Noise regulations in OECD countries Ariel Alexandre OECD Environment Directorate Paris. France
From a technical point of view, noise abatement actions can be classified into several categories. One can distinguish nnie-
".,..""._.. -miccinn
.... ..."- ........ -.....,
frnm
,%Ai*-
immmcinn. "
.."...
nnkP frnm f i " d .....I_ ~
sources (industries and shops) and noise from mobile sources (aircraft and motor vehicles); and noise from outside buildings and noise from inside buildings. From a policy point of view, noise abatement actions can be divided into three categories that are non-exclusive and that can account for all the technical subdivisions listed above: regulatory instruments-standards and permits . I ?conomic iinstriments-charges, subsidies and compens; rtion * ipsychosociidogical instruments-education and publicity :--^I, .:A..... by usilly lllrula This article primarily describes the regulatory and econom.. . .. ic instruments, as these are most widely usea tor noise abatement purposes in the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) countries Aircraft noise ernlsslon llrnlts
In 1971, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) issued a recommendation concerning noise emission limits to ' be applied to new commercial aircraft models introduced after 1972. This recommendation, which became a regulation in all OECD countries where commercial aircraft are built (US., U.K., Germany and France), has already resulted in a substantial reduction (10-15 dB(A) less) in the noise emitted by new aircraft such as the DCIO, the Tristar. the Airbus, and the Boeing 747. In the US., the regulation on aircraft noise was issued by the Federal Aviation Administration in 1969. and is known as FAR-36. In the short- and medium-term, however, the new noise emission regulations will not be sufficient to significantly reduce the annoyance suffered by people living near airports because: the regulations relate only to new types of aircraft the existing aircraft have an average life of about 20 yr the steady increase in air traffic, to some extent, is negating the noise reductions achieved, which for the moment cover only a small fraction of all aircraft the noisy first-generation aircraft (Boeing 707 and DC6) are the major contributors to annoyance. For all these reasons, it would seem that the engines of existing aircraft could also be modified by retrofitting. Research to date shows that retrofitting would especially reduce noise on landing by 10-15 decibels, whereas noise during take-off would be much more difficuil to abate (only 3 dB(A) less). The caplal cost of such retrofitting would range from $200,000-$1,000,000 per aircraft and the operating cost would increase by 4-9 % . It is estimated that there are about 3,000 jet aircraft not covered by the new standards (excluding aircraft built in east1020
Environmental Science 8 Technology
Policy components-standards,
permits,
charges, subsidies and compensation-of noise abatement programs in effect in the 24-member countries of OECD
ern European countries), and the very substantial modification cost would inhibit voluntary retrofitting. In view of this cost and the fact that only widespread retrofitting would reduce the annoyance to people living near international airports, this measure should be adopted by as many countries as possible. If no: widely adopted, some airlines-those adopting retrofitting for their own aircraft-would be heavily penalized with respect to their competitors.
Motor vehicle noise emission limits The initiative for new vehicie emission standards has now passed from the national to the international ievol, at least in Europe where the Common Market laid down a directive on February 6, 1970, to harmonize the legislation of its member countries regarding the maximum emission noise levels for cars, tractors and buses. The method of measurement is that sugges!ed by the International Standard Organization (EO). It consists of measuring the maximum noise under "normal town driving conditions" during acceleration at full throttle in an intermediate gear, starting from an engine speed corresponding to the speed of maximum torque. The initial speed before acceleration is limited to approximately 30 mph, and the noise recording is made at 25 ft from the vehicle. The present limits are 83 dB(A) for passenger cars, 90 dB(A) for trucks and buses powered by an engine of less than 200 horsepower (DIN), and 92 dB(A) for trucks and buses powered by an engine of more than 200 horsepower (DIN). France, Switzerland, and the Netherlands are also developing methods for measuring noise on stationary vehicles in order to allow the police to make spot checks on vehicles. In addition, France is presently suggesting that all Common Market countries adopt a standard cycle of noise emission, somewhat similar to that which exists for air pollution. The total noise emitted during such a cycle (expressed in the index Leq) would be a much better measure of the annoyance caused by motor vehicles than is the present simplistic measure. Leq the Equivalent Sound Level, is a level of constant sound [in dB(A)] that would have the same energy over a given period as the measured fluctuating sound under consideration In the future, the U.K., Sweden and Switzerland have established the objective of lowering noise standards to 75 dB(A) for private cars ( 8 dB(A) reduction) and to 80 dB(A) for commerical vehicles (10-12 dB(A) reduction). Since two-wheel vehicles are becoming more widely used in certain European countries, the Common Market is now preparing a directive to limit the noise emitted by these vehicles which are, along with heavy vehicles, the main cause of annoyance iv urban areas. In the U.S., as a result of the Noise Control Act of 1972, the first proposed EPA noise regulation, published in the FedVolume 9, Number 12, November 1975
