Public Hearings on
NOISE ABATEMENT AND CONTROL
Vol. I — Construction Noise
Atlanta, Georgia July 8-9, 1971
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
-------
Public Hearings on
NOISE ABATEMENT AND CONTROL
Vol. I — Construction Noise
Atlanta, Georgia July 8-9, 1971
Conducted by
the
Office of Noise Abatement and Control
Sfreet
6060ft
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
Foi sale by the Supountendent of Documents, U.S. Government Punting OfTicc
Washington, I) C. 20402 - I'lice 75 cents
-------
XGEtRSZ
-------
PREFACE
Under the Noise Pollution and Abatement Act of 1970 (Title IV
to the Clean Air Amendment of 1970 (PL 91-604), the Environ-
mental Protection Agency, through the Office of Noise Abatement
and Control, is required to hold public hearings. A series of eight of
these hearings is 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 (Highway
and Air)
' T
~~' Vol. Ill —Urban Planning, Architectural Design; and Noise in
i the Home
f-<
v,- Vol. IV —Standards and Measurement Methods, Legislation and
J 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; National
Programs and their Relations with State and Local
-------
INDEX OF WITNESSESS
Alice Suter, National Association of Hearing and
Speech Agencies 4
Earl Elwood, United States Gypsum 18
Frank Walk, Walk, Hay del & Associates 28
George Diehl, Ingersoll-Kand Research 38
Capt. David Riley, Atlanta Police Department 47
Edwin Jackson, Delta-P Corporation 53
Roger Wellington, General Motors 59
Charles Skinner, Georgia Motor Trucking Association 65
John Palazzi, Associated General Contractors of America 69
Lyle Munson, Colt Industries 75
Roger Ringham, International Harvester 80
Jack Hasten, Caterpillar Tractor 89
J. B. Codlin, Allis Chalmers Corporation 100
William Hansell, Georgia Public Health Department 111
R. L. Smelley, N.O.I.S.E. 116
Mrs. Wirt Jones, Sierra Club 122
George Grindley, S.A.V.E. 125
Thomas Muehlenbeck, College Park, Georgia 133
William Doughorty, American Institute of Architects 139
J. M. Benson 142
James Rickard, Federal Aviation Administration 146
Glenn, Bennet, Atlanta Region Metropolitan Planning
Commission 149
Adele Northrup, Morningside-Lenox Park Community 157
John Glenn, Citizens for Clean Air 160
Peter Chanin, LCL Corporation 164
James Rickard, Federal Aviation Administration 169
L. E. Abernathy, Atlanta Area Association of Senior Citizens
Clubs 171
Ruby Ballard Zumbrock, Decatur Civic Association 172
W. E. Joyner, Decatur Civic Association 174
Stephanie Coffin, Great Speckled Bird Newspaper 176
Maura Enright, Crisis Center 178
Mrs. Charles Holman 179
Robert L. Schwind 180
IV
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING ON CONSTRUCTION NOISE
THURSDAY, JULY 8, 1971
The hearing was convened at 9:15 a.m., Dr. Alvin F. Meyer, Jr.,
Director, Office of Noise Abatement and Control, Environmental
Protection Agency, presiding as Chairman.
PANEL:
Dr. Erich Bender, Bolt, Beranek & Newman
Dr. D. Lyons, Clemson University
Mr. K. A. Baron, Citizens for a Quieter City
Mr. Gerald P. McCarthy, Governor's Council on the Environment,
State of Virginia
Dr. Daniel A. Okun, University of North Carolina
-------
-------
PROCEEDINGS
Dr. MEYER : Ladies and gentlemen, I would like to call to order this
public hearing on problems of noise as an environmental insult. I
would like to make a few brief remarks regarding on how we intend
to conduct this hearing and then a few introductory statements after
I have introduced the panel.
These hearings are held in response to an act of Congress, Title IV
of Public Law 91-604, which requires that the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency prepare a report to the Congress and, in preparing
that report to the Congress, undertake some research, make some ex-
tensive studies on the state of knowledge regarding noise as an en-
vironmental problem, and then to hold a series of public hearings to
adduce as much information as possible from a cross-section of
professional and civic and public interests.
To do this in an orderly manner, we are conducting a series of
hearings, each with a central theme. The one today is dealing pri-
marily with the problems of noise associated with the construction
industry.
In order to make it more meaningful, we have decided that instead
of having a panel consisting of perhaps only the Federal expertise,
we should bring together diverse public and professional interests
to serve with me in representing the Administrator. So that you may
get some idea of the types of people on the panel, I will introduce
them at this point.
I am Alvin Meyer, the Director of the Office of Noise Abatement
and Control of the Environmental Protection Agency. Normally I
would be accompanied by Mr. Tolman, the Regional Coordinator of
EPA. Unfortunately he is deeply involved in some very specialized
activities this morning and extends his regrets, but he may be here
shortly.
Without any indication as to rank, position, or professional stature,
I am going to go alphabetically.
I have on the panel with me Dr. Erich Bender, who is on my
immediate right and who is an acoustical and noise control expert of
the firm of Bolt, Beranek & NeM'man, who are also contractors and
consultants to our office.
I have Professor Lyons of Clemson University. Professor Lyons,
as some of you may have read, has been extensively involved in
studies on quieting of machinery and equipment.
I have Mr. Baron who is a noted author and representative of an
organization called Citizens for a Quieter City and is a leading civic
-------
expert and an individual with great concern for the problems of
noise as it affects our modern society.
I have Mr. Gerald P. McCarthy representing the Governor's
Council of the State of Virginia. He brings knowledge and under-
standing of problems of the environment as a larger issue.
And I have Dr. Daniel Okun, Department of Public Health, Uni-
versity of North Carolina, School of Public Health, and immediate
Past President of the American Academy of Environmental Engi-
neers and a long-time worker in the general field of engineering in
relation to the environment.
In conducting this hearing, I plan to follow, in general, the pattern
of a Congressional oversight hearing in which we have a series of
invited witnesses. Members of the panel will be requested to ask
questions after those presentations. Or if some question arises in
(heir minds during the course of a presentation, by request they may
direct a question to the witness.
Somewhat different from a Congressional hearing, questions from
the audience will be directed to a witness. If those questions are
written down and given to our clerk, Miss Eileen Brown, we will,
lime permitting, utilize them.
Now, I would like to make a few further remarks and then proceed
to the business at hand.
As most of you know, the Environmental Protection Agency is a
new organization established by President Nixon late last year, and
its purpose, of course, is to protect all aspects of the environment.
When the Agency was set up last December, our principal concerns
were air and water pollution, solid waste management, pesticides, and
radiation. However, the amendments to the Clean Air Act, Title IV,
of Public Law 91-604, which T just alluded to, added to the aims
another area of environmental concern. That title called for the
establishment of an Office of Noise Abatement and Control, with the
principal role at the present time of identifying and classifying
causes and sources of noise, to determine their effects on public
health and welfare. And, as I have mentioned, in accordance with
that we are holding these public hearings.
Now, the information we are gathering will be included in a report
to the Congress, which we are going to submit shortly before the end
of the year, so these proceedings do have major importance from a
viewpoint of providing information not only to the Agency but to
the Congress.
It certainly is not going to come as any surprise to you that the
average American is literally surrounded by noise—on the job, at
home, and even at play. And as an aside, the recreational noise
problem is one that seems to be increasing at a faster rate than even
some of the others.
In the urban areas, where three-fourths of our population is
located, the general din and hum of construction projects, the roar
of air and surface transportation, and the incessant cacaphony of
industrial noise are practically ceaseless.
Within the past 10 years, the overall levels of noise have been
sharply increasing. According to some estimates, in large cities noise
levels are rising 1 decibel per year. Such an increase represents in 10
years a doubling in the loudness of sounds reaching the human ear
and an approximate tenfold increase in acoustical energy in the
-------
environment, Only last month, an international group of experts
meeting in Switzerland warned that people living in the noisiest
parts of cities around the world may have definite hearing losses by
the year 2000 unless noise is controlled.
Eight here in Atlanta, if we were to take a noise level meter such
as this one (indicating) or this much simplified one (indicating)
into downtown areas, we would find street noise levels at some
locations in the same ranges that are prohibited by Federal law
inside factories for an 8-hour-day exposure. So we are really not
talking about future problems. We are talking about those that we
have here today.
Transporatation, construction, and heavy industry are important
contributors to environmental noise, but they are not the only ones.
We are all aware of noise from our neighbors' air conditioners, our
neighbors' lawnmowers, and other types of power equipment used in
and around our homes. These are also problems. In fact, noise levels
in apartments and private homes, particularly in kitchens and work-
shop areas, begin to approach those in factories.
Now, some governmental authorities in this country have managed
to enact noise control ordinances, but they vary widely, ranging
from overly restrictive and impractical to completely ineffectual.
Moreover, these ordinances are difficult to enforce because of econo-
mic, social, or political considerations, as well as the very real
problems associated with detection and proof of violation.
The adoption of more flexible building codes could help cut down
noise. Power generators can be quieted. Just as automobile tires can
be made with quieter treads, similarly noise control can be built into
the design phase of other equipment arid machinery, as we will hear
more of today.
We do know something about the problem of environmental noise
and its control, but we do not know nearly enough about what can
and should be done. Even if this agency were not required by law to
hold such hearings as this, I am sure we would be holding them any-
way, because we must know where we stand, especially regarding
public attitudes toward the problems.
Our witnesses today will include major manufacturers of con-
struction equipment. We will also hear from other industries and
professions with major stakes in this effort. We will hear from
representatives of the academic world, from those associated with
private research and engineering firms, and from other interested and
informed groups.
EPA comes to this meeting with no preconceived opinions or posi-
tions other than that noise is a growing environmental problem that
must be controlled. I am sure that we will hear that this is impossible
and that one thing or the other must or must not be done. And all
of this is to the good. We need the facts to make an intelligent report
to Congress and to shape our future program activities.
As Administrator Ruckelshaus recently pointed out, and I quote,
"The man who takes responsibility has to be aware of the facts before
he issues regulations. If he has to change the regulations after they
are issued because he didn't know the facts, he really looks foolish."
While this Agency is not in the noise regulation business yet, it
seems inevitable that we will be, and we will see that what is said here
today and tomorrow will be reflected in Federal legislation and
Federal action.
-------
I have already introduced the members of the panel, and without
further ado I would like to move to the business at hand and
introduce Miss Alice Suter, representing the National Association of
Speech and Hearing Agencies, who will talk about the effects of
noise on hearing, particularly of construction workers.
Miss Suter, would you kindly come and join us? We have a place
for you. We welcome you here.
STATEMENT OF ALICE SUTER, NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF
HEARING AND SPEECH AGENCIES
Miss SUTER : Thank you, Dr. Meyer.
First of all, it is the National Association of Hearing and Speech
Agencies. We put "hearing" first. Our particular agency does any-
way.
Also I would like to invite the panel to question me at any time
during the presentation on anything that comes up.
You will probably hear the definition of noise a number of times
during the next two days as "any unwanted sound"—unwanted
because it is either too loud or because it is unpleasant. People refer
to it often nowadays as being noxious.
However, the concept of "unwanted" must be qualified since some
sounds can be unwanted to some people and yet wanted quite a bit
by others. The motorcycle which roars down the quiet lane, shattering
a family's Sunday afternoon peace, may have been carefully un-
muffled by its driver. I understand that even the Yamaha people are
distressed by the "home improvements" often given to their motors.
Likewise, Joshua's war cries at Jericho must have set up a horrible
din. However, they produced the desired effects, and the result has
come down through history as a religious triumph.
Rock music is another example of the ambiguity of noise. Some
love it, and some hate it. But despite the probability that continuous
exposure is bound to cause some amount of damage to the hearing
mechanism, this fact doesn't seem to diminish its popularity.
Aside from some of the "groovy" aspects of noise, the fact is that
background levels of noise in urban areas have been doubling every
ten years for at least the past 30 years, just as Dr. Meyer brought out.
In some areas they have been growing even faster.
It is popular recently to say that if noise increases at its present
rate we shall all be stone deaf by the year 2000. Perhaps I am overly
optimistic. However, I don't believe that this will happen. There is
growing awareness nowadays that noise really is affecting our ears,
bodies, and mental health and that it is past time when something
should be done about it.
Perhaps one reason why noise abatement is a latecomer in the
field of ecology is because it is insidious. It causes no pain and little
physiological discomfort until it reaches high levels. There is no
blood, except perhaps in the case of an explosion, and hearing loss
due to noise generally occurs gradually over a considerable length of
time. I have a friend who says he wishes that ears would bleed when
hazardous levels of noise are reached. Then people would pay atten-
tion. I suppose if that were the case, residents of certain large Ameri-
can cities would require frequent transfusions.
In talking about the harmful effects of noise, I have decided to
divide them into the effects on hearing, on the body as a whole, and
-------
on what we call "the quality of life." Although none of these areas
is very well understood and a great deal of research needs to be done,
the effect of noise on hearing is perhaps the best known of the three.
There is a popular misconception that noise hurts or even shatters
our eardrums. Actually, the eardrum is not affected except in the
case of an exposure to a blast. Instead, it is the delicate structures of
the inner ear which are damaged.
Could I have the first slide, please.
Slide 1. Schematic crossection of the hearing mechanism. Prom the audio-visual
demonstration "How They Hear", written and narrated by Earl R. Harford,
Ph.D., Gordon N. Stowe & Associates, Northbrook, Illinois.
This picture is a cross-section of the hearing mechanism. On the
left you see the part of the ear with which we are the most familiar.
Then just inside the eardrum is the middle ear, containing the three
little bones called the maleus, incus, and stapes, popularly known
as the hammer, anvil, and stirrup. The promary purpose of the outer
and middle portions of the ear is to regulate, and usually to amplify,
the sound vibrations for the benefit of the inner ear.
On the right you will see the inner ear which acts as the sensory
receptor, that part which changes the sound from mechanical to
electrical or neural energy. It is not really blue like that. That's just
for clarity. Once the sound signal is received and coded by the inner
ear, it is sent on to the brain.
The auditory part of the inner ear resembles a tiny snail and is
called the cochlea. It is divided into three chambers which are filled
with fluid. Located on a membrane in the middle chamber is a micro-
scopic mound of cells called the organ of Corti where the sound
vibrations are translated into neural messages.
Could I have the next slide, please.
(Slide 2)
Sitting 011 this membrane are four rows of minute tufted cells
referred to as hair cells or ciliated cells, When sound occurs, the
vibrations pass through the outer and middle portion of the ear and
cause the fluid in the inner ear to vibrate. These vibrations are picked
up by the hair cells and transmitted quickly to the brain.
When very lound sounds occur, the delicate hair cells can be
damaged. In some cases when the sound is not too intense the cells
can become fatigued but normal hearing returns after a few hours.
However, with very intense sounds such as those produced by heavy
artillery, the tiny hair cells are shaken loose or even blown apart by
the intensity of the vibration. Once the hair cells are destroyed, there
-------
6
Slide 2. Photomicrograph of the organ of Corti in the inner ear, (cat), From
"Stimulation Deafness" by Michael M. Paparella and William Melnick, in
Sensorineural Hearing Processes and, Disorders, A. Bruce Graham, Ed.,
Boston, Little, Brown & Co., 1967.
is no regeneration, and the resulting hearing loss is permanent.
In cases where there is temporary hearing loss but subsequent re-
covery, the hearing loss will become permanent after repeated ex-
posures to the same levels of noise. As the hair cells are repeatedly
overstimulated, they begin to degenerate.
This side actually shows a small amount of outer hair cells
damaged although it is somewhat hard to see. The arrow points to
them. Actually they are just very slightly damaged.
Let's have the next slide, please.
Slide 3. (same reference as slide 2). Some hair cell damage is evident.
This slide shows additional hair cells missing after a more pro-
longed or severe exposure to noise. You can see the empty space
among some of the outer cells. See where the arrow points to.
Next slide, please.
(Slide 4)
This slide shows the result of extreme injury, and you can see that
the hair cells are completely gone and the membrane is flat. This
amount of cellular damage would produce considerable hearing loss,
at least for those sounds which would be received by this portion of
the inner ear.
Now, the whole inner ear doesn't necessarily need to look like this,
but this particular area which is damaged is probably towards what
-------
Slide 4. (same reference as slide 2). Shows severe damage to the organ of Corti.
we call the basal end of the cochlea, which is closer to the middle ear
where the sounds first reach the inner ear. It is the most vulnerable
area.
Could I have the next slide, please. (Slide 5)
These two pictures illustrate the process even better. This view looks
down on the hair cells as if you were in the central chamber of the
cochlea. It shows the four rows of hair cells in their normal condi-
tion. Next slide, please.
(Slide 6)
This picture shows the outer row considerably damaged and the
next row slightly damaged. The arrows there point to the outer row,
and you can see there are lots of those cells missing. The next row is
not quite normal either. The inner row tends to hold up the longest,
apparently because those cells are the most firmly supported.
One rather interesting finding from research on animals shows that
certain amounts of noise can produce temporary hearing losses which
disappear after a number of hours. However, when the animal's ear
is sectioned and seen under a microscope, large numbers of the outer
cells are missing. This fact would lead us to wonder if the temporary
loss of hearing experienced after an afternoon with a jackhammer
or an evening at the discotheque would really leave us with some
Slide 5. Electron micrograph of the normal organ of Corti, (guinea pig),
showing hair cells greatly magnified. From "Normal Structure of the Organ
of Corti and the Effect of Noise-Induced Cochlear Damage" by Hans
Engstrom, Harlow W. Ades and G. Bredberg, in Scnsorineural Hearing Loss,
A Ciba Foundation Symposium, G. E. W. Wolstenholme and Julie Knight, Ed.,
London, J. A. Churchill, 1970.
-------
8
ti --•!••- \, \
u *•'*•• '••'• " -•• O
*>»-> > „• ;. f-\ . .NX^.
r- • •
Slide 6. (same reference as Slide 5). Hair cell damage to the outer row of
cells is indicated by arrows.
permanent damage in the inner ear, even though our hearing seems
to have returned completely.
In this instance it is not the immediate future which concerns us,
but rather the prospect of hearing loss in middle and old age. If
a young person is already missing a number of hair cells, the chances
are that by the time he is eligible for old age hearing loss he would
be more susceptible. He woud really have a head start.
However, before we approach the problem of old age hearing loss,
I would like to say more about the causes and types of noise-induced
hearing loss.
The most common source of noise-induced hearing loss is industrial
noise. Government surveys estimate that up to 20 million people are
currently working in conditions which are potentially hazardous to
their hearing. Not all are suffering from hearing losses since some
people are less susceptible to noise damage than others. Aso, many
companies are now providing ear protective devices for their em-
ployees although ear protection is considered far less preferable than
reducing the noise at the source.
Despite these measures, industrial noise has also been increasing
over the last decades, and only very recently has legislation been
enacted to curb it. A 1969 amendment to the Walsh-Healey Regula-
tion limits levels of industrial noise to 90 decibels for a full working
day. Higher levels of noise are permitted for shorter durations of
exposure.
The recent enactment of the Occupational Safety and Health Act
extends the Walsh-Healey limits to all companies involved in inter-
state commerce, so theoretically most workers should be fairly well
protected. The truth is, however, that the Labor Department's team
of inspectors is very small in comparison to the national need, and
there are many companies who hardly know where to begin in order
to comply with the Walsh-Healey regulations.
Another shortcoming in the current legislation is the fact that the
90-decibel level is not designed to protect everyone. Some individuals
-------
are physiologically as well as psychologically more susceptible to
noise. Kesearch has shown that continuous noise as low as 80 decibels
can sometimes be harmful. Also, there are large problems posed by
intermittent noise which is characteristic of construction noise as
well as most kinds of environmental noise.
It is true that the ear can tolerate higher levels of noise if
they are interspersed with periods of relative quiet. However, the
damaging effects of intermittent noise depend on a number of vari-
ables including the amount of relative quiet between noises, the
frequency composition of the noise, and the individual's susceptibil-
ity. Research in this area is underway but, as you can see, it is a com-
plicated problem.
At this point it might be helpful to describe hearing loss in a little
more detail.
Could I have the the next slide, please.
Slide 7. Audiogram showing progression of hearing loss as a function of years
of exposure to industrial noise of high intensity. From Audiology, 2nd ed., by
Hayes A. Newby, N.Y., Copright © 1904 by Meredith Publishing Co. Re-
printed by permission of Appleton-Century Crofts.
This is a picture of what we call an audiogram. You will see fre-
quency or pitch along the horizontal axis with the low tones on the
left and the high tones on the right. Sound intensity or loudness is
represented on the vertical axis and the dots show how much intensity
is needed for an individual to just barely hear each particular tone.
The different black lines represent the amount of hearing loss typi-
cally sustained by a person working in industrial noise of high
intensity.
As you can see, the hearing loss is greater in the high tones than
in the low tones, even after 20 years of exposure. This type of hearing
loss creeps up gradually, often unnoticed, and is particularly hand-
icapping since the individual is still able to hear conversation but has
difficulty in understanding it.
Since he still has good hearing in the low tones and some amount
in the middle tones, he is able to hear the more powerful vowel sounds
but is unable to hear the softer and higher pitched consonants.
Unfortunately for the hard-of-hearing individual, it is the con-
sonants which give the meaning to spoken language. This pheno-
-------
10
menon is also true of individuals with old age hearing loss which is
referred to as presbycusis. Although presbycusis is usually associated
with the normal process of aging, nowadays it is thought that the con-
tinual din of our environment is probably a significant contributor.
It is fairly obvious that people who are not in the immediate
vicinity of the noise source will not run the same risk of hearing loss
as those who are next to it. However, these individuals, as well as
those working directly in high noise levels, are susceptible to physio-
logical consequences which are not immediately related to^the audi-
tory systems, but which may affect the ear through total'body re-
actions.
Experiments have shown that levels of noise which are not loud
enough or continuous enough to produce hearing loss can still cause
an involuntary constriction of the peripheral blood vessels. Loud, un-
expected sounds can cause a variety of physiological reactions.
According to Dr. Samuel Rosen, a noted ear specialist in New York
City, sudden loud noises can cause the heart to beat rapidly, the blood
vessels to constrict, the pupils to dilate, and spasms to occur in the
esophagus and the intestines. These symptoms probably lessen con-
siderably as adaptation to the noise occurs. However, studies have
shown that the process of vascular constriction occurs involuntarily
whether or not a person has become used to the noise. Since the
artery leading to the ear is the smallest artery in the body it is easy
to understand how repeated constriction would limit the blood supply
to the ear. Lack of proper blood supply over the years could
definitely be a contributing factor to old age hearing loss.
The internal auditory artery which leads to the ear is the smallest
artery in the body, and it is probably quite apt to suffer from vas-
cular constriction.
Animal experiments also show that noise tends to cause elevated
levels of cholesterol in the blood, furthering the tendency toward
constricting the blood vessels. Thus, the health of the circulatory sys-
tem as a whole is at stake, not only that of the ear.
The hardest to quantify, and yet perhaps the most important
aspect of noise, is its effect on the quality of life. The interruption
of sleep and conversation, the strain at having to shout and listen
over the roar of air compressors and the pounding of jackhammers
are just isolated examples of the indignities caused by noise. Un-
necessary noise seems to be particularly provoking and has been
blamed for triggering murder, suicide, and insanity. Less dramatic
and probably too common to document are the cases of sudden loss
of temper, child abuse, headache, sleeplessness, depression, and
irritability caused by the intrusion of noise into our private lives.
The idea that people become adapted to noise is really a myth.
As I mentioned previously, the circulatory system does not adapt.
Also, studies have shown that people who work in high noise levels
during the day are more rather than less susceptible to aggravation
from noise after work. The factory worker is more apt to explode at
his noisy children than the man who works in a quiet office.
People will often learn to tolerate noise but not to adapt to it.
Surveys have shown that a very small number of people who are
bothered by noise will actually register complaints. When complaints
begin to appear they represent what has been called the "visible tip
of the iceberg."
-------
11
There is no doubt that action is needed, but the problem is what
to do.
Can we have the next slide, please.
Slide 8. From "How Today's Noise Hurts Body and Mind", in Medical World
News, June 13, 1969.
We can always do this. This man is Charles C. Johnson, formerly
Administrator of the Environmental Health Service, and now Asso-
ciate Executive Director of the American Public Health Associa-
tion. I guess you can see the jackhammers in the background.
Next slide, please.
Slide 9. Drawing by Alan Dunn; © 1966. The New Yorker Magazine, Inc.
It's a little hard to see, but anyway she's saying, "Quiet!" That's
a cartoon from the New Yorker.
Or we can develop a nationwide effort to convince manufacturers
of the need and feasibility of producing quieter machinery.
Ordinarily I don't believe in scare tactics, but I thought I'd leave
you with a picture which never fails to make me shudder when I look
at it.
Can we have the next slide.
(Slide 10)
This picture shows the extent to which sonic booms would effect
the nation if the supersonic transport were to be put into full opera-
tion. As you probably know, the SST flies faster than the speed of
-------
12
Slide 10. Sonic-boom carpets over the United States. From "Acceptable Nominal
Sonic Boom Overpressure in SST Operation" by Bo Lundberg, in Noise as a
Public Health Hazard, ASHA Keports #4, Washington, The American
Speech and Hearing Association, 1969.
sound and creates shock waves which follow behind it almost like the
wake of a boat. Each of those white lines represents a path from 50 to
100 miles wide—more like 100 miles in that picture—which would
receive a sonic boom, perhaps many times a day. As you can see,
there are very few parts of the country which would be left un-
scathed. If we were to allow this to happen we would truly be an
impacted nation.
In this paper I have only covered some of the basic problems
caused by noise pollution, and I imagine that some of the particular
areas will be covered more extensively later. Although the problem
is a complicated one, it is not insoluble. Quieter technology, although
it may not be cheap, is not just a dream. In fact, to quote Dr. Meyer,
noise may be the one instance where knowledge of control techniques
exceeds the knowledge about the effects on human life. Perhaps we
won't have to go deaf by the year 2000 after all.
DR. MEYER : Thank you Miss Suter. That was an excellent presen-
tation of the general problems of noise and its effect on hearing and
as an environmental problem.
I'd like to ask my colleagues on the panel if they have any ques-
tions they would like to direct to Miss Suter.
Mr. Baron.
Mr. BARON : On page 2 you said, "Perhaps one reason why noise
abatement is a latecomer in the field of ecology is because it is in-
sidious. It causes no pain and little discomfort until it reaches very
high levels." I was wondering if you can really make that blanket
statement that it causes little discomfort until it reaches very high
levels.
-------
13
Miss SUTER: Perhaps I should have said physical discomfort,
because it certainly causes psychological discomfort. Is that what you
mean?
Mr. BARON : I think it should be clarified. Because you know one
of the sources of complaints is air conditioners, neighbors' lawn-
mowers, and so on. And I don't know. You're not defining "high
levels" except you have been using it in the context of hearing loss.
Certainly they are sources of discomfort even though they are not
high levels.
Miss SUTER : Yes. I really meant physical discomfort.
Mr. BARON: Another question wTas the one about ear protection
being considered far less preferable than reducing the noise at the
source. I wonder if you wTould elaborate on that. Because many
regulations and approaches to noise control give the noisemaker the
alternative in the case of hearing loss of using hearing protection
instead of engineering for less noise.
Miss SUTER: Well, the Walsh-Healey regu^tion does say that ear
protection should be used only as a last resort. Every effort should be
made to quiet the noise at the source. And I hope that's really taken
seriously. Ear protection is not a satisfactory remedy. It's not com-
fortable. It's not always practical. And it's very difficult to convince
employees to wear it. In places like textile mills particularly it's
terribly hot, and in other industrial situations also.
Mr. BARON: One question in clarification of adaptation on the
bottom of page 9. You say, "The symptoms probably lessen consider-
ably as adaptation to the noise occurs. However, studies have shown
that the process of vascular constriction would limit the blood supply
to the ear.'' You clarified it I think in an aside. Could you—
Miss SUTER : There was a sentence left out.
Mr. BARON : There was a sentence left out ?
Miss SUTER: Yes. I'm sorry about that. Vascular constriction
occurs regardless. People do adapt somewhat to noise psychologically
and physiologically both. But the process of vascular constriction
occurs anyway, even to fairly low levels of noise.
Mr. BARON : On this business of adaptation, is the only physiolog-
ical reaction the vascular reaction where you do not adapt ? I remem-
ber Dr. Gerd Jansen's work, who also worked with Dr. Eosen, and
I believe there were a number of physiological reactions for which
there was no adaptation. Was it just the vascular? Do you remember
that research?
Miss SUTER : Yes, I do, but I believe it's animal research, isn't it ?
Mr. BARON : No, Dr. Jansen did some work with students in
Germany, and so on,—
Miss SUTER: Oh, really?
Mr. BARON :—over a period of 3 years.
Miss SUTER : I know in animal research they found a number of
other physiological reactions that don't cease with adaptation.
Mr. BARON : I think this is a very important point, because one
of the arguments sometimes given for permitting noise levels to re-
main in the environment is this so-called process of "adaptation,"
and some of the studies would suggest that we are exaggerating the
ability to "adapt." I think Dr. Welsh used the expression we become
"inured" but our system is still responding. Our conscious awareness
might change somewhat but we are paying a price for adaptation.
-------
14
I just wonder if you could address yourself to that for a moment.
Miss SUTER: I do know of a few studies that show chemical re-
actions. Certain chemicals are secreted which ordinarily aren't—in
humans—although most of the studies that I know of are animal
studies. And I'm a little bit reluctant to generalize from animal
studies to humans.
The animals that are used are quite a bit smaller, for one thing,
guinea pigs and rats and chinchillas.
And definitely they have found with animal studies' that there
are many physiological reactions that persist. And probably I
suppose you can say it about humans too. I'm not aware of very
many studies on humans. Perhaps this is something that needs to
be done in the future. But it's also hard.
Mr. BARON: Well, don't you tend to generalize from animal
studies to humans as far as hearing is concerned ? You don't certainly
deliberately sacrifice human hearing for the purpose of determining
what is happening to the inner ear. Don't you use animals for
studies ?
Miss SUTER: That's right, yes. But even so, for instance, if the
guinea pig is exposed to 120 decibels of rock and roll music for
enough time, the thing dies. And that's not quite true of humans.
Mr. BARON: Some people would debate that. (Laughter) They
wish they would die I suppose. (Laughter)
But, however, it does suggest that certain physiological changes
are taking place. Of course, the degree is different.
Miss SUTER : The degree is really the difference, yes. And you can
generalize in people too. And the slides that I showed you are animal
slides. But it's a matter of degree, and I really would hate to say—
Mr. BARON : I understand. The only point I'm making is this
double standard where as far as hearing loss is concerned we very
readily generalize from animal experiments, and then when we come
to the non-auditory effects we always make a big point of the fact
these are animal experiments.
Miss SUTER: Well, but I'm also saying that even as far as the
auditory system is concerned you can't generalize as to level. You
can generalize as to the place of the damage and, you know, the type
of damage, but as far as the sound level is concerned it still is hard
to generalize.
Mr. BARON : Would you care then to clarify the statement on the
bottom of page 9? You said there is a missing sentence on this. I
just wondered what—
Miss SUTER: I thought I did.
Mr. BARON : Oh, you did ?
Miss SUTER : The process of vascular constriction goes on. In other
words, there is no adaptation there. I think that's pretty clear. And
then what I meant to say after that was that vascular constriction
also limits the blood supply to the ear, and since that artery is the
smallest in the body it's particularly vulnerable.
Mr. BARON : Also surveys have shown that a very small number
of people who are bothered by noise will actually register com-
plaints. I think you have made a very important point there, be-
cause if we use complaints it's a complicated thing to determine the
impact of noise in the environment. That's one of the reasons.
In other words, you're saying—and this is important for us to
-------
15
understand and remember—that there is not necessarily a relation-
ship between the annoyance or even physiological damage—
Apparently a worker in a noisy factory, if I am correct, may be
losing his hearing and yet not complain or not be aware.
I'm not going to take time to go into that, but there are a number
of reasons why there is that difference in complaints.
Miss SUTER: Yes. I have heard people say that it's an act of God,
that noise is just there and there's nothing you can do, which is
really ridiculous.
Mr. BAHON : That's one reason—the belief it's inevitable as the
price of progress, or the fact that it is a lack of manhood or strength
or you're neurotic if you complain. 1 mean there's a body of legends
and myths that holds down complaints.
Dr. MEYER: Anything else?
Mr. BARON : I think, incidentally, if you're familiar with the work
in the Soviet Union on the effect of intense noise on workers as far
as heartbeats are concerned—
Miss SUTER : I'm not—
Mr. BARON : —Alex Cohen has published that in some of the Public
Health papers, and it has showed excessive noise has produced
irregularity in heartbeat, which is a very significant physiological
reaction.
What I'm trying to do here is raise the issue of the fact that the
non-auditory effects of noise are very significant. The research has
been more or less meager—a lot more I believe in Europe than here.
But it is important to bear in mind that noise does have these effects
011 the human body which we don't completely understand.
But Dr. Rosen himself believes we will some day determine a
noise syndrome, an actual pathological happening in the human
organism, from receiving noise of below hearing-loss levels.
And, of course, there is the work—Do you care to say anything
about the work that is being done in noise and sleep loss, for example,
change in sleep cycles?
Miss SUTER: Well, I don't really know very much about that. I
know that at the Stanford Research Institute I think they are doing
that kind of research, and definitely noise does affect the sleep cycle
even though the person doesn't wake up. It changes the sleep pattern.
I think that there can be definite bad effects from that even though
the person it totally unaware of it. For instance, if the REM state
is disturbed many times over, you know, that can have a very bad
effect on a person's psychological state.
MR. BARON : I think this is a very important point, because many
people near highways or in urban areas think they have a great
night's sleep and actually from the results that have come out in
some of the sleep studies we know that the sleep cycles are disturbed
with consequences that may be much more significant than we realize
at this time. You indicated already that there is some concern over
this.
Thank you.
Dr. MEYER: Before going to Dr. Bender in turn here, I would
like to follow up on one point Mr. Baron raised. Would you venture
a comment regarding the possibility that some of the so-called adap-
tation to the actual noise, or rather the lack of response to noise as
an environmental insult, is really due to the fact that people have lost
-------
16
their hearing in addition to the presbycusis effect and that the reason
noise does not annoy them is because they are not actually hearing
some of the higher frequency noises?
Miss SITTER: I rather doubt it, because it almost has the reverse
effect. People who tend to lose high frequency hearing sometimes
become even more sensitive. And noise usually is broad enough in
spectrum that, you know, it affects them anyway.
Dr. MEYER: Thank you.
Dr. Bender.
Dr. BENDER: I have no questions.
Dr. MEYER: Dr. Lyons.
Dr. LYONS : I'd like to address the fact of what constitutes what
we understand or what we accept as a noise safety hazard and what
we just guess might be a noise safety hazard. The evidence is fairly
well documented and accepted I think by most scientific and layman
communities that high noise levels such as 90 dB(A) or such under
long-term exposure will cause hearing damage, as you showed in the
slides. What is the level at which hearing damage would not be ex-
pected even under long-term noise exposure?
Miss SITTER: A very difficult question. I don't think that's known.
People can estimate it. But you mean for continuous noise? You see,
the problems of intermittency just make it so difficult.
Environmental noise is never just continuous. It's always inter-
mittent. And it involves I mean a mathematical wizard really to
figure out during the average day, you know, how much environ-
mental noise is at what level, what the ambient is, and what the
additional levels are. And you could probably come up with a total
for a day, but everybody's total is different.
Dr. LYONS: Eight. But hasn't it been fairly well accepted that
continuous noise exposure of approximately 80 decibels, "A" scale
weighted, would not cause hearing damage in a significant per-
centage of the population?
Miss SITTER: Yes.
Dr. LYONS: That is, continuous exposure, 8 hours a day, 5 days a
week, 52 weeks a year.
Miss SITTER : Yes. We hope.
Dr. LYONS: And extrapolating that on, isn't it also fairly well
accepted that noise levels occurring intermittently, say once a day
for a few minutes, of 120 decibels, "A" scale weighted, or so, will
similarly not cause inner ear hearing damage?
Miss SUTER : We don't know. Just because you don't have a hearing
loss or a temporary threshold shift afterwards doesn't mean that
there isn't damage caused. And I think I brought this out in the
paper—that there have been studies—animal studies again—that
show these animals have been exposed to high levels of noise and then
they do have a temporary hearing loss which returns to normal.
Later on when the ear is sectioned and examined they are missing
hair cells. We are probably doing that too, but we just can't tell.
Dr. LYONS : You have addressed the point that I wanted to make—
that there is scientific evidence that is fairly well accepted, you know,
that documents that inner ear hearing damage occurs when people are
exposed to excessively high noise levels. When these noise levels drop
below a certain level such as approximately 80 dB(A) continuous ex-
posure or 120 dB(A) for short-term exposures, the evidence becomes
-------
17
very sketchy and the scientific community does not agree that there is
a correlation between physiological damage and these lower noise-
level exposures. Is that not—
Miss SUTER: I think a few years ago that's what people thought,
that once you got down to 80 decibels you're safe and sound, and if
you only had a few exposures to very loud levels per day you are
still safe and sound.
Nowadays they really don't think so, because the evidence has
shown that there is cell damage even though you seem to hear fine.
And so really the implications of this are that by the time a person
is eligible for presbycusis, old age hearing loss, they are much more
susceptible. Now, it can be a combination of cell damage that you
don't know about when it's going on, and it can also be the effect of
vaso-constriction caused by lower levels of noise, and all these other
physiological effects, wear and tear on the systems.
Presbycusis is a very kind of an amorphous thing. It's really a
mixed bag. Some people say it's just "getting old." Other people
say it's very possibly caused by lower levels of noise when the person
is younger. Other people think that it's due to cardiovascular
problems. And it could be that the whole thing, the interrelation, the
noise, the age, and the cardiovascular problems, all probably lead to
presbycusis.
So when you say somebody is safe and sound at 80 decibels, we
really don't know, and the chances are they are not.
Dr. LYONS : I have no further questions.
Dr. MEYER : All right. Mr. McCarthy.
Mr. MCCARTHY : I was intrigued by the suggestion on page 5,
where you are talking about some of the harmful effects on hearing.
After that experiment done with the animals who are exposed to
sudden noises or loud noises and apparently the hearing was restored
after a short time, and yet in fact it was discovered that hearing loss
did occur or that loss of cells occurred, you just sort of leave us
wondering if temporary loss of hearing, you know, is something
that shouldn't be looked into a little farther.
I think from all of what I have heard so far it is a reasonably
significant question to ask, and I just wonder if you can enlighten me
and the other panel members for a moment if you know of anyone
who is seriously looking into this question.
Miss SUTER : They are doing studies on temporary threshold shift
in a number of places—Central Institute for the Deaf, the Kresge
Research Laboratory, Dixon Ward up in Minnesota. I'm most
familiar with the ones at Central Institute for the Deaf—Miller
and Eldridge I believe.
They are the ones who are reluctant now to induce temporary
threshold shifts on people because of this very reason. They are
afraid that it is causing cell damage even though the person's hear-
ing has returned to normal. It has been popular to do temporary
threshold shift experiments on college students, and I know lots
of places where they do it. And I think people are beginning to
frown on that.
Mr. MCCARTHY: The results seem to indicate though—at least I
gather the preliminary results—that hearing loss or damage is in-
duced. And I guess my only point is that if this is really true it
seems to be a rather significant effect of temporary sources of noise—•
-------
18
Miss SITTER : Well,—
Mr. MCCARTHY : —producing permanent effects.
Miss SITTER: —yes, I think at this point they say that there is a
risk, a very definite risk, and therefore that's why they'd rather not
use human subjects to do it any more. Previously they thought that
it produced fatigue in the inner ear and then hearing returned to
normal. Now they are not so sure if it's just fatigue.
Mr. MCCARTHY: Thank you.
Dr. MEYER : Dr. Okun.
Dr. OKUN : You have discussed at quite some length some of the
effects, and I presume that you have given some thought to the
manner or form of control. Within industry perhaps it's a little
easier. But with regard to community noises that are the responsi-
bility of a very diverse population, have you given any thought to
the kind of regulations that would be appropriate, the kinds of
legislation that might be needed?
Miss SUTER : I haven't.
Dr. MEYER: Thank you very much, Miss Suter, for a very
thorough stage-setting for the discussions of the rest of the day. I
thought it very important, if we are going to talk about noise and
noise control, that we have such a presentation. We appreciate the
tremendous amount of time that you put into this. I would appre-
ciate it if you could furnish me copies of the visual material so that
we may include it in the printed version of the record.
Dr. MEYER: I am sure that people would like to talk to you later
on at the break. We appreciate your help very much.
Having heard about the effects of noise on the human mechanism,
we will now proceed to discuss some of the things that can be done
about this problem. Our next participant in these discussions is Mr.
Earl Ellwood of the United States Gypsum Company. Mr. Ellwood,
we are happy to have you with us and look forward to hearing from
you regarding the subject at hand.
STATEMENT OF EARL ELLWOOD, UNITED STATES GYPSUM
COMPANY
Mr. ELLWOOD: The paper which I am about to present was pre-
pared by Mr. Joe Newman, Vice President of Tishman Research
Corporation, which is a subsidiary of Tishman Realty and Con-
struction Company of New York City. Joe is in Europe evaluating
some industrial concepts for my company, so he felt that I could
probably represent him in his absence.
The title of his paper is "Noise Control. Sound Emanating with-
in Office and Similar Type Buildings."
The problem of achieving a good acoustical environment in com-
mercial and institutional buildings is a complex one and the objective
of this brief paper is to place the problem in proper perspective,
indicate a satisfactory solution based upon experience, and to suggest
what to do and not to do.
The extent and nature of the problem is not quite clear and highly
subjective. The number of complaints emanate from a very small
percentage of the total occupants in office buildings. Those who com-
plain are the most vocal, but more importantly, as with most sub-
jective considerations, it is almost impossible to satisfy all concerned.
-------
19
To minimize problems and achieve an acoustical environment
satisfactory to a high percentage of the population, one must call
upon the combined expertise of the engineering and architectural
disciplines and the practitioners who build the systems, subsystems,
and components. Acoustical engineering cannot be treated solely as
an exercise in design, but must include and have the support of the
aforementioned teammates working together from the outset. To
achieve predetermined objectives, building owners, general contrac-
tors, subcontractors, trade mechanics, and a variety of professionals
must be thoroughly trained, motivated, and coordinated.
Unfortunately, the details which may be required to provide a good
acoustical environment may not always be compatible with the
details required for fire safety, architectural aesthetics, and economy.
You concentrate on establishing the best balance or compromise
between cost and function, all factors considered, seeking the best
solution for the least money.
Now I would like to briefly tell you about some of the considera-
tions and factors that make the noise control complex and then
about an approach that my company follows that permits us to
offer effective privacy for a relatively low additional cost.
1. Initially, the degree of privacy required for occupancy of the
various tenants must be intelligently established. Obviously, the
privacy required for a medical suite will be more critical than the
privacy required in a commercial business occupancy.
2. A knowledge of noise levels anticipated in the various occu-
pancies is another important consideration.
3. The location of the structure has a bearing because of the mask-
ing level of background noise. Acoustical isolation of occupancies is
more difficult in quiet, isolated locations than in a busy metropolitan
location.
4. Acoustical properties of an occupied space is another considera-
tion. Properly analyzed and designed, acoustical absorption within
an occupancy will reduce the sound pressure levels.
5. Limitations of the structure is another very important factor.
(a) One of our major suppliers of building materials has estab-
lished that structural flanking paths limit the degree of privacy.
A wood frame structure lias a limitation of approximately 45 STC.
The installation of a 54 STC partition in a conventional wood
frame biiilding is an exercise in futility, for unless the structure is
decoupled, the isolation achieved will still be approximately 45
STC.
(b) Air distribution and return ducts are another common
flanking1 path unless properly designed and installed.
(c) Piping and electrical conduit can be flanking paths, but
more often their installation shorten out decoupled assemblies.
(d) Vibration from mechanical equipment is another source of
unwanted sound.
6. Architectural layout within the space is a further consideration.
Unfortunately, through the leasing of space, with individual tenants
retaining other architectural firms or interior designers or calling
the shots themselves, control of the layout within the building is
often lost.
Architectural layout should consider like occupancy to like occu-
pancy. It is conceivable that a noisy machine room of one tenant may
-------
20
end up adjacent to the private office of an executive in another
tenant's space.
Within occupancies, and especially in corridors, the placement of
doors is important to retain privacy.
7. The selection of systems for partitions and floor-ceilings may
appear to be a simple matter, since most manufacturers have pro-
vided the industry with a great deal of technical data related to
sound control. However, I would like to question this simplicity and
raise a few points of caution:
(a) Most manufacturers reliably publish technical data obtained
through testing assemblies in what we call classical laboratory
facilities. The published data is at best a first approximation only,
since a classical laboratory facility provides you only a comparison
from one assembly to another assembly under ideal and controlled
conditions. You cannot always expect to achieve comparable results
in the field, but you can expect to obtain a similar relationship.
The assembly testing best in a laboratory, when properly installed,
should provide the best result in the field.
(b) You have to assume that the manufacturer has competent
engineers erecting the test panel and all the components; the erec-
tion procedures and details are used to assure the highest number
rating possible. This is obviously a good marketing procedure.
Copies of the actual reported tests should be obtained for evalua-
tion by a competent acoustical enginneer who can detect differences
between laboratory and real life practices.
(c) You cannot assume an assembly promoted by one manu-
facturer will achieve comparable results when erected by com-
ponents from another manufacturer. The physical properties of a
metal stud may not be identical due to the metal gauge or con-
figuration. The acoustical absorption of a sound attenuation
blanket may vary due to density or other physical properties. The
gypsum wallboard may vary due to physical properties not im-
mediately apparent. Allowing the subcontractor the latitude of
substitution based on purchasing advantages after bidding accord-
ing to plans and specifications is a good method of compromising
your results. However, pretested combinations of different manu-
facturers' products can overcome this compromise. This is not done
too often, however.
(c) In the selection of assemblies, which are used to divide and
finish space, the elements should be reasonably comparable in re-
sistance to sound transmission. The up-and-over sound transmis-
sion loss of a ceiling assembly should be in the same range as the
Eartition, for like a chain, the result is no better than the weakest
nk. If the up-and-over STC of a ceiling assembly is 40, based on
a laboratory test, the partition should be selected that has a 40 or
41 STC rating. But here again, the ceiling test must be evaluated
by an acoustical engineer, for the depth of the plenum space, the
composition of elements in the plenum, all have a bearing on field
performance.
8. Once it is decided what is to be done, it is necessary to translate
this through architectural detailing and specifications. This is not
always easy because it must be remembered that sound isolation is
based on three physical properties—mass, isolation or decoupling,
and damping— but not any one of these three is effective if leaks are
-------
21
provided in the assembly. Every minute hole and crack must be
sealed, and the sealing or caulking must be resilient and elastic to
compensate for movement in the structure.
9. Field supervision of all installations must be provided by com-
petent personnel. In field testing undertaken by one of our suppliers,
it was illustrated that sound-rated partitions, installed with no
attention to acoustical detailing, provided a field performance of 10 to
20 STC points below the laboratory rating. However, with good
architectural detailing and good supervision, the partitions provided
field results comparable to or slightly below the (3 to 5 STC points)
laboratory results.
We find that the most inexpensive way of obtaining the intended
results is to use a non-hardening sealant or caulking material under
all runners—floor and ceiling—to seal the runners to the structure.
Without such acoustical sealing, we cannot approach the desired
sound privacy predicted upon laboratory tests.
Also, we find that placing sound attenuation blankets in the
cavities of partitions, in accordance with the manufacturer's recom-
mendations, allows us to use the most economical wall system.
Also, we make certain that cutouts and openings are properly
sealed or stuffed with appropriate sound isolation materials. Where
higher levels of privacy are required, partitions should run from
the floor to the underside of the ceiling slab.
All these things permit one to come reasonably close to laboratory
results. However, it should be clearly understood that it is almost
impossible to achieve laboratory results in the field. The objective
is to come closer to such results than what would otherwise be pos-
sible
RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Be extremely cautious in the use of Minimum Property Stand-
ards established by setting sound transmission classification (STC)
objectives to elements of a building for the following reasons:
(a) It establishes sound control as a numbers game. What is the
effective difference in sound isolation between two partitions with
respective laboratory ratings of 50 STC and 49 STC, when 1 dB
can be described as the amount of noise a small mouse would make
urinating on a blotter?
(b) Established standards for selection of systems based upon
laboratory testing will not improve the acoustical environment
with no identification or control of the architectural detailing or
workmanship.
(c) The standards established may be completely adequate for
one location and/or building type and inadequate for another.
Use ranges and guidelines instead.
2. Provide cogent data and an educational program to show that
good acoustical environments can be achieved by paying attention
to the kinds of things discussed herein. This means educating the
public and government agencies on the importance of the team
approach and the utilization of responsible builders and engineers.
3. Encourage the use of cost-benefit analysis for alternate solutions
to acoustical problems and an involvement of all parties from the
outset.
4. Emphasize combinations of things that should be done, and
in particular, the elimination of all flanking paths by use of effective
-------
22
acoustical sealants and sound attenuation blanket in all cavities,
and proper workmanship during installation.
Dr. MEYER : Thank you very much, Mr. Ellwood. We are presented
with a minor technical acoustical problem for the members of the
panel and witnesses or participants. I understand some of the people
in the back of the room are having a little difficulty hearing so would
everybody be sure to speak a little closer to the microphone or else
a little louder. I'll reverse the alphabetical arder and ask Dr. Okun
if he has any questions.
Dr. OKUN: This is just a question of general interest in connection
with multifamily housing units or office or industrial buildings.
How is the prospective tenant to assess the quality of the acoustical
protection that he is likely to get in a building? Beacause the build-
ing is long since built and he is coming in, and it's only after occupy-
ing that he generally finds out that he has made a serious mistake
and there are problems.
Is there any way of assuring a level of acoustical protection ?
Mr. ELLWOOD: I would say that if I were going to buy or rent
an expensive apartment in a high-rise building I would probably,
before making a commitment, obtain the services of some local
acoustical engineer to evaluate the construction, which he could do
for a fee of two or three hundred dollars.
Dr. OKUN : This is a fairly expensive operation for every prospec-
tive home owner. Isn't there something that might be done by either
builders or by regulation that might certify or at least establish an
acoustical rating for these multifamily structures, office buildings, or
other places that are used by the public generally ?
Mr. ELLWOOD : Well, for example in San Francisco some of the
major builders in that market have established a specific STC rating
for their partition constructions. Prior to the installation of any of
these partitions, the initial partition is erected supervised by an
acoustical engineer, and it's tested. If the partition comes up to the
established rating, then the subcontractor is allowed to go ahead
and build these partitions as he built this one.
At some point in the building the acoustical engineer comes back
in and then checks to make sure that the subsequent partitions have
been built in accordance with the ratings achieved in the first one.
If the rating comes up, the contractor is allowed to go on. If not,
he then has to go back and make a correction to that partition and
go back and correct all other partitions which have been built.
As a result they are getting a pretty good level of sound isolation
in their partitions.
Unfortunately, it's difficult for a builder to know what sound levels
are going to be achieved in some places. In Chicago I have some
friends who have moved in from the suburbs where they have had
other hobbies, and they moved into a high-rise apartment house. And
because they have got a lot of spare time on their hands, they then
bought one hell of a big Hammond organ. And not being a
musician, he does a lot of practicing. And as a result, everybody else
on that floor and above him and below him are unhappy. I don't
think you can expect a builder to anticipate that type of con-
sideration.
Dr. OKUN : Do the builders who use this approach in San Fran-
cisco advise prospective clients either through their advertisements or
promotional material of the acoustical levels involved?
-------
23
Mr. ELL WOOD: Unfortunately, some of them advertise them as
being soundproof, and, of course, you know as well as I know that
there is no such thing as a soundproof structure.
Dr. OKTJN : Are there any sets of regulations that might be estab-
lished to provide a guide for proper promotion of various acoustical
levels of protection?
Mr. ELL WOOD : I would guess that you could probably establish a
set of standards, but the set of standards would have to be established
at the end point of the construction and not from the standpoint of
design, which would mean after the partitions were built they should
be tested to determine whether they come up to the rating.
Dr. OKUN : Thank you.
Dr. MEYER : Mr. McCarthy.
Mr. MCCARTHY: Could you elaborate on that last statement just
a moment ? I'm not quite sure I understood.
Mr. ELL WOOD : For example, today we have a set of FHA stand-
ards, and the standards say the partition dividing a corridor in an
apartment, for example, may have to be 50 STC. If that builder
selects from a manufacturer's literature a partition which has had
an acoustical rating of 50 STC, his plans are approved. When the
building gets built, that system may have been bastardized by the
subcontractor and he may be getting a rating of 30 or 35, not the 50,
so the FHA standards are not very effective.
Mr. MCCARTHY: Well, what do you do in that case when they
don't come up to standards ? You're saying the standards are not very
effective. And if I read one of your recommendations right, I think
you're calling for a range of values rather than a fixed number.
Mr. ELL WOOD: That's right.
Mr. MCCARTHY: I mean does this range go to that degree—30
percent ?
Mr. ELLWOOD : I would say that probably one of the most effective
ways of getting good sound control is tenant occupancy. If you're
unhappy, you move out. And if the building is unoccupied, then the
fellow is going to do something about bringing up the standards.
Mr. MCCARTHY : That could be a tricky experiment for the people
involved, the tenants.
Thank you.
Mr. ELLWOOD: I think that's probably why people in this country
would prefer to live in a single-family house rather than a multi-
family home.
Dr. MEYER : Dr. Lyons.
Dr. LYONS : Do you have at the tip of your tongue some estimates
of what it costs to modify an existing structure to add a substantial
amount of quieting?
Mr. ELLWOOD : Yes. It is goddam expensive. I can give you a couple
of examples.
There was a pretty fair structure built in St. Louis, and some
place along in the design they had a kitchen with a garbage disposal
unit in the sink, and that kitchen backed up against the bedroom of
another tenant occupancy. And every time somebody threw a bone in
that garbage disposal, the guy who was sleeping went through the
ceiling.
It would probably cost a maximum of twenty dollars per lineal
foot what the original partition cost to go in and correct that. Any
time you have to go back in and add a correction to it, you are elimi-
-------
24
nating space, you are working in finished occupancy, and your cost
goes up fantastically.
Dr. LYONS : No other questions.
Dr. MEYER: Dr. Bender.
Dr. BENDER : I'd like to pursue that a bit if we may. You say that
corrective action costs about 20 times more than the original con-
struction,—
Mr. ELL WOOD : That's right.
Dr. BENDER : —which to my way of thinking implies that to do it
right from the beginning would have been pretty cheap.
Mr. ELL WOOD: That's right. In the first place, you never should
design an apartment with a kitchen adjacent to a bedroom of another
apartment. It should be kitchen to kitchen and bedroom to bedroom
in layouts.
Dr. BENDER: Another question. On page 8 you comment that you
would encourage the use of cost-benefit analysis for alternate solu-
tions to acoustical problems and an involvement of all parties from
the outset. Now, isn't it true that the costs are borne largely by the
contractor, building owner, who passes them on to the tenants of
course, and the benefits are provided to the occupants, and that really
the occupants have no practical way of finding out how quiet their
environment is going to be before they move in?
I think the notion of hiring an acoustical consultant, while that
may work—if you hire one he may tell you what it's going to be
like—I haven't known of anybody to do that. Very few people can
afford a couple hundred bucks to find out how quiet something is.
Mr. ELLWOOD: I think probably that a simple solution would be
if you were going to rent a piece of property to put somebody on
one side of the partition and talk in a loud tone of voice and stand
on the other side and determine whether you can hear him or not.
Dr. BENDER: But if the other side is occupied—
Mr. ELLWOOD : There are certain elementary ways of accomplishing
that.
Dr. BENDER: Well, even that seems to me to have a lot of difficul-
ties. If the other side happens to be occupied, the people living there
might not like the idea of their new neighbors walking in and shout-
ing through the walls.
Don't you really think— Well, let me ask you this question. You
mentioned that standards are not terribly relevant, but is that an
insurmountable problem to make standards more relevant to con-
struction? And don't you think that legislation is perhaps a viable
way of achieving privacy especially in multifamily dwellings?
Mr. ELLWOOD: Well, they have had standards in Europe for a
great many years, and they have a type of construction over there
which lends itself to a pretty good acoustical isolation, being largely
in the neighborhood of heavy masonry.
But in my experience in Europe I find that they have the same
problems of flanking paths and leaks that we have in this country
due to poor construction practices. And the standards, while they
may be there, apparently are not adquately enforced.
I have no quarrel with standards except that I think the standards
have to be intelligently set. We find, for example, that some lending
agencies and Federal agencies have established some standards
which in effect are kind of ridiculous. In other words, you set a
-------
25
standard for a partition within an occupancy to establish what the
STC rating of my bedroom wall shall be within my own occupancy,
which is kind of a ridiculous situation because if I can't control a
sound in my own living quarters I'm always going to have a problem.
And particularly when you allow a flush hollow-core door to be put
in which will have an isolation of 10 or 15 STC, why should a
standard be established for 36 on a partition in that case?
Dr. BENDER: You mean to say you don't think there should be
any standards for the attenuation of walls between recreational and,
say, sleep areas within a person's own home?
Mr. ELL WOOD: No, not within my own area. But I do think it
should be controlled between occupancies and perhaps between corri-
dors and occupancy, but there again on a corridor if you establish a
rating for a corridor of 50 or 54 STC, what type of a door arrange-
ment can you put in that will come anywhere near achieving what
you are requiring of the partition ? If you get 20 STC on that door
you're going to be lucky. You've got to get into the apartment.
