BAC SP #2 Sharyn Parker Responses To Adam Smith Proposals On Sound Insulation HB 2315 0001

Response to Alex Stone’s entail of December 17, 2020 re: Rep. Srnith’s proposed House Bill These are my responses to your questions/considerations that you included in your email: Mitigation structures outside of the 65 dB DNI: One criteria to add to Rep. Smith’s bill is to (1) “Limit” participation by confirmation by the Port authority that the structure in question was eligible to receive sound insulation treatment when it was first offered, and was in fact located in the 65 dB DNL noise contour contained in the Port authority’s Part 150 Study for that time period. Rep. Orwall’s HB 2415 acknowledged that fact as a condition for participation. This could be a second consideration for homeowners to participate: (2) The State in which the airport authority exists has acknowledged this action/necessity as an environrnental justice priority for the health and well-being of its citizens as promulgated by its state law being enacted. (NOTE: At the time POS homes were first insulated during the 1980s, 1990s, and early 2000, a structure/home was eligible because it was Iocated in the 65 dB or greater noise contour BOUNDARY as reported in an airport’s Part ISO Study. The FAA changed that requirement in the late 20005 to each structure/home had to be noise tested FIRST and the interior noise level had to exceed 45 dB DNL to be qualified to receive sound insulation improvements. No structure/home eligible for second chance insulation treatment should be subjected to different rules today than applied when their property…
V V