PUBLICATION: South China Morning Post
DATE: October 21, 1998
SECTION: News; Pg. 7
DATELINE: South China
South China Morning Post reports more than 100 companies and individuals were convicted last month of noise pollution and other forms of contaminating the environment in South China.
According to the article, of the 103 cases, 27 were related to water pollution, 38 to excessive noise, 16 for air pollution and 22 for illegal waste dumping. The fines ranged from $1,000 to $60,000. Boldwin Construction Company Ltd. was fined $60,000 twice for using mechanical equipment and doing construction work without a valid noise permit. Another company, Paul Y-ITC Construction Ltd., committed its 35th environmental offense for carrying out construction work without a noise permit in May in Central.
The article reports Citybus was fined $16,000 for dumping cleaning fluids down a manhole at its Fo Tan depot. The liquid contained 14 times the recommended limit of particular chemicals, the Environmental Protection Department said.
PUBLICATION: AP Worldstream
DATE: October 20, 1998
SECTION: International News
DATELINE: Budapest, Hungary
AP Worldstream reports a man in Budapest, Hungary, admitted to making a bomb threat when noise from construction project drove him to desperation.
According to the article, a man identified only as Laszlo J., 52, aggravated by noise from a construction site across the street from his home called in a bomb threat in order to get peace and quiet, the state news agency MTI said Tuesday. Police investigators turned up no bomb. Despite the man's plea that the noise drove him to make the call out of desperation, police proceeded with criminal proceedings.
PUBLICATION: The Associated Press
DATE: October 20, 1998
SECTION: State And Regional
DATELINE: Burlington, Vermont
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Chapin Spencer, Progressive Coalition city councilor; Tom Smith, Progressive Coalition city councilor; Colin Campbell, Progressive councilor
The Associated Press reports Burlington, Vermont's, City Council is considering banning personal watercraft from Burlington Harbor on Lake Champlain.
According to the article, the City Council is discussing a ban of personal watercraft, generally known by the trade name Jet Skis, from Burlington Harbor on Lake Champlain. The Council instructed the city Parks and Recreation Commission on Monday to investigate how other towns and cities have banned personal watercraft. "Jet Skis, I believe, are clearly the loudest and most obnoxious of uses on the waterfront," Progressive Coalition Councilor Chapin Spencer said. Spencer and Tom Smith, also a Progressive, sponsored the measure. Spencer said he felt the craft were unsafe, polluted the lake and disturbed the peace for those enjoying the waterfront.
The article reports the suggestion of banning the popular watercraft drew objections from council Republicans. "I look at it as slowly people taking away our freedoms," Republican Councilor Matt Gardy said. "I look at the lake as our last chance for freedom." Progressive councilor Colin Campbell countered, "The lake is already regulated. ... This is not the last frontier of personal liberty. This is not the Wild West. This is Lake Champlain. All we're looking at is studying this." Burlington, unlike most cities, does have the authority to make rules within Burlington Harbor, said city parks director Wayne Gross, who also is the harbormaster.
The article states singling out personal watercraft will not solve the problem of noise and pollution on the lake, according to Mike Gulla, owner of a personal watercraft dealership. "They don't make any more noise than an outboard engine. They don't pollute more than an outboard," he said in an interview. Like any boat on the lake, personal watercraft cannot make a wake within 200 feet of the shore. That means moving about 5 mph, and at that speed the craft don't make very much noise, Gulla said. Banning personal watercraft could also hurt tourism, Gulla said. Many Canadians travel to Burlington and take their crafts out on the lake, he said.
PUBLICATION: City News Service
DATE: October 20, 1998
BYLINE: Cathy Franklin
DATELINE: Santa Ana, California
City News Service reports county supervisors requested noise monitoring and night flights be added to a series of flight tests conducted at California's former El Toro Marine base, a site being considered for a commercial airport.
According to the article, county supervisors voted today to add noise monitoring and night flights to demonstrations designed to help neighbors gauge the noise they could expect from a commercial airport at the El Toro Marine base. A majority of the five-member Orange County Board of Supervisors favors replacing the El Toro Marine Corps Air Station with a commercial airport capable of handling 24 million passengers a year by early next century.
The article reports opponents said the two-day series of flight tests involving some 40 jets would yield little information. They say the demonstrations are a public relations ploy that would not accurately reflect the noise generated by takeoffs and landings of an up-and- running airport. Without a scientific basis, the results would be misleading, said Supervisor Tom Wilson. He said doing the tests between sunrise and sunset also would not simulate the effects at night. Supervisor William Steiner agreed with Wilson. With an estimated cost of $2.8 million, Steiner said any demonstrations need "a major component to justify such an expenditure. That's the problem I have. People are very, very anxious to have data with substance."
