Court hears conflicting interpretations on Palumbo noise levels

Magistrate Aaron Bugeja has heard conflicting interpretations of the noise levels measured from the pillows in the bedrooms of some of the Senglea residents complaining about night time works carried out at the Palumbo shipyards.

The magistrate is hearing the criminal case filed against Palumbo shipyards and the captain of the vessel Hamad on the complaint of an association of Senglea residents.

Court expert Professor Joseph Agius, a former dean of Faculty of Engineering, presented his report which indicated that in some bedrooms, the noise level at night exceeded 30 decibels laid down by WHO standards.

However, lawyers defending the three accused based their arguments on another figure, pointing out that the WHO report quoted by the prosecution also explains that adverse effects, in most cases, would only begin to be observed above 40dB, referred to in the report as the “lowest observed adverse effect level (LOAEL) for night noise.”

Answering a question by the defence, the expert said he estimated the ambient noise level in the courtroom to be “around 50db”.

The Hamad appeared to be one of two vessels from which noise was emanating, Prof. Agius said. The other was the Grande Argentina. “This ship is enormous. What is certain is that this ship was also generating a noise.”

The court heard security guard Aaron Mifsud testify that the sound of the generator was low enough that one could comfortably hold a conversation near the ships.

Mechanical Engineer and MICS Marine Surveyor Paul Cardona also testified. He had been approached by Palumbo, after the charges were issued, to investigate reports of noise from the harbour generator on board the Hamad. Cardona explained that ships used a generator when in port because it consumes far less fuel than the main engine. He had inspected the generator and its housing to ensure it had not been tampered with. He noted from publicly available information, that the Irina classification society had certified the ship as being in conformity with international standards, including internal noise levels.

The Hamad could not easily be connected to the harbour’s power supply as it was configured for 60Hz AC and Malta offered 50Hz, explained the engineer. There used to be a converter for this power supply at Palumbo shipyard, said the witness, but he wasn’t sure if it was still operating.

Police Inspector Josric  Mifsud, prosecuting, asked when the last certificate was issued. A five-year certificate had been issued in 2014, replied the witness, but vessels are subject to annual surveys or would not be allowed to sail. The ship was currently being surveyed at the shipyard, he added.

From the witness stand, Palumbo director Joseph Calleja informed the court that the situation had changed since the measurements were made, as another ship had replaced the Grande Argentina and the number of ships in the port and dockyard had increased. There were currently 111 vessels in the port area, he said.

Calleja rubbished the resident’s mobile phone recording as not demonstrating anything, saying that if he blew on the microphone it would also give a loud reading.

He presented a summary of the 2009 WHO Night Noise Guidelines for Europe which, he said, gave the acceptable noise level as 40db.

Inspector Mifsud explained that when officers had called at the shipyard to investigate the noises, they had been directed to the Hamad. At least one of the levels measured exceeded the WHO guidelines, the officer pointed out.

Several reports had been received in the past and the court had already heard one witness say that she was on sleeping pills, concluded Inspector Mifsud.

But defence lawyers Abigail Bugeja and Matthew Brincat pointed out that none of the prosecution witnesses could precisely indicate the Hamad as the source of the noise, one witness complaining of noise made by sandblasting. It was a police sergeant who had suggested the source of the disturbance to be a generator.

Dr Bugeja pointed to contradictions in the testimony of the two police officers testifying. One could not hear the sound next to the ship, the other said he could hear it from the car, but then could not say what a generator sounded like. The police should have measured the sound levels at the time of the reports, but instead they had reached a rushed conclusion, said the lawyer.

It was “amply clear” that the sound level fell within the parameters laid down by the WHO standards, said the lawyer. “Even if we were to reach the conclusion that the generation was the cause of the disturbance, ships are not permitted to turn it off when in port.” There were too many uncertainties in the complaint which led to today’s proceedings, the defence submitted.

Lawyer Matthew Brincat suggested that the residents had confused the issue with other long-standing complaints. “There is a serious danger that the courts are being used for ulterior motives,” he argued, pointing at the fact that one of the complainants had claimed to represent a residents organisation. There were other fora for these organisations to complain, said the lawyer.

Brincat argued that the court had seen evidence of at least three and possibly many more ships working at the moment. One policeman had said that 50m away the noise became unbearable from undetectable, the lawyer said, asking - after a witness told the court he had lived in the area for 20 years and claimed “with 99% certainty” that the source of the noise was not the Hamad, but the Grande Argentina - which one of the noises was more credible.

The noise, if there was any, was not emanating from the dock and vessel indicated in the charges, submitted the defence. “We have learned a lot from this exercise, which indicates the way forward, but the charges are about Dock 5 and the vessel berthed in it.”

The footage exhibited only showed Dock 6 and the Grande Argentina and Dock 5 was not even visible from the bastions, the lawyer said. “If 110 people exhaled simultaneously, it would make a loud noise, let alone 110 shipborne generators.”

The Magistrate replied that he had gone on the site during the quieter hours to allow him to satisfy his conscience before reaching his own conclusion.

Brincat seemed to suggest that ulterior motives were behind the complaint. “Is it normal for a person to be arraigned, within 24 hours, on a contravention?” he asked.

“When the police drag their feet we criticise them, but when they act swiftly are we going to criticise them too?” replied the Magistrate, before putting the case off for final judgment on Friday.