UCTION IN QUANTITY OF STATE AND LOCAL NOISE CONTROL PROGRAMS

Results of this survey indicate that the local and state
noise control programs failed to expand within the last eight
years. In fact, it appears that there has been a substantial
reduction in the number of state and local noise control programs
still in existence.

It was found that of the 93 responding municipalities having
a noise control program, or the beginnings thereof, prior to
1982, only 76 (82%) are currently active, 17 (18%) have been
discontinued. (See Table I)

The 112 municipalities that did not respond to the survey
are not included in these figures. In order to obtain a better
understanding of the status of these municipalities, one
community from each U.S.E.P.A. Region was chosen at random and
contacted by telephone to determine the status of their noise
control program. Of those 10 municipalities, 8 confirmed that
they no longer had a noise control program, 2 responded that they
did. The two positive responses came from Dallas, Texas, and,
Portland, Oregon, two highly populated and industrialized
centers. It is the surveyor's opinion that the majority of those
municipalities failing to respond to the survey no longer have a
noise control program. The reason for the form not being
returned is simply because there may have been no one in the
municipality given authority to handle such noise related
Matters.

It was found that of the 20 responding states having a
noise control program prior to 1982, only 8 (40%) are currently
active, 12 (60%) have been discontinued. (See Table XI)

It is clear that the quantity of today's state and local

noise control programs is not what was anticipated by EPA in 1982
when funding for the EPA program was discontinued.

-41-


ACTIVITY LEVEL OF MUNICIPAL PROGRAMS AFTER THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE
FEDERAL -PROGRAM

Municipalities were asked to describe their noise control
program as More Active, About The Same, or Less Active than it
was in 1981 when the federal program in noise was withdrawn.

Municipalities unsure of the status of their noise program
in 1981 answered "Do Not Know."

All 93 respondents were considered in this data. The four
municipalities that never had programs and currently do not have
programs are considered to be "About The Same." The remaining
municipalities that do not have noise control programs are
considered "Less Active."

TABLE V

PRESENT ACTIVITY LEVEL OF MUNICIPAL NOISE CONTROL PROGRAMS

RESPONSE PERCENT
More Active 24%
About the Same 37%
Less Active 37%

Do Not Know 2%

-12-


THE STATUS OF KEY STATE AND LOCAL NOISE CONTROL PROGRAMS

THAT SERVED AS A BASIS FOR DISCONTINUING A FEDERAL PROGRAM

IN_ 1982.

JANUARY, 1990

A National Network For Environmental Management
Studies Project.

Survey Conducted
And Report Prepared By:

JOSEPH J. SOPOROWSKI, III
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE
COOK COLLEGE, RUTGERS UNIVERSITY

Prepared For:

KENNETH E. FEITH
OFFICE OF AIR AND RADIATION
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION AGENCY


1.

3.

Does your municipality haveea noise control program? A noise
control program is defined as a program having the following:
funding, staff, equipment, and enforcement of a law or
ordinance which includes decibel (noise level) limits. The
law or ordinance must include (noise level) limits in any one
of the following areas: vehicles, property line, construction
and/or land use. Your municipality may have a noise control
program without specific municipal legislation as long as
some other federal, state, or county law or ordinance is
enforced. (Check one.)

YES (Please answer questions 2 through 8)
NO (Please skip questions 2 through 8 and
answer questions 9 and 10)

In the line below, write in the number of full-time municipal
employees (including public safety employees) in each
category who usually spend more than 20% of their work week
on noise control activities.

Public Safety / Police
Public Health

«+ Environmental Control
Planning / Development
Public Works
Building / Zoning
. Transportation
Other (Specify)

TraAamMoanN OH

Please indicate whether or not these activities are part of
your municipality's noise control program. (Circle Y for yes
and N for no.)

PART OF PROGRAM

YES NO

a. Enforcement Y N
b. Complaint handling Y N
c. Development of laws/

Regulation Y N
d. Public Education 4 N
e. Environmental Impact

Reports Y N
f. Monitoring / Surveys Y N
g. Research Y N
h. Administration Y N
i. Other

(Specify)



APPENDIX B - SECOND MAILING LETTER TO STATES NOT RESPONDING AFTER

6 WEEKS


STATE SURVEY METHODOLOGY

The procedure for distribution of the survey questionnaires
to state noise control programs was as follows:

1. Survey's were sent to 21 states determined as
having a noise control program prior to 1982.

2. A form letter and second survey mailing was sent
to all state programs not responding by the 6th
week, States not having a noise control program
were instructed to indicate that fact and return
the form letter.

3. Responses were received and tallied for 11 weeks to
ensure best response.

Responses were processed by:

1. Entering properly completed survey data into a
running tally.

2. Following up improperly completed forms with
telephone calls to clarify inconsistent responses

In order to gain at least a yes/no answer regarding =-e
status of a noise control program inall 21 states, telephe-
calls were made to all states not responding to either the survey
or form letter.

=4-


3.

Has your state implemented a noise control program? A noise
control program is defined as a program having the following:
funding, staff, equipment, and enforcement of a law or
regulation which includes decibel (noise level) limits. The
law or regulation must include (noise level) limits in any
one of the following areas: vehicles, property line,
construction and/or land use. Your state may have a noise
control program without specific legislation as long as some
other federal law or regulation is enforced. (Check one.)

YES (Please answer questions 2 through 8)
NO (Please skip questions 2 through 8 and
answer questions 9 and 10)

In the line below, write in the number of full-time state
employees (including public safety employees, excluding OSHA
employees) in each category who usually spend more than 20%
of their work week on noise control activities.

a. Public Safety / Police
b. Public Health

¢c. Environmental Control
d. Planning / Development
e. Parks / Recreation

f. Highways

g. Motor Vehicles
h. Other (Specify)

Please indicate whether or not these activities are part cf
your state's noise control program. (Circle Y for yes
and N for no.)

PART OF PROGRAM

YES NO

a. Enforcement Y N

b. Complaint handling YX N
c. Development of laws/

Regulations Y N

d. Public Education Y N
e. Environmental Impact

Reports Y N

f£. Monitoring / Surveys Y N

g. Research Y N

h. Administration Y N
i. Technical assistance

to local governments Y N

j. Other (Specify)



s 'Y OF MUNICIPAL PROGRAM RESPONSE

MUNICIPALITY SURVEYED RESPONSE

POSITIVE NEGATIVE
(Program) (No Program)

ALABAMA

Huntsville..... ccc cece ence eee eeee POS * Participated
In Telephone

ALASKA Follow-up of

ANCHOLagessesesscerecececeseveeee sPOS Those Not
Responding

ARIZONA

Tempe** ** Did not
Respond to

CALIFORNIA Survey

Alhambra**

Anaheim**

Bueno Park**

Chula Vista**

CONCOLG. seceeesseereserves
Downey...
El Cajon. cc ec ev ec eevee eeeeeeees 1 POS

Fountain Valley**

FLESNO. ce eeeeeeeeeeece cress cesees POS

Garden Grovessecesseeceeseceseees POS
HAWtnorne..ecesceesccccnecscceeesseees »NEG
Lakewood. .ecccssecccrenseeeesvece
Long Beach**

Los Angeles... sees eeeee see eee ne POS

Bell Gardens**

Beverly Hills**

Brea**

Camardllorsccssssscceccvevecceeses see eee rece eNEG*
Cerritos**

Chico**

Claremont....... cee esse eee eee eee
COFONArcseeeeeeees
Gardenad...seeeseee .
La MESA... ceceesevesceees
Lynwood**

Manhatten Beach**
Monterey Park**
National City**
PLACENtA... eee cece s ec ee eee eeee POS
Pleasant Hill**

San Clemente**

Santa CruZecscececccsvcscsceceees «POS
Santa Marda.....cceee ec eee eee e eee © POS
Temple City**

eevee rere rere eee NEG

-19-


STATE SURVEY RESULTS


is_ GI’ BY MUNICIPALITIES AND STATES FOR NO LONGER HAVING A
NOISE CONTPOL PROGRAM

Four of the municipalities contacted never had a noise
control program, and therefore, could not be used in many

comparisons made in this. study. They were, however, in the
process of establishing programs, and were included on the
mailing list of noise control programs. Although these

communities were not used in the majority of comparisons made in
this study, they were asked why they never established a noise
control program. One municipality indicated that they felt noise
is not a _ problem. Another felt it is not a high priority
problem. A third listed "No Legislative Basis" as it's reason.
The last community listed "Other" as it's reason for never having
a noise control program. (See Table IX) All of the states
contacted, had a noise control program prior to 1982.

For those municipalities having a noise control program
prior to 1982, but no longer having a program, the following
were their reasons why: S communities did not feel noise was a
problem, 3 listed budget constraints, 2 felt noise is not a high
priority problem, 1 dropped it's program because the federal
program was discontinued, one community adopted it's county's
ordinance and lets the county enforce, and the last municipality
listed "Other" as it's reason for no longer having a noise
control program. Only municipalities filling out a questionnaire
were included in these numbers. Responses made by telephone did
not produce sufficient information to be included. (See Table x)

For states having a noise control program prior to 1982, but
no longer having a program, the following were their reasons why:
2 states listed " Federal presence in noise was discontinued,”
one indicated budget constraints, another felt noise is nota
high priority problem, and the last listed "Other" as it's reason
for dropping it's program. Only states filling out a survey forn
were included in these numbers. Telephone responses did net
produce sufficient information to be included. (See Table XIX)

The results stated here are inconclusive due to the limited
quantity of applicable data. It is the surveyor's opinion that
the majority of states and municipalities that had a noise
control program prior to 1982, but no longer have that progran,
did not fill out and return the questionnaires as requested
This is supported by the fact that ten states responded on:,
after a second survey mailing and a telephone follow-up was made
to those states. 8 of those 10 responded that they did not have
a noise control program. Further supporting this opinion is the
fact that 8 of the 10 municipalities chosen in a follow-up
telephone survey indicated that they did not have a noise contro:
program. Had these states and municipalities filled out and
returned the survey, much more data on the specific reasons why
these states and municipalities no longer have noise contre:
Programs would have been obtained.

-46-


Elk Grove Village**

Elmhurst**

Arlington Heights..........see00++POS

CNLCAGOr coecccerereeeecvesssecee es POS

Des Plains**

TOLLE. ccceceeeseveceseserees seer eee eee ees NEG
Waukegan**

Glenview**

Naperville**
NOKMAl..cececec es eceeeseererscereeserseceees NEG
Park Ridge**

INDIANA
Evansville...cescsceceseectveees ++ ePOS
Fort Wayne**
Hammond. . eeeeee .
ELKNArt. ccc eee eee eee cere ee ences POS

IOWA

Council Bluffs.....ceeeeeeeeeee es POS
Davenport.... :
AMES. eee eeeee
Cedar Falls...
Clinton.....
Muscatine**
Des Moines.........-.
Dubuque.....seeeeeee +++POS

SLOUX CLLY. cece rece e cece cece e ee eee eee ee eeees NEG

KENTUCKY
Covington**

LOUISIANA
Slidel1**

MARYLAND
Baltimore............
BOWLE. cose eee e cece ceceeeec serene 6 POS
Rockville..........e.eeeee tee ee cee nceee vee NEG

MASSACHUSETTS
Boston**
Cambridge*®

MICHIGAN

Ann Arbor**

Pontiac**

WYOMLNG. cere cece eee e ce eeev esses e POS
Grand Rapids............ se eeeeees POS
Birmingham**

TLENCONe cece eecerec seer eeveeeee es POS

-21-


STATUS LOCAL NOISE CONTROL PROGRAM SURVEY
GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

* This survey has been designed to provide the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with information on the
current status of local noise control programs which served as a
basis for discontinuing the federal noise program in 1982.

