HomeMy WebLinkAboutOB 1 J.W. AIRPORT RPT 01-15-90AG���DA
DATE:
TO:
i_- F6
JANUARY 15, 199
WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
OL& BUSINESS NO. 1
1-15-90
Inter -- Com
FROM: AIRPORT STATUS REPORT - JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT (JWA),
SUBJECT: COALITION FOR A RESPONSIBLE AIRPORT SOLUTION (CRAS),
AIRPORT SITE COALITION (ASC) AND HELICOPTER OVERFLIGHTS
TASK FORCE (HOTF )
RECOMMENDATION
Receive and file.
DISCUSSION
JWA - J.J. Van Houten & Associates have completed their review of
the Aircraft Noise Impact Study for the City of Tustin that was
prepared by county staff; a copy of their report is attached
(Attachment I). At the City's direction, J.J. Van Houten &
Associates evaluated the study to establish existing and future
aircraft noise exposure level contours throughout the City,
estimate the precision of said contours, assess the noise reduction
characteristics of a typical single family dwelling, assess the
impact of aircraft noise levels on the citizenry, identify the
single event noise exposure level (SENEL) for each type of aircraft
as it impacts the City, recommend a SENEL for the City of Tustin,
and provide recommendations for minimizing the annoyance potential
of operations at JWA. The following is a summary of their
findings:
1. Based on an analysis of the current operations at John
Wayne Airport and the single event noise exposure levels
(SENELs) measured by the County, the community noise
equivalent level (CNEL) generated by flight activity at
JWA currently ranges from 51 to 58 dB in the City of
Tustin. This is about 0.5 dB higher than the CNELs
measured in the County's study and represents an average
daily noise exposure level in the City. Average SENELs
are in the range of 74 to 87 dB(A).
2. Phase 2 operations at the airport will increase the
flight activity from its current level of 55 ADD (average
daily departures) to 73 ADD. It is estimated that this
will increase the CNEL generated by aircraft overflights
by about 1 dB to 2 dB. This estimate is based on an
assumed operational profile for the Phase 2 Access Plan
and also assumes that the SENELs generated by the various
City Council Report
JWA Status Report
January 15, 1990
Page 2
aircraft types using the airport will remain the same as
the values measured in the County's study.
3. The County's study has established 90% confidence limits
for the SENELs measured for each aircraft type at each
position. These values have been used in an analysis to
estimate the 90% confidence limits of the existing and
Phase 2 CNEL contours. The results indicate that the
precision of the aircraft CNEL contours is about + 1 dB.
4. Noise reduction measurements were obtained at a residence
within the City of Tustin. The results indicate that
typical residential construction provides a noise
reduction (with windows closed) of about 24 dB.
Therefore, the interior CNEL generated by aircraft
overflights is currently 27 to 34 dB, with SENELs in the
range of 51 to 64 dB(A). After implementation of the
Phase 2 Access Plan, it is estimated that the interior
CNEL generated by aircraft overflights will be in the
range of 28 to 36 dB.
5. In order to minimize annoyance, it is recommended that
the City suggest to the Noise Abatement Office that
evening (7:00 p.m. to 10:00 p.m.) operations within the
City's airspace be minimized and that nighttime (10:00
p.m. to 7:00 a.m.) overflights be either minimized or
eliminated. This will reduce the aircraft -generated CNEL
throughout the City and will minimize annoyance during
the more noise -sensitive evening and nighttime hours.
A single event standard of 80 dB(A) has been considered
but may not be practical to achieve, particularly due to
FAA Safety considerations.
Regarding item no. 5�above, the City's comments on the Phase 2
Access Plan addressed the issue of minimizing evening operations
and establishing a maximum SENEL at the M5 permanent noise
monitoring station. Both of these comments were ignored by county
airport staff, the Airport Commission and the Board of Supervisors.
JWA presently operates with an 11:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m. curfew for
commercial aircraft. This curfew will continue under the Phase 2
plan.
Based upon all available measurements and related data, Mr. Van
Houten's report demonstrates that JWA operations over the City of
Tustin comply with the State noise standard of 65dB CNEL.
Community Development Department
City Council Report
JWA Status Report
January 15, 1990
Page 3
Mr. Van Houten's report does not include impacts associated with
cargo aircraft operations at JWA. Recent conversations with county
staff have indicated that they are still engaged in "on-going
discussions" with the cargo carriers. At this time, it is not
known what type of aircraft they will use, how their aircraft will
be classified (A, AA or E) or their hours of operations (usually
24 hours/day). As soon as this information is available, Mr. Van
Houten will prepare a supplemental report that examines the
potential noise impacts of cargo operations.
Staff is also preparing correspondence to the County expressing the
City's concerns regarding cargo operations at JWA, specifically
addressing noise profiles of aircraft, hours of operation, noise
impacts and environmental review. Staff would recommend that such
correspondence not only go to the Airport but also to the County
Board of Supervisors, who asked that cargo operations be
accommodated in the Phase 2 Access Plan.
John Van Houten of J.J. Van Houten & Associates will be present at
the January 15, 1990 meeting to respond to any questions the
Council may have regarding his report.
Staff is also preparing a press release, pursuant to the Council's
direction, seeking a resident of Tustin to serve as an appointed
representative of the City at JWA Noise Abatement Forum meetings.
Staff hopes to be able to present a list of candidates to the
Council at the February 5th meeting.
CRAS - The next Board meeting
Information on that meeting will
status report.
is scheduled for January 22nd.
be involved in the February 5th
ASC - There is no new information to report at this time.
HOTF - There is no new information to report at this time.