1021
Traffic restraints. Temporary structures at this intersection in Tokyo, Japan, d;veri pedestrian traffic
era1 Register in February 1974, relates to interstate motor carriers. The standards, which would apply to vehicles weighing over 10.000 Ib, would be: 80 dB(A) at 50 fi in speed zones of 35 mph or less; 90 dB(A) at 50 fl in speed zones greater than 35 mph; and 88 dB(A) at 50 ff under stationary conditions with the engine operating at maximum speed. Controls on use Measures for controlling noise from vehicles in use are being adopted in Switzerland, the Netherlands, France and Germany. Work is in progress within IS0 on better techniques for measuring sound production by individual road-users, a prerequisite of effective enforcement of quantified in-use limits. In Switzerland, it is worth mentioning, the long-established restriction on the use of heavy vehicles at night was extended in 1963 to allday on Sundays. These restrictions are apparently enforced without undue dislocation of commerce or excessive traffic flows on other days. Also in Switzerland, the Lausanne Police Noise Squad makes a determined effort to ensure the observance of vehicle use regulations relating to noise. During the past 10 yr, the squad called 20,000 vehicles in for testing. The vehicles, only a small number of which were trucks, had been stopped because of excessive noise. During that same period, 1,900 noisy vehicles were actually confiscated. Although the initiative for aircraft noise emission limits is now at the international level, there is some need for use regulations in this field too. in many European countries, there are landing and take-off procedure regulations, and a ban on night flying from national airports; this latter ban operates, it seems, without undue distortion of air traffic flows at other times. Construction noise Construction noise is a problem that is being tackled in at least four European countries. in France, under a decree of April 1969 and subsequent orders of April 1972. certain types of new construction machinery must be approved by the administration. In addition. retrospective regulations require certain basic noise reduction devices to be fitted to oid pieces of 1022
Environmental Science 8 Technology
equipment that do not have them. A dual standard is observed, with less strict requirements for equipment that is used more than 150 fi from buildings. This mitigates the retrospective effect of the regulations of existing equipment. The objective is to work toward a limit of 80 dB(A) (measured at a distance of 25 feet) for equipment intended for use in urban areas. in the Federal Republic of Germany, the Construction Noise Act of 1965 authorizes the federal government to lay down construction equipment noise emission limits. These regulations include a built-in reduction of the relevant limit [usually by 5 dB(A)] at a specified future date. Equipment that already meets the future limit is officially designated as "in compliance with advanced noise abatement specifications," the intention being to make such equipment more attractive to purchasers and, therefore, to producers. Apart from these emission standards, there are or will be measures for dealing with the total noise emission at construction sites. The German Construction Noise Act provides for overall site noise limits that vary according to the noise sensitivity of the neighborhood. Under powers foreshadowed in a Protection of the Environment Law introduced in the U.K. last year, local authorities, in consultation with the contractors, will be able to set noise requirements for construction sites before work starts. Industrial nolse industrial noise has some of the same characteristics as construction noise, but differs in that it is permanent. Measures to control industrial noise are being taken in Germany. Regulations made under the 1968 IndustrialNoise Act put lim its on noise from industrial premises that vary according to type of locality. In Switzerland, the Federal Employment Act of 1964 requires advance approval of projected industrial installations to ensure compliance with noise "reference limits" drawn up by a federal commission of experts. Under the terms of the U.K. Law mentioned above, local authorities have the power to establish noise zones within which special action can be taken against industrial noise. Noise levels at
factory boundaries will be measured and officially registered. It will then be an offense for those levels to be exceeded without permission (which might be granted if the factory expanded, for example, or returned to full-capacity production). The next stage of the noise abatement operation is to reduce the permitted noise levels at factory boundaries within the zone. The U.K. approach is different from those of the other OECD countries in that no general limits are drawn up. This is because of the belief that a general standard tends either to be too stringent to be reasonably enforceable in all situations, or too lax to produce any real improvement in all but a few localities. It is felt that this highly pragmatic approach will allow local authorities the scope to bring about the greatest “practicable” improvement in their own localities: this is based on the premise that to some extent, the limit of reasonable demands for noise control depends on public attitudes and that those public attitudes may differ from one area to another.
