50272- 101
REPORT COCUMENTATI ’N I REPORTNO 2
3 fleoprentsAccesson
PAGE
4 Tide and Subtdle
& Report Date
The Status of Key State and Local Noise Control Programs That Served as a Basis for
l)lscontinuing a Federal Program in 1982.
Completed January 1990
6
MUihor(s)
Joseph J. Soporowski, III
8 Pedorming Organloalion Rept No
9 Performing Orgartlzalion Name and Address
Cook College
Department of Environmental Science
10 ProJect/Task/Work Und No
ii Contract(C) or Grant(G) No
Rutgers University
P.O. Box 231
(C)
New Brunswick, New Jersey 08903
( 0)
12 Sponsoring Organization Name and Address
13 Type of Report & Pared Cosered
U S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Cooperative Environmental Management
499 South Capitol Street, SW A-101-F6
1.
Tec nical Report
14
15 Supptementary Notes
16 Abstract (Umb 200 words)
90-1208 The Status of Key State and Local Noise Control Programs That Served as a Basis for Dis-
continuing a Federal Program in 1982
This report is part of the National Network for Environmental Management Studies under
the auspices of the Office of Cooperative Environmental Management of the the US Environ-
n’ental Protection Agency
This study has been undertaken to assess the validity of assumptions made by the United
Les Environmental Protection Agency in September, 1982, that led to the closing of its Office of
Noise Control and Abatement
The study examines the level of state and local noise abatement and control programs activ-
ity currently underway
An attempt has been made to ascertain the effect (positive or negative) of the discontinu-
ance of the federal program on state and local programs These results are compared with the
anticipated results in 1982
17 Docuement Analysis a. Docuement Discr tors
b ldontlfIersJ( en-Ended Terms
C COSATI FIeld/Group
abIility Statement 19 SecurIty Class (This Report) 2t No of Pages
Unclassified
20 Security Class (This Page) 22 Price
Unclassified
(See ANSI•Z39 18)
OPTiMAL FORM 272(4 77)
(F merIy NTiS-iS)
Department of Commerce
-------
THE STATUS OF KEY STATE AND LOCAL NOISE CONTROL PROGRAMS
THAT SERVED AS A BASIS FOR DISCONTINUING A FEDERAL PROGRAM
IN 1982.
JANUARY. 1990
A National Network For Environmental Management
Studies Pro]ect.
Survey Conducted
And Report Prepared By:
JOSEPH J. SOPOROWSKI, III
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE
COOK COLLEGE, RUTGERS UNIVERSITY
Prepared For:
KENNETH E. FEITH
OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
-------
DISCLAIMER
This report was furnished to the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency by the graduate student identified on the cover page, under
a National Network for Environmental Management Studies
fellowship.
The contents are essentially as received from the author. The
opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed are those of the author
and not necessarily those of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Mention, if any, of company, process, or product names is
not to be considered as an endorsement by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.
-------
TABLE OF CONT TS
TITLE PAGE NU ER
Preface •.•sS•.S,......................................... S—i
Acknowledgements . ........ . .... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • ....... •1• S—2
Executive S .uiiinary •..... •...... . . . . . •. . . . . . . . . . . . . . , . , . •..
I. Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . •. 1
II . Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
General Methodology . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
Survey Methodology 2
Local Survey Methodology . 3
State Survey Methodology 4
Fate Of U.S.E.P.A. Noise Technical
Assistance Center Methodology 5
III. Survey Response . 6
Local Survey Response ........ ............. 6
State Survey response . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
U.S.E.P.A. Noise Technical
Assistance Center Response ..................... 6
IV. Municipal Survey Results 7
Percentage Of Respondents That
Currently Have, Or Do Not Have,
A Municipal Noise Control Program 7
Number Of Full-time Municipal Employees
That Usually Spend More Than 20% Of Their
Work Week On Noise Control Activities 8
Noise Control Program Activities
Present At The Municipal Level . . 9
Progress Made By Municipalities Over
The Last Eight Years 10
Activity Level Of Municipal Programs
After The Withdrawal Of The Federal Program .... 12
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS CONTINUED
TITLE PAGE NUMBER
Rating Of Efforts To Control Noise In
Existing Municipal Noise Control Programs ...... 13
Opinions By Municipalities On The
Usefulness Of Reinstituting A Federal
Noise Control Program .......................... 14
Municipal View On Ways A Federal Noise
Program Can Be Of Use To Those Programs 15
Reasons Given By Municipalities Why They
Never Had A Noise Control Program . .. ..... 17
Reasons Given By Municipalities That Once
Had A Noise Control Program For No Longer
HavingThosePrograrns . ..........18
V. Municipal Noise Control Program Summary 19
VI. State Survey Results 25
Number Of Respondents That Currently Have,
Or, Do Not Have, A State Noise Control
Program 25
Number Of Full-time State Employees That
Usually Spend More Than 20% Of Their Work
Week On Noise Control Activities . . . 26
Noise Control Program Activities Present
At the State Level . . . . . . . •...... 27
Progress Made By The States Over The
Last Eight Years 28
Activity Level Of State Programs After The
Withdrawal Of The Federal Noise Control
Program 30
Rating Of Efforts To Control Noise In
Existing State Noise Control Programs 31
Opinions By States On The Usefulness Of
Reinstituting A Federal Noise Control
Program 32
State View On Ways A Federal Program Can
Be Of Use To Those Programs 33
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS CONTINUED
TITLE PAGE NUMBER
Reasons Given By States Why They Never
HadANoisecontrolprogram........... .35
Reasons Given By States That Once Had
Noise Control Programs For No Longer
Having Those Programs .................. 36
VI. State Noise Control Program Sununary ................ 37
VII. Summary Of E.P.A. Regional Noise Technical
Assistance Centers . . •..... . . . . . . . . . . . 38
VIII.Su m mnaryAndConclusions
Reduction In Quantity Of State And Local
Noise Control Programs 41
Reduction In Quality Of State And Local
Noise Control Programs ... . 42
Progress Made By State And Local
Programs Over The Last 8 Years ......... 43
Activity Level And Efforts Of Existing
State And Local Noise Control’ Programs 44
Usefulness Of Reinstituting A Federal
Noise Control Program 45
Reasons Given By Municipalities And States
For No Longer Having A Noise Control Program ... 46
Fate Of U.S.E.P.A. Regional Noise Technical
Assistance Centers 47
Appendix A - Municipal And State Questionnaires ... A-i
Municipal Questionnaire A-i
State Questionnaire A-7
Appendix B - Second Mailing Letter To States
Not Responding After 6 Weeks 3-1
Appendix C - E.P.A. Noise technical Assistance
Center Request For Information
Letter c-i
Appendix D - Local and State Survey Response
And Date Received .... D-l
-------
PREFACE
-------
PREFACE
This study has been undertaken to access the validity of
assumptions made by the United States Environmental ProtectiorL
Agency (U.S. EPA) in September, 1982, that led to the closing of
its Office of Noise Control and Abatement.
The study examines the level of state and local noise
abatement and control programs activity currently underway.
An attempt has been made to ascertain the effect (positive
or negative) of the discontinuance of the federal program on
state and local programs. These results are compared with the
anticipated results in 1982.
s—i
-------
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
-------
A KNOWLE1)GEMENTS
This report was funded by a fellowship granted by the
National Network For Environmental Management Studies (NNEMS),
U.S. EPA.
The following individuals and/or institutions deserve
special recognition for their contribution in preparation of this
report:
Dr. Raymond NI. Manganelli
Professor, Environmental Science
Rutgers University
Mr. Edward J. Dipolvere
Chief, Office of Noise Control
N.J. Department of Environmental
Protection
Ms. Janice Ballou
Director For The Center For Public
Interest Polling
Eagleton Institute of Politics,
Rutgers University
Mr. Jeff Fletcher
Publications Director,
National League of Cities
S—2
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
In 1982, the U.S. EPA decided to discontinue it’s federal
noise control program on the assumption that noise abatement and
control programs initiated at the state and local levels would
continue without federal assistance. The results of this study
suggest that state and local noise control programs have not
lived up to these expectations. Although regulations initiated
by the 1971. Noise Control Act, as amended by the Quiet
Communities Act in 1978, are still in effect, local and state
noise control programs do not have the ability to enforce them.
This inability is due to a significant reduction in quantity and
quality of existing state and local noise control programs.
It appears that without a federal noise abatement and
control program, noise problems have been dealt with on a “As
Needed” as opposed to “Preventive Basis” by both municipalities
and states.
Funding should be provided to reinstitute a federal noise
program capable of implementing the 1971 Noise Control Act
provisions. Such a program would not have to be as comprehensive
as the one in operation before 1982. However, the decision to
discontinue all aspects of the program, in 1982, has created
situation where regulations still in effect are unenforceable.
It has been indicated in this study that a federal program
would be of help in a variety of specific areas such as providing
public information materials, national/regional/state workshops,
noise control program on-site technical assistance, noise
measurement equipment, and man power training workshops
However, the most important way in which a federal presence wou
be of help would be filling the role of “Watchman” to ensure tha:
municipalities and states are indeed progressing in the noise
control field.
At the present time, there is no one to whom states r
municipalities can turn to for advice and/or help in the noise
control field. Appropriation of federal monies to reinstitute
small scale noise control program at the federal level wou :
alleviate this problem.
S—3
-------
INTRODUCTION
-------
INTRODUCTION
Noise pollution is a problem affecting millions of Americans
each day. Noise has been proven to cause both physical (auditory
and non-auditory), as well as psychological damage to human
beings. A person’s hearing can be damaged by noise. This is
known as an auditory effect. When physical damage other than
noise induced hearing loss occurs because of noise, it is
referred to as a non-auditory physical effect. Examples of this
are: changes in breathing patterns, ulcers, and stress related
ailments. Noise can also effect the human organism
psychologically by degrading the quality of life through
interferences in communication, sleep, concentration, and
relaxation.
The Noise Control Act of 1971, as amended by the Quiet
Communities Act of 1978, states that “The people of the State are
entitled to an environment free from noise which unnecessarily
degrades the quality of life; that the levels of noise in the
community have reached such a degree as to endanger the health,
safety, and welfare of the people of this State as well as the
integrity of the environment; and that this threat can be abated
by the adoption and enforcement of noise standards embodied in
regulations.” A United States Environmental protection Agency
(U.S. EPA) Noise Control Program was established to promote an
environment free from unnecessary noise pollution. However, in
1982, following the U.S. EPA t 5 decision to discontinue the
Federal Noise Control Program, Congress ceased funding for the
program. The basis for discontinuing the federal program was the
administrative assumption that noise abatement and contrcl
programs that were initiated at the state and local level woud
continue without significant federal assistance.
Concern about the national noise pollution control efforts
without a federal noise control program, prompted an
investigation of the current noise control efforts on the state
and local level.
The purpose of this study is to provide an overview of the
status of key state and local noise control programs that served
as a basis for discontinuing a federal program in 1982. This
study is not intended as an in-depth analysis of the noise
pollution control situation in the United States.
While the data gathered in this study may suggest additicna
areas of research concern, those areas were not investigated, ar.d
thus, are not addressed here. This study is a summary within the
context of the data obtained through a survey as described.
