NOISE CONTROL PROGRAMS FOR CITIES;
Program Elements and Resources
Contra Costa City/County Noise Conference
June 26, 1981
Jim Buntin, Director
Center for a Quiet Environment
U,C. Richmond Field Station
1301 So. 46th Street, Bldg. 167
Richmond, CA 9 4 804
EPA Region IX
Technical Assistance Center
(415) 231-9463

-------
SOURCES OF ENVIRONMENTAL NOISE:
£7^ W
I. Traffic: autos, trucks, motorcycles. The problem here is simply
that these vehicles make noise from their mechanical processes. The
sources are typically engine exhaust and intake, fans, transmissions,
aerodynamic noise (wind), and tires. The contribution of each source
varies with the vehicle type, but the chief offender is the exhaust
system. Where freeway traffic noise is of concern, tire noise
may also be significant. Around freeways, the noise level may be
relatively constant; near arterials and city streets, the variability
in noise may cause adverse public reaction.
11" ?fiiroad yard and llne operations. These are really two quite
different problems. Railroad yards are like many industrial noise
sources in that they are fixed in location, but the noises are
usually generated by moving vehicles. Major noise sources in
railroad yards are idling and moving diesel engines, test cells,
retarders (active and passive), and coupling operations. The
latter two generate "impact" noises, and can be significant generators
® Public complaints. Mechanical compressors on refrigerated cars
can also be a source of complaints, although they may not be
confined to railroad yards.
Railroad line operations can also be a source of noise complaints
The very loud (90 dBA at 100 feet) diesel engines of passing trains
can disrupt sleepy , conversation and other activities but Dublir
reaction to the sources iS apparently not quite as seierfas f
aircraft and traffic at the same levels. The sounding of horns
on the other hand, can be very disruptive, as the levels can reach
105 dBA at 100 feet. Control of railroad horn nlise is oftSn
the most pressing problem where land developments are proposed
near railroad tracks.	r ^
III. Aircraft, in the vicinity of airports. Although aircraft flvinc
overhead in regular flight patterns can trigger complaints the
most pressing problems in this regard occur in the Sicinitv of
airports. Around major airports, citizens ma? ex e? ™e a laree
number of very loud events which induce advpr.«L	?? -Large
because of their frequency (spectral) con?I^ !
aircraft. Other psychological factors ent«\h2 "5 °V?illng
feeling of "I was here first" and that o? not ^ Pifure such the
necessity of heavy air traffic.	Perceiving the
IV. Industrial installations. Land use confi 1 <•><-« 0^4-	4-u
failure to consider the noise impacts of JnL? ? arise from the
development adjacent to residential usei aii°wJnS industrial
Industrial noise sources may include vehiMPQ2^.^2*15#!	^
are caused by motors, cooling towers (and otw S problems often
spraying operations, crushers and conv^L « fanS and blowers)>
problems are often very expensive and ok Solutipns to such
plant design, rather than as a retrofit	developed during
Another tvps of fixe^ noise source whinK v.
problems is the auto or motorcycle racet-r>= ^ ca"sed significant
substantial public opposition if not ^aek. These can S«*rate
compatible with surrounding land uses. ExI^p^o? f^lLt^m

