••tates
B Of •
V1
Washington DC 20460
r/EPA JOURNAL
Noise and the Environment
:-.r • •
A
v
1^1
-------
Noise
in Our
Environ-
ment
This issue of EPA Journal
reviews the battle against
noise—a pollutant that most
of us are exposed to at home,
at work, at play, and on the
streets. Administrator Costle
notes that noise control is
critical and that ways can be
found to keep abatement costs
within reason. An article by
Deputy Assistant Secretary
Hales of the Department of
Interior points out that modern
noise is an intrusion that can
detract from our enjoyment of
national parks. Legislative
aspects of noise control are
outlined by Senator John Culver
and Representative James
Florio. A former Surgeon
General describes the adverse
impact noise can have on
health. Other articles review the
role noise plays in our cities,
neighborhoods, and at work.
Some of the ways we can deal
with the problem of too much
noise are described in articles
about volunteer organizations,
product regulation, and public
information. A look at the
impact of hearing loss on
personal life and conflicting
views on the need for sirens
also are included. International
steps to control noise and
EPA's cooperation with Ger-
many on environmental matters
round out the issue. D
•
,
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Public Awareness (A-107)
Washington DC 20460
Volume 5
Number 9
October 1979
&EPA JOURNAL
Douglas M. Costle, Administrator
Joan Martin Nicholson, Director, Office of Public Awareness
Charles D. Pierce, Editor
Truman Temple, Associate Editor
John Heritage, Chris Perham, Assistant Editors
Articles
EPA is charged by Congress to
protect the Nation's land, air and
water systems. Under a mandate
of national environmental laws
focused on air and water quali-
ty, solid waste management and
the control of toxic substances,
pesticides, noise and radiation,
the Agency strives to formulate
and implement actions which
lead to a compatible balance be-
tween human activities and the
ability of natural systems to sup-
port and nurture life.
Front cover: This illustration, based
on Grant Wood's famous painting
"American Gothic," shows many of
the sources that add noise to daily
life. It was done for EPA Journal by
Nathan Davies of the E. James
White Design Company.
Opposite: This illustration from the
National Archives was a working
model for a series of security
posters during World War II.
Design Credits: Robert Flanagan,
Donna Kazaniwsky and Ron Farrah.
Photo credits Cornelius Keyes'
Bruce Davidson/Magnum, Dan
McCoy,' Erik Calonius,' Jonathan
Scott Arms/USDI National Park
Service, Bill Stanton/Magnum,
Yoichi Okamoto,' Henri Cartier
Bresson/Magnum, National
Archives and Records Service.
'Documerica
A Balanced Approach
to Noise Control
Administrator Costle discusses
the need for a quiet environment.
Quiet:
A National Resource •';•
An assessment of the importance
of natural sounds and their value
as an integral part of our parks
and historical monuments.
Opportunities
in the Quiet
Communities Act
Senator John Culver describes
the noise control tools this law
provides.
Aircraft Noise:
An Abatement
Priority 7
Representative James Florio
reviews the need to continue the
fight against this environmental
insult.
Noise:
The Invisible
Pollutant 8
An interview with Charles Elkins,
EPA Deputy Administrator for
Noise Abatement and Control.
Health and Noise 10
Luther Terry, former Surgeon
General, details some lesser-
known hazards of exposure to
high levels of sound.
Urban Noise
and Neighborhood
Organizations 12
A look at the ways some city
dwellers are dealing with noise
problems in their communities.
Quiet Comes To
Evansville 14
The story of a former Hell's Angel
who enforces a noise control
ordinance in an Indiana town.
Noise in
Our Cities
15
The President of the National
League of Cities discusses the
role of noise—and quiet—in the
Nation's urban centers.
Curbing Construction
Noise 17
A view from the construction
industry of how America can
continue to grow more quietly.
Noise in the
Workplace 18
High levels of sound can jeop-
ardize the health and safety of
workers—a review from the
labor standpoint.
The Sound of
Silence 19
What happens after the noise
stops? A look at some social and
psychological implications of
hearing loss.
Fighting
Noise Pollution
Around the World
20
What other countries are doing
about their noise problems.
Do We Need New
Product Noise
Regulations? 22
A review of the possible benefits
of controlling noise at the source.
Noise Control
Through
Education 23
A local official describes the
ways that public involvement
can help bring about quiet.
Volunteers
Against Noise
24
Efforts of private citizens to
improve the response to noise
problems.
Sirens 26
A review of the pros and cons
of the warning signals used by
emergency vehicles, firefighters,
and police.
Cooperating with
Germany on the
Environment 28
EPA and its German counterpart
share the results of research and
new technology in an effort to
solve environmental problems.
Almanac 27
News Briefs 29
Around the Nation 30
Update 34
People 36
The EPA Journal is published
monthly, with combined issues
July-August and November-Decem-
ber, by the U S Environmental
Protection Agency Use of funds for
printing this periodical lias been
approved by the Director of the
Office of Management and Budget
Views expressed by authors do not
necessarily reflect EPA policy Con-
tributions and inquiries should be
addressed to the Editor (A-107),
Waterside Mall, 401 M St . S W
Washington. D C 20460 No per
mission necessary to reproduce
contents except copyrighted photos
and other materials Subscription
S1 2 00 a year, SI 20 for single
copy, domestic, Sib 00 if mailed to
a foreign address No charge to
employees. Send check or money
order to Superintendent of Docu
merits. U S Government Printing
Office, Washington, D C 20402
Text prmU'd on recycled t>;ipei
-------
A Balanced
Approach to
IMoise Control
By Douglas M. Costle
EPA Administrator
A recent poll conducted by the U.S.
r~\ Bureau of the Census showed that
noise is considered to be the most undesir-
able neighborhood condition—more irritat-
ing than crime and deteriorating housing.
The poll also pointed out that the propor-
tion of Americans who feel this way has
been increasing yearly. This information
underscores the need for regulations and
programs to abate noise pollution in our
society.
Early in 1978, the U.S. Senate held over-
sight hearings to determine what amend-
ments to the Noise Control Act of 1972
were needed to respond to the growing
national constituency against noise. Two
things surfaced as being necessary: addi-
tional research into the non-auditory health
effects of noise, and stronger State and
local programs equipped to administer
noise administration and enforcement. Out
of these hearings, the Congress drafted a
set of amendments which became known
collectively as the Quiet Communities Act
of 1978.
I am pleased that, following the enact-
ment of the Noise Control Act of 1 972,
research has made significant inroads to-
ward an understanding of the effects of
noise. What is too much noise? Research
enables us to answer the question in terms
of volume, duration, and character of the
noise. Research thus provides a basis for
regulations that give numerical noise limits.
The answer to this question forms the
health and welfare justification for local
noise control ordinances and Federal
product regulation.
There has never been any doubt that ex-
cessive noise can cause severe hearing
impairment. Studies of the auditory effects
of noise abound. There also is no doubt that
we live in a world filled with potentially
harmful levels of noise. Our jobs, our enter-
tainment and recreation, and our neighbor-
hoods and homes all expose us to excessive
levels of noise. It is estimated that 20 mil-
lion or more Americans are exposed daily
to noise that is permanently damaging to
their hearing. EPA's research has already
established the limits of noise volume and
duration above which exposure will result
in hearing damage.
Recently, however, EPA's investigation
of the health and physiological effects of
noise has extended beyond the solely audi-
tory effects. We are currently in the second
year of a four-year study which is examin-
ing the non-auditory effect of noise on
primates. The results to date give us some-
thing to worry about. When exposed to
noise levels similar to those experienced
by millions of Americans in urban areas,
the laboratory animals experience a 30 per-
cent elevation in blood pressure. Further-
more, when the primates are withdrawn
from the noisy environment, their high
blood pressure persists.
This suggests the possibility of some-
thing quite startling. That is, not only might
our noisy living and working environments
be giving us high blood pressure, but those
occasional vacations we take to the country
may not be giving us much of a respite from
the ravages of noise. Since high blood pres-
sure (hypertension) is a serious risk factor
for heart disease and stroke and these two
causes account for 48 percent of the deaths
in this country each year, the public health
implications of this study could be very
serious indeed.
These significant findings correlate well
with 40 epidemiological studies in 11 coun-
tries, which link noise exposure with cardi-
ovascular disease. These findings highlight
the need for noise abatement and for con-
tinued research. During the next two years,
EPA will continue its research into the
physiological effects with emphasis placed
on cardiovascular effects, sleep, and
reproduction.
The Quiet Communities Act gives us the
opportunity to carry out noise abatement
that is needed so critically. EPA's noise
abatement initiatives have been and will
be part of a well-balanced program that
emphasizes both national standard-setting
and State and local programs. Noise is
viewed primarily as a local problem requir-
ing local solutions. It is our intention to use
the resources provided by the Quiet Com-
munities Act to foster the development of
State and local noise programs throughout
the Nation. By so doing, we are using
Federal dollars to initiate self-sustaining
local programs that can work on their own
to control noise in the future.
Principal features of EPA's State and
local program initiatives are public educa-
tion and information. EPA communicates
with localities, providing information on
the health effects of noise and the need for
Federal product regulation. It also provides
assistance to communities interested in
adopting and maintaining noise control
programs. When the information and edu-
cation programs take hold in the local com-
munities, EPA may follow-up with technical
and financial ass'stance.
Those of us in government must always
be aware of the needs, costs, and benefits
of regulatory programs. The Agency's re-
search program has amply demonstrated
that the need for noise abatement is critical.
EPA's reliance on State and local program
initiatives should help keep the costs of
abatement activities down. The benefits
will speak for themselves in a quiet and
healthy environment. D
EPAJOURNAL
-------
,
.;•*:•
-------
7S
Mount Mo run reflected in Jockson Lake is only one of the peaceful scenes to be found in Grand Teton National Park.
Quiet:
A National
Resource
By David F. Hales
As I was growing up, in what was, for
Texas, a large city, I do not recall
being bombarded by the noises of civiliza-
tion. I do recall, however, because I was
fortunate enough to spend at least part of
my summers away from the city, a sense
of joy and wonderment at the natural
sounds which seemed to penetrate pleas-
antly through more rural surroundings.
While I doubt if I could have articulated
then the value of the absence of man-made
sound, there is no doubt in my mind now
that it was this very absence which en-
riched—in fact, made possible—some of
my more treasured memories.
Much has been written of the changes
brought about by the technology of the
Twentieth Century. Since the beginning of
this century, we have consumed more
energy, expended more military firepower,
David Hales is Deputy A ssistant Secretary
for Fish and Wildlife and Parks in the
Department of the Interior.
artificially impounded more water, pro-
duced more written material, and generated
more trash than all of our forebears had up
until that time.
A perhaps overlooked result of the
changes this century has seen is our geo-
metrically expanded ability to make noise
and, more significantly, our increased
ability to spread that noise into places
where the sounds of man were rarely, if
ever, heard before.
This is not, of course, in and of itself,
pernicious. Few of us would prefer walking
from New York to San Francisco to occa-
sionally hearing the sound of an airplane.
As President Carter said, in his 1979 En-
vironmental Message, "A certain level of
urban noise is tolerable or even agreeable,
reflecting the multitude of activities that
make a city thrive."
The increasing pervasiveness of noise is,
however, one of the reasons that many
Americans place increasing importance on
escaping to places where quiet and soli-
tude still exist. One of the major responsi-
bilities of the National Park Service is to
ensure that such places continue to exist.
Each year we host some 300 million visits
by people who want to be refreshed and
renewed by the historic and natural re-
sources Congress has protected by inclu-
sion in the National Park System, Quiet is
one of those resources which deserves
protection.
In the Act of Congress which created the
National Park System, and in subsequent
legislation, some of which applies only to
the National Park Service, and some of
which is of broader scope, Congress and
Administrations of both major political
parties have made it clear that the Park
Service has the responsibility and authority
to regulate sources of noise within National
Parks. It also has responsibility to influence
other Agencies with authority to control
noise emanating outside of park boundaries
but impacting resources within them.
The exercise of these duties in a reason-
able and responsible way is a complex task,
for the production of noise is almost always
associated with someone's convenience,
and quite often, particularly when the noise
emanates from outside a park, with some-
one's livelihood.
Since one of the basic purposes of having
parks is for people's enjoyment, some
allowances for convenience should be
made if it appreciably increases the
individual's enjoyment of the resource
without harming it. Allowances cannot be
made, however, if the convenience of
some significantly impairs the enjoyment
of others, or if the very resource which one
seeks to enjoy is harmed or endangered.
in addition, we have the responsibility to
maintain a few places where convenience
is not a consideration and where people
can address nature face to face, without
mechanized buffers.
Although these types of situations (where
the convenience of the visitor must be
EPA JOURNAL
-------
weighed against the impact of the noise
which accompanies the convenience) are
complex, in these instances we can be
guided by ample precedent; a history of
decisions that have become accepted by
the American people and by Congress as
the standard which is expected from the
National Park Service.
In several instances, however, the con-
flict between noise and park values is even
more complex. Occasionally, the activities
that produce noise which impacts directly
and adversely on park resources have no
relationship to the enjoyment of park re-
sources, yet are important to the communi-
ties which are adjacent to the resource.
Since it is not particularly useful to gen-
eralize about such conflicts, let me take
two examples to illustrate the problems and
our approach to resolving them.
Grand Teton National Park in northwest
Wyoming, established in 1929 and ex-
panded in 1950, encompasses some 500
square miles of breathtaking mountains that
rise abruptly from the floor of Jackson Hole
Valley.
The stark rocky peaks were formed by a
combination of fire and ice—volcanic ac-
tion caused land to rise and fall along the
Teton Fault, then glaciers roamed the
valleys shaping the present canyons. The
ice sheets cleared soil from areas that now
are dominated by sagebrush and deposited
it in moraines that support pine, Engelmann
spruce, and alpine fir. The Park is home to
bighorn sheep, bear, deer, moose, and in
fall welcomes a massive migration of elk to
feeding grounds in Jackson Hole.
Jackson Hole Airport, located within the
boundaries of the Park, evolved from an
unpaved landing strip in the 1930's, as over
the years a runway and terminal facilities
were built on land leased from Federal,
State, and private interests. When the land
passed into the National Park System in
1950 the airport remained and became the
only airport inside a National Park, through
a continuing lease arrangement with the
Park Service. In 1963, and again in 1967,
the Federal Aviation Administration sug-
gested extending the airport runway to
accommodate larger propeller-driven
planes, then jets. The National Park Service
began studies of runway capacity in 1965,
and in 1971, Congress appropriated $2
million to study and implement improve-
ments to Jackson Hole Airport. The Service
issued a draft environmental impact state-
ment in 1973 on major airport improve-
ments including a wider, longer, and
stronger runway, runway lighting systems,
an air traffic control tower, and a sewage
treatment system. Most of these improve-
ments were approved by reviewing agen-
cies and are now complete, with the
exception of runway changes.
In our final Environmental Impact State-
ment in 1974, the Service recommended
denial for the runway extension and jet
service to Jackson Hole Airport, and
instead advocated the development of a
comprehensive regional transportation
p!an that would meet valid transportation
needs without unacceptable impacts on
Grand Teton National Park and nearby
Yellowstone.
Since 1974, the question not only of
whether or not to expand the'airport, but
also whether it should continue at all within
park boundaries has been fully debated and
discussed by government agencies at the
local. State, and Federal levels, and by
concerned interest groups.
The impact of airport-associated noise
has been studied by the Environmental
Protection Agency and the National Park
Service. What we found was that were it
not for airplane noise, the quiet in some
sections of the park would be so profound
that scientists could not register the sound
levels. What this meant was that the nat-
ural sounds of the Tetons, the murmuring
of streams, bird calls, even the sounds of
snow falling from the trees, could be heard.
The experiencing of these sounds is as
integral to the full enjoyment of the
Tetons as is an unobstructed view of the
park itself. In a setting such as the Grand
Tetons, where visitors actively seek quiet,
the sound of airplanes; particularly jet air-
planes, passes from being an annoyance
into a major intrusion.
We also analyzed the relationship of the
airport to the purposes of the National
Park and found that only 1 percent of the
people who visit the park each year use
the airport.
In light of these facts. Interior Secretary
Cecil D. Andrus, in August of this year,
announced his refusal to approve any run-
way extension, and called for the imple-
.mentation of a noise abatement plan for
airport activities. The Secretary also indi-
cated his belief that the special use permit
for the airport should not be renewed when
it expires in 1995, and urged that efforts to
relocate the airport be begun immediately.
In announcing his decision, Andrus said:
"With this much advance notice, I am
confident that the people of Jackson, work-
ing with local, State, and Federal assist-
ance, can locate and develop a new airport
site or other means to satisfy the transpor-
tation needs of the area. This decision
reflects our concern that the pristine setting
of this beautiful national park should not
indefinitely be degraded by unnecessary
noise and disturbance."
In another, even more complex, situation,
we are concerned about the impact of
noise associated with the operations of
Washington National Airport in Arlington,
Va., on Park Service areas in and around
the_Nation's Capital.
National Airport is located just across
the Potomac River from Washington, D.C.,
and serves some 13 million people each
year. Because of past problems with noise
complaints from suburban residents of
Virginia and Maryland, air traffic from
National is largely routed over the rivers
just north and south of the airport.
This means that many of the Capital's
most significant and heavily visited
memorials and parklands are located
either directly under, or immediately
adjacent to. National Airport's approach
and departure paths. These areas include
Arlington Memorial Cemetery and the Iwo
Jima Memorial, and Park Service-operated
areas such as the Washington Monument,
the Memorials to Lincoln, Jefferson, and
Theodore Roosevelt, and a number of
historic sites and recreational areas. Be-
cause of this proximity, aircraft noise
effectively disrupts an otherwise moving
experience for millions of park visitors
each year. _
Many of the memorials offer interpretive
programs presented by National Park
Service guides instead of signs. Park per-
sonnel at the Jefferson and Lincoln Memo-
rials must contend with repeated noise
interruptions during their talks. Some
guides have developed a speak, pause
pattern to accommodate the jets. Other
guides on Theodore Roosevelt Island have
resorted to using megaphones to get their
message across. In addition, the intensified
effect of the aircraft noise on the hearing of
park employees, because of the acoustical
properties of those structures, is a matter
of some concern to Park officials.
The intrusion of aircraft noise is espe-
cially harsh at some of the historical loca-
tions. At Arlington House in the heart of
Arlington Cemetery, tour guides attempt to
recreate the mood of the home when Gen-
eral Robert E. Lee lived there, as jets roar
by outside. Turkey Run Farm is a working
replica of the farms that fed the residents of
the Nation's Capital in the 18th Century.
All the accoutrements are authentic except
the noise from above.
In the past years, the Park Service has
sponsored concerts, plays, and musicals at
various places in and around the District
of Columbia. The Watergate Concerts,
which were held near the famous apart-
ment complex starting in the '60's had to
be stopped because of the noise. Sym-
phony concerts at the Iwo Jima Memorial
were cancelled when the Navy Band re-
fused to continue playing in competition
with the aircraft. Additionally, many pos-
sible visitor activities, such as readings
and presentations, are automatically ruled
out for the Capita! area because of the
noise interference.
Vacationing visitors are subjected to
such extremes of sound at the base of the
Continued on page 33
OCTOBER 1979
-------
Opportunities
in the
Quiet Communities
Act
By Senator John C. Culver
(D-lowa)
I n 1972, Congress passed the Noise
' Control Act to reduce excessive noise
that jeopardizes the health of our citizens,
and gave the Environmental Protection
Agency the authority to develop noise con-
trol methods. In the years that followed,
unfortunately, we found that the law did
not do enough to help communities to
resolve their unique problems.
The need to create community-level
noise programs was brought to the atten-
tion of Congress when the Senate Re-
source Protection Subcommittee, which I
chair, held oversight hearings on the Noise
Control Act in March and April of 1978.
This was the first comprehensive set of
hearings by the Senate on the Noise
Control Act since its enactment, and this
examination was revealing.
One finding was that the 1972 Act had,
in fact, simply not reduced environmental
noise. Indeed, the subcommittee dis-
covered that, despite the efforts of EPA,
noise and its adverse health effects were
increasing on the whole nationwide.
I took the March, 1978, hearings to Des
Moines, Iowa, in order to learn more about
problems of cities in dealing with exces-
sive noise. One witness after another
emphasized the need for effective noise
education and abatement programs on a
local level.
Elaine Szymoniak, a member of the
Des Moines City Council, for example,
stressed the need for public education and
said more money should be provided to
communities for self-help programs.
Charles Anderson, a professor of
audiology at the University of Iowa Hospi-
tals and Clinics, urged that three actions
be taken to inform the public: "(1) the
development of Federal grant programs
supporting innovative research into the
effects of noise on human health and wel-
fare, (2) the support of local demonstra-
tion projects on public education, and (3)
the broad dissemination to the public of
information about the known effects of
noise on human health and welfare."
Larry Crane, executive director of the
Iowa Department of Environmental Qual-
ity, said he felt that EPA should do more
noise research and should establish "real-
istic standards which would provide
additional guidance to local governments
in the kind of options they can imple-
ment." He, too, supported a grant program
that would be responsive to local needs.
Finally, Ed Ryan, area director for the
National Retired Teachers Association/
American Association of Retired Persons
Title X program, explained the special
requirements of our senior citizens for
effective noise control programs. He indi-
cated that the elderly represent an out-
standing resource to help implement com-
munity noise education and control
programs.
I was impressed with Iowa's response
to the noise problem. Many Iowa cities,
like cities in other States, have adopted
or are moving toward noise control ordi-
nances. Effective programs are already in
operation in Des Moines, Council Bluffs,
Dubuque, Sioux City, Davenport, and other
mid-sized cities. It has been especially
gratifying that Iowa realizes that noise is a
pervasive problem which is not confined
solely to industrial States, and that pro-
grams must be directed at specific
regional and local needs.
At the April, 1978, hearings in Wash-
ington. D.C., the National League of
Cities, the National Association of Coun-
ties, numerous State and local noise and
health officials, former Surgeon General
Dr. Luther Terry, and others all supported
greater public education, research, and
grant programs for our cities and towns.
The Subcommittee on Resource Protec-
tion concluded that few effective programs
had been initiated at the Federal level to
inform the public about the adverse health
effects of noise, and to properly integrate
local needs into any control strategies.
The solution recommended by the sub-
committee was for EPA to place greater
emphasis on technical assistance to Slate
and local levels, to begin a vigorous noise
research program, and to strengthen the
regulatory program.
In resoonse to these problems, the
Quiet Communities Act of 1 978, which I
introduced, authorized EPA to develop a
range of programs to help State and local
governments combat excessive noise at
the local level. It allows corr.munities to be
the principal developers of programs that
are responsive to their own special needs,
desires, and capabilities. In addition, it
not only encourages communities to assist
one another but afso encourages them to
solicit the cooperation of volunteers and
senior citizens. The Act also provides direct
assistance from EPA in the form of grants,
training programs, seminars, and a clear-
inghouse on noise information.