* If there is no individual in your municipality who
specifically deals with noise pollution, please forward this
survey to the person who would handle a noise problem should one
arise.

* This questionnaire can be completed in less than 5 minutes.
Please take the time now to complete and return it. It is
important that you complete the entire survey.

*® For municipalities that do not currently undertake noise
control activities, those questions that do not apply have been
noted in the survey.

* Participation in this survey is strictly on a voluntary

basis. Upon completion of the analysis of the survey results,
you will be sent a copy of the project report of aggregate
percentages.

* If you have any questions or problems in completing the
survey, please feel free to communicate with Joseph J.
Soporowski, at (201) 932-9860.

* Please return the survey in the enclosed envelope by
November 22, 1989.

* Construction of this questionnaire was made possible through
the assistance of the National League of Cities. Basic format of
several questions appearing in this survey have been taken fr:
the National League of Cities 1980 Survey Report entitled, "State
and Local Environmental Noise Control: 1980 Survey Report."

Thank you for your cooperation.

Return to:
Joseph J. Soporowski, III
Noise Technical Assistance Cente:
Rutgers University
P.O. Box 231, New Brunswick, N._
08903

Person completing this questionnaire:

NAME

TITLE

DEPARTMENT

ADDRESS

CITY STATE 2IP

PHONE (____)



ACTIVI’ LEVEL OF STATE PROGRAMS AFTER THE WITHDRAWAL OF THE

FEDERAL NOISE SONTROL PROGRAM

States were asked to describe their noise control program
as More Active, About The Same, or Less Active than it was in
1981 when the federal program in noise was withdrawn.

18 States were included in this data. States indicating
that they do not have a noise control program are considered
"Less Active." States indicating by telephone that they do have

a noise control program (2) are not included due to insufficient
data.

TABLE XV
PRESENT ACTIVITY LEVEL OF STATE NOISE CONTROL PROGRAMS

RESPONSE NUMBER
More Active 0
About The Same 1
Less Active 17

-30-


FLORIDA

Shirley A. Farmer

Env. Officer II
Community Dev.

201 W. Palmetto Park Rd.
Boca Raton, Fla 33432

Thomas E. McDonough

Env. Enforcement Div. Admin.
Env. Management

440 Court St.

Clearwater, FL 34616

Frank Paglianite

(407) 393-7960
12/7/89

(813) 462-4761
11/1/89

(305) 761-5207

Code Compliance/Noise Control Officer

Building & Zoning
P.O. Box 14250
Ft. Lauderdale, FLA 33302

Michael A. Saclarides,
Code Enf. Officer

City of Miami Beach

Fire Dept., Code Enf. Div.
1700 Convention Center Dr.
P.O. Box 0

Miami Beach, Fl. 33119

Ralph D. Hendrickson Jr.
Code Administrator

CDEC Dept. Div. of Code Enf.
600 W. Blue Aeron Blvd.

10/27/89

(305) 673-7555

10/24/89

(407) 845-4018
11/1/89

City of Rivierra Beach, FLA. 33404

ILLINOIS

R. Scott Anslinger, R.S.
Env. Health Officer

33S. Arlington Heights Rd.
Arlington Heights, I1. 60007

Don B. Galley

Assist. Commis.

Dept. of Consumer Services
Rm 808, 121 N. LaSalle St.
Chicago IL 60602

(312) 253-2340 x555
10/17/89

(312) 744-3210
10/26/89

0-4


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY


TABLE OF CONTENTS
TITLE PAGE NUMBER
PLEEACE wrcccceereecccreeverreeessreseseseesesseeseesesess Sal
AcknowledgementS ......cccveeeecrccecererecessreeseeeveses SH2

Executive Summary ceeeesecseesereveveersrevecscsevevereves Su

I. INtroduction cesses eccecerereeeeeesecesreseeceeseees Db

II. Methodology Lecevevveveeevueevevuuvueeuaueueeuaanae, 2
General Methodology ..crecseseccevervveveevveees 2
Survey Methodology ......ceeeee eee e reece eeeee wee 2
Local Survey Methodology ...... se ee eee teeeeceeee 3
State Survey Methodology ......... see eeeeee seeee 4
Fate Of U.S.E.P.A. Noise Technical
Assistance Center Methodology ......... a)

III. Survey RESponsSe .... ccc sess ececvecccceseneces seeeee 6

Local Survey RESPOnsSe ..eecssaveccevecceeevceses 6
State Survey TeSpONSe wiveeevecsevsreeeeeereeses 6

U.S.E.P.A. Noise Technical
Assistance Center RESPONSE ...eeeeeeeeeveerevnee 6

Iv. Municipal Survey ResultsS ..... ccs eecec ee eceeereees 7

Percentage Of Respondents That
Currently Have, Or Do Not Have,
A Municipal Noise Control Program .......esseees 7

Number Of Full-time Municipal Employees
That Usually Spend More Than 20% Of Their
Work Week On Noise Control Activities .......... 8

Noise Control Program Activities
Present At The Municipal Level ......... re)

Progress Made By Municipalities Over
The Last Eight Years ..... tee eeeereenceens seeee 10

Activity Level Of Municipal Programs
After The Withdrawal Of The Federal Program .... 12


NOISE CONTROL PROGRAM ACTIVITIES PRESENT AT THE STATE LEVEL

States were asked to indicate the activities that are
currently part of their noise control program.

18 of the responding states are included in these results.
States indicating that they do not have a noise control program
were considered not to have any of the listed activities. States
indicating by telephone that they do have a noise control program
(2) were not included in these figures due to insufficient data.

TABLE XIII
NOISE CONTROL PROGRAM ACTIVITIES AT THE STATE LEVEL

ACTIVITY NUMBER OF STATES HAVING,
OR NOT HAVING ACTIVITY

HAVE —s- DO_NOT._ HAVE

Enforcement 6 12

Complaint Handling 6 12

Development of Laws 5 13

/ Regulations

Public Education 6 12

Environmental Impact 5 13

Reports

Monitoring / Surveys 6 12

Research 4 14

Administration 6 12

Technical Assistance 5 13

To Local Governments

-27-


STATUS OF STATE NOISE CONTROL PROGRAM SURVEY

GENERAL INSTRUCTIONS

* This survey has been designed to provide the United states
Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) with information on the
current status of state noise control programs which served as a
basis for discontinuing the federal noise program in 1982.

® If there is no individual in your state program who
specifically deals with noise pollution, please forward this
survey to the person who would handle a noise problem should
one arise.

* This questionnaire can be completed in less than 5 minutes.
Please take the time now to complete and return it. It is
important that you complete the entire survey.

* For states that do not currently undertake noise control
activities, those questions that do not apply have been noted in
the survey.

* Participation in this survey is strictly on a voluntary

basis. Upon completion of the analysis of the survey results,
you will be sent a copy of the project report of aggregate
percentages.

* If you have any questions or problems in completing the
survey, please feel free to communicate with Joseph J.
Soporowski, at (201) 932-9860,

* Please return the survey in the enclosed envelope by
November 22, 1989.

* Construction of this questionnaire was made possible through
the assistance of the National League of Cities. Basic format of
several questions appearing in this survey have been taken from
the National League of Cities 1980 Survey Report entitled, "State
and Local Environmental Noise Control: 1980 Survey Report."

Thank you for your cooperation.

Return to:
Joseph J. Soporowski, III
Noise Technical Assistance Center
Rutgers University
P.O. Box 231, New Brunswick, N.J.
08903

Person completing this questionnaire:

NAME

TITLE

DEPARTMENT

ADDRESS

CITY STATE 2IP

PHONE ( )



NEW JERSEY NOISE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CENTER
COOK COLLEGE, RUTGERS UNIVERSITY
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE
P.O. BOX 231, NEW BRUNSWICK, N.J. 08903

September 15, 1989
Dear Noise Control Official:

The records of the National Association of Noise Control
Officers (NANCO) indicate that you, or someone at this address,
was once the project manager of a federally funded, regional,
Noise Technical Assistance Center.

As you may, or may not know, there once existed ten regional
Noise Technical Assistance Centers funded through the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency. In 1982, federal presence in
Noise Pollution was withdrawn, placing the burden of noise
control and abatement on the States and Municipalities.

The purpose of this correspondence is to determine the
current status of those Centers. Any information on this subject
will help to answer the question, "What is the status of key
state and local noise control programs which served as a basis
for discontinuing the federal program in 1982?"

Io am the Director of the New Jersey Noise Technical
Assistance Center (funded by the New Jersey Department of
Environmental Protection), as well as a graduate student at
Rutgers University. The results of this project are expected to
have a great influence on the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's decision of whether or not to reinstitute a federai
noise program.

It would be greatly appreciated if you would be kind enough
to take the time to answer the following question (Either by
written correspondence or by telephone):

"What is the current status of the Noise technica:
Assistance Center of which you are associated, as opposed -o
it's status before federal presence was withdrawn in 1982?"

Should you have any questions, feel free to contact me.

Please send all replies to:

Noise Technical Assistance Center
P.O. Box 231

Cook College, Rutgers University
Department of Environmental Science
New Brunswick, N.J. 08903

Att: Joseph J. Soporowski, III
(201) 932-9860

Sincerely,

pork Se provewsh a

Joseph J. Soporowski, III
Director, Noise Technical
Assistance Center

C-1


80272 - 101

REPORT DOCUMENTATION | ' REPORT NO 2 3 Respiont's Aocession
PAGE
@ Tite and Subtitle '& Ropon Dato
The Status of Key State and Local Noise Control Programs That Served as a Basis for Completed January 1990
Discontinuing a Federal Program in 1982. 6

+ nvihor(e) 8B Performing Organization Rept No
Joseph J, Soporowski, III

‘9 Performing Organization Name and Address 10 ProjecvTask/Work Unit No
Cook College

Department of Environmental Science 11 Contract(C) or Grant(G) No
Rutgers University ©

P.O. Box 231

New Brunswick, New Jersey 08903 6)

12 Sponsoring Organization Name and Address: 13 Type of Repon & Period Covered
US. Environmental Protection Agenc:

Office of Cooperative Environmental Management Technical Report

499 South Capitol Street, SW A-101-F6 crs

15 Supplementary Notes

16 Abstract (Limit 200 words)

90-1208 The Status of Key State and Local Noise Control Programs That Served as a Basis for Dis-
continuing a Federai Program in 1982

This report is part of the National Network for Environmental Management Studies under
the auspices of the Office of Cooperative Environmental Management of the the US Environ-
mental Protection Agency

This study has been undertaken to assess the validity of assumptions made by the United

«es Environmental Protection Agency in September, 1982, that led to the closing of its Office of
Noise Control and Abatement

The study examines the level of state and local noise abatement and control programs activ-
ity currently underway

An attempt has been made to ascertain the effect (positive or negative) of the discontinu-
ance of the federal program on state and local programs These results are compared with the
anticipated results in 1982

17 Docuement Analysis a. Docuement Discriptors,

 Idontifiors/Open-Ended Terms

¢ COSATI Field/Group

‘ably Statement 19 Socurity Class (This Report) 21 No of Pages
Unclassified
20 Secunty Class (Ths Page) @ Pree
Unclassified
(Soe ANSIZ39 18)

‘OPTIMAL FORM 272 (4 77)
(Formerly NTIS-35)
Deparment o Commerce



DISCLAIMER

This report was furnished to the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency by the graduate student identified on the cover page, under
a National Network for Environmental Management Studies
fellowship.