-------
Southern California abound, e.g., the Long Beach Grand Prix,
Elsinore, Ascot and the Orange County Raceway.
Industrial and other, fixed noise sources (such as racetracks)
deserve careful consideration of noise in land use planning,
as a substantial investment is involved.
V. Residential sources. Probably the most common noise complaint from
residential sources involves barking dogs. Other animals may
cause problems, too, as goats, chickens and geese have encouraged
complaints. Probably the second most common complaint stems from
loud parties or stereo. Next on the list is air conditioning
equipment, although spa blowers and swimming pool pumps are
close behind. People are generally tolerant of their neighbors'
noisy activities in the daytime, but they jealously guard their
right to a good night's sleep.
CONTROL MEASURES:
In California, a comprehensive legislative framework exists to
provide control over most noise problems. Nearly all the tools
needed for local government to effect meaningful noise control
are in place; it is left to local government to implement them.
I. Vehicles. Noise emission standards for autos, truck, motorcycles
and off-highway vehicles are found in the State Vehicle Code, Sections
23130, 27150, 27200 (et. seq.) and 38365 (et- seq.) Motorboat noise
standards are in the Harbors and Navigation Code (Sections 654 (et.seq.
II. Freeways. Caltrans is required to conduct noise analyses and to
meet a design hour noise standard of 67 dBA, Leq, when using
Federal funds for a highway project.
III. Railroads. The EPA has set standards for railroad engines and
yard equipment, which may be enforced at the local level. A
property line standard for railroad yards is pending, and, like
the above regulations, will be preemptive of local controls.
IV. Building Restrictions. In areas impacted by noise from vehicular
sources, Title 25 (Section 1092 e.) of the California Administrative
Code requires an acoustical analysis and^design of multi-family
dwelling units to provide an interior noise^environment not to
exceed 45 dB, CNEL. In addition, Chapter 35 of the Uniform Building
Code (UBC) requires that party walls and floor-ceiling combinations
provide adequate insulation (STC 45 and IIC 45) in multiple^
dwelling units. Some communities have adopted similar requirements
in aircraft noise impact zones and as a part of condominium conversions
ordinances. Simple control measures or performance standards for
swim pool pumps and spa blowers have been incorporated in some local
building codes.
V. Airport/Aircraft. Title 21 of the California Administrative Code
places restrictions upon airport proprietors with respect to
compatible land uses with their noise impact boundaries. Enforcement

-------
requires local recognition of the problem, but variances are
administered by the Division of Aeronautics.
VI. Local Land Use Controls. The Government Code, Section 65302 (g),
requires that each city and county adopt a Noise Element of its
General Plan. Environmental noise sources are identified and
standards for compatible land uses are adopted as a part of this
element. Implementation of a well-prepared noise element can be
one of the most effective tools available to local government.
Zoning restrictions, especially, performance standards, are also
very effective.
VII. Local Noise Ordinance. A well-designed noise control ordinance is
the other major building block of a local program, filling the
gaps caused by past failures to consider noise in land use
planning and providing a mechanism to deal with equipment failures,
nuisances and other problems not considered in the planning
process. Noise ordinances should provide quantitative standards
for fixed noise sources, as well as an enforceable method of
dealing with occasional nuisances. Cities may enforce their own
ordinances, although some may find it more cost-effective to
contract with a county agency for enforcement.
VII. Other Strategies
A.	Municipal purchasing programs, because of their large dollar
volume, can provide incentive to manufacturers to provide quiet
equipment to the marketplace. Implementing a "Buy Quiet"
program also demonstrates the city's committment to noise control.
Information on the Buy Quiet Program is available from: National
Institute of Governmental Purchasing, Suite 101, Crystal Square
Building 3, 1735 Jefferson Davis Highway, Arlington VA 22202.
B.	Public Awareness. Highly successful public awareness campaigns
have been conducted in Honolulu, Hawaii and Salt Lake City, Utah.
These have included a "Quiet Week" and have involved school-children,
educators and service clubs. A shopping mall was the site of one
such event, while parks have also been used. One popular feature
is voluntary muffler testing, with no citations issued. These
activities can have lasting beneficial impacts upon the community,
especially in protecting the hearing of young people.
Such activities are aimed at a limited segment of the population; not
necessarily the people with the problem, but primarily consumers and
children who are thereby informed of their choices in hearing
protection and quiet products.
Unlike programs such as litter control and recycling, we generally
don't need to make people aware of their noise problem. Those who
have a noise problem know they have one. What they don't know is that
others have shared those problems; and that others have resolved those
problems. Nor do they know where to go for help. Transfer of this
information should be a major objective of a public awareness program.