The article states Supervisor Charles Smith, a supporter of the military base-to- commercial airport conversion, said an extensive noise analysis will be handled separately, as part of environmental impact studies. But he agreed that placing noise monitors at strategic locations and including night flights would be important. "What I'm looking for is an overall flight demonstration plan which would include night flights," he said, "and which would include a noise monitoring plan as part of that overall demonstration." Supervisor Todd Spitzer supported that change. "I think it would be unfair to sit in my seat and not be willing to gather as much information as possible," Spitzer said. The supervisors will receive the proposal in about 45 days, then decide whether to proceed.
PUBLICATION: The Daily News of Los Angeles
DATE: October 20, 1998
SECTION: News, Pg. N4
BYLINE: Lee Condon
DATELINE: Burbank, California
The Daily News of Los Angeles reports Burbank Airport commissioners voted unanimously Monday to begin a study that could lead to required anti- noise measures, which may include a mandatory curfew on night flights.
According to the article, the airport will begin preparing the Part 161 study, which identifies ways to reduce noise from planes. Work would begin in about 10 weeks, take a year to complete and cost about $ 1 million. No airport has completed the Part 161 process since it was instituted in 1990, making it unclear whether the FAA will use the study to impose a curfew.
The article reports before work starts, officials must still resolve what role the city of Burbank will play in funding the study. Burbank officials, who have made a mandatory curfew their top condition for dropping opposition to airport expansion, last week offered to contribute $250,000 toward the cost of the study - but would not commit to accepting its findings. On Monday, airport commissioners voted to defer Burbank's offer to subcommittees. "If we embark on a lengthy, complicated and expensive study, we'd like the city of Burbank to agree to abide by the results of the study," said Gerald Briggs, an airport commissioner from Burbank. "If it doesn't come out the way they want it to (and) they won't abide by it, then what have we accomplished?"
The article states Burbank Mayor David Golonski said Burbank will not give up its right to fight for a curfew, even if the study leads the Federal Aviation Administration to conclude a curfew is not warranted. "We would never abdicate control to a federal agency," Golonski said. But he also told commissioners that his city supports a relocated and expanded passenger terminal - with curfews - and wants the study process to move forward quickly. Golonski said he was "disappointed" that the commissioners did not accept Burbank's offer of financial help toward the study.
The article goes on to say airport officials must also sort out whether individual airlines will act to avoid a federally imposed curfew by agreeing themselves to adopt a voluntary ban on flights between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. now in place. Airport Executive Director Thomas Greer said he hoped the airport's six commercial airlines would make decisions on the curfew question before the vote. An official of the Air Transport Association, which represents five of the six airlines, said the industry opposes the curfew. Representatives at four of six airlines last week told the Daily News they were considering Greer's request. But Monday, officials at Southwest and United airlines said they would defer to the industry trade group. "Because this is an industry issue we refer these matters to the ATA," said Kristin Nelson, a spokeswoman for Southwest Airlines, the airport's largest carrier. Nelson said ATA officials are drafting an official response to Greer's request which she expects to be completed next week.
PUBLICATION: Evening Standard
DATE: October 20, 1998
SECTION: Pg. 21
BYLINE: Peter Gruner
DATELINE: England
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Fern Gibbon, resident; Jean Heath, resident; Pearl Charoen, resident; Sir Rhodes Boyson, former education minister
The Evening Standard reports anti-noise protesters have recruited former education minister Sir Rhodes Boyson in an effort to restrict fireworks parties to the week of November 5, to celebrate Guy Fawkes night.
According to the article, the protesters say revelers are spreading the traditional Guy Fawkes night over surrounding weekends, to the detriment of neighbors and pets. Former Tory MP Sir Rhodes said: "We don't want to be killjoys about what is an important tradition, but there is evidence that bonfire night has been getting out of hand. Kept to within the week of November 5, it is fine, and nobody can complain about that. But when you have fireworks parties and associated noise in the weeks leading up to bonfire night, and sometimes happening in the months following, then residents have a right to complain."
The article reports resident Fern Gibbon described how the loud bangs from fireworks were already upsetting her grandchildren - despite the fact that bonfire night is still weeks away. She described how her peace was shattered on Sunday night by three explosions. "They sounded like bombs going off and they woke my grandchildren who wouldn't go back to sleep. It was all very disturbing." Jean Heath, from Kenton, said: "I've got eight dogs in the house and three of them get absolutely terrified by the bangs. It seems to go on for weeks."