Dr. BENDER : No more questions.
DR. MEYER: Mr. Baron.
Mr. BARON: I'm not quite clear on something. That is, are we
talking about relative perfection? Because I compare an apartment
which is put up without any restrictions whatsoever and it is pretty
hideous. And you're talking about having a leak that some high
frequency sound can go through.
Question No. 1, could you concretize, could you give me a descrip-
tion of a leak we'll say where a high frequency sound goes through
and, if you could, give me a practical example of where this causes
a serious problem?
Mr. ELLWOOD : I can give you 20 or 30 examples.
Mr. BARON: I'll take one.
Mr. ELLWOOD: You build an apartment and you put a medicine
cabinet in two bathrooms back to back, and you have two pieces of
metal between them.
Mr. BARON : I understand that. That isn't what I'm talking about.
Mr. ELLWOOD : That's one leak.
Mr. BARON : That isn't what what I mean.
Mr. ELLWOOD: Okay.
Mr. BARON : You talked about a leak, we'll say, small leak in a
partition—
Mr. ELLWOOD : All right.
Mr. BARON :—where high frequency sound can go through.
Mr. ELLWOOD: Suppose you build a flat-plate, reinforced-concrete
high-rise and you have got continuous creep deflection and your
floors sag. And as the floors sag your partition now becomes loaded
and it cracks, and you get a crack an eighth of an inch wide at the
bottom and it may come up to be practically infinitesimal at the top.
That's a sufficient leak to allow sound to violate the effectiveness
of your wall.
You've got electrical outlets back to back. You've got TV outlets
back to back. You've got a closure plate between a column and a
window wall.
Another flanking path would be similar to one that is in a northern
university in which they have a fine arts building in which the walls
between the music rooms are 12 inches of reinforced concrete. They
-------
26
have sound locks with riverbank doors. But for aesthetic reasons the
architect put a curtain wall on the exterior of that building. A stu-
dent can play the piano in one corner room, and down the building
five or six rooms further down with four or five massive concrete
walls between them a professor can write the music on the chalk-
board that that fellow plays on the piano because of the flexing
characteristics of the curtain wall.
Those are all flanking paths or leaks.
Mr. BARON: Right. But these it seems to me with proper under-
standing on the part of all parties—you make this point, or Newman
did—would have prevented this, as you say.
Mr. ELLWOOD : It could be. That's right.
Mr. BARON: But the impression sometimes is created that it's
almost impossible to design a proper acoustical environment because
of a tiny leak, and the image that usually comes to my mind is a
pinhole or something.
Mr. ELLWOOD : We're not talking about pinholes.
Mr. BARON : You're talking about flanking. But this can be taken
care of in the installation.
Mr. ELLWOOD : It can be taken care of in the design and construc-
tion, and it always costs a little more money to do it.
Mr. BARON: On the question of cost-benefit, this is an EPA
hearing—on the environment—and I hope that when you are talking
about cost-benefit that the new interpretation of cost, which is the
externalizing, the forcing of costs on the person who is receiving the
noise, is understood to be part of the cost. We no longer should be
thinking of straight dollar cost of design.
Some day we are going to find out I think we are paying a terrible
cost for having put up a lot of these post-war homes where privacy
does not exist. And I would like to point out that it is not easy to
move and that tenancy movement in an area where you have a tight
housing situation, such as you have in New York and perhaps other
cities—movement of tenants because of imhappiness with the acous-
tin environment—is not easily done.
And one of the things I think that we are going to have to address
ourselves to and I'd like your thinking on it—you brought up one
aspect of it—is some way of retrofitting postwar apartments so they
can become literally habitable as far as the acoustic environment is
concerned. I think we have a very serious problem there.
If you tell somebody to move or use moving as an index, right now
it is not a very appropriate index.
Mr. ELLWOOD : I would like nothing better than to have the oppor-
tunity to sit down with a builder and an architect prior to his design
and show him how to do the job right, because it always involves
more of our materials, which increases our sales, which increases our
profits.
Mr. BARON: How do you propose then this educational program
or this— You mentioned in Europe, one, because of the materials
they use and also because they have been working on this business of
building codes since the 1930's in some countries— I don't want to go
into the question of enforcement, but we do know Europeans in
many countries have been using or having available building codes
for acoustic attenuation. What do you propose that we do here in
a system of steps when we put up, say, multifamily dwellings, which
-------
27
are going to become as our population increases very important as-
pects of our living situation?
Mr. ELLWOOD: Well, the most successful solution I have seen to
that is the establishing first of intelligent standards, and that is
recognizing the fact that door openings off corridors are going to be
weak so that you don't put an excessive amount of money into a
corridor partition because in the corridor your noise is always inter-
mittent. You haven't got a continuous noise level in a corridor like
you have in another occupancy.
But if you establish intelligent standards and then establish the
fact that this is a requirement of the completed wall and not the
design wall, and then establish some method of checking that before
the occupancy is allowed to take place, then I think you could
establish a reasonably good standard of environment for living.
Mr. BARON: If I understand you correctly, you are saying there
should be two things. One is—
Mr. ELLWOOD : Intelligent standards.
Mr. BARON : —a standard of the materials,—
Mr. ELLWOOD: That's right.
Mr. BARON: —and a performance standard after the materials
are assembled?
MR. ELLWOOD: That's right.
Mr. BARON: That you really need both?
Mr. ELLWOOD : That's right.
Mr. BARON: The Dutch have been doing a lot of that in field
testing, haven't they?
Mr. ELLWOOD: Yes.
Mr. BARON : You're talking really about materials testing and field
testing after assembly?
Mr. ELLWOOD : That's right.
Mr. BARON : Just one last question. Do you believe that it will ever
be possible to work out some less than 20 times system for retrofit-
ting some of the horrible apartment situations we have now?
Mr. ELWOOD: Well, I guess that would depend on the degree of
problem that exists. There is always an opportunity to build a wall
alongside of a wall which may cut down the occupant's space. But
there are also other methods of decoupling and damping which may
provide reasonably good solutions.
But the problem when you go into finished material is the problem
of getting materials in there. You have to take off trim. You have
to extend outlet boxes. You just involve every trade which is used
in the structure when you get involved in this, and you have got a
problem of coordination, and it is a costly operation.
Mr. BARON : Would you say that we need some research in possible
ways of—
Mr. ELLWOOD: I don't think there is any research needed. I think
we are all well enough aware of what the problems are.
Mr. BARON: In terms of retrofitting?
Mr. ELLWOOD : No, I don't think so.
Mr. BARON : Just application ?
Mr. ELLWOOD : I can take and renovate any building so it's satis-
factory. I don't need—
Mr. BARON : At a 20 times—
Mr. ELLWOOD : That depends upon what the problems are.
-------
28
Dr. BENDER : Just one brief comment concerning research. The
example that you gave had to do with a garbage disposal. Now, a
possible alternative instead of rebuilding the apartment would be to
redesign the garbage disposal.
Mr. EI.LWOOD : Could be.
Dr. BENDER: Now, currently I doubt if there is enough known
about how garbage disposals generate and transmit noise in a quanti-
tative way, but perhaps that would be a useful area for research.
Mr. ELLWOOD: Although I would doubt that anything you do
with that garbage disposal unit would satisfactorily resolve the
sound problem on the opposite side. There are just a lot of stupid
things that are done continually.
For example, every time that anybody builds an apartment they
always put their TV outlet on the party wall, don't they? So you
have got a TV backed up on each side. What is the noise level at the
back of your TV? 90 dB. If you get a 50dB wall, you have got 40 dB
coming through. So you don't even have to turn on your set on the
other side if you want to hear the program except you can't see the
picture.
If you move the outlet to the non-party wall, if you move the
set so it's 25 or 30 or 15 feet away, you dissipate a great deal of
that energy before it gets there.
Dr. METER : Well, if the Chair might interpose a summary thought
before moving on here, it seems to me that one of the underlying
things that is being said is, as you have pointed out or as Mr. New-
man pointed out in his paper, is the need for some real educational
activity.
Mr. ELLWOOD : That's right.
Dr. MEYER : I'm glad we have members of the academic community
with us on the panel, because in addition to education of the public
it seems as if we have got to focus greater attention on these sorts
of environmental amenities and requirements in the training of archi-
tects and engineers as part of their basic education.
Mr. ELLWOOD : As far as I know, today there are two schools of
acoustics, M.I.T. and Penn State. Am I right, Mr. Bender?
Dr. BENDER: Yes.
Mr. ELLWOOD: I think those are the only two. Any course which
is given at the architectural schools across the country is very, very
elementary and almost subservient to design and rendering.
Dr. MEYER: Well, thank you very much, sir. This has been a
stimulating discussion, and we appreciate your comments. I'd like
to move on now to another phase. We have got a fairly long day,
and we are interested in hearing about noise in actual construction.
We have heard now about noise inside a structure. Mr. Frank H.
Walk, a professional engineer of the firm of Walk, Haydel & Asso-
ciates, New Orleans, Louisiana, will now give us a presentation about
noise associated with construction.
Glad to have you with us, sir.
STATEMENT OF FRANK H. WALK, PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER,
WALK. HAYDEL & ASSOCIATES, INC.. NEW ORLEANS, LOUISIANA
Mr. WALK : Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, distinguished members of the panel, ladies and
gentlemen in the audience, our company specializes in the design
-------
29
and construction management of industrial plants. We are not con-
struction contractors. Rather, we are construction managers. Most
of our experience has been in the southern part of the United States
and has included plants for petroleum refining, petrochemicals manu-
facture, food processing, pulp and paper manufacture, cement man-
ufacture, metals processing and fabricating, and others.
My comments are based on some 30 years of experience, with our
present company and elsewhere, in the design and construction of
industrial plant facilities.
My discussion will be more general than technical, leaving to
others in our organization or elsewhere the coverage of measuring
noise in terms of sones, phones, Hertz units, decibels, etc.
Although a fair amount of what I will say could be applied to
construction in general, my remarks are pointed specifically to indus-
trial plant construction.
Before discussing noise in construction, it seems appropriate to
review briefly for comparison purposes the attitudes and progress of
industrial plant owners towards the reduction of noise pollution in
the operation of their manufacturing and processing facilities. This
is as we see it.
Our experience indicates that most plant owners are quite interested
in having effective noise control in their respective industries. Out-
side of the strictly humane and legal aspects they are well aware
of the advantages to be gained in better employee relations, improved
communications, less employee tension, higher production levels, and
reduced error factor, all of which can be realized to more or less
degree through a good noise reduction program.
Much progress has been made in the isolation and reduction of
objectionable plant operating noise. Through study and research,
effective technology has been developed and largely proven so that
reduction in noise levels for most manufacturing equipment and
operations can now be achieved at a reasonable cost if emphasis is
placed on this criteria prior to, and during, the design and construc-
tion phases.
The higher costs and relative ineffectiveness in some cases of
reducing noise levels in an existing industrial plant have been docu-
mented. For the most part the lessons learned are now being applied
to future plant design through the imposing by plant owners of
maximum noise level specifications for industrial plant equipment
and processes.
From our observations there has been far less progress toward
noise abatement in the construction industry serving industrial plant
owners.
It is true that the wide variety of conditions confronting the
industrial plant constructor in many different geographical locations
and plant types results not only in a variety of noise intensities,
time patterns and frequencies, but also in a considerable variety of
noise abatement requirements imposed through legislation, social
pressures, and other factors. However, it is also true that the average
industrial plant construction contractor has been subjected to much
less noise abatement pressure (or incentive) than has the average
industrial plant operator.
This is due at least to some extent to the fact that the construc-
tion operation and its associated noises is of a temporary nature
-------
30
and better to be tolerated than is the long-term, permanent type
manufacturing operation which moves in to use the facilities when
the constructor moves out, as contrasted with additions to existing
plants.
The majority of the new plant construction, at least in our general
area of activity, takes place in relatively undeveloped rural locations.
While residents or service businesses sometimes move in around the
plant later, they are not present to be annoyed by construction phase
noises.
Due to the open-air surroundings existing for most phases of an
industrial plant construction project, especially in the mild climates
of the Southern United States, the construction workers themselves
are subjected to less noise exposure and fatigue than they might be
under different conditions.
The fact remains that equipment and operations currently used
in the construction of industrial plants do produce noise, a good
portion of which must be classified as objectionable when measured
by the criteria generally used by industrial plant owners in evaluating
their own manufacturing operations. Draglines, bulldozers, and pile
drivers used in grading, excavating, and foundation installation
operations are practically always a source of noise nuisance. Portable
steam boilers and air compressors required in heavy construction
usually produce objectionable noise. "Headache" balls and jack-
hammers used in pre-construction demolition work cause excessive
noise and vibration. Welding machines, pneumatic hammers, power
saws, pneumatic wrenches, drills, reamers, concrete mixers, dump
trucks, etc., all produce noise, some of which would be classified as
objectionable depending on conditions.
Most industrial plant construction contractors have substantial
firms with excellent management who, given the proper incentives,
we feel will be quick to recognize the advantages of a good noise
control program. Just as their manufacturing industry counter-
parts have already done to large extent, they will be easily convinced
of the better public relations, better employee relations, improved
communications, reduced employee tension, higher work production
levels, reduced error factor, and lowered legal risks involved in a
well planned and executed noise pollution abatement program.
With a few exceptions, we believe that in general adequate basic
technology already exists to effectively implement a program to re-
duce construction equipment noises to acceptable levels. This basic
technology has been developed and checked out to large extent in
other industries. Some additional development and engineering effort
will be required to economically and effectively adapt certain present
technology to analogous applications in construction industry equip-
ment and operations.
Pile drivers generally require steam or compressed air for lifting
or forcing the hammer. There are many noise generators associated
with this type of operation. Most prominent is the intermittent blow
of the pile hammer. Although the sound is of short duration, it is
literally an ear-splitting experience. And yet I have known or heard
of no pile driver operator who had a hearing defect. But we must
all agree that this is a real shattering experience when you are
around it.
When steam is used as the working fluid, noise can radiate from
-------
31
high-velocity flow in pipes, valves, and also by venting. Boilers for
generating steam are noisy because of combustion phenomena and
air aspiration. Use of compressed air requires a compressor and a
driver. Both pieces of equipment are substantial noise producers.
Some of the noise associated with pile driving equipment we feel
can be eliminated quite readily. Changes to equipment would include
replacing of valves and use of silencers on vents. Design changes to
boilers, compressors, and diesel drives are also possible. However,
some of this type of "band-aid" modifications to these major pieces of
equipment are not as effective nor as economical as advance specifi-
cation of noise abatement accessories on new equipment.
Vibratory equipment for pile driving is a relatively recent develop-
ment yet to be fully accepted by the construction industry. Yet we
feel it has some possibilities. The vibrator is normally operated at
resonant frequency. Such equipment is usually quiet since the only
noises obtained are from the motor and the hum of the vibrator.
In addition, ground vibrations extend only a few feet away compared
to the drop hammer.
The fact that pile driving rates are theoretically many times
faster with the vibrator equipment than with conventional equipment
could be an added benefit in this connection.
Earth moving and dragline operations also produce relatively
high noise levels. Sound levels with these types of operations have
been increasing with the newer, larger equipment since horsepower
has also been increasing. Such equipment usually—and I say "usual-
ly" because in some cases it does—has no provision for exhaust muf-
flers, or, if it does, the operator tends to take it off because there is
some sacrifice in effective horsepower with the use of these noise
silencers.
Jackhammers and impact hammers can radiate considerable sound
power, particularly when a large number of units are operated
simultaneously. Noise is generated by the exhausting air as well as
sound resulting from the impact force. Use of new materials for
sound dampening and silencers on exhaust air vents would reduce
noise substantially in this connection.
Pneumatic silencers, which are comparatively simple and cheap,
can reduce noise levels considerably in the critical mid-frequencies.
Some of the newer model hammers incorporate a silencer within
the tool jacket, which is desirable.
Compressors and diesel drives required in the air supply system
are also noise producers. Use of mutes on air intakes, better mufflers
on motor exhausts, and acoustic shields or barriers would reduce noise
levels of this type of accessory equipment.
Eiveting operations are also in the high noise category. Sounds
thus produced can persist for long distances through massive steel
structures. Dampening is extremely difficult if not impossible during
normal work routines for this type of noise. However, changes in
operations are often possible through the use of squeeze-riveting
equipment, for example, or by employing alternate joining methods
with less noise generation such as welding and use of high-strength
bolts.
Concrete mixers can be made less noisy by utilizing heavier con-
struction of the mixing bucket or by employing a sound-absorbing
coating on the inside shell, and consideration should also be given
to using reinforced plastic gears for this type of equipment.
-------
32
Attention in the engineering design and specification writing
phases of new industrial plant projects and other construction proj-
ects as well can also help in the reduction of construction noise
levels. The designer and specification writer must keep in mind the
construction methods and equipment that will be needed to meet
their specified end requirements, and alternate approaches allowing
the use of less noise-producing construction equipment and methods
should be specified whenever possible.
A major advancement in the state of the art of noise abatement
in industrial plant construction and other construction as well can be
realized if permissible standards of sound pressure or sound power
levels are assigned to specific items of construction equipment. Manu-
facturers should be required to produce sound pressure level data,
noise frequency composition, and other broadcast characteristics of
their products. Unfortunately, only a limited amount of data is
currently reported by construction equipment manufacturers. The
construction industry itself will have to take the responsibility for
obtaining noise level data on equipment under actual operating
conditions.
A uniform basis for reporting sound pressure levels must be agreed
upon by the various equipment manufacturers. For each type of
equipment, operating conditions, distance-measurement criteria, and
directionality characteristics must be developed under controlled
environment.
If noise abatement programs are accelerated, as has been the case
with other pollution abatement programs, the impact on the indus-
trial plant construction industry may be startling. Well-meaning
regulations unless prudently imposed may result in greatly increased
costs on industrial plant projects which are already staggering under
ever-mounting wage rates and reduced worker productivity. Work
slowdowns or stoppages could easily occur until construction meth-
ods are revised and equipment is modified or replaced to meet legis-
lative requirements for noise abatement.
Careful attention must be given to the establishment of reasonable
noise abatement standards for the construction industry and also to
the planning of a timetable for stepwise enforcement so that the
costs of compliance do not become excessive. Such excessive costs if
encountered would ultimately be passed on to the industrial plant
owners and consumers, of course, and would serve to further deter
the capital expansion programs of industry which are already so
badly crippled as to be currently hardly existent in most industries
with which we are familiar.
Dr. MEYER: Thank you, Mr. Walk, for a very well thought out
summary of the problem and some of the thoughts that you have as
to what might be done. Later today we will be hearing from some
of the equipment manufacturers as to how they may go about
implementing some of these suggestions, and I do appreciate the
considerable depth of review you have given to the problem. I will
ask my colleagues if they have any specific questions. Mr. Baron.
Mr. BARON : Of course, a great deal of my interest is in the urban
area which in a sense is not your problem if you are working doing
construction in open space where the main problem is the employee.
However, I think we can assume that most of what you said can
also apply to urban populated areas.
-------
33
Mr. WALK : Yes, it certainly can. And, of course, some plants do
go into the urban areas, and here the neighbors are a much greater
consideration, how they react to the noise and what effect it has on
them.
Mr. BARON : Now, in your abstract you say that known technology
can reduce most noise levels below the objectionable point when ap-
plied to construction equipment and methods. The "objectionable"
point is a very interesting thing, because that's the thing we are all
in a sense groping for. What did you have in mind as the objection-
able point?
Mr. WALK : Well, I don't think that I would be qualified to give
you an answer with regard to a level on the dB(A) scale or anything
of that nature. I will simply say that in my opinion the objectionable
part varies considerably with given individuals and given conditions
of what surrounds the environment in which the particular con-
struction operation is being carried on. So this is quite a variable
type of situation.
When I speak in terms of objectionable conditions in terms of
thinking here, however, I am thinking particularly with regard to
those provisions of the Walsh-Healey Act and other legislation that
industrial plant owners are now striving to comply with.
If we apply these same types of standards over into the con-
struction industry, this is the type of thing I have in mind.
Mr. BARON : I just want to raise a point. Certainly when you talk
about vairables you wouldn't consider a hundred types of design
criteria for a hundred conceivable situations. Obviously that would-
n't be a logical design approach. And I hope that eventually we get
into this question of the variables, because I think that is a very
interesting point.
You say on page 2 that most plant owners are quite interested in
having effective noise control in their respective industries and that
most of your work is in the South. Can we assume that the statistics
we hear that 6 to 16 million American men are being made deaf in
American industry applies to other areas and not to the areas in
which you work?
Mr. WALK : Of course, I am speaking here naturally from our
experience particularly in recent years, since the recent years are
those in which industry has become so concerned about noise prob-
lems.
And what I say here is factual. That is, we feel that there is a
general good awareness of the importance of a good sound or noise
abatement program in industry. For example, industries that we deal
with are coming out and deA-eloping for themselves or having others,
outside consultants, develop for them what they call maximum noise
levels for plants and equipment. I have a copy of one right here by
one of the major oil companies. All of our clients are coming around
to this sort of thing.
Mr. BARON : On this business of higher costs, now, a lot of the in-
dustrial plant is old and is not new, and I don't know if you want
to take the time now, but this question of the costs of reducing
existing industrial plant noises should be gone into. Because though
it seems to be a truism that it costs more to reduce noise after design
than before, or after construction of something than before, there
does seem to be some inconsistency or not accurate understanding
-------
34
of what the exact cost is.
It would vary I imagine with different situations. We have to
consider not only the dollar cost, don't we, but potential loss of hear-
ing threat as against the dollar cost of retrofitting something?
Now, on page 3 you talk about the temporary nature of the con-
struction noise and better to be tolerated. Don't the new concepts of
environment kind of suggest that we think about not subjecting
people to stresses in the environment that could be avoided? The
"temporary nature" description of construction noises has been used
in the past to exonerate construction noise from controls and from
design requirements.
In the first place, I'm wondering if you couldn't agree with me
that it may be temporary, but, on the other hand, so is life, as one
environmentalist once put it, Ron Lipton, temporary too. And if
you have a construction project that may last a year or two, you can
call it temporary in one sense, but are you not degrading the environ-
ment, using that phrase, for a significant period of a human being's
life?
And the other is whether we should be forced to tolerate—that
word is very interesting because it crops up quite frequently in the
noise field—excessive noises and not be thinking—this organization
again is called the "Environmental Protection Agency"—of reducing
the number of things we have to tolerate, especially as you indicate
when many of them could be designed so that we don't have to under-
go this uncomfortable and potentially damaging type of experience?
Mr. WALK : Mr. Baron, I think that you and I could readily agree
that the noises that all of us seem to be forced to tolerate should in
many cases not be existent. So there is no disagreement there at all.
I make the statement here simply as an observation on my part
that this is why—one of the reasons in our opinion why—there has
been less pressure to date brought to bear on the construction indus-
try, because it is of a temporary nature and people simply seem to
tolerate things that they think are going to be gone in a few weeks
or a few months where they do not want to tolerate things that are
longer lasting.
Dr. MEYER: If the gentleman would yield for a minute so the
Chair might make an observation. What you say is quite true as far
as the temporary nature of a specific project. But one of the problems
in the really urban centers, the 200-some-odd metropolitan areas, is
that there is a continuous tearing down and rebuilding going on, so
that while one project may be temporary, such as tearing down a
building and replacing it with another one, once it is replaced maybe
two blocks away another building is being torn down and being re-
built.
So that in the areas that Mr. Baron is talking about, and some of
the other larger metropolitan areas we are familiar with, it really
amounts to almost a continuous state of construction operation.
Again, what we are interested in is that sometimes major construc-
tion operations now seem to go on for years. The building of a free-
way system or, as in the Nation's Capital, a metropolitan transit
system involving a subway probably extends for a period of maybe
8 to 10 years of actual very heavy construction. So I think one of
our problems here is that the public has in the past felt they could
put up with these things because it would disappear in a year
-------
35
But now, in a year it doesn't disappear any more. It's still there, or
something is going on on a much longer basis.
The other observation I would make relates to what Miss Suter
said, what Mr. Ellwood said, what the members of the panel have
all said, including yourself. There seems to be a real problem area
in which we need to do more research. And that's why do people not
complain as much as one would expect them to? We have been
making some initial studies on this in the Environmental Protection
Agency. There is a need for a great deal more information as to the
tradeoff that goes on. Do you have anything further, Mr. Baron?
Mr. BARON : On page 4 you say that given the proper incentives
enligthened contractors would put in a good noise control program.
What do you mean by "proper incentives"?
Mr. WALK : Well, incentives can come in many different forms.
The most logical one I can think of is some regulations that they will
be compelled to follow.
Mr. BARON : Because some contractors are starting to use some
quieter equipment, and the general argument given is one of fair
play for all so those that have somewhat higher cost wouldn't be
penalized in a bidding situation, for example, where the noisy but
supposedly cheaper equipment would be used and give a bidding
advantage. Do you believe that the industry itself could self-regulate
as far as moving in the construction industry, in the contracting in-
dustry, can self-regulate as far as use of quieter equipment tech-
niques ?
Mr. WALK : I think you would need some basic guidelines and
regulations to cause any industry or any group to bring about some
agreement and uniformity of approach which would then in turn
put them on the same basis, as you say, in the cost and bidding pro-
cedures, and so on.
Mr. BARON : You also mentioned you have never heard of a pile
driver operator \vith a hearing defect. Well, we won't go into that,
but I think that I'd like to hear later on—
Mr. WALK: This was a personal observation. I have never per-
sonally heard of or seen one. To me I wonder why really.
Mr. BARON : Well, because 1 think—are you going to open this for
discussion later?
Dr. MEYER: Yes.
Mr. BARON : Because I think this is a very important point, espe-
cially under Walsh-Healey regulations.
We are sometimes told in the New York area at least that you can-
not use quieter pile drivers because you have to use the impact type of
pile driver to determine the soil condition or something and you have
to measure how many fractions of an inch you go with each blow.
Can you make a point about that? Do you believe the quieter pile
driver can be used under all conditions?
Mr. WALK: I would say that I firmly hope that it can be used,
because a proper attack and solution in this area to me would elimi-
nate what I personally consider to be one of the most objectionable
type noises related to heavy construction of all types, whether it be
for tall buildings or for heavy industrial plant structures or what
have you. I think this is an area that does need some further develop-
ment.
I mentioned this vibratory type approach as being something that
-------
36
there has been some development and experimental work done in
that area, but as of now it has not been accepted by the construction
industry, design and construction industry, as being something that
is a satisfactory alternate.
I believe though that with proper study and research that the
areas that you mentioned could be circumvented.
Mr. BARON : Also I believe with hydraulic pile drivers. They may
have originated in England. I understand there is a quieter one in
Japan. And there is an American quieter hydraulic pile driver.
Mr. WALK: I didn't attempt to mention all the alternates here
but just examples.
Mr. BARON: One last question. Again in consideration of cost
don't you believe, thinking of an urban area and also of possible
damage to the employees, and so on, that cost must again be in-
terpreted not only in terms of direct dollars but this business of
what we now call external costs of damage to the environment, using
that in a very broad sense ?
Mr. WALK : No question about it. This would certainly apply to
all environmental type controls.
Dr. MEYER: There is one comment that the Chair would make in
that regard. I was very intrigued with the statement that the rate of
drive on the vibratory pile driver was apparently considerably faster
than that of conventional equipment. Therefore, in the cost-benefit
analysis one would also wonder that, if by getting quieter equipment
that works better, wouldn't the industry recover the capital cost at
a quicker rate because the equipment would be doing a more efficient
job and driving more piles in a finite period of time tlian could
be done with the noisier equipment? I think this is one of the trade-
offs from an engineering viewpoint and a capital investment view-
point that needs looking into. And, of course, this Agency is going to
look at all aspects of this.
Mr. WALK : Certainly. I might comment on that. When one almost
owns a pile driver or several of them, then one wants to continue to
use that pile driver.
Dr. MEYER : Right. Dr. Bender ?
Dr. BENDER : Just a quick question concerning cost. I wonder if
you could give us a quantitative feel for the incremental costs in-
volved in using quieter equipment? For example, you mentioned
squeeze-riveting equipment instead of the usual riveting equipment
which kind of hammers the rivet over. Do you have any feel for
how much additional cost is involved?
Mr. WALK : The squeeze-riveting operation involves the use of a
hand-held tool, if we apply it to the construction industry, that is
bulkier, heavier, more unwieldy than would be your normal rivet-
driving type equipment.
I would say that the increased cost involved would, of course, be
all in construction labor and would be perhaps in the order of
magnitude of 10 to 20 percent.
Dr. MEYER : Professor Lyons.
Dr. LYONS : Let me pursue that. How much would be the increased
cost in quieting the operations of digging up Peachtree Street out
in front of this building, something they frequently do ? What would
be the increased cost increment of digging a hole in a chunk of con-
crete by a quieter technique?
-------
37
Mr. WALK: What method would you use, Dr. Lyons?
Dr. LYONS: I have no suggestions, but I was wondering if you—
Mr. WALK : I personally do not know of any quieter methods for
demolition. This is the main thing that would be involved. The
first step in, as you say, digging up a street, an existing street, would
be demolishing the existing pavement. The demolishing operation is
a very noisy one, and I just don't personally know of any quiet
alternate to that.
Now, once the pavement was broken and removed, however, then
the actual excavation operation which would take place say with a
backhoe or a dragline or equipment of that type— If this power-
driven equipment had on it the types of equipment that I mentioned
in the paper here in forms of silencers and mufflers, if it had more of
its functioning equipment silenced by means of, say, high-strength
plastic or shielded gears or pinions or other things so that it would
tend to be quieted down more in its own operation, then this would
result in some general overall quieting.
Dr. LYONS : As I understand your point then, it is that some opera-
tions can and should be quieted, and in other operations to quiet them
would prohibit construction or to require quieting would prohibit
construction? Is that correct?
Mr. WALK : At least at the present time, yes, until we think of some
quiet way of doing a concrete-breaking operation.
Dr. LYONS : So legislation or regulations would have to be selective
not upon the amount of noise a machine makes but upon whether
the user or builder of that machine thinks he can make a quieter one
for some reasonable sum of money?
Mr. WALK : Yes, that's right.
Now, I might back up just a little bit and say that if you wanted
to build an enclosure, sound-deadening, baffled enclosure around an
area that you were going to break the concrete in, then you would
confine that noise to that enclosure. Now, this would be a rather
expensive approach but it certainly is one means of shielding that
noise from the neighborhood
Mr. BARON : I would just like to point out that if the tenants,
whether commercial or residential, either had reduction in rents or
were indemnified for the loss of their amenities during this construc-
tion phase, then the cost of shielding or finding quieter techniques
would not seem so costly.
Mr. WALK : Perhaps not.
Mr. BARON : As it is, it is the noise receiver who bears this cost.
Just one last point. I did see a demonstration of a hydraulic tech-
nique for breaking rock which presumably could be used for concrete.
It was a very interesting device using a hydraulic-forced wedge to
split the rock. The laser has been worked on to some degree. So I
think it can be possible to bring that into demolition phase—both
shielding and techniques for quieting noise—not only possible but
I think it's a must we go into that.
Mr. WALK : Very interesting. Where did you see that ?
Mr. BARON : In New York.
Mr. WALK: The hydraulic rock-breaking?
Mr. BARON : Yes.
Dr. MEYER : Thank you, sir.
Mr. McCarthy.
-------
38
Mr. MCCARTHY: No questions.
Dr. MEYER: Dr. Okun.
Dr. OKTJN : Just one brief question. You mentioned the establish-
ment of regulations. Do you feel it would be appropriate to vary
regulations depending upon the site? Would it be as necessary to
have rigorous regulations in the rural area where the number of
poeple affected would be very small as compared with similar con-
struction in a built-up area ? Or do you think it would be too difficult
to have regulations that would vary according to the setting?
Mr. WALK: Well, I think that this would be an area for some
further study. Just to give you my personal, "off the top of my
head" opinion, I would feel that stricter regulations should apply in
those areas where more people are going to be affected.
Dr. OKUN : Thank you.
Dr. MEYER : Thank you very much, sir. This was a very stimulating
discussion. It brought forth some ideas that we are going to have to
look into as we get further into possible Federal regulatory author-
ities and the role of the Federal Government and the States in
certain of these requirements that we have been discussing. I appre-
ciate your presentation very much, sir.
Mr. WALK : Thank you, Mr. Chairman
Dr. MEYER : We are running a bit behind schedule, but I think it
is important to get this material into the record. What we don't
finish today we may have to carry into tomorrow. I would like now to
ask Mr. George Diehl of Ingersoll-Rand to come and tell us about
some of the very interesting work that corporation has been doing in
the field of noise control associated with construction machinery and
eqquipment. I am very pleased to have this presentation, which I
think we all will find to be a stimulating and informative review of
what can be done about some of the problems that Mr. Walk and
others have discussed.
STATEMENT OF GEORGE DIEHL INGERSOLLJRAND
RESEARCH INC.
Mr. DIEHL: Mr. Chairman, panel members, ladies and gentlemen,
we have been discussing areas where sound control is needed in some
of the construction equipment. I am going to show you what is being
done along those lines, and I have some slides to show you, actual
photographs of the equipment.
I think everyone will agree construction work is usually noisy.
High horsepower gasoline and diesel engines, large-capacity air com-
pressors, powerful rock drills and demolition tools, pile drivers,
and other heavy duty construction equipment has been designed, in
the past, to do as much work as possible and very little or no thought
was given to sound control.
But the situation is different today, and quieter machinery is in de-
mand. Because large portable air compressors produce one of the
most objectionable noises on city construction projects, they have been
a major target for noise control. They are noisy in their own right,
and, in addition to that, they are located close to the public. As many
as eight or nine of these large units may be lined up along a curb
close to the sidewalk where people must pass. And they are close to
apartments and stores and offices where people have to live and work,
and they remain there for many months, sometimes into the years.
-------
39
I wonder if we could dim the lights and show some of these slides
to show you what I am talking about.
(Slide)
This slide shows how the large portable compressors are lined up
along the curb. And normally it isn't the small compressors that are
involved. It's the large size—and quite a number of the large units
too. And each one will produce about 110 dB(A) at a distance of 3
feet or 1 meter. That is about twice as loud as a subway train roaring
into a station, each one of those.
In the middle of a field, the sound pressure level would decrease 6
decibels each time the distance from the compressor is doubled, but in
large built-up areas this is not so. That is a beautiful reverberation
chamber, and the sound is reflected back and forth many times in the
buildings, from the buildings, and it usually decreases very little with
distance.
You notice here the doors on these compressors are open, and they
are heavy duty machines, and they are meant for continuous duty,
and a large amount of heat must be dissipated.
Each compressor there would dissipate enough heat to heat about
eight average-size homes in the winter months, and not in Atlanta
but in the Northern States too.
Now, quieting these compressors is a job in sound control not be-
cause of just the problems of reducing noise but to get rid of that
heat when you do enclose it. Next slide.
(Slide)
This shows the noisiest compressor that Ingersoll-Eand Company
makes. We call it a "whisperized" compressor. It can be quieted, and
this shows how it was done.
This compressor has been reduced from 110 dB(A) at 1 meter, 3
feet, to 85 dB(A).
Now, on a somewhat more simplified basis you can say each time
you subtract 10 decibels you cut the loudness in half, so a 25 dB(A)
reduction is quite dramatic. And the best way to demonstrate this is
to show these large unsilenced compressors alongside the quieted
units, and you readily notice the difference.
These compressors actually make less noise than traffic noise at
some of the intersections.
Next slide, please.
(Slide)
This shows how the air flow is directed in these compressors. It
comes in as shown there, and it goes back across the unit and then
out the top. And it required the installation of a special muffling,
damping, sound isolation, complete enclosure. Next slide, please.
(Slide)
This shows how the levels compare on the two.
Now, you heard about the need for a uniform basis of evaluation.
The compressed air industry has such a sound test code. It is now
an American National Standard too. It's NCS 5.1 That has recently
been established as a national standard. And that requires measure-
ments of construction equipment at a distance of 1 meter—this is in
metric units because it's international too—and 7 meters. And you see
there that the red lines show the silenced unit and the blue lines show
* All slides used for this presentation are on file at the Office of Noise Abate-
ment and Control.
-------
40
the unsilenced unit at both 1-meter and 7-meter distances. This is
octave band distribution. On an overall basis it turns out to be 25
dB(A). Next slide, please.
(Slide)
This is a chart we have arranged to show where you would have
to be on the unsilenced unit compared to the silenced one to get 85
dB(A). The large blue contour shows how far back you must be on
the unsilenced unit, and the little white one there shows how close
you can be to the whisperized one.
Next slide, please.
(Slide)
Now, you just saw the original version there. This has now been
expanded to 1200 c.f .m. compressors. The other one was a 900 c.f .m.
And this has the same characteristics, the same 85 dB(A) at 1 meter.
Next slide.
(Slide)
That's another slide of the same thing. Next slide.
(Slide)
This shows the interior construction. You can't see there, but there
is a large fiberglass fan which has an air foil section, and it turned
out to produce about twice the pressure drop to get the cooling and
actually took less engine horsepower than the original one. This takes
less horsepower than to drive a fan.
But really when you say that quieter equipment can do more work
because you are using the energy that presently went into sound, that
doesn't work out. Because the energy that goes into sound is very
minute, and in some types of construction equipment we can even
show that with noisy equipment the noisier it is the more work it's
doing. So really you don't save anything as far as the operating
efficiency goes by making it quieter. Next slide.
(Slide)
Now, this shows another high-noise maker on construction projects.
This is the 80-pound-class paving breaker. These paving breakers are
usually farther away from the public than the air compressors which
are right along the curb. They may be down in the excavation. But
they are still a major source of noise.
And the largest component of rock drill noise—that is, paving
breakers or jackhammers or whatever it is— is the exhaust. About
90 percent of the noise comes from the exhaust. We have identified
all the sources of noise. We know where it comes from. And you
can't do anything about rock drill noise unless you get rid of the
exhaust noise first.
Now, this shows a muffler on the side there with a little box on the
side that only sticks out a few inches, and it does not decrease the
performance of the tool but it reduces the noise about 8 decibels.
Sometimes you get as much as 10. And when you go beyond that you
find that the steel noise, the impacting steel, takes over, and that must
be worked on next.
Now, we are working on that problem now. At the moment we are
able to get somewhere between 8 and 10 decibels on rock drill noise.
Next slide.
(Slide)
This shows how that muffler works. There is no absorption in it.
If you put absorption in a rock drill muffler the moisture in the air
-------
41
usually freezes and prevents the tool from operating in a short time.
This muffler does not prevent it. It has reversal of direction and
gradual expansion to effect the sound control. Next one.
(Slide)
This is a new type paving breaker that has been developed with no
external muffler. It is done inside. And this breaker alone cost about
$300,000 to develop. It uses an entirely new impacting mechanism.
It has much higher productivity than the standard breakers and less
noise. And it's much easier to hold. The vibration level is much lower
than the standard breaker. Therefore, the productivity increases.
Next one.
(Slide)
This shows a comparison of the noise of the muffled breakers and
the unmuffled breakers at 1 meter and Y meters. You can see there's
about 8 to 10 decibels there. The yellow line, of course, is the SB8
paving breaker which you just saw. Next one.
(Slide)
Noise controls also apply to the larger drills, in that at the top
of the tower there you see a muffler which reduces the noise about the
same as what you saw on the paving breaker. The air exhaust is
carried up through the channels to the tower and out through a
chamber type muffler out the top. That puts the noise away from the
operator by a greater distance and also reduces it. Next one.
(Slide)
This shows a closeup of the muffler at the top of the tower. The
drill moves up and down the tower to drill the hole but the muffler
stays there at the top. Next one.
(Slide)
This is another type of demolition tool. We call it a "Hobgoblin."
It's mounted on a backhoe. The business end is just the part out here.
It looks like a large rock drill and it's mounted on any backhoe.
This is hydraulically operated. It has no air exhaust, and therefore
the major source of noise is reduced. And it can do the work of 10
to 24 regular paving breakers, quieter operating. Next slide.
(Slide)
This shows a camparison of 10 standard paving breakers on the top
compared to what we call the Hobgoblin at the bottom.
Now, on some demolition jobs this same tool can outperform 24
paving breakers, so that noise difference there, that level of dB
difference, would be still greater. This is 10 units which it can very
easily handle on a very concerted basis.
Sometimes they show improvements in sound control on a per-
centage basis. And I just show you this to point out that it's not
the best way to do it. Because if you subtract 3 decibels you're tak-
ing away half the sound power, and if you take away 20 decibels or
25 you're taking away 99 percent, leaving only 1 percent, and every-
one knows that you have more than 1 percent left.
So we're making an effort now to change this to show on a loud-
ness improvement rather than on a percentage basis. Because even
though it is mathematically correct to show the improvement on a
sound power basis and you can show that it is true, it's not what you
hear.
Thank you very much.
Now, these slides then show some of the efforts that are being
-------
42
made to reduce construction equipment noise. In the past several
years, Ingersoll-Rand has spent over $2 million on sound control of
construction equipment, and in the past year we have decided to
tackle the problem at its source and we have given a series of lectures
to all our design engineers. We call those lectures THINK
"QUIET." The idea is to get as many design engineers thinking
about applying acoustic principles as we can possibly get.
We feel that the end products are bound to come out quieter if we
have the design engineers thinking of the application of acoustic
principles.
We don't subscribe to the theory that progress must be accompan-
ied by an increase in noise, and we are working along those lines to
prove that.
Thank you.
Dr. MEYER : Thank you very much, sir, for a stimulating presenta-
tion on what has been done in producing quieter equipment. Before
I asked my colleagues on the panel if they have any questions, would
it be possible to get for the record some of the educational material
that you mentioned—this series of lectures? I would like to include
that as an attachment to your presentation in the report to the Con-
gress, unless it is company confidential or something of this sort.
Mr. DIEHL : I write these lectures—there are about eight to ten
lectures—and they are now being published in the Ingersoll-Rand
Compressed Air Magazine. And they will be reprinted as a combined
series at the conclusion of this.
At the moment though we could certainly see that you get copies
of the current ones. There have been about five produced so far.
If you'd like, I could send them to you.
Dr. MEYER: Yes, sir, I would appreciate that very much, along,
of course, with reproducible copies of your illustrations.*
Mr. DIEHL: Yes.
Dr. MEYER : Very well, sir. I will now ask my colleagues if they
have any specific questions.
Dr. Okun.
Dr. OKTJN : Just a brief question. If a contractor is going to equip
himself anew, about what order of magnitude of increased cost
would be these new devices as compared with the original?
Mr. DIEHL: On the compressors, the difference between the un-
silenced and the whisperized units is about 10 percent.
On the paving breakers we're now putting on the mufflers at no
extra cost because we think that these units should be quieted, and
the way to do it is to add them at no extra cost—that is, zero.
On the large tractor type drills, sound control would be about 10
to 12 percent.
And on some of the medium-sized ones where the price of the tool
is less but the sound control is the same, it might be 15 to 18 percent,
in that range.
Dr. OKUN : Thank you.
Dr. MEYER : Mr. McCarthy.
Mr. MCCARTHY: Not so much a question as a comment—that I
am delighted to hear of a firm who believes in the theory of being able
to work profitably towards the solution of some of our environmental
* The material requested is on file at the Office of Noise Abatement and
Control.
-------
43
problems. And I think this presentation is an excellent example of
how there is money to be made in controlling pollution as a general
thought.
And I would like to just suggest that I hope we can see more of
this in the future. Thank you for your contribution.
Mr. DIEHL: Thank you.
Dr. MEYER : Thank you, Mr. McCarthy.
Dr. Lyons.
Dr. LYONS : The whisperized compressors have a noise level of
approximately 80, 85 dB(A) ?
Mr. DIEHL: 85 dB(A) at a distance of 3 feet.
Dr. LYONS : So with these compressors it wTould still be impossible
to carry on a conversation on the sidewalk adjacent to the com-
pressor ?
Mr. DIEHL : Did you say it would not ?
Dr. LYONS : It would be nearly— Well, "impossible" is a bad word.
It would be difficult to the point of being almost impossible to carry
out a conversation adjacent to one of these compressors?
Mr. DIEHL : No, on the contrary, we find that we bring for demon-
strations secretaries there and dictate letters to them, and they hear it
just fine right alongside the compressor. That is, I know, above a
speaker, but they do it just the same.
Dr. LYONS : Let me put it another way. I believe one threshold of
annoyance level that has been bandied about is that you are annoyed
by noises in excess of about 50 dB(A) —
Mr. DIEHL: Eight.
Dr. LYONS: —and that you start getting speech interference at
about 70, 75 dB(A).
Mr. DIEHL : Yes.
Dr. LYONS : So you're talking about a present-day noise level in
excess of these ranges that people generally consider annoyance. So
this would still be an annoying noise source.
Mr. DIEHL : Yes, it would be. On a relative basis it's more annoy-
ing than some other sources. It wouldn't be anywhere as annoying as
the three-piece string combo that I heard last night at dinner where
we couldn't talk at all.
Dr. LYONS : My point is it appears that in reduction of the annoy-
ance factor in construction we still have a long way to go in just re-
ducing the noise of portable compressors.
Mr. DIEHL : Yes, we have a long way to go in all construction work.
Dr. LYONS: It costs 10 percent extra to get from 115 to 90 dB(A)
or 85dB(A).
Mr. DIEHL : 85.
Dr.LYONS: What is it going to cost to get down below 70 dB(A) or
some value that would be considered unannoying ?
Mr. DIEHL: I can say that the dollars per decibel increase as you
get lower and lower. And we do go from 110, say, to 105, and that
5 decibels off there you can do for practically nothing. When you
go from 90 to 85 the cost is quite substantial.
So, to answer your question, to go from 85 to 75 or 70 would be
quite a job. It would also mean things like accessibility would be
decreased at service. On this one the service is very easily handled.
It is accessible.
We find that not just on construction equipment but in industrial
-------
44
type plants where customers are asking for sound control—and,
incidentally, practically every inquiry that comes into the plant now
has a sound specification attached—we find that it's not good to
recommend or request lower levels than you actually need because the
price goes up quite a bit and the accessibility is decreased.
For example, on the rotating equipment, customers have to monitor
vibration on shafts periodically during the day. If they can't get at
them or they can't change bearings, they pay for that privilege.
So right now I think that a law should be written to require sound
control and low enough noise that it will be an improvement and can
be reached with effort, but not so low that it is going to increase costs
excessively.
Dr. LYONS: Would you say that the 85 dB(A) level of your whis-
perized compressor is about as far as technology and $2 million can
get us ?
Mr. DIEHL : Oh, by no means, no. We can get lower than that. We
can go down much lower than that on compressors. But I wanted to
point out again now that that means increased cost and means less
accessibility for maintenance and operating conditions, and so on.
Theoretically we can get down to the ambient street noise.
Dr. OKUN : In other words, in a very sensitive location where per-
haps the noise was extremely important, it might be worth a con-
tractor making a special investment even though maintenance was
more difficult, but to meet that very special circumstance it could be
done technologically today?
Mr. DIEIIL : Oh, yes, very definitely. This is not all we can do from
a sound control standpoint. It's all that we think we should do at the
moment.
Dr. MEYER : Anything else ?
Dr. LYONS : No.
Dr. MEYER : Dr. Bender.
Dr. BENDER : I think we have seen an interesting contrast in atti-
tudes toward noise control. We heard earlier that some construction
equipment has little or no provision for exhaust mufflers. It was also
mentioned some construction contractors take the mufflers off their
equipment. And now we hear your company has spent $2 million in
developing quieter equipment.
What has been the incentive for developing quieter equipment
and why do you suppose it is that some contractors are still working
with noisy equipment and noisy equipment is still being produced?
Mr. DIEHL: Well, to answer those several questions, we feel that
there should be a market for quiet equipment. We think that manu-
facturers should take the lead in developing quiet equipment to show
it is available. We know there is a need for it. And if manufacturers
don't make it, it's liable to create the impression that it's impossible.
Now, your second question—
Dr. BENDER : But it's not altruism, is it, really ? Are there any legal
requirements on contractors or are contractors getting sick and tired
of hearing complaints or what? Do you have any feel for what the
incentive is on that?
Mr. DIEHL: Yes, we made that whisperized compressor before
there was any law requiring it. We felt that if it were available, to
show that it would be available, that perhaps requirements would be
imposed to require contractors to use it. But it was made before
-------
45
laws were passed. In fact, I don't know whether there are any laws
right now that require it.
Dr. MEYER : There are not.
Mr. DIEHL : Yet we have a line of quiet compressors available, and
muffled.
Mr. BARON: Could I add something? We played a role in this
development—Citizens for a Quieter City. I went to Europe in
1966 and saw some quieter compressors and paving breakers, and we
imported one from England and gave a demonstration. I believe
you were there, George, weren't you, and other members of Ingersoll-
Rand?
Mr. DIEHL: Yes.
Mr. BARON : And the Compressed Air and Gas Institute, the Insti-
tute of Mayors, several Congressmen, and so on. And we showed the
American public there was better equipment. And they apparently
have been thinking about this and helped initiate the development.
And on this business of altruism and so on, from our point of view,
of course, Ingersoll-Rand has done a fantastic thing in this in taking
the lead in this before there is any requirement that you use quieter
equipment. And there are now I believe two or three quieter com-
pressors on the market.
But one of the questions I would like to ask again. With two 85's in
tandem, then you have 88, according to the law of adding decibels.
If you had three, you'd have 91 or something like that. So that there
is still a design problem which you recognize. Isn't part of your
problem the power plant?
I mean if you had a power plant which didn't require this tremen-
dous application of barriers and mufflers and so on, your life would be
a little bit easier.
Mr. DIEHL: Very definitely. The major source of noise was the
engine exhaust, and the second largest noise is the fan noise on the
engine. And then down the line there was compressor-radiated noise
and things like that. But if we had a quieter engine it would be a
much easier problem.
Mr. BARON : This is something for all of us to think about, about
the power plant.
Dr. MEYER : Yes.
Mr. BARON : The other question is on the rock drill though. I
think you will agree that the exhaust muffler will not really solve
the problem. You mentioned your work on the impact area. Do you
have any timetable on that?
Mr. DIEHL : No. There have been many things tried on the impact.
It just seems that there are engineering factors working at cross-
purposes there. You have to get very low damping in the steel to get
the energy into it. If you try to put in damping it cuts down the ream
of the steel.
Incidentally, that major noise in the steel is not just the long-
itudinal impact. It's the transverse vibration that causes the problem.
If you try to damp that you cut down the energy that goes into the
rock.
But there are things we are doing about the steel. We're trying to
handle that problem now, and we're making successes with it.
Mr. BARON : You have no idea of the timetable ?
Mr. DIEHL: No.
-------
46
Mr. BARON : Rock drilling especially in the city is a fantastic
problem. It's grizzly. I'll use that kind of language if I may be per-
mitted. What is the life— I'm sorry. Were you through? I forgot
you had the floor.
Dr. BENDER: Go ahead.
Mr. BARON: What is the life span of a compressor, pavement
breaker, and rock drill?
Mr. DIEHL: I couldn't tell. They go for many, many years.
Mr. BARON : So the 10 percent or whatever it's increased—remem-
bering the concept of the fact the environment is paying the cost of
a noisy piece of equipment—is not that great.
Mr. DIEHL: That's right.
Mr. BARON : This is an important point for all of us to remember.
Mr. DIEHL : That's right.
Dr. MEYER : Dr. Bender, do you have any further questions?
Dr. BENDER : No, not at this time.
Dr. MEYER : Well, ladies and gentlemen, because it is now approach-
ing noon and we are catching up with our schedule, we will recess,
to reconvene at 1:00 o'clock, at which time we will continue with the
presentations on what may be done using the best engineering and
scientific and technical capabilities. We have an interesting afternoon,
and I hope everybody will stay with us on this very important na-
tional issue. Thank you very much. We will reconvene promptly at
1:00 o'clock.
(Whereupon, at 11:55 a.m., the luncheon recess was taken.)
-------
47
AFTERNOON SESSION
1:30 p.m.
Dr. MEYER : I would like to reconvene this session. In the interest
of ensuring that everybody who has been invited to participate has
that opportunity, I don't want to impose any rules of silence but I
would appreciate it if we could keep this moving along with a rea-
sonable time schedule. If you have a very long prepared statement,
I would like it for the record and would prefer that you summarize.
Again, this is a usual way of doing it. And I will trust that my
colleagues on the panel will recognize the importance of our trying
to get all of these things in the record.
Also, because several people have indicated to me that they have
firm airline commitments, I am going to move a couple of the partic-
ipants from out of town ahead of some of the local folks. I hope the
local folks will not think that we are being unduly bureaucratic in
so doing.
I would like to now ask Captain Kiley of the Training Division of
the Atlanta Police Force, or his representative who is here, to be
ready to come on following Mr. Edwin. I know that he is busy and I
don't like to keep our law enforcement people away from their im-
portant duties. I will switch him in ahead of another gentleman here
so that he may return to taking care of his duties with the police
force. So, Captain Riley, or his representative, if you would come
forward, we will be happy to hear from you, sir. Welcome to our
meeting.
STATEMENT OF CAPTAIN DAVID H. RILEY.
TRAINING DIVISION, ATLANTA POLICE DEPARTMENT
Captain RILEY: Enclosed in these prepared statements that you
have are copies of our City of Atlanta Ordinance Section 20-30,
which is the primary ordinance used by the Atlanta Police Depart-
ment to abate unlawful noise.
Also I have attached in there our City of Atlanta Ordinance
18-316, which is Atlanta's Improper Muffler Ordinance.
I have also enclosed the Georgia State Law on Improper Mufflers,
which is very similar to our city ordinance. And the law governing
horns and warning devices is also attached to the State law.
The City of Atlanta Ordinance 20-19 which prevents the dis-
charge or possession of fireworks is also attached.
THE GEORGIA STATE MUFFLER LAW AND ATLANTA
ORDINANCE 20-19, AS SUBMITTED.
Sec. 20-30, Noises; prohibited, enumeration.
(a) It shall be unlawful for any person to make, continue or cause to be
made or continued any loud, unnecessary or unusual noise or any noise which
either annoys, disturbs, injures or endangers, the comfort, repose, health, peace
or safety of others in the city.
(b) The following acts among others are declared to be loud, disturbing
and unnecessary noises in violation of this section, but such enumeration shall
not be deemed to be exclusive, namely:
(1) Horns, signaling devices. The sounding of any horn or signaling device
on any automobile, motorcycle or other vehicle on any street or public
place in the city, except as a danger warning, the creation of any un-
reasonably loud or harsh sound by means of any such signaling device
and the sounding of any such device for an unnecessary and unreason-
able period of time. The use of any signaling device except one operated
by hand or electricity, the use of any horn, whistle or other device
-------
48
operated by engine exhaust and the use of any such signaling device
when traffic is for any reason held up.
(2) Radios, phonographs, similar devices. The using, operating or permitting
to be played, used or operated any radio receiving set, musical instru-
ment, phonograph or other machine or device for the producing or re-
producing of sound in such manner as to disturb the peace, quiet and
comfort of the neighboring inhabitants or at any time with louder volume
than is necessary for convenient hearing for the person who is in the
room, vehicle or chamber in which such machine or device is operated
and who is a voluntary listener thereto. The operation of any such set,
instrument, phonograph, machine or device between the hours of 11:00
p.m. and 7:00 a.m. in such a manner as to be plainly audible at a
distance of fifty feet from the building, structure or vehicle in which
it is located shall be prima facie evidence of a violation of this section.
(3) Loudspeakers, amplifiers for advertising. The using, operating or per-
mitting to be played, used or operated of any radio receiving set, mu-
sical instrument, phonograph, loudspeaker, sound amplifier or other
machine or device for the producing or reproducing of sound which is
cast upon the public streets for the purpose of commercial advertising
or attracting the attention of the public to any building or structure.
Announcements over loudspeakers can only be made by the an-
nouncer in person and without the aid of any mechanical device.
(4) Yelling, shouting, etc. Yelling, shouting, hooting, whistling or singing
on the public streets, particularly between the hours of 11:00 p.m. and
7:00 a.m. or at any time or place so as to annoy or disturb the quiet,
comfort or repose of persons in any office, dwelling, hotel or other
type of residence or of any persons in the vicinity.
(5) Animals, birds. The keeping of any animal or bird which by causing
frequent or long continued noise shall disturb the comfort or repose of
any persons in the vicinity.
(6) Steam whistles.* The blowing of any steam whistle attached to any
stationary boiler except to give notice of the time to begin or stop work
or as a warning of fire or danger or upon request of proper city au-
thorities.
(7) Exhausts. The discharge into the open air of the exhaust of any steam
engine, stationary, internal combustion engine or motor boat except
through a muffler or other device which will effectively prevent loud
or explosive noises therefrom.
(8) Defect in vehicle or load. The use of any automobile, motorcycle or
vehicle so out of repair, so loaded or in such manner as to create loud
and unnecessary grating, grinding, rattling or other noise.
(9) Loading, unloading, opening boxes. The creation of a loud and ex-
cessive noise in connection with loading or unloading any vehicle or
the opening and destruction of bales, boxes, crates and containers.
(10) Construction or repair of buildings." The erection (including excavat-
ing) demolition, alteration, or repair of any building other than be-
tween the hours of 7:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. on weekdays, except that
the building official may determine when the loss or inconvenience that
would result to any party in interest is of such nature as to warrant
special consideration, then the building official may grant a permit
for a period not to exceed ten (10 )days or less for such work to be
done within the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.
