HomeMy WebLinkAboutOB 2 AIRCRAFT NOISE 03-19-90r
DATE:
TO:
FROM:
SUBJECT:
Jti
MARCH 191 1990
WILLIAM A. HUSTON, CITY MANAGER
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT
AIRCRAFT NOISE MONITORING SYSTEM
RECOMMENDATION
Pleasure of the Council.
OLD BUSINESS NO. 2
3-19-90
Inter - Com
BACKGROUND
At their regular meeting on January 15, 1990, Councilmen Kelly and
Prescott requested that staff investigate the possible purchase and
installation of permanent aircraft noise monitoring equipment for
the City, similar to that used at the Burbank - Glendale Airport.
This report provides a brief review of operational systems at five
(5) airports along with a discussion of programs and strategies
utilized by other impacted cities and concludes with a review of
available equipment/systems.
DISCUSSION
1. PROGRAMS FOUND IN IMPACTED CITIES
As part of our research for this report, staff contacted several
cities that staff believed may be impacted by airport noise, to
determine what, if any, programs they were undertaking in response
to noise problems. Staff found that programs range from active use
of Federal Part 150 funds for purchase of impacted residences or
installation of sound insulation (Inglewood, El Segundo and Chino)
to watchdog groups (Newport Beach) to no formal program (Pasadena,
Villa Park, Orange, Irvine) . None of the impacted cities contacted
were either utilizing their own purchased sound monitoring
equipment or employing a consultant for noise monitoring.
2. AIRPORT NOISE ABATEMENT PROGRAMS
Those jurisdictions with airports do provide permanent aircraft
noise monitoring. In addition to Burbank - Glendale Airport, staff
researched the type of operational systems utilized at Torrance,
Long Beach, Ontario and John Wayne Airports. The following is a
brief review of the systems used at each airport. Staffing
City Council Report
Aircraft Noise Monitoring System
March 19, 1990
Page 2
requirements, operating budgets and system costs are provided where
such information was available.
Burbank -Glendale - utilizes a 10 year old real time system with 15
monitor stations. Real time refers to the ability to see or
display noise events as they actually occur. The display in the
airport terminal that was cited by Councilman Prescott is the
central processing station. The station is comprised of a "mini -
mainframe" computer, a digital readout board showing the decibel
levels at each noise monitor station, an aerial photograph of the
airport and its environs with the locations of the permanent
monitor sites represented by lights and a printer/plotter. As a
noise event occurs, the light or lights representing the affected
monitors flash. This system is staffed with one part-time data
entry person; however, the airport contracts out for computer
servicing and data interpretation. All real time systems utilize
permanent noise monitors positioned along approach and takeoff
tracks. The Burbank system is nine years old. The annual
operating budget is $80,000 - $100,000/year. There are no
immediate plans to replace this system.
Torrance - utilizes a real time system with 11 monitor stations.
The central processing station includes equipment similar to what
was found at the Burbank -Glendale airport, including the blinking
light display. The Torrance system is operated by two technicians
and one secretary. The annual operating budget is + $250,000. The
City of Torrance has also budgeted + $300,000 to replace their
existing system with more--:_ipdated equipmer..(the ay. -_---age service
life of a system was represented as 10-15 years).
Long Beach - utilizes a real time system with 16 mo:iLor stations,
similar to the above. In addition to their permanent monitors,
Long Beach supplements this system with three portable monitors to
enable them to produce more accurate quarterly noise reports. Long
Beach has a unique noise "budget" system based on SENEL'S vs.
CNEL'S, which is presently the subject of a lawsuit. Long Beach
uses 12 staff people to operate their system, five of which are
spotters used to identify aircraft carriers. Their annual
operating budget is + $750,000. Replacement costs for their system
is estimated at + $700,000. Their next system will not be a real
time system, but will be a dial-up system, which reduces operating
costs and does not utilize a blinking light board.
Ontario - utilizes a real time system with 8 monitor stations and
a blinking light board. Ontario International Airport is owned by
LAX, and their system is tied by phone lines to the LAX computers.
LAX has budgeted + $2 million for a replacement system that will
also be real time and will increase the number of monitor stations
to 15.
