1. EIONET NRC meeting, 26-27 October 2011, Copenhagen 1 Stylianos Kephalopoulos 1, Stephen Turner 2 1 European Commission, DG Joint Research Centre, Institute for Health and Consumer Protection 21027-Ispra(VA), ITALY 2 DEFRA, Noise & Nuisance, Area 5A, Ergon House, Smith Square, London, SW1P 3JR, United Kingdom EIONET NRC meeting 26-27 October 2011, Copenhagen CNOSSOS-EU: recent advancements in relation to the upcoming review of Annex II of the END

2. EIONET NRC meeting, 26-27 October 2011, Copenhagen 2 Roadmap 1. Roadmap

3. EIONET NRC meeting, 26-27 October 2011, Copenhagen 3 Roadmap JRC Reference report on CNOSSOS-EU as the basis for the Commission’s Implementing Act to revise Annex II of the Directive 2002/49/EC  The most recent advancement concerns version (3.0) of CNOSSOS-EU which was developed by DG JRC in the period from November 2010 to September 2011 in close liaison with the CNOSSOS-EU Technical Committee which is composed from experts nominated by the Member States and setup under the Regulatory Noise Committee and included also noise experts contributed during the preparatory phase of the CNOSSOS-EU development.  This report forms the basis for the upcoming amendment of Annex II of Directive 2002/49/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council relating to the assessment and management of environmental noise in Europe.

4. EIONET NRC meeting, 26-27 October 2011, Copenhagen 4 Roadmap CNOSSOS-EU Technical Committee Working Groups pertaining to Phase 1 WG/DT 1: Quality framework WG/DT 2: Road traffic noise source WG/DT 3: Railway traffic noise source WG/DT 4: Aircraft noise prediction WG/DT 5: Sound propagation and industrial noise WG/DT 6: Guidance on competence use Nov. 2010 – Dec. 2011 WG/DT 10: Assigning noise levels and population to buildings JRC Reference report on CNOSSOS-EU for strategic noise mapping Implementing Act to revise Annex II of the END Phase 1 WG 9: Data Reporting Mechanism

5. EIONET NRC meeting, 26-27 October 2011, Copenhagen 5 Roadmap CNOSSOS-EU Technical Committee Working Groups pertaining to Phase 2 WG 7: CNOSSOS-EU database WG 8: CNOSSOS-EU reference software WG 11: Burden of Disease estimation WG 12: Pilot studies for validation Dec 2012 2012-2013 2012 End 2014 WG 13: Help desk and training of EU MS Operational and practical implementation of CNOSSOS-EU in EU-27 2013- WG 14: Alignment of existing cross- cutting noise related policies Horizontal cross-institutional WG 2011- Phase 2

6. EIONET NRC meeting, 26-27 October 2011, Copenhagen 6 CNOSSOS-EU WG meetings:  WG/DT 1 (Quality framework), 13 January 2011, 29-30 November or 6-7 December 2011  WG/DT 2 (Road traffic noise source emission), 12-13 January 2011, 16-17 May 2011, 17-18 October 2011  WG/DT 3 (Railway traffic noise emission), 12-13 January 2011  WG/DT 4 (Aircraft noise prediction): 16-17 February 2011, 19-20 May 2011  WG/DT 5 (Sound propagation and industrial noise): 11-12 January 2011, 14-15 April 2011 (restricted) 21-22 June 2011  WG/DT 6 (Guidance on competence use): 15-16 February 2011  WG/DT 10 (Assigning noise levels and population to buildings): 14 February 2011 CNOSSOS-EU Technical Committee meetings:  1 st meeting, 15-16 November 2010  2 nd meeting, 23-24 June 2011 Roadmap CNOSSOS-EU Technical Committee & WGs meetings

7. EIONET NRC meeting, 26-27 October 2011, Copenhagen 7 2. Resolutions of the 2nd CNOSSOS-EU TC meeting (23-24 June 2011)

8. EIONET NRC meeting, 26-27 October 2011, Copenhagen 8 Resolutions of the 2 nd CNOSSOS-EU TC meeting  The CNOSSOS-EU Technical Committee appreciated the work progress and overall endorsed the outcome of WG 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 10, however, recommendations for improvements made for specific issues for each of the aforementioned WGs. Concerning the outcome of WG 1 it was strongly recommended to thoroughly revise its content  As to the revision and finalisation of the JRC Reference report on CNOSSOS-EU it was agreed as a general principle to state that the minimum requirements set in the report for the EU MS in using the core CNOSSOS-EU methodological framework for strategic noise mapping purposes are mandatory, however, the EU MS may use the entire range of capabilities of the CNOSSOS-EU framework whenever appropriate (on the basis of input data and resources availability) GENERAL RESOLUTIONS