I have been very impressed with several
innovative programs of EPA's Office of
Noise Abatement Control.
First, the Quiet Communities Program
was established in 1977 as a pilot project
to demonstrate the best available tech-
niques for local noise control. The first
Quiet Community, Allentown, Pa., received
an EPA grant in September of that year. The
Quiet Communities program was made a
nationwide, permanent effort with enact-
ment of the Quiet Communities Act of
1978.
This pilot program, emphasizing com-
munity involvement in defining the major
noise control problems and finding solu-
Contifiued on pfif,"
EPAJOURNAL
-------
Aircraft Noise:
An Abatement
Priority
By Representative James J. Florio
(D-NJ.)
is an essential element in the
of our lives. Our citizens are
increasingly conscious of the impact of
noise and are no longer willing to dismiss
it as an annoyance that must be tolerated.
However, combatting the increasing on-
slaught of noise is a frustrating undertaking
for even the most highly motivated
communities.
Unfortunately, each level of government
has unwittingly contributed to this frustra-
tion. Though Federal noise abatement and
control activities were concentrated in the
Environmental Protection Agency In 1972
with the passage of the Noise Control Act,
the enforcement of noise standards and
regulations is largely a State and local mat-
ter. This local emphasis was embodied in
the Quiet Communities Act Amendments of
1978. However, with ever-increasing bud-
getary constraints, local noise abatement
and control programs often suffer a low
priority. Even at the Federal level, the EPA,
charged with leadership responsibility,
allots a modest one percent of its total
budget for noise control activities.
It is time for us to recognize the impact
of noise on the public health and welfare
and to be resolved in our attempt to reduce
and control its effect on our lives. As Chair-
man of the Subcommittee on Transporta-
tion and Commerce of the House Interstate
and Foreign Commerce Committee, I have
closely examined the problems and avail-
able means to decrease noise pollution in
our environment. Testimony before the
Subcommittee has persuaded me that pro-
longed exposureto noise adversely affects
human health. The frequent interruption of
sleep, high blood pressure, and emotional
disorders can be exacerbated by the un-
relenting bombardment of noise.
Similarly, high levels of environmental
noise are often linked with the economic
decline of neighborhoods. In testimony be-
fore the subcommittee, witnesses ex-
plained that the fiscal well-being of com-
munities located near significant noise
sources is threatened by the subsequent
exodus of homeowners and shopkeepers
seeking quieter surroundings. Though the
causal relationship of noise to ill health and
urban economic decline requires further
investigation, we can agree that noise is
certainly not an asset.
In the interest of decreasing environmen-
tal noise, preserving the public health and
welfare, and observing public budgetary
constraints, I am convinced that we must
more narrowly focus our noise abatement
effort in order to be effective. It is critical
that we channel our resources toward re-
ducing those sources of noise that have the
greatest impact on the greatest portion of
our population. Without doubt, the most
widespread and universally experienced
noise problem is aircraft noise. I strongly
urge that combatting aircraft noise be our
Nation's number one noise abatement
priority.
Aircraft Noise: The Target of
Special Interests
The 1 970's have been called the decade of
environmental legislation. Unfortunately,
we are beg inning to experience an all-out
effort on the part of special interests to dis-
mantle the intent of these taws. The Federal
authority for reducing aircraft noise is no
exception. It, too, has been the target of
such dismantling.
Specifically, I am referring to the avia-
tion noise abatement bills now under con-
sideration by the Congress. If these legis-
lative attempts are successful, the Federal
authority to control aircraft noise will be
seriously eroded. These bills would (1) ex-
empt a substantial portion of commercial
aircraft from compliance with established
noise abatement deadlines; (2) discourage
production of quieter aircraft, and (3) sev-
erefy undercut both the FAA and the EPA's
authority to implement noise abatement
measures.
These bills represent a flagrant disregard
by their supporters for the health and wel-
fare of our communities. Further, I view
these legislative proposals as testimony to
the unwillingness of the air carrier industry
to comply with long-standing regulations
intended to provide long-awaited relief
promised to communities plagued by
aircraft noise.
Communities Take Action
On the basis of testimony, correspondence,
and useful information discussions with
local officials and citizens, it is clear that
the callous dismemberment of existing
noise abatement laws and regulations will
not be quietly accepted. In lieu of Federal
authority, local officials have indicated their
willingness to bring noise control matters
before city councils and county chambers.
In the face of possible revocation of exist-
ing Federal aviation noise abatement au-
thority, communities have already begun to
pass their own ordinances to control the
use of local airports by noisy aircraft. Pre-
cisely this sort of action was taken in June
of this year by the members of the Los
Angeles City Council.
Similar action by other communities
near the major airports of our Nation could
severely disrupt interstate commercial
aviation. However, in lieu of Federal au-
thority, local governments cannot be pre-
vented from adopting their own means for
resolving the aircraft noise issue. The sup-
porters of legislation that effectively guar-
antees the continuation of aircraft noise
OCTOBER 1979
-------
Noise:
The Invisible
Pollutant
Interview with
Charles Elkins, Deputy
Administrator for
Noise Abatement
and Control
You've worked in most of
the programs in EPA. How is
working in the Noise Program
different?
I have a very hard time convinc-
ing people that noise pollution
is important. In my other assign-
ments in EPA, I've had the task
of presenting issues and poli-
cies related to virtually all of
EPA's programs, but noise is
much harder to present. I find
it easier to convince people of
the hazards of some chemical
which they have never heard of
than about noise, even though
I often have a stronger health
case. We all seem to have an
instinctive fear and respect of
the unknown and, in contrast, a
cavalier disinterest about those
risks which we think we under-
stand. I know. I used to have
these very same views about
noise until I took a closer look
and realized how people's un-
conscious attitudes were getting
in the way of their understand-
ing of the hazards of noise.
Noise is something we grow up
with, and it is very difficult to
believe that such a common
pollutant could be doing any-
thing serious to our health or
environment.
EPA has a legal mandate to
protect public health. Where
does noise as a pollutant fit
into the health picture? Is
hearing loss the principal
effect?
Hearing loss is one of the best
understood harmful impacts of
noise. Loss of hearing occurs at
noise levels which most people
would believe are completely
harmless. With the limited
monitoring we have done, we
find that even some housewives
are being exposed to noise on a
24-hour basis that could be
hazardous to their hearing. This
puts into perspective the risk of
hearing loss to factory workers
and other people subjected to
high noise levels. Unfortunate-
ly, once a person loses hear-
ing from over-exposure to noise,
a hearing aid will usually not
help.
Except for hearing loss,
though, isn't noise some-
thing we can get used to?
No, in fact this is not the case.
People who think they can get
used to noise are deceiving
themselves. If a child comes up
behind you and shoots off a cap
gun, you might stay in your seat
and appear to be calm and un-
disturbed. But you cannot con-
trol your heart rate and adrena-
lin secretion and other internal
reactions. These will increase,
and your body will react be-
cause of your instinctive fear
response. We can consciously
control many of our reactions to
noise, but some of the body's
systems are not controlled by
our consciousness. I am con-
fident this kind of bodily re-
sponse to noise will be recog-
nized more in the future, as
stress-related physiological
studies are completed. Perhaps
then we will recognize that we
must take steps to protect our-
selves from an overdose of
noise, and we will begin to
feel frustrated, as many citizens
already do, because in our
society it is so difficult to escape
from noise.
I've heard that noise may
contribute to cardiovascular
disease. Has this been proven
yet?
The evidence is not all in yet but
40 epidemiological studies con-
ducted in Europe show a link
between noise and cardiovas-
cular disease. In addition, EPA
and the National Institutes of
Health (NIH) are now conduct-
ing a study of rhesus monkeys
to determine the reactions of
their cardiovascular systems to
noise. We find that when ex-
posed to levels of noise which
many Americans receive day in
and day out, these monkeys
develop high blood pressure.
After the noise was shut off this
high blood pressure continued.
These studies suggest that
noise may be a contributing
cause of cardiovascular dis-
ease. Thirty-eight percent of the
people in this country die from
cardiovascular disease, another
ten percent die from stroke.
Hypertension (high blood pres-
sure) is a major cause of these
diseases. In the next few
months, we expect to expand
our research on the link between
cardiovascular effects and
noise. If these studies continue
the trend of previous studies,
noise control may develop into
one of EPA's major health pro-
tection programs.
Isn't one of the difficulties
with noise the fact that some
people like to make noise,
that in some instances we
equate noise with power?
Yes. We see this in our chil-
dren's love for reafly noisy toys,
such as the ubiquitous "Big
Wheel." Region 5's Noise Pro-
gram Chief, Horst Witschonke,
came up with an excellent ob-
servation on this point. He was
awakened at 2 a.m. one night by
a motorcycle going by. Instead
of counting sheep he lay there
calculating how many people
this one motorcyclist could
wake up or disturb in one hour,
driving at a normal speed
through the streets of Chicago.
He estimated it would affect
something like fifteen or twenty
thousand people.
How long will it take to bring
noise down to an acceptable
level?
Unfortunately under current
programs I don't see a time
when an acceptable level will be
reached. Take traffic noise for
instance: if there were no Fed-
eral regulations, the number of
people exposed to traffic noise
would double by the year 2000,
as compared to when the Act
was passed in 1 972. With a
very ambitious Federal regula-
tory program by the year 2000
we might be successful in hold-
ing down the noise exposure to
• the same number of people
affected in 1972. But this as-
sumes that the products will not
degrade and that no one will
modify or tamper with them.
We all know, however, that
people seem to enjoy modifying
cars and motorcycles, so the
outlook is not encouraging.
Is airplane noise a major
problem?
Aviation noise seems to aggra-
vate people more than any other
source of noise even though it
affects a smaller number of
people than traffic noise. One
reason is that airplane noise
intrudes into peoples' homes—
their refuge from the world—
EPA JOURNAL
-------
and for many there is no escape
because they cannot afford to
move. The regulatory authority
for controlling aviation noise
lies with the Federal Aviation
Administration. Recently they
have put out some regulations
that will result in a substantial
reduction in the number of peo-
ple exposed to aviation noise by
1 985. That's the good news.
The bad news is that immedi-
ately thereafter the number of
people exposed will begin to
rise again because of the ex-
pected increase in air traffic.
Is there anything that planners
can do to minimize noise in
residential areas?
There certainly is. In fact, pre-
vention is a lot cheaper than
trying to abate the noise after it
is already there. Homes can be
insulated and designed to shut
out noise, if we know they are
going to be exposed to a high
noise level. Land bordering a
noisy industrial site can be put
to compatible use instead of
being residential. Highways, of
course, can be routed away
from residential areas. There
can be spacing between the
highway and the homes them-
selves and barriers can be
erected. It's easier and more
cost-effective to erect a barrier
along the highway or at the edge
of a community atthetimethe
original highway or community
is being built. If we install bar-
riers after the fact, as Virginia is
now doing around the beltway
in Washington, D.C., we find
it's very difficult to buy the
proper land and to place the bar-
riers where they can be most
effective. Prevention is really
the best answer to noise prob-
lems for the future.
In the past Congress has
sometimes been critical of
the performance of some of
the Agency's noise efforts.
How is the Agency responding
to this?
The Congress has been critical
really on two points. One is the
speed with which we put out
regulations, and the other is the
lack of emphasis on State and
locai programs. In thetimesince
the criticism was originally
voiced regarding the regula-
tions, we have proposed a num-
ber of additional regulations
and we expect to promul-
gate them very shortly. The
question of State and local
programs is more difficult
because the 1972 act did not
give us any real responsibility
to deal with States and local-
ities. That has been corrected
and we feel that the perform-
ance that Congress will now see
under the Quiet Communities
Act will be responsive to their
criticism.
Do we have any important
noise standards that will be
coming into existence in the
immediate future?
Atthepresenttime, large trucks,
rail cars and locomotives, and
air compressors are regulated.
Shortly we will promulgate final
regulations on garbage trucks,
buses, motorcycles, and other
railroad equipment. In addition,
we are initiating a labeling pro-
gram to help consumers make
informed choices about the
products they buy. This is im-
portant because consumers can
control the amount of noise pol-
lution to which they are ex-
posed more so than in the other
pollution areas. Noise is such a
pervasive pollutant, perhaps the
most pervasive that this Agency
deals with, that it would be im-
possible for us to protect people
from all serious exposures.
Individuals must help protect
themselves.
We've found people com-
plaining about disco noise.
Do some feel that the Federal
Government should say you
can't go to a disco because the
noise is too high and it wi11
damage your hearing even
though discoing is an individ-
ual choice7
Yes, but there really is a limit to
what the Federal Government
can and should do with regard
to many noises including disco
noise. EPA can inform people
that their hearing can be dam-
aged. But they must decide for
themselves. We have also in-
formed locai communities about
what other communities have
done. For instance, in Mont-
gomery County, Md., school
dances are controlled beiow
certain decibel levels and in a
few communities signs are
posted outside discos to warn
people of possible harm to their
hearing. Rock music perform-
ances could be handled in the
same manner.
Do we have any indications
that industries and manu-
facturers are interested in
cooperating with the labeling
program ? Are there some that
will voluntarily label their
products in the near future?
Yes. Some manufacturers rec-
ognize that they can build
quieter products and that this
could be an excellent selling
point, particularly for some
consumer products. Consumers
must let the manufacturers
know that quieter products are
more desirable.
We are working now with
several industry groups on the
development of voluntary label-
ing programs. The offer which
the Agency has held out to them
is that if they develop a volun-
tary program that meets our
criteria, then EPA will postpone
imposing a Federal labeling re-
quirement on their product unti!
their program has a chance to
prove itself.
Are there any segments of our
society that we can say are
getting quieter? Do we have
cause for optimism?
The neighborhoods around
many airports will get signifi-
cantly quieter by 1985. Un-
fortunately, the noise will start
back up at a fairly rapid rate
unless further steps are taken.
Noise is no different from all the
other pollutants that EPA con-
trols. If we want to make the
year 2000 clean or quiet, steps
must be taken now to change
the design of products and fac-
tories, since long lead-times are
involved. With the present Fed-
eral effort in noise we are not
able to promise that the year
2000 will really be any quieter
than the year 1972, the year the
Congress directed EPA to
launch an attack on this
pollutant.
If EPA is vigorous in its imple-
mentation of the Quiet Commu-
nity Act, we may be able to hold
the line on noise exposure. Of
course, without a Federal pro-
gram, the situation would be
much worse.
Where do you see the noise
program going in the next five
years?
We see a tremendous enthu-
siasm for noise control at the
State and local level. In fact, a
recent Gallup poll showed that
next to water pollution, noise
was mentioned more often as a
serious polfution problem than
any other. The number of local
noise ordinances has sky-
rocketed in the last several
years. Therefore, we predict a
very rapid growth in State and
local programs to control noise.
I began my career in the Fed-
eral Government working on air
pollution. Back in the 60's air
pollution was viewed primarily
as an irritant which made peo-
ple's eyes water in Los Angeles,
and few people recognized air
pollution's more serious heath
effects. The air pollution pro-
gram and the public's under-
standing of the problem have
grown tremendously. The noise
control program is still at the
"Los Angeles" irritant stage in
terms of public awareness. The
Noise Program is lucky to be in
EPA, which has had the experi-
ence of these other growing
programs. The noise program
can profit from the insights
gained. Q
This interview was conducted
by Chris Per ham, Assistant
Editor, EPA Journal.
OCTOBER 1979
-------
Health
and
Noise
By Luther L.Terry, M.D.
The realization that noise is a pollutant
has been very slow in coming to the
general public. Yet it is clear that we are
now fighting the same battle against noise
pollution that we fought 10 to 15 years
agooverairand water pollution.
As a physician, I am very concerned
about this problem because of its insidious
quality. First of all noise is invisible and its
impact on our total environment, including
people, has proven to be more difficult to
define than that of other environmental
pollutants.
Most of the scientific evidence available
supporting the fact that noise is harmful to
human beings is in the auditory area. At
the recent Model Symposium on Commu-
nity Noise, held last May in Washington,
D.C., Dr. David Lipscomb reminded us that
the cochlea in the inner ear is completed in
the developing fetus by the third month of
pregnancy and it is virtually of adult size
and complexity by that time. This would in-
dicate that the auditory mechanism is de-
signed to serve an extremely vital part in a
person's livelihood.
The insidious character of high level
exposure is such that it may be weeks,
months, years, or decades before the total
influence and reaction is felt by the person
so exposed. Dr. Lipscomb also brought out
the fact that we don't have "earlids." We
can't effectively close off our ears from the
sound around us. Therefore, it is imperative
that our ears have some quiet time because
community noise levels are increasing. Our
ears are more susceptible or predisposed to
damage from high intens'ty sound because
they are not rested but remain under
continued assault.
Hearing is our maior social and learning
sense. The ear is a magnificent microcosm
of creation. It may be small in si7R but it is
mighty in its impact on the totality of hu-
man life. I believe that we should eliminate
exposure to high level sound, which can
destrov the structure and function of this
beautifully engineered receiver of vital
outside information.
There is another auditory effect from ex-
cessive noise and that is in speech inter-
ference. A good deal of study has been
undertaken to discover what kind of speak-
ing voice is necessary for an individual to
be able to carry on an intelligent conversa-
tion with another person from various dis-
tances in the presence of noise. We now
have a good feel for what happens when
noise interferes with a person's communi-
cating ability. Adequate communication
has a bearing on everything including
safety and the quality of life.
What has not been investigated but cer-
tainly should be, is whether the decrease in
hearing sensitivity in response to noise ex-
posure is a protective mechanism of our
bodies against a perhaps greater danger—
physiological damage resulting from noise
exposure. We know that noise can constrict
blood vessels, speed the heart rate, stimu-
late the outpouring of adrenal cortical hor-
mones, and elevate the blood cholesterol
level. And Dr. Robert Cantrell, Chairman of
the Committee on the Medical Aspects of
Noise, American Academy of Otolaryn-
gology, feels very strongly that since noise
enters the body through the ear, the body
may wish to protect itself from greater
damage by sacrificing the sense of hearing,
which is not absolutely necessary for hu-
man survival.
In addition, there are other very im-
portant non-auditory effects of excessive
noise. A partial list would include cardio-
vascular constriction, elevated blood pres-
sure, increased heart rate, more labored
breathing, measureable changes in skin re-
sistance and skeletal muscle tension,
digestive system changes, glandular activ-
ity altering the chemical content of blood
and urine, vestibular effect, balance sense
effect, changes in brain chemistry, and so
forth.
Recent research has also indicated that
excessive noise exposure during pregnancy
can influence early embryo development. A
very careful set of studies done at Research
Triangle Park, N.C., attributed this fact to
overproduction of corticosteroids, which
induces congenital defects, and so we are
beginning to see that noise can be a nega-
tive influence to coming generations. There
are correlations also, which still are not well
understood, between more noisy environ-
mentsand mental disorders.
I am very much interested in a recent
animal research report presented by Dr.
Ernest Peterson of University of Miami, at
the Model Symposium on Community
Noise. He has exposed rhesus monkeys
(whose cardiovascular system operates on
the same general principle as human be-
ings) to a noise exposure sequence resem-
bling the exposure pattern that an industrial
worker in the western world might experi-
ence on a daily basis. Various forms of
household noise, transportation noise,
cafeteria noise, work-place noise, air con-
ditioner drone, aircraft fly-overs and
noise from passing vehicles bombarded
these animals for nine months.
The test showed an immediate rise in
their blood pressure when the noise was
turned on. Over a period of time blood
pressure was elevated 30 percent, which
percentage was sustained over the nine
month period. But the most interesting re-
sult was the fact that their blood pressure
remained at the 30 percent increased level
long after the noise was turned off. If one
chooses to translate this information to the
human condition (although at present there
are no clinical studies on people to confirm
the hypothesis) it becomes evident that if
you as a person are exposed to high noise
levels and you wish to escape them for a
few days by relaxing and allowing the
effects of the noise to dissipate, you will
be disappointed because the effects are
going to last much longer than the noise.
Although it is a normal physiological re-
sponse for a person to have elevated blood
pressure during periods of stress, under
most circumstances the blood pressure
returns to normal when the stress is re-
moved. Continued stress can lead to hyper-
tension and be a contributing cause in
decreasing life expectancy. Excessive noise
in the environment falls into the category of
"continued stress" and actually poses a
safety danger as regards a person's ability
to hear important warnings in our everyday
pattern of life.
Even in the area of recreational activ-
ities, noise is important. A recent survey
done by the Environmental Health Admin-
istration of Washington, D.C. measured the
noise level of 1 8 discos in the District.
Measurements were made at the edge of
the dance floor, at the disc jockey station,
and at the bar. On the basis of accepted
standards it was found that: (1) Fifty per-
cent of the discos constituted an occupa-
tional hazard to disc iockeys and bartend-
ers, and that in three discos, the noise level
was such that the exposure time for the disc
iockey should be limited to one hour or
less, and (21 if occupational limits are
applied in the case of patrons, then at the
noisier discos, the patrons should not be
permitted to remain for more than two
hours.
There are numerous reasons for stress-
ina the need for a quieter environment.
First, the human body is a wondrous device
which uses a complicated set of counter-
relevant forces that are kept in balance in
order to maintain body health and eouilib-
rium. Any unnecessary influence which
interferes with the normal body function
should not be tolerated.
Second, one most important human
need is foradesirablequal it vof life.This
is not possible in the case of half the citi-
10
EPA JOURNAL
-------
zens of this country because of excessive
noise in their work, recreational, or home
environment.
And, third, "home" should be a place
for rest and quiet after the labor and cares of
each day. Community noise deprives most
people of access to such a retreat. This is an
unfortunate and unnecessary by-product of
our industrialized society which may in fact
be taking an unrecognized toll on human
physical and mental health.
We need a great deal more research in
the public health and welfare area of noise
pollution. We need to fill in the voids that
are still left. There is a definite need in this
country for tight prospective studies deal-
ing with the problem of noise and cardio-
vascular function in human beings and the
effects of noise on the unborn. We need to
know the effects of noise on children and
infants, especially their susceptibility to
hearing loss. There is an enormous need
to understand immunologic mechanisms
and their relationship to excessive noise.
The Environmental Protection Agency
has the mandated responsibility and au-
thority to pursue the research to gain the
knowledge needed for meaningful progress
in achieving a more healthy environment.
Especially in the areas of secondary health
effects, it is a complicated task calling for
the very best in scientific design and talent.
It also calls for informed, creative leader-
ship at the governmental and professional
levels as well as cooperation between public
and private agencies. This is a challenge to
the Environmental Protection Agency. We
hope the Agency will be able to demon-
strate its capacity to offer the leadership
needed.
The Environmental Protection Agency
can give the leadership, but the final
result will depend upon the aroused com-
munity concern and corrective actions at
the local level. We simply cannot continue
to accept the increased noise level without
appreciation of its destructive effects on
our lives. D
Dr. Terry is former U.S. Surgeon General
and President of HEAR Foundation, Inc., a
nonprofit organization that works to over-
come hearing impairment in children.
