Prepared by Alice H. Suter, Ph.D. for the Regional Commission on Airport Affairs October 26, 1994
To: PSRC Expert Panel on Noise and Demand/Systems Management
Panel's Request to the Public for Information
This report will address the Panel's request #2: "Detailed descriptions of any technical reasons why achievement of the noise reduction performance objectives of the Noise Budget and Nighttime Limitations Program established by the POS would not be expected to produce a significant reduction in real noise impacts on-the ground."
The key word in this request is "impacts. The dictionary defines "impact" as "the striking of one body against another" (Urdang and Flexner, 1968). In this case one body is the sound pressure generated by aircraft operations and the other body is the community of individuals living nearby. Interestingly, the Mestre Greve (1994) report commissioned by the Port of Seattle is solely concerned with noise measurement and prediction and makes no mention of the impact on the community. But it is meaningless to describe the details of the noise stimulus without describing its impact on the recipients.
Another significant omission from the Mestre Greve report and in much of the discussion of the noise climate at Sea-Tac is the proposed third runway. The Procedural Order in the matter of the Expert Arbitration Panel quotes Resolution A-93-03 to say that "the region should pursue vigorously ... a third runway at Sea-Tac" and that the third runway "shall be authorized by April 1, 1996 ... [w]hen noise reduction performance objectives are scheduled, pursued and achieved based on independent evaluation, and based on measurement of real noise impacts." This statement implies that the approval of the third runway is an accomplished fact once the Port has established a "significant reduction of real,- noise impacts on-the-ground." Although the prospect of the third runway is seldom mentioned by the Port or its consultant, its specter looms over the community and cannot be separated from the impact of existing noise exposure or of that predicted for 1996.
This report will show that the performance objectives of the
[Page 1]
Noise Budget and Nighttime Limitations Program cannot be expected to produce a significant reduction in real noise impact on the community. There are a number of reasons f or this:
In her testimony before the Panel, Susan Evans pointed out the well-known fact that aircraft noise exposure forecasting is not an exact science. While consultants usually do the best job they can, the outcome is influenced by such a wide variety of factors that the actual levels rarely match the predictions. These factors include the exact mix of Stage II and Stage III aircraft, whether the Stage III aircraft are hush-kitted, re-engined, or manufactured, and if they are manufactured, where they fall in the range of noisy to quiet within the Stage III category. Numbers of operations may also change, as Ms. Evans pointed out, to say nothing of the increased number of operations that could be expected if a third runway were constructed.
Panelists Martha Langelan and Bill Bowlby queried Paul Dunholter from Mestre Greve about the use of the standard noise modeling technique (INM), whether or not it had been tailored to the Sea-Tac airport, and the extent to which it has over predicted or under predicted noise levels. Mr. Dunholter replied that it had not been tailored to Sea-Tac, that most aircraft types were actually measured to be within plus or minus 3 dB and that the total DNL was in the range of 3 dB.
It seems ludicrous to base major policy decisions on a predicted noise reduction obtained using a standard (unmodified) prediction model with a margin of error that is greater than the predicted noise reduction itself. Even if the DNL margin of error were a total of 3 dB, meaning plus or minus 1.5 dB, this margin of error is virtually the same as the predicted 1.55 dB ANEL reduction
[Page 2]
and is dangerously close to the predicted average DNL reduction of 2.1 dB.
FICON:
Neither a decrease in ANEL of 1. 55 dB nor a decrease in DNL of 2. 1 dB will be perceptible to the airport neighbors. This is despite Mr. Dunholter I s statement that the FICON document uses "1. 5 dB as a threshold of significance [of] ... change" and that the FAA uses 1.5 dB as a guideline for the preparation of an EIS. Actually, the drafters of FICON's technical report use a 3-dB increase at DNL 60 dB and a 1.5 dB increase at DNL 65 dB to trigger the need for further analysis. There is nothing in the report to indicate that FICON considers 1.5 dB a significant decrease in noise exposure. The report does state that although it is difficult for individuals to detect a 3-dB change, a community would find such a change "clearly noticeable." It cites no scientific evidence to support this point, however, only a personal communication from William Galloway (FICON, 1992).
FAA Order 1050.1 does establish an increase in DNL of 1.5 dB in noise sensitive areas as a trigger for further analysis, but the FICON report cites no evidence to support this level. It appears to be a policy decision only, although probably a judicious one because it refers to proposed increases in noise exposure level.
