Public Hearings on
NOISE ABATEMENT AND CONTROL
Vol. II—Manufacturing and Transportation Noise
(Highway and Air)
Chicago, Illinois July 28-29, 1971
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
-------
-------
Public Hearings on
NOISE ABATEMENT AND CONTROL
Vol. II—Manufacturing and Transportation Noise
(Highway and Air)
Chicago, Illinois July 28-29, 1971
Conducted by
the
Office of Noise Abatement and Control
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Washington, D.C. 20460
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office, Washington, D.C. 20402
Price $2.10 domestic postpaid or $1.75 GPO Bookstore
-------
-------
PREFACE
Under the Noise Pollution and Abatement Act of 1970 (title
IV to the Clean Air Amendment of 1970 (Public Law 91-604)),
the Environmental Protection Agency, through the Office of Noise
Abatement and Control, is required to hold public hearings.
A series of eight hearings is being conducted in selected cities
to aid the Office of Noise Abatement and Control in compiling
information relevant to its investigation of the problem of noise
pollution. Further, these hearings present an opportunity for the
public and industry to express their viewpoints on the general
subject of noise control. The volumes in the complete series will be:
Vol. I.—Noise in Construction.
II.—Manufacturing and Transportation
Noise (Highway and Air).
III.—Urban Planning, Architectural
Design; and Noise in the Home.
IV.—Standards and Measurement Methods,
Legislation and Enforcement Problems.
V.—Agriculture and Recreational Use Noise.
VI.—Transportation (Rail and Other), Urban
Noise Problems and Social Behavior.
VII.—Physiological and Psychological Effects.
VIII.—Technology and Economics of Noise Control;
National Programs and Their Relations With
State and Local.
111
-------
CONTENTS
Herbert W. Poston, Commissioner of the Chicago Department of
Environmental Control 3
Dr. Edward Herman 11
Franklin Kolk 19
William G. Cornell 36
A. M. McPike 48
William B. Becker 57
J. J. Corbett 72
Sheldon W. Samuels 85
Lewis Goodfriend 89
Harter M. Rupert 93
William N. Carey, Jr 99
Prepared testimony of Ernest S. Starkman 106
Ernest S. Starkman 115
John Damian 125
Ted Shreves 130
Richard G. Kolb 134
Roger P. Ringham 138
Jack Hasten 143
Joseph Kigin 150
S. A. Lippman 150
Dr. Richard Marcus 161
Noah Roberts and Al Romeo, Jr. 169
Alfred Etter 173
John D. Harper 180
Herbert G. Poertner 182
Henry Karplus 185
Samuel Peskin 187
Carl Carlson 189
Richard Young 195
Statement of Congressman Pucinski 200
George J. Franks 203
Summary of SB 1566 212
William Singer 221
Fred H. Tabak 226
John Watts 230
Cleveland Walcutt 233
Glenna Alevizos 236
Janice Del Calzo 241
John Desmond 247
John Varble 252
National Organisation To Insure a Sound-Controlled Environment:
Resolution No. 1-71 253
Resolution No. 2-71 254
Resolution No. 3-71 255
Resolution No. 4-71 256
Herman Spahr 257
George Dayiantis 263
Elizabeth Lewis 264
Laura Fermi 269
Jo Ann Horowitz 271
Omar Marcus 274
iv
-------
Ted Dacca 281
Richard Blomberg 283
Warren Edwards 291
John Kerrigan 293
Wendell P. Berwick 294
Statement of Congressman Abner J. Mikva, 2d District of Illinois 297
Statement of Leon M. Despres 299
-------
-------
PUBLIC HEARING ON MANUFACTURING AND
TRANSPORTATION NOISE
WEDNESDAY, JULY 28, 1971
The hearing was convened at 9 a.m., Dr. Alvin F. Meyer, Jr.
(chairman), presiding, Director, Office of Noise Abatement and
Control, Environmental Protection Agency.
Panel: Dr. Milton A. Whitcomb, National Academy of Science;
Prof. Sheldon J. Plager, University of Illinois; Mr. Henry Martin,
Society of Automotive Engineers; Mr. Lloyd Hinton, Minneapolis
Metropolitan Noise Abatement Council; Prof. John Kerrebrock,
Massachusetts Institute of Technology.
PROCEEDINGS
Dr. MEYER. Ladies and gentlemen, I hereby convene the public
hearing on noise being held by the Environmental Protection
Agency, as mandated by the U.S. Congress in Title IV. Public
Law 91-604. I am Alvin F. Meyer, Jr., Director of the Office of
Noise Abatement and Control of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
I am accompanied and assisted today in conducting this hearing
by a panel of experts representing a variety of interests. These
gentlemen will serve as a hearing panel to assist us in asking
appropriate questions of the invited witnesses and those members
of the community who have volunteered to come forward and
make a statement about noise as they see it.
Let me introduce the panel. There is Mr. Lloyd Hinton,
executive director of the Metropolitan Aircraft Noise Abatement
Council; Prof. John Kerrebrock, professor of aerospace tech-
nology at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology; Mr. Henry
Martin, manager of resource development of the Society of Auto-
-------
motive Engineers; Prof. Sheldon J. Plager, professor of law at
the University of Illinois; and Dr. Milton A. Whitcomb, executive
director of the Committee on Hearing, Bioacoustics, and Bio-
dynamics of the National Research Council, National Academy
of Sciences in Washington, D.C.
The Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency,
Mr. William D. Ruckleshaus, has asked me to express to the panel-
ists, to the participants, and to those who have taken time away
from their daily pursuits to come to this hearing, his personal
greetings, as well as the official greeting of the Agency.
Before proceeding with the hearing, let me briefly describe to
you their purpose and scope and the manner in which we shall
conduct them. These hearings were directed, as I mentioned in
my opening remarks, by the U.S. Congress as part of an extensive
effort to develop a record for the President and the Congress on
the noise problem as it exists in the United States of America
and what is being done about it and what can be done about it
so that we may develop recommendations for further Federal
action.
The scope of the hearings, despite their geographical locations
in various cities around the United States, is national, although
we have structured them so that regional or local interests may
also be presented.
An additional purpose of the hearings is to provide information
that will be useful to the administration and to the Environmental
Protection Agency in implementing any legislation that the Con-
gress may enact on the subject of noise, there being presently
pending in the Congress the legislative proposal entitled the Noise
Control Act of 1971.
Our fundamental approach in these hearings is to elicit facts
on all sides of the issue. We come with no preconceived notions as
to the most plausible solutions or the best approaches to the prob-
lem or to the nature and extent of the problem.
In this series of hearings we hope to obtain information as to
all views and all approaches on all sides of the issue, so that
when we arrive at the point of developing regulations, rules,
standards, or whatever may be needed, they are based on a broad
understanding of the issues. We are conducting these hearings in
a manner similar to those conducted by the House Committee on
Government Operations of the House of Representatives of the
U.S. Congress. In this mode, the witnesses are invited to present
their remarks; the panel will direct questions as they deem ap-
propriate. There are no questions allowed from the floor; how-
ever, if a member of the audience has a question, he may submit
it to the clerk in writing, and we will endeavor to provide an
answer, time permitting.
Now, these hearings, and congressional action leading to them
and to our mandate to prepare this report, are a result of a rising
tide of public interest in the noise problem. And we feel that it
affords a unique opportunity for the Federal Government to
undertake an approach to the problems of the environment from
a platform of public understanding and communication, which
has not been available to us in the case of a number of the other
elements of the environment. Without further ado, I would now
like to begin the hearing.
-------
We have been advised by Congressman Roman Pucinski from
the llth District of Illinois that he would be here this morning—
if not, tomorrow morning. I have not heard from him regarding
his plan of arrival today, so we will move to the first witness. Is
Mr. Herbert W. Poston here, commissioner of the department of
environmental control, the city of Chicago, Chicago, 111. Mr.
Poston, welcome to the hearing; I look forward to your testimony.
Commissioner POSTON. I also have copies of the ordinance, and
I have some copies of a little noise brochure, with a button on it,
that is part of our city of Chicago program on noise.
Dr. MEYER. Mr. Poston, you may summarize your statement
and wait for questions or read the entire statement; it's your
option.
Commissioner POSTON. I have a prepared statement, Dr. Meyer,
and I would propose to read this to you.
Dr. MEYER: Very good, sir.
STATEMENT OF HERBERT W. POSTON
Commissioner POSTON. My name is H. W. Poston, commis-
sioner of the department of environmental control. Mayor Richard
J. Daley has asked me to outline the city of Chicago's program to
control noise for you this morning.
As early as 1957, Chicago enacted a noise ordinance which set
decibel limitations for noise levels at zoning district boundaries.
Chicago was the first city to establish such zoning boundary noise
level limits and, in so doing, the city provided leadership and set
an example for the Nation. The ordinance still serves as a model
ordinance for community noise control.
The 1957 noise and vibration control ordinance covered the
following types of noise, and they defined their limitations by
time and distance:
1. Vocal and musical instruments, both private and
commercial.
2. Steam whistles.
3. Factories using pneumatic hammers.
4. Mechanical apparatus in building or construction
operations.
5. Transportation and loading of metal.
6. Boisterous behavior that disturbs the peace.
7. Motors on vehicles in excess of 5 tons.
8. Vibration-producing equipment.
This innovative ordinance answered the then existing needs of
the city. As the city continued to expand and prosper, it brought
with it more building construction, increased traffic volumes, and
the widespread use of air conditioners and other small power
equipment. The rise in activity generated increased levels of urban
noise.
Realizing the need for stronger, more encompassing noise
legislation, the city of Chicago conducted a noise study to evaluate
its urban noise problem. This study, prepared by Bolt, Beranek &
Newman, leading acoustical consultants, was followed by a series
of noise hearings held by the city council's environmental control
committee. All of this activity resulted in a new noise ordinance
-------
passed on March 10, 1971, which became effective July 1. A copy
of the noise ordinance will be submitted with this statement. The
new regulation is unique in urban noise control because it sets
quantitative noise limits for many different major noise sources.
The new ordinance has retained the nuisance provisions which
serve as "catchalls" for the many unusual noise sources which
exist in the city. These sections include disturbing the peace,
parked vehicles with engines running, use of hand organs or
musical instruments or operation of steam whistles within the
city.
The main thrust of the new ordinance is directed at the prin-
cipal component of urban noise—motor vehicles. Several sec-
tions of the new ordinance set noise standards for various types
of motor driven equipment. This section of the ordinance per-
tains to three types of vehicles—trucks, cars, and motorcycles.
This provision forbids the sale, or offer for sale, of motor vehicle
equipment exceeding the noise standards set forth. Manufactur-
ers must certify that products meet the restrictions of the
ordinance in all cases. By the beginning of 1980, all motor vehicles
sold for use in the city cannot exceed 75 decibels.
While the manufacturer must meet certain requirements,
operators and owners of vehicles must keep products in good
working condition so they will not give off more noise than the
manufacturer intended. No modifications may be made on a
product to make it louder.
In operating vehicles, limits have been placed on vehicles
traveling under 35 miles an hour and over 35 miles an hour. This
section of the ordinance is now being enforced by two vehicle
enforcement teams from the department of environmental con-
trol working in cooperation with the city of Chicago Police
Department, since environmental inspectors do not have the
authority to curb vehicles.
Another motor vehicle section sets limits on noise from snow-
mobiles, dune buggies, mini bikes, gocarts (off-the-road recrea-
tional vehicles). The limits are placed on both the sale of new
equipment and the operation of the equipment in the city.
The ordinance also provides noise controls for boats operating
on the rivers and lakes within the city limits. The restrictions
placed on boats are 85 decibels for equipment used before January
1, 1975, and 76 decibels after January 1, 1975.
Another important category covered by the ordinance is the
control of noise from construction equipment sold for use in
Chicago. Construction and demolition noise is a very serious
urban noise problem and a complex one to resolve. The ordinance
places noise restrictions on the sale of construction equipment but
not on the operation of the equipment, except for the specifica-
tions of hours of operation. The new equipment section has pro-
gressively decreased noise levels for heavy construction equip-
ment with a noise limit goal for 80 decibels by January 1, 1980.
The last category of construction equipment, that used in re-
sidential areas, has a January 1, 1978, noise goal of 65 decibels.
While decibel regulations governing noise at construction sites
are not included in the new ordinance, it was felt from testimony
presented during the noise hearings that additional technical in-
-------
formation would be required to regulate the noise from
construction equipment.
Realizing the lack of technical data, the department has begun
a noise program to evaluate noise at construction sites. A noise
survey team is collecting noise and vibration data at all major
construction sites. Information related to the size, type, and dura-
tion of operation is tabulated. If a contractor is operating
equipment with an unmuffled exhaust, he can be cited for
disturbing the peace.
The ordinance also covers recreational vehicles or off the high-
way vehicles, placing noise limits on new equipment and also on
the operation of the vehicles.
The ordinance forbids the use of horns or audible signal devices
on motor vehicles while not in motion. With proper public educa-
tion and enforcement, this problem should be greatly reduced in
the near future.
Noise coming from buildings in business and commercial dis-
tricts will be measured at the boundaries of the lot. This includes
noise from such activities as production, processing, cleaning,
servicing, testing and repair of materials, goods, or products.
Noise levels from any of these functions cannot exceed 62 dB(A).
In residential areas noise from buildings will also be measured
at the boundaries of the lot. Total noise levels coming from a
residence cannot exceed 55 dB(A).
In districts zoned as manufacturing (light to heavy), noise
from buildings is measured at district boundaries. The noise
limitations range from 55 dB(A) to 61 dB(A). Where manufac-
turing zoning boundaries meet business and commercial zoning
boundaries, the noise limit is also measured at the boundary dis-
trict and ranges from 62 to 66 dB (A).
Any vibration that can be felt beyond the property line in any
zoning district, whether manufacturing, business, commercial, or
residential, is in violation of the ordinance. Instruments are not
needed to determine the vibration.
The city's department of buildings in cooperation with the
departments of public works and environmental control is cur-
rently making studies to further control noise coming from inside
of all types of buildings. In the near future, these studies will be
the subject of public hearings to update the existing ordinance
to provide a quieter environment for citizens in their activity in
all situations whether indoors or outdoors.
The department of environmental control is responsible for
noise abatement and control programs for the city of Chicago.
Currently our activity is divided into two separate groups from
the enforcement division and the engineering division, totaling
15 people. The enforcement division has the task of enforcing all
aspects of the new ordinance. The engineering division provides
technical backup for the enforcement group and supplies noise
engineering services to other city agencies.
The department has purchased eight sound monitoring systems
for enforcing the new ordinance. Special sound measuring equip-
ment has also been acquired for completing special noise studies
around the city. This equipment is portable and mountable in a
mobile sound laboratory, which is a recent department acquisition.
-------
Although the city of Chicago has taken strong leadership in
the area of urban noise control there are still many areas where
we feel additional work is needed.
To provide a quieter environment, the city needs the assistance
of the Federal Government. At the present time, the city is pre-
empted by Federal regulations and is powerless to control noise
from aircraft at its major airports once they leave the ground.
Aircraft noise is a real source of annoyance to a large segment
of our citizens who live near Midway and, particularly, O'Hare
Airports.
In January of this year, Mayor Richard J. Daley wrote a letter
to the Federal Aviation Administration concerning the matter.
He said, in part, and I quote:
Of special significance to urban governments is the fact that the courts
have generally found that cities are preempted from regulating- aircraft noise
by local ordinance. Consequently, cities will be largely unable to directly
regulate aircraft noise associated with the approach and takeoff of aircraft
using city airports.
The Federal Government has the authority and the responsibility to reduce
aircraft noise, and I am requesting the Government to take immediate steps
to implement its power to regulate aircraft noise and thereby provide relief
to the residents of the city of Chicago and adjoining communities from the
intrusion of noise generated by interstate transport.
The city of Chicago strongly urges that the Department of Transportation
and the Federal Aviation Administration take immediate and positive steps
to exercise its authority to regulate aircraft noise and thereby provide relief
to the residents of the city of Chicago and adjoining communities from such
annoyance as may be generated by aircraft operations.
Surface transportation vehicles, especially those used in inter-
state travel, need to meet uniform regulations. The Federal
Government should support efforts for implementing such
standards from municipalities and States.
When Federal funds are made available for mass transit
systems, the abatement of noise should be of prime importance.
In order for local governments to carry out comprehensive
noise-control programs, especially those who have taken the lead,
financial assistance from the Federal Government should be forth-
coming.
While it is difficult for any major city to continue to control
local noise sources without support in the form of legislation and
additional moneys, the city is considering the following noise
programs:
A noise inventory combining residential, commercial, and in-
dustrial areas in a 1/2-square-mile section of the city needs to be
conducted by the department as a preliminary study for a city-
wide inventory. This information would be used to establish a
baseline for evaluating the effectiveness of our noise-control
program in later years in various areas.
The city plans to establish a permit system to prevent potential
noise sources from being built into existing or new structures and
producing noise problems, particularly in residential areas.
Chicago will continue to accept its responsibility in providing
a quieter environment for its citizens. The city will continue in its
pioneering efforts to control noise, but we most urgently request
assistance, cooperation, and responsibility on the part of our
Federal agencies in this most important task.
-------
I asked, just before coming here, something about our com-
plaints, and I find that in 1970 we had about 125 complaints of
noise. In 1971, the first 6 months, we had 227 complaints; and in
1971, the first 2 weeks in July, we had 247 complaints on noise.
You might be interested in a statistical breakdown since July
1: Air conditioners were responsible for some 70 complaints, or
29 percent of them; trucks, about 65 complaints, 28 percent;
motorcycles, 40 complaints, 17 percent of the complaints; manu-
facturing, 23 complaints, 9 percent; music, 20 complaints, 8 per-
cent; children, 15 complaints, 5 percent; animal noises, 14 or 5
percent; and in this time, since July 1 we have issued 150 vehicle
citations which call for court cases.
I thank you.
I have Mr. Caccavari—I must leave—and Mr. Caccavari, who
is a technical expert on noise, will be available to you for your
further questioning and panel discussion.
Dr. MEYER. Well, Mr. Poston, thank you for an illuminating
discussion of what a large metropolitan community is doing. If
you could stay just about 5 minutes, though, sir.
Commissioner POSTON. All right.
Dr. MEYER. If you would, I would like to give the panel the
opportunity to at least direct one or two questions to you. Panel
on the right, any questions?
Mr. HiNTON. I have a question, Dr. Meyer.
Mr. Poston, does the city contemplate, or has the city adopted
any part of its ordinance here that you referred to as the noise
VOICE FROM AUDIENCE. Can't hear you.
Mr. HINTON. You talked about a noise ordinance adopted in
1957, establishing zoning district boundaries. Now, have you—I
have two questions: One is in regard to the airport noise. Have
you established any zoning in connection with O'Hare and
Midway Airports?
The second question: Have you contemplated including in your
city building code ordinances any criteria for exterior wall sounds
insulation?
Commissioner POSTON. I think your second question was do we
have limitation for wall
Mr. HINTON. No, I wouldn't characterize it as "limitation." I
would suggest it was a
Commissioner POSTON. Standard?
Mr. HINTON. Standard that you have an acoustical criteria re-
quirement for building in the exterior wall in the vicinity of high
noise sources, such as an airport or freeway, or industrial district
where you grant building permits. Do you also have an acoustical
criteria in your building or zoning criteria?
Commissioner POSTON. This is not in our building code. These
studies that are presently underway will take this into considera-
tion possibly when they come up for their ordinance.
Relative to the airport and zoning of the airport, we have no
zoning with the exception of for runups of airplanes when they
rev them up, start up; there is limitation on that.
Mr. HINTON. That would be a regulatory approach on the
maintenance activity?
Commissioner POSTON. Right.
-------
8
Mr. HINTON. That would have nothing to do with the zoning
of the area around there?
Commissioner POSTON. No.
Mr. HINTON. I had in mind the opening of the area contiguous
to the airport.
Commissioner POSTON. There are none.
Mr. HINTON. Thank you.
Professor PLACER. Mr. Poston, it appears the city is engaged in
a comprehensive noise pollution, or noise abatement program. I
wonder, your department, as I understand it, is responsible not
only for noise, but water, air pollution, solid waste—a number of
areas, all the areas of environmental control; is that correct?
Commissioner POSTON. Right.
Professor PLACER. You indicate that your staff includes—how
large is your staff, your total staff?
Commissioner POSTON. We have approximately 225.
Professor PLACER. 225 people?
Commissioner POSTON. Yes.
Professor PLACER. You indicate you have 15 people, totaling
15 people in the engineering and enforcement divisions regarding
noise, is that correct?
Commissioner POSTON. Fifteen people, of which
Professor PLACER. Total ?
Commissioner POSTON. Four are engineers.
Professor PLACER. Four engineers; that leaves you 11
enforcement.
Commissioner POSTON. Yes; we use the engineers for enforce-
ment as well.
Professor PLACER. Do you feel that that is an adequate number
of staff personnel to enforce an ordinance as broadly drafted as
this one covering so many areas of noise
Commissioner POSTON. Well, I think
Professor PLACER. In a city this size?
Commissioner POSTON. We can stand more, very decidedly, I
feel that.
PROFESSOR PLACER. How about legal enforcement? Who handles
your—you mentioned you had some cases.
Commissioner POSTON. The corporation counsel handles the
cases, court cases.
Professor PLACER. This is not under your department, is it?
Commissioner POSTON. No, sir; that comes under the corpora-
tion counsel.
Professor PLACER. How many people are assigned from the
corporation counsel's office, do you know, to do this kind of work?
Commissioner POSTON. This is a variable figure, and we have
two to three lawyers at the present time who are working on
these activities.
Professor PLACER. Part time, or are they full time to do this
work, do you know?
Commissioner POSTON. Well, this comes and goes, and they are
full time.
Professor PLACER. Depending on their other workload?
Commissioner POSTON. Right.
Professor PLACER. One other question, if I may, Mr. Chairman.
-------
Dr. MEYER. Yes, sir, go ahead.
Professor PLACER. With regard to the airport problem, you
say at the present time the city, to quote your statement, the
"city is preempted by Federal regulations and is powerless to
control noise from aircraft at its major airports once they leave
the ground."
Has the city made any attempt to regulate this problem, or to
deal with this problem, or have you had an ordinance
Commissioner POSTON. This was
Professor PLACER. Stricken down?
Commissioner POSTON. No, we have not. This has come under
discussion in our environmental control committee of the city
council, and from the corporation counsel in discussions with the
corporation counsel.
Professor PLACER. So this is purely an opinion, but you have no
ordinance, no legal decision that the city of Chicago do this?
Commissioner POSTON. This has also been recommended by
our consultants, Bolt, Beranek & Newman, who base this on their
experience around the country as well.
Professor PLACER. Does it matter that it's the city's own
airport? Is the city powerless to do anything about airport noise
from its own airport? Is that your understanding of the position?
Commissioner POSTON. Well, I think we can, at the time the
planes, as I indicated, on runups, there are regulations on that,
the time and
Professor PLACER. But beyond runups, nothing?
Commissioner POSTON. No.
Professor PLACER. Thank you.
Dr. WHITCOMB. I have one very brief question. First, I am
generally pleased with your ordinance; indeed, you are to be
commended, you should be commended on this work. The question
is also on regulation and enforcement. I am a little bit dismayed
that a police officer has to work in conjunction with the
enforcement people on your side——
VOICE FROM AUDIENCE. Can't hear, still can't hear you.
Dr. WHITCOMB. Why is it necessary to have such a potentially
difficult system?
Commissioner POSTON : The question is why must a police
officer work with our inspectors?
Dr. WHITCOMB. In curbing cars.
Commissioner POSTON. In curbing cars, and I think par-
ticularly on the expressways, this is a very hazardous operation,
and we have felt that it is, from a safety standpoint that it is
the most desirable way to approach this. It may be that with
time, and funds permitting, we will have further training for our
inspectors in this particular phase of stopping cars, pulling them
over to the side, that we will get into this, but at this time we
felt this was the best way to handle it. We did run a training
course for our inspectors, and had about 50 people attend this
course, which was a 1-week course, with a manual, and it trained
them in the science of noise and noise prevention and the legal
aspects, and the police department, department of public works,
and other city departments, along with our own inspectors, were
in this, involved in this.
-------
10
Dr. MEYER. I have several points, Mr. Poston, I would like to
make, and then we will proceed on. One is a question that has
been raised about the use of the police department to enforce
these regulations; this was brought up and discussed in our hear-
ing in Atlanta, and a representative of the Atlanta Police Depart-
ment pointed out to the panel there, and to me, the real problem
that the police have in being required to take on enforcement, or
operations of this sort. It diverts them from their primary activi-
ties, and his view was that, yes, if this was placed on them they
could and would do it, but they already had so many things to do
that this seemed not to be a good idea. I wonder if you, in this
advanced planning that you mentioned, are going to take a look
at some of the more sophisticated methods, such as those being
used in Connecticut, that you may know about. I refer to a
simultaneous sound recording and photograph of the vehicle, with
its license, on almost an automatic basis at certain checkpoints
and so on.—Apparently it is legal, according to their findings.
Have you thought about taking this out of the hands of the police
department?
Commissioner POSTON. We have looked at this and did not feel
that it was, that the expenditures were justified and that they
would serve our particular needs.
Dr. MEYER. My second question has to do with airports and
airport control. In an extension of one of the other panelist's
questions, did the city investigate, when it was establishing the
present provisions of its ordinance, the possibility of control of
the number of flights into the airport? It is operated, isn't it, by
the city?
Commissioner POSTON. Correct.
Dr. MEYER. And a contract must be let by the airline, and a
landing fee must be paid?
Commissioner POSTON. Has the question of landing fees and
other means of regulation been looked into?
Commissioner POSTON. All of these matters were discussed
Dr. MEYER. I see.
Commissioner POSTON. With the corporation counsel, and in
the hearings of the environmental control committee of the city
council.
Dr. MEYER. I see. Now, the last question I have is one of con-
siderable interest to those of us concerned with future regulations,
laws, and standards. You mentioned a very sharp rise in com-
plaints received by you with regard to noise, although you have
had a noise ordinance for a great number of years; to what do
you attribute that sharp rise in complaints?
Commissioner POSTON. Well, I think the awareness of the public
that we were increasing staff, and we have a new ordinance, and
the media was very helpful in their articles on noise; I think all
of these things had a bearing on it.
Dr. MEYER. Thank you very much, Mr. Poston. We appreciate
your candor in answering our questions, and look forward to
working with the State and the city of Chicago, from the Federal
Government level. Thank you very much.
Mr. Caccavari here, would be here to enter in any other dis-
cussions that you care to enter.
-------
11
Dr. MEYER. Thank you, Mr. Caccavari. If we need to call upon
you, we shall.
Is Dr. Edward Hermann of the Department of Environmental
Health and Engineering of Northwestern University here?
Dr. HERMANN. Yes, I am here.
Dr. MEYER. Sir, would you please come forward and give to the
clerk copies of your transcript, and if you have them available
for the press, I would appreciate your giving them to the press,
too.
Dr. HERMANN. Very good.
Dr. MEYER. While they are getting set up here, I will apologize
for the audio and visual problems that seem to plague all modern
technology. We are dealing with the control of noise, and it seems
as though we can't make the noise we want to at times. Dr.
Hermann, glad to have you with us, sir.
Dr. HERMANN. I am pleased to be here, Dr. Meyer.
STATEMENT OF EDWARD HERMANN,
NORTHWESTERN UNIVERSITY
Dr. HERMANN. My appearance here today is mainly that of a
professor of environmental health engineering, and I wish to give
some definition to the noise problem. Actually, we have concern
over abatement of noise, and' there are several reasons for
doing this—that is, wishing to abate noise.
Some of these, I can list these in descending order of importance,
you might say, and the first would be to reduce hearing loss.
The second would be to improve communications.
Third, to reduce psychoacoustical fatigue.
Fourth, attain better work efficiency.
And, fifth, to reduce the noise.
I am sure many of you are interested in various aspects, and
hope to give some definition overall to noise itself, and to some of
these various problems.
If I might have the first slide
Dr. MEYER. Can we extinguish the television lights so the
gentleman's visual presentation may be seen, please.
Dr. HERMANN. One more and we will have it made.
[Showing of first slide in series.]
We will have to squeeze down the picture, if you have a zoom
lens on that projector. No zoom lens?
Dr. MEYER. There we are.
Dr. HERMANN. That's pretty good definition.
Can we cut the overhead light here?
Dr. MEYER. Someone, can you cut these overheads, please?
VOICE FROM AUDIENCE. We can't find the switch, and the
houseman isn't here.
Dr. MEYER. There he is.
Dr. HERMANN. I will proceed while he is finding the switch.
The problem of noise is largely one of defining some of the
parameters that we measure it with at which this confuses the
problem to a certain extent, and we tend to define it in terms of
decibels and frequency.
Frequency we call "hertz," or "cycles per second," and on this
particular slide, which is familiar to most people who have delved
-------
12
into the acoustic field, we see that we may have the frequency
spectrum plotted from about 20 to 20,000 hertz, and a minimum
audible field represented by the bottom curve [indicating] .
The ordinate in this case is plotted in decibels, and decibel is
simply a scale often referenced to pressure ratios.
Actually, it's a logarithmic scale; it's a pure number; it is
abstract, it has no absolute unit of meaning until we assign an
absolute unit to the pressure variation we are talking about.
For the sake of simplicity, we can see the human thresholds of
hearing as indicated by the bottom curve [indicating] occur among
those who have good hearing to start with, but the lease value
occurs at about 4,000 hertz. The zero reference level has com-
monly been used for physicists' measurements at approximately
1,000 hertz, and calling that a decibel at zero.
Now, it is not until we get up to about 120 decibels that people
feel discomfort. This is on a spectral or an octave band analysis-
type of arrangement, but this was obviously uncomfortable, sounds
up around the 120-decibel range. When we get up to 140 to 145
decibels, sound may approach, or be into the threshold of pain
for some individuals; that is a variable, both as far as being
actually painful, but there is enough energy release at this level
to cause a stimulation which is registered as true pain.
Now, it is between, certainly, the zero level and the 120 that we
are mainly concerned with. Very few people will tolerate a painful
situation; occasionally some jet mechanics may be exposed to such
sound levels, but they certainly will use the protective measures
that are provided to them.
It is mainly in the levels from about, say, 50 up to 120 decibels
that we have our problems.
Now, in general, we see very little interference with speech
communication if noise is kept under approximately 70 decibels.
This is a broad-brush thing, and we have to define it more accu-
rately as far as speech interference levels, but for our purposes
we can use that particular number.
At about 85 decibels we may have some problems as far as noise,
and reduced hearing loss occurs. Hearing losses may occur from a
wide variety of diseases; they occur naturally from aging,
and they occur from excessive noises. The excessive noise expo-
sures that give rise to hearing losses are generally those between
about 90 decibels up to 110, or even 120 in some instances.
I will elaborate on that a little bit after we take a look at this
particular audiogram.
[Showing of next slide in series.]
This is an old audiogram of an individual. It is not unusual to
find an audiogram of this nature showing a plot of the responses
to pure tone frequencies rather than measure every frequency
at 500, 1,000, 2,000, 3,000, 4,000, and 6,000 hertz.
We should notice one peculiarity of making audiometric meas-
urements, and that is that the zero reference level is different for
each pure tone that is used, and this is important, because we
don't use the physicist's reference level. Instead we reference to
a different level, and then call that a new zero. It is a relative
measure, and we have had a change of standards over the past 2
years of using different ones.
-------
13
The present one is the American National Standards Institute.
This particular audiogram shows the old 1951 ASA zero reference
levels. Nevertheless, this individual has some obvious hearing
losses in the higher frequencies, above 2,000 hertz, but not too
much loss, although some noticeable impairment below 2,000 hertz
in the lower frequencies.
One thing that should be noticed, and which I will illustrate
with data later on, is that it is quite easy to lose hearing due to
excessive noise exposures in the high frequencies, around 4,000
hertz. It is much more difficult to force noise-induced noises on an
individual, whether these are occupational, avocational, or recrea-
tional, in the lower frequencies.
[Showing of next slide in series.]
This is simply three different types of statistical distributions
[indicating].
Most of the data used in noise analysis have been treated as
following a gaussian distribution, and this is true for individuals
with mediocre-to-poor hearing.
Actually, individuals with, if you take sets of data on individ-
uals with quite good hearing, we find that they have a log-normal
distribution rather than a gaussian distribution. I won't elaborate
on that. It's not of too much immediate importance here, except for
one aspect, and that is that some studies are made, were made with
a young medical student a few years ago—well, actually, he had just
finished graduating from medical school and wanted some re-
search experience; it showed that among Evanston Township
High School students, individuals who were screened and checked
for absence of not noise-induced hearing loss, but absence of noise
exposure, showed that their thresholds of hearing were truly log-
normal, and not only that, but that the point at which they heard
ran 28 to about 33 decibels below the zero values that were com-
monly used in audiological practice. This gave us some basis for
absolute threshold of human hearing, and although we start
measuring the ability to hear at a particular zero, it is generally
near the center, or even on the high side of this curve, rather
than being down where the first person in a large population
starts to hear.
In other words, we said, we took a sizable population and said
maybe we can let this represent the human race, rather than
making the erroneous assumption that man first hears at minus
infinity—which, of course, has been followed for many years.
This is the same thing; these are the same data shown on a
different plot showing the probability versus the—probability
versus noise or sound level as given.
[Showing of next slide in series.]
Now, then, the problems that arise in noise-induced hearing
loss may be classified into two regions: One would be an ideal
listing scheme like this [indicating], the temporary threshold
shift which may take place.
Most of you have experienced a temporary threshold shift if
you have been exposed to noises on a continuous basis, say, for
6, 7 hours a day, that exceeded 90 or 95 decibels, somewhere in
that range, and you have noticed, after such an exposure, that
you didn't hear so well.
-------
14
This may have been a blessing if you went home to your wife
and you couldn't hear what she was talking about, or it may have
been undesirable if she had something important to say.
However, such a temporary threshold shift recovers quite
rapidly, usually, also.
Most of it, or at least 90 to 95 percent of it is recovered by the
next morning, and the rest during ensuing hours, if there is no
repeated exposure. But if there is another exposure the next day,
as may occur in an occupational situation, and the next and the
next, and this goes on day in, let's say, 5 days at a time every
week, month, year, and so on, if, after years of exposure we may
see an accumulative effect in that the logarithmic recovered rate
as shown in blue [indicating] tends to leave a little bit of residual,
of permanent threshold shift imparity. This is not new. This
simply gives a nice explanation as to why, though, we may not be
able to measure this effect for awhile—eventually the curve rises
enough until we reach an interceptor where it is clinically
demonstable [indicating].
[Showing of next slide in series].
Looking at some data that were obtained in an oil refinery,
where we conducted some fairly simple experiments of audio-
metrically measuring the hearing ability of some 5,000 employees,
actually we put these into groups and classified them, and we
simply asked the employee during their medical examination, in
which audiometry was included, whether they were in a work
environment where they had to stand next to a coworker, usually
within about 1 foot, and shout to be understood. Well, this cor-
responds, roughly, to a noise field of about 95 decibels, and we
found if we put them into two categories and looked at those who
had, say, about 20 to 24 years of service, who claimed such a noise
exposure, that we obtained a curve that looked like the yellow line
shown on this particular diagram [indicating].
This was a noise, obviously true, or at least as good as you will
get on most experimental data. It's hard to beat that type of fit.
We then took the extreme—we had, over on the right-hand side
of the curve [indicating], if we analyzed the hearing among some
of our boilermakers, among the boilermakers with more than 15
years of service, and there were about 106 of them in that group,
or 212 ears, we found that 4,000 hertz the measurements gave us
a curve that looked like the red curve [indicating]. Obviously, we
see from the right-hand side of the data, that right-hand leg,
that the noise is self-limiting; that is, it did not force them into
severe losses, but it did push, in the left-hand side of the curve
[indicating], and made more of the individuals have poor hear-
ing at that particular frequency—which, bear in mind, is the
frequency which initially you start out with as having the most
sensitive hearing, and tend to lose first.
The green curve [indicating] was among individuals who had
only less than 5 years of employment in the industry, and who had
no noise exposure; that is, on looking back through their medical
histories there was no history of prior exposure. Their work
history indicated no current exposures.
Instead of the pure tone audiogram I have shown earlier, we
might use a Bekesy audiometer. That is one modified from the
-------
15
Bekesy type to give the discrete frequencies, and the first three
channels shown on here are time periods, which include the 500,-
1,000,- and 2,000-hertz frequencies [indicating].
You can see of the first two that the 500 and 1,000 hertz ear
tones test frequencies, the individuals heard, as this individual
heard, quite well. This is an audiogram on a single individual, a
34-year-old boilermaker.
But then the bottom dropped out of his hearing at 4,000 hertz,
where we would expect to see a notch, the notch had broadened,
but in both directions, and we see that he has depressed hearing
as across the board from 2,000 hertz on up. He is only 34; he
had about 15 years of experience in his particular craft.
[Showing of next slide.]
Here are some results on a 40-year-old tube cleaner. This man
was exposed primarily to low frequency noise. He hears quite well
in the speech-important frequencies; he does not hear so well in
the higher frequencies.
Now, it is commonly in the development of the scale of exposure
that is used in the Walsh-Healy Act as far as occupational noise
exposures, it is commonly felt that we can sacrifice the hearing
at the origin, sacrifice the hearing in the higher frequencies as
long as the lower frequencies remain intact, because the voice
sounds of a human being, as far as pure tone emissions goes, that
is, vocal chord emission, is from about 85 to 1,100 hertz only and
with articulation, though, some of the articulation with the
tongue, the throat, the mouth, and the teeth, will give us fre-
quencies that go as high as 8,000 hertz. You can still get very good
intelligence out of spoken words if you only hear from roughly
50 up to 2,000 hertz, and so the occupational exposures are
sometimes quite a bit more severe than with the accepted units.
[Showing of next slide in series.]
Grading audiograms is a thing that is done—this is one of the
first charts used for grading the hearing of an individual so as to
simplify it, to say a seven-point scheme, A through G, and if we
average the ability to hear at 500, 1,000, 2,000 hertz, and then
entered the chart, we can get some characterization of how an
individual hears from a simple pure tone audiogram.
This particular chart was developed around 1953 by the Na-
tional Research Council Committee, now know as the Committee
on Hearing and Bioacoustics, and has gone through evolutionary
changes which have been adopted by both the American Medical
Association, the American Academy of Opthalmology and
Laryngology, and others.
[Showing of next slide in series.]
Using that particular grading scheme, if we consider the green
area [indicating] in using the old 1951 ASA measurements for
audiometers, we may plot, actually it's an actuarial curve rather
than a probability curve, but I have used a probability scale with-
out normalizing, it just goes from 0 to 100 percent, and showing
among a control group, the left-hand curve in the sheltered years
indcated that 95 percent of them had grade A hearing or heard
in a normal range; about 5 percent of them had some slight
hearing deficiency.
Among the boilermakers that were tested in this particular
study, there were 114 of them, and in this set of data we see by
-------
16
the time we get down to the dividing line between A and B,
approximately 25-26 percent of the boilermakers, as picked off
of the curve, had hearing poorer than the levels that we would
set as a beginning of impairment, and this is still used today, this
low fence [indicating] is the one used in various measurement
schemes for hearing.
By the time you get over to the dividing line, however, between
C and D, going from mild hearing loss to serious, we see that the
process is self-limited. Very few of the boilermakers were pushed
over into the serious and severe range, and this might have been
due to other diseases, disease situations, because this is only a
statistical study, but it does show a very definite correlation with
noise as the noisy occupation.
In fact, if we take the test for significance on this, the change
of a condition like this, of this size, a statistical study being due
to chance alone is less than the one in a million region.
[Showing of next slide in series.]
Now, another means of grading an audiogram was devised as a
result of the studies made in this particular case, as done with
this particular oil refinery, and we found that we could quantitate
the 4,000-cycle notch which, up to that time, had been essentially
a qualitative measurement for observation by audiologists.
We made a 5-point scale and subtracted the noise that would
be expected in an individual due to aging alone, from the individ-
ual's hearing, and could get to 5 points on the scale. I won't
elaborate on the derivation of this; the papers for all of these
studies have been submitted to the chairman.
However, now we see for the same set of boilermakers that in
comparison with the sheltered ears, and where the grades A, B,
C—this is D right here [indicating], and that is E [indicating]
region, the boilermakers show a much more severe picture. We
have a much more sensitive test to use, and we see that some, oh,
I think dividing line between C and D where we would first use this
as a statistical test of significance, about 75 percent of the boiler-
makers had hearing poorer than our test would allow.
If we would get out to the, about half percentile significance
level, we see that 60 percent of them had hearing poorer than
the test procedure.
Now, this was quite an occupational shift, the blue area shown
here [indicating].
[Showing of next slide in series.]
Among some painters—now, this is not all painters, these are
painters at an oil refinery who may be working inside of a 40-foot-
high tank, 120 feet in diameter, with a boilermaker shearing
rivets off the outside—this gets pretty loud
[Showing of next slide in series.]
There are the same painters on the speech average loss scheme
of grading. I will go back, this was the early loss index scheme
which was to be used as a more sensitive diagnostic, or we will
say prognostic technique, and this was the actual pathology as
far as the number [indicating], shows the number percentagewise
that had lost the hearing relative to the sheltered ear, or control
group.
We went through some 14 different occupations, and they scale
-------
17
down as shown on this table [indicating], it's the first seven we see
that among some female office workers, their average age was
38—at least a birth certificate said so—and we went down from
roughly 95 to 100 in what may be considered the control groups,
down to 78 percent who were both in the class A, meaning that
the rest were not in class A.
[Showing of next slide in series.]
And from there, going on down by categories to the boiler-
makers, where some 58 percent of them were in class A.
Now, this is a serious situation occupationally, in that we have
a disease condition here from which you do not recover. It's not
correctible by any medical or surgical technique available today,
and it is measured in percent; that is, parts per hundred, not in
cases per 100,000, which is how we measure most morbidity.
[Showing of next slide in series.]
This simply shows an interesting situation relative to a 54-year-
old welder.
We measured his hearing, when I looked at the audiogram, that
one of the technicians brought to me, I at first didn't recognize
what had taken place, and after checking through his file I found
out he did not have any hearing in the right ear.
What was happening here was upon conduction from the signal
presented to the right side, and hearing it in the left ear, and it
gave an artifact as shown here [indicating] so he was a one-
eared man, essentially. He hears quite well for a one-eared man.
He has some loss in the speech-important frequencies, has a pro-
nounced loss in the higher frequencies as far as speech intelligence
goes; he communicates very well, and doesn't miss words, but
in a few years, or at retirement age, this man is probably going
to have this spread back into the lower frequencies to a certain
extent, and the prevention of this is, of course, desirable.
[Showing of next slide.]
We will go from occupational areas to, say, just, oh, a decibel-
plotting' scale that might be used in octave band analysis.
Today everything is decibel on the A scale, as an A-weighted
scale; however, I tend to be a little old-fashioned, and like to
stick to the octave bands analysis for accuracy. We miss quite a
bit in the dBA scale despite its convenience.
This was some work developed by Jones Insurance at Esso re-
search and engineering, and incidentally, this is one case in an
industrial situation, or people out of industry were imposing and
adopting criteria for their own regulation that is more severe than
those being proposed today under the Walsh-Healy Act, and this
is used fairly widely in the petroleum industry—at least I have
seen evidence of it in companies other than those that are part
of Standard Oil of New Jersey.
The maximum for communication might be given by a line
such as this [indicating]; there is nothing magic about that
particular line in that many people have different standards, but
this is a reasonable one, and the bottom two curves are those
taken from the Cook County ordinance in Illinois for permissible
community noise in a business district, or in a residential district.
As you can see, at the higher frequencies—well, you can't see
because of the fact that head is not quite transparent—we can
see that at 4,000 and 8,000 hertz the permissible level gets down
-------
18
quite low as far as the amount of sound energy that is accepted
in those particular octave bands.
I think I have used up my time, and I think I should stop
right there and let any questioning that may develop from the
panel take place.
Dr. MEYER. Thank you very much, professor. We appreciate
getting some technical information before the group for a little
bit of greater appreciation of some of the things that are going
to be said later in the day about various levels of noise and their
effects, and lack of effects. Panel?
Professor KERREBROCK. I have one question, Dr. Hermann. Your
testimony seems to concentrate on biological damage, loss of
hearing. Do you have additional information that you could give
us, perhaps in written form, on your views of annoyance? It
seems to be equally important to these hearings.
Dr. HERMANN. I think I should leave that to others, mainly be-
cause I do not have direct experimental evidence in that particu-
lar area. What I am saying is as a practitioner, perhaps I might be
competent in that area; as a researcher I am not because I have
not done this work directly myself.
Dr. MEYER. I would like to ask one question, which I hope will
help put this information in perspective for the people who are
here as observers and witnesses. Would you give some informa-
tion regarding the noise or the sound level conditions to which,
say, the boilermakers were exposed to in their environment that
produced the hearing losses shown on the curves?
Dr. HERMANN. I can give some information on this.
Dr. MEYER. Just something rather brief.
Dr. HERMANN. Obviously there has been studies made in other
industries on continuous noise exposures relating the noise in-
tensities with audiometric shift or changes. That was not done
in these studies. Some measurements were made, of course, but
there was no good correlative evidence developed. It was mainly
an occupational, as correlated by occupation.
The levels, I know that sometimes with chipping hammers, I
did measure decibel intensities inside of vessels as high as 130 to
140 decibels, and there is some doubt when you get up there as to
how good your measuring instrumentation is, and usually these
complaints came not from the boilermaker, and these were per-
cussive, or you might say impact sounds that are possibly not
measured very well, but the complaints came from someone
maybe 100, 200 feet away in another part of the shop, and the
boilermaker, he would accept these. It's the old story I used to hear
that, "The noise used to bother me when I started to work here,
but it doesn't anymore."
Of course, he obviously lost a fair amount of hearing, so it no
longer bothers him very much.
Chairman MEYER. Thank you very much. We appreciate your
taking the time to come and give this presentation, and would
like to receive from you, if you have available, some of these charts
and illustrations for the record. Thank you, sir.
Dr. HERMANN. You are certainly welcome.
Dr. MEYER. We will now turn to a series of presentations
regarding a problem of major interest in environmental noise;
namely, noise associated with aircraft operation. We deeply ap-
-------
19
predate Mr. Franklin Kolk of the American Airlines taking the
time to come and give us a presentation with regard to certain
developments in the aircraft industry concerning noise control.
Mr. Kolk, would you please come forward, sir. The floor is yours,
sir.
STATEMENT OF MR. FRANKLIN KOLK, AMERICAN AIRLINES
Mr. KOLK. My name is Franklin Kolk, and I am vice president
of development engineering of American Airlines.
Noise has always been a burden to American cities. Nearly 200
years ago, Benjamin Franklin, a resident of peaceful colonial
Philadelphia, found it necessary to move his house from High
Street to Second and Sassafras because, "The din of the market
increases upon me, and that, with frequent interruptions, has I
find, made me say some things twice over."
The airplane has brought a new type of noise to the area near
airports; a community annoyance that we recognize as serious and
that we are determined to reduce in every reasonable way.
As we seek answers to the aircraft noise problem, the con-
tinued functioning and growth of the air transportation industry
itself hang in the balance. Construction of several new airports
is being challenged on environmental grounds, resulting in costly
delays, if not outright cancellation. Long-planned, desperately
needed airport expansions are being abandoned due to public and
governmental pressures. Public concern about the noise from po-
tential STOL ports—and from new STOL and long-range super-
sonic aircraft—has produced strong political pressure for
abandonment.
Legislation passed in California—and proposed in New York,
Maryland, and Connecticut—would, although primarily directed
at SST's, sharply restrict—if not ban completely—all existing
commercial jet aircraft from these States. The most efficient long-
distance transportation system ever developed could be paralyzed,
if not destroyed, were such rules allowed to stand and be enforced.
The aviation industry has failed to convince the general public
either that progress has been made, or that future developments
in commercial air transportation will bring significant progress
towards quieter aircraft.
Each airport, each community, has its own individual prob-
lems ; no curealls are in sight. We agree with FAA Administrator
Shaffer that, "In the long, run, the solution to the noise problem
will probably be partly technical, partly procedural, partly
environmental."
The DC-10, which we will introduce into service here in mid-
August, is the first commercial jetliner in airline service which
meets the new sound level standards established by the Federal
Aviation Administration. The DC-10 is about 15 decibels quieter
than long-range B-707 or DC-8 jets, and from 4 to 10 decibels
quieter than the Boeing 727. This achievement was made possible
because, when the DC-10 was in the planning state, American and
other airlines required noise reduction to the existing state-of-art
in the design specifications to the makers of both aircraft and
engines.
-------
20
It is understandable why laymen would suggest retrofitting
current jets with engines and acoustic treatment like those used
so successfully in the DC-10. Indeed, most State and local re-
sponses to the Federal Aviation Administration's "Advanced
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on Aircraft Noise Retrofit" insist
that noise retrofit be required. These responses have cited publicly
available literature to prove technical feasibility and the eco-
nomic reasonableness of retrofitting. Yet, the tests demonstrating
technically achievable reductions relate almost entirely to ap-
proach noise only—dominated by high frequency fan noise—and
applies only to certain four-engine aircraft, which account for less
than a third of the free world's airline fleet.
By contrast, airline responses to the ANPRM have expressed
concern over the economic implications of requiring a noise
retrofit program without first determining whether the noise
reductions which are believed by some to be technologically
achievable are in fact, "meaningful."
In fact, there is good basis for doubt that the community
would be able to perceive that "meaningful relief" had actually
occurred, since tape recordings of treated versus untreated air-
craft—spaced by intervals of perhaps 3 to 5 minutes—are not
perceivably different, except to a trained professional. However,
it seems that many public officials have somehow been convinced
that such retrofit would succeed in doing so, and are insistent
upon mandatory retrofitting.
No noise-reducing retrofit kits of any description whatsoever
can be brought today on the market. The fact remains that the
noise reductions which would be derived from a billion-dollar noise
retrofit program would occur gradually over a period of about 3
years, starting 2 years from time of go-ahead. By then—1976 at
the earliest—many of the aircraft would be retired or scheduled
for retirement. Even if flightworthy noise-reduction kits for
retrofit were now available, the airlines do not have the ability to
finance the more than billion dollars they would cost.
Furthermore, there is little knowledge of the fundamental
technology required to reduce the noise of one of the common jet
engines powering many present short- to medium-range jet
transports.
Only now is a noise-reduction program starting on the JT8D
engine which powers the DC-9, 737, and 727 aircraft. Fan noise is
not the major problem with these engines; their problem is
relatively high velocity, and low frequency jet noise.
In any case, care must be taken to insure that the ability of
existing aircraft to do their required missions is not impaired by
noise reduction modifications to the point where they are unsafe
or uneconomical.
In spite of today's apparent sophistication, much is still to be
learned. Concerted efforts to fill the gaps in our knowledge are
leading to a rapidly evolving science, both theoretically and
empirically.
A case in point is the Boeing 747. Its design for low noise
received a great deal of attention prior to the establishment of
specific noise criteria or the promulgation of a definitive noise
certification regulation. After most of its major technical design
-------
21
features had been frozen, new knowledge became available re-
garding the effects on noise of nacelle configuration, duct dimen-
sions, and sound-suppression material absorption characteristics.
Some of this new knowledge was later incorporated in redesign
of the 747 powerplant installation (at considerable added develop-
ment cost). However, other features—such as a major change to
the nacelle configuration—could not be incorporated in the pro-
duction aircraft simply because their effect was not clearly
understood in time to permit its incorporation before the
hardware was produced.
The 747 nonetheless represents a significant advancement in
aircraft noise reduction. The 747's produce noise levels no worse
on takeoff, up to 7 EPNdB less on approach, and 4 to 6 EPNdB
less on the sideline, compared to other four-engine transports
which are in service today. These reductions are especially note-
worthy when you consider that the 747 is twice the size of the
previous four-engine transports.
New knowledge, not available to the designers and builders of
the 747, was available to the designers of later aircraft. This was
incorporated in, and will result in somewhat quieter Douglas
DC-10 and Lockheed L-1011 airline transports.
Noise reduction doesn't come easily. Noises normally produced
include those propagated forward of the airplane, originating
mainly from the fan and compressor states of the engine. In the
aft quadrants of the engine are fan noise, turbine noise, externally
generated jet exhaust noise, and noise produced by the mixing of
the primary and cold fan streams. Also, noise often radiates
through the engine case, and combustion noise often combines
with turbine noise. Each specific noise problem must be solved
by techniques that must work over a wide range of operating
conditions. In addition, success in suppressing one noise source
unmasks other previously unsuspected sources. This may require
simultaneous suppression of several noise components. To find the
best combinations of suppression materials and design techniques,
you need a lot of luck as well as skill.
Noise reductions aren't cheap—not when 1 to H/2 tons of
acoustic treatment goes along for the ride on every trip, nor when
it costs roughly $200,000 per aircraft extra for this treatment
alone.
Development of the acoustically treated Boeing 747 engine
nacelle cost $105 million. The cost of the acoustic treatment for
American's 16 747 aircraft was roughly $4 million. The added
weight of the acoustical material on each 747 is the equivalent
of 26 passengers on a trip.
Noise reduction also takes a great deal of time. Conceived in
the mid-1960's, the quieter 747 was committed to production in
1966, and made its entrance into service almost 4 years later.
The same elapsed time also holds for the DC-10.
Any aircraft change, such as a noise alleviation change, must
be worked out to justify its specific purpose. In addition, it must
satisfy the basic requirements of airworthiness and must be so
justified to the proper Government agencies. This demonstration
or certification process is laborious, time-consuming and often
frustrating. It involves factors, in most cases, quite unrelated to
-------
22
the basic intent of the change. Hence, there is understandable
pressure to maintain status quo in a given fleet and introduce the
changes in newly procured aircraft as product improvement
items, or as entirely new models.
In the noise field, we have been dealing with a very fluid, non-
definitive science. It has been difficult to measure the noise ema-
nating from aircraft and to quantify this noise in terms of an-
noyance to persons on the ground. This quantification is still
rather incomplete.
Secondly, there has been lack of correlation of fundamental
principles with actually demonstrated engineering accomplish-
ment. For example, at approach conditions all the new engines
make more noise than they ought to according to fundamental
theory. This has been most frustrating.
Thirdly, there has been only a partial understanding of the
physical behavior of various noise sources. There has not been an
organized volume of experiments with widely different configura-
tions of noise sources to verify the theories that may explain the
physical phenomena that are talking place.
In the area of activity pertaining to large jet-type transports,
there have been several significant scientific developments over
the years. The first was the mathematical definition by Light-
hill, an English scientist and mathematician—of the behavior of
pure jet noise emanating from the high velocity jet immediately
behind the engine. His work, which has been definitely verified,
postulates that the sound intensity varies as the eighth power of
the jet velocity in the region of primary interest. This work was
published in the early 1950's.
The second significant work was the contribution of Messrs.
Tyler and Sofrin of the Pratt & Whitney Corp., in the early 1960's
—a mathematically derived and experimentally verified general
theory of noise generation from rotating and stationary blading
elements. This equipped the industry to eventually deal with a
whine of the turbofan engine.
As things stand now, we have little basic theory to go on be-
yond these two milestone works. Much of what has been accom-
plished has been done by brute force and complete empiricism.
Against this background, the first generation of jet transports
was introduced and fitted with sound suppressors. The sound
suppressor stemmed for the work of Greatrex in England and
provided potential for marked reduction in high-velocity jet noise.
As the available engines for the original 707's and DC-8's were
jet engines, this technique was effective in reducing their noise
patterns. In the case of the 707, by contract, Boeing was required
to fit the airplane with suppressors which reduced the overall
noise level by at least 11 decibels. This requirement was met, but
on a subjective scale the results were only of the order of 5 or 6
decibels reduction. Even though they resulted in enormous losses
of efficiency, suppressors were required by the airlines in their
procurement negotiations, dating back to 1955. It has been esti-
mated that the suppressor costs approximately $10,000 per
airplane annually in increased operating expenses.
Knowledge of the working of the Lighthill formula of jet
noise led in the late 1950's to the development of the so-called
-------
23
turbofan engine, which has a markedly reduced jet velocity com-
pared to the straight jet engine. It was postulated that this
reduced jet velocity would markedly reduce community noise.
Since even in the propeller days, takeoff had been their prime
noise problem, the airlines naturally were interested in jet air-
craft takeoff noise. American decided to introduce the turbofan
engine on a conversion basis, across the board, in order to reduce
takeoff noise. This was especially important at New York's Idle-
wild Airport, where a transcontinental flight could not take off
without creating an unacceptable level of noise.
Thus, the turbofan engine was sponsored by the airlines, and
its introduction was forced by the airlines. However, while the
turbofan did reduce the external jet noise, it developed an un-
wanted increment of fan whine due to the new large fan. As the
fan whine turned out to be very annoying relative to other types
of noises, it was soon recognized that action would have to be
taken in this field, too. In the case of American, which had al-
ready begun converting its existing jet engines to fan engines,
the condition seemed serious enough to consider halting the whole
program. Pratt & Whitney embarked on a crash program to
attempt to modify the fan design to reduce the apparent level of
the whine. A modification—somewhat facetiously referred to as a
"hush kit"—was developed and incorporated into production
engines as soon as possible. American further converted over 100
engines which had been produced prior to the development of the
kit. Again, the thrust behind the conversion program was airline
management's recognition that all possible steps had to be taken
to ameliorate the problem.
Concurrently, the industry developed, in cooperation with the
FAA and many local agencies, a series of noise abatement pro-
cedures designed to direct airplanes over sparsely settled areas
wherever possible and to take such steps in flying technique as
would minimize the noise actually reaching the ground. This has
resulted in circuitous routings in and out of airports and has
considerably increased airplane operating expense through ad-
ditional time in the air. It is apparent that these procedures are
also responsible to a large degree for today's congestion at many
airports.
American Airlines, since the early jet days, has attempted,
insofar as possible, to insure that each succeeding aircraft pro-
curement model was quieter than the one that preceded it.
Hence, each of American's aircraft contracts—starting with the
727 contract—has had a detailed and specific noise guarantee
section. The section has set the maximum noise limits appropriate
to specific missions performed by that type of aircraft. Air-
craft covered include the 727-100 series, the 727-200 series, the
BAG 1-11-400, the Boeing 747, and most recently, the DC-10.
Of particular interest was American's procurement of the
727-200, or stretch series. At American's demand, its engine was
equipped with a sound-absorbing treatment in its discharge duct
—which I believe is the first application of large-scale sound-
absorbing treatment to any engine in commercial service. The
treatment itself was not very effective, since it only reduced the
approach noise by approximately 3 decibels. But in combination
with a somewhat higher takeoff thrust, it produced an airplane
-------
24
whose community noise exposure was no worse than the earlier
standard short bodied, series 100 airplane.
With the advent of the turbofan engine, perhaps the key con-
tribution to our knowledge was the Tyler and Sofrin work on fan
whine in the early 1960's. This landmark effort gave designers
clues to how to build quieter high bypass turbofan engines. A
whole family of engines resulted from this work—the Pratt &
Whitney JT9D, the General Electric CF-6, and the Rolls-Royce
RB.211. All of them incorporated single stage fans with no inlet
guide vanes and with maximum spacing between the rotor and
the stator blades to minimize fan whine. Engines of this family
power the Boeing 747, the Douglas DC-10 and the upcoming
Lockheed L-1011.
It is important to note here that both private and public re-
search rapidly escalated during the development of these airplanes
and engines. But our procurement commitments for both 747 and
the DC-10 were made, and the designs frozen, well before the
promulgation of Federal Aviation Regulation part 36 dealing with
noise limits.
The 2 years' experience gained between initiation of the 747
project and the DC-10 increased our knowledge enough for the
DC-10 to meet FAR.36. Further, American Airlines procurement
requirements delineating aircraft noise for use at LaGuardia Air-
port were the binding design criteria on the DC-10, and these
requirements did in fact anticipate the Federal regulation both
timewise and quantitatively.
The airlines are continuing to explore every means at their
disposal to further reduce community noise. It is known that
steeper flight paths reduce noise for both takeoff and especially
approach. Yet, with the instrumentation currently available and
installed in the aircraft, quantum increase in the angle of approach
cannot be made within the constraints of necessary systems
safety. American Airlines has initiated an indepth program to
explore what instrumentation and flight techniques might be re-
quired to utilize steeper approaches. This work is now underway
under NASA sponsorship. We have also been experimenting with
the use of reduced flap settings as an operational technique for
reducing approach noise. This has long been implemented on the
727 aircraft, and only recently was certified through our ini-
tiative—on all our heavier 707 aircraft. American has this year
certified its 707-300 series aircraft for reduced flap settings for
landing and is proceeding to implement this technique. A
measurable reduction in noise level is anticipated.
Against this background, I wish to propose a comprehensive
national research program for aircraft noise alleviation.
Such a program should include national goals for reducing
the allowable noise levels of new aircraft gradually over time
towards some reasonable objectives. A goal for the "next genera-
tion" of commerical transports should be a reduction of 10
EPNdB—referred to FAR.36 criteria—with a further objective
of a 15 EPNdB total reduction. These appear supportable based
on past progress and average out to between 3 to 5 EPNdB per 5
years. However, this is not a guaranteeable, automatic, continuous
reduction. Technological progress cannot be rigorously programed;
-------
25
"invention cannot be scheduled." Nevertheless, our improving
noise technology appears capable of generating this average level
of noise reduction for an aircraft of a fixed size.
Fundamentally, such a national goal should be implemented
by lowering FAR.36 noise levels as frequently as noise reduc-
tion technology permits, which should average 3 to 5 EPNdB
every 5 years. In specific cases, or when technological break-
throughs occur, more stringent rules or accelerated revision of
the rules should be undertaken. It should be clearly understood,
however, that revised rules should not be applied retroactively.
They should only be applied to aircraft whose formal development
commences after the establishment of the rule.
Further progress depends on our obtaining a more complete
understanding of both noise generating mechanisms and the prop-
agation and attenuation of noise in the atmosphere. Our knowl-
edge about both is incomplete. Airlines, airplane and engine
manufacturers, various technical societies, and the Federal
Government are all involved in these studies. NASA alone spent
$13.5 million for such research projects during fiscal 1971. Un-
fortunately, the required intensive research has been underway
only about 4 years.
To support such a national program, we must begin additional
basic research on the physics of aircraft noise generation, prop-
agation, measurement, and control, and on the subjective aspects
of human annoyance.
1. The most pressing basic research need—both in terms of
understanding today's problems and guiding future research—is
in the area of human response to aircraft noise. Until a more
complete understanding is achieved of what type of community
noise is "acceptable," judgment as to where the noise research
funding should be expended will at best be speculative. The
effects of high and low frequencies, pure tones, spectral shape
and absolute level and rate of exposure—repetition—need to be
understood in terms of their individual and combined effects on
human responses. This research is needed to support current
studies on the potential benefits of noise retrofit, to provide direc-
tion for advanced research projects, to provide guidance for de-
sign of future conventional, high-speed, and STOL aircraft and
propulsion systems, and to determine environmental impact of the
air transportation system as a whole. Current procedures, such
as the Noise Exposure Forecast, are inadequate in their present
form to provide the answers and guidance required. In addition
research must take into account not only the social aspects of
noise annoyance, but the medical ones as well. I am pleased to
note that EPA will cover both subjects in depth at a later hearing.
2. Jet noise from low and high bypass ratio engines with jet
velocities of 800 to 2,000 feet per second requires closer attention.
NASA-supported research in fan noise suppression has been
successful in obtaining reductions in fan noise of as much as
15 EPNdB at approach power where the fundamental jet noise
is low. But, no reductions were found at power settings where
engine noise is dominated by jet noise.
3. Current research supported by NASA on quiet fan and
compressor noise if national goals are to be reached.
-------
26
4. Noise suppression for high velocity jets—2,000 feet per
second and greater—received significant attention under the
recent U.S. SST effort. Since significant progress was made on
advanced suppressor designs, the results of the U.S. testing
should be formally prepared and published. It is very desirable, if
not essential, that research studies be continued in this area, to
support continued research in future transonic and supersonic
commercial and military aircraft which will require propulsion
systems with high jet exhaust velocities.
Systematic evaluation of, and experimentation with, noise
measurement techniques are required for continued progress in
noise reduction, estimation and evaluation. We know far too little
about the effect of real atmospheric conditions on noise
attenuation.
Beyond this research, we also need new public-policy attitudes.
As mentioned earlier, apparently slow progress in reducing air-
craft noise has led to a proliferation of antinoise legislative acts
at all government levels—right on down to some of the smallest
municipalities.
Some pieces of legislation have been technically sophisticated,
although the economic implications of meeting them could be
disastrous. Others have been extremely naive and simplistic. Yet
almost without exception, no two proposed or enacted statutes
have been alike. For example, the Federal Government (FAA)
uses as its noise measurement and certification unit effective per-
ceived noise decibels (EPNdB). The Port of New York Authority
has been using perceived noise decibels (PNdB) for about 12
years. The State of California's recent antinoise legislation (which
is to go into effect next December 1) uses the A-weighted noise
scale with a duration correction time constant of 1 second. The
city of Chicago recently considered—but wisely did not enact—
an aircraft antinoise ordinance using a noise unit similar to
California's but with a duration correction time constant of 10
seconds. The State of New York has been considering a bill which
uses uncorrected dBA.
Imagine driving your automobile from California with a speed
limit of 60 m.p.h., into Arizona with a speed limit of 45 knots,
into New Mexico with a speed limit of 110 kilometers per hour,
and on into Texas with a speed limit of 150 feet per second. None
of the speed limits are comparable of course. Imagine how much
more difficult it would be to try to operate an entire fleet of
aircraft daily in the face of local and State noise rules using
different units and measurement locations, and requiring
different operating procedures.
To head off potential regulatory chaos, the airlines advocate
Federal preemption of the field with respect to noise regulation.
Only with one consistent set of rules—encompassing both
rational and compatible criteria for design, certification and
flight operations—can a safe and effective job of minimizing
aircraft noise on the ground be accomplished.
Furthermore, the setting of noise standards and regulations,
and their enforcement, should be the responsibility of a single
regulatory agency which also has the prime responsibility for
establishing flight safety and airworthiness standards. There is
-------
27
no logical separation of noise standards from design and operating
criteria involving airworthiness and noise abatement. Thus, the
regulatory agency which guides the flight safety aspects of avia-
tion, and which already has the expertise and manpower to
support aircraft noise abatement activity, should also set stand-
ards for design, operation and enforcement—if necessary—with
respect to noise after due consultation with the Federal Environ-
mental Protection Agency.
As technology becomes available, the airplane engine will be-
come quieter, but at no point can we foresee a perfectly silent
airplane engine. Airports are not going to be silent places in the
foreseeable future.
As a consequence, there must be more effective zoning by
appropriate authorities to inhibit noncompatible uses of property
adjoining airports. Builders continue to erect homes and apart-
ments directly under flightpaths, even though they know, or
should know, that the people who live in these dwellings are going
to be made uncomfortable by the noise. A prime example is the
"Twin Pines Development," a State low-cost housing project
slated for the Canarsie section of Brooklyn. It will place 20,000
people some 800 feet under an approach to Kennedy Airport now
used heavily to divert noise from other densely populated areas
of Brooklyn. Not long ago, the New York papers also announced
a State housing project proposed for Floyd Bennett Field, also
directly beneath heavily trafficked Kennedy Airport approach and
takeoff paths. If these were isolated instances, they would be
understandable or forgiveable—but they happen all too fre-
quently, all over the country. It is difficult to understand how any
government—Federal, State or local—can justify such obvious
disregard to the citizens it represents and purportedly protects.
Since local zoning jurisdictions often overlap and conflict,
Federal model airport zoning ordinances are needed for local
consideration and implementation. This will promote truly com-
patible use of land around airports, including light industry;
businesses functionally related to airport activity—like airline
suppliers; vendors of food, maintenance and fuel; freight con-
solidators and handlers—soundproofed indoor recreational
facilities—like bowling alleys.
The problem of environmental control must be attacked by all
sectors of society; government, producers, and consumers.
Government is at fault when it subordinates real improvement
to apparent improvement. Government is also at fault when it
fails to enact realistic standards, or to exercise governmental
restraint to protect the public against noise-wise incompatible
uses of property.
The producers—the manufacturers and the airlines—are at
fault if they fail or refuse to utilize existing techniques and
devices to reduce noise. They are also at fault if they fail to under-
take the necessary research to accomplish further improvements.
As to consumers, we believe they are prepared to pay for the
added costs of environmental control. However, they are at fault
if they fail to elect public officials who will carry out rational
programs necessary to such control. They can also be faulted for
failing to recognize a potential noise problem or to take adequate
-------
28
steps to protect themselves from noise problems. This is espe-
cially true of people who choose to move into housing near an
airport, and subsequently complain bitterly about the noise.
Each of us bears a heavy responsibility to protect our own and
future generations from burdensome noise. I hope that my state-
ment here today will contribute positively to your splendid efforts
to develop sound and fiscally sensible recommendations to the
President and to the Congress. I thank you for the opportunity to
participate in your program today.
Dr. MEYER. Mr. Kolk, I can assure you that your statement
will contribute in a positive manner to the effort the Environ-
mental Protection Agency is undertaking. I appreciate your
candor, in telling it as it is, or how you see it; and before I ask a
couple of questions myself, I will appreciate it if you would take
the time for a few minutes and respond to questions from the
panel; it may be that you may want to answer some of these for
the record in writing, in which case if you do, we will make them
available to the press here, of course, at the time we receive them,
because this is a public hearing. I realize you are on a tight
schedule.
Professor KERREBROCK. Your statement is very complete, and
I just have one question. You propose a reduction in noise, as
you say, as technology makes it feasible. I think we have to agree
that there is implicit in this proposal some judgment as to how
much performance should be improved as technology permits
it, and how much noise should be reduced, and I gather that you
more or less agree with NASA's position that 10 dB reduction
from FAR.36 is conceivably possible within 10 years, but you
have reservations as to how this reduction should be implemented,
whether it should be by rulemaking, or by taking advantage of
the technology as it offers itself.
Now, I wonder if you could give us any judgments as to
whether it would be possible to implement these recommendations
faster; that is, reduce noise faster if we were willing to accept
somewhat larger economic penalties.
Mr. KOLK. I think that the process that you describe really goes
something like this: You have two alternatives, you can research
behind closed doors for a period of time and come up with a large
amount of technical goodies, a big hunk, and then you can start
out with a clean sheet of paper. You can design an engine, and
you can design an airplane, and you can design a nacelle to carry
the engine, and you can come up with a very, very startling step
function reduction in noise in that vehicle.
Now, this is the process which we have gone through on the
DC-10. The DC-10 started out on a clean sheet of paper, and it
was designed specifically to bring the lowest noise that appeared
to be physically possible within the limitations of the then state of
the art.
Now, I will say that you can always ask me, well, why don't
you put in some more sound proofing? And I say, in effect, in
the effect on an airplane design, eventually you get to the point
where the damn thing gets astronomic. You use up rapidly all the
payload, or to provide payload the size of the airplane gets to be
infinite, and that gets to be self defeating, so there is a very, very
-------
29
sharp break between what you can easily make an airplane as a
transportation tool, and the most that someone who is concerned
purely with noise, to the exclusion of any other element would
come up with; these are different points of view.
I believe that in transportation we have to sort of go back to
one of the old stories that one of my professors at MIT said, or
quips that he made when I was a sophomore, that the most efficient
way of running an airplane—or an amplifier, was to turn it to
off. That was the only way you could make the output equal the
input, and I think the airplane is somewhat the same way.
If you postulate that you are going to have transportation and
I postulate that we are going to have transportation, if the
American society is going to exist in the form that it is in today,
then you must compromise the requirements of transportation
and noise to a very reasonable degree, and we believe that we have
been steadily making progress towards working that compromise
right. Now, in terms of the retrofit, which I think you are
alluding to
Professor KERREBROCK. No, no, I am not.
Mr. KOLK. To push the noise back down?
Professor KERREBROCK. No.
Mr. KOLK. All right.
Professor KERREBROCK. Let me ask the question in a slightly
different way. I think it's clear to all of us that the DC-10, when
it goes into operation, will represent a much more effective
transportation tool, in your terms, than the aircraft that it
replaces.
Mr. KOLK. Yes.
Professor KERREBROCK. To what extent do you think part of
this potential as a transportation tool could have been sacrificed
for greater noise reduction?
Mr. KOLK. Well
Professor KERREBROCK. This is the question.
Mr. KOLK. I knew no way of making that airplane significantly
quieter than it was. It is possible to have put multiple splitters in
both ends of the fan, and I would imagine that it might produce
a reduction of perhaps a further decibel or so. The airplane with,
those fitted with those characteristics would no longer be a trans-
continental airplane. Now, that is the kind of compromise you have
to make.
Now, we are not going after the last decibel that is going to
cost 10 times as much as all the other decibels put together; that
is the point I am trying to make. We can't afford to.
But we can go a very, very long way in the design of a fluid
airplane to carry an awful lot of stuff. There is 3,400 pounds of
soundproofing in the DC-10 in those nacelles alone. That is dead-
weight soundproofing, and I believe that that was all we could—
well, you are going to have some other people that are going to
talk about that in detail, and I shouldn't waste the time.
Dr. MEYER. Any other questions?
Professor KERREBROCK. No.
Mr. MARTIN. Just one question, Mr. Kolk; will the general
public living under the flight path, with the mix now bringing in
this new aircraft, will he in anyway be able to recognize what
has happened with the advancement?
-------
30
Mr. KOLK. My own ears tell me so. I can tell the difference if
I am sitting on my patio, with my drink at the end of the day,
what kind of airplane is going over because I recognize their noise
signature, and I really believe that anyone who is exposed to this
kind of noise for any period of time, can take some interest in it,
can very, very rapidly, and very quickly develop that knack. There
is no doubt in my mind that, for instance, a 747 makes a great
deal less noise than a 707 in practice around communities, and
the limited demonstrations that we have made with the DC-10
have been really very startling in this regard. There is no doubt
that they can be heard, and they will be significant.
Mr. HINTON. Mr. Kolk, will you maintain the candor of your
remarks in responding to this question with regard to the FAA?
I wonder if you could tell us if you have any knowledge or reason
why the FAA has not, as you have recommended in your state-
ment, established operating criteria for noise reduction, as well
as you have suggested, promulgated a model zoning ordinance
advising communities around airports in this country what the
situation is like, and is likely to become?
Mr. KOLK. Did I say that I wanted the FAA to make the model
zoning ordinance? I don't think they are the appropriate body,
but I think someone has to.
To go back, now, in terms of the procedures, I think that FAA
is moving towards procedures, and I think you very well are
aware of some of the behind-the-scenes battles that we have be-
tween people who are charged primarily with the safety of the
enterprise and people who are charged primarily with the noise
aspects of the enterprise.
It's always easy for a guy that is in charge of noise to say that
a guy that is in charge of safety is a hidebound reactionist, and
I think that we have to recognize that he has the basic human
charge that we must protect.
Now, I think progress is being made, but I would agree with
you, with your inference, that it ought to come faster.
Mr. HINTON. Thank you.
Dr. MEYER. Before passing on, since I am the man who is the
hidebound, hard-nosed human protector, Mr. Kolk, let me ask
you a question, based on your testimony and your very candid
statements here. How do you feel about the way the administra-
tion proposes to deal with this question of zoning and noise in
which the Federal Government sets what amounts to point emis-
sion noise source standards for a variety of transportation and
other sources but leaves to the States and their political sub-
divisions the responsibility, as well as the authority? And I em-
phasize "the responsibility," placing it squarely where it should
be for establishing what amounts to use requirements or zoning
provisions; and in this structure, of course, we in the Environ-
mental Protection Agency will be charged, under the legislation
now pending in the Congress, with working with the States to
develop model laws and ordinances. Now, it's apparent that there
has to be a bridge between these things. And my question is, how
do you feel about a situation in which we may develop what
amounts to permitted human response zones of influence to noise
which the States adopt, leaving it up to the industry and those
-------
31
concerned with safety and everything else to meet those
requirements ?
It's not like saying, well, this is the noise exposure we expect,
and we don't expect any complaint at these levels, so that is all
right.
Mr. KOLK. Well, I think this is, in some respects, somewhat
idealistic, and my point there would be simply this, that the noise
sources and the noise annoyance that we get today in our indus-
trial complex are caused by industry and transportation; industry
and transportation are the things that separate us from the 17th-
century rural life.
The population in the United States is too high to maintain itself
at anything above starvation levels, and with the kind of indus-
trial complex that existed in the 17th century, if you want to go
back to the 17th century, you are going to have to get rid of 90
percent of the people in the world.
Now, I think that this is somewhat unrealistic, so I think that
we have to strive to do the greatest job that we can, but we have
to recognize that not only is noise environment per se important
to human beings, but certain other things, like basic eating,
are important to them, too.
Dr. MEYER. Before I pass this on to any other panel member
who would like to ask you a question—and we must move on
with our activities—I note that in your prepared statement you
are of the view that the more pressing basic research need is in the
area of human response to aircraft noise, and in this you also
include the need for responsibility for determining environmental
impact of the transportation system at large.
Mr. KOLK. Yes.
Dr. MEYER. Do you feel that this should be done by the same
agency that is setting the standards for the aircraft, as you
propose, which would be the FAA, or should it be done by an
independent agency, such as the Environmental Protection
Agency-
Mr. KOLK. Well-
Dr. MEYER. Or should it be done together—I will give you
several options here.
Mr. KOLK. I think my answer to that may be flippant, but I
think knowledge is knowledge, and it doesn't matter who pays
for it. The problem is that there are a number of things that we
don't know about this problem that we really need to know.
I have in mind a NASA finance study that is being published—
it was performed by an outfit called TRACOR, where they did a
lot of sociological work, and it's quite evident from the results
that they had that a meaningful reduction in noise reaction of the
people who do react to noise require so many decibels, so that it
is clearly well beyond our technological grasp today.
Now, I don't know whether this is right or not, but they spent
a lot of money saying that I think that we need some cross check-
ing on this sort of thing, and if it's true, this is a very brutal
blow.
Dr. MEYER. I think what the Agency, under the mandate from
the President and the Congress, is contemplating is a broader
interagency and government type of industry and public approach
to this problem. This is what I was trying to elicit.
-------
32
Mr. KOLK. Yes. Well, that is right.
Dr. MEYER. Thank you very much. Any other questions?
Professor PLACER. Mr. Kolk
Mr. KOLK. Yes.
Professor PLACER. Am I on? From your statement, and from
what my friend, Mr. Hinton, tells me, I understand that American
Airlines has been one of the leaders among the airlines in address-
ing the problem of noise, and if this is, in fact so, I would com-
mend you and American Airlines for doing it. You do make a few
statements in your remarks that I would like to perhaps get
you to elaborate on, if you would, for a moment. You make the
statement:
Legislation passed in California—and proposed in New York, Mai'yland,
and Connecticut—would, although primarily directed at SST's, sharply re-
stricts—if not ban completely—all existing commercial jet aircraft from these
States. The most efficient long-distance transportation system ever developed
could be paralyzed, if not destroyed, were such rules allowed to stand and be
enforced.
That is a quote from your statement?
Mr. KOLK. That's right.
Professor PLACER. I find that, Mr. Kolk, to be quite strong
language, and I wonder perhaps if you really mean that. Let's
explore for just a moment with you the California legislation,
because that is the one that is most pressing. Actually it's not
legislation so much as it is both legislation and regulations of the
department of aeronautics of the State?
Mr. KOLK. Yes.
Professor PLACER. As I understand the California regulations,
Mr. Kolk, in fact what will happen is that no airports, no aircraft
operation will be hindered or stopped or destroyed until a number
of things happen first.
The first thing that must happen is there must be a determina-
tion by each county in which these airports are situated that they
have a noise problem of such dimensions as to require invoking the
procedures. This determination is itself subject to appeal, public
hearings, and a whole process of determination there.
Second, I take it part of the concern may be with the 65 dBA
standards set out in those regulations, and yet that is deferred,
the effective date, until 1986, at which time, hopefully, some of
these aircraft that you refer to as being retired from service will
have been retired—and without going into details as to the
California procedures, there is a substantial provision detail
section for variances.
Now, my information, Mr. Kolk, and this is what I would like
you to comment on, the best information I can find out about the
California plan is that nobody really knows exactly what the
impact of the operation of this proposed program will be because
of these several variables that nobody has had experience with,
and I wonder how you could make the blanket, unqualified state-
ment that anything like this must necessarily paralyze, if not
destroy, the entire aircraft industry?
Mr. KOLK. Well, my impression from studying the work, and
also from talking to a chap named Moore, who runs the Los
Angeles airport, was that if you discount legal maneuvers,
which I really don't think are binding, one shouldn't take solace
-------
in the fact that you can hire a lawyer and wiggle out of trouble
for 15 years.
Professor PLACER. My colleagues in the profession take solace
in that, Mr. Kolk.
Mr. KOLK. But if you literally did what the intent was, you
would restrict operations at Los Angeles airport right now
abruptly to about 20 percent of their present level.
Professor PLAGER. Are you talking about the 65 dBA require-
ment?
Mr. KOLK. This is the cumulative.
Professor PLAGER. Yes, 65 CNEL, but that won't go into effect
until 1986.
Mr. KOLK. I am really talking about the initial cumulative
requirement. I can't think in terms of dBA because I am
calibrated to EPNdB.
Professor PLAGER. Everybody has their own secret system.
Mr. KOLK. Everybody has their hang ups. Everybody that gets
into this game is an expert by definition, and he invents a new
unit, and now we have chaos, and we have more people inventing
units than we have Carter inventing little pills, but really this is
an aside in relation to California. It was my impression that we
would have a very, very great difficulty in the immediate future
in noise levels at Los Angeles, and resulting reductions in fre-
quencies, but now I also
Professor PLAGER. Assuming
Mr. KOLK. I also mentioned certain other proposed legislation
in certain other States which I am sure about. The New York
legislation which was referred to would, in fact, ban any air-
plane that I know about except the DC-10 from operation in New
York State, in the last form I saw. Now, it may have been changed
since then, but I think I had a copy of the last one.
Professor PLAGER. Right. That legislation hasn't been adopted,
has it?
Mr. KOLK. No, it has not.
Professor PLAGER. Let me ask you another question, if I may,
Mr. Kolk.
On pages 14 and 15 of your remarks, and in your statement,
you argue for a single regulatory agency, and one consistent set
of rules. It was not entirely clear to me whether you meant con-
sistent set of rules governing operations or whether you meant
governing airport operations or whether you meant governing land
use problems, or which part of the total dynamics of airport noise
you were dealing with, and yet back on page 2 of your statement
you start right out saying—and I think accurately—that each
airport, each community has its own individual problems; no
cure-alls are in sight.
Now, I wonder, do I misread it? It seems to me that there is
a problem in relating those two ideas—that is to say, if indeed
we must turn to a single—and I presume you mean Federal—
cure-all to have a consistent set of rules for the whole show, then
I wonder how you would deal with this problem of the individual
community and State difficulties and variations that you probably
referred to.
Mr. KOLK. Well, this is a very difficult subject. You have to
-------
34
accept certain constraints. It's impossible, on the one hand, to
comply with a law, a local law that is beyond the capability of
your flying machines to comply with.
In other words, it's possible to erect local noise ordinances,
any one of which are of such severity so that the operator of
aircraft has only one choice, and that is to stop operating.
Professor PLACER. Wouldn't that be true of a Federal law as
well? Couldn't there be an equally observed Federal law?
Mr. KOLK. That could be true of a Federal law.
Professor PLACER. Yes, so we are talking about observed laws,
not necessarily local laws?
Mr. KOLK. But I believe there is a very great danger of ob-
served local laws.
Professor PLACER. How about observed Federal laws?
Mr. KOLK. I think there is some danger of observed Federal
laws, too, but I don't think this is really anywhere near as
difficult a problem.
Professor PLACER. Why would that be?
Mr. KOLK. Well, for instance, it tends to only be—there tends
to only be one forum to fight it out in. There aren't very many
people in the world that can gallop around and attend local hear-
ings. We very rapidly run out of noise experts in this business.
Professor PLACER. And yet the 20 million people who are pre-
dicted to be affected by airport noise operations aren't all situated
in Washington; they are all over the country, including the State
of Illinois.
Mr. KOLK. No, but they have elected representatives in
Washington.
Professor PLACER. Who don't have to hear the noise because
they are not here. One further comment, if I might—or question,
Mr. Kolk. You put a good deal of emphasis—and it has been
most helpful—in your statement on things that the airlines can
do, and things that—the improvement that can be made in the
equipment.
You hardly mentioned, if I understood your statement, changes
in procedures, operational procedures, such as landing procedures,
such as this question of changing to a 3 percent glide path—
again, you know, everybody is an expert—I read that somewhere,
such as takeoff procedures. These are the kinds of operational
procedures that weren't dealt with very much in your statement.
Is that a subject for somebody else's are or how do you feel about
that?
Mr. KOLK. Well, I made certain statements in the prepared
testimony which do—in my prepared statement—which do
treat somewhat on that subject. I do feel that you are going—I
notice on the program this afternoon that you are going to have
some real airplane drivers on the panel, and I would prefer to
defer to those airplane drivers.
Professor PLACER. Fine. Thank you, Mr. Kolk.
Dr. MEYER. Doctor Whitcomb.
Dr. WHITCOMB. I hope you don't cite the TEACOR study as
evidence for not reducing aircraft noise by three dB when you
can—because in a sense you are correct, their studies show if you
can hear noise at all, you are going to be annoyed, and it didn't
-------
35
matter too much how loud it was. The noise wasn't the only
means, variables and annoyance, but if you reduced noise 3 dB,
you are going to reduce the size of the footprint audibly on the
ground, and that means fewer people hear it, so even the TRACOR
people would say, yes, you should reduce the noise.
The other thing you were commenting primarily about the
benefits of future aircraft having noise reduction in them, and
sort of running the concept of retrofit down.
I am concerned about that because though it has a lot of prob-
lems, it is not a total answer; it is a personal answer, and most of
the objections are essentially economic if you boil them down
ultimately.
Why couldn't the cost of this retrofit be put on the ticket and
let the passengers who benefit have, you know, one half of one
percent fare increase; how do you feel about that? Competitively
it wouldn't bother you in competition with either the airlines or
not much with other carriers, other forms of transportation.
Mr. KOLK. Well, I think in the end this is going to—it is going
to appear on the ticket. I don't think there is any doubt that it is
going to appear on the ticket, and I am not adamantly opposed
to retrofit on the principle of retrofit, but I do feel that the
potential benefits of retrofit in light of the—have perhaps been
somewhat overplayed in the economics of, economic hazards of it
are perhaps underplayed in the general scheme of things, in my
experience in dealing with these kinds of matters, but were a
suitable retrofit scheme to come along, then I think we are really
quite morally bound to try to find a way of financing it.
Our problem right now is that there really is a lot less available
on the open market than is generally realized in terms of how
many decibels do you buy for what dollars, and what performance.
Professor PLACER. One quick comment, just to follow through;
you did call for some research on human responses. Sometimes
the research can simply be a way of putting off dealing with
the problem.
I would invite your attention to some 60-odd studies cited in
the recent proceedings of the SAE-DOT conference, many of them
dealing with this very problem, including things like "Use of
Social Surveys for Measuring Communities in Response to Noise,"
and "Effects on Mental Hospital Admissions and Aircraft Noise,"
so I think there is probably—maybe we know as much as we
really need to know that people are affected by it.
Mr. KOLK. I am aware of those papers. I happened to be co-
chairman of that conference.
Professor PLACER. Maybe we don't need too much more
research, then, perhaps.
Dr. MEYER. Very good. Mr. Kolk, I appreciate the paper that
you have given. It will be most useful to the EPA in structuring
its plans for implementing legislation, and also in submitting a
forthright report to the Congress of an analysis of this total
problem, and I appreciate very much the candor with which you
have responded to the questions.
Thank you, sir.
Mr. KOLK. Thank you.
Dr. MEYER. We are very grateful. The next witness to appear
-------
36
in our discussions about aircraft transportation is Mr. John
Cornell of the General Electric Co.
Mr. Cornell, you may summarize, if you desire, in the interest
of time.
Mr. CORNELL. I think I should like to talk my way down
through this. I think there are some things to be said, with the
use of the slides, and so forth.
Dr. MEYER. Very good.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM G. CORNELL, GENERAL ELECTRIC
Mr. CORNELL. I am sorry about the John. My name is Bill
Cornell. My title is acoustics and aerodynamics consulting engi-
neer on the staff of the acoustic design technology operation of
the General Electric Co.'s aircraft engine group.
Since joing GE in 1941, I have worked in the aircraft engine
group for 25 years in a variety of engineering assignments, the
last 5 years of which have been on aircraft engine noise.
The General Electric Co. has been producing aircraft engines
since the early 1940's, and aircraft turbosuperchargers before
that. Our major engine noise activity began with the commer-
cial engines for the Convair 880 and 990 aircraft, in the middle
to late 1950's, although we have been doing noise work on
military engines for some time before that.
Aircraft engine noise control activities in GE over the past
decade have included work on programs as varied as the reheat
turbojet engine for the Boeing supersonic transport, all the way
out to high bypass ratio lift fans for vertical takeoff and landing
and short takeoff and landing aircraft, and the high bypass ratios,
ratio CFG engine, whose first application will be in the McDonnell
Douglas DC-10 wide bodied subsonic transport which will enter
the commercial fleet next month, as Mr. Kolk said.
Today's discussion will be devoted to the noise control con-
siderations in the development of the CFG engine to try to shed
a little physical light on what can be done, and how it is done.
In deference to the chairman, I shall skip through some of
this.
Why don't we look at the first picture.
[Showing of first slide in series.]
I will try to operate this shotgun over my shoulder.
Dr. MEYER. May we extinguish the lights so the panel and the
audience may see this, please; these over here also, please. Thank
you.
Mr. CORNELL. Let us start off in our discussion of the CFG
engine by comparing the various engine noise sources as shown
in this slide.
The schematic illustration shows the turbofan engine—I have
a picture coming up later that will show more of the inside, but
here we have a turbofan engine where a relatively large diameter
fan, so-called like a big propeller inside of a can, sucks in all the
engine airflow in the front and puts some of it out the bypass
stream, and the rest of it through the core engine, which then
goes out the back.
The bypass stream is the air that goes around the central or
core engine. You can think of a core engine as crudely like a first
generation turbojet engine that did not have any fan on the front.
-------
37
The bypass airflow emerges in the cold, relatively low velocity
fan exhaust stream, while the core engine airflow emerges in the
hot, relatively high velocity jet exhaust.
Now, I spoke of high bypass ratio engine. I should define what
I mean by bypass ratio. The ratio of the airflow which is bypassed
around the core engine to the airflow that goes through the core
engine is bypass ratio.
The four noise sources of a turbofan engine are shown on the
figure [indicating] ; forward-radiated noise from the fan and the
compressor, aft-radiated fan noise, turbine noise and jet exhaust
noise.
Forward-radiated noise comes from the fan which is immedi-
ately within, and the core engine compressor, which is down
further within; aft-radiated fan noise comes out the fan exhaust,
from the fan blade itself; turbine noise comes out the core engine
exhaust from the turbine which is well upstream; fan exhaust,
that is, the noise source, and jet exhaust noise comes from the
mixing of the hot jet with the atmosphere.
The fan noise in this type of engine, high bypass ratio engine
is the major noise source. The compressor turbine and jet exhaust
noise being relatively minor in their contributions to the overall
engine noise—and parenthetically I should say physically about
noise, if two noises are going on at once you only hear the loud
one. You don't hear the clock ticking when the truck went by
kind of thing; that applies to this kind of noise also.
Let's talk first about the jet exhaust noise; comparison can be
made among three types of engines, aircraft jet engines. First,
the early turbojet engine, such as General Electric's CJ805-3 tur-
bojet engine for the Convair 880 airplane. In this case the bypass
ratio is zero, by definition, as I mentioned parenthetically before.
The second class of engine is the later low bypass ratio turbo-
fan engine, such as the General Electric CJ805-23 engine for the
Convair 990 aircraft—in this case there is a fan—it has a bypass
ratio at full power of about 1.5 to 1; 150 percent of the core
engine airflow goes around in the bypass flow, and then finally,
the one we are talking about today, the modern CF6 turbofan
high bypass ratio engine has a full power bypass ratio of about
6 to 1, six times as much flow as in this low velocity, cold flow
on the outside of the core engine flow, six times as much as the
core engine flow.
Now, getting to the point about the flow reduction in the high
bypass ratio engine, as bypass ratio increases as the relative
amount bypass flow increases, the average exhaust velocity of
the fan and jet exhaust streams decreases markedly, and the jet
noise is reduced.
Thus, to go back to my three classes of engines, just to cement
the point, the major sources in the three classes of engines are jet
noise in the turbojet engine, because it is almost jet noise; a
combination of jet and fan noise in low bypass ratio turbofan
engines and fan noise alone in high bypass ratio fan engines.
Therefore, jet exhaust noise is well below fan noise, and con-
sequently contributes little to overall engine noise at all operating
conditions in the CF6 engine.
Turning to further noise sources, the CFG turbine which
-------
38
drives the fan is located within the core engine—you will see it
better in further pictures, but it is upstream of the exhaust, up
in here (indicating).
This turbine was designed having relatively lightly loaded
stages, light aerodynamic loading on the turbine blading which
results in turbine noise levels which do not contribute signifi-
cantly to the overall engine noise, and this has been demonstrated
by measurement of the turbine noise—and I might say that I
have made an attachment of a substantiating document that
discusses that in somewhat more detail.
Dr. MEYER. That will be in the record.*
Mr. CORNELL. Fine.
The core engine compressor of the CFG engine is designed and
so placed in the core engine well down inside, as you will see
from the future picture that I haven't shown you, but will in a
little bit, so placed in the engine that it does not—the compressor,
that is, does not contribute significantly to the overall engine
noise, and this also has been demonstrated by noise measurements.
Thus, as previously stated, the overall engine noise of the CF6
engine is predominantly fan noise radiated out the inlet and the
fan exhaust [indicating].
Now, finally, let's get to that next picture that I said three or
four things about and see if I remember what I said about it.
[Showing of next slide in series.]
OK. Here is your fan [indicating] like the big propeller, way
up front.
There are the stationary blades behind [indicating] ; there are
some struts to hold the outside on; the core engine compressor I
keep telling you about is hidden down in here [indicating], so
you can see what I mean when I say it's very hard to imagine the
noise sneaking out through all those blades, et cetera, it's hidden
away inside.
The turbines are well in the back and well upstream here
[indicating], and very importantly, I should point out to you.
