Explanatory Memorandum to COM(2000)468 - Assessment and Management of Environmental Noise - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
| dossier | COM(2000)468 - Assessment and Management of Environmental Noise. |
|---|---|
| source | COM(2000)468  |
| date | 26-07-2000 |
The objective of this proposal is to establish a common EU framework for the assessment and management of exposure to environmental noise. Public concern about exposure to noise pollution remains high in spite of EU legislation on noise sources and legislation in some Member States and remedial actions at the local level. So far, legislation on environmental noise is divided into two major categories namely, EU legislation on noise emission by products (cars, trucks, aircraft and industrial equipment) - essentially market access laws for type testing of conformity - and Member State legislation on allowable noise levels in the domestic environment. The Green Paper on Future Noise Policy i and underlying studies analysed the characteristics and impact of the EU and Member State approaches. It concluded that the total effect is unsatisfactory. In order to improve the situation, it was suggested to start with: 'a proposal for a Directive providing for the harmonisation of methods of assessment of noise exposure and the mutual exchange of information. The proposal could include recommendations for noise mapping and provision of information on noise exposure to the public. In a second stage consideration could be given to the establishment of target values and obligations to take action to reach the targets'.
In view of these conclusions this proposed Directive supplies the essential elements for a more coherent and effective approach.
First, it seeks to harmonise noise indicators and assessment methods for environmental noise. Noise from different sources has different dose-effect relations and can thus be defined as different pollutants. Second, using these common indicators and assessment methods, it seeks to gather noise exposure information in the form of noise maps. Third, it aims to make this information available for the public. This exposure information will form the basis for action plans at the local level. Equally, it will form the basis for goal setting for improvement at the EU level and for the development of an EU strategy including measures. The Directive requires the Member States to indicate the limit values currently in force or under preparation in terms of the harmonised indicators. It does not seek to set common European-wide noise limits. However, once Member States have published national limits for each pollutant and noise maps and action plans are published, both the public and authorities will be able to compare noise situations, approaches and progress. The Commission believes that this will be a strong mechanism to drive future improvement.
Contents
- 2. scope
- 3. justification for the proposal
- 3.1 Health impact
- 3.2 Economic impact
- 3.3 Consequences of inaction
- 3.4 Relation to other environmental programmes, strategies and policies
- 4. EU Action and Subsidiarity
- 5. Results of consultation of partners
- 6. costs of implementation
- 7. scientific and technical basis
- 7.1 Working Groups
- 7.2 Indicators and effects
- 7.3 Computation and measurement methods
- 8. provisions of the proposal
- ANNEX I Provisions of the Proposal
- 1. Objectives (Article 1)
- 2. Scope (Article 2)
- 3. Definitions (Article 3)
- 4. Implementation and responsibilities (Article 4)
- 5. Noise indicators and their application (Article 5, in connection with Annex I)
- 6. Assessment methods (Article 6, in connection with Article 12, Annex II and Annex VI)
- 7. Noise maps (Article 7)
- 8. Action plans (Article 8)
- 9. Information for the public (Article 9)
- 10. Data Collection at Member State and EU level (Article 10)
- 11. Review and reporting (Article 11)
- 12. Adaptation (Article 12)
- 13. Committee (Article 13)
- 14. Evaluation (Article 14)
- 15. Transposition (Article 15)
- 16. Entry into force (Article 16)
- 17. Addressees (Article 17)
- 18. Annex I (Noise indicators)
- 19. Annex II (Assessment methods)
- 20. Annex III (Mapping software)
- 21. Annex IV (Requirements for noise maps)
- 22. Annex V (Action plans)
- 23. Annex VI (Data to be sent to the Commission)
- ANNEX II Planning and Deadlines
- Transposition
- Noise maps
- Action plans
- Commission
Sound can be generated by many different sources and can be perceived as noise by humans in many different circumstances. Environmental noise, as defined in this proposal, is the sound generated by human activity (road traffic, railways, air transport, industry, recreation and construction) and perceived in the domestic environment (e.g. in and near the home, in public parks, in schools).
In principle this proposal covers all noise but it concentrates explicitly on road transport noise, railway noise, aircraft noise around airports and industrial noise. It does not cover noise produced by animals, by nature, by neighbours and by the exposed person himself, and it also excludes perception of noise at work places and in means of transport.
Environmental noise has several effects on humans i. Since whether or not a person experiences such effects is strongly dependent on individual sensitivity to noise, policy on environmental noise should be based on scientific results in which the variations due to different sensitivity are taken into account.