The article states the protest is being led by Pearl Charoen, who is collecting signatures for a petition to restrict bonfire parties around her home in north Brent. She said: "At times the noise can be deafening and particularly frightening to young children and pets." The RSPCA has already issued its annual warning, saying that pet owners should be extra vigilant. "Horses, particularly, are prone to bolt in fear and can easily injure themselves," a spokeswoman said. Last December the Midland Bank was accused of being "grossly irresponsible" after a fireworks display it sponsored on the edge of the Thames was said to have endangered animals at Battersea Dogs' Home. Pieces of fireworks landed in and on the home, causing dogs sharing kennels to get so excited that they fought each other, while others became distressed. Col. Duncan Green, director general, said: "We wouldn't join any ban on fireworks. All we would say is if you are going to hold a display nearby let us know and give us plenty of notice."
PUBLICATION: The Hartford Courant
DATE: October 20, 1998
SECTION: Town News; Pg. B1
BYLINE: Don Stacom
DATELINE: Enfield, Connecticut
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Scott Kaupin, town councilor; Russ Fiore, resident; Penny Urbanowicz, resident
The Hartford Courant reports neighbors of a crematory in Enfield, Connecticut, were successful Monday night in getting their town council to take action after they voiced complaints about noise from the operation.
According to the article, before the Leete-Stevens funeral home built its new crematory, neighbors campaigned to get the town council to intervene. Despite the homeowners' complaints that Leete-Stevens' body-burning incinerator might spew toxic pollution, create offensive odors, traumatize schoolchildren and ruin their neighborhood's character, the council said it was a zoning matter and out of their hands.
The article reports on Monday night, the neighbors voiced a new concern -- noise complaints -- and within an hour, the council was demanding answers about the case. Several councilors insisted the town attorney take immediate action. Councilor Scott Kaupin said the town administration must work to bridge a "credibility issue" with the neighbors. "My family can't live with this -- this body- burning incinerator wakes me, my wife and our two precious daughters," said resident Russ Fiore. "Mentally, when you hear it roaring you associate it with a burning body." Another resident, Penny Urbanowicz, agreed and told the council "listening to bodies being incinerated isn't something that should be heard. It's bad enough to imagine something like this going on in your neighborhood, let alone listen to it." Several neighbors told the council that they've called police with noise complaints twice since Leete-Stevens began cremations in late September, but no action was taken against the company. Leete-Stevens representatives could not be reached for response Monday night.
The article states when Leete-Stevens applied for zoning permits to build a crematorium behind its South Road funeral parlor, it employed experts to testify to the planning and zoning commission that the operation would be unobtrusive. One commissioner even visited a crematory in South Windsor, and reported back to his colleagues that the noise was not substantial. But neighbors say the noise is similar to an enormous furnace, and is heard outside -- and inside -- nearby homes when the crematory is operating at night.
According to the article, on Monday night, Assistant Town Manager Dan Vindigni reported that Enfield's noise ordinance is unenforceable because it hasn't been approved by the state. The town is working to draft a new one. The state has a noise ordinance on the books, but has no enforcement unit to go after violators, Vindigni said. Councilors directed the town administration to hire a consultant to monitor noise levels around Leete-Stevens, and report violations of the state ordinance to the state Department of Environmental Protection.
PUBLICATION: Los Angeles Times
DATE: October 20, 1998
SECTION: Metro; Part B; Page 1; Zones Desk
BYLINE: Andrew Blankstein
DATELINE: Burbank, California
The Los Angeles Times reports the Burbank Airport's governing body unanimously approved a noise study that could eventually lead to a federally ordered curfew. However, city officials in Burbank are reluctant to commit to findings and withdraw their opposition to a new airport terminal.
According to the article, on Monday the Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority voted 8 to 0 to initiate a Part 161 study, an exhaustive and expensive federal review needed to convert the airport's voluntary restriction on flights between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. to a ban. A mandatory curfew has been the goal of many Burbank residents and their political leaders. The seeming move toward reconciliation did not bring an immediate truce in the years-long feud, however.
The article reports Burbank officials said the city reserves the right to oppose the results of the study, and the city would not relent in its opposition to the authority's plans for a new terminal. Airport representatives insisted the city should have to live with the results of the federal study. Airport officials contend the terminal is needed to accommodate future passenger demand. Burbank noise protesters argue the terminal will bring more flights, causing more noise.
The article states the authority's decision to begin the study follows a decision by the Air Transport Assn., which represents five of Burbank's six airlines, to reject the airport authority's request for a fixed curfew. The association said the airlines need flexibility in flight times to respond to unpredictable factors such as customer demand, mechanical problems and the weather. Although only a few flights now take off before 7 a.m., those flights particularly annoy many neighbors. The airport authority had asked the airlines to agree to a curfew without exceptions. The authority hoped to reach a compromise that would make unnecessary the Part 161 process, the only way under federal aviation law that a mandatory curfew can be imposed.
