ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
November
17,
1988
SHELL OIL COMPANY,
Petitioner,
)
v.
)
PCB 88—188
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
)
PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
Respondent.
ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by 3. Anderson):
On November
16,
1988, Shell Oil Company
(Shell)
filed
a
petition seeking variance from 35
Ill.
Adm.
Code 901.102(a)
and
901.103 of the Board’s
noise regulations.
In
its petition,
Shell
identifies
the applicable Boar~’snoise regulations
as those
adopted
in 1973
in R72—2.
Shell
is advised that on January 22,
1987,
in R83—7, the
Board adopted amendments
to its noise regulations that affect the
compliance requirements of
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code
901.
The R83—7
Opinion and Order of the Board
is enclosed.
Shell’s petition
is
deficient insofar
as
it fails
to reflect the amended measurement
procedures applicable
to Section 901
as amended
in R83—7.
Unless an amended petition
is
filed within
45 days of
the
date of this Order, curing the above—noted defects,
this matter
will be subject to dismissal.
IT
IS SO ORDERED.
I,
Dorothy M.
Gunn, Clerk of Lhe Illinois Pollution Control
Board,flç.xeby cer
y that the above Order was adopted on
the )7’~day of
-
,
1988,
by
a vote of
7-~
Dorothy M.Aunn,
Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
93—475
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
January 22,
1987
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
)
GENERAL MOTORS CORP.
)
PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
)
R83—7
TO 35 ILL. ADM.
CODE
)
900.103 AND 901.104
)
ADOPTED RULE.
FINAL ORDER.
FINAL OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by J.
Anderson):
Procedural History
This matter comes before the Board on the petition for
change of the Board’s noise regulations, filed by General Motors
Corporation
(GM)
February
24,
1983
as amended April
13, 1984.
In
summary,
GM proposes amendments to
35
Iii.
Adm.
Code 900.103(b)
“Measurement Procedures”
applicable to Part 901 to require use of
one hour Leq averaging in determining compliance with the
regulations
(except for blasting noise),
as well as
correction of
measurements
for ambient noise, and amendment to 35 Ill.
Adm.
Code 901.104
“Impulsive
Sound” by deletion of the required
measurement by “fast dynamic characteristic”
in conformance with
the proposed amendment
to Section 900.l03(b).*
GM’s assertion is
that these amendments are necessary to insure correct
implementation
of the Board’s intention
in adopting the original
noise regulations that sound measurements used to assess
compliance
be
“in substantial conformity with standards
established by the American National Standards Institute,
Inc.
(ANSI)”,
See R72-2,
In The Matter
Of: Noise
Pollution Control
Regulations,
Order of July 23,
1973,
Opinion of July
31,
1973,
p.
23.
Merit hearings were held on this proposal on June
22, and
November
22-23,
1983,
at which some economic data were
presented.
No separate economic impact hearings have been held,
given
the determination of the Department
of
Energy and Natural
Resources
(DENR) that:
“While
it may
be
possible
to
quantify some
of
the
*This Opinion refers to the rules
as renumbered upon
codification;
the record
in part refers to the old rule
numbers.
The initial proposal referred to the applicable rules
prior to codification,
then numbered
as Rules
103 and 206 of the
Chapter
8:
Noise Regulations.
Prior to codification, Rule 206
“Impulsive
Sound” was renumbered to Rule 205
in R76-14, and upon
codification was renumbered
to Section 901.104.
Old Rule 103 was
codified as
901.103.
75-106
93—476
-2-
costs
and benefits of R83-7,
such a study would be
costly
and
would
probably
not
contribute
much
beyond
what
has
already
been
entered
into
the
record.
Therefore,
the
following
criterion
specified
in
Section
IV(d)
of PA 83-468 applies
in
this matter:
The
cost
of
making
a
formal
study
is
economically
unreasonable
in
relation
to
the
value of the study to the Board
in determining
the
adverse
economic
impact
of
the
regulation.”
(DENR Letter of 12-23-83;
see also DENR Letter of 3-12-
84.)
Post-hearing comments were filed by GM on April
13 and June
15,
1984, and by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(Agency) on May
3,
1984.
CM,
the Agency,
and DENR were the only
active participants
in this proceeding.
Testimony on CM’s behalf
was presented
by
Richard R. James, former Vice President of Total
Environmental Systems,
Inc.
(TES),
a noise consulting firm; James
H.
Pyne, CM Staff Engineer
in Plant Engineering and Development,
Advanced Product and Manufacturing Staff, who is responsible for
overseeing and directing
CM’s
Noise Control Program; Roy F.
Larson, Environmental Coordinator at the GM Central Foundry
in
Danville; and Woodford Van Tifflin, Supervisor of
Engineering in
Plant Engineering Programs.
CM Central Office.
Limited testimony
in response
to Board questions was given on behalf of the Agency
by Major Hearn, Jr.
