-------
 92o CONGRESS
   2d Session
SENATE
DOCUMENT
No. 92-63
REPORT TO THE PRESIDENT AND CONGRESS
                       ON NOISE
    REPORT  OF  THE ADMINISTRATOR OF THE
      ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                     IN COMPLIANCE WITH
               Title IV of Public Law 91-604
     THE CLEAN AIR ACT AMENDMENTS OF 1970
                     FEBRUARY 1972
                      -  i rvnt.oction Agency
             March 1, 1972.—Ordered to be printed
              U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
                     WASHINGTON : 1972
     For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office
                  Washington, D.C. 20402 - Price $1.75
 74-249 O
                     Stock Number 5600-0040

-------
                  COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS

              JENNINGS RANDOLPH, West Virginia, Chairman
EDMDND S. MDSKIE, Maine            JOHN SHERMAN COOPER, Kentucky
B. EVERETT JORDAN, North Carolina    J. CALEB BOGGS, Delaware
BIRCH BAYH, Indiana                HOWARD H. BAKER, JK., Tennessee
JOSEPH M. MONTOYA, New Mexico      ROBERT J. DOLE, Kansas
THOMAS F. EAGLETOX, Missouri        JAMES L. BUCKLEY, New York
MIKE GRAVEL, Alaska                ROBERT T, STAFEORD, Vermont
JOHN V. TUNNEY, California           KARL E. MUNDT, North Dakota
LLOYD BENTSEN, Texas
                M. BARRY MEYER, Chief Counsel and Chief Clerk
        BAILEY GUABD, Minority Clerk; THOMAS C. JORLINO, Minority Counsel
       JOSEPH F. VAN VLADKICKEN and LEON G. BILLINGS, Senior Staff Members
           PHILIP T. CUM MI.NGS and DON ALEXANDER, Assistant Counsels
Professional and research staff: REBECCA BEAUKEGAKD, HAROLD H.  BRAYMAN, PAUL CHIMES,
 FRANCES T. CLARK, KATHEBINE Y.  CUDLIPP, KATHALEEN  R. E. FORCUM, ANN GARBA-
 BRANT, RICHARD D. GBUNDY, RICHARD E. HEROD, CLARK NORTON, JUDY PARENTE, DAVID
 SANDOYAL, SALLY WALKER, RICHARD W.  WILSON, and JOHN W. YAOO,  Jr.
                  SENATE RESOLUTION 243

        Submitted by Mr. Randolph of West Virginia

                    IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES,
                                                  March 1, 1972.
   Resolved, That the report of the Administrator of the Environ-
 mental Protection Agency to the Congress of the United States (in
 compliance with section 4Q&b) ?pf title |V, Public Law 91-604),
 entitled "Report to the. President, and the Congress on Noise" be
 printed with illustrations as a Senate document.
   SEC, 2. There shall be printed two thousand five hundred addi-
 tional copies of such document for the use of the Committee on
 Public Works.
   Attest:                             FRANCIS R. VALEO,
                                                       Secretary.
                                   By DARRELL ST. CLAIRE,
                                             Assistant Secretary.

-------
              LETTER OF TRANSMITTAL
                  ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
                       Washington, D.C., January 24, 1972.
THE PRESIDENT OF THE SENATE,
United States Senate, Washington, D.C.
  Dear MR. PRESIDENT: I have the honor to  submit  for your
approval, as required by Title IV of Public Law 91-604, a "Report
to the President and Congress on Noise."
      Sincerely,
                            WILLIAM D. RUCKELSHAUS,
                                          A dministrator.

-------

-------
                 REPORT TO
               THE PRESIDENT
                     AND
                  CONGRESS
                     ON
                   NOISE
               December 31,  1971
                 Prepared by
THE U.S.  ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                as required under
   The Noise Pollution and Abatement Act of 1970
   Title  IV to the Clean Air Amendments of 1970
                  (PL  91-604)

-------

-------
                                 CONTENTS

                                                                        Page

FOREWORD                                                              xix

INTRODUCTION                                                           xxi

Organization of this Report                                                 xxiv

General Observations and Conclusions                                       xxvi

Specifics of a Program for the Future                                        xxx

ACKNOWLEDGEMENT                                                     xxxv

Chapter 1   EFFECTS OF NOISE ON LIVING THINGS AND PROPERTY         1-1

            AUDITORY  EFFECTS                                          1-5
              Ear Damage                                                1-5
              Hearing Loss                                              1-6
              Masking and Interference with Speech Communication          1-u

            GENERAL PSYCHOLOGICAL AND SOCIOLOGICAL EFFECTS     1-15
              Interference with Sleep                                       1-15
              Annoyance and Community Response                          1-18
              Othe.- Possible Psychological and Sociological Effects          1-21

            GENERAL PHYSIOLOGICAL EFFECTS                          1-25
              Transient Physiological Response to Noise                    1-25
              Possible  Persistent Physiological Responses to Noise          1-28
              Stress Theory                                             1-30

            IMPLICATIONS OF GENERAL PHYSIOLOGICAL RESPONSES
            TO SOUND                                                   1-32

            SUMMARY OF PSYCHOLOGICAL AND PHYSIOLOGICAL
            EFFECTS                                                   J.-33

            SOCIOLOGICAL IMPACT OF NOISE                             1-35

            THE EFFECTS OF NOISE ON WILDLIFE AND OTHER ANIMALS   1-53
              Effects of Noise on Wildlife                                  1-54
              Effects of Noise on Laboratory Animals                       1-55
              Effects of Noise on Farm Animals                            1-55
              Summary of Effects on Wildlife and Other Animals             1-57

-------
                            CONTENTS (Continued)
            EFFECTS OF SONIC BOOM AND SIMILAR IMPULSIVE
            NOISES ON PROPERTY
              Nature of Sonic Booms and Other Impulsive Noises
              Response of Structures to Sonic Booms
              Cost of Damage to Buildings
              Effect of Sonic Booms on Natural Structures and Terrain
              Summary of Effects of Sonic Boom

            PHYSICAL EFFECTS OF NOISE ON STRUCTURES AND
            PROPERTY                                                   1-70
Chapter 2    SOURCES OF NOISE AND THEIR CURRENT ENVIRONMENTAL
            IMPACT                                                      2-1

            C OMMUNIT Y NOISE                                           2 -5
              Description of the Outdoor Noise Environment                  2-5
              Range of Outdoor Noise Environments                         2-12
              Intruding Noises and Community Reaction                      2-16
              Community Reaction to Noise                                 2-22
              The Growth of Noise                                         2-35
              Summary                                                   2-41

            TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS                                  2-45
              Commercial Aircraft                                        2-47
              General Aviation Aircraft                                    2-55
              Highway Vehicles                                           2-57
              Recreation Vehicles                                         2-62
              Rail Systems                                               2-67
              Ships                                                      2-71
              Environmental Impact                                       2-71

            DEVICES POWERED BY INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES       2-83
              Lawn Care Equipment                                       2-83
              Generators                                                 2-86
              Chain Saws                                                 2-86
              Model Airplane Engines                                      2-86
              Environmental Impact                                       2-86

            NOISE FROM INDUSTRIAL PLANTS                             2-88
              Plant Noise Sources                                         2-89
              Glass Manufacturing  Plants                                  2-91
              Oil Refineries                                              2-91
              Public Utility Electric Power Plants                          2-91
              Automobile Assembly Plants                                 2-91
              Can Manufacturing Plants                                    2-92
              Community Noise Climate                                   2-92
              Community Impact                                          2-99

-------
                           CONTENTS (Continued)
            CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT AND OPERATIONS
              Construction Site Noise
              Construction Equipment Noise                               2 - 1 1 • ;
              Environmental Impact                                      L' 1 1 1

            HOUSEHOLD AND BUILDING NOISE                            2 - 1 13
              Characteristics of Noise Sources                            2 - i 1 •:>
              Characteristics of Environmental and Noise Levels            2 -UB
              Impact of Household Appliances and Building Equipment         2 -119
              Summary of Effects of Appliance Noise on People              2- 127

            OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT
            OF MAJOR NOISE SOURCES                                   2-129
              Interference with Speech                                   2-129
              Community Reaction                                       2-131
              Hearing Damage Risk                                      2-132
              Summary of Assessment                                   2-113 2


Chapter 3    CONTROL TECHNOLOGY AND ESTIMATES FOR THE FUTURE    3-1

            TRANSPORTATION  INDUSTRY PROGRAMS                     :t-2
              Commercial Aircraft                                       3-2
              V/STOL Aviation                                          :;-7
              General Aviation  Aircraft                                   3-10
              Highway Vehicles                                          3-12
              Recreation Vehicles                                       ;!-16
              Rail Systems                                              ,i-21

            DEVICES POWERED BY INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES
              Noise Reduction Programs
              Potential Noise Reduction

            NOISE REDUCTION  FOR INDUSTRIAL PLANTS                  :!-37
              Motivation                                                ;i-37
              Method of Approach                                        3-js
              Future Commitment                                       3 -3U
              Projected Impact of Plant Noise                              3-3!)

            CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY EFFORTS                          3-11
              Equipment Operation                                       a -11
              Equipment Manufacturers                                   .".-11
              Projected Impact of Construction                            3-17

-------
                             CONTENTS (Continued)
            APPLIANCE INDUSTRY EFFORTS                               3-55
               Air Conditioners                                             3-55
               Dishwashers and Food Disposers                              3-56
               Vacuum Cleaners                                            3-58
               Other Maior Appliances                                      3-58
               Small Appliances                                            3-60
               Projected Impact of Appliance Noise                           3-62

            ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF NOISE ABATEMENT                   3-65

            SUMMARY                                                     3-66


Chapter 4   LAWS AND  REGULATORY SCHEMES FOR NOISE ABATEMENT    4-1

            CURRENT GOVERNMENTAL NOISE  REGULATION                4-2
               Noise Abatement Regulation at the  Federal  Level               4-2
               Noise Sources Regulated at the State  Level                     4-9
               Noise Sources Regulated at the Regional Level                 4-L3
               Noise Sources Regulated on the  Local Level                   4-14

            ANALYSIS OF EXISTING REGULATORY STRUCTURE FOR
            ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE ABATEMENT AND  CONTROL          4-L9
               Legal Basis for Environmental Noise Abatement and
                   Control Through Private Actions                          4-19
               Formal Authority for Governmental Control Over Noise
                   Sources and Noise Effects                                4-20
               Distribution of Formal Authority Among Federal,  State,
                   and Local Jurisdictions                                  4-21
               Distribution of Power Among Federal-State-Local
                   Jurisdictions with Respect to Environmental Noise
                   Abatement and Control
            EFFECTIVENESS OF EXISTING NOISE  CONTROL
            REGULATIONS                                                  1-36
               Effectiveness of Existing Federal Regulations                   4-36
               Effectiveness of Existing State Regulations                      4-38
               Effectiveness of Existing Local Noise Control Regulation         4-44

            SUMMARY                                                      4-IS

-------
CONTENTS (Continued)
Chapters    GOVERNMENT, INDUSTRY, PROFESSIONAL ANIJ VOLUNTARY
            ASSOCIATION PROGRAMS

            FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PROGRAM^
               Significant Federal Involvement
               Moderate Federal Involvement
               Minor Involvement
               Research Activities
               Interagency Committees and Studies

            STATE AND MUNICIPAL NON-OCCUPATIONAL NOISE
            ABATEMENT AND CONTROL PROGRAMS
               Responsible  Agencies
               Current Programs
               Research and Testing Facilities
              Current Funding
               Estimation of Potential Nationwide Budget of State and City
                   Non-Occupational Noise Control Programs
               Potential Use of Federal Funds
               Summary of State and Local Efforts

            INDUSTRIAL, PROFESSIONAL AND VOLUNTARY
            ASSOCIATIONS
               Introduction
               Activities
               Publications
                                             5-1

                                             •">-)
                                             5 -a
                                             5-l-j
                                             5 - 1 s
                                             5-19
                                             5-25
                                             5-liB
                                             5-28

                                             5-29
                                             5-30
                                             5-30
                                             5-32
                                             5-32
                                             5-32
                                             5-34
Chapter 6    AN ASSESSMENT OF NOISE CONCERN IN OTHER NATIONS

            SUMMARY OF IMPRESSIONS

            LEGISLATION AND REGULATIONS
              Great Britain
              Switzerland
              France
              Japan
              Soviet Union

            NOISE SOURCES
              Community Noise
              Air Traffic Noise
              Surface Traffic Noise
                                             6-1
                                             6-5
                                             6-5
                                             6-6
                                             C-6
                                             6-7
                                             6-10

                                             6-11
                                             6-11
                                             6-13
                                             6-17

-------
                            CONTENTS (Continued)

                                                                          Page

            NOISE ENVIRONMENTS                                        6-23
               The Residential Environment                                 6-23
               Public Institutions                                           6-25
               Effects of Industrial Noise on the Community                  6-26

            SUMMARY                                                    6-28


Appendix A  SOURCE DOCUMENT INFORMATION                            A-l

Appendix B  PROPOSED  BILL TO CONTROL THE GENERATION AND
            TRANSMISSION OF NOISE                                      B-l

Appendix C  PUBLIC HEARINGS ON NOISE - TITLE IV PL 91-604             C-l

GLOSSARY                                                                G-]

-------
                           LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS

Figure                                                                    Page

 1-1        Sensory Organ of the Inner Ear                                  1-7

 1-2        Speech Interference Levels                                      1-13

 2-1        A Typical Octave Band Spectrum of the Outdoor Residual Noise
            Level in Late Evening in a Normal Suburban Neighborhood         2-6

 2-2        Two Samples of Outdoor Noise in a Normal Suburban Neigh-
            borhood with the Microphone Located 20 Feet From the
            Street Curb                                                    2-8

 2-3        Various Measures of the Outdoor Noise Level                     2-11

 2-4        Histograms of the Percentage of Time Noise was in Each
            5-dB Interval for Three Time Periods                            2-11

 2-5        Daytime Outdoor Noise  Levels                                   2-13

 2-6        Estimated Maximum Distances Between Talker and Listener
            That Permit Intelligible Conversation and  Those That Enable
            Relaxed Conversation When  the Outdoor Noise  Level Equals
            the Daytime Median Noise Level                                 2-18

 2-7        Average Mean Subjective Rating as a Function  of Maximum
            Noise Level  in dBA for the British Experiment at the Motor
            Industry Research Association Proving Grounds                   2-20

 2-8        Difference Between A-Weighted Outdoor Noise Levels and the
            Residual Noise Level, Lgo,  in dB                                2-21

 2-9        Community Reaction to Intrusive Noises of Many Types as a
            Function of the Normalized Community Noise Equivalent Level     2-28

 2-10       Relationship Between Average Expression of Annoyance to
            Aircraft Noise and the Composite Noise Rating                   2-32

 2-11       Percentage of People Expressing "Very Much Annoyed" as a
            Function of Composite Noise Rating                              2-33

 2-12       Percentage of People Expressing "Not At All"  or "A Little"
            Annoyed as a Function of Composite Noise Rating                  2-34

 2-13       Approximate Growth in Aircraft and Freeway Noise Impacted
            Land Area,  Enclosed by CNEL 65                                2-36
 2-14       Comparison of Five Surveys of Outdoor Noise  Levels in
            Residential Areas in the United States Between 1937 and 1971      2-39

 2-15       General Characteristics of the Transportation  Industry in 1970     2-46

-------
                     LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS (Continued)
2-16       Characteristics of Commercial Aircraft                          2-49
2-17       Characteristics of V/STOL Aircraft                             2-50
2-18       NEF 30 Contours for Representative (Single Runway) Airport       2-54
2-19       Characteristics of General Aviation Aircraft                     2-56
2-20       Characteristics of Highway Vehicles                             2-58
2-21       Noise Sources for Highway Vehicles                             2-60
2-22       Characteristics of Recreation Vehicles                           2-63
2-23       Motorcycle Noise Sources                                       2-65
2-24       Snowmobile Noise Sources                                      2-66
2-25       Characteristics of Rail Systems                                 2-68
2-26       Rail Vehicle Noise Sources                                     2-72
2-27       Approximate Growth of a Few Types of Noisy Recreational
           Vehicles and Outdoor Home Equipment                           2-78
2-28       Potential Hearing Damage from Transportation System
           Components in Terms of Equivalent 8-Hour Exposure
           Levels, for Passengers or Operators                            2-81
2-29       Characteristics of Devices Powered by Internal Combustion
           Engines                                                       2-84
2-30       Noise Source  Characteristics of Internal Combustion Engine
           Devices                                                       2-85
2-31       Glass Manufacturing Plant Community                           2-94
2-32       Oil Refinery Community                                        2-95
2-33       Power Plant Community                                        2-97
2-34       Automobile Assembly Plant Community                          2-98
2-35       Can Manufacturing Plant Community                             2-100
2-36       Construction Equipment Noise Ranges                            2-108
2-37       Cross-Section of a Typical Multistory Building Showing
           Building Equipment                                             2-117
2-38       A Summary of Noise Levels for Appliance Measured at a
           Distance of 3  Feet                                              2-118
2-39       Range of Noise in dBA Typical for Building Equipment at 3 Feet    2-121
2-40       Range of Building Equipment Noise Levels to Which People
           Are Exposed                                                   2-122

-------
          LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS (Continued)
Noise -Impacted Areas (NEF 30 or Higher) as Function of Jet
Engine Noise Reduction Goals                                    3-6
Noise Reduction for Helicopters                                 3-9
Potential Noise Reduction for Highway Vehicles                   3-17
Potential Noise Reduction for Recreational Vehicles               3-20
Estimated Long Term Trend in Daytime Residual Noise
Levels in a Typical Residential Urban Community                 3-.'il
Number of Building Construction Sites Projected to the Year 2000  3-49
Construction Site  Geometry and Transmission Loss  Contours
for Stationary Population                                        3-o3
Projected Change in Exposure  to Construction Noise,
Assuming No Change in Noise  Levels                             3-54
Projected Change in Exposure  to Appliance Noise, Assuming
No Change in Noise Levels                                       3-64
Typical Statistical Distributions of Urban Traffic Noise            6-20

-------

-------
                                LIST OF TABLES
Table                                                                      Page
 1-1        Hearing Handicap Guideline                                      1-9
 1-2        Lifetime Exposure to Noise (Illustration)                          1-39
 1-3        Studies and Surveys on Sonic Boom                               1-62
 1-4        Percent of Valid Claims for Category of Damaged Element         1-63
 1-5        Sonic Boom Damage Data                                        1-66
 2-1        Comparison of Average Daytime and Nighttime Outdoor
            Noise Levels                                                   2-15
 2-2        Qualitative Descriptions of Urban  and Suburban Detached
            Housing Residential Areas and Approximate Daytime
            Residual Noise  Level (Lgo)                                      2-16
 2-3        Factors Considered in  Each ot Three Methods Used for
            Describing the Intrusion of Aircraft Noise Into the Community      2-24
 2-4        Corrections to be Added to the Measured Community Noise
            Equivalent Level (CNE  L) to Obtain Normalized CNEL              2-26
 2-5        Two Examples of Calculation of Normalized Community
            Noise Equivalent Level                                          2-27
 2-6        Number of Community  Noise Reaction Cases as a  Function
            of Noise  Source Type and Reaction Category                      2-29
 2-7        Summary of Expected Community  Reaction and Approximate
            Annoyance as a Function of Normalized Community Noise
            Equivalent Level                                                2-44
 2-8        Growth in the Transportation System, 1960-1970                   2-47
 2-9        Noise Energy for Elements of the  Transportation System           2-74
 2-10       Predicted Contributions to Daytime Residual Noise Levels by
            Highway Vehicles for a Typical Urban Community in 1970          2-75
 2-11       Rank Ordering of Surface Transportation System According
            to A-Weighted Noise  Level                                      2-77
 2-12       Typical  Passenger Separation Distances and  Speech Inter-
            ference  Criteria                                                2-82
 2-13       Summary of Noise  Impact  Characteristics of Internal
            Combustion Engines                                             2-87
 2-14       Range of Industrial Machinery Equipment, and Process
            Noise Levels                                                   2-90
  74-249 O - 72 - 2

-------
                          LIST OF TABLES (Continued)
Fable                                                                      Page
 2-15       Typical Ranges of Energy Equivalent Noise  Levels, Laq in
            dBA, at Construction Sites                                       2-104
 2-16       Expected Community Reaction to Three Typical Examples
            of Construction Noise                                            2-106
 2-17       Order-of-Magnitude Estimates of Exposure to Construction
            Noise Expressed in Millions of Person-Hours Per Week            2-J12
 2-18       Exposure of Building Occupants to the  Noise of Building
            Equipment                                                      2-120
 2-19       Noise Levels of Home Appliances and  Building Equipment
            Adjusted for Location of Exposure (in  dBA)                        2-124
 2-20       Order-of-Magnitude Estimates of Exposure to Home Appliance
            and Building Equipment Noise Expressed in Millions of Person-
            Hours Per Week                                                ?-128
 2-21       Approximate Number of Operators or  Passengers in Non-
            Occupational Situations Exposed to Potentially Hazardous
            Noise from Various Significant Sources                           2-133
 3-1        Estimated Aircraft Noise Reduction  Potential                     3-5
 3-2        Estimated Noise Reduction  Potential for Helicopters               3-10
 3-3        Summary of the Noise Reduction Potential by Applying
            Current Technology to Existing Transit Vehicles                   3-24
 3-4        Examples of Possible Noise Reduction Goals for Externally
            Radiated Noise for Transportation System Categories              3-27
 3-5        Estimated Future Change in Noise Energy for Transportation
            System Categories with Three Options for Noise Reduction         3-28
 3-6        Summary of Estimated Noise  Impacted Land (Within CNEL 05
            Contour) Near Airports and Freeways  From 1955 to the Year
            2000 With Future Estimates Based on  Options 3 and 2              3-30
 3-7        Estimated Noise Reduction  Potential for Devices  Powered by
            Internal Combustion Engines                                     3-36
 3-8        Annual Construction Activity -1970                               3-51
 5-1        Summary of Federal Noise  Research Activity                     5-3
 5-2        Responsible City Agencies and Program Classification             5-26
 5-3        Responsible State Agencies & Program Classification              5-27
 5-4        Budget of Current  (1971) Noise Abatement Programs in 5 Cities    5-29
 6-1        Major Japanese Noise Laws                                     6-8
 6-2        British Traffic Survey                                           6-17
 6-3        Norwegian Noise Survey                                         6-18

-------
                                    FOREWORD








    Title IV of PL 91-604,  signed into law on December 31, 1970 by the President,




directed that the Environmental Protection Agency conduct "a full and complete inves-



tigation and study  of noise and its effect on public health and welfare" and to report,




within 1 year, the  findings to the Congress.  To those ends, authorization was given



to the Administrator to hold public hearings and to conduct research,  experiments,




demonstrations, and studies.  The public hearings were held in eight major cities




throughout the country, where some 225 witnesses representing the scientific com-




munity, industry,  and the public gave testimony on all aspects of the noise  problem.




In addition, the Agency, through its  Office of Noise Abatement and Control, developed




contracts and otherwise worked closely with a variety of noise experts,  both within




the Government and from the private sector, to review all aspects of current knowl-




edge about the effects of noise and methods of control.




    The result of  these extensive efforts is this report to the President and the




Congress of the United States.   Hopefully, this  document will be helpful in the current




deliberations on Federal noise control legislation. It should also be useful to state and



local  governments and the general public in making decisions that will more rapidly



solve a problem that affects more Americans than is generally realized.

-------

-------
                                  INTRODUCTION








    NOISE, commonly defined as unwanted sound, is an environmental phenomenon to




which man is exposed before birth and throughout life.   Noise can also be considered




an environmental pollutant,  a waste product generated  in conjunction with various activ-




ities of man.  Under the latter definition,  noise is any  sound  -independent of loudness -




that may produce an undesired physiological or psychological effect in an individual and



that may interfere with the social ends of an individual or group.  Those ends include




all of man's activities - communication, work, rest, recreation, and sleep.




    As waste  products of his way of life, man produces two general types of pollutants.



The general public has become well aware of the first type, the mass residuals (such



as associated  with air and water pollution) that, to a greater  or leaser degree,  remain




in the environment for extended periods of time.  However, only recently has attention



focused on the second general type of pollution, the energy residuals such as the waste



heat from manufacturing processes that creates thermal pollution of our streams.




Energy in the  form of sound waves constitutes yet another kind of energy residual, but,




fortunately, one that does not remain in the environment for  extended periods of time.




The total amount of energy dissipated as sound throughout the earth is not large when



compared to other forms of energy; it is only the extraordinary sensitivity of the ear




that permits such a relatively small amount of energy to adversely affect man and




other biological species.



    It has  long been known that noise of sufficient intensity and duration can induce



temporary or permanent hearing loss, ranging from slight impairment to nearly total

-------
deafness.  In general,  any source of sound producing noise levels of 70 to 80 dBA




at the ear can contribute to a pattern of exposure that may produce temporary




hearing threshold shifts if exposure is long enough, and this in turn could lead to per-




manent hearing impairment.  In addition, noise can interfere with speech communica-




tion and the perception of other auditory signals, disturb sleep and relaxation, be a




source of annoyance, interfere with an individual's ability to perform complicated tasks,




influence mood,  and otherwise detract from the quality of life.




    Society has, since antiquity, made attempts to abate and control noise.  The Romans




enacted perhaps the first prohibitory noise law when, by popular decree, chariot move-




ments were prohibited in the streets of Rome during the night.   In England, the first




reported court decision concerning noise abatement is dated in the thirteenth century.




Today,  many communities in the United States  have antinoise ordinances, although




these statutes vary widely in standards, scope, and degree of enforcement.




    With the technological expansion that began during the Industrial Revolution and




that has accelerated since World War n, environmental noise in the United  States and




other industrialized nations has  been gradually and steadily increasing,  with more geo-



graphic areas becoming  exposed to significant  levels  of noise.   Whereas noise levels




sufficient to induce some degree of hearing loss were once confined mainly to factories



and occupational situations, noise levels approaching such intensity and duration are



today being  recorded on  city streets and, in some cases, in and around the  home.



    There are valid reasons why widespread recognition of noise as a significant en-



vironmental pollutant and potential hazard or, as a minimum, a detractor from the




quality of life has been slow in coming.  In the tirst place, noise, if defined as unwanted




sound,  is a  subjective  experience.  What is considered as noise by one listener may be



considered desirable by  another.  Even in the same individual,  wanted sound on one




occasion may be considered as noise on another.

-------
    Secondly, noise has a rapid decay time and thus does not remain in mun'b i-n\iron




ment for extended periods of time, as do air and water pollution.  By the time the




average individual is spurred to action to abate,  control, or, at least, complain about




sporadic environmental noise, the noise in many situations may no longer exist.



    Thirdly, the physiological and psychological effects of noise on man are often




subtle  and insidious,  appearing so gradually and slowly that it becomes difficult to



associate cause and effect.  Indeed,  to those persons whose hearing  may already have



been affected by noise,  it may not be considered a problem at all.




    Further, the typical citizen is proud of this nation's  technological progiess and



is generally happy with the things such progress has given him  in the way of  rapid




transportation, labor-saving devices, and new recreational devices.   Unfortunate!!,




many technological advances have been associated with increased environmental noioc,




and there has been a tendency in large segments of the population to accept tlu .Tlili-




tional noise  as part of the price of progress.




    The  scientific community has already accumulated considerable  knowledge con-




cerning noise, its effects, and its abatement and control.  In that regard,  rioi&e  diifej s



from most other environmental pollutants.  Generally, the technology exists to con-




trol most indoor and outdoor noise.   As  a matter of fact, this is one  instance in




which knowledge of control techniques exceeds the knowledge of biological and




physical  effects of the pollutant.  These  facts have been brought out in previous



Federal reports on this problem such as "Noise: Sound Without Value" (Oitiee oi



Science and  Technology) and "The Noise Around Us" (Commerce Techmc:il Advisory



Board, Department of Commerce).

-------
ORGANIZATION OF THIS REPORT



    This report first addresses the effects of noise on living things and property.




Reviewed are:  human auditory, psychological,  physiological, and sociological effects;




effects on wildlife and other animals; effects of sonic boom and similar impulsive




noises; and physical effects  of noise on structures and  property.




     Chapter 2  deals with the sources of noise and their current environmental impact.




Included in this chapter are  discussions on community  noise; transportation systems;




devices such as lawn mowers and chain saws powered  by internal combustion engines;




noise from industrial plants; construction equipment and operations; household appli-




ance and building equipment noise; and an assessment  of the environmental impact



of major noise sources.




     Chapter 3  discusses present and future control technology for the noise sources




discussed in Chapter 2.




     Laws and regulatory schemes are dealt with in Chapter 4.  Considered are  cur-




rent governmental noise regulations and regulatory schemes and their effectiveness.




     Chapter 5  is concerned with  government, industry, professional,  and voluntary




noise control activities.



     Chapter 6  presents an assessment of noise concern in other nations.  Among items



reviewed are legislation and regulations relating to  noise sources and noise environments.




     Finally, for  those unfamiliar with the terminology of acoustics and noise, a glossary




is provided.



     The emphasis in this report  on noise source control technology should not obscure



the importance of other noise abatement procedures.  A comprehensive,  systematic




approach to noise abatement should include,  in addition to source control, such features




as land use planning and zoning,  requirements for noise control in building codes,




and  standards for enforcement of regulations.

-------
    The reader of this report is cautioned that the material presented herein is a




condensation of the extensive technical and detailed material contained in the




appropriate EPA Technical Information Documents and in the transcripts of the public



hearings held by the Agency.  As a condensation,  generalities may occur, although




every effort has been made to qualify statements when required for clarity.  Those




interested in more detail or verification of information sources should consult the




appropriate EPA documents, and the specific references cited therein.

-------
GENERAL OBSERVATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS



The Character of Noise as an Environmental Problem



    That sound and hearing play an Important role in human life is a proposition so



self-evident it requires no further comment.  However,  some effects of noise on



man,  such as interference with sleep and communication or noise-produced irritation



and annoyance, are difficult to define and evaluate with objective precision.



    Sparse information is available on typical cumulative exposures to noise associ-



ated with a variety of sources normally present in most of society's current environ-



ment.  Much of the information contained in this report is concerned with specific



sources, although first efforts have been made to estimate the magnitude of cumula-



tive exposures of typical segments  of the U. S. population.



    Furthermore,  there is a general lack of information on the effects of noise on various



living nonhuman organisms.  It is evident that under certain conditions there may be



some ecological effects, particularly when new  noises intrude into wildlife habitats.



At the same time,  certain species seem to show some adaptation to noise.  The pres-



ent state of knowledge in this area is incomplete.



    Reasonable evidence exists of the damaging effects of high intensity noise on



inert objects.  Physical damage to property from sonic booms generated by aircraft



has been repeatedly confirmed.  As the scale of intensity decreases,  there is insuffi-



cient valid data regarding direct structural effects on property.  Insofar as the effects



of noise on property values are concerned, the evidence remains inconclusive.








    The data developed in this report and  its supporting documents indicates that



noise has an impact on the people in the United States.  This impact  manifests itself



by interfering with speech communication, disturbing sleep,  and creating other dis-



turbances of life that lead to annoyances,  to addition, some noise levels encountered
                                      xx vi

-------
in non-occupational situations may also contribute to the risk of incurring hearing

impairment.  Since the subject of occupational noise has been extensively covered in

connection with the Occupational Safety and Health Act, it is dealt with only by refer-

ence in this report.

Noise Control Technology and Possible Changes in the Noise Problem
to the Year 2000

    Current technology and that expected to be available in the next 5 to 10 years in-

dicate that a substantial reduction in the noise from  various sources is feasible.

    Application of available technology is lagging because of inadequate social, eco-

nomic, or governmental pressures for noise abatement.  Further, there must be a

balance between application of technology to noise sources and the other measures re-

quired in controlling the total noise environment, such as land use planning and regu-

lation of source use.  In this connection the requirements of the National Environmentil

Policy Act relative to Environmental Impact Statements (Sec. 102(2)C, PL 91-190) and

of the Noise Pollution and Abatement Act of 1970 (Title IV,  PL 91-604, Sec. 402(c))

provide a  basis for noise control associated with both planned and existing Federal

activities.  Procedures to accomplish  these requirements are now being implemented.

    The projections of noise impact conducted for this report clearly indicate the need

for aggressive efforts at all levels of government.   Without such efforts, residual

noise levels in typical urban communities can be expected to rise from the 1970 level

of slightly over 46 dBA to just under 50 dBA by the year 2000 (the residual level as

used in this report is the lower noise level boundary that is exceeded approximately

90 percent of the  time).  Of more concern is the estimate that the noise energy from

highway vehicles  would double by the year 2000.  On the other hand,  the early and

vigorous institution of available technology and comprehensive  planning, in conjunc-

tion with effective enforcement and regulatory schemes, could  reduce the residual to

-------
42 dBA and the noise energy from highway vehicles by a ratio of nearly 4.5 to 1.  This




latter figure takes into account the estimated growth in the number of noise sources.




    An additional significant measure of the situation may be obtained by considering



the size  of  noise-impacted  land  areas near  airports  and freeways.  The




total  noise  impact  area in  1970  is  estimated  at  approximately 2000




square miles, and this area could increase to approximately 3300  square miles  by the




year 2000. The projected increase in the impact of aircraft noise could be reduced




through a combination of actions such as the development  and use of quieter aircraft




engines,  changes in aircraft operating procedures, and tighter regulation and enforce-




ment.  More  work is needed to clearly identify the relationships among the various




actions required, their cost, their effect on impacted areas  and the benefits that




would result.  Comparable actions regarding highway vehicles could also reduce the




impact of vehicular noise.  As with aircraft noise, the relationships among the various




actions required and their costs and benefits need additional investigation.




Methodologies for Noise  Measurement and Evaluation




    A considerable variety of methodologies and terminologies are presently used to




describe, measure,  and  evaluate noise.  Some of these are complex and confusing




even to those well versed in acoustics.  This bewildering  array of terminology,  such



as PNdB, EPNdB, NEF and CNEL (see  the Glossary for description of these terms)



represents efforts on the part of voluntary institutions, members of the professions,



and segments of governmental authorities to deal with specific situations, problems of



measurement,  and needs for evaluation techniques.  Many terms have some degree of




commonality, if not interchangeability,  while  others simply are not comparable.



Similarly, few, if any, were developed with the  idea that  they might be incorporated in




a statutory procedure for noise abatement and attendant legal and enforcement




provisions.   Even with existing statutory requirements at Federal, state, and local




levels, widely different and sometimes conflicting procedures exist.




                                      xxviii

-------
    This problem is further compounded by differences in scientific semantics -asso-




ciated with noise control and evaluation in the private and quasi-governmental usage.




The terms criteria and standards have come to have specific meanings regarding the




environment as pertains to air and water pollution and other environmental stresses.



These terms are loosely used interchangeably in relation to noise.  In most texts and




nongovernmental standards documents,  they often have the same meaning.  There is



a clear cut need to develop a uniformly understood, adequate scheme for  measure




ment  and evaluation of noise.




Economic Implications of  Noise  and Noise Abatement




    Information on the adverse effects of noise and the costs associated with  various




types of abatement measures are contained in several  chapters of this report.  In addi-




tion,  a significant portion of the data developed in the eight public hearings held by




the Agency under PL 91-604 relates to economic aspects oi the noise problem.




    As background material for this report,  EPA commissioned a  sludy oi (ho




economic impact of noise, which is referenced in the body of the document.  Huvuner,



at this time, the rudimentary  state of knowledge  regarding costs, benefits, and the




impact of abatement expenditures upon the nation's economy make it extremeIv diMi-



cult to perform meaningful economic analysis related to the problem ol environment:!!




noise.




    In order to evaluate alternative noise abatement strategies,  there are three  nu-



jor types of economic factors to he considered.  It is desirable to kncm the magnitude



of the benefits derived from proposed actions in terms of damages avoided and posi-




tive gains attained. A second factor is the cost of attaining each of the levels ol  con-



trol under study.  Finally, an analysis of the impact of these costs upon the economy



is needed.  With such information, economic analyses  can be undertaken to facilitate



rational decision-making.

-------
    Unfortunately, in the noise area, the currently available data is often imprecise




and relates to some limited problem such as the effects of highway noise on property




values in selected locations. In general, the data does not exist that would permit




good aggregate estimates of the  magnitude  of noise  damage and the cost and impacts




of abatement measures.




    There is a need for additional research on and  analysis of the economic aspects of




noise as an environmental problem.  More needs to be known about the adverse effects




on such factors as health, the quality of  life, productivity, and property values; the




cost of attaining various  levels of control; and the impact of abatement costs on the




economy.  With a better  understanding of these economic considerations,  it should be




possible in the future  to evaluate alternative control strategies and identify cost-




effective solutions.




 SPECIFICS OF A PROGRAM FOR THE FUTURE




    The material developed in preparing this report, and discussed in detail in sup-



porting documents, is supported in the EPA public  hearings on noise and leads to




one over-riding conclusion: there  is a need for improved and comprehensive efforts




at all levels of government for environmental noise control.  The local and state




governments have the primary responsibilities, in  most  respects, for the actions



necessary to provide a quieter environment.  This  includes land-use planning and




zoning, building codes, use regulations and the necessary enforcement programs.



However,  there are some functions that  are best carried out by the Federal gov-



ernment.  The Administration's legislative proposals now being considered by the




Congress  provide the basis for these needed functions.  Specific recommendations




to achieve the needed objective of a significant  reduction of noise over the next 5  to




10 years are embodied in the following recommendations.

-------
1.  Federal Leadership in Noise Abatement and Control




    Federal governmental programs relating directly to noise research and control




    are among the activities of several Federal departments and agencies.  There




    is a need for improved coordination of this effort.  To that end,  it is rec-




    ommended that:




    a.  The Environmental Protection Agency should provide  the leadership and




        should promote coordination of efforts of the various agencies that would




        be  responsible for their respective activities.




    b.  The Federal government should provide leadership  in controlling noise




        associated with its activities.




    c.  Programs of technical assistance to states and their political subdivisions




        for regulations and enforcement should be developed.




2.  Standards and Regulations




    A regulatory scheme should be established, and accelerated noise abatement




    efforts should be made by local,  state,  and  Federal governments as lollo\\s:




    a.  Federal noise emission standards should be established lor the principal




        sources  of environmental noise including:




        (1)   Transportation equipment — including  aircraft,  tor which EPA should




             have authority to approve  FAA standards for regulation of aircialt




             noise.




        (2)   Construction equipment.




        (3)   Internal combustion powered devices.




    b.  Product  labeling authority requested in legislative proposals presenlK




        being considered is a necessary element in an overall noise abatement




        and control program.

-------
    c.  Uniform noise codes, regulations, and standards should be developed




        by EPA and other Federal agencies, in accordance with the above-



        mentioned plan, and should be enacted into law by states and localities.




        Technical assistance should be provided by EPA on enforcement and other



        related activities.




3.  Research and Analysis Needs




    Some investment of effort and funds in noise  research has already been made




    at the Federal level (and to a lesser degree in the private sector as brought



    out in this report).   There remain, however, numerous gaps in knowledge




    and extensive areas of technical and scientific disagreement that require a




    continuing research effort.   To meet these needs, the following steps are




    recommended:




    a.  Present Federal research and development on specific noise source




        control should be continued and expanded, but with a  more direct focus




        on environmental aspects.  Such a program should directly involve the




        considerable expertise already existing  in the professional and academic




        community and  in industry.




    b.  Federally planned, directed, and supported research for improved



        methodologies  of measurement and evaluation are needed.  In  particular,



        a critical assessment of a large number of the varying measuring sys-



        tems and methodologies now in use is required.  Simplification, stan-



        dardization,  and interchangeability of data should be  the goal of this




        project.



    c.  Continuing efforts to determine the noise exposure of the American




        public should receive early attention.

-------
    d.   Research on physiological and psychological effects of noise should be




         continued,  ouch research provides the basis for the necessary criteria




         doci'.iients to be used In setting standards and in formulating state and




         local regulations.



    e.   Analysis of the economic implications and economic impact oi noise con-




         trol is essential in the decision-making process and for the development




         of realistic standards and should be undertaken as part of the existing EPA



         investigation of the broader issue of environmental economics.




4.  Education and Public Awareness



    Although there is awareness of some aspects  of the  noise problem and control




    techniques,  the typical citizen, while vexed by the intrusion of environmental




    noise into his life,  is generally unaware that methods to alleviate the  problem




    are already at hand.  The efforts called for in the above recommendation^, will



    lead to the improved information needed to move ahead with effective  measures




    to lessen the impact of noise.



5.  Legislative  Recommendation




    Legislation  proposed by the Administration in  February 1971 would provide the



    authority that is needed to meet the problems revealed in the studies leading




    to this report.
                                  xxxtii
 74-249 O - 72 - 3

-------

-------
                            ACKNOWLEDGEMENT


    The Environmental Protection Agency gratefully acknowledges the assistance of

the many people who contributed to the preparation of this report.  Their unselfish

contributions have helped make it possible to produce a useful document.  Those

deserving specific mention are:

    Dr. E. K. Bender
    Deputy Manager of Applied Physics Dept.
    Mechanical  Engineer
    Bolt,  Beranek & Newman

    Dr. Alexander Cohen
    Acting Director, Behavioral & Motivational Factors Branch
    National Institute for Occupational Safety and Health
    Dept.  of Health, Education and Welfare

    Dr. R. K. Cook
    Special Asst. for Acoustics
    National Bureau of Standards

    Kenneth McK. Eldred
    Vice President for Engineering
    Wyle  Laboratories

    Dr. John Fletcher
    Professor of Psychology
    Memphis State University
    Division of Research and Services

    Louis S.  Gcodfriend
    President
    L. S. Goodf riend Associates

    Klaus Liebhold
    Associate Director
    Informatics  Inc.

    Col. Dale Lindall,  USAFMC

-------
Dr. Louis Mayo
Vice President for Policy Studies and Special Projects
The George Washington University

Dr. James D.  Miller
Head of Psychology Lab.
Central Institute of the Deaf

Dr. Peter Siegel
Federal Air Surgeon
Federal Aviation Administration

Dr. Henning von Gierke
Director Biodynamics & Bionics Div.
Aerospace Medical Laboratory
Wright-Patterson AFB

Dr. Milton A.  Whitcomb
Executive Secretary
Committee on  Hearing, Biomechanics & Bioacoustics
National Academy of Science

-------
                                   CHAPTER 1

                          EFFECTS Of NOISE ON LIVING

                            THINGS AND PROPERTY *

    The definition of noise as unwanted sound implies that it has an adverse effect

on human beings and their environment, including land, structures, and domestic

animals.  Noise also affects natural wildlife and ecological systems.  Cause and

effect relationships between noise and its  adverse effects  are not always  readily

demonstrable.  Conversely, certain effects of noise on people are clear cut,  such

as with noise-induced hearing loss.

    Physiological and psychological changes  in people exposed to noise are less well

established than the hearing loss  response, since for the most part they are subtle

and cannot be distinguished from  similar changes produced by other environmental

stresses that are byproducts of our advanced technological society. Regarding
*   This chapter is based on material prepared by the Staff EPA Office of Noise
    Abatement and Control as result of testimony received during public hearings
    and on data contained in EPA reports NTID300. 7,  "Effects of Noise on People"
    (EPA contract 68-01-05000, Central Institute for the Deaf); NTID300.11, "Social
    Impact of Noise" (Interagency agreement with National Bureau of Standards), and
    NTID300. 5,  "Effects of Noise on Wildlife" (EPA contract 68-04-0024, Memphis
    State University). See Appendix A regarding procurement of these source materials,
    which contain bibliographic references.) The material on the effects of noise on
    humans in pages 1-5 to  1-32 was  reviewed  by a special committee composed of
    members of CHABA of the National Academy of Sciences, National Research
    Council.
                                       1-1

-------
domestic animals,  only sparse research data on noise effects is available; and virtually




no research data is available regarding wildlife.  There also appears to be little infor-




mation available regarding effects of noise on plant life.




    Extrapolation of human data as to effects of noise on domestic animals (or vice




versa) cannot be accomplished with any degree of validity,  and similar  cautions must




be applied concerning effects on wildlife.  Conclusions derived from such extrapolated




data must therefore be labeled tentative, possible, or probable.




    The effects of noise, particularly sonic boom and other high intensity intermittent




sources, on man-made or natural structures are reasonably well understood.  It is




possible to conduct well  controlled and verifiable damage studies on inanimate material,




and such studies have been undertaken,  as cited briefly in this  chapter.  For ethical and




other reasons, it is impossible to conduct such studies on people and animals.  This is




not to say, however, that the entire subject area has not been extensively investigated




by a wide variety of researchers and reported in the literature. This chapter summa-




rizes available knowledge on the effect of audible noise on living things  and property.




It does not consider the effects of nonaudible, high or low frequency sounds  (ultra- or




infrasound).




    As brought out by many expert witnesses appearing at public hearings on noise held




under Title IV to PL 91-604, sound and  hearing play a subtle and not well understood




role in human life. Whether it be the hum of a mosquito or the ringing of a church bell,




the hearing process conveys many communications resulting in varying responses:




pleasure, annoyance, and,  in some instances, intense emotional reactions.   Unlike sight
                                       1-2

-------
with a directional limitation of coverage*, the hearing response allows the comprehen-

of signals from diverse sources (such as simultaneous receipt of signals from a cry-

ing baby,  a ringing telephone,  and the audible signalling of the completion of the work

cycle of a home appliance — situations familiar to many housewives).

     From the foregoing, it is evident that one of the major values of hearing,  in addi-

tion to verbal communication,  is the detection of objects and events.  This phenomenon

is evidence of close ties between hearing on the one hand and psychological and physio-

logical activation on the other.  Humans can be aroused and alerted by sound (as is

true of many animals).  Sound often triggers muscular and emotional  responses that

appropriately prepare people to cope with possible events  signalled  by the sound.

     Of even greater importance is the role of sound and hearing in human speech com-

munication.  Perhaps more than any other attribute, this ability sets human beings

apart from lower animals.  The combination of human vocal capabilities for trans-

mission of sound, the human response in hearing, and the operation of the large com-

plex human brain is fundamental to effective speech communication  and the progress

of civilization. Much of human social and intellectual  life is dependent on the pheno-

mena of speech communication and language.  The aesthetic quality of life as reflected

in moods and experience are vastly influenced by what is heard.   The importance of

this consideration is not a newly discovered matter of environmental concern.  As

quoted by James L.  Hildebrand in his article "Noise Pollution: An Introduction to the

Problem and an Outline for  Future Legal Research,  "Schopenhauer  in 1844 said, 'I
*   The central field of vision for the human eye is approximately 21 ,  whereas the
    ear perceives omnidirectionally.

                                       1-3

-------
have long held the opinion that the amount of noise which anyone can bear undisturbed




stands in inverse proportion to his mental capacity and may therefore be regarded as




a pretty  fair measure of it.  .  .  Noise is a torture to all intellectual people. ' "




    When unwanted sounds intrude into an environment so as to affect the ability of




people to receive aural communications, noise exists.  Sounds that have value in one




location  may travel to other locations where they may disrupt useful and desired activ-




ities, thus changing their character as  an element of the environment  and becoming




noise.




    The  effects of noise on people have  been extensively studied, classified, and, to




some degree,  quantified. In the main,  the effect of audible-acoustical energy  on people




falls into four general overlapping categories:




    1.   Demonstrable hearing loss, accompanied by any social ramifications  of that




         loss.




    2.   Interference with the  ability to  communicate or to hear desired sounds or




         acoustical signals.




    3.   Annoyance and irritation effects of varying degrees,  such as  interference with




         sleep,  distraction from desired avocations, or other responses associated




         with the receipt of an audible signal.




    4.   Other physiological reactions.




These, at least in view of present knowledge,  are characteristic of human responses to




other stress stimuli and are not peculiar to noise or acoustical energy.  The four cate-




gories of effects are discussed in the following subsections of this chapter,  after which




material on effects of noise on wildlife and other animals and upon property will be found.





                                        1-4

-------
AUDITORY EFFECTS




    The most obvious effects of noise on people are auditory.  One set of auditory




effects is noticeable after a noise has disappeared; this consists of temporary hearing




loss,  permanent hearing loss,  and permanent injury to the inner ear.  Another set of




auditory effects is noticeable while a noise is present; this consists of masking and




interference with speech communication.  Both sets of auditory effects are adverse




in terms of human response.




    Exposure to noise of sufficient intensity for long enough periods of time can pro-




duce detrimental changes in the inner ear and can seriously decrease the ability to




hear.   Some of these changes are temporary and last for minutes, hours, or days after




the termination of the noise.  After recovery from the temporary effects, there may




be residual permanent effects on the ear and hearing that persist throughout the re-




mainder of life.  Frequent exposures to noise of sufficient  intensity and duration can




produce temporary changes  that are  chronic, although recoverable when the series of




exposures finally ceases.  Sometimes, however, chronically maintained post-exposure




changes lose their temporary quality and become permanent.




    The hearing changes that follow  sufficiently severe exposures to noise include dis-




tortions of the clarity and quality of auditory experience and partial loss of the ability




to detect sound.  These changes can  vary in degree, from only slight impairment to




nearly total deafness.




Ear Damage




    The primary site of auditory injury produced by excessive exposure to noise is the




receptor organ of the inner ear, the  organ of Corti.  Cross-sections of this organ are






                                       1-5

-------
shown on Figure 1-1 in normal and injured states.  Such iniuries result from excessive




exposure to noise.




    The sensory cells of hearing are the hair cells in the organ of Corti and the fibers




of the auditory nerve.   The integrity of the sensory cells and the organ of Corti is im-




portant  for normal hearing.  The injuries shown on Figure 1-1 are in single locations.




For proper prospective, it is important to realize that the human organ of Corti is




about 34 millimeters long and contains  about 17, 000 hair cells.  The degree of hearing




loss depends not only on the severity of the injury at any one location but also  on the




spread of injury.




    Intense sound can produce vibrations of such severity in the organ of Corti that




some of it is simply torn apart.  Or, severe exposures to noise can cause structural




damages that lead to rapid breakdown of the processes necessary for maintaining the




life of the cells. Such an injury is termed an acoustic trauma.  Another kind of injury




results  from prolonged exposure to noise of lower levels.  Such an injury is a noise-




induced cochlear injury and is probably the result of requiring the cells to work at too




high a metabolic rate for too long a period of time,  In a sense, the cells of the organ




of Corti can die from overwork.




    The results of both kinds of injuries are indistinguishable.  Once the cells are




destroyed,  they  are lost forever.  They do not regenerate  and cannot be stimulated to




regenerate.




Hearing Loss




    The primary measure of hearing loss is depicted  by the hearing threshold level.




The hearing threshold level is the lowest level of a. tone that can be detected.  The






                                       1-6

-------
                                              z
                                              o
                                              cr
                                              UJ
                                              Z
                                              UJ
                                              a
                                              UJ
                                              O

                                              _j
                                              <


                                              I


                                              O
t,
Oj
W
                                             tn

                                             o
                                                       §,
                                                       E
1-7

-------
greater the hearing threshold level, the greater the degree of hearing loss or partial




deafness.  In 1965, the Committee on Hearing of the American Academy of Ophthal-




mology and Otolaryngology offered the following definitions regarding hearing loss:




     1.   Hearing Impairment.  A deviation or change for the worse in either structure




         or function,  usually outside  the normal range.




     2.   Hearing Handicap.  The disadvantage imposed by an impairment sufficient to




         affect one's  efficiency in the situation of everyday living.




     3.   Hearing Disability.  Actual or presumed inability to remain employed at full




         wages.




     By these definitions, any injury to  the ear or any change in a hearing threshold




level that places it outside of the normal range  constitutes a hearing impairment.




Whether a particular impairment constitutes a hearing handicap or a hearing disability




can be judged only in relation to an individual's life pattern and occupation.




     A guideline for the evaluation of  hearing handicap is presented on Table 1-1.  The




guideline uses only the thresholds for tones in the region most important for the recep-




tion of speech, and judgments of handicap  are based on the associated ability to under-




stand connected speech in quiet surroundings.   While most authorities agree that a




person in Category B or higher has a hearing handicap, there is debate  over whether




handicap exists  when a person in Category A also has large hearing threshold levels




above 2000 Hz.




     An increase in a hearing threshold level that results from exposure to noise is a




threshold shift.   A threshold shift that puts the  hearing threshold level outside of 1he




normal range constitutes a hearing impairment.






                                       1-8

-------
                            Table 1-1


                HEARING HANDICAP GUIDELINE

Class
A
B
C
D
E
F

Degree of
Handicap
Not significant
Slight Handicap
Mild Handicap
Marked Handicap
Severe Handicap
Extreme Handicap
Average Hearing
Threshold Level for
500, 1000, and 2000 Hz
in the Better Ear*
More Than

25 dB
40 dB
55 dB
70 dB
90 dB
Not
More Than
25 dB
40 dB
55 dB
• 70 dB
90 dB


Ability to
Understand Speech
No significant difficulty
with faint speech
Difficulty only with
faint speech
Frequent difficulty with
normal speech
Frequent difficulty with
Joud speech
Can understand only
shouted or amplified speech
Usually cannot understand
even amplified speech
*Measured in a properly designed audiometric examination facility using
 an audiometer calibrated to meet ANSI standards.
                               1-9

-------
    Some threshold shifts are temporary and diminish as the ear recovers after the




termination of the noise.   Frequently repeated exposures can produce temporary




threshold shifts that are chronic, though recoverable, when the exposures cease. After




recovery from temporary threshold shifts,  there may be residual threshold shifts that




are permanent.




    The amount of threshold shift produced by an exposure to noise depends on many




factors.  The intensity level and the frequency content of the noise, the temporal char-




acteristics of the noise, and the susceptibility of the individual ear are all im-




portant.




    Sometimes permanent threshold shifts result from a single exposure (or a small




number of exposures) to noise.  These permanent threshold shifts have their anatomi-




cal base in acoustic trauma.  Intense impulsive sounds such as those produced by gun-




fire, firecrackers, and hammering on metal can be especially hazardous in this  regard.




The high amplitudes and frequency content of these sounds may produce acoustic trau-




ma of the organ of Corti.




    However,  people  rarely encounter a single noise exposure so severe as to produce




a permanent threshold shift.  More often,  such shifts develop as one is repeatedly




exposed to noises over a period of many years.  Permanent threshold shifts result




from noise-induced cochlear injuries.




    Whether a person will suffer permanent threshold  shifts from exposure to noise




often depends on the pattern of exposure from all sources of noise that he encounters.




Some of these exposures from particular sources of noise may be innocuous in
                                      1-10

-------
isolation.  But these same exposures, which are innocuous by themselves,  may combine

with other exposures from other sources to produce permanent threshold shifts.

     In general, the higher the noise levels and the more years of exposure,  the greater

the risk of developing a hearing handicap.  For example,  it is estimated that the per-

centage of people who may develop a hearing handicap as  a result of exposure for 20

years to a noise level of 95 dBA would be approximately twice the number of those ex-

posed to 90 dBA for 15 years.  From studies of hearing loss from occupational expo-

sures to noise, one can identify patterns of noise exposure that in and of themselves

increase the incidence of hearing handicap. *

Masking and Interference with Speech Communication

    Noise can interfere with the perception of audible signals. This is called masking.

By masking,  an auditory signal can be made inaudible or  the signal can be changed in

quality and apparent location.  Important auditory signals, the sound of an approaching

vehicle for example, can be lost in noise.  The facts of auditory masking are well
*   Hearing loss due to exposure to noise can be eliminated if exposures to noise are:
    (1) held to sufficiently low levels; (2) held to sufficiently short durations; or (3) al-
    lowed to occur only rarely.  Another approach is the use  of earplugs or earmuffs
    when hazardous exposures to noise are encountered.  Effective devices are avail-
    able for this purpose,  but they must be carefully selected and used.  In spite of the
    effectiveness of earplugs or earmuffs, people will often refuse or neglect to use
    them for reasons of appearance, comfort,  and convenience.  A hearing aid can
    be somewhat useful to a person with noise-induced hearing loss,  although the re-
    sult is not always satisfactory.  While the modern hearing aid can amplify sound
    and make  it audible, it cannot correct for the distortions  that often accompany
    injury to the organ of Corti.
                                       1-11

-------
established, and the masking effects of noise can often be calculated from measurements




of the signal and the noise.




    An important instance of masking is the interference with speech communication




that results from noise.   Figure 1-2 summarizes the relations between interfering




noise and the possibilities for speech communication.  The vertical axis is the A-




weighted sound level of the interfering noise, while the horizontal axis is the distance




between the talker and listener in feet.   The area near the bottom of the graph (the




lightly hatched region below the heavy curved line) represents the combinations of




distances and levels of interfering noise for which speech communication can be nearly




normal.  Speech communication situations involving family groups or pairs of individ-




uals often involve speaker-listener distances of 5 to 12 feet,  corresponding to levels




(for interfering noises) of 66 to 55 dBA.




    The  relationships shown in Figure  1-2  are for young adults with normal hearing,




speaking the same dialect.  Children under about 13 years of age, people beyond retire-




ment age, hard-of-hearing patients, and communicating pairs with dialect differences




are likely to require even quieter conditions than those indicated  on the figure if they




are to  enjoy near-normal speech communication.




    In a  highly intellectual, technical society, speech communication plays an extremely




important role.  Noise can reduce the accuracy,  frequency,  and quality of verbal ex-




change.  In excessive noise, formal education in schools, occupational efficiency,




family life styles, the quality of relaxation,  and the enjoyment of life can all be ad-




versely affected.  Speech reception  by elderly persons seems to be especially affected




by noise.





                                       1-12

-------
                            COMMUNICATION
                              IMPOSSIBLE
                            COMMUNICATION
                               DIFFICULT
                   Sg-k™SKK COMMUNICATION zM$$g&$Z^xW
                     '"'-'•'-'•IKK    POSSIBLE    i$£M*S*£^ffi^
            NEARLY NORMAL
            SPEECH COMMUNICATION
                 5      10     15      20      25      30

                   TALKER TO LISTENER DISTANCE IN FFET
                Figure 1-2.  Speech Interference Lev
                              1-13
74-249 O - 72 - 4

-------
    Interference with speech communication by noise is among the most significant




adverse effects of noise on people.  Free and easy speech communication is probably




essential for full development of individuals and social  relations,  and freedom of speech




is but an empty phrase if one cannot be heard or understood because of noise.
                                       1-14

-------
GENERAL PSYCHOLOGICAL AND SOCIOLOGICAL EFFECTS




    Noise not only has direct auditory effects but also produces behavioral effects of




a more general nature.   Noise can interfere with sleep.   Further,  it can be a source




of annoyance and can lead to community actions against those producing noise or those




responsible for its regulation. * Noise may interfere with the performance of tasks,




plays a role in privacy,  and is sometimes associated with psychological distress.  All




of these topics are briefly treated in this  discussion.




Interference with Sleep




    Sleep is not a single state but consists of a series of stages that can be graded from




light to deep.  Physiological measurements allow one to identify the stage of sleep.




    Everyday observations suggest that noise can and does  interfere with sleep, and




research, both in the laboratory and the field,  confirms these observations. Messages




from the sense organs reach the highest centers of the brain even during the deepest



sleep.  Whether a sleeping person ia aroused by a stimulus depends on a variety of




factors.  Arousal can be recognized by brief changes in physiological functions,  by




shifts from deeper to lighter stages of sleep,  or by behavioral evidence of awakening.




    During normal sleep, arousal by noise depends upon the following factors:  the




intensity level of the noise,  the fluctuation of the intensity level  of the noise, the moti-




vation of the person to be aroused by particular sounds as established while awake,  the




depth of sleep, the amount of accumulated sleep, previous sleep deprivation, and the
*   See also discussion in this chapter entitled,  "Sociological Impact of Noise.
                                       1-15

-------
person's age and sex.  Other factors such as drugs and psychological disorders can




also affect the ability of a person to sleep through noise.




    The greater the intensity of a brief noise,  the greater are the chances that noise




will arouse a sleeping person.  In a quiet bedroom, noise levels below 30 dBA do not




ordinarily have any arousal effect.  As the noise level increases from 30 to 100 dBA,




the chances  of awakening increase.  Brief noises with levels of 100 to 120 dBA awaken




nearly everyone.




    The chances that a particular noise will arouse a particular individual depend upon




numerous personal characteristics of that individual.  For example, the stronger the




motivation to awake, the more easily one can be aroused by noise.  The lighter the




stage of sleep and  the greater the amount of accumulated sleep, the more easily one




can be aroused.  Elderly people are much more easily awakened by noises than are




middle-aged people and children; and once awakened, elderly people have more diffi-




culty returning to sleep than do younger people.  These differences with age are large




and dramatic. While the difference between the sexes is not nearly as large in this




respect, it does appear that middle-aged women are  more easily aroused from  sleep




by noise than are middle-aged men; and there  is also evidence that male patients suf-




fering from depression are more easily aroused from sleep by noise than are normal




men or women.





     Much less is known about the effects of steady noise on sleep. One investigation of




 complaints  about noise produced by air conditioning  and heating equipment has  shown




 that, in bedrooms, steady noise levels of 33 to 38 dBA resulted in occassional  com-




 plaints, while those with levels greater than 48 dBA resulted in numerous complaints.





                                       1-16

-------
It is not known whether these complaints were due to interference with sleep or to other




factors.  It is known that steady noises produce less sleep disturbance than do fluctuat-




ing noises.  Some products are, in fact,  currently being sold for the purpose of produc-




ing a steady noise to mask out existing unsteady noises so that sleep may be enhanced.




    While everyday observation suggests that some people adapt to noise and can learn




to sleep through anything, this observation has not been confirmed by laboratory or




field studies,  although a few relevant experiments have been done. However, there is




clear evidence of adaptation to the total sleeping environment.  It  may be that loud




noises  continue to awaken or arouse a sleeping person, but as he becomes familiar




with the sounds he returns to sleep more rapidly.  Also,  since one cannot often remem-




ber awakening, just as one often cannot remember dreams,- it is possible that he may




erroneously believe that noises lose their power to awaken.




    Whether sleep disturbance by noise constitutes a health hazard is debatable.  The




changes in sleep patterns produced by noise are away from the patterns of good sleep




and toward the patterns of poor sleep. But, normal  persons deprived of sleep com-




pensate by spending more time in deep sleep,  by becoming less  responsive to external




stimuli, and by napping.  Thus,  it may be difficult to deprive a normal person of sleep




to the extent of adversely affecting his health.




     In light of present knowledge,  it seems reasonable that sleep  disturbance by exces-




sive noise will reduce an individual's feelings of well being.  Furthermore, when noise




conditions are so severe as to disturb sleep on a regular, unrelenting basis,  then such




sleep disturbance may constitute a hazard to physical and mental health.
                                       1-17

-------
Annoyance and Community Response

    Annoyance by noise is a response to auditory experience.  Annoyance has its base

in the unpleasant nature of particular sounds, in the particular activities that are dis-

turbed or disrupted by a particular noise, in the physiological reactions to a particu-

lar noise, and in the responses to the meaning or messages carried by a particular

noise.   The degree of annoyance is also related to other factors:

    1.   Differences among individuals in their  sensitivity to annoyance by sound.

    2.   Attitudes of exposed persons toward the noise source, e. g. , whether they

         consider the noise-producing activity to be important for their social and

         economic well being and whether they believe that the noise is a necessary

         by product of the activity producing it.

    3.   Whether they believe that those responsible for the creation of the noise-

         producing activity and its regulation are concerned about their (the exposed

         population's) welfare.

    4.   Factors specific  to particular sound sources, such as neighborhood disagree-

         ments over barking dogs and fear of aircraft crashes, or the belief that sonic

         booms cause property damage.

That individuals can make fairly accurate and unbiased direct estimates of their own

degree of annoyance from noise is confirmed by subtle and sophisticated questionnaire

and interview techniques.  *
*   But see cautions regarding indiscriminate extrapolation of such data in the fol-
    discussion of sociological impact of noise.

                                       1-18

-------
     The degree of annoyance averaged over a large number of individuals near a noise




 monitoring station can be predicted, in a statistical sense,  from the physical charac-




 teristics of the noise.  Each individual's degree of annoyance cannot be as accurately




 predicted as can the average annoyange.  This is true because individuals differ con-




 siderably in the exact noise exposure they receive (due to variations in environmental




 acoustics), because individuals differ in their sensitivity to disturbance by noise and




 because individuals differ in other relevant  psychological and social attitudes.




     Community noise exposure can be measured and summarized by several compet-




 ing methods,  as discussed elsewhere in this report.  There are also many similari-




 ties in these various techniques.   Each takes  into account several of the following,  not




 necessarily independent, variables:




     1.  The levels and durations of identifiable noise events.




     2.  The number of occurrences of noise events.




     3.  The residual noise level.




     4.  The variability of noise levels.




     5.  The time of day.




     6.  One or more special factors related to perceived noisiness or loudness of




         sounds.




    As previously stated,  such acoustical measurements allow fairly accurate pre-




diction of the level of annoyance averaged over a large number of individuals exposed




to the noise as  it might be measured  at a monitoring station.  Whether citizens will




take action against those producing the noise or those responsible for its regulation




is more difficult to predict.






                                       1-19

-------
    Individual action against noise sources has been studied,  and action may be a com-




plaint in the form of a letter or telephone call to someone responsible for the operation




of a noise-making activity or its regulation.  Persons who complain,  as defined, in




general do not appear to be  unusual.  Neither are they unusually  sensitive to noise.




In fact, they may represent only 2 to 20 percent of the highly annoyed people in a com-




munity.  Organized community action against noise includes more than mere complaint




and depends not only on the  intensity level of the noise but also on the leadership within




the community and on the various psychological and attitudinal factors previously men-




tioned.




    Although the likelihood  of individual complaints and group action  against noise




sources can be estimated from acoustical measurement of the noise,  as discussed




above, such procedures  are fallible, and numerous exceptions can be cited.  New and




different schemes of noise evaluation may allow more accurate prediction of complaints




and community response than has been achieved in  the past.




    Two speculations about possible future community actions in response to noise




may be worthy of note.   Right or wrong, 'Jiese speculations serve to illustrate how




attitudes and beliefs might combine with actual exposure to noise to influence anti-




noise actions.




    In a recent survey, members of a sample of about 8, 200 people who live near the




approach and departure paths and within 12 miles of airports in seven major cities of




the United States were  asked whether they would be able to accept increases in noise




exposure from  aircraft operations.   Fifty-four percent replied that they could not.
                                      1-20

-------
This, coupled with the fact that fear of aircraft crashes strongly enhances the annoy-

ance produced by aircraft noise, leads to the speculation that substantial increases in

aircraft traffic,  along with a few crashes in populated areas,  could result in vigorous

community action against aircraft operations and those responsible for its regulation. *

    It can also be speculated that if members of a community believe noise  is neces-

sary to an approved activity and if they believe people are free to move  away from the

noise, then they will be less likely to institute or support action against the  source of

noise than if they disapprove of the activity or believe there is no freedom to move to

escape the noise.  If this speculation is correct,  then perhaps an  increase in the total

area or number of persons exposed to annoying noise levels in such an area would not

necessarily result in an increase in support for antinoise actions.

    There is one final point to be made.   Complaints and group actions  are  difficult

to predict from the physical characteristics of noise; loudness, perceived noisiness,

annoyance, and disturbance of activities  are more closely tied to  the physical


characteristics of the noise itself.   However,  whether or not one complains, the quality

of one's life can be disturbed by noise.

Other Possible Psychological and Sociological  Effects

Human Performance
   i
    If a task  requires the use of auditory signals,  either speech or nonspeech,  then

noise at any level sufficient to mask or interfere with the perception of those signals
*   Testimony from numerous witnesses at EPA public hearings indicates widespread
    dissatisfaction with the noise associated with aircraft operations around airports.
    This is also commented upon in Chapter 2.
                                       1-21

-------
will interfere with the performance of the task.  When mental or motor tasks do not

involve auditory signals, steady noises without special meaning do not seem to inter-

fere with the performance of skilled mental or motor tasks unless noise level  exceeds

about 90 dBA.   Even above these levels,  performance is sometimes unaffected.  On

the other hand, irregular, unpredictable bursts of noise may influence performance

when their noise levels  are less than  90 dBA. *

    The effects of noise on performance are often conceptualized in terms of  arousal,

distraction, and specific effects.  Arousal of bodily systems can result in either bene-

ficial or detrimental effects on performance.  Distraction can be  thought of as lapses

of attention or diversion of attention from the task at hand; it can be the result of re-

sponses to the sound itself or of responses to the messages carried by the sound.

Specific effects include  auditory masking and certain patterns of muscular activation.

    Many physiological and psychological responses to  sound diminish or disappear

when the noises are regular or predictable.  Also, strategies can sometimes  be learned

so that detrimental effects of particular noises on specific tasks can be avoided.  For

these reasons, people sometimes  achieve excellent performance or even temporarily

exceed their normal performance  in spite of the presence of noise.

    Noises, however,  are often not regular and predictable, adaptation is not always

complete,  and appropriate strategies  to eliminate the effects of noise are sometimes

not learned.  Furthermore, the fact that distraction or  disturbance may be the result
 *   An increase of 5 to 10 dBA above the existing noise level appears to cause atten-
     tion and reaction by most exposed persons.
                                       1-22

-------
of the message carried  by the noise rather than the  result of the noise per se may be




of little interest to the citizen.  An ideal acoustical environment is one that does not




disturb human performance either because of fundamental properties of noise that may




be present or because of irrelevant messages carried by the noise.  The trick,  of




course, is to eliminate disturbing noises while maximizing the chances that relevant




messages carried by sound reach the appropriate listener.




Acoustical Privacy




    Without opportunity for privacy,  either everyone must strictly conform to an elab-




orate social code or everyone must adopt highly  permissive attitudes. Opportunity for




privacy avoids the necessity for either extreme.  In  particular, without opportunity




for acoustical privacy one may experience all of the  effects  of noise previously de-




scribed and,  in addition, one is constrained because  his own activities may disturb




others. Without acoustical privacy,  sound, like a faulty telephone exchange,  often




reaches the wrong number.





    It would  be helpful for both owner and renter and for both seller and  buyer if stand-




ardized acoustical ratings were developed for dwellings.   These ratings might include




measures of  acoustical privacy as well as other  measures of acoustical quality.   Such




ratings would be particularly useful since the acoustical properties of a dwelling are




not immediately obvious to the nonspecialist.  If such ratings were available,  the par-




ties involved could balance the acoustical value of a dwelling in relation to  such values




as appearance, size, convenience, and cost.
                                        1-23

-------
Intersensory Effects




    Background noise levels can influence the judgment of time.  Very intense noise




can  also influence other sensory functions  such as balance and vision.  Fortunately,




intensity levels sufficient to produce these effects are not normally encountered.




Mental Disorder, Anxiety, and Psychological Distress




    There is some evidence that admissions to psychiatric hospitals are higher in




areas with high noise levels than in quieter areas,  but such evidence is not entirely




convincing. There is no evidence that exposure to noise can result in mental illness.




However, all of the facts clearly support the contention that noise can be a source  of




psychological distress through annoyance, disturbance of activities such as sleep and




speech communications, and so on. Psychological distress, in turn, can contribute




to a list of symptoms such as nausea,  irritability,  general anxiety, and changes in




mood.
                                       1-24

-------
GENERAL PHYSIOLOGICAL EFFECTS *

    There are general physiological responses to transient noise,  and it has been

proposed that there may be general physiological responses to persistent noise.  It

has also been proposed that noise can be a significant source of stress and can in this

way increase the incidence of health problems.  Each of these topics is discussed

below.

Transient Physiological Response to Noise

    There are three classes of transient general physiological responses to sound:

    1.  Fast responses of the voluntary musculature that are mediated  by the somatic

        nervous system.

    2.  The slightly slower responses of the smooth muscles and glands that are

        mediated by the visceral nervous  system.

    3.  The even slower responses of the neuro-endocrine system.

Responses of  the Voluntary Musculature

    Muscular responses to sound can be studied by visual observation of bodily move-

ments or by electrical measurements of muscular  activity. By these techniques it has

been shown that people are equipped with an elaborate set of auditory-muscular reflexes

that serve the basic functions of orienting the head and eyes toward a source of sound

and of preparing for action appropriate to an object or event signalled by sound.  These
*   For a comprehensive review of current professional opinion on this subject, see
    the transcript of the EPA Public Hearing on Noise held in Boston.
                                      1-25

-------
reflexes operate at low levels of sound,  where they can be detected by sophisticated




electrical measurements, as well as at high levels of sound.  Such auditory-muscular




reflexes underlie muscular responses to sound that range from rhythmic movements




and dance to the body's startle response to impulsive sounds such as gunshots or sonic




booms.




    The body's startle response to impulsive sounds can interfere with human perform-




ance and is one of the factors that underlie the annoyance produced by sudden noises.




The startle response has been studied in detail and includes an eyeblink,  a typical fa-




cial grimace,  bending of the knees, and, in general,  flexion (inward and  forward) as




opposed to extension of bodily parts.  The startle response to a nearby gunshot, even




when expected, may undergo various degrees of diminution with repetition, depending




upon the  individual, the rate of repetition, and the predictability of the impulse sound.




Some individuals show little diminution of the response with repetition, others show




marked reduction.  The eyeblink and head movement persist even in experienced




marksmen when shooting their own guns.




    Auditory-muscular reflexes can have more subtle effects on human activity than




those of the startle response.  Interestingly, the greater the tension in a muscle,  the




greater its reflex response to sound.  Therefore, the influence of auditory-muscular




reflexes  on the performance of a given task  depends on posture and the pattern of mus-




cular tension as well as on the movements required by the given task.  For example,




when a given task requires a movement of flexion and the resting posture heightens




tension in the  flexor muscles,  then a burst of sound at an appropriate time can speed
                                      1-26

-------
the required movement.  Under other conditions,  the burst of sound can greatly in-




terfere with this movement.




     fti summary,  the ebb and flow of muscular activity is closely linked to and influ-




enced by the rise and fall of sound.  The obvious effects of the startle response and




other auditory-muscular reflexes often diminish with repetition of the sound stimulus.




However, even after many repetitions these reflexes may continue to operate in a




subtle manner, and their  effects will depend on the details of posture and resting mus-




cular tension, on the details of the task at hand, and on the physical properties of the




sound stimulus.




Responses of the Smooth  Muscles and Glands




     In response to brief sounds, there is general  constriction in the peripheral blood




vessels, with a reduction in peripheral blood flow.  There may be acceleration or de-




celeration of heart rate, changes in resistance of the skin to electrical current (an




indication of activation  of the peripheral visceral nervous system), changes in breath-




ing pattern, changes in the motility of the gastrointestinal tract,  and changes in the




secretion of saliva and  gastric juice.  These responses are obvious when the noise




level exceeds 70 dBA.   For sounds below this intensity level, it is doubtful that the




recording techniques have been sufficiently sensitive to decide whether or not these




responses occur.  In any case, they are either small or nonexistent.   Some aspects




of these responses diminish and seem to disappear with predictable repetition of the




sounds, while others may not.




     Some of these responses to  sound are part of  a pattern of response known as the




orienting reflex or "what is it?"  response.  The orienting reflex disappears rapidly





                                      1-27

-------
as the stimulus becomes known or predictable.  Others of these responses to sound




are probably part of a response known as the defense reflex, which prepares an or-




ganism to escape or accept injury or discomfort.  Defense reflexes occur in response




to warnings of painful stimuli, to painful stimuli themselves, or in response to very




intense stimulation of any sense organ. Responses that are part of the defense reflex




disappear more slowly with stimulus repetition than do those of the orienting reflex.




Sometimes they may never completely disappear.




Neuro-endocrine Responses




    Loud sounds as well as other intense stimuli, such as forced immobilization, forced




exercise, cold, pain, and injuries, can activate a complicated series of changes in the




endocrine system.  These changes, in turn, can cause changes in hormone levels,




blood composition,  and a whole complex of other biochemical and physiological changes.




Possible Persistent Physiological Responses  to Noise




    It has been proposed that frequent repetition of the transient physiological re-




sponses to noise can lead to persistent, pathological changes in nonauditory bodily




functions.  Also,  it has been proposed that such repetition of these transient responses




might aggravate existing disease conditions.  However, it is true that the transient




physiological responses to sounds are  often useful because they help to protect people




from potentially harmful events.   It is also  appropriate that these responses diminish




when repetition of the noise signifies that particular noises do  not represent a threat-




ening condition.  The crux of the question is whether man is so designed as to adapt




to nonthreatening noises that are also quite  intense or whether the modern environment
                                      1-28

-------
presents such ever changing noises that the transient physiological responses are

chronically maintained.

    At least some of the transient physiological responses to noise do appear to be

chronically maintained.  Furthermore, there is some evidence that workers exposed

to high levels of noise have a higher incidence of cardiovascular disease, ear-nose-

and-throat disorders, and  equilibrium disorders than do workers exposed to lower

levels of noise.  However, it is also possible to explain these observations in terms

of non-noise factors such as age, dust levels, occupational danger, or life habits.

    Also,  there is evidence from animal research that high sound levels can interfere

with sexual-reproductive functions, can interfere with resistance to viral disease, and

can also produce other pathological effects.  These experiments, however, have often

not been well controlled; i. e. ,  fear, animal handling conditions, and so  on have not

been equated between noise-exposed and non-noise-exposed groups. *  Further,  rodents

were used  as experimental subjects, and these animals are known to have special sus-

ceptibility  to the effects of certain sounds.   Finally, the sound levels were well above

those encountered by most people.

    The evidence taken as  a whole hints that chronic exposure to sufficiently variable

or intense  noise may contribute to nonauditory physiological  and anatomical pathology.

However,  the case is far from  proven and merits further research and investigation.
    In addition to the EPA Hearing in Boston, see the transcript of the hearing held in
    New York City.
                                       1-29
 74-249 O - 72 - 5

-------
Stress Theory




     The neuro-endocrine responses previously mentioned seem similar to the responses




to stress.  Responses to stress have general characteristics that appear in response to




all stressors and special characteristics that are linked to specific stressors.




     The response to stress, called the general adaptation syndrome,  consists of three




stages:  an alarm  reaction,  a stage of resistance, and a stage of exhaustion.  If a stres-




sor is  severe and  is maintained for prolonged periods of time, an organism passes in




succession through the stages of the alarm reaction,  of resistance,  and of exhaustion.




