Page images
PDF
EPUB

and to determine projected growth levels of the problem to the year 2000. The Agency was required to undertake research, conduct public hearings, and to report to the President and Congress within one year the results of such investigations along with recommendations as to legislation or any other action. The EPA "Report to the President and the Congress on Noise" was submitted to the Congress on January 26, 1972. In the opinion of your Committee, the report substantiates the urgent need for a coordinated Federal, State and local effort to control and abate noise in order to protect the public health and welfare and demonstrates the need for legislation such as that recommended in the reported bill.

MAJOR ISSUES PRESENTED

The Committee in examining the proposed legislation for noise control, was concerned with the following major issues:

(1) The nature and extent of noise as an element of environmental concern.

(2) The adequacy of technology to deal with the problem of noise abatement.

(3) The extent and effectiveness of present Federal programs for noise control and the cost of noise control.

(4) The responsibilities of the Federal Government, the States and their political subdivisions in abating and controlling noise. (5) The proper roles of the Environmental Protection Agency and the Federal Aviation Administration with respect to aircraft noise.

THE NATURE AND EXTENT OF NOISE AS AN ELEMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL CONCERN

Effects of noise pollution

As brought out by the witnesses testifying before the Committee, and as described in detail in the EPA "Report to the President and Congress on Noise", the effects of noise on people takes many forms, and can be psysiological or psychological in nature. These effects include permanent hearing loss, interference with speech communication, stress reactions which could have significant long term health implications, interference with communication and disturbance of sleep. Moreover, noise may have sociological impacts within families and in communities. In addition, it has been demonstrated that acoustical energy can cause damage to buildings and structures.

The particular effects which may occur as a result of a given noise environment are a function of the intensity of the noise and the total exposure time. For example, except in the case of severe acoustic trauma (such as an exposure to the sound from an explosion) only daily exposure to a very high noise intensity for several hours over a period of months will cause a permanent hearing loss. Much lower noise intensities and brief exposure periods can and do produce irritation and annoyance effects.

The testimony of Dr. David Lipscomb, Director of the Noise Study Laboratory, University of Tennessee, concerning the implications of non-occupational noise as a hazard to the health and welfare of the population of the nation was especially disturbing to the Committee.

525-314 O 73 - 3

Dr. Lipscomb presented to the Committee certain data obtained during a four-year research study by the noise laboratory which indicated a trend toward an inordinately high prevalence of high frequency hearing reductions in young persons. For example, a survey of 3000 freshmen between the ages of 16 and 21 entering the University of Tennessee in the Fall of 1968 indicated that 32.9 percent experienced loss of high frequency hearing acuity. To confirm that striking finding, a portion of the incoming class was screened for hearing in the Fall of 1969. The second survey produced an even more striking finding; it yielded an incidence indication of 60.7 percent. Most of these hearing disorders probably were attributable to exposure to music played at intense levels. This study clearly indicated to the Committee that hearing acuity of young persons is being reduced many years before such reductions should be expected. Studies cited in the Agency's Report to Congress verify that the University of Tennessee study did not depict a localized phenomenon. Indeed, there is ample evidence that the current population of young persons will have much more serious hearing problems in their middle years than the present population.

The number of citizens affected by noise pollution

According to the Environmental Protection Agency, as many as 44 million persons in the United States have the utility of their dwellings adversely affected by noise from traffic and aircraft, and 21 million persons are similarly affected by noise associated with construction activity. 40 million persons are exposed to noise potentially capable of producing hearing impairment due to the operation of noisy devices and the number of such devices and the intensity of exposure is steadily rising. Although obviously these figures are not additive, noise appears to affect to a measurable degree of impact at least 80 million persons or approximately 40 percent of the present population of the United States. Of that number, roughly one-half are risking potential health hazards in terms of long duration exposures resulting in hearing impairment.