(11) Schools, courts, churches, hospitals.-f The creation of any excessive
noise on any street adjacent to any school, institution of learning,
church or court while the same are in use, or adjacent to any hos-
pital, which unreasonably interferes with the working of such in-
stitution, or which disturbs or unduly annoys patients in the hospital;
provided, that conspicuous signs are displayed in such streets indicat-
ing that the same is a school, hospital or court street.
(12) Hawkers, peddlers, vendors.^ The shouting and crying of peddlers,
hawkers and vendors which disturb the peace and quiet of the neigh-
borhood.
(13) Noises to attract attention. The use of any drum or other instrument
or device for the purpose of attracting attention by creation of noise
to any performance, show or sale.
(14) Transportation of metal rails, similar materials. The transportation
-------
49
of rails, pillars or columns of iron, steel or other material over and
along streets and other public places upon carts, drays, cars, trucks
or in any other manner so loaded as to cause loud noises or as to dis-
turb the peace and quiet of such streets or other public places.
(15) Pile drivers, hammers, similar equipment. The operation between the
hours of 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m. of any pile driver, steam shovel,
pneumatic hammer, derrick, steam or electric hoist or other appliance,
the use of which is attended by loud or unusual noise.
(16) Blowers. The operation of any noise-creating blower or power fan or
any internal combustion engine, the operation which causes noise due
to the explosion of operating gases or fluids, unless the noise from such
blower or fan is muffled and such engine is equipped with a muffler
device sufficient to deaden such noise.
(17) Sound trucks.* The use of mechanical loudspeakers or amplifiers on
trucks or other moving or standing vehicles for advertising or other
commercial purposes.
The use of sound trucks for noncommercial purposes during such
hours and in such places and with such volume as would constitute
such use as a public nuisance; provided, that the provisions of this
section shall not apply to or be enforced against:
(a) Any vehicle of the city while engaged in necessary public business.
(b) Excavations or repairs of streets by or on behalf of the city, county
or state at night when public welfare and convenience renders it
impossible to perform such work during the day.
(c) The reasonable use of amplifiers or loudspeakers in the course
of public addresses which are noncommercial in character. (Code
1953, § 36.55; Ord. No. 1967-16, § 1, 2-20-67)
Sec. 18-316. Prevention of noise, fumes and smoke.
(a) Muffler required; cut-outs prohibited. Every motor vehicle shall at
all times be equipped with a muffler in good working order and in constant
operation to prevent excessive or unusual noise and annoying smoke, and no
person shall use a muffler cut-out, by-pass, or similar device upon a motor
vehicle on a street or highway, except that this section shall not apply to
farm tractors.
(b) Excessive fumes, smoke prohibited. The engine and power mechanism
of every motor vehicle shall be so equipped and adjusted as to prevent the
escape of excessive fumes or smoke.
(c) Type of muffler. The muffler herein required shall be of the same type
and style as that placed on the vehicle by the manufacturer thereof. (Cum.
Supp., §30.191)
Sec. 20-19. Fireworks.
(a) Possession, discharge. It shall be unlawful for any person to possess,
burn or shoot rockets or firecrackers or any kind of fireworks or to possess
or explode dynamite cartridges or torpedoes.
(b) Sale, storage, distribution. It shall be unlawful for any person to sell,
dispense, give away or in any manner dispose of for use within city limits
any such fireworks or other explosives referred to in subsection (a) within
the corporate limits of the city; provided, however, that nothing in this sec-
tion shall prevent any manufacturer or wholesaler from manufacturing, stor-
ing, warehousing or transporting any of such articles within the corporate
limits of the city; nor shall any provision in this section prevent the re-
ceiving of such articles by any manufacturer or wholesaler from points out-
side the corporate limits of the city, from storing articles within the city and
shipping such articles to a point outside the corporate limits of the city.
(Cum. Supp., §§36.24, 36.25)
68-9935. Violations with respect to sale of certain mufflers and muffler at-
tachments.—Any person violating the provisions of paragraph (c) of section
67-1717, which prohibits the sale of certain mufflers, muffler cut-outs, bypasses
or similar devices, shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction
thereof shall be punished as for a misdemeanor. (Acts 1962, p. 653.)
68-1716. Horns and warning devices.— (a) Every motor vehicle when oper-
ated upon a highway shall be equipped with a horn in good working order
-------
50
and capable of emitting sound audible under normal conditions from a distance
of not less than 200 feet, but no horn or other warning device shall emit an
unreasonably loud or harsh sound or a whistle. The driver of a motor vehicle
shall when reasonably necessary to insure safe operation give audible warning
with his horn but shall not otherwise use such horn when upon a highway.
(b) No vehicle shall be equipped with nor shall any person use upon a
vehicle any siren, whistle, or bell, except as otherwise permitted in this
section.
(c) It is permissible but not required that any commercial vehicle be
equipped with a theft alarm signal device which is so arranged that it can-
not be used by the driver as an ordinary warning signal.
(d) Any authorized emergency vehicle may be equipped with a siren,
whistle, or bell, capable of emitting sound audible under normal conditions
from a distance of not less than 500 feet and of a type approved by the de-
partment, but such siren shall not be used except when such vehicle shall
sound siren when necessary to or in the immediate pursuit of an actual or
suspected violator of the law, in which said latter events the driver of such
vehicle shall sound said siren when necessary to warn pedestrians and other
drivers of the approach thereof. (Acts 1953, Nov. Sess., pp. 556, 612.)
68-1717. Mufflers, prevention of noise.— (a) Every motor vehicle shall at all
times 6e equipped with a muffler in good working order and in constant oper-
ation to prevent excessive or unusual noise and annoying smoke, and no per-
son shall use a muffler cut-out, bypass, or similar device upon a motor vehicle
on a highway, except that this section shall not apply to tractors.
(b) The engine and power mechanism of every motor vehicle shall be so
equipped and adjusted as to prevent the escape of excessive fumes or smoke.
(c) It shall be unlawful for any person to sell or offer for sale any muffler
which causes excessive or unusual noise or annoying smoke, or any muffler
cut-out, bypass, or similar device for use on a motor vehicle, or to sell or
offer for sale any motor vehicle equipped with any such muffler, muffler cut-
out, bypass, or similar device. (Acts 1953, Nov. Sess., pp. 556, 613; 1962,
p. 653.)
Captain RILEY : Generally, the Atlanta Police Department's policy
—and this is generally, except in unusual cases—on the enforcement
of the ordinance, Section 20-30, is to gain voluntary compliance with
the ordinance without actually booking a case whenever possible.
Of course, common sense has to prevail in all cases when the Atlanta
police answer a call on violation of a noise ordinance.
Section 20-30 of the Offenses and Miscellaneous Provisions of the
City Code of Atlanta is a pretty extensive ordinance governing
many different kinds of unlawful noise. Now, I don't know whether
you'd want me to go into all of that or not or whether you have time
for that. I can tell you what the policy of the Police Department is
on each one of them, on enforcement of it, if you like.
Dr. MEYER : I think, sir, for the purpose of this hearing, which is
dealing primarily with noise associated with construction or con-
struction equipment, if you would—
Captain RILEY : That's included in this.
Dr. MEYER: —if you would just give us a little brief statement as
to—
Captain RILEY : Well, generally, as I said initially here, the policy
is to gain voluntary compliance with these ordinances if it's possible.
Now, in aggravated cases, cases where the violators will not volun-
tarily cease a violation, then we issue a copy of charges, which does
not place them in jail but requires them to come to municipal court,
and then we subpoena the complainants.
You know, the courts have ruled you can't disturb the police. You
have to have somebody that the noise has disturbed. And so we
-------
51
always get them to come to court to tell about how the noise disturbed
them. And, of course, we can testify as to what we heard when we got
there.
But I would say that very few of these cases get to court because
of the fact that people do comply when the police go and tell them
that they are disturbing someone.
Of course, construction people are aware of these laws. You know
that you can't have construction after 10:00 o'clock at night to
7:00 a.m. in the morning. There are special emergencies. If it's an
emergency, they can get a special permit from the building in-
spector and they can have construction during those times, but it's
looked into by the building inspector, and then I think it's only 10
days that they can do that and must complete that work within that
time during those hours.
Of course, as I say, the Atlanta ordinance is five or six typewritten
pages. It covers most all types of noises that disturb people in
Atlanta.
That's all I have.
Dr. MEYER : I'd like to ask my colleagues here if they have any
specific questions they want to address to you regarding your ex-
periences with law.
Mr. Baron.
Mr. BARON : One, of course, that interests us directly is No. 10,
which is construction, and I see that what you have is the traditional
law which most cities have in the United States, with some modifi-
cations, and that permits construction noise, any degree of construc-
tion noise, as long as it fits in between certain hours. And that's the
case, isn't it?
Captain BILEY : Yes, sir.
Mr. BARON : They can make all the noise they want, use any equip-
ment they want?
Captain EILEY: Yes, sir. It's not measured in any way I know,
decibels or however they measure noise.
Mr. BARON : No restrictions other than the hours ?
Captain RILEY : No, sir.
Mr. BARON : And this is the traditional local ordinance.
Dr. MEYER : Yes. Any other questions, Mr. Baron ?
Mr. BARON : That would also apply to schools and Churches, and
so on?
Captain EILEY : There is a special section in here about schools
and churches, if you will notice. Section 11 here governs that. They
have to be marked is one requirement of it.
Mr. BARON : That wouldn't prevent the construction job or any-
thing like that.
Captain EILEY : No, sir. They'd have a special permit from the city
for that.
Mr. BARON : If they do construction ?
Captain EILEY: Yes, sir. They may be adding on to the hospital.
They have to allow construction.
Dr. MEYER: Dr. Bender?
Dr. BENDER : Certain cities are developing laws that limit the
actual level of sound that can be made under different circumstances.
Sound can be read on a meter, and then if it exceeds the prescribed
level there is a violation. Now, there is some question as to the en-
-------
52
forcement of these laws. The question is whether the police depart-
ment should be involved in enforcing them or whether a separate
group of environmental specialists should be involved in enforcing
laws concerning the environment.
How would you feel about having your policemen carrying sound
level meters around and measuring the level and enforcing it? Do
you think you'd like to have your staff do that or do you think you'd
rather see that in another area ?
Captain RILEY: The police are reluctant to take on any more
duties than we already have. Of course, any law that you pass is no
better than the enforcement that you can get on it, because you are
certainly not going to get voluntary compliance.
The American people seem to think at times all you have to do
to solve a problem is pass another law, and they have the same
bunch of people enforcing them, and they don't add to them and
provide people and equipment to do that. And what happens is that
all the enforcement is watered down if it's enforced at all. Either they
drop something else that they are enforcing in order to enforce that.
When you're already doing all you can do, something has to give.
Of course, I haven't thought about this before as to who should
enforce that. I have never thought about policemen having machines
that could measure the amount of sound that's coming from, say,
construction or a muffler or something. It seems to me that would be
a scientific way to do it. Whether or not policemen should do it I
don't know.
I say if we do, give us some more policemen and give us some time
to train them.
Dr. MEYER : That's a fair response. Along those lines, if the Chair
might point out, I have with me a device that is used in England.
They have recently passed a much stronger vehicle law, and most of
their policemen are using this simplified gadget. But it certainly
seems to me that you have raised an interesting point, as to how
far you burden the police department with this sort of responsibility.
Professor Lyons.
Dr. LYONS : I have no questions.
Dr. MEYER : Mr. McCarthy.
Mr. MCCARTHY: I believe the point has been covered.
Dr. MEYER : Very good. Thank you very much, sir. I have only one
last question I would like to ask you. You say that in the main you
have been able, just because you are the Police Department—
generally to get voluntary compliance when a complaint is filed.
Captain RILEY : Yes. I'm talking about generally, you know. You
have aggravated cases.
Dr. MEYER: Certainly.
Captain RILEY : And you have some people that will get out there
and whoop and holler and wake up everybody and there's nothing
else to do but make a case.
Generally when we have a complaint we go to them and tell them
that,
you
case, ^ „
Dr. LYONS : May I ask a question, Mr. Chairman ?
Dr. MEYER : Yes.
Dr. LYONS: If the Police Department observes construction be-
-------
53
tween the hours of 10:00 and 7:00 in the morning, do you make any
check to see if the contractor has a license or special permit?
Usually most all noise violations generally begin, and it's not
Captain RILEY : You mean do the police initiate the investigation ?
always— Generally we have a complainant. That's the reason we are
aware of it, not from our patrol.
Now, I'm not saying that we don't run up on it in our patrol and
enforce it at times, but it would be rare. Generally someone has
been awakened by that or is disturbed by it and calls us and that's the
way it's brought to the attention of the police.
Dr. LYONS: Would you estimate that a high percentage of the
contractors who do night work in Atlanta comply with this regula-
tion of obtaining a permit?
Captain RILEY: Oh, I would say they do comply with it, yes, sir.
Dr. MEYER: Thank you very much, Captain. We appreciate your
taking the time to come and we're sorry we got started a little late.
Captain RILEY: Thank you, sir.
Dr. MEYER: Continuing with our presentations regarding engi-
neering and control and the general state of the art, we have invited
a representative of an organization that has been involved in this
sort of activity for some period of time, Mr. Edwin Jackson of the
Delta P Corporation, to give a presentation on their observations. I
won't steal his thunder by talking about what his firm has been doing.
I will let him include it in his presentation.
STATEMENT OF EDWIN JACKSON, EXECUTIVE VICE
PRESIDENT, DELTA P INCORPORATED
Mr. JACKSON : I don't know everything, Dr. Meyer. I have already
learned something that has given me hope. As the parent of a teen-
ager I wanted to thank Miss Suter for saying although a rat would
die on a 120 dB rock and roll music, a human being wouldn't and
I'm encouraged by that. (Laughter)
It would be difficut for anyone to present to this panel something
new or unique on noise control associated with the design and opera-
tion of construction equipment. But is something unique or new
required? The need in most cases is not to develop but rather to im-
plement what is available.
Although more effort must be expended to reduce the economic
impact, the state of the art exists for solving most of the problems
of the construction industry.
For well over 40 years there have been complaints about con-
struction equipment and machinery noise. Equipment such as bull-
dozers, portable air compressors, rock drills, etc., may produce over
100 dB(A) at the operator's ear. Authorities in the field seem unan-
imous in their opinion that this level will impair hearing.
The main thrust of my presentation today will not be on the
technical aspects of the problem but more on the management aspects.
I believe I have an unusual position at this hearing since I am wear-
ing three hats: first, as a citizen I demand a quiet environment;
second, as a manufacturer of silencing equipment I want to market
my products; and, third, as a manager of a manufacturing operation,
-------
54
I resist additional costs for quieter machinery without direct, im-
mediate return on investment.
I hope this presentation will be helpful in further denning the
problem.
In the way of technical bcakground, Delta P and its parent com-
pany, Burgess Industries, have long been involved in the noise control
field. Burgess is a name that has been connected with the field of
acoustics for many years. Dr. C. F. Burgess, in forming the company,
originated many of the basic ideas of noise control today. The asso-
ciation with technical excellence has been continued at Delta P.
Our background and data on products and services are included
in the substantiating documents that I will present later.
My first thought upon receiving the invitation was to have one
of our acoustical engineers present a discourse on the state of the art
and our capabilities in design technology for silencing equipment
and machines of the construction industry. After analyzing and re-
thinking, it was my opinion that this was unecessary and redundant.
For example, as long as 3 years ago it was reported at the Con-
ference on Noise as a Health Hazard that:
"(1) We have developed silencing packages for engine-powered
air compressors, which have the potential for abating nuisance noise
at construction sites.
* * *
"(3) To control operator position noise levels, manufacturers have
developed silencing packages for reardump trucks, loaders and other
earth-moving equipment. These silencing packages are available as
customer options."
The paper concluded with this statement: "I would like to say
that there are no great technical barriers for better control of
vehicular noise."
This was over 3 years ago, and yet we don't see these incorporated
in a widespread manner.
This is not to say that we have technically arrived. There is still
much work to be done, and the field of noise control still resembles
an art rather than a science in some aspects. There is a need for
developments to minimize the economic impact on the construction
industry. This will be discussed later.
What I am saying is that standard approaches are adequate as they
now exist for the great majority of the noise problems. An example of
this approach would be the development of a vent or blowoff silencer
that is now a standard catalog item. These items were developed for
the petrochemical and chemical plants such as ammonia, methanol,
and nitric acid plants for the contractor during construction and
startup.
These silencers were developed by (1) defining the problem, (2)
deciding upon the approach, (3) designing the equipment, and (4)
field testing and redesign until satisfactory results were obtained.
It was an empirical approach based upon our experience in the field.
Figure 1, which the panel has, presents a typical data chart for
approximating unsilenced noise levels from the vents and blowdowns.
(Figure 1 follows:)
Low frequency noise is produced from low pressure, large valve,
mass flow vents. High frequency noise is generally synonymous with
high pressure, and small valves. This frequency has been found to be
-------
55
related to the jet speed and the diameter of the jet at the nozzle of the
valve.
The peak frequencies may be predicted from the geometry of the
valve. Harmonics of this frequency account for the broad-band noise
usually noted in vent analysis.
Selection of silencer type is a function of both the frequency con-
tent of the noise to be silenced and of specific application require-
ments.
If you will, gentlemen, the Figure 1 is an empirical approach to
silencing that has been found effective. An application engineer at a
district sales office could arrive at a reasonable answer from this
chart. It's down in the application area. We are not in the develop-
ment area.
An interesting note on this vent or blowoff silencer is that they
are only used during the construction and startup stage. The con-
tractors at first were not receptive to the need, but after a trial basis
there is now almost universal acceptance. This is based on (1) im-
proved working conditions and (2) reduction of construction and
startup time.
If you will, these plants are in the boondocks and so there is not
a complaint from the neighbors. It's put in because of the employees
and their increased efficiency.
I would also add this is an isolated case where economics dictate
the use.
To summarize, technical breakthroughs are not the major require-
ment. Standard application engineering as illustrated solved the
venting noise problem in the construction of chemical plants. The
problem is to get these standard silencing techniques introduced
universally into the construction industry.
Looking at the economics of noise control and the case against, I
believe the basic problem of noise control is still economics. Per-
formance is not improved in equipment or machines when silencing
is added; in other words, the noise that is attenuated after it is
generated. Costs varying from 1 percent to 10 percent are typically
added to the equipment. In addition, operating costs are increased
especially when mufflers are used.
Various studies have looked at the problem of economics in trying
to prove that reduction of workmen's compensation, for example,
would more than offset the cost of silencing. They make a good case,
but a convincing one to management.
What the industry does is internalize the cost of the noise. From
a management viewpoint this is a very logical and natural approach
within the construction or any industry. The problem is the social
cost—or Mr. Baron would say the externalized cost—that is paid by
others who have nothing to do with the construction industry. This
cost is the basis for the complaints over the last four decades.
Our present system does not adequately put the cost of unwanted
noise on the producers. They are borne by the public instead. It is
hard to quantify the cost savings resulting from a quieter environ-
ment. It is very debatable that we can ever prove that a quieter en-
vironment will save operating costs for the construction industry.
As can be seen from the above statements, there is no economic
incentive now to the construction industry, and, in fact, there is a
penalty.
-------
56
The case for economics, however. There are benefits for the con-
struction industry. Performance is generally improved where the
cause of noise is eliminated. It can be effectively argued that with
a reduction of noise at the construction site there will be less damage
to health through hearing loss by the operator. In the normal case,
increased productivity comes as a direct result of noise abatement.
Easier and clearer communication results when there is no distracting
noise. By removing an annoying noise source, intangible benefits are
derived for all personnel.
From my personal observations, I have become convinced that a
greater benefit than immediate productivity increase is possible. In
a quiet environment management is able to attract more competent
workers. The possibilities can be quite dramatic as to who is available
for the work.
In my own personal situation where the noise environment is very
similar to the construction industry, we have in the past attracted
people who have a record of high turnover and high absentee rate.
By presenting a quieter environment, we are able to attract workers
who will be more valuable employees. It is not a dramatic short-trem
benefit, but a possible long-term improvement benefit for the con-
struction industry.
What can and what should be done? I believe the only answer is
proper legislation with adequate enforcement. As we weigh the pros
and cons, experience says that except in isolated instances the econ-
omics of noise will win out over the economics of silence. I do not
believe self-contorl or self-regulation alone by the construction indus-
try will solve the problem. It will require direct regulation at the
construction site.
Although I cannot recommend a definite formula or program, sub-
sidies to the industry or economic incentives should be considered
during the transition period. This can help to naturally and easily
tip the economic balance for a quieter environment.
I do not believe that the economic impact will be as severe as some
would indicate. The American Petroleum Institute, for example,
reported in the Fortune Magazine of October 1969 that the costs of
compliance to the Walsh-Healey Act by the petroleum industry alone
would be $40 to $50 million to modify its existing equipment. Delta
P has been quite involved with the petroleum industry and the
petrochemical industry and has yet to see such expenditures.
It would appear the petroleum industry has been able to comply
with the provision of the Act for less than they originally had stated.
I would also point out that with the proper study, analysis, and
research there are breakthroughs possible that would reduce the cost
of ownership. And, sadly, I would report that the present competitive
nature of the acoustic field will insure that the buyer receives his
money's worth from any manufacturer of silencing equipment.
With more interest and involvement by government, I believe the
direct financing and undertaking of research and development on
noise and noise control is a must. Based on my own personal ex-
perience, remarkable results can occur.
This can occur through technological innovation. The remarkable
results I am talking about come from breakthroughs in equipment
design, getting back to the basics outside of the acoustics field
perhaps. Not just an improvement on existing designs, not a better
-------
57
approach to silencing, but a new concept is required to eliminate the
noise source.
I believe there are possibilities that need exploration with the help
of the Federal Government that may work to the betterment of man-
ufacturer and user. A personal example in which I was involved
concerned replacing an AC to DC rotary inverter for the Polaris
submarine electrical system with an electronic static inverter in the
interest of noise reduction. The result of this development was, in
fact, a quieter piece of equipment.
As you could expect, the initial cost of this equipment was approxi-
mately double the price of the equipment it replaced. In the 9 years
since this development took place however, the price of this equip-
ment has dropped. And more important—based on the Navy's own
study of the program—the cost of ownership is now considerably
less than the original equipment, the rotary inverter.
This is due to two factors: (1) the equipment lasts longer; and
(2) there is practically no maintenance or reliability problems.
I believe such breakthroughs are possible within the construction
industry if the proper development is encouraged by the Federal
Government. Although the noise reduction in this instance was for
a different purpose than what we are now talking about, it
illustrates that the effort in noise reduction requires a new technical
approach to an old design problem and will result in an economic
advantage for the customer as a byproduct.
In conclusion, I would make the following three recommendations:
1. We need additional legislation with technical meaning in quan-
titative terms and enforceable language. This will neither penalize
nor give competitive advantage to a manufacturer or user of con-
struction equipment and machinery.
2. We must understand the economic realities of the situation. In
addition to direct regulation, I believe subsidies and economic in-
centives should be considered during the difficult transition period.
3. We must encourage analysis and research into the problem to
better identify and solve these problems with specific emphasis on
how new concepts could lead to quieter and better equipment.
Thank you.
Dr. MEYER: Thank you very much, Mr. Jackson, for a candid
viewpoint from your 3-headed position. I will now ask Mr. McCarthy
if he has any specific questions he would like to direct to Mr. Jackson.
Mr. MCCARTHY : Again I don't know that I have specific questions
other than to make a comment that I think the change or the attitude
expressed is again a positive one for showing what can we do to
solve the problem rather than to explain all the problems associated
with abating noise pollution. And I think that is the basic attitude
that we are just going to have to encourage, and I hope to see it
proliferate.
Thank you.
Mr. JACKSON : Thank you.
Dr. MEYER : Professor Lyons.
Dr. LYONS : I have no comments.
Dr. MEYER : Mr. Baron.
Mr. BARON : I just want to ask a question. The package for air
compressors is for the exhaust silencing or exhaust and intake?
Mr. JACKSON : It's mostly, as Ingersoll-Kand so well put it, for the
-------
58
exhaust. The problem is not only in compressors. Diesel engines. Gas
turbines. The exhausts are the main areas. And depending upon the
requirements, you then have to go to the intake and eventually even
to the mechanical noise enclosing the piece of equipment itself.
Mr. BARON : I understand that if you put a good silencer on an
air compressor on the exhaust you will knock off about 10 dB in the
large size. From 105 you go to about 95.
Mr. JACKSON : You can do better than that, but that would be
easily done.
Mr. BARON: With the silencer? Just an exhaust silencer?
Mr. JACKSON: Yes.
Mr. BARON : But you can do better than that with an exhaust
silencer ?
Mr. JACKSON : Yes, you could do better than that. I would say, oh,
if we're talking about the compressor and what we can do to the ex-
haust, in the order of 15 dB would certainly be expected.
Mr. BARON : They usually talk about two kinds of dB reference
points. One was dynamic something or other. I didn't quite follow it.
Actual reading was 10 dB. If you read it with a sound level meter
and you put on this good exhaust, you'd get 15 dB reduction ?
Mr. JACKSON : You'd see the reduction, yes.
Mr. BARON : The other question was brought up by the previous
speakers—the concept if you use a good muffler you will cut down
operating efficiency, backup pressure, and so on.
Mr. JACKSON : Yes, your back pressure will affect operating effi-
ciencies.
Mr. BARON : Significantly ? Because I have been told yes and no.
I have been told a good muffler or silencer matched to the proper
power source will improve operation.
Mr. JACKSON : I would take issue. If this was the only thing done it
would not improve operation.
Mr. BARON : How much would it—
Mr. JACKSON : Maybe 3, 5 percent drop in efficiency.
Dr. MEYER: Dr. Bender.
Dr. BENDER : I just would like to comment possibly on this question
of muffler efficiency. Isn't it true for a 4-cycle engine you decrease
engine efficiency with a, muffler but for a 2-cycle engine the effect of
reflecting waves back into the engine can have a beneficial effect?
That is, when you take a muffler, a tuned muffler, off the 2-cycle
engine you can get degraded performance, that it's better with
the muffler on?
Mr. JACKSON : I would like, to defer that. It could be true. I'm not
an acoustical engineer. But I would say for whether that's possible—
Howard, would you care to comment?
Dr. MEYER: Would you identify your colleague?
Mr. JACKSON: This is Howard Burris. He's engineering manager
of the Turbine Silencer Division of Delta P.
Mr. BURRIS: There is a difference between 2- and 4-cycle engines
obviously. With a tuned exhaust system on a 2-cycle engine, yes, a
muffler could make a big difference there and can actually improve
the efficiency, yes. The 4-cycle, very little effect.
Dr. BENDER : Another question that I had concerns your comment
that in the normal case increased productivity comes as a direct re-
sult of noise abatement. I have a hard time seeing how quieting a
-------
59
bulldozer or something is going to make it more productive. Could
you elaborate on that, give me some sort of a feel for how this
happens and what magnitude the increase in productivity might be?
Mr. JACKSON: All right. We're talking about what is the effect
of noise. And this is outside of my area. But the emotional or psychic
damage to the operator. Does he become fatigued and worn put
toward the end? This type of productivity decrease occurs. I think
this is what you'd see,
In addition to my statement, if there is noise and you are trying
to communicate, maybe there is mis-communication and the man
works on the wrong thing at the wrong time. This type of direct
productivity decrease occurs.
Dr. MEYER: Thank you very much, sir. I appreciate your infor-
mation, which we find to be very useful. Changing the schedule a
little bit, not only because someone has an airplane to catch but be-
cause it fits in with the preceding presentation so nicely, I would
like to ask Mr. Palazzi of the Associated General Contractors of
America to come forward and give us the general contractor's view-
point.
FEOM THE FLOOR: He has gone to check out of his hotel. He
should be back soon.
Dr. MEYER: Fine. I will then proceed and ask that Mr. Welling-
ton of the Detroit Diesel Division of General Motors come forward,
if he's present. Happy to have you with us, sir. We have heard a
great deal from the independent consultants about some of the tech-
nology, and I am most happy to welcome you here, to talk about
your views on this problem.
STATEMENT OF ROGER D. WELLINGTON. STAFF ENGINEER,
TESTING AND DEVELOPMENT. DETROIT DIESEL ALLISON DIVI-
SION. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION
Mr. WELLINGTON: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Chairman and members of the panel invited by the Office of
Noise Abatement and Control of the Environmental Protection
Agency:
I am Roger D. Wellington, Staff Engineer, Testing and Deveop-
ment, Detroit Diesel Allison Division, General Motors Corporation,
and I am here in response to your invitation to discuss the subject
of noise from diesel engines. I have responsibility for the direc-
tion of projects undertaken to control the noise level of diesel
engines.
At the outset, I want to emphasize that it is my understanding
I have been invited to speak on the problems of noise emissions
and control as they relate to diesel engines alone. Other witnesses
who have appeared before you today are experts on mufflers and
and they have already identified and discussed the significant noise
problems which result from the uses to which these engines may
be put. For reasons which will become clear in a moment, Detroit
Diesel Allison does not have a muffler expert in the professional
sense, although it does employ engineers who are knowledgeable
on the subject.
Basically, manufacturers of diesels recognize that noise emanates
from the engine exhaust and the air intake as well as from the
engine structure itself. Exhaust noise is controlled by the use of
-------
60
an exhaust muffler. Intake noise is controlled by a silencer, usually
built into the air cleaner. Structural strains of the engine are trans-
mitted directly to the air as noise and, to a lesser but important
extent, as vibrations through the engine mounts, to chassis, or
other supporting frame structure. Engine structure noise may be
controlled through engine mounts, by enclosures or possible modifi-
cation of engine components.
As a manufacturer of diesel engines for approximately 280
separate equipment manufacturers, we recognize that some of these
engines are noisy, depending upon the application and silencing
equipment which is used or not used. Without purporting to be
an expert it is generally recognized that a poorly muffled diesel
engine, for example, may emit rougly 110 dB(A) to the ear of
the operator. With good muffling equipment and engine enclosure,
noise from the same engine may be reduced to about 90 dB(A).
At this point it is important to understand the role of the diesel
engine manufacturer in the production of vehicles and equipment
used in the construction industry. Diesel engine manufacturers are
responsible only for production and performance of the engine
itself. The control of noise from the exhaust and intake is in the
hands of the equipment manufacturer who, in designing for the ap-
plication and use of the engine, will specify the type of equip-
ment to be used in controlling these major noise sources. Addi-
tionally, the equipment manufacturer designs the engine com-
partment which is another important control of engine noise.
Such components as mufflers, air cleaners, engine mounts, fans,
etc., are known as application material, and as such are purchased
by equipment manufacturers from specialists, just as a diesel en-
gine is purchased from a specialist.
And it is important to note that, while some of these components
are noise control units, others are additional noise sources.
What I've said to this point distinguishes between the areas of
responsibility which are properly assigned to the equipment manu-
facturer and those which remain the responsibility of the engine
manufacturer. I would now like to explain some of the problems
an engine manufacturer faces in reducing the mechanical noise of
the engine as opposed to the gas noise.
In considering the possibility of a change in design to achieve
a quieter engine, it is first necessary to identify the noise sources
in the engine itself. After excluding intake and exhaust noise by
piping it out of the test facility, the Noise and Vibration Lab-
oratory at the General Motors Proving Ground established some
twelve sources of engine noise.
As part of this research project, each noise source was studied
and a laboratory fix undertaken to reduce its contribution to total
noise from the engine. This study has produced some promising
findings, although no single change explored made a discernible
difference.
The technical changes incorporated in our engine by the Proving
Ground were primarily adaptable only for laboratory studies and
not usable on commercial engines. For example, a cog belt instead
of gears was used for timing although it could never be used to
drive accessories normally powered by the engine gear train. Sec-
ondly, piston clearances were reduced for the limited laboratory
-------
61
run beyond the production minimum known to be necessary in
order to prevent seizures.
In a parallel study, also conducted at the Noise and Vibration
Laboratory at the Proving Ground, significant noise reductions
were shown to be possible by completely encapsulating the engine.
This leads us to the conclusion that significant and practical
efforts to reduce noise of construction machinery are likely to
take place in the areas of improved gas silencing (mufflers and
intake silencers) and acoustically designed enclosures.
Still, it might be asked why changes in the engine suggested
by laboratory experiments have not been incorporated in produc-
tion units. The answer is simply that much of the data is so new
that we have not had sufficient time for full evaluation and im-
plementation. Moreover, we are continuing research in the same
direction through contract with the University of Southhampton,
England, under the guidance of Professor T. Priede, Chairman,
Automotive Engineering Group at the University. Additional re-
search of a supplementary nature to that being done in South-
ampton, England, to General Motors contract, is currently being
conducted at our Engineering Laboratories in Detroit.
However, the main effort at our Detroit Laboratories consists
of work to accumulate fundamental noise data on engine models
now being built. This includes exhaust noise data, intake noise
measurements and determination of the close noise field of our
basic engines. With such data, original equipment manufacturers
who purchase our engines will be able to apply them successfully
to their own equipment designs in order to meet expected national
noise emission standards. I should like to make clear that we shall
in no way abandon our customers who, finding themselves limited
in facilities, technique, or talent, need our help and experience in
bringing their designs to satisfactory noise levels.
In view of the limited_ opportunity of engine manufacturers to
achieve significant reductions in construction equipment noise, testi-
mony as to the ultimate effects of noise reduction programs upon
the power, efficiency, size and weight of diesel engine operations
should be presented by equipment manufacturers. Of the laboratory
changes in engine design discussed earlier, none would influence
these operation factors significantly.
Finally, in exploring some of the alternatives for achieving
quieter diesel engines, one option is to derate the engine so that
it will operate at only a portion of its capacity. While data devel-
oped initially in England is currently under re-evaluation because
of new tests using U.S.-type diesel engines, it may be expected
that a 6 dB(A) reduction in basic engine noise, measured three
feet from the engine, can be achieved by derating the engine so
that its top operating speed is reduced 40%.
Derating engines is never seriously considered. To do the same
work, it would be necessary to use a second derated engine or a
larger derated engine, either solution increasing the noise until
the net gain might be 3 db for a large increase in cost.
At this point, it may be appropriate to observe that the basic
reason behind development of today's powerful construction equip-
ment is to cut construction time and thus provide lower costs ulti-
mately to the consumer.
-------
62
As I said in the beginning, we remain committed to making im-
provements in our products necessary to make them both accept-
able to our customers and in compliance with Government regula-
tions. It is possible that some of our research programs now being
conducted by independent groups will provide information on how
changes developed in the laboratory can be moved to the pro-
duction line. If this happens, some of our future designs may in-
corporate improvements of the type suggested here.
This concludes my formal statement. At Detroit Diesel Allison,
we appreciate the opportunity to offer our comments on the prob-
lems of noise. I will attempt to answer any questions the panel
may wish to ask.
Thank you.
Dr. MEYER: Thank you.
Professor Lyons.
Dr. LYONS : I have no questions at this time.
Dr. MEYER : Mr. Baron
Mr. BARON : I just want to express my disappointment at the
information that the power plant for the air compressor, for ex-
ample, itself cannot be significantly reduced, because in my ex-
perience over quite a few years with this problem of construction
noise the buck has been passed from the maker of the engine—
For example, I talked to one of your executives a few years ago
when we went and toured the Proving Ground and the Noise and
Vibration Laboratory, and he said, "Yes, we can make a quieter
diesel engine. Nobody asked for it."
Then we talked to the manufacturer of compressors, and they
said, "We have to use the engines that are on the market."
And then we again talked to one manufacturer and he says,
"Muffling is an accessory that has nothing to do with us."
So I would merely like to clarify this situation and voice my dis-
appointment to hear an official statement that we can expect very
little in terms of reduction of the propulsion plant itself, because
I think we have to seriously think of electric motors and other
sources of energy for construction if this is the case.
Because as was pointed out before by the maker of equipment,
there is a limit, economic limit, to which they can go without getting
down to the noise levels that would be necessary, because the 85
that was mentioned in the air compressor is not significant if you
have three, four, or five air compressors in tandem.
And yet as you start to go down lower using the existing power
plant you run into serious problems.
So that I would merely like to say that this information is
disappointing.
Mr. WELLINGTON: I'd like to answer that a little bit. First of
all, remember that the disappointing part of it to you is from
the standpoint that I didn't think that we were going to reduce
structural or basic engine noise a great deal. The muffler people
have already said that if people will put on proper muffling they
will reduce it a great deal.
Now, there is no point in reducing engine noise, basic engine
noise, until the masking noise is removed. Now, our research toward
reducing engine noise is aimed at that point when the masking
noise is removed. But I don't think we have a responsibility until
-------
63
we can get the masking noise removed.
Mr. BARON: By masking noise you mean—
Mr. WELLINGTON: The airborne noise or the air-created noise,
the noise that comes out of the tailpipe, the noise that comes out
of the tailpipe particularly, the fan noise and the noise for the
intake which generally is pretty good.
Mr. BARON : But steps have been taken in that direction, haven't
they, by three or four companies using air compressing—
Mr. WELLINGTON : You're going to be pleased with that 85 dB.
Mr. BARON: It's a beginning.
Mr. WELLINGTON : At the beginning, yes. You're going to be
pleased with it. And we're not abdicating our responsibility to
carry it beyond that. But you're not to that point yet.
Mr. BARON: In other words, you feel that you can do more
than 85 with intake and exhaust silencing?
Mr. WELLINGTON : No, I say that when you get down there is
about the time that the engine noise comes in. However, there's
still a great deal that can be done even just by encapsulating. But
this becomes a problem of maintenance of the engine structure itself.
But the noise can be reduced.
Now, one of these days we'll get down to the point where we
can't compete with quieter power perhaps.
Mr. BARON : I'm not clear about something. You said reduce the
masking noise. You don't feel that the steps that have been taken
by Ingersoll-Rand, Gardner-Denver, and so on, are as much as
can be taken to reduce the masking noise? I'm trying to get clarity.
Mr. WELLINGTON: I think they have done excellently. I think
that you would be very pleased in a situation even in the City of
New York where that was done.
Mr. BARON: Right now, but your statement was if the masking
noise is reduced to satisfactory levels that you would then pro-
ceed more actively, if I interpreted it correctly, to the reduction
of the power plant noise.
Mr. WELLINGTON: Yes, it's a fine point. There are two ways
to go on the power plant noise. One is to get the power plant
itself less noisy. The other is to prevent that noise from getting
to anybody's ears.
Now, Ingersoll-Rand has gotten it down there by preventing
it getting to anybody's ears. This is one of the cheaper ways of
doing it because right now I can't get the power plant noise down
but you sure can prevent it from getting to the person's ears.
Mr. BARON : You think the work in Southampton and so on will
show some near-future application as far as power plant?
Mr. WELLINGTON : I'm afraid that what we're talking about
is comparatively few dB at 3 feet.
Mr. BARON : Well, as we pointed out, 85 is much better than
105. But if you're operating two, three, four, or five compressors
in tandem, you're generating a lot of noise because you're adding
3 dB, aren't you, for every unit?
Mr. WELLINGTON : Well, this is true if the 3 dB were all coming
from a point source. I think I'm right, Dr. Bender.
Mr. BARON: Some of your distances—
Mr. WELLINGTON: If they were all coming from a point source.
When it's distributed like that, I don't believe it adds that way.
-------
64
Mr. BARON: Would some of the experts here care to comment
on that?
Dr. METER: Well, it's a tricky question. You double the sound
power at the source and you get roughly a 3-dB increase. You
string a source out over 300 feet of a city block and you can't
really say you have resolved it to a point source.
On the other hand, though, as we have earlier discussed, if you
put a line of sources down what amounts to a reverberation chamber
of a city's high buildings, your 3-dB law goes out too, because
you may be getting standing waves. You may be getting two
sources 50 feet apart that would normally be producing only the
same general acoustic effect of one source if it were open field.
You're now getting 6-dB increase. You have to take this into con-
sideration. It's the circumstances of the exposure. So some of the
simple rules of thumb don't work. It could be a much greater in-
crease than you would expect from just the doubling.
Mr. BARON : It would certainly seem to justify the stimulation
of work on providing for the power plant. That's what I'm trying
to indicate.
Mr. MEYER: Dr. Bender.
Dr. BENDER: I have a question concerning the structural noise.
Frieda in England who is under contract to you has shown that
by modifying the structure of the engine by stiffening the bear-
ing webs and using damped panels for the oil pans and valve
covers, and so forth, he can get to the order of 10 or more dB(A)
of noise reduction, structural radiation.
Now, are those modifications to an engine significant? Would
they affect the ease with which an engine can be produced and
the cost of production?
Mr. WELLINGTON: Those modifications are worthy of our very
close study, and this is one reason that we have that contract. I
can't say at this time just exactly how practical those things are.
The 10 dB is worth it.
Dr. BENDER: Yes, I thought so.
You also mention here that 6 dB(A) reduction of basic engine
noise would diminish to less than 1 dB(A) when measured at
50 feet. I don't understand that. I would think that a 6 dD(A)
reduction would be 6 dB(A) at 50 feet. Do you have any com-
ment on that?
Mr. WELLINGTON : I think maybe you caught me. I think you're
right.
Dr. MEYER: Even taking account of the inverse square law, if
you reduce it for one it's going to be the same ratio, except for
one thing. And of course you're talking about 50 feet, so you're still
in the near field. But if you were out 500 feet, you'd have to take
into account the different air attenuation factors of different fre-
quencies, so you might not have a 6-dB drop. You might have
considerably less, depending upon the frequency composition of
the source. But at 50 feet, you're still within the near field of the
sound source that you're talking about.
Mr. WELLINGTON: Yes. I'm sorry.
Dr. BENDER: One other question. Every now and then, you
know, we hear rumors that gas turbines are really going to be the
thing in the future and that diesels will be no more. Do you have
-------
65
any comment on the future viability of diesel engines as compared
with gas turbines ?
Mr. WELLINGTON: You mean from a noise standpoint?
Dr. BENDER: No, just from a utilization standpoint, Do you an-
ticipate a decrease of production of diesels and increased pro-
duction of gas turbines?
Mr. WELLINGTON : I made my decision many years ago around
1950. I sat in commune with myself, and I said diesels are going
to pay me out. I have seen rotary machinery displace reciprocating
machinery in many cases. But the time field I don't think I'm
competent to judge on.
Mr. MEYER: Mr. McCarthy.
Mr. MCCARTHY : No, I think I have heard most of my questions
asked.
Dr. MEYER: Dr. Okun.
Dr. OKUN : No questions.
Dr. MEYER: Thank you very much. We have had a presentation
from a supplier of prime-mover sources. Again taking the Chair-
man's prerogative of juggling things around a little bit, I would
like to ask another user of construction equipment and equipment
powered by diesels to speak now. Would Mr. Charles Skinner of
the Georgia Truckers Association give us some views from your
position, sir of noise as you produce it as a carrier of earth and
other construction materials and also as a receiver of noise to
which your workers are exposed at construction sites?
STATEMENT OF CHARLES L. SKINNER, MANAGING DIRECTOR,
GEORGIA MOTOR TRUCKING ASSOCIATION, INC.
Mr. SKINNER: Mr. Chairman, I feel that I ought to preface
my remarks by saying that we did not understand until I received
this morning some material which indicated otherwise that this
particular hearing was to center primarily around construction, and
my presentation does not center primarily around construction. It
centers around the operation of trucks generally, and I hope that
it will be helpful to you, but I feel I should explain that to you
before I went ahead.
Dr. MEYER : Well, Mr. Skinner, I apologize about that if there
was some failure of communication on our part. And I would
like to suggest that if you want to focus primarily on the con-
struction side of this and give a brief summary, and put the rest
of this in the record, that is fine. If you are dealing with the
larger problem, I would also like to take the opportunity of using
your statement at another hearing we are going to have on general
transportation problems, or at least include it, with your per-
mission, in the record.
Mr. SKINNER: I think my statement more properly should be ad-
dressed to your Chicago meeting.
Dr. MEYER : Very good.
Mr. SKINNER: I am not qualified or competent to talk about
construction equipment since our association is composed primarily
of motor common carriers and private carriers who operate the
so-called dry freight type of trucks. And I leave it entirely up
to you.
Dr. MEYER: Well, you are here, and what I would like to do,
-------
66
which I think would be perfectly proper, is to accept your state-
ment here rather than have it read at length. And I would like to
extend to you an invitation to either have it presented in Chicago
or have one of us read it into the record for you there. I would also
like to ask you, if you feel free as a representative of the trucking
association, to receive some questions about some of the things
that we have been discussing here with regard to equipment.
Mr. SKINNER: I will be glad to try. Now, I do not pose in any
manner as an engineer. But as concerns the use of trucks, par-
ticularly I think you might be interested in the Atlanta truck
route system and how it was established and how it has helped
to diminish the level of truck noise in the residential areas of
Atlanta, so anything like that I would be glad to—
Dr. MEYER: I would like that very much, since that does have a
bearing on construction. We all know that you can't build some-
thing without doing some excavating and without hauling the
spoil away. And you can't build something without moving ma-
terials of construction from the point of basic transportation and
breakdown to the construction site. And I think it would be useful
for the purpose of this hearing if you would give us a brief dis-
cussion on that and would entertain any questions. Then we will
pick up on this.
Mr. SKINNER: Let me read to you then the portion of this which
deals with the Atlanta truck route system.
Dr. MEYER: That would be very good.
Mr. SKINNER : As early as 1955, city officials and truck owners in
Atlanta took steps through a cooperative program to plan a net-
work of truck routes designed to give the trucker sufficient streets
to do the transportation job required of him but prohibiting the
operation of trucks of more than 36,000 pounds gross weight or
more than 30 feet in length on as many residential streets as
possible.
The initial planning was carried out by the director and staff
of the city's Traffic Engineering Department in cooperation with
staff members and two or three key members of the Georgia Motor
Trucking Association, Inc.
The basic information-gathering technique was to interview the
dispatcher for every major truck terminal in Atlanta and find
out what streets he considered as absolutely essential for the oper-
ation of his larger trucks. GMTA encouraged the dispatchers to
consider all alternatives and to ask for as few thoroughfares as
possible.
It was chiefly on this type of information and on the premise
of assuring continued effective truck service for the city that the
truck route system was adopted. Naturally, there were some objec-
tions from both individual truckers and from residents of some
streets, and it took a good deal of explaining and persuasion to
convince some of them that the new system represented in general
a marriage of good truck service and the needs of citizens for a
reasonably quiet residential environment.
There were other problems which had to be overcome. An ex-
ception had to be written into the ordinance establishing the system
to allow delivery of items of unusual size or weight to a site served
only by a nontruck route.
-------
67
Sharp corners had to be rounded off to accommodate the larger
rigs on some truck routes. Several traffic signals had to be modi-
fied, or added.
But these and other needed modifications were made over a
period of a few months, and with a minimum of politics involved.
Since that time, as Atlanta has grown industrially and geo-
graphically, it has become necessary to add a few more truck routes
to the system, but the added streets have in most cases been those
which have gone "commercial" since 1955.
Karl Bevins, the City Traffic Engineer who initiated the system
in cooperation with the trucking industry, considers that it has
been "100 percent favorable to the general public" while it may
have increased somewhat the costs of motor carriers in serving
the city. He agrees, however, with GMTA that indirect benefits
to the carriers—such as helping them to plan routes and locate
terminals with assurance and to enjoy a much less abrasive rela-
tionship with the general public—have made the system as attrac-
tive to the carrier as to the home owner.
Before we leave the subject of Atlanta's truck route system, we
need to clarify one point. The weight and length standards were
established primarily with the van-type, "dry freight" trucks oper-
ated by truck lines and many private carriers in mind. And the
system has worked exceptionally well in channeling the move-
ments of these trucks. It has not worked as well, according to Mr.
Bevins, in the case of trucks such as those which move heavy loads
of dirt, concrete, or gravel—generally grouped together as "con-
struction" trucks. These trucks may well be within or close to
the 30-foot length limit but well over the 36,000-pound weight
ceiling, and the city does not operate any truck-weighing crews.
By utilizing State Highway Department mobile scales and crews
and exerting whatever political or economic pressure might be
available, the city has been able, according to Mr. Bevins, to dis-
courage the most flagrant violators in this group.
Mr. Chairman, I think that's about all there is on that truck
route.
Dr. MEYER : Very good.
Mr. SKINNER: I might add quickly in view of some of the pre-
vious testimony that our position in our association and that of
American Trucking Associations, our parent organization, is that
we are users, we are consumers of trucks, and we do advocate
Federal restrictions or Federal standards on the manufacture of
trucks and also on tires, because we have found at certain speeds
tires contribute much more to the noise level than engines and
exhausts. We do advocate that standards be set.
Dr. MEYER: Thank you very much. In Chicago we expect to
have some of the rubber industry people talking about this tire
problem, and I do hope we will be able to work out something with
you for that specific hearing, sir. Are there any questions?
Dr. Okun?
Dr. OKUN: No.
Dr. MEYER: Mr. McCarthy?
Mr. MCCARTHY: Can you give me just one example of the flagrant
violation of these construction trucks? Does that mean deviating
from the truck system or just— Is that what it means?
-------
68
Mr. SKINNER: Yes, using a street repeatedly at weight levels
or size levels which are not allowed on that particular street.
Mr. MCCARTHY: Thank you.
Dr. MEYER: Dr. Bender.
Dr. BENDER: When trucks are purchased, does the purchaser
have the option of what kind of muffler to select for it?
Mr. SKINNER: Yes. I think in almost all cases he may ask for
optional muffler equipment, yes.
Dr. BENDER: Can he buy a truck without a muffler?
Mr. SKINNER: No, I think the Federal law now requires that
every motor vehicle be equipped with a muffler, and this law is
directed primarily at controlling exhaust emissions. But the law
does require a muffler. I don't think there are any requirements
as far as the noise reduction of the mufflers is concerned.
Dr. BENDER: I see.
Dr. MEYER: Mr. Baron.
Mr. BARON: Two questions. One, is the trucking industry con-
cerned with the—I don't know what the generic name is—accessory
use of trucks, you know, cooling equipment or extra pumps for
fuel trucks which are sources of noise emission? Do you under-
stand my question?
Mr. SKINNER: Yes, I do. We are concerned with it on the na-
tional level but we are more concerned right now with the ex-
haust noise, the engine noise per se, and with the tire noise, these
two, and especially at the speeds at which motor vehicles move
over the interstate highways the tire noise is much more significant
than any other source of noise from motor vehicles of any type.
Mr. BARON : Over what speed ?
Mr. SKINNER: Sixty miles an hour.
Mr. BARON : The other question was do you have a problem with
in-transit or in-motion cement mixers, trucks—that is, part of the
construction truck fleet going through the city?
Mr. SKINNER: Noise problems?
Mr. BARON : Yes. Mixing.
Mr. SKINNER : It has been my observation they are rather noisy,
yes, sir.
Mr. BARON : Yes. But is the association as an association inter-
ested in that kind of noise?
Mr. SKINNER: Yes, we are, especially from the standpoint of
wanting to be as good citizens as possible and from a public rela-
tions standpoint, because although our particular part of trucking
is not too closely allied or associated with cement mixers and
that construction industry, as far as the man in the street is con-
cerned a truck is a truck is a truck, and we get the blame for it.
Mr. BARON: Thank you.
Dr. MEYER: Professor Lyons.
Dr. LYONS: What is the occupational noise exposure of a truck
driver? Do you know? Have you seen any figures?
Mr. SKINNER: In what terms? Decibels?
Dr. LYONS: Decibels.
Mr. SKINNER: No, I don't know. I think that information may
be contained—I'm going to leave this with you—in some tests con-
ducted by our national association in 1963 and 1964 called "The
Noise Trucks Make."
-------
69
We are concerned about the noise which the driver is sub-
jected to.
Dr. LYONS: It has been my understanding from the reports
that I have read that a truck driving down the highway at about
60 miles an hour with the windows slightly cracked open has a
cab noise level in excess of 90 dB(A).
Mr. SKINNEB: That may be true.
Dr. LYONS: Thank you. No further questions.
Mr. MEYER: Thank you very much. This was an excellent contri-
bution in showing what can be done to recognize the problem of
getting materials in and out of a construction site, and it is very
useful as an approach. I would like to talk to you some more
about our getting together further. Mr. Palazzi, might we hear
from you as to what the various contractors who are part of the
Associated Geneal Contractors of America might be doing in the
fields of their member constituencies?
STATEMENT OF JOHN PALAZZI, THE ASSOCIATED GENERAL
CONTRACTORS OF AMERICA
Mr. PALAZZI: Mr. Chairman, Dr. Meyer, members of the panel,
my name is John Palazzi. I am a highway contractor from New
Hampshire. I am also Chairman of the AGC Environment Com-
mittee, which was formed to develop guidelines for our members
to enable them to conduct their construction operations with the
least disturbance to the environment.
The Associated General Contractors of America, an association
of over 9,000 general contractors who perform the major part
of this Nation's construction, appreciates this opportunity to com-
ment on the problem of noise resulting from construction oper-
ations.
Appearing with me today are Dan Shepherd, also a general
contractor and member of the Environment Committee, and other
AGC members from the Atlanta area, also representatives from
the Georgia Branch of AGC, and also from the AGC National
Office in Washington, D.C., staff members.
We support the policy of the Government of the United States
to improve and enhance environmental quality through a positive
program to implement that policy. We support the inclusion of
contractual requirements to reduce the impact of construction oper-
ations on the environment provided that such requirements are
practical, feasible, and capable of accomplishment. We further
expect that they will be clearly described.
Measures and regulations to control noise must be realistic and
free of conflict. For example, such a conflict exists in the require-
ment that backup warning devices on vehicles and equipment must
be heard above the noise generated by the equipment. This is a
requirement of the Occupational Safety and Health Act and the
Safety and Health Regulations for Construction. The noise level
of the warning signal is too high. This calls for reduction of the
noise created by the equipment's operation, in order that the noise
level of the warning device can be lowered.
Our principal problm lies in the equipment we must purchase
for our operations. Contractors can, to a certain extent, control
some of their operations by limiting their activities to those times
-------
70
of the day when construction noises will he least annoying to people.
However, if we were able to purchase equipment with acceptable
noise levels, we could then operate on a schedule most convenient
and efficient for all concerned.
We look to the manufacturers to produce construction equip-
ment to comply with established standards. We recommend that
upon the determination of those standards, manufacturers be re-
quired to modify their products to meet those standards. A rea-
sonable lead time to develop and produce this equipment must be
allowed. It is not economically feasible to modify existing equip-
ment nor is it practical from an engineering standpoint to-reduce
the noise produced. Regulations, therefore, should not apply to
equipment in use, but only to equipment produced after a specific
date.
We are advised that the technology exists to reduce noise levels
on construction equipment. Some equipment—air compressors, for
example—have been so redesigned. Until uniform standards and
requirements are developed, manufacturers cannot produce and
contractors will not have available to them equipment with reduced
noise levels.
In any consideration of measures to preserve and enhance en-
vironmental quality, the cost of such measures must be considered.
Noise-abating devices are expensive, as are protective devices worn
by construction personnel. We repeat that regulations must be rea-
sonable and uniformly applied, so that all operate under the same
conditions and everyone is aware of the additional costs involved.
We commend the wording of the proposed Noise Control Act of
1971, which states in section 6, "Noise Generating Standards":
"(a) If the Administrator, in a report published pursuant to
Section 5, identifies as a major source of noise any product or
class of products of one or more of the following types:
"(1) construction equipment,
"(2) transportation equipment (including recreational vehicles
and related equipment), or
"(3) equipment powered by internal combustion engines,
he may, after consultation to the extent desirable with appropriate
Federal departments and agencies, by regulation prescribe and
amend standards limiting the noise-generation characteristics (in-
cluding reasonable durability over the life of the product) of such
product or class of products.
"The standards so prescribed shall be the standards that the
Administrator determines, consistent with criteria published pur-
suant to Section 5, to be requisite to protect the public health and
welfare. In prescribing and amending such standards the Admin-
istrator shall consider whether any proposed standard is econom-
ically reasonable, technologically practicable, and appropriate for
the particular products to which it will apply, and whether the
particular products can more effectively be controlled through Fed-
eral regulation of interstate commerce or through State or local
regulations. Provided, that no standards prescribed under this sec-
tion shall apply to products manufactured on or before the effec-
tive date of such standards."
If standards are developed as described above using representa-
tion of all facets of the industry, we should be able to comply
-------
71
with the proposed regulations. We highly recommend a consensus
standard.
We are concerned about the possibility of conflict. Therefore, all
existing safety standards should be carefully considered. We already
have the Walsh-Healey Act, the Occupational Safety and Health
Act, and the Construction Safety Act. We urge that any new
standards developed be not in conflict, such as I mentioned earlier,
where the required backup warning device develops an unaccept-
ably high level of sound.
The regulations under the Occupational Safety and Health Act
will become effective on August 27. These regulations specify that
noise levels must either be held below a particular level or that
protective equipment must be supplied to the workers. The con-
tractor has full responsibility to see that these regulations are
complied with and is subject to severe penalties if they are not.
The Occupational Health and Safety Act does not require manu-
facturers to produce less noisy equipment, and it does not penalize
workers who refuse protective devices. The contractor is caught
squarely in the middle and is made responsible for situations over
which he has little control.
The present legislation being considered by the House Inter-
state and Foreign Commerce Committee would require that the
actual equipment used in construction be modified so that it com-
plies with noise emission standards to be developed by the Environ-
mental Protection Agency.
The House legislation contains several very practical provisions
which would be of great benefit to construction contractors. The
EPA is required to consider whether any proposed standard is
economically reasonable, technologically practicable and appropri-
ate for the particular products to which it will apply. The legis-
lation also states that "no standards prescribed under this section
shall apply to products manufactured on or before the effective
date of such tsandards." Manufacturers are prohibited from selling
equipment that does not meet the standards. The contractor would
be prohibited from removing or rendering inoperative any device
installed to reduce noise.