Steve Rubin
- Associate Planner
SR:CAS:kbc
Christine A. Shingl on
Director of Community Development
Attachments: Report from J.J. Van Houten & Associates
Community Development Department
J.J. VAN HOUTEN & ASSUCIATES, Inc.
1260 EAST KATELLA AVENUE, ANAHEIM, CALIFORNIA 92805
(714) 978-7018 (714) 635-9520 FAX (714) 939-0648
JOIIN J. VAN IIOUTEN, PE, Principal Consultant
DAVID L. WII:LAND, Principal Engineer
ROBERT WOO, Senior Engineer
STUART TAY, Associate Engineer RECEIVE ►
TIIEODORE C. LINDBERG, Associate Engineer
JAN 8 1490
January 8, 1990 Project File 1890-87
COMMUNITY DEVLEOPMENT
CITY OF TUSTIN
Community Development Department
300 Centennial Way
Tustin, CA 92680
Attention: Mr. Steven Rubin, Senior Planner
Subject: Data Evaluation and Aircraft Noise Impact Study for
the City of Tustin
Gentlemen:
In January 1988, noise measurements were obtained by J. J. Van
Houten & Associates, Inc. at a number of locations throughout the
city of Tustin in order to assess the noise exposure being gener-
ated throughout the city by flight operations at John Wayne Air-
port. Later in the year, between July and November 1988, the
Noise Abatement Office at John Wayne Airport conducted an exten-
sive noise monitoring effort at twelve locations throughout the
city. This study was performed in response to requests by the
City of Tustin. The results were issued as a final report dated
February 1989 (Reference 1). At the request of the City, we have
evaluated the study with the objective of establishing existing
and future aircraft noise exposure level contours throughout the
city, estimating the precision of the contours, assessing the im-
pact of aircraft noise levels on the citizenry, and providing
recommendations for minimizing the annoyance potential of flight
operations at John Wayne Airport.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
1. Based on an analysis of the current operations at John Wayne
Airport and the single event noise exposure levels (SENELs)
measured by the County, the community noise equivalent level
(CNEL) generated by flight activity at the airport currently
ranges from 51 to 58 dB in the city of Tustin. This is about
0.5 dB higher than the CNELs measured in the Airport's study
and represents an average daily exposure level. Average
SENELs are in the range of 74 to 87 dB(A).
2. Phase 2 operations at the airport will increase the flight
activity from its current level of 55 ADD (average daily
departures) to 73 ADD. It is estimated that this will in-
crease the CNEL generated by aircraft overflights by about 1
ATTACHMENT
CITY OF TUSTIN
PROJECT FILE 1890-87
dB to 2 dB. This estimate is based on an assumed operational
profile for the Phase 2 access plan and also assumes that the
SENELs generated by the various aircraft types using the air-
port will remain the same as the values measured in the
Airport's study.
3. The Airport's study has established 90% confidence limits for
the SENELs measured for each aircraft type at each position.
These values have been used in an analysis to estimate the
90% confidence limits of the existing and Phase 2 CNEL con-
tours. The results indicate that the precision of the
aircraft CNEL contours is about + 1 dB.
4. Noise reduction measurements were obtained at a residence
within the city of Tustin. The results indicate that typical
residential construction provides a noise reduction (with
windows closed) of about 24 dB. Therefore, the interior CNEL
generated by aircraft overflights is currently 27 to 34 dB,
with SENELs in the range of 51 to 64 dB(A). After implemen-
tation of the Phase 2 access plan, it is estimated that the
interior CNEL generated by aircraft overflights will be in
the range of 28 to 36 dB.
5. In order to minimize annoyance, it is recommended that the
City suggest to the Noise Abatement Office that evening (7:00
pm to 10:00 pm) operations within the city's airspace be min-
imized and that nighttime (10:00 pm to 7:00 am) overflights
be either minimized or eliminated. This will reduce the
aircraft -generated CNEL throughout the city and will minimize
annoyance during the more noise -sensitive evening and
nighttime hours. A single event standard has been considered
but may not be practical to achieve, particularly due to FAA
Safety considerations.
EXISTING NOISE EXPOSURE LEVELS
As indicated in the Airport's report (Reference 1), a CNEL rang-
ing from 50 to 57 dB was measured at 12 positions throughout the
city, as follows:
Measured Average Measured Average
Position* CNEL Position* CNEL
2 55 dB 15 54 dB
6 57 19 57
7 57 21 55
9 54 22 54
10 52 23 50
14 53 100 55
* Refer to Figure 1 for the location of the measurement
positions.
2
J. J. VAN HOUTEN & ASSOCIATES, Inc.
CITY OF TUSTIN PROJECT FILE 1890-87
Figure 2 provides the location of the measured existing CNEL con-
tours generated by flight operations at John Wayne Airport. It
should be noted that these noise exposure levels take into con-
sideration the contributions of all aircraft types that were
measured at each site, with the exception of helicopters and
military aircraft. That is, passenger jets, as well as commuter
aircraft, general aviation jets, and general aviation propeller
aircraft, have been taken into account. It should also be noted
that these measured values are only representative of the period
during which the measurements were made. An analysis was per-
formed to determine whether the measured values are representa-
tive of average daily operations at the airport. The results are
provided in Appendix I. Referring to Table I-1, average equiv-
alent daily operations (Neq) for the four passenger jet aircraft
in use at the airport are slightly higher than the values that
were observed and used in the Airport's study. Referring to
Table I-3, the average daily CNEL at each position is estimated
to be only 0.5 dB higher than the measured values indicated
above.