I will now very carefully try to draw acoustic treatment lines
the inside of the duct here [indicating], and it lines the inside
of the duct here [indicating], and I will talk about that in more
detail later, but imagine an acoustic treatment to be—and I
always like to have a ceiling to point to, but we don't have it in
King Arthur's Room—acoustic tiling on the ceiling in a typical
office is the same kind of thing as we are talking about here,
except that imagine it is very heavy duty type material—and I will
talk about that.
These are the parts of the CFG engine [indicating].
As we look at the engine picture we should comment that the
CFG fan itself, as the major noise source, was designed with noise
as a major design consideration from the beginning, and not as
a bandaid fixed after the fact.
Important noise control measures taken were elimination of
inlet guide vanes—some of these Mr. Kolk mentioned. In other
words, there are no stationary blades, no stationary blades or
inlet guide vanes ahead of this fan rotor. This cuts down a certain
amount of fan whine. You can sort of imagine this from thinking
* This material is on file at the Office of Noise Abatement and Control.
-------
39
physically about how a siren works, if you will, as rotating blades
run past the stationary blades, a silent effect happens.
Second, the use of large axial spacing between the fan rotor
blades—it's a little hard to see that [indicating]—and outlet
guide vanes.
I keep talking about more pictures; you will see in later pic-
tures there is a relatively large axial spacing between the fan
rotor and the fan stator. This cuts down on more of this siren-
type noise that I was talking about.
The second thing—or third thing—I better stop numbering
them lest I forget the number—the stator vanes are swept or
canted, swept like the wing- of an airplane. Perhaps you can't
see it from the picture, but there has been made an optimum
choice of ratio of number of rotor blades and stationary vanes. I
think you can see there are relatively fewer rotary blades than
there are stationary vanes, and this has something to do with
minimizing fan noise.
There is an optimum balance between fan rotational speed and
blade aerodynamic loading that I talked about before—these
things must be balanced, and there is an optimum design of the
so-called booster stage between the fan exit and the core engine
compressor inlet—and I must say this picture is a beautiful work
of art done with an airbrush, but my next picture will show you
what I mean by a booster stage.
[Showing of next slide in series.]
Now, so much as to what was done. Now, let's show some data
on what came out.
Let's have the next picture, if you xvould be so good.
[Showing of next slide in series.]
In order to validate the acoustic design, a 41 percent scale
model of the CFG fan was used to obtain acoustical data over the
operating range of the fan.
The picture you are looking at now shows the measured noise
plotted vertically along the 200-foot sideline, meaning imagine a
line through the axis of the engine, through the center of the
shaft, and walk out 200 feet to one side, and if we can move ahead,
or to perhaps this bottom scale it will be a little more visible—I
am afraid I have got heads—the percent thrust is being shown at
full takeoff, full thrust and low landing down to around 40 or
something like that.
A parenthetical remark, you have heard the word EPNdB—I
will be talking about perceived noise decibels and PNdB as I talk
here. This is based on measured decibels and objective measure-
ment with microphones and reduction equipment, plus the calcu-
lation that allows for annoyance, so the perceived noise decibel
was, as was remarked before by Mr. Kolk, I think, is relative
not only to physical measurement, but to human annoyance, and
human annoyance is the name of the game we are talking about,
so I am talking about PNdB.
This shows the measured noise along the 200-foot sideline in
perceived noise decibels compared to the design predictions, with
and without the low noise features discussed above.
A noise reduction of 5 to 9 PNdB over the operating range
resulted from use of the low noise features. A reduction of 5 to 9
-------
40
decibels is equivalent to removal of between 68 and 87 percent in
fan noise energy, in source noise reduction—that is, before
addition of the acoustic treatment in the fan ducting.
One predicts if we did not use those in this engine with some
kind of a scatter band from uncertainty, because that is not an
engine we would want to design anyway, if we did not use the
low noise features, we would predict this, our prediction of the
engine as designed with the low noise features, but without the
treatment—because we tested it that way, is the line [indi-
cating], and our little scattering of cherries hits the prediction
pretty decently, but the main point is a noise reduction of some-
where between 5 and 9 has been achieved without the treatment.
This is called source noise reduction.
Now, to give you an idea of 5 and 9, there are all kinds of
number games you can play with decibels. I will give you two
calibrations, and I will go back to the way I wrote this down.
I would like to say that if you have a given sound source, and
it's making a racket, and you reduce the energy of that source by
one half, you take out 50 percent of the noise, you get a 3-decibel
reduction. That is an energy basis, or since 10 is a good, round
number, if you want a 10-decibel reduction, you need to take out
90 percent of the noise, and you only have 10 percent left. This is
the one [indicating], but again after just telling you that sub-
jective annoyance is important, a 10-decibel reduction is some-
thing like half as annoying or half as loud, if you will, without
getting into a lot of detail, that is another kind of an index
you can use, so 10 dB is quite a bit in impact.
Let's look at the next picture, No. 4.
[Showing of next slide in series.].
This shows a schematic drawing of the CFG engine, indicating
placement of the acoustic treatment. As noted above, the booster
stage can be seen better here, as can the cant of the outlet guide
vanes. The acoustic treatment was developed to suppress the noise
radiated by the fan after the low noise features were added,
including major consideration of the detailed frequency spectra of
the fan noise as generated over the full operating range from
approach to takeoff power.
A so-called resonator-type treatment was chosen to best suit
the engine environmental constraints, including high air velocity,
and potential problems associated with soaking various liquids,
freezing and thawing, and general contamination. The basic type
of treatment consists of a perforated face sheet on the airflow
side over a structure partitioned into cavities which resonate
at chosen frequencies in order to aid absorption of sound energy.
That is, again think about your ceiling tile—particularly those
of you who have hung some, and as you know, there are per-
forations into which the sound waves bouncing up and down
little amounts of airflow can go, but we go further than just
having the perforations. We have a sort of an eggcrate structure
behind with the volumes of these little cavities in the eggcrates
tuned to take out the kinds of frequencies we want.
On the basis of exhaustive testing on the 41-percent scale
model fan, as well as laboratory bench scale testing, optimum
deployment of treatment in the fan passages was developed,
-------
41
and you are looking at where we finally deployed it [indicating].
Two types of treatment resulted, single-degree-of-freedom—
we abbreviate that SDOF, or single-degree-of-freedom for the
inlet outer wall and exhaust inner wall, and multiple-degree-of-
freedom, or MDOF treatment for the fan frame and the exhaust
outer wall [indicating].
The SDOF, single-degree-of-freedom treatment consists of a
perforated face sheet over a vertically partitioned cavity having a
single resonance frequency.
And now I do want the next picture.
[Showing of next slide in series.]
The MDOF treatment shown here [indicating] is more com-
plex in cavity geometry, since it is designed to provide multiple
resonance frequencies, to meet engine structural requirements,
and to gravity-drain any liquids entering the cavities.
I think you can see from the solid walls and the slices in them
the kinds of things I am talking about.
Dr. MEYER. Yes.
Mr. CORNELL. There is more detail on that in the substantiating
documents.
Now, let's have a look at the next picture.
[Showing of next slide in series.]
The noise reduction obtained by the use of the acoustic treat-
ment is shown, first in this picture [indicating], which shows
takeoff conditions, 100 percent thrust—and it's hard to see what
I have got, but it is a scale of PNdB, as I used before, and plotted
across the bottom from 0° to 180°. It says "angle from inlet"; it
means on the scale 0° as directly out in front of the engine, 180°
is directly out behind the engine, and 90° is right off to the side
of the middle of the engine, and so we would call this in engi-
neering terms, a polar plot, and you will see where the maximum
noise shows up. It's in this 110-odd degree aft quadrant, as we will
see, and you will see that the noise data shows by traversing
around the engine, with numerous microphones, that if I have my
noise reduction features only without the treatment, I am up here
[indicating], and if I add the treatment, I come down here
[indicating], so this gives you an idea of how much the
treatment paid off.
Indeed, at the maximum point in the aft quadrant, something
like four PNdB reduction, the next picture shows the same kind
of consideration.
[Showing of next slide in series.]
This is for 4D percent thrust, which is a power setting in the
landing approach range.
Now as a result of the low noise features and the acoustic treat-
ment, the noise level of the CFG engine has been reduced from
about 13 to 15 PNdB over the operating range of the engine.
Physically a reduction of 13 to 15 decibels is equivalent to a
reduction in sound energy of 95 to 97 percent. Accordingly, the
CFG engine has achieved noise levels significantly below those of
previous engines, and represents a major step forward which will
assist in prevention of further escalation of airport noise.
Thank you.
Dr. MEYER. Mr. Cornell, you are obviously not only an excellent
-------
42
engineer, but you are able to translate complex subjects into
meaningful and understandable terms, and we appreciate it very
much. Panel?
Professor KERREBROCK. I think, Mr. Cornell, we can all agree
that the CFG represents a major improvement in engines. I have
some questions I would like to ask, however. In your verbal state-
ment one could have been led to believe that indeed the CFG
engine was optimized to reduce noise. Now, I don't think that
you really mean this, and, in fact, if we look back at page 3 of
your written testimony, the statement you make is that the CFG
fan was designed with noise as a major design parameter, and an
optimum design was obtained balancing effects on noise, aero-
dynamic performance and weight, meaning to me that indeed you
balance these several factors—and I think that Mr. Kolk's testi-
mony is consistent with this; what I would like to know is if you
can tell us just to what extent the performance of the engine
was compromised in order to reduce noise to what, by what
fraction was the direct operating cost, say, of the aircraft
increased in order specifically to reduce noise?
Mr. CORNELL. Well, before I answer that detailed question, I
would like to back up and put the—answer a broader question;
then I will get back to your detailed question. What I attempted
to do was to show that fan noise was the largest and most im-
portant noise source in this engine, but that we had very definitely
optimized the complete engine for noise, as Mr. Kolk said, it was
a clean sheet of paper, and we knew what the noise ground rules
were to be, and we made for sure we would not hear from jet
noise per se, and this was by the choice of the bypass ratio as I
discussed; then we made for sure the turbine noise wasn't being
heard from, and as detailed in the substantiating documents, we
went back in and really made for sure about that.
The same with the compressor, but we knew the fan was going
to be the noisemaker because it's a large, high rotational speed,
high airflow. It's a noisemaker, so that is why I concentrated on
it, and we optimized on that fan design from the beginning.
Let me remark, if you go back to the kinds of engines I talked
about in our Convair airplanes, and you looked for any of the
features that I discussed, except in the case of the fan engine for
the Convair 990, which happened to have no inlet guide vanes,
except for that fact, the spacing and the blade choice and all the
other things, I went through this, this was not a consideration
in designing an engine.
Professor KERREBROCK. No, I understand that
Mr. CORNELL. I am giving you the background.
Professor KERREBROCK. All right.
Mr. CORNELL. So that all the features that I talked about are
generic to this generation of engine, and they were introduced.
Now, you say what penalties? Well, Mr. Kolk already indicated a
little bit about 3,400 pounds being lugged around, and not paying
for a ticket, and this kind of thing. Now, I am talking out of line,
but that hurts. I mean, I am an engine type, and I think you should
ask these questions of the airline people, like Mr. Kolk; however,
let me say as follows: I know that we paid for weight, for ex-
ample, even in addition to the acoustic treatment, Mr. Kolk was
-------
43
talking about, I show you how we moved apart the rotating and
stationary blades; we added a hunk of shaft casings, and the
rest of it that Mr. Kolk was carrying around, too, so to speak;
every pound in the aircraft engine business, or airplane business,
every pound you add that doesn't pay off, that is bad.
You asked the right question about DOC (direct operating
cost) ; I don't happen to have that number in my head, as an
engine person I frankly don't, at the moment—as an engine
person I think that you really should ask that question of the
person who operates, such as an airline person, but there have
been performance penalties largely from weight.
Aerodynamic performance, there is some penalty as you scrub
past the inside of a smooth wall, it has little holes in it, there
are some losses and so forth—I would say total aerodynamic
penalties so far in this design, not very large, plus positive small
penalties—not much to worry about.
I would say weight, yes, indeed. Going directly on top of direct
operating cost, weight penalties definitely, but I don't have a
quantitative answer for you.
Professor KERREBROCK. All right. I have another question now.
GE, if I understand correctly, is under contract to NASA to
develop the prototype quiet engines
Mr. CORNELL. Yes.
Professor KERREBROCK. Which are, in a sense, an extension
beyond the CF6 in the quieting of aircraft engines.
Mr. CORNELL. Right.
Professor KERREBROCK. I wonder if you could give us some
indication of two things: First, on what time schedule do you
think that the improvements that are represented by the quiet
engine can be incorporated in production engines, and secondly,
if possible, again this same question, what performance penalty
is going to have to be accepted in order to reduce the noise level
by, say, the next 10 EPNdB?
Mr. CORNELL. This is a good question. I always like to answer
broader questions, but let me first talk about—and I don't want
to run the time up, I understand, right?
Dr. MEYER. Go ahead; this is good.
Mr. CORNELL. The quiet engine program is a very important
thing. I want to state first that the General Electric program is a
technology development program rather than an engine develop-
ment program, that which we have been asked to do is to develop
technology. This is an important consideration; the FAA made
this abundantly clear in their ANPRM, talking about retrofit that
we were talking about before.
We must not be deluded—and I am not trying to brag down a
program that we are all wound up in, or unbrag it, but rather
this is not an engine development program to put it in the fleet
right then. Sure enough we are working with flight weight hard-
ware and all that, but it really is more than a normal technology
program.
What kind of goals has it got? NASA has themselves announced
publicly that they would like to see—well, they would call it, say,
as an engine, 15 to 20 PNdB down from today's engine, so you
look at my 10, and take my 10 off, and it's the same kind of a
-------
44
number. They are looking for another 5 to 10 PNdB range over
and above that thing, like the CFG. That is what NASA says
they are looking for finally, and we are developing technology for
them.
The program began in June 1969; it will be over in, like,
August of 1972, our end of it, so to speak.
I guess I can't speak too well for NASA, but they will have
the technology in their hands at that point, so if somebody wanted
to lay down, depending on how good the results are and so forth,
if somebody wanted to lay down an engine design, maybe like
the first of 1973, I guess I am making a guess, an engine design
could be laid down, and a typical engine development cycle is
something between 3 and 5 years to have it ready, and I think that
is the kind of an answer you were looking for.
Professor KERREBROCK. Yes. 1978?
Mr. CORNELL. Something of this order; yes.
Mr. HINTON. Mr. Cornell, the quiet engine program has always
amused me because I think it's a misnomer; it should be some-
thing like "quieter" or something, because it's still going to have
more noise, we are still going to have aircraft noise, even if a
quiet engine with 10 dB down from a CFG would be like a third
generation of commercial jet transport engine; is that your
opinion ?
Mr. CORNELL. It could be used for such a purpose, indeed, right.
Mr. HINTON. And so from that standpoint you say it's very
important that this investigation continue. I am glad to hear that.
I am interested in the CFG; very briefly can you tell me whether
or not the engine is amenable in its thrust to noise curve, if there
is any direct line, you know, some engines, for example, JT3D
is not very amenable to noise reduction unless you get the thrust
reduction, which is very, very high. The noise curve is almost level
until the thrust level is quite low. How is the CFG, or typically a
high bypass ratio engine in this respect?
Mr. CORNELL. I am thinking about what you are saying. You
are imagining a curve of perhaps PNdB on the sideline against
percent thrust, and you are asking me does it have a steeper curve
rather than a flattop curve?
I am remembering, now, but I think it ought to be this way,
that the curve is steeper at the low power settings, but it tends to
do a little flattening at the high power settings, but I think it is
steeper than the JT3D kind of engine. That is my remembrance.
As I said, I am trying to think. What I just said sounds
reasonable, but I am remembering. All right?
Mr. HINTON. All right. Thank you.
Professor PLACER. Who wrote the noise specs for the CF6
engine? Was that McDonnell Douglas?
Mr. CORNELL. Who wrote the noise specs?
Professor PLACER. Yes. In other words, who called for making
the CFG a quiet engine for the DC-10 ? Whose idea was that, who
planned it?
Mr. CORNELL. Well, we have contractual agreements with
McDonnell Douglas which have very specific noise numbers in it,
but in all deference to Frank Kolk, who may or may not still be
here, let's not forget that he was party to this, and so were many
-------
45
other important airlines, as that airplane, and as this engine de-
velops, a lot of the airlines were right in the middle of the thing,
but the specific spec that we are talking about for this engine,
that is going into that airplane next month, was specifically
contractually agreed to between us and McDonnell Douglas.
Professor PLACER. Part of the—I guess part of what I am
reaching for, Mr. Cornell, is what is the responsibility, the corpo-
rate responsibility of a company like General Electric for
initiating or assuming some initiative in developing quiet engines,
quieter engines? I assume that the airlines don't need to specify
the fan blades shouldn't fly off; I assume that the engine manu-
facturer has some responsibility for some parts of producing an
effective engine. What is your view of the manufacturer's
responsibility for incorporating quiet into the engine, whether
demanded by the airlines or not?
Mr. CORNELL. Well, I guess you can answer this in a variety
of ways, but on purely selfish basis, we decided some years ago
that we wouldn't be selling any if we didn't make them just as
quiet as we could. On the other hand, my company is large enough
that we feel we can be statesmanlike, and we have environ-
mental ideas in our corporate office which have been publicly an-
nounced and so forth, so for all reasons we really are working at
the problem, and we don't intend to quit.
Professor PLACER. Thank you.
Professor KERREBROCK. Could I inject a question before we drop
this point? Wasn't it actually the impending FAR 36 which set
the noise regulations for the DC-10?
Mr. CORNELL. Not really. This was sort of concurrent, I think.
FAR 36 began in 1966 with the initial letter by Joseph Blatt,
Administrator of the FAA—Associate Administrator, and this
kind of thing you will hear more from Mr. McPike shortly, who
will tell you that we have even got, we have even done better than
those regulations, but obviously they were something that we knew
were coming and so forth, but we have done better.
Dr. WHITCOMB. This is not a question as much as a comment,
but one thing that disturbs me is we have quiet, or quieter engines
for 20 years, and this really isn't your problem, I understand it's
a combination of the companies, the engine companies, the air-
planes and the airlines, when a more efficient engine comes up,
thanks to your designing and such, typically what happens is that
it's put not on the initial airplane that it might have been designed
for, but as a second generation comes along, it's put on an air-
plane that has a stretched fuselage, carries more passengers, more
weight, and makes more money.
And had this not happened, a lot of the current problems in air-
port noise wouldn't have come about; airplanes would have been
able to get off the ground faster, into the air and not splattered
noise on the community—and I would hate to see this cycle re-
peated, because engines have been better and better, and what I
dislike is what is done with them.
Mr. CORNELL. These are difficult considerations, and I could
comment, but I think it would be smarter if I let the airframer,
and also another airline person comment on this particular thing.
We know the problem, and we are all working on it together.
-------
46
Dr. MEYER. Yes, we are going to hear from another portion of
the aeronautical transportation system complex, the airframe
manufacturer; we also will hear from representatives of the Air
Transport Association and the airport owners. I have two ques-
tions I would like to ask, sir, if I might, in the capacity of the
chairman of the panel. First, would you venture a comparison of
the cost of the engineering? We asked you a question beforehand
about increased operational costs, and you mentioned you start
off with a piece of paper. Was there any significant increase in
the engineering design costs because of the acoustic and noise
considerations?
Mr. CORNELL. I would say there was, and I don't have a spot
number on the back of my mind—this morning I said to myself,
"Hmm, suppose somebody asks me how many dollars does it cost
for the engineering or the acoustic side of the CFG?" I don't
know the number, but I know it's large. I can give you some other
roundhouse numbers to sort of fill the hand out.
We probably have tied up in the acoustics business, all in one
group directly about 50 people, a roundhouse number, and across
the General Electric Co., because we operate as a company, the
number is probably more like 85—and I am including people in
our research and development center in Schenectady who do far
out work on engine noise for us. I am including people at our
flight test center at Lancaster, Calif., at the Edwards Air Force
Base, for example, so to give you the amount of these people, all of
whom are not professional engineers, but perhaps one-half to
two-thirds, all of whom are not doing, or did not do in the de-
velopment cycle of the CFG, because we worked on other problems,
but just to give you an idea of the number of people that are
wound up, this is a partial out, that kind of thing. In other words,
this is not something done by three guys in the backroom. We
really mean business, and it did take a substantial effort.
Dr. MEYER. Thank you, sir., if you could get some information
for the Agency with regard to types of people that were involved
in this, and their availability, I would also like to have that.
Mr. CORNELL. I will very definitely get some information for
you.
Dr. MEYER. The last question I would like to ask you, which I
know probably is in the minds of some of the public in attend-
ance, and certainly those who will be appearing with us
tomorrow, is: If you could do this sort of acoustical treatment
for this engine, could not some of this technology be utilized in
some form of retrofit for existing engines?
Mr. CORNELL. Well, I think that is a perfectly fair question.
Here we have what we think is very good acoustical treatment,
for example, and sure enough, the people who are looking at
possibilities of retrofit—witness the NASA contracts with Boeing
and Douglas and so forth, use treatment that doesn't look unlike
this. This is our very special brand, and we are very proud of it,
and so forth, but this general idea of high duty, heavy duty
acoustical treatment is all coming along together, so this kind of
treatment would be perfectly useful if a retrofit thing kind of
happened. This treatment was designed specifically for this en-
gine. You might want to do it a little differently; if we had
-------
47
anything to do with it, we would change thicknesses and cavity
size and so forth and so on.
Dr. MEYER. Mr. Cornell, thank you for a very illuminating
discussion. We appreciate it very much. We are running a bit
behind schedule, and since the Environmental Protection Agency
is concerned with human beings and their response to the en-
vironment, I think that we shall recess at this point, picking up
with our planned schedule at 1:15. We appreciate the audience
staying with us, and hope you will come back this afternoon.
Thank you very much. This hearing is now in recess until 1:15.
(Lucheon recess.)
-------
48
AFTERNOON SESSION
Dr. MEYER. Ladies and gentlemen, the second session of this
public hearing on noise and noise problems being conducted by
the Environmental Protection Agency is hereby called to order.
At this point I would like to continue with that portion of our
hearing relating to air transportation.
You have heard from a major air carrier, an operator of an air
transport system; you have heard an engine manufacturer's
views and his technical data. I would like to ask Mr. A. M. McPike,
of the McDonnell Douglas Corp., who is a major airframe manu-
facturer and contractor, to come forward and talk to us about
what McDonnell Douglas and the aerospace industry is doing in
the field of noise control. Glad to have you with us, sir.
Mr. McPiKE. Thank you. Dr. Meyer.
STATEMENT OF A. M. McPiKE, McDONNELL DOUGLAS CORP.
Dr. Meyer, panelists, ladies and gentlemen, let me clarify,
first, that I have—am I coming through on the microphone?
Dr. MEYER. Would you hold it a little closer to you.
Mr. McPiKE. This microphone, is it working?
Dr. MEYER. Yes.
Mr. McPiKE. Okay. Let me clarify first that I have only ad-
dressed myself in this case to the noise of the DC-10 rather than
a more generalized picture of the noise in terms of what
McDonnell Douglas has done, though I will touch briefly on the
question of retrofit toward the end of the presentation. I will
read a portion of the presentation, and I also have some slides
that I will use to make the presentation on the screen.
Dr. MEYER. Very good, sir, and in any event, your entire testi-
mony, of course, will appear in the record. If you deviate from it,
why, your remarks will be transcribed directly, and your entire
statement will be included.
Mr. McPiKE. Okay. Very fine. I appreciate the opportunity to
appear as a witness at this hearing and am especially pleased to
be able to report to you that the McDonnell Douglas DC-10
represents a substantial step forward in terms of improving the
noise environment in the communities around our airports.
-------
49
Most of the information presented will be taken directly from
a recent paper I presented to the 12th Anglo-American
Aeronautical Conference in Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
This paper is entitled "Community Noise Levels of the DC-10
Aircraft" and is submitted as supporting documentation for this
statement.
Dr. MEYER. It shall so appear in the record, sir.*
Mr. McPiKE. There is a popular belief that the noise levels of
jet transport aircraft have been continually increasing as new
models have been introduced into airline service. This is not true.
While some of the later models may have somewhat higher
noise levels under some specific conditions they are also somewhat
quieter under other conditions and there has been no general
trend to noisier aircraft.
There has been an increase in the magnitude of the airport
neighborhood noise problems but this is because there are more
aircraft and people are exposed to the noise more often rather
than because of any increase in noise levels of the aircraft.
The new wide bodied jets will have a beneficial trend on the
airport neighborhood noise problem because they carry more
passengers.
This means that fewer flights will be necessary to carry a
given amount of passenger traffic. This does not necessarily mean
that the number of flights will decrease but it will at least decrease
relative to the number of flights necessary with the old aircraft
which carry fewer passengers.
But this is not the major benefit to the airport noise
environment that will result from the introduction of the DC-10.
This new aircraft incorporates several major design features
in the engine and in its installation which result in it being
substantially quieter than the aircraft in the current fleet.
If I may have the first slide, please.
[Showing of first slide in series.]
Perhaps a very brief description of the DC-10 will help to put
the noise level information for the aircraft into proper
perspective.
While there will be several versions of the DC-10 at a later
date this discussion is limited to the initial version of the
DC-10 which will enter domestic service in August.
It is a wide bodied jet transport aircraft—by that the fuselage
or body is wider across than the earlier models, and it will carry
between 220 and 345 passengers at ranges up to approximately
3,500 nautical miles; it is a long-range domestic aircraft.
It is powered by, as earlier, General Electric CF6-6D engines
which are high bypass ratio turbofans in the 40,000 pound thrust
class.
One engine is mounted under each wing and the third is
mounted in the vertical tail of the aircraft.
[Showing of next slide in series.]
I will turn first to the FAA noise certification requirements
that have been discussed several times already this morning.
These requirements were not developed fully until after the
"• This material is on file at the Office of Noise Abatement and Control.
-------
50
DC-10 design had been initiated; however, we were aware that
there would be such requirements, and I think it's only fair to
say while they did not dictate the noise levels of the DC-10, that
they, in all fairness, had an influence in helping us and encour-
aging us to make the noise levels of the aircraft even quieter than
we might otherwise have done.
The requirements are in three parts; there are three reference
locations.
One, below the takeoff path, that we must meet a certain mini-
mum noise level at 3.5 nautical miles from brake release as the
aircraft climbs out after takeoff.
Second, that we must meet a certain minimum noise level on the
sideline a quarter nautical mile to the side of the runway
centerline after the aircraft lifts off after takeoff.
And third, a point below the approach path when the aircraft
approaches on a 3° glide slope at a distance of 1 nautical mile
from threshold.
This chart indicates the noise levels of the DC-10 compared to
the certification requirement for takeoff at the 3.5-nautical mile
distance; the units as discussed earlier are the effective perceived
noise levels, EPNL, in units of EPNdB.
The requirement varies as a function of the certified takeoff
gross weight of the airplane—the requirement varies from level
of 93 to 108, depending upon the takeoff gross weight.
The DC-10 has the maximum certified takeoff gross weight of
430,000 pounds establishing a requirement of 105.6 EPNdB.
The level for the DC-10 as measured for our FAA certification
trials is slightly less than 100 EPNdB, substantially below the
requirement established by the FAA—and I might point out that
this number represents the noise level of the aircraft during
takeoff without making a noise abatement thrust reduction. There
is not a tremendous difference in noise level with and without a
thrust reduction, but we could probably again get another two
EPNdB, with thrust reduction.
Turning to the sideline point, a quarter nautical mile from the
runway centerline, again the units are the level—in this case
it varies from 102 to 108 EPNdB. The level for the DC-10 is
96 compared to a requirement of 107, 11 EPNdB below the
requirement established by the government.
I also have included another point on here—perhaps you can
see it if I move this chair-for the DC-10 at 0.35 nautical mile
from the brake release, or from brake release, I am sorry, to
the side of the runway centerline, the reason being that some
aircraft are required at the 0.35 mile, if the DC-10 were compared
at that point, our level would be only the two EPNdB.
[Showing of next slide in series.]
The most difficult point for us, from a design standpoint, was
the approach point. In this case the aircraft is going over the
monitor at an altitude of only 370 feet. That is very close to the
airplane, and we had a tough time getting there. The unit varies
from 102 to 108 in terms of required level; the required level
for the DC-10 is 107.
I will apologize for the chart, and also the paper and documenta-
tion; it shows our level is 105 EPNdB, when all the numbers
-------
51
finally cranked out of the computer, we ended up with a level of
106. You can't win them all, but we still came out below the
requirement, and we included another point here, and that is
that the regulation permits us to exceed the level at one of the
three points, if we are well below the other, of the other points,
we are well below as a consequence, we really could have had a
level of 109.
So looking at it from that way we are still 3 dB below the
level that would be permitted by the aircraft requirement. You
might say we meet the requirement without the use of any
tradeoffs.
[Showing of next slide in series.]
We will turn next to comparison with other aircraft.
Developing a fair comparison between the noise levels of two
different aircraft is a formidable task.
There has been no universal agreement on the ground rules for
making such comparisons and many different approaches may be
used.
In some cases one aircraft may be quieter at one location while
the other aircraft is quieter at a second location.
The noise at any location is a function of the noise generated
by the aircraft propulsion system as it goes by and also of the
distance between the aircraft and the location.
Many airport neighbors experience the noise of aircraft at a
variety of distances from the aircraft depending on the flight
climb profiles and flight patterns of the aircraft.
One of the major difficulties in a fair comparison is in selecting
the appropriate aircraft for comparison.
The first aircraft selected for comparison with the DC-10 is
the DC-8-61. This was done because these aircraft have approxi-
mately the same mission.
The noise levels of the DC-8-61 are typical of those of other
current transports powered by four low-bypass-ratio turbofan
engines, and the data are approximately applicable to that whole
family of aircraft.
The comparison is made at the three locations used for FAA
certification.
Figure 5 shows the relative noise levels of these two aircraft
when both are operating at their maximum design weights.
Below the approach path the DC-10 is quieter than the current
aircraft by 11.5 EPNdB.
On the sideline the DC-10 is 14 EPNdB quieter than the
current aircraft, and below the takeoff path the DC-10 is 16 to 18
EPNdB quieter than the current aircraft depending- on whether
or not a thrust reduction is made.
The sideline comparison is made at 0.25 nautical mile for
both aircraft even though the FAR part 36 sideline distance for
four-engine aircraft is 0.35 nautical mile.
Both aircraft are also the same distance from the noise location
for the approach data.
For the takeoff location the DC-10 has a greater climb capa-
bility, and the 16 to 18 EPNdB difference accrues from the fact
that the DC-10 is basically quieter and also higher than the older
four-engine aircraft.
-------
52
These differences are especially significant in light of the fact
that the DC-10 is heavier, carries a greater payload, and has
engines which are rated at more than twice the thrust of those on
the earlier jets.
Using the rule of thumb that a reduction of 10 PNdB or EPNdB
constitutes a halving of the noisiness of the noise, these differ-
ences show that the DC-10 will be less than half as noisy and in
most cases significantly less than half as noisy as the earlier jets.
For many people it is difficult to appreciate just what all these
noise level differences mean without hearing the aircraft.
To some, their significance may be more easily understood by an
examination of noise contours or lines of equal perceived noise
level.
[Showing of next slide in series.]
This, presents contours of 100 PNdB during landing and takeoff
of the same aircraft compared above.
These contours show how far a noise level of 100 PNdB extends
into the airport neighborhood as the aircraft land and take off.
Inside the contour the level would go above 100 PNdB.
Outside the contour the level would never be as high as 100
PNdB.
In the figure the observer is looking down from above the air-
port, and the aircraft is landing from the left on a straight-in
approach.
The aircraft takes off to the right and climbs out with no turns.
These contours are sometimes referred to as the noise footprints
of the aircraft.
In terms of the area around the airport exposed to a level of
100 PNdB, it is dramatically smaller for the DC-10 than for the
older jet.
The level of 100 PNdB was not selected as indicating any level
or degree of acceptability. Similar reductions in contour size
would be achieved by the DC-10 compared to the earlier aircraft
if some other contour noise level had been selected.
The DC-10 will enter service very soon and the airport neigh-
bors will be able to judge for themselves how its noise levels
compare with those of current aircraft.
For this hearing perhaps the best way to convey the difference
in noise levels between the DC-10 and current aircraft is by
playing magnetic tape recordings made below the landing and
takeoff paths.
We have obtained these tape recordings by going into the field;
magnetic tape recordings were made beyond the end of airport
runways for takeoffs and landings of the DC-8, the Boeing 727,
and DC-10. The recordings have all been carefully calibrated so
you will hear the proper relative level of the different aircraft.
Unfortunately, the equipment we have is not powerful enough
to fill this large room with the levels which are equal to those that
are actually experienced in a community.
I think that you can extract that, though, the difference in
level is still appropriate, as you will hear on this tape.
The first tape will make a comparison between the DC-8 and
the DC/10, first below the approach path—in this case, typical
approach thrust between the two aircraft. The second part of the
-------
53
tape will be below the takeoff path at 31/2 nautical miles—basi-
cally the same information we saw on the chart a little earlier.
With that background, now, I will play the tape. I will point
to the aircraft you are hearing in each instant in time to keep
you on board as to which one you are hearing.
TAPE RECORDING. The sounds you are about to hear were recorded directly
beneath a McDonnell Douglas DC-8 and DC-10 during a landing approach.
Both aircraft are approximately 30 percent of takeoff thrust, and at an
altitude of 400 feet.
Now the comparison; the DC-8, followed by the DC-10.
[Flyover noise demonstration.]
TAPE RECORDING: Next we will compare the maximum noise level portion
of the normal landing approach flyovers we have just heard: [Flyover noise
demonstration.]
TAPE RECORDING. Next we will compare DC-8 and DC-10 takeoff noise.
This comparison represents the noise that would be heard by the airport
neighbors at a location 3.5 nautical miles from brake release.
The aircraft are on a maximum takeoff gross weight profile; these op-
erating conditions correspond approximately to the FAA certification require-
ments for takeoff noise. Now, the comparison; first the DC-8, and then
the DC-10: [Flyover noise demonstration.]
TAPE RECORDING. Now, we will compare the maximum noise level portion
of the takeoff flyovers we have just heard.
First the DC-8, and then the DC-10: [Flyover noise demonstration.]
Mr. McPiKE. While the DC-10 will be operating alongside the
current four-engine jets at many airports it will also be servicing
smaller airports where these large aircraft do not operate.
The question then becomes how do the sound levels of the
DC-10 compare with those of the DC-9, the 727 and the 737.
Details of the differences between the DC-10 and these two- and
three-engine transports are included in the documentation
submitted with this testimony.
These data show that the DC-10 is substantially quieter than
the current aircraft. To provide an example a second demonstra-
tion tape compares the noise levels of the DC-10 with those of
the 727-100.
The noise of this aircraft is familiar to most airport neighbors
and has frequently been used as a reference noise for those
airports which are not serviced by the large jets.
The example is illustrated in figure 7 which compares the two
aircraft on a typical mission basis. The example was prepared as
part of a study for LaGuardia Airport in New York and the
mission was a New York to Chicago flight of 675 nautical miles
distance.
The DC-10 is 5 to 6 PNdB quieter than the current three-
engine fan jet below the approach path and 7 to 8 PNdB quieter
below the takeoff path.
The comparison location for takeoff is 3.0 statute miles from
brake release. On the demonstration tape this distance is 2.9
statute miles which is the distance to a noise monitor location
for one of the runways at LaGuardia Airport.
Now I'll play the tape recording.
TAPE RECORDING. The flyover noise of the DC-10 during landing and takeoff
will be compared with that of the Boeing 727.
The first comparison is on landing approach; both aircraft are at approxi-
mately 45 percent of takeoff thrust and at an altitude of 300 feet.
Now the comparison; the 727, followed by the DC-10: [Flyover noise
demonstration.]
-------
54
TAPE RECORDING. Now, let's compare the maximum noise level portions of
these flyovers: [Flyover noise demonstration.]
TAPE RECORDING. Next we will compare 727 and DC-10 takeoff noise.
This comparison represents the noise that would be heard by the airport
neighbors at a location 2.9 statute miles from brake release. Both aircraft
are at 100 percent of takeoff thrust.
Now the comparison, the 727 followed by the DC-10: [Flyover noise
demonstration.]
TAPE RECORDING. Now, let's compare the maximum noise level portion of
these flyovers : [Flyover noise demonstration.]
Mr. McPlKE. If we could have the lights again, I think that's
all the slides I brought.
As you can tell from these tapes the noise levels of the
DC-10 represent a very substantial improvement compared
to the earlier aircraft.
We have conducted actual demonstrations with the DC-10
on quite a number of occasions and almost without exception
people have indicated that the reduced noise of the aircraft
is even more impressive than indicated on the tape recordings.
The low noise levels of the DC-10 raise the very obvious
question—"Can this technology be applied to the current air-
craft to make them as quiet as the DC-10?"
The following comments are included in anticipation of that
question:
First, the technology is not currently available to achieve
such low levels by modifying the existing low bypass ratio
turbofan engines which power most of the current fleet.
While technology is available to reduce the turbomachinery
noise of these engines by nacelle treatments, no practical methods
have been demonstrated to achieve meaningful reductions in
the jet exhaust noise of these engines.
Further research efforts might develop such technology but
it is not available now.
Second, the current fleet could be made much quieter with
a new high bypass ratio turbofan engine using the same tech-
nology as in the DC-10. However, there is no such engine
available in the thrust class that would be necessary for the
current aircraft.
In fact, no such engine is being developed at the present
time. Even if development of such an engine were to start
immediately it would be years before it could be available.
It might well be that if such an engine were developed it
would not be practical to install it on the current aircraft,
many of which would be close to retirement by the time the
engine became available.
The development of such an engine would, of course, be-
cause it would be superior to current engines, encourage the
development of new aircraft which could use it.
Thus, efforts to develop new jet exhaust noise suppression
techniques and to develop a new technology, high bypass ratio
turbofan engine in the 20,000-pound-thrust class should be
encouraged for the eventual alleviation of the airport noise
problem.
While the developments applied to achieve low noise levels
for the DC-10 cannot be readily applied to the aircraft in the
current fleet, the introduction of the DC-10 should have a sig-
-------
55
nificant impact on the airport neighborhood noise problem.
It will finally demonstrate to the airport neighbor that prog-
ress is being made and that he can look forward to lower noise
levels as more DC-10's enter service and the older noisier aircraft
are gradually phased out.
This concludes my testimony, and I thank you for the oppor-
tunity to present it.
Dr. MEYER. Thank you very much, Mr. McPike, for that ex-
tremely useful demonstration, along with your presentation.
Panel?
Professor KERREBROCK. Just one question. You know, the
philosophy that was espoused in FAR 36 was that once you had
established noise regulations which were technologically feasible
and economically practical and so on, and we seem to have
the happy circumstance here now that the DC-10 indeed does
better than it's required to by FAR 36. Does this mean that it's too
conservative a regulation?
Mr. McPlKE. I would answer that this way: we barely made
it, and for a long time we were pretty nervous about the
approach point.
Professor KERREBROCK. But now you are very happy?
Mr. McPlKE. We are pleased that we did make it, yes. It
would appear that, yes, the level for this aircraft, or the re-
quirement for this aircraft could have been lower, but hind-
sight is often better than foresight, and we were not at all
that confident that we could have levels which are this low at
the time FAR 36 came into being.
Also remember this is a specific type of aircraft. There are,
will be other types of aircraft which will not necessarily be
able to meet levels which are quite this low, and remember that
the requirement had to be such that it would encompass all of
the aircraft types, so perhaps it was in some respects a bit
conservative—not in all respects. Did I answer your question?
Professor KERREBROCK. Well, not quite, because this is the
long-range version of the DC-10, as I understand it.
Mr. McPlKE. This is a long-range domestic version of the
DC-10.
Professor KERREBROCK. Does Douglas—does that mean that
Douglas has plans for increasing the gross weight, perhaps
using up this cushion?
Mr. McPlKE. No; we will have future versions of the DC-10.
In fact, we have, very definitely we are building in the future
a later version of the DC-10 which will use the same general
engine and will have the same or greater sound suppression
built into them, and will have the same general noise charac-
teristics, but they are—they do have higher gross weights, and
have slightly different requirements and slightly different noise
levels.
We are not going back to the noise levels of the old aircraft,
but there will be some plus or minus variations associated
with it.
Professor PLACER. Mr. McPike, I don't think it's useful at
this date in time to start trying to fix the blame or recrimi-
nations about why we have the problem we do, but it might
be helpful if you would comment for us on where the handles
-------
56
are on this problem.
We heard this morning from the engine manufacturer who
indicated that they have been able to, and deal with this prob-
lem, and apparently have been working on it for a good while,
and apparently had military applications back prior to the
middle 1950's, as I understand it, and yet here we are in 1971
first coming out with an aircraft that really addresses itself
to this problem.
Now, what—where is the problem? Where is the responsibility,
not in terms of recrimination, again, but in terms of dealing with
this problem in the future at State and Federal levels.
To whom do we turn to find out where the responsibility is
between the engine manufacturer, the airframe-aircraft manu-
facturer, the operator—who is it who is in the position to say,
"I want a quieter aircraft"? Who bears that?
Mr. McPiKE. Well, sir, I believe we all bear that responsibility.
The government must make a choice. It must establish either
a requirement that we can meet or a requirement that we can't
meet.
Professor PLACER. Well, why do we have to depend on the
government? Isn't there some responsibility in the hands of
the manufacturers and the airframe manufacturers to deal with
a major social problem without waiting for "big brother" to
come and breathe down his back?
Mr. McPiKE. My comment there would be that there is no
question from my level straight through to the very top of our
company and our corporation, the attitude that if we can come
out with a product that is quieter than our competition, there
is no doubt whatsoever that we can outsell our competition
hands down.
In fact, I will go the other way: We know that if we come out
with a product that is not as quiet as our competition, that we can-
not sell that product, so what you are asking, believe me, is built
into the industry, without question.
Professor PLACER. It has not apparently been built in in the
prior years, witness the DC-8 and other noisy demonstrations,
but you are saying it now seems to be emerging; is that really
the point?
Mr. McPiKE. I can't really agree with you on the first state-
ment, sir, because the DC-8 utilized technology we had at the
time; the DC-9 utilized the technology we had at the time,
and now the DC-10 has utilized the technology we had at the
time.
Professor PLACER. Except that you asked for that technol-
ogy, did you not—didn't you ask for improvement in the state
of the art when you said to GE, "build me an engine that will
be quieter"?
Mr. McPiKE. Yes, sir; believe me, we asked for that before,
except I guess the basic problem is there was no new engine
available at the time the DC-8 came out, the only thing avail-
able was a military engine, some noise improvements; Pratt and
Whitney developed a so-called hush kit for that engine which
made it substantially better than it could have been.
-------
57
Again, that was the available state of the art at the time,
and was cranked into that engine.
Professor PLACER. Can your company accelerate the work of
the engine manufacturers by asking for more all the time?
Mr. McPiKE. I think we have ground them up to the wall
probably about as—in as strenuous a manner as we can.
We, of course, must consider what is possible, and we don't
want to demand something of them that we know they can't
accomplish, but believe me, anything that we feel that they
can accomplish, we certainly will demand and require from
them. Thank you.
Dr. MEYER. Thank you very much, sir. That was a most
useful dialog between you and the panel, which reflects both
the interest and need. At this time, having heard from the
engine manufacturer, from the airline operator, from the air-
frame, and aerospace industry, I would like to ask a representa-
tive of the Air Transport Association of America, the synthesis
of the various elements of the air transport community, Mr.
William Becker, if he would please come forward and give
us a presentation as to how the industry, as a group, looks
at the noise problem. Glad to see you, Mr. Becker, and we look
forward to your testimony.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM B. BECKER,
AIR TRANSPORT ASSOCIATION
Mr. BECKER. I am William B. Becker, assistant vice president
of operations of the Air Transport Association, and members
of our organization are the scheduled certificated airlines—
substantially all of them—not all of them. I have a summary
of my paper here which I will read, and then go into some more
detail.
The airline industry, in the act of providing safe, depend-
able, and fast air transportation also creates public annoyance in
the form of noise.
Our industry recognizes our obligation to the community and
for many years has devoted time, talent, and money, to the
reduction of noise.
The results vary from impressive to spotty. The reasons for
this variation helps to define the nature of the problem: First,
we are dealing with a high degree of technological com-
plexity; second, there is a division of responsibility that some-
times stalls meaningful solutions; and third, we are, at times,
caught in the middle of a clash between opposing community
and public needs:—often the need for environmental quality is
expressed in terms that would effectively preclude our meeting
the other public need—for safe, dependable air transportation.
A brief look at the problem of aircraft noise will illustrate
these points: Let me say at the outset that this is not simply
a matter of reducing noise, but rather of reducing the annoy-
ance to the community created by aircraft noise.
We are not dealing just with the amount of noise produced
by jet engines, but rather with the effect produced by this
noise on people living near airports and the flightpaths that
lead to and from airports.
-------
58
So we must work on changing the character of the noise
as well as the quantity. Moreover, as studies by the National
Aeronautics and Space Administration have shown, reaction to
the same noise exposure varies with individuals and in fact
communities.
It is this subjective element that complicates efforts to deter-
mine whether a given noise reduction program will in fact have
any measurable effect on reducing noise annoyance.
Three approaches to jet noise abatement have been recog-
nized: (1) Reduction of noise at the source—viz, design of the
aircraft and engine for quietness; (2) adjustments in method
of flight—e.g., reduced-power takeoffs; (3) compatible land
use around airports.
It is evident that governmental noise-control measures dealing
with engine-airframe design, or with methods of flight, must be by
the National Government, which is charged with the exclusive
regulation of air safety, flight control, and the use of airspace. The
courts have so held.
It is equally apparent that land use measure for noise alle-
viation can be carried out only by State and local governments,
or communities, which alone possess the requisite legal author-
ity—possibly aided by financial assistance from the Federal
Government.
These conclusions are implicit in the very nature of our
national air transport system.
From the beginning Congress has recognized the necessity
of unified national control over the navigable airspace and the
regulation of flight.
In the Federal Aviation Act of 1958, Congress gave the FA A
"unquestionable authority for all aspects of airspace manage-
ment" as well as "plenary authority in the matter of air
traffic rules"—S. Rept. No. 1811, 85th Congress, second session,
1958.
In 1968, Congress amended the Aviation Act expressly "to
require aircraft noise abatement regulations" by the FAA—
82 Stat. 395, Public Law 90-41, July 21, 1968.
In fact, Federal regulation of air traffic and the navigable
airspace has been virtually pervasive. These actions by Congress
have been sustained as a lawful exercise of Federal power by
both State and Federal courts.
It is a tribute to the foresight of Congress in establishing
unified national control of air traffic, and to the manner in
which the FAA has carried out its mandate of exclusive regu-
lation of air flight, that the safety record of air carriers in
the United States is the best of any mode of public transpor-
tation—by a wide margin—culminating in the year 1970 with
no persons killed, for the first time in a calendar year; do-
mestically there were two persons killed—this is U.S. air carriers,
in an air accident outside of the domestic part of the United States.
That is the best record we have ever had, and you can't beat it. We
would like to make it better, because we have close calls, in addition.
In fact, only by reason of such a safety record has it been
possible for the air transport system to have achieved its
extraordinary public acceptance and rate of growth.
-------
59
It is this growth of air transportation which has resulted
in the expansion of industry, and the creation of whole new
industries.
It is unfortunate that part of the price for this extraordinary
progress has been annoyance to airport neighbors from the
noise of jet aircraft.
The problem of aircraft noise is not to be minimized. At the
same time, as expressed by former Secretary of Transportation
Boyd in the congressional aircraft noise hearings in 1968,
"It would be well to keep this whole business in some perspective."
The FAA, for example, in its Report on The Aircraft/Air-
port Noise Problem and Federal Government Policy, points out
that:
The airport noise problem has continued to grow during the last decade
not only because jet aircraft has been and still are inherently noisy, but also
because larger numbers of people choose to live and work near airports where
they are subject to noise.
Judge John F. Dooling, Jr., in his opinion in 1967 in Ameri-
can Airlines, Inc., et al. v. Town of Hempstead, et al. denying
enforcement of the Hempstead, N.Y., local ordinance against
jet noise, has made a similar observation:
The dimensions of the noise problem cannot be minimized. It is, however, one
of the manifold of environmental problems that press on a society in which
the pace of industrialization steadily outstrips the capacity to deal with its
modification of the total environment of urban and suburban existence.
Perhaps the aircraft noise problem differs in that it appears to be un-
avoidable, in the present state of technical development, and not a conse-
quence of the failure to take feasible precautions or to provide practical
remedies.
Let's look at operating procedures—before I go into that,
might I indicate that at O'Hare here in 1970, for example, we
are talking about the economic aspects and need for aviation
versus the noise annoyance which is there.
In 1970 there were 30 million passengers who went in and
out of O'Hare Airport. During that same year there were three-
quarters of a million tons of mail and cargo that went in and
out of O'Hare Airport.
About and during that same year there were nearly 600,000
total operations—that is, arriving airplanes and departing
airplanes at O'Hare Airport.
Now, let's go to operating procedures, takeoff, and landing
profiles.
The airlines have expended vast amounts of money and
effort in seeking noise remedies. As early as 1952, and before
the advent of jets, the airlines and their pilots developed spe-
cial takeoff and landing procedures for noise abatement. This dealt
with the piston airplanes, the DC-3's right on up to the DC-7's.
These procedures were costly and difficult, but they produced
significant reductions in noise exposure.
Before the jet transport was introduced in daily service, the
airlines realized that noise problems would increase in scope and
magnitude as time went on.
Thus, at that time, takeoff and landing noise abatement pro-
cedures for jet transports were established. These have eontin-
-------
60
ually been reviewed to provide the best results commensurate
with safety of operation.
In doing so the airlines have accepted certain alterations to
the optimum safe takeoff procedures for the sole purpose of
reducing noise on the ground. Takeoff profiles have been al-
tered by: (1) Delayed flat retraction and use of minimum
speeds, (2) changes in power management—early reductions,
(3) making turns at relatively low speeds and altitudes in ini-
tial climbouts, (4) reduced overall climbout speed schedules,
(5) reduced rates of climb, and (6) time spent in initial
climbout configuration has been extended.
The airlines are looking at—and you will probably hear from
Paul Soderland of some of the things that Northwest has
looked at, and others have—North Central has looked at
some procedures; American is looking at some procedures, and
Delta has looked at some procedures to try them out.
The first thing, though, is safety; we cannot compromise
safety. And there are some differences of opinion between
competent piloting personnel of the scheduled airlines as to what
is safe and what is not safe, and what is a good profile and
what is a bad profile.
This is good. If we all did it the same way, it would be like
Russia, and it might be all wrong.
Any further departures from the most desirable takeoff tech-
niques would, in the opinion of the airlines, constitute an
unacceptable compromise with safety in today's transport
aircraft.
With regard to noise abatement approach procedures, the air-
lines have agreed under VFR weather condition to approach
the airports at 1,500 feet or above as long as possible before
descending to land.
For IFR operations, the standard glidepath which the U.S.
airlines and Government agencies have agreed upon over the
years, as the best from a safety and operational standpoint,
has been a 2.5° approach angle to touchdown.
This accommodates the characteristics of present-day jet
transport aircraft with respect to the requirements of an ac-
ceptable safe rate of descent, early establishment of the air-
plane in a "steady state," and assurance of spun-up engines
to provide go-around or missed-approach capability.
Glide slopes of up to 3° have been accepted by the airlines
in conjunction with the lowest permissible landing weather
minimums for noise abatement purposes.
At the moment I think of some 300—I am not sure of the
number—312 ILS glideslopes. I think there are 93 at 3°. The
rest of them run—and some, one is over 3°, the rest of them run
between 2.5° and on up to 3°.
The second area we are, we have operating procedures,
we use preferential runways.
Preferential runways have been used since the early fifties
in an effort to reduce the number of airline flights operating
over populated areas.
Normally transport aircraft, for safety purposes, use the
runway most directly with the wind. In order to avoid depar-
-------
61
ture over concentrated populated areas, the airlines are accepting
"preferred runways" with crosswinds up to 15 knots and 90°
to the runway heading.
As has been pointed out earlier regarding takeoff and landing
noise abatement procedures, safety margins have been reduced
somewhat through the acceptance of less than optimum proce-
dures.
Compliance at the same time with preferential runway re-
quirements can further decrease these safety margins.
In addition, the use of preferential runway system reduces
airport capacity, frequently to the extent of imposing undue
hardships upon the persons using the airline service and thus
the communities served, and severe economic penalty upon the
air carriers.
For example, at Kennedy in New York it is estimated that
it reduces the capacity of that airport by 50 percent. In some
cases, depending on the wind, it's as high as 75 percent.
Then, the second, the third way is having air tracks over
the sea, or the rivers, or over unpopulated areas, but when you
put it over, or get it away from the populated area to this un-
populated area you find there are more people there than you
thought, because you get the noise complaints from that area.
In addition, special ground tracks for landing and takeoffs,
routing the aircraft over water courses, the sea, and away
from residential and other noncompatible land areas have been
established.
Of necessity, these must vary from airport to airport.
Efforts are continuing on such a basis, in cooperation with the
FAA, to find additional means of safely landing and taking
off without causing as much noise annoyance.
One thing is clear. While special flight procedures have pro-
duced significant noise reductions, we are about at the end of
that particular road at many major airports, at least with
existing aircraft.
Airlines efforts at noise alleviation have covered other fronts.
The industry expended more than $50 million in developing
noise suppressors for the early jet engine.
By 1965 the airlines had invested $150 million in putting these
noise suppressors on their jet fleets. Over and above this $200
million installation cost, the expense of operating the engine
noise suppressors amounted to a substantial sum per aircraft
annually; their estimates have been it's about $10,000 an airplane
annually.
But there should be no illusions as to the prospects of any
dramatic solutions from any new device, technology, or procedure.
True, each new jet aircraft which has been introduced has
been quieter than its predecessors—and I might say, quieter
than the piston engines; a lot of us have forgotten the DC-7
and the Constellation, but those airplanes, when they took off,
made a footprint such as Mickey had, much larger than 100
PNdB, the footprint would be larger than it was for the DC-8
because they were slow climbing, and it took so long to get
there, and a lot of people forget that.
The 707 straight jet then came along; it's footprint was
-------
62
smaller, the 707 had a smaller footprint than a DC-7. The
fan jets came along with a smaller footprint, and we had the
JT8 powered airplanes with 727 dB, the 727-2 engine, three-
engine airplane which automatically make them smaller as
far as footprints are concerned, and we now have the GE engine
on the DC-10, again quieter.
You will also have an engine on the L-1011 which will make
that on the order of the same quietness of the DC-10. As I
understand it, it's quieter in some respects in some measuring
points, and not as quiet at other measuring points. This may
tend to answer your question as to why can't we rewrite the
rules and say let's go back to the DC-10; what if you hit the
DC-10, you would knock out the L-1011; if you met the L-1011,
you owuld knock out the DC-10, it's that shaky.
However, there are clear limits on the prospective noise
alleviation from engine and airframe design and hardware.
Former Secretary of Transportation Alan Boyd, in the Senate
noise hearings in 1968 stated:
Let me make it very clear that the present technology which we have to
produce a quieter engine, and that which we believe will be available within
the short-range future, will not solve the aircraft noise problem.
To this, former Secretary Boyd added, significantly, "actually,
as you point out, there is no such thing as an answer to aircraft
noise."
What Boyd undoubtedly meant is that, whatever degree of
engine noise reduction might be achieved, some complaints will
still exist.
Exhaustive studies in the United States and abroad have shown
that, no matter how much the noise level is reduced, there will
remain an implacable "hard core of complainants," amounting to
approximately one-third of the population near an airport.
Now, there has been much work done on the—some work that
has been referred to, the NASA quiet engine, and for those who
are not aware, I want to make it abundantly plain that the NASA
so-called quiet engine as it comes off, and is finally contracted, is
what I call a steel and concrete engine. You can't put it on an
airplane, it's a research tool, and they will bring the fan noise—
it's aimed at the fan noise—they will bring the fan noise down to
90 PNdB, but the engine noise will be at 100 PNdB because the
jet core noise—this is the report from NASA, the jet core noise is
still there. They haven't been working on that, and this is the
kind of area where we think, and I think others have indicated
a lot more work needs to be done on the jet core noise if we are
really going to make a substantial reduction that will be
acceptable, or meaningful to the airport neighbor.
The limitations on prospective noise alleviation from engine
developments, particularly in the case of existing aircraft, were
acknowledged in the Langley, Va., briefings by NASA on the
status of its research projects on jet noise alleviation through
engine nacelle modification and treatment.
Moreover, it is apparent that much of the Federal Govern-
ment's engine noise research now being performed is essentially
experimental.
-------
63
For example, the publicized NASA quiet engine project aims to
produce by 1975, at a cost of $50 million, a so-called quiet engine.
However, even if achieved, the quiet engine is calculated to have
a service life of only 50 hours. To develop such an engine for
actual production and use would require a much longer service
life.
There is not even an estimate as to how long it would take to
develop such a working engine, even if it could be made.
The objective of compatible land use is, of course, to keep at a
minimum the number of residences and places of public assembly
that are close to the touchdown and takeoff points at public
airports.
In contrast to proposals such as local maximum noise regula-
tions, which the courts have rejected because of their inevitable
interference with exclusive Federal flight control, compatible land
use measures are primarily the concern of local, community, and
State governments.
In considering compatible land use, and indeed the very origins
of the noise problem, it must be borne in mind that most existing
major airports were located many years ago, either by the com-
munity or by the military during World War II—and subsequently
converted to civilian use at the request of the locality.
A 1966 study found that 57 of the airports serving the 61
largest cities in the United States were established prior to 1950,
and that there was naturally great reluctance to abandon them,
even though they had frequently become almost surrounded by
urban development.
Since the cities want air service, and the carriers must use
the city's airport wherever it is found, the circumstance of where
an existing airport was originally located is really at the heart of
the noise problem.
This is true in Los Angeles; it's true in J.F.K. I used to fly
around—Professor Plager has heard me talk on this before, out
of Floyd Bennett, which they are closing up now, and want to put
some houses on, and at the time during the war there was no
J.F.K.
It was Jamaica Bay, and at the time they were dredging it out
of the bottom of the bay and making runways, and making a
place to build an airport, there weren't any houses around except
for a few such places as Hempstead, Cedarhurst, within miles of
that place. Right now they are right up against the fence in many
cases.
The location of the airport also bears heavily on the
practicability of compatible land use measures.
Obviously, the practical and legal problem is quite different
when one is dealing with an approach zone that has already built
up, on the one hand, and an approach zone that consists of vacant
or industrial land on the other.
In the former case, the cost of redeveloping a whole area, plus
the desire of people to remain where they are—and experience
indicates that in spite of the noise, many people do not want to
move—make it difficult to accomplish compatible land use, either
by eminent domain or by zoning.
On the other hand, the jet noise problem cannot be looked at
-------
64
solely from the viewpoint of existing built-up airports, such as
LaGuardia or J.F.K. or Los Angeles International or other
established airports.
For the future as well as the present it is crucial to preserve
open spaces, and for emerging airports—of which there are going
to be many—to locate them properly from the outset, with ade-
quate, permanent noise-buffer zones in addition to the obstruction
clear zones needed for safety purposes.
It is worth noting, in this connection, that contrary to the
oftheard argument that airport noise has depressed the market
value of particular parcels near some airports, the conclusions of
actual studies are that such property values are far more likely to
increase in value overall.
In fact, numerous local land use studies indicate that overall,
taking all property uses into account, property values in a jet
airport's neighborhood tend to follow the same trends as other
property in the area not influenced by the airport.
Certainly it is undeniable that land developers consistently seek
land near airports, and it follows inexorably that a new airport
will inspire extensive construction around it.
There is much work to be done to understand the noise gener-
ated from jet engines; i.e., the sources, propagation, attenuation,
effects on people, et cetera.
The aircraft and the engine manufacturers spend between $15
and $20 million each year in an effort to find answers to these
noise problems.
The Federal Government spends an equal amount. Neverthe-
less, we have much, much more to learn before we can expect
to provide airport neighbors with meaningful relief from aircraft
noise.
The airline industry has within the past few months made
strong pleas to the administration and Congress to undertake the
necessary research and development regarding aircraft noise.
A summary of the industry's recommendations are included
here for your record.
In conclusion, the industry will continue to do what it can in
seeking a breakthrough in reduction in noise at the source.
The airlines and their pilots, as in the past, cooperating with
Federal and local agencies will develop and follow flight routes,
climbout or descent paths, and operating procedures that
minimize the exposure of people to the noise of jet aircraft.
However, it does not help reduce noise annoyance to develop
and prescribe preferred noise abatement routes over least popu-
lated areas if there is no way of preventing residential building
in these very areas where the noise is supposed to be concentrated.
Therefore, we ask the communities affected by aircraft noise
to recognize and accept their responsibility for requiring land
use compatible with noise exposure under flight paths used for
landing and takeoff from nearby airports.
Meaningful reduction in aircraft noise annoyance cannot be
achieved without this local community action.
And, finally, a much stronger Federal aircraft noise research
and development program needs the support of all of us interested
in aircraft noise abatement.
-------
65
Dr. MEYER. That attachment will be included with the record.*
Thank you very much for one of your usual stimulating
discussions, Mr. Becker. Panel?
Professor KERREBROCK. One suggestion that has been made,
and, in fact, experimentally implemented elsewhere in the United
States is that a tax be imposed on aircraft noise. How would you
view this, that a charge be levied against the airline, in accordance
with the amount of noise impact it imposes on the community?
Mr. BECKER. Well, that would be the same as increasing the
fares, really, because if the airlines were taxed, they would pass
it onto the passenger—they would have to, because otherwise they
would be broke. They are going broke now. That is one way to do
it, but I think it's wrong, completely, if you do it only that way.
Let's say we have no airline service into California if their
existing law goes into effect and becomes law in December, and is
enforced, within 2 years, it would be—1973 it would be enforced
on the 80 CNEL, and as Frank Kolk indicated this morning,
according to the Los Angeles port—I will get to your question in
a minute
Professor KERREBROCK. OK.
Mr. BECKER. The port authority, Los Angeles Port Authority
people have reduced—would have to reduce the operations into
the airport by 80 percent.
We have made another study which comes about like that,
it's a paper study, and we made a presentation to some of the
legislators in California pointing this up within the last month,
but let's assume that goes into effect and airports just aren't
available.
In case of earthquake, pestilence, fire, what have you, I think
people want to have aviation because they can get to things
quicker than any other means, relief, and I think the general
public, other than the passenger or the person who pays the
freight for cargo, have an interest in aviation being in existence,
so it shouldn't all fall on the passenger or on the person who
pays the freight for the cargo, or for the mail.
There is an area—I don't know how much a percentage that
should be picked up by the general taxpayer—I tried to answer
your question. I may have—I may have—it may have escaped
me, but that is the best I can do.
Professor KERREBROCK. No—well, yes; it's a partial answer,
but I guess you put it more directly, I would ask how you would
use such a tax on noise, perhaps as an alternative to Federal
regulations which set absolute limits.
Mr. BECKER. Well,'see, the Federal Government, I don't think
it makes a lot of difference. The Federal Government is responsi-
ble for the airlines' economic well being; through the Civil
Aeronautics Board regulations they have to raise or lower their
tariffs, or tell whether you have competition or don't have com-
petition on the routes. The Federal Government has that control
today. We are a fully regulated industry.
Professor KERREBROCK. Well, it would give more flexibility for
entrepreneurship, let's say.
* This material is on file at the Office of Noise Abatement and Control.
-------
66
Mr. BECKER. On behalf of the airlines.
Professor KERREBROCK. Yes.
Mr. BECKER. Well, we have to buy the equipment the manufac-
turers make. We ask that it be as quiet as it can be. In fact, we
have asked for some noise limits to be a little quieter than they
are, but you have the economic reasonableness and the technical
feasibility that tie in with this.
Mr. MARTIN. Bill, in the highway area there is a tax on gasoline
that is used for developing roads.
Mr. BECKER. Right.
Mr. MARTIN. What would you think the feeling would be along
the lines of possible revenue coming by the use of the passenger
via a tax to develop feature airports and compatible—take into
account all the new ideas, with zoning and everything else?
Mr. BECKER. Well, to a big degree that is in being, Hank, be-
cause we have this trust fund business which is $250 million a
year supposed to go toward airport development.
The question is, I guess, would this go into compitable land
usage. I don't—I think the law would have to be changed before
it was permissible.
Dr. MEYER. We will take note of the thought, which is a very
interesting one, of whether there should be some way of
approaching the problems of research that you mentioned in a
systematic order.
Mr. BECKER. Right.
Dr. MEYER. Looking at the air transportation system, especially
the ground use
Mr. BECKER. Right.
Dr. MEYER. People flying on the airplane have to get to the
airport, and sometimes from many miles away, and they are
riding automobiles, so we have to look at this in a systematic
manner. It seems the proposal here is one that we must look at,
it has been brought up at the hearings, and I can assure you that
in our studies of this problem we will take a closer look at it.
It's a very good suggestion.
Mr. BECKER. Dr. Meyer, on the R. & D. research, the existing
same trust fund, as far as aviation concerns makes available
x million dollars-I think it's $50 million—it can be higher—for
aeronautical research. This can include, and does include noise
research, of last year the FAA had about $3.5 million, which is
really peanuts. We are nickel and dime in this research business,
and the NASA had, I think, on the order of $15 to $20 million—
I have forgotten which—the program that we submitted to you
would cost at least $30 million a year. We have made this recom-
mendation to the Appropriation, Transportation Subcommittee
of the Appropriations Committee of the House, but they didn't
accept it.
Dr. MEYER. Well, I am not suggesting this—it's often danger-
ous to play with these numbers in a public hearing, but I think I
heard you say 30 million passengers embark and disembark at
O'Hare terminal last year; at a dollar-a-head that would have
paid for your research program.
Mr. BECKER. That's right.
Dr. MEYER. Thank you, sir.
-------
67
Mr. HINTON. Mr. Becker, I would like to just say I agree very
strongly with two points that you made; namely, the fact that we
shouldn't let the problem at existing airports—you mentioned
LaGuardia, J.F.K., or Los Angeles dictate our actions, and say
we can't take steps and prevent the problem from occurring at
new airports.
And second, you said that the route cause of the aircraft noise
problem is the location of airports in proximity of residential
development around them.
We have all the noise in the world, and if there was no one
there to be exposed to it, it would not be a problem per se.
I would like to ask you a question, and this is in connection
with recent information that I have, that the airlines are about to
act in concert through the ATA operation committee, which you
are a member of, to see, in the absence of continued FAA delay,
in adopting operating procedure, adopt an optimized takeoff noise
abatement procedure.
I wonder if you have any timetable that you could tell us about
for implementation.
Mr. BECKER. Well, as you know, the airlines have, and working
with the pilots, put together some—it must be 4 years ago now—
what was considered, then it was changed a little bit this last
January, a standard noise abatement takeoff procedure for use at
those places where you have noise problems, using that particular
one on a west takeoff over Los Angeles, because you are over the
ocean very quick, nobody is out there that amounts to anything,
so they already have one, so the FAA then, last April, spent a
month's time at their research center, flight research center at
Newark—at Atlantic City, N.J., testing several other takeoff and
landing procedures for noise abatement purposes, with noise
monitoring meters and everything, using four aircraft, the DC-9,
the 727—1 think it was the 707-720 and I have forgotten what
the other one was, and the reports aren't in on that yet, and we
are anxious to find out just how those stacked up.
We did have some airline people participate in those. The
only difficulty with those tests were they were more aimed at
what the noise was, and not whether they were operationally
acceptable under all weather conditions, and whatever we do,
we have got to be able to do the same for visual flight rules
and under bad weather conditions, they have to be standard.
Now, people will quarrel with that. I think that most of those
people are not pilot types, because we have to formulate our
takeoff and landing procedures around what I choose to call
the lowest common denominator pilot and not around the best
pilot.
Mr. HINTON. Well, Mr. Becker, you and I are both pilots,
and we know what needs to be done in certain areas.
Now, it seems to me if you are going to standardize a noise
abatement procedure, you would use it everywhere, whether or not
it was necessary, because of an ocean being present or not,
you would just do it for standardization purposes.
Mr. BECKER. Well
Mr. HINTON. You obviously can't operate differently at every
place you fly.
-------
68
Mr. BECKER. As I said, Lloyd, when you do a noise abatement
procedure, you don't fly it the safest way it can be flown, so there
would probably be two methods—the safest way to be flown,
which is all the way to the forward, get your speed up and hold it,
and get altitude.
Mr. HINTON. I disagree with you on this point, but
Mr. BECKER. Second, for noise, though, we ought to have one
procedure.
Now, there are some airlines that are willing to go the other
way and do just the noise procedure, I agree with you.
Mr. HINTON. Well, I feel that there is no denegation of safety
with an appropriate noise procedure, and I guess it has been,
is being demonstrated everyday, and I would just like to see—
I would like to know if you can tell us, give us, some time when
the airlines would, as a group, implement optimized takeoff
procedures.
Mr. BECKER. No way; no way.
Mr. HINTON. OK; thank you.
Professor PLACER. Mr. Becker, you and I have
Mr. BECKER. Discussed this before.
Professor PLACER. Discussed this before the public hearing,
so I don't think it useful to rehash, for the benefit of this
group, the whole debate.
I do think it might be useful to put a question to you, but
let me preface the question with a couple of comments from
your statement.
We are zeroing in again on this question of—well, I am
looking at the question of operational procedures as distinct
from what can be done about noise at the source, and as
distinct from the land use planning problem, the three legs
upon which this issue generally is described to be standing.
Let's talk about operational procedures. In your statement here,
and in your statements before the public hearings in Illinois
on this same question, you again made the statement that the
National Government is charged with the exclusive regulation
of flight control and the use of airspace.
Now, you cite, as so often done, a phrase or two from a Senate
report. Nobody seems to cite much in the way of Federal legisla-
tion, but they do cite a phrase or two from various Senate reports,
which, in fact, are not the law. They are some indication of the
intent of the committee that dealt with the statute, but that is not
congressional action, but put that aside.
Succinctly stated, I don't believe, Mr. Becker, that it is true that
the Federal Government has exclusive jurisdiction over the entire
array of operational procedures.
I don't believe the States believe that, Mr. Becker. I don't be-
lieve the State of California believes it. I don't believe the State of
Illinois or the State of New York, or the other big States that have
thousands of people clammering for some action being taken here
and not getting that action, I don't believe they believe it.
I am not even sure the Federal Government believes it, be-
cause if you read carefully the introductory sections to FAR
part 36, which unhappily I don't have, I can't find my copy
of it, I think you will find language in there indicating that
-------
69
even with a guard to the certification of noise sources, the
FAA has language in there saying these are not certifications
that have to be bought by the airport proprietors. They are
not certifications that guarantee to meet local requirements,
and indeed there is a disclaimer that, in effect, says local pro-
prietors and problems have to take it from there.
Well, I guess what I am asking is I gather from earlier com-
ments from some of the airlines themselves that they are more
likely to accept a cooperative attitude with the State should the
States cease to move to encourage operational procedures that deal
with this problem, and the question I would simply put to you is
what attitude can we expect from the ATA, whom you represent
here, when States move into this area, which they are indeed
doing; can we expect a cooperative, supportive attitude from
the Air Transportation Association to come to grips with this
problem, and to deal with effective regulatory programs, or
can we expect an attitude in which the ATA will say, "We
are not going to cooperate with you at all because you have
no right to do any of this."
Mr. BECKER. First I will start at the beginning of the con-
versation; I will cite you some sections of the act where the
law says what it says.
Professor PLACER. All right.
Mr. BECKER. Section 307 (c)—I am dealing with flight con-
trol and use of airspace that was put in there in 1958.
Professor PLACER. I am not here talking about CAB rules.
Mr. BECKER. I am not talking about CAB rules. I am talking
about air safety flight control, use of airspace—that is the
Administrator's—title 3 of the act—is the Administrator of
the Federal Aviation Agency's bailiwick; title 4 is the civil
aeronautics bailiwick; title 3 is what I am talking about.
I am talking about air traffic rules and safety. If you want to
talk about title 6, pilot certification, not airport—yes, airport
certification
Professor PLACER. No. I want to talk about preferential
runways, and I want to talk about
Mr. BECKER. Preferential runways.
Professor PLACER. Thrust on takeoffs.
Mr. BECKER. Now you are in two different areas. If you want
to talk about runways, we are talking about section 307(c).
If we are talking about reduced takeoff procedures, we are talk-
ing about title 6.
Professor PLACER. Is it your contention—do I understand your
contention to be that the airport proprietors and the munici-
palities and the States have no jurisdiction over questions like
preferential runways?
Mr. BECKER. I am going to get to that.
Professor PLACER. Okay.
Mr. BECKER. I will give you another citation where the
law says—and I read it—section 611, which was put into the
act in 1968 by Public Law 90-41 says the Congress requires
aircraft noise abatement regulations by the FAA, "Requires,"
the word requires is in there.
Professor PLACER. That doesn't necessarily mean nobody else is.
-------
70
Mr. BECKER. No, I am saying it's an indication of preemption.
Dr. MEYER. Gentlemen, excuse me. I will yield to the witness,
of course. Go ahead, sir.
Mr. BECKER. Now, I have lost your last question.
Professor PLACER. My last question is what can we expect
from the ATA, Mr. Becker?
Mr. BECKER. Well, you left the impression that the airlines
had one position and ATA had another.
We work for the airlines. Our position is the airline po-
sition.
The airline position to date in local jurisdictions and State
jurisdictions has been opposed to State regulation, or local regula-
tion.
Professor PLACER. Of any kind?
Mr. BECKER. I am talking about where it gets into safety,
or noise regulation.
Professor PLACER. Or noise regulation?
Mr. BECKER. Yes; I am not getting into zoning now.
Professor PLACER. No.
Mr. BECKER. As a matter of fact, on that basis the Governor
of Rhode Island just vetoed a bill which would have done just
the opposite. That was 2 weeks ago.
Dr. MEYER. Do you have another question?
Professor PLACER. No, sir.
Dr. WHITCOMB. Mr. Becker, are you concerned about noise
inside the airplane as well as outside, with the ATA?
Mr. BECKER. No.
Dr. WHITCOMB. No?
Mr. BECKER, We don't get involved in that.
Dr. WHITCOMB. Are we hearing testimony eventually from
somebody who might?
Mr. BECKER. The airlines are interested in having quieter
airplanes inside, but we haven't gotten involved in that in the
association. It is not an industry problem.
Dr. WHITCOMB. Well, it could be. There are pilots of heli-
copters who, if they proceed in their current jobs for more
than 2 or 3 years, will be deaf.
Mr. BECKER. That's right. We don't have any helicopter
operators in our association.
Dr. WHITCOMB. You don't? Okay. I will save that question.
Let me conclude by chiding you gently, I hope; in your initial
testimony, and in your printed testimony on page 1, paragraph
1, you say:
Moreover, as studies by the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
have shown, reaction to the same noise exposure varies with individuals and,
in fact, communities. It is this subjective element that complicates efforts to
determine whether a given noise reduction program will, in fact, have any
measurable effect on reducing noise annoyance.
Mr. BECKER. That's right. It's the TRACOR study.
Dr. WHITCOMB. Again.
Mr. BECKER. Well, it was financed by NASA for study, some
$2 million
Dr. WHITCOMB. This implies unless all human beings respond
the same way to the same thing you cannot predict what
-------
71
effect any change in their environment is going to have on
them; is that true?
Mr. BECKER. Well, this is what the TRACOR study said,
in their conclusion 4, and that was dated September 4, 1970.
That certainly is not the kind of predictions to describe rules
or regulations around, as the FAA has been contemplating.
Dr. WHITCOMB. Well, these are two separate points; one is
how well you can predict from a correlation coefficient, and
how much variance might be accounted for by a coefficient
of, say, 0.4, which is not as bad as you seem to feel. But
the point I am abstracting from your testimony indicates
to me that it is not proper to consider averaging across the
variability of individuals to get a typical response of people.
Mr. BECKER. If I left that impression, I didn't mean to
Dr. WHITCOMB. Yes.
Mr. BECKER. Because the thing that we think research money
would be spent on—Professor Plager won't like this—but gauging
from what he said this morning, this is where we think we should
really spend some early money to find out the real reactions of
people. So far this has been done very badly. It has been done
many times badly. With little money put into it, starting out with
BB&N's work back in 1962 and 1963, right on up to the present,
if you look through all the BB&N publications that have come
out in the last 8 years, they keep referring to that original one.
The original one was a $25,000-some-order-type of study which
was just assimilation of a bunch of other studies already done.
Dr. WHITCOMB. I agree the social studies need more funding,
but I don't think we are in that bad a shape as far as data.
There are certainly many cases in which we have plenty of
material to back us up.
Mr. BECKER. Yes.
Dr. WHITCOMB. I don't think we should wait for more research
in 10 more years.
But let me just say one thing about the TRACOR study,
since it has been mentioned twice now; they found that noise
was up fourth or fifth in order of importance in terms of
determining annoyance or complaint behavior from aircraft
noise.
Mr. BECKER. Yes, sir.
Dr. WHITCOMB. It wasn't inconsequential, but it wasn't the
first order. Some of the first order elements were fear of the
airplane falling on you, and one that people ought to keep
well in mind is that concern that the establishment is not
sympathetic and responsive to their misery.
Mr. BECKER. That's correct. I would like to say our sub-
jective response proposal would be a 2-year program. We don't
think it ought to be long, either. I would like to make one more
point that I—it's in the paper, but I didn't make here—this relates
to land use.
It's worth noting contrary to the oftheard argument that
the airport noise has depressed the market value of particular
parcels near some airports, that conclusions of actual studies
are that such property values are far more likely to increase in
overall value, and we have a study on that that is available, if you
would like to see it.
-------
72
Dr. MEYER. Thank you very much, Mr. Becker, and thank
you, panel. Before you leave, Mr. Becker, I would like to
call attention to a couple of things I think need to be made
clear in being presented to the audience, and appear in the
record—one, the question of Federal preemption versus use
restrictions and control of States is a subject that is being
very carefully explored by my office for the administrator in
the discharge of our responsibilities with regard to this report
to Congress.
This is a very, very important subject, and it is one I
think which is not quite as clear, as some people would give
the impression, with regard to the rights of States to under-
take certain use requirements, even to the extent of saying
how things might be done going in and out of airports. And
this will appear in our report to the Congress as part of our
study on the model law, as part of our study on the entire
field of activity with the Federal Government, because there
are other elements beside the FAA involved, such as the Federal
Housing Administration and others. Secondly
Mr. BECKER. I would agree with that. It isn't black and white.
Dr. MEYER. Certainly we agree with you; I think everybody
on the panel does. We have got to arrive at better measures
of impact of noise on human beings and environmental issues,
and again this is a major element of our present study and
will be a major component of the research plan and program
that we plan to implement, Mr. Becker. Thank you very much.
You have been an excellent witness.
Mr. BECKER. Thank you, sir.
Dr. MEYER. Now, following along, it appears highly desir-
able to have some information presented from the airport opera-
tors. As most of you know, airports are generally owned by mu-
nicipalities or government entities, States—they are not, in the
main, privately owned or operated, so we will ask Mr. J. J. Corbett
of the Airport Operators Council International to come and ap-
pear. Mr. Corbett, it's nice to have you here, sir.
STATEMENT OF J. J. CORBETT,
AIRPORT OPERATORS COUNCIL INTERNATIONAL
Mr. CORBETT. I am J. J. Corbett, vice president—Federal Af-
fairs of the Airport Operators Council International (AOCI).
The Airport Operators Council International is the association
of the governmental bodies which own and operate the prin-
cipal airports served by the scheduled airlines in the 50
States, Puerto Rico, and the Virgin Islands, as well as in
many countries abroad. In 1970, U.S. member airports en-
planed about 90 percent of the domestic and virtually all of
the U.S. international scheduled airline passenger and cargo
traffic. In addition, our local government members operate
many reliever and other general aviation facilities which
supplement the larger airports in their communities and re-
gions. (A listing of our U.S. members is appended for your
information.)
We greatly appreciate the opportunity to express the views
-------
73
of our U.S. membership on the national problem of aircraft
noise pollution and to offer some recommendations for Federal
actions directed toward its prompt abatement. Our interest in
these hearing's is particularly keen as we were quite active in
terms of legislative support for the Title IV Clean Air Act pro-
visions under which this hearing is being held.
Our airport operators are in a particularly uncomfortable
posture with respect to aircraft noise. They have very limited
powers to alleviate the noise which is created by the air-
craft and not by their airports. They are caught between in-
tense community pressures and their own knowledge that
preparations must be made to meet anticipated traffic growth.
Conservative forecasts of air travel growth definitively show
the necessity for 100 new airports in this Nation by the end
of this decade if the public's requirements are to be met.
Community airport providers, being caught in the tidal wave
of environmental concern, are damned if they do and cursed if
they don't. However, our members firmly believe that new ca-
pacity in our national airport system can be achieved with all
due environmental safeguards. The fact that airport development
is being stymied across the Nation and around the world sug-
gests that others do not agree. The major underlying issue is
aircraft noise.
The single largest shadow which darkens aviation's devel-
opment over the next decade will not be the faltering finances
of the airlines nor the recent congressional decision to forego
a U.S. brand SST. It will be the inability of the ground
facilities—the airport system—to accommodate the people and
planes which desire its services.
Ear pollution, not air pollution, is aviation's environmental
challenge. Unless the effect of aircraft noise on people is
reduced, tomorrow's aviation system will be a carbon copy
of today's.
History of the Aircraft Noise Problem
Some background information on the history of aircraft
noise may be helpful. Until the introduction of jet aircraft,
civil airports had generally existed in harmony with their
neighbors. With the introduction of commercial jet aircraft
in 1968 and with the increase in aircraft operations brought
on by traffic growth, the noise problem began to intensify.
Larger aircraft required some communities to extend runways
and overall airport dimensions to accommodate increased take-
off and landing needs of the jet equipment. The combination
of increased operations and larger jet aircraft brought airports
closer to their neighboring communities. And the jet aircraft also
brought new levels of noise pollution.
Since 1958, the general trend has been toward bigger and
noisier aircraft, as there was no control over the noise char-
acteristics of the aircraft the manufacturers provided and the
airlines purchased. Increased numbers of commercial jet op-
erations daily intensified the problem and raised it to one of
national significance.
-------
74
Recognizing the critical nature of the noise annoyance to
millions of citizens, the Congress in 1968 enacted legislation
(Public Law 90-411) authorizing the FAA Administrator to
certificate new and existing aircraft for noise acceptability pur-
poses. The language was similar to existing law authorizing the
FAA to certificate aircraft for safety purposes.
In the almost 2 years between enactment of the noise cer-
tification authority and FAA's first implementing rule, sub-
sonic noise exposure in many communities continued to in-
crease. According to a recent survey conducted by AOCI, ap-
proximately $3.8 billion in noise claims are estimated to be
currently pending against public airport operators. Even in-
dividual States and individual communities have brought suits
and injunctive actions against various communities owning air-
ports because of the aircraft noise problem. Noise is the
greatest constraint now to airport development.
Efforts by airport sponsors to mitigate the effect of air-
craft noise on surrounding communities have been intensive
but local governmental solutions are not available. Most ma-
jor airports are already impacted by high-cost residential de-
velopment. The acquisition of vast amounts of land in these
communities is neither practical nor possible, for the com-
plete dislocation of many thousands of people in established
communities, particularly residential areas, is not politically
possible. Further, the acquisition costs are economically pro-
hibitive; noise affected land, for example, at only one major
U.S. airport is valued in excess of $7 billion.
In addition, the possibility of new airports to serve increased
traffic is no panacea and, in many communities, even this
possibility is evaporating quickly. Communities recognize the
economic necessity for their connection to other areas of the
country and the world through modern air transportation but
are rejecting further intrusions on their environment from
aircraft noise. As a result, the noise problem in many com-
munities has indefinitely delayed the probability of additional
airport capacity through new jetports.
The first and only noise rule thus far issued by the FAA
became effective last December 1. This regulation, which applies
only to future subsonic aircraft, says, generally, that new air-
craft will not be certificated unless their noise levels—takeoff,
sideline, and approach—are less than 108 EPNdB (effective
perceived noise decibels) at each measuring point.
The current jet fleet is comprised of such aircraft as the
DC-8, DC-9, Boeing 727 and the Boeing 707, all of which
operate at noise levels in excess of the FAR part 36 limitation for
future aircraft. No noise regulations have been adopted for
the present jet fleet with the exceptions of the DC-10 and
those Boeing 747's manufactured after December 31, 1971.
This level of 108 EPNdB for the new aircraft may be, as
the statute specifies, "Economically reasonable and technologically
practicable." Whether it is also "community acceptable" remains
to be seen, but it does indicate an improvement over existing jet
noise levels.
-------
75
Typical Environmental Problems at U.S. Airports
In a growing number of American cities, airport opponents
are proving highly successful in halting or severely delaying
the construction of vital airport facilities, not only by legal
action but also by invoking the environmental protection pro-
visions of such recent Federal legislation as the Environmental
Protection Act of 1969 and the Airport and Airway Development
Act of 1970. A few examples will suffice.
More than 3 years ago, officials at Portland, Oreg., announced
plans to spend $105 million to expand Portland International
Airport, which hugs the southern shore of the Columbia River.
Nearly 2 years ago, the Army Corps of Engineers authorized
the Port of Portland, which owns the airport, to fill and
dredge a 1-square-mile section of the Columbia to provide acreage
needed for the expansion.
The landfill project has never begun—and there are doubts
that it ever will. It has been blocked by three lawsuits brought
by an alliance of conservationists and homeowners who live
across the river in Washington. Inflation, no friend to ma-
lingering builders, has meanwhile added $40 million to the
project's original cost estimates.
The Portland impasse is an example of what has rapidly be-
come a pattern in this country—and in much of the rest of the
world—where efforts are being made to build new airports and
expand old ones. Los Angeles went more that 40 miles from its
downtown center to select a 17,000-acre airport site in Palmdale,
a dry, barren area in Antelope Valley. The Sierra Club is now
suing to invalidate FAA approval of the site and the Federal De-
partment of Transportation has temporarily stopped the flow of
funds for land acquisition.
New York's Metropolitan Transportation Authority wants to
convert the former Stewart Air Force Base, more than 60 miles
from Manhattan, into a jetport. But community opposition has
been stirred up, resulting in the filing of a lawsuit. Some conser-
vationists in Canada are opposing Montreal's proposed new air-
port—potentially the world's largest—which is to cover more than
80,000 acres, most of it zoned to restrict construction of homes.
Efforts to build airports over or adjacent to waterways are
hardly more successful than efforts made within huge tracts
of land. The National Academy of Sciences in its report on New
York's Jamaica Bay has killed the projected expansion of John
F. Kennedy International Airport.
With local variation, the kind of resistance which has been
described above has blocked or delayed jetport projects in Atlanta,
Boston, Minneapolis-St. Paul, San Jose, Calif., and St. Louis,
among other cities.
Nor are the problems of airport construction gaged solely by
public antipathy. Responding to the public desire for better envi-
ronmental planning and based upon the public's well-justified de-
mand for a sound environment, Congress has linked the Airport
and Airway Development Act of 1970—which will provide up to
$280 million annually in Federal aid for airport construction—to a
-------
76
demand that developers of airports hold public hearings to ex-
plore in detail the environmental impact of their projects. The*
Secretary of Transportation is prohibited from authorizing any
project if the project portends an adverse effect on the quality
of life in a community unless the Secretary declares in writing
that no feasible or prudent alternative exists. The procedures
of the Department of Transportation and of the Federal Aviation
Regulations are in turn carefully regulated by the President's
Council on Environmental Quality.
Although it is too early to draw conclusions on the environ-
mental problems of specific U.S. airports, several general points
can be stated with certainty:
First, environmental review is desirable, and airport operators
recognize that fact.
Second, the review process should be in the hands of those
who have the expertise to make environmental decisions. This
excludes most judges. Environmental decisions should be made
by the administrative agencies of the U.S. Government, and
unless they have committed gross procedural or other error, the
judgments of these agencies should be upheld as final.
Third, people should be responsible and reasonable. The public,
that is, should realize that modern civilization requires a reason-
able balance between the demands of the environment and the
demands of the air traveling public.
Additional Federal Efforts to Reduce Aircraft Noise at Its Source
Earlier reference has been made to the 1968 congressional
enactment which authorized the FAA to certificate new and ex-
isting aircraft for noise acceptability purposes. This, as mentioned,
has been quite helpful as an incentive to industry for meaningful
noise abatement. Today's new aircraft are noticeably quieter
than their predecessors. The B-747, DC-10, and the L-1011 will
all provide noise-blighted communities with some environmental
improvement.
Airport operators are highly pleased with the new aircraft and
now suggest that future governmental and industry action can
be concentrated toward modifying, so far as possible, the noise
produced by the current fleet of aircraft. This involves the possi-
bility of retrofitting those of today's aircraft which will not be
soon retired so as to reduce their noise effects.
Work on the possibility of retrofitting has been part of the
government and industry program for some time with some
hopeful results.
As part of the Interagency Aircraft Noise Abatement program
NASA initiated a project in 1966 to "identify promising nacelle
modifications on current four-engine turbofan-powered aircraft
that would reduce the noise under the approach path by up to 1
EPNdB." In October 1969, NASA contractors reported on the
results achieved under the contracts. The acoustic measurements
showed the following reduction of noise in EPNdB:
Operation DC-8, McDonnell Douglas 707 Boeing-
Approach (1 nautical mile) 10.5-12 15.5
Takeoff thrust (3.5 nautical mile) 2-3.5 3
Reduced thrust (3.5 nautical mile)
(6 percent climb gradient) 3 3.5
-------
77
In 1969-70, the Rohr Corp. completed a study for the FAA on
the economic impact of implementing acoustically treated nacelle
and duct configurations applicable to low bypass turbofan en-
gines. According to Rohr's studies, retrofit will reduce landing
noise by 10 EPNdB for DC-9, B-727, and B-737 aircraft, and by
13 EPNdB for 707 and DC-8 type aircraft. It will reduce take-
off noise by 8 EPNdB, including power cutback on four-engine
turbofans, and by 5 EPNdB on two- and three-engine turbofans.
The NASA report shows that areas exposed to noise in excess
of 100 EPNdB can be reduced by 85 percent under the approach
path and by 50 to 55 percent under the takeoff path for the type
of aircraft and retrofit treatment used in NASA studies. The
indication in the Rohr report that the cost of retrofit can be re-
covered by a passenger fare increase ranging from 60 cents per
$100 in 1975 to 8 cents per $100 in 1982 offers little evidence of any
excessive economic penalty or burden. The Rohr report estimated
the cost of retrofit at about $600 million for the current U.S. jet
fleet.
On November 4, 1970, pursuant to the authority of Public Law
90-411, the FAA issued an "Advance Notice of Proposed Rule
Making" (ANPRM) (docket No. 10664; notice No. 70-44) on Civil
Airplane Noise Reduction Retrofit Requirements. The FAA's ad-
vance notice of proposed rulemaking constitutes the Agency's first
significant step toward adopting any noise regulations for the
current fleet of jet aircraft. At the time of the issuance of the
ANPRM, FAA Administrator John H. Shaffer stated that,
* * * Aircraft noise is the single greatest impediment to airport develop-
ment in the United States at the present time and prompt remedial action is
required if we are to meet the projected growth of aviation in the 1970's and
beyond. The FAA is committed to using every legal regulatory technique
at its disposal to reduce aircraft noise at the source.
AOCI Position on Retrofit
On the basis of the above technical information, AOCI feels
that aircraft engine retrofit constitutes a potential means of sub-
stantially reducing aircraft noise of the current jet fleet. Retro-
fit, therefore, deserves further examination as proposed by S.
1566, known as the Cranston/Wilson bill to control aircraft
noise. This measure, if enacted, would require the appropriation
of $35 million to do retrofit prototype research on a cross section
of today's aircraft. Those aircraft types for which retrofit
proved technologically feasible and economically reasonable
would be retrofitted under the Cranston bill by 1976. Those
aircraft types for which retrofit did not appear feasible and prac-
ticable would be forced into retirement by 1976.
The Cranston bill, if enacted, would require, by 1976, that all
subsonic aircraft operating within the United States reduce
their noise levels (at all three measuring points), by 10 EPNdB
from current noise levels or reduce noise levels to those adopted
in FAR part 36, appendix C (108 EPNdB), whichever reduc-
tion is greater. AOCI testified before the Subcommittee on
Aviation of the Senate Commerce Committee in general sup-
port of S. 1566. Following AOCI's testimony, a presentation of
-------
78
the Rohr Corp. stated that a 50-percent reduction in noise levels
of all U.S. two- and three-engine aircraft is now within the
state of the art through nacelle retrofit at a total cost of about
$500 million.
Uniform Noise Levels for All SST Aircraft
Finally and for the record, the Environmental Protection
Agency should recognize that AOCI stands in support of a uni-
form noise level for all SST aircraft, irrespective of national
origin. Information on the noise characteristics of the Concorde
suggest that it is not capable of meeting the noise limitations of
part 36, appendix C of the FAR. No definitive information is
yet available on the amounts of noise to be produced by the
TU-144. Legislation has been introduced in at least a dozen State
legislatures to prohibit SST aircraft landings within those States.
Clearly, the problem of establishing maximum noise levels for
supersonic aircraft requires uniform action on a national (and
international) level. Congress should not abandon the field to
local public entities or to State legislatures. To do so would re-
sult in inadequate and—certainly—nommiform supersonic air-
craft noise standards. We all recognize that civil air transpor-
tation is an interstate activity requiring uniform Federal laws.
The United States must take the lead in establishing responsible
maximum aircraft noise regulations in the public interest.
We therefore urge the adoption of Federal regulations re-
quiring that no supersonic aircraft be permitted to land at any
U.S. airport unless such aircraft can comply with the maximum
noise level standards specified for new subsonic jet aircraft in
sections C36.3 and C36.5 (a) and (b) of appendix C (evaluated
as prescribed by app. B) of part 36 of the FAR.
AOCI Recommendations Regarding the Noise
Compatibility of Airports
Based on the foregoing discussion, AOCI presents the follow-
ing recommendations to the Environmental Protection Agency
for consideration.
1. The aircraft noise problem must be resolved on a national
and international basis through the efforts of national govern-
ments, the airlines and the aircraft manufacturers, and with the
assistance of local airport operators. Actions must be taken to:
(1) Reduce noise at its source (the aircraft engine) ; (2)
strengthen the implementation of aircraft noise abatement oper-
ating procedures; and (3) work toward compatible land use in
the development of new airports.