By action on November
7,
1985,
the Board proposed for first
notice certain amendments
to the Board’s
rules and regulations
governing noise; publication of the proposed amendments occurred
in
10 Illinois Register 4175,
March
7,
1986.
Subsequent to publication of the proposed amendments,
the
Board received three Public Comments
(“PC”):
PC
#3 filed May 7,
1986,
by the Midwest Environmental Assistance
Center;
PC
#4 filed
May 12,
1986,
by Commonwealth Edison;
and PC
#5 filed June
30,
1986,
by GM.
Based on
a review of the record,
as augmented by these
public comments,
on December
5,
1986 the Board adopted Opinion
and Order proposing amendments
to
35 Ill.
Adm.
Code Sections
900.103(b) and 901.104.
In so doing,
the Board modified the
first notice proposal to delete
a proposed alternative
measurement procedure
(proposed
Section 901.130)
in response to
public comments.
As
its meeting of January
13,
1987,
the Joint Committee on
Administrative Rules issued
a certificate of no objection to the
rules.
Accordingly,
the Board adopts amendments
to
35 Ill.
Adm.
75-107
-3—
Code 900.103 and 901.104 as proposed at second notice and set
forth
in the Order below.
Factual Background Prompting the GM Proposal
GM’s
Illinois operations include
a gray iron foundry located
partially
in Danville and partially in Tilton,
a Fisher Body
plant
in Willow Springs which fabricates and assembles automobile
bodies,
and two Electro-Motive plants:
Plant
#1
in
La Grange,
which fabricates and assembles diesel-electric powered railroad
locomotives, power generating units
for petroleum drilling rigs,
and diesel power sources for various applications, and Plant
#2
in Chicago, which primarily fabricates and welds primary engine
and electric motor components.
Data from noise surveys at the
Danville plant were those primarily used
to exemplify CM’s
concerns with the wording and implementation of the existing
rules, although some data from the other plants was also
discussed.
The Agency began an investigation of noise emissions
at GM’s
Danville facility in
1978,
as
a result of
a complaint
in
February,
1978 from
a Tilton resident,
Mr. Wayne
H.
Powers,
who
complained of
a
“high pitch tone soundingl
like very large
electric motors”.
As
a
follow-up to the complaint
the Agency
contacted eight other residents,
5 of whom shared
Mr. Powers’
complaint.
See Agency Comments of 5-3-84,
p.
6 and Attach.
3-4.
The
record of Agency monitoring activities
at Danville shows
that there were at least seven field trips to acquire data.
Measurements were taken pursuant
to the criteria adopted by the
Agency pursuant
to Section 900.103(b)
on February
8, 1980
(Exh.
C).
The first trip was on May
17,
1978,
and the most recent was
on January
29,
1981.
Exhibit
“L” summarizes the first
six trips,
which covers eight
tests.
The ninth test was on January
29,
1981.
Exhibit
“L” shows each of the test dates,
the time spent
by the Agency staff on site,
the type of analyzer used,
the total
sample length
(period of observation), range of levels
(or
“average” level)
in the 160 Hz 1/3 octave band, and the delta
(or
range
of deltas) used
to define the presence of
a prominent
discrete tone.
The January
29,
1981,
test was conducted between
the hours of 11:30 a.m.
and 1:30 p.m.
Visual observations
of
levels were made with
a B&K 2209 SLM and
1/3 octave filter set.
The data was also tape recorded
for subsequent analysis.
This
analysis consisted of
3 sample periods covering 116 seconds of
data
from the
B&!
2131,
which was
set to an averaging time
of one
second.
The range
of levels
in the 160 Hz 1/3 octave band was
62
to
66 dB, with the deltas ranging from
7
to
14 dB.
Data collection and analysis
followed one of two methods.
Exhibit
“L” shows the method used by the Agency for each test,
by
referring to
“Filter and SLM (Fast or
Slow),” or
“Taped B&K
2131.”
The
first method involved visual reading
of the sound
level in each
1/3 octave band directly
from the readout meter of
the B&K 2209 sound
level meter, equipped with
a
B&F( 1616 1/3
75-108
93—478
-4—
octave band filter set.
No record was provided of the period of
observation or methodology used
to determine the reported
levels.
The second method involved tape recording the community
noise at the test sites.
This recording was subsequently
analyzed at an Agency laboratory.
The typical analysis procedure,
as described on page
5 of
the Agency’s
Noise Survey Report,
is shown
in Exhibit
“M.”
It
documents the Agency’s data collection and analysis procedures
for the testing conducted on July
18,
1979,
as.
follows:
“The data
was accumulated using
the Nagra IV-
SJ
taperecorder
and
magnetic
tape
at
7.5
inches
per
second
tape
speed
on
fast
channel
#1.
The data was analyzed by playback of the
magnetic
tape
on
the same recorder
(Nagra IV-
SJ)
at the same speed
(7.5 ips)
into the Bruel
and Kjaer model
2131
Digital
Frequency third-
octave
analyzer.
The
2131
supplies
the
information
to
the
Hewlett
Packard
9825A
calculator.