According to the article, without a deal with the airlines, the airport authority Monday passed the resolution favoring a study and directed the panel's legal committee to determine the scope of the study and who will be hired to conduct it. Officials on both sides concede that setting the parameters for the study is likely to emerge as a central topic of debate between the three Burbank members of the authority and the six others, representing the cities of Glendale and Pasadena. "The real issue is whether the study is going to be done to make Burbank a full partner and achieve the noise mitigation measures this community needs," said Peter Kirsch, Burbank's airport issues lawyer. "If the authority attaches conditions or moves ahead without us, we have no confidence it will resolve the present dispute." Airport authority lawyer Richard Simon said he believes Burbank officials will be pleased with the actions the authority takes, if they keep their expectations in check. "I expect Burbank to participate in the study, but I doubt they will be given control," said Simon, who added that he was concerned over the city's "continuing refusal to accept the federal process, and their insistence on linking the terminal plans to noise." Airport officials said they would separately consider a proposal from the city of Burbank to pay up to $250,000 of the study's expense.
PUBLICATION: The Washington Post
DATE: October 20, 1998
SECTION: Health; Pg. Z22; How & Why
BYLINE: Catherine O'Neill Grace
DATELINE: United States
The Washington Post reports in the United States, pleasant strolls in the autumn are often marred these days by the roaring noise from leaf blowers.
According to the article, the loud noise from leaf blower machines can hurt your ears. Leaf blowers are popular with many people because they make it easier to clear fallen leaves. But they can be dangerous because repeated or prolonged exposure to too much noise can result in gradual hearing loss -- and that loss can be permanent.
The article reports noise is measured in units called decibels. "Too much" noise is generally considered to be exposure to 85 decibels or more over an eight-hour period. The decibel levels of some typical sounds are as follows : whispering voice--20; humming refrigerator-40; normal conversation-60; city traffic, alarm clock-80; lawn mower, motorcycle-90; chainsaw -110; rock concerts, firecrackers-140. Leaf blowers can be as loud as 115 decibels. In some communities, leaf blowers have been banned because of the noise pollution they create. Other communities have placed restrictions on when they can be used.
The article states experts aren't certain how loud noise damages hearing, but excessive noise is damaging and should be avoided. The Mayo Clinic, a medical center in Rochester, Minnesota, says your ears let you know when you have been listening to something too loud for too long. One sign is tinnitus, a ringing in the ear. Tinnitus, which also may sound like hissing, humming or chirping, may indicate that the nerves in the ear have been overstimulated. Although temporary at first, tinnitus can become a permanent, incurable condition. Another sign that noise is too loud is when your hearing seems dulled or muffled, and your ears feel full. The feelings usually last only a few hours to a few days. But over time, noise that causes symptoms like these can result in permanent hearing loss. The National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders (NIDCD) provides information and resources to health professionals, industry and the public. For information, write to the NIDCD Information Clearinghouse, 1 Communication Ave., Bethesda, MD 20892-3456. To speak with an information specialist, call 1-800-241-1044 during regular business hours.
According to the article, raking is a great alternative to using noisy leaf blowers. It's good, old-fashioned, calorie-burning exercise that can earn you a little extra money at the same time. Raking leaves is a fun way to get outdoors in the brisk autumn weather. An hour of vigorous raking burns around 250 calories -- the same amount as a relaxed, hour-long bike ride. While raking, "leave your personal cassette or CD player inside! Your ears will be grateful for the break."
PUBLICATION: The Daily News of Los Angeles
DATE: October 19, 1998
SECTION: News, Pg. N3
BYLINE: Lee Condon
DATELINE: Burbank, California
The Daily News of Los Angeles reports commissioners of California's Burbank-Glendale-Pasadena Airport Authority will meet today to consider a noise study that could lead the federal government to impose a mandatory curfew on commercial flights.
According to the article, the curfew is seen by both sides as the linchpin to whether the airport is allowed to expand its terminals. Burbank residents and airport officials have been arguing for more than ten years about a proposal to relocate the passenger terminal and expand it from 14 gates to 19, enough to handle 10 million passengers a year, about twice the annual volume today. "The thing we hear most is curfew, curfew, curfew," said Burbank City Manager Bud Ovrom. "It has baffled me for five years why the Airport Authority won't compromise on this." Only eight flights would have to be adjusted or eliminated to bring the commercial airlines into compliance with a proposed curfew designed to mitigate jet noise disturbing residents. "Getting a curfew is not going to inconvenience that many flights," said Burbank Councilman Bob Kramer. Airport Executive Director Thomas Greer agreed. "We're talking about the proverbial nonissue that has been blown out of proportion. It's far too entrenched politically," he said.