The contents are essentially as received from the author. The
opinions, findings, and conclusions expressed are those of the author
and not necessarily those of the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency. Mention, if any, of company, process, or product names is
not to be considered as an endorsement by the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency.


iS ALITIES WHY THEY NEVER HAD A NOISE
CONTROL... PROGRAM

It was assumed that several questionnaires would reach the
hands of municipal officers in communities where a noise control
program never existed. To determine why they never had a program
they were asked to indicate the best reason why.

12 municipalities originally responded to this question.
After further investigation of those responses, it was found that
8 of those respondents were unaware that their municipality had
a noise abatement program prior to 1981. As a result, their
responses to this question were excluded from this data set and
relocated to the proper section.

Only those municipalities never having a noise program are
included in this data.

TABLE IX

REASONS FOR MUNICIPALITIES NEVER HAVING A NOISE CONTROL PROGRAM

REASON NUMBER OF MUNICIPALITIES
Noise is Not A Problem 1

Noise is Not A High Priority 1

Problem

No Legislative Basis 1

Other 1

-l7-


Mary Rose Corrigan, RN.
Public Health Specialist
Dubuque Health Dept.
1300 Main St.

Dubuque, Iowa, 52001

MARYLAND
Reuben Dagold

Director, Bureau of Industrial Hygiene

Baltimore City Health Dept.
303 E. Fayette St.- 4th Floor
Baltimore MD 21202

Andrew J. Cressman

Code Enforcement Officer
Div. of Public Safety
2614 Kenhill Dr.

Bowie, MD 20715

MICHIGAN

Walter Bagby

Director of Neighborhood Improvement

345 State SE
Grande Rapids, MI 49503

John P. Arnot, P.E.
City Engineer

Trenton Engineering & Building Dept.

2800 Third St.
Trenton, MI, 48183

James W. DeLange

Chief Building Inspector
Building Inspections Div.
1155-28th St. S.W.
Wyoming, Michigan, 49509

MINNESOTA

John K. Nelson

Sr. Env. Health Specialist
Comm. Dev.

2215 W.O.S.R.

Bloomington, MN 55431

Stewart W. Anderson

Chief of Police

Columbia Heights Police
559 Mill St. NE

Columbia Heights, MN 55421

D-6

(319) 589-4181
10/16/89

(301) 396-4428
10/24/89

(301) 262-6200
10/24/89

(616) 456-3470
11/7/89

(313) 675-3950

10/18/89

(616) 530-7292
10/17/89

(612) 887-9634
11/3/89

(612) 788-9221
11/1/89

x3005


LOCAL SURVEY RESPONSES & DATE RECEIVED

POSITIVE RESPONSE
ALABAMA

Newton Vaughan
Director

City of Huntsville
2033-C Airpot Rd.
Huntsville, AL 35801

ARKANSAS

Susan E. Oswalt

Sanitarian

Dept. of Health & Human Services
P.O. Box 196650

Anchorage, AK 99519-6650

CALIFORNIA

Joseph W. Wright
Associate Planner
Community Development
815 W. 6th St.
Corona, CA 91720

Steve Concannon

Code Enforcement Officer
Community Development
207 N Harvard Ave.
Claremont, CA 91711

Sid Lee

Sr. Code Enf. Officer
Building & Safety
11111 Brookshire Ave
Darney, Ca 90241

James Hagen

Zoning Compliance Officer
Building and Planning

200 E. Main St.

El Cajon, CA. 92020

Mark A. Vester

Mech. Engr. II

Dev. Dept. City of Fresno
2326 Fresno St.

Fresno, Calif. 93721

(205) 883-3645
12/7/89

(907) 345-1407
10/24/89

(714) 279-3553

11/1/89

(714) 399 5467
10/30/89

(213) 869-7331
11/7/89

(619) 441-1742
10/24/89

(209) 448-1319
11/3/89


METHODOLOGY


SUMMARY OF E.P.A. REGIONAL NOISE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CENTERS


WASHINGTON

Dennis Kroll

Env. Health Director
Spokane Co. Health Dept.
1101 W. College
Spokane, Wash. 99201

VIRGINIA

William J. Skrabak
Program Supervisor
Alexandria Health Dept.
517 N. St. Asaph St.
Alexandria, VA 22314

Ronald H. Miller

Bldg. Commis.

Dept. of Bldg. Inspections
215 Church Ave. S.W.
Roanoke, Va. 24011

D-13

(509) 456-4225
10/24/89

(703) 838-4860

10/30/89

(703) 981-2222
10/24/89


How much progress over the last eight years has been made by
your noise control program im reducing the noise from each of
the following sources: (Circle the correct response for each)

Significant Minimal No Was Never
Progress Progress Progress A Problem
a. Aircraft SP MP NP WNP
b. Trucks SP MP NP WNP
c. Busses SP MP NP WNP
d. Autos SP MP NP WNP
e. Motorcycles SP MP NP WNP
£. Railroad SP MP NP WNP
Operations
g. Construction SP MP NP WNP
Equipment
h. Fixed Industry SP MP NP WNP
i. Emergency SP MP NP WNP
Vehicles/sirens
J. Garbage Trucks SP MP NP WNP
k. Recreation SP MP NP WNP
Vehicles
1. Public SP MP NP WNP
Entertainment
m. Personal SP MP NP WNP
Entertainment
n. Animals SP MP NP WNP
o. Home Power Tools SP MP NP WNP
Pp. Off Road Vehicles SP MP NP WNP
q. Residential SP MP NP WNP
Heating/Cooling
Equipment
xr. Commercial SP MP NP WNP
Heating/Cooling
Equipment

Ss. Other (Specify)



MINNESOTA

Columbia Heights.........seeeeee+ POS
Golden Valley**
Mankato..cccocesecsererssccesesee e POS
Minnetonka..... . POS

New Hope. cecessees «POS
Bloomington... cccccrcervevcecves POS
Minneapolis**

MISSOURI

Independence... .cesseeveeeeveee + POS
St. Joseph**

NEBRASKA
LINCOLN. cee cece e eee e cece ee eee eee POS

NEW_JERSEY

Cherry Hill**

Elizabeth**
Middletown.....cceeccesecveeeceveens
East Windsor........... see eeeeeee POS
New Brunswick**

TEANECK. cc eceececceervcenceevenceecnce

Harrison**
PAtersSOnseseccsecccesecerseseceee POS

NEW _ MEXICO
Albuquerque**
Roswell**

NEW_YORK

Glen Cove**
Ithaca**

Mount Vernon**
New York City**

NORTH CAROLINA

Asheville... . cc cee eee eee ee ee eee Pos
Charlotte..........65 POS
Raleigh**

Burlington**

NORTH DAKOTA
MiNOt eve ccccceeeenveeeevveceveees + POS

OHIO

Columbus........eeeeeeee eee e ee erencees
Ketterling**

Lakewood**

TOLEdO. eee eee eee eee eee e eae POS
Youngstown**

Dayton... cece cere cece eeeee seve e POS

eoeeeee NEG

seeeee  NEG*


STATE VIEW ON WAYS A FEDERAL NOISE PROGRAM CAN BE OF USE TO THOSE
PROGRAMS

States were asked to indicate the extent to which various,
federal noise program assistance would be of help.

States filling out a questionnaire and indicating that they
currently have noise control programs are included in the
following data. Although one state, that met these requirements,
indicated in a previous question that a federal noise program
would not be of help, it's comments have been included in these
results.

TABLE XVIII
STATE RATING OF VARIOUS FEDERAL NOISE ACTIVITIES

ACTIVITY VERY SOMEWHAT NOT DO NOT
USEFUL USEFUL USEFUL KNOW

Model Legislation 2 1 3 0

Man Power 4 1 0 1

Manpower Training 3 1 1 1

/Workshops

Noise Control 2 2 1 1

Program On-Site
Technical Assistance

Enforcement Procedures 2 3 1 0
Noise Technical 4 1 1 0
Assistance Reports

Land Use Planning 3 2 1 0
Guides

Noise Measurement 5 1 0 0
Equipment

-33-


SUMMARY OF STATE PROGRAM RESPONSE

STATE SURVEYED RESPONSE
POSITIVE NEGATIVE
(Program) (No Program)
ALLZONAs cece ee eee eee r rece eeseeeeeeteeeeeees NEG
Californiarcccsccccsevecevseveeees POS * Participated
in Telephone
COLOKAdO. cece cece e cere cece cree ereeeeesveres sNEG Follow-up of
Those Not
Connecticut... ceeseee eee eee cerca POS Responding
D@laware..eeeseescseevcccceccceveeceecceeeeesNEG ** Did Not
Respond to
FLOLLda. cece cece cece eee t eee er tev eeeees NEG Survey
Hawali.... cee. e ewes settee eee ee POS
Tllinois....... cece ee eee seeeeee POS
Indiana... cece cece cence cece cee e eee teen cees NEG
Kentucky. cee cece cece eee cee eee e tere eee +++ NEG
Loudsiands.cccccccvecccccecccecccceees oeeeee -NEG*
Maryland....e cece ccc eeee eee eee ee POS
MEMNESOtar ceeeeeeeeeeeseeeeeeeeee 1 POS*
NEDLaSka. se eeeeeeee cece eeeeeeeeeersesevveeee NEG
NEW JErseyeeseseeecceseeec cence es + POS
NOW YOLK. cece cece eee eece eee eeeeesteeeeeveees sNEG*
OKLANOMa. eee cece cece eee e cence ete eeeee veces «NEG
OXLEGON. cece sevc eer eescesveveeece sPOS*
Rhode Island.............. tence ec eeee tenes /NEG*
South Dakota... ... cece cece eee eee eee + +NEG

Puerto Rico**

-37-


STATE RATING OF VARIOUS FEDERAL NOISE ACTIVITIES

ACTIVITY
Public Information
Materials

Vehicle Inspection
/ Maintenance
Procedures

Peer Exchange
Programs

National/Regional
/State Workshops

Airport Planning

Regional Technical
Assistance Centers

New Product
Regulations

TABLE XVIII CONTINUED

VERY
USEFUL

5

-34-

SOMEWHAT NOT

USEFUL
0

USEFUL
1



9. If your state never had a noise control program,
please check the response wkich best explains why.

Noise is not a problem

Noise is not a high priority problem
Nothing can be done

No legislative basis

Too expensive

Opposition from industry

Other (Specify)

10. If your state once had, but no longer has a noise
control program, please check the response which best
explains why.

The noise problem was resolved

The noise problem was reduced

Federal presence in noise was discontinued
Budget constraints

Other (Specify)

THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION IN COMPLETING THIS SURVEY

A-12


INDIANA

Greg E. Sundin

Assist. Dir. For Planning
Planning & Development Dept.
229 S. Second St.

Elkhart IN 46516

Chris Wehner

Air Management
Evansville E.P.A.
1N.W. 7th St., Rm. 207
Evansville, IN 47708

Donald L. Novak
Director

Environmental Management
5925 Calumet Ave.
Hammond IN. 46320

IOWA

John R. Klaus

City Attorney

Legal Dept. Ames Municipal Bldg.
5th & Kellogg

Ames, Iowa, 50010

Eugene F. Niebuhr, PE & LS
Public Works Director
City Hall, P.O. Box 158
Clinton, Iowa, 52732

Glenn C. Jackson, RS
Director, Health Dept.
209 Pearl

Council Bluffs, IA 51503

Dee F. Bruemmer

Assist. City Administrator
Dept. of Administration
226 West 4th

Davenport Iowa 52801

Barry Vosler

Zoning Enforcement Officer
Building Dept.