Panelist Bill Bowlby states quite rightly that a decrease from a DNL of 90 to a DNL of 87 would not be particularly noticeable, (even though the sound energy would be cut in half), but the same reduction in DNL could be achieved by cutting the number of operations in half, and this would be clearly noticeable.
Sound energy vs. loudness:
The statement in the Mestre Greve report that a reduction in ANEL of 1.55 dB amounts to a reduction of 30 percent is misleading. When only sound energy is considered, a reduction of 3 dB is indeed a reduction of 50 percent, but people's ears do not perceive the same increments. It is a well known concept in psychoacoustics that it takes a reduction of 10 dB to achieve a 50 percent reduction in loudness (Stevens, 1957, 1972; Zwicker and Scharf, 1965). Therefore, a reduction of 1.55 dB amounts to a reduction of only about 8 percent rather than 30 percent, and it is highly unlikely that anyone would notice it. This is why Mr. Bowlby was correct in his assumption that even a 3-dB reduction in sound energy would not be particularly noticeable, whereas a reduction in numbers of operations would be. In this case, people are responding to something besides DNL.
[Page 3]
The same principle holds true for judgments of noisiness, (sometimes referred to as "perceived noisiness"), which have been used to assess peoples' reactions to aircraft noise. Kryter (1984) has found that the 10-dB increase per doubling and halving of noisiness applies up to peak indoor levels of about 80 dB(A), but after that the function becomes somewhat steeper.
What is detectable?
Experiments show that the smallest increment in sound level that people can detect is about 0. 5 to 1 dB in the laboratory. These loudness judgments, are based on the comparison of sounds that occur very close together in time, nearly simultaneously. Investigators have found, however, that after an interval of about one second, the judgments become contaminated by one's ability to remember (e.g. Florentine, 1986). If laboratory subjects have difficulty remembering the loudness of specific sounds after a period of one second, it goes without saying that it would be impossible to remember such small increments in averaged sounds (like DNL) over a period of years, such as from 1990 to 1996. moreover, as we will point out, these judgments become influenced by much more than one's memory.
The question arises, then as to the size of a change, and specifically a decrease, in average noise level that is detectable by a community. The evidence is not at all clear. For example, Fidell and Silvati (1991) measured the long-term annoyance from noise in the vicinity of the Atlanta airport in the residents of a large number of homes either treated or untreated with acoustical insulation. The authors estimate that the acoustical insulation added about 5 dB to the transmission loss of a typical wood frame structure. The investigation found no significant difference in the annoyance of residents in treated as compared to untreated homes. Therefore, the 5-dB reduction in DNL (at least indoors) was not significant.
With respect to decreases in road-traffic noise, de Jong (1990) reports that in general, no significant effect occurs with minor changes, defined as 3 dB or less, but that a positive effect may be expected if the reduction from noise insulation is 12 dB or more. De Jong points out, however, that since costs are involved in erecting barriers or installing insulation, more noise reduction may be necessary for a comparable decrease in annoyance than if there was a reduction in the source itself. It appears, from at least these limited data, that a reduction of somewhere between 5 dB and 12 dB is necessary to produce a noticeable change in the community's reaction. But a reduction in annoyance is even more unlikely in the present case because of certain non-acoustical factors.
[Page 4]
Non-acoustic variables:
The traditional method of evaluating the impact of aircraft/airport noise on communities has been to conduct attitudinal surveys by telephone and, after an analysis of the data, to determine the percentage of the population "highly annoyed" as a function of given levels of aircraft noise in DNL. Research projects in recent years point to the fact that much of the variability in the resulting data is due not only to noise exposure level but to a limited number of attitudinal variables. According to Job (1993), some 60 percent of the variance in group data and only 9-29 percent of the variance in individual data is explained by noise exposure. Much of the rest of the variance is accounted by the following attitudinal factors (Fields, 1993):
In his extensive study of these non-acoustic factors, Fields (1993) does not reject the assumption that there will be changes in annoyance following changes in noise level. The point is that any such changes are likely to be greatly influenced by these three factors: fear, perception of preventability, and sensitivity.
The Schultz curve:
The criterion used to predict the percentage of a community that will be "highly annoyed" by given levels of aircraft/airport noise is a function commonly known as the "Schultz curve," named for the acoustical expert who developed it. Schultz (1978) analyzed a number of studies, plotted some 161 data points, and developed a predictive equation based on a regression analysis of these data. The studies included noise from airports, highways, road traffic, railroads, and tram lines.