The article reports officials from the six airlines using the airport are debating whether to impose a curfew on themselves between 10 p.m. and 7 a.m. - thus avoiding a government order. Neil Bennet, a representative of the Airline Transportation Association, said an all-out curfew would be impossible because sometimes planes need to take off or land late because of weather conditions or technical difficulties. However, Burbank city officials have said they understand there may be special circumstances when the curfew would have to be broken. If the airlines don't agree, Greer said the airport will move forward and ask the Federal Aviation Administration to impose the curfew. While Greer doesn't have his answer yet from the airlines, he said he will recommend today that airport commissioners begin a Part 161 study, the first step in securing a mandatory curfew approved by the FAA. At the same time, Reps. Howard Berman, D-Mission Hills, and Brad Sherman, D-Woodland Hills, recently urged the FAA to expedite the process for instituting a mandatory curfew. These developments suggest that Burbank and the airport are working toward cooperation, rather than continuing with the animosity and extensive litigation that has filled the last three years.
The article states stumbling blocks could still remain. Airport executives were surprised Friday when Burbank city officials offered to pay $250,000 - about a quarter of the cost of the curfew study. In exchange, the city insisted on being equal partners in the project. While Greer has said he will recommend going forward with the study, he wrote in a letter to the commissioners Friday that they should first get a commitment from Burbank to live with the results of the study. "If the authority and the city complete the process only to have the city reject the findings of the study, a year's effort and up to $1 million will be wasted and the terminal will be still be held hostage," Greer wrote. Burbank officials have been reluctant to agree to live with the outcome of the study, saying they will continue to fight for a curfew even if it is not ultimately recommended in the study.
According to the article, Ovrom said that if the curfew issue can be taken care of, he expects the other issues will be easier to resolve. He pointed out that in the most recent mediation attempt, Burbank council members backed off from seeking a cap on the number of flights going in and out of the airport, as long as a curfew was in place. "The council was willing to trade nighttime noise for daytime noise, " Ovrom said. The city also wants an approved noise budget, which would prohibit the airport from doing anything that would cause more noise than Burbank residents already cope with. Holden expects both sides can reach an agreement on the issues, but need to first put aside the political rhetoric. "It's kind of like the Hatfields and the McCoys. Why are we fighting?" he said. "Because that's what we do. You look up and say, Why can't we resolve this?" Holden said. "We need to get to the high road and cut a deal."
PUBLICATION: Daily News (New York)
DATE: October 19, 1998
SECTION: Suburban; Pg. 4
BYLINE: Albor Ruiz
DATELINE: New York City, New York
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Rose Marie Poveromo, president of United Community Civic Association; John Procida, member of Bowne Park Civic Association; Joseph Fabio, member of the Bowne Park Association; Nita Lowey, Democratic Representative
The Daily News (New York) reports New York City residents in the borough of Queens, subjected for years to abnormally high levels of noise and air pollution, got a break last week when JFK and LaGuardia were denied flight increases.
According to the article, the House of Representatives recently killed legislation allowing an increase in the number of flights into and out of JFK and LaGuardia. Both New York senators voted in favor of the increase. Opponents say that because both airports are major polluters, such a mandate would have, in effect, granted them and the aviation industry a license to contaminate. Democratic Rep. Nita Lowey, who represents part of Queens and who coordinated the efforts against the bill, called the House action "a great victory for New Yorkers." If the bill had become law, the federal Department of Transportation would have added new slots for take-offs and landings at four of the airports with the heaviest traffic: LaGuardia, JFK, Chicago's O'Hare and Washington's Reagan National. LaGuardia, which handles more than 1,200 flights per day, would have added 36 new slots.
The article reports despite the House action is, it does nothing to resolve existing health and quality-of-life issues raised near the airports, especially LaGuardia. Even before the bill, the number of flights had been increasing. As of Dec. 21, additional daily flights began to take off from LaGuardia. The Natural Resources Defense Council has classified LaGuardia as the U.S. airport with the most neighbors, about 100,000, affected by noise pollution. JFK is seventh on the list. " Noise is only the tip of the iceberg. Air pollution is the biggest part of the problem," said John Procida, a member of the Bowne Park Civic Association. "It affects people's health, especially children." A federal study of air quality in Queens conducted last year found that air in the borough is especially dirty. The main culprits are a half-dozen major highways, three major power plants, and the two airports.
The article states children are the most adversely affected by the contaminated environment. The children of Queens suffer from asthma in disproportionate numbers, especially in areas near the airports. There are about 35,000 asthmatic children in the borough. Their parents have been particularly concerned, because even if pollution does not cause the respiratory condition, there is no doubt it makes it much worse. So residents have organized and are demanding major changes. "Queens used to be a bedroom community. Now it is hard even to get a good night's sleep," said Joseph Fabio, a member of the Bowne Park Association. "We are asking for the number of flights to be decreased instead of increased," Fabio added, "and for the old, noisy planes, like the 727s, to be retired. Also, we want LaGuardia to be closed to air traffic from 11 p.m. to 7 a.m."