Armory Bldg. 602 E. lst.
Des Moines, Iowa, 50309

(219) 294-5471
10/27/89

(812) 426-5597
12/7/89

(219) 853-6306
10/19/89

(515) 239-5146
10/16/89

(319) 242-0261

10/19/89

(712) 328-4666
11/1/89

(319) 326-7763
10/24/89

(515) 283-4207
10/24/89


PROGRESS MADE BY STATES OVER THE LAST EIGHT YEARS

States were asked to rate their progress in reducing the
noise from various sources. States were given the choices of
Significant Progress, Minimal Progress, No Progress, or, if the
source was never a problem, Was Never a problem.

18 States were included in these figures. States indicating
that they do not have a noise control program were considered to
have made no progress in each noise category. States indicating
by telephone that they currently have a noise control program
(2) were not included in these figures due to insufficient data.

TABLE XIV
PROGRESS MADE BY STATES SINCE 1982

CATEGORY NUMBER RESPONDING
SIGNIFICANT MINIMAL NO WAS NEVER
PROGRESS PROGRESS PROGRESS A_PROBLEM
Aircraft 0 3 15 0
Trucks 1 4 13 0
Buses 1 2 15 0
Autos 1 4 13 0
Motorcycles 1 4 13 0
Railroad 0 2 15 1
Operations
Construction 1 2 15 0
Equipment
Fixed Industry 4 2 12 0
Emergency 0 1 16 1
Vehicles/Sirens
Garbage Trucks 1 1 15 1

=28-


TABLE OF CONTENTS


APPENDIX A_- MUNICIPAL AND STATE QUESTIONNAIRES



STATE NOISE CONTROL PROGRAM SUMMARY



RATING 0) RTS TO CONTROL NOISE IN EXISTING MUNICIPAL NOISE
CONTROL FROGRAMS

Municipalities indicating that they currently have a noise
control program were asked to rate their efforts in noise
control. Choices were: Too Much, About Right, Not Enough, and Do
Not Know.

Only those respondents indicating that they currently have a
noise control program have been included in this data.

TABLE VI
RATING OF CURRENT MUNICIPAL EFFORTS TO CONTROL NOISE

RESPONSE PERCENT
Too Much 18
About Right 54%
Not Enough 38%
Do Not Know 5%

-13-


NOISE CONTROL PROGRAM ACTIVITIES PRESENT AT THE MUNICIPAL LEVEL

Municipalities were asked to indicate the activities that
are currently part of their noise control program.

All 93 municipalities are included in these results.

Municipalities stating that they do not have a program were
considered not to have any of the listed activities.

TABLE III
PRESENT STATUS OF MUNICIPAL NOISE CONTROL PROGRAM ACTIVITIES

ACTIVITY PERCENTAGE OF MUNICIPALITIES
HAVING OR NOT HAVING ACTIVITY
HAVE DO _NOT HAVE

Enforcement 81% 19%
Complaint Handling 81% 19%
Development of Laws/ 56% 44%
Regulations
Public Education 32% 68%
Environmental Impact 27% 73%
Reports
Monitoring / Surveys 52% 48%
Research 17% 83%

Administration 37% 63%


ModeStO..seceeecreccceerervecesee s POS
Ontario**

Orange**

Palo AltO.ccceesecccececeeveeeeee POS
Pasadena**

Redondo Beach**

Riverside. cccccescccceseecscceececescesesees NEG
SACKFEMENCO. ce eeeecrecevcerecceeee POS
VENCULA. cece cere ree eeeeeseeve see POS
San Diego**

Simi Valley.cceccsceeceevseeeveee + POS
Torrance**

Westminster**

ST. ¥ t-te]: (: Cn POS

COLORADO

Northglenn**

Thornton**
Bouldersscsscccerecececevecevecee +s POS
Denver.........
Colorado Springs. see eee ee POS

CONNECTICUT

NOXWALK. cece cereeere rere reece serereseeseeee sNEG*
Stamford**

VEINONe es ceeee cree cee rec tree eeeeerteeeees ++ NEG
Trumbull**

DELAWARE
Newark**

WASHINGTON, D.C.
Washington, D.C.......eeee veeeeee POS

FLORIDA

Ft. Lauderdale..
Miami Beach....
Boca Raton........
Coral Gables**

Daytona Beach... eres cess reece eee enees seeeeee eNEG*
Clearwateresccesseccceeesceeeeees «POS
MLAML wee cece cece eee cree ee aee POS

West Palm Beach**

Pompano Beach**

Riviera Beach... ....esee eee eee vee POS
Sunrise**

GEORGIA
College Park**

ILLINOIS
Carbondale... .. ccc eee cece eee eee cece eee vee NEG
DOWNErS GFOVE.. cece eee eee eee eee eeee senses NEG


SUMMARY _AND+CONCLUSIONS

The Noise Control Act of 1971 established a United States
Environmental Protection Agency (U.S.EPA) Noise Control Program
to provide an environment free from unnecessary noise pollution.
The Act stated, "people of the State are entitled to and should
be ensured an environment free from noise which unnecessarily
degrades the quality of life; that the levels of noise in the
community have reached such a degree as to endanger the health,
safety and welfare of the people of this State as well as the
integrity of the environment and that this threat can be abated
by the adoption and enforcement of noise standards embodied in
regulations." In 1982, following the U.S. EPA's decision to
discontinue it's Noise Control Program, Congress ceased funding
for the program. The basis for discontinuing the federal progran
was the administrative assumption that noise abatement anc
control programs that were initiated at the state and local leve.
would continue without significant federal assistance.

Results of this survey indicate that this administrative
assumption made by the U.S.EPA was incorrect. While a.
regulations initiated by the 1971 Noise Control Act and the 1973
Quiet Communities Act remain in effect, state and local noise
abatement and control programs have not assumed the role that tne
U.S. EPA intended they would when the federal program was
withdrawn.

-40-


5. Would you say that your state's noise control program
is More Active, About the Same, or Less Active than it was in
1981 when federal presence in noise was withdrawn? (Check
the appropriate response. )

More Active
About the Same
Less Active

6. How would you rate current efforts to control noise in your
state? (Please check the appropriate response.)

Too Much
About Right
Not Enough

Do not Know

7. Do you feel that a reinstitution of a federal presence in
noise would be of significant use to your state's

noise abatement and control efforts? (Please check the
appropriate response.)

YES (Please answer question #8)

No (Please stop at this point)

Do Not Know (Please answer question #8)

A-10


CIP. WAYS A_ FEDERAL NOISE PROGRAM CAN BE OF USE TO
THOSE PROGRAMS

Those municipalities indicating that they feel a
reinstitution of a federal noise program would be of significant
use to their noise control program were asked to indicate the
extent to which various federal noise program assistance would be
of help.

Only those respondents indicating: 1) they currently have a
noise control program and 2) they feel a reinstitution of a

federal noise program would be of significant use to their
programs are included in the following data.

TABLE VIIL
MUNICIPAL RATING OF VARIOUS FEDERAL NOISE ACTIVITIES

ACTIVITY VERY SOMEWHAT NOT DO NOT
USEFUL USEFUL USEFUL § KNOW

Model Legislation 32% 46% 13% 9%

Man Power 41% 30% 16% 13%

Man Power Training 66% 30% 0% 4%

/Workshops

Noise Control Program 39% 52% 0% 9%

On-site Technical

Assistance

Enforcement Procedures 39% 41% 18% 2%

Noise Technical 41% 46% 5% 7%

Assistance Reports

Land Use Planning 37% 37% 7% 18%

Guides

Noise Measurement 52% 34% 13% 2%

Equipment

Public Information 59% 32% 4% 5%

Materials

Vehicle Inspection 30% 27% 23% 20%

/Maintenance Procedures

-15-


NEGATIVE RESPONSE
CALIFORNIA

Chuck Gabrysiak
Senior Planner
City of Concord
Planning Dept.
1950 Parkside Dr.
Concord, CA 94519

Roy T. Kato
City Planner
Comm. Dev. Dept.
1700 W. 162nd St.
Gardena CA 90247

Stephen R. Port

Chief of Police
Hawthorne Police Dept.
4440 W. 126th Street
Hawthorne CA. 90250

Pay Bachmer

Community Conservation Representative

Community Development
5050 Clark Ave.
Lakewood, CA 90714-0158

Stephen J. Whyld

Deputy Planning Director
Dept. of Planning

3900 Main St.

Riverside, CA 92522

CONNECTICUT

Charles Vassilopoulis, R.S,
Deputy Health Officer
Vernon Health Dept.

14 Park Place

Vernon, CT. 06066

ILLINOIS

James W. Rayfield

Planner

Community Development Planning
P.O. Box 2047

Carbondale Il, 62902

D-11

(415) 671-3044
10/24/89

(213) 217 9524
11/1/89

(213) 970-7948
11/7/89

(213) 866-9771
12/7/89

(714) 762-5658

10/24/89

(203) 872-8591
10/17/89

(618) 549-5302
10/17/89


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

In 1982, the U.S. EPA decided to discontinue it's federal
noise control program on the assumption that noise abatement and
control programs initiated at the state and local levels would
continue without federal assistance. The results of this study
suggest that state and local noise control programs have not
lived up to these expectations. Although regulations initiated
by the 1971 Noise Control Act, as amended by the Quiet
Communities Act in 1978, are still in effect, local and state
noise control programs do not have the ability to enforce them.
This inability is due to a significant reduction in quantity and
quality of existing state and local noise control programs.

It appears that without a federal noise abatement and
control program, noise problems have been dealt with ona "As
Needed" as opposed to "Preventive Basis" by both municipalities
and states.

Funding should be provided to reinstitute a federal noise
program capable of implementing the 1971 Noise Control Act
provisions. Such a program would not have to be as comprehensive
as the one in operation before 1982. However, the decision to
discontinue all aspects of the program, in 1982, has created a
situation where regulations still in effect are unenforceable.

It has been indicated in this study that a federal program
would be of help in a variety of specific areas such as providing
public information materials, national/regional/state workshops,
noise control program on-site technical assistance, noise
measurement equipment, and man power training workshorgs
However, the most important way in which a federal presence wou .4
be of help would be filling the role of "Watchman" to ensure tha:
municipalities and states are indeed progressing in the noise
control field.

At the present time, there 1s no one to whom states cr
municipalities can turn to for advice and/or help in the noise
control field. Appropriation of federal monies to reinstitute 4
small scale noise control program at the federal level wou_z
alleviate this problem.


8. Please indicate the extent to which the following types of
Federal Noise Program assistance would be of significant use
to your state's noise abatement and control efforts,

(Circle the correct response for each.)

Very Somewhat Not Do Not
Useful Useful Useful Know

a. Model Legislation vu su NU DNK

b. Man Power vu su NU DNK

¢c. Manpower Training vu su NU DNK
/Workshops

d. Noise Control vu su NU DNK
Program On-site
Technical
Assistance

e. Enforcement vu SU NU DNK
Procedures

£. Noise Technical vu SU NU DNK
Assistance Reports

g. Land Use Planning vu SU NU DNK
guides

h. Noise Measurement vu su NU DNK
equipment

i. Public Information vu sU NU DNK
Materials

j. Vehicle Inspection vu SU NU DNK
/Maintenance
Procedures

k. Peer Exchange vu su NU DNK
Programs

1. National/Regional/ vU su NU DNK
State workshops

m. Airport Planning vu su NU DNK

n. Regional Technical vu SU NU DNK
Assistance Centers

©. New product vu su NU DNK

Regulations
p. Other (Specify)

A-11


APPENDIX D - LOCAL AND STATE SURVEY RESPONSES AND DATE RECEIVED


PREFACE

This study has been undertaken to access the validity of
assumptions made by the United States Environmental Protection
Agency (U.S. EPA) in September, 1982, that led to the closing of
its Office of Noise Control and Abatement.