FUTURE NOISE EXPOSURE LEVELS
With the implementation of the Phase 2 access plan (Reference 3),
average daily departures at John Wayne Airport will increase from
its present level of 55 ADD to a level of 73 ADD. An analysis
was performed to estimate the increase in noise exposure that
will occur within the city of Tustin as a result of this in-
creased flight activity. The results are provided in Appendix
II. Table II -1 provides the operational data used in the
analysis. Since Phase 2 operational data is not yet available
from JWA staff, this data has been estimated using the assump-
tions noted in the table. Table II -3 provides the estimated CNEL
at each position. Note that it has been assumed that the SENEL
generated by each aircraft type will not change from the existing
measured values and that the contribution of commuter and general
aircraft will not change. Table 1 summarizes the estimated in-
crease in CNEL at each position. Figure 3 provides the location
of the estimated future CNEL contours.
INTERIOR NOISE EXPOSURES
In January 1988, measurements were obtained at 14355 Harp Court
in the city of Tustin to assess the noise reduction provided by a
typical residence. The exterior sound level meter was placed in
the rear yard and the interior noise level meter was placed in a
fully furnished room with all windows closed. For each aircraft
overflight, the interior and exterior aircraft noise levels were
measured simultaneously. Table 2 indicates that this typical
residence provides a noise reduction of 24 dB(A). This is con-
sistent with previous experience which indicates that standard
building construction (with windows and doors closed) provides a
noise reduction of 20 to 25 dB(A).
3
J. J. VAN HOUTEN & ASSOCIATES, Inc.
CITY OF TUSTIN
PROJECT FILE 1890-87
Assuming the building construction at 14355 Harp Court is typical
of residential construction throughout the city of Tustin, the
interior CNEL at each measurement position may be estimated as
indicated in Table 3. Referring to the table, the existing inte-
rior CNEL ranges from about 27 to 34 dB, and the future CNEL
ranges from 28 to 36 dB.
PRECISION OF THE CONTOURS
The Airport's report (Reference 1) has established 90% confidence
limits for the single event noise exposure levels (SENELs)
measured for each aircraft type at each position. Tables III -1
and III -2 provide the upper and lower bounds of the measured
SENELs, respectively. These, in turn, can be used to calculate
the 90% confidence limits of the CNEL values at each position.
This analysis is provided in Tables III -3 and III -4 for the ex-
isting operations at the airport. Figure 4 graphically provides
the 90% confidence limits for the existing (Phase 2) operations
at each position. The precision of the future (Phase 2) CNEL
contours will be the same as for the existing contours.
CNEL AND COMMUNITY REACTION
Noise, by definition, is unwanted sound. In general, it must be
recognized that it is objectionable and, under certain condi-
tions, may affect the average individual in the following ways:
1. General hearing loss or damage (may occur at levels greater
than 85 dB[A]).
2. Impaired speech communication (at levels greater than about
60 to 65 dB[A]).
3. Annoyance potential; contributes to nervousness and tension
probably at levels greater than about 60 to 65 dB(A).
Based on the concern expressed by the Tustin community, it is ap-
parent that people notice and identify the noise produced by
aircraft landings at John Wayne Airport. When associated witha
repetitive occurrence identified numerous times per day, in-
dividuals will voice a complaint. Such annoyance, which is
evidenced by complaints, leads to frustration and tension. It is
noted that other noise -producing events cause similar annoyance,
for example: truck pass-bys, motorcycles, dogs barking, trash
collection, etc.
A number of studies have been performed to establish the
relationship between community reaction and noise exposure.
-- Table 4 summarizes the results of one such study (Reference 4 )
which applies corrections to the measured or estimated exposure
in a community in order to establish the expected community reac-
tion. Recall from Figure 2 that the noise exposure due to
aircraft in Tustin is a CNEL of 50 to 57 dB. Using the procedure
4
J. J. VAN HOUTEN & ASSOCIATES, Inc.
CITY OF TUSTIN
PROJECT FILE 1890-87
described in Table 4, this level is corrected by + 5 dB for
"normal suburban community (not located near industrial
activity)" and by another + 5 dB for "no prior experience with
the intruding noise", resulting in a corrected noise exposure of
60 to 67 dB in the community . Referring to Figure 5, it is
noted that this level of exposure is expected to generate
sporadic to widespread complaints from the community.
Other studies, particularly those of Kryter and Grandjean
(Reference 5), have concluded that aircraft noise is sig-
nificantly more disturbing than other noise. They state that the
disturbance generated by a given aircraft noise exposure is
equivalent to that generated by the same exposure level for road
traffic plus 10 to 15 dB. Kryter, in his study, developed the
concept of "effective exposure" of noise, rather than the ex-
posure that is actually reported or measured, and suggests that
aircraft noise must be considered separately from other transpor-
tation noise. The Kryter study has been challenged by Schultz
(Reference 6), who concludes that it is possible to compare
aircraft and other transportation noise equally, and to find and
use a median annoyance response curve for them.
In 1981, Hall performed a study in which he concluded that there
is a difference between community responses to aircraft and traf-
fic noise. The difference in annoyance is not constant but in-
stead increases with noise exposure from a difference of 8 dB at
an exposure level of 55 dB, to a difference of 15 dB at a level
of 65 dB. Later, in 1984, he altered these conclusions in
another paper, suggesting that differences in annoyance may exist
but cannot be substantiated as statistically significant
(Reference 7 ) .
As can be seen, there is no agreement between the experts on
whether aircraft noise is more annoying to a community than other
noise sources, or whether such a difference can be quantified.
Clearly, however, the number of complaints regarding aircraft
noise in the city of Tustin is significantly higher than would be
expected from such a low level of noise exposure as a CNEL of 50
to 57 dB.