2. The economic reasonableness and technological feasibility of
aircraft engine retrofit for the current jet fleet of subsonic air-
craft should be thoroughly examined through the appropriation
of $35 million by the Federal Government for a cross-section
prototype retrofit program. Those prototypes for which retrofit
proves reasonable and feasible should be retrofitted by 1976, and
those prototypes for which retrofit does not prove reasonable and
feasible should be retired by 1976.
3. Noise limitations, as established by part 36 of the Federal
Aviation Regulations and by ICAO draft annex 16 at a maximum
-------
79
of 108 EPNdB, should be applied uniformly to all present and
future aircraft, including the Boeing 747, and DC-10, the L-1011,
and all supersonic aircraft including any future U.S. SST, the
Concorde, and the TU-144.
4. Aircraft noise reduction should be accomplished by the
Federal Government through reasonable implementation of safe
aircraft operating procedures including the use of preferential
runways and noise abatement takeoff and landing procedures.
5. Where legally and economically practicable, compatible
land use planning should be implemented at new airports and
in the preservation of larger vacant land where still available in
the vicinity of older airports. In those airport communities
which are already heavily impacted by residential development,
compatible land use planning should not be presented as a solu-
tion to the aircraft noise problem unless some workable method
for implementing such planning accompanies the issuance or
publication of such a plan.
6. Since most environmental problems now confronting air-
port operators and their communities are national and inter-
national in scope, such problems cannot be effectively regulated
or resolved on the State and local level. The Federal Govern-
ment should assume its proper responsibility in this area rather
than attempting—as has been done in the aircraft noise area—to
shift the burden to the local airport operator. The Federal
Government should acknowledge its preemption of both the legal
and financial responsibility for aircraft noise since it alone has
the power to uniformly regulate aircraft noise.
7. Regarding the process of environmental review required of
airport operators and others seeking Federal funds under the
Environmental Protection Act of 1969 and the Airport and
Airway Development Act of 1970, airport operators support in-
formed citizen participation in the environmental review proc-
ess through full and forthright sponsor disclosure of all actions
significantly affecting the environment. Airport operators recom-
mend, after such an environmental review process has been com-
pleted, that the progress of aviation requires a reasonable bal-
ancing on the part of the various Federal agencies between the
demands of the environment and the demands of those who wish
or need to travel by air.
Summary
Aircraft noise pollution is viewed by governmental airport
operators as the single greatest constraint to orderly aviation
development in the 1970's. New airport capacity is stalled across
the Nation and around the globe primarily because of under-
standable community and public disaffection with the noise of
current-day aircraft. The single most beneficial step offering
promise of noise alleviation is accelerated Federal applied re-
search toward, and a prompt Federal decision regarding, the retro-
fit of the existing jet fleet, primarily for those aircraft whose
useful service life exceed 5 years. The international and inter-
state nature of air transportation requires that action to mitigate
aircraft noise be concentrated on reduction of noise at its
source—the aircraft engine—and that Federal or international
action, and not inconsistent State/local measures, be expedited.
-------
80
AIRPORT OPERATORS COUNCIL INTERNATIONAL
U.S. Public Members by State
June 15, 1971.
ALABAMA: Birmingham, Department of Aviation; Huntsville, Madison County
Airport Authority; Montgomery, city of.
ALASKA: Alaska, Department of Public Works, Division of Aviation.
ARIZONA: Phoenix, city of.
ARKANSAS: Port Smith, city of.
CALIFORNIA: Bakersfleld, county of Kern; Fresno, city of; Hayward, Airport
Department, city of Hayward; Los Angeles, Department of Airports; Oak-
land, Board of Port Commissioners; Palm Springs, city of; Riverside,
County Airports Department; Sacramento, county; San Diego, Unified
Port District; San Francisco, Airport Department—city and county of San
Francisco; San Jose, city of, Municipal Airport; Stockton, Department of
Aviation, county of San Joaquin.
COLORADO: Colorado Springs, city of; Denver, Department of Public Works,
city and county of Denver; Pueblo, Memorial Airport.
CONNECTICUT: Connecticut, Department of Aeronautics.
DELAWARE : Wilmington, Transportation Board of New Castle County.
FLORIDA: Daytona Beach, city of; Fort Lauderdale, Board of County Com-
missioners, Broward County; Jacksonville, city commission; Melbourne,
city of; Miami, Dade County Port Authority; Orlando, city of; Pensacola,
city of; Sarasota, Manatee Airport Authority; Tampa, Hillsborough County
Aviation Authority; West Palm Beach, Board of County Commissioners.
GEORGIA: Atlanta, Department of Aviation; Savannah, Airport Commission.
HAWAII: Hawaii, Department of Transportation.
ILLINOIS: Chicago, Department of Aviation; Moline, Metropolitan Airport
Authority of Rock Island County; Rockford, Greater Rockford Airport
Authority.
INDIANA: Evansville, Vanderburgh Airport Authority District; Fort Wayne,
Board of Aviation Commissioners; Indianapolis, Airport Authority.
IOWA: Cedar Rapids, Municipal Airport Commission; Des Moines, Department
of Aviation; Mason City, Municipal Airport Commission; Waterloo, Air-
port Commission.
KANSAS: Wichita, Board of Park Commissioners.
KENTUCKY: Louisville and Jefferson County Air Board; Paducah, Airport
Corp.
LOUISIANA: Baton Rouge, Greater Baton Rouge Airport District; Lafayette,
Airport Commission; Lake Charles, Airport Authority for Airport District
No. 1, Calasieu Parish; New Orleans, Aviation Board; New Orleans, Board
of Levee Commissioners.
MAINE: Bangor, city of; Portland, city of.
MARYLAND: Baltimore, Friendship International Airport Authority.
MASSACHUSETTS: Boston, Massachusetts Port Authority.
MICHIGAN: Detroit, Board of County Road Commissioners, Wayne County;
Flint, city of; Grand Rapids, Kent County Aeronautics Board; Saginaw,
Bay City-Midland-Tri-City Airport Commission.
MINNESOTA: Minneapolis-St. Paul, Metropolitan Airports Commission.
MISSISSIPPI: Jackson, Municipal Airport Authority.
MISSOURI: Kansas City, Aviation Department; St. Louis, Department of
Public Utilities; Springfield, Municipal Airport.
MONTANA: Great Falls, International Airport Commission.
NEBRASKA: Lincoln, Airport Authority, city of Lincoln; North Platte, Airport
Authority; Omaha, Airport Authority of the city of Omaha.
NEW HAMPSHIRE: Manchester, Airport Authority.
NEW JERSEY: Trenton, County of Mercer.
NEW MEXICO: Albuquerque, Sunport.
NEW YORK: Buffalo, Niagara Frontier Transportation Authority; New York
and Newark, the Port of New York Authority; Syracuse, city of.
NORTH CAROLINA: Charlotte, Douglas Municipal Airport; Greensboro, High
Point Airport Authority.
OHIO: Akron-Canton, Regional Airport Authority; Cincinnati, Kenton County
Airport Board; Cleveland, Division of Airports; Columbus, Metropolitan
Airport and Aviation Commission; Dayton, Department of Aviation;
Toledo, city of; Youngstown, Municipal Airport.
OKLAHOMA: Oklahoma City, Airport Trust; Tulsa, Airport Authority.
OREGON: Portland, Port of.
-------
81
PENNSYLVANIA: Allentown-Bethlehem-Easton, Lehigh-Northampton Airport
Authority; Pennsylvania, Aeronautics Commission; Philadelphia, Depart-
ment of Commerce.
RHODE ISLAND: Rhode Island, Division of Aeronautics.
SOUTH CAROLINA: Columbia-Richland-Lexington, Airport Commission; Green-
ville-Spartanburg, Airport Commission.
TENNESSEE: Chattanooga, Department of Public Works; Knoxville, city of;
Memphis, city of; Nashville and Davidson County, metropolitan govern-
ment of.
TEXAS: Dallas, Department of Aviation; Dallas-Fort Worth, Regional Air-
port Authority; El Paso, city of; Fort Worth, city of; Houston, Department
of Aviation; San Antonio, Department of Aviation.
VERMONT: Burlington, Burlington Airport Commission.
VIRGINIA: Newport News, the Peninsula Airport Commission; Norfolk, Port
and Industrial Authority.
WASHINGTON: Seattle, King County, Boeing Field International; Seattle,
Port of Seattle Commission; Spokane, Airport Board.
WASHINGTON, D.C.: Washington, D.C., FAA Bureau of National Capital
Airports.
WEST VIRGINIA: Huntington, Tri-State Authority.
WISCONSIN : Milwaukee, Airport Department of Milwaukee County.
PUERTO Rico: San Juan, Puerto Rico Ports Authority.
VIRGIN ISLANDS: Virgin Islands, Port Authority.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I will be happy to respond to
questions.
Dr. MEYER. Fine. Thank you, sir, for a very excellent sum-
mary of your paper, which, as I glance through it, contains
information of tremendous value. And we may have to communi-
cate with you from time to time to get some more specific dis-
cussions regarding some of the content.
The panel, any questions?
Professor KERREBROCK. With regard to your expectations for
the future, I would like to have a little clarification.
There are two views as to the significance of the next, the
new generation of aircraft, the DC-10 and the 747, and their
impact on the airport noise problem in general.
One, of course, is a great sense of relief that they are quieter
than the last generation of aircraft, but on the other hand,
when one takes account of the projected traffic increases which
you have alluded to, at least one study of Kennedy Airport has
predicted that even if all of the aircraft flying out of Kennedy
Airport essentially were of this type, by 1978 or 1980, the noise
problem would be considerably worse than it is now because
of the increased traffic.
Do you think that this is a reasonable projection for the
Nation as a whole?
Mr. CORBETT. Well, we hope that the new generation of air-
craft, which not only are quieter, but are larger, will be able to
handle a larger number of passengers without increasing the
number of flights proportionately, so that over at least the
short term, we can purchase some time to further modify the
aircraft at the source.
Professor KERREBROCK. But you do expect that further modifi-
cation will be required, then, by when, 1980 or 1978?
Mr. CORBETT. In terms of reduction of the noise at the source?
Professor KERREBROCK. In terms of bringing the overall noise
impact in a community like Los Angeles or New York to an
acceptable level.
-------
82
Mr. CORBETT. The situation is essentially this: The communi-
ties—the environmentalists, with their very proper concerns, are
saying to airport operators,
You are part of the aviation community; you tell the rest of the aviation
community that what they have been doing is darn good, but it isn't enough.
Until you can do more, no new airports, no new runways, no new airport
expansion,
so the airport operator is going to be pressing to the entire aviation
industry for whatever actions are possible, technologically possible,
of course, to reduce the effect of noise on people, and if, as Mr.
McPike said, your aircraft now can meet 108, we are going to be
pushing for less than 108 EPNdB. It has to be a continuing process.
Professor KERREBROCK. Thank you.
Mr. MARTIN. Mr. Corbett, for the sake of argument, if retro-
fit went through—and, of course, with the DC-8 you are getting
quieter airplanes, and therefore the boundary lines that have
a major annoyance are getting closer to the airport, are the
airport operators opposed to a compromise situation as the ban
gets closer to the airport, taking a look at land acquisition to elimi-
nate the real bad areas ?
Mr. CORBETT. Not at all. I think the statistics will indicate
that the city of Los Angeles has expended $130 million in land
acquisitions to take care of the most critical areas of their airport.
When that situation develops, it will be a tradeoff; air-
port operators will do their best within their powers to pro-
tect people from noise.
The true solution to the aircraft noise problem in the view-
point of the airport operator is a combination of all three factors:
Reduced noise at its source, to reduce the effect of noise on people
—and that includes noise abatement procedures—and the third
area is compatible land use.
As indicated in the testimony, with impacted land areas
around airports now, to change that whole area of development
is impossible politically because the people don't want to move.
They want noise to be reduced in the future; for new airports
more land is being acquired, more zoning is being accomplished
to protect this situation from happening again for a future gen-
eration.
In Montreal, for example, 80,000 acres, square acres have
been acquired for new airport.
Even with that there are environmental concerns being
expressed.
Mr. HINTON. Mr. Corbett, I would like to just mention, I
think the recommendations that you have included in the end of
your paper are quite good.
You do appear to adopt, as you say, the more balanced posi-
tion that you agree that other actions will probably be necessary
in addition to the reduction of the noise at the source through
retrofit, or improved designs of new aircraft.
I would like to have your reaction to a question as, you know,
under the provisions of the Airport-Airway Development Act
of 1970, the airports are now required to meet certain safety
standards for airport design, layout, equipment, facilities, that
sort of thing.
-------
83
I wonder if—you mentioned environmental controls; now, do
you object to the placement of environmental controls around
airports which would be, essentially, the same pattern of safety
controls, but they would be applied in terms of the impact of
airport operations on surrounding communities?
Mr. CORBETT. I think that primarily
Mr. HINTON. Standards be set for that purpose?
Mr. CORBETT. I think that is primarily addressed at the time
of construction, under the legislation you are referring to, there
can be no major expansion of an airport or runway, or addition
of a new airport in this Nation after May 21, 1970, without
very long, extensive, careful environmental review.
We support that legislation very strongly.
On terms of a continuing review of airport operations, to
make sure that they are not pollutants on a daily operational
basis, we would have no objection to any environmental agency
taking that responsibility, because for airport operators to have
a successful facility that is amenable to the airport neighbors,
we have to do everything we can to make sure that aviation
technological development does not conflict with the community's
environmental concerns.
Mr. HINTON. I think that is most enlightening.
Thank you.
Professor PLACER. Just to follow up on that, I notice, Mr.
Corbett, that in the attachment to your statement you list the
members of your association—and there are quite a number of
those that are governmental bodies of one kind or another.
Let's assume hypothefically for the moment that out of all
of this will come a coalition of effort by the Federal Government,
by State government, by local government, and by the airport
proprietors, all addressing themselves to what is the most sen-
sible economic and effective way to deal with this problem, and
hopefully with the support of the industry, let's assume they
turn to you and they say, "All right, Mr. Airport Operator,
what can you do? What can be done?"
What specific things are within the realm of the airport oper-
ators' world that can contribute to solving this problem?
Mr. CORBETT. I think the question is two part; it's what can you
do, and is it going to be effective.
Professor PLAGER. All right.
Mr. CORBETT. Just to follow up one question that was asked
of the prior witness, how about taxing an airline—how would
taxing an airline on the amount of noise that aircraft makes—
studies have been done at a number of U.S. airports as to
whether, instead of charging aircraft based on weight in terms
of landing fee, you charge on the basis of time on runway use,
on the amount of noise that is made.
The question is a landing fee is generally a negotiated situ-
ation between an airport and the airlines, and from the prior
discussions, it is quite clear that the airlines would not agree
to that approach. That is one potential area that does not appear
to be fruitful at this time.
Professor PLAGER. Let's assume for the moment that they will
agree—leave out for the moment the present attitude of the
-------
84
industry, or some part of the industry, and let's just assume
that, respond in terms of what you think would be a sensible,
some specific sensible things that could be done.
One of them, I take it, is to rewrite the lease arrangements
between the operator and the airline, charging a fee in terms
of noise level. That is a very interesting idea. How about some
others ?
Mr. CORBETT. Well, the potential areas may be three; regu-
latory, economic, or by way of public opinion.
Thus far airport operators, through our association, and di-
rectly, have been trying to interest government at all levels about
the problems of aircraft noise abatement.
In terms of regulation, airports can do things, but there are
constraints on what they can do.
The thing that has been mentioned, quite properly by Mr.
Becker before me, is that an airport is part of a national and
international situation. To have a number of inconsistent acts
by one government, either State or local, different in another
jurisdiction where the aircraft next lights down, we think takes
away from the interstate commerce aspect of aviation, and in
the broadest sense, international.
If you want the real idealist way to lower aircraft noise, you
go to an international forum, not a national forum.
Professor PLACER. Are there any specific programs that the
airport operators themselves, at the local level, you know, things
like get back to preferential runways—that is not an inter-
national problem—I mean, that is a local problem, isn't it?
Mr. CORBETT. No, but as I think as has been mentioned
earlier—and I am sure the pilot following me, the pilot who is
following me will address himself to it, from the time the air-
craft starts moving down the runway, that so far as the airport
operator understands Federal law, it's a Federal responsibility
as relates directly to safety, if the FAA, through preferential
use of runways, more and better noise abatement procedures
can increase—can decrease the noise exposure while keeping
pilots and everyone else happy in terms of safety, the airport
operators are strongly behind it.
Can they do that strictly? My understanding of the law is
that the airport operator's legal ability, in areas relating to air
traffic control and the flight of aircraft is minimal, if existent
at all.
Professor PLACER. One of the constraints, then, you feel from
your industry's viewpoint is an unclarity as to what your author-
ity is in this area; is that what you are saying?
Mr. CORBETT. I am not sure if I am clear. I think we don't have
any authority, I think it's clear that we don't.
Professor PLACER. In any event, that is it. OK. I see. Thank
you.
Dr. WHITCOMB. Mr. Corbett
Dr. MEYER. I think that is an important point.
Dr. WHITCOMB. Mr. Corbett, do you think the STOL aircraft
holds any chance of alleviating any noise in the future?
Mr. CORBETT. Yes. One of the beneficial studies that have
been going on within aviation, the aviation community for
-------
85
some time is what we call an industry work group; it's com-
posed of the manufacturers of aircraft, international, domestic
airlines and airport operators.
One of the things they have worked on is to try to determine
what the acceptable level of noise would be for STOL aircraft
in a short term.
I think their studies indicate that a STOL-developed air-
craft should be capable of approaching 95 EPNdB, and that
has been suggested in that area, after consultations, and very
good cooperation among all those parts of industry.
Dr. MEYER. Thank you very much, sir.
We appreciate your time in coming before us today. I should
next like to ask Capt. Richard Heller of the Airline Pilots
Association to come forward, if he would, and give us his
remarks with regard to how the airline pilot, the operator
of the aircraft, views the question of safety and noise. Is
Captain Heller here?
(No response.)
I guess because of the delay in our schedule, he may have
had to proceed on, to get on with maybe flying an airplane.
I have been requested, since apparently there are some people
who have arrived since we started, if we would again identify the
panel members, so I shall do so.
I am Alvin Meyer, the Director of the Office of Noise
Abatement and Control of the Environmental Protection
Agency.
We have Professor Kerrebrock from MIT. We have Mr.
Martin from the Society of Automotive Engineers; Mr. Lloyd
Hinton, from the Metropolitan Aircraft Noise Abatement
Council of Minneapolis; Professor Plager from the University
of Illinois; and Dr. Whitcomb of the National Research
Council.
Would Mr. Sheldon Samuels of the Industrial Union De-
partment of the American Federation of Labor, Council of
Industrial Organizations, please come forward? Sir, at this time
we are glad to welcome you to the hearings, so we might hear,
as a bridge between the problems of the aeronautical industry
and its impact on the community, and impact of industry on
to their neighbors, about the views of organized labor on this
important subject. Glad to have you here, sir, and sorry we
have been so long in getting to this point, but we are getting
closer to our schedule.
Mr. SAMUELS. Thank you, Dr. Meyer.
STATEMENT OF SHELDON W. SAMUELS, AFL-CIO
Mr. SAMUELS. Dr. Meyer, ladies and gentlemen, as Director
of Occupational Health, Safety and Environmental Affairs for
the Industrial Union Department of the AFL-CIO, I must, on
occasion, be critical of Government. I would, however, like
to take this occasion to point out the excellent design of this
hearing. In addition, however, it's our hope that our place on
the printed agenda is not indicative of the weight given our
views by your office.
Dr. MEYER. It was not so intended, sir; it was to serve as
a bridge between the formal industry presentations and the
-------
86
public presentations that will follow on the next day, but I
realize you have a timing situation. Indeed it was not intended.
Mr. SAMUELS. Of course I am jesting, sir, and I thank you
for the consideration. I am appearing today on behalf of 58
unions and 7 million workers.
With me is the Honorable Fred Linde, assistant to the
President for Environmental Affairs of the Oil, Chemical, and
Atomic Workers, a professional engineer and chairman of the
Kansas State House Committee on the Environment, and con-
sultant to the occupational health, safety, and environmental
programs of the Industrial Union Department, AFL-CIO.
Tomorrow I will introduce a delegation from a lodge of the
International Association of Machinists in Benton Harbor,
Mich., and, if their negotiations permit, a delegation of steel-
workers from this area.
In view of your plan for these hearings we will confine our
remarks to a very simple description of some problems of industrial
noise as an occupational and as a community hazard.
At later hearings we will discuss the problems of standards and
legislation.
We hear a great deal these days about the productivity of
the American worker, a concept whose meaning shifts de-
pending upon whether it is being used in employer-employee
contract negotiations or at a stockholders annual meeting.
There is, however, another concept whose meaning does not
shift because of its very concrete use: subsidy.
It is a key term to the understanding of the economics of pollu-
tion. Acceptance of pollution—noise-air-water—in the community
of the workplace is, in the economic sense, a subsidy by the com-
munity or by an employee, of the design, production, and market-
ing of a product.
This subsidy takes the form of economic damage, aesthetic
insult, and the pain and anguish of death and disease.
To illustrate the subsidy of noise pollution we have taken noise
level recordings and readings at three plants; the last, in Benton
Harbor, will be discussed tomorrow. Today I want to introduce
into the record the following slides, recordings and descriptions.
Slide 1, please.
[Showing of first slide in series.]
I apologize
Dr. MEYER. Will you turn the lights down, please.
Mr. SAMUELS. For its vagueness. It's meant to focus on a
simple sign. It talks about safety glasses; in the past, and
unfortunately, even today, is the focus of occupational health
and safety programs at the Federal and State level. Obviously
they are not enough.
[Showing of next slide in series.]
TAPE RECORDING. United States Steel, South Works, Chicago, 111.
[Showing of next slide in series.]
TAPE RECORDING. Average decibel readings, 74 to 80.
-------
87
[Showing of next slide in series.]
TAPE RECORDING. That was the Indiana Forge & Machine Co.
Average 98 to 102; peak value, 104.
Mr. SAMUELS. These, of course, are all on the A-scale.
TAPE RECORDING. 94 decibels, diesel traffic noises.
The peak readings of 94 occurred only when the diesel trucks were passing
by.
Mr. SAMUELS. I think that is the end of our audiovisual
display.
Dr. MEYER. That was a very fine one, sir.
Could we have the lights up a little bit, but not these bright
ones, if we can avoid it, for the time being.
Mr. SAMUELS. All of the photos, readings, and recordings
which you have seen and heard were taken not from within
the plant, but from the sidewalks of the South Works of
United States Steel. We were at the property line, about 100
feet from the walls of the source.
At Indiana Forge & Machine Co. we were at the property line
about 20 feet from the walls of the source.
Conditions at Indiana Forge are rather typical. The plant em-
ploys 93 steelworkers. Like many small plants there is a good rela-
tionship between management and employee.
James McCarty, secretary to the local union, has worked
there locally for 31 years. He describes it as a good place to
work where conditions are not worse than in any other forge.
These conditions include a subsidy of the company, in the form
of probable hearing loss, through the acceptance of literally
deafening noise. There is no evidence of any kind of hearing
conservation program. Unfitted and virtually useless earplugs
and cotton are available on request. There is little comfort in
the fact that even management in this plant may suffer with
their employees, since they are investing rather than subsidizing
the cost of production.
Safety and health inspection of the plant seldom, if ever, occurs.
The employees, in fact, seem to prefer handling these problems
directly with the employer. They are greatly concerned about the
financial well being of the company, and yet something must be
done.
In concluding our formal remarks today, we would like to em-
phasize the relation of noise to other hazards, such as safety. The
ability to avoid a hazard in the operation of a machine—or an auto-
mobile—often depends on rather subtle nuances of sound. If,
because of background noise and loss of hearing, the operator
is distracted, cannot hear changes in sound around him, an
instruction or even a warning screech, his life and the lives
of others are in danger.
The consequence is that an untallied, but major effect of
noise pollution is death and injury on the job and in the
street.
We have had, within the last couple of weeks, at least two
major accidents in this country in which men have been killed
because they could not hear the warnings.
Thank you very much.
-------
Dr. MEYER. Thank you very much, Mr. Samuels.
Panel?
Mr. HINTON. I would like to ask a couple of questions. You
didn't mention the Walsh-Healy Act, Mr. Samuels. I wonder
if you are familiar with the provisions of that act ?
Mr. SAMUELS. Yes. That act, as you know, has been pre-
empted by the Occupational Safety and Health Act. The primary
enforcement for that, of course, is the U.S. Department of Labor.
The Labor Department has, in effect, called for a moratorium
of the standards related to noise. Under their current pub-
lished regulations they would not be enforced until February
of 1972.
We are, of course, objecting to that moratorium.
Mr. HINTON. I agree with you, Mr. Samuels.
Do you, or the gentlemen with you, know about the existence of
meters that are capable of measuring cumulative exposure?
Mr. LINDE. Yes, I am.
Mr. HINTON. They are relatively new, and I just
Mr. LINDE. They not only measure the cumulative exposure,
but will also, can also be wired to show when a peak, some
predetermined peak is exceeded, yes, sir.
Mr. HINTON. Thank you.
Mr. LINDE. There are not too many of these available. The
problem, of course, as far as any organized labor is concerned,
is getting the concurrence of management to permit, to
supply or, and/or permit use of these by the employees.
Dr. MEYER. Panel, any other questions? We certainly appreciate
your comments, and are looking forward to your testimony to-
morrow.
I think in your highlighting you and the presenter who are
going to follow, Mr. Goodfriend, emphasize there is a rela-
tionship between, of course, what goes on in the plant and
what is going on outside it, and also the airplane flying over,
and the motor vehicle moving through the streets. We have
to look at this as an integrated environmental problem, and
we want to work very closely with you, as well as industry,
and all elements of the public, so we look forward to your
presentation tomorrow, sir.
Mr. SAMUELS. Mr. Linde has an additional comment.
Mr. LINDE. If I may, doctor.
Dr. MEYER. Please.
Mr. LINDE. As a politician I feel very badly if I were to
leave here and not having had something to say, but I would
like to emphasize that our process plant—and I speak particu-
larly from the standpoint of chemical and petroleum chemical
plants, and petroleum refineries, are, contrary to normal thought
in many cases, very noisy.
So many of them use high pressure processes that require
large compressors; the interstate gas transmission network uses
compressors with single prime movers of 5,000 or 10,000 horse-
power, and these are overpoweringly noisy, and have a very
profound effect on the men that operate them.
The point I think we want to make and emphasize is that
so much of this noise can be engineered out at the source,
and I don't believe either Mr. Samuels nor I propose that
-------
89
everything be shut down, or anything like that. This is im-
possible. The economy and our society would come to an end
if anything like that were tried.
But we would propose as legislation is drafted that it rec-
ognizes the state of the art now in the suppressing noise, and
quite often it's only a matter of specifying, in the case of
machinery that the noise level be so and so, and you do it
with very, very little cost penalty. This is one of the points
we want to make.
I also suppose that all of you gentlemen read the stories,
several of them in the Wall Street Journal just recently about
some of the horrible jobs people work at in the United States.
A drop forge installation such as Mr. Samuels referred to
was one of these horror spots, and there are many others;
an ammonia plant is quite noisy because of the combustion
of gases, the pumps, the compressors, and so on.
It isn't a simple problem, we know that, but we also know
that until steps are taken to alleviate it and control it, nothing
is going to be done.
Thank you.
Dr. MEYER. Thank you very much, gentlemen.
We look forward to seeing you tomorrow. Mr. Goodfriend?
Mr. Goodfriend is going to give a presentation regarding some
studies of noise emanating from industrial operations. Lou,
nice to have you here, sir, and we look forward to your
remarks.
STATEMENT OF LOUIS GOODFRIEND,
L S. GOODFRIEND, AND ASSOCIATES
Mr. GOODFRIEND. Thank you very much.
Before I take a look at the formal remarks, which you have
copies of, I should point out that there is a program going
on right now under EPA to take a look at industrial noise
sources, the levels out-of-doors, within the plant boundaries,
the levels in the community due to these plant sources, the
effects on the people, the plant neighborhood and community
ground, to assess the current activity in noise abatement with-
in the industries, to assess the state of the art and noise
abatement technology, and to assess the regulatory activity,
or report on regulatory activity which is currently going on.
This is a continuing program which, as you know, has just
been initiated. I am going to report on a few of the basic
ideas involved. -
Although it is well known that many types of industries
make noise and that some members of the community object
to some industrial noises while other neighbors do not, there
has not to date been a systematic program to examine the
nature of industrial noise and the noise effects.
An examination of my own prior work with industrial and
community clients and the current EPA sponsored projects do
clearly outline the nature and scope of our present knowledge in
this field.
Industries for our purposes may be broadly divided into
three general categories:
1. Manufacturing and assembly plants.
-------
90
2. Process plants.
3. Utility plants.
In all of these industries are to be found only a few basic
types of noise sources. The major noise source categories are:
1. Power sources—including motors, engines, heaters,
furnaces, and generators.
2. Impact sources—including forgehammers, riveting tools
impact hard tools, piledrivers, ore crushers.
3. Cooling and ventilating equipment such as fans, blowers,
and cooling towers.
4. High-pressure gas and airflow systems such as valves,
air inlets, and high-pressure discharges to the atmosphere.
5. Materials handling including cranes, chutes, conveyor
buckets, and the materials themselves, such as steel parts
impacting on each other, or structural steel sections being
loaded or unloaded, and high-speed, high-pressure blowers
of many types.
Surveying the communities around a number of plants in-
dicates that noise level or loudness—if you will—is not the
controlling factor influencing the acceptability of the noise
in the community. Furthermore, not every machine of the
same size and capacity is used the same way and no two are
located in the same manner with respect to the community.
An examination of my own files of industrial noise complaint
situations and information acquired in EPA's program do show
a few trends:
1. Industry's neighbors in the community may not object to
industrial noise even at fairly high levels, («) If it is con-
tinuous, (b) if it does not interfere with speech communica-
tion, (c) if it does not include pure tones or impacts, (d)
if it does not vary rapidly, (e) if it does not interfere with
getting to sleep, and (/) if it does not contain fear-producing
elements.
2. Sometimes political, social, economic, or interper-
sonal situations develop where the presence of the noise
in the neighboring community is the substitute focus for
what might otherwise lead to unacceptable consequences.
3. It also appears that single individuals or families
may be annoyed by an industrial noise that does not an-
noy any other plant neighbors. This in many cases can
be traced to unusual exposure conditions or to interpersonal
situations involving plant management personnel.
Industry has been responsive in varying degrees to community
pressure to eliminate sources of complaint. Although consid-
erable noise abatement technology is available today, knowledge
of such technology varies widely Avithin the same industry, and
similarly response with a single product industry will vary greatly.
I do believe that the day is past when a complaint is passed
off as an eccentric to be tolerated and humored. However,
I have noted that the cost problem can create problems for
individual companies where a competitive pricing situation
exists. Here there is a need for industrywide controls. In fact,
the best solution will probably come on an industrywide basis
for many reasons.
-------
91
Returning for a moment to the behavioral problems, it
should be noted that one or two articulate complainants or po-
litically effective complainants can polarize a community. This
again indicates a need for definitive standards by which to
judge industrial as well as other noise exposures.
Looking for a moment at the current capability in noise
control, it is possible to find many muffling and noise control
systems. Many are still crude, and they do not eliminate the
noise at the source, but as an example, a gas turbine gener-
ator can currently be quieted by enclosing it inside a noise
control structure with suitable inlet and exhaust mufflers. The
cost per unit is high, so high in fact that reduction of noise
within the turbine itself might be amortized by the reduction
in muffling expense. Other examples can easily be cited. Clearly
there are many tradeoffs in the noise abatement process.
Switching processes might be less expensive than muffling an
existing system. Besides hardware, there is a moderate volume
of noise control engineering going on in many industries.
Some companies have staff personnel or work with university
faculty members in applying current technology in the area
of source noise reduction. This is not a high-technology area
and so far there is little fallout from the military and aerospace
fields.
The needs at present are:
1. To quantify the community response not on the ba-
sis of complaint versus noise level but on the basis of all
the variables.
2. To disseminate information on the current engineering
aspects of noise abatement technology as well as the hardware
aspects.
3. To involve industries as units through their associ-
ations in advancing the state of the art of noise
abatement.
4. To develop guidelines for industry on community
noise exposure.
5. To develop a model industrial noise performance regu-
lation that will enable industry to survive economically as
quiet neighbors.
6. To develop suitable urban and regional planning con-
cepts that will integrate compatible industries into new and
redeveloped areas without destroying any citizen's equities
in so doing.
7. To stimulate and initiate new efforts in developing
noise abatement and to encourage and accellerate existing
research and development in noise abatement.
Dr. MEYER. Thank you very much, Mr. Goodfriend. If I
heard you the way I think I heard you, in your short and suc-
cinct statement, you, in effect, said the same priorities and
the same problems exist with this aspect of community noise
as are associated in the main with the aircraft and airport
noise problem.
Mr. GOODFRIEND. You are quite right; to put it simply, we
are all in the same boat. We have—we do need to determine
what the factors are that make people respond negatively to
noise, and positively.
-------
92
Dr. MEYER. Thank you, sir. Panel on the right?
(No response.)
Panel on the left?
Professor PLACER. Just a short question for you, Mr. Good-
friend ; who is "we" in that sentence? Where does the responsibility
lie for coming to grips with this range of problems ? Do you have
any thoughts on that subject?
Mr. GOODFRIEND. Yes; I think that the current action by
EPA acting as a catalyst-coordinator and adviser, and sup-
porting research is probably the best thing that we can do.
I have seen other organizations, other Federal agencies, but
they cover a narrow segment of the problem, and as I under-
stand EPA's charge is to look at the entire problem and co-
ordinate it, coordinate their work with the interagency noise
abatement-transportation noise panel and so forth.
Professor PLACER. Do you see in the future regulatory pro-
grams developing to deal with these problems? And if so,
again, where does the general responsibility of the area fall
there?
Mr. GOODFRIEND. I believe that there are regulatory activities
that have to be taken at every level of government.
The model laws for zoning may be developed by the Fed-
eral agencies, but these should be promulgated at the State,
county, and municipal levels.
Mr. HINTON. Mr. Goodfriend, I would like to just say that
I completely agree with your call for comprehensive community
planning where you would have your development planned
in a way that you don't have one use conflicting with another
in the vicinity. I would like to know, I would like to know your
No. 1 need that you call for is to quantify community response
on the basis of complaint versus noise levels.
Would you, without—would you let community response,
would you first need to quantify this response before initiating
action programs?
Mr. GOODFRIEND. I believe we do have to quantify the re-
sponse. It may not be—we are currently doing it, the current
tendency is to look at those, at the situations which cause
complaint, and then develop some kind of a patch that will
just reduce the situation, the noise, or the pure tone, or what-
ever, to just below the complaint threshold, and I think this
is the wrong approach. I think we want to find out the reason
for complaint, and it may not be level; it may be something else.
Mr. HINTON. I know it's wise to be able to know more ex-
act knowledge about what the problem is in terms of human
reaction, both physical and psychological; however, I have
something, I am somewhat construed with the sense of urgency
here, and I think the problems are pretty self-evident, and
we don't have to get down to the last number in the quantification
process prior to working at the top, you know.
Mr. GOODFRIEND. I am in complete agreement. I think we know
the reason I listed, on these reasons, that industrial noise
can occur at fairly high levels without complaint if it was
not, if it's continuous, and if it doesn't interfere with speech.
The reason I listed those things is that we know that we
can do this without generating complaints. We know that there
-------
93
are currently some techniques that give us very broad answers
we can use.
Let's start with those, but let's continue to move on and get the
detailed facts so that in the long term we can do a much better
job of planning.
I don't think we know as much as we ought to. We can put in
buffer zones, but we are going to be making those buffer zones
bigger than we need to, and this has a strong economic impact on
the community involved.
Dr. MEYER. Thank you very much. We appreciate your
thoughts and your presentation, and look forward to working
with you further on this. I would now like to ask Mr. Harter
M. Rupert, of the Federal Highway Administration to come
forward. Mr. Rupert has written a number of papers with
regard to problems of noise associated with highway and auto-
mobile transportation and is setting the stage for information
from some presentations from the automobile industry regard-
ing what it can do about the source of noise that he is going to
talk about.
We thought it would be useful to have him and a repre-
sentative of the Highway Research Board present to the panel
some basic information. Glad to have you here.
Mr. RUPERT. Thank you. If you will stay with me, I will
try to proceed rapidly, and I think I can get my remarks in
in a very few moments.
STATEMENT OF HARTER M. RUPERT,
FEDERAL HIGHWAY ADMINISTRATION
[Showing of first slide in series.]
Mr. RUPERT. We are witnessing the beginnings of an all-
out effort to control noise. This effort is part of the overall
response of government, industry, and institutions of higher
learning to the public's expression of deep concern for the
environment.
[Showing of next slide in series.]
Traffic noise has been identified in several surveys as the
most disturbing or annoying noise in residential areas. Al-
though the noise from traffic may be often bothersome, there
are no indications that the levels are sufficiently high to cause
hearing loss. It is generally well known that thousands of
people have voluntarily built, bought, or rented dwellings in
areas having noise levels higher than many of us would
consider desirable.
Does this mean that nothing should be done to control traffic
noise? Of course not. Some useful analogies can be drawn between
noise and floods, even though the undesirable consequences of floods
are much more obvious and more easily identified. For many of
this country's developing years, large numbers of people settled
and developed the flood plains of our streams and rivers.
[Showing of next slide in series.]
Usually, this was done with the knowledge that the water-
course would periodically overflow its banks with consequent
impact on the settlers. This does not mean that it was good
for them or that some other segment of the public should
-------
94
be expected to endure the same hardships. So it is with noise.
Although, some segments of the public appear willing to vol-
untarily reside in areas where noise levels are high, we can-
not responsibly expect the entire public to accept these noise
levels.
It should not be inferred that highway engineers, administrators,
and professionals have done a less than adequate job. Quite the
contrary. No other public works program known to man can match
the achievements of this Nation's highway program. The im-
portant thing to remember is the shifting of goals and priorities.
[Showing of next slide in series.]
In the 1920's and 1930's we were attempting to establish a
nationwide system of roads and provide all-weather surfaces. In
the 1940's and 1950's, as the demand for mobility increased,
traffic volume and speed increased. As a result, greater emphasis
was placed on the needs of the traveling public by providing:
Stronger and wider pavements, increased sight distance, flatter
horizontal curves, grade separation structures, and limited access
highways.
[Showing of next slide in series.]
During the 1960's, emphasis was placed on safety and beauty.
The emphasis of the 1970's is concern for the environment.
[Showing of next slide in series.]
The highway program will respond to this emphasis just as
well as it has to those of past decades.
The highway-related noise problem is very complex, so there
are no quick or simple solutions. The control of this nuisance
will require the concerted and coordinated efforts of many pro-
grams, agencies, firms, and individuals.
[Showing of next slide in series.]
There is good reason to believe that quieter vehicles can be
manufactured. Apparently there has not been sufficient con-
sumer demand for the manufacturing industry to produce
quieter vehicles. In a competitive industry where a few dollars
differential would place a competitor in an advantageous posi-
tion, an individual firm finds difficulty justifying added costs for
characteristics for which consumers apparently are unwilling
to pay. We don't seem to mind a little noise when we are behind
the wheel. In the case of many motorcycle, sport car, hotrod,
and truck operators, noise is considered an asset rather than a
liability.
If the manufacturing industry were furnished reasonable
noise criteria which would be uniformly applied to all manu-
facturers, improvement could be obtained without jeopardizing
the sales and profits of any individual firm.
The President has recommended Federal legislation which
would enable this control. A bill has been introduced in Congress
to provide this authority to the Environmental Protection
Agency. This is a desirable and needed approach.
[Showing of next slide in series.]
If the manufacture of quieter vehicles were required, there
is no assurance that they would remain quiet. Many instances
can be observed every day where vehicles are operated with
malfunctioning or modified mufflers or otherwise behaving in
worse than showroom condition. Most State motor vehicle codes
-------
95
require that a vehicle not be operated without a muffler or in a
manner which creates loud or excessive noise. The determina-
tion of what is loud or excessive requires a subjective determi-
nation on the part of an enforcement official. As a result, en-
forcement is difficult and ineffective. This is like having speed
laws which advise the driver not to drive too fast.
California has taken the lead in adoption of numerical noise
level limits for motor vehicles. Enforcement is achieved with
noise level meters in a manner similar to the radar meters used
in speed control. There are other States and some localities
which have enacted similar laws and still others which have
such legislation under consideration.
The Federal Highway Administration recommends State and
local enactment and enforcement of numerical noise level
limits. We are presently seeking possible means of further en-
couragement.
It should be obvious that reduction of the noise which the
vehicle creates will not eliminate all highway related noise
problems. There are practical limits on the extent to which
noise from vehicles (and aircraft) can be lowered.
[Showing of next slide in series.]
We should not expect to get away with construction of an
amphitheater near an airport or adjacent to a heavily traveled
freeway. The same is true of some types of single family resi-
dences, some types of schools, hospitals, and many other types of
land use.
[Showing of next slide in series.]
Many years ago we learned that we had to prohibit most kinds
of development in flood plains subject to frequent and severe flood-
ing. Now is the time to consider similar land use control in areas
where noise is a problem.
[Showing of next slide in series.]
The lands need not necessarily remain vacant. Most commercial
and industrial activities can be made to conform to a noisy en-
vironment. Many other types of activities can be accommodated
through proper site location, building design, and acoustical treat-
ment.
Sometimes the local officials who control land use, planning,
and zoning are not aware of the potential noise in these situ-
ations. In other instances they are subject to local pressures
which are difficult, if not impossible to resist.
Transportation officials must continue to cooperate with local
officials, informing them of potential areas of incompatibility, and
helping to plan compatible activities. In addition, a national land
use policy, with built-in incentives to localities is needed to in-
sure compatible land use development.
The Congress has directed the undertaking of some enormous
tasks with the enactment of the Federal-aid Highway Act of
1970. One of these tasks is the development of guidelines to
assure that adequate consideration is given to the social, economic,
and environmental effects in the Federal-aid highway program.
[Showing of next slide in series.]
One of the specific effects the Congress wanted included is
noise. In addition to guidelines, the Congress asked for the
development and promulgation of noise standards to assure that
-------
96
future Federal-aid highways would be compatible with various
types of land use. Each of these efforts is well underway and
there should be no difficulty meeting the July 1, 1972 deadline
established by Congress.
[Showing of next slide in series.]
There is great potential in the guidelines and standards efforts
for further increasing the highway program's responsiveness
to the current concern for the environment. However, great
care must be taken to be certain that they are not so severe
as to cause a serious impediment to the highway program. We
must seek that balance of control, flexibility, and pragmatism
which will be effective in reducing the effects of noise and
still permit construction of the highway improvements which the
public expects.
[Showing of next slide in series.]
The noise guidelines are expected to be a procedure for analysis
of noise impacts. Included in the analysis would be: (a) Deter-
mination of existing noise levels, (6) inventory of noise sensi-
tive land uses or activities, (c) prediction of anticipated noise
levels from the proposed highway project, and (d) study of
noise abatement alternatives. The results of the analysis would
be furnished to the decisionmaker together with the analyses
of other social, economic, and environmental effects to provide a
more comprehensive basis for making highway decisions.
The noise standards are expected to be numerical noise levels
(in decibels using the A-weighted scale) for various land uses
and activities. There will be different values for day and night,
and there will be both average and peak noise levels. Since many
activities take place primarily indoors, and since there is wide
variation in types of building construction (causing wide vari-
ation in sound transmission loss) different values will be pro-
vided for both indoors and outdoors.
[Showing of next slide in series.]
There are several opportunities available for control of noise
during the development of a highway project. During the loca-
tion studies, the potential noise impact of each alternative aline-
ment can be determined. From a noise standpoint, the alinement
having the least noise impact should be selected. In other words,
if all other effects were equal, the one having the least noise
impact should be selected. Of course all other effects are seldom
equal, which makes final decisions difficult. The important
thing here is to provide the decisionmaker with the greatest
possible array of social, economic, and environmental effects
(including noise impact) so that the final decision will be a
better informed one. In addition, advantage should be taken
of terrain and natural and manmade barriers to shield sensitive
areas from noise.
[Showing of next slide in series.]
The purchase of highway rights-of-way offers an opportunity
to acquire wide buffer zones on either side of highway. A rela-
tively wide buffer area would be required, so it is rather obvious
that this approach is limited to those instances where land is
undeveloped, fairly inexpensive, and where noise sensitive
land uses might someday intrude, so that the houses that you
-------
97
see here with the red X's [indicating] would never get built—not
that we would advocate acquiring those homes.
The design of a highway offers additional opportunities for
control of highway related noise.
[Showing of next slide in series.]
The advantages of a depressed roadway can be considered.
It is unlikely that any roadway would ever be depressed solely
to obtain a reduction in noise. However, if a depressed roadway
is being considered for other reasons, it should be recognized
that the noise level could be reduced by at least half.
The same noise level reduction can be obtained by construct-
ing a noise barrier at much less cost.
[Showing of next slide in series.]
To be effective, the barrier must intercept the line of sight
between the noise source and the recipient. The barrier could
be an earth dike, a masonry or concrete wall, or other solid
massive material. Not many of these barriers have been con-
structed, but some of those which have are very effective and
attractive.
[Showing of next slide in series.]
Landscape plantings are an aesthetic asset to almost any
highway setting. A screen of plantings offers psychological
benefits (out of sight, out of mind), but very little actual noise
reduction. Dense plantings 300 to 500 feet in width can reduce
noise levels by half.
[Showing of next slide in series.]
Some noise reduction can be obtained by avoiding steep
roadway grades and by holding their length to a minimum.
The use of "quiet" pavement surfaces can also provide noise re-
duction, but on high-speed freeways, there may be adverse
effects on safety.
[Showing of next slide in series.]
The accomplishment of all the foregoing measures will not be
sufficient to solve every noise problem. New acoustic materials
are needed for highway work. They must be durable, attractive,
economical, and easily cleaned. In some cases (tunnel linings)
they must also be able to reflect light.
We need to find a way to get truck exhaust stacks closer to the
ground so that low barriers will be more effective. We need to
develop pavement surfaces that are both quiet and safe.
Finally, we need a last resort capability, which could be used
when all other techniques are inadequate or uneconomical. Pos-
sible approaches might include authority to purchase noise ease-
ments or noise rights, the outright purchase of a property,
or installation of noise insulation.
[Showing of next slide in series.]
One way to sum up the main items previously stated is to
give a recipe for "QUIET."
"Q" Quiet vehicle manufacture.
"U" Uniform numerical noise level laws for States and
localities.
"I" Improved land use control.
"E" Evaluation of noise in development of highway projects.
"T" Techniques not yet available.
-------
98
It should be readily apparent that the highway program and
the administrators, engineers and other professionals who con-
duct it cannot administer this recipe alone. Help is needed from
other agencies (both government and private), from industry,
and from concerned individuals. We intend to do our share in
the highway program, and ask you to do yours.
Dr. MEYER. Thank you very much for an illuminated and
illuminating presentation. I would like to ask you if you can
make it available to us, either Xerox copies or some copies of
those illustrations, so they may appear with the printed form
of the transcript.
Mr. RUPERT. Surely.
Dr. MEYER. If it's at all possible, I think that they add a
great deal to your presentation, sir, and I would
Mr. RUPERT. Surely.
Dr. MEYER. Like to have them in the record that goes to
Congress."
Mr. RUPERT. All right.
Dr. MEYER. Panel, any questions?
Professor KERREBROCK. Is it part of your concern to ask
whether a highway should be built in the first place, or should
be replaced by some form of mass transit—and if not, whose is it?
Mr. RUPERT. At the present time this is a responsibility of
primarily the State and local governments. We operate largely a
grant—in fact, entirely a grant and aid program. We do require
that any, that before we can approve any project in an urbanized
area, that that project must be based on a comprehensive,
cooperative, continuing transportation planning process which
has been established in all urbanized areas, and this process
is made up by representatives of State and local governments,
which make their recommendations as to the transportation fa-
cilities that they feel are needed in that particular urbanized area.
Professor KERREBROCK. Will you then, in the future, require
that noise be a consideration in that preliminary decision?
Mr. RUPERT. In the transportation planning process?
Professor KERREBROCK. Yes.
Mr. RUPERT. This will be a part of our guidelines
Professor KERREBROCK. OK.
Mr. RUPERT. On noise.
There will be sections in the guidelines on planning and on
project development after a decision is made to go ahead with
the project.
Mr. HINTON. Mr. Rupert, I thought your presentation was
excellent. I am really impressed that the highway administration
has such a good handle on this particular problem. I was wonder-
ing, are you, in fact, doing these things today, requiring that
there be this kind of design consideration made?
Now I notice you were concerned about the effect of the high-
way construction and operations subsequently on the surround-
ing areas, and you mentioned building code ordinances, or
sound insulation in structures bordering the highway, which
I think is a natural requirement, but I don't know of any where
this is being done except maybe you might be able to tell us.
* This material is on file at the Office of Noise Abatement and Control.
-------
99
Mr. RUPERT. Well, I might mention that we have really just
recently gotten into this program, the whole noise business.
In fact, I think this is pretty much true nationwide of all
programs.
To date we have done very little that is concrete, and the
whole thing really has the full impact of—it has hit us in the
last 6 months, since the passage of the Highway Act, and the
Congress has forced us to move, and we have recognized that
we can't do it all alone, and if the highway noise problem is
going to be licked, then most of the items that I have mentioned
in my recipe have got to be tackled.
Mr. HINTON. I would think there is a tremendous incentive in
the provision of highway funds for the State or county, or
whatever is doing the highway construction, to take into account
these other factors, as an incentive to get the Federal funds.
Mr. RUPERT. Except usually the highway funds are adminis-
tered by the States, and the land use control is administered local-
ly. Now, the localities derive from powers from the State, and
I guess ultimately you could go that route. It might put a lot
of people in very much of a bind.
Dr. MEYER. Anybody else? Well, thank you for a very, as I
said, illuminated and illuminating presentation. I look forward
to working closely with you. I presume that when you said you
didn't have much in concrete, you were talking about noise
matters, not highways.
Mr. RUPERT. That's right.
Dr. MEYER. Our next witness is Mr. William Carey, the
executive director of the Highway Research Board for the National
Research Council, who will describe briefly what is going on
under a very aggressive effort in this area of noise. Glad to
have you here, sir. I am sorry we are a little late, but I am sure
you understand our problems.
Mr. CAREY. It's quite all right.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM N. CAREY,
HIGHWAY RESEARCH BOARD
I am William Carey of the Highway Research Board.
Thus far today, testimony has been directed to the specific
problems of transportation noise, and to potential solutions in-
volving technology, regulation, legislation, and the like.
My assignment has been to explain something of the Highway
Research Board, its position in the transportation community, its
activities related to environmental problems—particularly noise—
and its availability as a potential home for certain types of
activities that don't readily fit elsewhere.
I think this information, which is included in some detail
in my prepared testimony, may have some value to the Panel
when it is making its in-depth considerate studies of matters,
but the general public in an open hearing, I believe others have
more information of more urgent interest.
Further, as it will be clear, I am not in any sense an authority
on noise, but rather cover, thinly, if you will, the entire field
of transportation research.
The scope and activities of the Highway Research Board of
the National Research Council are described. As one of many
-------
100
areas of involvement the Board has concerned itself with trans-
portation noise. Several projects have been undertaken by the
Board in this area. One, Transportation Noise Research Infor-
mation Service involves a computer-based information storage
and retrieval system and the preparation of syntheses. The
national cooperative highway research program has completed
several projects: One on measurement and simulation of noise,
one on effects of highway landscape, one a design guide for
highway engineers and one on legal implications of noise. The
Board's potential for additional work in this area is described.
I have been asked to explain something of the Highway Re-
search Board, its position in the transportation community, its
activities related to environmental problems, particularly noise,
and its availability as a potential home for certain types of
activities that don't readily fit elsewhere.
The scope of the Board's activities is quite specific and quite
broad. It states that the Board will:
Give attention to all factors pertinent to the understanding, devising and
functioning of highway and urban transportation systems and their interrela-
tionships with other aspects of total transportation. It will concern itself with
the planning, design, construction, operation, maintenance, and safety of
facilities and their components; the economics, financing, and administration
of the systems and their interactions with the physical, economic, legal, and
social environments they are designed to serve.
Less formally, that means we are to concern ourself with every
aspect of highway and urban transportation and their inter-
actions with other modes of transportation and other social
and economic institutions. We are not involved with air traffic,
intercity rail, maritime affairs or pipelines, except as they inter-
act or interface with highways and urban transportation.
The Highway Research Board is a unit of the National Re-
search Council, which is the operating arm of the National
Academy of Sciences and the National Academy of Engineer-
ing. The Academy is a nongovernmental, nonprofit organization
chartered by Congress over a hundred years ago to advise the
Government and others on all matters of science and technol-
ogy. Within the Academy structure, there are several units with
concern for the environment; perhaps the most widely known
is the Environmental Studies Board that prepared the report on
the airport in Jamaica Bay. Many other Academy units are
involved one way or another. I am prepared to discuss only the
Highway Research Board.
Traditionally, the Highway Research Board, which is now 50
years old. has served as an information transfer agency and
correlation service primarily in the field of highway research.
Continuing support for its activities comes from the 50 State
highway departments, the Federal Highway Administration,
and the Urban Mass Transportation Administration of the
Department of Transportation, and hundreds of governmental
agencies at all levels, industries, universities, and individuals
in this country, and roughly 60 foreign countries. The bulk
of the support for regular technical activities, about 80 percent,
comes from the first-named agencies—the State highway depart-
ments and the U.S. Department of Transportation.
-------
101
Regular technical activities include field visits to highway de-
partments, universities, industrial organizations and others by a
staff of highly competent professionals covering all facets of
highway transportation, during wich information as to problems
and potential solutions is exchanged. Also included are meetings
and seminars on a wide variety of transportation-related tech-
nical subjects, an extensive committee structure, involving some
120 committees and panels, with over 1,800 members from gov-
ernment, industry, universities, et cetera. This activity includes
a library, and an extensive computer-based information storage
and retrieval system that covers quite comprehensively Ameri-
can and foreign transportation research literature that relates
to highways and urban transportation. This information system
also includes coverage of some 9,000 ongoing research projects in
our field of interest in the United States and some 58 other coun-
tries. Another feature of this program is the publication of some
13,000 pages of technical reports and papers each year. I report
these things to insure that you understand that transportation
noise, or in fact, transportation vis-a-vis the environment, are
important but relatively small parts of the overall Highway
Research Board's activities.
In addition to the 50-year-old regular technical activities
of the Highway Research Board, we maintain two other di-
visions that are involved in contract research work. One of
these is our Division of Special Projects under which we per-
form in-house research work under contract to government
agencies and others. The other is the national cooperative
highway research program that we administer for the State
highway departments. In this program the research work is
subcontracted to outside agencies.
In its special projects division, the Board undertakes work of a
type particularly suited to the National Research Council. It does
not compete with the research community at large, in fact, it will
only propose on a sole-source basis. Much of the work in recent
years in this Division has involved the development of information
systems. Included is the highway information system mentioned
above, a transportation research information system for DOT, a
safety information system, a maritime research information sys-
tem, and a transportation noise information system about which
we will speak later. The information activities of this Division
involve worldwide international exchange. The Board is the Ameri-
can center for a very extensive international network on transpor-
tation research information.
In the national cooperative highway research board program,
the board subcontracts about $2.5 million per year of research on
a wide variety of problems. The problems are selected by the
sponsors, the State highway departments. Once problems have
been chosen, the Highway Research Board advisory panels write
requests for proposals, review proposals, select research agencies,
monitor the research, and review final reports. This program has
been in operation for roughly 8 years; to date, some 176 research
projects have been undertaken at an overall cost of $19 million;
117 reports have been published. Some of the work has been in the
area of highway noise. I will discuss it later.
-------
102
I have taken so much of your time to describe the gen-
eral nature and functions of the Highway Research Board in
order to place in context our activities related to transportation
noise and because I believe that there may be other environ-
mental concerns where transportation is involved that would
lend themselves to study within this organization. The Na-
tional Research Council and its units have a reputation for
objectivity and freedom from bias that makes them ideally
suited for work in which many Government agencies must
sit down together and in which men and women from widely
different disciplines can talk to each other freely and openly.
No empires are built here. Good people are attracted to serve
on Research Council committees and they concern themselves
with the issues. I do not suggest that there could not be some
other place where these things could happen—only that I know
from personal experience that they do happen in the National
Research Council and in the Highway Research Board. Of
course, I know that there have been exceptions where all was
not sweetness and light; perhaps they were needed to prove
the rule.
Now in the framework that I have described, I would like to tell
you about the specific activities of the Highway Research Board
related to transportation noise. One important project that is
being done in-house under our Special Projects Division is the
Transportation Noise Research Information Service (TNRIS).
The TNRIS program involves the creation of a computerized in-
formation storage and retrieval system containing resumes of
research projects, abstracts of research reports, articles, and other
documents related to the general subject of transportation noise.
New additions to the TNRIS information file are reflected in the
semiannual HRB publication called "Transportation Noise Bulle-
tin." The first or developmental issue of the "Transportation Noise
Bulletin" was published during March of this year and received a
very favorable response from people in this country and abroad
who are working on the transportation noise problem. Regular
publication of the "Transportation Noise Bulletin" will begin
on a semiannual basis this fall. A copy of the developmental
issue has been filed with my testimony. This issue is out of
print, but the complete file will be reproduced in the first
regular issue this fall.
Another function of the Board's Transportation Noise Research
Information Service is to draft and disseminate special informa-
tion synthesis reports on selected aspects of transportation noise.
The reports seek to define the state of the art of the subject matter
covered by the synthesis study and to provide a benchmark for the
implementation of policies and procedures. The preparation of the
first of these synthesis studies on transportation noise is cur-
rently under way. It deals primarily with motor vehicle and
traffic noise measurement. Additional synthesis studies on other
topics are contemplated.
The various activities of the Transportation Noise Re-
search Information Service are guided and assisted by the
Board's Advisory Committee on Transportation Noise. This
special committee is composed of 11 experts in the transpor-
tation noise field. In addition to its advisory role with respect to
-------
103
the TNRIS program, it is charged with the responsibility for
developing recommendations for research and development ac-
tivities that may lead to the implementation, within the transpor-
tation community, of policies, standards, and procedures for
alleviating transportation noise. The recommendations of the Ad-
visory Committee are directed primarily to the Office of Noise
Abatement of the Office of the Assistant Secretary for Systems
Development and Technology of the U.S. Department of Transpor-
tation which provides financial support for the TNRIS program.
Another major activity of the Highway Research Board related
to noise may be found in the national cooperative highway research
program described above. You will recall that this program is ad-
ministered by the Board and supported on a continuing basis with
funds from the State highway departments. Over the past few
years, the NCHRP has supported several major contract
research efforts related to the general subject of highway noise.
One of these NCHRP studies dealt with highway noise measure-
ment, highway noise simulation and indices of human response to
highway noise. Also included in the report of this study are com-
ments on major motor vehicle noise sources and comments on
legislative attempts to control motor vehicle noise. NCHRP report
No. 78 on this project has been filed with the EPA and copies are
available at the Highway Research Board.
Several other NCHRP studies have concentrated on other
aspects of highway noise. One of these studies (see NCHRP re-
port No. 75, filed with the EPA and available at the Highway Re-
Research Board) examined the effect of highway landscape de-
velopment on nearby property by correlating highway design and
landscape treatment, property valuation and community interview
data with headlight annoyance, noise, vibration, and air pollution.
The study report concluded, not surprisingly, that truck noise is
the most objectionable highway disturbance to persons living next
to limited-access highways. Another NCHRP study reviewed the
legal implications of the valuation and compensability of highway-
generated noise, pollution, and other environmental factors. That
study concluded that under American law, there can generally be
no recovery for damages which are caused by highway-produced
noise, air, or water pollution—or other similar environmental
factors—unless a portion of the landowner's property is actually
taken for highway construction. This report has not been pub-
lished but a draft copy has been filed with the EPA.
Just within the last few days, the report of a fourth NCHRP
study of highway noise was released. This report provides a de-
sign guide for traffic noise prediction that is arranged in "cook-
book" rather than acoustical textbook form, so that the highway
designer with no experience in acoustics will be able to use it
readily and effectively. The design guide is intended to provide
the highway planner with a means for assessing how the introduc-
tion of a new highway will influence the noise environment near
the proposed highway and for assessing how people living or
working near the highway will react to the new noise environ-
ment. This report, NCHRP No. 117, is also available and has been
filed with the EPA. In addition to the report, a "highway noise"
tape recording has been produced to assist engineers in their
understanding of how different noise levels are heard, what the
-------
104
significance is of changing noise levels by various amounts, and
how motor vehicle noise varies with traffic flow conditions. Loan
copies of the tape recording, "Illustrative Recording of Traffic
Noise," are available on request from the Highway Research
Board.
Finally, a fifth NCHRP study of highway noise is currently
under way. At least in its initial stages, this study will involve
field evaluation of existing traffic noise reduction measures at a
number of specially selected sites around the country.
A third major activity of the Highway Research Board related
to noise is reflected in the work of the Board's standing commit-
tees in its regular technical activities division. As mentioned
above, these committees, which include within their membership
over 1,800 of the Nation's top transportation administrators, en-
gineers, social scientists, and educators, are engaged on a con-
tinuing basis in identifying and evaluating research needs and
findings. The committees also serve as a focal point for the
preparation and publication of papers and for the mutual ex-
change of information.
A number of these committees have become involved in recent
years with various facets of highway and urban transportation
environmental impact. A list of Highway Research Board com-
mittees that encompass the question of noise within their scope
would include, in addition to the Advisory Committee on Trans-
portation Noise mentioned above, the following: The Committee
on Social, Economic, and Environmental Factors of Transporta-
tion ; the Committee on Geometric Highway Design; the Commit-
tee on Roadside Development; the Committee on Environmental
Issues in Transportation Law; and the Task Force on Highways
and Environment.
Finally, a fourth major activity of the Highway Research Board
related to noise involves the Board's continuing program of
special meetings, workshops, and conferences. Earlier this month,
for example, the Board held a 3-day environmental workshop co-
sponsored by the American Association of State Highway Officials
and the Federal Highway Administration of the U.S. Department
of Transportation at the National Academy of Sciences building in
Washington.
The efforts of this environmental workshop were divided by
subject matter area among eight panels, one of which was devoted
to noise. The noise panel issued a report in which it discussed
draft guidelines on highway noise that had been prepared by the
Federal Highway Administration under the authority of section
136 of the Federal-Aid Highway Act of 1970. The noise panel also
made detailed technical recommendations concerning these guide-
lines and issued a number of general recommendations, including
a recommendation that Federal standards be set for motor ve-
hicle noise and that States be required, as a prerequisite for ob-
taining Federal-aid highway funds, to enact legislation which
adopts standards and which establishes an appropriate enforce-
ment program.
The noise panel also recommended that highway departments
should seek participation in cooperative planning and zoning
efforts with appropriate local authorities in order to prevent the
development of noise-sensitive land uses near highways. The panel
-------
105
suggested that State highway departments might seek State
legislation requiring vendors of property near highways to notify
prospective buyers of the existing and predicted future exterior
noise levels on such property, if these noise levels exceed the noise
standards to be established by the Federal Highway Admin-
istration.
The report of the environmental workshop is currently being
prepared and will be published by the Board later this year. In
addition, plans are now being made for a 3-day conference on
highways and the environment to be held next summer in Madi-
son, Wis. At this stage in the planning, it appears that noise will
again be a major subject for discussion.
In closing, I would like to thank the Environmental Protection
Agency for the opportunity to describe the work of the Highway
Research Board. Although I am not equipped to discuss the tech-
nical content of the reports of our research work that I have
mentioned, I would be pleased to answer any questions related to
the Highway Research Board, the National Research Council,
their methods of operation and their potential for work in these
fields.
EXHIBITS TO ACCOMPANY TESTIMONY OF W. N. CAREY, JR..
HIGHWAY RESEARCH BOARD
1. Transportation Noise Bulletin—Developmental issue, March, 1971.
2. NCHRP Report 78, Highway Noise—Measurement, simulation, and
mixed reactions.
3. NCHRP Report 75, Effect of Highway Landscape Development on
Nearby Property.
4. NCHRP study (unpublished), Draft Report on Legal Implications of
the Valuation and Compensability of Highway Generated Noise, Pollution,
and Other Environmental Factors.
5. NCHRP Report 117, Highway Noise—A design guide for highway
engineers.
6. The Highway Research Board—What it is and what it does.
7. Publications of the Highway Research Board.
8. NCHRP—Description of this program.
Dr. MEYER. Thank you very much, Mr. Carey, particularly not
only for your presentation, but for the material you have sub-
mit'ed, all of which we will incorporate in the record.*
Also I would like to request that we might be furnished, when
it becomes available, with a copy of the report on the 3-day con-
ference that you mentioned.
Mr. CAREY. Very well.
Dr. MEYER. We would like to, sometime in Washington, arrange
for our staff to get together with you so we might listen to this
tape, because we have had a lot of interest and inquiries directed
to us. Panel, any questions?
Professor KERREBROCK. I have one very quick question. Could
you estimate how much is spent on highway research in the United
States?
Mr. CAREY. On highway research, yes; the question was how
much is spent on highway research in the United States, and if
you exclude planning, of which by and large is an operational
matter, then it's only around $30 or $40 million spent by public
bodies. There is a good bit more spent by industrial organizations.
;t This material is on file at the Office of Noise Abatement and Control.
-------
106
It's interesting that just about the same amount is spent abroad
as is spent here, and all other countries.
Dr. MEYER. Thank you very much. Our next witness is Dr.
Starkman, but some members of my panel have requested that we
take about a 5-minute stretch break in order that they may stand
up and relax for a minute, and take care of any environmental
needs that they may have.
(Short recess.)
Dr. MEYER. Dr. Starkman, thank you very much for realizing
that we do have some human environmental problems in the panel,
sometimes, and I am very pleased to welcome you here to testify
before this group regarding the activities of a major segment of
the transportation industry relating to automobiles and heavy
transportation. We are grateful for your patience and under-
standing of the reason we are behind schedule so without taking
time away from you, sir, I will invite you to give your information
to us.
Mr. STARKMAN. Thank you, Dr. Meyer.
First we should correct that "doctor."
That "doctor" is neither earned or deserved.
I am Ernest Starkman, and vice president for environmental
activities, rather than engineering, at General Motors.
Dr. MEYER. We have some problems, sometimes, with getting
these typographical things correct.
Mr. STARKMAN. I have prepared a statement which has been
distributed to you. It's much too lengthy to take your time to read
in its entirety here, but what I will try to do is instead review the
high points of the statement extemporaneously, if I may, and then
I will ask, if you would like, that I answer questions.
Dr. MEYER. Yes, sir; your statement will be included in the
record, and as I mentioned earlier with other witnesses, the panel-
ists will be reviewing this material for the Government, and we
will be collectively reviewing it, so your time in putting it to-
gether has not been lost.
STATEMENT OF ERNEST S. STARKMAN, GENERAL MOTORS
Mr. STARKMAN. Mr. Chairman and members of the panel, my
name is Ernest S. Starkman and I am vice president in charge of
environmental activities staff for General Motors. I am here in
response to your invitation to discuss General Motors' efforts to
reduce noise from new motor vehicles.
General Motors welcomes this opportunity to comment on the
problems of transportation noise and its control. We have been in-
volved in product noise control for many years, and thus have con-
siderable experience in both interior and exterior quieting of a
wide range of motor vehicles, off-highway equipment, railbound
vehicles, and stationary devices of many sorts, as well as in test
and measurement methodology.
My comments today will be confined for the most part to those
areas specifically requested in the invitation to this hearing;
namely, the sources of noise from motor vehicles, the current
status of vehicle quieting, as well as the economic cost of meeting
various vehicle noise standards.
Much of my commentary depends upon and is measured by
existing noise test methods and existing or imminent noise regula-
-------
107
tion. My remarks do not necessarily mean that GM endorses these
methods or the regulations. We feel that there is a real need to
improve measurement and assessment techniques and to devise
methods which can be more representative of actual vehicle opera-
tion in the community. But first, let me turn to the various sources
of motor vehicle noise and their relative significance.
At this point I want to emphasize that for the moment we are
discussing technological considerations only; the role played by
economics will be discussed later.
Sources of Motor Vehicle Noise
Heavy Trucks
Since most of us consider heavy highway trucks to be a promi-
nent source of transportation noise, allow me to rank the sources
of noise from heavy trucks by typical sound and intensity, as fol-
lows : Engine exhaust, cooling fan, tires, engine and power train,
and aerodynamic and load noises.
Exhaust noise is the predominant problem for the trucks now
in use, but it can be controlled adequately, we believe, although at
some cost penalty to owners, to meet current noise regulation.
Exhaust noise on new heavy duty trucks and truck-tractors has
been controlled at the factory with mufflers designed for the truck,
as opposed to other mufflers which the customer may require in
his purchase specification. Consequently, exhaust noise on new
trucks as designed does not represent a significant part of the
problem.
As future noise limits are lowered, noise from the engine cool-
ing fan, which is now overridden by exhaust noise, will become
identified as a major source. However, the control of fan noise is not
as simple and straightforward an engineering problem as the ex-
haust. Consequently, we anticipate considerable added engineering
effort in the near future to determine how to accomplish this.
A conventional approach to reduce fan noise is to increase the
fan and radiator sizes and to turn the fan at a slower speed; how-
ever, for present truck designs, the fan and radiator are already
as large as can be accommodated practically, and any reduction
of fan speed would precipitate cooling problems.
Other control methods are now under experimentation, and
shrouding or ducting the fan appears promising. Unfortunately,
these alternatives will require more space and none is available
in the most popular tractor-trailer configurations used today.
These short-cab units have been designed to take advantage of
every bit of space to provide more payload. If the amount of space
which is necessary to minimize fan noise is used, it must be taken
from the trailer length.
At highway operating speeds, noise from tires is in many cases
one of the major sources of truck noise. The problem is further
complicated by the large number of tires mounted on typical high-
way trucks and truck-trailer combinations. In Michigan, for ex-
ample, many combinations run on 42 tires. The wide range of
tread designs produces a variation of noise-producing charac-
teristics involved. Even for the quietest designs, noise from the
tires alone at highway speeds can be about the same or even
-------
108
greater than the noise from all the other properly controlled ve-
hicle sources combined.
For comparison purposes, a conventional tractor-trailer com-
bination which meets 88 dBA under SAE test conditions with all
systems operating normally and with 18 "quiet" tires will produce
85 dBA even when coasting by at 50 m.p.h. with the engine off.
Most significant on the subject of tire noise is the fact that the
present so-called quiet treads do not have as much traction and
therefore as much safety in stopping as do the noisy and longer
lasting crossbar treads. Thus, lower noise levels at the moment
may be achievable, but perhaps at the expense of some safety.
There are several studies of this problem now under way by the
Society of Automotive Engineers, tire manufacturers, and under
Department of Transportation contract.
Mechanical noises from the engine and other power train com-
ponents will become significant when the other sources which are
now more prominent have been reduced. Particularly for diesel
engines, noise radiates from the combustion process and from in-
ternal mechanisms. As we testified at the Atlanta regional EPA
hearing, we have identified 12 separate sources of diesel engine
noise in research recently conducted at the noise and vibration
laboratory at our Milford Proving Ground in Michigan. As part of
the tests, experimental changes were made to the engine to explore
the possible methods of silencing each source. Although some of
the results show promise, no single change applied to these 12
sources made a discernable difference in total engine noise.
Gear engagement may lead to noises from the transmission or
differential assemblies, although this is typically not a problem at
our current stage of noise control and gear production methods.
Finally, at highway speeds, aerodynamic, or load noises—such
as rattling of chains or cargo—can be apparent, though typically
not a significant contributor to the noise level of most truck
operations.
The relative magnitude of the engine-initiated sources for a
large diesel-powered truck is shown on figure 1. The levels were
obtained during a standard passby test and are the maximum
values measured at a distance of 50 feet.
Alternatives for Truck Noise Control
Presently, available control techniques for exhaust noise are
sufficient to hold the maximum level to 88 dBA. By roughly
doubling the muffler volume and weight, exhaust noise can be
further reduced. At this point, the cooling fan noise predominates
and limits the level at 86 dBA. In experiments performed for such
purpose, we have found that by removing the fan entirely (and
with additional muffling), a level of 84 dBA can be obtained.
Under these circumstances, the noise level is essentially controlled
by other factors. It should also be remembered that tests to evalu-
ate these alternatives are conducted under SAE J366 procedures
which do not involve significantly tire noise at higher speeds.
Accomplishments on Trucks
In the area of truck quieting, General Motors installed larger
and more effective mufflers on all such vehicles in 1954. This
-------
109
program involved use of the so-called 125 sone standard. It was
the result of several years of study and development by truck
manufacturers and truck operators through their respective trade
associations. Under the program truck manufacturers sought to
improve new trucks with respect to noise. This gave new truck
purchasers an option to buy quieter trucks if they wished.
In 1967, California law required that new trucks meet a speci-
fied decibel limit, which although higher to begin with, is now
enforced at 88 dBA. GM trucks for California sale and use are de-
signed to comply with that limit.
In addition, General Motors has developed an optional package
which is now in use to provide a significantly quieter chassis for
refuse collection vehicles. This package comprises a muffler of
roughly double the volume of a standard muffler, a full-length
tailpipe, a more effective induction silencer, and acoustical treat-
ment and seals for the engine compartment.
Passenger Cars
For the largest single class of motor vehicles—passenger cars—
the ranking of noise sources is: Exhaust, induction, tires, cooling
fan, engine and power train, and aerodynamics. Although the
problems are somewhat different, control of these sources is much
like those from heavy trucks.
The relative levels for various sources on three different auto-
mobiles are shown on figure 2. These levels were obtained during
the standard passby noise test and are maximum levels at a
distance of 50 feet. It is apparent, in comparing data from these
three cars, that levels achievable through control of exhaust noise
vary widely among vehicles, as do induction and engine noise
levels.
Alternatives for Control of Passenger Car Noise
Using present technology, exhaust noise can be controlled to
meet presently existing noise regulations.
In the tests which produced data for figure 2, just referred to,
typically, one or two mufflers were serially added to these test
vehicles to reduce the exhaust noise, whereas induction noise was
controlled by larger and more effective air cleaners, which acted
as silencers.
While additional mufflers can be added experimentally for
special test purposes, incorporation of such additional devices on
production vehicles will add cost and necessitate redesign of the
vehicle underbody because of space and possibly some weight re-
quirements.
It is expected that cooling fan and engine and power train noise
will not be a special problem for passenger cars to meet the present
and near future requirements.
Noise emanating from the tire-road interface, which is the con-
trolling factor during highway cruise conditions is at somewhat
of a technical impasse at present. This impasse, again, is for
reasons of the traction-noise conflict discussed previously for truck
tire noise.
-------
110
Accomplishments on Passenger Cars
The range of noise levels for various operating modes of a
typical passenger automobile are shown on figure 3, levels for
cruise, or steady speed, conditions are seen to be much less than
those for full-throttle acceleration. Also, steady-speed noise levels
above 45 m.p.h. or so are controlled almost entirely by the tires.
For such conditions, present exhaust silencing appears to be
adequate.
Because vehicles with quiet interiors have an obvious appeal to
the purchaser, control of passenger car interior noise has been
a major concern for many years. It is felt that our passenger cars
represent no problem in this respect. However, this effort has had
a double benefit, for control of vehicle interior noise usually has
been accompanied by reduced exterior noise as well.
Again, our passenger vehicles sold in California are designed
and developed to meet the new vehicle noise law in effect there
for new vehicles, with many vehicles significantly below the
maximum levels specified. Also, the California standards, both for
new vehicle and passby tests, constitute a significant factor in the
design requirements for all General Motors vehicles manufactured
for sale or import into this country.
As a final observation on passenger car noise control we have
tested several models of our 1971 cars with dual exhaust systems,
which systems our customers can purchase as items of optional
equipment, depending upon the make and model. In most of these
cases, these cars have passby test noise levels of 80 dBA or less.
In such cases, it is clear that the additional noise reduction derived
from use of the dual exhaust system is directly related to the
additional cost to the purchaser of the extra equipment.
Buses: Controls, Accomplishments
Regarding buses, the order of significance of sources is: Cool-
ing fan, engine and power train, exhaust, and possibly tires. The
problems of control of these sources are the same as for heavy
trucks.
The recently developed environmental improvement package
(EIP) for our diesel transit coaches, which was demonstrated to
the Department of Transportation last year, although intended
principally for reduction of exhaust emissions and odors, provides
up to a 10-decibel reduction in interior noise levels. This package
comprises revised intake and exhaust ducting at the rear of the
coach, revision of the engine compartment, and slight modifica-
tions to the engine itself.
Having enumerated the various noise sources and what has been
clone to control them, let me next discuss the research and develop-
ment work being done at General Motors for further noise control.
Research Programs
Noise is certainly a major consideration in the evaluation of
advanced vehicle and powerplant concepts. Over the past several
years, General Motors has produced a variety of experimental
vehicles with unconventional powerplants: Stirling-cycle, electric,
hybrid gasoline/electric, steam and, currently, the rotary engine.
The noise emissions of each such experimental engine are the sub-
-------
Ill
ject of a close evaluation and study. Unconventional or different
concepts for exhaust silencing have also been researched, with
several designs currently under evaluation.
Engineering effort is also being directed to finding the lowest
noise levels possible with existing product designs. As mentioned
previously, control of exhaust and induction noise from new ve-
hicles, both car and truck, can be handled with present technology,
at least insofar as future reductions in noise levels now required
by law are concerned.
Control of radiated noise from the diesel engine itself still re-
mains a significant problem. Means of engine encapsulation or en-
closure, and structural modifications of the engine block, are being
investigated.
Similarly, the noise from the large cooling fans used on trucks
and buses is a problem of some magnitude. Investigations into
ducting and shrouding concepts, as well as new engine cooling
techniques, are being conducted.
Studies are being made into the noise-generation mechanisms
of tires, for both passenger cars and trucks, in order to devise
means for reduction of this particular noise source. At the present
time, however, it appears that traction and handling requirements
are inconsistent with noise reduction requirements of tires. There
may be additional tradeoffs and compromises in this area than
the ones presently seen. But as of today, even the interactions of
the varying factors about which we do have some knowledge are
not yet fully understood.
Economic Factors
Passenger Cars
Although in some instances the engineering methods have been
identified which are necessary to achieve the limited noise reduc-
tions discussed previously, the costs and other economic considera-
tions have not been defined. This is true of current models, using
known engineering methods to achieve the limited noise level re-
ductions now spelled out in existing law. It is even more true of
future models, where control techniques and hardware necessary
to achieve the extremely low noise levels being proposed and
promulgated by various State and local governments, are basically
unknown.
However, it is clear that the implementation of even known
technology to achieve lower noise levels on future models will in-
crease the price the consumer pays. This, we believe, is illustrated
by dual muffling systems on many of our 1971 models with 8-
cylinder engines which approach 80 dBA in a passby noise test.
This experience suggests that if 80 decibels is to be the objective
for passenger cars, then use of current technology, or dual ex-
hausts, on passenger cars is likely to increase costs to purchasers
significantly. While costs of optional equipment are not completely
representative of costs when the same item becomes standard
equipment, they are of comparative value. In the case of a Chevro-
let Impala, the dual exhaust option has a manufacturer's suggested
retail price of $30.55 (includes Federal excise tax).
Finally, it is also likely that replacement costs for such dual
systems will be greater than for the conventional single system.
-------
112
Added Cost Due to Air Pollution Controls
The added costs of mandatory air pollution control systems will
compound the costs made necessary to meet lower noise standards.
In addition to other controls, General Motors believes that a
catalytic converter will have to be installed on the exhaust system
in order to bring hydrocarbons and carbon monoxide within the
1975 Federal standards. Since exhaust emissions may have to
be processed through a catalytic converter in order to comply with
air pollution standards, it follows that dual exhaust systems for
noise control in turn are likely to require dual converters.
While the exact cost of these converters cannot be fixed at this
time, due to development work with catalysts which is now in
process, the magnitude of cost can be identified as significant.
The foregoing is true of mass produced passenger vehicles gen-
erally. However, there are two cases involving commercial ve-
hicles where limited price data are available for noise control
efforts by General Motors:
1. The environmental improvement package for 8-cylinder
diesel transit coaches is priced at about $373 (current prices
without Federal excise taxes) when installed on a new coach.
Retrofit to coaches in the field costs considerably more. To
convert a used 8-cylinder bus, the materials alone cost $1,300
(current prices without Federal excise taxes), and require
averagely 160 man-hours of labor to install.
2. The optional quieting package for the New York City
refuse truck chassis added about 1 percent to the price of the
chassis.
Obviously, this is not an appropriate yardstick to apply to all
noise-control measures on all vehicles.
Heavy Trucks
We anticipate that the noise level of almost all heavy trucks can
be reduced to about 82-83 dBA: (1) Using present technology,
(2) tested according to SAE J366 procedures which basically
evaluate vehicle noises and not tire noises, (3) if present State
lengfh laws for combination vehicles are liberalized, and (4) re-
quiring significant although not yet finalized additional costs. For
vehicles to be below that level, a new vehicle design and more
sophisticated silencing concepts with longer leadtime requirements
and higher costs will be required.
Costs of Use and Maintenance
It should be recognized that the total costs are more than just
those borne by the consumer at time of purchase. The additional
space or possible additional weight required by more extensive
noise control equipment and changes to associated components can
lead to reduced payload capacity and reduced roominess. Also, be-
cause of these factors, vehicle operating costs may increase. For
vehicles used in commerce, this increase in operational cost is
ultimately paid by the consumer. Finally, and equally important,
maintenance costs for all owners will be higher.
All such factors must be considered when determining the cost/
benefit ratio for increasingly restrictive noise level requirements.
Mr. Chairman, that completes my discussion of the items
specifically requested of General Motors. May I now discuss briefly
-------
113
some important aspects of the problem which are relevant to the
purposes of this hearing.
Responsibility for Noise Control
The problems of abatement of transportation noise cannot be
solved by any one group. They can, in our judgment, only be
solved through cooperative efforts of all parties involved: The
manufacturer, the operator, and the affected governmental bodies.
1. Designing and constructing a vehicle to meet the de-
mands of the market and the law are the responsibilities of
the manufacturer.
2. Operating the vehicle within the confines of common-
sense and concern for the citizenry, as well as maintaining it
for proper mechanical operation, are the responsibilities of
the owner and operator.
3. Necessary governmental activity ranges from local to
national and involves many different functional agencies:
Planners who arrange for the placement of transportation
systems within the populated environments, legislators who
provide both money and authority for establishing standards
which are essential for noise abatement, and finally, police
or other regulatory agencies who enforce the standards in use.
Because most vehicles are mass produced at one location and
sold for use in other States or throughout the country, it is ad-
visable that the manufacturer be regulated by only one noise
standard established at the Federal level and recognized by all
State and municipal governments. The alternative to uniform na-
tional noise standards would be the profusion of varying and con-
flicting State standards which would impose serious cost penalties
on the manufacturer.
In automotive safety and emission areas of regulation, Congress
has recognized this point and has sought to preempt the States in
those fields of law. It seems reasonable to us that preemption
should also apply in the field of noise regulation. However, there
are two cases in which State action is not only appropriate but
essential in the enforcement of either State or Federal noise
standards: (1) The periodic inspection of equipment in use, and
(2) enforcement of whatever passby or operator standards are
promulgated.
Having discussed who is responsible for transportation noise
abatement, may I now explain how General Motors recommends
the problem be approached.
Priorities
Necessarily, this must begin with a complete definition of the
problem. Much of the data for this definition is already available
and needs only to be coordinated, and examined to see what is yet
missing. With all this information, the major elements of the
problem can be identified, whether poorly maintained vehicles,
operators who blow their horns needlessly or cause tire squeal,
hotrods, trucks, motorcycles, or misplaced highways. This will
permit the establishment of priorities so that the most essential
control efforts can be taken first.
-------
114
Test Procedures and Regulations
Finally, any attack on transportation noise must be made on the
basis of valid test data and procedures. As I emphasized in the be-
ginning, General Motors feels there is a need for better and more
representative measurement techniques. Present statutory regula-
tions are structured around tests of new vehicles in near-maximum
noise emitting conditions—but as individual vehicles and at lower
than top highway speeds. And yet, one of the significant aspects
of the larger vehicle noise problem may not be controlled nor in-
fluenced by compliance with the current type of vehicle noise
regulation. I speak of the composite result of many vehicles oper-
ating at or near top highway speeds. The relatively high level of
environmental noise which comes from a heavily traveled express-
way may or may not respond completely to regulation of individ-
ual sources of noise on a given vehicle, or to maximum noise emis-
sion regulations of a given type of vehicle.
The effectiveness of individual vehicle regulation may also de-
pend upon a more accurate evaluation of what is meant by the
"annoying aspects" of vehicle noise, as opposed to noise that may
provide high readings on our measuring instruments and yet is not
annoying. I have purposely refrained from use of the term "an-
noying noise" until now, because it is subject to so many mean-
ings. However, I mention it here because it is an important part of
the problem and as such should be a key factor in any national
regulatory effort.
Research on this subject is nearly completed under sponsorship
of the vehicle manufacturers, by eminent noise specialists at Bolt,
Beranek & Newman. Thus, the attempt has at least been made to
identify the annoying elements of total environmental or collective
traffic noise. Hopefully, by process of elimination, the study will
also show those noises that are not annoying.
Once these data are available, they will offer guidance as to
which elements of vehicle noise may be critical to the public: (1)
When a single vehicle passes, or (2) when the environmental noise
of high traffic volume is present. When this has been established,
vehicle regulation may be prepared so that environmental noise
can be expected to respond.
Having said this, I still recognize the validity of trying to lower
the total traffic noise level by reducing the contributing share from
each vehicle. What I've suggested, is that regulating the individual
vehicle may not be valid to control all degrees of the collective
noise of high volume, high speed traffic.
Summarizing this point, it appears reasonable to us at General
Motors that the desire to reduce total vehicle noise, by whatever
method or approach, should not be directed: (1) To levels which
are below those established as the minimum in the environmental
sense, which can be influenced by individual vehicle performance;
and (2) when identified, to aspects of measurable noise which are
not annoying.
Conclusion
This presentation has touched only briefly on a few of the facets
of the abatement of transportation noise as related to the produc-
tion of new vehicles. While General Motors is vitally interested in
-------
115
finding solutions to the entire problem, of necessity our experience
has taken us only briefly outside of the new vehicle field. I have
endeavored to explain the sources of, and possible solutions to, ve-
hicle noise with both current and future appraisals. For what they
are worth, I have suggested methods of reducing vehicle noise
levels which General Motors believes to be technologically worth
considering. And, as requested, I have attempted to alert the panel
to the elements and magnitude of costs which ultimately must be
added to new vehicle prices and maintenance in order to achieve
lower noise levels. Finally, I have raised what appear to be serious
problems yet unresolved in the test and evaluation areas.
Because of the changes required to control vehicle noise, it is
unlikely that there will be substantial costs to be added to the price
the consumer must pay. Noise control is being considered to pro-
tect the environment, and from our experience, it seems unlikely
that consumers will voluntarily demand reduction in vehicle noise.
In order to achieve the objective, either consumer incentives to
purchase optional noise control equipment voluntarily will be re-
quired or, as in the case of air pollution and safety, Government
regulation which makes such installation mandatory.
At General Motors, we are appreciative of this opportunity to
contribute to these hearings. If you wish, Mr. Chairman, I will
now be happy to answer any questions that I can.
Thank you.
Mr. STARKMAN. Fortunately, Mr. Rupert covered some of the
points on trucks, and this helps quite a bit.
I think that General Motors is known to be a manufacturer of
many kinds of mobile, as well as stationary equipment, which
noise can be a consideration.
Today I am going to keep my remarks, however, on the matter
of transport equipment, road-based, if you will, trucks and motor
cars and buses, and because it has been pointed out, the truck in
the main seems to be a target for noise source, seems to be that
source of noise in the highway which most people are aware of, so
we will start with the truck.
The truck has, generally speaking, a number of important
sources of noise, the most prominent of which—and with which
you are familiar—the engine exhaust; second, the cooling fan;
the tires; the engine and power train as such; and then the aero-
dynamic and load noises. By "load noises" I mean noise created by
loose load or chains or other parts that connect the load to the
vehicle itself.
Exhaust noise is the most predominant problem, and in brief, ex-
haust noise can be contained, and it has been within the industry
—at least our corporation designs its trucks to accommodate the
laws existing in the State of California and applies these same
design principles and constraints to its vehicles throughout the
rest of the United States.
This means the provision of more muffling than might at first
have been the case had there been no restraints placed upon noise
from trucks.
One can go further in constraining the exhaust noise by adding
more mufflers, or larger mufflers, doubling the capacity, carrying
exhaust pipes to the rear end of the truck, and doing other things
with the exhaust which will decrease that intensity.
-------
116
Now, if this is done, then, the next predominant level of noise
that one hears usually is that from the fan.
As you know, the cooling system, the coolant cooling system on
a truck, the so-called radiator and fan are much more extensive
and closer to design limits in a truck than they are in a passenger
car, so if the fan becomes a source of noise, one has to look for
ways of decreasing that noise, and this involves reducing the
speed of the fan, or adapting the fan or reducing its noise through
ducting.
The other items which I have made reference to, particularly
that of tires, when one gets the fan and the exhaust under control
down to the limits where they no longer predominate, then the
next source of noise is tires, and here there is a real dichotomy, a
problem arises from the fact that with presently designed tires,
those tires which show the greatest traction or braking capability
also unfortunately seem to be those which make the most noise.
We are somehow going to have to solve this problem of pro-
viding both for safety and for low noise levels.
I think you are aware that some of the trucks, particularly in
the State of Michigan, have over 40 tires on them. This can be
quite a source of noise.
We are faced further by problems of the engine itself making
noise. I am not going to dwell on this because at your Atlanta
hearings you had someone from General Motors who discussed this
point specifically, but this would be fourth in order.
If one wishes to get into the 80-decibel range from trucks, one
can, however, get down into the mid-80-decibel range with con-
tainment of the exhaust system, and with some quieting of the
fan.
The buses have the same kind of problems as trucks. They could
be named in approximately the same order. There has been pro-
vided, particularly by the General Motors Corp., a kit, an environ-
mental kit, which is not only for noise, but for other reasons, that
attach to buses, and this serves also the quieting of the bus noise,
particularly for the inside, for the passengers in the bus, to the
extent of as much as 10 decibels in some of the retrofits that have
been made.
If you will turn to figure 1 at the end of the material I have
supplied, I think you will see there that if one eliminates the ex-
haust in a typical truck, say, that has a total noise output under
normal testing procedures, the SAE J366 procedure, one finds that
the total noise at an 88-decibel level can be reduced by containing
the exhaust to the order of about 86, where the fan becomes pre-
dominant, and when the fan noise has been reduced by eliminating
the fan, one finds, then, that the engine predominates; in this
particular truck, the level of about 84, so these are the present
technological capabilities with means we have on hand, although it
would take some investment to accomplish these levels.
Turning to passenger cars, of course, this constitutes the largest
single class of vehicles on the road.
The noise, in order of decreasing level of intensity, is first the
exhaust; then the induction system; the tires; again the cooling
fan seems to be about fourth in order, noise directly from the
engine, power train, and finally the aerodynamics of airflow
around the vehicle itself.
-------
117
The control of these is somewhat similar to control in the heavy
duty vehicles.
One can accomplish some decreases in the noise level from
passenger cars by applying more constraints upon the exhaust sys-
tem, and one thing you may be interested in is the difference be-
tween, as an example, a dual and a single exhaust.
By providing on the same vehicle and same engine a dual ex-
haust system, one can gain a slight bit in noise levels.
Now, I think you recognize that by doing so you have increased
the cost to the consumer, and this price on our vehicles is a dif-
ferential of about $30, if you can separate it out. It's difficult to
separate all these factors, but one cannot stop there and there
alone and say, "Well, fine, we will put dual exhausts on all our
cars."
At General Motors, at least, we think we are going to have to
have a catalyst on the exhaust system to control the vehicular
emissions for 1975 vehicles. If that be the case, the dual exhaust
system will require two units of catalysts, and you will see the
situation begin to multiply.
One also has to think ahead with respect to the placement of not
only a dual catalyst, but enhanced exhaust silencing system be-
yond the present kind of mufflers we have—perhaps a dual
muffling system on each exhaust pipe, and I guess what I am
saying is that we can gain quite a few decibels, as many as 7 or 8,
by going to complex silencing systems on vehicles. But the systems
do not look like what we have today. They are more complex,
more complicated.
I don't want to dwell too long—I said I would only take a few
minutes—I think that the consideration that General Motors has
with respect to the thrust of these hearings that are taking place
are numerous.
I think that in the main, General Motors would like to see a
unified system for establishment of limits on vehicular noise emis-
sions, rather than attempting to accommodate various and sundry
kinds of noise limitations from various parts of our body politic.
We are not happy with the present methods of determination of
vehicle noise. We think that perhaps the means by which we
measure noise, particularly from passenger vehicles, may not be
representative of the kind of reaction which the public, particu-
larly in the vicinity of throughways, multiple highways, may be
exposed to.
The determination, as an example, under SAE procedures, from
the noise from passenger cars may not be reflective of the kind
of noise which is generated by 10 to 100 passenger cars passing at
a particular point, and we believe, therefore, that there is con-
siderable development yet necessary in the area of means for
measurement, and instruments for measurement before we really
have a good handle on the problem of noise, and before constraints
are placed very tightly upon noise.
I think that I should close, and for emphasis, by saying that
anything which is done to lower the noise contribution from an
automobile should be done with full knowledge of what the other
sources of noise are contributing to the environment.
There are tradeoffs involved. One must take into account these
other sources, and I am not going to point fingers at other sources,
-------
118
but one can say, as an example, that the individual driver in the
way he operates his car makes a difference in the way the person
standing on the corner, or living in the house along the freeway,
will be exposed to that automobile, or that motorcycle, or that
truck, whatever it may be.
It's our function to build the vehicles. It's the function, we be-
lieve, of the Federal Government to establish the kind of controls
which should be established if they are to be established.
And finally, it's the function of the local political bodies to en-
force those constraints when they have been developed.
I thank you for the opportunity to appear here, and I am
opening myself, if you would like, to questions you may have, and
I hope I can answer them.