Recently, a revision of the Schultz curve was published by Fidell, Barber, and Schultz (1991), which added 15 new studies, making a total of 453 data points. The new curve predicts slightly more annoyance than the original curve at a DNL of about 75 dB and below, and slightly less than before above that point. A relatively similar update of the Schultz curve appears in the FICON (1992) report, which we will assume to be the most recent version.
[Page 5]
According to the latest version of the Schultz curve, the percentage of those highly annoyed residents exposed to the Sea-Tac baseline ANEL of 74.52 dB would have been 35.52 percent, and the percentage exposed to the predicted level of 72.97 dB in 1996 would be 31-05 percent, a decrease of 4.54 percent. Figure 1 shows the predicted percentage of the population highly annoyed according to year, with ANEL plotted in the upper part of the graph. (The reductions in both parameters are barely noticeable on the graph.)
Fig. 1. Percent highly annoyed (open squares) due to corresponding ANEL levels (filled squares). ANEL data are taken from Table 3 of the Mestre Greve report (1994) and the estimated percentages of highly annoyed are calculated from the equation for the updated Schultz curve (FICON, 1992).
[Page 6]
These predictions assume that the calculated noise reductions would be realized, that the Schultz curve accurately describes the population highly annoyed, and that any intervening variables would not be important -- three highly questionable assumptions.
In fact, if the community had been surveyed in 1990 and were to be again in 1996, it would be unlikely that there would be any decrease at all in the percentage highly annoyed. This is true, at least in part, because of the magnitude of the contribution of the three attitudinal variables discussed above. In light of the ever-present threat of the new runway, these attitudinal variables are bound to be critical factors, especially the community's perception of preventability.
As many witnesses have testified, the DNL metric does not tell the whole story. While it is useful in making certain predictions, the way it is used has many shortcomings, and the metric itself needs to be supplemented in many cases.
Other descriptors, such as the "Sound Exposure Level" (SEL) and the "Time Above" (TA) statistic are often recommended for specific locations where speech communication is important (FICON, 1992). There are some 29 schools and colleges located within the DNL 65 dB contour, and aircraft noise is bound to have a serious impact on these students and their teachers. This impact must be assessed before any proper analysis of the current or predicted conditions can occur, let alone any ideas about the installation of a new runway. The use of supplemental measures, such as SEL or TA would be necessary for this assessment.
Another critical element in describing the impact is the number of aircraft operations. In many circumstances, people are more likely to notice changes in the number of operations than in the overall DNL. This is due in part to the need to reduce noise level by 10 dB (rather than 3 dB) to effect a halving of loudness or noisiness. A 10-fold reduction in the number of overflights would also amount to a halving of sound energy, but it would be considerably more noticeable and have a much greater benefit. To state it slightly differently, a Stage III plane is typically about half as loud as a Stage II plane, even though it puts out only about one-tenth the sound energy (Stewart, 1993).
There are two particular circumstances where people are also likely to notice changes in numbers of operations more than changes in DNL. One is in places like schools, where speech communication is critical and the number of interruptions is at least as important as the sound level and the length of each overflight. Another is in situations where people like to spend time out of
[Page 7]
doors Acoustical consultant Noral Stewart has found that in places where people put a high value on enjoying their property out of doors, a single noisy Stage II plane would be preferable to several quieter Stage III planes, even though they might have the same total energy. The reason is that the recipient could "get it over with" and enjoy the period of respite (Stewart, 1993).
This is an important point when considering the impact on the Sea-Tac neighbors, where the beautiful natural setting is a preeminent attraction. With Mount Rainier on one side and Puget Sound on the other, most families in the area want to spend time on their decks. In addition to their homes, residents want to spend recreational and leisure time elsewhere in the impacted area, such as the harbor in Des Moines and the winding paths along the Sound.
Despite their importance, numbers of operations have been omitted from the proposed noise reduction objectives. Perhaps one reason for this is that the Mestre Greve report shows gradually increasing numbers of operations between the base year and 1993, and this trend could very well continue into 1996 and beyond. More importantly, nothing is said about the projected increase in operations that is destined to accompany a third runway.
Severity of exposure:
The Port's projections showing shrinking noise contours between 1991 and 1996 look impressive, but the public should not be misled for a number of reasons. First, as mentioned above, the achievement of the 1996 contours is questionable, and even if they are achieved, the projected reduction in ANEL of only 1.55 dB (or 2.1 dB in the average DNL), is not likely to be noticeable. Also, it is important to remember that noise exposure contour lines are not break points, but represent locations on a continuum of noise levels. This means that moving from just inside the DNL 65 dB contour to a DNL of 63 or 64 dB cannot be expected to provide instant relief, and, for that matter, cannot even be expected to be noticeable.