OCTOBER 1979
1 !
-------
Urban Noise
and
Neighborhood
Organizations
By Milton Kottler
i i.
r i E E c c
CEEEEE
11 0 i r i
i . • . .
* * ~ » ,-
E E EIE I
Tom and Janet Ross live in Queens,
New York. For them. New York is a
different city every Sunday morning. "It's
not that there are no people around, but
there is no noise," Tom said. "We can sit
on the porch and have coffee and good
conversation. You would never be able to
do that during the week."
What Tom and Janet Ross discovered
about their neighborhood is similar to what
people around the country are discovering:
neighborhoods are a lot more fun when
they are quieter. While EPA is taking steps
on a national level to reduce noise through
a combination of regulatory and planning
approaches, neighborhood organizations
from Alaska to Florida are finding that they
can be successful in reducing noise in their
community by working together. The cur-
rent noise control programs of the Federal
Government will contain and reduce the
escalation of noise, but a major portion of
the solution to the problem of noise rests
with local communities and neighborhood
organizations.
There are many kinds of community
organizations. Some have paid staff mem-
bers. Some receive outside funding. Some
primarily advocate neighborhood interests.
Many operate programs such as food
co-ops, health programs, and other serv-
ices. A community organization must serve
a small neighborhood or be a coalition of
neighborhood organizations incorporating
the entire city.
The one thing that all community organ-
izations have in common is that they are
controlled by the residents of the commu-
nity. People become involved with commu-
nity organizations to help themselves and
their neighbors. By joining together in com-
munity organizations, residents concerned
over the quality of life in their neighbor-
hoods can have a pronounced impact on
improving their surroundings.
Neighborhood organizations represent a
growing force in American life. They are
unique because they transcend politics in
the traditional sense. They express the
common interests of the average people of
any community, and they are led by highly
motivated and deeply concerned people
who are playing leading roles in revitalizing
American cities
Noise control and city revitalization go
hand in hand. Noise is the unwanted com-
panion of modern technology and urbaniza-
tion. It insults and intrudes into people's
lives, and it comes from a variety of sources
—street traffic, aircraft, rail yards, con-
struction activity, industry, the neighbor's
lawnmower, and even barking dogs. Such
noise is not only unwanted—in many cases
it is unnecessary.
Noise is a leading cause of neighborhood
dissatisfaction among residents in urban
areas. Attempts to escape the noise are
often given as reasons for moving out of
the city. Noise is therefore a blighting
influence as well as a health problem.
City vitality and noise seem to be prac-
tically synonymous. Yet, excessive noise
can be harmful to city residents and serves
to inhibit common patterns of behavior.
Moreover, certain types of noise are especi-
ally irritating and can have an adverse
effect on people. Noise reduction efforts
will not lead to a quiet, dormant city. City
noise is an integral element of a vibrant city
lifestyle, and city patterns of commerce
and communications need to be preserved
and enhanced. But neighborhood noise pro-
grams can reduce, control, and/or elimi-
nate those noises which are in actuality
serving to retard urban living and the re-
revitalization of cities.
While it is clear that vibrant, developing
and expanding cities will not be silent,
noise should not reach the point where the
sound itself inhibits growth, where jack-
hammers drown out conversation, where
trucks and buses and airplanes drown out
ail talk, where street noise hinders com-
merce, and where not even one's home is
immune from eternal blaring noise.
Public concern has begun to find political
expression at the local level. The number of
local ordinances designated to control
community noise levels has increased from
275 to over 1,000 in the last six years.
These ordinances reflect the increasing
frustration people feel from noise that is
significantly disrupting their lives.
I.
EPAJOURNAL
-------
But it takes more than an ordinance to
reduce noise in a neighborhood. The
shelves at any City Hall are filled with
ordinances that have never been enforced.
In part, the reason has been because people
have assumed that city neighborhoods have
to be noisy. Many are now discovering that
this neednot be the case and are conse-
quently turning to neighborhood organiza-
tions to develop or enforce city noise
statutes.
Allentown, Pa., is a prime example.
Allentown was the first city to receive
Federal assistance for a demonstration
program for noise reduction under the
"Quiet Communities" program. The Com-
munity of Neighborhood Organizations
(CNO) was the driving force that provided
constant and sustaining grass-roots support
to obtain and carry out this grant.
In addition, the organization worked
closely with the city government in the
development of Allentown's noise ordi-
nance. Groups from various neighborhoods
worked to ensure that their specific noise
problems (motorcycles, nightclubs! indus-
try, etc.) were addressed in the ordinance.
Through its Environmental Issues Commit-
te'e, the group was also a leader in the
ultimate adoption of an effective ordinance.
On a smaller scale, the Basset Neighbor-
hood Association serves a twelve-square
block area in the central city of Madison.
Wis. The area is made up primarily of small
apartment buildings, housing mostly stu-
dents and senior citizens. The population of
the area is about 2,500.
The Association has been working for the
past two years on a comprehensive neigh-
borhood plan. A major component of the
plan is a proposal to divert through-traffic
away from interior neighborhood streets.
Arterial streets would take traffic around
the neighborhood and barriers and weight
restrictions would keep traffic within the
neighborhood to a minimum. The Associa-
tion has worked to mobilize support for the
plan among residents. The plan has made
it through the city planning review process,
and is now before the City Council. Asso-
ciation leaders feel that it will be enacted
soon.
In Sarasota, Fla., Project Traffic was
organized by a single neighborhood organ-
ization to deal with traffic noise problems
throughout the city. The Project is presently
completing research on the problem. A
study of Federal, State, and local noise
laws has been done and a draft noise ordi-
nance developed. !n addition, a consultant
has just completed a city-wide traffic plan
that calls for better signaling to improve
traffic flow on major streets and the restric-
tion of through-traffic on other roads.
Project Traffic is initiating efforts to have
the proposals for traffic noise reductions
implemented by the city.
In Anchorage, Alaska, citizens have
organized the Federation of Community
Councils, which is a coalition of neighbor-
hood organizations. Anchorage is a med-
ium-sized city which has undergone tre-
mendous growth in the past few years.
Along with the growth has come an alarm-
ing increase in noise levels. After having
worked closely with the city government in
the four-year process of developing a city
noise ordinance, the Federation is now
working toward its enactment. Inasmuch as
the proposed ordinance would operate on a
citizen complaint-responsive basis, the
community would play an integral part in
its implementation.
In Baltimore, Md., the Greater Home-
wood Community Corporation has taken on
a large and long-range project to reduce
noise and congestion from traffic. The or-
ganization serves a number of neighbor-
hoods ranging from wealthy to very poor
and from single-family homes to large
apartment and commercial buildings. The
total population of the neighborhoods is
44,000.
The organization has been most active in
the area of traffic. Residents were con-
cerned about the noise, air pollution, and
congestion resulting from traffic on arterial
streets that run through the neighborhood.
Greater Homewood was instrumental in
setting up a coalition of organizations in
neighborhoods affected by arterial street
traffic. The coalition. Streets for People, led
a two-year fight which resulted in an
experimental traffic reduction plan.
The experimental plan allows 24-hour
parking in one lane of each four-lane street.
An additional lane is reserved for buses.
The lane reduction is intended to divert
traffic to other routes and to encourage
people to use public transportation. The
plan will be evaluated this year, and the
coalition will work to make the change
permanent.
These are just a few of the examples in
which active and concerned residents work-
ing through neighborhood organizations
have made their community a quieter place
to live. The role of EPA in this process is to
encourage the initiative of neighborhood
organizations in reducing excessive urban
noise and to provide the technical assist-
ance these organizations need to be
successful.
Few urban residents would enjoy their
city if every day were as quiet as an early
Sunday morning. But like Tom and Janet
Ross, they would like to sit on their porch
and carry on a conversation without the
sound of a jackhammer or a diesel engine
drowning out their discussion. Neighbor-
hood organizations around the country are
helping to make this happen. Q
Milton Kottler is the Executive Director of
the National Association of Neighborhoods
and author of Neighborhood Government:
The Local Foundations of Neighboring Life.
Memo from President
Carter to Federal
Department Heads
In my Environmental Message of
August 2, 1979,1 recognized that city
noise is an integral part of a vibrant
city lifestyle, reflecting city patterns
of commerce that must be preserved
and enhanced, but that much urban
noise is harmful to urban living and
could be abated.
I am initiating a program to
reduce urban noise by making exist-
ing programs work better through
interagency and intergovernmental
cooperation. I am directing you, in
consultation with other Federal
agencies, to:
• initiate programs to achieve sound-
proofing and weatherization of noise-
sensitive buildings, such as schools
and hospitals;
• promote the use of quiet-design
features in the planning, design, and
operation of proposed urban trans-
portation projects;
• encourage noise-sensitive develop-
ments, such as housing, to be located
away from major noise sources;
• help Federal, State, and local agen-
cies buy quiet equipment and
products; and
• support neighborhood self-reliance
efforts seeking to identify and address
local noise problems.
The Federal Interagency Commit-
tee on Noise, chaired by the Adminis-
trator of the Environmental Protec-
tion Agency, shall coordinate the
implementation of this program. The
Chairman of my Interagency Coordi-
nating Council will assist the Inter-
agency Committee and other inter-
governmental cooperative efforts to
assure that this program is carried
out fully and promptly, including
consultation with State and local
governments.
The Administrator of the Environ-
mental Protection Agency will report
to the Chairman of the Council on
Environmental Quality and the Direc-
tor of the Office of Management and
Budget on the progress of this new
program on February 1, 1980, and on
August 1, 1980.
OCTOBER 1979
13
-------
Comes to
Evansville
By Nancy Shulins
Associated Press Writer
This article is reprinted with permission of
the Associated Press.
Cvansville, Ind.—-It's 3 a.m. before the
'—lone lawman finally gets his man
within range.
He springs from his wooded hiding place
and before the outlaw can make a move,
he draws and aims.
Zapl Eighty-five decibels at 50 feet.
"Sorry, buddy," drawls deputy sheriff
Buster Gordon. "You are gonna hafta get
you a new muffler."
So ends another suburban showdown
between Gordon and the enemy—the faulty
mufflers, wailing stereos, and buzzsaw
lawnmowers that keep his neighbors awake
at night.
With his visored helmet, dusty boots, and
police motorcycle, the 45-year-old Evans-
ville native looks like a California highway
patrolman who has taken a wrong turn on
his way to LA.
But he packs a noise detector, not a
pistol, and he'd be the first to tell you that
there's nothing he loves better than peace
and quiet.
In the nine months that Gordon has been
enforcing Vanderburgh County's noise ordi-
nance, more than 300 offenders have been
brought to justice, and Gordon has risen to
the rank of hero among local insomniacs.
"Go get them. Buster," crowed an edi-
torial in a local newspaper. "Buster made
me a believer," pronounced Mayor Russell
G. Lloyd. "We need more Buster Gordons
in our society today," extolled an Evans-
ville radio station.
Who is Buster Gordon?
He's a former Hell's Angel and a regis-
tered nurse, a disabled iron worker and an
airplane pilot. By day, he's a mild-
mannered field enforcement officer for the
local environmental protection agency.
By night, he's a volunteer vigilante in this
southwestern Indiana county's war against
noise.
His dedication is unwavering, and his
law is simple: "Thou shall not make noise."
If thou dost, thou shall pay—from as little
as $25 up to $1,000 for a single violation.
To determine whether a citation is war-
ranted, Gordon stands 50 feet from the
source of the disruption and turns on his
noise detector. If it registers 85 decibels or
more, it is deemed unlawful.
Asking Buster Gordon what's so bad
about noise is like asking a Ford dealer
why he doesn't drive a Chevy.
"Noise pollution destroys hearing; and it
can cause neurosis and psychosis," he
begins. "It makes you irritable and it makes
you mean. And people are getting meaner
all the time."
If that argument doesn't sway you, he'll
pull out his calculator and try the scientific
approach.
"Suppose it's 2 in the morning and one
loud motorcycle is cruising the streets.
Suppose there are 1 2 houses to a block and
at least two people to a house.
"In the course of three hours, that biker
is going to drive 1 7,400 people bananas.
And one of them could be you."
Why do people make noise?
Gordon will tell you that, too.
"A lot of kids have nothing else to do.
They drive around on a new motorcycle or
in a $9,000 van and they're saying, 'Look
at me.'
"They want to draw attention to them-
selves, to be different, to be special. That's
why they put heel plates on their boots and
why they rev their engines."
Gordon looks down at his own boots and"
flashes his engaging grin. "The reason I
know so much about it is because I'm
describing myself. You see," he confides,
"I got heel plates on my shoes, too."
That, says one of Gordon's advocates,
is one reason why he succeeds.
Gary Winn, a legislative analyst for the
Ohio-based American Motorcycle Associa-
tion, is trying to spread the word about
Gordon's program.
"Buster Gordon has singlehandedly
cleaned up the streets of Evansville, and it's
not because he's running around in a cop
suit," Winn says.
"The reason is because he knows motor-
cycles and he knows motorcycle language.
When he talks to the bikers, they under-
stand him. He's a 25-year member of the
association, for God's sake."
Winn says that most cities fighting noise
pollution "try to cure the disease by killing
the patient."
"They either try to ban motorcycles
outright or they try to solve the problem by
throwing money at it. All they really need is
someone like Buster."
City officials from as far away as Anchor-
age, Alaska, apparently are beginning to
agree. Cambridge, Mass., Louisville, Ky.,
and Saginaw, Mich., also number among
the cities that have requested information
about the Evansville program.
Meanwhile, Gordon, with the help of
State Rep. Gregory Server, an Evansville
Republican, is hatching a plot to take his
ordinance to the Indiana legislature with
an eye toward seeing it implemented state-
wide.
"It's a good, fair ordinance, and it's
directed at people like me," says Gordon,
who likes to think of himself as a champion
of the little people.
"I love bikes and I love bikers. All they
do wrong is make noise. And I love to bust
the noisy ones, because they're giving
people like mea bad name."
The pickings are getting slim for Gordon,
who describes Evansville streets as "99
percent quieter than they used to be." But
he says his work in the city is far from over.
Next on his hit list are firecrackers, faulty
air compressors, and loud parties.
The people of Evansville are applauding.
Very quietly. D
14
EPAJOURNAL
-------
Noise
in Our
John P. Rousakis
Mayor of Savannah, Georgia.
President of the National
League of Cities
This past summer Time magazine offered
an essay on the subject of urban noise
pollution; specifically those "surly troops"
who manage a symbiotic relationship be-
tween roller skates and 90 decibels of non-
stop disco while aimlessly meandering
down our city streets. It noted that many
cities are responding to this newest form of
urban noise pollution by enforcing existing
noise ordinances "to hold the volume
down." Frank Trippet, a Time senior writer
who authored the editorial, thought it re-
markable that cities would single these
people out for attention amidst the "inces-
sant horn bleats—the ingenious cacophony
of screaming sirens, screeching tires, shat-
tering jackhammers, clangorous garbage
cans, raucus trucks and roaring buses." He
concludes from his observations that "still,
the city dweller, though besieged by
chronic noise among other civic abomina-
tions, is not indifferent to his plight. Cer-
tain noises, those of traffic for instance, are
inherent in city life, essential and irreduci-
ble, they must be borne. The music of the
(radio) boxes is not in that category."
I can only partially agree with this con-
clusion. Clearly the city dweller is not in-
different to his plight. On that point we
agree. A recent Galiup survey conducted
for the National League of Cities showed
that forty percent of urban residents think
noise pollution is a serious problem. Half
believe urban noise levels have grown in
the lastfiveyearsandasimilar number
believe that not enough is being done to
solve the noise problem in cities. The most
astonishing of the Gallup results indicates
that 1 out of 5 people see noise as a serious
threat to health. AH of these public percep-
tions of the problem are in fact true to a
large extent.
However, Mr. Trippet classifies most ur-
ban noise as "essential and irreducible . . .
inherent to city life." On that point we
differ. Many of us have been led to believe
this. We are victims of conditioning. The
fact is none of these noises must be borne
by the public. Like all types of pollution,
noise has a manufactured source and
people are involved along every step of the
way from production to operation. People
cause noise pollution and people can pre-
vent it. None of us can deny the fact that
urban noise levels are on the upswing. None
of us can deny that not enough is being
done about noise in our cities. The question
is what is being done to reverse these cur-
rent trends? Despite seven years of experi-
ence with Federal legislation to control
noise (the Noise Control Act of 1972),
noise seems to be becoming worse. Part of
this current dilemma, I believe, rests with
the previous focus of the Noise Act where
accountability, authority, and responsibil-
ity to solve our Nation's problems were
bestowed solely upon EPA.
The view was that Washington regula-
tions would solve our noise problems. It's
clear that this approach failed, that Wash-
ington could not solve the noise problem,
that the problem refused to surrender to
uniformity and central governance
solutions.
The Quiet Communities Act of 1 978,
authored by Senator John Culver (D-lowa),
recognized the inadequacies of that Wash-
ington-based approach and embraced the
notion of local solutions to local problems.
In fact, the new law directs EPA to refocus
its efforts toward local governments, since
local leaders hold the key to quiet. Senator
Culver said, ". . . The Quiet Commu-
nities Act may be the forerunner of future
urban policies, which can be expected to
place greater emphasis on the role of local
communities with less dependence on the
Federal Government."
Rather than solving our problems with
nationally legislated solutions, Congress is
recognizing that cities are qualified to solve
urban noise problems, and are the level of
government most likely to do so. This is
American federalism in action. Unfortu-
nately, it is an exception to the norm, which
today views local government as an "exten-
sion service" of the Federal Government.
This partnership approach is one which the
National League of Cities supports to the
fullest extent, since it recognizes the capa-
bility of local governments.
Helping, not regulating, is the most effec-
tive way the Federal Government can aid
municipalities. There is a move afoot in
Congress to ensure that such help is avail-
able to cities. Some members of Congress
hope that EPA will divorce itself from its
regulatory agenda and begin supporting and
encouraging local noise efforts through
partnership activities. Applying local re-
sources and local institutions to reduce
noise pollution is clearly the most logical
step at this time, a course which Congress
has quite wisely charted under the leader-
ship of Senator Culver.
Cities and people want action on noise,
not reams of shelf-sitting research reports
and Federal Register reprints. No one needs
to be told time and time again that noise is
a health problem and that it causes stress.
For the average person who wants quiet,
researching and contemplating the noise
problem doesn't reduce it. Positive action
by applying resources to abatement and
control at the local level is the answer.
It must begin now or our cities are apt to
devour themselves with noise. Let's not
wait until we can prove beyond a doubt that
noise causes cardiovascular disease. Let's
act now to reduce noise and prevent it from
becoming a clear-cut contributor to health
problems. Active prevention, not remedial
reaction, should be the goal of a national
strategy for noise control.
How EPA's noise program is structured
in the future will either enhance or nullify
efforts at the local level. I believe that
EPA's efforts will positively demonstrate
that an equal partnership between cities
and the Federal Government can succeed
in the Eighties ... a partnership consistent
with the President's articulated urban
policies.
My good friend, Barbara Blum, summed
it up quite clearly when she said, "Noise
from a variety of urban sources is help-
ing destroy the neighborhoods which
the President is seeking to save under this
urban program." In his Environmental
Message to Congress this year President
Carter spoke of an urban noise program
and its importance, highlighting not regula-
tory programs, but substantive self-help
programs aimed at accomplishments, not
wishful thinking. Any partnership efforts
between cities. States, and the Federal
Government will recognize that cities and
their people provide the decisive and criti-
cal difference between action and inaction,
and between success and failure. [~l
OCTOBER 1979
15
-------
16
EPAJOURNAL
-------
Curbing
Construction
Noise
By Paul N. Howard, Jr.
V A/e are subject to a multitude of wide-
" * ranging sounds at home, work, and
play-
But what differentiates everyday sounds
from what we call "noise"? Noise is a dis-
traction, an agitation, an inconvenience.
Noise is rarely appreciated and, at best,
only tolerated.
Over the years, construction noise has
been tolerated as a necessary but tem-
porary inconvenience attendant to prog-
ress. But today, government agencies at the
Federal, State, and local levels are under-
taking serious efforts to reduce or eliminate
noise at construction sites. These efforts
have produced mixed results.
Two principal types of noise—occupa-
tional and ambient—are the targets of the
government's attention. Occupational noise
is related to the safety of the worker, while
ambient noise relates to the impact of noise
on the community.
The Associated General Contractors of
America, recognizing the benefits of pro-
tecting the health of its workforce, has long
supported efforts to reduce noise at the
construction site and has worked with
assorted agencies to develop the most prac-
tical ways of achieving noise abatement.
Construction noise should be, and is, a
serious concern to contractors. An indus-
trial insurance survey reported that hearing
loss is the largest compensable health prob-
lem today. In addition, nearly half of the
American population experiences aggravat-
ing and potentially harmful environmental
noise, according to the Environmental
Protection Agency.
The most important question, then, is
how best to achieve the goa I of noise abate-
ment in construction?
The Associated General Contractors of
America support the inclusion of contrac-
tual requirements to reduce noise levels
during construction provided the require-
ments are practical, feasible, and capable
of accomplishment. This means that meas-
ures to control noise should be realistic and
free of conflict. Unfortunately, this is not
always the case.
For example, a conflict exists in the
requirement that back-up noise devices on
vehicles and equipment must be heard
above the noise generated by the vehicles
or equipment. This is a requirement of the
Occupational Safety and Health Act and the
Safety and Health Regulations for
construction.
The necessarily high level of the warning
signal, however, often disturbs residents
nearby. In order to lower the noise level of
the warning signal, the noise made by the
equipment must be lowered.
Therein lies the principal problem for
contractors. Few source controls (those
built in with the equipment) for industrial
equipment are now available. But, it is
source controls which provide the best
long-term approach to the problem of
reducing noise.
Source controls are more economical in
the long run than "retrofit" measures,
which are extremely expensive to imple-
ment and seldom work as well as source
controls. For example, while a contractor
may build barriers, enclose equipment oper-
ations, and substitute equipment to reduce
noise, these temporary, expensive meas-
ures often fail to adequately protect work-
ers and construction requirements may
require operations that cannot be accom-
plished without raising environmental noise
levels.
Economic research has indicated that
noise abatement regulations will significant-
ly increase construction costs. Because no
increases in productivity will accompany
the higher costs of equipment with noise
controls, regulations at all levels will be
inflationary. (It has been estimated that
built-in noise controls will add about three
percent to present costs of new equipment.
By contrast, retrofit controls designed to
reduce noise levels by five decibels will
add up to 10 percent to the equipment's
initial cost.)
What should be the role of the Federal
Government in the noise abatement proc-
ess? Initially, government agencies should
establish final equipment noise regulations.
Any other role by the government should be
extremely limited and directed at specific,
well-defined problems such as the risk of
hearing impairment, reduction of the num-
ber of people exposed, and the rate of
progress in noise abatement by industry.