There is a long history of occupational noise causing various degrees of hearing impairment in some of the working population. Reports available to the Committee indicate that the number of persons engaged in occupations in which there exists a definite risk of hearing impairment may be as high as 16 million. The legal structure for the protection of workers now exists through the provisions of the Occupational Health and Safety Act and the Coal Mine Safety and Health Act. Although it has been estimated that nonoccupational noise hearing impairment of sufficient severity to require the use of a hearing aid for adequate comprehension of speech affects almost 3 million persons in the United States at the present time, these persons receive virtually no protection from such noise by federal law.

Taking into account the growth and numbers of sources of noise and the increase in energy associated therewith, residual noise levels in urban areas is predicted to rise from 46 dBA to 50 dBA by the year 2000, according to EPA reports. Of more concern is the fact that without more vigorous control methods, the acoustical energy disseminated into the environment from highway vehicles alone will double by the year 2000. Moreover, the number of person hours of exposure to hearing impairment risks from home appliances will increase approximately 2.25 times the 1970 exposures.

[p. 6]

The Committee notes that most of the information relating to noise exposures is concerned with specific sources rather than typical cumulative exposures, to which urban and suburban dwellers commonly are exposed. There is a need for much greater effort to determine the magnitude and extent of such exposures and the Committee expects the EPA to promote studies on this subject and consider development of methods of uniform measurement of the impact of noise on communities. In the opinion of the Committee, there is also a demonstrated need for further research leading to better information on the non auditory physiological and psychological effects of noise, and it is expected that the EPA will conduct and promote research in this area.

THE ADEQUACY OF TECHNOLOGY TO DEAL WITH THE PROBLEM OF NOISE ABATEMENT AND THE COST OF NOISE CONTROL

The testimony received from a variety of witnesses indicated that most major sources of noise affecting the population of the United States have noise reduction potential that can be attained with application of today's technology. The Administration bill contained no specific time schedules for the development of criteria documents and for the setting of standards. Because of its finding that technology is available for the control within adequate limits of noise emission of the majority of products which constitute major noise sources, the Committee determined that a time limit for the initiation of the standard setting process was proper and indeed essential to prevent the growth of the noise problem beyond reasonable limits. Accordingly, the bill establishes time schedules within which the Administrator of EPA must develop standards. The Committee expects that in considering whether it is feasible to propose standards for noise sources, primary emphasis should be placed on protection of the public health and welfare.

The Committee recognizes that different industries operate according to different general patterns, and regulations may vary as between particular products to take this into account. For example, the automobile industry makes changes in its products on a well-defined model year basis. Therefore, a standard applying to automobiles should include an effective date related to the start-up of a new model year production.

The Committee found that there is a lack of adequate information regarding the cost of noise control for some products and thus included in the bill the requirement that in establishing final standards for noise sources, appropriate consideration must be given to the economic costs of such standards. The Committee also fully expects that adequate consideration be given to the technical capability of industry to meet noise control requirements.

THE EXTENT AND EFFECTIVENESS OF PRESENT FEDERAL PROGRAMS FOR NOISE CONTROL

Noise responsibilities are vested in a number of Federal departments and agencies as a collateral activity to their primary missions. Those with significant involvement include the Environmental Protection Agency; the Department of Defense; the Department of Transportation; the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare; the Depart

[p. 7].

ment of Housing and Urban Development; the Department of Labor; and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration. More moderate programs reported to the Committee include those in the Department of Commerce, the Department of Agriculture, the General Services Administration, the Department of Interior, the Postal Service Commission, the National Science Foundation, the Atomic Energy Commission, the Federal Power Commission, the Tennessee Valley Authority, the Treasury Department and the Department of State. In addition, the Council on Environmental Quality has a limited review and coordination authority with respect to noise pollution matters as with all other aspects of environmental quality.