—1—
-------
METHODOLOGY
-------
GENERAL METHODOLOGY
The majority of the data contained in this study has been
obtained through a survey of state and local noise control
programs that had existed prior to the withdrawal of the federal
program in 1982. Additional information was gathered through: 1)
written and oral cornrrtunication with former and current noise
control officers (state and local) throughout the United States,
2) investigation of the National Association of Noise Control
Officers (NANCO) files, and 3) literature review of recovered
U.S.E.P.A. noise pollution documents.
SURVEY METHODOLOGY
The survey conducted consists of three components:
1. Local Noise Control Programs.
2. State Noise Control Programs.
3. Fate of U.S.E.P.A. Regional Noise Technical
Assistance Centers.
A survey questionnaire was developed for both the state
local noise control programs. A form letter was developed f::
the former directors of the once existing E.P.A. Noise Techr.:a.
Assistance Centers.
The questionnaires for the state and local noise con:::.
programs are similar with the exception of several variatiors
the questions designed specifically for each.
—2—
-------
LOCAL SURVEY METHODOLOGY
The procedure for distribution of the survey questionnaires
to local noise control programs was as follows:
1. Survey’s were sent to 205 municipalities determined
by the National League of Cities as having a noise
control program prior to 1982.
2. Responses were received and tallied for 11 weeks to
ensure best response.
Responses were processed by:
1. Entering properly completed survey data into a
running tally.
2. Following up improperly completed forms with
telephone calls to clarify inconsistent responses.
In order to obtain an idea of the status of those loca
noise control programs not responding to the survey, te
programs, one from each J.S.EPA Region, were chosen at randc ’
and contacted by telephone.
—3—
-------
STATE SURVEY METHODOLOGY
The procedure for distribution of the survey questionnaires
to state noise control programs was as follows:
1. Survey’s were sent to 21 states determined as
having a noise control program prior to 1982.
2. A form letter and second survey mailing was sent
to all state programs not responding by the 6th
week. States not having a noise control program
were instructed to indicate that fact and return
the form letter.
3. Responses were received and tallied for 11 weeks to
ensure best response.
Responses were processed by:
1. Entering properly completed survey data into a
running tally.
2. Following up improperly completed forms with
telephone calls to clarify inconsistent respcr ses.
In order to gain at least a yes/no answer regarding -e
status of a noise control program in all 21 states, telepho e
calls were made to all states not responding to either the sur’.ey
or form letter.
—4—
-------
FATE OF U.S.EP,A. NOISE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CENTER METHODOLOGY
A form letter was sent to all former directors of the once
existing U.S.E.P.A. Noise Technical Assistance Centers reguesti.ng
written information on the fate of those centers.
Communication by telephone was made to all responding
parties.
Telephone communication was attempted with former directors
not responding to the letter.
—5—
-------
SURVEY RESPONSE
-------
SURVEY RESPONSE
LOCAL SURVEY RESPONSE
Of the 205 municipalities that were sent questionnaires, 93
(45%) completed and returned the survey.
12 of those municipalities returning a form indicated that
there had never been a noise control program in their conuiiunity.
After further investigation of this matter, it was found that 8
of the 12 officials were unaware that a program had existed in
their municipalities. The other four municipalities were found
to have never had a noise control program, but were in the stage
of beginning one when the federal program was discontinued.
STATE SURVEY RESPONSE
Of the 21 states that were sent questionnaires, responses
were obtained from 20 (95%). 11 states responded by completing
the original survey form, 4 responded to the second mailing and
returned the form letter, and the remaining 5 were contacted in
the telephone follow up.
U.S.E.P.A. NOISE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CENTER RESPONSE
Of the 10 former directors of the Regional Noise Technica
Assistance Centers that were sent a request for informaticr
letter, 4 responded.
Attempts to reach the remaining 6 individuals by telephone
were unsuccessful.
—6—
-------
MUNICIPAL SURVEY RESULTS
-------
PERCENTAGE OF RESPONDENTS THAT CUR.RENTLY HAVE, OR DO NOT HAVE, A
MUNICIPAL NOISE .CONTROL PROGRAM
Municipalities were asked if they currently had a noise
control program. A noise control program was defined as a
program having the following: funding, staff, equipment and
enforcement of a law or ordinance which includes decibel (noise
level) limits in any one of the following areas: vehicles,
property line, construction and/or land use. The municipality
could be considered to have a noise control program without
specific municipal legislation as long as some other federal,
state, or county law or ordinance was enforced.
All 93 responding municipalities answered this question.
The percentages of their responses were as follows:
TABLE I
PERCENTAGE OF MUNICIPALITIES HAVING A NOISE CONTROL PROGRAM
REPORT PERCENT
Currently Have A Noise Control Program 82%
Currently Do Not Have Noise Control Program 18%
—7—
-------
NUMBER OF FULL TIME MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES THAT USUALLY SPEND MORE
THAN 20% OF THEIR WORK WEEK ON NOISE CONTROL ACTIVITIES
Municipalities were asked to write in the number of full
time municipal employees (including public safety employees) in
each category who usually spend more than 20% of their work week
on noise control activities.
If a municipality indicated that an individual worked on
noise control activities, although less than 20% of their work
week, that individual has been included in these figures.
TABLE II
NUMBER OF FULL TIME PLOYEES INVOLVED IN NOISE ACTIVITY
CATEGORY NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS
Public Safety I Police 34
Environmental Control 31
Building / Zoning 25
Public Health 12
Planning / Development 5
Public Works 1
Transportation 0
Other 14
—8—
-------
NOISE CONTROL PROGRAM ACTIVITIES PRESENT AT THE MUNICIPAL LEVEL
Municipalities were asked to indicate the activities that
are currently part of their noise control program.
All 93 municipalities are included in these results.
Municipalities stating that they do not have a program were
considered not to have any of the listed activities.
TABLE III
PRESENT STATUS OF MUNICIPAL NOISE CONTROL PROGRAM ACTIVITIES
ACTIVITY PERCENTAGE OF MUNICIPALITIES
HAVING OR NOT HAVING ACTIVITY
HAVE DO NOT HAVE
Enforcement 81% 19%
Complaint Handling 81% 19%
Development of Laws! 56% 44%
Regulations
Public Education 32% 68%
Environmental Impact 27% 73%
Reports
Monitoring / Surveys 52% 48%
Research 17% 83%
Administration 37% 63%
—9—
-------
PROGRESS MADE BY MUNICIPALITIES OVER THE LAST EIGHT YEARS
Municipalities were asked to rate the progress in reducing
the noise from various sources. Municipalities were given the
choices of Significant Progress, Minimal Progress, No Progress,
or, if the source was never a problem, Was Never A Problem.
All 93 respondents are included in these figures.
Municipalities indicating that they do not have a noise control
program were considered to have made no progress in each noise
category.
TABLE IV
PROGRESS MADE BY MUNICIPALITIES SINCE 1982
CATEGORY - - RESPONDING
SIGNIFIC?%NT MINIMAL NO WAS NEVER
PROGRESS PROGRESS PROGRESS A PROBLEM
Aircraft 13% 8% 35% 44%
Trucks 4% 24% 47% 25%
Buses 3% 11% 51% 35%
Autos 6% 28% 46% 20%
Motorcycles 10% 24% 47% 19%
Railroad 4% 14% 52% 30%
Operations
Construction 22% 39% 28% 11%
Equipment
Fixed Industry 23% 29% 29% 19%
Emergency
Vehicles/Sirens 0% 9% 43% 48%
Garbage Trucks 16% 25% 33% 26%
Recreation 9% 15% 32% 44%
Vehicles
—10—
-------
TABLE IV CONTINUED
CATEGORY PERCENT RESPONDING
SI GNI Fl CANT MINIMAL NO WAS NEVER
PROGRESS PROGRESS PROGRESS A PROBLEN
Public
Entertainment 27% 25% 26% 22%
Personal 27% 29% 30% 14%
Entertainment
Animals 19% 33% 32% 16%
Home Power 15% 18% 33% 34%
Tools
Off Road 5% 22% 35% 38%
Vehicles
Residential 20% 28% 33% 19%
Heating/Cooling
Equipment
Commercial 20% 32% 29% 19%
Heating/Cooling
Equipment
—11--
-------
ACTIVITY LEVEL OF MUNICIPAL PROGRAMS AF1’ER THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE
FEDERAL PROGR)J1
Municipalities were asked to describe their noise control
program as More Active, About The Same, or Less Active than it
was in 198]. when the federal program in noise was withdrawn.
Municipalities unsure of the status of their noise program
in 1981 answered “Do Not Know.”
All 93 respondents were considered in this data. The four
municipalities that never had programs and currently do not have
programs are considered to be “About The Same.” The remaining
municipalities that do not have noise control programs are
considered “Less Active.”
TABLE V
PRESENT ACTIVITY LEVEL OF MUNICIPAL NOISE CONTROL PROGRAMS
RESPONSE PERCENT
More Active 24%
About the Same 37%
Less Active 37%
Do Not Know 2%
—12—
-------
RATING OF EFFORTS TO CONTROL NOISE IN EXISTING MUNICIPAL NOISE
CONTROL P ROGRANS
Municipalities indicating that they currently have a noise
control program were asked to rate their efforts in noise
control. Choices were: Too Much, About Right, Not Enough, and Do
Not Know.
Only those respondents indicating that they currently have a
noise control program have been included in this data.
TABLE VI
RATING OF CURRENT MUNICIPAL EFFORTS TO CONTROL NOISE
RESPONSE PERCENT
Too Much 1%
About Right 54%
Not Enough 38%
Do Not Know 5%
—13—
-------
OPINIONS B’ MUNICIPALITIES ON THE USEFULNESS OF REINSTIT!JTING A
FEDERAL NOISE CONTROL PROGRAM
Municipalities indicating that they currently have a noise
control program were asked if they felt a reinstitution of a
federal noise control program would be of significant use to
their municipality’s noise abatement and control efforts.
Only those respondents indicating that they currently have a
noise control program have been included in this data.
TABLE VII
MUNICIPAL RESPONSE ON THE USEFULNESS OF A FEDERAL NOISE PROGRAM
RESPONSE PERCENT
Yes, a federal program would be of significant 53%
use.
No, a federal programs would not be of 25%
significant use.
Do Not Know if a federal program would be of 22%
significant use.
—14—
-------
MUNICIPAl. VIEW ON WAYS A FEDERAL NOISE PROGRAM CAN BE OF USE TO
THOSE PROGRAMS
Those municipalities indicating that they feel a
reinstitution of a federal noise program would be of significant
use to their noise control program were asked to indicate the
extent to which various federal noise program assistance would be
of help.
Only those respondents indicating: 1) they currently have a
noise control program and 2) they feel a reinstitution of a
federal noise program would be of significant use to their
programs are included in the following data.