RECOMMENDATIONS
As indicated above, the city of Tustin is currently exposed to a
CNEL of 51 to 58 dB as a result of flight operations at John
Wayne Airport. This is expected to increase to about 52 to 60 dB
with the implementation of the Phase 2 Access Plan. The Environ-
mental Protection Agency (EPA) has recommended a policy stating
1. Though the city has a long history of exposure to aircraft
noise, this correction factor is considered appropriate due to
the significant increase in overflights that occurred during the
period the localizer was not in use.
9
J. J. VAN HOUTEN & ASSOCIATES, Inc.
CITY OF TUSTIN
PROJECT FILE 1890-87
that a CNEL of 55 dB not be exceeded within exterior living
spaces (Reference 4). Applying a correction of 10 dB for an-
noyance, as discussed in the preceding section, the EPA's
criteria of 55 dB is equivalent to a CNEL of 65 dB. This is con-
sistent with the City of Tustin and the County of Orange exterior
residential noise standards. However, the EPA emphasizes that a
CNEL of 55 dB exposure may not be economically feasible, nor, in
many cases, a practical level to achieve.
For the most part, the EPA criteria is currently satisfied
throughout Tustin as it applies to aircraft noise exposure from
John Wayne Airport. To maintain the criteria after implementa-
tion of the Phase 2 Access Plan, the average SENEL for aircraft
arrivals, as measured at monitor position M5 in the city of Tus-
tin would have to be reduced to about 80 dB (A) . The results of
the Airport's study (Reference 1) indicate that this may not be
practical to achieve, particularly due to flight safety require-
ments. It is likely that such a level would require the use of
quieter aircraft, lower power settings, and/or a higher altitude
as the aircraft pass over the city.
As indicated above, an SENEL criteria is not considered to be a
practical method of mitigating the aircraft noise exposure within
the city. Therefore, it is recommended that the City suggest to
the Noise Abatement Office that evening (7:00 pm to 10:00 pm)
overflights within the city's airspace be minimized, and that
nighttime (10:00 pm to 7:00 am) overflights be either minimized
or eliminated. This will not only lower the noise exposure
throughout the city, but will also minimize annoyance during the
more sensitive evening and nighttime hours.
If you have any questions, please contact the undersigned at
714/978-7018.
Very truly yours,
J. VAIJ HO TEN & ASSO IAT INC.
John J. Van Houten, P.E. `,,David L. Wieland
Consult fng Engineer in Acoustics Principal Engineer
JJVH/ DLW/ rrp
C:\WS2000\REPORTS\MISC\1890DRAF
0
J. J. VAN HOUTEN & ASSOCIATES, Inc.
REFERENCES
1. "John Wayne Airport Aircraft Arrival Noise Levels in the Tus-
tin Area," John Wayne Airport Noise Abatement Office,
February 1989.
2. Letter from Mr. George Rebella, John Wayne Airport Manager,
November 13, 1989.
3. "County of Orange, John Wayne Airport, Phase 2 Access Plan,
Second Staff Report and Recommendations," August 1989.
4. "Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to
Protect Public Health and Welfare With an Adequate Margin of
Safety," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, March 1974.
5. Kryter, Karl D., "Community Annoyance from Aircraft and
Ground Vehicle Noise," Journal of the Acoustical Society of
America 64, 1978.
6. Schultz, Theodore, "Synthesis of Social Surveys on Noise
Annoyance," Journal of the Acoustical Society of America 64,
1978.
7. Hall, Fred L., Susan E. Bernie, Martin Taylor, and John E.
Palmer, "Direct Comparison of Community Response to Road
Traffic Noise and to Aircraft Noise," Journal of the Acousti-
cal Society of America 70(6), December 1981.
8. "Aviation Noise Effects," Federal Aviation Administration,
March 1985.
Table 1. Summary of Estimated Increase in CNEL at Each Measure-
ment Position Due to Implementation of the Phase 2 Ac-
cess Plan
Estimated
Estimated
Existing
Future
Increase
Position
CNEL, dB
CNEL, dB
in CNEL, dB
2
55.3
56.9
1.6
6
57.5
58.8
1.3
7
57.8
59.8
2.0
9
54.2
55.0
0.8
10
52.1
53.8
1.7
14
53.8
55.2
1.4
15
54.2
55.7
1.5
19
57.0
58.5
1.5
21
55.4
57.0
1.6
22
54.4
56.2
1.8
23
50.6
52.3
1.7
100
54.9
56.6
1.7
Ale 2. Summary of Noise Reduction Measurements, 14355 Harp Court
Average,
All Aircraft: 63.4 40.4 23.5 72.1 50.1 23.8
* SENEL = Single Event Noise Exposure Level
-Maximum
Noise Level,
dB(A)--
--------SENEL, dB(A)*--------
Aircra£t
Noise
Noise
Type
Exterior
Interior
Reduction
Exterior
Interior
Reduction
B737-300
60.5
N/A
N/A
65.5
N/A
N/A
60.3
N/A
N/A
57.3
N/A
N/A
62.0
N/A
N/A
69.5
N/A
N/A
62.2
39.0
23.2
70.5
N/A
N/A
64.6
42.0
22.6
73.6
50.9
22.7
54.0
35.0
19.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
60.3
37.0
23.3
57.3
N/A
N/A
58.0
34.0
24.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
64.5
37.0
27.5
G9.5
N/A
N/A
63.5
40.5
23.0
73.6
49.7
23.9
70.6
45.8
24.8
76.8
50.9
25.9
62.0
39.0
23.0
66.7
N/A
N/A
59.0
36.0
23.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
Averages:
63.5
40.0
23.8
71.2
50.5
24.4
30
64.0
43.0
21.0
75.9
N/A
N/A
61.0
41.0
20.0
69.4
48.2
21.2
Averages:
62.8
42.1
20.5
73.8
48.2
21.2
DAe146
65.6
42.0
23.6
74.8
N/A
N/A
59.0
35.0
24.0
N/A
N/A
N/A
Averages:
63.4
39.8
23.8
74.8
N/A
N/A
Average,
All Aircraft: 63.4 40.4 23.5 72.1 50.1 23.8
* SENEL = Single Event Noise Exposure Level
Table 3. Estimated Interior CNEL Generated by Aircraft Opera-
tions at John Wayne Airport
Pos.