The
calculator
has
been
programmed
to accept the information and apply
all correction factors, except those necessary
due
to
ambient
SPL’s
and
print
the corrected
data
in
1/3
octaves
and
summed
octave bands.
The
HP
9825A
printouts
are
included
in
this
report.
Several averaging
times were used
on
the noise
source.
The important
fact
is that
over
a
32 second averaging time the prominent
discrete
tone
is
still
present.
Thereby
indicating,
the pure tone can be characterized
as constantly present.”
Two different averaging
times were used.
Three
sets of data
samples were each averaged for one second, and one set of data
was averaged over
a 32-second period.
The 32-second
sample was
in compliance with both Rules 202 and 207.
The physical noise environm~nt is complex.
In addition
to
noise produced by GM,
there are noise emissions from motor
vehicles on
1-74,
which at that point has a major on-off ramp and
is elevated on a high berm,
as well as in-town traffic, and noise
emissions from the railroad lines
and one switchyard
located
to
the east and south.
The
source of the “high pitch tone” was determined
to be the
cupola fume control systems
at stacks
1,
2
&
3.
The schematic
provided as
Exhibit
“H” shows
the
2000 HP fan which draws cupola
emissions through
the scrubbers.
The fundamental tone of
this
fan
is related
to the fan RPM and the number of fan blades.
For
this
fan,
which
is used on all three
stacks, this tone is at 158
Hz.
75-109
-5-
In response
to discussions with the Agency in
1978,
CM
installed on an experimental basis
a corrosion-resistant
Industrial Acoustic Silencer
in the No.
2 cupola.
This did not
correct
the violation noted by the Agency and completely
disintegrated
in the stack within
14 months after installation.
Testimony of
W. Van Tifflin,
p.
6, and Exh.
E.
According to the
Agency,
(comments,
p.
7)
“several”,
unspecified
operational
changes
were
also
unsuccessfully
implemented.
On
May
23,
1980,
the Agency issued
a
“Notice of Enforcement”
(Exh.
E) alleging
violations
of
then
Rules
101,
202,
and
207
concerning
noise
nuisance, emission of sounds from Class
C to Class
A land,
and
prominent discrete tones.
No enforcement action has ever been
brought before the Board.
This does not reflect Agency judgment
that any problem has been solved, but instead reflects the severe
cutback
in the Agency’s Noise Control
Staff which
is the result
of the demise of the Federal Noise Program and its funding for
state enforcement efforts.
See Agency Comments,
p.
13-19.
The
Agency has
“pressed” for installation by CM of stack silencers
(~Lc~~~•
p.
7).
CM has investigated this option, and believes that stainless
steel silencers produced by TLT Babcock are the most feasible
option.
Capital, installation and maintenance costs will require
an expenditure of $142,358 per year
(in
1983)
for every year in
which GM continues to operate,
due to the need to replace the
silencers every five years due
to corrosion.
The silencers are
designed
to hypothetically achieve
a 24 dB reduction at the
cupola.
Based on extension measurements
in Mr.
Power’s yard
(described
in more detail below),
GM asserts that the effective
reduction of noise to that receiving source is
4 dB, due to the
masking of the sound
from the cupola by ambient, non-GM noise
sources.
CM further asserts that installation of such equipment
to achieve compliance with the numerical limits Part
901
(as
opposed to the noise nuisance of Section 900.102)
is economically
unreasonable, based on its belief that the Agency’s noise
measurement and analysis procedures do not correctly measure
noise emissions as
intended by the Board
in adopting the noise
regulations.
See, generally,
testimony of W. Van Tifflin.
GM notes
that,
based on sound measurements
in 1981 at
its
two Electromotive and its Fisher Body plant, by using the Agency
measurement techniques
as employed at the Danville plant,
that
a
measurer could find violations of the Board’ prominent discrete
and impulsive
sound
rules.
GM does not seek site specific relief
for each of its four plants, believing
that non-ANSI complying
flaws
in the measurement affect not only GM, but the rest
of the
regulated community as well.
GM’s basic position,
then,
is
that
as
a
“good corporate citizen”
the responsible position for
it
to
take
is
to correct
the generally applicable
flaws
it perceives,
rather than
to attach only its specific
“compliance” problems.
75-110
93—480
-6-
CM’s Asserted Flaws
In Agency Measurement and Analysis Techniques
ANSI S1.13-1971
(Exhibit D) requires that the measuring
technician
measure
sound
over
a
sufficient
period
of
observation
to obtain a statistically representative sound level;
it does not
specify
the
length
of
the
observation
period.
It
also
requires
corrections for ambient sounds which are measured along with the
source
in
question.
ANSI
S1.13-1971
provides
methods
for
determining
the
true
root
mean
square
(rms)
values
of
the
sound
level
for
a
specified
period
of
observation.
The
rms
sound
pressure
level
is
also
known as the “log average
sound pressure level,”
“equivalent
continuous
sound
pressure
level,”
and
“Leq”
when
referring
to
the
equivalent continuous
sound level.