TABLE VIII
MUNICIPAL RATING OF VARIOUS FEDERAL NOISE ACTIVITIES
ACTIVITY VERY SOMEWHAT NOT DO NOT
USEFUL USEFUL USEFUL KNOW
Model Legislation 32% 46% 13% 9%
Man Power 41% 30% 16% 13%
Man Power Training 66% 30% 0% 4%
I Workshops
Noise Control Program 39% 52% 0% 9%
On-site Technical
Assistance
Enforcement Procedures 39% 41% 18% 2%
Noise Technical 41% 46% 5% 7%
Assistance Reports
Land Use Planning 37% 37% 7% 18%
Guides
Noise Measurement 52% 34% 13% 2%
Equipment
Public Information 59% 32% 4% 5%
Materials
Vehicle Inspection 30% 27% 23% 20%
/Maintenance Procedures
—15—
-------
TABLE VIII CONTINUED
MUNICIPAL RATING OF VARIOUS FEDERAL NOISE ACTIVITIES
ACTIVITY VERY SOMEWHAT NOT DO NOT
USEFUL USEFUL USEFUL KNOW
Peer Exchange Programs 36% 41% 10% 13%
National/Regional! 55% 37% 4% 4%
State Workshops
Airport Planning 23% 28% 21% 27%
Regional Technical 39% 43% 5% 13%
Assistance Centers
New Product Regulations 43% 28% 10% 18%
—16—
-------
REASONS GWEN BY MUNICIPALITIES WHY THEY NEVER HAD A NOISE
COWfROL PROGRAM
It was assumed that several questionnaires would reach the
hands of municipal officers in communities where a noise control
program never existed. To determine why they never had a program
they were asked to indicate the best reason why.
12 municipalities originally responded to this question.
After further investigation of those responses, it was found that
8 of those respondents were unaware that their municipality had
a noise abatement program prior to 1981. As a result, their
responses to this question were excluded from this data set and
relocated to the proper section.
Only those municipalities never having a noise program are
included in this data.
TABLE IX
REASONS FOR MUNICIPALITIES NEVER HAVING A NOISE CONTROL PROGRAM
REASON NUMBER OF MUNICIPALITIES
Noise is Not A Problem 1
Noise is Not A High Priority 1
Problem
No Legislative Basis 1
Other 1
—17—
-------
REASONS GIVEN BY MUNICIPALITIES THAT ONCE HAD NOISE CONTROL
PROGRAMS FOR NO LONGER,HAVING THOSE PROGRAMS
Municipalities indicating that they once had, but no longer
have a noise control program were asked to state the best reason
why.
Included in this data are those municipalities, whose
officials filling in the questionnaire were unaware that their
municipality did have a noise control program prior to 1981.
These individuals responded to question 9. Their responses have
been transferred here.
TABLE X
REASONS GIV BY MUNICIPALITIES THAT ONCE HAD A NOISE CONTROL
PROGRAM FOR NO LONGER HAVING THAT PROGRAM
REASON NUMBER OF MUNICIPALITIES
Noise is Not a Problem 5
Budget Constraints 3
Noise is Not a High Priority 2
Problem
Federal Presence in Noise was 1
Discontinued
Adopted County’s Ordinance 1
and Noise Program.
Other 1
—18—
-------
SUMMARY OF MUNICIPAL PROGRAM RESPONSE
MUNICIPALITY SURVEYED RESPONSE
POSITIVE NEGATIVE
(Program) (No Program)
ALABAMA
Huntsville.. POS *partjcjpated
In Telephone
ALASKA Follow-up of
Anchorage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . POS Those Not
Responding
ARI ZONA
Tempe** ** Did not
Respond to
CALIFORNIA Survey
Alhambra* *
Anaheim* *
Bueno Park**
Chula Vista**
Concord. ........ •••........ . . • •......... •... .NEG
Downey. . • os
El Cajon..... . •1• IPOS
Fountain Valley**
Fresno................. ...........POS
Garden Grove . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . POS
Hawthorne. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NEG
Lakewood. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .NEG
Long Beach**
Los Angeles... . . . . . . . . . .PCs
Bell Gardens**
Beverly Hills**
Brea**
Ca.nularillo. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NEG*
Cerritos**
Chico* *
Claremont pos
Corona. •. ........ . •.... POS
Gardena.......... NEG
La Mesa.....,............. POS
Lynwood* *
Manhatten Beach**
Monterey Park**
National City**
Placenta.. . . . . os
Pleasant Hill**
San Clemente**
Santa Cruz. . . .1...... . . •• .POS
Santa Maria . P0 5
Temple City**
—19—
-------
MUNICIPAL NOISE CONTROL PROGRAM SU ARY
-------
Modesto . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . POS
Ontario* *
Orange**
Palo Alto. • , • • • , , • . • • . . . . . . . . POS
Pasadena* *
Redondo Beach**
Riverside. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .NEG
S acremento . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . POS
San Diego**
Simi ‘Ialley. . . . . ........ . . . . . . . . . .POS
Torrance* *
Westminster**
Saratoga . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . POS
COLORADO
Northglenn* *
Thornton**
Boulder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . POS
Denver. . . . . . . . . . os
Colorado Springs..................Pos
CONNECTICUT
Norwalk. ......... . •......... . . ..... .NEG
Stamford**
Vernon. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .NEG
Trumbull**
DELAWARE
Newark* *
WASHINGTON, D.C .
Washington, D.C . .POS
FLORIDA
Ft. Lauderdale...... POS
Miami Beach. . . . . POS
Boca Raton. . . . . . . . . . POS
Coral Gab] .es**
Da ’tona Beach. . . . NEG*
Clearwater. . . . . . •1•1 t•••• POS
Miami.. •.....s. . . . .. POS
West Palm Beach**
Pompano Beach**
Riviera Beach.... . . POS
Sunrise**
GEORGI A
College Park**
ILLINOIS
Carbondale. NEG
Downers Grove. . . . . . . . .NEG
—20—
-------
. . . . ... S ••• • • • • • • S S
. . . . . . NEG
INDI ANA
Evansville...
Fort Wayne**
Hammond.
Elkhart.
I I I I I I • I S S S • • S POS
... ...I.....SI I 11555
IOWA
Council Bluffs..
Davenport
Ames. .
Cedar Falls
Clinton 1 . 5 ... 1 ..
Muscat me * *
Des Moines... ., . ...
D .ibuque . . . . . . . . . . . . .
Sioux City...
KENTUCKY
Covington* *
LOUISIANA
Slidell**
POS
.POS
• . S POS
• . . POS
.. . P05
• . I POS
POS
. . I POS
NEG
MARYLAND
Baltimore... . POS
Bo ie. • . . . . . . • .•••.•. .. . . . • . . . . .POS
Rockvi lie NEC
MASSACHUSETTS
Boston* *
Cambridge**
MICHIGAN
Ann Arbor**
Pontiac**
Wyornirtg . . . . . . . . . . . POS
Grand Rapids . . . . . . POS
Birmingharn* *
Trenton...... .•.. . Pos
Elk Grove Village**
Elmhurst* *
Arlington Heights.................POS
Chicago. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . • . . . . . . . . . POS
Des Plains**
Joliet. . . . •1•• . • • . . • . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .NEG
Waukegan* *
Glenview**
Naperville* *
Normal . . . . . . .
Park Ridge**
15515
. I I
• .. S
.
I • lSI
NEG*
—21—
-------
MINNESOTA
Colunthia Heights........... . .POS
Golden Valley**
Mankato . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . POS
Min.neton.ka. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . POS
New Hope . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . P05
B loornington . . . . . P05
Minneapolis* *
MISSOURI
Independence.. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . POS
St. Joseph
NEBRASKA
Lincoln... . •.. POS
NEW JERSEY
Cherry Hill**
Elizabeth* *
Middletown. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .NEG
East Windsor . . . . POS
New Brunswick**
Teaneck. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .NEG
Harrison* *
Paterson...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .POS
NEW MEXICO
Albuquerque* *
Roswell* *
NEW YORK
Glen Cove**
Ithaca**
Mount Vernon**
New York City**
NORTH CAROLINA
Asheville pos
Charlotte......
Raleigh**
Bur lington* *
NORTH DAKOTA
P02
OHIO
Columbus. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .NEG*
Ketterling**
Lakewood* *
Toledo pos
Youngstown**
Dayton • P0 5
—22—
-------
North Olmsted**
Xenia**
Beaverton. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . POS
OKLAHOMA
Oklahoma city. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . POS
Nor a . . . . . . POS
OREGON
Shaker Heights**
Eugene**
Portland... . . POs*
Salem* *
PENNSYLVANI A
Easton**
Johns town* *
Broomall**
Folsom**
Williamsport**
York**
Ab ington . . . . . . . . . . . . P05
Allentown* *
Have rtown* *
Philadelphia* *
Upper Darby . . . . pos
RHODE ISLAND
Cranston* *
Pawtucket . . . . . . . . . , pos
SOUTH CAROLINA
Rapid City**
TEXAS
Farmers Branch**
Dallas.. • ........ . . . . • • • • . . . . . •. . .POS
Garland. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . POS
Port Arthur............ POS
UTAH
Bountiful**
Murray NEG*
Provo**
Salt Lake City... .... . . ... . POS
VIRGINIA
Alexandria. NEG
Newport News NEG*
Charlottesville Pos
Roanoke . . . . . . . . . . NEG
—23—
-------
WASHINGTON
Longview* *
Pu].lman. ........ •....... . . . . . . . . . .POS
Seattle....... ... POS
Spokane . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NEG
Tacoma**
WI SCONSIN
Green Bay**
Kenosha. . . ...... .. • . • . •... P05
Milwaukee. . . . . . . . . . . os
Oskosh.... . . . . . . . . . . ........ . . . . . .POS
Racine**
West Allis**
Manitowoc. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . POS
WYOMING
Lararnie**
—24—
-------
STATE SURVEY RESULTS
-------
NUMBER OF RESPONDEW S THAT CuRRE1z rLY HAVE, OR DO NOT HAVE, A
STATE NOISE CONTROL PROGP.AZ4
States were asked if they currently had a noise control
program. A noise control program was defined as a program having
the following: funding, staff, equipment, and enforcement of a
law or regulation which includes decibel (noise level) limits rL
any one of the following areas: vehicles, property line,
construction and/or land use. The state could be considered to
have a noise control program without specific state legislation
as long as some other federal law or regulation was enforced.
All 20 responding states (based on response to letter or
telephone) are included in the following data.
TABLE XI
NUMBER OF STATES THAT CIJRREN’rLY HAVE A NOISE CONTROL PROGRAM
RESPONSE NUMBER
Currently Have A Noise Control Program 8
Currently Do Not have A Noise Control Program 12
—25—
-------
NUMBER OF FULL TIME STATE EMPLOYEES THAT USUALLY SPEND MORE THAN
20% 0? THEIR WORK WEEK ON NOISE CONTROL ACTIVITIES
States were asked to write in the number of full time state
employees (including public safety employees, excluding OSHA
employees) in each category who usually spend more than 20% of
their work week on noise control activities.
If a state indicated that an individual worked on noise
control activities, although less than 20% of their work week,
that individual has been included in these figures.
Only those states completing and returning a survey form
were included in this data.
TABLE XII
NUMBER OF FULL TIME LOYEES INVOLV IN NOISE ACTIVITY
CATEGORY NUMBER. OF INDIVIDUALS
Highways 17
Environmental Control 5
Public Health 2
Planning I Development 2
Parks / Recreation 2
Motor Vehicles 1
Other 5
—26—
-------
NOISE CONTROL PROGRAM ACTIVITIES PRESENT AT THE STATE LEVEL
States were asked to indicate the activities that are
currently part of their noise control progran .
18 of the responding states are included in these results.
States indicating that they do not have a noise control program
were considered not to have any of the listed activities. States
indicating by telephone that they do have a noise control program
(2) were not included in these figures due to insufficient data.