In the extreme case,  the end result is a breakdown of bodily function and death.  Even




in the less severe case,  a price may be paid for  continued stress during a prolonged




stage of resistance.   This price may include increased susceptibility to infection and,




perhaps, specific  diseases known as  the diseases of adaptation.  Such diseases may




include, among others,  some types of gastrointestinal ulcers,  some types  of high




blood pressure,  and some types of arthritis.  Many medical authorities do not accept




the theory that there are diseases  of  adaptation.  Rather, they theorize that each disease




has its own special set of causes.




     Stress theory, even as  presented by its strongest advocates, is complicated.




These  advocates speak of interactions between conditioning factors thai set the scene




for disease, specific  reactions to particular stressors, and general reactions to non-




specific stressors.




     While it is plausible that frequent exposure to intense noise can act as a stressor,




the details of its action as a stressor have not yet been identified, and its implications
                                       1-30

-------
are unknown.  There is evidence that suggests a certain amount of stress can even  be




beneficial.
                                     1-31

-------
IMPLICATIONS OF GENERAL PHYSIOLOGICAL RESPONSES TO SOUND




    While physiological arousal in response to sound can be of great benefit when cop-




ing with possibly dangerous  events, unnecessary arousal to irrelevant noises can pro-




vide a basis for  annoyance and can interfere with performance of tasks.   Noises that




are of high level or are sufficiently varied may maintain chronic arousal and in this




way may contribute to the incidence of nonauditory disease.  However,  if noise control




sufficient to protect persons from ear damage and hearing loss were instituted, then it




is highly unlikely that the noises of lower levels  and duration resulting from this effort




could directly induce nonauditory disease.




    Of course,  general psychological distress produced by noise can add to the over-




all stress of life and,  in this way, may increase the incidence of nonauditory disease.




However, at this time it is not possible to evaluate the contribution of noise in relation




to all of the other sources of stress encountered in normal activities.
                                       1-32

-------
SUMMARY OF PSYCHOLOGICAL AND PHYSIOLOGICAL EFFECTS




    It has not been demonstrated that people are having their lives shortened by ex-




posure to audible noise.  Perhaps the stress of continued exposure to high levels of




noise can produce disease or make one more susceptible to disease, but, overall, the




evidence is not convincing.  The effects of noise on people  have not been successfully




measured in terms of excess deaths, shortened lifespan, or  days of incapacitating




illness.  There are only hints that such effects might exist.  Of course,  there may be





accidental deaths or injuries because warning signals were not heard or were misun-




derstood due to noise.




    There is clear evidence that exposure to noise of sufficient intensity and duration




can:




    1.   Permanently damage the inner ear  with resulting permanent hearing losses




         that can range  from slight impairment to  nearly total deafness.




    2.   Result in temporary hearing losses, and repeated exposures to noise can




         result in chronic hearing losses.




It is also apparent that noise can:




    1.   Interfere with speech communication and  the perception of other auditory




         signals.




    2.   Disturb sleep.




    3.   Be a source of annoyance.




    4.   Interfere with the ability to  perform complicated tasks and, of course,  can




        especially disturb those tasks that demand speech  communication or response




        to auditory signals.





                                      1-33

-------
    5.   Adversely influence mood and disturb relaxation.




    These latter effects are difficult to quantify, since they affect the essential nature




of human life—its quality.  But alone they are sufficient to require more efforts to-




ward   controlling the problem.
                                       1-34

-------
SOCIOLOGICAL IMPACT OF NOISE




    The reactions of groups and communities of individuals arise, in part, from the




aggregation of the varying individuals and personalized responses and from the




interaction therewith of a wide variety of sociological influences.  Fo/ example,  due




to ethnic background,  one group of families may accept a noisy environment in their




home that would be considered unacceptable by those of different cultural orientation.




They may in fact create conditions that, while acceptable to themselves, are con-




sidered noisy by others.




     This phenomenon must be taken  into account in assessing the attributes of noise as




a sociological problem.  It also must be given careful attention in translating  results




of various studies on noise as related to a particular source and affecting a specific




population (such as the variously cited studies on transportation noise mentioned  else-




where in this chapter and in other portions of this report) to other sources,  situations,




or populations.  This caution was  cited in Karl Kryter's recent work The Effects of




Noise on Man (Academic  Press, New York, 1970) in relation to possible national dif-




ferences in tolerance to road noise.  He further discusses the many factors in this




regard that must be taken  into account in assessing the validity of various studies and




study techniques. *




    The following discussion provides an overview of additional sociological factors




that are important in the consideration of noise effects on community environmental




quality.  Roughly 130 million people live in metropolitan areas  subject to the noises




from transportation or construction projects, crowding and congestion, and widespread
*   See especially his chapter devoted to Environmental Noise and Its Evaluation.





                                       1-35

-------
manufacturing activities. * Social surveys registering the public reactions to a variety

of these noises have found people disturbed by such exposures to have increased from

23 percent in 1948 to 50 percent in 1961.  Such annoyance is typically due to  disruption

of privacy, rest, relaxation, and sleep.

    A close relationship exists between expressed annoyance and level of noise inten-

sity.  In community surveys based on 3500 people in widely separated areas, it has

been found that the number of people expressing annoyance increased steadily as the

noise level increased and that the number of complaints were a good indicator of the

degree of  annoyance. An English study of noise around Heathrow Airport indicated

that 22 percent of the respondents  said they were sometimes kept from going to sleep

due to aircraft noise.  This figure rose to 50 percent with an increase in noise levels. **

A still greater  proportion, also increasing with a corresponding increase in noise

level, complained of being awakened by noise.  A traffic noise survey in Sweden noted

that the proportion of people annoyed increased linearly with increasing noise levels

from  50 dBA on, based on a 24-hour energy average; it was also reported that symp-

toms  such as headache, insomnia, and nervousness are associated with noise exposure.
*    Compared with the approximately 80 million possibly seriously affected by noise.

**   For more details on later studies in London, see the transcript of the EPA Hear-
     ings on Noise held in Boston.
                                       1-36

-------
     These studies and others have demonstrated that sounds at night are more an-




noying than those occurring during daytime.  As discussed earlier in this chapter,




noise interferes with rest and relaxation and especially with sleep.  Complete with-




drawal from the world around us,  through sleep, is an obvious necessity for physical




and emotional health, less complete withdrawal into the quiet of our homes may also




be necessary.




     As demonstrated throughout this Report, the assessment of the  effects of noise  on




the population at large has been based on data from many sources and is presented in




a variety of forms.  The result has been a compilation of information (some  highly




quantitative and precise, some primarily descriptive in nature) on such things as com-




munity responses, physiological and annoyance measures, numbers  of people "deaf-




ened", etc. ,  all used to indicate the nature and scope of noise problems.  In dealing




with this vast array  of data it is easy to lose sight of the fact that they all deal with




basically the same problem and therefore should not be treated independently.  Rather,




it is extremely important to integrate these diverse findings by means of one or more




unifying concepts. Perhaps one method of accomplishing this objective is to focus on




its cumulative aspect.




    Scientists concerned with hearing loss are in general agreement that the effects




of noise are additive.  The major source of disagreement is the specification of the




minimum level (s) at  which these effects become important.   Any  overall evaluation




of the hearing loss problem in the  nation must take into account exposures on the basis




of lifetime  experience rather than  industrial, transportation,  or household exposures.
                                      1-37

-------
    Table 1-2 provides a sample of the conditions of noise exposure experienced by




many members of typical U. S. urban communities.  Since this information is included




only for illustrative purposes, there is no attempt to specify age ranges or exposure




data.




    In a sense, the noise problem of today is both qualitatively and quantitatively dif-




ferent from what it was yesterday.   Noise can be  thought of as a localized and confined




problem.  For example, large cities have always been associated with noise since,




by definition,  they were the centers of activities involving industries, transportation,




power facilities,  large populations,  etc.  Certain industrial operations have long been




associated with noise, as have large airports.  Many persons living within cities have




often considered noise as being a necessary evil that must be tolerated in exchange for




the convenience of living either near places of work or in proximity to public transpor-




tation routes.  The accelerated growth of suburban areas outside of most center cities




and the mobility of our population have radically altered the scope  of the noise problem.




Population increase and greater mobility have combined in converting areas that were




previously quiet into smaller  versions of the inner city.  Land usage has been changed




to accommodate industry and  transportation requirements associated with decentrali-




zation.  The labor-saving devices that were possible only in industry several decades




ago have been moved  to the home environment. Because of new highways and small




airports, motorized vehicles  can now penetrate into regions that were only a short while




ago considered remote.




    With areas of the continental United States obviously remaining constant,  the




rise in the totals of noise sources,  as well as in their power, has  resulted in a





                                       1-38

-------
                                   Table 1-2




                LIFETIME EXPOSUKE TO NOISE (ILLUSTRATION)

Cap Pistols
Firearms
Rock & Roll Music
Transportation
School Bus
Automobile
Train (subway, elevated)
Aircraft
Household Appliances
Construction Equipment
Community (roadside, flight path)
Recreational Vehicles
Childhood
X



X
X


X
X
X

Youth

X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Maturity

X


X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
    x  =  Exposure to noise source








considerable increase in the average sound levels produced throughout the nation.  This




factor, combined with an increased availability of major transportation activities and




facilities, has made noise  a much more pervasive problem than it was even a short




while ago.




    Many scientists and members of the professions concerned with noise are con-




vinced that noise levels not intense enough to cause permanent damage cannot simply




be disregarded as a nuisance that is a necessary waste product of technological
                                     1-39

-------
progress.  That view is shared by many members of the public at large, who see noise




as adversely affecting the quality of life.  The reasons for this widespread interpreta-




tion are partially rooted in the characteristics of sound and the types of effects asso-




ciated with noise.  Experimental findings have consistently demonstrated that when




visual and auditory signals are concurrently presented, subjects tend to respond to the




auditory signals first, presumably because of some attention-demanding quality.  Re-




searchers designing warning devices have made use of this characteristic for years.




    Another characteristic of noise causing annoyance is that  it affects  people who are




in the position of innocent bystanders.  That is, in many instances those people respon-




sible  for producing noise are not the same as those severely affected by the noise; also,




the receivers of the  noise in these instances have no  control over the noise source.  It




has been stated that  noise annoyance is closely associated with the degree to which the




noise producer is concerned with and doing something about the effect of noise on its




receivers.   Studies have substantiated this  in that subjects showed significantly lower




tolerance or greater attitudes of frustration after exposure to  unpredictable noise than




when  the noise source was under the control of the subjects.  This aspect of the problem




is important because it has been repeatedly demonstrated  that when there is no benefit




to a person associated with an activity and yet there  are adverse consequences to be




suffered, there is little tolerance for those consequences.  For example, if two people




live near a highway  and one uses it for commuting while the other walks  to work,  the
                                       1-40

-------
walker is much more likely to complain about noise,  air pollution, etc. ,  due to auto-




mobiles than is the person who drives, all other things being equal. *




    The problem is not new or unique to noise, as the following quote from James L.




Hildebrand's Noise Pollution and the  Law (Law Book  Publishers, Buffalo, N. Y. ,  1970)




says, "For hundreds  of years,  indeed throughout most of the history of the common




law as we know it,  courts have been struggling to  reconcile the conflicting interests




of two property owners—one who believes that his ownership entitles him to use his




property as he wills and the neighbor who believes that his ownership entitles him to




enjoy his property without annoyance.  .  . two major principles have evolved?




    ''First, each person must put up  with a certain amount of annoyance.




    "Second,. .  .the gravity of the harm to the complainant should be weighed against




the utility of the conduct of his troublesome neighbor.




    "The first of these tells us what every city dweller experiences every day of his




life.  .  .  . The second  is less easy to understand. .  . in determining the utility of the




defendant's conduct one must consider in addition to the social value of his conduct,




its suitability  and the  impracticability of preventing or avoiding the annoyance. "




    The pervasiveness of noise,  combined with the characteristics already noted,




makes it a problem of special concern when psychological well-being is considered.




Most competent medical practitioners, as well as  those engaged in health research,
*   Based on testimony of witnesses at several of the EPA Hearings.
                                       1-41

-------
agree that there is an absolute requirement for rest and recreational activities at




regular intervals in order to maintain adequate mental and physical health.  It is




evident when we consider the quality of life that the need becomes of major importance




to human welfare. Since the home environment is considered to be the principal haven




for most persons to obtain such needed rest, the impact of noise thereon is a major




consideration.




    In considering noise within the home,  it is useful to make the distinction between




single-family dwellings and other houses.  In multiple family buildings, the lack of




acoustical provacy is a major source of difficulty.  Acoustical privacy can be defined




as the expectation that sounds generated within one household will not be broadcast to




other households throughout the building.   This particular problem deserves attention




because of the changes in construction techniques that have been slowly evolving.  There




is a trend toward using lightweight construction having relatively poor  sound insulating




properties.   If this trend continues (without modification of the sound insulating proper-




ties), the homes of the future will have far less acoustical privacy than did the homes




of the past.   Privacy, as well as annoyance, are difficult concepts for  scientific investi-




gators to objectively contend with. The two have been somewhat equated by indicating




that annoyance due to noise may be thought of essentially as the resentment one feels




toward an intrusion into his physical privacy.  The existence  of the problem, though,




has been documented in a variety  of community studies conducted in this country and




abroad.




    Noises in the home can be generally categorized into three sources: those gen-




erated by family members, building noises (fans, blowers), and those  originating





                                       1-42

-------
outside of but penetrating into the home.  The mechanical helpers within the home are




a major source of complaint by householders (see Chapter 2).  Although washers,




dryers, garbage disposer units,  etc. , have made household tasks easier to perform




physically, they have exacted a psychological cost.  The relatively long cycle time of




many of these devices has  resulted in not merely a noise nuisance but in a persistent




one as well.  Despite the fact that the family benefits from  the primary noise sources




within the home,  such noises are often a source of conflict  among family members en-




gaging in incompatible activities; e. g. ,  the housewife vacuuming the rug and her chil-




dren who are studying.




    The community noise studies cited  already and discussed in Chapter 2 are in sub-




stantial agreement that noise serously affects many of the activities engaged in at




home.   It has been shown that noises in the home outnumbered all other disturbances.




Rest and relaxation are difficult, and there is interference with TV viewing, listening




to music,  reading, conversation, and many other social and recreational activities.




These  and other investigations indicate that the home appears to be the recipient of




noise from a great number of sources in the community.  Among the major causes of




complaint, the following have been  cited most frequently: traffic, aircraft, industrial




plants,  construction,  and neighborhood  related sources such as dogs and powered




lawn mowers.




    When rest and recreation cannot be successfully accomplished at home, there is




a tendency for people to seek these diversions elsewhere.  This, along with other fac-




tors beyond the scope of this report, has led to an intensive use of the outdoors and




has resulted in large recreational industries based activities such as camping, fishing,





                                       1-43

-------
boating,  and skiing.  The function performed by recreation is primarily that of unwind-




ing and relaxing as a necessary counterpoint to the often hectic day-to-day work and




homemaking activities.  Since the goal is identified basically with getting away from




the usual annoyance, any interference with the achievement of this objective is, in the




main,  not well tolerated. Disturbances that are normally considered relatively minor




thereby result in a sense of frustration well beyond that normally occurring.




     Interference by noise with outdoor recreational activities is almost a universal




phenomenon in that it occurs regardless  of the time of day and in all seasons of the




year.  Winter vacations  are now being disrupted by the advent of the snowmobile in




the same way that motorboats have upset the tranquility of many of our lakes and




rivers.  The simple enjoyment of nature by hikers and families enjoying picnics is




often interrupted by transportation noises generated by nearby roadways or aircraft.




There  is a growing trend of noise seriously disrupting the serenity of many formerly




secluded retreat areas such as national park and forest areas.




     Outdoor spectator events are also seriously affected by noise, especially that




produced by aircraft.  The Watergate concerts in the Washington,  D. C. , area have




for years undergone regular interruptions as a result of overflights associated with




National  airport, with the enjoyment of the music  being made extremely difficult by




the almost continuous  pattern of takeoffs and landings.  As a result, there are plans




to abandon Watergate as a concert site.  These problems were repeatedly cited by




witnesses at the various public hearings held by EPA during 1971 and are documented




in the transcripts.
                                       1-44

-------
    Among the activities most seriously affected by noise are those centered in public

buildings.  Recent studies concerned with aircraft noise in the community of Inglewood,

California,  provide an example.   In the local churches, it was indicated that the con-

duct services was virtually impossible.  The effects on several schools were so severe

that new schools had to be built to serve the community.  Other surveys have indicated

that serious disruption of classroom activities has been a major effect of noise.  Is it

not reasonable to assume that the quality of education is going to suffer even when noise

levels are not so great that they cause  the closing of schools ? Conditions suitable for

adequate speech communication are necessary for classroom activities in which disrup-

tion by noise can readily lead to the necessity for repeating material, misunderstand-

ing of assignments, and  difficulty in concentrating on complex subject matter (which is

especially vulnerable to  noise interference).  Activities in public libraries, theatres,

and hospitals are also vulnerable to the disruptive attributes of noise.  While acousti-

cal treatment can  be designed and applied to provide for satisfactory interior environ-

ments in such situations, they are extremely costly if added to existing buildings, *

    Although the occupational noise exposure regulations promulgated under the Occu-

pational Safety and Health Act are designed to control noise exposure within the work

environment,  this  continues to be a major problem area, to be taken into  account as

part of the  total daily noise exposure of a significant part of the total U. S. population.
*   Regarding problems of schools, see also the transcript of EPA Hearings in Noise
    held in Boston.
                                       1-45
 74-249 O - 72 - 6

-------
It is estimated that the number of workers in the U. S.  exposed to noise potentially




hazardous to hearing are in excess of 6 million and may be as high as  16 million.  It




is now becoming evident that many occupations should be considered among those in




which noise is a hazard. In addition to the workers involved in the heavy  industries




traditionally associated with noise problems, construction workers, textile mill em-




ployees, truck drivers, and pilots of both fixed and rotary wing aircraft are exposed




to excessive noise. The new computer-based organizations are not immune to this




hazard either.  Keypunch and paper tape devices and equipment such as the optical




character readers and letter-sorting machines used in post offices produce noise that




may ultimately affect the hearing of their operators.




     It is important to note  that workers exposed on the job to levels of noise considered




hazardous do not spend the remainder  of their time in  a noise-free environment (as was




assumed in the occupational noise limits established under the Occupational Safety and




Health Act).  Instead,  after leaving work they may be exposed to the same noise levels




at home and in the community as everyone else.  Since there is fairly  general agree-




ment that total noise exposure is an  important determinant of hearing loss, it might be




conjectured that the aforementioned  figures give a rather conservative estimate of the




scope of the occupational hearing loss  problem.




     Based on testimony presented during EPA public hearings  held in  Chicago




on July 29,1971 the extent  of hearing loss in the population  is estimated as follows:
                                       1-46

-------
                       Hearing Loss (Moderate to Profound)
Age Range
0-5
5-10
10-18
18-65
Over 65
TOTALS
Population Totals
(in thousands)
17,000
20,000
32,500
113,000
20,000
202,500
Loss of
Hearing Totals
(thousands)
850
1,000- 1,400
650- 975
2,260
4,000
8,700-11,135
Noise-Associated
Hearing Loss
(thousands)
7
*200
**150
2 , 000 (Approx)
400-600
2,750-2,950
 * Most common cause is explosions from toy caps (20% sensory-neural hearing loss).
** Firearms and toy caps (based on approximately 20% sensory-neural hearing loss).
     For several years, many investigators have expressed concern about the possible

 adverse consequences of music heard at greatly amplified sound levels.   Entering

 freshmen college students have been found to have hearing disorders that were attri-

 buted to exposure to music played at intense levels.  In a series of audiometric examina-

 tions given to more than 7,000 students ranging from sixth graders to college freshmen,

 the findings indicate a steady increase in hearing loss at high frequencies, as measured

 by a  screening examination.  While only 3. 8 percent of the sixth graders  failed this test,


 approximately 10 percent of  the 9th and 10th graders and more than 30 percent of in-

 coming college freshmen failed.  A test of the  next freshman class (Fall, 1969) yielded

 the most disturbing findings  of all:  61 percent of them failed the audiometric screening

 test.   There is evidence that the hearing  acuity of young persons 21 years of age and

 under is becoming prematurely reduced possibly because of voluntary exposure to

 sounds that are at a damage-risk level.  These implications lead to the speculation that
                                       1-47

-------
the current population of young people will encounter much more serious hearing prob-

lems in their middle years than the present group of 50 to 60 years olds. *

     One other direct consequence of noise is a possible increase in the occupational

rate.  A British study indicates,  and it seems reasonable to suppose,  that if high noise

levels  increase, the number of errors during work will increase.  The increased levels

will also cause errors in safety measures and, consequently,  may cause a higher rate

of accidents than would occur in quieter conditions.  Another  possible cause of acci-

dent is the masking of an auditory alarm.   Since danger signals often take this form,

it can  be reasonably expected that some such signals will be masked in environments

typical of heavy industry operations, construction activities, and mid-city traffic dur-

ing shopping and commuting hours.

     While examining the effects of noise on people and groups,  it is easy to lose sight

of an evident but important fact.  The "average" person or "typical" group simply does

not exist.  It should be noted that responses to noise by individuals,  as well as by

classes of people, differ markedly from one another.  A segment of the population

(estimated from 2 to 10 percent depending upon the source)  is considered to be highly

susceptible to noise at almost any level, while some individuals (possibly 20 percent

of the  population) barely respond to noises considered intense by others.   The
 *   By way of contrast, testimony received at the EPA Hearing on Noise Associated
     with Agriculture, Denver, indicated that children from farms, who were exposed
     to farm machinery noise, had a higher percentage of hearing impairment than any
     other children from urban communities.
                                       1-48

-------
following factors have been found to be the most important, from a  sociological view,

in enhancing or decreasing noise acceptability:

    1.  Feeling  about the necessity or preventability of the noise.

    2.  Feeling  of the importance of the noise source and the value of its primary

        functions.

    3.  Types of living activities affected.

    4.  Extent to which there are other things disliked in the residential environment.

    H. O.  Parrack, in the Handbook of Noise Control , 1957, provided data on the

characteristics of people  more likely to complain about noise.   He noted that they were

generally of higher socioeconomic status, were highly educated, and were likely to

have political  affiliations.  He also found that those people engaging in mental as con-

trasted to physical occupational pursuits were more likely to complain about noise.

This latter finding is consistent with that of the London noise survey and many others.

The recently issued study by TRACOR, Inc.  (a NASA report entitled Community Re -

action to Airport Noise, 1971) indicated that, on the average, complainants  are older

and more affluent and have a higher education level than noncomplainers. *
*   There are indications, however, that the lack of complaint is not a true measure
    of response, as brought out in testimony regarding Logan Airport, at the EPA
    Hearing in Boston, Mass. ; and further that those of lower socio-economic status,
    while not  "complaining" are personally disturbed or have adverse social reactions
    to the noise source.
                                       1-49

-------
    Prof. A. C.  McKennell (of the University of Southampton,  England) in a recent




article entitled "Complaints and Community Action", which appeared in Transporta-




tion Noises—A Symposium on Acceptability  Criteria, evaluated the results of many




community surveys in the following terms:  "We know a certain amount about the char-




acteristics of the reactions of communities to events which deeply affect them.   A




small, middle class group actively protesting in the presence of an apparently indif-




ferent majority is a common occurrence.    It is when these activists groups gain the




support of the larger, normally acquiescent majority, that serious community conflict




can result.  Under these conditions, what starts as a specific issue often sparks off a




more generalized local conflict. "




    The day when planners could concern themselves solely with technical and economic




considerations is past.  In a paper entitled "Predicting the Future", which also




appears in the previously cited symposium volume on transportation noises, Prof. R.




A. Bauer of the Harvard Graduate School of Business notes: "H we are moving  into a




period in which individual citizens increasingly expect to be freed from various forms




of environmental nuisance and if all citizens groups are tending more and more to take




an active role in the decision making process, then it is probable that complaints and




effective organized protests will occur at lower levels and frequency rates of noise ex-




posure than in the past. "  He further stated  that,  "For a variety of convergent reasons,
                                       1-50

-------
we appear to be entering a period in which people will be more disposed to organize

for direct participation in policy decisions affecting them. "*

    As a counterforce to this pressure exercised by the community, associations

and organizations representing the noise producers can be expected to act concertedly.

In this manner, large and politically powerful groups with differing beliefs and objec-

tives  can be expected to press for their interests.  This type of situation requires

that all the facts relevant to the issues at hand be brought into the arena of Public dis-

course and be used in the decision making process, in  an orderly manner.

    There is an upsurge of activity regarding enactment by  states and cities of new

regulatory provisions on noise.   Many states are currently considering legislation

relating to control of noise.  This activity is clear indication of the increasing im-

portance of noise as a sociological and environmental quality consideration.  Vigorous

statements at EPA public hearings concerning the lack  of corrective action on the part

of the Federal government were received from mayors and other elected local officials

and from numerous congressmen.  Such statements reflect the awareness of the respec-

tive constituencies of the general noise problem  and the widely held view that there is

little  or no recourse, short of court action or acts of Congress, to the solution of this

major problem.  This,  in spite of the  extensive investment of the Federal government
*   There are clear implications in this as to the importance of the Environmental
    Impact Statement provisions of PL-91-190 (Sec.  102(2)c) and the noise nusiance
    control features of PL-91-604 (Sec. 402(c) ).
                                       1-51

-------
and industry in aircraft noise control research (as brought out in EPA hearings in




Chicago and Washington) indicates the need for more rapid action to control noise.
                                       1-52

-------
THE EFFECTS OF NOISE ON WILDLIFE AND OTHER ANIMALS




    Acoustic signals play a major role in animal species survival in terms of '.main-




taining viable population dynamics and an individual animal's growth behavior.  For




example,  a single startle event may stop the brooding cycle of wild game birds for




an entire season.  Continuous noise may mask the detection and avoidance  relation-




ship between prey and predator causing huddling or  panic-behavior or may induce




population dissipation and migration.  Unfortunately, a thorough search of  l^e scien-




tific literature  from 1950 to the present  reveals  an almost complete lack of informa-




tion concerning the effects of noise on wildlife.  Scientific literature dealing with the




effects of noise on laboratory and  farm animals is sparse but can  provide some clue.?




regarding the possible effects on wild animals.




    Extreme caution should be used in interpolating from experimental data obtained




on animals receiving acute high level sound exposures when estimating probable re-




sults to be expected from animals experiencing lower sound levels for  longer terms




or variable durations.  Also,  it should be recognized that experimental animal data




may not always be relevant to humans.




    It is important to note that audible frequency ranges vary widely from organism




to organism. This might be expected to  be a significant factor in  studies to determine




the effects of sound on the organism.  However,  little or no mention of this is found




in the available scientific literature nor  is there  any evidence of concern about this




factor.




    The sound  pressure levels that have been used to study laboratory  animals were




mostly high or  intense, and the duration  of exposure in  most cases was typically acute





                                       1-53

-------
rather than chronic.  A danger in generalizing from acute high or relatively high in-




tensity level studies to chronic low levels of stimulation is that there may be no re-




lationship at all.  The longest exposure duration in studies reviewed was 150 days.




This should probably be considered a chronic exposure; however, the next longest




exposure was 42 days, which would hardly qualify as a chronic exposure except per-




haps for organisms with relatively short lifespans.  The levels of stimulation were as




high as 160 dB, with most in excess of 100 dB and with few below 90 dB.  These are




higher levels than those animals would normally be exposed to around most airfields,




industries, highways, or other man-made sources that may invade their habitats.




    Studies using laboratory animals have demonstrated loss of hearing after exposures




to sound pressure levels of 90 dB or less,  depending upon the animals studied and up-




on the frequency characteristics of the sound.  Spectra varying from pure tones to




narrow and broad band noise have been used.  Most of the studies conducted have uti-




lized high intensities of sound, usually of narrow- or broadband noise.




Effects of Noise on Wildlife




    A thorough search of the scientific literature  from 1950 to the present reveals an




almost complete lack of information regarding the effects  of noise on wildlife.   How-




ever, there have been a number of selective studies to determine the effects of noise




on particular fish and insects.  These studies have established that intrusive sounds




can  affect the locomotor patterns of fish and,  if sufficiently intense, can also result in





their death.  Studies of insects indicate that their life span and reproductive capacity




may be affected by exposure to certain sounds.
                                       1-54

-------
Effects of Noise on  Laboratory Animals




    The best documented effect of noise on laboratory animals, as on man, is the




production of loss of hearing or damage to the auditory system.  Brief exposures to




intense sound or prolonged exposures to moderate levels of noi&e can cause hearing




loss.   Impulse sounds are sounds in which the pressure from the  sound wave  rises to




its maximum intensity quickly  (within a few millionths of second).  If sufficiently in-




tense, such sounds can damage the ear before protective mechanisms (the aural re-




flex) can help compensate for the pressure increase.




    Loss of hearing due to noise exposure has been demonstrated in a variety of ani-




mals  such  as guinea pigs, rats, chinchillas, dogs,  and cars.  Hlstologic studies have




revealed damage to the inner ear,  such as destruction of hair cellt; and, in some cases,




disruption of supporting cells and damage to the basilar and tectorial membranes.




    Nonauditory effects of exposure to  noise have been demonstrated in guinea pigs,




mice,  rats, and rabbits.  There is evidence that noise  influences stress responses




in an  animal, producing neural and hormonal changes affecting urinary,  adrenal, and




reproductive functions.




    In summary, high levels of noise stimulation of laboratory animals for tairly




short  durations have produced results  suggestive of significant effects on such things




as sexual function,  blood chemistry, auditory function, and seizure susceptibility.




Effects of Noise on  Farm Animals




    There has been a considerable amount of speculation concerning detrimental




effects of noise on domestic animals of economic importance such as horses,  cattle,




swine, poultry, and especially mink.  However,  controlled studies typically reveal





                                      1-55

-------
little or no effect other than startle response to sudden loud sounds.  Sound in itself




apparently produces responses ranging from momentary alerting and searching re-




actions to (rarely) signs of panic or fright.  In general, panic reactions occur when




a visual stimulus, such as a low-flying airplane,  occurs alone or in conjunction with




the loud sound.  The larger farm animals (horses,  cattle,  and swine) appear to adapt




readily to high levels of noise.   Several-studies have revealed that sonic booms and




simulated sonic booms have little effect on mink, despite many large claims against




the government for noise-related losses.




    Poultry may not adapt as well as do the large farm mammals.   Loud noises have




been demonstrated to disrupt broodiness (cessation of  egg laying and initiation  of in-




cubation) in turkeys, producing a rapid return to  egg production. Little effect  on the




hatchability of chicken eggs as a result of sonic boom exposure has been shown.  In




general,  insufficient research on effects of noise on farm animals precludes drawing




any firm conclusions.  However, sounds that are meaningful to a particular animal




seem to communicate specific information that results in changes in behavior and




internal physiological states.




    Possible consequences of some of the behavioral changes effected by noise are




difficult to evaluate.  Decreased exploratory behavior, immobility,  and things  of like




nature could have significant consequences if they occur under conditions of chronic




stimulation and the exposed animals do not adapt out over time.  Any panic type behavior,



such as piling up or huddling,  could well lead to problems of survival of an animal.  Also,




avoidance behavior could restrict access to food or shelter and could therefore adversely




affect an animal's,  or even a specie's, chances for survival.







                                      1-56

-------
     The prey-predator situation could be drastically changed.  The animal that depends




on its ears to locate prey could starve if auditory sensitivity acuity decreased, or the




animal  that depends on hearing to detect and avoid its predators could be killed.  Re-




ception of auditory mating  signals could be diminished, therefore affecting reproduc-




tion.  Masking of these signals by noise in an area could also produce the same effect.




Detection of sounds  of the young by  the mother could be hindered, leading to increased




rates of infant mortality or decreased survival rates.  Distress or warning calls may




not be received,  again significantly affecting survival.




     In view of the potential economic impact of noise  effects on farm animals, it




would appear worthwhile  to study in more detail the  effects of noise on such things as




fertility, egg laying, weight gain, and health, under precisely controlled conditions  and




in realistic, chronic exposures.  In any such investigations, the frequency character-




istics of stimuli to be used should be  carefully selected to correspond to the audible




range of hearing of the animal to be studied, in order to enhance the likelihood of




valid and realistic results.




Summary of Effects on Wildlife and Other Animals




    With the exception of the extensive and systematic body of literature exploring the




effects of noise upon auditory structures and hearing,  well controlled and well designed





experiments substantiating  nonauditory effects of noise on animals are  rare.   In the




case of wildlife, such studies are virtually nonexistent.




    The uncertainties, ambiguities, and even conflicts in reports of nonauditory phys-




iological, metabolic, sexual, and other physical effects of noise suggest the need for
                                       1-57

-------
a thorough and clearly defined research program to systematically study the effects




of long-term, low level chronic noise exposure in animals.  Concurrently, and with




careful examination of possible physiological and psychological effects of noise on ani-




mals,  the effects of noise on true wildlife in its native habitat requires detailed in-




vestigation.
                                       1-58

-------
EFFECTS OF SONIC BOOM AND SIMILAR IMPULSIVE NOISES ON PROPERTY




    The effects of impulsive noise will be discussed here mainly in terms of the effects




produced by sonic booms.  However,  the discussion is applicable to the sounds of




chemical explosions and to other impulsive noises if the appropriate physical param-




eters are known.




    The Federal  government has  carried out a comprehensive series  of observations




on the effects of sonic booms produced by supersonic aircraft flights.   Three of the




series were observations at cities in the Midwest.  The cities,  dates, and total num-




ber of overflights producing booms were as follows: St.  Louis  (1961-62), 150;




Oklahoma City (1964), 1253; Chicago (1965), 49.  Another series of experiments was




carried out at Edwards Air Force  Base in California (1966).  Most of  the results sum-




marized in the following discussion are drawn directly from the report of the Sonic




Boom Panel of the International Civil  Aviation Organization, which included data from




the four series of tests.




Nature of Sonic Booms and Other Impulsive Noises




     Impulsive noise has its origin in  transient events that generate sound pressure




waves jumping abruptly to some peak value, then decaying slowly with time and,




finally,  (for a sonic boom)  abruptly jumping again.   The pressure jumps of sonic booms




are shock waves  and are audible as two sharp bangs separated by a short time interval.




    A rise in the pressure of the air  may always be observed immediately in front




of any solid object, e. g. , an aircraft, that is in motion relative to the surrounding




air.   At subsonic speeds, the pressure decreases rapidly with distance  away from the




aircraft.  However, when the relative velocity  between the aircraft and the surrounding






                                      1-59

-------
air is greater than the local speed of sound, not only is the air ahead of the aircraft




compressed, but a coneshaped shock wave is formed with the aircraft at the vertex.




As the shock spreads out, the shock cone intersects the earth's surface and is heard




by the observer as a sonic boom.  It should be emphasized  that sonic booms occur in




the wake of a supersonic aircraft at all times when it is traveling faster than the speed




of sound and not just at the instant when the aircraft passes from a subsonic to a super-




sonic speed.




    The intensity of the sonic boom and the region on the ground over which the sonic




boom will be observed (known as the boom carpet) are dependent on atmospheric con-




ditions and airplane characteristics.  The volume, weight,  length, lift characteristics,




altitude and Mach number of the aircraft affect both the amplitude and duration of the




boom.  The total width of the boom carpet is, typically, 20 to 80 miles.  Outside of




the carpet, the passage of the aircraft is heard only  as a low-pitched rumble.




    When the effects of the  sonic boom on structures are being considered, it should




be noted that most of the mechanical energy of the boom  is contained in a band of low,




inaudible frequencies. A convenient measure,  for discussing the effects of sonic booms




is the number of boom-person exposures—the experience of one sonic boom by one




person.  It is used as a measure of the times a sonic boom is experienced,  either on




different occasions by the same recipient or on the same occasion by different recipients.




Response of Structures to Sonic Booms




    Sonic booms can induce transient vibrations  in various types of structures.   The




manner in which a given structure vibrates is basically the result of the pressure
                                      1-60

-------
signature distributed over the entire structure.  The structural response will depend

on the structure's location, size,  shape, type of construction, manner of assembly,

and state of maintenance and on the specific form of sonic boom pressure signature

and its variation over the structure.  The resonance characteristic of the structure

will also have major influence.  Seismic transmissions —vibrational energy transmitted

through the earth—may also play  a minor role in exciting the vibrations.

    It follows, then, that structural  response to sonic booms will be highly variable

among structures, and unpredictable for a particular structure.  But the response of

a large  collection of structures, such as the buildings in a community, will be fairly

predictable in statistical terms.

Physical Effects on Buildings

    It appears that the structures most susceptible to sonic boom loads are buildings,

residential, public,  commercial,  or otherwise.  By and large,  the damage caused by

sonic booms will be  confined to brittle secondary structures, such as window glass

and plaster.  There  is, however,  a small probability of a greatly magnified boom (as

from  aircraft turns and accelerations) striking a building with an exceptionally weak

or faulty primary structure.
              i
    Studies involving flights of aircraft over instrumented and monitored structures

have been completed for a number of residential and commercial  building structures

and for  a variety of window configurations.  The results of these studies are presented

in Table 1-3.
                                        1-61
74-249 O - 72 - 7

-------
                                  Table 1-3

                   STUDIES AND SURVEYS ON SONIC BOOM
     COMMENT
                                 NOMINAL PEAK PRESSURE
                                                                      RESULTS
Laboratory Test:
plate glass windows
7'x7'xl/4" and normal
construction mounting
Laboratory Test:
residential sash window

Field Test:
(White Sands) with 20
different type of resi-
dential and commercial
structures and 1200
supersonic overflights

Field Test:
residential and commercial
buildings and pre-test
structural survey monitoring.
(St. Louis, Wallops Station,
Oklahoma City,  Edwards AF
Base)

Field Test:
Flights controlled, but no
monitoring of building
structures (St.  Louis,
Oklahoma City,  Edwards,
Chicago)
960 N/m
144 - 960 N/m
158 N/m
288 N/m
48 - 154 N/m
No damage
No damage
                             No damage
                             No damage
                             Some dam-
                             age claimed
                                     1-62

-------
     Between 1961 and 1965 field studies of sonic boom effects were conducted by




systemmatic supersonic overflights of three cities:  St.  Louis,  Oklahoma City and





Chicago.




     As an illustration of the type of damage  reported, the information in Table 1-4 is




presented from an analysis of the complaint  reports in the St. Louis area.









                                    Table  1-4




      PERCENT OF VALID CLAIMS FOR CATEGORY OF DAMAGED ELEMENT
Type Element Damaged
Glass only
Plaster only
Glass and Plaster
Bric-a-brac
Tiles and fixtures
Other structural damage
Percent of Units Damaged
37. 0
22.0
11.0
18.5
7. 5
4.0
    Evaluations were made of a portion of the complaints received, and it was judged




by competent engineers and architects that about one-third of the alleged damage




incidents were valid.  The validated complaints included those in which the sonic boom




was interpreted  as a possible triggering mechanism in the presence of other factors




affecting structural integrity.




    Measured vibrational accelerations and displacements in all monitored structures




indicate that such occurrences as door closing,  door slamming, and pedestrian traffic




create accelerations in the structure of the same order of magnitude as those measured
                                       1-63

-------
due to sonic booms.  In addition to the statistical nature of glass breakage,  some in-



consistency between laboratory and community data undoubtedly existed due to the will-



ingness of claims adjusters to allow small claims rather than to pursue the investiga-



tion to proof of damage cause.



Cost of Damage to Buildings



    In the foregoing discussion, the physical nature of the sonic boom damage problem



has been treated.  Another measure of the extent of damage is the number of claims



filed.   In this connection,  Concorde 001 carried out 43 supersonic flights over France



under conditions different from expected commercial flight operations in that, for



example, a great number of focused booms were generated during supersonic maneu-



vers.   Furthermore, during these flights, 27 focused booms due to transonic accel-



eration reached the ground.   For 40 million boom-person exposures, 56 claims were



lodged and are presently being processed.  The fianancial settlement of claims judged



to be justified is not presently known.



    In the last decade, military aircraft have logged over 15, 000 hours of supersonic



flight training time over the continental United States.  Typical peak overpressures


                              2        2
under the flight path are  96 N/m  (2  Ib/ft ), although overpressures two to four times



greater may arise during maneuvering. Of the paid damage claims resulting from Air



Force training flights, 65 percent were for glass and 18 percent were for plaster



damage.



    The previously mentioned sonic  boom tests in three cities —account for the over-



whelming bulk of the systematic study of boom-person exposures in published reports
                                      1-64

-------
to date.  The data on boom-person exposures, numbers of complaints, claims filed,




and, finally, value of damage awarded are given in Table  1-5.  The data is analyzed




and reduced on the basis of boom-person exposures in Table  1-6.  Perhaps the most




useful yardstick of structural damage is the amount of money paid out in settlement of




damage claims per million boom-person exposures  in these three  highly publicized




tests.  For these surveys, this averages to about $220 per million boom-person ex-




posures.




    Care must be taken in applying the above estimate of  damage costs per million




boom-person exposures in other contexts; for example, at other average boom inten-




sities.  The samples of costs underlying the estimate vary by more than a factor of




two; thus,  no consistent pattern of costs among the cities  has emerged.  (Errors in




consistency in estimating the population affected in the different cities  may be  a




factor).  Also, structural damage susceptibility,  varying  building  codes,  repair costs,




reimbursement policies (whether lenient or strict) probably vary widely among cities




and counties.




Effect of Sonic Booms on Natural Structures and Terrain




Earth Surfaces





    Sonic booms apply moving pressure loads to the earth's surface.  On land there




are two major effects.  The first, and largest,  is the static deformation that travels




with the surface load,  and the second is  a train  of Rayleigh surface waves that  travel




at a different speed.




    The ground response to sonic booms in terms of soil particle movement is com-




parable to that associated with the footsteps of a man.  The effective areas covered on






                                       1-65

-------
1
d) rt
r3 ^ 3

> o a
ffl
§3 S
.£3 cd
6 "o S
!5 "o a
53 I
"i -2 -a

5 <4-l """^


111
13 **-* JS
Z o a

w , — .
1 C O CQ
C O *4 C
fl W 3 O
O t-i ffl ;3
gi£
•So3  ..H
HoC


O
o g 3

111

00
15
•o
S
,2


OO rH CO
^f1 CO CO
CD O C-
00 CO ^f
in (N rH
i— 1 rH

in m CM
!M OO Tf
CO (M -^
rn"

T^ rH Tf
Csl O CO
CO CJ1 Q>

rH Th M
o f-q co
O in rH
O Tf rH

LO lO D-
rH

o o m
0* (N* Tf
CO CD CO
«" c^ oo"
.
• *-* -~~,
CD 00 CD
00 tO QO

O CO OS
in in ^
rH CO

000
O O O
o o o
o" CM rH
0 rH N
CD in (M
(M CD"
(N
l>

CD*

w-

CO
LO
csT

CTS
00


03
CO
CO
1C

[>-
(N

in
CO
CO
CO
rH
CD
t-
*

CO
H-
w
10
r-t
O
o
0
CO
CO
CO
oT
CD
s ®
I-H
« -&S
rf b 2 3
to °* 5
•360 H
S o Sii
J -5 «
1-1 ei o

1


o
LQ

03
c
3
o
V
1 3
2 g
e w
•2 ^
I |
S a
i-H tO S
' 5
K" rt O
S 3 0
< ai y
0 ^ !B
•g. . i
S S h
g- § o
(4 W
^ a M
3 (ii -
° ^ o

•-* S "
« ca 'p
ft T3 C
Ed
^ m
S g
^ g .2
211


v
a
W A
S 2
•S ^H W
B g S
II
* 3
a g w
g h h
0 S PQ
U Q, *


a> 42 03
0 >» g
j3 'O r"l
.2 "*"" z
2 1 <
c
•5 e
„ o
c •**
'S) g.
CQ O
Cj ffl
rt Q
1

F^H n ^ ^
as h 5P
*; aj ra
o 43 ™ *
h ^ d 
It e *
* + +


rH (M tr-
LO Ol t-
r-t rH CO



rH in **
rH ^ t-




00 rH Tj*
3 N "




(M
(M



Oi
rH



O
rH
C^


CD
O









A
0)
•o
^
. '^
5* fe
o

CO g
'3 S p
g o ED
co 00




























CO
g
03
a
M
s
§
s
F-4
a
S

1-66

-------
the ground are, of course, different; the boom-induced motions are correlated over


distances on the order of miles, whereas footstep-induced motions decay within several


feet.  Earthquake tremors that are measurable with sensitive instruments but imper-


ceptible to humans are also of this magnitude.  Some-boom-induced particle velocities


are,  on the average,  approximately two orders of magnitude (that is, a factor of 100)


less  than the damage threshold accepted by the U. S. Bureau  of Mines and other agen-


cies  for blasting operations.


     Further significant findings of the sonic boom tests were that the disturbances


were limited to a thin surface of the earth and that no evidence of focusing of seismic


energy was observed.  Although reports have been received concerning cracked con-


crete driveways and broken underground pipes due to sonic booms, investigations


produced no scientific support for such allegations.


Avalanches


    Of particular concern is the possibility of avalanches being triggered by sonic

                                                                               2
booms.  A series of 18 flights that generated nominal peak pressures up to 500 N/m


were conducted over a snow covered area exhibiting potential avalanchmg conditions.


No avalanche or effect on the creep behavior of the snow layers resulted.  However,


the snow conditions were such that the U.S. Forest Service rated the possibility of


avalanche to be low.  The results, therefore, are inconclusive.


Landslides


     There have been reports of landslides and cliff failures attributed to sonic booms.


However, these reports have not been documented at this time.
                                       1-67

-------
Water Surfaces



    In deep water, a moving underwater pressure field accompanies the boom carpet



over the surface.  Theoretically the pressure wave formed just beneath the surface of



calm water is almost identical to that of the wave in air,  both in the amount of peak



pressure and in wave form, but it is  rapidly attenuated with depth.  Furthermore,  the



pressure jumps disappear and are replaced by slowly varying pressures.  It does not



seem probable that a pressure field in water could cause structural damage.



Summary of Effects of Sonic Boom



    •   Laboratory and controlled overflight experiments with monitored structures



        were generally negative regarding sonic boom damage from peak pressures



        up to 960 N/m2 (20 lb/ft2).



    •   Controlled overflights with unmonitored structures subjected to a range of


                                                       2              2
        nominal peak pressures from about 48 to 154'N/m  (1 to 3. 2 lb/ft ) resulted



        in damage claims, predominantly for glass, on the order of one per 100, 000



        population per flight, i.e.,  100, 000 boom-person exposures, with about one



        in three being judged valid.



     •  Flight test series in Oklahoma City, Chicago, and St.  Louis resulted in over



        1 billion boom-person exposures.  The associated property damage resulted



        in paid out claims averaging about $220 per million boom-person exposures.



        Numerous small  claims were paid without investigation or inspection.



     •  On the average, frequency of paid claims for glass damage far exceeded



        that for plaster damage.
                                      1-68

-------
•   Ground motion due to sonic boom is small, but measurable (two orders of




    magnitude less than U. S. Bureau of Mines damage threshold for blasting




    operations.)




•   Although no direct evidence exists,  sonic  booms may trigger avalanches if




    unstable snow conditions exist.




•   Although no documented evidence exists, unstable terrain features could be




    affected by sonic booms.




•   A structure may accumulate damage (often not visible) from vibration,




    weathering, and aging that eventually terminates  its  life.  The sonic boom




    could be another such cumulative contributor.




•   An uncertainty concerning the effects of the sonic boom is how it compares




    with the structural aging effects due  to the existing environment.




•   Sonic boom pressures over water are rapidly attenuated and converted to




    slowly varying pressures and probably have no  effect on structures.




In summary, the effects of sonic boom on ground motion  must be further explored.
                                   1-69

-------
PHYSICAL EFFECTS OF NOISE ON STRUCTURES AND PROPERTY




    There is little data available regarding the effects of acoustical energy on struc-




tures other than aircraft, in which case high frequency,  high intensity noise has been




implicated in metal fatigue in certain components.  High intensity,  low frequency




acoustical energy, such as associated with pulsejets and other high intensity pulsation




sources, has been observed to set structural components such as windows,  light




aluminum or other sheet metals into sympathetic vibratory motions.  There is little




valid  information regarding the transition zone between acoustical energy and vibra-




tory response phenomena and possible effects on structures, machinery,  and  equip-




ment.  Since shock and vibration do play a major role in certain types of mechanical




deterioration and equipment failures or malfunctions (in which noise generation may




be a symptom of the occurrence), it is evident that a complex relationship exists.




    The heavy concentration of construction equipment in certain urban areas may




produce a combination of vibratory energy transmission through soil and supporting




structures, which could conceivably affect fragile structures such as glass and certain




particularly susceptible materials including plastics and thin aluminum panels. Fur-




ther investigation is needed on the exact nature of this problem.
                                      1-70

-------
                                  CHAPTER 2

                        SOURCES OF NOISE AND THEIR

                     CURRENT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT*



    A characterization of the sources of environmental noise and an assessment of

their impact on the quality of life is central to the formulation of a  balanced environ-

mental noise abatement program.  Clearly, such a program must be predicated on a

quantitative understanding of the contribution  of each of the broad array of noise-

producing devices.  Most people are aware, at least qualitatively,  of the  impact of

aircraft noise on airport communities, and many  are aware of the  numerous diesel

trucks  presently on our roads.  But noise from other types of vehicles, construction

and industrial operations, and appliances are also recognized as a  problem in various

segments of society.  People will, however,  assess the relative and absolute impact

of these sources differently.  Such impressions are generally closely tied to an in-

dividual's life style and experience and cannot be used as the basis for the establish-

ment of national policies. An objective and quantitative description of noise sources
    This chapter is based upon material prepared by the staff EPA Office of Noise
    Abatement and Control as a result of testimony received during public hearings
    and upon data contained in EPA Technical Information Documents NTID300.1,
    "Noise From Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and
    Home Appliances" (EPA contract 68-04-0047, Bolt, Beranek and Newman);
    NTID300. 2, "Noise From Industrial Plants" (EPA contract 68-04-044, L. S.
    Goodfriend Associates); and NTID300. 3,  "Community Noise" (EPA contract 68-
    04-0046,  Wyle Laboratories); NTID300.13,  "Transportation Noise and Noise
    From Equipment Powered by Internal Combustion Engines (EPA contract 68-04-
    0048, Wyle Laboratories).
                                     2-1

-------
and effects is needed to establish priorities and to cast the problem of environmental




noise in proper perspective.  More important is the need to determine the average




cumulative noise exposure of typical individuals in our complex society.




    Sources may be characterized individually and in the aggregate. To assess rela-




tive importance  and as a basis for impact evaluation, it is generally adequate to deter-




mine a simple measure of the noise level (e.g., dBA) of a source at a particular dis-




tance.  For example, by comparing the A-weighted sound levels of appliances at a




3-foot measuring distance, one can tentatively conclude that refrigerators generating




42 dBA are  likely to be  a far less serious problem than vacuum cleaners generating




72 dBA.  Further,  noise levels at other distances and in other situations characteris-




tic of personal exposure may be estimated by accounting for changes in level as sound




propagates through the air and structures.




    Characterizing noise  levels in a more collective sense is also of use in assessing



impact.  People tend to respond differently to the noise characteristics of a distant




highway or construction site than to a readily identifiable single incident such as a




passing truck.  Highways  for example,  are typically characterized by a nearly con-




tinuous background level,  with fluctuations owing to vehicle spacing and the various




source levels  of each vehicle.  Single events are different in that they may intrude



excessively in otherwise quiet environments,  and annoyance is strongly related to




both the peak level and duration of exposure.



    One step further than aggregating vehicles into highways is to consider the  noise



generating in the community.  This means the combination of all sources creating a




total noise environment.  The value of considering community noise as a whole,




rather than evaluating each source in isolation, is twofold.  First, human behavior




is not arithmetically additive, reactions to individual acoustic stimuli do not provide




a simple measure of the reaction to concurrent stimuli.  Secondly,  the myriad





                                      2-2

-------
sources around us make the synthesis of a community noise profile difficult.  To ac-




quire an indication of realistic community situations it is more useful to have a total




noise picture, established from actual field measurement.




    As with noise source levels, the community impact must be treated quantitatively,




and in terms that can be readily interpreted.   It is not necessarily of great interest




that a piece of construction equipment may generate as much as 95 dBA at 50 feet.



What is of interest is that this noise level will contribute to the hearing loss of con-




struction  workers and other people exposed daily for several hours,  will prevent




intelligible conversation, and could affect the sleep of people living nearby.  Also oi




great significance is the number of people disturbed in these ways and the extent of




their disturbance.  In a sense, the magnitude of the noise problem is proportional to




the number of people whose lives are significantly degraded by noise.




    It is neither practical nor desirable to identify and characterize all sources of




environmental noise.   Every piece of machinery, from a jet aircraft to an electric




clock, produces sound; but not all of these sounds are of sufficient significance  to merit



study. Furthermore,  the  appropriate depth of treatment varies with the significance




of the source.  To ensure  that the most significant sources of environmental noise




are treated, the following  categories of sources are identified and analyzed in this




chapter.



    1.  Transportation systems



    2.  Devices powered  by internal combustion engines




    3.  Industrial plants



    4.  Construction equipment



    5.  Household appliances and building equipment.



    Transportation systems include aircraft,  road and rail vehicles, ships, and such




recreational vehicles as snowmobiles and all-terrain vehicles.  The second category




                                       2-3

-------
includes such devices as gasoline-powered lawnmowers and chain saws,  which are



not treated elsewhere.  Although industrial plants have traditionally received atten-



tion because of occupational noise problems, they may also generate noise that is



propagated to the community.  Construction equipment and operations are responsible



for intense levels of noise, though they are not as ubiquitous as certain other sources.



Numerically, probably the most widespread source of noise is household appliances and



building equipment, which includes  1 billion home appliances,  as well as electric tools,



and heating, ventilation, and air conditioning machinery.  As a prelude to a discussion of



these sources,  community noise is  treated in general.   The chapter is concluded with



an evaluation of the total impact of noise on the environment and a comparison among



the various source categories.
                                      2-4

-------
COMMUNITY NOISE




    The description of community noise requires inclusion of all of the noises in the




outdoor acoustical environment.  The outdoor noise environment varies from the quiet




suburban areas to the din of traffic in the downtown city canyon and it generally varies




with time  of day in each location, being relatively quiet at night and noisier in the late




afternoon  during the 5  p.m. rush.  Its effects may be experienced  by  people either in




or out of doors.   Thus, the task of describing community noise is to determine the




variations in the outdoor noise environment with time and place throughout the com-




munity so that the descriptions are relevant to noise effects on people.




Description of the Outdoor Noise Environment




    A physical description of a sound must account for its frequency characteristics,




magnitude, and temporal pattern.  A sound level meter, when  used with the




A-weighting characteristic, accounts for the frequency characteristics of a noise and




magnitude of outdoor noise by weighting the amplitude of the various frequencies ap-




proximately in accordance with a person's hearing sensitivity as illustrated  in the



example in Figure 2-1.




    Because the A-weighting is not a perfect solution for the accounting of man's per-




ception of the frequency characteristics of a sound, other scales have been developed




that attempt to better quantify loudness and noisiness.  One of  these,  the tone-




corrected Perceived Noise Level, better accounts for the ear's frequency response



function and certain other characteristics of the noises; that is broadband noises



containing strong high  frequency pure tones (e.g.,  whine in jet noise). Presence of



such tones results in a higher Perceived Noise Level.  This scale  requires complex




measurement and analysis in its quantification.   However, because it  is somewhat



more  exact than the  A-weighting in relating the physical characteristics of a sound



to perceived  noisiness, particularly for aircraft noise, it has become a major





                                      2-5

-------
CO
-o
c
•s
I
o.
•o
c
    70
    60
50
    40
    30
    20
                              A-Weighted Residual
                           Noise Level Spectrum Which
                         Adds to Give A-Weighted Noise
                                 Level of 40 dB
    10
                       100
                                          5     1000

                                     Frequency in Hertz
                                                                         10000
           Figure 2-1.  A Typical Octave Band Spectrum of the Outdoor Residual Noise
                        Level in Late Evening in a Normal Suburban Neighborhood
                                       2-6

-------
element in the noise scale used for certifying aircraft.   For most sounds, the Per-

ceived Noise Level exceeds the A-weighted noise level by 13 dB, the difference

ranging between 11 and 17 dB, depending upon the amount of the correction for pure

tones.  The complex Perceived Noise Level is used in this report only for describ-

ing aircraft noise,  since the A-weighted sound level adequately describes the outdoor

noise environment in a community.

     To complete the description of the outdoor noise environment at a specific loca-

tion,  it is necessary to account for the temporal pattern of the A-weighted noise  level.

The temporal pattern is most easily observed on a continuous graphic-level recording,

such as the two samples illustrated in Figure 2-2.  The first striking feature of these

two samples  is that the noise level varies with time over a range of 33 dB, which is

greater than  an eightfold range of  noisiness. *

     The second major feature of the samples is that the noise  level appears  to be

characterized by a fairly  steady lower level, upon which is superimposed the increased

levels associated with discrete single events. This fairly constant lower level will be

termed the residual noise level for purposes of this report.  The continuous  noise

heard in the backyard at night when no single source can be identified, and which seems

to come from all around,  is an example of residual noise.  Distinct sounds that are

superimposed on the residual noise level,  such as aircraft overflight, cars,  and dogs

barking (Figure  2-2), can be classified as  intrusive noises.  P'urther, they can be sep-

arated into intrusive noises from outside the neighborhood,  such as aircraft  and the

cars on boulevards and local neighborhood noises,  such as dogs barking and  local

cars passing by.
*   A change of approximately 10 dB represents a doubling,  or halving, of perceived
    loudness or noisiness of a sound.  Thus, a 33-dB range  of variation represents
    more than 2x2x2, or eightfold, range of possible variation in loudness or noisiness.
                                      2-7
 74-249 O - 72 - I

-------
       Early Afternoon
a.
o
    80


    70


    60


    50


    40
±   30
                           ^Cars on Nearby
                              Boulevard
                                               Aircraft
                                             .Overflight
                                                                       Local Cars
                                               v Residual Noise Level
                                                J	|	
                                      345

                                          Time in Minutes
       Late Evening
§
CO
"8
             Intermittent
              Dog Barks
                                     Local Cars
                                  Residual Noise Level -
                                      I	I
                                                           I
                                      345

                                          Time in Minutes
                  Figure 2-2.  Two Samples of Outdoor Noise in a Normal Suburban
                               Neighborhood with the Microphone Located 20 Feet
                               From the Street Curb.
                                         2-8

-------
    The third feature in these two samples is the difference in the noise level-time




patterns among the various sounds.  The noise level of the aircraft in this example




is above that of the residual noise level for approximately 80 seconds, whereas the




noise  levels from the passing cars are above the residual noise level for much shorter



durations,  ranging between about 5  and 20  seconds.  Clearly, if the noise associated




with these single events were of sufficient  magnitude to intrude on an individual's




activities —conversation, thinking,  watching television —the duration factor might




be expected to affect the degree  of annoyance.  Similarly, it might be anticipated that




the number of times such an  event occurred would also affect the degree of annoyance.



    The details presented in a 24-hour recording such as Figure 2-2 aids  in under-




standing the nature of the outdoor noise environment at any  neighborhood location.




However, to quantify an outdoor noise environment so  that it can be compared with




others,   it is often necessary to simplify its description by  eliminating much of the




detail.  One way of accomplishing this simplification is to measure the value  of the




residual noise level and the values of the maximum noise level for specific single-




event sounds at various times, using either a simple sound  level meter or the con-




tinuous  graphic-level recording  of Its output.



    Another method of quantifying the noise environment is to determine the statistical




properties of the noise level, through use of a statistical analyzer  in conjunction with a



sound level meter.  The data from the statistical analyzer can be used to determine the



percentage of time the value  of the noise level remains between any two set limits.



Alternatively, the data can be used to obtain a cumulative distribution in terms  of the




level exceeded for a stated percentage of the time.
                                      2-9

-------
    Both the direct reading and the statistical methods have been applied to 24-hour




recordings of the outdoor noise level at a typical suburban residential location.  The




results are illustrated in Figures 2-3 and 2-4.   The variation of the hourly and the day,



evening,  and nighttime values of the various statistical measures, together with the




minimum and maximum values read from a continuous recording, are summarized in




Figure 2-3. The period  histograms,  showing the percentage of time that the level was



in any stated level interval, are shown in Figure 2-4.




    The  maximum noise levels are often much greater than the highest statistical




measure, L-^,  which is the value exceeded 1 percent of the time.  Consequently, for



many communities in which the residual noise level (Lg()) is relatively low and the




statistical distribution is skewed far from the normal distribution, one must monitor




almost continuously to determine the maximum environmental noise level.




    All of the  statistical measures in Figures 2-3 and 2-4 show the  typical daytime-



nighttime variation in noise level.   In this example,  the residual noise level drops




sharply after midnight, reaching a minimum value between 4:00 and 5:00 a.m.,  and



rises between 6:00 and 8:00 a.m. to its almost constant daytime value.  This time



variation of the noise is generally  well correlated with the amount of activity and par-




ticularly well correlated with the amount of vehicular traffic in urban areas, which is



generally considered to be the basic source of the residual noise. For this report the




level exceeded 90 percent of the time, L-~, will be used as the statistical measure of



residual  noise where there are no  identifiable stead-state noises present.  The median



noise level (L_n) is a useful measure of the "average" noise environment in the sense
             oU


that one-half of the time  it is quieter and one-half of the time it is noisier than L50.



The dashed line  in Figure 2-3, labeled  L  , is the Energy Equivalent Noise Level




(L  ) affected by both the duration and the magnitude of all the sounds occurring in



the time  period.  Its value equals that of a steady-state noise that has the same





                                      2-10

-------
   90
   80
-I  70
Z
!>.
8
£
m  60
S  50
   40
   30
    20
                                                                            Arithmetic
                                                                            Average of the
                                                                            Hourly Values
                                                                            During Period
O  Residual Noise Level

•   Maximum Noise Level
 (Read from graphic level recordmgsl
                    -A.M.-
                                  i
                                                I
                                                 -P.M.-
                                                     I	i_
                                                                                 i
                                                                                      I
         12
                             8    10   12   2    4
                                Beginning of Hour
                                                     6   8    10    12
                                                                           Day  Eve  Night
               Figure 2-3.  Various Measures of the  Outdoor Noise Level.

           Day (7 a m. - 7 p m.l          Evening (7 p.m -- 10 p.m I        Night (10 p.m. - 7 a.m )
IUU
80
60
40
20
n
-
-
r HU,






^




-fL,,,
                               A-Weighted Noise Level in dB re 20 flN/m2
    Figure 2-4.   Histograms of the Percentage of Time Noise was in Each 5-dB
                  Interval for Three Time Periods.
                                         2-11

-------
energy during the period analyzed as that of the actual time-varying noise.  The



energy equivalent noise level is one of the most important measures of the outdoor




noise environment for the purpose of correlating noise and community reaction.  These




statistical measures simplify the quantification of the outdoor noise level and will be




used in this report to compare the outdoor noise environments in various places.  How-




ever, they must be supplemented by other observations if the character of the outdoor




noise environment is to be understood beyond the simple statistics of the noise  levels.




Range of Outdoor Noise Environments



    To define the range of outdoor noise environments encountered by people in their




normal activities,  a series of 24-hour outdoor noise recordings was made at each of




18 sites, as part of the research  for preparation of this report.   This exploratory




measurement survey was designed to sample noises in all types of locations, with




major emphasis on the suburban and urban residential areas,  and to include examples




of the more significant noise problems. Thus, the  survey presents a preliminary




cross-section of the noise environment, but since it was not designed to be weighted




by population density,  it cannot give a true statistical picture  of the noise environ-




ment in terms of a national baseline.




    The range of daytime outdoor noise levels at the 18 locations is presented  in Fig-



ure 2-5.  The locations are listed from top to bottom of the figure in descending order




of their daytime residual noise levels  (Lgo).   The noisiest location, outside a third-



story apartment overlooking an eight-lane freeway,  is at the top of the list with its



daytime residual noise level of 77 dBA, and the rural farm  is next to the bottom of




the list with its daytime residual noise level of 33 dBA.  That all citizens do not




enjoy the same quality in their noise environment is exemplified by the case of the




owner of the third-story apartment near the freeway who has trouble renting because




of the noise from the freeway.






                                     2-12

-------
z
g
t-


8
                                                                               3

                                                                               3
                                    2-13

-------
    The Grand Canyon measurement was made at a remote camping site on the north




rim.  Even in this remote location, crickets raised the outdoor residual noise level




to approximately 32 dBA for a few hours in the evening and early nighttime.  For the




remainder of the 24 hours, the residual noise levels were extremely low.  The outdoor




daytime residual noise level (L^,,) of 16 dBA is close to the internal noise threshold




of the field measurement system and should be representative of the quietest locations




in this country.  The difference between this extremely low residual noise level and




the much higher noise levels in the city is representative of the contribution of man




and machine to the outdoor noise environment.  In this small sample of measurement




locations, the average residual and median noise levels are over 20 dB greater in the




city than in the detached residential housing areas for both daytime and nighttime,  as




seen in the comparisons in the first two columns of Table 2-1,




    In this survey, the nighttime  noise was less than that measured during the daytime,




as is generally the case, except in summer when crickets abound.  The average of




the differences between the daytime and nighttime residual noise levels at each of the



11 locations in the residential areas is 5. 8 dB.  A  similar comparison of the differences




between the  maximum daytime and minimum nighttime residual noise  levels showed




a difference of 13 dB, averaged over the same 11 locations.  The comparison between



maximum and minimum levels gives full weight to  the quiet nighttime  period,  which




was illustrated in Figures 2-3 and 2-4 examples of a normal suburban residential




neighborhood.



    The average value of the daytime residual noise level is 45 dBA for this limited




number of measurement locations. This value  lies on the borderline between the day-



time residual noise level ranges chosen to represent normal suburban and urban resi-




dential areas, as given in Table 2-2.  Since the qualitative descriptions  of these 11




residential locations included four descriptive categories that ranged from quiet





                                      2-14

-------


c
CD
CD -4->
a -a
ss
-. rQ
"1
8 :?
•S Q
ty
Q





, 	 „
S g
1*
I7.
be
dj O
> ^H








.§ 8
cd a
Q tp
a •

o a
<^




r- G)
"2 ° °

Q

Q) O
be C
2 £ P3
0) 0) T3
^ <+H
Q
"2 §
cd +3

c '> "°

CO Q
_0
0) C ^H
s * S
5 S T3
'£

a<
^ S
w
c
"h ^
rt +o
•a g n
S V ^

eo Q
o
^ c <
8 m m

•s
"^
a<
C Cfl
^3 'O
P5

>,
tn
o
ho
I
S
CD
I





















O
J5
'""^
0)
flj

"rt
3
S
'w
S





















i-H
CM


CO
CO




CO

CD


00
o
CD


O
,H Oi
10 CO


1-1
CO



^
OS
CD


O

•H t^-

-------
                                    Table 2-2
     QUALITATIVE DESCRIPTORS OF URBAN AND SUBURBAN DETACHED
          HOUSING RESIDENTIAL AREAS AND APPROXIMATE DAYTIME
                         RESIDUAL NOISE LEVEL (L)
Description
Quiet Suburban Residential
Normal Suburban Residential
Urban Residential
Noisy Urban Residential
Very Noisy Urban Residential
Typical Range
dB(A)
36 to 40 inclusive
41 to 45 inclusive
46 to 50 inclusive
51 to 55 inclusive
56 to 60 inclusive
Average dB(A)
38
43
48
53
58
suburban residential to noisy urban residential, it is not surprising that the average

residual level for these locations is close to the average of the four categories in

Table 2-2.

Intruding Noises and Community Reaction

    There are two basic types of identifiable intruding noises that increase the out-

door noise level above the residual noise level — steady or quasi-steady-state noises

and intermittent single-event noises.  A steady or nearly constant level noise intru-

sion may result from a nearby freeway, industry, or air conditioner.   The intermittent

single-event noise is exemplified by the noise from an aircraft flyover, a single  car

passby, or a dog barking.

Constant-Level Noise Intrusions

    One of  the best known examples of constant-level noise intrusion is the noise en-

vironment within a busy city.  The high daytime noise levels within the city make it

difficult to have an outdoor conversation at normal voice levels.  For example,  if the

outdoor noise level is 76 dBA, a condition commonly encountered in cities, it is  nec-

essary to talk in a raised voice to achieve intelligibility at a 2-foot distance.

                                      2-16

-------
    The maximum distances for intelligible conversation at various voice levels have

been calculated in accordance with the data in Chapter 1 for the outdoor daytime median

noise levels (L50) measured at each of the 18 locations in the exploratory survey.  The

median noise level (L5Q) rather than the residual noise level (Lgo), has been selected

for evaluating the effects of the outdoor noise environment on speech communication

since the median noise level more nearly represents the typical noise environment for

most  communication situations.  The calculated distances, summarized in Figure 2-6,

illustrate the restrictions in voice communication distances due to city noise.

    Similar calculations show that the maximum distance for normal voice conversa-

tion outdoors in a noisy urban residential area  is 3 to 5 feet, according to the range

of noise  levels for this category in Table 2-2.  Also, the noise associated with the

"very noisy urban residential" area of Table 2-2 is sufficiently high to restrict the

amount by which doors and windows can be opened if one is to retain a desirable in-

door noise  environment. *

    The noise levels associated with the "quiet suburban residential" area of Table

2-2 permit barely intelligible normal voice conversation at distances ranging between

30 and 50 feet. However, if the noise level is so low that the distance for intelligible

conversation in normal voice approaches the distances between neighbors,  it becomes

difficult to  have a private conversation.  For example,  with a 50-foot distance be-

tween neighbors,  the median noise level required to obtain privacy would have to

be on the order of 46 to 50 dBA, depending upon orientation of the talker relative to

the neighbor and assuming no barriers exist.  This median noise level range is ap-

proximately that of the normal suburban community.
    A general estimation of building interior noise levels could be made on the basis
    of a reduction of exterior levels by about 7 dBA with windows open and 15 dBA
    with them closed,  in the direction facing the noise source, and assuming average
    residential structures.
                                      2-17

-------
                                   — in   o>
                                                ,Q  CD


                                                ~ 'S
te
tio
s
a
Kj
•O S»
§1
l-i O   •
S-OP

Hp
c a)  0)

   Bo £
   T! ^
                                                to W  ;
                                                <» *j
                                               .2 a,  S
                                               O 2  S
                                                S rt  *
                                               S o  -2
                                               .S >  CD
                                               S e  >
                                                CO O  CD
                                               W U  1-4
2-18

-------
    The considerations of speech intelligibility and privacy suggest that there are



both maximum and minimum bounds to the outdoor noise levels that are compatible




with reasonable enjoyment and full use of patios, porches, and yards.  The upper bound



for speech intelligibility appears to be in the range of the "very noisy urban residen-




tial" category of Table 2-2, and the lower bound for speech privacy is a function ot



the distance and shielding between neighbors.




Intermittent Single-Event Intriduing Noises



    At many points in typical communities, the noise environment is made up of a




series of transient noise events,  such as caused by vehicular traffic.  Many of these



single-event noises interfere with speech and other activities for brief intervals of



time.   However, their impact is not as easily quantified in terms  of speech interference




as are constant level noise intrusions.




    One method for estimating the magnitude of the intrusion for single-event noises




is to have people rank the acceptability of a series of noises at different levels.  One



of the most comprehensive recent studies of the subjective judgment of single-event




noises was performed using vehicle traffic noises, and the results are summarized



in Figure 2-7.  This data is consistent with the apparent general acceptance of maxi-




mum levels that result from standard passenger automobiles driven on residential




streets.




    When a single event is of sufficient magnitude and duration, it will add to the total



noise  energy in the hour, increasing the value of L  .  Depending on the duration,
                                                 eq


it will also increase L^ and LIQ.  These  effects are illustrated in Figure 2-8, which



shows the values of L  ,  LJQ, and L^ relative to  the value of the  residual noise level



for daytime at each of the 18 locations.  For most of the locations,  LIQ is approximately



10 dB greater than LgQ.  At the seven locations where significant intruding noises were
                                       2-19

-------
      - Excessively Noisy
a   6
cc
      - Noisy
«   4
<
      - Acceptable
     60                   70                   80                   90

                          Maximum A-Weighted Noise Level in dB re 20 l/N/m^

      «	Quiet	^ I *	Acceptable	»- -«	Noisy	*
                                                                                        100
                                                                             Excessively
                                                                                Noisy
        Figure 2-7.  Average Mean Subjective Rating as a Function of Maximum Noise
                    Level in dBA for the British Experiment at the Motor Industry
                    Research Association Proving Grounds
                                           2-20

-------
                                                               I

                                                               o
                                                               (   !
                                                                                                                    m
                                                                                                                    •o
                                                                                                                    e
                                                                                                                   o
                                                                                                                   3

                                                                                                                   3
       1  I
       £  8
                                        o    „
H  i   i       ?  i    S    2    s
5  i   z.   s  i   i    s    E   -
£QsS£zz<°S
 S   3
 I   °
<3   ?
 2-   °
o   s
                                                      z
                                                      15
g
$
8
                          *J       in    v>
                         CD   09    01    0)
                          w  OC   OC   CC
•E  "S   ?   -S   &  •=
CO  CO   CM   D   Q.   J



<  CD   O   O   UJ   U-
                                                              I   I
                                                                    d   s
                                                                     2   S
                                                              TB   TS    =
                                                           S   1
                                                        3
                                                        <3
                   |   E

                   5   £
                                                               5   Z  O    o.  O
                                                                                                            £


                                                                                                           E
                                                  2-21

-------
noted,  both L, and L  tended to be significantly higher relative to Lnn than at loca-
             -*-       ec[                                           9o


tions where significant intruding sources were not noted.  However, L, „ showed in-



creases in only four of the cases.



     These increases in L   and L, are characteristic of the outdoor noise environ-



ments  at locations where significant single-event type noise intrusions are experienced.



In many cases, these noise intrusions will interfere with speech and other activites for



short time periods,  even though the median noise level is satisfactory.



Community Reaction to Noise



     The advent of commercial jet aircraft initially increased the maximum noise levels



at some locations around major airports by 10 to 20 dBA.  These increases in noise



caused widespread complaints and various forms of legal action from citizens  living



in neighborhoods near these civil airports.  This situation paralleled earlier history



of military jet operations by the Air Force after World War II, although only a few Air



Force  operational bases were close to cities and towns.  Unfortunately, the civil air-



ports,  which accounted for the majority of the early commercial jet operations, were



located near  the major cities they served.  Further, they were becoming surrounded



by homes constructed in the post-WWII building boom.  As jet thrust ratings, jet air-



craft operations, and airports continued to increase, the airport noise  problem tended



to spread through the wider areas of the community and to more communities.



     The  U.S. Air Force and other governmental agencies began to investigate the effects



of aircraft noise on people in communities in the early 1950's.   This early research



resulted in a proposed model for relating aircraft noise intrusion and the probable



community reaction. This model, first published by the U. S. Air Force (Handbook



of Noise  Control. Vol. H,  "Noise and Man," WADC TR-52-204), accounted for the



following seven factors:
                                       2-22

-------
    1.   Magnitude of the noise with a frequency weighting for hearing response




    2.   Duration of the intruding noise (10 times the logarithm of the relative duration)




    3.   Time of year  (windows open or closed)




    4.   Time of day noise occurs




    5.   Outdoor noise level in community when the intruding noise is not present




    6.   History of prior exposure to the noise source and attitude towards its owner




    7.   Existence of pure tone or impulsive character in the noise.




    Corrections for these factors were generally made in 5-dB intervals, since many




of the initial relationships were based solely on the intuition of the authors (Rosenblith




and Stevens), and it was considered difficult to assess the response to any greater




degree of accuracy. This method was incorporated in the first Air Force Land Use




Planning Guide in 1957 ("Procedures for Estimating Noise Exposure and Resulting Com-




munity Reaction From  Air Base  Operations,"  WADC TN  57-10) and was later simplified




for ease  of application  by the Air Force and the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA).




    Many other methods have been proposed for describing repeated single-event type




noise,  with primary application to airport noise problems. Most of those methods rep-



resent an evolution of the community noise reaction model and consider at least some




of its principal factors.  Three of the methods for calculating the magnitude of noise



intrusion are summarized in  Table 2-3.




    The  Composite Noise Rating (CNR) was introduced in the early 1960's and has been




widely used by  Federal agencies.  The Noise Exposure Forecast (NEF) is a recent evo-



lution of  the CNR and is proposed as its successor by the  FAA.  It essentially updates




the CNR by substitution of the tone- and duration-corrected Effective  Perceived Noise



Level (EPNL) scale used for  aircraft certification,  instead of the Perceived Noise



Level (PNL) scale of the  earlier CNR.  Thus,  the NEF accounts for both duration and



pure tone content of each single-event sound,  whereas the CNR accounted for neither.






                                      2-23
  74-249 O - 12 - !

-------

    K
    Kg
    co U
    Kg
    f> w

7   sa
     (5

     3
     r
   w t>
   o a
   8
v
w a;
!z 

if
srsrf
ft i
7 S S

5 S o
Daytime (7 j
Evening (7 F
Nighttime (1


c*
£<
a t.
0 '
^|

*^ fH
~- «
Daytime
Nighttim




5
periods durin:
m
P


n n n
T3 T3 "O
o ua o
Daytime
Evening
Nighttime 1






« n
•O T3
O Csl

OJ
II




ts bo Q
T! d •»-
iximate weight
to noise of si
which occurs
ited period
!l!l





Z
0
.-H










Z
S




1?
§ c
— a
M §





Logarithmic








0
1
Logarith


§
o
1
lation of contr
K
3
co
















0)
"rt
t>
•a
g
O
s
•§

h
£
i-t
^
0)
•*•>
1
o
0)
3>
co
*
                           2-24

-------
The Community Noise Equivalent Level (CNEL)* was recently introduced by the State

of California for monitoring purposes.  It is based on the A-weighting to avoid the com-

plexity of the computer calculations required to obtain EPNL and, thus,  cannot con-

tain a pure-tone weighting.  It also differs from the NEF by inclusion of  the evening

time period weighting, in addition to daytime and nighttime.  However, despite these

structural differences, the difference between the absolute values of CNEL and NEF

for specific locations near  airports is approximately constant at 35+2 dB.  Thus NEF-

30 is approximately equivalent to CNEL-65.

