to the individual purchasers with regard to installation
so it  will be quieter, or as  quiet as possible?  Do you furnish
instruction sheets to your dealers of this sort?
  Mr. DORN. Yes. Frigidaire does furnish instruction sheets to
dealers and installers of most of our appliances.
  Dr. MEYER. Do they treat the question of how to do it so it will
be the quietest?
  Mr. DORN. Not particularly in those words. Of course, that is
in the consideration of the  design engineer when he prepares
these  installation instructions.
  Dr. MEYER. The reason I'm asking- the  question is not to em-
barrass the company, but to  find out another way  of  getting at
this problem of doing the  possible with what  is now available.
The next question that I would like to ask you is—again, perhaps
this is something that has  to be pointed toward the kitchen de-
signer. But  if several of these products in  the industry which
get up to, say,  75, or even  60 or even 50 dB as  measured on the
"A" scale are put close together and turned  on, you get another
3 dB(A). I  calculated here just  a minute  ago rather quickly.
If you had four 75 dB(A)  devices on at the same time within a
geometric arrangement so  that somebody  was within 3 feet of
them, you would have about  80 dB(A), or a little bit over. Has
any consideration been given, perhaps not to the architect or the
kitchen planner, but again, to the individual who simply walks in
and decides he wants to buy another  device and stick it in his
home? Or is this something we in EPA  had better do? That's
my question.
  Mr. DORN. I would think that this would be in the area of con-
sumer education.  Probably your agency  would be qualified  to
handle that. Industrywide, we have done very little in this regard.
  Dr. MEYER.  Thank you very  much, sir. I  appreciate your
candidness in the presentation and then your answers.
  At  this point, we would  like to take about a  5-minute stretch
break. And  again, I'm saying really 5 minutes. We'll wind  up
today's discussion with a presentation about air  conditioning and
home ventilation from two elements of that  industry.
  (Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.)
  Dr. MEYER. Ladies and gentlemen, I'll appreciate  it if all those
present will sit down so we can go ahead and undertake the rest
of the day's activities.
  We didn't  put the air-conditioning people at the end of this
because of any  depreciation  of their ability. But we  thought  it
might be a wise idea to  sort of cool things  at  the end. At this
point I would like to announce that Mr. J. E. Duff of the Hoover
Corp. who was originally  going to be here called me before I
left Washington  and stated that because of  some change of  cir-

-------
                             155

cumstances relating to other duties in his company having to do
with the wage-price freeze he would not be able to be here. But
he asked me to  submit his statement for the record  and I will
now do so.

         STATEMENT OF J. E. DUFF, THE HOOVER CO.

  Mr. DUFF. Ladies and gentlemen: First of all, I want you  to
know I am delighted to be here to represent my company and I
suppose in some  small way to represent our industry.
  The Hoover Co. has been in business  for over 60  years, and
not unlike other companies, we've had our ups and downs—our
good years and bad. But fortunately for  us, we've had more  of
the former and today rank in the Fortune 500.
  We like to think that our growth was brought about because we
have always  aimed for a quality product at a reasonable price.
A quality product means many things to  many people, but one of
the things it means to us at Hoover is an acceptable noise level.
  We are well aware of the need to reduce or perhaps some day
even eliminate noise in our products. In fact every year we spend
tens of thousands of dollars in a continuing effort to reduce the
noise of our products  and we have been successful. For example,
a typical vacuum cleaner produced in  1935 of the upright type
with a rotating  beater  and brush in the nozzle used a  1/6-h.p.
motor and created a  noise level of 79 dB (C scale).  Today  a
similar type  of  machine using a %-h.p.  (or  450  percent more
powerful) motor, cleaning at least 100 percent better produces
a noise level of  only 80 dB  (C scale). A difference you  couldn't
hear. Hoover and other manufacturers are aware of the need for
quiet machines, and through continuing engineering efforts have
developed products no noisier today than those of 35 years ago,
yet with a much  enhanced functional capability.
  To  do this at Hoover we have built  up a rather  impressive
acoustical facility consisting of a sound  room 10 x 10 x 15 feet
of solid concrete walls, floor,  and  ceiling. This room is totally
suspended on springs so that no vibrations  can be  transmitted
into it from the rest of the engineering facilities to interfere with
measurements being made. Used with it are General Radio noise
measuring equipment  of the latest type. This facility is operated
by a graduate physicist, skilled  in  acoustics, who  together with
other engineers,  technicians,  and so forth,  work with  the  ap-
paratus to measure sound levels and do the research necessary
for achieving noise reduction.
  In addition we retain a consultant, Mr. Harold Mull of Harold
R. Mull, Bell & Associates, a recognized  authority  in the field
of engineering acoustics to help us when we encounter problems
beyond our capabilities.  He has worked  with us constantly over
the past 10 years and  has been  extremely helpful.
  But we don't  stop with a technical evaluation of our  new  de-
signs and products. We also try to make effective use of the many

-------
                             156

new materials which are available to us  today, which can help
minimize the generation and transmission of noise, in the basic
design of these  products. For  example, Hoover appliances now
use materials such as polyurethane foam,  high damping  plastics,
and noise deadening coatings, none of which were available only
a few years ago.
  I am sure none of you have ever heard of a plastic bell or gong.
Well this characteristic of damping out sound rather than "ring-
ing like a bell" permits us to put high strength plastic materials,
in many design areas, with a consequent reduction in noise level.
  However, after the design is completed, the models built  and
the laboratory tests  run the  question still exists:  Is  it quiet
enough? To help us judge this we build  experimental  models
which  are actually put  out  into  typical  homes, sometimes  for
months before production is begun. Here we are using the home-
maker in  obtaining a subjective rather than technical judgment
of our appliance noise levels.
  If I may be forgiven  a plug, however, these techniques have
been successful.  Our engineering tests tell us that our Model 843
Constellation cleaner is probably the quiestest full power cleaner
now available.
  At this point  I would like to shift from  the engineering con-
siderations of the design of  appliances to a broader look at the
products themselves. I think there may well  be a potential danger
in your consideration of all home appliances as a single class of
products for which you may or may not recommend legislation
to the Congress. For example noise is inexorably tied to function
and  as  function changes  so will noise generation.  Let's  for the
moment compare a  room air  fan to a blender. Each does  its own
job,  each  contributes to the noise environment in the home, yet
to expect the blender to ever compare with the fan  in  noise level
is probably unrealistic. You'd have to hide it in a  safe to do it.
The point  I am trying to make is that in some cases, requiring
products to meet an arbitrary level—say 70 decibels—might  well
result  in  a design  so costly  or so bulky that no  one would be
interested  in purchasing  it,  and by legislation you have denied
the homemaker  the choice of opting for  performance and com-
pactness even though its  noise level is relatively high. Thus you
will  probably find  it  necessary to study  the  field  product by
product rather  than as  a single class  of  contributors to the
problem.
   Today  in much  of this talk  I have  specifically  referred to
vacuum cleaners since these are among the oldest of motor-driven
appliances in the home. However, a similar story can  be  told for
nearly all other  appliances of the motor-driven type in the United
States  today.  Today in the  stores across this land,  Americans
have a  greater variety of appliances to choose from and a larger
number of manufacturers are represented than  ever  before. No
one who hopes to remain in this business can ignore the wishes of
his  customers and  our  engineering research  will  continue to
satisfy these wishes. Our market research continues to tell us,