TABLE XIII
NOISE CONTROL PROGRAM ACTIVITIES AT THE STATE LEVEL
ACTIVITY NUMBER OF STATES RAVING,
OR NOT HAVING ACTIVITY
HAVE DO NOT HAVE
Enforcement 6 12
Complaint Handling 6 12
Development of Laws 5 13
/ Regulations
Public Education 6 12
Environn ental Impact 5 13
Reports
Monitoring / Surveys 6 12
Research 4 14
Administration 6 12
Technical Assistance 5 13
To Local Governments
—27--
-------
PROGRESS MADE BY STATES OVER THE LAST EIGHT YEARS
States were asked to rate their progress in reducing the
noise from various sources. States were given the choices of
Significant Progress, Minimal Progress, No Progress, or, if the
source was never a problem, Was Never a problem.
18 States were included in these figures. States indicating
that they do not have a noise control program were considered to
have made no progress in each noise category. States indicating
by telephone that they currently have a noise control program
(2) were not included in these figures due to insufficient data.
TABLE XIV
PROGRESS MADE BY STATES SINCE 1982
CATEGORY NUMBER RESPONDING
SIGNIFICANT MINIMAL NO WAS NEVER
PROGRESS PROGRESS PROGRESS A PROBLEM
Aircraft 0 3 15 0
Trucks 1 4 13 0
Buses 1 2 15 0
Autos 1 4 13 0
Motorcycles 1 4 13 0
Railroad 0 2 15 1
Operations
Construction 1 2 15 0
Equipment
Fixed Industry 4 2 12 0
Emergency 0 1 16 1
Vehicles/Sirens
Garbage Trucks 1 1 15 1
—28—
-------
TABLE XIV CONTINUED
CATEGORY
SIGNIFICANT MINIMAL NO WAS NEVER
PROGRESS PROGRESS PROGRESS A PROBLEM
Recreation 1 3 14 0
Vehicles
Public 2 4 12 0
Entertainment
Personal 0 4 14 0
Entertainment
Animals 1. 2 15 0
Home Power 1 1 15 1
Tools
OffRoad 1 4 13 0
Vehicles
Residential 2 4 12 0
Heating/Cooling
Equipment
Commercial 4 2 12 0
Heating/Cooling
Equipment
—29—
-------
ACTIVITY LEVEL OF STATE PROGRAMS AFTER THE WITHDRAW OF THE
FEDERAL NOISE WNTROL PROGRAM
States were asked to describe their noise control program
as More Active, About The Same, or Less Active than it was in
1981 when the federal program in noise was withdrawn.
18 States were included in this data. States indicating
that they do not have a noise control program are considered
“Less Active.” States indicating by telephone that they do have
a noise control program (2) are not included due to insufficient
data.
TABLE XV
PRESENT ACTIVITY LEVEL OF STATE NOISE CONTROL PROGRAMS
RESPONSE NUMBER
More Active 0
About The Same 1
Less Active 17
—30—
-------
RATING OF EFFORTS TO CONTROL NOISE IN EXISTING STATE NOISE
CONTROL PROGRAMS
States indicating that they currently have a noise control
program were asked to rate their efforts in noise control.
Choices were: Too Much, About Right, Not Enough, and Do Not Know.
Only those respondents indicating that they currently have a
noise control program and filling out a questionnaire (6) are
included in this data.
TABLE XVI
RATING OF CURRENT STATE EFFORTS TO CONTROL NOISE
RESPONSE NUMBER
Too Much 0
About Right 0
Not Enough 6
Do Not Know 0
—31—
-------
OPINIONS BY STATES ON THE USEFULNESS OF REINSTITUTING A FEDER L
NOISE CONTROL PROGRAM
States indicating that they currently have a noise control
program were asked if they felt a reinstitution of a federal
noise control program would be of significant use to their
state’s noise abatement and control efforts.
Only those respondents filling out a questionnaire and
indicating that they currently have a noise control program (6)
are included in this data.
TABLE XVII
STATE RESPONSE ON THE USEFULNESS OF A FEDERAL NOISE PROGRAM
RESPONSE NUMBER
Yes, a federal program would be of significant 5
use.
No, a federal program would not be of 0
significant use.
Do Not Know if a federal program would be of 1
significant use.
—32—
-------
STATE VIEW ON WAYS A FEDERAL NOISE PROGRAM C? N BE OF USE TO THOSE
PROG .AMS
States were asked to indicate the extent to which various,
federal noise program assistance would be of help.
States filling out a questionnaire and indicating that they
currently have noise control programs are included in the
following data. Although one state, that met these requirements,
indicated in a previous question that a federal noise program
would not be of help, it’s comntents have been included in these
results.
TABLE XVIII
STATE RATING OF VARIOUS FEDERAL NOISE ACTIVITIES
ACTIVITY VERY SOMEWHAT NOT DO NOT
USEFUL USEFUL USEFUL KNOW
Model Legislation 2 1 3 0
ManPower 4 1 0 1.
Manpower Training 3 1 1 1
I Workshops
Noise Control 2 2 1 1
Program On-Site
Technical Assistance
Enforcement Procedures 2 3 1 0
Noise Technical 4 1 1 0
Assistance Reports
Land Use Planning 3 2 1 0
Guides
Noise Measurement 5 1 0 0
Equipment
—33—
-------
TABLE XVIII CONTINUED
STATE RATING OF VARIOUS FEDERAL NOISE ACTIVITIES
ACTIVITY VERY SOMEWHAT NOT DO NOT
USEFUL USEFUL USEFUL OW
Public Information 5 0 1 0
Materials
Vehicle Inspection 1 3 1 1
/ Maintenance
Procedures
Peer Exchange 3 1 1 1
Programs
National/Regional 5 0 1 0
/State Workshops
Airport Planning 1 1 1 3
Regional Technical 3 1 2 0
Assistance Centers
New Product 5 0 1 0
Regulations
—34—
-------
REASONS GIVEN BY STATES WHY THEY NEVER HAD A NOISE CONTROL PROGRAM
It was assumed that several questionnaires would reach the
hands of officials in states that never had a noise control
program.
One state responded
further investigation, it
unaware that the state
program prior to 1981. As
to the proper section.
to this question. However, after
was found that this individual was
in question did have a noise control
a result, this response was relocated
Of the 20 States contacted, all had a noise control program
prior to 1981.
—35—
-------
REASONS GIVEN BY STATES THAT ONCE HAD NOISE CONTROL PROGRAMS FOR
NO LONGER HAVING THOSE PROGRAMS
States indicating that they currently do not have a noise
control program were asked to give the most appropriate reason
why.
Included in these figures are: 1) States filling out a
questionnaire indicating they once had, but no longer have a
noise control program (4), and 2) States whose officials filling
in the questionnaire were unaware that their state did have a
noise control program prior to 1981.(l) This state responded to
question 9. The response has been transferred here.
TABLE XIX
REASONS GIVEN BY STATES THAT ONCE HAD A NOISE CONTROL PROGRAM
FOR NO LONGER HAVING THAT PROGRAM
REASON NUMBER OF STATES
Federal Presence in Noise was 2
Discontinued
Budget Constraints 1
Noise is Not a High priority 1
Problem
Other 1
—36—
-------
STATE NOISE CONTROL PROGRAM SU!*IARY
-------
SUMMARY OF STATE PROGRAM RESPONSE
STATE SURVEYED RESPONSE
POSITIVE NEGATIVE
(Program) (No Program)
Arizona. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .NEG
California..... ,1•••••• •.... . . . .. .POS * Participated
in Telephone
Colorado.. •••..... . . • • . • • • . .... . . . . . .NEG Follow—up of
Those Not
Connectjcut..........,. POS Responding
Delaware. . . . . . . . . . . . . , . . . . . . NEG ** Did, Not
Respond to
Florida. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .NEG Survey
Hawaii . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . POS
Illinois..... os
Indiana.... NEG
Kentucky. NEG
Louisiana. . . . . . . . . . . . NEG*
Maryland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . POS
Minnesota...... . . . . . . . . . . . .POS
NEG
New Jersey. . . . . . . . POS
New York..... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . NEG*
Oklahoma..., . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .NEG
Oregon...... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .POS
Rhode lslartd NEG*
South Dakota NEC
Puerto Rico**
—37—
-------
SWQ ARY OF E.P.A. REGIONAL NOISE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CENTERS
-------
SWQIARY OF E.P.A. REGIONAL NOISE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CENTERS
U.S. EPA
REGION PRESENT STATUS
I Semi-active
II Active
III Inactive
IV Inactive
V Semi-active
VI Inactive
VII Inactive
VIII Inactive
IX Inactive
X Inactive
REGION I
Region I - E.P.A Noise Technical Assistance Center was
incorporated into: “Engineering Application Center.”
1. Provides various noise services to communities.
2. Provides general noise information.
3. Conducts noise seminars as needed.
4. Work is performed on a hire or barter basis.
5. Funding exclusively by fee.
Contact Person: Mr. Robert Daniel Celmer
University of Hartford
200 Bloomfield Ave.
West Hartford Connecticut 06117
(203) 243—4792
—38—
-------
REGION II
Region II - E.P.A. Noise Technical Assistance Center now
operates under the title, New Jersey Noise Technical Assistance
Center.
1. Provides services similar to those carried out by the
former centers.
2. Trains state noise control officials in noise measurement
and abatement techniques.
3. Conducts specialty seminars as needed.
4. Provides technical assistance to communities.
5. Provides equipment to communities.
6. Funding is through the New Jersey State Department of
Environmental protection.
Contact Person: Mr. Joseph J. Soporowski, III
Director, N.J. Noise Technical
Assistance Center
P.O. Box 231
Department of Environmental Science
Cook College, Rutgers University
New Brunswick, N.J. 08903
(201) 932—9860
REGION V
Regio i V - Noise Technical Assistance Center was
incorporated into, “Midwest Environmental Assistance Center.”
1. Provide technical assistance to residents at a deferred
cost.
2. Funding is by state grants, private industry and private
individuals.
Contact Person: Mr. Howard Schechter
Director, Midwest Environmental
Assistance Center.
6561 North Sealy Ave.
Chicago, Illinois 60645
—39—
-------
SU? ARY AND CONCLUSIONS
-------
SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS
The Noise Control Act of 1971 established a United States
Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.EPA) Noise Control Program
to provide an environment free from unnecessary noise pollution.
The Act stated, “people of the State are entitled to and should
be ensured an environment free from noise which unnecessarily
degrades the quality of life; that the levels of noise in the
community have reached such a degree as to endanger the health,
safety and welfare of the people of this State as well as the
integrity of the environment and that this threat can be abated
by the adoption and enforcement of noise standards embodied in
regulations.” In 1982, following the U.S. EPA’S decision t
discontinue it’s Noise Control Program, Congress ceased funding
for the program. The basis for discontinuing the federal progra
was the administrative assumption that noise abatement ar. .
control programs that were initiated at the state and local leve
would continue without significant federal assistance.
Results of this survey indicate that this administrative
assumption made by the U.S.EPA was incorrect. While a. -
regulations initiated by the 1971 Noise Control Act and the l9
Quiet Communities Act remain in effect, state and local noise
abatement and control programs have not assumed the role that tr.e
U.S. EPA intended they would when the federal program was
withdrawn.
-40—
-------
REDUCTION IN QUANTITY OF STATE AND LOCAL NOISE CONTROL PR0GRN S
Results of this survey indicate that the local and state
noise control programs failed to expand within the last eight
years. In fact, it appears that there has been a substantial
reduction in the number of state and local noise control programs
still in existence.
