Loading...
11/12/1986 - Airport Relations Commission P I r _.- CITY OF EAGAN AIRPORT NOISE COMMITTEE AGENDA WEDNESDAY NOVEMBER 12, 1986 7:00 P.M. I. ROLL CALL AND MINUTES A. Airport Noise Committee Minutes - October 2, 1986 B. Joint Council - Committee Meeting - September 8, 1986 II. COMMITTEE UPDATE A. Runway 4/22 Extension B. Airport Relocation Study III. OLD BUSINESS A. Eagan- Mendota Heights Corridor 1. Response to Joint Resolution 2. Information Update 3. FAA Position IV. NEW BUSINESS V. DISTRIBUTION A. "Learning to Live with Airports ", Planning Practice (October, 1986) B. Aircraft Noise Comparisons, MPCA (October, 1986) C. Health Effects of Community Exposure to Aircraft Noise, Minneapolis Health Department (July, 1986) VI. ADJOURNMENT MEMO TO: CHAIRMAN BARER AND ALL AIRPORT NOISE COMMITTEE MEMBERS FROM: ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT HOHENSTEIN DATE: NOVEMBER 3, 1986 SUBJECT: AIRPORT NOISE COMMITTEE MEETING FOR NOVEMBER 12, 1986 • A meeting of the Eagan Airport Noise Committee is scheduled for Wednesday, November 12, 1986 at 7:00 p.m. in the Eagan Municipal Center, Conference Rooms A and B. Please contact Jon Hohenstein at 454 -8100 if you are unable to attend this meeting. The following discussion is intended to provide background on those items to be reviewed at the meeting on Wednesday. I. MINUTES A copy of the minutes of the Eagan Airport Noise Committee meeting of October 2, 1986, is enclosed on pages ,5 for your review. These minutes, subject to any change, require approval by the Committee. Also enclosed on pages 7-9 for your review are minutes of the special joint meeting held between the Eagan City Council and the Eagan Airport Noise Committee on September 8, 1986. Officially, these are minutes of the City Council and do not require Committee approval. II. COMMITTEE UPDATE A. Runway 4/22 Extension The Airport has yet to complete the Environmental Impact Study for the Runway 4/22 Extension. As the Committee knows, this was promised in May or June of this year. Since that time, the Airport has concentrated on the Part 150 Study and no expectation has been stated as to the release of the Environmental Impact Study for the public review phase. As a means of review, the hourly runway limits, as prepared in early 1986, have been enclosed on page /p . The Airport contends that the runway extension will enhance the capacity of the second configuration in the left hand column only. In the past, the staff and the Committee have expressed concerns that it may also enhance the top two configurations as well by adding a crosswind component of roughly 10 - 20 operations per hour. To date, Airport officials have insisted that no crosswind component can be included in parallel operations. However, the displacement of the takoff threshold will reduce the number of runway crossings required of individual departing aircraft to one. As landing aircraft clear the runway and departing aircraft roll into position, there will be ample opportunity to cross that single interesection and depart to the southwest. Concerns have I( been raised that the combination of parallel operations and a south bound turn from Runway 22 and a simultaneous configuration could place Eagan in a noise situation involving departures from no fewer than three runways at a time. Staff will be available to discuss the potential for this configuration at the meeting. B. Airport Relocation Study Enclosed for your review on pages // through / are copies of two Minnesota Journal articles concerning the Airport Relocation Study. The Metropolitan Council has agreed to go ahead with the study at the request of Steve Kramer of the city of Minneapolis. These articles review the divergent arguments pertaining to this issue. Further information on the study will be forwarded to the Committee as it becomes available. III. OLD BUSINESS A. Eagan - Mendota Heights Corridor The cities of Eagan and Mendota Heights prepared a joint resolution concerning the corridor several months ago. That resolution was reviewed by the Committee and passed by both City Councils. Enclosed on pages 1,541 - /&p are copies of letters to Mayor Blomquist and Mayor Lockwood representing the Airport's response to the resolution. As you will note, the letter makes reference to the Airport's " responsibility to continue to work toward optimum use of the corridor as originally intended." The City's current debate with the Airport revolves around what that original intent consists of. In addition to the information provided you as part of the October 2 packet, enclosed on pages L'7- ?O please find a copy of the operational order dated February 15, 1974, for the Minneapolis Tower. On page _ J 9 please note that the instructions include a heading of 110 degrees for aircraft on Runways 11 Right and Left. As you are aware, the City's position is that the original intent included a left turn to better utilize the sound absorptive capacities of the corridor, not the runway heading pattern, currently flown. Also enclosed on page a/ are the hourly use summaries for the month of July in five selected years. As you will note, percentage of time in which Runways 29 Left and Right are used for arrivals and departures has decreased since 1983, while arrivals and departures on 11 Right and Left have increased dramatically. A portion of this increase has occurred since 1985 and may be a result of the widening of the corridor through the FAA action. Also enclosed on pages as `V'a 3is a letter from Doug Powers, Air Traffic Manager for the Minneapolis Tower. He states in the letter that his interpretation of the corridor boundary is a runway heading from 11 Right. He further indicates that the northern boundary is a magnetic 090 degrees from Runway 11 Left. 0 The area so described, makes up a cone of over 27 degrees in which traffic can be accommodated. FAA safety separations require only 15 degrees between successive or parallel flights. The City staff is pursuing this matter through the Part 150 Study process. It is evident in the documents prepared for the Study that the current flight pattern places a disproportionate noise impact over certain Eagan neighborhoods while leaving under utilized a large portion of the commercial and indu' rial area between 494 and Friendly Hills. Enclosed on page � is a copy of the contour map reflecting that circumstance. Per the Committee's recommendation, staff is pursuing additional relief in this regard through the City of Mendota Heights and the Metropolitan Council. IV. NEW BUSINESS V. DISTRIBUTION A. Learning to Live With Airports, Planning Practice (October, 1986) Enclosed on pages ;X,5 d is an article from Planning Practice provided to the Committee by Joe Harrison. It reviews the planning issues of airport noise impacts and reviews case studies of city experiences. In general, the article tends to suggest that you should plan compatible land uses ahead of time. This is, of course, what the cities of Eagan and Mendota Heights did. It also references an agreement between the city of Newport Beach and John Wayne Airport. City staff has contacted the city of Newport Beach on this matter and has begun corresponding with the city. B. Aircraft Noise Comparisons, MPCA (October, 1986) Enclosed on pages 30-46 are Aircraft Noise Comparisons prepared by Dave Kelso of the Minnesota Pollution Control Agency. The information compares noise levels of Stage 2 and Stage 3 aircraft on takeoff and landing. Interestingly enough, Stage 3 aircraft were found to be no quieter than Stage 2 aircraft on landing. However, the difference between Stage 2 and Stage 3 aircraft on departure was on the magnitude of 10 decibels in intensity and 2/3 of the duration. Combined, these statistics indicate that Stage 3 aircraft are roughly 1/2 as loud as Stage 2 aircraft and that the duration of the time above 65 decibels is almost half that of Stage 2. Summaries have been included, the graphs excluded, to conserve copies. Members interested in the graphs are free to review them in the master copy. 3 C. Health Effects of Community Exposure to Aircraft Noise, Minneapolis Health Department (July, 1986) Enclosed on pages L..) 69 is a copy of the document prepared by the Minneapolis Health Department concerning health effects of aircraft noise exposure. It gives a brief background of noise and hearing and reviews the specific impacts of aircraft noise. It reviews the areas of activity interference, hearing effects, physiological responses, cardiovascular effects, and other issues of physiology and mental health. VI. ADJOURNMENT The meeting will adjourn at or about 9:00 p.m. Adm istrative Assistant cc: City Administrator Hedges City Planner Runkle City Attorney Hauge Mayor Blomquist City Councilmember Egan JDH /jeh MINUTES OF THE AIRPORT NOISE COMMITTEE MEETING Eagan, Minnesota October 2, 1986 A regular meeting of the Eagan Airport Noise Committee was held on Thursday, October 2, 1986 at the Eagan Municipal Center at 7:05 p.m. The following members were present: Chairman Tom Baker; John Gustin, Caroline Braun, Dustin Mirick, Carol Dozois. Absent were Joe Harrison and Otto Leitner. Also present was Administrative Assistant Jon Hohenstein. MINUTES Upon motion by Gustin, seconded by Mirick, all members voting in favor, the minutes of the June 26, 1986 meeting were approved. FAR PART 150 STUDY LAND USE COMPATIBILITY PORTION Administrative Assistant Hohenstein reported that the City staff had reviewed and responded to the Part 150 land use compatibility working paper prepared and distributed by the Metropolitan Airport's Commission and its noise consultant, Howard, Needles, Tammen and Bergendoff. Hohenstein indi- cated that the staff had found numerous areas of concern within the working paper and reviewed briefly the City's response to it. He indicated that the City staff was not satisfied with the assumptions upon which the noise contours for the study were drawn and that the corrective action proposed under the study was inadequate in comparison to the actual impact on neighbor- hoods in Eagan. Chairman Baker indicated that the assumptions upon which the noise contour map was drawn should be requested of the airport or its consultant. He suggested that the assumptions might shed light on those operational procedures followed under the study. Staff indicated that such request could be made at a meeting with Mark Ryan of the MAC and HNTB. CORRESPONDENCE WITH TIM ANDERSON Administrative Assistant Hohenstein reported that correspondence had been forwarded to Tim Anderson of the Metropolitan Airport's Commission to confirm the meeting held on September 4, 1986. He said that the meeting was requested by the MAC to go over details of the runway heading study conducted through the summer months. Committee members reviewed the letter and indicated that Administrative Assistant Hohenstein had accurately explained the City's understanding that the corridor was defined by a 5 -10 degree left turn on take off. EAGAN- MENDOTA HEIGHTS CORRIDOR Administrative Assistant Hohenstein introduced the business item and discussed this set of documents provided to the City by the MAC at the September 4, 1986 meeting. The documents pertained to decisions made in 1973 to establish a left turn procedure on departure from runways 11L and 11R in response to noise complaints from the City of Eagan. Committee members expressed concern because the information on the documents clearly indicated the development of the left turn procedure as a means of noise abatement and that the FAA has chosen to clearly violate the understandings described in them. 5 Gustin asked upon what basis the FAA had altered the left turn procedure and returned to runway centerline. The committee then discussed the 1984 MASAC and MASAC Operating Committee meetings of 1984 from which the FAA claims authorization came to alter the procedures. Hohenstein indicated that the FAA insists that action at that meeting to allow them to adjust headings to make better use of the corridor allowed them to redefine the standard flight track along the extended centerline. Baker and Gustin both indicated that it was their recollection that that recommendation authorize the FAA to "play the wind" and issue headings which would blow aircraft toward a ground track consistent with the 105 degree corridor. They further indicated that the Mendota Heights delegation had asked for operations near the middle of the corridor at 105 degrees, visual separations to minimize diverging aircraft over Mendota Heights and the removal of the restricted flight area in the Timberline area. Neither member recalled any reference to an actual change in the width or boundaries of the corridor. They indicated that the outcome of the meeting was to propose a pinching maneuver in which aircraft from runway 11R would be issued a 105 degree heading and aircraft from 11L would be issued a 115 heading and visual separations would be used to provide safety margins. Both members indicated that the FAA interpretation of the discussions that day is erroneous and that no agreement to change the corridor itself was ever struck. The group then reviewed the documents provided by the Metropolitan Airport's Commission. Member Mirick singled out a document which referenced VOR and DME guidance equipment at the airport. He suggested that the use of such equipment be pursued as a means of setting a course for aircraft through the corridor. He explained that VOR stands for Variable Omni Range equipment, a navigational device which may allow the establishment of a specific l departure path from both runways. He further explained that DME stands for `,pu owrex Measuring Equipment which could allow aircraft to locate the 3 mile turnpoint by instruments rather than other methods. He said a combination of the two types of equipment might be used to establish a standard instrument departure for aircraft on runways 11L and 11R which would define the corridor without need for as broad as separation as is currently required. The committee then discussed options with regard to bring the evidence found to date to bear on the MAC. The committee discussed alternatives including continued cooperation with Mendota Heights, involvement of the Metropolitan Council and the MASAC Operations Committee to re- establish reasonable operational standards for the corridor. ADJOURNMENT The meeting was adjourned at 9:00 p.m. JH Date Chairperson MINUTES OF A SPECIAL MEETING OF THE EAGAN CITY COUNCIL September 8, 1986 A special meeting of the Eagan City Council was held on Monday, September 8, 1986 at 6:30 p.m. at the Eagan Municipal Center Building. Present were Mayor' Blomquist and City Council members Egan, Smith, Ellison and Wachter. Also present were Director of Finance VanOverbeke, Administrative Assistant Hohenstein, Administrative Intern Johannes and City Administrator Hedges. Mayor Blomquist acknowledged the presence of Airport Noise Adhoc Committee members Dustin Miriek, Otto Leitner, Joe Harrison, John Gustin, Caroline Braus and the Committee's Chairperson Tom Baker. City Administrator Hedges briefly provided a background on the airport noise issue stating that the objective of the Committee and City Council discussion is to arrive at some consensus regarding acceptable operational procedures for aircraft takeoffs over north Eagan. Administrative Assistant Hohenstein presented background information relative to the early understanding between the FAA and City of Eagan concer- ning operational procedures for all aircraft departures. He indicated that the early agreements were accomodating to the neighborhoods due to the increased traffic in the area resulting from the preferential runway system. He further reviewed the airport noise footprints that were established by the Metropolitan Council and used by the City of Eagan in determining the first Comprehensive Guide Plan that was prepared in the late 1970's and adopted in early 1980's. These footprints were based on a left turn on takeoff from 11L and 11R. City Council and Airport Noise Committee members stated that the City has attempted to zone and regulate land use in conformance with the airport noise footprints that were adopted as part of the Comprehensive Guide Plan. Administrative Assistant Hohenstein stated that recent departures have diverged from the left turn, and have diverged even beyond the runway center- line infringing on residential neighborhoods. This extends the noise impact beyond the airport noise footprint and the assumptions of the comprehensive guide planning performed by the City of Eagan. He further presented a runway heading study that was performed by the Metropolitan Airport Commission this past summer stating that many departures during the month of July and early August were south of the approved heading and the FAA has assured MAC that they would correct this procedural error with their controllers. The discussion was beneficial and members of the Commission and City Council asked that the City Attorney's office be directed to review the regulatory authority of the Metropolitan Council regarding their enforcement and requirement to conform to the City of Eagan's Comprehensive Guide Plan of record. City Council and Airport Noise Committee members also asked that the matter be pursued in cooperation with Mendota Heights as the corridor affects both communities. The Council further directed that all alternatives, including legislation, be