The Associated General Contractors rec-
ognize that some regulation is necessary
and beneficial and we are committed to
providing the most cost-effective product
possible—whether it is a sewage treatment
plant, a highway or subway, a building, a
dam, or a power plant. The government
must also recognize that increased costs
are associated with virtually every
government regulation.
Activities of the Federal Government
should always complement those of the
private sector, which must be responsible
for furnishing the direction in noise abate-
ment. The private sector possesses the nec-
essary knowledge of what problems must
be solved in order for the goals to be
achieved. And, there are obvious incentives
for a contractor to achieve noise abatement
goals.
Most important of these is that reduction
of noise in construction means complying
with federally imposed occupational noise
standards. In addition, the contractor has
a concern for the health, safety, and welfare
of his employees; wants to reduce costs
associated with worker's compensation
claims; and increase worker productivity.
Finally the contractor wants to be as good
a neighbor as possible to those who live
around the construction site.
For these reasons, contractors believe
that a market for efficient noise-controlled
products currently exists. Manufacturers
have said that they cannot invest in devel-
oping quieter equipment until there is an
adequate market or until the noise factor is
a strong selling factor. Contractors are
convinced that the market does, indeed,
exist.
While EPA should establish noise stand-
ards for newly manufactured equipment
and require that those standards be met,
certainly a reasonable lead time must be
allowed to develop and produce this equip-
ment. And, noise regulations should apply
only to equipment produced after a specific
date.
While more research is necessary to
develop noise controls on many types of
equipment, current technology exists to
control noise levels on others. Some equip-
ment—air compressors, for example—has
already been so developed. But, until
reasonable uniform standards and require-
ments are developed, manufacturers will
not produce and contractors will not have
available to them, equipment with reduced
noise levels.
In the long run, substantial noise reduc-
tion at the construction site is attainable,
provided the Federal Government, manu-
facturers, and contractors work in unison
toward this goal.
The Association of General Contractors
encourages the Federal Government to real-
istically assist the private sector in the
research and development of noise-con-
trolled equipment and calls upon manufac-
turers to accept the challenge of producing
efficient, reliable, and quieter construction
equipment.
By working together we can enhance the
environment for the worker as well as the
community, while continuing our Nation's
progress through construction. Let's do just
that and let's be realistic about it. Q
Paul Howard is President, Associated
General Contractors of America.
OCTOBER 1979
17
-------
Noise in the
Workplace
By Jeff Stansbury.
Some work place hazards crush and kill
instantly. Noise doesn't. It wreaks its
havoc slowly through the years in ways
workers seldom notice.
Noise doesn't get the front page cover-
age that air pollution does. It doesn't create
the fear in people that nuclear waste does.
it doesn't get the research dollars that water
pollution does. Nevertheless, of all the
countless types of pollution, it is unques-
tionably the most pervasive and varied—
it is literally everywhere.
Nowhere is it more prevalent or more
dangerous than in the work place. Not too
long ago the National Institute for Occupa-
tional Safety and Health estimated that
over 2.5 million U.S. industrial workers
were exposed to harmful levels of noise.
This, they said, was a conservative
estimate.
The Occupational Safety and Health
Administration (OSHA) and EPA are re-
sponsible for Federal noise control initia-
tives. OSHA is responsible for noise con-
trol in the work place. It sets and enforces
decibel standards, for example. EPA rein-
forces OSHA's activities by establishing
standards for hearing protection devices
and for industrial equipment that have a
direct impact on the environment. In addi-
tion, EPA establishes noise limits on cer-
tain occupation-related processes such as
trash compaction.
American industrial workers—and in-
dustrial workers everywhere, for that mat-
ter—have always had to fight for health
protection in the work place. We are cur-
rently locked in such a struggle to bring
about noise control measures in America's
manufacturing plants.
Why is it so important to us that noise
is abated in the work place? Well, I think
we have to look at the health effects of ex-
posure to excessive levels of industrial
noise.
Certainly, the most easily observed of
these health effects is hearing loss. Re-
searchers have found that excessive noise
wears out the nerve celis of the inner ear.
If the exposure is long-term, as it is for
thousands of UAW workers, noise destroys
the cells, and the hearing loss not only be-
comes permanent but grows worse. At
what level does continuous noise become
dangerous to hearing? There is no definite
answer; however, the consensus is 80
decibels. In the U.S. the allowable indus-
Jeff Stansbury is a staff writer of Solidarity,
the official magazine of the United Auto
Workers (UAWJ.
trial noise level is 90 decibels for 8 con-
tinuous hours. At this level, one-fifth of the
work force will eventually suffer disabling
loss of hearing.
When confronted by workers on this
issue, most companies propose the use of
hearing protectors. Why? Simply because
ear plugs or ear muffs are inexpensive and
put the burden of noise control on the work-
ers. It is the opinion of the UAW health and
safety staff, and many OSHA specialists,
that personal hearing protectors should be
used only as a last resort. Ear plugs readily
work themselves loose, often cause infec-
tions, and can mask warning shouts and
signals.
While we recognize that hearing protec-
tors must sometimes be used for temporary
protection, UAW insists that the long-term
solutions to excessive occupational noise
must be engineering and work-procedure
controls. OSHA can recommend various
operational and engineering procedures
within the work place, and it can enforce
them where necessary. EPA contributes to
in-plant noise controls by setting standards
for equipment manufacturers.
Hearing loss is by no means the only
negative health effect that workers suffer
from noise. Noise creates stress which
causes blood vessels to constrict. Pulse
rate, blood pressure, and breathing rate
increase, and there are marked changes in
blood chemistry. A German study has docu-
mented a higher rate of heart disease in
noisy industries. In Sweden, several re-
searchers have noted more cases of high
blood pressure among workers exposed to
high levels of noise.
In addition to heart disease problems.
the increased flow of adrenalin and other
hormones makes workers prime candidates
for illnesses caused by stress. In the words
of Leonard Woodcock, former President of
UAW, the auto workers "find themselves
unusually fatigued at the end of the day
compared to their fellow workers who are
not exposed to much noise. They complain
of headaches and inability to sleep and
they suffer from anxiety. . . . Our members
tell us the continuous exposure to high
levels of noise makes them tense, irritable,
and upset."
Research is continually identifying the
contribution of noise to other physical
disorders. A five-year study of two manu-
facturing firms in the United States found
that workers in noisy plant areas showed
greater numbers of diagnosed medical
problems, including respiratory ailments,
than did workers in quieter areas of the
plants.
The health and safety of industrial
workers is jeopardized also by noise loud
enough to mask warning signals. The
effects of masking and speech interference
can be dramatic, as in the case of an acci-
dent in an auto glass manufacturing plant.
Noise levels were so high that a worker
whose hand was caught in manufacturing
equipment received no aid since no one
heard his screams. And in a noisy Ohio
plant, two pressroom auto workers were
permanently disabled when they failed to
hear approaching panel racks and warning
shouts.
One point we try to make to management
is that noise can interfere with work. When
noise is particularly loud or unpredictable,
errors in people's observation increase,
perception of time is distorted, and greater
effort is required to remain alert. Loud
noises also can lead to breaks in concen-
tration sometimes followed by changes in
work rate.
A coal industry study indicated that
intermittent noise conditions during mining
are likely to cause distractions leading to
poorer work. Other studies have confirmed
additional effects of noise exposure,
including exhaustion, absentmindedness,
mental strain, and absenteeism—all of
which increase the risks of accidents and
injuries.
UAW has been intensifying its fight
against workplace noise. We stiffened the
health and safety provisions of our latest
national contracts. At many locations we
have won noise-monitoring rights. In addi-
tion, we have pressured a growing number
of plants to work out noise-abatement
schedules in consultation with local union
health and safety representatives.
We also are aware that to truly protect
our union members, we must inform them
that noise does not necessarily stop when
the workday ends. UAW supports EPA's
programs to reduce environmental noise
and to educate people about its associated
health effects. A noisy environment only
aggravates the effects of work place noise.
We do not want to let this situation
continue.
I am often asked by union leaders
what they can do to protect their members
from excessive noise. My advice is. first
and foremost, to educate their whole
membership about noise hazards and how
to abate those hazards. They can then work
with management to adopt comprehensive
programs to engineer out noise on a
definite timetable. OSHA can be called in
to bring added pressure on companies. In
addition, help can be obtained from their
unions' regional offices, their national
bargaining departments, and their health
and safety staffs.
Noise can never be completely elimi-
nated from manufacturing plants, but it
can certainly be reduced to safe levels.
It is management's responsibility to pro-
vide effective noise control engineering
and procedures. But management seldom
carries out its responsibility without a push
from workers. For this reason, workers and
their unions must remain ever-vigilant
against noise hazards in the work place. D
EPA JOURNAL
-------
By Chris Perham
The Sound of Silence
Jack G., a heavy equipment operator, and his wife Mary are arguing in their front yard again. He
accuses her of mumbling so that he can't hear her over thenoises of theneighborhood.She replies
that he's just not paying attention. Mary knows perfectly well that when she talks to Jack in the
house he hears her.
Sarah P. has been working in the mills for many years.Lately her familyfinds that she's cranky and
irritable. She won't go along on outings, avoids social gatherings, and has even stopped going to
church. She accuses them of talking about her behind her back and often makes comments that
aren't relevant to the conversation going on around her.
Tommy L. is a drummer in a teenage rock group. He and his friends play for hours in family ga-
rages and basements. He sometimes notices a ringing sound in his ears for hours after practicing.
His mother says he never listens to her any more and wonders what all that music is doing to his
hearing. He discounts her fears, saying hearing loss is only for old people.
Hearing loss is one of America's most
common chronic disorders. Some re-
searchers estimate that approximately 19
million Americans have measurable hearing
losses, and 13 percent of the U.S. popula-
tion have hearing losses described as han-
dicapping. How much of the damage can be
attributed to noise exposure? Nobody
knows for sure, but EPA research shows
that workers, students, homemakers, and
people in all walks of life are regularly
assaulted by sounds that border or exceed
the limits above which hearing is damaged.
Unfortunately when the ear is injured it
often shows no visible signs, so few people
realize the damage they suffer until it is
too late. Hearing loss from noise is irrepara-
ble. Scientists note that a hearing aid cannot
compensate for lost hearing the way glasses
can improve poor eyesight. For a noise-
induced hearing loss, the impact is espe-
cially profound because no operation or
amplification can restore total sense to the
jumble of sounds that the injured person
hears in place of normal conversation.
What sounds are dangerous to hearing
and why? According to EPA research the
danger zone begins when the daily noise
level averages about 70 decibels. This
means that certain traffic sounds, power
lawnmowers, jet planes, chainsaws, and
jackhammers are ail hazardous to healthy
hearing if you are exposed to them for ex-
tended periods of time. What many people
do not recognize is the danger posed
by household appliances as well; food
processors, mixers, hair dryers, and
vacuum cleaners often exceed the safe
noise limits.
The reason for concern is that prolonged
and excessive exposure to noise can dam-
age or destroy the hair cells in the inner ear,
disrupting the sound transmission mecha-
nism. While there are many thousands of
hair cells in the inner ear, beyond a certain
point the damaged cells will not heal.
Under continued high level noise exposure
damages accumulate and will eventually
affect enough frequencies that a person's
ability to comprehend speech is impaired.
At this point the listener has trouble not
only with the volume but also the clearness
of speech.
There is as much variation in sensitivity
to sound as there is in the sensitivity of
skin to sunlight. Just as some people sun-
burn at the first exposure to sun and others
can frolic at the beach endlessly without
pain, so some people flinch at the sound of
a car horn whiie others revel in the hair-
raising blasts at discos. There is no way of
predicting what a person's sensitivity to
sound will be, and many people only find
out when it's too late.
Dr. George W. Fellendorf, director of
the EPA-sponsored National Information
Center for Quiet, says, "The American
public needs to have an awareness of the
existence of hard-of-hearing persons.
These are people who are not deaf, who do
not use sign language, but who need an
extra measure of consideration when it
comes to sounds and communication.
During conversations hard-of-hearing peo-
ple may comprehend clearly only one or
two of every ten words. Trying to communi-
cate under those conditions is like being
in a foreign country where you know only
a fraction of the language. It's extremely
frustrating."
Exposure to loud noises generally affects
the high-frequency hearing range first. The
people affected can lose the ability to hear
things like clocks ticking, crickets chirping,
the ring of telephone bells, and certain
portions of speech, especially consonants.
The sounds of s, sh, ch, p, m, t, f, and th
are some of the first speech sounds to be
lost, depriving spoken conversation of its
meaning. Speech begins to sound like a
meaningless string of vowel sounds.
Other hearing phenomena caused by ex-
cessive noise include ringing in the ears,
distortion and discomfort associated with
even moderately loud sounds.
Scientists report that the impact of this
hearing loss is psychological as well as
physical. People who cannot hear the
Continued on page 39
OCTOBER 1979
19
-------
Fighting
Noise
Pollution
Around the
World
By Dr. Ariel Alexandra
In Sweden, some city officials are delib-
erately spending extra money to pur-
>:l>;ist: quiet buses.
In Japan and France, proceeds of airport
taxes are used to finance noise insulation
of noarby buildings.
In Europe, major efforts are underway to
standardize noise emission limits for
motor vehicles and other equipment.
In Germany, buyers of exceptionally
quiet lawnmowers and noncommercial
aircraft are exempted from certain re-
strictions on use. Germany is studying
how to apply this principle to traffic
noise control.
In Lausanno, Switzerland, a police anti-
noise briyndfi has enforced u vehicle noise
emission law and educated the public on
noiso control since 1959.
In Darlington, England, school children
participating in a project sponsored by
the Noise Advisory Council and the
Advisory Center for Education are meas-
uring noise in the town and conducting
simple social surveys on noise effects.
These are just a few of the technological,
legislative, and incentive measures to
control the growing menace of worldwide
noise pollution that are cited in the 1978
report of a two-year study by the Paris-
based Organization for Economic Coopera-
tion and Development (OECD). Mem-
ber countries are: Australia, Austria,
Belgium, Canada, Denmark, Finland,
France, the Federal Republic of Germany,
Greece, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Japan, Lux-
embourg, the Netherlands, New Zealand,
Norway, Portugal, Spain, Sweden, Switzer-
land, Turkey, the United Kingdom, and the
United States (and Yugoslavia as an
observer).
The report, Reducing Noise in OECD
Countries, was compiled as a result of
some staggering projections made by the
OECD'sAd Hoc Group on Noise Abatement
Policies. A sample of some of their findings
include: total noise energy output in OECD
countries ha sdoubledinthepast15y ears;
between 1 5 and 20 percent of OECD in-
habitants (more than 100 million people)
are now exposed to outdoor noise in excess
of the 65 decibels often considered the
upper limit of acceptability; by next year,
the world's motor vehicle population will
exceed 300 million units; air traffic world-
wide (USSR and China excluded) will
probably double between 1975and 1985.
And if stringent measures are not adopted,
forecasts suggest that the number of people
exposed to excessive noise will increase,
as has been stated during the recent OECD
meeting of the Ministers of the Environ-
ment (May, 1979).
The concern of the OECD member coun-
tries is reflected in the observations made
in the report, which are meant to act as
blueprints for fighting noise pollution
through cooperation by government, indus-
try,and the public at local, national, and
international levels. The following are
summaries of a few of these key task force
action proposals; they include examples of
measures already in force or being consid-
ered by different OECD countries.
Standardization of Noise
Measurement
OECD countries are in agreement that it
would be highly desirable to have a univer-
sal, standardized, simple method of meas-
uring total noise received and compatible
noise emitted from sources such as road
vehicles, aircraft, and machinery. Work is
under way to develop a standard measure-
ment that would be practical, accurate, and
useful for planning and enforcement pro-
cedures. Such a standard also would prove
valuable for evaluating pervasive long-term
noise in various areas under prescribed
conditions.
Standardization measurements would
have the additional benefit of minimizing
barriers to trade by providing manufac-
turers with a universal "language." They
also would help international organizations
working in noise abatement, such as the
International Civil Aviation Organization,
the World Health Organization, and the
International Standards Organization, to
recommend standards and practices.
Noise Abatement: At the
Source and Through Operation
Regulations
OECD countries unanimously agree that
noise abatement at the source is essential,
particularly control through emission
standards. Most countries have emission
standards for motor vehicles. Many coun-
tries have, in addition, various regulations
for aircraft, trains, construction, and light
and heavy equipment. For example, Ger-
many and the Netherlands are preparing
noise emission standards for rail transport;
a number of OECD countries have estab-
lished reference limits for construction
equipment; and some countries impose
noise emission constraints during the plan-
ning or licensing process of light and heavy
industrial plants.
When source regulations are not suffi-
cient or applicable, regulations on oper-
ation are used in many countries. Restric-
tions in time are the most widespread
operating regulation: for example, Switzer-
land prohibits driving of heavy trucks at
night and on Sundays, and night curfews
are imposed on many airports around the
world.
Restrictions in place, common for mobile
noise sources, are used mainly to regulate
traffic or construction equipment near
noise-sensitive areas (homes, churches,
schools, hospitals). Care is taken in estab-
lishing such restrictions so that they do not
merely lead to a transfer of noise from
one critical area to another.
Another method is noise zone regulations
which restrict the levels of noise allowable
in land areas surrounding major industrial
or transportation facilities. Regulations of
this sort are already in effect in areas near
Japanese and French airports, and have
been recently advocated by Switzerland,
the Netherlands, and Germany.
Noise-Related Charges Can
Complement Other Forms of
Control
Such noise-related fees as charges on air-
craft designed to motivate product manu-
facturers and operators to develop, man-
ufacture, and use quieter equipment are
becoming popular in several OECD coun-
tries. Revenue from noise-related charges
can finance comprehensive noise abate-
ment programs, including research and
development, and pay for building insula-
tion and land acquisition.
Continued on page .'
-------
OCTOBER 1979
21
-------
Do We Need
New
Product Noise
Regulations?
Jesse 0. Borthwick
Executive Director, National
Association of Noise Control
Officials
\ A /ith the passage of the Quiet Commu-
* * nities Act of 1978, Congress has rec-
ognized the importance of comprehensive
State and local programs in the overall
national noise control effort. Through the
establishment of the Quiet Communities
Program which authorizes noise control
grants for the first time and through the
expansion of technical assistance made
available to State and local noise control
agencies, Congress has finally filled the
void in its program to curb this most per-
vasive pollutant.
State and local noise control officials
couldn't be happier I For while the Noise
Control Act of 1 972 declared that the pri-
mary responsibility for control of noise
rests with State and local governments,
only 7 out of the Act's 921 lines of text
supported State and local controls. More
was said about what State and local gov-
ernments could not do than what was to be
done to support them. Therefore, it should
be easy to understand why State and local
officials are openly supportive of the new
Quiet Communities Act and the resultant
shift in EPA program direction away from
new product noise regulation to State and
local programs.
With all the emphasis now being placed
on the new Federal grant program anri the
renewed national noise control effort stem-
ming from the Act, we have perhaps lost
sight of the fact that the Quiet Communities
Act amended and strengthened the Noise
Control Act of 1972 rather than abolished
it. In all the furor, we seem to have forgotten
the need for and the importance of new
product noise regulations in the overall
national noise control strategy.
Why Are New Product Noise
Emission Standards so
Important?
It seems that we have gotten along fine
without them. Since the passage of the
Noise Control Act of 1 972, the EPA Office
of Noise Abatement and Control has pro-
mulgated standards for two products, port-
able air compressors (January, 1976) and
medium and heavy trucks (April, 1976).
Duringthesametimeoniya handful of
States and cities have promulgated new
product standards with most opting for in-
use type standards. Why—is it because it
was presumed that the Feds would handle
new product standards and since such
standards would preempt State regulations,
they opted to put their resources elsewhere?
When one considers the investment re-
quired to get a standard out in terms of
time, money, manpower, and politics it is
a miracle that any ever get promulgated!
Promulgating national standards has be-
come even more difficult as a result of the
new Federal philosophy of encouraging
"non-reguiatory strategies." The easy thing
to do would be to ignore the need for new
product regulations and concentrate on
those sources which can be easily and
quickly controlled by in-use ordinances.
However, while in-use controls can offer
immediate relief from worst case problems,
the only way we will ever realize a reduc-
tion in general community noise levels in
this country will be through the adoption of
comprehensive new product regulations for
major noise sources.
What Effect Can New Product
Regulations Have On Our
Future Acoustic Environment?
In controlling any noise at its source there
are three basic approaches: (1) you can
require that sources be manufactured to
operate as quietly as possible (2) through
anti-tampering provisions require that
sources be properly maintained so as not
to increase their sound level above that as
originally manufactured and (3) through
in-use controls require that they not be used
in any manner as to create excessive and
unnecessary noise. Anti-tampering and
in-use controls affect only those individual
sources which are considered to be exces-
sively noisy when compared with the
general population. However by establish-
ing noise emission standards for new
products the entire source population can
be affected with average noise emissions
dropping as the new quieter products are
introduced. This is the type of change that
TABLE 1.
will be needed if average community noise
levels are to be reduced.
One source in particular will have to be
controlled if we as Americans are ever to
achieve EPA's goal of an environment free
from noise that jeopardizes our health or
welfare. That source is the automobile.
As a result of its extensive use, over 87
million Americans are currently being
exposed to environmental noise above
those levels identified by EPA as required
to protect public health and welfare. The
number of people affected could increase
to over 1 10 million over the next decade if
diesel powered vehicles and subcompacts
with high power-to-weight ratios become
the backbone of our automobile population.
Again, our only hope is to successfully
reduce sources of noise through new
product regulation.
Have Existing New Product
Regulations Had Any Effect On
Current Noise Levels?
Yes, as a result of new product regulation
initiated by the State of California in 1967,
supported by other States and communities
in the early 1970's, and by EPA in 1976,
average motor vehicle noise emissions
appear to be dropping.
In 1967 California amended its Vehicle
Code to make provisions for vehicle noise
control. The law established this country's
first sound level standards for new motor
vehicles (applicable to vehicles manu-
factured after January 1, 1 968). The new
limits were a compromise between what
was desired in terms of noise reduction
and what was economically practical at the
time. Under specified wide-open-throttle
acceleration tests, limits were set at 88
decibels for trucks and buses, 86 decibels
for passenger cars and pickups, and 92
decibels for motorcycles. In 1 971 the
California Legislature adopted a schedule
of decreasing levels (see Table 1) with the
following three objectives: (1) establish an
eventual limit that was low enough to
practically eliminate public annoyance
and complaints (2) allow sufficient lead
time so manufacturers could do necessary
research and design and tool up to meet
production deadlines and (3) allow the
Continued on pagi
1970
1973
1975
1978
1988
Trucks
unc/
Buses
88
86
83
80
70
Passenger Cars
Pickups, iinc!
Motor driven Cycles
86
84
80
75
70
Motorcycles
88
86
80
75
70
Initial vehicle sound level limits (in decibels) established for
new motor vehicles sold in California.