    The CNEL has been  applied to a series of community noise problems to relate the

normalized measured CNEL with the observed community reaction.  The normalization

procedure followed is the Rosenblith/Stevens method, with a few  minor modifications.

The correction factors added to  the measured CNE L to obtain the normalized  CNE L

are given in Table 2-4.  Two examples  of the application of these factors to the

measured values of the Equivalent Noise Levels (L   ) of the intruding noise are given

in Table 2-5.  The examples are drawn from the results at two locations in the survey

and illustrate an approximate procedure for calculating CNEL from the measured

averages of L   in the daytime,  evening,  and nighttime periods, accounting both for
             eq

the weightings of 0, 5, and 10 dB,  respectively, and for the duration of each of the per-

iods.  The results of 55 case histories are summarized in Figure  2-9, with an approx-

imate NEF and CNR scale shown for reference.  The data is normalized  to the descrip-

tions in Table  2-4, which have a correction of zero.  The distribution of  the cases

among the various sources impacting areas of the community are listed in Table 2-6.
    CNEL has been adopted for use in this report.  However, this use should not be
    interpreted as an endorsement by the EPA since neither CNEL nor any other
    method has been sufficiently validated to determine their adequacy in predicting
    present and future community reaction to noise.
                                      2-25

-------
                                  Table 2-4
     CORRECTIONS TO BE ADDED TO THE MEASURED COMMUNITY NOISE
         EQUIVALENT LEVEL (CNEL) TO OBTAIN NORMALIZED CNEL*
 Type  of
Correction
          Description
 Amount of Correction
;o be Added to Measured
     CNEL indB
Seasonal
Correction

Correction
for Outdoor
Residual
Noise Level
Correction
for Previous
Exposure &
Community
Attitudes
 Pure Tone
 or
 Impulse
Summer (or year-round operation)
Winter only (or windows always closed)

Quiet suburban residential or rural com-
munity (remote from large cities and
from industrial activity and trucking)

Normal suburban residential community
(not located near industrial activity)

Urban residential community (not
immediately adjacent to heavily traveled
roads and industrial areas)

Noisy urban residential community (near
relatively busy roads or industrial areas)

Very noisy urban residential community

No prior experience with the intruding
noise

Community has had some previous exposure
to intruding noise but little effort is being
made to control the noise.  This correction
may also be applied in  a situation where the
community has not been exposed to the noise
previously,  but the  people are aware that
bona fide efforts are being made to control
the  noise.

Community has had considerable previous
exposure to the intruding noise and the noise
maker's relations with the community are
good

Community aware that  operation causing
noise is very necessary and it will not con-
tinue indefinitely.   This correction can be
applied for an operation of limited  duration
and under emergency circumstances.

No pure tone or impulsive character

Pure tone or impulsive character present
           0
          -5
         +10
                                                                  +5
                                                                  -5


                                                                 -10

                                                                  +5
                                                                  -5
                                                                 -10
           0

          +5
Source: "Supporting Information for the Adopted Noise Regulation for California
        Airports, " Report WCR 70-3(R),  January 29,  1971.
                                    2-26

-------
                                   Table 2-5

        TWO EXAMPLES OF CALCULATION OF NORMALIZED COMMUNITY
                          NOISE EQUIVALENT LEVEL
Factor
Energy Equivalent Noise
Levels (Leq) in dB(A) for
Time Period
Duration and Time of Day
Correction Factor
Subtotals Which are added
Logarithmically to Obtain
CNEL
Community Noise
Equivalent Level
Additional Corrections from
Table 2-4
Seasonal
Residual Noise Level
Experience & Attitude
Pure Tone or Impulse
Total Additional Corrections
Normalized CNEL
Actual Reaction
Aircraft Landing Noise
in Noisy Urban
Residential Community^)
Day
80
-3
77
Eve.
83
-4
79
Night
75
+6
81
84
0
-5
0
5
"o"
84
Extensive Lawsuits and
Political Pressure
Traffic Noise in Old
Residential Area Near
City Centerp)
Day
56
-3
53
Eve.
57
-4
53
Night
53
+6
59
61
0
0
-5
0
^5
56
No Reaction
(1)  Location F in Figures 2-5 and 2-8.

(2)  Location L in Figures 2-5 and 2-8.
                                   2-27

-------
                                                  §  i
                                                     s
                                                           ~   0)
                                            s I -\


                                              E
                                                    o .2
                                                    «£



                                                      S

                                                      i •
                   ia „


                     E





                   S 1
                                            s   -
  — a.
•3 S o



£ » 8
o o-j,,

S o 5
S i y
    S

S 2 i
            S S
            •a i c
            
-------
                           Table 2-6

NUMBER OF COMMUNITY NOISE REACTION CASES AS A FUNCTION
       OF NOISE SOURCE TYPE AND REACTION CATEGORY
Type of Source
Transportation vehicles, including:
Aircraft operations
Local traffic
Freeway
Rail
Auto race track
Total Transportation
Other single-event or inter-
mittent operations, including
circuit breaker testing, target
shooting, rocket testing and
body shop
Steady state neighborhood
sources, including transformer
substations, residential air
conditioning
Steady-state industrial opera-
tions, including blowers,
general manufacturing, chemical,
oil refineries, et cetera
Total Cases
Community Reaction Categories
Vigorous
Threats of
Legal Action
6
1
2
9
5
1
7
22
Wide
Spread
Complaints
2
1
3

4
7
14
No Reaction
or Sporadic
Complaints
4
3
7

2
10
19
Total
Cases
12
3
1
1
2
19

7
24
55
                             2-29

-------
    The data points for "no reaction" response in Figure 2-9 correspond to a level
ranging between 50 and 61 dB, with a mean of 55 dB.  This mean value is approxi-
mately 7  dB above the  mean value assumed in categorizing the daytime residual noise
(Lq0) level for a residential urban community, which is the baseline category for the
data in the figure. This difference of 7 dB between the mean reaction line and L_.. is
only approximately 2 dB greater than the average difference between the outdoor median
noise level (L5Q) and the residual noise level, as shown in Table 2-1.  Consequently,
from these results it appears that no community reaction is  usually expected when the
normalized CNEL of the intruding noise is approximately equal to the daytime out-
door median noise level (Lc/O.  This conclusion is not surprising; it simply suggests
that people tend to judge the magnitude of an intrusion with reference to the noise
environment existing without the presence of the intruding noise source.
    The data in Figure 2-9 indicates that widespread complaints may be expected when
the normalized value of CNE L exceeds the outdoor residual noise level by approx-
imately 17 dB, and vigorous community reaction may be expected when the excess
approaches 33 dB.  Thus, the normalized CNEL community reaction relationship
appears to be a reasonably accurate and useful tool in assessing the probable reaction
of a community to an intruding noise.
    This community reaction data has also been used to test the effect of the var-
ious normalizing factors in Table 2-4 on the degree of correlation between the commun-
ity reaction and the normalized CNEL.  The factor most necessary in the normaliza-
tion to bring the data closer to a common line is the duration correction.  The next
most important factor  is the residual noise level correction.  Less important, but still
significant, are the corrections for time of day, pure tone/impulse, and prior exper-
ience/attitude, the lack of which resulted in standard deviations of 4.6, 4.3, and 4.0
respectively.  No change occurred by removing the seasonal factor, which was only
applicable to three of the 55 cases.
                                      2-30

-------
    The data for the 55 cases was also compared with a version of the CNEL modified




by replacing the day-evening-night corrections of the standard CNEL with the day-night




corrections of the NEF calculation procedure.  The resulting mean line was altered by



less than 1 dB from that given in Figure 2-9, and the standard deviation was only 0. 1




dB greater than before, an insignificant difference.  Thus, these 55 cases can  support




the  adoption of either type of time period weighting,  in combination with the energy




equivalent A-weighted noise level and the other correction factors in Table 2-4, for



the  prediction of community reaction to noise.




    The normalized CNEL scale can also be compared with the results of social sur-




veys,  such as those taken in  London and in the U. S.,  showing that people are usually




at home when they are annoyed by noise.  As might be anticipated, disturbances of



activities related to speech intelligiblity are the most frequently reported as sources




of annoyance.




    Figure 2-10 shows the average annoyance reaction found in the London Airport




Survey as a function of CNR and approximate normalized CNEL.  Figures 2-11 and 2-12




show the relationships of those "very much  annoyed" and those "only a little, or not an-




noyed" with data from the same survey. Also shown in Figure 2-11 is a data point from



Sweden  and a tangent  line through the most important range of community reaction.




    These  results demonstrate that a majority of the citizens are  greatly annoyed



when the noise is sufficient to produce a vigorous community reaction in accordance




with the data  in Figure 2-9.  This survey also shows that a small but significant per-



centage of the population is still greatly annoyed at the CNEL 44 value,  where no com-




munity reaction is expected.  Thus,  the true impact of intrusive noises as measured



by individual  or personalized annoyance goes deeper than that indicated by the com-




munity "no reaction"  point.
                                      2-31

-------
      Very

      Much-   4.0
   Moderate-
S1
o
c
o
c
o
Little-
               3.0
         2.0
               1.0
   Not at All-
                            London Survey
                  80
                              90          100          110


                                      Composite Noise Rating in dB
                                                                    120
                                                                                130
                            50          60           70           80          90

                        Approximate Normalized Community Noise Equivalent Level in dB
         Figure 2-10.  Relationship Between Average Expression of Annoyance

                       to Aircraft Noise and the Composite Noise Rating
                                         2-32

-------
   80
<
   60
   40
ft 20
•   London Survey

O   Swedish Survey
     70          80           90          100

                         Composite Noise Rating in dB

          I      I       I      I      I      I      I
                                                       110
                                                                   120
                                                     J
               40           50          60           70          80

          Approximate Normalized Community Noise Equivalent Level in dB
   Figure 2-11.  Percentage of People Expressing "Very Much Annoyed" as
                a Function of Composite Noise Rating
                                2-33

-------
       80
       60
 i5   40
 I?
       20
                                                     London Survey
                                  I
         70          80          90          100         110         120
                            Composite Noise Rating in dB
             I      I      I      I       I      I      I      I       I     I
                  40          50           60          70          80
             Approximate Normalized Community Noise Equivalent Level in dB
Figure 2-12.  Percentage of People Expressing "Not At All" or "A Little"
             Annoyed as a Function of Composite Noise Rating
                                 2-34

-------
    The preceding material relates to community reaction as evidence of an aggrega-




tion of individual responses.  There are no good measures, however,  of the  impact of




noise in terms of effects on'individual hearing and generalized response.





The Growth of Noise



    There have  been dire predictions that the noise in our environment is  increasing




by as much as 1 dB per year, or 10 dB per decade.  Clearly,  such a growth rate,  if




true,  would lead to severe consequences.  To place this issue  in perspective, it is




useful to examine the possible changes in both the intruding noises and the residual




noises over the past few decades.




    There has been considerable growth in the number of  miles of urban freeways and




thruways since 1950 accompanied by an increase in noise in neighborhoods adjacent




to the freeways.  Similarly, there has been a significant increase in commercial air




travel since 1950.  This increase, together with an increase of the noise level of jet




aircraft relative to propeller aircraft, and the building of homes around existing




civil airports has precipitated complex noise problems.




    The amount  of land estimated to lie within the CNEL-65 (approximately NEF-30)




contours is illustrated  in Figure 2-13  for both freeways and airports.  CNEL-65 is a




convenient value to choose for this type of impact assessment because at a normalized




CNEL of 65,  widespread complaints are expected, with more vigorous reactions at




the  higher values occurring inside the contours.  These estimates show that  in 1970



approximately 2000 square miles of land were bounded by  CNEL-65.  The actual



land use within these impact boundaries (airport property and freeway property have




been excluded) is not known.  However, if it is assumed,  as a  reasonable estimate
                                      2-35

-------
  1970
   1965
   1960
   1955
        W///////A
                                          I
          Legend




I	|      Aircraft

Y////\      Urban Freeways
                                I
                I
I
                  500         1000        1500

                             Number of Square Miles
                                                      2000
                                                                  2500
Figure 2-13.  Approximate Growth in Aircraft and Freeway Noise Impacted Land
             Area, Enclosed by CNEL 65
                               2-36

-------
based on general observation, that the average use is like the average urban land use,




approximately 10 million people would be expected to live in these areas.  These areas



are conservative estimates of the  impact, since an intruding noise source causing a




normalized CNEL of 65 dB in an urban residential community is expected to result in




widespread complaints.  Clearly,  the noise impact extends  beyond the estimated




boundaries in an urban residential community and even further in a quieter suburban




community.  In addition, the growth of construction activity within cities and the lo-




cation of new industrial plants in the suburbs and rural areas brings increased noise to




each affected area.  The number of noisy devices, such as power lawnmowers and




motorcycles, has increased from a few hundred thousand units in 1950 to over 20 mil-




lion in 1970.  Similarly, the  introduction and use of recreational vehicles, chain saws,




and fully equipped campers has introduced a new element to wilderness areas.  Even




at a remote location on the north rim of the Grand Canyon,  noise from a small pro-




peller driven private aircraft has been found to have a maximum level of 70 dBA, a




54-dB intrusion above the residual noise level (these operations being the cause of




considerable  complaints).




    The increasing number of sources producing high  noise level intrusions gives clear




evidence of the  significant growth of noise over the last two decades.  Although the




majority of this  growth occurred in specific areas in which freeways  or airports were




located adjacent to the communities, a significant number of new single-event  sources




were added to all areas, from the  wilderness to urban residential communities.



    The question remains of whether the additional intrusive noisy sources, together




with any changes in the  noise characteristics of all other  sources, have changed  the



outdoor residual noise levels in the residential areas in which land usage has not



significantly changed.  The answer is elusive without the  existence of a statistically



significant survey of residential noise  environments.   To obtain a current estimate,
                                       2-37

-------
the data for the 11 residential locations in the survey, Table 2-1,  has been combined



with data for 17 typical residential locations from another recent survey, to give a



better composite  of an average urban residential noise environment.  Since neither



survey was undertaken with the intent of statistically sampling a city, and there are



only 28 locations  in total, the results should be considered indicative only of central



trends.   The available past data consists of the results of four surveys  covering the



last 34 years and beginning with the  1937 Bell Telephone Company extensive survey



of noise in residential areas in Chicago, Cleveland,  and Philadelphia.  The compari-



son of results is given in Figure 2-14.



     Each survey was different in method, objective,  and instrumentation; and none



compare identical locations. Most were also different in methods of reducing and re-



porting data.  Therefore, it is  necessary to adjust the data to a common base for



comparison.  The data for the 1937 and 1968 surveys was published in terms of the



median outdoor noise level (Lrn) and that of the 1954 survey in terms of an energy
                            oU


mean of the noise environment. All three results have been corrected  to the residual



noise level (LgQ)  by subtracting the average difference of 5 dB found between the



median and residual levels in the current data.   The mean and 50-percent range for



the residual noise levels of the 1947-1948 and 1971 surveys are shown as originally



presented.



     Disregarding the 1954 results, the means of the  other four surveys lie between 46



and  50 dBA,  with a grand average  of 46. 9 dBA.   This value is also close to the  average



value of 45.5 dBA calculated for the four categories described in Table 2-2 (quiet,



normal  suburban, urban, and noisy urban residential areas).



     The mean value of the 1954 data is 7. 7 dB below the 1971 results and 7. 9 dB below



the average of the other  four surveys.  This  survey was designed  to investigate the



effect of aircraft noise at many locations under aircraft flight tracks up to 12 miles





                                       2-38

-------
1937 Chicago, Cleveland
& Philadelphia (several
hundred locales)
1947 Chicago (more than
-1948 100 locales)
1954 Within 12 miles of
8 Airports in Eastern
USA (180 locales)
1968 Suburban Areas in
Atlantic States
(9 locales)
1971 Los Angeles, Boston
and Detroit (28 locales)
Average of Urban and
Suburban, not including the
1 954 Data
Calculated Urban and
Suburban with Equal
Weighting on each of
the Four Categories
1
Range of 50% of Data Mean
^ /"
Y////V///A
1 j- T '
/
Range of 90% of Data
y/A
\
Y///A{////\
\ f i •
i
\
\
v/k//\
i T i
l
I
\///LS//\
T
i
\///v//\
1 T 1
1
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
                        20
                                     30
                                                  40
                                                               50
                                                                            60
             A-Weighted Residual Noise Level (Lgg) in dB re 20   N/m
     Figure 2-14.  Comparison of Five Surveys of Outdoor Noise Levels in Residential
                  Areas in the  United States Between 1937 and 1971
                                     2-39
74-249 0-72-10

-------
from each of eight airports and Included rural as well as suburban and urban locations.




It is probable that the principal reason for the low values reported by the 1954 survey




is that its mix of locations gave significantly more weight to the quiet rural and subur-




ban areas than to the urban and noisy urban residential areas.  Similarly, the 1937




survey included  city apartment dwellings as well as suburban and urban residential




areas with detached dwellings.  This difference in emphasis probably resulted in




higher emphasis on the "very noisy urban residential" category and explains  why this




data has the highest reported mean value for the residual noise level.




    Thus,  it is considered that the 1937 survey was biased to slightly noisier areas




that the 1954 survey was significantly biased to the quieter areas, and that the three




remaining surveys are probably somewhat similar in their distribution of locations.




Within this perspective,  it is concluded that where land use has not changed,  there is




no strong trend toward an increase in the  average suburban and urban residential




area residual noise levels over the past 34 years. Further,  it appears that the only




increase that can be inferred from this data is 2 dB in over two decades, based on




the difference between the 1947-1948 and 1971 results.




    This conclusion is also supported by a comparison of two locations in the 1971




Los Angeles data that was directly comparable to measurements made in 1955 and



1959.  At a normal suburban neighborhood location,  where no significant change in



land or road use has occurred over 16 years, the two measurements  of the residual




noise level agreed within 1 dB.  In the other case, the 1971 measurements in a resi-



dential urban area were approximately 2 dB higher than in 1959,  due  at least in part




to the construction nearby of a major freeway.



    It can be further concluded that the average outdoor residual noise level  in an




area with a constant land usage probably changes slowly with time as has been true




over the past few decades in the area studied. If the land use is changed, such as






                                      2-40

-------
from quiet suburban residential to urban residential, a normal suburban residential




to noisy urban residential, the outdoor residual noise level can increase signiiicantly




(10 dBA or more), approximately in accordance with the values in Table 2-2.  Even




if the  noise level for given categories of land use do not change,  rapid change in the




land use of specific areas has significantly increased the number of people affected




by urban type noise.




    More important in this review is the fact that outdoor noise  levels throughout a




major portion of the day are not satisfactorily indicated by the residual noise level




but rather by the character and intensity of intruding noises.  The outdoor noise level




at any location increases significantly as new intruding noise sources, such  as free-




ways, power plants, a jet aircraft overflight paths,  or  construction equipment,  are




added.  The general increase  in environmental noise is associated  with the spread of




areas infringed upon by such intruding noise sources.



Summary




    The preceding discussion leads  to several significant observations  regarding the



nature of noise and the methods of measuring its magnitude.  Although inany of these




conclusions must be regarded as tentative because of the lack of  statistically sound




community noise baselines, the general trends appear straightlorward and give useful



perspective for the overall nature of the problem.  The following points are  significant;



    •   The outdoor daytime  residual noise  level in a wilderness area,  such as ex-




        emplified by the Grand Canyon rim,  is on the order of 16 dBA,  on the farm



        30 to 35 dBA, and in  the city 60 to 75 dBA.



    •   Areas in which  the daytime outdoor  median noise  level exceeds the  range of 56



        to 60 dBA, categorized as "noisy urban,'' are  not well suited to detached resi-




        dential housing, since normal voice conversation outdoors  is limited to dis-



        tances of less than 6  to 10 feet between talker  and listener.  Also, when the






                                       2-41

-------
    noise level is above this range,  it is not possible to have relaxed conversation



    in a living room at a distance of 10 feet with windows or sliding glass doors




    fully opened.




•   Areas In which the daytime outdoor median level exceeds 66  dBA are not




    suited to apartment living unless the buildings are air conditioned,  so that




    the windows may be kept closed to enable  relaxed conversation indoors.  If




    the outdoor median noise levels are above 71 dBA,  special sound proofing  is




    necessary to preserve the indoor noise environment,  even with windows  closed.




•   The outdoor residual noise level in suburban and urban  residential communi-




    ties serves the useful function of providing speech privacy between neigh-




    bors.  It appears that considerations of speech privacy  requirements will set




    the lower limit of a desirable residual noise level in each type of community.




•   The limited available data from community noise surveys conducted over the




    past 34 years indicates that little increase has occurred in the residual noise




    level, except where land usage has changed.   Where such change has occurred,




    the noise  has generally increased, probably in accordance with the expected




    change between land use categories in Table 2-2, such as plus 10 dB from quiet



    suburban  residential to urban residential, or plus 20 dB from quiet suburban




    residential to very noisy urban residential. A significant spread of noise



    has occurred in this manner because of the large growth of urban and sub-



    urban areas, and their populations, in the last 20 to 30  years.




•   A significant increase in noise  in the past 20 years has  resulted from the rapid




    growth of commercial avaiation and from its use of jet aircraft that are  about



    10 to 20 dB noisier than the older, smaller piston engined aircraft.  A somewhat lesse




    but still significant, increase in noise has resulted from the  construction and




    use of freeways located within urban and suburban  residential areas. It is






                                   2-42

-------
estimated that at least 2000 square miles of urban and suburban area have




been severely impacted by noise from these two major sources, with lesser




degree of impact extending over a much larger area.




The rapid increase in the use of noisy recreational vehicles and home lawn



care equipment powered by poorly muffled internal combustion engines has




contributed to noise in both wilderness areas and residential neighborhoods.




The community reaction scale based on the normalized CNEL  appears to give



reasonable predictions of community complaints, with 90 percent of the data




within ±5 dB of the mean relationship between the normalized magnitude of




the intruding noise and the  degree of community reaction.




The data indicates that no community reaction should  be expected when the




normalized CNEL of the intruding noise is approximately 2 dB above the day-




time median noise level, or equivalently, approximately 7 dB  above the re-




sidual noise level.  However,  some social surveys indicate  that when the




intruding noise equals this  level, approximately 18 percent  of the population




is "very much annoyed" although  43 percent are only "a little, " or "not  at



all annoyed."




The significant complaint reactions from the 55 community reaction cases




and the approximate percentage of the population "very much annoyed" and



"only a little" or "not at all annoyed" from the London study are given in




Table 2-7.
                             2-43

-------
                          Table 2-7
SUMMARY OF EXPECTED COMMUNITY REACTION AND APPROXIMATE
 ANNOYANCE AS A FUNCTION OF NORMALIZED COMMUNITY NOISE
                     EQUIVALENT LEVEL
Expected
Community
Reaction
No reaction
Sporadic complaints
Widespread complaints
Threats of legal action
Vigorous action
Approximate Difference
Between Normalized
CNEL and Average Day-
time Residual Noise
Level (Lgo) in dB
Mean
7
11
17
26
33
Range of Data
2 to 13
8 to 13
12 to 24
23 to 29
28 to 39
Approximate
Percent
Very Much
Annoyed
20
26
37
60
87
Approximate
Percent
Little or Not
Annoyed
45
37
26
14
7
                            2-44

-------
TRANSPORTATION SYSTEMS




    One of the most significant byproducts of our increasing population and economic




growth is the increasing demand for improved modes of transportation.  These de-




mands have been met by the development of more efficient, larger,  and faster trans-




portation systems. The transportation industry represented, in total, approximately



14.5 percent of the gross national product in 1970 and employed approximately 13.3




percent of the total labor force.  This major section of the nation's economy is defined,




for this report, as the sum total of the:




    •    Commercial aircraft and airline industry




    •    General aviation industry




    •    Highway vehicle industry




    •    Recreational vehicle  industry




    •    Railroad and urban mass transit Industry




    •    Commercial shipping industry.




    The economic structure of this industry and the general division and magnitude of



the transportation services provided are illustrated in Figure 2-15,  and the rapid




growth of several segments of the transportation system since 1950  is summarized in




Table 2-8.  While there  are many important sources  of intrusive noise, transportation




vehicle noise tends to dominate most residential areas.  In fact, the cumulative effect




of the increase in noise intrusion by transportation vehicles is,  to a large extent, re-



sponsible for the current general concern with noise.   This discussion briefly treats



the general nature of transportation system noise  sources and considers their overall



impact in the United States today.   Aircraft,  one of the more dominant sources of noise



in the transportation industry, will be considered  first.
                                       2-45

-------
                                             .3

                                             £
                                             CO

                                             •§
                                             a
                                             g
                                             8
                                            $
2-46

-------
                                    Table 2-8




             GROWTH IN THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM, 1950-1970
Source
Population (in millions)
Passenger Cars (in millions)
Trucks and Buses (in millions)
Motocycles (in millions)
(Highway) - Registered
Motorcycles (in millions)
(Off-road)
Snowmobiles (in millions)
2-3 Engine Turbofan Aircraft
4-Engine Turbofan Aircraft
General Aviation Aircraft
Helicopters
1950
151
40.4
8.8
0.45
-
0
0
0
45,000
85
1960
181
61.7
12.2
0.51
-
0.002
0
202 '
75,550
830
1970
204
87.0
19.4
2.6
1.0
1.6
1, 174
815
128,900
3,260
Commercial Aircraft



    The increase in air travel during the last decade is closely related to the introduc-




tion and growth of the commercial jet aircraft fleet.  The advantages of jet-powered




passenger airplanes have led to a gradual phasing out of the older propeller-driven




commercial aircraft.  Only a  small percentage of piston-powered aircraft now remain



in the fleet, and the turboprop aircraft in use are primary short range twin-engine



types used on light traffic routes.  There were a total of 10.7 million operations of



commercial aircraft in 1970.  Military jet aircraft, not considered in this report, have



about one  fourth as  many operations.  Due to this lower level of operation and the gen-



erally remote location of most military airfields,  the noise impact from military air-



craft  is substantially less than for commercial aircraft.




                                       2-47

-------
    Figure 2-16 summarizes the category of commercial fixed-wing aircraft in terms




of type, application, passenger capacity, and range of typical noise levels.  The original




commercial jet aircraft were powered by turbojet engines.  These engines have been




largely replaced by quieter and more powerful turbofan engines.  The new types of com-




mercial jet aircraft have recently been introduced and are powered by advanced tech-




nology turbofan engines that are much more powerful and quieter than earlier engines.




    Although the current V/STOL aircraft fleet is inherently part of both the com-




mercial and general aviation fleet, its unique capability of operating from small air-




fields or from urban centers tends to distinguish  it in terms of noise impact from  the




remainder of the aviation transportation industry. The present V/STOL fleet consists




predominantly of helicopters.




    The  STOL fleet is not yet a significant reality but is currently undergoing consid-




erable Federal and industry study.  The principal objective of STOL aircraft is to move




much of the  intercity air transportation (short haul) away from the congested major-




hub airports and toward urban communities.  Tentative noise goals have been pro-




posed for aircraft  operating from the projected peripheral STOL ports,  but as yet a



community-compatible noise goal has not been defined for the intracity heliports now




in operation or for those that wilJ serve as city-feeder terminals for the STOL ports.



    Figure 2-17 shows the typical structure of the present and proposed V/STOL fleet,




the  typical range of noise levels for these aircraft, and their major applications.  Of



the  current total of 3260 vehicles, approximately 1900 are based in urban areas.  The



most  significant increase of usage in recent years has been by  civil government




agencies. In particular, the number of city police helicopters  is rapidly increasing,




with a total of about 150 vehicles in present use.  Commercially operated helicopters,




currently about 2100, are predominantly used for charter air service operations,  with




only about 15 vehicles on regularly scheduled intracity air carrier routes.





                                      2-48

-------







\ 1
2-3 Engine
Turbofan

4 Eng ne
Turbofan
• Short to • Medium to
Medium Range Long Range
• B727,
• DC-9,
B737 • B707, B720
BAC-111 • DC-8
Commercial Aircraft


I
4 Engine
Widebody
Turbofan

3 Eng ne
Widebody
Turbofan
Propeller
Aircraft
• Long Range • Med um Range • Short Range
• B747 • DC-10, • F-27


L-1011 • CV340/440
• OC-3
Average Passenger Capacity




100


150

365


250
40
Typical Range — Miles

250-1 500

1000-4000
2000-6000

1000-2500
50- 250
Growth of Aircraft Fleet
1800
^ 1200
"o
1 600
3
z
r-
.

-






60



1174
I ,_8'5

209
i—
202
65 70 60 65 70






60
Typical
Approach and Takeoff Noise
110


m
•o 90

I 80

I 70
Z
60

«sn
~



~

-

_

_





90
TO
!«**•*
8b


S
O

<
105
100 100 T^
i"* 92
•"•* „_!
94 X'?
l£v
rty
•"•••
77
^
o c

^ (3









Wioc
^•u
94 85
[T^
}>••:
iii
75
S 5=
£ ° c

Q- ro to
< h- 0


92






S


£
1640



79
1 	 1
1163

380

65 70 60 65 70 60 65 70
Noise Levels
Levels Measured at 1000 feet
103
1 — 1 10°
T^v
90 90 ••;-'
84 84 1" 84 o^pn1..--
"78

•"•
72
C
0 c

£ 3








^^ | ni» O* •"• ** f. >

'' ^
72
0 ^
S g =
a S. a
% f 3
5J8j) °° |-.;.
'a£ Lul
75 75
.c
S S c
S. .£ j=
< " (3
Figure 2-16.  Characteristics of Commercial Aircraft
                      2-49

-------
100
< 90
CD
"O
•5 8°
£
70
S
J«
50
-
oc
Turbine

78





>'<-'--'.;
y *

65
i





ou

Jv,j
i^j
73


i








1 V/V
?lj
L''.'-'^





9
£
E:
320

40
Typical Noise Levels
88





S"a
-v^ ;;'• -
76

§





96
^•y.r;
8J

5
1

92
$-:
82

^
§






94
"tit


°
1






                                                              83
                                                                   (Approx
                                                                   Equivalent
                                                                   to 95 PNdB
                                                                   Proposed
                                                                   Limit)
                  Growth of Helicopter Fleet
| 3260
1 "
o S «
3.0
1 2-5
§ 1 20
Ij-
S c 1.0
z 0.5
Q
r IKS"
*" E S
ll 1<32 S-s^
1 fe | e
< B E » .51
— x S S "; uj
!E ui ^i — i o Q
£srn 8,1
i^ 1 1 l=-T
a


_



'•£
I I
I i
rT




£ti







1







1960 1965 1970
Figure 2-17.  Characteristics of V/STOL Aircraft
                         2-50

-------
Jet Aircraft




    The noise associated with jet aircraft is primarily generated by the processes that




take place both within and outside the engine.   The dominant source of noise from the




early turbojet engines was the jet noise generated by the turbulent mixing of the high




velocity exhaust jet and the surrounding air.  Sound pover increases rapidly with in-




creasing jet velocity; therefore, high noise levels are associated with the high velocity



exhausts of turbojet engines.




    The turbofan engines that have replaced the turbojets offer substantial jet exhaust




noise  benefits because they take in larger quantities of air and expel this air at lower




jet velocities.  However, with reduced levels of jet noise and with the increased size




and power of the fan,  its whine was elevated from a secondary to a primary noise



source, particularly for landing or approach power.




    For the four-engine turbofan aircraft, powered by early models of turbofan engines,




the engine thrust,  and thus the jet exhaust velocity,  is higher during takeoff than during




approach.  Consequently, the low frequency roar of the jet is significantly higher at



takeoff than at approach.  However, the high frequency fan noise is relatively  insensi-




tive to en' . ". power setting and thus becomes clearly dominant at approach engine con-




ditions.  This type of aircraft generates higher noise levels than most of the aircraft in




the commercial fleet  today.  For the two- to three-engine turbofan aircraft, the jet




noise  is lower because of slightly reduced jet velocities, anil the lu. Ji frequency fan




noise  Is considerably reduced due to fundamental improvements in fan design.



    The new Boeing 747 four-engine turbofan aircraft are powered by new technology



engines that incorporate several advancements, with respect to propulsion efficiency



and reduced noise generation.  The low jet exhaust velocity made possible with these



new engines has resulted in a significant reduction in jet noise so that fan noise now



dominates both during takeoff and approach operations.  Despite the consid' rable





                                      2-51

-------
technological advances Incorporated in the fan design, the discrete frequency fan whine




forms the major obstacle to achieving significant noise reduction.  The newest three-




engine turbofan widebody aircraft (DC-10 and L-1011) use similar engines, but with




additional improvements in fan noise reduction. The net result is a 10-EPNdb to 13-




EPNdB  reduction in noise for these latest designs over the earlier turbofan aircraft.




    The noise level in the  interior of jet aircraft is dominated by a different noise source.




Because these aircraft travel at high speeds,  the pressure fluctuations generated by




the turbulent mixing that occurs in the boundary layer between the aircraft fuselage




and the  surrounding air becomes significant.  These fluctuations cause the fuselage




walls to vibrate and radiate noise into the aircraft interior.




    The growth of community noise levels due to commercial aircraft operations is




closely  related to the introduction of the commercial jet aircraft in 1958 and the growth




of air travel during the following decade.  First, the jet aircraft were noisier on ap-



proach and takeoff than piston-engined aircraft they replaced.  Secondly, although



the number of major airports has increased only slightly since the late 1950's, the




quantity and frequency of air travel has grown many times over.  Finally, vast new




residential  communities have been established in the vicinity of nearly all busy airports.



This  combination of expanding air travel and residential growth has resulted in a grow-



ing airport-community noise problem.




     To assess the effect of aircraft noise on the community,  the previously described



NEF  method has been widely used.  This method, developed initially as a land-use




planning guide,  gives a single number rating of the  cumulative noise  produced in the



vicinity of an airport by aircraft operations, taking into account factors such as the




total  mix  of aircraft utilizing the airport,  subjective noise levels generated by each




aircraft class, flight paths, and number of operations in day and night periods.  Con-




tours of constant values of the NEF index provide a measure of the total impacted





                                       2-52

-------
area.  A criterion level of NEF-30 is normally used to indicate the approximate outer

boundary of the impact area.  NEF-30 contours are shown in Figure 2-18 for a repre-

sentative one-runway airport and average commercial aircraft fleet mix. *  For

simplicity,  the aircraft are assumed to operate in the same direction on the single

runway, and the contour combines the effects of takeoffs and landings.  Operations by

four-engine, low-bypass-ration turbofan standard aircraft (Boeing 707 and  720,

McDonnel-Douglas DC-8) are responsible for 69 percent of the total impact area,

while comprising only 23 percent of the total number of operaUons.

Helicopters

    The helicopter is unique in that its noise signature is characteristically different

from that of all other common noise generators: a distinctive, low frequency throbbing

sound.  Due to this characteristic, it is extremely difficult to control noise intrusion

into the passenger cabin or into buildings because sound-insulation methods are

notably inefficient in the low frequency range.  This problem is further complicated

by the  fact that low frequency sound propagates through the atmosphere more readily

than high frequency sound.  Thus, helicopter noise can be distinguished at greater dis-

tances than most other sources of equal source noise level.

Interior Levels for Commercial Jet Aircraft

    Passengers on jet aircraft are exposed to moderately high noise levels from the

time of boarding the  aircraft to landing.  The interior noise levels during cruise

typically range from 79 to 88 dBA, depending on the seat  location, with a typical value

of 82 dBA.  During takeoff and landing operations, the noise levels are up to 12 dBA
*   A simplified method for estimating NEF contours,  for use by persons without
    technical training Is available from the Department of Housing and Urban De-
    velopment,  in "Noise Assessment Guidelines, " Report No.  2176,  August,  1971.
                                       2-53

-------
cn.o
                                                                   _
                                                                   M
                                                                   C
                                                                   Si
                                                                   O
                                                                   o
                                                                   W
                           1*0001
                 3U(|J3JU30 Aewuny
                          2-54

-------
higher, but only for periods of up to 1 minute during each operation.  The noise level




inside  many helicopters ranges between 90 and 100 dBA, representing a definite risk




of hearing damage for the constant traveler.




General Aviation Aircraft




    General aviation  refers to all civilian aviation activity other than that of the com-




mercial air carriers. Within this broad definition, general aviation includes a wide




variety of aircraft uses;  Figure 2-19 summarizes this fleet mix and provides infor-




mation on the number of  aircraft and typical  range of noise levels  produced. The




general aviation fleet has grown rapidly during the last 15 years and will continue  to




do so for the next 10 to 20 years.  During 1970, these aircraft flew an estimated 25.5




million aircraft hours, conducted 153 million operations, and carried a total of 220




million passengers.  The composition of the  fleet  has changed over the last 10 years




from mostly small, single-engine propeller types to a more complex fleet mix.




    The noise associated with general aviation propeller aircraft, both piston and




turboprop types, is produced primarily by the propellers, with dominant fundamental



tones typically  in the  range from 50 to 250 Hz.   Higher harmonic tones may also be




significant, depending on the propeller blade shape and operating conditions.  The




broadband and discrete frequency noise generated above approximately 250 Hz consists




of higher propeller noise harmonics,  discrete frequency noise from the engine and ex-



haust,  and exhaust broadband noise.




    The noise characteristics of jet-powered general aviation aircraft, or executive



jets, are similar to those of commercial jet  aircraft.  Although the engines are much




smaller than those used to power commercial jet aircraft, the jet  noise levels are com-



parable to those of existing two- and three-engine turbofan commercial jets.  However,



some recent executive jets are powered by turbofan engines with substantially lower




sound levels.





                                      2-55
   74-249 O - 72 - 11

-------

General Aviation Aircraft


Single— Engine
Propeller



|
Multi— Engine
Propeller
• Pleasure • Pleasure
• Instructional • Business
• Business • Commercial
Executive Jet
• Corporate Aircraft
• Business
                         Numbers in Service (1970)
                         Growth of Aircraft Fleet
110,500
% 81,300
£ 68,300 J
<
"o
Ji
E
D
z





•• —





















17,500

11,800
r—
7.250 |
n
__







1960 65 70 I960 65 70
Typical Noise Levels
110
100

<
m go
^
I
«

8 70
z 60
W)
~ 105
_

90
—

77


67

mv

1
<



-HM
76
1
|-





85


C
3
<3









70

105

93



80


••"
•*



^Md
79

1






85


c
.5
3











                                                              900
                                                      1960  65 70
                                                            97
                                                         87
                                                            93
                                                               95
                                                                *
              Approach and Takeoff Levels Measured at 1000 feet





Figure 2-19.  Characteristics of General Aviation Aircraft





                            2-56

-------
    The operator or passenger in a general aviation propeller aircraft is subjected to




noise levels of about 90 dBA, which is 5 to 15 dB higher than in a commercial jet.




These higher levels are the result of the typical close spacing of engines and pro-




pellers  to the  cabin and the small space and weight allowance for acoustic treatment




in general aviation aircraft.  Internal levels inside executive jets are comparable to



those in commercial jets.




Highway Vehicles




    Highway vehicles include automobiles, trucks, buses, and maintenance and utility



vehicles.  Motorcycles are treated in the discussion of recreation vehicles.  Traffic




studies  of highway vehicle  usage  in typical urban areas show that about 1600 to 2300




trips  are made by automobile drivers and passengers every day for every 1000 people,




while 200 to 400 truck trips are made for every 1000 people.  Approximately 40 to 45




percent of the  latter terminate in residential areas. This urban travel represents




about 52 percent of the estimated 3 billion highway-vehicle-miles traveled in 1970.




The general characteristics, numbers,  growth patterns, and range typical noise




levels for highway vehicles are summarized in Figure 2-20.




    The noise levels produced by highway vehicles can be attributed to three major




causes:



    1.  Rolling stock: tires and  gearing




    2.   Propulsion system: engine and related accessories




    3.  Aerodynamic and  body noise.



Tires are the dominant noise source at speeds greater than approximately 50 mph for



both trucks and automobiles.  Tire noise levels increase with vehicle speed and also




depend upon variables such as the road surface, axle  loading, tread design, and wear



condition.  Changes in any of the  variables can result in variations  in noise  level of up
                                      2-57

-------









Highway Vehicles
1



Automobiles Trucks utllltV &
Maintenance
Buses

• Passenger Cars • Light Trucks • Street Sweepers • Highway
• Sports & High • Medium • Garbage Compactors • City
Performance • Heavy Duty • Tree Chippers • School
• Economy & Compact
• Imported





Numbers n Operation

87,000,000 19,000,000 Estimated 75,000

100 r

c


.9 80
I
c
—
«

•s
>
o
s
E
z


100

% 9°
-o
•5
J

Z /U
60


BO



40


?o



-


-



-


-





- K

3
76





64
Growth of Number of Highway Vehicles
Autos Trucks
00


"••
CD









i^—
































Ol

10 -
m
1950-60-70 1950-60-70 2 |

E S 100 o 8. o
3 ^ r—I ° S 98
C ~o Q> 95 ' 95 i ' '
 89 ..'. 90 .
n S —
.•


70

30 80


JO 70





85 . . • 2 ' ' . ^
5' . . ' 85 £ . • • _; 86
S -.80 • • .-82
- .'. '.I ' • 76
70 70
64
400,000

500
•x

S 400
o
£
c
- 300
S

•i
> 200
o
£
| 100
z
p Buses
8

-


- r*
TT ^

CN
-


-

























1950-60-70

100 S
1 > 1
1 87 88
f p-185 85
. ™
80 _!,-.'
75 •'•' •"
70 70








S
—
70

50 ft.                 50 ft.                 50 ft.





    Figure 2-20.  Characteristics of Highway Vehicles





                            2-58

-------
to 20 dB at constant vehicle speed.  Truck tires are generally noisier than automobile




tires because of their size and other design constraints.  Engine generated noise is




normally the dominant noise for trucks and automobiles at speeds below 45 and 35 mph,




respectively.  This noise is radiated directly from the engine exhaust and intake open-




ings and from the vibrating engine casing.  The  third source of highway vehicle  noise




includes noise produced by turbulent aerodynamic flow over the body and rattling of




loose mechanical parts.




     Automobiles constitute the largest number of highway vehicles.  While not as




noisy as trucks, buses, and motorcycles, their  total contribution to the noise environ-




ment is significant due to the number in operation — 87 million in 1970.  Of the 19 mil-




lion trucks in operation,  only  2 to 3  percent are  powered by diesel engines.   However,




these trucks are generally 8 to 10 dB noisier than gasoline powered trucks and 12  to 18




dB noisier than automobiles.  Due to their heavy rate of usage, trucks produce noise




levels that tend to increase with truck age.  This situation is worsened by the tendency




to overhaul trucks with replacement mufflers that are inferior to the original equip-




ment.  Figure 2-21 summarizes the dominant noise sources for automobiles and trucks




and indicates a typical example of noise levels for each source component.




     Utility and maintenance trucks often generate a unique noise signature because




of the auxiliary functions they perform.  The noise of the  garbage truck during its




compacting operation is the classic example.




     Although buses share many basic design characteristics with trucks,  they are



generally quieter due to their  increased packaging space (which allows larger mufflers)



and enclosed engine compartment.  At highway speeds,  passenger buses produce noise




levels primarily in the 80 to 87 dBA range at 50  feet.  The pedestrian standing at the



curb experiences comparable  levels as the bus passes him during low speed acceleration.
                                      2-59

-------
      Exhaust
                                                          Aerodynamic Noise
<
co 90
•o
1
8*~ RO
ou

S 70
X
o
Z Rfl
r- \ Tires
Gears 39
85


-




3
U

-------
Highway Vehicle Noise in the Community

    Vehicular traffic generally establishes the residual noise levels in most urban

and suburban communities.   This residual noise level varies throughout the day,

based on the average density of noise sources in a given community.  However, in the

immediate vicinity of a major arterial highway or freeway, the noise level is much

higher.  Its actual value is dependent upon traffic flow rate, average vehicle speed,

distance to the traffic lane,  and the ratio of trucks to automobiles on the highway.  For

a typical eight-lane freeway, average daytime traffic flow rates can be on the order of

6000 to 10,000 vehicles per hour.  For this condition, the median noise level beyond 100

feet from the flowing traffic is equivalent to that from a continuous line of noise sources.

Typical median traffic noise  levels near a major freeway are about 75 to 80 dBA at

100 feet from the roadway and about 60 to 65  dBA at 1000 feet. *

    Superimposed on this median traffic noise  level are the Intrusive or single-event

noises from individual trucks, cars, and motorcycles that are normally 15 to 25 dBA

above the  residual noise levels on neighborhood streets.  However, at the high traffic

flow rates typical for freeways,  these individual single events are less distinguish-

able from the overall roar of the total traffic flow.

Interior Levels for the Passenger

    At highway speeds, the  interior noise  levels in the majority of the  larger American

passenger cars are in the 65 to 70 dBA range,  with the air conditioner  off and windows

up, whereas the smaller economy and compact cars have somewhat higher levels rang-

ing between 70 and 82 dBA.   However,  some  of the  small cars with noisy air  condi-

tioners, or with the windows open, generate internal noise levels in the range of 80 to
    Information on estimation of noise effects from highways is also contained in the
    HUD "Noise Assessment Guidelines, " cited regarding NEF values.
                                       2-61

-------
90 dBA.  Buses, by virtue of their rear engine design and adequate allowance for in-




terior sound package treatment, provide interior noise levels in the range of 72 to




80 dBA.




Recreation Vehicles




    Recreational vehicles, as defined here, include all types of motorcycles, snow-




mobiles, all-terrain vehicles, and pleasure boats.   There has been a remarkable growth




in the number of these vehicles in the last 10 to 20 years, which is a reflection of the




greater amount of leisure time and of the availability of these vehicles at attractive




prices.




    Over 90 percent of the 2.6 million motorcycles  in the United States are used for




pleasure and are operated in residential and recreational areas.  This number is ex-




pected to increase to 9 million by 1985.  Nearly 80 percent of the 1.6 million snow-




mobiles in use today are operated primarily for pleasure by  families in rural communi-




ties.  Boating, enjoyed by an estimated 44 million persons in 1970, presents the most




widely employed form of recreational travel.  Figure 2-22 summarizes the general




characteristics of this category in terms of growth patterns and range of typical




noise levels.




    The noise output of recreational vehicles,  although dependent upon speed, is pri-



marily a function of their mode of operation.  For example,  many off-road-motorcycles



and some snowmobiles are capable of speeds of 80 to 100 mph but are most often op-




erated at low speed in the lower gears, with medium to high  engine power output.



Thus, except when cruising at constant speeds or coasting downhill, they are operated




at high throttle settings near their maximum noise output.  This high noise level is



frequently considered synonymous with high power by the recreational user.




    The major contributing source of noise from these  vehicles is the exhaust system.




This exhaust noise is often increased by operators who  modify or remove their exhaust





                                       2-62

-------
Recreat on Vehic es





1






Motorcycles













Snowmobiles

• Highway < 350 cc •
• Highw
ny >350cc •

Stock
Modified



1

Pleasure Boats


• Outboard
• nboard
• Off Road
• Minicyc es
Numbers in Service


E
2,600,000
8 r
7
1 g 6
** I
° i


z

4

3
2
1






1,600,000




5,850,000

Growth of Recreation Vehicles
.
_
_

-
-
r







1950






r~





r
4
-60-




26


70






1






0
1950







-------
muffler in a misguided attempt to produce more engine power.  Of secondary, but sig-



nificant, importance in these vehicles is the noise radiated from their intakes and en-




gine walls.  Generally, intakes are not silenced and engines are either partially or




totally unshielded.  As a  result of this lack of silencing,  some of these vehicles create




noise  levels as high as 100 to HO dBA at 50 feet.  Pending state legislation to regulate




the noise produced by off-road machines has caused manufacturers to reduce the  max-




imum noise levels of vehicles in current production to 92 dBA.




    The type of pleasure vehicle that currently reflects the most significant noise re-




duction technology in its basic engineering design is the outboard-powered pleasure



boat.   The  power plants on most of these boats  represents the most effectively silenced




application of the widely used two-stroke internal combustion engine.




Motorcycles




    The noise levels produced by many motorcycles increase rapidly with cruising




speed.  Typical noise levels at 50 feet range from 59  to 69 dBA at  20 mph to 78 to 86




dBA at 60 mph.  Typical  noise exposure levels  at the  operators ear range from 85 to




90 dBA for the quiet highway cycles to 110 dBA for the large off-the-road motorcycles




and modified large highway motorcycles.  A typical example of the principal contrib-




uting  sources of noise for motorcycles is given in Figure 2-23.



Snowmobiles



    The noise levels produced by snowmobiles  are largely dependent upon their age,



because of a trend to improved designs.  Current production models are generally in




the range of 77 to 86 dBA, measured at 50 feet, under maximum noise conditions.  The




noise  level of older or poorly muffled machines ranges from 90 to  95 dBA, with racing



machines generating levels as high as 105 to  110 dBA at this same distance.  The noise




from  new machines normally ranges from 95 to 115 dBA at the operator position but
                                      2-64

-------
                        Intake
              90 _
               80
               70
           o   60
                                                                    Tires




86

^
(0
.c
X
UJ





82

1





7R
0)
c
LLI


69
3







1




                                   Subsource Contributions
                       Figure 2-23.  Motorcycle Noise Sources






can be higher on racing machines.  A typical example of the principal contributing




sources of noise for snowmobiles is summarized in Figure 2-24.




Pleasure Boats




    The maximum noise levels measured in a recent survey of a large number of




pleasure boats (both inboard- and outboard-powered) ranged from 65 to 105 dBA at a




distance of 50 feet.   The lower limits of this  range are created by small craft (with 6-



to 10-horsepower engines).  The highest levels, exceeding 105 dBA at  50 feet,  were




produced by inboard-powered ski boats with unmuffled exhausts.



    Engine exhausts are the main source of noise for the boats exhibiting the highest



noise  levels. On the ski boats, which have large exposed engines, intake and engine



mechanical noise also provide a significant contribution. The noise levels of smaller
                                      2-65

-------
                                 Engine
                        Clutch
                   Gears
               Chain
        90
        80  _
            rt~~
Intake '         I
                Bogies
                                                            Exhaust
82






xhaust
LU








-------
Dune Buggies, All-Terrain Vehicles and Other Off-Road Vehicles




     The major source of noise output in the remainder of those vehicles considered




under the recreation classification is predominantly exhaust.  Because of the unregu-




lated nature of these vehicles and their use, the owners tend to attempt the achieve-



ment of maximum power output through the use of tuned and unmuffled exhaust




systems.




Rail Systems




     Rail systems are defined here as consisting of:




     1.   Railroads.  Long distance freight and passenger trains and high speed inter-




         city trains.




     2.   Rail Transit Systems.  Rapid transit subways and elevated systems, street-




         cars, and trolley lines.




The characteristics of rail systems are summarized in Figure 2-25.



     Approximately 10,000 freight and passenger trains operate daily, hauling 40 per-




cent of all freight tonnage.  Urban rapid transit systems operate over 22, 000 trips per




day and transport approximately 2.3 billion passengers a year over 1070 miles of line,



using about 11, 650 rapid transit rail cars and trolley coaches.  Each application has




required development of specialized vehicle systems that differ significantly in their




noise characteristics.



Railroads




     Noise in railroad systems is made up of the contributions from locomotives and  the



train vehicles that the  locomotives haul.




     Locomotives. Ninety-nine percent of the 27,000 locomotives in service in the



United  States in  1971 were diesel-electric, and the majority  of the remainder were



electric.  Approximately one-half of the locomotives are used for main line hauling.
                                       2-67

-------
                           Rail Systems
•  Freight

•  Shunting Operations

•  Long Distance Passenger

•  High Speed, Inter-city
   Passenger

•  Commuter
• Subway and Elevated

• Surface Rail

• Trolleys and Street Cars
                       Growth of Rail Fleet

0)
~w
0)
'o
Number
1 1 Diesel Electric Locomotive
HSJ Passenger Tram Cars



0
f
wF'
II
o
i




' 	
a
O
K-'
&
1— i^-,

P-."
CM
1
1950 1960 1970

ioor 98


90
CO
7 80
^ 70
o
*• 60
Rn


88
-
-
-

^7
5%-'^
i^J
>
o
8
8
(U
o
94


80



._
•S-
lii
a
0>
LL
90

80



P5
^
a
i
Q.

75

60

IB
1

s
.£
.c
0}

m
.8
z
r-j Trolleys
| | Surface « — '
{g|!j Subway and
•rfl^ '* Elevated








P5
1
1
r-^i r~i
lr
| §
i~i _ ^_
1950 1960 1970
Typical Noise Levels
100 r-


< 90
m
1 80
! 70
5
Z 60
— m
95 pn

-
82
-
-

JW


1
O
8
90 r-i-


72



1

1
3,
;'^.".'
80 t-

si
3
     50ft
                                             50ft
    Figure 2-25.   Characteristics of Rail Systems
                            2-68

-------
The remainder are lower powered locomotives used for short-hauls and as switchers



in railroad yards.




    The sources of noise in a moving diesel-electric locomotive are, in approximate




order of contribution to the overall noise level:




    •    Diesel exhaust muffler.




    •    Diesel engine and surrounding casing, including the air intake and turbo-



         charger (if any).




    •    Cooling fans.



    •    Wheel/rail interaction.




    •    Electrical generator.




    An additional source of noise is the siren or horn, which produces noise levels 10




to 20 dBA greater than that from the other sources.  This is not a continuously oper-




ated source (30 timer per hour on a typical run), however, and is  a necessary opera-




tional safety feature and is therefore excluded from the above list. The electrical




locomotive draws electrical power from an overhead line and, except for notse gen-




erated during braking operations, is considerably quieter than its  diesel-electric




counterpart.




    Train Vehicles. Since freight and passenger cars have no propulsion system




of their own,  the  exterior noise produced  is due mainly to the interaction between the




wheels and the rails. The magnitude of the noise depends heavily  on the condition of



the wheels and track, on whether or not the track is  welded,  and on the type of vehicle



suspension. Modern passenger vehicles with auxiliary hydraulic suspension systems




in addition to the  normal springs can be about 10 dBA quieter than the older vehicles



and most freight cars, which have only springs. Additional noise  can be produced in




empty boxcars containing loose chains and vibrating  sections.
                                      2-69

-------
    The interior noise of passenger vehicles is partly due to structurally-borne noise




from the wheel/rail interaction and the passing of the wheels over rail joints.  Another




source is airborne noise passing through the car body and windows, which becomes




more important when the train is passing through cuttings and tunnels. Welded track,




present on only about 10 percent of the nation's railroad track mileage, materially




reduces interior noise levels, but the amount of welded track is being increased at




the rate of only 3000 miles per year (or less than 1 percent per year) as the older sec-




tional type requires replacement.  In addition to the track noise, interior passenger




car noise levels are produced by the air conditioning system.




    In suburban areas, many commuter trains consist of multiple-unit electric cars




that operate from the lead car.  Many of these systems utilize  modern, high-speed




equipment with low track noise levels.  The interior noise level, then, is dependent




upon the air conditioning system.




    One other major source  of noise from railroads is braking operations in re-




tarder yards, which produce a high-pitched sound at a level that can exceed 120 dBA




at 50 feet.




Rapid Transit Systems




    All the rapid transit/rail systems use electric multiple-unit rail cars, designed



with many exit doors for rapid handling of passengers,  large windows for good




visibility, and lightweight structure  to reduce the overall load.   The  result is that



these vehicles have lower noise  insulation  than railroad passenger  cars.  Suspension




systems universally contain steel springs, additional cushioning being provided by




either rubber pads  or air cushioning systems.



    There is presently a wide range in the age of the operational vehicles of this type.




The newer vehicles have better suspension systems than the older types,  and there  is
                                       2-70

-------
also a current requirement to use air conditioned vehicles that allow all windows to be




permanently sealed.  Both the new suspension systems and the sealed windows serve




to provide substantially lower levels inside the new transit cars.




    The range of noise levels for major noise sources associated with rail transit




systems is shown in Figure 2-26. The main source of noise is the interaction be-




tween the wheels and rails.  This is more serious in rapid transit systems than in rail




systems because the tracks are subject to a much higher rate of wear.   Other sources




of noise are the  propulsion system and the auxiliary equipment.  Rapid  transit sys-




tem noise is complicated by other elements not totally connected with the vehicles,




including the reverberant effect of tunnels on noise  in subway systems,  the increased




vibration-induced noise from elevated  systems, and the higher reflectivity of concrete




roadbeds used for some rapid transit lines.




    Street and trolley cars still operate in Boston,  San Francisco, Philadelphia,  and




other cities. In some cases  they operate in conjunction with subway systems. External




noise levels vary for streetcars between the old and the new  types of cars, the levels




ranging from approximately 68 to 80 dBA at 50 feet under varying operating conditions.




Ships




    Of all the  sources of noise in transportation systems, ships are the least important




in terms of environmental impact.  Only the noises aboard ship are significant.  The




only aspect of this shipboard noise of potential significance is the environment of




passengers.  These levels are generally lower than 65 dBA.



Environmental Impact



    The preceding discussions have illustrated the  nature of the noise environments



for  each major element of the transportation system.  As with any complex situation,



several views of the overall impact of transportation noise are desirable to obtain




an overall perspective.





                                       2-71
    74-249 O - 72 - 12

-------
      8 8
       §8 S
S 2 8  8 S
   '( OS I* VHP
        unos
Track Leve,s Fr
Hauled Vehicles
lectric
tive
§with air-conditioning
without air-condit toning
   vap
I3A31 punog
Noise Levels

Transit Car on Tie
and Ballast Trackbed
                                                          ETs
                                           Ills
                                           i*i
                        IN ri
                        SUL;
At Aerial Street Propul- Air A/C Motor Ai
Grade Struc- Cars sion Blower System Gen- Co
o o o o o o  Q
«- o m S r- S  LO

  i* OS IB V8P
      punos
                                                                                1
                                                                                I
                                                                                a
                                                                                E
                                         2-72

-------
    First, a simplified overview of the relative contribution of each of the source

categories is provided by comparing their estimated daily outputs of acoustic energy.

Next, the sources are compared to estimate their relative contributions to the outdoor

residual noise level in typical urban residential areas.  Third, the sources are re-

viewed with respect to their individual single-event intrusive characteristics and their

potential impact in terms of community reaction.  Finally, the operator/passenger

noise environment is  reviewed with respect to the potential hazard for hearing damage

and speech interference.  Each of these views provides some insight into the relative

impact of the various source categories.

Total Noise Energy Output Per Day

    One useful way to order the relative impact of the various  sources is to estimate

the total noise energy generated in an average day.  This  noise energy will be higher

for those elements of the transportation system that generate higher noise levels, exist

in large numbers, and operate more hours per day.  Table 2-9 summarizes by each

category the estimates of the A-weighted noise energy generated throughout the nation

during a 24-hour day.* The top 10 transportation categories, as indicated by their

noise energy,  produce 96 percent of the total noise energy, and, ot these, heavy trucks

and four-engined aircraft produce over 50 pi rcent of the total noise energy.

Contribution of Transportation System Components to the Residual Noise Level

    As discussed previously,  the residual noise level in a community  is the slowly

changing, nonidentifiable background noise that is always  there whenever one listens

carefully.  This noise level is normally dominated by highway vehicles moving through-

out the community.  Other noise sources in a community, such as aircraft, railroads,
    The passage of a sound wave is accompanied by an increase in energy.   For
    example,  when a person shouts, he produces a sound power of approximately
    0. 0007 watt at 1 foot from his lips.  Commonly accepted mathematical formulas
    are available for making conversions of sound pressure to sound power.  These
    have been used as the basis of the derivations of the noise energy values discussed
    herein.  See EPA document NTID300.13.

                                       2-73

-------
                         Table 2-9




NOISE ENERGY FOR ELEMENTS OF THE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
Major Category
Aircraft



Highway
Vehicles





Recreational
Vehicles


Rail Vehicles







• 4 -Engine Turbofan Aircraft
• 2- and 3 -Engine Turbofan Aircraft
• General Aviation Aircraft
Helicopters
• Medium and Heavy Duty Trucks
• Sports Cars, Imports and Compacts
• Passenger Cars (Standard)
• Light Trucks and Pickups
• Motorcycles
City and School Buses
Highway Buses
• Minicycles and Off-Road Motorcycles
Snowmobiles
Outboard Motorboats
Inboard Motorboats
• Locomotives
Freight Trains
High Speed Intercity Trains
Rapid Transit Trains
Passenger Trains
Old Trolley Cars (pre WWII)
New Trolley Cars (post WWII)
Noise Energy
(Kilowatt-Hours/Day)
3,800
730
125
25
5,000
1,000
800
500
500
20
12
800
120
100
40
1,200
25
8
6.3
0.63
0.50
0.08
Total -15,000
• Top 10 categories that each generate at least 125 kilowatt -hours per day.
                            2-74

-------
recreational vehicles,  industrial plants, or multiple air conditioning systems, are

usually widely dispersed and are therefore responsible for identifiable intruding noises.

    Table 2-10 summarizes the estimated daytime residual noise levels for each ma-

jor type of highway vehicle operating in an average urban community.  It is apparent

that passenger cars and trucks are the principal noise sources.  Only if all traffic

were stopped would other sources  be important to the residual noise level in an aver-

age urban residential community.

                                    Table 2-10

       PREDICTED CONTRIBUTIONS TO DAYTIME RESIDUAL NOISE LEVELS
       BY HIGHWAY VEHICLES FOR A TYPICAL URBAN COMMUNITY IN 1970
Source
Standard Passenger Cars
Sports Cars, Compacts, and
Imports
Light Trucks
Heavy and Medium Trucks
Highway Motorcycles
City Buses
Approximate
Source Density,
Units/Square Mile
- 50
- 20
-20
-1.5
~ 1
~ 0.8
Total
Residual Noise Level
dBA
43
41
42
3'1
18
15
47 dBA
    The residual level was also computed with the same technique for the years 1950

and 1960.  The estimated values of the daytime residual noise levels for a typical ur-

ban residential community are 45 dBA for 1950 and 46  dBA for 1960.  These estimates

indicate an increase over 10 years of approximately 1 dB in the residual noise level

(Lqn).  This rate of increase is consistent with the available data summarized in the
                                     2-75

-------
discussion of community noise.  Again, it is emphasized that the intruding noise,  not



the residual, is the problem.



Relative Annoyance of Intruding Single Events



    For evaluating impact of intruding single events such as resulting from a car



driven past a house, each transportation subcategory can be compared according to



its noise level at a fixed distance.  Table 2-11 summarizes typical values for noise



levels at a distance of 50 feet from surface transportation sources.



    Examination of the  various categories in Table 2-11 clearly shows that noise  from



heavy trucks, highway buses,  trails, and rapid transit vehicles that normally operate



along restricted traffic  routes will distinctly intrude upon people living near those traf-



fic routes.  On the other hand, motorcycles and garbage trucks, which operate on all



streets,  are a more widely encountered source of intrusion and potentially affect more



people.  This noise intrusion of single events is more severe for communities in



which the residual noise level is inherently low.  For example, in a rural or quiet



suburban community located well away from major highways, the residual noise level



is 10  to 15 dB lower than in urban areas; and the passby of a noisy sport8car at night



may momentarily increase the noise level by as much as  40 dB.  Similarly, during



the night near a major highway, noise intrusion from single trucks is readily apparent



due to the lower density of automobile traffic.



    Recreational vehicles operating on land are in a class by themselves.  Their



wide use in both residential and recreational areas and the rapid increase in their



number, in addition to their high noise levels, have contributed to the current concern



regarding these devices.  The growth pattern is particularly significant, as indicated



in Figure 2-27, which also illustrates the growth pattern of other consumer devices



operated by internal combustion engines.
                                      2-76

-------
                                 Table 2-11
           RANK ORDERING OF SURFACE TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM
                  ACCORDING TO A-WEIGHTED NOISE LEVEL

HIGHWAY
Medium and Heavy Trucks
Motorcycles
Garbage Trucks
Highway Buses
Automobiles (Sport, etc. )
City Buses
Light Trucks
Automobiles (Standard)
RAIL
Freight and Passenger Trains
Rapid Transit
Trolley Cars*
Trolley Cars**
RECREATIONAL VEHICLES
Off-Road Motorcycles
Snowmobiles
Inboard Motorboats
Outboard Motorboats
Typical A- Weighted
Noise Levels at 50 ftW
dB re: 20nN/m2

84 (88)
82 (88)
82 (88)
82 (86)
75 (86)
73 (85)
72 (86)
69 (84)

94
86
80
68

85
85
80
80
Estimated
Vehicle-
Miles in
Urban Are£ s
Billions

19
NA<2>
0.5
0.1
21
2.2
77
335

NA<2>
0.33
0.03
0.03





(1) Values inside parentheses are typical for maximum
    acceleration.  All other values are for normal
    cruising speeds.  Variations of 5 dB can be expected.

(2) Not available.
                                      2-77
 * Pre-WWII
** Post-WWII

-------
  1970
  1950
                    I	I
          Legend:


          Gas Powered Lawnmowers

|      [   Motorboats


\/yyyy)(   Motorcycles

HIIIIII HI   Chain Saws

£•$§§§!   Snowmobiles
                                      10
                                Number of Units
                                  (in millions)
                                                                     20
Figure 2-27.  Approximate Growth of a Few Types of Noisy Recreational
             Vehicles and Outdoor Home Equipment
                              2-78

-------
     The noise intrusion of water craft is generally regarded to be fairly low.  Power

boats are legally required in many states to be at least  100 feet from shore when op-

erating at high speed, thus minimizing their impact in local communities.

Overall Assessment of Noise Impact by the Transportation System
on fJonparticlpating Observers

     The cumulative effect of the repeated occurrence of intruding noises will place a

different emphasis on individual transportation system categories than is obtained by

considering only a single event.   This cumulative effect is expressed in terms of the

land area within an NEF contour of 30, or the corresponding contour value on the

CNEL scale of 65.  As discussed earlier, the expected reaction of a residential  urban

community for CNEL-65 would be widespread complaints.  Thus, the choice of the

contour boundary may tend to understate the total impact, which for both airports and

freeways, is certainly greater.

     The estimated noise-impacted land within this NEF-30 contour for airport opera-

tions throughout the nation was approximately 1450 square miles in 1970.  The area

enclosed between an effective right-of-way freeway boundary and the CNEL-65 bound-

ary is  estimated to be approximately 545 square miles.

     Thus, the estimated noise-impacted land within a CNEL-65 boundary for urban

freeways and commercial airports as of 1970 was approximately 2000 square miles.

Based  on a typical population density in urban communities of 5000 people per square

mile, this total noise-impacted area represents approximately  10 million people with-

in a  CNEL boundary of 65.  Again, this is an underestimate, with the complete impact

certain to be greater.

     The noise-impacted land near rapid transit lines was not involved in this sum-

mary,  since there are only 386 miles of electric railway lines, compared to about

9200 miles of freeways.  However, aince these lines typically serve  commuters, much
                                      2-79

-------
of the mileage is contained in densely populated city areas,  and the commuting impact




is far greater than would be anticipated simply by the area impacted.  As with other




noise sources, impact cannot be considered regarding exposure to only a single source.



Individuals are routinely exposed to many such sources on a daily basis.




    Because helicopter flight route patterns are essentially random, it is practically




impossible to define their noise impact in terms of land area or population.  A sus-




tained public reaction has not materialized, despite the intrusive nature of the sound,




probably because of the irregularity of this use pattern.  However,  widespread com-




plaints have arisen regarding air taxi services in New York and police operations in




Los Angeles.




Impact on Operators and Passengers in Transportation Systems




    The two  significant effects of noise on operators or passengers  of transportation




systems are potential hearing damage from excessive  noise and interference with




speech communication.




    Potential Hearing Damage.  The  potential hazard with respect to hearing handicap




for all categories of the transportation system is summarized in Figure 2-28 in terms




of an equivalent 8-hour exposure  level.  This  equivalent level is determined from the




actual passenger noise exposure using the same rule for trading off  time of exposure



and level that is utilized in the noise limiting regulations adopted under the Occupa-



tional Safety  and Health Act.  The estimated equivalent 8-hour exposure levels of five



of the transportation categories exceed the Occupational Safety and Health Act criteria



for an equivalent 8-hour day.  In  each of these five cases, noise protection for the op-




erator's ears is highly desirable. In occupational situations, because of longer expo-



sure, hearing protection would become mandatory.  In addition, many of the other




sources, including all those exceeding an equivalent 8-hour exposure level of 80  dBA




are potentially hazardous to some individuals,  particularly  in combination with their





                                      2-80

-------
Highway Vehicles (Typical Hours Use Per Day on Day of Use)
   Motorcycles (1)
   Medium and Heavy Trucks (4)
   Highway Buses (4)
   Utility Trucks (1)
   Light Trucks (1.5)
   School and City Buses (2)
   Passenger Cars - All Types (1)
72
80
80
]acmaaE==
7fl—
75 1
85?*
re'<
73' J88

95
95
LEGEND
Avg Max
75 I | 87


Aircrdft
   Light Utility Helicopters (2)
   Commercial - Propeller (1 4)
   General Aviation — Propeller (1)
   Commercial — 2- and 3-Engme Turbofan (1 4)
   Heavy Transport Helicopter (0 5)
   Medium Weight Helicopter (0 5)
   Commercial — 4-Engme Turbofan
   Commercial - Widebody (1 4)
   General Aviation — Executive Jet (0 5}

Rail Vehicles
   Rapid Transit (1 5)
   Trolleys (1 5)
   Passenger Trains (6)
   High Speed Interurban (2)

Recreational Vehicles    (Typical)
   Snowmobiles (2)
   Mimcycles and Off-Road Motorcycles (2)
   Inboard and Outboard Boats (2)

                                  50
- r ' "' " V 1
Probable region - ,;, "- j , 	 1
of concern for -- '--!;'. -> 98 | 	 |102
. . non-occupational >_85
exposures

1 1 1

-;85
|100

1 95
ii->"i:.:iil i
                                          60        70      80       90
                                        Equivalent 8-Hour Exposure Level, dBA
                                                                               100
          Figure 2-28.  Potential Hearing Damage from Transportation System
                          Components in Terms of Equivalent  8-Hour Exposure
                          Levels, for Passengers or Operators
                                               2-81

-------
exposure to other noise environments.  As indicated, a considerable exposure poten-

tial for a significant portion of the population may exist because of the combination of

exposures to a variety of sources.

    Speech Interference.  Speech interference criteria specify maximum desirable

noise levels at the listener's ear as a function of talker-listener separation for effec-

tive normal speech communication.   Table 2-12 summarizes typical talker-listener

separation distances in various> transportation systems and corresponding desired

noise limits to minimize speech interference at these distances.  With the exception

of V/STOL propeller or rotary-wing aircraft, the internal noise levels are not exces-

sive in terms of speech interference, while affording a maximum of speech privacy

for each passenger pair.



                                   Table 2-12

           TYPICAL PASSENGER SEPARATION DISTANCES AND SPEECH
                           INTERFERENCE CRITERIA

Passenger Cars
Buses
Passenger Trains
Rapid Transit Cars
Commercial Aircraft
(Fixed Wing)
V/STOL Aircraft
Talker- Listener
Separation
Feet
1.6 to 2.8
1
1 to 1.7
1 to 1.7
1.1 to 1.7
1.1 to 1.7
Speech
Interference
Criteria*
dBA
73 to 79
79 to 85
79 to 85
79 to 85
79 to 84
79 to 84
Average
Internal Noise
Levels
dBA
78
82
68 to 70
82
82 to 83
90 to 93
   * Maximum noise levels to allow speech communication with expected voice
     level at specified talker-listener separation distances.
                                     2-82

-------
DEVICES POWERED BY INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES




    The noise emanating from lawn care equipment powered by small internal com-




bustion engines is well known to the millions of people who maintain gardens or lawns



and their neighbors.  The total United States production of these engines was about



10. 9 million units in 1969.  This total includes all engines below 11 horsepower except



those used for boating, automotive,  and aircraft applications.  Over 95 percent of



these are  single cylinder, air cooled engines.  The vast majority are four cycle,



while the two-cycle version of the same size dominates the remaining market,  More



than half of the single cylinder engines power the estimated  17 million lawnmowers in



use today, while the majority of the remaining engines are used in other lawn and gar-



den equipment such as leaf blowers, mulchers, tillers,  edge trimmers, garden trac-



tors, and  snowblowers.  In addition, about 750,000 chain saws and 100,000 engines



for equipment such as small  loaders and tractors, were produced in 1970, while agri-



cultural and industrial usage together accounted for another 1. 5 million engines.  The



categorization of these devices by use and range of typical noise levels is summarized



in Figure  2-29. The range of noise levels for the  various devices in this category are



shown in Figure 2-30.



Lawn Care  Equipment



    The characteristic noise produced by lawn care equipment has a low frequency



peak corresponding to the engine firing frequency (about 50 to 60 cycles per second)



and a high frequency  maximum occurring anywhere from two to three octaves above



the firing frequency.  In the case of a lawnmower, much of the energy in the high fre-



quency noise peak is  from the exhaust, which has only a minor degree of muffling.



Additional high noise levels are radiated by  the rotating blade.  Equipment without a



rotating blade will generally have other machinery noise of the same approximate
                                     2-83

-------

Internal Combustion
Engines


I
Generators Lawn Care
• Battery Chargers • Mowers
• Air Conditioners • Edgers


Other Types
• Chain Saws
• Model Aircraft
• Auxiliary Power • Tillers
• Leaf Blowers
• Snow Blowers
Number in Service


550,000 17,100,000

2,500,000
Typical Noise Levels
120
110
100
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
tn
p
—
- 96 95
85
' 77 ..—
. —171 80
70
58 —
52
46
~~ ?0 CN g 8 CO



91
7^185

65 _
59

in b
CM m
115

103 ""*
~~ a6
80 ••••
64

co b
CM CM IT5
           Z
                            §  £
Figure 2-29.  Characteristics of Devices Powered by
             Internal Combustion Engines
                      2-84

-------
         i!
                                                         |U
                                                         £ z in
g |     -lo
            1    n m
                 LJII
1I
II
                         s|    s
                         i-^iE S
                                           ~jj 1) OS I" l*^
                         I  I  I  I I  I  I  1  I
                         S    8   S   S   ?
                   V8P - |8A31 BSION
                                                             {111(11

                                                             g  S   8   S

                                                             V8P - I6AST asiON
s   a



r   'I
    Sti
    W
                                                                              o
                                                                              u
                                                                              a
                                                                              E
                                     2-85

-------
level.  The modulation of the high frequency engine noise by the engine firing frequen-



cy makes the engine noise more audible than the noise of a rotating blade or other



machinery.  Thus,  even heavy muffling on lawn care equipment cannot totally eliminate



the characteristic noise associated with this modulation.



Generators



    Of the 100,000  generators sets sold each year in the United States, most are used



in mobile homes, campers, and large boats, where  their electrical power output is



used for air conditioning, lighting, and other equipment.  Their noise  output is gener-



ally dominated by high frequency exhaust noise, which can be well muffled to achieve



quiet operation acceptable to users and their neighbors.



Chain Saws



    The typical chain saw engine is a two-cycle,  high-speed device that operates with



a firing frequency of about 150 times per second.  A minimum muffler is usually



a part of the configuration and is equipped with a spark arrester to prevent fire.  The



high firing frequency and light muffler result in noise levels as high as 115 dBA at the



operator position, with  levels of 83 dBA common at  a 50-foot distance.



Model Airplane Engines



    Model airplane engines are  two-cycle  engines that typically operate at 12,000 to



18,000 rpm, resulting in a firing frequency above 200 Hz.  Until recently, these en-



gines had no muffling at all,  and with muffling, the A-weighted noise level is reduced



by about 12 decibels.



Environmental Impact



    The principal characteristics of internal combustion engines as sources of poten-



tial noise impact are summarized in Table 2-13.  In general,  these devices are not



significant contributors to the average residual noise levels in urban areas. However,



the annoyance distance of most of the garden care equipment equals or exceeds about





                                      2-86

-------


ENGINE!
„
g
»-l
H
en
CQ
g
O
u
J

u
H
2
b.
o

CO
U
i
«
u
H
0
<
«
<
O
H
U
<;
0,
°
W
§
z
S
>H
05

§
E3
CO

lie

^
3 ___
S "H>  CD
x  »_j Jj-l
'
^ ra m
cij o ti
fl w TO
•5 "
£?
^


^ fe £
||l
i O "3
< Z w



Source


3
1
E
rt
S


0)
S1
f-H
>




"fll
£







^
^
"O






a








CM fH r-l \ \ \, 1 ^H
iH -H i— t
< £
iO ^- LO LO LO ^ *O O




< £
t-.£;aocot0t-




ooooooomo
in co eo ao co co








•^aow'j'coaotOr-io







8 S S S S S " °' °*




to
So S « -1 S
{{ ill | j j s
SSSlasa^H












>,
rt
in
21
c

"^
fn
0
Cl
CQ

c
3
•s
s
•S

3
C
1
4^
0)
5
ts
1

H
3
c:
o
•g
CO
a)
CQ
^j.















^"
«
'H

So
I
-0
be
•S
JH
rt
CU
I
5

5

0)
1
Equivalent
£





























g
2
o
a1
S
g

*J
1
i
a
S
                                          2-87
74-249 O - 72 - 13

-------
50 feet — a typical neighbor-to-neighbor distance - indicating further noise reduction



for these devices is desirable.  Similarly, a distinct local increase  in the noise level



in rural or wilderness areas may be experienced at distances up to 1 mile from such



devices as chain saws.  As a result, they constitute  a persistent source of annoyance



for persons seeking the solitude of wilderness areas.  Use of chain saws can result in



equivalent 8-hour exposure levels of 83 to 90 dBA for the operator,  indicating the de-



sirability of hearing protection for operators.



NOISE FROM INDUSTRIAL PLANTS



    Industrial plant activity in  the United States ranges from the small single machine



garage operation to the large multimlllion dollar,  multiproduct operation.  U. S.  De-



partment of Commerce Statistical Abstracts for the year 1967 reported that there were



311,000 industrial establishments in the  United States employing approximately 14. 36



million production workers.  Although the types of industrial activities vary greatly,



for the purpose of this report they have been categorized into four basic types:



    1.   Product fabrication



    2.   Product assembly



    3.   Power generation



    4.   Process plants.



Due to the broad nature of the product fabrication  industry, it was further subdivided



into metal fabrication and molding.


