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

-------

-------