22
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Noise Control
Through
Education
By Martha Pennine
Excessive noise is the most frequently
identified undesirable condition in
urban neighborhoods. Moreover, neighbor-
hood residents show increasing dissatisfac-
tion about noise levels with each passing
year. This alarming trend emphasizes the
need for concerted effort at all levels of
government to reduce intrusive noise
levels.
As an elected official, I am keenly aware
that legislation directed toward control of
environmental problems is only a partial
answer to reducing pollution. In my view,
an effective public education and informa-
tion program can contribute to significant
noise reduction. Fortunately, in recent
years the information available to assist in
public education about noise pollution has
grown. Increased public awareness leads to
both implementation of individual and
community noise control mechanisms and
more effective communication with elected
officials and administrators about noise
concerns.
In the Metropolitan Washington area, I
have observed a definite increase in public
concern about noise issues in the past five
years. During this period, most of the major
jurisdictions have implemented noise con-
trol programs. In each case public concern
and pressure have been instrumental. The
noise pollution issues in our region range
from aircraft, highway, and construction
noise impact to noisy home air-conditioning
systems.
The issue of aircraft noise from National
Airport has consistently generated the
greatest public concern. Residents and
elected officials are both knowledgeable
about this noise issue and equally frus-
trated by the complexity of attempting to
reduce the noise impact. Citizens groups
throughout the region have organized spe-
cial committees and groups to monitor the
situation and exert pressure to ease this
growing noise problem. Through the Metro-
politan Washington Council of Govern-
ments, the regional organization for this
area's elected officials, we have had a noise
monitoring system installed. Also, in Au-
gust a test of a new flight pattern was initi-
ated at National Airport. Area residents are
participating in evaluating the impact of
this noise control approach through a
telephone survey and a hotline.
School children represent a vital link in
noise reduction through public education
and information.
It is important for young people to de-
velop an appreciation of quiet as an envi-
ronmental right and an understanding of the
adverse effects that excessive noise expo-
sure can have on their health and welfare.
In recognition of the need to reduce noise
exposure in the schools, two local school
systems, Arlington County, Va., and Mont-
gomery County, Md., have developed noise
control policies that set decibel limits for
school activities such as dances. In Mont-
gomery County, student volunteers are
involved in the monitoring process too.
Last year the Montgomery County
School system also participated in the field
testing of three brochures developed by the
American Speech-Language-Hearing As-
sociation for EPA. The brochures, Noise
and Your Hearing, Hear Here!, and Think
Quietly About Noise were developed for
distribution at the time of school hearing
tests. The booklets provide students from
kindergarten through high school and their
parents with information about the effects
of noise pollution on hearing. These bro-
chures now have been incorporated into a
complete hearing test package that will be
available from EPA for use by educators,
school nurses, and audiologists in the near
future.
In 1974, the Metropolitan Washington
Council of Governments initiated an Area-
wide Environmental Noise Program that
was sponsored initially by the area's local
governments and the U.S. Department of
Housing and Urban Development. A major
focus of this program has been to develop
and disseminate information about noise
pollution to the public, citizens associa-
tions, elected officials, and local govern-
ment staffs.
Two years ago, the Council received
funding from EPA to develop educational
modules for elementary and secondary
school levels. This year the author. Dr.
Donna Dickman, will give seminars for
teachers on the use of these units. Numer-
ous school systems throughout the Nation
have shown interest in these noise educa-
tional units.
Classroom discussions about noise pol-
Complaints about minibike noise decreased after youngsters in Montgomery County, Md., were counseled on how and where to
without disturbing others.
OCTOBER 1979
-------
lution can help inform parents on ways to
control noise.
As the tools available for noise assess-
ment are rapidly expanding, there is a con-
tinuing need for educational programs to
help State and local governments develop
and implement noise control programs.
Three years ago, 90 area planners attended
a workshop on Noise Control and Land Use
Planning sponsored by the Metropolitan
Washington Council of Governments and
EPA Region 3. Six members of the Fairfax
County, Va., Office of Comprehensive Plan-
ning were there.
Since then, noise has received increased
attention from our planning staff. Specific
guidelines for analysis of noise impacts
have been developed and applied. When
potential problems are identified, the staff
assists the developer in creating a com-
patible noise control plan.
To assist developers and builders in
planning noise reduction projects, the
Montgomery County, Md., noise staff ar-
ranged a seminar on building noise. It was
attended by 30 area builders and develop-
ers. They received information on site
planning, acoustical, and architectural ap-
proaches to noise control. Again, applica-
tion of this information in future develop-
ments will result in quieter homes and
offices for area residents.
Recently, local and regional purchasing
officers met at the Council of Governments to
discuss noise reduction through specifying
(at the time of requests for bids) the accept-
table noise levels for various products. A pi-
lot project conducted by the Federal Govern-
ment to acquire quieter lawnmowers was
successful. Many of these quieter lawn-
mowers are loaned to local governments
for use by groundskeepers in noise sensi-
tive areas such as hospitals and schools.
Local governments represent a substantial
market and emphasis on the desirability of
quieter products should not be ignored.
But the push for quieter products must
come from a concerned public which
makes quiet a priority for local government
officials.
In the past year, noise control personnel
in this area have received frequent calls
from people about specific home noise con-
trol problems. Quieting in the Home, a
National Bureau of Standards publication
that has been reprinted by EPA, gives valu-
able aid in solving many home noise prob-
lems. This "quiet it your self" book and other
materials on noise are now being distributed
through the National Information Center for
Quiet in Rosslyn, Va. The EPA-funded
center has been created to serve as a re-
source for people who want a quieter per-
sonal and community environment. The
center for noise information will aid public
participation in noise reduction efforts.
For several years, I have seen the effec-
tiveness of an information sharing concept
through the work of the Council's Noise
Technical Committee. In this program,
noise staff from the region's major jurisdic-
tions meet monthly to discuss noise issues
and to help one another develop plans to
ease noise problems.
It has been my experience that maximum
public commitment and support for almost
any issue result from going to the people
rather than waiting for them to come to you.
For example, several years ago EPA spon-
sored a Noise Exposition in a large area
shopping center. Locally, Montgomery
County has held two "Noise, Sound and
You" Expos. Each of these has sensitized
thousands of people to noise pollution as an
environmental problem.
Last fall the Council of Governments
sponsored a Minibike Roundup for young-
sters in Montgomery County. Minibike
noise was a frequent cause of complaints in
the County. The youngsters received noise
and air pollution analyses for their mini-
bikes, participated in a skills contest, and
received information about areas where
they could ride minibikes without disturb-
ing others. At last check minibike noise
complaints were less frequent in the
County. Similar educational efforts directed
toward other noise problems could be
equally successful.
Two other efforts in the Metropolitan
area show the potential for noise reduction
through user education. Both were devel-
oped in cooperation with the Council of
Governments. In a pilot inspection program.
Prince George's County, Md., noise control
officials conducted noise measurements on
refuse collection vehicles. Owners and
operators were then counseled about the use
of quieter trucks in residential areas. The
State of Maryland noise control staff devel-
oped brochures on air conditioning and re-
frigeration condensing noise and grain
dryers, which were distributed through-
out the State. The brochures tell how to
quiet these noise sources. The pilot inspec-
tion counseling program and the brochures
are ways to augment noise control efforts
beyond a program of individual responses
to complaints.
As an elected official, I recognize the
concerns of my constituents in governmen-
tal regulation to foster environmental
change. There is both an aversion to over-
regulation and understanding of the limits
of regulation as an effective control. I
strongly support public education and in-
formation programs as an adjunct and an
alternative to legislative restraint. An edu-
cated public can help achieve a quieter
tomorrow. D
Martha Pennine is Vice Chairman of the
Fairfax County, Va., Board of Supervisors
and President of the Metropolitan Wash-
ington Council of Governments.
Volunteers
Against
Noise
EPA scientists record sound /eve/s along
highways and in other areas as part of
research into the effects of noise.
The major part of the struggle for a quieter
society is carried on by private citizens
working through voluntary local organiza-
tions. While EPA's Office of Noise Abate-
ment and Control plays an essential role in
coordinating noise control efforts nation-
wide and providing technical support and
advice to local communities, the success of
any local noise control program depends on
the support of that community's citizens.
Indeed, if it were not for the vigorous efforts
of local volunteer groups, most local noise
control programs would not exist.
EPA's efforts to reduce noise pollution
involve giving support to local communities
.' I
EPA JOURNAL
-------
to help them develop and enforce their own
noise control efforts. One aspect of this is
the ECHO program (Each Community Helps
Others), in which EPA reimburses out-of-
pocket expenses to enable experienced
local noise control officials to travel to other
communities to provide advice and assist-
ance in developing an effective, enforce-
able noise control program. The "local"
orientation of these experts is important,
because a thorough familiarity with the
workings of local government units is es-
sential to develop effective local noise
control efforts.
In authorizing EPA's noise activities,
Congress recognized that excessive noise
is essentially a local problem demanding
local solutions. Every community is unique
and requires a noise control program tai-
lored to its specific needs. No one is better
qualified to determine what those needs
are than residents of the community, and
no one is in a better position to see that
things "get done."
Noise in Paradise
Getting things done can require some "in-
formed nagging," according to Joan Hayes,
president of Citizens Against Noise, a vol-
untary citizens' group with over 1,200
members in Honolulu, Hawaii. Hayes has
led the campaign against noise in Hawaii
since 1970 when a "screeching" air-condi-
tioner unit near her apartment proved be-
yond the power of the local government to
handle. There was a city noise code but no
enforcement, a common condition. Put off
by the bureaucracy, Hayes slipped notices
under the doors of neighbors saying "Let's
start a Citizen's Campaign Against Noise
(CAN)." Within 10 days, 70 people had
contributed a dollar each and CAN began.
Since that time, CAN has worked steadily
to raise the community's concern about
noise, promote legal action against chronic
offenders, and carry out public education
programs about noise. In the past 10 years,
CAN has:
• Pioneered a noise education program
in the Oahu school system, which one prin-
cipal called "one of the most successful
innovations" he had seen at his school
• Brought a San Francisco Police Commu-
nity Noise Control Officer to Honolulu to
show city and State officials how to handle
noise problems
• Placed noise awareness posters on buses
and in schools and libraries
• Distributed radio public service anounce-
ments about noise
• Purchased noise films which CAN loans
to interested parties
• Purchased sound level meters which
CAN loans to private citizens for testing
noise levels
• Achieved extensive newspaper coverage
for noise control activities
"Our experience suggests more than
volume motivates people," Hayes said.
"Another is awareness of what noise really
does to people. Third is disappointment
with enforcement." Hayes added that the
best thing that can happen for noise control
is for enough people to become concerned,
thereby creating a voting constituency for
noise control that elected officials will re-
spond to.
Mobilizing Older Americans
The Hawaii group is the largest of its kind
in the country. However, a nationwide
volunteer effort for noise control being de-
veloped by the American Association of
Retired Persons may eventually outstrip it.
The Association is a non-partisan associ-
ation of older Americans with approxi-
mately 12 million members and more than
3,000 local chapters. Membership is open
to people over the age of 55, though asso-
ciate memberships are available to those
over 45. It has been involved in environ-
mental issues for years through the Senior
Community Service Employment Program
in which older citizens receive training
and are placed in community service jobs
with various government agencies and
non-profit organizations.
The Association is currently managing a
Noise Counselors Program, an outgrowth
of its general environmental effort, in which
senior citizens receive training in noise con-
trol and are then assigned to work in their
local communities. Currently, there are
about 20 Noise Counselors.
Of the Noise Counselors now at work,
some receive part-time compensation
with funding provided by the Department of
Labor under the Older Americans Act. The
remainder are volunteers. EPA provides
technical equipment and educational ma-
terials for the Noise Counselors.
The Association plans to use the experi-
ence gained in this "pilot program" to de-
termine exactly how much training and
technical support is necessary to enable the
Noise Counselors to be effective in dealing
with noise issues. Once this evaluation is
complete, it anticipates developing a com-
plete training package for use as a national
program activity, setting up noise control
committees in many of its 3,000 chapters,
and providing necessary assistance and
support so that each chapter can contribute
to the development of effective local noise
control programs. While some of the cur-
rent Noise Counselors receive part-time
compensation, the Association plans to
develop a completely volunteer program
mobilizing thousands of members.
According to the Association's Sandra
Sweeney, experience gained so far indi-
cates that older citizens can be especially
effective in dealing with noise problems.
They need some encouragement and direc-
tion to get started, she said, but once
started, they "go like mad." The Noise
Counselors handle a tremendous volume of
noise complaints. They seem to have an
advantage over younger people, Sweeney
said, especially in the resolution of noise
complaints that require negotiation in po-
tential adversary situations. The Noise
Counselors are more readify accepted,
especially by business operators, and the
result is usually an amicable settlement of
the noise problem. If the Association's
plans are successful, within a few years
there should be a tremendous increase in
the number of local noise control programs
spearheaded by a group of volunteer Noise
Counselors.
The National Urban League embarked on
a similar program in July of this year. This
initiative, targeted toward inner-city resi-
dents, will address the noise problems
associated with urban environments.
A National Coalition
A national coalition of volunteer citizens'
organizations concerned with noise issues,
the National Alliance for Quieter Com-
munities, has just been formed. According
to Frank Sordyl, treasurer, more than 30
organizations across the country have been
contacted, and virtually alf of them ex-
pressed enthusiasm for the concept of a
national coalition, and willingness to par-
ticipate in its development.
As presently envisioned, the alliance
will play a vital role in assisting and sup-
porting efforts of volunteer groups to deal
with noise problems. D
OCTOBER 1979
25
-------
Sirens
By John Heritagp
"There's the road noise—the
tires screeching. There's the
sirens and the air horn. It's all
quite devastating." —a de-
scription of a firetruck ride by
Vincent Riccordella, fireman
with Ladder 81 of the New
York City Fire Department.
( ) ver the past 20 years, it's been one
^-^ of the most profoundly pervasive
noise abatement problems that we have—
the virtually endless proliferation of emer-
gency warning signals," says Dr. Thomas
H. Fay, an audiologist who has advised
the New York City Fire and Police Depart-
ments and is a member of the Council on
the Environment of New York City
"It's been enormously hazardous to the
hearing of the men that have to ride on
these vehicles," says Dr. Fay. "The gen-
eral public is simply tortured by all this,
particularly those that live near the medical
centers."
Fay's view is supported by Joan Hayes,
Chairperson of the Board of Citizens
Against Noise, a nationally-concerned
public interest group. Noise control is a
jigsaw puzzle and the siren piece is an
important part of the whole picture, she
says.
Fireman Riccordella describes the
effects from his own personal experience.
He starts his workday "pretty relaxed."
Then, as the number of trips on the fire
engine builds, he describes it this way: "I
get a little hyper. We have to talk louder
to hear. The TV goes up. After upwards of
40 to 45 runs, we've got to talk up to each
other. Our tolerance for noise decreases.
Our sleep is interrupted."
"Noise makes you sick in many, many
ways," Riccordella comments. As a result
of this, he was instrumental in setting up
a meeting in February, 1978, with New
York City labor groups and Federal, State,
and local agencies on the emergency noise
problem.
Providing evidence in support of ad-
verse noise effects, a recently published
study by three University of California
researchers found that firefighters appear
to suffer greater hearing loss than the
general population.
Such research has convinced Howard
McClennan, president of the International
Association of Firefighters, that siren
noise is a problem, and he is now bringing
the issue up during meetings with the
Occupational Safety and Health Adminis-
tration.
Sirens affect everyone, adds Norman
Waitzman, author of "Siren City USA,"
a report for Ralph Nader's Public Interest
Research Group of Washington, D.C., on
sirens in the Nation's Capital. "I can't
even sit down and read this report without
some siren blaring outside," he says.
Advocates of stiffer controls on emer-
gency warning noise see several possible
steps.
As one measure, Waitzman believes 50
percent of ambulance noise could be
eliminated. A siren can be shielded, he
says, making it more precise and effective
and reducing the noise for the hundreds
of thousands of people who hear it.
In most cases flashing lights are ade-
quate, says Hayes, who believes there
should be a maximum decibel limit for
sirens as well as the minimums that are
often set.
Ear muffs help for firemen, says fireman
Riccordella.
There could be a different kind of
warning system, says New York audiol-
ogist Fay. He suggests a radio signal with
receivers on all vehicles.
Limits could be set on the use of sirens
depending on how serious the call, Waitz-
man says. Sirens could be prohibited
between 11 p.m. and 7 a.m., according to
a 1976 recommendation of a Washington,
D.C., health and environment advisory
committee.
While there may be steps that can be
taken to reduce emergency warning noise,
now to implement them is another
concern.
Putting solutions into effect is a local
matter, says Hayes of Citizens Against
Noise. "But I think suggesting to a local
community how it can be done effectively
could be a very appropriate national under-
taking.
"A Federal organization could do some
testing easily and see what makes sense
and put out a simple, easy to understand
flyer," Hayes explains.
But there is another side in the emer-
gency warning noise issue. Some-don't
believe the noise is a problem needing
tighter controls. Even louder signals may
be justified, they add.
In fact, emergency warning signals are
actually getting noisier, not quieter. This
trend is acknowledged by Harry Foster,
northeast region district manager of Fed-
eral Signal Corporation, one of the biggest
siren makers in the country.
Louder equipment is necessary, he says,
because automakers are making their cars
tighter and tighter to keep out noise and
provide a seal for air conditioning.
Siren noise isn't a problem, Foster
continues. "The easiest and best way to
give the alert is the siren and the air horn.
They save many millions of dollars a year
and many lives."
Louder signals aren't justified, counter
those concerned about emergency warning
noise. The continuing push for more vol-
ume is due to tradition and economic
interest, they argue.
"Noise is a vastly overused tool," says
Hayes of the citizens group. "I think it's
an old fashioned solution, one that does
more harm than good."
Foster of the Federal Signal Corp.
denies that his company encourages
louder signals to make a dollar. "The
marketplace has asked for it. Fire, police,
and other emergency departments have
said that people don't see or hear. So
they've asked for better light and sound,
both of which we have responded to."
Several observers agree that many
emergency departments favor louder
warning equipment, because they may
feel that the more noise they make, the
more people will get out of the way.
If trends and old attitudes are going to
be changed, two key problems need to be
solved, several of those concerned about
emergency warning noise say.
First, says fireman Riccordella, there
isn't enough education on the problem
and the answers. Second, says audiologist
Fay, basic auditory principles haven't been
applied when left up to industry itself,
and when restrictions have been imposed,
those principles have only been used
within certain limits. D
John Heritage is an Assistant Editor of
EPA Journal.
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Environmental Almanac: October 1979
A Glimpse of the Natural World We Help Protect
The Hummer's Voyage
|_| undreds of tiny and remark-
' ' able ruby-throated hum-
mingbirds often fly at this
time of year across the Gulf of
Mexico to their winter homes
in Latin America.
They are carried on this
remarkable flight by wings beat-
ing at a furious rate of 60
strokes a second or better. The
wings move so rapidly that they
are seen only as a blur and the
thrumming sound of their
motion gives the bird its nick-
name of "hummer."
The ruby-throated humming-
bird, the only species of this
type of bird that nests east of
the Mississippi River, some-
times migrates as much as
2,000 miles from its breeding
site to winter quarters.
Some of these tiny creatures
starting their migratory flights
are being caught in almost
invisible mist nets erected in
the Dolly Sods area of the
Monongahela National Forest
on the Allegheny Front, some
200 miles west of Washington.
The Brooks Bird Club members
who tend these nets as part of a
bird banding operation always
swiftly release the fragile hum-
mingbirds so they can resume
their journey without injury.
These birds have proportion-
ately immense wing muscles
and, for their size, the hummers
outperform any other warm-
blooded animals. Their daily
intake of sugar, a principal
food, may amount to half the
bird's weight. These creatures
take food 50 to 60 times a day
and use their tubular tongues to
suck up nectar from flowers
such as gladioli.
They also frequently visit
glass feeders hung by bird
lovers for free sugar water
Often colored red with a food
dye to help attract their atten-
tion. Thousands of these birds
summer on the East Coast and
many visit feeders in the Wash-
ington area.
When two or more humming-
birds gather at a feeder, they
often engage in mock aerial
combat, darting at each other
at speeds of up to 30 miles an
hour. However, they never
seem to actually make physical
contact, contenting themselves
with playing an aerial game of
"chicken."
In order to sip sugar water
from feeders, they hover in the
air in one position until their
hunger has been sated. The
hummingbird must be refueled
every 1 0 to 1 5 minutes. Scien-
tists have found that in order to
save energy these birds will
sometimes pass into a state of
torpor at night instead of sleep-
ing. In this condition, the bird's
body temperature drops and its
energy output sinks to only one-
twentieth that of normal sleep.
For a tiny creature weighing
only about one-tenth of an
ounce, the hummingbird shows
a remarkable lack of fear of
people. It will often fly or perch
within 1 5 or 20 feet of humans
and, in some cases, these birds
have been induced to take sugar
water from hand-held feeders
and to alight on a finger. This
may reflect their confidence in
their ability to make a quick
escape if they see danger.
Yet the hummers are wary of
the bees that often find the sugar
water dispensers appealing and
cling to the feeder tip. Since
hummers frequently refuse to
visit when a bee is at the sugar
water, some feeders come
equipped with "bee guards"
which permit only the stiletto-
like beak of this bird to gain
access to the fluid.
The ruby-throat is only one
of more than 300 species of
hummingbirds. The family in-
cludes the smallest bird in the
world, the 2%-inch Cuban
"bee."
Until the discovery of Amer-
ica, no European had ever seen
a hummingbird. All members of
this family are found in the
western hemisphere only.
Most of the 300 types are
tropical. Like many beautiful
birds, they often were slaugh-
tered for their feathers. Before
such commerce was outlawed,
a total of 40,000 skins report-
edly were sold to a London firm
in one year.
In courtship, the male ruby
throat puts on an aerial circus
ashedivesinfrontofhisfuture
mate. The male's resplendent
red throat consists of iridescent
feathers, which glow with
astonishing intensity when
struck by sunlight. The female
perches on a branch, her head
turning from side to side as she
watches the display.
The nests are walnut size
and are tied to a branch with
spider silk woven by the needle-
like bill of the female. Two pea-
sized white eggs are laid in the
nests, which have been camou-
flaged with lichen and are often
lined with thistle down. The
mother bird feeds newly
hatched young by thrusting
regurgitated food into the gap-
ing mouths with her long bill.
Although hummingbirds are
relatively safe from non-human
predators, there have been re-
ports of bass, frogs, and hawks
occasionally swallowing them.
A more significant cause of
death for hummingbirds is the
unexpected storms they some-
times encounter while migrat-
ing over the Gulf of Mexico.
Workers stationed on off-
shore oil rigs and sailors on ves-
sels in the Gulf occasionally
report the arrival of large
numbers of starving and ex-
hausted small birds such as
hummers and warblers.
Like all living creatures they
are vulnerable to an environ-
ment that can sometimes be un-
predictable and lethal.—C.D.P.
