ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
April
21,
1988
CITIZENS OF
BURBANK,
Complainants,
v.
)
PCB 84—124
OVERNITE TRANSPORTATION COMPANY,
Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by B.
Forcade):
On August
1,
1985,
the Board entered
an Interim Opinion and
Order
in this matter which
found
that Overnite Transportation
Company
(“Overnite”)
had violated
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code 900.102 and
201.141,
as well
as Sections
9 and
24
of
the Illinois Environ-
mental Protection Act
(“Actt’).
That Opinion and Order
found
unreasonable
noise emissions and unreasonable
odor emissions from
Overnite’s facility and found that
those emissions constituted
a
substantial
interference with enjoyment of life for
complianants.
After making this finding
of
a noise and odor
public nuisance violation,
the Board
retained jurisdiction and
ordered Overnite
to prepare
and submit
a report on the methods,
cost and timing of pollution reduction options.
Overnite filed
reports compiled by
a contracted engineering
firm,
ETA,
Inc.,
on
June
16,
1986,
and July
3,
1986.
Citizens of Burbank
(“Citizens”)
filed collective comments regarding the report on
July
28,
1986.
On January
7,
1987,
Overnite filed
a response
to
the complainants’
comments.
By its January
8,
1987 Interim Order,
this Board mandated
that Overriite undertake certain actions
to reduce its noise
emissions
to below complaint levels and its odor emissions
to
eliminate
their nuisance.
This order required Overnite to
construct
a 12—foot high wall
along
its southern and portions
of
its eastern or western boundaries and
to reduce the engine RPM
of
its yard
tractor for noise
reduction.
It
left certain details
of
the wall construction
to Overnite’s discretion.
The order
required Overniite
to reduce its odor emissions
by reducing the
number
of
trucks sitting at
idle within
its facility.
Overnite
was
to permit only one truck
at any time
to await refueling,
and
it was
to assure that
its drivers did not start their vehicles
until after they had first acquired their schedules and
paperwork.
Overnite was
to file a final report with this Board
no later
than September
1,
1987 explaining
the changes completed
and results achieved.
The Board
retained jurisdiction pending
final disposition.
These requirements were based
on the
recommendations contained
in
a study contracted by Overnite and
submitted
to ~he Board June
16 and July
3,
1986.
88—285
—2—
Overnite requested an extension of time
to construct
the
noise barrier, which
this Board granted until July
1,
1987
by its
June
10,
1987 Order.
The Citizens complained
by a letter dated
June
29,
1987 that they felt
the newly constructed wooden barrier
was ineffective
in its purpose.
Overnite submitted
its
final report to this Board
on
September
1,
1987 and its amended
final report on September
17,
1987.
Overnite reports having reduced
the engine speed of
its
yard tractor, erected
the primary noise barrier along
its
southern perimeter,
erected
a secondary noise barrier on the
sides of
its truck fueling area, restricted
traffic and vehicular
activities
near the southern end
of
its facility,
revised
its
public address
system,
and instituted
a program of employee
training
to reduce its noise emissions.
Part
of the noise
barrier
along
the southern boundary
is
a pre—existing structure
of nearly
the same height as
the erected
barrier.
The erected
barrier
is
of wood.
Overnite claims
to have expended about
$48,300 towards monitoring and controlling its noise emissions.
Monitoring
at various points along the noise barrier
indicates significant reductions
in the center of
the barrier,
and some reduction at its eastern
end.
There was virtually no
reduction at
a point beyond the western end of the barrier.
Much
of the noise
at that location was attributed
to the neighboring
property to the west:
Advance Transportation.
It
is observed,
however,
that the engineers’
report indicates that Overnite did
not extend its noise barrier beyond the drivers’ sleeping
quarters building along
the south wall
to the western edge
of its
property.
There
is,
therefore, about
50 feet of southern
boundary not protected by the noise barrier.
Overnite also did
not build any barrier along
the southern portion of either
its
eastern or western boundary.
Examination of
the engineers’
data tabulations indicates
that although most
of
the noise recorded at the western site was
attributable to P~dvanceTransportation,
a significant portion was
attributable to Overnite.
The record indicates this monitoring
site
is located about
150 feet west of Overnite’s western
boundary,
or 200 feet from where the Overnite noise barrier ends
at the western edge of the sleeping quarters.
Discussion
Overnite has demonstrated significant reductions
in noise at
locations directly opposite
its noise barrier as
a result of
its
operational and facilities changes.
Those changes, however, do
not fully comply with this Board’s January 8,
1987 Interim
Order.
That Order mandated,
inter
alia,
that Overnite construct
a noise barrier along
its entire southern boundary, excluding
that portion occupied by the drivers’
sleeping quarters, and
along so much of its eastern or western boundary
as was necessary
83—286
—3—
to reduce
its noise emissions.
Overnite’s discretion was not
entirely unbridled
in defining “necessary”
for the purposes
of
compliance.
The January
8,
1987 Order considered
the July
3,
1986
ETA,
Inc.
study which indicated that the noise barrier
should extend over
the entire length
of
the southern boundary,
except that oortion occupied by the sleeping quarters,
and along
the southern 400 feet
of
the eastern boundary.