It was found that of the 93 responding municipalities having
a noise control program, or the beginnings thereof, prior to
1982, only 76 (82%) are currently active, 17 (18%) have been
discontinued. (See Table I)
The 112 municipalities that did not respond to the survey
are not included in these figures. In order to obtain a better
understanding of the status of these municipalities, one
community from each U.S.E.P.A. Region was chosen at random and
contacted by telephone to determine the status of their noise
control program. Of those 10 municipalities, 8 confirmed that
they no longer had a noise control program, 2 responded that they
did. The two positive responses came from Dallas, Texas, and,
Portland, Oregon, two highly populated and industrialized
centers. It is the surveyors opinion that the majority of those
municipalities failing to respond to the survey no longer have a
noise control program. The reason for the form not being
returned is simply because there may have been no one in the
municipality given authority to handle such noise related
matters.
It was found that of the 20 responding states having a
noise control program prior to 1982, only 8 (40%) are currently
active, 12 (60%) have been discontinued. (See Table XI)
It is clear that the quantity of today’s state and local
noise control programs is not what was anticipated by EPA in 19
when funding for the EPA program was discontinued.
—61—
-------
REDUCTION IN QUALITY OF STATE AND LOCAL NOISE CONTROL PROGRM1
Tables II and XII reveal the limited nuniber of individuals
that are currently active in the noise pollution field. The
majority of these people work in noise on a part time basis.
These figures become even more significant when one considers the
fact that this data represents the respondents that have an
active noise control program. One can assunie that where no noise
program exists, there are no noise control officials in that
municipality or state.
Of the municipalities responding to the survey, only
enforcement of regulations and complaint handling have been dealt
with on a significant level. Other activities, once handled by
the federal program, such as: Development of Laws I Regulations,
Public Education, Environmental Impact Reports, Monitoring I
Survey’s, Research, and Administration are only minor components
on a local level. (See Table III)
Those states which currently have noise control programs
apparently handle a wide range of activities. These activities
include: Enforcement, Complaint Handling, Development of Laws /
Regulations, Public Education, Environmental Impact Reports,
Monitoring / Surveys, Research, Administration, and Technica
Assistance to Local Goverru’nents. Unfortunately, there are only 8
active, state, noise control programs left out of the 21 which
existed prior to 1982. As a result, activities by noise contrc
programs on the state level are actually very limited. These
results do not reflect what was expected of state noise contrc
programs when the federal noise control program was withdrawn
1982. (See Table XIII)
—42—
-------
PROGRESS MADE BY STATE AND LOCAL PROGRAMS OVER ThE LAST 8 YEARS
The largest amount of progress made by municipalities in
the last 8 years has been made in the areas of: Public/Personal
Entertainment, Construction Equipment, Fixed Industry, and
Residential/Commercial Heating & Cooling Equipment.
Transportation noise, in the form of Trucks, Buses,
Automobiles, Motorcycles, and Railroad Operations, seems to be
the area in which the least amount of progress has been made on
the local level.
Aircraft noise is not a problem in the majority of
communities surveyed, however, where it is a problem, very little
progress has been made. (See Table IV)
The only two noise categories in which significant progress
has been made on the state level are Fixed Industry and
Commercial Heating/Cooling Equipment.
Extremely little progress has been made at the state level
in: Aircraft, Buses, Railroad Operations, Construction
Equipment, Emergency Vehicles/Sirens, Garbage Trucks, Animals,
and Home Power Tools. (See Table XIV)
The results shown here indicate that neither the states nor
the local municipalities have progressed as they had ceen
expected to after the federal noise control program ‘. .as
discontinued.
It is the surveyor’s opinion that even those states
municipalities attempting to progress in all noise poll _: -
categories are in need of federal assistance, especially in :-o
area of transportation noise.
—43—
-------
ACTIVITY LEVEL AND EFFORTS OF EXISTING STATE AND LOCAL NOISE
CONTROL ROGR.M1S
Of the municipalities responding to the survey, 24% are more
active, 37% are about the same, and 37% are less active than they
were prior to 1982. 2% of the responding municipalities did not
know what their status was prior to 1982. (See Table V)
If one assumes that the majority of those municipalities
not responding to the survey did not have a noise control
program, the percentage of municipalities with programs less
active than in 1982 would increase.
The statistics on the state level reflect a significant
decrease in activity level. Of the 18 states included, (2 were
not included because of insufficient data) 1 is about the same
and 17 are less active than they were prior to 1982. No state’
has a more active program in noise than it had in 1982. (See
Table XV)
If the U.S. EPA’s assumption that states and municipalities
would continue where the federal noise control program left off
was correct, one should see approximately 100% of the state and
municipal noise control programs at least “About the same” as
they were prior to 1982. This is not reflected in the survey
results.
When asked to rate their current efforts in noise control,
1% of those municipalities having a noise control progra ’
believed that their current efforts were too much, 54% indicated
that their efforts were about right, 38% responded that the
efforts were not enough, while 5% were not sure. (See Table VI)
On the state level, all responding states indicated tha:
their efforts in noise control were not enough. (See Table XVI)
These results indicate that even those municipalities and
states that currently have active noise control programs fee .
that their efforts are less than adequate to meet the needs of
their people. This was not foreseen by the EPA when funding Cf
the federal noise control program was ceased in 1982.
—44—
-------
USEFULNESS OF REINSTITUTING A FEDERAL NOISE CONTROL PROGRAM
53% of those municipalities having a noise control program
felt that bringing back a federal noise control program would be
of significant use to their program, 25% felt it would not be of
help, and 22% were unsure. (See Table VII)
5 of the 8 states still having a noise control program
indicated that a federal program would significantly aid their
programs, 1 state was unsure, no state felt a federal program
would not help, and 2 states did not respond to this question.
(See Table XVII)
Municipalities indicating that a federal noise control
program would help their programs were asked to indicate what the
most effective means of federal assistance would be. The
activities indicated as the most beneficial are: Man Power
Training / Workshops, Noise Control Program On-Site Technical
Assistance, Public Information Materials, National/Regional/State
Workshops, Noise Measurement Equipment, and New Product
Regulation. (See Table VIII)
Only Airport Planning received a greater than 20% ‘Not
Useful” response at 21%. However, this is probably because
aircraft noise is a problem to only a portion of the surveyed
communities.
States indicating that a federal noise control program would
significantly aid their programs were also asked to indicate wr.at
the most effective means of federal assistance would be. Te
activities that states indicated as being the most benef :.
are: Noise Measurement Equipment, Public Information Mater:as,
National/Regional/State Workshops, New Product Regulations, a
Man Power. (See Table XVIII)
It is the surveyor’s opinion that a reinstitution cf
federal noise control program should include the following
noise control activities on both the state and local level:
1. Public Information Materials
2. National/State/Regional Workshops
3. Noise Control Program On-Site Technical Assistance
4. Noise Measurement Equipment
5. Man Power Training Workshops
—45—
-------
REASONS GIVEN BY MUNICIPALITIES AND STATES FOR NO LIONGER HAVING A
NOISE CONTPOL PROGRAM
Four of the municipalities contacted never had a noise
control program, and therefore, could not be used in many
comparisons made in this study. They were, however, in the
process of establishing programs, and were included on the
mailing list of noise control programs. Although these
communities were not used in the majority of comparisons made in
this study, they were asked why they never established a noise
control program. One municipality indicated that they felt noise
is not a problem. Another felt it is not a high priority
problem. A third listed “No Legislative Basis” as it’s reason.
The last community listed “Other” as it’s reason for never having
a noise control program. (See Table IX) All of the states
contacted, had a noise control program prior to 1982.
For those municipalities having a noise control program
prior to 1982, but no longer having a program, the following
were their reasons why: 5 communities did not feel noise was a
problem, 3 listed budget constraints, 2 felt noise is not a high
priority problem, 1 dropped it’s program because the federal
program was discontinued, one community adopted it’s county’s
ordinance and lets the county enforce, and the last municipality
listed “Other” as it’s reason for no longer having a noise
control program. Only municipalities filling out a questionnaire
were included in these numbers. Responses made by telephone did
not produce sufficient information to be included. (See Table X)
For states having a noise control program prior to 1982, but
no longer having a program, the following were their reasons why:
2 states listed “ Federal presence in noise was discontinued,
one indicated budget constraints, another felt noise is not a
high priority problem, and the last listed “Other” as it’s reason
for dropping it’s program. Only states filling out a survey form
were included in these numbers. Telephone responses did r.c
produce sufficient information to be included. (See Table XIX)
The results stated here are inconclusive due to the limited
quantity of applicable data. It is the surveyor’s opinion that
the majority of states and municipalities that had a noise
control program prior to 1982, but no longer have that progran,
did not fill out and return the questionnaires as requested
This is supported by the fact that ten states responded cn
after a second survey mailing and a telephone follow-up was made
to those states. 8 of those 10 responded that they did not have
a noise control program. Further supporting this opinion is the
fact that 8 of the 10 municipalities chosen in a follow-up
telephone survey indicated that they did not have a noise contro
program. Had these states and municipalities filled out a .d
returned the survey, much more data on the specific reasons whj
these states and municipalities no longer have noise contrc
programs would have been obtained.
—46—
-------
FATE OF USE.PA REGIONAL NOISE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CENTERS
Of the ten former U.S.E.P.A. regional noise Technical
Assistance Centers, only three remain active in some capacity.
Region II is the only fully active Noise Technical
Assistance Center. This center is currently funded by the New
Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. The New Jersey
center provides services similar to those it carried out while
funded by the federal noise program. Those services include:
training of state noise control officials in noise measurement
and abatement techniques, conducting specialty seminars as
needed, providing technical assistance to communities, and making
noise measurement equipment available to communities.
The Region I, U.S.E.P.A. Noise Technical Assistance Center
is now known as the University of Hartford Engineering
Applications Center. It’s activities are only a fraction of
those conducted while under federal funding. Funding is
exclusively by fee. It’s current services include: provid:r .g
general noise information to communit .es, conducting noise
seminars as needed, and performing work on a hire basis as
requested.
The Region V 1 U.S.E.P.A. Noise Technical Assistance Certe:
is now known as the “Midwest Environmental Assistance Center.
It too provides only a small fraction of the services it was a:.e
to under the federal program. Funding is by state gra :s.
private industry, and private individuals. It’s current ser’.:ce
is providing technical assistance to residents at a defer:e
cost.
—47—
-------
APPENDIX A - MUNICIPAL AND STATE QUESTIONNAIRES
-------
STATUS OF LOCAL NOISE CONTROL PROGRAM SURVEY
GENERAL I 4STRUCTIONS
a This survey has been designed to provide the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with information on the
current status of local noise control programs which served as a
basis for discontinuing the federal noise program in 1982.
* If there is no individual in your municipality who
specifically deals with noise pollution, please forward this
survey to the person who would handle a noise problem should one
arise.
* This questionnaire can be completed in less than 5 minutes.
Please take the time now to complete and return it. It is
important that you complete the entire survey.
* For municipalities that do not currently undertake noise
control activities, those questions that do not apply have been
noted in the survey.
* Participation in this survey is strictly on a voluntary
basis. Upon completion of the analysis of the survey results,
you will be sent a copy of the project report of aggregate
percentages.
* If you have any questions or problems in completing the
survey, please feel free to communicate with Joseph J.
Soporowski, at (201) 932-9860.
* Please return the survey in the enclosed envelope by
November 22, 1989.