The most important effect in terms of the number of affected people is so-called annoyance, which can be determined from structured field surveys i. Annoyance is strongly connected with specific effects such as the necessity to close windows in order to avoid sleep disturbance or interference with communication, listening to the TV, the radio or music. Additionally, there is a number of serious medical effects as high blood pressure, mental stress, heart attacks and hearing damage that concern a smaller part of the population. Furthermore there are negative effects on the learning capabilities of children i. It is evident that people reporting noise-induced annoyance experience a reduced quality of life and this is a reality for at least 25% of the EU population. Between 5 and 15% of the EU population suffers serious noise-induced sleep disturbance i.
Present economic estimates of the annual damage in the EU due to environmental noise range from EUR 13 billion to 38 billion i. Elements that contribute are a reduction of housing prices, medical costs, reduced possibilities of land use and cost of lost labour days. In spite of some uncertainties it seems certain that the damage concerns tens of billions of euro per year.
Inaction would mean that the coherence and effectiveness of noise control in the Community would not improve and that the problem of noise would further increase. Furthermore, because of population increase and increase of traffic, including trans-boundary traffic, future mitigation measures would become more expensive. It would also mean that the reduced health quality of about 100 million people in the EU would not be improved.
In 1999 the Council adopted a Strategy on the integration of Environment in the Transport Policy in which the problem of noise from road, rail and air transport is identified as one of the most urgent areas for action. The Communication on Air Transport and Environment i contains recommendations for the harmonisation of noise indicators and assessment methods for aircraft noise and refers to the forthcoming framework Directive on environmental noise. The Transport and Environment Reporting Mechanism (TERM) i has identified the indicator 'exposure of population to traffic noise' in the group 'environmental consequences of transport' and shown that no harmonised methodologies or data are available.
Important elements of this proposed Directive are similar to the contents of the Directive on ambient air quality assessment and management i: viz. data collection in agglomerations; action plans; adequate information for the public; improvement of computation and measuring methods; collection of data and reporting by the Commission. The proposal therefore supplements the air quality Directive, covering another important environmental aspect, particularly for the urban environment. Additionally, the proposal covers several other aspects as noise control in the rural environment and the protection of relatively quiet areas.
As regards industrial noise, Directive 96/61/EC concerning integrated pollution prevention and control sets out the general obligation of all installations covered by its Annex I to take all appropriate preventive measures against pollution - including noise - in particular through the application of best available techniques. This requirement needs to be implemented, at the latest in 2007, through a system of site-specific permits laying down emission limit values and/or equivalent technical measures. Furthermore, permits should contain suitable release monitoring requirements and an obligation to supply the competent authority with data required for checking compliance with the permit.
The proposal aims to protect the health and well-being of members of the public against harmful effects of environmental pollution and as such it contributes to the objectives of the Treaty - Article 175. It is a shared responsibility between the Community and the Member States. Some aspects can best be covered at the EU level, others at national and local level.
The EU dimension of Environmental noise control involves the introduction of common indicators, computation methods and measurement methods for noise exposure, monitoring of noise pollution in the EU and the development of an EU strategy to improve the situation, exchange of information, and legislation on noise emission.
On the other hand, for limit setting, noise maps, action plans, information for the public and use of additional indicators, this proposal gives only minimum requirements, outlines or general objectives and the Member States must apply or develop their own methods and approaches. For some of these aspects the Commission may support the Member States by the publication of guidelines or by the development of European Standards.
Present EU legislation on environmental noise is limited to noise emission at source and covers road vehicles, aircraft, tractors and various types of equipment i. Several proposals for further legislation are presently under discussion in Council and the European Parliament. Where product standards will be necessary to limit environmental noise, common measurement and assessment methods are essential for efficient design of such measures.
In 1999 several working drafts have been discussed in the Commission's Steering Committee on Environmental Noise Policy where all Member States, NGO umbrella groups, Industry (Road, Rail and Air Transport, Machinery), Local Authority networks, and the Commission services are represented. The Steering Committee supported the principles of the proposal. It asked to include the protection of quieter areas and of rural areas (the emphasis of the first drafts was on the noisy urban areas). Opinions were somewhat divided on the action plans and on the issue of EU goals and strategies. Particular emphasis was given to relatively quiet areas and the inclusion of noise mapping and action plans for major roads, railways and airports.
At this stage it is not possible to make accurate estimates of the costs and the benefits that are related to the implementation of this Directive: it depends entirely on the targets set by Member States and the action plans and strategies that will be developed at the local and national level.
An element of the costs that has been studied explicitly is the price of noise mapping and action plans in agglomerations i. It was found that the price of noise mapping varies between EUR 0.15 to EUR 2 per resident, depending on various circumstances. The total costs of the initial noise mapping for agglomerations was estimated to be EUR 50 to 75 million, i.e. EUR 10 to 15 million on an annual basis. No explicit data could be presented on the action planning, but it is reasonable to assume that these will be of the same order of magnitude. The use of common indicators and common measurement and assessment methods allow for some cost savings in the measurement and in the use of information. Several Member States and cities already make noise maps and action plans, and the costs of remaking such noise maps and action plans will be lower than the initial costs, so the additional costs due to the proposed Directive could be EUR 10 to 20 million.