The present approach to the noise control problem seems to be
far more equitable to the contractor than the requirements of the
Occupational Health and Safety Act. The House bill would give
the equipment manufacturers prime responsibility for producing
equipment that meets noise abatement standards. The House bill
does require additional language to ensure that the requirements
are applied to all contractors in all segments of the industry so
that any individual contractor or group of contractors would not
be given an unfair competitive advantage.
Mr. Chairman, this concludes my remarks. We would be happy
to answer any questions you may have.
Dr. MEYER : Thank you for a very fair statement of the horns
of the dilemma upon which you are impaled. T)r. Lyons.
Dr. LYONS : To summarize your position, then, is it your position
that as long as the additional costs of construction machinery now
have to be borne by all people doing construction work that you
don't mind this additional cost as long as all contractors are subject
to having to buy this same additional equipment?
-------
72
Mr. PALAZZI: I think that we are saying is you ought to spell it
out very definitely to make sure that the white-hatted contractors
and the black-hatted contractors will be all on the same level.
If you don't spell out all environmental protection, whether it
be noise or water pollution or anything else, if you don't spell it
out and definitely say what you want and how it is going to be done
so that all contractors would be in the same category and meet the
same conditions, we can't afford to have the black-hatted ones get
away and save a lot of money and drive the white-hatted ones out
of business.
So, therefore, it should be spelled out and definitely referred to
in every contract by the owners.
Dr. LYONS : No further questions.
Mr. MEYER : Mr. Baron.
Mr. BARON: Good to see you again.
Mr. PALAZZI : Good to see you again, Mr. Baron.
Mr. BARON : I just want some clarification on the air compressors
that are now redesigned—your bottom paragraph on page 2. Do
you feel that it would be equitable at this time to try to get the use
of the quieter air compressors—in other words, equipment that is
now available?
Mr. PALAZZI : I think there you have got to really spell it out.
The owners have got to have it spelled out, whether it be the high-
way departments or building owners or whoever it may be, that it
is imperative they be used. Otherwise nobody is ever going to spend
that amount of money.
Mr. BARON : There should be specs in the contract, in other words?
Mr. PALAZZI : That's right—spelled out very clearly.
Mr. BARON : The other question was you mentioned the only
control you have available now is hours, the use of hours. Also how
about siting? Can't a lot be done with siting of power plants and so
on?
Mr. PALAZZI: I think there is improvement on all that now to
protect the plants and to better the siting and the construction of
them. I think most all of our highway projects are also improved
for siting and environmental protection compared to what used to
happen many years ago.
Mr. BARON : I mean the siting of equipment in construction.
Mr. PALAZZI: Oh, I think there is some new equipment that is
better sited, although the last of our equipment isn't quite as well
described because we have so many safety features on them they
are not better looking by any means. But, however, they are safer—
for instance, many of our pieces of equipment have fenders and ex-
haust manifolds that we never had before—so that they don't look
as well, but they are safer.
Mr. BARON : One last question. A previous speaker mentioned
the fact there was some equipment available for retrofitting some
construction items. Would you really object to the use of that on
existing equipment where there are packages that could be applied
to we'll say an old type compressor or something?
I don't know if you heard that. You may not have heard it. Was
it the gentleman from the muffler company? There are packages. I
think General Motors has such a package. Delta P or Burgess have
-------
73
an exhaust muffler package for compressors that can go on existing
compressors.
Mr. PALAZZI: I think if it's spelled out I wouldn't be against it.
Mr. BARON : You mean if it's in the building spec or whatever
so everybody has to meet the same standards?
Mr. PALAZZI: That's right.
Dr. MEYER: Dr. Bender.
Dr. BENDER: No questions.
Dr. MEYER: Mr. McCarthy.
Mr. MCCARTHY: As an association is it practical for you to, say,
join with governments at all levels to help make a market for the
type of equipment that you are saying you would buy if it were
available ?
Mr. PALAZZI : What we are saying is we will do everything we can
to help protect the environment if it's spelled out and made under-
standable to everyone. We want it to be fair, and we want you to
understand it's going to be costly, but, however, they are not against
doing it.
Mr. MCCARTHY : I understand that. Are you saying that this is the
government's responsibility to spell this out?
Mr. PALAZZI: On the government or the owners of the projects.
The government doesn't own all the power projects, for instance, or
the building projects. It must be spelled out by the owners.
Dr. MEYER : Dr. Okun.
Dr. OKTJN : How can you get the owners to spell something out ?
They are all individuals. Doesn't this then require some kind of
State or national legislation ?
Mr. PALAZZI : Well, that's one way of doing it, yes.
Dr. OKUN : What other way would you get an owner to specify
this? He has no interest in the noise that is generated during con-
struction of his project. He is only interested in it when he is
finished.
Mr. PALAZZI : Maybe you can get the architects to accept that
responsibility as a group.
Dr. OKTJN: I have a specific question. I infer from your state-
ment that you feel that the standards and the specifications for
improved noise control should rest with the equipment manu-
facturers and not with the contractors. In other words, the con-
tractors are only liable as the equipment is available. Does this mean
that you don't believe that there should be any standards for the
construction industry as an industry, that as long as they buy the
equipment that is on the market that they are home free? Is that
the idea ?
Mr. PALAZZI: No, I think what I'm saying is that it's up to you
or the government agencies to insist that the manufacturers have
something that is available. The contractors won't be able to build it
or to promote it if it's not available.
Dr. OKTJN : Yes, but if the equipment is available there may still
be quite a difference in performance between various contractors
in noise production. Some contractors may assemble a lot more
equipment than necessary to get a job done more quickly and they
put their equipment at a place where it interferes more than other
might.
In other words, the equipment itself is not the only aspect of
-------
74
noise production on the construction site. Don't you feel that there
would be some value in regulations governing contractors in their
construction work?
Mr. PALAZZI: I think this is very important. I also think it's
very important, for instance, to regulate what hours the job is
going to be run to take care of noise too.
Our own company for years has built highway projects in hotel
areas, especially in the country, and we never allow them to start
before eight o'clock in the moring. Some of our competition will
start their jobs at seven.
So that's why it should be spelled out in the contract when it is
let what time they should have it and what regulations there should
be.
Dr. OKTJN: But this then is an obligation of the government,
because if it costs the owner more to limit the hours of construction,
which it will, then he is not apt to want to do it unless he is required
to do this by government.
Mr. PALAZZI : By the same token, I live in a city where the city
itself starts cleaning up and maintaining their streets and cleaning
up all the rubbish at seven o'clock in the morning, you see, so you
have got to be safe all the way around. If you want us to start, us
constructors to start, at eight, you shouldn't be starting your city
project at seven.
Dr. OKTJN : One last question. Do you feel that the same noise
levels should be maintained at projects within the city and in a
rural area, for example?
Mr. PALAZZI: Well, if there aren't any people around the rural
area, I think probably you could release some of the regulations if
they get the cost down and save a lot of public money. I would
think that wTould help.
I definitely think in a city you should take better regulations. But
if there isn't anybody bothering out in the country, then I don't
think you should be so strict.
Dr. OKTJN : But your approach, which would put specifications on
the equipment which would make it all uniform, wouldn't this tend
to require that this equipment is the only equipment to be available
and would have to be used then in the isolated areas whether it was
necessary or not?
Mr. PALAZZI: I think that will happen in time anyway. I think
you will see many improvements on equipment, and even some of
the old equipment will be improved. But I'm sure that the new
equipment will be a general thing in a few years
Dr. MEYER: Thank you very much, sir. Actually much of what
has been said here is going to be of considerable importance
to us in our work, assuming some of the legislation that you have
endorsed is enacted, in dealing with development of model laws
and model ordinances and working with the industry toward that
end. I found what you said to be very useful. I appreciate it very
much, sir.
Mr. PALAZZI: Thank you very much. I just want to mention
that I hope we don't go into all other areas of pollution abatement
but really concentrate on some of the sewage in our watere to elimi-
nate our pollution there, because that's one of our biggest problems
as far as the environment goes, and I hope we don't go off on all
others. Thank you.
-------
75
Dr. MEYER: Thank you. Since we have had some discussions as
to who is doing what to whom in controlling noise associated with
construction equipment, I would like to get back to some of the
producers of this equipment and ask Mr. Lyle Munson of the Quincy
Compressor Division of Colt Industries to come forward. He has
been very patient. And I apologize, sir, for the fact that, like most
technical, professional, and business meetings, as well as public
hearings, we do get behind. I apologize to you and other gentlemen
who are patiently waiting, and I appreciate your patience.
STATEMENT OF LYLE G. MUNSON, DIRECTOR OF ENGINEERING.
COLT INDUSTRIES, QUINCY COMPRESSOR DIVISION
Mr. MUNSON : Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, members of the panel, ladies and gentlemen in
the audience, I would like to preface my report here in saying that
we as manufacturers of construction equipment are interested in
reducing the noise level. We have been spending money at it. But
the name of the game today is to protect your cash flow, and so we
are somewhat reluctant to spend capital dollars putting it in in-
ventory, putting it in new equipment, and have it stand in the yard.
So what we need from you is we need legislation, and I think it
has to come out of the government.
I would daresay today that any municipal bid we would make on
a small compressor wouldn't have any noise level restriction at all.
So it doesn't merit us to put those dollars into capital investment
at this time until such legislation and until we are all quoting the
same thing is put in effect.
So, getting into my report, I tried to simplify things because I
understand these things are going into the records. And so owing
to the complexity and the standard of measure for noise I believe
it important to try to put the decibel in a light that may be better
understood, such that you may better appreciate the problems of
the manufacturers of construction equipment.
Zero decibels was set at the threshold of hearing, and the relative
energy striking the ear at this point is to be considered at 1. As
the noise increases, the relative energy increases such that if the
decibel reading increased to 50, which is normal conversation at 3
feet, the relative energy will have increased 100,000 times. And if
the noise level increased to 100 decibels, which is similar to a 200-
horsepower diesel at full power at 3 feet, the relative energy will
have increased 10 billion times.
I point this out because it is the relative magnitude of energy
for each decibel in the sound pressure range we are operating that
concerns us, and so it is important from a practical and economical
viewpoint that any decibel standard that may be set not be rounded
off to some convenient number. And I heard it bandied around to-
day. We talked 90, we talked 85, and we talked 80. And thus the
reason bringing out this magnitude.
Another descriptive means of explaining the magnitude of the
decibel would be to consider that 90 dB(A) is twice as loud to
the ear as 80 dB(A) and four times as loud as 70 dB(A).
It is also proposed that the sound measurements be related to the
"A" weighted scale of a sound level meter such that the require-
ments are stated in dB(A), the reason being that each of the three
weighted scales—namely, A, B, and C—on a sound level meter re-
-------
76
spends more to some frequencies than to others, with a selectivity
something like the human ear, and it is the "A" weighted scale
that most nearly matches the human ear.
The normal human ear can detect virbrations from 25 to 15,000
cycles per second, but the frequencies that usually cause hearing
damage are between 1,000 and 7,000 cycles per second. It is in this
range that the "A" weighted network has the best response, and it
is in this frequency range that money for silencing is best spent.
We as a manufacturer of portable air compressors have targeted
on 85 dB(A) at 3 feet at any point around the compressor. To
reach this point we have concluded that our manufacturing costs
will increase 15 to 20 percent, not to mention the current tooling
and manufacturing techniques that will have to be discarded.
We reached this and other conclusions based on our engineering
development work in which we achieved a level of 87 dB(A) at
3 feet with a 600 c.f.m. compressor driven by a 200-horsepower
diesel engine. And I might say this compressor is a helical screw
compressor, not a piston type or reciprocating type compressor.
We found it increasingly more difficult and expensive to achieve
a lowering of 1 decibel as we approached 85 dB(A). I feel it
impractical to set any standard below 87 dB(A) at 3 feet because
even though it is achieved in engineering it will be too much to
expect of a production assembly line, and I also wonder what is
going to happen when you have got this well put together piece
of equipment and you are to incorporate it across the quarry or
through some construction site. I can see this thing loosening up
and you're going to pick up some noise level there. I'm not sure
what is going to happen after this piece of equipment has been
in the field for two years.
So we feel that 87 would be a realistic number.
It is difficult to predict what the noise level will be around the
compressor at 25 feet and 50 feet, but from testing and doing a
little researching while we were working on this program I believe
the maximum noise level would be 82 dB(A) at 25 feet and 77
dB(A) at 50 feet.
In regard to implementing the changes required into production,
starting from the time of concept in engineering to the first pro-
duction unit from manufacturing, the elapsed time is 12 to 14
months. However, the compressor industry has been working on
the noise problems, and most of us will have—or have—models
available by January of 1972.
The only practical method of absorbing or containing noise
within a portable type unit is to completely enclose it in a special
structure that incorporates sound insulation material, stiffeners,
and baffles. This package must be of a size that can be transported
on highways. As a result of these requirements other problems are
created, such as a reevaluation of the frame structure and axle loads.
Some major problems exist, such as supplying fresh air to the
internal combustion engine, removing the exhaust gases, and re-
moving and discharging the heat from within the enclosure.
The lower the required noise level goal, the more complex the
enclosure becomes, until it reaches a point where it would be im-
practicable to move, not to mention the cost.
Unfortunately, the problems in the compressor industry are
-------
77
due to the internal combustion engines driving them, and if new
developments in power plants become available it is conceivable that
lower noise level standards can be established.
As an example, a diesel-driven 600 c.f.m. compressor without any
sound level treatment will range from 101 dB(A) to 109 dB(A)
in the industry, where the compressor alone is at 90 dB(A).
It should also be pointed out at this time that the methods and
equipment of measuring noise must be very clearly defined such as
where the microphones should be placed, the surface on which the
unit being tested should rest, etc. I realize that this will be covered
in another session, but it is extremely important that the test equip-
ment and method of test be very exactly specified.
In summarizing, I would like to say that owing to the intensity of
the noise encountered by driving a compressor with an internal
combustion engine, it is not practical nor economical to establish a
noise level below 87 dB(A) at 3 feet for a portable unit. The total
time to implement such a program from the time of concept to the
first production unit is between 12 and 14 months.
Dr. MEYER : Thank you very much. I think this was a very use-
ful statement of how you see the problem, and I am sure several
of the panelists will have some questions as to what you are pro-
posing here. Dr. Okun.
Dr. OKUN : Do you feel that the most appropriate standards to
be established by government would be for the equipment or for
the contractors who are going to employ the equipment?
In other words, if you feel that you can turn out a compressor
with 87 dB(A) and a competitor perhaps 90 and another 85, if
the contractor is required to maintain a certain level at a certain
distance from his site, he can then choose what is most appropriate
and not have to conform to any specific requirement.
What is your feeling about where the requirement should be set?
Mr. MUNSON: That is a difficult question to answer because from
an engineering point of view we have to establish some level as to
which to test against, and we will probably go into the field and
pour a slab and test our unit, and now it becomes a problem of
the individual user on how he is going to place that equipment.
I think there has to be a marriage. And, of course, the end re-
sult is where the legislation has to take place. It will have to be
with the contractor or whoever bids the job in the city. I think it
will be up to us to get it low enough so that he can work with it, but
there has got to be some technical knowledge on taking that and
putting it in between buildings, if you will, to keep that noise level
down.
Dr. OKUN: Thank you.
Dr. MEYER: Mr. McCarthy.
Mr. MCCARTHY: Do I understand you to differ with an earlier
speaker who said that he thought that 85 dB(A) was relatively
easily achieved?
Mr. MUNSON : Well, it's not so difficult to achieve. It's just that
it becomes more expensive and it becomes large to the point I don't
know really right now where we run out of being portable any
more, for instance, if you were to carry it all away.
The statement was also made that we could go to ambient con-
ditions, let's say, but what wTe are really talking about then, and
-------
78
maybe this is an approach you should consider, is that maybe
there should be a portable structure that can be built around a
unit that isn't going to be moved.
For instance, if it's going to sit on a street in New York and
it's going to sit there for a year, it may be more practicable to put
a building around that that is very portable. And I think by work-
ing it that way it would be more difficult than some of the ap-
proaches we are trying to take where we are trying to put it on
wheels where it can be moved around.
Mr. MCCARTHY: Thank you.
Dr. MEYER: Dr. Bender.
Dr. BENDER: Why is your company investing money in develop-
ing a quieter compressor?
Mr. MTJNSON: Why is it?
Dr. BENDER: Yes.
Mr. MUNSON: Well, we're sure that that's the way legislation is
going to go, although it has been slow. But we are only being pre-
pared to go. We have bought all the latest equipment in noise-
measuring equipment. We have done as much development work
as we need to do now to build the unit. And we are building our
first what we call preproduction model. But I don't know if we'll
really spend this money that is so dear to all of us companies right
now unless there is legislation there. Because why should you
when you know that unit is going to sit in your storage lot or
something and not move?
There is no requirement for it so why put your dollars there that
you can invest somewhere else?
Dr. BENDER: So there is no real marketplace demand for quieter
compressors ?
Mr. MUNSON : Not really. There is a lot of rhetoric and you can
read a lot, but there is really no demand.
Dr. MEYER: Mr. Baron.
Mr. BARON : There is some demand, not as much as we'd like to
see. For example, in New York a hospital asked for quieter com-
pressors. The transit authority asked for quieter compressors. I
think Mr. Diehl if he could be called back would reveal it is coming
without legislation but is already here.
Mr. MTJNSON : It will be interesting to see. Because you were
talking about a hydraulic unit, and our company now has licensed
with France to build this unit, and we are going on a 6-month
basis to see, well, if there is a market there.
Mr. BARON : Is that the Hydrovil ?
Mr. MUNSON : That's Hydrovil.
Mr. BARON: As I say, it's not as big a market as there should
be, but there is a market, and apparently a slowly growing market.
And we in the public area are trying to, without legislation, increase
that market, especially in terms of noise-sensitive areas.
Mr. MUNSON : Well, I believe you can build any product and you
will find maybe 1 percent of the people that will buy it regardless
of what it is. But you're not really going to move anything until
you legislate.
Mr. BARON : And I would like to point out the context in which
this hearing is taking place, which is environmental protection.
Mr. MTJNSON: Right.
-------
79
Mr. BARON : And, therefore, we are trying to develop on all of our
parts a new attitude toward the environment. And as I repeated
before, this traditional dollar interpretation is being changed, and
the public is beginning to realize that it is paying part of the cost
of noisy equipment, and this kind of thinking is growing in the
public area.
When you say 87 I am just wondering why you feel so strongly
that 87 is practicable when we already have apparently 85 on the
market.
Mr. MTJNSON : The reason I said 87 is because I know of the
problems as we have started off from 102 dB(A) to get to where we
are now, and to squeeze these next couple of dB(A) it's going to
mean more sound traps and more insulation. It becomes increasingly
more complex. And we'll shoot— But you see, regardless, even if
we say 87 dB(A) in production, if this is going to be, this means
that we still have to shoot below that because there are going to
be other things happening that are going to creep up.
So if we say 85, that means we are shooting down maybe 82, 83
and then it really becomes a real problem.
Mr. BARON : Two brief questions. Atlas Copco—and I don't know
what size—in Europe has made one, probably one of the the smaller
ones, 70 I believe.
Mr. MUNSON : It's true. That's a good point. It depends upon
the size you're really talking about. But I think if we are going to
talk legislating portable air compressors, we have to start with
the largest one on the market and say that's it.
If you were to consider dividing this and take the small unit
that runs a little jackhammer around the street, I could see where
we could probably get under 80.
Mr. BARON : I understand the difference between 800 and 1200
is not that great. As a matter of fact, it's a little bit easier to
quiet the 1200 than it is the 800 if I understand.
Mr. MTJNSON : I hope so. We have been working on the 600.
Mr. BARON: The other question is you mentioned something
about a measuring method. Isn't the CAGI measuring method
accepted ?
Mr. MUNSON : That's right. If you're going to accept it we think
it's an excellent measure. It's accepted in Europe, of coure, and
there are some improvements being made to it.
Mr. BARON : And do you think that the cost can come down ?
You mentioned 25 to 30 percent. We heard one 10 percent increase
mentioned earlier. Do you see—
Mr. MUNSON : You mean cost as far as—
Mr. BARON : Of a quieter model.
Mr. MTJNSON: Well, 15 to 20 is what we are talking about. I
said 15 to 20, didn't I?
Mr. BARON : Do you see that coming down eventually ?
Mr. MTJNSON : It's possible because, you see, we really haven't
put it into production, and until we really get into production—
Mr. BARON : You don't know ?
Mr. MTJNSON : —we don't really know. But if we were to say 10
percent as has been said, then our sales department would be out
selling it and we might not make it. So we as engineers are rather
conservative, and it becomes a significant factor because, you know,
-------
80
you are really talking about compressors running from $6,000 to
$50,000 a unit.
Mr. BARON: Do you believe that a quieter power plant would
be something you'd like to see?
Mr. MUNSON : Absolutely. Absolutely. Because if we started at
90 dB(A)— And I gave you the figure 90 dB(A), but remember
we were driving that with an electric motor so the electric motor
was contributing something to that dB(A) level also.
There is no question in my mind, because we know how easy it
is to silence an industrial unit with an electiric motor drive. Very
easy.
Mr. BAKON : Do you use electric motors in city streets ?
Mr. MTTNSON: No, we don't. We haven't built any for the city
streets. But the biggest market Quincy Compressor serves is the
industrial plants, and it's the only place that we really see where
today we quote a noise level spec. I don't know if it means anything,
but one of the requirements in a spec that we quote today is: What
is your noise level ? Is it below 90 normally ? And sometimes 85. But
we have no problem of getting down below 80 with an electric
motor drive.
Mr. BARON: I'd like to say in Zurich I did see electric com-
pressors in use and apparently they are available on skids in the
United States.
Mr. MTJNSON: Right. And if somebody requested one we would
have no problem of putting it on wheels and making it a portable
type unit.
Dr. MEYER: Professor Lyons, this is your bailiwick.
Dr. LYONS: You said your company had spent considerable
money developing an acoustics laboratory, acoustics design capabil-
ity. When did this become significant? Two years ago? This year?
Or when ?
Mr. MTTNSON: Well, I would say we proposed to the corporate
office it will be two years ago this September, but actually the work
that has really taken place in developing, working on a noise
control has only been a little over a year now, and we really haven't
pushed it very hard. We could have pushed it faster, but there is
no real demand for it. We could find other places even in engineer-
ing where we'd rather put our talent than working on noise.
Dr. LYONS: No other questions.
Dr. MEYER: Thank you very much, sir. I appreciate your candid
remarks there at the end. I would now like to ask another equip-
ment manufacturer, Mr. Rodger Ringham, of International Har-
vester, to come forward.
Again, sir, I realize we are running about an hour behind, but
we are catching up. And we are not really trying to run a race
here, we want to get as much of this information into the record
as we can, because we are getting some diverse views that are very
valuable to us. Mr. Ringham, we're glad to have you with us, sir.
STATEMENT OF H. F. RINGHAM. VICE-PRESIDENT. ENGINEERING.
AND J. R. PROSEK. CHIEF ENGINEER. CHASSIS TEST CON-
STRUCTION EQUIPMENT DIVISION. INTERNATIONAL HARVES-
ER COMPANY
Mr. RINGHAM : Dr. Meyer, panelists, ladies and gentlemen, I
guess we have the distinction of being the first "Huntley-Brinkley"
-------
81
team here anyway. I would like to introduce the other half of the
team, Mr. John Prosek, who is the Chief Engineer in our Construc-
tion Equipment Division involving chassis test, and our function
includes the acoustic testing and development work.
You do have a copy of our text. We are going to take the liberty,
however, of diverting from it—one, in the interest of time, and, two,
in the interest of responding to the context which we have seen
developed this morning.
Dr. MEYER: Very good. Thank you very much.
Mr. BINGHAM : A brief summary of International Harvester
Company's experience in the area of sound measurement and control
is being presented. More specifically, we will discuss our activity
in this field as it relates to the construction industry, and we ex-
pect to appear before you at other hearings for other parts of
our work .
Dr. MEYER: For which we shall be extremely grateful. We
appreciate it very much.
Mr. RINGHAM : In the construction market our activities include
heavy equipment made by the Construction Equipment and Hough
Divisions, light industrial equipment by our Farm Equipment
Division, and off-highway and on-highway trucks of the construc-
tion type made in our Motor Truck Division. So we are here as
spokesmen for four facets of our operation, each of which is more
or less an autonomous operation. Therefore, you are getting a con-
sensus statement from us rather than a singular statement from
just John's division.
One thing I think has been pretty clearly brought out in these
hearings to date, which is the fact that the whole acoustics field
is multidisciplinary. And when you get to the vehicle, we have
introduced more disciplines. The human factors aspect of the opera-
tor, his requirements, his need for vision, for safety, etc., are all
factors that we have to deal with in addition to the normal mechan-
ical engineering to make the product work.
We also get involved through the operator then in many safety
facets such as vision, etc., that have to be considered and that offer
new restraints over certain other classes of equipment that we have
heard about today.
So our activity is primarily in the phases of earthmoving and
hauling, and that is, of course, what we will be discussing then. And
it's obvious that no one company or agency can singularly cover
the whole field.
Now, of approximately 20 basic types of construction machines
we manufacture 8 types in about 50 models and sizes. These range
in power from approximately 40 horsepower to as much as 635
horsepower, in sizes up to over a quarter-million pounds in weight.
Now, these larger vehicles aren't necessarily pertinent to the
general construction field. They are oftentimes special. So that we
won't be talking quite up to those peak sizes but close to it.
John, why don't you continue the dissertation?
Mr. PROSEK : My sound power isn't very great so I hope you can
all hear me.
Mr. RINGHAM : I might interrupt a moment and ask if we can get
the lights down because we will shortly have slides.
Mr. PROSEK : I will start by telling you the basis of our sound
-------
82
level measurements. For those measurements relating to areas con-
tiguous to construction sites we have been using the 50-foot
Environmental Sound Level. It's a term we coined, and we call it
"ESL" for short. And we express it in dB(A). Actually, this is
more or less outlined in the SAE standard J952b and standard
J366 as applied to the motor trucks.
The 50 feet, of course, refers to the distance between the sound
source and the microphone pickup. And except when we other-
wise note, the sound source and all the values will be given on this
basis, which is for a vehicle working 50 feet from the microphone
station while it is accelerating or under load, whichever one happens
to be the highest level in the rating that we obtain.
So that those of you who are not thoroughly familiar with the
terminology of construction machines will understand, we would
like to show you some slides of typical construction machines, and
we will also show you charts of the respective and relative sound
levels of the various machines we have shown.
May I have the first slide, please.
(Slides and figures are presented at the end of this statement.)
This first slide shows a typical small elevator type scraper of
approximately 10 cubic yard rated capacity. Machines in this
category range in horsepower from 145 to 157, and the 50-foot ESL
is 84 to 86 dB(A).
Next.
Mr. BARON: ESL is equivalent to "A" or is that a modification?
Mr. PROSEK: dB(A), "A" weighted scale.
Mr. BARON: It's the regular dB(A)?
Mr. PROSEK: Eight.
Here we have a large conventional type scraper. The horsepower
range on this is 260 up to 435 horsepower, and the ESL on these
goes from 90 to 94 dB(A).
Next slide, please.
A typical off-highway truck. Most common sizes are from 20-
ton to 50-ton capacity and range in horsepower from 250 up to
600 horsepower, and the ESL is 84 to 88 dB(A).
Next slide, please.
Large rubber-tired front-end loaders of this typp which are likely
to be used on construction sites will range up t» 63o horsepower.
However, we do make some larger ones for special applications.
Here the sound level will be about 85 to 97 uB(A), which is the
spread.
We will next show a small rubber-tired loader on which the
sound level ranges from 78 to 90 dB(A). Here again you note the
12 dB(A) spread.
Generally, crawler-type loaders are limited in sizes that are
comparable to the smaller rubber-tired loaders which we have just
shown you, and these also range from 78 to 80 dB(A).
The next one is a typical large cra\vler-type dozer in the 300-
horsepower class. This category of machine will have a sound level
of 85 to 88 dB(A).
Typical of the motor trucks which operate on construction jobs
is the one shown here which you will all recognize. It ranges from
85 to 90 dB(A).
Light industrial machines such as the rubber-tired loader tractor
-------
83
shown are frequently used on the smaller construction sites, and
their sound level ranges from 80 to 85 dB(A).
Finally, we have another light industrial type of machine on
which we have had some experience, an excavator, that ranges from
78 to 80 dB(A).
Now, if I might have Figure 1, please—
—here we summarize on one chart the data which I have just
shown you for each class of vehicle. You will notice that there is an
indication of the sound level increasing with the size or the horse-
power of the machine. However, I might note that the pattern is
not exactly a straight-line pattern.
In Figure 2 we show you the same information on a bar chart
which brings out a little more clearly the relation between size
and dB levels expected. And I would like to remind you at this
time what we're taking is levels of 50 feet.
These sound levels which we have shown you are fairly represent-
ative of the machines in the construction industry. Many of the
larger machines currently exceed the 50-foot ESL value of 88
dB(A) recommended in SAE J952b. However, we do believe that
this level is attainable in new models or by major revisions of the
current models in production. Further reduction, however, is likely
to be difficult and costly, particularly on the larger machines.
But I do want to point out that we are continually working on
this aspect.
At this point I was going to include a little bit of material that
has already been covered, so in the interest of time I will skip over
this and I will ask for Figure 7—
—in which we show a breakdown of dB(A) level by major com-
ponent items for a typical large construction class vehicle. We show
the basic engine noise sources as we lump them together, the mechan-
ical and combustion noises which radiate from the engine itself
and, of course, the air inlet and the exhaust noises.
Now, you notice in that column on the right we show an antici-
pated level which we expect we can reach.
Reduction in the mechanical and combustion sound levels—that
is, reduction of 4 dB(A) which we show—was achieved by en-
closing the engine compartment, and I think you have heard that
before. We found we could do this experimentally—however, at
the expense of some cooling difficulties which were introduced.
When it comes to enclosing the engine or power plant on a
crawler tractor or a large rubber-tired machine, we are not in as
good a position as, say for instance, the air compressor which was
shown previously. First of all, we impair the visibility of the
dozer operator in the case of a crawler tractor.
In the past we have gone to great lengths to tailor the con-
figuration of the hood so the operator can see the edge of his blade
and perform his functions efficiently. And if we increase the size
of this compartment tremendously, we handicap the operator.
Furthermore, we have a problem that we now have the engine
compartment interfering with the tracks. Well, if we spread the
tracks out, increase the tread, then, means we have to increase the
size of the blade because the tracks have to stay inside the blade.
So we kind of go around on a merry-go-round on the thing.
If we increase the size of the blade, then we have to increase
-------
84
the size of the engine. So Ave have problems.
By the same token, on large rubber-tired loaders, if we in our
case, most of the large sizes, have the engine in the back, we impair
the visibility of the operator toward the back and make it all
the more demanding for a backup alarm which again defeats the
purpose of the sound control.
With reference to the 5 dB(A) reduction in intake and exhaust
noise, we obtain this totally from a careful muffler development and
application. The intake air filtering is usually applied—and this
was brought out earlier too—and it serves pretty well as an air
inlet silencer itself.
I might comment on the application of the muffler. Unless it is well
worked out, we are apt to— And we have encountered customer
and/or operator resistance to mufflers. We had one on a vehicle
where after a certain period of time the operator said, "Take it
off. I can't see."
Cooling fan improvement shown is typical of what can be done to
reduce fan tip speed by increasing aerodynamic efficiency through
shroud improvements, and so forth.
Now, we have listed the transmissions. As you can see, most
typical transmissions operate at dB levels that are well below those
of the other sound sources, and, therefore, we do not consider
improvements in this particular area to be very lucrative with
reference to spectator or passerby noise level. Its value lies chiefly
in the operator compartment.
It is to be noted from the chart that the overall result we show
is a reduction from 92 dB(A) to 88 dB(A), and we have shown
here how significant reductions can be achieved in three areas—
namely, basic engine, exhaust, and the fan. Such reductions will
require considerable tailoring for the individual machines, partic-
ularly the larger ones. This will, of course, require some time for
development and will result in increased costs.
Another point I'd like to make is that to get this kind of im-
provement requires that all of the indicated steps be taken. If,
for example, we only took the muffler, the overall sound level
would only drop to 91 dB(A). If we only made the treatment for
the mechanical and combustion noises, then we would wind up at
90 dB(A). This again emphasizes the need to treat all of the im-
portant sound sources to achieve significant overall improvement.
I might say that in addition to our own in-house work our
company was cosponsor of SAE Research Project R-4 conducted
by the Department of Applied Physics, Southwest Research
Institute. While this report was directed primarily toward noise-
induced hearing damage risk for operators, it does contain con-
siderable information about sound level characteristics of construc-
tion machinery that will prove a useful reference to your agency—
this book here (indicating).
Dr. MEYER : Yes. We would like to get a copy of that if we might.
Mr. RINGHAM : We will get you one.
Mr. PROSEK: Now, in conclusion, we wish to reiterate that the
possibility of retrofitting existing machines to obtain substantial
reduction in sound levels is limited. I think that was brought out
before too. The exception is probably in those cases where exhaust
noise is dominant and a carefully selected muffler can effect a
significant reduction in dB(A).
-------
85
In the relatively near future we feel that an environmental
sound level of 88 dB(A) at 50 feet is attainable for our class of
heavy construction machinery at some cost penalty. You note the
lighter industrial equipment is already well down below that.
Further significant reduction will require much research and de-
velopment.
Particularly with regard to engines it will likely be at a con-
siderable cost penalty.
If specific data on any given machine would be of any use to
you, we would be glad to furnish it to you on a confidential basis.
We appreciate the opportunity to present these facts to you.
Thank you.
Dr. MEYER: Thank you very much for your observations, and
we would like, of course, to have the SWRI report. I will now ask
Mr. McCarthy if he has any questions that he would like to ask.
Mr. MCCARTHY : No, I will pass for now.
Dr. MEYER: Dr. Bender.
Dr. BENDER: Yes. I was surprised to see that you only got 3
dB(A) of noise reduction by enclosing the engine. Can you account
for that?
Mr. PROSEK : Yes, I can qualify that. We enclosed it to the extent
that we felt was practical. In other words, we didn't encapsulate
the engine.
Mr. RINGHAM : Bear in mind this is based on minimum change
that could be adopted at an early incorporation date, not the com-
plete redo of the cocooning of an engine that would entail some
tremendous development, not the least of which is devising ways
of haying sound-tight access panels where you could service and
even inspect the beast that is in there and all the appurtenances
that you hang onto by way of pumps or other things.
So we are trying to take a cut at what we could do for very
near-term potential, and that was about the most we could do.
And then we introduced some cooling problems we haven't solved
yet, as John said.
Dr. BENDER: Do you vibration-isolate the engines from the
structure ?
Mr. PROSEK : Yes, we do.
Dr. BENDER : That's all.
Mr. BARON : I just wanted to clarify the ESL in relation to oper-
ator position, because all of these in ESL of 88 or whatever at 50
feet would be, by rule of thumb, what? Another 10 dB(A) at 1
meter, 3 feet? Is that correct approximately? Which is above the
damage risk criterion.
Of course, in some cases I didn't see cabs. But is there any con-
cern here for the operator's position?
Mr. PROSEK : Yes. As a matter of fact, most of our work was
slanted in that direction on the construction equipment, and the
cab is one facet of that investigation.
Now, we have a relationship, and it will vary, oh, possibly 6 or
8 dB(A) from one machine to another, so we can relate or correlate
the levels we measure at the operator's ear and what we measure
at 50 feet.
Mr. BARON : But you do agree that they are above known damage
risk criteria without some treatment of the cab?
-------
86
Mr. PROSEK: There is no question about it.
Mr. BARON: The other thing is that the SAE 50 feet is disturb-
ing in an urban environment because it's difficult to find that 50
feet or 100 feet actually for test measurement. And I was wonder-
ing how you feel about 21 feet, you know, or something like that,
as well as 50, for the measurement position.
Mr. RINGHAM : I think perhaps the best way to express our in-
terest in holding to 50 feet is that that is a pretty conventional and
accepted standard for highway vehicles. And we are at least—
maybe we're selfish about it—but we're in the realm where we are
in the interface between the highway and the constpuction site
through our constructor trucks, and we have tried to keep a common
denominator here to be able to feed technology between our divisions.
So the communication problem gets to be pretty significant if
you start having several different standards depending upon what
you're talking about. At least we have sure found that internally,
and I can imagine the world to be a lot worse.
Mr. BARON : I would like to point out in terms of the urban area
there is a lot of discussion—and I don't know what final action
will take place—about a 21-foot or something like that measure-
ment position, that many of us feel that the 50 feet is very un-
realistic as far as the urban environment is concerned.
Mr. RINGHAM : Well, as a matter of fact, it wouldn't really bother
us. It's just what you're getting is what we have been working with.
We have done some work at 21. That is also pretty popular in
Europe. Or close to it. And as a result AVC can go any way that
someone wants to legislate. It's just that the first things that were
imposed on us were passing noise requirements from the State of
California related to 50 feet, and we have to be responsive when
legislation is telling us what we have to produce.
Mr. BARON: Is this where most of the direction is here—for the
California—
Mr. RINGHAM : The truck work began with that orientation. It
got to be a standard in our Truck Division. And since that was a
legislated response item, we standardized in our company on 50
feet just to have a common denominator so we could compare apples
and apples. And it is getting a little bit away from some of the
very near-field effects where you can get all screwed up from local
masking, from whatever may be around an operator, for example.
Admittedly it's not perfect. In going around the vehicle you get
quite a variation at 50 feet. But at least it does get away from ex-
treme local spikes that you get much closer.
Mr. BARON: As far as the long range is concerned, do you feel
you will be able to do something as far as the operator's position
which would also we hope benefit the environment?
Mr. RINGHAM : We not only can do, we have done. For even our
largest equipment we have cabs that not only have acoustical con-
trol but rollover protection integrated into them.
The large front-end loaders, for example, the one I mentioned that
is often a quarter-million pounds, a very special item. But it has a
fully integrated acoustic and roll-over-protected cab. You have to
be careful how you tie a rollover protection and a cab together or
one feeds the other and the cab collapses on rollover and that en-
dangers the operator, or the structure conducts sound up from the
-------
87
transmission or some other place and rattles the operator.
Mr. BARON: In the long range do you see a further reduction in
some of these ESLs?
Mr. RINGHAM : Oh, sure, in the long range. That's where we em-
phasize the long-range importance of the engine development, in
that it is a source that is now getting to be the dominant source, the
mechanical and combustion, when you go to sufficient muffling, which
obviously as John pointed out a lot of people don't like because
the muffler usually ends up where you can't see in a lot of vehicles,
because you can't put it down where it's out of the way because
then it gets damaged by debris.
Mr. BARON : Thank you.
Dr. MEYER : Professor Lyons.
Dr. LYONS: As I take it, you said that you today could quiet a
typical vehicle from 92 overall to 88 overall?
Mr. PROSEK : Right.
Dr. LYONS: This doesn't require any new technological break-
throughs. You could do that if you had a customer. Do you think
you will have any customers?
Mr. RINGHAM : We will probably get the customers when we get
the regulation, because it's going to cost money, and we obviously
aren't going to sell the vehicle if we add the price on and our
competition isn't forced to the same standards.
Dr. LYONS : So you reiterate a point made by some people today
that the construction industry, the buyer of these vehicles, will not
buy quieter vehicles unlesss forced to do so?
Mr. RINGHAM: Yes. And I believe that has been pretty clearly
stated by predecessors at this seat, representatives of the construc-
tion industry as well as others. And I think that is very true.
This leads me to want to relate a little anecdote. One of our
competitive friends in the farm equipment business decided it would
be nice as a public relations device to give away a lot of rollover-
protection structures. And I can't remember the numbers now, but
a very significant percentage of those came back with a request to
trade it for something more useful.
So if the user isn't interested enough in his own environment to
worry about rolling the whole thing over on him—and that happens
with unfortunate frequency in the farm industry—surely he isn't
going to be very concerned about a more passive thing like pro-
gressive and gradual hearing damage.
Mr. BARON : Just one more question. When you use the word
"user" is there also concern—you use the word in environmental
sound level—for the environment which you're working in today?
Again I'm thinking of the urban environment where this becomes
more acute. These figures are pretty high at 50 feet. Somebody
could be getting up on the sidewalk or closer which means adding
another 10 dB or more.
Mr. RINGHAM : Please bear in mind the 1 arge numbers we are talk-
ing about are in the very heavy machines. You may remember—
we went through it pretty fast—but the bar chart, I believe Figure
2, highlights the fact that lighter vehicles are much quieter. They
inherently have smaller power and smaller accessory drives and
other things to create the noise. It's easier to put a quieter fan on
them.
-------
Dr. MEYER: Dr. Okun.
Dr. OKUN: Is there a difference in noise production based upon
the skill or the interest of the operator of the vehicle ? Can an oper-
ator if he doesn't care produce more noise? We know this is the
case with some vehicles.
Mr. PROSEK: Well, yes, in some cases.
Now, in the case of a crawler tractor generally the operator
doesn't have much control over making a lot of excess noise be-
cause he operates at wide-open throttle for the most part. Now, on
trucks—and particularly I have noticed this in quarry operations—
the driver seems to get quite a kick out of racing the engine as
they pull away from the crusher, and it gives them a feeling of
power.
And one peculiar trait of the operators is they do in a sense
judge the loading on their machine by the sound of the engine, and
this is one reason why they object to mufflers.
Dr. OKUN : Is there any kind of direction or control of operator
behavior with these vehicles? Is this something that ought to be
looked at at all? Or do you think the job is done when the machine
is purchased ?
Mr. PROSEK : You mean as far as operator training ?
Dr. OKUN: Operator training or operator surveillance. There is
also the problem of maintenance of the vehicle. I presume once the
owner has it and he doesn't maintain it properly, the noise levels
may go up gradually so two years later the noise level may not
bear any resemblance to what you produced. Is there any kind of
regulation of this sort of thing that would be appropriate?
Mr. PROSEK : There is no regulation at the present time.
Dr. OKUN : I know, but what would you suggest would be ap-
propriate ?
Mr. KINGHAM : Let me try that. I think the only thing that could
come to mind offhand is something either the operator or perhaps
the job supervisor has some control over, and that is a tight group-
ing of vehicles to get a higher point-source equivalent from a multi-
tude of vehicles. If you keep them spread out on a job site you're
probably more likely to less affect some particular spot in the range
of the job.
But that's a pretty broad generality and doesn't really give any-
thing but a "motherhood and sin" statement.
I can't think of a specific, concrete thing other than, as John sug-
gested, avoid the hot-rodding at least, and the guys that are heavy-
footed on the throttle sit and buzz it. But even those are things that
are hard to typify in a regulation that says "thou shalt not do this."
Dr. MEYER : First, we have a minor environmental crisis appar-
ently within the hotel. I am informed that there is a small water
leak back in the exit to my left, to your right, which is near an
electrical outlet, so you are requested to use the safer exit route
more environmentally acceptable on this side. Then I have a ques-
tion a member of the audience has asked that I address to you, sir.
Then we shall move along to the next witness.
You mentioned ranges of noise levels of these various different
pieces of equipment as measuring your ESL at 50 feet. Mr. White,
who is from the Environmental Management Division of Fort
Benning, Georgia, requests that I ask you to say if the range of
-------
89
revolutions per minute for each engine was taken into account in
this. Is this an average over idle to max or is this 50-percent power
or what? And I think it's a very good point.
Mr. PROSEK : These are wide-open throttle readings. And the
range comes in the fact that we are not referring to one particular
machine. We are referring to a group of machines within a fairly
wide category. In other words, they may range considerably in horse-
power, and the engine speed, their rated speed, may vary, but they
are all measurements at wide-open throttle.
Dr. MEYER : Thank you very much.
Mr. KINGHAM : I might also add that it is also spread considerably
by the fact that there is more than one kind of engine in some of
the models, more than one manufacturer's. Sometimes ours. Some-
times other people.
Dr. MEYER: Thank you very much, sir. I think this was a very
illuminating discussion, particularly with regard to the measure-
ments that you have actually made.
(Copies of the slides used in the International Harvester presen-
tation follow:)
Dr. MEYER: We would like now to hear from another producer
of equipment, namely, Caterpillar Tractor Company, represented
by Mr. J. Hasten. The members of the panel have suggested that
perhaps a leg-stretching break might be in order. If you will in-
dulge us, gentlemen, we will take about a 2-minute rest pause.
(Whereupon, a brief recess was taken.)
Dr. MEYER : Ladies and gentlemen, let us get underway again. I
believe we have a quorum of our panel. In fact, we have all of
them. We will now continue with the presentation and ask our
friends from Caterpillar to proceed.
STATEMENT OF IACK HASTEN. MANAGER, PRODUCTS CONTROL
DEPARTMENT, AND LESTER BERGSTEN, STAFF RESEARCH EN-
GINEER, CATERPILLAR TRACTOR COMPANY
Mr. PIASTEN : Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
My name is Jack Hasten. I am Manager of the Products Control
Department of Caterpillar Tractor Company, with headquarters at
Peoria, Illinois.
Here with me is Les Bergsten, Staff Research Engineer, who is
in charge of most of Caterpillar's noise program.
First of all, Caterpillar is pleased to have been invited to appear
before this panel today. We are anxious to be of whatever assistance
we can to the EPA as it undertakes the very difficult assignment of
studying the broad, general subject of noise levels adjacent to con-
struction activity.
In the interest of time, I am going to only touch on the highlights
of a much more thorough treatment of this subject. Eight copies
of our complete submission are in your hands, and it is our sincere
hope that each of you will find time to read the entire booklet. My
oral remarks are included as Appendix U. It's in the back of that
submission.
Dr. MEYER : The entire booklet will be included in the record.*
Mr. HASTEK : While Caterpillar has tried to design and build
"quiet" machines for many, many years, these efforts were greatly
* This material is on file at the Office of Noise Abatement and Control.
-------
90
intensified in the middle 1960's. At that time, specific criteria were
established by Caterpillar as design objectives for noise suppression
equipment for all of its machines.
The criteria established were that noise levels would not exceed
90 dB(A) at the operator's station and 85 dB(A) at a distance
of 50 feet from the machine.
In order to give our engineers a specific yardstick to measure per-
formance against, test conditions were established under which these
criteria had to be met. These were:
1. Engine at full throttle, transmission in neutral.
2. Engine at full throttle, transmission engaged, brakes applied
to create a condition of torque converter stall.
Notice that under both of these test conditions the machine is
stationary. It was felt that noise levels generated at the operator's
station, and at a distance of 50 feet from the machines, would not be
significantly greater under normal machine operating conditions
than under the stationary test conditions.
I'm sure it is not necessary for me to tell experts such as your-
selves that noise suppression on machines such as we build is more
of an art than a science. While we have learned much in this area
over the past several years, perhaps one of the most significant
things we have learned is how much remains to be learned.
Ideally, machine noise should be reduced by either eliminating
or reducing obnoxious noises at their points of origin. In other
words, design and build quieter engines, transmissions, hydraulic
systems, etc. This approach, however, requires advances in the state
of the art of noise reduction beyond our reach today and is not
the sort of improvement which comes quickly.
Because of this, the main approach used during our noise reduc-
tion program has been one of enclosure and containment. The trans-
mission path of the noise is being blocked, as opposed to reducing
the level of noise being generated at its source.
I would like to describe for you the results of the work done on
only one of our machines so that you may more fully understand the
status of our program today and our current perception of what
is required in the immediate future. The model I would like to
discuss is the Series H D8 tractor.
Today's production D8 tractor with no noise suppression attach-
ments was checked under the stationary test conditions earlier de-
scribed. The noise level measured at the operator's station on this
production machine was 96.5 dB(A). And at a distance of 50 feet
from the machine, a level of 80.5 dB(A) was measured.
A noise suppression package was developed for the D8 which
reduced the noise level at the operator's station to 89.5 dB (A) and
to 75.5 dB(A) at a distance of 50 feet, both of these within Cater-
pillar's design objectives. Keep in mind that these results were
achieved under the two conditions earlier described, with the tractor
stationary.
We have provided photographs of all of the major elements of
this noise suppression package for the D8 in the booklets provided
to you, and these are in Appendices D through J.
Some of the major modifications required were the addition of a
large, wrapped muffler, louvered engine compartment enclosures,
hydraulic tank cover, engine isolation mounts, a larger diameter,
-------
91
slower speed engine cooling fan, and special sandwich-type floor
plates. Over 10,000 engineering design hours were required, and
some 4,000 man-hours were consumed in manufacturing a single
set of prototype parts.
Shortly after this initial development work was completed on the
D8 tractor, the requirements for roll-over protective structures
(ROPS) were in the process of becoming more clearly denned and
more widespread in their application. As many of you are no doubt
aware, the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 will ulti-
mately require ROPS on all such machines.
Recognizing the imminence of ROPS as a universal require-
ment, the next step in our program was to determine what effect,
if any, ROPS would have on the noise level, particularly at the
operator's station. An untreated Caterpillar ROPS was added to
the D8 equipped with the noise suppression package earlier de-
scribed. Under the stationary test conditions, this structure increased
the noise level at the operator's station by approximately 5 dB(A).
We then had to add noise suppression material to this ROPS
structure to regain the 90 dB(A) level at the operator's station.
As noted throughout our discussion, all of this test work was
done under conditions of a stationary machine. Once the design
objectives had been met for both operator and spectator require-
ments under these conditions, we then proceeded to attempt to
validate the original assumption that the noise level of our machines
at work would not be significantly greater than under the stationary
test conditions.
It was our original opinion that to the extent that the operator
noise level might intermittently exceed 90 dB(A) with the machine
at work, this would be offset by periods of lower-level exposure,
such that the machine would be in compliance with the Walsh-Healey
cumulative exposure criteria, without the need for operator ear pro-
tective devices.
A production D7 tractor was selected to provide this validation
for crawler tractors. The D7 was equipped with a noise suppression
kit and noise-suppressed ROPS, such that under the static test
conditions described the design objectives were met. The tractor
was then operated on a representative work cycle of bulldozing.
During this test, noise levels 6 inches from the operator's ear were
measured and tape recorded. These data were reduced by measuring
the amount of time the operator was subjected to various noise
levels. The Walsh-Healey cumulative exposure formula was then
used to determine the total time an operator could be permitted to
run the machine in an 8-hour day. The results yielded an answer
of 2.9 hours.
Since this was clearly not acceptable, we obviously had more
work to do to meet our design objectives with respect to the oper-
ator. Also, during these same work cycle tests, noise levels 50 feet
from the machine were measured as high as 92 dB(A) as compared
with the 75 dB(A) achieved with the machine stationary.
Our current work is concentrated on regaining noise suppression
performance such that Walsh-Healey criteria can be met without
the requirement for operator ear protective devices. For certain of
our machines, the only solution we see is to enclose the operator in
an acoustically treated cab. These cabs must contain ROPS, since
-------
92
this will soon be a universal requirement.
The heavy structural elements which are a necessary part of such
cabs make the noise suppression problem all the more difficult, since
these are excellent mechanical transmitters of noise.
This final approach to solving the operator noise problem by en-
closing him in a treated cab does little or nothing to reduce noise
level for the spectator.
With this background of experience, and in the spirit of trying
to be helpful, Caterpillar would like to make these recommendations:
1. Since the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 and
the Walsh-Healey regulations of 1969 have already established noise
level criteria for the protection of operators of construction equip-
ment, we would recommend that the Environmental Protection
Agency not promulgate additional standards with respect to oper-
ators. Until it can be demonstrated that the state of the art will
permit operation within these existing standards, we see no useful
purpose in establishing more stringent criteria.
2. Years of medical research, military, industrial, and govern-
mental studies preceded the establishment of the noise level criteria
contained in the Walsh-Healey Act for sustained exposure by em-
ployees who spend a full 8-hour day on the job. Little or no such
data are available to support recommended noise level criteria for
the protection of the so-called spectator. His exposure teneds to be
intermittent and randomly erratic. We would strongly recommend
that research be initiated immediately to acquire and analyze rele-
vant spectator noise data, to the end that realistic and attainable
spectator noise level criteria can be established.
3. Once the appropriate research work has been completed, we
would recommend that the Environmental Protection Agency estab-
lish uniform spectator noise level regulations which will be ap-
plicable nationwide. No local, State, or other Federal governmental
agency should have the power to abridge, amend, or in any way
supersede such regulations once established.
4. A need exists to establish uniform test procedures for the
measurement of both spectator and operator noise levels once stand-
ards have been established. These test procedures must be simple,
representative, and reproducible. We would recommend that this
matter be pursued in such a way that, in the long run, a single
Federal agency will be responsible for both the promulgation and
enforcement of all noise regulations.
5. The difficulty of retrofitting noise suppression packages on con-
struction equipment currently in the field should be very carefully
considered prior to the establishment of any such requirements.
Because of the extreme variety of product configuration and the
evolutionary changes made to a given model over time, a tremendous
amount of custom engineering and job-shop manufacturing would
be required to equip such machines with noise suppression packages.
It is, therefore, our recommendation that retrofit standards, if any
are set, should be much less restrictive than new product standards.
6. In our opinion, the broad, general subject of noise abatement
represents an enormously huge undertaking. Because of this, it is
important that relative priorities be established in order that na-
tional as well as individual corporate resources can be allocated
in an optimal manner. Caterpillar Tractor Company strongly rec-
-------
93
ommends that regulations with respect to spectator noise level
criteria for construction machinery not be applied prior to January
1, 1974. We will exert our every effort in assisting the Environ-
mental Protection Agency in any way we can in the interim to see
that these regulations are based on factual data.
Further, we pledge all of our resources which can reasonably be
brought to bear on the development of products which will meet
such regulations no later than January 1, 1974.
Thank you, gentlemen.
Dr. MEYER : Thank you much for an informative statement, along
with your very thoughtful recommendations, and also I am most
pleased for Mr. Ruckelshaus, the Administrator, to hear of your
pledges to work along these lines. Again, before making a couple
of comments or asking questions, I will ask my colleagues if they
have any questions. Dr. Okun.
Dr. OKUN : All your investigations were directed to a level of
90 dB(A) for the operator, while the concern of EPA is not with
operator protection directly. It is the Walsh-Healey Act that is
directed towards operator protection. And, of course, this is the
responsibility of the employer of the operator and not the seller of
the equipment.
How much do you expect that this 90 that might be achieved
would drop with years of service? Some of your equipment I'm
sure must serve for 10 years. What would happen to that equip-
ment over that period of time? Do you still think you would meet
the same criteria?
Is 90 an adequate number to shoot for if there will be a deteriora-
tion?
Mr. HASTEN : Well, first of all, my company regards this achieve-
ment of the Walsh-Healey criteria as part of our responsibility. It's
not in our opinion merely the responsibility of the buyer of the
product.
While the current law places the burden on the contractor, we
regard ourselves as a manufacturer to have a responsibility to supply
him with equipment where the operator— As Mr. Palazzi said,
he's caught in the middle of an operator who won't wear and a
manufacturer who won't produce. We intend to produce.
In our fuller report here we make a reference to the limited
field test experience that we have on these noise suppression kits.
We have moved rather quickly in the last 3 or 4 years to experi-
mentally arrive at these levels. The endurance life of some of the
materials we're using. We point out some of the problems of service
accessibility to the engine in particular. We have closed this engine
in much in the same manner as the Ingersoll-Rand people did with
the entire engine-air compressor package in spite of the compromises
that this gives to the basic machine.
There is going to be a responsibility on the part of the contractor
and his maintenance people and his operators to maintain this stuff.
Obviously we're going to build the most life into it that we can,
and that life will be extended as we gain more experience and de-
velop new techniques, new materials. But without question the
maintenance requirements on the noise suppression material itself,
the maintenance requirements on the machine—that is, the hours to
-------
94
check the crankcase oil levels every day and these kinds of things—
are going to cost the contractor more maintenance time.
The package as you look at it today in your booklet there looks
pretty crude from the standpoint that we haven't maybe given
some of the routine daily maintenance things the kind of attention
they deserve. We hope longer range that these kits will provide for
much improved accessibility, much improved maintenance life of
the kits themselves.
One of our problems today that prevents me from standing here
right now and saying we can do this right now is thaf, frankly,
we don't know. You have to take a D8 tractor with one of these
kits on it and give it to a contractor and let him run it for 2,000,
3,000, 4,000 hours under his job conditions with his maintenance
people before you know those answers, and we have not done this.
Dr. OKUN: I infer from your recommendations that— Well,
you actually say that you expect that the specifications or the reg-
ulations will be set on the equipment manufacturer. Is it more
appropriate from the standpoint of noise control generally that
it be placed on the equipment manufacturer as contrasted with being
placed on the operator of the equipment or the contractor? Where
do you feel that the regulations should be directed?
Mr. HASTEN : Well, we feel that we have a responsibility to de-
liver to that contractor equipment which will meet whatever criteria
are established by regulation.
Dr. OKUN : Yes, but so far as the government, whatever agency
of government establishes regulations, to whom should they be di-
rected? Do you think they should be directed to the contractor or
the equipment manufacturer?
Mr. HASTEN : As a manufacturer we feel it's our responsibility,
that you have every right to ask us to sell to that contractor a
machine which when new meets whatever criteria you set. And we're
willing to accept that responsibility.
Dr. OKUN : Will this meet all of the public's— In other words,
the public interest is in how the machine is actually operated and
how it is serviced as you say and how it is actually used on the job,
how many of them are used, and so on. So is it adequate for the
government to only direct its regulations against the equipment
manufacturer? Or should they also be directed against the con-
tractor ?