considered, if necessary to correct any deficiencies that might exist concerning airport procedures that are not presently adhered to by the FAA. There was no official motion, however the staff was given the aforementioned direction. Airport Noise Committee members and Administrative Assistant Hohenstein were given a special acknowledgement and thanks for their continued effort in monitoring airport operational procedures within the City of Eagan. PROPOSED 1987 BUDGET City Administrator presented budget revisions that were directed at the August 25, 1986 special budget workshop session. He stated that both revenues and expenditures were revised to reflect no increases to the City millrate for 1987. He further stated that revenues were adjusted by reducing property taxes and homestead tax credit by approximately $390,000 and adding the sale of equipment source by $98,000 to reflect the road grader that was recently declared surplus property. The net adjustment and expenditures is a reduction of $292,586 spread throughout most all departments. He stated that only a few of the operating budget items were adjusted due to the fact that inflation and volume of activity due to growth is accurately reflected in either the depar- tmental request or City Administrator's adjustment for those budgetary items. He stated that most of the reductions were for manpower and capital reflecting policy direction by the City Council at the last budget workshop and a reprio- ritization through meetings with department heads. City Council member Ellison suggested that consideration be given to increasing manpower in the Police Department from three to four by starting a fourth officer in October of 1987 which is consistent with the City Administrator's budget. After discussion and consideration to modify the budget it was decided that the ,;. numb•er ;df; po lice Officers for 1987 ( would. rema n at: three and the number of police officers would be carefully examined each calendar year in an effort to maintain a relationship of the one officer per thousand manpower objective of the Police Department. The Director of Public Works, Tom Colbert, appeared and discussed reasons for the City Council to consider the development of a master transportation plan for the City of Eagan. There were a number of questions raised by the City Council as to why the transportation plan is required given the fact that many roadway alignments have been established and streets constructed within the City. Public Works Director Colbert responded to the various questions stating that many roadway alignments need to be upgraded and with the City only half developed this plan could be used as an effective decision making tool during the remaining years of community development. Members of the City Council expressed a desire to contact Dakota County and determine whether the County would participate in the cost of a master transportation plan for all county roads that are examined as a part of the study. There is also a desire expressed by the City Council that a draft request for proposal be prepared and the City Council be given an opportunity to address and select objectives set for in the plan. There was no action taken on the budget, however, the City Administrator was directed to prepare budgetary handouts for a public hearing that is scheduled on September 16, 1986 based on $7,389,630 proposed budget as given consideration to date. OTHER BUSINESS There being no other business, the meeting was adjourned at approximately 11:15 p.m. TLH Dated City Clerk MSP HOURLY RUNWAY LIMITS (arrivals & departures) 19810 . LANDINGS TAKEOFFS LANDINGS TAKEOFFS VFR 60 -66 40 -60 VFR 60 -66 40 -60 IFR 42 -45 28 -35 IFR 42 -45 35 -40 ) PNI- . N / Nt:j t.%. LANDINGS TAKEOFFS ' LANDINGS TAKEOFFS VFR 60 -66 20 VFR 30 -32 28 -32 IFR 42 -48 20 IFR 24 -28 20 i 1' / i /� LANDINGS TAKEOFFS LANDINGS TAKEOFFS VFR 32 30 d 0 VFR 32 30 IFR 24 -30 25 -30 1FR 24 -30 25 -30 �• 3V a. Z , y k „ S , , s 1. " , ,,. i = r . _ A'� .e :°n. ! "�i . :'. ' x`" Number 19 w � }$ '� A ,, ' a " t1 f n ti _ i .' _ r { °u.. - • Y a b"5"`: ,r - .w. , ; sj � 3 y� i �4�'E�.kL � �` in- s. ` Z .; ,s -c,.., ` „.!� �. Sa ..�, �r: - �`,�r`� -.. J . i,I ,g YFi 3 e z. a M inn e s o t a � r O� V, 4 ":', -:[S j lY'':4:,,t Avov.tt.f 5tA K'v",,. 31YH lv, -- i KA s v I A:r : �` ` :`` e � i- ! r „ ' K ,, I _, J •� 4k }',',.*,,V., Y' A�` c �' - 44; y` y ti ... „" � 3 w . ._ .. , �. ` ` % , • „tf - '7 "t .� rr;�'S °'C 4� fi . ., � r+a.. "a+� €` -'� ��.�:�. w�°�w�e.3�a•+. :�� e'Y^ �-t`�d r. _ :.k>wa...,ii�tt �. ..k . - - `"i 1 i` 4- !'� Y K L„�Y * . .. . , � . '- k 9 .. i F 1 '+�d t ? 5 . !Y • , ,. , �S i 's,,4- ° � � � r .R+`,• t r"i- 5S � o. _ s .� �'+,f1G� +r=.'+ a t . :a • _ - b 2' -�. - . fake revisited -� P 1 . � 4 ublicatiort of the • Ci tizens L eague 4 i 3$t 'ie 3?+ • ` 4 'Ti'4' = 1 �•+s �# ,,.4 . y , ' • .' `,t. ' ..,, g ., .F °" • ° " ¢ i •mss« a "' �u ' ..v-h. + r�to ,h^ 1 1 ` , ' - �s . t . K e, ` Liability dilemma age 1 Y S : . A � -".'''''''''•- .� - 'r , s .! FI ou{ . a i; x' • 4 :' S•'* - s.. =_ .-•° .tk . - c: ` y a -" �,� ,,.; S ''I p � a 4 l c [ " i c P"'d S - 4 F irms q g � '� " .t���� T F' � 7 '�*"� t ter . _ , y ._ warning � ;Page 2 • s ▪ lit , +` 7 . Yom a - '• � *� ' , 4, ' • if '%' , t ' . . t `„ ,., - <a�rr l t.` r °"- " A' . '" - -- - 1 ? , a K ,c". - � r it - NWB responds. Lage 6 . ,� ». -.1 - , , ; . 9 4 % > � • . 1 ,. AZ [ . +S• .h'F '. { V .4,. a..: rf 4. i'i 44* ..r,.- '•' 4, 7 t '-{,: ` Ya",e sn'� • '7.4 kf P. y sC w" py 4. 1 -Y �' •' 4. ♦ Y . sY . mo d vi i `rtP iN .Y 1• y Ks " S7R' 1 : . . ti v1. � 1,e x n • rY° 4 .. 'q� h_ V .. . . .'.�1 - j a' ' - 5.7', -_ £y ', y .. 14.'-• h-• . ~ * ; "1* . � ' xt� : + .x $ _ -.. '� • ` • ' °G F GiF� JerT v ^ 't £ ,°'. ' � ' - 3 '* K 4 x F j, .ac "4; � ti4 '' ; ,,, � , `_ olume 3, � • T . : , �� " "-... y �T�� �' . . " : K� � • ` - „ 4 ;a . . ,. Smbet6 , , 986 * 1 i. --, 'V1, . ,i.�, ..... a-i4,-, • ` - .. .•t rat. .S Yk i ..is epteq . -- ', fi r`' .�,� 4• , , �.t � _. '�. • j , �� - -t , , c`. wt .?$ wo .r. N're r. -t, � . _�.k �. j «b . u�.� a ... �" n 4 . c .: MAC chief says second airport bubble will burst by Stephen Alnes Raymond G. Glumack, chairman of the 3. The problem of airport noise can be and you could roll them all up into a ball Metropolitan Airports Commission (MAC), whipped. and toss them into a wastebasket. The s with conviction on three points: overriding reason (for seeking a site for a About history: "Life was hardly worth living second major airport) was noise ... And 1. History is repeating itself. .. in those days (late '60s) ... The noise was that was the birth of the Ham Lake project so damned bad ... and you could take all ... ' 2. No way will the Twin Cities site and the other good reasons (for a new airport) build a new major air carrier airport that were invented, like capacity reasons, The Ham Lake site, in north central Anoka ' County adjacent to the Carlos Avery game refuge, was the "winner" in the search for a place to put the region's major air carrier airport. "We looked at many other sites," Glumack recalled. "And the only one that looked to us like it had a prayer and a possibility of succeeding, mainly because it was neigh- - bored by the game reserve," was Ham Lake. "It went down in flames two times," vetoed by the Metropolitan Council. Continued on Page 4 , /1 Glumack So how does Glumack expect the noise but now figures MAC must go ahead with problem to be beaten? it. He said the extension also will permit the runway to be included in the airport's Continued From Page 1 "Over the years, I have been able to "preferential" runway program, which observe that when we've got 800 daily .allows controllers to distribute operations operations we live in peace with our 'and thus disperse their noise more equita- What beat it? "The same thing that's beat environs. There's no question about it. bly. every single, solitary airport — the en- That is a magic number." At about 900 vironmental issues ... Anything that's operations, "we begin having trouble. And Glumack is also betting that the air carriar against the public will goes down in flames when we get to 1,000 we've got a serious shakeout in the aftermath of deregulation In a democracy. And the public rose up problem on our hands." MAC figures for will result in fewer airlines and fewer and said not only 'No,' but 'Hell, no,' July showed average daily takeoffs and operations. "We went from nine airlines to Glumack said. landings at 1,163. 38" as a result of deregulation, he said. - Moreover, some of the new entries brought • ? back older, noisier plane models to Inter - Now increasing noise problems have `j: -a AI national. "Most of the old dogs are back, prompted calls for a new search for another ' } ,, a� 1% the airplanes I thought we had got out of airport site. Thirteen legislators and other r _ here." The introduction of new and quieter elected officials in Minneapolis asked the � , . .r� airplanes also will help, Glumack said. Metropolitan Council to conduct the search. p \ . ; �� * . But the noise problem will not be "com- ..i.4 500,000 pietely solved until you do something What are the chances, Glumack was Ar, FARFIAS about" adjacent land use, Glumack said. asked, of getting a new airport? He said it would make sense to acquire some homes north and west of the airport '' „ �(� I'( ����5 and convert the land to commercial and "Politically, economically and socially, it's , industrial uses. an impossibility. And if you believe ... the MOM SaS6 IAN second airport ... is possible, you believe in Mom %' t NIMK. "The minute I say that people want to the tooth fairy," Glumack said. lynch me and run me out of town on a pole," Glumack said. But some land -use "Nothing has changed. Since the En- Glumack estimated the merger of Northwest conversion will occur anyway, he said, "N vironmental "Nothing has Protection nd Republic airlines will result in a because the land is becoming too valuable n Act Since e the 1969 was reduction of 150 operations a day. (A short for continued use as single - family residen- passed, there hasn't been a single (major) ) time after the interview, the new merged tial sites. He estimated about 400 homes airport (initiated and) built in the United airline announced a reduction of 64 opera- might be involved in a conversion program. States ... Under the act it can be killed by tions daily.) _ just a small group of people because your - • _ - -- Glumack, who has announced his 17 environmental impact statement is your - ment as of Dec. 31, bemoaned the la.....A Achilles heel. And that has to reflect public The second factor in Glumack's calcula- control airport managers have over noise opinion. When you reflect public opinion, tions is the $20- million upgrading of St. generation. "We're precluded from sticking where the hell are you going to put it ?" Paul Downtown Airport into a "super- duper, our nose into airspace management. all- weather, corporate jet airport." With That's FAA (Federal Aviation Administra- He added, "You can site a hazardous appropriate incentives, Glumack said, tion). Traffic management. That's FAA. We approximately 275 operations a day will cannot interfere with the constitutional waste dump easier than you can site an airport" shift from International to St. Paul. principle of the free flow of interstate and international commerce. We can't get involved in anything that has anything to Second, asked Glumack, "Where are you Thus, in his view, the combined effect of do with safety. That's the big umbrella they going to get the money ?" He estimated the the merger and of a shift to the St. Paul hide behind. We can't discriminate (among cost of a new airport at $10 billion. People airport will be to bring daily operations at airlines). What the hell can we do? who travel by air pay for airports, he said, International below his magic number of but "generally when you get a big airport 800. "And the federal government loves it this like that, there's a general tax. The com- way, because they sit over there totally munity throws in money to help make it insulated" along with the airlines and the go." MAC has authority to levy a third of a But there's more to his figuring. A key item airplane manufacturers, Glumack said. mill in the seven - county area. That could is a half -mile extension, at a price of $5.5 E generate around $22.5 million a year, million, of the northeast - southwest runway • Glumack said. at International. That's the shortest of the three runways. The extension would allow , - planes landing or taking off over St. Paul Glumack also predicts major social disrup- to do so a half mile farther away from St. tion should a new airport be built as Paul residences than at present. Glumack thousands of people now employed at the contended it will "solve the noise problem airport move to get closer to their new for St. Paul for all time." Landings from the jobs. "They don't want to work here and southwest or takeoffs to the southwest have an airport up in Anoka. And this would occur about as they do now. airport's got to be far out. That's what happened at Dulles (airport near Washing- ton). They just had to give approval to The runway extension must go to public 5,000 homes in the noise area because of hearing and needs approval by the Metro - people that work and man that airport. politan Council. Glumack said he has They're tired of driving that distance." - pulled it back twice because of opposition - 4 Minnesota Journal 1 a. • C. litt i nne� a ou rna • 0 Cramer on Airport II. — Page 1. A publication of the Citizens League Rural bright spots. - Page 1. Finding welfare reform consensus. — Page 2. Where 'Focus' falls short — Page 5. • Volume 3, Number 20 September 30, 1986 • Cramer: Why we have to look for second airport by Stephen Alnes Suddenly, after 16 years, the subject of a Metropolitan Council should last 1,000 years, found to mitigate noise and handle a still - new airline airport for the Twin Cities region that would be its finest hour. growing number of passengers. is no longer taboo. The reasons for seeking a second airport In fact, by 1977, when it rewrote the aviation – ' in 1969 and in 1970, the Metropolitan site in the 1960s were noise and capacity section of its Metropolitan Development incil turned thumbs down on a Metropoli- —the former growing in the recently arrived Guide, the Council felt sufficiently good about tan Airports Commission proposal to develop jet age and the latter said to be in danger of the future of its major airport that it struck a new airport in north central Anoka County. being reached as early as 1975 or 1980. from the Guide a reference to the possibility At the time, the Council's action was referred Both reasons seemed baseless in the years of some day putting a new airport to the north. to in almost Churchillian tones, as in, if the following the Council's vetoes as ways were Welcome to Airport II. Again the problems are noise and capacity, but this time the issue has been recast, principally by Steve Cramer, Minneapolis City Council member from the noise - beleaguered Eleventh Ward. Cramer contends that noise - abatement measures strong enough to provide an ac- ceptable noise level also could limit use of the airport to such an extent that the economic vitality of the region would be threatened. For his first two years on the City Council, • said Cramer, now in his third year, "I never raised the question of a new airport ... I tended to subscribe to the view that that was a false solution, and it was raising hopes, and we ought not be promoting those kinds of ideas if they're not realistic." Two things changed his mind, he said. "First, • the problem got dramatically worse over those two years. I think anyone would agree ... we have crossed some kind of threshhold in terms of community reaction, the amount of noise ... Number Two, I've come to under- stand from my work on the noise - budget working group what it's going to take ... pull the genie back into the bottle and have even a minimally adequate noise climate in the Continued on Page 7 1 /3 Airport He noted that Federal Aviation Administrator table now from two separate sources ... indi- Donald Engen has been quoted as urging cate that demand will continue to grow at states and cities to begin looking now at this airport in all categories of flights. Continued from page 1 ways to cope with future air - traffic growth, thus demonstrating that the FAA itself rec- Natalio Diaz, transportation planning manager ognizes the possible need for new airports. for the Metropolitan Council, regard- 'he task as eminently manageable. "I'm nc /- communities surrounding the airport" Cramer also contended it's no cinch from an ing you can forecast all those things arm, oe environmental and neighborhood standpoint right on the money," he said. "If you are able Cramer said Ray Glumack, chairman of the to make the current airport acceptable. "The to establish some levels of demand in terms Metropolitan Airports Commission, "fairly same laws, the rigor of the environmental of passengers, if you are able to establish states" the acceptable range of operations impact statement process and everything some levels of demand in terms of how those (takeoffs and landings) at the airport (Glumack else apply ... to any major ground -side ca- passengers are dealt with, in other words, was quoted in the Sept. 16 Minnesota Journal pacity- increasing action they might want to the whole issue of whether you are having as saying that "we live in peace with our take," including a proposal to extend the people who are connecting flights or you environs" at 800 daily operations and "we've northeast - southwest runway, which would have people who are final destination flights got a serious problem" at 1,000 operations.) ease noise over St. Paul and permit the ... if you can establish certain assumptions runway's inclusion in the preferential program, as how that's going to happen, I think you Cramer went on, "Let's say a thousand ... Cramer said. can have a pretty good idea of what it is that that's what this airport can handle, that's its you're going to need in terms of operations environmental capacity. Well, in August we ft" ... It's just a matter, I think, of looking at what were at 1,145 flights." In addition, he said, a c( the consequences might be and deciding consultant's projections for the noise - budget )) whether or not it's worth your while to do working group show an additional 54 percent C:-,) certain things. It's a risk type of thing." growth in air carrier traffic by 2000. co, -� '\ - ,..q ( a What are the chances of getting a new air - "So if you're talking about a thousand as port? "My impression," Diaz said, "is that it's � .