    To investigate the industrial plant as a total noise source and to evaluate the effect



of this noise source on the community, a case study was performed  that included ex-



amples of each industrial category.  Specific industrial activities typical of possible


sources of community noise were studied and are  as follows.
                                        2Q
                                       — O

-------
    •    Metal fabrication                 - can manufacturing




    •    Molding                          - glass bottle manufacturing




    •    Product assembly                 - automobile assembly




    •    Power generation                 - public utility electric




    •    Process                          - oil refinery




    Based on Bureau of the Census and the Automobile Manufacturers Association




data (as of 1967) there were 305 glass and glassware manufacturing plants, 438 petro-




leum refineries,  3429 electric power generating plants,  98 automobile assembly



plants, and 300 can manufacturing plants in the U.S.  The number of plants being rep-




resented by the specific plants of the case study account  for approximately 1. 5 per-



cent of the total number of industrial establishments in the United States.




Plant Noise Sources




    A study of industrial plants as sources of community noise must begin with the




individual noise sources within the plant.  Industrial plant noise sources can be gener-




ally classified into five major categories.




    •   Impact             -punch, presses, stamping,  hammers




    •   Mechanical         — machinery unbalance, gears, bearings




    •   Fluid Flow          —fans, blowers, compressors, valves




    •   Combustion         —furnaces, flare sticks




    •   Electromechanical  —motors, generators,  transformers



A brief description of the types of individual noise sources observed in the typical



plants of the case study conducted for this report  are given in the following subsections.




    The range of industrial machinery and equipment noise levels  (A-weighted) ob-



served within the five typical plants surveyed are presented in Table 2-14.
                                     2-8

-------
                               Table 2-14

             RANGE OF INDUSTRIAL MACHINERY, EQUIPMENT,
                      AND PROCESS NOISE LEVELS*

1. Pneumatic Power Tools (grinders,
chippers, etc. )
2. Molding Machines (I. S. , blow
molding, etc.)
3. Air Blown -Down Devices (paint-
ing, cleaning, etc.)
4. Blowers (forced, induced, fan,
etc.)
5. Air Compressors (reciprocating,
centrifugal)
6. Metal Forming (punch, shear-
ing, etc.)
7. Combustion (furnaces, flare
stacks)
8. Turbo-generators (steam)
9. Pumps (water, hydraulic, etc.)
10. Industrial Trucks (LP gas)
11. Transformers
Noise Levels - dBA
80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120























mmm.

-










•
•—
•








«•










••M





••••






(measured


•




25 ft.







from







sourc
1 I
•(measured 10 ft. from source)
•























e)




*Measured at operator positions, except for 7 and S.
                                 2-90

-------
Glass Manufacturing Plants




    Glass bottles are manufactured by "blowmolding" the molten glass to the desired




size and shape.   High pressure air is used for cooling, pneumatic control,  and opera-




tion of the glass molding machines and is normally vented into the atmosphere.  The




turbulent mixing of the  high pressure air with the atmosphere is the major noise




source.  Such noise sources are typically located within masonry-type buildings that




may contain acoustic louvers at air inlets and exhausts.




Oil Refineries




    The noise sources within a typical oil refinery are furnaces, compressors, heat




exchangers, cooling fans, pumps, control valves, and air and steam piping leaks, all




of which are located outdoors.  Furnace noise is unique in that it is a combination of




high frequency noise produced by the gassified fuel, low frequency noise produced by




the air intake, and, finally, the noise produced by the combustion process itself.




Public Utility Electric Power Plants



    A power plant ia a complex system of furnaces, turbine generators (gas and



steam), air compressors,  transformers, and associated equipment such as forced



draft blowers, induced draft fans, and control valves. Turbine-generators and air



compressors are usually located  inside masonry-type buildings, while the other noise




sources are outdoors.




Automobile Assembly Plants



    The mass production of automobiles requires the use of electrically and pneumat-




ically powered labor assist devices such as grinders,  impact wrenches, and air blow-




down devices.  The combination of tool and operation noise  is of a broadband type,




with the levels greatest at high frequencies.
                                      2-91

-------
Can Manufacturing Plants




    The process of metal stamping requires metal forming, cutting, punching, shear-




ing, and pressing, all of which are noisy impact operations.




Community Noise Climate



    Industrial plants  in the past were normally located in heavily populated urban




areas due to requirements for skilled and semiskilled labor and transportation.  Bj'



locating in or near a large city, the industries were able to draw employees from a




large labor pool and had a ready means, through railroads, highways, and port facili-




ties, to receive raw material and to ship their finished products.




    Groups of industrial plants, in general,  raise the residual noise level in the sur-




rounding community to such a level that intrusive noise due to individual plants is




masked or minimized.  The rise in the residual level is caused by the exceedingly




high noise levels within a plant due to industrial machinery and processes and  the in-




crease in truck traffic due to the existence of the plant.




    During the past several decades skilled and semiskilled labor has migrated from




the cities,  a trend followed by commercial and industrial activity.  The attraction of




local industrial plants to the  suburbs has been partly attributed to more favorable mu-




nicipal tax structures, the relocated labor pool,  and the clogging of city arteries by



increased traffic. Plant noise has become more evident in suburban and  urban areas,



due to the lower existing residual levels,  and may generate complaints.



    Noise measurements in and around the communities adjacent to the industrial



plants selected for the case study were made during weekend periods when the plants



were either shut down or their mode of operation differed significantly from normal



weekday operation, and during daytime and nighttime periods during the week.  Results




of the noise surveys conducted for the  case study are discussed in the following
                                      2-92

-------
subsections.  The residual noise levels  (L   ) measured (A-weighted) are presented on
                                        yy


area maps, Figure 2-31 through Figure 2-35.



Glass Manufacturing Plant Example



    The glass manufacturing plant, Figure 2-31, is located in a community with a pop-



ulation of 5535.  To the south and southwest of the plant, the land use is mainly resi-



dential, with a predominance of multifamily homes.  Homes on the east side of the



plant are single family, detached housing units.



    The plant operates on a  three-shift basis but is closed,  except for maintenance on



weekends.   Since there are no  nearby major highways, airports,  or  construction activ-



ity, the glass manufacturing  plant is the predominate noise source in the community.



Even though the noise levels  in the community are relatively low,  residents have filed



complaints with their local board of health and have even threatened  legal action.  The



basis of the complaints is the intrusive sounds produced by large air intake vents  lo-



cated on the roof at one end of  the factory building (near measurement position #2).



Oil Refinery  Example



    The oil refinery, Figure 2-32,  is located within an industrial area of a city of



41,409 persons.  It is  bordered by major highways to the north and east, and a turn-



pike passes through the southern portion of the property.  The refinery operates three



shifts per day, 7 days  per week.  The refinery is not the predominate source of noise



in the nearby residential community of multifamily dwellings. The noise level observed



at measurement position "1" is not due to the refinery noise sources but is due to the



combined noise of the turnpike and a nearby chemical plant.   The fenceline noise mea-



surement at position "b" is high due to temporary construction activity, while the



measurement at positions "g", "h", and "i", though high at night, cannot be attributed



to the refinery,  since only storage tanks are located nearby.  Plant personnel and



local community officials know of no complaints  attributable to the long term opera-



tions of the  refinery.

                                       2-93

-------
                                 Feet
Weekend
Weekday
Weeknight
Weekend
Weekday
Weeknight
Key
      Community Residual Noise Levels in dBA
 1   2    3   4   5   6   7   8   9   10  11   12  13
46  54   45  39  41  43  -  -  48   41   41   51  43
50  59   44  42  42  40  44  40  41   44  39   53  43
52  61   46  40  43  45  43  40  41   41   42   49  42

   Plant Property Line Residual Noise Levels  in dBA
 aefjmqccaaxvu
50  62   59  68  55  41   44  40  60   65  52
49  64   61   68  59  49  50  49  66   68  55
51  64   63  69  58  48  41  46  61   65  54
                     Industrial Noise Source
                     Residential Area
                     Railroad Track
                     Highway
                     Measurement Location
          Figure 2-31.  Glass Manufacturing Plant Community

                                  2-94

-------
Weekend
Weekday
Weekmght
Weekend
Weekday
Weekmght

Key
           H	1	1—h
                                         Feet
Community Residual Noise Levels m dBA
  1    23456789
59   49   52   55   50   50   50   48   51
63   52   50   56   48   51   54   47   50
60   51   51   50   47   49   59   47   49

Plant Property Line Residual Noise Levels in dBA
 abcdefqhi
55   71   60   60   60   55   54   52   56
63   68   60   62   64   63   51    52   53
58   67   59   59   62   61   49   50   54
Industrial Noise Source
Residential Area
Railroad Track
Highway
Measurement Location
            B'igure 2-32.   Oil Refinery Community

                               2-95

-------
Power Plant Example



    This power plant,  Figure 2-33, is located near a community of single-family de-



tached housing that is part of a larger urban municipality of 98, 944 persons.  The



power plant operates 7 days per week,  with its power generating units being activated



upon demand.  The main power sources are five steam turbogenerators, with a gas



turbine generator reserved for peak loads.



    In general, the community noise level is established by the turnpike to the north



and the power plant and oil refinery (not shown) to the south.  Note that the community



noise levels are constant throughout the workweek and weekend.  The power plant noise



is directed toward the waterfront area.  The high noise level at the property line, po-



sition "a, " during the weekend was due to flow noise in a pipe nearby, while the noise



at "e" was due to a pumping station.  Sporadic complaints have been received by the



power plant concerning operation of the gas turbine generator.



Automobile Assembly Plant Example



    The  automobile assembly plant,  Figure  2-34, is situated in an industrial area.



The area south of the plant is mainly residential, while the land to the north and west



is residential but mixed with business activity.   The population of the town surrounding



this plant is 10, 534. The plant operates on a two-shift per day basis, with a third



shift (11  p. m. to 7 a. m.) reserved for maintenance and restocking operations; and no



work is normally conducted at the plant on weekends. Since this plant is not located



near major highways, airports, or construction activity, the property line and com-



munity data indicated that the assembly plant is the principal source of noise in the



community.  The weeknight noise levels approach weekday levels because of the un-



loading of railroad cars during restocking.  Neither plant personnel nor community



officials  expressed a knowledge of any noise complaints concerning the plant.
                                     2-96

-------
                                        Feet
Weekend
Weekday
Weeknight
Weekend
Weekday
Weeknight

Key
      Community Residual Noise Levels in dBA
 12345678
48  50   50  50  52   58   57  54
48  51   49  53  55   56   55  54
51  52   52  52  53   56   57  54

Plant Property Line Residual Noise Levels in dBA
 abcdefghi
81  58   63  69  64   53   54  59  68
64  59   61  72  80   61   59  57  63
68  63   67  70  80   61   60  61  65
               A:,- v-M  Industrial Noise Source
                 ' . "1  Residential Area
               1 - 1—  Railroad Track
                 -  Highway
               •       Measurement Location
          Figure 2-33.  Power Plant Community
                          2-97

-------
Feet
   Weekend
   Weekday
   Weeknight
   Weekend
   Weekday
   Weeknight

   Key
Community Residual Noise Levels in dBA
 123456789
47  43   49  45  43  47  45  48  47
50  48   50  49  47  54  50  53  50
51  50   50  50  47  52  48  54  48

Plant Property Line Residua! Noise Levels in dBA
 abcdefghi    j
54  47   46  46  47  54  54  49  54   46
58  57   55  53  54  62  57  54  55   54
57  57   56  51  53  58  55  53  54   54
                        Industrial Noise Source
                        Plant Property Line
                        Residential Area
                        Railroad Track
                        Highway
                        Measurement Location
   Figure 2-34.  Automobile Assembly Plant Community


                            2-98

-------
Can Manufacturing Plant Example




    This plant,  Figure 2-35,  is located in a moderately sized city with a population of




144, 824.  It is located within an industrial-residential area and is bounded by streets




having dense automobile and truck traffic.  The homes in the nearby community are




multifamily dwellings.  The can manufacturing plant operates on a three-shift basis



during the work  week but is essentially shut down during the weekend.



    It appears that the community noise is  due to both surface transportation and the




plant.  Noise levels in the  community are similar for the weekend,  weekday, and week-



night periods, although the noise levels are generally higher  during the weekday along




portions of the property line.  No information regarding community complaints attrib-




utable to the plant is available from plant personnel or city officials.




Community Impact




    A review of the data obtained from the  case studies shows that although interior




plant noise levels due to individual machines, equipment, or  processes are exceeding-




ly high, the impact of plants on the community as indicated by complaint history was




not significant, with the single exception of the glass manufacturing plant.  The noise




that actually reaches the community is  reduced by plant building construction and the




distance between the plant  and the community.  Often, the plant combines with other




noise sources to create the community noise climate.  The five plants  in this study



are located in areas in which the residual noise levels compare favorably with levels



shown in Table 2-2. The community adjacent to  each plant may be categorized as fol-



lows:



    •   Glass Manufacturing  Plant — Quiet Suburban Residential to Normal Suburban




        Residential.



    •   Oil Refinery— Urban Residential to Noisy Urban Residential.



    •   Power  Plant —Urban Residential to Noisy Urban Residential.





                                      2-99

-------
                   Scale
                   o      500

                   Feet"
2000
                     Community Residua! Noise Levels in dBA
                       1    23456789   10
Weekend              55   49  53  51   50   50  57  56   51   58
Weekday              53   49  55  49   51   54  59  56   56   55
Weeknight            48   49  53  51   47   49  58  50   55   47

                     Plant Property Line Residual Noise Levels in dBA
                       abcdefghi    j
Weekend              53   59  59  61   58   58  52  50   49   53
Weekday              60   65  64  65   60   60  56  52   57   63
Weeknight            53   63  63  61   58   62  53  43   53   66
Key
                      Industrial Noise Source
                      Residential Area
                      Railroad Track
                      Highway
                      Measurement Location
      Figure 2-35.  Can Manufacturing Plant Community
                             2-100

-------
    •    Automobile Assembly Plant - Urban Residential.




    •    Can Manufacturing Plant — Noisy Urban Residential to Very Noisy Urban




         Residential.




    The noise data collected for this case  study was included in Figure 2-9.  As




would be expected, the glass manufacturing plant noise levels, which exceeded the




community levels  by up to 29 dBA,  caused widespread complaints and threats of legal




action as predicted by Table 2-7.  Complaints were received at only one of the other




four plants, even though the noise levels they produced in their communities would



lead one to expect sporadic complaints (Table 2-7).  Complaints,  as an indicator of




community impact, must be viewed with caution.  Many people can be annoyed but will



not complain to authorities because they believe it futile.   Further,  it is also kno",».




that residents may not object to plant noise even  at fairly high levels, if




    •    It is continuous.




    •    It does not interfere with speech communication.




    •    It does not include pure tones or impacts.




    •    It does not vary rapidly.




    •    It does not interfere with sleep.




    •    It does not contain fear-producing elements.




    Counter-balancing the above effects, individuals or families may be annoyed by




an industrial noise that does  not annoy other plant neighbors. This  often ma;, be



traced to unusual exposure conditions or to interpersonal situations involving plant




management.
                                     2-101

-------
CONSTRUCTION EQUIPMENT AND OPERATIONS



Construction Site Noise



    In recent years, noise associated with construction projects has become increas-



ingly responsible for the degradation of the human environment.  Many construction



projects of various types and sizes  are  active at any given time in the urban, suburban,



and rural areas of the United States.  Many people residing  or working near or passing



by construction sites are thus exposed to extreme noise levels often for periods of



several years.



Types of Construction  Sites and Activities



    For purposes of this report the fifteen site categories used by the U. S. Bureau of



Census and by various state and municipal bodies can be reduced to the following four



major  types:



    1.   Domestic housing — including residences for one to several families.



    2.   Nonresidentlal buildings — including  offices, public buildings, hotels, hospi-



         tals, schools.



    3.   Industrial — including industrial buildings,  religious and recreational centers,



         stores, service and repair facilities.



    4.   Public works-including roads, streets, water mains,  sewers.



    Noise from construction of such major civil works as dams and bridges affects



relatively few people (other than those employed at or  near such construction sites)



and therefore has not been studied in detail for this report.  Also, exposure of con-



struction workers to noise is a serious  problem but was omitted from this study since



occupational hazards are considered to  be beyond the purview of this section of this



report and was covered in the various EPA hearings on noise.



    The type of activity at any given site varies  considerably  as construction pro-



gresses.  Further, since the noise  produced  on the site depends on the equipment




                                    2-102

-------
being used, it exhibits a great deal of variability.   For purposes of characterizing




this noise, one may consider construction at a given site in terms of the following five




consecutive phases:




    1.   Ground clearing - including demolition  and removal of prior structures,



         trees, rocks.




    2.   Excavation.




    3.   Placing foundations —including reconditioning old roadbeds, compacting




         trench floors.




    4.   Erection — including framing, placing of walls,  floors, windows,  pipe instal-




         lation.




    5.   Finishing — including filling, paving, cleanup.




Characterization of Site Noise




    To totally describe construction site noise,  the five described phases  for  each of




four different types  of sites must be considered.  However, there is an additional




complication.  Since the intrusion produced  by any noise depends on the residual noise,



the residual noise levels that exist at a site  location in the absence of any construction




activity must be taken into account.  For comparison purposes, it is enough to con-



sider only the two cases of urban (relatively noisy)  and surburban (relatively quiet)




environments.



    For purposes of these site noise characterizations,  a model was developed in




which the equipment producing the highest A-weighted noise levels was taken to be lo-



cated 50 feet from an observer (at the boundary of the site), and  all other equipment




was considered as being located  at 2000 feet from the observer.  The noise contribu-



tions of the various  equipment items were calculated for representative duty cycles.



Although this construction site noise model may  not be entirely realistic, it still may
                                      2-103

-------
be expected to yield at least a relative measure of the noise annoyance potential of

each type of site and construction phase.

    The energy equivalent noise levels (L  ) for each construction phase at each site

are shown in Table 2-15.  For each phase/construction type element, a  range of

levels is given, reflecting different mixes of construction equipment that might be

used for the same kind of process.  The range encompasses maximum (I) and mini-

mum (TI) concentrations of equipment.


                                   Table 2-15

          TYPICAL RANGES OF ENERGY EQUIVALENT NOISE LEVELS,
                      Le   IN dBT*, AT CONSTRUCTION SITES

Ground
Clearing
Excavation
Foundations
Erection
Finishing
Domestic
Housing
I II
83 83
88 75
81 81
81 65
88 72
Office Build-
ing, Hotel,
Hospital,
School, Public
Works
i n
84 84
89 79
78 78
87 75
89 75
Industrial
Parking Garage,
Religious
Amusement &
Recreations,
Store, Service
Station
I II
84 83
89 71
77 77
84 72
89 74
Public Works
Roads & High-
ways, Sewers,
and Trenches
I II
84 84
88 78
88 88
79 78
84 84
 I — All pertinent equipment present at site.

 II - Minimum required equipment present at site.
                                     2-104

-------
    The maximum levels range from 77 to 89 dBA for all categories and have an

average value of approximately 85 dBA.  The minimum values for all categories have

a wider range, extending from 65 to 88 dBA, and have an average value of 78 dBA.

The table also shows that the initial ground clearing and excavation phases generally

are the noisiest, that the intermediate foundation placement and erection phases are

somewhat quieter, and that the final finishing phase  tends to produce considerable

noise annoyance.

    The  expected community reaction to construction noise may range from none to

vigorous community action to  stop the project, depending on the total circumstances.

Calculations for three construction situations are presented in Table 2-16.  Depending

on the season, attitude toward the project, and existence of equipment having an im-

pulsive noise character, the normalized community  noise equivalent levels given in

the table could be as much as  15 dB lower or 5 dB higher than the values appropriate

to a specific situation.  The biggest factor in this possible range results from the ap-

plication of the attitude  correction of -10 dB, which  is appropriate for a project of

known duration when the community recognizes that  the project is  necessary.  The

magnitude of this correction Implies a significant acquiessance by the community to

the noise of construction activity.

Construction Equipment Noise*

    Although there is a great variety in the types and sizes of available construction

equipment, similarities in the dominant noise sources and operational characteristics

of commonly used  equipment items permit noise characterization of all equipment in

terms of only a few categories,  as discussed subsequently.
*   See also the extensive data provided on construction equipment noise at the
    EPA Hearing at Atlanta and Washington, D. C.
                                     2-105

-------
                                 Table 2-16

           EXPECTED COMMUNITY REACTION TO THREE TYPICAL
                    EXAMPLES OF CONSTRUCTION NOISE
Factor
Energy Equivalent Noise Level
(L£ ) in dBA for 8-Hour
Work Day
Duration & Time of Day
Correction Factor
Community Noise Equivalent
Level
Additional Correction Factors
from Table 2-4:
Seasonal
Residual Noise Level
Experience & Attitude
Pure Tone or Impulse
Normalized CNEL
Expected Reaction from
Figure 2-9
Single House
Built in Normal
Suburban
Community
70*
-5
65

0
+5
-10
0
60
Sporadic
complaints
Major Exca-
vation & Con-
struction in
Normal Sub-
urban Com-
munity
85
-5
80

0
+5
-10
0
75
Threats of
legal action
or strong
appeals to
local officials
to stop noise
Major Public
Works Project
in Very Noisy
Urban Resi-
dential Area
85
-5
80

0
-5
-10
0
65
Widespread
complaints
*Considering only erection and finishing phases for minimal equipment.
                                  2-106

-------
Equipment Powered by Internal Combustion Engines




    Engine-powered equipment may be characterized according to its mobility and




operating characteristics as:




    1.   Earthmoving equipment, including excavating machinery (such as bull-




         dozers,  shovels, backhoes, front loaders) and highway building equipment




         (such as scrapers, graders,  compactors).




    2.   Materials handling equipment,  such as cranes,  derricks, concretemixers,




         and concrete pumps.




    3.   Stationary equipment,  such as pumps,  electric  power generators,  and air




         compressors.




    Earthmoving equipment employs internal combustion engines (primarily of the




diesel type) rated from about 50 hp to above 600 hp, both for propulsion and power




for working mechanisms.   Materials handling equipment, for which locomotion does




not constitute a part of the  major work cycle, employs internal combustion engines




for powering working parts.  In stationary equipment, of course,  engines are used




for the desired power generation.



    Noise levels  observed  50 feet from construction equipment are shown in Figure




2-36.  These levels range from 72 to 96 dBA for earthmoving equipment, from 75 to




88 dBA for materials handling equipment, and from 70 to 87 dBA  for stationary equip-




ment.



    In virtually all engine-powered equipment,  the engine constitutes the primary




noise source.   Usually, exhaust noise predominates, but intake noise also tends  to



be significant.  Noise from fans used for cooling the engine and hydraulic system



often constitutes an important component, with  noise from mechanical or hydraulic



power transmission or actuation systems generally of secondary importance.  In



earthmoving equipment, the tracks often contribute noticeable noise, and in both






                                    2-107

-------
NOISE LEVEL IdBA) AT 50 FT
60 70 80 90 100 110
EQUIPMENT POWERED BY INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES
0
O
5
I
t-

-------
earthmoving and materials handling equipment,  the working process — interaction of




the machine and the material on which it acts - often contributes much noise.




     For all engine-powered equipment, the greatest noise reductions may be ob-




tained by quieting the engines.  Significant amounts of  noise reduction may often be



readily achieved by the use of better exhaust mufflers,  intake silencers, and re-




designed cooling fans.  Use of acoustic enclosures for stationary equipment also ap-




pears to be a readily  implemented and generally useful noise reduction approach




(which has already  been employed by  some air compressor manufacturers).  Prac-




tical, long term abatement on the order of 15 to 20 dBA can probably be achieved by




basic engine design changes.  Of course,  replacement of the internal combustion




engine by a quieter prime mover,  such as a gas turbine or electric motor, would




eliminate the reciprocating engine noise altogether.




Impact Equipment and  Tools



     Pile drivers and  pneumatic tools  accomplish their functions by causing a "ham-




mer" to strike against a work piece.  The resulting impact constitutes one of the




major noise sources associated with such equipment, and because this impact is




essential to operation of the equipment, its control generally cannot be accomplished




practically. Representative noise levels are indicated  in Figure 2-36.




     In steam-driven pile drivers,  noise is also produced by the boiler and by re-




lease of steam at the  head; in dlesel drivers, noise is also produced by the com-




bustion explosion that actuates the hammer.  Impact noise is absent in the so-called



sonic pile drivers,  which  have no drop hammer since they use engine-driven ec-




centric  weights to vibrate the driven pile at resonance. For such drivers, the



engines are the primary noise sources.  Unfortunately, the use  of these pile



drivers is not widespread, owing in part to codes for pile load-bearing assessment




based on impact response.






                                     2-109

-------
    Most impact tools, such as pavement breakers and rock drills, are pneumatic-




ally powered.  The same is true of such hand-held tools as impact wrenches.  In




such tools, noise is produced primarily by the high pressure exhaust and by the




working impact.  This pneumatic exhaust noise does not occur in hydraulically



or electrically powered tools.




    The  use of tools that do not involve impacts appears to be  the best means for




coping with impact noise.  Where such replacement is not possible, use of enclosures



may be required, although these tend to be cumbersome, costly, and of limited benefit.




Exhaust noise from pneumatic tools (or from steam or diesel pile drivers) can be re-




duced effectively by mufflers,  but  the size and weight limitations on workman-handled




tools limit the size and effectiveness of mufflers for  such  tools.




Other Equipment and Tools




     The  two foregoing categories clearly do not exhaust the list of tools and equip-




ment used in construction work.  They do,  however,  encompass a  significant por-




tion  of the noisier ones.



     Although concrete vibrators are not noisy in and of themselves, their action




usually shakes the wooden concrete forms, and these vibrations produce a significant




amount of noise (Figure 2-36). '.Reinforcing the forms would provide some reduction.



     The  intense high-pitched whine of power saws (Figure 2-36) is a significant




factor  in several construction phases; e.g., wood cutting  occurs in the construction



of concrete forms, in assembly of frames, and in finishing operations.  Noise con-




trol  in this instance would involve  use of specially designed laminated (damped) blade




disks and enclosure of the working areas.
                                     2-110

-------
Environmental Impact

    Table 2-17 summarizes the exposure of people other than construction workers,

to construction noise*,  in terms of a statistic -the person-hour -which reflects both

the  number of people exposed and the duration of their exposure.   This  information

is based on an analytical model of site noise, propagation conditions, and population

densities.  Accordingly, care  must be taken in interpreting exposure figures ex-

pressed in person-hours.  First, exposures so expressed are obviously intended as

order-of-magnitude rather than exact estimates.  Second, direct comparisons among

exposures expressed in person-hours to noise sources of greatly different character

may not be freely made.

    It is apparent from Table  2-17 that the  most widespread effect of exposure to con-

struction noise is speech interference.  Construction noise  significantly degrades

speech communication for about 300 million person-hours per week in the U. S. and

can also be responsible for as much as 10 million  additional hours of severe speech

interference.  Not only are those living and working in the vicinity of construction sites

(approximately 30 million people) affected,  so also are passersby (approximately 24

billion encounters per year).  People experiencing speech interference  from con-

struction noise in home or work environments can be exposed nearly continuously

during the working day, for weeks or even months at a time. On the average, the

transmission loss characteristics of buildings are high enough to moderate the

speech interference effects of  intrusive construction noise.  Transient exposure to

construction noise is likely to  interfere with speech to a  greater degree than constant

exposure, since there is little or no attenuation  of the noise.
    For construction workers, there are serious risks of hearing impairment be-
    cause of job-related noise.
                                     2-111

-------
W
23
O
z

s

   .
00
» w


II
Q Q
l=> W
H w
t-. 03
Z W
O
a
*%%
1 as
«•£?
4) 5 o
bp g QO
1
g> <
III
K
o
t.
^2
* fig
a, 
-------
     Use of available noise reduction techniques could significantly reduce the speech




interference caused by construction noise.  The total number of person-hours of speech




interference attributable to construction noise might be diminished by about a third if




noise levels were reduced by 10 dBA.




     To the extent that construction activity and sleep do not commonly occur during




the same hours,  construction noise does not interfere with sleep.  Of course, oc-




casional nighttime construction occurs and seriously disturbs the sleep of people




living nearby.  Approximately 15 percent of those who may encounter noise intrusions



from construction sites do so while attempting to sleep during daytime construction hours.




These people spend about 20 million person-hours per week sleeping in noise levels that




may interfere with sleep.  About 40 percent of the people exposed to  construction noise




sufficiently intense to interfere with sleep would be awakened.   A somewhat smaller




percentage might encounter difficulty in falling asleep due to noise intrusions.  Reducing




construction noise levels by  10 dBA would not greatly reduce sleep interference caused




by such intrusions.  To relieve the situation,  more significant levels of noise reduction




are required.



     On the average, the risk of hearing damage from construction noise for those




not directly concerned with construction activity does not seem  to be  great.  In




most cases, the distance between the construction site and people exposed to its




noise and the transmission loss of buildings or vehicles are  sufficient to minimize




the probability of hearing damage.  However, it is likely that peak noise levels from



construction sites present some risk to people who are in frequent proximity to the



site.  The  greater number of such people  (presumably pedestrians or onlookers),



however, are subject only to exposure of short durations.



    Without doubt, a major consequence of exposure to construction noise is an-



noyance.  Both those people exposed to construction noise on a regular, long-term





                                     2-113

-------
basis and those exposed on a transient basis are annoyed by their exposure. Annoy-



ance may be particularly great if the noise Intrusion from the construction site is




perceived as unnecessary or ina.ppropriate.  People who must endure weeks or months




of construction noise exposure may exhibit some form of habituation to the noise, but




despite the commonly expressed attitude toward noise of "you get used  to it," it is doubt-




ful that construction noise ever loses much  of its annoyance capability.




    Although it is extremely difficult to absolutely quantify the annoyance  produced by




construction noise, it is clear that such noise is a  serious environmental pollutant.




The speech and sleep of millions of people are disturbed; many people working or




living near or passing by construction sites are exposed to levels that could contribute




to hearing damage.  As indicated by community and individual complaint behavior,




construction is certainly a source of community annoyance.
                                     2-114

-------
HOUSEHOLD AND BUILDING NOISE




Characteristics of Noise Sources




Home Appliances



    In general, motors, fans, knives (or other cutting blades), and air flow are the




most frequent sources of noise from home appliances. Noise  radiated from the




casing or panels of the appliances and noise radiated from walls,  floors, cabinets,




sinks  (set into vibration by solid structural connections) are also  of major im-




portance.  The noise generating mechanisms of several appliances that have high




enough noise levels and exposure time to be considered annoying are reviewed




below.




    Room Air Conditioners. The major sources of noise in the air conditioning




process are the motor,  the blower (evaporator fan),  the propeller fan (condenser




fan), the compressor, and the air flow across the evaporator coils.  In addition,




panels of the housing radiate noise, as does the structure to which the air conditioning




unit is mounted.




    Food Waste Disposers.   The primary noise sources include the motor, the grind




wheel, the  sloshing of water and waste against the housing of the chamber, and res-




onances in  the sink.




    Dishwashers. The noise generating mechanisms in a dishwasher, in addition to




the impingement of water against the sides and top of the tub, are the motor,  the pump,




the excitation of panel casings, the structural connections to water supply, water



drain and cabinet, and the blower.




    Vacuum Cleaners.  The primary noise sources in vacuum cleaners are the motor,



blower, resonances of the unit structure, and, in upright vacuum cleaners, a mech-



anism (either vibrating agitators or rolling brushes) that beats the carpet to bring




dirt to the surface.





                                    2-H5

-------
     Toilets.  The important parameters in toilet noise are the type (tank vs valve) and



 the  mounting (floor vs wall).  In each type of toilet, noise is attributed to valves and



 water flow.



 Building Equipment



     The majority of electrical and mechanical equipment in buildings is used  to



 supply the building occupants with a suitable quantity of air at a comfortable tempera-



 ture and moisture content, to addition, fluid pumping  and piping systems and ele-



 vators, escalators and other conveyences are used for moving people and materials.



 Much  of this equipment is hidden in mechanical equipment rooms, above ceilings,



 in walls, or behind cabinet-type exterior enclosures, as illustrated in Figure 2-37.



 Characteristics of Environment and Noise Levels



 Home Appliances



     Because of the scarcity of reliable data, for the purposes of this report,  measure-



 ments were recently made on 30 types of home appliances and  11 types of home shop



 tools.  Sound levels were measured in dBA at a distance of 3 feet from the appliance



 installation and at a height of 5 feet; this measurement position approximates  the



 location of the operator's ear for those appliances requiring an operator.  For those



 appliances not requiring an operator, this position represents  noise levels in  the



 vicinity of the appliance.  Noise levels in the reverberant field of the room in which



 the  appliance is being operated may be on the order of 2 to 3 dBA less than the



 values measured at 3 feet.



     Noise levels  in adjacent  rooms, with the interconnecting door open, may  range



 from  10 dBA less than the levels at 3 feet to as  much as several dBA greater than



, the  levels at 3 feet, depending upon the details of the installation.  For the appliances



 used near the ear (e.g., an electric shaver),  the noise level at the ear may be as



 much as 10 dBA greater than the levels at 3 feet. Figure 2-38 summarizes the





                                      2-116

-------
FLOOR
SLAB
                                   COOLING
                                   TOWER

                          )).. ...      ^,  .  ..   it. .   . ^ ,,. ,.

                         PENTHOUSE MECHANICAL EQUIPMENT ROOM

                                         f      ^1  PUMPS

                         	CHILLER ^^  gj  Q^
            v..' J. ••MvxtvV '. :'-;g,.- .
ELEVATOR
  ROOM
   FOR
  FLOOR
  BEl,OW
                                          ACOUSTICAL
                                         / CEILING
            •;',r?;~ •>.---^-.y"-
                               DIESEL ENGINE
                  AIR
              COMPRESSOR
                                                     4=t,
                                                  TRANSFORMER
     Figure 2-37.  Cross-Section of a Typical Multistory Building
                   Showing Building Equipment
                            2-117

-------
                                 A-WEIGHTED NOISE LEVELS AT 3 FT
                                 40    50    60    70    80    9O
FREEZER
REFRIGERATOR
HEATER, ELECTRIC
HAIRCLIPPER
TOOTHBRUSH, ELECTRIC
HUMIDIFIER
FAN
DEHUMIDIFIER
CLOTHES DRYER
Am CONDITIONER
SHAVER, ELECTRIC
WATER FAUCET
HAIR DRYER
CLOTHES WASHER
WATER CLOSET
DISHWASHER
CAN OPENER, ELECTRIC
FOOD MIXER
KNIFE, ELECTRIC
KNIFE SHARPENER, ELECTRIC
SEWING MACHINE
ORAL LAVAGE
VACUUM CLEANER
FOOD BLENDER
COFFEE MILL
FOOD WASTE DISPOSER
EDGER AND TRIMMER
HOME SHOP TOOLS
HEDGE CLIPPERS
LAWN MOWER, ELECTRIC
AMERICAN APPLIANCES
FOREIGN APPLIANCES
MEAN OF MEASUREMENT
    Figure 2-38.  A Summary of Noise Levels for Appliances Measured
               at a Distance of 3 Feet
                            2-118

-------
noise measurements made for this study and some of those reported in the literature.




Each point represents a single  measurement.  Several measurements are given for a




single appliance that operates in different modes.  The solid circles represent noise




levels generated by domestic appliances; foreign brands are represented by the solid




squares.




Building Equipment




     The exposure of occupants to  the noise  generated by building equipment,  sum-



marized in Table 2-18 and Figure 2-39 shows that occupants are directly exposed to




the noise of only about eight different types  of equipment.  The noise generated by




these units  is, thus, of special interest since there are no intervening walls to pro-




vide noise reduction.




     Although details of the frequency spectrum are important in selecting noise




control  treatments, the model presented here is  keyed, for simplification,  to dBA.




Figure 2-40 summarizes the noise exposure,  in dBA,  of an occupant to individual



sources.  The upper level in each case is representative of the  sound  level near the




source — i.e., at 3 feet.  The lower level is representative of the level to which the




noise from a particular source is  reduced as it is transmitted through enclosures,



partitions, etc., as illustrated in  Figure 2-37.




     In summary, the noise environment of a building is a feature that architects




and landlords can control through  the proper selection of equipment and  the utiliza-



tion of noise control techniques, if there is  a willingness to bear the cost and allocate




the necessary space.




Impact of Household Appliances and Building Equipment



     For purposes of this report, home appliances and building equipment were di-




vided into four broad categories on the basis of their noise levels.
                                     2-119
 74-249 O - 72 - 15

-------
                          Table 2-18
         EXPOSURE OF BUILDING OCCUPANTS TO THE
               NOISE OF BUILDING EQUIPMENT
Building
Equipment
Air
Conditioning



Absorption
Machines
Air Compressor
Ballasts
Boilers
Boiler Feed
System
Chillers
Condensers
Cooling
Towers
Dehumidifiers
Diesel Eng.
Diffusers
Electric
Motors
Elevators
Escalators
Fans

Furnaces
Gas Turbines
Heat Pumps
Humidifiers
Mixing Boxes
and Air
Control Units
Pneumatic
Transporter
System
Pumps
Steam Valves
Transformers
Unit Vent and
Unit Heat
Location

MER*
Roof Unit
Wind. Unit
MER
MER
Room
MER
MER
MER
Rooftop
Rooftop
MER
MER
Room
MER
Varies
Varies
MER
Room
MER
MER
MER
MER
Varies
Varies
MER
MER
MER
Room
Type of Exposure
Direct



X


X







X

X
X

X




X




X
Indirect
Through Mechanical
Distribution System

X
X









X



X
X
X




X
X
X




Through Walls,
Floors, etc.

X
X

X
X

X
X
X
X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X

X
X
X
X

' Mechanical Equipment Room
                           2-120

-------
                                           A-weighted sound level
                           20   30  40   50  60   70   80  90 100  110  120  130
Ballast
Fluorescent Lamp
Fan Coil Units

Diffusers, Grilles Register

Induction Units
Dehumidifiers
Humidifiers

Mixing Boxes,
Terminal Reheat Units, etc

Unit  Heaters
Transformers
Elevators
Absorption Machines

Boilers
Rooftop
Airconditionmg Units

Pumps
Steam Valves
Self-contained
Airconditionmg Units
Chiller - Rotary
Screw Compressors
Condensers —  Atr-Cooled
Pneumatic
Transport Systems
Central Station
Airconditionmg Unit
Chiller - Reciprocating
Compressor
Electric Motors
Fans
Chiller — Centrifugal
Compressor
Air Compressor
Cooling Towers
Diesel Engines
Gas Turbines
   Figure 2-39.  Range of Noise in dBA Typical for
                   Building Equipment at 3  Feet
                                2-121

-------
                     30   40
    A-WEIGHTED NOISE LEVEL
50   60    70   80    90    100   110
                                                                     120
LAMP BALLASTS
AND VAPOR


DIFFUSERS


MIXING BOXES



FAN COIL


TRANSFORMERS


PUMPS


BOILERS


STEAM VALVES


CHILLERS


ELEVATORS


AIR COMPRESSORS


COOLING TOWERS


FANS

DIESEL EMERGENCY
GENERATOR
o»
c
o*
(
(
(
(
c

•
	 E
>-« 	








-D 	
— W +









-•
V —
v + v
/ + V

i+R
/+ D
I I 1






W-t
+ >
+

W- 1
D-D
E - E
R - 1
S
S - B
B
C
V V
c
— •






y


•JTERVENING WALL
UCT TREATMENT
NCLOSUREOF EQUIP.
MTERVENING ROOF
TRUCTURE
UFFERZONE FLOOR
ETWEEN SOURCE AND
CCUPANT'S FLOOR
IBRATION ISOLATION
F EQUIPMENT



















 • NOISE LEVEL AT 3 FT FROM SOURCE
 O NOISE LEVEL AT OCCUPANT'S POSITION
         Figure 2-40.  Range of Building Equipment Noise Levels to
                    Which People Are Exposed
                              2-122

-------
    1.   Quiet major equipment appliances, characterized by operating levels loner




         than 60 dBA.




    2.   Quiet equipment and small appliances, characterized hy noise levels between




         60 and 70 dBA.




    3.   Noisy small appliances,  characterized by noise levels between 70 and 80 dB.A.




    4.   Noisy electric tools,  characterized by noise levels in excess of 80 dBA.




Table 2-19 lists the  mean noise levels,  in dBA, for such appliances in their normal



operating environments.




Group I.  Quiet Major Equipment and Appliances




    Group I contains the noise sources to which people are exposed tor the greatest




lengths of time,  such as most building climate-control equipment, food-refrigeration




appliances, and clothes dryers.  In general, due to the low levels of noise  produced




by equipment and appliances in Group I, effects ot exposure are either negligible or




mild, with no appreciable risk of hearing damage.  Under certain conditions  such




equipment may be capable of delaying the onset of sleep of those suffering secondary




exposure.  The major effect of exposure to noise trom Group I equipment and ap-



pliinces  is speech interference.  It would be necessary to conduct conversations in




the immediate vicinity of the noisier sources in Group I at somewhat higher than




normal voice levels  or by reducing the distance between speakers.




Group II: Quiet Major Equipment and Small Appliances



    Most of the noise sources in  Group II are found in many  American homes, al-




though not all of the  sources are as common as those in Group I. Because Group II



sources typically require operators, the most common pattern of exposure to their



noise is one of infrequent and brief encounters.



    Of the three major effects by which noise impact is gauged in this report,



noise sources in Group n significantly contribute to only speech interference.





                                    2-123

-------
                                Table 2-19
      NOISE LEVELS OF HOME APPLIANCES AND BUILDING EQUIPMENT
              ADJUSTED FOR LOCATION OF EXPOSURE (IN dBA)
Noise Source
Group I: Quiet Major Equipment
and Appliances
Refrigerator
Freezer
Electric Heater
Humidifier
Floor Fan
Dehumidifier
Window Fan
Clothes Dryer
Air Conditioner
Group II: Quiet Equipment and
Small Appliances
Hair Clipper
Clothes Washer
Stove Hood Exhaust Fan
Electric Toothbrush
Water Closet
Dishwasher
Electric Can Opener
Food Mixer
Hair Dryer
Faucet
Vacuum Cleaner
Electric Knife
Group HI: Noisy Small Appliances
Electric Knife Sharpener
Sewing Machine
Oral Lavage
Food Blender
Electric Shaver
Electric Lawn Mower
Food Disposal (Grinder)
Group IV: Noisy Electric Tools
Electric Edger and Trimmer
Hedge Clippers
Home Shop Tools
Level of
Operator
Exposure*


40
41
44
50
51
52
54
55
55


60
60
61
62
62
64
64
65
66
66
67
68

70
70
72
73
75
75
76

81
84
85
Level of Exposure** of
People in Other
Rooms


32
33
37
43
44
45
47
48
48


40
52
53
42
54
56
56
57
51
51
60
60

62
62
62
65
52
55
68

61
64
75
 *Termed
**Termed
'primary exposure"
'secondary exposure"
                                 2-124

-------
Hearing-damage risk is negligible for operators and for those who may experience




secondary exposure, and sleep interference is a problem only for the few people who




experience high level secondary exposure while attempting to sleep.



    Users  of the appliances in Group II find speech communication during opera-




tion difficult.  Conversations generally must be conducted with significantly greater




than normal vocal  effort or at short ranges.  For many people,  temporary interrup-




tions of conversation during applicable use of such equipment and appliances are




probably found to be preferable to conducting conversations under strained conditions.




    Annoyance is the  most significant of the indirect consequences of exposure to




noise from Group II appliances.  While the operator may be annoyed by brief




speech interference, people experiencing secondary exposure may be equally,  if not




more,  annoyed. The  annoyance of such people (including neighbors in multifamily




residences and family members in other rooms) is conditioned in part by the in-




trusive nature of the exposure and in  part by feelings created by the  inability to




control the noise source.




Group III: Noisy Small Appliances



    The  distribution and exposure patterns of noise sources in Group III continue




the trend observed in  Groups I and II.  Based on ownership data, it was found that




Group III appliances are found in fewer homes than are the appliances of preceding




groups.  Exposure to  noise from this group of appliances is brief and is separated




by long intervals.  Both of these factors moderate the  impact of the relatively high



level noise produced by these appliances.



    Hearing-damage risk cannot be dismissed as of minor importance for this



group of  noise sources.  While it is true that the average exposure to noise  sources



of Group III is measured in fractions  of hours per week, it is likely that certain



elements of the public are exposed to some Group III source for prolonged





                                     2-125

-------
periods of time.  Home seamstresses, for example, could easily be exposed to several



hours of sewing machine noise daily.  Although even this sort of exposure would not



constitute an imminent hazard to hearing, it could nevertheless hasten eventual hear-



ing damage in the context of cumulative exposure from many sources.



    Operators of the appliances of Group in must contend with severe  speech Inter-



ference. Although communication by shouting may be possible during appliance use,



operators would probably tend to avoid conversation at these times.  Even secondary



exposure to the noise of Group III appliances interferes somewhat with speech



intelligibility.



    Sleep interference caused by noise of Group III appliances is minimal for the



same reasons that they are negligible for Group n appliances.  Also, annoyance is



the major indirect effect of noise exposure for Group III, as is true for Group II.



The operator may find the noise signature of the appliance  unpleasant,  particularly



if it contains pure tone components or a highly variable temporal distribution of



sound levels.



Group IV:  Noisy Electric Tools



    Group IV contains the appliances that produce the highest levels of noise in the



home environment.  In this category are about 4 million electric yard  care tools and



12 million electric shop tools.



    Hearing-damage risk can be great if exposure to the noise levels produced by



Group IV sources is habitual or prolonged.  Hobbyists engaging  in regular use of



power tools are likely to experience prolonged exposure at working distances of



a few feet. Such use of tools can produce the risk of hearing impairment.



    Speech interference produced by  Group IV sources can be of sufficient magni-



tude  to preclude verbal communication in any form other than shouting directly into
                                     2-126

-------
the ear.  Even the speech interference due to secondary exposure can be great enough




so that conversations must be conducted at high voice levels.




    Sleep interference from secondary exposure to home shop tools or electric




yard care tools is a distinct possibility,  and people attempting to sleep while exper-




iencing such noise exposure would have considerable difficulty.  Both annoyance and




stress are probable byproducts of the noise from Group IV equipment. A neighbor's



noise, particularly at levels as high as those of Group IV sources, is rarely welcome.




Summary of Effects of Appliance Noise on People




    Table 2-20 summarizes the impact of appliance noise on people in concise



terms for the  interpretation of figures expressed in person-hours.  The table  re-




lates  person-hours of exposure directly to the major criteria.   It should  be em-




phasized that these values of exposure represent potential effects.   For example,




fans will create conditions that would moderately interfere with speech intellig-




ibility for 1.2 billion person-hours per week.  The actual speech interference de-




pends on the fraction of that time people attempt to speak while a fan is running.
                                     2-127

-------


O
I
5g
Q H*
3«
ii
* §
<§
O tl

--
HO
§1
& 5

S
OQ
co W
ii
Sf1«
CO W
w £2
B°

H
§§
ORDER-OF-MJ
EQUIP*!
2 S
« S
t 1
cs
t -
t -G
8 f
S3 53
^ -2
1 ,§
1
S
a i->
o oo
33 S
•« s
S £

2 *
•§
•|
•§ !
U
* s




8
1
z






O 0 0 0 0 0





O tH O 10 O 0
CM rH iH
iH






liss°°
i— i


^ m
§ 'Bg
a * 1
a ^l
Group I: Quiet Major Eq
and Appliances
Fans
Air Conditioner
Clothes Dryer
Humidifier
Freezer
Refrigerator
Group II: Quiet Equipme
and Small App






o o o o o o o




10 10 CM ^H
C- •«* O t-t O O O
CD
IN

m 1-1 o IN 10 c- ^
CO  la o o o

O rH O ^H O CN





IO IO
O^ SO CM rH O IO -H







n
2 DO
I 1
••« Q
& H
91 u to
Group HI: Noisy Small f.
Sewing Machine
Electric Shaver
Food Blender
Electric Lawn Mower
Food Disposer
Group IV: Noisy Electri
Home Shop Tools
Electric Yard Care Tool
                                          a,
                                          
-------
OVERALL ASSESSMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT OF MAJOR NOISE SOURCES




    The impact of noise has been discussed for each of the major non-occupational




noise source categories.  These impact assessments  have been developed from various




points of view,  which are pertinent to the noise and use characteristics of each source




category.   Together with the presentation of the detailed  noise characteristics of the




sources and the community, they provide the basic data for an assessment of the total



environmental impact of noise.  This assessment is made relative to interference




with speech,  community reaction,  and noise that may produce potential hearing dam-



age.  The  impact assessments are based upon criteria specified elsewhere in this  re-




port and the data  presented earlier in this chapter.




    It should be kept in mind that the noise environment is primarily a product of man




and his machines and consists of an all-pervasive and nonspecific residual noise, to




which is added both constant and intermittent intrusive noises.  The residual noise




level in urban residential communities is generally the integrated result of the noise.-




from traffic on streets and highways but does vary widely with the type of  community.




Interference with Speech



    Residual noise levels in suburban and rural areas do not appear to interfere




with speech communication at distances compatible with normal use of patios and




backyards.  However,  some interference with outdoor speech is found in urban



residential communities, and considerable  continuous interference is found in the



very noisy urban  and downtown city areas.  Thus, the use of outdoor spaces for



relaxed conversation is effectively denied to an estimated 5 to 10 million people



who reside in very noisy urban areas.



    The backyards,  patios, and  balconies facing an urban freeway are similarly



rendered useless on a continuous basis, except when traffic is light in the  early



morning hours.  Although windows are kept closed in  many dwelling units  adjacent






                                    2-129

-------
to freeways to keep out the noise,  the noise level inside the dwelling may still be



too high for relaxed conversation.  An estimated 2.5 to 5 million people living near



freeways are significantly affected by such intrusive noise.  Probably,  another 7 to



14 million people are affected to a lesser degree by the noise from traffic on the



96, 000 miles of major arterial roads in urban communities.



    Construction In urban areas is characterized by a relatively high continuous



intrusive noise level, plus  intermittent higher level noise events.   It is estimated



that, during daylight and early evening hours, the ability of 21  million people to enjoy



outdoor conversation is severely impaired,  particularly during the higher level noise



events.  In many of these cases,  the ability to converse indoors is also impaired.  The



tolerance of people to construction noise appears to be higher than to other  intruding



noises because of the expectation that the construction activity will soon cease.



However,  in many larger cities where there appears to be almost continuous con-



struction activity near apartment dwellings, intolerance of construction noise may



be expected to be similar to that of other forms of noise intrusion.



    Thus,  the combination of continuous daytime noise caused by  traffic on city



streets, major arterial streets, and freeways impairs the utility of the patios,



porches, and yards of approximately 7 to 15 percent of the total population, while



at any one time the noise from construction similarly affects another 10 percent.



    The noise from  many home appliances and other equipment makes  it difficult



for the operator and others in the home environment to converse or hear a child's



cry.  The noisier items  in this category include power lawnmowers, home shop



tools, food disposers and blenders,  sewing machines, electric shavers, and vacuum



cleaners, and it is estimated that at least 66 million people operate one or more of



these devices.  Together with an estimated 115  million dwelling occupants,  they



experience a severe reduction in speech intelligibility whenever such devices are used.





                                     2-130

-------
Community Reaction




    Community reaction may be expected to begin when the energy equivalent level of




an intruding noise exceeds the residual noise level.  The degree of reaction depends,




as discussed elsewhere in this report,  primarily on the amount of the intrusion and,




secondarily,  on other characteristics of the  noise and on additional factors such as




season of the year and attitude of those exposed. The impact of several forms of



noise,  events such as noise from aircraft overflights, noise from diesel trucks on the




highway, and industrial noise, is best evaluated in terms of community reaction.



    The  most significant national problem that can be defined in such terms is air-




craft noise.  There are, by conservative estimate, 7.5 million people living in areas




where aircraft  noise exceeds  the level required to generate widespread complaints.



This estimate assumes that all of the people affected live in residential urban com-




munities.  A more realistic estimate,  including people who live in quiet and normal




suburban communities and are affected by aircraft noise, is 15 million.  Not only




does aircraft noise interfere with TV viewing and speech communication for most of




the people exposed, it also disturbs the sleep of many.



    Community reaction can also be expected from the uncounted millions annoyed



by devices such as motorcycles, minicycles, and sportscars operated in a noisy




manner on residential streets; dunebuggies,  off-road motorcycles, chainsaws and




snowmobiles operating in the wilderness; power lawnmowers,  hedge  clippers,  and



shop tools operated by a neighbor on weekend mornings.  The number of such noise



sources is rapidly growing, and their impact is spreading.



    Industrial noise also results in complaints of varying degree in communities



throughout the United States.  However, it Is difficult  to quantify the  number of



people disturbed because the majority  of industrial noise problems are resolved at



a local level.  The process of accommodation continually occurs in various






                                     2-131

-------
communities when new plants are constructed or new machines or operations are



added to existing plants.  These local accommodations are accomplished in many




ways, including direct interaction between the plant management and the community,




lawsuits, enforcement of local noise or zoning ordinances, and other actions by local




officials.




Hearing Damage Risk



    There is a long history of occupational noise causing various degrees of hearing




impairment  in some of the  working population.   The  legal structure for the protection




of workers now exists through the provisions of  the Occupational Health and Safety




Act, and also the Coal Mine Safety and Health Act.




    However, there are also many occasions when people may be exposed to po-




tentially hazardous noise in non-occupational environments.  The more significant




of these potential hazardous noise exposures are summarized in Table 2-21.   These




data include only those people directly affected by the noise sources, that is, oper-




ators and passengers rather than bystanders.  Although those who are  only occasion-




ally exposed to such noises will not necessarily  suffer permanent hearing impairment,




frequent exposure  to the noise from any one or several of such sources, or occasional




exposure in  combination with industrial noise, will increase the risk of incurring



such damage. In addition,  the proliferation and use  of such noise  sources further



increase the risk of hearing impairment for a substantial percentage of the general




population.




Summary of Assessment



    This data shows that approximately 22 to 44 million  people have lost part of the



utility of their dwellings and yards to noise from traffic and aircraft on a continu-




ous basis, and another 21 million at any one time are similarly affected by noise




from construction activity.  Further, many people are exposed to potentially





                                     2-132

-------
                                   Table 2-21

            APPROXIMATE NUMBER OF OPERATORS OR PASSENGERS
                 IN NON-OCCUPATIONAL SITUATIONS EXPOSED
                 TO POTENTIALLY* HAZARDOUS NOISE FROM
                        VARIOUS SIGNIFICANT SOURCES
Source
Snowmobiles
Chain Saws
Motorcycles
Motorboats (over 45 HP)
Light Utility Helicopters
General Aviation Aircraft
Commercial Propeller Aircraft
Internal Combustion Lawnmowers
and other Noisy Lawn Care
Equipment
Trucks (Personal Use)
Home Shop Tools
Highway Buses
Subways
Noise Level in dBA
Average**
108
100
95
95
94
90
88
87
85
85
82
80
Maximum
112
110
110
105
100
103
100
95
100
98
90
93
Approximate Number
of People Exposed
(In Millions)***
1.60
2.50
3.00
8.80
0.05
0.30
5.00
23.00
5.00
13.00
2.00
2.15
  *Although average use of any one of these devices by itself may not produce
   permanent hearing impairment, exposure to this noise in combination,  or
   together with occupational noise will increase the risk of incurring perma-
   nent hearing impairment.

 **Average refers to the average noise level for devices of various manufacture
   and model type.

***Single-event exposures.  Many individuals may receive multiple exposures.
   For example an individual may be exposed during the week to noise from
   any or all of the above sources.
                                    2-133

-------
hazardous noise when operating noisy devices.  Although the number exposed to po-



tentially hazardous noise cannot be accurately assessed (since the people referred



to in Table 2-21 are not additive), a total of 40 million people might be reasonable.



    Thus,  not including the contribution of appliances, noise appears to affect at



least 80 million people, or 40 percent of the population.  Roughly one-half of the



total impact of noise represents a potential health hazard (in terms of hearing im-



pairment potential alone), and the remaining half represents an infringement on the



ability to converse  in the home.  Such impact estimates clearly show the need to re-



duce the number of devices  that emit potentially hazardous noise levels and to reduce



the outdoor noises that interfere with the quality of life.
                                     2-134

-------
                                   CHAPTER 3

           CONTROL TECHNOLOGY AND ESTIMATES FOR THE FUTURE »


    This chapter summarizes the noise reduction efforts of industry and the noise re-

duction potential for the various sources discussed in Chapter 2.  The past, current,

and planned efforts of industry have been determined for the purpose of  this report by

communication with representative companies and industrial associations.  This chap-

ter is intended to give insight into the industry situation with respect to  noise control

and should not be considered to represent carefully drawn industry positions.**  The

noise reduction potential has been estimated for most of the sources based  on existing

experimental data, when available, and upon application of known technology to sources

for which no noise control experimental data exists.

    The noise of many of the  sources has been extrapolated to the year  2000, both

with and without additional noise control.  Although such extrapolations  are conjec-

tural, they do provide a useful framework for establishing today's noise control

priorities.
*   This chapter is based upon material prepared by the Staff EPA Office of Noise
    Abatement and Control as a result of testimony received during public hearings
    and on data contained in EPA Technical Information Documents NTID300.1,
    "Noise from Construction Equipment and Operations, Building Equipment, and
    Home Appliances" (EPA contract 68-04-0047, Bolt,  Beranek and Newman);
    NTTD300.2 "Noise from Industrial Plants" (EPA contract 68-04-0044, L. S,
    Goodfriend Associates); NTID300.13, "Transportation Noise and Noise from
    Equipment Powered by Internal Combustion Engines" (EPA contract 68-04-0046,
    Wyle Laboratories); and NTID  300.14, "The Economic Impact of Noise," pre-
    pared under interagency agreement between EPA and the National Bureau of
    Standards.
**  Such statements,  containing  detailed technical data,  are contained in the trans-
    cripts of the various EPA hearings on noise.


                                      3-1
  74-249 0-72-16

-------
TRANSPORTATION INDUSTRY PROGRAMS



    The significance of noise from the transportation system is recognized in varying




degrees by many segments of the transportation industry.  This awareness is reflected




in the degree of effort expended by the industry toward noise reduction. This discus-




sion considers the general nature of each industry as it relates to effecting noise




reduction programs, reviews the results of such programs, and presents estimates




of the noise reduction that couid be achieved through additional effort—both by industry




and the cognizant government agencies.




Commercial  Aircraft




    The excessive noise resulting from jet aircraft operations is perhaps the most




widely recognized and acted upon noise problem.




    The airport noise problem originated in the late 1950's with the introduction of




jet aircraft, which were much noisier than the propeller  aircraft they replaced, and




was compounded by the post-war construction of homes on  vacant land around airports.




The problem grew to major proportions with the rapid  growth  of the commercial fleet



and spread to more airports with the introduction of commercial air operations to




smaller cities and towns. Despite concerted efforts in research and development of




quieter engines by the industry,  significant progress was slow until spurred by federal



regulation.



    The negative public reaction to commercial aircraft  noise led to the adoption of




a federal regulation limiting the noise emission of new airplanes.  This noise regula-




tion, Federal Aviation Regulation Part (FAR) 36—Noise Standards:  Aircraft Type




Certification—became effective in December of 1969.   The limits in this regulation




apply primarily to subsonic aircraft of new design having gross takeoff weights ex-




ceeding 75,000  pounds.
                                      3-2

-------
     The majority of aircraft in the present fleet exceed the FAR-36 noise limits by 5

to 15 EPNdB.  Thus, new aircraft certified under FAR-36, such as the three-engined

widebody and later model four-engined widebody aircraft, will be substantially quieter

than aircraft in the present fleet.  The reduction of noise to the  FAR-36 limits could

significantly aid in the solution of today's airport noise problem.

     However,  further noise reduction is required to accomplish an economically

balanced and publicly satisfying solution at the majority of affected airports and to

accommodate the anticipated future growth of the fleet.  To develop the technology for

noise reduction, the federal government has supported various research and develop-

ment programs.  The current funding level by both government and industry on jet

engine noise alone now exceeds $37 million annually.  One  result of federal and indus-

try sponsored research and development during the 1960's  is demonstrated in  the noise

characteristics of the new DC-10 aircraft,  which is quieter than the limits imposed by

FAR-36 and much quieter than the other aircraft in the current fleet.

Noise Reduction Programs for Jet Aircraft *

     The  design features responsible for the noise  reduction in new aircraft are asso-

ciated with improvements in engine bypass  ratio and fan design with new designs for

inlet and discharging ducts of the new engines.  Noise reduction technology has also

been accelerated through several research  and development programs aimed  at

utilizing  existing turbofan engines that are modified with a  noise reduction retrofit

package.  An example of such an effort is the NASA Acoustically Lined Nacelle

Program, which has demonstrated the feasibility of significantly reducing engine

noise on approach and of moderately reducing takeoff and sideline noise. A current
    For details on economics and technological problems associated with jet engine
    noise, see the transcript of the EPA hearings held in Washington, B.C.
                                      3-3

-------
FAA sponsored program is expected to produce hardware that can be certificated by



the end of 1972. The existence of such hardware may establish retrofit as a viable



method for reducing airport noise, to be considered as an alternative to aircraft re-



placement.



    Another NASA program, due to be completed in 1973, is the Quiet Engine Pro-



gram aimed at demonstrating the feasibility of designing a new turbofan engine with



takeoff and approach levels significantly lower than any achieved to date. This pro-



gram, together with the new FAA Core Engine Noise Reduction Program and others



are the forerunners of the total research and development effort required to reduce



noise of future aircraft to acceptable levels.



    A parallel and supplemental approach to engine noise reduction in airport com-



munities is the alteration of flight procedures during takeoff and landing. Significant



noise reductions have been demonstrated with most commercial aircraft currently



in operation by using power cutback procedures (i.e.,  reducing engine thrust alter



the initial takeoff climb).   To reduce noise impact during approach, a two-segment



landing procedure has been proposed.  This procedure consists of an initial glide



slope terminated prior to landing in the standard 3-degree glide slope.  Noise reduc-



tions  comparable to those achieved by the power cutback have been achieved with this



procedure.  Although the feasibility of the steep approach method, in terms of opera-



tional safety, has not been verified for all types of aircraft, it is  already being used



by at  least one major airline,  when operating under visual flight conditions.



Noise  Reduction Potential for Jet Aircraft



    The noise reduction achievable by means of current and potentially available



technology, starting with the technology demonstrated in the DC-10 engines and those



of the federally funded research programs, is summarized in Table 3-1. The noise
                                      3-4

-------
levels are specified in terms of the FAR-36 takeoff measurement locations.  The

table indicates,  for example, that a noise reduction of 10 to 15 EPNdB below the levels

generated by the DC-10 aircraft should eventually be possible for that size aircraft.

                                    Table 3-1

             ESTIMATED AIRCRAFT NOISE REDUCTION POTENTIAL

DC-10 Technology
Quiet Engine Design Goal*
Future Quiet Engine
Noise Reduction
EPNdB re DC-10
0
5
10 to 15
EPNdB
100
95
85 to 90
           *Recent test results indicate the engine is quieter than the design
            goal.
    To place this noise reduction potential in proper perspective, it is constructive to

consider the growth of noise impact during the last decade due to commercial aircraft

operations and to project future trends on the basis of current and potential noise re-

duction technology. Figure 3-1 shows the range of projected impact area depending

on the application of noise reduction technology to the current commercial aircraft

fleet.  The following significant factors are illustrated by this figure:

    •    Maintaining the current aircraft noise levels would result in an increase in

        impacted area to 187 percent of the 1970 figure by the year 2000, due to

        increases in air traffic.

    •   Retrofit of existing aircraft necessary to ensure compliance with FAR-36

        would result in a significant decrease in impact area in the 1976-1987 time

        period.  This  assumes availability of an effective and economical retrofit

        package.


                                      3-5

-------
3000
                                 5% Projected Annual Growth
                                   in Passenger Enplanements
                                    and Air Freight Tonnage
                                                           New Aircraft Similar to Curren
                                                           Types of Aircraft w/o
                                                           FAR-36 Restriction
                                              Retrofit to FAR-36
                                                (1973 to 1977)
                                                           All New Aircraft After
                                                                  1980
                                                          FAR-36 minus 4EPNdB
                           All New Aircraft After
                                  1985
                         FAR-36 minus 10EPNdB
                   1970
                                   1980
                                                   1990
                                                                  2000
                                                                                  2010
                                          Year
          Figure 3-1.  Noise-Impacted Areas (NEF-30 or Higher) as
                       Function of Jet Engine Noise Reduction Goals
                                     3-6

-------
    •   A reduction in aircraft noise levels corresponding to FAR-36 and assuming




        a further 10-EPNdB noise reduction due to advances in technology would




        result, by the year 2000, in an 83-percent reduction in impact area below




        the 1970 value.



    In summary, significant reductions in the noise impact of commercial aircraft




are technically achievable in spite of projected increases in air traffic.  However,



the ultimate reduction goals can be effected only by a continuing commitment of re-



sources by industry and the federal government to achieve the required advance in



technology. This may well include changes in operational procedures that would cost



little or nothing, provided safety is not compromised.  It may also involve changes




in land use requirements, zoning regulations, and similar restrictions.




V/STOL Aviation



STOL Aircraft




    The anticipated development of large STOL commercial aircraft during the next




decade will create new demands for noise abatement technology.  In addition to oper-




ating out of large commercial airports, these aircraft will operate out of short field




general aviation airports that had not previously created an adverse noise impact on




the surrounding communities.




    New STOL aircraft are expected to be subject to new noise  certification regulations



developed specifically for this type of aircraft. A design objective of 95 EPNdB at 500



feet for STOL aircraft has been tentatively selected. However, no regulatory  limits



have been established to date.




    Design of vehicles and propulsion systems meeting this goal is being approached



by intensive research and development of suitable propulsion and lift concepts  that



may be examined with respect to potential jet noise technology.  Although the STOL



industry can take advantage of noise reduction technology previously discussed in






                                      3-7

-------
terms of commercial jet aviation, it must overcome new problems associated with



its unique propulsion requirements.



VTOL Aircraft (Helicopter)



    The VTOL industry is primarily geared to military helicopter requirements,



which account for approximately 80 percent of the more than 20,000 vehicles produced



prior to January 1970.  The vulnerability to enemy action of military helicopters has



been closely correlated to their excessive noise signature, which allows early detection



and consequent retaliatory enemy reaction.  The industry has therefore been engaged



in research and development programs specifically aimed at reducing helicopter noise.



However, there are no regulations limiting the noise of helicopters for civil use; thus,



there is little motivation for transferring this helicopter noise abatement technology



into the civil sector.  The major sources of helicopter noise that have been,  or  can be,



reduced are summarized in Figure 3-2.



    With the increasing use of helicopters within the urban service system, community



reaction to the noise intrusion will continue to increase.  It  has been demonstrated that



substantial noise suppression can be provided for current helicopter designs  and, there-



fore , it is practical to consider that the helicopter can eventually become compatible



with community usage.  In the long run,  this result can be achieved only by incorpor-



ating adequate noise reduction methodology into vehicles produced for the urban user.



However, application of available noise control technology to currently marketed light



piston-powered helicopters  can be fostered by regulatory action. In addition, consumer



groups (such as large city governments and leagues  of cities) might precipitate the



availability of quieter civil helicopters by exercising their purchasing power. The



potential for future helicopter noise  reduction is summarized in Table 3-2.
                                       3-8

-------
(7) Lower revolutions per second

® More blades

(5) Large blade area

(4) Modified blade tip shapes
(5) Reduced blade interaction

@ Engine inlet suppression

© Engine exhaust muffling

(§) Cabin insulation improvements
             Current Design Approaches to Helicopter Noise Reduction
120
110
100
90
Rn






1
_>
11)

1

| Modified"


—
| Early Model

»
1
*1
1
1
i— |

| Early Model

—
| Later Model
n
|
                      60 kt        120 kt


      *Rotor Blade Modifications

      Demonstrated Noise Reduction of a Heavy-Helicopter
      Twin-Rotor System


    Figure 3-2.  Noise Reduction for Helicopters
                            3-9

-------
                                    Table 3-2
         ESTIMATED NOISE REDUCTION POTENTIAL FOR HELICOPTERS
Time Period
Potential by 1975
Utilizing Available
Production Methods
Potential by 1985
Utilizing Current
Industry Trends
Potential by 1980 to 1985
Utilizing Demonstrated
or Advanced Technology
Noise Reduction, dB*
Heavy
Transport
Helicopters
0
10
10
Light and
Medium
Turbine -Powered
Helicopters
5
15
17
Light Piston -
Powered
Helicopters
10
10
20
    *Noise reduction relative to typical current noise levels in dBA at 1000 feet.

General Aviation Aircraft
    The majority of general aviation aircraft are owned by private individuals and are
used for personal and recreational flying.  Therefore, the general aviation aircraft
industry deals predominantly with a consumer market similar to that for automobiles
or motorcycles.  Consequently, the exploitation of technologies that bear only indi-
rectly on product desirability, such as exterior noise reduction, is relegated to a
secondary level of importance.  However,  the attitude of a vast majority of those
affected by general aviation noise is such that this approach is not considered accept-
able.
    At present, general aviation aircraft are not a major source of community noise,
although internal noise in many types is of importance with respect to hearing damage.
                                      3-10

-------
Approximately one-half of the aircraft operate near hub airports, where their noise




characteristics, except for the executive jets, are masked by the much noisier com-




mercial aircraft.  The remainder of the aircraft are distributed  over more than 11,000




airports within the U.S.   Thus,  the general aviation industry has not, until recently,



considered aircraft noise in terms of the nonparticipant environment.  Furthermore,




there are no noise regulations for the majority of these aircraft, which are below the




75,000-pound minimum gross weight considered by FAR-36.




    The general aviation fleet has grown rapidly during the last 15 years and will con-




tinue to grow at an accelerated rate until at least 1985.  More important, from a noise




standpoint,  is the  growing proportion of larger and more powerful multiengined piston,




turboprop, and turbojet aircraft in the projected fleet.  Because  of this changing mix,




the typical general aviation aircraft could become noisier in the future.  This factor,




in addition to the increase in the number of aircraft operations, will lead to an increas-




ing potential for the production of community noise intrusions.




Noise Reduction Programs



    Reduction of interior cabin noise  levels is presently a much higher priority item




for the general aviation industry than is reducing exterior levels. Some improvement



has been achieved by reducing noise from the  engine and propeller and by increasing



transmission loss  through the cabin walls.  The general aviation industry's plans for




further reduction indicate that interior noise levels of about 75 dBA are possible



within the next 10 years.  Such an  accomplishment would essentially eliminate any



potential hazard of hearing loss and would result in cabin noise levels comparable to




the interior  noise levels  of an average automobile at highway speeds. The general



aviation industry has recently begun to use quieter turbofan  engines for business jet




aircraft instead of the noisier pure turbojets.   This quieter  engine can provide a
                                      3-11

-------
substantial reduction in external noise, with equal or improved aircraft performance.




However, an equivalent noise reduction throughout the business jet fleet is required




to significantly reduce the noise impact of these aircraft.




    Propeller and engine manufacturers have been engaged in the development of quiet




concepts for military and V/STOL commercial applications, and some of the results



have fed back to the general aviation Industry.  For example, current aircraft models




generally have three-blade propellers  rather than the old two-blade propellers, with



a resulting noise reduction of 3 to 5 dBA.  However, in the absence of definite goals




(such as could be established by regulation),  much of the noise reduction technology




will not be systematically applied.




Noise Reduction Potential




    A significant reduction in engine/exhaust noise for propeller aircraft is achievable




with current technology, and a 10-dB reduction of propeller noise is feasible in the




next 5 years.  It appears that a maximum noise level objective in the range of 68 to




73 dBA  at 1000 feet for new general aviation propeller aircraft is achievable in the




1980 time period. Similarly, noise levels of business jet aircraft could be reduced to




nearly these levels if the technology developed for commercial jets were applied to




the smaller business jet engines.



    The achievement of these reduced exterior noise levels in general aviation air-




craft will undoubtedly require regulatory action by the government, since the operator



of this category of transportation cannot be expected to apply pressure on the manu-



facturer.   Similarly, regulation would ensure the achievement of internal noise levels



that are not potentially hazardous to hearing.




Highway Vehicles



    The highway vehicle industry is strongly committed to the development of vehicles




intended for specific segments of the consumer public.  Each vehicle model is





                                      3-12

-------
manufactured with a particular performance goal or overall image in mind.  This



image ranges from a luxury vehicle, wherein a quiet car is desired by the consumer,



to a competition type vehicle that generally exhibits the highest legal noise level.



    In its infancy, the automotive industry found it necessary to equip its engines with



mufflers because the noise of the horseless carriage frightened horses on the road.



Cities and towns began to require mufflers on cars in the 1920's, and the automobile



muffler has improved significantly since then.



    Trucks, utility and maintenance vehicles, and buses are generally manufactured



to individual customer specifications that place major emphasis on performance,



operating economy, and initial cost. Truck noise is often mistakenly associated with



better economy and more power. Thus, there has been little purchaser pressure to



reduce truck noise, although individual cities and towns have begun to demand quieter



maintenance vehicles and buses.  However, in the late 1950's realization of potential



legislation to curtail truck noise led the industry to adopt a voluntary maximum ex-



terior noise level standard.



    The manufacturer's  commitment to noise reduction is twofold:  (1) a program of



research and development to satisfy consumer requirements for a quiet car, for the



passengers, and (2) an attempt to meet existing legislation on exterior noise levels.



This legislation essentially takes the form of a short term noise requirement.  These



commitments are greatly complicated because the vehicle manufacturers face a



number of differing noise laws, measurement standards, and time deadlines through-



out the country for various  noise limits  on highway vehicles.  Because of the time



constraints contained in some of the laws, industry has frequently been required to



exploit the so called "band-aid" type of problem  solution, without having adequate



time to incorporate the new requirements into a  basic redesign.
                                     3-13

-------
    Incorporation of appropriate noise reduction techniques into the design of highway




vehicles proceeds slowly for a number of reasons,  foremost of which is that the manu-




facturers are dealing with production units having a lead time of 3 to 5 years.  Any



refinement going into new vehicles requires modification that must be proven compatible




with all design and production constraints.




    There is potential for the reduction of noise associated with highway transportation




through consideration of noise impact in route selection and by the use in certain in-




stances of various types of noise barriers.  Such barriers can cost from $50, 000




to well over $100, 000 per mile,  depending on type of construction,  and whether or




not they were included in the original highway design.  Similarly, engineering




controls,  such as use of depressed roadways and provision of sound insulation




on buildings adjacent to heavy traffic offer possibilities of minimizing noise impact.




Such measures may be even more effective as source control is applied.




Noise  Reduction Programs




    Passenger Cars.  A great deal of noise reduction is currently incorporated into




the majority of passenger vehicles.   Much of this noise reduction is directed at re-




ducing interior noise levels, and successful efforts often have been rewarded by



increased sales.



    The exterior noise levels of passenger cars, measured under various normal



operating conditions along freeways, city streets,  and rural roads, show that the noise



of the newest vehicles is less than that of older  vehicles.  In statistical studies con-




ducted on highway vehicle noise, the average noise level of vehicles in  the category



"1969 and newer" was found to be approximately 2  to 3 dB less than that of older




vehicles.



    According to testimony given at the San Francisco,  Chicago, and Washington,




D. C. noise hearings, the majority of passenger cars  built in the U.S.  since 1969
                                       3-14

-------
 meet present California noise requirements.  According to industry estimates,




 meeting future California regulations will increase new car prices by approx-




 imately $30 to  $50 per vehicle.




    Trucks. Adequate silencing treatment on new vehicles under maximum noise out-



put conditions provides a substantial overall exhaust noise reduction, yielding overall



 vehicle noise levels in the 85 to 90 dBA range. However, the average heavy diesel




truck will probably run over 500,000 miles in its lifetime. Over this time period,



many of the components will be replaced either due to wear or to modification for



individual operator needs.   Consequently, the noise output of many heavy trucks may




increase significantly from  their original condition, negating noise reduction features



incorporated into the original vehicle,  particularly if muffler and tire replacements




do not provide noise performance equal to that of the original equipment.




    Costs associated with reducing truck noise are difficult to estimate, because of




the variety of noise sources associated with each type of vehicle. Engine components,




such as fans, gears, and transmissions and accessories, as well as the engine itself,




are major noise sources.  One engine manufacturer has estimated that there would be




an increase in cost of $1,500 in the $5,000 base price of a 250 hp diesel engine to




provide a  10 dBA noise reduction.  Several truck manufacturers have estimated that




costs to meet the 1973  California law requirements range from $20 to $125 per vehicle




and to meet later requirements there may be as much as a 15 percent increase in



costs, assuming all technical problems are resolved.  It should be noted that in the



absence of national standards, major manufacturers are  using the California law as



a design basis.



    Buses.  The principal emphasis in noise reduction for buses has been to satisfy



the desire for more passenger comfort.  Little emphasis has been placed on external





                                      3-15

-------
noise, and presently there are no uniform criteria for external noise for buses other



than recommended levels established by the Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE



J366).



    Utility and Maintenance Vehicles.  Utility and maintenance vehicles differ from



other similar highway vehicles only in their usage patterns and functions.  They are



most often operated at low road speeds and at medium to high engine speeds.  There-



fore, these vehicles, particularly the diesel powered units, generally produce high



noise levels, even at low highway speeds.  The engine for such vehicles is normally



muffled, but noise associated with the performance of auxiliary functions is seldom



considered.  One notable exception is the experimental  quiet refuse truck developed



by a major U.S. auto manufacturer for the City of New York.



Noise Reduction Potential



    Figure 3-3 illustrates the present ranges of noise levels for highway vehicles



under both maximum noise conditions and highway cruise conditions.  Also summa-



rized in this figure are noise reduction goals deemed achievable with current tech-



nology in the near future for existing vehicle concepts and long term goals that could



be met as a result of further research and development efforts.  These goals are



based on an extensive analysis of the subsources of vehicle noise and assume continuing



advancement in the applicable noise reduction technology.  For most vehicles,  reduc-



tion of tire noise is the major technical challenge, except for the simple elimination



of exceedingly noisy truck tire retread patterns.  At low speeds,  further reduction



may require a change from the conventional reciprocating engine for propulsive power



to new devices such as gas turbines or electric drive.