Mr. HASTEN : No, sir, I think we and the contractor are in this
basket together. We don't want to see him in it alone, and I'm sure
they don't want to see us in it alone I think they recognize that
there are obligations on their part to maintain what we and others
have sold them in a condition that will within reason— If we ship
the guy something that will last 8 hours and falls apart, we haven't
done our job. So we have got to give him a reasonable package and
then he has got to exercise reasonable maintenance of that after
it's in his hands.
In terms of numbers of machines that he applied—and mention
was made earlier of the additive decibel thing when you get into
some of that kind of algebra—frankly, I think this is where a
lot of this research needs to be directed.
I think it's quite a different thing if a man is building a piece of
interstate out in the middle of South Dakota as contrasted with
right through downtown Atlanta as to what kind of criteria you
-------
95
might establish on this fellow in terms of the additive effect of the
number of machines on that job.
We all know even if we achieve our objectives or even substantially
below that, if you put 50 or 60 machines in a concentrated cut,
the total effect of that is not going to be what it would be if they were
3 or 4.
So I'm sure it will involve not only requirements that the manu-
facturer deliver equipment that meets certain criteria but also some
regulations that the user is going to have to abide by in order to get
the final end result that you are shooting for. But we don't want to
shirk our end of that responsibility.
Dr. OKTJN: Thank you. One last question. In your work with
operators in cabs, are the windows open or closed in the cabs for
those measurements?
Mr. HASTEN : The windows are closed when those measurements
are taken.
And you bring up a very good point, and that is that we know that
right on top of this is the air conditioner. We have been doing
development work on air conditioning for more years than I care
to remember, and finally I would guess some 5 years ago, Les, we
despaired of any commercially available air conditioning equipment
that could be mounted on a piece of construction machinery that does
the kind of things a D8 tractor does and live any respectable
number of hours at all.
And I can tell you from personal experience there is nothing worse
than to be an operator operating in this nice air conditioned, closed
cab that is environmentally beautiful and all of a sudden that air
conditioner quits down here in south Georgia in the middle of
summer. In desperation he's going to get air in there. And if he
gets noise along with it, so be it.
So we're working very hard on applying this air conditioner that
we have spent a very large sum to have developed especially for our
machinery. We have yet to run the full gamut here and see if we
can still meet the 90 dB(A) with the acoustically treated cab with
an air conditioner mounted—and it almost has to be in the roof of this
cab the way all of the other things are involved. This poor guy also
has to see.
And one of the things that we can do, and we are trying very hard
to avoid this kind of situation, is to get so much stuff wrapped
around this fellow that he no longer has the visibility he needs
and we start incurring a lot of injuries, accidents on jobs caused by
machine collisions that would not otherwise happen.
We're going to find I'm sure a lot of operators back in our part
of the country where it's relatively flat— They have never been
used to a canopy over them to protect them from rollover. Fellows
have run machines for 40 years and never had one roll over.
And all of a sudden we come along and say everybody has to
have a rollover protective structure.
We're not against that. But many of these fellows when you
wrap that around them and then a cab— Pretty soon he can't see
like he used to. He's going to say, "I'd like the good old days."
So I think we have to proceed rather carefully here in this whole
environmental and safety area that we do wind up when we get all
done with a total on-the-job safer and environmentally more pure
way of doing construction work.
-------
96
Dr. OKUN: Thank you.
Dr. MEYER: Mr. McCarthy.
Mr. MCCARTHY: I think that last statement is a very good one.
Do you have from the work you have done so far any indication
of the additional I assume costs, any estimate of what will be?
Mr. HASTEN : The pure noise suppression kit that is contained
in there on the D8 excluding the rollover-protective, acoustically
treated cab, just the noise kit, that before we put HOPS on got us
down to the 90 dB(A)—acoustically treated EOPS—we think will
be on the order of about 3 percent additional cost to that machine.
Mr. MCCARTHY: Thank you.
Dr. MEYER : Dr. Bender.
Mr. HASTEN : That does not include the ROPS.
Dr. BENDER: I'd like to get a better feel for noise control treat-
ment that is currently used on construction equipment. For example,
is the high-quality exhaust muffler put on every single piece of equip-
ment that is manufactured?
Mr. HASTEN: We currently have mufflers standard on every
machine we make except three. We are—
Dr. BENDER: Except what?
Mr. HASTEN: Except three models. And we are in the process—
The only reason we don't have those three covered is the thing you
mentioned. You said a quality muffling device. On two of these
machines we have not reached the point yet where we are satisfied
with the visibility loss with the muffler that gives us the proper
noise reduction.
Dr. BENDER: Do you use anything else like intake mufflers for
engines or fan decoupling to get rid of fan noise?
Mr. HASTEN: On the intake question, all of our machines are
equipped today with dry type air cleaners. Those elements I believe,
Les, do a fairly good job of muffling the inlet air.
Fan coupling devices, we have been kind of around the circle on
that. I think we have yet to find anything that is reliable on our
kind of machinery that will do a better job than pure belt driving
of a fan. Our real problem in the fan area is getting fan tip speeds
down to levels which, frankly, we didn't worry about 10 years ago.
Fan noise wasn't regarded as a problem.
It's not a problem particularly with the operator. It is a problem
with a man 75 feet in front of the machine. And this is a problem
with a man 75 feet in front of the machine. And this is one of the real
troublesome areas.
If you were to talk about retrofitting this complete package that
you might expect us to build new in the factory and say, "Now go
out and do a similar treatment to a man with a 15-year-old D8"—
there's lots of those out there—and you start out telling the man,
"Okay, you've got to put a bigger radiator in here a larger diameter
fan, and a slower-speed fan," well, it's about like telling you to take
your car and go over and get a radiator put in it that is 8 inches
wider and that much larger diameter fan. And the guy looks at
you and tells you, you know, "Go do it yourself."
Dr. BENDER : Okay. One other question. We have heard throughout
the day that noise control treatment for various pieces of equipment
would increase the cost of the order of 10, sometimes 20 percent. If
that were applied across the industry so that all construction equip-
-------
97
rnent manufacturers had to produce somewhat more expensive
equipment, would that be harmful to the industry in your opinion ?
Would people buy fewer pieces of equipment? Or do you think
the industry wouldn't particularly get harmed at all ?
Mr. HASTEN: Boy, that's a— (Laughter). I guess I'd have to
talk a little bit like the policeman did here. If the Federal Govern-
ment in turn increased the allocation of highway construction funds
by 10 percent so there were 10 percent more work to be done, I guess
there would be no effect. But if you held the level of construction
work constant and increased the cost of construction equipment by
10 percent it seems to me that the contractor would find some way
to stretch the utilization of that equipment 10 percent further and
our industry would suffer.
My guess is that the contractor's work done per year would suffer
also, because I think in the final analysis his costs per yard of
moving dirt would go up, and, again, unless there were more money
allocated to move that dirt, there would be less dirt moved.
Some would argue that's good or bad, you know, my answer to that.
Dr. BENDER : That's all.
Dr. MEYER : Mr. Baron.
Mr. BARON : Well, construction noise is considered one of the
more serious noise problems especially in the urban area, and I see
very strongly you recommend not much be done about spectator
noise until at least 1974. What kind of proof do you want or would
you like to see in setting this standard for spectator noise?
On the case of hearing for the operator you have the studies that
you referred to on hearing loss—in other words, physiological
damage. Do you want to see proof of physiological damage for people
who are exposed to construction noise before you set standards for
spectator noise, so to speak?
Mr. HASTEN : Well, I think the thing we're thinking about here
is that there are probably construction projects of the type that were
discussed earlier this morning where a fleet of air compressors might
sit on one block in New York City for a year. That's very untypical
of our kind of equipment. The guy is usually in and off of this kind
of a job in a relatively short period of time. He's usually also not
working in the kind of an environment where the spectator is
going to get very close.
I will tell you it's not very safe to get within. 50 feet of a D8
tractor, particularly if it's working with a typical spread of machines
that he's with.
So I think our plea is to say: Well, we don't know, on average, in
urban or rural areas on a typical kind of a job what the spectator's
exposure is, how close he comes to the machines, how long is he there.
I think we'd all agree that at some level up here even an instan-
taneous exposure is not good. But I think our attitude would be if
someone wanted to start something like tomorrow, certainly the
spectator requirement should not be more severe than the operator's
requirement who does indeed have to sit on that machine all day long.
What I'm suggesting is that if a spectator doesn't have to stay
there all day long, at least not all of it, we should suggest that
something lower than 90 dB(A) is at least physiologically a re-
quirement.
Now, when you get into the psychological area and some of the
-------
98
other things that were talked about this morning, I don't
know. And I would gather from the answers that some of the other
people gave they don't know either.
And all we're suggesting is that some time be taken to establish
what is realistic because, as others have said and I'm going to say
too, this is not going to come cheap. Xow, the getting down to the 90
and 85 level that I have talked about in here has taken a lot of hard
work. And while the package we have here to date I have said is
possibly in the 3 percent area and the total safety package might
run that on up to 15 to 20 percent, the getting down that next 5
dB(A) is going to be a real, real tough problem on a machine like
that D8.
If you will open up there to an early appendix, B, it just identifies
some of the noise sources that emanate from a 1)8 tractor.
Now, again, if you get into this additive dB(A) thing we can
find places on this machine that are perhaps relatively easy to lower
the sound level 4 or 5 dB(A), but at 50 feet away we have done
virtually nothing.
Some of the things that we have to get from our current targets
down to some of the kind of numbers people talk about— Someone
made mention of plastic gears. Well, we'd like to know how people
would make plastic gears that would go in the transmission of a
D8 tractor and work.
We do know that gears are a major component of the noise from
our machines, and we are doing everything we know how to make
gears that make less noise. But these are programs that are 5, maybe
10 years in their resolution. It may mean a complete revolution in
gear manufacturing technology in this country before we as a manu-
facturer can buy a machine tool that will manufacture gears to put in
a transmission for a 300-horsepower tractor that will achieve the
kind of goals that some would like to see us achieve.
It's not that we don't want to and that we are not working on it.
It's just that we don't know how. And we think before we are asked
to say something like 70 or 65 or 75 or even 85 that we ought to
know, all of us, not just Caterpillar—I think you people want to
know—what does the spectator criterion really need to be.
Mr. BARON : I would like to suggest the spectator criteria should
not be based necessarily on physiological damage. In the first place,
90 is 5 dB(A) above what was bruited around many years as the
damage risk criteria.
I'd also like to put in the hopper the fact that nothing is being said
or done about non-acoustic, non-auditory effects on men who work
in that noise level, and this is going to crop up sooner or later. It
already is in Europe, and it is starting here in the United States.
Mr. HASTEN : Yes, sir.
Mr. BARON: But again we're talking about quality of environ-
ment, which is an amorphous term that maybe we can't quantify,
and I'm just suggesting the public is being hit by construction
noise whether from highways that go next to the cities— We receive
letters, incidentally, from people in small towns in the Midwest
and so on who are next to highway construction. But it's also in
terms of large building construction, and so on.
It was brought out earlier that areas will be going down and1
building up, and your type of equipment will be part of it.
-------
99
I think the spectator noise will be taken a bit more seriously in
the sense that you don't think only of physiological damage but
of this concept which we can't quantify of quality of environment.
Speech interference is one possibility, interference with rest or
with sleep. Or, in fact, you might have a hospital or a school or
a, residence where senior citizens are. Or whatever kind of goal.
And I think it's important that you have that kind of thinking
when you think of the spectator design. I think it's very important.
And I think if that kind of thinking is there that there will be an
end product.
But if you think only of determining through years of research
physiological harm that comes from noise exposure, who knows?
Maybe it will never be possible to determine physiological harm.
That means we live with the noise exposures that we go through
now and that in a way lead to this kind of organization and meeting.
So I would suggest that we might take another look at the con-
cept of spectator noise, and I will be glad to talk to you about it.
Mr. HASTEN : I don't propose here that our program is to do
nothing until January 1974. What I said in here was that if you
have the regulations in January 1974 we will have the equipment.
We will keep working with you, and as we mutually arrive at what
the spectator noise level criteria should be and can be.
I don't want to overstress that point. We spend a lot of money on
R & D. Every year an increasing amount of it is going into these
kinds of activities. And there is a corporate awareness and desire
to do this not only with our product but within our plants and within
the State of Illinois, stream pollution, all these kinds of things that
we are very deeply committed to.
But I don't want to mislead you here and say that we think
we can accomplish some specific target in 1974 that we know our-
selves— At least our best perception right now is we can't.
I'd like to stand here and say we can make 70 dB(A) 50 feet from
(he machine or 7 meters as the Europeans think of it. But from what
we know today and the rate of progress we have made in this area
and what we can project in the future and the problems we see,
we don't think we can do it, and I might just as well be honest with
you today as January 1 of 1974.
Dr. MEYER : Well, I think it's important to get this into the record.
Certainly, in setting standards the Environmental Protection Agency
is going to have to take into account a whole host of things. And
one of the purposes of this series of hearings is to get information
from both sides both as to the state of the art and as to what we
don't know. And this question of spectator noise standards is going
to be a very difficult one. It's one we intend to approach in a very
workmanlike manner through a thorough exploration of all the
possible modes of attack of the problem, taking into account the
scientific problems associated with arriving at meaningful standards.
One thing that is sort of underlying everything that is going on
here today is that we are going to have to address ourselves to some
uniformly acceptable standard. We are going to work with both
citizen groups and with industry.
Professor Lyons.
Dr. LYONS : No questions.
Dr. MEYER : Well, thank you very much, sir. I would only point
-------
100
out one other thing if I might. You have put your finger on perhaps
some of the things the following speakers may also highlight. That
is, we have got to keep in mind some of the fundamental physics.
Several other people have said this. You know, coming from 105
down to 100 is relatively easy, but from 75 to 70 may be increasingly
difficult, and so on going up the other way.
One of our colleagues uses a good example that I think some
people ought to keep in mind about the increase of noise. Namely,
if you have one child crying in a crib in sort of a weak voice and
you measure it several feet away, maybe it's 30 dB(A). And if there
were a pair of twins sort of painfully or woefully muttering, it might
be about 33.
You have one motorcycle sitting out here measured 50 feet away
while he's revving it up at half horsepower, half of its power,
and you produce 90 dB(A). You put a second motorcycle right
alongside and you have 93 dB(A). Obviously the 3 dB(A) up from
the 90 is a tremendously more harmful and tremendously more signifi-
cant figure than the 3 dB(A) down with the two weakly wailing
infants, although some of them wail a lot higher than that I'm told.
But I think we have to keep this in mind coming back down the
scale as well.
Mr. HASTEN : Yes, sir.
Dr. MEYER: I appreciate everything you have said here. We look
forward to working with you and your colleagues in industry. Next,
I would like to ask if Mr. Pease from AMF-Beaird is here.
(No response)
If not, then Mr. Codlin from Allis-Chalmers. Are you still among
those patiently on hand ? Then, I am going to ask our colleagues
from the State of Georgia and the City of Atlanta if they have any-
thing further.
STATEMENT OF J. B. CODLIN, MANAGER, SPECIAL ENGINEERING
ASSIGNMENTS. CONSTRUCTION MACHINERY DIVISION. ALLIS-
CHALMERS CORPORATION
Mr. CODLIN : Gentlemen of the panel and Mr. Chairman, ladies
and gentlemen of the spectators, I am very happy to be here. I
am J. B. Codlin, Manager of Engineering Special Assignments from
the Construction Machinery Division of Allis-Chalmers Corporation
of Springfield, Illinois.
You have heard from a very large percentage of the construction
machinery industry, bulldozers, loaders, graders, crawler tractors,
and so forth. And we hope that the remarks that I can add here will
give you a further contribution to the needs of your committee.
Our Division has plants in Springfield and Deerfield, Illinois,
and associated plants in Harvey, Illinois and Topeka, Kansas, which
manufacture products such as crawler tractors, dozers, rippers,
loaders, both rubber-tired and crawler, graders, scrapers, industrial
tractors with mounted loaders, backhoes, and diesel power plants
for the construction industry.
It is our policy to produce products using the most modern and
effective safety and noise control engineering and technology for
their development, production, and use that exists.
-------
101
It is in line with and as a part of this policy that we present
this statement today. We appreciate your consideration in allowing
us to come before you. We feel that the development of realistic
noise control standards and legislation is an important and con-
structive effort. It is our belief that development of such legislative
standards must adhere to certain considerations. These are complete-
ness, uniformity, and clarity. They must be repeatedly measurable
and they must fully recognize the need to balance the state of
the art with economic considerations and the overall benefit to be
derived for the most people.
We respectfully submit the following for your consideration:
1. A brief overall look at the size and impact of the construction
equipment industry.
2. What the construction equipment industry has been doing about
sound control.
3. Technical problems and solutions.
4. Timing.
5. Machinery now in use.
6. A suggestion for an approach to sound control.
7. Answers to specific questions and subjects listed in the notice
of hearings relating to construction equipment industry.
I would first like to identify a frame of reference relating to size
and scope of the construction machinery business. Eecently Mr.
P. E. MacAllister, Senior Vice-President of the Associated Equip-
ment Distributors, a nationwide trade association composed of 800
independent distributors throughout the United States, testified
before a Labor Department hearing on the subject of P. L. 91-54,
mentioned here several times today, and here are some facts from his
testimony:
These distributors purchase equipment from manufacturers whom
they represent and sell or rent to customers. They employ thousands
of skilled mechanics and provide service facilities to maintain, repair,
and overhaul customers' equipment both in the shop and in the
field. The annual sales volume of these dealers is in the order of
magnitude of 21/^ billion dollars annually.
From the year 1960 through 1970, an 11-year period, approxi-
mately 519,000 units of major equipment were manufactured and
sold domestically. This does not include many thousands of 4-wheel
industrial and agricultural type tractors frequently used in con-
struction. These are the machines of the heavier type.
It is estimated by AED that of this half-million units there
are 462,000 units still working on the job. Their survey further
suggests that an additional 100,000 units manufactured between
1955 and 1960 are still working.
If we then assume that these 562,000 units work an average of
1,500 hours per year at an hourly rate of $9.50—and that's low—
the machines currently at work generate $8 billion worth of con-
struction annually. This added to the machinery produced and sold
amounts to over $10.5 billion in gross national product in homes,
watersheds, schools, hospitals, highways, urban renewal, and so
forth. This business affects the lives of every person in the country
either directly or indirectly.
Throughout the years the competitive thrust responding to the
demand of the public—and this is important—has been to produce
-------
102
more yards of earth moved at less cost. As a result, the cost of a
yard of earth moved has increased only slightly in spite of higher
labor and material costs. This requirement could be met only through
increase in power and size of earth-moving equipment.
But due to basic laws of physics, chemistry, and mechanics along
with increase in power and size also goes increased noise levels.
This problem was recognized by the engineers of this industry, and
in the early '60's steps were taken by the engineers working as in-
dividuals through their engineering organizations, and particularly
through the Society of Automotive Engineers, starting to do some-
thing about the noise problem.
What the construction machinery industry is doing on sound
control. Within SAE the Construction Machinery Industry Technical
Committee—CIMTC—formed a Sound Level Committee to study
the measurement and control of noise in the construction machinery.
The manufacturers of construction machines through their associa-
tion, the Construction Industry Manufacturers Association—CIMA—
joined in this effort and established the necessary procedures and
policies to recognize needs for performance standards and to pro-
mote their development through nationally recognized technical and
standards writing bodies such as SAE.
Standards for basic noise measurement that were considered by
CIMA and developed or under development by SAE—and this
would be under the current Sound Level Committee now a part of
the Automotive Council—are:
1. Noise measurement at operator's station.
2. Noise measurement at 50-foot radius.
3. Construction job site noise measurement.
4. Cumulative operator noise exposure measurement along with
standardized reporting methods (CONE). I think you got a report
on that presented by one of the earlier witnesses.
Now some technical problems and solutions. This committee is
continuing its study of noise control with the ultimate goal of
recommending lower sound levels commensurate with the advance-
ment of sound control techniques.
The problem has been divided into two areas. The first is that
of sound measurement related to the operator at his work station.
The second relates to noise control to the surrounding environment
of the equipment. So many times I see these two problems being
mixed in discussions. They are two separate problems. Because the
operator can be encapsulated but the spectator cannot. So these
have to be approached from two different bases.
Each of these areas of study breaks down further into short-range
and long-range.
The method of measuring sound, of course, is the decibel. It is
a logarithmic unit of measure. If two sounds from a tractor, say
the engine and the track assembly, each develop a level at 90 dB(A),
the sum of the two will be 93 dB(A). We have heard that several
times today.
But let's look at it a little differently. If we now want to reduce
the sound level by either eliminating the track or the engine com-
pletely, we only reduce the overall level of noise by 3 dB(A).
Now consider the designer as he puts together a crawler tractor.
You heard quite a bit about that from the preceding witness. He
-------
103
must deal with an engine, transmission, hydraulic system, cooling
system, track assemblies, and final drive gearing, all of which are
noise producers of varying intensities and frequencies.
To bring levels down he has three alternatives—either muffle,
construct barriers, or use sound-deading materials against the sounds
generated by the components of the machine or reduce the sound-
producing capabilities of the components, or a combination of each.
And I want to reemphasize this point about enclosure. It has
been mentioned here, for instance, on air compressors that some
very, very remarkable things have been done soundwise. It was
done principally with enclosure. Enclosures became larger. This
became one of the problems because they had to fight it through
the highways and drive it when things were hauled on the road.
In a crawler tractor, as one of the earlier witnesses explained,
and in other equipment, the visibility that that operator has to
operate under in order to do his job safely and to be safe for those
in the surrounding area is of prime importance.
So a major problem in sound deadening by the use of enclosure
is very limited in what we can do in this area.
The order of priority for getting at this problem is obvious: Do
those things first which require the least change for the most
benefit.
We at Allis-Chalmers are experimenting with mufflers, closing of
engine compartments, lining of hoods and covers with sound-dead-
ening materials. We are measuring the effectiveness of these short-
range procedures as sound control techniques. However, we must
also test their durability.
We had an experience working with a company—this was a
number of years ago—working in this area of sound. We provided
at their insistence certain components, mufflers, liners, sound-dead-
ening materials—at their insistence—because, as we told them, we
could not stand behind the state of the art at that stage of the game
that these parts would stand up. And, needless to say, those parts
did not live.
And to produce machinery on a production basis we have to
produce durable machines. The life has to be built into the machines.
Now, we have to test their durability. We have to test their
safety from fire hazard. This is sometimes an easily overlooked
problem. If a sound-deadening material becomes oil-soaked, it
becomes a torch. And a torch is a device in which you provide some
sort of a material that will burn. And oil from the various com-
ponents of the machine will burn.
Some absorbent material used as sound deadening which is one
of the best becomes a torch. So fire hazard is a very, very important
thing.
Serviceability under the very severe conditions of heat, dust,
moisture, vibration, and shock that our machines are subjects to and
must endure is important.
We are weighing the tradeoffs in lessened serviceability, effect on
reliability, safety, and finally cost.
Our engineers are working on a long-range basis on components
such as engines, including combustion chamber design and gear
trains in the engines, hydraulic pumps, gearing of transmissions,
-------
104
and piping to determine what can be done to control noise at the
source.
To date our successes in both areas have been marginal, and by
"marginal" I'm talking about taking them from levels where they
have been brought down to to lower levels, not from a high peak
of no design activity at all. In other words, we're not satisfied.
The cost implications are high. We have analyzed our machines
component by component, estimating the engineering required, the
cost impact, and the probable noise reduction to be gained. Our
estimates show that to bring the sound level down on the basis of
short-range treatment—that is, by the use of mufflers, barriers, and
sound-absorbing materials properly installed on our machines—a re-
duction of from 3 to 6 dB(A) measured at 50 feet from the machine
can be gained. The cost increase will be from 1 to 3 percent per
machine depending on the size of unit and level of reduction
required.
Calculating this back through ownership and operating costs,
assuming that our costs are typical, and based on the earlier figures
given you obtained from the Department of Commerce publications,
short-range noise control will cost the American public about $160
million annually for a 2 to 6 dB(A) reduction.
On the basis of long-range treatment and based on current tech-
nology, we find that every major power component in the tractor
will require major redesign and retooling. Our estimates indicate
that the noise level reductions will again be in the order of 3 to 6
dB(A) additional at 50 feet depending on the size and power of
the machine.
Assuming our estimates are reasonably typical, the cost impact
long-range is estimated to be 10 percent to 25 percent per vehicle.
Projecting this as a direct increase to the work output cost of the
machines, since there will be no offsetting production gain, the
cost to the American public long-range will be in the order of mag-
nitude of an additional $202 million annually. On top of the short-
range program costs, this is a total of $362 million annually for
from 5 to 12 dB(A) reduction.
Timing. The development work and retooling time for our com-
pany to effect noise control of the order of 2 to 6 decibels short-
range is estimated to be 2 years. For a longer-range program to
accomplish 2 to 6 decibels across our line of products will take 5
years, and maybe more, from the decision point before the first
machine could be produced.
I feel reasonably certain that our situation as to timing just men-
tioned is typical within 1 to 2 years either way. If this is true
it must be kept in mind that the quantity of such machines that
would be produced annually will be relatively small compared to
the total in use. Therefore, to have any appreciable impact on over-
all sound reduction through replacement of current machines, due
to their relatively long useful life, an order of 20 years will be
required, because, as you notice, some of these machines are still
running that are 20 years old.
Machinery now in use. As I mentioned earlier, there are some
500,000 to 600,000 machines of the heavy duty construction equip-
ment type, plus thousands of the industrial equipment type cur-
rently working in the United States. The only possible way of
-------
105
redacting sound on these units is through muffling, use of barriers,
and use of sound-absorbing materials.
As I mentioned earlier, the tests we have conducted on this ap-
proach have not yielded satisfactory results in sound control. We
are still working on it.
The cost to the user of our equipment in the field could run
from $200 to $2,000 per unit for the parts and materials, and, in
addition to that, he will have the cost of installation.
The durability and reliability of materials currently being tested
has been disappointingly short, which would mean replacement and
continuing cost and down time for the user. In addition, the owner
would be faced with reduced maintainability and increased fire
hazards further increasing his costs.
A suggestion for an approach to noise control. The products of
the manufacturer supplying the needs of the construction industry
are tools. A wide variety of tools are built and used as parts of a
system to be put to work by a contractor on a job that exists to
make things better. His presence while always temporary is some-
times considered a nuisance by his neighbors; hence, the press for
noise pollution control.
If, instead of trying to improve this situation a piece at a time,
it was looked at in its entirety as a system, the possibility of alter-
nate and possibly less costly solutions becomes a probability.
It is visualized for community noise control that total construction
site limits be geared to the needs of the surrounding community. This
would create a natural demand for quieter machines, yet still allow
contractors and users to utilize their well demonstrated versatility
and ingenuity to get the job done within reasonable specified limits
even with existing machines by new job layout and operational
techniques.
An example might be the erection of sound-absorbing barriers
between job sites and points which consider noise a nuisance.
Now, in conclusion, there were some questions that were asked—
Dr. MEYER: We don't need that.
Mr. CODLIN: We don't need that?
Dr. MEYER: Those were just from the staff to help you set the
stage. They are not part of the questionnaire.
Mr. CODLIN : Okay. If I could read my own conclusions here,
then, I would like to quote from a paper by Mr. H. T. Larmore,
Deputy Director for Technical and Safety Services of CIMA,
which he gave before a group of industrial hygienists in Toronto
recently. I quote:
"It is obvious that construction machine designers and industrial
hygienists in both government and private sectors are operating at
the threshold of the art relative to noise."
It is apparent that the U.S. Department of Commerce through
its National Industrial Pollution Control Committee has recognized
this by the holding of these hearings.
We hope that the information presented here, combined with
that from the testimony of others, will be used to effectively reach
proper noise abatement objectives, and to do so with full consider-
ation of the total needs of our society and at costs and compromises
satisfactory to the public.
Thank you, gentlemen.
-------
106
Dr. MEYER: Thank you for a very forthright presentation of how
you see some of the problems. Let me, before asking my colleagues
if they have any questions, get your reaction to the existing pro-
posal in the Congress, which the Environmental Protection Agency
would administer in consultation with other agencies of the Fed-
eral Government.
We are proposing that the Federal Government set standards for
emission of noise from equipment, not just from the exhaust neces-
sarily, but from the entire system, and are reserving to the States
and their political subdivisions the right to set what amounts to
use standards or limitations on the numbers of pieces of equipment
that can be in a locale. I gather from what you have said here
that you favor that approach, particularly where you say you visual-
ize that the total construction limits should be geared to the needs
of the surrounding community.
Mr. CODLIN : This is correct. Because I think one of the earlier
witnesses pointed out construction machinery is used in all kinds
of different environments. Certainly a machine that is working up
on the north slope of Alaska where there isn't anybody except the
people who are doing the job themselves working completely cov-
ered up with all kinds of clothing to keep them warm has got a
different kind of a noise situation than one working in the heart of
Atlanta here.
So to have a rule that says all machinery should be at 85 decibels
is not realistic. I think it has to be attacked from the community
level. What is the specific situation? And I think you can legislate
in that area.
Dr. MEYER : Well, let me pursue another question that comes to
mind. Looking at your statement, you seem relatively pessimistic
about the possibility of doing much with existing equipment. Is it
your view that this is simply because of the nature of the beast, so
to speak. Is it the lack of the market or is it the technical problem?
Mr. CODLIN : I think it's principally technical, and cost. These two
things are always at the opposite end of the balance that the engineer
is working on. But if we say, "Well, it's going to be worth it," if
that is the considered decision of our society, then we're going to
pay the cost, then it comes down to technical, doesn't it?
Dr. MEYER: Yes, sir.
Mr. CODLIN : Some of this machinery is upwards of 20 years old.
There have been many different versions of that same basic machine
produced and sold. To then impose upon it the situation such as Mr.
Hasten mentioned of putting a wide radiator in a narrow space
becomes virtually impossible because you cant' move the frame of
the tractor out because there's the tracks, and you can't move the
tracks out because there's the bulldozer. It's a vicious circle. I think
John Prosek mentioned that.
It's just a law of nature that says that a certain size machine
has got to be cooled a certain degree, and if you change that cool-
ing rate you have to change the size of the machine. That's just
one of the problems. The size of the muffler would have to be intro-
duced. If it's introduced under the hood out of visibility, the space
may not be there again. So if you raise the hood the man can't see
over it to see when he is bulldozing up to a 200-foot drop. He wants
-------
107
to know where he is. And raising that hood 6 inches can change his
vision point by 70 feet, the angle of line.
Does that answer your question?
Dr. MEYER : Yes, sir.
Mr. Baron.
Mr. BARON: What equipment is included in this CIMA group?
Is that cranes and pile drivers too?
Mr. CODLIN: Yes.
Mr. BARON : In other words, non-pneumatic equipment ?
Mr. CODLIN : Yes, CIMA covers—
Mr. BARON: The non-pneumatic tools?
Mr. CODLIN: How's that.
Mr. BARON : Non-pneumatic ?
Mr. CODLIN : No, I would say that people who are building pneu-
matic— Do you folks belong to CIMA?
Mr. DIEHL: Yes.
Mr. CODLIN : It's all construction equipment manufacturers who
wish to join.
Mr. BARON: That includes compressors and cranes and bulldozers
and so on?
Mr. CODLIN : Yes.
Mr. BARON: The cost that you talk about of noise control, the
annual cost, is based on what point? That there will be X new
equipment built every year? We're talking about $160 million for
a 2 to 6 dB(A) reduction on page 6. What is that based on?
Mr. CODLIN : Let me be sure we're tuned in on the same wave-
length.
Mr. BARON : You say short-range noise control will cost the Amer-
ican public about $160 million annually for a 2 to 6 dB(A) re-
duction.
Mr. CODLIN : Okay. That's based on the statement that Mr. Mac-
Allister developed in the Labor Department in those hearings. The
Commerce Department sets apart construction equipment in their
census reports. At this moment I can't give you by memory the
exact breakdown of all the types of machinery that are in there,
but I know that this includes all loaders, bulldozers, scrapers, grad-
ers, wheel-type vehicles, crawler-type vehicles, crawler loaders. And
how far it goes into the cranes I'm not sure at this time. Is there
anybody here who can help me with this?
I can't give you an answer on it because I don't have the figures
in front of me.
Mr. BARON: In other words, those will be installed on old ma-
chines and new machines, and so on? I mean that's the thing I'm
trying to clarify.
Mr. CODLIN : Yes. The first was short-range. If you took all the
562,000 machines that are out there and did something with them,
you would have this kind of a cost.
Mr. BARON : Eight. I'm trying to figure how it gets to be annual
cost. That's what puzzles me. If you're retrofitting using the equip-
ment already in existence, how do they figure it out?
Mr. CODLIN : Here's the way I arrive at that. I knew that in de-
veloping this paper one of the biggest questions would be cost.
And as I told the fellows, I've got my neck stuck out 50 miles
-------
108
on here in trying to give you a feel for cost. And I don't think
I'm too far off on it really.
I said there that the cost per unit would be from 1 to 3 percent.
Eight? This means that the buying price by the contractor would
be raised in order of magnitude somewhere within that area.
Now, in order to apply his machine on a profitable basis he has
to have a return on investment. So, therefore, the cost of the yard
of dirt moved reflects both owning and operating costs.
Now, it so happens that when you add these materials on there
at a 1 to 3 percent increase in pure cost, it is almost the same
cost on operating, because if the mufflers give 'out, if the barriers
break down, he has to replace all these things. It takes time, labor
and dollars and material. So, therefore, owning and operating cost
both will change about to the same degree when you add something
to the machine.
So taking that owning and operating cost and raising your $9.50
per hour times the number of hours per year times the number of
machines will simply give you a cost of about $160 million.
Mr. BARON : Well, I don't know if you are familiar with the report
of the Commerce Technical Advisory Board Noise Abatement Panel.
They had an economic section. And they said that the cost, if I
remember right because I don't have it with me, of reducing many
of the noise sources would not be significant. You know, there is
a sort of a conflict here which I would like to just bring to the
attention of the panel.
Mr. CODLIN: If you add cost to machinery and if a contractor
has to buy a muffler, we'll say, and he has to buy a pair of side
plates and has to buy a liner for the engine compartment, we'll
say, without all the possible problems before, he's going to be paying
something for this. Isn't this right?
Mr. BARON: Eight.
Mr. CODLIN : If he's going to continue to be profitable he has to
recover—right?—or else go out of business. Because 2 percent or
3 percent will take him down the drain if he continues to do it.
He just cannot absorb it.
Mr. BARON : This is an assumption that it's going to cost him
that every year to maintain the quiet aspects of the equipment ?
Mr. CODLIN : That's right.
Mr. BARON : Well, I would just like to—
Mr. CODLIN : So I think probably the other was an assumption too.
Certain assumptions had to be made because these are very difficult
figures to come by. As I said, I have tried to indicate an order
of magnitude. Maybe it's $80 million or maybe it's $240 million. But
this is the order of magnitude of the kind of thing.
And believe me if the cost of the yard of dirt increases, the cost
of the contract for the road increases, the cost to the taxpayer
increases, and that's you and I.
Mr. BARON : Right. And you also mention the law of nature in
reference to the physics of noise control. And it is also a law of
nature that people require sleep and rest, and so on.
Mr. CODLIN : Yes.
Mr. BARON : And these aspects of the quality environment. And
again I repeat what I have repeated several times, which is that
we must now consider not only the dollar costs of quiet but the
-------
109
dollar costs or the external cost of this economy as they call it of
the degradation of the environment by noise so that the normal
processes of living and working and leisure time activities are
destroyed. So that too must be put into the hopper.
And it's interesting that we are just gradually— I hope we are
starting somewhere on evaluating what these other costs are to
match them with these other figures.
Mr. CODLIN: I don't quarrel with you a bit, Dr. Baron. As you
note here, I didn't say let's don't do it. I'm just trying to make
everybody aware by making some calculations here what is the order
of magnitude. Then we can balance this again. If we can quantify
the other, let us balance it. And if our good and wonderful country
becomes better for it, that's fine. Let's do it.
Mr. BARON: Of course, part of the difficulty is that some of the
thing we call quality environment is very difficult to quantify. And
when you come up against a figure of $160 million, it looks so, you
know, solid and tangible against the difficulties of quantifying this
quality of life.
Mr. CODLIN : I think probably I had an easier time of coming up
with this number than you will with the one you are talking about.
Isn't that right? Don't you agree?
Mr. BARON : You had an easier time ?
Mr. CODLIN : Yes.
Mr. BARON : I grant you that.
Dr. MEYER : Of course, there's another way of looking at this.
You can say that doesn't really sound like very much. This comes
out less than a dollar per capita, per year if you want to look at
this sort of cost borne somehow by the public. It will be passed on
to the public one way or another. And so you say, well, you know,
this is a different order of magnitude than something that is going
to cost $50 or $100 or $300 per capita.
If you want to talk about it being reasonably—not trivial, but
certainly in the real world of the gross national product of $900
billion plus—a dollar per capita for this sort of thing certainly
comes into a little bit better perspective.
I'm not trying to play the game either way because this numbers
game in the environment gets to be a pretty difficult one to come
out winning, because it depends upon which side you're trying to
put your chips on. And I'm sure either side can make it pretty
formidable, no matter who is right.
That is one of the reasons we are trying to get these facts. I
think it is probably safer to say you really don't know whether
you're talking about $200 million or $100 million, but it's somewhere
in this range. We have had to do this on some other things. At least
it gives us some points on a curve that we have got to come to grips
with. Do you have any other questions, Mr. Baron?
Mr. BARON : Nothing that can top what you just said.
Dr. MEYER: Dr. Okun.
Dr. OKUN : One of the major problems seems to be this matter of
retrofitting that large amount of equipment that is now in use. I
think you pointed out and others pointed out that the needs for
noise control vary from place to place, that in some areas—
Mr. CODLIN: Correct.
Dr. OKUN : —there is much less need than there might be in others.
-------
110
Mr. CODLIN : That's correct.
Dr. OKUN: Would it be feasible in some way to say that all the
new equipment, that which is soundproofed, would be used in those
areas that are critical and shift all of these others out of the areas
that are not critical and avoid having to retrofit some of the equip-
ment that was going to be used in Alaska, North and South Dakota,
and maybe this other—
Mr. CODLIN : This is an interesting thought. I think it would
probably be better addressed to Mr. Palazzi from the contractors,
because he could tell you better than I his logistics problem.
Our machinery goes to our dealer, from our dealer to the customer,
and one day that customer will use it in Portland, Oregon and
the next thing we know the serial number will turn up in a dealer's
place of business for some work or something in New York. So it
moves. It moves very rapidly. Whether this again would be a cost
push that they could tolerate or not 1 don't know.
Dr. OKUN : Equipment shifts around for need. If you need a
bigger piece of equipment on a job, you bring that piece of equip-
ment there. And if it gets to be part of the concept of construction
that noise is important, when you have need on a project for
noise control, then you use your equipment that has that capacity
on the job. And when you don't have the need, you use the other
equipment.
Mr. CODLIN : I think I spoke to it by suggesting that the ingenuity
and the versatility of our contractors—and they are a tremendous
group I'll tell you—in their job layouts and their job techniques
could be brought to bear.
This again gets back to the business of the community, the local
area. That is the problem that you need to hit I think to get this
on the road.
Dr. OKUN : Could you make a rough order of magnitude estimate
as to what percentage of the total use of your equipment is operated
in critical areas as contrasted with less critical areas?
Mr. CODLIN: Oh, I'm afraid I couldn't. That would take some
research to come up with. And I think I would not be qualified to
state that. I wish I could help you on it. Maybe if you want me
to do some looking I could do something like that. But it would be
quite a job to nail down because the stuff is so fluid.
Dr. OKUN : Thank you.
Dr. MEYER: Fine. We have heard a lot from the industry groups,
and, as I said, we shifted this thing around just a little bit, some of it
being because of some unexpected changes in people's travel re-
quirements and some of it being really from a logic viewpoint,
which wasn't apparent when we were putting this together. It's
rather late, but if Mr. Hansell from the State Department of
Health is still here I would like him to give us an overview of
how they look at this total problem. I have to again apologize to
him as I have to several others. It seems there was greater interest
in some of the questioning than we anticipated, sir, and I offer
my regrets at making you stay this long, but I did want to get your
views toward the end, after you have heard what everybody has
said they can and can't do.
-------
Ill
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM HANSELL DIRECTOR OF ENVIRON-
MENTAL HEALTH. GEORGIA PUBLIC HEALTH DEPARTMENT
got so cold in July.
death. (Laughter)
We have a development newly created in the hydro-electric power
field, and some of it is right out here. This water came through an
electric conduit, through an electric shower outside.
I'm Bill Hansell, Director of Environmental Health of the Georgia
Department of Public Health, the biggest State east of the
Mississippi River, with the biggest effort in environmental health
east of the Mississippi River, in the Southeast at any rate.
Of course, let me say I don't know whether New York is east of
the Mississippi River or not. We don't count them folks up there.
(Laughter)
I have lived most of my life in metropolitan Atlanta. I was
born here, and I have seen the construction game change con-
siderably. As a youngster I was very thrilled to watch construction.
I can remember that there was a great deal of teamwork, not just
mules and drag pans but human beings that were working as team
workers. And there would be a boss who would sing a chant as the
work was being done, something to the effect, as you may recall,
"This old hammer—h-m-m-m—hit John Henry—h-m-m-m." Every
time that team leader would grunt, something would happen. Either
they'd lift a piece of pipe that weighed two or three tons—there
would be a dozen men on each side of it and move it a foot—or
several people would come down with sledge hammers on chisels
to break concrete.
They don't do things that way any more. Construction can get to
where it's not a pleasure to listen to. And we have heard a great
deal this afternoon. I have had my ears opened, not my eyes.
I heard about the spectators on this construction deal. I'm not
worried about the spectators. I'm worried about the poor character
that is stuck in the building who has a job to do that requires
some considerable concentration either for thinking, for conceptual
thinking, or for concentration on the machinery that he is working
with at hand or she at a typewriter and the like. These people
cannot escape the noise, and they are the ones that I worry about
in the construction field.
The staccato noise of the air hammer that is breaking the con-
crete, or the pile driver. There's one in the neighborhood of the
State Capitol where my office is now. The power company, thank
goodness, is building a new plant, but they are making a lot of
noise with it. They want us to know they're there.
But there are a lot of things in the construction field that I as
a spectator— "Spectator"? Is that a good word? I don't know
what else. It's not an "audiator."
Mr. BARON: It's all-encompassing—anybody other than the guy
working on the site.
Mr. HANSELL : That means looking. I'm not talking about looking.
I'm talking about being worried to death about a lot of racket
I can't control.
-------
112
Mr. BARON: Noise receiver.
Dr. MEYER: Maybe you're just a captive of a bum environment.
Mr. BARON: Very well put.
Mr. HANSELL: But these are the things we want to begin to
control in Georgia. We look forward to a time in the not too distant
future when we will get members of the industry and the con-
struction trades together to sit down and talk about what the person
in the captive audience, if you please, has to put up with and at
what levels he can perform.
I'm sure that at some time this morning—and I wasn't able to
be here to hear the papers but I understand they were very well
put forth—that there was evidence that sound does in fact at lower
than 90 decibels or 85, or whatever you please, cause considerable
annoyance.
I was sitting back there just a few minutes ago. Somebody on the
other side of that wall had a vacuum cleaner. It sounded like it was
trying to suck up some of our Georgia sunshine. (Laughter) But
this noise was very distracting. And yet it probably wasn't 90
decibels. I'm not that technical to know what level it would have
been, Dr. Okun. Maybe you thought it was a little stronger than
that in here. I didn't.
But there are distractions that we must worry about in our
environment. And there are a whole raft of appliances in the field
of construction, including the air compressors, pneumatic chippers,
concrete breakers. We have got a new device here in Atlanta that we
are real proud of. It's an automobile crushing machine. But the
poor devil who lives within a mile or mile and a half of it is going
to suffer from the noise from it I'm sure for a while.
There is a device that crops up everywhere in Georgia because
we raise a lot of wood, and that is the chain saw. This is a little
device, and the motor on it is no bigger than that pitcher, and you
can hear it for 2 or 3 miles. And if it's on a construction site near
your house, it can run you ragged, even more than the two kids
hollering in the cribs.
And there is, of course, the diesel equipment which has been very
adequately discussed.
I know it's a horribly expensive proposition, but I submit to you
that the control of environmental problems is horribly expensive,
and if we want to live in this environment—and we must—or die in
it—it's going to cost money, and you and I are going to pay the
price. There is no other way out of it.
I have a tendency toward being philosophical. If I may, I
would like to make a few observations.
Our environment is in large part what we make it. And our
environment to a frightening degree makes us what we are.
Now, there was a philosopher in the bygone era who made this
statement that has held through the centuries: As a man thinketh
in his heart, so he is."
There is a definition in the large Webster's dictionary on noise
that says, amongst other things, it's an unwanted signal that enters
the electronic communications systems or that is created in it and
that tends to interfere with the desired signals. I submit to you
that the thinking process, and the neurological process, in some ways
is an electronic system. Noise interferes with this.
-------
113
If as a man thinketh in his heart so he is is true, then I submit
to you that if the thought process is befuddled and distorted by
noise, thus will be the man.
As far as I'm concerned, noise must be controlled, and it will be
our intention in this State of Georgia to bend every effort to make
the environment livable from the noise standpoint.
Thank you very much.
Dr. MEYER: Thank you, sir, for for an excellent contribution to
our proceedings by adding to it not only some factual observations
on the spectator and on those who must put up with these situations
without any choice, but some well stated philosophy. Are there
any questions from the panel?
Professor Lyons?
Dr. LYONS : No.
Dr. MEYER : Mr. Baron ?
Mr. BARON : I was just wondering if you had any thoughts to
throw out. Have you reached a program development stage yet to
achieve this nirvana?
Mr. HANSELL : I have a young man sitting somewhere in this room.
I will not point him out. He is a graduate engineer, and he is doing
his best to pick up all the knowledge he can on noise. We will begin
a program in the field of the industrial hygienists, because this
is where a lot of these things start out—like our air pollution
control \vork started there—and eventually we hope to develop
this into a full-blown program.
It is going to take us some time, maybe even as much time as it
is going to take Dr. Meyer, but I hope not.
Dr. MEYER : Dr. Bender ?
Dr. BENDER : No questions.
Dr. MEYER: Mr. McCarthy?
Mr. MCCARTHY : No questions.
Dr. MEYER: Dr. Okun?
Dr. OKUN : Are you thinking in terms of specific regulations to
apply to the State as a whole? Or do you expect that it would be
variable from place to place, urban settings versus rural, and that
sort of thing?
Mr. HANSELL : This is one of the things that will come out of the
deliberations of this committee, but I would tend to think that in
the area of the community where we anticipate people to be awake,
say, in the work area, that we could probably anticipate tolerating
a little more noise levels than we could where we would anticipate
people being at rest where they live supposedly—although I live
downtown and I go home for a few hours every night. (Laughter)
Dr. MEYER: Well, I would echo one of your thoughts here and
say it slightly differently. A German philosopher, about 1840 or
so, said that the degree to which a civilization accepted noise was
sort of the inverse of their intellectual capacity. In other words, the
more stupid the society is, the more noise it would tolerate. And I
think perhaps that means the time has come for us to get smart.
So thank you very much, sir.
Is Mr. Mahoney here still ? Mr. Mahoney was going to offer a
few words, and I told him that if he chose, which apparently he
has, we would have him tomorrow.
Before recessing until tomorrow, let me say the following. I
-------
114
appreciate the fact that such a large group of interested people
has participated in today's hearings, and, further, I appreciate the
fact that so many of you have stayed with us through what has
been a long and, to me fruitful day.
Mr. Ruckelshaus, the Administrator of the Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, is most desirous that we get maximum interchange
with the various public, professional, and industrial interests, and
this has certainly gotten us off to a very good start.
We were going to show a film that the National Bureau of Stand-
ards has prepared. But with the intrusion into this environment of
some "Georgia sunshine" in a liquid form—which I can now say
since the representative of the State has said it—(laughter)—
I really think we ought to defer that. I am afraid that we may have
to start a little barge operation if we don't. So we will show this film
first thing in the moring at 9:00 o'clock. It is a very interesting, good
light and sound show, showing some various types of equipment
and the noise generated thereby. If you can bear with us and stay
with us we would appreciate it.
We have a large group of public witnesses, plus several people
who couldn't stay because of the change in schedule, and I am
sure they will be making a major contribution to tomorrow's pro-
ceedings.
I also would announce that, as is the case with any other public
hearing of this nature, we will hold the record open for 30 days from
tororrow, so in the event that any person in the audience has some-
thing that they feel they would like to have said or should have
said or want included in the record, I will be happy to receive it.
It will be incorporated. Such communication will be incorporated
in the official presentation to the Administrator and to the Congress
and become part of the official records.
So again, ladies and gentlemen, thank you very much. I appreciate
your help and assistance.
(Whereupon at 5:55 p.m., the hearing was recessed, to be re-
convened at 9:00 a.m., Friday, July 9, 1971)
-------
115
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING ON CONSTRUCTION NOISE
Friday, July 9, 1971
The hearing was reconvened, pursuant to recess, at 9:15 a.m.,
Dr. Alvin F. Meyer, Jr., Director, Office of Noise Abatement and
Control, Environmental Protection Agency presiding as Chairman.
PANEL :
Dr. Erich Bender, Bolt, Beranek & Newman
Dr. D. Lyons, Clemson University
Mr. R. A. Baron, Citizens for a Quieter City
Mr. Gerald P. McCarthy, Governor's Council on the Environment,
State of Virginia
Dr. Daniel A. Okun, University of North Carolina
ATTENDEES: (At July 9th session only)
K. S. Kronoveter, National Ins. for Occupational Safety & Health
George Allgood, FAA (Atlanta Airport)
James Rickard, FAA
Lutz Kohnagel, Engineer
R. L. Smelley, N.O.I.S.E.
Mrs. Charles Yarn, S.A.V.E.
R. H. Taylor, Liberty Mutual
R. O. Witte, Crum & Forster
Virginia Smith, Atlanta TB & RD Association
Frances Fisher, Atlanta TB & RD Association
Frances Gammill, Atlanta TB & RD Association
Marvin Cloer, Alliance for Labor Action
J. M. Benson, Citizen
Blanche Hood, Citizen
Harold Joyner, Decatur Civic Association
Charles Wilson, Georgia Tech
Priscilla Holman, Citizen
Thomas Muehlenbeck, City Manager, College Park, Ga.
Mrs. Robert Rea, League of Women Voters
Adele Northrup, Morningside-Lenox Park
Flay Sellers, Georgia TB & RD Association
Virginia Gaddis, Morningside-Lenox Park
Virginia Harbin, Georgia Conservancy
William J. Dougherty, North Georgia American Institute of
Architects
Mrs. James H. Carter, American Association of University
Women
Glen E. Bennett, Atlanta Regional Planning Commission
Furman Smith, S.A.V.E.
Mrs. Robert Meller, Private Citizen
Mrs. Elinor Metzger, Atlanta Fulton Co. League of Women Voters
Mrs. Donald Lyons
L. E. Abernathy, Atlanta Association, Senior Citizens Clubs
PROCEEDINGS
Dr. MEYER: Ladies and gentlemen, I am calling to order the
second session of the Environmental Protection Agency's public
-------
116
hearing on noise, particularly noise associated with the construction
industry.
Some of you were here yesterday, and I welcome you again. And
to those who are joining us for the first time today, I extend to you
the greetings and the appreciation of the Administrator of 'the
Environmental Protection Agency, Mr. William Ruckelshaus.
Again, by way of getting this underway, I would like, for those
of you attending for the first time, to say that these hearings are
being held under the authority of Act of Congress, Title IV, Public
Law 91-604, which requires that the Administrator of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency, through an Office of Noise Abatement
and Control, prepare a report to the Congress on the problems of
noise in the United States and what can be done about it. And in
preparing such a report, a series of public hearings must be under-
taken. This is the first of a series of eight hearings that will be held
around the United States to obtain information regarding noise as
an environmental problem.
Yesterday, we heard from a series of witnesses from various
segments of industry concerned with construction, construction
equipment, and construction operations. Today, we are going to hear
from a series of individuals who have an interest in noise in general
or noise problems, environmental and ecological.
We in EPA are deeply interested in obtaining facts. We want to
hear all sides of the issues relating to the environment so that we
may do a better job from the Federal Governmental viewpoint in
serving the public and the United States.
Before undertaking the presentations, we thought it might be
useful for us to show you a film on noise and noise problems that
has been developed by the National Bureau of Standards of the
Departmentof Commerce, one of our sister agencies in the Federal
Government. We will show this film now, and then later on today.
In case there are some people who want to see it again, it will be
available for showing during the noon recess.
(Film)
Dr. MEYER : Well, we hope that that gave you some impression of
the broad spectrum of acoustical energy to which the American
public is exposed, either because of choice or because they have no
choice, as was shown several times during tht
-------
117
about correct. N.O.I.S.E. stands for National Organization to Insure
a Sound-Controlled Environment. It is a relatively new organization,
having been in existence for less than 2 years. However, it claims
membership of more than 33 cities across the United States,
representing some 14 States, and serves as a spokesman for several
hundred thousand people.
I am E. L. Smelley. I am a member of the Board of Directors of
N.O.I.S.E. and am the Southeast Regional Director of N.O.I.S.E.
I am an elected official in College Park, Georgia, serving as Mayor
Pro-Tern of that city.
I would like to briefly comment on College Park and its noise
problem. College Park is immediately adjacent to Atlanta's Harts-
field International Airport, the fourth busiest airport in the Nation.
I have been a resident of College Park for over 18 years, predating
the introduction of jets in commercial service at Atlanta's airport
by more than 7 years, as have most of the citizens of College Park.
The Atlanta Eegion Metropolitan Planning Commission's com-
prehensive plan for airports dated September 1966, which is
ourrently being implemented by construction activities at the
Atlanta airport, identified noise as a severe problem, and they
recognized their responsibility for making, and I quote, "com-
prehensive surveys and studies of transportation facilities, land
use, public utilities, governmental facilities and services, natural
resources, and other physical, social, and economic factors, con-
ditions, and trends that are relevant to the probable future develop-
ment of the district, and to make and, from time to time as it may
deem proper, amend, extend, or add to the master plan for the
orderly growth and development of the district as a whole."
Yet their recommendations did not include any means of mitigat-
ing the noise problem. Indeed, their recommendations which are
presently being implemented at the airport are further compounding
the problem on the basis of air traffic alone without regard for
the derogation of the living environment of the many thousands
of people in the adjacent communities.
Further, their runway utilization according to FAA information
is based on convenience for taxi time and ground access without
regard for the impact on the airport's neighbors.
The reason for directing these opening comments toward the
situation that exists at College Park and the Atlanta airport is
because through the N.O.I.S.E. meetings I have been made aware
that the situation that exists here is not unique. It is being duplicated
many times at most major airports.
The inescapable conclusion is that FAA has defaulted in its
responsibility for the protection and welfare of the people on the
ground as well as the people in the air.
The Federal Aviation Act of 1958, section 307 (c), charged FAA
with the responsibility for "the protection of persons and property
on the ground." Despite this Congressional direction which was
incorporated in the Act establishing the Federal body, the FAA has
yet to recognize its responsibility for the welfare of the people
on the ground.
Recognizing the FAA's massive deficiency, the Congress in 1969
enacted the Environmental Policy Act and in 1970 authorized
the establishment of the Environmental Protection Agency.
-------
118
Why, gentlemen, was the EPA established? I would like to sug-
gest one major reason is to require the implementation of measures
which will tangibly reduce the exposure of hundreds of thousands
of people, of our citizens, to excessive levels of aircraft noise.
The question you may be asking yourselves at this moment is
what measures you may adopt which will be effective in reducing the
problem as soon as possible and which will fully resolve -the
problem in the future.
In response to this question, let me refer you to Dr. Meyer's
remarks when he spoke to the assembled delegates of N.O.I.S.E.
in Washington on May 19th of this year, and I quote again:
"Noise differs from most other environmental pollutants in
one very important aspect. The knowledge and technology exists
now to control almost every indoor or outdoor noise problem."
In these, the 1970's, where voters considering themselves to be
environmentalists certainly constitute a majority at the polls, the
highest levels of our governments are responding to citizens' needs
through both Congressional and Presidential actions.
The President has formed his Council on Environmental Quality,
and the Congress has now enacted specific legislation to improve
environmental quality by the establishment of the EPA. It has
also through enactment of the Airport and Airway Development
Act of 1970 directed that environmental quality not be degraded
through Federal expenditure for aviation facilities.
We believe that FAA is incapable of correcting its deficiency re-
garding its responsibility for the acoustic environment of the
people on the ground. Therefore, we ask that EPA establish noise
exposure standards and impose these standards upon the various
Federal agencies charged with the responsibility of promoting
and regulating all forms of transportation service.
We agree with Dr. Meyer that the knowledge now exists to
control and ultimately eliminate the aircraft noise problem. What
is lacking is the resolve to do it.
Acting as a spokesman for many thousands of people who are
daily subjected to unbearable levels of noise from aircraft,
N.O.I.S.E., the National Organization to Insure a Sound-Controlled
Environment, offers the following recommendations:
1. EPA acting together with Department of Housing and
Urban Development and Health, Education, and Welfare should
immediately set maximum limits on community exposure to aircraft
noise. These limits should be based on human acceptability criteria
rather than on technical achievability, as was FAA's responsibility
in adopting FAE Part 36, Federal Aviation Regulation Part 36.