-------
                            157

however, that while  the homemaker would  like a totally quiet
cleaner, or even  one  somewhat quieter  than  today's models,  she
places noise in fourth place behind safety, performance, and cost
as a factor in making her choice.
  In summary, therefore, based on our experience of 60 years of
trying to succeed by  offering our customers the  safety, perform-
ance, and  quietness they are seeking, in products at a reasonable
price, we  feel that there is no need for legislation at this time
dealing with the  noise levels developed by home appliances of  the
types produced by the Hoover Company.
  Dr. MEYER. At this point now I'd like to ask Messrs. Thompson
and Martin of the Home Ventilating Institute to come forward
and give us some further  information about, not  only home  ap-
pliances, but other aspects  of ventilation as well. Gentlemen, nice
to have you here.
  Mr. THOMPSON. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

   STATEMENTS OF  E.  B. THOMPSON AND W. G.  MARTIN III,
                HOME VENTILATING INSTITUTE

  Mr. THOMPSON. Panelists and all of you that are here in behalf
of a quiet  home, my name is E. B. Thompson,  and I appear before
you on behalf of the Home Ventilating Institute,  the HVI. HVI
is an association of manufacturers of range  hoods and wall  and
ceiling exhaust fans. And  I also  appear on behalf of a member
company,  Kich-N-Vent  Division of Home Metal Products Co. of
Piano, Tex., of which I  am vice president of marketing and sales.
  I also speak to you as a past president of the Home Ventilating
Institute,  and I  served at  a time when our industry began to
explore  what it could do to formulate standards to foster quiet-
ness in our exhaust fans and range hoods. I speak also as someone
who watched the beginning, watched the heartaches of develop-
ment, and through  more than 10 years of  painstaking  efforts.
watched a program bloom into a full-fledged functioning program
of certified sound ratings  which  we introduced  in the spring of
this year 1971.
  Our  new sound  rating  program  is a pioneering one  among
products for  the home. Its ratings are a workable tool which
consumers themselves can  use  as an aid to  improve their home
environment.
  Our experience demonstrates that an industry  can  develop  a
meaningful program of sound ratings and certification appropri-
ate to its products.
  We have also found that sound emission ratings are good  for
consumers and good for our business.
  Perhaps our program—HVI's  program—can provide useful
guideposts to other  industries and  to  the  Environmental Pro-
tection Agency and other governmental bodies which have a role
in quieting our environment.
  HIV's certified sound ratings  are the offspring of the basic

-------
                            158

ratings which our industry needed  to develop first—ratings  for
ventilating performance.
  In the founding days of HVI, which was in  the  late 1950's,
responsible elements of our industry became determined to deal
with a chaos of ventilation claims.
  It had been effectively shown at that time that exhaust fans
and range hoods could do an effective and useful  job of removing
airborne grease,  smoke, fumes, moisture, and heat from kitchens,
bathrooms, laundry rooms and  other areas of the house. But at
that time the consumer had no way of knowing which  fans were
effective, or even how effective they were. Ventilation equipment
was sold with no ratings at all, or if they did have a rating, there
were no laboratory controls, and there were no comparable tests.
  The engineers from  the HVI  member companies,  individually
and  collectively  in  committee,  investigated  various scientific
facilities and studied relevant  standards  of scientific  and tech-
nical  organizations.  And  as  a result,  and because  of its long
experience in air movement engineering, the Texas Engineering
Experiment  Station of Texas  A & M  University  was  finally
selected to develop a new  facility to test household exhaust fans
and range hoods under identical conditions simulating the use in
the home.
  The resulting laboratory was, and is today,  completely inde-
pendent  of control by  the companies which send their products
there to be tested. The test  results are converted into certified
ratings by the HVI's professional managers according to uniform
and impartial procedures.
  In  1968, certified air movement ratings went into effect,  and
in that same year HVI began investigating possible  sound emis-
sion ratings.  A  variety of scientific and technical criteria  and
already  established standards were the possible building blocks
for our  new  program.  But as it developed, our engineers  had to
select, adapt and refine them to our particular application.
  All of this took time and money—about $100,000 from  the
HVI members—to create  a suitable and  effective sound testing
laboratory at Texas A & M. When we began to get these  test
reports,  each member  company  had to step up  preparations for
a new phase of competition. Design work was necessary to bring
certain  products within  the limits of our  sound  certification
program. But the bulk of our design work, which was done by
member companies,  was to upgrade from the minimum  and to
compete in quietness.
  Our industry was mindful  that a new spotlight would turn on
in April of this year with the  first publication  of sound ratings
with air movement ratings in the HVI Certified Home Ventilating
Products Directory, a  copy  of which we have  appended to the
back. We knew  that all our customers and all our competitors
would be watching and listening, figuratively, if not actually.
  Our industry's interest in letting consumers judge our products
on  the  basis of certified  performance and  uniform standards
paralleled that done by the  Government's interest in standards