Recreation Vehicles



    The annoyance caused by noise from outboard motors was recognized by industry



long before any legislative bodies began to act to control its effect.  Motivated by




                                     3-16

-------
 £ -
 l-s
 33

 c=u
                            II
              KV\I
                                    i

                                    Is
                                    eg m

                                    Jr
     l^0\
              .rvool
                            £_
5
                        ^i
                        W> H
                                                I
                                                X
                                                I
                                  !
                                  s
                                  &
           VSP ~ II 09 )
                     3-17
74-249 O - 72 - 17

-------
public pressure, manufacturers began experimenting in the late 1920's with underwater




exhaust systems to reduce the noise output of outboard motors. Their success in the




late 1940's was one of the factors leading to a dramatic growth in the market for motor-




boats.   The current outboard probably represents the  quietest application of a  two-




stroke engine for its power output on the market today.




    Snowmobiles are relative newcomers on the leisure vehicle scene.  Introduced in



1958 as a low-powered, lightweight utility snow vehicle, the snowmobile has evolved




into a more refined,  high performance,  all-purpose recreation vehicle. The increased




popularity of this vehicle has been accompanied by an  evergrowing number of com-




plaints about its noise.  The primary  source of this noise is a poorly muffled exhaust




system usually resulting from attempts  by the user to gain more engine power by




reducing engine muffling. Newer model snowmobiles  generate lower noise levels than




earlier models, with measured noise  levels of 1971 models generally ranging from 15




to 23 dB below levels of the early models.  This is a significant accomplishment, par-




ticularly since there were no effective snowmobile noise regulations in effect prior to




June 30, 1970.




    Motorcycles also have a  long history in the leisure field.  Due to the design  con-




straints of lightweight construction and maximum power output, motorcycles have



continually produced excessive noise. The average motorcycle rider frequently  asso-




ciates noise with power and generally feels that high noise levels fit the motorcycle



image.  The major manufacturers have  only recently taken steps to try to change



these beliefs.  All  current motorcycles  now intended for highway use are built to com-




ply with California state noise regulations. In addition, most major manufacturers,



under the guidance of the Motorcycle Industry Council, have agreed to place mufflers



on all their off-road motorcycles  to limit their noise output.  The industry is currently




in the process of trying to convince the consumer that noise  does not necessarily mean






                                      3-18

-------
power and that a reduction of the noise problem is necessary to the continuing enjoy-




ment of motorcycling as a widespread recreational activity.




Noise Reduction Programs



     The gross noise reductions of most current recreation vehicles have been accom-




plished through exhaust system treatment.  Engine shielding and isolation have also



been developed to a high degree on outboard motors, and this technology is gradually



being applied to snowmobiles.  Excluding motorcycles and some snowmobiles, the



industry, as a whole, has nearly reached the stage in which exhaust treatment has



been fully exploited, leaving further reduction efforts to be aimed toward intake




silencing and engine noise itself.  For motorcycles, most  of the current noise reduc-



tion has  been achieved on the engine exhaust; however,  design constraints on pack-




aging exhaust systems of sufficient size have yet to be overcome. Further research




is required in this area.



Potential Noise Reduction



     The current range of noise levels and the future noise reduction goals for recre-




ation vehicles  are summarized in Figure 3-4.  Short term goals are considered




achievable with current technology.  The feasibility of long terra goals is based on an




analysis  of contributing noise sources and the continuing advancement of the applica-




ble noise reduction technology.




     For  pleasure boats, motorcycles, and snowmobiles, the exhaust is the principal



noise source.   The lightweight  design of motorcycles and snowmobiles frequently  does



not allow for adequate exhaust treatment or intake silencer placement, and further




development of exhaust mufflers will be necessary to achieve a substantial decrease



beyond the best muffler technology currently available.   The practice of deliberately



disabling or completely removing exhaust mufflers  must, of course, be totally dis-



couraged.






                                      3-19

-------








E
aS
?fc
-So?

\//\



i _
s s
II

|S>v|



o
I I
£ -o
d£

1 1






P7Z7I2
fo\\\V\\vf s
1 Q.
_,,! o

kvc\\x\\\\; | a
I, 	 „.„ <~^ m

F57773 s
K\\\X\Vtf 2
1 1 &
F77ZI -£
1X\\1 S S
1. , ._„ 	 1 n !J


'//» 2
K\X\\\\: =
i i §
F7771 s£
K\\\VT 1 s
1 "V A%


'///] s
K>^^N\s |
l^., . i ,_J n
Y////A > ^
KsXVsSXV\\N s S
1 0 S

F3^ raj
1 	 	 | (-)

1 ' g -
11. 11
J

•S
CO
5
"*"

1
j
a.
£
S
A
*

O


B
Tf
c
^
a
<3


«
|
(N
1
S











J3
S
00
£
S
£





1






£
5
0
2








*
5

                                                                I
                                                                 o
                                                                •a
                                                                a
                                                                I
                                                                 o
                                                                 a
8          8


   V8P - I3A3T i
                 3-20

-------
     For boats, a reduction in the transmission of noise through engine enclosures for




inboard engines can be accomplished by application of the advanced state of acoustic




enclosure design.  Outboard engines  pose a more difficult problem due to design con-




straints that employ high power-to-weight ratios.



     Substantial reduction in engine noise for recreation vehicles beyond that available




with current technology must result from internal engine redesign programs and



modification to the intake and exhaust systems.  Effort should also be made to reduce



noise exposure levels for the vehicle operator and passenger.




Rail Systems



     The incorporation of noise limiting requirements in the specifications for new




rail  vehicles has only recently  caused industry to initiate noise abatement programs.




Therefore, the majority of vehicles in operation today have not been affected  by




such programs.




    The development of specifications for  rapid transit vehicles is complicated by




the division of responsibilities  between the cognizant transit authority and the manu-



facturer.  For example, a typical present-day specification does not include the noise




produced by the wheel/rail interaction, which in most cases is the major contribution



to the overall noise level, nor does it take into account the effect of noise reverber-



ation in tunnels upon the  interior noise levels  in the vehicles.  This means that the



transit authority and the  manufacturer may be required to pursue  separate noise



reduction programs to solve a common problem.



Noise Reduction Programs



    Railroads.  The impact of wheels on the joints of sectional rails  can be reduced



5 dB or greater by the use of continuous welded rail.   For intercity passenger sys-



tems , sectional tracks are frequently replaced by welded rails when the older rails
                                      3-21

-------
wear out. Other techniques for reducing wheel/rail noise have included grinding the



rails to eliminate surface irregularities and lubricating the wheels.




    Noise abatement programs conducted by the railroad industry have concentrated




mainly on the modern, high speed, intercity trains such as the Metroliner and the




TurboTrain.  The noise levels in these multiple-unit trains have been kept fairly low




by carefully considering noise control details in the design.  Due to their more sub-




stantial body structure and because they normally travel at lower speeds, locomotive -




hauled passenger cars have similar or lower noise levels.




    A small number of programs concerned with wayside noise from railroad equip-




ment are in progress. These programs are concerned with the noise from diesel-




electric locomotives.  The introduction of more electric locomotives would reduce




the noise impact from the propulsion system and would eliminate the typical pulsating




sound of the diesel-electric to which many people object.




    Noise control has generally not been a consideration,  other than in the interior




of the cab, in diesel-electric locomotives.  The exhaust system has no muffler, and




since this is the major source of noise, it is possible that mufflers  could be designed




to reduce the overall sound level.  In addition,  more substantial or  modified casing




around the diesel engine, together with the acoustically absorbent material, may be




effective in reducing the noise from this source.



    Rail Transit Systems.  A number of noise abatement programs have been con-




ducted by both equipment manufacturers and transit authorities. The work that has



been done to date in connection with rail transit systems has  shown that considerable




noise reduction can be achieved with current technology. Some systems are noisy



because of poor wheel and rail maintenance, lack of air-conditioning equipment in




cars, and lack of acoustic absorption in the subways. Nearly all new cars are now




air conditioned, allowing the windows to be permanently sealed, resulting in a 10-dBA






                                     3-22

-------
reduction from the 90 to 93 dBA levels that exist in the noisier vehicles. It has also




been shown in the Toronto system that a further reduction can be attained by the use




of absorptive material on tunnel walls, and by proper attention to acoustics in the




design of stations.



    The most significant reduction in exterior and interior noise  levels can be made




in existing systems by careful maintenance of the wheels and rails.   A  summary




of the noise reduction that is possible using current technology from related indus-



tries is shown in Table 3-3.



Noise  Reduction Potential



    The railroad and transit authorities, together with the manufacturers of rail




equipment, are becoming increasingly aware of the noise problems associated with



rail  systems  and are planning a number  of  programs for noise  reduction. In




most cases, however, the programs  are not defined in terms of final objectives,




but more to determine what reductions can be achieved using current technology.




The following programs are among those planned.



    Railroads




    •   A  study of the noise characteristics of diesel-electric  locomotives with a




        view toward eventual noise reduction.




    •   An improved suspension system for the TurboTrain that, it is estimated,




        may reduce interior noise levels from 74 dBA to 60 or 65  dBA.  Due to the



        noise from the air-conditioning system, the noise reduction obtained may




        be less than this.  The final levels may be in the range of  60 to 70 dBA,




        depending on the position in  the car, unless the air-conditioning equipment



        noise is reduced.



    •   The replacement of old track by welded track.  Only about 3000 miles of



        track per year are renewed  in this manner.





                                     3-23

-------
                              Table 3-3

   SUMMARY OF THE NOISE REDUCTION POTENTIAL BY APPLYING
      CURRENT TECHNOLOGY TO EXISTING TRANSIT VEHICLES
Existing Condition
Standard track, not
regularly maintained
Concrete trackbed
Bare concrete tunnel
surfaces
Bare concrete station
surfaces
Old type vehicles
using open windows
or vents for ventila-
tion
Standard doors and
body
Standard steel
wheels
Standard type
vehicles

Standard, noisy pro-
pulsion unit
Modified Condition
Welded track, ground
Ballast trackbed
Strips of absorbent
material at wheel height
Limited absorbent
material on wall sur-
faces and under plat-
form overhang
New type cars with
air conditioning
Improved door seals ,
body gasket holes
plugged, et cetera
Steel wheels with con-
strained damping
Layer
Installation of a 4 ft.
barrier alongside
track
Installation of a skirt
on side of vehicles
Modified unit with
skewed armature slots,
random blower fan
blade spacing, acous-
ti cally treated fan ducts
Estimated Noise
Reduction, dBA
Car
Interior
5-15
0-5
5-10
-
10-15
0-5
5-15
-
-
0-5
Car
Exterior
5-15
0
-
5-10
-
-
5-15
10-15
6
5
Note:    The values of noise reduction are estimated for the particular source
        alone, assuming no contributions from other sources. The values
        therefore cannot be added to obtain an overall noise reduction.
                                3-24

-------
      Rail Transit Systems




      •   The application of spray-on acoustic absorption material on the ceilings and




          under the platform edges, together with noise barriers between tracks at a



          New York subway station.



     •   The replacement of old transit cars with more modern types incorporating




         air-conditioning, door and window seals, rubber suspension mounts, and vi-



         bration damping materials on the body.




     •   The replacement of old track with welded track in many transit systems.



     •   A study to determine whether improved sound insulation of transit cars can




         be achieved without increasing the mass of the car body.



     •   Design of an integrated heat transfer system for air conditioning equipment



         that uses cooling coils or fans that are operated while the train is out of the




         station area.



 Future Changes  in the Noise Environment




     The current trend of the transportation  industry relative to noise abatement has



been outlined, and independent estimates have been presented for the noise reduction




potential for each category. The net effect of this current trend, and of the changes




that would result if the noise reduction potentials by source control were achieved, is




reviewed in this discussion.




    As a basis for projecting noise impact to the year 2000, a conservative model was




chosen for growth of the existing transportation system. Major assumptions for the




model included:



    1.  Conservative population growth of 1.15 percent per year from 1970 to




        1985 and 1.05 percent thereafter.
                                      3-25

-------
    2.  Conservative estimates for numbers of highway and transit vehicles, with



        growth rates approaching urban population growth rates by the year 2000.



    3.  Conservative estimates for growth in total freeway miles and freeway



        traffic.



    The change in noise levels generated by transportation system categories has been



estimated for three possible options for future source noise reduction:



    Option 1—No change in source noise levels after 1970 (baseline).



    Option 2—Estimated noise reduction achieved with current industry trends by the



year 1985 with no further reductions thereafter. This assumes no new noise control



regulations by local, state, or Federal agencies or any change in consumer demand for



quieter vehicles.  Historically, these factors have provided the principal motivation for



industry action to reduce noise.



    Option 3—Projected noise reduction is achieved by implementation of an incremen-



tal regulatory program for a specified amount of noise reduction by the years 1975,



1980, and 1985.  The examples of potential noise reduction utilized for Option 3 are



summarized in Table 3-4 for the major transportation categories.



Change in Noise Energy Output



    The approximate total A-weighted noise energy expended per day by the year 2000



for all units of a given transportation category, except aircraft,  has been estimated



for each of the three options.  The results are summarized in Table 3-5.  The esti-



mated  value for 1970, given in Chapter 2, is listed in the first column for reference.



The second column, based on Option 1 (no noise reduction), shows the increase in



noise energy per day due solely to the estimated increase  in number and usage of



sources.  The third and fourth columns show the estimated trend in noise energy by



the year 2000 for Option 2 (current industry trends) or Option 3 (possible noise regu-



lation) .






                                     3-26

-------
                             Table 3-4

 EXAMPLES OF POSSIBLE NOISE REDUCTION GOALS FOR EXTERNALLY
    RADIATED NOISE FOR TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM CATEGORIES
Source
HIGHWAY VEHICLE1
Diesel Trucks
Utility Trucks
Light Trucks and Pickups
Highway Buses
City and School Buses
Standard Passenger Cars
Sport, Compact and Import Cars
Motorcycles (Highway)
AIRCRAFT
2
Commercial Aircraft
(with turbofan engines)
0
General Aviation Prop Aircraft
Heavy Transport Helicopters3
Light Turbine -Powered Helicopters3
Light Piston-Powered Helicopters3
RAILWAY1
Locomotives
Existing Rapid Transit
RECREATIONAL VEHICLES1
Snowmobiles
Off-Road Motorcycles and Minicycles
Outboard Motor Boats
Inboard Motor Boats
Effective Date
1975

3
3
2
3
2
2
6
2

4
0
0
5
10

0
5

10
2
2
5
1980

8
8
5
8
5
4
8
7

7
5
5
12
15

5
10

12
7
4
6
1985

10
10
8
10
8
5
9
10

10
10
10
17
20

8
13

14
10
6
7
 Relative reduction in average noise levels in dBA at 50 feet.

2Relative reduction in EPNdB at FAR-36 Measurement Position for Takeoff.

3Relative reduction in EPNdB at 1000 feet  fromaircraft during takeoff.
                              3-27

-------
                             Table 3-5

ESTIMATED FUTURE CHANGE IN NOISE ENERGY FOR TRANSPORTATION
  SYSTEM CATEGORIES WITH THREE OPTIONS FOR NOISE REDUCTION
Source
HIGHWAY VEHICLES
Medium and Heavy Trucks
Sports Cars , Import and
Compacts
Passenger Cars (standard)
Light Trucks and Pickups
Motorcycles
City and School Buses
Highway Buses
RECREATION VEHICLES
Motorcycles
Snowmobiles
Outboard Motorboats
Inboard Motorboats
RAIL VEHICLES
Locomotives
Existing R/T Systems
Noise Energy in Kilowatt-Hours/Day
1970

5,000
1,000
800
500
250
20
12

800
120
100
40

1,200
6

1

10,000
2,500
1,200
1,000
800
20
12

2,500
400
160
63

1,200
10
2000
2

4,000
1,600
800
400
320
a
5

NA
NA
NA
NA

1,200
6.3

3

800
250
400
160
80
3
1.2

250
16
40
12

200
0.5
NA-Not available.

*Option 1—No noise reduction.
       2—Estimate industry trend in noise reduction.
       3—Example of possible incremental program of noise regulation.
                               3-28

-------
     Under Option 3, the noise energy by the year 2000 for all categories is always

less than 1970 values.  The reduction for Option 2, relative to Option 1, by the year

2000 reflects the current effort by the various industries to produce a quieter product,

while the additional reduction indicated for Option 3 shows the significant additional

benefit that could be obtained through noise regulation.

     These values of noise energy provide a rough indication of changes in the relative

magnitude of potential noise impact of transportation vehicles.  By the year 2000, the

noise energy value in Table 3-5 indicates a twofold increase from 1970 if no further

action were taken to reduce noise. Assuming that current industry trends continue,

little significant change in noise energy is indicated by the year 2000. However, by

implementing positive regulatory program, a reduction in noise energy of nearly 4.5-

to-1 over 1970 is indicated for Option 3.

     Aircraft have been omitted from Table 3-5 since the overall noise impact of air-

craft is more readily evaluated in terms of land area within a given Noise Exposure

Forecast (NEF)  contour or  Community  Noise  Equivalent Level  (CNEL)

contour.  This information is provided in Table  3-6.

Change in Residual Noise Level

     The same model for residual noise levels utilized in Chapter 2 for 1970 has been

applied to forecast trends for 1985 and 2000 as a function of the noise reduction op-

tions for only highway vehicles.  The result of this projection,  including the estimated

residual levels for 1950 and 1960, is shown in Figure 3-5.  The trend for Option 1 is

clearly an upper bound and indicates an additional growth of about 2.5 dB in the re-

sidual  level by the year 2000, due solely to the increase  in noise sources. The lowest

line  for Option 3 represents the cumulative effect of achieving the three-step noise

reduction values summarized in Table 3-5 and shows the net reduction in residual

noise level to be 5 dB relative to today, or about 7 dB below the "no action" Option 1

trend for the year 2000.
                                     3-29

-------
                                   Table 3-6

SUMMARY OF ESTIMATED NOISE IMPACTED LAND (WITHIN CNEL 65 CONTOUR)
        NEAR AIRPORTS AND FREEWAYS FROM 1955 TO THE YEAR 2000
            WITH FUTURE ESTIMATES BASED ON OPTIONS 3 AND 2

1955
1960
1965
1970
1985
2000
Impacted Land Area— Square Miles
Near Airports
~20
200
760
1450
780 (870)*
240 (1230)
Near Freeways
8
75
285
545
400 (1470)*
0 (2050)
Total
28
275
1045
1995
1180 (2340)*
240 (3260)
    *Number in parentheses is the estimated impact area if no further
     regulatory action is taken (Option 2).  It assumes FAR-36 remains
     in force for aircraft, no new limits established for highway vehicle
     noise, and no change in existing freeway design concepts to increase
     noise reduction. Numbers outside of parentheses assume FAR-36
     minus 10 EPNdB for aircraft and additional combined noise reduction
     for freeways and highway vehicles  of 3 dBA by 1985 and 5 dBA by the
     year 2000.
Change in Impacted Areas Near Freeways and Airports

    Noise impact for land adjacent to freeways and airports was summarized in

Chapter 2 for 1970 conditions.  To indicate past and future trends, the total affected

land area near freeways and airports has been estimated from 1955 to the year 2000.

The resulting values, given in Table 3-6, represent the incompatible land area lying

within a CNEL of 65. As defined in Chapter 1, this is equivalent to an NEF value of 30.

    Estimates of noise impacted land areas are given for 1985 and the year 2000 for

both Option 2 (values in parentheses) and Option 3, for which a marked reduction in
                                    3-30

-------
   50
   48
~  46
   44
.


<
   42
   40
                         Option 1

                    (No Noise Reduction)"
                        Option 3

               Effect of Regulatory Limits Set in

                   1975, 1980 and 1985
  Dates of
 Introduction
  of Limits
  Option 3



rn
     1950
               1960
                          1970
                                    1980
                                               1990
                                                         2000
   Figure 3-5. Estimated Long Term Trend in Daytime Residual Noise

             Levels in a Typical Residential Urban Community
                          3-31

-------
impact is achieved.  For Option 3, the estimated noise impacted land near airports



is reduced by 83 percent from the 1970 value, assuming an annual fleet growth of 3



percent and no significant change in day-night operations mix or the ratio of freight



to passenger aircraft operations:. Based on a CNEL 65 boundary, noise impacted



land near freeways is reduced to zero by the year 2000, assuming a net noise  reduc-



tion in vehicle and freeway noise of about 5 dB below today's values.



    The total noise impacted laud by the year 2000 varies by a factor of over 13, de-



pending on the choice of Option 2 (no further change beyond today's industry trends)



or Option 3 (noise regulation).  The striking effect of the decrease in noise impacted



land near freeways due to a small (5 dBA) decrease in freeway noise is clear.



    It is particularly important to note that the imposition of noise limits on aircraft



by FAR-36 is resulting in at least a "holding action" regarding airport noise.  How-



ever, without national policy concerning highway vehicles, the potential growth in



noise impact near freeways is great.



    Estimates have been made of the relative cost-effectiveness of alternate methods



of reducing the noise impacted land. For airports having noise problems reduction



of noise at the source (i.e., quieter engines) is clearly more cost-effective than



reducing noise impact by land acquisition.  For airports without noise problems, fu-



ture problems should be prevented by complementary airport and land use planning.



For future airports,  environmental limits should be adopted in the planning stage for



use in site selection and for assuring compatible uses of adjacent land.



    For freeways, designs to increase barrier noise reduction is more cost-effective



than land acquisition. Vehicle noise reduction is one potential means for  reducing



freeway noise and also provides benefits for the total urban population.  Thus, a
                                      3-32

-------
balanced approach for reducing highway transportation noise should emphasize vehicle



noise reduction, improved freeway design, and community planning for compatible land



uses.



    However, the most effective noise prevention measures will be identified and im-



plemented only by the use of balanced multimodal transportation systems, designed to



move people and cargo economically, while minimizing total environmental impact of



the transportation process.  This transport planning process must be accompanied by



planning and implementation of land use designs and building regulations which will



prevent future noise problems and gradually resolve existing ones.
                                     3-33
  74-249 O - 72 - 18

-------
DEVICES POWERED BY INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES



    Historically, noise abatement has not been a primary consideration of manufac-



turers of small internal combustion engines, although unmuffled equipment has not



been produced for many years because of buyer resistance to excessively noisy



products. Public tolerance, combined with some noise control, has produced a com-



promise situation between the consumers and the manufacturers.



    Noise reduction achieved by the engine manufacturers has resulted in reasonably



quiet engines that make somewhat less noise than the equipment they are designed to



power.  Equipment manufacturers, however, are not completely convinced of this



condition and tend to attribute noise to the engine.  This is particularly characteristic



of the small equipment manufacturer who purchases the engine from an outside source



and has no involvement with engine design.  In this category are large numbers of



lawn care equipment units constructed of pressed sheet metal in production shops



around the country.



    Many manufacturers of equipment powered by internal combustion engines feel



that they are being placed in the difficult position of being required to meet several



divergent noise ordinances. Such laws are being established by individual cities



and towns and are related to local economic and social conditions.



Noise Reduction Programs



    The extent of noise reduction within the industries supplying small internal com-



bustion engines has been directly related to its effect on sales and the existence of



noise  ordinances.  With the exception of the small generator industry, buyer insis-



tence  on quiet equipment has not been sufficient to produce significant noise reduc-



tion efforts.  Consequently, noise abatement programs  have not been consistent.  For



instance, one manufacturer has demonstrated that a small generator, using a 3-



horsepower engine with a vertical shaft within a complete enclosure,  may be quieted





                                     3-34

-------
to 70 decibels at an operator position of 6 feet from the engine.  If this same treatment




were applied to a lawn mower, it would achieve an improvement of approximately 20




dBA over current production models and would make the  engine inaudible in the presence




of a rotating blade.  However, no serious plans exist for production of such a mower



because of the high cost of the noise reduction treatment  and the resulting small market



potential, as estimated by the manufacturer.




     Chain saw manufacturers recognize the existence of  a serious noise problem re-



garding their equipment.  The high power-to-weight ratio necessary in a hand-carried




device requires  a lightweight structure that is incapable of containing most of its own



noise.  Further, the noise  produced by the chain is on the order of 100 dBA at the




operator position,  and reduction of the engine noise below this level would not reduce




total output.  Some experimental work is being done to reduce the noise of the chain,




but costs rapidly become prohibitive when exotic materials are used to damp the




response of the blade to the chain.  Considerable engineering work has been expended




to make chain saw mufflers more efficient within weight and size limitations, and




some success has been demonstrated.  Sound levels have been reduced to as low as




102 dBA by some special mechanical devices, with power losses of no more than 10



to 12 percent.




    Noise control within the industry served by small internal combustion engines




will continue to be  affected by various local laws and ordinances. However, there



will always be difficulty in  encouraging noise abatement until public education advances



to the point at which the charisma of noise is gone.  When each person is convinced




that his contribution to noise reduction is meaningful, he  will then go to the manufac-



turer of the quietest machine and pay the extra money required and will take pride



in his accomplishment. When this happens, as it has in the  small generator field,



manufacturers will probably respond accordingly.  Interviews have shown that most






                                     3-35

-------
manufacturers can respond but at present have found little market for quiet products

when the public is asked to pay the price.

Potential Noise Reduction

    The combined effort by the public in demanding quieter products powered by intern-

al combustion engines, and successful response to this demand by the manufacturers,

should provide a substantial decrease in annoyance from this equipment.  The estimated

potential noise reduction that might be expected for these devices is summarized in

Table 3-7.  The noise reduction values are relative to current noise levels and are

specified in terms of potential reductions achievable by the 1975, 1980, and 1985 time

periods.

    Full accomplishment of these noise reductions would largely eliminate annoyance

problems  associated with use of  lawn care equipment.  However, the noise reduction

potential for chain saws, using existing technology, is not sufficient to eliminate their

annoyance characteristics or hearing damage risk for their operators. Further noise

reduction research is necessary.

                                   Table 3-7

           ESTIMATED NOISE .REDUCTION POTENTIAL FOR DEVICES
                POWERED BY  INTERNAL COMBUSTION ENGINES
Source
Lawn Care Equipment
Chain Saws
Generator Sets
Noise Reduction, dB*
1975
10
2
5
1980
13
2
7
1985
15
5
17
    *Noise reduction relative to typical current noise levels at 50 feet.
                                     3-36

-------
 NOISE REDUCTION FOR INDUSTRIAL PLANTS




    Industrial noise is a local problem, with each plant possessing individual intrusive




 characteristics.  The plant location, community residual noise levels, and other noise




 sources such as major highways, airports,  and construction activities contribute to




 the community noise environment.  It appears that noise from construction, surface




 transportation, and aircraft generally contribute more to community annoyance, than




 do industrial plants.  The contribution of industrial plant noise to the community re-




 sidual levels may increase when the noise from the other sources is reduced.  It is




 anticipated that, in general, industrial plant noise reaching the community will not




 increase in the near future but may, in fact, decrease, as noise abatement efforts



 required by the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 become effective.  However,



 it should be pointed out  that at specific locations where interior plant noise is reduced




 by simply locating the noise sources outdoors,  without adequate noise control measures,



 the impact upon the nearby community may  increase.



 Motivation




    There are a number of  significant factors that motivate industrial plant manage-




 ment to institute community noise reduction programs.   The primary motivation is



 the desire to be good neighbors and to maintain good community relations. Through




 discussions with industrial plant management, it was found that the large national




 corporations are usually particularly sensitive  to public opinion. Funds and personnel




are usually made available to reduce noise that generates community  complaints.



 Often,  plant management anticipates community reaction.




    The site selection and industrial plant design processes, together with the local




government control of industrial zoning, provide the motivation and the early oppor-



tunity for noise abatement.  During this early phase of industrial plant development,



the most economical application of noise reduction techniques can be made.  Local





                                      3-37

-------
municipal pressures in the form of noise nuisance ordinances and, more recently,




realistic zoning regulations have produced legal pressures to prevent plant noise.



    An additional motivation to reduce plant noise, alluded to earlier, is the Occupa-




tional Safety and Health Act of 1970.  This act forms the legal basis for  the initiation




of in-plant noise reduction programs.  That these in-plant noise sources may be suffi-




ciently high not only to be hazardous to employee hearing but, in addition, to contribute




to the total industrial plant exterior noise picture, can be seen in  Table  2-12.




    Consumer pressures, which exist for other sources, are not  a motivating factor




for plant noise reduction.  The purchaser is interested in the product and not in the




manufacturing process.




Method of Approach




    The potential for reducing interior and exterior noise of industrial plants is,  in




general, excellent.  The engineering and architectural techniques  for reducing this




noise along its transmission paths are known.  However, reducing the noise at its




source may be difficult and expensive (particularly if not included in the original




design of the equipment) and often results in the degradation of performance of the




equipment,  machine, or process.




    For new plants, application of noise abatement techniques during site selection



and plant design, together with realistic noise level requirements for new equipment



being purchased, provide an economical and effective means for achieving noise level



goals.  Many  companies are currently developing purchase specifications  that  con-



tain noise level requirements.  An example of this is the parent corporation of the




automobile assembly plant discussed in Chapter 2.  This corporation,  one of the




"big three" automobile manufacturers, requires suppliers to perform noise studies




at the  manufacturer's location under simulated production conditions prior to ship-




ment,  to assure compliance with company standards.





                                      3-38

-------
     An existing plant must achieve noise reduction goals by application of noise reduc-




tion techniques to the acoustical transmission path, since it generally proves to be




difficult and expensive to reduce the noise at the source.  Noise of ventilation and




blower systems that terminates outside a building  may be reduced by application of



mufflers, acoustical louvres, or simple barriers. Often, relocation of the intake or




exhaust, to take advantage of noise directivity,  solves the problem.  Furnace noise




evident at power plants and oil refineries has been reduced by redesigned burners,



combined with mufflers at the inlet to the fire box.




     Noise inside plants can be, and has been in many instances, effectively reduced




by application of mufflers, vibration isolation, acoustical area treatment, or enclo-



sures.  A systems approach must be utilized to ensure that all the major noise




sources are treated.  If one noise source in a group of sources is left untreated,




the results of the noise reduction program may  prove to be insignificant.



Future Commitment




     The case studies discussed in Chapter  2, though representing only a small portion




of the total industrial activity in the country, illustrate the range of industrial involve-




ment associated with noise reduction programs.




Projected Impact of Plant Noise



     It is anticipated that the noise levels due to industrial plants will not increase in



level or importance relative to the noise from construction activity,  surface transpor-



tation, or aircraft. As in-plant noise abatement efforts motivated by the Occupation



Safety and Health Act of 1970 succeed and local  nuisance laws and zoning ordinances




are adopted, noise  levels will be reduced.



     As  noise abatement efforts successfully reduce the levels  of transportation and




construction activity noise, plant noise will become more important as a source of




community annoyance.  When this occurs, community pressures for  noise abatement





                                      3-39

-------
can be expected, and the necessary abatement programs may be expected to result



in resolution at a local level.
                                     3-40

-------
CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY EFFORTS*

     The construction industry consists of two major sectors: equipment manufactur-

ing and equipment operation (i.e., building construction).  The functions of these two

sectors of the industry are so different as to warrant separate discussion.

Equipment Operation

     This sector of the construction inudstry is described in detail in Chapter 2, iden-

tifying types and phases of site activity and describing the areas in which noise abate-

ment can be achieved. The construction industry has, until recently, been relatively

uninvolved in efforts to quiet site operations.  Its attitude may be attributed in part to

the fact that quiet equipment has not yet been made generally available on a cost-effec-

tive basis; however, a limited capability does exist for quieting a site by relocating

or rescheduling equipment. This sector has not exercised its influence as a consumer

to bring pressure to bear on the equipment manufacturers, nor has it responded to

public complaints.   Thus, regulatory measures may be the only solution to the problem

of construction site noise, and such regulations are imminent.

Equipment Manufacturers

     There are approximately 2000 manufacturers** of construction equipment in the

U.S. In total, these companies offer about  200 different products.  For the purposes

of assessing the state of noise control in this sector of the construction industry, 48

general types of products  that are potentially significant noise sources were cate-

gorized. These product types may be grouped into three orders of classification:

(1) class of noise problem anticipated, (2) relation of  equipment to function at the
*   See transcripts of EPA hearings held in Atlanta, San Francisco, and Washington,
    D. C.
**  Defined by counting separately certain divisions of larger firms that have a high-
    ly identifiable product line.
                                      3-41

-------
site, and (3) specific equipment names.  Manufacturers of construction equipment can



be classified according to size/type of equipment produced as



    •   Large companies producing large volumes of essentially similar, large items



        of machinery.



    •   Medium-sized companies maintaining customized production runs of more



        limited numbers,  usually of smaller machinery.



    •   Manufacturers of power hand tools and pneumatic equipment.



    An overview of the equipment manufacturing industry showed that



    1.  Large companies employ methods closely resembling the Detroit assembly



        line manufacturing concept.  They tend to have large engineering staffs and



        are advanced in their efforts toward developing quieter products. They are



        aware of the competitive advantage of quieting equipment but are also sensi-



        tive to price competition from smaller companies and  foreign manufacturers.



    2.  Medium-size companies producing customized items tend to feel more



        keenly the competitive  pressures of the market place.  Competition comes



        not only from domestic and foreign companies but also from manufacturers



        of other types of equipment that can perform the same operation. Engineer-



        ing staffs tend to be small and product oriented, interested only in improve-



        ments that incorporate new technology (e.g., hydraulic vs mechanical



        drive).  Little effort has been  made toward quieting products.  The pressures



        of current and planned noise control legislation being passed on to suppliers



        of their components.  They generally have no plans or see no need for fur-



        ther developing noise control technology.



    3.  Manufacturers of hand power tools and pneumatic equipment fall into two



        categories:  large multiproduct companies that tend to mount considerable



        R&D efforts and smaller companies that are not so innovative but that





                                     3-42

-------
        follow trends developed by the larger companies.  Noise control has been

        pursued vigorously by these larger companies as part of their product

        improvement programs, but effective quieting of hand tools is difficult be-

        cause of such practical constraints as size and weight.

    In-depth interviews and testimony given at various EPA hearings revealed that

in the past the  industry's concern with noise problems has been directed primarily

to protection of the equipment operator.  The impetus for noise control concern

came also from noise codes imposed by foreign countries, where some U.S. equip-

ment has had to be reworked by foreign distributors.  Three of eight large equipment

companies  queried during this report effort had previously quieted equipment to enter

European markets. Switzerland and Belgium specify noise emission limits for such

machinery; in addition,  foreign manufacturers make quieter machines and set a

competitive pace in foreign markets.  American manufacturers seem to have met

this competition by custom-designing equipment for export.  There is an implication

here, of course,  that many American machines marketed abroad have been quieter

than counterparts marketed domestically; however, this implication has not been

adequately investigated.

    Half the companies queried are currently undertaking their initial programs to

quiet their products for the domestic market.  Many of the present programs have

been started this past year and are aimed primarily at protecting operators, so as

to conform to impending legislation/regulation regarding  occupational health and

safety.* Only one of the companies indicated that purchasers complain about pro-

tection for operators on their own initiative, and only one case emerged in which a
    Extensive testimony as to industry plans and current efforts in this regard was
    received at the EPA hearings held in Atlanta, Dallas, Chicago,  Denver and
    Washington, D. C.


                                     3-43

-------
union had lodged a formal complaint.  Six of the eight large companies described

pressures on behalf of operators that originated with existing or proposed governmen-

tal action.

    Many manufacturers feel that the efforts they are now making on behalf of equip-

ment  operators will pay off in meeting future noise limits designed to  protect the

public.  One of the manufacturers of large equipment has charged design teams with

the responsibility of integrating noise control into the overall design of the next gen-

eration of products and has set up review boards to evaluate new designs from all

standpoints, including noise.

    Four of the eight large companies are specifically influenced by the recently

enacted Chicago noise ordinance as a contributor to their future objectives. The in-

dustry generally anticipates EPA-administered federal control; the  visits of inter-

viewers reinforced this feeling. The management of two companies believes that

pressures for quieting will increase with time—apparently as a result of an increas-

ing public awareness of noise as an environmental pollutant.

    Although the industry has become increasingly aware of the pressures for noise

control and has already made some efforts in this area, manufacturers must cope

with economic pressures that argue against noise abatement.*  For some companies,

intensity of competition sets the limits on what price the market will bear. One of

the industry's leaders was concerned that purchasers will continue using old equipment

if prices rise significantly.  Other industry leaders point out that foreign-made

machines (some of them already quieted) will enter the American market if prices rise

appreciably.  One company predicted that a small rise in the price of  truck-mounted
    The following comments relative to economic aspects of noise control are in the
    main as applicable to other sources of noise as to the specific case of construc-
    tion equipment.
                                      3-44

-------
concrete mixers would lead to the introduction of alternative methods for concrete


delivery and production.


    Companies who feel that the demand for their products is great enough to plan to


pass quieting costs onto the consumer, although such threats as foreign competition


and alternative methods, put limits on this process. The question involved is how fast


the industry can afford to move.  One limit on rapid movement is price competition.


One company may be able to beat its competitors to the market with a quiet machine


but may believe that it cannot raise prices substantially in the face of competition.


Companies approach this problem differently.  Most express the intention to  meet or


exceed the competition, but they feel that any great competitive advantage gained

                                                f
through an all-out effort to quiet their products would be short lived.  One company


sees its competition as being extremely severe and fears that it may not be prepared


for the next round of quieting, while another company has actively launched a program


designed to produce quieter machines at lower costs than the competitor will incur.


    There is also the concern that often accompanies any industry leadership; i.e.,


a company may invest large sums to quiet equipment thus increasing the cost of


products,  while another company that refuses to quiet products may keep its prices


low and may try to challenge noise regulation in the courts.


    While all companies regard cost as an immediate—and perhaps the ultimate—con-


straint, two other constraints become paramount if, and as, costs diminish:  time


and technology.  Three companies,  each  in a different fashion, reported that costs


can be traded for development time; i.e., more time for development would reduce


the cost of competition, allowing quieting techniques to be integrated into planned


engineering efforts and to be an integral part of the  seasonal progression of models.


The very company that is setting out to achieve the most quieting for the least cost


is the one  that feels that technology will eventually supercede cost as the principal



                                      3-45

-------
factor limiting quieter equipment. At another firm, the technical limitations were



spelled out in terms of:



    1.  Loss  of equipment power through increased muffling.



    2.  Increase in the difficulties and cost of maintenance.



    3.  Fire hazards through using insulating materials that can become oil-soaked.



    4.  Unsafe operation by suppressing or distorting the noise signals upon which



        operators depend for safety.



    5.  Ineffective operation, by disturbing these same signals, thus hindering the



        ability of the operator to tell how effectively he is operating.*



    The industry also voiced concern over the feasibility of noise abatement where



equipment and materials being interact to become prominent sources of noise; e.g.,



concrete mixers (where the structure may be the noise radiator); jack hammers



(where the tool and its driving media may be the offender); riveters (where the struc-



ture of the building may be the primary source); and pile drivers (where both the



structure and the media may be significant sources). This interaction-type noise



source may be difficult to quiet.



    No firm visited condemned noise limits out-of-hand,  nor did they deny their



inevitability.  The management of six of the eight companies expressed the opinion



that unless they quieted their products, their markets would disappear.  Feelings



varied from acceptance of the inevitable to enthusiastic approval of the trend.



    Regulatory bodies outside the construction industry have begun to exercise some



influence in the area of noise abatement.  Within the industry, the Construction In-



dustry Manufacturers Association,  the Engine Manufacturers Association, and the



national standards-setting bodies of American Society for Testing Materials and
*   See transcripts of EPA hearings held in Atlanta and Washington, D. C.
                                      3-46

-------
 the Society of Automotive Engineers are actively addressing the problems of measuring




 equipment noise and recommending standards.  The equipment manufacturing industry




 would like to coordinate its activities with those of its closely related standards -setting




 bodies.  However, self-regulation via industry-initiated standards is more than some-




 what hindered by federal anti-trust provisions.




     As yet, no broad controls have been established.  Industry tends to assume that




 the example set by the City of Chicago equipment noise ordinance will stimulate other




 similar action,  eventually resulting in a proliferation of standards at the local level.




 Projected Impact of Construction



     Projecting conditions to the year 2000 involves a number of uncertainties. One




 of these is the exponential rate at which technology is  evolving and affecting society.




 Technological innovation, however, is not the only factor to be considered.  One  can-




 not account for future changes in social  attitudes.  Although long-term predictions




 are fraught with such difficulties, one can still make educated guesses with a reason-




 able level of confidence.  Rather than merely extrapolating existing conditions  to the



 indefinite future, the following projections of the impact of noise are based on fore-



 casts of population, family size, gross national product, and trends toward urbaniza-



 tion.  Construction activities will continue to follow such growth patterns, although




 the character of construction may change significantly with greater use of prefabri-



 cated materials and the introduction of new kinds of equipment.  Also, rather than




 trying to account for conflicting trends and changing attitudes, the projected extent of



 exposure is based on the assumption of no change in noise level for given equipment




and considers only major trends that can be easily identified.  (Obviously, by incor-




porating available technology, and with active regulatory participation at the various




levels of government, the projected far-term impact could be avoided.)
                                      3-47

-------
    The following U.S. Census Bureau data has been employed in projecting the in-




crease in exposure to noise:




                                            1970        2000       Ratio




GNP (billions of 1958 dollars)                 720        2240       3.2



Total Population (millions)                    200         293       1.45




Total Number of Households (millions)        63         104       1.65




People per Household                          3. 17        2.8     0.9



    Given the predicted increase in population and in financial resources, fairly




extensive building activity can be expected.  However,  the urban areas have limited




space available for new building; thus, the trend is for areas outside those now iden-




tified as central cities to become urbanized.  Figure 3-6 illustrates this trend for




single-family, multifamily, and nonresidential construction activities.  With available




land becoming more and more scarce within the central city, the building of single-




family and multifamily dwellings will continue to decrease sharply.  By the year 2000,




we can expect to find approximately one-third the number of residential construction




sites as were active in 1970.   Xonresidential building is expected to increase.  In




areas outside the central cities, both residential and nonresidential construction




should increase significantly.  Nonresidential building activity is expected to increase




by over 50 percent as the present suburbs become urbanized.  With this general trend



in mind, the  data given above his been used to project the expected increase in ex-




posure to noise from construction activities.



Nonresidential




    The level of nonresidential construction activity in any given year is assumed to



be proportional to the real Gross National Product (GNP) for that year.  To find the




nonresidential construction activity for any particular year, the  ratio of the GNP for




that year to the 1970 GNP is multiplied by the number of nonresidential sites built in
                                     3-48

-------
    1970
(ft
Q
O
O

-------
1970 (Table 3-8).  The resulting total construction figures are apportioned between



"central cities" and "other metropolitan areas" in the same proportions as occurred



in 1970.  Despite the expected decrease in total construction sites within the central



city, nonresidential sites are expected  to increase.



Residential



    It is assumed that the population and population density of central cities will re-



main at their present levels until the year 2000 and that most residential construc-



tion in central cities will be for the purpose of replacing decayed units rather than



for housing additional population.  The  number of construction sites will decrease due



to the established trend toward an increasing number of multifamily dwellings over



single-family dwellings.  (Two- to four-family houses, which represent a negligible



fraction of total construction, are included in the total for single-family housing.)



    For metropolitan areas other than  suburbs, it is assumed that the number of



units constructed in any one year will be proportional to the population increase in the



previous 10 years. To estimate this increase, the total metropolitan population is



projected by multiplying the projected total national population by the estimated pro-



portion of the population living in metropolitan areas.  All the increase in metropoli-



tan area population for a particular year is ascribed to noncentral city areas.




Roads



    A simple but plausible indication of road construction activity, is the population



level.  Clearly)additional people will require additional roads, the capability of rapid



transit being small at present. However, the urban areas have limited space for new



roads, and urban residents are expressing increasing opposition to new road construc-



tion on grounds of aesthetics, pollution, and the community dismemberment concomi-



tant with the installation of limited access highways. Thus,  it would seem unlikely
                                     3-50

-------
H

O
§

g
o
I
3
o •&
f£ CD

"•* £
*&~
a to ^-
.-15 §
•^ £H *3
|S-
la W .2
!2 a '"

h 3 .
a ffl o
0 £•
ill
si-
*Q >— J **-!


K 2
a
•§
3
fi
5
81"1
O
J~>

00 O
Oi •*
CO >H
CO

CO O
(M i-H
CM
O1 CO
in o
as o^




CO OO
® s

00 i-H



"S ^
S g
•f 3 -88
^^ '13
^ |-S
a| &1
rt 0) eti o
hJ O Mo

0
o

00

o
0
o
CO
iH
0
CM
i-H


Oi

1M
0
i-H
OT
2
S
I
1
^
cu
§

m o
to m
oo m
CD ,-t
rH CO
O O
0 0
oo t-
iH r-l
in oo
»-t m
as c-
O CO
CO >-*


O Oi
0 b-
CO b-

1M CO
CO iH
(M i-H

1
£ §|
c a c
I I1
D S 3

CO
in
<£>
O

CO
CM

5
OS

cxi
to


1



LO


o
EH
                             3-51

-------
that road construction will rise as fast as other measures such as the GNP.  There-




fore , the future level of road construction has been obtained by multiplying the present



level of activity by the ratio of the projected population, divided by the current popula-




tion.



    The number of people affected by construction site noise is computedin the manner




described in Chapter 2.  Population densities for all metropolitan areas were assumed



to be constant with time—4500 people/square mile for central cities and  2400 people/




square mile for other metropolitan areas.  At any one site, people are apportioned to



specific transmission loss intervals as shown in Figure 3-7.




    The resulting exposure to construction noise is given in Figure 3-8 in person-




hours.  In this figure, multifamily residential construction is included with nonresi-




dential construction,  since these types of building activates are  similar.   Note




that the number of people exposed  to noise from single-family dwelling construction




declines steadily with time.  This  trend is more than compensated for by the rapid




increase in nonresidential and multifamily sites—for which the duration of construc-




tion is typically six times greater  than the duration for single-family houses.   Thus,




the number of person-hours of exposure is expected to increase by about  50 percent



in the next 30 years.
                                      3-52

-------
                                       o
                                       o
                                       11
                                      5.
                                      03
                                       o °
                                       W OT


                                      ll
                                      .§>
                                      b.
3-53

-------
    3.0
C/3
z
o
Q

O
O
o
cc
O
2

LU
CC

tn
O
to
IT

O
I
Z
O
UJ
cc
NONRESIDENTIALAND
MULTIFAMILY RESIDENTIAL
                                    SINGLE FAMILY RESIDENTIAL
                          1980
                                               1990
                                                                    2000
                                    YEAR
     Figure 3-8.  Projected Change in Exposure to Construction Noise,
                 Assuming No Change in Noise Levels
                               3-54

-------
APPLIANCE  INDUSTRY  EFFORTS*

     In general, the industry's attitude toward noise control is so direct a function of

 market place pressure that noise control technology often exceeds application.

 Appliance manufacturers tend to maintain R&D and product engineering staffs that

 are capable of delivering more noise reduction than market strategy can justify.  In

 fact, some companies have tried—unsuccessfully—to market quiet products, such

 as vacuum cleaners,  blenders, and hair dryers; others have developed a number of

 quiet prototypes that were not put  into production.

     Consumer research shows low noise levels are not highly valued by many cus-

 tomers.  Several companies keep  systematic track of customer correspondence,

 while the industry itself maintains a Major Appliance Consumer Action Panel

 (MACAP) that acts as a clearinghouse for complaints.   These records,  all of which

 concern major appliances, show relatively little complaint about noise.  For example,

 only 5 percent of the letters to MACAP in the first 8 months of 1971 concerned

 noise.

     The objectives for quieting household appliances seem to vary with the market

 pressures on particular products.   With this observation in mind,  a discussion of

 noise control efforts is organized around the problem appliances that have been

 identified.

 Air Conditioners

     There is probably more market pressure to quiet air conditioners than to quiet

 any other household appliance.  Since air conditioners  emit noise both indoors and

 out, they frequently affect not only the purchaser and his family  but also neighbors

 and passersby.  Both kinds of emissions generate pressure for noise reduction.
*   See transcripts of EPA hearings held in Dallas and San Francisco regarding
    appliance noise.
                                     3-55

-------
Pressure from neighbors takes the form of local noise ordinances that specify maxi-



mum sound-emission levels at a property line; this pressure is passed on to the



manufacturer, as one company pointed out, by dealers or marketing men who are



aware of the ordinances.



     One such company reports spending 3 man-years per year on air conditioner



noise control; 1 man-year per year was a more frequently mentioned level of effort.



While the product policy people generally reported that they were making maximal use



of available quieting technology, the study-project acousticians who initiated the inter-



views felt that current state-of-the-art technology was not being universally applied.



     Two estimates were received indicating that quieting  room air conditioners



adds 10 to  15 percent to the price.  There may also be an inherent tradeoff between




quietness and efficiency (since one way to reduce air noise is to decrease air velocity).



Sometimes, quieting results in increasing the air conditioner's physical dimensions,



thus detracting from appearance as well as from convenience and ease of installation.



There may also be  a trend toward model lines differentiated by noise output; i.e.,



and expensive quiet air condition and a cheaper noisier model.   One manager pointed



out that there  are antitrust constraints against organizing industry consensus on



noise levels.



Dishwashers  and  Food Disposers



     The mechanical differences between dishwashers and disposers do  not alter the



fact that noise control pressures are similar and that the manufacturers' approach to



quieting is similar. Quiet is a saleable characteristic in dishwashers and disposers,



although the pressures for quieting are not so  great as for air conditioners. While no



advertising campaigns built  exclusively on quiet are apparent, it is advertised with the



same prominence given to power and reliability.
                                     3-56

-------
    Dishwashers and disposer noise are not currently under public regulation, hence




the incentive for quiet comes almost exclusively from the purchaser.  This gives rise




to marked differences between models; if one wishes, one can buy an inexpensive,




noisy dishwasher or disposer.  Reports from the industry indicate that landlords




frequently do just that.




    Dishwashers present a promising example of industry's  response to the purchaser's




desire for lower noise levels.  In a 1970 survey by the United States Steel Co. , 48 per-




cent of dishwasher owners had no complaints about their appliance, but of those who



did, more complained about noise than about any other aspect of its operation.  Both




survey data and marketing  lore indicate that  the purchaser who has previously used



these appliances puts a higher value on quietness than does the new user.




    The costs of quieting were estimated by one dishwasher  manufacturer to be




10 percent and  by another to add $1. 00 to $2. 00 to manufacturing costs.  A disposer



manufacturer felt that quieting would add  12 percent to a product cost, whereas a



retailer of disposers estimated 18 percent.  It  was felt that quieting these machines




might deny their availability to those least able to pay.




    In the case of dishwashers, one manufacturer indicated the possibility of trade-




offs between noise and maintenance costs and reliability.  Another manufacturer




indicated a tradeoff between water velocity and quiet but expressed the opinion that




there are no serious technical restraints to  quieting dishwashers.




    In the case of disposers, industry claims inherent problems with water and



grinding noise (especially with the noise of grinding bones).  Some noise is considered
                                       3-57

-------
necessary to the user's safety, so he will know when the disposer is operating and



when it has finished grinding.



Vacuum Cleaners



     The manufacturers of vacuum cleaners believe that the market pressures are for



noisy machines.  The three manufacturers and one large retailer interviewed are all



convinced that customers use noise as the basis for judging a machine's power.   For



example, after concentrated technical effort, a manufacturer had significantly re-



duced the noise from a canister model without reducing its cleaning capability.  House-



wives who participated in a  marketing trial wanted to know if the machines were really



cleaning. Neither of the large  private label retailers consulted during this report effort



mention  quiet as a design goal.  One company that carefully analyzes its correspond-



ence from customers finds virtually no noise complaints about  vacuum cleaners or



any of its other portable appliances.



     A reasonable level of engineering effort has produced feasible solutions to vacuum



cleaner  noise; according  to all interviewed,  however, these  solutions are



not being applied to products that are sold, because vacuum cleaner manufacturers



and retailers do not sense a demand for quieter products.  In fact,  the sale of upright



cleaners, whose beaters make  them noisier, is growing at the  expense of the



canister models.  Apparently,  the beater action of upright cleaners can better handle



the new deep-pile weaves that make modern carpets harder to clean.   There are tech-



nological limits to the quieting  of upright vacuum cleaners, because of the interaction



between  the beater and the carpet,  but the noise levels of production models  seem



to be determined by customer usage demand rather than by technological limitations.



 Other Major Appliances



     Quieter clothes washers, clothes dryers, and refrigerators tend to be byproducts



of engineering originally undertaken with other objectives in mind.  The classic case





                                      3-58

-------
is a washing machine model that was incidentally quieted when two gears were removed




from the power train to save cost.  In the context of product improvement, noise is




generally treated as a secondary design goal, although manufacturers are concerned



that engineering changes may produce noisier products.  For example,  refrigerators



are becoming larger and noisier as manufacturers seek to meet the demand for spe-



cial options such as ice makers; a spinner-type washing machine produced higher



noise levels when spinner speed was increased to 2000 rpm.




    Two of four manufacturers interviewed make quiet models of washing machines



that sell at a $10 to $20 premium;  sales for both lines are disappointing.  None of the




other models of these companies are marketed on the basis of quiet nor do the mail-




order catalogues feature quiet.  The single exception is a spinner-type washer in




which "quiet operation" appears in the small-type description.  There is, then,




relatively little evidence of pressure for quieting appliances of this type.




    Yet, despite the weakness of market pressure, considerable quieting effort has




gone into the design of these appliances,  especially washing machines.  One manu-




facturer mentioned six different quieting projects that have recently been completed




or are underway.  A refrigerator manufacturer mentioned an effort to avoid strange




or unidentifiable noise.   No specific efforts to quiet dryers were uncovered.



    So far,  a number of sophisticated techniques have been applied to dishwashers:




isolation,  damping, and part  redesign.   Manufacturers of both dishwashers and



disposers have tried to improve the quality of installation by providing carefully



drawn instructions and flexible fittings.   One company has reduced noise on its top-



line dishwasher from 82 to 76 dB(A) (at an unspecified distance)  since 1967 and plans



a further reduction in the next few  years.  Another manufacturer expressed only the



desire to keep abreast of the  competition; this company tests each machine for noise,




rejecting under 1 percent.






                                     3-59

-------
    None of the manufacturers interviewed Intends to give up his noisier economy

lines; goals did not seem to be appreciably influenced by the prospects of noise regu-

lation.  The company representatives interviewed claimed to have adequate acoustic test

facilities, although the efforts devoted to testing and to development varied widely in

quantity and quality.

Small Appliances

    During the interviews, incidental information was gathered from five different
       o
companies  concerning 11 small appliances:  blenders, can openers, coffee mills,

electric knives, fans, hairdryers,  h-e crushers, knife sharpeners, mixers,  oral

lavages, and electric tooth brushes.  Manufacturers feel that there is public pressure

for these appliances to sound as though they are "really doing their jobs."  One manu-

facturer offered the generalization that, in the small appliance field, the quality of

the sound is more important than the quantity.  An appliance must sound right.

Some must sound powerful, some reliable, and none as though they are malfunction-

ing or undergoing excessive wear.   This manufacturer expressed the belief that an

accurate interpretation of the  customers' desires in these areas is a condition for

remaining in business.

    This market pressure leads to  diverse noise-control objectives, both among

companies  and between product lines produced by a single company.  Customer com-

plaints were reported concerning the noise from fans and hair dryers, and one marketing

executive was quoted as believing that quiet  is a saleable aspect of mixers.  One

company that does not manufacture  the  ice  crusher sold under its  label  put

a fairly high value on quietness in selecting  the model it sells.  Yet, none of these

small appliances were described as quiet in either of the two mail-order catalogues

that we examined.  Blenders and electric can openers were specifically described by
                                      3-60

-------
the managers interviewed as being appropriately noisy.  A company that was not




interview was cited as having quieted a blender, in so doing,  they slowed it down so




that it became less efficient.  At least one laboratory is seeking entirely new ways of




comminuting foods that could be both quieter and cheaper than blenders. Another is




designing a screw-type crushing tool that will substitute a growling sound for the




raucous sound of the chipper employed in ice crushers.




    There is also a search for fan blade configurations that will eliminate certain




predominant frequencies and that will produce a more pleasing sound. In addition to room




fans,  this experimentation includes hair dryers,  for which quieter designs for air pass-




ages are also being sought.




    Rubber feet have been added to electric coffee mills to reduce vibration noise,



but shielding is not being used because of its adverse effects  on costs, size, and




aesthetic design.  Plastic beaters for mixers promise to reduce both noise and costs.



    Many of these appliances are powered by universal-type  motors, which are



inexpensive,  powerful for their size, but noisy.  The size-power ratio is considered



important in such appliances as hand mixers,  electric  knives,  can openers, and



motor-in-the-bonnet hair dryers.  Conventional hair dryers also embody a tradeoff




between speed and quiet; one hair dryer model  that was marketed as "quiet" took




30 to  75 minutes  longer to dry hair than faster, noisier models.




    Speed or the potential power that speed permits  was cited as important in electric




knives, can openers,  and blenders.  In the case of blenders,  one engineer argued




that,  if they were slowed down, the intensity of the noise would simply be traded for




noise duration, with no lessening of resulting impact.  There is also reported to be



a tradeoff for electric tooth brushes between noise and cleansing effectiveness.



    Cases of limitations on quieting were pointed out for knife  sharpeners in which



there is grinder-blade interaction, as well as for blenders in which rotating knives are





                                     3-61

-------
essential and a glass casing is necessary if the housewife is to visually monitor pro-




cess.  In the case of blenders, there is hesitation to experiment with consumer



preferences, since the already intense domestic competition is being raised by the



entrance of foreign products into the market.




    Small appliance manufacturers make frequent use of subjective noise judgments




in their developmental work. Their product laboratories tend to be less  sophisticated




than those for major appliances, although many have access to highly sophisticated




central acoustical laboratories.  One small appliance manufacturer tests new products




in his employees' homes. If employees object to the noise the new model makes, they




are asked if they would be willing to pay for a quieter product.  The general result of




this approach is to make this manufacturer pessimistic about the economic payoff




from quieter products.




    Although specific noise goals are hard to identify in the appliance industry and




although some manufacturers seem discouraged with the  return on their efforts to




date, all those interviewed plan to persist in quieting their products.  Technological




limits have not yet been reached.  One manufacturer believes that the earlier compe-



tition that emphasized compactness has now been replaced with an emphasis on quiet.




Accordingly, industry generally plans to hold the size of future models constant and



to concentrate on producing quieter models, while presumably keeping prices within



competitive limits.



Projected Impact of Appliance  Noise




    It is assumed that the probability of future  appliance ownership as a  function of




income level will remain the  same and that appliance costs will remain approximately




the same in current dollars.  With these assumptions in mind, approximation of appli-




ance use was based on projected population, family income, and income distribution.
                                     3-62

-------
This estimation is probably conservative, since some appliances are continuing; to




increase their acceptance in all income levels, although their growth of acceptance




is low at the higher income levels, in which some appliances have nearly saturated the




market.  For those appliances for which insufficient information is available on appli-



ance possession at the various income levels, future possession was estimated from



current marketing information on percentage of replacement sales and on market




penetration.



    In projecting future impact,  it was estimated that appliance usage will remain




approximately at  current levels and that there would be no change in their noise levels.




Supporting the usage assumption is the little deviation shown in average time spent by




homemakers in using appliances  over the last 40 years.



    Figure 3-9 illustrates the increase  in exposure to appliance noise by plotting




hearing-impairment risk and speech and sleep interference in person-hours of ex-




posure.  As explained in Chapter 2, these three effects are among the most salient and




tangible consequences of noise exposure and can thus be most readily interpreted in




nontechnical terms.  As can be seen on  Figure 3-9, the number of person-hours




during which people will be exposed to the risk of hearing damage will more than




double in the next 30 years, as will the number of person-hours during which normal




conversation will  be difficult and during which people will be either awakened or pre-




vented from falling asleep. Obviously,  by incorporating available technology the



projected impact can be avoided.
                                      3-63

-------
              HEARING IMPAIRMENT RISK
                                  SPEECH AND SLEEP
                                  INTERFERENCE
                        1980
                                            1990
                                                                2000
                                 YEAR
Figure 3-9. Projected Change In Exposure to Appliance Noise, Assuming
           No Change in Noise Levels
                            3-64

-------
ECONOMIC ASPECTS OF NOISE ABATEMENT




    Information on the adverse effects of noise and the costs associated with various




types of abatement measures is contained in several chapters of this Report. Much



of the information obtained during public hearings held by EPA under PL91-604 also



addressed the economic aspects of noise. However, at this time, the rudimentary




state of knowledge regarding costs, benefits, and the impact of abatement expenditures




upon the national economy makes it extremely difficult to undertake an economic analy-




sis related to this problem.




    As background material for this Report, EPA commissioned a study of the economic




impact of noise, NTID300.14 referenced at the beginning  of this chapter.  This study




provides a general overview of some aspects of the problem, discusses the limitations




of existing data, and indicates the need for additional research and analysis  in this




area.




    To evaluate alternative noise abatement strategies, there are three major types




of economic considerations to be evaluated:



    1.  The magnitude of the benefits derived in terms of damages avoided  and




        positive gains attained.




    2,  The costs of attaining various levels of control included.



    3.  The impact of abatement costs on the economy.



With a better understanding of these economic factors, it should be possible in the



future to evaluate alternative control strategies and to identify cost-effective solu-



tions.
                                     3-65
  74-249 O - 72 - 20

-------
SUMMARY
    Much of the strength of the nation's economy, and the accompanying high standard
of living, result from technical innovation and its utilization by industry in the  develop-
ment of new and better machines.  Generally, the performance criteria for these
machines are defined in terms of the useful work that they will accomplish and the value
of this work with respect to its cost.  The success of any new product is determined in
the  market place primarily in terms of the potential economic  value of the product to
the  customer relative to its total cost, including both initial and operating costs.
    In the case of acoustical  devices such as musical instruments, hi-fi sets,  and
speech communication equipment,  sound characteristics are a primary performance
criterion.  However, for the  other devices, noise is  generally an unwanted byproduct
not  associated with the primary performance criteria.  Only when a need for less noise
is articulated (through customer preference, industry awareness, or public action) does
noise become one of the primary performance criteria.  The information feedback
process from the public to industry generally takes many years and often presents a
conflicting set of needs.  For example,  the purchasers of devices such as motorcycles,
some construction equipment, trucks, and cap pistols consider noise as a positive
indicator of high performance.  For the same reasons, the owners of many types of
devices purposely operate them in their noisiest mode.  In such cases, in which the
consumer and public interests diverge,  industry responds to the consumer until the
offended public articulates its requirements.
    One of the best examples of the possible long-term noise accommodation among
industry, public, and the market place is the  standard American passenger car.  In its
60-year history, it has evolved from a noisy, sputtering, crude, low-powered
vehicle to a relatively quiet efficient high-powered vehicle.  Mufflers were
                                     3-6

-------
installed before World War I to prevent scaring horses and thus win a wider acceptance




in the market place.  Cities and towns set regulations requiring that all cars be




muffled in the 1920's, primarily to ensure that owners retained the original  mufflers




in good working order.  Without further action in the public sector, industry has




made continuous progress toward quieting the automobile interior to gain wider




acceptability in the market place; and in so doing has also attained reasonably accept-




able exterior noise levels.




     However, in most product areas, there has not been any method ot placing before



the consuming public the necessary data to provide for consumer choices between




alternatives.   Thus, industry has not been able to ascertain what purchasing habits




the public might adopt, given factual alternatives.  One means of allowing the public




to express its requirements for quiet would be to provide information on product noise



emission, perhaps by direct product labeling.




     During the last few years, various governmental bodies have begun to effect the



public concern by developing and implementing noise regulations for various sources.




With the exception of aircraft  noise, for which the federal  government has begun to act,




many of the remaining sources are being subjected to a series ot separated,  uncoord-




inated, and often conflicting regulations.  These actions by  the public, as well as  the




data presented in this report,  show clear evidence of the need for noise reduction.




     Most of the sources discussed in this  chapter have additional  noise reduction



potential  that  can be attained with application of today's technology.  In many cases,



these potential improvements  will probably be sufficient to control noise in



the public interest.  However, in some cases, present control technology is clearly
                                      3-67

-------
insufficent to provide necessary noise control, and research is needed.  In any case,



the eventual reduction of noise in the nation requires establishment ol a balanced



set of noise goals that will enable priorities to be set for systematic exploitation of



existing technology and development of new technology.



    Together with these goals, source noise standards and implementing regulations



should be promulgated for those products which are capable of causing excessive noise.



Such standards should have time scales for achievement that are consistent with indus-



trial design,  prototype test, and production cycles  to encourage the most economical



and effective incorporation of noise performance criteria into the total design of the



product.



    Priority should be given to the sources that may constitute a potential hazard for



hearing,  which include most of the recreational vehicles, internal combustion powered



lawn care equipment, and some transportation vehicles. In addition, priority should



be given to all types of aircraft and large highway vehicles associated with the air-



port and  freeway noise.  Finally, priority  should be given to construction equipment



and the noisier elements of city traffic, so that the people living in major cities will



eventually be able to enjoy relaxed conversation outdoors.  Without an effective local,



state,  and Federal  regulatory program,  today's noise problems will affect an ever  increas-



ing number of people.  The technical components of an effective noise abatement plan must



include both control of noise at its source and preventive intervention in terms of bal-



anced transportation system planning, land use planning and upgrading of building



construction quality.  Such a program,  to be effective, requires active regulatory  part-



nership between the federal government on the one  hand and state and  local government



on the  other, with active participation from industry and the public at large.
                                      3-68

-------
                                  CHAPTER 4

                        LAWS AND REGULATORY SCHEMES

                            FOR NOISE ABATEMENT *

    Legislative interest and action in the area of environmental noise abatement and

control is increasing as the magnitude of the general problem becomes more obvious.

Despite this increased awareness,  regulatory schemes on all levels of government are

not fully successful.  Generally, the problem can be attributed to two factors, acting

separately or in combination:

    1.  Poorly written laws that do not provide the needed authority or incentive io

        alleviate the problem and that are technically deficient regarding acoustics

        and noise measurements.

    2.  Poor enforcement of existing laws due to lack of available personnel and lo

        the lack of knowledge on the part of enforcement officers as to sound measure-

        ment equipment and techniques.

The following discussion provides an overview of the entire legal structure regarding

noise abatement and control.
    This report is based on data prepared by the Staff of EPA,  Office of Noise Abate-
    ment & Control and on EPA Technical Information Document NTID 300.4,  "Laws
    and Regulatory Schemes for Noise Abatement" (EPA Contract 68-04-0032, George
    Washington University).  See Appendix A regarding procurement of this source
    material, which contains bibliographic information.
                                      4-1

-------
CURRENT GOVERNMENTAL NOISE REGULATION



Noise Abatement Regulation at the Federal Level



General Policy for Federal Noise Abatement and Control



    The Noise Pollution and Abatement Act of 1970 was the first legislation to provide



a central focus for overall environmental noise abatement at the Federal level. This



Act required that an Office of Noise Abatement and Control be established in the Environ-



mental Protection Agency (EPA) to carry on research and investigations into environ-



mental noise. The act further directed, in Section 402(c) that,  following a determina-



tion by the Administrator of EPA that noise related to a Federal agency's activity or



its sponsored activities is a public nuisance or is otherwise objectionable,  the Federal



department or agency sponsoring such activity must consult with the Administrator of



EPA to  determine possible ways of abating such noise.  Previous Federal legislation



had been directed to noise abatement with respect to specific  noise sources (such as



aircraft noise) or in regard to special environmental situations (such as occupational



exposure or transportation planning).



    Further, the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 has required,  since 1 Jan-



uary 1970, that Federal agencies use an interdisciplinary approach to integrate the



"environmental design arts" into the decision making process (Section 102(2) (A&B)).



Initially, this new approach to decision making has taken the form of environmental



impact statements required pursuant to Section 102(2) (C) on all "Federal actions"



significantly affecting the human environment.  Such statements should, therefore,



include  consideration of environmental noise.  Sections  102(2) (A&B) are intended to



bring about the synthesis of an environmental awareness within Federal agency decision



making processes.
                                       4-2

-------
 Noise Abatement and Control of Military and Internal i   /era/ Activities:
 A Microcosm Example of the General Noise Problems

     Preliminary examination of activities of the Federal government to control the

 noise produced in the very act of governing and providing protection to the general

 society is enlightening. In the military context, many of the noise problems that occur

 In the public and private sectors are also experienced.  The military services have

 been active for a great number of years in noise abatement, and the documents dis-

 cussed below are only examples  of the  many military regulations whose implementation

 is described more fully in this report in Chapter 5.

     In the nature of a general approach to noise abatement, the Department of Defense

 has issued Military Standard (ML-STD)-1472A to set human design criteria  for all new

 military systems, equipment, and facilities.  This standard adopts certain publications

 of the various military branches and Is intended to operate concurrently with all other

 related military regulations; however,  MIL-STD-1472A takes precedence whenever

 other regulations conflict with it. Primarily, the standard promulgates objective limits

 on noise in areas in which speech communication is necessary.

    Under MIL-STD-008806B, 21 September 1970 (applicable to all services but used

herein with respect only to the Air Force); Air  Force Manual (AFM) 86-5, 1 October

 1964; and Air  Force Regulation (AFR) 55-34, 5 February 1971)* the Air Force has

policies to reduce noise impact.   The first document establishes sound levels that must

be achieved in aircraft cabin spaces.  The latter two documents address airbase noise

and direct Air Force efforts to encourage compatible land uses by communities adja-

 cent to military airfields and to promote community noise impact reduction programs,

 respectively.  MIL-N-83155A, 25 March 1970,  covers noise suppressors on engine
*   The current version of AFR 55-34 is an updated revision of the directive first
    issued in 1962.
                                       4-3

-------
test cells and is a revision of an earlier directive on this subject. AFM 160-25,  1957,




"Engineering Data,  Preventive Medicine, and Occupational Health Program," contains




instructions for environmental engineering, evaluation, and control of community noise.




    Other noise sources considered by the Federal government in military operations




and in operation of the government itself are occupational and construction noise. In




the area of occupational noise, the Air Force, Navy, and Army have respective hear-




ing conservation programs under AFR 160-3 29 October 1956,  as amended through




7 February  1967; BUMEDINST 6260.6B, 5 March 1970; and EM 385-1-1, 1 March 1967.




These programs are primarily designed to protect the hearing of those exposed to the



noise.




    In this discussion, construction noise can be broken down into the acoustical char-




acteristic standards that must be achieved in Federal buildings built under contract




with the Federal government and the actual site noise generated during the construction




process. For the first of these noise considerations,  the General Services Administra-




tion (GSA), under PBS P3410.5, 12 June 1968; PBS P 3460.1C, 12 June 1968; PBS




4-0950,  November 1970; PBS 4-1021, February 1970; and PBS 4-1515-71, April  1971,




has established certain objective standards to be met in various segments of govern-




ment buildings  constructed under GSA contract.  These standards are  designed to re-



duce the impact of noise by providing a buffer between the noise source and the receiver.




While specifications delineate the allowable sound transmission for areas near such



noise sources as mechanical and electrical equipment, there is no attempt to regulate



noise by establishing standards for the equipment itself.




    As far as the actual construction site noise is concerned, the Army, in EC 1110-



2-109,  15 June 1970; ETL 1110-3-141, 30 November 1970; and CE-1300, May 1970,




has adopted regulations for noise abatement on both civil and military  construction
                                      4-4

-------
projects.  The previously cited Air Force Manual 160-25 contained noise criteria to




be considered in design of USAF buildings and structures.




     With respect to construction contracts for Federal buildings, the Occupational




Safety and Health Act (OSHA) noise standards have been applied by the Department



of Labor pursuant to the Construction Safety Act of 1969.  However, there may be a



question as to whether OSHA standards can be applied to construction noise in view



of fundamental differences in physical environment between an open, multistory



construction site and a closed factory work place.  In a closed factory environment,



one  can assume that the factory owner has control of the entire noise exposure of




his workers.  However,  on an open construction site, the contractor cannot control




many of  the noises that affect his workers. Thus,  the engineering controls open to




him are  limited, if not nonexistent.   There is no reason that hearing protection




devices could not be used,  however, to reduce the noise impact to meet the ex-




posure standards.  A pilot project is  underway, via a GSA contract, to develop base-




line data to these and other  questions concerning the applicability of the regulations.




    As pointed out earlier in this discussion, the military and internal Federal noise




control operations provide an excellent overview of the noise problems encountered by




the  Federal government, as well as other governmental levels. These external Fed-




eral control measures will now be considered in terms of the  general category of the




particular noise source.



Transportation Noise Abatement and Control




     Federal efforts to bring about transportation noise abatement are directed at air-




craft and highway noise,  with the former receiving the greater attention.  But concern



and action in the highway noise area are also significant and increasing.
                                       4-5

-------
    Aircraft Noise.  The Department of Transportation (DOT) Act of 1966 was the



first statutory authority relevant to aircraft noise.  Section 4(a) of the Act directed



the Secretary of Transportation to "promote and undertake research and development



relating to transportation, including noise abatement, with particular attention to



aircraft noise." Although some efforts were undertaken by the Federal Aviation



Administration (FAA) as early as 1960, it was not until the 1968 enactment of Section



611 (PL 90-411), relating to Control of Aircraft Noise and Sonic Boom, as an amend-



ment to the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, that the Federal government undertook an



active program of civil aircraft noise abatement.  Considerable impetus to the enact-



ment of this legislation resulted from the Office of Science and Technology study on



jet aircraft noise near airports, completed in 1966.  Implementation of this effort to



abate noise at the  source began 1 December 1969, with  regulations made applicable to



new subsonic aircraft.  Regulations with respect to retrofit, sonic boom, SST type



certification,  and  STOL/VTOL type certification are still in the development stages.



     In the Airport and Airways Development Act of 1970, the FAA has a valuable tool



that could be used to abate noise with respect to airports, since the Act declares the



"national policy that airport development projects authorized pursuant to this part shall



provide for the protection and enhancement of the natural resources and the quality of



environment of the Nation." The airport certification provisions of Section 51(b)(l)



direct the Administrator of the FAA to set minimum operational safety standards for



airports served by Civil Aeronautics  Board (CAB)-certified air carriers, but do not



apply to the regulation of airport noise levels.  The Act is applicable to all projects



involving new  airports and runways or extension of existing  runways; thus, relatively



few airport developments  that might create additional noise  escape consideration.



State and local governments gain two leverage mechanisms with respect to such pro-



jects:  first, the community acceptance provision of the Act requires that the project



be accepted by communities around the airport before DOT may give its approval;




                                       4-6

-------
second, under the state air and water quality certification section, the governor of the




state in which the airport is located must certify that there is "reasonable assurance




that the project . . . will comply with applicable air and water quality standards"




before Federal approval. Since some states have included noise as an air contami-




nant, the noise standards of these states will figure in the development of airports via



this provision of the Act. Unfortunately, the more sophisticated state noise laws are




not generally under such an air quality framework, but, rather, are given separate



consideration.  Thus, these states do not have the input potential provided under the




Act.



     Highway Noise.  Beginning in 1965, the Secretary of Commerce (duties transferred




to the Secretary of Transportation since 1966) was required to "cooperate with the




States  ...  In the development of long range highway plans .  . . which are formulated




with due consideration to their probable effect on the future development of urban areas



of more than fifty thousand population."  The first active consideration of highway noise




at the Federal level was  Policy and Procedures Memorandum 20-8 of the Bureau of




Public  Roads, issued January 14, 1969.  Environmental effects, which must be con-




sidered by the state or local sponsor seeking Federal aid, are defined to include "noise,




air, and water pollution."  Pursuant to a 1970 amendment to the Federal-aid Highway




Act (PL 91-605), the Secretary of Transportation is directed "to assure that possible




adverse economic, social, and environmental effects have been considered in develop-



ing . . . /and Federally  aided highway/ project ..."  Further, he is to "develop and



promulgate standards for highway noise levels compatible with different land uses after




July 1,  1972."



Occupational  Noise Abatement and Control



     Following the lead provided under Federal supply and construction contracts, dis-



cussed earlier, by the Department of Labor regulations under the Walsh-Healey Public




Contracts Act and the Construction Safety Act, the Secretary of Labor carried over




                                      4-7

-------
 these regulations under OSHA.  The standards under all three acts are the same.
: While the Walsh-Healey regulations carry only a potential penalty of removal of the
 contractor from the eligible bidder list for 3 years, the  Occupational Safety and Health
 Act provides for both civil and criminal penalties.
     An interesting feature of the new Act is that a state may take over regulation of a
 particular matter through a program of application and acceptance by the Secretary  of
 Labor.  This may provide a technique deserving broader application in the noise abate-
 ment area, to avoid potential preemption problems.
     The Atomic Energy Commission (AEC), in AEG Manual 0550-01 OS, 25 February
 1970, and the Department of Interior, pursuant to the Coal Mine Health and Safety Act
 of 1969, have also adopted the OSHA standards for occupational noise programs.
 The AEC program is intended, ". . .  for the protection of AEC and AEC contractor
 employees, the general public, and the environment. ..."  The Department of Interi-
 or, through the Bureau of Mines, applies the standards  to some 1900 licensed under-
 ground coal mines.
 Construction Noise Abatement and Control
     Construction Site Noise.  The only Federal activity directed toward noise abate-
 ment at construction sites has been considered under the discussion of the Federal
 military and in-house government activities. Construction site noises are covered  by
 the Occupational Safety and Health Act as being a business affecting interstate com-
 merce, and the standards adopted for noise exposure by the Department of Labor
 under that Act apply to construction sites.  Construction activities are enforced in the
 Occupational Safely and Health Administration.
     Acoustical Characteristics of Buildings. Regarding acoustical characteristics  of
 buildings, the Department of Housing and Urban  Development (HUD) has issued Policy
 Circular 1390.2, 4 August  1971,  concerning acoustical acceptability of new sites and
                                       4-8

-------
existing buildings to be aided by HUD monies.  This circular applies noise standards




to programs where none existed previously and replaces the standards of the Federal




Housing Administration (FHA), which is under HUD, to the extent that programs,




". .  . have less demanding noise exposure requirements. "  The existing noise abate-



ment programs of FHA now must be reviewed concerning their continued applicability.




These programs relate to:




     1.  Mortgage underwriting in noisy areas near airports (FHA Manual, Vol. VII,



        Book 1, §71453 — new development not be considered for mortgage under-




        writing,  if site within NEF-40 contour, pro and con evaluation for NEF-35,




        site approved without further consideration for NEF-30 or less.




     2.  Minimum property standards for multifamily dwellings  for which FHA finan-




        cial assistance is sought (FHA #2600,  reissued February 1971, setting sound




        transmission standards and impact noise standards for  partitions and floors/




        ceilings for developments of multifamily residences supported by FHA money).