The study examines the level of state and local noise
abatement and control programs activity currently underway.

An attempt has been made to ascertain the effect (positive
or negative) of the discontinuance of the federal program on
state and local programs. These results are compared with the
anticipated results in 1982.


APPENDIX C - E.P.A. NOISE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CENTER REQUEST

FOR INFORMATION LETTER



QREGON

Bruce C. Cleeton

Code Enforcement Officer
Police - City of Beaverton
P.O. Box 4755

Beaverton, OR, 97076

PENNSYLVANIA

Daphne Pickens

Health Officer

Code Enforcement Dept.
1176 Old York Rd.
Abington, PA. 10001

George N. Harris

Director of Public health
Health Dept.

Long Lane & Garrett Rd.
Upper Darby, PA 19082

RHODE ISLAND

Eugene J. Jeffers
Director of Public Works
137 Roosevelt Ave.
Pawtucket, R.I. 02861

TEXAS

Pat Fouler

Director of Health Dept.
Garland Dept. of Health
P.O. Box 469002

Garland, Texas, 75044

Ross Wilhite

Dir. of Planning

Dept. of Planning

Box 1089

Port Arthur, Texas 77640

UTAH

Diane Keay
Env. Health Supervisor

Salt Lake City Health dept.

610 South 200 East
Salt Lake City, Utah 84111

D-9

(503) 526-2271
10/24/89

(215) 884-5000 x507
10/19/89

(215) 734-7640

10/24/89

(401) 728-0500
10/13/89

(214) 205-3460
10/18/89

(409) 983-8138

10/24/89

(801) 534-4541
12/7/89


UCTION IN ITY OF STATE AND LOCAL NOISE CONTROL PROGRAMS

Tables II and XII reveal the limited number of individuals
that are currently active in the noise pollution field. The
majority of these people work in noise on a part time basis.
These figures become even more significant when one considers the
fact that this data represents the respondents that have an
active noise control program. One can assume that where no noise
program exists, there are no noise control officials in that
municipality or state.

Of the municipalities responding to the survey, only
enforcement of regulations and complaint handling have been dealt
with on a significant level. Other activities, once handled by
the federal program, such as: Development of Laws / Regulations,
Public Education, Environmental Impact Reports, Monitoring /
Survey's, Research, and Administration are only minor components
on a local level. (See Table III)

Those states which currently have noise control programs
apparently handle a wide range of activities. These activities
include: Enforcement, Complaint Handling, Development of Laws /
Regulations, Public Education, Environmental Impact Reports,
Monitoring / Surveys, Research, Administration, and Technica:
Assistance to Local Governments. Unfortunately, there are only 8
active, state, noise control programs left out of the 21 which
existed prior to 1982. As a result, activities by noise contre.
programs on the state level are actually very limited. These
results do not reflect what was expected of state noise contre:
programs when the federal noise control program was withdrawn :7
1982. (See Table XIII)

-42-


REGION IT

7
Region II - £E.P.A. Noise Technical Assistance Center now
operates under the title, New Jersey Noise Technical Assistance
Center.

1. Provides services similar to those carried out by the
former centers.

2. Trains state noise control officials in noise measurement
and abatement techniques.

3. Conducts specialty seminars as needed.
4. Provides technical assistance to communities.
5. Provides equipment to communities.

6. Funding is through the New Jersey State Department of
Environmental protection.

Contact Person: Mr. Joseph J. Soporowski, III
Director, N.J. Noise Technical
Assistance Center
P.O. Box 231
Department of Environmental Science
Cook College, Rutgers University
New Brunswick, N.J. 08903
(201) 932-9860

REGION V

Region vV - Noise Technical Assistance Center was
incorporated into, "Midwest Environmental Assistance Center."

1. Provide technical assistance to residents at a deferred

cost.

2. Funding is by state grants, private industry and private
individuals.

Contact Person: Mr. Howard Schechter

Director, Midwest Environmental
Assistance Center.

6561 North Sealy Ave.

Chicago, Illinois 60645

-39-


SURVEY RESPONSE

LOCAL_SURVEY_ RESPONSE

Of the 205 municipalities that were sent questionnaires, 93
(45%) completed and returned the survey.

12 of those municipalities returning a form indicated that
there had never been a noise control program in their community.
After further investigation of this matter, it was found that 8
of the 12 officials were unaware that a program had existed in
their municipalities. The other four municipalities were found
to have never had a noise control program, but were in the stage
of beginning one when the federal program was discontinued.

STATE SURVEY RESPONSE

Of the 21 states that were sent questionnaires, responses
were obtained from 20 (95%). 11 states responded by completing
the original survey form, 4 responded to the second mailing and
returned the form letter, and the remaining 5 were contacted in
the telephone follow up.

U.S.E.P.A. NOISE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CENTER RESPONSE

Of the 10 former directors of the Regional Noise Technica:
Assistance Centers that were sent a request for information
letter, 4 responded.

Attempts to reach the remaining 6 individuals by telephone
were unsuccessful,

-6-


OPINIONS BY STATES ON THE USEFULNESS OF REINSTITUTING A FEDERAL
OL PROGRAM

NOISE CO!

States indicating that they currently have a noise control
program were asked if they felt a reinstitution of a federal
noise control program would be of significant use to their
state's noise abatement and control efforts.

Only those respondents filling out a questionnaire and

indicating that they currently have a noise control program (6)
are included in this data.

TABLE XVII

STATE RESPONSE ON THE USEFULNESS OF A FEDERAL NOISE PROGRAM

RESPONSE NUMBER

Yes, a federal program would be of significant 5
use.

No, a federal program would not be of 0

significant use.

Do Not Know if a federal program would be of 1
significant use.

=32-


IS GI BY STATES THAT ONCE HAD NOISE CONTROL PROGRAMS FOR
NO LONGER HAVING THOSE PROGRAMS

States indicating that they currently do not have a noise
control program were asked to give the most appropriate reason
why.

Included in these figures are: 1) States filling out a
questionnaire indicating they once had, but no longer have a
noise control program (4), and 2) States whose officials filling
in the questionnaire were unaware that their state did have a
noise control program prior to 1981.(1) This state responded to
question 9. The response has been transferred here.

TABLE XIX

REASONS GIVEN BY STATES THAT ONCE HAD A NOISE CONTROL PROGRAM
FOR NO LONGER HAVING THAT PROGRAM

REASON NUMBER OF STATES
Federal Presence in Noise Was 2
Discontinued

Budget Constraints 1

Noise is Not a High priority 1
Problem

Other 1

-36-


RUTGERS NOISE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CENTER
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCE
COOK COLLEGE, RUTGERS UNIVERSITY
P.O. BOX 231, NEW BRUNSWICK, N.J. 08903
(201) 932-9860

November 14, 1989

Dear Noise Control Official:

According to the Records of the National League of Cities,
your state once had a Noise Control Program. The purpose of this
communication is to determine the status of that program.

If your state NO LONGER HAS a Noise Control Program please
place a check mark here, fill in the identification information,
and send only this form in the enclosed, self addressed, stamped
envelope. (Disregard the accompanying Survey Form)

This State NO LONGER HAS a Noise Control Program.
NAME

TITLE:

DEPARTMENT:

ADDRESS:

CITY: STATE: ZIP

PHONE #:

If your state STILL HAS a Noise Control Program, please f111
out and return the enclosed survey form in the self addressed
stamped envelope.

Thank you for your time and effort.
Sincerely,

Prick p dporonh IF

Joseph J. Soporowski, III
Director, Rutgers Noise


GENERAL METHODOLOGY

The majority of the data contained in this study has been
obtained through a survey of state and local noise control
programs that had existed prior to the withdrawal of the federal
program in 1982. Additional information was gathered through: 1)
written and oral communication with former and current noise
control officers (state and local) throughout the United States,
2) investigation of the National Association of Noise Control
Officers (NANCO) files, and 3) literature review of recovered
U.S.E.P.A. noise pollution documents.

SURVEY METHODOLOGY

The survey conducted consists of three components:
1. Local Noise Control Programs.
2. State Noise Control Programs.

3. Fate of U.S.E.P.A. Regional Noise Technical
Assistance Centers.

A survey questionnaire was developed for both the state a-2
local noise control programs. A form letter was developed f::
the former directors of the once existing E.P.A. Noise Techn.:a.
Assistance Centers.

The questionnaires for the state and local noise cor
programs are similar with the exception of several variatiors :*
the questions designed specifically for each.

-2-


SUMMARY OF E.P.A. REGIONAL NOISE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CENTERS

U.S.EPA
REGION PRESENT STATUS
I Semi-active
Ir Active
Tir Inactive
Iv Inactive
Vv Semi-active
VI Inactive
vII Inactive
VIII Inactive
Ix Inactive
x Inactive
REGION I
Region I - E.P.A Noise Technical Assistance Center was

incorporated into: "Engineering Application Center."

1. Provides various noise services to communities.

2. Provides general noise information.

3. Conducts noise seminars as needed.

4. Work is performed on a hire or barter basis.

5. Funding exclusively by fee.

Contact Person: Mr. Robert Daniel Celmer
University of Hartford
200 Bloomfield Ave.

West Hartford Connecticut 06117
(203) 243-4792

~38-


TABLE OF CONTENTS CONTINUED

TITLE PAGE NUMBER

Rating Of Efforts To Control Noise In
Existing Municipal Noise Control Programs ...... 13

Opinions By Municipalities On The
Usefulness Of Reinstituting A Federal
Noise Control Program .esseeeeeeseeereceeeeceves 14

Municipal View On Ways A Federal Noise
Program Can Be Of Use To Those Programs ........ 15

Reasons Given By Municipalities Why They
Never Had A Noise Control Program ..sesesseeeees 17

Reasons Given By Municipalities That Once
Had A Noise Control Program For No Longer
Having Those Programs ..eseeeseerrececesereeeeee 18

Vv. Municipal Noise Control Program Summary ......-+.+-+. 19
VI. State Survey ResultS ....ceeeecceeee cee ceeseeeeeeeee 25

Number Of Respondents That Currently Have,
Or, Do Not Have, A State Noise Control
PLOGFAM woe cece eee e cere ee ree eee e cee ceeeereeseees 29

Number Of Full-time State Employees That
Usually Spend More Than 20% Of Their Work
Week On Noise Control Activities ....seeeeeeeeee 26

Noise Control Program Activities Present
At the State Level wo ce ceseeeeceeeereveeeceeeees a7

Progress Made By The States Over The
Last Eight Years woes eee cece e cece tere eee eeeeee 28

Activity Level Of State Programs After The
Withdrawal Of The Federal Noise Control
PLOGFAM cece ecee reece csc ere ceresercececereseeces 30

Rating Of Efforts To Control Noise In
Existing State Noise Control Programs .......... 31

Opinions By States On The Usefulness Of
Reinstituting A Federal Noise Control
bb dole 1 nc 2

State View On Ways A Federal Program Can
Be Of Use To Those ProgramS ..seseveeveeveeeeves J3


9. If your municipality never had a noise control program,
please check the response which best explains why.

Noise is not a problem

Noise is not a high priority problem

Nothing can be done

No legislative basis

Too expensive

Opposition from industry

Other (Specify)

10. If your Municipality once had, but no longer has a noise
control program, please check the response which best
explains why.

The noise problem was resolved

The noise problem was reduced

Federal presence in noise was discontinued

Budget constraints

Other (Specify)

THANK YOU FOR YOUR COOPERATION IN COMPLETING THIS SURVEY


OPT! ICIPALITIES ON THE USEFULNESS OF REINSTITUTING A
FEDERAL NOISE CONTROL PROGRAM

Municipalities indicating that they currently have a noise
control program were asked if they felt a reinstitution of a
federal noise control program would be of significant use to
their municipality's noise abatement and control efforts.