-------
                            159

to protect  the  home  buyer.  As HVI  developed  its ventilation
standards,  we  kept in  close touch with  the Federal Housing
Administration. The FHA, with its minimum property standards,
cites the HVI label as evidence of compliance with FHA standards
for mechanical  ventilation. And the FHA has approved our sound
testing procedures and standards.
  Twelve manufacturers, who account  for the bulk of the home
ventilation  market, have the  HVI  tested-certified label on their
products. They are Air King Corp., Broan  Manufacturing  Co.,
Emerson Electric Co.,  Chromalox Comfort Conditioning Division,
Fasco Industries, Miami-Carey Co., a Division of Panacon Corp.,
Nautilus Industries, a Division of the Tappan Co., NuTone, a
Division of Scovill Manufacturing Co.,  Rangaire Corp., Roberts-
Cobell  Division, Swanson Manufacturing Co., Thermador,  Di-
vision of Norris Industries, Ventrola Manufacturing Co., and my
own  company, Home Metal Products Co., Kich-N-Vent Division.
  Significantly, Montgomery  Ward &  Co.  recently became  the
first  national merchandiser to adopt a policy of qualifying all of
its range hoods, wall and ceiling fans for HVI certified perform-
ance labels.
  For  a better understanding of  our program, and  for your
reference, I  submit a copy of our  1971 HVI  Certified  Home
Ventilating Products Guide. It contains dual  air and sound  rat-
ings  for some 350 consecutive models.
  The  reaction to this  publication of  these first sound  ratings
indicates that there is a real  market for  products that  respect
quiet in the home. We have every expectation  that when the next
directory is published it will carry new members and more  new
models to do a  better job of clearing the air of indoor pollution,
and do it quietly.
  Now, at  this time  I'd like to  yield to Mr. Martin,  another
representative of HVI, who is well qualified to explain the tech-
nical aspects of our rating program.
  Thank you.
  Dr. MEYER. Mr. Martin.
  Mr. MARTIN. Mr. Chairman, my name is W. G. Martin. I am
chairman of the Engineering Committee of the Home Ventilating
Institute and  vice president  of engineering  of the Chromalox
Comfort Conditioning Division of  Emerson  Electric.  On behalf
of both HVI and my company, I have been actively engaged in
the HVI sound rating  program from  its  inception, which  was
about 10 years ago.
  In those days, of course, there was no Environmental Protec-
tion  Agency, nor the  present  intensity  of public concern  for
safeguards  to the environment. But, as  you have heard, quietness
was  next to ventilating performance as an objective within  our
industry when  we started working on standards more than 10
years ago.  The sound emission problems of home exhaust fans
are different in  basic elements from many that the Environmental
Protection  Agency deals  with. Unlike some  sound sources in
industry and construction, exhaust fans do not pose a threat of

-------
                             160

hearing damage.  Unlike devices which run continuously or for
long periods, kitchen and  bathroom  fans  are  turned on  inter-
mittently and for short periods, which  modifies concern  about
them as a sound source. Nevertheless, we recognized that quieter
fans would be good business—by offering more options in  quiet-
ness, as well as  in ventilating performance and other  product
features, we would widen product  appeal to  consumers, and
therefore increase sales.
  Selling quietness, with meaningfulness for the consumer and
with fairness in the competitive marketplace, meant  adopting a
system of ratings to be stated in simple and legitimate numbers.
  Fortunately, our investigations led us to the conclusion that we
did not have to invent a numbering system which  would do the
job. Already established in the scientific and technical  community
was  the  sone,  an  internationally  recognized  unit of loudness
which  simplifies the reporting of sound output. I say  the rest of
this  with some deference  since you are a panel  of acoustical
experts, but nevertheless I  would like to  proceed, if I may.
  Dr. MEYER. For the record, it will be very fine, sir.
  Mr. MARTIN. We chose the sone because it translates laboratory
readings into numbers that correspond to  the way people sense
loudness.
  As you panel members are  aware,  sones follow a linear scale,
like inches.  A fan rated at 3 sones  makes half  as much noise as
a fan of 6 sones. In contrast, decibel  readings follow  a logarithmic
scale, as you know, that does not necessarily correspond linearly
to how people experience loudness.
  As the 1968 report of the British  Committee on the Problem
of Noise observes, decibel  readings may confuse the  layman. It
gives  us  as  an  example comparative  readings of a heavy  diesel
vehicle at 25 feet and a soft whisper at  5 feet. Decibel readings
make the diesel appear only three times as loud as a whisper, but
in sones it's 70 times as  loud. The sones  comparison conforms
to normal judgment of relative loudness, in the British report's
words.
  Our system, in  short,  gives single-number, linear ratings  which
the layman  can use. It is most easily understood by most buyers.
And it is based upon technically accurate measurements  under
uniform laboratory conditions.
  We have set limits beyond which exhaust fans are not certified.
These  limits are  6.5 sones for bathroom fans and 9 sones for
kitchen fans of up to 500  CFM capacity.  In practice, very few
models in the first listings come up to or near these limits. Future
listings will move further  away from the  limits, we  predict, as
consumers  and the builders and dealers  serving them select de-
sired combinations of  quietness levels  and air movement for
protection of home interiors and for  comfort and health.
  Our ratings system is attuned to changes in  ventilating  power
and sound in a single fan. Many fans have  different speeds, some
with solid  state  controls for variations in  speed  for different
ventilating tasks.  Generally, low speeds produce less  sound output.