The fact is that very many residents living within the impacted areas will be exposed to extremely high, barely tolerable levels of noise. Even if the predictions turn out to be accurate, the Port estimates that in 1996, 1300 people will still reside within the DNL 75 dB contour, which has been labeled a "severe exposure" and "unacceptable" by HUD, and by FAR Part 150 as unacceptable for residential land use, even after the incorporation of noise attenuation. Schools and other noise sensitive properties will also be located in this area.
If the predictions are correct, nearly 14,000 people will
[Page 8]
reside in noise levels above DNL 70 dB, considered "significant exposure" and "normally unacceptable" by HUD. An estimated 44,000 people exposed above DNL 65 dB will reside in areas that are considered "normally unacceptable" by HUD, and, according to FAR Part 150, that are "incompatible with residential or school land uses unless measures are taken to achieve additional noise level reductions." (FICON, 1992)
The impact is more severe than the Schultz curve would predict: According to the Schultz curve, approximately 31 percent of the exposed population would be highly annoyed at the predicted DNL of 72.97 dB in 1996. But several investigations have shown that the percentage of persons highly annoyed by aircraft noise is considerably higher than that from other types of transportation noise. The Schultz curve, however, includes all types of transportation noise, with the understandable result that there is a large amount of variability around the single regression curve.
Figure 2, from Fidell et al. (1991) shows the authors' version of the Schultz curve using a quadratic fitting function, which they found accounts for 44 percent of the variance. (Note the wide scatter of data points.) The data in Figure 3 (also from Fidell et al., 1991) should help to explain this variability. The data were collected by Canadian researchers (Hall, et al., 1981) who contrasted annoyance from aircraft noise in the vicinity of the Toronto airport to annoyance from road traffic noise. The graph shows the aircraft noise data points and road traffic noise data points plotted alongside the 1978 Schultz curve. This figure clearly shows that annoyance due to aircraft noise is considerably greater than it is for comparable levels of road traffic noise. Fidell and his colleagues (1991) studied the data from several other airports and found that the aircraft noise data points fell substantially above the Schultz curve in nearly every case.
European and other international noise experts have also found that the Schultz curve underestimates annoyance due to aircraft noise. Dutch researcher Passchier-Vermeer (1993) has summarized the results of various studies of transportation noise. Figure 4, from Miedema (1992) (in Passchier-Vermeer, 1993), shows the relative annoyance from aircraft noise (A), highway noise (H), other road traffic noise (0) , and railroad noise (R) . Aircraft noise is clearly the most annoying. Figure 5, also from Miedema, shows the percent "severely annoyed" as a function of DNL from various noise sources. Aircraft noise is the most annoying transportation noise source, although annoyance from impulse noise appears to be even greater. These annoyance functions are contrasted to the 1978 Schultz curve, shown by the dashed line. At a DNL of 70 dB, the Schultz curve predicts about 25 percent of the exposed population to be severely annoyed, whereas Miedemal's data would predict greater than 75 percent.
[Page 9]
Fig. 2. Updated Schultz curve showing quadratic fit to 453 data points. From Fidell, Barber, and Schultz (1991).
Fig. 3. Relationship among the percentage highly annoyed from aircraft noise(H), road traffic noise (%), and the 1978 Schultz curve. From Fidell Barber, and Schultz (1991).
[Page 10]
Fig. 4. Relative annoyance as a function of noise level in DNL (Ldn for four types of noise source. From Miedema (1992) as cited by Passchier-Vermeer (1993).
Fig. 5. Percentage severely annoyed by various noise sources as a function of noise level in DNL (Ldn) . The 1978 Schultz curve is represented as a dashed line. From Miedema (1992) as cited by Passchier-Vermeer. See also Miedema (1993).
[Page 11]
Additional research from the Netherlands points to the fact that aircraft noise is more disturbing than other types of transportation noise. A study by de Jong and his colleagues investigated the relative disturbance caused by highway traffic, railroad, and aircraft noise in different activities (de Jong et al., 1992). Table I shows the percentage of people disturbed according to noise level, noise source, and category of activity.