According to the article, some residents and activists feel the House vote is a hollow victory. "I feel the same people will reintroduce the bill in 1999," said Rose Marie Poveromo, president of United Community Civic Association and activist in airport issues. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.), was the sponsor of the bill. "Their goal, including Sens. [Patrick] Moynihan and [Alfonse] D'Amato, seems to be to benefit the aviation industry financially," Poveromo said, "and to hell with you and me." If McCain's bill is reintroduced in the next legislative season, activists feel Queens voters should demand from the two New York senators that they vote for health and quality of life, not for greater profits for the aviation industry. "If there is a next time," Fabio said, "we will be ready."
PUBLICATION: Providence Journal-Bulletin
DATE: October 19, 1998
SECTION: News, Pg. 1C
BYLINE: Drake Witham
DATELINE: Burrillville, Rhode Island
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Louis Ducharme, resident; Michael and Linda Boucher, residents; Michael Barr, resident
Providence Journal-Bulletin reports noise problems from loud cars to early morning industrial operations prove challenging to Rhode Island residents.
According to the article, for the last three months Michael and Linda Boucher of Burrillville, Rhode Island, have been ripped from a sound sleep by the grating, metallic squeals of a neighbor's car. "We would understand if it was only for a couple of weeks, until the car was fixed, but it screams all the way down the street and has been waking people up for three months," Linda Boucher said Friday. The Bouchers, who moved to the area eight years ago, just want the noise to stop. But the car's owner has not cooperated, despite being approached by his neighbors, they said.
The article reports the problem of noise has proven a difficult one for residents all over the state. Residents of Peace Dale have been complaining this fall that industrial operations starting as early as 4 a.m. have been waking them up. Providence police have two officers patrolling at night to stem noise problems. And problems in Narragansett near the University of Rhode Island and in Newport have long annoyed residents. When the Bouchers went to the police, they were told that the car noise does not fit under disturbing-the-peace laws and that there is no noise ordinance. Police Chief Bernard Gannon urged them to take the problem to the Town Council, and wrote a letter endorsing a noise ordinance. At the council meeting on Wednesday, Town Solicitor Walter Kane said there is a noise ordinance on the books, but it would never hold up in court. Just over a year ago, a federal District Court judge struck down parts of Newport's anti- noise ordinance as too broad and unconstitutional.
The article states several residents pressed the Burrillville Town Council to draft an enforceable ordinance. Louis Ducharme, 80, said that booming car stereos and rumbling motorcycles cause his house on Centennial Street to vibrate nearly every night. Resident Michael Barr told the council on Wednesday that he has lived in rural areas all over the country, but has never lived in a town as loud as Burrillville. "Some people move to the country so they can enjoy the peace and quiet of nature. Others move to the country so they can make noise, " he wrote in a letter to the council. "In towns like Burrillville, two worlds collide, and the noisemakers win."
According to the article, the Bouchers' tape recording of the screeching neighbor's car proved convincing to the council, making them cover their ears and eventually ask that it be turned off. Kane is considering drafting an ordinance similar to one that has cut down on noise in Woonsocket. Resident Ray Rabitaille raised a concern at the meeting that Burrillville would crack down on noise levels too hard. He said he was at a party in Woonsocket this summer that was shut down at 11 p.m. That ordinance, which carries a $50 fine, has been enforced strictly beginning on a weekend in mid-June when 57 tickets were handed out. "We don't want to cut out all noise, but if you generalize too much it will be in the eye of the beholder and that's too ambiguous," Michael Boucher said. "I like the idea of having a decibel meter. We need to do something, because this is just driving us crazy."
PUBLICATION: The Providence Journal-Bulletin
DATE: October 19, 1998
SECTION: News, Pg. 1C
BYLINE: Sumathi Reddy
DATELINE: Cumberland, Rhode Island
ACTIVISTS, INDIVIDUALS, AND GROUPS MENTIONED: Pamela Wilcox, president of Concerned Citizens of Cumberland; Christina Lemay, resident
The Providence Journal-Bulletin reports tests performed at a quarry in Cumberland, Rhode Island, show that the quarry meets federal noise and vibration standards, town officials say. Residents questioned the accuracy of the readings and insist the noise from quarry is unacceptable.