Dr. MEYER. Well, thank you, sir. I have a feeling that you are
going to get a question or two, and I certainly appreciate your
overview of this excellent prepared statement that you have here.
And in glancing through it I see it has a wealth of information
that is going to be most useful. I will now ask the panel if they
have any questions. Panel?
Dr. WHITCOMB. Yes. Thank you. I would like to open with a
series of questions to make sure that I am getting at the right
question ultimately.
Is it true that trucks are sort of an overriding source on the
highway? You hinted at that in the opening part, rather than
passenger cars.
Mr. STARKMAN. That appears to be the case. If someone sets up
a microphone 50 feet from a highway, the peaks in noise coincide
with the passage of trucks—sometimes motorcycles. It's very
seldom that the peak noises come from passenger cars, except un-
less you have a flock of passenger cars, and then an isolated
truck.
Dr. WHITCOMB. All right. My next question may take the
problem out of your domain and into someone else's
Mr. STARKMAN. I hope so.
Dr. WHITCOMB. Is it true that, what I have heard, that as you
go about 50 miles an hour with a truck, the intensity of tire noise
passes, and then becomes far dominant over engine exhaust, fan,
and every other noise form, so as you approach 60 or 65, which is
typically the speed limit, and typically the speed at which trucks
drive, tire noise is really the culprit, as you see it?
Mr. STARKMAN. It depends upon the load. If you are pulling a
heavy load—well, even pulling a heavy load, what you say is true.
It's more true with a light load, the tires are the predominant
source of noise at highway speeds, 55, 60 miles an hour.
Dr. WHITCOMB. So then, going back to an earlier point, you
said perhaps the method of measuring noise for vehicles ought to
be modified.
I presume we would, what we would agree with, then, is that
there ought to be some high speed measurement without pulling
a hill, or anything else, just going down an open highway at speed
limits of speeds.
Mr. STARKMAN. This is true. Most of our measurements pre-
scribed by the tests that are extant today involve a low speed
passby, or an acceleration from a reasonably slow speed, 30-45
-------
119
miles an hour, and these are not necessarily representative of the
heavily traveled throughway or freeway.
You are quite right, that is exactly what I am trying to say.
Dr. WHITCOMB. Incidentally, the VW might not fare as well
here, would it?
Mr. STARKMAN. I can't even comment. I don't know.
There is not necessarily a relationship between size and noise, as
evidenced by motorcycles.
Dr. MEYER. Just go on down the line, gentlemen.
Professor PLACER. All right. Mr. Starkman, I am sorry that I
haven't been able to read your paper carefully, as carefully as I
would like to. Let me sort of feel my way a little bit with you.
California requires certain noise abatement equipment on ve-
hicles and trucks sold in California—I believe it's an 88 dBA
standard; is that correct?
Mr. STARKMAN. It just so happens there are two sets of stand-
ards. I am, incidentally, an expatriate from the State of Cali-
fornia—I choose to call it the late great State of California since
I left it.
Passenger cars in urban areas are limited to 76 decibels
presently, and on freeways, 82; motorcycles, 82 in urban areas
and 86 on freeways; and trucks, 88 in urban areas and 90 on
freeways.
Professor PLACER. Is that the only State that presently has
noise standards of that type ?
Mr. STARKMAN. As far as I am aware, California, at the mo-
ment, is the only State which is enforcing noise standards of this
type. Now, there may be other standards that have to do with it's
too noisy or it isn't noisy enough, reflecting back again to the
subject judgments.
Professor PLACER. The old nuisance standards?
Mr. STARKMAN. That's correct.
Professor PLACER. And there are currently no Federal stand-
ards?
Mr. STARKMAN. As far as I know, there are some under—well,
you are charged with considering standards.
Professor PLACER. But there are none in effect?
Mr. STARKMAN. As far as I know.
Professor PLACER. Does GM have any particular difficulty with
meeting the California standards in terms of manufacturing, in
terms of state-of-the-art equipment?
Mr. STARKMAN. No; we are meeting them now.
Professor PLACER. You are meeting them now?
Mr. STARKMAN. With state-of-the-art, that is correct.
Professor PLACER. So that all vehicles sold in California do
meet those standards ?
MR. STARKMAN. That's correct. The SAE J366, which is a
standard specification is the standard which GM uses to make sure
that their designs conform to the 92—pardon me, to the 88 dBA
urban and the 90 dBA freeway.
Professor PLACER. Do you use that same standard—what is it—
SAE J366, do you use that same standard in building your ve-
hicles for other States?
-------
120
Mr. STARKMAN. Yes, we do. We design our vehicles to that level.
That does not mean that the operator has to buy the package
which is provided, as you will hear from others.
Professor PLACER. Well, now, cars furnished in California meet
those standards?
Mr. STARKMAN. That's correct.
Professor PLACER. There is no option with the consumer?
Mr. STARKMAN. That's correct.
Professor PLACER. Now
Mr. STARKMAN. Our cars and our trucks, both.
Professor PLACER. Cars and trucks as manufactured, as they
leave the manufacturer for sale in California meet those stand-
ards?
Mr. STARKMAN. That's correct.
Professor PLACER. This is—is this true in other States?
Mr. STARKMAN. Not necessarily so—and I would like to explain.
Professor PLACER. Yes.
Mr. STARKMAN. The truck user can specify the components
which he wishes placed upon his vehicle. It's different than the
passenger car, and often do, and the truck manufacturer who is
not constrained may choose not to buy the lower noise level ve-
hicle, for whatever his reasons—and there are reasons.
These systems do cost in fuel economy—not very much, but
enough where you are figuring pennies, and they do reduce the
power—not as much as you reduce the noise, incidentally.
You are probably aware that there isn't a parallel between noise
and power necessarily, but there is some small relationship. It is a
pressure drop one suffers when you put the muffler and the tailpipe
on a truck that didn't have one previously.
Professor PLACER. Well, I take it, then, that GM does not, on
its own initiative, provide noise abatement equipment in the same
way they provide fenders. In other words, the typical automobile
purchaser in Illinois has no option as to whether he gets fenders
or four tires or a roof, unless, of course, he is buying a convertible,
because GM imposes that on us, but GM does not take the step of
building into our cars, I take it, the noise abatement equipment
unless the Government imposes that on GM. Is that the posture
you are in?
Mr. STARKMAN. Not wishing to get into a difference of opinion
with you, it's not because GM says you must have fenders; it's
because the States say you must have fenders.
I would only again refer back to a previous speaker who said
that in the competitive situation of, say, heavy-duty vehicles, that
it is not to be expected that one manufacturer will place an item
on a vehicle at his own detriment in the competitive field, where
the other manufacturers will leave that item off, and given a
choice by the purchaser of a vehicle that has an emission contain-
ment system, a noise containment system which his particular
State, or the State in which he operates does not require, I think
that it might be illogical for GM to force that item on the
purchaser.
Professor PLACER. Would you think the same thing was true of
cars as well as trucks ?
Mr. STARKMAN. No; because the car buyer does not specify, in
the main, except in dual exhaust—I don't try to make the impres-
-------
121
sion here that dual exhausts were invented because they were
quieter; they were invented because one can gain more power
from the same engine with a dual exhaust system, but along with
this goes a quieter car, believe it or not, for the same muffling
system.
Professor PLACER. All right. Well—all right, let me be sure I
understand that. Are you saying, particularly with regard to
trucks, at least, that GM would feel no ogligation, as a corporate
body, to undertake equipping these trucks as a routine matter?
Mr. STARKMAN. No; to the contrary. GM tries to impress upon
the truck user that he should buy this system, and offers it up as
the usual thing, and it's up to the truck user.
Professor PLACER. But it's up to the truck user, except in Cali-
fornia, where State laws require it.
Mr. STARKMAN. He has no truck—the truck user in California
has no choice.
Professor PLACER. So if we want this equipment on our trucks
in Illinois or New York or wherever, the option is State regula-
tion, or Federal.
Mr. STARKMAN. Or Federal regulation, yes; or local regulation.
There are cities that have ordinances, too.
Professor PLACER. Now, let's talk about the cars for just a
minute. Is there any reason why the GM has a fair share of the
automobile market these days—I believe that is a fair statement?
Mr. STARKMAN. Yes, sir.
Professor PLACER. Is there any reason why GM cars couldn't
come automatically equipped, no options provided, with appropri-
ate noise reduction?
Mr. STARKMAN. For an increased price, yes, sir.
Professor PLACER. For an increased price?
Mr. STARKMAN. Yes, sir.
Professor PLACER. Could GM do this?
Mr. STARKMAN. Not and stay competitive in the field, no, sir;
not unless the other manufacturers did the same thing.
Professor PLACER. GM wouldn't want to assume that risk, and
then try to market that?
Mr. STARKMAN. Not only wouldn't want to, they couldn't and
stay compefitive in the field.
Professor PLACER. All right. On the question of staying com-
petitive, I notice you make reference to a dual exhaust option on
the Chevrolet Impala
Mr. STARKMAN. Yes, sir.
Professor PLACER. Which is one of the noise abatement things;
you indicate it as "a manufacturer that one of the problems is it
costs money staying competitive—you indicated as a manu-
facturer's suggesfed retail price of $30.55—this is on page 13 of
your statement. Would you tell us what the actual cost to the
manufacturer is of that unit?
Mr. STARKMAN. No, I can't tell you.
Professor PLACER. You don't know, or you won't?
Mr. STARKMAN. I don't know.
Professor PLACER. You don't know?
Mr. STARKMAN. No.
Professor PLACER. Could you find out for us ?
-------
122
Mr. STARKMAN. I kind of doubt it. I think that if you ask any
manufacturer of any product what his costs are for the product,
you would have a difficult time finding out.
Professor PLACER. In other words, one of the variables in why
you are not staying competitive is, perhaps, because the profit
margin in adding this kind of equipment runs it up too high?
Mr. STARKMAN. This I couldn't comment on.
Professor PLACER. All right. Thank you, sir.
Mr. HINTON. Mr. Starkman, I am interested in your paper also.
I wish I had a chance to read it fully.
Mr. STARKMAN. I apologize that we didn't get it to you.
Mr. HINTON. We didn't receive any of these ahead of time, so I
was interested to note that you have employed an acoustical con-
sultant—you, in concert with other manufacturers, in cooperation
with other manufacturers, to identify the annoying elements of
traffic noise, vehicle noise, and then you said:
Once these data are available, they will offer guidance as to which elements
of vehicle noise may he critical to the public, (1) when a single vehicle
passes, or (2) when the environmental noise of high traffic volume is present.
When this has been established, vehicle regulation may be prepared so that
environmental noise can be expected to respond.
I would like to ask you, don't you think it would be desirable, in
the interim, to develop the noise reduction techniques that you
know you have identified—the fan source, the engine source, the
exhaust source and so forth, to just go ahead systematically in
your design work, seeing if you can't find lower noise design
techniques?
Mr. STARKMAN. We routinely do this.
Mr. HINTON. I see.
Mr. STARKMAN. It's much better to have an idea of the character
of noise, or any other function you are investigating, and be able
to attack the problems in a rational way, I think, rather than
trying every kind of a blacksmith operation you can think up.
This works, and we have been very successful, and others have as
well, and bending iron until finally you get something that is
reasonable in its function, or optimized in its function, but it's
better to know why it got there, and this is what we are after, is
finding out fundamentally—we are not waiting for that, we still
are doing things that may not necessarily have all of the science
that we would like to have behind the development.
Mr. HINTON. Thank you.
Mr. MARTIN. Mr. Starkman, I think you mentioned here—but
just to clarify—is GM—and the same question applies to the auto-
mobile industry, automotive manufacturers in general, are they
for a uniform law, Federal law to cover trucks, vehicles, et cetera,
instead of what is becoming a hodgepodge across the country?
Mr. STARKMAN. I don't know, but I think they should be. I can
only speak for General Motors, and for General Motors, yes, we
want uniformity. We would much rather have uniformity than
diversity.
Professor KERREBROCK. There seems to be a noise floor for
trucks at about 85 dBA according to your diagram here, which is
set by the engine. I presume this is a heavy diesel engine?
Mr. STARKMAN. Yes.
Professor KERREBROCK. Yes.
-------
123
Mr. STARK MAN. I am sorry, most of the heavy-duty vehicles, or
ones that are up in the 50,000 to 76,000-pound gross vehicle weight
level are diesel-powered, and very few that are gasoline-powered
that I know of, and so this is diesel engine noise that after you
have taken care of the exhaust and the fan by appropriate means,
is the predominant factor.
Professor KERREBROCK. I presume that we have to face this
problem when trucks are passing through communities and so
forth, so that certainly, except on the expressway, that is a serious
problem.
Now, the question is, are you looking seriously at the potential
of the gas turbine for
Mr. STARKMAN. Yes.
Professor KERREBROCK. Lowering this particular level?
Mr. STARKMAN. The gas turbine is—I think you have read, in
the first stages of an effort to place it as an alternate powerplant
to the diesel engine, and heavy-duty vehicles. General Motors is,
through its Detroit diesel division, is working on this aspect of
powerplants. You are probably going to ask—I will anticipate—
is a gas turbine going to be quieter or more noisy than a diesel?
Professor KERREBROCK. Yes.
Mr. STARKMAN. It will have to be quieter when we are through
with it.
Professor KERREBROCK. Otherwise you won't build it?
Mr. STARKMAN. I think it would be inadvisable to build it if it
were not capable of being quiet, even though it might have other
attributes.
Professor KERREBROCK. How much quieter?
Mr. STARKMAN. We don't know yet. We are still working
with it.
Dr. MEYER. Mr. Starkman, in the absence of other legislation,
can I infer from what you said about your present policy, that you
consider the California law the most restrictive of the ones that
you now know of, and so most of your truck packages are designed
specifically against that requirement?
Mr. STARKMAN. That's correct. This is because it is really the
presently—I emphasize presently, because there are other efforts
underway to devise limits on noise, both from trucks and passenger
cars, and other entities, political entities; but at the moment we
design to the California limitation.
Dr. MEYER. So in effect, then, the national standard, insofar as
General Motors is concerned, is the California standard?
Mr. STARKMAN. It could easily be, if it were, became a standard,
we could meet it.
Dr. MEYER. But what happens if next week the city of New
York, or the city of Honolulu—I realize you don't ship a lot of ve-
hicles there, but let's say a place where you ship a lot—let's say
in the city of New York, which is a large market, comes up with,
as they are considering right now, perhaps a more restrictive one
than the California?
Mr. STARKMAN. It depends on how restrictive—if, as an ex-
ample, if it were 2 decibels more restrictive, we could meet this
with larger, heavier, and more costly exhaust systems. If it were
4 decibels lower, we would have to start doing something about
fan noises.
-------
124
Dr. MEYER. I have a question in accordance with the rules under
which we are operating; as you know, we don't allow questions
direct from the floor, otherwise we would have a debate rather
than a hearing, but I have a question submitted to me by an in-
dividual, which is a logical one to fit in with this line of question-
ing.
It is, do you feel that the automotive industry could meet the
Chicago Code for heavy trucks by 1975; namely, the 84 dBA,
you obviously already—it's measured at 50 feet—I think you have
answered that question.
Mr. STARKMAN. It would take considerable investment. Perhaps,
I am not sure.
Dr. MEYER. How about
Mr. STARKMAN. And we would then get into the matter of tires,
you understand.
Dr. MEYER. And also the question of 75 dBA by 1980, which is
in this law they distributed to us this morning.
Mr. STARKMAN. I personally would have difficulty in visualizing
what you could do to a heavy truck with the constraints of the
tires.
Dr. MEYER. In other words, there may be a law on the books of
the city of Chicago that is technologically impossible to meet?
Mr. STARKMAN. From our present knowledge, we could not meet
the 75 dBA with a heavy truck.
Dr. MEYER. In other words, you are saying that there is a need
for more research, then, both on the part of industry, for some-
body to see if this is technologically feasible in this time frame?
Mr. STARKMAN. Yes, sir; that is correct, if we take a truck, as
on the existing truck and run it by with its engine shutoff, which
means no fan noise, no engine noise, no exhaust noise, the pre-
dominating noise is from the tires, and it's well above 75.
Dr. MEYER. Well, we are, of course, going to have a witness from
the Rubber Manufacturing Association, who, I hope, will be able
to address himself a little bit to this problem.
Mr. STARKMAN. Yes. I would rather that he handle that
question.
Dr. MEYER. Yes. So the next part of the question, then, I guess
is relatively moot, which would be what percent of the total cost
would be involved in the meeting of the limits? At this point you
would be unable to say, I guess.
Mr. STARKMAN. No idea.
Dr. MEYER. Thank you very much, sir, for a most useful presen-
tation, and we look forward to working with you and getting more
information as time goes on. Thank you, sir.
Mr. STARKMAN. Thank you.
Dr. MEYER. The next witness, from whom we hope to hear an-
other viewpoint from the same industry, is Mr. John Damian, a
representative of Mr. Starkman's competitor, the Ford Motor
Co., who is present. And we welcome you, sir, and would like to
hear your views on this same subject.
Mr. DAMIAN. Thank you.
Dr. MEYER. Do you have a copy of your testimony?
Mr. DAMIAN. No. I regret right now I do not. This is my prin-
cipal one; I have been trying to cross out things as they came up.
Dr. MEYER. All right.
-------
125
STATEMENT OF JOHN DAMIAN, FORD MOTOR CO.
Mr. DAMIAN. Mr. Chairman, my name is John Damian; I am
vehicle regulations manager of the engineering and manufacturing
staff of the Ford Motor Co. With me is Roger Jeble, who is systems
engineer in our heavy truck engineering department.
On behalf of my company I want to express our appreciation for
this opportunity to present some of our comments on the subject
of noise, since Federal legislation will undoubtedly encompass ve-
hicles produced by Ford. I would like to make a few preliminary
comments regarding the regulation, particularly Federal regula-
tion of the vehicle manufacturing processes.
Vehicle manufacturers are now subject to two extensive and
comprehensive Federal regulatory activities; vehicle safety and
vehicle emissions. Emissions standards are promulgated by the
Environmental Protection Agency; safety standards by the De-
partment of Transportation. The addition of Federal noise regula-
tion would subject vehicles to a third set of standards to be de-
veloped by EPA. We support this additional form of regulation,
but we are concerned that when the regulatory pattern to be
established does come into being, it does not lose sight of the
problems which are inherent in multiple regulation, and to make
provisions for the solution of these—of those problems. One such
problem is the need for consistency or compatibility of regulation.
Since most vehicles sold in this country are mass produced, and
not custom built, regulations must be absolutely consistent with
one another. The fine tuning required to resolve even minor con-
flicts between regulation is simply not available to the mass pro-
duction manufacturer. For example, when confronted with emis-
sion requirements that may make noise regulation more difficult,
or even impede it—which is to take precedent? If catalysts are
effective for emission control but occupies space which sound
deadeners might otherwise occupy, would the Administrator of
EPA have the authority to set standards to recognize the con-
flicting demands upon vehicle design and performance, or must
the vehicle manufacturer undertake the colossal task of com-
pletely redesigning all of these vehicles at once ?
We would hope that the Administrator has that appropriate
authority, the authority to require that noise standards be effected
in a manner compatible with safety and emission control—per-
missive authority to set noise standards as research criteria and
findings on contributed—contributory sources are required, and
authority that insures that no other level of government be per-
mitted by its actions to frustrate this deliberate pattern of regula-
tion.
I have heard, with you members, some of the comments by Dr.
Starkman, so I won't get into them, but let's get into, for example,
one item, and this is the decibel. Because of the logarithmic nature
of decibels, they cannot be subtracted arithmetically; a one decibel
increase in the—decrease in the noise level of a single source
actually results in a 10.8 percent decrease in the sound pressure
level.
For example, California law presently sets a standard of 88
dBA for heavy trucks, and calls for a 2-decibel reduction, to 86
dBA for 1973, 2-dBA reduction will require a sound pressure level
-------
126
reduction of over 20 percent in the total vehicular noise. It must
be understood that the technology of measuring total vehicular
noise is in its relative infancy.
In recent years my company has tested vehicle noise in cor-
respondence with the Society of Automotive Engineers, which are
J986-A, relative to passenger cars and light trucks, and J366, so
I won't go into any more detail on those. Ford has long taken steps
to systematically reduce sound levels for both cars and trucks.
When I speak of sound levels, again I speak of total vehicular
noise. For example, in 1964 some passenger cars were in excess of
90 dBA. Now our passenger cars have been reduced to levels not
exceeding 86 dBA.
The current goal for all Ford passenger cars is to meet the Cali-
fornia requirements of 84 dBA for January 1, 1973. Now, truck
noise levels have also been significantly reduced from over 90 dBA
in some cases to current levels of 88 dBA. Again we project levels
of 84 dBA for January 1, 1973, which is the existing California
requirement.
I would be remiss if I gave you the impression that the January
1, 1973, levels will be easy to achieve. For example, in pur truck
lineup we have current units that present significant noise reduc-
tion problems for us, particularly the diesel-powered units.
We are currently considering noise suppression methods for
such components as the engine, the fan intake systems and exhaust
systems. Perhaps the most troublesome units will have to be
shielded with some kind of acoustical materials.
The solution of the problem will require action by both the en-
gine manufacturers and ourselves. Any regulations adopted should
recognize this problem of dual responsibility.
Tire noise is another factor which contributes significantly to
the total vehicular noise, particularly at higher speeds, so I won't
go into further comments about that. Popular belief to the con-
trary notwithstanding, in some cases we have found out that the
vehicle noise is not limited to the exhaust system, but in some cases
the vehicle—the exhaust system is not the primary source of ve-
hicle noise. You are now getting back now to the regulatory
scheme of noise control.
I would like to refer to specific aspects for your consideration.
This is based on our experience as manufacturers and distributors
of automotive products in which considerations which we believe
necessary to achieve maximum effectiveness with a minimum cost
to the public.
Since motor vehicles and other products that are likely to be
the subject of noise regulations are largely mass produced and
nationally marketed, it is important that the standards applied to
such products be uniform. For this reason we hope that EPA
will have such authority, sufficient authority to achieve a con-
sistent pattern of regulation, and that there be a satisfactory pre-
emption of other governmental bodies. If manufacturers are
subjected to differing standards, mass production becomes unduly
difficult and costly, if not impossible.
When I speak of the need for uniform standards, I include
therein not only decibel units within limits, but also the precise
test and test procedures by which the actual numbers are checked
and verified. If States are allowed to establish and force the same
-------
127
decibel levels as required by Federal regulations, but are free to
establish different enforcement procedures or test methods, there
is no uniformity, in fact.
Furthermore, the standards should precisely define its area of
productivity, so without concern the Administrator, the manu-
facturer, and the States are aware of the scope of the standard.
For example, it does little good to have a uniform Federal stand-
ard for a total vehicle noise if it is possible to have inconsistent
standards for the performance of mufflers or fans or tires, or any
of the other components that are incorporated in the new vehicle.
The new vehicular controls are not the only answer. In order to
insure that vehicles are maintained and operated within acceptable
noise limits, the States must take positive and comprehensive
steps in enforcing compatible noise controls in the operation and
use of the vehicle. We think that the adoption of compatible State
standards and enforcement programs is a very necessary part of
any realistic effort to control noise in our environment.
For the reasons discussed earlier, we think that the Administra-
tor should exercise maximum flexibility in achieving noise control
objectives with a judicial and legal protection limit, he should
have authority to decide whose noise properties make standards
necessary, what those standards should be, and the time frame in
which they should be applied.
We also endorse the establishment of criteria, the level at which
damage to human beings occurs, and the education of contributing
sources of noise, and the level of that contribution as a necessary
and practical preliminary to the establishment of noise standards.
We believe that the noise standards should be imposed where there
is a demonstrated need for noise control, and suggest that noise
abatement standards must be compatible with regulations govern-
ing environmental and safety features of various products in order
to assure that the standards can be met in an expeditious, orderly,
and efficient manner. They must pass the test of technical feasi-
bility.
In addition, the Administrator should consider the cost of com-
pliance in determining the substance and effective dates of the
standards. While costs need not be the paramount concern, surely
it should play a part in setting reasonable and practicable
standards.
We also suggest that the Administrator conduct cost benefit
studies as part of his procedures in promulgating regulation, and
that the results of those studies be published as part of the rule-
making process. Such studies should include statistical data sup-
porting the needs for the standards. Further, standards should be
issued in terms of performance levels that are to be achieved. This
permits our scientists and engineers to seek, on a continuing basis,
new and better ways of meeting the standards with resultant bene-
fits to both our environment and to the public. I should also note
that the measurement techniques are almost as important as the
standards themselves.
With compliance with standards—if compliance with standards
can be determined only through the elaborate, complicated labora-
tory procedures, they would not be practicable, since consistent
control, both in production and enforcement, would be virtually
-------
128
impossible. Moreover, repair would likely be difficult, since dealer-
ships and repair shops would be unable to purchase or operate
such equipment at their places of business. The promulgation of
standards should, for these reasons, be contingent on the avail-
ability of simple, reliable and easily used test procedures and
equipment.
I hope that my remarks today have given the members of the
committee some feel for the complexity of vehicle regulation in
general, and noise regulation in particular. The technology of
noise control is, in the field is in its relatively, relative infancy.
Measurement techniques is only in the early stages of develop-
ment, and standard setting and enforcements will be substantially
inaccurate, inexact until that technology improves.
Let me assure you that the Ford Motor Co. will continue to
cooperate fully with EPA and its representatives; in this light we
were pleased just recently to spend 2 days with Wyle Laboratory
representatives discussing a wide range of technical subjects and
the matter of noise, and I think with that, I will end my statement
to you, gentlemen, so I won't take up too much time.
Dr. MEYER. Thank you very much. I especially appreciate the
comments that you made calling to our attention your views re-
garding not only the need for uniformity of standards, but what
needs to go into the standards and regulations, because this really
is a matter of deep concern to the agency. It's one in which such
forthright statements as yours is important to us, and it's im-
portant that we have this sort of thinking, so we can work toward
coming up with meaningful approaches to this. Panel?
Professor KERREBROCK. What fraction of heavy vehicles are re-
placed every year?
Mr. DAMIAN. I am afraid I couldn't answer that. Roger, do
you know?
Mr. JEBLE. No, I couldn't answer that, either.
Mr. HINTON. I would just like to have a copy of your statement,
Mr. Damian.
Mr. DAMIAN. When I get back and put it in editorial form—I
have been crossing out, in an effort to save some time for you, I
will do it.
Professor PLACER. Is it Damian?
Mr. DAMIAN. Yes, not related to Pythias.
Professor PLACER. I thought your statement was a very good
one. I liked the tone of it very much. It's a tone of positive co-
operation and recognition of a problem we all share. Let me be
sure I have got a couple of things straight; it's sort of hard to catch
everything orally like that. I understood—I take it that your com-
pany meets the California standards with regard to vehicles that
are now being sold in California?
Mr. DAMIAN. Yes, sir.
Professor PLACER. That is a self-evident question, isn't it? Did
I understand you to say that it was your goal to meet those stand-
ards for all your vehicles by January 1, 1973 ?
Mr. DAMIAN. Yes, sir.
Professor PLACER. Now, what does that mean ? Does that mean
you will provide an optional package, or does that mean all your
vehicles will have those qualities as manufactured?
-------
129
Mr. DAMIAN. Let me perhaps go into a little detail on that.
Our passenger cars, having better ideas, are going to be the same,
and are the same.
Professor PLACER. What do you mean "the same?"
Mr. DAMIAN. In other words, the exhaust system that we pro-
vide for California we provide for the rest of the country today,
our passenger cars.
Professor PLACER. As a matter of basic construction?
Mr. DAMIAN. That's right, sir.
Professor PLACER. It's not something the purchaser has to
specify?
Mr. DAMIAN. No, it's not, that's right. He has no choice. He
takes the quiet package.
Professor PLACER. How interesting.
Mr. DAMIAN. Now, in the heavy truck line, our standard exhaust
systems are the California systems. In other words, if you buy a
truck in California you will get an exhaust that is just like the
truck that you buy in Illinois, or some other place, our heavy
trucks.
We do have a small group of very light vehicles that do not
have the California muffler all over the country. They are options,
and we provide those in the various areas; we provide them to the
owner if he wants them, period, and secondly, if he, obviously if
the areas that have noise control regulations, they are provided in
those areas mandatorily. This would be Chicago; this would be
Colorado; this would be areas of that sort. There are about nine
laws on the books now.
Professor PLACER. Now, what was the meaning of the January,
1973, date?
Mr. DAMIAN. Oh, in the current California law there is a regula-
tion that applies to vehicles built after January 1, 1971, and to
vehicles built after January 1, 1973. That is the current California
law. This is the current law, for example, in some other areas that
have adopted regulation, or adopted laws similar to California, so
we are working our—I was going to say something, but we are
working toward the establishment of a structure that will meet
the January 1 deadline.
Professor PLACER. For all your vehicles?
Mr. DAMIAN. Yes, sir. Now, we—yes, go ahead.
Professor PLACER. Are you going bankrupt or are you staying
competitive?
Mr. DAMIAN. Well, that is another area that I wish I could re-
spond to.
Professor PLACER. It's sort of a rhetorical question.
Mr. DAMIAN. Yes.
Professor PLACER. I take it you are able to stay competitive
and do this?
Mr. DAMIAN. Well, we are No. two now, whatever that gives
you.
Professor PLACER. Was—what is your comment on Mr. Stark-
man's statement that GM could not meet the California standards
as a matter of basic equipment and stay competitive, presumably
with Ford?
-------
130
Mr. DAMIAN. Well, I don't know, because Mr. Starkman I guess
is in the same boat that I am. We don't make the decisions about
that sort of thing. We simply work in the technical end and try to
do it. I don't know that GM's policies are that far from policies
that I would even like to comment on—I wouldn't know how to
comment on them.
Professor PLACER. Would it be fair to say this is apparently
a management decision rather than an economic decision?
Mr. DAMIAN. I couldn't even put myself in that
Professor PLACER. I wouldn't ask you to comment on that.
Mr. DAMIAN. Thank you.
Professor PLACER. Thank you, sir.
Dr. WHITCOMB. One very brief question; what constitutes a
heavy truck? What is the limit? We have heard 50,000 to 80,000
—is 80,000 the number limit?
Mr. JEBLE. No, 6,000 pounds and above, heavy truck by noise
standards and emission control.
Dr. WHITCOMB. Up to what?
Mr. JEBLE. Oh, it can go almost to 100,000 pounds with combina-
tions of trailers.
Dr. WHITCOMB. Is there a highway limit?
Mr. DAMIAN. Yes, there is an interstate limit.
Dr. WHITCOMB. Is there much of a correlation between weight
and noise?
Mr. DAMIAN. Yes, there would be, as Mr. Starkman mentioned
before.
Dr. WHITCOMB. Is it reasonable that one way of controlling it
would be either weight limiting or another consideration, tire
noise might be speed limiting, to get down to the extreme peaks
of freeway noise?
Mr. DAMIAN. Perhaps that is a point that might be considered.
In other words, States could possibly consider the operational
mode of vehicles.
I think Mr. Starkman pointed up very eloquently in terms of
speed—in other words, the higher you go, you introduce additional
noises. Tires, I imagine, would be one.
Dr. MEYER. Thank you very much, sir. We are pleased that you
are here. Again, as I said, I offer our apologies, but I am glad you
are all so understanding and willing to carry this important pro-
ceeding forward. We will call now on the representatives from the
Chrysler Corp., and we apologize to you, too, sir, for the delay.
STATEMENT OF TED SHREVES, CHRYSLER CORP.
Mr. SHREVES. I might add, my name is Ted Shreves. I am with
the Government regulations—Government relations staff, Chrys-
ler Corp. in Detroit. I have with me today Mr. Bill Scott, who is
manager, sound and vibration department in our corporate engi-
neering department.
We presumed, being third here, that anything we might say
would be sort of redundant. We would be repeating what GM and
Ford had said, and having briefly read Mr. Starkman's statement,
of GM, and Mr. Damian of Ford, they did pretty much cover the
same ground.
I wanted to make one observation, and then what we thought we
could do, if you have any questions, we would try our best to get
the answers for you.
-------
131
Our one big concern at this point is that we don't sacrifice safety
and air pollution for noise. This could be very easy to do in the air
pollution area something to do; in the air pollution area, of course,
one of the critical items is the exhaust system, as it is with noise.
In safety, when you are talking tires, you could probably reduce
the noise emission from tires, but at the same time you could
probably be reducing the braking ability of the car, the traction of
the wheels to hold the road, the control and so on, so I am only
suggesting and hopeful that you will consider it very carefully in
setting noise standards.
Dr. MEYER. Well, I think that I should respond to that before
asking the panel if they have some questions, and I can imagine at
least one or two of these questions in advance. One of the reasons
the Environmental Protection Agency was created, of course, was
to pull together some elements of the Federal Government that
were scattered around dealing with the different concerns and
considerations of the environment. So you can rest assured as an
element of the Agency, the problem of interrelationship and sys-
tems approach to environmental concerns will be given attention.
We have, as a matter of fact, been working with those concerned
in the Office of Air Pollution Control on the question of joint
monitoring systems as an example, or integrated noise and gaseous
contaminant monitoring at certain locations. So I want to assure
you that within the Environmental Protection Agency this sort of
recognition already exists, and will continue to exist, and that we
also are deeply concerned with all aspects of responsibilities of our
sister agencies in the Government. I am glad you brought this up.
Mr. SHREVES. It's encouraging to hear that.
Professor PLACER. Mr. Shreves, some of us who, I suppose are
the consumers of the world, are doing our part to keep the econ-
omy going, and would rather not have to turn all the time to gov-
ernment, Federal, State, or otherwise in order to be able to
consume products that do not degrade our environment. We look
to corporations for leadership and responsibility.
We just heard from two; one corporation, Ford, apparently has
made a management decision to try to do something- about noise
problems without having to be beaten over the head nationwide.
The other corporation, General Motors, seems to maintain its
historical position—which we are all familiar with—in the safety
area. I was wondering if you would care to comment on what
Chrysler's management position is with regard to this item.
Mr. SHREVES. Well, I don't know that we have a stated position
at this point on noise, or the very definite commitment on noise.
I do know that recently—maybe you are aware of this—we have
established—and your vice chairman of the board, an office of pub-
lic responsibility which covers this entire area; this is a level in-
terest, possibly, that we didn't have 10 or 15 years ago, and I think
it shows that with a very—that we are very definitely committed
in all areas of responsible social responsibilities, environment,
jobs, training, problems in the city and the whole thing, I would
think.
Professor PLACER. Are you
Mr. SHREVES. We are doing approximately the same as the other
companies, for example, yes.
-------
132
Professor PLACER. How about for the country?
Mr. SHREVES. I believe ours are the same. I believe our passen-
ger cars are the same nationwide.
Mr. SCOTT. Our 1972 production passenger cars will all be the
same.
Professor PLACER. In other words, the California standards will
be in effect; you will be producing the same noise abatement
package uniformly?
Mr. SHREVES. That's right.
Mr. SCOTT. That's right.
Professor PLACER. What about the 1973 California standard?
Mr. SCOTT. Yes, we will continue to build cars only one way.
Professor PLACER. Only one way?
Mr. SCOTT. Yes.
Professor PLACER. How about trucks? I commend you for that,
but how about trucks?
Mr. SCOTT. Trucks, you know, and I think this has been at-
tempted to be said several times today, are sold not always as a
complete vehicle, but as, really, a component of another vehicle so
that our customer who orders from us a set of components, which
he then makes into a total vehicle. Now, in various stages—and
we deliver some vehicles without even a cab on them, they can be
made into a motor home, perhaps, so that the customer determines
what they buy. Yes, with every one of our powerplants we offer
an exhaust system to meet the California requirements.
Professor PLACER. Thank you.
Dr. MEYER. Again I have to emphasize this, because it's im-
portant to the Federal Government's role, I will ask you the same
question, even though I already know the answer: You are going
to make all your production for passenger cars meeting the Cali-
fornia standard, but suppose between now and the time that you
are scheduled to do that—and some of us here know a little bit
about the production lines, and the fact that they have to be
scheduled, and tools and dies have got to be not only bought, but
delivered—between now and then that a large consumer area to
which you provide large numbers of vehicles, sets a more stringent
standard and it becomes effective at the same time, and says they
will only give you a year to perform. Will you then manufacture
all of the vehicles in the United States to that standard? Or will
you devote a particular production line in a plant near that, since
we know you have other assembly plants to assemble them
specifically for that area rather than try to meet the requirement
across the nation on a most restrictive city or State code ?
Mr. SCOTT. We ought to not make a hypothetical decision today
which we cannot make for you.
Mr. SHREVES. Also it depends on what the item was. It's possi-
ble something could be made and put on by a dealer in Chicago or
somewhere else. These would probably be made available in the
market; if it's an engine design, or new engine, new body style or
something like this, we couldn't possibly do it.
Dr. MEYER. From a technological viewpoint, assuming the noise
is from a system of tires, transmission, chassis, body, if you will,
even windows, gear trains, exhausts, it's a unit that is assembled,
and once it's assembled it now becomes a composite source of
noise, you would have to have, in effect, either a vehicle built for
-------
133
the system, a transportation system built to the most restricted
one, or a number of vehicles built to meet a variety of systems for
specific market areas, wouldn't you?
Mr. SHREVES. I would, if I understand you correctly, I believe
that is a fair statement, and at times we have had to produce cars
that are a little different in one area than in another.
Dr. MEYER. So you have had some experience in the industry of
doing that?
Mr. SHREVES. We have had—we prefer to make them all the
same, obviously.
Dr. MEYER. Thank you very much. Anybody else on the panel
have a question?
Professor KERREBROCK. You mentioned the possibility of a
couple of technical conflicts; one is the conflict between air pollu-
tion or emission control and noise control, and I would like a
clarification of what—of that, if you could, if the conflict is only
with regard to total cost of the system, then maybe no explanation
is necessary.
Mr. SHREVES. Well, we, as of this moment, we don't know how
we are going to meet the Federal emission control standards as set
out by the 1970 Clean Air Act. We have talked in terms of catalytic
mufflers, and afterburners, and things like this. When we got done,
in order to meet that Federal standard in 1975, I am just saying it
could be a possibility that the noise, and for the present day ve-
hicles could go up—maybe it could go down—we don't technically
know now.
Professor KERREBROCK. But you plead for a sane choice if there
is a conflict, and another question I would like to ask is
Mr. SHREVES. Then I think we have to weigh the priorities,
whether it's a noise problem is more important or the air pollution
problem is more important.
Professor KERREBROCK. Specifically what you are asking for, I
think, is that the Government make a reasonable choice between
these conflicting alternatives, or conflicting requirements, if a
choice has to be made; the question is, is Chrysler Corp. prepared
to make its knowledge in both of these areas public ?
And I would ask the same question with regard to tire noise.
You see, you plead for not choosing quiet tires if they are slippery.
Do you have the information on which such a choice could be
made? And is it in the public domain?
Mr. SHREVES. I don't think we have a great deal of data on that
particular point, no. I think I am getting really into your area of
friction, and the tread that grips the tires. Now, they could
possibly be made, say, narrower, with less tread on them, this
type of thing, so you wouldn't get as much contact with the road
surface. This would not be desirable.
Professor KERREBROCK. I am aware that the Department of
Transportation has an interest in this, and may be doing some
work with you. Is there information within the auto manu-
facturers or the truck manufacturers which should be available to
the Government when it attempts to set these standards?
Mr. SHREVES. I don't believe so.
Mr. SCOTT. There is very little information from the automobile
manufacturers about the design characteristic of tires. We are a
user of a supplier.
-------
134
Professor KERREBROCK. So that these comments about noise ver-
sus antiskid properties are more or less subjective rather than
quantitative ?
Mr. SCOTT. I think they may be more than that. We obviously
have a dialog with our suppliers. We are obviously concerned about
the constraints that will keep us from meeting various levels, and
tires have to be one of those constraints, particularly in a truck.
They are obviously not a maximum noise constraint in an automo-
bile, but in a truck they are, as has been mentioned here today, so
we are in dialog, and we do know that the minute we request the
quieter tire we run into the traction and the braking, so that that
is it.
Professor KERREBROCK. Do you mean by that that they provide
you with numbers on the traction of the tires as a function of the
noise?
Mr. SCOTT. We are very interested—you know, we don't get a
tire that comes labeled but we are very interested in a traction
capability of a tire because it affects braking, very directly, and
to meet the brake standard you have to have a tire that will give
you added traction.
Professor KERREBROCK. So then—I am still trying to get the
answer to the question, which is whether you have numbers which,
with which you can make a trade-off between noise and traction.
Mr. SCOTT. We don't have numbers available now, but I think
the National Bureau of Standards, through their testing, is
putting together the data that would make it possible to put num-
bers on at least classes of tires, and then there are data that would
be able to put traction numbers on classes of tires. Yes, it could
be put together.
Dr. MEYER. Thank you very much. I hope Mr. Kigin, from the
Rubber Manufacturers Association, when he becomes the anchor-
man and puts the show on the road, so to speak, will have some
comments on this. Thank you very much, gentlemen. I appreciate
your approach here. I would like now to ask Mr. D. W. Renzel—
or rather I would like to ask Mr. Richard G. Kolb, representing
him, to talk about a subject that the other manufacturers have
alluded to but that not very many people are aware of. And that
is the fact that the heavy truck is a unique animal, or unique piece
of equipment, and does present some problems with regard to the
setting of standards, and I think it's most important that the
panel, as our advisors, has a better understanding of this problem.
Thank you very much, also, for your patience and for preparing
this fine statement.
Mr. KOLB. Thank you, Dr. Meyer.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD G. KOLB,
HEAVY DUTY TRUCK MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION
Mr. KOLB. Ladies and gentlemen, my name is Richard Kolb. I
am director of engineering and technical services, Heavy Duty
Truck Manufacturers Association, Washington, D.C. The organi-
zation which I represent is a nonprofit association of heavy duty
motor truck manufacturers and manufacturers of associated
equipment.
During the past 6 years, with Federal and State governments
as well as industry, much of my professional time has been devoted
-------
135
to the numerous engineering, technical and socioeconomic prob-
lems associated with effective pollution abatement, and noise
control. My Master's thesis was based on noise reduction from in-
ternal combustion engines, and I'm presently on the Western High-
way Institute's Subcommittee on Vehicle Noise.
On behalf of the association and its membership, I appreciate
the opportunity to appear here today and present our views, com-
ments, and suggestions. Let me state unequivocally that we are
concerned with environmental systems management and the pro-
tection of the people, as well as the surroundings. We are in agree-
ment with and support environmental protection, as well as man-
agement and control of automotive noise for the benefit of the
public.
We agree that noise pollution is severe and something must be
done. But, limits should be legislated which are based on docu-
mented evidence.
In the area of vehicle noise, more specifically from diesel pow-
ered vehicles, there are three speed zones which have to be con-
sidered: idle, below 35 m.p.h. and above 35 m.p.h.
At idle, the major noise sources are combustion noise and
mechanical noise. Below 35 m.p.h., the sources are: Exhaust,
mechanical, fan, air intake, body and cargo noise. Above 35 m.p.h.,
tire noise is added to the aforementioned list.
Recently, we have seen published reports which indicate that
86 dBA is possible with "at most, a change in muffler." From my
own experience, and recently published Society of Automotive
Engineers' reports, the muffler is only one part of a complex
acoustic system. It is unrealistic to predict, let alone expect, the
performance of the entire exhaust system to be based solely on
the muffler response characteristics. The entire system must be
included, which means the manifold, exhaust pipe, muffler, tail
pipe and turbocharger. Similarly, the complete analysis of the air
intake system involves more than the air cleaner.
As another example, the following article was published in
the October 1969 issue of Automobile Engineer.
Cheswick and Wright Ltd. in England reduced the noise level of
a passenger car, with no reduction in power, by reducing the muffler
volume by 50 percent. Although this does contradict established
theory, it does show that quantified tests, not results based on
theory, is the only way to determine practical limits.
To further illustrate the problem, the Western Highway Institute
report entitled Fundamentals of Noise and Vehicle Exterior Noise
Levels, reports the following:
The relative noise levels from four major noise components from one
type of diesel engine were recorded as:
Decibel
Exhaust 86
Mechanical 82.5
Fan 82
Air intake 79
The total overall noise measured by a sound level meter was 89.5 dB.
The total noise level analytically computed from all the components was
89.3 dB, which shows excellent correlation (89.5 versus 89.3) between actual
measurement and analytical methods.
They then analytically eliminated the exhaust and mechanical
noise (albeit, an impossible solution in real life). The total noise
-------
136
level would then be only 83.8 dB. A reduction of only 5.5 dB by
eliminating completely; exhaust 86 dB and mechanical 82.5 dB,
noises? This should clearly point out the problem involved in at-
tempting to reach lower overall vehicle noise levels.
Our membership continues to expend large amounts of money
for research, development and testing to reduce noise from internal
combustion engines. The examples I've presented indicate the prob-
lems the manufacturers face. However, let me assure you they are
diligently working toward and will continue to reduce overall ve-
hicle noise. But, the road ahead is a slow one, the largest noise
reduction possible is already in effect. New research and techniques
will reduce noise, but at a much smaller rate. Some of the proposed
noise levels cannot be expected to be reached with current tech-
nology.
Currently, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration
has Docket 69-2 pending, which will increase the horsepower of
heavy duty trucks for highway safety. If approved, this docket
will effect an increase in the vehicle noise level. On the other hand,
the Environmental Protection Agency is anticipating reducing
further, the pollutants from diesel powered vehicles. Information
from manufacturers indicate that larger displacement engines, with
the same horsepower rating as today's engines is the most likely
answer to meet future EPA emission standards. In effect, this
would assist in holding down noise pollution. However, if the stand-
ards from both agencies must be met, then we can expect larger
engines and higher noise levels.
It is also quite possible that the National Highway Traffic Ad-
ministration's Motor Vehicle Safety Standard 121 will affect high-
way noise. This standard sets a stopping distance which all vehicles
must meet. However, stopping distance is a function of highway
surface texture, tire tread pattern and brake lining friction coef-
ficient. We may have, in the future, higher noise levels from vehicles
just due to a change in some of the aforementioned factors. We
have also heard that passenger cars and heavy duty trucks should
both have the same noise level. Unfortunately, engine noise is a
function of power and displacement. No one expects that the same
power is necessary to haul 60,000 pounds as 6,000 pounds, at equal
speeds. On the other hand, one way to reduce noise is to have the
trucks reduce their speed, however, this will increase the irrita-
bility of the passenger car driver, traffic jams and dramatically
affect our economy. Realistically, we should not expect equal noise
levels from passenger cars and trucks.
In the area of Federal legislation, it is our conviction that one
law, nationwide, will be in the best interest of all concerned. With
the advent of the interstate system, our economy can ill afford to
have 50 or more different State or city laws and ordinances on
noise control. It would appear that Federal legislation in this field
should preempt all proposed and presently enacted noise legisla-
tion, whether it be city, county or State level. Further, we would
endorse, that EPA also set noise standards, again preemptive, on
equipment already in use and that a reasonable time limit be set
before older equipment has to be replaced. The best estimate on
the current life span of heavy duty trucks is about 10-15 years.
Gentlemen, our country is called the United States, 50 individual
States united together to form one. Let us have one law, which
-------
137
is uniform, nationwide and federally sponsored whenever it con-
cerns the safety, health and welfare of the people.
Thank you for your attention.
Summary
Vehicle noise emanates from combustion, intake, mechanical,
fan, tires, body, cargo and exhaust sources. Indications are, that
future reductions will probably be at a lower rate than in the past,
and some of the problems associated with further reductions have
been presented.
Some of the questions that must be answered are: What reduc-
tion is practical with today's technology? How will future safety
regulations affect noise? How will further reductions affect our
economy ?
We also see a need for one Federal regulation, nationwide, not
only on new vehicles, but also on older vehicles.
There are some attachments to my testimony.
Dr. MEYER. Thank you very much for an excellent discourse on
this problem, and also for at least alerting my office to another
Federal agency's pending consideration on the matter of interest
and concern of our collective responsibilities, which certainly we
will want to talk with them about. The attachments will be in-
cluded with the record.*
Before asking the panel, I note that you make the statement
that some of the proposed noise levels and some of the legislation
apparently cannot be expected to be reached, and this has seem-
ingly been the expression of several other witnesses. What is the
principal problem, in the lack of technology or is it a complex
Mr. KOLB. It's a rather complex problem. It's not a simple
problem. It, as some of the other people before me testified, if
you quiet one area, then another area crops up. If you quiet that
one, another one comes in; you almost don't see the end of the
line.
Dr. MEYER. Panel.
Dr. WHITCOMB. Do you see any relief in going all the way to a
completely new design in the next 10 years which might incor-
porate something like a jet engine for trucks?
Mr. KOLB. I really am not in a position to say anything on that.
I would say it would depend—what are the people willing to
pay for?
Dr. WHITCOMB. And then a second point, somewhere along the
line in your presentation you mentioned the English study.
Mr. KOLB. Yes.
Dr. WHITCOMB. That was where a muffler was reduced by 50
percent in volume, and without reducing power, did reduce the
noise level, contradicting established theory.
Mr. KOLB. That's right.
Dr. WHITCOMB. You mean established theory for mufflers is the
bigger the volume the less the noise?
Mr. KOLB. That is correct.
Dr. WHITCOMB. Without resonating or any other effect?
Mr. KOLB. Even taking the resonating frequencies into account,
this is what the theory says; you go to a bigger volume, you
should reduce the noise.
'•' This material is on file at the Office of Noise Abatement and Control.
-------
138
Dr. MEYER. Thank you very much, sir.
Next I would like to ask Mr. Roger Ringham, International
Harvester Co., who appeared before our panel in Atlanta and has
given most useful information about one of his organization's
interest, to come forward.
Mr. RINGHAM. This is Mr. Richard L. Staadt, who is our chief
product development engineer in our truck division.
STATEMENT OF ROGER F. RINGHAM,
INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER
Mr. RINGHAM. As I mentioned in Atlanta, we are a multidivision
company, with our divisions somewhat autonomous, and particu-
larly in the line of trucks we are probably the closest to it of
any of our operations. Dick is a good spokesman for that subject.
We have prepared our presentation, and Dick will present it.
Dr. MEYER. You may proceed.
Mr. RINGHAM. Thank you. International Harvester Co. manu-
factures and sells on and off highway transportation equipment;
that is, a full line of utility passenger vehicles and motor trucks
ranging from a small four-wheel drive vehicle to large over-the-
road semitrailer diesel tractors and on-off highway oil field and
constructor trucks. Our truck division operations produce an al-
most limitless variety of vehicles in that many options of engines,
drivelines, cabs, suspensions, frames, et cetera, are offered.
Today we would like to review typical truck noise, its sources
and measures involved in controlling truck noise. Finally, we
would like to comment on the overall approach to legislative con-
trol of highway vehicle noise. Most comments will be directed
toward large diesel-powered units which compared to lighter ve-
hicles produce more noise and are of most concern to the public.
We should point out that the small passenger-utility vehicles are
presently limited to 86 dBA at 50 feet and the larger units are 88
dBA maximum to conform with existing regulations of some
States and cities.
We would like to review a cross section of our product line.
Dick.
Mr. STAADT. By the way, as brought out earlier, the California
law does have provisions for a tightening of this requirement in
1973. The present is 88 on heavy vehicles and 86 on light, and
in 1973, starting January 1, 1973, this has dropped 2 dBA in
each case, makes the heavy vehicles 86, and the light 84.
[Showing of first slide in series.]
This is our smallest vehicle—the Scout. It is available as a two-
or four-wheel drive vehicle; however, generally is sold as a four-
wheel drive for recreational and utility use, on and off the
highway. Engines offered include four-cylinder, six-cylinder and
V-8. The Scout is built at our Fort Wayne, Ind., plant.
[Showing of next slide in series.]
This is the Travelall which is a heavy duty station wagon used
for recreation such as trailer towing, family transportation, or
for business use in the panel version. Six-cylinder and a full line
of V-8 engines are available.
[Showing of next slide in series.]
The IH pickup line—available in a full range of sizes, two- and
four-wheel drive, six- and eight-cylinder engines. The Travelall
pickup line are manufactured at our Springfield, Ohio, facility.
-------
139
[Showing of next slide in series.]
This is the Loadstar line for general light commercial uses,
either as a semitrailer tractor or straight truck shown here.
V-8 gasoline and light-duty diesels are available in this line built
at our Springfield, Ohio, factory.
[Showing of next slide in series.]
The Cargostar is a cab over engine version of the Loadstar.
It features unusual maneuverability for in-town delivery opera-
tions.
[Showing of next slide in series.]
The Fleetstar is a medium duty line with in-line diesel (as
opposed to V-configuration) engines. Principally an over-the-road
tractor manufactured at Fort Wayne, Ind.
[Showing of next slide in series.]
The CO Transtar line is a cab-over-engine long-haul tractor.
This model is built at Fort Wayne, Ind., and San Leandro, Calif.
It accommodates seven basic diesel engines, three cab lengths, and
approximately 14 exhaust system arrangements. Each of the many
combinations of these components requires a separate noise con-
trol development. This variety is typical of all heavy duty model
lines.
[Showing of next slide in series.]
The conventional Transtar is the long-hood version of this
series. This vehicle is used as on or off highway vehicle, featured
with a wide line of diesel engines. Again, this model is manu-
factured both at Fort Wayne and San Leandro.
[Showing of next slide in series.]
The 210-230 series is an extra heavy on-off highway vehicle.
In addition to the mixer configuration shown here, it is also very
popular in oil field special applications.
Let us now get to sound levels.
Highway sound levels are measured per SAE recommended
practice J-366. This procedure involves maximum noise under
35 m.p.h. as would be experienced by an observer 50 feet from
the road. To produce maximum noise the vehicle is at full accelera-
tion at maximum engine speed.
Sound levels on our small vehicle, namely the Scout, Travelall,
or Pickup are a maximum of 86 dBA at full engine speed and
acceleration under 35 m.p.h. Under these severe conditions, the
engine exhaust and possibly cooling fan are the predominant
sound sources. Under normal part throttle cruise conditions, the
noise levels are quite low and characterized by tire and wind
noise. Only in the case of poor maintenance or alteration of the
exhaust system is noise from small vehicles a problem with an 86
dBA requirement (J-366).
The criteria for regulations must reflect test conditions and
procedures specified for verification of compliance. For example,
when considering regulation levels for manufacturers, care should
be taken not to base full throttle, full engine speed requirements
on observed part throttle cruiseby levels.
Vehicles which contribute the most to highway noise are the
large diesel powered trucks. Several noise sources are inherent
in these units:
1. Exhaust noise—Here we mean noise at the muffler or
exhaust pipe outlet.
-------
140
2. Cooling fan—The fan moves large quantities of air
through the radiator against quite high restriction.
3. Engine air intake—The engine air intake emits noise
due to the pulsating air movement.
4. Engine mechanical and combustion—The sharp pres-
sure rise in the diesel combustion chamber results in noise
being radiated from the engine surfaces.
5. Tire and wind noise—This includes tire rolling and wind
noise plus other small noise sources.
The total sound emitted by a representative diesel truck in
compliance with existing regulations would be 88 dBA. This total
noise is produced by the above sources as shown in slide 10. Note
that several of the individual five (5) sources approach the total
vehicle level.
[Showing of next slide in series.]
Let's take a look at what happens if we completely eliminate
certain sound sources.
[Showing of next slide in series.]
For example, if we eliminate the 84 dBA exhaust noise by a
theoretically perfect muffler, the total noise level would only drop
to 86 dBA. This illustrates the fact that larger and better mufflers
alone are not the solution to heavy vehicle noise.
Similarly, if other single sources are eliminated, only a slight
drop in overall noise is realized. Since exhaust noise cannot be
eliminated completely, the only approach which can reduce over-
all levels is to lower all sources which individually approach the
level of the total. Such an approach was taken in the case of the
88 dBA vehicle in the foregoing example.
The measures employed were:
1. The cooling fan was run at a slower speed to reduce
fan noise and radiator size increased to offset the loss in
cooling air flow.
2. A larger, more efficient muffler reduced exhaust noise.
3. The air intake noise was reduced by an improved silencer
relocated from the side of the hood to the front to direct
sound away from observers.
4. Shields around the engine compartment now block en-
gine radiated mechanical and combustion noise.
The resulting overall noise level is now 86 dBA. It should be
noted that most of these modifications required considerable re-
design thereby making retrofitting extremely expensive if not
impossible.
We need to emphasize that not all vehicles respond to these
measures. Other models and engine combinations require redesign
of this degree just to meet the present requirement of 88 dBA
established by some States and communities.
We consider 86 dBA to be the next plateau in heavy truck noise
control. Major cooling fan development programs and further
engine shielding will be required to meet this level. To get below
86 dBA will involve extensive programs in engine and cooling
system redesign and development. This will involve several years
in time and is likely to reflect considerable increase in cost to
the user.
[Showing of next slide in series.]
-------
141
One additional factor at higher road speeds is tire noise. The
familiar high pitched whine in some cases overshadows the sources
discussed earlier. This noise is caused by certain tire tread designs
of the type shown in Slide 12, which either aerodynamically or
mechanically react with the road surface to produce noise. This
sound carries long distances, particularly as the vehicle moves
away from the observer.
[Showing of next slide in series.]
The relationship of high-speed tire noise to other vehicle-pro-
duced noise is shown in slide 13. Note that at low speeds tire
noise is not a factor with any tread design. But as speed increases,
the noisy tire contribution can become quite predominant, over-
shadowing other sources.
We feel the best way to regulate and minimize tire noise is
through control of tire tread designs allowed on the market. In
this way, offending tires could not be inadvertently installed as
replacements and would be phased out of highway use in a rela-
tively short time.
The relationship of maximum noise to normal operation noise
is different for small vehicles than for large vehicles. The power
to weight ratio for a passenger type vehicle is high enough that
normal operation is at light throttle. This lighter engine load
causes less sound than full throttle at maximum engine speed
(J-366) trucks. Their power is low compared to their weight.
The operator must operate the engine at maximum power, speed,
and noise level much of the time.
Regulations or sound limits for the vehicle user should not be
lower than those required of the manufacturer or user at the time
the vehicle was built. The operator, or manufacturer, for that
matter, has no means of making the vehicle quieter than it was
when originally built. As shown earlier, significant sound reduc-
tions by retrofit programs generally are not practical.
Regulations cannot be effective without proper enforcement.
Our experience in sound measurement has shown that there is as
much art and subjective judgment as science in this activity;
thus, we feel enforcement personnel must be trained in noise
surveillance and operate at the carefully selected sites which are
required for accurate readings.
As we previously indicated, our products are sold nationwide,
and in fact, worldwide. It may be a long time before there are
international standards for noise control. But we do hope that
within the United States the Federal regulations will preempt
all State and local controls. We further urge that these require-
ments be developed and announced well in advance of their ef-
fective date. This will permit the economies that result from
orderly product development and implementation which, depend-
ing on degree of change, can require up to several years. We
appreciate the opportunity to make this presentation before your
group and hope it is helpful to you.*
Dr. MEYER. Thank you very much, sir. It has indeed been help-
ful. This provides information that we will not only find useful
in the report to Congress, but also in whatever standard setting
activity we undertake, given some authority by the Congress.
Panel?
" The slides for this presentation are on file at the Office of Noise Abatement and Control.
-------
142
Dr. WHITCOMB. Is your company doing any R. & D. activity
on truck engines, other than strict diesel engines as far as quiet
engines ?
Mr. RINGHAM. Our efforts are primarily devoted to the diesel
engine because it is the bigger problem; the quieting of the gaso-
line engine, yes, we are working on that. However, it's primarily,
Dick, a matter of mostly exhaust intake treatment, isn't it?
Dr. MEYER. I believe the question, as I understand it, is are you
exploring some alternatives to the diesel ?
Mr. RINGHAM. I am sorry, we have—we ran an experimental
program with our solar division on a strict experimental turbine
several years ago. We learned enough to know it was a big de-
velopment—it was bigger than we were, but it alerted us to the
fact that that is a potential, and, Dick, if I am recalling correctly,
that particular experimental installation, it was only partially
treated noisewise. The passby noise there was in the low eighties ?
Mr. STAADT. Yes. That is correct.
Mr. RINGHAM. In terms of dBA noise level, I can't recall the
exact number, but that is the kind of thing that might be attain-
able at a price. This, incidentally, was a turbine configuration. It
wasn't exactly fuel economy oriented, but it was one that drove
a truck.
Professor PLACER. You indicate that you have a variety of noise
control developments depending upon the package, the vehicle
package that is put together. I take it when you package a vehicle
with the appropriate noise packaging to go with it you meet
California standards, that you sell in California?
Mr. STAADT. Yes.
Professor PLACER. Now, do you routinely package that vehicle
the same way for other States as well?
Mr. STAADT. Yes. We have one package.
Professor PLACER. You have one package?
Mr. STAADT. Yes.
Professor PLAGER. No options?
Mr. STAADT. No options which are allowed.
Professor PLACER. No options which are allowed.
Mr. RINGHAM. Excuse me, I might just interrupt, Dick, since
we are a multi-industry related product, company, I wanted to
hit a technicality here; that is, what Dick says is totally true for
the highway vehicles. For certain off-highway requirements we
do that, with all our farm tractors and that kind of thing.
Professor PLAGER. That is a separate problem. Perhaps we
should get to that sometime, but let's talk only about
Mr. RINGHAM. There are separate hearings on that.
Professor PLACER. Certainly earlier ones.
What about the comment that we heard earlier from some of
the large vehicle manufacturers that it can't be done the way
you are doing it?
You are obviously doing something wrong, I gather, because
it's not supposed to be done this way because everybody has a
different requirement.
Mr. RINGHAM. I think you will find there is a majority of one
who said that.
Professor PLAGER. Thank you.
Mr. RINGHAM. I might further add that recently we became No.
1 in heavy-duty trucks.
-------
143
Professor PLACER. I can see why.
Dr. MEYER. I have one other question. Do you provide any
assistance to your customer if he comes in with a special order
package, such as putting a concrete mixer on one of your chassis?
Or is this purely up to him, or do you have some relationship as
an example, such as a concrete mixer driving in California will
have to have a variance to travel down the highway or will have
to meet their law?
Mr. STAADT. Well, the law in California, the user law in Cali-
fornia is somewhat higher—not somewhat, but some higher than
the manufacturer law, and the manufacturer law applies to the
basic vehicle, and what the customer does with it, then, he has
to worry about whether it does meet the user law. We cannot
control what goes in the back of our trucks.
Dr. MEYER. I understand that. Thank you very much. We look
forward to seeing you in Denver. Our next witness represents
another industrial organization that participated in Atlanta, Ga.,
with us, and asked if they might appear here today. And I am
most pleased to ask Mr. Hasten from the Caterpillar Tractor Co.,
if he still is of a mind to talk with us, to come and talk with us.
Sir, nice to see you.
Mr. HASTEN. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF JACK HASTEN, CATEPILLAR TRACTOR CO.
Mr. HASTEN. Mr. Chairman, members of the panel, my name
is Jack Hasten. I am manager of the products control department
of Caterpillar Tractor Co., with headquarters in Peoria, 111. I
am here today to discuss our efforts in reducing noise levels of
our diesel truck engines.
[Showing of next slide in series.]
This discussion will stress three major areas: Exhaust noise,
cooling fan noise and the noises internally generated within the
engine. My remarks are included as appendix NN in a more de-
tailed treatment of this subject, eight copies of which are in your
hands.*
Caterpillar is concerned about noise levels emanating from its
truck engines as they are heard by both the truckdriver and the
spectator. While we have done work which may be relevant to
reduction of "in-cab" noises, our emphasis today will be on the
noise levels heard by the so-called spectator.
[Showing of next slide in series.]
The noise heard by the spectator as a truck passes by is the
result of a combination of many individual noises. A partial list
of sources of such noises would include the transmission, chassis,
trailer, body or cargo, aerodynamic noises, horns, tires, plus
engine noises. It is important to remember that each of these
noise sources must be treated individually in order to effect sig-
nificant reductions of the total noise heard. Even a single com-
ponent such as an engine has a large number of individual noise
sources. It is common to discuss these under the three broad
headings of exhaust, cooling fan, and a combination of mechanical
and combustion noises.
We have studied exhaust noise in depth, yet much remains to
be learned. What we do know is that exhaust mufflers are avail-
s This material is on file at the Office of Noise Abatement and Control.
-------
144
able which can effect significant reductions in noise at reasonable
costs.
Acquiring good, reliable data on something which would appear
to be as simple as a muffler is not really all that simple. This is a
specially built muffler test facility located at our technical center.
[Showing of next slide in series.]
The building is as soundproof as we can practically make it.
Engines are set up in this building and run under load, with the
only external outlet from the engine being the exhaust stack.
Mufflers can be attached to this stack such that the exhaust noise,
muffled or unmuffled, can be measured in almost total isolation
from other engine noises.
Not only does Caterpillar have such a facility, but in order to
do joint development work most efficiently, our primary supplier
of mufflers, the Donaldson Co., also uses this type of test facility.
Caterpillar loans engines to Donaldson as we jointly work on the
problem of developing better and better mufflers, to minimize
both noise and back pressure.
[Showing of next slide in series.]
This shows the results of muffler development work done on
one of our truck engines. With no muffler, the exhaust noise level
measured 50 feet from the engine was 92.5 dBA. The first muffler
applied reduced this to 78 dBA and resulted in a back pressure
in the exhaust stack equivalent to 16 inches of water. The next
muffler reduced the noise level to 74.5 dBA, but the back pressure
increased rather drastically to 41 inches of water. Notice that the
next muffler not only reduced the noise level by 3.5 dBA, but
also reduced the back pressure to 32 inches of water.
You may have received conflicting information as to the harm
done to diesel engines by the application of mufflers. Back pres-
sure above certain levels can be detrimental to a diesel engine.
Since this level varies with engine type, ratings, et cetera, we
can only speak for Caterpillar on this matter. Our standards for
maximum levels of back pressure on our engines are 20 inches of
water for turbocharged engines and 25 inches of water for natural-
ly aspirated engines.
The 1693 is a turbocharged engine, so we and Donaldson have
to do additional work to lower the back pressure to 20 inches of
water. I would emphasize the importance of such work, since the
reduction of 21.5 dBA accomplished through the use of muffler
"C" represents a reduction in the noise felt by our ears to less
than one-fourth that of the unmuffled engine.
[Showing of next slide in series.]
Caterpillar is not limiting its work on diesel engine exhaust
noise reduction to the application of mufflers. That work is ex-
tremely important in that the results are applicable relatively
quickly. Longer range, we hope to accomplish further reductions
by gaining a better understanding of the sources of exhaust noise.
We are doing very basic research on the effects of engine speed,
load, turbocharging and valve lash on exhaust noise.
[Showing of next slide in series.]
Next, we would like to share with you some of the work we
are doing to reduce noise generated by the engine cooling fan.
Very basic to this work is an understanding of the phenomena
that a rather direct relationship exists between fan speed and fan
-------
145
noise. This chart shows that the noise generated by a typical fan
used on one of our engines varies from 100 decibels at 2,000
r.p.m. to 85 decibels at 1,000 r.p.m. A plot of airflow versus fan
speed would have a similar shape. The noise reduction of 15
decibels in our illustration would be achievable only if a reduction
of airflow on the order of one-half would be acceptable.
In attacking this problem on our vehicular products, we are
finding that in nearly every instance, larger diameter, slower
speed fans are required. In most cases, a larger radiator is also
a necessity. Reduction of spectator fan noise levels involve some
very delicate tradeoffs. These are not limited to the economics of
larger fans and radiators. Intangibles such as the effect on safety
as these larger components adversely affect driver visibility must
be taken into account.
[Showing of next slide in series.]
As with exhaust noise and mufflers, Caterpillar is not taking a
complacent attitude that it is up to the fan and radiator manu-
facturers to provide solutions to fan noise problems. We are doing
basic research in such areas as uneven spacing of fan blades, guide
vanes, basic radiator configuration, annular shrouding of fans,
and fans with airfoil blading.
[Showing of next slide in series.]
Moving now to the internally generated noises of the engine
itself, I'm sure you can appreciate that this is a very complex
subject area. As has been stressed so often, noise reduction work
increases in complexity as the number of individual sources of
noise increases. This is a list of sources of engine noise by broad
categories. Each of these, combustion, piston slap, bearing clear-
ance, valve train, turbocharger, fuel system, gear trains, and
auxiliaries represent multiple noise sources within each broad
category.
[Showing of next slide in series.]
As we started to home in on some of these individual sources,
we found that highly specialized test facilities are required. Fol-
lowing a worldwide investigation in 1969, Caterpillar contracted
with List-Rosen-Wittek Associates, Inc. of Graz, Austria, to con-
duct a detailed investigation into the sources and magnitudes of
noises generated internally by a production model 1673 diesel
truck engine. In our opinion Dr. List and his people had the most
advanced technology, both in terms of people and facilities, avail-
able anywhere in the world to teach us the maximum in the
minimum amount of time. This shows that engine in the List
semianechoic test cell where this work was done.
[Showing of next slide in series.]
We now have our own semianechoic test cell and are hard at
work closing any technology gaps which may exist. Incidentally,
the List people felt that acoustic treatment of such components
as the oil pan, valve cover and timing gear cover might result in
a reduction of noise levels at a distance of one meter on the order
of 3 to 4 dBA. Extensive internal redesign would, in their view,
yield an additional 2 to 3 dBA reduction. Because the 1673 was
basically a very quiet engine, the List report concluded that re-
duction of internally generated noise beyond 5 to 7 dBA could
only be achieved by encapsulating the engine,
[Showing of next slide in series.]
-------
146
Here is an example of what such an enclosure might look like.
This four-cylinder Caterpillar D330 engine was completely en-
closed in fiberglass. This early work has not yielded very promis-
ing results. We had hoped to achieve something on the order of
a 20 dBA reduction, but wound up with only about six. Work of
this nature will continue, but we recognize that this is a long-range
development program.
In the meantime we are doing what we can, given the current
state-of-the-art, with respect to reducing noise levels by acoustical
engine enclosures on our machines, as represented by this D8
tractor. A thorough description of that work is contained in the
testimony we submitted at the Atlanta hearing on July 8.
In our opinion, much of the technology we have utilized on our
own prime products would be applicable to noise suppression
work on the engine enclosure of a truck. We stand ready, willing,
and even anxious to share that technology with interested truck
manufacturers.
[Showing of next slide in series.]
Other data we are gathering and analyzing relate to differences
in noise levels emanating from different types of engines. This
chart shows the noise levels emanating from two different types
of diesel engines at conditions of high idle and at full load of
about 300 horsepower. The precombustion chamber diesel, shown
on the bottom, is some 10 decibels quieter than the direct injection
engine sho\yn on the top. Also, notice that the prechamber engine
noise level is much less affected by variations in load than is the
direct injection engine. Since Caterpillar builds both types of
these engines, we want to understand these differences more
completely.
[Showing of next slide in series.]
In Atlanta, we told you what we are doing to build quieter
construction machinery. We could do that because we build the
entire machine. Today, we have confined our remarks to the only
component of an on-highway truck we build, the diesel engine.
We are not qualified to make specific recommendations as to how
to build a quieter truck, rather how to build a quieter diesel
truck engine.
Let me generalize with you a moment and suggest that there
could be three general approaches taken to building quieter diesel
truck engines. We, as an engine manufacturer, could go it alone,
sharing our findings with no one.
[Showing of next slide in series.]
Truck manufacturers could also try to attack the problem, seek-
ing no counsel from the engine people. Alternatively, the engine
and truck manufacturers can work jointly on the problem, treat-
ing the engine and truck as a system.
In such a working relationship, we regard it as our responsi-
bility to work as we have with people like Donaldson to develop
the best possible exhaust muffler for each of our engines. It is
then our responsibility to share such information with the truck
manufacturers. Similarly, we must continue to work on cooling
system noise reduction. Here again, we owe the truck manufac-
turers specific recommendations as to radiator and fan combina-
tions which will minimize noise, yet adequately cool our engines.
Thirdly, as we do noise suppression work on our own vehicular
-------
147
products, we are learning how to acoustically treat engine en-
closures. We do not feel we have a responsibility to design truck
engine enclosures. We will, however, welcome the opportunity to
share our technology in this area with those truck manufacturers
who seek it.
Based on the work we have done on our own vehicles, Cater-
pillar feels it can reduce diesel truck engine noise to certain
levels working independently. If those levels prove unacceptable,
it is our opinion that further reductions may be achieved most
efficiently by treating the engine and truck as a system.
Thank you, gentlemen.
Dr. MEYER. Mr. Hasten, thank you very much for an excellent
presentation, and also I would like to commend you for your atti-
tude of standing ready to share your knowledge with those who
need it—meaning the industry at large and the government at
all levels. I think it's an excellent attitude, and one which we
appreciate very much, particularly since one of the responsibilities
the Environmental Protection Agency will have, assuming it gets
the legislation that Congress is now considering, will be not only
setting standards, but setting those standards in advance of pro-
viding information as to the technology that is available. As you
know, one of our fundamental approaches to standard setting is
to come up with first an estimation of what the problem is and
where the noise or other environmental insult comes from and
then to find the ranges of effect and what the means of control
are. And I look forward to our communicating with you further
in that regard, along with your other colleagues in the industry.
I think this is a most good position to take. It's evidence of good
corporate citizenship. Panel?
Dr. WHITCOMB. Indeed you have a tremendous program going
on, and you should be complimented on it.
Mr. HASTEN. Thank you.
Dr. WHITCOMB. Two things occur to me; one is with the en-
capsulated engine, would it be feasible to attempt to look into a
diesel, electric diesel to get rid of transmission problems and
things like that more fully encapsulated engine—just a comment,
unless you have worked on it. The other thing, in air conditioning
units you get better airflow often with the cage type fan, and
certainly much quieter transmission of air. Have you looked into
a nonblade, but rather a cage-type fan with trucks? And third,
I don't know why you test mufflers when all you need is a larger
volume to get noise reduction—I am being facetious.
Mr. HASTEN. Yes, I know you are. We have done work in the
areas you mention. It's not included as material, it's not of the
stage, I think, where you would want to share it openly. We would
be happy to share it with any of your people. It's not in production.
Professor PLACER. Mr. Hasten, how long has Caterpillar had
this program of research and development for quieting of the
noise program?
Mr. HASTEN. Well, I would say that this effort was intensified
really starting in the early sixties; I think it's fair to say that
prior to the early sixties we built, you know, the hew and cry
was for more horsepower and more performance, and it wasn't
the orientation, indeed, on the part of the user or society as a
whole—we weren't aware that we were being as obnoxious as
we were, I guess.
-------
148
Professor PLACER. What was the impetus for your company
undertaking this program as early as the sixties?
Mr. HASTEN. An awareness—I have talked here strictly about
truck engines, but the operator on one of our larger earthmoving
machines is subjected to some pretty high noise levels, and we
began to get reaction to that.
I think things like the application of the turbocharger to our
engine started to teach us that the turbocharger itself was a good
silencing device; operators liked the turbocharger—the turbo-
charged tractor. It was these kinds of things that got us started
on this, and I would say in all candor that as this kind of thing
has gained more prominence, and laws have been passed, it's
obviously accelerated this activity. I don't want to suggest that
it hasn't.
Professor PLACER. But is it fair to say this was in the nature
of a self-imposed corporate responsibility, at the outset, at least?
Mr. HASTEN. Yes, sir.
Professor PLACER. Fine. I would like to, as a downstate
Illinoisan, Mr. Chairman, I would like the record to show that
Caterpillar is a downstate Illinois firm.
Dr. MEYER. The record will so show.
Mr. HiNTON. I just have one brief question. Can you tell us
whether your obvious concern for the environmental effects of
your products have paid off, do you think, in the marketplace?
Mr. HASTEN. Oh, that is a little hard to say at this point. If
you had heard our story in Atlanta, and some of the others, you
would understand we are in quite a race to meet some of the
OSHA requirements on our equipment, which include, in our
opinion—although I guess there is a difference of legal opinion
on this—the noise criteria; it is now part of the Occupational
Health Safety Act. It's not a moratorium declared until January
of 1972. We are scrambling on some of our machines to meet
this, so I am not going to stand up here and say we have a great
competitive edge in our construction machinery, and that we are
reaping tremendous benefits from it. We think we will, but
whether it's commercial, there are good competitive reasons to
do these things, unquestionably.
Professor KERREBROCK. Two brief questions. One is are you
working on the gas turbine still?
Mr. HASTEN. Yes, sir.
Professor KERREBROCK. Do you see it as a promising solution
to any of these problems, or is it too far off?
Mr. HASTEN. The work that we are—you have an illustration
here in the brochure of an on-highway truck with a Caterpillar
turbine engine in it. I have to say about what the man from
International said, that engine was not designed for on-highway
truck use. Its fuel consumption was horrible. No trucker would
have bought it.
Our experience suggests that in order to be competitive, a
turbine engine has to be a regenerative type to be competitive
for on-highway use, and the turbines we have looked at that are
in the horsepower range that we are interested in here, let's say,
300 to 500 horsepower, by the time you put a regenerative device
on it, and then adequate intake air muffling, and deal with a
higher pitched noise that you get compared with a diesel engine,
-------
149
we are rather persuaded that the magnitude of the two jobs, of
quieting one of the two engines to a given level, are comparable.
Now, 20 years from now this could all be different, but from
the work we have done, that is about as succinctly as I can answer
your question. We see no real edge for either.
Professor KERREBROCK. Okay. Another question; you broke
down this problem of mechanical noise a little more than anyone
else has, and you mentioned some things like valve lash and piston
slap and so on; I wonder if you have any feeling at all for how
this mechanical noise problem varies with the age of the engine.
Can it get very much worse as the engine goes through the wear
cycle, will it give problems in regulation?
Mr. HASTEN. Yes, it will. There is a chart in the book that I
didn't use here that shows the effects on valve lash. I forget the
exact details, but there is something like, for thirty-five thou-
sandths additional valve lash the noise level at 1 octave band
frequency was something on the order of 10 or—10 dB higher,
so—not dBA, but dB, but it was in a frequency range where
dBA and dB would be very comparable.
The effect of bearing wear I am sure is going to affect things
like gear noise as the crankshaft bearings wear, and the timing
gears no longer mesh like they did when they were new gears are
one of the major noise sources in any piece of machinery, and they
certainly are in an engine, in maintaining very accurate profiles
on gears is extremely important.
We are doing a lot of work on that. We could fill a book three
times that thick just on what we are doing on gears, so as a piece
of machinery wears and you lose those fine precision fits that you
build into the original engine, it's going to get noisier and, yes,
sir, you are going to have a problem that the operator of this
truck, who might normally have gotten half a million miles
between major engine overhauls, and still could, from other per-
formance criteria might, because of a noise limitation you place
on him, cut that in half. I can't give you a specific answer, but
I can tell you that that possibility exists.
Professor KERREBROCK. Okay. Thank you.
Dr. MEYER. Thank you again, sir, for a very explicit and in-
formative presentation. I had a question handed to me, sir, by a
member of the audience. It's more or less of a specific technical
item; if the person who asked wanted to have this question
answered—which has to do with specific installation, specific re-
duction—would identify himself, would you mind giving him the
answer to the question?
Mr. HASTEN. Be glad to.
Dr. MEYER. In the interest of time. Thank you.
Mr. Joseph Kigin will now put the show on the road. He will
talk about the tire meeting the concrete and asphalt, and tell us,
if he is still of a mind to do so, of what we can do about auto-
mobile and truck tires which—and it seems sort of fitting, after
a long day, as I said, to where this is, I believe some of our
younger friends say, the tire does meet the highway.
-------
150
STATEMENT OF JOSEPH KIGIN,
RUBBER MANUFACTURERS ASSOCIATION
Mr. KIGIN. Dr. Meyer, gentlemen of the panel, I might say at
20 minutes until 7, it is a pleasure to be part of the anchor team
after a rather long day's proceedings. I commend you for your
attention and patience.
As you, individually, Dr. Meyer, are aware of my function with
the tire industry, it is that of government relations, and this, as
you might imagine, goes directly into areas where tire noise does
go into play, or consideration.
The question that we want to explore with you, the issue we
want to discuss is that of tire noise, its existence, the degree of
resolution that might be addressed to the problem, and my only
prefacing remark would be that it is a complex problem—not
one that is apparently simple.
The complexity I think would more adequately be discussed
before this panel by my two associates, the first of whom is Mr.
Seymour Lippmann from Uniroyal, one of the Nation's major
tire manufacturers.
As an introduction to him I might say he has been as individ-
ually active in tire noise research and related issues as I think
anyone in the industry. He is the chairman of the SAE Special
Committee on Truck Tire Noise. He has been quite in the fore-
front of our industry's collective research on truck tire noise,
as well as that of his own company.
Additionally I am accompanied today by Mr. Herbert Reinert,
who is the secretary of our association's Environment Committee.
Other than the immediate discipline of acoustical problems, Mr.
Reinert is quite conversed in our overall ecological programs.
The essential presentation Mr. Lippmann will make. To the extent
there are questions you may Avish to have answered—and I detect
from the previous tenor of questions to your witnesses, you may
have something to discuss—we will be very pleased, and we would
hope that our presentation today might be the start of a con-
tinuing and effective dialog with the EPA. Sy, if you would,
please.
Mr. LIPPMANN. Thank you.
Dr. MEYER : Proceed.
STATEMENT OF SEYMOUR LIPPMAN, UNIROYAL
Mr. LIPPMANN. Due to the short period between the announce-
ment of this meeting and the requirement for a written copy, we
sent one out that did not represent total industry viewpoint, and
as a result of this there will be an additional submission which
probably is more representative, and the submission I have placed
before you was done with telephone communication to assure that
this is as the industry understands it.
Dr. MEYER. We will be happy to receive, sir, your additional
submission, and will incorporate it into the record, along with
this initial one.*
Mr. LIPPMANN. What I would like to do, considering the signifi-
cance of tire noise, as has been pointed out by a number of people,
is to indicate what the technical problems are—and I am sure
This material is on file at the Office of Noise Abatement and Control.
-------
151
that you will want to question me on what limitations we know
of at the moment, and where we are going—and I will try and
take as little time as possible. I realize that you are all quite
fatigued. There are two basically different types of tires that are
made for trucks; I am going to talk primarily of trucks.
Dr. MEYER. Yes, sir.
Mr. LIPPMANN. One type is a type of tire that is placed on the
driving wheels of the truck, and provides the accelerating torque.
The other tires are on trailing wheels and steering wheels; they
are free rolling, for the most part, except when braking takes
place.
Although this and a special type of tire is used here, it's the
type of tire that was shown in a previous slide, and it's repre-
sented by structural elements in the tread that are largely parallel
to the axis rotation of the tire, and in the industry we refer to
these as lateral as distinct from circumferential orientation. The
ability to deliver the driving torque on dry and wet surfaces
without causing the tread to crack and tear means that there
must be sufficient number of lateral edges present in the contact
patch between tire and road.
These edges must be backed-up mechanically; there must be
channels for the elimination of water on wet surfaces, and the
supporting structures with these edges must have the right amount
of flexibility; if they are too flexible, obviously you will have
buckling, and you will not have transmission of torque. If they
are too stiff, then primarily what you will get is wear at the
edges, at the leading edges of these elements, they will round
off, and again they will not provide adequate, an adequate amount
of traction.
In addition to this there is another technical requirement; the
materials of tires as they flex generate heat. We refer to it as
mechanical hysteresis in our business. This heat has to be brought
out without raising the internal temperature of the tire exces-
sively. Tire materials are very sensitive in their fatigue properties
in this range, and therefore for reasons of safety, to keep the
tires intact, one must have short cooling paths. Now, this is
permissible in a lateral bar design such as you saw, or is accom-
plished there by having wide lateral grooves in between these bars.
Well, when all these factors are put together there is one limi-
tation that comes up, and that is the lug spacing that you can
have. This is restricted rather severely to a limited range of
approximately 3 to 4 inches.
The limitation on lug spacing does several things. One of
them is it determines the basic frequency of the tire. It also
limits what one might do in trying to use a regular spacing to
break up frequency concentrations; you are not going to go too
far that way. The industry has done a great deal in that direction
—as much as it can.
Now, the design considerations for nondrive axle tires are
similar, but relaxed because the continuous driving torque is not
demanded of the tire. There are thousands of times difference,
different in the integral, let's say, of driving torque against time,
because—not driving torque, but torque, torque application. It's
for that reason these tires do not have to have the lateral designs
—as a matter of fact, lateral designs don't work well in them.
-------
152
Now, in addition to the properties required for traction, there
are another set of properties required for tread wear. The lateral
bar is longer wearing than the circumference rib, in service where
there is substantial tractive efforts; however, in the absence of
sustained tractive efforts, and particularly where there is steer-
ing, lateral bar designs develop excessive heel and toe wear, and
cannot be used.
The tread depth possible with lateral bars on drive axle por-
tions is about—well, I have a number here, 0.725, in that order,
and is about half an inch in rib designs. This is determined by
cooling paths and wear pattern differences.
The net result is that cross bar tires typically offer about two
and a half times the mileage of continuous rib tires on drive
axle. That is going from something in the order of 40,000 miles
in the continuous rib type to about 100,000 miles in the lateral
bar type, and you can see that is going to have implications.
Now, I would like to talk—that is some basic information
relating to the mechanics of tires necessary to carry out some of
its performance requirements.
Now, how about the noise? Where does it come from? When
a freely rotating tire without tractive effort rolls along the
ground, the portion of the tread in the contact zone undergoes
compression in the circumferential direction. This compression
is released discontinuously, and the air and the treading itself
is exited by this discontinuous action. That, of course, is the
source of noise, and this is primarily at the exit of contact.
In some archaic designs, and inadvertently in some designs
that manufacturers put out, there is another phenomenon that
occasionally takes place, and that is a cupping action where there
is a concave surface developed or designed into the tire, and this
concave surface causes a cup compression of air discontinuously,
and release of this compressed air or its sucking in of the air at
the exit end of contact discontinuously, and these are the noisier
tires by far.
This cupping process leads to the higher level of noise—highest
level of noise, but it is a temporary thing, and to my knowledge,
no manufacturer is currently putting out tires of this sort, no
original tire manufacturer.
The number of tread elements—and, of course, this determines
the power level—the number of these elements times the velocity
that gives you the sound power radiated; were it not for the
fact that speed introduces other effects, this would be very simple;
but speed does introduce another effect, or a series of other effects.
One of them is better acoustical coupling—as the speed goes up
between the tread element and the surrounding air, and also
because of the effect of speed on the slippage process that leads
to this discontinuous action, there is greater energy stored in the
snapping action at higher speeds, so the net results that many
measurements have shown that in the range of interest, or the
range of experimentation, and the range of interest, that there
is about 3.3 dB increase per 10 miles an hour. This has been
alluded to before in rather descriptive terms, but not in quantita-
tive terms.
-------
153
We also find surprisingly, that smooth road surfaces are, create
more noise than rough road surfaces. Well, it's not surprising
when you get to look at the mechanism a little bit, the smooth
surfaces are more prone to cause discontinuous slipping which
is periodically regulated. The rough surfaces cause slipping to
occur prematurely, with the release of compression and the exci-
tation of the air, or lower level.
The frequency patterns of interest—or rather the frequency
band of interest, because there are also resonances in the tire that
affect, obviously, the snapping elements resonate, and the structure
of the tire resonates in response to it, and all things put together,
the frequency band of interest is from about 200 hertz to about
2,000 hertz and as far as we can tell at the present time, the
radiation is in a wedge, primarily from the exit contact radiating
out—there is radiation from the side wall, but we have not run
this down into a detailed radiation pattern at the present time.
The National Bureau of Standards, with its wall of silence tests,
is attempting to do that; however, the data as presently analyzed
are not in a form that allow one to make deductions of this sort.
Evaluation of truck tire annoyance. The observer is generally
impressed with the dominant tones in the sound radiated by
tires, and therefore one would expect an evaluation procedure to
emphasize the tonal concentrations in the noise.
The jury tests thus far have been inconclusive on this point,
and the cycle acoustical reaction is still under investigation. The
dBA weighted level at fast response has been demonstrated to be
an important factor.
We have taken this as a sequential analysis in which we will
get first an approximation, and then a refinement, and so on, and
our sequential analysis has indicated that dBA at fast response
is important, and it can be supplemented by energy measurements
in the 400 to 600 hertz band. At that point we find that when we
have made the supplementation, we find that our ability to pre-
dict jury reactions is within jury error. However, that doesn't
necessarily prove anything; it's nice that that happens, and it
means that possibly this can lead to a testing standard for truck
tire noise. However, we also find the dBA at slow responses as
effective as that, and that may be because of the duration of the
tonal concentrations. Therefore, not everyone in the industry, I
might say, is satisfied with that at the moment, and a lot of
people who have been involved in this still feel that it will ulti-
mately turn out to be an appropriate weighting of narrow fre-
quency bands, and perhaps the third octave analyses that are
typical are not sufficiently—do not sufficiently resolve the spec-
trum, and we may have to go to 10 octaves. But that would make
it very, very difficult to set up any kind of testing standard.
Now, we also find—or I should say the Wallops Island tests of
the National Bureau of Standards have indicated that the rear
trailer axles are the greatest contributor of radiated noise;
equivalent tires placed on various axle positions, and this test I
am referring to was done with a 10-axle truck, and this is in
keeping with what we know about the radiation pattern from
tires.
We would gather from this that apparently the noise radiated
by the front, the earlier tires, the tires ahead of the last set of
-------
154
tires get caught under the vehicle, and do not radiate out as
effectively.
The control of tread noise through rubber is a very difficult
problem. Everyone in the industry has looked at it, and here we
have a mechanical—we have, as someone pointed out before, we
have a dichotomy of requirements. The tread rubbers also neces-
sarily produce more heat, and this precludes their use. We can't
even use tread materials that are used for passenger tires in truck
tires, and we have developed materials for passenger tires that
we very much would like to use in truck tires. The processing is
better; cost is better; reliability, so on and so forth, and wear is
better—but not under the circumstances of truck tire usage,
because there we run into heat failures, and jeopardize the safety
of the vehicle.
Another section I have here is on the ongoing technical actions
for controlling truck tire sound levels that I am aware of, and
this may be expanded as we hear from other members of the
industry.
Since 1968 a subcommittee of the Society of Automotive
Engineers has been working on the standard procedure for manu-
facturers evaluation of these tire noises, and this work is in its
final stages at the present time, and we hope we will have this to
offer the industry and the government soon.
The Department of Transportation has been doing work on
acoustical radiation patterns, and hopefully this will have some-
thing to offer as well. They are also doing work on a study of
noise from various locations on the truck.
The tire manufacturers that are active in attempting to find
solutions that do not significantly impair the transportation func-
tion of truck tires; this involves at least compromises among
those items noted in the earlier discussion. There are such factors
as tread designs that do not wear into cups, and that do not wear
irregularly to promote element snapping, reduction of undesir-
able shears, and compressions—that again would augment snap-
ping, best possible spacings allowable moduli, and damping prop-
erties of the tread and materials, et cetera.
Now, there are some economic and social implications to the
approaches already advanced, and I have heard a few today that
fortunately I had thought of before. One of these is the elimina-
tion of cross bar tires. Well, industrial advantages—it's advan-
tageous to the tire industry to do this because rib tires wear
more rapidly. However, it's disadvantageous to the trucking in-
dustry because of increased operating cost and down time for
tire changes. Generally that approach results in increased cost
of trucks, of truck transportation, which will ultimately be passed
on to product and service costs.
Another thing that has been mentioned—I was surprised it
came up here—but it did, it shows what a sharp group we have.
Reduction of allowable top speed, since the sound level increases
3.3 dBA per ten miles per hour. Well, obviously that has its social
and economic disadvantages. Additional cost of goods and trans-
portation to the general public, impaired capacity of the road
system. I think that is about all I have to offer.
Dr. MEYER. Well, thank you very much. Before I ask the panel
to ask some questions, I noted one technical point in here that was
-------
155
rather intriguing to me, namely the comment regarding the dis-
tance attenuation factor perhaps not following the inverse square
law.
Mr. LIPPMANN. Yes.
Mr. KlGlN. Yes.
Dr. MEYER. The reason I am interested in this is that it sort of
ties in with some observations; we have been working with the
Department of Transportation on the problem of continually
looking at a continuous stream of traffic in a freeway area, or an
interstate highway. In at least one set of measurements we have
shown that for approximately 30 to 40 percent of the time, in
any hour—and it doesn't make a difference whether it's morning
peak traffic, night, 2 o'clock in the morning or what, at a distance
of about 300 feet and up to an altitude of about 50 feet in the air,
along the freeway, the sound pressure levels measured on the
A-scale standard sound level meter ran between 80 and 85 dBA.
And, of course, it is mostly tire noise, so I am wondering about
this lessened reduction factor, because you know when you add
this up and say, well, this truck passed this, some of these other
standards that we are looking at of 90 and 95 dBA, what does it
mean 300 and 400 feet away? A lot of the calculations have been
made on the old inverse square 60-B, each time you double the
distance, and this may be very significant, I would think.
Mr. LIPPMANN. Yes. It's hard to know at this point how to
interpret it. I can give some possible interpretations.
Dr. MEYER. Rather than doing it now and taking up the time,
I would like for you just to amplify on that for the record, and
for the technical people here to take a look at it. It's a scientific
and technical question. We could all look at it, I think. Panel?
Dr. WHITCOMB. I have two or three questions.
One is based on a statement made on page 3 of your testimony,
under the i^em of frequencies, where it's stated that because of
typical element spacing at 50 m.p.h. the dominant frequency in
traction tires is 200 to 300 Hertz, and is 280 to 420 Hertz at
70 m.p.h.
Mr. LIPPMANN. Yes.
Dr. WHITCOMB. And with resonances going up correspondingly
to higher frequencies, it sort of gives you a hint that you are
approaching the tympanic curve of the human ear, and its maxi-
mum response area. Is it possible to get ultimate spacing wider
than that so that you can stay down at the lower frequency with-
out hurting the traction characteristics, or the drive character-
istics?
Mr. LIPPMANN. Not to our knowledge. You see, this is what
has led to that; it would be very easy for us to meet it if every-
thing could be done that we would like to do.
Dr. WHITCOMB. Yes.
Mr. LIPPMANN. Just to change the spacing, we would walk
down the A-response curve; by doing nothing more than changing
the spacing, you would have the same—you could have even more
sound power per element and show an improvement if we could
do that. We don't feel that we can do this and preserve the func-
tion.
Dr. WHITCOMB. The next question, have you systematically
i*un a research program where you look at noise characteristics
-------
156
as a function of speeds, and a function of various types of tread
designs, and is this available somewhere anywhere?