* Construction of this questionnaire was made possible through
the assistance of the National League of Cities. Basic format of
several questions appearing in this survey have been taken fror’
the National League of Cities 1980 Survey Report entitled, “State
and Local Environmental Noise Control: 1980 Survey Report.”
Thank you for your cooperation.
Return to:
Joseph J. Soporowski, III
Noise Technical Assistance Center
Rutgers University
P.O. Box 231, New Brunswick, N..
08903
Person completing this questionnaire:
NAME
TITLE
DEPARTMENT
ADDRESS
CITY _____________________________ STATE ___________ ZIP _______
PHONE (
A—i
-------
1. Does your municipality have a noise control program? A noise
control program is defined as a program having the following:
funding, staff, equipment, and enforcement of a law or
ordinance which includes decibel (noise level) limits. The
law or ordinance must include (noise level) limits in any one
of the following areas: vehicles, property line, construction
and/or land use. Your municipality may have a noise control
program without specific municipal legislation as long as
some other federal, state, or county law or ordinance is
enforced. (Check one.)
_____ YES (Please answer questions 2 through 8)
_____ NO (Please skip questions 2 through 8 and
answer questions 9 and 10)
2. In the line below, write in the number of full-time municipal
employees (including public safety employees) in each
category who usually spend more than 20% of their work week
on noise control activities,
_____ a. Public Safety / Police
_____ b. Public Health
_____ c. Environmental Control
_____ d. Planning / Development
_____ e. Public Works
_____ f. Building / Zoning
_____ g. Transportation
h. Other (Specify) ____________________________
3. Please indicate whether or not these activities are part of
your municipality’s noise control program. (Circle Y for yes
and N for no.)
PART OF PROGRAN
YES NO
a. Enforcement Y N
b. Complaint handling Y N
c. Development of laws!
Regulation I N
d. Public Education I N
e. Environmental Impact
Reports I N
f. Monitoring / Surveys I N
g. Research I N
h. Administration I N
1. Other
(Specify) ___________________________
A-2
-------
4. How much progress over the last eight years has been made by
your noise control program ir reducing the noise from each of
the following sources: (Circle the correct response for each)
Significant Minimal No Was Never
Progress Progress Progress A Problem
a. Aircraft SP NP NP WNP
b. Trucks SP NP NP WNP
c. Busses SP NP NP WNP
d. Autos SP NP NP WNP
e. Motorcycles SP NP NP WNP
f. Railroad SP NP NP WNP
Operations
g. Construction SP NP NP WNP
Equipment
h. Fixed Industry S? NP NP WNP
i. Emergency SP NP NP WNP
Vehicles/sirens
j. Garbage Trucks SP NP NP WNP
k. Recreation SP NP NP WNP
Vehicles
1. Public SP NP NP
Entertainment
rn. Personal SP NP WNP
Entertainment
n. Animals SP NP NP WNP
o. Home Power Tools SP ri NP WNP
p. Of f Road Vehicles SP NP NP 4NP
q. Residential SP NP NP WNP
Heating/Cooling
Equipment
r. Commercial SP NP NP WNP
Heating/Cooling
Equipment
s. Other (Specify) _______________________________________
A- 3
-------
5. Would you say that your munloipality’s noise control program
is More Active, About the Same, or Less Active than it was in
1981 when federal presence in noise was withdrawn? (Check
the appropriate response.)
More Active
About the Same
_____ Less Active
6. How would you rate current efforts to control noise in your
municipality? (Please check the appropriate response.)
_____ Too Much
_____ About Right
Not Enough
_____ Do not know
7. Do you feel that a reinstitution of a federal presence in
noise would be of significant use to your municipality’s
noise abatement and control efforts? (Please check the
appropriate response.)
_____ YES (Please answer question #8)
_____ No (Please stop at this point)
Do Not know (Please answer question #8)
A- 4
-------
8. Please indicate the extent to which the following types of
Federal Noise Program assistance would be of significant use
to your municipality’s nois abatement and control efforts.
(Circle the correct response for each.)
Very Somewhat Not Do Not
Useful Useful Useful Know
a. Model Legislation VU SU NU DNK
b. Man Power VU SU NU DNK
c. Manpower Training VU SU NU DNK
I Workshops
d. Noise Control VU SU NU DNK
Program On-site
Technical
Assistance
e. Enforcement VU SU NU DNK
Procedures
f. Noise Technical VU SU NU DNK
Assistance Reports
g. Land Use Planning VU SU NU DNK
guides
h. Noise Measurement VU SU NU DNK
equipment
i. Public Information VU SU NU DNK
Materials
j. Vehicle Inspection VU SU NU DNK
/Maintenance
Procedures
k. Peer Exchange VU SU NU DNK
Programs
1. National/Regional/ VU SU NU DNK
State workshops
m. Airport Planning VU SU NU DNK
n. Regional Technical VU SU NU DNK
Assistance Centers
o. New product VU SU NtJ DNK
Regulations
p. Other (Specify) _______________________________________
A- 5
-------
9. If your municipality never had a noise control program,
please check the response which best explains why.
Noise is not a problem
_____ Noise is not a high priority problem
_____ Nothing can be done
_____ No legislative basis
_____ Too expensive
_____ Opposition from industry
_____ Other (Specify) ________________________
10. If your Municipality once had, but no longer has a noise
control program, please check the response which best
explains why.
_____ The noise problem was resolved
_____ The noise problem was reduced
_____ Federal presence in noise was discontinued
_____ Budget constraints
_____ Other (Specify) ______________________________
THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION IN COMPLETING THIS SURVEY
A- 6
-------
STATUS OF STATE NOISE CONTROL PROGRAM SURVEY
GENERAL INSThUC1 IONS
* This survey has been designed to provide the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with information on the
current status of state noise control programs which served as a
basis for discontinuing the federal noise program in 1982.
* If there is no individual in your state program who
specifically deals with noise pollution, please forward this
survey to the person who would handle a noise problem should
one arise.
* This questionnaire can be completed in less than 5 minutes.
Please take the time now to complete and return it. It is
important that you complete the entire survey.
* For states that do not currently undertake noise control
activities, those questions that do not apply have been noted in
the survey.
* Participation in this survey is strictly on a voluntary
basis. Upon completion of the analysis of the survey results,
you will be sent a copy of the project report of aggregate
percentages.
* If you have any questions or problems in completing the
survey, please feel free to communicate with Joseph J.
Soporowski, at (201) 932—9860.
* Please return the survey in the enclosed envelope by
November 22, 1989.
* Construction of this questionnaire was made possible through
the assistance of the National League of Cities. Basic format of
several questions appearing in this survey have been taken fr rn
the National League of Cities 1980 Survey Report entitled, “State
and Local Environmental Noise Control: 1980 Survey Report.”
Thank you for your cooperation.
Return to:
Joseph J. Soporowski, III
Noise Technical Assistance Center
Rutgers University
P.O. Box 231, New Brunswick, N.:.
08903
Person completing this questionnaire:
NAME
TITLE
DEPARTMENT
ADDRESS
CITY _____________________________ STATE ___________ ZIP _______
PHONE (
A— 7
-------
1. Has your state implemented noise control program? A noise
control program is defined as a program having the following:
funding, staff, equipment, and enforcement of a law or
regulation which includes decibel (noise level) limits. The
law or regulation must include (noise level) limits in any
one of the following areas: vehicles, property line,
construction and/or land use. Your state may have a noise
control program without specific legislation as long as some
other federal law or regulation is enforced. (Check one.)
_____ YES (Please answer questions 2 through 8)
_____ NO (Please skip questions 2 through 8 and
answer questions 9 and 10)
2. In the line below, write in the number of full-time state
employees (including public safety employees, excluding OSHA
employees) in each category who usually spend more than 20%
of their work week on noise control activities.
_____ a. Public Safety I Police
_____ b. Public Health
_____ c. Environmental Control
_____ d. Planning I Development
_____ e. Parks / Recreation
_____ f. Highways
_____ g. Motor Vehicles
_____ h. Other (Specify) __________________________
3. Please indicate whether or not these activities are part cf
your state’s noise control program. (Circle Y for yes
and N for no.)
PART OF PROGRAM
YES NO
a. Enforcement Y N
b. Complaint handling Y N
C. Development of laws!
Regulations Y N
d. Public Education I N
e. Environmental Impact
Reports I N
f. Monitoring / Surveys I N
g. Research Y N
h. Administration Y N
i. Technical assistance
to local governments I N
j. Other (Specify) ____________________
A- 8
-------
4. How much progress over the last eight years has been made by
your noise control program ir reducing the noise from each of
the following sources: (Circle the correct response for each)
Significant t inimal No Was Never
Progress Progress Progress A Problem
a. Aircraft SP MP NP WNP
b. Trucks SP MP NP WNP
c. Busses SF MP NP WNP
d. Autos SF MP NP WNP
e. Motorcycles SP MP NP WNP
f. Railroad SF MP NP WNP
Operations
g. Construction SP MP NP WNP
Equipment
h. Fixed Industry SF MP NP WNP
i. Emergency SF r iP NP WNP
Vehicles/sirens
j. Garbage Trucks SP MP NP WNP
k. Recreation SF MP NP WNP
Vehicles
1. Public SF MP NP WNP
Entertainment
m. Personal SP MP NP WNP
Entertainment
n. Animals SP MP NP WNP
o. Home Power Tools SF MP NP WNP
p. Off Road Vehicles SF MP NP WNP
q. Residential SF MP NP WNP
Heating/Cooling
Equipment
r . Comercial SF tIP NP WNP
Heating/Cooling
Equipment
s. Other (Specify) _______________________________________
A- 9
-------
5. Would you say that your stat s noise control program
is More Active, About the Same, or Less Active than it was in
198]. when federal presence in noise was withdrawn? (Check
the appropriate response.)
_____ More Active
_____ About the Same
Less Active
6. How would you rate current efforts to control noise in your
state? (Please check the appropriate response.)
_____ Too Much
About Right
Not Enough
Do not Know
7. Do you feel that a reinstitution of a federal presence in
noise would be of significant use to your state’s
noise abatement and control efforts? (Please check the
appropriate response.)
_____ YES (Please answer question #8)
_____ No (Please stop at this point)
Do Not Know (Please answer question $8)
A-1O
-------
8. Please indicate the extent to which the following types of
Federal Noise Program assistajice would be of significant use
to your State’s noise abatement and control efforts.
(Circle the correct response for each.)
Very Somewhat Not Do Not
Useful Useful Useful Know
a. Model Legislation VU SU NU DNK
b. Man Power VU SU NU DNK
c. Manpower Training VU SU NU DNK
I Workshops
d. Noise Control VU SU NU DNK
Program On-site
Technical
Assistance
e. Enforcement VU SU NtJ DNK
Procedures
f. Noise Technical VU SU NU DNK
Assistance Reports
g. Land Use Planning VU SU NU DNK
guides
h. Noise Measurement VU SU NU DNK
equipment
i. Public Information VU SU NU DNK
Materials
is Vehicle Inspection VU SU NU DNK
/Maintenance
Procedures
k. Peer Exchange VU SU NU DNK
P rograi is
1. National/Regional/ VU SU NU DNK
State workshops
m. Airport Planning VU SU NU DNK
n. Regional Technical VU SU NU DNK
Assistance Centers
o. New product VU SU NU DNK
Regulations
p. Other (Specify) ________________________________________
A—il
-------
9. If your state never had a noise control program,
please check the response which best explains why.