That study
indicated construction
of
a western barrier would
avail little
benefit because of
the Advance Transportation activities
in that
area.
Overnite has failed to build
a noise barrier along
the
western
50 feet of
its southern perimeter.
Overnite has failed
to explain
its decision not to do
so.
The January
8,
1987 Order,
in light
of the July
3,
1986 engineers’
report,
clearly required
Overnite
to do so.
The monitoring data
indicate that most of
the
noise at
the western monitoring
site beyond
the Overnite noise
barrier
is from
the Advance facility,
but
a significant portion
of
it emanated from Overnite operations.
This could
indicate
that ideally any barrier would extend
to include the southern
boundary of the ~dvance
property,
but that
is not the issue
here.
It
indicates that noise emanates from the Overnite
facility to this area and there
is no noise barrier
to protect
this location.
The Board realizes that maximum noise reductions
from Overnite alone would require completion
of the barrier along
this
50 feet of south perimeter, then extension along some
distance
of the southern part
of the west perimeter.
Construction of
a barrier along
the western perimeter would only
reduce Overnite’s
noise emissions and do nothing
to alleviate
those of Advance Transportation.
The Advance Transportation
emissions are not before
the Board,
and this Final Order can only
address
the Overnite emissions.
The
ETA,
Inc. study
recommended
construction
of the barrier
along the western
50
feet of
south perimeter, but not along
any southern portion of
the western perimeter.
The Board will now explicitly require
construction of
this omitted
50 feet of
barrier
to complete the
south perimeter noise barrier.
The engineers’
July
3,
1986 recommendation was that Overnite
construct at 12—foot noise barrier along
the southern 400 feet of
the east perimeter.
Monitoring data from the east end of
the
south barrier indicate that the noise reduction
in this area was
less significant than
that at the center of
the south barrier.
The significance
of this result is greater
in light of the
expectation of greater noise emissions at the center location in
the absence
of the barrier.
The adjoining land immediately
to
the east
is
a retention basin which would emit little
if any
noise,
and emissions
to that area are
of
little consequence.
The
land
to the south
and southeast,
however,
is
residential,
so
minimization of noise emissions
to this area
is of interest.
The
Board believes
that explicitly requiring Overnite
to fully adopt
the engineers’
recommendation and construct the omitted 400 feet
88—287
—4—
of 12—foot noise barrier
along
the
southern
end
of its eastern
perimeter would minimize the noise emissions
to the neighboring
residential
area.
With
regard
to all other
noise reduction measures undertaken
by Overnite,
i.e.,
the operational changes made,
the Board will
require
no more
than that Overnite continue their exercise to
minimize its noise emissions.
The Citizens have failed
to
criticize
the results of these measures as reported by the
engineers’
study.
The
foregoing discussions,
together with those
included
in
the January
8,
1987 Interim Order, constitute the Board’s
findings of
facts and conclusions
of law
in this matter.
ORDER
For the foregoing reasons,
the Board hereby Orders Overnite
to undertake and perform the following actions.
1.
Erect,
before
July
31,
1988,
a
12—foot
tall
noise
barrier
of
solid construction
along
the south perimeter
of
its property
extending
from
the
western
most
end
eastward
to
the western
most
end
of
the
drivers’ sleeping quarters;
2.
Erect,
before
July
31,
1988,
a
12—foot
tall
noise
barrier
of
solid
construction
along
the
southernmost
400
feet
of
the
east perimeter
of
its property;
3.
Prohibit
its
drivers from starting
their
assigned trucks
in the morning until
they
have
first
obtained
their
schedules
and
paperwork
and
otherwise
fully
prepared
for
immediate departure;
4.
Prohibit more than one truck south of the
north
edge
of
the
terminal
building
to
await fueling at any one time;
5.
Restrict
or
minimize
all
traffic
and
other
vehicular
traffic
in
the
extreme
southern end of
its property;
6.
Operate
its
public
address
system
and
orient its speakers
in such
a manner
that
noise
emissions
from
this
source
are
minimized
to
the
lowest
practicable
level;
88—288
—5—
7.
Operate
and
maintain
its
yard
tractors
and
similar
vehicles
at
such
reduced
engine
speeds
that
their
noise
emission
are kept at the lowest practicable level;
8.
Train
and
educate
all
employees
working
on
its
property
who
perform
duties
capable
of
generating
significant
noise
emissions
in
methods
of performing those
duties
which
would
minimize
noise
emissions
to
the
residential
area
south
of the property;
and
9.
Post conspicuous warnings for all persons
on the property against
the. generation of
noise
likely
to
emanate
to
the resident-
ial area to the south of property.
IT
IS SO ORDERED
Board Member J. Theodore Meyer dissented.
I, Dorothy M.
Gunri, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board,
hereby cer,~ifythat the abo~y.~Op~nionand Order wa~
adopted on the
~
day of _________________________,
1988,
by a
vote of
4’~/
.
Dorothy M. ~unn, Clez~k
Illinois Pollution Control Board
88—289