Only those respondents indicating that they currently have a
noise control program have been included in this data.

TABLE VII
MUNICIPAL RESPONSE ON THE USEFULNESS OF A FEDERAL NOISE PROGRAM
=—_——— SRE USEFULNESS OF A FEDERAL NOISE PROGRAM
RESPONSE PERCENT
Yes, a federal program would be of significant 53%
use.
No, a federal programs would not be of 25%
significant use.
Do Not Know if a federal Program would be of 22%

significant use.

-14-


5. Would you say that your municipality's noise control program
is More Active, About the Same, or Less Active than it was in
1981 when federal presence in noise was withdrawn? (Check
the appropriate response. )

More Active
About the Same
Less Active
6. How would you rate current efforts to control noise in your
municipality? (Please check the appropriate response. )
Too Much
About Right
Not Enough
Do not Know
7. Do you feel that a reinstitution of a federal presence in
noise would be of significant use to your municipality's

noise abatement and control efforts? (Please check the
appropriate response. )

YES (Please answer question #8)

No (Please stop at this point)

Do Not Know (Please answer question #8)

A-4


US) OF REINSTITUTING A

JERAL_NOISE CONTROL PROGRAM

53% of those municipalities having a noise control program
felt that bringing back a federal noise control program would be
of significant use to their program, 25% felt it would not be of
help, and 22% were unsure. (See Table VII)

5 of the 8 states still having a noise control program
indicated that a federal program would significantly aid their
programs, 1 state was unsure, no state felt a federal program
would not help, and 2 states did not respond to this question.
(See Table XVII)

Municipalities indicating that a federal noise control
program would help their programs were asked to indicate what the
most effective means of federal assistance would be. The
activities indicated as the most beneficial are: Man Power
Training / Workshops, Noise Control Program On-Site Technical
Assistance, Public Information Materials, National/Regional/State
Workshops, Noise Measurement Equipment, and New Product
Regulation. (See Table VIII)

Only Airport Planning received a greater than 20% "Not
Useful" response at 21%. However, this is probably because
aircraft noise is a problem to only a_ portion of the surveyed
communities.

States indicating that a federal noise control program would
significantly aid their programs were also asked to indicate wnat
the most effective means of federal assistance would be. Tre
activities that states indicated as being the most benef:-.a_
are: Noise Measurement Equipment, Public Information Mater:a.s
National/Regional/State Workshops, New Product Regulations, ard
Man Power. (See Table XVIII)

It is the surveyor's opinion that a reinstitution cf
federal noise control program should include the following ~a ::
noise control activities on both the state and local level:

1. Public Information Materials

2. National/State/Regional Workshops

3. Noise Control Program On-Site Technical Assistance
4. Noise Measurement Equipment

5. Man Power Training Workshops

-45-


ENTS THAT CURRENTLY HAVE, OR DO NOT HAVE, A
MUNICIPAL NOISE .CONTROL PROGRAM

Municipalities were asked if they currently had a noise
control program. A noise control program was defined as a
program having the following: funding, staff, equipment and
enforcement of a law or ordinance which includes decibel (noise
level) limits in any one of the following areas: vehicles,
property line, construction and/or land use. The municipality
could be considered to have a noise control program without
specific municipal legislation as long as some other federal,
state, or county law or ordinance was enforced.

All 93 responding municipalities answered this question.
The percentages of their responses were as follows:

TABLE I

PERCENTAGE OF MUNICIPALITIES HAVING A NOISE CONTROL PROGRAM

REPORT PERCENT
Currently Have A Noise Control Program 82%

Currently Do Not Have A Noise Control Program 18%


North Olmsted**
Xenia**
BEAVErtoOn. evesecececeeerseevesees sPOS

OKLAHOMA
Oklahoma City..sccesecereseveeees + POS
NOKMAN. cece cece eee cece e eee e ee «POS

OREGON

Shaker Heights**

Eugene**

Portland. ..cccscecesccccrscececece Pos*
Salem**

PENNSYLVANIA

Easton**®

Johnstown**

Broomall**

Folsom**

Williamsport**

York**

ADLNGtOn...ceeee cee ee rv eveveneece + POS
Allentown**

Havertown**

Philadelphia**

Upper Darby............005 see eeee POS

RHODE ISLAND
Cranston**
Pawtucket. cececcccecerecncece seee POS

SOUTH CAROLINA
Rapid City**

TEXAS
Farmers Branch**

Dallas..ccsescceessevceeves
Garland....
Port Arthur..

ey

UTAH
Bountiful**

Murray........6 eee eee eee reece ener ee ccees

Provo**
Salt Lake City..... ccc cece ee eee POS

VIRGINIA

Alexandria....... Peewee ener eer ee teens
Newport News..... eee eee eee ween eer e aes
Charlottesville. .....ee cess eee eeee POS
ROANOKE. eee cece erence eect cence erst eeeene

-23-


SUMMARY_AND_ CONCLUSIONS



2 BY CIPALITIES OVER THE LAST EIGHT YEARS

Municipalities were asked to rate the progress in reducing
the noise from various sources. Municipalities were given the
choices of Significant Progress, Minimal Progress, No Progress,
or, if the source was never a problem, Was Never A Problem.

All 93 respondents are included in these figures.
Municipalities indicating that they do not have a noise control

program were considered to have made no progress in each noise
category.

TABLE IV
PROGRESS MADE BY MUNICIPALITIES SINCE 1982

CATEGORY PERCENT RESPONDING
SIGNIFICANT MINIMAL NO WAS NEVER
PROGRESS PROGRESS PROGRESS A_PROBLEM
Alreraft 13% 8% 35% 44%
Trucks 4% 24% 47% 25%
Buses 3% 11% 51% 35%
Autos 6% 28% 46% 20%
Motorcycles 10% 24% 47% 19%
Railroad 4% 14% 52% 30%
Operations
Construction 22% 39% 28% 11%
Equipment
Fixed Industry 23% 29% 29% 19%
Emergency
Vehicles/Sirens 0% 9% 43% 48%
Garbage Trucks 16% 25% 33% 26%
Recreation 9% 15% 32% 44%

Vehicles

-10-


Herbert Wenkel

Env. Health Sanitarian
Community Dev.

P.O. Box 3368

202 East Jackson St.
Mankato, MN 56001

Gail Trenholm

Env. Health Specialist
Community Development
14600 Minnetonka Blvd.
Minnetonka, Mn 55343

Doug Sandstad
Building Official
Fire & Safety
4401 Xylon Ave No.
New Hope, MN 55428

MISSOURI

M. Christine Smith

Public Health Investigator
Independence Health Dept.
223 N. Memorial Dr.
Independence, MO. 64051

NEBRASKA

Bill Pugsloy
Assist. Chief Div. of Env. Health

Lincoln-Lanncaston Co. Health Dept.

2200 St. Mary's Ave.
Lincoln, NE. 68502

NEW JERSEY

Patricia A. Hart

Health Officer

E. Windsor Twsp. Health Dept.
16 Lanning Blvd.

E. Windsor, N.J. 08520

Claudette Campbell
Sanitary Inspector
Dept. of Env. Science
176 Broadway
Paterson, N.J. 07505

D-7

(507) 625-3161
12/7/89

(612) 933-2511
11/1/89

(612) 533-1521

12/7/89

(816) 836-7232
10/24/89

(402) 471-8020
10/24/89

(609) 443-4000
11/3/89

(201) 881-3914
10/27/89


TABLE XIV_CONTINUED

SIGNIFICANT MINIMAL

CATEGORY

PROGRESS
Recreation 1
Vehicles
Public 2
Entertainment
Personal 0
Entertainment”
Animals 1
Home Power 1
Tools
Off Road 1
Vehicles
Residential 2
Heating/Cooling
Equipment
Commercial 4
Heating/Cooling

Equipment

PROGRESS

3

-29-

NO
PROGRESS
14
12

14

15
15

13

12

12

WAS NEVER
A_PROBLEM

0


Janet Solow

Code Enforcement Manager
Housing & Neighborhood Dev.
11391 Acacia Parkway

Garden Grove, California 92640

David E. Witt
Planning Director
Dept. of Planning
8130 Allison Ave.
La Mesa CA 92041

Monte McElroy

Admin. Env. Div.
Building & Safety Dept.
3031 Tarrance Blvd.
Lorrane, Calif. 90503

Jim Carney

Chief Inspector

Dept. of Building & Safety
500 Shatto Pl. Suite 520
Los Angeles, CA 91748

Mike Gain

Public Services Supervisor
City of Modesto

P.O. Box 641

Modesto, CA 95353

Lt. Tom Merson
Traffic Manager
Palo Alto Police
275 Forrest Ave.
Palo Alto, CA 94301

Christopher Becker
Associate Planner
Planning Dept.

City of Placentia, 401 E. Chapman Ave.

Placentia, CA 92670

Delyn Ellison

Env. Health Specialist
Dept. of Env. Management
8475 Jackson Rd. STE 240
Sacremento, CA 95826

Karla M. Dykes

Code Enforcement Officer
City Hall Annex- Rm 206
809 Center St.

Santa Cruz, CA 95060

(714) 741-5350
11/1/89

(619) 462-0171
10/24/89

(213) 618-5930
10/24/89

(213) 485-7010
11/1/89

(209) 577-5454
11/7/89

(415) 329-2449
11/3/89

(714) 993-8124
10/24/89

(916) 386-6153
11/1/89

(408) 429-3555
12/7/89


ACTIVI EFFORTS OF EXISTING STATE AND LOCAL NOISE
CONTROL 2ROGRAMS

Of the municipalities responding to the survey, 24% are more
active, 37% are about the same, and 37% are less active than they
were prior to 1982. 2% of the responding municipalities did not
know what their status was prior to 1982. (See Table v)

If one assumes that the majority of those municipalities
not responding to the survey did not have a noise control
program, the percentage of municipalities with programs less
active than in 1982 would increase.

The statistics on the state level reflect a significant
decrease in activity level. Of the 18 states included, (2 were
not included because of insufficient data) 1 is about the same
and 17 are less active than they were prior to 1982. No state
has a more active program in noise than it had in 1982. (See
Table Xv)

If the U.S. EPA's assumption that states and municipalities
would continue where the federal noise control program left off
was correct, one should see approximately 100% of the state and
municipal noise control programs at least "About the same" as
they were prior to 1982. This is not reflected in the survey
results.

When asked to rate their current efforts in noise control,
1% of those municipalities having a noise control progra~
believed that their current efforts were too much, 54% indicated
that their efforts were about right, 38% responded that the::
efforts were not enough, while 5% were not sure. (See Table VI)

On the state level, all responding states indicated tha:
their efforts in noise control were not enough. (See Table XVI)

These results indicate that even those municipalities and
states that currently have active noise control programs fee:
that their efforts are less than adequate to meet the needs <-f
their people. This was not foreseen by the EPA when funding cf
the federal noise control program was ceased in 1982.