_____ Noise is not a problem
_____ Noise is not a high priority problem
_____ Nothing can be done
_____ No legislative basis
_____ Too expensive
_____ Opposition from industry
_____ Other (Specify) ___________________
10. If your state once had, but no longer has a noise
control program, please check the response which best
explains why.
_____ The noise problem was resolved
_____ The noise problem was reduced
_____ Federal presence in noise was discontinued
_____ Budget constraints
Other (Specify) __________________________
THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION IN COMPLETING THIS SURVEY
A-i 2
-------
APPENDIX B - SECOND MAILING LE ER I D STATES NOT RESPONDING AFYER
6 WEEKS
-------
RUTGERS NOISE TEC NICkL ASSISTANCE C 1TER
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE
N E COOK COLLEGE, RUTGERS UNIVERSITY N E
P.O. BOX 231, NEW BRUNSWICK, N.J. 08903
November 14, 1989
Dear Noise Control Official:
According to the Records of the National League of Cities,
your state once had a Noise Control Program. The purpose of this
communication is to determine the status of that program.
If your state NO LONGER HAS a Noise Control Program please
place a check mark here, fill in the identification information,
and send only this form in the enclosed, self addressed, stamped
envelope. (Disregard the accompanying Survey Form)
This State NO LONGER HAS a Noise Control Program.
NAME
TITLE:
DEPARTMENT:
ADDRESS:
CITY: ____________________ STATE: ____________ ZIP _______________
PHONE #:
If your state STILL HAS a Noise Control Program, please fill
out and return the enclosed survey form in the self addressed
stamped envelope.
Thank you for your time and effort.
Sincerely,
Joseph J. Soporowski, III
Director, Rutgers Noise
B—i
-------
APP IDIX C - E.P.A. NOISE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CENTER REQUEST
FOR INFORMATION LETrb.R
-------
NEW JERSEY NOISE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CENTER
COOK COLLEGE, RL TGERS UNIVERSITY
DEP ARTMEW OF ENVIRON1 IThL SCIENCE
P.O. BOX 231, NEW BRUNSWICK, N.J. 08903
September 15, 1989
Dear Noise Control Official:
The records of the National Association of Noise Control
Officers (NANCO) indicate that you, or someone at this address,
was once the project manager of a federally funded, regional,
Noise Technical Assistance Center.
As you may, or may not know, there once existed ten regional
Noise Technical Assistance Centers funded through the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. In 1982, federal presence in
Noise Pollution was withdrawn, placing the burden of noise
control and abatement on the States and Municipalities.
The purpose of this correspondence is to determine the
current status of those Centers. Any information on this subject
will help to answer the question, “What is the status of key
state and local noise control programs which served as a basis
for discontinuing the federal program in 1982?”
I am the Director of the New Jersey Noise Technical
Assistance Center (funded by the New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection), as well as a graduate student at
Rutgers University. The results of this project are expected to
have a great influence on the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency’s decision of whether or not to reinstitute a federaL
noise program.
It would be greatly appreciated if you would be kind enough
to take the time to answer the following question (Either by
written correspondence or by telephone):
“What is the current status of the Noise technica
Assistance Center of which you are associated, as opposed :
it’s status before federal presence was withdrawn in 1982?”
Should you have any questions, feel free to contact me.
Please send all replies to:
Noise Technical Assistance Center
P.O. Box 231
Cook College, Rutgers University
Department of Environmental Science
New Brunswick, N.J. 08903
Att: Joseph J. Soporowski, III
(201) 932—9860
SincereiX,
- — ) /‘ ‘ -
Joseph J. Soporowski, III
Director, Noise Technical
Assistance Center
c_i
-------
APPENDIX D - LOCAL AND STATE SURVEY RESPONSES AND DATE RECEIVED
-------
LOCAL SURVEY RESPONSES & DATE RECEIVED
POSITIVE RESPONSE
ALABAMA
Newton Vaughan (205) 883-3645
Director
City of Huntsville 12/7/89
2033-C Airpot Rd.
Huntsville, AL 35801
ARKANSAS
Susan E. Oswalt (907) 345-1407
Sanitarian
Dept. of Health & Human Services 10/24/89
P.O. Box 196650
Anchorage, AK 99519-6650
CALIFORNIA
Joseph W. Wright (714) 279-3553
Associate Planner
Community Development 11/1/89
815 W. 6th St.
Corona, CA 91720
Steve Concannon (714) 399 5467
Code Enforcement Officer
Community Development 10/30/89
207 N Harvard Ave.
Claremont, CA 91711
Sid Lee (213) 869—7331
Sr. Code Enf. Officer
Building & Safety 11/7/89
11111 Brookshire Ave
Darney, Ca 90241
James Hagen (619) 441-1742
Zoning Compliance Officer
Building and Planning 10/24/89
200 E. Main St.
El Cajon, CA. 92020
Mark A. Vester (209) 448-1319
Mech. Engr. II
Dev. Dept. City of Fresno 11/3/89
2326 Fresno St.
Fresno, Calif. 93721
D— 1
-------
Janet Solow (714) 741—5350
Code Enforcement Manager
Housing & Neighborhood Dev. 11/1/89
11391 Acacia Parkway
Garden Grove, California 92640
David E. Witt (619) 462—0171
Planning Director
Dept. of Planning 10/24/89
8130 Allison Ave.
La Mesa CA 92041
Monte McElroy (213) 618-5930
Adxnin. Env. Div.
Building & Safety Dept. 10/24/89
3031 Tarrance Blvd.
Lorrane, Calif. 90503
Jim Carney (213) 485—7010
Chief Inspector
Dept. of Building & Safety 11/1/89
500 Shatto P1. Suite 520
Los Angeles, CA 91748
Mike Gain (209) 577—5454
Public Services Supervisor
City of Modesto 11/7/89
P.O. Box 641
Modesto, CA 95353
Lt. Tom Merson (415) 329-2449
Traffic Manager
Palo Alto Police 11/3/89
275 Forrest Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94301
Christopher Becker (714) 993-8124
Associate Planner
Planning Dept. 10/24/89
City of Placentia, 401 E. Chapman Ave.
Placentia, CA 92670
Delyn Ellison (916) 386-6153
Env. Health Specialist
Dept. of Env. Management 11/1/89
8475 Jackson Rd. STE 240
Sacremento, CA 95826
Karla N. Dykes (408) 429—3555
Code Enforcement Officer
City Hall Annex- Rin 206 12/7/89
809 Center St.
Santa Cruz, CA 95060
D- 2
-------
Jim Stern (805) 925—0951. ext. 244
Assistant Director
Community Development 12/7/89
110 East Cook St.
Santa Maria, CA 93454
Michael Nottoli (408) 867—3438
Comm. Service Officer
13777 Fruitvale Ave. 12/7/89
Saratoga, CA 95070
Michael W. Kehn (805) 583-6776
Senior Planner
Env. Services 10/24/89
2929 Tapo Canyon Rd.
Simi Valley, CA 93036
Bob Prodoehi (805) 654-7869
Building Official
Building & Safety div. 10/24/89
501 Poli
Ventura, CA 93001
COLORADO
Mike Weil (303) 441—3239
Env. Enforcement Officer
City of Boulder 10/24/89
1739 Broadway
Boulder, CO 80302
Richard A. Bowman (719) 578-6348
Noise Control Supervisor
Risk Management 11/7/89
P.O. Box 1525 #1370
Cob. Springs, Co. 80901
Thomas Cowan (303) 893-6241
Public Health Sanitarian
Denver Dept. of Health & Hospitals 11/1/89
Environmental Health Services
605 Bannock St.
Denver, CO 80204
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA
James P. Musser (202) 727-7520
Code Enf. Officer
Cosumer Regulatory Affairs 12/7/89
614 H. St. N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001
D— 3
-------
FLOR .IDA
Shirley A. Farmer (407) 393-7960
Env. Officer II
Community Day. 12/7/89
201 W. Palmetto Park Rd.
Boca Raton, Fla 33432
Thomas E. McDonough (813) 462-4761
Env. Enforcement Div. Ad.rnin.
Env. Management 11/1/89
440 Court St.
Clearwater, FL 34616
Frank Paglianite (305) 761-5207
Code Compliance/Noise Control Officer
Building & Zoning 10/27/89
P.O. Box 14250
Ft. Lauderdale, FLA 33302
Michael A. Saclarides, (305) 673-7555
Code Enf. Officer
City of Miami Beach 10/24/89
Fire Dept., Code Enf. Div.
1700 Convention Center Dr.
P.O. Box 0
Miami Beach, Fl. 33119
Ralph D. Hendrickson Jr. (407) 845-4018
Code Administrator
CDEC Dept. Div. of Code Enf. 11/1/89
600 W. Blue Aeron Blvd.
City of Rivierra Beach, FLA. 33404
ILLINOIS
R. Scott Anslinger, R.S. (312) 253-2340 x555
Env. Health Officer
33 S. Arlington Heights Rd. 10/17/89
Arlington Heights, Il. 60007
Don B. Galley (312) 744—3210
Assist. Commis.
Dept. of Consumer Services 10/26/89
Rm 808, 121 N. LaSalle St.
Chicago IL 60602
D— 4
-------
XNDXM ?
Greg B. Sundin (219) 294-5471
Assist. Dir. For Planning
Planning & Development Dept. 10/27/89
229 S. Second St.
Elkhart IN 46516
Chris Wehner (812) 426-5597
Air Management
Evansville E.P.A. 12/7/89
1 N.W. 7th St., Rin. 207
Evansville, IN 47708
Donald L. Novak (219) 853-6306
Director
Environmental Management 10/19/89
5925 Calumet Ave.
Hammond IN. 46320
I A
John R. Klaus (515) 239-5146
City Attorney
Legal Dept. Ames Municipal Bldg. 10/16/89
5th & Kellogg
Ames, Iowa, 50010
Eugene F. Niebuhr, PE & LS (319) 242-0261
Public Works Director
City Hall, P.O. Box 158 10/19/89
Clinton, Iowa, 52732
Glenn C. Jackson, RS (712) 328-4666
Director, Health Dept.
209 Pearl 11/1/89
Council Bluffs, IA 51503
Dee F. Bruemmer (319) 326-7763
Assist. City Adii inistrator
Dept. of Administration 10/24/89
226 West 4th
Davenport Iowa 52801
Barry Vosler (515) 283-4207
Zoning Enforcement Officer
Building Dept. 10/24/89
Armory Bldg. 602 E. 1st.
Des Moines, Iowa, 50309
D— 5
-------
Mary Rose Corrigan, RN. (319) 589-418].
Public Health Specialist
Dubuque Health Dept. 10/16/89
1300 Main St.
Dubuque, Iowa, 52001
MARYLAND
Reuben Dagold (301) 396-4428
Director, Bureau of Industrial Hygiene
Baltimore city Health Dept. 10/24/89
303 E. Fayette St. - 4th Floor
Baltimore MD 21202
Andrew J. Cressmari (301) 262-6200 x3005
Code Enforcement Officer
Div. of Public Safety 10/24/89
2614 Kenhill Dr.
Bowie, MD 20715
MICHIGAN
Walter Bagby (616) 456-3470
Director of Neighborhood Improvement
345 State SE 11/7/89
Graride Rapids, MI 49503
John P. Arnot, P.E. (313) 675—3950
City Engineer
Trenton Engineering & Building Dept. 10/18/89
2800 Third St.
Trenton, MI, 48183
James W. DeLange (616) 530-7292
Chief Building Inspector
Building Inspections Div. 10/17/89
1155—28th St. S.W.
