The hearing record will be open for thirty days, but, in order to assure that these questions and answers will be printed in full, we need your responses by two weeks from today (April 16). 4. What were the reasons for the delay in the hiring of consultants? 5. What is the function of each of these persons? IL. TASK GROUP 1 (LEGAL AND INSTITUTIONAL) 1. What is the nature of the study being conducted by Prof. Mayo of George Washington University and his staff at the Program for Policy Studies? 2. Whose decision was it to conduct this particular study? 3. What is the budget for this study? 4. Who are the personnel conducting it? 5. Is this the most efficient use of these funds? 6. If so, why? 7. This study appears to be proceeding independently of Task Group 1. Why are two separate studies in progress on the same issues? III. TASK GROUP 2 (FLIGHT OPERATIONS) 1. What are the qualifications of Mr. Hurlburt, Chairman of Task Group 2, in the area of flight operations? IV. CRITERIA DOCUMENT 1. On page 4 of your testimony, you mention your actions to develop the criteria document, which will describe health effects of noise and identify levels of environmental noise deemed necessary to protect health and welfare: Whose decision was it to hire Dr. W. Dixon Ward to write the Criteria Document? 2. Isn't it true that Dr. Ward is well known for his view that noise is not a problem unless it produces measurable hearing loss? Hasn't he been widely known for his strong opposition to those experts who suggest the possibility of permanent non-auditory physiological effects, such as those on the cardiovascular system? 3. What provision has been made to ensure that the views of those other experts are given their proper weight? 4. If EPA had to limit itself to just one expert, why didn't it choose someone in the mainstream of expert opinion? Or why not hire more than one expert, to represent competing views? 5. Originally Dr. Simone Yaniv of your staff was to assist Dr. Ward in the writing of the Criteria Document. Dr. Yaniv is qualified in the area of physiological effects of noise, is she not? I understand that she's no longer working on the Document. Whose decision was it to take Dr. Yaniv off the Criteria Document? Why? 6. Wouldn't it be desirable to find qualified persons in the area of non-auditory noise effects to work with Dr. Ward? 7. Isn't it likely that the criteria which Dr. Ward proposes will not be as stringent as other experts would consider necessary to afford meaningful protection to the public, particularly from aircraft noise? 8. Given Dr. Ward's well-known views, doesn't his selection determine the content of the criteria document in advance? 9. Is the material presented at the International Congress on Noise as a Public Health Problem in Dubrovnik in May to be used in the compilation of the Criteria Document? 10. Wasn't the Dubrovnik Conference originally to concentrate exclusively on the non-auditory effects of Noise? If so, didn't Dr. Ward, when assigned to coordinate the conference for the U.S. modify the program to include auditory effects as well, and to place less emphasis on the non-auditory aspects? 11. Isn't it true that the auditory effects of noise are already thoroughly researched and well-understood, and that the greatest need is for understanding the non-auditory aspects? Isn't this true particularly in view of EPA's mandate? 12. Has Dr. Ward been consulting with other federal agencies? If so, which agencies? If not, why not? 13. Has he consulted, or does he plan to consult, with other members of the scientific community? If so, with whom? If not, why not? 14. Has he consulted, or does he plan to consult, with representatives of public interest groups? If so, with whom? If not, why not? V. RESOURCES 1. I understand that the noise data base mentioned on page 3 of your testimony and compiled by Informatics is not presently available for use by the public. Why is this? 2. Will the data base be available for public use after the Task Force completes its report? If so, will adequate personnel be provided to maintain this service? If not, why not? ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, Washington, D.C., April 24, 1973. Hon. JOHN TUNNEY, Washington, D.C. DEAR JOHN: Thank you for your letter of April 2, 1973, transmitting your questions for the record of the hearing in Los Angeles on the Noise Control Act of 1972. The answers to your questions are enclosed. We hope that they will provide the additional information you need to complete the record of the hearing. Thank you very much for your continued interest in our programs. Sincerely yours, Enclosures. DAVID D. DOMINICK, Assistant Administrator for Categorical Programs. I. 1. The list of the Task Force Members is attached to this response. Generally speaking, the Task Force membership is composed of representatives of aircraft manufacturers, airlines, airport operators; Federal, State and local governments; public interest groups and labor organizations. 2. Five members of the Task Force are paid consultants: Damon Gray, Harvey Nozick, Bob Meyersburg, Peter Back and Bob Randall. 3. Damon Gray was hired March 6, Harvey Nozick was hired March 19, Bob Meyersburg was hired February 23, Peter Back was hired February 23, Bob Randall was hired March 14. 