- � y our limit, already you're rollin g back some , - : y : _ going to be a very, very, very difficult thing. I �:3 number of flights, which means some airlines , ,... . �_.. - =: - - think it would take a tremendous amount of aren't going to fly as often as they would like i s.. ! evidence pointing toward the need for it and into this region ... And you're preventing all of � , .. ,�:. 1-0 ::. 1 . , . . , 1 think a lot of other things coming together C'z l . : that projected growth. Precisely how that I ti ,.. � - nicely in order to make it possible." translates into economic impact I'm not cer- VI N E a "r tain. But it's clear that the level of air com- tl `' .:.i merce is one aspect of a region's economic 5 vitality in a modern society ... " TNIIIK IT S ■ LANDIIV,..Ioo, No. To the argument that airline mergers and ITS 7wi itiSSI��7 OVER - _ failures, occurring or anticipated as a result , L of the post - deregulation shakeout, will bring . 1 I f f TH Wk �N1.1 1, SEE 0... noticeable change at the airport, Cramer HOLD ) Uv i nt " ; AU - responded that the Northwest - Republic i U merger, the one that "will have the most effect on our situation, has been dramatically Proposals to buy up some of the more se- oversold." So far, he said, it has resulted in a verely affected residences in the area near reduction of only 64 flights; Glumack esti- the airport also would run into problems, mated in the Journal article the full effect. Cramer said. He estimates the value of just would be 150 flights. the south Minneapolis affected properties at $450 million. It would obviously be a larger _ Cramer said he cannot see how noise can sum if other communities are included. be brought down to acceptable levels without "some kind of explicit limitation" on operations. A $450 - million buyout program ... would be Even if overall noise is reduced by such probably as difficult to accomplish just from things as the introduction of quieter aircraft, a political and economic standpoint as siting there would still be too many total operations and building a new airport. It doesn't factor in to permit use of the "preferential" runway the social disruption that would be caused • system, he said. (The "preferential" system by moving out. That represents 6,000 resi- allows air- traffic controllers to distribute dential structures, probably 25,000, 30,000 operations and their noise more equitably individuals. That's a massive kind of change. over a greater area.) I have to be as dogmatic about that not hap- pening as Ray (Glumack) is about not building But is it possible to find a place to put a new or siting a new airport," Cramer said. airport? • Is it really possible to determine well in ad- "My honest answer is I don't know, and vance what kind of airport the region needs moreover I'm not sure that anyone should for economic vitality? be expected to know today because it's been 15 years since we looked," Cramer said. He "I think it's probably as difficult as most pro - added that, if, as some have said, the airport jections," Cramer said. "The airline industry is adequate through 2000 and if it takes 15 • is volatile and we're in a period of change years to site, plan, design and develop a right now ... But what we've seen over the major new airport, "we're in effect a year last five years is almost a straight trend -line and a half behind." up and the projections that we have on the September 30, 1986 Minnesota Journal / 4 / • • Sc Po { METROPOLITAIN! AIRPORTS COMMISSION P. O. BOX 11700 • TWIN CITY AIRPORT • MINNESOTA 55111 OFFICE OF EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR • PHONE (612) 726 -1892 September 8, 1986 1 The Honorable Bea Blomquist Mayor City of Eagan Eagan, MN 55123 Dear Mayor Blomquist: The Metropolitan Airports Commission is in receipt of your Joint Resolution 86 -62 from the cities of Eagan and Mendota Heights. As you know, the MAC has been conducting an aircraft departure survey in your community for the last two months. The results of that survey clearly indicate that a tightening up of procedures is in order. In addition, the staff of the MAC is looking at ways to improve the use of the Corridor and guarantee stricter compliance with procedure. Your community has been very responsible in its planning efforts by carefully developing the Corridor and it is our responsibility to continue to work toward optimum use of the Corridor as originally intended. I appreciate your forwarding this resolution and I assure you that it will be given the Commission's prompt attention. • Si ei) ,v44(,)1( • Jeffrey W. Hamiel Executive Director JWH:gm • cc: Robert G. Lockwood Mayor, Mendota Heights OFFICE LOCATION -6040 28th AVE. SO. -WEST TERMINAL AREA -- MINNEAPOLIS -SAINT PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT /S : A . ,,,,,,6•S &Pa METROPOLITAN AIRPORTS COMMISSION P O BOX 117C0 • TV.!N CITY AIRPORT • 61VNNF'$C•1 . OFFICE OF EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR • PHONE (612) 726 -1892 September 8, 1986 • i • The Honorable Robert G. Lockwood Mayor City of Mendota Heights 750 South Plaza Drive Mendota Heights, MN 55120 Dear Mayor Lockwood: The Metropolitan Airports Commission is in receipt of your Joint Resolution 86 -62 from the cities of Eagan and Mendota Heights. As you know, the MAC has been conducting an aircraft departure survey in your community for the last two months. The results of that survey clearly indicate that a tightening up of procedures is in order. In addition, the staff of the MAC is looking at ways to improve the use of the Corridor and guarantee stricter compliance with procedure. Your community has been very responsible in its planning efforts by carefully developing the Corridor and it is our responsibility to continue to work toward optimum use of the Corridor as originally intended. I appreciate your forwarding this resolution and I assure you that it will be given the Commission's prompt attention. S. IF /, 4 ..... , Jeffrey W. Hamiel Executive Director JWH:gm cc: Bea Blomquist Mayor, Eagan • OFFICE LOCATION -6040 28th AVE SO -WEST TERMINAL AREA - MINNEAPOLIS SAINT PAUL INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT . /l0 . - ATTACHMENT 13A .,r .( ( __ 6e , :. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION ' • . ORDER FEDERAL AVIATION ADMINISTRATION 7100. CT Mpls /St.Paul Intl. Tower Minneapolis, Mn. February 15, 11 I . : :1: 19iT4 �1V 0r'.. Oi ^ERECTOR '. ' SUBJ: RUNWAY USE PROGRAM - NOISE ABATEMENT • w LIET:fj C: A:1 -- f:. -.7.j :1• 1. PURPOSE: To define noise abatement procedures for Minneapol k . mss. � '), ` International Airport. '9 1 •- 2. DISTRIBUTION: Minneapolis tower personnel, Air Carrier District Office . #34, Great Lakes Air Traffic, Division, Great Lakes Environmental and Noise Abatement Officer. . 3. CANCELLATION: MSP ATCT Order 7100.2C dated March 15, 1973. 4. ACTION: The control of air traffic and the operation of aircraft shall be in accordance with the following: a. Pilot Responsibilities (1) Whenever weather is not a factor, landing aircraft shall • . maintain an altitude of 2,000 feet or higher, above ground, as long as practicable. . (2) When approaching to land on a runway served by a function- , ing instrument glide slope, large fixed wing aircraft • . equipped with a functioning ILS instrumentation, shall be • . .flown so as to remain at or above the glide slope between the outer and middle marker; provided that when the VFR distance -from -cloud criteria require interception of the - glide slope between the outer and middle markers, large fixed -wing aircraft shall be flown so as to remain at or . above the glide slope altitude between the point of inter- ception and the middle marker. (3) When approaching to land on a runway served by visual glide slope devices, fixed -wing aircraft shall be flown so as - _ to remain at or above the glide slope until flight below the glide slope is necessary to complete a safe landing. • (4) Jet noise abatement take -off profiles (or procedures) shall be used whenever such procedures have been approved for use - by the operator of the aircraft involved. b. Controller Responsibilities: • Distribution: AGL -530, AGL -540.5 AGL -4.2 ACDO #34 Initiated by: MASAC, MAC, ATA, GADO #14 (info copies) Opns Ofcr /Training TRACON l / /1 Ct FOAM 1320 -1 10/071 ' ./ S ;'. ._ f - ATTACHMENT 13B • , ( r f • , • • MST' 7100.2D ' _ -2/15/74 2. I (1) Landings on runways 22, 11L, and 11R shall be curtailed . as much as possible whenever wind or traffic conditions will allow an alternative, provided: (a) The procedure will be used only with clear and dry runways, i.e., there is no ice, slush, etc., which night make use of the runway undesirable. (b) Wind velocity does not exceed 15 knots. (c) Any cross wind does not exceed 80 degrees from either ; side of the center line of the runway in use when - ever the wind velocity is 5 knots or more. • . (2) Vector arriving aircraft 3,000 feet MSL or higher until intercepting the glide path established on final approach, unless a particular situation dictates otherwise. (a) Normally, turn all turbine powered arrivals on final approach at least two miles outside the approach fix. (3) As traffic conditions permit and in accordance with pro - cedures stated above, attempt to comply with the following • runway priority: . LANDING • TAKE -OFF 29L & R 11R & L 4 22 22 • • 4 • . .11L &fit 29L &R • (4) Whenever the normal pattern is over the Highland or South Minneapolis area, a noise sensitive message should be added to the ATIS information. • (5) In determining traffic conditions, the following guide shall be used for application of noise abatement procedures: Light traffic 0 to 30 per hour - Moderate traffic 30 to 50 per hour i Heavy traffic Above 50 per hour (6) To accomplisx these noise abatement procedures cross- runway operations are often required. It is not required when visibility is one mile or less or when the traffic is con- . - sidered heavy, by the above guide. When traffic is considered to be HEAVY, as described in , • (5), noise abatement procedures shall still be used as much as possible. The following procedures may be used as a guide under these . conditions: lv t . ;, ATTACHMENT 13C • . . , • (' r . . • • • MSP ATCT 7100.2D • 2/15/74 . L 3. I (a) WHEN LANDING ON RUNWAY: 29L 'or R Depart ELH, S0Z4, BEL and ANO , traffic on 29L or R. Depart JOD, RAD, and MUN traffic on 22 • s 4 Depart ANO, BEL, JOD, and MUN traffic on 4 Depart ELH, RAD, and SOM traffic on 11R or L. 11R or L . Depart (ALL) traffic on 11R or L. 22 Depart JOD, MUN, BEL and ANO • traffic on 22 Depart ELH, SOM traffic on 11R or L. (7) Controllers shall deny a request for a circling approach ' training procedure involving turbine powered aircraft. (8) • The use of parallel runways for maximum efficient use of the airport is not prohibited by this order, except during "quiet hours ". • . i (9) During the hours designated by MASAC as "quiet hours ", the . use of runway 11L and 29R should be avoided. • • o. Mendota Heights - Eagan Procedure ; • t * (1) Turbine powered aircraft departing on 11R shall be issued . . instructions to maintain a heading of 110 degrees for 3 1 miles before starting any turn. Departures of the same • type on 11L shall be issued runway heading or 110 degrees, if needed, for separation purposes for the same•distance. • Turbine- powered aircraft landing (or low pass) on runways 29L or 29R shall be vectored to at least a four -mile final. • (2) When issuing a visual approach clearance, add the following instruction - "Standby for vector to runway 29L /R ". Vector this aircraft so that he starts a final approach at four miles and on a runway heading. (3) All aircraft shall be directed to use this procedure during the designated "quiet hours ". f9 • r/ .. ATTACHMENT 13D f ( 'r 1 _ MSP ATCT 7100.2D 2/15/74 1 4. i •' d. $ackground. The control of air traffic, in accordance with 1 aircraft noise abatement programs, is secondary only to con- ' ,j siderations of safety. Such programs, developed in the public 4 . interest, may in some cases cause operational penalties. In cooperation with the Air Transport Association, Metropolitan 1 Aircraft Sound Abatement Council, Metropolitan Airports Commission 1 and the Federal Aviation Administration, this informal runway . E use program was developed in order to reduce noise problems in the Twin City Metropolitan Area. 1 i 4:: I ' (. — - I ' (,l: y i..- �. lfi v • LESTER A. CASE N. • Chief i 4 R . 1' • • . 07 Cs pfma c J9,/8(, 1 dP 010 dP olo ^ . � dP M O N V r M 10 (J) M i N 01 0 rl en ^ ■ ■ 01 M O 00 dP O1 N .Mr v 01 v O 0 �y 111 r--I CO O Z 01 r! U) N U) u) cn N 1 '- I •� x w x x N 0 r-1 ltl I.11 M 1— C O N r-1 ,_- ,--1 N I dP _ do do do Lt ow t C r- !— 0 dP .--1 .- ,-.4 M N • M • >1 M .-. ` N 0 r1 CO ten ... 1 cn O 111 in N 01 N r-I 0 N N 1D r1 r1 - N .--I r-1 . .! .� . dP do lf) dP dA N M ' do N C in _ V V V I O '--I CO %.0 U) in U) U) U) U) r7 —I y x x x x N 1O LLt 1/40 N - N • in m l0 t0 M .--1 r-1 N r-1 oW ^ alo i dP dP L do do N 0 v v 0 _ - �. 01 co 1 U1 U) U) Ul U) h -- O -O p r1 in N Lfl N N M r--1 CO N 04 04 ■ • > a 14 S E 0- a OA Cl. s ro � S a c a as N N 01 N d Z -i r -I N ,�-I N N O N f V N 0 C4 E •rl r1 E ,-1 1) .� t6 S~ 4a 4 in S ty .4 C!) r „ 1 C (7) l N O tp 4 ~ N I 0 N ri N N 0 I r-I N P ‘.. N . . . a K r-1 N 1+'1 I ep in k,° s 2I . OD H U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Aviation Air Traffic Control Tower Administration 6311 34th Avenue South Minneapolis, MN 55450 October 23, 1986 Mr. Jon Hohenstein _ Administrative Assistant City of Eagan 3830 Pilot Knob Road P. 0. Box 21199 Eagan, Minnesota 55121 Dear Jon: In response to your September 29, 1986 letter, the maps which you included are a helpful method for identifying the residential areas of Eagan with respect to the final approach course or centerline for runways 29 left and 11 right. As a newcomer to the question of noise in the metropolitan area, I continue to seek some of the history behind the procedures and definition of the easterly "corridor." In an effort to familiarize myself with the definition of the "corridor" I have had indepth conversations with Les Case, Jeff Hamiel of MAC and several members of MASAC concerning this subject. These conversations, along with consultations with members of my staff, indicate to me that the'original: noise: program . noise; reduction over E agan . was and remains -'a follower *,'aircraft remain north of .the extended . centerline :Of runway ..29 ..,left , .departing T runway 11 right and _ south ' of 090° when'departing runway 11':'left for, 'a:"distance oCthree (3) nautical miles" from -the -'departure end - of the runway 'in use the' sb u zderies of , he . ;corridor "are magnetic bearings "of 090 ..from ,the southeast rend runway ; 11L /29R and, 117.4 °,.:from the southeast end of runway 11R/29L. A 105 departure heading was and still is used when traffic permits to provide a buffer to the south boundary of the corridor. Widespread u - - of -this prpcedure.worked very well "until the effects of deregulation were f elt'in 1983, „ `and: the .increased necessitated fanning 'traffic when itbegan to. affect the'City of,.4 Heights.to- your.north. In order to give Mendota Heights relief, the 105 departure heading was adjusted southward and a heading assigned which would keep traffic on or north of the 29L localizer during the hours of peak traffic volume. Without this adjustment aircraft departing the north parallel runway and assigned a heading of 090 would, under most wind conditions, drift north of the northern edge of the departure corridor. Separation standards require 15° divergence between departures. Consequently, in order to keep departures off the north parallel within the northern limits of the corridor we must adjust departures off runway 11R southward. I c I ..