OCTOBER 1979
27
-------
Cooperating
With Germany
on the
Environment
By David H. Strother
Administrator Douglas M . Costle will
greet an old friend of EPA this
month when his counterpart in the Federal
Republic of Germany, State Secretary
Guenter Hartkopf, arrives in Washington.
Dr. Hartkopf is attending a meeting of
NATO's Committee on the Challenges of
Modern Society, which is rounding out its
tenth year. CCMS was initiated in 1969 by
the United States in cooperation with the
other 14 NATO member countries to seek
solutions of pressing environmental prob-
lems. Costle is scheduled to address the
CCMS meeting.
Dr. Hartkopf last year presented Costle
with the special German Environmental pin,
only the second foreigner ever to receive
this symbolic award, as a measure of the
cooperation between the two countries in
environmental matters.
The United States and the Federal Re-
public of Germany as two of the most ad-
vanced industrialized nations share many
environmental problems. In recognition of
this, Dr. Hartkopf represented his country
five years ago in signing an "Agreement
between the Government of the United
States of America and the Government of
the Federal Republic of Germany on
Cooperation in Environmental Affairs."
Today the two countries are not only
jointly pursuing several projects under the
Agreement but also are working together
in environmental programs under the au-
spices of the Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD)
and the CCMS.
The most active and productive project
under the U.S.-German agreement deals
with emission control technology for
energy processes. Five subprojects under
way in this category are flue gas desulfur-
ization, utilization of products from this
desulfurization, control of nitrogen oxide,
of particulates, and other control
technologies.
Both countries are faced with increasing
demand for the use of easily accessible
supplies of coal which is relatively high in
sulfur content. EPA and the German Minis-
try of Interior and Ministry of Research and
Technology are carrying out ambitious pro-
grams to control pollution from this source
in order to help their countries use domestic
supplies of coal effectively.
In another area, EPA is now in the proc-
ess of providing a grant for an evaluation of
the Andco-Torrax pyrolysis process to con-
vert solid waste to useful resources. The
facility, located in Frankfurt, makes use of
high temperature in a vertical shaft furnace
to convert municipal refuse into a burnable
fuel gas. The noncombustible materials are
converted to a glassy aggregate which may
be used by industry. The $100,000 invest-
ment by EPA will provide valuable technical
information which is otherwise unobtain-
able since there are no identical facilities
in the U.S. Test results will be available to
both countries.
Another project involves the exchange of
information by the two countries on suc-
cessful enforcement of environmental laws.
The German legal decisions on the feasibil-
ity of existing technology for control of
emissions from coke ovens and casting
houses, for example, already have been
useful to EPA. The comparison of monitor-
ing and enforcement philosophies and
practices helps to identify both strong and
weak aspects of each country's approach.
Each time a new pollutant is identified as
hazardous, one of the major problems fac-
ing scientists is the lack of information
about the pollutant prior to the time that
they began focusing attention on it. Exist-
ing specimen banks of pollutants don't
always help because the new chemical
compounds often are subtle, and their exist-
ence may be masked by preservatives used
in storage of tissues and other specimens
in these banks.
To solve this problem, EPA in coopera-
tion with the National Bureau of Standards
and the German Federal Environmental
Agency has undertaken to create a speci-
men bank to identify samples which will be
of the greatest potential use, and then de-
vise a foolproof method of storing them
where they are unaffected by preservatives.
EPA and its German counterpart main-
tain close contact in order to harmonize
their positions on toxic substance reg-
ulation and to address problems not cov-
ered by international organizations. Last
May Steven D. Jellinek, Assistant Admin-
istrator for Toxic Substances, met with his
counterparts in Bonn and Berlin to study
the question. As a result, it is now likely the
U.S. inventory of existing commercial
chemicals will be adopted as the de facto
international inventory, with great savings
for international trade in these products.
A key aspect of an effective environmen-
tal program is the availability and exchange
of pertinent information. The importance of
this was recognized in a memorandum of
understanding signed by Administrator
Costle and Dr. Hartkopf last May. Policies
and practices for establishing and maintain-
ing useful data systems are now under
constant review by the two countries'
environmental agencies.
A problem linked with industrial growth
is air quality planning and maintenance.
As a U .S.-German project this has been
focused on new source siting. Other com-
mon concerns such as long range transport
measurement and control of pollutants are
being addressed by the OECD and the
Economic Commission for Europe.
Although not the subject of a formal
project, both auto emissions including
diesel fumes and problems in radiation also
are being jointly studied by the two
agencies. D
David Strother is the European Program
Manager in EPA's Office of International
Activities. Edward Olson and Jeffrey Gallup
of the Department of State also contributed
to this article.
Helping Preserve
Greek Temples
It was a celebrated 19th century Ger-
man, Heinrich Schliemann, who in-
vestigated the origins of Greek civili-
zation and in the process put classical
archaeology on a more scientific basis.
Today the Federal Republic of
Germany is playing a new environ-
mental role in helping to preserve
ancient Greek architectural works
and statues. It is one of the leaders in
a new pilot study by NATO's Commit-
tee on the Challenges of Modern
Society on the conservation and res-
toration of monuments. The project
seeks to combat deterioration of such
classical treasures as Greek temples,
along with medieval cathedrals else-
where, from the ravages of 20th cen-
tury air pollution.
This and numerous other environ-
mental problems will be the subject
of a CCMS conference at the State
Department in Washington, D.C.
October 22-24. Of its 1 4 pilot studies,
West Germany leads two, on air pol-
lution assessment methodology and
modeling, and hazardous waste dis-
posal, and is an active participant on
half a dozen others.
In addition to being "co-pilot," in
the Committee's phrase, of the study
of monuments, West Germany also
plays the same role in projects on flue
gas desulfurization and drinking
water.
EPAJOURNAL
-------
News Briefs
Gas Mileage
The EPA recently released gasoline mileage figures for 1980 cars and trucks. The ten
cars with the best mileage ratings were four Volkswagens, two Japanese Hondas, and
four Chrysler cars made in Japan. EPA expects all of the major manufacturers to meet
or exceed the 1980 corporate average fuel economy standard of 20 mpg for passenger
cars. Under the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, manufacturers must increase the
efficiency of their passenger car fleets each year until they meet the final fleet
average of 27.5 mpg in 1985. For the 1980 cars tested through August 29, 1979, the
top ten miles per gallon ratings are:
Estimated
MPG
42
40
37
37
36
36
36
35
35
35
Manufacturer
Volkswagen
Volkswagen
Dodge
Plymouth
Honda
Volkswagen
Volkswagen
Dodge
Honda
Plymouth
Car Line
Rabbit (Diesel)
Rabbit (Diesel)
Colt
Champ
Civic
Dasher (Diesel)
Dasher Wagon
(Diesel)
Colt
Civic
Champ
Engine*
90 CID**
90 CID
86 CID
86 CID
91 CID**
90 CID
90 CID
86 CID***
91 CID
86 CID***
Joan Z. Bernstein
*CuTDic-inch-displacement **5 speed manual transmission
***Dual range manual U speed transmission.
EPA General Counsel Joan Z. Bernstein has decided to accept the General Counsel
position at the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare. Ms. Bernstein has
served at EPA since July 1977, and also was briefly Acting Assistant Administrator
for Enforcement.
States Served by EPA Regions
Region 1 [Boston)
Region 2 (New York
City)
ilte)
EPA Journal Subscriptions
Mar
ne-
Cornpa
I i
-\rs
ny
t, L
Mar
ast
ne or fi
dd
tional
1
Ad(
|
ire
ss L
ine
Pie
asc
iP
•inl
1
|
•
5tre
•et i
\dc
!res
s
City
St
ate
Zip Co
|
de
DC
gr<
en
Le
to
sc
mi
se
thi
wi
be
pa
Payment enclosed
Charge to my Deposit Account No.
Do you know someone in industry or in a civic
group who wants to keep up with national
environmental developments involving EPA?
Let them know about EPA Journal. !f they want
to subscribe, give them this form. The sub-
scription price is $12 per year and S1 5.00 if
mailed to a foreign address. A single copy
sells for $1.20. (Agency employees receive
this publication without charge.) Anyone
wishing to subscribe should fifl in the form
below and enclose a check or money order
payable to the Superintendent of Documents.
Mail order form to:
(Superintendent of Documents)
Government Printing Office
Washington. D.C. 20402
OCTOBER 1979
29
-------
Around the Nation
Grants Awarded
EPA's Boston office has
awarded a total of
$519,700 for studies of
the effects of urban runoff
on three New England
waterways. The Massa-
chusetts Department of
Environmental Quality
Engineering will receive
$334,200 to study the
Mystic River and
$110,500 to study Lake
Quinsigamond in Wor-
cester, Mass. The Mystic
River project will assess
the impact of urban runoff
on a highly urbanized
stream and lake. The Lake
Quinsigamond project
will look at what contribu-
tion runoff makes to the
eutrophication of the lake,
in conjunction with a
study funded through the
Clean Lakes program.
Region 1 also has given
the New Hampshire Water
Supply and Pollution Con-
trol Commission $75,000
for a project on the Oyster
River in Durham to find
cost-effective runoff con-
trols, which can be ap-
plied to a statewide
program of permits.
US/USSR Water
Symposium
Region 1 recently held a
symposium on "River
Basin Water Quality Plan-
ning and Management"
for 200 American and
Russian scientists in
Cambridge, Mass. The
meeting revolved around
the water protection plan-
ning techniques of both
countries with emphasis
on technological, regula-
tory, and institutional
constraints. The Ameri-
can scientists prepared a
river basin water protec-
tion plan for a segment of
the Severski-Donet River
in the Ukraine Republic,
applying U.S. laws, regu-
lations, and technologies.
The Soviet scientists pre-
pared a similar water plan
for a segment of the
Connecticut River in
Massachusetts, based on
Soviet constraints and
planning approaches. The
Russians discussed some
of their treatment tech-
nologies and pollution
abatement procedures,
which are not used in this
country. Research and
design of water pollution
control systems in the
USSR is the responsibility
of the All-Union Scientific
Research Institute for
Water Protection, an
equivalent of EPA, which
sent researchers to the
symposium.
Sludge Dumping Cut
Nine municipalities in
Region 2 plan to stop
dumping their sewage
sludge into the ocean dur-
ing the next year. Sewage
sludge from the ten treat-
ment plants involved,
some 95,000 wet tons,
will not go into the waters
off New York and New
Jersey as in the past. The
communities are using
environmentally accept-
able alternatives for
sludge disposal. In
Lincoln Park, NJ. the
Two Bridges sewage au-
thority has completed an
incinerator. The Modern
Transportation Com-
pany's facility in Kearny,
NJ. has completed a
sludge/septic tank waste
treatment plant. Other
municipalities involved,
all in New Jersey, are
Atlantic Highland, Cedar
Grove, Pequannock Town-
ship, West Paterson,
Totowa, Washington
Township, West New
York, and Wanaque.
Burn Permit Stalled
EPA's New York office
will not issue a permit to
Rollins Environmental
Services, Inc. for inciner-
ation of wastes containing
polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCB's) at its waste dis-
posal facility at the pre-
sent time. The company
must have the permit be-
fore it can handle PCB
wastes. Speaking to local
officials in Logan Town-
ship, N.J., where the
facility is located, Region
2 Administrator Chris
Beck said, "I do not in-
tend to issue a PCB per-
mit to Rollins until all the
environmental questions
have been thoroughly
assessed to my satisfac-
tion, and the company's
problems with meeting its
current operating condi-
tions have been cor-
rected." Beck added that
there will be no test burn-
ing of PCB's atthe Rollins
site until EPA is satisfied
that the company can
operate its incinerator
properly.
funds. The project will
handle all of the county's
recyclable solid waste,
some 1,000 tons per day.
It also will process 250
tons per day of sewage
sludge from Wilmington's
treatment plant, which
handles most of the coun-
ty's sewage. The resource
recovery system will
separate combustible ma-
terials from the waste
stream, to burn in a nearby
commercial power plant
for electricity production.
The remaining waste will
be separated into market-
able metals and giass,
which will be sold. Any
solid waste left after this
step will be mixed with
the sludge, composted in
closed digesters, and
processed into a high-
grade humus material that
can be used as a soil con-
ditioner or a light burning
fuel. The project is ex-
pected to ease the pres-
sure on New Castle
County's dwindling land-
fill capacity and result in
near-complete recycling
of municipal wastes.
Reclamation Project
Initiated
Builders broke ground
recently for an EPA-sup-
ported resource recovery
system in New Castle
County, Del. The system,
called the Delaware Rec-
lamation Project, will con-
vert solid waste and sew-
age sludge into energy
and marketable products.
EPA's Office of Solid
Waste Management is
contributing an $8.25 mil-
lion demonstration grant
toward the construction.
Region 3 will add approx-
imately $21.5 million
from the Agency's grants
program for construction
of municipal sewage treat-
ment facilities. The re-
mainder of the more than
$60 million cost will
come from State and local
Florida Fish Kill
A major fish kill occurred
in the Hillsborough River
in Tampa, Fla., after large
quantities of untreated
sewage from the city were
dumped into the sewer.
The decomposing sewage
depleted oxygen in the
river below the level
needed by the fish. Offi-
cials blamed heavy sum-
mer rains for overloading
the main north-south sew-
age line, which is already
in bad repair. Federal
funds for improving the
sewage system were ap-
proved in late 1977 but
equipment shortages have
caused a delay in delivery
for construction. During
the summer, bacteria
counts reached 11 5 times
the maximum level al-
lowed by the State.
County officials posted
warning signs along the
banks of the river, due to
their concern about the
threat of disease to peo-
ple drinking or touching
river water. During the
week just before the fish
kill as many as two to
three million gallons of
raw sewage a day were
overflowing the system
into the river.
Clean Air Program
Promoted
Region 4 Public Aware-
ness Branch has com-
pleted a slide/cassette
show on the Clean Air
Act. The 22-minute pro-
gram outlines important
provisions of the law and
shows the contrast be-
tween scenic beauty and
pollution-filled skies in
the Southeast. The pro-
gram shows the impact of
pollution control on sta-
tionary source emissions.
It also describes the
health effects of air pollu-
tion. Copies of the slide
presentation have been
furnished to EPA-funded
local and State air agen-
cies throughout the
Region.
Noise Ordinance
Enforced
EPA's Chicago office has
developed a noise control
ordinance that is being
enforced by police officers
in several Midwestern
cities. The policemen tell
Region 5 Noise chief
Horst Witschonke that
they like the ordinance
because it can be inte-
grated quickly with radar
speed checking. They re-
port that rather than di-
verting personnel to direct
30
EPAJOURNAL
-------
noise control enforce-
ment, police forces can
continue to perform their
regular duties and enforce
noise control ordinances
as the need arises. Wit-
schonke and the Region 5
noise staff have built up
an inventory of sound-
measuring equipment for
vehicle noise control,
which they lend to local
police departments on a
trial basis. One officer told
EPA personnel that be-
cause the equipment is
unusual the noise moni-
toring has more impact
than radar equipment on
slowing down speeders.
The Chicago Regional
Office also offers a noise
control sign, which can be
used to notify residents
that a local noise control
ordinance is in effect.
Oil Spill Response
Region 6 personnel joined
other Federal and State
agencies in a massive ef-
fort to ease the impact of
oil on the Texas Gulf
Coast from the runaway
Mexican oil well in the
Bay of Campeche. The
Coast Guard is On-Scene
Coordinator, with the
Dallas Regional Response
Team and the EPA Na-
tional Response Team
active. Contingency funds
have been made available
for the containment and
cleanup effort. EPA pro-
vided staffing for the Re-
gional News Office set up
in Corpus Christi, Texas,
to answer media inquiries
from around the world.
The Agency sent its new
research vessel, the Ante-
lope, to help track the oil
slick. The ship will locate
and protect environmen-
tally sensitive areas, and
determine the condition
of oil that hits the coast.
Beneficial w;nds and cur-
rents helped keep much
of the oil offshore. But oil
is known to be mixed with
water as deep as 40 feet
below the surface. Scien-
tists fear that much eco-
logical damage may be
done to the Gulf even if
the coast is spared. The
first oil blobs reached the
Texas coast two months
after the blowout oc-
curred, and experts feel
that the threat will con-
tinue for a similar period
after the well is capped.
Inspection and
Maintenance Discussed
The Kansas City, Kan.,
police cars were among
the vehicles tested
when EPA Region 7
brought the Inspection
and Maintenance emis-
sion van to town. The
Agency provided this
service in conjunction
with a public meeting be-
ing held by the Kansas
Special Legislative Com-
mittee on Air Quality and
Pollution Control. The
Committe sought public
views on proposed legis-
lative amendments to
State air quality laws.
One bill under considera-
tion provides for a manda-
tory inspection and main-
tenance program for
vehicles in areas that do
not meet Federal air
quality standards. EPA
staff at the testing van
answered questions about
air pollution and gave free
emissions inspections.
Despite very hot weather
interest was high. More
than 100 cars took the
test and over half of them
passed.
G//^i
Oil Shale Permit Set
EPA's Denver office ap-
proved a crucial air pollu-
tion permit for Colony
Development Operation,
a joint venture of Atlantic
Richfield Co. and Tosco
Corporation, which plans
an oil shale development
on Colorado's Western
Slope. The proposed fa-
cility will mine and proc-
ess 66,000 tons per day
of oil shale and will pro-
duce nearly 1 5 million
barrels of oil, more than a
million barrels of liquid
propane, and more than
50,000 tons of ammonia
and sulfur each year. The
"prevention of significant
deterioration" permit
contains air pollution lim-
its far more stringent than
the national standards, as
is required when air qual-
ity in an area is cleaner
than national standards.
The permit process is de-
signed to protect pristine
air in places like the
energy-rich West. Several
environmental organiza-
tions were involved in the
permit review process.
According to Kevin Mar-
key of Friends of the
Earth, which was involved
in the process, the EPA
review was "hard-hitting
and well done." He added
"informed public partici-
pation can help produce
approvable permits."
termination of its license
to handle radioactive ma-
terials. The San Francisco
Regional Office coordi-
nated the participation of
technical staff from EPA's
Office of Radiation Pro-
grams and the Office of
Research and Develop-
ment. Agency scientists
found tritium in samples
of food, water, and urine
collected in Tucson and
analyzed at the Nevada
lab. American Atomics
Corporation produced
tritium-filled tubes used
to illuminate watch dials
and exit signs, and the
company had been emit-
ting unacceptably high
levels of radioactive
tritium gas. The State
Atomic Energy Commis-
sion has accepted the
company's application for
termination of its license
pending agreement to cer-
tain conditions, which
include the closure and
decontamination of the
Tucson manufacturing
plant. Dr. Al Moghissi of
EPA's R&D program testi-
fied in hearings that, while
individual exposure would
probably be low, the plant
had emitted more tritium
in one year than all 72
nuclear power plants in
the U.S. American Atom-
ics Corporation is cur-
rently negotiating the re-
location of its operations
to an unpopulated area of
southern Nevada.
Water Pollution Seminar
The San Francisco office
recently hosted a seminar
for U.S. attorneys, State
attorneys general, and
FBI personnel from Re-
gions 8, 9, and 10 to cre-
ate an awareness and
understanding of the
Water Pollution Control
Act. The increased knowl-
edgeability will help EPA
to better cooperate with
Radiation Support
Region 9 provided techni-
cal assistance and sup-
port in the case of an ap-
plication to the Arizona
Atomic Energy Commis-
sion by the American
Atomics Corporation for
these law enforcement
agencies to fight fraud
and abuse in the construc-
tion grants program. Sev-
eral hundred law enforce-
ment officials from 15
Western States attended
the seminar.
Fuel Switching Penalties
Region 10 has proposed
penalties totalling more
than naif a million dollars
in response to charges by
the Agency Enforcement
Division that 114 motor
vehicles were illegally
fueled with leaded gas.
The vehicles were oper-
ated by the Loomis
Courier Service, Inc. and
Gelco Courier Service
Inc. EPA alleges that the
vehicles, designed for un-
leaded fuel, were supplied
with leaded gasoline in
Seattle and Portland from
pumps that were equipped
with nozzles made for use
only on pumps that con-
tain unleaded gasoline.
Region 10 proposed pen-
alties of $245,200 against
Loomis and $297,700
against Gelco.
Drinking Water Advisory
EPA's Seattle office found
excessive levels of bac-
teria in water supplies of
two Oregon communities,
Cove and Haines, and
advised residents to boil
their water before drink-
ing it. The Agency made
the discovery during spot
checks of water supplies
in 13 communities. EPA's
frequent spot checks are
designed to augment the
monitoring and reporting
performed by water sys-
tem operators throughout
Oregon, which has not yet
assumed enforcement re-
sponsibility for the Safe
Drinking Water Act of
1974.D
OCTOBER 1979
31
-------
Opportunities in the Quiet
Communities Act
tions, was the guide for the Quiet Commu-
nities Act. The Act enhances this effort by
authorizing:
• grants to States, !ocal governments, and
regional authorities for identifying noise
problems, developing abatement plans,
and evaluating control techniques.
• loan of equipment to State and local
governments and:
• studies to determine the needs of State
and local governments for noise control.
Second, Each Community Helps Others
(ECHO) enables communities to obtain
assistance from other communities which
are already dealing effectively with noise
problems. Local officials from communities
with successful noise control programs
volunteer to assist other areas requesting
technical help.
Two examples of local initiatives as-
sisted by the ECHO program are Des
Moines and Council Bluffs, Iowa. Both of
these cities received help through ECHO
from noise officials in Lincoln. Neb., and
Des Moines is now preparing to aid other
Midwestern communities in establishing
local noise abatement strategies.
Ultimately, noise can only be controlled
by having a strong constituency willing to
devote time and effort to local programs.
The Quiet Communities Act offers many
opportunities for communities to receive
technical and material assistance from EPA
for their own initiatives. EPA is marshalling
the efforts of volunteers dedicated to en-
hance this country's quality of life.
The Senate intends to maintain close
oversight responsibility in this environmen-
tal area to guarantee that the Quiet Com-
munities Act is implemented according to
the desires of Congress. I hope that our
noise abatement programs will not be given
a low priority in the budgeting process now
that research is beginning to show that ex-
cessive noise has adverse implications for
our health. The noise programs, especially
those assist ing communities, are already
understaffed, and budget cuts could leave
them unable to function effectively.