For reasonably steady sounds
this value is indicated by the position of the meter needle or
digital readout
value of the sound level meter.
When
fluctuations
in the meter readout due to variations
in the
sound’s amplitude preclude direct readout, ANSI Sl.13 provides
procedures
for estimating
the true rms value
that work well,
when
the variation
in the sound level over the period of observation
is reasonably stable and sinusoidal.
ANSI’s formula for
averaging independent samples
is:
N
(L./l0)
L
=
10
*
LOG
~-
~
10
‘
dB
Eq.
1
j=1
Where:
N
=
total number of observations
L1
=
the level at each observations.
ANSI S1.13 recommends
that if
the time scale of the
fluctuations
is such as
to make this procedure impractical, other
techniques,
such as direct computation of the rms value by analog
or digital means, are required.
The digital method utilizes an
algorithm conceptually similar
to
the above
formula.
CM asserts that the Agency’s measurement procedures,
adopted
February
8,
1980,
under Rule
103(a) Exhibit
“C”,
follow ANSI
Sl.l3 very closely,
often paraphrasing whole sections of the
standard
--
except at one very important point.
The Agency
modified Equation
1 to make the input values for L~the maximum
levels observed, not the statistically independent samples
intended by ANSI.
This means that value
“L”
is no longer the
true mean rms level.
Now “L”
is instead the log average of the
maximum values.
It will thus always be greater than the rms
value desired, with the discrepancy increasing as
the magnitude
of the fluctuations increase and
as
the pattern of the variation
in level deviates from sinusoidal.
CM further asserts
that there was also
a discrepancy
in
Agency laboratory procedures.
This deviation occurs
in the HP
9825A computer program, where the sample output levels from the
B&K 2131 are averaged and printed
Out.
This deviation occurs
75-111
93—481
—7—
because the HP 9825A computer program is written to
arithmetically average
the levels.
Thus, equation
1 was changed
to read,
for the Agency’s measurements
at Danville,
to the
following:
1
N
L
=
i=l
L~)
Eq.2
Where:
N
=
total
number
of
samples
=
the level of the sample
output from the B&K 2131.
This equation
is not
in agreement with either the published
Agency measurement procedures
of February
8, 1980,
or the ANSI
Sl.l3-l971 methods
for determining the true rms sound pressure
level.
GM/TES FINDINGS AT DANVILLE
A comprehensive study of the impact of the Danville plant’s
noise emissions on the Tilton community environment was conducted
jointly by General Motors’ and TES personnel.
Data were
collected jointly by CM representatives and analyzed by TES.
The
last completed test
sequence documented noise levels over a
24
hour period,
at the primary
test site that was also used by the
Agency
-
Mr.
Power’s yard.
Exhibit
“N” presents the results
of the 1980 Power’s yard
tests as log-mean-average
sound pressure levels, plus or minus
one standard deviation.
The data representing each cupola’s
noise emissions has been separated into two tables.
The upper
table
shows the cupola noise emissions in conjunction with
traffic and railroad activities.
The lower table
shows
the
average
levels
in each 1/3 octave band
from the data analysis
conducted
to separate
the plant ,noise from other ambient noise
sources.
This table presents the levels
in the bands adjacent to
the
cupola
noise
out
of
context
of
the
ambient
environment.
However,
this
is
a necessary
step
in
defining
the
1/3
octave
band
containing cupola noise components, to judge the effect of noise
control changes.
A method similar to that used by the Agency was
used
in analysis, although the GM/TES averaging was done
logarithmically, typically over periods of 16
seconds
or
more,
and was not limited
to only the maximum levels observed.
When GM/TES sampled
for the “with-ambient” condition,
they
typically averaged uninterrupted periods of
3.4 minutes or 6.8
minutes.
Mr. James used an
‘ear and eye’
judgment
to select
single
samples
to make up
a composite,
“without-ambient-noise”
period.
This was done by sampling when he both heard the tone
and could
see that
the 158 Hz spike was not affected by other
noise
components
in
the
160 Hz 1/3 octave band.
These tables
75-112
93—482
—8—
represent
the
average
of all the 1980 data (representing normal
operations)
that they have analyzed from TES test site tapes at
Power’s
yard.
There
are
significant
differences
between
Exhibit
N
values
and those documented by the Agency.
The
1981
data
is
the
most
comprehensive of all.
This test
involved
8-1/2
hours
of
tape-recorded
data,
taken
beginning
the
evening
of
June
30,
1981,
and
ending
approximately
24
hours
later,
late
in
the
afternoon
of
July
1,
1981.
The
taping
sessions
were
usually
1-1/2
to
3
hours
long,
and
were
timed
so
as
to
record
significant
operating
periods.
Taped
data
included
samples from early evening,
late night through
to
shut
down
after
midnight, early morning start-up, midday, and late afternoon.