% I' ,N "0 1783 I 1983 `fit . cE .IC Edward Warren: First American Aloft as yr 2 We can appreciate the impact a runway heading for 11R departures would have on the areas of Eagan which are very close to the southern limits of the corridor. However, 'if we do not 'make" effective Ilse of the ',full Aes gnated "'area we either push noise north of the northern limits into Mendota Heights or -we: adversely effect air traffic system - capacity. During periods of light to moderate traffic and when weather or other factors which .effect standard separation exist I believe the use of the heading of 105° can and should be used. I fully intend to monitor the use of the full corridor and we will make efforts to insure that the full extent of the corridor is not used indiscriminately. As always you are invited to contact me should you have any further questions. Sincere ' . Doug . Power Air Traffic Manager • . e . i 1 0 t O— r 3 • i e— 1t o , ,,, C sue=- ] 0 a .e. ', 4/11, . ... ''' .17 if 1, -* . ill , �� - mow _ _ ` r�.,��A • : 1. mss• T � "m '� I '* . " e Sz 1 .• .e . 1: V, -,. . ' ":'..... . ... p 1_,,.... _. , .i co......_ -,,, : t ,i7 41 16,. .!,: 11 1 i lliii li" i t 8 • la 4111"11 sexing % vix.. , CO ,. , ' � <� If F Y 4, I ih ,.:. 1.... Fil -_,A. 1 cia.3 ..... Ar ,, - '.. 1 ; .,. •1 IV A s'!7.-iti., -.- :t la -- Ari co raTirran. ‘ii. ' "sl‘. f rAlAV LE. • 1.- . , „ _ _,• 1 4 j co :.....-= „m=mk.f2,-P-,,,,,- ? I .,.. • it, \. -,..... ..... p w..— -.I, . • l l� "Tv/ • a) . —_ - '''" - . • --> ;i ("- ,'; f --.,.. ,. *littak C ▪ � ""' -- --te i • P � 1 . • �`� `� '41fillitOrAW. 1.... ..... .... _ ,I... - ....1...7_,,... =w' r -":_ _ .,*) ''' 4 1- , . 't = =, - :,-.=-- ..:., , FM' , - 1--5 N FL __!.. ---,..„ ......,_. --.. .... ,,,viii co ,F,....-- ; ,,,,„ 2 „,Lsi..............._7____.1-_—_ .. •..• ...., i , .,4:. ipir or '7 , ; am 1 . • ..____,.‘._ • „, V . — _ _ r. ,— - _ _ =,. #� tilt (% _ '∎' ! f ' r te =_ - _-- -� = =q . is,_ --_-z-zrasii.--...d.- ._,_____ r • -----%----- -- .- . -, le hr. _ , i - \,.\ 1 ho!.".... ZE- '. ' 3EEEL.-1 a 7.. r-i tt.; • • , , .... j.: T _-_==--.7.1c=wmmill . ..:z ! I I - . ,, 44 1 ‘. 02 • c 11 L A' N N I N G R A C T I C E Learning To Live With Airports Planners around the country are trying to turn classic LULUS into - good neighbors. But first they have to solve the noise problem. By Ruth Eckdish Knack and Jim Schwab ° z .,-4,0- - - ,-_.1.:.,:i .' ' i ''':::- ' ) 41 :: ''''' - ' 1: ',' , ..;! - --.4--• ''': , - - : - , . • - , .. _ i p.,..,,,,,,.... . , ,_.,..„-.1- ...et:,- r, , . ., 41/47414.. [‘44,,, $r` !-�L ' .„.z ♦ a .s* 1 : , r ` �"r _ t ,' . .. ^ <. t ' it . .�.+. ", ‘',2:.."1',;,,7 x vF l'' � } G - 'R : zt v -y Z `' *! 7 i! 1 �aa �. - „a s,• • R11.. ..k-- ....n �` i -`•;. /' = � "' p �, . _" ' . _..---- ---"''' lon....0. . ' ::, „ , ".." " .'__ . ''- ' ' . . -...\.* -..:, 10,..._ I , 3. 4. , �+ Ar . M1 xw, r } Robert Burroughs umerous stories in Plan 'ring g - from interference w" bommunity planner with • airport t k . , .1, ' ''' ', ., ' '' ,.\,: ', ' ' - .:' --"` ' ' N ume ning have referred to sleep and speech to wide FAAs Office of Environment ble FAA for if a share of is o the $347 • LULUS; locally r" and Energy. But these proce- million in funding for imple r uses, whose siting causes grief real estate values. unwanted land spread hearing loss to lower often have adverse m979 entatiact on an provided under the to local officials. And perhaps The accounts below de economic impacts on a nearby 1d the no LULU presents more of an scribe some recent efforts of community. What's needed, Airway Imp anrovement Ai rport Act and of intractable problem than air- the federal government, local says Hixson, is balan integrated 1982. ports which not only gobble governments, and, in one case, approach that The voluntary program pays up huge amounts of land but a private group to deal with control with the needs of noise the up to 90 percent of the cost of also have widespread offsite this problem. We recognize entire aviation system. planning and implementation effects. that many communities not The FAAs tool for achieving ^' of noise abatement programs, The worst of those effects is mentioned here have active such a balance is a new rule — with most of the money com noise, which, according to the programs of their own and Federal Aviation Regulation ing from a federal trust fund Federal Aviation Administra Iook forward to hearing about 'Part 150, the Airport Noise fed by taxes on airline tickets lion, affects six to 10 million them from our readers. Compatibility Planning Pro d d f °ople in the U.S. ' gram —which implements por federal ancargo law an requires uel eight receipts. per A 1985 FAA report, Aviation Federal help tions of the Aviation Safety cent of the trust fund to be 'Noise Effects, documents the A' lot of airports have some and Noise Abatement Act of used for noise abatement pro problem in detail, giving facts "kind of noise abatement proce An approved 1979. Part 150 grams. and figures about effects rang- dure, notes Robert Hixson, a plan must be filed with the As Hixson explains it, Part as 12 Miming October 1986 • u P L A N N I N G P R A C T I C E 150 gives airport planners likely yto cover anywhere near` and Washington National, the neighbors of southern across the country a standard •the amount needed for those served as learning labs for the California's John Wayne Air=; for evaluating noise and for measures. And that may be development of Part 150. -port. On land that was once identifying compatible land why airport operators have National, across the Poto- part of the huge Irvine Ranch, uses for various levels of noise. been slow to take advantage of mac from Washington, D.C., the small (429 -acre) The noise - assessment method- the opportunities offered by already has strict rules govern- field has become one of the - ology, called a day -night aver- Part 150. Hixson says that, as ing nighttime flights, rules that nations busiest, with three age level (Ldn), incorporates of July, only 18 complete noise produced a boom at Dulles, million passengers a year and such factors as Boise level of ; compatibility plans had been which straddles two exurban •more than 40 daily commer b ,&vicdual aircraft, number of. submitted. • Virginia counties. Rody says' n;"ial flights. ` Operations types of aircraft us- Cost is certainly part of the • the two. counties acted "in the For years, Orange County ing the airport, and height of reason. Georgia Institute of ;:nick of time" to rezone most of has complained that the air- port was far too small to serve �� �- 1 ��`` t' the county's growing popula- ! j / - II �I .� __ Noisecontours tion. And in 1982, after pro- �/ lilt fir redicted for 1995, � � - p tracted governments, the local debate with a variety / ��,�� Baer Field, Fort of loc M \ �® l 1 ' Wayne. g �� county board of supervisors �� �� adopted a master p lan calling fo r � 19 0 millio in airpor im- 41: pro a nd provison to _ - _ , __�__� I � a re fo du c e aircraft n oise o v e r the �• "` �� , ll wing de ca 7.5 - decib on Ca C All,,/. / i �� ..a.,...,9ss munity Noise Equivalent Baer Feld . Airport Area Development scale. A pment Plan But that was not enough as- - - Fort W . t,d ayne ana i. ____ __ il'a=m1: _ __ __ , surance for Newport Beach, / Cress nssociates. Inc. the affluent waterfront com- 6 munity that lies directly under the departure path for just ire paths: Its most signif -, Technology planning professor the 65 Ldn areas from agricul- about all of the airport's jets. leant difference from other Clifford Bragdon, who has de- tural to industrial before resi= (Ironically, the field was re- 'formulas is that it gives a 10- veloped a course on airport dential uses had a chance to, named in 1979 for one of t decibel weight to nighttime noise and land -use compatibil- ;fake hold. Newport Beach's most famous ,� ``tij erations. ' ity planning for the FAA, The FAA has plans for a con- residents, John Wayne.) ' .a Planners may use these notes, for example, that the ference on the airport noise 'city - sued, charging that the : . measurements to model noise east of implementation at the compatibility planning pro - aunty snvironmen l inl 4, contours corresponding to Atlanta airport is likely to ex- gram, tentatively scheduled r eact r� enortfor the master plan decibel levels and to prepare teed $400 million. That in- for late next spring in the was inadequate, and in 1982, noise exposure maps, which eludes property acquisition, - Washington area. The results nsuperior court judge agreed. ' graphically show land -use and avigational easements (the of this conference will be used For the next three years, noise contours for Ldn noise purchase of flyover rights) in • to determine future directions, representatives of the airport, levels of between 65 and 75. areas severely affected by ' says Hixson. the county,. the city of New - The maps identify such key 'noise, and building insulation. For more information, con- port Beach, and several home - features as airport boundaries, Nevertheless, Martin Rody, tact Robert B. Hixson, Office owners groups met regularly runway locations, flight paths, director of planning services of Environment and Energy, to try to hammer out a solu- noise- sensitive public build- for the National Capital Plan- Federal Aviation Administra- tion to the stalemate. In Au- ings, incompatible existing ning Commission, sees Part tion, 800 Independence Ave., gust 1985, the parties involved land uses, and historic land- 150 as an important new tool S.W., Washington, DC 20591. reached an agreement that has marks. The maps then become for evaluating noise impacts. been hailed as a landmark part of the noise compatibility ``'We no longer have an excuse California compromise event in the field of airport program submitted to the FAA for not dealing with aircraft It took more than a federal planning. to secure funding for mitiga- noise;' he says. The two feder- noise abatement plan —or "The idea was simple;' says tion measures. ally owned airports in Rody's even California's stiff airport Kenneth Delino, the planner But federal funding is un- bailiwick, Dulles International noise regulations —to satisfy who was hired by Newport 13 • " P L A N N I N G P R A C T I C E Beach in 1982 to work out a off John Wayne. Finally, an air- compromise. "The city said it port access plan, limiting the would tolerate an increase in number and type of aircraft al- • daily flights and accompany- lowed, also called for in the `��� �\•/ ing terminal improvements if agreement, has just been ap- — it could be assured that expan- proved. k / /1 \ sion would stop at a specified Delino says the agreement is level. But some mechanism the only one of its kind for a was needed to give that guar- major urban airport and par- Stop JohnWayne Airport from antee :' ticularly the only one with a The answer, says Delino, 20 -year time span. And, he becoming a roaring success. was a stipulated judgement in adds, "It's causing the airlines federal court, which, under to go out and buy new, quieter state and federal law, would planes to comply with the res- bind future boards, councils, trictions:' 1 ' MW% and federal agencies to abide For details, contact Kenneth 0 by its provisions. The final, 20- J. Delino, Executive Assistant, liE a , --- -.- year agreement extends the Office of the City Manager,' A �� ". � "b? a 4 1\ number of commercial flights City of Newport Beach, City `:. ' �� .. but limits the number of Hall, 3300 Newport Blvd., c louder jets that can use the air Newport Beach, CA 92663. port. It also imposes a curfew Are we gro lax on nighttime flights and limits Heading off trouble the size of the planned new The main focus of airport -area at the John Wayne ' • ort? planning in Clark County, Ne j� john vada, around Las Vegas, is not Ads for r1'ewporf Beach's �X "workable airport solution," what to do about airport noise 11 developed as part of the public but rather how to head it off. • relations campaign. Two years ago, Clark County _: _- _ - planners initiated a process Tr'T`T"T"T that resulted this spring in the T tT_- T T T' T'T T T_ I terminal. adoption of a comprehensive 1 An elaborate public rela- land use plan and zoning fir,_ k ,xa n �� 3` `;��� � � � �„ "` � M� � +� ��' , ,; tions campaign, including amendments for the area . -- ! � *nth -- ads, helped secure around McCarran Interna- 4-!,-.1. .. tip' . � 11a _;;.EL.. . >",, , _. public support for the agree- tional Airport and Nellis Air Could a second airport improve ment, which was billed by Force Base. According to prin- O '�nge Coun ty' ,.,,. p Newport Beach as "the work- cipal planner David Wert, the r s , t plan? able airport solution.' county's plan goes beyond Since the agreement was other airport planning efforts signed, Delino says, the city = in its focus on regulating fu- -Sag "acatjt- and the county have formed a ture land uses, hoping in this "joint redevelopment agency to `:,way to minimize the need for 'deal with the area just off the remedial noise abatement ef- airport runway that is most of 'orts later on M fec noise. Part Accorng to 9 cen area ted has by been the declared a of tax this sus, the di Las Vegas the a1rea 80 iac the increment district and funds second fastest growing metro - will be made available to pro- politan area in the U.S., and Let's take a look vide insulation or buy some there is every reason to expect 460 residences. development to spill over into at the airport from a safe 2 Also, says Delino, a newly the airport environs, although formed county airport the area is still mostly undevel- p oint of view. •s authority is in the early stages oped. County -owned McCar- arrthe nan .rrranneard about meneadlhe- mrr, aa�nnam� .�rbnral.a need : r of a site evaluation study for a ran International Airport, one mantra inrldenn at Joan Name Anpun > LAn ircnnein numhrr n(char OiphNawud new airport to take pressure of the 20 busiest in the U.S., Uvbled enprea overhead. rpr..a Ina meal John Haute Anpo n from the present I1 to 55 with pans Damaard pr. yenv An rmr1,tr110 /analog on appmprue Imprmrnent �n ter ermovl ladt- rrMad ltnwMr. Scnwr arMrma nes Theo measures we wppaed M the fttiponal Sla l. owe the tram peas and r.ntn ra ik ham done T mporutmn Plan and the Air Qualm Man- commendable aon to a c om nester, dray on been and amp a m •organ Plan, rants when. f u nu i lams teal the number o4 nry,ltn ...menu! ins John Nn Arts re at h bn aJnibn hn N %L i .ne be br er npprd at t dale e Ilylhu. nmm b accommodate oath small r ..............i....... ... ... „t. ., „..1 .,,t . h.. h • 14 Planning October 1986 . .1 P L A N N I N G P R A C T I C E has just completed phase one effort to secure funds for this , of an expansion designed to in- purpose. Meanwhile, • ther.- ' ' crease capacity from 10 to 14 county is considering prop , �} � -° + *- "� y � ' ` , ; million passengers a year arty tax relief for homeowners -. _ � - l Nellis is the nations busiest who invest in soundproofing '"� p �� .., fighter plane base. 'improvements. , ,.-- - $ 4 , , - i x "By starting early, we had a Wert says that he believes , .. �'� ,„ ,: r „..k..0,,, chance to get ahead of the Clark County is the first juris ` h. `b"$ , C-=' %-t --! ' ' problem" says Wert. The first diction to impose land -use re -1,7„,..,,,.........--_,,,. step was to identify the prob- strictions on the area around ;;w, - lam areas through some very a military airport. The count sophisticated computer maps, is now conducting an FAR Part . - r. 2 j which depict land use, zoning, 150 study, but Wert says the + � '' r i '� _ -.. -. -. and ownership in the airport actions taken so far should „ �" 1 r � •, 1 - , _ •, ¢ : ' Y area. Then, leaving the exist- keep noise abatement costs far �► 10 :: e_ - ..- ., ; ,,, ,: ..., s . - - sr zoning around the airports below those likely at airports g g P Y P t i in . ;. N.A. _ intact, the planning depart- "where the horse is already out m --- _� y I 1,-. t. ment created a system of over- of the barn:' . ���' s r - - lay districts based on exposure Contact David Wert, Depart- I°r- if t to both noise and hazards. ment of Comprehensive Plan - _ 21-124,..- „.,,. , ` 1 ' aims Wert notes that the FAA and ning, Clark County, 225 Bridg- ' �^ - _� - _� . the military define hazard er Ave., Las Vegas, NV 89155. z _ - �-- .. . ... zones differently, and the plan thus allows McCarran to have Private involvement a shorter runway clear zone Baer Field in Fort Wayne, In- than Nellis. diana, is also in a relatively un Aki,NOZION OF The plans noise exposure developed area, so noise is not �, A Q�` I WONDER overlay districts allow the uses a big problem —yet. But Mk ORE I NIS recommended by the FAAs several recent events make O cau 0.14 UM A R E TOUCHING. FINGERS Part 150 guidelines, with some denser development likely and CCU� 1� added residential development sed a local business group ?L oa_ 0 sv permitted in the Ldn 65 -70 _ - to commission a 10 -year plan `'fA� t•t5 1 noise range, an option allowed .-for a 30- square -mile area sur- • 1V k � by the FAA. rounding the city -owned air- 1`i 5 1.‘t - ' 1000,' To help developers under- "port. Aviation consultants GO WO ! S) ” 5 ,! stand what uses are permitted, Cress & Associates of Lexing- OVj OF M( VACS a ) st re planners erence chart r chart that study the impact the airport GET �� G E! cross-reference - . (,? I WpNNASLE � t identifies compatible uses. on adjacent land uses and sug- ilI/i r , " / S = Computer mapping identified gest methods of management. Y existing uses that were incom- Senior consultant Thomas - , , ` .. I 0 - , /� r !; patible, and those uses were Phillips says the Fort Wayne ,,,,or. -, 1 •.'