Nevertheless, I am optimistic about the
future. Noise has been a neglected environ-
mental concern both in research and con-
trol programs. The Quiet Communities Act
and further health research, however, are
helping to make the public aware of the
need to control the Nation's growing noise
problems, and to provide communities with
the tools to fight local noise problems. Q
Implementing the Act
EPA's Noise Program recently began funding cooperative agreements to State.
city, and local entities to implement the provisions of the Quiet Communities Act
State Cooperative Agreement Awards
California
Colorado
Connecticut
Delaware
Florida
Districl of Columbia
Minnesota
Nebraska
New Hampshire
New Jersey
New Mexico
North Dakota
Ohio
Oregon
Utah
Washington
California Department of
Health Services
Department of Health
Department of Environmental
Protection
Department of Natural
Resources and
Environmental Control
Department of Environmental
Regulation
Metropolitan Washington
Council of Governments
League of Minnesota Cities
Department of Environmental
Control
Bureau of Occupational
Health
Department of Environmental
Protection
Health and Environmental
Department
Department of Health
Ohio Department of Health
Department of Environmental
Quality
Department of Social Services
Department of Ecology
Local Cooperative Agreement Awards
S28.000
S27.990
335.644
325,000'
S45.000
S42.750
838,000
S26.473
S25.0OO
S35.109
517.000
S 28.008
327.293
328.414
325.000
S30.000
Brook line/Newton,
Massachusetts
Stamford, Connecticut
Teaneck. New Jersey
York, Pennsylvania
Kmgsport, Tennessee
Mentor. Ohio
Akron. Ohio
Norman, Oklahoma
St. Louis County, Missouri
National City, California
Brooklme Conservation
Commission
Health Department
Teaneck Health Department
Office of the Mayor
City of Kingsport
City of Mentor
City of Akron Health
Department
City Manager's Office
Department of Community
Health and Medical Care
Planning Department
512,000
512.170
514,250
59,279
59,500
52,200
512,000
512,000
$ 1 0,000
S12.0OO
Boise, Idaho
Thornton. Colorado
Department of Community
Development
City °f Thornton
Demonstration Cooperative Agreements
New Orleans, Louisiana
Des Moines, Iowa
Massachusetts
National Association
of Neighborhoods
Portland, Oregon
National Institute of
Governmental Purchasing
State of New Jersey
State of Oregon
Citv of Chicago
Delaware Valley Regional
Planning Commission
Office of the Mayor
Building Inspection
Department
Massachusetts Port Authority
Washington, D.C. 20009
City of Portland
Washington. D.C 20036
Department of Environmental
Protection
Department of Environmental
Quality
City of Chicago
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
Regional Noise Technical Assistance Centers
Region 1
Region 2
Region 3
Region 4
Region 5
Region 6
Region 7
Region 8
Region 9
Region 10
University of Hartford
Hartford. Connecticut 061 1 7
Rutgers University
New Brunswick, New Jersey
08902
University of Maryland
College Park, Maryland
20742
North Carolina State
University
Raleigh, North Carolina
27650
Illinois Institute of Technology
Research Institute
Chicago. Illinois 60616
University of Texas at Dallas
Richardson, Texas 75080
University of Iowa
Iowa City, Iowa 52242
University of Colorado
Boulder, Colorado 80309
University of California at
Berkeley
Berkeley. California 94720
University of Washington
Seattle, Washington 98195
S14.172
$7,600
$49,774
528,297
531,610
535,474
SI 1,414
$60.000
534,440
533.978
$24,035
$ 1 30,000
390.000
$90.000
590,000
$90.000
$90,000
$90,000
$90,000
$90,000
$90.000
$90.000
EPAJOURNAL
-------
Aircraft Noise: An Abatement
Priority
would do well to carefully reconsider the
benefits of dismantling existing Federal
authority in this area.
The National Noise
Abatement Effort
Of course, aircraft are not the only source
of noise in our environment. The Noise
Control Act authorizes the EPA to identify
and control other major sources of environ-
mental noise as well. However, aircraft
noise does affect a substantial portion of
our population as represented by increas-
ingly well-organized citizen groups protest-
ing such noise.
More important, however, is that the air-
craft noise issue represents the symbolic
battle between interest groups pitted
against one another in the legislative arena.
Some parts of the commercial aviation
industry continue to stall efforts to comply
with existing regulations in the hopes that
the authorizing laws will be adjusted in
their favor. Other members of the airline
industry have already complied, or intend
to comply with noise regulations, in the
expectation that regulations will be en-
forced. At the same time, community
™Sl^HKBMR5MMBP5MHIV^^H^B^^HHBBMHMBVMHHB
Airci alt on takeoff and landing add substantially to the noise th. ted to
/itt>n v urban arpr).<;
r.rban areas.
groups have mounted increasing pressure
on lawmakers to preserve, at the very least,
if not strenathen laws that have been
held up to them as the source of relief from
ever present aircraft noise.
It is crucial that the existing authority to
reduce aircraft noise, as well as other
sources of environmental noise, be upheld
and fulfilled as Congress intended in the
passage of the Noise Control Act. ^
Quiet—A National Resource
•
Washington Monument that conversation
can be all but impossible.
There is also concern for the continuing
architectural integrity of the monuments
we have built to honor our country's lead-
ers. The possibility of accelerated struc-
tural deterioration due to noise-induced
vibrations has not been sufficiently inves-
tigated, but is a matter of major concern.
When the Federal Aviation Administra-
tion last year issued a Draft Environmental
Impact Statement on proposed policies for
the future of National Airport, we recom-
mended that the plan include development
of all possible measures to minimize harm
from aircraft noise. These should include
the enforcement of strict flight regulations
to reduce noise: site specific means to
reduce noise impacts inside national monu-
ments and memorials, and provision of an
adequate mechanism to handle public
complaints about aircraft noise.
While the public has for the most part
tolerated the existing noise levels as an
inevitable nuisance, I disagree with the
premise that these noise levels should be
allowed to continue without close exami-
nation of their impacts on the visitors to
the Nation's Capital and upon the monu-
ments themselves.
At the very least, the conflict must be
publicly acknowledged and addressed, and
responsible officials must work coopera-
tively to develop and implement all pos-
sible measures to reduce and mitigate this
conflict. While these measures may not, for
various valid reasons, include the rerouting
of most traffic to Dulles Airport or Balti-
more's Friendship Airport, a solution simi-
lar to that which many cities across the
Nation have resorted, we should definitely
consider suggestions such as that of the
National Capital Planning Commission to
limit the annual allowable passenger vol-
ume to present numbers. This approach,
combined with extensive use of wide-
bodied jets, could result in the maintenance
of present levels of service and conven-
ience while reducing the number of flights,
noise exposure time, and negative impacts
on parklands and memorials.
In the case of National Airport, two
things appear obvious at this point. First,
the future operating regime at National
must consider many factors, including
environmental ones; and secondly, we do
not now have enough objective information
to allow us to responsibly balance compet-
ing values. The National Park Service has
increased its efforts to gather necessary
information within its realm of expertise.
and continues to encourage other agencies
to do so as well.
The cases of Jackson Hole and National
Airports only highlight the complexities of
weighing the advantages of activities which
produce sound against the impact of the
sound which is produced. The task will not
be easy, but it is necessary.
Of one thing, however, I am certain. A
most appropriate, in fact, necessary role of
the National Park Service in years to come
wiil be the preservation of some special
places which are not polluted by sound,
just as we would not allow them to be
polluted by dirty air or water. In these
places, the artificial and unnecessary intro-
duction of sound into a natural environment
is more than just an irritation caused by
what you can hear. It is, in essence, an act
of robbery, a theft of those sounds which
naturally belong in these environments, and
which are part and parcel of the natural and
cultural heritage of this Nation.
I think back to moments of my childhood
when my father had me convinced that if
I listened very carefully, I could hear the
music made by the stars as they traveiled
across the sky. It is a legend as old as
written language. What a shame it would be
if we could only pass this legend on to our
children by beginning it with "If it weren't
for all this noise, you could hear. . . ." Q
OCTOBER 1979
33
-------
Update
A review of recent major
EPA activities and devel-
opments in the pollution
control program areas.
AIR
Conditional Approvals
The EPA recently agreed
to conditionally approve
the sale of 228,000 Fords,
Lincolns, and Mercurys
equipped with an elec-
tronic engine control sys-
tem known as "EEC-Ill."
The conditional appro-
val means the cars can be
sold pending additional
tests on the electronic
engine control system.
The EEC-Ill functions
as an onboard computer
that controls the emission
control system and other
aspects of the engine op-
eration. While Ford Motor
Company expects that this
computer will function
properly in use, the dura-
bility of this system has
not yet been fully demon-
strated in the certification
program as required by
the Clean Air Act.
Also, EPA recently said
that, pending the success-
ful completion of tailpipe
emission tests, it has
agreed to conditionally
approve the sale of Gen-
eral Motors' 1980 diesel
cars equipped with 5.7
liter (350 cubic inch, V-3)
engines. This accounts for
all of GM's currently
planned diesel passenger
car production for this
engine.
EPA said the diesel
cars could not be fully
certified because of fail-
ure of an emission control
device to pass the 50,000
mile durability tests as
required by the Clean Air
Act.
The conditional ap-
proval means the cars can
be sold pending addition-
al tests of an exhaust gas
recirculation valve.
ENFORCEMENT
Steel Agreement
The EPA and Cooperweld
Steel Company have
reached agreement on a
program to completely
eliminate water pollution
discharges from the firm's
Warren, Ohio, plant.
Copperweld, head-
quartered in Pittsburgh,
has agreed to totally elimi-
nate discharges of oil,
grease, and suspended
solids (big particles of dirt
that do not degrade in
water) from its Warren
plant into the Mahoning
River by June 1, 1980.
The company, which cur-
rently employs about
2,500 people, serves a
nationwide market and is
one of the largest special-
ty steel firms in the U.S.
Additive Okay
The EPA recently an-
nounced that it has grant-
ed a waiver to Suntech,
Inc. (Sun Oil Company)
permitting the sale of a
new anti-knock fuel
additive.
The Suntech additive
has high anti-knock qual-
ities and can be used in
unleaded gasoline without
adversely affecting auto-
mobile emissions, accord-
ing to EPA. This additive
has the potential to slight-
ly increase gasoline sup-
plies, and Sun states its
use will significantly in-
crease the percentage of
customers satisfied with
gasoline anti-knock per-
formance, the Agency
says.
The 1977 Clean Air Act
Amendments banned the
use of certain fuel addi-
tives unless a waiver is
granted. Suntech request-
ed a waiver on December
19, 1978.
Parts Review
A regulation designed to
make it easier for auto-
mobile owners to know
which parts will not cause
emissions to increase
when used in the main-
tenance and repair of pol-
lution controls on cars has
been proposed by the En-
vironmental Protection
Agency.
This voluntary regula-
tion provides a simple
procedure for parts manu-
facturers to certify that
the use of their parts will
not cause automobile
emissions to increase.
Manufacturers who are
now producing parts
which are the equivalent
of parts installed on a new
car will be able to comply
with the proposed regula-
tions with only minimal
adjustments in their pres-
ent operations, according
to EPA.
Motor Homes
The EPA has denied a re-
quest by the manufactur-
ers of motor homes to
exempt these vehicles
from the Agency's noise
regulations for new med-
ium and heavy trucks.
Under the EPA ruling,
motor homes must be in
compliance with the reg-
ulations a hundred and
twenty days after publica-
tion in the Federal
Register. Motor homes
manufactured before this
compliance date are not
required to comply with
the regulation.
In turning down the
manufacturers' petition,
EPA said no burdens in
the regulation are placed
upon motor home manu-
facturers that are not
placed upon similarly sit-
uated manufacturers in
the rest of the truck
industry.
PESTICIDES
Citrus Fruits
EPA Administrator
Douglas M. Costle has
ordered a ban on most
uses of the pesticide
chlorobenzilate but is
allowing treatments on
citrus fruits to continue,
provided farmers and
others using the pesticide
take certain safety pre-
cautions.
Costle found the pesti-
cide a suspect cancer
agent capable of causing
testicular effects in men.
But he also determined
that its use on oranges,
grapefruit, and other citrus
can be done safely pro-
vided it is sprayed by
certified applicators wear-
ing protective clothing
and respirators, or apply-
ing it from tractors with
enclosed cabs.
At the same time,
Costle ruled that an envi
ronmental group, the En-
vironmental Defense Fund
(EOF), is not "adversely
affected" by the restric-
tions on the citrus use of
the pesticide, and that
EOF cannot use this ac-
tion to request a total ban
on chlorobenzilate.
"On the other hand,"
Costle explained, "as my
decision emphasizes, EOF
is not precluded from
challenging the original
determination not to pro-
pose a total ban on the
citrus uses. EOF may peti-
tion the Agency to initiate
a separate proceeding to
consider a total ban, and
if the petition is judged to
be meritorious, an eviden-
tiary hearing will be held
with full rights of cross-
examination and opportu-
nities to present support-
ing evidence. If the peti-
tion is denied, FIFRA
(Federal pesticides law)
also gives EOF the right to
have that decision judi-
cially reviewed. Conse-
quently, my ruling does
not mark a departure from
the past Agency commit-
ments to provide for pub-
lic participation in pesti-
cide decisions."
Endrin
The EPA has decided to
allow growers to continue
to use the pesticide endrin
on such crops as wheat,
apples, and some cotton.
In doing so, however,
the Agency has placed
certain restrictions on the
way it is used to help pro-
tect the health of field
workers and the general
public, as well as the en-
vironment. These include
special protective clothing
in some instances, and
precautions on the prod-
uct label.
To prevent contamina-
tion of waterways, EPA
cancelled endrin's use on
cotton crops in areas
where contamination of
water is most likely to
occur. Specifically, EPA's
decision does not allow
spraying on cotton in
Louisiana, Arkansas, Mis-
souri, the eastern parts of
Texas and Oklahoma, and
any State east of the
Mississippi River.
Granular Pesticides
Farmers must be certified
to use most of the widely-
used granular pesticides
under a new proposal by
the EPA.
The proposed regula-
tion, which would classify
certain uses of these
granular pesticides for
restricted use, is neces-
sary to protect the users,
children, pets, farm ani-
mals, and birds and other
wildlife from potentially
harmful exposure, accord-
ing to EPA.
Granulars are solid par-
ticles larger than dust, and
consist of carrier com-
pounds such as clay that
are mixed or impregnated
with a pesticide. Most
farmers using them on
such crops as corn, cot-
ton, tobacco, and soy-
beans already have been
certified during a nation-
wide EPA-State-USDA
Cooperative Extension
Service program of appli-
cator training which in-
structed users of poten-
tially hazardous pesti-
cides in correct ways to
mix and apply these prod-
ucts. Training also in-
cluded instruction in rec-
ognizing pests, calibrating
equipment, assessing en-
vironmental hazards, and
recognition and treatment
of pesticide poisonings.
34
EPAJOURNAL
-------
SOLID WASTE
EPA Guidelines
The EPA has issued guide-
lines for use by State and
local governments in
planning and managing
solid waste programs.
After their plans have
been approved, States will
be eligible to receive
financial and technical
assistance to improve
their management of solid
waste.
To be approved by EPA,
State plans must aid the
recovery of materials and
energy from solid wastes
and provide for environ-
mentally acceptable dis-
posal for unrecoverable
wastes.
State plans, covering at
least a five-year time pe-
riod, will be developed
within the next eighteen
months and must be
adopted by the States.
Resource Savings
The Resource Conserva-
tion Committee recently
sent its final report on
beverage container
deposits and nine other
conservation-related
policies to the President
and Congress.
The Resource Conser-
vation Committee is a
Cabinet-level committee
established by the Con-
gress to study Federa I in-
centives and disincentives
to materials conservation.
The report is entitled
Choices for Conservation.
"While we do not ap-
pear to befacingan immi-
nent shortage of material
resources similar to that
which we face with energy
resources," said EPA
Deputy Administrator
Barbara Blum in transmit-
ting the report, "we have
no cause for complacency
about the rate at which we
consume our natural en-
dowment. Our materials
use practices affect envi-
ronmental quality, energy
consumption, waste gen-
eration, the balance of
trade, and other important
national concerns. Indi-
viduals, private compa-
nies, local governments,
and the Federal Govern-
ment all make choices
every day which affect our
use and conservation of
resources."
TOXICS
Asbestos
The EPA plans to develop
regulations to reduce or
eliminate hazards in pub-
lic schools from walls and
ceilings containing
asbestos material.
EPA will consider sev-
eral options to reduce
asbestos hazards in the
nearly 10,000 public
schools nationwide that
are estimated to contain
asbestos materials, the
Agency reports. As these
materials deteriorate, or if
they are damaged, they
release asbestos fibers
into the air—which in turn
may be inhaled by school
children and others. In-
haled asbestos fibers re-
main in the lungs and can
cause lung cancer and
mesothelioma, a cancer of
the lining of the chest and
abdominal cavities.
Last March, EPA asked
the States to inspect pub-
lic schools for asbestos-
containing materials. The
Agency has provided
States with technical as-
sistance to assess the
degree of hazard and
select the most appropri-
ate remedy. At the mo-
ment. State compliance
with EPA's request is not
mandatory.
"We are prepared to
require immediate action
to substantially reduce
asbestos hazards in
schools not examined or
repaired under our tech-
nical assistance pro-
gram," said EPA Deputy
Administrator Barbara
Blum.
WATER
Savings
EPA recently announced
new regulations that will
save industries up to $200
million in water pollution
control costs. These sav-
ings represent about 50
percent of previously esti-
mated future clean-up
expenditures for affected
industries.
EPA's decision is a key
part of the Agency's con-
tinuing effort to review
and reform its regulatory
programs. By eliminating
some future clean-up re-
quirements, the action will
help to ensure that indus-
trial water pollution con-
trol expenditures are cost-
effective in improving the
Nation's water quality.
Regulations are being
withdrawn for 64 industry
groups, which affect hun-
dreds of individual com-
panies in such industries
as food processing, glass
manufacturing, and ferro-
alloys. This rulemaking
will save money for indus-
tries by eliminating future
clean-up requirements
which EPA found to be
unreasonably stringent, or
which require further
review.
Ocean Dumping
Thirty-two communities
and companies stopped
dumping sewage sludge
and industrial wastes into
waters off the United
States during 1978. This
is the largest number of
dumpers to be phased out
during any one year, an
EPA report shows. In addi-
tion, 38 more dumpers are
scheduled over the next
two years to cease using
the ocean to dispose of
their wastes.
This information is con-
tained in EPA's 7th An-
nual Report to Congress
on the status of the
Agency's program to regu-
late waste dumping in
waters off the United
States. The 48-page report
covers activities in 1978.
Health Aid
High blood pressure pa-
tients could benefit from
new EPA proposals call-
ing for the periodic meas-
urement and announce-
ment of sodium levels in
municipal water supplies.
The sodium monitoring
proposal is but one of sev-
eral health-related issues
addressed by the new reg-
ulations. They also call for
a program to limit water's
corrosiveness, which can
add contaminants and
ruin pipes. In addition, the
rules provide further Fed-
eral endorsement of the
fluoridation of water as a
safe and effective dental
health measure.
The new EPA rules are
proposed amendments to
the Agency's interim pri-
mary (health-related)
drinking water regula-
tions, which went into
effect in June, 1977.
Under the 1974 Safe
Drinking Water Act, EPA
has the authority to estab-
lish and amend water pur-
ity rules that are neces-
sary to protect public
health.
Other issues covered in
the new regulations are
designed to help small
communities.
Taste and Odor
EPA has issued final regu-
lations to guide the States
in controlling drinking
water contaminants which
normally are not danger-
ous to human health, but
which may make water
less palatable or useable.
The new rules are in-
tended to deal with those
contaminants which can
cause aesthetic problems
for the consumer, even
though they are generally
harmless to health. Such
problems include offen-
sive taste or odor, the
staining of fabrics and
plumbing fixtures, precipi-
tations in cooking uten-
sils, and the accelerated
deterioration or encrusta-
tion of pipes and plumbing
fixtures.
"The existence of a
taste, odor or color prob-
lem does not always mean
that a health threat exists,
but it can be a warning
signal," said EPA Deputy
Administrator Barbara
Blum. "Even though these
regulations are not en-
forceable by the Federal
Government, controlling
these types of problems is
important. If a drinking
water system has such
problems, for example,
they can cause consumers
to lose confidence in the
healthf ulness of their pub-
lic water supply. This
could result in their
choosing an alternate
source of water that is
ultimately less safe to
use."
Tuna Fish
EPA recently announced a
change in the water pollu-
tion clean-up rules for
tuna processing plants.
Based on new informa-
tion, one aspect of the
industry's clean-up reg-
ulation is being relaxed.
EPA's action formally
cancels that specific part
of existing clean-up rules
that limits the amount of
tuna processing wastes
that would reduce dis-
solved oxygen in receiving
waters.
AGENCYWIDE
An American Indian pro-
grams staff has been es-
tablished within EPA's
Office of Environmental
Review. Working together
with EPA's Regions and
programs offices, the staff
will help make Agency
programs responsive to
the status of Indian tribes
and lands and will serve
as an overall Agency con-
tact point for Indian en-
vironmental matters. The
establishment of this
function formalizes EPA's
commitment to work with
Indian tribes to protect the
vast areas of the Nation
occupied by Indian Reser-
vations.
OCTOBER 1979
35
-------
People
Eckardt C. Beck
He will join the Administrator's
staff to help direct the Water
and Waste Management Pro-
gram. Beck has been Regionai
Administrator in EPA's New
York office since 1977. During
his tenure in Region 2 he was
selected by President Carter to
chair the Federal Regional
Council there. Beck was Deputy
Assistant Administrator for
Water Planning and Standards
in the Office of Water and Haz-
ardous Materials from 1975 to
1977. Before joining EPA he
was Deputy Commissioner of
the Connecticut Department of
Environmental Programs for
several years. Earlier he helped
to establish the State energy
agency, acted as the agency's
first administrator, and was
chief energy advisor to the Gov-
ernor. Beck graduated from
Emerson College in Boston, did
graduate work there in com-
munications, and earned a
Master's Degree in public ad-
ministration from New York
University in 1972, where he is
a doctoral candidate. He at-
tended the Yale University
Graduate School of Epidemiol-
ogy and Public Health and
holds a Graduate Certificate in
Air Pollution Administration
from the University of Southern
California Graduate School of
Public Administration.
• Administrator Douglas M.
Costle has announced the ap-
pointment of James Smith and
Swep Davis as Associate As-
sistant Administrators for
Water and Waste Management.
Their appointment follows the
resignation of Thomas C. Jor-
ling as Assistant Administrator
for the Water program. Jorling
held the post since 1977, when
he came to EPA from the Center
for Environmental Studies at
Williams College. As Associate
Assistant Administrators, Davis
will focus chiefly on strategy
development and the superfund
for dealing with hazardous
wastes and Smith will concen-
trate on program operations.
The Administrator noted that
these appointments will ensure
strong program leadership un-
til a new Assistant Administra-
tor for Water and Waste Man-
agement is named and given
Senate confirmation.
• A reception and inauguration
ceremony was held recently at
EPA Headquarters for the 131
people in the Agency's Wash-
ington, D.C. offices who are
part of the Senior Executive
Service. After an introduction
by Bill Drayton, Assistant Ad-
ministrator for Planning and
Management, Administrator
Costle, Deputy Administrator
Blum, and Office of Personnel
Management Director Scotty
Campbell addressed the group.