It is submitted that HUD acting as chairman of the land use-
airport study panel of the Interagency Aircraft Noise Abatement
Program already has in hand noise exposure standards acceptable
for immediate adoption.
2. The Director of EPA should immediately take steps to amend
the wording of the Administration's noise Control Act of 1971
as it relates to aircraft noise. The existing wording relegates the
EPA to an advisory capacity only, wherein EPA may only re-
quest the FAA to review or revise the aircraft noise standard. In
this relegated capacity EPA is powerless. Only if the FAA and
-------
119
other government agencies are required to reduce noise exposure
to acceptable standards will significant noise reductions occur.
We submit that the EPA is the proper agency to establish noise
exposure standards and has under existing legislation requisite
authority to enforce such standards.
In closing, we have the knowledge, we have the goals, we have
the authority, and we must rely on EPA to have the will to act.
Thank you.
Dr. MEYER: Thank you very much.
Panel, any questions?
Dr. LYONS: I wonder could you leave us a copy of that? We
can copy it.
Mr. SMELLEY: Certainly.
Dr. LYONS: It is in the transcript, but it would be quicker if we
could have it.
Mr. SMELLEY : I would be happy to.
Dr. LYON : The clerk here can get a Xerox of your notes.
Mr. BARON : When you refer to HUD having standards for
human acceptability near airports, will you let us know what
document ?
Mr. SMELLEY : The document has not been published, Mr. Baron,
but I am advised by reliable sources that in the capacity where they
were acting as chairman of this study committee the various stand-
ards were developed and are a matter of record, and I feel they
certainly could be obtained and could be immediately implemented.
As a matter of fact, N.O.I.S.E. would like to suggest that a study
committee or a meeting be held in Washington wherein these
agencies are called together, HUD, HEW, EPA, and we would
also like to be represented.
Dr. OKTJN : Do you feel that the local agencies, local communities,
or even State agencies are powerless in this matter ?
Mr. SMELLEY : In the relegated authority which they have
presently, the only agency which really has the authority to act
now is FAA, and they have demonstrated their apparent unwilling-
ness, inability, or lack of desire to act.
Dr. BENDER: You mentioned that you would like to see limits
set on exposure to aircraft noise based on human acceptability rather
than technology feasibility.
Mr. SMELLEY: Yes, sir.
Dr. BENDER : Have you come up with any numbers that you
think are acceptable for sound levels?
Mr. SMELLEY : I think these numbers can be presented, and we
would like again, if such a meeting could be conducted in Wash-
ington, to present those collectively at that time.
Dr. BENDER: You say they can be presented. Does that mean
you have them?
Mr. SMELLEY : Yes, one of the representatives of our organization
has them. Were you not at the meeting in Washington, Mr. Bender ?
Dr. BENDER: Probably not.
Mr. SMELLEY : Well, we have a couple of people who have some
35 years' experience working in noise and acoustics, and such
standards have been developed that could be presented.
Dr. MEYER: Any other question?
(No response)
-------
120
I would like to make several comments. First, Mr. Smelley, I
appreciate very much the candid statement of your views and the
views of the organization that you represent. Secondly, I would
like to suggest that you arrange for an in-depth presentation of
your views on transportation noise, particularly highway and
aircraft noise, for our public hearings to be held in Chicago.
We have extended to your organization an invitation to appear
both at Chicago and San Francisco, where we will be discussing
standards, regulations rulemaking and some of the State and local
problems. So I would like to urge that we get this out into public
view at that meeting rather than here.
Mr. SMELLEY : Yes, sir.
Dr. MEYER: With regard to EPA's present role, I feel I must
remind everyone that the only real authority that this agency has
with regard to noise is as follows: To undertake study on the
noise problem, which we are doing in depth by exploring all of
the things that you have just mentioned—who is responsible for
what in the government, what their authorities are, how they are
exercising them, if at all, as well as all the various technical and
scientific information available—so that we can perhaps obviate the
need for a multiplicity of reports for the future. This ought to
be the report to end all reports, at least for the time being—not
that we want to shut off the flow of information. And part of
that, of course, is developing the kind of information you have
presented pointing out some of the problems.
The only other authorities that we have are those relating to
the part of the Act that has assigned to the Administrator of EPA
authority to require that he be consulted by other agencies when they
are undertaking actions that are going to result in noise that he
deems to be a nuisance or otherwise objectionable. Now, this of
course, does not extend backward, such as a review FAR 36. It
simply says that I now have for the Administrator, EPA, authority
to say to FAA, "If you are going to do certain things that are going
to create noise, you must consult with us and get our advice."
And related to that is the Public Law 91-190 requirement that
we review all environmental impact statements, which includes the
issuance of rules and regulations—we have denned that as including
changes in flight paths of FAA—and give the FAA our opinions.
As you know, these environmental impact statements are available
for wide public scrutiny and may even be the basis of citizen suits,
as they have been. This is the extent of the responsibility that we now
have.
So, while I wish I could do something more specific about some
of your recommendations, until Congress passes the legislation that
it is now considering, this Agency is primarily an information-
gathering and intent-review agency. The legislation that is pro-
posed, however, and I don't want to take too much of your time with
this, will give the Agency some rather extensive authorities.
I shall certainly communicate back to the Administrator your
recommendations. Of corse, as you also know, when it comes to
changing the legislation it is really a function of the Congress
rather than the Executive Branch. And we submit proposals, but
it is still up to the Congress to make changes such as you have
suggested. But I shall communicate the information that you have
-------
121
given us directly to those concerned with this matter. I do appreciate
your views, and they shall be included, noted, and acted to the fullest
extent possible.
Mr. SMELLEY : May I respond to your comments briefly ?
Dr. MEYER : Yes, sir.
Mr. SMELLEY: No. 1, regarding the legislation, of course, this
is one of our primary recommendations, and we recognize that it
does require enactment by Congress. But we can assure you that
N.O.I.S.E. and again the hundreds of thousands of people that
we represent will be pushing for this.
Dr. MEYER: Very good.
Mr. SMELLEY : Through their elected representatives.
No. 2, as we attempted to express to you upstairs briefly earlier,
Dr. Meyer, we recognize that you are authorized only to make
studies. However, our concern is that the technology, the knowledge
is available. Some things can be studied to death. We think that
action can be taken immediately which will provide tremendous
improvement of the problem.
And, No. 3, regarding the matter of aircraft flight paths, and
specifically relating it to FAA's role, we know that procedural
improvements have been developed by various airlines and which
have been implemented. I have copies of the flight bulletin in my
briefcase that has been developed by Captain Paul (Soderland)
of Northwest Airlines, which has reduced just through procedural
changes the level of noise by in excess of—well, 16 dB(A),
Now, 10 dB(A), as you are well aware, is reduction by 50 percent
of the noise level.
Now, we cannot understand where such knowledge and techniques
are available why an agency who has the responsibility does not
enforce this on other aircraft carriers.
Dr. MEYER: Well, as I said, I am most pleased to get this infor-
mation, and I assure you that we intend to act in a positive manner.
1 indicated in my remarks that we are not going to study this
problem to death. And I am most hopeful that we will have some
of the technical details at the session on aircraft noise in Chicago,
because I think this will get very high visibility. And we will
certainly take your recommendations and discuss this with the
appropriate parties.
Mr. SMELLEY: Thank you very much.
I have one further request. There has been a demonstration by
Northwest Airlines where they have demonstrated the techniques
developed. Three separate agencies have measured the improvements
in noise standards. And each of them recorded effectively a 16
dB(A) reduction.
The demonstration had limited exposure to the public. We would
request that EPA arrange for a similar demonstration to be con-
ducted again at Dulles airport if possible such that a number of our
elected representatives with whom we have already talked and who
have expressed a definite interest in observing these demonstrations
could attend and observe.
Northwest Airlines has indicated their willingness to participate
in the demonstration again, and we feel that Delta Airlines, the
Atlanta-based airlines, would also be willing to participate in this.
Dr. MEYER : Very good. In order to help us expedite making such
-------
122
arrangements, would you leave with the clerk the name of your
contact in both of those airlines.
Mr. SMELLEY : Yes, sir.
Dr. MEYER : We will take that under immediate advisement.
Dr. BENDER: Sixteen dB(A) is a phenomenal reduction. How did
they achieve that ?
Mr. SMELLEY: Strictly through procedural improvements.
Dr. BENDER: What sort of procedural improvements?
Mr. SMELLEY: I can leave a copy of the pilots' bulletin with you
if you would like a copy of it. That defines exactly the procedures
to be followed.
Dr. MEYER : Very good. Thank you very much. We appreciate,
as I said before, your candor, and I can assure you the Agency will
act as it is supposed to, which is with concern for the protection of
the environment.
Mr. SMELLEY: Thank you, sir.
Dr. MEYER: Thank you very much.
Has Mr. Grindley arrived?
(No response)
In that case, is, Mrs. Jones, the representative of the Sierra Club
present? Would you kindly come forward, and join us at the plat-
form?
STATEMENT OF MRS. WIRT JONES. SIERRA CLUB
Mrs. JONES: I am still a bit shattered from your early morning
presentation of some of the "pleasant" sounds that we experience
every day. I hope it won't interfere with my ability to present this.
The primary purpose of the Sierra Club, since it was founded in
1892, has been the preservation of wilderness.
Wallace Stegner said:
"Something will have gone out of us as a people if we ever let the
remaining wilderness be destroyed; if we permit the last virgin
forests to be turned into comic books and plastic cigarette cases;
if we drive the few remaining members of the wild species into
zoos or to extinction; if we pollute the last clean air, dirty the last
clean streams and push our paved roads through the last of the
silence, so that never again will Americans be free in their own
country from noise, the exhausts, or the stinks of human and
automotive waste.
"And so that never again can we have the chance to see ourselves
as single, separate, vertical and individual in the world, part of the
environment of trees and roads and soil, brother to the animals,
part of the natural world and competent enough to belong in it."
Today highway, construction noise, aircraft noise, and various
other unnatural noises threaten the solitude of that pitifully small
bit of wilderness which we have been able to wrest from the grasp
of the exploiters who would dam up, cut down, pave over, or
subdivide everything they can get their hands on. The peace and
solitude of wilderness is more and more frequently shattered by
the blood-chilling whine of a saw as the timber companies feverishly
reap hundreds of thousands of acres even in our protected national
forests. Even ancient redwoods, some of which were only seedlings
when Christ was born, are being desecrated; their magnificent
trunks come crashing to the ground so the people can have picnic
tables and fancy shingles.
-------
123
One of the greatest recent threats to the tranquility of wilderness
was the SST, which for the moment is dead, but not buried, and
which may even yet be resurrected and sent into the heavens.
Our most remote wilderness is now regularly subjected to sonic
booms and aircraft noise.
The highway departments create great pandemonium during
construction of more and more unjustified wilderness roads. This
pandemonium is rapidly replaced by a different kind of clamor as
the automobiles devour ever more elusive tranquility.
Because of the complexity of today's problems, the Sierra Club
has recently broadened its purposes to include protection of man's
total environment. In the cities, our homes, which were once con-
sidered our castles, are constantly inundated with noise as builders
bring in their great, deafening machines to tear down our com-
munities, rearrange the earth, and build fancy buildings for great
profits. Aircraft noises help deafen us.
We are forced to submit to the noises of destruction as our neigh-
borhoods are torn down to build more superhighways through our
cities, construction noises while they are built, and then constant
deafening, annoying levels of noise once built.
Why must we have these noisy corridors which disrupt our neigh-
borhoods and our lives forced upon us? Why is our government
mute to the distressed cries of its citizens who are trying to preserve
some tranquility and peace in their lives?
I would like to add that in Atlanta today we are experiencing
many problems with highways. There are citizens who do not wish to
have their neighborhoods destroyed by the noise and the vibration
of the highways. They are not being listened to, in spite of the
Environmental Policy Act. Citizens are having to take their cases
to court. They are being ignored. The highway department is totally
ignoring the citizens.
And noise is probably one of the biggest considerations in these
highways. And certainly the wishes and the feelings of the citizens
for peace and quiet should be a consideration.
I hope that when regulations are decided upon or you decide the
policy which the EPA will follow that they will include this con-
sideration especially of highways within the city as well as high-
ways through wilderness which are a great problem and really not
recognized as such by the highway department and by our govern-
ment in general.
Thank you.
Dr. MEYEK : Thank you very much.
Questions or comments?
(No response)
I have a couple of questions that I would like to direct to you
if I might, because I share your views, particularly about the wilder-
ness problem and the preservation of open spaces and tranquility.
One of the things that we have gotten very concerned about,
in addition to what you have documented, is the problem of noise
associated with the use of National and State Parks. I am talking
primarily about the use of motor bikes, snowmobiles, camping
equipment with motor generator sets, and equipment of this sort.
How does the Sierra Club feel or how do you feel personally, if
you don't think you can speak for the local clubs, about restricting
-------
124
the numbers of people that can use the National Parks and some
sort of a use restriction ? This would be in addition to any standards
we would publish. Part of the problem is the aggregation of large
numbers of these types of vehicles, which may necessitate the ban-
ning of motor bikes from the National Parks. We have been talking
with the Park Service about this.
Mrs. JONES: I am not familiar with the National Sierra Club
policy concerning motor bikes and this type of thing. But speaking
from a general knowledge of the policy of the Sierra Club, I would
say that, as I said, preservation of wilderness and animal enjoyment
of wilderness but not overuse of wilderness and not destruction.
And these things destroy the real purpose of wilderness.
So to me it follows that these things should be things, like motor
bikes, in my personal opinion, that do not belong in National Parks.
They tear up the trails and create permanent destruction. And from
what I have been able to read about the damage that noise does to
wild life, and so on, it is going to interfere with the ecology and
with the animal life, and so on, as well as being destructive to the
people who wish to use the parks.
And really when I say preservation of wilderness, we hope to
preserve the wilderness but not to see it overused, to keep it in as
natural a state as possible.
And such things as in National Parks such as swamps and areas
like this, some people feel that motorboats and the loud noises brought
in by man as he goes in to enjoy this are all right. My personal
feeling is that these should be left out as much as possible and that
the noise level should definitely be held down.
Mr. MCCARTHY: Mrs. Jones, we are familiar with this problem.
Up in Virginia it has become a problem in the offshore islands where
you have just the slightest disturbance by man causing certain
species of wild life to essentially abandon the area.
What I'm getting at is that yesterday we discussed in proposing
standards: Should we have varying levels of standards for vary-
ing situations ? Can you give us your opinion on this ?
Mrs. JONES: I think you very definitely should. For instance,
the highway department proposes highways through wilderness
areas which are annoying and they will keep animals away from
the area of the highway, and then they build "tunnels" or passages
under the highways for the animals when they build them through
wilderness areas or wild areas or park areas. And it is documented
that the animals will not use these tunnels.
The animals are going to move back away from any area where
there is a lot of noise. And as you said, some species of animals will
completely leave the area. And it interferes with the travel, the
ecology, because the animals cannot pass back and forth to thier
watering areas, and so on.
So I feel that very definitely this should be a separate type of
standard for areas where we choose to keep some wilderness or
parks or to preserve the ecology.
Mr. MCCARTHY: Another lengthy discussion we had yesterday
concerned whether the standards ought to be applied to the con-
tractors, to the operators, or to the equipment manufacturers, or to
the engine manufacturers, for that matter, for construction equip-
ment. Do you have any view on that?
-------
125
Mrs. JONES: I think they should be applied all the way down
the line, because as I was talking to the man from Ingersoll-Rand
yesterday, they put mufflers on their construction machines and
the men who drive the machines took them off in spite of the fact
some of them were even welded on.
And I think that you have to make it a regulation for everyone
and then no one can pass the buck saying that, you know, he didn't
know or that he wasn't responsible or that somebody else should
have done it and it should be enforced all the way down the line.
Mr. MCCARTHY: Thank you.
Dr. MEYER: Thank you very much. One comment that I would
make is that when the time comes for this Agency to set regulations
and standards I can assure you and everyone here that we are going
to again discuss the proposals with the public, so that we may get
all views taken into account in arriving at our regulations.
Thank you very much.
I understand Mr. Grindley of S.A.V.E. is now with us. Glad to
have you with us, sir, and we look forward to hearing from you.
STATEMENT OF GEORGE H. GRINDLEY, AUDIOLOGIST, AD-
MINISTRATOR OF DOCTORS MEMORIAL HOSPITAL HEARING
AND SPEECH CENTER. ATLANTA. GEORGIA. ON BEHALF OF
SAVE AMERICA'S VITAL ENVIRONMENT (S.A.V.E.)
Mr. GRINDLEY : Thank you.
I am happy to be here to present this paper for S.A.V.E.—that
is, Save America's Vital Environment. This is a nonprofit organi-
zation, located here in Atlanta.
My remarks will cover several areas, beginning first with esti-
mates of the amount of damage to hearing of people who work in
high noise levels.
Keliable estimates indicate that 15 million persons have some
hearing impairment and that hearing aids are indicated to provide
serviceable hearing in 1.5 percent of the male population between
30 and 39 years of age. This rises to 4 percent in the 50 to 59-year-
old age group. If we use an industrial population where men are
exposed to higher noise levels than in the general community,
26 percent of the 50 to 59-year-old group require hearing aids or
auditory assistance of some sort.
The Guide of Conservation of Hearing and Noise, prepared by
the Academy of Ophthalmology and Otolaryngology, presents a
table of damage risk criteria in which they state that if a person
begins his work at age 20 and works until he retires at age 65 that
he takes a risk of developing a hearing handicap if he works in
85 dB of noise or greater during his work life. The percentages
range from 6.5 percent if he works in 85 dB on up to 55 percent if
he works in 115 dB of noise.
Again, this table assumes he will be exposed during his work life
and retire at age 65.
What this says is that one out of every two people exposed to 115
dB continuously during his work life will have a hearing handicap.
A hearing handicap is usually denned as an average hearing level
of 26 dB ISO in the speech frequencies. However, in my experience
many handicaps are possessed by people who don't meet this cri-
terion. That is, they are unable to collect for compensation for
-------
126
hearing even though they have extreme difficulty in their normal
communications.
It is this last group that I am primarily concerned about because
compensation boards do not consider them to have a serious
handicap. However, experience proves that they do have serious
handicaps. Many people come to my clinic complaining of being able
to hear but not able to understand what is being said and they show
many signs of psychological impairments because of withdrawal
from social situations where communication is required. *
At present, the Occupational Health and Safety Act requires
that employers who allow 90 dB(A) to exist in their plants must
protect the hearing of their employees. However, the medical pro-
fession is aware that 85 dB can produce a hearing handicap. We
must remember that quoting this figure of 85 dB as causing a hear-
ing handicap indicates a prolonged exposure during the greatest
portion of a person's working life.
In recent testing of employees who work in a cotton mill, I
found 23 percent of 300 people tested failed the established criteria
of 26 dB ISO in the speech frequencies in one ear or both. It is my
estimate that approximately 15 percent of the 300 have loss pri-
marily due to noise exposure during their work life. These losses
were considered to be permanent threshold shifts.
It is known that up to 35 dB of temporary shift can occur during
a work day which leaves workers partially handicapped in the
evening hours until their hearing can return to their normal.
Some of the facts that we know about temporary threshold shift
follow:
1. The temporary elevation of auditory threshold which results
from one day's exposure to noise levels of 100 dB or more may vary
from no shift to 40 dB and we know that no two people respond
the same way to noise exposure.
2. Exposure to typical industrial noise produces the largest tem-
porary loss at 4000 and 6000 Hz.
3. The major portion of the temporary loss occurs during the first
1 and 2 hours of exposure.
4. The amount of temporary loss is roughly the same for the
same person from day to day but varies from person to person
according to a normal statistical distribution. That is, few persons
have very large or very small shifts and most of the losses cluster
around an average value midway between the large and small shifts.
5. The amount of temporary loss and its frequency location vary
with the amount and frequency location of the permanent loss.
The more the permanent loss at any frequency, the less the tem-
porary loss at that frequency.
6. Recovery from temporary or transient hearing loss occurs
mostly within the first hour or two after the noise exposure has
ended.
These statements are taken from Dr. Aram Glorig, who served
as the Director of the Subcommittee, Noise Research Center, Los
Angeles, California.
Moving now from some of the medical aspects of hearing loss, I
would like to describe some of the machines that are used in con-
struction-related work and their accompanying decibel measure-
ments.
-------
127
In much heavy construction work, machines with large power
plants produce a high level of noise. To mention a few, Caterpillars
of varying sizes are known to produce in excess of 100 dB of noise.
Air drills measured here in Atlanta on a construction site on a
public street measured 110 dB. Some are known to measure up to
120 dB.
Distance from the noise source to the ear has a lot to do with
the amount of dB exposure. That is, a person who is very close to
the air drill may experience 120 dB, whereas a person down the
street may experience 90 dB. A heavy diesel shovel used in quarry-
ing can produce in excess of 90 dB, as do pit trucks, also used in
quarrying. Hoist cranes and rock screens, integral parts of the
quarrying operation, emit from 90 to 110 dB. Bulldozers that are
all sizes generally produce in excess of 100 dB of noise. Front-end
loaders, which are very common in construction work, produce
95 dB. A cement truck pouring concrete will produce 100 dB.
All of the above readings are made on the "A" scale, which
is relatively close to the response of the human ear.
Work in textile mills can produce levels from 85 dB on up to
110 dB. Exposure in construction work can be for a continuous 8
hours, but in many cases there are intermittent delays during the
work day which allow some ear rest. In mills, however, the noise
is generally continuous except for a short lunch break.
We must remember that length of exposure has much to do with
the amount of loss incurred, not just overall level of noise.
Measurements made inside the cabs of large trucks measure in
excess of 90 to 100 dB. In many cases truck drivers will gut their
mufflers to give them more power, which in effect also gives them
more noise.
These are a few of the noise levels that are well known in con-
struction work and in other types of heavy manufacturing. Knowing
the problem, however, is only half the battle. It is desirous that
much of the high noise levels of heavy manufacturing equipment
be lowered below the damage risk criteria. However, in many cases
with our known technology this is impossible. There are many types
of industry where it is felt unapproachable.
Personal hearing protection is an avenue that can be useful
in preserving hearing. However, many problems accrue as a result
of trying to encourage workers to wear protection that they insist
they don't need because they have been in the noise for many years
and they still hear fine. I have tested employees in the work situation
that had a considerable hearing handicap according to compensation
scales. However, they checked a box indicating that their hearing
was good.
So much of hearing loss one becomes accustomed to if it occurs
gradually rather than suddenly. Many employees have told me that
the noise doesn't bother them, and it is simply because they don't
hear it as loudly as they once did. In other words, they are becoming
deaf. Hearing protection is somewhat uncomfortable in the begin-
ning, but one adapts to it readily as time passes. There is also the
accompanying feeling of fresh ears that many workers experience
at the end of the work day that convinces them that hearing pro-
tection is a good thing.
It is my feeling as a result of wearing hearing protection for
-------
128
several weeks and perhaps months and years that employees will
feel as attached to their ear protectors as they would to their glasses
or perhaps other safety devices that are well accepted in industry.
Preserving the hearing of employees exposed to high noise levels
is an extremely easy task if approached in the right spirit. How-
ever, it is not as easy to show concretely that hearing has been pro-
tected or hearing has been lost as a result of further noise exposure.
At present, hearing test measurement is an exact science that re-
quires careful calibration and training and can be accomplished
successfully, but this is not practiced widely throughout the country.
Hearing measurement is the only way to assess if your hearing
conservation program is adequately accomplishing the task of pres-
ervation of hearing. Hearing protection has been offered employees
in high noise environments for many years with varying degrees
of success. Many times the success is very limited because there were
no penalties associated with not wearing protection.
As I have seen the new Occupational Health and Safety Act
develop and employers come under its tentacles, I have seen a chang-
ing attitude toward dangerous noise exposure. I have witnessed
companies pulling together their resources to initiate hearing con-
servation programs and stating that if employees fail to wear hear-
ing protection they would be fired. I have seen employees buckle
under to this approach and accept the hearing protection as a
part of life.
It is my feeling that this legislation has been needed for years
and is accomplishing its desired goal, even though inspections
have not yet begun, to this date.
In industries where the noise problem has been identified but
nothing done about it, it is my hope that concrete steps will be
taken to protect the most precious of our physical senses, hearing.
Dr. MEYER : Thank you very much.
Any questions, panel?
Dr. OKTJN: I'd like to address one question. One of the major
problems associated with noise control, noise reduction, is the in-
creased cost of normal operations. In your experience with dealing
with large numbers of people and their hearing damage, have you
tried to make any assessment of the economic impact on this popu-
lation and perhaps then extrapolate into larger populations as to
what this exposure to noise has meant in more concrete terms than
just discomfort and disability?
Mr. GRINDLEY : Are you talking about cost of hearing conservation
programs ?
Dr. OKUN : Well, that in part, but also perhaps cost in terms of
employment, hours lost in employment, or less effectiveness in
employment or whatever measures might be used to assess the
economic impact of this hearing damage that has accrued to those
exposed.
Mr. GRINDLEY: I'm not familiar with records of time lost because
of hearing loss, but I am aware of some of the costs involved in
hearing conservation programs, and this of course, falls directly
upon employers.
Costs for hearing protection can vary anywhere from about
50 cents per pair of hearing protectors, ear plugs, on up to perhaps
$5 or $6 for a pair of earmuffs, and costs for him to hear himself.
-------
129
So over a period of years he becomes a shouter. In return his wife
becomes a shouter because she learns to communicate in the same
manner. So when the man listens to his television or his radio he
has to turn them up louder. His children become used to this loud-
ness and they have to scream in order to be heard.
So you see the man's quality of life, the quality of his family has
been impaired, and it's primarily because of this noise exposure that
he has had to become accustomed to in his work life.
Dr. MEYER: That was very well said, sir. Coming back to the
economics, I think what we are trying to come to grips with here is
a very difficult problem: in addition to these quality things what does
it really cost a person to have a hearing loss? And I recognize the
difficulty of trying to quantify that.
Let me ask you a question, since you are an audiologist. You
have explained part of this cost, which is really a change of a
person's whole attitude, social orientation. But assume the individ-
ual has actually gotten to the place where he has an actual hearing
loss. Assuming that he still can wear a hearing aid, what is the
normal cost to the individual of purchasing a hearing aid?
Mr. GRINDLEY : Well, the normal course that a person follows is to
first of all see a doctor. There is the necessary cost of seeing him.
Then, if it is done properly, he will go to a hearing and speech
center for what we call hearing aid evaluation, which generally runs
about $30 across the country.
Then he goes on from there to the hearing aid dealer where
he spends in excess of $300. And many times a man who has a
hearing loss due to noise has a higher loss in the high frequencies,
and therefore he has very unsatisfactory experience with a hearing
aid.
In many cases—and this is very common—people will wear the
hearing aid. Perhaps they were put under pressure to wear it by
their family members. And they will wear it for a few weeks, maybe
months, and then put it in the drawer and that's the end of that.
So you have a financial loss as well as a tremendous psychological
burden when the man says, "I'm sorry, I didn't understand what you
said," and pretty soon people get to the place where they say,
"Well, why waste my time with him when I can spend it so well
with other people who can hear me?"
Dr. MEYER : Before I defer to my colleagues on the panel, let
me ask you one other question, sir. There has been a great deal
said lately about an increasing temporary or permanent threshold
shift in the younger population of the Nation. Part of this is
attributed to loud music of discotheques, and part of it is attributed
to just the increasing background noise to which the total popu-
lation is subjected. Have you any experiences that seem to indicate
that we are seeing an earlier onset of hearing loss or more acute
hearing loss in the younger population?
Mr. GRINDLEY : At present, as I am sure you are aware, hearing
testing is accomplished between the frequencies of 250 Hertz on up
to about 8,000. We have seen some early research that shows that
high noise exposure tends to cause loss where there is no measure-
ment made—that is, 10,000, 12,000, ultrasonic frequencies.
And I suspect that there is an increasing amount of high
frequency loss that will eventually work itself way back into the
-------
130
usable area of hearing, and in some cases I see it already developing
in the 3,000, 4,000, 6,000 Hertz area.
However, I would like to add one thing. It seems like every time
people mention noise they automatically refer to rock. And I think
this is probably because parents have a certain amount of annoyance
and they want to put the finger on it. But I have tested a lot of
people who have worked in these environments, and the important
aspect is time spent in this high noise level and proximity to the
source.
110 dB is probably the most accurate average measure of rock
if you're right close to it. And if you play 4 hours a night or 6 hours
a night for every single night of the week for 3 or 4 years, you
probably run risk. But an occasional nightclub stint or a visit to
a nightclub is not going to do appreciable damage in my opinion.
Dr. MEYER : Thank you very much.
Dr. Okun.
Dr. OKUN : I have a question somewhat related to this. In your
experience, most of it apparently, and this is quite understandable,
has been with those who have been exposed in their occupational
setting. Have you any experience with patients who have come to
you and have suffered hearing loss who are in the area of sort of
innocent bystanders, those who have been perhaps residents near
construction projects or near airports?
In other words, other than occupational exposures, have you run
into anything of this sort?
Mr. GRINDLEY: No, I have not. Nothing more than a few griev-
ances, but no actually provable induced hearing loss due to being
closely associated with a noise environment except in the actual
work life. I have seen quite a few cases where they have lost hear-
ing due to work accidents.
Mr. MCCARTHY: Mr. Grindley, if I understood you correctly a
few minutes ago, you were saying that the cost of hearing loss is
essentially borne by the person w7ho has to suffer the hearing loss
in terms of doctor visits, hearing aids, and so. One of the things we
have been struggling with for some time here and went through
quite a bit of discussion on yesterday is how do you measure the
costs of quieting construction equipment and where are those costs
incident. And we kept talking about the economic cost of what
does it cost to get from 110 dB down to 85 or whatever number.
We kept trying to say, and Mr. Baron was pointing out, that these
are not the only costs involved. What about the quality of life
effects? And it seems to me here is at least a start on costs which
unless I'm mistaken are not borne by anybody except the victim.
Would you care to give us any further thoughts on that or would
you agree ?
Mr. GHINDLEY: Oh, yes, I think the least of our worries And,
of course, I'm not in industry so I can say this. But the least of
our worries is costs of lowering noise levels. I know it's extremely
costly. I know it's difficult. Every time you cut the power you lower
the dB rating 3 dB, and if you keep this up it's going to take a lot
of money to get it down to an acceptable area.
But my main concern is the human being and his response to his
-------
131
environment relative to noise, and I see a tremendous lessening of
the quality of life of people who have hearing loss early.
Now, I see it normally in older people, and it's expected. But
when I see a 23-year-old person come in with significant hearing
loss, that just burns me up when I know it's directly related to
noise.
Dr. BENDER: I have a question concerning the success rate of
getting people in hazardous occupational areas, hazardous from the
point of view of hearing conservation, to wear hearing protectors.
Do you have any feel for the percentage of people who are exposed,
say, to damage risk levels that do wear hearing protectors and the
percentage that don't?
Mr. GRINDLEY : I can't give you a figure to hang your hat on, but
I can tell you that in the research that I have read and the reports
that I have read prior to the onslaught of this new law there was
very poor acceptance, and I think that this is in part due to the
attitude of the employer: "Here it is. Wear it if you want," you
know. "It's for your benefit," you know. And there's not a lot of
importance put on it.
Now I see a change. I see them saying, "Look, you wear this
or I'm going to be fined $1,000," you see, and they're wearing it,
and they're presenting it properly to the employee, using movies
that are designed for this purpose, and they are trying to present it
from the point of view that "this is a benefit for you to heighten
the quality of your life; try it."
And then, of course, they take other steps like forcing them to
wear it.
And I see that this is a big improvement over the voluntary "wear
it if you want" approach.
Mr. BARON : Are most of the plants that have excessive noise levels
of a size that can afford hearing conservation programs?
Mr. GRINDLEY: Well, there again I'm not in industry and it's
hard to tell. But I'm aware of some of the costs of other safety
devices, and I know that they are high. And when I look at the
cost of a hearing protective device being 50 cents per pair and these
can be worn and preserved for some time, I don't think that's an
excessive cost for the benefit.
Mr. BARON: That isn't what I was driving at. A large number
of workers I understand that work in noisy plants work in small
plants, 20, 30 men. The question I'm raising is the economics and
the reality of having a hearing conservation program.
As I understand it, ear plugs should ideally be fitted—the
difference between two ears, and so on.
In your paper you give a feeling that if everybody wears ear
plugs the approach of reduction of noise level of machinery and
plant is not so important, and the question I'm raising is: If many of
your plants are indeed small, too small possibly to have hearing con-
servation programs that are effective, shouldn't we place more
emphasis on the reduction of noise?
Mr. GRINDLEY: Yes. I didn't mean to say that I think you ought
to ignore reduction of noise at the source. This has been recognized
by the law as being the primary place to stop noise, and I agree
with that. I'm saying that it's highly impractical, for example,
in a loom, in a mill. It's just very, very difficult to bring the
-------
132
level down in the foreseeable future. And right now I see the only
answer in some industries is personal hearing protection, but
certainly not the answer from now on.
Mr. BARON : Another question. Do you feel that construction
noise— Most of the work in hearing loss and occupational hear-
ing has been in fixed installations. Do you feel that the construction
industry poses a problem?
Mr. GRINDLEY : As far as noise exposure ?
Mr. BARON : Yes.
Mr. GRINDLEY: Very definitely.
Mr. BARON : It has been ignored, if you know, in the past.
Mr. GRINDLEY : Yes.
Mr. BARON: I also understand according to the paper by Dr.
Alex Cohen, Public Health Service—I forget his colleague on it—
that there is a problem with ear plugs in construction because of
the sweating and dirt and so on.
Mr. GRINDLEY: Yes. I foresee that problem also. I have worked
in heavy construction work, and I know the attitudes of a lot of the
workers, and I feel that this is going to be probably the hardest
industry to enforce hearing protection because you get up in a
cab by yourself and you pull these things out if they are uncom-
fortable, and that's the end of it until you get out of the cab again.
So there has got to be a change in attitude toward the quality of
life, understanding of hearing and hearing loss, and try to con-
vince people that this is for their benefit.
A lot of people don't care. I heard a man from Liberty Mutual,
a doctor consultant, tell me that in New York State in the forging
industry it's a badge of honor to have a hearing loss. They say,
"I got that hearing loss down at the forge, and I'm proud of it."
That to me is a litle bit warped, and I can't understand it, but
he says it's a fact.
Mr. BARON: These are some of the myths that exist that have to
be done away with.
You raise a very interesting point on page 2 which I am very
interested in—that is, the fact that the definition of handicap
leaves room for improvement.
Mr. GRINDLEY: Yes.
Mr. BARON : And I think it's a very important point, because then
in the use of ear plugs and other forms of hearing protection we
have to consider a safety factor, a margin of safety in terms of
the attenuation achieved by these devices.
Would you also have any comment to make about the develop-
ment of a DEC for the general public? I mean here we see more or
less inadequate DRC for occupational hearing loss. Do you believe
that the general public should have perhaps a better goal or better
objective in terms of retention of its hearing than the one we
assign to the working force, industrial working force?
Mr. GRINDLEY: Well, as far as damage risk criteria, the law
states now 90 dB, and the medical profession recognizes 85 as being
a risk. I would say that any laws made relative to a specific damage
risk level in our environment should be kept down to 85 or lower
as far as the general environmental level.
Mr. BARON: What I'm driving at is I understand that to hear
speech fully that you are able to hear up to 6,000. Is that correct?
-------
133
Mr. GRINDLEY: Well, it's hard to determine exactly. 2,000 and
3,000 seem to be primary frequencies for understanding of high
frequency consonants. I imagine the addition of higher frequency
sounds would make your understanding fuller, richer, if I may use
that word.
Mr. BARON : More of the texture of the human voice. So we are
talking in a sense about a problem that the criteria we now use really
give you the bare bones of speech,—
Mr. GRINDLEY: Bare bones.
Mr. BAROK : —change of relationship to—
Mr. GRINDLEY : You can hear it, but it sounds weird, like you're
talking in a copper barrel or something like that. And when en-
vironmental noises are introduced—say you're speaking at a level
of 50 dB and someone turns the V up to 70 and the vacuum cleaner
is running—you're out of it. You just can't hear even if they shout.
You still miss the high frequency consonants that are masked. So
you're out of it until someone turns that thing off.
Mr. BARON : So you would agree we should be doing some think-
ing about a hearing conservation program for the general public
that is more liberal, shall we say, and more protective than the one
we now have for—
Mr. GRINDLEY : I would say that would be a good direction.
Mr. BARON : Thank you.
Dr. MEYER: Any other comments?
(No response)
Thank you very much, sir.
I would now like to invite Mr. Thomas Muehlenbeck City
Manager of College Park to come forward. We're pleased to have you
with us, sir.
STATEMENT OF THOMAS MUEHLENBECK. CITY MANAGER,
COLLEGE PARK, GEORGIA
Mr. MUEHLENBECK : Thank you, sir.
My name is Tom Muehlenbeck. I am the City Manager of College
Park. The city does appreciate the opportunity to make some type
of a presentation before this group this morning. This is in direct
connection with the N.O.I.S.E. presentation that was made.
Further, what I would like to attempt to do is to bring down
the noise problem to a more local level more in the area of aircraft
noise and its effect upon the city of College Park.
The City of College Park is a community of 20,000 citizens. Its
physical limits actually abut the city of Atlanta airport on the
east side. Landings and takeoffs from this, the third busiest air-
port in the Nation, cause untold hardship and agony to many of
the residents of the city of College Park.
Hardly any area within the city-limit boundaries escapes the
resounding noise of jet aircraft engines around the clock. The two
areas of the city, however, that are continually bombarded with
aircraft noise are those areas that lie immediately in the runway
path.
Much of the area that makes up the Atlanta airport that allows
construction and extension of the runways lies within the city limits
of College Park. That area was developed over an extensive period
of time for single-family homes. When the airport decided to ex-
-------
134
pand, these homes were purchased by the city of Atlanta and cleared
for airport purposes. The city of College Park has lost well over
10,000 of its residents in the expansion of this airport facility.
With the advent of the jet engine on commercial airlines and
the somewhat exclusive use of jet engines by the major carriers in
the Atlanta airport, the noise problem has grown immeasurably.
The schools which lie in the flight path are harassed daily in such
a manner that classes have to be stopped until the airplanes pass
over before the classes can resume.
As experienced in many of these school classes, interruptions are
so frequent due to the close pattern in which the airplanes depart and
land from the Atlanta airport, the entire class day remains a sham-
bles.
Schools in this area also have a great deal of difficulty in hiring
and maintaining the teachers for these facilities.
Efforts over many years in an attempt to get the Federal Govern-
ment involved for the purpose of air conditioning these schools
so they could close the windows, which would reduce some of the
noise, have been to no avail. Just the past year, however, two of
the schools were approved by the county for air conditioning.
The problem even extends to the churches that are in the im-
mediate area. Congregations even have to suffer on Sunday it
appears.
Kesidents that live in this area, therefore, are constantly com-
plaining about the amounts of noise that are being emitted from
the jet aircraft.
Gentlemen, I would like to extend this discussion a little bit
further and bring the point maybe even home a little bit more
effectively in relation to a recent denial by the Housing and Urban
Development Agency of an urban renewal program based on the
factors of noise, and I will also relate a little bit later to this point.
The city of College Park began in 1960 an urban renewal pro-
gram. A general study area was adopted and approved by the mayor
and council.
If I could take just a moment of time, I would like to show the
area that I am talking about on this map. This is the area that I
have reference to that is shaded in blue, yellow, and red, which is
in the northern part of the community you can see in this area.
Dr. MEYER: Excuse me, sir. Would you mind just turning that a
little bit so the audience can see this also?
Mr. MUEHLENBECK. : You can see in this area is the southernmost
runway, and in this area is the northernmost runway, that I would
say actually protrude into the city limits of College Park.
I will hold this up just for the purpose of showing this general
area as described here as the area that was established in 1960 for
a general neighborhood renewal proposed area. The area that was
outlined in blue, the very small portion, was approved as the first
urban renewal project for the city of College Park, and it is
rapidly being closed out at this time, very successfully I might add.
In September of 1967 the city submitted a survey and plan-
ning application to complete the urban renewal activities in the area
that was denoted in red and yellow. In February of 1968 the city
was notified by HUD that we could not proceed with this project due
to the proposed expansion of the Atlanta airport.
-------
135
In the same letter HUD suggested the city might undertake a
feasibility study to determine the feasibility of its urban renewal
program. Hence, the Federal Government approved a grant of
$101,608 to the city to undertake the subject study. This is strictly
a 100 percent grant by the Federal Government, of which a third
would be due and payable back to them only if the city participated
in a new urban renewal program.
The city engaged Eric Hill Associates, Inc., planning consultants,
to coordinate the study. The Georgia Tech—Institute of Technology
—was chosen to make pertinent acoustical studies. Mr. Julian
(Diaz) was chosen as the market analyst to determine the effects
of the close proximity of the Atlanta airport on commericial,
residential, and industrial property market.
As a result of the combined findings of said consultants, it was
determined in no uncertain terms that it was highly desirable and a
feasible to continue urban renewal activities on a modified basis.
And, gentlemen, that modified basis would mean the cutting down
of the second project area which is demonstrated here on this map.
Again this would be the section in yellow.
The area was reduced. Based on the conclusions of this infor-
mation gained in the subject study, the city submitted a revised
project which was accompanied by the feasibility study. This is
the $100,000-plus feasibility study. This was submitted in June of
1970 to HUD for their review, for their normal review.
Gentlemen, to make a long story short, on June 1 of this year,
1971, we were advised by the Housing and Urban Development
Agency that the urban renewal program would not be allowed.
I would like to just read two or three excerpts here for your
consideration. This letter is coming from the Assistant Regional
Administrator for Renewal Assistance.
"Aside from market considerations is the environmental considera-
tion. At present people are willing to live in this area despite the
unpleasantness of airplane noise because they find the desirability
of location offsets the undesirability of noise. Also much of the
existing development was done and investments made before traffic
at the airport had increased to an objectionable level. It is proper
for the private real estate market to continue to build houses in the
area if it will and sell or rent the houses at prices or rents which
reflect a balance between desirable and undesirable features, but for
the Federal Government to subsidize housing in this area through
the urban renewal program or FAA subsidy programs would be
improper. The quality of life will be adversely affected in various
ways.
"For example, despite heavy soundproofing and air conditioning,
outdoor living will be curtailed. Also the noise has its ill effects on
health and disposition over a period of time even with insulated
homes. People should not be encouraged to live in this environ-
mentally unsatisfactory area by the use of Federal subsidies to
reduce the cost of living there.
"We recognize the hardship to College Park from our conclusion
and regret this. However, we believe we must base our decision on
the good of the larger community with its other sites for residential
construction.
"We conclude the Federal Government should not fund any pro-
-------
136
grams for the development of residential usage in this area since
the environment would be substantially below the quality desirable
for human habitation."
Gentlemen, just very briefly, what they are saying is they will
not allow Federal subsidy programs, Federally-financed programs,
to be utilized in this area.
It's quite ironic that only 60 days prior to us receiving this, FHA
approved a 236 unit housing project that is well within this area and
not only abuts it but is within this area.
The city feels like it's caught right in a tight squeeze here between
governmental agencies, governmental jurisdictions, that are appar-
ently talking out of both sides of their mouth coming back to the
same problem of noise.
We feel that if not urban renewal, then the Government ought to
give us another avenue to travel to relieve the hardships on the area
that were brought about by no fault of the residents of that area.
The Government was certainly a party to the problem in their
various subsidy grants, etc., to the airlines and to the city of Atlanta.
The people, the citizens, of College Park were there first. We
certainly don't want to stop the expansion of the airport. We just
want to be able to live with it.
Gentlemen, with some of the brief facts in mind, I would like
to just list four things the city of College Park is attempting to do
in this area.
No. 1, the city has joined and has taken a very active part in
the N.O.I.S.E. organization. We feel that this will be one way that
we will be able to press for Federal legislation in the future years.
Secondly the city is considering a very comprehensive noise
ordinance.
Thirdly, the city will be in the very near future purchasing test-
ing equipment to register the amount of noise that the aircraft are
actually causing over all parts of the city.
And, fourthly, we will continue to press for Federal legislation
concerning retrofittings and Federal noise pollution legislation.
Gentlemen, I appreciate the opportunity very much this morning.
Dr. MEYER: Thank you very much.
May I ask if you have copies of that map and your correspondence
that we could have for the record ?
Mr. MITEHLENBECK : Sir, I will make it available to this group.
Dr. MEYER: Would you, please?
Mr. MTJEHLENBECK : Yes, sir, I will.
Dr. MEYER: If you can mail it to us in Washington I would
appreciate it very much, because I want the record to be as complete
as possible. And I particularly would like copies of the corre-
spondence that you referred to.*
Dr. MEYER: I have several questions, but, panel, any questions?
Mr. BARON : Just one question. Insulation is often said to be, you
know, a panacea for the airport homes. I don't happen to agree
personally. But you made some reference to HUD stating that in-
sulation is not a satisfactory answer, one reason being given because
there is the outdoor life to be considered.
From your own personal point of view, do you care to make any
* The documents referred to are on file at the Office of Noise Abatement and
Control.
-------
137
comments on this business of insulation and why you do or do not
feel that it is a satisfactory answer?
Mr. MUEHLENBECK : I think it is a very good point. I do not feel
that insulation will be the total factor simply because of the point
that was raised by the HUD agency, the fact that the people will
be outside of their homes on a number of occasions.
I think the point that is overlooked, however, is the point that
is made time and time again in that the efforts of this group, the
Federal legislation that is pending, the fact that jets are becoming
quieter, if that is palatable at all, do relate that down the road we
will not have this problem or to the extent that we have it now
through the efforts of many of the groups.
So I do not believe that a program getting turned down simply
because of the noise on the outside because it's uncontrollable at
this date certain is a justifiable argument, sir.
Mr. BARON : I just wanted to clarify. Are there any other points
beside the fact that people go outside that would make objection-
able the insulation of homes? You make two points. One is that
some day the jets might be quieter so the investment would have
been not worthwhile or not necessary at that time. Are there any
other reasons why you think that insulating the home near an
airport is not an answer to the problem? You have given two.
Are there any other? Anything about the quality of life as far as
the insulated home is concerned?
Mr. MUEHLENBECK : Let me go a little bit further than what I
have said and put out the point of land use as possibly another
area. Maybe I am attempting to still skirt around the issue. But
I think land use, that was pointed up in the feasibility study
that was made, also the arrangement of the structures, would
cause the residents of the area not to have the full effects of the
noise aside from insulation, sir.
The arrangement of the structures on the property itself would
provide some benefits to the people even if they were outside of
their structures.
Mr. BARON: I'm not going to quote you, but the impression
I'm getting is that there is some feeling that to insulate a home
would sort of provide an encapsulated life experience and might to
some people serve as a substitute for progress in noise abatement.
Mr. MUEHLENBECK : I'm glad you wouldn't quote me on that,
because that's not what I'm saying at all I do not believe. I don't
think that we as government officials can sit back and &ay that
this would be the total answer or the answer would be to stay in
your home, that this is the only safe place. I think what we are
trying to say is there are other alternatives to this insulation.
Dr. METER: You're talking, of course, about special insulation
for noise? I believe Atlanta is a moderately Southern location
in which insulation for protection against the heat might not
be inappropriate.
Dr. OKUN : To what extent does the city of College Park have
zoning which would in some way direct the construction of
schools, churches, and houses away from areas that would be
most impacted by the airport?
Mr. MtiEHLENBECK: Yes, very, very definitely the planning
commission does take items of this nature into effect. However,
-------
138
the only point we can come back to is the fact that these schools,
churches, and residential developments were there prior to the
advent of the jet aircraft, and it's somewhat hard now after the
fact, so to speak, to provide the necessary zoning that is necessary
to keep the people away from this noise.
But if we were to do that, if we were to zone out of existence
these uses, we would also be zoning out of existence most of the
residential area of the city also, sir, that is affected by this aircraft
noise.
Mr. MCCARTHY: I think I heard you say you are considering
a comprehensive noise ordinance for your city. Are you in a position
yet to comment on the extent of that vis-a-vis national standards
or State standards or anything like that?
Mr. MTJEHLENBECK: No, sir. This ordinance is in the process of
being drafted, and all these are being taken into consideration.
When I speak of a comprehensive noise ordinance, however, I'm
speaking of an ordinance that goes far beyond the aircraft noise.
It would be an ordinance that will cover all types of noise within
the city.
I don't know how the enforcement is going to come about, how
you're going to enforce it with the jet aircraft, but I believe we
are going to give it a try.
Dr. MEYER : Dr. Bender.
Dr. BENDER : One quick question. You mentioned that 10,000
people moved out when the airport expanded. How were these
people related to the airport? Did they all live in the area that the
airport expanded into or did some of them move out because they
were tired of hearing the planes or did they work in areas—
Mr. MUEHLENBECK : No, these people were people that were di-
rectly in the airport expansion area.
The study that was mentioned also as a part of a feasibility study
has shown that homes in College Park that are in this noise area
are very comparable in sales with homes in the metropolitan area
that are not in this noise area, that the homes are not having
problems in selling. This was something that the Federal Govern-
ment I guess took with a grain of salt, but we have the documented
proof to this effect, almost on a house-by-house basis of comparable
size, style, and setting.
Dr. MEYER: In regard to that, because this is very interesting
information, would you be able to give us some documentation.
Mr. MTJEHLENBECK : Yes, sir.
Dr. MEYER : I'd like to have that.
I have a couple of questions. As I said, I am trying to get all the
facts I can on all sides of these issues. You mentioned something
in a quote about the market situation. You say HUD said "the
market situation aside." That could be taken in two ways. One,
"there is no real market problem, so forget about it." Or, two,
"it could be that you've got a heck of a problem but in spite of
that we're saying we can't do anything for you." Would you clarify
that for us ?
Mr. MUEHLENBECK : I believe, sir, it was used in the context of
changing the subject was what he was attempting to do here.
Aside from the marketing conditions he was going into a new subject
at that point.
-------
139
Dr. MEYER: I guess the question I was asking was: Is there a
housing shortage in College Park?
Mr. MUEHLENBECK : No, sir, I would not say there is a housing
shortage at all. The statement was at the beginning of a new para-
graph. It said, "Aside from marketing conditions is the environ-
mental consideration."
Dr. MEYER: The point was made in a Congressional hearing I
attended the other day, where a similar ruling had been made by
HUD pertaining to a location in which there was a housing shortage,
and a request had been turned down on a similar basis. I just wanted
to see whether you have a similar problem here.
Mr. MUEHLENBECK : We were experiencing a great deal of growth
as most metropolitan Atlanta is, not necessarily in single-family
homes but in apartments.
Dr. MEYER : As I said, I wanted to get that clarified so we know
exactly what we were talking about. You raised another point on
which I would like to at least get your view. I was visited the other
day by a gentleman from Japan representing a similar group to
N.O.I.S.E., and he pointed out that in that country in the develop-
ment of airports and airport operations they have established, be-
cause of the difference in their Federal national structure, a com-
pensation provision. This provision allows, if noise is impacting the
properties adjacent to an airport, that rather than condemning,
requiring people to move, or restricting further development, the
people are provided, in effect a subsidy if they want to stay.
I got a feeling from something you said that some of the people
might want to stay there anyway and if it were a lower cost private
property that maybe people would. Do you feel that we should
look into this question? It's not really damages now, you realize.
It's sort of a subsidy. I have some feelings against that approach.
As a local governmental official how would you feel about that
approach ?
Mr. MUEHLENBECK : I would certainly not suggest the subsidy
approach. I'm afraid I'd have to back up on another term you
used, which is damages. I feel there are some very real damages here
in this area.
Dr. MEYER: Thank you very much. I think your statements
have been extremely useful, because we need to get the view of
the big city and the little city, too. I would appreciate your sending
that material.
Mr. MUEHLENBECK : Thank you, sir.
Dr. MEYER : Is Mr. William Dougherty of the American Institute
of Architects here? Please come forward, Mr. Dougherty. We are
happy to have you here.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM J. DOUGHORTY. NORTH GEORGIA
CHAPTER. AMERICAN INSTITUTE OF ARCHITECTS
Mr. DOUGHORTY : I have an extremely short statement to read
from AIA.
Dr. MEYER : Very good, sir.
Mr. DOUGHORTY: I am with the North Georgia Chapter of the
American Institute of Architects. I am Chairman of the Ecology
Committee of this Chapter. We represent approximately 485
members and 125 firms in North Georgia.
-------
140
The statement is thus: We as a chapter of the American Institute
of Architects have not considered the problem of sound in any
specific categories and are not prepared to offer any specific solutions
or recommendations other than to state that we believe that sound
abatement standards should be established.
For the record, we believe these hearings are important and
that due to the very short notice of this, the Atlanta hearing, we
hereby formally request that scheduled hearings around the country
be held and not be influenced by the success or failure of this one.
Thank you.
Dr. MEYEK: Thank you very much, sir. We are hopeful that the
AIA will be present either on a regional or a national basis at the
hearing in Dallas, which will be dealing with the problems of urban
planning and noise in the home and architectural arrangements.
We realize that the Institute has an interest in construction since
it helps design things. We were hopeful that you would at least be
here today and say as you have. And we are going to have about
6 weeks from now, considerable input from the architects in the
Dallas program bacause we feel it's a very important element of
your professional concern. I appreciate your coming.
Mr. BARON: Let's take advantage of you while you're here. I'll
just ask you this question which I am sure will be gone into in
greater detail in Dallas. That is, what can the architect do in
terms of construction? I'm not talking about design of the structure
itself but the construction phase, which is our main consideration
here. How much influence do you have in the builder's specifica-
tions? Let's say we wanted quiet put into the specifications during
demolition and excavation and erection processes.
Mr. DOTJGHORTY: I believe this is why I stated that I feel that
standards should be set, some standards should be set, so that then
the problem is given to us on how to solve the problems.
Our work directs itself to codes and standards and economy, and
without having this criteria, without setting it arbitrarily ourselves,
we have nothing to work towards.
I believe that the architects can or will put forth the very definite
effort of new ways of doing things once they have some type of
goal they have to meet. I think we can do it. What exactly these
things are I don't know.
A gentleman stated last week he has been asked to use rubber
hammers.
Well, with the various construction techniques and using the
materials we have to work with and the equipment we know that
the contractors have to work with, we will have to devise methods
of doing it. I really don't know at this time what they would be.
Mr. BARON : I'll give you a "for instance." Like yesterday it was
revealed here at the hearing there are quieter compressors. Could an
architect use his influence in this way at this stage of the game with-
out any city laws or State or Federal laws—
Mr. DOTJGHORTY: Oh, certainly.
Mr. BARON : —to recommend these ?
Mr. DOUGHORTY: We write the construction specifications. In
those specifications are performance specifications. We include
safety regulations which may or may not be required by law locally
-------
141
or whatever where we are working. We require cleanup regulations to
keep the city clean and safe from noise.
You say "noise." We just say "noise." We don't know. You go out
and say, "You're too noisy." They say, "What's too noisy?" And
you can't tell what "too noisy" is at this point.
But when I say "too dirty," that that pile of junk there is too
dirty and get it away from here, we can certainly control this. And
we have the methods, the construction documents, which are the
legal documents for the construction of the facility. We have the
tools to enforce a standard if we had a standard.
Mr. BAKON : You do have one in the Occupational Health and
Safety Act, for example, that goes into eti'ect the end of August,
which refers to Walsh-Healey, as far as hearing loss is concerned.
So that in a construction project you may have some tools there
that we hope will spill over—not spill over but protect the environ-
ment too.
But, anyway, thank you too. I think you have answered the
question that the architect can indeed play an important role in
the specs that will influence the construction phase of the operation.
Dr. MEYER : Following up on that, one of the things we hope to do
with the architects, the professional engineers, and Association of
General Contractors is arrive at some meaningful guidelines in this
area, and we intend to do this in a highly cooperative manner.
Do any other panel members have a question?
Mr. BARON: May I just clarify one other thing? In relation to
the cleanup operations, and we'll say there were a noise standard,
would the architect be the person for liaison before the contractor
in terms of a specific construction project? Would he be a good
person to have liaison with prior to contact with the contractor if
there are problems ?
Mr. DOUGHORTY: You mean in an effort to set the standards or
set criteria ?
Mr. BARON : Well, where a standard is not being met or there is
a problem.
Mr. DOUGHORTY: Well, I think yes and no. The contractor has
to be included because he knows what his limitations are, and we can
set limitations on him whereby he cannot build what it is that he has
to build. I think the architect is the first person to contact, but I
think the contractor has to be included almost immediately in
what's happening because he knows—
Mr. BARON : But the architect should be contacted ?
Mr. DOUGHORTY: Oh, definitely. And as soon as these things are
done I know that locally we will have committees set up and study
committees set up and go right into it on a chapter basis. But until
this time we have not done this.
Now, there may be individuals within this chapter who know
much more about sound abatement than I do at this point in time,
but I don't know who they are. There are people who know much
more about decibels that I know but I don't know who they are.
But once we have this regulation or have something to go by, we
can pull these people out and develop something very quickly I think.
Mr. BARON : Thank you.
Dr. MEYER: Thank you very much.
Is Mr. John Glenn of the Citizens for Clean Air present?
-------
142
(No response)
Since Mr. Glenn doesn't seem to be here, is Mr. Glenn Bennett
of the Metropolitan Planning Commission here?
(No response)
In that case I shall proceed to the next gentleman who has asked
that he be heard, Mr. Jack Benson. Would you kindly come forward,
Mr. Benson ? Nice to have you with us, sir.