-------
                             161

By HVI rules, multiple speed fans must be  rated for air and
sound at top speed and may be rated at lower speeds also.
   The  HVI Sound Test Procedure is submitted to you for your
information and reference, along with two related documents, Air
Flow Test Procedure and Policies  and Procedures for Testing,
Certification, and Labeling.
   The sound test procedure has a two-fold purpose: One, to pro-
vide procedure for measuring sound output, and two, to establish
a method for interpretation and/or presentation of the measured
data.
   As you will note, our sound test procedure makes reference to
various published standards of the American National Standards
Institute and the American Society of Heating and Refrigeration
and Air Conditioning Engineers. Our airflow test procedure uses
applicable portions of those of the Air Moving and  Conditioning
Association.
   Incidentally, our sound test procedure requires that the same
device be authenticated by having an air test made on it.
   I  should  like  to comment  on the  distinction between valid
equipment  ratings for sound output and measurements of sound
pressure levels in the  home. Out of understandable concern about
sound levels  where the equipment  is in actual use, there have
been experiments with dB(A)  meter readings in the home to de-
termine whether equipment is too noisy. One very great difficulty
with this approach is that it cannot differentiate the sound from
other equipment and even outside traffic and other sources. Nor
does it  reckon with the acoustical features of the room.  This is
not to say that there is no need  for onsite criteria. But laboratory
based ratings are available now, and  should  be used without
waiting for appropriate ways to apply onsite criteria.
   On behalf  of the Home Ventilating  Institute, I welcome your
questions and comments about any phase of our sound  ratings
program. And the HVI welcomes the opportunity to  work with
other industries  and with the  Environmental Protection  Agency
for a quieter environment in the home.
   Dr. MEYER. Thank you very much for giving us some, I would
say,  most intriguing and useful information.  And I'd like to ask
the panel,  starting with my immediate left, Dr. Westman, on
down and back up this way, if they have any questions.
   Mr. BERLAND.  Yes, just one. What's the distribution  of this
listing on sound levels? How is that distributed?
   Mr. THOMPSON. This distribution is  made  many ways; first,
through the  association, which distributes  it  through  building
code committees,  things of this nature.  And it's also distributed
by the member manufacturers to the people that sell their prod-
ucts. For instance, distributors or dealers in  the field. It's also
been publicized for mail-out to people through the use of our PR
work in which we tell  people  about the HVI program  on  air
ratings  and sound ratings. And this has been  in a great many
newspapers and  magazines since across the  United States.

-------
                            162

  Mr. BERLAND. Have any  of  these  manufacturers taken this
rating and used it for labels?
  Mr. MARTIN. You mean on the product?
  Mr. BERLAND. Yes.
  Mr. THOMPSON. All of them. We must label our products.
  Mr. MARTIN. They must be labeled for both c.f .m. and sound.
  Mr. BERLAND. Terrific.
  Mr. THOMPSON. Not  only on the  products,  but also in the
catalog.
  Dr. MEYER. Ted, I would  presume  also, since some of us are
familiar with how things are done  in the construction industry
that this inevitably winds up in such things as sweeps and other
reference documents.
  Mr. THOMPSON. In  sweeps, not yet. But it is being widely—
well, for instance, in my own company, we have made mailings to
our  customers.  I'm sure  other companies  have done the  same
thing.
  Dr. MEYER. Any other comments on the left?
  Dr. WARD. This essentially is a measure of the  motor, though,
isn't it really? I mean, if you take the joint function of the cubic
feet per minute moved and  the  rated horsepower of the motor,
don't you get a pretty good reference? Because, what I'm getting
at is exactly how these  things  are  installed still makes a big
difference in how much noise there is to the denizens of the room,
doesn't it?
  Mr. MARTIN. Noise is  affected, of course, by installation. But
on the other hand, there is a great deal of inherent difference. If
you  look in here, you will find a fan moving- 130 c.f.m. with a
8-sone noise level, and a  500-c.f.m. fan with a 6-sone noise  level.
So you can't say that the noise goes directly along with  it. And
incidentally, most of us do make rather  pointed noise reduction
recommendations in our fan installations. These are incorporated
as standard installation instructions.
  Mr. MARTIN.  They are packed with every fan, and we suspect
they are one of the first  things that are  thrown away.
  DR. MEYER. Along with instructions on what to do if it breaks
down. And later on when the homeowner  wants to find  it,  it
isn't there.
  Mr. THOMPSON. Ever since  our first air rating standards,  we
have published two booklets, which we  have  mailed out to  in-
dividuals. We have tried to educate the  public on what is good
ventilation, and also how it should be installed and  the  type of
ventilation they should use.  We published hundreds of thousands
of these booklets. They have been passed out. We are modifying
them at this time to include our sound  testing program which
became effective the first of this year.
  Professor COLE. There seems to  be an  almost direct contridic-
tion from what we heard from the two previous speakers, as  far
as ventilating appliances go anyway. You  have said that quietness
is important to your consumer. You have this lab rating program.
I find it rather interesting.

-------
                            163

  Mr. THOMPSON. It is interesting. And I couldn't help but feel,
as I was sitting here listening to need and want and so forth—
we were talking just on the break about the fellow that checked
into the motel, walked into the bathroom in the motel and turned
on the light and the ventilator came on. And he's like most of us;
the first thing he does is go  up  and  take  the  grille off and pull
out the motor so it doesn't make so much noise while we meditate.
  Dr. MEYER.  Well, I think these interesting  contradictions are
important to bring out, because it shows we do have to do a  lot
more work in all areas.
  Dr. GLORIG. I just sort of wonder why you picked the sone
since it's rather difficult to measure.
  Mr. MARTIN. Well, there isn't, as far as I know, a sone meter
that you can stick on something and measure sones. The sone is,
of course,  as you know better than most of us, a calculated num-
ber. See, the  reason we did  was we wanted  something that  we
could present in every simple terms  to two groups of, what  we
consider, unlearned people. One group  is our own  salesmen, and
the other is the general public.
  Dr. GLORIG. You  mean  you can explain the sone  better to a
novice than you can the decibel ?
  Mr. MARTIN. I have had much better luck, frankly, personally,
over a period of several years.
  Dr. GLORIG.  You yourself said that 6 sones was twice as much
noise as 3 sones, and the relation is not correct. It may be louder
or less loud or something, but the factor of the noise	
  Mr. MARTIN. I didn't mean to imply sound power levels, for
instance, as referred to some source. We, of course, based this on
a third octave sound power level.
  Dr. MEYER. Any other questions, panel ?
  Professor COLE. I think the effort to make comprehensible the
various sound measurements is useful.  It gets the point across to
the consumer; that seems to be the point.
  Dr. MEYER.  I think the thing  of major  importance here also
is that  it's giving  us some ideas about  how to  approach the
difficult problem of labeling. We're going to have a  lot to do with
this. It also indicates the importance of voluntary industry effort,
and we  will be back in touch with you on this.
  Thank you very much, sir. We're looking forward to working
with you.
  And now I  should like to  ask the representatives of the Re-
frigeration Institute, Mr. Arthur Meling and Mr. Scott Bayless
to come forward. I know that they have been working quite a bit
in the field of noise associated with their industry's products, and
I'm sure the panel and myself will find much of interest in what
you have to say.