ACTIVITY Leq 61-65 dB Leq 66-70 dB
NOISE SOURCE
TALKING
HIGHWAY TRAFFIC 35 45
RAILROAD TRAFFIC 35 35
AIRCRAFT TRAFFIC 75 80
WATCHING TV
HIGHWAY TRAFFIC 25 40
RAILROAD TRAFFIC 60 40
AIRCRAFT TRAFFIC 60 75
LISTENING TO THE RADIO
HIGHWAY TRAFFIC 20 40
RAILROAD TRAFFIC 45 40
AIRCRAFT TRAFFIC 45 50
READING
HIGHWAY TRAFFIC 25 30
RAILROAD TRAFFIC 10 10
AIRCRAFT TRAFFIC 30 35
FEAR
HIGHWAY TRAFFIC 35 40
RAILROAD TRAFFIC 5 5
AIRCRAFT TRAFFIC 30 40
The table shows that aircraft noise is more disturbing than the other noise sources in nearly every category and that the differences increase with increasing noise level. For example, at average levels (Leq) of 66-70 dB the percentage of people expressing disturbance from aircraft noise during talking and watching TV was nearly twice that for the other noise sources. For listening to the radio and reading it was also higher, but the difference was not as dramatic. The authors have also included fear as a category, and the responses indicate that the levels of fear
[Page 12]
associated with aircraft noise were higher than railroad noise but about the same as highway traffic.
In Figure 6, Passchier-Vermeer (1993) has plotted the percentage of people whose activities are disturbed by aircraft noise (from de Jong, 1992) alongside the percentage severely annoyed by aircraft noise (from Miedema, 1992). These data provide yet another indicator that the percentage "highly annoyed" predicted by the Schultz curve, greatly underestimates the percentage of people adversely affected by aircraft noise. For example, at an average level of 70 dB, approximately 30 percent are highly annoyed according to the Schultz curve, compared to. about 60 percent according to Miedemal's curve and up to 80 percent disturbed while talking or watching TV. (While it is true that Passchier Vermeer has plotted her data as a function of 24-hour L- rather than DNL, the approximate relationship should be the same.)
Fig. 6. Percentage severely annoyed (solid line) and the percentage disturbed (data points) by aircraft noise. From Passchier-Vermeer (1993) using the data of Miedema (1992) and de Jong (1992).
[Page 13]
In still another recent study of community annoyance, Bradley (1994) found that annoyance from aircraft noise was substantially greater than would have been predicted by the Schultz curve at airports in Canada, Switzerland, the U.K., Norway, Japan, and Australia.
Various reasons have been suggested for the differences between reaction to aircraft noise and to other transportation noise sources. one of the attitudinal factors mentioned above (Fields, 1993) appears to be more directed toward airports than toward other sources: the belief that authorities could prevent the noise. An additional explanation is that aircraft noise is highly intermittent and is therefore less predictable. Several studies have shown that unpredictable noise produces greater adverse effects than predictable noise (e.g. Glass and Singer, 1972; Percival and Loeb, 1980). According to a model developed by Canadian researchers (Hall et al., 1985 and Taylor et al., 1987, cited in de Jong, 1990) the differences can be explained by using single events, rather than average noise levels.
Once again, it is clear that DNL does not tell the whole story, especially where aircraft noise is concerned, and that the traditionally used Schultz curve underestimates the impact considerably.
The "highly annoyed" criterion is also an insufficient descriptor of the impact:
Several researchers in psychoacoustics have pointed out that the traditional use of the criterion "highly annoyed" is insufficient to characterize the effects of noise. The use of this criterion has been criticized on the grounds that it is such an extreme measure of community reaction, it treats attitudinal data categorically rather than scaling it, and it fails to analyze the distribution of annoyance (see Job, 1993; Griffiths, 1983). Job (1993) cites the finding by Hede et al. (1979) that there are many words that people use to characterize their reactions to noise that do not correspond to "annoyance." Job (1993) points out that "People may react with anger, disappointment, withdrawal, feelings of helplessness, depression, anxiety, distraction, agitation, or exhaustion.... 11 (p. 50) rather than mere annoyance. Thus the inadequacy of the term "annoyance" may account for quite a bit of the unexplained variance.
Perceived control:
Another aspect of reaction to noise that may be closely related to the belief that the authorities could have prevented the noise is that of perceived control over the noise. Studies of the effects of noise on performance and behavior have shown clearly that the severity of human reaction is closely related to one's
[Page 14]
control or even perceived control over the noise (Glass and singer, 1972; Singer et al... 1990). A study of the effects of perceived control over aircraft noise showed a highly significant correlation between perceived control with annoyance scores and a smaller but not statistically significant correlation with subjective health scores (Altena, 1989, cited by Passchier-Vermeer, 1993).