STATEMENT OF J. M. BENSON. COLLEGE PARK. GEORGIA
Mr. BENSON : Sir, I think I feel about as invited to this meeting
as one can get. I don't know that you recall it, but I have a letter
from you inviting me.
Dr. MEYER: Good. That's right.
Mr. BENSON : I have a letter from Congressman Fletcher Thomp-
son inviting me and a telephone call from Mr. Smelley who urged
me to come. So here I am.
Dr. MEYER : I recollect your letter, sir, and I think we said, that
since you had some strong views on the subject we would be very
happy to have you come and air them in public.
Mr. BENSON: Thank you, sir.
This testimony is given from written material so that there will
be no question as to what was said. Two exhibits are offered in
connection with this testimony:
First, the publication to which Mr. Smelley referred, the official
minutes of the First National Symposium on Jet Noise, Los Angeles,
California, January 20, 21 and 22, 1971.
Second, file of correspondence dating back to 1962 with various
officials and agencies at the local, State, and Federal levels.
So I have not been idle in this matter, sir.
Dr. MEYER: Thank you, sir.
(The material referred to follows:)
Mr. BENSON : The noise level of a jet aircraft on takeoff is equal
to or in excess of 120 decibels, for beyond the ability of normal
human beings to withstand. Just prior to touchdown on landing, the
screaming, whining, unbelievable noise is accompanied by a pall of
dense, black smoke, followed by miniature tornadoes of incredible
velocity which twist trees and lift shingles from rooftops. And I add
here, sir, this is personal observation.
This testimony is presented on behalf of a once peaceful com-
munity named Newton Estates in College Park, Georgia, located
less than 1 mile from the west end of runway 9L/27R at the newly
designated Hartsfield Airport. This community of more than 1,000
homes is being systematically, sadistically, and utterly destroyed by
noise and smoke from monstrous jet aircraft which passing just over-
head make a shambles of our homes, a mockery of our attempts
at Christian worship, and a hell on earth of our physical and mental
lives.
Each individual aircraft is controlled and directed by an agency
of the Federal Government—namely, the Federal Aviation Admin-
istration. The noise and smoke pollution described above are an
ugly, cancerous blight on our existence 24 hours a day, 7 days a
week, and we are literally being annihilated in a vicious maelstrom
of hellish noise and suffocating smoke.
In the broad-brush treatment, nearly everything that could be
-------
143
said here has been adequately covered in the official minutes of the
First National Symposium on Jet Noise. There are, however, at
least three pertinent points which are of such importance as to merit
separate recognition in this public hearing.
In the first place, anyone who would move anywhere near a
modern-day jetport is either (1) densely and hopelessly ignorant,
or (2) out of his mind, or (3) completely immune for some reason
to dehumanizing noise and smoke pollution, an unlikely occurrence.
Many of us in the Newton Estates community, however, have
been unwittingly entrapped by a condition not of our making, utterly
repulsive to normal life styles, and about which we have been un-
able to do anything to extricate ourselves.
In my own case, nearly 21 years ago I moved with my family
into the middle class neighborhood described above. There was an
airport "way over yonder in the woods," but nobody paid much
attention to it, and it was a good neighbor. Propeller planes flew
over but were accepted with a shrug.
Over the years, especially since 1962 with the advent of jets, this
former good neighbor has become an engulfing monster which has
moved its massive, devouring maw to all practical intents and pur-
poses right in my yard, with the encouragement, blessing, and fi-
nancial backing of the Federal Aviation Administration, to a point
where it is now in, around, above, and on my property.
I am now located—certainly not by choice but by substantially
illegal confiscation of my property—within 1 mile of the west end
of runway 9L/27R of the Hartsfield Airport.
Secondly, 9 years ago I began my protestations for relief from this
intolerable, inhumane situation. As of this date, nothing. Absolutely
nothing. Those agencies purportedly dedicated to protection of the
rights and very lives of citizens at the local, State, and Federal
levels are by and large abysmally negligent where noise pollution
is concerned.
Having repeatedly appealed to the city of Atlanta government
for redress, I regret to report that while Mayor Allen did respond
with some diffidence, Mayor Sam Massell has displayed a complete
and total lack of interest in the problem. Not once has he ever
responded to any of my letters. The same is true of the Atlanta
Board of Aldermen.
I quote from an insulting reply received from Grady Ridgeway,
airport manager: "You have requested that there be no expression
of sympathy. We offer you none."
It is more than apparent that inasmuch as the Newton Estates
citizens are not Atalnta residents and therefore not subject to the
repressive Atlanta taxes, we are less than cattle in the view of Sam
Massell and his aldermanic board.
At the State level, there is a complete denial of any responsibility
and none is anticipated. Insofar as expecting any assistance from
the State is concerned, forget it.
Now let's come to "Big Brother," the Feds. The one agency which
by all that is right and just should be the protector of citizens' rights
in this desperate battle for survival is a total, dismal, inexcusable
flop. I refer to that defender of commercial aviation, the Federal
Aviation Administration, which is the "Johnny-Come-Lately step-
child" of the Department of Transportation.
-------
144
In being as brief as possible under the circumstances, here are two
references to results of my contacts with FAA at both the local and
Washington levels:
At the local level, the Deputy Director of the FAA Southern
Region threatened me with personal prosecution for having the
unthinkable audacity to press my grievance with him by phone at his
home, although at the same time his agency is destroying my home
and my life 24 hours a day every day.
At the Washington level, I quote from a letter written only because
a response was requested by Congressman Fletcher Thompson. This
letter is dated 29 June 1971, most recent I assure you, signed by
John H. Shaffer, Administrator of the FAA, states in part: "The
Southern Region is considered to have exhausted all procedural
relief techniques on your behalf and we regret that we cannot
offer any further substantial assistance toward the alleviation of
your problem."
Let's examine that "highfalutin'" statement a moment. What it
really means is that the FAA Southern Region has done absolutely
nothing, a big fat zero, in the 9 years of my protestations, to
"alleviate" my problem. Furthermore, John Shaffer is saying bluntly
that FAA at any level has no intention of doing anything at any
time at any place to correct this gross injustice.
A good summary of FAA's negative attitude is contained on
page 80 of the N.O.I.S.E. publication referenced above: ". . . there
is only one way you are going to hit the FAA and that is in the
ppcketbook. They are not going to be responsive because they don't
give a damn except about the airlines because their concept of them-
selves is to promote aviation and you can't be both a promotional,
developmental agency and a regulatory body."
This is the Federal Government agency that controls and directs
aircraft over my home, my church, and my community unceasingly,
day and night, hoping we'll go insane, or die, and then we won't
be "bugging" them.
Thirdly, and finally, I have no intention of "throwing in the
towel" in this life or death struggle. I started with the city of
Atlanta in 1962, with the advent of jet aircraft. I have now worked
upward to Congressional and Cabinet levels, and as time permits
and the Good Lord is willing, I fully expect to continue right on
up to the top, step by step, to include each justice of the Supreme
Court individually, and the President.
I am convinced that somewhere along the line somebody in author-
ity is going to take notice of this shameful violation of the basic
tenets of the Bill of Rights—namely, the right to life, liberty, and
the pursuit of happiness. Try pursuing some happiness with jet
aircraft a few feet overhead.
If this unspeakable noise and smoke violation is permitted to con-
tinue for a much longer period of time, then I say without fear
of successful contradiction that we are much nearer to the brink
of chaotic, dictatorial "Big Brotherhood" than anyone now suspects.
There is a new hope now that finally somebody—namely, the
EPA—and you won't find that on your copies; I added that in
because here we are—is interested enough in the disastrous effects
of noise and smoke on human beings that a public forum is con-
ducted so that citizens can express their more than strong feelings.
-------
145
It is all too clear that the city, the State, and the FAA at the
Federal level are going to do absolutely nothing unless and until
they are forced to take positive action. I look forward eagerly to
the day when that force is applied. Thank you.
Dr. MYER : Mr. Benson, thank you very much for a most explicit
description of a major environmental problem, and I can assure
you the Environmental Protection Agency is vitally concerned with
the situation that you described. For the record, however, I think
I must point out a couple of things that, as a Federal official, I
feel obligated to say.
First, the inference is that the Federal Aviation Administration
is doing absolutely nothing about noise control. As a matter of
fact, up until last year the Federal budget on noise control was
running about $10 million a year, of which over 90 percent was being
devoted to the problems of aircraft noise control, aircraft noise
abatement, and better design. This is an attempt to come to grips
with the fact that we have a monster on our hands and that some-
thing has to be done about it.
I realize that doesn't sound like a lot of money, but almost $9 mil-
lion has been expended by the Department of Transportation and
other elements of the Federal Government. Last year that rose to
some $30 million. Again, 90 percent of this is to aircraft noise, which
represents a tremendous increase in Federal expenditure—your
money really—to deal with the problem that you are describing.
Now, I agree with you that that is not a very good answer to
anybody who is living in proximity to an airport, but I don't
think the record should be silent and let it stand that absolutely
nothing is being done, because I happen to be aware that it is.
Furthermore, the Department of Transportation has sponsored an
interagency noise abatement program for aircraft. And all the vari-
ous elements of the Federal Government are involved.
It was pointed out by the mayor pro-tern of College Park that he
is aware of the fact that the Department of Housing and Urban
Development is serving as the chairman of a panel dealing with the
problems of noise in housing, not only aircraft but all forms of
transportation. So I wouldn't want the record to stand silent and
make it look like "big brother" is just completely ignoring the
problem.
What we have to come to grips with is the fact that the airport
is there, that it is operating in certain ways, and that we have got
to figure out ways to solve your problem.
The Environmental Protection Agency under the proposed legis-
lation now pending in the Congress will be given the authority to
coordinate all Federal activity in this regard. It would also be
given the authorities, which some people at N.O.I.S.E. don't think
go far enough, to, in effect, have a veto authority over the FAA
insofar as rules and regulations are concerned. And, in fact, the
Administrator of FAA, in testimony before Congress on this legis-
lation earlier this month, has indicated that he would be perfectly
willing for EPA to be setting these standards.
So I realize that there is a problem, and I am deeply concerned
as to how we help solve this matter. But I am also aware of the
fact that significant action is being taken.
In the interest of fairness here, since I feel an obligation of fair-
-------
146
ness, I happen to be aware of the fact that the Federal Aviation
Administration does have one of their representatives in the audi-
ence, and I just feel that if he would like to take about 4 or 5
minutes in his defense, I am perfectly willing. I don't think you'd
object to that.
Mr. BENSON: No, sir, but I would like to respond to what you
said if I may.
Dr. MEYER: Yes indeed.
Mr. BENSON: That is to this effect: A famous orator once said,
"Gentlemen, I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and
that is the lamp of experience."
Dr. MEYER: True.
Mr. BENSON: And, sir, I invite you to spend the night with me
one night and tell me what has been done.
Thank you.
Dr. MEYER: No, I'm not saying you don't have a problem. I just
wanted to indicate that we are spending a lot of money trying to
solve it, and I am not justifying the fact that nothing has been
done about your problem. I am saying we have to do something
about it. And I agree with you there is a real need.
Is Mr. Eickard here?
Mr. EICKARD: Yes, sir.
Dr. MEYER: If you would like to make any comments, please do
so, or if you want to defer or want to submit something for the
record, feel free.
STATEMENT OF JAMES RICKARD, AIR TRAFFIC DIVISION,
SOUTHERN REGION, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION
Mr. EICKARD: Well, sir, I'd say this:—
Mr. BENSON : Would he like to come forward ?
Dr. MEYER : Mr. Benson, why don't you stay there, because several
of the panel members may want to ask you some questions/ We want
to get your views into this record because they are very important.
Before we go on, Mr. Eickard, I am going to take the liberty of
asking Mr. Benson if I may use his statement in our Chicago hear-
ings.
Mr. BENSON : I would appreciate it very miv-Vi if you would.
Dr. MEYER: Thank you very much.
Go ahead, sir.
Mr. EICKARD : My name is James Eickard. I am with the Air
Traffic Division in our Southern regional headquarters here. I
have a title of regional noise abatement officer. That's more of a title
than anything else because most of the problems dealing with noise
are being handled by our air traffic control facilities such as the
Atlanta Tower here at the Atlanta airport, Miami Tower, and other
locations where we have noise problems.
I am aware of Mr. Benson's problems very much, because I have
been involved in answering many of his letters. And I'll only say
this: I feel like that the things he has presented to the panel today
have been presented to us on several other occasions and we have
to the very best of our ability answered his questions and answered
his problem and have done all that we can do at this level.
Now, you have very well expressed what the Agency is doing in
the way of noise abatement, and I couldn't really add anything to
-------
147
what has already been given to Mr. Benson in our letters to him
concerning his individual problem.
Dr. MEYER: Thank you very much.
MR. BENSON: May I ask—
DR. MEYER: One other thing, Mr. Benson. I am personally going
to discuss this particular communication with the Director of Air-
craft Noise Abatement, Mr. Foster, of the FAA, so it's not just a
sterile exercise we're going through here.
Mr. BENSON : Sir, may I ask Mr. Eickard a question ?
Dr. MEYER : Yes.
Mr. BENSON : Mr. Rickard, about a year or so ago I wrote a letter
to Mr. Jack Barker who is the Public Relations Director of the FAA
Southern Region. He never responded. Do you have any idea why?
Mr. RICKARD: No, sir, I can't speak for Mr. Barker. A copy of
this letter may be in our files. I would have to research it and see.
But I would be glad to talk with you after this meeting privately
concerning this particular letter. If it got lost, of course, that is
unfortunate. But we'll look it up and see if we can find it.
Dr. MEYER: Panel?
Dr. BENDER : Mr. Benson, I certainly sympathize with your situa-
tion and admire your persistence in trying to get something done.
You must have very strong motivations for being willing to live
where you live, to continue to live where you live, and to pursue this
activity. Just what does motivate you to stay in your house? Why
don't you move?
Mr. BENSON : I was afraid you weren't going to ask that question.
In fact, what he's saying I believe, sir, is: Why don't I move?
That's putting it bluntly.
Dr. BENDER: Right.
Mr. BENSON: I moved into my house 21 years ago, as I stated,
almost 21 years ago. It's the biggest investment of my life. It's
not a mansion. It's a very humble dwelling. It's the only thing that
I have just about paid for. I own it. And, God willing, I'm going
to keep it. That's the No. 1 motivation.
No. 2 motivation, I'm in this battle because I believe it's a battle
for right, and I don't believe that any governmental agency, be it
local, State or Federal, has any right—and I'll include the commer-
cial agencies, the aircraft industry—has any right to confiscate my
property as they have done.
The other day we were looking up as we do occasionally when
aircraft go by, having experienced this once in a while. A 747 was
landing. And it just kept on landing right over my house. And
it seemed that you could just reach up and touch it.
Now, my motivation in staying and fighting this battle is not
only for myself, although I admit I'm selfish about it, but also for
the community and for the Nation as a whole. I think this is a
battle for survival against noise. And I'm in it to stay.
Now, you ask me the same question my wife keeps asking me:
Why don't you move? And so far I have prevailed, but I don't
know how much longer.
Does that answer your question, sir?
Mr. BENDER: Yes, thank you.
Mr. BARON : On the question of ownership, I would assume that
you are familiar with the legal aspects. In other words, from the
-------
148
way you described your situation, you may fall under the constitu-
tional taking provision, which means that you would have to be
reimbursed for your home. I don't remember all of the legal aspects.
Perhaps somebody here could probably clarify it.
But it has been in several cases, as you well know, established
that if flights are low enough and frequent enough so that your
normal use of your property is denied, that this is a violation of
the Constitution.
I'm wondering if you have explored that area and if it has any
significance to you.
Mr. BENSON : Sir, I thank you for asking that question. I have.
The latest thing I have from FAA is a, shall we say, permission
to sue them in a Federal court within 6 months from a date in April.
And I intend to do so, but with a little extra slant. I am going to
use a government lawyer.
Now, I have asked the FAA to furnish me such a lawyer, and
going through Senator Talmadge the latest letter I got, which was
this week, was a refusal to do so. I am now going to the Department
of Justice and see why.
I have no funds to engage a lawyer for such a thing as this. You
can look at me and tell I'm not rich. But I'm going to pursue this
thing, and I believe that I'm right and correct in it, and I'll hope
to be able to respond to you that I have won the case.
Mr. BARON: What is it you would be seeking? Injunction or fi-
nancial damages?
Mr. BENSON : I asked in the letter that I wrote to Mr. Ruckelshaus
for an injunction to close the west end of 9L/27R. Of course,
Mr. Ruckelshaus didn't respond, but Dr. Meyer did.
And I wouldn't care too much about an injunction to close that
runway except that it would prove my point that I am right in this
thing and that the rights of citizens cannot be trampled upon in this
manner. If it would prove that point, I would ask for an injunction.
Otherwise I want fair and just damages.
Does that answer your question, sir?
Mr. BARON : Would the damages be such that you would continue
to live there or to make it possible to move without losing your
investment ?
Mr. BENSON: That's a good question, sir, and I have thought of
it many times previous to this time. Whether I would consider
continuing to live there would be based upon one of the motivations
that I gave Dr. Bender—that is, how strongly I feel about this whole
matter and, more importantly, if my wife would put up with it.
Mr. BARON: Thank you.
Dr. MEYER: With regard to the legal support, have you contacted
some of the environmental activist legal groups such as Environ-
mental Defense Fund? As a matter of fact, one of the important
things that's going on now, as you know, is that in some of these
areas of great interest and concern getting these matters into courts
and getting decisions is one way of helping reinforce the provisions
of the Constitution.
While I don't necessarily advocate that all problems should be
solved in the courts—in fact, that's one of the things we hope to
do with our rules and regulations is to avoid this—it would seem that
because of your strong feelings in this it might be useful to obtain
-------
149
their help. Have you discussed this with any of these organizations ?
Mr. BENSON: Sir, I have never heard of that. I appreciate your
bringing it to my attention. I will be glad to go into this. May I
get some further information?
Dr. MEYER: Yes, I will be happy to see to it that we give you
some information on this.
Mr. BENSON : Thank you, sir.
Dr. MEYER : I think it's in the interest of all concerned that these
matters be resolved in ways that are available to the citizens. Any
other questions, panel?
Dr. LYONS : Yes. Have you any documented evidence as to how
much the property values in your section of town have been affected
by noise?
Mr. BENSON : Let me give you a specific answer to that, sir, and
I speak only of my own property. My wife finally talked me into
getting our house appraised with reference to a possible trade, and
I had a real estate dealer come in. And the real estate assessment was
devalued approximately 20 percent based upon the proximity to the
airport.
In addition to that, I live in Clayton County. There is a little
jut that comes up in College Park which is in Clayton County. And
1 have gone to war with Clayton County because of the assessment
upon my property and the fact that I live in a hazardous area. Our
lives are in jeopardy constantly. And I have received a reduction
of about—I won't say this as a bold statement—of about 20 percent
in my assessment because of the area in which I live.
Dr. LYONS : Thank you.
Dr. MEYER: Thank you very much, sir. We appreciate this. And
I assure you that we are most interested in this problem and will
follow up on it as much as I can within the authorities that I have.
I understand Mr. Bennett, the Director of the Metropolitan Plan-
ning Commission, is here. He was patiently here yesterday. Mr.
Bennett, it's a pleasure to have you here, sir, and I look forward
to hearing from you, sir.
STATEMENT OF GLENN E. BENNETT. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR.
ATLANTA REGION METROPOLITAN PLANNING COMMISSION
Mr. BENNETT: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I was not here yester-
day.
Dr. MEYER : I thought you were.
Mr. BENNETT: I thought I was coming yesterday but I didn't.
Mr. Chairman, my name is Glenn Bennett. I am Executive Director
of the Atlanta Region Metropolitan Planning Commission, a posi-
tion I have held for 11 years.
I don't have very much to say, but I want to speak a little bit
about planning and the effect that I think the present situation has
with respect to the environmental questions, especially noise.
We are concerned primarily with physical planning. The emphasis
is on land use, transportation, airports, water and sewer facilities,
open spaces, housing, solid waste management, and so on.
As a part of the planning process a great amount of information
is collected, economic and social data, and so on.
We have 45 municipalities in this region. We have five counties
and soon will have two more added and some more municipalities.
-------
150
This is a hodgepodge of governments. There is a unity in a sense in
the business and industrial activity we have in this complex, but
there is less than unity in the management of metropolitan affairs.
This is not just true in Atlanta but it is true all over the country.
I'm trying to point up here how difficult it is to make a metropoli-
tan decision. If we had made metropolitan decisions instead of local
decisions earlier, even 10 years ago, we could have avoided some of
the unpleasant situations you have been hearing about recently.
I'm very familiar with this situation in College Park. We have
bought College Park, almost all. In just a few more years we'll buy
all the rest of it. The city will.
The airport management, the airport planning, aside from quite
a bit which we do and cannot really enforce— The main activity is
a city activity. The airport is a regional facility and should be dealt
with on a regional basis. The decisions about land use, water and
sewer, other environmental questions really are regional questions,
and we have no mechanism yet to make regional decisions except
through the State which shies away most often.
So to improve metropolitan decision making we have to have
metropolitan government for metropolitan questions, not metropoli-
tan government for everything but metropolitan government for the
big things that have regional significance.
Now, so far as noise is concerned, the planners in the past have not
paid very much attention to it except at airports. We have worried
a lot about this problem you have heard about today. And you could
talk about the schools in Clayton County. And I don't know for
certain but I believe very strongly there is a generation of children
there whose hearing is permanently defective to a certain extent as
a result of the very bad situation they have had in the schools with
respect to noise.
The highway planners have not paid very much attention to noise
until recently. They are doing a lot of it now and doing it pretty well
I think.
The planners as such, urban planners like myself, have not known
exactly how to go about this on a comprehensive basis, and that's
one of the reasons I wanted to come here to speak briefly. I don't
think we have given sufficient priority to a lot of environmental
factors, particularly noise, because we don't know exactly how to
deal with it.
I think out of these hearings should come some guidance to the
planning profession, and I think the discussion here will make a
valuable contribution.
The question of the airport is real serious.
Now, everything is cost-benefit in the way of regional improve-
ments. We have a tremendous $2 billion price tag that we estimate
on regional improvements needed before 1975 in this area, and you
don't quite know where the money is coming from in every case.
It's coming from the Feds and the State and the locals, but also it
brings up a question of how you're going to get these facilities built,
and so the cost-benefit ratio comes in there in every environmental
consideration.
And every benefit has a cost. Where do you draw the line?
Insofar as the airport is concerned, one of the major decisions
that the metropolitan area needs to make soon is the location of
-------
151
a second regional airport. We tried to do this. We have been trying
to do it for the last 2 or 3 years. Political and other considerations
have stopped the whole thing. And we either have got to buy College
Park and East Point and everything elese around there or take the
bull by the horns and go out and get a new site.
Now, when we talk about moving the airport—not moving it but
when we talk about saturating it and opening up another airport—
the community around the present airport objects strongly because
they believe that's going to hurt their economy. And you will find
some citizens in College Park and East Point who say the noise of
the airplane is pleasant because it means economic well being.
So I could go on, Mr. Chairman, but I think you get my point.
Dr. MEYER: Fine. Well, I think one of the things that you have
pointed out here, which is something I should have said earlier
myself, is that you can't deal with the noise problem in isolation
from the other environmental concerns. We have a specific interest.
But this is one of the reasons the Environmental Protection Agency
was created, to provide a unified approach to all the various environ-
mental problems. And I think you also have laid down a challenge
I know Mr. Ruckelshaus and the key staff of EPA are acutely aware
of—that we do need to provide better guidance to the planning
professions in given areas. And I made a note to be sure and remind
ourselves of this.
You also alluded to trading off of one problem for another, and I
thought of it yesterday when we were hearing about the fact that
there is a lot of noise from a machine that is being used to reduce
junked automobiles. We are dealing with a solid waste problem but
are also creating another environmental insult. So you have to look
at the systems approach in this. Panel, any questions?
Mr. BARON : I was just wondering in terms of noise— You said that
the urban planners haven't known how to deal with it. Have you had
any experience or tried to have any experience with any noise control
expertise in the area?
Mr. BENNETT : Only with respect to the airport. We have tried to
measure the noise levels in the various parts of the metropolitan
area that are affected by the present airport and by the other lesser
airports. That is the only experience that my agency has had. There
are others in town. We have several local planning departments, but
to my knowledge they have not done very much.
Mr. BARON: Have you had any interest in construction noise at
all in terms of having seen some input on that as a problem?
Mr. BENNETT : My own agency has not had any interest in local
construction noise because it hasn't been recognized as a regional
problem you might say. And to my knowledge the local planning
people have not done very much either.
Mr. BARON: Would they come in though under highway noise?
Mr. BENNETT: Yes, highway construction.
Mr. BARON: Highway construction noise?
Mr. BENNETT: Yes. Highway construction noise, and highway
traffic after it's finished. And we have advocated sunken expressways
in metropolitan urban regions for a long time.
Dr. MEYER: Any other questions?
(No response)
-------
152
If not, I would ask Mr. John Glenn, Citizens for Clean Air, to
come forward.
Mrs. JONES: May I ask the gentleman a question, please?
Dr. MEYER: Yes, ma'm.
Mrs. JONES : I'm Mrs. Wirt Jones, and I would like to ask you, sir:
There are many problems right now with highways in the city, and
I would like to ask in what way there have been any changes made
in the planned highway construction which you mentioned being
taken into account in the planning.
Mr. BENNETT : Well, we are trying to locate Stone Mountain Free-
way right now, and the highway department is expending a lot of
effort and have several competent consultants working on it. Maybe
somebody from the highway department is here who can add to
what I'm saying.
Mrs. JONES : In consideration of the citizens who are going to have
to put up with the noise?
Mr. BENETT: Yes.
Mr. HASKELL: May I say something?
Dr. MEYER: Would you introduce yourself for the record?
Mr. H. G. HASKELL : Yes. My name is H. G. Haskell. I am Chief
of the Environmental Planning Section of the Planning Division
of the Georgia State Highway Department.
I know there was quite a bit in the remarks that were made by
this young lady on my right earlier in the day with respect to
noise as far as highway noise is concerned. The Georgia State High-
way Department is very cognizant of the fact that noise is a factor
in the total environment and must be considered in conjunction with
other environmental factors in the making of our environmental
impact statements.
In order to accomplish this mission and to attack it properly, in
those areas where the greatest controversy appears to exist—and
of course we do not have the means in the strictly rural areas right
now for doing this—but in the relocation studies of 1-75 on Lake
Allatoona we have employed the consultant firm of which Mr.
Bender is a member that has participated in the environmental
statement for that particular project.
We have in our studies of proposed tollways in the Atlanta metro-
politan area employed Griner Consultants who I believe also are
associated somewhat with Mr. Bender's firm for noise input.
Se we are not only seeking the assistance of the experts in this
particular area but their input into the environmental impact, to
be considered again in connection with all other matters, but we
are also within our own section, the Environmental Planning Sec-
tion, with the knowledge we gleaned from the study of documents
that we read that have been prepared by experts, tried to ascertain
what effect noise will have in the construction of any highway
facility and to try to do our utmost to have our designers design
our highways to minimize the adverse environmental impact of the
noise to the extent that it can be lived with.
Does that answer your question?
Mrs. JONES: Not really.
Dr. MEYER: Could I ask you a question? Is it not true that under
the amendments to the Highway Act enacted this past year you
-------
153
have to hold public hearings even in advance of your environmental
impact statements ?
Mr. HASKELL: Yes. The recent issue of the National Register—
I don't know the number of it—which we did have an opportunity
to comment on before it was put out. We, of course, operate under
instructions that are issued by the Federal Highway Administration,
which is, of course, part of the Department of Transportation.
The requirement of the National Register—and we will shortly
be receiving I presume additional implementing instructions from
the Federal Highway Administration—requires that an environ-
mental statement be made available at least 2 weeks prior to the
going to a public hearing, and I am speaking primarily of a location
public hearing for a new facility or a combined public hearing if
such is deemed appropriate for a facility where both design and
location can be considered simultaneously.
With respect to the new location of 1-75 over the controversial
Lake Allatoona area we are in the process at the present time of
preparing and distributing a new draft environmental statement in-
corporating the expertise which we have received from both Bolt,
Beranek & Newman as well as other activities in the environmental
field.
This environmental statement will be made available to the public
at specified locations that will be announced in conjunction with
our legal requirement of a public hearing which is being scheduled
in August again for this location of this highway facility.
Mrs. JONES : The highway department it seems— It is my under-
standing that the Department of Transportation has arbitrarily set
a time on the completion saying that highway plans completed
before a certain date would not have an environmental impact study
done, No. 1. They have refused to take into consideration or to do
environmental impact studies on various highways in Georgia and in
the city of Atlanta, one of which is presently in the courts.
The people's wishes are not being taken into consideration. The
highway department is planning the highways as they so choose and
putting them where they so choose and giving possibly token hear-
ings. The citizens are not really taken into consideration.
We have many highways in the area where people are unhappy
now. There are several in Decatur. And the citizens are really not
being given consideration. 1-75 was only brought into this because
of the great pressure from conservationists and something like 11,000
letters written to the Department of Transportation to proper au-
thorities. This is what they have to do in order to get any real
consideration.
These impact statements when done— The highway department's
original impact statements or assessments or whatever on 1-75, if
I'm not mistaken, were rejected. They are often token when done.
We are not given any real serious consideration in the planning.
We are concerned about having more and more highways in the
city, and we are concerned about alternate means, and the noise is
one of the greatest considerations.
Dr. MEYER : Well, I can't comment on the past, but let me say
that the point that I was trying to bring forth here was that under
the act of Congress that has just been passed and about which I
was asking a question, is the new rule of instruction to meet the
-------
154
criticisms that you are raising—namely, that instead of giving this
a token effort they must have the public hearing and they must
distribute their proposed environmental impact statement, which
is not "the" environmental impact statement. It is only the proposed
one. Apparently they are planning to comply.
Mrs. JONES: I have read the guidelines and the act, sir.
Dr. MEYER : The other thing is that the Environmental Protection
Agency is required to review all of these impact statements, and we
have set up a special organization within the Agency bringing to-
gether representatives of all the program offices both at the regional
level and at the national level to take into account the very problem
that you are raising. We are increasingly becoming the watchdog
agency insofar as review of these impact statements is concerned.
Mrs. JONES : Can you suggest how we could get the impact state-
ments done when the highway department refuses to do them ?
Dr. MEYER: They have no option to refuse to do an impact state-
ment. They can't get money from the Congress to build a road if
they don't submit an impact statement if Federal money is involved.
Now, if it's State money on a State-owned highway, the Federal
Government has nothing to do with it. We still recognize States'
rights. And if a State is building a road with State money within
the limits of the State, then it's between the citizens and the State.
But if there's Federal money involved, they have no alternative.
The act of Congress is quite specific.
Mrs. JONES: They are not doing them.
Mr. HASKELL: May I make just a few more remarks, please sir?
Dr. MEYER: Yes, sir.
Mr. HASKELL: I realize this is not the forum for debate.
Dr. MEYER: Right. It is not.
Mr. HASKELL: I don't intend to get into any debate with Mrs.
Jones. The guidelines which we received from the Federal Highway
Administration, interim guidelines, which required the preparation
of draft environmental statements, specified—and I believe in ac-
cordance with the National Register—that any projects which had
approached the design approval stage prior to February 1, 1971 did
not require a draft environmental statement; however, that such
projects in coordination or in consultation with the Federal Highway
Administration Divison Engineer would be discussed and if to
his satisfaction it was determined that environmental considerations
had been given in the design of that project up to that stage, that
the highway department would be allowed to proceed with that
project without the necessity of starting from the beginning with
the preparation of a draft environmental statement.
I believe this is the type of project to which you refer, which is
the Morningside project as one of the projects which has reached that
particular stage.
However, to further answer the question, on any new projects
which are coming up which have not proceeded into the design stage,
which are in the initial location stage— We had only had location
approval on 1-75 over Lake Allatoona. We had not had design
approval by February 1. This project is now being reevaluated in
toto from the beginning, and an environmental statement is being
prepared.
In fact, an environmental statement was prepared over the line
-------
155
F which was the controversial line, but due to the controversy which
arose it was restudied.
We are in the State highway department and any highway de-
partments which are Federally funded required and are preparing
environmental statements, and distribution is being made not only
to interested Federal agencies, including the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, but to the State clearinghouse under Circular A-95
for their distribution to interested State agencies for review, to the
regional clearinghouses which are the area planning and develop-
ment commissions for their review, and to the regional metropolitan
clearinghouses, of which Mr. Bennett represents the Atlanta region
metropolitan clearinghouse, for their review and comment prior to—
if possible within that two weeks— We give them 45 days to com-
ment although the requirement is it must be in their hands at least
two weeks before the public hearing.
Then we prepare a final environmental statement in which we
must answer all comments received on the draft environmental state-
ment and all remarks made at the public hearing pertaining to that
particular project.
So we are in the Georgia State Highway Department fully com-
plying with the law as it has been implemented and as the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 requires.
Mr. BENNETT: Mr. Chairman, could I say that for the last 15
years every major highway activity that the highway department
has been involved in has been along the lines of an overall transpor-
tation plan which my agency has produced. This is a long and
involved thing with representatives of the city and citizens and
public hearings and so on.
Dr. MEYER : In order to keep this moving along—and I don't want
to shut this off but this cannot become a public debate; it's a public
hearing—could I ask you to just give me a few more minutes of
what you want to say, ma'm, and then I must proceed here.
Mrs. JONES: Yes. I would just like to make one more statement.
His comment about 1971 being the cutoff date was not written into
the Environmental Policy Act. This is an arbitrary date decided
upon by the highway department. According to the guidelines in
the Federal Register with Mr. Russell Train's name upon it, any
Federal project which has Federal funding must be gone back upon
if it has significant environmental effect. It is not being done. We are
still being refused in spite of the law.
Thank you.
Dr. MEYER : I will look into this further with the Federal Highway
Administration.
Mrs. JONES: Thank you.
Dr. MEYER : Thank you for calling it to our attention. We are
reviewing all of these agencies' statements.
Mr. BARON : It would be useful if Mr. Haskell has seen the report
of the consultants if he could tell us very briefly what they consider
some of the adverse noise effects, because this is something that is
being explored at this time.
Dr. MEYER : Yes, I think that would be a useful thing to interject
into the record, and then I want to proceed.
Mr. HASKELL: The only thing I can say is I have seen the noise
consultants' report and I have read the consultants' report. This
-------
156
particular environmental statement is being prepared by our design
engineer, Mr. Hal Eives, in the Rural Design Department rather
than the Environmental Planning Section, because this is the project
which had advanced quite considerably.
I was quite impressed with this particular report, and I think it
adequately covered the effect of noise which would be created in
several of the corridors which were under consideration.
However, the report as you perhaps know had been reviewed by
Dr. (Oden) at the University of Georgia who has run this thing
through IBM machines, and so forth, and quantitatively weighed
noise effects against other environmental effects of the location of
the highway.
This is a very difficult area when you start speaking of quantita-
tively weighing one factor against another factor. It is subject I
think for considerably more research at the Federal Highway Ad-
ministration level as to what factors will be weighted in retrospect
in respect to other factors. But these contributions to our environ-
mental reports certainly are considered and are an important aspect
of the environmental statement.
Dr. MEYER : I might add one thing here, and that is that our office
has begun carefully reviewing these things. And we have been re-
turning^ a fair number of environmental impact statements dealing
with highway projects back to the Department of Transportation,
asking for more specific information in this area, and not just on
the overall water or air pollution aspects but specifically with re-
spect to noise. So we are taking a very active role in this area of
concern to ensure that the State agencies are indeed getting the
proper information and also that the public imput is included.
I recognize some of the problems of interpretation, and we are
busily reviewing with each of the Federal agencies their rules and
regulations and their methods of implementing them not only with
regard to the impact statement but with regard to all other aspects
of noise control.
I had one series of meetings with all the Federal officials con-
cerned with noise, and we are now engaged in obtaining from them
all of their instructions so that we may review them and, in con-
junction with the Council on Environmental Quality, make the
necessary recommendations for change.
It's a little late, but I would like to see if Mr. John Glenn is here.
Mrs. NORTHRUP : I wonder if you would be so kind as to allow me
to testify now since I have come to make a statement on behalf of
a group that is connected with this highway fight. I think it would
be most fitting.
Dr. MEYER: What is your name, ma'm?
Mrs. NORTHRUP: Mrs. Northrup.
Dr. MEYER: From the Morningside Civic Association?
Mrs. NORTHRUP: Yes.
Dr. MEYER: Mr. Glenn, are you here?
Mr. GLENN: Yes.
Dr. MEYER: Would you yield to this lady your time? You were
on the schedule for this particular time, but it's up to you.
Mr. GLENN: I yield gracefully.
Dr. MEYER: Thank you, sir.
Mrs. Northrup from the Morningside Civic Association repre-
senting a group of citizens I gather from Morningside. Welcome.
-------
157
STATEMENT OF MRS. ADELE G. NORTHRUP, MORNINGSIDE-LENOX
PARK COMMUNITY. ATLANTA. GEORGIA
Mrs. NORTHRUP: My name is Adele G. Northrup. I represent the
Morningside-Lenox Park community which is currently contesting
in Federal court the construction of 1-485 through our neighborhood
and through several other inner-city neighborhoods. We are con-
cerned about the highway's adverse environmental impact, part of
which would be an increase in the noise to which we are already
subjected.
The homes in Morningside are closely spaced so that home noises
from appliances and power tools can easily invade neighboring
structures.
Outside the home we listen to airplanes, electric hedge clippers,
and power mowers rather than birds, and to motorcycles and mini-
bikes rather than rustling leaves. Our grand old trees which serve
as a buffer to noise also serve to attract noise, in that people in cars
and on motorcycles drive through to see the greenery. Our streets
are also heavy with commuter traffic noise. We oppose the widening of
streets proposed for our area. Our streets are already too noisy.
It is difficult to return to a noisy home and a noisy neighborhood
after exposure to mindless background music in the office or to
"shopper alerts" over the loudspeaker in discount houses. The only
way to block out noise is to air condition the home, but the steady
hum of the air conditioner's motor is merely an added noise burden.
Now Morningside is asked to shoulder an additional noise burden
from the proposed interstate. During the 4-year period of construc-
tion we will be subjected to traffic rerouting, heavy duty trucks,
blasting, demolition, and construction. Once the highway is com-
pleted, we will be continually subjected to eight lanes worth of
roaring trucks, cars, and motorcycles. During the rush hour traffic
jams the stopping, starting, idling, horn blowing, and revving of
motors will be intolerable.
The additional air pollution from the expressway will undoubtedly
kill many of our dogwoods, the tree most susceptible to air pollution.
The loss of trees will be the loss of the noise buffer between us and
the traffic.
The June 21, 1971 edition of the Atlanta Constitution carried an
editorial pleading for a reduction of noise levels on our streets. A
June 29th article in the Constitution pleads for reduced noise levels
in the home.
We plead for a halt to the construction of 1-485. Construction
noise will shatter our windows, crack our plaster, masonry, tiles,
foundations, and art objects. Once completed, the eight lanes of
noise coupled with our present city noise levels will reduce our
property values, impede work efficiency and hearing, produce harm-
ful cardiovascular, glandular and respiratory effects and harm our
unborn children.
In summary, widened streets and 1-485 noise will create general
urban social unrest. We urge efficient and quiet public transportation
as an alternative to 1-485 and street-widenings.
Thank you.
Dr. MEYER : Thank you very much, Mrs. Northrup.
Panel, any questions or comments ?
-------
158
Dr. LYONS: If the alternate transportation systems are not quiet
or not as quiet as we would like them to be so that people are still
disturbed—say people in your community are still disturbed even
after considering any available technology for noise control—how
would you propose compensating you for the number of bad things
that you have cited might be produced by these high noise levels ?
Mrs. NORTHRUP: I would like to say presently GM is being sued.
I believe they have a monopoly on the making of buses. And the
people who are suing them feel that perhaps they are not turning
out a better bus because better buses may mean people will not be
buying so many cars and using them.
Even if buses were not as quiet as we would like, we still feel
that mass transportation offers the only real solution to moving
masses of people within the city. We feel the car simply is not a
solution, and the building of highways will merely result in the
production of more cars. But buses really can take the place perhaps
of between 30 and 40 cars on the street. So we would support mass
transit even if it weren't ideal. We feel that the car is really just
no solution for moving people within the city.
Dr. MEYER: Let me ask a couple of questions in that regard if
I might. First, you make the point that mass public transportation
is an alternative, and, of course, this involves some sort of construc-
tion. And, of course this hearing has been dealing with the problems
of construction. We have been hearing from a wide variety of con-
struction manufacturers about the difficulty of producing absolutely
quiet and silent construction equipment.
So I guess the question I have to ask is: in the alternatives are
you taking into account that even some pa_rt of the city is going
to be subjected to noise during the construction?
Hopefully we in our efforts to get quieter construction will be
able to impose standards, but are you willing to accept that as a
reality that cannot be escaped?
Mrs. NORTHRUP: Yes. I think that construction noise in the city
is a reality as long as high-rise buildings are being built, homes
are being built. There will always be some construction noise.
And I think that construction noise for mass transportation facilities
would be acceptable.
The thing is that we feel with cars that the more roads that are
built the more cars will be produced and so the cycle just goes on
and on. First they will be building 485, it will become clogged, and
then they will be needing to build another highway and another.
But perhaps mass transit can be sort of a not one-time but
certainly the construction won't have to be repeated as often.
And we also feel that buses can run on existing streets whereas
cars would require street widenings.
Dr. MEYER: Could I carry that line of questioning just a bit
further? If we had the authority, which we may get from the
Congress, to get transportation standards in relation to noise and
you were assured that the vehicles that were produced and operating
were quiet, would you still have this antagonism towards the auto-
mobile regardless of the noise?
Mrs. NORTHRUP: Yes, because the car represents an unrealistic
demand on our natural resources, the amount of water, steel, rubber,
plastics. We simply cannot go on consuming our natural resources
-------
159
producing a private transportation system for each person who
desires mobility.
Certainly mass transit would be a much wider use of our natural
resources. And also even if the noise pollution is solved, the con-
gestion problem will not be solved. The air pollution problem will
not be solved. The visual blight problem will not be solved.
So we oppose the highway and the car on many environmental
points, but today we were speaking mainly to noise.
Dr. MEYER: Thank you very much.
Any other questions from the panel ?
(No response)
Thank you.
Mrs. NORTHRUP: I would like to know if the panel would be
interested in hearing a tape of traffic on our street that was taken,
interestingly enough, at one in the morning. I think sometimes we
talk a lot about things, but it might be interesting to hear this.
Dr. MEYER: Panel?
(General assent.)
Do you have it with you?
Mrs. NORTHRUP: Yes.
Dr. MEYER: How long does it take?
Mrs. NORTHRUP : You could probably get an idea in just a minute
or so.
Mrs. VIRGINIA GADDIS: (Morningside-Lenox Park Community) :
The traffic is not steady, but sometimes that is even more aggravat-
ing. This is one o'clock in the morning. It's not steady. It's steady
most of the time.
Mr. BARON: While that is being set up, may I ask a question?
I'm interested in your tolerance of construction noise. After de-
scribing some of the effects of intense noise, and so on, you say
you wouldn't mind construction noise if the end product were such
and such. You don't feel in a sense that something should be done
about reducing the noise of construction? You accept it as a norm?
Mrs. NORTHRUP: I would like to see all noise levels in the city
reduced. It's just that I feel that building a mass transit system is
something that will not have to be repeated every few years, whereas
if we depend on cars, street widenings will be constantly taking
place. Highways will constantly be needed. More highways will be
needed.
Mr. BARON : I'm trying to clarify that you accept construction
noise as a norm, as something that accompanies construction, in-
tense construction noise ? You believe that's the way it has to be ?
Mrs. NORTHRUP : No, it's just that I didn't come here this morning
prepared to make a statement about it. I would like to see many
noise sources reduced, including construction. I mentioned the mini-
bikes, the motorcycles, the hedge clippers, kitchen disposals, the
vacuum. I'm sure many things are made noisier than they really have
to be. And I think maybe some construction equipment could be
made to be more quiet.
Mr. BARON : The answer is yes. Thank you.
Dr. MEYER : May we now have your tape for a few minutes, please.
Mrs. GADDIS: This is one block, and I'm not sure the part here
will be the best part, but we'll try it. This is one block from the
-------
160
proposed highway 1-485. This was taken from the window of a bed-
room.
(Tape)
Dr. MEYER: Might I make an observation here that would be
appropriate in the record before asking Mr. Glenn, who very
patiently yielded his time here, to come forward. We have available
to us measurements being made on certain interstate highways,
and I think it's rather interesting to point out that at a distance
of about 300 feet from a major four-lone highway near Washington,
D.C., that the overall sound pressure levels measured on the "A"
scale are, about 40 percent of the time, day or night, on the order of
between 70 and 75 dB(A). They fall down to around 50 or 60 dB(A)
most of the rest of the time. But it's rather interesting to observe
that on a really busy true interstate—I'm not talking about an inter-
change or an area that is servicing an hourly traffic flow or com-
muter traffic—that this level seems to stay pretty constant no matter
what the hour of the day is as far as these effects, whether midnight
or 1 o'clock or 10 o'clock in the morning. We will be discussing some
of these problems at our hearing on transportation in Chicago,
because one of the principal sources of noise that is heard as you
get further away from highways is tire noise, particularly truck
tire noise. And each sound has a characteristic significance. By
frequency analysis you can tell pretty well where it's coming from.
Mrs. NORTHRUP: Thank you.
Dr. MEYERS Mr. Glenn.
STATEMENT OF JOHN GLENN. CITIZENS FOR CLEAN AIR
Mr. GLENN: I have a written statement here which I will hand
in and which I think exceeds your stated limit of 100 words by about
10. I will be glad to take a few of the "a's" "the 's" out if that will
help get it in the record. And I will try to be equally brief in what
I have to say.
I really have only two main points to make. One is that in our
activities on behalf of clean air the first reaction we got from many
people is, "Well, thank God there is a citizens' group that is trying
to do something about the air."
And a great many of these people added as a second thought,
"While you're at it, can't you do something about noise pollution?"
There is public interest. There is probably more hopelessness here
because we have been even slower in our efforts to do something
about noise pollution than we have about water and air pollution.
The second thought I want to leave you with is this: We had
some experience in our involvement in setting ambient air standards
that I think may have some relevance to what your agency will be
trying to do. The salient fact to me at least that emerged from all
this was this: If you wait until there is indisputable proof of the
medical effects, primarily the medical effects of a given level of
pollution, you will have waited too long. I think the same thing
is going to be true about noise pollution.
Let me tell you a little bit about why I think, in spite of a great
deal of money and time having been spent on air pollution, very
little effective control has been achieved in this country. And there
are certain reasons that relate to this point I just made.
I happen to be an actuary. With a statistical background, I took
-------
161
the assignment of reading a number of the studies that had been
made on air pollution. I plowed through one done in Nashville
covering gathered statistics for 10 years. They must have spent a
million hours on it. There was another one in Buffalo, and a couple
of British studies that were equally thorough.
And I found that the research people doing these studies were
extremely conservative when it comes to saying A causes B. The
reason they are this conservative is their whole training as research
scientists makes them conservative in this respect.
Now, there is a gap somewhere between the research and the
policy-making level. I'm aware, of course, I may be speaking to the
wrong group. Maybe I ought to be talking to a Congressional
committee. Your office has its mandate, and I gather there is a
lot of emphasis to be placed on research initially. I wish it were
otherwise.
What seems to me to be needed are some people at a policy-making
level who have a scientific background but who can take the scientific
evidence and act when there is a reasonable degree of certainty that
there are harmful effects being produced by something even though
proof is not conclusive and probably never will be conclusive in the
sense that would satisfy a research scientist.
I talked to one of the doctors in Nashville who had done the
study, worked on the study there. Her first reaction was, "Well, we
need more studies." Well, we do. But we need to act on the infor-
mation we have already got.
I would assume that the information about effects that is avail-
able to us is as great as that that has been available to various
European countries that acted. And if they have set standards for
apartment noise with the available evidence, why can't we do the
same thing? And why can't we spend the money in sending somebody
to London and finding out not just technically but politically how
they have been able to make London a far quieter city than New
York is, rather than waiting for evidence that so many decibels
is going to leave somebody with a permanent degree of deafness?
I think you're going to run into the same problems here that
there are many other cases of deafness. And when you get beyond
the level of hearing impairment into some of the other psychological
effects, you'd be in a much thornier area there as far as any kind
of scientific proof is concerned.
It's the feeling of our organization that we are all entitled to
a decent environment and that the mission of the Noise Office ought
to be to eliminate objectionable noises and that we should not as
citizens be required to prove that a given noise level is going to of
necessity produce a certain degree of hearing impairment or that
it's going to make us less effective in our work or anything else.
It is simply objectionable.
And your mission ought to be to go to work, produce a quieter
environment, quieter cities. Fine, go ahead and collect the scientific
proof at the same time. But I think the whole thing is on the wrong
track if you're going to wait until this proof has been assembled to
the satisfaction of almost everybody involved.
Dr. MEYER: I appreciate your comments and I want to disabuse
you of any notion that the Environmental Protection Agency is
going to study this problem to death. The points you are making
-------
162
are ones I completely and wholeheartedly agree with. As I mentioned
earlier, we are responsible for preparing a rather comprehensive re-
port to the Congress, which we look at as not just being another
documentation of needs for research, although that is one of the
things that will come out of it. What we are doing right now, with
a target date of submitting it not later than the first of January, as
is required by the law, is a comprehensive overview of what is known
and what isn't known. In that report will also be an assessment of
what is known about physiology and psychological effects, far
more important and germane to what you have said. It will include
a review of all of the literature and all of the laws in 20 foreign
countries, which is being undertaken right now, including those
which are in the Communist area as well as in the so-called Western
bloc countries.
We are studying, through George Washington University, all
of the existing State and municipal laws in the United States, with
a view towards doing just exactly what you said—discovering
what has been done, what's good, and what's bad, to set a frame-
work for action, assuming the Congress gives us the authority to
set some standards. That law, which is now in Congress, also charges
us with the responsibility of assisting the State and communities in
developing model laws to cover those areas that will not be pre-
empted by the Federal regulation.
We have an optimistic timetable. If Congress passes the law now
being considered, we would anticipate that the first of these stand-
ards will be available for public consideration in about 18 months.
And that may sound like a long time, but the reason it takes that
long is that, again, after having had hearings such as the other ones
we are going to have, we have got to come up with the recommenda-
tion of the rules and regulations and then return to the public so
the public can comment thereon. We estimate that within 18 months
we will indeed have done this. So I hope I am giving you a picture
that this is an action-oriented agency, not a study agency.
Mr. GLENN: I only hope it turns out to be that way.
Dr. MEYER: Any comments, or question panel?
Mr. BARON: Well, just to play devil's advocate in a sense, how
would you define objectionable noise ?
Mr. GLEEN : Well, I'm aware that there is a problem here I suppose
basically in one of two ways. It's a steady noise in the absence of
which I can't hear normal conversation. In other words, if I have
been exposed to it for several years and move out of I can't hear
what people are saying in normal conversation, I'd find that ob-
jectionable.
Mr. BARON: Temporary deafening?
Mr. GLENN: Yes. And, second, anything sudden and startling.
Motors backfiring. I have a feeling that a reasonable national con-
sensus could be found without extensive investigation and argument
of the question.
Mr. BARON: I happen to agree with you. I have been working
on the noise problem for 7 years from the citizen's point of view.
But it is necessary to try to give some structuring of the concepts so
that it makes it easier for EPA, for example, to give directives and
work out directives to industry to meet these things.
One of the things that we as citizens have to do is concretize some
-------
163
of our reactions, what we would like to see as far as a good noise
environment is concerned.
It's a "toughie" but it's part of our homework.
Mr. GLENN: Yes, I recognize this. But I think there's another
approach, and that is simply let's make more use of the existing
technology.
Mr. BARON : We agree 100 percent.
Mr. MEYER: Thank you very much, sir. Before recessing to re-
convene at 1:30, someone asked from the floor if a member of the
panel would give a brief explanation of what dB(A) means. I hope
that person will be back after lunch. But since that person might
have other plans, I will ask my eminent colleague Dr. Bender to
give a brief description or definition of this terminology.
Dr. BENDER: Well, so-called "A" weighting which gives us a
number which we call dB(A) simply reflects the fact that people
don't hear as well at low frequencies as they do at high. If you
have two tones that have the same pressure level, one will generally
not be able to hear the low frequency sound— The low frequency
sound won't sound as noisy or loud as the high frequency sound.
So if we have a complicated sound that is emitted from a piece of
equipment, there is a meter, an electronic weighting network that
tends to decrease the effect of the low frequency sound in generating
a reading on this meter. So that is what dB(A) does. And sub-
jectively every time a level goes up 10 decibels, 10 dB(A), it sounds
twice as loud. And, of course, the same is true in the other direction.
So if an 80 dB(A) level sounds twice as loud as a 70 dB(A) level,
90 dB(A) level sounds twice as loud as an 80 dB(A) level and four
times as loud as a 70 dB(A) level. That's sort of a guide that you
can use to try to get a handle on what these numbers means.
Dr. MEYER : Let me give you a couple of other measurements that
you might find useful. At a noise condition approximating 50
dB (A), you hear the normal spoken voice at something over 12 feet
—conversational tone. At a level of 60 dB(A), however, the normal
spoken voice can only be heard up to about 4 feet way. And at 70
dB(A) it's about 1 foot. These phenomena have been determined
by many scientific experiments. This gives you some sort of a point
on the curves. As you get up to the area of hearing loss, between
85 and 90 dB(A), you cannot really hear the normal voice. You
can almost use your ears as a sound level meter. With a person stand-
ing right next to you—as we have used in the military regarding
people working around jet engines, and so on—if you can't hear the
man talking to you in a normal vice while he's standing shoulder
to shoulder, you're in an 8-hour noise hazardous area and ought to
put ear plugs on or get out of the area. It's a very simple rule but
a very effective one. On that note we shall recess this hearing until
1:30.
(Whereupon, at 12:35 p.m., the luncheon recess was taken.)
AFTERNOON SESSION
1:50 p.m.
Dr. MEYER: I will call the closing session of this public hearing
to order. Is Mr. Pierce Mahoney present?
(No response)
I would now like to ask if Mr. John Wright of the Atlanta Labor
Council has arrived. He is due here around two.
-------
164
(No response)
Very well. I will proceed then and invite Mr. Peter Chanin if
he is present to come forward. Glad to have you with us, Mr.
/^ii •
Chanin.
STATEMENT OF PETER CHANIN AND GEORGE UPTON,
LCL CORPORATION. ATLANTA, GEORGIA
Mr. CHANIN : Dr. Meyer, distinguished members of the panel,
ladies and gentlemen, I am Peter Chanin, and this is my associate,
George Lipton. We are with LCL Corporation, a Georgia Corpora-
tion here in Atlanta, Georgia.
LCL Corporation was formed in March of 1971, and its sole pur-
pose is marketing an item that I would like to speak to the panel
about today. This is the Weka Oxylance.
Mr. Lipton and I have attended some of the meetings of this
panel for the last two days and have been interested in the fact
there has been very little mention in the wrecking of concrete
about one particular procedure, and this is thermic demolition. We
have heard a good bit mentioned about breaking of concrete with
the normal methods of demolition such as jackhammers and hy-
draulic means.
Thermic demolition of concrete can be achieved by use of a
thermic lance, and this is the Weka Oxylance. I believe you gentle-
men have this material that has been handed out to you by Mr.
Lipton. This material is not the text of what I am going to speak
about but is a little bit greater material. I would like to read just
certain parts of this text to you, and I think this will explain the
oxylance.
Dr. MEYER: Very good. Go ahead, sir.
Mr. CHANIN: If you will turn now to the second page, the first
paragraph, the Weka Oxylance is a 14-foot thermic self-consuming
lance that offers a totally new method for dismantling or modify-
ing structures quickly and quietly. Designed for on-the-job flex-
ibility, the Weka Oxylance adapts to particular construction needs.
If you skip to the bottom paragraph, it eliminates noise, dust,
and vibration so crews can work in restricted areas or near sensitive
equipment. Whole structures can be dismantled without rubble or
costly cleanup. Also small sections can be removed or clean hole
perforated without stress to adjoining walls and floors.
If you will now turn to the fourth page, wrecking jobs the quiet
way, an old demand by all enemies of noise has become reality.
Yard-thick, heavily reinforced concrete walls can now be broken
down by an oxygen-core lance without causing practically any noise.
This development initiates a new trend in demolition. Its im-
portance is related to the fact that wrecking jobs have to be carried
out mostly in densely populated regions in order to make place for
new construction.
If you will now turn to page 5, first paragraph, the speed with
which the Weka Oxylance cuts and burns concrete is but one of
its advantages. In most cases the absence of noise and vibration
constitutes by itself a determining advantage over other methods.
The lance is not only used in demolition but can be implemented to
add conduits, passages, and air conditioning shafts to already
finished concrete and steel buildings.
-------
165
I think this very brief reading is in itself a significant story of a
new way of quietly achieving the breaking of concrete. The Weka
Oxylance by no means can be used in all applications where con-
crete has to be gone through. There are certain areas such as asphalt
where the oxylance has difficulty because the burning of asphalt
creates dense smoke. When burning concrete, reinforced concrete or
concrete in conjunction with any of the exotic metals, there is very
little smoke created, and that which is created is non-toxic and
easily removed by any type of ventilation.