According to the article, the seismograph tests are the town's response to longstanding complaints from residents of the area. A seismograph measures the noise and intensity of a blast. The tests have been conducted about 10 times since August, according to Brian DaCosta, the town's building official. The quarry, owned by the Todesca Corp., blasts stone twice a week, which it sells to be made into asphalt. Readings have been taken at the quarry and on Weeks Street, near the quarry. Results from the recent tests have been analyzed by Thomas Instruments, the company that trained four town employees to use the machines, DaCosta said. According to the company, all seismograph results fell "well below the recommended safe vibration and sound limits for blasting" set by the federal Office of Surface Mines and Bureau of Mines, he said. DaCosta conceded that some of the results fell within the "troublesome to humans" range, but he said they were still below the maximum permissible noise levels set by the federal agency.
The article states concerns among residents about whether the seismograph readings were being conducted properly led to bring up the issue at the most recent Town Council meeting. Pamela Wilcox, president of the Concerned Citizens of Cumberland, a group formed mainly to address concerns about the quarry, said she questions whether the readings could have been performed consistently, accurately, and at the proper locations, by town officials who only recently learned to use a seismograph. According to Town Councilor Theresa J. Melvin, the mayor assured the council that most readings have come back within proper limits. Town officials try to take readings of every blast, but DaCosta said that because quarry representatives notify the town of blasts only an hour before they occur, that is not always possible. Melvin said the council is going to consider establishing two ordinances, one that would require the quarry to give 24 hours advance notice for all blasts, and another that would fine the quarry if noise levels were exceeded. While town officials maintain that the quarry is operating within legal limits, residents complain that the loud blasting has become progressively worse.
According to the article, people who live near the quarry have long considered it an unwelcome neighbor, saying that the blasts affect their houses, yards and tranquillity. The quarry was the subject of a lawsuit in 1976 which resulted in regulations that set a maximum of 2,500 pounds of explosive and 50 drill holes for each blast. And in 1994, the General Assembly passed a law that establishes a set of rules to regulate all quarries in Rhode Island. The law uses a mathematical formula in regulating the amount of explosive that can be used by a quarry. The closer the blast site is to an abutting property, the less explosive can be used. DaCosta said he is not familiar with that state law, or the earlier court decision. The town's monitoring of the quarry is based solely on the federal mine regulations, he said.
The article reports Christina Lemay, who lives near the quarry, was one of the plaintiffs in the 1976 lawsuit. Recently, Mayor A. Francis Gaschen sent Lemay the results of the latest seismograph readings, along with a copy of Thomas Instrument's analysis of them. The results, wrote Thomas Instruments, showed "a good controlled blasting." Lemay refused to accept that. "Not as far as I can tell you, about being a human seismograph," she said. "They can give us a pile of readings. Any kind of numbers, who knows what they mean?" Lemay said that, on Aug. 14, a blast split one of her antique plates "in half like a piece of butter." The plate hit an antique table, splintering a portion of it, she said. "I was so upset I cried," she said. As a taxpayer who has been fighting the quarry for 25 years, Lemay says the only solution is to shut the quarry down. And the only way to do that, she said, is through the town. "The town has to do something," Lemay said. "I pay my taxes, and they have to do something to protect us."
PUBLICATION: Los Angeles Times
DATE: October 18, 1998
SECTION: Metro; Part B; Page 16; Zones Desk
DATELINE: Los Angeles, California
The Los Angeles Times published a letter to the editor from resident Richard A. Cole of Toluca Lake objecting to expansion and noise at Universal's Park. Cole writes:
Re "Panel Tells Studio, 'Quiet on the Set' at Night" Oct. 8.
Your coverage of the Universal expansion continues to strike out on real noise issues, of which late-night explosions during film production do not top any list.
As an honest-to-goodness, real-life Toluca Lake resident, residing within 300 to 400 yards of the park, I have yet to lose any sleep due to late-night explosions or gunfire. What I, and hundreds of my fellow Tolucans are really subject to every day and every evening, are explosions and gunfire (among other excessive noises) from rides and attractions.
Once again, Universal has managed to put a "spin" on expansion plans put before the Regional Planning Commission by making a huge issue out of late-night filming. The real noise problems occur during operating hours of the theme park. Construction for the expansion, which could run 24 hours per day, 7 days per week for 15 years, would dwarf any excessive noise from filming. These are the true noise issues--not filming.
Universal's master plan will continue to meet heavy opposition from every direction until the needs of the people most affected are dealt with realistically. Their immense competitive disadvantage, as attorney-lobbyist-spin doctor George Mihlstein puts it, is really their leadership, not late-night film production.