Mr. LIPPMANN. Well, the National Bureau of Standards at
Wallops Island did carry out such a study. They have one report
out now. They are still in the process of carrying out this study.
I woud think in about 8 or 9 months they will have their final
report out.
Dr. WHITCOMB. And they are looking at several treads?
Mr. LIPPMANN. They are looking at many different types of
treads.
Dr. WHITCOMB. Then third, I have heard that the typical re-
capped tread which is put on a truck tire may be three or four
times during its lifetime, is one of the worst noise sources. Is
this true, in your opinion? And if so, why is it different from
firstline tires?
Mr. LIPPMANN. There is a particular design on the market that
really is a carryover from a past period. These molds are still
out, and the small recap shops don't see the reason to throw the
mold away.
Dr. WHITCOMB. But this tread has no virtue over the other
treads ?
Mr. LIPPMANN. No. Recaps can be made to be as effective as
new tread design, in my opinion.
Dr. WHITCOMB. Finally, there used to be a tire on the market
called the Royalmaster, dating back 20 years, maybe.
Mr. LIPPMANN. Right.
Dr. WHITCOMB. It probably was very quiet, I would think, but
was it bad in terms of traction ?
Mr. LIPPMANN. Well, there have been continual developments in
tires. They all look alike, I know, but the tread life and the tractive
properties, the skid resistance of tires, the steering properties of
tires have all changed through the years. We couldn't possibly go
back to designs of that period at this time.
Professor PLACER. Just a quick question.
Mr. LIPPMANN. Surely.
Professor PLACER. On this reduction-of-speed idea
Mr. LIPPMANN. Yes.
Professor PLACER. Do tires wear more at high speeds than at
lower speeds?
Mr. LIPPMANN. Yes, I think so.
Professor PLACER. So that the costs to the industry of slower
speeds might be offset by the savings in tire wear?
Mr. LIPPMANN. Well, I doubt that that balance would be made
because you are balancing the miles per dollar of a tire against
the total operating cost of the vehicle, which involves labor and
so on.
Professor PLACER. Right. I am sure there are economic discon-
tinuities.
Mr. LIPPMANN. Yes.
Professor PLACER. OK. Having heard your presentation, and
glanced through your paper, I have at least a little better feel for
the problem, having heard the earlier gentlemen, all of whom
referred to you as a source of solution. What is the solution, or
what are the alternatives ? What are you going to do to solve our
problems for us?
-------
157
Mr. LIPPMANN. The industry at the present time, I know what
my own options are for making developments, and I have spoken
to other people just briefly at this point, and, of course, over
many years on various items get some idea of what their options
are. It looks pretty dreary at the present time.
I think that some advantages can be gained by eliminating par-
ticularly noisy designs, designs that have been misengineered and
developed, let's say, improper wear profiles on the surface—
eliminate some of the compressions, eliminate the tendency of tires
to wear into cups, and that sort of thing.
I think that can be done, and I think we would see a definite
improvement, but I notice that some of the truck manufacturing
people see much more improvement in tires than we do. I just
don't know where it's coming from, and I also am of the opinion
that the present legislation is legislating the impossible as far as
present technology is concerned.
Now, of course, technology can break at any time, and someone
can come up with a bright idea, or new material, or new way of
making a tire, or something like this could come about, but that
is looking at the progress from the present time, with the present
available knowledge, I don't see it.
Professor PLACER. Square wheels may be the answer.
Mr. HlNTON. Mr. Lippmann, I know that involved as you are
with SAE committees and cooperative engineering programs that
you are pooling your knowledge to try to come up with some
technical solutions to this problem.
I was a little surprised that you didn't have more to say about
tread design as a factor, but apparently it's not as large a factor
as I thought it was. Maybe you don't have as many options with
truck tires as you do with automobiles.
Mr. LIPPMANN. What I tried to do was to cover the essential
characteristics of tread designs rather than the details of
them
Mr. HINTON. I see.
Mr. LIPPMANN. That pertain to this particular subject.
Mr. HINTON. Well, Mr. Plager asked about the correlation of
safety. I guess he means the coefficient of friction with tread
design.
Professor PLAGER. A number of people said changing the tread
designs makes them unsafe, but nobody had any data; is there
some data on this subject?
Mr. LIPPMANN. Well, I don't have data as such, numerical data,
as I do in this other area to offer you, but I do have the many con-
versations I have had with representatives of trucking people, and
they tell me that they need the traction, the traction and the con-
trol properties are directly related to the safety, and I posed the
same question, you know, as far as our industry is concerned it
would be great if we could get rid of the cross-lug tires and sell
more tires, see, but—well, okay, is it possible to get rid of them?
And they say, no, they are also instrumental in providing us with
a control that we need under braking conditions, avoiding jack-
knifing and that sort of thing.
Professor PLAGER. Is this the manufacturer or the operator?
Mr. LIPPMANN. Operator representatives.
-------
158
Professor PLACER. Okay, because the manufacturer says you are
the one who tells them, so it's the operators who are the source,
then.
Mr. LIPPMANN. Really, for all of us we may tell them, but the
way we find out what to tell them is by placing tires, experimental
tires, in service with operators and find out what has happened,
what the reactions are.
Professor PLACER. Thank you.
Dr. MEYER. Panel?
Professor KERREBROCK. Just briefly, if I understand correctly,
now, you are talking of these traction tires, the crossbar lugs
specifically, but what about the general question of tractive effort
versus noise generation, or the free-rolling tires for automobiles
tires? Do you have data on this tradeoff?
Mr. LIPPMANN. Well, normally the free-rolling tires are not
called on to exert a great deal of traction, except when braking.
Professor KERREBROCK. Yes.
Mr. LIPPMANN. Right.
Professor KERREBROCK. Which is the safety problem.
Mr. LIPPMANN. Yes, sir; it is a safety problem, too, and there
hasn't been any analysis made, to my knowledge, of the tradeoff
involved by reducing the tractive ability of free-rolling tires
Professor KERREBROCK. Will it be done by the Bureau of Stand-
ards in this study that they are carrying on?
Mr. LIPPMANN. Well, I don't see-—you see, the level there is
quite modest. It's not the key matter—it is a key matter as you
go down to these lower and lower levels, of course, it will eventu-
ally become important, but the major effort applied so far in
trying to understand the problem and come up with solutions has
been to crossbar tires.
Professor KERREBROCK. I see.
Dr. MEYER. Thank you very much for helping get us into per-
spective in this problem. It's one that our Agency, in conjunction
with the Federal Highway Administration, Department of Trans-
portation, and National Bureau of Standards is going to have to
look at with you in the future to have a meaningful approach to
setting standards. I want to thank the panel for the long day
they have spent here with me. We normally don't like to have
these things run this long, but obvious circumstances prevented
us from having this stretched out over 3 days, which we would
have liked to have done.
I appreciate the patience of the witnesses, particularly those
toward the end of the day who stayed with us, and understood our
problems, and I appreciate those in the audience who have been
interested enough to stay this long. And on that note of apprecia-
tion from the Federal Government, this session of this hearing is
recessed until tomorrow morning at 9 a.m.
(Whereupon, at 8 p.m., the hearings were recessed to 9 a.m.,
on Thursday, July 29, 1971.)
-------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
PUBLIC HEARING ON MANUFACTURING AND TRANSPORTATION
NOISE (HIGHWAY AND AIR)
THURSDAY, JULY 29, 1971
PROCEEDINGS
Dr. MEYER. Ladies and gentlemen, I hereby convene the third
session of the hearing on noise conducted by the U.S. Environ-
mental Protection Agency in accordance with a directive from the
U.S. Congress, contained in title IV of Public Law 91-604. I am
Alvin Meyer, the Director of the Office of Noise Abatement and
Control of the Environmental Protection Agency, and I am accom-
panied today, as members of a hearing panel who will assist me in
receiving information and analyzing it and in making recom-
mendations based thereon, by Dr. Milton A. Whitcomb, to my
extreme left; Prof. Sheldon J. Plager; Mr. Henry Martin, to my
right; Lloyd Hinton, to my left; and Prof. John Kerrebrock.
What I have to say at the outset of this may be redundant in
view of what was said yesterday, but since there are new faces
in the audience, it is worthwhile to be somewhat repetitive and
point out the authorities under which this hearing is held, its
purpose, its scope, and the manner in which it will be conducted.
The act of Congress I cited directed that the Administrator of the
Environmental Protection Agency prepare a report to the Con-
gress and submit it by the 30th of December 1971, covering all
aspects of the noise problem, methods of control, and what might
be done about it, both in the near term and in the longer term.
Congress also directed that in preparing that report the Adminis-
trator would hold a series of public hearings. These public hear-
ings are national in scope. They are to deal with the problems
covered by the report. But in holding them we realize that it is
important not only to talk about specifics of the problems asso-
ciated with construction equipment and transportation equipment
or noise as it affects wildlife, since these are some of the things
159
-------
160
the Congress told us to look at and on which to obtain views of
various public interest, but to also gain knowledge of the effects
of noise and to foster ideas concerning noise control. That is the
scope of these hearings.
We are conducting the hearings, in general, according to the
rules of the Committee on Government Operation of the House of
Representatives of the U.S. Congress. Under those rules, witnesses
appear, after having submitted their request to make a presenta-
tion. We have asked that they furnish the committee with a
printed or typed transcript of what they are going to say. No
questions are allowed directly from the floor. If someone sees or
hears something that they would like to ask a question about, they
may submit the question in writing to the clerk, or the identified
young ladies, or the young gentleman who is working with us,
and we will consider the answer or arrange to get the answer to
the question.
I would like to, at the outset of this hearing, state that we are
most appreciative of the interest of the large group of people who
have evidenced concern about noise in Chicago.
One of our staff assistants, Mr. Douglas Laycock, has prepared
an excellent review of what is going on, both in the city and the
county, and in the State, and has provided this to us for our use. It
will be included in the official record to the Congress.
Without further ado, then, I would like to proceed with this
hearing. We have a large group of people who have asked to
appear. I would ask the speakers' indulgence in recognizing that
there are other people on the schedule and to try to hold their
time of presentation to approximately 10 minutes maximum, so
that if there are any questions from the committee, there will be
an opportunity for us to ask them.
With that introductory remark, then, I ask Dr. Richard Marcus,
a member of the Laryngological and Otological Society of Chicago
—or I guess it's the Chicago Laryngological and Otological So-
ciety. Dr. Marcus, we are glad to have you here, sir. I look for-
ward to what you are going to tell us.
Dr. MARCUS. Dr. Meyer and members of this panel, I am repre-
senting the Chicago Laryngological and Otological Society this
morning, and I had hoped—rather, we had hoped that Dr. Meyer
Fox, who is chairman of our Industrial Health Committee for the
Chicago Laryngological and Otological Society, would be here.
Unfortunately he could not make it at this time. He has prepared
a statement, which I will submit to you at a later time. Dr. Fox
is one of the major authorities in the field of industrial health,
and I note the smile on Dr. Meyer's face—a smile of recognition,
I am sure.
Dr. MEYER. Yes; the Chair is familiar with Dr. Fox, and is
sorry that he isn't here, but will you convey to him my regards
please, sir.
Dr. MARCUS. Thank you very much. I am chairman of the
School and Public Health Committee of the Chicago Laryngologi-
cal and Otological Society, and have spent a number of years of
my work in the field of otology with children, and, of course, many
adults, too, those who would see fit to consult me. I will pass over
the introductory remarks, which I am sure will appear in your
-------
161
record, which gives due consideration and recognition to all the
men of our society, and elsewhere, who have done work in the
field, and move directly, then, into the presentation.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD MARCUS, CHICAGO
LARYNGOLOGICAL AND OTOLOGICAL SOCIETY
Dr. MARCUS. As otologists, we are interested in the prevention
and alleviation of deafness. Whatever causes or may cause hearing
loss demands our attention, and, as is well-known, certain types
of noise may do so. As physicians, we are also interested in other
effects of noise on us as humans, on animals, and on our natural
environment. As citizens, we are deeply concerned about the dis-
turbing, distressing, and intrusive effects of unwanted sound.
We recognize that sound is the accompaniment of all movement
and activity, and, therefore, provides a background of life which
comforts us reminding us that we are alive. Ultimate silence is
most uncomfortable, eerie, and unearthly. However, in present
day civilization, there has been too much artificially produced
sound and noise. We also recognize that many people in many
fields have been and continue to be concerned with this problem.
We are proud to number many of our colleagues among those who
have contributed to our knowledge of the effects of noise on the
ear and in the development of noise control. These men have
worked individually as well as through our local and national so-
cieties. A number of them are or have been members of the
Chicago Laryngological and Otological Society, which organiza-
tion I have the privilege of representing today.
Because much of what they have done has been incorporated
in the Occupational Safety Act, Walsh-Healey, et cetera and is
covered in the statement of Dr. Meyer Fox, we will discuss certain
circumstances of noise exposure sometimes inadequately presented
or incompletely understood. This is the problem of ear-damaging
noise among children, the isolated or self-employed industrial
worker, those engaging in domestic or recreational activities, and
all persons subjected to change, inadvertent, mischievious or mali-
cious exposure. Our information is based wherever possible on
experimental clinical or deductive grounds. Some of it is specula-
tive and is so stated.
The word deafness is a general term for hearing loss, of which
there may be all gradations, from very slight to profound or com-
plete ; also the extent of the hearing loss determines our capacity
to function comfortably in all human activities. Hearing is the
entry to the soul, but, unfortunately, loss of hearing is the least
recognizable, and, therefore, the least urgent of all human ills,
so that most of us overlook it, mistake it, or deny it, making it
exceedingly difficult to identify, prevent, and treat.
Our testimony today will discuss the effect of noise on the ear
in children in three age groups and adults in two age groups. The
types of noise producers concerned are shown in the attachment.
Not all noises are listed but rather are used as more common ex-
amples either of definitely proved, highly suspect, or possibly sus-
pect of ear-damaging potential. We are concerned with any kind
of hearing loss or ear symptom, from very mild single tone dips,
to symptoms of pain, ringing or sounds in the ear (tinnitus) or
-------
162
vertigo, inasmuch as the inner ear consists of both the auditory
and vestibular apparatus. The very mild sensory-neural hearing
losses usually do not interfere seriously with everyday function
but can be somewhat incapacitating in a background of masking
noise.
I. Children
A. 0-5 years (17 million in this age group).—A total of 5 per-
cent of these children (850,000) are estimated to have a hearing
loss, most of which is congenital or occurs in the first few years
of infancy as the result of local or systemic diseases. Some of
these losses are moderately severe or profound. The mild or mod-
erate sensory-neural losses are difficult to ascertain, but to protect
these children from any possible source of damage, certain types
of noise exposure, such as frequent and prolonged positioning on
the back ledge of the rear seat over the rear engine automobiles
should be avoided, and, if there are older children in the house,
protection should be afforded from the noises of cap guns and cap
pistols. When accompanying mother around the house, try to keep
the baby away from the obvious noisemakers, such as disposals,
blenders, mixers, and garden and landscape tools, although the
newborn and infant babies have some built-in protection with ear
canals partially or completely closed and their middle ears incom-
pletely ventilated.
B. Age 5-10 years (20 million in this age group).—At the pres-
ent time 5 to 7 percent, 1 million to 1,400,000, are considered to
have hearing loss, perhaps 20 percent of these are sensory-neural.
The most common cause of permanent sensory-neural hearing loss,
usually mild or moderate, but permanent, in one or both ears is
exposure to the high-intensity sound of cap guns or cap pistols or
explosion of whole rolls of "caps." The whole roll explosion is
usually accomplished (as most of us former boys remember) by
hitting the roll with a hammer or baseball bat, and frequently is
done in a confined space, such as a cellar or garage, or between
walls as in an alleyway or sidewalk between buildings. Many of
the children are onlookers, not knowing what to expect, and have
not had time to avert the head or cover the ears. Also the game
of "cops and robbers" or "war" use such devices and the shot can
be made close to an ear by running up from behind.
In this age group and in some of the younger children, various
types of "noise" making toys are available, many very likely harm-
less, but some possibly of ear damaging intensity, such as the
"paper" explosives, and these along with explosions of paper
bags, balloons, and other devices, particularly in a closed space,
such as in our airtight automobiles, could be potentially damag-
ing to an ear or ears, depending on the various factors involved.
There are new toys introduced from time to time with ear-
damaging capacity.
C. Age 10-18 (32,500,000 in this age group).—Perhaps 2 to
3 percent with hearing loss, 650,000 to 975,000, most of these
sensory-neural, many of which were incurred at an earlier age. In
addition to the previously mentioned exposures, these children at
camps and school may become involved in rifle and pistol instruc-
tion. Frequently they accompany fathers or other members of the
-------
163
family on hunting expeditions or to target practice, including
skeet shooting. Most, if not all, of this exposure occurs without
adequate ear protection. Chance and inadvertent exposure to fire-
arms could occur when near a starter's pistol on swimming or
track teams.
These children encounter other possibly damaging noises when
they build and fly model airplanes, are enrolled in workshops
with high speed tools at school, or have them at home. During
this age period children could be exposed to gocarts, minibikes,
snowmobiles, motorcycles, and perhaps some of the older children
may even be involved in construction projects, engine construc-
tion, car mechanics, etc. They are also introduced to rock and roll
music at high amplification considered by some authorities to be
ear-damaging.
II. Adults
A. Age 18-65 (113 million in this age group).—Estimated 2
percent hearing loss, 2,260,000, mostly sensory-neural. Large num-
bers of this age group are isolated workers in large or small in-
dustrial activities and hundreds of thousands are self-employed.
They work with jack hammers, chain saws, and noise making
equipment of all kinds, including shoe repair machinery, floor
graders, sanders, et cetera to cite only a few examples. Some may
be part of an industrial hearing conservation program, but most
of the self-employed would have no access to preemployment or
followup hearing testing.
Of possible concern in this age group would be exposure to
noise in computer rooms, or from walkie-talkies, civilian band
intercommunication devices in planes, trucks, cabs, hospitals,
transistor radios worn constantly in the ears, et cetera.
B. Over 65 (20 million people in this group).—An estimated 20
percent of this group have a hearing loss, possibly the single most
common disorder of older age. Of the 4,000,000 hard-of-hearing
older people, perhaps 10-15 percent, 400,000 to 600,000, could be
directly attributable to noise exposure sometime earlier in their
lives. This loss generally is accentuated by advancing age, as well
as other diseases of age. The sad commentary is that these losses
are preventable but not treatable.
Except for chance or inadvertent exposure to firearms or blasts,
damaging noise in this age group is limited, but many of these
people wear hearing aids and chance exposure can be a problem.
Certainly the masking effect of noise on speech intelligibility is
a great obstacle to the successful use of hearing aids.
General Considerations
All age groups can suffer permanent, frequently severe, inner
ear damage from chance or inadvertent exposure to firearms or
blasts. A number of persons have been in the vicinity when a fire-
cracker, a cherry bomb, or other explosive is detonated mis-
chievously or maliciously.
There is a special problem for persons of all ages who wear
hearing aids when exposed to such very loud sounds. There are
some instances of progressive hearing loss in children wearing
hearing aids as a result of such exposure. One explosive may be
-------
164
sufficient to damage the remaining hearing almost entirely. It is
recommended that all persons wearing hearing aids turn their
aids off, whenever such an exposure can be anticipated.
Recommendations
The physician in private practice can be of enormous help.
Starting in his own office or home, he can insure any equipment
he uses is noise-treated. He should counsel all of his patients who
have had chronic otitis media or middle ear surgery, where
natural defenses of the ear may have been altered, to avoid or
protect themselves from damaging noise. All patients seen by him
should have a work, household, and recreational history, and in
instances of known exposure, proper precautions should be ad-
vised, including earplugs or muffs. He should urge and provide
regular hearing tests at least once a year, for all ages from
shortly after birth and thereafter.
The physician should encourage and participate in hearing
conservation programs in industry and should support medical
society presentations and symposia on the subject, help in organi-
zation of special medical committees in local, State, national, and
specialty societies, where necessary. In Chicago and in Illinois
we now have such functioning committees, both of which are
active in legislative matters.
As far as legislation is concerned, the physician should advise
no more than is necessary and enforceable, and none unless it
includes active medical consultation, participation, and super-
vision. Specific legislation, if not already available, should include
severe punishment for the mischievous or malicious person who
causes damage or destruction of hearing with firearms, fire-
crackers, explosives, or other device.
Strict regulation of all firearm training courses and ranges,
outdoor and indoor, is absolutely required for all ages, and all
schools, camps, and other organizations should be advised that
adequate ear protection is mandatory at all times for the partici-
pants and the onlookers. Further studies of school workshops
should be done similar to industrial noise areas. All self-employed
workers around noisy equipment should be advised of the pos-
sible hazard to the ears and regular testing of ears and control
of machinery be affected.
Other legislation could require testing of all toys, medical or
other devices prior to marketing similar to methods used for
medications through HEW. Perhaps we may be able to get ac-
curate measurements of impulsive noise and then put warning
labels on the toys and other equipment: "May Be Injurious to
Ears and Hearing." However, don't take the fun out of some of
these toys.
The physician should encourage the development of a program
to provide public information on the prevention of deafness of
all kinds, particularly that due to ear-damaging noise.
ATTACHMENT
I. Explosive
A. Industrial and military.—Dynamite, power nails, backfires.
B. Domestic, recreational, and entertainment, including toys.—Caps, cap
-------
165
guns, cap pistols, paper-pop guns, other toys. Firecracker, starting devices
for sports (track and field, swimming, sailing, and so forth) including guns,
carbide cannons, and so forth, theatre in the round, baseball score boards,
skeet, hunting, target practice, gun galleries.
C. Miscellaneous.—Tree rooting, animal holes and nests, etc.
II. Machinery, Motor, and Functional, Including Abrasives, Shippers, etc.
A. Industrial and military.—Garage equipment and automobile noise, power
tools including chain and buzz saws, ship holds, truckers' cabs (engine, wheel
and road noise), bulldozers, garbage trucks, lifters, computer rooms, secre-
tarial and statistical machines, business machines.
B. Domestic, recreational, and entertainment, including toys.—Home work-
shops, garden and landscape equipment, kitchen and basement appliances,
air conditioners, floor sanders, private airplanes, snowmobiles, power boats
(water skiers), campers, outdoor amusement parks (motor-driven ferris
wheels, roller coasters, tilt-a-whirl, and so forth), model railroads, model air-
planes, go carts.
C. Miscellaneous.—Medical equipment, dental drills, burglar alarms and
security devices, radio and TV tones, transistor radios (in the ear), walkie-
talkies, civilian band radios in planes, cars, and so forth, gerbil wheels.
III. Blowers, Nozzles, Air Pressure Devices, and Wind Exposure
A. Industrial and military.—Ice- and snow-making machines; snow blowers;
exhaust, ventilating fans, and blowers; air rifles; tubes and hoses; tire in-
flaters and deflaters.
B. Domestic, recreational, and entertainment, including toys.—Snow
blowers, top-down drivers' sportscar, open cockpit planes, whistles.
C. Miscellaneous.—Warning devices, sirens (police, ambulance, firecall out
volunteer firemen), air-raid, celebrations, power whistles, traffic whistles.
IV. Percussion and Vibration
A. Industrial and military.—Piledrivers_.
B. Domestic, recreational, and entertainment, including toys.—Rock-and-
roll, home amplifiers.
Dr. MEYER. Panel?
Dr. WHITCOMB. Because of the magnitude of the problem you
have outlined, would you consider that it might be reasonable to
augment the private practitioner with an inexpensive public clinic
of some kind where monitoring could be done on children, for
example ?
Dr. MARCUS. That is a possibility, yes.
Dr. WHITCOMB. There really aren't enough of otolaryngologists
as a group to do this sort of job, I don't think.
Dr. MARCUS. I think that is a very good look at a major problem
in terms of the numbers involved, and on some occasions I have
considered the possibility that some of the otolaryngologists'
offices could be expanded with the cooperation of the public peo-
ple to do this sort of thing—in other words, bring some of the
so-called public monitoring stations, as you referred to them, near
or close to, or actually in the otolaryngologist's office. He will be
there; it will be much easier than to do it—obviously there would
be problems of administration and so on, but no more so, very
likely, than any other way.
Dr. WHITCOMB. There might be—this could be ideal because
then the rough screening might identify somebody early who could
then be examined more thoroughly.
Dr. MARCUS. Absolutely. I would be very much in favor of such
a thing.
Professor PLACER. You left out of your catelog, Dr. Marcus, of
noise sources, screaming parents as potential damaging sources,
-------
166
but to pass that for the moment, you call for several kinds of
legislation, reaching the question of evaluation and perhaps re-
stricting the use or sale of various kinds of possible noise hazard-
ous items. To your knowledge are there any governmental
programs, either state or Federal, or perhaps even local, now in
effect that are dealing with this problem ?
Dr. MARCUS. I was hoping to have an opportunity to check this
out. I have not had such an opportunity. I don't know the answer
to that question. I think it's important to find out as soon as we
can what the statutes are in regard to the problem that I
mentioned.
Professor PLACER. Thank you.
Dr. MEYER. Your colleague, Dr. Whitcomb, is getting edgy.
Dr. WHITCOMB. Actually I have—FDA has initiated a start in
this direction with, first of all, banning caps, which you mentioned
earlier, and then second, when there was some reverse scientific
reaction to that, because the pulse is so short in duration, com-
pared to shotgun shells and so on, which are more hazardous, I
think they have now adopted the posture of simply labeling these
containers as hazardous.
Dr. MARCUS. I hope that will be enough.
Mr. HINTON. Dr. Marcus, this panel—at least several members
of this panel, particularly are interested in the transportation
noise sources and their effect on the spectator or the user. You
mentioned just briefly the automobile, of the child riding in the
automobile. My experience has been continuous, with more and
more people traveling, more children, of course, being carried
along
Dr. MARCUS. Right.
Mr. HINTON. There are a lot of sources of noise, for example,
aerodynamic noise, which is almost continuous in a moving ve-
hicle; that is the principal source of noise in an aircraft, by the
way, in the cabin
Dr. MARCUS. Yes.
Mr. HlNTON. So what can be done, in your estimation, and
would you have any suggestions that this panel might consider
about this problem?
Dr. MARCUS. Well, it is not clear to me, of course, how dam-
aging to the ear such aerodynamic noise could be, so I would
think the first thing that could be done is actually set up an
experiment whereby, with volunteers, check and see what the
hearing would be after a ride of 1 hour, 2 hours, 3 hours, what-
ever it would be, and see if there is a temporary threshold shift
of hearing; follow it up over a period of time, and see if, in fact,
there may be some difficulty.
The second aspect of that, however, is that again, talking about
the patients who wear hearing aids, with this noise, which is a
low sort of a hum, you can describe it as a distant roar almost,
it does interfere with hearing. You can't hear as well, and when
you are wearing a hearing aid, all these sounds are a major
problem, and wherever they can be reduced, let's say, from the
point of view, with interference with a speech intelligence, that
should be done. I think further studies are certainly called for as
far as ear-damaging effect.
-------
167
Mr. MARTIN. Dr. Marcus, my question is twofold; one, what
kind of levels, in general, create this hearing damage, and second,
what kind of exposure, continuous or intermittent, what length
exposure generally would cause a permanent threshold shift?
Dr. MARCUS. In my opinion, a—let's say there are different
levels of sound from the different explosive devices—the caps
would have a different one than a shotgun, for instance; a rifle
of a certain caliber from another.
In general, I would say until we get full information at what
kind is being used at what point, we can consider that the explo-
sion at the muzzle of most of these that can cause trouble runs
anywhere from 130 to 180 decibels, at least, and in some may
reach peaks if we could measure these, over 200. Now, this occurs
in a very short space of time; nevertheless, the experience that
I have had so far indicates that one such exposure, if the head
is just held—if the conditions of resonation and reflexion are
just right, can result in a permanent loss of greater or lesser
degree.
Let me illustrate that particular one. They have the so-called
blank cartridge that is used on the stage, and one of my patients
attending a theatre in the round here in the Chicago area, sitting
on the aisle, her left ear at the aisle, one of the actors came
running down. He was supposed to carryout a shooting gesture
with one of these pistols, and happened to shoot it right above
her head, within a few inches of the left ear. She immediately
had roaring; she had some vertigo in the ear; she noticed she
couldn't hear well. She came in the next day. Fortunately I had
had previous tests on her, perfectly normal hearing, some months
before; she had practically no hearing in that left ear. This is
what I call the chance or inadvertent exposure to this type of
thing, and indicates to you how serious one explosion can be.
Now, then, if we consider that other children may not be quite
that close, other people not quite that close, they may have mild
tonal dips, let's say a dip in the hearing which is permanent, but
not necessarily of a character which would interfere with their
everyday activities, but still can be added to through the years,
so this is a major problem. The noise that comes from these guns,
from these explosive devices is tremendous, and is damaging.
You asked another question, and I, in my long answer to the
first one, I am sorry, it had slipped my mind. I am going to ask
you to repeat it, please.
Mr. MARTIN. Well, I am mostly concerned about the inter-
mittent, or somewhat, an hour of continuous exposure to things
like blenders, appliances in the home, which are not quite the
130 level.
Dr. MARCUS. Right. Yes. This is not known, and I am uncertain
as to how much exposure, let's say, would be required, whether
the intermittent exposure that we know of in the kitchens, for,
let's say, minutes or short periods of time, would be damaging.
We all know that this should be considered accumulative sort of
type—in other words, you have to take the amount per day or
per week, or let's say the lifetime of exposure in a situation like
this, and I have listed these as potentially ear damaging the
capacity. I do not say that they would be definitely so.
-------
168
Professor KERREBROCK. I think I can answer my own question
from your last answer, but I want to ask it anyway, for the
record. Do you know of any evidence of ear damage due to
transportation-derived noises in the general populace? That is, is
there any damage to the ear from aircraft noise, from truck noise
and so forth?
Dr. MARCUS. You see, this is one of our problems, to be able
to have some base from which we can, from which we can measure
changes in hearing. Fortunately today most of the schoolchildren
have hearing1 tests, so that we know what their hearing is or had
been at a certain time.
For us, then, to go back and measure what the noises have been,
and whether a hearing loss that we now see in an older child is
related to such transportation noise, becomes a very difficult situ-
ation. This is one of our—one of the drawbacks to the problem
as we see it today.
We do not yet have enough information on day-to-day hearing
of children and adults, to measure what something like this could
do to the hearing.
Professor KERREBROCK. Thank you.
Dr. MEYER. Dr. Marcus, before we ask for our next witness,
my colleague, Mr. Hinton, has one further question he would like
to ask you
Dr. MARCUS. Oh, yes.
Dr. MEYER. And we have asked you a lot of questions, because,
really, your testimony is central to the problem of noise, in addi-
tion to the nuisance effects of course. We appreciate your time,
and before we excuse you, may I allow my colleague to ask you
another question?
Dr. MARCUS. Yes.
Mr. HINTON. Dr. Marcus, I would like to have your brief
opinion on whether or not you think that transitory flyover noise,
for example, of an aircraft, or vehicle passing on our highways of
a high magnitude, but very short duration, has any permanent
threshold shift effect on hearing?
Dr. MARCUS. I have no specific information to that effect, but
I have had the testimony from patients who, in the days before
with air conditioning in cars, now, whether this introduces some
other problem or not as far as ear-damaging noises concerned in
regard to your question about aerodynamic noise, but in the days
before air conditioning, salesmen used to drive for hours and
hours many days of the week with the window open, and some
would say to me, after a day's drive, they felt they did not hear
as well out of that side, and they would come in some years later
with a loss on the left more than the right—more so, let's say,
they felt in their own minds it was related to that type of ex-
posure. I think this is a very important aspect that has not been
carefully studied, and should be studied.
Mr. HlNTON. Well, I wasn't referring to that aerodynamic noise
this time; I was referring to the high noise level of an aircraft
passing at low altitude, or a truck on the highway passing by,
close by the observer, where you have just a few seconds—5, 4, 3
seconds of peak noise, and then you have a period of relative
quiet. You know what I mean?
-------
169
Dr. MARCUS. Yes, I understand what you mean.
I doubt—I doubt at the moment, unless we are dealing with
other physiological factors in the ears, or pathological factors,
let's say a patient who has had ear surgery, as I mentioned be-
fore, if the natural defenses of the ears may have been altered, I
think it's possible some of these people could suffer some ear
damage from the kind of exposure that you refer to under other
circumstances; it would seem to me somewhat unlikely that this
would have any permanent effect.
Mr. HINTON. This was my information also. I just wanted to
have your opinion.
Dr. MARCUS. Yes.
Dr. MEYER. Thank you very much, sir, for a most helpful
presentation.
Dr. MARCUS. Thank you, Dr. Meyer.
Dr. MEYER. We have a group of individuals, a representative
group of individuals, who have taken some time to come here
from out of State to give some comments on noise as it affects
people engaged in noisy trades. We have heard from Dr. Marcus.
It's a well-established fact that the greatest exposures of the
American public to noise-risk deafness are in the occupational
groups working with heavy machinery; people who are working
around testing of aircraft engines, people who are working in
steel mills, people who are working around lumbering operations,
with big saws and so on, so I would like to ask AFL-CIO repre-
sentative, Mr. Sheldon Samuels and his colleagues if they would
come forward.
Mr. SAMUELS. Thank you. This is Mr. Noah Roberts, chief
steward of the Whirlpool plant in Benton Harbor, and Mr. Al
Romeo, president of the local there, the International Association
of Machinists.
Dr. MEYER. Very happy to have you gentlemen. Thank you,
Sheldon, for arranging for their arrival here, and, gentlemen, we
would like to hear from you.
STATEMENT OF NOAH ROBERTS, AND AL ROMEO, JR.,
MACHINISTS UNION
Mr. ROBERTS. I am Noah Roberts, chief steward, local No. 1918,
Machinists Union in Benton Harbor, Mich., representing the
Whirlpool workers of the St. Joe division.
Mr. ROMEO. Albert Romeo, Jr., president of local No. 1918,
Machinists Union, representative for the people of St. Joseph,
Mich.
Dr. MEYER. Please proceed, gentlemen.
Mr. ROMEO. I am having Mr. Roberts here start.
Dr. MEYER. Very good. Would you mind moving the microphone,
that black one, just a little closer to you?
Mr. ROMEO. I have a hearing problem, so you will have to
speak up.
Mr. ROBERTS. To begin with, I would like to present here some
layouts of the plant, and the one here is marked off with some
readings, I would like these to be entered into your records.
Dr. MEYER. It will be done, sir.*
^ This material is on file at the Office of Noise Abatement and Control.
-------
170
Mr. ROBERTS. I have several copies here; how many copies
would you wish? That is a layout, identified by plant number of
the entire St. Joe division, and where the readings are posted
there, represents the first area in which the—which is affected
by this new act concerning the health and safety, and the ear
muffs were put into effect in this area prior to any attempt on
the part of the company, to reduce the noise.
Our local union is totally unsatisfied with the progress, or with
the manner in which the company has approached this problem,
and we are of the contention that the company is, has taken the
cheap way, and the easy way out, and is not actually presenting
a solution to the problem that we have.
The—I was given permission to take some readings in the
plant, and these readings were taken, and these represent the
readings that appear on this sheet here [indicating].
The readings read as follows:
In one area I got a reading, reading from 95 to 97 decibels.
And another area I got a reading of 102 decibels, and 95 to 106
decibels.
And in another area, 98 to 100, and 98 to 102, and 93 to 94,
102 to 104, and 93.
Now, I had one area there that read about 88 to 94 decibels,
and the way that the company has measured this noise, they have
an exposure meter that they have attached to the employees, and
have them wear them for a period of eight hours, and in the
areas that shows 180 minutes of 90 decibels or above. Those are
the areas that are affected, and the people are required to wear
an ear muff.
Now, these—they have made no attempt whatsoever to lower
the sound level in these high noise level areas, with the exception
of one plant, which is a machining operation, and that is num-
bered as plant 7 on the diagram, and has no readings on it. That
will be up in your righthand corner of the diagram up there, as
plant 7, and they have made some minor changes there based on
some suggestions that the people, the employees themselves, have
turned in.
I think it was November the 25th when the company first ap-
proached us on this problem, based on the congressional acts, that
were about to make this a law, which would affect them, and only
then did they become real concerned about it, and they informed
us that there would be a hearing abatement program put into
effect as a condition of employment, and all people working in the
high noise level areas would be required to wear an ear muff,
and we were not given a choice as to the type of protective equip-
ment to wear.
They said this is what you will wear; any other type of equip-
ment will not be accepted, and we don't feel that this was the
proper approach to this.
We acknowledge that we have a problem with noise, as most
of the industries do, and we definitely feel that there is something
that can be done to lower this noise level, in many cases, below
the danger level—and in most cases down to the level by where
certain types of protective equipment would bring it on down to
the safe level.
-------
171
This company has failed to do anything in the press room area
that is diagramed there, and their answer to it was that it was
senseless to spend hundreds of thousands of dollars and not be
able to move the level of sound down over one or two decibels.
They feel that there is nothing that can be done to quiet punch
press type noise, and certainly we don't agree with this.
We feel at least this company should make an attempt to ful-
fill their obligations in accordance with the act and exhaust every
means of engineering control to reduce this sound level.
Also, we feel that the proper protective equipment should be
issued, and the equipment should be the type that would not in
itself present a hazard.
The types of machines that several of the people have to run
there, they run them by ear; if you block the sound off, then that
becomes a hazard in other manners, causing a person to be sub-
jected to loss of arm, or possibly loss of life.
Also, on lift truck operations, mechanical motorized vehicles,
in many instances we have to depend on sharp hearing to properly
perform our duties on these lift truck jobs, and if our hearing is
deterred in any manner, well, it increases the hazards on our
vehicle jobs, and this is one of the reason why we appear here,
and we haven't had any—we have asked that the inspectors be
brought in to offer some suggestions as to the solutions to this
noise, and up to this point they have brought no inspectors in.
We haven't—this has been a company program; it's been made
a part of the shop rules. It's been made a condition of employ-
ment, and the company—the only manner in which they have dealt
with this union on this was that, I think, about November the
25th they approached us, informed us of what they intended to do.
They came back in April, I believe—and I don't remember the
date—they informed us then that they had had their engineers
to offer several suggestions, and there seemed to be no solution
to the problems in the area that we are most concerned about.
And then again on June the 2d—June the 3d, I believe it was,
they interrupted a committee meeting that we were having and
told us at that time that the hearing abatement program would
be put into effect on the startup date following vacation, which
was July the 12th, and we now have a compulsory, mandatory
ear muff program, and this we don't feel is the, has been done in
a proper manner.
We don't feel that the company has discharged their full re-
sponsibility to this, and that the wrong avenue of approach was
taken to the problem, and we would very much like some help
from the inspectors from the Federal Government to assist us in
getting a safe program in this plant to help abate this noise.
Dr. MEYER. Thank you very much for this presentation, sir. I
will see to it that the information you have given us is transmitted
to the people in the Department of Labor, who are concerned with
enforcement of the Occupational Safety and Health Act. The rea-
son the company has, as I am sure you have already indicated in
your testimony, required you to take these measures is that if
they don't either quiet the equipment or provide you with re-
quired hearing protection they become a violator of a Federal law
for which there are very strict penalties. So the fact remains,
-------
172
though, that you have a problem that should be brought to the
proper people's attention.
I would like to ask the panel, if they have any questions be-
fore I ask several.
Mr. MARTIN. Does the company medical department have any
kind of hearing equipment that they can measure employees'
hearing before and after exposure, and do they have any plans
that they have told you about to modify exposure times based on
possible hearing loss that occurs to employees in this area?
Mr. ROBERTS. They have a soundproof room that was recently
installed to test a person's hearing prior to going into these high
level noise—these high noise level areas, and I am not sure yet
whether they have put this into effect on a plantwide basis or not.
There is one thing about this program that we are not satisfied
with, taking myself, for an example, I requested a hearing test,
and after the test was taken—and it was taken by the first aid
nurses who I am not convinced are totally qualified to take this
test; then I requested a copy of my medical records of this test
for my medical records, so that I could have it for future reference
in case of a problem, because we know nothing about the reading
of this test, so they could come up 2 or 3 years from now with
any type of a reading.
They have indicated that this test will be given periodically,
and they gave semiannual and annual as their concept of periodi-
cally, and I understand that there are possibilities that a law may
be passed making these records available to the employees.
At the present time they have refused—they have denied my
request for a copy of my hearing test, and this is also what I
would like to get resolved in the future, very near future.
Dr. MEYER. At last
Mr. ROMEO. I would like to add to that.
Dr. MEYER. Go ahead, sir, please.
Mr. ROMEO. They are going to make it a mandatory thing that
everybody in the plant take the hearing test.
Dr. MEYER. Well, the last point that your colleague has given
is an important one, and I certainly shall see to it that it gets
to the proper people in the Department of Health, Education, and
Welfare, and Labor. Certainly, the results of that sort of a hearing
examination ought to be furnished the employee; medical records,
as Dr. Marcus would tell you, are considered sometimes to be
professionally confidential for a variety of reasons, but it's just
like a prescription for your glasses. Why, certainly something of
this nature, some system, should be worked out. I will see to it
that the people responsible for the law that you are discussing
here get this information. This law is not this Agency's responsi-
bility but it is one that we are concerned with.
I have several questions I would like to ask you, because it is
on the total noise problem—not only the noise within the plant,
but the noise outside the plant.
What type of construction is this building that you took these
measurements in?
Mr. ROBERTS. This is a steel-type, metal-type construction. I
think parts of it are made of brick or blocks of some type.
-------
173
This plant was started back in 1947, I believe, and it was con-
tinuously added onto, and at each time that the plant was added
onto, a new type of material—there was a new type of material
used in each addition, or a more up-to-date type of material, so
it's of a steel-type construction plant, and there is no exhaust in
the ceilings, and no ventilation from the ceilings at all, and we
have offered this as a means of suggestion.
Now, the plant 5 area here that is in question is relatively new.
It came into existence in the sixties, the early sixties, and by our
millwrights and maintenance department, it was suggested at that
time that all this machinery be exhausted in the pit, in the floor,
you know, and this wasn't followed because of the expense in-
volved in it.
Now, the perimeter reading of this department here averages
about 95 decibels, and I had an engineer, one that was supposed
to have been one of their sound experts that has been schooled in
this from the company present with me when these readings were
taken, and he acknowledged the accuracy of it, because he was
giving me the readings to the areas, in many cases, before we
would ever get to these areas. He would tell me that a certain
reading would be here, in this area, and when we got there, we
would find that reading to be correct.
Dr. MEYER. I gather this is a punch press operation?
Mr. ROBERTS. Right.
Dr. MEYER. When was this equipment installed, and how long
did it take to install it?
Mr. ROBERTS. This equipment was installed, I believe it was
finished up either in 1961 or 1962. Now, there has been additions
to this periodically, new equipment being brought in, larger
presses, 4 to 800-ton type of presses, etc., and we have automatic
lines with eight or 10 presses tied in in sequence to perform top-
type operations, to start a top of a washing machine and totally
finish it before it's released at the tail end of the operation, and
these presses have been continuously updated to high speed type
presses over the years, and the latest press just came in this year.
Dr. MEYER. Thank you very much. We appreciate receiving this
information, and it will be in the record, and I will take the
necessary action to see that this information gets passed on to
the right people. Thank you very much, gentlemen; I am glad you
could come, and appreciate your taking the time.
Mr. ROBERTS. Thank you.
Mr. ROMEO. Thank you.
Dr. MEYER. The next person I would like to call is Dr. Alfred
Etter, a Naturalist with the Morton Arboretum. Dr. Etter.
Dr. ETTER. I thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have copies of my
presentation here, if anybody would like to have copies.
STATEMENT OF ALFRED ETTER, MORTON ARBORETUM
Dr. ETTER. I speak for a little black girl who recently visited
the Morton Arboretum where I am the naturalist. On the floor
of a woods she discovered a small piece of a tree. Unable to recog-
nize wood that had never been sawed or nailed she asked what it
was. When she learned that it was a piece of a genuine tree, just
the way God made it, she was so delighted that she embraced it
-------
174
like a doll and carried it home to the ghetto with her on the bus.
That is how ignorant of nature our people, especially our children,
have become. For many of them, the unnatural has become the
usual—so it has been with noise.
I think I speak not only for this little girl, but for people of
every age who, because of rising levels of noise everywhere, are
searching for something they feel they have lost. Without know-
ing it, they need to walk and sit together in a quiet place and
look at the earth, listen to how the birds sing, and perhaps to
puzzle about how much growing, and developing, plants can
accomplish without ever making a sound.
When I requested permission to testify at this hearing, I was
asked whether I wanted to testify as an expert. How does one
qualify as an expert in these matters? Must he have a Ph.D. to
speak out against the inhumanity of man's noise? Isn't just being
alive enough? Aren't ears sophisticated enough to tell the differ-
ence between what is strident and what is soothing? Aren't irrita-
tion and anger as good a measure as decibels?
If it helps impress someone, then yes—I have a Ph.D. I have
spent 8 years in college and the rest of my life in studying the
earth, and the life of it. I have made it my responsibility to
understand how the world is put together—and not a little of this
understanding has come from listening to the sounds of nature—
the silent sounds of stars, the timeless flowing of rivers, the en-
thusiasm of wrens, the gnawing of squirrels as they husk walnuts
in the fall.
In the past 15 years of my life, I have traveled among the
largest cities in the Nation, and so I have become somewhat
expert not only on sounds but on noise. I have heard most of the
sounds of nature obliterated from the lives of people—worse than
that, the sound of the people has been obliterated too.
Now that I am living at the Morton Arboretum in Lisle, I am
receiving an involuntary post-doctorate in suburban noise. Though
people have a vision of the Arboretum as a nice quiet green island
somehow immune to progress, that vision is false. Hemmed in
by ever-mounting traffic of every sort, it is already a victim of
the noise that people and industry bring with them when they
are fleeing the inhumane conditions they themselves had created
in the deeper city.
A short time ago we had a ceremony on the grounds of the
Aboretum at which Senator Adlai Stevenson spoke. Many of
those in the audience were disappointed that they were unable
to hear him because of the traffic on Highway No. 53 where
trucks, attempting to satisfy the insatiable demand of people for
a new environment, pace back and forth like caged tigers.
I live on the Arboretum and my bedroom window faces south
overlooking the East-West Tollway about 1,000 feet away. The
Burlington Railroad is nearly a mile further south. Jets often fly
by only a few thousand feet overhead. I have no choice in summer
but to leave the window open, and all night I toss and turn and
have my own violent thoughts about how I can outwit the vibra-
tions that shake not only the sky but the earth even from those
distances.
I wonder how many others toss and turn, and grow angry along
with me. Yet I am far more fortunate than most. What tortures
-------
175
of noise are inflicted upon those who are trapped in the breathless
city forced to open their windows to the excretions of industry,
the hot exhaust of vehicles, and the exhalations of countless office
and apartment air conditioners that heat rather than cool the
environment? Is it any wonder these people revolt, burn, van-
dalize, seek refuge on Government property by the lake, as Mike
Chosa and his Indian followers tried to do? The Indians still have
enough instinct left to recognize the kind of environment a human
being needs—what kills and what lifts the spirit.
At the Arboretum on field trips I often try to tell children's
groups how we should take care of the earth. What hypocrisy!
My words and their questions are drowned out by banging ve-
hicles and rasping tires. The sounds of frogs or birds or squirrels
might as well not even be. Not long ago there was national con-
cern about a silent spring. We have solved that threat with a
greater one. Who knows whether the spring is silent or not amid
the pandemonium of modern vehicles?
Not long ago I spent a morning at the Ogden Avenue School
in La Grange with a group of young people, trying to show them
what there was of nature left on their own schoolyard. Amid the
acceleration and deceleration of trucks and jet noise overhead, I
could hardly make myself heard when I tried to communicate
some of my excitement at finding a honey bee nest in an old
maple tree on the school grounds.
For the sake of economy, several school buildings in the Chicago
area are now being used 12 months of the year. Have you ever
tried to teach, or learn, in a hot school with all the windows open
and the noise of the traffic and road repairs boiling up from the
streets? What is gained by wasting pupils' and teachers' time
trying to fight the domination of today's traffic? How many of
the other so-called fruits of civilization, the art museums, the
peaceful parks, the opportunities for visits and strolls in the
neighborhood have succumbed to the omnipresence of noise?
On a farm where I lived and did research, it was an everyday
observation that vibrations of every frequency were constantly
being exchanged between animals, men, and the earth—but this
communication was only possible when everything was quiet. Life
is absolutely dependent on quietness. Animals and birds depend
upon it to make their living, to find their mates, to protect them-
selves from attack. Embryos still in the egg communicate with
their siblings in adjacent eggs and so synchronize their hatching.
Have you ever watched a robin lean down to listen for a worm?
What happens to the radar of the bats, the trilling of toads, the
prolonged symphonies of the thrushes when their home ranges are
invaded by raucous man-made racket? For the most part, they
give up.
Last fall I watched a string of sandhill cranes wending their
way southward over their ancestral route, suburban Chicago, once
a land of marshes and lakes and clean streams, now become a
checkerboard of streets blanketed with polluted haze threaded
with the webs of jets, helicopters, and small planes. How much
longer will the wild cries of the adults keep the young of the
flock on course until they find a sanctuary?
-------
176
When animals are made to listen to noise, they grow sullen,
unresponsive, erratic, or violent. Is it any wonder we have violent,
despondent, indifferent people when they cannot hear, in their
neighborhood, the once familiar events by which they timed their
day, conjured up visions of friends passing by, of tradesmen ply-
ing their routes, of church service, or children at recess? People
need sounds to stimulate the joys of expectation, to reassure them
that they are part of a system, a pattern, or to challenge them to
be alert and observant—and to hear sounds, they need quiet.
It was James Russell Lowell who said "... heaven tries earth
if it be in tune . . ." Who can tell, amid the cacophony of today,
whether the earth be in tune or not? I suspect that dissonant
worlds have a way of producing dissident people. Three years ago
I was in Washington, D.C., and participated in the so-called
"Poverty March" on "Solidarity Day." It was a memorable ex-
perience. I found a lot of people sharing a lot of unhappiness,
peacefully. We were not complaining just of poverty, hunger,
discrimination, or bossism. Among us was a down-deep resent-
ment for the kind of world that was being forced upon us. Few
could epitomize their feelings—there was only a kind of vague
malevolence threatening us, bringing us together.
As we stood there, several hundred thousand of us, hoping to
hear some wise speaker who might diagnose the problem, the
malevolence suddenly revealed itself as it broke upon us from
every direction as the careful, soulful, often beautiful, even cry-
ing words of the speakers received lash after lash of violent noise
from descending jets, hovering helicopters, and flatulent buses.
Reverend Abernathy's cries of "soul power" were impotent in the
face of noise power, in the swish and boom and scream of pro-
pellers and exhausts and sirens. Prayers, hymns, anthems, and
even the courageous voice of Coretta King were cut down with
impunity.
Little wonder, I wrote in my notes, that the people of America
are becoming violent, sullen, plotting and addicted—for they are
being dominated by the technological impudence of machines.
Noise is the ultimate insult. It kills what is left of many things
that we have loved—music, beauty, friendship, hope, and excite-
ment—and the reassurance of nature. Traditionally noise is used
to ridicule, embarass, denigrate, and curse—while silence is used
for worship, respect, anticipation, and love. Do we hate each
other as much as our noise level indicates?
Collapsing Rome didn't give a damn how much noise it made
any more than we do. Read Juvenal—and weep with him:
Insomnia causes more deaths amongst Roman invalids than any other fac-
tor. * * * How much sleep, I ask you, can one get in lodgings here? Unbroken
nights—and this is the root of the trouble, are a rich man's privilege. The
wagons thundering past through those narrow twisting streets, the oaths of
draymen caught in a traffic jam—these alone would suffice to jolt the doziest
sea-cow of an Emperor into permanent wakefulness.
Will the noise of modern man jolt the doziest sea-cow of all,
the American city where the sounds of Ancient Rome have been
magnified a hundred fold? Unless it does, I see no future for man.
Whom do I blame? I blame no one. I blame everyone. I blame
all the people, including myself, who have come to Chicago to find
-------
177
a place to live, a job to do, and in the process have destroyed
nature and created a tumult of noise borne of their demands for
every convenience and every novelty and every protection from
exercise, from chance, from weather. We each demand too much.
It is our demands that destroy us, that keep the trucks roaring
and the jets rocketing and giantism proliferating.
So, like the little ghetto girl who had seen nothing but boards
all her life, we have become so used to living in this noise-torn
world that we accept the dissonant and the sonorous as part of
our environment. We no longer recognize quietness, nor know how
to use it. But while I am aware that some can adapt to noise, as
to other irritants, no adaptation is achieved without sacrifice. I
think that if people ever rediscover quietness again, they will em-
brace it, like the little girl embraced her piece of tree, and treasure
it as something that is not sawed and nailed and misshapen by
man, but which contains within it some of the secrets of life and
some of the explanation of why we are here.
I have appended to this list—well, short exerpts of articles
from newspapers down through the years, just some, though. This
is nothing new, this complaint about noise. Some of these go back
to 1947, and so forth, so that I just thought those might be of
interest to include in the record.
Dr. MEYER. They shall be included, sir.*
Dr. ETTER. And I have just a couple of minutes of recordings of
what I wake up to, and we will have the dawn coming up like
thunder out there on the arboretum.
[Demonstration of tape recording.]
That is the noise from the tollway, and a song sparrow trying
to make himself heard.
[Demonstration of tape recording.]
This is a jet.
[Demonstration of tape recording.]
Well, I could go on with that. There is a solid tape here of 45
minutes of virtually the same thing, but I am sure you get the
general impression.
Dr. MEYER. Dr. Etter, you are not only obviously a well-
qualified life scientist, but you are a classic natural philosopher,
and I appreciate your presentation. There is another philosopher,
whose quotation I am about to read, who clearly agrees with you,
and I think the audience would like to hear it, also, and I quote:
I have long held the opinion that the amount of noise which anyone can
hear undisturbed scans in inverse proportion to his mental capacity, and may
therefore he regar'ded as a pretty fair measure of it. Noise is a torture to all
intellectual people.
That is from "The World as Will and Idea," written in 1848
by Schopenhauer.
I certainly find your presentation most thought provoking. And
I would also indicate that nature does abhor noise. One of your
colleagues, whom you may know, Carl Krombine of the Smith-
sonian Institute, a very learned and eminent entomologist, re-
ported in the Smithsonian magazine not long ago on a study he
and his wife made on noise from locusts. They found that most
" This material is on flle at the Office of Noise Abatement and Control.
-------
178
other insects, squirrels and animals, birds and so on, will abandon
an area in which the locusts are swarming, and some of the panel
sitting here with me heard the other day in Washington a tape
that was sent to me by a colleague in Dallas of a swarm of cicadas
that had actually been measured at 95 decibels on the A-scale. Of
course, they were observing the same phenomenon, in that virtually
all the wildlife abandoned the area.
We appreciate your presentation very much. I shall see to it
that a copy of it goes to those of us who are working on another
panel dealing with physiological, psychological, and sociological
effects of noise. Panel, any questions?
Professor PLACER. I have one comment. Dr. Etter, the eloquence
of your words was matched only by the impact of your demon-
stration there on the tape. You touch on a very significant problem
which is of tremendous difficulty for any agency dealing with the
noise problem.
There is a range of responses to the noise problem from physio-
logical damage, and we heard Dr. Marcus on that, to those noises
which fall in the area of annoyance, and perhaps psychological
problems, to what I think you addressed yourself, and well, and
that is the whole question of life style, the extent to which we are
abandoning a historical life style without really appreciating the
impact or the significance of it.
I simply note this for the record because it's a terribly difficult
area in which to come to grips with what one does about the
broad issue of life style, and you have very well called our atten-
tion to that. For that I thank you.
Dr. ETTER. Thank you.
Dr. MEYER. Anybody else on the panel? Thank you very much,
sir. Our next witness is John Harper, executive director, En-
vironmental Parameters Research Organization.
Mr. HARPER. Gentlemen, I am sure you will concur that Dr.
Etter's presentation is a hard act to follow; however, I will at-
tempt to do my best. I have a brief statement here, anticipating
that this would be a crowded day.
Dr. MEYER. Thank you, sir.
STATEMENT OF JOHN D. HARPER, ENVIRONMENTAL PARAMETERS
Mr. HARPER. Mr. Chairman, ladies, and gentlemen. My name is
John D. Harper, I am executive director of a non-profit re-
search organization known as EPRO. One of our current projects
is the scientific research and evaluation of the propagation of
sound waves over bodies of water, and the study of the effects
of high energy sound waves on pelagic life and other marine
biota in an effort to determine what, if any, deleterious results
the siting of commercial airports adjacent to or in bodies of water
does or will have on the aquatic environment. The results of this
study are not expected for some time, so I will address myself
briefly to two points that are pertinent to this hearing.
First, we all live in basically an anthropocentric society. Our
first concern is usually, "What effect does this have on me? ...
How will I benefit? . . . How will this harm me?" This attitude
should be questioned. We need to expand our horizons. Man does
not live upon this planet alone. There are myriad other life forms
-------
179
that are just as dependent upon the fragile balance of a healthy
environment as is man. And man's role is as a creature of nature,
dependent upon other living creatures and organisms for survival.
We must acknowledge that the technological society that we have
spawned is depreciating by annoying and harmful noises the basic
qualities of life, not only man's, but of other living creatures to
which man's destiny is tied. There are those among us who de-
fend, for whatever reasons I decline to speculate upon, the sup-
position that noise isn't really that bad, that it may be annoying
on rare occasion, but that this is small price to pay for our great
technological society, and that it is seldom, if ever with "proper"
care taken, harmful.
A problem is said to exist when our view of what conditions
are, does not coincide with our view of what they should be.
Problems, in short, are products of our values. Which brings me
to the second point I would like to convey. And that is education.
The education of all members of our society, both young and old,
to the knowledge that conservation of their hearing is just as im-
portant as the conservation of their sight and other senses. And
again through education to appreciate the problem of debilitating
noises and learn a consideration of others with an understanding
of the necessity to preserve a more tranquil environment. This in
itself would be a considerable undertaking as we have long been
led to equate noise with power and status. The best truck engines
are the noisiest, and the most powerful jet engines whine the
loudest. A banging, clanging factory means fervid activity while
a quiet plant conveys lethargy. These syllogisms must be changed.
I believe the two points raised here, the effect of noise on our
total environment and the education of our society to the debili-
tating effects of noise, should share the highest priority of the
many problems that face us. They are real and must be recognized
and remedied if the degradation of our society is to be avoided.
Thank you.
Dr. MEYER. Thank you very much. Again I find something of
extreme value, as in all of these comments we received during
these hearings. I have yet to hear one that didn't have some meat
for us.
I note your comments regarding the studies. One of the things
that we would probably want to do is to contact you further, be-
cause Congress has asked us to find out who is doing what and
where, and your views and comments here will be useful to us
in our studies.
Mr. HARPER. Thank you.
Dr. MEYER. Panel?
Mr. HlNTON. Mr. Harper, I am also very interested in this study
concerning propagation of sound waves over bodies of water, and
the effects of the aquatic life. I had no inkling that there was a
potential problem in this sense, because our initial idea was that
the location of airport operations at bodies of water would be an
ideal situation from the standpoint of the people now affected.
Mr. HARPER. It may very well be for the people now, but for the
aquatic environment, it could have a deleterious effect. Quite
often the aspects of reefs, cause waves, underwater structures
for spawning or habitats for pelagic life are held up as something
-------
180
favorable, or there are going to be fishermen out there; quite the
converse could be true, with the impingement of high energy
soundwaves with noise, the fish don't have any mortgages to pay.
They could very well leave.
Mr. HINTON. That is very interesting, that you are looking into
that. I am sure the EPA will be interested in the results.
Dr. MEYER. That's right. Panel, any questions?
Mr. HARPER. Thank you.
Dr. MEYER. Thank you very much. The next person to appear
to testify is Mr. Herbert G. Poertner, an engineering and re-
search consultant. Mr. Poertner, if you are here, would you kindly
come forward and let us hear from you, sir.
STATEMENT OF HERBERT G. POERTNER
Mr. POERTNER. Gentlemen, my background is essentially that
of civil engineering, public works engineering, and also environ-
mental problems of our urban communities.
I intend to make a statement of my own personal views today,
and the statement that I will make is, although not profound, I
believe it does, in its philosophy, sound some fresh notes and
focus some spotlights upon the approaches that people should and
possibly will take to the solutions of some of our community
problems.
The title of my presentation is, "The Pleasure of Living."
It's a wonderful, beautiful world—and it can be even more
satisfying! Life is worth living—and the pleasure of living can
be enhanced!
I am against noise—and I have been ever since I began to
distinguish between sounds and noises. Community noise is only
one of many problems causing frustration and unhappiness in
our urban communities. But, I believe, there are other more
severe urban problems—considering the community and its people
as a unit. Some of these are: Human desolation resulting from
our abandonment and disregard of the elderly; the misery of the
money-poor who lack satisfactory facilities and care to provide
for their health and welfare; and the gutting and desecration of
our limited natural resources by those who place "income state-
ment" in a hierarchy superior to "human welfare."
With full view of these mortal urban problems, I consider com-
munity noise to be a significant and serious environmental prob-
lem and I believe that it can be controlled to the satisfaction of
most urban dwellers and workers. As with anything worthwhile,
our attention, energies, and resources must be laid on the line if
we expect to make noticeable improvements or if we hope to re-
verse the present trend toward noisier communities.
Community noise means different things to different people.
What may appear to some to be an intrusion on the peace and
tranquility of a neighborhood or local office complex may appear
as highlights of community progress to others. Noise is often re-
garded by the business community as sure signs of community
progress!
Too often community noise is regarded as a "thing" or "hard-
ware" problem—when, in reality, it is both a "thing" and a
"people" problem. Successful community solutions to community
-------
181
noise problems will be expedited if "human engineering" is allo-
cated its due share of the financial and human resources that can
be made available to dampen and erase noise from the areas of
concentrated human habitation.
The "probability of success" of developing and implementing
meaningful community noise control programs is most likely to
be an exponential function of the means that are applied to:
"Educate" people concerning the consequences of community
noise—physical, psychological, economic, and social; "instruct"
them regarding feasible solution; and "motivate" them to do that
which can be done to reduce community noise. This is not an easy
task, nor is it an impossible one!
Of these three requisites (education, instruction, and motiva-
tion), the latter (motivation), is probably the most difficult to
achieve. The noisemakers and the noise-receivers must be moti-
vated in tandem—to take actions, or amend actions, that will
produce identifiable improvements in the "sound-quality" or
"sound-levels" of a community, specific area or a point within a
community. The motivation required in one area of a community
may be entirely different from that required in another because
what may constitute noise in one area may be unnoticed in an-
other because of different sensitivities or different standards and
life styles.
"Motivation" requires providing "incentives"! We could call
these "incentives-to-quiet." They can be: Social, economic, politi-
cal, psychological, physiological, ecological, or just "plain human"!
I doubt that very many of us wish to be engulfed in a sea of
tranquility in our quest for quiet; however, the vision of "peace-
ful" surroundings is inviting and desired by most urban dwellers
and workers.
If we are to succeed in abating and controlling community
noise, we must develop well-conceived, planned and determined
approaches, and programs. These will not evolve naturally nor
will they become realities overnight. They will be given birth
and growth through the processes of "education, instruction, and
motivation" of the oppressed and "persuasion, legislation, and
enforcement of law" in the conversion of the oppressors.
It is important to recognize that "persuasion" is much more
effective and better received than methods that result in assess-
ments of monetary penalties and sentencing to penal servitude.
For this reason, it becomes necessary to identify and explain
"incentives-to-quiet" to the noisemakers and the offended. We
should impress upon our minds that people usually require sub-
stantial reasons for initiating and pursuing personal or corporate
actions that require personal or corporate sacrifices or invest-
ments.
Much of the "education" and "motivation" can be catalyzed by
civic organizations such as Citizens Against Noise. This relatively
new Chicago-based, not-for-profit, corporation is dedicated to one
basic goal—"making living more likable." The 11-man board of
directors, of which I am a member, has been active on national,
State, and local levels to help identify, explain, educate, instruct,
and motivate noise producers, recipients, and officials of public
agencies who have responsibility or authority to put checks on
noise.
-------
182
We plan an attack first on the major noise sources (as viewed
by many): transportation, industry, and construction. Other
sources will be tracked in the order of severity and proliferation.
Citizens and institutions that wish to enforce and multiply our
efforts are being encouraged to become a member of Citizens
Against Noise. This may be done by writing to the organization
at 2729 Lunt Avenue, Chicago, 111. 60645.
To explain some of the details of the need for and means of
implementing practical community noise control programs, I am
submitting a written statement today supplementing this more-or-
less philosophical capsule of community noise problems and their
solutions. The title of the statement is "Community Noise—In
Perspective." It explains the dimensions of community noise
problems, the need for providing solutions, and the alternative
means that can be employed to educate and motivate people to
assume active roles in planning, developing, and implementing
"real-world" community noise control programs.
In concluding my remarks, I urge the Office of Noise Abatement
and Control of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency to
recommend to the Congress a vigorous federally assisted program
of research and local and State aids to place community noise
control before the public in true perspective. I also urge that
available resources be focused upon "human-engineering" ap-
proaches as well as upon "hardware-engineering."
Thank you.
Dr. MEYER. Thank you very much, sir. We will be very happy
to receive your prepared statement and the testimony—the ma-
terial that you mentioned—so that we may use it in our studies.*
It will be in the record and will be utilized in reviewing what the
Agency is going to do.
Also I might point out that this type of program that you
mention is partly underway in our efforts to develop the report
to Congress that I mentioned earlier and in hearings such as this,
and are included in the proposal now pending in the Congress to
give us that authority. We appreciate your support, and look for-
ward to working with groups such as yours in developing a co-
operative effort. Thank you very much.
Mr. PoERTNER. Thank you, sir. If anyone is interested, there
are some envelopes on the table—small envelopes for Citizens
Against Noise, if you would like to learn how to become a member.
Dr. MEYER. Fine. Thank you very much, sir. The next person
to appear and give us some information is Mr. Henry Karplus—
I hope I am pronouncing that correctly, sir—from the Illinois
Institute of Technology Research Institute. Glad to have you here,
sir, and look forward to hearing from you.
STATEMENT OF HENRY KARPLUS, ILLINOIS INSTITUTE
OF TECHNOLOGY
Mr. KARPLUS. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman,
gentlemen of the panel, speaking for IIT Research Institute, we
deem it a privilege to be able to present this statement to you dur-
ing your search for information on the severity and consequences
of the noise pollution problem. Our statement consists of two
:: This material was not received for inclusion in the record.
-------
183
recommendations that we would like to present for your con-
sideration.
Dr. MEYER. Thank you, sir.
Mr. KARPLUS. These recommendations are based on over 20
years of experience by our organization in the study of problems
dealing with the effects and control of noise.
The first recommendation is that broader dissemination should
be made of the available knowledge to reduce and control noise
pollution. The basic techniques of noise control have been known
for many years and these techniques are adequate for the solution
of most problems. We know how to construct buildings where
the transmission of sound is minimized and we know how to
build mechanical devices which operate at comfortably low noise
levels.
Unfortunately, however, all too often these principles are ig-
nored, a fact that can be attributed to the average designer's lack
of knowledge and experience in this field. The subject of noise
control is rarely included in the curricula of mechanical engineers,
architects, city planners, and others responsible for the design and
location of machinery and factories. Comparatively few universi-
ties teach noise control as a separate subject. If taught at all, it
is often only a small part of the course in general or architectural
acoustics. When noise control is considered as a basic parameter
in the design of a machine, structure, or plant, the necessity of
studying this subject is obvious.
Since there is a recognized lack of awareness of noise control
techniques, designers should be encouraged to utilize the skills of
qualified acoustical specialists. These experts can often render a
highly valuable service by judging the potential noise character-
istics of alternate designs. It is important, however, that their
services be obtained early in the design procedure, rather than as
an afterthought when changes often become very expensive.
Our second recommendation is the establishment of a broader
program of research in noise control. In recent years most re-
search work has been directed toward the solution of complex,
specialized problems such as extensive efforts to control jet engine
noise, or studies to reduce the noise generated by tires at high
speed. While the results of these programs will have a profound
influence on specific future equipment, there still are a number
of problem areas that will benefit only slightly from this work.
One of the main objectives of a broad based research program
should be the development of more economical techniques for
obtaining the reduction of noise generated by existing facilities
and equipment. Although sufficient technology exists to solve most
of the present noise problems, these solutions are often expensive
and there is a great reluctance to put them into practice. There
are many manufacturing plants and transportation facilities
which will be operating for years to come and which by any
meaningful measure are far too noisy. These facilities are a
nuisance both to those directly concerned with their use and to
the surrounding community. If the direct costs of installing noise
control were reduced through the development of new techniques,
the problems of implementing and enforcing noise control regula-
tions could be made less difficult.
-------
184
In conclusion, we are pleased to have been able to present this
statement and trust that these factfinding hearings will be suc-
cessful here in Chicago and in the other locations on your itinerary.
Dr. MEYER. We appreciate your recommendations very much,
sir. They are very well thought out. Panel?
Mr. HINTON. One comment, Mr. Karplus. I think your recom-
mendation regarding the noise, the inclusion of noise as a basic
parameter in the original design is applicable to all sources.
Mr. KARPLUS. Yes, sir.
Mr. HINTON. And I think it's an awfully good suggestion.
Mr. KARPLUS. So many times we have come a situation where
it would have cost pennies more in the original design, where it
costs thousands of dollars afterwards, if you have to replace some-
thing, because you just can't get an isolator in, or the absorbing
material in. There are many techniques which are easily applied
in the original design which are very, very expensive when
retrofitted.
Mr. HINTON. New York City has learned this in the purchase of
garbage compaction units.
Mr. KARPLUS. Yes, sir.
Professor PLACER. Mr. Chairman.
Dr. MEYER. Yes.
Professor PLACER. Mr. Karplus, what is being done in education,
engineering education to alert the colleges to the problem that you
suggest, which is that this become a part of the education program ?
Mr. KARPLUS. Many of the universities are putting in environ-
mental departments, environmental control departments, noise
and general acoustics programs. They are slowly growing; I be-
lieve they need more encouragement, and in the environment that
I am in at this moment, of the Federal Government, I think the
Federal Government could be involved in encouraging, with suit-
able research projects, to supplement the budgets of universities
to advance in this direction more rapidly.
Mr. MARTIN. Just a comment, Mr. Karplus, which will be of
interest to you—and I know the other members of this panel—a
new independent group has just been formed a few weeks ago
called the Institute of Noise Control, and, in fact, one of the
people who testified yesterday, Lew Goodfriend is one of the
people behind this, just for the record.
Dr. MEYER. Yes.
Mr. KARPLUS. Thank you very much.
Dr. MEYER. Well, I have some interest in the educational field
myself, and I especially appreciate your comments. I would ask
one question; we have two members of the academic community
here on the panel, as you know. You sort of hinted a little bit
at how you think the Federal Government might help, but do you
have any specific recommendations with regard to the leadership
role that we might play without getting too deeply involved in
academic freedom, to develop some better multidiscipline training
programs in institutions such as IIT, and Northwestern, and Uni-
versity of Chicago, and elsewhere around the country?
-------
185
Mr. KARPLUS. Your question is what the Federal Government
could do to help?
Dr. MEYER. To help in this.
Mr. KARPLUS. The problem is always a difficult one, because you
do not wish to interfere with the academic freedom
Dr. MEYER. Right.
Mr. KARPLUS. And yet I believe that the providing of funds for
research sufficiently attracts the right kind people to these insti-
tutions where they will be able to devote the effort to training
young people, if they can be assured of support. There has been
a birth of support in this field, except the very specific areas that
I mentioned, like jet noise, where aircraft companies and the
FAA, and Air Force have put a lot of money into this field. But
there are the many small projects which are being conducted, like
fan noise in ducts has benefited to some extent from jet engine
noise research. But the transfer of information is not immediate,
and not that direct.
I believe that the Federal Government could do more work in
the immediate area of concern to the people rather than in the
rather remote area in which the government has been concerned.
Dr. MEYER. Thank you very much, sir. Your suggestions are
well made, and will be well taken. I should next like to ask
Samuel Peskin, of the Chicago Hearing Society if he is here, to
come forward. Glad to see you, sir.
Mr. PESKIN. Thank you, Dr. Meyer. I appreciate this oppor-
tunity to present a brief statement on behalf of the Chicago Hear-
ing Society.
Dr. MEYER. We are glad to have you.
STATEMENT OF SAMUEL PESKIN, CHICAGO HEARING SOCIETY
Mr. PESKIN. Panel members, we are a voluntary agency, vol-
untary health agency which has been working for more than half
a century for the prevention of hearing loss, and the alleviation
of the handicapped effects of impaired hearing through education,
through demonstration, through research, and through various
direct services to the hearing-impaired, and their families.
While we are primarily concerned with the problem of hearing
loss, we have also been concerned about the total problem of en-
vironmental noise, not only because it contributes to hearing loss,
but because of its total human and economic effects, and in March
of 1970 we sponsored the first communitywide symposium to be
held in any local area on this problem, and to inform the com-
munity about it," and motivate interest into action.
Over the years we have had direct evidence of the increasing
prevalence and severity of hearing loss that we are seeing in our
adult, and particularly in our elderly population.
Dr. Marcus mentioned this morning 20 percent in the 65 and
over. Actually we have just done a preliminary pilot research on
a representative sample of elderly people, and we find the rate in
excess of 40 percent with •
Dr. MEYER. Excuse me, sir. Is this in the older group?
Mr. PESKIN. In the older group, 60 and older. This is just pre-
liminary, and it will have to be confirmed on a much larger sample,
but this is the indication. These are people with air conduction,
-------
186
pure tone air averages of 30 dB or higher, and we can only
ascribe this to the mounting level of noise in our environment,
both on and off the job.
There is hard evidence in the studies of Lipscomb and others
that our young people, in increasing numbers, are suffering per-
manent impaired hearing.
We welcome the new Federal Occupational Safety and Health
Act, and its provisions for more effective protection against on-
the-job noise exposure, but we strongly believe that unless com-
munity noise is also reduced and controlled, that the effectiveness
of industrial noise control will be largely vitiated. The worker
who is exposed to high noise levels on the job must have an off-the-
job environment sufficiently quiet to permit recovery from the
auditory fatigue that results from the occupational noise exposure.
This is one point that we feel is very much, very paramount in
all consideration of the prevention and control of the hearing
problem. We would particularly urge the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency to exert its influence and powers to help set and
enforce noise standards for urban rail transportation.
Our own—the reason we are emphasizing this is that our own
very progressive new city noise ordinance, very progressive in
many other respects, vehicular noise and other, omit mass rail
transportation regulations, to which hundreds of thousands of our
citizens are exposed for very significant periods of time daily.
The other point that we would like to make is that, as Mr.
Harper and Mr. Poertner—and I am sure other witnesses—have
pointed out, public education must go hand in hand with control
measures. And we, the Chicago Hearing Society and other counter-
parts of our agency—of which there are some 40 throughout the
country—voluntary hearing societies, hope that the Environ-
mental Protection Agency will provide us and other groups like
ours with material and other assistance to carry out a continuous
vigorous public education program, which we, with our very
limited resources, cannot carry out without help.
Dr. MEYER. Thank you very much for a constructive and a very
useful presentation. Panel?
Professor KERREBROCK. You mentioned a very interesting figure
with regard to the population over 60, I believe it was. Do you
have any information as to the neighborhoods in which these
people have lived?
Mr. PESKIN. Well, this is—we have really just begun to analyze
our data, and we have information, we have data that we have
gotten from these subjects where they are now living, and where
they have lived since birth.
Professor KERREBROCK. Do you plan to attempt to correlate
the hearing loss with the noise levels in these neighborhoods?
Mr. PESKIN. We intend to do that, yes, and with their on-the-
job noise exposure, and with their leisure time noise exposure,
and so on. Actually this is merely a pilot to develop methodology
for a full scale study of hearing problems in the aged.
Dr. MEYER. Let me ask you one question, sir—excuse the im-
politeness of one of the staff bringing me a small problem
Mr. PESKIN. Not at all.
Dr. MEYER. You mentioned the metropolitan transit. Do you
have any information on the noise levels in the actual?
-------
187
Mr. PESKIN. There is that information available, and we can
gather it for you. Mr. Karplus has a great deal of this informa-
tion. He has made several studies, and we will see to it that it
is provided. We will see that Mr. Laycock gets it.
Dr. MEYER. Fine. I would appreciate it if you would.
Mr. PESKIN. Yes, sir.
Dr. MEYER. With regard to your comment about education, we
have been talking to Alice Suter of your national association a
little bit about this, and we do look forward to working with
you, sir.
Mr. PESKIN. Fine.
Dr. MEYER. Thank you very much for your information. The
next witness is Mr. Carl Carlson of the United Auto Workers
Local No. 6. Mr. Carlson.
STATEMENT OF CARL CARLSON
Mr. CARLSON. Mr. Chairman and members of the panel, and
ladies and gentlemen:
I am the safety chairman of the union safety committee of the
United Auto Workers of local No. 6, Melrose Park, 111. I represent
over 3,000 workers in this International Harvester plant located
in Melrose Park, 111. It is a heavy type of industry. We manu-
facture diesel engines and crawler tractors.
We have a great many problems in these days of layoffs, shrink-
ing pay checks, soaring prices, and all the other aggravations of
modern life; but with all these issues, one of our deepest con-
cerns is the urgent need to upgrade our working conditions.
It goes almost unnoticed that in America's mines and factories
and shops every 81/2 minutes an American worker is killed—55
every working day; 278 every week, 1,200 every month, over
14,000 every year killed in the ordinary course of a day's work.
We are reasonably sure of this body count, but we are not sure
of the industrial accidents that stop short of killing their victims
in a number of diseases, fatal and nonfatal, brought on by in-
dustrial processes. We can tell how many deer were killed in
Wisconsin last year, or how many dollars the taxpayers earned
in this country last year, but no person in this room or in this
city, or in this country knows how many workers were robbed of
their health and hearing in any one industry, or in any one State.
That shameful record year after year is simply tabulated as
one of the statistics that affect insurance expense ratings and
that grand sum we call "gross national product." As long as the
full dimension of the problems are concealed, the effort to achieve
effective action will be retarded. Serious efforts must be made to
uncover the facts—efforts at least equal to those that are made
to keep track of deer and dollars.
There are a great many good men assigned to enforce game
laws and tax laws, but no jurisdiction has cared enough about
workers to put the same kind of effort into protecting them from
death, incapacity or disease, or even recording their casualties.
No disaster in history has ever received so little attention as the
one that blights the lives of millions of families of American
workers every year. Can you imagine the outcry of horror if that
annual disaster happened at one time in one place, so its full
-------
188
impact were unmistakably plain? Can you imagine a response if
this happened in one city? Can you imagine the response if
Americans found out that the accidents were results of apathy
and neglect? Can you imagine their rage if they learn that their
elected officials had the knowledge that the disaster would happen,
and failed to try and stop it?
The power to save these lives has always existed. It exists now.
We have a jumble of regulations affecting different workers, ad-
ministered by different Government agencies. Most of them are
weak rules, weakly administered.
Let me cite a few examples: One, the Walsh-Healy Public Con-
tracts Act. This law is 35 years old and never has been enforced,
and I know of no personal history of any company being brought
to bear to live up to this law. Two, natural gas pipelines. The
first year this had six employees to administer this important
law. Three, fire research and safety, passed in 1968; no funds to
implement it and carry it out. Four, State and community high-
way safety. A very small portion of money has been authorized
to implement this law. Earlier this year Congress has at least
accepted the necessity for studying national guidelines to curb
industrial abuses, and to establish penalties to make sure these
guidelines were observed. This was the Williams Occupational
Safety and Health Standard Act of 1970.
We have had many serious problems in my local. We have
asked for and received inspections from Federal authorities. We
have asked for and received inspections from State of Illinois
inspectors. We have had citations after citations given to the
company, but because of the lack of enforcement some of these
things are still here, and are still on the books since 1967.
And in keeping with this new law, the Williams Act, on May
the 5th we sent to Mr. Edward Estkowski, Acting Regional Ad-
ministrator, Bureau of Labor Standards, Occupational Safety and
Health Administration, 219 South Dearborn Street, Chicago, 111.
60604, the following letter:
DEAR ME. ESTKOWSKI: Local No. 6 UAW charges management of Inter-
national Harvester called company, Melrose Park Works, with the enclosed
list of violations. Six of these violations are from a previous visit of Mr.
Colleran from your office.
There has been a deterioration of many rules and we are hereby notifying
you that under the new Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970 there
exists the imminent danger practices here at Melrose Park Works.
There have been many meetings and surveys between management and the
union, but management has continued to ignore some very serious violations.
We would welcome your immediate attention and concern.
Sincerely,
Carl Carlson,
Chairman, Safety Committee, Local No. 6, UAW.
We cited 32 violations of the Walsh-Healy Public Contracts
Act and requested, under section 5(a), figure 1, general duty
clause, an immediate investigation. We received no investigation
From Mr. Colleran or reply from Mr. Estkowski. Receiving no
reply, on July 21, 1971, we addressed this letter to Mr. George
A. Guenther, Assistant Secretary, Safety and Health Administra-
tion, U.S. Department of Labor, 14th Street and Constitution
Avenue NW, Washington, D.C. 20210.
-------
189
DEAR SIR: Please find enclosed copy of letter sent to Mr. Edward Estkow-
ski, Acting Regional Administrator, Bureau of Labor Standards, Occupational
Safety and Health Administration, Chicago, 111.
As you will note, this letter was sent to him May 5, 1971 with an enclosed
list of violations charging International Harvester Co. with violations of
Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970, section 5 (a) (figure 1) of the
act (general duty clause).
We have had no response from Mr. Edward Estkowski and therefore are
informing you that if we do not receive relief from the violations we will
bring action against Mr. Edward Estkowski as per section 13 (d) of the act
(procedures to counteract imminent dangers clause).
Now, that clause in that new act reads as follows:
Section 13 (d) : if the Secretary arbitrarily or capriciously fails to seek
relief under this section, any employee who may be injured by reason of such
failure, or the representative of such employee may bring action against the
Secretary in the U.S. district court for the district in which the imminent
danger is alleged to exist, or where the employer has its principal office, or
the District of Columbia for a writ of mandamus to compel the Secretary
to seek such an order, and for such further relief as may be appropriate.
We have areas in our plant that has both been surveyed by the
Federal people, Federal inspectors, been surveyed by the company
hygienist, has been observed and surveyed by the State people
where we run over 115 dB on the A-scale 8-hours a day, 40 hours
hours a week. To me, this is imminent danger.
We have not received any kind of response, except a token
response. The company's answer, when we bring these up—it's
no disagreement that each of these things that we have, these
that they are making an engineering survey on, and it's a serious
problem. It's going to cost a lot of money.
We hereby charge that this noise problem has not been given
any attention by the Federal inspector, even when union requested
help. Management has tried to stop the union from making our
own survey, threatening to fire any union man using a noise
level meter.
Gentlemen, as I said before, no law, no matter how well it is
written, has any meaning at all unless it is implemented both with
enough appropriations, with enough money, and, in this condition,
in the condition I have cited here, the people that I represent are
exposed daily, hourly, to this noise problem. It is a problem that
the company is aware of, the company engineers are aware of,
the Federal inspectors are aware of, the State inspectors are
aware of.
The only response we get from the company is strictly tokenism.
I charge, gentlemen, that any law that must be enacted must
have some appropriation, some way of enforcing that law such
as we are doing now, in order—a section should be in your law
to give the people the right to enforce the law—if necessary going
to courts to have it done. That concludes my statement, gentlemen.
Thank you.
Dr. MEYER. Thank you very much, sir, for an interesting dis-
cussion of some of the real problems that exist in trying to satis-
factorily control some of our very high environmental exposures,
such as exist in industrial plants. And, as you wisely point out,
you are well aware of the fact that the Walsh-Healy Act has been
rescinded, if I recollect correctly; it was incorporated into the
Occupation Safety Health Act of 1970, which you cited as the
-------
190
Wilson Act. That act came into being, signed by the President
late in 1970; the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare
and the Department of Labor have been going through an or-
ganizational effort to attempt to rapidly reach a capability they
didn't have until this act was passed, to deal with the problems
that you are raising.
I would like to ask one question. With these identified sound
pressure levels of 115 dBA in the plant, of course, this clearly
violates the Walsh-Healy, which were carried forward into the
new act, until replaced by others. Are you being required to use
hearing protection?
Mr. CARLSON. Only in one area, the engine test area. It's
strictly tokenism. If the employee wants to go to the trouble of
going to his foreman, obtaining a pass, going downstairs and
signing a form, because of this elaborate procedure, obviously the
employees don't want to go to all that trouble.
They figure, what is the use? They are the internal type of ear
plug, which necessitates keeping them clean. They are hot, they
are uncomfortable to wear because of the pressure. Because there
is no educational program as such to educate the people on the
type of damage that is occurring, obviously they are not using
them, or utilizing it to the full extent they should be.
Dr. MEYER. I see, because you touched on an important point,
the education of the worker to the need for using hearing protec-
tion, particularly if management does provide it or make it avail-
able. One of the more difficult problems that some of us had in
certain situations is to get the worker to realize that by failing
to take this protective action he is really hurting himself. I am
sure you heard some of the presentations here
Mr. CARLSON. That's correct.
Dr. MEYER. That clearly show noise can cause hearing loss. I
am not familiar with this plant, so I can't get into the debate
about the type of equipment and how easy it is to quiet or not,
because I don't have the facts. There are certain circumstances,
as you mentioned, around the engine test facility when you some-
times have to run an engine, a bare engine.
Mr. CARLSON. That's correct.
Dr. MEYER. I wanted to ask you a question, assuming an en-
lightened management-union approach. What do you envision the
role of the union shop steward in helping to get the worker in
those situations where you get an environmental control in using
these devices?
Mr. CARSON. Well
Dr. MEYER. Can the union do something about this with the
workers ?
Mr. CARLSON. Yes, sir. We have taken the approach in our union
relationship with the company that employment and safety at that
plant should be a condition of employment. We have had a lot of
criticism because of that approach, but as far as I am concerned,
it's better for a man to be without a job than to be either im-
paired or damaged in some way.
Dr. MEYER. Panel?
Dr. WHITCOMB. This noise of 115 dBA continuous, is it for the
entire work shift, or does it vary in amplitude, maybe dropping
to 110 or 105?
-------
191
Mr. CARLSON. In the engine test area, because of the number
of engines being tested, it would remain constant. Some of the
other areas even go higher than 115—go up to 116—are the areas
where they clean parts; these large parts, after being washed,
they use a large air hose and the air of 100-pound velocity hitting
the different holes causes whistling sounds, and this is where you
get a very high reading. Now, there is special nozzles available
that cut down the amount of air flowing out of it, but the company
tried there.
The engineering department come out and said they ruled them
out because they didn't do a good enough job of cleaning, so
obviously there the company made a choice whether they wanted
a clean product or a noisy product, and obviously they discon-
tinued using the type of air nozzles that would cut down on the
noise.
Dr. WHITCOMB. Are the measurements being made in the vi-
cinity of what would be an operator's ear, a man who would have
to be there 8 hours a day without any chance of walking in or out
of the area? In other words, do you have individuals who have an
8-hour exposure to this level ?
Mr. CARLSON. Yes, sir.
Dr. WHITCOMB. And they are wearing earplugs?
Mr. CARLSON. In some areas they are. In some areas they are
not. They have no protection at all.
Dr. WHITCOMB. No muffs available?
Mr. CARLSON. No muffs or nothing.
Dr. WHITCOMB. Because plugs can have the seal broken without
knowing it for sure, and then their protection is worthless.
Mr. CARLSON. That's correct.
Dr. WHITCOMB. I would recommend highly that you go to muffs,
and then you are still—it's a marginal level of safety, because
about 30 dB on muffs would be about all you can expect
Mr. CARLSON. I agree with you, and
Dr. WHITCOMB. And that brings you down to 85.
Mr. CARLSON. The leadership of our union agrees with you, but
the very difficult part about this thing is that we have to try to do
it by—I don't want to use the word "coercion"—by education, and
the company can do it by coercion. It's that simple.
If you have a man who doesn't realize the full impact of the
problem because the insidious thing about hearing loss is that you
don't feel it. If you had a—if you felt pain when you had an ear
problem with noise you would be wearing protection, but because
of the lack of response and the lack of pain, you are not aware
of it, that you are suffering this loss until it's too late.
Dr. WHITCOMB. Perhaps you mentioned this, but is hearing
being monitored for these people?
Mr. CARLSON. We have had an innumerable amount of surveys,
including a 24-hour around the clock, where it was recorded on
paper as far as the noise levels, and the noise level varied in this,
one engine this action was continuous all around the clock, in-
cluding Saturdays and Sundays.
Dr. WHITCOMB. I am sorry, I misled you. Is the hearing of the
worker in this area being monitored every 6 months?
Mr. CARLSON. Only in the engine test area, not in the other
areas where they are using the blow-off nozzles.
-------
192
Dr. WHITCOMB. Are they seeing progressive changes?
Mr. CARLSON. They would—this information we would not be
given, because we asked for a survey before, and the company
said we were uneducated, unqualified—we wouldn't know what
to do with the information if they gave it to us.
Dr. MEYER. Panel?
Mr. HINTON. I have a question of Mr. Carlson, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. MEYER. All right.
Mr. HINTON. Mr. Carlson, I would like to ask you a question.
It has been my observation that the major labor unions in this
country have been notably successful in educating their members
in many areas. I would like to know if the UAW or any other
union that you know about has instituted educational programs
to advise their members of the need for protection, self-protection.
Mr. CARLSON. We have a program now that is now being
started coming out of Detroit. It is getting around to the financial
secretaries and the presidents about the new Williams Act.
But here again it's all based on a voluntary participation by
the people, and that is where the real difficulty comes in, because
some of these things have to be, must be conditions of employment.
You can't rely on a man you are educating, a man that he is
creating permanent damage to himself; you have to insist that
he wear the protection, and this is where the unions are in trouble
because we don't have that right to shut down an operation. We
don't have a right to tell a man, "you can't go to work unless
you do this."
The company does. We have insisted the company should follow
that procedure; we have insisted the company should do some-
thing about it in the area of the high noise level, where it exists,
it should be a condition of employment. If the man refuses to
wear the proper equipment, whether it's face shield, gloves, shoes,
he can't work. It's that simple, he can't work there.
Mr. HINTON. The airlines have a similar policy about ear pro-
tection for their employees on the ramp.
Mr. CARLSON. That's correct.
Mr. HINTON. But I would recommend to you that you institute
an educational program, and not await the company's taking the
action you feel is necessary.
Mr. CARLSON. Unfortunately we have some very, very poor
experiences as far as trying to get the company to do something
about something that they should be doing something about. For
instance, noise problems, we have had noise problems as far as,
as long as we have had that plant, because it's very difficult, for
some reason, because nobody is against safety per se, or is against
noise level readings. Everybody agrees with that.
Where the problem comes in, and when it costs the dollar, when
they have to make a choice as far as putting in X number of
thousands of dollars to do soundproofing, they have it right here
on Michigan Avenue—on Michigan Avenue Harvester has the
quietest office. The only noise there is the clickety-clack of the
secretaries walking to and from the offices.
We don't expect that kind of thing in a plant, but we expect
some consideration when they design new fixtures, when they put
in new machining operations that they engineer into those things
the proper type of equipment that is necessary, that is available.
-------
193
Mr. HINTON. Well, I am not disagreeing with you on the point
you just made. I was just thinking from strictly the enlightment
of your members as to the damage that they are suffering, or may
suffer, or will suffer under such conditions that you have described,
I would think the union could be very helpful in educational pro-
grams, and even to the point of providing the ear protection out
of your own treasury, if this has not been forthcoming from the
company.
Mr. CARLSON. Well, not that I like to belabor the point, but the
education is nice when you have people that are receptive. Some-
time we are dealing with people that don't have a proper type of
education, that know that they are there to make a living, to
work for 40 hours, or do whatever they are supposed to be doing,
so they get their paycheck.
It's pretty difficult to educate some of these people when their
main concern is problems at home, making out on the job, making
the number of pieces during the day, and as far as educating
them, I don't disagree with that point, but it shouldn't be the
union's responsibility.
I think the company has much more to gain from this, and
should be more concerned with it, and not take a negative view-
point that if it costs money it has to be put off, and something
else has to be done, or something else be minimized as far as
spending money; spending the money is always the big problem.
Dr. MEYER. Panel?
Professor KERREBROCK. I would like to make sure I understand
your position on this, is it that you think that the union member-
ship by and large would accept the position that violation of these
rules is grounds for dismissal by the management?
Mr. CARLSON. On a guesstimation, I would say I think that 80
percent of our members would agree with that position.
Professor KERREBROCK. I see.
Dr. MEYER. Thank you very much. I appreciate your coming
and giving us this somewhat different problem to look at. Thank
you.
Mr. CARLSON. I would like to submit these copies of these letters,
and also the thing to the panel.*
Dr. MEYER. I should now like to ask Mr. William Singer, Alder-
man from the 43d Ward of Chicago, if he is here, if he could
come forward. Mr. Singer?
[No response.]
Dr. MEYER. Is Mr. Richard Young, editor of the Pollution En-
gineering Magazine present?
Mr. YOUNG. Yes.
Dr. MEYER. Good to see you, Mr. Young.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD YOUNG
Mr. YOUNG. Dr. Meyer, panel members: My name is Richard
Young; I am editor of Pollution Engineering Magazine, and to-
day I hope to also switch hats and talk to you about some of the
other positions I hold.
Thankfully the Federal Government has realized the need for
noise controls, first through the Walsh-Healy revisions, and then
" This material is on file at the Office of Noise Abatement and Control.
-------
194
through the Occupational Health and Safety Act. We are now
doing something to protect the man at work, which is of extreme
importance. But what happens when he goes home? I think this
is of equal importance—and what about his wife, who is also
sitting home during this time?
By the establishment of the noise limits and the Occupational
Health and Safety Act, the Federal Government has, in effect,
established product noise limits.
The reason I say that is because any good plant engineer, or
engineer in industry now faced with complying with this Federal
law doesn't buy a piece of production equipment without specify-
ing noise limits. Therefore, the Federal Government has, in effect,
got into the business of indirectly specifying noise standards.
Therefore I suggest that something does need to be done at
home also about specifying noise limits.
We have all got children, and although I have terrible thoughts
in my mind how to quiet them down at times, I suppose I can't,
but there are home appliances, blenders, mowers, portable tools,
all which can be substantially reduced in their noise output.