As compared with agglomerations, the making of noise maps and action plans for major roads and railways is somewhat simpler and will cover a smaller number of dwellings and citizens. Furthermore, in about half of the Member States noise mapping, zoning and action plans are already common practice. Consequently the increase of costs is estimated to be similar to that for the agglomerations.
The costs of mapping and the making of action plans for airports will depend on their size and may range from EUR 50 000 to EUR 2 million. For a total of 150 airports this is estimated to add up to EUR 15 million annually. Taking into account that many airports are already subject to some kind of noise mapping or action planning, the total increase of costs will not be larger than EUR 10 million annually.
Overall it is estimated that the annual increase of costs for mapping and action planning as introduced by the proposed Directive is EUR 30 to 40 million, i.e. only a small fraction of the annual damage due to environmental noise.
On the longer term, the proposed Directive should lead to a situation where more cost-effective approaches are applied, where the polluter pays and where less public money is spent.
A Steering Committee and a number of working groups with representatives of the Member States, local authorities, NGOs, industry, WHO and standardisation bodies have supported the Commission with the development of the Directive and it is expected that they will continue to do so.
Two noise indicators, Lden and Lnight, are defined in the proposal. These are based on the recommendations of the Working Group 'Indicators' i which were approved by the Steering Committee.
The primary noise indicator is the day-evening-night level Lden in decibel, which is an indicator for 'annoyance'. The indicator Lden is already in use for aircraft noise in some Member States. The quantity is closely related to the day-night level Ldn, which is widely used in the USA and is also applied in some Member States to characterise aircraft noise.
In order to refine the approach for the protection of the dominant sleeping period, i.e. the night, the Commission proposes the 'overall night-time noise indicator Lnight', following the Steering Committee recommendation. A reduction of the value of this indicator will reduce sleep disturbance and some other specific effects.
Combined with the associated dose-effect relations, Lden and Lnight are indicators able to predict the average response of a population subject to long-term noise exposure in terms of annoyance and self-reported sleep disturbance. These indicators are suitable for planning purposes and for an integrated approach for residential areas, cities and larger areas. In that context they can also be applied to individual dwellings. They are not appropriate for short-term situations that are often related to complaints.
Annoyance (and self-reported sleep disturbance) can be determined by special field surveys. A considerable number of such surveys have already been carried out and an ISO working group i is preparing an international standard for field surveys on noise annoyance, which will further improve the quality of future data.
The value of noise indicators can be determined either by measurement or by computation. Usually, long-term indicators like Lden and Lnight can be more easily and more cheaply computed than measured. For prediction purposes, computation methods are the only option.
None of the computation methods presently used in the Member States satisfies the requirements for modern harmonised methods i.
For the interim period the Commission proposes an approach in which Member States either use their existing national computation methods (adapted to the definitions of the EU noise indicators) or use a recommended existing method (also adapted to the definitions of the EU noise indicators). In principle, the measurement of Lden and Lnight is determined by their definitions. Guidance for actual measurements is given in two ISO standards i.
Article 175 of the Treaty is the legal basis for the proposal because the objectives pursued relate to conservation, protection, improvement of the quality of the environment and the protection of health and welfare.
The detailed explanation of the individual provisions of the proposal are given in Annex I. An overview of the deadlines in the proposal is presented in Annex II.
The aim of the proposal is a common approach on management of environmental noise. This common approach has three major elements: assessment by common methods; information; and appropriate actions.
The purpose of the Directive is to protect EU public against unwanted noise in the domestic environment, as caused by traffic and other mechanical sources.
It is to be noted that in urban zones, the Directive will apply to most areas, except areas that are reserved for purely industrial uses. It is therefore expected that the benefits of any measures to reduce environmental noise in some instances will extend into workplaces such as offices.
The definition for an agglomeration is similar to the definition in the Air Quality Directive (96/62/EC), except the number of inhabitants; in this proposal it is 100 000.
The definitions of the major roads, railways and airports are such that an important part of the noise pollution by the international, national and regional transport systems is covered. The definition for major roads covers all busy regional, national and international roads.
Member States shall designate bodies to implement elements of the proposal, and to inform the public and the Commission. Member States shall also ensure the accuracy of the assessment results.
Lden and Lnight are the two noise indicators to be used in the EU noise policy, in new legislation on noise mapping, acoustical planning or noise zoning and in revising existing legislation on noise mapping, acoustical planning or noise zoning. The proposal requires the assessment of both noise indicators for all the above cases.