PUBLICATION: Los Angeles Times
DATE: October 18, 1998
SECTION: Metro; Part B; Page 12; Editorial Writers Desk
DATELINE: Los Angeles, California
The Los Angeles Times published letters to editor from residents about the proposed El Toro Airport. Byron Edwards of Orange County is opposed to the new airport:
"The prediction of the Orange County Business Council (Oct. 10) is that without the conversion of the El Toro airport, some 500,000 Orange county air travelers will not be served, and hence be unable to fly in the year 2020. Assuming $2,000 per trip in current dollars, it appears that the would-be travelers will save $1 billion a year--presumably to spend it at home in Orange County. Not being able to fly has other positive benefits: no lost luggage, no upset stomach from airline food, no leg cramps and sore back, no headaches from breathing airplane fumes. On all counts I vote for no airport at El Toro."
Derek Quinn of Laguna Niguel criticizes the Measure A planning process used for El Toro as too costly:
"This of course is the same group of folks that hijacked the county's planning process via Measure A in order to disengage any alternative. The only difference is that they now use county funds to support their agenda, which is the only thing that's essential. "The economic benefits of an airport are clear," UC San Diego Professor Steven P. Erie states. So why aren't the costs and the runway alignments also clear? Why aren't the economic benefits of the Millennium Plan also clear to everyone?
"The initial estimates were 'the conversion of El Toro won't cost the taxpayers a penny' in the Measure A pamphlets. We've already spent well over $ 20 million in studies alone for a county-owned and -run airport, a tax-exempt government entity. Of that, $3.9 million in county taxpayers' funds were wasted on plans that had to be scrapped for 'environmental improvements' or runway alignment problems, depending on whom you believe. The costs to 'convert' El Toro have grown steadily since Measure A was passed to somewhere between $1.6 billion and $5 billion, depending on whom we hear it from. What this all means simply is Orange County taxpayers will pay for the business a commercial airport at El Toro "stimulates."
"The El Toro Reuse Planning Authority's Millennium Plan developed by South County is the only real alternative to Measure A. I don't expect it to be perfect either, just cheaper and of better overall economic benefit for county taxpayers in the short and the long run."
E.H. Winchester, Sr., Lieutenant Colonel U.S. Marine Corps (Ret.) of Tustin supports El Toro Airport, denying it will cause any noise problems for area residents. Winchester writes:
"I'm astounded at the opposition to El Toro as the answer to the 15-year search for an airport of international status to augment John Wayne Airport. It is needed for the future dynamic economic growth of Orange County, the future Silicon Valley. To develop John Wayne to meet Orange County's future air traffic needs would be disastrous.
"Miraculously, El Toro has become the answer to the long airport search. Suddenly, some people who don't recognize progress when they see it have mounted a barrage of false and misleading propaganda against El Toro. I pray that people will be able to recognize facts over falsity. I have lived in north Tustin for 37 years; at no time have any El Toro cargo or passenger aircraft flown over my house after takeoff. The preliminary approach and departure path proposed by the Orange County El Toro Master Development Program shows that aircraft taking off north will fly over Irvine Lake; aircraft taking off to the east will climb out over the hills. Modern jet cargo and passenger aircraft climb out like 'homesick angels.' No one in north Tustin will ever have any noise problems. Landing aircraft, descending at reduced power from the south or west, won't present noise problems to South County residents.
"The only aircraft that fly over my area are from John Wayne. If El Toro is rejected, the John Wayne air traffic will compound to infinity. One gentleman mentioned 'the terrible traffic problem the El Toro airport would cause.' Los Angeles International Airport is much greater than El Toro will ever be and has solved all its road problems in an excellent manner; as time goes on, so will the road problems of El Toro be solved. With reduced air traffic at John Wayne, the Newport area will gratefully benefit. With El Toro, there won't be any noise problems with the current operating plans. And, what a benefit to all the South County people and businesses that currently must go all the way up to LAX to make flight connections."
PUBLICATION: The Straits Times (Singapore)
DATE: October 18, 1998
SECTION: Money; Pg. 40
DATELINE: Singapore, Asia
The Straits Times (Singapore) reports Singapore's government will award companies who reduce noise levels.
According to the article, noise is one of the main occupational health hazards in industries in Singapore. According to a Manpower Ministry press release, nearly 1,000 workers are reported to suffer from noise -induced hearing loss each year. In an effort to encourage firms to reduce noise levels in their plants, the ministry is introducing the Noise Control Awards next year. Companies will receive awards depending on how successful they have been in using engineering control measures or other technology to reduce noise levels. The merit award requires them to have a maximum noise level of 90 dBA, noise reduction of at least 6 dBA per noise source and total noise reduction of at least 10 dBA. The excellence award requires firms to have a lower maximum noise level of 85 dBA at the entire premises.
The article reports companies interested need to apply for the awards. Applications can be obtained from several the ministry's Department of Industrial Health. Closing date for applications is Jan 18, 1999.
Previous week: October 11, 1998
Next week: October 25, 1998