-------
                            164

 STATEMENT OF ARTHUR E. MELING AND W. SCOTT BAYLESS,
                 REFRIGERATION INSTITUTE

  Mr. MELING. Thank you Dr. Meyer, members of the panel and
also ladies and gentlemen of the audience.
  I am Arthur E. Meling, director of the Municipal and Govern-
ment Relations for the Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Insti-
tute, which is the national  trade  association of manufacturers
whose  members produce  more than  90 percent  of  all United
States  made air conditioning  systems equipment,  as well as
related components and materials. This organization which traces
its origins,  through predecessor  associations, to  1903, in  con-
tinuous operation, represents 180 manufacturers, and is generally
known as ART,  and we  will refer to  it that way in this  pre-
sentation.
  My associate  is Mr. W.  Scott  Bayless, manager  of all the
engineering laboratories  for the York  Division of Borg-Warner
Corp., and a member of the ARI task force that developed these
standards.
  And we are talking about a  program period of something  over
12 years. And in the  interest of time, I'm  not going  to cover
everything that's on the  pages that you have there, but I would
like to highlight	
  Dr. MEYER. It will all be included in the record.
  Mr. MELING. Thank you.
  But I would like to  highlight a  little of the first three and a
half pages, in the  interest  of background,  before Scott and I
discuss the two standards and the certification program. We hope
to be informative in this manner.
  As a result of research and development by its members and
working  with local political jurisdictions, ARI, through its Tech-
nical Committee on Sound, which was set up in the mid  1950's,
and its staff, has gained considerable knowledge and experience
in controlling and limiting environmental  noise produced by air
conditioning.
  After  years of research and study, a technical  standard for
measuring the sound-generation  of air conditioning equipment
was developed by the American Society of Heating, Refrigerating,
& Air  Conditioning Engineers, a technical society of well  over
25,000 members.  And this standard   is  known  as  ASHRAE
Standard 36-62, which means  it was published in 1962, although
the work started on it back around 1956, and sharpened up in
1959. Now, based on this test standard, which describes how you
have to test the stuff, the ARI standards and certification  pro-
gram has been developed. One of the standards is for rating and
certification through independent laboratory  tests of the sound-
generating  characteristics of outdoor unitary  air-conditioning
equipment and provides a uniform method for assigning a single
rating number to this equipment. Not an  octave band, but a
single  rating number. And  it's interesting to note that in this
project it has built into  it a penalty  for whines,  screeches, and

-------
                             165

whistles, or the kind of noise that is disturbing and  which you
don't pick up with a meter. As was brought out on July 26, when
we testified to the Senate Committee on Bill 1016, this method of
rating—and this was  developed  by the Senator conducting  the
meeting—goes  beyond  just  comparing machines  to  machines,
and compares machines to people and the reactions of people to
the types of noises, which it was established in  the questioning
to be a health factor.
   ARI agrees that nuisance noise is essentially  an urban problem,
particularly in the residential areas. For this reason, the program
described here, which applies to outdoor unitary equipment rated
up to 135,000 B.t.u. per hour capacity, is applicable to the central
residential  and  small commercial installations usually found  in
such urban residential areas, and our statement to  you dwells on
this type of installation.
   Now, it's interesting to know that each time the  distance from
the equipment to the lot line or other point of evaluation where
you choose to measure it is doubled, the decibel level at the point
of evaluation is reduced by 6 decibels. If the distance is  doubled
from 15 to 30 feet, it's reduced by six. If it's doubled again, from
30 to 60, it's reduced by another six, for a total of 12.  So,  for
example, if the equipment noise should be  measured as  60  decibels
at 15 feet, it would measure 54 at 30 feet, and  only 48 at  60 feet,
between where it's located and your reading point.
   Now, under the auspices of this certification  program, the first
certifications were published in  a  directory that we  have been
publishing for over a dozen years, that  certifies thermal capacity,
the B.t.u. capacity for heating and cooling of  unitary air condi-
tioners and  unitary heat pumps. And  because  this  has a very
wide distribution, well  up in many,  many thousands of copies,
and because it's produced three times a year to  keep it up  to date,
we added a third  section covering these noise ratings  to  this
directory to get the benefit of the distribution list and  circulation
we had established over all these years, and the acceptance  that
we enjoy for the capacity  ratings of  this equipment, which is
referenced by Government agencies such as FHA, for example.
   Now, the directory, as I said, is published three times a year,
and the first issue including noise came out the first of this year.
The one that the panel has, which is from April 1 to July 31,  has
in the back the  conditions under which the ratings occurred and
the ratings  of  over 500 models.  Now, it's true that we  are  due
for an August  addition and it  will come out this month.  There's
been a little delay because we had to switch our  printing operation
to put it on  IBM-type  equipment,  and we expect it  will be  out
before the end  of  the month.  There are additional ratings and
additional company members. We expect, as time goes on,  that
practically every piece of  equipment that is rated thermally in
here, either a cooling unit or a heat pump, will  find  its place in
the ratings on sound.
   Now, first Mr. Bayless will discuss the sound  rating standard