For example, we can take many of the large industrial machines,
automatic lathes, and in the factory for just a few dollars, really,
more-—often times only a hundred dollars more substantially re-
duce the amount of noise output that a big engine lathe or a
turret lathe can make, and I say we can also do this on a produc-
tion line basis with the small home appliances.
Recreational nature vehicles certainly need to be controlled.
They do present a major problem in many portions of the country,
from the minibikes to snowmobiles, and here in the Midwest, out-
board motors are of an extremely serious nature, with the noise
output. Construction machinery, the methods of controlling noise
from construction machinery are known, and have been known
for a number of years.
The city of Chicago is now requiring certain types of construc-
tion machinery to be controlled. However, we need some sort of
standards established whereby all of these construction machines
will be controlled.
Actually this gets off into another area that EPA is involved
with, and that is the area of solid waste disposal. One of the big
complaints that residents of, residents near a solid waste landfill
site will complain about, will be the noise from construction
machinery, and then finally we get into the area of transportation;
cars and trucks for a long time have been muffled, and for a long
time have had their mufflers wear out, and have had young high
school boys cut holes in them to bypass them, etc. We do need
some standards established whereby we can maintain these noise
levels for these types of vehicles, but also we need them for
diesel trains.
A diesel engine is a relatively simple machine, we will say, to
control the noise from, and yet we have a number of suburban
areas throughout the United States where diesel trains, diesel
engines are parked for hours at a time and allowed to run up, or
just sit idling while the crew may be off doing some other duties.
We have a major problem in communities surrounding this
area, as in Bensonville, where this is a major yard; in Crystal
-------
195
Lake, where there are repair facilities. Then, finally going on to
the subject of airplanes, airplanes engines, jet engines and piston
engine noise can be substantially reduced, and there is a sufficient
amount of information available to prove this fact.
We also have a problem, though, in the numbers; in the area
of Chicago we have O'Hare Field, which started off as an airport
with a relatively few number of pistonoperated planes taking off
from it. Then came the jet, which substantially changed the noise
level, but also the type of noise being generated, and since 1950,
when the jet was introduced into O'Hare, to the present time,
the numbers of takeoff and landing operations have substantially
increased, so that the airport is no longer functioning the way it
was originally designed, and therefore it has had a tremendous
environmental impact upon this entire area.
I believe that the Federal Government should establish overall
community noise level standards. They have presently, with air
pollution standards and water pollution standards, and as those
two contaminants, noise also knows no boundary, and therefore
should be the control of the Federal Government in establishing
those standards.
Additionally I feel that the Federal Government should establish
noise limits on specific classes of equipment. As a magazine editor
responsible to those engineers who are responsible for noise con-
trol, I know that the methods and devices for controlling noise
are available, but industry also wants that worker to be pro-
tected at home, because he is incurring hearing losses at home,
and because of this, he is increasing his absenteeism from the job.
Now, as an environmental advisor to several State governments,
I know that States need Federal guidelines to follow. As an educa-
tor I know that there is extensive research information which is
now available to efficiently control major noise sources. As a pollu-
tion control officer I need numbers, and I need numbers that I can
easily enforce.
We have many cases where there are noise levels which are
established in octave bands, and yet I have probably 1 of 2 dozen
octave band analyzers in the entire Chicago metropolitan area.
We need limits that are established in decibels—A-scale pref-
errably—that would make enforcement of noise standards easy.
And finally, as a citizen, I am getting tried of all that noise out
there, and I wish something would be done, and I hope that you
will do it.
Dr. MEYER. Mr. Young, thank you very much. I have enjoyed
your presentation. As you know, legislation pending in Congress
does indeed cover many of the areas that you suggest.
I was particularly pleased that you pointed out the relationship
between another environmental problem, such as the solid waste
problem, and the noise problem, in that all of these environmental
activities are interrelated, which you and your publication recog-
nize. It points up the need for, within EPA, of all of its elements
working together so that we don't windup with somebody giving
a grant to some municipality for solid waste disposal activities
that results in a source of noise.
Mr. HlNTON. Mr. Chairman, I have a question for Mr. Young.
Dr. MEYER. Yes.
-------
196
Mr. HINTON. I notice that you recommend the establishment
of standards on a Federal uniform basis for these noise sources
that you refer to. Now, how would you establish standards for
community exposure into terms of a cumulative exposure level as
opposed to control at the source ?
Mr. YOUNG. Mr. Hinton, I believe that this has been established,
the number, the NEF factor was established by Bolt, Beranek
and Newman, and has been completed and released to the U.S.
Department of Housing and Urban Development, although I can-
not truly appreciate it, an NEF factor of 30, because it doesn't
particularly mean anything to the housewife, or to most of us
here.
I can say that, yes, when I get above 45 dBA that we do have
a marked increase in the amount of complaints which come from
residents, and I would therefore hope that we would establish an
overall community level on the A-scale.
Mr. HiNTON. Well, no, I don't believe you can establish com-
munity exposure—
Mr. YOUNG. Not exposure.
Mr. HINTON. On a measurable standard that is directly meas-
urable. What we are talking about is the cumulative standard
which you referred to, I think correctly, as the NEF—for example,
in terms of aircraft noise it probably could be a lid to other
sources of transportation—now, what I have in mind is would
you support the State establishing community standards, because
presumably under our constitutional separation of powers, you
have a State where the constitution gives to the States the so-
called police powers, which include the environmental control that
the State wishes its citizens to have.
Some States apparently are more concerned about the lifestyle
of its citizens than other States are. I don't think we are going
to change that, even if the Federal Government should desire to.
Now, I guess basically the question is do you favor the establish-
ment of exposure levels, exposure standards on a cumulative basis
by States or local government and regional government, or Federal
Government?
Mr. YOUNG. I believe
Mr. HINTON. I am speaking of the enforcement, too.
Mr. YOUNG. Yes, as far as the enforcement, I believe that the
enforcement probably is going to be left to the State and local
level. It's going to have to be. I simply cannot see in my own mind
that the Federal Government can put out enough people to make
these measurements.
Mr. HINTON. Well, okay. You know, once you establish a stand-
ard and it's adopted, or its modified, if the Federal Government
should recommend a standard for community exposure, it would
be modified by a State to be more or less stringent, than it would
be up to somebody locally, obviously, to enforce it, because this
would be a standard which was adopted by the State or local
government.
Mr. YOUNG. Yes, right. I would—I would hope, just as the
Federal Government has established air quality criteria, that they
would establish noise quality criteria. In turn, the State, under
the 14th amendment to the Constitution, has this right to protect
-------
197
its residents, and would have to establish standards to meet that
criteria, and most State constitutions do have the provision to
allow the county municipal governments to also enforce that law,
and I would see this as being the logical way to enforce it—
although I feel that there is a need for the provision for the
Federal Government, in the hat of the EPA to come in if these
standards are not being complied with.
Mr. HlNTON. That might require a constitutional amendment.
I am not sure.
Dr. MEYER. The rest of the panel ?
Mr. MARTIN. Mr. Young, you indicated, of course, a strong
desire to see the noise of vehicles reduced and, of course, the
testimony that was received yesterday from the manufacturing
industry, the economic consequences, or cost of doing this was
brought out very clearly. Is it your impression that the public
would be willing- to pay for this, or do you feel that the govern-
ment should impose certain taxes to pay for bringing this into
being?
Mr. YOUNG. When you speak of economics and environmental
control, it's extremely difficult, because eventually that dime to
pay for whatever has to be controlled has to come out of the
consumers' pocket. Do I feel that companies should bear the bur-
den? In many cases, yes, I do, because I feel that the technology
is available. I am a former designer of mobile equipment myself,
and I know, and I know that noise levels can be substantially
reduced.
The continual comment that we hear made by various airline
representatives will be that if we force them to further reduce
the engine noise, that the efficiency would be drastically changed.
Well, possibly this requires a drastic change in some of their con-
cepts of design.
Right now, for instance, we have, as far as the automobile
engine is concerned, a method which is available for $25 per car
that would substantially reduce the air pollution emission below
what is required by the Federal Government. It's going to require
some work on the part of the automobile manufacturers to in-
corporate this type of thing, because this was done on the basis
of looking at the internal combustion engine as being an inefficient
mechanism, and trying to improve it—and they have.
Dr. MEYER. Any other questions?
Professor KERREBROCK. Yes.
Dr. MEYER. Yes, sir.
Professor KERREBROCK. You mentioned the problem of noise
due to appliances in the home. I think this is a very, very im-
portant problem, and I would like to get your feelings on one
aspect of it. I know of a case where a certain company built two
models of dishwashers. One is expensive, the deluxe model, and
the other one is a functionally identical model, but it's stripped,
and the deluxe model is sound proofed.
Now, I inquired of the salesman when we were interested in
one of these dishwashers as to whether I could buy the stripped
model, but with the soundproofing, and not the other features,
and the answer was no, this is the way it comes. The difference
in price was about $50.
-------
198
The question is do you think that if sufficient pressure were
brought to bear, the noise soundproofing could be introduced to
these things that are required on these appliances without the
other features? And is there a mechanism by which we could
do this?
Mr. YOUNG. Could noise control be incorporated without
Professor KERREBROCK. Yes.
Mr. YOUNG. Including some other automatic features?
Professor KERREBROCK. Maybe more specifically, do you think
that if the noise output of devices was somehow publicized, put
on the label of the appliance, the public would respond?
Mr. YOUNG. I don't believe so, no. I don't believe that most of
the audience out here knows what a decibel is. Most of my con-
tacts that I have, who are fellow engineers, we all had this school-
ing, we all had in school something on acoustics in physics and
electrical engineering and, of course, the moment we all got out
of school, we all tried to forget it as fast as we could do.
It's tough enough talking decibels without going in and talking
octave bands. I don't think the people can appreciate what a
decibel is, and what it means. I think that the label on the blender
would have to be the type that it's on, the type that you have on
a cigarette package instead, a little stronger warning.
Dr. MEYER. Would my colleague yield a moment to the chair-
man? What you are saying is the same thought that has been
concerning us, because if the administration's legislative proposals
are enacted by the Congress and some of the nonadministration
proposals also include this labeling requirement, it's causing a lot
of concern for the very reason that you mentioned. We have ex-
plored some ideas, and we are going to certainly talk to a lot of
social scientists and communications people to get at this, because
maybe what one has to say—and I don't know how you say it on a
blender base maybe that big, [indicating], or on the side of a
garbage disposal sitting in the showroom, but maybe what you
have to say is, "When you are using this device you can't hear a
baby screaming if you are more than 3 feet away," correlate it
that way, you know. I mean, the housewife, or even the other
wage earner, or the other members of the family who are con-
cerned with this can correlate that sort of interference, so I think
the thought is well made.
I don't really think of the dBA on the side of a blender or
vacuum cleaner as being very meaningful, and I am not denigrat-
ing the knowledge of the American public. As you mentioned, there
are a whole lot of us who are engineers and scientists who have
difficulty coming up with understanding some of this.
Mr. YOUNG. I believe this is a very serious problem you are
going to have, if you are going to be required to do any labeling,
and very probably what we need is a program such as the old
FWQA had, the Federal Water Quality Administration had where
it tested the amounts of phosphates in detergents and then publi-
cized this by brand name. Possibly we have to publicize all of the
decibel levels of all of the blender manufacturers.
Dr. MEYER. That is an excellent suggestion. Thank you very
much. I yield back to you, if you have any further questions.
-------
199
Professor KERREBROCK. No; I think that helps a good deal. In
other words, this might help, but really the road to success is
through regulation rather than just publication.
Professor PLACER. Mr. Chairman.
Dr. MEYER. Yes, indeed.
Professor PLACER. One comment, if I may, perhaps elicit your
response to this, and that is your call for some sort of noise
criteria, for noise standards. You made the analogy to the air
quality standards, or the ambient air standards, ambient air
criteria.
I am sure you are familiar with the history of both air and
water standards, ambient air standards which we have had for a
number of years, and which have had absolutely no impact on
improving the condition of either the air or the water, and that
there must be a step beyond that, of translating those into some
sort of performance standards, or some sort of emission standards,
and the difficulties that we are now finding ourselves in, so that
may I take it that your call for some sort of general noise criteria
would go beyond simply establishing criteria?
Mr. YOUNG. I think it should. I think it should go beyond that,
and possibly in the field of noise we have to get down and establish
numbers. But again I say that if we are going to think in terms
of establishing noise levels with numbers we are going to have
to make it nice and simple to enforce, or it's not going to be
enforced.
Dr. MEYER. Thank you very much for stimulating our thinking
as to some things we need to look at very carefully. It now being
12 p.m. let me ask before we recess for lunch, if Alderman Singer
is here?
[No response.]
Dr. MEYER. Ladies and gentlemen, we will recess for lunch at
this point, reconvening promptly at 1 p.m. at which time we will
continue with the various witnesses who have asked to be heard.
Thank you for being here.
[Luncheon recess.]
-------
200
AFTERNOON SESSION
Dr. MEYER. Ladies and gentlemen, may I call to order the fourth
session of the Environmental Agency's hearings on noise, which,
as I announced earlier, is being conducted under Title 4, Public
Law No. 91.604.
I have had delivered to me by special delivery a statement by
the Honorable Roman C. Pucinski of the llth Congressional
District of the State of Illinois, with a request that this state-
ment be included in the record, and that I read from it. With
appropriate deference to the legislative branch of the government,
I am pleased and honored that Congressman Pucinski has seen
fit to send this statement. I shall read it for the record:
Gentlemen, back in 1844, the German philosopher Arthur Schopenhauer
observed that "the amount of noise which anyone can bear undisturbed stands
in inverse proportion to his mental capability * * * . Noise is a torture to an
intellectual people."
Many of the people in my congressional district lying to the east and south
of O'Hare Airport are tortured daily by the intolerable levels of jet noise.
Since my first election to Congress in 1958, I have devoted a great deal of
effort and time to alleviate this serious problem.
Noise pollution is not a new phenomenon. In fact, the word "noise" comes
from the same Latin derivative as nausea. Julius Caesar even had his troubles
with noise pollution. Caesar, however, did not have to deal with the "guide-
line writers" at DOT, FAA, EPA, NASA, HUD or any other government
agency you can think of. When the clatter of chariot driving disturbed his
sleep, he simply banned their use at night.
Although not new, noise pollution has reached a crisis stage. Excessive
noise has become a way of American life—to a point, I believe, where Amer-
ica is now the noisiest country in the history of civilization. That is scarcely
a distinction we can be proud of.
As a result we suffer from chronic fatigue, increased Hood pressure and
decreased working and mental efficiency.
The International Standardization Organization of acoustical experts has
warned that "if airplane and vehicular noises continue to climb at their pres-
ent rates, everyone living in a city will be stone deaf by the year 2000."
"The present rate of increase is 1 decibel a year, according to this report.
To make the picture even more ominous, it is estimated that by 1980, 78 per-
cent of the American population will be living in 12 major metropolitan areas.
Incredible as it may seem, leading experts tell us of I he strong possibility that
78 percent of this country may be deaf in 30 years.
-------
201
Surely we can all agree that we are in the middle of a crisis and action—
not speeches, not proposed rulemaking, not more studies—action is required.
I am confident we will succeed in frustrating- this grim prediction by taking-
effective measures before it becomes a reality.
We had the first real stirrings of action back in 1968. Legislation I co-
sponsored was enacted into the Noise Abatement Act. Public Law 90-411
provided a legislative mandate to the Federal Aviation Administration to
regulate aircraft noise. The PAA was authorized to establish comprehensive
noise regulations concerning present and future aircraft.
Since enactment, the FAA has implemented only part of Public Law 90-411.
Part 36 of the FAA regulations established 108 EPNdB as the tolerable noise
limitation for future subsonic aircraft. (108 EPNdB is about the level of
noise heard inside a subway car moving at 30 mph.) No noise regulations
have been adopted for the current jet fleet, such as the DC-8, DC-9, 727, and
707—all of which operate in excess of 108 EPNdB. Only the DC-10 and 747
are now operating at 108 EPNdB or less.
Last year, the FAA issued an advance notice of proposed rulemaking on
noise reductions by current jets. By their own admission, no new regulations
will be issued before the end of 1972.
Anyone familiar with administrative rulemaking knows that the announced
time goal won't be achieved. The date already has been set back more than a
year. The ponderous bureaucratic maneuvering will inevitably further delay
any meaningful rulemaking.
So what can be done now? There are three basic approaches to the reduc-
tion of jet noise:
1. Move the noise away from the people.
2. Move the people away from the noise.
3. Reduce the noise made by the airplane.
Airports have been doing all they can to implement the first approach.
Approach and departure paths have been established to minimize flight over
residential areas. Steeper climbs and descent paths, at all times consistent
with safety, are being followed.
The second approach—moving the people away from the noise—is totally
unacceptable.
In the first place, most of the homes near O'Hare were there well before
it became the world's busiest jet airport. The relocation of hundreds of
thousands of people, the disruption of their lives and the destruction of entire
communities is no real solution.
Yet that approach is receiving serious consideration and in some cases is
being implemented. The city of Los Angeles recently bought a home for
$97,000. It will now pay someone to demolish that home. This is taking place
as part of that city's land use program. By the time this stage is completed,
three residential neighborhoods will have been wiped out. Eight thousand per-
sons will have been moved at a cost to the city of more than $200 million.
There are tens of thousands of people living near Los Angeles International
Airport. It seems readily apparent to me that this means of removing noise
disturbance to the people below by removing the people just won't work.
NASA and DOT estimate the high noise areas around J. F. K., Los Angeles
and O'Hare airports amount to about 42,000 acres—which is three times
more than all the land redeveloped during 16 years of urban renewal at a
cost of more than $5 billion.
Even if it were economically feasible, why should people be disrupted and
displaced to solve a problem not of their own making?
A recent study was conducted by the Northeastern Illinois Planning Com-
mission for the Department of Housing and Urban Development. The report
concludes that the idea of buying up homes around an airport is, as one
source said, "sound."
That conclusion must not be allowed to stand unchallenged. It is economi-
cally and humanely unjustified.
The best, most comprehensive, and effective means of reducing noise is by
getting to the source of the noise. In order to do that, I have introduced legis-
lation, H.R. 10136, to reduce jet noise by 50 percent by 1976.
The legislation provides:
1. That noise levels of current aircraft must be reduced by 10 EPNdB or
meet part 36 noise levels of 108 EPNdB, whichever noise reduction is greater.
2. The U.S. Government will provide $35 million to demonstrate the feasi-
bility of retrofitting.
3. The U.S. Government will provide guaranteed loans to carriers for the
purpose of modifying their aircraft prior to 1976.
4. A rate increase to cover the cost of retrofitting.
-------
202
5. Grants to State and local agencies to pay the cost of administering air-
port noise monitoring systems.
We have paid for study after study of the feasibility of retrofitting—in-
stalling acoustical material in the cowling or housing of jet engines and en-
larging the size of the engine's exhaust outlets.
The NASA Douglas/Boeing studies and the FAA Rohr report indicate
that a complete fleet retrofit can be accomplished within 5 years from the
time a program is established.
NASA has awarded an $18 million contract to General Electric to develop
a jet engine which will produce 20 less DCB's than present engines and GE
hopes to be testing' such an engine by the end of this year.
The industry does have the technological capability to achieve this goal.
In contrast to the billions and billions of dollars required for a land use pro-
gram, retrofitting of the current fleet would cost about $856 million. The
NASA tests demonstrate that retrofit can reduce the noisiness of landing
turbofan aircraft by 50 percent and reduce the noise affected area under ap-
proach paths by as much as 85 percent.
Retrofitting is an expensive item. I am mindful that the airlines could not
undertake that program without assistance. My bill provides up to $1 billion
in guaranteed loans for the airlines. It also instructs the Civil Aeronautics
Board to approve a fare increase of about 1 percent if the airlines do re-
quest to pay off these loans for retrofitting their aircraft with quieter engines.
The Environmental Protection Agency has an important role to play in
noise pollution control and abatement. It can be a strong advocate of legisla-
tion such as I recommend and can provide the incentive and inducement as
well as enforcement of other steps toward reduction of noise.
For more than 10 years, jet aircraft noise has adversely affected the quality
of life in communities near major airports. How long must they endure these
intolerable—literally deafening—levels of noise? I say no longer and urge
the EPA to be a strong factor in bringing meaningful relief.
Since Congressman Pucinski does not have a staff member
here, panel, if you have questions and desire to give them to me,
I will transmit them to Congressman Pucinski and see to it that
he and his staff furnish us replies so that we may include them
with the record.
Now, the question of O'Hare has aroused some interest and
some degree of controversy, and I should like to read for the
record a telegram that I have received; the telegram is as follows:
Dr. Alvin F. Meyer, Jr., Director of Noise, Environmental Protection
Agency, Sheraton Hotel, Chicago.
Deeply shocked at your public suggestion to destroy homes in the O'Hare
area; dismayed that you would urge action prior to conclusion of present
hearings seeking solutions to aircraft noise. You should be protecting environ-
ment for people, not aircraft. Relocate aircraft rather than people.
Please clarify your position prior to conclusion of Chicago hearings today.
Alan M. Abrams, alderman, eighth ward, Des Plaines, 111.
Now, I have read the newspaper accounts of the interviews, and
screened the television tapes of interviews with me on that sub-
ject, and I find nowhere in there a statement that I recommended
this as an action. For the public record I should like to read the
telegram that is going to be dispatched within the next few min-
utes to the Honorable Alan M. Abrams, alderman of the eighth
ward, Des Plaines, 111.
Reference your telegram as to O'Hare Airport, I am as deeply shocked as
you regarding any misrepresentation of my position on aircraft noise control.
My view is that there are many possible solutions to the complex questions
of control of the environmental problem. Among the possibilities are control
of noise at the source, relocation of the source, placing more distance between
sources and receivers, control of time of operation, reduction of number of
operations and occurrences.
In each case, what is ultimately done must be based on a judgment of eco-
nomics, social need, and technological capability and progress for control
expected.
-------
203
What is right for one situation may be exactly the wrong thing for another.
Specifically re O'Hare, I did not and do not endorse, suggest, or advocate a
particular course of action. That is a matter for decision by the people of the
communities affected through established political processes.
I would be pleased to discuss this with you further, signed by myself.
The record shall so show this. Will you have that sent, please?
We will now proceed with the course of our hearing, and as an
aside, I will say I would be pleased to discuss this issue, but the
Environmental Protection Agency is in the process right now of
getting facts and information as to what needs to be done. And I
certainly do not want to prejudge the results of a very extensive
study, and the results of these hearings, by attempting to come
up with off-the-cuff recommendations as to solutions of local prob-
lems with which I am not thoroughly familiar. I hope I will be-
come more familiar as a result of some of the witnesses who are
about to appear, so at this point I would like to ask Mr. George
Franks if he would come forward. I understand he is the chair-
man of the O'Hare Area Noise Abatement Council, and I hope
that he will illuminate myself and the panel, both orally and
otherwise. Sir, nice to have you here.
Mr. FRANKS. Thank you, sir. I will try to make this as brief as
I can, because of the urgency of time—I understand all of you
gentlemen are in that spot.
Dr. MEYER. Sir, would you get that microphone a little closer
to you? I want to be sure the audience, as well as the panel, can
hear you.
STATEMENT OF GEORGE J. FRANKS,
O'HARE AREA NOISE ABATEMENT COUNCIL
Mr. FRANKS. All right. Am I getting through now? I would like
to say my name is George J. Franks. I am the president of the
O'Hare Area Noise Abatement Council, and I will go into that a
little further shortly.
The O'Hare Area Noise Abatement Council was not something
that was planned and worked at. It happened—it happened out
of sheer necessity. It all started back in 1965—let's say that my
interest became started in 1965. I lived in the area, and I have
pictures to prove it, which I will later on pass out—I won't take
up the time to show you some of the areas that we live in, and
they are beautiful.
We never saw a plane, never saw one. Then in about July of
1967, we said, "What is that?" And it came directly over the
homes, and I got a few phone calls.
I happened to be president of the Homeowners' Association at
the time, so I got a few phone calls. Well, they went on for a bit,
and then we started to look into it, and then in checking it out
we find that the planes were turning—now, we were told that
there was some repair work going on in one of the runways, and
until that repair work was finished, we would be disturbed.
Well, being temporary, we all had that patience. It's an Ameri-
can characteristic, and it's also an American characteristic to get
in touch with your congressman. We got in touch with our con-
gressman, Congressman Erlenborn, and he was very accommodat-
ing. He came down and talked to us, and then he looked into it,
and he wrote a letter—and I have a record of that letter saying
there is some repair work going on a few runways. While it's
-------
204
being done, we would have to suffer for awhile, and so let's wait
through the summer months, let's wait and see.
We decided to wait and see what happened; nothing happened.
It just continued to get worse. Then the mayor of Wood Dale at
that time was getting very much pressure put on him that I wasn't
aware of, and other mayors of other towns, and presidents of
other towns were getting pressure put on by their constituents.
Out of sheer necessity they had to have a meeting—a meeting
of the minds, so to speak, to see what could be done about the
growing menace of O'Hare International Airport. I was requested
to chair that meeting temporarily, so that is how it started. And
then I was elected the chairman, and we incorporated, and now I
am the president, and it just grew on and on. It's very important
that everybody know it was not planned; we didn't work at it—it
was just out of sheer necessity. Now, this O'Hare Noise Abate-
ment Council was incorporated not for profit. I have here a few of
our purposes of the meeting:
To promote and encourage laws for the protection and conservation of the
environment in general, and specifically, protection against specific noise pol-
lution caused by jet aircraft.
To encourage, by legal means, the enforcement of legislation against all
means of polluting, and especially against noise pollution.
To promote, foster, and encourage education of its members and the general
public to the dangers to the environment caused by excessive noise, especially
noise caused by jet aircraft.
To promote, foster, and encourage the actions of all governmental agencies
to limit the use of O'Hare International Airport in Chicago, 111., to the use
and capacity as it was originally designed.
I have a few others, and I will pass them up.
It's very important that we say "to the capacity and use as it
was originally designed," because it has been a growing monster.
It's getting bigger and bigger. The people that are affected by
this noise had to have someone to turn to.
Apparently our council was the answer; they could vent their
fury on us. We listened to them. We got letters, and I have enough
documentation-—I will just refer to them, and later on I will back
them up, if necessary.
In addition to the public participation we have got resolutions
from school district No. 100, from Dr. Zuckerman; school district
No. 2, from Mr. Kenneth Kaufman; we had the Maine Township
District 207, from Mr. R. R. Short; the board of supervisors, the
County of Du Page; and the board of education, Mannheim Dis-
trict 83.
I want everyone to understand that we are a responsible due
process group. That is the only way we are going to operate, and
we have brought it up to this—I will clarify that a little later—we
have letters confirming official appointment to the O'Hare Noise
Abatement Council from all the elected governing bodies of the
villages.
We are still respected. They have a man, through vote, resolu-
tion, vote, and installation that we have a member from every
village on our council, and that is 19 of them, and it's since grown
—I will only speak to those I can document.
When the airport, and we were very aware of it, the airport
was about to be expanded, we requested from all the villages reso-
lutions condemning the expansion plans of the city of Chicago,
and we got them, we got 17 resolutions, and I can document that.
-------
205
Then we had—I wanted authorization, official authorization from
the governing bodies authorizing the circulation of petitions to be
signed ,to be delivered in person to Washington, and I got that.
This tells you of the kind of people we are, whom we represent,
and why. It's not a few people; it's not one, it's not just myself,
or three or four men—it's the entire body.
The problem is very, very, very serious. We have listened—we
have listened to very many experts, scientists, and physicists. We
know the problem. We realize and sympathize with them; all we
want them to do is to know of our problem and sympathize
with us.
We—I will go down to the citizen; the citizen has no expertise.
We are just judges, as judges without trial, frankly, but we are
trying to get that phase of it done.
We have gone through step by step by step. We had a mass
meeting in Bensenville in May of 1970—our council is not that
old. Now, as to when the city of Chicago petitioned the Secretary
of Defense for transfer of 365 acres of land, that was the first
thing that we did accomplish, and publicly I would like to thank
the four congressmen who were very great, they sincerely co-
operated. We had a mass meeting, got publicity, and we wrote a
letter to the President, directly to the President—I have a copy of
that, but I won't go into it because it's pretty long. All I wanted
to give you was our logic, and the reason for how we talk.
Dr. MEYER. All right.
Mr. FRANKS. At that meeting we wanted to unlock the silent
majority that is often referred to, and the last flag I saw repre-
senting the silent majority had the stars and stripes—the silent
majority has to wake up, or they are going to be buried. I refer
to that in the presentation, and I requested letters to write
through due process. We apparently got the letters because we
got all the action in the world, and the process was stopped, the
transfer of land was stopped.
Four more runways are going in, after all our crying and
hollering and complaining and doing it legitimately, the only
understanding we got, "Go ahead with the airport."
I got an answer from the Justice Department, which is the only
authority—I don't want to get into too much detail, it's not that
important—we heard from all the congressmen; then we met
with the congressmen individually, and we met with the congress-
men collectively, along with the mayors, and the mayors and the
citizens, along with the congressmen in one group meeting, and
at that time—and I will get down to that—we requested nine
points. In my summary I will finally say that what we have re-
quested from our congressmen we are requesting from this Board.
Our original purpose, to start with, when we first began, we
knew how far we could get because we were that sensible. We
knew that if we got it to this stage where we are at today—
which I call a "congressional hearing"—I think it's about as far
as we can go.
You have heard the experts; you have heard the scientists,
and the physical results—people are peculiar. You have to under-
stand the general public. Apparently the elected officials do under-
stand the general public, and certain people in the position to
exploit the general public understand it, because they know what
to do.
-------
206
We, being a citizen affected by the noise, also understand that
they understand, and we are talking- about—we are taking appro-
priate actions. We have gone as far as we know how to go.
We have this notation—we have made enough noise of our own
now, to emphasize that, we have noise, so apparently as a result
of that we had the new noise regulation of the city of Chicago.
They do not exempt airport noise, but they don't talk about it,
either. There is no enforcement, so it's like going to the city of
Chicago and saying, "We lost a button," so they sew up the hole.
We still got the problem.
Dr. MEYER. That is a beautiful analogy, sir.
Mr. FRANKS. I would like to say that when you cut out one
segment of our society in any ruling, it is unfair and discriminat-
ing. In our efforts—in our efforts to pursue our point, and I
would like to illustrate now about expert testimony, I have a
picture here which I will submit as evidence, and I have a little
note attached, and the little note I attached is just enough for
you to give your Board some information:
Dr. Alvin F. Meyer, Jr., Director.
The attached copy of the Fianklin Park Herald dated July 22, 1970, tells
the story of jet aircraft noise and dirt as affecting Franklin Park and Elm-
wood Park.
Dr. MEYER. It's received for the record, sir. It will be in-
corporated."
Mr. FRANKS. This is the Mont Clare Leyden Herald. Here is
a little girl—I would like to have all these reports and all these
committee hearings we have gone to the NASA report, NIPC
report, and the State subcommittee hearings, we have attended
them all, the Illinois Pollution Control Board Hearings, explain
this to this girl, what is a decibel?
She is about 8 years old. Now, you just tell her that a decibel
is not noise, it's only 15, 20, 80, or 100, she doesn't know this.
This is the result, and, of course, the experts have told us this.
This reads:
The attached copy of the Mont Clare Leyden Herald dated August 5, 1970
details the impossible, unbearable, dirty jet aircraft noise as affecting Schiller
Park residents. The citizens in this area are in a state of complete despair,
and reflect an attitude of "no hope."
Until acceptable solutions are available OANAC suggests to shut down
Nothing can be done to help these people, nothing. Did anybody
ever think about shutting down that runway? Business is bad
anyway, I understand. Mine is. I guess the aircraft industry is
also having a little bit of suffering, but I would like to have some
of the experts tell me how to explain this to these people.
Now, we went through the Federal Aviation Administration
several times. I am not going to go through all the details. I will
just give you a brief synopsis, I will submit it as evidence. The
O'Hare Area Noise Abatement Council and the Federal Aviation
Administration, on October 13, 1970, had a meeting.
Page 1, confirming meeting and the date.
Page 2, the list of participants that were in there.
Page 3, my presentation to the meeting, showing our five points.
: This material is on file at the Office of Noise Abatement and Control.
-------
207
Now, we asked for five points on page 3. The conclusions, noise
abatement procedures which they had submitted at the time, and
we still have a copy. The noise abatement procedures are not
worth the paper written on, agreed to by all.
We changed one turn, 27L, changed 27L from 290° to 280° to
help Elk Grove. Then the run-up problem—Pat Dunn, airport
manager, "We are going to take care of the run-up problem," and
we want the glide slope raised a bit. Then appoint responsible
people to advise Mr. Schwank and Mr. Callahan to monitor the
noise abatement procedures.*
Now, we have had this noise abatement procedure for some
time at O'Hare, but there is no policing it, and I got that covered
in my nine points. I will get to that a little later. We are asking
for federally appointed referees or supervisors, or a captain of
O'Hare Airport to have a monitoring system, which we must have.
Now, we had a meeting here with the congressmen and the
mayors. Now, I brought this along for one reason, which is to
show that we are a responsible group, and who is involved. We
have got to prove the magnitude of the job. It's not a few, it's
not one or two.
I guess that is on August 17, 1970, a meeting with the Congress-
men, four congressmen and the mayors shows signatures of 34
delegates representing 19 municipalities. Six mayors have signed
this—six mayors as well as other governing officials. The nine
points were recommended by the O'Hare Area Noise Abatement
Council to Congressmen Collier, Crane, Erlenborn and Pucinski
in that meeting of August 17.
News release from Congressman Erlenborn in summary of the
above meeting, recognizing the nine points. The nine points that
we are asking for—and we are, in turn, asking this panel to please
consider—and I have others—are:
1. Limit flights to 100 per hour as prior to East-West Runway installation.
We ask this because we weren't told there was a new runway
put in. They told us, confirmed by Mr. Erlenborn, to wait and
see when the repairs got finished on other runways, we would be
relieved from the noise. Then we find out that, I guess, everybody
was misinformed—as politely as I know how to say—and we
found out a new runway had been opened, quietly, peacefully—
except for the noise.
2. Close airport 11 p.m., to 7 as is done in Europe.
3. Legislate procedures for supervision of noise abatement.
4. Provide for appointment of noise abatement control officer.
That is what I had reference to.
5. Terminate all runways and taxiways expansion plans, including all
work in process.
That leads me, before I go on, to that new Northeast-Southwest
runway; I think it's 422, it's about to be opened.
Now, I have the date of this meeting, August 17. Do you know
how much action we had planned making everybody aware what
our problem was, and the only sympathy we got was they con-
tinued to go ahead, and the runway is going in.
- This material is on file at the Office of Noise Abatement and Control.
-------
208
Now, we will get more members on our council as the problem
starts to hit them. It might be advisable at this time to sort of
illustrate that the noise is a peculiar thing; if you are not there,
of course, there is none. Then how can you understand it? I will
pick that up a little later in my letter to the airlines, we left no
stone unturned.
6. Establish acceptable Federal commercial aircraft noise standards.
Federal Aviation Administration has established standards.
They established these standards according to what is best, or
what can be done, could be done with the state of the art at the
time.
Well, if the best they can do is 108 and 109 decibels, then we
just don't, we can't accept that. We are this country, and we are
the very citizens that this country is for, and if you want to
discuss the quality, is there a better cross section than, let's say,
an affluent suburbia; where do we go from here ?
7. Provide funding for modification of existing engines for noise reduction
to conform to noise standards.
8. Allocate SST funds to engine noise reduction retrofit costs.
9. Begin construction of another airport.
I was very careful not to say "the third airport," because the
third airport has already been put in at O'Hare. I am not even
sure we got the first airport. We don't consider Midway an air-
port. We don't want our problems transferred out there. If they
agree to take half of our flights and put them out to Midway,
what kind of hypocrites would we be, to take a problem from us
and put it out to Midway?
We need an overall answer, a complete answer for the good of
the people. Well, these were the nine points that I submitted to
the group at that time in the meeting with the congressmen and
the mayors, and the congressmen have been working on them. I
have the letter of confirmation acknowledging the meeting.*
I have another one here that—before I get into my own disser-
tation, here is a picture of an airplane [indicating].
My note to you, Dr. Meyer:
A picture is worth a thousand words, and the attached is proof of the prob-
lem to illustrate the point. The story details some of the action involved,
names and number of communities involved.
Your group can study that.*
I couldn't help cutting this out. This is a NIPC report, and I
will just leave it here for your study.
Dr. MEYER. All right.
Mr. FRANKS. Now, how far has all this work gotten us. We
have—we know of all the reports that were out. The NIPC report
was turned out. We were asked how we felt about that 15-month
report being undertaken by NIPC.
Well, my answer to that was we don't want to wait 15 months.
That is a long time, and the noise is here every day, every night,
and how do you justify a thing like that to a man hanging by his
thumbs; every second is an eternity, and we have got it all
the time.
This material is on file at the Office of Noise Abatement and Control.
-------
209
We had our Illinois Pollution Board hearing in Park Ridge.
There was a general comment of everybody attending that meet-
ing, and there was an absence of the noise, so it seems like word
does get out. In order to promote
Dr. MEYER. Could I interrupt, sir—I have an urgent call from
Washington. I want to hear everything you have to say. Can we
recess for about 4 or 5 minutes?
Mr. FRANKS. Certainly.
Dr. MEYER. With your permission, sir.
Mr. FRANKS. Yes, sir.
Dr. MEYER. Thank you, because I want to hear everything you
are saying.
[Short recess.]
Dr. MEYER. Ladies and gentlemen, thank you for your indul-
gence. If I can reassemble my panel, we will reconvene after this
brief, but rather necessary recess.
We have got a quorum. All right, sir; continue, sir.
Mr. FRANKS. Since all this work notwithstanding into the, in-
volving the airline owners, developers, design engineers, et cetera,
with all this work going on, I must remind you to remember that
the noise has not stopped, and people are still suffering under
this noise, plus also remind you when you leave here, if you don't
have this problem, it will be completely forgotten.
But those that have the problem, they go home to the same
noise, so it can never be forgotten. We are reminded of it through-
out the day and throughout the night—sometimes more severe
than others, but it's constantly there, it's a severe, rotten head-
ache, and we don't like it at all, and in our pursuit to get some-
thing done as rapidly as we know how, we appealed, and wrote a
letter to the Illinois Pollution Control Board, which I will include
also as part of the information to your committee, Dr. Meyer.
The letter reads as follows:
May 8, 1971.
STATE OP ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD,
189 West Madison St.—Suite 900,
Chicago, III. 60602,
Airport AToi.se Standards Hearing,
Samuel T. Lawton, Jr., Hearing Officer.
GENTLEMEN : One purpose of this letter is to express the support of the
O'Hare Area Noise Abatement Council for the program embarked upon by
the Campaign Against Pollution (CAP) organization. Although we cannot
judge technical excellence of the material submitted by CAP in their proposal,
we do heartily endorse their recommendation to alleviate aircraft noise by
whatever means necessary. Further, we wish to add comment on the unbear-
able aircraft noise surrounding O'Hare International Airport.
I, and several members of the O'Hare Area Noise Abatement Council, have
already testified before your committee and have made our views known. We
wish to again go on record to underline the serious need for relief, and to
emphasize the enormity of the problem. It is not a single area, nor is it a
single group that is affected. Rather, the magnitude of aircraft noise pollu-
tion is far reaching- and widespread. The O'Hare Area Noise Abatement
Council, encompassing- some 31 communities contingent to and surrounding
O'Hare International Airport, expresses the deep concern of many thousands
of citizens in the communities affected by aircraft noise.
The State of Illinois has set the pace for noise and air pollution legislation,
and your committee, being an important part of that program, is to be com-
mended for its role in the total undertaking. Through the hearings and testi-
mony submitted, a complete record of expert information and facts has been
gathered, which when properly correlated, will chart the path for aircraft
noise relief. The Illinois Pollution Control Board is an excellent example of
due process in action and can only lead to adequate regulation of the noise-
-------
210
makers. We are therefore appealing to your Board to recommend that laws
be applied equally to all offenders, exempting no one, including aircraft.
We question the discrimination practiced by the PAA and airport operators
when they decide what planes will fly over whom and for how long. We ques-
tion placing a higher priority on aircraft passenger comfort than on the
welfare of helpless residents. We question the practice of discrimination
against homes, health, and the contentment of so many, again, for the com-
fort of aircraft passengers. We question the set standards which discriminate
against taxpaying homeowners for the benefit of plane schedules and costs.
We question all of these, and many more discriminatory practices. That this
should exist in an era when discrimination is outlawed is almost unthinkable.
We will soon feel the impact of new antinoise regulations upon private
enterprise and upon ourselves, ordinary citizens. Yet aircraft noise is ex-
empted. The very people who have cried out for help will be the ones made
to pay. Why this discrimination? We are appealing to the Illinois Pollution
Control Board to include this in their report and recommendations.
We will soon see this law enforcement swiftly swoop down on offenders
such as noise from trucks, defective car mufflers, lawnmowers, automobile
horns, automatic machinery, punch presses, and other vital industrial equip-
ment. The fines will be stiff and the punishment severe—including plant shut-
downs. We appeal to the Illinois Pollution Control Board to question why
aircraft noise remains the only privileged nuisance in our otherwise just
society.
Recently the airlines spent money freely to improve comfort and service
to the traveling public to encourage more business to offset the recession.
Money was spent to make bigger and bigger planes with more and more
seats. More and more planes were added to more and more routes. All this,
of course, with no consideration for and directly against the best interests
of the noise-burdened residents surrounding the airports. Now, more money
is being spent to remove seats, install cocktail facilities, and kitchens to in-
crease passenger comfort. Costs do not seem very important.
We are appealing to the Illinois Pollution Control Board to demand an im-
mediate engine retrofit program for noise control, costs notwithstanding, to
make modern air transportation almost as comfortable for ordinary citizens
as it is for air travelers.
Insulating, at great cost, public places such as schools, churches, hospitals,
restaurants, office buildings, and the like, would probably accomplish a degree
of noise relief. However, for homeowners, we must insist that insulating
homes is out of the question as a total solution to the noise problem. Noise
cannot be insulated from outdoor living, -which is the primary reason for
suburban development. Outdoor living is one of the greatest and most im-
portant parts of our lives. And presently many governmental agencies have
made it a policy to encourage greater outdoor opportunities, including parks
and other facilities, for everyone. We urge the Illinois Control Pollution Board
to recommend that our right to enjoy the outdoors be preserved.
The city of Chicago is incapable of and unwilling to control aircraft noise.
The city of Chicago is still attempting to effect the transfer of 365 acres of
Government-owned land for further airport expansion, in direct contradiction
to evidence submitted by the various investigating committees. All of our com-
plaints and all of our pleadings have fallen on deaf ears in the Chicago City
government, which presently enjoys the control of and the profits from
O'Hare. They are not responsive to the interests of any citizen suffering from
aircraft noise problems, particularly those outside their own boundaries. We
must emphasize that this control of this facility be placed in responsive and
responsible hands.
We strongly urge that the Illinois Pollution Control Board recommend that
the O'Hare International Airport be placed under the supervision of a State
port authority.
Congress has seen to the good of the people, for their protection, by passing
laws such as Truth in Packaging and Truth in Lending. We firmly believe
that the Illinois Pollution Control Board is dutybound to recommend that
suitable and proper legislation be enacted to guarantee similar protection for
citizens wishing to live or build in areas contingent and adjacent to airports.
We suggest the following concepts:
1. A Truth in Airport Area Real Estate Act.
2. A Truth in Airport Expansion Act.
3. A Truth in Assessed Valuation of Homes in Noise Impact Areas Act.
A copy of this communication is being sent to the Honorable Governor
Richard B. Ogilvie for his study and understanding, together with a request
for a meeting to discuss proposals or other matters for the development of a
statewide airport policy. We must look to the State, at this most critical time,
-------
211
to provide some degree of aircraft noise relief while permanent solutions are
being developed.
Sincerely,
GEORGE J. FRANKS, Chairman/President.
O'Hare Area Noise Abatement Council.
R. C. BLOMBERG, Director.
T. DEKA, Director.
Carbon copies: Richard B. Ogilvie, Governor of the State of Illinois; State
Senators—Districts 2, 3, 4, 5, 15, 16, 39; State Representatives—Districts 2,
3, 4, 5, 15, 16, 37; Charles H. Percy, Senator; Adlai E. Stevenson III, Senate
Office.
Back on May 15, 1971, I wrote a letter to the O'Hare Area
Noise Abatement Council, and I introduced the action that they
should take to encourage and promote Senator Cranston's bill, of
California, the retrofit bill, and that information reads as follows:
MAY 15,1971.
To All Members:
The O'Hare Area Noise Abatement Council, along with many cities and
organizations across the country have expressed our support for a quiet en-
gine retrofit program to reduce noise. Our group, OANAC, particularly made
it an issue in a meeting held August 17, 1970, with Congressmen Collier,
Crane, Erlenborn, and Pucinski. At that meeting we proposed nine needs to
relieve our grievances which were acknowledged in a joint statement by the
four Congressmen in a news release dated September 29, 1970. For reference
sake I will list needs 6, 7, and 8 from our list, that are most affected at this
moment:
6. Establish acceptable Federal commercial aircraft noise standards.
7. Provide funding for modification of existing engines, for noise re-
duction to conform to noise standards.
8. Allocate SST funds to engine noise reduction retrofit costs.
Senator Cranston of California has introduced a bill which would accom-
plish this, designated as S. 1566. A copy of this bill is enclosed for your study.
A "Summary of S. 1566" is also enclosed for easy reading. Congressman
Wilson of California has introduced a companion bill designated H.R. 7523
in the House of Representatives. We must concentrate action immediately to
assure passage of these bills. The Federal Aviation Administration has never
made it clear that it intends to proceed with a quiet engine retrofit program.
We need a congressional mandate requiring that aircraft engines be made
quieter.
If we act aggressively, this legislation can pass. We neeed to program our-
selves as we did in blocking the transfer of 365 acres of land to the city of
Chicago. We must proceed with:
1. Letter to your Senators, endorsing passage of the bill.
2. Letters to your Congressman.
3. Notify other cities, organizations, or individuals, and urge them to
write to their Senators and Congressman.
4. Urge others to write to others.
5. Send a resolution from your municipality to your U.S. Senator and
your District Congressman (a sample copy is enclosed for suggestions).
Please send a copy of your resolution to OANAC for record and ready
reference.
Through our endeavors to date, we have made some progress. By keeping
up the pressure at this crucial time, we can realize a good measure of success.
The above is the first of our summer action for aircraft noise relief. The
Congress has seen to the good of the people, for their protection by passing
laws such as Truth in Packaging and Truth in Lending. We firmly believe
that the Congress is duty bound to pass suitable and proper legislation to
guaranty similar protection for citizens wishing to live or build in areas
contingent and adjacent to airports, throughout the country.
The second phase of our summer action, again for the good of the people,
is to petition for a Senate hearing or congressional hearing, to request the
following legislation:
1. A Truth in Airport Expansion Act.
2. A Truth in Airport Area Real Estate Act.
3. A Truth in Assessed Valuation Act (of homes in noise impact areas).
Mr. Citizen has the right to know, not guess, what he is getting into when
relocation of home is desired, and feel secure that the facts have been fully
projected.
-------
212
More details on this will follow as the program progresses.
Sincerely submitted.
GEORGE J. FRANKS,
Chairman, O'Hare Area Noise Abatement Council.
RICHARD C. BLOMBERG,
Vice Chairman.
T. E. DEKA,
Vice Chairman.
S. 1566
A BILL TO amend the Federal Aviation Act of 1958 in order to provide for more effective
control of aircraft noise. Introduced by Senator Cranston, April 1971.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United
States of America in Congress assembled, That Section 611 of the Federal
Aviation Act of 1958, relating to the control and abatement of aircraft noise
and sonic boom, is amended by inserting at the end thereof the following:
"(d) Effective on and after January 1, 1976, all Subsonic Transport Cate-
gory aircraft operating within the jurisdiction of the United States shall
reduce their takeoff, approach and sideline noise each by 10 EPNdB from
their 1971 noise levels or to the levels as set forth in Appendix C (not
including section C36.5(c)), 14 C.F.R. chapter 1, part 36, and as prescribed
in Docket No. 9337, 34 F.R. 18364, November 18, 1969, and amended by
amendment 36-1, 34 F.R. 18815, November 25, 1969; 34 F.R. 19025, November
29, 1969, whichever noise reduction is greater. No airplane shall operate in
violation of the prescribed noise levels.
"(e) (1) The Administrator shall undertake by contract on immediate
program of research on representative aircraft models prior to January 1,
1974, to demonstrate compliance by prototype flight test with subsection (d)
of this section. Such contracts may be entered into without regard to sections
3648 and 3709 of the Revised Statutes (31 U.S.C. 529 and 41 U.S.C. 5), and
shall provide that each contractor shall repay the amount of the research
and development grants if the sound reduction devices developed pursuant
to those grants are sold commercially. Such payments shall be covered into
the treasury as miscellaneous receipts.
(2) There is authorized to be appropriated $35 million to carry out
the provisions of this subsection.
(3) The findings of all research and development grants made pur-
suant to this section shall be made available to foreign aircraft corpora-
tions which produce or have produced aircraft covered by the noise
standards of subsection (d) of this section.
"(f) (1) The Administrator may, upon terms and conditions prescribed by
him, guarantee in whole or in part the repayment of any loan or other form
of financing made to an air carrier for the purpose of modifying airplanes
prior to January 1, 1976, to meet the requirements of subsection (d). The
total amount guaranteed pursuant to this subsection shall not exceed $1 billion.
(2) No guaranty shall be made under this subsection—
"(A) Unless the Administrator finds that without such guaranty,
in the amount thereof, the carrier would be unable to obtain necessary
funds, on reasonable terms, for the purposes for which the financing
is sought;
"(B) If in the judgment of the Administrator the financing in-
volved is at a rate of interest which is unreasonably high;
"(C) If the terms of such financing permit full repayment more
than fifteen years after the date thereof; or
"(D) Unless the Administrator finds that the prospective earning
power of the applicant carrier, together with the character and
value of the security pledged, if any, furnish reasonable assurance
of the applicant's ability to repay the financing within the time
fixed therefor and reasonable protection to the United States.
"A statement of the findings of the Administrator required under the
provisions of this subsection shall be made a matter of public record by the
Administrator with respect to each guaranty under the provisions of this
subsection.
"(3) The Administrator may consent to the modification of the pro-
visions as to rate of interest, time of payment of interest or principal,
security, if any, or other terms and conditions of any guaranty which it
shall have entered into pursuant to this subsection, or the renewal or
extension of any such guaranty, whenever the Administrator shall de-
termine it to be equitable to do so.
"(4) Payments required to be made as a consequence of any guaranty
by the Administrator made under this subsection shall be made by the
-------
213
Secretary of the Treasury from funds hereby authorized to be appropri-
ated in such amounts as may be necessary for the purpose of carrying out
the provisions of this subsection.
"(5) In the event of any default on any such guaranteed financing,
and payment in accordance with the guaranty by the United States,
the Attorney General shall take such action as may be appropriate to
recover the amount of such payments, with interest, from the defaulting
carrier, carriers, or other persons liable therefor.
"(6) The Administrator shall prescribe and collect a guaranty fee in
connection with each guaranty under this subsection. Such fees shall
not exceed such amounts as the Administrator estimates to be necessary
to cover the administrative costs of carrying out the provisions of this
subsection. Sums realized from such fees shall be deposited in the
Treasury as miscellaneous receipts.
"(g) The Civil Aeronautics Board shall not reject any increase in rates,
fares, or charges filed by an air carrier pursuant to section 403 of this Act
if such carrier files with the tariff showing such increase adequate proof that
such increase is due to costs of complying with subsection (d) of this section.
Such cost shall include both the cost of retrofitting aircraft with sound re-
duction devices and the early retirement of aircraft due to implementation
of the standards imposed by this Act.
"(h) (1) The Administrator is authorized to make grants to State
and local agencies, subject to such terms and conditions as he may
determine appropriate for the purposes of this section, to assist in paying
the cost of administering airport noise monitoring programs.
"(2) Not more than 15 percentum of the funds appropriated pursuant
to this section in any fiscal year may be granted to agencies in any one
State.
"(3) For the purpose of this subsection the term 'State' includes the
Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, and Guam.
"(4) There is authorized to be appropriated not to exceed $50 million
to carry out the provisions of this subsection."
SUMMARY OF SB 1566
INTRODUCED BY SENATOR CRANSTON OF CALIFORNIA
A BILL TO PROVIDE FOR MORE EFFECTIVE CONTROL OF AIRCRAFT NOISE
Requires that engine noise on all subsonic transport category aircraft be
reduced by 10 EPNdB or to the levels of Part 36 of the Federal Aviation
Regulations, whichever is greater, by January 1, 1976.
Requires that aircraft conform to these lower noise levels during actual
operations at airports.
Provides funding of $35 million for research and prototype flight testing
to demonstrate compliance with the required noise levels. Any contractor
who sells retrofit kits based on such government funded research will be
required to repay the grant as a percentage of his profits on kits sold.
Provides that the Administrator of the FAA may guarantee loans made
to an air carrier for the purpose of modifying airplanes up to a maximum
of $1 billion.
Provides that the Civil Aeronautics Board shall not reject any reasonable
increase in fares required by an air carrier to cover the costs of complying
with the noise limits. (Senator Cranston estimates the required fare increase
to be less than 1.5 percent.)
Provides Federal grants not to exceed $50 million to assist in paying the
cost to State and local agencies of administering airport noise monitoring
programs.
In Addition, Senator Cranston and the Aerospace Industries Association
estimate that 35,000 people would be employed in the aerospace industry as
a direct result of this program. They estimate that these jobs would generate
still another 105,000 jobs outside the aerospace industry.
RESOLUTION NO. 6305
A resolution of the city council of the city of Inglewood, Calif., relating
to aircraft noise.
Whereas, two-thirds of the city of Inglewood is plagued by unacceptable
aircraft noise; and
Whereas, technology is available to reduce aircraft noise by 50 percent (10
EPNdB) ; and
-------
214
Whereas, the cost of reducing aircraft noise pollution should by right be
borne by airline passengers and amounts to a required fare increase of less
than 1.5 percent; and
Whereas, present Federal Aviation Administration Regulations do not
apply to noise from existing jet aircraft, and in all probability these aircraft
will be in service for another 10 to 15 years; and
Whereas, existing Federal Aviation Regulations do not limit the noise
which may be created at airports during actual operations;
Now, Therefore, Be It Resolved, that the City Council of the City of Ingle-
wood, California, does hereby endorse the legislation introduced by Senator
Cranston requiring retrofitting of engines to suppress the noise on present
jet transport aircraft as legislation which would be of incalculable benefit to
millions of citizens adversely affected by aircraft noise in the United States.
Passed, approved and adopted this 13th day of April, 1971.
WILLIAM COEDIKE,
Mayor of the City of Ingle-wood, Calif.
HELEN RIECK,
City Clerk
We can't afford to stop, because when we go home we will
have the noise. When we go to sleep we will have the noise; we will
have it all night, we will have it tomorrow. We just can't stop.
Here is a letter written to Mr. Ogilvie, Governor Ogilvie. I
introduce myself—the letter reads as follows:
JULY 1, 1971.
HON. RICHARD B. OGILVIE,
207 State House,
Springfield, III.
I am writing to you as President of the O'Hare Area Noise Abatement
Council (OANAC), an organization representing some 31 communities with a
total population of 1.5 million people bordering O'Hare International Airport,
and all dedicated to reduce the severe noise problem caused by jet aircraft.
Members of OANAC were appointed by the local governing bodies, thru resolu-
tion, vote, and due process. We are a respectable, responsible organization, and
are attempting to accomplish our aims using the democratic process and
through our elected representatives.
To that end we write this letter and respectfully solicit your support.
Specifically, we of OANAC wish to establish a meeting with yourself and/
or with whomever you may delegate so that we may sit together in council,
and develop a plan whereby we can get some immediate aircraft noise
relief, which we so desperately desire. As referenced in my letter to the
Illinois Pollution Control Board, I am inclosing a copy of that letter and
request this most valued meeting. Would you kindly arrange and advise,
so that we may look to an enlightened future.
Very truly yours,
GEORGE J. FRANKS,
President.
R. C. BLOMBERG,
Director.
T. DEKA,
Director.
I did get an answer to this very recently—and recently mean-
ing like yesterday or the day before—and I have no comment yet,
but he did turn it over, like we expected, to a personable man, a
task force on noise pollution, and he will meet with us, so I ex-
plained what we were going to do here today and asked him to
put it off until next week. I will be in a better position to give
him more time. We still can't stop, we still have the noise, so we
appeal—we appealed, on July 21—and that just went out prior to
my even knowing about this meeting, that I wrote to the presi-
dents of Allegheny Airlines; American Airlines, Inc.; Braniff
International; Continental Airlines; Delta Airlines, Inc.; Eastern
Airlines; North Central Airlines, Inc.; Northwest Orient Airlines,
-------
215
Inc.; Ozark Airlines, Inc.; Pan American Airways; Trans World
Airlines, Inc.; and United Airlines, I think 12 or 13 basically
listed here, and I think this will sum up the attitude of how the
people out here feel:
JULY 21, 1971.
SIR: I am writing1 as president of the O'Hare Area Noise Abatement
Council (OANAC), an organization representing some 31 communities ad-
jacent to and surrounding O'Hare International Airport, dedicated to combat
the serious severe noise problem created by jet aircraft. Members of OANAC
were appointed by the local governing bodies, thru resolution, vote and due
process. We are a respectable, responsible organization, and with that attitude
as our guiding principle we are attempting to get some aircraft noise relief
immediately. We say immediately, bearing in mind that we believe that
certainly there are long-range programs for future noise suppression, but we
desperately need an interim solution.
But where do we go?
We have met with the FAA representatives, and their Airport Noise
Abatement Committee, the Illinois attorney general and the president of
ALPA with Congressman Erlenborn in a Bensenville meeting. We have gone
to Los Angeles and to Washington, D.C. We have met with our four Congress-
men separately and then collectively with the mayors and presidents of the
surrounding municipalities. We have met with the Senators of Illinois. We
have met with our own State legislators, as well as many others and many
other meetings. We have petitioned to the President of the United States.
We have thousands of signatures to prove our need for help.
But what has it gotten us?
And now, where do we go?
To the answers to these questions we write this letter and respectfully solicit
your support.
We have never appealed to the airline owners directly, and perhaps we
have been remiss. We are appealing now. We firmly believe that some jet
aircraft noise relief can be realized now, and some areas totally relieved now,
while long-range plans for permanent noise cures are developed and imple-
mented. To accomplish this we need the full cooperation and understanding
of the airlines themselves.
It is absolutely unreasonable for anyone to believe that, knowingly, the
airlines would sacrifice the' well being of so many people unrelated to the
industry for the sake of expediency and economics. Business and profits are
very important to the aircraft industry, everyone fully understands. But what
accomplishment are these values when they are taken from others. What is
left for any family, after losing the true value of their lives—peace and
tranquility in their own home, any and all times, day or night, with no
recourse. Would you not say futility and desperation can only set in. And is
this not a sickness. Are not the Public Relations Departments concerned.
Specifically, we wish to point out the low altitude, dangerous short turns
made by aircraft immediately after takeoff, to get "on course," apparently
for economy.
The 747 type aircraft is truly an engineering masterpiece. Beautiful in
every respect—appearance, majestic, quiet, and a real pleasure to watch.
However, the longer they fly, the bolder they get, until they have almost
offset the built-in engineering technological advances. Older types of aircraft
noise is almost impossible to bear and some types such as the 707 and DC-8
are so noisy they should be retired. All are turning lower and lower, appar-
ently depending on their destination, under full power making life for people
in these areas unbearable. We are not relating to a few people rather, we
are relating to hundreds of thousands. Although not the product, the residents
on the ground should get the same considerate attention.
Understanding noise is not enough to properly put it in perspective. One
must experience the aggravation and pain of noise to realize the plight of
the resident citizen. We, of OANAC, humbly submit that the airline owners
or principals have never been subjected to this constant, rhythmatic noise
condition.
The executive committee of the O'Hare Area Noise Abatement Council
respectfully extend an invitation to yourselves and to any committee you
may choose to meet with us, to listen to, and to experience the noise problem
directly with us as outlined above. Then we can all converse on common
ground, and we can better get some help through experience—not just under-
standing. We have some suggestions we wish to propose.
We further commit ourselves to meet with your representatives along with
ALPA, FAA, PATCO, CAB, and any other department apropos to the
-------
216
subject, either in single conferences or in a group conference. Should it be
your desire, we can arrange to have the mayors and presidents represent
their respective municipalities. We are sincere, and solicit your complete
cooperation and subsequent support.
We are in no position to judge the mood of the aircraft industry regarding
Senator Alan Cranston's bill to retrofit all existing jet aircraft engines with
noise suppression devices, but we will energetically solicit their support for
the bill. With the full weight of the aircraft industry behind this bill and
the powerful influence they have on the Congress, passage of this bill can be
assured. Senator Alan Cranston in his presentation of the bill said, "Under
FAA noise standards, my bill would improve noise conditions from unac-
ceptable to acceptable for 340,000 people in Chicago." The O'Hare Area Noise
Abatement Council wishes to discuss a program to relieve this vast number
of citizens so adversely affected by jet aircraft noise.
It is our intention to review with your committee the standard takeoff
profile agreed upon by FAA, ALPA, and ATA in 1968, resulting from
experimental noise abatement tests conducted at Wallops Island, Va. in 1967
by NASA using various airline aircraft. This procedure would offer some
measure of noise relief, and every effort should be made to implement the
plan throughout.
The O'Hare Area Noise Abatement Council also wishes to discuss among
other things, methods to help residents hopelessly buried in jet aircraft
noise in Fairview Heights, Schiller Park, due to the use of runway 9R.
Money is no problem. We buy our pleasures. How do we buy peace and
quiet?
May we look forward to a very early favorable reply, at which time we
can arrange the details for a fruitful meeting.
Very truly yours,
GEORGE J. FRANKS,
President, Executive Committee.
RICHARD C. BLOMBERG,
Leyden Township, III.—OANAC Director.
TERRENCE DEKA,
Wood Dale, III.—OANAC Director.
ALBERT H. CASTLE,
Des Plaines, III.—OANAC.
GERALD T. ROHRER,
Park Ridge, III.—OANAC.
I would like to interject by saying that we dp listen to the
experts; we do listen to the physicists and the design developers;
we are talking 3 to 5 years. Senator Alan Cranston is talking
about the retrofit program finishing by 1976. We heartily endorse
his program, but what do we do in the meantime ? There is tomor-
row, there is today, there is tonight, next week, and this is what
our request is, something should be done, and our appeal is di-
rected to the airlines because we really think they don't know.
When we look at these low turns—which I will clear up a little
later—when they are hardly airborne, and they make a turn, I
don't know, it was said on the panel, or one of the witnesses, it
was either today or yesterday—I was here both days—they said
that the low turn is to relieve noise. Well, they are only spreading
the noise. You just have so much noise to spread, and they spread
it where they think it's the best. If they hammer one village all
the time they are going to have a riot, but if they give everyone
a little bit, by the time it comes back, it's cooled off. Now, it hap-
pened so often that the interims have gotten closer together. It's
like the dripping water and the Chinese torture, and every plane
now is worse than it ever was, because our thinking has been
different.
I have tried to illustrate to you gentlemen every avenue that
we have experimented with.
Dr. MEYER. Have you had any answers to that letter yet?
Mr. FRANKS. The July 21 letter? I have not.
-------
217
Dr. MEYER. It's a bit early.
Mr. FRANKS. Now, I would ask—I would ask you people what
do we, as representatives in our own way—and since we are not
paid, we probably take a bigger beating, I am not sure, but they
call us hopeless—hopefully they have someone to turn to—Mr.
Franks, do you know this? Do you know that? Yes. I am going
crazy, and if I don't hurry up and get something done for my
own good, I am going to go out of business because I haven't got
that much time to handle that, really.
When we talk to the Federal Aviation Administration, which
we did, and I have another letter which I will not go into, but we
made our full circle. We started with the Federal Aviation Ad-
ministration, and got nowhere, and tried all these other tangents,
and every letter—for example, the letter to the President, and all
the people that were on the mailing list, I think this is a very
important part of the testimony, it was sent to the Honorable
John M. Mitchell, Melvin Laird, and I guess without disrespect, I
will leave the titles out, Senator Percy, Senator Smith at that
time; Governor Ogilvie; Mr. Scott, the Attorney General; the
Congressmen Collier, Crane, Erlenborn, and Pucinski, along with
the letter to the President of the United States.
All of these men, in the answers—they did answer, the congress-
men were terrific, and we are very grateful for that, because they
got us up to this point. I think they kept us alive, but all the
letters were referred to the FA A, and I just rather drop it there,
because I might get sarcastic and have to explain some wild
remarks.
Nothing has happened. The greatest thing that has happened
to our group, as we see it now, is this hearing. May we look for-
ward to some results, good results, before I don't know what is
going to happen now. We don't want to move out of our homes.
I think we made that clear. We liked it there. We picked it there.
We will not move, and who is private enterprise to walk in and
say, "Get out, we are taking it."
We are just not going to do it, and I would like to make one
parting statement, that if they doubt that we are united, that we
are together, when we have our next meeting we will tell them
they will probably be on the runway, but we will run out the due
process right to the ground before our patience runs out. Thank
you very much.
Dr. MEYER. I appreciate it. Would you mind waiting a minute,
in case the panel has a question? Also I know from our agenda
that we have some people who have traveled long distances to
come here. This is'a national meeting, not a Chicago meeting.
Some of these people may have trains to catch and get back-—
trains or planes or buses or cars—see, I am thinking ahead,
friends. You talk about mass transit. I am thinking about not only
airplanes, but urban mass transit and intercity transit systems
for the present and the future.
I understand that Alderman Singer was going to make a com-
ment. After that I think I better see if I can find the people who
are from such places as Minneapolis and take care of them, be-
cause I don't think the citizens of Chicago, who are still here,
would feel we were being necessarily hospitable if I didn't take
that factor into account. But I would like to ask the panel, though,
if they have any questions. I am sure, after this very explicit and
-------
218
forthright statement, that some of my colleagues may want to
ask you a question or two, sir, if you don't mind.
Professor PLACER. I xvould like to ask a question. Mr. Franks,
it is a pleasure to have you before us, and to hear your statement.
I have assessed from what you have said that this is a kind of a
grass roots citizens' expression of concern—the kind of expres-
sion of concern I think that may really begin to indicate the need
for some real action and real changes. Let's explore that just a
moment with you. Is your group largely a group of homeowners?
Is that a fair statement, people living in the area?
Mr. FRANKS. They are.
Professor PLACER. They are?
Mr. FRANKS. Yes; they are only in the area.
Professor PLACER. Only in the area?
Mr. FRANKS. Yes.
Professor PLACER. Recognizing that kind of citizens group such
as yours, obviously has to have a corps of active people. Roughly
how many people would you say, or how many homeowners, how
large a group do you think you can honestly speak for, that you
are representing?
Mr. FRANKS. I think I am speaking for 19 municipalities legiti-
mately, speaking for them; nine members are on my executive
committee, of which seven are very active.
Professor PLACER. Now, are you—when you say that, I take it
you are not speaking so much for the Government as you are for
the people who are living in those municipalities,
Mr. FRANKS. Yes.
Professor PLACER. Is that correct?
Mr. FRANKS. For the people, as long as I represent them with
a little show of dignity, perhaps mixed with anger, the govern-
ments will continue to approve my doing it.
Professor PLACER. That mixture can be very useful.
Mr. FRANKS. Yes.
Professor PLACER. I sense that people are angry, and perhaps
properly so.
May I ask what your business is, Mr. Franks?
Mr. FRANKS. I am in the manufacturing business. I will, no
doubt, be hit by this ordinance—well, I am not in Chicago. I am
in Cook County, but if it goes Cook Countywide, I will be attacked
for noise in my own plant, and I can't do anything with the man
who is keeping me awake day and night.
Professor PLACER. But you are willing to do your share as long
as something is done about those who apparently aren't; is that
what you are saying?
Mr. FRANKS. I will do my share without any law, now that I
understand—and I have, for awhile, I have automatic screw
machines. We turn steel from the bar. It's about the noisiest
stage you can get running full speed—law or otherwise, I would
do it out of my good nature.
Professor PLACER. All right. Now, there are a lot of questions
I would like to ask you, but I know we have to move on. Let me
put one final question to you: I sense from your statement and
your experience that you haven't really had a very satisfactory
experience in dealing with the various agencies, both of local,
State and Federal government with all of this. I know our chair-
man, Dr. Meyer, has a very sincere concern with this, and hope-
-------
219
fully the EPA will be able to come to grips with this problem
—although, of course, there are a number of other agencies that
are intimately involved. Let me ask you a hypothetical problem:
If we fail, if we cannot solve the problem expeditiously and effec-
tively, what then?
Mr. FRANKS. Immediately upon you saying that, I got a terrible
sinking feeling—I am going to tell you, if you feel we are not
going to be too responsible, where do you go now?
Now, how hard would you fight for your home? Did you serve
in any of the wars? Whose home are you fighting for? Then you
let private enterprise come in and take it out from under your
nose.
Now, if I lost my home on account of payments and, you know,
these people are working hard, a lot of these people who live in
this affluent suburbia can't afford it, this country is the only
country in the world where people can afford to live beyond their
means, you know that, so they got two jobs, they got a part-time
job, two jobs and a part-time job, and I just gave my men in my
plant, I got three corporations, and I gave them a choice—work
10 hours a day, get your 40 hours a week and take a part-time job
on the side. They are grateful no end. I mean, what is so difficult
about that?
If we say that the aircraft are bothering us to that extent, what
is so difficult about coming out and seeing what is bothering us?
Why do they make these short turns? I really would make one
of the demands of this group here to say that the airlines have
a noise standard to meet, get your experts out of the homes, out
at the homes and meet them.
Professor PLACER. In other words
Mr. FRANKS. Don't expect us to come up with the answers. We
are citizens. We don't know, and experts disagree and argue. They
have the answers. They have got them someplace, just open the
drawer and get those experts out. It should come out of this
group, I think, to say, "Here are the noise standards of the air-
ports ; meet them or else."
Professor PLACER. In other words, we can't afford to fail, can
we?
Mr. FRANKS. You can't what?
Professor PLACER. We can't afford to fail, can we?
Mr. FRANKS. No, no. Really you can't. Don't put that burden on
us. We are trying to be nice people. We have been patient for 2
years, and you know the American characteristic is the same; we
are big dummies. You travel abroad—in Mexico I asked a citizen
out there, "What do you think of the Americans?" He said, "They
are big goofs, big goofs, but don't get them mad."
Now, see if that isn't our way. We sit at conference tables for
years, but when our temper changes—the bombs. There is no in
between, and I guess we are typical Americans. We are probably
the greatest cross section of American citizens you will find in
this country.
We have—this is well-to-do suburbia; they are paying their
taxes; they are law abiding citizens; they are towing the mark.
Now, what more can you ask of them ? All we are asking is leave
us alone—no higher pay, no better schools, no more schools, no
more roads, no discrimination, no ADC aid. They are asking for
nothing, just leave us alone. Now, how difficult is that request?
-------
220
Professor PLACER. Thank you, Mr. Franks.
Mr. FRANKS. Thanks.
Mr. HlNTON. Mr. Chairman, may I ask just two very quick
questions ?
Dr. MEYER. Yes, indeed. We are going to have to push ahead,
though, or we are not going to hear all the people entitled to have
their say. But I am determined that everyone who wants to speak
has an opportunity to do so.
Mr. HlNTON. Mr. Franks, "yes," or "no," do you know whether
or not procedures, noise abatement procedures are in effect at
O'Hare? "Yes" or "no"?
Mr. FRANKS. Effective noise procedures, no.
Mr. HINTON. OK. Do you know—you said that certain airlines
responded to your letters to the chief officers of the companies,
you said, and you specified some cooperated. Now
Mr. FRANKS. No; I am asking for their cooperation. I have had
no response. I am asking for the cooperation. I want them to
cooperate and meet with us and talk with us. No answer yet. It
was dated the 21st.
Mr. HINTON. Thank you very much.
Dr. MEYER. Professor Kerrebrock.
Professor KERREBROCK. Mr. Franks, we are in a very formative
stage in the reduction of aircraft noise. You probably under-
stand this.
Mr. FRANKS. Yes.
Professor KERREBROCK. That we have gone in the last 2 or 3
years from essentially a minimum of regulation to now a stage
where the Government is beginning to think very seriously about
this, and I think it's extremely important that in this formative
stage we collect information from people such as you, who have
the real experience as to what is acceptable. Now, you made a
statement that you would like to see the noise exposure limited
to that which would be, which would result from 100 nights an
hour, or per pre East-West runway. Do you think if the noise
exposure could be rolled back to that level that the population
around O'Hare would be willing to wait for improvements in the
future, or would there be almost as much concern as there is now?
Mr. FRANKS. I would have to use my judgment on that and I
would say that we may show a little patience—something is being
done right now, we are getting, may I say, lip service. We are
just tired of going from meeting to meeting, and after each meet-
ing there is a 6-month delay.
Professor KERREBROCK. You want to see progress.
Mr. FRANKS. I want to see progress, but they are just buying
time that we haven't got to give.
Professor KERREBROCK. What about leveling off at the present
level of exposure?
Mr. FRANKS. That is totally unacceptable.
Professor KERREBROCK. That is too high?
Mr. FRANKS. Totally. There are too many people involved. In
the articles I submitted I showed you a letter, the suburbs of
Franklin Park-Schiller Park-Stone Park, we sincerely believe that
a close study of flight patterns, and perhaps, I am not even saying
"perhaps," but we don't have that time, money or the expertise
to look into it, but we think they can get these flights off in a more
orderly manner—maybe just as many nights.
-------
221
We have open areas they can use, 27L to give you one example,
they get airborne, turn left real quickly, and Bensenville and
Wood Dale gets swamped, and our little town gets swamped with
noise.
Now, if they travel straight out they would get into Itasca,
but if you calculate the footage and the height, the rate of climb
by using this experiment at Wallops Island, they will be at an
altitude where noise would be acceptable, and I would also say
that noise to our punished and painful ears will not be as loud
to some at 75 or 80 decibels as it is, because we are accustomed,
on my very patio, and I had the note, but I skipped over it, I had
five officials from the Federal Aviation Administration—which I
can verify—substantiate, and one of them was the electronics en-
gineer with their sound equipment. This is a back patio of my
home, and you have got to see my home to appreciate what I am
talking about—it's a beautiful, wooded area
Professor KERREBROCK. Yes, I understand your problem
Mr. FRANKS. One hundred seventeen decibels there—it was a
reading of 117 decibels. That means 1 foot apart you cannot hear
a conversation
Professor KERREBROCK. I would like to
Mr. FRANKS. Mouth-to-mouth conversation.
Professor KERREBROCK. I would like to suggest, if I may
Mr. FRANKS. Yes.
Professor KERREBROCK. That it would be very helpful if you
would attempt to gather this information and convey it to this
panel as to at what date in the development of O'Hare Airport
the noise level became truly unacceptable.
Dr. MEYER. That would be very useful.
Mr. FRANKS. All right.
Dr. MEYER. At what date
Professor KERREBROCK. Could you do that?
Dr. MEYER. Did your group really feel that it really had to
begin? I think this would be most useful to us. I am not saying
that is the point you necessarily would cut back, but it gives you
some technical data as to group reactions; that would help us a
great deal, it really would, sir.
Mr. FRANKS. We will be happy to do that. I would like to leave
you with one parting shot; please give us something in the
interim
Dr. MEYER. We will try.
Mr. FRANKS. Because every day is too long.
Dr. MEYER. Thank you.
Mr. FRANKS. Thank you.
Dr. MEYER. Thank you very much, sir. Is Alderman Singer
here?
Alderman SINGER. Yes.
Dr. MEYER. Alderman, nice to have you. Welcome to this group.
Alderman SINGER. Thank you very much.
STATEMENT OF WILLIAM SINGER, ALDERMAN, CITY OF CHICAGO
Alderman SINGER. Mr. Chairman, before I begin my presenta-
tion, I just want to say that I will try to be brief and confine my
remarks to two specific areas, where I think that a local official
can relate to a Federal panel such as yours.
-------
222
Dr. MEYER. Very good, sir.
Alderman SINGER. Mr. Chairman and members of the panel, I
appreciate this opportunity to testify before you today. I am
pleased that your Agency is conducting these hearings through-
out the country in order to determine the extent of support for
noise abatement procedures, the practicability of such procedures,
and most importantly, the necessity for such procedures.
I am not an expert, either in the medical or technical aspect of
noise control, but as a locally elected official I have devoted con-
siderable time to understanding the problems of noise pollution.
I would like to briefly discuss some local concerns which clearly
have a relationship to the Federal Government.
As you know, Chicago has recently passed a new and, I think
quite strong noise ordinance.
I am a member of the committee of Environmental Control of
the city of Chicago; it was passed after extensive studies and
hearings, and for the most part is a major step forward toward
reducing noise levels in Chicago. Nevertheless, there are unregu-
lated sources of noise that remain, the two most important of
which are noise from rail and noise from air sources.
The Chicago Transit Authority indicated that they could not
comply with noise abatement requirements and, therefore, were
exempted from the city's recently passed ordinance.
While I recognize that there is an enormous expense in equip-
ping old mass transit vehicles, and even new vehicles in a way so
as to reduce the noise emanating therefrom, the absence of any
program—I stress that, the absence of any program now, or in
the future, to cope with this problem is more disturbing than the
authority's request to be excluded from coverage of the present
ordinance.
I am encouraged that Mr. Cafferty, the new chairman of the
CTA has indicated a desire to study this problem. I would sug-
gest, however, that there is a clear Federal role with respect to
noise abatement for federally financed mass transit facilities.
Specifically I would suggest that in the future all mass transit
funding be contingent, first upon a comprehensive plan of the
receiving authority for noise abatement. This plan must take
into account both existing equipment and future equipment.
Perhaps funding of new equipment should be limited to equip-
ment which would meet federally imposed standards; should there
be a determination that its use in urban areas would, as a result
of the sound emanating therefrom, have an adverse environ-
mental impact—in any event, the environmental impact statement
from proper Federal officials should also be a condition precedent
to Federal funding.
I want to stress that these last points relative to Federal fund-
ing of mass transit are suggestions for you and the Congress to
consider. I put them forth in the hope that they will spur a re-
quirement and an incentive for planning by local mass transit
authorities.
The other problem where there is a clear Federal role relates
to the noise from aircraft. We have already devoted a considerable
amount of time to that.
The city refused to limit the hours of takeoffs and landings at
O'Hare International Airport—now, I parenthetically would say
I made those suggestions to the committee. I think they were
-------
223
rejected; Congressman Pucinski, who has been involved in this
problem for a long time also suggested that they not agree to
limiting landings and takeoffs—a suggestion with which I do
not agree, obviously.
Chicago newspapers have carried reports in the last few days
for recommendations ranging from clearance to compensation
payments for staying in areas near airports. While I do not pro-
fess to have the long-range answer to this problem, short of
locating new airports a sufficient distance away from residential
areas, some forms of traffic regulation, even as an interim measure
—and I would add parenthetically that even if all of Congressman
Pucinski's suggestions were adopted by the Congress tomorrow,
even he said 5 years would be the earliest possible time for total
compliance, so even as an interim measure, traffic regulation
would seem desirable to protect those people whose residences are
in flight paths of our major airports.
This could involve limiting the hours, or reducing the traffic
loads at certain hours, or restricting the use of certain runways
as a condition to continued Federal funding of airport facilities,
and just as in the case of funding mass transit facilities, you do
fund, and the city council approves the receipt of grants from
the Federal Government for such things as runways, control
towers, et cetera.
I would again suggest the requirement of an environmental
impact statement from the Federal officials, and also the require-
ment that at the local level there be a plan for noise abatement
relative to surrounding areas.
Therefore I have really suggested in both of these, mass transit
and airport, two specific areas for your consideration: One is the
requirement at the local level that there be a comprehensive plan,
and the other is the requirement at the Federal level that there
be an environmental impact analysis. I don't think that this is too
harsh a measure to impose on the local authorities.
You may ask whether this is the carrot or the stick, and I
would say it's something of both. I think there has to be somewhat
of a stick over the heads of local government because it receives
this great amount of money from Federal sources.
While, of course, there are other problems in the noise pollution
field, many of these are local in nature, and I appreciate the op-
portunity to come in and comment on these two areas where I
feel there is the necessity of action at the national level. Thank
you, Mr. Chairman.
Dr. MEYER. Mr. Alderman, as a municipal official, I am im-
pressed with your grasp of the relationship between the State and
its political subdivisions and the political subdivisions with the
Federal Government; and you have called our attention, rightly,
to a need for greater use, or greater attention in the environ-
mental impact statement process to some of these problems. The
Environmental Protection Agency, and my portion of it, as well
as other portions, are deeply involved in this now, as you know.
You raise the thought that by definition, perhaps, some of the
grants and so on of the other agencies, such as airports and
municipal transit authorities, will require even greater considera-
tion in this area. And I have made a special note of this; we are
reviewing that particular subject at this moment in the Agency.
-------
224
The purpose of these hearings is to get new suggestions, and
we appreciate that very much.
Alderman SINGER. Thank you.
Dr. MEYER. Panel.
Mr. HINTON. Alderman Singer, where is the 43d Ward?
Alderman SINGER. The 43d Ward is roughly 10 blocks north of
here, 20 blocks north of here running up the lake front to ap-
proximately 3000 North, and running west about 1800 West.
Mr. HINTON. You made several statements about—I thought
very responsible statements about the aircraft proportion of the
noise problem that you have, and yet you are quite away from
the airport, so your problem is nowhere near as close.
Alderman SINGER. Well, let me explain why, as in the case of
Mr. Franks, there was, about 6 to 8 months ago, an incident of
noise from airplanes coming in at relatively low levels, and again
the explanation we received through Congressman Yates, through
his office, as in the case of Mr. Franks, was that it was due to
the construction of runways.
I got involved in the whole question of aircraft noise, and felt
if it was this bad in our area, it must be worse in other parts of
the city, and I am a member of the city council obviously con-
cerned about the entire city.
Mr. HINTON. Well, Alderman Singer, do you know of any steps
that have been taken at O'Hare that effectively reduce the noise
exposure on the community?
Alderman SINGER. The only—there is only one that has been
taken, and that is limiting the revving up of engines while on
the ground.
Let me point this out, which I think is something you know
why we have to discuss this between Federal and local agencies,
there was a great deal of testimony by the city officials saying
that the city could not control either the runway times, the
amount of landings and takeoffs, or the use of any particular
runway, or even shut down the airport entirely—even though we
operate it.
I would tend to disagree, at least on the last opinion that we
could have some authority over this, but there was the question
of Federal preemption. The city, therefore, chose not to act in
any of these areas, perhaps because of preemption problems, per-
haps because of others, and therefore, I think it's appropriate to
bring this before your body as the place to also consider these
kinds of controls, but to my knowledge the only one the city has
taken, or the airport authority has taken is to prohibit the revving
up of engines while on the ground.
Mr. HINTON. Alderman Singer, one more question.
I notice you call for the requirement of the local noise abate-
ment plan as a condition for receipt of funds for airport devel-
opment.
Now, do you have any suggestions—would you think it would
be appropriate for the city itself to initiate such a program, as
the proprietor of O'Hare Airport, and, for example, the establish-
ment of a noise abatement officer, and that sort of thing?
Alderman SINGER. Yes; I think it would be entirely appropriate
for the city to do so. What I have suggested to you gentlemen is
that the carrot of Federal funds may be an incentive to create
that office. The city may feel that the Federal funds may be with-
-------
225
held, or may not be coming in the amounts that they would like,
but this office might help them. I think, yes, the answer would be
it would be our responsibility to do so.
Mr. HINTON. I would like to see that happen.
Professor PLACER. Alderman Singer, let's assume just for the
moment that it can be shown there are—that it could be shown
there are certain operational practices that are within the realm
of the management of O'Hare, the airport proprietor, which
would have a significant impact on noise from its airport opera-
tion ; would you be in favor of the city doing its maximum, or the
airport proprietor—be it the city or otherwise—doing what it
possibly could in terms of operational activities and procedures to
minimize noise?
Alderman SINGER. Making the assumption that the city of Chi-
cago, and through its control of O'Hare Airport, has the authority
to, let's say, close the airport certain hours, or do other things.
Professor PLACER. Take other operational steps, yes, sir.
Alderman SINGER. Yes, I think to the extent we would have to
have a greater study of the economic impact, as well as the en-
vironmental impact, but I would say yes, in certain instances, as
a general principle, I would be in favor of the city exercising that
authority, if it could, if it was necessary, and I think the demon-
stration is that it is necessary to improve the environment for
those people living around O'Hare. Now, which ones and how
stringent you get I think depends on the economic consequences
of such things.
Congressman Pucinski, for example, told us that the amount of
freight which comes in at night would be severely restricted if you
try to confine it to the daytime hours, and he couldn't have O'Hare
be the center of commerce, commercial aircraft transportation,
not passenger, but freight aircraft, so I think there are certain
conditions that we would want to—maybe we would only restrict
certain runways at night as a compromise, but again I would be
in favor of exercising that kind of authority.
Dr. MEYER. Go ahead.
Professor PLACER. Certainly at least the examination by the
airport proprietor.
Alderman SINGER. What disturbs me more than anything is the
absence of any, at least apparent desire, maybe something covert
I don't know about, but any apparent desire, in actual planning
for this kind of eventuality, for this kind of program, there is no
program.
Professor PLACER. In the absence of an apparent desire on the
part of airport proprietors generally—and you need not limit us
to O'Hare—would you be in favor of either Federal or State
governments requiring airport proprietors to examine these
issues?
Alderman SINGER. Yes. I think that would be encompassed in
the suggestion I have made, that as a condition precedent for
Federal funding, that some sort of program analysis be adopted
by the local authority.
Professor PLACER. Thank you.
Mr. MARTIN. Alderman Singer, you indicated that you were in-
volved in—I am going to digress from aircraft and go back to the
surface vehicles, that you were involved in the establishment of
this Chicago ordinance.
-------
226
Alderman SINGER. Well, I am a member of the committee which
passed it.
Mr. MARTIN. All right. Some testimony yesterday by the manu-
facturers indicated that because of certain technological things
that haven't arrived yet, some of these future levels probably will
be very difficult to attain, if attainable.
What would happen if these levels were not attained; at that
point is it the intent to restrict the use, those vehicles from being
used in the city of Chicago? The levels of penalty here are very
low, and in all probability it's not going to deter people unless
you eliminate the vehicle.
Alderman SINGER. Well, I am not fully cognizant of all of the
technological steps that must be taken, whether they can or can-
not be met.
As a matter of law, and as a legislator, I would like to suggest
that it was the right course to establish a stiff standard early,
and make every possible attempt without conceding at all the
inability to meet that standard, make every possible attempt—
every possible attempt to seek compliance.
I think legislators and others are reasonable people, and if you
established a strict standard, and if that standard is a good base
attempt to meet that standard, and simply proves impossible, I
am not talking about difficult, I am saying impossible, without
severe, almost impossible economic consequences and the like, if
that is the case I am sure we would be reasonable enough to make
extensions or other things, but I don't want to suggest for a
moment that we are going to change our law today on the basis
of what someone says is impossible for the next 4 years. I would
suggest that in 4 years from now if we can determine that every-
thing humanly possible was done, and they need another 6 months,
of course, but that is the issue before us, and we passed our
ordinance, it was to develop the stiffest possible requirements that
seemed feasible at the time, and to date I have not seen any kind
of evidence which says that given the time periods we have es-
tablished, they cannot meet all the requirements.
Dr. MEYER. Alderman Singer, that last statement of yours was
a very useful exposition on legislative philosophy, which will be
duly noted. We have some of those same problems at the Federal
level
Alderman SINGER. I am sure you do.
Dr. MEYER. As some people are aware. We appreciate your
testimony very much.
Alderman SINGER. Thank you very much, sir. Thank you.
Dr. MEYER. Might I inquire if Mr. Fred N. Tabak, supervisor
of the 18th district, Milwaukee County, is here?
Mr. TABAK. Yes, sir.
Dr. MEYER. It's a pleasure to welcome you here, sir. I am glad
to have another elected official with us.
Mr. TABAK. It's a pleasure to be here.
STATEMENT OF FRED N. TABAK, MILWAUKEE COUNTY
SUPERVISOR
Mr. TABAK. For today's American urban dweller, "natural"
sounds are almost as rare as the American bald eagle. Of all the
sounds that incessantly assault our ears, few emanate from natural
sources, with perhaps the exception of an occasional chirp of a
-------
227
bird, roll of thunder, or person chomping popcorn in front of you
at the theater. For the inner city or ghetto dweller, natural noise
is even rarer.
Although unnatural or human-produced noises are too numerous
to cite, one source of excessive noise stands out as the most prev-
alent and most irritating for the urban dweller: vehicular sur-
face traffic.
Presently, we have over 90 million vehicles on the roads of
America, with 2.8 million being added each year, a growth rate
three times greater than the national population increase.
Not only are each of these vehicles potential air polluters, but
each increases the ambient (background) noise level of the urban
dweller. Urban ambient noise now ranges from a 40-decibel low
of early morning to an 80-decibel high during the noisiest time of
day. The increased ambient noise level can be traced directly to
increased traffic movements during peak periods of the day.
Milwaukee, like most large urban population areas, has the
curse of concrete corridors of noise carriers, known as express-
ways, slicing in crisscross patterns throughout the city. Every
urban area, like Milwaukee, is subject to a daily tide-like move-
ment of automobiles, entering the high-density work areas to-
gether in the mornings, leaving for the low-density residential
areas together in the evenings. It is hard to point out any urban
expressway, including Milwaukee's proclaimed modern system,
that is not congested at peak load times.
The number of vehicles is growing at a rate faster than the
roadway network—traffic congestion cannot help but become pro-
gessively worse. Milwaukee has a peculiar aberration in that the
city is absent of an alternative transportation system, with the
exception of an antiquated privately-owned, noisy, diesel fume
belching bus system.
Unlike most cities, where a person who says he drives an
automobile into the downtown area is given a questionable look,
Milwaukeeans have been conditioned to do quite the opposite. The
Milwaukeean who does not drive into the downtown area is the
exception and not the norm. What has been the response of
transportation planners in my area to the increased influx of
vehicle noise polluters? An alternative noiseless underground or
monorail system? Of course not. According to their reasoning,
since vehicular traffic is increasing, the best recourse is to build
more expressways. And so they are. Presently under construction,
and with great opposition, is another concrete monstrosity that
will transverse directly through one of Milwaukee's most beauti-
ful, and I might add most quiet, lakefront parks.
Not only is the construction of expressways uprooting great
numbers of people, but it adds new sources of ambient noise over
and above the normal ambient sound level. Perhaps the families
that are uprooted and moved are more fortunate than those who
remain and must contend with the vehicle roar of the adjacent
expressway.
Three things will probably result to the homeowner with
property adjacent to the expressway: First, there will be an im-
mediate decrease in property value; second, the noise level will
probably increase to irritating or intolerable levels; third, the
property owner must spend money to acoustically shield his home,
or move.
-------
228
A case in point in the Milwaukee area is a family who owns
property adjacent and only 40 feet from the nation's fifth heaviest
traveled truck interchange, on the interstate system. The noise
level had become so intolerable that the family turned to Mil-
waukee County for a solution. County highway officials took sound
readings at the property and found a high average of 86 decibels,
a level high enough to irritate and annoy. Inside the home, with
the windows closed, the noise level reached 54 decibels, about the
equivalent of an air conditioner constantly operating. Because of
existing lack of precedence, Milwaukee County could not purchase
the property, and offered only recognition and sympathy to the
noise problem, hardly a solution.
Realistically, expressways and vehicles that travel on them, and
the noise that emanates from the vehicles will not be entirely
eliminated. And, all the homes that are too close to existing ex-
pressways, through poor planning, cannot be purchased and
removed.
The obvious and most immediate area to attack is the source of
noise, and that of the vehicle itself. Vehicle manufacturers have
vigorously been working on solutions to air pollution, with some
success, and have likewise attacked the noise problem. But, whom
have they aimed noise reduction research towards? Not the per-
son who lives adjacent to the roadway, but instead, at the driver
and passengers of the vehicle.
Ford Motor Co. has proclaimed its autos as the quietest in the
field. Quietest for whom, the driver, or the pedestrian who hears
the roar of the engine without the soundproofing interior of the
auto? The Ford Motor Co. has, according to recent figures, a
noise vibration-harshness research team, whose job it is to cope
with some 15,000 sound-producing components of a car. I ques-
tion whether they are aiming their research at the noise recipients
outside the vehicle.
General Motors alone has approximately 100 men assigned to
its acoustic research team, which was until recently headed by
David Apps, an international authority on automotive noise con-
trol. But, again, the quest seems to be to eliminate some of the
sounds, insulate others, and convert the stubborn ones into pleas-
ing sounds for the passenger. I repeat, where does that leave the
noise recipients outside the vehicle?
Vehicle horns are yet another problem. The Chrysler Corp., for
example, specifies an ear-shattering sound limit of at least 125
decibels measured 4 inches from the horn. I believe it is also
Chrysler Corp. that has developed the highly gimmicky and com-
mercial, and equally irritating beep beep of its Roadrunner model.
The problem of vehicular noise is not unsolvable for the urban
dweller, if the problem is recognized by Federal, State, and local
governments, in addition to the corporate manufacturers of the
noise-producing vehicles.
Presently, one of the major problems confronting local govern-
ment in attacking and legislating against excessive noise is the
unclear and conflicting laws governing noise pollution on the State
and Federal levels.
Hopefully, through conferences such as we are holding today,
government on the Federal level will be able to offer clear guidance
to the State and local governments on noise pollution. The Federal
-------
229
Government offers the best potential in approaching vehicle manu-
facturers on noise pollution problems, as it did with air pollution.
On the State and local level, conflicting laws on noise pollution
must be eliminated and a coherent policy formulated. For example,
the State statutes of Wisconsin allow prosecution for excessive
vehicle noise only if it is linked with the muffler, and smoke emis-
sion is evident. As a result, only 17 prosecutions in Milwaukee
County were made under the law in the past year. Obviously,
forceful and updated laws are needed for vigorous prosecution of
noise polluters.