-44-


Jim Stern

Assistant Director
Community Development
110 East Cook St.
Santa Maria, CA 93454

Michael Nottoli

Comm. Service Officer
13777 Fruitvale Ave.
Saratoga, CA 95070

Michael W. Kehn
Senior Planner

Env. Services

2929 Tapo Canyon Rd.
Simi Valley, CA 93036

Bob Prodoehl

Building Official
Building & Safety div.
501 Poli

Ventura, CA 93001

COLORADO

Mike Weil

Env. Enforcement Officer
City of Boulder

1739 Broadway

Boulder, CO 80302

Richard A. Bowman

Noise Control Supervisor
Risk Management

P.O. Box 1525 #1370
Colo. Springs, Co. 80901

Thomas Cowan

Public Health Sanitarian

Denver Dept. of Health & Hospitals
Environmental Health Services

605 Bannock St.

Denver, CO 80204

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

James P. Musser

Code Enf. Officer

Cosumer Regulatory Affairs
614 H. St. N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20001

D-3

(805) 925-0951 ext. 244
12/7/89

(408) 867-3438

12/7/89

(805) 583-6776

10/24/89

(805) 654-7869
10/24/89

(303) 441-3239

10/24/89

(719) 578-6348
11/7/89

(303) 893-6241
11/1/89

(202) 727-7520
12/7/89


RBASONS GIVEN BY MUNICIPALITIES THAT ONCE HAD NOISE CONTROL

PROGRAMS FOR NO LONGER-HAVING THOSE PROGRAMS

Municipalities indicating that they once had, but no longer
have a noise control program were asked to state the best reason

why.

Included in this data are those municipalities, whose
officials filling in the questionnaire were unaware that their
municipality did have a noise control program prior to 1981.
These individuals responded to question 9. Their responses have
been transferred here.

TABLE X

REASONS GIVEN BY MUNICIPALITIES THAT ONCE HAD A NOISE CONTROL
PROGRAM FOR NO LONGER HAVING THAT PROGRAM

REASON NUMBER OF MUNICIPALITIES
Noise is Not a Problem 5

Budget Constraints 3

Noise is Not a High Priority 2

Problem

Federal Presence in Noise Was 1
Discontinued

Adopted County's Ordinance 1

and Noise Program.

Other 1

-18-


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

This report was funded by a fellowship granted by the
National Network For Environmental Management Studies (NNEMS),
U.S. EPA.

The following individuals and/or institutions deserve
special recognition for their contribution in preparation of this
report:

Dr. Raymond M. Manganelli
Professor, Environmental Science
Rutgers University

Mr. Edward J. DiPolvere

Chief, Office of Noise Control
N.J. Department of Environmental
Protection

Ms. Janice Ballou

Director For The Center For Public
Interest Polling

Eagleton Institute of Politics,
Rutgers University

Mr. Jeff Fletcher
Publications Director,
National League of Cities

$-2


RATING OF EFFORTS TO CONTROL NOISE IN EXISTING STATE NOISE

‘CONTROL PROGRAMS

States indicating that they currently have a noise control
Program were asked to rate their efforts in noise control.
Choices were: Too Much, About Right, Not Enough, and Do Not Know.

Only those respondents indicating that they currently have a

noise control program and filling out a questionnaire (6) are
included in this data.

TABLE XVI

RATING OF CURRENT STATE EFFORTS TO CONTROL NOISE

RESPONSE NUMBER
Too Much 0
About Right 0
Not Enough 6

Do Not Know 0

-31-


ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS


fe) ENTS THAT CURRENTLY HAVE, OR DO NOT HAVE, A
STATE NOISE CONTROL PROGRAM

States were asked if they currently had a noise control
program. A noise control program was defined as a program having
the following: funding, staff, equipment, and enforcement of a
law or regulation which includes decibel (noise level) limits in
any one of the following areas: vehicles, property line,
construction and/or land use. The state could be considered to
have a noise control program without specific state legislation
as long as some other federal law or regulation was enforced.

All 20 responding states (based on response to letter or
telephone) are included in the following data.

TABLE XI

NUMBER OF STATES THAT CURRENTLY HAVE A NOISE CONTROL PROGRAM

eS eee eee eee EEE eee

RESPONSE NUMBER
Currently Have A Noise Control Program 8
Currently Do Not have A Noise Control Program 12

~25-


MUNICIPAL SURVEY RESULTS
MUNICIPAL SURVEY RESULTS


LOCAL SURVEY METHODOLOGY

The procedure for distribution of the survey questionnaires
to local noise control programs was as follows:

1. Survey's were sent to 205 municipalities determined
by the National League of Cities as having a noise
control program prior to 1982.

2. Responses were received and tallied for 11 weeks to
ensure best response.

Responses were processed by:

1. Entering properly completed survey data into a
running tally.

2. Following up improperly completed forms with
telephone calls to clarify inconsistent responses.

In order to obtain an idea of the status of those loca.
noise control programs not responding to the survey, ter
programs, one from each U.S.EPA Region, were chosen at random
and contacted by telephone.

-3-


TABLE OF CONTENTS CONTINUED

TITLE PAGE NUMBER
Reasons Given By States Why They Never
Had A Noise Control Program ...csceeeecceseeeees 35
Reasons Given By States That Once Had
Noise Control Programs For No Longer
Having Those ProgramS ...seseceeccseeseveeessees 36

vI. State Noise Control Program Summary ...ceveeseeeeeee 37

VII. Summary Of E.P.A. Regional Noise Technical
Assistance Centers wes sesse cece cee eeeceecteceeveeees 38

VIII. Summary And Conclusions ....ccecseeveccvercecveeeses 40

Reduction In Quantity Of State And Local
Noise Control ProgramS ......ececeecescecceeeees 41

Reduction In Quality Of State And Local
Noise Control Programs .....cecescecevveeceeesee 42

Progress Made By State And Local
Programs Over The Last 8 YearS weveeseseeeeveeee 43

Activity Level And Efforts Of Existing
State And Local Noise Control Programs ......... 44

Usefulness Of Reinstituting A Federal
Noise Control Program ....s cece eee e eee eeeeeeeees 45

Reasons Given By Municipalities And States
For No Longer Having A Noise Control Program... 46

Fate Of U.S.E.P.A. Regional Noise Technical
Assistance Centers ............ see eeeececserens AT

Appendix A - Municipal And State Questionnaires ... A-l
Municipal Questionnaire ....... cece cece cece cece ASl
State Questionnaire ..... cece eee eee crete eens AMT

Appendix B - Second Mailing Letter To States
Not Responding After 6 Weeks ......... Bel

Appendix C - E.P.A. Noise technical Assistance
Center Request For Information
Letter wesc eee eee e cece eee see ewe eeee Col

Appendix D - Local and State Survey Response
And Date Recelved wo... ee ee cesses eeeeee Del


4.

How much progress over the last eight years has been made by
your noise control program irf reducing the noise from each of
the following sources: (Circle the correct response for each)

Significant Minimal No Was Never
Progress Progress Progress A Problem
a. Aircraft SP MP NP WNP
b. Trucks SP MP NP WNP
c. Busses SP MP NP WNP
d. Autos SP MP NP WNP
e. Motorcycles SP MP NP WNP
£. Railroad SP MP NP WNP
Operations
g. Construction SP MP NP WNP
Equipment
h. Fixed Industry SP MP NP WNP
i. Emergency SP MP NP WNP
Vehicles/sirens
Jj. Garbage Trucks SP MP NP WNP
k. Recreation SP MP NP WNP
Vehicles
1. Public SP MP NP WNP
Entertainment
m. Personal SP MP NP WNP
Entertainment
n. Animals SP MP NP WNP
©. Home Power Tools SP MP NP WNP
Pp. Off Road Vehicles sP MP NP WNP
q. Residential SP MP NP WNP
Heating/Cooling
Equipment
r. Commercial SP MP NP WNP
Heating/Cooling
Equipment

s. Other (Specify)

A-3


TABLE IV_CONTINUED

CATEGORY PERCENT RESPONDING
SIGNIFICANT MINIMAL NO WAS NEVER
PROGRESS PROGRESS PROGRESS A_PROBLEM

Public

Entertainment 27% 25% 26% 22%

Personal 27% 29% 30% 14%

Entertainment

Animals 19% 33% 32% 16%

Home Power 15% 18% 33% 34%

Tools

Off Road 5% 22% 35% 38%

Vehicles

Residential 20% 28% 33% 19%

Heating/Cooling

Equipment

Commercial 20% 32% 29% 19%

Heating/Cooling

Equipment

-ll-


INTRODUCTION


TABLE VIII CONTINUED

MUNICIPAL RATING OF VARIOUS FEDERAL NOISE ACTIVITIES

ACTIVITY

Peer Exchange Programs

National/Regional/
State Workshops

Airport Planning

Regional Technical
Assistance Centers

New Product Regulations

VERY

USEFUL

36%
55%

23%
39%

43%

-16-

SOMEWHAT NOT

USEFUL
41%
37%

28%
43%

28%

USEFUL
10%
4%

21%
5%

10%

DO _NOT
KNOW

13%
4%

27%
13%

18%


NEGATIVE:

COLORADO

Dave Gourdin

Sr. Health Physicist
Colorado Dept. of Health
4210 E. 11th Ave.
Denver, Colorado 80220

DELAWARE

R. H. Malemfant

Program Manager

Del. Dept. of National Resources
and Env. Control

P.O. Box 1401

Dover DE, 19903

INDIANA

Conrado Consino

Industrial Hygienist

Indiana State Board of Health
1330 W. Michigan St.

Indpls. IN 46206

KENTUCKY

Patricia S. Tincher
Complaints Coordinator
Kentucky Div. for Air Quality
18 Kelly Rd.

Frankfort, Ky 40601

NEBRASKA

Gene Robinson

Chief, Air Quality Div.
Nebraska Dept. of Env. Control
Box 98922

Lincoln, Nebraska 68509

OKLAHOMA

Emily Allen

Env. Specialist Supervisor
Okla. Sate Dept. of Health
P.O. Box 53551

Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73152

SOUTH DAKOTA

Scott W. Fichtner
Program Scientist
523 East Capitol Ave.
Pierre SD 57501

(303) 331-8665
10/30/89

(302) 736-4791
10/23/89

(304) 633-0147
12/7/89

(502) 564-3382
10/24/89

(402) 471-2189
12/7/89

(405) 271-7003
11/3/89

(605) 773-3153
10/27/89


NORTH CAROLINA

Jay H. Breedlore (704) 259-5897
Field Operations Commander
Ashville Police Dept. 10/17/89

P.O. Box 7148
Ashville, N.C. 28802

James E. Londeree (704) 336-3229
Noise Control Specialist
Charlotte Police Dept. 10/17/89

825 East Fourth St.
Charlotte, N.C. 28202

NORTH DAKOTA

Dennis L. Smetana (701) 852-0111
Admin Lt.
Minot Police Dept. 11/7/89

515 2 Ave. S.W.
Minot, ND 58701

OHIO

Steven M. Carne (513) 443-3903
Zoning Administrator

Inspectional Services 10/18/89

P.O. Box 22

Dayton, Ohio, 45405

William J. Gorber (419) 693-0350
Acting Chief, Enforcement/

Engineering 10/24/89

City of Toledo, Env. Services Div.

26 Main St.

Toledo, Ohio, 43605

OKLAHOMA

Bill Pedergraft (405) 321-1600
Captain, Field Div.

Norman Police Dept. 10/30/89

201-B West Gray

Norman OK 73069

J. Mills No Phone # Given
Zoning/Noise Inspector
Dept. of Planning 10/24/89

200 West Walker
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73112

D-8


INTRODUCTION

Noise pollution is a problem affecting millions of Americans
each day. Noise has been proven to cause both physical (auditory
and non-auditory), as well as psychological damage to human
beings. A person's hearing can be damaged by noise. This is
known as an auditory effect. When physical damage other than
noise induced hearing loss occurs because of noise, it is
referred to as a non-auditory physical effect. Examples of this
are: changes in breathing patterns, ulcers, and stress related
ailments. Noise can also effect the human organism
psychologically by degrading the quality of life through
interferences in communication, sleep, concentration, and
relaxation.

