State hearing on Reworld Bristol noise dispute spotlights resident complaints and $34,750 invoice

A hearing officer for the Connecticut Department of Public Health on July 8 heard competing evidence about whether Reworld Bristol Inc. (formerly Covanta) violated state nuisance and noise rules at its 170 Enterprise Drive facility in Bristol, and whether the Bristol Burlington Health District properly issued a notice of violation and a $34,750 invoice covering Oct. 13, 2024, through Feb. 28, 2025.

The case centers on low-frequency “humming” complaints from area residents and how acoustical testing should be timed and weighted. Aidan Baum, hearing officer for the Connecticut Department of Public Health, presided over the virtual proceeding and said he would evaluate the record and issue a written decision after the parties presented evidence and argument.

Marco Palmeri, director of the Bristol Burlington Health District, told the hearing the district began receiving complaints in late 2023 and later retained acoustical consultants after staff and academic contacts could not independently resolve the issue. “We received dozens and dozens of complaints,” Palmeri said, describing residents who reported a low-frequency humming that affected sleep and daily life. The district’s consultants, Palmeri said, consistently found noncompliance during sampled test events and the district issued an initial notice of violation in August 2024 with a 60-day compliance period that the district says expired around Oct. 12, 2024.

The district’s March 13, 2025, notice of violation and accompanying invoice allege the facility remained out of compliance during the 139-day period from Oct. 13, 2024, through Feb. 28, 2025. The invoice seeks $250 per day, producing the $34,750 figure shown on the document. Palmeri said the invoice was intended as a statutory notice and collection step under Connecticut’s enforcement authority when an order is not complied with.

Reworld’s attorneys and acoustical consultants disputed the district’s interpretation of the data and urged the hearing officer to consider more recent measurements taken after Reworld implemented additional mitigation. Megan Barone, attorney for Reworld Bristol Inc., argued that a June 2025 acoustic compliance report produced by Noise Control Engineering (NCE) shows the facility meets Bristol ordinances and state regulations following engineering changes and therefore that focusing only on earlier sampling would leave the record out of date. “Our data, including the most recent data from June 2025, shows that we are in compliance with the local ordinance and with the state regulations,” Barone said.

The hearing record includes multiple acoustical reports: testing introduced by the district from ATI (the district’s consultant) covering sampling dates within the invoice period, and testing submitted by Reworld from NCE, including a June 27, 2025, report. The parties disputed whether post-period testing is admissible or relevant to this appeal; hearing officer Baum admitted the June 27, 2025, NCE report and said he would weigh all exhibits in context.

Procedural rulings: the hearing officer admitted record exhibits 1–24 and appellant exhibits A–N as full exhibits; he also admitted Reworld’s acoustic exhibit dated June 27, 2025, over the district’s timeliness objection, and admitted an offered news article (Reworld exhibit 21) for evidentiary weight. A motion to strike (appellant’s motion dated June 24, 2025) was taken under advisement and will be decided in the written ruling. The hearing officer said he would “give it its proper weight” in light of all evidence presented.

Witness testimony described investigation steps and divergence between consultant conclusions. Palmeri said the district initially contracted Cross Spectrum Acoustics, then engaged ATI for confirmatory testing; Reworld retained Noise Control Engineering (NCE). Palmeri testified that the district relied on ATI’s test results and on continued field follow-ups by district staff and sanitized investigators who documented complaints at residences in Bristol and in neighboring towns such as Burlington, Plainville and Southington. Vanessa Rodrigue, a sanitarian with the Bristol Burlington Health District, described repeated site visits beginning in October 2023 and said she “could hear the exact sound” both outside and inside some complainants’ homes; she said the noise had a “low humming and pulsing” character and that it affected residents’ sleep and daily functioning.

Reworld’s counsel emphasized that earlier consultants disagreed on interpretation and that Reworld undertook multiple mitigation measures after the district’s initial investigation. The defense sought to place the most recent testing into evidence so the hearing record would reflect current operating conditions rather than only earlier, pre-mitigation data.

The hearing continues through presentation of acoustical experts scheduled after the break; Baum said he would weigh the competing reports, resolve the motion to strike in his decision, and then issue a written order that will determine whether the March 13, 2025 notice of violation and invoice are vacated, modified, or affirmed.

Ending: The hearing was recessed for a break and will resume with acoustical expert testimony; the hearing officer said a written decision will follow after the record is closed.