., f .. labeled nonconforming in the project was unusual for Cress, Y „ ,; r t , . n ,,, ame to the zoning which has prepared airport 1 r e 4' /l { code adopted last May by the plans for dozens of jurisdic- `s t � 5 / county board. tions throughout the country. j Q ' ;U ' ■ � 1,.r � / As it turns out, though, most "We're usually called in by a ' . residen- government agency; this time, i ; - of the nonconforming 600,4 g g g Y \\ tial uses are in the Nellis area. the main contact was a private e ; �\ % " i - • Yet the Department of De- group, the Greater Fort Wayne t 1 , ; : fense, owner of this airport, Chamber of Commerce:' An- s � has no funds available for other difference, says Cress: )'' -\ __ �..' \ + " , � � � � noise abatement measures or "We were asked to consider "6 _ '• ‘ 4 i - , , !;i purchases of houses. Wert the airport as part of a broader , . notes that county officials planning study. That's not �� �.1 �, hope to work with the Nevada usually the case:' � �— w congressional delegation in an Baer Field serves a four- a `t - 4 41° ' Ex4w,wxsv..b01.1. ----- _--_ ilh. ,*--/,*,' ,' n g 15 L A N N I N G ' 0 R A C T I C E ,,,unt area with a population fine job" He notes that the noise contours, choosing ardous Zoning Act in 1983, f some 400,000. But that county planning commission reasonable noise abatement ac- and the state division of aer- -opulation is likely to grow has absorbed the Cress plan tions may be a daunting task. onautics followed up last year insiderably with the opening into its own planning process Ball estimates that it would ' with statewide rules to bar i a General Motors truck as- and is now discussing the take nearly $100 billion to buy residential development, con - 'mbly plant on 20 acres near recommendations, including a out all the houses in the area trol building height, and estab- ,e airport. The plant is sup- way of paying for the pro- 'where the Ldn exceeds 65. lish other safety measures for )sed to employ some 3,500 posed land banking. airport hazard zones. Director orkers and is likely to attract For details, contact Thomas Noise budget of aeronautics Catherine Nick- . utnerous suppliers, who will Phillips at Cress & Associates, A proposal for adopting a olaisen says that, although the irther tax the airport. Even Inc., P.O. Box 22397, Lexing- "noise budget" has become the law's primary purpose is lore significant for the air- ton, KY 40522. focus of some controversy in safety, the prevention of future s ort: The Burlington Northern the Minneapolis -St. Paul area, noise problems is a necessary fir Freight Company has des- The political factor where a task force appointed byproduct. The rules exempt 1 gnated Baer as its head- State legislators from sub- by the Metropolitan Airports only military airports, Atlantic i luarters. urban Chicago are still trying Commission is considering var- City International Airport, and 1 The Cress plan suggested to shift control of O'Hare Inter- ious ways of reducing aircraft any airports under the juris- i that two sets of performance national Airport from the city noise. diction of the Port Authority of 1 criteria be adopted by Fort of Chicago to a regional com- The aim of a noise budget is New York and New Jersey. 1 Wayne and by Allen County. mission that would give the to limit the volume of noise Nickolaisen says she knows 1 One set would govern airport suburbs a voice in future any airline can generate. Strate- of no other state with such hazards within a designated plans. The effort is part of an gies for implementation vary content - specific regulations hazard area. The other would ongoing political fight over but could include a "noise -per- governing local zoning of air - - relate to noise exposure in operations at O'Hare, the na- seat index," which forces port environs. Within the de- 1 ireas affected by airport noise. tion's busiest airport. airlines to average noisier fined hazard zones, almost the This spring, the Suburban flights with quieter ones to only permitted new uses will 1 -ie splendid setting of the Las O'Hare Commission, com- achieve the desired average. be industrial, commercial, and .gas -area airport (top) and posed of mayors from neigh- , The noise budget could have agricultural. An article in the 7,icago's Mayor Harold boring suburbs, lost the first the effect of causing the July 1985 issue of APAs Zoning t'ashington, with his suburban stage of a suit brought against airlines to upgrade their fleets'" News discusses the New Jersey 1 (underparts. the FAA for alleged deficien- to newer, less noisy aircraft„ rules. I cies in the environmental im- says William Lester, special as- Within those areas, says Phil- pact statement for a proposed sistant to the chairman of the Seminar 1 lips, avigational easements $1.6 billion airport expansion. Metropolitan Council of the Two-day workshops on noise would be required on all The commission has appealed Win Cities Area, the umbrella modeling and community land newly platted property. to the U.S. Supreme Court. agency for the airports com- use controls are included in a The plan also called for a Meanwhile, some suburban mission. seminar on Airport Noise and long -range planning and de- officials are pushing for a third Lester notes that this has al- Land Use Planning, scheduled velopment program for the airport, although expense, ready happened at John for November 10 -14 at the airport area, an updated mas- along with the airlines' resis- Wayne Airport in Orange Georgia Institute of Technol- ter plan for the airport itself, tance, makes such a proposal County, California, which has ogy in Atlanta. The seminar a noise compatibility program, unlikely to fly. adopted a noise budget, and at director is Clifford Bragdon, a a site selection study for a new Political contention also Boston's Logan International professor of city planning at general aviation facility, a plan threatens O'Hare's Part 150 Airport. Georgia Tech, who developed to improve access to a nearby study, says FAA regional noise However, FAA regional a similar course for the FAA interstate highway, and the ac- abatement officer Carl Ball. noise abatement officer Carl Academy. Registration for the quisition of development The'suburbs fear that a noise Ball says the FAA is skeptical >,entire week is $695, less for in- rights and purchase options on contour map will lower prop , ;of such a measure, which, by dividual sessions. For informa- land for future airport erty values in areas identified limiting flights, could be con - ;* tion, contact Georgia Tech's development —a kind of land as having a high noise impact' strued as a restriction on inter- Department of Continuing banking. Also recommended: Federal rules require the air- state commerce. • Education, 404 - 894 -2400. a shift to a city- county airport port operator —the city of Ruth Knack is Planning's senior authority, a change that has al- Chicago —to perform the State level editor. Jim Schwab is assistant ready taken place. study, but suburban officials Most states see airport -area editor. Robert Cain, transportation "want input that Ball says they ` zoning as a local matter. But consultant for the chamber of cannot legally have. the New Jersey legislature commerce, says Cress did "a Even after a study identifies enacted the Safety and Haz- AIRCRAFT NOISE COMPARISONS October, 1986 Dave Kelso Becky Niedzielski Minnesota Pollution Control Agency 30 AIRCRAFT NOISE LEVEL COMPARISONS I. FAR 36 Certification Aircraft noise certification is conducted by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) using procedures defined in 14 CFR 36 (known as FAR or Part 36). Aircraft are classified as Stage 1,2 and 3 in order of noiseness; Stage 1 being the loudest and Stage 3 the quietest. Aircraft noise levels are determined by a test method contained in FAR 36 and then classified as basically Stage 2 or Stage 3. There is a different classification depending on the aircraft weight, number of engines and for both landing and take off. Noise levels are expressed as Environmental Perceived Noise Level (EPNL) which uses Environmental Perceived Noise /Decibels (EPNdB) as a metric. Two monitoring positions are established for the fly over test. One being for sideline noise and the other for overhead noise. Overhead noise is measured at 6500 meters from the start of roll (on runway centerline). Approach noise is measured at 2000 meters from runway threshold. Aircraft must be at maximum gross weight and maintain specific departure /arrival slopes and thrust settings. In general, at the overhead monitoring site, aircraft are 394 feet above ground. In practice there are numerous equations and corrections that are used throughout the test. The following table shows the FAR 36 noise limits: Stage 2 Noise Limits (EPNdB) Weight 600,000 300,000 150,000 75,000 TO 108 103 98 93 LDG 108 106 104 102 Stage 3 Take Off Noise Limits (EPNdB) Weight 850,000 425,000 212,500. 106,250 3 eng + 106 102 98 94 3 eng 104 100 96 92 3 eng - 97 93 89 Stage 3 Landing Noise Limits (EPNdB) Weight 617,300 308,650 154,325 77,163 all eng 105 102.7 100.3 9 (3 l The aircraft may exceed these limits at one or two measuring points if the sum of the exceedances is not greater than 3 EPNdB; and no exceedance is greater than 2 EPNdB. True to fashion, the FAA has developed an amazingly complex procedure to arrive at EPNL. Here is a very brief flow chart of the process (if you want to stay awake don't read this flow chart)! How it is done - -- getting to EPNL 1. First you need a 1/3 octave real time analyzer capable of measuring 24 frequencies from 50 Hz to 10,000 Hz. Continuously record the fly over at both monitoring stations. Take the data and convert each of the 24 frequencies to a NOY value (a NOY is a unit of perceived nosiness). 2. Now combine NOY values, condense the noise energy into instantaneous perceived noise levels (PNLk). 3. Calculate a tone correction (ck) for each frequency to account for the subjective response to the presence of the maximum tone. 4. Add the tone correction (ck) to the instantaneous perceived noise level (PNLk) to obtain Tone Corrected Perceived Noise Levels (PNLTk) at each 1/2 second of time. The maximum value is determined over time and re- written as PNLTM. 5. Next make a duration correction (D) by integrating under the curve of PNLT versus time. Time for a beer. 6. EPNL is finally determined by the algebraic sum of the Maximum Tone Corrected Perceived Noise Level (PNLTM) and the duration correction factor D. EPNL = PNLTM + D Expressed as EPNdb The above brief flow chart was included to illustrate my contention that EPNL noise values used in the certification process involve a complex process and are difficult to understand and use in the real world. 3� II. dBA Estimates Not surprisingly so, the FAA must have received commments or questions on how to interpret stage 1, 2 and 3 EPNL values used in certification. In response to this the FAA published AC 36 -D in March 1986 which estimates noise levels by aircraft type and engine configuration in good old understandable dBA units. These estimates use all of the FAR 36 criteria used to calculate EPNL and converts them to dBA. The following table is a consolidation from AC 36 -D. dBA Estimates from AC 36 -D Aircraft Type dBA Take Off dBA Landing DC -9 86 90 DC -10 92 94 747 99 96 727 87 91 MD 80 82 84 757 69 87 These noise levels assume FAR 36 distances therefore landing noise is generally louder than take off noise because it is calculated closer to the runway. III. Monitoring Monitoring has been conducted to better illustrate noise differences between aircraft types during landing and take off. Monitoring sites were established using FAR 36 criteria (6500 meters on take off and 2000 meters on landing). Instrumentation included a Bruel & Kjaer 2230 sound level meter with a graphic level recorder and a Metrosonics db604 statistical analyzer. For each fly over the maximum dBA, Leq above 65dBA and time above 65dBA were recorded. In addition, a chart recording was made for each event along with documentation of aircraft type by carrier. Variables cannot be controlled for a short term monitoring study such as this. Obviously monitoring locations can remain constant but operational differences between aircraft and carriers cannot. Because of this, data should be looked at in a general sense to compare noise differences between aircraft type and not used to quantify specific aircraft noise levels at any particular location. X3 The following table shows monitoring data (averaged) for landing aircraft by aircraft type: Landing Data Summary Aircraft Leq Max dBA Time above65 757 (24) 85.2 (75.8 -94.2) 96.0 (81.9- 105.5) 18.5 (15 -25) DC -10 (9) 83.8 (82.6 -84.6) 92.4 (88.9 -94.7) 21.0 (20 -22) 727 (24) 83.6 (77.2 -87.6) 92.2 (83.2 -98.8) 18.8 (16 -24) DC -9 (24) 83.3 (75.6 -87.6) 92.3 (81.6 -99.5) 18.8 (13 -25) Stage 3 (757) Stage 2 (727,DC9,DC10) Leq 85.2 (75.8 -94.2) 83.6 (75.6 -87.6) Max dBA 96.0 (81.9- 105.5) 92.3 (81.6 -99.5) Time above 65 18.5 (15 -25) 19.5 (13 -25) As can be seen from the above Data Summary, stage 2 and stage 3 aircraft produce, on the average, the same amount of noise on landing. In addition, there is very little difference in the amount of time above 65 for stage 2 and stage 3 aircraft. It can be said however, that the DC -10 is not as quiet on landing as other stage 2 aircraft. It should be pointed out that there is one 757 that is incredibly loud on landing which if it were eliminated from the data would make stage 3 aircraft slightly quieter on landing. • The following tables show monitoring data (averaged) for aircraft taking off by aircraft type: Take Off Data Summary Aircraft L Max dBA Time Above65 757 (5) 78.5 (72.0 -83.2) 84.7 (75.1 -89.6) 17.5 (14 -23) DC -10 (3) 83.2 (80.5 -84.2) 90.4 (86.5 -92.2) 20.3 (18 -24) 727 (14) 89.2 (82.1 -93.6) 97.1 (89.3 - 101.3) 30.8 (24 -36) DC -9 (18) 82.8 (76.6 -87.4) 90.7 (82.4 -95.1) 29.2 (21 -39) Stage 3 (757) Stage 2 (727,DC9,DC10) Leq 78.5 (72.0 -83.2) 86.1 (76.6 -93.6) Max dBA 84.7 (75.1 -89.6) 93.9 (82.4- 101.3) Time Above 65 17.5 (14 -23) 26.8 (18 -39) 34/ Tha above Data Summary shows that stage 3 aircraft (757) are 5 to 10 decibels quieter than stage 2 aircraft. Subjectively this means that they are 1/2 as loud. In addition, stage 3 aircraft have a duration above 65 decibels of 4 -16 seconds less than stage 2 aircraft which is also significant. The loudest aircraft on take off overall is the 727 however, an isolated DC -9 (older stage 1) would be substantially louder. In conclusion the data demonstrates that stage 3 aircraft are substantially quieter on take off than stage 2 aircraft but are the same to slightly quieter than stage 2 aircraft on landing. In addition, stage 3 aircraft have a substantial reduction in the time above 65 decibels on take off. 757 Data Sheet - Landing Carrier Leg Max dBA Time above 65 NW /R 77.4 83.1 19 NW 76.1 - 89.0 19 NW 94.2 105.5 25 NW 75.8 81.9 23 j NW 77.8 83.1 15 NW 77.6 83.7 16 NW 88.2 99.3 22 NW 79.8 87.8 16 NW 78.6 86.8 19 NW 77.7 83.9 16 NW 80.2 86.9 15 85.2 96.0 18.5 DC 10 Data Sheet - Landing Carrier Leg Max dBA Time over 65 NW 82.9 91.1 21 NW 82.6 88.9 22 NW 83.3 91.0 • 20 NW 83.5 90.6 20 NW 84.6 93.3 21 NW 84.0 93.3 22 NW 84.6 94.7 20 NW 84.4 93.4 21 NW 83.7 92.4 22 83.8 92.4 7T 3 rl 727 Data Sheet - Landing Carrier Leg Max dBA Time above 65 NW 80.9 88.5 18 NW 80.4 87.2 16 Cont 85.6 97.6 16 TWA 83.7 92.9 18 Cont 82.7 91.9 19 NW 77.5 83.2 18 NW 84.1 91.6 17 NW 77.2 83.3 18 NW 84.6 90.7 19 NW 80.3 88.1 22 NW 84.7 92.0 17 NW 84.4 93.0 18 TWA 83.1 90.5 17 NW 84.3 93.8 20 NW 86.6 97.0 20 NW 87.6 98.8 21 NW 84.1 93.4 18 NW 82.2 90.9 20 NW 83.1 91.8 24 NW 83.1 90.9 18 NW 81.4 89.3 19 NW 81.6 88.1 19 Amer 82.8 92.9 21 Amer 85.4 95.0 18 83.6 92.2 1IT.8 3 g DC 9 Data Sheet - Landing Carrier Leg Max dBA Time above 65 Ozar 82.1 90.8 20 NW 79.5 - 85.4 18 NW 77.0 83.8 19 Midw 82.0 90.3 25 , Midw 83.8 92.6 24 Ozar 83.5 90.0 16 Amer 78.5 85.2 13 NW 82.6 90.4 21 NW 83.7 92.2 18 Amer 76.4 84.9 20 Midw 86.3 95.4 18 NW 85.5 95.8 18 NW 85.7 94.1 18 NW 75.6 82.8 19 NW 82.1 88.5 18 NW 85.3 93.5 19 NW 87.6 99.5 23 NW 85.6 94.3 18 NW 82.4 90.9 21 NW 85.0 94.4 17 NW 83.9 91.6 19 NW 82.3 90.5 19 NW 79.7 88.0 14 NW 76.8 81.6 16 83.3 92.3 Tg.8 31 GA Data Sheet - Landing Aircraft Leg Max dBA Time above 65 2 prop 70.6 74.1 8 2 prop 73.0 77.9 9 2 jet 78.8 85.5 18 Cesna 69.1 78.7 9 1 2 jet 71.8 75.2 9 2 prop 81.5 88.2 12 2 prop 71.8 77.1 7 2 prop 74.1 79.7 9 2 prop 72.9 79.1 11 2 prop 73.8 78.6 9 2 prop 79.0 86.1 13 2 jet 77.0 83.3 9 2 prop 71.7 77.0 7 2 prop 71.7 75.9 5 2 jet 74.3 80.4 10 76.2 j 82.5 j TT.5 j 75.6 p 81.9 p 9 p I/0 757 Data Sheet - Take Off Carrier Leg Max dBA Time above 65 NW 72.0 75.1 14 NW 83.2 89.6 19 NW 79.2 86.0 23 NW 73.2 76.7 14 NW 73.6 78.7 18 /8.5 8W77 17.5 Z7/ DC -10 Data Sheet - Take Off Carrier Leg Max dBA Time above 65 NW 83.9 92.2 24 NW 84.2 90.8 18 NW 80.5 86.5 19 83.2 90.4 2U.3 747 Data Sheet - Take off Carrier Leg Max dBA Time above 65 NW 79.5 86.1 25 NW 85.4 93.8 25 83.4 41.5 �5 4(j) 727 Data Sheet - Take off Carrier Leg Max dBA Time above 65 NW 82.1 89.3 36 TWA 86.1 93.6 33 NW 90.9 98.6 33 , NW 89.0 97.0 31 Unit 84.2 91.5 24 NW 89.2 98.3 31 NW 84.0 90.2 26 Amer 86.2 93.4 33 NW 82.3 92.1 30 NW 90.1 99.0 30 NW 86.8 93.7 33 NW 92.5 100.9 30 NW 93.6 101.3 27 NW 91.6 98.3 34 89.2 3 36.8 - LIV DC -9 Data Sheet - Take Off Carrier Leg Max dBA Time above 65 NW 79.7 87.6 31 NW 79.1 85.4 38 NW 78.9 85.6 36 NW 76.6 82.4 26 NW 85.9 93.9 34 Amer 79.6 86.8 23 Delt 86.8 94.7 29 Ozar 85.1 93.8 26 Midw 82.5 91.1 24 NW 80.9 88.0 31 NW 85.9 94.8 31 NW 77.6 83.5 21 NW 79.9 87.2 23 NW 87.4 95.1 39 NW 81.3 89.3 34 NW 79.5 86.8 35 NW 81.6 88.5 21 NW 79.9 88.1 24 82.8 '9077 73 4/S GA Data Sheet - Take off Aircraft Leg Max dBA Time above 65 2 Jet 87.1 _ 93.6 39 2 Jet 74.2 80.1 • 25 84.3 Z90.78 77 z . _ •• . . . . . HEALTH EFFECTS OF , . COMMUNITY EXPOSURE A • AIRCRAFT N OISE TO ... , . i! q REVIEW OFTHE LITERATURE . _ _ _ 1 . • 1 . • 1 • . . .. . _ I . _ _ ... _ __. _ .. . . .._.. _ ._ . _ . . , . _ __. . ... ___ i _ _ . . .. ... , ._•.. __ . _ __ _ , . .. . 