9. EIONET NRC meeting, 26-27 October 2011, Copenhagen 9 3. Major changes in CNOSSOS-EU since last EIONET NRC meeting

10. EIONET NRC meeting, 26-27 October 2011, Copenhagen 10 1. The choice of the propagation model of CNOSSOS-EU for strategic noise mapping 2. Redrafted version of the CNOSSOS-EU Quality Framework Major changes in CNOSSOS-EU since last NRC meeting

11. EIONET NRC meeting, 26-27 October 2011, Copenhagen 11 1. The choice of the propagation model of CNOSSOS-EU for strategic noise mapping The choice of the CNOSSOS-EU propagation model The decision about the CNOSSOS-EU propagation part was based on a number of ideal test cases performed by WG 5 and an overall rating of the three methods (HARMONOISE, NMPB 2008 and ISO 9613-2) against six indicators:  precision,  accuracy,  computational speed,  flexibility,  simplicity and  number of parameters

12. EIONET NRC meeting, 26-27 October 2011, Copenhagen 12 1.Precision of the method’s application (i.e., spread of result obtained if applied by different experts including the implementation into software) including the end user. 2. The accuracy of the method indicates how close are the calculated and the ideal measurements results. Here, 'ideal' denotes that no errors are induced by the measurement procedure and reflects the physical reality. 3. The computational speed of the method (i.e., calculation times when applied in both, ideal and real test cases with emphasis put on performance for strategic noise mapping purposes) 4. The flexibility of the method (e.g.: to handle specific weather conditions, particular cross sections like valleys/hills, small barriers, street canyons, lateral diffraction around obstacles, etc) Definition of the six indicators 5. Simplicity of the method (i.e. simpler formulations are preferred compared to complex ones as this increases the traceability of unexpected results during implementation in software and application of the method). It should be underlined that simpler methods would be preferred against complex ones provided that the accuracy of the results is comparable for a defined range of application. 6. The number of the parameters (i.e. the overall number of parameter to handle during software development and application by the end user) The choice of the CNOSSOS-EU propagation model

13. EIONET NRC meeting, 26-27 October 2011, Copenhagen 13 1. Precision Precision is considered essential because it influences the degree of consistency of the assessments. During the CNOSSOS-EU WG/DT 5 restricted meeting in Brussels (13-14 April 2011) 16 ideal test cases were performed. Looking at the deviations in the different software implementations of the same method, no significant differences could be found amongst the three methods evaluated in terms of precision for this specific set of test cases performed. This exercise showed that in order to get comparable precision among different methods, interpretation of method's implementation is an issue of concern. However, it should be underlined that no generalised conclusion can be drawn about which method is best performing in terms of precision as the aforementioned set of test cases performed by the WG/DT 5 is limited. The choice of the CNOSSOS-EU propagation model

14. EIONET NRC meeting, 26-27 October 2011, Copenhagen 14 2. Accuracy Accuracy is considered essential because it allows evaluating the degree of matching among the calculated and measured values (i.e., the degree of correctness of the assessment). No generalised conclusions can be drawn on the accuracy of the three methods evaluated as very few real test case data were made available to test the accuracy. However, the outcome of six real test cases performed by LRPC (France) involving NMPB 2008 and HARMONOISE (version 2.019) showed that NMBP 2008 is better performing compared to HARMONOISE in terms of accuracy. Scoring on accuracy will become available when the three methods (HARMONOISE, NMPB 2008, ISO 9613-1) and the final CNOSSOS-EU methodological framework will be thoroughly tested during the validation of this latter in the context of the CNOSSOS-EU WG 12 on ‘Validation’ (second phase of the CNOSSOS-EU project). The choice of the CNOSSOS-EU propagation model

15. EIONET NRC meeting, 26-27 October 2011, Copenhagen 15 3. Computational speed The relevance of computational speed is half way in the scale of importance as this criterion is still important in terms of the associated cost of the calculations but not as essential as the overall accuracy of the assessment. Only one software implementation tested a commercial version of ISO 9613-2, NMPB 2008 and a non-optimised demo version of HARMONOISE (P2P Version 2.020). Several ideal test cases varying from simple P2P configurations to a noise map representing a small built up area (for this latter case the calculation area was about 0.14 km2 and a 10 m grid was calculated). The calculation speed of HARMONOISE was roughly up to 100 times greater than those of ISO 9613-2 and NMPB 2008 for a grid calculation of an urban area (i.e., strategic noise mapping purpose). However, it was suggested that optimisation of HARMONOISE may potentially reduce by 10 times the computational speed. The total computational speed is affected additionally (1 to 5 times) by the number of meteo classes considered. The choice of the CNOSSOS-EU propagation model