We do not want to take up a tremendous amount of your time
today. We did want to present the oxylance.
I would like to summarize very quickly by just giving to the
panel some of the features of the oxylance that we feel are most im-
portant to realize.
One of these is cost. There is no set means of determining whether
using the oxylance is more expensive, less expensive, or approx-
imately equal to the conventional means of demolition. In some
applications it is cheaper. The speed with which it can be used
to achieve the necessary demolition would make up for the possible
additional cost in material, the cost of setup with oxylance.
We heard yesterday several of the manufacturers of the air
hammers and other concrete-breaking material say that quieter
machinery will cost in the neighborhood of 10 or 20 percent more
than the conventional machinery that is now on the market. This
10 or 20 percent more is if the people needed to replace what they
had. The actual cost for these construction-demolition companies
is complete retooling, and this retooling is 10 or 20 percent greater
than it would have been if they were buying just replacements.
With the Weka oxylance the cost to set up and be able to use this
when it is necessary not to make noise is less than $200. This is what
would be necessary to have the necessary attachments, hoses, burn-
ing apparatus and protective clothing for the individual who would
be using the lance.
The lance itself is a consumable item so whatever is expended
for the lance would be part of the actual cost of the operation. All
that is needed to run the lance is oxygen. There is no compressor
involved with the operation whatsoever. Therefore, there is no
noise.
Well, I say there is no noise. There is about the same noise that
would be if you used an oxyacetylene torch.
I mentioned the speed of the lance. One of the items that was
discussed was the fact that demolition sometimes went on and on and
and the noise might be tolerated if it was just for a few days or
maybe a week. The oxylance does speed up demolition where it
is applicable.
I hope that this information will give the panel some further
enlightenment into the area of posible means of wrecking. I hope
that this does provide ample information on the lance, and if not
we will be glad to answer any questions I am sure you might have.
We thank you very much for this opportunity to speak.
Dr. MEYER: Thank you very much.
Panel, questions?
Dr. LYONS: How long have you been selling this unit?
-------
166
Mr. CHANIN: We have been selling it now in the United States
since March.
Dr. LYONS: And what has been the reception?
Mr. CHANIN : We have found that the people we have spoken to
have been extremely interested in this prospect of demolition but
rather leery of being the one to take the chance of using it.
A lot of these wrecking companies have a bid that they have
to put in, and they are not really trusting our estimates of what
it's going to cost them doing it our way. They might have a timetable
to be on and they are not sure that maybe our way will do it, so
if they fail by our means then they will have to go back to con-
ventional means and they will miss their timetable.
So it's a question of getting them where they have little fear of
trying this particular method.
Dr. LYONS : Dp you believe the only retardant then to widespread
acceptance of this technique is just that people tend to be afraid of
new things, that as soon as this is no longer a new thing that this
will be widely accepted? Or do you believe that there are other
factors that will prevent widespread acceptance of this tool?
Mr. CHANIN: There are naturally other factors. I think the
greatest factor is, you know, a new product. The other factors are
that the people are not sure whether they can use the lance, although
it is very easy to be used.
Dr. LYONS: $200 is not a significant amount of money for a con-
struction company to invest to try out a new tool that they might
eventually purchase a number of at some later date.
Mr. CHANIN: That is true.
Dr. LYONS : A pipe wrench costs $60.
Mr. CHANIN : This is what we have been telling them.
Dr. LYONS : So the tooling investment for a trial unit apparently
is not prohibitive. Why—
Mr. CHANIN: Most of them are willing to try it or let us give
them a demonstration of it, but to actually use it on a job where
they do the whole job by this particular method they are leery
because they have not had enough experience with it to determine
what their cost for the whole job will be.
In fact, we have not had enough experience with it to tell them
exactly what their costs are. We can only give them estimates.
Dr. LYONS: The point I'm trying to get at is: What is your
estimation of the value construction or destruction companies place
on quietness ? Any value ? Or are you selling on strictly an economics
basis?
Mr. LIPTON: Let me answer your question. Our product has
been accepted by the foundry people. In other words, the people
that are in cast iron foundries that have steel mills use our product
to untap their furnances. In other words, the}' get a freezeup in
a tap hole or something of that nature and they use the oxylance
extensively for this purpose. So it has been accepted in some in-
dustry
Now, back to your question regarding do we think that the de-
molition and construction people will accept our product, it's a yes
or no type answer. I can't give you a firm answer because the re-
sponse we have had over the United States—and we have done
-------
167
some mailing to demolition and construction people—has been
adverse in some areas and good in others.
Here in Atlanta we have done some work for two or three of the
large demolition companies in town, and the value they place on
noise is little or non-existent. They don't care very much.
I can make a quote to you from one fellow we talked to on a
job that involved cutting through 16 inches of reinforced concrete
in a courthouse annex in metropolitan Atlanta. And he told me he
just didn't care how much noise it made. And there were people
working upstairs during this demolition. Cutting through 16 inches
of reinforced concrete to make a door opening with a jackhammer
will create an excessive amount of noise. I don't know how many
decibels it would register but I'm sure it would be up around the
100 mark even to somebody who was working on the second floor
of the same building.
So I don't think at present that the demolition companies place
a high amount of their time and cost into thinking about how much
noise they are going to make, because whenever possible they love
to use dynamite for demolition because it's the cheapest way.
Dr. LYONS: Thank you.
Dr. MEYER: That was very well said. What you're saying is that
right now your main market attractiveness is the fact that you have
a speed of operation and perhaps a clean operation that can be used
some place—
Mr. LIPTON: Yes.
Dr. MEYER: —where you can't blow it down and you have got
to have a nice, neat cut.
Mr. LIPTON : That's right.
Dr. MEYER: Just for the record though—you mentioned it some-
what—are there any specific problems associated with this device
of work or exposure to some hazard other than the heat from the
lance itself?
Mr. LIPTON: No, sir. The heat that is produced by the oxylance
will approach 10,000 degrees Fahrenheit when you're cutting
through concrete. That is the only thing that has been measured
so far. So there is protective clothing that has to be worn.
This product has been used extensively in Europe. You can see
by the pictures on our brochure they were all taken in Zurich,
Switzerland.
Mr. CHANIN : There is a brochure in the back of each of the docu-
ments.
Mr. LIPTON: So the heat is the only precaution that needs to be
reckoned with. Anybody that is adept at using an acetylene torch
can use our product with no problem whatsoever.
Dr. OKTJN : What is the cost per 8-hour day of operation for one
man, one lance?
Mr. LIPTON : Well, the lance consumes itself in roughly 5 minutes,
so you can say, well, a guy can consume say 10 or 12 lances an hour
depending on how fast he works. And a lot of times, you know, with
the labor problems here in the United States, construction workers
seem to sort of lag behind in certain areas.
So I would say that in an average 8-hour day roughly 80 lances
would be consumed at a cost of anywhere from $5.90 per lance
to $8.50 per lance depending on the quantity ordered. So at a
-------
168
maximum of 80 per day you are talking roughly about $700, some-
thing like that, just in material cost, and then your oxygen cost
and then your labor cost on top of that. So it would approach $800
or $900, maybe even $1,000 depending on how many men you had
working and how fast they could work.
Dr. MEYER: Well, to get an order of magnitude for the expendi-
ture of say that $800, say he was cutting through a 10-inch builtup
brick wall.
Mr. LIPTON: You mean reinforced concrete?
Dr. MEYER: Reinforced concrete with a brick facing.
Mr. LIPTON : Let me just give you an example. A 4-mch-diameter
hole through 6 inches of reinforced concrete would take roughly
5 feet of lance. The lance is 14 feet long. It would take approx-
imately 1 minute in time.
Now, if anybody is familiar with core drilling or diamond drill-
ing, they will know that core drilling would cost you to make a
hole of that nature, if you were in the air conditioning business and
contracted out to a core driller or diamond driller, about $30 for
that hole, whereas using our product it would cost you less than
$8, including labor, cost of goods, and everything involved, setup.
Dr. MEYER: That is the sort of—
Mr. LIPTON : Right. That will give you somewhat of an example.
Most of the figures we have are European figures, and they are
being converted right now into American language or technology.
Dr. MEYER: We thank you very much for giving us this infor-
mation, and it may be that we will want to get together with you
and have you give a demonstration of this.
Mr. LIPTON : We would certainly be glad to. The only noise in-
volved in the operation of our product is the slight hissing noise
of the oxygen flowing through the lance itself. Because the lance
looks like just a metal pipe that is 14 feet in length and 3 inches in
diameter.
Dr. MEYER: There is a tremendous amount of demolition asso-
ciated with some construction operations in urban builtup areas,
and I'd like to get in touch with you and see about arranging for
a possible demonstration.
Mr. LIPTON: We would be glad to. We have had some demon-
strations in New York for Wrecking Corporation of America, in
Newark at the River Terminal Shipyard, but even with Wrecking
Corporation we couldn't do any good with those people because of
the fact they just didn't seem to care about how much noise they
were making.
Dr. MEYER: Since we're interested in noise and also interested
in some other things—the Agency is interested in control of air
pollution—I can easily see that this is a much less dusty type of
operation. So I'd like to talk to you all subsequently. We interceptors
on the west side.
Mr. LIPTON : Thank you.
Dr. MEYER: Before asking if Mr. John Wright would come for-
ward if he is here, a representative of the FAA who was speaking
about some of the problems at Atlanta airport has asked me if he
could make a brief report of some subsequent conversations he has
had. If you will hold that rather quickly, sir, I will entertain for
the record your presenting the information you want to.
-------
169
FURTHER STATEMENT OF JAMES RICKARD, AIR TRAFFIC DIVI-
SION, SOUTHERN REGION, FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRA-
TION
Mr. KICKARD: Thank you, Dr. Meyer.
What I have to say briefly concerns the testimony given by Mr.
Benson this morning in which he so very well presented his
problem to the panel and to the audience relative to aircraft noise
over his home.
Mr. Allgood here, who is the operations officer for the Atlanta
airport traffic control tower, and I talked at length with Mr. Benson
privately after his testimony, and although we didn't by any
stretch of the imagination resolve his problem, we did point out
to him that certain procedures have been adopted, air traffic control
procedures have been adopted, at the Atlanta airport, and others
have been revised, which have provided a measure of relief in a
general sense to the overall aircraft noise problem in the vicinity
of the airport.
I think we succeeded in convincing him that we in that sense,
in a procedural sense, have done all that we can possibly do with
respect to the noise problem in a general sense around the airport.
And I, of course, would want to reiterate that we didn't resolve
his problem, and I don't think we can.
Dr. MEYER : Thank you very much sir. Mr. Baron has one question.
Mr. BARON : I don't want to take up time so don't address yourself
to this if you can't. But as FAA noise abatement officer, could you
just very briefly state your primary responsibility or duty or
function ?
Mr. RICKARD: Well, as I mentioned earlier, that is more of a
title than anything else, because the noise problems in the region,
in our Southern region, are dealt with primarily at the facility level.
For example, if we get a complaint concerning noise, we refer this
to the air traffic control facility at the airport where the noise
complaint comes from, and in that way the complainant talks di-
rectly to the people who can explain to him in a very real sense—
They can invite him out to visit the facility, and they can show him
firsthand what is being done and the problems that the facility has
in controlling traffic while at the same time doing it safely and with
as little noise as possible.
So my position has been more or less the position of giving staff
guidance and being the regional director's representative at such
meetings as this and attending other meetings with our counterparts
in the Washington office, but the real meat of the problem is handled
at the facility level.
Mr. BARON: But you serve as a source of input to upper echelons
in terms of the complaints, and so on?
Mr. RICKARD: Yes. That's correct. We are the focal point. My
office is the focal point in the region for these problems.
Mr. BARON: I don't envy you.
Dr. MEYER : One more question before we proceed.
Dr. LYONS: When were these procedures instigated that you con-
sider are the ultimate that can be taken at this time with our tech-
nology? In past months or in past weeks or years?
Mr. RICKARD: Well, the procedures that we discussed with Mr.
-------
170
Benson primarily were adopted in recent months as a result of
a national policy which deals with both noise and safety in the
handling of high-performance aircraft, principally turbojet-powered
aircraft. We call this "keep them high" procedures that we have
adopted at most of the airports throughout the entire country.
That simply is this: In case of jet aircraft, of course, you are
aware that they cruise at a very high altitude and we keep these
aircraft as high as we possibly can as close in to the airport as we
possibly can, while at the same time realizing that some time, some-
where, the aircraft have to descend if they are going to land.
So we keep the traffic patterns as high as possible to keep them
above the people that live on the ground in an effort to decrease the
noise, plus the fact that we keep them above the areas where the
lighter, smaller aircraft operate and reduce the potential of a
mid-air collision.
Dr. LYONS: This seems like a fairly simple administrative pro-
cedure to decide upon. It may be difficult to implement but not too
difficult to conceive that this would be an approach to reducing noise.
Did Mr. Benson's 9 years of persistent complaining influence
decision at the Atlanta airport at all? Or was this made by a na-
tional policy decision by people who didn't even know he lived
near the airport?
Mr. RICKARD: Not altogether. We have adjusted, down through
the years, our traffic patterns upward, so to speak, because of noise
complaints.
Dr. LYONS : I'm wondering about the channels for relief for
people like Mr. Benson. Did he influence this decision? That helps
him I mean—
Mr. EICKARD: Well, I can't say that.
Dr. LYONS : Only indirectly ?
Mr. RICHARD: Only indirectly.
Dr. LYONS: A number of people—
Mr. RICKARD : As well as our concern for all of our airport neigh-
bors. And, of course, Mr. Benson has brought his problems to us
frequently, and, of course, we are vitally interested in his problem.
But let me point out—
Dr. LYONS : But his problems were not going dircetly to the people
who made that decision?
RICKARD: No.
Dr. LYONS: His problems were going to an air traffic controller
who was following procedures established in another office? Is
that right?
Mr. RICKARD: Yes. That's correct. These procedures that we have
adopted, as I said, are twofold, for both purposes of a safer opera-
tion for high-performance aircraft and for noise. I would suppose
that the primary consideration was for a safer operation because of
the number of mid-air collisions that you I'm sure are well aware of
that we have had in the country in recent years. And we have
pooled our collective thoughts in an effort to come up with the
safest type of operations we could have.
But the noise relief has also been very evident in these procedures,
and, of course, we are happy about that.
But as far as Mr. Benson's problem is concerned, he lives one
mile from the end of the runway, and these aircraft, although we
-------
171
could keep them at 35,000 feet until they got on top of the airport,
have still got to come down and pass over his house on the final
approach for a landing, and this is where we reach the point where
procedurally we have done about all we can do.
Dr. LYONS : Thank you.
Dr. MEYER : Thank you very much.
Is Mr. Wright here?
(No response)
If not, is Mr. Louis Abernathy here?
STATEMENT OF L. E. ABERNATHY. ATLANTA AREA
ASSOCIATION OF SENIOR CITIZENS CLUBS
Mr. ABERNATHY: I am a past president for a couple of terms of
the Atlanta Area Association of Senior Citizens Clubs, and I was
asked by the Senior Citizens Services of Atlanta to come down here
and represent the senior citizens.
Now, I don't have any particular complaint about noise myself.
I live sort of out in the suburbs. And some of this gentleman's
planes fly over my house when they can't find a place to land,
around and around and around. But I have become accustomed to
that, and it doesn't bother me too much.
But I did not come here with any special thing to say or any
special complaint about noise. I came here mostly to learn what was
going on and make a report back to the meeting of the Association
of Senior Citizens Clubs as to what was going on.
In other words, the only noise that bothers me a great deal is
some of these older women when they get started talking. And
I'm sure they feel the same way about me. So that's more or less
a stand-off. (Laughter)
So I really don't have a great deal to say other than that, unless
you gentlemen would like to ask some questions. And I am familiar
with the street noises, of course. Our buses don't make as much
noise as the old trolleys that we used to have. And having been a
supervisor of a communications company for 47 years—that is,
was with them 47 years, supervisor the last 16— I'm familiar with
the noise we make when we dig up the street in order to repair our
underground cables. But usually we farmed that out to contractors
and we let people fuss at them.
You're familiar with the air hammers I'm sure. Outside of that
I don't think that the profession that I was in created much noise
as far as the public was concerned. Our automatic equipment, of
course, is a little noisy, but that was only to our own employees.
And now we have gone into transistorized equipment and electronics
which is far less noisy than our old printers and much faster too.
So if any of you gentlemen would like to ask me any questions,
I can elaborate on most any subject. The less I know about it, the
longer I can talk about it. (Laughter)
Dr. MEYER: Well, Mr. Abernathy, thank you very much, sir.
And I would appreciate it if you would communicate back to the
groups that you are representing that we are interested in the
problems of noise and control, and if they have any specific com-
plaints in this regard, or views, we will be happy to receive them by
mail. Panel, do you have anything to add?
Mr. BARON : Just two questions. As past president, did you have
-------
172
any unusual type or special type of noise complaints from your
constituency ?
Mr. ABERNATHY: No, I have not heard a great many complaints
from senior citizens regarding noise. They might not have thought
about it. A good many of us don't hear as well as we once did
anyway, so maybe noise doesn't bother us as much.
I mean I personally, while I don't consider myself as being deaf,
do not hear quite as well as I did when I was 25 or something like
that. When people start turning their head and talking to me or
start talking walking away from me, I don't always understand
what they say, particularly if they don't speak my particular accent,
which believe it or not, whether you think so or not, is Southern.
I was produced in southern Alabama. I'm a product of Appalachia.
Mr. BARON: You said something about an industrial use where
you cut down noise by changing to electronics or transistorized
equipment. I'm very interested. You changed the noise source and
got rid of it? Is that correct? In some industrial activity?
Mr. ABERNATHY: Well, actually, the change was made primarily
to increase the speed of communications because the computerized
equipment and everything operates much faster than the old tele-
printers. And the old teleprinters operated like typewriters. They
used to bang, bang, bang the platens of the type bars hitting the
platens.
That now has been mostly eliminated by a little type wheel
about like your thumb that has about six characters on it and just
turns around, and the printing noise is very slight. But, as I say,
that did not affect the public.
You take a relay office, an old-fashioned relay office like we used
to have with, say, 400 or 500 teletypewriters. That's the Southern
Bell name for them. I was with Western Union. We called them
teleprinters. But they're all made by the same companies so most
people know them as teletypewriters possibly. And you take several
hundred of those things banging away and they make considerable
noise, believe it or not, and the motor noise from them also is con-
siderable.
And by using electronic equipment which I say primarily was
introduced because it was so much faster, the noise has been greatly
abated. And that, of course, helped our employees I'm sure. I think it
increased their efficiency.
Mr. BARON : Thank you.
Dr. MEYER: Thank you very much, sir. We appreciate your
coming.
Mr. ABERNATHY : Thank you.
Dr. MEYER: Is Mrs. James Guess present?
(No response)
Mr. James Guess?
(No response)
Is John E. Ballentine of Acoustics Vibration Association present ?
(No response)
How about Mrs. Zumbrook representing Decatur Civic Associa-
tion? I know she's here.
STATEMENT OF RUBY BALLARD ZUMBROOK.
DECATUR CIVIC ASSOCIATION
Mrs. ZUMBROOK: I came to learn too. May I just give this state-
-------
173
ment to the clerk to be entered into the record? Practically every-
thing that I was going to say has been said, and there is another
person of the same organization present and I would like for him
to make his presentation at my time,
Mrs. ZTJMBROOK: —if possible.
Dr. MEYER: That's fine.
Mrs. ZUMBROOK: For the senior citizens, they fuss about the
radio. The voice level is here (indicating), and the commercial
level is there (indicating). And they fuss about it all the time, don't
they?
Dr. MEYER : We will be happy to have your material for the record.
Mr. ABERNATHY: I didn't quite get that about the radio. I mean
your radio reception is under your control, so just what was the
question ?
(The prepared statement of Mrs. Zumbrook follows:)
A Road Is a Road Is Road—Commercial or Residential?
(And Never the Twain Shall Meet)
It has been encouraging to listen to the research papers and ob-
servations concerning noise abatement. It seems that it is all but
an accomplished fact that technology will soon engineer the noise
out of engines and plan the noise out of buildings.
The old engine can be brought up to standard by mufflers and
silencers.
The old building can be retrofitted and brought up to acoustical
standards.
So much for the engines and buildings. We can rest assured that
the noise levels set for them will be met, because for them:
1. Standards can be made
2. Research can be applied
3. Profit motives can be utilized
Now let's turn our attention to another type of building—those
set in rows on grassy plots and tree-lined streets—our homes. Noise
on the home front can be as damaging as noise anywhere. Therefore
it must be dealt with.
Control of street noise in a residential area starts with:
1. Control of design and placement of the street
2. Control of the type of the facility
3. Control of the type and volume of the traffic
At present there are insufficient standards governing the com-
patibility of the redesigned streets and areas passed through. Com-
merical streets are planned through residential neighborhoods.
Many deteriorations of values will result—not the least of which is
noise.
Can we apply to residential city streets what is known about
buildings? Can we require "curtain walls" of trees? Of grass? Of
space? Of Green Belts?
Can we require "baffles" silencer pads, sound barriers in the form
of trees in buffer strips between sidewalk and street? Between
pedestrian and engine?
Improper traffic on residential streets robs us of a place of rest,
a place of tranquility, a place of recovery.
We need neighborhood quietness to rear and train our children.
WE NEED STANDARDS GOVERNING DESIGN AND
PLACEMENT OF ROADS. WE NEED PROTECTION
-------
174
AGAINST TEAFFIC NOISES ON OUR HOME STEEETS.
(Hopefully some one will cover the voice levels of TV and
radio.)
(The unmuffled motor-bikes are universally shuddered at)
(Little League, football at night and other noisy park-games
should be planned away from houses.)
(Barking dogs uncared for usually)
So many noises! I'll vote for any President who will give your
office the power to control noise.
Dr. MEYER : Will the other gentleman representing your organiza-
tion come and join us, sir, and tell us what you have to say? We
are glad to have you here.
STATEMENT OF W. E. JOYNER. DECATUR CIVIC ASSOCIATION
Mr. JOYNER : I am W. E. Joyner.
Someone from the newspapers was here yesterday at this meeting,
and the silence must have had a considerable effect on him, because
when he got back to the office he had to be asked three times what he
had learned. So I don't know whether he didn't understand it or
whether he didn't hear well.
But I would like to quote one statement from a man who I con-
sider is a very learned individual, and he is concerned with environ-
ment. Years ago I heard him say this: "There are many things that
we call and do in the name of progress, but if it does not enable
the people living in that area to get more and enjoy life better, it
is not progress."
So I think we in the pollution area have pretty near reached that
stage.
Now, Decatur is an old town and has been called a community of
bedrooms I suppose, and there's many things that have been destroy-
ing. And I suppose when you get down to saying this kind of
pollution or that, it's pretty hard to really separate one from the
other.
The first thing I think we are concerned with is what it does to
people. In the first place, as an example of noise, how many of
you like to go into a restaurant or a place to eat where you cannot
even talk in a normal tone to the person sitting across the table from
you? Well, certainly that does something to your digestive system.
And the next thing, in those areas where people are constantly
bombarded with noise, how many of you had the experience of
seeing the irritation that comes about from those individuals be-
cause of that kind of noise ?
I think that noise also has been pretty well demonstrated—not
here but in many, many areas—that people's hearing is impaired.
And I think one gentleman this morning mentioned the fact that
this young fellow going to work and coming back home, because he
heard all the noise all day, has to yell his head off at his family.
Well, that's a typical thing.
And if I had known this, I could have brought along a tape on
decibels that go from 10 to 5,000 and let you see and understand the
difference that the number of decibels affect in the hearing.
Now, I'm sure that if you people have read the Journal this week
—and this isn't something that is new to most of you—John Crown
has stated that rats and certain animals who have been subjected to
-------
175
loud noises have offspring that become deformed or have birth
defects.
I have worked in birth defects for quite a number of years, and
it is amazing the things that we have no idea or concern about
normally that cause birth defects. And I am wondering of the
many birth defects that we see examples of every day if noise hasn't
had a great deal to do with it.
Now, certainly the quality of living in any community— Well,
if you would name a town, here is one that is quiet and here is
one with I don't care how many thousand dollars worth of business
that is going on, and the average individual wants to live in the one
that is quiet.
Now, right out in Decatur we have a problem right now, and
the gentleman from East Point I believe it was, or College Park,
somewhere, was talking about the effect that the noisy airplanes had
on the children in the school. Well, here is a perfect example in
Decatur in how they are going to take highway 155 and run it
within a half a block of the high school of 1,600 kids and 30 feet
from a junior high school with probably 1,000 kids. And how can
it not affect them? I don't know how they are going to do it. Be-
cause certainly the noise is going to have a tremendous effect on
those children.
And so there is another thing. How do we know how the noise is
going to affect them today, what it is going to turn into in their
later life? What will it make out of them? It could be some de-
formed offspring could be affected.
And I think that it's the people who have to pay the bill. And
you talk about the Federal Government giving them the money to
do it, but, brother, don't you forget for one minute that you're pay-
ing it. And until we can reach the stage that we can hold up that
money and say, "You're going to do what the citizens say or you
won't get it," until we reach that stage we're never going to control it.
You can pick up papers from day to day and see the protests
that the citizens give from time to time and how little attention is
paid to it. And as one gentleman I think said here yesterday—I
wasn't here, but on the television or radio last night—we have
come to a stage in pollution, air pollution and these other types and,
as someone said this morning, it's too late after it has already
affected you.
I visited in a town 2 years ago that had an extremely high air
pollution. It took me 4 days almost so I could breathe out of my
nose in leaving there. Well, not only was the air that way but the
noise was the same way, because in the same place there had ne^er
been any effort made to cut down the noise or the air pollution,
not one. And one big hotel had to completely close up on account
of it—noise, and noise only.
So I think that anything that you people can do will help. And
certainly I think that in your towns or local communities where you
have got motor scooters running up and down the streets, radios—
And the only time I ever turn a radio or television on is if I want
to hear something specific, for the simple reason that you can be
listening to a program and let's say your decibels are (indicating),
and let a commercial come on, and, bang, it will knock your ears
off almost.
-------
176
And when the man invents a radio that when that commercial
comes on loud like that it will automatically put it back down to
its normal level, he's going to make a fortune.
And so I just hope that somebody somewhere along the way is
going to get enough control over some of these things that the
people who have to pay the bill can have some say in it.
Thank you very much.
Dr. MEYER: Thank you very much, sir. I assure you that that's
one of the purposes of meetings like this, so we get the views of the
people who are paying the bill. That's our job as representatives of
the Federal Government. We are servants of the people and we
are determined to get these views. Does anybody on the panel have
any questions?
(No response)
Thank you very much, sir.
Mr. JOYNER: Thank you.
Dr. MEYER : Is Mrs. Dodd here ? Margaret Dodd ?
(No response)
If not, is Stephanie Coffin here, who I understand is the ecology
editor of a publication? Glad to have you here, Miss Coffin, I
look forward to what you have to say.
STATEMENT OF STEPHANIE COFFIN.
GREAT SPECKLED BIRD, NEWSPAPER
Miss COFFIN: We came here to speak about the police helicopter
that has been used in Atlanta since early spring. I am Stephanie
Coffin from the Great Speckled Bird, the largest weekly paper in
Georgia. We feel that our paper is a little bit different than most
ordinary daily papers in that we are more in touch with the people
we write to. And one community that we relate to specifically is
the Tenth Street community or sometimes known as the "hippie
district."
Now, one of the things that is deeply troubling this community
is the problem of noise pollution, and that is specifically the noise
of the police helicopter.
First of all, we must explain that Atlanta has two kinds of heli-
copters. One is the C & S Bank helicopter, and this helicopter flies
around picking up mail and money, and it's really hard to under-
stand how Atlanta would allow a private firm to pollute, you know,
cause so much air pollution, just for fulfilling its daily function,
business function. But I guess that shows how much power that
the C & S Corporation has in this town.
But the more obnoxious helicopter is the police helicopter. And
because we live in the Tenth Street community, the police helicopter
has somehow made the decision to police our area much more heavier
than any other area of the city. And so this means for thousands of
residents who live in this area that they have to put up with this
noise.
We heard yesterday a man who spoke from the Georgia Truck-
ing Association, and he talked about the establishment of certain
truck routes to protect residential areas from noise. Of course, that
is not possible with the helicopter. And so, you see, within this area
there is no place you can go to get away from the noise.
-------
177
We also have a very large park called Piedmont Park within
the area, and at night thousands of people go there to enjoy the
quietness. And that park is a specific target for the helicopter. And
the helicopter has also been known to fly over the lake in the park
and use its loudspeaker telling people to do this or to do that. So,
you see, any kind of quietness in the area is completely broken up.
There is one other thing that I would like to say about the heli-
copter, and that is that it's a certain kind of noise from the helicop-
ter, and that is it's the same kind of noise from an ambulance or fire
truck, and that usually means danger. And I think helicopter noises
are very much related to like war. When we see the newsclips on
television all the time from Vietnam we see helicopters, you know.
We associate them with war, with violence, with danger.
So when I am at my house on Ninth Street sometimes all day
I hear this helicopter. It's very, you know, disconcerting. We are
afraid that buying helicopters for police use with little regard for
the thousands of people who continually live under it will spread to
other cities, and we are afraid that other cities will be as unre-
sponsive as ours to the complaints of noise from the people. And we
just ask you to mention this grievance in your report and thank
you for listening to us.
Dr. MEYER: Thank you very much. Panel?
Dr. OKTJN : Has this problem actually been brought to the city
officials ?
Miss COFFIN : We have written several articles about it in our
paper and there have been several complaints. But I think it has
a whole lot to do with the "powerlessness" feeling that exists in
the area. And I don't think that there is a campaign, you know,
where people are systematically working to stop this right now.
Dr. OKUN : In other words, you haven't used the regular channels
for complaint—that is, go through the board of aldermen or through
your own representatives or any of the official members of the gov-
ernment establishment?
Miss COFFIN : As far as I know, that hasn't been done by any
group.
Dr. OKTJN : It might be appropriate.
One additional thing. I found out today that Channel 11 broad-
casts every day about some item of pollution and gives the infor-
mation as to where something might be done about it. Have you
approached Channel 11 with this?
Miss COFFIN : N"o.
Dr. MEYER: It has been recognized that noise from helicopters
carries with it some connotations of a rhythmic beat, part of the
noise characteristic of the helicopter itself, rather than the fear
connotation that you are bringing in. And this matter has been
studied. In fact, the Federal Aviation Administration, which gets a
fair amount of lumps on its head about things, has issued some
regulations regarding new helicopters.
One has to ask, some real questions of oneself about the problem
you're raising; namely, how often does this come, what's the fre-
quency of stay over an area? And I think you would be doing a
great service if you would start documenting some of these things
so at least you know what the facts are. At the same time one also
has to realize that helicopters are not only useful for the police in,
-------
178
say, law enforcement, but they do have a connotation to some people
of rescuing folks who are in trouble. For instance, we rescued some
people in some of the national forests, and so on, who otherwise
wouldn't have been saved.
So I would say that you have to look at both sides of this. But
I wish you would, indeed, as a good citizen, help document what the
problem really is, because if these things are being flown too low
and are creating noise in a pattern that should not be allowed,
there are ways of getting this into public view so that the situation
can be corrected. And we will certainly include you-r remarks in
the record.
Miss COFFIN: Thank you.
Dr. MEYER : Thank you very much for coming.
Is Maura Enright here?
Miss ENRIGHT: I am Maura Enright.
Dr. MEYER: Nice to have you here.
Miss ENRIGHT : Thank you.
Dr. MEYER: Did you have anything you wanted to add to this?
STATEMENT OF MAURA ENRIGHT, CRISIS CENTER,
ATLANTA, GEORGIA
Miss ENRIGHT: I have something, you know, just to back up
what Stephanie said. Also on what you said about documentation, it
would have been nice to come here as, you know, representative of
a group that had studied this, but the hip community, whatever
you want to call it, is already exhausted by a lot of things we are
trying to do. We have a great many other harassments besides
just the helicopter.
Dr. LYONS : We are having difficulty hearing you. Is that mike on?
Miss ENRIGHT: Our apologies for not having a group that has.
But so much other stuff is going through. There's only so many
people and there's so much harassment at all different aspects of
our life. This is just a beginning. We hope we can carry it out
further.
I am from the Community Center, and I just want to back up
what Stephanie said. This helicopter noise for me is an important
aspect of pollution because of its effects on quality of life—my life,
for instance.
Now, the helicopter noise completely disrupts any area it is in.
There is no question about that. People on the street, in the park,
on their porches, in their houses have no choice but to endure the
noise. No amount of mental effort can block it out. It penetrates
through walls as well as through conversation, meditation, music,
and sleep.
It is especially noxious in the park. It's not a minor concern
to the people in our community that the air space in the park is con-
stantly abused by the helicopters. It is a serious encroachment on
our right to some kind of silence and relaxation in our lives.
The police helicopters especially do not just pass over but they
are very fond of circling around over one given area for long
periods of time.
Just the noise of helicopter noise has a certain connotation for
most people. When they hear a helicopter see it circling overhead,
they don't say, "Far out, we're being protected from natural dis-
-------
179
asters or from criminals." They get very paranoid. Again quality
of their park experience. They are subjected simultaneously to
extreme noise and paranoia. This is not right or human.
My last word. It must be argued or may be argued that police
helicopters are exciting new tools for law enforcement, but you
end up with a "big brother" concept, censors in the brain, closed-
circuit TV covering every inch of the planet, etc.
We all know we are at an extremely delicate point in history.
We must start considering quality of life and apply it to our
technology. The helicopters in Atlanta fall into this category.
They must be eliminated or greatly restricted.
That's all I came to say.
Dr. MEYER : Thank you very much.
Comments?
(No response)
Thank you.
Is Mrs. Kobert Miller here?
(No response)
Or Mrs. Charles Holman?
STATEMENT OF MRS. CHARLES HOLMAN, PRIVATE CITIZEN
Mrs. HOLMAN : I apologize if I am repeating something that might
have been said yesterday. I was not here and do not know what
proceeded yesterday.
I am Mrs. Charles Holman. I am speaking as a private citizen.
It seems to me that one factor in noise pollution as related to con-
struction has been overlooked and should be included in the report
of this committee. That factor is population.
We have noise because we have people. The noise is to meet the
needs of the people. If you have one person, you need one housing
unit and one automobile. If you have two people you have two auto-
mobiles.
Excuse me. I'm extremely nervous.
Dr. MEYER : That's all right.
Mrs. HOLMAN: And you need two housing units. Thus, you have
doubled your construction, your automobile factory, the automobile
that is produced, the highway that is needed for the automobile,
and all of the other related factors that go into this.
Therefore, I feel that this committee should emphasize that popu-
lation must be controlled just to keep noise at the level that it is
now without increasing the level of noise.
Thank you.
Dr. MEYER: Thank you very much. Would you wait just a minute
and see if any of the panelists has a comment or question?
Mr. BARON : Are you echoing zero population growth ? Is that the
point you're making?
Mrs. HOLMAN : Yes, sir. I think it's crowded enough just as it is.
It has enough noise. It has enough land that has been destroyed for
highways, destroyed for housing units. I think that if we can main-
tain ourselves as we are now we will have done a wonderful thing.
Mr. BARON : If I may add a slight note of mixed levity and serious-
ness, it has been said that noise causes reduction in fertility and
virility.
Dr. MEYER: The fact still remains, and we were discussing this
-------
180
with some other people earlier today separately, that even if you
had a relatively static population one of the problems that we are
faced with in all environmental issues, not just the noise issue, is
the steady movement of people from rural areas of the United
States into the metropolitan and megalopolitan areas. All you have
to do is take the Statistical Abstracts of the United States, a book
put out by the Department of Commerce, and look at the list of cities
of over 100,000, and look at the 230-some-odd standard metropolitan
areas of the United States, total up the population, and compare
that with the total population. You will come up with the fact
that about 80 percent of the population is living in about 25 or 30
percent of the land area, and the trend is continuing that way.
So people are just packing themselves into these big metropolitan
areas, and this is a real concern. If the national life style is away
from the country into the city, then we've really got to take a good
look at how to accommodate all of the conflicting desires, aims,
mores and aspirations of the population, because not all 200 million
people are going to want to feel the same. At the same time, one has
to then come up with a rational land use policy in this area. So even
if you held the population the same you wouldn't necessarily solve
all these problems.
Mrs. HOLMAN: Right.
Dr. MEYER: In fact, you may have it much worse.
Mrs. HOLMAN: I realize that. But one of the primary factors in
moving to cities, this type of thing, will have to be done with public
relations and changing people's attitudes, just as population control
is an attitude-changing phenomenon.
Dr. MEYER: Thank you very much. I am glad you brought up
this issue because it's one that needs to be kept in view. Let me ask
if there were any of the people who indicated they wanted to
make a statement who were late when I called their names here?
If so, I will be happy to have them appear at this time.
(N"o response)
If not, I will make the statement that I have indicated before.
The record of this hearing will stay open for 30 days until the 9th
day of August, and if anybody who is here feels that they would
like to have something included in the record, if they will address a
letter to us at the Environmental Protection .Agency at 1626 K
Street, N.W., Washington, D.C., we will ensure that it is included
in the published record.
(Statements of Robert L. Schwind, The Georgia Conservancy,
Inc., and Furman Smith, Jr., as an individual, follow:)
STATEMENT OF ROBERT L. SCHWIND
I have been requested by the Georgia Conservancy to represent
the Conservancy at the above-captioned hearing. I have been called
out of town on the dates of the hearing and shall be therefore unable
to attend in person. Accordingly I wish to present this statement on
the subject of noise pollution with the request that it be incorporated
into the official record of the hearing.
As you may know, The Georgia Conservancy, Inc., is a non-profit
tax-exempt corporation created in 1967 and existing under the laws
of Georgia. Its membership is currently near 5000 and its expenses
are met from membership dues and donations. The Conservancy
-------
181
represents and is made up of Georgians from all walks of life
dedicated to the wise use of our natural resources and to the res-
toration and preservation of the harmony between man and his
environment.
Most of the Conservancy's membership including the writer live
and work in an urban environment and are well aware of the in-
creasing cacophony assailing us from all quarters, to wit: transporta-
tion and vehicular traffic, industry and business, and the construc-
tion industry. The Conservancy does not accept the proposition
that noise is the price one must pay for progress or that noise is
an inevitable and necessary concomitant of urban life and affluence,
but is of the opinion that noise like any other pollution proceeds
from wrong attitudes i.e. from a general disregard or lack of sensi-
tivity for the right of all to enjoy a healthy environment. Stated
otherwise, most sources of noise pollution could be, with the present
state of technology, controlled, if not in many cases entirely elimi-
nated, were the creators of such pollution so minded.
The writer, a lawyer by profession, is not qualified to comment
on the medical or physiological effects of noise pollution, nor on the
noise ordinarily associated with industry and construction. Accord-
ingly, comments in this statement are limited to those sources of
noise pollution with which the writer is personally familiar, namely
transportation and vehicular traffic. For convenience, each category
will be treated separately.
1. Diesel trucks: The motors of diesel trucks generate considerable
noise. With increasing numbers of trucks on the highways and the
expansion of the highway system, ever more peoples' lives are
affected by noise pollution. Those living within two miles of a major
highway are subjected to the continual din of diesel engines. From
personal observations the writer can testify that most truckers make
a practice of removing the mufflers from trucks upon receipt from
the manufacturer and replacing the same with straight exhaust
pipes or with phony mufflers without baffles. The reason for this
practice is the widespread belief among truckers that mufflers impair
the efficiency of diesel engines.
2. Diesel locomotives: Like diesel trucks, diesel locomotives have
no noise suppression equipment. In addition, the practice of engi-
neers to sound their horns vigorously and often even after passing
an intersection contributes to the discomfort of people living near
railroads.
3. Commercial and private aircraft: Aircraft contain no noise
suppression equipment. The continual roar of jet planes over the
metropolitan area and the grinding of slower moving private craft
at low elevations add substantially to the discomfort of urban dwell-
ers.
4. Sport cars and motor bikes: Many who are attracted to sport
cars and motor bikes equate noise with status and power. Accordingly
the more noise a vehicle makes, the better it is. Others remove
mufflers from regular cars in order to attract attention or to "improve
the efficiency" of such vehicles. State laws governing the use of
mufflers, if they exist, are not enforced.
The Conservancy is of the opinion that the technology exists to
provide most modes of transportation with noise abatement equip-
ment. Moreover since most of these modes of transportation are in-
-------
182
volved in interstate commerce or affect interstate commerce, they are
a proper subject for Federal regulation. As evidenced by the attached
letter from the U.S. Department of Transportation to the writer,
that agency does not appear ready to regulate noise abatement for
commercial vehicles. Accordingly one must look to the Environ-
mental Protection Agency for aid in meeting the assault on the audi-
tory senses. In summary, The Georgia Conservancy, Inc., repre-
senting and uniting Georgia's conservationists in the common cause
of improving the quality of the environment and of our" lives, ex-
presses for the record of this hearing its support for the Agency's
effort to abate noise pollution and urges the Agency to proceed with
the formulation of policies and regulations designed to meet that
problem effectively.
Text of
LETTER TO MR. SCHWIND
From
Federal Highway Administration
Dear Mr. Schwind:
Your letter of May 25, 1971, addressed to Honorable John A. Volpe, Secretary
of Transportation, has been forwarded to this office for reply.
We agree that improperly maintained commercial vehicles can be responsible
for noise levels which are disturbing to private citizens and perhaps damaging
to drivers of motor vehicles. This Bureau recently issued an Advance Notice
of Proposed Rule Making on the subject of Vehicle Interior Noise Levels.
Although the proposal does not deal with commercial vehicle noise as a con-
tributor to environmental pollution, in focusing on the noise to which the truck
or bus driver is exposed, it is expected that the total noise level of the vehicle
will be reduced. We are enclosing a copy of the Advance Notice and a
press release discussing it for your information. The proposal would amend
the Motor Carrier Safety Regulations which are concerned with the safety
of operation of motor vehicles used in transportation in interstate and foreign
commerce.
A number of States in their Motor Vehicle Codes specify general noise level
requirements. The States of New York and California have enacted legislation
that specifically limits motor vehicle noise levels and specifies the manner
in which it is to be measured. We feel that at this time State regulations
enforced by State authorities represent the most effective method of controlling
excessive noise from commercial vehicles whether traveling intrastate or
interstate.
ENCLOSURE TO LETTER
FOR SATURDAY RELEASE
November 21, 1970
FHWA - 527
(202) 426-0648
For the first time, the Department of Transportation is contemplating
setting standards to control the noise level inside trucks and buses.
Dr. Robert A. Kaye, Director of the Federal Highway Administration's Bu-
reau of Motor Carrier Safety, today announced that the BMCS is considering
rule-making action aimed at decreasing the noise level inside the cabs of
commercial vehicles.
Pointing out that potential safety hazard can be created by high noise
levels in the cab of a truck or bus engaged in sustained highway travel, Dr.
Kaye said:
"The more pressing and direct hazard is the effect of extended high noise
levels on drivers' alertness, while behind the wheel under certain circum-
stances. There is also a possible long-run personal occupational hazard of
damage to drivers' hearing, therefore serious consideration of Federal regu-
latory action is warranted."
Comments on the feasibility of regulations, based on standards of the Society
of Automotive Engineers or on safety and health standards set by the Depart-
ment of Labor under the Walsh-Healey Public Contracts Act, are being re-
quested from all interested parties.
The proposal does not deal directly with commercial vehicle noise as a
contributor to environmental pollution. However, in focusing on the noise
to which the truck or bus driver is exposed, it is expected that the total noise
-------
183
level of the vehicle will also be reduced, thus having a secondary effect of
decreasing environmental noise pollution.
Recognizing that a noise level test on a stationary vehicle, rather than a
moving vehicle, would be much simpler and less costly for both motor carriers
and enforcement personnel, Director Kaye specifically requested information
on whether there is a reasonable correlation between the sound level when
the vehicle is stationary, with its engine operating, and when it is operating
on the road at highway speeds.
All interested persons are invited to comment on the proposal on or before
February 19, 1971. Comments should be submitted in three copies to the Bureau
of Motor Carrier Safety, Federal Highway Administration, Room 5306, 400
Seventh Street, S. W., Washington, D. C. 20591.
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
BUREAU OF MOTOR CARRIER SAFETY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20591
PROPOSED RULE MAKING
Federal Highway Administration
[49 CFR Parts 392, 393, 395]
[Docket No. MC-22; Notice No. 14]
VEHICLE INTERIOR NOISE LEVELS
Advance Notice of Proposed Motor Carrier Safety Regulations
The Director of the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety is considering rule
making for the purpose of reducing the risk that drivers of commercial motor
vehicles will incur damage to their hearing or undue fatigue because of the
level of vehicle-generated noise to which they are subjected when they operate
those vehicles. Evidence that interior noise levels are so high as to cause
damage to drivers' hearing or to decrease their vigilance behind the wheel
may require the adoption of rules prescribing maximum interior sound levels
for commercial vehicles and hours-of-service limitations, in addition to those
now found in Part 395 of the Motor Carrier Safety Regulations, restricting
the duration of drivers' time behind the wheel of vehicles that produce
interior sound levels above a prescribed standard or both.
Several existing criteria for determining the adverse effects of exposure
to noise in a working environment are under consideration. Among them are
the octave band pressure levels found in Society of Automotive Engineers
Recommended Practice J336 ("Sound Level for Truck Cab Interior," June
1963) and the standards issued by the Department of Labor under the Walsh-
Healey Public Contracts Act relating to occupational noise exposure of em-
ployees covered by the Act (see 41 CFR 50-204.10). The Director invites com-
ments on the feasibility of adopting these, or other similar, existing criteria.
The Director will also explore the possibility of employing various existing
methods of measuring sound levels to ascertain whether interior noise in a
vehicle exceeds permissible limits. He is contemplating monitoring either
octave band levels in decibels or decibels on the A-weighted scale as reasonably
accurate measurements of the effect of noise on human beings working in close
proximity to the source of the noise. The Director invites comments on the
feasibility and validity of using either or both of these monitoring techniques
for that purpose.
The Director recognizes that it would be simpler and less costly for motor
carriers, vehicle manufacturers and enforcement personnel to make tests in
a stationary vehicle rather than a moving one. He will, therefore, consider the
possibility of measuring sound levels inside stationary vehicles, with the engine
at idle or at a governed speed with the transmission disengaged, as the test
for ascertaining whether the noise levels of those vehicles are unacceptably
high when they are moving. Comments on the feasibility and validity of this
approach are invited. The Director is particularly interested in receiving
comments on the hypothesis that, because most of the noise heard inside a
moving vehicle is generated by the engine rather than by wind or the vehicle's
tires, there is a reasonable correlation between the sound level when the
vehicle is stationary, with its engine operating, and the sound level the vehicle's
driver experiences on the road at highway speeds.
Because issuance of a regulation can result in technological improvements
in vehicles manufactured in the future, the Director is considering issuance
of a rule that would establish two standards for maximum permissible interior
sound levels. One standard would apply to vehicles manufactured before a
-------
184
prescribed cutoff date, while another more stringent standard would apply to
vehicles manufactured after that date. The two-standard approach would
assure that the motor carrier fleet will, in time, achieve a more desirable
level of performance, so far as interior noise is concerned, without at the
same time rendering a substantial segment of the existing fleet obsolete over-
night. Comments on the feasibility of this approach are specifically invited.
The Director also invites interested persons to submit data on sound levels
in present production over-the-road vehicles and on sound levels in models
of those vehicles projected for future production. In addition, he invites sub-
mission of information about hearing loss and driver fatigue as a function
of exposure to noise at various sound levels.
Data, views, and arguments on subjects pertaining to the proposed new
rules, other than those specified above may also be submitted for consideration.
All comments should refer to the docket number and the notice number
appearing at the top of this notice. Comments should be submitted in three
copies to the Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety, Federal Highway Administra-
tion, Room 5306, 400 Seventh Street SW., Washington, D.C. 20591. All com-
ments received before the close of business on February 19, 1971, will be con-
sidered before further action is taken. Comments will be available for exam-
ination in the public docket at the above address both before and after the
closing date for comments.
This advance notice of proposed rule making is issued under the authority
of section 204 of the Interstate Commerce Act, as amended (49 U.S.C. 304),
section 6 of the Department of Transportation Act (49 U.S.C. 1655), and the
delegations of authority in §| 1.48 and 389.4 of Title 49, CFR.
Issued on October 28, 1970. BOBEBT A. KATE,
Director,
Bureau of Motor Carrier Safety.
[F.K. Doc. 70-15034; Filed, Nov. 6, 1970; 8:51 a.m.]
STATEMENT BEFORE HEARINGS OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTEC-
TION AGENCY, JULY 8 AND 9, 1971—ATLANTA. GEORGIA
My name is FUKMAN SMITH, JR. I reside at 4400 Northside
Drive, N.W., Atlanta, Georgia 30327. I make this statement not as
an expert, but as an individual who desires to bring attention to
what he considers to be the most obnoxious and pervasive sources
of noise pollution.
From my own experience, I find that the noise generated by
vehicular traffic, automobiles, trucks, buses and motorcycles, is by
far the most obtrusive and pervasive source of all forms of noise
pollution. And of all motor vehicles, large trucks are by far the
worst offenders. As an example, I find that I am constantly dis-
turbed, annoyed and irritated by the noise from large trucks travel-
ling on Highways 1-75, particularly in the evenings and at night.
It is almost two miles in a straight line to this Highway at the
nearest point! I cannot count the nights that I have been kept awake
listening to heavy trucks labor up a steep grade on 1-75. I can
distinctly hear these trucks as they go through their range of gears.
I do not know why, but I never noticed this level of noise before
1-75 was completed. 1-75 runs right alongside old U.S. 41, which
also was heavily traveled by trucks before the construction of 1-75.
However, U.S. 41 was at that time heavily wooded almost to the
edge of the road on both side. All of the trees have been stripped
away for almost a quarter of a mile on each side of 1-75.
The problem appears to be caused almost entirely by trucks.
Automotive traffic on the street in front of our house, which is a
through street, is almost completely unnoticeable. The truck traffic
on 1-75 is quite noticeable. In fairness, however, I should point out
that traffic on 1-75 cannot be heard at all times; it is particularly
noticeable on warm nights.
-------
185
I personally find that the noise from trucks is far more obtrusive
and pervasive than the next major source of noise pollution, aircraft.
Our house is under the flight path of planes from Dobbins Air Force
Base and from Atlanta Municipal Airport. Nevertheless, noise from
aircraft hardly disturbs me at all, especially when compared to
truck noises. Aircraft noises are, fortunately, only occasional. The
truck noise is almost continuous. Although I have never made scien-
tific measurements, the noise from a large truck climbing a steep
grade appears to be almost as great as a commercial aircraft on
take-off.
However, it is possible to live away from airports; it is almost
impossible to get away from super highways. When the proposed
interstate and tollway system is completed, there will be almost no
point in the greater Atlanta area which will be much more than two
miles from one super highway or another.
It appears to me that this is a problem which could be greatly
alleviated by simple controls. Some heavy trucks appear to have
almost no mufflers at all; others appear to operate much more quietly.
In fact, until this year, Georgia did not require truck tractors to
have mufflers at all. I would like to see federal regulation which
would prohibit any vehicle from using the interstate system if it at
any time generated noise levels exceeding a realistic maximum.
Dr. MEYER: I do appreciate the fact that so many people have
stayed with this group for as long as they have, and I hope it has
been as useful and informative to you as it has been to me as the
chairman and representative of the Administrator and to the mem-
bers of the panel. Thank you all very much.
(Whereupon, at 2:50 p.m., the public hearing was adjourned.)
* * *
APPENDIX A
MISCELLANEOUS STATEMENTS FOR THE RECORD
STATEMENT OF MARVIN H. CLOER.
ALLIANCE FOR LABOR ACTION
THE NOISE ABOUND US: HAZARDS AND CURES:
We have heard a lot about pollution in our environment and the
harmful effects it can have on everyone. In the last few years there
has developed a better understanding that the noise around us is a
form of pollution, and that noise pollution is harmful to human
health and well-being—not only is it the major cause of deafness but
is also a contributing factor to the psychosomatic stresses and strains
in urban areas.
The ALA is seriously interested in action by the Government and
industry to curb this noise.
Various Health Journals and Newspapers over the Country ac-
claim that the greatest non-killing health hazard in American indus-
try is noise-induced hearing lost involving at least six million with
estimates up to 16 million workers. It is painless, does not bleed,
cannot be seen, appears gradually and one is unaware that the daily
temporary loss will become permanent in time.
Acoustical Violence—Threat to Health
From the book "Tyranny of Noise" which seems to be a writing
of various studies done in various cities on noise, points out the
facts that not only is hearing affected but cardiovascular problems,
-------
186
ulcers, the irritable colon, the erratic blood pressure, migraine head-
ache and a great deal of mental illness.
Dr. Rene Dubos noted Microbiologist and authority on the ecology
of disease states "Modern man, like his ancestors, can achieve ad-
justments to a very wide range of conditions even those that are
almost incompatible with organic survival". He also states—"Noise
is one of the stresses to which man becomes "adjusted" by becoming
literally deaf to it."
Dubos has a warning against crowding: He says that tests have
revealed that crowding increases activity of hormones, and adrenal
glands which in turn affects the whole human physiology."
Noise Pollution in the Work Place:
Some communities have done nothing whereas others have been
misguided in their efforts and have aggravated the environmental
conditions of many workers such as forbidding windows in plants
joining residential neighborhoods which only trapped the noise for
the workers.
Industries where ALA members work have become seriously aware
of noise hazards yet in all ALA industries noise abatement programs
are in their infancy. While there is some progress of noise pollution
there are other areas which constitutes disaster or near disaster.
Examples: Drop-forge plants of 60 employees with from 5-25 years
of seniority over half have suffered hearing loss varying from 40%
to 70%. Stamping Plants: The noise here is terrific but is avoidable,
a result of negligence and/or indifference on the part of industry
and among workers that take it for granted. Foundries: A major
noise problem. Every worker including clerks are affected. Ear plugs
could be effective if fitted to each worker by a plant medical de-
partment.
What can lie Done?
ALA could schedule after work or week-end meetings with few
in attendance. Local Unions could request joint meetings with man-
agement which would cut into production time. So it will be up
to educational programs in the ALA to give stronger emphasis to
the importance of combating noise as well as other forms of pollution
in work environment.
Federal leadership is going to be imperative. The remedy lies
in public insistence, happily reflected in Congress that Federal
authority assume its full responsibility.
To summarize, let me emphasize that construction is an industry
that also has been allowed to run rampage throughout the community
day and night having no regard for the tranquility of residents
living and sleeping, without even being made to feel any responsi-
bility to anyone in the field of noise pollution.
July 20, 1971
Dr. Alvin F. Meyer Jr.
Environmental Protection Agency
Noise Abatement Division
Washington, D. C. 20460
Dr. Meyer, members of the panel, Ladies and Gentlemen.
Fourteen years ago I purchased a home in Cobb County, Georgia. This is
the largest investment I will make in my lifetime. It was a home I could
enjoy and look forward to the retirement years ahead. Noise, smoke and
dust pollution was a problem not related to my home environment. Today
this is changed. Due to negligent and indiscreet zoning, a concrete construction
-------
187
company produces noise into the environment that goes unchecked because of
the lack of rigid and strict noise statement regulations.
It has been my experience that most heavy manufacturing plants have no
interest in noise abatement and practically always show a disregard for the
rights of the private citizen in reference to noise pollution.
Approximately eighteen months ago a construction company solicited my
neighborhood for permission to manufacture concrete pipe on a eighteen acre
tract with a buffer zone of pine trees separating private residential property
from the proposed plant. This concrete pipe company presented under oath to
the Cobb County Zoning Board statements that there would be no noise,
smoke or dust. This plant is now in operation and the loud noise this company
produces in my neighborhood environment is unbelievable. Diesel tractors,
jackhammers, sand vibrators, explosive hammers and gravel conveyor buckets
combine to create a living hell in my neighborhood.
I have complained and petitioned for the zoning board to force this com-
pany to comply with the statement made under oath reference no noise,
smoke or dust. The board chairman suggested I take legal action to force
compliance. Gentlemen, I am not a rich man and cannot afford the expense
required to fight a construction company.
This company misrepresented itself to the citizens and the zoning board.
This company has violated my civil rights and has confiscated my property.
This obnoxious and loud noise has lowered property values and in time can
be detrimental to my health.
This example of blatant disregard for citizens rights is mute evidence why
rigid and strict noise abatement laws must be enacted.
The States of Oregon, Delaware and Montana are already serving notice
that they will forego economic growth if it means despoiling the environment.
Aready many companies desiring to locate in these states have been notified
that they are not welcome due to the pollution they will discharge. This is
the only incentive offensive polluting industries will understand If all types
of pollution is to be eradicated.
Representatives of heavy construction and heavy equipment companies con-
tinue to oppose real noise abatement controls on the grounds they are doing all
they can. Gentlemen I say this is a fallacy. The Heavy construction and
equipment companies will continue to pollute with noise and disregard the
rights and health of the citizen until strict and rigid noise abatement legisla-
tion is passed.
The only incentive noise polluters will ever take serious will be penalties
and fines. I strongly urge that congress enact strict noise abatement legisla-
tion if we as citizens are ever to have some degree of reasonable peace and
quiet and a healthy environment.
Thank you
J. S. Burch
177 Addison Rd.
Marietta, Ga. 30060
* The documents referred to are on file at the Office of Noise Abatement and
Control.
•A U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1972 0—442-976
-------
-------
-------
-------
-•"•'I Street
-------
------- |