Community Development Department
City Council Report
Aircraft Noise Monitoring System
March 19, 1990
Page 3
John Wayne - utilizes a real time system with nine monitors. The
central processing station is located in the administrative
offices. The JWA Noise Abatement office employs one Noise Officer
(who oversees noise management for the airport) , and three Noise
Specialists to operate the system and respond to complaints. For
the 1990-91 budget, the Noise Officer has requested $500,000 to
replace the central station equipment. Annual operating costs for
the noise abatement system during Fiscal Year 1989-90 were budgeted
at approximately $1 million.
3. GENERAL INFORMATION ON PERMANENT NOISE MONITORING EQUIPMENT
There are two principal suppliers of equipment of the nature used
for aircraft/airport noise monitoring systems: Tracor Applied
Sciences out of Austin, Texas (Tracor) and Bruel & Kjaer
Instruments, Inc. out of Marlborough, Massachusetts (B & K). B &
K also has a regional office located in the City of Orange,
California. All of the airports staff contacted presently use a
Tracor system, or will be buying one. Attachment I to this report
contains a list of components for various types of systems.
Attachment II provides estimates for purchase and operational
costs. As noted earlier in this report (and as shown in Attachment
II) the cost of a real time system utilizing permanent noise
monitoring stations, a central processing station and blinking
light board runs in the hundred thousand dollar price range.
The first step in purchasing a system that utilizes permanent
monitors is to prepare a set of specifications which determine the
performance parameters of the system (i.e. the number and locations
of monitors -and the type of compo_jents needed to 31--complish what
you want to do). For a high degree of accuracy in noise
measurements, custom specifications are needed. According to the
City's consultant, John Van Houten, custom specifications would
cost approximately $15,000. When preparing specifications, the
City must first know what it expects from a system, or what its
objective is by having a system. This could encompass producing
reports on noise levels on a regular basis, comparing our data to
JWA data, verifying the level of impact, etc. Such goals will
determine the type of system that is needed.
Once the specifications are prepared, equipment needs, costs,
manpower and maintenance requirements can be determined. As
described above, system staffing for the five airports varies
substantially. As a comparison, the Burbank airport's data entry
- position is part time, and staffed by someone with a previous
computer background, while JWA's Noise Specialists are full time
positions in two classifications, I and II. The Specialist I is
an entry level position requiring 6 months of experience/ background
Community Development Department
City Council Report
Aircraft Noise Monitoring System
March 19, 1990
Page 4
in aviation, and is paid a starting annual salary of approximately
$25,000 plus benefits. The Specialist II earns $40,000 plus
benefits. In conversations with Noise Officers, it was felt that
if an airport or City was going to use just one staff person, the
jurisdiction should look for a total of two to three years of
experience with computer systems, with at least one of those years
with an airport noise system. A permanent system owned and
operated by the City would likely require the creation of a full
time position earning approximately $32,000 to $41,600 annually
plus benefits, which could add up to an additional $13,000 or more.
Qualifications should be 2-3 years with 1 year in airport noise
preferred.
Annual Maintenance contracts are typically 10 percent of the
original purchase price of the system. Operating costs could run
as high as $80,000 annually.
4. TEMPORARY NOISE MONITORING - AN ALTERNATIVE
-- An alternative to a system using permanent monitoring stations is
to use temporary monitors that could be set up to monitor noise on
a periodic basis. With temporary monitoring, the City has the
option of purchasing and operating its own equipment, or
contracting with a consultant to perform noise monitoring. The
latter alternative is the less expensive one, as the City would
avoid purchase, training and maintenance costs. Also, the
frequency of use of our own equipment would be low, resulting in
a poor return on our investment. Additional regular contract noise
monitoring could also be arranged on an as needed basis or to
verify airport noise data. The benefits of portable equipment is
its versatility to respond to complaints in areas that are
experiencing impacts, with permanent monitors, you are locked into
specific locations.
5. JOHN WAYNE AIRPORT - ALTERNATIVES
In addition to item number 4 above, the City could also encourage
the County to place a blinking light or other type of display in
the new airport terminal, as well as lobby and the placement of
additional permanent monitor stations in Tustin. However, the need
for placement of additional permanent monitors in Tustin may be
difficult to achieve, given the fact that the County's recent study
shows that the City is outside of the 65 CNEL contour.