16. EIONET NRC meeting, 26-27 October 2011, Copenhagen 16 4. Flexibility Flexibility is considered essential to appropriately account for and efficiently handling different conditions concerning cross sections, meteorological situations, variability of sources which EU MS may encounter when applying CNOSSOS-EU all over Europe. Amongst the three methods evaluated, HARMONOISE is the most flexible in modelling various specific meteorological situations (a specific description of different meteorological classes is given and different ground impedances are allowed). NMPB 2008 has a slightly less number of ground classes defined and models the meteorological conditions amongst the favourable and homogeneous conditions defined and finally ISO 9613-2 considers only one meteo class. Moreover, ISO 9613-2 may be less appropriate to model sources close to ground, but further specific tests may be developed. All three methods may display problems to correctly model ground discontinuities; however, this is a case for which the associated error is difficult to estimate at the moment. The choice of the CNOSSOS-EU propagation model

17. EIONET NRC meeting, 26-27 October 2011, Copenhagen 17 5. Simplicity Simplicity is of lower relevance compared to the other assessment criteria, since it only concerns the easiness of implementation of the method into the software and the degree of traceability of errors might happen during software implementation or application of the method. The degree of complexity increases substantially from ISO 9613-2 (simple formulas are used) to NMPB 2008 (formulas handling more situations are used with several of them being approximated formulations) and finally the HARMONOISE (more physical phenomena are considered and therefore the formulas are more complex in terms of both, mathematics and interpretation). The choice of the CNOSSOS-EU propagation model

18. EIONET NRC meeting, 26-27 October 2011, Copenhagen 18 6. Number of input parameters Number of parameters is of low relevance if the number of parameters is just slightly different among the different methods. All three methods require the same set of input values for each point to point calculation (i.e., cross section, ground absorption/impedance, vertical objects absorption, source sound power per octave bands, receiver position, number of reflections to consider). The fact that for a whole project (i.e.: a map of one specific agglomeration, or a map of 50 km major road) it might be necessary to define meteorological classes occurrence and appropriateness of the Cmet correction is an issue for the WG 6 on 'Good practice guidelines'. This would eventually be an extra input value required one time for each project (e.g.: one time per agglomeration). The choice of the CNOSSOS-EU propagation model

19. EIONET NRC meeting, 26-27 October 2011, Copenhagen 19 RESOLUTION HARMONOISE - P2P Version 2.020 is superior compared to NMPB 2008 and ISO 9613-2 in terms of inclusion of meteorological effects and ways to treat ground effects, however, it is not suitable for strategic noise mapping as it requires unacceptably long computational times when performing noise mapping in large agglomerations and calculating Lden and Lnight. All three methods comparing pretty well for the number of ideal test cases performed so far in the context of the CNOSSOS-EU WG/DT 5. However no final general conclusion on accuracy could be drawn by the WG/DT 5 experts as this latter issue requires comparison among calculated results against measured data. This task being impossible to perform within the timeframe of this exercise and given unavailability of real data. The choice of the CNOSSOS-EU propagation model

20. EIONET NRC meeting, 26-27 October 2011, Copenhagen 20 OVERALL EVALUATION Considering a cost-benefit based evaluation of the three methods evaluated (HARMONOISE P2P Version 2.020, NMPB 2008, ISO 9613-2) across the six aforementioned criteria (based on limited set of ideal and real test cases), a good compromise for efficiently employing an assessment method for strategic noise mapping purposes, NMPB 2008 is recommended to be the propagation part of the CNOSSOS-EU framework. However, the performance of this module should thoroughly tested by WG 12 on 'Validation' in the context of phase 2 of the CNOSSOS-EU roadmap, especially in relation to accuracy requirements. HARMONOISE is recommended to be used as part of the CNOSSOS-EU methodological framework for handling special situations where meteo and ground effects are obviously very important provided that future evaluations among calculations and measurement data will reveal that the long calculation times incurring (when using HARMONOISE) is well balanced by an adequate increase in accuracy due to the special aspects modelled. The choice of the CNOSSOS-EU propagation model

21. EIONET NRC meeting, 26-27 October 2011, Copenhagen 21 2. Redrafted version of the CNOSSOS-EU Quality Framework Redrafted version of CNOSSOS-EU Quality Framework REVISED OBJECTIVE of the Quality Framework: The process should develop a consistent method of assessment capable of providing comparable results from the strategic noise mapping carried out by Member States to fulfill their obligations under the END.

22. EIONET NRC meeting, 26-27 October 2011, Copenhagen 22 Redrafted version of CNOSSOS-EU Quality Framework REQUIREMENTS of the Quality Framework: 1. The method should be designed to produce plausible noise maps showing plausible results. 2. The precise sources/scope to be included in the strategic mapping should be defined: a. For road transport, such as, exactly which roads should be included in the road noise mapping of an agglomeration. b. For rail transport, such as, exactly which railways, trams and light rail systems should be included in the railway noise mapping of an agglomeration. c. For industry, such as, exactly the industry types to be included in the agglomerations. d. For air transport, such as, the precise airports that should be mapped, in particular in relation to non-major airports affecting agglomerations. In so doing, the burden placed on the non-major airport should be balanced against its aircraft noise impact. A precise definition is required for the source information to be used with airport noise mapping, in particular in connection with flight profiles, dispersion etc.