Each member of the Senior
Executive Service received a
membership certificate at the
ceremony. The Service is a new
position/pay system estab-
lished by the Civil Service
Reform Act of 1978, which
includes all executive type
supervisory and managerial
positions in the Federal Gov-
ernment that were previously
in pay grades GS-1 6 through
Executive Level IV.
David M. Rosenbaum
He has been appointed Deputy
Assistant Administrator for
Radiation Programs at EPA. In
this post Rosenbaum will over-
see the development of all
Agency radiation standards, as
well as criteria and recommen-
dations that establ'sh guidelines
for other government agencies
to follow when developing their
own regulations. He will direct
a staff of 175 people with a
budget of S13.7 million. Ad-
ministrator Costie said, "The
environmental and health im-
pact of radiation exposure con-
stitutes one of this Nation's
most pressing priorities. David
Rosenbaum is a radiation expert
who can give us excellent guid-
ance as we deal with crucial
radiation programs."
Rosenbaum has been a con-
sultant in the nuclear field since
1976, previously serving as a
management consultant to the
Comptroller General at the
General Accounting Office. He
helped prepare GAO studies on
the safety of liquefied energy
gases and on the health effects
of ionizing radiation. From
1974 to 1976 he was Senior
Staff Analyst with the MITRE
Corporation, where he super-
vised a conference on Nuclear
Energy Centers and directed a
study on the threat to licensed
nuclear facilities. In 1973 he
was a consultant at the U.S.
Atomic Energy Commission.
He has also served as Assistant
Director, Office of Narcotics
Intelligence in the U.S. Depart-
ment of Justice, was president
of his own firm, Network
Analysis Corporation, and
worked with the Office of Emer-
gency Preparedness and the
Institute for Defense Analysis.
Rosenbaum earned a BS from
Brown University in 1956, a
Master's degree from Rens-
selaer Polytechnic Institute in
1 958 and a Ph.D. from Brandeis
University in 1964.
Cooperative Education
The Western Florida University
students who are part of EPA's
Cooperative Education Program
(Co-op) met recently with their
supervisors: EPA officials and
representatives of the univer-
sity, to review their program.
The Co-op program began at
EPA in 1971 andisrunbyAmy
Kearns, Chief of Headquarters
Employment Center; Tom
Wyvill, EPA Program Coordina-
tor; and Thelma Jones, Head-
quarters Program Coordinator.
Students in the Co-op program
alternate periods of related
study and work experience in a
cooperative curriculum. The
work experience is closely tied
to the student's major field of
study and provides the student
with learning opportunities.
The program is available to
students from a variety of back-
grounds, permitting them to test
their career choices through
work experience. Students may
receive credit toward their de-
grees while helping to finance
their educations. Once Co-op
students have graduated, they
need not compete for a rating,
but are listed directly on the
Civil Service Register.
Since EPA hopes to retain
these Co-op students after their
graduation. Personnel is in-
creasing its efforts to find stu-
dents who are interested in pro-
tecting the environment. Pres-
ently, 35 to 40 percent of the
Co-op students convert to full-
time, permanent EPA employ-
ees after graduation.
EPA JOURNAL
-------
Jan Geiselman
She has been named director of
the Air and Hazardous Materials
Division in Region 2. She will
oversee 60 employees charged
with carrying out Federal laws
governing air pollution, asbes-
tos, pesticides, radiation, and
other hazardous materials.
Geiselman joined EPA in 1975
as an attorney in the Head-
quarters Division of Stationary
Source Enforcement. In 1977
Geiselman moved to the New
York Regional Office and organ-
ized its first Office of Congres-
sional and Intergovernmental
Relations. She won an EPA Spe-
cial Achievement Award in
1975. Geiselman has her degree
from the University of Texas at
Austin Law School, where she
received a teaching excellence
award in environmental law.
Herbert Barrack
He has been appointed Assist-
ant Regional Administrator for
Planning and Management in
EPA's New York office. In this
position he will be responsible
for ana lyzing the success of
Regional programs and integrat-
ing their activities to ensure that
policies and programs are con-
sistent. Barrack began his gov-
ernment service with the U.S.
Atomic Energy Commission in
1960. He joined EPA in 1971
and has held positions of in-
creasing responsibility with the
Agency. In 1975 Barrack re-
ceived an EPA Gold Medal for
Exceptional Service. He holds
an MBA from the Graduate
School of Business Administra-
tion at New York University.
Loretta Stevenson
She has been nominated by
EPA's Kansas City Regional
Office for the Outstanding
Handicapped Federal Employee
of the Year Award. Mrs. Steven-
son was diagnosed as having
multiple sclerosis in 1969. The
disease affected her mobility
balance, motor coordination,
hearing, and sight. She
persevered with plans for a col-
lege degree, despite the prob-
lems posed by her illness. Dur-
ing summers and college breaks
she worked part-time for EPA
as a student aide in the Region
7 office. In 1 974 Mrs. Stevenson
received a BS in Elementary
Education from the University
of Kansas. After graduation she
continued to work for the
Agency. "I wanted to teach
very much, but I realized I
couldn't give 100 percent,"
said Mrs. Stevenson. "I knew
I couldn't run down the court
with the children when they
wanted to play basketball. Then
I decided that since EPA has
been so good to me while I
was in college that I would see
what I could do for them. I
believe it has been good for
both of us." She is work leader
in the Enforcement Division
Data Section, and is responsible
for maintaining the automated
Permit Compliance System. In
1977 she received an Outstand-
ing Performance Rating. The
ten Outstanding Handicapped
Federal Employees of the Year
will be announced later this
month in Washington.
Lewis Hughes
He has been appointed Acting
Associate Administrator, Office
of International Activities.
Dr. Hughes had served for
the past year as Deputy Asso-
ciate Administrator of the
Office, with responsibilities for
development of policies for
EPA's overseas activities,
coordination with the State
Department, and other foreign
relations with U.S. Government
organizations, and management
of bi- and multilateral environ-
mental programs.
Previously he was Acting
Chief of the Institutional
Operations Office of the
National Aeronautics and Space
Administration, Ames Research
Center, Moffett Field, Calif. He
received a Ph. D. from the
University of California at
Berkeley in 1972 and was
Radiological Safety Officer
there. He is the author of 34
scientific reports and manuals.
OCTOBER 1979
-------
Fighting Moise Pollution
Since noise is an important social cost
produced by motor vehicles, certain coun-
tries (such as the Netherlands) are consid-
ering charges on motor vehicle noise based
either upon emission levels established
under test conditions or upon the vehicle's
estimated noise impact. These could be
levied as a purchase charge, an annual
charge, or combination of both.
The Dutch Noise Nuisance Law relates
the amount of noise fee as closely as pos-
sible to the potential nuisance of the noise
source, and thus takes into account the
total amount of noise emission, duration of
noise production, and quality of noise. It
anticipates noise charges on industrial
plants to cover noise emitted outside the
plant. Such charges are to be based on the
severity of the noise impact which will be
determined through scientific measure-
ments taken of each plant's noise "foot-
print."
Noise Control Enforcement
OECD countries vary considerably in the
comprehensiveness of their noise abate-
ment legislation and in the extent to which
control and implementation are centralized.
In fact, while some countries have found
that legislation which sets national stand-
ards is most effective, others have discov-
ered that their most positive noise abate-
ment results have come when local
authorities have had the power to establish
limits.
A good example of local enforcement is
the United Kingdom's system in which
local authorities can establish noise abate-
ment zones where increasing noise levels
from industrial, commercial, or entertain-
ment sites are lowerina the duality of the
environment. Such establishments must
first not increase their noise level and later
take steps to reduce it.
Of concern to all countries is that en-
forcement be as simple, inexpensive, and
straiqhtforward as possible. Since police
workloads and budqet constrictions are
often cited as problems in noise abatement
enforcement, some OECD countries have
started using civilians to enforce noise
laws, and have adjusted the laws if neces-
sary to grant the civilians appropriate
authority.
Compensation f or Unacceptable
Noise-Control Damage
While OECD countries believe that com-
pensation for damage caused by noise
should be a last resort, some countries have
found that this tactic motivates public de-
velopers to consider ways to soften noise
generated by public works. The potential
cost of compensation is an incentive both
to reduce noise at its source and to improve
noise control measures at the design stage.
Germany's Federal Pollution Control Act
provides for compensation in kind to own-
ers of buildings where traffic noise from a
new road, highway, or railroad exceeds the
limits defined in the implementing regula-
tion. The regulation stipulates the required
quality of sound insulation and that the cost
of insulation be borne by the authority
responsible for the new traffic way.
Dutch noise legislation will soon provide
for the possibility of compensation in kind
(noise insulation of buildings) and in cash
(acquisition of buildings and land) for
noise caused by aircraft, rail traffic, road
traffic, and industry.
Other countries will not provide financial
assistance to projects that would result in
unacceptable noise. The Netherlands has
enacted legislation that prohibits the con-
struction of industrial plants, airports, and
roads unless such structures conform with
noise exposure standards.
Noise and Acoustical Education
Many OECD countries believe that educat-
ing children is the most promising long-
range solution to the noise problem. Since
children schooled in noise control may
educate their parents in noise abatement,
this approach has short-term benefits as
well.
The Swiss Institute for Research into the
Built Environment prepares school courses
on environment protection that include
noise control. Swiss police courses on road
traffic focus primary school children's at-
tention on the need not to cause noise. The
French government plans to distribute,
through the national education service,
booklets educating children about noise,
including the need for young motorcyclists
to respect other people's desire for peace
and quiet.
Public education is at the heart of almost
all the noise abatement proposals made in
the OECD report. To date, public awareness
of noise and public commitment to noise re-
duction have been modest. In urging that
all possible low-cost measures betaken to
increase public awareness and commit-
ment, the report concludes with the state
ment:
"By making people more aware of their
rights, of the technical problems and of the
progress with research and development,
low-cost measures might pave the way for
more stringent legislation as controls which
might otherwise be considered unaccept-
able. They can also make possible better
living conditions by making people more
noise conscious." D
Dr. Ariel Alexandra is an Urban Environ-
ment and Land Use Specialist in the
Environment Directorate of the OECD.
Opinions expressed in this article are
those of the author and do not necessarily
reflect the views of the Organization.
EPA Deputy Administrator
Barbara Blum Comments
on the Problem of Noise
Pollution.
During the past few years, the level of
noise that Americans are exposed to
daily has increased alarmingly. Not
merely an urban phenomenon, it has
spread to the suburbs and rural areas
as well. The situation has become so
serious that the May, 1979, report on'
the State of the Environment by the
Organization for Economic Coop-
eration and Development suggests
that if the entire U.S. population slept
with its windows open, 13 percent
would be awakened by aircraft noise,
40 percent by road traffic.
According to international experts,
noise pollution in the U.S. is far worse
than in other Western countries.
Noise that can permanently damage
hearing is twice as likely to happen
in the U.S. as in Canada or Japan.
By 1985, it is possible that the num-
ber of people exposed to harmful
levels of noise could triple or even
quadruple because so many live near
major transportation facilities.
Considering that the noise problem
has worsened in the past 1 5 years, the
task of effectively controlling it be-
comes urgent, especially in view of
what we already know about the
range of adverse health effects of
noise. The situation cries out for
effective Federal action. We also
need viable State and local noise pro-
grams. Even more important are effec-
tive public education programs that
will help the American people recog-
nize the dangers and what can be
done about them. Without public in-
volvement, no noise program can be
successful. The Environmental Pro-
tection Agency, realizing the need for
Federal, State, and local action and
the importance of public awareness,
will be using the authority of the
Noise Control Actto launch meaning-
ful programs.
Noise is not something which has
to be tolerated as a consequence of
the modern world. The U.S. is joining
the Western European countries to
develop innovative solutions to the
world noise problem. There is plenty
we can do, and a role for each of us to
play in the effort. It's a responsibility
none of us should take lightly.
EPAJOURNAL
-------
The Sound of Silence
Continued from page 19
speaker at a convention or their table
partner at a company dinner because of the
interference from other sounds are at a
distinct disadvantage. They can become
reluctant to take part in activities necessary
for a successful career because of the
insecurity caused by impaired hearing.
A recent EPA report, "Occupat.onai
Hearing Loss: Worker Compensation Under
State and Federal Programs," notes that
occupational hearing loss can have a pro-
found effect on social and work life. The
report notes that one study of weavers, who
had a slight hearing handicap by U.S.
medical criteria, showed that the vast
majority of the workers had trouble hearing
in public, talking with friends, or con-
versing with strangers on the phone. Most
had seriously restricted their social lives
and more than half used lip-reading to aid
understanding.
Humanitarian Helen Keller, who was
both blind and deaf due to a childhood dis-
ease, said that of the two handicaps she
felt the loss of her hearing most keenly
because it shut her off from human social
interaction.
A worker who can hear well enough to do
the job at hand may be cut off from promo-
tion or transfer possibilities because of
impaired communication ability. Some
researchers feel that the level of noise in a
worker's job can serve to mask the serious-
ness of a hearing loss. A man who says,
"Icantalktotheguysatwork OK," maybe
discounting the limited nature of much
workday conversation where brief ex-
changes occur in tones raised to carry over
the noise of machines. Such persons can
find themselves totally lost in conversations
that involve a large group of people and get
beyond the "How are you doing? Nice day"
stage.
Hearing conservation workers note that
people with hearing losses can have feel-
ings of isolation that are directly related to
the degree of difficulty comprehending con-
versation. The inability to hear or under-
stand what is going on around them can
lead people to withdraw socially or to be-
lieve that others are talking about them.
People with certain degrees of percep-
tive hearing loss do not hear normal sound
even with amplification. What they hear
can sound like a short-wave radio that is
not properly tuned in. Gaps in sound, dis-
tortion, and muffling accompany the trans-
mission of sound. This can make it very
difficult for them to translate the noises
they hear into something meaningful.
One point of view on these problems is
expressed by comedian Norm Crosby,
National Honorary Chairman of the Better
Sjunci Lcvu/s (in decibels)
Hearing Institute, who suffered hearing
impairment from depth charges he was
exposed to in the Coast Guard during
WW II. He says "I've made a career out of
entertaining people by butchering the Eng-
lish language. It's very funny for people
who catch all the lines. But it's not for
people who suffer from a hearing impair-
ment. And what they miss hearing can be
the difference between a life of happiness
and one of withdrawal and loneliness."
Former Governor George Wallace of
Alabama has a hearing impairment. He
says, "Loss of hearing is not only an in-
visible handicap, but it is burdened with
centuries of half-truths and outright myths.
It is often mistakenly associated with se-
nility, yet some three million school-age
children surfer from hearing problems.
Many people feel there is a terrible stigma
attached to losing one's hearing, to wearing
a hearing aid. I was no exception. But be-
cause I value good hearing, I am no longer
a reluctant hearing aid wearer. I continue
to enjoy the marvelous sounds of life,
thanks to hearing help."
Hearing experts point out however, that
amplification will not completely correct
all hearing losses. In some cases increasing
the sound can be a source of annoyance
because of a phenomenon called recruit-
ment. Recruitment is abnormal sensitivity
to sounds in a certain range that occurs in
people with hearing impairment. People
with recruitment reach a pain level with
noise much sooner than most, even unaided,
and a hearing aid can compound the prob-
lem. This causes difficulty in finding the
"comfort range" for hearing aids. An aid
that is uncomfortable will not be used, and
does no good sitting in a drawer.
It is important for people who already
have hearing losses to protect their remain-
ing hearing. Even if you have lost some
hearing, continued exposure to loud noise
can erode it further. Lower sensitivity can
mean that the hearing loss is slowed but
still occurs.
Another problem that can accompany
hearing loss is that of head noises or
tinnitus. Many people notice a ringing in
their ears after periods of exposure to loud
noise. The ringing is tinnitus, which scien-
tists believe usually indicates some damage
to the auditory pathway.
After exposure to loud noise the ringing
noises will usually fade and normal hear-
ing return within several hours. However,
hearing researchers warn that with re-
peated and prolonged exposure it takes
longer for the ears to recover, and a per-
manent impairment in hearing can occur.
The continued presence of tinnitus is
very disturbing to many people. While ear
noises are not always caused by hearing
loss (they can be a sign of arteriosclerosis
or Meniere's disease), they often accom-
pany it. The American Tinnitus Association
reports that some 36 million Americans
suffer from ringing, buzzing, and roaring
sounds in their heads. Such an affliction
can interfere with sleep, distract from con-
versation, and generally wear out its hap-
less victims. Some sufferers obtain relief
with masking devices, tiny receivers that
fit into the ear like a hearing aid and
emit sound sometimes called "white
noise," which is somewhat like hissing, to
mask or cover up the intruding internal
noise. But many people continue to suffer
with "racket inside the head" in addition to
their hearing impairment.
EPA is working with a number of organ-
izations to present information to the public
Continued
OCTOBER 1979
39
-------
about the hazards of noise and to reduce
environmental noise so that noise-induced
hearing impairments might be prevented.
If such efforts are successful, perhaps fewer
people will find themselves in the predica-
ment of writer Jonathan Swift, the author of
Gulliver's Travels, who in his later years
described himself as "Deaf, giddy, help-
less, left alone, To all my friends a Burden
grown." D
Further information on hearing impairment
available from:
American Council of Otolaryngology
1100 17th St. NW
Washington. D. C. 20036
The American Speech-Language-Hearing
Association
10801 Rockvi/le Pike
Rockville, Maryland 20852
American Tinnitus Association
P.O. Box 5
Portland, Oreg. 97207
Better Hearing Institute
1430 K St., NW Suite 600
Washington, D. C. 20005
The National Information Center for Quiet
Box 57171
Washington. D.C 20037
Chri:; Pnrh,irn is an Assistant Editor
of EPA Journal.
Hearing
Protectors
People who wish to conserve their
hearing in noisy situations have had
to choose protection from among the
many and various types of protective
devices that are both readily avail-
able and relatively cheap. Protective
devices have widely varying noise-
reducing effectiveness.
Earplugs fit into the ear canal to
block the entry of sound, and are
found as moldable, putty-like material
that can be re-used several times,
ear-down that is intended to be used
only once, universal fit pre-molded
plastic available in several sizes, and
custom-fitted pre-molded plastic in-
serts.
Ear-muffs fit over the entire outer
ear and cling tightly to the head to
block out noise, and are basically
two cup-like covers joined by a
metal or plastic headband.
Ear-caps are a combination of the
two previous devices, and fit into
and on the ear.
Up to the present time, for people
to choose hearing protection that is
adequate for the noise situation in
which they find themselves, they
would have to have had some prior
use or knowledge of protectors and
the perceived variations in their
ability to reduce noise; have had the
aid of someone directly involved in a
hearing conservation program; or
have done some personal library
research. However, approximately
one year from now, all protective
devices that are sold wholly or even
in part on the basis of their effective-
ness in reducing noise will have a
label on them stating—in decibels—
the noise reducing effectiveness of
the particular model of protector.
This will occur because EPA has
issued a regulation requiring manu-
facturers of hearing protectors to uni-
formly test and label their products.
The label will have on it the
Noise Reduction Rating for the
particular model of protector, and
the range of ratings for all presently
available protectors for the purpose
of product comparison.
The intent of this regulatory action
is to provide notice to a prospective
user of these devices ol the effec-
tiveness of a device before it is pur-
chased or used, and that others are
available.
Noise Regulations
Legislature to consider in an orderly
manner any needs that might arise for
future revisions of the time-table.
The 1988 requirement of 70 decibels for
all classes of new vehicles was included
because it seemed to be an acceptable limit
below which further quieting of vehicles
would not be necessary to eliminate gen-
eral complaints. Information was not avail-
able to indicate that far in advance whether
it would be an acceptable low limit for the
public and whether it would be economical-
ly feasible for the manufacturers.
The 70 decibel limit was not technical-
ly feasible with then-current type of trucks,
tires, and engines, but it would allow manu-
facturers a lead time of at least 1 6 years to
attempt to meet the goal. This philosophy
of "holding industry's feet to the fire" until
they either come up with the solutions or
can convince the regulatory body why the
solution can't be reached has proven to be
an effective approach. As a matter of fact
the little progress that we have made to
date in the area of new vehicle noise control
is primarily the result of a few strong pro-
grams which weren't willing to accept cur-
rent vehicle noise levels as acceptable.
Truck noise levels appear to be dropping as
a result of the new product regulations
which have been in effect since 1968.
How Effective Has EPA Been in
Regulating New Noise Sources?
Unfortunately, the philosophy adopted
by State and local programs as described
earlier has reversed itself in EPA. As a
result of legal and administrative problems
we see industry holding EPA's feet to the
fire until they back off enough on their
standards to protect industry. EPA instead
of industry has the onus of proving whether
or not a standard is technologically and/or
economically feasible. As a result we're
seeing EPA propose and promulgate stand-
ards which may be weaker than some of
those currently enforced by State and Local
noise control agencies. In such cases these
standards would do little more than "legal-
ize noise pollution" and preempt States and
cities from dealing with the problem.
How Can Noisy Products Best
Be Controlled in the Future?
Many noise control officials feel that State
and local governments can best regulate
new product noise. Their feelings are based
largely on the initial success of State and
local regulatory efforts and perhaps more
out of frustration with the lack of a strong
Federal program.
Unfortunately, regulating major manu-
facturers at the State and local level Is be-
coming increasingly difficult. The use of
"bluffing tactics ' which work initially when
decisions are easy, prove to be less effec-
tive as standards become more stringent
and serious technological and economic
questions are raised. In recent years, State
and local governments have been backing
down. For example, new motor vehicle
standards have been holding at the 1975
California levels with further reductions
doubtful.
Only the Federal Government, with EPA
in the lead role, has the capability of ade-
quately addressing the technology and
economic issues and establishing an appro-
priate accounting system for compliance.
In order to more effectively regulate, EPA
should:
1. Concentrate its limited resources on the
most important products,
2. Be willing to force industry to expend
money in search of "quiet" technology, and
3. Base future noise emission standards
more on public health and welfare and less
on economic impact.
The fate of our Nation's acoustic envi-
ronment is heavily dependent upon a strong
Federal new product noise regulatory pro-
gram—without which we are fighting a
losing battle. D
40
•ftU.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE: 1979 O—620-064/9REGION 3-1
EPA JOURNAL
-------
,4i>cn/e. Copies of this poster will be available
late this year from the National Information
Center for Quiet, Box 57171, Washington,
D. C. 20037 (See story on P. 4.)
Back cover: The sound level at rock con-
certs is often high enough to endanger the
hearing of the musicians and audience.
-------
United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Washington D C 20460
••• . .
• •
• - '
" -
.-..-.
. -
Postage and
Fees Paid
Environmental
Protection
Agency
EPA 335
Official Business
Penalty for Private Use $300
Third Class
Bulk
: :.•
• •
- ' .," .'
.
. i
.
i
- '
m
m
•...
• m •
mm i
~ •
~ •
:
: • -
•.
.
!!• ' I^H
I .: .
I
. ••• • .
-
x . '.
' •
I ':
Return this page if you do not wish to receive this publication ( ), or if a change of address is needed ( ), list change, including zip code
------- |