About the EPA document collection held by the Noise Pollution Clearinghouse.
Keyword Index: A H L M O P R S W
Title Index: A B C D E L M N P R S U
Large list of titles (no abstracts).
Most useful EPA documents.
A Comparison of Sound Power Levels from Portable Air Compressors Based Upon Test Methodologies Adopted by U.S. EPA and the CEC
PDF
On December 30, 1975, the United States government issued a regulation which set limits on the amount of noise emitted from portable air compressors. This regulation also specified the noise test procedure to determine the maximum sound pressure level of compressors. On Arpil 5, 1978, the Commission of the European Communities (CEC) submitted a propsed directive to the Council of the European Communities, that also would set limits on the noise emitted by portable air compressors within the European Economic Community (EEC). The proposed directive also specified the test procedure to determine the sound power emitted from a compressor. It became evident that both U.S. and European manufacturers may need to perform two separate noise tests on their compressors if they intend to meet both existing U.S. and the proposed EEC noise standards. At the request of industry, U.S. government representatives entered into discussions with representatives of the CEC in November 1975. These discussions led to an agreement between the CEC and the U.S. EPA to jointly conduct comparative noise tests of various size compressors to assess the potential for alignment of the existing U.S. and the proposed CEC test procedures. The test results presented in this report are the end product of those bilateral discussions and technical cooperation between the CEC and the EPA.
Effects of Noise on Wildlife and Other Animals - Review of Research Since 1971
Patricia A. Dufour
PDF
This report represents a survey of the most significant studies since EPA issued its first report concerning noise effects on wildlife in 1971. The report has been divided into three main sections: laboratory animals, domestic animals, and wildlife. Studies within each of the three sections are further arranged by taxonomic groups and/or individual species, depending on the amount of material available. Reports on each species or taxonomic group are presented in four major categories of noise effects: auditory physiological, masking, nonauditory physiological, and behavioral.
Annoyance, Loudness, and Measurement of Repetitive Type Impulsive Noise Sources
L.C. Sutherland, R.E. Burke
PDF
This study was undertaken to evaluate subjective and objective aspects of moderate levels of noise from impulsive sources. The study excluded evaluation of hearing damage risk or annoyance from building vibration by high level impulsive noise, which were covered by recent recommendations of the National Research Council, Committee on Hearing Bioacoustics and Bomechanics, Working Group 69. While the study included original investigations into some of the objective aspects of impulsive noise, a detailed review of the literature on the subjective aspects was emphasized. Based on this available literature, the annoyance and loudness from a wide variety of repetitive impulse noises were evaluated. These results were applied to the evaluation of impulsive noise from a number of specific noise sources. Based on the most pertinent literature, it is tentatively concluded that a subjective impulse correction factor of +7 dB applied to the A-weighted equivalent sound levels of these types of repetitive impulsive noise sources would better define their effective level in terms of annoyance reactions. No additional correction is identified at this time for crest level or repetition rate. Research on subjective correction factors for helicopter blade slap is also reviewed and potential reasons for the smaller subjective correction factors (i.e. 0 to 6 dB) for annoyance response to this type of sound are discussed. It is recommended that refinements to this subjective correction factor be based on the use of standard loudness calculation methods (Stevens Mark VII or Zwicker) modified to include provision for a shorter time constant to reflect subjective response to short duration impulsive sounds. The study also included a brief experimental evaluation of the measurement of a wide variety of simulated repetitive impulsive-type signals varying in duty cycle, repetition rate, pulse frequency, and ratio of peak impulse signal level to continuous background noise level. When repetitive impulses are measured using maximum values of A-weighted (slow) readings on an Impulse Sound Level Meter, no objective correction is necessary in order to measure, with an accuracy of +/- 1.5 dB, the equivalent level (Leq) of the wide variety of impulsive signals investigated.
National Measure of Aircraft Noise Impact Through the Year 2000
Carroll Bartel, Larry Godby, and Louis Sutherland
PDF
This program was undertaken for the Office of Noise Abatement and Control, Environmental Protection Agency, to evaluate the nationwide community impact of aircraft noise through the year 2000, considering a number of aircraft/airport noise reduction alternatives. The study was based on the evaluation of operations of three airports - Los Angeles International, St. Louis, and Washington Dulles. Primary noise reduction alternatives were applied at each of the facilities for the 1987 and 2000 time periods. Secondary abatement alternatives were evaluated for 1987 only. The effectiveness of the various alternatives was measured in terms of the total area impacted under the NEF 30 and 40 contours at the three airports. This area was then increased by a constant factor to obtain an estimate of the impact at the national level. The report also contains an estimate of the total area within the NEF 20 contours and the impacted land area for NEF 20, 30, and 40 exclusive of airport property and water. This study utilized, in part, the much more detailed results for 23 airports from the "Airport Noise Reduction Forecast" study recently completed by Wyle for the Department of Transportation. However, this study differs substancially from the Department of Transportation program in that it is based on analysis at only three airports, includes no cost or population data, extends beyond the year 1987, and focuses only on estimating trends in aircraft noise impact to the year 2000 in order to evaluate the potential requirement for research on new aircraft/airport noise reduction alternatives which may not currently be under development.
The Urban Noise Survey
Sanford Fidell
PDF
Most of the existing social survey data base on community annoyance has been in character and has been concerned primarily with airport and highway related noise. An essential element in assessing the impact of noise in urban areas away from airports and highways is the evaluation of the attitudes of people concerning the noise in the residential environment. A social survey was conducted to sample opinion over the entire range of noise exposure and population density characteristics of non-rural America.The objective of the Urban Noise Survey was to develop a first order relationship between noise exposure and human response as a function of situational and attitudinal variables associated with the life styles of people in various urban environments. This survey differed from prior surveys in the general area of noise pollution in several important aspects: (1) it was specifically designed to study noise exposure not directly related to airport and highway sources; (2) the social survey was made in conjunction with simultaneous physical measurements of noise exposure at sites with widely different noise environments; (3) it was national rather than local in character and was addressed to a broad rather than narrow range of noise exposures and respondents' life styles. Some of the major conclusions are that: (a) exposure to noise typical of many urban (non-aircraft and non-highway) environments produces widespread annoyance, speech interference, and sleep disturbance; (b) a strong relationship was demonstrated between exposure level and the proportion of a community highly annoyed by noise; (c) the prevalence of speech interference is an especially good predictor of annoyance; (d) the number of complaints about noise is a poor predictor of the prevalence of annoyance; (e) demographic factors alone are relatively poor predictors of noise annoyance; (f) freedom from noise exposure is a component of a neighborhood satisfaction, and quiet is highly valued; (g) noises associated with automotive sources are the most pervasive sources of annoying noise in urban areas; (h) annoyance associated with intrusive noise sources may be related to measurable noise exposure from such sources, even when their magnitudes are not as great as the level of overall exposure in a community; (i) there is some evidence that human response to noise exposure at Ldn values in excess of 70 dB is more acute than at lower levels.