The Committee found that due to the wide divergence of noise abatement programs within the Federal Government, the vast majority of Federal activities relating to noise have been conducted on an ad hoc basis. As a result, different systems of measurement of noise impact have been developed. Because of a demonstrated need for a comprehensive Federal effort, the bill places responsibility on the Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency for the coordination of programs of all departments and agencies, rather than merely promoting such coordination as proposed in the Administration's bill. The Committee anticipates that suitable mechanisms for effective exchange of information will be achieved and expects that greater joint participation of the principal agencies in research efforts and suitable arrangements for joint utilization of facilities for research will be achieved.

RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT, THE States, and THEIR POLITICAL SUBDIVISIONS IN ABATING AND CONTROLLING NOISE

The Committee was presented with differing views as to the proper roles of the Federal Government, the States and localities in the effort to achieve noise abatement. In the Committee's bill the general concept of Federal preemption for new products for which Federal standards have been established-the concept proposed by the Administration-was retained.

Section 6 of the Committee's bill affects the authority of States and political subdivisions over noise emissions only in one respect: State and local governments are preempted from prescribing noise emission standards for new products to which Federal standards apply, unless their standards are identical to the Federal standards. A similar provision applies to component parts. For products other than new products to which Federal standards apply, State and local governments retain exactly the same authority they would have in absence of the standard setting provisions of the bill. The authority of State and local government to regulate use, operation, or movement of products is not affected at all by the bill. (The preemption provision discussed in this paragraph does not apply to aircraft. See discussion of aircraft noise below.)

Nothing in the bill authorizes or prohibits a State from enacting State law respecting testing procedures. Any testing procedures incorporated into the Federal regulations must, however, be adopted by a State in order for its regulations to be considered identical to Federal regulations.

Localities are not preempted from the use of their well-established powers to engage in zoning, land use planning, curfews and other similar requirements. For example, the recently-enacted Chicago Noise Ordinance provides that heavy equipment for construction may not be used between 9:30 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. within 600 feet of a hospital or residence except for public improvement or public service utility work. The ordinance further provides that the motor of a vehicle in excess of four tons standing on private property and within 150 feet of residential property may not be operated for more than two consecutive minutes unless within a completely enclosed structure. Such local provisions would not be preempted by the Federal Government by virtue of the reported bill.

The Committee gave some consideration to the establishment of a Federal ambient noise standard, but rejected the concept. Establishment of a Federal ambient noise standard would in effect, put the Federal government in the position of establishing land use zoning requirements on the basis of noise-i.e., noise levels to be permitted in residential areas, in business areas, in manufacturing and residential areas; and within those areas for different times of the day or night. It is the Committee's view that this function is one more properly that of the States and their political subdivisions, and that the Federal Government should provide guidance and leadership to the States in undertaking this effort.

The Committee felt it to be desirable to authorize the Administrator of the EPA to enter into agreements with States which would authorize State officials to enforce violations of the Act, and adopted the Administration provision to this effect.

THE PROPER ROLES OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY AND THE FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION WITH RESPECT TO AIRCRAFT NOISE

The Committee has established procedures whereby it is intended that a combined EPA-FAA effort will have the effect of protection of the public from excessive aircraft noise, a nationwide complaint. FAA and EPA presently have a formal relationship with respect to emission of air pollutants from aircraft, but no such arrangement exists with respect to noise pollution. The reported bill establishes such a relationship.

The Committee considered very carefully the Administration's request for EPA veto power over standards and regulations prescribed by the FAA Administrator relating to noise characteristics of civilian aircraft. It also weighed proposals which would vest the Administrator of the EPA with the authority to establish such standards. It was determined that neither of these procedures was practical at this time because of the lack of the necessary technical expertise with respect to aircraft design within the EPA. For this reason, the bill retains the authority of the FAA to establish such standards, but adds the requirement that they may not be prescribed before EPA has been consulted concerning the standards.

In addition to providing EPA with a statutory advisory and consultation role with respect to aircraft noise standards, the bill provides that after the date of enactment of this bill original type certificates

« PreviousContinue »