|STUDY GROUP COMMITTEES
Meeting Notes : Environmental Issues Committee
Committee notes reflect the views and opinions of the committee members and not necessarily those of the Noise Compatibility Study Group, Coordinating Council, Regional Airport Authority of Louisville and Jefferson County, or the Consultant Team.
|back to NOTES||2/8/00 as Approved
Mary Rose Evans
Call to order by committee chair Mike Clancey @ 7:00 p.m.
Pete Levermore was asked to record meeting notes.
Agenda was adopted as submitted with the notation that "Soot" should be in quotes in that this was not truly what was there, but merely a title given in the beginning of the 150 process.
Corrections for the 1/27 minutes were covered. These consisted primarily of corrections of some improper use of terms and misspellings. Corrections were noted on the draft review copy, to be incorporated into the final copy before sending to the RAA.
It was noted that the PowerPoint slide presentation used at the 4A public meeting needed to change the 4th slide, third bullet point from "landing" to "take-off".
With regard to review of the last public meeting, the environmental group reinforced the earlier position that while getting sleep is most important, if the environment can benefit as well, this is good and should be given consideration. This position was discussed and re-stated because an individual at the last public meeting questioned the importance of the environment in the process and its ultimate recommendations.
A concern was raised as to what standards the small propeller aircraft are subject to with regard to noise. The belief was they are not subject to stage 3 requirements as the stage 3 requirement applies to the larger jet aircraft only.
A concern was raised as to the emissions from planes and aircraft engines. It was suggested we follow up with Art Williams to see if he has any data on this. Also thought that the EPA and the ATA (Air Transport Association) may be possible sources for this. Pete L. to follow up.
Do we want to have an independent reviewer who can review the consultant recommendations and evaluate them? It was the consensus that this might be worthwhile. Mike C. to follow-up.
Discussion was held on what constituents to test for in the "soot study" sampling. Page 33 through 35 of the "What Should Be Heard" report, by Dorislee Jackson, suggests that four chemical constiuents are the result of airport activities. It was suggested that we test for these. Pete L. to follow-up on this testing issue. Mike C. to follow up with an Eastern KY expert he may be able to use as a source.
There is a perception that fuel is dumped routinely by approaching aircraft. If fuel were only supposed to be dumped in emergency situations, would the ATC (Air Traffic Control) tower know of this? Can ATC tell us what the procedure is? Pete L. to follow up on this.
Sampling was discussed. Perri C. said she had contacted some people that would like to be added to the sampling list. She would add them to the list by the end of the week. Factors the group thought should be considered when testing the roofs were
1. Age of roof
Consensus was that we should have at least two "control" sample locations. These would be houses that fall outside of typical flight paths and therefore would be viewed as unaffected by perceived fuel dumping. Mary Rose E. to follow-up on potential "control" sample locations.
One party interested in having their house tested was more interested in having their windows tested than their roof, as they are getting an oily film on the windows and they wonder whether it could be from the aircraft.