1 - . ._, . . _ . _ 1 JCL Y s - t g 8 • • HEALTH EFFECTS OF COMMUNITY EXPOSURE TO AIRCRAFT NOISE A REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE Lisa M. Roche, MPH, Research Analyst REPORT PREPARED FOR THE Minneapolis Health Department 250 South Fourth Street Minneapolis, MN 55415 348 -4363 July 1986 1 449 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1 INTRODUCTION - 1 METHODOLOGY BACKGROUND 3 Sound 3 Measurement of Sound 4 Hearing HEALTH EFFECTS OF EXPOSURE TO AIRCRAFT NOISE 5 td/- Annoyance, Speech & Sleep Interference 5 [/ Hearing Effects 7 Physiological Responses 9 Cardiovascular Effects 11 Reproductive Effects 14 Physical Growth of Children 15 Mortality V 15 Mental Health Effects 18 CONCLUSIONS 19 REFERENCES 1 1 1 1 SPA i . '' • 1 INTRODUCTION In December 1985 the City of Minneapolis established an Inter-departmental Noise Task Force to evaluate the impacts of airport noise and various initiatives to deal with noise created at and surrounding the Minneapolis /St. Paul International Airport. In its initial meeting, the task force identified the following activities to carry out its charge: monitoring state legislation related to the airport and /or noise abatement, production of meaningful noise monitoring data, analysis of the impact of various noise proposals on property' values and taxes, gathering information about the II activities of other groups addressing airport noise, and determining the health effects of aircraft noise. I Identification of the health effects was an obvious role for the Minneapolis Health Department which the Commissioner of Health, as a task force member, agreed to implement. Since there were neither resources nor sufficient time to conduct a local research project, it was agreed that the Health II Department's study should consist of an analysis of available literature about relevant studies on the health effects of aircraft noise. Accordingly, the Department contracted with an independent research analyst to complete the literature search and analysis and to prepare this report. II . t . II 1 11 II a - 'ir - 4/9 • • OETHODOLOGY Three types of studies have been undertaken on the health effects of noise exposure -- animal laboratory, human laboratory, and human observational (or epidemiologic) both at work and in the community. The health effects specifically from aircraft noise exposure have been studied through human laboratory and epidemiologic studies. Though animal and human laboratory studies can provide important information it is difficult to extrapolate the results of these types of studies to community exposure, especially long -term, to aircraft noise. Epidemiologic studies are necessary to more definitely link aircraft noise with health problems among exposed residents. Unfortunately, these studies are very difficult to conduct -- precise measurements of aircraft noise exposure are not always available, the exposed population can be difficult to define, the many other possible causes of health problems must be taken into account, and the statistical analysis can be complex. Nevertheless, studies of the health effects from community exposure to aircraft noise have been done on several airports -- Los Angeles International, Atlanta International, an unnamed U.S. international airport in a metropolitan area of 4 million people, Heathrow Airport (London), Schiphol Airport (Amsterdam), several German airports, Tokyo and Osaka International • Airports, and airports in the Soviet Union. Some of the reports of studies foreign countries have not been translated into English. No studies of the St. Paul - Minneapolis airport were found in the literature. The health effects studied were physiological responses, hearing loss, cardiovascular problems, adverse reproductive effects, growth of children, mortality and mental effects. This report includes background information on sound, measures of sound level, and human hearing as well as the results of studies of the health effects in laboratory animals and people from noise exposure. The results of animal studies are taken mostly from review articles, some of the results of human laboratory studies are from review articles and some from the original articles recortina the studies. and most of the results of eoidemiolooic studies are taken from the original articles reporting the stuoies. A couple of general reference books on human physiology and noise were also used.' Conclusions were drawn from the literature review about the evidence on each health effect that has been studied in relation to aircraft noise. These conclusions are based on the merits of the studies as judged from the information in the articles, the consistency or lack of consistency among the studies, the existence of plausible tiological explanations for the link between aircraft noise and the health effect, and the researchers' interpretations. • BACKGROUND SOUND • Sound is a form of mechanical energy which is produced by the vibration of a ir molecules and transmitted through air by a wave motion of the molecules. A sound wave consists of regions in which the air molecules are close together and the pressure high, alternating with regions in which the air molecules are farther apart and the pressure is low. The frequency of the vibration of the air molecules is related to the pitch of the sound that is heard - the faster the vibration the higher the pitch. Humans can hear sounds vibrating at frequencies from 16 to 20,000 Hertz (Hz), with frequencies between 1,000 and 4,000 Hz best heard. The physical magnitude of a sound is given by its intensity (the rate of energy flow per unit area, related to the pressure). Human perception of the magnitude of a sound is called its loudness. Loudness depends on the frequency (vibration) as well as the intensity (pressure) of the sound. The sound waves of speech and other common sounds are complex waves with many frequencies of vibration. (1 -3) MEASUREMENT OF SOUND Sound measures consist of several components: (1) sound pressure level, (2) frequency of the sound; and (3) time. Sound pressure is measured with a microphone that generates a voltage proportional to the sound pressure acting upon it. The expression of the sound pressure level (SPA) is the decibel (dB) which is on a logarithmic scale because the range of sound pressures is very large. This means that a sound that is 10 decibels greater than another sound has twice the pressure, and seems twice as loud. Decibels range from 20 to 120. (1,3) Sound pressure level measurements alone do not correlate well with human assessment of the loudness of sounds. So, in measuring sound a filter (A, 8, or C) is used that weights the sound pressure level measurement to take into account the frequencies of the sound - the low and high frequencies are de- emphasized. Experience has shown that the A filter best correlates the physical measurements of sound with people's subjective evaluation of the loudness of sound. Sounds measured using the A filter (A- scale) are expressed as dBA. (1,3) Some examples of sound levels: (3) d8A Room in quiet dwelling at midnight 32 Conversational speech 60 Ringing alarm clock (at 2 feet) • 80 Heavy city traffic 92 Home lawn mower 98 • Jet airliner (500 feet overhead) 115 Perceived Noise Level (PNL) is another measurement of sound developed specifically for measuring aircraft noise. A 0 filters used wnicn de- emonasizes the low frequencies but not the nidn Frequencies. It is also expressed in decibels -.dBD. (1,3) Since environmental sound levels fluctuate over time, cumulative sound measures are sometimes used to describe them. These measurements are calculated from single or continuous noise measurements. One cumulative soun�: measure is Equivalent Sound Level (Leq). This is the level of steady sound d which over the same period of time contains the same total energy as the fluctuating sound. In other words, the fluctuating sound is averaged over time, e.g., 24 hours. The unit of measurement is usually dBA. Another example is Day -Night Sound Level (DNL or Ldn). It is the Leo for 24 hours with = more weight (an increase of 10 d8) given to nighttime (10 pm to 7 am) noises, also expressed in dBA. It correlates well with annoyance, complaints and community reaction to noise. (1,3) Specific aircraft noise exposure indices composed of aircraft noise levels, reaction to noise, and sometimes duration of noise have been developed in several countries. The differences among these indices is small. (1) FEARING Sound energy enters the ear canal and is passed through a series of membranes, - cavities and small bones to the inner ear which contains receptor cells that transform the sound energy into coded electrical impulses. The impulses are then transmitted by neural pathways to the brainstem and the thalamus and thee, to a specific area of the cerebral cortex called the primary auditory receptive area. (2) (The brainstem is the "stalk" of the brain. All nerve fibers that relay signals to and from the nervous system pass through the brainstem. The thalamus, a part of the brain, is an integrating center for all sensory input (except smell) on its way to the cerebral cortex. The cerebral cortex, also a part of the brain, integrates messages to the central nervous system and refines the control over all messages going out from the central nervous system. The brainstem and thalamus contain the reticular formation which is influenced by and influences all areas of the central nervous system, including help in coordinating skeletal muscle activity, control of cardio- vascular and respiratory functions, and monitoring of messages coming through the central nervous system.) • • -4— !. HEALTH EFFECTS OF ESE TO AIRCRAFT NOISE ANNOYANCE, SPEECH & SLEEP INTERFERENCE The results of community surveys of residents exposed to aircraft noise . indicate that an aircraft noise level of less than 55 dBA Leq (during the day) or 55 Ldn will cause high annoyance in a relatively low percentage (15 percent 1 or less) of the exposed people. The percentage of people highly annoyed rises to over 70 percent at an Leq or Ldn of 85 dBA. (1) In order to understand 100 percent of speech in a relaxed conversation outdoors the speech level should exceed the noise level by 10 dBA. If the speech level is 10 dBA lower than the noise level, 95 percent of the conversation can be understood, which is usually sufficient. (1) Since relaxed conversation is usually at a speech level of 56 dBA, it can be estimated that noise levels over 66 dBA begin to interfere with outdoor conversation. In indoor conversation, for which 100 percent understanding is desirable, a background noise level of less than 45 dBA is necessary. (1) Noise exposure can cause difficulty in falling asleep, disrupt sleep patterns and awaken people who are asleep. (1) The effects on sleep increase as the noise level exceeds an Leq of 35 dBA. (1) In one laboratory study, 30 percent of the subjects were awakened and 60 percent experienced changes in sleep stages at a peak noise level of 70 dBA. (1) People do not become used to aircraft noise during sleep, as indicated by sleep recordings of residents around the Los Angeles Airport which revealed sleep deficits even after years of the aircraft noise exposure. (4) The long -term physiological and psychological effects of noise - induced sleep disturbance are not known. (1) One study did find decreased performance of a task with a memory component after nightly exposure to 80 dBA of aircraft noise. (1) FEARING EFFECTS It has long been recognized that sound can cause hearing problems. (1- 3,5,6) Two principal effects are: • Temporary- reduction in hearing acuity, known as noise - induced temporary threshold shift ( NITTS). to Permanent hearing loss, known as noise - induced permanent threshold shift ( NIPTS). NIPTS is not reversible while NITTS is. Recovery from KITTS depends on t e severity of the snift, individual susceptibility and type of exposure. If recove from NITTS does not occur before the next noise exposure, it may become permanent. The relationship between NITTS and NIPTS is not entirely clear; and NIPTS can not be predicted from NITTS. NIPTS also can not be predicted. from the suoiective loudness of the noise or the extent to which the noise causes discomfort. annoyance or interferes with activity. 0 • _5_ S-3 Hearing impairment is the hearing level at which individuals be experience difficulty in leading a normal life, usually in and rst to speech. In the United States it has been defined as a loss of a 26 dB or more at frequencies of 5 an aera e • , 1 and 2 kHz. (1) 9 of Laboratory studies of noise and hearin carried out with animals and human have led to the following general ,obserr vations: • Considerable variability exists among individuals in sus temporary hearing loss and the rate of recovery. susceptibility to'-- _ • The rate of increase of temporary hearing loss and recover loss is slower for impact noise than for steady noise. y from the • Audiograms (results of hearing tests) of persons with temporary hearing loss in laboratory studies tend to be similar t people exposed to comparable noise for several years. (1) t hose of ) il One laboratory study of aircraft noise subjected two groups of five g oun normal- hearing individuals to six hours of recorded air -craft landin a takeoffs (111 dBA, peak) 1.5 or 3 minutes apart. (7) g 4 threshold shift two minutes afterwards was less than 5 d8. However, great r 1 variation occurred among the subjects, ( ) The averaoe temporary shifts of 10 dB or more. For two of these subjects By had temporary threshold the threshold shift was still present two hours after expos - was complete. (7) Y 16 hours after exposure recovery 3 Most knowledge of hearing loss due to environmental noise in situations has been obtained from cross - sectional industrial eal -life 11 t Virtually every study has revealed that workers exposed toaintensey noise , da for several years have noise - induced hearing loss and that a clear noise doll ti 3 relationship exists between increasing noise level and increasing prevalence of hearing loss. Generally, hearing loss occurred at levels of 8 p 85 dBA ab though one study found some loss of hearing at 75 dBA. (1) or Very few studies have addressed the hearing effects of community exposure x aircraft noise. r .; One, conducted for the Federal Aviation Administration in 197 2, found significantly poorer hearing among People living near the Los Angeles airport compared to residents of a demographically similar (8) No significant relationship was found between length quiet are. g noisy area and severity of hearing loss, but length ofresidenceiisnco in the an inadequate measure of amount of noise e is consi dered exposure. the study results were oniy suggestive ofanassociat association aircraft concluded that noise and hearing loss. ra i • Clinical examinations of school children living adjacent to Soviet Union found reduced hearing ability for low and high sound airports in tce (9) Studies of students in Boston and Australia did not show fereecei i n. hearing between those living in noisy ana T areas. of hoA a difference n children living near , Heathrow Airport .comoared�to children of the ace attending school in a quiet area also found no difference in the children with hearing loss. (10) However, a study in New York Cit of children with permanent hearing Percentage of loss,.which took into account age,. and and other otherng sxposure,. round a significant �, � nis °: ; icant association between-nearina-loss and aircraf oosure. 