4. There were no delays since these consultants had been involved in formulating the program prior to their being sworn in. 5. Damon Gray: Aircraft acoustical evaluation and control specialist. Harvey Nozick: Aircraft and propulsion technology specialist. Bob Meyersburg: Aircraft operations and flight safety specialist. Peter Back: Aviation systems economist. Robert L. Randall: Legal consultant; attorney. II. 1. We believe that, to a large extent, the present aircraft noise problem exists because of inadequacies of the present legal/institutional system's piecemeal approach to the problem. The G.W.U. contracted study is undertaking to provide a legal/institutional analysis to assist EPA in implementing Section 7(a) of the Noise Control Act. The approach taken by G.W.U. has been tailored to meet EPA's stated needs. The approach taken is to identify the "noise control" choices available at critical decision points in the developmental process of airport-aircraft planning, implementation and operations. The study then examines the aircraft noise prevention or abatement strategies available at each such decision point, the availability or unavailability of legal-institutional instruments to implement such strategies, the extent to which existing authority has been effectively applied to noise abatement programs, the more serious deficiencies in existing authority (or other constraints) which have precluded effective noise abatement at the Federal, State and local levels. From this process recommendations are to be made to EPA by GWU for the modification or enlargement of existing authority so as to abate aircraft noise intrusions to a level consistent with the "public health and welfare." 2. The decision was made by John Schettino and was concurred in by Alvin Meyer and David Dominick. 3. The cost is estimated at $109,719.00. 4. A list of the personnel employed by George Washington University is attached. 5,6. This is the most efficient use of the funds. It provides the services of a group of experts to give an independent analysis to the Task Force; this analysis will contain the results of case studies of a smaple of airports and inputs from a variety of consultants, and could not be performed by EPA staff alone. 7. Task Group 1 is preparing its own chapter in the Section 7(a) report to Congress; this will be an independent product of a group representing the spectrum of affected parties. EPA will consider both the recommendations of Task Group 1 and the results of the GWU study in developing EPA's recommendations to the Congress. Members of the GWU study effort have attended meetings of all task groups, including Task Group 1, to obtain the benefit of data developed in the task groups. III. TASK GROUP 2 (OPERATIONS ANALYSIS): QAULIFICATIONS OF MR. HULBURT Task Group 2 is concerned with aircraft flight operations and airport operations including noise monitoring. Mr. Hurlburt's pertinent qualifications are as follows: B.S.E. degree in aeronautical engineering, Princeton University M.P.A. degree in public administration, University of Southern California FAA certificated commercial pilot, instrument rated, flight instructor with experience in jet engine powered aircraft. 3 years experience as Environmental Standards Supervisor for the City of Inglewood, California, adjacent to Los Angeles International Airport. Responsibilities there included interfacing with the airport, pilots, other governmental agencies and noise affected communities; procurement and operation of noise monitoring systems; enforcement of a noise ordinance; technical support of legal actions against aircraft noise; and drafting of legislation and regulations. IV. CRITERIA DOCUMENT Dr. W. Dixon Ward is Chairman of the National Research Council's Committee on Hearing and Bioacoustics, and for that reason was chosen by the Office of Noise Control Programs to perform data analysis and integration leading to a criteria document on the effects of noise on public health and welfare. Dr. Ward is an internationally recognized expert in his field, and was responsible for the 1st "Congress on Public Health Effects of Noise." The document will include data on the wide variety of effects of noise on health and welfare, ranging from hearing impairment, thru the physiological reactions, to nuisance and annoyance. It will be based on information readily available from EPA's Report to the Congress, additional information which is now available in the published literature, information gained from the International Congress on Public Health Effects of Noise, and a document on the effects on hearing prepared by a separate group with inputs from the National Research Council. The draft criteria document will be reviewed by a Committee made up of professional staff of the Office of Noise Control Programs, and a special committee of the NRC. V. RESOURCES 1. The noise data base is an Agency tool designed to support the highly technical work of the Office of Noise Control Programs. The information in the data base is not proprietary and is available to the public. The computerized system is an efficient way of storing and retrieving the techniial information that Informatics collects. The system is still in the evaluation stage within the Agency, but during this evaluation stage, the information presently in the system is available to the public in various modes. First, the information is available to the public directly from the source of the documents. In addition, EPA is prepared to make available photocopies of the documents in the collection. 2. EPA plans to make the data base available in several forms. First, Informatics produces a weekly list of the documents it has received. From this list, the public could obtain information on the documents acquired for the system. Second, on a trial basis, the Office of Noise Control Programs and Informatics have produced an abstract bulletin which reproduces the abstracts in the system. If resources permit, EPA plans further publication of the bulletin. Third, as mentioned in the testimony, EPA plans to produce an exhaustive bibliography of the documents that are a part of the public record of the aircraft/airport study. Until the document is completed, the public has access to the documents in the task group master files which are available for inspection at the task group working area. The Office of Noise Control Programs is developing an implementation program to provide access to the data base in the EPA Regional Offices as well as the Washington headquarters. |