Airports, therefore, provide an ideal example of a situation where, if an expansion occurs against the wishes of a community, feelings of lack of control will be a powerful influence on the community's subsequent reaction.
The components of annoyance and other adverse effects:
It is important to remember that expressions of annoyance, disturbance, or being bothered are not merely "attitudes" but are comprised of specific adverse effects as well as feelings. These effects include interference with sleep, conversation, watching TV, and the enjoyment of one's property. These effects have been described in detail in publications by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and others referenced here. (See especially EPA, 1973 and 1974; Passchier-Vermeer, 1993; and Suter, 1992a and 1992b.)
It is clear from research conducted over the years that the noise levels to which the neighbors of Sea-Tac are exposed is producing adverse effects now -- effects that will not be allayed by reducing the average overall level by 1.55 dB. DNLs of 65 dB to higher than 75 dB are excessive. Many years ago the U. S. EPA identified a DNL of 55 dB as necessary to protect the population against the unwanted effects of noise (EPA, 1974). Recent research confirms the findings of the earlier investigations relied upon by the EPA that high levels of annoyance are often generated at levels well below the DNL of 65 dB used by the FAA and its consultants (Fidell et al., 1985; Fidell et al., 1991; Hall et al., 1981; Miedema, 1992).
The levels of noise in the environment around Sea-Tac adversely affect the teaching-learning relationship, as most teachers will attest. They lead to what has been called "jet-pause teaching." Studies show that such levels may be expected to cause decrements in children's reading skills, long-term recall, and tolerance for frustration (Bronzaft and McCarthy, 1975; Cohen and Weinstein, 1981; Hygge et al., 1993).
These noise levels are well above the DNL of 45 dB identified by the U.S. EPA to protect against sleep interference (EPA, 1974), as well as the levels recommended by other experts on the effects of noise on sleep (Griefahn, 1990; Eberhardt, 1987 and 1990; Vallet et al., 1976 and 1990). They increase the chances of awakening from sleep and they diminish sleep quality by causing people to
[Page 15]
shift from heavier to lighter stages of sleep.
With respect to the extra-auditory health effects of noise, no clear dose-response relationships exist at this time, although there is evidence suggesting adverse health effects from high levels of noise in general (Ising and Kruppa, 1993; Peterson et al., 1978, 1981, and 1983; Rehm, 1983) and some evidence implicating aircraft noise in particular (Hygge et al, 1993; Ising and Kruppa, 1993; Knipschild and Oudshoorn, 1977). The current thinking on the subject is that these effects are most likely mediated psychologically, through aversion to noise. This would make it virtually impossible to predict adverse health effects as a function of noise exposure level. The distinct possibility of adverse health effects does, however, stress the importance of minimizing excessive levels of noise, especially when such factors as preventability and controllability are important contributors.
It should be clear by now that the performance objectives of the Port of Seattle's Noise Budget and Nighttime Limitations Program will not produce a significant reduction in real noise impact on the community. The predicted decreases in ANEL may not occur because they are within the margin of error of such predictions, but, even if they do, they will most likely be imperceptible to the impacted residents. Decreases in DNL of 1.55 dB (or 2. 1 dB) are too small to be noticeable. The statement by the Port's consultant that the noise will be decreased by 30 percent by the year 1996 is misleading, since the ear perceives changes in loudness in much larger increments than the equal energy rule would predict.
The reaction of the community is not likely to change at all between the base year and 1996, and, in fact, may intensify because of the importance of the non-acoustic variables. In the case of Sea-Tac in particular, where there is so much anxiety about the prospect of a third runway and so much skepticism about the responsiveness of the airport authority, non-acoustic factors are destined to play a very important role.
The evidence is also very clear that the use of DNL alone especially in the form of the Schultz curve, greatly underestimates the adverse reaction of the community. It should only be a matter of time before U.S. scientists discontinue the use of the Schultz curve in its present form for the prediction of community reaction to aircraft noise.
Finally, the Panel must consider that the impact of aircraft noise on the community surrounding Sea-Tac is already excessive. It degrades the quality of teaching and learning, it disrupts
[Page 16]
sleep, it interferes with the enjoyment of property and the natural surroundings, and it causes undue disturbance for literally thousands of citizens every day. The levels experienced by Sea- Tac's beleaguered neighbors are already 10 dB to nearly 25 dB above those recommended by the EPA to protect the public health and welfare. The approval of a new runway on the basis of the ephemeral and inadequate reductions forecast for 1996, or even for 2001, is ill advised and would most likely have a pernicious effect on the community.