-------
                             166

270,  which governs how it's done. And  following that, I'll cover
standard 275 and we will use slides for this purpose.
  Mr. BAYLESS. Thank you, Art.
  In response to the general trend of the 1960's toward a quieter
community life, the air-conditioning industry, through ARI, em-
barked on a mission to develop  a voluntary method of  sound-
rating their  outdoor equipment.  This rating would benefit  the
community through providing factual information on the  sound
energy radiated to the outdoors  by air-conditioning equipment;
would  aid  the  contractor, planner or  developer  additionally
through guidance in proper application,  selection, and location of
outdoor equipment to  minimize  acoustical  intrusion upon that
existence. Thus, in  early 1965,  plans  were finalized and were
started on developing a useful, easily understood method of sound
rating equipment with a  single number. Fortunately, much tech-
nology already existed in some form but remained to be adapted
to the objectives of ARI's plan: That is, a simple outdoor  equip-
ment sound-rating standard and companion equipment application
guide. The standard was issued in 1967, with a January the  1st,
1971, commencement date for an  on-going  sound  certification
program including published sound ratings on the outdoor  equip-
ment. This has been achieved.
  I'll pause here a moment. Of course, you and I know  from the
local paper here which really  depicts—some people, it may sound,
don't do anything about it. ARI, as you  can  see back in the early
1960's, has done something about  it.
  The sound rating of outdoor unitary equipment must  satisfy
the following requirements:
  First, as  a basis, use equipment sound power  level data on a
frequency basis measured in conformance with an  industry ac-
cepted method  of measuring  such levels This is the acoustical
energy output of the equipment independent  of any environmental
effects or who, if anyone, hears it.
  Second, adapt these levels on  an  energy  and frequency basis
to include the  subjective response  of  people as listeners.  The
hearing response of people is  not uniform  with frequency over
the range of normal hearing, that is, at  frequencies lower than
1,000, or greater than 2,000 Hertz, more sound energy is required
for them  to sound equally loud. Further,  people interpret single-
frequency sounds, or tones, differently than sounds of a uniform
wide-band of frequencies, the so-called  broadband sound.
   Third,  for use by nonacoustical  people,  a single number  in-
dicative of the comparative level  of the sound should rank-order
the sounds  the way they are heard. Each  increment should be
just significantly different from the  one greater or lesser than it,
as interpreted by the average listener.
   Fourth, a sound certification program, a  system  of published
sound ratings as determnied by each manufacturer for his equip-
ment,  updated  periodically, which can  be randomly checked by
an independent organization for  conformance and calibration.
   Finally, fifth, compatible with an application  standard which

-------
                             167

indicates to the contractor, installer,  how  to  apply the sound
rating to actual installations in an easy simple manner, and thus
predict in advance the suitability of an overall  installation.
  To  provide the equipment sound power levels, the ARI Sound
Rating Standard uses those measured in accordance with  the
American Society of Heating Refrigeration Air  Conditioning
Engineers, ASHRAE, Standard 36-62,  entitled  the Measurement
of Sound Power Radiated from  Heating,  Regrigeration and  Air
Conditioning Equipment issued February 1, 1962.
  Could I have the second slide, please?
  This test method standard rigorously  specifies  how to accurately
measure  sound  energy  in reverberant rooms, including sound
spectmms containing single-frequency  components.  The method
used is expected  to become an ANSI Standard in the near future.
In short, its technique is accepted and respected, being referenced
in military and other Government specifications.
  Now, the next slide.
  Now,  this standard requires  a reverberant  room, as I men-
tioned. This is a cutaway of  a typically reverberant  room.  I'll
show you some of the equipment that  is necessary to make this
standard—to  make a  measurement  in  accordance, with  this
standard.
  Could I have the next slide, please?
  This is some of the instrumentation which is used for frequency
analysis.
  All right. The  next slide, please.
  This is a setup of a unit in the room with the microphone. You
can see the hard walls  of the room. This room, by the way, is
isolated from the ground on low natural frequency springs.
  People, unfortunately, do not hear equally loud  sounds at all
frequencies of the same energy level. As I said before, the human
ear is less sensitive to  low frequency  and very  high frequency
sounds.
  Let's have the next slide.
  Human hearing is most sensitive between 500 and 5,000 Hertz,
and less sensitive at higher and  lower frequencies. To modify  a
sound rating  number  to include this  human factor, the ANSI
Standard S3.4 Computation of  Loudness of Noise  was used to
determine a quasi Loudness Index.
  Could I have the next slide?
  Further,  people are more sensitive to  audible single-frequency
components, pure tones, than broader-banded sounds of the same
energy level at high frequencies above a thousand Hertz.
  In  this spectrum, which  is  on the screen here we have three
equal spectrums as determined by the so-called contour method,
yet are heard differently because the energy, which sound energy
is a  function of frequency, is  distributed  differently,  yet  they
would still rate the same number.
  When a  broadband sound with  audible tones is heard by  a
person it is interpreted by our complex  hearing  system as more
objectionable  than broadband sound,  depending upon the  fre-

-------
                             168

quency and level at which the tone exists. Considerable psycho-
acoustic work was done on this hearing phenomena,  of  which
ART has adapted the results as originally reported by Messieurs
Blazier and Wells at the ASHRAE semiannual meeting February
11, 1963.
  Now, the next slide.
  Thus, the  ARI  Standard 270-67, Sound Rating  of Outdoor
Unitary Equipment, includes recent  psychoacoustical knowledge
of human response to discrete frequencies, and spectrum shape
plus  loudness. These human responses, when combined with  ac-
curate sound  power levels, based upon the accepted test standard,
produce a subjective sound rating number—or SRN, as we call
it—which is  indicative  of  equipment sound, and can be easily
used to predict onsite sound levels as measured by a sound level
meter, as will be shown later.
  Next slide.
  This is an example which is in the ANSI Standard in example
B showing the frequencies, the equipment power level, which is
the second column, and the adjustments which are made  for
pure tones, in this  example, and the rating index, which is  shown
in the final column at the right. I don't  know if you can  see at
the bottom—raise the slide—you  can  see we  come up with a
single number, which is actually 18. All this work is  done  by  the
manufacturer so that the final number—in this case, 18—would
be all that the contractor would  have to worry about.
  All right. Next slide, please.
  The air conditioning industry practices a system of voluntary
self-control through a policy of equipment certification programs.
Such programs assure the user,  through  certification on the unit
via an ARI seal, that such units have been designed and tested in
accordance with an industry  standard.  Since January 1, 1971,
this  is now  applicable  to  outdoor unitary equipment  up to a
capacity of 135,000 B.t.u.'s per hour. This size  includes  nearly
all residential air-cooled equipment. Certification requires that
representative units from production be  tested and rated in  ac-
cordance with the procedure of the  sound standard. The sound
rating results are then published by ARI in a Directory of  Sound-
Rated Outdoor Unitary Equipment by manufacturer and model
number.
  Next slide, please.
  Such  tests  are  performed by the manufacturer in approved
test facilities. However, randomly selected units are independently
tested by an  organization  not affiliated  with  the industry as a
verification of the ratings.  Enforcement is strict. If a unit is
independently tested,  found to be  inaccurately rated, the  manu-
facturer must change the sound rating,  improve and  retest  the
unit to meet  the original published rating, or withdraw it from
the market. The ARI Sound Rating Seal of Certification may be
displayed only on units meeting the sound standard requirements.
All costs are borne by the industry or manufacturer.