8) A significant association was not fauna among a s numoer of subjects, with certain birth cnaracterisrics as well as t,nema tor ctors -6- 5 4 listed above taken into account. (8) Though this study was much better done than the others, the authors did note several methodological problems and concluded that not enough evidence was found to claim an association between airport noise and hearing loss. In summary, laboratory and occupational noise exposure studies suggest that long -term aircraft noise exposure could cause hearing loss. The evidence from the epidemiological studies, while also suggestive, is not conclusive due to the results and methodological problems. PHYSIOLOGICAL RESPONSES Human's auditory (hearing) system has many connections with the autonomic • system which is responsible for regulation of the internal environment of the body. This involves the circulatory, respiratory, digestive, excretory, and endocrine (hormonal) systems. The workings of these systems are prime determinants of a person's "state of health." (5,9,11) Information on physiological responses to noise exposure has been collected from animals and humans in the laboratory setting and humans at work. The physiological effects of noise exposure from traffic or aircraft noise have seldom been studied on people at home. (1,5,6) In humans noise produces physiological changes indicating arousal (e.g., pupil dilation, skin potential changes, and ECG desynchronization). (1,5,6,12) Senses other than hearing may be affected such as sight and equilibrium. (5) Cardiovascular (heart) responses to noise include peripheral vasoconstriction (e.g., constriction of blood vessels in the fingertips and at the temples) or vasodilation (e.g., dilation of the blood vessels at the temples), reduction of systolic pressure and increase of diastolic pressure. (1,5,6,12) Patients with hypertension have shown an increase in both systolic and diastolic blood pressure after exposure to noise. (6) Changes in the heartbeat and efficiency of the heart muscle have also been found. (6) Adreno - cortical activity (part of the endocrine system) in response to noise has been inconsistent with no change, increase, or decrease in activity found in different studies. (1,5,6) Immune system changes along with adreno - cortical changes have also been noted. (1) Noise exposure has also altered respiratory rhythms and decreased • digestive secretion and gastrointestinal movement. (6) Human laboratory experiments involving aircraft noise have found significant physiological changes in the cardiovascular, respiratory and sensory systems. (9,13,14) The results are outlined on the next oaae: TABLE I RESULTS OF , PHYSIOLOGICAL CRAFT NO Y STUDIES NOISE Exposure To Tang Recorded Aircraft Noise-, Length of time of exposure 15 min. 3 hours Number of flights 1 hour 7 takeoffs 60 flyovers 20 flyovers . & landings - Noise levels 84 -91 dBA 89 -100 d8A 90 dBA Number of subjects • 12 males 12 males X When measurements taken 5 min. later in 3rd hour Changes in physiological Not available - measures: • • Heart rate • Systolic blood pressure decrease decrease* decrease decrease* • Diastolic blood pressure • Pulse pressure increase .increase • Sinus arrhythmia decrease decrease • decrease increase* (irregularity of heartrate) • Respiratory rate • Heartratelrespirator rate increase* increase* y • Pulse wave amplitude decrease decrease* decrease(or • Latent period of response vasocon- to light and sound. striction) increase References #13 #14 * Not statistically significant at < #9 p .OS level The authors of the second study listed in Table 1 above concluded th increase in diastolic blood pressure, as much as 15 mm H at the g in some three hours of exposure to aircraft noise provided highly suoaeStI in that noise is a risk factor for hypertension. (14) the study recommended maximum permissible aircraft n oise r levels h of s 85 f dBA during the day and 75 dBA at night. (9) inng g evidence Another study brought 400 people residing in areas with different levels aircraft noise into a laboratory and exposed them to white noise (meanin of noise) of 85 and 100 08. (12) A significantly higner percentage of ingless • subjects heavily exposed to aircraft noise at home had physiological responses to the laboratory noise -- vasoconstriction at the fingertips and temple increase in muscular activity, increase in tracking error a n d bodilylmovementatioA su of t score o f this re acticn rate, pattern correlated significantly with the de eo o - subjects' homes. The o _ gr,,,, oP aircraft noise in the rrslazion was higner_ arnona subiects with elevated blood pressure_ -s- - - 3rm exposure to noise. It has been theorized that if the noise is sustained or consistently repeated, persistent changes may develop in the nervous, sensory, circulatory, endocrine and digestive systems. (1) Some researchers think it unlikely that noise would cause harm to the body (other than hearing loss) through its physiological effects. (11) Others feel that ill health may result from the physiological responses (or disruption of the autonomic system) caused by noise exposure. (1,6,11) • CARDIOVASCULAR tr t tL i b • As discussed in the previous section, laboratory research of the physiological effects of exposure to noise, including aircraft noise, showed cardiovascular responses. Studies among people exposed to high levels of noise at work have found a high incidence of peripheral vascular disease (6) and increased hypertension. (1,6,15) One industrial study suggested an association between hypertension and noise - induced hearing loss. (16) Several studies have addressed the question: are people exposed to aircraft noise in the community at higher risk for cardiovascular abnormalities or disease. (9,17 -20) A study in the Soviet Union in the 1960s, in which 145,000 diagnostic cards of adults .(over 15 years old) were analyzed, found that residents within 1 to 6 kilometers of airports had a higher incidence of cardiovascular disease than residents 40 kilometers from airports. (9) In this same study school children (9 -13 years old) from areas adjacent to the airports were examined. Functional changes in their cardiovascular systems were found -- blood pressure abnormalities, higher lability of the pulse, and cardiac insufficiency. Not enough information is available to judge the merits of the study. A later study of the Schiphol Airport (Amsterdam) screened 6,000 people 35 to 64 years old and then divided them into two groups -- those with greater aircraft noise exposure (NNI over 37) and those with less aircraft noise exposure (NNI = 20 -37). (17) Significantly more of those in the greater aircraft exposure area suffered from a pathological heart shape and high blood pressure, were under treatment for heart trouble and hypertension and took cardiovascular drugs. More also had angina pectoris and a pathological E.C.G. but not significantly so. • -9- RESULTS OF A STUD 2 Y COMMUNITY ..:........,, .� TO AIRCRAFT NOISE AND CARDIOVASCULAR PR08Cp. (17) Aircraft Ex osure of Area Residents Percent With: Low High (NNI *=20-37) (NN ---I'= Pathological heart shape High blood pressure 1.6 .7% t Medical treatment for h 3.9% 6.7% Medical treatment for heart trouble 1.3% 12.7% Taking cardiovascular drugs 5.5% % 7.5 7.5% * The NNI is a noise and number index of aircraft noise which takes into account the average peak noise level as well as the number of aircraft heard in a specific period. The same trends appeared when age, sex, smoking and weight ht were ta account. Since the people screened represented only 42 or kthoseto approached, there may have been selection bias (e.g., heart problems living in the high aircraft noise aea volunteered people with screening). However, other studies around the same airport found similar results. which the office contacts of all the general practice physicians in 3 v o l e, in during one normal week were analyzed, found more contacts from residents ts in the aircraft exposed area for cardiovascular disease and the taking of cardiovascular drugs. (18) g TABLE STS OF A STUDY 3 AIRCRAFT NOISE AND CARDIOVASCULAR � d4 PROPROBLEMS S (1 (18 ) Aircraft Exposure of Area Residents Percent with Low Low High High High Cardiovascular disease (20 8 *) (30 -45 8) (45 -55 8) • Everyone** • 15 -64 years old 4.9% 8.0 % **-* • 5.Q% 6.0% Percent taking Hypertension drugs 9.0% • • Females 15 -64 5.0% 8.0% * 15.0 9 is an index of aircraft noise used in the Netherlands. ** Not a statistically significant difference between 4.9% and 8.0% *** Low High and High High combined. Though age and sex were accounted for in Thous differences ex' the analysis, small socio -ec fisted among the residential areas. The gnomic this unlikely co account for the large differences in prevalence o f ` caraiovascular disease. Another study, of drug purchases at pnarmacies '1um 'villages found that the yearly purchase rate (number of purchases per villagers over 14 years of age) of cardiac drugs, vasodilatators and antihypertensive agents remained constant (about 30) in the village without . aircraft noise. (19) In the other village not exposed to aircraft noise in 1967 and 1968, then exposed day and night from 1969 to 1972 (NNI = 33 -50) and then exposed only during the day from 1973 to 1974, the yearly purchase rate for these same drugs increased from 43 to 64, mainly due to an increase in antihypertensive agents (from 13 to 28). The authors of this series of studies around Amsterdam's airport felt that these results were strong evidence that aircraft noise can cause cardiovascular disease. (17 -19) Similar results were obtained in a study which compared children living and attending school in an aircraft noise exposed area of Los Angeles (95 dEA peak), and children living and attending school in a quiet area, matched on age, race and socio - economic status. (20,21) The aircraft noise - exposed children had higher systolic and diastolic blood pressures even after controlling for height and height /weight. The effect was greatest for children who had attended the noisy school for two years or less. In a later analysis the researchers discovered that among the noise - exposed families, those of children with elevated blood pressures were more likely to move than families of children without elevated blood pressures. The researchers concluded that this accounted for the difference in blood pressure being greatest for children attending school for two years or less. (22) • TABLE 4 RESULTS OF A STUDY OF CHILDREN EXPOSED TO AID NOISE (20,21) Aircraft Noise Exposure At Home /School Unexoosed Exposed (Peak- 95d8A) • Mean systolic blood pressure 86.77 mm Hg 89.68 mm Hg • Mean diastolic blood pressure 45.16 mm Hg 47.84 mm Hg The authors felt that these results in combination with the results of laboratory studies clearly suggest an impact If aircraft noise on health and that additional studies should be undertaken. In summary, there is much evidence linking aircraft noise with hypertension among adults and elevated blood pressure among children. Other cardiovascular problems have also been associated with aircraft noise exposure but the evidence is not as great. REPROOUCTIVE EFFECTS Noise experiments with animals have resulted in a higher rate of stillbirths, an increase in perinatal mortality, decreased litter size. a decrease in heignt and weiant of newoorn animals ano a nigner rate of deformities. (6,23) These reoroauctive effects among animals exposed to noise were thouant to oe aue to aecreased placental Pima flow (peripnerai vasoconstriction) ano nigner levels of certain hormones ourina pregnancy. ;5,0) -1 S9 unly a few limited studies have been undertaken on community aircraft noise exposure and reproductive effects and some of the studies had overwhelming methodological problems. In the Tokyo Airport area a slight increase in premature births has been found and in the Heathrow Airport (London) vicinity an upward trend in infant mortality has been observed. (23) A study'of a sample of 1,452 births over a 4 1/2 year period in four hospitals found a higher prematurity rate (infant weighed less than 2500 grams at birth) - among births to women residing in areas closest to the Dusseldorf Airport (Germany). (23) However, the difference in the prematurity rates among the three residential areas studied was not significant. It was not clear if other factors related to prematurity (social class, marital status, parity* and interval between births, maternal age, height, weight, smoking and alcohol use and nutritional status) mentioned by the authors were taken into account in the study. The authors felt that the smaller number of births in the areas closer to the airport most likely explained the lack of statistical significance. Another study, of a sample of 115 births between 1965 and 1977 in 61 families of a suburban community near a major U.S. airport, correlated the mother's estimated aircraft noise exposure with birthweight and gestation length** taking into account mother's height and weight, father's weight, family income, father's education and mother's parity. (24) Among female infants' noise exposure of the mother was significantly negatively correlated with gestation length (i.e., mothers with more noise exposure had infants of shorter gestation). The same effect was true for male infants but was not statistically significant. Both male and female infants' birthweights were negatively correlated with noise but not significantly so. The authors stated that the small sample size, use of a statistical technique that tested for only a linear relationship and possible underestimation of noise exposure n._, have led to the nonsignificant results. Also, the noise exposure levels were very similar (see Table 5). Birthweights of 902 infants born from 1973 to 1976 in six villages near Amsterdam Airport were compared. (25) Infants whose mother resided in a high aircraft noise exposure area (Ldn = 60 -75 dBA) had significantly lower birthweights (69 grams lower) than those living in the low aircraft noise area (Ldn <60 dBA). Twenty -four percent of the infants in the high noise area weighed less than 3000 grams at birth compared to 18 percent in the low noise area, before and after adjustment for family income and sex of the baby. This difference was mainly due to the differences in female baoies. When the hign noise area was subdivided into two noise areas (Ldn <70 dBA, Ldn >70 dBA) the mean birthweight was lower and the percentage of low birthweight infants was higher in the higher noise area, indicating a dose - response relationship (i.e., as noise exposure increased, mean birthweight decreased and the percentage of infants with low birthweights increased). Also, more females than males were born in the hign noise area. This is a reversal of the usual situation in which more males than females are barn, which occurred .in the low noise area. * Number of previous pregnancies ** Estimated period of time from conception to birth -l2- (p0 J \. V'.ri tJi hli V'./VJVV Ily Ir11W IIJIIIJ 1Vi Qillrl Ql . IIV iJV Vn*/VJVIV V1 f/1 Vy11V11 . AVIIIGrII leading to infant prematurity and low birth weight exist: 1. Vasoconstriction in the peripheral blood system, of which the placenta is a part, causes reduced circulation in the placenta and an insufficient supply of nutrients and oxygen to the fetus, or 2. Stimulation of the anterior pituitary to release more adrenocorticotopic hormone (ACTH) which acts an the adrenal cortex to release cortisol which may be an initiator of the birth process. (2,23,26) Evidence supporting the placental theory found in one Japanese study. (27) The levels of human placental lactogen (HPL, an indicator of placental function) in the blood of 455 randomly selected expectant mothers exposed or not exposed to aircraft noise from Osaka International Airport were compared. (27) The levels from women in the quiet area and the noise area were similar until the 30th week of pregnancy. After the 30th week of pregnancy, the noise - exposed womens' levels were lower, and became significantly lower after the 36th week of pregnancy. Lower HPL levels were significantly correlated with lower birthweiohts in the noise area.. TABLE 5 RESULTS OF STUDIES ON REPRODUCTIVE EFFECTS OF AIRCRAFT NOISE N Yr.of Study Births Births Exposure Results Dusseldorf 1,452 4 1/2 Mother's Prematurity Rate*: 4 hospitals years Residence: • 1. farthest from 1. 5.9% . (23) Airport 2. next farthest 2. 6.0% 3. closest 3. 6.7% Major U.S. 115 1965 -77 Peak Airport Intl. Airport (61 Takeoff: a suburban families) 1. '90 dBA Shorter gestation community _ 2. 90 -99 dBA & lower birth - (24) 3. >100 dBA weight in higher exposure areas** Amsterdam 902 1973 -76 Ldn of Mother's Mean Birthweignt: Airport Residence: Hospital 1. '60 dBA 1. 3423 grams (25) 2. 60 -75 dBA 2. 3354 grams Percent '3000 grams: 1. 18% 2. 24% Percent boys born: 1. 