2
6
7
9
10
14
15
19
21
22
23
100
--- Existing Operations --
Exterior
NR*,
Interior
CNEL, dB
dB
CNEL, dB
55.3
24
31.3
57.5
24
33.5
57.8
24
33.8
54.2
24
30.2
52.1
24
28.1
53.8
24
29.8
54.2
24
30.2
57.0
24
33.0
55.4
24
31.4
54.4
24
30.4
50.6
24
26.6
54.9
24
30.9
* Noise Reduction
Phase 2 Operations
Exterior
NR*,
Interior
CNEL, dB
dB
CNEL dB
56.9
24
32.9
58.8
24
34.8
59.8
24
35.8
55.0
24
31.0
53.8
24
29.8
55.2
24
31.2
55.7
24
31.7
58.5
24
34.5
57.0
24
33.0
56.2
24
32.2
52.3
24
28.3
56.6
24
32.6
TABLE' 4
CORRECTIONS TO 131: ADDED
TO THE. I`l1:ASURE'D DAY -NIGHT SOUND LEVEL (or CNI'l.)
ON INTRUDING NOISE
TO OBTAIN NORRALIZI:D LDN (or CNEL) 4
(Source: refer to Reference 4)
Amount
o l' Correct iol
to be Added
Type of to Measured
Correction Description Ldn in dB
Seasonal
Summer (or year-round operation)
0
Correction
Winter only (or windows always closed)
- 5
Correction
Quiet suburban or rural community (remote from large
+10
for Outdoor
cities and from industrial activity and trucking)
Noise Level
Normal suburban community (not located near industrial
+5
Measured in
activity)
Absence of
Intruding
Urban residential community (not immediately adjacent to
0
Noise
heavily traveled roads and industrial areas)
Noisy urban residential community (near relatively busy
5
roads or industrial areas)
Very noisy urban residential community
10
Correction
No prior experience with the intruding noise
+5
for Previous
Community has had some previous exposure to intruding
0
Exposure &
noise but little of -fort is being made to control the noise.
Community
This correction may also be applied in a situation where
Attitudes
the community has not been exposed to the noise
previously, but the people are aware that bona fide efforts
are being made to control t'ie noise.
Community has had considerable previous exposure to the
5
intruding noise and the noise maker's relations with the
community are good
Community aware that operation causing noise is very
10
necessary and it will not continue indefinitely. This
correction can be applied for an operation of limited
duration and under emergency circumstances.
I'ure "tone
No pure tone or irtipulsivc character
0
or Impulse
Pure tone or impulsive character present
+5
00
AW
ic
k9 0
ll
Y•t 54
� . - �97r c• ,C •�C� �• � / / ttom` J �•
• % 5 �.,
co
59
60 'ie
Figure 2. Approxi.maLe Location of the CNI:I, Contours for the Phase
T Access Plan (based upon the measured SENGLs)
I i ; Imo. � • _.� `- _ � �
� I � ' , • \
_,.� • •1 lam+•
•
'
�
/
•
K::o"Mr : _...
_ . .:
"T
• • • 1 QY Co-
eve
PC
-46
• ' J.��
�' l
V .
pal .0
1b P-0
01
LOW
•66
.04
< �•
Ab
•, CfY
00
AW
ic
k9 0
ll
Y•t 54
� . - �97r c• ,C •�C� �• � / / ttom` J �•
• % 5 �.,
co
59
60 'ie
Figure 2. Approxi.maLe Location of the CNI:I, Contours for the Phase
T Access Plan (based upon the measured SENGLs)
N
091
t �I ' w � • b •' r- � J
of
c we
7 �
rPI�.
P • J0I
V i.gsire I . NO i ve ileasur.ement Posit ions (refer to Reference 1)
Three positions are outside the confines of this map./
i
N
091
t �I ' w � • b •' r- � J
of
c we
7 �
rPI�.
P • J0I
V i.gsire I . NO i ve ileasur.ement Posit ions (refer to Reference 1)
Three positions are outside the confines of this map./
1. COYrC rG , CO. -C K out
,
•
1 CUYM � •
• r+wa�
, II : r •
PC
wrt
LM
r •al♦4
w 1
�. K w fJ
coo
4", I 111 RJ~R' 'O �
cl •, �w 1� •1•GO 11'x; 1' t•
tel. 1 A 1':' ,w`3
,1 c i ono. . j..( ....��• o n
fin e.
;�� ►a/ro
w 1•' •w 1 ���•" (t 11 1y 1 •) . • - t Oyy "v.• ti , +, \�,. .,/•
pal `1 I '►a� '\• 1 ' •~I t' _ 1' +•'t • !)
PO
PO
I W"P l .
*V
I tl► 1D / '/
00 PO
1°t.....�K _ I ,:} -111 "" ►o '1'. � � i � .c, + �� ' ••� ♦ �'•r�.i� �/+'�•• + .