These tapes were analyzed
to determine the 15-minute equivalent
continuous
sound pressure levels
in
the frequency bands of
interest.
Environmental conditions
during data acquisition placed the
test site downwind of the plant.
This condition favors
propagation of plant
sounds toward the test site.
GM asserts
that the importance of
the results
of
this test
period
is
in the observed short-term variations in the community
sounds and the acceptable degree of contribution from the foundry
cupolas when evaluated over
a
longer period of observation.
The
level of the
160Hz 1/3 octave band varies from
a low of 55 dB at
4:15 p.m.
on July
1,
to
a high of
69 dB at 11:30 p.m.
on June
30.
Corresponding differences
show up
in the values of the delta
used to judge prominence of the fan tone at 158 Hz.
This
variation over
a
day
makes
it extremely unlikely that levels
resulting
from
analysis
of
the
short-term
sampling
times,
of
one
second
to
15
seconds,
as
used
by
the Agency, bear any
relationship
to
the
equivalent
continuous
sound
pressure
level
over
a
longer
and
more
reasonable
period
of
observation.
Using
the 8-1/2 hours
of test data,
for the periods
of the day and
night when the plant was operating,
we see average daily noise
levels of
63 dB for the 160Hz
1/3 octave band,
66 dB for the 125
Hz octave band,
and
a delta of 7.5 for the 160 Hz 1/3 octave band
containing
the fan tone.
GM asserts that the plant’s
sound
emissions clearly comply with Rule 207,
based upon
a
“reasonable”
period of observation as permitted by ANSI.
GM’s position,
then,
is that the Agency’s tests of foundry
and other community noises
in Tilton produced skewed data.
The
data samples were too short
to accurately evaluate whether the
plant’s
sound levels violate
Part
901, and that the misleading
nature of
the data was
then compounded by the Agency’s inaccurate
version of the ANSI formula
for determining equivalent continuous
(or rms)
sound pressure levels.
75-113 93—483
-9-
HISTORY OF THE BOARD’S NOISE REGULATIONS,
USEPA NOISE STUDIES AND THE PROPOSAL
FOR ONE-HOUR Leg AVERAGING
On July
26,
1973, the Board adopted
Former Chapter
8 of the
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board
Rules
and
Regulations,
Illinois’
first
comprehensive
noise
pollution
control
regulations.
In
its
July
31,
1973
Opinion
in
support
of
the
noise
regulations,
the
Board described
the regulations as
“designed
to
protect
people
in
the
State
from
the
unreasonable
exposure
to
environmental
noise
burdens.”
Opinion
of
the
Board,
R72-2
at
20
(July
31,
1973).
The
entire
record
in
R72-2
reflects
a
concern
for
establishing
maximum
noise
levels
based
upon
anticipated
community
response
(“a regulation should be based on the likelihood of compliant”),
as well as
a concern that the standards adopted be economically
and technically feasible.
See Opinion
R72-.-2,
at 35-39
(extensive
analysis of technical feasibility and economic reasonableness
of
proposed regulations).
The limits presently contained
in Part 901 were established
following an examination and analysis of community noise
annoyance.
In addition to the protection afforded to the general
public by Part
901,
Part 900 accommodated
the
specific individual
by entitling that person to bring
a complaint,
under Section
900.102,
that
a particular noise
source is emitting sound
“so as
to cause noise pollution in
Illinois....”
Specific measurement procedures were not established by the
Board
in R72-2.
In explaining the measurement procedure
established
in Rule 103,
the Board stated:
“This rule establishes the basic techniques
to
be used
in measuring sound levels by reference
to specific published
standards
such
as those
of
the
American
National
Standards
Institute,
Inc.
(ANSI).
Much
testimony
appears
in
the
record,
mainly from
industry,
urging that
the
techniques be specified
in more detail
as part
of
the
regulation.
‘
This
was
felt
to
be
impractical
given
the
uniqueness
of
each
measuring
location
in
the
state
and
the
periodic development
of new and more advanced
techniques.
Filing
the
techniques
with
the
Secretary of State before applying them should
give
sufficient
notice
of
their
nature
and
provisions
to interested persons.
Application
of
the
measurement
techniques
to
specific
situations must be done on
an individual basis
and
could
be
a
subject
to
challenge
in
an
enforcement
proceeding.”
Opinion,
R72-2,
at
23.
More specifically,
the problem of measuring varying, non-
steady noise emissions was not resolved
in R72-2, primarily due
75-114
93—484
-10-
to
the
absence
of
accurate
and
efficient
instrumentation
to
measure such noise at that time.
Indeed,
the Board recognized
the
difficulty
of measuring fluctuating sound in its Opinion on
R72-2.
At page
19 of
the
Board’s Opinion,
the following
observation
is
found:
“One
last
type
of
sound
is
fluctuating
sound,
where
the
sound
pressure
level
varies
with
time.
Some
sirens
emit
noise
that
could
be
classified
as
fluctuating
and
there
is
also
machine
and
process
noise
that
varies
regularly
in
sound
level
with
time.
