November

IN THE MATTER OF:

GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION

)

R83~-7

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO

)

35

ILL.

ADM~CODE 900.103

)

and 901.104

DISSENTING

OPINION

(by

B.

Forcade and

J.

D.

Dumelle):

We

dissent

from the majority action because

it

is an

ill—

advised relaxation of

a

well

established

standard, will not

provide

the relief General Motors seeks, will essentially

eradicate an already weakened noise control program,

and provides

very vague guidance on what standards actually apply.

First,

it

is beyond dispute that the proposed replacement

of

the existing decibel levels with

the

Leg standard

will

represent

a significant relaxation

of

the regulations except as applied

to

a continuous source of constant noise level.

The decibel

level

is an instantaneous level never

to be exceeded.

The Leq

is

a one

hour logarithmic average.

The majority provides no explanation

for

a significant relaxation under

the guise of

a modified

testing protocol.

The existing standards have served

the State

well

for many years

and

it seems bad practice to relax

a

statewide

standard as an attempt

to resolve

a few localized

problems.

Second,

the regulatory change will not solve

General Motor’s

problems~

The Board’s noise regulations

are

an

attempt

to

~

noise problems by establishing general

numerical

standards that reflect community annoyance levels.

The numbers

do

not prevent noise

annoyance,

If the Board finalizes

these

regulations the citizens of Thilton (who have already complained

about noise)

will not cease

to exist,

nor will their

comp1aints~ Moreover,

the problem can still

be

brought

to this

Board for

relief under existing noise regulations

Noise

Pollution Rule 102: Now 35

Ill. Adm,

Code 900,102j.

Thus,

the

rule change will not solve the problem that prompted

it.

Most importantly,

this subtle rule change will essentially

eradicate what little noise program that remains

in Illinois.

None of the Agency’s existing

35

noise meters have the

capacity

to measure Leg.

These meters are used by the Agency and loaned

to

local governments.

With the complete elimination of Federal

funds for

noise control, the

severe cutbacks at

the State

level,

this minor measurement change will decimate noise control,

except

by the

“annoyance” standar&

This Board has always

sought

68~377

---

numerical

support

for

its “annoyance” cases but now it

eliminates

the

utility of the equipment that would provide

it,

Lastly,

the proposed regulatory change provides only vague

guidance

about when

Leg should apply.

Basically,

one—hour Leq is

to apply

in all cases except where another

time

period

or

measurement standard provides a higher degree

of correlation with

human response.

Presumably this

is

a recognition by the

majority

that

if people still complain,

there still must

be

a noise

problem.

However,

the standard

is vague

as to

how that

correlation is

to be established

or what human population

is

to

be considered

(those next

to the

source or some national

average).

Since

the complainant has

the burden of

demonstrating

that the “alternative” standard has

a higher correlation with

human response

it

is unlikely this Board will

see many cases

brought under

alternative numerical standards.

There

is great wisdom in the idiomatic statement,

“If

it

ain’t broke, don’t

fit it”,

There

is

no evidence

in this

proceeding

that the existing Statewide standards are

flawed,

and

the

proposed cure fixes nothing.

Lastly,

that remedy

is itself

flawed

and vague.

I,

Dorothy M.

Gunn, Clerk

of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, hereby

certify that

the a~gveDissenting Opinion was

submitted

on the

~

day of

~4~/_~

,

1985.

~

Dorothy

M. Gunn

Clerk of the Board

Member

of

the

Board

acob D.

airman of

the Board

66-378