M 1 �
l•ce; • %,,.
cq
L. r JI
\i ,• +r ♦ .�' , C`.y ' /i/ �.�• .
of It
t •111 .r. w1 ' o �', �4.i'i ' /
op ce
AO
41
60.. A
/ 11.x♦ �� y ,., �►��•
62
lot
/ ` , \I • r ` (� �i ,'1 ~.,• fir • 1
f
1 re 3. App roxLniato Lc cation of the CNE'L Contours for the Phase
1 Access Plein (based upon the mensured SI:N1:Ls) .
1.1
60
a
moll"
,, 54
0
52
50
0
U
in a"
Ok Irl AP
2 6 7 9 10 14 15 19
Measurement PosLtLons
21 22 23 100
Figure 11 . Range of CNEI, MC.ISUred :.it Hach Position
(refer to Reference 1).
1
1
x
1
1
�
T
x
1
1
1
�
2 6 7 9 10 14 15 19
Measurement PosLtLons
21 22 23 100
Figure 11 . Range of CNEI, MC.ISUred :.it Hach Position
(refer to Reference 1).
COMMUNITY REACTION
VIGOROUS ACTION
SEVERAL THREATS
Of LEGAL ACTION
OR STRONG APPEALS
TO LOCAL OFFICIALS
TO STOP NOISE
` iDf.SPREAD COMPLAINTS
OR SINGLE THREAT
OF LEGAL ACTION
SPORADIC
COMPLAINTS
DATA NORMALIZED TO:
RESIDENTIAL URBAN RESIDUAL NOISE
' SOME PRIOR EXPOSURE
• WINDOWS PARTIALLY OPEN
NO PURE TONE OR IMPLUSES
NO REACTION
ALTHOUGH NOISE IS
GENERALLY NOTICEABLE
40 50 60 70 80 90
NORMALIZED OUTDOOR DAY/NIGHT SOUND LEVEL OF INTRUDING NOISF IN dB
I if;ure S. Community Roaction to Intensive Noises of Many Types
as a Function of the Normalized Outdoor Day -Night Sound
Level (or CNI;I.) of the Tntrudhig Noise
Source: Refer Lo Reference 4.
APPENDIX I
Analysis of Existing Aircraft Noise Exposure
Table I-1. Existing Flight Operations at JWA
NOTES:
Nd = Number of daytime operations (7 am to 7 pm)
Ne = Number of evening operations (7 pm to 10 pm)
Nn = Number of nighttime operations (10 pm to 7 am)
Neq = Number of equivalent operations = Nn + 3Ne + 1ONn
Neq (1988) = Equivalent operations based on information
provided by JWA for 1988 (365 day calendar)
Neq (JWA) = Equivalent operations used by JWA in Tustin
noise measurement study (Reference 1)
* Provided in letter from Mr. George Rebella, Airport
Manager, November 13, 1989 (Reference 2)
** Provided in "John Wayne Airport Aircraft Arrival Noise
Levels in the Tustin Areal" Noise Abatement Office,
February 1989 (Reference 1)
---------Aircraft
Type ---------
MD80
B737
B757
BAe146
ANNUAL (1988)*
Nd
41616
81346
898
91323
Ne
1,514
21164
432
21416
Nn
649
134
16
299
DAILY (1988)
Nd
12.6
22.9
2.5
25.5
Ne
4.1
5.9
1.2
6.6
Nn
76.5
.4
.0
.8
Neq (1988)
790.1
44.3
6.4
53.6
Neq (JWA)**
37.4
42.0
6.6
43.4
NOTES:
Nd = Number of daytime operations (7 am to 7 pm)
Ne = Number of evening operations (7 pm to 10 pm)
Nn = Number of nighttime operations (10 pm to 7 am)
Neq = Number of equivalent operations = Nn + 3Ne + 1ONn
Neq (1988) = Equivalent operations based on information
provided by JWA for 1988 (365 day calendar)
Neq (JWA) = Equivalent operations used by JWA in Tustin
noise measurement study (Reference 1)
* Provided in letter from Mr. George Rebella, Airport
Manager, November 13, 1989 (Reference 2)
** Provided in "John Wayne Airport Aircraft Arrival Noise
Levels in the Tustin Areal" Noise Abatement Office,
February 1989 (Reference 1)
Table I-2. SENEL's Measured Within City of Tustin by JWA Staff
* Refer to Figure 1
-SENEL's
by Aircraft
Type,
dB(A)-
Position*
MD80
B737
B757
BAel46
2
81.6
81.6
82.2
79.0
6
86.5
83.0
84.3
79.8
7
85.0
85.4
87.2
82.3
9
78.8
76.5
76.4
75.2
10
77.4
77.7
78.4
77.5
14
82.7
79.4
79.2
76.8
15
79.9
79.9
80.8
77.9
19
82.3
83.0
83.1
80.7
21
81.2
81.5
81.1
79.5
22
81.4
81.0
81.6
78.6
23
76.5
76.5
75.1
74.4
100
81.6
81.2
83.5
78.6
* Refer to Figure 1
.ale I-3. CNEL Contributions by Aircraft Type, Phase I
1988 OPERATIONS*
W. -------CNEL by Aircraft Type, dB------- Total
Position MD80 B737 B757 BAe146 G/A CNEL
2
48.5
48.7
40.9
46.9
51.3
55.3
6
53.4
50.1
43.0
47.7
52.0
57.5
7
51.9
52.5
45.9
50.2
50.9
57.8
9
45.7
43.6
35.1
43.1
52.6
54.2
10
44.3
44.8
37.1
45.4
48.2
52.1
14
49.6
46.5
37.9
44.7
48.3
53.8
15
46.8
47.0
39.5
45.8
50.7
54.2
19
49.2
50.1
41.8
48.6
53.5
57.0
21
48.1
48.6
39.8
47.4
51.6
55.4
22
48.3
48.1
40.3
46.5
49.6
54.5
23
43.4
43.6
33.8
42.3
47.0
50.6
100
48.5
48.3
42.2
46.5
50.4
54.9
JWA STUDY**
-------CNEL by Aircraft Type, dB------- Total
3ition MD80 B737 B757 BAe146 G/A CNEL
2
47.9
48.4
41.0
46.0
51.3
55.0
6
52.8
49.8
43.1
46.8
52.0
57.1
7
51.3
52.2
46.0
49.3
50.9
57.4
9
45.1
43.3
35.2
42.2
52.6
54.1
10
43.7
44.5
37.2
44.5
48.2
51.8
14
49.0
46.2
38.0
43.8
48.3
53.4
15
46.2
46.7
39.6
44.9
50.7
53.9
19
48.6
49.8
41.9
47.7
53.5
56.7
21
47.5
48.3
39.9
46.5
51.6
55.1
22
47.7
47.8
40.4
45.6
49.6
54.1
23
42.8
43.3
33.9
41.4
47.0
50.3
100
47.9
48.0
42.3
45.6
50.4
54.6
* 1988 operational data provided in letter from Mr.
