Drafting a New Bill

Noise alone is not sufficient to warrant a ban on sale or use.

(1) All three bills appeal to ‘quieter alternatives’, namely, electric. Clearly, the violent noise levels of a gas leaf blower have no bearing on air, water, and climate pollution. The appeal (as SB 365 states) should be to both quieter and cleaner alternatives. (Problematically, electric leaf blowers also pollute the air inside and outside with PM2’s, and thus harm public health, even if they are quieter).

Another cockeyed appeal fails to notice that the revised ANSI/OPEI B175.2-2012 (R2019) is a standard established to reduce the risk of injury with use.

If a ban on use (HB 30), because of noise pollution, characterised as excessive decibels, fails; we can at least tone down the noise by appeal to third party noise standards (HB 470 HD2). Yet:

‘the ANSI dBA standard at 50 feet does not adequately evaluate community impact or allow comparisons of gas-and battery-powered equipment sound. . . it underweights the contribution of low frequency sound, it does not provide information sufficient to evaluate how sound energy transmits over distance or on its related health risks’. (see https://sciforschenonline.org/journals/environmental-toxicological-studies/article-data/JETS-2-118/JETS-2-118.pdf).

(2) The appeal to noise (quieter alternatives) is an oversimplification. While noise is subjective, sound, which is felt, is not. (cite) Crucially, reducing decibels (dBA) does not reduce the ‘more severe and adverse health effects’ caused by the high levels of low frequency vibration coming out of gas leaf blowers (broadly dBC). Sound which is felt.

SB 365 argues that ‘gas-powered leaf blowers can cause hearing damage to users and bystanders with prolonged exposure’. However, low frequency sound can be heard and felt inside homes and buildings with windows and doors shut at 800 feet away. ‘[E]xtreme noise’ doesn’t just disproportionately affect leaf blower operators. Excessive decibels and low frequency sound disproportionately affects the sensory and cognitive development of children and the unborn (cite).

(3) Each of the three bills leaves distance (100ft) unamended. Currently, §342F-30.8 is at least 700 feet off in all directions.

The fact that here is no noise measurement rule regarding at all for any leaf blowers highlights the general necessity of an ordinance. Electric equipment must also be regulated with regard to decibels. But, the preoccupation with gas leaf blower ‘noise’ is a non-starter; it also seems likely that any appeal to air or water quality metrics (SB 365) will similarly fall short.

Noise meausrents concern individual leaf blowers, where the concern is with the equipment in general. Gas leaf blowers are indisputable toxic and harm people and the environment. The only solution is ban on both sale and use based on scientific evidence.

The urgent, wide-ranging and complex effects on health of low frequency sound is underestimated by these current bills.

Low frequency sound is more harmful than excessive decibels

instead of electrifying fleets, use the money to electrify the two stroke equipment first because the four stroke truck s that transport this equipment are less polluting—its a high impact action

Time-of-use also harms public health.

There are no amendments to time-of-use propsed in the current bills. However, simply amending time of use is not practical on its face. The same arguments from the department of education will arise. Efficiency. Also, The harms caused by low frequency sound are immediate (check) unlike hearing damage which takes two hours

Both HB30 and HB470 HD2 state that gasoline-powered leaf blowers ‘operate at approximately ninety decibels, which can cause hearing damage after two hours of exposure’. SB 365 puts the range between 80-100 dBA. Yet unamended time-of-use (per §342f-30.8, Hawaii Revised Statutes) allows up to 11 hours a day, non stop, 7 days a week, including holidays. While a job may take only an hour, landscapers often do one street of houses on the same day. Let us not forget that even if it is operating one or two streets away (or anywhere in a valley), the low frequency noise of a gasoline powered leaf blower can still be heard and felt over 800 feet away. (cite) Further, while it may take two hours to lose hearing, it takes only five minutes of leaf blower noise to send people into sympathetic stress (fight or flight), especially if they have been subjected to chronic, long term exposure —which many of us have. Let us not forget the delayed health affects. (cite). As HB 30 and HB 470 rightly point out, the harmful stressors associated with noise ‘combine to detract from the quality of life for people and the environment’.* Why then are these unnecessary pieces of off-road equipment allowed to interfere, physically, physiologically, and mentally, with our health on a daily basis at such an excessively harmful rate?

One answer is cost.

The punishment does not fit the crime.

If, as HB 30 states, noise pollution from gas leaf blowers can cause hearing loss, why would a person caught using a banned leaf blower only be subject to a $100 fine? Is that all the community’s hearing and quality of life is worth? The fine is only consistent with the violation of a prohibition. But the prohibition is for the sake of human health. It is supposed to mean something. That is its community (justificatory and ethical) value.