Little
information
is
available
to
determine
its
relative
annoyance
to
non—fluctuating
noise.”
(Emphasis supplied).
George
W.
Kamperman,
the Agency’s acoustical consultant
in R72-2,
confirmed the absence
of available technology to measure non-
steady,
fluctuating noise
at the time the Board considered R72-2
in
a recent letter
to Petitioner,
in which Kamperman noted:
“In
1972,
I
had
independently
developed
laboratory instrumentation for determining the
average
sound
level
(Leq)
for
time
varying
sounds.
There were
no commercially
available
instruments
for determining the average
sound
level
when
the
proposed
noise
regulations
became
effective.”
Letter
to
Woodford
Van
Tifflin
(April 13,
1981)
at
2.
The availability of
that instrumentation today
is
reflected
not
only in the testimony presented by Petitioner during the public
hearings on R83-7, but is also noted by
Karnperman:
“In
the
past
two
years,
several
instrument
manufacturers
have
started
marketing
portable
microprocessor
controlled
sound
level
meters
capable
of
computing
average
sound
level.”
Id.
There
was
no
evidence
presented
to the Board
in R72-2 that
community
annoyance
or community response to noise
is best
determined by measuring short duration maximum level noise
emissions.
Research completed subsequent
to
the
adoption
of the
original noise regulations provides evidence
to the contrary.
Such documentation is contained
in the report of the United
States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA)
entitled “Public
Health and Welfare Criteria for Noise,” published July 27, 1973
(“Criteria
Document”)
(Exhibit P);
a report of USEPA entitled
“Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to
Protect Public Health and Welfare with an Adequate Margin of
Safety”
(“Levels Document”), published
in April,
1974
(Exhibit
MM);
a report of USEPA’s former Office of Noise Abatement and
Control (“ONAC”) entitled “Toward
a National
Strategy for
Noise
75-115
93—485
—11—
Control,” published
in April,
1977;
ANSI S3.23-1980 entitled
“Sound Level Descriptors
for Determination of Compatible Land
Use”;
ANSI S12.4-198X
(June
1983 Draft) entitled
“Method for
Assessment
of
High-Energy
Impulsive Sounds with Respect to
Residential
Communities”;
and
ISO
Recommendation
R1996
entitled
“Assessment of Noise with Respect to Community Response,” ISO/R
1996-1971
(before
the
Board
in
R72-2).
Each
of
these
documents
provides
support
for Petitioner’s claim that Leg averaging is
clearly the most accurate descriptor of community response to
noise.
The USEPA Criteria Document was prepared pursuant to the
directive to the Agency contained
in the
Noise
Control
Act,
42
U.S.C.
§4904(a),
to
develop
and
publish
criteria
with
respect
to
noise
which
reflects
“the scientific knowledge most useful in
indicating
the
kind
and
extent
of all identifiable effects on the
public
health
or
welfare
which
may
be
expected
from
differing
quantities
and
qualities
of
noise.”
The
Criteria Document stated
that:
“in
terms assessing
the effects
of noise
on
humans,
Leq
is
one
of
the
most
important
measures
of
environmental
noise,
since
there
is
experimental
evidence
that
it
accurately
describes
the onset and progression of hearing
loss.
There
is
also
considerable
evidence
that
it
applies
to
human
annoyance
due
to
noise.”
Criteria Document at
2-7.
After reviewing
a number of other criteria used to rate community
response to noise,
the Report concluded that “to date
the
one
measure of noise that appears
to be emerging as one of the most
important measures of environmental noise in terms of the effects
on man
is the Energy Mean Noise Level,
Leq,
...“
Id.
at
2-10.
This conclusion was based
in part on
a study undertaken by Task
Group
#3 of the USEPA on Aircraft/Airport Noise Study,
which
found
that:
“The
‘energy’
equivalent,
or
average
A-
weighted
sound
level
taken
over
a
24-hour
period,
with
a
10-decibel
penalty
applied
to
nighttime
sound
levels,
is
the simplest noise
measure
that
provides
a
high
degree
of
correlation
with
annoyance,
complaint
behavior, and overt community reaction.”
This conclusion was reinforced by the subsequently published
Levels Document.
This
document, which was more concerned with
establishing maximum levels rather than measurement procedures,
nevertheless
noted
that criteria for describing time-varying
community noise must take into account both the level and
duration of the noise.
The Levels Document concluded that:
93—486
75-116
-12-
“ijin
order
to
describe
the
effects
of
environmental
noise
in
a
simple,
uniform
and
appropriate
way,
the
best
descriptors
are
the
long-term
equivalent
A-weighted
sound
level
(Leq)
and
a
variation
with
a
nighttime
weighting,
the
day-night
sound
level
(Ldn)
...“
Levels
Document
at
2.
The USEPA’s recommended criteria levels are found
in ONAC’s
report
entitled
“Toward
a
National
Strategy
for
Noise
Control.”