Land use and planning The abatement of noise-at-source through design modification to vehicles and equipment is one very important approach, but there remains a range of measures available to mitigate the continuing disturbance from the major categories of noise. Therefore, several countries have also adopted land-use planning policies in order to avoid the creation of new noise nuisances. Germany, France and Switzerland either already have or plan land-use zoning around airports to prevent additional noise-sensitive development in the most exposed areas. The planning system in the U.K. also is used to prevent noise-sensitive development near airports. Where a major development is taking place de novo, the opportunities for planning to prevent a noise nuisance from arising are at their greatest. The new town of Le Vaudreuil, France, illustrates such planning in a highly sophisticated form. There, the road plan originally envisaged was modified when tests with a scale model showed that it would result in unacceptable noise exposure of dwellings when traffic flows were at a peak. However, even in this case, it did not prove possible to segregate
The member countries of OECD Australia Japan Austria Luxembob rg Belgi u rn The Netherlands Canada New Zealand Denmark Norway Finland Portugal France Spain Federal Republic of Germany Sweden Greece Switzerland Iceland Turkey Ireland United Kingdom Italy United States Members of the Common Market Belgium Denmark France Germany
Ireland Italy Luxembourg The Netherlands
dwellings from main traffic arteries to the extent that would have been ideal from the noise disturbance point of view; screening techniques had to be used to produce satisfactory degrees of noise attenuation. Such systematic planning is, however, possible only in the rather small proportion of development that starts from a “green field” site.
Compensation The U.K. Land Compensation Act 1973 contains provisions intended to tackle the problems that arise when major public works and, in particular, road works are started in developed areas. In the first place, the Act empowers highway authorities to acquire land in addition to the minimum required for the execution of the road works themselves, and to use this land to mitigate the disturbance that the traffic would cause. This might include earth mounds, planting and screening. Houses adjacent to the new or reconstructed road may qualify, at public expense, for noise insulation of doors and windows on the exposed facades. This depends on whether a prescribed noise level (>68 dB(A) during 10% of the time) is exceeded or will be exceeded in front of those facades within 15 yr. Monetary compensation is paid to owners if, despite the provision of insulation, the value of their property declines as a result of the use of the new or reconstructed road. There are additional forms of payment for owner occupiers and tenants who lose their homes as a result of the road works. The Act also applies to disturbance caused by the use of new public facilities other than roads, for example, airport facilities; but, its main benefit is seen as being in the area of road developments. While compensation for noise nuisance may not itself be a noise abatement measure, the existence of compensation may be expected to influence the selection of routes for new roads that will involve disturbances and so incur less outlay in compensation. In other words, a compensation scheme automatically imposes some sort of impact statement procedure. Noise charges Noise emission limits on motor vehicles, aircraft, and construction equipment provide no incentive to manufacturers to do better than the current limits, which reflect no more than the state of technology current at the time they were enacted. The manufacturer, having ensured that his noisiest products in a given category meet the relevant limits may make little effort to ensure that designs presenting less difficulties in quietening are, in fact, as quiet as reasonably possible. Thus the structure of many vehicle regulation systems is such that the same limit applies to all private cars, from high-powered sports models to family run-abouts, with the result that the latter may be noisier than necessary. Noise emission regulations can certainly prevent product types from becoming noisier. This is clearly important in areas such as road haulage, where the trend might otherwise be for increasingly noisy products. However, regulations can have little dynamic effect on promoting the development of quieter designs. This is especially so if regulatory authorities have to accept manufacturers’ own estimates of what noise reductions are feasible. A way of avoiding this latter situation is for governments to acquire independent information, by commissioning their own research work under direction independent of the manufacturers (such as the British government’s Quiet Heavy Vehicle project). Automatic reductions without further negotiation could also greatly improve the effectiveness of emission limits, but consideration must be given to the possible future development of clean technology. A more efficient approach would be to complement the Volume 9, Number 12, November 1975