Aside from noise pollution, gas leaf blowers harm the nervous system, disrupt fetal and child development, pollute air and water, reduce biodiversity, and directly warm the ozone in a short period of time. see the resources links

All told, the illegal operation of a gas leaf blower (were they banned) should be charged as both a toxic trespass on persons and an environmental crime. But let’s start with appropriate fines. In Canada, for example, fines top at $3,000 for individuals and $12,000 for business. Even so, we might also demand serious community service in the form of toxic clean-up, since landscaping companies often write off these expenses as part and parcel of conducting a business that harms the community. (cite)

What about four-stroke gasoline powered leaf blowers?

The definition of a gasoline powered leaf blower in each of these bills only extends to two-stroke gasoline engines, not four-stroke. Four stroke engines are equally harmful given the low frequency sound produced.

What about electric leaf blowers?

*It should be pointed out that electric or battery operated leaf blowers, while a vast improvement over gasoline, still blow harmful toxins (PM 2.5s) into the air, e.g., feces, . And, as mentioned, can still emit decibels at dangerous levels. This would seem to be a benefit to the regulation of all leaf blowers suggested in HB 470, however, regulation based on sound measurements are impractical and difficult to enforce (as pointed out in previous testimony cite). The solution is a full ban on use, as well as sale. The solution is also a reduction in the time-of-use of any leaf blower, since the noise of any leaf blower can instantly trigger stressors, given that many of us have lived with these unnecessary machines for years, day in and day out.

Fiscal implications of protecting human health?

The expense of replacing gasoline equipment with electric (in particular, public ground’s maintenance) along with costs related to enforcement of any ban, apparently costs more than the human health the public health department is appointed to protect.

Gasoline powered leaf blowers are super-polluters.

Gas leaf blower emissions do not simply pollute the air we breathe; they create immediate ozone warming and affect the climate faster than standard greenhouse gases, which are long term..

The continued sale and use of gasoline operated leaf blowers is a contradiction to the State’s publicly declared climate initiatives, that is: ‘High-Impact Actions that will accelerate greenhouse gas  emission reductions’.

Incomprehensibly, a ban on the sale and use of gas leaf blowers (which emit more pollution than cars and trucks) is not considered in the city and county of Honolulu’s Climate Action Plan. According to the plan’s executive summary,

‘The City has already committed to fully transforming its own vehicle fleet to electric or renewable technology by 2035, and is supporting the transition to electric vehicles island-wide’.

Where the vehicles used to transport city landscape equipment would be electric; the toxic leaf leaf blowers they use to groom school grounds and public spaces would not. Even if the fleets are not electrified, black carbon producing leaf blowers out-pollute the four stroke vehicles used to carry them.

If '[r]educing black carbon is one of the fastest, most effective ways to slow climate change’‍ ‍and the goal of the Climate Action Plan is to ‘drastically reduce the emissions that cause climate change’; then it seems obvious that a ban on the sale and use of black carbon producing leaf blowers is both necessary and sufficient. This alone would have the immediate, strong, and far reaching effects the plan aims for, now.

Where the Climate Action Plan lays out a path to reduce long term carbon emissions, there is a shorter path to mitigation. A ban on gas leaf blowers would drastically accelerate Oahu’s clean energy future. There is nothing more directly damaging to communities, environment, climate, and public health than gas operated leaf blowers.

The appeal to quieter cleaner equipment is a non starter?

Enforcement

community enforencemt is a must. normalize it. public awareness. 89%

The ordinance to be amended

§342F-30.8  Leaf blowers; weed whackers; restrictions.  (a)  In any urban land use district, as designated pursuant to section 205-2, it shall be unlawful for any person to operate a leaf blower or weed whacker within a residential zone or within one hundred feet of a residential zone in the State, except between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on any day except Sunday or a state or federal holiday, and between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 7:00 p.m. on Sunday or any state or federal holiday; provided that government entities, and agents acting on behalf of government entities, may use weed whackers during the prohibited hours in the case of an emergency as defined in section 127A-2.

     (b)  Violators shall be fined $50 for the first violation, $100 for the second violation, $200 for the third violation, and $500 for each subsequent violation.

     (c)  Government entities, and agents acting on behalf of government entities, shall not be subject to this section as it applies to leaf blowers.

     (d)  Any county may adopt a rule or ordinance that places stricter limitations on the use of leaf blowers or weed whackers than are in this section.  In case of a conflict between the requirements or limitations of this section and any county rule or ordinance regarding the use of leaf blowers or weed whackers, the more restrictive requirements shall apply.

Proposed Amendments

Time of use

As written, it is legal to operate any leaf blower in a residential zone, 5 days a week, 11 hours straight, and 10 hours straight on Sundays and holidays. Essentially amounting to 7 days a week non-stop.

Government entities and their agents are exempted in case of emergency, but limited to the use of ‘weed whackers’.

Understanding the interconnected nature of these risks is necessary to inform policy concerning leaf blowers’