51.3% G. 48.4% * Prematurity rate increases as proximity to airport increases. not statistically significant. ** Only snorter gestation of female infants statistically significant. - 1 3 — (D A Several studies have also looked at aircraft noise exposure and (28,29) One, of the area near the Los Angeles International Ai birth dop significantly higher rate of Airport, found l Black babies and of anencephalyandrspinal bifida exce PWh tec babies born a�' 1970 to 1972 whose mothers resided in a high aircraft noiseareab(90 born l compared to the rest of the County (28) (90 d8A) Because this study suffered from methodological problems birth defect information was from birth certificates only Primarily that the only ( another better study in Atlanta was undertaken which did not fit find an nd nurce), association between aircraft noise and birth defects. ( Thus, there is convincing evidence of a j exposure and low birthweight relationship between aircraft noise explanation for this effect not as among female infants. An strongly for male babies could be that the male fetuses are more likely to die, an expla su orte reduced male /female ratio of births found in one stud is d by the convincing evidence linking aircraft noise exposure with birth de not and other possible adverse reproductive outcomes (e. erti inf defects. This death, infant death, infant sex ratio) need further study, lity, fetal PHYSICAL GROWTH OF CHILDREN Detrimental effects of noise on the growth of laborator anim found. (30) The effect of aircraft noise exposure h nth of c have c bedn on growth has not been greatly studied. A Japanese study of the growth of children exposed to aircraft noise found significant deficits hildren among noise - exposed children at some ages, kits in height and weight 9 � generally among young males. -. (30,31) However, noise exposure was estimated and other physical and characteristics of the children were not taken into account. social Two groups of researchers in the United States have included thi part of. larger studies. One research rou s oftthme. Lo a g Angeles International Airport involving , as part of the study of the Los children mentioned previously, found that 6 atthe hchildren l fexposdrtoeaircral noise at home and school were shorter and weighed less than the children n exposed though the difference was not statistically significant. (21)Te not children w of similar age, socioeconomic status, and race. The other research group conducted several studies of children from noise exposed and non - exposed areas near a large international airport. (3Q,31` One, of 250 years a 0 children 5 through 1 P t. ten stanaaro physical characteristics (e.g., gnt, u mersar of circumference, triceps skinfold, sitting h g eight,e i .) a u in o arm measurements parents' physical measurements, demographic characteristics and smoking s status. (30) For both males and females most taking nto account height and weight) were smaller among those more exposed stoeaircraftnn nois is e. . i However, only for males' triceps skinfolds and subscapular skinfolds w difference statistically significant. q t revealed that body bulk different statistical anaiysiss the (edigot, kinfolds, upper arm circumferences) was lower those more exposed to noise. Another study, by same researchers of 197 c L community 7 hildren 6 �.0 11 years of age from an aircraft. noise—exposed Immunity and a non ?xposed.com l; r °corns of physical. examinations of the linked birth. ( ?arenas' the children with ceccres of their - nysical.ineasurements, :eoroouctive history, size at story, ana • - 1 4 - �� • 1 demographic and socio - economic characteristics were included in the statistical analysis. The mean growth in height was significantly greater among children from the non - exposed community but the mean growth in weight was not different. Among the noise - exposed children no linear relationship was found between the level of noise exposure and the amount of growth in height or weight. The researchers concluded from both of these studies that low and moderate exposure to noise does not affect physical growth, while the effect of severe, rare exposures (over 100 dBA) needs further study. All the studies of children's physical growth revealed less growth, as measured by weight and /or height, in children exposed to aircraft noise, but statistical significance was not reached in several studies. In one study the effect was more pronounced for males. The one study that used other measures of growth found smaller body bulk among exposed children and smaller skinfolds among exposed male children. While the results of these studies indicate an adverse affect on children's growth from aircraft noise exposure, additional evidence from well -done studies is needed to definitely link aircraft noise with growth deficits. MORTALITY (DEATH) Mortality is another health effect that has been somewhat studied in relation to aircraft noise exposure. One reviewer stated that, "Based on animal experiments, it is suspected that long -term noise effects can reduce lifespan by eight to twelve years." (32) However, no further information was given and similar statements were not made elsewhere in the literature. Two reports on one study of aircraft noise exposure and human mortality were in the literature. (33,34) A 20 percent higher mortality rate for the years 1970 and 1971 was found among residents of an area exposed to aircraft noise from the Los Angeles Airport (over 90 dBA) than in an area with much lower noise exposure. (33) The two causes of death that were most increased in the noise - exposed area were stroke and cirrhosis of the liver. When the data used in this study were reanalyzed by another group of researchers who took into account age, race and sex of the residents and used different population estimates, no difference in mortality rate was found between the two areas. (34) It is not oossible to attribute increased mortality to aircraft noise exposure, from these studies. MENTAL HEALTH EFFECTS One of the most studied aspects of community exposure to aircraft noise is that of mental effects. The indicators of mental proolems that have been examined in relation to aircraft noise exposure are admission rates to psychiatric hospitals, attendance at psychiatric clinics, consultations with psychiatrists, incidence of nervous diseases, and consumption or purchase of certain drugs. -1 5— l0� • Psychiatric Hospital Admissions • A series of studies on admissions of residents near Heathrow (London) to a psychiatric hospital(s) resulted in conflicting Air (35 -39) The first study found a higher rate of total and first i a ings to a psychiatric hospital during July 1966 to June 1968 from a maxim aircraft noise-exposed area dmissic- p ea compared to a non- maximum aircraft noise. exposed area. (35,36) This study was criticized for inaccurate estimates of the populations in the two areas, insufficient consid e social and demographic factors related to mental illness and a o of f other admission data from only one - hospital. (39) A second study, on admissions to the same hospital during June 1972, but using different population estimates for th euh 19 a t ad aircraft.noise exposure areas, also found higher rates of total and f admissions from the high aircraft thou hi gh and i low m 37 noise area, first ( ) A third larger study looked at admissions for l four y years (1969 -1972) at three psychiatric hospitals including the on ina studied one, with different population estimates for the high and l ily g d l exposure areas. (38,39) Significantly higher admission rates were found for the low aircraft noise area. ow The authors gave several reasons for the conflictin g findings three studies and concluded that, "noise is clearly notanoverridinghe cause of [psychiatric] admissions but may still be a contributory factor in a complex causal net, and must be investigated with many other variables if it is to be disentangled." (38) • Incidence of Nervous Diseases The study in the Soviet Union mentioned previously in which 145,000 diagnostic cards of the adult population (over 15 years old) were analyzed, found a higher incidence of nervous diseases (neuritis asth states) and gastrointestinal diseases gastritis) in people located 1 to. 6 kilometers and mdairportsuthans' epic people located 40 kilometers from airports. (9) n in The studies around the Schiphol Airport (Amsterdam) also found a significantly higher contact rate with general practitioners in one normal week for mental disorders in the aircraft noise - exposed area (8 over 35) than the non - exposed area (B '20) - 5 percent versus 12 percent. 5) higher rate in the most exoosed area held for less severe, severe r a an (and very ) The e severe mental disorders. The contact rate for spastic colon and low back .. pain (considered psychosomatic symptoms) was also significantly higher in the most exposed area -- 2 percent versus 4 percent for both problems. The contact rate for stomach complaints was higher but not significantly so in the exposed area. A higher percentage of the patients in the exposed area were taking tranquilizers and sleeping pills than in the unexposed area -- 19 percent versus 10 to 11 percent and 12 to 14 percent versus 9 percent respectively. • 16- � - 1 • Drug Purchase or Consumption part of the Schiphol Airport (Amsterdam) study found that the purchase P urchase of sleeping p ills and sedatives remained constant in a non - p exposed village while it increased in atvi village a t was i a) y When the unexposed and then exposed day and 9 the purchase of was then exposed only during the day, these eed drugs us village decreased. The purchase of antacids was constant in the non - the exposed village and increased during the entire period in the exposed village (1967 - 197 In a different study, residents' self-reported i last o pic drugs a (e.g., sedatives, hypnotics, antidepressants) compared among four areas with increasing levels of aircraft aftln across (41) While the use of psychotropic drugs did ywi� increasing annoyance I four noise areas, it did increase significantly And higher with the aircraft noise in both the high and low noise ar areas. The f percentages of annoyed people were found in the high researchers postulated that aircraft n i noise causes reasedeuser health of ' psychotropic drugs but this was mask., by a people in the high noise areas. One other study, of 3940 people, found an association between drug ills) and residence in an airport consumption (tranquilizers and sleeping pills) find any differences in drug district. (42) And another study consumption between people exposed to high levels of aircraft noise and those not exposed from the Munich Airport. (42) • Summary of Mental Effects lth of The studies on the effect on mental c� distress resultingoinre suggest that exposed people experien increased visits to physicians for mental problems, nervous diseases, and P Y s chosomatic symptoms and an increased consumption fesedatives, sleeping . pills and other related drugs. It is not s chiatric hospital result from aircraft effects requiring admission to a p Y noise exposure. Dr LJSIONS • The conclusions that can be drawn from icrnt noise ar; om the studies of the health effects from •" 1. The short-term documented physiological effects from noise exposure and involve the senso y and digestive systems of the bod cardiovascular, have been well respiratory, endocrine 2. Certain longterm health effects of 4 hav eei e also b stud community Y exposure to aircraft nose degrees from methodological Y, the studies suffered to various d e gr e e s from methodological problems and for the results association between aircra Despite this, some health effects the hypertension se exposure i h hearing loss, in adults, low birthweight exists of hper ns i , reduced 9 lo nervous distress (as evidenced by growth in childrer and Psychosomaticsstm to physicians for mental and sleeping pills and other related drugs). symptoms and consumption Problems, ption of sedatives, • 3. Additional research is needed aircraft noise exposure with � order to conclusively aircraft noise setremes these (or other) health effects. Since rescue consideration difficult, it should be very Sincd with special consideration given to which health Y to st planned with identification residents exposed to v arious ° levels tof air (including no exposure), accurate measurements of Y,. the and of the health aircraft noise and the problems, i dentification of aircraft noise ex the health problems the man exposure, re cod to resources e ms, nr a Y other factors esu obtained to conduct such a of th • including funding, P Y to cond such the results. cooperation i c f the individuals, f nd, ex ertise in man a study must and be the research. agencies and organizations concerned with 4. In e t e the meantime, ,• ,... Minn rn an ,pair c_ aft noise levels in lround the Paul International Airport should tbesmonitored. Consideration should be exposure beneath the levelseat which health eff exposure described the levels report (e, community aircraft n B acts occurred in th during the day), on the basis of a 9•, NNI '35, e >6D Ldn, > potential health 8 d8 peak urin risk to the residents. • • -18- I I t . REFERENCES • • 1. WHO Task Group on Environmental Health Criteria for Noise. Noise - Environmental Health Criteria 12. United Nations Environment Programme and World Health Organization, Geneva, 1980, 1 -103. 2. a Vander AJ Sherman JH, Luciano OS. Human Physiology The Mechanisms of Body Function. Third Edition, McGraw -Hill Book Company, New York, 557- 581. 3. Newman, J5, Beattie KR. Aviation Noise Effects. Federal Aviation Administration, Office of Environment and Energy, U.S. Department of Transportation, Report No. FAA- EE -85 -2, March 1985, 1 -105. 4. Griefahn, 8, Muzet, A. Noise - Induced Sleep Distur and8,heir106. j I Effects on Health. Journal of Sound & Vibration. 5. Cantrell, RW. Physiological Effects s'o43 Noise. e Otolaryngologic Clinics of North America, 12(3), August 6. McLean EK, Tarnopolsky A. Noise, Discomfort and Mental Health. Psychological Medicine 7, 1977, 19 -62. 7. Ward WO, Cushing EM, Burns EM. TTS from Neighborhood Aircraft Noise. J. Acoust. Soc. Am. 60(1), July 1976, 182 -185. 8. Green KB, Pasternack 8S, Shore RE. Effects of Aircraft Noise on Hearing Ability of School -age Children. Archives of Environmental Health 37(5), September /October 1982,' 284 -289. 9. Karagodina IL, Soldatkina SA, Vinokur IL, Klimukhin AA. Effect of Aircraft Noise on the Population Near Airports. Hygiene and Sanitation 34(1), 1969, 182 -187. 10. Fisch L. Aircraft Noise and Hearing 24Impairment in Children. British Journal of Audiology 15, 1981, 11. Kr ter KD. Physiological Acoustics and Health. Journal Acoust. Soc. Am. 68(1), July 1980, 10 -14. 12. Guski R. Defensive Activation Toward Noise. Journal of Sound and vibration. 59(1) . 1978. 107 -110. e to 13. Mosskov JI, Ettema JH. Extra- Auditory Effects in Te Aircraft and Traffic Noise. Int. Arch. Occup. 165 -173. 14. Mosskov JI, Ettema JH. Extra- Auditory Effects in Long -Term Exposure to Aircraft ana Traffic Noise. Int. Arcn. Occup. Environ. Health 40, 1977, 177 -184. 15. Belli S, Sani L, Scarficcia G, Sorrentino R. Arterial Hypertension and Noise: A Cross - Sectional Study. American Journal of Industrial Medicine 6, 1984, 59-65. • • -19- 6P fl 16. Jonsson A. Noise as a Possible Risk Factor for Raised Blood Pr .Man. 'Journal of Sound and Vibration 59(1), 1978, 119 -121. Pressure in 17. Knipschild P. Medical Effects of Aircraft Noise: Communit 7 Cardiovascular Survey. Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Hlth. 40, 1977 185- 190. 18. Knipschild P. Medical Effects of Aircraft Noise: General P ractice Survey. Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Hlth. 40, 1977, 191- 196. 19. Knipschild P, Oudshoorn N. Medical Effects of Aircraft Noise: Ott Survey. Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Hlth. 40 1977, 197 -200. g 1 • 20. Cohen S, Krantz OS, Evans GW, Stokols D. Cardiovascular and Behavioral Effects of Community Noise. American Scientist 69, September - October 1981, 528 -535. 21. Cohen S, Evans GW, Krantz DS, Stokols D. Physiological,_ Motivational and Cognitive Effects of Aircraft Noise on Children. American Ps h (3), March 1980, 231 -243. yc ologist 22. Cohen S, Evans GW, Krantz DS, Stokols 0, Kelly S. Aircraft Noise & Children: Longitudinal and Cross - Sectional Evidence On Adoption To Noise and Effectiveness of Noise Abatement. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology. 40(2), 1981, 331 -345. 23. Rehm S, Jansen G. Aircraft Noise and Premature Birth. Journal of Sound and Vibration, 59(1), 1978, 133 -135. 24. Schell LM. Environmental Noise and Human Prenatal Growth. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 56, 1981, 63 -70. 25. Knipschild P, Meijer H, Salle H. Aircraft Noise and Birth Weight. Int. Arch. Occup. Environ. Health, 48, 1981, 131 -136. 26. Moller A. Review of Animal Experiments. Journal of Sound and Vibration, 59(1), 1978, 73 -77. 27. Audo Y, Hattori H. Effects of Noise on Human Placental Lactogen H Levels in Maternal Plasma. British Journal of Obstetrics and ( PL) Gynaecology, 84, February 1977, 115 -118. 28. Jones FN, Tauscner V. Residence Under An Airport Landing Pattern as Factor in Teratism. Archives of Environmental Health, January /February 1 1978, 10 -12. 29. Edmonds LD, Layde PM, Erickson JD. Airport Noise and Terato 8 enesis. Archives of International Health, July /August 1979, 243 -247. 30. Schell LM. Norelli RJ. Airport Noise Exposure and the Postnatal Growth of Children. American Journal of Physical Anthropology, 61, 1983, 473- 482. n 31. Schell LM, Hodges OC. Longitudinal Study of Growth and Airport Noise Exposure. American Journal of Physical Anthropoid L, 9Y 66, 1985, 383-389. I -20- 0 L .4 32. Krichagin VJ. Health Effects of Noise Exposure. Journal of Sound and Vibration, 59(1), 1978, 65 -71. 33. Shaw N, Meecham WC. Effects of Jet Noise on Mortality Rates. British Journal of Audiology, 13, 1979, 34. Frerichs RR, Beeman BL, Coulson AH. Los, Angeles Airport Noise and Mortality -- Faulty Analysis and Public Policy. American Journal of Public Health, 70(4), April 1980, 357 -362. 35. Abey - Wickrama I, A'Brook MF, Gattoni FEG, Herridge CF. Mental Hospital Admissions and Aircraft Noise. The Lancet, December 13, 1969, 1275 -1277. 36. Herridge CF. Aircraft Noise and Mental Hospital Admission. Sound, 6, 1972, 32 -36. • 37. Gattoni F, Tarnopolsky A. Aircraft Noise and Psychiatric Morbidity. Psychological Medicine, 3, 1973, 516 -520. 38. Jenkins LM, Tarnopolsky A, Hand DJ, Barker SM. Composition of Three Studies of Aircraft Noise and Psychiatric Admissions Conducted in the Sane area. Psychological Medicine, 9, 1979, 681 -693. 39. Jenkins L, Tarnopolsky A, Hand D. Psychiatric Admissions and Aircraft Noise from London Airport: Four -Year, Three Hospitals' Study. Psychological Medicine, 11, 1981, 765 -782. 40. Chowns RH. Mental Hospital Admissions and Aircraft Noise. The Lancet, February 28, 1970, 467. • 41. Watkins G, Tarnopolsky A, Jenkins LM. Aircraft Noise and Mental Health: II. Use of Medicines and Mental Health Care Services. Psychological Medicine, 11, 1981, 155 -168. 42. Ahrlin U, Ohrstrom. Medical Effects of Environmental Noise on Humans. Journal of Sound and Vibration, 59(1), 1978, 79 -87. • •