Here,
the USEPA has
proposed
maximum
levels
represented
in
terms
of the day-night average
sound
level
(Ldn),
measured
over a 24-
hour period.
Numerous federal agencies have adopted maximum
noise
levels
for
projects
under
their
jurisdiction
expressed
in
terms
of
an
average
equivalent
sound
level,
including
the
Department of Housing and Urban Development,
see
24 C.F.R.
§51.103
(1982),
the Federal Highway Administration,
see 23 C.F.R.
§772 et
seq,
and the Federal Aeronautics Administration,
see
14
C.F.R.
§KI~O.1O1(d) (1982).
The most recent ANSI publications
on this point also
recommend
a
time-varying measurement standard for establishing
the appropriate noise level descriptors
for determination of
community response to noise.
In ANSI S3.23-l980 (Exhibit
Q),
a
day-night average sound level
is adopted
as the appropriate
“acoustical measure
to be used
in assessing compatibility between
various
land uses and
an outdoor environment.”
ANSI S3.23-l980
proposes
a period of observation of twenty-four
(24)
hours.
In
a
recent
draft
proposal
providing
for
a
method
of
assessment
of
high-energy
impulsive
sounds
with
respect
to
residential
communities,
ANSI
reaffirms that “A-weighted day-night average
sound
level
is
the
primary
descriptor
of
environmental
noise.”
See
ANSI
S12.4-l98X
(June
1983
DraFt),
at
1.
The International Organization for Standarization published
ISO Recommendation
P.1996
in
1971.
This document, which was
introduced as an exhibit
in the original proceedings
on R72-2 and
is referred to in several parts pf the Board’s Opinion on R72-2,
suggests methods
of measuring and rating noise in
a manner
“suitable for predicting approximately the public reaction likely
to be caused by noise.”
ISO/R 1996-1971
at
3
(Exhibit S).
At
Section
3.1.5 the ISO document states:
“If
the
noise
varies
with
time
in
a
more
complicated manner than
is appropriate for the
use of Table
1,
the equivalent
sound level
Leq
should
be
obtained,
for
example
from
a
statistical
analysis
of
the
time
history
of
the A-weighted
sound level.”
When reviewing
the existing national and international
standards
it
is clear
that the Leq and day-night average
sound
level
(Ldn) measurement criteria are the most widely accepted
75-117
93—487
-13-
measurement
criteria
utilized
today
for
the
measurement
of
community response
to noise.
The Model Community Noise Control Ordinance was developed by
The
National
Institute
of
Municipal
Law
Enforcement
Officers
and
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Office
of
Noise
Abatement
Control
September,
1975.
The
Model
Community
Noise
Control
Ordinance,
which
sets
forth
guidelines
for
localities
that
are
developing
noise
regulations,
advocates
averaging
by
utilizing
the
equivalent
A-weighted
sound
level
(Leq)
over
a
time
period
of
twenty-four
(24)
hours.
The
24-hour
averaging
period
suggested
by
the
Model
Community
Noise
Control
Ordinance
permits
the
exceedence
of
the
prescribed
decibel
limits
as
long
as
the
decibel
level,
as
averaged
over
a
twenty-four
(24)
hour
period,
does not exceed those limits.
As previously noted, CM has proposed
a
1 hour, rather than
a
24 hour Leq averaging system.
This does not reflect CM’s
disagreement with the
24 hour method, but is proposed to aid
enforcement by reducing sampling time by enforcement
authorities.
The Board also notes
that,
since the
1 hour Leq
averaging could be enforced for a period of maximum hourly
measurements,
it could be more stringent than
a
24 hr. Leq.
THE ECONOMIC RECORD
No separate economic hearings have been held.
In addition
to the previously mentioned
cost data presented by GM concerning
the enforcement scheme,
the Agency’s comments present data
concerning the costs
to the Agency of the rule change.
These
relate primarily to equipment costs and manpower costs.
Due
to truncation of the Agency’s noise control staff, an
integral part
of its program is the training of local enforcement
officials
to investigate noise complaints, through
the use of
sound monitoring equipment loaned them by the Agency free of
charge.
The Agency owns some 35-plus
sound level meters,
15 of
which were then on loan, none of which were capable of measuring
Leq.
CM presented evidence
(Exh’.
CC)
that adapters for existing
equipment were available for about $1,000 per unit, which
presumably would be borne by the Agency.
The Agency is
also concerned about the increase in time
spent in investigation of complaints.
Using the fast scale
measurement technique,
the Agency asserts
that 10-20 minutes
are
occupied
in measurements; one hour or more could be spent
in
obtaining an accurate Le
reading.
In
1984,
the Agency employed
only two noise inspector~, responsible for investigating the 250
noise complaints filed with the Agency between September,
1982,
and May,
1984.
The Agency asserts that any additional time spent
investigating complaints
“could be terminal to the already
extremely fragile
-
program.”