Other Noise Sources Controlled at the Federal Level




     The Federal Power Commission, acting under the authority of the Natural Gas Act



of 1938 (15 U.S.C.  §717), has directed in 18 C.F.R. §2.69, 1971 (first appearing on



16 July 1970 in 35  Fed. Reg.  11389) that compressors,  when used above ground in con-




nection with gas pipelines, must be located and treated so as to reduce the noise im-




pact on the environment.



Noise Sources Regulated at the State Level



     Many states are entering the noise control field in earnest,  as demonstrated by




the large number of recently enacted state laws in this area (nine during the first half



of 1971 alone). It is increasingly common for states to establish environmental depart-




ments to deal with noise and other pollutants, and the number of noise sources being



regulated by any single state is growing.  The states are also becoming more sophisti-




cated in the writing of noise laws and are beginning to substitute specific decibel limits




                                      4-9

-------
for subjective standards such as "unnecessary" and "unreasonable," although such



standards have by no means disappeared.  A growing number of states are also setting




standards for noise from new vehicles and equipment, forbidding the sale of any that



fail to conform to the standards.



    Five states (Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, New York, and North Dakota) have dele-



gated, to departments dealing with environmental affairs, the power to set standards



for the limitation of noise from many sources.  All of these states are currently pre-



paring for or conducting hearings on standards, many of which will probably be pro-



mulgated in late 1971 or during 1972. California  and Illinois  have declared their policy



to be  to reduce noise, and both require environmental reports from state agencies.



Illinois has  declared it unlawful to create unreasonable and unnecessary noise on one's



property, while Colorado has established decibel  limits on noise permitted to emanate



from  any premises.



    Following development and adoption of standards in late 1971 and early  1972, the



state  programs to combat noise will enter a new phase. The success of these programs



will be determined by the ability of  the states to enforce their new laws.



Transportation



    California has developed a complex regulatory scheme for controlling airport noise.



The law requires airport operators to monitor takeoff and landing noise and to establish



a noise impact boundary around the airport, with  noise at this boundary to be reduced



over the next 15 years. Also, the airport operator must set noise limits on single



takeoffs and landings and must  report violations to county enforcement officials.  Those



airports failing to come within the noise limits  may lose their licenses or face other



state  sanctions.   The legal basis  for the law is  the state's licensing power over airports



and the asserted proprietary rights of airports  vis-a-vis the scheduled airlines and



other users.  Discussions of the legality of this law and the problem of Federal pre-



emption are presented elsewhere in this chapter.



                                      4-10

-------
     The states have long provided statutory restrictions on noise from motor vehicles,




with 43 states requiring mufflers on vehicles and 15 restricting noise from horns.




Five states set limits on the total vehicle noise, based on subjective standards.  Con-



necticut has recently empowered its Commissioner of Motor Vehicles to set noise




limits not to exceed 90 dBA, and New York and Idaho set decibel limits on the operation



of vehicles.  California sets standards on noise from the operation of vehicles as well



as noise limits on new vehicles.  Colorado and Minnesota have recently enacted legis-




lation patterned closely after the California law.  Of these laws, the Idaho law specifies




a limit of 92 dBA measured at 20 feet, while the others provide limits in the  range of 88




to 92 dBA measured at 50 feet.  California,  Colorado, and Minnesota have provisions




for lower limits to take effect in several years.




     Five states specifically require mufflers on motorcycles, while California,  Colo-




rado, and Minnesota set overall noise limits  on these vehicles.  As with  automobiles




and trucks, the standards will become stricter over time.




     Five states require mufflers on boats.  Wisconsin delegates to its communities




the power to regulate motorboats.




     Snowmobiles have been given increased attention by the states.   Maine and Wiscon-



sin require mufflers, while Colorado, Massachusetts, Montana, and New York set




limits on new snowmobiles. Colorado and Massachusetts also regulate noise from the



operation of snowmobiles.



Occupational Noise



     Twenty five states have reported existing occupational noise standards of some



kind. These reports were made to the Secretary of Labor pursuant to the Occupational



Safety  & Health Act of 1970 and its program for state  substitution for the Federal reg-



ulatory framework under the Act.  California, as an example of these state frame-



works , has  adopted the same standard as that promulgated by the Secretary of Labor





                                      4-11

-------
under the Walsh-Healey Public Contracts Act.  Responses have yet to be received by



the Secretary from 12 states (nine of which plan to exercise their takeover option and



three of which have decided not to enter into temporary agreements with the Depart-



ment of Labor to continue enforcement on the state level during the takeover period).



Construction Site  Noise



     Colorado alone sets decibel limits on noise from construction sites,  namely 80



dBA measured at 25 feet from the source from 7:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. and 75 dBA



measured at 25  feet between 7:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.



Acoustical Treatment of Buildings



     The small amount of state regulation in the construction field is directed primar-



ily toward  shielding individuals from noise rather than toward restricting noise at its



source.  The New York State building code sets standards for sound retardation in new



apartment  buildings.  Hawaii requires school officials to  acoustically  treat schools so



as to insulate students from the effects of transportation noise.  California forbids new



freeways that increase the noise in existing schools, although state officials may acous-



tically treat the schools so as to prevent an increase in the noise experienced by stu-



dents.



Other Noise Sources



     Noise  that disturbs the peace is specifically prohibited in 20 states, with 14 dele-



gating this authority to municipalities.  The states provide penalties for violations to



a greater degree in this area than any other.  A few states regulate commercial noise



in some way. Mississippi, New Jersey,  and Nevada delegate this power to localities,



while Delaware  and Texas  restrict noise from businesses dealing in alcoholic bever-



ages.
                                       4-12

-------
Trends and Gaps in State Legislation

    More states are entering the field of noise regulation.  The number of sources

restricted by any one state is also expanding.  The trend in the area of state regulation

is toward more sophisticated, objective laws enforced by environmental agencies.

States tend to adopt laws that set progressively stricter standards over specified time

periods and often direct their laws at the manufacturers.

    Despite these encouraging signs, there are still gaps in state regulation.  Aircraft

noise is not restricted except in California.*  Colorado has taken the steps only in the

direction of control of railroad and construction site noise, and industrial and commer-

cial noise is hardly regulated on the state level.  This is also true of household noise.

    With some exceptions, states have not been experimenting with new methods of

regulating noise.  In particular, there has been a noticeable failure to employ land use

policies to limit the effects of noise.  The single exception to this appears to be the

Minnesota statute, which provides for state control over zoning around new state-

owned airports. This type of implementation technique could be used to a much larger

degree by state governments.

Noise Sources Regulated at the  Regional Level

    The only significant regional regulation of noise sources is the limit on aircraft

takeoff noise imposed by the  Port of New York Authority, which operates Kennedy,  La

Guardia, Newark, and Teterboro Airports in the New York City vicinity.  Takeoffs are

not permitted if atmospheric conditions and operating procedures would cause a limit

of 112 PNdB to be exceeded at certain measuring points near the airport.**
*   But see following discussions regarding division of Federal, state and local
    powers.

**  The suitability of these rules as effective measures has been challenged by nearby
    communities.
                                       4-13
   74-249 O - 72 - 21

-------
Noise Sources Regulated on the Local Level



    The information in this portion of the report is based on data gathered from 83



local governments.  Many large cities are represented, as well as smaller communi-



ties.



General Noise Laws



    Better than two-thirds (69 percent) of the 83 cities examined have either no noise



laws whatever (12  cities) or only general laws covering noise from any source.  The



most popular type  of general law is that patterned after the Model Ordinance Prohibit-



ing Unnecessary Noises, issued by the National Institute of Municipal Law Officers



(NIMLO).  Over one-third of the cities examined have laws similar to this model ordi-



nance.  The model employs subjective criteria and prohibits loud, unnecessary, and



unusual noise.  Three cities have ordinances that differ from the NIMLO model but



that apply similar  subjective standards.  Two other cities set a limit of 80 dBA at 20



feet, or 20 feet from the property line of the noise  source.  A number of cities combat



noise through the use of public nuisance laws that label excessive noise as a public



nuisance and provide for its abatement.



    One of the most popular methods of noise control on the local level is the zoning



ordinance, which sets limits on noise in designated residential, commercial, or in-



dustrial zones.  Cities often include quantitative noise level standards in their zoning



ordinances.



Transportation Noise



    Aircraft Noise. Six of the cities in this  survey place some restriction on noise



from aircraft.  These ordinances are of two  types:



    1.  Those that undertake to limit nonflight activity.



    2.  Those that purport to limit operating noise from aircraft in flight.
                                       4-14

-------
    In the first category, Denver restricts noise not necessary to flight, while Salt
Lake City regulates noise in ground runup areas.  In the second category, Santa Bar-
bara, California, limits noise to takeoffs and landings as well as noise from runup
areas and sonic booms.  Scottsbluff, Nebraska, forbids any flight below 2000 feet.
Park Ridge, Illinois,  prohibits noise over 95 dBC in designated areas extending from
the runways of O'Hare Airport.  Portland, Oregon, limits noise from helicopters.
A discussion of the validity of laws in the second category is presented elsewhere in
this chapter.
    Motor Vehicle Noise.  Thirty-three municipalities examined require mufflers ou
motor vehicles, while 22 restrict horn noise and 12 cities set subjective limits, such as
"unnecessary," on the total noise from  vehicles.  Three cities set objective limits m
the 90- to 95-dBA range measured at 20 or 25 feet.  Chicago and Minneapolis, in re -
cently enacted legislation, set stricter noise limits on vehicle operation, as well as
noise emission standards for new vehicles.
    Specific provisions concerning noise from motorcycles  were made by four of the
cities examined.  Missoula, Montana, and Detroit set subjective limits, while the  new
Chicago and Minneapolis laws restrict noise from operation and set a limit on noise
from new motorcycles.
    Other Transportation Noise Sources. Chicago regulates noise from boats in its
new law, and Detroit restricts noise from whistles of steamers using its harbor.
Generally cities have  been slow to respond to snowmobiles as new noise sources.
Chicago sets objective limits on these vehicles, while Dillon,  Colorado, allows them
only on marked trails - of which there are none.
                                       4-15

-------
Commercial Noise




    Noise from commercial establishments or individuals acting in business capacities



is widely regulated at the local level.  The nonadvertising regulation in this area can




be divided into five categories:




    1.  Regulation of business establishments (either all business or particular bus-



        inesses).




    2.  Regulation of some particular accessory or device used by the business (such




        as noisy air-conditioning equipment) or some noisy aspect of the commercial




        operation (such as loading or unloading materials).




    3.  Regulation of musicians.




    4.  Regulation of music-producing machines.




    5.  Regulation of sound equipment.




Noise from advertising,  especially the use of sound-producing or sound-amplifying




equipment, is heavily regulated on the local level.  Itinerant peddlars calling their




wares, stationary sound equipment, and sound equipment mounted on vehicles and air-




craft are either prohibited or  subject to strict controls.




Occupational Noise




    Two cities have objective decibel limits on the amount of noise to which workers



may be subjected. The Detroit standards are identical to the Walsh-Healey limits pre-



viously discussed.  Philadelphia has adopted standards that are less strict than the old



Walsh-Healey limits, with the exception of the maximum limit placed  on impact noise.



Construction  Noise




    Many cities regulate noise from construction sites, using curfews and zoning re-



strictions.  Minneapolis sets a noise limit on the entire construction operation, while




Chicago specifies noise limits on most types of construction equipment.
                                       4-16

-------
Acoustical Treatment of Buildings




     Several cities have requirements concerning the acoustical treatment of buildings.




 The new New York City law on multifamily residential buildings sets limits on the noise




 that can be allowed to travel between two apartments and between apartments and public




 areas of the building.   These objective limits are based on measurement  standards




 adopted by various associations, such as the United States of American Standards




 Institute.  Before a permit is issued approving the  opening of the building to occupants,



 the Department of Buildings  must be satisfied, as a result of either its tests or those



 of an independent firm, that  the new building conforms to the limits.




 Other Noise Sources Controlled at the Local  Level



     Disturbing the peace is heavily regulated on the local level.  Some cities simply




 prohibit such behavior, while others  impose curfew and 2oning regulations.  Domestic



 noise is beginning to come under regulation at the local level.  The recent Chicago




 noise laws cover noise from various  home products such as lawnmowers, power tools,




 and snowblowers by setting decibel limits for new products.  Minneapolis sets a curfew




 on this equipment if noise from it causes the noise  level at property lines to exceed




 specified standards.  Sound equipment used for noncommercial activities  is also heav-




 ily regulated.  Some cities ban its use, while others require permits or set curfew




 and zoning restrictions.  There are also local ordinances pertaining to noisy animals.




    As with the states, more cities are  developing programs to cope with excessive




 noise.  Some have established noise abatement offices with special noise  monitoring



 teams.  City noise laws are  becoming more sophisticated, substituting decibel limits




 for the former subjective standards.  These laws also provide for tougher standards



 over time.  As is true for the states, the success of city antinoise programs will de-



 pend upon enforcement of the new laws.  Unfortunately, enforcement strains the already



 overburdened budgets of many of the nation's cities.





                                       4-17

-------
Trends and Gaps in Local Legislation



    Noise has traditionally been regulated more often at the local level.  However,



with the increase in the general environmental noise levels of American cities in re-



cent years, local governments have begun to adopt new laws to deal with this phenom-



enon.  Like the states, cities have developed more sophisticated laws covering more



noise sources. These laws are tending to include tougher standards over time and are



often  directed at manufacturers.  Although the major noise sources are regulated at



the local level, any one city does not have laws governing noise from every type of



noise source. More cities must expand the number of regulated noise sources if local



control of noise is to be more effective.
                                       4-18

-------
ANALYSIS OF EXISTING REGULATORY STRUCTURE FOR ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE
ABATEMENT AND CONTROL

Legal Basis for Environmental Noise Abatement and Control Through Private Actions

Private Actions:  Private Sector Noise Sources

     The more conventional  legal theories for abatement and control of noise in the

judicial areas have been nuisance, physical trespass,  inverse condemnation, and con-

stitutional damaging. A plaintiff can recover damages on the nuisance theory if noise

generated by the defendant results in a substantial interference with the use and enjoy-

ment of the plaintiff's land,  the usual measure  of damages being the decrease  in the

value of such property.   However, such determinations are  made in the context of the

particular case wherein the  social utility of the noise-maker's activity must be

weighed against the gravity  of the harm to the plaintiff.  In general, private actions in

nuisance for damages or for injunctive relief have proved to be an inadequate means of

controlling environmental pollution, including excessive and unnecessary noise.

Industrial and commercial noise makers have been permitted, in effect, to treat such

pollution as a social cost to  be assumed by the  general public, since the number and

amount of court judgments against offending noise sources have not induced a substan-

tial reduction in noise.  In brief, such actions have been effective only to the extent

that they have served as incentives for polluting activities to apply new managerial

techniques or technological innovations to the abatement of adverse social impacts.



Private Actions: Government Sector of Government Authorized Noise Sources

     In those situations wherein the government is the manager of facilities or the oper-

ator of activities producing noise or has formally sanctioned the operation of facilities

or activities by private  participants or entities, resort to the theory of inverse condem-

nation or the  allegation  of a  constitutional taking has been increasingly employed as an
                                      4-19

-------
alternative to a nuisance suit.  The defense of legalized nuisance has proved a formid-

ible barrier to recovery on the nuisance theory.  The theory of inverse condemnation

is a means of avoiding the obstacle of sovereign immunity.  While inverse condemna-

tion suits have been successful in several situations involving aircraft noise,  contro-

versy persists as to whether noise alone (as contrasted with physical trespass) is suf-

ficient to justify recovery and, if so, whether noise-violated adjacent landowners can

recover where no overflight takes place.  A mild trend is perceptible toward recover-

ies for noise intrusion, especially in states having constitutional "taken or damaged"

provisions, including recovery by adjacent landowners whose property has not been

officially taken. It is necessary, however, to prove that the injury is peculiar to such

adjacent landowner and not simply that he shares such intrusion with the community at-

large.

Formal Authority for Governmental Control Over Noise Sources and
Noise Effects

    In view of the limitations of private suits in providing an adequate environmental

noise quality control technique, various municipal and some state regulatory efforts

have been undertaken, as noted previously; and more comprehensive regulatory schemes

are now under consideration at all governmental levels.  It is probable that the com-

merce power affords the Federal government sufficient authority to regulate most, if

not all, noise sources at the national level. The traditional police power provides the

basic formal authority for noise abatement and control measures at the state and local

level. States have considerable latitude in the exercise of the police power, the  essen-

tial test being whether there is a perceived public need to be satisfied and whether the

means selected is reasonably appropriate to the achievement  of this purpose.  The ex-

ercise of the police power is subject to the further limitation  that private property can-

not be taken for public use without just compensation, a problem that has frequently
                                       4-20

-------
posed difficulties for the courts. However, the development of adequate regulatory




schemes for the control of noise should not raise serious questions with respect to




Constitutional authority.




Distribution of  Formal Authority Among Federal, State, and Local Jurisdictions




Illustrative Cases and Materials Relevant to the Commerce Clause and the Police Power




    Assuming the basic authority of the commerce power  (Federal) and police power




(state/local) to impose effective controls over environmental noise sources, the ques-




tion remains as to which level of government has authority to prescribe and apply



which regulatory measures (ranging from source control to zoning and building codes)




and under what circumstances.  Useful guidelines as to appropriate distribution of




authority between the Federal and state/local levels are provided by Supreme Court




decisions following primarily the doctrine of "Cooley vs Wardens of the Port of Phila-



delphia" (1851).  In determining whether the power of the Congress to regulate foreign




and interstate commerce was exclusive or might be in part shared with the states, the




Court in "Cooley" adopted a rule that placed a share of the control in the states, the



test being whether a particular subject or activity of commerce requires uniform




national control or whether it is sufficiently local (and unique) in character as to be




more appropriate for state/local regulation. For example, a strong national interest




has been asserted in railway regulation. In "Southern Pacific Co. vs Arizona"  (1945),




the Supreme Court, relying on the "Cooley" doctrine, held that the Arizona Train



Limit Law (limiting train length) contravened the Commerce Clause, the majority




opinion stating that "Here examination of all the relevant factors makes it plain that




the state interest is outweighed by the interest of the nation in an adequate, econom-



ical, efficient railway transportation service, which must prevail," But a strong



state/local interest has been recognized in the regulation of the use of interstate as



well as state highways. In "South Carolina State Highway Department vs Barnwell






                                      4-21

-------
Bros." (1938), a state statute limiting the width and weight of motor trucks, which




was more restrictive than those of most other states, was held not be an undue burden




on interstate commerce even though "interstate carriage by motor trucks has become




a national industry."  The Court stated: "Few subjects of state regulation are so pecu-




liarly of local concern as is the use of state highways."  But compare "Bibb vs Navajo




Freight Lines, Inc."  (1959),  wherein the Supreme Court  found an Illinois contour mud-




guard requirement for motor freight carriers to be in conflict with the Commerce




Clause even though such local safety measures are normally not found to place an un-




constitutional burden  on interstate commerce.




    The "states and their instrumentalities may act, in many areas of interstate com-




merce,  .  . . concurrently with the  Federal government'  and "Evenhanded local regu-




lation to effectuate a legitimate local public interest is valid unless preempted by




Federal action,  . .  .  or unduly burdensome on  .  . . interstate commerce .  . . ."




In general, preemption by Federal legislation is not to be inferred "unless the act of




Congress, fairly interpreted, is in actual conflict with the law of the state."



Illustrative Federal Environmental Quality  Control Legislation




    Evolving regulatory schemes for the abatement and control of environmental noise




will be shaped not only by the authoritative Constitutional decisions apportioning



Federal-state-local power but also by emerging public attitudes as expressed in for-




mal governmental policies toward environmental quality  and the recent legislation de-




signed to  institutionalize effective supporting programs.  The implementation of the




National Environmental Policy Act of  1969, requiring the submission of environmental




impact statements on all Federal actions significantly affecting the quality of the human




environment, has given strong impetus to the consideration of environmental effects of




public programs.  The Airport and Airway Development  Act of 1970 will certainly re-




quire consideration of the noise factor when new airports are located or existing facil-






                                      4-22

-------
ities are modified.  Provision for citizen suits in Section 304 of the Clean Air Amend-

ments of 1970 establishes a regularized channel for formally asserting complaints.

    Most of the new environmental quality legislation pays appropriate respect to state

and local prerogatives as does,  for example,  the Environmental Quality Improvement

Act of 1970, which states that "The primary responsibility for implementing this policy

rests with state and  local governments."  But a striking characteristic of the new leg-

islation is the emphasis placed on cooperative efforts among agencies at the same

level  of government, among the various levels of government, and between  public and

private sector entities, as illustrated by the Water Resources  Planning Act of 1965.

Whether this intent will mature into effective inter-entity working relationships  is, of

course, another matter.  Since the Federal government is establishing national stand-

ards in given areas (for example,  ambient air quality standards and standards regard-

ing emissions of air pollutants from aircraft),  it is to be anticipated that difficult prob-

lems  of preemption or of conflict arising from other formal or informal actions may

arise unless there is, in fact, dedicated and knowledgeable cooperation among the

various levels of government.

 Distribution of Power  Among Federal-State-Local Jurisdictions with Respect to Environmental
 Noise Abatement and Control

Regulatory Scheme for Aircraft Noise Abatement

    Federal Aircraft Noise Abatement Policy and Regulations.  As discussed earlier

in this chapter, the authority to  prescribe rules and regulations for the control and

abatement of aircraft noise was  granted the Administrator of the FAA by amendment

of Title  VI of the  Federal Aviation Act of 1958 (Public Law 90-411). One of his first

acts was initiating the noise abatement regulatory program of the  FAA by promulgat-

ing Part 36, an amendment to the  Federal Aviation Regulations, prescribing noise

standards for the type certification of subsonic aircraft.
                                      4-23

-------
    State Aircraft Noise Regulation -Including Transportation Authorities. The gen-



eral policy guidance at the Federal level for distribution of authority among Federal,



state, local, and private entities with respect to the abatement and control of aircraft



noise has not been adequate to decide many practical questions such as: who can con-



trol what by applying which techniques, under what circumstances, and pursuant to



what authority?  The situation tends to be further confused by  considerable loose lan-



guage in both official reports (policy statements) and in the legal-regulatory commen-



taries concerning "control over aircraft noise."  Frequently,  little effort is made to



distinguish abatement at the source  (noise emitted from the aircraft), abatement



through operational procedures, abatement of the effects of aircraft noise through



specific implementation techniques, abatement of airport noise through multiple tech-



niques , penalties for noncompliance with airport regulations, and remedies for dam-



age caused by aircraft noise.




    A few states have undertaken to establish some measure of regulation over the



effects of aircraft noise despite the  risks of their eventual negation through a judicial



finding of Federal preemption or of  conflict with the Commerce Clause.  One tech-



nique has been to establish an authority (intrastate or interstate) that operates an air-



port or airports in a proprietary capacity, as distinguished from governmental opera-



tion, so as to take advantage of the legal concept that a state or municipality can fix



permissible  levels of aircraft noise as the proprietor of an airport that it would not



have the authority to fix in its governmental-legislative capacity. The sensitivity of



the states to Federal preemptive legislation regarding air traffic safety (in-flight,



takeoff, and  landing operations) and aircraft noise standards (§611) is illustrated by the



comprehensive California regulations on noise standards for airports, which are



"based on two separate legal grounds: (1) the power of airport proprietors to impose
                                       4-24

-------
noise ceilings and other limitations on the use of the airport, and (2) the power of the




state to act to an extent not prohibited by federal law."  This effort goes primarily to



the encouragement of compatible land use near airports, so as to preserve the utility




of the airport to the  community while achieving environmental compatibility.




     Regulation of Aircraft Noise by Private Actions and Local Ordinances.  If states



are seriously inhibited from  control over aircraft noise sources, it is evident that




local governments and private  citizens can expect little success with the legal re-




courses of municipal ordinances and common law remedies.  Judicial experience




since the early 1950's tends to confirm this proposition.  Several local ordinances




undertaking to regulate the altitude (and thus flight patterns) of scheduled interstate




aircraft have been struck down (commencing with "All American Airways, Inc. vs




Village of Cedarhurst" (1953),  wherein the municipality had enacted an ordinance




making it a criminal offense  to fly aircraft over the village at altitudes under 1000




feet, on the rationale that the Federal government has preempted the regulation of



such flight in the interest of safety and that such  local restrictions place an undue bur-




den on interstate commerce.  While a few courts have demonstrated a degree of toler-




ance for local ordinances establishing nighttime curfews under special circumstances




(small airport with no interstate scheduled air carriers, for example), courts that




have considered such ordinances tend to be highly sensitive to the interstate commerce




implications,  especially if scheduled interstate air carriers use  the airport.  Stress



is often given to such propositions as "air traffic is unique and should be controlled on




the national level" or that "solution of problems in air transportation at the local level




just does not work.  It has to be done on a national basis because it is a national opera-



tion."




     It is of interest  to note that in the context of  the "Griggs" case of 1962 (wherein



the plaintiff,  in a private action based on inverse condemnation,  recovered damages






                                      4-25

-------
from the airport owner-operator by alleging that the flights of commercial aircraft




over the plaintiff's home caused excessive noise,  fear, and physical damage) the Su-




preme Court majority minimized the Federal regulatory role and emphasized the func-



tion of the airport owner-operator in the design, implementation (including the acqui-




sition of navigational easements), and operations  of the airport.  But even though there




have been several successful inverse condemnation cases, it is obvious that this rem-




edy is not suitable  for coping with the distress suffered by large  numbers of people




residing in or near busy airports.  As the court concluded in the 1969 New Jersey




case of "Township  of Hanover vs The Town of Morristown" (wherein the plaintiffs




sought to enjoin the Town of Morristown from enlarging its airport because of the an-




ticipated increased noise):  "private compensatory damage suits  do not accomplish the




end objective of noise suppression."




    The likely invalidity of control by local ordinance and the general inadequacy of




spasmodic private  suits in inverse condemnation to provide adequate noise regulation



has pressed many airport operators into the application of alternative abatement mea-




sures such as the use of preferential runways.  This,  of course, is also a marginal




means of noise suppression.  Thus, certain high density air traffic states such as Cali-



fornia have taken or considered action that will make some small further contribution




to aircraft and airport noise abatement.




    Implications of the Grlggs Doctrine:  Federal. State. Local and Private. The




"Griggs" decision placed the  locus of liability for aircraft noise on the airport operator




and thus relieved the Federal government and the scheduled air carriers from liability.




Thus, there was no pressing incentive for either the Federal government or the air




carriers to take drastic noise abatement action, even though both recognized the grow-




ing seriousness of  the problem. A Congressional report conceded  in 1962 that the lack



of a "maximum noise" criterion established by the Federal government was a "deter-






                                      4-26

-------
rent to manufacturers to achieve greater noise suppression."  Competitive considera-




tions precluded the allocation of substantial research support to noise abatement by the




aircraft engine manufacturers, the objective being to "build engines and aircraft (with)




maximum performance characteristics without regard to noise."  In short, the author-




ity of the "Griggs" decision obstructed the coordinated efforts required of all affected




participants called for by the Office of Science and Technology Jet Aircraft Noise Panel




in 1966.  Further, Congress has given careful attention to the possibility of the Fed-




eral government's indemnifying all airport operators throughout the U.S. against judg-




ments obtained against them for noise damage alleged under the "Griggs" doctrine and




has found this to be "impracticable."  Not until the promulgations of the FAA noise




standard regulations of 1 December 1969, pursuant to §611,  did the aircraft engine




manufacturers and the airlines have a compelling incentive to introduce  noise reduc-




tion criteria into their planning and operations.




    The Relationship of the Proprietorship  Doctrine of Control to Alternative  Air-




craft  Noise Abatement Techniques.  Pervasive  Federal regulation of air transpor-




tation has  essentially precluded effective  control over the abatement of aircraft




noise by State and local governments.  On the other hand, the Federal government has




not accepted a level of responsibility for aircraft noise  abatement (in terms of timely




R&D and regulatory measures to reduce noise at the source) that corresponds to the




magnitude of control it exercises over air transportation.  Yet, the "Griggs" doctrine



places liability for aircraft noise on the airport owner-operator, who is, in most sit-




uations,  a State or local governmental entity.  Furthermore,  the threat  of massive



damage awards is clearly increasing for the obvious reasons that the aircraft noise



situation is  worsening in many  areas and that complainants are finding that some



courts share a growing sympathy with their situation.  While  it may be generally



agreed that  air transportation must be regulated at the national level,  the lack of a





                                       4-27

-------
corresponding national effort to abate one of its most distressing side-effects encour-




ages resort to the courts as the only means of prodding, indirectly, the Federal sys-




tem into action.




    However, since the states and municipalities,  as airport owners-operators, must




bear the direct and immediate burden of complaints from the public,  they have seized




upon whatever interstitial measures are available (governmental,  technical, econ-




omic, etc.) to lessen the impact of community complaints and noise damage judg-




ments.  Notable in this connection is the doctrine of proprietary control over airport




operations,  which has its source in ownership or operational status as distinguished




from the operation of the airport by a State or local governmental entity in  its govern-




mental capacity.   While the Port of New York Authority has  been able to  maintain




noise standards set by itself (less stringent, however,  than  FAA standards  for new




aircraft) and the  California regulations on noise  standards for airports are




essentially grounded on the "power of airport proprietors,"  this regulatory technique




is severely limited.  This  is particularly true for short-term relief, since most major




hub ports are now situated in densely populated areas and proprietor  control over noise




reduction at the source is essentially nonexistent.  The FAA has clearly preempted



aircraft operations as to safety.  As to noise, the airport operator is left with whatever




marginal control  he can exercise through such a measure as "planning runway utili-



zation schedules  to take into account adjacent residential areas, noise characteristics




of aircraft and noise sensitive time periods," which is  provided, among other methods,




in the new California noise regulations for airports.  While the  proprietary doctrine




may provide the airport operator some small but useful bargaining leverage vis a vis



the Federal government In the present evolutionary phase of aircraft noise  regulation,




it is based on an  anomalous legal assumption, the future efficacy of which is in doubt;




namely,  that an Instrumentality of the state, acting In a private, nongovernmental





                                      4-28

-------
capacity, has a degree of control over the activities prescribed in its state-originated

charter that the state  itself is precluded from exercising in particular preemptive sit-

uations;  i.e., regulation of aircraft operations.

Regulatory Schemes  for Abatement and  Control of Environmental Noise  Sources and Effects
other  than Aircraft Noise


     The Analytical Framework.   The analysis of existing modes  of environmental

noise regulation and the evaluation of the design of new regulatory schemes requires

that a structured set of questions be addressed involving such factors as formal auth-

ority, limitations on authority,  and implications of the proposed action.   These in-

quiries will differ somewhat, depending upon the governmental level proposing noise

source and effects  regulation.  Kelevant questions at the State level might include:

    1.  Authority asserted to justify enactment of the legislation?

    2.   Limitations of authority likely to be asserted with respect to such statutory

         schemes?

        a.   Preemption by Federal legislation?

             (1)  Field completely preempted ?

             (2)  More stringent standards precluded?

        b.   Due Process limitations?

             (1)  Not reasonable means to a legitimate end

             (2)  Discriminatory and violative of equal protection

             (3)  Vagueness

        c.   Encroachment on free expression?

        d.   Encroachment on other individual liberties?

        e.   Threat to other significant social values such as safety, efficiency of

             operation, community economic well-being, etc. ?

        f.   Technological feasibility?


                                      4-29
    74-249 O - 72 - 22

-------
        g.   Economic reasonableness?




        h.   Undue burden on Interstate commerce?




    3.  Implications for local noise regulation with respect to:




        a.   Criteria and standards?




        b.   Participants affected?




        c.   Implementing techniques?




        d.   Enforcement procedures ?




        e.   Remedies and penalties?




        f.   Local ambient noise levels ?




    4.  Implications of noise level standards on judicial determinations of a Consti-




        tutional taking or of a State constitutional "taking or damaging."



    Private Actions:  Suits Grounded in Nuisance, Trespass, and Compensable




Taking or Damaging.  It is clear that private civil actions at best can constitute only




one important means, among many,  for effective regulation of noise.   Courts have




been wary of extending recognition to noise intrusions.  Some courts consider noise




to be an incident of living in a technologically oriented society and that noise is an




inconvenience that is, and must  be, shared by all.  Other courts are more disposed




to recognize  noise abuse but are troubled by the problem of limiting liability, such as




by determining satisfactorily which claimants suffer special damages.  Further, noise




disturbances  from many of the more serious noise producing sources, such as the




construction  and use of highways, cannot be alleged as the basis for damages in cer-




tain states since such states provide that "nothing which is done or  maintained under




the express authority of a statute,  can be deemed a nuisance. " Nevertheless, over




the years numerous suits have been initiated against a variety of community noise




producing sources that interfere with the use and enjoyment of property.



                                      4-30

-------
    There is a more perceptible trend for courts to recognize damages resulting from




noise intrusion in taking or inverse condemnation suits, particularly with reference to




highway construction and use.  However, most courts have held that noise from this




source is not compensable where there has been no physical taking of any part of the




complainant's property.  Where there has been  an actual taking or severance of the




claimant's property, there is a split in court decisions among the various states.  The




tendency seems to be,  however, to consider noise as a factor in determining conse-




quential damages where there has been a taking.  In the 1968 "Dennison" case the New




York  Court of Appeals stated that  "where there  has been a partial taking of property




of the kind taken here, the noise element may be considered as one of several factors




in determining consequential damages. "  The type of property taken may be decisive,




noise more likely to be considered as a factor in the overall diminution of the value of




the property if the property's purposes are devoted to seclusion and quietude. What




impact the aircraft noise cases  recognizing noise intrusion with respect to  adjacent




landowners will have on the recognition of claims of abutting landowners to highway




construction and use is still uncertain.   Florida has rewarded the aircraft noise claim-




ant but denied recovery to  the highway noise claimant.




    Noise Regulation through Municipal  Ordinances.   Local ordinances directed ex-




plicitly  to, or inclusive of,  noise pollution include those designed to preserve the public




peace and tranquility,  to abate noise  as a nuisance, or to control noise levels through




zoning.   Where an ordinance is directed to noises or noise sources in general, the




elements of a common law nuisance must ordinarily be shown to justify damages or




injunctive relief.   Noise ordinances may  face various legal challenges:  whether the






                                      4-31

-------
standard is unconstitutionally vague or discriminatory or is administered in a discrim-




inatory manner; whether the ordinance encroaches upon the freedom of expression or




other individual rights; whether the ordinance seriously interferes with the safety of




operations of the noise source or comes in conflict with other priority social values;




whether the  requirements of the ordinance are technologically feasible and economi-




cally reasonable; whether the ordinance addresses an area of activity that has been




preempted by the state or Federal government; or whether the ordinance, absent




Federal legislation,  imposes such a heavy burden on a national activity or interest,




such as the free flow of commerce, that it constitutes an unreasonable burden.





    Ordinances regulating sound trucks raise many of the foregoing questions.   How-




ever, the Supreme Court held in the 1949 Sound Truck case,  "Kovacs vs. Cooper", that




the standard of "loud and raucous" was not so vague  and indefinite as to be properly




enforced, since it conveyed to any interested person a sufficiently accurate concept of




what was forbidden.  Quantitative standards (prescribed decibel sound levels in decibels)




avoid the problem of unconstitutional vagueness but do not necessarily facilitate the




enforcement of noise standards.  The cases show that verbal (subjective) standards




such as "unusual and excessive" have generally been upheld as applied to both local




ordinances and state statutes requiring mufflers or relating to the operation of motor




vehicles.  While the reported cases do not specifically deal with traffic routing within




urban areas in terms of noise,  such ordinances have been upheld unless  the state, by




terms of its constitution or by legislation, has preempted control over vehicular traf-




fic, even within municipalities.
                                      4-32

-------
    Comprehensive city codes, such as that proposed for New York City, attempt to




retain the benefit of common law nuisance precedents by prohibiting unnecessary




noise while at the same time setting specific decibel limits for the principal noise




producing devices or sources.   Provision for noise-sensitive zones is an attempt to




assure that future land use planning will be environmentally sound with respect to




noise. Many provisions of such codes, being new, are  still to be litigated.




    It appears that most of the challenges to local noise ordinances as undue burdens




on interstate commerce have arisen in the air transportation field. Such ordinances




in other areas, if not clearly unreasonable burdens as applied by one community,  may




be judged by the test of whether a given ordinance, if adopted by a large number of




municipalities, would impose unlawful burdens.




     State Environmental Noise Regulatory Schemes.  State regulation of noise has been




relatively minor until recent years, with the exception  of vehicle muffler and exhaust




noises.  An interesting question is arising, with the shift from verbal to quantitative




standards, as to the efficacy of the older statutes  (left undisturbed by new legislation)




prohibiting excessive or unusual noise.  The  New York  Court of Appeals has held that




in such circumstances "the two (statutes)  stand side by  side.   One now sets a limit




beyond which no vehicle noise  may go while the other requires each motorist to mini-




mize the noise his particular vehicle makes within that  limit. "  This interpretation




raises interesting possibilities for more stringent and  refined control over noise




sources than set by maximum  allowable decibel levels.   However, state  control over




vehicular noise has raised serious questions  (and confusion) in several states as to




preemption of local control, especially in instances where the state  standard is clearly






                                       4-33

-------
inadequate for the monitoring and control of urban vehicular noise.  Where states do




undertake comprehensive environmental noise regulation,  the preemption status should




be clarified.  However, some new State legislation completely ignores preemption




implications for local governments.




    New State environmental noise legislation should also give careful consideration




to the implications for  interstate commerce. Operators of trucks and busses (moving




interstate noise sources)  are particularly concerned about the possible lack of unifor-




mity, arguing that they "should not be faced with an increasing problem  of having wide




variations in noise limits, test procedures, equipment and interpretation of the




regulations. "  Reference to "Bibb v. Navajo Freight Lines, Inc. " suggests that even




though local safety measures (and presumably,  environmental quality measures) are




not normally found to place an unconstitutional burden on interstate commerce, unless




the states should enact approximately equivalent vehicular noise standards (as to deci-




bel levels and effective dates), that litigation involving the Commerce Clause is likely




to arise.   But in addition to the test of whether  a given ordinance or state statute under-




takes to regulate matters "admitting of diversity of treatment,  according to the special




requirements of local conditions, " are the  factors of delay or inconvenience to inter-




state carriers, safety, technological feasibility, economic reasonableness (including




the availability, cost and effectiveness of alternative protective measures), and ."the




nature of the menace against which (the ordinance or statute) will protect. ". .  . "Legis-




lation,  and implementing standards-setting administrative procedure, which does not




take these factors into account may well  be vulnerable to either Due Process or




Commerce Clause challenge.






                                        4-34

-------
     Federal Environmental Noise Regulatory Schemes.  In addition to the  §611 amend-




ment to the  Federal Aviation Act of 1958, the Walsh-Healey requirements   the Occu-




pational Safety and Health Act of 1970, and the 1970 amendment to the Federal-aid




Highway Act (PL 91-605), the Federal government  has given notice of impending.




comprehensive environmental noise legislation in the Noise Pollution and Abatement




Act of 1970.  Of major interest  is the present status of the Administration's proposed




legislation (HR-5275, S-1016—The Noise Control Act of 1971),  The Administration




proposed  to give EPA overview  and veto authority regarding aircraft noise.  However,




this proposed legislation has been revised by the House Committee on Interstate




Commerce to provide only for a consultative EPA role concerning that agency's




dealings with the FAA regarding the solution of this major noise problem.
                                       4-35

-------
EFFECTIVENESS OF EXISTING NOISE CONTROL REGULATIONS

Effectiveness of Existing Federal Regulations

Aircraft Noise


    FAA Type Certification of commercial aircraft delivered after 1 December 1969,

under Part 36 of the FAA Aircraft Regulations, is the most significant Federal action

for control of aircraft noise. The DC-10 and Cessna Citation 500 have been certifi-

cated, and the L-1011 and all subsequent subsonic aircraft will have to comply with

Part 36.   The Boeing 747 was granted a type certificate in December 1969,  which allowed

noise levels in excess of the requirements of Appendix C of Part 36 of the FAA regula-

tions.  However,  aircraft produced after December 1, 1971 must comply with Part 36,

Appendix C.  Allowable Noise Level Limits.

    Projections by the Air Transport Association estimate that by 1975 only 18. 6 per-

cent of the fleet will have been certificated under Part 36.  and even this is probably

optimistic given present economic conditions that will retard aircraft replacements.

Thus, to the extent that it depends upon type certification as presently structured, the

noise problem will have been only slightly relieved by 1975 and, indeed,  could still

be significant as late as 1990.

    Noise has an environmental impact and must be considered in 102(2) (C) Environ-

mental Impact Statements for airport development and modification. * While there are
*   The reader is referred to testimony before EPA hearings held in San Francisco
    regarding views on the efficacy of the 102(2) (C) statement provisions.
                                      4-36

-------
no Federal noise standards for airports,  the Airport and Airways Development Act re-




quires consideration of environmental interest of communities near airports and provides




for public hearings,  if requested, on airport projects.  But examination of project pro-




posals on file with the FAA reveals that hearings have been held in only 29 percent of




the cases,  and in few of these has noise been raised as an issue.  This suggests that




whereas public hostility to proposed or expanded airports near already congested avia-




tion hubs is high and growing, communities in other parts of the country are still more




alert to potential economic benefits from  airports than to possible noise problems.




This may tend to prevent full utilization of promising planning and zoning techniques




for controlling future noise problems.




Highway Noise




    Environmental Impact Statements must also be provided for proposed highways.




The 1970 Amendments to the Federal-Aid Highway Act requires  the Secretary of




Transportation to withhold approval of highways until specifications include adequate




implementation of appropriate noise standards.   Noise guidelines will not  be issued




until 1 July 1972, but early drafts are promising. Only 4 percent of the National  In-




terstate and Defense Highway System remains in preliminary stages as of 30 June




1971,  but an  Urban System (funded for FY 1972 at $100 million) will be built under




the new standards.




Occupational Noise




    Regulations of May 20, 1969, pursuant to the Walsh-Healey  Public Contracts Act,




set noise limits for employees of Federal Supply Contractors.  These apply to 75,000
                                      4-37

-------
plant locations (about 27 million workers).  As of 27 August 1971,  the Walsh-Healey




noise standards have been extended by the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 to




all employees in businesses affecting interstate commerce (55 million additional workers).




    Since 7 July 1971, the Bureau of Mines, under the Federal Coal Mine Health and




Safety Act of 1969,  has imposed mandatory noise limits (identical to the  Walsh-Healey




standards) for approximately 100, 000 miners in  1900 registered underground mines.




Regular monitoring is assigned to mine operators, with the Bureau of Mines providing




their training and providing a check through noise surveys conducted during quarterly




safety and health inspections.





Effectiveness of Existing State Regulations




Airport Noise





    California has taken the lead in setting overall noise limits around airports by




legislation (1969) empowering the State Department of Aeronautics to set standards




both for overall airport noise and for single-event noise.  These regulations were




to become effective on December 1, 1971 but have been held in abeyance by the




1971 legislature. When put into effect, they will  allow large airports 15 years to



shrink noise contours to what has been defined as the acceptable level applicable to



all airports under the statutory standards of "noise  acceptable to a reasonable person



living near the airport" and "economically and technologically feasible. " Some



difficulties with enforcement and effectiveness can be foreseen.




    Some airport officials allege that, unless the fleet is  substantially converted to




quieter planes within this 15 year period, it may  be necessary to curtail operations




considerably or else to make major purchases of land.  The former measure would
                                       4-38

-------
have major repercussions for national air transportation patterns,  while the latter




could lie well beyond the financial capacity of the airport.




    The law may be challenged in court by the airlines on the grounds of Federal pre-




emption and unreasonable burden on interstate commerce.   California holds that there




is no preemption in the absence of Federal rule making on airport noise levels and




that the standards are firmly grounded on the proprietorship of airport owners and




the right to the state to license airports.




    There is a possibility that acceptable noise contours established by the regulations




will be used by courts as evidence for inverse condemnation,  although the Act provides




that they shall not be so used.  The California Law Revision Committee favors a




three-year moratorium on such use and a bill to establish this moratorium was passed by




the state legislature.




    The single-event limit was deliberately set so high as to be effective only in con-




trolling operating procedures of existing aircraft, rather than as a push for technolo-




gical improvement.  Enforcement is left to the county in which the airport is located.




In many states, unfortunately,  airport noise impacts most detrimentally on  counties




adjacent to, but not containing,  the airport; and in considering similar legislation




states should take this into account.




    A number of other states,  in considering similar legislation, appear to be await-




ing the outcome of California's pioneering effort.  With the reservations noted  above,




this model may be widely adaptable to states with significant airport noise problems.




    Twenty-five states own and operate  airports, of which some 300 are served by




scheduled air carriers, and can exercise some control over them as proprietor.  The





                                       4-39

-------
bistate Port of New York Authority has done the most in this area,  by establishing

maximum noise levels.  This regulation is effective in terms of compliance, the over-

all rate for which is 99. 5 percent, with 80 percent of takeoffs below 105 dBA.  Viola-

tion rates are much higher, however, for heavily loaded transoceanic jets.   In terms

of noise reduction,  however, it is only marginally effective; the violation rate is low

because the limit is high. *  There is also alleged to be  systematic  cheating by aircraft,

in which they momentarily  cut power as they pass the monitoring equipment.  Further-

more,  airport operators have no authority over landing procedures, since these are

controlled by FAA — and landings, due to long glide paths,  subject larger numbers of

people to noise than takeoffs.  The Port of New York Authority reports  that 80 percent

of complaints  are produced by landings.

    Restrictions on the number of night flights are effective in reducing complaints

but are seriously restrictive of transportation because of national and international

time differences.  Moreover, congestion at some airports has  reached, a point at

which safety considerations may dictate more, rather than fewer, night flights.

    The fiscal conditions of most state  and local governments, the shortage of housing

in large metropolitan areas, and the large land areas that are noise-impacted combine

to limit the  effectiveness of land purchase or strict zoning of land around existing
*    Testimony received at the EPA hearing in Hempstead,  Long Island indicates that
     no punitive enforcement actions have ever been taken against any airline.
                                      4-40

-------
airports.   In the case of new airports,  however, land-use techniques such as indus-

trial buffer zones  appear to have considerable promise. *

Vehicle Noise Programs

    Most states prohibit modified or defective mufflers, but few or none systematic-

ally enforce this prohibition in spite of quantitative evidence that rigorous enforcement

would significantly reduce vehicle noise levels.  California has the most comprehen-

sive operating vehicle noise law, but the level of enforcement even there is low,  since

6 two-man teams are responsible for 162,303 miles of highways.  During a 12-month

period,  600, 000 vehicles  were monitored and violations were charged for 0. 5 percent:

0. 1 percent of passenger cars,  1. 2 percent of trucks,  and 2. 0 percent of motorcycles.

(Caliform , had 11,980, 000 registered motor vehicles in 1970.)  There is  no record of

the  number ^f cases taken to court (this is a minor offense carrying  a fine of $25 or

less), but the Highway Patrol states that most citations have resulted in convictions.

Through July 1971, some 2,200 citations were issued within California  for excessive

vehicle  noise.   The state  population is greater than 20 million.  The low  percentage  of

violations probably does not indicate the effectiveness of the law but  indicates the in-

adequacy of the standards set.   The Highway Patrol has indicated that it would support

standards that would cause 7 to  8 percent of presently operating vehicles to  be in viola-

tion, on the grounds that 93-percent compliance indicates technical feasibility.  The

legislature is presently considering these and even stricter standards.
*   An extensive discussion of past, present,  and future land use planning efforts at
    major airports is contained in the transcript of the EPA Noise Hearing,
    Washington,  D.  C.

                                       4-41

-------
    A similar law in New York State has a lower level of enforcement.  No special




enforcement teams are provided, and one observer puts the number of summons




issued at six  in the first 2 years.




    California sets noise emission limits for new vehicles, but requires testing only




when an operating violation has been charged to a new or current-year model.   Some




vehicles have been recalled  for fitting with improved mufflers, but the manufactur-




ers' right to sell has not yet been revoked for excessive noise emissions.  Vehicle




laws of two other states are too new for comment on their effectiveness.




    Besides the insufficient strictness of standards, existing state controls on noise




from operating motor vehicles appear to be ineffective because of:




    1.  Technical difficulties in monitoring noise sources.  In New York, statutory




        limits apply to vehicles traveling  at less than 35 mph, rather than to vehicles




        in zones with speed limits of 35 mph (as in California).  By using zones,  the




        enforcing officer can presume rather than prove the speed of the vehicle




        being cited for violation.   A more serious constraint is the California  require-




        ment of 100 feet of free space around both the monitoring microphone and the




        monitored vehicle;  and (in California and New York) the requirement that noise




        be measured at a distance of 50 feet from the center line of the highway.   Both




        requirements are for the  purpose of separating and identifying specific noise




        sources and avoiding reflected sound from nearby buildings or other objects.




        but both make it difficult or impossible to monitor vehicles on city streets  where




        the worst problem  exists.  Idaho has tried to make its muffler law more  effec-




        tive by specifying that mufflers  must prevent noise over 92 dBA at a specified





                                      4-42

-------
         distance, but the law is not enforced because vehicle inspection is done in state-

         licensed commercial garages where there is no sound measuring equipment.

    2.   Assignment of enforcement responsibility to regular police officers.  State

         and local police universally give higher priority to safety and criminal in-

         vestigation and apprehension than to noise control; observers also report

         that police  rapidly lose proficiency with sound measuring equipment when it is

         seldom used, and then become  even more reluctant to use it. *

    3.   Disregard of noise sources other than that from engines and exhaust systems.

         There is  substantial evidence that much of vehicle noise comes from tires and

         running gear, but California police (contrary to statutory provisions) do not

         cite where  noise is  attributable to such causes;  this is probably true in other

         jurisdictions also.

    4.   Low probability of monitoring and apprehension and relatively insignificant

         penalties.  This is probably the most important cause of ineffectiveness.

Other Ant/noise Regulation by States

    State laws defining noise as a nuisance are generally enforced infrequently, and

seldom or never against major  sources  of noise such as  factories, transportation equip-

ment, and construction sites.  Statutory noise limits on leisure vehicles such as
*   The reader is referred to testimony given at EPA hearings in Dallas, Atlanta,
    San Francisco,  and New York regarding police officer attitudes on assignment
    of noise responsibilities.
                                       4-43

-------
snowmobiles are most often enforced by game inspectors and conservation officials,




and there is no data available on levels of enforcement.  Some snowmobile clubs are




enforcing noise limits  on their members to moderate or avoid public reaction to these




noisy vehicles.




Effectiveness of Existing Local Noise Control Regulation




    In dealing with noise problems, local governments frequently express a need for




technical assistance in the form of advice, guidelines,  model ordinances, and financial




aid from states or the Federal government.  However, they are also jealous of their




prerogatives in setting stricter standards than the larger jurisdictions may choose.




Aircraft Noise





    Except for a few curfew laws,  attempts by local governments to prohibit or re-




strict aircraft noise have generally been struck down.  A few remain on the books but




are not enforced.  There are over  1, 000 pending noise suits against airports; usually




a local government is  the defendant in such a suit,  and in some cases the plaintiff is




another (neighboring) local government.




Vehicle Noise




    In Hawaii and (it is generally assumed) in California and New York,  local govern-




ments are preempted by the state from control of vehicle noise, although state laws in




the latter two states are poorly enforced for reasons given  previously.  In Colorado,




local  governments may now adopt noise standards provided in State law.




    The relatively few municipalities that have  quantified noise standards for vehicles




report the following problems with enforcement:
                                       4-44

-------
     1.   Difficulty in setting standards that are both technically feasible and yet strict




         enough to be effective, particularly because cities have limited budgets and




         a great scarcity of technically trained personnel.  City officials frequently




         express a need for Federal or state guidelines and technical assistance in




         setting standards,  as well as in establishing enforcement procedures.




     2.   Technical difficulties in separating and identifying individual noise sources




         on crowded city streets with a generally high ambient noise level.  These




         difficulties  also prevent enforcement of State noise laws  on city streets.




     3.   Lack of personnel and equipment for systematic monitoring and enforcement.




         Again,  as has been pointed out, police place higher priority on other duties.




     Some local governments are experimenting with new vehicle  noise standards.  But




here they face a particular difficulty in that a large fraction of the vehicles using the




city  streets  are probably purchased elsewhere: within metropolitan areas there are




generally many local governments, many contain several counties, and some straddle




state boundaries.




     Levels of enforcement of muffler or horn-blowing laws and general nuisance laws




(as used against vehicles) vary widely.   Few cities can provide data on enforcement




actions,  since there is generally no index of general citations and usually no compila-




tion  of city court cases.  Where a high level of enforcement and effectiveness  is re-




ported (as in Memphis and Boulder),  city officials attribute this to a high level of




priority on the part of city officials and police,  and an educational campaign to sensi-




tize  the public to vehicle noise. Such educational programs are reported to have lasting




effects on driving habits.





                                       4-45
  74-249 O - 72 - 23

-------
Mass Transit Noise




     This is a major factor in large cities.  Mass transit facilities often represent a




large capital investment in aging and deteriorating stock and equipment, for which the




cost of acoustical treatment would be very high.  For example,  in New York City, an




effective method has been developed for reducing subway noise by replacement of




track—but only four miles are replaced each year out of a total of 750 miles of track. *




General Nuisance Laws




     Few statistics are kept by cities on enforcement of nuisance laws.  Police control




noise on the basis of complaints, and frequently depend on persuasion and warning




rather than official action.  Where enforcement against unnecessary noise or exces-




sive noise depends on  discretion (in the absence of quantitative standards) statutes are




sometimes struck down.  Decibel limits, where tried,  suffer from the difficulties out-




lined above for vehicle noise standards. And it is even more difficult to establish




reasonable limits for the variety of sources  covered in general noise laws.  Educa-




tional programs can greatly enhance the effectiveness of noise laws by sensitizing




citizens both to their duties and to their rights to a quiet community.




Comprehensive Noise Ordinances and Offices of Noise Abatement




     These represent a new and small,  but growing, trend for municipalities as small




as Inglewood, California (population 90,000) or as large as New York City.  They offer




the following advantages:
*   Details are contained in testimony given at EPA hearings held in New York City.
                                       4-46

-------
    1.  A directorate whose primary responsibility is noise abatement.

    2.  Investigators specifically responsible for responding to noise complaints.

    3.  A staff with initiative to seek out noise violations and proficiency in using

        sound measuring equipment.

    4.  A focal point for mounting a public education campaign.

    Costs of such operations are not necessarily large ($60,000 annually in Inglewood

and $300,000 currently in New York City) but may nevertheless be a strain on limited

municipal budgets. Both New York City and Chicago plan to use about 40 to 50 in-

vestigators for noise enforcement.

Zoning and Building Codes *

    Inclusion of noise standards in zoning codes is generally recent, and most are not

well enforced.  Many cities with quantitative noise limits in zoning codes have no measur-

ing equipment for enforcement purposes, and there is  again a need for guidelines in for-

mulating workable standards.  Standards are useful  for planning and zoning commis-

sions  in screening applicants for industrial locations.  Few cities have noise  standards

in building codes. New York City has them,  but no buildings completed under the new

code have yet been occupied.

Construction Noise

    Experience with local control of construction noise is largely restricted to curfew

laws,  which are often relaxed on a plea of convenience, particularly where daytime

traffic is a problem.  This is one of the  biggest gaps in local noise control.
*   The reader is referred to detailed testimony on this subject given at EPA hearings
    held in Dallas, San Francisco, and New York City.
                                       4-47

-------
SUMMARY




    There are some general observations that can be made regarding the laws and




regulatory schemes for noise abatement and control:




    •   With regard to aircraft noise,  there is a jurisdictional problem.




    •   State statutes exhibit increased technical proficiency in understanding the




        evolving technologies for noise control as compared with city ordinances.




        However, states are constrained in many instances by Federal preemption




        of the regulatory field (an example being aircraft) or conflicts with interstate




        commerce matters or other Federal constitutional powers.




    •   City ordinances are, in general,  vague and technically deficient.  However,  as




        the awareness of the noise problem increases, some city ordinances are be-




        coming more  sophisticated  through the use of objective  standards with decibel




        levels.




    •   The courts are becoming increasingly involved in the controversies over




        noise control.  In general, however, private suits for money damages have




        not accomplished a great deal regarding noise suppression.




    One of the major problems on the state and local levels of government is that of




enforcement.  In general,  noise statutes,  no matter how well written,  are rendered




ineffective because most state and local programs are insufficiently funded and staffed.
                                      4-48

-------
                                 CHAPTER 5

           GOVERNMENT, INDUSTRY, PROFESSIONAL AND VOLUNTARY

                          ASSOCIATION PROGRAMS •

FEDERAL GOVERNMENT PROGRAMS

    To discover the present extent of Federal activity in noise abatement and control

and to accurately assess that activity, the Environmental Protection Agency's Office

of Noise Abatement and Control conducted a survey of Federal agencies and depart-

ments.  On the basis of program size and authority, the 17 agencies and departments

were grouped into three general categories according to relative magnitude of programs

significant, moderate or minor.  It was found that in addition to the Environmental

Protection Agency, departments  with significant involvement in noise included:

    1.   Department of Defense

    2.   Health, Education and Welfare

    3.   Housing and Urban Department

    4.   Department of Labor

    5.   The National Aeronautics and Space Administration

    6.   Department of Transportation
    This Chapter is based on data contained in EPA Technical Information Documents
    NTID300.8, "State and Municipal Non-Occupational Noise Programs;" NTID300.9,
    "Noise Programs of Professional/Industrial Organizations, Universities,  and
    Colleges;" and NTID300.10, "Summary of Noise Programs in the Federal  Govern-
    ment." See Appendix A regarding procurement of this source material.
                                     5-1

-------
    Agencies having more moderate programs are:




    1.  Department of Agriculture




    2.  Department of Commerce




    3.  General Services Administration




    4.  Department of the Interio r




    5.  National Science Foundation




    6.  The Postal Service Commission




    Finally, agencies reporting relatively minor programs were:




    1.  Atomic Energy Commission




    2.  Federal Power Commission




    3.  State  Department




    4.  Tennessee Valley Authority




    5.  Treasury Department



Significant Federal Involvement




    Table 5-1 illustrates the extent of Federal research and development activity in



the noise field. Responsibility (authority) and funding for fiscal year 1972 is in thou-




sands of dollars.  The scope of federal activities includes the areas of hearing conser-




vation, non-auditory effects, aircraft noise suppression, community noise problems,



and standardization of sound measuring equipment.




The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)



    EPA established its Office of Noise Abatement and Control in April, 1971,  just




4 months after the Agency's format on. Under Title IV of PL 91-604, the EPA




Administrator was authorized and directed to establish an Office of Noise Abatement




and Control (ONAC) to deal with problems of excessive noise.  The statute further




required the office to prepare a report on environmental noise for  submission to Con-




gress no later than 31 December 1971. This  document fulfills that requirement.





                                      5-2

-------
X
U
PS


w
o

>-
K
<
Q
Z
i
o
1
1
! APPROX
|
§
5
fc
5
|
2
s





TYPE OF R 4 D



RAL AGENCY
S






















z



:n«rgy Commission
.a

5





S

I1.J
N--S-
5 -5 |
t? 1 1 S
•f « |."-_
1 1^1
S^IY
•g z -^ *
DS^ ie O •-
1 < '* 1
8.Z z<






3 3 1

i
u
13 £
o" •-
"1 - I
§ £ J ?
•5 f-l C
"5 o S? -S
W CO ,2 7
a §4 o
E S-a S
< iS o Z
"5-0
'g> | ' a
t~ c.l f-J °
i ° • 1 -|
- i i 1 * «
|8,8 2 I 5
?.« tie I
l!j t| 1
3li- l|i i,
lit III II


1 i5


°





§




3
/
gi
>
.2
>~


*
1 _
s of noise on public hn
re (report to Congress]
i~"
11

nentol Protection A
:e of Noise Abaterr
rol
I-M
;O«J
c
LU





S

1
1
1 <
i ;
5 5
! 1
i
3 3
O c2

r
I -
o ^
1 1
If 1
° O) ^-
111 1
5 .£
J~ -
C ' =
iS c «- cj O
i ° 5s
1 
-------
a
H
EH



P
O
<

S3
w
PS
w
CO
S
K
W
Q
W
S
s
Q
Z
|
LL.
X
o
£
>;
O
X
<
eo

O
a




a
«
FYPE OF






u
Z
FEDERAL AGEi




P







8
6
3
C
o
D
X
•E i- S
in
III
s J =
O ' '*•
wi
Jin


III!

i

?
i_
ii
»°




2



•£ c u-
•% « y
o« S "
•£ ^5 £
IIS I
5 O- U- D£
U °* •-"
"5 - 52
-S 4'y o
"<'5
| f
1 i
1 !
.s -8
» s.
1 1


i !



s
1 1
Z S S
I 'I 1
Q





















1







1
•s
°





















1







i
°



i
0-*


^ £
"° fc
< °
2l|

a. — *^

5 1 ?
5"S><
Q I u.
Jt
1
[ \
y. 1
' 1
3, ! S
S I ?
? 5 •?

41 1 &
.1
S S
is- 1 3
- e 'p '
|| 5 |
|j| j j
1|| | |
&



















1
O"
£
•S >—
I i


e =
x z



t ~
partment of Treas
Secret Service
Bureau of the Mi
S





















1





c
1
1
u
s
1
~c
il

















1
*
It
~ S
£ >_

y 5 F
III

6

1
1
^
"u
1
o
                                             5-4

-------
      I*
      H
     i
     H
y.   w


V   5
«   g;

5   J
-°   
-------
In the preparation of this report, contracts with universities and acoustical engineer-

ing firms were let for assistance in assembling data on different aspects of the noise

problem. Public hearings were conducted in major cities during the summer and au-

tumn of 1971 in an effort to gather testimony from industrialists, local and state gov-

ernment officials, scientific experts, conservationists, public and private organiza-

tions , and private citizens. *

     Title IV of Public Law 91-604 (Section 402c) requires Federal agencies to consult

with the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency on their current noise

generating activities that may constitute a nuisance or be otherwise  objectionable.

The Environmental Protection Agency is in the process of issuing the appropriate

guidelines to implement these requirements.  The Agency has  held consultations with

these agencies on preliminary guidelines, and has obtained information from the agen-

cies on their operations which engender public  complaints.

     Section 102(C) of the National Environmental Policy Act  (PL 91-190) requires all

agencies of  the Federal government to provide  statements specifying the environmental

impact of all proposed projects, legislation or comments on legislation. The  Environ-

mental Protection Agency is required by law to comment on all such statements.

Environmental impact statements involving potential noise problems are currently

being reviewed by the Agency.   The proposed guidelines, mentioned above, will pro-

vide for an integration of approach between the two laws.

     Under Title IV, EPA also is undertaking other actions including demonstrations,

exhibits and follow-on actions indicated by the report to Congress and the testimony

received at  the public hearings.
*   See Appendix C for information as to scope of hearings, locations, and subject
    matter.  Testimony received will be published as verbatim transcripts.
                                       5-6

-------
    Congress is now considering noise legislation as a major environmental concern.




The Administration's proposed Noise Control Act of 1971 provides for the following




(See also Appendix B):




    1.  A comprehensive Federal noise control and research program, with the




        Environmental Protection Agency serving as the coordinator of Federal ac-




        tivity.




    2.  Federal standards, promulgated by the Environmental Protection Agency for



        transportation and construction equipment, electric motors, internal combus-




        tion  engines.



    3.  A labelling system to identify products as to noise producing characteristics



        for the benefit of the prospective consumer.




    4.  A provision prohibiting states and their political subdivisions from establish-



        ing noise emission standards where Federal standards have been established;




        states would be permitted (and would be encouraged to establish) use,  opera-




        tion  and movement regulations of noise-producing machines.




    5.  A broad, EPA-sponsored research and development program to fill the gap




        in other Federal agencies' research activities.




    6.  A comprehensive technical assistance program, including provisions for as-




        sistance on noise enforcement.




    7.  A vigorous and effective enforcement scheme.



    8.  Finally, the Environmental Protection Agency would have authority to  review




        existing Federal Aviation Administration regulations and be authorized to re-




        quest the Administrator of the  FAA  to make changes.  EPA approval would



        also  be required for any new regulations on aircraft noise.
                                      5-7

-------
    At the present writing,  this la.st revision on aircraft noise has been modified in




committee to provide only for consultation between the Administrators of the FAA and




EPA.




The Department of Defense (DODI



    Noise abatement efforts by DOD have been both considerable and longstanding.




The armed services particularly are involved in research on noise and noise abate-




ment procedures.  The primary DOD thrusts are concentrated in four main areas:




    1.  Occupational noise  control and hearing conservation.




    2.  Operational aircraft noise abatement.




    3.  Noise signature elimination in weapons system.




    4.  Construction specifications for noise control.




At present,  noise programs are conducted within each of the three military branches




to meet specific operational requirements.  An enumeration of the separate efforts is




contained in the  following paragraphs.




    Army Noise Efforts.  Army noise programs are executed through the following




agencies:



    •   Office of the Chief  of Engineers. U.S. Army.  This office is conducting a



        study ($82,000) on  noise induced hearing loss and the effects of noise on the



        efficiency of soldiers' performance.




    •   Office of Corps of Engineers. U.S. Army. The Corps Office conducts re-



        search  on the control of noise generation and the application of measures to




        eliminate noise levels that may have adverse effects upon human beings.




        Current investigations include work in establishing criteria for the location




        of certain military  activities relative to residential areas and the identifica-




        tion of  causes of noise pollution and control criteria during construction

-------
        activities. Fiscal support for noise-related work within the Corps cannot be



        determined.  No personnel are specifically assigned to noise control programs.



    •   Army Medical Research and Development Command. This command conducts



        programs and research concerned with biomedical effects of noise, noise re-



        ductions,  noise exposure, and the physiological and psychological effects of



        noise.  Current programs include traumatic origins  of hearing losses, audi-



        tory perception and psychophysics, and the aviation audlometry program.



        The operating budget for fiscal 1972 is $464,300.



    •   Army Environmental Hygiene Agency and Environmental Health Engineering;



        Services.  Both agencies  conduct programs to assure the health of personnel.



        Current programs include the Hearing Conservation  Program ior the surveil-



        lance of occupational hearing loss and studies of effects of noise on indhdduals



        at military installations.  The operating expenditures for the noise program



        cannot be  determined.



    •   Army Materiel Command. Under this Command, programs and research are



        carried out under contract for noise reduction of equipment, rotary wing air-



        craft noise reduction, and human capabilities.  Expenditures for fiscal 1972



        are approximately $650,000.



    Air Force Noise Programs.  The Air Force conducts research under authority of



Section 8011, Title 10, U.S. Code. Program activities related to noise include the con-



servation of hearing program (AFR 160-3; Hazardous Noise Exposure), with an operational



expenditure of $509,300 for fiscal  1972.  Research programs are conducted at the Aero



Propulsion Laboratory, the Flight Dynamics Laboratory, the  6570th Aerospace Medical



Research Laboratory, and the Weapons Laboratory, all laboratories  of the Air Force



Systems Command. Contracted research is maintained by the Air Force Office
                                      5-9

-------
of Scientific Research.  There are no laboratories presently devoting full resources to




noise research.  Less than 3 percent of the total resources of laboratories having




noise research programs is allocated to that end.  The Office of Scientific Research




conducts research on aircraft noise generation processes.  Estimated funding for the




project is $80,000. The Flight D;imamics Laboratory is conducting development work




on aircraft acoustics, including noise control within vehicle interiors and sonic fatigue,




with current expenditures of $290,000 per year.  The Aerospace Medical Research




Laboratory conducts research on the effects of noise on Air Force personnel.  Special-




izing in bioacoustical research, this Laboratory is unique among Federal noise re-



search programs.  Expenditures lor such research are $410,000 per year.  The  Aero




Propulsion Laboratory,  with expenditures of $475,000, is concerned with noise abate-




ment in aircraft propulsion systems.  The Air Force Weapons Laboratory is research-




ing computerized noise exposure forecasting and has expenditures of $80,000.  Total




expenditures for research are $1,255,000.  Additionally, the Air Force has a program




for the development and acquisition of sound suppressors for ground runup of jet  air-




craft engines. This work is done entirely by contract at an expenditure of $4,810,000.




    Navy Noise Program.  The Navy noise abatement program  concerns aircraft and




related ground facilities and equipment and is divided into the areas of:




    •    Noise reduction of operating aircraft.




    •    Noise suppression for ground runup of engines.



    •    Noise suppression for overhaul and maintenance testing.




In addition,  an exploratory  development program concerning a semi-portable noise



suppressor for gas turbine  engines is underway.  A contract for $187,000 has been



awarded for the exploratory development program in fiscal 1972.
                                      5-10

-------
Department of Health, Education and Welfare (HEWj




    The Occupational Safety and Health Act provides authority for the National Institute




for Occupational Safety and Health to undertake research with the objectives of:  (a)




defining occupational noise limits  for conserving hearing, (b) assessing industrial noise




effects on overall health, safety and performance capability, (c)  considering differen-




tial diagnoses of noise-induced hearing loss cases and (d) training and demonstration




projects bearing on industrial noise control and hearing conservation. Funding for




these assorted activities in FY 1972 will be in excess of $400,000.



    Likewise, the National Institute of Health (NIH)  is vested with authority to conduct



research in noise as part of its broad mission in health. NIH sponsored studies are




being conducted largely on the physiological mechanisms underlying noise-induced




hearing loss and aspects of speech perception in noise through grants totaling nearly




$1,000,000 awarded to various universities and laboratories.




    HEW conducts a hearing conservation program for its own employees as part of




its occupational health activities.  Program objectives are to assess and remove




hazardous noise sources and otherwise protect employees from adverse noise effects.




Other concerns include the isolation and evaluation of noise-producing equipment.




Occupational medical guidelines described in PL  658 (79th Congress) and DOD circular



A-71 govern the administration of  the program.





Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD)



    Noise control and abatement is not a separate program within HUD; however, the




Secretary has  established noise control requirements for HUD  programs (HUD Circu-



lar 1390.2).  Noise problems arising in housing site selection, structural characteris-



tics of buildings, and land use planning,  are included.  Development of comprehensive



urban noise survey methodologies, metropolitan aircraft noise abatement policy
                                       5-11

-------
studies, and technical support for operational noise abatement programs are major

activities of the department.*  Plans for future consideration include extension of the

Comprehensive Urban Noise Survey Program, measurement instrumentation for deter-

mining site noise exposure, site noise exposure techniques, development of model

ordinances and building code sections, and noise emission ratings for appliances and

equipment.  Approximately $500,000 has been programmed for noise research and

development activities in HUD for FY 1972.

Department of Labor (DOLI

    The main DOL emphasis on noise is in two areas: The Walsh Healey Contracts

Act, which covered health standards for employees engaged in Federal contract work

exceeding $10,000, and The 1970 Occupational Safety and Health Act, extending cover-

age to all businesses engaged in interstate commerce. Worker exposure standards

under the two acts are identical.  There are approximately 80 million Americans com-

posing the work force; the overwhelming bulk of these is  somehow engaged  in interstate

commerce.  Hearing loss due to noise is,  of course, one of the health considerations

covered under the 1970 legislation.  Regulations limiting noise exposure of workers were

adopted by DOL under authority of the Act; these limffs were published in the Federal

Register.


National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASAI

    The NASA (as well as its predecessor, NACA) has been deeply involved in aircraft

noise research for many years.  The Fiscal Year 1972 program includes contract and

in-house research totaling $25 million in the areas of reduction of aircraft noise at the

source, noise propagation, effects on receptors, sonic boom, and approach trajectory

modification.  Of this total,  $12.6 million is contracted research, $5.4 million covers
    A notable example of the Department's activities is the issuance in 1971 of its "Noise
    Assessment Guidelines" to be used by nontechnical persons to assess present and
    future noise exposures of housing sites.

                                     5-12

-------
test equipment and instrumentation for the in-house research, and $7 million is bud-


geted for research and program management (chiefly in-house research manpower


costs).  Construction of a new aircraft noise reduction laboratory is underway at the


NASA Langley Research Center,  and the laboratory, costing about $5.8 million and


scheduled for completion late in 1972, will provide a major expansion of the nation;:I


capability.


    In addition to research activities, NASA provides noise protection for its employ -


ees through work site surveillance and audiometric  testing, supplemented by general


medical protection.


Department of Transportation  (DOT)


    In accordance with the Department of Transportation Act of 1966 (P. L.  89-t>70),


Section 4, DOT is engaged in research and development relating to transportation


noise,  particularly aircraft noise.  Additionally, PL 90-411 provided tor noise  cer-


tification of aircraft by the Federal Aviation Administration.  A separate office of


Noise Abatement administers  the noise program within DOT.  Its programs  are con-


cerned with: 1. evaluating community response to aircraft and transportation noise,


2. developing transport noise  measurement criteria, 3. evaluating transportation


noise  sources,  4. developing mathematical  models for estimating noise and  evaluating


the impact of transportation noise.  The office's many technical research programs in-


clude  investigation of truck engine noise and jet noise as well as the development of


measurement equipment and procedures.  Twenty percent of the office's budget is


spent  in the utilization of the technical capabilities of the Transportation Systems


Center at Cambridge,  Massachusetts as well as those of outside contractors.  The


Center investigations,  amounting to  $900,000, include measurement and simulation


modeling of community noise levels  caused  by transportation  related sources and re-


search of mechanisms of noise generation in jet engine exhaust  V/STOL aircra.it, and


internal combustion engines.
                                       5-13
   74-249 O - 72 - 24

-------
    Included within the DOT research and development effort is 'hat of the Federal




Aviation Administration in which aircraft noise suppression and adverse effects of




sonic boom are heavily emphasized. Expenditures for this program total  $3,150,000.




    Finally, the Federal Highway Administration conducts a noise research program




whose scope includes traffic noise measurements, evaluation and abatement.  Expendi-




tures for this effort total $149,000.




Moderate Federal Involvement




Department of Agriculture IUSDA)




    The USDA is engaged in eight specific noise reduction programs.  The overall




objective of these programs is to determine noise levels emanating from agricultural




sources.  As a part of this  effort,  USDA conducts research on noise propagation and




attenuation from vegetative screens 'through grants totaling $250,000 to state agricul-




tural  experiment stations.  Authority for this research is  located in the Clark-McNary




Act of 1942; the McSweeney-McNary Forest Research Act of 1928, and the Agricultural




Experimental Station (Smith-Lever) Act of 1955.  Moreover, USDA and the U.S. Air




Force participated in a mutual research effort on the effects of noise on chickens,




cows, and swine.




Department of Commerce {DOC)



    Within DOC,  research and measurement programs in acoustics are conducted by



both the National Bureau of Standards; (NBS) and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric



Administration (NOAA).  Only programs of the  former division,  however, are specif-




ically directed toward noise abatement.



    Within NBS, the Institute for Basic Standards (IBS) is currently involved in two




noise-related projects:
                                      5-14

-------
    1.  An investigation of reverberant sound fields with an aim of developing new,




        improved methods for measurement of sound absorption and sound power in




        reverberation chambers.




    2.  A study of current methods for measuring the subjective factors of loudness,




        noisiness and annoyance and the development of new methods for subject mea-




        surement.




    In addition to these  two programs, IBS is also engaged in basic research including




the development and standardization of calibration procedures for various sound mea-




suring equipments.  Additionally, the National Bureau of Standards in a joint effort




with the DOT has undertaken research on truck tire noise.  It has also joined with HUD




on a project called "Operation Breakthrough" to measure noise  levels at building




sites.




    The Bureau is also  concerned with passenger car tire noise and has made investi-




gations into the subjective assessment of this unwanted sound.   It also tests noise




characteristics of toys and of postal mail sorting machines.




    Also under NBS, the Institute for Applied Technology is conducting a variety of




research programs concerning noise abatement in buildings.  The development of im-




proved test methods is emphasized both for measuring sound transmission and for




rating and testing the overall acoustical performance of entire buildings.




    In addition to these  direct research projects, NBS presently has a working budget



of about $465,000 for programs sponsored by eight other agencies (including EPA).




    The current operating budget is $500,000 of which approximately $200,000 is



applied directly toward noise abatement research. A $200,000  increase in funding is



requested lor fiscal 1973, which would allow NBS to expand its efforts in noise control.



Contracts totalling $41,000 have been negotiated with two private organizations to ob-



tain data relating to noise in European environments and to gather information





                                      5-15

-------
concerning the acoustical properties of doors and windows.  This latter data is expected




to provide architects with valuable information in practical design. DOC has no author-




ity in the area of noise regulation or certification.




General Services Administration (GSA)




    The magnitude of GSA operations requires its inclusion in this discussion.  Although




it has no formal noise abatement program, GSA is developing noise abatement proce-




dures for construction and demolition activities.




    Maximum sound level criteria for mechanical building equipment were established




in 1970, and are included in specifications for major construction projects.  These




levels are more stringent than those established by the Department of Labor under the




Occupational Safety and Health Act.  Constructional noise currently is being monitored




at the site of the building now under construction in Philadelphia, Pa., to determine




possible criteria for future development of noise abatement standards.  As for space



already occupied,  GSA is continuously developing sound level criteria to improve the




acoustical environments of buildings.  Finally, GSA is amending procurement specifi-




cations to require  quieter products.  This agency will have a profound impression in




noise reduction through its vast  purchasing power.  Data on funds for support of these



activities was unavailable at the time this report was prepared (GSA's noise abatement




program is not budgeted separately.)




Department of the Interior (DOI)




    This agency is currently involved  in conducting three specific noise programs:




    1.  An FAA funded project  for monitoring the frequency and characteristics of




        sonic booms in certain  national parks.




    2.  A  Bureau of Mines instituted training program for inspectors who will survey




        noise conditions in mines.
                                      5-16

-------
    3.  A research program Instituted by the Bureau of Mines and HEW to study noise




        problems in mines and related hearing loss suffered by miners.  Only the




        Bureau of Mines program has been specifically budgeted for noise abatement




        and control. Estimates Include $45,000 for research and $19,000 for an




        acoustical research inventory.  Future DOI program plans in the noise field




        are almost entirely limited to this program.




