| Noise Regulation |
Article Index for Noise |
Website Links For Noise |
Information AboutNoise Regulation |
| CATEGORIES ABOUT NOISE REGULATION | |
| environmental science | |
| noise regulation | |
| noise pollution | |
|
HISTORY OF NOISE REGULATION In the 1960s and earlier, few people recognized that citizens might be entitled to be protected from adverse sound level Exposure . Most concerted actions consisted of citizens groups organized to oppose a specific highway or airport, and occasionally a nuisance lawsuit would arise. Things in the United States changed rapidly with passage of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in 1969 and the Noise Pollution and Abatement Act (more commonly called the Noise Control Act (NCA) of 1972). Passage of the NCA was remarkable with the lack of historic organized citizen concern; however, EPA had testified before congress that 34 million Americans are exposed to non- Occupational noise high enough to cause Hearing Loss and 44 million Americans live in homes impacted by aircraft or highway noiseSenate Public Works Committee, Noise Pollution and Abatement Act of 1972, S. Rep. No. 1160, 92nd Cong. 2nd session. NEPA requires all federally funded major actions to be analyzed for all physical environmental impacts including Noise Pollution , and the NCA directed the EPA to promulgate regulations for a host of noise emissions. Japan actually passed the first national noise control act, but its scope was much more limited than the U.S. law, addressing mainly workplace and construction noiseGovernment of Japan Ministry of Environment Law No. 98 of 1968,latest amendment by Law No.91 of 2000. Initially these laws had a significant effect on thoughtful study of Transportation programs and also federally funded Housing programs in the United States. They also gave states and cities an impetus to consider environmental noise in their planning and Zoning decisions, and led to a host of statutes below the federal level. Awareness of the need for noise control was rising; in fact, by 1973 a national poll of 60,000 U.S. residents found that sixty percent of people considered street noise have a “disturbing, harmful or dangerous” impactU.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development survey as reported by Kenneth Eldred at the Fifth International Congress on Noise as an International Problem, Sweden, (1988). This trend continued strongly throughout the 1970s in the U.S. with about half of the states and hundreds of cities passing substantive noise control laws; however noise regulation subsided sharply in 1981, when congress ended funding for the NCA. What made matters worse is that the EPA had pre-empted lower levels of government from regulating sources, so that states could not legislate in the area, for example, of truck noise emissions. Thus, in areas where the federal government had failed to promulgate clear standards (such as aircraft noise), no further progress could be made except by the FAA , who has an inherent conflict of interest regarding noise regulation. Nevertheless some states continued to act; notably, California, carried out an ambitious plan to require its cities to establish a “Noise Element of the General Plan”, which provides guidance for land planning decisions to minimize noise impacts on the public. Many cities throughout the U.S. also have a noise ordinance, which states the allowable sound level which can cross property lines; these ordinances can be enforced with local Police powers. European countries have lagged but emulated the United States model. The following European countries enacted limited national statutes governing noise: Netherlands (1979), France (1985), Spain (1993), Denmark (1994). In some cases unlegislated innovations have led to quieter products exceeding legal mandates (for example, hybrid vehicles or best available technology in washing machines). In any case, the legacy of the NCA has transformed irreversibly the way people think about noise and the intrinsic right to be protected from adverse sound levels. NATIONAL CONTROLS After the passage of the NCA, EPA busily promulgated regulations setting maximum noise limits on a gamut of motor vehicles, industrial machinery and household appliances. They conducted extensive testing and involved industry in the practicality of manufacturing quieter devices. They had an influence on the future of a quieter generation of machines; however, Roadway Noise and Aircraft Noise account for the lion’s share of noise emissions, and the EPA standards for those vehicles pre-empted states from further regulating; moreover, in the case of aircraft noise, FAA had veto power over EPA recommendations, so those standards never pushed the envelope. In the case of motor vehicles, this situation tranlated as follows: states could not exact a greater standard for enforcement against an individual vehicle, and interstate commerce priorities meant that guilelines for total noise exposure along federally funded highways remained guidelines and not strict standards. Despite these drawbacks, states and the public at large had a superb weapon in the review of proposed major transportation