No deadline has been set for the introduction of the noise indicators in existing legislation. So Member States may determine an appropriate date.
Within 18 months after the date of entry into force of the Directive the Member States shall inform the Commission on the aspirations or expected limit values for the two noise indicators. The Commission services expect to publish an overview.
Computation methods to determine the value of the noise indicators are a very important element of the assessment methods. The proposal sets out two stages:
1. An interim stage in which either the (adapted) existing national methods or recommended methods are used.
2. A second stage, where the common modern methods are used and Annex II is revised.
In the first stage, effects can be assessed by temporary dose-effect relations as published in interim position papers of the working group Dose/Effects or defined by the Member State. In the second stage, the dose-effect relations of Annex II shall be applied and the comparability and accuracy of the assessment of health effects will improve.
The proposal requires noise maps for large agglomerations (above 250 000 inhabitants), major roads, major railways and major airports, within three years of the date of entry into force of the Directive. It is intended that actions shall be repeated five years later when smaller agglomerations of more than 100 000 join the operation. About 20% of the EU population live in large agglomerations. It has been estimated that the noise-mapped areas near roads, railways and airports will cover another 10 to 20%. In the second phase the smaller agglomerations and the areas with lower noise levels near roads, railways and airports increase the members of the public that is subject to the EU noise-mapping to about 50%.
Action plans shall be made within one year of the deadline for the noise maps. Minimum requirements for these action plans are given in Annex V.
Whether or not violations of national limit values will give rise to actions depends on national legislation, the priorities and financial possibilities of the responsible authorities and on public influence. The latter aspect is supported by Article 9.
Information for the public is a central element of the proposal and the responsible authorities are obliged to inform the public at various stages. The noise maps and action plans shall be published within two months after their approval. Emphasis is given to publication on the Internet or a similar on-line facility.
The Commission proposes that the first step of the collection of noise maps and action plans will occur at Member State level for transmission to the Commission, who will set up a data bank and will publish summary reports.
Article 11 links periodical reporting and the further monitoring and the development of strategies and measures to improve the situation. Goals could be set in terms of the reduction of the number of people that is affected by the environmental noise of specific sources. These goals shall be realistic in the sense that cost-effectiveness and political aspects shall be taken into account. When assessing the benefits of any community noise objectives and implementing strategies, benefits in areas falling outside the scope of this Directive, such as offices, will be taken into account.
The proposal provides that the Commission will adapt the Annexes to technical and scientific progress, in accordance with Council Decision 1999/468/EC.
The proposal provides for a Regulatory Committee within the meaning of Decision 1999/468/EC.
Working group position papers could be the basis for the Commission's proposals for guidelines and for the improvement of Annexes.
It is proposed to have a first evaluation of the Directive seven years after the date of entry into force.
The proposal offers an 18-month transposition period because of the foreseen relation with existing legislation in some Member States.
This is a standard Article.
Standard text.
This Annex provides the details of the two primary noise indicators (Lden and Lnight) and defines their field of application. There are special cases for which additional indicators may be attractive which the Member States are free to apply i.
This Annex covers the three elements of the assessment methods. The first two cover the methods for the measurement and computation of the value of the noise indicators at a specific position. The third covers the dose-effect relations. The text of the proposal offers interim computation and measurement methods and does not yet offer dose-effect relations. The choice of the interim computation and measurement methods is based on a position paper from a working group i.
In general, measurement of Lden and Lnight is more difficult, more time-consuming and much more expensive than computation. Thus, in practice computation plays a dominant role.
Annex III contains preliminary minimum requirements for mapping software. In the future, this Annex will be revised and will provide more details on the requirements and on the quality control of mapping software.
Minimum requirements for noise maps are given. The Commission does not intend to harmonise in detail the presentation of national and local noise maps .
Annex V contains minimum requirements for action plans. It is the intention that the Commission will support the local, regional and national authorities with guidelines.
Annex VI describes the condensed information from noise maps required for an EU overview of the noise situation and its impact on health, since no useful purpose is served if the Commission receives all detailed results of the noise mapping and the action plans. During the interim period the computation and measurement methods are not sufficiently accurate to provide reliable data for low levels of the noise indicators, and the range of noise levels is therefore limited. Once the modern common methods are available the range can be extended.
The required data include information on the number of dwellings with special insulation against noise and on dwellings with a relatively quiet façade. By application of the special dose-effect relations that will be defined for those cases, a proper assessment of the health effects can then be made. If this element is left out major errors will be made in the assessment of the effects.
Given the many dates in the proposal when actions have to be completed, a summary table is given below.
>TABLE POSITION>
>TABLE POSITION>
>TABLE POSITION>
>TABLE POSITION>