    DOI legislative authority for noise research together with regulations for the fur-




ther definition of that authority are  contained in:  The Federal Coal Mine Health and




Safety Act of 1969 and the Act of May 28,  1936, and regulations found in 41 CFR 14;



50 CFR 4; 36 CFR 1; 30 CFR 1; 43 CFR 2 and 30 CFR 1(F)  (70).



National Science Foundation




    From 1968 through 1971, the Foundation funded equipment  purchases for noise re-




search amounting to  $99,200.  The  Special Engineering Program director and his staff




spend about 15 percent of their  time on acoustics  and noise control.  Time is also com-




mitted to the noise area in the psychobiology and neurobiology programs.  Similarly,




a number  of projects on noise research are funded through  contracts or grants.  Total




research expenditures for noise projects in fiscal 1971 were $17S,000.  While no pro-




jections for future noise research have been made, the Foundation has stated that it




expects  to fund additional projects in noise problems and acoustics.




The Postal  Service Commission (PSO



    The newly formed PSC is currently involved in three specific programs  designed



to reduce  noise in the workroom area.  Two research projects aimed at identifying




existing noise sources, determining noise abatement procedures, and implementing



prototype  modifications have been initiated.  On a trial basis, special Postal Service



Specifications have been issued on the development of new equipment to ensure that
                                      5-17

-------
operator noise levels do not exceed a given level.  Expenditures for personnel and con-




tracts amounted to $250,000.




    PSC has no  individual assigned to noise abatement programs on a full time basis.




Moreover, it reports no legislative requirements and states that future noise control




plans will depend largely  on the results of current projects.



Minor Involvement




Atomic Energy Commission  (AEC)



    In the process of obtaining licensing for a nuclear power plants, the AEC, under




procedures issued by the  Director of Regulations, provides assurance that noise is



considered, as required by Section ]02(2)(c)  of the  National Environmental Act of 1969.




Other than this,  the AEC  has no activities related directly to noise control.




Federal Power Commission IF PC)




    The FPC, in the exercise of its authority for licensing hydroelectric projects and




other power-generating sources, considers noise as  an environmental factor.




Department of State




    The State Department, in its general mission as the institutional representative




of this nation to  foreign countries, has widespread  contacts with foreign governments




on environmental matters, including noise.  Additionally,  State intends to work closely



with the  GSA in  determining and enforcing noise level tolerances for facilities it uses.



Tennessee Valley Authority  (TVA)




    The TVA is planning  to undertake a study on the  effects of gas turbine generating



plants on community noise levels, to be funded from  the General Industrial Hygiene



budget.  TVA intends to develop stan<3ards and criteria for use by design and operating




organizations in community noise control. An expenditure of $45,000 for fiscal 1971




was reported for community noise efforts and noise measuring instrumentation.
                                       5-18

-------
Treasury Department

    The Bureau of the Mint reports three sources of external noise generation causing

public complaint:

    1.  Melting furnace exhausts at the Philadelphia mint.

    2.  Rolling mills at the Denver  mint.

    3.  Presses at the San Francisco Assay Office, where coins are currently minted.

    The Bureau reports a continuing, independent effort to solve these problems.

Research Activities*

    Of some $34 million expended by the Federal agencies in fiscal 1970, approxi-

mately 78 percent, or $26 million, went for research and  development.  Most of this

research has been on aircraft noise.

    The following list of major Federal laboratories involved in noise and noise-

related  problem research should serve to indicate the nature and extent of Federal

agency research involved.

    •   Department of Agriculture

        1.   Agriculture Engineering Research Division,  Bethesda,  Maryland

        2.   Forest  Products Laboratory, Madison, Wisconsin

    •   Department of Commerce

        1.   Environmental Research Laboratories, Boulder, Colorado

        2.   Institute of Applied Technology, NBS,  Gaithersburg, Maryland

        3.   Institute of Basic Standards, NBS, Gaithersburg, Maryland

        4.   National Bureau of Standards, Boulder, Colorado

        5.   Wave Propagation Laboratory, Boulder, Colorado
*   A detailed listing of principal research activities at these labs is contained in
    NTID300.10.


                                      5-19

-------
Department of Defense




1.  Air Force




    (a)  Flight Dynamics Laboratory, Wright-Patterson AFB, Dayton,  Ohio




    (b)  Aero Propulsion  Laboratory, Wright-Patterson AFB, Dayton, Ohio




    (c)  Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory, Wright-Patters on AFB,



        Dayton, Ohio




    (d)  School of Aerospace Medicine, Brooks  AFB, Texas



    (e)  Weapons Laboratory, Kirtland AFB, Albuquerque, New Mexico




2.  Army




    (a)  Environmental Health Engineering Services



    (b)  Environmental Hygiene Agency, Edgewood Arsenal, Maryland




    (c)  Human Engineering Laboratories, Aberdeen Proving Grounds,



        Maryland




    (d)  Medical Research Laboratory,  Fort Knox, Kentucky




    (e)  Natick Laboratories, Natick, Massachusetts



3.  Navy




    (a)  Missile Center,  Pt. Mugu,  California



    (b)  Naval Aerospace Medical Research Laboratory, Pennsecola, Florida



    (c)  Naval Air Engineering Center,  Philadelphia,  Pennsylvania




    (d)  Naval Air Propulsion Test Center




    (e)  Naval Medical Submarine Research Center, Groton, Connecticut




    (f)  Naval Undersea Research and Development Center, San Diego,




        California




    (g)  Naval Undersea Warfare Laboratory, Pasadena, California




    (h)  Ship Research and Development Center,  Washington, D.  C.





                             5-20

-------
    •   National Aeronautics and Space Administration




        1.  Ames Research Center,  Moffettl'ield, California




        2.  Flight Research Center,  Edwards, California



        3.  Jet Propulsion Laboratory,  Pasadena, California




        4.  Langley Research Center, Hampton, Virginia




        5.  Lewis Research Center,  Cleveland,  Ohio




        6.  Marshall Space Flight Center, Huntsville, Alabama




    •   Public Health Service




        1.  Occupational Health Research and Training Facility (PHS), Cincinnati,




            Ohio




    •   Department of Transportation




        1.  Civil Aeromedical Institute, Oklahoma City,  Oklahoma




        2.  Transportation Systems Center, Cambridge, Massachusetts




Aircraft Research




    The reduction of aircraft noise and its suppression at the source were investigated




in FY 1971 by NASA and the Departments of Defense and Transportation.  NASA fund-




ing in FY  1971 totaled nearly $21 million, of which about $11.1 million was for contract




research, $3.3 million was for test equipment and instrumentation ior the in-house




research, and $6.4 million was for research and program management.  This program




included research in  source noise, noise propagation, receptor noise, sonic boom,



and approach trajectory modifications.



Other Noise Research Activities



    The remaining extent of Federal program activity in noise cozitrol can be briefly



summarized.  The DOD,  HUD,  and DOT, as well as NASA, conduct  research in areas




such as land use planning, high speed equipment noise reduction, metropolitan noise
                                     5-21

-------
abatement, and noise in building structures. Work is also being carried out in subway




noise,  urban vehicular noise, and tire acoustics.




    In 1971, DOD spent $600,000  for research on the effects of noise on human beings.




DOT and HEW spent $40,000 and $200,000, respectively, on this general problem, in-




cluding a study of the psychological effects of continuous noise exposure, impulsive




noise,  noise and performance, acceptability of aircraft noise, and other related sub-




jects.




Interagency Committees and Studies




    Early attempts to achieve some measure of coordination on a Federal level among




the many noise abatement programs came in two forms: studies and interagency com-




mittees.  In the former area, five reports were of particular significance. The reports




were:




    1.  Noise - Sound Without Value, Committee on Environmental Quality of the




        Federal Council for Science and Technology (September, 1968).




    2.  The Noise Around Us.  Panel on Noise Abatement, Commerce Technical Ad-




        visory Board, U.S. Department of Commerce  (September, 1970). This report




        recommended the establishment of an  Office of Noise Abatement within EPA.



    3.  Transportation Noise Pollution:  Control and Abatement, NASA Langley Re-




        search Center and Old  Dominion University (1970); NASA contract NOT 47-



        003-028.




    4.  Report to the Council on  Environmental Quality by an Ad Hoc Committee on




        Noise, 1969.  This Committee issued  recommendations that  resulted in the




        Administration's proposed legislation  on noise now pending in Congress.



    5.  A Study of the Magnitude  of Transportation Noise Generation and Potential




        Abatement, Department of Transportation (1970); Report No.  DOT-ONA-71-1.
                                      5-22

-------
There are important interagency groups concerned with noise.  These include:




1.  CHABA (the NAS-NRC Committee on Hearing, Bioacoustics and Biomechan-




    ics).  Sponsored by the National Academy of Sciences, it includes represent-




    atives from academia, industry, and government.  The government organiza-




    tions represented are:  The Army, Navy, Air Force, NASA, FAA,  EPA,




    HEW, NIH, DOT (Highway Safety Council).  Services and activities  of CHABA




    include:  literature reviews, reports on special problem areas,  evaluations




    of research proposals, on going research projects and the opportunity for mu-




    tual interaction between the several agencies.




2.  The Federal Council for Science and Technology's ad hoc committee on En-



    vironmental Quality Research and Development.  It is in its last phase and




    will probably be terminated before the end of the  year.  This interagency com-



    mittee investigated the Federal government's  involvement (Research and




    Development and demonstration programs) in  all  areas of environmental



    quality.  Noise was, of course, included in the investigation.




3.  Under the U.S. Public Health Service, the Occupational Health Research and




    Training Facility has interagency activities, primarily with DOL, DOI's




    Bureau of Mines and recently, the Department of Standards.  Most of its




    activity centers upon the evaluation of hearing losses produced by occupa-




    tional noise exposures and the evaluation of new equipment according to pres-



    ent acoustical standards.  In the past, the facility was involved with FAA in




    studies of the physiological and psychological  effects of noise, and of non-



    occupational hearing loss from airport noise.  Presently a study is  being



    conducted with the Bureau of Mines to survey  prevalence of hearing loss



    among miners exposed to mining equipment of assorted types.
                                 5-23

-------
4.  Interagency Aircraft Noise Abatement Program: This committee is one of the



    few programs which has successfully incorporated a wide variety of agency



    interests and authorities.  Perhaps, it has been the most active of the various



    interagency groups. Not only the aircraft oriented groups are represented



    (DOT,  DOD, FAA, NASA) but also such groups as the Department of Com-



    merce, Department of Health, Education and Welfare, the National Academy



    of Sciences,  HUD and DOT.  IANAP was organized just after the office of Noise



    Abatement in the Department of Transportation was created (about 1968).



    The program includes an executive group (from DOT) and eight panels (from



    a wide  variety of departments).  Under lANAP's auspices,  much information



    on aircraft noise has been compiled and published; recently, it was proposed



    that its scope be extended to include all areas of transportation noise.
                                 5-24

-------
STATE AND MUNICIPAL NON-OCCUPATIONAL NOISE ABATEMENT AND
CONTROL PROGRAMS

    This discussion of state and municipal programs in non-occupational noise abate-

ment and control is based on information received, up to the time this report was pre-

pared, from 114 of a possible 153 cities having a population of over 100, 000 and from

41 of a possible 53 states and territories.

Responsible Agencies

    Noise abatement and control has received only recently broad national attention;

and therefore, it is not surprising that approximately one halt of the states and cities

do not have an agency responsible for noise abatement programs as shown in Tables

5-2 and 5-3.

    Of those cities and states that do have some type of program, responsibility for

these  programs is fragmented throughout  several agencies.  With a few exceptions,

these  programs are staffed by on demand, part-time personnel,  often having no

acoustical background and drawn from several agencies. Perhaps as a function of the

local nature of many of the noise problems, a greater percentage of the cities, as

compared to the states, have specific noise programs and personnel assigned to them

on a continuous basis.

Current Programs

    Most programs now functioning are devoted to:

    •   Increased enforcement of existing nuisance ordinances.

    •   Establishment of governmental channels to respond to individual complaints.

    •   Studies and surveys of noise-related issues in order to develop enforceable

        laws, regulations, and ordinances that will include specific criteria and noise

        level standards for facility and community  requirements.
                                      5-25

-------
                         Table 5-2




RESPONSIBLE CITY AGENCIES AND PROGRAM CLASSIFICATION







Population
(in 1,000)
100-200
200-300
300-400
400-500
500-600
600-700
700-800
800-900
more 1,000

Total






Total
Number
of Cities
90
15
17
5
8
5
5
2
6

153
Responsible
Agency



c
o
o
CO
d
C <$ Tl
o 
-------
                        Table 5-3



RESPONSIBLE STATE AGENCIES & PROGRAM CLASSIFICATION





Population
(in 1,000)
300-900
900-1 000
1,000-2,000
2,000-3,000
3,000-4,000
4,000-6,000
6,000-11,000





Total
Number
of States
11
2
6
7
8
7
4
11,000-19,000 !5
Total
50
Responsible
Agency



1
6
2
3
3
2
4
2
1
23


c
a *
f &
s
•5 &i>
S 2
S3 PO
3

-
- -
4
3
- -
1
11 0


e
Environmental
Noise Abateim
- -

2
1
2
- -
1
2
8 0


"c
D
State Governm
-

-
1
-
-
-
-
1
Nature of


0)
Complaint Ans
-

1
-
-
-
-
1
2


e
Survey/ Monito
-

1
-
-
1
-
1
3
m
g
•p ;
ri
Sn
Developing Re
2

-
2
-
1
2
1
8
Program
M
C!
O
3
Enforcing Regl
-

-
-
-
2
-
1
3

'bC
'a
Research (Tra
1

_
2
1
-
1
1
6



1
-

!
3
1
-
-
-
5
                         5-27

-------
    The few exceptional situations in which specific noise standards and regulations




(as opposed to general nuisance ordinances) have been promulgated and enforced, in-




clude:




    •   Control of highway vehicular noise according to noise level standards.




    •   Restriction of the time of day when scheduled airlines may use airport facili-




        ties.




    •   Prohibition,  in terms of both sales and use,  of specific recreational vehicles




        in wilderness areas.



Research and Testing Facilities



    Those agencies carrying out  noise related activities have equipment ranging from




a single sound level meter to several sets of equipment including a spectrum analyzer




and several cars.  As an exceptional example, the California Highway Patrol is exten-




sively equipped to  monitor noise.  During one  12-month period (1970-1971), the noise




levels of 1 million highway vehicles were measured.  However,  most local govern-




ments have not reported any testing facilities  or inspection stations.




Current Funding




    In most cases, funding for non-occupational noise abatement is part of the opera-



tional budget of several agencies  and not specifically  allocated to a program of noise




abatement.  However, for five cities allocating funds  specifically for noise abatement




programs, the cost of current programs varies from  approximately $.02 to $.04 per



resident per year as shown by Table 5-4.




    California and Illinois have allocated respectively $.01 and $.025 per resident.
                                       5-28

-------
                                    Table 5-4

                BUDGET OF CURRENT (1971) NOISE ABATEMENT
                             PROGRAMS IN 5 CITIES
City
New York, N. Y.
Boston, Mass.
Columbia, S. C.
Fremont, Calif.
Philadelphia, Pa.
Approx. Pop.
(1,000,000)
8.0
0.6
0. 1
0. 1
1.9
Program Cost
Per Resident
(cents)
4
4
O
2
1.6
    Although a few city governments have estimated future budgetary requirements

(New York City has $1 million budgeted for 1973 .  . . $. 12 to $. 15 per resident),

most did not have an available estimate of cost for noise abatement programs.

Estimation of Potential Nationwide Budget of State and  City
Non-Occupational Noise Control Programs

    Through extrapolation of information based on the existing budgets of state and

local governments already actively addressing the  noise problem, a rough estimate of

the possible state and local government budget that could be devoted to the initial

stages of noise abatement and control is $3 to $13  million per year.  It would appear,

however, that this estimate of potential expenditure by state and local governments

would probably still be less than the lower bound for a comprehensive and effective

noise abatement program. This viewpoint is somewhat verified by the responses

from state and local government officials, which indicate that they are unable to evalu-

ate the effectiveness of their respective noise abatement programs.  State and local

governments could greatly benefit if a set of national noise and abatement objectives

and goals were established to which they could relate their programming.

                                       5-29
     74-249 O - 72 - 25

-------
Potential Use of Federal Funds



    Because of the difficulty of enforcing nuisance laws, most city and state govern-



ments would prefer to see Federal funds used to develop noise criteria.  This would



allow the local governments to develop and implement meaningful programs in 3 to 5



years.



Summary of State and  Local Efforts



    •   Over half of the  states and cities have no agency responsible for noise abate-



        ment.



    •   Of those local governments that do have some type of program,  responsibility



        for such programs is fragmented throughout several agencies.



    •   Reflecting the local nature of many of the noise problems, a greater percent-



        age of the cities, as  compared to the states, have specific noise programs



        and personnel assigned to them on a continuous basis.



    •   The broad power given to the courts under the general category of nuisance



        laws concerning noise has had limited success in reducing noise.  However,



        most local governments feel that if noise criteria, involving such issues as



        land use and human reaction to noise, were available in measurable terms,




        they could develop and implement more meaningful programs appropriate to



        their  local requirements within 3 to 5 years.



    •   Those governments having active programs have noted that Federal funds



        could be used to improve their staffs and facilities and to enlarge their pro-



        gram scopes.



    •   Reflecting the recent concern for noise, local programs have been initiated



        within the last 1 to 2 years but their success  or failure has not as yet been



        evaluated.  It should be noted that in a 12-month period during 1970 and 1971,
                                      5-30

-------
California, having promulgated noise standards for road vehicles, measured



the sound level of 1 million highway vehicles and cited 1.5 percent of these



vehicles for violations.
                              5-31

-------
INDUSTRIAL, PROFESSIONAL AND VOLUNTARY ASSOCIATIONS




Introduction




    The importance of the effects of noise abatement and control is reflected by the



concerted efforts of many industrial, professional and voluntary associations through-




out the country.  Their noise abatement research and development programs, their



programs in hearing conservation for the protection and well-being of personnel, and




their  initiative  in establishing criteria  and standards  reflect not only an aware-




ness  of  a significant problem,  but a  willingness and  ability to attack the prob-



lem so it may be resolved or controlled. The efforts of these organizations reflect the




absence of governmental influence. Furthermore, their efforts have not been a mere




reflex reaction to overtures and public dissatisfaction with noise problems  that have




been projected in recent years.  Instead, the efforts of many of the organizations re-




flect active engagement during the past 15 to 20 years.




Activities




    Interest in noise and noise  related problems is demonstrated by the activities of



over 100 professional/industrial organizations.  Some of these organizations, of




course, have a direct interest while others may have a tangential one.  The Acous-




tical Society of America is perhaps one of the larger professional societies that is



directly engaged in a broad spectrum of noise and acoustical problems.  It  is currently



developing a program for its Coordinating Committee on Environmental Acoustics.



This program will establish means for defining environmental problems in  societal



and technical terms and for disseminating information to the problem-solving




community.   The Society of Automotive Engineers and the American Society of



Mechanical Engineers are two societies that have directed efforts over the  years to




preparing suggested standards for the safety and protection  of the public. The Depart-




ment of Labor has adopted for its use certain of the proposed standards recommended






                                       5-32

-------
by the American Society of Mechanical Engineers.  The Society of Automotive Engineers



publishes relative material in the form of information reports (e.g., methods of compar-



ing aircraft takeoff and approach noise; jet noise prediction) and recommended prac-



tices (e.g., procedures for computing the perceived noise level of aircraft noise) for



advice and voluntary use of others.  They have published approximately twenty of these



types of reports related to noise and acoustics.



    Hearing conservation,  since 1947, has received the primary emphasis from the



Subcommittee on Noise in Industry of the American Academy of Ophthalmology and



Otolaryngology. This  group has prepared and distributed guides and manuals, and



participated in symposia concerned with industrial hearing loss.



    Two industrial hygiene organizations, the American Industrial Hygiene Associa-



tion and the  American  Conference of Governmental Industrial Hygienists, have sub-



stantial involvements in noise related problems.  The first named of these



associations has an inter-industry noise subcommittee which directs its efforts toward



industrial hearing loss, and is presently revising the Industrial Noise Manual published



by the American Industrial Hygiene Association.



    The American National Standards Institute is the national organization, represent-



ing industry, the individual consumer and the government, which meets demands for



voluntary national standards.  Through its committees on acoustics, bioacoustics, ana



shock and vibration, the Institute coordinates the work of standards development in the



private sector in the areas of noise and noise related problems. The Institute has pub-



lished approximately forty standards in acoustics and vibration which relate to noise



problems.



    Activities of professional and industrial organizations are also extended to testing



procedures, certification, and rating of various noise producing products.  For exam-



ple, the American Society for Testing and Materials has proposed a standard method






                                      5-33

-------
to test sound absorption and acoustical materials in reverberation rooms. Another
example is the Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute which has developed a
sound certification program and sound-rating procedures for outdoor air conditioning
units.
Publications
    The dissemination of relevant information on noise and noise related problems
through the medium of publications of books, periodicals and technical reports, has
been a major source of contribution toward the understanding of problems related to
noise control.  One of the several professional societies, the Acoustical Society of
America, publishes monthly scientific research reports relating specifically to noise
and related problems in the Journal of the Acoustical Society of America. Sound and
Vibration, a  controlled circulation publication to the professional community, publish-
es articles covering a wide spectrum of acoustic and  vibration subjects.  Noise
Measurement, is a quarterly publication produced by an electronics instrument manu-
facturing and sound and electronics laboratory (General Radio Corporation).  This
company has also published a widely used book,  Handbook of Noise Measurement.
Recent books include Effects of Noise on Man, by Karl  D. Kryter, Noise and Vibra-
tion Control by Leo L. Beranek,  and Handbook of Noise Control by C. Harris.
                                       5-34

-------
                                  CHAPTER 6

                      AN ASSESSMENT OF NOISE CONCERN

                              IN  OTHER NATIONS *



    This section presents an overview of noise abatement and control problems and

activities of foreign nations.  It is given here in support of the premises that noise

has attracted worldwide attention, that many nations have taken positive action and

are supporting extensive noise abatement research and, finally,  that all such work

is nonpolitical and should be of universal benefit.

    This material is presented in an integrated topical manner,  rather than on a

country-by-country basis, so that the reader may more easily compare international

noise abatement and control problems and measures with those of the United States.

The discussion on laws and regulations,  however, is one exception to the integrated

presentation, since it was necessary to review each country separately due to funda-

mental differences in the legal foundations and cultural backgrounds among nations.
    This chapter is based on material prepared by the staff EPA Office of Noise Abate-
    ment and Control and on data contained in EPA Technical Information Document
    NTTD300.6, "An Assessment of Noise Concern in Other Nations," (EPA contract
    68-01-0157, Informatics, Inc.).  See Appendix A regarding procurement of this
    material,  which contains bibliographic information.
                                      6-1

-------
SUMMARY OF IMPRESSIONS



    In May of 1971, the U.N.  Economic Commission for Europe sponsored a confer-




ence on environmental problems.  The papers submitted at this conference indicate




that noise is of serious concern in Europe and has been the object of specific attention




for at least the past 10 years. Although the invitation to the conference suggested an



outline for the subjects to be discussed and mentioned only transportation and build-




ing noise,  18 of the 26 countries represented specifically mentioned noise.  Twelve




of those countries treated noise as a major environmental topic along with water pollu-




tion, air pollution, and soil degradation.




    Of the nations surveyed, it appears that Japan has some of the most severe pollu-




tion problems, including noise pollution, and is vigorously attacking them.  Further,




it can be concluded that European nations have become more noise conscious and




have been more active in noise abatement than has the United States.  There are, of




course, a number of obvious reasons.




    1.   Since World War II, most European countries have been engaged in recon-




         struction and subsequent economic expansion.  In England,  construction




         noise has been intensive,  with approximately 600,000 new residences being




         erected per year from 1966 to 1972.  Similarly,  aircraft flights there  have



         increased at the rate of from 15 to 20 percent each year in recent years.



         In the European Common Market nations, the number of automobiles has




         been increasing about 11 percent each year.



    2.   European demographic characteristics and  social traditions differ greatly




         from those of the U. S.  Many European town dwellers own their own houses,



         and even farmers tend to live in densely populated towns.  Further, proxim-




         ity to one's neighbor and narrow,  crowded streets are historical character-




         istics of European cities.





                                      6-2

-------
    3.   In most European governments there is a trend toward establishing unified




         ministries of the environment.  However,  most of these ministries are




         too new for their effectiveness to be measured.  This is not to be interpreted,




         however, as meaning that these governments have not been active in  pollution




         control,  especially with respect to noise.  Rather, the extensive activities of




         various ministries such as health,  transport, and housing have led to major




         programs that required consolidation into  single ministries.





    The Scandinavian countries have been highly active in noise abatement and control.




Recently, a technical body under the name of Scandinavian Building Council was estab-



lished by the Nordic countries in order to exchange notes, to collect new ideas, to find




common approaches, and to arrive at solutions in combating all aspects of environ-




mental pollution.  The Council's headquarters is located in Helsinki, with other de-




partments in Stockholm.  Lately, the Council has been notably preoccupied with traffic




and aviation noise, resulting in recommendations that have been drafted for regulations




prescribing minimum distances between buildings and different types of roads. Studies




for providing safer and quieter road systems in new building developments are also




conducted.  The Council also plans to establish Scandinavian Standards and common




regulations.






    In England, the new Minister of Environment appears  to have autonomy in his posi-



tion; however,  like his colleagues, he must plead his cases before the Prime  Minis-



ter or before the full cabinet in instances, for example,  in which conflicts might exist




between environmental protection and industrial development.  France's Ministry of



Environment is barely 5 months old, and its scope  is not yet well defined. However,



it is noteworthy that jurisdiction for traffic and construction noise has been removed



from  local governments and assigned to the new Ministry.






                                       6-3

-------
    In West Germany, Chancellor Brandt is developing a new environmental policy.



It is already known, however, that his "sofort" priority program includes a new



law on noise pollution.  And it is expected that it will cover construction noise



and emission/immission standards as well as a general monitoring program and



a central clearinghouse for air and noise information.  Structurally, Germany's



Ministry of the Environment is an element of the Ministry of the Interior.




    The Soviet Union and Eastern European countries do not  seem to follow the same



pattern of centralization of environmental affairs.   While noise and abatement control



has been an active issue, it has been pursued by such ministries as those  of health



and building technology. In the USSR, noise norms have the form of administrative



laws and, in general, are not strictly enforced.
                                       6-4

-------
LEGISLATION AND  REGULATIONS




Great Britain




     The only Act of Parliament specifically designed to control noise is the "Act to




make new provisions in respect of the control of noise and vibration with a view to




their abatement" of November 28, 1960, which can be considered an extension of




public health legislation.  The first subsection of Section 1 of this noise abatement




act states: "noise or vibration which is a nuisance shall be a statutory nuisance for




the purposes of  Part III of the Public Health Act, 1936, and the provisions of that Act




shall have effect accordingly as if sub-sections (1) to (4) of this section were provi-




sions of the said Part in."  This part of the Public Health Act specifically states that




action against "noise or vibration alleged to be a statutory nuisance can be instituted




either by the local authority in which the nuisance is being committed or by any three




or more persons,  each of whom is an occupier of land or premises,  who are affected




by the nuisance."  The stipulation limiting institution of proceedings  to at least three




aggrieved persons is intended to discourage unnecessary complaints  within the statu-




tory systems and does not restrict the right of individuals to take civil action.  Before




the passage of this act, noise control was vested in local authorities  under the provi-



sions set out in local acts and in bylaws instituted under the  Local Government Act oi




1933.  It is estimated that before 1960 there were 400 authorities having noise control




powers, although prosecutions may have numbered as little as 20.




     Aircraft noise is specifically exempted from proceedings under the 1960 Act.



Section 2 of the Act lays down detailed rules stating when and for what purposes loud-




speakers may be used in streets and creates offenses punishable by small fines and



enforceable by local authorities.  The police themselves have various statutory powers



to prosecute and may also prosecute under  local bylaws in cases in which noise can be



broadly described as resulting from disorderly behavior.





                                       6-5

-------
      The only British statutory provisions, utilizing sound levels to directly decide
whether a noise should be controlled are the Motor Vehicles (Construction and  Use)
Regulations of 1969.  In addition,  Section 60 of the Road Traffic Act of 1960 gives the
Ministry of Transport extensive powers of regulation.  Motor vehicle limits  more strict
than ECE requirements were issued for 1972.  Domestic aircraft regulations were
amended to consider aircraft noise  subsequent to International Civil Aviation Organiza-
tion Activity in 1969.
Switzerland
     Switzerland does not have any federal legislation dealing exclusively with noise.
When the Swiss Government deals with problems concerning noise, the Police Division
of the Ministry of Justice and Police is consulted. The Federal Division of Police is
presently responsible for coordinating all Federal anti-noise measures.
     There are a number of administrative and legislative practices regarding air-
craft and motor vehicle noise.   They include mandatory vehicle certification, specify-
ing maximum emissions for five different classes of motor vehicle. And motor ve-
hicles are  subject to inspection  at intervals not to exceed three years.  Public  trans-
portation is subject to special regulation that is enforced, essentially, by government/
industry cooperation.  On the local  level, the Lausanne Anti-Noise Police  Brigade is
noteworthy.  This organization is concerned with reducing noise from all sources:
traffic,  aircraft, construction sites, industry, and night clubs or bars.  Similar
brigades exist in other Swiss cities.
     The Swiss campaign against noise is frequently viewed as a model.  It has been
effective in soliciting public and industrial cooperation.

France
     Recently,  France established a Ministry for the Environment;  however, as of
early 1971, no specific French law  on noise had been enacted.  Nevertheless, the
legal tools for comprehensive noise control do exist  and are enforced through various
applicable  ministries.  For example:
                                       6-6

-------
     •    The Ministry of Equipment is responsible for laying down noise level




         standards for vehicles and for defining the conditions of sale of vehicles




         and new exhaust systems.




     •    The Ministry of Health is responsible—in particular through the agency of




         the Noise Commission—for assisting in the definition of desirable noise




         levels.




     •    The Ministry of the Interior and the Ministry of the Armed Forces are



         responsible, by means of the police force and gendarmerie, for the




         enforcement of approved  legislation and regulations.




It is interesting to note that the French Anti-Noise League was declared to be "in the




public interest" in 1963, and from that time its activities have been subsidized.




     New motor vehicles must be certified,  with limits of 76 dBA for scooters to 90




dBA for trucks over 3.5 tons,  and the noise from agricultural tractors to be  measured




at a fixed distance.  Motor vehicles may be stopped,  and fines of up to 360 Francs



can be imposed for violations.  Numerous local ordinances exist that regulate traffic,




especially truck traffic. Since March 1960, the operation  of portable ratio receivers




in the streets of Paris has been prohibited,  and the use of  rubber or plastic trash cans-



is mandatory, to reduce the noise  associated with refuse collection.




Japan



     In June of 1971, a new ministerial level agency for the environment was  estab-



lished. Within that organization,  noise  abatement and control falls under the purview



of the  Special Pollution Section and the Motor Vehicle Pollution Section.  Japan is




probably unique, with its national  Law on Noise Abatement,  drafted 25 May 1971.



This law established national standards  for maximum noise levels  in the following




zoning areas:
                                       6-7

-------
    •   Hospital and other quiet areas




    •   Residential areas




    •   Industrial and commercial areas.




    The Japanese policy for implementing noise abatement measures includes some




interesting features.  For example, the Government is empowered to grant loans to




local public institutions to cover the costs of special noise abatement activities.   In




addition, the law  provides for tax incentives to those industries that have voluntarily




modified their plants for quiet operations.  Table 6-1 presents the major Japanese




laws dealing with noise abatement and control.




                                   Table 6-1




                       MAJOR JAPANESE NOISE LAWS
     Classification
                                  Law
                                                         Jurisdiction
1.  Environmental



    standards



2.  Industrial
Basic pollution measure




(Law 132, 1967)




Noise abatement law




(Law 98, 1968)
Environmental Agency








1.  Environment Sanitation




    Division, Ministry ol




    Health and  Welfare.




2.  Enterprise Bureau,




    Ministry of International




    Trade and Industry
                                      6-8

-------
                               Table 6-1 (cont.)
    Classification
                                 Law
                                                          Jurisdiction
3.  Construction
4.  Aviation
5.  Aviation (Military



    Bases)
                         Noise Abatement Law




                         (Law 98,  1968)
Public or Private Ai rports




and Vicinities (Law 110,




1966)




Special Loss and Indem-




nity (Law 246,  1953) and




Defense Force  (Law 135,




1967)
3.   Forest Division, Agen-




     cy for Forests and




     Fields.




4.   Processing Food




     Division, Food Agency




5.   Minister's Secretariat,




     Ministry of Transpor-




     tation




1.   Environment Sanitation




     Division, Ministry of




     Health and Welfare




2.   Planning Bureau,




     Ministry of Construction




Aviation Bureau,   Ministry




of Transportation








1.   Account Division,  Agency




     Defense Equipment

-------
Soviet Union




    The  Soviet Union may have the world's first comprehensive noise control legisla-




tion, dating from 1956.  However, it is not embodied in one single law but, rather, is




represented in a series of standards and  norms that assume the role of administrative




law. Sanitary  Norm 785-69 covers industrial noise  that is inside the factory emitted




to the surrounding community.  The maximum noise levels permitted by this norm




inside Soviet work places is approximately 85 dBA; however, the norms for labora-




tories and offices are considerably lower.




    In populated areas, the  maximum noise an industry may legally emit  into  its




neighborhood  (measured just outside the buildings to be protected) is as specified:




              Time                                Approximate dBA




         8 a.m. - 11 p.m.                                 55




       11 p.m. - 8 a.m.                                 45




However, certain situations are allowed  in which the noise levels may be  increased by




approximately 5 dBA.




    The  underlying principles of Soviet noise norms are the protection of man's central




nervous  system,  the prevention of hearing loss or speech interference, and the con-




cern for labor productivity.   The Soviet norms appear to be a guide to equivalent laws



of many  Eastern European nations.
                                      6-10

-------
NOISE SOURCES




Community Noise



    The noise to which workers are subjected in factories has been a matter of con-




tinuing concern  in many countries.  Only during the past 10 or 15 years, however,




has significant attention been paid to noise exposure elsewhere.  Although residents



of rural areas and small towns are  exposed to noise disturbances, it is often in the




larger metropolitan centers that noise levels arouse social and civic awareness.




Thus, it is not surprising that certain foreign cities have already become involved in



practical noise research.




    A typical approach to noise research usually begins with a city-wide survey




aimed at assessing the extent of the local noise problem.  Such a survey may be




based on either or both of the two fundamental approaches; i.e., physical measure-




ments of existing noise levels  at a number of locations and sociological surveys of




disturbance/annoyance reactions.




    Some  authorities consider Dortmund,  Germany to be the leading city in this kind




of noise research.  Others group Dortmund  with London and Tokyo.  Each of these



cities has  conducted extensive surveys, and each is well known for one or more




aspects of its noise research.  Dortmund, for example, measured noise levels in




over 1400  different places and developed an  intricate noise map, with streets shown




in different colors according to 5-dB noise level increments.  Tokyo has taken a



number of surveys, each concentrating on a different  target,  such as automobile




noise, construction noise,  industrial noise,  noise levels at schools, and noise levels



by zone.  London chose to cover an area of 36 square  miles with 540 measuring



points systematically located 500 yards apart on a grid layout.  These three cities



are by no means the only ones that have made noise surveys.
                                      6-11
    74-249 O - 72 - 26

-------
    Similar surveys have been made elsewhere, notably in Dusseldorf, Munich,




Vienna, Berlin,  Cologne, Toulouse, Paris, Athens, "Madrid, Warsaw and Brno, as




well as in several populated areas and towns in Romania and the Netherlands.




    The findings of the various surveys tend to support each other, and thus,  suggest




that urban noise phenomena are much the same from city to city.  For example,  Lon-



don, Tokyo, Dusseldorf, Madrid, and other cities all report that the average noise from




heavy vehicles is higher than the noise from ordinary cars.  The London report shows




that the noise level  next to a road increased by 4dBA(from a base varying between (58 to





80 dBA) if the traffic flow increases from 1000 to 3000 vehicles per hour.  Dusseldorf,



though reporting in  different measuring units, shows results of much the same magni-




tude.   However, the Dusseldorf investigators carried this one step further, finding




that a given increase in traffic density had less effect on the noise level 20 or 40




meters away than it did next to the roadway itself.




    One of the most frequently cited results of the  London survey indicates that over




80 percent of London's noise is caused by vehicular traffic.   It should be pointed out,




however, that this particular survey covered 36 square miles of the inner city, where




vehicles were the most numerous noise sources.   In the survey report, it was shown




that the contribution of industrial and other noise emission grew as one proceeded



toward the  outlying areas.  More specifically, traffic noise  predominated in 84 per-




cent of the  locations chosen for the survey, while in the remaining 16 percent of the



locations the predominant noise came from industrial plants, river boats,  docks,




railways,  building operations,  etc.  While it is evidently true that surface  traffic




makes the largest contribution to urban noise, the fact that  it is dominated by other




noise sources in certain city locations is significant.
                                      6-12

-------
    The relatively great impact of vehicular noise is supported by the sociological




surveys made in several cities, but the results vary widely.  Brno, Paris, and Lon-




don ofler typical examples.  In Brno, 90 percent of the people interrogated ranked




traffic noise as the most annoying, while 80 percent of the respondents in Paris




ranked it in first place.  In London, where the responses were classified according




to location, the results showed 36 percent of the  people at home, 20 percent of those




outdoors, and 7  percent of those at work rated traffic noise as the most annoying.




Interestingly enough, 39 percent of the Londoners at home gave higher priorities




to home-generated noise from appliances,  voices,  television, pets, etc.,  while the




rest complained about either aircraft or industry.




    So far, researchers have been unable to find many meaningful correlations be-




tween technological and sociological noise surveys. Admittedly this can be attributed




to the fact  that the characteristics of a noise source as measured by an instrument are




not necessarily consistent with the complaints  about it by a human being.   Moreover,




neither sound level meters nor human ears can provide accurate identification of all




the sounds that may have harmful effects.  It becomes clear only that community




noise  is a cacophony of disturbances that require much research and analysis.




Air Traffic  Noise




    Virtually every country is  concerned in some way with noise produced by air




traffic.  The  disturbance caused by aircraft noise in residential areas around the



world's major airports is generally regarded as  a  serious problem.



    Protests from aroused citizens  have prompted planning agencies in most coun-




tries to move  cautiously in establishing new airports.   London,  for example, has



spent  several years  debating the location of its third airport,  and Tokyo its second.



The problem  has reached the stage where public  reaction is influencing the develop-



ment of future aircraft.  Not the least of the impediments is the publicity given to




                                     6-13

-------
the prospect of sonic boom carpets to be laid across the world during flights of




supersonic transports.



    Awareness of aviation noise problems has kept pace with both the  increase in air




traffic and the advancement of aircraft technology.  According to the Airlines Research




Bureau, for example, the volume of international traffic in Europe during the period




of 1960 to 1969, exclusive of intercontinental flights not originating or terminating




in Europe, increased from 10.4 to 24. 9 million passengers.   An even  sharper rise




was registered by freight and mail cargo.  In view of increases in the  power and size




of jet aircraft during this same period,  the expressions of alarm over aircraft noise




are not surprising.




    Typical of airport problems over this period of time is the experience of Heath-




row Airport in London.   Reacting to over 1200 complaints  received in  1960, Heath-




row authorities found that 23 percent of the daytime flights and 35 percent of the




nighttime  flights were exceeding the airport's own maximum permissible noise




levels. After campaigning to bring noise levels to the established limits, airport




authorities reduced noise levels to within 1 percent of standards for both day and




night flights by 1963,  and the number complaints dropped to 500.  However, the in-




creased traffic and the increase in the number of jet aircraft brought the number of



complaints up to 2200 in 1969.  Meanwhile, a survey of persons living in the two



boroughs most seriously affected by Heathrow noise showed that inhabitants, who



in 1965 or 1966 were  able to tolerate the noise, had begun  to resent it  bitterly by as




early as 1968.




    Heathrow's concern for the reactions of residents, is by no means  unique.  Al-




most every country considers it necessary to not only know the aircraft noise levels




produced on the ground and in the vicinity of an airport but also to assess the noise




disturbance in terms  of public reaction.  Consequently, the concept of the Perceived






                                      6-14

-------
Noise Level (PNdB),  with various modifications and interpretations,  is commonly




accepted,  This concept is reflected in the International Standards Organization pro-




cedure for the measurement and assessment of aircraft noise.  Although most coun-




tries agree with the principles behind this procedure, some object to its methodology.




Notable among these is South Africa,  which has been working on the development of




a measure that involves more factors and fewer measurements.  South Africa was




also among the countries to follow the recent trend toward the measurement of noise




levels in dBA  rather than in PNdB units, as originally specified in ISO recommenda-




tions.




    One airport that has met reasonable success in the controlling noise is the ZUrich



Kloten Airport.  More than five years ago, the government of the Canton Zurich es-




tablished regulations to limit excessive noise in the airport vicinity.  The regulations




themselves are of less interest, however,  than the techniques used to achieve com-



pliance.  The airport employs a permanent monitoring system involving strategically




placed microphones connected by cables to a central evaluation unit, where A-weighted




sound levels are continuously recorded.  If a tripping level is exceeded,  then the date,




time,  and duration of the event are printed out so that the offending pilot can be iden-



tified.  The results of the monitoring activity are published in a bulletin distributed




to all  airlines  every month.  In this bulletin a rank order is given,  showing the rela-




tive proportions of infringements for the various airlines. No airline likes to be at



the top of the list, and no pilot likes to be cited too often.  These factors alone have



served to make the procedure effective; but they are reinforced on rare occasions




by the practice of asking a pilot with an excessive  number of citations to report to the



traffic control office before each departure and receive a detailed briefing on the



exact  contents of the regulations.  Even attempts to circumvent the system have pro-



vided  unexpected benefits.  For example,  because knowledge of the system's details






                                      6-15

-------
is common, some aircraft have been avoiding the known locations of monitoring micro-



phones.  Since these locations are at the outskirts of densely populated villages, the



evasive actions of the pilots have proved to be advantageous.



    In other countries the techniques for enforcement of airport noise standards tend



to be more formal.  Moreover,  emphasis elsewhere  seems to be placed on the estab-



lishment of acceptable criteria or on the selection of suitable sites.  In common with



nations from other continents,  the rest of the European countries are interested in



problems such as:  noise certification, satisfactory methods for specifying noise



levels,  location of airports where land usage in their vicinity is reasonably compatible




with the degree of noise disturbance likely to be experienced, and production or oper-



ation of aircraft to achieve noise abatement without sacrificing safety or economy.



    A few countries have experimented with other approaches for protection from



aircraft noise, both flyover disturbances and airport effects, fa 1963,  Tokyo tried



a ban against jet flights between 11:00 p.m.  and 6:00 a.m.   fa later years Japan,



Norway, and Great Britain experimented with such physical measures as the construc-



tion of acoustic baffles and greenbelts, the installation of double windows, the use of



sound insulation in the walls and ceilings of buildings, and the erection of concrete



walls around schools.  While all these measures were at least partially successful,



circumstances often negated their effects,  to some cases,  for  instance,  the absence



of air conditioning in such protected buildings prompted the occupants to  open the win-



dows in the summer.



    The worldwide concern over aircraft noise comes at a  time when the present



generation of jet aircraft will probably be in use for at least another eight to 10 years.



Accordingly, attention has been directed to retrofitting existing jet engines to make



them quieter.  Although  the International Civil Aviation Organization sponsored a
                                      6-16

-------
retrofit meeting in November 1971, little hope is held for general agreement on its



recommendation, because the estimated cost per engine is beyond the means of many



foreign nations.  Air traffic noise thus promises to be a challenging problem for the



decade of the seventies,  a problem with technical, economic, and political overtones




of considerable magnitude.



Surface Traffic Noise



    Of all the irritant noise sources in both urban and rural settings, traffic noise has



been isolated as the most significant.  Many countries have undertaken sociological



surveys that support this thesis.  For example, Table 6-2 presents data gathered from



a British  survey  in 1968.





                                   Table 6-2



                          BRITISH TRAFFIC SURVEY

Description of Noise
Road traffic
Aircraft
Trains
Industry/ construction work
Domestic/Light appliances
Neighbors' Impact noise
(knocking, walking, etc.)
Children
Adult voices
Radio/TV
Bells/alarms
Pets
Number of People Disturbed
Per 100 Questioned
When at Home
36
9
5
7
4
6
9
10
7
3
3
When Outdoors
20
4
1
3
-
-
3
2
1
1
-
When at Work
7
1
-
10
4
-
-
2
1
1
-
                                      6-17

-------
    The absolute percentages may vary from country to country, but the relative




position of traffic noise versus that from other sources is constant.  In Norway, a




relatively thinly populated country, a poll of 1600 people yielded the date presented




in Table 6-3.



                                   Table 6-3




                        NORWEGIAN NOISE SURVEY
Tvoe of Noise

A. Noise from motor vehicles
B. Noise from aircraft
C. Noise from railroads
0. Noise from neighbors
Number of People Annoyed per 100
Questioned
All Questioned
17
3
4
5
Area
Urban
20
4
5
6
Rural
11
1
1
3
     A Swedish study shows that cultural differences are significant in assessing the




 social impact of traffic noise.  This comparative study, with a sample population




 (matched in terms of age, social, and occupational status) of 200 in Stockholm and



 166 in Ferrara, Italy, came up with a statistically significant difference—92 per-




 cent in Stockholm versus 63 percent in Ferrara spontaneously mentioned traffic



 noise, and 61 percent in Stockholm versus 43 percent in Ferrara were disturbed by




 traffic noise.  The conclusion was drawn that results concerning annoyance reactions




 to traffic noise in one country cannot be directly extrapolated to another.




 Road Traffic Noise Levels



     In 1970 a report on urban traffic noise by the  Organization for Economic Cooper-




 ation and Development the observation is made that effective enforcement of traffic
                                      6-18

-------
noise regulations requires the availability of simple,  reliable noise monitoring instru-




ments.  Experience attests to the ineffectiveness of legal enforcement of noise legis-




lation without adequate equipment (or manpower).  It implies that even though not all




governments experience equal deficiencies, a universal need for improvement does




exist.  For research purposes, however,  modern equipment satisfies all current




requirements.




    Between 1963 and 1965, in roadside surveys made in Great Britain traffic noise




was isolated from all other sources.  The measurements were made in a wide range




of situations, to learn how to relate the variables of traffic flow and road gradient to




noise levels.  The procedures followed were those specified in British Standard 3425.




    A useful method of displaying the time-varying nature of traffic noise is a sta-




tistical distribution. Figure 6-1 shows such distributions measured by Lamure and




Auzou, in France, for light and heavy urban highway traffic.  A straight line on the




figure represents a Gaussian distribution.  In this case, the heavy traffic situation




is described well by such  a distribution, while the distribution of the light traffic




situation is skewed by the occasional noise peaks.




    The data is essentially self-explanatory.  It shows, for example, that in light




traffic 80 dBA is exceeded 5 percent of the time, 70 dBA 20 percent of the time and




that in heavy traffic 80 dBA is exceeded 60 percent of the time and 70 dBA 97  per-




cent of the time.  These noise levels far exceed those recommended by the Organi-



zation of Economic Cooperation and Development as acceptable.



    A noise map plotted for Toulouse, France,  showed that in the center of the city




the noise level  rarely falls below 80 to 90 dBA and sometimes even exceeds 100 dBA




at peak periods.



    Becordings made uninterrupted for 24-hour periods inside a number of buildings



in Paris showed that inside a building particularly exposed to urban traffic noise,






                                     6-19

-------
     99.99
      99.5
       95
  o
  z
  <
  T
  I
       80
60
1.0
       0.1
      001



\
\
V








\
y
' r

\
X
\
"\
•
\
\
\

VERY LIGHT TRAP




\
\
v .HEAVV
\S
O
\
X
\


f ">^.
FIC/





TRAFFIC


\
V
\
\
\
0 \
\ \
"• "V
s. c
X
x^
N.










\
\
N
                 60
                                  70                 80


                              A-Weighted Sound Pressure Level dBIA)
                                                                       90
         Figure 6-1.  Typical Statistical Distributions of Urban Traffic Noise
the average total noise during the day (from 6:00 a.m. to 11:00 p. m.) varies between



50 and 60 dBA and that during the night (from 11:00 p. m.  to 6:00 a. m.) is varied be-



tween 40 and 50 dBA, with frequent peaks of 60 dBA.  During the day,  the minimum



noise never falls below 45 dBA and falls below 30 dBA only between 1:00 a.m.  and



3:00 a.m.



Control of Traffic Noise



     Traffic noise abatement can be achieved by attacking either the source, the trans-



mission path, the receiver (buildings), or any combination of these elements.  There



appears to be no consistency among the countries surveyed in their approach to the
                                       6-20

-------
control of traffic noise.  In Sweden as well as Great Britain,  busses have been




modified with special acoustic liners around the engines and exhausts.  While an 8-




to 10- dBA reduction is being claimed, the Organization for Economic Cooperation




and Development cautions that such measures may be  temporary unless relatively




expensive maintenance procedures are observed.




    Soviet experiments have shown positive results through dynamic balancing of the




engine, gear box, wheels, and tires as well as  through extensive use of soundproof-




ing materials.  A British study by the National  Physics Laboratory achieved noise




level  reductions of 5 dBA for diesel engines and 9 dBA for gasoline engines by vary-




ing the compression ratios and timing patterns.




    Regarding transmission path noise reduction, all  countries surveyed agreed that




depressed highways with either slanted or vertical walls offered best results.  Simi-




larly,  noise shielding structures appear to be a popular approach,  at least in Sweden,




Great Britain, and the West German Republic.  In a London noise study employing




a protective barrier three meters from the edge of a road 30  meters wide,  it was




found that 30 meters from the  screen the total noise reduction varied from 9 to 15




dBA for a 1.5-meter barrier,  from 17 to 22 dBA for a 5-meter barrier, and 22 to




25 dBA for a 10-meter barrier.  Noise reduction due  solely to distance was about




9 dBA.




    Many countries have introduced strips of grass and trees along highways.  While



such measures  are aesthetically pleasing, Swiss and Scandinavian  data show typical



attentuation of 5 dBA per 100 meters for dense  plantings of trees.   The Swiss study




states that such a measure may be worthwhile from a  psychological point of view:




when the source of the noise is not visible, it is less irritating.



    Many large urban governments are redesigning entire sections of their cities




to provide more pleasant environments that include reduced traffic noise  levels





                                     6-21

-------
outside and inside residences and other buildings.  For example, an Amsterdam pro-



ject calls for wide spaces, planted with grass and trees, between highways and resi-



dences.  Only low nonresidential buildings are allowed along the highway.



Enforcement



    Nearly all countries surveyed have explicit national or local legislation regulating



noise emissions by motor vehicles.  The  Organization for Economic Cooperation and



Development Urban  Traffic  Noise Survey of 1970 observes:



         "In order to be realistic these standards should reflect a compromise



    between social considerations, what the public is willing to pay, and what



    industry can manage to produce in the light of available technology. Some



    reductions in noise emission could be achieved in the fairly short run sim-



    ply by adding acoustical absorbers and by detailed attention to silencers,



    air intakes and cooler fans.  More significant noise reductions would,  in



    many cases, require alterations in the design of the engine,  and could



    therefore become effective only after a longer period.  The important



    point is that standards should be set, and set on a sliding scale, so as to



    continue to reflect the current state of noise reduction technology."



    A number of countries actively enforce noise emission standards  by various



methods. Denmark, for example, has compulsory noise inspection whenever cars



over five years old are  sold.  In Switzerland, cities such as Lausanne,  Zurich,



Berne, engage regular police noise patrols empowered to fine the driver or to



temporarily confiscate vehicles that have been altered to increase  exhaust  noise.



Tokyo elicits public cooperation and consciousness regarding street noise by using



illuminated signs that continually flash the noise level readings at busy intersec-



tions.
                                      6-22

-------
NOISE ENVIRONMENTS




The  Residential  Environment




     Much has been said about the effects on residential areas of noise from aircraft,




surface vehicles, industrial plants, and other external sources.  However, a close




review of foreign literature shows that other countries devote significant attention to




the identification and control of disturbances that originate iti and around residential




buildings.  Some of the annoyances already mentioned in connection with the London




noise survey have been cited by representatives of other countries as well.  Much of




their discussion revolves around the transmission of sounds through poorly insulated




walls and floors. These sounds include human voices, footsteps, radios,  musical



instruments, and many others generated either by neighbors or by members of the




same household.




     At least 15 major countries have insulation specifications for dwellings, especi-




ally  for apartment buildings.  A common characteristic of these countries is that




apartment buildings predominate in a new residential construction.   A typical ex-




ample is Sweden, where,  as early as 1961, 73 percent of all new dwellings were




apartments.  This country was one of the first to introduce insulation requirements




that  cover wall and floor insulation between living rooms and that set limits for noise




produced by the turning on or off of faucets in bathrooms and kitchens.



     In some countries,  specifications are presented as requirements, while in others




they are merely recommendations.  Although most of the specifications center around



International Standard Organization recommendations,  particularly with respect to




the measurement of airborne and impact sound transmissions, each country has




introduced special features of its own.  For example, in Poland as well as in other



East European  countries, all apartments must be separated longitudinally by double



walls.  Several countries recommend floating floors for control of impact noises and





                                      6-23

-------
lead-based foundations for the attenuation of ground-transmitted vibrations. Most




European countries specify insulation of water pipes from the structural members of




buildings to avoid transmission of water hammer vibrations and faucet noise.




    Not all domestic noise sources are directly related to insulation.  Elevators,




heating or air conditioning equipment,  doorbells, household appliances, and other de-




vices have been cited as offenders.  Sweden and the USSR have  conducted notable




studies of such items,  particularly of individual household appliances.




    The  Swedish Institute of Building Research has analyzed 68 noise sources  such as



vacuum cleaners,  refrigerators, kitchen exhaust fans, freezers,  heating fans, and




hair driers.  The highest noise levels in the Swedish study (70 to  80 dB at one  meter)




came from vacuum cleaners.  A Soviet study of home appliances ranked an electric




floor  polisher as the noisiest, followed by a vacuum cleaner, a shaver, and a  sewing




machine.  This study also included some  appliances that had been designed specifi-




cally  for quiet operation.  Notable among these were a vacuum  cleaner with the motor




insulated from the housing, a centrifuge-type laundry extractor with a rubber  pillow




in the base, some  noiseless melodic doorbells, and a washing machine that used high-




pressure steam and had no moving parts.




    An interesting viewpoint on household appliances was offered in the Hungarian



monograph submitted for this year's environmental conference  sponsored by the



Economic Commission for Europe.  The writer expressed the opinion that appliances




made in Hungary had little value for export purposes because they were noisier than



appliances manufactured in other countries.  The Hungarian report introduces a rarely




expressed evaluation of noise as an economic factor.  In general, studies of domestic




noise center around the same effects as do studies of other noises.  Although home-




generated noises are surpassed by disturbances from traffic and industry, they are




by no means disregarded in other countries.






                                     6-24

-------
Public  Institutions



    Many countries have conducted special studies and surveys of public Institutions.



Most commonly studied have been schools and hospitals; but other institutions for which



some foreign noise control efforts can be observed include museums, concert halls,



libraries, and public administration buildings.



    The USSR has developed a standard Vibronoise-I measurement  laboratory for



measuring noise and vibration in certain buildings for inspection and control purposes.



Much of the  equipment is portable,  so field measurements can be made in schools,



hospitals, health stations, juvenile  institutions, etc.  Over 350 Vibronoise-I units



were produced and distributed between 1967 and 1970.



    Studies conducted in Austria, Czechoslovakia,  and Germany explore noise as a



negative factor in the educational environment. These studies conclude that excessive



noise not only distracts the attention of students but affects them physically and psy-



chologically. Observations  show that excess noise levels  in classrooms  produce



fatigue, reduce concentration span, raise blood pressure, and sometimes cause



neurosis. These observations concur with the maximum classroom level of 45  dBA



recommended by Great Britain's Wilson Committee. A Swedish recommendation



placed the maximum classroom  level at 35 dBA.



    Great Britain,  Germany, Austria, Italy, Poland, Sweden, the USSR, and South



Africa are among the countries in which studies have been undertaken to  determine



the noise levels in hospitals and to analyze the effects of noise on patients.  Most of



the surveys showed excessive noise levels ranging from 50 to 90 dBA within the rooms



as compared to the recommended maximum levels of 55 dBA during the day and 25



dBA at night.  Ail investigators  agreed that noise levels considered tolerable  for



healthy individuals could be  unbearable or damaging to hospital patients.
                                      6-25

-------
Effects of  Industrial  Noise on the Community




    Although industrial noise  receives some attention in general studies and surveys,



much of the information about it is generated in special studies. Often, such studies




are limited to isolated instances in single plants.  For example, a cyclone extractor




in Australia was studied after residents  complained about  it.  As a result of this study,




the  unit was modified and shielded so that the emission was reduced to a level that was




not  objectionable.   In another Australian case, the loud hissing noise of the oil burn-




ers in an industrial kiln was the subject  of complaints and a subsequent investigation.




A specially designed muffler system eliminated this problem.




    The practice in London precludes the appearance in print of many reports  on in-




vestigations of this nature.  There,  the  control of industrial noise  is the responsi-




bility of the local boroughs, and investigations of complaints  are made by the public




health inspectors.  In most cases the investigations consist of informal discussions




with the offending firms.




    A more extensive approach to industrial noise problems  was taken by the Federal




Republic of Germany in a study of noise  in the metal industry.  This study identified




noise sources and measured their noise  levels at various  points in the surrounding




communities. The worst sources identified included high speed blowers, drop ham-



mers, and material handling equipment. In most instances,  the residents had failed




to register complaints, except when unusual events occurred.



    Unlike the residents near fixed industrial plants, citizens exposed to temporary




construction activities usually find the attendant disturbances objectionable.  Con-




sideration of this has caused some countries to shorten the work shifts for construc-




tion activities.  Switzerland has developed a formula that  determines the  allowable




work time on the basis of the average noise  level of the operation.
                                      6-26

-------
    to the Communist countries, allowance for industrial noise is often included in



town planning.  Plant screens,  greenbelts, and distance standards are customarily



employed.
                                     6-27
      74-249 O - 72 - 27

-------
SUMMARY




    Most countries surveyed have viewed noise abatement and control as a major




environmental issue for more than a decade.  Research efforts have been and are be-




ing supported largely by national governments.  On the basis of research results, a




large number of countries have enacted comprehensive laws and regulations, and,




in many instances,  national laws are stricter than the corresponding International




Standards Organization recommendations.




    It is difficult to attribute these national concerns to a common basis, since there




are varying levels of emphasis.  For example,  economic effects of noise have been



frequently expressed,  such as  the impact of noise on labor productivity, the lack of




foreign acceptability of domestic (noisy) industrial products, or the  impact of a noisy




community environment on a tourist-oriented economy.  Similarly,  the concern for




social welfare brought about the enforcement of numerous specific regulations.




    There are several international organizations that have promoted  noise control




to member nations. The World Health Organization has made a number of sweeping




recommendations.  Similarly,  the Organization of Economic Cooperation and Develop-




ment has pressed the issue of traffic noise, has issued a report,  "Urban Traffic  Noise"



(Paris,  1971), a.'id is presently sponsoring a comprehensive stud',  on the environmen-



tal impact of the automobile, including air pollution and noise. The U. N. Economic



Commission for Europe (ECE), issued in 1968,  recommended "Maximum Limits of




Sound Level - New Vehicles" (Rule No. 9, Uniform Provisions Concerning Approval




of Noise - ECE Geneva; and the Council of European  Communities (CEC) has issued



a directive to the Common Market nations to provide for uniform noise limits for new




vehicles.  This rule is  to become effective by the end of August 1972.
                                     6-28

-------
    In general,  all countries surveyed recognized the following sources as noise



polluters (listed in order of impact):



    1.  Surface traffic



    2.  Aviation



    3.  Industry (as a community noise source)



    4.  Community activities.



    Depending upon  the political structure of each country, enforcement is guided



nationally but implemented regionally.  Many countries have been successful in their



noise abatement efforts, but uniformity of approach is not evident.
                                     6-29

-------

-------
                                  Appendix A




                      SOURCE DOCUMENT INFORMATION








    The Technical Information Documents used as the basis for the preparation of this




report are:




    NTID300.1 - Noise From Construction Equipment and Operations. Building




    Equipment, and Home Appliances, prepared by Bolt, Beranek and Newman under




    EPA contract 68-04-0047.




    NTID300. 2 - Noise From Industrial Plants, prepared by L.S. Goodfrtend Associ-




    ates under contract EPA 68-04-0044.




    NTID300. 3 - Community Noise, prepared by Wyle Laboratories under EPA con-



    tract 68-04-0046.



    NTID300. 4 - Laws and Regulatory Schemes for Noise Abatement, prepared by the




    George Washington University under EPA contract 68-04-0032.



    NTID300. 5 - Effects of Noise on Wildlife and other Animals, prepared by Memphis



    State University under EPA contract 68-04-0024.



    NTID300. 6 - An Assessment of Noise Concern in Other Nations, prepared by



    Informatics, Inc. under EPA contract 68-01-0157.



    NTID300. 7 - Effects of Noise on People, prepared by the Central Institute for the




    Deaf under EPA contract 68-01-0500.



    NTID300. 8 - State and Municipal Non-Occupational Noise Abatement Programs,




    prepared by the staff of the EPA Office of Noise Abatement and Control.
                                      A-l

-------
    NTID300. 9 - Noise Programs of Professional/Industrial Organizations,  Unlversi-




    ties and Colleges, prepared by the staff of the EPA Office of Noise Abatement and




    Control.




    NTID300. 10 - Summary of Noise Programs In the Federal Government,  prepared




    by the staff of the EPA Office of Noise Abatement and Control.




    NTID300. 11 - Social Impact of Noise, prepared by the National Bureau of Standards




    under interagency agreement with the Department of Commerce.




    NTID300. 12 - Effects of Sonic Boom and Other Impulsive Noise on Structures,  pre-




    pared by the National Bureau of Standards under interagency agreement with the




    Department of Commerce.



    NTID300. 13 - Transportation Noise and Noise From Equipment Powered by Inter-




    nal Combustion Engines, prepared by Wyle Laboratories under EPA contract



    68-04-0046.




    NTID300.14 - Economic Impact of Noise, prepared by the National Bureau of Stan-




    dards under interagency agreement with the Department of Commerce.




    NTID300. 15 - Fundamentals of Noise:  Measurement,  Rating Schemes, and Stan-




    dards, prepared  by The National Bureau of Standards under interagency agreement




    with the Department of Commerce.






    To obtain these documents contact the Environmental Protection Agency,



Office of Noise Abatement and Control, Washington, D. C.  20460.






    Also used in the preparation of this report was testimony obtained at public hear-




ings held by the Office of Noise Abatement and Control under authority of the Noise
                                      A-2

-------
Pollution and Abatement Act of 1970 - Title IV to the Clean Air Amendments of 1970

(PL  91-604).  The cities in which those hearings were held and their subjects covered

are as follows;

                          Noise in Construction
    Atlanta

    Chicago


    Dallas


    San Francisco


    Denver

    New York


    Boston

    Washington, D. C.
Manufacturing and Transportation
Noise (Highway and Air)

Urban Planning, Architectural Design;
and Noise in the Home

Standards and Measurement Methods,
Legislation and Enforcement Problems

Agriculture and Recreational use Noise

Transportation (Rail and Other), Urban Noise
Problems and Social Behavior

Physiological and Psychological Effects

Technology and Economics of Noise Control;
National Programs and their Relations
With State and Local Programs.
    The transcripts of these hearings may be obtained through the United States Govern-

ment Printing Office,  Superintendant of Documents, after announcement of their avail-

ability in the Federal  Register.
                                      A-3

-------

-------
                         Appendix B

         PROPOSED BILL TO CONTROL THE GENERATION

               AND TRANSMISSION OF NOISE


            ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
                   WASHINGTON, D. C 20460


Dear Mr.  [President/Speaker]:

     Enclosed  is  a draft  of  a proposed bill  "to
control the generation  and transmission  of noise
detrimental to the human  environment, and  for
other purposes."

     The proposed legislation would expand and
coordinate Federal efforts to control noise,  which
presents a growing threat to the health  and welfare
of the American people.   Particularly in congested
urban areas, the noise  produced by  the products of
our advancing  technology, and in the manufacture
of those products, causes continual annoyance and
in some cases  serious physical harm.  While the
States and localities have the responsibility to
deal with many aspects  of noise, effective Federal
action is essential with  respect to major  noise
problems requiring national uniformity of  treatment.

     The proposed bill  would achieve three primary
functions.  First, it would establish, in  the
Environmental  Protection  Agency, authority to
coordinate existing Federal noise research and
control programs, and authority to  publish criteria
and control-technology  documents relating  to  noise.
Second, it would supplement existing Federal
authority to regulate the noise characteristics
of articles that are major sources  of noise,  and
authorize Federal noise labeling requirements for
such articles.  Third,  it would direct all Federal
agencies to administer  their programs, consistent
with existing  authority,  in such a  manner  as  to
minimize noise.

     A detailed section-by-section  analysis of  the
bill is enclosed.  A similar letter is being  sent
                          B-l

-------
to the [President of the Senate/Speaker of the House].

     The bill is part of the President's environmental
program as announced in his Environmental Message of
February 8, 1971.  It will be administered by the
Environmental Protection Agency and was developed
in coordination with the Council on Environmental
Quality.

     The Office of Management and Budget advises
that enactment of this bill would be in accord with
the program of the President.

                       Sincerely yours.
                   /s/ William D. Ruckelshaus

Honorable Spiro T. Agnew
President of the Senate
Washington, D.C. 20510

Honorable Carl B. Albert
Speaker of the House of Representatives
Washington, D.C. 20515
                          B-2

-------
                         A BILL

        To control the generation and transmission of
noise detrimental to the human environment, and for
other purposes.
        Be it  enacted by the Senate and House of Rep-
resentatives of the United States of America in Con-
gress assembled. That:  This Act may be cited as the
"Noise Control Act of 1971".
SECTION 2.  FINDINGS AND POLICY
        (a)  The Congress finds —
              (1)  that inadequately controlled noise
presents a growing danger to the health and welfare of
the Nation's population, particularly in  urban areas;
              (2)  that the major sources of noise
include transportation vehicles and equipment, machin-
ery, appliances, and other manufactured articles that
move in commerce; and
              (3)  that, while primary responsibility
for control of noise rests in many respects with the
States and local governments. Federal action is essen-
tial to deal with major noise problems requiring
national uniformity of treatment.
        (b)  The Congress declares that it is the
policy of the United States to promote an environment
for all Americans free from noise that jeopardizes
their health or welfare.  To that end, it is the pur-
pose of this Act to establish a means for effective
coordination of Federal research and activities in
noise control, to supplement existing Federal authority
for regulation of the noise characteristics of arti-
cles moving in commerce, and to authorize Federal noise
labeling requirements for such articles.  Nothing in
this Act is intended to diminish the responsibilities
of State and local governments to regulate other as-
pects of noise within their jurisdictions.
SECTION 3.  DEFINITIONS
        As used in this Act the term --
              (a)  "Administrator" means the Admini-
strator of the Environmental Protection Agency;
              (b)  "person" means any private person
or entity, any officer, department, agency, or instru-
mentality of any State or local unit of government,
and, except with respect to the provisions of section
                          B-3

-------
12 (a),  any officer, department, agency, or instrumen-
tality of the Federal Government;
             (c)  "product" means any article or good
manufactured for sale in, or introduction into,
commerce, including but not limited to transportation
vehicles and equipment, machinery, and appliances,
provided, that it does not include (i) aircraft, air-
craft engines,  propellers, or appliances  that are
covered by Title VI of the Federal Aviation Act of
1958 (49 U.S.C. Sees. 1421-32),  (ii)  those military
aircraft, weapons, or equipment that are designed for
combat use; or  (iii) those aircraft,  rockets, or equip-
ment that are designed for research or experimental or
developmental work to be performed by the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration, or other machin-
ery or equipment designed for use in experimental work
done by or for the Federal Government;
             (d)  "ultimate purchaser" means the first
person who in good faith purchases a new product for
purposes other than resale;
             (e)  "new product" means a product the
equitable of legal title to which has never been trans-
ferred to an ultimate purchaser;
             (f)  "manufacturer" means any person en-
gaged in the manufacturing or assembling of new prod-
ucts or who acts for, and is controlled by, any such
person in connection with the distribution of such
products;
             (g)  "commerce" means trade, traffic,
commerce, transportation, or communication among the
several States, or between a place in a State and any
place outside thereof, or within the District of
Columbia or a possession of the United States, or be-
tween points in the same State but through a point out-
side thereof.
SECTION 4.  COORDINATION AMD EVALUATION OF FEDERAL
PROGRAMS
         (a)  The Administrator shall promote coordi-
nation of the programs of all Federal departments and
agencies relating to noise research and noise control.
Each Federal department or agency shall, upon request,
furnish to the Administrator such information as he
may reasonably require to determine the nature, scope,
and results of the noise-research and noise-control
                          B-4

-------
programs of the department or agency.
         (b)  On the basis of regular consultation with
appropriate Federal departments and agencies, the
Administrator shall compile and publish, from time to
time, a report on the status and progress of Federal
activities relating to noise research and noise con-
trol.  This report shall describe the noise programs of
each Federal department or agency and assess the con-
tributions of those programs to the Government's over-
all efforts to control noise.
SECTION 5.  NOISE CRITERIA AND CONTROL TECHNOLOGY
         (a)  The Administrator shall, after consulta-
tion with appropriate Federal departments and agencies,
develop and publish such criteria for noise as in his
judgment may be requisite for the protection of the
public health and welfare.  Such criteria shall reflect
the scientific knowledge most useful in indicating the
kind and extent of all identifiable effects on the
public health or welfare which may be expected from
differing quantities and qualities of noise.  The
Administrator shall confer with the Secretaries of
Health, Education, and Welfare, and of Labor to assure
consistency between the criteria published under this
subsection and the criteria and standards for occupa-
tional noise exposure produced under the Occupational
Safety and Health Act of 1970.
         (b)  The Administrator shall, after publication
of the initial criteria pursuant to subsection (a) of
this section and after consultation with appropriate
Federal departments and agencies, compile and publish
a report or series of reports identifying major sources
of noise and giving information on techniques for con-
trol of noise from such sources.  This information
shall include such data as are available on the tech-
nology, costs, and alternative methods of noise
control.
         (c)  The Administrator shall from time to time
review and, as appropriate, revise or supplement any
criteria or information on control techniques published
pursuant to this section.
         (d)  The publication or revision of any cri-
teria or information on control techniques pursuant to
this section shall be announced in the Federal
Register, and copies shall be made available to the
                          B-5

-------
general public.
SECTION 6.  NOISE-GENERATION STANDARDS
        (a)  If the Administrator, in a report pub-
lished 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 com-
bustion engines,
he may, after consultation to the extent desirable with
appropriate Federal departments and agencies, by regu-
lation prescribe and amend standards limiting the
noise-generation characteristics  (including reasonable
durability over the life of the product)  of such prod-
uct or class of products.  The standards so prescribed
shall be the standards that the Administrator deter-
mines, consistent with criteria published pursuant to
section 5, to be requisite to protect the public
health and welfare.  In prescribing and amending such
standards the Administrator shall consider whether any
proposed standard is economically reasonable, tech-
nologically practicable, and appropriate for the par-
ticular products to which it will apply,  and whether
the particular products can more effectively be con-
trolled through Federal regulation of interstate com-
merce or through State or local regulations.  Pro-
vided, that no standards prescribed under this section
shall apply to products manufactured on or before the
effective date of such standards.
        (b)  The Administrator shall publish any
standards proposed under subsection (a) in the Fed-
eral Register at least 60 days prior to the time when
such standards will take effect.  In addition to sub-
missions of written views, any person who will be ad-
versely affected by such proposed regulation may,
within 45 days of the date of publication of the pro-
posed regulation, or within such other time period as
the Administrator may prescribe, file objections with
the Administrator and request a public hearing.
Requests for a public hearing made by a manufacturer
of a product covered by the proposed standards shall be
granted.  Requests for a public hearing by other
                          B-6

-------
persons may be granted at the discretion of the Admini-
strator.  If a public hearing is held,  final regula-
tions will not be promulgated by the Administrator
until after the conclusion of such hearing.
         (c)  Section 611 of the Federal Aviation Act
of 1958  (49 U.S.C. Sec. 1431) is amended as follows:
              (1)  In subsection  (a), after "with the
Secretary of Transportation"  insert "and subject to
the approval of the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency".
              (2)  At the end of subsection (a), insert
"Standards, rules, and regulations prescribed and
amended under this section shall become effective only
upon approval by the Administrator of the Environmental
Protection Agency; provided, that, all standards,
rules, and regulations prescribed pursuant to this
section prior to the effective date of the Noise Con-
trol Act of 1971 shall remain in effect until amended
or revoked by subsequent standards, rules, or regula-
tions prescribed and approved pursuant to this
section. "
              (3)  After subsection  (a), insert the
following new subsections:

                  "(b)   The Administrator o£ the
Federal Aviation Administration shall not issue a
type certificate under section 603 of this act for
any aircraft, or for any aircraft engine, propeller,
or appliance that affects  siqnificantlv the noise or
sonic boom characteristics of any aircraft, unless he
shall have prescribed standards, rules, and regulations
under this section that apply to such aircraft, air-
craft engine, propeller,  or appliance.
                  "(c)   If at any time the Admini-
strator of the Environmental Protection Agency has
reason to believe that an existing standard,  rule, or
regulation under this section does not protect the
public from aircraft noise or sonic boom to the maxi-
mum extent that is consistent with the consideration
listed in subsection (d)  of this section, he may re-
quest the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Admini-
stration to review and report to him on the advisa-
bility of revising such standard, rule, or regulation.
Any such request shall be accompanied by a detailed
                          B-7

-------
statement of the information on which it is based."
             (4)  Subsections  (b) and (c) are redesig-
nated as  (d) and (e).
         (d)  No State or subdivision thereof shall
adopt or enforce, with respect to any product for which
noise-generation standards have been prescribed by the
Administrator under subsection (a) of this section, any
standard limiting noise-generation characteristics
different from the standards prescribed by the Admini-
strator.  Nothing in this section shall diminish or
enhance the rights of any State or subdivision thereof
otherwise to control, regulate, or restrict the use,
operation, or movement of such products.
SECTION 7.  LABELING
         (a)  The Administrator may by regulation desig-
nate products or classes thereof:
             (1)  that produce noise capable of
adversely affecting the public health or welfare; or
             (2)  that are sold wholly or in part on
the basis of their effectiveness in reducing noise.
         (b)  For each of such products or classes the
Administrator may, after consultation to the extent
desirable with appropriate Federal departments and
agencies, by regulation require that a notice of the
actual level of noise generation, or notice of the
actual effectiveness in reducing noise, be affixed to
the product and to the outside of its container at the
time of its sale to the ultimate purchaser.  He shall
prescribe the form of the notice and the methods and
units of measurement to be used for this purpose.
         (c)  Nothing in this section shall preclude or
deny to any State or subdivision thereof the right to
regulate product labeling in any way not in conflict
with regulations promulgated by the Administrator under
this section.
SECTION 8.  PROHIBITED ACTS
         (a)  The following acts or the causing thereof
are prohibited:
             (1)  in the case of a manufacturer of new
products, the sale, the offering for sale, or the
introduction or delivery for introduction into commerce
of any product manufactured after the effective date of
regulations promulgated under section 6(a)  (respecting
noise-generation characteristics) that are applicable
                           B-8

-------
to such product, unless it is  in conformity with  such
regulations  (except as provided in subsection  (b) of
this section);
              (2)  in the case  of an owner or operator
of a product, the use in commerce of such product after
the effective date of regulations promulgated  under
section 6(a) that are applicable to such product, un-
less it is in conformity with  such regulations  (ex-
cept as provided in subsection (b) of this section);
              (3)  the removal  or rendering inoperative
by any person, other than for  purposes of maintenence,
repair, or replacement, of any device or element  of
design incorporated into any product in compliance with
regulations promulgated under  section 6(a), prior to
its sale or delivery to the. ultimate purchaser or
during its term of use.
              (4)  in the case  of a manufacturer of new
products, the sale, the offering for sale, or  the
introduction or delivery for introduction into com-
merce of any product manufactured after the effective
date of regulations promulgated under section  7  (re-
specting noise labeling) that  are applicable to such
product, unless it is in conformity with such  regula-
tions  (except as provided in subsection (b) of this
section);
              (5)  the removal by any person of any
notice affixed to a product or container pursuant to
regulations promulgated under  section 7, prior to sale
of the product to the ultimate purchaser;
              (6)  the importation into the United
States by any person of any product in violation  of
regulations promulgated under  section 13 that  are
applicable to such product; and
              (7)  the failure or refusal by any person
to permit access to, or copying of, records or to make
reports or provide information required under  section
9.
        (b)(1)  The Administrator may exempt any prod-
uct, or class thereof, from paragraphs  (1) , (2) ,  (4) ,
and (6) of subsection (a), upon such terms and con-
ditions as he may find necessary to protect the public
health or welfare, for the purpose of research, inves-
tigations, studies, demonstrations, or training,  or
for reasons of national security.
                          B-9
   74-249 O - 72 - 28

-------
             (2)  A product intended solely for export,
and so labeled or tagged on the outside of the con-
tainer and on the product itself, shall not be subject
to paragraph (1),  (2), or (4) of subsection (a).
SECTION 9.  RECORDS. REPORTS. AND INFORMATION
        (a)  Every manufacturer of a product for which
applicable regulations have been promulgated under
section 6(a) or section 7 shall establish and maintain
such records, make such reports, and provide such
information  (which may include the availability of
products coming off the assembly line for testing by
the Administrator) as the Administrator may reasonably
require to enable him to determine whether such manu-
facturer has acted or is acting in compliance with this
Act and shall, upon request of an officer or employee
duly designated by the Administrator, permit such
officer or employee at reasonable times to have access
to such information and to copy such records.
        (b)  All information obtained by the Admini-
strator or his representatives pursuant to subsection
(a) of this section, which information contains or
relates to a trade secret or other matter referred to
in section 1905 of title 18 of the United States Code,
shall be considered confidential for the purpose of
that section, except that such information may be dis-
closed to other Federal officers or employees, in
whose possession it shall remain confidential, or when
relevent in any proceeding under this Act.
        (c)  This section shall apply only to manu-
facturers in the United States.
SECTION 10.  FEDERAL PROGRAMS
        The Congress authorizes and directs that all
agencies of the Federal Government shall, to the
fullest extent consistent with existing authority,
administer the programs within their control in such
a manner as to further the policy declared in section
2(b) .
SECTION 11.  RESEARCH. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE, AND PUBLIC
INFORMATION
        In furtherance of his responsibilities under
this Act and to complement, as necessary, the noise-
research programs of other Federal departments and
agencies, the Administrator is authorized to:
              (a)  Conduct research, and finance
                          B-10