[Page 17]
REFERENCES Altena, K. (1989). Medische gevolgen van Lawaii. Rapport nr. GA-DR03-01, Leidschendam, VROM, Netherlands. Bradley, J.S. (1994). On dose response curves of annoyance to aircraft noise. Proceedings of Inter-Noise 94, Yokohama, Japan. Bronzaft, A.L. and McCarthy, D.P. (1975). The effects of elevated train noise on reading ability. Environ. & Behavior, 7, 517-527. Cohen, S. and Weinstein, N. (1981). Nonauditory effects of noise on behavior and health. J. Soc. Issues, 37, 36-70. Eberhardt, J.L. (1990). The disturbance by road traffic noise of the sleep of prepubertal children as studied in the home. In: Berglund, B. and Lindvall, T., (Eds.) Noise as a Public Health Problem, Vol. 5, Swedish Council for Building Research, Stockholm. Eberhardt, J.L., Strale, L.O. and Berlin, M.H. (1987). The influence of continuous and intermittent traffic noise on sleep. J. Sound Vib., 116, 445-464. EPA (1973). Public Health and Welfare criteria for Noise. EPA 550/9/73/002, U.S. EPA, Washington, DC. EPA (1974). Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of Safety. EPA 550/9-74-004, U.S. EPA, Washington, DC. FICON (1992). Federal agency review of selected airport noise analysis issues. Federal Interagency Committee on Noise, Washington, DC. Fidell, S., Horonjeff, R., Mills, J., Baldwin, E., Teffeteller, S. and Pearsons, K. (1985). Aircraft noise annoyance at three joint air carrier and general aviation airports. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 77, 1054-1068. Fidell, S. and Silvati, L. (1991). An assessment of the effect of residential acoustic insulation on prevalence of annoyance in an airport community. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 89, 244-247. Fidell, S., Barber, D.S., and Schultz, T.J. (1991). Updating a dosage-effect relationship for the prevalence of annoyance due to general transportation noise. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 89, 221-233. Fields, J.M. (1993). Effect of personal and situational variables on noise annoyance in residential areas. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 93, 2753-2763. [References, P. 1]
Florentine, M. (1986). Level discrimination as a function of duration. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 79, 792-798. Glass, D.C. and Singer, J.E. (1972). Urban Stress: Experiments on Noise and Social Stressors. NY, Academic Press. Griefahn, B. (1990). Research on noise and sleep: Present state. In: Berglund, B. and Lindvall, T., (Eds.) Noise as a Public Health Problem, Vol. 5, Swedish Council for Building Research, Stockholm. Griffiths, I.D. (1983). Community response to noise. In: Rossi, G., (Ed.) Proceedings of the Fourth international Congress on Noise as a Public Health Problem, Vol. 2, Milan, Centro Ricerche e Studi Amplifon. Hall, F., Birnie, S., Taylor, S.M., and Palmer, J. (1981). Direct comparison of community response to road traffic noise and to aircraft noise. J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 70, 1690-1698. Hall, F.L., Taylor, S.M., and Birnie, S.E. (1985). Activity interference and noise annoyance. J. Sound Vib., 103, 237-252. Hede, A.J., Bullen, R.B., and Rose, J.A. (1979). A social study of the nature of subjective reaction to aircraft noise. National Acoustics Laboratories Report no. 79. Canberra, A.C.T., Australian Government Publishing Service. Hygge, S., Evans, G.W., and Bullinger, M. (1993). The Munich airport noise study: Psychological, cognitive, motivational, and quality of life effects on children. In Vallet, M. (Ed.) Noise & Man 93, Noise as a Public Health Problem, 3. 94114 Arcueil Cedex, France Institut National de Recherche sur les Transports et leur Securite. Ising, H. and Kruppa, B. (Eds.) (1993). Larm und Krankheit: Noise and Disease. Stuttgart/New York, Gustav Fischer Verlag. Job, R.F.S. (1993). Psychological factors of community reaction to noise. In Vallet, M. (Ed.) Noise & Man 93: Noise as a Public Health Problem, 3. 94114 Arcueil Cedex, France, Institut National de Recherche sur les Transports et leur Securite. de Jong, R.G. (1990). Community response to noise: A review of recent developments. Environment International, 16, 515-522. de Jong, R.G., Jurriens, A.A., Groot, B. (1992). Geluidhinder in relatie tot gezondheid, Rapport nr 02/92. Projectbureau Noordrand Rotterdam, Rotterdam, Netherlands. Knipschild, P. and oudshoorn, N. (1977). Medical effects of aircraft noise: Drug survey. Int. Arch. Occup. Envir. Health, 40, 197-200. [References, P.2]