Wyoming, Michigan, 49509
MINNESOTA
John K. Nelson (612) 887—9634
Sr. Env. Health Specialist
Comm. Dev. 11/3/89
2215 W.O.S.R.
Bloomington, MN 55431
Stewart W. Anderson (612) 788-9221
Chief of Police
Columbia Heights Police 11/1/89
559 Mill St. NE
Columbia Heights, MN 55421
D— 6
-------
Herbert Wenkel (507) 625—3161.
Env. Health Sanitarian
Cornn unity Dev. 12/7/89
P.O. Box 3368
202 East Jackson St.
Mankato, f* 56001
Gail Trenholrn (612) 933-2511
Env. Health Specialist
Conununity Development 11/1/89
14600 Minnetonka Blvd.
Minnetonka, Mn 55343
Doug Sandstad (612) 533-1521
Building Official
Fire & Safety 12/7/89
4401 Xylon Ave No.
New Hope, MN 55428
MISSOURI
M. Christine Smith (816) 836—7232
Public Health Investigator
Independence Health Dept. 10/24/89
223 N. Memorial Dr.
Independence, MO. 64051
N RASKA
Bill Pugsloy (402) 471—8020
Assist. Chief Div. of Env. Health
Lincoln-Lanncaston Co. Health Dept. 10/24/89
2200 St. Mary’s Ave.
Lincoln, NE. 68502
NEW JERSEY
Patricia A. Hart (609) 443—4000
Health Officer
E. Windsor Twsp. Health Dept. 11/3/89
16 Lanning Blvd.
E. Windsor, N.J. 08520
Claudette Campbell (201) 881-3914
Sanitary Inspector
Dept. of Env. Science 10/27/89
176 Broadway
Paterson, N.J. 07505
D— 7
-------
NORTH CAROLINA
Jay H. Breedlore (704) 259-5897
Field Operations Commander
Ashville Police Dept. 10/17/89
P.O. Box 7148
Ashville, N.C. 28802
James E. Londeree (704) 336-3229
Noise Control Specialist
Charlotte Police Dept. 10/17/89
825 East Fourth St.
Charlotte, N.C. 28202
NORTh DAKOTA
Dennis L. Smetana (701) 852-0111
Admin Lt.
Minot Police Dept. 11/7/89
515 2 Ave. S.W.
Minot, ND 58701
OHIO
Steven M. Came (513) 443—3903
Zoning Administrator
Inspectional Services 10/18/89
P.O. Box 22
Dayton, Ohio,45405
William 3. Gorber (419) 6930350
Acting Chief, Enforcement!
Engineering 10/24/89
City of Toledo, Erlv. Services Div.
26 Main St.
Toledo, Ohio, 43605
OKLAHOMA
Bill Pedergraft (405) 321—1600
Captain, Field Div.
Norman Police Dept. 10/30/89
201-B West Gray
Norman OK 73069
3. Mills No Phone # Given
Zoning/Noise Inspector
Dept. of Planning 10/24/89
200 West Walker
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73112
D— 8
-------
Bruce C. Cleeton (503) 526-2271
Code Enforcement Officer
Police - City of Beaverton 10/24/89
P.O. Box 4755
Beaverton, OR, 97076
P NSYLVANIA
Daphne Pickens (215) 884—5000 x507
Health Officer
Code Enforcement Dept. 10/19/89
1176 Old York Rd.
Abington, PA. 10001
George N. Harris (215) 734—7640
Director of Public health
Health Dept. 10/24/89
Long Lane & Garrett Rd.
Upper Darby, PA 19082
RHODE ISLAND
Eugene J. Jeffers (401) 728-0500
Director of Public Works
137 Roosevelt Ave. 10/13/89
Pawtucket, R.I. 02861
T S
Pat Fouler (214) 205-3460
Director of Health Dept.
Garland Dept. of Health 10/18/89
P.O. Box 469002
Garland, Texas, 75044
Ross Wilhite (409) 983—8138
Dir. of Planning
Dept. of Planning 10/24/89
Box 1089
Port Arthur, Texas 77640
UTAH
Diane Keay (801) 534—4541
Env. Health Supervisor
Salt Lake City Health dept. 12/7/89
610 South 200 East
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
D— 9
-------
VIRGI ITh
A.W. Schwarting (804) 971-3375
Lieutenant/Service Div. Commander
Charlottsville Police Dept. 10/17/89
606 E. Market St.
Charlottesville, Virginia, 22901
WASHINGTON
William T. Weatherly Jr. (509) 332-2521
Chief of Police
Pullman Police Dept. 11/1/89
S.E. 260 Kamiaken
Pullman, WA 99163
Cort Homer (206) 296-4794
Env. Health Services Supervisor
Seattle-King Co. Dept. of Health, 10/24/89
Env. Division
201 Smith tower
Seattle, WA, 98104
WI SCONSIN
Radall E. Wergin (414) 656—8170
Dir. of Env. Health
City of Kenosha Health Dept. 10/24/89
625 52nd St.
Kenosha, WIS. 53140
Roger Halverson (414) 683—4500
Sergeant
Manitowoc Police Dept. 10/24/89
824 Jay St.
Manitowoc, WI. 54220
David Krey (414) 278-3538
Technical Coordinator
Milwaukee Health Dept. 11/1/89
841 N Broadway
Milwaukee, WI 53202
Michael Weber (414) 231—1489
Sanitarian
Health Dept. 10/24/89
P.O. Box 1130
Oshkosh, WI 54902
D—1O
-------
NEGATIVE RESPONSE
CALl FORNIA
Chuck Gabrysiak (415) 671-3044
Senior Planner
City of Concord 10/24/89
Planning Dept.
1950 Parkside Dr.
Concord, CA 94519
Roy T. Kato (213) 217 9524
City Planner
Comm. Dev. Dept. 11/1/89
1700 W. 162nd St.
Gardena CA 90247
Stephen R. Port (213) 970-7948
Chief of Police
Hawthorne Police Dept. 11/7/89
4440 W. 126th Street
Hawthorne CA. 90250
Fay Bachmer (213) 866-9771
Community Conservation Representative
Community Development 12/7/89
5050 Clark Ave.
Lakewood, CA 90714-0158
Stephen J. Whyld (714) 762-5658
Deputy Planning Director
Dept. of Planning 10/24/89
3900 Main St.
Riverside, CA 92522
CONNECTI CUT
Charles Vassilopoulis, R.S, (203) 872-8591
Deputy Health Officer
Vernon Health Dept. 10/17/89
14 Park Place
Vernon, CT. 06066
ILLINOIS
James W. Rayfield (618) 549—5302
Planner
Community Development Planning 10/17/89
P.O. Box 2047
Carbondale Il, 62902
D—11
-------
Michael T. Little (312) 964—0300
Dir. of Code Enforcement
Civic Center 10/17/89
Downers Grove, Ii, 60515
Nicholas W. Weiss (815) 740-2257
Lieutenant
Joliet Police Dept. 12/7/89
150 W. Jefferson St.
Joliet, IL 60431
James R. Taylor (309) 454—9520
Chief of Police
Normal Police Dept. 10/17/89
100 E. Phoenix Ave.
Normal, Ii., 61761
I iA
Shirley Brown (712) 279-6105
Assistant to City Manager
P.O. Box 447 10/17/89
Sioux City, Iowa, 52001
MA
Linda Macflermid (301) 424-8000 ext.250
Superintendent
Licenses & Inspections 11/1/89
111 Maryland Ave.
Rockville, MD 20850
NEW JERSEY
Pat Hart (609) 443—4455
Health Officer
Health Dept. 11/3/89
148 N. Main St.
Hightstown, N.J. 08520
Steven L. McKee (201) 615-2096
Health Officer
Middletown Health dept. 11/3/89
1 Kings Highway
Middletown, N.J. 07748
Northwest Bergen Regional No Phone Given
Health Commission
445—7212 W. Prospect St. 10/24/89
Waidwick, N.J. 07463
D—12
-------
WASHINGTON
Dennis Kroll (509) 456-4225
Env. Health Director
Spokane Co. Health Dept. 10/24/89
1101 W. College
Spokane, Wash. 99201
VIRGINIA
William J. Skrabak (703) 838—4860
Program Supervisor
Alexandria Health Dept. 10/30/89
517 N. St. Asaph St.
Alexandria, VA 22314
Ronald H. Miller (703) 981—2222
Bldg. Commis.
Dept. of Bldg. Inspections 10/24/89
215 Church Ave. S.W.
Roanoke, Va. 24011
D—13
-------
STATE SURVEY R ESPONSES & DATE RECEIVED
POSITIVE:
CALIFORNIA
Russel B. Dupree (415) 540-2604
Chief, Office of Noise Control
Dept. of Health Services 12/7/89
Rm. 118
2151 Berkeley Way
Berkeley, CA 94704
CONNE ITCUT
Joseph B. Pulaski (203) 393 0812
Principal Env. Analyst
Conn. Dept. of Env. Protection 10/24/89
627 Amity Rd.
Bethany Conn. 06525
HAWAII
Thomas Anamizu (808) 548—4383
Chief, Noise and Radiation Branch
Dept. of Health 12/7/89
591 Ala Moana Blvd.
Honolulu, Hawaii 96813-2498
ILL INOI S
Greg Zak (217) 782—6761
Noise Technical Advisor
Illinois E.P.A. 12/7/89
P.O. Box 19276
Springfield, Ii 62794-9276
MARYLAND
Michael J. Caughlin (301) 631-3200
Chief, Field Services and
Noise Control Div. 12/7/89
Maryland dept. of Env., Air Management
Adn in.
2500 Broening Highway
Dundalk, Md. 21224
NEW JERSEY
Edward J. DiPolvere (609) 984-4161
Chief, Office of Noise Control
N.J. D.E.P. 10/23/89
401 East State Street
Trenton, N.J. 08625
D-14
-------
NEGATIVE
COLORADO
Dave Go rdin (303) 331-8665
Sr. Health Physicist
Colorado Dept. of Health 10/30/89
4210 E. 11th Ave.
Denver, Colorado 80220
DELAWARE
R. H. Malemfant (302) 736—4791
Program Manager
Del. Dept. of National Resources 10/23/89
and Env. Control
P.O. Box 1401
Dover DE, 19903
INDIANA
Conrado Consino (304) 633-0147
Industrial Hygienist
Indiana State Board of Health 12/7/89
1330 W. Michigan St.
Indpls. IN 46206
K TUCKY
Patricia S. Tincher (502) 564—3382
Complaints Coordinator
Kentucky Div. for Air Quality 10/24/89
18 Kelly Rd.
Frankfort, Ky 40601
NEBRASKA
Gene Robinson (402) 471—2189
Chief, Air Quality Div.
Nebraska Dept. of Env. Control 12/7/89
Box 98922
Lincoln, Nebraska 68509
OKLAHOMA
Emily Allen (405) 271—7003
Env. Specialist Supervisor
Okia. Sate Dept. of Health 11/3/89
P.O. Box 53551
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73152
SOUTH DAKOTA
Scott W. Fichtner (605) 773-3153
Program Scientist
523 East Capitol Ave. 10/27/89
Pierre SD 57501
D-15
------- |