-------
research by contract with other public and private
bodies, on the effects, measurement, and control of
noise, including but not limited to:
              (1)  Investigation of the psychological
and physiological effects of noise on humans and the
effects of noise on domestic animals, wildlife, and
property, and determination of acceptable levels of
noise on the basis of such effects;
              (2)  Development of improved methods and
standards for measurement and monitoring of noise, in
cooperation with the National Bureau of Standards,
Department of Commerce; and
              (3)  Determination of the most effective
and practicable means of controlling noise generation,
transmission, and reception;
         (b)  Provide technical assistance to State and
local governments to facilitate their development and
enforcement of ambient noise standards, including but
not limited to:
              (1)  Advice on training of noise-control
personnel and on selection and operation of noise-
abatement equipment; and
              (2)  Preparation of model State or local
legislation for noise control; and
         (c)  Disseminate to the public information on
the effects of noise, acceptable noise levels, and
techniques for noise measurement and control.
SECTION 12.  ENFORCEMENT
         (a)(1)  Any person who violates section 8(a) of
this Act shall be subject to a civil penalty of not
more than $25,000 for each violation, which may be
assessed by the Administrator or by a court in any
action authorized by subsection (b) or (c)  of this
section.
              (2)  In any proceeding by the Administra-
tor to assess a civil penalty under this subsection,
no penalty shall be assessed until the person charged
shall have been given notice and an opportunity for a
hearing on such charge.  In determining the amount of
the penalty,  or the amount agreed upon in compromise,
the Administrator shall consider the gravity of the
violation and the demonstrated good faith of the person
charged in attempting to achieve rapid compliance after
notification by the Administrator of a violation.  Upon
                           B-ll

-------
failure of the offending party to pay any penalty
assessed, the Administrator may request the Attorney
General to commence an action in the appropriate
district court for appropriate relief.
              (3)  For the purpose of this subsection,
the commission of any act prohibited byparagraph (1) ,
(2), (3). (4),  (5), or (6) of section 8 (a) shall
constitute a separate violation for each day or prod-
uct involved.
         (b)   The district courts of the United States
shall have jurisdiction of actions brought by and in
the name of the United States to restrain violations
of this Act or to enforce civil penalties authorized
by this Act.  Any civil action authorized to be brought
by the United States under this Act shall be referred
to the Attorney General for appropriate action.
         (c)   By agreement with any State, with or with-
out reimbursement, the Administrator may authorize law
enforcement officers or other personnel of such State
to enforce the prohibitions of section 8 (a) by bringing
actions in the appropriate State courts.  When autho-
rized by State law, the courts of such State may enter-
tain actions brought by such officers or personnel to
restrain violations of this Act or to' enforce civil
penalties authorized by this Act.  In any action under
this subsection, any civil penalty imposed shall be
payable one-half to the State and one-half to the
United States Treasury.
SECTION 13.   IMPORTS
         (a)   Products offered for importation shall be
subject to the same general standards and labeling
requirements that are applied to like domestic prod-
ucts.  The Administrator shall by regulation prescribe
the procedures by which this will be accomplished with
a minimum detrimental effect on domestic and inter-
national trade.
         (b)   The Secretary of the Treasury shall, in
consultation with the Administrator, issue regulations
to carry out the provisions of this Act with respect to
products offered for importation.
SECTION 14.   APPROPRIATIONS
        There are authorized to be appropriated to
carry out this Act for Fiscal Year 1972 and for each
fiscal year thereafter such sums as are necessary.
                          B-12

-------
SECTION 15.  REPORT OF NOISE STUDY
        Section 402(a) of the Clean Air Act  is  amended
by deleting everything before "a  full and complete
investigation" and inserting in lieu thereof "The
Administrator shall carry out".
                          B-13

-------
             SECTION-BY-SECTION ANALYSIS

        The title of the proposed act is designated as
"The Noise Control Act of 1971."
        Section 2 contains a statement of congressional
findings and policy.  Subsection 2(a) states findings
that noise, particularly in urban areas, presents a
growing danger to the public health and welfare; that
the major sources of noise include a. variety of manu-
factured articles that move in commerce; and that the
Federal Government bears a responsibility to deal with
major noise problems requiring national uniformity of
treatment.  Subsection 2(b) declares a Federal policy
to promote an environment for all Americans free from
noise that jeopardizes their health or welfare.  This
subsection further states that the purpose of the pro-
posed act is to establish a means for effective
coordination of Federal noise programs, to supplement
existing Federal authority for regulation of the noise
characteristics of articles moving in commerce, and
to authorize Federal noise labeling requirements for
such articles.  The Act is not intended to relieve
States and localities of their responsibilities to
control other aspects of noise within their ;juris-
dictions.
        Section 3 defines certain terms used in the
proposal.  Subsection 3(a) defines the official
primarily responsible for implementing the legislation
as the Administrator of the Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).  Subsection 3(b) defines "person" in
such a way that all Federal, State, or local govern-
mental organizations, employees, and agents, along with
private persons or entities, are included within the
enforcement provisions of section 12.  However, Federal
organizations, employees, and agents are excepted from
the definition of "person" insofar as subsection 12 (a),
providing for civil penalties, is concerned.  Thus,
Federal organizations, employees, and agents must
comply with the prohibitions of section 8, but they are
not liable for or subject to the civil penalties
authorized in subsection 12 (a).
        Subsection 3(c) defines "product" to include
any article or good manufactured for sale in, or
introduction into, commerce with three general
                          B-14

-------
exclusions.  "Product" does not include aircraft or
aircraft components that are covered by Title VI of
the Federal Aviation Act of 1958.  The noise
characteristics of these aircraft and aircraft
components are already subject to regulation under
that Act, which will continue in effect subject to
the amendments made by section 6 of the proposed
legislation, discussed below.
        "Product" also excludes any article that,
although otherwise within the broad definition, is
designed for military combat use.  National security
requires that the responsible authorities be free to
determine to what extent noise control objectives must
be subordinated to military necessities in the use of
such articles.   Therefore, they are excluded from the
definition of "product" to exempt them entirely from
the standard-setting and labeling provisions of sections
6 and 7 without regard to the exercise by the Admin-
istrator of his power under section 8(b)(1), discussed
below, to grant specific exemptions for national
security reasons.  The policy of the proposed legis-
lation will, however, dictate that all feasible steps
be taken to improve the noise characteristics of even
these articles.  "Product" also excludes equipment
designed for use in experimental work done by or for
the National Aeronautics and Space Administration or
other agencies of the Federal Government.
        Subsection 3(d) defines "ultimate purchaser"
to be the first person who purchases a new product for
a use other than resale.  This excludes both those
intermediaries who may handle the product before sale
to the first user,  and subsequent users who may obtain
the product second-hand.  Subsection 3(e)  defines "new
product" to mean a product the title to which has not
yet been transferred to an ultimate purchaser.
        Subsection 3(f) defines "manufacturer" to
include any person who manufactures or assembles new
products or who acts on behalf of such a person in the
distribution of new products.  "Commerce"  is defined
in subsection 3(g)  to include all forms of interchange
involving two or more States, or a State and a place
outside thereof or the District of Columbia or a
possession of the United States.
        Section 4 entrusts to the Administrator of EPA
                          B-15

-------
the primary responsibility for promoting coordination
of Federal programs relating to noise.  To assist him
in exercising this responsibility, subsection 4(a)
directs each other Federal agency to furnish him with
any information he may reasonably request about the
agency's noise programs.  Subsection 4(b) directs the
Administrator, on the basis of consultation with
appropriate Federal agencies, to publish a periodic
report covering the noise-related activities of all
Federal agencies.  It is intended that this report
will provide a means for assessing the overall progress
of Federal noise control efforts.
        Section 5 gives the Administrator of EPA
responsibility to develop and publish basic documents
on noise and its control.  Subsection 5(a) directs
him to develop criteria for noise, taking into account
up-to-date scientific knowledge on noise effects.
These criteria should make clear what quantities and
qualities of noise are consistent with protection of
the public health and welfare under differing circum-
stances.  The Administrator is directed to seek con-
sistency between these criteria and the criteria and
standards for occupational noise exposure produced by
the Secretaries of Health, Education, and Welfare and
Labor under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of
1970.
        Subsection 5(b) directs the Administrator,
after initial publication of criteria under subsection
5(a), to publish one or more reports identifying major
sources of noise and discussing techniques for con-
trolling noise from such sources.  It is not intended
that any single report published under subsection 5(b)
must cover all or most major noise sources.  Rather,
as information becomes available, the Administrator
may publish individual reports identifying one or more
major sources and outlining the noise control technology
applicable to each identified source.  Subsection 5(c)
directs the Administrator to review and, when appropriate,
revise both the criteria and the control technology
documents published under section 5, to ensure that
these reflect changes in available knowledge.  Sub-
section 5(d) requires announcement of each publication
or revision of criteria or control technology documents
in the Federal Register and release of copies to the
                          B-16

-------
public.  This provision is intended to ensure adequate
public knowledge of the content of these publications.
        Subsection 6(a) authorizes the Administrator
of EPA to prescribe noise standards for construction
equipment, transportation equipment, and equipment
powered by internal combustion engines that he has
identified as a major source of noise and for which he
has discussed control technology in a report published
pursuant to section 5.  When the Administrator determines
to impose standards, subsection 6 (a) requires that
they be set at the level required,  in light of the
published criteria, to protect health and welfare,
taking into account the feasibility of such a level
of control and the appropriateness of Federal regulation.
Standards under subsection 6(a) shall not apply to
products manufactured on or before the effective date
of the standards.  Subsection 6(b)  alters the procedures
under the Administrative Procedure Act by granting a
manufacturer the right to a public hearing on proposed
standards that would cover his products.
        Subsection 6(c) amends section 611 of the
Federal Aviation Act,  which authorizes regulation of the
noise characteristics of civil aircraft and aircraft
components.  Subsection 6(c) provides that standards,
rules, and regulations prescribed by the Federal
Aviation Administration under section 611 must be
approved by the Administrator of EPA, and that such
standards, rules, and regulations become effective
only upon such approval.  However,  subsection 6(c)
contains a saving clause which allows all standards,
rules, and regulations prescribed under section 611
prior to the effective date of the proposed legislation
to continue in effect until superseded by new standards,
rules, or regulations  prescribed in accordance with
the proposed legislation.
        Subsection 6(c) further provides that after the
effective date of the  proposed act the Federal Aviation
Administrator shall not issue a type certificate for any
aircraft unless he has already prescribed standards,
rules, and regulations governing the noise character-
istics of that aircraft.  This requirement also applies
to any aircraft engine, propeller,  or appliance that
affects significantly the noise characteristics of any
aircraft in which it is to be used.  This provision will
                          B-17

-------
ensure that in the future the noise characteristics of
any new aircraft or aircraft component will be
ascertained and controlled prior to its introduction
into air commerce or air transportation.
        Subsection 6(c)  further provides that if the
Administrator of EPA has reason to believe that an
existing standard, rule, or regulation prescribed under
611 of the Federal Aviation Act inadequately protects
the public from noise, he may request the Federal
Aviation Administrator to review the standard, rule,
or regulation and report to him on the advisability
of revising it.  Any such request must be accompanied
by a detailed statement of the reasons therefor.  The
Administrator of EPA may invoke this provision with
respect to a standard, rule, or regulation prescribed
before or after the effective date of the proposed act.
        Subsection 6(d)  provides that when the Admin-
istrator of EPA has prescribed standards for any product
under subsection 6(a), no State or subdivision thereof
shall adopt or enforce noise standards for that product
different from the standards set by him.  Nothing in
section 6 preempts any existing powers of the States
or localities to set noise standards for products for
which the Administrator has not yet set standards under
the proposed act, to set State standards identical to
standards set by the Administrator for the same product,
or to regulate the use,  operation, or movement of
products.
        Section 7 authorizes Federal noise labeling
requirements for products in commerce.  Subsection 7(a)
authorizes the Administrator of EPA to designate classes
of products that either produce noise capable of
adversely affecting the public health or welfare, or
are sold at least in part on the basis of their effec-
tiveness in reducing noise.  These products need not
be limited to those for which noise standards have been
set under section 6 or which have been discussed in
a control technology document under section 5.  Sub-
section 7(b) authorizes the Administrator to prescribe
a noise-generation or noise-reduction labeling require-
ment for any product designated under subsection 7(a).
To assure that such notices are informative and useful
in facilitating choices by buyers in the marketplace,
the Administrator is directed to prescribe the form of
                          B-18

-------
the notice and the methods and units of measurement
used in its preparation.  Subsection 7(c) leaves intact
any existing powers of the States to regulate product
labeling, except that such regulation may not conflict
with regulations promulgated by the Administrator under
section 7.
        Subsection 8(a) prohibits a number of acts in
violation of the proposed legislation.  Paragraph 8(a)
 (1) forbids any manufacturer to sell a product manu-
factured after the effective date of noise-generation
standards prescribed under subsection 6(a) that apply
to the product, unless the product conforms with such
standards.  Paragraph 8(a)(2) forbids any person who
owns or operates a product to use it in commerce after
the effective date of noise-generation standards
prescribed under subsection 6(a) that apply to it,
unless the product conforms with such standards.
Paragraph 8(a)(3) forbids any person to remove or
render inoperative, other than for maintenance, repair,
or replacement, any device or element of design
incorporated into a product to make the product comply
with noise-generation standards prescribed under sub-
section 6(a).  This prescription applies both prior
to sale of the product to the ultimate purchaser and
during its term of use.
        Paragraph 8(a)(4) forbids any manufacturer to
sell a product manufactured after the effective date of
labeling regulations promulgated under section 7 that
apply to the product, unless the product conforms to
such regulations.  Paragraph 8 (a)(5) forbids any person,
prior to sale of a product to the ultimate purchaser,
to remove a notice affixed to the product or its con-
tainer pursuant to regulations promulgated under
section 7.  Paragraph 8(a)(6) forbids the importation
into the United States of any products in violation of
regulations under section 13, discussed below, relating
to imports.  Paragraph 8(a)(7) forbids any person to
fail to comply with the provisions of section 9, discussed
below, respecting access to required records and reports.
        Subsection 8(b) creates two exceptions to the
prohibitions in paragraphs 8(a)(l), (2),  (4), and  (6).
First, the Administrator is authorized to exempt any
new product from those prohibitions, upon such terms
and conditions as he may find necessary to protect the
                          B-19

-------
public health or welfare, for the purpose of research,
investigations, studies, demonstrations, or training, or
for reasons of national security.  Second, subsection
8(b) provides that a product produced solely for export,
and visibly labeled or tagged to that effect, is exempted
from the prohibitions of paragraphs 8(a)(l), (2)
and (4).
        Section 9 requires every manufacturer of a
product covered by noise regulation or labeling
regulations under subsection 6(a) or section 7 to
maintain such records, make such reports, and provide
such information as the Administrator may reasonably
require to enable him to determine whether the manu-
facturer has acted or is acting in compliance with the
proposed act.  This may include the availability of
products coming off the assembly line for testing by
the Administrator.  The manufacturer shall, on request,
permit a representative of the Administrator to view
and copy such records.  Any information obtained by
the Administrator or his representatives pursuant to
section 9, if it contains or relates to a matter
referred to as confidential in section 1905 of title
18 of the United States Code, shall be protected from
disclosure as provided in that section, except that
it may be disclosed to other Federal employees or when
relevant in any proceeding under the proposed act.
Disclosure to other Federal employees or in a pro-
ceeding under the proposed act will not terminate the
confidential status of the information.
        Section 10 authorizes and directs all Federal
agencies to administer the programs within their control
in such a manner as to further the policy of the proposed
Act, to the fullest extent consistent with the agencies'
existing authority.
        Section 11 authorizes the Administrator of EPA,
in furtherance of his responsibilities under the proposed
act, to conduct and assist noise research, to provide
technical assistance to State and local governments, and
to disseminate to the public information on noise.  The
enumeration in section 11 of particular activities within
these categories is not intended to exclude other
activities but only to stress the importance of those
enumerated.  However, it is not intended that the
activities of the Administrator under section 11 will
                          B-20

-------
duplicate activities carried on in other agencies.
        Section 12 provides for enforcement of the pro-
hibitions in subsection 8(a) of the proposed act.  Sub-
section 12(a) establishes a civil penalty of not more
than $25,000 for each violation of subsection 8(a), and
provides for imposition of this fine either by the
Administrator or by a court in a proceeding authorized
by subsection 12(b) or  (c), discussed below.  Sub-
section 12(a) further provides that in any administra-
tive proceeding for imposition of such a civil penalty
by the Administrator the person charged must be given
notice and an opportunity for a hearing, and the
Administrator must, in determining the penalty or the
amount accepted in compromise, consider the gravity of
the violation and the efforts of the person charged to
achieve rapid compliance after notice of the violation.
If the offending party fails to pay any penalty
assessed, the Administrator may request the Attorney
General to sue in the appropriate district court for
appropriate relief.  For the purpose of imposing
cumulative penalties, the commission of any act
prohibited by paragraph 8(a)(1), (2), (3),  (4),  (5),
or (6) will be a separate violation for each day or
product involved.  For example, sale of 10 identical
products in violation of noise-generation or labeling
regulations would constitute 10 violations, punishable
by a maximum cumulative fine of $250,000.
        Subsection 12(b) gives jurisdiction to the
Federal district courts to entertain actions brought
by and in the name of the United States to restrain
violations of the proposed act or to enforce civil
penalties authorized by it.  This provision will allow
the Administrator of EPA, by recommending that the
Attorney General bring suit, to seek equitable relief
or judicial imposition of a civil penalty, or both,
as an alternative to the administratively imposed fine
also authorized by section 12.
        Section 12 (c) enables the Administrator to enlist
the aid of State or local governments in the enforcement
of the proposed act.  While neither the executive nor the
judicial bodies of any State will be required to
participate, they may do so where this is authorized
by State law and also by the Administrator of EPA in
an agreement with the appropriate State authorities.
                          B-21

-------
Under this provision the Administrator may authorize
State personnel to sue in State court both to restrain
violations and to impose civil penalties; he may not
authorize State personnel to impose fines admin-
istratively.  Any civil penalty imposed under the
proposed act by a State court in a suit under sub-
section 12(c) will be payable one-half to the
appropriate State authorities and one-half to the
United States Treasury.
        Section 13 directs the Administrator and the
Secretary of the Treasury to issue regulations to
apply to imports the same general standards and
labeling requirements that are applied to like domestic
products.
        Section 14 authorizes the appropriation for
Fiscal Year 1972 and for each fiscal year thereafter
such sums as are necessary to carry out the proposed
act.
        Section 15 amends the Clean Air Act by deleting
the requirement that there by an Office of Noise Abate-
ment and Control in the Environmental Protection Agency.
                          B-22

-------
                                   Appendix C

               PUBLIC HEARINGS ON NOISE — TITLE IV PL 91-604
                             Noise in Construction
                          Atlanta, Ga., July 8-9, 1971
PANEL:
        Dr. Alvin F. Meyer, Jr.,  Office of Noise Abatement and Control, EPA,
            Washington, D.C.
        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:
        K.S. Kronoveter, National Institute for Occupational Safety & Health
        George Allgood, FAA (Atlanta Airport)
        James Rickard,  FAA
        Lutz Kohnagel, Engineer
        Dr. Alvin F. Meyer, Jr.
        Alice Suter, National Association of Hearing and Speech Agencies
        Earl Ellwood, United States Gypsum Company
        Frank H. Walk,  Professional Engineer, Walk, Haydel & Associates, Inc.,
            New Orleans, Louisiana
        George Diehl, Ingersoll-Rand Research, Inc.
        Captain David H. Riley, Training Division, Atlanta Police Department
        Edwin Jackson, Executive Vice President, Delta P Incorporated
        Roger D. Wellington,  Staff Engineer, Testing and Development, Detroit
            Diesel Allison Division, General Motors Corporation
        Charles L. Skinner, Managing Director, Georgia Motor Trucking Associa-
            tion, Inc.
        John Palazzi,  The Associated General Contractors of America
        Lyle G.  Munson, Director of Engineering, Colt Industries, Quincy  Com-
            pressor Division
        R.F.  Ringham, Vice President, Engineering,  Chassis Test Construction
            Equipment Division, Internal Harvester Company
        J.R. Prosek, Chief Engineer, Chassis Test Construction Equipment Division,
            International Harvester Company
        Jack Hasten, Manager, Products Control Department, Caterpillar  Tractor
            Company
        Lester Bergsten, Staff Research Engineer, Caterpillar Tractor Company
        J.B. Codlin, Manager, Special Engineering  Assignments, Construction
            Machinery Division, Allis-Chalmers Corporation
        William Hansell, Director of Environmental Health,  Georgia Public Health
            Department
                                     C-l

-------
ATTENDEES (Cont'd.):
        R.L. Smelley, Southeast Regional Director, N.O.I.S.E.
        Mrs. Wirt Jones, Sierra Club
        George H. Grindley, Audiologist, Administrator of Doctors Memorial Hospital
            Hearing and Speech Center, Atlanta, Georgia, on behalf of S.A.V.E.
        Thomas Muehlenbeck, City Manager, College Park,  Georgia
        William J. Doughorty,  North Georgia Chapter,  American Institute of
            Architects
        J.M. Benson, College Park, Georgia
        James Rickard, Air Traffic Division, Southern Region,  Federal Aviation
            Administration
        Glenn E. Bennett,  Executive Director, Atlanta  Region Metropolitan Planning
            Commission
        Mrs. Adele G. Northrup, Morningside-Lenox Park Community, Atlanta,
            Georgia
        John Glenn,  Citizens for Clean Air
        Peter Chanin and George Upton, LCL Corporation, Atlanta, Georgia
        L.E. Abernathy, Atlanta Area Association of Senior  Citizens Clubs
        Ruby Ballard Zumbrook, Decatur Civic Association
        W.E. Joyner, Decatur Civic Association
        Stephanie Coffin, Great Speckled Bird, Newspaper
        Maura Enright, Crisis Center, Atlanta, Georgia
        Mrs. Charles Holman, Private Citizen
        Edwin Eckles, Mingledorff's, Inc.
        Corwin Robertson,  Carrier Air Conditioning
        William Hansell, Georgia Public Health Department Director
        Wilson Smith, City of Atlanta Department of Planning
        B.J.  Dasher, Georgia Institute of Technology
        W.E. Blount, Georgia Power Company
        Dan Shepherd, Shepherd Construction Company
                                      C-2

-------
                    Manufacturing and Transportation Noise
                        Chicago,  111., July 28-29, 1971
PANEL:
        Dr. Alvin F. Meyer, Jr.,  Director, Office of Noise Abatement and Control,
            Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
        Dr. Mel Whitcomb,  Executive Director, Committee on Hearing, Bioacoustics,
            and Biodynamics, National Research Council-National Academy of
            Sciences, Washington, D.C.
        Professor Sheldon J. Plager, University of Illinois, School of Law,
            Champaign-Urbana, Illinois
        Mr. Henry Martin, Manager, Resource Development, Society of Automotive
            Engineers, New York City, New York
        Mr. Lloyd Hinton, Executive Director, Metropolitan Aircraft Noise Abate-
            ment Council, Minneapolis, Minn.
        Professor John Kerrebrock, Professor of Aerospace, Massachusetts Insti-
            tute of Technology, Cambridge, Mass.
ATTENDEES:
        Hon. Roman Pucinski, Member of Congress, llth District, Illinois
        Dr. Edward Herman
        Commissioner Herbert W. Poston, Department of Environmental Control,
            Chicago, 111.
        Mr. Franklin Kolk, Vice President, American Airlines, New York City,
            New York
        Mr. William Becker, Vice President, Air Transport Association of America,
            Washington, D.C.
        Mr. A.M. McPike, McDonnell-Douglas Corp.,  Long Beach,  Calif.
        Mr. John Cornell, General Electric Co., Lockland, Ohio
        Mr. J.J. Corbett, U.S. Airport Operators Council International, Washington,
            D.C.
        Congressman Abner Mikva, 2nd Congressional District of Illinois
        Captain Richard Heller, Airline Pilots Association, Chicago, Illinois
        Mr. Lewis  Goodfriend, Goodfriend-Ostergaard Associates, Cedar Knolls,
            New Jersey
        Mr. Harter Rupert,  Federal Highway Administration, Washington, D.C.
        Mr. William Carey, Executive Director, Highway Research Board, National
            Research Council, Washington, D.C.
        Dr. Ernest Starkman, Vice President for Engineering, General Motors Corp.,
            Warren, Mich.
                                     C-3
      74-249 O - 72 - :

-------
ATTENDEES (Cont'd.)
        John Damlan, Ford Motor Co., Detroit, Mich.
        Ted Shreves, Ford Motor Co., Detroit, Mich.
        Mr.  Lee Hench,  Chrysler Corp., Detroit,  Mich.
        Richard Kolb, Heavy Truck Manufacturer's Association, Washington, D.C.
        Mr.  Roger Ringham, International Harvester, Chicago, Illinois
        Mr.  Jack Hasten, Caterpillar Tractor, Inc., Peoria, 111.
        Mr.  Joseph Kigin, Rubber Manufacturer's Association, Washington, D.C.
        S.J. Lippmann, Rubber Manufacturer's Association, Washington, D.C.
        Mr.  Sheldon Samuels, AFL-CIO, Washington, D.C.
        Laura Fermi, American Association of University Women
        Jo Ann Horowitz,  American Association of  University Women
        Omar Marcus
        Ted Decca
        Richard Blomberg
        Warren Edwards
        John Kerrigan
        Wendell P.  Berwick
        Dr. Richard Marcus
        Noah Roberts
        Al Romeo,  Jr.
        Alfred Etter
        John D. Harper
        Herbert G.  Poertner
        Henry Karplus
        Samuel Peskin
        Carl Carlson
        Richard Young
        George J. Franks
        William Singer
        Fred H.  Tabak
        John Watts
        Cleveland Walcutt
        Glenna Alevizos
        Janice Del  Calzo
        John Desmond
        John Varble,  Representative, National Organization to Insure a Sound-
             Controlled Environment
        Herman Spahr
        George Dayiantis
        Elizabeth Lewis
                                     C-4

-------
            Urban Planning and Noise; Architectural Design and Noise;
                              Noise in the Home
                     Dallas, Texas, August 18-19, 1971
PANEL:
        Dr. Alvin F. Meyer, Jr.,  Director, Office of Noise Abatement and Control,
            Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, B.C.
        Theodore Berland, President, Citizens Against Noise (Author:  The Fight
            for Quiet),  Chicago, Illinois
        Professor Leon Cole, Department of Urban Planning, University of Texas,
            Austin, Texas
        Dr. Aram Glorig, Director, Callier Hearing and Speech Institute,  Dallas,
            Texas
        Dr. Robert Newman, Bolt, Beranek, and Newman, Cambridge,  Mass.
        Dr. W. Dixon Ward, Hearing Research Institute, University of Minnesota,
            Minneapolis, Minnesota
        Dr. Jack Westman,  Department of Psychiatry, University of Wisconsin,
            Madison, Wisconsin
ATTENDEES:
        Wes Wise, Mayor, Dallas, Texas
        Mr. Edward C. Fritz, Air Quality Coalition of North Texas, Dallas, Texas
        Dr. Hal Watson, Jr., Southern Methodist University, Dallas, Texas
        Mrs. Roger C. Fletcher, Arlington Conservation Council, Arlington, Texas
        Mrs. Franklyn Wright, Conservationist, Dallas, Texas
        Mrs. Robert Sapp, American Association of University Women,  Dallas, Tex.
        Mrs. Richardson, Private Citizen, Dallas, Texas
        Dr. Robert Finch, University of Houston, Houston, Texas
        Mr. J.W. Joiner, Joiner. Pelton, and Rose, Inc., Dallas,  Texas
        Mr. J.A.  Shirley, Private Citizen, Dallas,  Texas
        Mr. Rod Rylander, Texoma Outdoor Club, Sherman,  Texas
        Mrs. Sharon Stewart, Citizen::' Survival Committee,  Lake Jackson,  Texas
        Mr. Tom Maddocks, Chairman, North Texas Group of the Lone  Star Chapter,
            Sierra Club, Dallas, Texas
        Mr. Dan DeGrassi, Conservationist, Dallas, Texas
        Mr. Joe Allen, Texas House of Representatives, Baytown, Texas
        Mr. Bob Johnston, Environmental Action Center, Dallas, Texas
        Cecil Sparks, Southwest Research Institute,  San Antonio, Texas
        Bart Spano, Polysonics, Inc., Washington, D.C.
                                     C-5

-------
ATTENDEES (Cont'd.):
        Charles Parrott, Director, Redevelopment Authority, La Crosse, Wisconsin
        Bailus Walker, Department of Environmental Services, Cleveland, Ohio
        Robert Wegner, American Institute o{ Planners,  Arlington, Texas
        Gene Schrickel, American Society of Landscape Architects, Arlington,  Texas
        John Burdis, Environistics Division, Instrument Systems Corp., Jerico,
             New York
        David McCandless, McCandless Associates, Visiting Professor of Architecture,
             University of Texas, Austin,  Texas
        Dr.  Elmer Hixon,  Department of  Electrical Engineering, University of Texas,
             Austin, Texas
        Herbert Phillips, Association of Home Appliance Manufacturers, Chicago, 111.
        JohnDorn, Frigidaire Division, General Motors Corp., Dayton, Ohio
        J.E. Duff, Hoover Corp. Research Laboratory, North Canton, Ohio
        E.B. Thompson, W.G.  Martin, in, Home Ventilating Institute, Chicago,  [11.
        Arthur Meling, Scott Bayless, Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute,
             Arlington, Virginia
                                      C-6

-------
    Standards,Measurement Methods, Legislation and Enforcement Problems
                 San Francisco, Calif., September 27-29,  1971
PANEL:
        Dr. Alvin F. Meyer, Jr., Director, Office of Noise Abatement and Control,
            Environmental Protection Agency,  Washington,  D.C.
        Robert Alexander Baron, Citizens For A Quieter City, New York,  N.Y.
        Dr. Charles Dietrich, Bolt, Beranek & Newman, Cambridge,  Mass.
        James L. Hildebrand (Editor: Noise Pollution and the Law), Tokyo, Japan
        Prof. Sheldon Plager, Univ. of Illinois  Law School,  Urbana, Illinois
        Henry Martin, American Society of Automotive Engineers, New York, N.Y.
ATTENDEES:
        Ellen Stern Harris, Council for Planning & Conservation, Los Angeles, Calif.
        Robert Watkins, California Division of Highways, Sacramento, Calif.
        Glendon Craig, Inspector, California State Highway Patrol, Sacremento,
            Calif.
        Raymond Lucia, Motorcycle Industry Council, Washington, D.C.
        Stephen Mayne, Dinkelspeil, Stefel, Levitt, Weiss, & Donovan, San Francisco,
            Calif.
        James Taylor, Research Development Associates, Los Angeles, Calif.
        John Parnell,  Environmental Acoustics, Palos Verdes,  Calif.
        Thomas Young, Executive Director, Engine Manufacturer's Association,
            Chicago, 111.
        Jonathan Howe, Legal Council,  Engine Manufacturer's Association
        Arthur Snyder, City Council,  Los Angeles,  Calif.
        Louis Beliczky, AFL-CIO, Akron, Ohio
        Erin Fenton, Automotive Parts  and Accessories Association, Gardena,  Calif.
        H.T.  Larmore, Construction Industry Manufacturer's Association,  Milwaukee,
            Wisconsin
        John J.  Bucholtz, Plaster Information Center, San Jose, Calif.
        G. F.  Hohn and Associate, American National Standards Institute, New York,
            N.Y.
        Bruce Jett, Acoustical Sciences Instrumentation Data Systems, Arlington, Va.
        Carol Tanner, Hydrospace Research, San Diego, Calif.
        William Burtis, Dr. Marjorie Evans, California Society of Professional En-
            gineers, Los Altos Hills, Calif.
        Roger Ringham, International Harvester, Inc., Chicago, 111.
        Richard Staadt, Truck Division, International Harvester, Inc., Chicago, 111.
        Dr. George Steinbruegge, University of Nebraska, Lincoln,  Neb.
        Ralph Hillquist, General Motors, Detroit, Mich.
                                     C-7

-------
ATTENDEES (Cont'd.):
        Ralph Van Demark, Motor and Equipment Manufacturer's Association, New
            York, N.Y.
        Seymour Lippmann,  Rubber Manufacturer's Association, Washington, D.C.
        Arthur Meling, Air Conditioning and Refrigeration Institute, Arlington, Va.
        G.B. Ribnick, Institute of Heating and Air Conditioning Industries, Los
            Angeles, Calif.
        Pat Russell, City Council, Los Angeles, Calif.
        Dr. Hayes, President,  Save Our Valley, Santa Clara,  Calif.
        Nicholas Yost,  Deputy Attorney General, California, Sacramento,  Calif.
        Albert Cooper, California Highway Patrol, Sacramento, Calif.
        Randall L. Hurlburt, City of Inglewood, California
        Dale Hoge,  Director of Standards in  the R & D Department Automotive Parts
            and Accessories Association
        William Scott, Chairman, Vehicle Sound Level Committee, Society of Auto-
            motive Engineers
        Bobby J.  Greer, Computer Sciences Corporation
        Meyer S.  Bogost, Environmental Engineer,  Hawaii State Office of  Environ-
            mental Quality Control
        Richard Dyer, State of California Business and Transportation Agency,
            Department of Aeronautics
        Inspector Glendon Craig,  California  Highway Patrol, Sacramento,  Calif.
        Bob Smith (representing himself)
        John Sutter, Oakland City Council and Bay Anti-Noise Group
        Donald A.  Belt, Audiologist
        Gary Compton, Northern California Auto Dismantlers Association, et al
        David S.  Lawyer, Walnut  Creek, Calif.
        Steven R. Skale, San Mateo, Calif.
        Bradley Collins, Seattle,  Wash.
        Douglas T.  Corbin,  Richmond, Calif.
        Donald W. Baldra, Walnut Creek, Calif.
        T. D. Harriman, Fairfax, Calif.
        Joseph J. Hillner, Walnut Creek,  Calif.
        Peter B.  Jansen, Berkeley, Calif.
        Mrs.  Mitchell Madison, Los Altos, Calif.
        Joseph Heizer, San Francisco, Calif.
        W.  C. Reynolds, Stanford, Calif.
        Antionette Riley, Redwood City, Calif.
        David Parker
        Mrs.  Dennis G. Drake, San Rafael,  Calif.
        Joseph E.  Cornish,  Redwood City, Calif.
        John L. Burton, California State Assemblyman, San Francisco,  Calif.
        Milan Dostal,  City Councilman,  Newport Beach, Calif.
        Dobie Jenkins,  Northern California Field Representative for U. S. Senator
            Alan Cranston of California
        Wes Uhlman, Mayor, City of Seattle, Wash.
        Diane Feinstein, President, San Francisco Board of Supervisors
        Warren Boggess, Supervisor,  Contra Costa County,  Representing  Regional
            Airport Systems Study of the Association of Bay Area Governments

-------
ATTENDEES (Cont'd.):
        Richard Nagel, City Councilman,  El Segundo, California, Representing the
            League of California Cities
        Alba Ely,  City Councilwoman, Palmdale, Calif.
        A. M.  Man, Barrio Planners, Los Angeles,  Calif.
        Mrs. Thomas Souza, Walnut Creek, Calif.
        Donald Miller, Los Altos Noise Abatement Committee
        Pat Russell, Councilwoman, Los Angeles, Calif.
        James  K.  Carr,  Director of Airports, City and County of San Francisco
        Thomas L. Geers, Chairman, Portola Valley Noise Abatement Committee,
            Coordinator of the Peninsula Noise Abatement League
        Kenneth Scheidig,  Assistant City Attorney, Walnut Creek, Calif.
        Michael Berger, Attorney for Fadem & Tanner,  Los  Angeles, Calif.
        lone Maxwell,  Point Richmond, Calif.
        Dr. C. Michael Hogan, Environmental Systems Laboratory, Sunnyvale, Calif.
        Dor Hesselgrave, Palo Alto,  Calif.
        Ann Fibish, San  Francisco, Calif.
        Charles Christman, San Francisco, Calif.
        Robert Shaw,  Sunnyvale,  Calif.
        Raymond Carrington,  Vacaville, Calif.
        MarkTarses,  Berkeley,  Calif.
        Lloyd Krause, Stanford Research Institute
        Jay Beckerman
        Ronald Pelosi, Supervisor, San Francisco, Calif.
        Jim Knott, President, San Francisco Tomorrow
        Storm Goranson, Oakland, Calif.
        Col. John Reagan,  Foster City, Calif.
        Dr. R. W. Procunier, Stanford Committee for Environmental Information
        Michael Moriarty,  Oakland, Calif.
        Mrs. Fallie Davison,  Airport Cities Action Committee, Playa Del Hey, Calif.
        Loretta Fontechio, North Runway Residents,  Los Angeles, Calif.
        Janice  Cruikshank, Watchful Eye Women's Council for Community Preserva-
            tion,  Los Angeles, Calif.
        Marian Rubin, San Francisco, Calif.
                                      C-9

-------
                      Agricultural and Recreational Noise
                     Denver, Colo., Sept. 30-Oct. 1, 1971
PANEL:
        Alvin F.  Meyer, Jr., Director, Office of Noise Abatement and Control,
            Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
        Dr. Clyde Berry, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa
        James Botsford, Bethlehem Steel Corp., Bethlehem, Penn.
        Dr. John Fletcher, Memphis State University, Memphis, Tenn.
        Boyd Norton, Friends of the Earth, Denver, Colorado
        Sheldon Plager, University of Illinois Law School, Urbana, Illinois
        Richard Strunk, Bolt, Beranek & Newman, Chicago, 111.
ATTENDEES:
        John A. Green, Regional Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency,
            Rocky Mountain-Prairie Region,  Denver, Colo.
        Dr. Steven Williams, Planned Boulder Commission,  Boulder,  Colo.
        Prof. Olwin Olpin, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, Utah
        Hal Weber,  Colorado Dept. Public Health, Denver, Colo.
        Jim Monaghan, CSU Environmental Corps, Fort Collins, Colo.
        John Green, Boulder,  Colo.
        Bob Michener, Denver,  Colo.
        Dr. James Wright & Representatives, Balarat Center for Environmental
            Studies, Denver, Colo.
        Donald Ahrenholtz, Colorado Farm Bureau, Denver, Colo.
        Tom Logan, Bureau of Reclamation, Denver, Colo.
        Robert Million, Environmental Control Group — Technical Service Co.,
            Denver, Colo.
        Howard McGregor, Engineering Dynamics, Denver,  Colo.
        Nicholas Pohlit, National Environmental Health Association, Denver, Colo.
        Ralph Hill, Colorado Wildlife Federation, Denver, Colo.
        Bernie Goetze, Wildlife  Conservation Office, Colorado Division Game,  Fish,
            & Parks, Denver, Colo.
        Mrs. W.H.  McAnally, Lakewood, Colo.
        Al Hine and  Representatives, Colorado Motorcycle Dealers Association,
            Denver, Colo.
        Bernie Bovee, Denver Colo.
        Tom Martin, Noise Control Officer, Boulder, Colo.
        Dr. Donald Billings, Director, Astro-Physics, University of Colorado,
            Boulder, Colo.
                                     C-10

-------
ATTENDEES (Cont'd.):
        Dr. Robert Chanaud, Civil Engineering, University of Colorado, Boulder, Colo.
        John Cooper, Rooky Mountain Cycle Shop, Boulder, Colo.
        Donald V. Glenn, Boulder, Colo.
        Cecil Sparks, Southwest Research Institute, San Antonio, Tex.
        Leo Lechtenberg, Briggs-Stratton Co., Milwaukee, Wis.
        Jack Williford, Colorado State University, Fort Collins, Colo.
        Roger Fooger, University of Illinois, Urbana, 111.
        Dr. Glen Peterson, Memphis State University, Memphis, Tenn.
        Anthony Wayne Smith, National Parks and Conservation Association, Wash-
            ington, D.C.
        Robin Harrison,  Sierra Club, San Dimas, Calif.
        David Beach, Boating Industry Association, Chicago,  111.
        Dick Lincoln, Outboard Marine Corp.,  Milwaukee, Wis.
        Hans Von Barby, National Wildlife  Federation, Evergreen, Colo.
        John Nesbitt, International Snowmobile Industry Association, Minneapolis,  Minn.
        Robert Turner, Audubon Society, Boulder, Colo.
        Newton Sacks, Deere and Co., Moline, 111.
        R.W. Randt,  Farm and Industrial Equipment Institute, Chicago, 111.
        Arnold Skarjune, White Farm Equipment Co., Hopkins, Minn.
        Roger Ringham, International Harvester, Chicago, 111.
        R.T.  Bennett, Farm Equipment Division, International  Harvester
        Dr. Ed Simpson, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Neb.
        Professor David Cook, University of Nebraska, Lincoln, Neb.
        Dr. William Gatley, Society of Professional Engineers, University of Missouri
            Holla,  Mo.
        Dr. William Splinter, University of Nebraska,  Lincoln, Neb.
        Dr. Irwin Deshayes, University of  Nebraska, Lincoln, Neb.
                                     C-ll

-------
                Transportation,  Urban Noise and Social Behavior
                     New York, N.Y., October 21-22, 1971
PANEL:
        Dr. Alvin F.  Meyer, Jr.,  Director, Office of Noise Abatement and Control,
            Environmental Protection Agency
        John Burdis,  Environistics, Inc., Jericho, New York
        Cyril Harris, Columbia University
        Albert Rosenthal, Columbia University School of Law
        Lloyd Hinton, Metropolitan Aircraft, Sound Abatement Council
        George Wilson, Wilson, Ihrig Acoustical Consultants
        Dr. Phyllis Gildston, Chairman, Subcommittee on Noise, New York Scientists'
            for Public Information
ATTENDEES:
        Robert Rickles, Commissioner, New York City Department of Air Resources,
            New York City Environmental Protection Administration
        William Bentley, New York State Department of Environmental Conservation
        Honorable William F. Ryan, U.S. House of Representatives
        Miss Anne MacNaughton, New York State Department of Highways
        Richard Rosenthal, Lincoln Square Community Council
        Mrs. Betty Little,  Coordinator, Citizens for Conservation of Bernard's
            Township, N.J.
        Councilman Theodore Weiss, New York City Council
        Arlene Weltman, Consumer Action Now
        Paul Housberg, Environmental Control Class, Roslyn High School
        Thomas E. Carroll,  Asst. Administrator for Planning and Management,
            Environmental Protection Agency
        Mr. Stanley Welgman, Brooklyn School o£ Pharmacy
        Edward T. Hall, Northwestern University
        Robert Alex Baron, Citizens for a Quieter City,  New York, N.Y.
        Abraham Cohen, Environistics Division, Instrument Systems Data Corp.
        Dr. Ernest Zelnick,  Noise Pollution Consultants, Inc.
        William Harris, Association of American Railroads, Washington, D.C.
        Kenneth Knight, Chairman, Institute for Rapid Transit Noise  Control,
            Washington, D.C.
        George Wilson, Wilson,  Ihrig & Associates, Berkeley, Calif.
        Anthony Paolillo,  Engineer, New York City Transit Authority, Division of
            Noise and Vibration Control
        Honorable John W. Wydler, U.S. House of Representatives
        Francis Purcell, Presiding Supervisor, Town oi Hempstead,  New York
        Honorable Norman F. Lent, U.S.  House of Representatives
                                      C-12

-------
ATTENDEES (Cont'd.):
        Herbert McCollum, Hearing Conservation Center, Lancaster, Penn.
        Robert Cusumano, Chief of Air Pollution Control, Nassau County Health
            Department
        Honorable Lester L. Wolff,  U.S. House of Representatives
        Ernest Litschauer, Town of Greenwich, Northwest Greenwich Association
        Lewis Rotendo, Conney Hill Associates, Armonck, New York
        Clifford Deeds, Town Village Aircraft, Safety and Noise Abatement Com-
            mission , Lawrence, New York
        Richard Carlson, President, CRASH (Citizens Reaction Against Sudden
            Holocausts), Halbrook,  N.Y.
        Robert Check, President, Metro-Suburban Air-Noise Association,  Inc.,
            Inwood, N.J.
        William Webster, New York State Department of Environmental Conserva-
            tion
        Jack Marshall, Port of New York Authority
        Arthur Podwall,  M.D., Director, Syossett Hearing and Speech Center,
            Syossett, New York
        James Rogers, Jet Sonics, Inc., Hauppage, New York
        Clifford Bragdon, Associate Professor of City Planning,  Georgia Institute
            of Technology, Atlanta, Ga.
        Pred Roberts, Sierra Club,  Princeton, New Jersey
        David London, Citizen
                                    C-13

-------
                     Physiological and Psychological Effects
                      Boston, Mass., October 27-28, 1971
PANEL:
        Dr. Alvin Meyer, Jr., Director, Office of Noise Abatement and Control,
            EPA, Washington, D.C.
        Dr. James Botsford,  Senior Noise Control Engineer, Bethlehem Steel Cor-
            poration, Bethlehem, Pa.
        Dr. Donald Elderedge, Central Institute of the Deaf, Washington, D.C.
        Dr. Sanford Fidell, Bolt, Beranek & Newman, Cambridge, Mass.
        Dr. Henning vonGierke, Aerospace Medical Laboratory, Wright-Patterson
            Air Force Base,  Dayton, Ohio
        Dr. Milton Whitcomb, National Academy of Science, Washington, D.C.
ATTENDEES:
        Fred Salvucci, Representative, Mayor's Office, Boston, Mass.
        Guy D. Rosmarin, Assistant Transportation Secretary, Boston,  Mass.
        The Honorable Ralph E. Sirianni, Jr.,  Massachusetts State Representative,
            Boston, Mass.
        Statement of The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy, U.  S. Senator, State of
            Massachusetts, Washington,  D. C.
        Dr. Robert J.  Cunitz, Psychologist, National Bureau of Standards, Gaithers-
            burg, Md.
        T.  Jack Kelley,  Commission Member,  City of Pittsfield Noise Control
            Commission, Pittsfield, Mass.
        Mr. David Standley,  Executive Director, City of Boston Air Pollution Control
            Commission
        Dr. Aram Glorig, Collier Hearing and Speech Institute, Dallas, Tex.
        Dr. Bruce Welsh, Friends Medical Science Research Institute,  Baltimore, Md.
        Mr. Tom Callahan, Assistant  to the Executive Director, Massachusetts Port
            Authority
        Monsignor Mimie Pitaro, State Senator, East Boston
        Mr. Charles Schmid, Private  Citizen discussing noise on Cape  Cod
        Mr. Desmond McCarthy, representing Sierra Club and Friends  of the Earth
        Mr. Jerry Falbo, Massachusetts Air Pollution Noise Abatement Committee
            (MAPNAC)
        Mr. Allen Morgan, Executive  Secretary, Massachusetts Audubon Society
        Mr. John Reagan, Chairman,  Faculty Senate, Barnes Junior High School,
            East Boston
        Dr, John Dougherty, School of Public Health, Harvard University, Cambridge,
            Mass.
        Dr. Jerome Carr, Environmental Specialist, Pollution Control  Division,
            Lowell  Technological Institute Research  Foundation, Lowell, Mass.


                                     C-14

-------
ATTENDEES (Cont'd.):
        Dr. Arthur Saclder, M.D., and Dr. Stanley Waltman, M.D., Laboratory for
            Therapeutic Research, Brooklyn College of Pharmacy, Long Island
            University, Brooklyn, N.Y.
        Dr. Michael Baron, Massachusetts Institute of Technology
        Dr. Edwin Newman, Psychological Lab, Harvard University
        Dr. Robert Grinell, Institute of Psychiatry and Human Behavior, University
        of Maryland, Baltimore, Maryland
        Dr. W. Dixon Ward, Hearing Research Laboratory, University of Minnesota,
            Minneapolis, Minn.
        Dr. Glen Jones, Bolt, Beranek & Newman, Cambridge,  Mass.
        Dr. Paul Borsky, Department of Environmental Hygiene, Columbia University,
            New York, N.Y.
        Stanley Weltman, Ph. D.
        Dr. John Dougherty
        Michaels. Baram,  Ph.D.
                                    C-15

-------
          Technology and Economics of Noise Control; National Programs
                and the Relations with State and Local Programs
                    Washington, D.C., November 9-12, 1971
PANEL:
        Dr. Alvin F. Meyer, Jr.,  Director, Office of Noise Abatement and Control
        John Johnson, Acoustical Society of America, State College, Pennsylvania
        Theodore Berland, President, Citizens Against Noise (Author: The Fight
            for Quiet), Chicago, 111.
        Leo Beranek, Bolt, Beranek & Newman, Cambridge, Mass.
        Henry Martin, Society of Automotive Engineers, New York, N.Y.
        Wes Wise, Mayor, Dallas, Tex.
        Ken Eldred, Wyle Labs, Los Angeles, Calif.
        Charles Dietrich, Bolt,  Beranek & Newman,  Cambridge, Mass.
ATTENDEES:
        Prof. Richard Bolt, Acoustical Society of America
        Dr. Keith.Lumsden, Dept. of Business Administration, Stanford University
        Emerson Rhyner, California State Dept.  of Public Works, Sacramento, Calif.
        Dr. C. Kenneth Orski, Head, Division of Urban Affairs Environmental
            Directorate, OECD, Paris
        Terry Trumbull, Institute of Public Administration, Washington, D.C.
        Robert Smith, Council of Economic Priorities, New York, N.Y.
        Ray Leonard, U.S. Forest Service, Syracuse, New York
        C.A. Wold,  Corporative Noise Control Consultant, Boise Cascade Corp.,
            Boise, Idaho
        Dorn McGrath, American Institute of Planners
        Dan Hanson and Ray Crowe, American Society of Road Builders, Washington,
            D.C.
        Representative of the Homebuilders of America, Washington, D.C.
        Representative from the International Association lor  Pollution Control
        Allan Surosky, General Testing Labs, Arlington, Va.
        Roger Ringham, International Harvester, Chicago, 111.
        David Wulfhorst, Cummins Engine, Co., Columbus, Indiana
        Franklyn Kreml, Automobile Manufacturers Association, Washington, D.C.
        Representative of the Transportation Association of America, Washington, D.C.
                                    C-16

-------
ATTENDEES (Cont'd.):
        Jerbis Kester,  Pratt and Whitney Aircraft, Hartford, Conn.
        Representative  of Boeing Aircraft,  Washington,  D.C.
        G.F. Dilabio, Northrop Aircraft, Los Angeles,  Calif.
        Franklin Kolk,  American Airlines, New York, N.Y.
        Dr.  Louis Mayo, George Washington University, Washington, D.C.
        Thomas Young and Jonathan Howe,  Engine Manufacturers of America,
             Chicago, 111.
        John Lentz, Washington Metropolitan Council of  Governors, Washington, D.C.
        Representative  of the Conference of States, Washington, D.C.
        Wes Gilbertson, Conference of State Sanitary Engineers, Harrisburg, Pa.
        John Moore,  Bureau of Noise  Pollution Control,  Illinois State EPA
        Don Scheisswohl and David Scott, Florida State Department of Air & Water
             Pollution Control,  Tallahassee, Florida
        Representative  of the Texas State Dept. of Health
        Dwight Metzler, New York State Dept. of  Environmental Conservation,
            Albany, N.Y.
        Representative  of the Conference of Mayors,  Washington, D.C.
        Robert Benin, New York City  Environmental Protection Administration,
            New York,  N.Y.
        Representative  of Los Angeles Mayor's Council on Environmental Management
        Mrs. Betty Little, Citizens for Conservation of Bernard's Township, Basking
            Ridge, N.J.
        Robert Cusamano, Nassau County Bureau of Air Pollution,  Nassau County,
             Long Island, New York
        Joseph Kigin, Rubber Manufacturers Association, Washington, D.C.
        N.  Larmore, Construction Industry Manufacturers Association,  Chicago, 111.
        George Washnis, Center for Governmental Studies, Washington,  D.C.
        Herschel Griffin, Dean of the  University of Pittsburgh School of Public Health
        Mrs. Ann Sutton, Burgundy Hill Farm School, Alexandria,  Va.
        John Winder, President, Metropolitan Washington Air Quality Coalition,
            Washington, D.C.
        George Coling,  Executive Director, Ecology Center Communications Council,
            Washington, D.C.
                                    C-17

-------
                                  GLOSSARY



     The following explanations of terms are provided to assist the reader in under-

 standing terms commonly encountered in the literature of "noise pollution" as well as

 terms commonly employed in this report.
 ABSORPTION — Absorption is a property of materials that reduces the amount of
     sound energy reflected. Thus,  the introduction of an  "absorbent" into the surfaces
     of a room will reduce the sound pressure level in that room by virtue of the fact
     that sound energy striking the room surfaces will not be totally reflected.  It
     should be mentioned that this is an entirely different process from that of  trans-
     mission loss through a material, which determines  how much  sound gets into the
     room via the walls, ceiling, and floor.  The effect of absorption merely reduces
     the resultant sound level in the room produced by energy which has already entered
     the room.

 ABSORPTION COEFFICIENT — The sound-absorbing ability of a surface is given in
     terms of a sound-absorption coefficient.  This coefficient is defined as the frac-
     tion of incident sound energy absorbed or otherwise not reflected by the surface.
     Unless otherwise specified, a diffuse sound field is  assumed.  The values of
     sound-absorption coefficient usually range from about 0. 01 for marble slate to
     about 1. 0 for long absorbing wedges such as are used in anechoic chambers.

 ACCELEROMETER (ACCELERATION PICKUP) — An electroacoustic transducer  that
     responds to  the acceleration of the surface to which the transducer is attached,
     and delivers essentially equivalent electric waves.

 ACOUSTICAL POWER — See sound power.

 ACOUSTICS — (1) The science of sound, including the generation,  transmission, and
     effects of sound waves, both audible and inaudible.  (2) The acoustics of an audi-
     torium or of a room,  the totality of those physical qualities (such as  size, shape,
     amount of sound absorption, and amount of noise) which determine the audibility
     and perception of speech and music.

, AIRBORNE SOUND  — Sound that reaches the point of interest by propagation through
     air.
                                       G-l

-------
AMBIENT NOISE LEVEL — The ambient noise level, for purposes of this report,
    follows the usage of the word "ambient" throughout the environmental sciences
    (except acoustics).   That is,  the ambient noise level is that level which exists at
    any instant, regardless of source.

ANALYSIS  — The analysis of a noise generally refers to the composition of the noise
    into various frequency bands, such as octaves, third-octaves, etc.

ANECHOIC ROOM — An anechoic room is one whose boundaries have been designed
    (with acoustically absorbent materials) to absorb nearly all the sound incident on
    its boundaries, thereby affording a test room essentially free from reflected
    sound.

ARTICULATION INDEX (AI) — A numerically calculated measure of the intelligibility
    of transmitted or processed speech. It takes into account the limitations of the
    transmission path and the background noise.  The articulation index can range in
    magnitude between 0 and 1. 0.  If the AI is less than 0. 1, speech intelligibility is
    generally low.  If it is above 0. 6,  speech intelligibility is generally high.

AUDIO FREQUENCY —  The frequency of oscillation of an audible sine-wave of  sound;
    any frequency between 20 and 20,000 hertz.  See also frequency.

AURAL — Of or pertaining to the ear or hearing.

AUDIOGRAM — A graph showing hearing loss as  a function of frequency.

AUDIOMETER — An instrument for measuring hearing sensitivity or hearing loss.

A-WEIGHTED SOUND LEVEL — The ear does not respond equally to sounds of all
    frequencies, but is  less efficient at low and high frequencies than it is at medium
    or speech range frequencies.  Thus, to obtain a single number representing the
    sound level of a noise containing a. wide range of frequencies in a manner repre-
    sentative of the ear's response, it is necessary to reduce,  or weight, the effects
    of the low and high frequencies with respect to  the medium frequencies.  The re-
    sultant sound level is said to be A-weighted,  and the units are dB.  A popular
    method of indicating the units, dBA, is frequently used in this report.  The A-
    weighted sound level is also called the noise  level.  Sound level meters have an
    A-weighting network for measuring A-weighted sound level.

BACKGROUND NOISE — The total of all noise in  a system or situation,  independent
    of the presence of the desired signal.  In acoustical measurements, strictly
    speaking,  the term  "background noise" means electrical noise in the measure-
    ment system.  However, in popular usage the term "background noise" is also
    used with the same  meaning as "residual noise. "

BAFFLE — A baffle is a shielding structure or series of partitions used to increase
    the effective length  of the external transmission path between two points in an
    acoustic system.  For example, baffles may be used in sound traps (as in air
    conditioning ducts) or in automotive mufflers to decrease the sound transmitted
    while affording a path for air flow.
                                      G-2
    74-249 O - 72 - 30

-------
BAND CENTEH FREQUENCY — The designated (geometric) mean frequency of a band
    of noise or other signal.  For example,  1000 Hz is the band center frequency for
    the octave band that extends from 707 Hz to 1414 Hz, or for the third-octave band
    that extends from 891 Hz to 1123 Hz.

BAND PRESSURE (OR POWER) LEVEL  - The pressure (or power) level for the
    sound contained within a specified frequency band.  The band may be specified
    either by its lower and upper cut-off frequencies, or by its geometric center
    frequency.  The width of the band is often indicated by a prefatory modifier; e.g. ,
    octave band, third-octave band, 10-Hz band.

COMMUNITY NOISE EQUIVALENT LEVEL - Community Noise Equivalent Level
    (CNEL) is a scale which takes account of all the A-weighted acoustic energy re-
    ceived at a point,  from all noise events causing noise levels above some pre-
    scribed value.  Weighting factors are included which place greater importance
    upon noise  events occurring during the evening hours (7:00 p. m.  to 10:00 p. m.)
    and even greater importance upon noise  events at night (10:00 p. m. to 6'00 a. m.).

COMPOSITE NOISE RATING —  Composite noise rating (CNR)  is a scale which takes
    account of the totality of all aircraft operations at an airport in quantifying the
    total aircraft noise environment.  It was the earliest method for evaluating com-
    patible land use around airports and is still in wide use by the Department of
    Defense in  predicting noise environments around military airfields.

        Basically, to calculate a CNR value one begins with a measure of the maxi-
    mum noise magnitude from each aircraft flyby and adds weighting factors which
    sum the cumulative effect of all flights.  The scale used to describe individual
    noise events is perceived noise  level (in PNdB), the term accounting for number
    of flights is 10 log10N (where N is the number of flight operations), and each
    night operation  counts as much as 10 daytime operations.  Very approximately,
    the noise exposure level at a point expressed in the CNR scale will be numerically
    35-37 dB higher than if  expressed in the CNEL scale.

CONTINUOUS SOUND SPECTRUM — A continuous sound spectrum is comprised of
    components which are continuously distributed over a frequency region.

C-WEIGHTED SOUND LEVEL (dBC) — A quantity,  in decibels, read from a standard
    sound-level meter that is switched to the weighting network labeled "C".  The C-
    weighting network weights the frequencies between 70 Hz and 4000 Hz uniformly,
    but below and above these limits frequencies are slightly discriminated against.
    Generally,  C-weighted measurements are essentially the same as overall sound-
    pressure levels, which require no discrimination at any frequency.

CYCLES PER SECOND - See frequency.

DAMAGE-RISK CRITERIA (HEARING-CONSERVATION CRITERIA) - Recommended
    maximum noise levels that for a given pattern of exposure times should, if not
    exceeded, minimize the risk of damage to the ears of persons exposed to  the
    noise.
                                     G-3

-------
DAMPING — The dissipation of energy with time or distance.  The term is generally
    applied to the attenuation of sound in a structure owing to the internal sound-dis-
    sipative properties of the structure or owing to the addition of sound-dissipative
    materials.

DECIBEL — The decibel (abbreviated "dB") is a measure, on a logarithmic scale, of
    the magnitude of a particular quantity (such as sound pressure, sound power,
    intensity, etc.) with respect to a standard reference value.

DIFFUSE SOUND FIELD — The presence of many reflected waves (echoes) in a room
    (or auditorium) having a very small amount of sound absorption, arising from re-
    peated reflections of sound in various directions.

DIRECTIVITY INDEX — In a given direction from a sound source, the difference in
    decibels between (a) the sound-pressure level produced by the source in that di-
    rection, and (b)  the space-average sound-pressure level of that source, measured
    at the same distance.

DUCT  LINING OR WRAPPING — Usually a sheet of porous material placed on the inner
    or outer wall(s)  of a duct to introduce sound attenuation and heat insulation.  It is
    often used in air conditioning systems.  Linings are more effective in attenuating
    sound that travels inside along the length of a duct, while wrappings are more
    effective in preventing sound from being radiated from the duct sidewalls into  sur-
    rounding spaces.

EFFECTIVE PERCEIVED NOISE LEVEL (EPNL) - A physical  measure designed to
    estimate the effective "noisiness" of a single noise event, usually an aircraft fly-
    over; it is derived from instantaneous Perceived Noise Level (PNL) values by
    applying corrections for pure tones and for the duration of the noise.

ELECTROACOUSTICS — The science and technology of transforming sound waves  into
    currents in electrical circuits (and vice versa),  by means of microphones,  loud-
    speakers, and electronic amplifiers and filters.

FAR FIELD — Consider any sound source in free space.  At a sufficient distance from
    the source,  the sound pressure level obeys the inverse-square law, and the sound
    particle velocity is in phase with the sound pressure.  This region is called the
    far field of the sound source.  Regions closer to the source, where these two con-
    ditions do not hold, constitute the near field.  Now consider a sound source within
    an enclosure. It is also sometimes possible to satisfy the far-field conditions
    over a. limited region between the near field and the reverberant field,  if the ab-
    sorption within the enclosure is not too small so that the near field and the  rever-
    berant field  merge.

FILTER — A device that transmits certain frequency components  of the signal (sound
    or electrical) incident upon it, and rejects other frequency  components of the inci-
    dent signal.

FREE SOUND FIELD (FREE FIELD) - A sound field in which the effects of obstacles
    or boundaries on sound propagated in that field are negligible.
                                      G-4

-------
FREQUENCY — The number of oscillations per second (a) of a sine-wave of sound,
    and (b) of a vibrating solid object; now expressed in hertz (abbreviation Hz),
    formerly in cycles per second (abbreviation cpa).

HEARING DISABILITY — An actual or presumed inability, due to hearing impairment,
    to remain employed at full wages.

HEARING HANDICAP  — The disadvantage imposed by a hearing impairment sufficient
    to affect one's efficiency in the situation of everyday living.

HEARING IMPAIRMENT — A deviation or change for the worse in either hearing
    structure or function, usually outside the normal range; see hearing loss.

HEARING LOSS — At a specified frequency, an amount, in decibels, by which the
    threshold of audibility for that ear exceeds a certain specified audiometric thresh-
    old,  that is to say, the amount by which a  person's hearing is worse than some
    selected norm. The norm may be the threshold established at some earlier  time
    for that ear,  or the average threshold for  some large population, or the threshold
    selected by some  standards body for audiometric measurements.

HEARING LOSS FOR SPEECH — The difference in decibels between the speech levels
    at which the "average normal" ear and a defective ear, respectively,  reach  the
    same intelligibility, often arbitrarily set at 50%.

HERTZ — See frequency.

IMPACT  — (1) An impact is a single collision of one mass in motion with a second
    mass which may be either in motion or at  rest.  (2) Impact is a word used to ex-
    press the extent or severity of an environmental problem; e. g. , the number  of
    persons exposed to a given noise environment.

IMPACT  INSULATION CLASS  (IIC) —  A single-figure  rating which is intended to  per-
    mit the comparison of the impact  sound insulating merits of floor-ceiling assem-
    blies in terms of a reference contour.

IMPACT  SOUND — The sound arising  from the impact of a solid object on an interior
    surface (wall, floor, or ceiling) of a building.  Typical sources are footsteps,
    dropped objects, etc.

INVERSE-SQUARE LAW — The inverse-square law describes that acoustic situation
    where the mean-square sound pressure changes in inverse proportion to the
    square of the distance from the source. Under this condition the sound-pressure
    level decreases 6 decibels with each doubling of distance from the source.  See
    also  spherical divergence.

ISOLATION -  See vibration isolator.

LEVEL — The level of an acoustical quantity (e. g. , sound power),  in decibels, is 10
    times the  logarithm (base 10) of the ratio of the quantity to a reference quantity
    of the same physical kind.
                                     G-5

-------
LINE SPECTRUM — The spectrum of a sound whose components occur at a number of
    discrete frequencies.

LOUDNESS —  Loudness is the intensive attribute of an auditory sensation, in terms
    of which sounds may be ordered on a scale extending from soft to  loud. Loudness
    depends primarily upon the sound pressure of the stimulus, but is also depends
    upon the frequency and wave form of  the stimulus.

LOUDNESS LEVEL — The loudness level of a sound,  in phons, is numerically equal
    to the median sound pressure level, in decibels,  relative to 0. 0002 microbar, of
    a free progressive wave of frequency 1000 Hz presented to listeners facing the
    source, which in a number of trials is judged by the listeners to be equally loud.

MACH NUMBER —  The ratio  of a speed of a moving element to the speed of sound in
    the  surrounding medium.

MASKING — The action of bringing one sound (audible when heard alone) to inaudibility
    or to unintelligibility by the introduction of another,  usually louder,  sound.  See
    masking noise.

MASKING NOISE — A noise which is intense enough to render inaudible or unintellibi-
    ble  another sound which is simultaneously present.

MICROPHONE —  An electroacoustic transducer that responds to sound waves and
    delivers essentially equivalent electric waves.

NEAR FIELD - See far field.

NOISE — Any sound which is undesirable  because it interferes with speech and hearing,
    or is intense  enough  to damage  hearing, or is otherwise annoying.

NOISE CRITERION  (NC) CURVES - Any of several versions (SC,  NC, NCA, PNC) of
    criteria used for rating the acceptability of continuous indoor noise levels, such
    as produced by air-handling systems.

NOISE EXPOSURE FORECAST — Noise exposure forecast (NEF) is  a scale (analogous
    to CNEL and  CNR) which has been used by the federal government in land use
    planning guides for use in connection with airports.

        In the NEF scale, the basic measure of magnitude for individual noise events
    is the effective perceived noise level (EPNL), in units of EPNdB.  This magnitude
    measure includes the effect of duration per event.  The terms accounting for num-
    ber of flights and for weighting by time period are the same as in  the CNR scale.
    Very approximately, the  noise exposure level at a point expressed in the NEF
    scale will  be  numerically about 33 dB lower than if expressed in the CNEL scale.

NOISE INSULATION — See sound insulation.

NOISE ISOLATION CLASS (NIC)  — A single number rating derived in a prescribed
    manner from the measured values of noise reduction. It provides an evaluation
    of the sound isolation between two enclosed spaces that are acoustically connected
    by one or more paths.


                                     G-6

-------
NOISE LEVEL - See sound level.

NOISE AND NUMBER INDEX (NNI) — A measure based on Perceived Noise Level,
    and with weighting factors added to account for the number of noise events, and
    used (in some  European countries) for rating the noise environment near airports.

NOISE POLLUTION LEVEL  (LNp or NPL) — A measure of the total community noise,
    postulated to be applicable to both traffic noise and aircraft noise.  It is computed
    from the "energy average" of the noise level and the standard deviation of the
    time-varying noise level.

NOISE REDUCTION (NR) — The noise reduction between two  areas or rooms is the
    numerical difference, in decibels,  of the average sound pressure levels in those
    areas or rooms.  A measurement of "noise reduction" combines the effect of the
    transmission loss performance of structures separating  the two areas or rooms,
    plus the effect of acoustic absorption present in the receiving room.

NOISE REDUCTION COEFFICIENT (NRC) — A measure of the acoustical absorption
    performance of a material, calculated by the averaging its sound absorption coef-
    ficients at 250, 500,  1000, and 2000 Hz, expressed to the nearest integral multi-
    ple of 0. 05.

NOYS — A unit used in the calculation of perceived noise level.

OCTAVE — An octave is the interval between two sounds having a basic frequency ratio
    of two.  For example, there are 8  octaves on the keyboard of a standard piano.

OCTAVE BAND  —  All of the components, in a sound spectrum, whose frequencies are
    between two sine wave components separated by an octave.

OCTAVE-BAND SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL  — The integrated sound  pressure level of
    only those sine-wave components in a specified octave band, for a noise or sound
    having a wide spectrum.

OSCILLATION — The variation with time,  alternately increasing and decreasing,  (a) of
    some feature of an audible sound, such as the sound pressure, or (b) of some fea-
    ture of a vibrating solid object, such as the displacement of its surface.

PEAK SOUND PRESSURE — The maximum instantaneous  sound pressure (a) for a tran-
    sient or impulsive sound of short duration, or  (b) in a specified  time interval for
    a sound of long duration.

PERCEIVED NOISE LEVEL  (PNL) — A quantity expressed in decibels that provides a
    subjective assessment of the perceived "noisiness" of aircraft noise.  The units
    of Perceived Noise Level are Perceived Noise Decibels, PNdB.

PHASE — For a particular value of the independent variable, the fractional part of a
    period through which the independent variable has advanced, measured from  an
    arbitrary reference.
                                     G-7

-------
PHON — The unit of measurement for loudness level.

PITCH — A listener's perception of the frequency of a pure tone; the higher the fre-
    quency, the higher the pitch.

PRESBYCUSIS —  The decline in hearing acuity that normally occurs as a person grows
    older.

PURE TONE  — A sound wave whose waveform is that of a sine-wave.

RANDOM INCIDENCE — If an object is in a diffuse sound field, the sound waves that
    comprise the sound field are said to strike the object from all angles of incidence
    at random.

RAVDOM NOISE — An oscillation whose instantaneous magnitude is  not specified for
    any given instant of time.  It can be described in a statistical sense by probability
    Distribution functions  giving the fraction of the total time that the magnitude of the
    noise lies within a specified range.

RESIDUAL NOISE LEVEL — For purposes of this report, the term "residual noise"
    has been adopted to mean the noise wh'ch exists at a point as  a result of the com-
    bination of  many distant sources,  individually indistinguishable.  In statistical
    terms, it is the level  exceeded 90 percent of the time. (Acousticians should
    note it means the same level to which they have customarily applied the term
    "ambient. ")

RESONANCE — The relatively large effects produced,  e.g. , amplitude of vibration,
    when repetitive sound pressure or force is in approximate synchronism with a free
    (unforced) vibration of a component or a system.

RETROFIT — The retroactive modification of an existing building or machine.  In
    current usage, the most common  application of the word "retrofit" is to the
    question  of modification of existing jet aircraft engines for noise abatement
    purposes.

REVERBERATION — The  persistence of sound in an enclosed space, as a result of
    multiple  reflections, after the sound source has stopped.

REVERBERATION ROOM  — A room having a long reverberation time,  especially  de-
    signed to make the sound field inside it as diffuse (homogeneous) as possible.

REVERBERATION TIME (RT) — The reverberation time of a. room is the time taken
    for the sound pressure level (or sound intensity) to decrease to  one-millionth
    (60 dB) of its steady state value when the source of sound energy is suddenly
    interrupted.  It is a measure of the persistence of an impulsive sound in a room
    and of the amount of acoustical absorption present inside the room.

ROOT-MEAN-SQUARE  (RMS) — The root-mean-square value of a quantity that is
    varying as  a function of time is obtained by squaring the function at each instant,
    obtaining the  average  of the squared values over the interval of  interest, and
    taking the square root of this average.

-------
SINE-WAVE — A sound wave, audible as a pure tone, in which the sound pressure is
    a sinusoidal function of time; sound pressure ~sine of (2" x frequency x time).

SONE — The unit of measurement for loudness.

SONIC BOOM —  The pressure transient produced at an observing point by a vehicle
    that is moving past (or over) it faster than the speed of sound.

SOUND — See  acoustics  (1).

SOUND INSULATION — (1)  The use of structures and materials designed to  reduce the
    transmission of sound from one room or area to another or from the exterior to
    the interior  of a building.  (2) The degree by which sound transmission  is reduced
    by means  of sound insulating structures and materials.

SOUND LEVEL (NOISE LEVEL) — The weighted sound pressure level obtained by use
    of a sound level meter having a standard frequency-filter for attenuating part of
    the sound  spectrum.

SOUND LEVEL METER  — An instrument,  comprising a microphone, an amplifier, an
    output meter,  and frequency-weighting networks, that is used for the  measurement
    of noise and sound levels in a specified manner.

SOUND POWER  — Of  a source of sound, the total amount of acoustical energy radiated
    into the atmospheric air per unit time.

SOUND POWER  LEVEL  — The level of sound power, averaged over a period of time,
    the reference being 10~1% watts.

SOUND PRESSURE  — (1) The minute  fluctuations in atmospheric pressure which ac-
    company the passage of a sound wave; the pressure fluctuations on the tympanic
    membrane are transmitted to the inner ear and give rise to the sensation of
    audible sound.  (2) For a steady sound, the value of the sound pressure averaged
    over a period of time.  (3) Sound pressure is usually measured (a) in dynes per
    square centimeter (dyn/cm2), or (b) in newtons per square meter (N/m2).
    1 N/m2 = 10 dyn/cm2 = iQ-5 times the atmospheric pressure.

SOUND PRESSURE LEVEL — The level of sound pressure; squared and averaged over
    a period of time,  the reference being the square of 2 x 10~5 newtons per square
    meter.

SOUND TRANSMISSION CLASS   (STC) — The preferred single figure rating system
    designed to  give an estimate of the sound insulation properties of a partition or a
    rank ordering of a series of partitions.  It is intended for use primarily when
    speech and office noise constitute the principal noise problem.

SOUND TRANSMISSION COEFFICIENT — The fraction of incident sound energy trans-
    mitted through a  structural configuration.
                                     G-9

-------
SOUND TRANSMISSION LOSS (TRANSMISSION LOSS) (TL) - A measure of sound insu-
    lation provided by a structural configuration.  Expressed in decibels, it is 10
    times the logarithm to the base 10 of the reciprocal of the sound transmission
    coefficient  of the configuration.

SPECTRUM — Of a sound wave,  the description of its resolution into components,
    each of different frequency and (usually) different amplitude and phase.

SPEECH-INTERFERENCE LEVEL (SIL) - A calculated quantity providing a guide to
    the interfering effect of a noise on reception of speech communication.  The speech-
    interference level is the arithmetic average  of the octave-band sound-pressure
    levels  of the interfering noise in the most important part of the speech frequency
    range.  The levels in the three octave-frequency bands centered at 500,  1000, and
    2000 Hz are commonly averaged to determine the speech-interference level.
    Numerically,  the magnitudes of aircraft sounds in the Speech-Interference Level
    scale are approximately 18 to 22 dB less than the same sounds in the Perceived
    Noise  Level scale in PNdB,  depending on the spectrum of the sound.

SPEED (VELOCITY) OF SOUND IN AIR - The speed of sound in air is 344 m/sec or
    1128 ft/sec at 78°F.

SPHERICAL DIVERGENCE — Spherical divergence is the condition of propagation of
    spherical waves that relates to the regular decrease in intensity of a spherical
    sound wave at progressively greater distances from the source.  Under this con-
    dition the sound-pressure level decreases 6  decibels with each doubling of dis-
    tance from the source.

SPHERICAL WAVE — A sound wave in which the surfaces of constant phase are con-
    centric spheres.  A small (point)  source radiating into an open space produces a
    free  sound field of spherical waves.

STANDING WAVE  — A periodic sound wave having a fixed distribution in space, the
    result  of interference of traveling sound waves of the same frequency and kind.
    Such sound waves are characterized by the existence of nodes, or partial nodes,
    and antinodes  that are fixed in space.

STEADY-STATE SOUNDS — Sounds whose average characteristics remain constant
    in time.  Examples of steady-state sounds are a stationary siren, an air-condi-
    tioning unit, and an aircraft  running up on the ground.

STRUCTUREBORNE SOUND — Sound that  reaches the point of interest, over at least
    part  of its path, by vibrations of a solid structure.

THIRD-OCTAVE BAND — A frequency band whose cut-off frequencies have a ratio of
    2 to the one-third power, which is approximately 1. 26.  The cut-off frequencies
    of 891  Hz and 1123 Hz define a third-octave band in common use.  See also band
    center frequency.

THRESHOLD OF AUDIBILITY (THRESHOLD OF  DETECTABILITY)  - For a  specified
    signal, the minimum sound-pressure  level of the signal that is capable of evoking
    an auditory sensation in a specified fraction  of the trials.


                                     G-10

-------
THRESHOLD SHIFT — An increase in a hearing threshold level that results from ex-
    posure to noise.

TRAFFIC NOISE INDEX (TNI) — A measure of the noise environment created by ve-
    hicular traffic on highways; it is  computed from measured values of the noise
    levels exceeded 10 percent and 90 percent of the time.

TRANSDUCER — A device capable of being actuated by waves from one or more trans-
    mission systems or media and supplying related waves to one or more other trans-
    mission systems or media.  Examples are microphones, accelerometers, and
    loudspeakers.

TRANSIENT SOUNDS — Sounds whose average properties  do not remain constant in
    time.  Examples are an aircraft  flyover,  a passing truck, a sonic boom.

TRANSMISSION LOSS (TL) — See sound transmission loss.

VIBRATION ISOLATOR — A resilient support for machinery and other equipment that
    might be a source of vibration, designed to reduce the amount of vibration trans-
    mitted to the building structure.

WAVEFORM — A presentation of some feature of a sound  wave,  e.g. , the sound pres-
    sure, as a graph showing the moment-by-moment variation of sound pressure
    with time.

WAVEFRONT — The front surface of a sound wave on its way through the atmosphere.

WAVELENGTH — For a periodic wave (such as sound in air), the perpendicular dis-
    tance between analogous points on any two successive waves. The wavelength of
    sound in air or in water is inversely proportional to the frequency of the sound.
    Thus the lower the frequency, the longer the wavelength.
                                       o
                                     G-ll

-------

-------

-------

-------

-------

-------
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 5, Library (PL-12J)
77 West Jackson Boulevard, 12th Float
Chicago, IL  60604-3590

-------

-------