systems in the form of NEPA and the NCA. In many cases courts were able to enforce the intent of those laws to secure the redesign of roadways and transit systems to provide more noise mitigation or to select an alternative of lesser impact than the original project; in many other cases, the highway agencies simply listened to public input and acoustical scientists before finalizing highway and transit designs. In the case of ing of alternative insulation strategies, house by house. While this program did nothing for exterior sound levels, it benefitted residential interiors significantly. Beyond the U.S. activities the European countries generally lag by 10 to 20 years. For example, Britain’s National Environmental Protection Act of 1990 is stimulating research in the year 2006 aimed at setting certain definitive noise standards. Russia , China and undeveloped countries lag even further behind. STATE AND LOCAL PLANNING States passed two different types of legislation starting in the 1970s, echoing the federal lead in noise control. Firstly many states, with California in the vanguard, began requiring each municipality and county to have a Noise Element of the General Plan, a substantial noise data base and blueprint for making land use decisons in that jurisdiction. The Noise Element became an integral part of the municipal or county General Plan, especially in California. This document compiled a comprehensive set of measurements setting forth existing sound levels, frequently in the form of Sound Level Contour maps to illustrate where varying sound levels fall relative to land use categories. The Noise Element further states goals for each land use class and even numerical planning standards in order to evaluate future development proposals with regard to Noise Pollution . Cities and counties in the U.S. who either fell under state mandates or who voluntarily chose to control noise through Land Use decisions, were active in mapping sound levels and seeking development strategies that would minimize the number of persons exposed to harmful levels of (primarily) Motor Vehicle noise. One of the first cities in the U.S. to achieve a comprehensive Noise Element of the General Plan was Burlingame, California . LOCAL NOISE ORDINANCES Principally aimed at Construction noise, power equipment of individuals and unmuffled Industrial Noise penetrating residential areas. Thousands of U.S. cities have prepared noise ordinances that give Noise Control officers and Police the power to investigate noise complaints and enforcement power to abate the offending noise source, through shutdowns and fines. Atypical noise ordinance sets forth clear definitions of Acoustic s nomenclature and defines categories of noise generation; then numerical standards are established, so that Enforcement personnel can take the necessary steps of warnings, fines or other municipal police power to rectify unacceptable noise generation. Ordinances have achieved certain successes but they can be thorny to implement. Many European cities are still treating noise as the U.S. did in the 1960s, as a nuisance and not as a numerical standard to be achieved. BUILDING CODES In the case of construction of new (or remodeled) (glass thickness, double pane design etc.), roof material, caulking standards, Chimney baffles, exterior door design, mail slots, attic ventilation ports and mounting of through the wall air conditioners. A special case of building skin design arises in the case of Aircraft Noise , where the FAA has funded extensive work in residential retrofit. Regarding sound generated inside the building, there are two principal types of transmission. Firstly, airborne sound travels through walls or floor/ceiling assemblies and can emanate from either human activities in adjacent living spaces or from mechanical noise within the building systems. Human activities might include voice, amplified sound systems or animal noise. Mechanical systems are Elevator systems, Boiler s, Refrigeration or Air Conditioning systems, Generator s and trash compactors. Since many of these sounds are inherently loud, the principal of regulation is to require the wall or ceiling assembly to meet certain peformance standards (typically Sound Transmission Class of 50), which allows considerable attenuation of the sound level reaching occupants. The second type of interior sound is called Impact Insulation Class (IIC) transmission. This effect arises not from airborne transmission, but rather from transmission of sound through the building itself. The most common perception of IIC noise is from footfall of occupants in living spaces above. This type of noise is somewhat more difficult to abate, but consideration must be given to isolating the floor assembly above or hanging the lower ceiling on resilient channel. Commonly a performance standard of IIC equal to 50 is specified in building codes. California has generally led the U.S. in widespread application of building code requirements for sound transmission; accordingly, the level of protection for building occupants has increased markedly in the last several decades. REFERENCES SEE ALSO
EXTERNAL LINKS |
|
|