Kryter, K. D: (1984). Physiological, Psychological, and Social Effects of Noise. NASA Reference Publication 1115, National Aeronautics and Space Administration, Scientific and Technical Information Branch. Miedema, H.M.E. (1992). Response functions for environmental noise in residential ares. Rapport 92.021. NPIG-TNO, Leiden, Netherlands. Miedema, H. (1993). Response functions for environmental noise. In Vallet, M. (Ed.) Noise & Man 93: Noise as a Public Health Problem, 3. 44114 Arcueil Cedex, France, Institut National de Recherche sur les Transports et leur Securite. Mestre Greve (1994). Noise Validation Methodology in Compliance with PSRC Resolution A-93-03. Prepared for the Port of Seattle by Mestre Greve Associates, Newport Beach, CA. Passchier-Vermeer, W. (1993). Noise and Health. TNO Institute of Preventive Health Care, Leiden, Netherlands. Percival, L. and Loeb, M. (1980). Influence of noise characteristics on behavioral aftereffects. Human Factors, 22, 341-352. Peterson, E.A., Augenstein, J.S., and Tanis, D.C. (1978). Continuing studies of noise and cardiovascular function. LT. Sound Vib., 59, 123. Peterson, E.A., Augenstein, J.S., Tanis, D., and Augenstein, D.G., (1981). Noise raises blood pressure without impairing auditory sensitivity. Science, 211, 1450-1452. Peterson, E.A., Augenstein, J.S., Tanis, D.C., Warner, R., and Heal, A. (1983). In: Rossi, G., (Ed.) Proceedings of the Fourth International Congress on Noise as a Public Health Problem, Vol. 2, Milan, Centro Ricerche e Studi Amplifon. Rehm, S. (1983). Research on extraaural effects of noise since 1978. In: Rossi, G., (Ed.) Proceedings of the Fourth International Congress on Noise as a Public Health Problem, Vol. 1, Milan, Centro Ricerche e Studi Amplifon. Schultz, T. (1978). Syntheses of social surveys on noise annoyance. .J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 62, 377-405. Singer, J.E., Acri, J.B., and Schaeffer, M.H. (1990). Cognitive changes from noise exposure. In: Berglund, B. and Lindvall, T. (Eds.) , Noise as a Public Health Problem, Vol. 4, Swedish Council for Building Research, Stockholm. Stevens, S.S. (1957). On the psychophysical law. Psychol. Rev., 64, 153-181. [References, P.3]
Stevens, S.S. (1972). Perceived level of noise by Mark VII and decibels (E.). J. Acoust. Soc. Am., 51, 575-601. Stewart, N.D. (1993). Comments on Airport Noise Measurement and Evaluation. Submitted to FAA, Office of Chief Counsel, Rules Docket AGC-10, Docket No. 27218, Washington, DC. Suter, A. H. (1992a) . Noise sources and ef f ects: A new look. Sound and Vibration, 26, No.1, 18-38. Suter, A.H. (1992b) . Communication and Job Performance in Noise: A Review, ASHA Monographs No. 28. American Speech- Lanquage-Hearing Assoc., Rockville, MD. Taylor, S.M., Hall, F.L., and Birnie, S.E. (1987). Transportation noise annoyance: Testing of a probabilistic model. J. Sound Vib., 117, 95-113. Urdang, L. and Flexner, S.B. (Eds.) (1968). Random House Dictionary of the English Language. NY, Random House. Vallet, M., Blanchet, V., and Bruyere, J.C. (1976). La perturbation du sommeil par le bruit de la circulation routiere: Etude in situ. Recherche Environnement, 3, 183-212. Vallet, M., Letisserand, D., Olivier, D., Laurens, J.F., and Clairet, J.M. (1990). Effects of road traffic noise on pulse rate during sleep. In: Berglund, B. and Lindvall, T., (Eds.) Noise as a Public Health Problem, Vol. 5, Swedish Council for Building Research, Stockholm. Zwicker, E. and Scharf, B. (1965). A model of loudness summation. Psychol. Rev., 72, 3-26. [References, P.4]