23. EIONET NRC meeting, 26-27 October 2011, Copenhagen 23 Redrafted version of CNOSSOS-EU Quality Framework REQUIREMENTS of the Quality Framework: 2. The precise sources/scope to be included in the strategic mapping should be defined: e. For agglomerations, exactly how an agglomeration should be defined for the purposes of strategic noise mapping should be defined. 3. It is recognised that it is essential for some input parameters to be included in the mapping, but that others are only significant in specific local situations. To provide consistency, the source Working Groups should identify the essential input parameters. For the purposes of this method, a parameter is considered essential if the range of values the parameter can take across Europe yields variations in the yearly averaged Lden or Lnight at a particular receptor position of more than ±2.0 dB(A) 95% C.I. (all other parameters remaining unchanged). Parameters not considered essential should either be aggregated with the relevant essential parameter, and/or have a default input value defined.

24. EIONET NRC meeting, 26-27 October 2011, Copenhagen 24 Redrafted version of CNOSSOS-EU Quality Framework REQUIREMENTS of the Quality Framework: 4. In the application of the method, the input data for the essential parameters should reflect the actual usage and there should be no reliance on default input values or assumptions of the type found in the Guidelines for Competent Application of CNOSSOS-EU. 5. Taking into account the requirement of (3) above, the accuracy required from the essential input data should be defined. 6.The conditions for including information in the model about obstacles on the propagation path should be defined. 7. A precise definition should be given about how exposure assessments should be carried out, designed to meet the requirement of (1) above. This applies equally to dwelling exposure, area exposure and population exposure.

25. EIONET NRC meeting, 26-27 October 2011, Copenhagen 25 Redrafted version of CNOSSOS-EU Quality Framework REQUIREMENTS of the Quality Framework: 8. In all their decision making the source Working Groups should take account of the cost to MSs of obtaining the required actual input data and of undertaking the periodic strategic noise mapping. This applies especially to the definition of sources to be included of (2) above, to the definition of the essential parameters of (3) above and to the specification of requirements on input data quality of (5) above.

26. EIONET NRC meeting, 26-27 October 2011, Copenhagen 26 4. Outstanding issues

27. EIONET NRC meeting, 26-27 October 2011, Copenhagen 27 Outstanding issues B. The content of chapter III on “Road traffic noise emission source” will be fined tuned according to the resolutions made by CNOSSOS-EU WG 2 in their last meeting took place on 17-18 October 2011 in Ispra. This mainly concerns the three following main issues: 1- source position (both above the road and across the road); 2- regional correction (definition and application or no application); 3- stage at which the frequency distribution is to be applied C. Chapter VII on “Aircraft noise prediction”. The last Noise Regulatory Committee whether decided to not include in the revised Annex II of the END a description on how to handle rotary aircraft (helicopters), military aircraft and engine run-up ground noise. This is due to the additional requirements on the calculation method and supporting data needed and for some EU MS confidentiality of data for military aircraft operations. A. The content of chapter II on “Quality Framework” as recently redrafted will be further discussed and finalised in the next meeting of CNOSSOS-EU WG 1 planned for 29-30 November or 6-7 December 2011 in Bruxelles

28. EIONET NRC meeting, 26-27 October 2011, Copenhagen 28 5. Next steps

29. EIONET NRC meeting, 26-27 October 2011, Copenhagen 29 Next steps NEXT STEPS  EU MS will provide their written feedback to the revised draft of CNOSSOS-EU by 31 October 2011  The description of the core part of CNOSSOS-EU that will form the basis for the legal text to amend Annex II of the END will be finalised in December 2011.  A small drafting group was setup by DG ENV to elaborate the legal text to amend the Annex II of the END. The group is composed from representatives of Germany, France, UK, The Netherlands, Italy, DG ENV and DG JRC. A first meeting of this group is planned for 4 November 2011 in Bruxelles  The Implementing Act by which the amendment of Annex II of the END is expected to take place in the first quarter of 2012.  Then the Phase II of CNOSSOS-EU will start (2012-2015) with the ultimate objective of having CNOSSOS-EU fully operational in the EU MS for the 3 rd round of strategic noise mapping (2017)

30. EIONET NRC meeting, 26-27 October 2011, Copenhagen 30 Reports can be retrieved through DG ENV’s Circa Website: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/noise/ Comments & suggestions welcome at: noise@jrc.ec.europa.eu

31. EIONET NRC meeting, 26-27 October 2011, Copenhagen 31 THANK YOU FOR YOUR ATTENTION! For a healthier, sustainable and less noisy environment Let’s work together