-------
The other major target of public awareness programs should be the
decision-makers in the community; the elected representatives. These
people need to be made aware that noise can be a legitimate problem,
and is a legitimate problem to many people in their community.
Unlike other affected groups, with certain exceptions, people
experiencing noise problems are relatively few in number and poorly
organized. They suffer from not only their problem, but from poor
visibility among local officials. Few of our elected representatives
have ever experienced the noise problems which some of our citizens
face. A few may live near airports, but seldom in the most
noise-impacted areas.
One tool which we have developed to better inform public officials
about noise effects is a demonstration tape discussing aircraft noise.
The tape includes calibrated aircraft overflights within a CNEL 65-70
zone. Played at real levels, these overflights drive home the real
impact of these noise exposures, and give meaning to the "average"
level assigned to this environment by the CNEL metrics.
Indeed, the most effective undertaking in public awareness may well be
the bringing together of the affected public and local officials in ar
attempt to create an understanding of the reality of the problems.
RESOURCES:
I.	EPA - Dr. Richard Procunier
Chief, Region IX Noise Program
215 Fremont Street
San Francisco, CA 94105
(415) 556-6333
II.	Center for a Quiet Environment (EPA Region IX
Noise Technical Assistance Center) —
Jim Buntin, Director
U.C. Richmond Field Station
1301 So. 46th Street, Bldg. 167
Richmond, CA 94804
(415) 231-9463
III.	California Office of Noise Control -
Ed Lowe, Chief
2151 Berkeley Way
Berkeley, CA 94704
(415) 540-2657

-------
REFERENCES:
Environmental Noise Pollution, Patrick F. Cunniff, John Wiley &
Sons, New York, 1977.
Guidelines for Considering Noise in Land Use Planning and Control,
Federal Interagency Committee on Urban Noise, June 1980.
Protective Noise Levels, EPA 550/9-79-100/ November 1978.
Highway Noise: A Reprint of the Audible Landscape: A Manual for
Highway Noise and Land Use, U.S. Department of Transporation,
FHWA, August 1976.
Noise: A Health Problem, EPA, August 1978.
Our Acoustic Environment, Frederick A. White, John Wiley & Sons,
1975.
Quiet Communities: I and II, National Association of Counties
Research, Inc., 1979 and 1980.
Guidelines for the Preparation and Content of Noise Elements of
the General Plan, California Office of Noise Control,
February 1976.

-------
TRANSPORTATION NOISE PREDICTION TECHNIQUES
Highway Noise-
FHt$.-RD-77-10S. FHfrffl. Highway Traffic Noise	Prediction Model. Available from: U. S.
DOT, FHWfc,, Office of Research/Environmental	Policy, V&shington, D. C. 20590; or
from National Technical Information Service	(NTIS), U. S. Dept. of Commerce, 52S5
Port Royal Rd., Springfield, VA 22161.
FHWA Technical Advisory T 50^0.5, Change 1.	"Hand-held Calculator Listings for the
FHWA Highway Traffic Noise Prediction Model". Available as above.
"Estimation of Community Noise Exposure in Terms of Day-Night Average Level Noise
Contours" (draft) J. W. Swing. Available from: California State Office of Noise
Control, 2151 Berkeley Way, Berkeley, CA 9^70U.
Railroad Noise-
Assessment of Noise Environments Around Railroad Operations, J. W. Swing and
D. B. Pies, Wyle Laboratories Report NCR 73-5- Available from Wyle Research,
123 Maryland Street, El Segundo, CA.
"Estimation of Community .Noise Exposure in Terms of Day-Night Average Level Noise
Contours" (See Highway Noise, above).
Airport Noise-
Developing Noise Exposure Contours for General Aviation Airports 4 Dwight E. Bishop,
et al. Bolt, Beranefc and Newman, 1975- Report No. FAA-AS-75-1. Available from
NTIS (See above), No. AD/A-023 ^29. -
CENTER FOR A QUIET ENVIRONMENT
(NSTAAARP)
PKONc 415-231-9463
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA
RICHMOND FIELD STATION
1301 SO. 46TH ST.. BLDG. 167
RICHMOND, CA 94894

-------