1023
Thisisnotimeto sendunburnedfhel upthefl With energy costs sky-high, NISA nas two ways to help you save fuel by keeping track of what's in your flue: The new Model 803 Oxygen Analyzer is a rugged on-stack monitor that tells you how much oxygen is present so you know how efficiently you're using expensive fuel. It operates hot so all gases stay above dew points. Sample system is uncomplicated, with minimum maintenance required. And it's not affected by water vapor. The Model 803 can be hooked into devices for excess-air control. The Model 513 Total Combustibles Analyzer tells you continuously. .just how much combustible g a s or vapor i\ present in your flue. I t can adju)( your ft1r.l-to-iir mtio w t o n,iaticully within ilic desired l i n i i t ~for eflicicnt
Send for bulletins two punch against fuel can reduce air-pollutic lems at the same time k CO emissions. For mo plet- rlnto;lr nr holn nn ing MS Div Cer Pitt
system of emission limits with a system of noise charges (taxes). There would be no need to substitute the one for the other. The value of the system of standards is that in principle it provides a ceiling above which the noise output of individual products may not rise. This ceiling gains significance not only from the contribution of individual emissions to total ambient noise, but also from the importance for annoyance of noise peaks standing out from background levels. This beneficial effect of standards should certainly be retained, but in the field of motor vehicles and aircraft, for example, a system of charges penalizing noisier types wiihin the overall limits set by standards could serve to reduce the time needed before those standards could be revised. Vehicles might be taxed at the time of sale according to their type (licenses are usually based on carrying capacity rather than on vehicle type). They might be taxed afterwards according to the length of time during which they emit noise on the roads, by means of a tax on mileage through taxation of fuel. (The Netherlands is considering the possible introduction of such a noise tax on motor vehicles.) Aircraft might also be taxed according to their use: they could be taxed each time they land or take off-the noise tax then becomes a part of the general landing fee paid at each airport. In the near future, Japan may perhaps introduce such an aircraft noise charge. In 1973, France created a flat noise tax for aircrafi passengers in order to raise a fund for compensating the people exposed to unacceptable noise levels around the airports in the I Noise labelling Finally, it is ,,,,v,a,,,y y,,,,,,cIy ,,, France and the US.. of labelling to certain kinds of noise-producing products with a view to influencing consumer choice, and, thereby, the manufacturers' policy. The kind of product that might be selected for labelling would include domestic appliances such as powered lawn mowers and domestic power tools. and recreational vehicles such as snowmobiles and motor boats. The use of labelling could be an alternative to a thoroughgoing system of standards. or of noise charges, or it could be supplementary to them. What is required is a carefully constituted campaign in which the labelling effort is recognized as an educational and informational measure, part Of :I larger program of public awareness of the importance of coritrolling noise. 11,1
_..
..
.
.
.
..
lylylI
.
lms alflcle reflects me views of me author ana nor necesS'arily those
of the OECD.
PLdditional reading
"Trafikbuller-Enalish Sumrnarv" A report issued bv the Swedish Eitate Cornminee 6n Traffic Noige. 1974. Report No. 12151." A report of the S;wiss Federal Council, November 20, 1974. . . - . . -. . .. . - . - . Alexandre, A,, Barae. J. m.. Lamure. C., ana Langaon. k. J.. noao 7iaFfic Noise. Applied Science Publishers, London, i9?5. elugliarello, G., Alexandre, A,, Wakstein, C.,and Barnes. J. R. W., €irvironrnenfal Impact OF Noise Pollufion. Pergamon Press. New \I'ork, N.V., in press.
Arlel Alexandre is head OF the special studies section, responsible for noise studies within the OECD Environment Directorate. He has recently undertaken
noise, and the policy instruments for noise abatement strategies. Alexandre
i CIRCLE I 2 O N READER SERVICE CARD
1024 EnvironmentalScience & Technology
Coordinated by LRE