-------
                             169

  To continue with this, I'll turn over to Art Meling to complete
the presentation.
  Mr. MELING. Okay. Now that you've heard how the sound rat-
ing number is determined, we want to talk about how it's used,
and that's covered by the  ARI Standard 275-69.
  And you're looking here—I don't know whether you can read
it from where you're sitting—but these are the over 500 rating
numbers that I talked about a moment ago. They're in there by
company name, and you get a number  along the side showing in
the example a rating number of 18. Now, the typical residential
unit can run in a range of maybe 16  to 21 or 22.  Most of them
in  the  current  directory in the size range from 21/2 to  3 tons,
let's say, are either 18, 19, or 20. And in the examples that I'm
going to show you, you'll  see  how these are used. Now,  the in-
teresting part of this single number procedure is that it penalizes
a unit  that has the whines, whistles, and screeches. And  if, as a
manufacturer, you don't  take them out,  you'll end  up  with a
higher number than you would have if you had removed them. So
there's a built-in penalty.
  Now, you're  looking at pages and  they're all there together.
You can turn the pages and you can look at  all the models, and
you can look at all the model  numbers  and all the ratings on the
model numbers. And this distribution is broad with the installing
contractors. Now, you'll see as we go  along that the installation
is  equally important to the number. You  can take the best unit
in  the  world and  you can  put it under your  neighbor's bedroom
window and you've got a  problem. But you can take a unit with
a higher number, install it farther away from the  property line,
do a good  job on installing it, and you'll end up with an equal
dB(A)  level, let's say, at the property  line that would meet some
ordinance that would be acceptable. So the installation is equally
important to the rating of the unit.
  Now, that means that in order to get  what you're after, the
contractor  is the  key. And we have started out on  an aggressive
program to educate contractors.  Now, the  principal contractor
association in the residential area is the National Environmental
Systems Contracting Organization,  commonly called NESCO.
And they ran  a training course at 15 colleges this year,  and we
put together the  training  material that was  introduced to them.
We couldn't get it together for the first one, but we taught the
other  14. So I can say to you  that somewhere around  a thousand
representative contracting organizations were trained in how to
do this, how to use it, why it's important,  what will it do  for you
through January,  February and I believe, the first part of March.
In addition, I made a presentation at their  national convention
right here in Dallas in February. And as a result of that, they are
picking it up in their local chapters, and  we supply slides and a
tape, if they want it, or a  script if they want it along with train-
ing material, and it  seems quite effective based on the  reports
we're getting back.
  Now,  another  large contracting group is the  Refrigeration

-------
                             170

Engineering Service Society,  (RESS), and I will talk  to their
annual meeting in October in Atlanta. And we will do the same
thing there, and they are incorporating it in their training ma-
terial.  Many of you here  are aware  of  the three or four big
documentary training directories or courses that they present to
their members. And this is being incorporated in their  advance
course.
  I will also have the privilege of making a presentation to the
ASHRAE, that you've just heard, at their annual meeting in New
Orleans in January. So we are making a sincere conserted effort
to get at the next step, the fellow that controls the installation.
  All right. Now, this is a practical way to predict sound levels,
and through control of systems design, to obtain a predetermined
level.  And until we developed this—and I've been around many
of these people for  the  last  7 or  8 years that  are  looking  at
regulations. Before we developed—before it was  possible to de-
velop, you couldn't tell. You had to put the darn job in and then
go around  with a meter and  check it and see where you were.
But with this approach, it's possible to  sit down and determine
what  you have to do to meet—if there is a code—what's called
for. If there isn't a code, we give you some kind of  a guideline
that you ought to come within.
  Now, to make it a little bit easier to follow what I'm  going to
do, we've included in the packet to the panel a little orange book.
And if you will look to the fourth page of that book, you will find,
I believe, what's going to be the first slide here, please.
  Next slide.
  Yeah. Well, I should  say first, the first step would be for the
contractor to  look up the number that you were just looking- at
on that page. You've got to start with that ARI number, and you
get it either out of a directory or you get it off the manufacturer's
spec sheet.
  Now, here is the equipment. The contractor is shown how to
assign  an  equipment location—location  factors—based on the
presence of sound reflective surfaces around the  location of the
unit.  And if there are  no surfaces, if it were  standing in free
space, no surfaces within 10 feet like you might have on a roof,
for example, there is a factor value  of zero. But in this drawing,
you see two situations in which there is a single reflective surface.
And as established in the standard, the factor value is one.
   And the next slide.
  And on the next page, diagram two, all these pages, when I call
them off, are in the orange book, if they help you, or you get the
same thing off the screen. Whatever you choose. On the next one,
then, there are two  situations  where there  are  two reflective
surfaces, and the factor value is  two. And you'll see  in a minute
what you do with these factor values.
   Next.
   Next, the contractor is shown how to assign a barrier shielding
factor, diagram three in the book, resulting from  the presence of
solid structures.