If, in fact, expressways continue to expand as they currently
are, steps must be taken to alleviate the ambient roar that dissi-
pates to surrounding dwellings. This can be accomplished through
improved design and location of the roadways. Solutions include
depressed road construction, the use of banking barriers or cover-
ing the surface with plastic materials that absorb tire noise. Im-
mediate solutions, such as flanking barriers, need not be expensive
or complicated. The simple planting of dense rows of trees or
shrubs can reduce noise by about one decibel for every 4 feet of
thickness, as well as cut off direct view of traffic and reduce the
glare from automobile lights at night.
For the individual who lives adjacent to expressways and who
is caught in the vise of excessive roadway noise through poor
planning, there should be amenity grants. A precedent has al-
ready been set in this area where, in Britain, people who have
been made to suffer from excessive noise, through no fault of
their own, are government subsidized with half the cost of sound-
proofing the dwellings.
In conclusion, I recommend: One, guidance on the Federal level
and legislation on the state and local level, coherent and consistent
with limiting excessive noise on roadways; two, immediate in-
vestigation by vehicle manufacturers on the causes and solutions
of excessive noise, not for the passengers of the vehicles, but for
the recipients of the noise outside the vehicle; three, increased
considerations of noise emissions in the building of future road-
ways, and amenity grants for people who own dwellings adjacent
to excessively noisy roadways; and four, the development of long-
range plans for the eventual phasing out of the current noisy
vehicle and the replacement with alternative transportation
systems.
If vehicular surface traffic increases at the projected growth
rate of three times that of our population increase, excessive noise
cannot help but increase every day.
To procrastinate in legislation and control of excessive vehicle
noise, is as much of a crime today as vehicle air pollution was
yesterday. Therefore, I urge immediate action on all levels to
reduce unnatural vehicular noise pollution, before it drowns out
our few remaining natural sounds. Gentlemen, thank you for
allowing me this opportunity to speak with you.
Dr. MEYER. Our pleasure to have you, sir. Panel? Did I hear,
Mr. Tabak, in that list of recommendations, an indemnification
proposal ?
Mr. TABAK. As I understand it, sir, it is done in England.
Dr. MEYER. I just want to be sure I understood you.
Mr. TABAK. Yes.
Dr. MEYER. As I mentioned in one of the other
-------
230
Mr. TABAK. Excuse me, indemnification for the soundproofing
of the home.
Dr. MEYER. Right. As I mentioned in one of the other sessions
of this hearing, it has been reliably reported to me that a similar
proposal was followed in Japan near airports, and it's very in-
teresting that you bring this up, sir. I appreciate it.
Mr. TABAK. Thank you.
Dr. MEYER. May I ask if Mr. John Watts is pi^esent? If so, Mr.
Watts, please come and join us and let us welcome you here, sir.
STATEMENT OF JOHN WATTS, UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN
ENVIRONMENTAL LAW SOCIETY
Mr. WATTS. Mr. Chairman and members of the panel, my name
is John A. Watts. I am a third-year law student and chairman of
the Environmental Law Society at the University of Michigan
Law School. For the past several weeks members of the Environ-
mental Law Society have been participating in a noise control
project with Prof. J. A. Bolt and graduate assistant William
Capp, both of the University of Michigan Department of Me-
chanical Engineering. The interdisciplinary project is designed to
develop enforceable noise control legislation for various govern-
mental bodies, and is funded by the University's Institute for En-
vironmental Quality. I might add that it's primarily concerned
with vehicular noise.
We have spent much of our time gathering information, inter-
viewing local and State police and highway officials and compiling
existing noise legislation and case law. Our research to date has
led us to several conclusions concerning what we feel to be the
most important aspect of noise pollution legislation: The problem
of enforcement.
If the police department is to be an enforcement agency for
noise control and abatement, several factors must be considered.
Here again it also might be said that the health department could
be substituted for the police department, but I think the same
problems of enforcement will be in existence. Enforcement of
noise control legislation is expensive. It requires special equipment
—a reliable sound meter may cost up to $1,000 or above—and
trained personnel. Substantial funds should be provided for equip-
ment and extra manpower unless the enforcement can be done by
specifically trained police in a vehicle checklane or during the
regular vehicle inspection. There again, funds would have to be
added, but certainly not substantial funds.
Large trucks can be tested at various weigh stations operated
by agencies such as the Michigan Public Service Commission,
which is a regulatory agency in Michigan. Enforcement of noise
control legislation may be extremely difficult. Weather changes
will have a definite affect on measurement devices. Background
noise may also affect measurement. Noise created by multiple
noisemakers, two or three cars or trucks together, none of whom
individually is exceeding the decibel limits, is another problem to
be considered by legislative drafting.
Certification and calibration of instruments may be exceedingly
time-consuming by the police. Police that we interviewed generally
do not want to be put in the position of "enforcing one law at a
time." They feel they are trained to perform many duties and
this training would be "wasted" if they devoted themselves ex-
-------
231
clusively to noise control. A three-man noise team (similar to the
radar speed control zone) was thought to be a tremendous waste
of police manpower by the police themselves. Establishing a ci-
vilian "noise team" was not recommended because they would not
have the power to make arrests for other observed violations
(e.g., concealed weapons). Police also give highest priority to the
enforcement of laws which are related to the saving of lives (e.g.,
speeding) and noise control does not fall into this category—yet.
An example of the enforcement problems is Ann Arbor, Mich.,
which has had a noise control ordinance (90 dBA maximum) on
the books since 1965, but has found it almost impossible to en-
force because the police simply do not have enough trained men
or adequate equipment.
The police we interviewed wanted simple, reliable and inexpen-
sive instruments which could be operated under varying condi-
tions. Until this equipment is developed perhaps the most practical
solution is to enforce noise control legislation in the vehicle in-
spection program, or with noise teams composed of one police
officer and one person trained in noise measurement techniques,
which is what I understand Chicago is doing.
Definite legislative standards are necessary in order to avoid
the problems created by the present statutes which prohibit "ex-
cessive and unusual noise." Some commentators consider these
statutes unconstitutional because of their vagueness, but court
challenges of these statutes have usually been unsuccessful. Police-
men, too, recognize the problems in enforcing these "subjective"
standards. One police officer mentioned that a judge had dismissed
an "excessive noise" case because the motorcyclist was able to
prove that his cycle was "factory-equipped" and, therefore, did
not issue an "excessive or unusual noise." It was, according to the
policeman, very excessive and very unusual.
One basic component of an effective solution to the noise pollu-
tion problem, and obviously other pollution problems, is the effec-
tive enforcement of manufacturing standards. But several manu-
facturing representatives profess to be unable to meet "stringent"
noise standards—I think we heard some of them yesterday—just
as car manufacturers say they will be unable to meet the 1970
Clean Air Act standards by 1975. But there has to be some means
to foster technological innovation, to force industries to develop
the hardware necessary to meet reasonable standards. There has
been little evidence to date that manufacturers will reduce noise
levels without government-imposed standards.
There has been little evidence to date that manufacturers will
reduce noise levels without government-enforced standards. I know
many of them say, "Let the free market, free enterprise system
do this for us," but at least we feel that manufacturers today are
giving the people what they think the people want. They are
creating a climate where noise is something to be almost wor-
shipped.
I think many of us have probably seen this in the advertise-
ments of today. Just the other day there was an ad on TV where,
for a child's bicycle, a little device that you could add to it where
it said, "It doesn't make the bicycle go any faster, it just sounds
like it." That is the kind of thing that manufacturers are doing.
Anyway, that is the conclusion of my statement. I have several
-------
232
recommendations, which I won't read, but I will just introduce
them as testimony.
Dr. MEYER. Well, thank you very much, sir. Mr. Watts, you
pointed out an area of major concern to those of us interested in
and responsible for the pending legislation in Congress on noise.
I was listening to you, but I was also scanning over your recom-
mendations, and they seem to me to be very forthright, and I
would just as soon have you go ahead and read them.
Mr. WATTS. Okay. My recommendations are: Federal standards
for vehicular noise should be established at the earliest possible
date. Provisions should be included which allow for stricter State
standards (e.g., H.R. 6986).
I might add, by the way, there was some talk about preemption
yesterday and today as far as the uniform standard. We feel that
yes, there should be a uniform Federal standard, but I think it
would be a very advantageous situation to have the States com-
peting for quietness. It would probably be a tourist advantage to
say that, you know, Illinois or Michigan is the quietest State in
the country, if that ever comes,
Dr. MEYER. But not at a football game.
Mr. WATTS. Right, but not at a football game. Full or matching
grants should be made available to police and health departments
throughout the nation (either through the Law Enforcement As-
sistance Administration in the Department of Justice or through
the EPA) to purchase equipment and train personnel in noise
control.
A system of tax incentives for the manufacture of quiet prod-
ucts should be explored to ascertain its feasibility. The long term
goal in the fight against noise pollution should always be to reduce
the noise level and not merely to hold the line at an "acceptable"
noise level. I think that speaks for itself.
And the last recommendation, additional Federal highway funds
might be supplied for research on the use of material for quieter
road surfaces. We might also, probably should add, as far as road
surface and barriers along the highway, to somehow limit the
noise from that. The highway officials we talked to said they have
been experimenting with that, and there is obviously a tradeoff
on the surfaces, as we learned yesterday, you have to talk about
slipperiness as opposed to quietness. With the barriers, you have
got an extra barrier for a car to collide with, so you have got to
make those kinds of tradeoffs.
Dr. MEYER. Thank you very much. Panel?
Dr. WHITCOMB. Very quickly I would like to apologize to you
and the other witnesses today for something that just occurred
to me; my apparent disinterest in gazing out in the audience has
nothing to do with your presentation, but I spent 10 hours yester-
day looking over my right shoulder, and it's extremely painful at
this point, and it may be true of the other panel members. One
quick question, you mentioned the long-term goal in the fight
agains noise pollution should always be to reduce the noise level,
not merely hold the line.
I have been dealing with noise 12 years, and I know that people
who have been dealing with it for 20 years, and we have been
saying all during that period, "Let's hold the line and then have a
tight schedule." Had this happened 20 years ago, 10 years ago,
5 years ago, we wouldn't be where we are now—don't you agree
-------
233
with that, that maybe even now, if at least we could hold the line
on some of these areas, 5 years from now it wouldn't be perhaps
still worse?
Mr. WATTS. I guess I would agree with that.
Dr. WHITCOMB. As an addendum to your point, which is valid
as a long-term goal.
Mr. WATTS. Yes. OK.
Professor PLACER. One other quick point, you mentioned the
problem of manufacturers meeting consumers' demands and yes-
terday we had testimony from several manufacturers, either writ-
ten or oral, indicating that they felt their obligation was to comply
with the law and demands of the market.
Would it be fair, would you agree that the manufacturer in fact
may be a significant influence in developing or determining what
the market demands, that is, through his advertising and presen-
tation of his product, he may, in fact, be filling, self-filling proph-
esies to what the market demands in his products are.
Mr. WATTS. I would certainly agree with that.
Professor PLACER. You would think the manufacturer should
bear some responsibility for that problem?
Mr. WATTS. I certainly do, and I know Professor Sax at the
law school in Michigan has wrestled with this problem that I
mentioned of trying to get the manufacturer to do this on his
own, to sort of push himself.
Well, from my listening to the testimony yesterday and today,
you know, it's just not going to happen. It's going to have to come
from some sort of Government prodding, and I am not in favor
of, you know, anymore Government prodding than is necessary,
but if it would happen without that, I would say fine, you know,
stay out of it, but I just don't think it will.
Professor PLACER. Thank you.
Dr. MEYER. Panel ? Thank you very much.
Mr. WATTS. OK. Thank you.
Dr. MEYER. I would now like to ask Mr. Cleveland Walcutt of
the commission to draft city noise ordinance of the city of Bir-
mingham, Mich, to come and talk to us.
STATEMENT OF CLEVELAND WALCUTT. CITY OF BIRMINGHAM
Mr. WALCUTT. Gentlemen, I am very grateful for the opportun-
ity of being here today. It gives me the chance to say that noise
on our highways is not only excessive, but unnecessary. We be-
lieve the noise problem can be readily solved, but not by the ap-
proach being made under the recent noise abatement bills.
By "excessive'.' we mean sound levels near 100 dBA at 50 feet,
and we say it is unnecessary since most of the vehicles on the
road do not offend when a fast acceleration is made to 50 miles
per hour from a standing position.
We heard yesterday about loud noise levels from aircraft. This
noise has the dubious distinction of resulting from a service to
the public, but the noise I speak of results from no useful service.
My concern, then, is not with the majority of drivers, but the
few who deliberately make their vehicles noisy, or those who are
indifferent to the noise they make. To paraphrase Winston
Churchill, "never have so few done so much to disturb so many."
The answer is legislation which will force these noisy few to
use existing equipment for more quiet operation. So far we have
-------
234
been unable to take legal actions against the operator of noisy
vehicles. We have local ordinances against drag racing, excessive
noise, and altered mufflers. The appearance of an officer on the
scene will check the drag racing for a time, but a charge of ex-
cessive noise—a relative term—is too indefinite to be enforced,
while altered mufflers are repaired before the case comes to court.
We have applied to our State and Federal representatives, and
to our local government bodies for legislation and ordinances
which could be enforced. We received sympathetic replies, and
were assured of new legislation; on the local level I was asked to
join the Birmingham Committee on Noise Pollution and Abate-
ment.
We studied recently enacted bills and ordinances as to, one,
fitness and suitabiity to the problem; and, two, ease of enforce-
ment. Then, because the decibel meter is required to obtain sound
levels for the enforcement of the law, we use the meter to monitor
a nearby highway.
From our work on the problem we concluded that the recent
bills, all similar to the California legislation, failed to provide a
satisfactory solution, and that we disagree with an approach on
four different counts.
First, we disagree with a concept of relating noise to speed
under which almost twice the noise level in power units, an in-
crease of three dB is permitted for speeds above 35 miles per
hour. Speed is a basic operating requirement of a vehicle, but
noise which can be controlled is completely—is a completely un-
desirable byproduct. Moreover, with roads in the city and suburbs
operated to semiarterial highways, speeds have been raised to 45
miles per hour in residential areas. Therefore, to permit twice the
sound level on these streets is both illogical and not suitable to the
problem. We also believe the noise-speed relationship is adding
an unnecessary complication to law enforcement.
Second, we object to an operational law which is compared to
speed laws. We believe this analogy is false. The speedometer per-
mits a driver to regulate the speed of his vehicle to comply with
the law. However, he has no instrument to aid him in complying
with a noise level specification. We ask how can a person be held
responsible for an act over which he has no control? We think
all the drivers should be required to do is keep his vehicle in good
operating condition.
Third, we do not like the regulation for the enforcement of the
law—and good lawyer who becomes familiar with sound level
measurement can successfully challenge the evidence brought
against his client, and possibly the validity of the law itself. We
do not question the value of the sound meter as such, but we
wish to point out that it is useful only under controlled conditions.
The new legislation requires the use of a sound level meter set
up at a fixed distance from center line of traffic. It is fine if there
is but one lane, one vehicle, and no intermittent and extraneous
noise, for then the meter will provide a reliable reading. However,
under more congested traffic conditions the decibel meter cannot
isolate the noise made by the offending vehicle from the noise
made by all others on the road. In our limited experience the
necessity of noting the speed, the lane of traffic on a multilane
highway and the sound level of the offending vehicle is an almost
impossible task.
-------
235
Finally, we object to the allowable sound levels in the new bills
which are obviously higher than the noise levels of most of the
vehicles on the road today. Our measurement indicated the aver-
age noise level on a multilane highway to be 70-75 dBA at 50 feet
for cars, and some motorcycles.
Yesterday we heard what the aircraft industry could do in re-
ducing noise under public pressure. We believe the auto industry
could make the same improvement under similar circumstances.
We think noise pollution legislation should require that, one, manu-
facturers produce motor vehicles which are sufficiently quiet at all
speeds below the maximum speed permitted on the open highway,
and at all other conditions of operation.
Most passenger vehicles built today could pass this test. Under
this regulation there would be no need for an operational law,
for speed-sound relationship or for roadside sound monitoring
stations.
Two, the vehicle suspected by trained highway patrols could
be taken to a nearby suitable test site which could be considered
ideal for the purpose of sound level measurement.
Three, the term "sufficiently quiet" for passenger vehicles and
motorcycles be defined at approximately 75 dBA at 50 feet.
Four, existing vehicles on the highway which are found to be
in violation would be required to have the mufflers upgraded.
To summarize, studies of noise pollution and sound measure-
ment have led to the conclusion that the recent legislation is in-
adequate. The allowable noise levels are too high. The concept of
relating noise to speed is faulty, and the use of roadside monitor-
ing stations results in data which may not stand a court test. It
is suggested that new legislation contain the following require-
ments :
One, manufacturers produce cars and motorcycles with a maxi-
mum noise level of 75 dBA at 50 feet for all speeds below the
maximum legal limits.
Two, noise levels not related to speed.
Three, decibel meters be used under closely controlled conditions.
We end this testimony by asking that the Office of Noise Abate-
ment and Control, in its report to Congress not repeat the errors
we have described in the ordinances and bills recently enacted by
many cities and States. Thank you.*
Dr. MEYER. Mr. Walcutt, thank you very much. We will pay
careful attention to your recommendations as we are going over
this portion of the material to be included in the report. You
raised some problems that we are aware of, and we appreciate
the amount of information you provide us here with your views.
Panel?
Mr. MARTIN. Mr. Walcutt, in your report you indicate that
measurements taken on a multilane highway to be around 70 to
75 dBA at 50 feet, and you say this is for passenger cars and
motorcycles. Now, in general your large motorcycles—not the
minibikes, but the fairly large ones will all make much in excess
of this.
Mr. WALCUTT. I think it says some motorcyces, does it not?
Mr. MARTIN. Well
'' A prepared statement, along with supporting material is on file at the Office of Noise
Abatement and Control.
-------
236
Mr. WALCUTT. But there are some that are 100 dBA that we
recorded there, but there are quiet motorcycles, believe it or not.
I mean they can be made quiet, that is the point.
Mr. MARTIN. I know there are ways.
Mr. WALCUTT. We don't know why all of them aren't quiet.
Well, as a matter of fact, there is a Japanese motorcycle that was
very quiet, and they couldn't sell them until they put on a noisy
muffler.
Mr. MARTIN. This is one of the problems.
Do you have copies of this data that was accumulated?
Mr. WALCUTT. On the tape recorder?
Mr. MARTIN. Yes.
Mr. WALCUTT. I have only on a sound tape, I have it with me,
if you care to hear it.
Mr. MARTIN. No, I didn't intend to hear it. I was hoping if you
had this translated into a report, you might be able to send it in
with the full record.
Mr. WALCUTT. All we have now is on a tape record. You see,
we didn't have an automatic recorder. As these vehicles came
along the road we had a microphone and picked up the sound,
and also looked at the decibel meter and indicated on the tape
what the level of decibel was, and it went way up.
Professor KERREBROCK. I would just like to add to your list of
reasons against roadside monitoring stations, that the noise re-
ceived by the station depends sometimes very much on atmos-
pheric conditions, wind directions, and so forth.
Mr. WALCUTT. Yes. Well, in that longer report I list about
seven things against monitoring stations, and all the difficulties
involved.
Dr. MEYER. This is a subject that we are going to study at great
length and for which we will include a tremendous amount of in-
formation in our record. Thank you very much, sir.
Mr. WALCUTT. Thank you.
Dr. MEYER. Is Glenna Alevizos here, representing the citizens
of South Minneapolis?
Mrs. ALEVIZOS. Yes.
Dr. MEYER. I am glad to have you here, young lady and look
forward to hearing what you have to say.
Mrs. ALEVIZOS. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF GLENNA ALEVIZOS, CITIZENS OF
SOUTH MINNEAPOLIS
Mrs. ALEVIZOS. In 1966 our family moved to Minneapolis from
a small town in western Minnesota. We were anxious to settle in
our new home. Moving day brought a whole new revelation to us.
We had purchased a home under the flight pattern of Wold
Chamberlain Field and the noise was intolerable. This same story
has been repeated to me time and time again since I became in-
volved in a citizens movement to try to reduce aircraft noise in
our neighborhoods.
The story is not unique or new. Many citizens across the coun-
try, and in fact the world, are being bombarded with this hor-
rendous plague.
Dr. Michael Eisenberg, chief of surgery at Mount Sinai Hos-
pital, in Minneapolis and who lives under the incoming flight
pattern states it this way: "All functions requiring intellectual
-------
237
response of any kind stops when flights are coming in overhead.
The senses are dulled and the noise causes extreme fatigue and
depression."
Dr. Jack Westman, a psychiatrist from the University of Wis-
consin at Madison cites that even noise from household gadgets
cause or aggravate a state of heightening body arousal and gen-
eral nervous tension. What then must continual jet aircraft noise
do to the human body?
The Today's Health magazine, July 1970, article entitled "Silenc-
ing Invisible Pollution," states that "noise profoundly affects our
heart and blood vessels. Noise increases the level of cholesterol in
the blood and raises blood pressure. Noise makes the heart work
harder by thickening the blood."
The article also reports John D. Dougherty, M.D. of Harvard
and Oliver L. Welsch, Ph. D. of Boston as saying, "What has
passed unnoticed is that many noise levels encountered in the
community exceed standards found injurious in industry."
The noise I am talking about cuts an ugly scar across the
southern half of Minneapolis, an area which is known for its
beautiful lakes right within the city. A recent noise study indi-
cated that there were approximately 27,000 homes affected by
the noise in Minneapolis alone.
The map I have here shows homes that were built in Minne-
apolis before 1940, and this is indicated by the red dots in this
area [indicating], and here you can see the airport location [in-
dicating]—I have the map upside down—the location of the air-
port and the runways run north and south, this way [indicating],
over our homes, and we have continually heard the argument that
the airport was there before the homes were, and this is just not
true in this case. Many of the homes were built in the 1930's.
The advent of the jet in the 1960's is what really brought the
noise into the neighborhood. In 1957 a citizens group fought the
expansion of Wold Chamberlain Field, fearing the increase of
flights. Sadly to say, they lost their fight. Eleven years later their
fears have come true. Noise is intolerable. There are approximately
340 flights in and out of Wold Field each day now and the projec-
tion for 1980 is 700 nights per day.
I entered this battle about 11/9 years ago slightly naive and
hopeful that a strong citizen muscle could strong arm change.
Sadly to say, people soon say this is a futile battle. They try to
accept the noise or move in bitter frustration. The attitude of
many people is often miscalled apathy. It is not apathy but silent
desperation.
Our strongest indication of support came from a pamphlet
distributed in our neighborhood calling a public meeting about
airplane noise. The evening of the meeting, people came in large
numbers—as a great surprise to me—and it was approximately
300 to 400 people. Many were retired couples with their homes
paid for. They can't stand the noise but they can't afford to move.
Whenever my spirits begin to sink I remember that meeting and
the hopeful faces—it inspired me to continue to find relief.
So here we are today—yes, noise is finally being considered a
form of pollution. What has been accomplished in Minneapolis?
During this past year and one-half we have seen some results
and more responsiveness from the airport commission. However,
there still seems to be an attitude of tokenism. Initially we were
-------
238
told that flight dispersal was not possible but after continued
pressure it has been put into effect more as a matter of under-
standing rather than a hard and fast rule.
Takeoff procedures can reduce noise to a more comfortable level
but here again it depends strictly on the attitude of the airline
and the pilot. Many times we have heard that quiet takeoffs imply
unsafe procedures. We would like for the pilots to produce such
evidence.
Noise was determined as a contaminant and this passed through
the past session of the legislature of the State of Minnesota. We
are now waiting for the pollution control agency to set effective
noise standards.
So there has been some relief but traffic out of Wold Field con-
tinues to increase, negating any temporary help from the above
mentioned procedures.
We consider the long-range goal to be the phasing out of Wold
Chamberlain Field for a more environmentally correct site. The
airport commission has spent almost $500,000 on site selection
studies and yet after two rejections of the site continue on a
narrow one idea concept. We find their lack of leadership most
disheartening1.
There is no expense account for the citizen. He must bear the
cost of this intruder into his home. His property is of less value.
In our neighborhood a family which applies for a VA mortgage
must sign a paper indicating they know that this area is affected
by aircraft noise before the loan is approved.
If he tries to fight for his right to peace and quiet, he must pay
the expenses, as we have done this past year and a half—or he
simply gives up to the God of progress and moves. At least when
a highway takes over property a homeowners is reimbursed.
We believe it is time for the airline industry to admit they are
the polluter and begin paying their fair share for the rape of the
city of Minneapolis.
Mr. Benjamin Griggs, vice president of Northwest Airlines,
indicated in testimony before a hearing of the Minneapolis Legisla-
ture that Northwest Airlines does realize they are not a good
neighbor.
Assuming the airlines will acknowledge their responsibility, we
are asking that steps be taken to start to control noise pollution.
Number 1, that the EPA be allowed to set noise control
standards.
Two, we ask that monitoring devices be installed near airports
where noise is a problem.
Three, a program of retrofitting be initiated by the Federal
Government.
Four, that there be a reviewal of CAB procedures in approving
new flights.
A recent editorial in the St. Paul Pioneer Press indicated that
the average passenger capacity out of Wold Chamberlain Field
was 44 percent.
The answers don't come easy, but we sincerely plead for help.
We want to stress we are not antiaviation, we are antinoise.
Dr. MEYER. Thank you very much. Panel?
Mr. HlNTON. I have one question of Mrs. Alevizos, Mr. Chair-
man. Do you feel that there has been any significant improvement
-------
239
during the last year and a half—you said, I think you said con-
flicting statements, and I wish you would
Mrs. ALEVIZOS. Yes, Mr. Hinton, I do believe that there has
been help, especially in the area of flight dispersal. I believe that
it has taken a lot of heavy traffic off our runways, and people in
the neighborhood have noticed this. I don't believe that takeoff
procedures have helped as much as they could. I believe that if
all airlines were following these procedures, I believe it would
help a great deal.
Mr. HINTON. Thank you very much.
Mr. MARTIN. Mrs. Alevizos, in your statement you indicated
when the highway comes through they pay for the right of land.
Do you feel that the residents, the people you are speaking for to
some extent would rather their property were taken over as op-
posed to other changes?
Mrs. ALEVIZOS. There are some who would just as soon have
reimbursements for their property and be allowed to move. Others
feel that they do not want to give up their property, and I think
that they would fight for it.
Professor KERREBROCK. Mrs. Alevizos, do you represent mainly
people from the neighborhood that you indicated there, the older
homes, or mainly people who live closer to the airport?
Mrs. ALEVIZOS. I indicate—or I have worked with a group of
people from my neighborhood, and this is a neighborhood of older
homes which were built in the thirties and forties.
Professor KERREBROCK. Yes; but what I am asking is does most
of the resentment of the airport come from that neighborhood,
or from the neighborhoods that have been built up nearer the
airport?
Mrs. ALEVIZOS. There is resentment from the other neighbor-
hood, but I represent only the neighborhood in South Minneapolis.
Professor KERREBROCK. Thank you.
Dr. MEYER. Mr. Hinton asked me if I would yield, if he could
ask another question, but I have one thing I would like, if you
can get a copy of that map and send it to us, so it may be appro-
priately included in the final printed version of the record, I
would very much like to have it.
Mrs. ALEVIZOS. All right.*
Dr. MEYER. Secondly, could I ask a question? You mentioned
one of the alternatives that is being looked at by the newly consti-
tuted airport authority people in Minneapolis, mainly relocation.
One of the things one has to take into account in relocating an
airport, of course, is what I think you alluded to, and I hope I was
hearing you right, that it had to be to a site that wasn't going to
adversely impact the environment into which it was being moved.
Mrs. ALEVIZOS. Yes.
Dr. MEYER. It had to be properly planned. We are not trying to
move your problem off to somebody else, or to impact some of the
beautiful country which you have up in that part of the United
States, without taking into account the preservation of those en-
vironments.
Mrs. ALEVIZOS. This is true. We feel there should be site selec-
tion of many different sites, and we don't feel that it has been
conducted in the Twin Cities area properly.
Dr. MEYER. Fine. Thank you.
"• This material has not been submitted for the record.
-------
240
Mr. HINTON. Mrs. Alevizos, I guess one question, you men-
tioned that the freeway taking the land, it has been my feeling—
and I would like to get your reaction—that the people who were,
whose property was acquired by the freeway right-of-way were
the fortunate ones, and those left along the side of the freeways,
as along the one in Minneapolis, were the unfortunate ones, and
just to set the record straight on that airport site selection in the
Twin Cities area, I think the main problem is that it's not to re-
locate the airport, but to have an additional airport, leaving some
existing, considerable existing traffic at the old airport.
Could you comment on the freeway noise?
Mrs. ALEVIZOS. Yes; the freeway noise in our area is very in-
tolerable for those who live next to it, and they have tried to do
some studies on that, and set up some kind of a law, and as I
understand it this will take place, but I don't know how effective
that will be, either.
Mr. HINTON. Thank you.
Professor PLAGER. One quick question for you. You heard Mr.
Franks' testimony?
Mrs. ALEVIZOS. Yes.
Professor PLAGER. I think you heard that earlier; you don't
seem to express the same degree or level of what I sense to be
anger, mixed with concern that he did. Is this because your group
has had a more satisfactory experience in dealing with the govern-
mental agencies you have dealt with, or is this simply because you
haven't reached that point yet? Can you comment on that?
Mrs. ALEVIZOS. I think that we, at times, have had this feeling
of frustration and bitterness, and I think after working this long
in it you realize that there are many, many problems, and you try
and be as understanding as you can. When you know that they
are dispersing the flights on a day when the wind ordinarily would
becoming more in your direction, you are grateful for that day
of peace and quiet, and so you think well, then, you can hang on
for 1 more day. You wont' go sit on the end of the runway—I
have made comments to that effect, yes, the next time we meet we
will be meeting on the end of the runway, but we have tried to
be a responsible organization. We have tried to work with city
government and State legislature and be responsible. The anger
is there at times, but, yes, we feel—and I think that this hearing
in itself has given us a glimmer of hope—we feel that there may
be some progress, and we hope that it's warranted.
Professor PLAGER. We do, too. Thank you.
Dr. WHITCOMB. Mrs. Alevizos, how long has your neighborhood
been upset by the noise? I know you moved in sort of precipitously,
but evidently your neighbors had been upset before then.
Mrs. ALEVIZOS. As I said, in 1957, people began to work. In the
early sixties it began to get worse, and it seemed like in, I think
it was June or July of 1967, like they say, all hell broke loose.
There was, as I understand it, a changing of our runway con-
figuration, and it brought the noise directly over the homes in our
area, and that seemed to be the time when it really got terrible.
Dr. MEYER. At this point we are going to take, because of en-
vironmental stresses and environmental considerations, a 10-
minute recess. Thank you for coming to address this group.
(Short recess.)
Dr. MEYER. Is Miss or Mrs. Del Calzo present?
-------
241
Mrs. DEL CALZO. Yes.
Dr. MEYER. Mrs. Del Calzo, may I invite you to come up and
visit with us. You, I believe, are representing the Minnesota En-
vironmental Control Citizens Association?
Mrs. DEL CALZO. That's correct.
Dr. MEYER. Glad to have you here.
Mrs. DEL CALZO. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF JANICE DEL CALZO, MINNESOTA
ENVIRONMENTAL CONTROL CITIZENS ASSOCIATION
Mrs. DEL CALZO. My name is Janice Del Calzo and I am speak-
ing as a director of the Minnesota Environmental Control Citizens
Association, better known as MECCA. I would just like to explain
that MECCA is a 5,000-member volunteer citizen action group
evaluating pollution problems and acting to solve them. About a
year and a half ago, a number of Minneapolis residents, irate over
the noise being generated by aircraft using Wold Chamberlain
International Airport, formed the nucleus for a MECCA task force
to study noise pollution. I am chairman of that task force. One of
the group's first realizations was that until recently, noise was not
considered an environmental problem because it was characterized
by being highly localized and intermittent. Today, however, thanks
to unbridled progress and such devices as all terrain vehicles,
snowmobiles and trailbikes, noise has even invaded the wilderness.
In metropolitan areas excessive noise contributes to urban decay
just as surely as high crime rates or any other problem. The task
force needed little searching to discover the major noise polluters
in the area—highways and the airport gain dubious distinction as
the winners.
I would like to tell you a little about the particular problem of
aircraft noise in Minneapolis and I think the story is rather
typical of other cases throughout the country. In Minneapolis
the airport is located in the center of a highly residential area
with its noise cones extending into several different suburbs. The
area of Minneapolis affected by the noise is comprised of middle
class homes largely built during the time when the airport site was
still being used as a racetrack and decades before the advent of
commercial jets. In 1911 the home where I live was built. It is 5
miles from the airport but is considered in a noise zone because
it is under the approach path to runway 11R.
The location of Wold Chamberlain was not designed an airport
site until 1923. People built homes in the vicinity before and after
that date on land zoned for residential development. Charles
Lindbergh landed at the airport in August 1927. Residents who
still live in the neighborhood remember that flight and sadly
lament, "His plane was quiet."
Remember though, his "Spirit of St. Louis" was a single engine
craft of only 200 horsepower. It was to be followed by a stream
of aircraft each louder than the one before.
Throughout this progression homeowners did nothing more
than occupy their homes. It is commercial aviation which has
been the dynamic force infringing upon the residents' right to a
peaceful existence in this case and not people encroaching on the
airport as aviation types would like to believe.
For a moment let us inventory the community reactions and
ills that arise in areas of high noise adjacent to airports. For
-------
242
awhile people tolerate the noise. Then with noisier planes, more
flights, and no consideration for their living conditions, the peo-
ple organize, protest, demonstrate, seek governmental help in
solving the problem, use legal action, and usually in desperation
move away. This leaves a neighborhood in which only those who
cannot afford to or because of other reasons stay in their homes.
Their personal quality of life deteriorates because of the noise.
Meanwhile the neighborhood becomes transient precipitating
housing deterioration and ultimately you have all the problems
of a slum. It is ironic that the noise which was heralded as an
indicator of progress would turn out to be a "ghettoizer."
Getting to the root of the problem of who should be doing
something about the noise is an interesting maze.
Airport neighbors always must bring up the matter because
when one examines the history of Federal and local agencies
responsible for the orderly growth of air transportation, little
can be found to show any concern for the residents living near
airports. These citizens are met with a confusing situation and a
brilliant game of buckpassing.
Airline officials say they cannot do anything about the noise
because it is their sole responsibility to provide maximum service,
convenience, and safety to the flying public. They also do not care
to tackle the expensive-to-solve problem because a solution would
not increase their ticket sales—their only criterion for action.
Airlines are also quick to point out that they are highly regu-
lated, have enormous financial problems and since they are only
tenants at the airport, the complainers should talk to the airport
operator.
If the pilots are consulted at this point about possible procedures
to cut noise, they generally reply with what approaches a knee
jerk response statement of safety doesn't permit.
It would be interesting to see statistics on the number of
crashes and near crashes caused by noise abatement procedures
and the number due to pilot error or faulty equipment. It seems
this safety argument has been blown out of all proportion.
The airport operator usually tries to ignore the problem as long
as possible hoping the people will get tired and just move away.
Generally they plan wonderful games of diversion, delay and dis-
interest. After all, airport operators are more concerned with
political considerations and generating revenue than quieting air-
port environ.
If confronted with Public Law 90-411 which allows an airport
operator to establish noise level limits or place restrictions on the
type of aircraft using the airport, the operators use a multiple
choice response: (1) They retreat behind economic arguments;
(2) they state that there must be a better solution; (3) they say
the FAA is responsible for rules regulating aircraft engine noise
and the actual flight of the aircraft; or (4) all of the above.
The local airport authority in Minneapolis added another choice
to the list which they have used since 1947. It consisted of, "Just
be patient, people, we are going to build a new airport to solve
all the problems."
However, it has now been revealed that the authorities meant
a second airport, not a replacement for Wold Chamberlain.
Clearly the residents around an airport have no ally in the
FAA which has the dual responsibilities of promoting and regu-
lating- air traffic. Given a choice, the FAA chooses to push the
-------
243
promotion angle and completes the buckpassing cycle by saying
noise is a local problem and should be handled accordingly.
The lack of FAA concern is typified in remarks made by its
Administrator, John Schaffer, during a congressional hearing in
February 1970. He was urged to condition the refitting of the
707 wing assembly on noise suppression of its engines. He replied
that it would be sacrilege to scrap that plane for the sake of
quieter airports. He also insisted that it was unthinkable to re-
quire Boeing to solve the 747's noise problem before putting it
into production.
This seems to reflect the industry feeling which asks people to
consider the airport's value to the community and commercial
aviation's value to the Nation while dismissing jet noise com-
plaints as being purely emotional.
Throughout this game if anyone suggests cutting flights as a
means of reducing noise—after all why should we have the
equivalent of 99 empty jets flying the Atlantic daily—all parties
darkly hint at CAB intervention. Perhaps the CAB chooses to
regulate the wrong areas of air transportation.
One of the frustrations the citizen experiences throughout is the
inequity of the whole affair. For example, if a stranger ran
through your living room 20 times an hour generating noise levels
of 95 decibels, you could have him arrested for disturbing the
peace, trespassing, et cetera.
But a plane going overhead yielding the same noise level and
spreading air pollution as well is sacrosanct under the present
messed-up system.
It is a case of the individual being asked to assume the full
burden of industry's pollution. It sounds similar to campaigns of
city officials asking housewives to use nonpolluting detergents
while these same officials turn their back on the municipal sewage
system practice of dumping millions of gallons of untreated wastes
hourly into the nearest waterway. Unless people in power assume
responsibility, individual actions are useless.
Where has all this led? Across the country a growing counter
antinoise protest against airports is being heard. It has been
estimated that between 3 and 10 million people belong to that
minority group characterized by living in high aircraft noise areas.
Many within that number are becoming extremely vocal and
just think what a voting bloc that group could be.
Whenever a new airport is proposed, people living around the
site organize quickly to block the construction of the facility.
They realize that others have been plagued by noise and want no
part of it.
It should be obvious to government aviation specialists that all
these people are not victims of some type of paranoia as has been
intimated. Rather these officials should look into the why of the
people protesting.
An indictment that airports have not been good neighbors in
the past would be clear. It would also be apparent that given
present conflicting and weak regulations there is no reason to
believe that future airports would do better.
Some proposed solutions to the problem of high noise around
airports offer relief, but all fall short of providing anything ap-
proximating a pleasant environment.
-------
244
For example, improved flight procedures to reduce noise to
provide a noticeable reduction in decibel levels. To be really effec-
tive, however, some agency must have the authority to make these
procedures mandatory and enforce them by means of monitoring
systems.
Runway utilization to equitably distribute the traffic around the
airport is a buying time solution. It doesn't solve the problem, only
shifts it around.
One solution that has been proposed at Los Angeles and which
seems totally unacceptable as a means of alleviating noise is that
of buying the homes and clearing out neighborhoods adjacent to
the airport. What a total and utter waste of resources to spend
millions of dollars on a plan that compounds rather than amelio-
rates the situation.
In this case the homeowner in essence is being punished—it is
like asking the victim to pay for the crime.
And even after spending vast sums to remove the most severely
affected neighborhoods the problem will still be present in other
surrounding the airport.
Another unacceptable approach is the hands off attitude which
says, "Learn to live with the noise."
People can accept a lot of unpleasant experiences, but why
should they suffer an unnecessary one? Forcing a person to live
with high levels of noise is just adding one more ingredient of
less than ideal living conditions when we should be talking about
improving them, not degrading them.
I am not saying that the air transportation industry is all bad.
What I am saying is that with any progress there are associated
costs and to date the air transportation industry has not borne
them.
One true solution to the noise problem is to remove the highly
objectionable airports to new environmentally correct sites and
having local authorities stringently zone around them so the old
problems do not reoccur.
New airports are costly and so are the suggestions to retrofit
present engines and design new quiet engines for future aircraft.
When making up the specifications for engine designs in the past,
the airlines asked for safety and low maintenance features, both
of which helped to sell tickets and cut down costs.
Obviously a quiet engine would do neither of these two, so the
airlines forced the nearby residents to suffer the noise because of
their unwillingness to assume the nonproductive costs of quiet
engines. The flying public also must assume its burden for the
privilege of flying and if that means higher fares to pay for noise
abatement, at last the burden is sitting on the right shoulders.
The blatant truth is that no agency is adequately protecting the
people living near airports from exposure to intolerable noise
levels by requiring such measures as those just stated. It is for
this reason that the Environmental Protection Agency should be
given the authority to set standards for community noise ex-
posure and be given the power to see that they are enforced.
These standards should be based on what the citizens find ac-
ceptable and must not be weakened by economic feasibility
arguments.
-------
245
With the environment and the welfare of the people as its only
concerns, this body should not fall victim to the mistakes and
shortcomings of the present regulatory agencies.
Dr. MEYER. This was a most thoughtful and well prepared state-
ment. Panel?
Professor PLACER. I have one quick question for you, Mrs. Del
Calzo. I don't wish to get into a hassle between our honorable
chairman and the people who are tearing down houses around the
airport, but is there anything really wrong with a governmental
policy which provides for compensating, including the purchase
price of the home for people who would rather move, and would
like to have a governmental agency to sell their property to, if
there be, if they are subject to excessive airport noise?
Mrs. DEL CALZO. With me it is just a feeling that you are asking
the wrong party to pay the cost. True, you are paying him for his
financial burdens in buying a new home, perhaps, but there are
other nonfinancial costs associated with moving; the psychological
disruption of a family, things like this.
Professor PLACER. How about if he is asking for out?
Mrs. DEL CALZO. If he is asking for out?
Professor PLACER. If the homeowner wants out.
Mrs. DEL CALZO. I \yould say yes, I think that would be an
acceptable solution. I still have qualms about what it would do to
the neighborhood.
Professor PLACER. I don't offer it as a cure all, but I just wonder
if there is any reason to oppose the Government pursuing that
course, if people wanted it.
Mrs. DEL CALZO. If the person wants it.
Professor PLACER. Thank you.
Mr. HlNTON. I have a couple of questions, Mrs. Del Calzo. I
would just like to refer to the point about the purchase of homes.
A case in point involved a tract of houses in Los Angeles, and
those are all on a voluntary sale, it's not a public condemnation
question in that particular case.
Mrs. DEL CALZO. It seems impossible to me that everybody in
the neighborhood can simultaneously want out. I am sure that it's
a blockbusting type of a thing, that if some people start moving
out, then everyone moves out, and to me that is destroying a
neighborhood.
Mr. HINTON. I would like to ask you, in Minneapolis do you
feel—I should say the Twin Cities—do you feel there is any
possibility for an early solution to the problem, or do you feel it's
a hopeless situation unless there is firm Federal Government
action ?
Mrs. DEL CALZO. I think left up to the local authorities it's a
pretty impossible situation. Minneapolis doesn't have the prob-
lems that some of the other airports have right now. The traffic
just isn't as heavy as Los Angeles or Chicago. For this reason,
it's one of the reasons I am flighting it, let's not let it get to that
point, but if we leave it in the local hands, we are not going to
get anymore action than we have in the past. A case in point is
this new airport that they have talked about for 24 years. It just
isn't coming, and it probably won't come because of the political
considerations in siting a new airport, so it looks like we probably
won't get a new airport, and then in order to prevent this de-
terioration we are going to have to have something done about
-------
246
the present one, and to me that entails all the things I mentioned,
monitors
Mr. HINTON. One final question, and this follows as a followup
to my last question, which you answered very well, and that is in
the Twin Cities the airport commission is made up of nine mem-
bers ; eight are public officials of the two cities, the two cities
which are most adversely affected by the noise from the airport.
This is different from the O'Hare situation where the surrounding
communities do not have control of the operation of the airport.
Can you comment just very briefly on how it can be explained that
the local municipal officials have not taken action over these 24
years that you mentioned to prevent this problem arising, in view
of the past citizen request for steps as described by Mrs. Alevizos ?
Mrs. DEL CALZO. Let's put it this way, yes, the airport commis-
sion is composed of elected and appointed officials. However, the
noise zone in the city of Minneapolis does not extend across the
city, so you have got a pocket of people who are very, very upset
about the noise. They do not have a majority voice in elections,
in getting people who are sympathetic to their cause either elected
or appointed to this body. It's not a community-wide problem. I
think this is one of the things you see so clearly with noise, that
it's only when you, yourself, are affected by it are you really
moved to action, and there just is not—it truly is a large number
when you look at it, but it is not enough to move those city
officials.
Mr. HlNTON. Thank you very much.
Professor KERREBROCK. I think there are lot of steps in trying to
solve this problem, but certainly one necessary step is to determine
just what is an acceptable noise level, and as I asked Mr. Franks
to do, I would ask you to, if you can, try to perform this judgment
with your associates as to when this noise became unacceptable,
and give us your answer, because, you see, the burden falls on
someone to make a decision as to how much noise will be tolerated,
because it can't be zero, that is clear
Mrs. DEL CALZO. That is true.
Professor KERREBROCK. And it's very expensive to reduce it, so
we need the numbers.
Mrs. DEL CALZO. My feelings on that would be not only it ap-
plies to aircraft noise, you mentioned when did this situation be-
come intolerable—I think in the areas around the airport it
became intolerable when the jets were introduced to it, but, how-
ever, we have other problems with noise, and I guess my feeling
would be that when the noise starts interfering with normal
activities—for example, speech interference and that type of thing,
is when you cross the line, when it's—when it becomes an irritant
—and I realize there are individual differences, so that these, you
know, what is irritating to one person would not be to another,
but I think the only thing you can do is go by the norm. If you
have 100 people and 75 people say this is irritating, then that
should be where the standard is.
Professor KERREBROCK. But I would point out to you that that
level varies by 20 decibels, depending on how the experiment is
run, and who you ask, and 20 decibels is many, many, many, many
hundreds of millions of dollars.
-------
247
Mrs. DEL CALZO. I would rather have you err on the low side
than the high side, let's put it that way, if you are going to have
to set a standard, set it lower than you think.
Dr. MEYER. Thank you very much. I appreciate this.
Mrs. DEL CALZO. Thank you.
Dr. MEYER. It's most useful to us.
Is Mr. John Desmond, chairman of the Illinois Task Force on
Noise still with us? Mr. Desmond, you have been most patient and
understanding, and sat through a long day. I am happy to have
you here, sir.
Mr. DESMOND. It has been most enlightening sitting here wait-
ing, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, sir.
Dr. MEYER. I would suspect that since you are chairman of a
task force on noise all this discussion would be of some interest.
Mr. DESMOND. It motivated.
Dr. MEYER. Yes, sir. Happy to have you, sir.
STATEMENT OF JOHN DESMOND, UNIVERSITY OF ILLINOIS
TASK FORCE ON NOISE
Mr. DESMOND. Indeed I do wish to describe some of the activi-
ties of the University of Illinois Task Force on Noise. Many, many
hours ago, however, you did ask a question that I would like to
pick up on, and then carry it further on into describing the Illinois
task force.
You had raised a question with Mr. Karplus, in what ways
could the Federal Government take some leadership within per-
haps an educational context, and I, being a representative of an
educational institution, feel compelled, separate and apart from
reporting on our task force, to volunteer a response to that, and
with a possible danger of sounding crass, I would like to propose,
Dr. Meyer, that as you realize your legislative program, as your
charge becomes much more solidified, and you begin to worry
about the future ways in which the noise program and the EPA
conducts its long term efforts, that the universities historically
had been quite responsive to those expressions of public concern
that come via the elected Congress down into the administrative
agencies—here I am making a pitch, a very strong one, that as
you develop your program, that you think seriously about the ways
in which universities can not only help you formulate your pro-
gram, but also respond in the developing of new understandings
and methodologies about this general area of noise.
I would go one step further, even though I represent a college
of engineering, to suggest it is not only the support of advancing
technologies in attenuating noise, as we all have gathered here
in these hearings today, it's a matter of noise, the matter of noise
is clearly not only a technological question, it's one of other sci-
ences, other disciplines as well being involved.
Much greater understanding has to be sought, true, on techno-
logical improvements in attenuating noise, but we must also un-
derstand better the physiological and the behavioral affects of
noise, and then I would also like to make a very strong pitch that
there has to be a whole new generation of engineers, scientists,
and lawyers who are totally responsive to the complexities of the
science, the technology, the law of environmental improvement.
I have conveyed very strong feeling, once you recognize it,
within the universities you have an ally to not only supply you
-------
248
with the new understandings of these complicated matters, but
they are the only human enterprise that I know that also supplies
you with the successive generations of well-trained people who are
not only equipped to deal with these problems, but hopefully as we
educate our people better, with your support they are also quick
with the sensitivities to deal with these problems.
Now, let me go on in a more specific vein, relative to that entity
that is known as the University of Illinois Task Force on Noise—
and in a way I suspect it might disappoint some of you on what
I have to report, because it is, in some respects, a progress report,
and not a final report.
The State of Illinois Institute for Environmental Quality was
asked by our pollution control board, as they began to sense—as
must they should, the increasing concerns about noise, to seek
out experts—a task force, as it were-—to advise them and counsel
them on the types of noise regulations that the State of Illinois
might adopt.
As it is quite clear to many of you, the major concern, the
major pressure, the major outcry in the noise area has revolved
around airport noise.
The pollution control board had before it a citizens proposal,
which it was statutorily obligated to hear and subject to public
hearing, the task force then became just as preoccupied with the
airport noise problem as the pollution control board did.
We assembled an interdisciplinary team of physiologists con-
cerning themselves with acoustic trauma, psychologists who con-
cerned themselves with the effects of noise upon human behavior,
human performance, speech interference, interference of sleep;
engineers, aeronautical engineers, mechanical engineers, agri-
cultural engineers, physicists, and lawyers to take as broad as
possible a look as we could at this terribly, terribly technically
complicated as well as legally complicated area of environmental
concern.
Our task force also included one other important person, and
that was Mr. John Moore, who was the Chief of the Division of
Noise Abatement and Control on the State level of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency.
As the hearings were conducted relative to the CAP, there was
a certain amount of dissatisfaction registered as to the viability
and workability of that proposal. Some of this was expressed by
the citizens representatives themselves. The pollution control
board at that point asked whether the task force would be willing
to subject the CAP proposal to a thorough scrutiny, and to de-
velop an alternate proposal.
The past several months of our efforts have been devoted to
the conceptualizing of a scheme that has as its major set of
thesis that one must have to acknowledge the economic contribu-
tions of a major airport in a metropolitan area, but also one must
recognize that the costs, the noise burdens, as it were, must be
borne by several interests—as much as one can have those bur-
dens borne as well as by the airport proprietor, as by the citizenry.
What we intended to do is try to develop a scheme which at-
tempts to predict the noise exposure emanating from an airport,
contrast this with the land uses around the airport and try to
reconcile the conflicts.
-------
249
I would prefer not to go in greater detail than providing that
overall general scheme that we have in mind. I think there is not
a matter of being secret, or obscure on this question; I think it's
more a protocol question. It's a matter that our prime responsi-
bility, that is, the institute for environmental quality and to the
pollution control board, which in turn, has its responsibility to
the citizens.
When we have our proposal along sufficiently, and it's going
through an experimental check at the present time, we will be
proposing to the pollution control board this form of a structure
of regulation which will then be subjected to their analysis, and
then open for public hearing, and I am sure that we will be seeing
many of you again, perhaps to advocate this particular regulatory
scheme.
I should tell you of other matters that we are dealing with as
well, because many of you have broader noise interest than the
airport noise problem. We are being aided in our efforts by the
firm of Bolt, Beranek and Newman. Bolt, Beranek and Newman
have submitted to us for our analysis and critique and ultimate
submission to the pollution control board, a set of regulatory
measures that deal with other transportation noises other than
aircraft and airports. Within a matter of a week we would expect
to receive also a proposal for our analysis and critique from Bolt,
Beranek and Newman that deals with stationary noise sources,
property line problems.
I think one is always subjecting himself to some risk when he
tries to place a time scale, when he can bring all of these matters
to some degree of maturity worthy of hearing by the pollution
control board and the interested citizens.
It is our hope, although we have a fair amount of work yet to
do, that sometime during the early to midfall, this package of
regulations would be submitted to the pollution control board and
the appropriate necessary public hearings would soon grow out of
those proposals.
I believe, Mr. Chairman, that fairly well summarizes what we
are and where we are at the present time. I would be wiling to
field questions. I would ask for some small amount of patience
relative to the amount of details that would be appropriate to
convey at this time.
Dr. MEYER. I have found your presentation very interesting
because our Agency, in preparing this report, is trying to find out,
in addition to what is going on with the Federal Government and
what industry can do, what the States and the municipalities are
doing. So this information as to an approach being taken within
existing arrangements of the State government is very useful and
will be turned over, after it's typed up, to the people in my De-
partment who are working on this. Panel?
Mr. MARTIN. Mr. Desmond
Mr. DESMOND. Yes.
Mr. MARTIN. You indicated that BBN is preparing a report for
you now on recommendations. Of course, the Chicago ordinance
basically was written by BBN
Mr. DESMOND. Yes.
Mr. MARTIN. And the levels, et cetera. Why haven't you taken
and reviewed those—I assume the BBN report, which will be
-------
250
similar, why didn't you use the Chicago ordinance as a basis for
the State?
Mr. DESMOND. Well, on advice from BBN—and I don't think
they were merely trying to peddle advice, there are basic differ-
ences in the standards that one has to apply in a totally metro-
politan area than those that one has to apply in a statewide
situation. We have taken a look at the Chicago noise ordinances,
and I think that they have a high degree of regulatory validity.
There are many situations which the State has to deal with that
in many cases the cities or municipalities do not have to deal with.
I think we touch on a broader set of noise emission settings as
we approach it from the statewide angle. There will be some
similarities, but there are some distinctions as well, and we are
now going through the analysis of the BBN proposal, which we
received just this past week.
Mr. MARTIN. Let me ask just a followup on this: is it the intent
on the state—and maybe you can't answer this—to preempt the
Chicago ordinance?
Mr. DESMOND. The understanding that I have in the discussions
with Jack Moore is that there is no real intent to preempt the
Chicago noise ordinance. As a matter of fact, the Environmental
Protection Act and its earlier versions involving water quality,
essentially stated two jurisdictions, Cook County and the rest of
the State. The present Environmental Protection Act does not
make such a distinction.
I think that what there will be is, hopefully, a degree—and
again I can't talk totally about the State, because this is not my
jurisdiction, but it is certainly true that what is hoped to be
achieved is a high degree of cooperation between the Chicago
noise enforcing agencies and the State enforcing agencies.
Mr. MARTIN. One further question on this. Do you think that
the State of Illinois would care to have a uniform, nationwide
standard which would preempt the State standard, and then the
State would just have to enforce it?
Mr. DESMOND. Well, I suppose I ought to turn to someone other
than me to answer that kind of a question.
I can see the great validity in uniformity, but I guess one of
the things that really worries me about it is that different States
have different needs, and I think there ought to be some available
mechanism that lets a State address itself, analyze its own par-
ticular needs in the noise control area and develop regulations
that are responsive to those peculiar needs of their own State.
What I would like to see, of course, is that the State of Illinois
take such an enormous amount of leadership in this particular
area that we could represent model kinds of regulations, but again
adapted to the individual needs of the State.
Mr. MARTIN. Let me ask you one more question, with that con-
cept in mind, the thing that, the fear that I see is that every State,
if every State satisfied its own needs it would become almost an
impossibility, with the manufacturing industry, to provide a real
economical product.
Mr. DESMOND. You have got some of that going on right now,
have you not?
Mr. MARTIN. Yes, sir, because there are a multiple of different
standards being used, and without a uniform standard and the
-------
251
level—I am not talking one level to another, but you could pro-
liferate a high cost vehicle for a single state
Mr. DESMOND. Don't you see a—don't you see a certain amount
of uniformity creeping into this, even though States are doing it
singly, one notes that many States looked very, very closely at
what was going on in California in noise control regulations.
Vehicular automotive noise standards began to be developed;
manufacturers immediately started putting a noise package on
automobiles that were delivered into California.
Another state adopts the same standard in replication of the
California standard; therefore, the noise package is also sent to
that State.
One or two more States adopt a standard that has a high proba-
bility of being similar to the California standard, then the entire
automotive industry will probably move and uniformly equip all
of them, irrespective of what State they go into, irrespective of
whether they have regulation or not, that same noise package.
Dr. MEYER. Well, if I might comment before moving on to the
next witness, one of the things that the legislation now pending
before the Congress envisions is that the Federal Government set
standards. And the States would enact use restrictions that may
be put into effect in a number of ways.
One of the great dangers occurring with a variety of State
standards is that one of them may be predicated upon the best
knowledge available as to the law of the possible
Mr. DESMOND. Yes.
Dr. MEYER. By discussion with industry and others at arriving
at one conclusion as to the law of what is possible. This might be
a completely different conclusion than the one that the Federal
Government, with its much greater ability to bring together a
variety of national experts in a different arena, can arrive at. And
I think you have to keep in mind that to a large extent the Cali-
fornia law represents, based on the testimony we have heard in
Atlanta here as far as vehicles are concerned, somewhat approxi-
mated the law of the possible. So it may be that by doing this you
do not arrive at the best value judgment as to what can be done
in the future or what can be done right now in a rational way.
Thank you very much.
Professor PLACER. Mr. Chairman, just one quick point, a follow-
up on your point, which I thought was an excellent one. The
problem there, this preemption in uniform problem has been one
that has run through these hearings, and I think it important
that the record be as complete as we can make it on this.
Mr. Desmond, perhaps one problem I would like to get your re-
action to, this idea, perhaps one problem is that preemption and
uniformity are very high level of abstractions in generalities, and
as our chairman has just indicated, one set of distinctions can be
made on the basis of use activities versus manufacturing qualifica-
tions and standards.
Perhaps another way of slicing it, and again I would like your
reaction to the idea, is perhaps we need to look at individual
kinds of items, individual kinds of uses. Some goods are central
to an interstate commerce role in this nation, some goods are not.
Some products are kinds that need uniformity in order to make
them economically feasible and desirable; others may not be, and
I wonder how you would feel if a sense of Federalism in which
-------
252
both the Federal and the State Government didn't begin from an
absolute position on either end of the scale, but rather worked
out, over time, agreed positions with respect to the kinds of
products, taking into account distribution patterns in the country;
and needs of the manufacturer, uses and all of these things, and
worked our way through this problem in a more empirical sense
than the sweeping generalities and preemption might suggest.
Mr. DESMOND. Yes. Well, obviously your question implies the
answer; this is eminently sensible, I agree with you.
Professor PLAGER. Thank you.
Dr. MEYER. Thank you. Thank you very much.
Mr. DESMOND. Thank you.
Dr. MEYER. Is John Varble, the mayor of Bensenville, 111., still
with us?
Mr. VARBLE. Yes. Mr. Meyer, it's a pleasure seeing you again.
Dr. MEYER. Yes, sir. Nice seeing you, Mr. Mayor.
STATEMENT OF MAYOR JOHN VARBLE, BENSONVILLE, ILL.
Mr. VARBLE. Members of the panel, I am here representing my
community in a twofold manner, but we are primarily interested
in the aircraft noise. I want to commend you; you are having
your meeting down here. I think you are cowards. Why don't you
have it out at O'Hare Field? One of the inns there, were you a
little afraid that you might not get as far along?
Well, I will say this, when we had a meeting there, I think Mr.
Hinton attended the meeting and we had something like 22 mayors
there, and the attorney general from the State of Illinois spoke.
The planes, for some reason, did not come over that night, but
the next day they didn't know we were holding the meeting again
the next day, and it was almost impossible for us to conduct the
meeting.
Now, I am sure you have been all through this before. I will
say that night I called the tower and told them we were having
the meeting; they sent them all over George Franks' home, so
we didn't have much to worry about, so he could argue a little
bit. My neighbors here from Park Ridge and Schiller Park and
Wood Dale, they all know what I am speaking about. Gentlemen,
you have had some excellent testimony here, and I agree with
everything that has been said. This started a number of years
ago. Lloyd met with me in Washington. At that time we were
lucky to get one congressman to attend our meeting. The last
time we had more congressmen there than I think we had dele-
gates. This, of course, is an exaggeration, but at least we have
always felt that this is a matter that has to come from the Federal
level—with all due respect to the State help, and that we need
every bit that we can get, we feel that the laws have to be enacted
in the halls of Congress to alleviate this condition which we deem
most serious with the aircraft noise.
Frankly, I don't know*the rate of climb, this is just a temporary
measure, in my own personal belief—and those that I have met
with, for many, many years, and this is not a johnny-come-lately
thing with us, I don't feel that there can be any answer to it, but
just retrofitting the engines, and that is where they—that is where
she boils down to, and that is just the problem the way I see it,
it's no more than putting a muffler on a Ford, as I have said, and
they can't change my mind on this, and we have the expert knowl-
-------
253
edge, and we have had the men who have testified at many hear-
ings, and I told you, Dr. Meyer, in Washington, your office being
set up was one of the greatest things that we have had, because
now we feel instead of the runaround through the FAA—and I
respect their ability—but there was no one set up to listen to our
complaint about the noise of aircraft.
Now, try to sell a downstate legislature the noise program here
in Chicago, when they are worried about the corn blight, they
could care less about the noise plight here, or the same thing in
Nebraska, the senator out there.
We have had, as I say, many meetings. We have listened to all
of these preliminary, or this idea of what can be accomplished, and
moving people out of their homes and buying the land, and I said
this Utopian dream of having a wasteland around the airport,
which is just not feasible, and it's not going to be, and if you
think so you better think again, and I will tell you what the whole
story is, and this is the way it's got to be approached.
The name of the game is politics, and when we went to Washing-
ton 3 years ago I sat right in the Senator's office and told him
that, and from then on we have had a most remarkable rapport
with our Senators. Let's put it that way, I will say that the
people—and you have heard them state this, the lady from Minne-
apolis and George Franks who talked up here—I am sorry I didn't
get to hear all of it, but I think that these people point out very,
very firmly that the people have had it, and when they do, they
want to be listened to.
Now, they will either change their Representatives in Congress,
or they will change their Senators, and this is going to be a
political issue in the years to come. Now, it hasn't been, but it's
going to be that, I can assure you, so for this panel today I know
that our pollution experts talked to you. I did not come up here to
try to talk engineering matters to you.
You gentlemen are far more capable than I am on that, but I
will just tell you the bare facts of this thing, the way that I see
them, and that is to try to have Federal enactment of laws pre-
empting—I am not so certain that this cannot be done—I know
that Illinois is making strides, and has made tremendous strides
in it, and I am familiar with California, and I am also familiar
with Massachusetts and their rule that was just passed. Lloyd,
you saw that today, and I am very familiar with New York State,
so all in all what we are trying to dp, and this is what your de-
partment most hopefully will succeed in accomplishing, is comprise
this thing, and get it back into Congress where it belongs.
May I ask you if you received, Lloyd, did you supply Dr. Meyer's
office, which we passed at the national meeting, the four points
that we wanted taken up by resolution?
Mr. HINTON. Yes, he has them.
(The resolution referred to above is as follows:)
NATIONAL ORGANIZATION TO INSURE A SOUND-CONTROLLED ENVIRONMENT
RESOLUTION NO. 1-71
To be considered for adoption at the annual meeting in Washington, B.C.,
May 19, 1971.
In re: Federal certification of airports with respect to the nature and
number of operations and the resultant aircraft noise exposure.
To: The President, the Congress, the Chairman of the President's Council
on Environmental Quality, the Secretary of Transportation, the Secretary
of the Housing and Urban Development, the Chairman of the Civil Aero-
-------
254
nautics Board, the Director of the Environmental Protection Agency and the
Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration.
1. Whereas, Pursuant to enactment of the Aircraft Noise Certification Act
of 1968 (Public Law 90-411), the Congress determined that noise occurring
due to the operation of jet aircraft constitutes serious derogation of environ-
mental quality in hundreds of communities in the United States, and
2. Whereas, Pursuant to enactment of the Department of Transportation
Act of 1966, the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, the Airport and Airway Development Act
of 1970, et cetera, the Congress has established a requirement for the in-
clusion of relevant environmental factors in the further development of the
national airport system, and
3. Whereas, Pursuant to enactment of the Airport and Airway Develop-
ment Act of 1970, the Congress established the requirement that safety
standards be adopted as criterion for civil airport certification, and
4. Whereas, Pursuant to enactment of the Aircraft Noise Certification
Act of 1968 (Public Law 90-411) the Congress expressed its desire to provide
"both present and future" relief of high aircraft noise levels, and
5. Whereas, The aircraft engine and airplane manufacturers, the NASA
and the PAA have developed engine and aircraft designs which are quieter
than previous aircraft and have developed and are developing operating-
procedures for takeoff and landing which produce less noise under the flight
paths than present aircraft, and the benefits of some of these developments
have been known for several years and have not been utilized in airline
aircraft design and operating procedures.
Therefore, Be it resolved that the Congress be petitioned to amend Public
Law 91-258 (the Airport and Airway Act of 1970) by adding to the safety
requirements for civil airport certification the requirement that specified
aircraft noise exposure forecast (NEF) contours near takeoff and landing
flight paths be limited to locations within specified boundaries, and, further,
Be it resolved that the amendment also require that in the future a scheduled
step by step reduction of aircraft NEF levels within the specified boundaries
be achieved as a condition for the retention of existing air transportation
services.
Approved, this 19th day of May 1971.
RALPH G. CASO,
President.
JOHN C. VARBLE,
Secretary.
STANLEY W. OLSON,
Treasurer.
RESOLUTION NO. 2-71
To be considered for adoption at the annual meeting in Washington, D.C.,
May 19, 1971.
In re: A Federal Government requirement for jet aircraft operating pro-
cedures and other measures necessary for the abatement of noise.
To: The President, the Congress, the Chairman of the President's Council
on Environmental Quality, the Secretary of Transportation, the Chairman
of the Civil Aeronautics Board, the Director of the Environmental Protection
Agency, and the Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration.
1. Whereas, Pursuant to enactment of the Aircraft Noise Certification Act
of 1968 (Public Law 90-411), the Congress determined that noise occurring
due to the operation of jet aircraft constitutes serious derogation of environ-
mental quality in hundreds of communities in the United States, and
2. Whereas, Pursuant to enactment of the Department of Transportation
Act of 1966, the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and the Airport and Airway Development
Act of 1970, the Congress has established a requirement for the inclusion of
all relevant environmental factors in further development of the national
airport system, and
3. Whereas, It has long been established that the manner in which jet
aircraft are operated during takeoff and landing has significant effect upon
noise exposure heard on the ground, with such procedures designed for re-
duced noise not derogating safety, and
4. Whereas, In 1965, the President established the Interagency Aircraft
Noise Abatement Program through which aircraft operating procedures,
number of day and night jet operations and other measures were identified as
having both short and long term benefits in reducing noise exposure upon
people in airport communities, and
-------
255
5. Whereas, The report of the President's Airport Commission (Doolittle
Commission 1952), together with the report of the Task Force on National
Aviation Goals, 1961-70 (Project Horizon), each identified the growing
problem of community exposure to high aircraft noise levels and recom-
mended measures needed to reduce existing noise problems as well as prevent
their arising in the future, and
6. Whereas, Through enactment of Public Law 90-411 in 1968, the Con-
gress expressed its intention that the Federal Aviation Administration would
implement measures needed for "present" as well as "future" relief from
excessive exposure to aircraft noise, and
7. Whereas, The Federal Aviation Administration is unable to meet its
responsibility for "the protection of persons and property on the ground"
(Federal Aviation Act of 1958, Section 307 (c)) due to its primary and
pervasive mission of promoting air commerce resulting in exclusion of con-
sideration of environmental quality, now
Therefore, Be it resolved that Congress is hereby petitioned to authorize
and require the Environmental Protection Agency to establish, for the relief
of airport neighbors, noise exposure forecast (NEF) contours which must be
maintained within specified boundaries near airports, after consulting with
the President's Council on Environmental Quality, the Secretaries of the
Departments of Housing and Urban Development, Health, Education and
Welfare, Interior, and Transportation and the Chairman of the Civil Aero-
nautics Board.
Approved, this 19th day of May 1971.
RALPH G. CASO,
President.
JOHN C. VARBLE,
Secretary.
STANLEY W. OLSON,
Treasurer.
RESOLUTION NO. 3-71
To be considered for adoption at the annual meeting in Washington, D.C.,
May 19, 1971.
In re: Acoustic retrofit of existing civil jet aircraft.
To: The President, the Congress, the Chairman of the President's Council
on Environmental Quality, the Secretary of Transportation, the Secretary of
the Housing and Urban Development, the Chairman of the Civil Aeronautics
Board, the Director of the Environmental Protection Agency and the Ad-
ministrator of the Federal Aviation Agency.
1. Whereas, Pursuant to enactment of the Aircraft Noise Certification Act
of 1968 (Public Law 90-411), the Congress determined that noise occurring
due to the operation of jet aircraft constitutes serious derogation of environ-
mental quality in hundreds of communities in the United States, and
2. Whereas, Pursuant to enactment of the Department of Transportation
Act of 1966, the Housing and Urban Development Act of 1968, the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969, and the Airport and Airway Development
Act of 1970, the Congress has established a requirement for the inclusion of
all relevant environmental factors in further development of the national
airport system, and
3. Whereas, The National Aeronautics and Space Administration, and
others have determined the technical and economic feasibility of acoustically
retrofitting existing civil aircraft engine nacelles thereby providing substantial
noise reduction particularly during approach to landing and most noisy phase
of flight, and
4. Whereas, Through investigation of a variety of measures applicable to
the resolution of airport/community's problems arising from high aircraft
noise exposure levels, NOISE has determined that no one measure such as
acoustic retrofit will in itself resolve the airport/community problems at-
tributable to aircraft noise, now
Therefore, Be it resolved that the Congress be petitioned to authorize and
require that the Environmental Protection Agency establish NEF limits in
areas near airports with the full recognition of the benefits to be attained
through the application of acoustic retrofit, together with other measures
which can be taken to reduce aircraft noise, and
Be it further resolved that in recognition of the economic impact of such
a program, all methods of financing including a surcharge to be applied
-------
256
directly to the users of air transportation services, be explored by the CAB.
Approved, the 19th day of May, 1971.
RALPH G. CASO,
JOHN C. VARBLE,
Secretary.
STANLEY W. OLSON,
Treasurer.
RESOLUTION NO. 4-71
To be considered for adoption at the annual meeting in Washington, D.C.,
May 19, 1971.
In re: Responsibility for the protection of residents from exposure to high
aircraft noise levels.
To: NOISE membership and other concerned airport/community officials.
1. Whereas, NOISE was established to investigate and seek implementation
of all available measures for the relief of aircraft noise exposure upon
airport/community residents, and
2. Whereas, Through investigation of all applicable measures needed to
reduce airport/community exposure to high aircraft noise levels, NOISE
has determined that controls upon land use development in the vicinity of
major airports are essential, and
3. Whereas, NOISE has determined that it is necessary to implement
local, regional and statewide land use controls, and
4. Whereas, Even though municipal, regional and state officials are aware
of the existence of derogatory environmental factors associated with aircraft
operations near major airports they have been unable to persuade the
governing bodies of these local communities to establish zoning, building code
ordinances, subdivision regulations, et cetera, to protect the people in these
areas near airports from unacceptable levels of aircraft noise exposure, and
5. Whereas, Financial incentives are effective in persuading landowners
to accept land use constraints or to make land use conversions thereby re-
moving the barriers to the establishment of the local laws, codes, or ordinances
mentioned above, and
6. Whereas, The Airport and Airways Development Act of 1970 provides a
means whereby funds are obtained from the air transportation system for the
improvements and expansion of airports, which will then accommodate in-
creased numbers of aircraft operations which may in turn increase the
aircraft noise exposure in areas near these airports, and
7. Whereas, The noise exposure resulting from aircraft operations at many
airports is higher than considered acceptable for residential land use, thus
imposing a severe burden on those living in these high aircraft noise exposure
areas, and
8. Whereas, The policy has been established by the various Government
agencies, including DOT and HUD that air transportation must be handled
as a system with the economic, social and health effects on the community
under the takeoff and approach flight paths being given the same support
and protection as the aircraft and airports, now
1. Therefore, be it resolved that Congress be petitioned to amend Public
Law 91-258 (the Airport and Airway Development Act of 1970) by adding
the provision that before any funds be made available for the improvement
or expansion of an airport, funds be made available to the communities
surrounding the airport to compensate landowners for damages due to high
aircraft noise exposure, and further
2. Be it resolved that as a condition of this compensation the local govern-
mental bodies shall establish zoning, building code ordinances, subdivision
regulations, et cetera, which will prohibit the establishment of new non-
conforming land uses in areas predicted to be subject to high aircraft noise
exposure levels for the foreseeable future and will provide for the gradual
conversion of land in the high aircraft noise exposure areas to conforming
uses, and, further
3. Be it resolved that (1) a basis for compensation for constraints on the
use of land in areas of high aircraft noise exposure levels, and (2) model
zoning laws, building codes, ordinances and subdivision regulations be de-
-------
257
veloped by the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development for use
in implementing the legislation called for in 1 and 2 above.
Approved, this 19th day of May 1971.
RALPH G. CASO,
President.
JOHN C. VARBLE,
Secretary.
STANLEY W. OLSON,
Treasurer.
Mr. VARBLE. I would like to point out to these gentlemen, since
I haven't seen many of these, I don't know if they have had the
opportunity, I would like to close with a little story. At our sym-
posium in Los Angeles, where the lady who spoke from Beverly
Hills, and gave a very fine address, told us that they finally routed
the planes for almost 6 months, and—rerouted the planes, and the
gentleman from El Segundo jumped up and said, "No wonder we
have all the noise down there, and now we would like to ship it
back to Beverly Hills."
That is about it, gentlemen. I hope that we can accomplish some-
thing, and I think your office is our only hope to get it through.
Look to us for the political help, please.
Dr. MEYER. Mr. Mayor, thank you very much. It has been a
pleasure knowing you, and we would like to have that for the
record. Before you go, might I ask if any of my fellow panelists
could ask you a question, if they so desire?
Mr. VARBLE. How is your neck down there?
Dr. WHITCOMB. Doing much better, thanks.
Mr. VARBLE. Well, you have been most patient. I commend this
panel. I know it has been tiring, a tiring 2 days for you, but again
I say, if you had held it out in our area, just think, you would
have had to recess every 5 minutes.
Mr. HINTON. I wish we had, John; your hospitality was mag-
nificent.
Dr. MEYER. We welcome a visit with you, sir.
Mr. VARBLE. Thank you, sir.
Dr. MEYER. Now, might I ask if one of your neighbors and
members of the executive branch of a neighbor community, if Mr.
Herman Spahr, city manager of Park Ridge, 111., will come up.
Mr. SPAHR. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
STATEMENT OF HERMAN SPAHR, CITY MANAGER,
PARK RIDGE, ILLINOIS
Mr. SPAHR. Air, noise, measurements and procedures.
The city of Park Ridge has been monitoring aircraft flights
originating from O'Hare International Airport flying over the
community since 1963. In 1963, Park Ridge adopted an ordinance
which essentially provided that flights over portions of the city
causing noise in excess of 95 decibels measured on a "C" weight-
ing network are a nuisance.
To implement the provisions of the ordinance, noise measuring
equipment was purchased. A bubble top truck was obtained in
March 1962 to provide a mobile means of checking noise levels at
various locations throughout the city. The truck was equipped
with the sound measuring device and a radio capable of monitoring
air traffic, and was designed so that visual observation of flying
aircraft could be made conveniently.
-------
258
This equipment is calibrated and checked for accuracy periodi-
cally in order that measurements may accurately reflect the degree
of noise received on the ground. The sound truck and equipment
is generally operated by a member of the Park Ridge Police De-
partment who has received specific training in the use of the
equipment.
Analysis of findings.—A review of the noise measurements
taken during- the past 7 years indicates as follows:
1. The overall average during the past 3 years ranged from 78
to 105 decibels measured on a "A" weighted scale.
2. The higher levels were present from 8 a.m.-lO a.m. and 4 p.m.
to 6:30 p.m.
3. The areas of highest noise level were runways 9R-27L (south
end of town) and 4-22 (northwest corner of town).
4. The highest frequency of aircraft flights is generally at the
south side of Park Ridge between Higgins and Devon.
5. The average single noise duration is 20 seconds, and during
high frequency periods, the duration is almost constant.
In addition to the measurements taken by Park Ridge, numerous
additional observations and measurements have been taken in the
Bensenville-Rosemont and Schiller Park area. These communities
have joined together in a cooperative effort to determine noise
levels in the airport communities surrounding O'Hare.
Lyle F. Yerges, consulting acoustical engineer, has been re-
tained to evaluate the noise measuring program of the city. Mr.
Yerges advises as follows:
1. The measurement techniques of Park Ridge officials are sufficiently good
to permit us to use their data.
Our own measurements indicate that the Park Ridge dBA data tend to
run about 2 db high. As a result, in our statistical analysis of the accumulated
Park Ridge data, we have arbitrarily reduced all of their measurements by
2% dB. This means that we are on the safe side in drawing any conclusions
from the collected data.
2. The Park Ridge data, and our own measurements in equivalent locations
over the past 3 years, indicate that the areas of most severe noise complaints
are subjected to noise levels of 85 dBA or over at least during one-third or
more of the fly-overs on the principal east-west runway over O'Hare Plaza
(the southeast corner of Park Ridge) ; similar or higher levels in other
northeast-southwest runway; and, during other periods which elicit citizen
complaints, to levels of 5 to 10 db higher than this.
In simple terms, complaints appear completely justified since levels which
evoke complaints are equal to or in excess of the 85 dBA critical or danger
level.
At our request, Mr. Yerges has made an extensive study of
available literature on hearing effects and damage from noise.
He advises us that while it is difficult to find the type of dramatic
unequivocal cause and effect results which would clearly indict
noise as dangerous or damaging, it is difficult to find any authority
who does not accept 85 dBA as potentially damaging, definitely
annoying, interfering with speech communication, and a level un-
acceptable for normal human activities.
Our experts advise us that the level of 85 dBA is so firmly
established as a critical and almost certainly dangerous or damag-
ing level in all available literature, that it appears possible to build
a substantial case around it.
It is our opinion and we believe that a simply, easily demon-
strated case can be made to show that present aircraft operations
at O'Hare already expose community areas to dangerous noise
-------
259
levels and that the proposed plans for additional runways at
O'Hare will increase the exposure levels and the affected geo-
graphical area.
Effects of aircraft related noises on district 64 elementary
schools: The education of children involves a communicative pro-
cess of oral, audio, and visual faculties in various combinations
for each of the areas of learning. The educational enterprise must,
however, serve the community by performing the educational
service so that it is readily available to the young and geographi-
cally accessible. Due to the encompassing circumstances neces-
sary to serve the purposes of education, safety and convenience,
the schools of Park Ridge-Niles district 64 find the inconsistency
and high level of noise pollution attributable to the expansion and
lack of pattern control at O'Hare International Airport becoming
increasingly less tolerant in the educational setting.
Four of the district's 12 schools occupy positions within close
proximity to the landing and takeoff corridors resulting from the
placement of O'Hare runways. Observations, questions, and sug-
gestions from the administration and staff of several elementary
schools—Edison, Merrill, Franklin, and Madison—were sought in
response to the problems created by the noises.
In general it was determined that modifications in the teachers'
approach to instruction are necessary. Given the different modes
of communication as oral, auditory, and visual, and the necessity
of the communication in the education process, teachers have had
to vary the approach according to the noise level. Particularly
where a combination of verbal and auditory faculties are needed,
the teacher is forced either to shout or, by preference, to discon-
tinue communication until the noise subsides. Valuable instruc-
tional time is lost and crucial learning activities reaching an apex
are set adrift as concentration is broken and young minds wander
to the source.
The subject areas most often affected are those involving dis-
cussion and oral presentation. This would include a majority of
the pupil-teacher and pupil-pupil communications necessary to
instruction in the education process.
Some areas particularly affected by the noise are reading, social
studies, and language arts, the major subject matter areas.
In attempts at ascertaining the periods during which nights are
most disruptive and require modifying the teachers' approach or
presentation, efforts have been thwarted by the inconsistency of
the flight pattern. That is to say that the intervals between planes
have been observed to be intermittent while the takeoff and land-
ing directions tend to be irregular with some planes flying di-
rectly overhead, other along somewhat defined corridors like the
Kennedy Expressway.
Seasons of the year when windows are wide open or even nar-
rowly cracked and when physical education classes are outside,
generally spring and autumn, are the times when instruction and
the learning process are most often disrupted.
Outside physical education classes must be instructed before,
after, or between flights at some schools, due to the noise factor.
When classroom windows are open for ventilation purposes, the
noise presents a continual interruption and requires visually
oriented presentations, worksheets, and individual practice.
-------
260
During the bimonthly meeting of the board of education in
district 64, noise pollution like that in the school day has been
experienced. In point of fact, meetings scheduled for Edison
School on the second and fourth Tuesdays during the spring and
summer of 1968 were changed to another location for this reason.
Similarly, meetings held in the autumn of 1970 were interfered
with by the noise of passing flights to the extent that the board
member or other persons speaking stopped until the noise had
subsided sufficiently so that they could be heard. In relation to
this, the board of education submitted letters opposing the further
expansion of O'Hare International Airport to the airport authori-
ties and to the city council of Park Ridge.
The noise pollution problem has been recognized by the parent
organizations of the neighborhood schools and they in turn have
sent expressions of their feelings to the local school board, city,
State, and Federal governmental bodies in this regard.
It is apparent that the schools have no solution to this problem.
It is deemed one which requires knowledge of aerodynamics and
equipment performance, a field in which we contribute only the
tools for learning. However, in behalf of the students and teachers
of Park Ridge-Niles district 64, we submit that we are making
every effort to perform our function within the environmental
circumstances, and we further submit that the noise level can be
contained within more reasonable limits if efforts in this direction
are undertaken.
Evaluation of noise findings and suggested approach to measure
noise levels: Mr. Yerges, our consulting acoustical engineer, ad-
vises us that all studies and all known forecast methods clearly
and unequivocably forecast an increase in the areas affected by
such levels and subjected to them, and all studies appear to con-
firm that levels in presently complaining areas will increase, par-
ticularly if the new proposed southwest-northeast runway at
Chicago International Airport is put into operations.
In other words, it is our opinion in consulting with our experts
that present areas will be increasingly subjected to noise of equal
or higher levels than that reported today and additional areas will
be subject to noise to at least the noise of the level now experi-
enced in the presently complaining areas.
We are basically concerned with the establishment of noise levels
realistically designed to protect our residents from dangerous and
damaging noise exposure.
Mr. Yerges, at our request, has evaluated the various proposed
noise measuring and rating systems of the State of California, the
Illinois Pollution Control Board and Inglewood, Calif. Mr. Yerges
reports to us as follows:
(a) We are always dubious about such complex procedures, involving
expensive and complex equipment, calculations, et cetera. Such procedures
always suggest the need for true experts to accomplish the procedures and
make the measurements. This enormously weakens the ability of ordinary
enforcement personnel or operating personnel to control the problem—so
they tend to ignore it.
As far back as 1955 the city of Milwaukee even considered a simple 90
dBA top limit for truck noise at the street curb to be too complex to enforce,
since it "* * * required every policeman to handle and be able to use cor-
rectly * * *" a simple sound level meter. The proposed CNEL, et cetera,
procedures may terrify even a sophisticated enforcement group.
(b) We are always suspicious of averages or summations which tend to
smooth and disguise peaks and significant short-term phenomena. As we
-------
261
said, it is much like the man who drowns crossing the river of average
depth of 18 inches.
The integration or averaging method, even when under the program of a
well-designed data-gathering array of equipment, assumes too much. Several
short-term noise peaks, spaced many minutes (or even hours) apart can be
most annoying and distasteful—real nuisances—while the average or inte-
grated level may be quite low. We usually find ourselves disturbed and
annoyed and districted for several minutes following a disturbing incident,
however short lived it may be.
In a word, the averaging or integration method may only obfuscate and
disguise the real seriousness or effects of the noise incidents.
(c) The proposed procedures do not seem to take into consideration the
seasonal or weather-oriented aspects of the problem. The average annual
levels still do not recognize that, in temperate climates, people live out-of-
doors in late spring, summer, and early autumn. We can't enclose or air
condition our yards or our outdoors recreation areas so we will suffer con-
siderable annoyance whenever outside of our homes, in spite of having well
sound-conditioned homes with fixed double-glazed windows and air condition-
ing.
In short, the degradation of our natural environment by overflights is not
really reflected in most of the figures. Perhaps it is felt that sleep, com-
munication, and such activities are the only important considerations; but
suburban life includes the out-of-doors, too.
(d) From over 30 years' experience with the type of measuring equipment
and procedures specified, we cannot disguise our serious doubts about the
whole complex situation proposed. The equipment is sensitive, delicate,
expensive, subject to damage, constantly in need of calibration, et cetera. We
can see legal counsel for an airlines or airport operator literally throwing
any valid complaint out of court if it is based upon the automatic data-
gathering equipment, without constant or continuous supervision of some
competent human.
After discussing the matter with our experts and reviewing our
own noise monitoring procedures, it is our opinion that much of
the proposed procedure in the California statute and ordinance
and in the proposed standards of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board are really unnecessary.
From the airport location, prevailing winds, neighborhood lay-
out and geography and types of equipment operated, we are able
to predict quite accurately what exposure will be anticipated any-
where in a given community on the basis of the operating pro-
cedures for the particular aircraft. They must travel a known path,
at a known height, under known power settings.
Thus, we know in advance what to expect under almost any
flight path. Therefore, the "Noise Impact Areas and Noise Impact
Boundaries" can be reasonably predicted which is, of course, made
clear in the proposed ordinances and standards. Why not, then,
simply insist that within each outlined area, no overflight shall
cause a sound level to exceed some reasonable dBA figure?
After all, this, in its naive simplicity, accomplishes precisely
what is included in all of the other complex procedures.
On this basis, an intelligent officer or operator with a simple,
low cost sound level meter, can check and determine at any given
time whether there are violations. In other words, what is wrong
with what Park Ridge is doing now?
If automation is required, it would be simple to locate an auto-
matic level recorder at each boundary line to trigger with any
excess noise, record the time, and make identification of the
offending aircraft.
It is our opinion that we do not need the complex averaging
equipment and procedures; that they accomplish little or nothing,
not better accomplished by more simpler approaches. Further, it
precludes the game of integration, summation, or averaging—a
-------
262
potential method of continual controversy or manipulation.
While Yerges, in this respect, reports to us as follows:
It is his opinion and he believes that "pilots, airport operators, municipal
law enforcement officers, and all personnel involved in this aircraft noise
problem should be able to understand, measure, and evaluate, as well as
control, the controllable and measurable factors. Only then can we expect
them to cooperate to mitigate the noise problem and abate the nuisance of
noise. We must avoid designing a new and interesting 'game' of 'beat the
meter' inherent in the proposed ordinances and standards—a temptation too
appealing to ignore, as we see it."
The city of Inglewood ordinance makes a great deal of sense
in its inherent simplicity and philosophy. It might be a bit too
lenient, but it is the type of code which will likely stand court
tests and challenges; and it should appreciably control noise
nuisance, if enforced. With some editing, it could be made most
acceptable.
To summarize our position in reference to any proposed stand-
ards, our comments are as follows:
1. Well established criteria include some means of limiting noise
at any time, even for short duration, to 85 dBA maximum. Energy
averaging or similar integration procedures probably do tend to
predict hearing damage, but they do not define annoyance, nui-
sance, or other subjective effects.
2. It is simple to measure noise levels in dBA with simple, low
cost equipment, which can be operated by competent law enforce-
ment personnel; or to automate such measurement quite simply.
3. It is simple to forecast noise exposures on the ground when-
ever airport configuration and aircraft type and operational pro-
cedures are known. Thus, it is possible, without any measurement
procedure at all, to establish the operating parameters of aircraft,
the airport layout (especially runway direction and orientation),
and to determine zoning areas near the airport in advance.
This would tend to preclude the need for much of the proposed
complex measuring procedure; and it would go a long way toward
avoiding the nuisance of noise.
Dr. MEYER. Thank you very much, sir. I gather from the thrust
of your statement here that part of the problem are the many
different, and someimes extremely complicated, procedures for
specifying noise measurements
Mr. SPAHE. That's correct, right.
Dr. MEYER. And that you are making a strong plea for some
uniformly acceptable, relatively readily understandable ap-
proaches.
Mr. SPAHR. Yes, and we realize that any standards that are
established will require someone to enforce them, and local munici-
palities normally do not have acoustical engineers on their staff. It
must be something that can be readily measured, and a determina-
tion made as to whether or not violations have occurred. Our con-
sultant feels that a dBA standard suggesting 85, in particular, is
an appropriate one, and one that can easily be determined with
relatively inexpensive and easily operated equipment.
Dr. MEYER. Panel?
Mr. HINTON. Mr. Spahr, I know—I knew your predecessor very
well, Jim Galloway, as we both served on the President's White
House Panel on Aircraft Noise. I would like to endorse your com-
ments regarding measurement techniques that you have described.
I would like to ask you one question with regard to the monitoring.
-------
263
Can you attribute to the use of monitoring equipment by Park
Ridge any measurable relief, either from aircraft or from surface
noise sources from the use of your equipment?
Mr. SPAHR. The city of Park Ridge has never issued any viola-
tions based on its existing ordinance. At this time the measure-
ments that we do, or are continuing to accumulate, are used
pretty much to build a case as to the violation. We have made no
effort at his point to bring any of the airports or airlines into a
court on a specific action of a particular flight flying over the city
of Park Ridge.
Mr. HINTON. It's quite apparent that your ability to measure
noise does not include an ability to conrol the noise.
Mr. SPAHR. Yes, right.
Dr. MEYER. Thank you very much, sir.
I would now like to ask Mr. George Dayiantis of the Far North-
west Community Association, who is among those who have also
been very patient, to come forward.
STATEMENT OF GEORGE DAYIANTIS, FAR NORTHWEST
COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION
Mr. DAYIANTIS. Our membership is directly affected by the
dangerous level of noise pollution which is caused by the jets
using O'Hare. I had some misgivings relative to appearing before
this committee today, for it appears that there are three condi-
tions existing which have caused the public to show little interest
in public hearings.
One, the hearings are too often held away from the location of
the problem. The hearing should have been held in our community
of the 41st ward; Taft High School would have been an ideal
location. The noise pollution would have been most obvious.
Two, nothing will be done unless it has political overtones, or
some serious mishap occurs.
Three, hearings are held to allow citizens to release their
frustrations.
I would like to digress because by the way Dr. Meyer and the
rest of the panelists have acted, it appears that we have a recep-
tive group of men, and I am looking forward to some action. With
these conditions as prerequisites to one's involvement, people have
become apathetic. I doubt if this is the goal of a democratic
society.
With over 200 organizations in our area, there is a meager
representation at these hearings, and that is the reason I listed
those three; people have become quite depressed.
Dr. Meyer, I wonder if our Federal and State legislators and
city council members sincerely care about the health and welfare
of the citizenry. Do they really care about the hazard to the un-
born? For it has been in some scientific publications expressed that
there is a possibility for noise pollution causing some damage to
the unborn.
Normal communication in homes is difficult to maintain, if at
all. Homes suffer damage, both inside and out. Schools in the area
have difficulty functioning properly. Is this the price we must pay
for our technological advancement in our desire to speed from
one place to another? Installation of necessary noise control de-
vices must become a reality.
Ironically, tax money through Federal support is being used to
subsidize this noise pollution. We realize flight schedules are
-------
264
planned for convenience, but to provide this for the minority at
the expense of the health and safety of the majority is incon-
sistent. Here I would add, if you and I have a son or daughter and
they were requested to write a report by their respective teachers,
and they wanted them to write this report on noise pollution, the
causes and the solutions, would we accept some of the excuses that
are being offered today?
I only hope that these hearings are not an exercise in futility
for those most adversely affected by the noise, and I would like—I
hope I am not putting you on the spot, Dr. Meyer, but you, as the
chairman of this most worthwhile group, I hope that you will con-
tinually and publicly state that the time is now, that measures
must be implemented now to control the noise by jets, and from
any other sources if we are to be able to live in a society that we
would want for ourselves and our future generations. Thank you
very much.
Dr. MEYER. Thank you, sir, and I appreciate your comments
regarding hearings; I can assure you this one is one in which we
are trying to get information with which to do something.
Mr. DAYIANTIS. Thank you.
Dr. MEYER. I think you have given a lot of food for thought for
some of my colleagues in all levels of government. Thank you
very much for being so forthright, sir.
Mr. DAYIANTIS. Thank you.
Dr. MEYER. We are, as you know, running somewhat behind
schedule here for a variety of reasons, and as I look at the list of
prospective speakers I see we still have Elizabeth Lewis, repre-
senting the Northwestern Students for a Better Environment;
Mrs. Laura Fermi; Areta Psyk; Georgia Horowitz; Mr. Omar
Marcus; Richard Blomberg; Ted Decca; Tom Hamilton; John
Kerrigan; Wendell P. Berwick; some representatives of the
Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen; and Mr. Vernon Lindahl. I
intend to take people in that order and, as I said, there were some
reasons why some of these folks had to make specific changes.
As I said, I am determined to hear from everybody, because they
have asked to be here, and it is my job. And as I have also indicated,
in each of these presentations we learn something of great use to
us, so if Elizabeth Lewis would please come up, I will be delighted
to hear from her, as will the rest of the panel.
Miss LEWIS Thank you.
Dr. MEYER. You have been a patient young lady.
STATEMENT OF ELIZABETH LEWIS, NORTHWESTERN STUDENTS
FOR A BETTER ENVIRONMENT
Miss LEWIS. This statement is based on information presented
in volume I and in preliminary drafts to volume II of a study en-
titled "Comprehensive Plan for the North Lakeview Section of the
Uptown Model Cities Area."
This study, financed by grants from the Sloan Foundation and
the National Science Foundation, was undertaken by students
working through the Urban Systems Engineering Center and the
Design and Development Center both at Northwestern University.
Noise pollution in North Lakeview affects many patterns of
human existence. But, its effects on safety and education are the
most disturbing.
-------
265
Several crossing guards were interviewed for this study. One
said, "The kids cannot hear me; they watch my gloves for direc-
tions." It was observed that children could not hear approaching
cars and that noise from the elevated trains of the CTA frightened
them. But the physical danger of crossing these streets, though
real, is brief. A much more serious danger with many unknown
effects is disruption of the classrooms by the noise polluters.
At Greeley Elementary School, noise levels hurt the educa-
tional process. The back side of the school faces the elevated. CTA
noise disrupts classes on all three floors of the school on the side
facing the rapid transit tracks. Classrooms on the opposite side
of the building are not disrupted. When windows were left open
on the side next to the tracks, meters recorded train noise levels
at or above 90 dBA levels. When warm weather approaches, the
teachers will be faced with the cruel dilemma of either closing the
windows and enduring the heat or opening the windows and en-
during the noise.