CONCLUSION
At this time, the City has
The most cost efficient
Community
several courses of action it may follow.
approach would be to continue as we
Development Department
City Council Report
Aircraft Noise Monitoring System
March 19, 1990
Page 5
presently operate, essentially using staff and citizen appointees
as "watchdogs" on JWA issues and utilizing consultants for noise
monitoring as needed. The City's current approach is extremely
proactive when compared to the survey group, none of which perform
noise monitoring. Retainer fees for consultant services can be
incorporated into the 1990-91 budget. Staff believes this would
be the most effective program for the City.
As an alternative, the Council may direct staff to investigate the
purchase of either permanent or portable noise monitoring
equipment. If the Council prefers this approach, staff recommends
that budgeting for such a program be incorporated into the 1990-
91 budget process currently underway.
i
Steve Rubin Christine A. S ingleton
Associate Planner Director of Community Development
SR:CAS:kbc
Attachments: Attachments I and II
Community Development Department
ATTACHMENT I
EQUIPMENT LIST
Permanent Monitoring Station
Noise Analyzer
Weatherproof Microphone
Modem
Weatherproof Cabinet
Microphone Cable
Connecting Cable
Backup battery
110 volt power line
Dedicated phone line
All mounting hardware
and component documentation
Central Station
Main frame computer
Printer
Plotter
Software
Blinking light board
Color monitor
External modem
Dial -Up System (not real time)
Permanent Monitorina Station
same as above, excluding dedicated
phone line
Central Station
same as above with the following
changes:
substitute P.C. computer for
main frame and video screen
for blinking light board
Portable Monitors
Three day data storage capacity
One day storage capacity
cA (Jn A W N -+
D D r n D D
C
>
C C C
3
C
n•33
CD
CD
Cr
0 c(Dn c(Dn
c�•�,003
A
CD
CD
=. IvC
co —
'•'
SD
sv
o,
= cD o
n
3CD
0
-,,
0
�,
3
Q
O
m CDo
�
-%
3
CD
CrCD
M
(n(7
C
W
S
�•
0
CD `< O
N
su
m
O CD X
X
o 0 -0 a,
o
0
O
= = o CD
CD CL C
a
sv
<
0'
3 CD CD
-« ca -..
N
o �•
� o CD
SD
o
CD m
—
(D
<
9 �
o
0
w
w =! C
c
:3
3 3
a CD CD
ID
m
-o CD 60
c�
o
0 sv -0 cn
o. �,
O o
ID—
(D
Cn O
= O O
O
D.
cOn �` (OD N
7
0
a
0
o. -%
CD
O
cn
CD � 0
CD
o
CDc
a
a
to
O
C
n
'a
cn
n
cr
CD
o
3
CD
w.
i OD
1
�
p
>
>
>
CD
CD
CD
C n
C
C
C
'•'
M 0cn
�
W
Sv
�
3
3
0
CD
CD
cn
CD
su
CD
CD
��
�'
O
DS.
to
co
0
:3
o
0
o CD
z
O
cn
w
cn
V)
i OD
1
(n
j
m
Cn
I _O
Cn
_A
Cn
Cn
O
O
Cn D
c71
O
O
(n
O
O
r --
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
O
-..�
O
O
m
rn
1 v
�
cn
al
cn 0
0
o
f o
0
0
0
0
_can
0
0
U
0
0
1 O
o
O
o
O
v
I
m
fA
1
tj%
w
N
0
�
o
1 Cn
00
'�
N
Cl
0
1 0
0
0
0
o
f o
0
o
Z
Z
Z
o
D
CA
D
D
D
O
1
> m
I
1
m
_N
CA)
j
Cn
1
O
O
O
O
I
i O
O
O
O
O
Z
Z
Z
O
O
U D
D
D
D
O cil
1
7Dm
GI
1
m
Efl 4fi
ffl 4fl
I
C7
CA
CA)
I Cn W
O
OO
0
0 0
1 0 0
Z Cl)
=i
C O
a 0
1 0
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
C
I
I
i 0 l
D
D
D
D
D
D
D
I
�Z-i
I
1
O
i
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
Z
D
D
i D
D
D
D
D
D
D
O D
I
�
I
1
U)