-------
                             171

  As  Dr. Newman pointed out,  the bushes and  the  trees  are
pretty, but they don't do anything for you, and neither do wooden
slats.  What you've got to do is put up a good hunk of masonry
wall, and it's got to be high enough, as you  will see, to give you
the added distance, and it's got to  be at least twice as wide so
you don't get an end run around the side. And here you see two
examples either  from  an extension  of the building or a separate
wall in itself between the unit and  the point of evaluation. And
in order  to determine the barrier shielding factor, it's necessary
to calculate a value, which is  called "L". And that's the sum of
two distances; the one that goes over the top of the wall, "L"-sub
one, and "L"-sub  two  minus  "D", which  is the  straight line
distance  between the unit and  the point of evaluation. And when
"L" has  been calculated, the  barrier shielding factor, again, is
determined from a table by looking at the value in the charted
diagram  three, and then reading across from the "L" number to
the direct factor value number. And you  get that down here at
the bottom. If "L" was one, then the factor  value is two, and so
on down, on up to a factor value of six.
  Next slide.
  Then instructions are given  on the assignment of a sound path
factor; that's in diagram four. When the point of evaluation is
outdoors, then the factor is zero, such as if it were on the property
line or a  patio or something like that. Now, this factor is just for
the path of sound from the  point of evaluation, and  the final
preparatory step is the determination of the distance from the
unit to the point  of evaluation.
  Next.
  Now, the contractor is ready to work out the formula. He takes
the sound rating number, whatever it may be, 18, 19, 20, let's say,
and the equipment location factor, subtract the barrier shielding
factor and the sound path factor. The result is the sound  level
number,  abbreviated S-L-N.
  Next slide.
  He  can now use what is called a  Nomogram, which  is printed
in the standard  and  in  the pad of  calculation forms, which  you
gentlemen of the panel have in your envelopes. We sell these pads
to the contractors. They have  the Nomograms for calculating the
job in pad form, and the top three  sheets are the instructions of
how you use it. This is  designed for typical volume single-unit
applications like you usually find in a residence. If you've got a
real complicated job, you've got to  go back  to the standards be-
cause we didn't want to confuse the minor job with a lot of detail
that you  don't need on a simple job. And it's easy, you will  see,
to use.
  Next.
  Here we have a simple  example of how it works. The point of
evaluation, it's been assumed—or the point  of evaluation is on
the property line nearest the unit in this example, and assuming
a unit SRN number of 19—and as you can see here, there's only
one reflective surface  around the  unit, so  the equipment location

-------
                             172

factor is one. There is no barrier shielding factor; that's zero. So
the SLN number then is 20. And we are taking an example here
with the distance from the unit to the point of evaluation as 40
feet.
  Next slide.
  And then you draw a line on the Nomogram from the  sound
level number on the left to the distance of 40 feet over there on
the right, if you can  see it.  This is the 20 that we had  as the
SLN number we just figured. Now, we  get a reading there of  a
dB (A) on the property line which turns out to be—if I can read  it
from  here—53. It's a little hard to see  it; you may not be able
to see it.
  Next slide.
  Here's a  more complex  example.  Example No. 2. And here,
because you didn't  have distance—distance is  the biggest thing
you've got working for  you.  If you've got the distance,  take  it.
But if you haven't got the distance, then you have to make a low
sound level. You're confronted with the need for constructing
this masonry barrier wall we talked about, and here you  see an
example of it. And we've gone through the arithmetic of it.  We've
taken a  high range number of 21; we've  taken an equipment
location factor—only one reflective surface—as plus one, and the
barrier shielding factor  in the table that we looked at, as you can
see it here,  is a minus two. And  because it's an  outside reading
on the property line, we'll have a sound path factor of zero, and
you end up with an SLN of 20.
  And let's take the next slide.
  And with the 20  as the  SLN number, and  the distance of 30
feet, you end up there again with something that looks like about
56 or  seven dB(A)  at the property line. So it's simple to use the
Nomogram and determine what it will be.
  Now, in  conclusion,  ARI  agrees that nuisance noise  is es-
sentially an urban problem in residential areas. The ARI certifica-
tion program is a form  of labeling, and is cited as being now  in
effect, but the recommendation of it here does not preclude the
use of ratings by a  similarly recognized authority, should  one be
developed. It should be noted that ARI  does not  seek nor  desire
mandatory compliance with its program, but rather recognition
as an acceptable form of labeling, and would like to continue to
work  with the EPA towards this end, since the ARI program
already provides a nationally recognized standard.
  I'd  like to also mention that this orange booklet has been dis-
tributed  to  over 4000  political jurisdictions in this country  in
connection with our distribution of the new edition of the  safety
code for mechanical refrigeration.  And in  there we included  a
card inviting them, if they are considering regulations, to write
back for a complete packet, in which we try to develop the basic
philosophy behind what you've got to go after. And we're begin-

-------
                            173

ning to get quite a number of these replies coming in. These have
just gone out within the last month or so.
  We greatly appreciate this opportunity to present our views,
and we'll be happy to try and answer any questions.
  Thank you very much.
  Dr. MEYER. Mr.  Meling, Mr. Bayless, your test method is cer-
tainly a step forward. As we come to the qu'estion of labeling and
standard setting, we've got to  recognize the different techniques
that  are probably  going to be needed for the different types of
products.  And so  your industry's  experience and innovation in
taking this on is going to be very, very  useful to the EPA. Before
I ask a couple of questions,  I'll ask if the panel has any. Panel
on the left? Dixon, do you have anything?
  Dr. WARD. No.
  Dr. MEYER. It's such a lucid  statement of how to get at it.
  Aram, do you have anything?
  Dr. GLORIG. No.
  Dr. MEYER. We're always getting confused with all the various
attempts to use the complexities of the scientific side to  come up
with things. Maybe your approach provides  a simplistic method.
  Mr. BAYLESS. We've been 12 years developing this thing to this
point. We're not all the way yet, but we think we've got  it where
it will work. The man in the field and  the man on the street can
appreciate it.
  Dr. MEYER.  Well, as you know, we're going to have a hearing
in San  Francisco  dealing with standards and professional  tech-
niques,  and I hope we'll have some further information from you
on some of the specifics for that hearing.
  Mr. MELING. You know this, Dr. Meyer, but some of the others
may be interested. As a result of coming out now with something
specific, we get a much better  response than we did before. And
we had  one State recently that came out calling for 30 decibels at
night on the property line with the equipment in operation. And
yet when  we  were able to substantiate  a  factual presentation
along this line  and  submitted it  to  the  committee considering
the ordinance, they passed  it  into law. And one  of the biggest
cities in the country  has done the same thing, although there our
efforts were more  indirect. But they based it on our recommenda-
tions.
  Dr. MEYER. Thank you very, very much.
  I want to thank the members of the panel  for serving  with me.
When Mr.  Berland and Mr. Newman accepted, they both indicated
that they had prior engagements, and that  they  would have to
catch early flights. I appreciate very,  very  much the candidness
and  participation  of you who we are trying  to serve and the
people who have attended this meeting.  And I also want to ex-
press my appreciation to both the local  EPA staff and my own
staff.

-------
                            174

  Thank you very much. This has been a most important informa-
tion gathering session for the Environmental Protection Agency.
  This hearing is adjourned.*
  * Additional  materials submitted for the  record are on  file at
the Office of Noise Abatement and Control.
                    •£? U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1972 O	451-448

-------
$

-------

-------