George Rebella, Airport Manager, November 13, 1989
(Reference 2)
** Operational data provided in "John Wayne Airport
Aircraft Arrival Noise Levels in the Tustin Area,"
Noise Abatement Office, February 1989 (Reference 1)
APPENDIX II
Analysis of Future (Phase 2) Aircraft Noise Exposures
- Table II -1. Estimated Phase 2 Flight Operations at JWA
NOTES:
Nd = Number of daytime operations (7 am to 7 pm)
Ne = Number of evening operations (7 pm to 10 pm)
Nn = Number of nighttime operations (10 pm to 7 am)
Neq = Number of equivalent operations = Nn + 3Ne + 1ONn
ASSUMPTIONS:
1. MD80 aircraft are class A; therefore, there will
be no increase in operations.
2. Phase 2 will increase class AA operations from
present level of 16 to 34. Class E operations
are only limited by 8.4 MAP criteria. For this
analysis, it has been assumed that B737, B7571
and BAe146 operations will increase by 212.50
(34/16) .
---------Aircraft
Type ---------
MD80
B737
B757
BAe146
' ANNUAL
Nd
41616
171735
1,908
19,811
Ne
11514
41599
918
5,134
Nn
649
285
34
635
DAILY
Nd
12.6
48.6
5.2
54.3
Ne
4.1
12.6
2.5
14.1
Nn
1.8
.8
.1
1.7
Neq
42.9
94.2
13.7
113.9
NOTES:
Nd = Number of daytime operations (7 am to 7 pm)
Ne = Number of evening operations (7 pm to 10 pm)
Nn = Number of nighttime operations (10 pm to 7 am)
Neq = Number of equivalent operations = Nn + 3Ne + 1ONn
ASSUMPTIONS:
1. MD80 aircraft are class A; therefore, there will
be no increase in operations.
2. Phase 2 will increase class AA operations from
present level of 16 to 34. Class E operations
are only limited by 8.4 MAP criteria. For this
analysis, it has been assumed that B737, B7571
and BAe146 operations will increase by 212.50
(34/16) .
Table II -2. SENEL's Measured Within City of Tustin*
Position*
---------Aircraft
MD80 B737
Type ---------
B757 BAe146
2
81.6
81.6
82.2
79.0
6
86.5
83.0
84.3
79.8
7
85.0
85.4
87.2
82.3
9
78.8
76.5
76.4
75.2
10
77.4
77.7
78.4
77.5
14
82.7
79.4
79.2
76.8
15
79.9
79.9
80.8
77.9
19
82.3
83.0
83.1
80.7
21
81.2
81.5
81.1
79.5
22
81.4
81.0
81.6
78.6
23
77.9
76.5
75.1
74.4
100
81.6
81.2
83.5
78.6
* Refer to "John Wayne Airport Aircraft Arrival
Noise Levels in the Tustin Area," Noise
Abatement Office, February 1989
Table II -3. CNEL Contributions by Aircraft Type, Phase 2
-------CNEL by Aircraft Type, dB------- Total
Position* MD80 B737 B757 BAe146 G/A CNEL
2
48.5
51.9
44.2
50.2
51.3
56.9
6
53.4
53.3
46.3
51.0
52.0
58.8
7
51.9
55.7
49.2
53.5
50.9
59.8
9
45.7
46.8
38.4
46.4
52.6
55.0
10
44.3
48.0
40.4
48.7
48.2
53.8
14
49.6
49.7
41.2
48.0
48.3
55.2
15
46.8
50.2
42.8
49.1
50.7
55.7
19
49.2
53.3
45.1
51.9
53.5
58.5
21
48.1
51.8
43.1
50.7
51.6
57.0
22
48.3
51.3
43.6
49.8
49.6
56.2
23
44.8
46.8
37.1
45.6
47.0
52.3
100
48.5
51.5
45.5
49.8
50.4
56.6
* Refer to Figure 1 for location of measurement positions.