The following noise levels were recorded at Greeley:
Playground: 102 to 106 dBA.
Third floor room (back side of building): 90 to 94 dBA with
windows open and 70 to 78 dBA with windows closed.
Second floor room (front): 84 dBA with windows open, 70
dBA with windows closed.
Library (which is under the gym): 88 to 90 dBA, since the gym
contributed to the disruptive sound.
In addition noise pollution is a result of street traffic. Ambient
noise levels in other parts of the study area are as follows:
Seminary-Eddy: 75 to 85 dBA, Racine-Clark: 80 to 85 dBA.
Clark and Irving Park: 80 to 90 dBA, Addison and Sheffield:
80 to 90 dBA.
Clark and Addison: 80 to 90 dBA, Irving Park and Sheridan:
100 to 105 dBA.
NSBE makes the following recommendations in light of the
preceding comments about the level of noise generated in one
Chicago community area.
The Walsh-Healy Act should be amended so workers are better
protected from hazardous noise levels. The present law allows 90
dBA levels for an 8 hour duration. But, auditory damage will
occur at this noise intensity level.
NSBE recommends the adoption of 80 dBA, as proposed by the
New York State quiet communities program, as a maximum level
for prolonged periods. Thus, the amended Federal Level Act would
require 80 dBA maximum for an 8 hour period and not 90 dBA
as at present.
Also the Walsh-Healy Act is too limited in scope. The act covers
only those employed by companies holding Federal contracts in
excess of $10,000. Amendments should be added to control noise
in areas where such levels present health hazards.
Second, EPA should adopt sound transmission class levels. The
STC level is the level of sound which building materials baffle. If
a measurement outside a building is 100 dBA while the meter
records 60 dBA in the building, then the building has an STC
level of 40. Oak Park, a Chicago suburb, has a code that could
serve as a model for establishing STC levels. The specific section
is 81.2a of the Oak Park noise pollution ordinance.
-------
266
EPA should adopt STC levels for building materials that will
reduce noise levels below the 80 dBA level.
Third, EPA should perform additional research on the effec-
tiveness of baffles and concrete supports which are used for noise
abatement around CTA tracks.
Preliminary results from tests which NU's students performed
on baffles and concrete supports show these modifications have
negligible effects on the dBA levels. Peak levels of 98 to 99 dBA
were recorded both with and without concrete supports and baffles.
These supports, line both sides of a quarter mile stretch of the
Englewood Rapid Transit line from Ashland to Racine. The cost
for these baffles is $33 per lineal foot. The overall cost for baffle
material alone on this stretch of track is $86,000.
Finally, a new friction reducing compound should be deyeloped.
This compound will help reduce noise resulting from rail-wheel
interaction on the elevated tracks. Replacing existing track to
reduce noise levels would be expensive. A practical means of re-
ducing such noise would be development of a noise abating coating
that could be applied to the wheels of a train and/or track.
Correspondence with the Dow Chemical Co. indicates this may
be an innovative means of reducing noise. Also, a Dow repre-
sentative says development of a product with the desired qualities
of abrasion resistance and adhesion may be technically feasible.
A demonstration grant from the Federal Government may lead
to an inexpensive means of reducing decibel levels.
THE FOLLOWING STATEMENT WAS PREPARED FOR THE NOISE POLLUTION
HEARINGS SPONSORED BY THE FEDERAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY ON JULY 28 AND 29, 1971 AT THE SHERATON-CHICAGO HOTEL,
CHICAGO, ILL.
I. INTRODUCTION
We are happy to acknowledge that most of the information to be presented
was culled from the environmental control section of volume I and the pre-
liminary draft to volume II of the Comprehensive Plan for the North Lake-
view Section of the Uptown Model Cities Area.
These volumes are the result of a study performed under support from a
Sloan Foundation grant to the Desig'n and Development Center of North-
western University and a National Science Foundation grant to the Urban
Systems Engineering Center of Northwestern University. References from
other sources are cited as they appear.
II. EXAMPLES OF LEVELS OF NOISE POLLUTION IN THE NORTH LAKEVIEW AREA
Noise pollution in North Lakeview has broad effects on four areas of life
within the study area: (1) domestic, (2) business, (3) safety, and (4)
education.
1. Domestic.—Domestic tranquility is virtually nonexistent in many homes
near the CTA elevated train tracks. One resident who has lived in the 3400
block of Sheffield for 7 years stated, "The trains rock the whole apartment,
disrupt television reception, sleep, and communication." Her family is "used
to the noise now, but it took some time before they were." A passing train
registered 85-95 dBA inside their apartment.
A 48-year resident of that same block revealed that noise is especially bad
after a rain, which cleans oil and grease from the rails of the elevated,
leaving them dry and increasing friction. The resulting noise is intolerable
even to a veteran: "I am used to it, but after a rain it really gets on my
nerves." He also noted that rent and CTA noise levels do not have the ex-
pected negative correlation. A 100 dBA level, which he deemed comparatively
"quiet" was recorded at 11 a.m. in his garage.
In the 1000 block of Roscoe Street, a resident whose bed is situated 3 feet
from the elevated tracks said, "You have to sit there to believe it. You think
it's coming right through the room. I have to get awfully tired to sleep."
Trains passing registered 105 dBA at 11 a.m.
-------
267
2. Business.—To examine the effect of noise on business, several merchants
were interviewed. A watchmaker on Sheffield said he was "used to it," but he
could not talk to his customers over the noise from the trains. These com-
ments were representative of the merchants who were interviewed.
Medical facilities were also affected. At the medical building at 3355 North
Clark and the Clinic Hispana at 3934 Sheridan, both situated under the
tracks of the CTA, readings of 100 to 108 dBA were recorded outside the
buildings.
A secretary to the alderman of the 44th ward was interviewed at the Clark
Street Democratic Organization office. He claimed speakers must pause
during speeches because they cannot be heard over the passing elevated's
noise. An 80 dBA reading was recorded at this hall.
3. Safety.—The safety threat of loud distractions was made clear by a
city of Chicago crossing guard: "The kids cannot hear me; they must watch
my white gloves for directions." The children cannot hear approaching cars,
and the noise of the elevated obviously frightens them.
The crossing guard felt that this situation was especially dangerous for
younger children. Of course, the previously mentioned threat of high noise
levels to the hearing capacities of all residents who live, work or attend school
or do business in proximity to the elevated is a constant danger to health
and safety.
4. Education.—At Greeley Elementary School it is evident that noise
levels interfere with education. The back side of the school faces the elevated,
and CTA noise in classrooms on this side of all three floors force temporary
pauses in class procedure. Classrooms on the front side of the structure are
not upset. With windows open on the back side, classrooms were totally
engulfed in 90 dBA noise levels, causing considerable distraction. The warm
weather will accentuate this problem because windows must then be kept
open. The following noise levels were recorded at Greeley:
Playground: 102 to 106 dBA; third floor room (back) : 90 to 94 dBA with
window open and 70 to 78 dBA with window closed; second floor room (front) :
84 dBA with window open, 70 dBA with window closed; and library (under
gym) : 88 to 90 dBA.
Thus Greeley has an additional, unique noise problem: the gymnasium is
located directly above the library. A fast break in a basketball game above
registered a very disturbing 88 to 90 dBA level in the library.
Teachers interviewed all agreed that the elevated seriously disrupts the
educational process. Disruption is much greater with windows open and on
the side of the building adjoining the elevated—as one might expect. Dis-
tressingly, the library is also incredibly noisy for purposes of concentration.
In addition to the preceding, other noise pollution in the area is almost
entirely a result of street traffic, with busy intersections being the trouble
spots. Ambient noise levels in other parts of the study area are shown below:
Seminary-Eddy: 75 to 85 dBA; Racine-Clark: 80 to 85 dBA; Clark and
Irving Park: 80 to 90 dBA; Addison and Sheffield: 80 to 85 dBA; Clark-
Addison: 80 to 90 dBA; 3527 North Clark: 90 dBA; and Irving Park-
Sheridan: 100 to 105 dBA.
For the sake of comparison a chart of noise levels from common sounds
is attached as appendix A.
III. NOISE AND HEALTH HAZARDS
It has long been known that sound can cause physiological and psychological
reactions. Unfortunately, some of these reactions pose health hazards. In the
light of the previously mentioned data, the following three comments strongly
suggest that dangerous levels of noise are becoming the norm rather than
the exception:
1. In his remarks to the Air Pollution Control Association in 1966, Dr.
William H. Stewart, Surgeon General, U.S. Public Health Service, said: "It
has been shown that prolonged exposure to 85 decibels and above (approxi-
mately the level of heavy traffic from 50 feet away) will induce permanent
loss of hearing; first at high frequency, then gradually toward the range of
human speech." Further research indicates a positive correlation between
noise and increased malfunction of the heart, endocrine system, and repro-
ductive system. Noise is even thought to affect the unborn fetus.
2. According to Prof. Edward R. Hermann of Northwestern University,
"Noise that masks or interferes with essential speech communication in,
dangerous situations constitutes an obvious hazard." This situation occurs
frequently, especially near the elevated tracks. Referring to 140 to 145-
decibel noise levels, Hermann comments that, "Slight or short term exposure
-------
268
causes slight but permanent threshold shifts, which are irreversible and
cumulative, i.e. causing sensori-neural hearing loss."
3. In his presentation to the American Public Health Association, "Quiet
Communities for New York," given in 1970, Dwight F. Metzler, Deputy
Commissioner of the New York State Department of Environmental Conserva-
tion said that, "Ninety dBA can produce a physical reaction related to the
development of cardiovascular disease." Further on in his paper, he writes,
"At this time, it would appear that a goal of about 80 dBA be established
as a maximum exposure limit to prevent hearing damage. Even at this level
a small percentage of the people having particularly sensitive hearing may
suffer hearing loss from prolonged exposure."
IV. RECOMMENDATIONS
1. Changes in the Walsh-Healy Public Contracts Act
The Walsh-Healy Act should be amended so workers are better protected
from hazardous noise levels. The present law allows 90 dBA levels for an
8-hour duration. But, auditory damage can frequently occur at this measure
of noise intensity level. NSBE recommends that 80 dBA, as proposed by
the New York State Department of Conservation for their quiet communities
program, be adopted, as the Federal maximum noise standard for an 8-hour
period. Thus, the amended Walsh-Healy Act would then allow a maximum of
80 dBA, not the present 90 dBA, as the 8-hour duration noise level. Of course,
the other exposure levels and their durations would be appropriately amended
to reflect this change.
Also, the Walsh-Healy Act is too limited in scope. That act covers only
those employed by companies holding Federal contracts valued at or above
$10,000. Amendments should be added to control noise in all areas and all
conditions where such levels present health hazards.
2. Adoption of sound transmission class levels
EPA should adopt sound transmission class levels. The STC rating is the
level of sound which building materials block. For example, if a meter meas-
urement outside a building is 100 dBA, with the meter recording 60 dBA
inside the building, then the building has an STC rating of 40. Oak Park, a
Chicago suburb, has a code that could serve as a model for establishing STC
ratings for building materials. The specific section is 81.2a of the Oak Park
Noise Pollution Ordinance.
NSBE suggests that EPA adopt STC ratings for building materials that
will reduce noise levels below the 80 dBA; particularly in noisy metropolitan
areas.
3. Additional research on baffles and concrete supports used to abate noise
EPA should perform additional research on the effectiveness of baffles and
concrete supports suggested for noise abatement around rail mass transit
systems. Preliminary results from tests which Northwestern University
students performed on baffles and concrete supports erected on the Englewood
extension of the CTA elevated for the purpose of noise attenuation indicate
that these modifications presently have negligible effects on dBA levels. Peak
levels of 98 to 99 dBA were recorded both with and without concrete supports
and baffles. These structures, at the time of testing, lined both sides of a
quarter mile stretch of the Englewood Rapid Transit Line from Ashland to
Racine. The cost for these baffles was estimated at $33 per lineal foot. Thus,
the overall cost for baffle material alone on this stretch of track is over
$86,000.
^. Development of a friction reducing compound
A new friction reducing compound should be developed. This compound
will help reduce noise resulting from rail-wheel interaction on the CTA tracks.
Replacing existing tracks or wheels to reduce noise levels would be expensive.
A more economical means of reducing such noise could be the development of a
noise abating coating that could be applied to the wheels and/or track.
Correspondence with the Dow Chemical Co. indicates this may be an in-
novative means of reducing noise. Also, a Dow representative says that
development of a product with the desired qualities of abrasion resistance
and adhesion may be technically feasible. Given the known ingenuity of
American chemical companies, a demonstration grant from the Federal Gov-
ernment could lead to an inexpensive means of reducing decibel levels.
This statement was prepared by:
Douglas Rathe, senior in the School of Journalism at Northwestern Uni-
versity, past president of NSBE.
-------
269
Steven Newman, senior in the co-op program of the Department of Elec-
trical Engineering at Northwestern University, member of the environmental
control team of the uptown study group, member of NSBE.
Ronald Eng, graduate student in the Ph. D. program in biomedical engi-
neering at Northwestern University, member of the executive committee of
NSBE, member of the region V SCOPE council of the Federal EPA.
Thanks are extended to Prof. Martin Wachs, urban planning section of
civil engineering, and to Prof. Gustave Rath, director of the Design and
Development Center, for their help in the preparation of this statement.*
Miss LEWIS. I will try to answer questions; if I can't, I will
relay them to the men that did this study.
Dr. MEYER. Very good.
Mr. HINTON. I would like to ask you one question, Miss Lewis.
First I would like to commend you on your statement, and I would
like to thank you for bringing to our attention the existence of a
model building code which requires exterior wall STC criteria.
This is a relatively rare thing. I don't know where else it's done.
Thank you.
Miss LEWIS. You are welcome.
Dr. MEYER. We are trying to obtain a lot of information re-
garding noise conditions in different places, and receiving in-
formation on a study like this would be most valuable to those of
us who are working on the report to Congress. I am trying to get
as much information of valid measurements and different types of
locations, and this is an important contribution, plus the informa-
tion you have given about this noise reduction coefficient. I will
look into this further. Thank you very much.
Miss LEWIS. Thank you very much.
Dr. MEYER. Proceeding next in accordance with our schedule is
Mrs. Laura Fermi of the Cleaner Air Committee of Hyde Park-
Kenwood. If she is still here I would be most pleased to have her.
STATEMENT OF LAURA FERMI, CLEANER AIR COMMITTEE
OF HYDE PARK
Mrs. FERMI. My name is Laura Fermi; I represent the Cleaner
Air Committee of Hyde Park and Kenwood. That is a neighbor-
hood around the University of Illinois. Our committee has worked
12 years toward abatement of air pollution, but we are also in-
creasingly aware of other environment problems, particularly of
rising levels of city noises.
We wish to call you attention to some sources of noise which
may not be as obvious as heavy automobile traffic or airplanes, but
which nonetheless have affected us within our neighborhood, not
downtown noise. These sources are large delivery trucks and
trailer trucks in residential sections, especially when they go back
and forth to make a turn; garbage pickup trucks with unneces-
sarily noisy grinding devices. Sometimes they drive long stretches
between pickups with their grinding devices on, and we can hear
there is nothing inside them; trains, there are the freight trains
of the Illinois Central at night, they are very noisy.
Then the South Chicago subway, inside which the noise is above
the danger level, in our opinion. The elevated trains whose metal
wheels squeak against the metal rails, and we suggest that some
other kinds of tires be required. Then motorcycles, especially if
driven by youngsters. Construction machinery, especially pneu-
' Supporting material for this testimony is on file at the Office of Noise Abatement and
Control.
-------
270
matic drills, and then even noisier than the construction machinery
is, are the machines which fell and chop up trees. We live near a
park, and that happens quite often. Power lawn mowers; im-
properly adjusted air conditioners.
Our group is a conservationist group, and we try not to run air
conditioners too much, to save on electricity, but often at night we
have to run our air conditioners only to protect ourselves from a
neighbor's too noisy air conditioner.
Much too loud music and announcements from public address
systems, both in closed spaces and in the streets.
Drumming and singing in public parks later at night than
should be reasonable, and the same drumming for too long periods,
in shopping centers where they upset the shopkeepers. You know,
they can't get away, they can try—we can try and get away, but
they can't.
We have noticed that noise travels along strange paths. It shifts
direction on our big buildings, and it is louder when it reaches the
upper floors than at street levels, especially this drumming.
I have had the experience myself that I went down to the street
and I could hardly hear it, and up at my floor level, which is the
15th, it's very strong. It seems to come from the south when the
players are on the east side.
If a study of noise paths and causes of noise amplification has
not yet been made, we recommend that it be undertaken now.
As for household appliances, we often hear the statement that
we, the consumers, demand more and more powerful, and there-
fore noisier appliances. In reality we seldom have any choice. For
instance, my own new dishwasher runs, and the floor makes noise
and therefore makes noise over three times as much as my previ-
ous dishwasher, which was 22 years old. To my knowledge it is
not possible to buy now a dishwasher that does the job in 12
minutes.
Finally we would like to point out the noise due to poor acous-
tics of certain rooms. It may not result in deafness, perhaps, but
it's terribly tiresome and irritating.
There is a building in Hyde Park where I have vowed I will
never go to parties there. It gets too noisy. Thank you very much.
Dr. MEYER. Mrs. Fermi, thank you for reminding us that we
have a lot of problems besides automobiles and airplanes. And the
problem that you mentioned about the noise seeming louder at the
15th floor than at the surface, and not in the same direction, is one
that is causing a lot of concern, because in big cities with tall
buildings there is this bouncing around of the noise, as you aptly
describe. And sometimes the reflection and the building up of
noise from several sources does cause this problem. It's one that
we are going to look at very seriously. Panel, any questions? Thank
you very much.
Dr. MEYER. Is Areta Psyk here? Perhaps I am pronouncing it
wrong. I think I know my languages fairly well, but it's P-s-y-k, of
the Oak Park Campaign Against Pollution. If not, Jo Ann
Horowitz, who is the Illinois chairman of the beleaguered earth
program of the American Association of Women.
-------
271
STATEMENT OF JO ANN HOROWITZ, AMERICAN ASSOCIATION
OF UNIVERSITY WOMEN
Mrs. HOROWITZ. Mr. Chairman, gentlemen of the panel, and
concerned citizens: I am Jo Ann Horowitz, 5818 West Montrose
Avenue, Chicago, 111., 1971-1973 this beleaguered earth topic
chairman, Illinois division, American Association of University
Women.
I would like to present the first vice president of the Illinois
division, Mrs. Mary Eleanor Wall, who is with me this afternoon.
This association is a national women volunteer organization with
170,000 members located in 1,681 branches throughout the country
as well as members-at-large. The Illinois division of the American
Association of University Women has 74 branches with nearly
9,000 members. I have with me the prepared testimony from the
members of our northwest suburban branch, which I will not read
but offer as additional testimony appropriate to this hearing.
Dr. MEYER. It will be inserted in the record following your
testimony.
Mrs. HOROWITZ. Thank you. The AAUW is interested in a
variety of concerns and for the past 2 years two of our topic areas
for study and action have been "This Beleaguered Earth—Can
Man Survive?" and "The Human Use of Urban Space." We have
chosen to continue with "This Beleaguered Earth" topic in the
next biennium because of our concern in the environmental quality
of our community and of our Nation. Ways must be found to con-
serve our environment, our normal state of mind, our physical and
mental health, and even our lives by reducing noise.
It would seem that in homes, schools, and places of business and
industry, noise can be reduced. Noise levels in a house are greatly
increased with the sounds of televisions, radios, record players,
and increased usage of a variety of electric motors and appliances.
Wall partitions are flimsy and allow sounds to penetrate the
whole home. Less than 10 years ago I lived in a newly built apart-
ment building in Chicago and could hear the people in the adjacent
apartment dial the telephone there. Especially annoying is the
sound of running water through the pipes of another apartment
when one is trying to find sleep and rest in his own quarters.
Many people on hot nights are expected not to use their air
conditioners out of consideration for neighbors who cannot sleep
because of the noisy motor which was just bought at a modern
appliance store.
Researchers in Switzerland, West Germany, and Canada have
found in studies on sleeping subjects that the noises of nearby
motor traffic, or of a radio or television in the next room can affect
sleep. The noise does this by lifting the sleeper from a deeper to a
shallower phase of sleep.
During their working day people deprived of deep sleep can be
irritable and cranky, feel tired, have daydreams, and be mentally
disorganized. Lack of proper sleep reduces people's ability to cope
with ordinary frustrations and robs them of their sense of humor.
Whether or not they live in noisy homes, people often work in
noisy surroundings. A study of steelworkers in West Germany
found that workei-s exposed to noise on the job had twice as many
family problems as did similar men who worked in quieter sur-
roundings. This study found that men who worked in noisy con-
-------
272
ditions were more aggressive, distrustful, and even paranoiac than
were similar men who worked in unsimilar—quieter—circum-
stances. The noise-exposed workers also were far more likely to
quarrel constantly with their foremen. AAUW has equal concern
for the sounds of transportation vehicles which we surely must
have the technology to reduce such as automobiles, motorcycles,
buses, subway trains, and airplanes.
Noise can be especially harmful to persons already under other
kinds of stress and can lower their ability to cope with their emo-
tional problems. A 1969 English study showed that people in the
noisy environment near London's Heathrow Airport suffered a
higher incidence of mental illness than did people who lived in
quieter environments some miles away. Because of the heavy use
of O'Hare Airport and the great amount of traffic to and from
this airport, we urge no further expansion of O'Hare Airport.
Princeton University psychology professor, Silvan S. Tomkins,
believes that in our society noise is a constant terrorizer and that
this constant stimulus of stress is as unnatural a state as perpetual
hunger would be, since both of these are incompatible with optimal
existence.
We urge that the site for a third major airport in the Chicago
area be established soon. The determination of this location would
go a long way in reducing the anxiety level of many citizens. Be-
cause of our concern for this beleaguered earth, we believe that
this new airport should not be built in Lake Michigan for it will
destroy the lake ecologically.
City planner and Chicago State College professor, Frederick
Blum, has reported that Lake Michigan is only ten years away
from being as dead as Lake Erie. Lake Michigan is this area's
greatest natural resource and source of beauty. It should not be
defaced and used as a receptacle into which things can be dumped
and built.
There have been no reports of an environmental study on what
would be the ecological impact of constructing and having an air-
port in Lake Michigan.
State Representative Robert Mann believes the thought of
building an airport in Lake Michigan jeopardizes the way of life
for everyone living on the South Shore and that this part of
Chicago is in danger of becoming a residential desert. He feels, as
so many of us do, that human values of urban life are im-
portant too.
Noise pollution has been an annoyance, a bother, and a threat to
human beings for too long a time. Ironically, noise has been the
quiet pollution, the one not talked about. We commend the En-
vironmental Protection Agency for its willingness and concern to
exercise control in this area. We urge legislation to give this
Agency the legal weapons to fight noise pollution.
We appreciate opportunities such as this to communicate our
opinions about doing something to lower the volume control on the
threatening and dangerous noises of this beleaguered earth. Thank
you.
Dr. MEYER. Thank you, and thank you for reminding us that one
of the problems we are faced with in dealing with noise is not only
that of hearing or nuisance, in effect, on communications, but also
-------
273
sleep, which is one of its really major nonauditory problems.
Panel? No questions? Thank you, Mrs. Horowitz, for coming and
being so patient.
(The statement referred to above is as follows:)
Statement by the Northwest Suburban Illinois Branch, Illinois
Division, American Association of University Women to the En-
vironmental Protection Agency, July 29, 1971, Sheraton-Chicago
Hotel, Chicago, 111.
Statement prepared by Mrs. S. J. Loska, 1694 Van Buren, Des
Plaines, 111., president 1969-1972, of the Northwest Suburban Illi-
nois Branch, AAUW.
Mr. Chairman and members of the Environmental Protection
Agency:
During the past 2 years the University Women's Organization
had as two of their four study topics, "The Human Use of Urban
Space" and "This Beleaguered Earth—Can Man Survive?"
Our group with a membership over 165 women is located pri-
marily in two northwest Chicago suburbs, Park Ridge and Des
Plaines with some members from Mount Prospect and Arlington
Heights. These suburbs are adjacent to O'Hare International Air-
port.
During the past 2 years the two study groups have focused on
noise pollution and problems with special emphasis on air and
highway sources.
For 18 months branch members have actively participated in
the formation and activities of concerned citizens groups that are
dealing with offensive noise levels. Increased noise levels have lead
to the deterioration of the quality of life in these suburbs which in
most instances have been organized communities for over 100
years.
Representatives of our organization have attended the meetings
of the citizens group NOISE. Topic leaders have attended public
hearings conducted by the Illinois Senate Subcommittee dealing
with O'Hare Airport noise.
Some groups have set up monitoring devices near the airport
that show noise to be at an objectionable and detrimental level.
Through individual study and investigation we have considered
the problems of jet noise and the hazardous effects on man. Study
group discussions and findings have been reported to the general
membership.
Though we could not capture a sampling of the noise level we
present example one which is a byproduct of the total jet destruc-
tion. This is an example of residue accumulated over a 21-day
period on a newly painted table for patio dining in a home located
7 miles from O'Hare International Airport. This residue of jet
fuel expulsion is a known hazard to man's environment. Though
courts award homeowners property compensation there is no pay-
ment for excessive human body deterioration.
With new interest and increased awareness, individual mem-
bers have felt a responsibility to express themselves by com-
municating with elected officials at local, state and national levels.
An all-member letter writing campaign was encouraged, promoted
and realized. It is out of our study and concern that we file these
statements today.
We strongly urge that there be no further expansion of O'Hare
International Airport.
-------
274
An immediate decision must be made in choosing a site for a
third airport. It is imperative that another airport be located in a
less congested area though certainly not in Lake Michigan.
All projections indicate that by 1975 all air traffic, both passen-
ger and cargo, will be doubled or even tripled. Presently O'Hare
Airport with its high noise levels affects the lives of nearly a half
million people in a 10 mile radius of its parking lot. Expansion
must be stopped and the situation as it now exists must be rectified
to prevent the further deterioration in the quality of life.
Legislation should require the manufacture of quieter jet en-
gines. Ecological factors outweigh the increased cost of noise-
suppressed engine production. Rapid ascent enforcement is
essential. Demands should be made that pilots comply with ascent
and descent regulations. Stricter FAA standards for noise abate-
ment should be set for this airport.
In order to best utilize urban space we urge airport personnel
and aircraft operators to comply with Federal air pollution
standards.
The membership of the Northwest Suburban Illinois Branch of
the American Association of University Women ask the Environ-
mental Protection Agency to use its power in our governmental
process to abate the noise level in airport environment which leads
to extreme health complications. We thank you for this oppor-
tunity to make our views known.*
Dr. MEYER. Is Mr. Omar Marcus still here? Mr. Marcus is a
writer. I am glad you could stay, Mr. Marcus.
STATEMENT OF OMAR MARCUS
Mr. MARCUS. Mr. Chairman, members of the panel, it's my
pleasure to present to you an article actually intended for publica-
tion, assigned by a chain of newspapers and planned for publica-
tion shortly.
If, in its presentation, some explanations on sound and sound
measurements should appear irrelevant or rather preposterous to
the experts on the panel, I would ask your forbearance, because
this article is intended for the general public who know little or
nothing about sound measurements, and its effects on their
physical and mental health, but who only suffer, and would like to
find a way to defend themselves.
In his much-heralded declaration of war on pollution and en-
vironmental destruction, Mr. Nixon made regrettably scarce men-
tion of one of society's worst enemies: Noise, excessive noise;
lamentably little mention of it was made by experts who addressed
Northwestern University's mass meeting on pollution some time
ago. Yet, it is an established fact that noise is physically harmful.
To combat this invisible enemy is far less costly than the war on
air and water pollution.
Sound and its measurement
It would be difficult to understand or attempt to alleviate any
problem associated with noise without some comprehension of the
complex character and characteristics of sound.
While this article is not intended as a scientific dissertation on
sound and its terminology, suffice it to say that sound intensity is
measured in decibels (dB).
This material for this testimony is on file at the Office of Noise Abatement and Control.
-------
275
Briefly, a 1,000 cps (cycles per second) sound which can just
barely be heard. This minimum sound is given a decibel level of
zero. If the measured sound intensity is 10 times the reference
level, it is rated at 10 dB.
Careful though. Decibels actually express a ratio between the
intensity of two sounds, and the numerical value of the db in-
creases logarithmically.
To illustrate: The rise from 0 to 10 dB represents a 10-fold
increase in sound intensity. But a rise from 0 to 20 dB means the
intensity has gone up to 100 times; and the decibel change from
0 to 30 represents an increase in sound energy of 1,000. By the
time the decibel level reaches 100, the sound energy has gone up
10 billion times from the threshold of hearing.
Measurements of intensity and frequency apply only to the
physical aspects of sound, without indication of human interpreta-
tion in terms of loudness.
Intensity can be measured by instruments; but loudness level, a
subjective experience, can be determined only by the judgments of
a number of people. Therefore, experimenters have established
that the sensation of loudness varies not only with the intensity
(dB), but with the frequency (c.p.s.) of a sound. So, sounds of the
same intensity do not necessarily create sensations of the same
loudness.
Consequently, loudness level is expressed by a physiological unit
called the phon.
Noise is physically harmful and reduces productivity.
Europe's No. 1 noise buster, Prof. Gunther Lehmann differenti-
ates between three grades of noise: Grade 1 has only psychological
effects; grade 2 affects the vegetative nervous system directly,
while grade 3 harms the auditory organ.
Grade 1 goes as high as 65 phons, the phon being the unit of
noise. An external machine noise may become quite unpleasant
with as low as 40 phons. Even weaker noises may, through psycho-
logical excitement, gradually produce vegetative disturbances—
especially nocturnal noise.
The psychological degree of noise differs from one individual
to another. According to Professor Lehmann, everything depends
on a given person's individual sensitivity, which is not a fixed
entity but varies with the person's emotional attitude toward the
source of noise.
Noises we make ourselves, or those associated with a process we
like, are seldom found unpleasant however high their phon figure.
Young parents love the cries of their babies which infuriate their
neighbors; dog owners are thrilled by the bark of their pets, and
the teenage motorcyclist delights in the roar of his engine without
muffler.
Indeed, a factory worker who is proud of a special machine and
the work he does on it, may frown on any noise reducing measures
ordered by the management.
For many the sense of strength and importance is somehow as-
sociated with the noise they can produce.
Sixty-five phons awake and 45 phons asleep are the limit be-
yond which vegetative reflexes in our nervous system will appear
automatically, regardless of our like or dislike of noise.
-------
276
Professor Lehmann found that the most important reflex is a
narrowing of the arterioles, the smallest arterial blood vessels,
particularly in the skin and in the mucous membranes.
The resistance within the vascular system is increased. This does
not lead to any increase in blood pressure, but the amount of blood
thrown out by the heart at every pulse is reduced, resulting in a
reduction of the total circulation in the body. It may reach up to 50
percent of the time-unit volume of circulation.
The decrease in pulsations in capillaries—those minute vessels
connecting an artery and vein—permits even a measurement of
this dangerous phenomenon.
The effect is independent of the sound frequency; it is weaker
in young persons than in older ones. This circulatory effect has a
duration equal to that of the noise producing it, which may mean
hours, and recedes slowly thereafter. It is entirely independent of
the will. Nor is there any habituation.
Psychologically, we may become accustomed to some noise but
our vessels never will.
An associate of Dr. Lehmann's made a conclusive study on steel-
workers exposed to much noise at their jobs; a group of workers
exposed to a weaker noise serving as a control. The group exposed
to excessive noise showed circulatory disturbances in the skin and
the mucous membrances, increased irregularities of cardiac ac-
tivity, some increase in disturbances of digestion and equilibrium
and a rise in the cholesterol level.
When excessive noise persists long enough, the vegetative
trouble may become established and produce clinical symptoms.
A typological study of the workers involved showed that those
on the noisy jobs were all sturdy, resistant men. A weaker person
would never take a job with a high degree of noise. Yet, even
stable, strong men are affected by noise. In fact, it was shown that
those athletic types suffered more conflicts in family and factory
than the men of the weak noise group did.
Noise produces nervousness even in strong men. Moreover, they
are nearly deaf for some time after work, which presents another
source of human conflict.
In the light of such findings, we may imagine the physical harm
suffered by countless thousands of all age groups in dwellings ad-
jacent to rail tracks, exposed, as they have been for years to that
most harmful of sounds, the excessive intermittent ones, like
elevated, long distance or mile-long freight trains, engine and
factory whistles, and a host of associated noises, teenagers revel-
ing in literally deafening rock-and-roll pounding, not to mention
the bandsmen themselves.
Even in orchestral classical music, a percussion player goes
progressively deaf to high frequencies.
A Japanese college student, preparing for an examination, be-
came so enraged by a mechanical piledriver close by, that he
rushed out and put his head between the pile and the crashing
hammer.
All of which leads the writer to the strong conviction that there
exists a definite link between noise and violence.
My personal recommendations to the Federal Crimes Commis-
sion would be to view and review their findings in the light of this
somewhat startling theory. It would not be surprising if a large
percentage of crimes, especially ghetto crimes in overpopulated
-------
277
areas, were to be traced back to perpetrators' exposure to exces-
sive periods of excessive noise—a potential crime factor to be
fought at its source first and taken into consideration before con-
demning a culprit for what he committed, at least partly due to
traumatic conditions out of his control, which he may have
suffered.
Therefore, a person committing an act of violence under the
immediate impact of a noise assault ought to be considered as
acting in self-defense instead of being jailed as an aggressor.
In this complex science of noise evaluation, we have to define
the common concept of "well being."
A person's well being is also conditioned by his exposure to
noise. In other words, "well being" for the scope of preventive
medicine—according to the definition of the who—means "a state
of optimal psychic, physical and social well being" and not only
freedom from disease.
This guiding concept is of decisive importance for the entire war
on noise from the point of prevention of health hazards.
Because of the problems of defining "sickening noise" as a dis-
ease without concretely provable factors which may have caused it,
noise combatants created those three above mentioned categories:
noise nuisance, health hazards through noise, and damage to health
through noise.
Assurance of an adequate, undisturbed rest period in residential
areas—especially at night without underrating the importance of
antinoise measures at work—is one of the most important con-
ditions in the war on noise.
Grownups need approximately 8 to 9 hours sleep, children and
patients correspondingly more.
There are millions of people who, for 24 hours every day, are
exposed to some kind of noise: at home, at work, and in traffic.
In the deliberation of the most important noise reducing measures,
an overriding importance should be given to assurance of an ade-
quate recreative phase during sleeping periods, generally at night.
However, in view of sleeping periods being conditioned by in-
dividual professional requirements, public noise abatement meas-
ures ought to include police-protected rest periods of at least 9 to
11 hours in residential neighborhoods.
It should be noted that intermittent noises during one's sleep
need not necessarily cause awakening, but will nevertheless impede
one's sleep from being sufficiently recreative.
We metropolitans are slowly going deaf as a result of growing,
yet unchecked daily and nightly noise around us.
The American Medical Association reports an increase of 100
percent every 10 years in the overall loudness of metropolitan
noise. The American home, especially the modern kitchen, with
over a dozen different kinds of laborsaving devices whining and
grinding, exposes housewives and kitchen workers to harmful
sound levels equal often to those of a steel mill.
Over 7 million of our population are exposed at work to deaf-
ness causing noise levels, the United States Public Health Service
reports.
The Federal Republic of Western Germany appears to be the
most progressive country in the fight against this invisible public
enemy. Their Secretary of State for Residential Construction
issued "Ten Commandments" to architects in form of a technical,
-------
278
well-illustrated booklet, equivalent to a building code for the sup-
pression of noise.
"There is no more any excuse for inadequate sound protection,"
the minister's appeal to architects begins; soundproofing measures
for new buildings must follow recommended lines before they're
passed by the building authorities using complicated electronic
sound testing equipment.
In Japan, instrument equipped sound patrols may close an
establishment or bar exposing the public to harmful noise.
What can we do—that means every one of us—to halt and re-
duce this ever-growing menace of harmful noise ?
Clearly, everyone must do his share, for there will never be
enough patrolmen to enforce sound regulations. Most of the
domestic noise nuisance is due to selfish lack of consideration for
the rights of others.
If a youngster wants to attend early Mass on a Sunday and, in
the process of getting up and ready, awakens neighbors above and
below, he should think again about the purpose of going to church
—or tell the father confessor: "In order to get to Mass on time, I
robbed my neighbors of their much deserved Sunday sleep,
slammed bathroom and kitchen doors, stampeded about the house
in heavy boots and revved up my car engine to make it warm up
faster."
If you live close to the "L" tracks and are unable to move away,
it wouldn't be practical to request the almost bankrupt CTA to re-
place its antiquated rolling stock with modern, sound controlled
equipment. But have you ever tried using ear plugs?
Some synthetic material—as used by jet aviation workers—fits
snugly into ear ducts and will yield a high frequency noise reduc-
tion of about 35 phons, equal to over 50 percent.
The writer has been inseparable from them for years. For the
subway they're recommended as a regular practice; you'll have the
aural sensation of riding on a Pullman sleeper—except in
screeching curves.
Antiquated complaint procedures: Many existing abuses are
due largely to apathy on the part of sufferers, their fear or un-
willingness to voice their complaints vigorously, and last but not
least, to clumsy, time-consuming methods of bringing a legitimate
complaint before a magistrate; not to mention reprisals any such
person might expose himself to, for being the only one courageous
enough to sign a complaint.
Countless legitimate complaints pouring into police stations day
by day are caused by devices designed to save domestic labor. If
you feel you really need a sputtering motor on your lawnmower to
give you a sense of power, please remember, too, that a multitude
of motorized lawnmowers in operation may turn a respectable
residential neighborhood into an inferno. Remember too, that like
yourself, your neighbors have a right to live in peace and un-
polluted air. After all, a muscle-powered lawnmower is excellent
for waistline control.
Since the beginning of coal delivery by truck to private
dwellings and apartment buildings, it was carried or shoveled into
the boiler room—until someone invented a motorized mobile con-
veyor belt capable of terrorizing a wide area for hours at any time
from early morning on, with a noise way in excess of the tolerable
level, at times accompanied by the whining processing device of
-------
279
half a dozen garbage trucks which, too, are still permitted to
operate anywhere at any time; not to mention teenage gangs of
no-muffler motorcyclists keeping neighbors alarmed around mid-
night.
Don't despair. Don't let inconsiderate neighbors' dogs, motor-
bikes, horn-blowing boyfriend dates, destroy your peace. Don't let
coal merchants or garbage collectors enrich themselves at the ex-
pense of your physical and mental health. Call a police patrol car.
And if the nuisance persists, talk to the police station commander
or call your councilman. They're there to help and they usually do.
They will listen to you when you explain that your health is
being attacked, undermined and gradually destroyed by un-
scrupulous noisemakers.
They also have ways of making offenders conscious of both the
limit of their civic rights and the start of their obligations. The
more complaints they receive, the sooner we're likely to get noise
legislation.
Alas, the police, too, might exercise more restraint in the use of
whistles. They're intended for emergency use only—not for direct-
ing traffic. This ought to be done with flashlight-equipped sticks.
As for patrol car sirens in the quiet of night, they're loud enough
to wake the dead.
While it is impossible, within the scope of this article, to men-
tion more than just a few of the most common sources of noise
nuisance, there is one which merits attention because of its in-
sidious design.
At the end of each news bulletin Radio Station NBC, in a show
of adolescent sensationalism, transmits a siren like crescendo
pitch sharply rising to ultrasonic, ear-splitting frequency. Don't
listen to it. It's harmful. For every trick used by a radio station to
capture your attention, for every half-ass disk jockey who disturbs
your listening or viewing pleasure, there are at least two others
to choose from who won't—in a metropolis like Chicago.
With due credit to the meritorious efforts of crusaders against
air pollution and environmental destruction, are we not putting
the cart before the horse by treating noise abatement as a step-
child?
If we permit harmful noises to stay at their present level, that
is letting them get worse, our physical health, our hearing and our
minds will become affected to such a degree that we'll be unable
to fight air and water pollution and enjoy the fruits of our efforts,
when the battle is won.
If we don't stop excessive noise now, future anthropologists will
liken us to biblical idols: "They have ears but hear not."
What we urgently need right now is more complete enforce-
menc of existing police regulations regarding noise. This would be
often sufficient, if they were really made use of.
But what is needed above all for a successful war on noise is a
detailed program of legislative and administrative measures,
culminating in the appointment of a Noise Commissioner in every
large community.
This program would doubtless obliterate noise everywhere;
though we may expect that those who might feel inconvenienced,
financially or otherwise, by the abatement of noise will oppose it
to the limit everywhere.
-------
280
Dr. MEYER. Thank you, Mr. Marcus, for a very scholarly review
of the knowledge and views of your own with regard to the noise
problem. Thank you very much, sir.
Mr. MARCUS. May I make one more brief comment, please?
Dr. MEYER. If you will make it rather brief, sir.
Mr. MARCUS. Yes; I will. I would like to comment on personal
experience I have had in reporting noise to the rank and file of
policemen who have been showing what I might call an obstructive
indifference to noise nuisance. I would like to recommend that at-
tention be given to the instruction of police officers on their duties
to the public by which they are paid.
I would also recommend that garbage trucks, or rather their
grinding mechanisms as in use right now should be condemned
and banned until the manufacturers are instructed to abide by
sound regulations enforced by the EPA.
Furthermore I would like to recommend that attention be given
to a type of motorbike that has made its appearance in recent
months, or years, perhaps, called choppers, commonly called
choppers. They are motor bikes used by hippie-type owners with
arrogance and you may associate this type of motorbike with an
abuse of noise regulations, and I think a crackdown is more than
overdue.
I should also mention one particular location which I observed,
although much has been said about the noise created by elevated
trains, there is one at the border of the city limits of Chicago
where the trains make a curve, and each train on—in dry weather
makes a screeching, ear-busting noise which at times can be heard
for over a mile away.
I live on the lake shore, and last night I heard the screech at
1:30 in the morning, screeching noise of this train, and I feel
something ought to be done. The CTA is no exception. Further-
more, to end on a positive note, I have, myself, made a contribution
toward this in documenting graphically yesterday morning the
operations of a noise inspector of the city of Chicago who, at my
request, appeared on the scene of a garbage truck collector who
the police said failed to bring under control for over 2 years, and
yet the control—the inspector appeared with his noise measure-
ment instruments and finding excessive, excessive noise, fined the
driver and summoned him to court. This picture (indicating) has
been circulated with one of the wire services, and I hope it will do
some good to the common cause. Thank you very much, sir.
Dr. MEYER. Thank you, sir.
Dr. MEYER. Is Mr. Richard Blomberg of the O'Hare Noise
Abatement Council here?
Mr. BLOMBERG. Mr. Chairman, would you, instead, recognize Mr.
Ted Decca? I understand he has a 7:30 meeting to attend.
Dr. MEYER. Are you Mr. Blomberg?
Mr. BLOMBERG. Yes, sir.
Dr. MEYER. Are you yielding?
Professor PLACER. May I make one observation to Mr. Marcus,
before he leaves, for his future articles, and that is I understand
him to say that the mind may adapt, but the body won't, to noise.
I would simply observe that perhaps the solution, Mr. Marcus, is
evolutionary change over time to where our bodies, in fact, do not
hear anymore. Just a thought.
-------
281
STATEMENT OF TED DECCA, O'HARE AREA NOISE
ABATEMENT COUNCIL
Mr. DECCA. Gentlemen, I would like to be very brief, if I may;
it has been a long day, I am sure, for you. Let me first express my
personal thanks for your interest and infinite patience in listening
to all this testimony. May I make two quick corrections to your
schedule of witnesses.
First, my major reason for being here is my involvement in the
O'Hare Noise Abatement Council as vice chairman and director for
the last 3 years. Secondarily, I am an alderman of the city of
Wood Dale, possibly because of my ability to timing my speeches
around the aircraft noise, while my losing opponents were not
aware of this.
What I am about to convey to you are the feelings of the citizens
of the suburbs around the airport. May I also state at this time,
with the exception of Elk Grove Village, those communities were
incorporated before Orchard Field was built.
Now, Orchard Field is the predecessor of Douglas Field, which
is the predecessor of O'Hare Field, although my information re-
lates to O'Hare Field, the same problem exists at most, if not all,
throughout the country.
As you look at the information I have handed to you, you will
find some representative samples of letters of complaints. The let-
ter addressed to you, Dr. Meyer, sums up the feelings of everyone.
I didn't pilfer your mailbox. I got a copy of it indirectly. Let me
quote from just a part of it:
People work hard to provide for their family. My husband works 10, 12
hours a day, 6 days a week. Like most people he battles traffic congestion,
et cetera. He comes home to relax and pow, airplanes every few minutes
going over the house.
I will leave the rest of this for your information, and will not
go into it.
Dr. MEYER. The appropriate items will go with our records.*
Mr. DECCA. Thank you, sir. One of the aspects of the noise
problem that is overlooked is that related to the schools and the
students.
Now, I have given you, as well, two letters from the surrounding
community schools, that being the board of education from district
2, from Bensenville, and the board of education from district 100
of Bensenville, and Wood Dale District 7, grammar school district
of Wood Dale.
Now, very quickly I will read a few items for your information.
This is a letter from the Superintendent of District 2 and 100:
My conservative calculation of the 22 interruptions or delay in instruction
caused by aircraft noise cheats the young students in the community of
Bensenville of approximately 2.3 teaching hours in a day.
The environment at Lincoln Elementary School for the handicapped children
has become so intolerable that the board of education is currently in the
process of selling the building and site and relocating the students in a
building further away from O'Hare Field.
May I wish him luck in that regard. Some of my neighbors
haven't been so lucky to sell their homes.
Dr. Warren Carson, the superintendent of district 7 school in
Wood Dale:
1 This material is on file at the Office of Noise Abatement and Control.
-------
282
Two schools in particular, Highland Elementary, built in 1921, and the
Wood Dale Junior High built in 1966 are the major recipients of jet aircraft
noise. Yet the effect of this noise is that for every aircraft landing or taking
off during school hours, we lose a minimum of 20 seconds instructional time.
The unfortunate part about this is it is immeasurable, the amount of con-
centration time lost for the students, and I, myself, have three children in
grammar school and am very concerned about the problems they have to
face in the world today, and the fact that they are being cheated of an
education by an organization of profitmaking people.
I will leave the rest of the Fenton student report for your read-
ing pleasure.
Included in this informational package are some sound level
readings which bear witness to the magnitude of the problem.
One of the items that the FAA points put is the existence of
noise abatement procedures at O'Hare Field. These procedures
went into effect on April 20, 1970. The runway reminder signs
were put up in August 1970. Upon reviewing these procedures,
this first statement of the procedures gives you an in-depth idea of
what the rest of them are about:
The following noise abatement procedures have been promulgated by a
joint FAA-industry committee to serve as a guide to aircraft operators,
pilots, and air traffic controllers in achieving a greater degree of noise abate-
ment, and do not supersede, amend or nullify the applicable PAR's company
operating rules, air traffic rules and procedures, or good operating practices,
which means they are virtually useless.
I might also comment very briefly and say they are not being
enforced, they are not being followed.
The question was put to the FAA, and in particular Mr. Neal
Calahan to the effect of asking, number one, has anyone ever been
punished for violating these rules.
On two separate occasions the FAA responded no. This indicates
either all pilots are perfect—and, to my knowledge the last perfect
human being was crucified—or the only other deduction that can
be arrived at is that the regulations are not being enforced.
A proposed rulemaking committee was instigated by the FAA.
We submitted our comments and suggestions related to this, and
to date have received absolutely no reply.
The letter, which you have a copy of, sir, was, if I can find it in
the pile here, was dated back in January.
Dr. MEYER. January the 26th, I believe.
Mr. DECCA. That is correct. Thank you. The point of the matter
is that as Mr. Franks has said, and many other people have said
today, is we have gotten absolutely nowhere.
One other comment that is of value in my behalf is as a general
statement, all documentation I have seen relating to noise exposure
levels in areas surrounding the major airports relates only to
direct line noise on straight arrivals and departures. It is not at all
realistic to believe that aircraft will not change course until reach-
ing cruising altitude.
As a matter of fact, I have proof, if anybody is willing to look at
it, willing to come to O'Hare Field and watch them make a 90-
degree turn before they depart from the physical limits of the air-
port, they are going due south.
Let me summarize by saying that the jet noise pollution problem
is disrupting to the life of many millions of people as well as the
educational opportunities of our younger generation.
-------
283
We must look to another airport to service the anticipated in-
crease in traffic. We, as the O'Hare Area Noise Abatement Council
cannot tell you where, but we must encourage you to consider the
errors committed at O'Hare Field.
Please do not force other residents who can now enjoy their
homes in surrounding lands to suffer as we now do.
Immediate relief is one of the requirements we ask now. They
can only be experienced by the establishment of workable enforced
noise standards. These standards must take into consideration the
fact that people do live 24 hours a day. Thank you, gentlemen.
Dr. MEYER. Thank you very much.
Professor PLACER. One quick comment, Mr. Decca. I think you
heard earlier the statement from Mr. Desmond about the Illinois
task force.
Mr. DECCA. Yes.
Professor PLACER. I would think they would be quite interested
in this material. I wonder if you would be willing to make a copy
of that submission available to them.
Mr. DECCA. By all means, sir. I will be glad to give them a copy
that I have here, if Mr. Desmond will meet me by the aisle.
Dr. MEYER. Very good. Thank you for taking the time to as-
semble this data, because it is very valuable to us.
Mr. HlNTON. Mr. Chairman, may 1 ask Mr. Decca one question?
Dr. MEYER. Yes.
Mr HlNTON. You said that your procedures—those procedures,
is that enclosed?
Mr. DECCA. No, sir. I do not have more than one copy of it. I
would be more than happy to mail a copy to the group here.
Mr. HINTON. Will you do that.
Mr. DECCA. I will.
Dr. MEYER. If you will get it to me
Mr. DECCA. Yes, I will do that.
Dr. MEYER. Thank you very much for taking the time to do this.
Dr. MEYER. Mr. Blomberg, you yielded kindly, recognizing our
time constraints, so would you come forward now? We will be
happy to hear from you, sir.
Mr. BLOMBERG. Thank you, Dr. Meyer.
STATEMENT OF RICHARD BLOMBERG, O'HARE AREA NOISE
ABATEMENT COUNCIL
Mr. BLOMBERG. I am also a director and vice president of the
O'Hare Area Noise Abatement Council. I think while the previous
testimony is pretty much related to the problems, I think it's an-
other thing to look at the responsibility, and what people who
were in a responsible position had done.
Public Law 90-411, or 411, I should say, was passed on July
21, 1968, and the opening sentence of that law reads:
In order to afford present and future relief and protection to the public
from unnecessary aircraft noise and sonic boom, the Administrator of the
Federal Aviation Administration, after consultation with the Secretary of
Transportation, shall prescribe and amend the standards for the measure-
ment of aircraft noise and sonic boom, and shall prescribe and amend such
rules and regulations as he may find necessary to provide for the control and
abatement of aircraft noise and sonic boom * * *
and it goes on—but the FAA did have the authority.
On the 12th of November 1969, the FAA in Washington did
release noise certification standards for new aircraft, and in there
-------
284
they stated that today's largest aircraft are operating at 110 to
120 effective noise decibels.
This is not the scale that is usually found on sound meters. It's a
special scale, and it's for aircraft noise, and the statement made
with relation to the new level was that this would be lowered to
102 to 108 effective noise decibels. They went on to state the 102
to 108 effective noise decibel range is similar to noise experienced
by the operator of a four-cycle powermower.
Now, I have an article which has been submitted in evidence
that says that the average noise level of a powermower measured
on the C-scale was found to be 97 decibels. It also goes on to state
that the SAE committee on noise levels has suggested a maximum
limit of 72 dBA for normal operation.
They indicate that the powermower is too noisy, and the FAA
is telling us we have something to look forward to, they are going
to lower the level of the present powermower.
On July, in July 1970, the final report by the Rohr Corp. was
issued, a report prepared for the Department of Transportation
Office of Noise Abatement, and one conclusion in that report was
this, it said that alternatively a small fare increase is necessary
to completely offset the cost of a retrofit program. And, of course,
George Franks has indicated our support of Senator Cranston's
bill.
On November 4, 1970, in the Federal Register, volume 35, No.
215, the FAA, through the Department of Transportation issued
an advance notice of proposed rule making, civilian airplane noise
reduction retrofit requirements, but even though the FAA was
aware of our existence—very much aware of it—we had to learn
of this particular proposal in a letter from Inglewood, Calif., from
the city of Inglewood's mayor, Bill Goedike; in a letter to George
Franks on December 8, 1970, he informed us of this and sent us
a copy of this particular measure.
In turn various members, including myself, of the council were
in touch with such groups as Airline Pilots Association, and were
very much amazed to find out that they had no knowledge of this
proposal, even though it directly affected them.
Furthermore, with relation to the 727 aircraft, which has a
weight of approximately 152,000 pounds, the FAA certified a 727
stretch jet, which added 20,000 pounds to that aircraft, and
allowed it to carry more cargo, but it was certified with the same
engine—and I don't think it takes anybody technical to realize
if you have a heavier aircraft and put more cargo, and you use
the same engine, you are going to have more noise, and at an
FAA meeting, in an attempt to support anything that they might
be willing to do, we asked them could we possibly, since we do
represent a number of citizens, would it be possible for us to
help them, by money for equipment at O'Hare, if they did not
have the best equipment?
The statement was made that they had the best equipment avail-
able, and we found this particularly interesting shortly thereafter
because we found out that Atlanta and Kennedy have radar equip-
ment which will tell them the height of the aircraft, and O'Hare
does not.
And they also, of course, have no sound monitoring equipment
at O'Hare, and yet in Oslo, Norway, sometime prior to the issue
-------
285
of this article in 1965, they had aircraft noise measurement and
evaluation.
Prior to January 11, 1965, Frankfort's airport, which is the
busiest in Germany, also had jet noise monitoring systems. The
statement made in the article was monitoring systems have been
in service since 1963 in various cities, including New York, but
there is no system in the United States similar to the Frankfort
network, according to the Federal Aviation Agency, and the Port
of New York Authority, and to this day at O'Hare, the busiest in
the world, we still do not have any monitoring equipment. I think
that speaks for the FAA.
Now, the other question that has been brought up is what about
the owner of the airport, possibly they have something. In the
U.S. Senate Report 1353, the 90th Congress, the Second Session,
which accompanied the House bill 3400 on aircraft noise abate-
ment, the statement was made that the Federal Government is in
no position to require an airport to accept service by larger air-
craft, and for that purpose, to obtain longer runways; likewise,
the Federal Government is in no position to require an airport to
accept service by noisier aircraft, and for that purpose, to obtain
additional noise easements.
The issue is the service desired by the airport owner, and the
steps he is willing to take to obtain the service, and yet when the
city of Chicago, represented by J. P. Dunn, O'Hare field manager,
spoke before an Illinois Senate subcommittee he said, "Our job
begins and ends at the fence. We are just the housekeepers."
It might be an interesting thing if maybe the owner of a factory
in Chicago, with dirty smoke pouring out of its stack said after-
wards, "Well, it's out of my control." Maybe there is a parallel
there. I am not quite sure.
Now, recently I have come into being of a copy of a letter that
was dated June 8 with relation to a new runway that is being put
in. A hearing was held in Chicago on this. It was a couple of lines
in one newspaper that is published in Chicago, and the runway is
4R, 22L, and in line with this runway are the national freight
yards of the Milwaukee, St. Paul Railroad. In fact, this runway
goes right over the middle of them, and the attorney for the Mil-
waukee road has estimated that it will cost the Milwaukee road
something like $1 million to convert this freight yard so that the
airport runway is usable, and while the letter was sent from the
Department of Public Works, city of Chicago, saying they were
aware of that problem, the runway is still going on, being built—
as usual, just as the one did in 1967 that flies over the northern
section of Schiller Park in the residential area. People bought 2
years prior to the building of that runway, they built their homes
there; it's 2.2 miles from the start of roll and approximately three-
quarters of a mile from the end of that runway, and the reason I
brought up the matter of these two items, and the people from
Schiller Park, in that area were not able to come here during the
day, and with relation to the Milwaukee, St. Paul Railroad, the
gentlemen that you have listed down there, the Brotherhood of
Railway Signalmen, had to leave because they had a meeting in
their area at 7 o'clock. It was unfortunate they had to leave.
Interestingly enough, a local newspaper had a picture of that
runway, no article, just a picture saying, "Relocation of Highway,"
which was from public funds for the benefit of that particular
-------
286
runway. That's all there was. As far as the people, there was no
notice. All they saw was the construction of the runway.
Now, yesterday you had the Air Transport Association here,
Mr, Becker. Mr. Becker testified at the third meeting- of the
Illinois Pollution Control Board on airport noise. When finally he
ran out of talk—my words, not his—he said that inasmuch as he
was representing the airlines, that they just don't know what they
were going to do about the problem. We have an answer. We have
an answer. We have Mr. Cranston's bill, which he doesn't seem
to like .
In the hearing yesterday I understand Mr. Becker made a
statement, something to the effect that a third of the population is
made up of hard core complainers. Well, if we are in that number,
a third of the population, we are not going to be satisfied with the
view that Mr. Becker has.
Now, an editorial in a local paper stated the air transport in-
dustry's biggest concern is rapid expansion, not the well-being of
airport neighbors who may not even be customers. This—was this
really the fact or not? Well, you have to think, look at the record.
Number one, one of the statements made with regard to retrofit
of jet engines is that the aircraft are old, and pretty soon, of
course, they will be obsolete, and be replaced by new aircraft
which will be much quieter.
I would like to ask Mr. Becker, then, why Pan American Air-
ways is spending $300,000 per plane on new wing assemblies for
their 707's if that is the case; they are getting old—apparently
they are not quite that old, and the question that came up at the
Illinois Pollution Control Board on the, an example of cooperation,
it is a fact that the airlines were willing to retrofit their engines
so that they would have a clean burning engine, and the deadline
that they proposed was 1980. When the Federal Government
leaned on them they came down to 1976, and when other people,
particularly the Illinois attorney general said, "You may fly your
aircraft because I can't stop you, but I am going to fine you as air
polluters," all of a sudden the deadline came down to 1972—a
difference of 8 years, and therefore I would question whether the
airline industry has the people first in mind. I would rather doubt
it, on the basis of past experience.
In the May issue of "Air Progress' it stated the following, for
the record:
The Secretary of Transportation, John A. Volpe predicts a 300 percent
commercial passenger increase by 1980, and a 400-percent increase by 1985.
However, Volpe warned the public will not stand for further noise environ-
mental pollution. Anyone who thinks we can meet that kind of demand with
today's organizational resources, with today's pollution congestion, with to-
day's intolerable noise levels just doesn't know how mad people can get.
I think maybe we are finally getting through.
Now, as for the record, our organization, in a letter to the FAA
—one that Mr. Decca referred to on January 26, 1971, we sup-
ported the Cranston bill indirectly. We weren't aware of the bill
itself. We were aware of the Rohr Corp. report, and we called for
repayment of Federal loans which would come from airline ticket
tax.
In my letter to the FAA, since we have differences, we are
democratic in our organization, and I wrote to the FAA, and in
that particular letter that I wrote I pointed out about the noise
-------
287
levels; one example of this problem is Runway 9R at O'Hare
International Airport, which was built in 1967, several years after
the single family residential section of Fairview Heights in
Schiller Park, 111., where the residential area is only 2.2 land
miles from the start of roll; on the extended Runway 9R center
line the only apparent practical answer is to change the land
usage to industrial. The alternative is to stop the use of Runway
9R for departures and Runway 27L for arrivals.
Of course, lately there has been much concern in the paper
about destroying houses. How often several people in Schiller
Park, in that area, have told me if someone will give them the
market price for their house—not what it's worth on the market
now, but what it should be worth, and they will give them the in-
terest rate they have on that house—which I think is only fair—
one gentleman in particular stated, "I will move out tomorrow."
In fact, this same gentleman has a portable camper trailer in
his garage, and I said, "I see you must enjoy camping."
He said, "No, I really don't."
I said, "Well, why the trailer?"
And his comment was this, "I go out every other weekend in
that trailer because I prefer the insects to the noise from the
aircraft."
In a letter authorized by this council, now State chartered on
June 21, 1971, this council went on record as supporting Senator
Cranston's bill, Senate bill 1566, and a companion bill introduced
by Congressman Wilson in California, which is House of Repre-
sentatives bill 7523, we support these strongly.
As you gather from my testimony, we are not satisfied that the
people who run the airport and the people who run the operations
at the airport have done all they can. We feel they could have done
more; however, they all have responsibility—the FAA by stating
that the pilot as the captain of his plane, for example, and then
when you call the runway or call the tower up and ask why an air-
plane is going directly north over Mannheim Road, when the cor-
ner of the airport, the southeast corner is at Mannheim and
Irving, you get an answer well, he was vectored to that particular
course, which means he was directed to go over that course.
He may be the pilot of his ship, but it's the FAA that is telling
him where to go, and for that reason our council has taken the
stand that neither the FAA nor the city of Chicago, nor the air-
lines are going to voluntarily retrofit their aircraft, or voluntarily
going to bring noise relief to the citizens, and therefore this
council, in unanimous vote, has asked that this Federal Environ-
mental—I am sorry, it's getting to me, finally—the Environmental
Protection Agency, you, Dr. Meyer, take charge of this, that you
oversee the retrofit of the jet engines, providing that Senator
Cranston's bill is passed, and that you oversee the operation of
O'Hare Airport because we have suggested prior to this at the
meeting with the congressmen, for example, that there be a noise
abatement officer at that airport to utilize sound devices to de-
termine if there are violations, unnecessary violations in the field
of noise, and we ask that your Agency, sir, take on that job, be-
cause obviously the FAA is unwilling to do so.
Dr. MEYER. Thank you very much for your review of the ma-
terial additional to what other representatives of your organiza-
tion have presented. This supplements their presentation.
Before I comment on your last recommendation, panel? Well,
-------
288
let me first make a comment. Since you support the Cranston bill,
you obviously, then, are not against air transportation per se. Is
that a fair statement?
Mr. BLOMBERG. We have no intention of closing the airport, but
we are aware, as we have learned firsthand from the pilots who
fly aircraft out of that airport, that the peak efficiency has since
been passed, and they feel that if they feel that way, obviously we
would have to agree with them that there is even a safety hazard
to the number of aircraft being put into the air; as an example of
this, the limit of aircraft operations at that airport is currently
135 on a temporary basis, and yet the FAA readily admits that
it exceeds this, and thinks nothing about it.
Dr. MEYER. Well, you have answered my question; you recog-
nize that there is a public need and a public utility involved here.
I just wanted to be sure that you are not just antiairplane per se,
and I think it's useful to know what colors your views.
In other words, you are taking a constructive approach. You
think something needs doing, it needs bettering, it needs improv-
ing; the public health and welfare must be protected, which, as
you have shown here, as others, is a problem.
Let me ask you a question. My colleague, Lloyd Hinton, has had
to go, but I know he has been interested in this activity of the
noise council approach which was discussed earlier today. The
idea of representatives of the municipal, dual constituted munici-
pal activities, the mayors, the elected officials, or whatever the
group is, or the councilmen, depending on how each is organized,
I think, what is it, some 23 political jurisdictions around O'Hare?
Mr. BLOMBERG. Actually we state 31, and we are recognized in
21 communities which have a promise that it is going to expand
shortly.
Dr. MEYER. But—
Mr. BLOMBERG. Twenty-one communities by resolution have ap-
pointed a member from their village board to represent them at
the council, on the general council.
Dr. MEYER. Fine, so whatever it is, if there could be some
arrangement in the interim to do what apparently has happened
in Minneapolis, where the council really works with the people
who operate the airport, and their representation is there, and as
you recommend, an airport noise abatement officer who represents
the council and the airport authority to really work together. Do
you think this might provide for a feeling that there is some action
being taken rather than the picture I get out of all of this, that you
have a monolithic organization standing off to one side saying, "Go
away, don't bother us," and a group of people saying, "But we
have got to bother you because you are bothering us."
Mr. BLOMBERG. Yes, sir. I think there is a feeling of total
frustration. I think, if I can give a very short example of this, one
member of our council who lives in Fairview Heights, who is a
citizen member, and one occasion recently we passed material to
him to be forwarded to his village in respect to getting any resolu-
tion from that village supporting the Alan Cranston bill, which a
number of cities and villages and townships have already done,
after contacting him our contacting village officials, I found no in-
formation had been relayed to them, and in calling this gentleman
he stated that, "What is the use," he said, "we have gone there
-------
289
many times before and they will pass resolutions for us and every-
thing else, but they don't do anything about the noise, and that is
what really counts."
Dr. MEYER. Well, I guess I will really sort of point the finger
directly at you. People are quite used to pointblank confronting me
with how I feel about things, so I guess I am going to turn around
and pointblank confront you about how you feel about your
council, instead of writing letters to the various municipalities,
really stepping forward to the city of Chicago, and whoever runs
that airport and say, "Look, we are ready to get together and
organize this joint sort of council based on the one that has been
used four or five different places. Can we do it? Let's see if you
will do it." Have you tried that yet?
Mr. BLOMBERG. I believe I have not. I believe other members of
the council
Dr. MEYER. No, I mean has the council voted to do this, in going
back to their various municipalities and taken the leadership and
saying instead of continuing this impasse we are willing to really
try to come in and work with you for the time being, to try to get
towards this area of solving this very touchy administrative, legal,
and political problem. I am just saying why don't you do that?
Mr. BLOMBERG. Let me put it this way, the FAA does have the
authority to do something about planes that are in the air which
are the ones that bother us. We have attempted to approach the
FAA, and have gotten nowhere, and the city of Chicago disowns
responsibility and says it isn't theirs, even though somebody says
differently, they claim it isn't their responsibility. I don't know
who is putting down the runways, but somebody sure is out there.
Dr. MEYER. My proposal is why don't you try to get together by
using some other political leaders. I am not a politician. Try to
reason together and work this thing out. It should begin to have a
better means of communication through some sort of formalized
arrangements, when you all are proposing them. Then you have
really exposed whether or not people want to cooperate, instead of
everybody standing on their prerogatives. Just like that slide we
saw yesterday, the man with the transportation company, two
policemen arguing—if you were here, you saw the slide, it was a
sports car, one saying, "No, it's not noisy," the other one saying,
"Yes, it is," and the driver is driving away merrily.
I sympathize with you, and we are interested, and we are going
to try to do something about it, we really are, we are going to ac-
cept our responsibility in writing this report to Congress and out-
lining these problems. We are accepting some responsibilities that
are inherent in some of your review of what the other agencies do,
and if we get this legislation that is pending, we are going to push
ahead with it and try to solve the problem. But some of this
clearly has got to be worked out at the State and local levels, and it
would seem to me that with the tremendous effort that you all
have done organizationally, and the magnificent work that you are
doing, as evidenced in the testimony here, that perhaps there is a
chance of now coming forward and saying, "Look, let's try to
organize and discuss some of these problems." Some councils that
have been started around the country are apparently beginning to
work successfully. I am just offering this as a suggestion.
Mr. BLOMBERG. We would be glad to work with anyone, sir.
However, we have found that by being nonpolitical has been the
-------
290
strength of our organization, since both parties are represented in
the suburbs, and this has been the success of the organization for
that reason. Other groups have failed because of politics.
Now, regarding the city of Chicago, we have supported bills
recently, House bills 219 and 220 which were drawn up by a
representative of the city of Chicago. In fact, I was in direct line
of communication with him, suggesting amendments where it
could be improved, where there was, because they were using an
A-scale instead of a D-scale, where they could run into problems
where they would pass noisier planes actually, and call other
planes in violation that weren't as noisy, and the result of that bill
was that when it came through the Senate, as similar bills have
done, that it was killed, and it was killed from the city of Chicago.
I think that answers it. We just have had the door slammed in
our faces. We are willing to talk to anyone, and even recently we
sent letters out to airlines themselves saying, "We will talk to you,
you name the place and we will be there."
But I realize that we still feel we will talk with anyone regard-
less, even if their viewpoint is different, we hope we can both
learn from it, but unfortunately there are other groups apparently
representing the airlines, and so forth. We will find out about
them, but the city of Chicago and the FAA, I apparently don't feel
that way, that is why we have to come to you.
We really have no other place to turn to about this. We cannot
pass laws through our State legislature because, as you are well
aware of, the city of Chicago has dominance in there, and also, of
course, as was pointed out before, a legislator that lives downstate
doesn't have much interest in aircraft noise abatement.
Professor PLACER. Can I join in this just for a moment?
Dr. MEYER. Of course, Professor Plager.
Professor PLAGER. Mr. Blomberg, as part of the problem—I
think what the chairman is suggesting is that, is a most sound
and rational approach. I wonder if part of the problem is that you
can't find anybody to sit down with who will accept the responsi-
bility, or admit that he has the authority to actually come to grips
with the problem.
Mr. BLOMBERG. Yes, sir.
Professor PLAGER. Is that part of the difficulty?
Mr. BLOMBERG. It is.
Professor PLAGER. Everybody says it's somebody else.
Mr. BLOMBERG. It is, indeed.
Dr. MEYER. The finger-pointing business.
Mr. BLOMBERG. Yes. It does, you go around the bush and you
end up right back where you started from, no better off, no worse.
Professor PLAGER. That leaves you with a sense of frustration.
Mr. BLOMBERG. It does.
Dr. MEYER. Thank you very much, sir. We appreciate getting all
of this.
Mr. BLOMBERG. Incidentally, I will submit some of this informa-
tion. I don't have it ready today, but I will submit it.
Dr. MEYER. The record stays open for the next 10 days in case
anybody wants to submit anything after having heard this. Mr.
Tom Hamilton of the planning commission and zoning board of
Elk Grove. I know it has been long for you, sir.
Mr. EDWARDS. The gentleman over here stole my byline, that
the mind can absorb no more than the body seat can endure.
-------
291
This is the first time in a long time that I rushed a half a block
from my office to get here at 1 o'clock so I wouldn't miss the
schedule.
Dr. MEYER. Well, we apologize for the fact that unavoidable
circumstances sometimes preclude sticking with the schedule. We
don't like to do this. We certainly do apologize.
Mr. EDWARDS. I understand it completely, especially since I am
a substitute in taking the place of Mr. Tom Hamilton, of the Elk
Grove Planning and Zoning Commission. He was unable to attend.
STATEMENT OF WARREN EDWARDS, ELK GROVE
AVIATION COMMITTEE
Mr. EpWARRDS. My name is Warren Edwards, a resident of Elk
Grove Village, and member of the Elk Grove Aviation Committee.
In Elk Grove 10 years ago our Elk Grove Aviation Committee was
formed with the purpose of informing the villages of any informa-
tion we could gain about O'Hare Field and the planes flying there,
and to help plan for the future, the right of the citizens and their
property.
We appreciate the value of O'Hare Airport as a neighbor. Elk
Grove boasts of having one of the largest industrial parks in the
world, and both industry and residents benefit by its existence in
its present form. We don't advocate closing the field. However,
there is much that can be done to make us better neighbors, such
as noise abatement procedures, such as Federal commercial noise
standards acceptable to the area residents.
Federal noise abatement flight procedures and the method—and
I underline this—of enforcing these procedures-—I like to call it
that we have to have a good policeman out there. We have got
scads of rules and regulations, but as you have heard in previous
testimony, I and many, many people that know a little bit about
flying know they aren't being followed.
In 1967 Elk Grove adopted a master plan. This plan incorpo-
rated reflection of aviation, residential and industrial growth. It
was based on information garnered from other governmental
agencies which might affect us, such as roads and highways,
recreation, population studies, and the city of Chicago.
Information from Chicago was based on a master plan of
O'Hare Field dated 1964, which clearly forecast double runways in
three directions at the field.
Now, this plan, I speak about the Elk Grove master plan, al-
lowed for buffer zones, air corridors, flight paths over tollways,
forest preserve and industries. Future zoning was passed on the
basis of this master plan. In other words, we have done every-
thing that every agency has recommended that a planned com-
munity should do to protect the interests of the residents, industry,
give the airlines places to fly and fit right into a competent
master plan.
We spent $30,000 of both Federal and local taxpayers money for
this plan. Now, we find the O'Hare plan changed to have triple
runways in three directions, and in our opinion the third airport
is being built right now on top of O'Hare Field. To me there is no
question of that. This makes all our planning for naught, and we
have to discard or disregard our plan. We can't allow this mass
of expansion of both the field and noise to drive our people away.
We value our community. We have done the kind of planning as
-------
292
recommended by NIPC and others and still find ourselves in a
vulnerable position.
There are methods of protecting our people, such as Federal
legislation on the truth in airport expansion act. We got it in the
credit field, why can't we have it here?
Dr. MEYER. Very good.
Mr. EDWARDS. A truth in airport area real estate act. Com-
mercial developers informing potential customers or buyers where
they are.
A truth in assessed valuation act. This would have to do with
homes in a noise impact area. Sometimes you can find a little
physical relief if somebody is given a little financial relief. This
seems to be human nature. I hope I have added to the general fund
of knowledge, and appreciate the time you have given us. Thank
you.
Dr. MEYER. Well, one of the significant things that you have just
said is one that I certainly can carry forward into the hearing in
Dallas on urban planning. And that is the need for meshing up all
of these different planning activities.
The Federal Government is assisting with financial grant plan-
ning through HUD, planning through a variety of other agencies;
we have all sorts of "master plans" and I know in my own home
town of Shreveport, La., we have had at least five different ap-
proaches to what the downtown and the region and so on ought to
look like in the year 2000, or in the year 1980. And I think your
point is well made.
People—I am talking about the taxpayer who spends that
money, no question about it—invest public funds in a planning ac-
tivity, and because of a lack of coordination in planning we wind
up wasting them. It seems to me to be a rather disastrous situa-
tion, and I think the record and audience ought to know that the
President's 1971 environmental legislative package does carry
with it, in addition to the noise control bill, a regional land use
planning bill in which some of the problems that you have just
mentioned will be solved if this legislation is enacted in this ses-
sion of Congress. It will require that all of these considerations of
noise, airport planning, water pollution, highway planning and so
on to be approached in a comprehensive regional manner, and
still recognize, as I feel as a Federal official has to be said, that a
great burden of responsibility by the American Constitution rests
with the States, and the cities, and unless they want to abrogate
those rights to the Federal Government, they should be preserved.
And this present legislation takes that into account, but the point
really is we have got to get some order into this, and it extends
into all areas of the environment, as well as noise. But your point
I think is a very important one, and I made a note on it to remind
myself to be sure we include this in the hearings that deal purely
with planning. Thank you very much.
Professor PLACER. Only to echo that, I thought your point about
truth in real estate sales practices is also very good.
Mr. EDWARDS. We call it real estate act. We still sell a lot of
homes in Elk Grove. My only other point—I am sorry the cameras
left—I wore a purple shirt.
Dr. MEYER. Thank you very much, sir. As I said, I think you
have given us something to carry on. Next we will hear from Mr.
John Kerrigan.
-------
293
STATEMENT OF JOHN KERRIGAN, CITIZENS AGAINST NOISE
Mr. KERRIGAN. Mr. Chairman, panel members, my name is John
Kerrigan; I am a member of two citizens groups, the Campaign
Against Pollution, and Citizens Against Noise. The reason I am a
member of Campaign Against Pollution and Citizens Against
Noise is I live in Chicago, on the northwest side, about 41/2 to 5
miles east of Runway 27 right, in the area called Norwood Park.
In our community aircraft noise is a 7 day a week, 365 day a
year operation. We live, work and play with aircraft noise pollu-
tion as our constant companion. From 7 a.m. in the morning until
10 or 11 p.m. at night we are bombarded at regular 1 to 2 minute
intervals by a screaming jet plane.
In the words of a tower controller, this runway is heavily used
for both takeoffs and landings, approximately 600 a day. We have
got the people from Minneapolis beat by quite a bit on one runway.
However, in all fairness I must admit we enjoy the luxury of a
quiet, relatively quiet evening between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m., which
is precisely the reason we are assembled here. We would like to
extend the luxury of relative quiet to 24 hours.
Gentlemen, the people of the northwest side are upset about the
noise problem, but they are also upset at the apparent lack of
activity in dealing with this problem. The city administration, and
Congressman Pucinski have told members of the Campaign
Against Pollution that they are concerned with the problem of
noise around the airport, but that the Federal Government is the
only agency that can do anything about this problem.
Yesterday Mr. Poston testified in behalf of the city of Chicago,
and let the people of Chicago down. Our official environmental di-
rector had no specific recommendations to make to the Federal
Government concerning aircraft noise pollution—not only have
our local officials failed us, but some of our State officials. The
members of the Campaign Against Pollution presented to the
Illinois Pollution Control Board for adoption the California or-
dinance, or noise standards.
Three months have passed since these hearings, and nothing
has come from the Illinois Pollution Control Board. People of the
northwest side are upset by the apparent inactivity because of the
seriousness of the noise problem around O'Hare.
I would like to temper my remarks directed at the State, in view
of Mr. Desmond's previous testimony, I wasn't aware they were
that active. However, the present city administration, while carry-
ing out its responsibility to the air traveler, has neglected to
preserve and protect the rights of the citizens who live here or
around the airport.
As airport proprietor they have consistently taken a Pontius
Pilate view of airport noise abatement; that is, they have washed
their hands of the whole affair, but they must surely recognize the
existence of other noise problems as attested by the recent adop-
tion of a recent noise ordinance, but can you imagine the scene of
a block full of homeowners receiving summonses for operating a
lawn mower too loudly, while overhead a screaming jet obliterates
all sound, and continues on its arrogant way?
We in the city would like, and truly hope to receive a more
aggressive program in the area of aircraft noise abatement. How-
ever, while we feel government in general has been lax in ad-
dressing themselves to the problems of aircraft noise abatement,
-------
294
you must admit the airlines themselves are the ones who have
failed to act with common decency and moral responsibility.
They have been protected and coddled far too long. Since the
advent of the commercial jet in 1959, 12 years ago, relatively little
has been done by the airlines to reduce noise. For them, never
will be the right time to retrofit and muffle engines. Despite their
public relations claims no relief is noticeable. Long range stalling
and foot dragging is totally unacceptable to the people who are
begging for relief now or in the very near future. We must cer-
tainly hope that this agency will be more successful in carrying
out noise abatement programs than other Government bodies have
been in the past.
Dr. MEYER. We are going to give it a try.
Mr. KERRIGAN. That is about it, sir.
Dr. MEYER. Fine. Thank you very much, sir. I appreciate getting
the information.
Mr. KERRIGAN. Thank you.
Dr. MEYER. We can't guarantee anything, but we are going to
try.
Mr. KERRIGAN. We appreciate it, sir.
Dr. MEYER. Is Mr. Wendell P. Berwick of the Thomas 0. Myers
Real Estate Organization, Inc., here?
Mr. BERWICK. Yes, sir.
Dr. MEYER. You are another patient gentleman, and again, we
apologize for the length of time.
Mr. BERWICK. Yes.
STATEMENT OF WENDELL P. BERWICK
Mr. BERWICK. I think the location is important, it's 491 North
York in Elmhurst, and we sell in all of Du Page County. When the
Morrison Hotel was on Madison Street you could talk to your
companion as you walked along the street. Now the First National
Bank scoops up the noise and shoots it down on the street. You
have to shout to your companion if you are talking as you go along
the street, and you give it up. Apparently the Chicago planners are
making mistakes. It appears that there is an increasing use of the
airport.
If you sit in your backyard in Elmhurst, 7 miles south of the
airport, you hear the airplanes all the time. They are like thunder.
When you think one has passed, there is an extra reverberation,
then the next one comes. Only those who can afford extra insula-
tion and central air-conditioning can really enjoy the summer.
Recognizing that we have plundered our planet with little re-
gard for the future, 11 of us from the nation formed a pollution
conference for the Methodist Board of Christian and Social Con-
cerns in Washington in 1961. Yet 10 years later many still do not
care, when dollars are involved, whether there will be enough
water for their grandchildren, or whether the air contains lead.
To give you some personal experiences, a week ago I had a re-
ferral of a buyer of a $50,000 home who was told by a pilot that
Elmhurst is in the pattern, and really we hadn't thought of our-
selves as that way. I said, "You must mean Elk Grove," and I
showed him a $53,000 home in Elmhurst. However, when he came
out of the house, zoom, roar and thunder, and we could not con-
verse. Needless to say, this referral did not, believe me, did not
-------
295
buy in Elmhurst, and will not come back. That person believes we
have an air and sound pollution in Elmhurst.
Again I was showing a trilevel there, and when we came out of
the home, zoom, zoom, two planes, and the odor of the planes was
thrown down at us by the wind. This does not always happen in
Elmhurst, in the northern part of Elmhurst it often happens; just
about all the time in Wood Dale and you heard one of their men
speak.
These people bought farther west. We recently sold a 22-year-
old home in Wood Dale that was listed with us under a flight
pattern, for a mere $36,000, that would easily—that home would
easily have brought $46,000 if there were no planes overhead, so
low you could identify them. The owner of this home lost the
$10,000.
I personally have a sonic boom crack in my home. It took four
evenings to repair. All of us are afflicted with this, and if you have
any connection with those airlines, whenever I fly them, my ears
hurt a week later. I would rather go a little slower and not so
high, and get there a little slower than suffer with my ears.
If this noise level continues to increase, property values in Elm-
hurst, an ideal community with a college, hospital and YMCA
will go down. My contribution to the hearing is to let you know
that this noise problem is spreading 7 miles south of the O'Hare
Airport. Thank you.
Dr. MEYER. I appreciate very much getting those dollar figures.
I wonder if you might, for the record—and I don't need to know,
you know, specific addresses, because that might be embarrassing
—but I would like some information on some similar information
of that sort that you might have of property values that have been
affected. It would be very useful to us.
Mr. BERWICK. I could send you a copy of the listing, and
probably some comparables of what it could have brought, such as
built 22 years ago, brick home, et cetera.
Dr. MEYER. I would like to have that. That would be very useful
to us; that kind of data is very hard to come by, and your coming
forward with it would be very useful.
Professor PLACER. Can I ask a couple of quick questions, as long
as we are all here, we may as well maximize our opportunity.
Dr. MEYER. Go ahead.
Professor PLACER. You are a real estate
Mr. BERWICK. Broker, salesman with Thomas 0. Myers.
Professor PLACER. Fine. Are you a member of the Illinois Board
of—what is it?
Mr. BERWICK. Illinois Association of Real Estate Boards; our
organization is.
Professor PLACER. Your organization is ?
Mr. BERWICK. Yes.
Professor PLACER. What is your reaction, as a realtor, to the
suggestion made by one of the immediately preceding speakers
here for having some sort of a truth in real estate transaction law,
or a disclosure provision; what is your personal reaction?
Mr. BERWICK. I didn't know just what he meant, because we
certainly are regulated by law in the State, so that the truth has to
be stated in advertising, so I
-------
296
Professor PLACER. I think what he has in mind, or I take it
what he has in mind is a provision similar to the present require-
ment for violations of housing codes, for example an affirmative
statement included in the land sale contract that this house is
subject to certain kinds of noise levels, or something like that.
Mr. BERWICK. Oh, I see what you mean. Well, they are very
obvious when you show the home. One lady would tell me, "It just
seems uncanny that every time one of you men call, that the home
is going to be shown for 2 or 3 days, I can't hear myself think,
they just zoom."
She, for a few years, her house was for sale. Evidently the pat-
tern has changed some, but the people realize that, and what my
concern is that it is affecting my pocketbook. I am losing sales that
I never imagined I would be losing over this noise. It is getting
louder and more frequent.
Professor PLACER. But from the viewpoint of insuring that
prospective buyers and realtors who are engaged in the business
are fully informed, what would be your reaction to a requirement,
a State law, what have you, Federal law, whatever
Mr. BERWICK. You mean if a man moves here from Connecticut
to buy a home he should be forewarned there is such a decibel
reading in that home? Yes, I would not have bought in Elmhurst
when I came from Connecticut 8 years ago with the noise level
was what it is today.
Professor PLACER. As a member of the real estate profession,
would you support a legal requirement that there be that kind of
affirmative disclosure in real estate contracts?
Mr. BERWICK. I would really have to sell someplace else, because
now Elmhurst is a lovely town, has a great deal to offer, but I am
afraid the noise level has increased. I, myself, would not have
moved there 8 years ago, and I am hoping you fellows prevent the
expansion of this. I couldn't tell what the Illinois task force hopes
to do on this because I guess they are still formulating an opinion
on it, but I am against expansion, as these aldermen and mayors
are.
Professor PLACER. What would you predict would be the view of
the Illinois board, the Illinois Association of Real Estate Boards
on a mandatory disclosure requirement in areas subject to noise
from aircraft operations? Would you care to comment on that?
Mr. BERWICK. It would really hurt the homeowners in the area,
like under the flight pattern in Wood Dale, in some sections of
Bensenville—Mayor Varble could tell you it would really, if the
Government were going to subsidize them, like I heard they did
for sonic booms, that might be fine, but I would hate to hurt those
people more than they are, because they are taking a loss, they are
taking a beating.
For example, this particular woman whose house I must have
shown two dozen times, because I felt it was a good value, even
despite that, took a loss. I would say her house was sold for $4,000
less and took 2 years to sell.
Dr. WHITCOMB. Aren't you saying what would be bad for one
group of people?
Mr. BERWICK. The homeowners would suffer.
Dr. WHITCOMB. The buyers would find it very bad, so you can't
do it, really in good conscience?
-------
297
Mr. BERWICK. Now, I had attended this pollution conference in
Washington in the early sixties, so I elected to move straight west
of Elmhurst to escape Gary, and 7 miles south of the airport to
escape the fumes. I understand one jet airplane equals 3,000 auto-
mobiles, so I thought I was making a good choice ecologically 8
years ago, but now this airport has expanded a great deal, so I
came down here to let you know that it is affecting us in Elmhurst.
Professor PLACER. Thank you.
Mr. BERWICK. Thank you.
Dr. MEYER. Thank you very much. Is Mr. Vernon Lindahl here?
Mr. Lindahl?
(No response.)
Dr. MEYER. We have two statements that we will put in the
record, one from Congressman Mikva and the other from Alder-
man Despres.
STATEMENT OF CONGRESSMAN ABNER J. MIKVA,
SECOND DISTRICT, ILLINOIS BEFORE THE U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY, REGION IV, HEARINGS ON NOISE
POLLUTION, CHICAGO, ILL., JULY 29, 1971.
Congressman MIKVA. In one way or another, all of us are here
to make some noise about noise. Peace and quiet have become such
rare and precious commodities in this country that their pursuit
is now a Federal case. Noise has made them rare commodities,
noise-—incessant or occasional, in the factory or in the home.
It is almost impossible to escape it in urban America. Very few
people have developed an immunity to it. Noise is one thing that is
almost everywhere—the United States is immersed in what one
expert called "acoustic anarchy." That term is rather apt. Almost
anything that "works" in this technological society of ours makes
noise: vacuum cleaners, snowmobiles, jet planes, lawnmowers,
trucks, the elevated trains, motorcycles, sirens. We even talk
louder than we have to.
And I have been told that some rock bands have a stipulation in
their contracts that they can perform above a minimum sound
level. On the decibel scale, that level happens to be a bit louder
than a jet plane.
Noise is no longer a nuisance—no longer something that gets on
old people's nerves—noise is now a public health problem of sig-
nificant proportions. The World Health Organization studied the
problem recently. It concluded that, in terms of accidents, absen-
teeism, inefficiency and compensation claims, industrial noise alone
costs $4 billion a year. Noise can make the blood vessels constrict,
dilate the pupils, and it is a major cause of nervous stress. And it
goes without saying that noise makes people lose their hearing.
Noise is environmental pollution of the first order. But because
it is so pervasive, the problem is not as dramatic as black smoke
billowing from a plant—or raw sewage streaming into a river.
One of my colleagues in Congress has called noise pollution the
stepchild of the environmental movement. That has been true—at
least until now—but difficult to understand. You can turn your
back and not see the smoke billowing from a factory or the
sewage in the river—but the noise: you can't turn your back on
it. And noise pollution is no less harmful, no less menacing than
other kinds of pollution.
-------
298
The right to a quiet, peaceful environment—free from the in-
trusion of unwanted and harmful noise, is as basic as the right to
clean air, clean water and pure food. We reached a point several
years ago with air and water pollution where we simply said
"enough," and we began demanding legislation to clean up the air
and the water. I hope we finally are reaching that same point with
noise pollution. The only alternative is to resign ourselves to living
in what amounts to a coast-to-coast boiler factory.
Urban noise has doubled since 1955—it may double again by
1980. Perhaps as many as 20 million people in this country have
some kind of hearing impairment—primarily because of excess
noise. Perhaps as many as 16 million workers labor under con-
ditions unsafe for hearing. Current laws do not really protect
citizens from the dangers of excess noise. The Environmental
Protection Agency has taken some steps in the right direction.
Hearings like this one call attention to the problem. But more
legislation is needed.
Congress has the responsibility here. And I would like to take a
few minutes to tell you what we are trying to dp about it. This
session, I cosponsored a package of four bills designed to combat
the noise pollution crisis in the United States. I will explain each
one briefly.
The first is the Office of Noise Abatement and Control Appropri-
ations Bill (H.R. 6985). In 1970, amendments to the Clean Air
Act authorized $30 million for such a noise control office, but the
administration has refused to request the money. This fiscal year,
for example, only $300,000 were allocated. This new bill will
guarantee the complete use of the funds for the control office.
Next is the Noise Abatement and Control Act of 1971 (H.R.
6987). The appropriations bill gives the noise abatement and con-
trol office the money—this act gives the office the power and the
responsibility to attack noise pollution directly. It directs the
office to set standards for all machinery making noise that may
endanger the public health, and it gives the office the power to
enforce those standards. The act also makes it possible for the
Federal Government to help local governments combat the noise
problem at their own level.
The Occupational Noise Control Act of 1971 (H.R. 6991) is the
third part of the package. Prolonged exposure to noise levels above
85 decibels can result in permanent hearing damage. Yet, under
the present standards, 90 decibels is the limit for normal factory
operation. This act would change that. It requires the Secretary
of Labor to set standards reducing the noise level by 10 decibels—
that means that the noise is cut in half. The noise pollution bill
offered by the Nixon administration is weaker than this. It is not
as inclusive—it is not as forceful—it does not allow for stricter
standards at the local levels of government.
The fourth and last section is the Noise Disclosure Act (H.R.
6989). One of the prime reasons that noise has increased so much
over the last few decades is that the consumer has been unable to
get reliable information on product noise. This bill would require
all new mechanical and electrical equipment, with but a few ex-
ceptions, to carry a label indicating its operational noise level.
The consumer can then take the noise level into account before he
buys something. That would be an incentive for the manufacturer
-------
299
to come up with a "quieter" product. I am placing a copy of the
four bills in the record of this hearing.
These bills will not become law—the cities will not get any
quieter—until we bring more pressure to bear on public officials
—until we make the public more aware of the health problem
that excessive noise represents. We have been studying noise in
this country for some time now. People in Europe have been con-
cerned about it for even longer. History tells us that there was a
public outcry over excessive bellowing and quacking in the public
markets of England—in 1800. And Queen Elizabeth I was sup-
posed to have considered passing a law that prevented a husband
from beating his wife after 10 o'clock at night. The wailing and
crying disturbed the neighbors. We have been disturbed long
enough, too.
We have studied noise pollution—we have been concerned about
it—we know it is a major public health hazard. Now, all we have
to do is to do something about it. Thank you.
STATEMENT OF LEON M. DESPRES, ALDERMAN, CITY OF
CHICAGO
Mr. DESPRES. Two of the worst noise polluters in the Chicago
area still operate almost free of noise regulations. And so far no
one in city or State government appeal's committed to tackling
them. I refer to Chicago's airports and the Chicago Transit
Authority. The constitutents I represent suffer acutely from the
noise pollution of both of them. On both of them we need Federal
help.
The Federal Government's power to act against noise emissions
from the airports is direct and clear. Its power to act against the
CTA is indirect but decisive, through Federal grants for urban
transportation.
Three Chicago airports are within the city limits. O'Hare di-
rectly affects 2 million people. Midway, which the city wants to
continue to reactivate, may simply take part of the problem away
from O'Hare, but still keep it in the city. Meigs is on the lake-
front.
In the Chicago noise ordinance, the mayor and the city council
squarely avoided the airport issue. Although I believe the city has
considerable power to act on airport noise, the city law depart-
ment said that the city lacks such power. Consequently the
ordinance was silent on airports, but unfortunately the airports
are not silent. Since the city has not acted, the Federal Govern-
ment should act quickly; and it should act because scattered
disparate noise regulation by municipal bodies cannot solve the
aircraft noise problem. Airlines attempting to meet varying
standards across the country may end by meeting none. It is high
time that comprehensive, uniform, adequate Federal noise pollu-
tion standards be adopted for airports.
Of similar proportions is the noise from Chicago's rapid transit
lines. In responding to the CTA noise problem, the Chicago city
government has chosen to talk with the CTA rather than govern
its operations by ordinance.
Some experts say that CTA rapid transit train noise levels are
high enough to induce some hearing damage. I agree with them.
A commuter who uses the rapid transit system five to 10 times
weekly over a period of years is likely to experience hearing
loss. Precise measurements have recorded regular sound levels of
-------
300
105 decibels on the A scale at 45 feet from the track's center.
The average noise level seems to fluctuate between 90 and 100
decibels. As the subway trains screech around curves, the noise is
worse. CTA spokesmen have said they can reduce noise somewhat,
but lack the necessary equipment and money to do an adequate
job.
The Federal Government's direct authority to regulate CTA
noise is uncertain; but, it does have a powerful weapon in the local
transportation grants CTA must have to survive. Under the 1969
"National Environmental Policy Act," major Government-financed
construction must be planned to produce minimal impact on the
environment. Since Chicago requires heavy Federal capitalization
to construct the Central Subway and outlying distributor systems,
Federal noise criteria for public transportation would require
Chicago to meet the criteria, or lose Federal funds.
We need your help to reduce noise. We ask your help. We hope
you hear us.
Dr. MEYER. That concludes our schedule of witnesses, and I
thank everybody who has been here. I have found this to be a
very informative and useful session. I hope that we will be able to
live up to the expectations and desires of people who have made
their views known. This hearing on noise is hereby adjourned.
(Whereupon, at 7:30 p.m., the hearing was adjourned.)
<• U & GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE 1973—514-152/173
------- |