The Noise Control Act of 1971, as amended by the Quiet
Communities Act of 1978, states that "The people of the State are
entitled to an environment free from noise which unnecessarily
degrades the quality of life; that the levels of noise in the
community have reached such a degree as to endanger the health,
safety, and welfare of the people of this State as well as the
integrity of the environment; and that this threat can be abated
by the adoption and enforcement of noise standards embodied in
regulations." A United States Environmental protection Agency
(U.S. EPA) Noise Control Program was established to promote an
environment free from unnecessary noise pollution. However, in
1982, following the U.S. EPA's decision to discontinue the
Federal Noise Control Program, Congress ceased funding for the
program. The basis for discontinuing the federal program was the
administrative assumption that noise abatement and contrel
programs that were initiated at the state and local level would
continue without significant federal assistance.

Concern about the national noise pollution control efforts
without a federal noise control program, prompted an
investigation of the current noise control efforts on the state
and local level.

The purpose of this study 1s to provide an overview of the
status of key state and local noise control programs that served
as a basis for discontinuing a federal program in 1982. This
study is not intended as an in-depth analysis of the noise
pollution control situation in the United States.

While the data gathered in this study may suggest additional
areas of research concern, those areas were not investigated, and
thus, are not addressed here. This study is a summary within the
context of the data obtained through a survey as described.

-1-


STATE SURVEY RESPONSES & DATE RECEIVED

POSITIVE:

CALIFORNIA
Russel B. Dupree

Chief, Office of Noise Control
Dept. of Health Services

Rm. 118

2151 Berkeley Way

Berkeley, CA 94704

CONNECTITCUT

Joseph B. Pulaski

Principal Env. Analyst

Conn. Dept. of Env. Protection
627 Amity Rd.

Bethany Conn. 06525

HAWAII

Thomas Anamizu

Chief, Noise and Radiation Branch
Dept. of Health

591 Ala Moana Blvd.

Honolulu, Hawaii 96813-2498

ILLINOIS

Greg Zak

Noise Technical Advisor
Illinois £.P.A.

P.O. Box 19276
Springfield, Il 62794-9276

MARYLAND

Michael J. Caughlin
Chief, Field Services and
Noise Control Div.

Maryland dept. of Env., Air Management

Admin.
2500 Broening Highway
Dundalk, Md. 21224

NEW_JERSEY

Edward J. DiPolvere

Chief, Office of Noise Control
N.J. D.E.P.

401 East State Street

Trenton, N.J. 08625

(415) 540-2604
12/7/89

(203) 393 0812
10/24/89

(808) 548-4383
12/7/89

(217) 782-6761
12/7/89

(301) 631-3200
12/7/89

(609) 984-4161
10/23/89


FATE OF U.S.5.P.A. REGIONAL NOISE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CENTERS

Of the ten former U.S.E.P.A. regional noise Technical
Assistance Centers, only three remain active in some capacity.

Region II is the only fully active Noise Technical
Assistance Center. This center is currently funded by the New
Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. The New Jersey
center provides services similar to those it carried out while
funded by the federal noise program. Those services include:
training of state noise control officials in noise measurement
and abatement techniques, conducting specialty seminars as
needed, providing technical assistance to communities, and making
noise measurement equipment available to communities.

The Region I, U.S.E.P.A. Noise Technical Assistance Center
is now known as the University of Hartford Engineering
Applications Center. It's activities are only a fraction of
those conducted while under federal funding. Funding is
exclusively by fee. It's current services include: providing
general noise information to communities, conducting noise
seminars as needed, and performing work on a hire basis as
requested,

The Region V, U.S.E.P.A. Noise Technical Assistance Center
is now known as the "Midwest Environmental Assistance Center.'
It too provides only a small fraction of the services it was a
to under the federal program. Funding is by state gran
private industry, and private individuals. It's current ser~
is providing technical assistance to residents at a deferred
cost.

-47-


8. Please indicate the extent to which the following types of
Federal Noise Program assistance would be of significant use
to your municipality's noise abatement and control efforts.
(Circle the correct response for each.)

Very Somewhat Not Do Not
Useful Useful Useful Know

a. Model Legislation vu su NU DNK

b. Man Power vu su NU DNK

¢. Manpower Training vu su NU DNK
/Workshops

d. Noise Control vu su NU DNK
Program On-site
Technical
Assistance

e. Enforcement vu su NU DNK
Procedures

f£. Noise Technical vu sU NU DNK
Assistance Reports

g. Land Use Planning vu sU NU DNK
guides

h. Noise Measurement vu su NU DNK
equipment

i. Public Information vu su NU DNK
Materials

j. Vehicle Inspection VU sU NU DNK
/Maintenance
Procedures

k. Peer Exchange vu su NU DNK
Programs

1. National/Regional/ vu su NU DNK
State workshops

m. Airport Planning vu su NU DNK

n. Regional Technical vu su NU DNK
Assistance Centers

o. New product vu su NU DNK

Regulations

p. Other (Specify)

A-5


FATE U.S.E.P.A, NOISE TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE CENTER METHODOLOGY

A form letter was sent to all former directors of the once
existing U.S.E.P.A. Noise Technical Assistance Centers requesting
written information on the fate of those centers.

Communication by telephone was made to all responding
parties.

Telephone communication was attempted with former directors
not responding to the letter.

-5-


NUMBER OF FULL TIME MUNICIPAL EMPLOYEES THAT USUALLY SPEND MORE

THAN 20% OF THEIR WORK WEEK..ON NOISE CONTROL ACTIVITIES

Municipalities were asked to write in the number of full
time municipal employees (including public safety employees) in
each category who usually spend more than 20% of their work week
on noise control activities.

If a municipality indicated that an individual worked on

noise control activities, although less than 20% of their work
week, that individual has been included in these figures.

TABLE IT
NUMBER OF FULL TIME EMPLOYEES INVOLVED IN NOISE ACTIVITY

CATEGORY NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS
Public Safety / Police 34
Environmental Control 31
Building / Zoning 25
Public Health 12
Planning / Development 5
Public Works 1
Transportation 0

Other 14


REASONS GIVEN BY STATES WHY THEY NEVER HAD A NOISE CONTROL PROGRAM

It was assumed that several questionnaires would reach the
hands of officials in states that never had a noise control
program.

One state responded to this question. However, after
further investigation, it was found that this individual was
unaware that the state in question did have a noise control
program prior to 1981. As a result, this response was relocated
to the proper section.

Of the 20 States contacted, all had a noise control program
prior to 1981.

=35-


Michael T. Little

Dir. of Code Enforcement
Civic Center

Downers Grove, Il, 60515

Nicholas W. Weiss
Lieutenant

Joliet Police Dept.
150 W. Jefferson St.
Joliet, IL 60431

James R. Taylor
Chief of Police
Normal Police Dept.
100 E. Phoenix Ave.
Normal, Il., 61761

IOWA

Shirley Brown

Assistant to City Manager
P.O. Box 447

Sioux City, Iowa, 52001

MARYLAND

Linda MacDermid
Superintendent
Licenses & Inspections
111 Maryland Ave.
Rockville, MD 20850

NEW JERSEY

Pat Hart

Health Officer

Health Dept.

148 N. Main St.
Hightstown, N.J. 08520

Steven L. McKee

Health Officer
Middletown Health dept.
1 Kings Highway
Middletown, N.J. 07748

Northwest Bergen Regional
Health Commission
445-7212 W. Prospect St.
Waldwick, N.J. 07463

D-12

(312) 964-0300
10/17/89

(815) 740-2257

12/7/89

(309) 454-9520
10/17/89

(712) 279-6105
10/17/89

(301) 424-8000 ext.250

11/1/89

(609) 443-4455
11/3/89

(201) 615-2096
11/3/89

No Phone # Given

10/24/89


MUNICIPAL NOISE CONTROL PROGRAM SUMMARY


SURVEY RESPONSE


PROGRESS MADE BY STATE AND LOCAL PROGRAMS OVER THE LAST 8 YEARS

The largest amount of progress made by municipalities in
the last 8 years has been made in the areas of: Public/Personal
Entertainment, Construction Equipment, Fixed Industry, and
Residential/Commercial Heating & Cooling Equipment.

Transportation noise, in the form of Trucks, Buses,
Automobiles, Motorcycles, and Railroad Operations, seems to be
the area in which the least amount of progress has been made on
the local level.

Aircraft noise is not a problem in the majority of
communities surveyed, however, where it is a problem, very little
progress has been made. (See Table IV)

The only two noise categories in which significant progress
has been made on the state level are Fixed Industry and
Commercial Heating/Cooling Equipment.

Extremely little progress has been made at the state level

in: Aircraft, Buses, Railroad Operations, Construction
Equipment, Emergency Vehicles/Sirens, Garbage Trucks, Animals,
and Home Power Tools. (See Table XIV)

The results shown here indicate that neither the states nor
the local municipalities have progressed as they had ceen
expected to after the federal noise control program «as
discontinued.

It is the surveyor's opinion that even those states
municipalities attempting to progress in all noise polls
categories are in need of federal assistance, especially in
area of transportation noise.

~43-


PREFACE


VIRGINIA

A.W. Schwarting
Lieutenant/Service Div. Commander
Charlottsville Police Dept.

606 E. Market St.
Charlottesville, Virginia, 22901

WASHINGTON

William T. Weatherly Jr.
Chief of Police

Pullman Police Dept.
S.E. 260 Kamiaken
Pullman, WA 99163

Cort Horner

Env. Health Services Supervisor
Seattle-King Co. Dept. of Health,
Env. Division

201 Smith tower

Seattle, WA, 98104

WISCONSIN

Radall E. Wergin

Dir. of Env. Health

City of Kenosha Health Dept.
625 52nd St.

Kenosha, WIS. 53140

Roger Halverson
Sergeant

Manitowoc Police Dept.
824 Jay St.

Manitowoc, WI. 54220

David Krey

Technical Coordinator
Milwaukee Health Dept.
841 N Broadway
Milwaukee, WI 53202

Michael Weber
Sanitarian
Health Dept.

P.O. Box 1130
Oshkosh, WI 54902

(804) 971-3375
10/17/89

(S09) 332-2521

11/1/89

(206) 296-4794
10/24/89

(414) 656-8170
10/24/89

(414) 683-4500
10/24/89

(414) 278-3538
11/1/89

(414) 231-1489
10/24/89


WASHINGTON

Longview**
Pullman..cscesecvcccccsecvveveees 6 POS
Seattle...
SPOKANE. se evcceeeveee
Tacoma**

WISCONSIN

Green Bay**
KenoSha...eecescssceeveeseseeceee POS
Milwaukee.....ecee eee cere ee eee ee (POS
OSKOSN. eee sce ererereeeer reer eceee POS
Racine**

West Allis**

Manitowoc. reecceccecceseereecese 6 POS

WYOMING
Laramie**

-24-

.NEG


Q TIME STATE EMPLOYEES THAT USUALLY SPEND MORE THAN

20% OF THEIR WORK WEEK ON. NOISE CONTROL ACTIVITIES

States were asked to write in the number of full time state
employees (including public safety employees, excluding OSHA
employees) in each category who usually spend more than 20% of
their work week on noise control activities.

If a state indicated that an individual worked on noise
control activities, although less than 20% of their work week,
that individual has been included in these figures.

Only those states completing and returning a Survey form
were included in this data.

TABLE XII
NUMBER OF FULL TIME EMPLOYEES INVOLVED IN NOISE ACTIVITY

CATEGORY NUMBER OF INDIVIDUALS
SALEGORY UE INDIVIDUALS
Highways 17

Environmental Control
Public Health
Planning / Development
Parks / Recreation

Motor Vehicles

oF Yb NY BH WU

Other

-26-