APPENDIX III
Analysis of the Precision of the CNEL Contours
Table III -1. SENEL's Measured Within City of Tustin by JWA Staff,
Upper Confidence Limit
---------Aircraft Type ---------
Position*
MD80
B737
B757
BAe146
2
82.2
82.2
83.6
79.7
6
88.1
84.6
86.7
81.8
7
86.1
86.5
89.4
83.4
9
79.7
77.0
77.8
75.9
,. 10
78.5
78.5
81.6
79.0
14
84.6
80.7
82.4
77.9
15
80.7
80.5
82.5
78.8
19
82.7
83.9
83.7
81.1
21
81.8
81.9
82.6
80.4
22
82.3
81.7
83.6
79.4
23
77.6
77.6
76.5
75.6
100
82.3
81.8
85.5
79.4
* Refer to
"John Wayne
Airport Aircraft
Arrival
Noise Levels
in the
Tustin
Area," Noise
Abatement
Office, February
1989
Table III -2. SENEL's Measured Within City of Tustin by JWA Staff,
Lower Confidence Limit
---------Aircraft Type ---------
Position*
MD80
B737
B757
BAe146
2
81.0
81.1
80.9
78.1
6
84.9
81.4
81.9
77.8
7
83.9
84.3
85.0
81.2
9
77.9
76.0
75.0
74.5
10
76.4
76.9
75.5
76.0
14
80.8
78.1
76.0
75.7
15
79.0
79.3
79.1
76.9
,. 19
81.8
82.1
82.5
80.2
21
80.6
81.1
79.6
78.6
22
80.5
80.4
79.6
77.8
23
75.4
75.4
73.6
73.3
100
80.7
80.7
81.5
77.9
* Refer to
"John Wayne
Airport Aircraft
Arrival
Noise Levels
in the
Tustin
Areal" Noise
Abatement
Office, February
1989
ible III -3. CNEL Contributions by Aircraft Type, Phase I,
Upper Confidence Limit
.1988 OPERATIONS*
-------CNEL by Aircraft Type, dB------- Total
Position MD80 B737 B757 BAe146 G/A CNEL
2
49.1
49.3
42.3
47.6
51.3
55.7
6
55.0
51.7
45.4
49.7
52.0
58.8
7
53.0
53.6
48.1
51.3
50.9
58.8
9
46.6
44.1
36.5
43.8
52.6
54.5
10
45.4
45.6
40.3
46.9
48.2
52.9
14
51.5
47.8
41.1
45.8
48.3
55.1
15
47.6
47.6
41.2
46.7
50.7
54.7
19
49.6
51.0
42.4
49.0
53.5
57.3
21
48.7
49.0
41.3
48.3
51.6
55.8
22
49.2
48.8
42.3
47.3
49.6
55.1
23
44.5
44.7
35.2
43.5
47.0
51.3
100
49.2
48.9
44.2
47.3
50.4
55.4
JWA STUDY**
-------CNEL by Aircraft Type, dB------- . Total
)sition MD80 B737 B757 BAe146 G/A CNEL
2
48.5
49.0
42.4
46.7
51.3
55.4
6
54.4
51.4
45.5
48.8
52.0
58.4
7
52.4
53.3
48.2
50.4
50.9
58.4
9
46.0
43.8
36.6
42.9
52.6
54.3
10
44.8
45.3
40.4
46.0
48.2
52.6
14
50.9
47.5
41.2
44.9
48.3
54.7
15
47.0
47.3
41.3
45.8
50.7
'54.4
19
49.0
50.7
42.5
48.1
53.5
57.0
21
48.1
48.7
41.4
47.4
51.6
55.5
22
48.6
48.5
42.4
46.4
49.6
54.7
23
43.9
44.4
35.3
42.6
47.0
50.9
100
48.6
48.6
44.3
46.4
50.4
55.1
* 1988 operational data provided in letter from Mr.
George Rebella, Airport Manager, November 13, 1989
(Reference 2)
** Operational data provided in "John Wayne Airport
Aircraft Arrival Noise Levels in the Tustin Area,"
Noise Abatement Office, February 1989 (Reference 1)
le III -4. CNEL Contributions by Aircraft Type, Phase I,
Lower Confidence Limit
1988 OPERATIONS*
-------CNEL by Aircraft Type, dB------- Total
Position MD80 B737 B757 BAe146 G/A CNEL
2
47.9
48.2
39.6
46.0
51.3
54.9
6
51.8
48.5
40.6
45.7
52.0
56.3
7
50.8
51.4
43.7
49.1
50.9
56.9
9
44.8
43.1
33.7
42.4
52.6
54.0
10
43.3
44.0
34.2
43.9
48.2
51.4
14
47.7
45.2
34.7
43.6
48.3
52.7
15
45.9
46.4
37.8
44.8
50.7
53.7
19
48.7
49.2
41.2
48.1
53.5
56.6
21
47.5
48.2
38.3
46.5
51.6
55.0
22
47.4
47.5
38.3
45.7
49.6
53.9
23
42.3
42.5
32.3
41.2
47.0
50.0
100
47.6
47.8
40.2
45.8
50.4
54.4
,JWA STUDY**
-------CNEL by Aircraft Type, dB------- Total
Ation MD80 B737 B757 BAe146 G/A CNEL
2
47.3
47.9
39.7
45.1
51.3
54.7
6
51.2
48.2
40.7
44.8
52.0
56.0
7
50.2
51.1
43.8
48.2
50.9
56.5
9
44.2
42.8
33.8
41.5
52.6
53.9
10
42.7
43.7
34.3
43.0
48.2
51.2
14
47.1
44.9
34.8
42.7
48.3
52.4
15
45.3
46.1
37.9
43.9
50.7
53.5
19
48.1
48.9
41.3
47.2
53.5
56.4
21
46.9
47.9
38.4
45.6
51.6
54.8
22
46.8
47.2
38.4
44.8
49.6
53.6
23
41.7
42.2
32.4
40.3
47.0
49.7
100
47.0
47.5
40.3
44.9
50.4
54.1
* 1988 operational data provided in letter from Mr.
George Rebella, Airport Manager, November 13, 1989
(Reference 2)
** Operational data provided in "John Wayne Airport
Aircraft Arrival Noise Levels in the Tustin Area,"
Noise Abatement Office, February 1989 (Reference 1)