75.118
93—488
—14—
The
final
source
of
economic
information
is
the
DENR’s
letter
determining
that
the
cost
of
making
a
formal
EelS
is
unreasonable
in
relation
to
the
value
of
a
study
to
the
Board.
DENR
made
clear
that
this
determination
was
made
on
the
basis
of
review
of
the
1973
USEPA
document
“Public
Health
and
Welfare
Criteria
for
Noise,”
and
ANSI
S3.23-1980
(each
of
which
were
reviewed
supra,
p.
8).
DENR
agrees
with
GM’s
contention
that:
“(1)
IEPA’s
‘grab
sample’
noise
measurement
technique
is
incorrect,
and
(2)
the
‘grab
sample’
technique
is
not
an
adequate
descriptor
for
community
annoyance.”
DENR
further
stated
that:
“The
conclusion
that
IEPA has been
measuring
noise
incorrectly,
i.e.,
not
is
substantial
conformity
with
ANSI
under
Rule
103(b),
has
had
a
significant
impact
on
our
analysis
of
the economic consequences
of R83-7.
Consider
the following:
if IEPA measurement procedures
were in substantial conformity with ANSI,
then
R83-7
would
redefine
compliance
for
certain
firms which were out of compliance because of
their
marginal
short-term
excursions
of
the
noise
standards.
Because
the IEPA procedures
used
to
determine
compliance
are
apparently
erroneous,
R83-7
does
not
redefine
compliance;
it
specifies
procedures
for
determining
compliance
which
are
in
accordance
with
ANSI
and
USEPA
recommendations.
R83-7
merely
clarifies
Rule
103(b)
because
the
Board
intended measurement
procedures
to track ANSI
and
intended
noise
regulation
to
reflect
community annoyance.
With
this
interpretation
in
mind,
an
assessment
of
the
ec9nomic
consequences
of
R83-7
is
relatively
straightforward.
The
costs of the proposed regulation will be borne
in
large
part
by
the
IEPA.
GM
presented
testimony on 11/22/83,
which clearly delineate
the
cost
of
adapting
IEPA
noise
level
meters
and other
equipment
to accommodate
the 1 hour
Leq measurement
technique.
The Department’s
independent
calculations
agree
with
those
presented
by
CM.
The
IEPA
will
also
bear
added
manpower
costs
because
data
collection
in enforcement
cases will require at
least one
hour of staff
time.
However, we believes that
the unquantifiable
benefit
of having reliable
data
on
noise
emissions
far
outweighs
the
added manpower and other costs
to the IEPA.
75-119
—15—
R83-7
may
impose
some
costs
on private
firms
which
monitor
their
own
noise
emissions
with
noise meters which are incompatible with the
1
hour
Leq.
However
few
industries
and
especially
few
small businesses monitor their
own
noise.
If
an
industry or
small business
wanted to monitor noise,
an independent
noise
consultant
would
normally
be
hired.
Municipalities will
not
be
effected
by
R83-7
because
the
proposed
regulation
is
only
applicable
to
measurement
techniques
in
enforcement cases
(Part
2 of Chapter 8).
With
respect
to
the
benefits
of
R83-7,
the
principal benefit will accrue
to
the citizens
of
Illinois
because
the
IEPA will
be
able
to
concentrate on those noise emitters which have
an
impact
on
health
and
welfare
of
the
population.
Other
benefits
will
accrue
to
some
noise
emitters
which
the
IEPA
have
determined
to
be
non-compliant
because
of
marginal
short-term
noise
excursions,
i.e.,
certain
firms
will
not
be
required
to
implement
controls
because
their
noise
does
not
violate
the
standards
set
forth
by
the
Board”
(DENR
Letter of
December
20,
1983,
pp.
2-3).
RATIONALE FOR
THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS
When the Board originally promulgated regulations
in 1973 to
control
noise
pollution
(In
The
Matter
Of:
Noise
Pollution
Control Regulations, R72-2,
8 PCB 653 and
8 PCB 703),
it did
so
under
the
premise
that
community
response
constituted
the
principal test against which
a noise was to be judged as
polluting
or
non-polluting.
The
Board
believes
today,
as
it
did
in
1973,
that
community
response
is
indeed
the
appropriate
test.
Several factors are involved
in the level of community
response
to
a
given
noise.
An
obvious
factor
is
the
loudness
of
the noise.
The Board gave recognition to this factor when it
established the current regulations by promulgating the maximum
loudness
limits
found
at
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code
901.102
and
901.103;
these
are
unaltered
under
the current proposed amendments.
A
second
factor
is
the
frequency
of
sounds,
or
pitch,
with
certain frequencies having greater negative community response at
given
loudness levels
than others.
This factor
is also
recognized
in
§~9O1.1O2
and
901.103
and
remains
unaltered
under
the current proposed amendments.
It
is also recognized
in
restrictions on prominent discrete tones
(S901.l06),
which
likewise are not altered under the current proposal.
75.120
93—490
—16—
A third factor
is the duration of the noise.
For example,
some
noises
have
little
negative
community
response
even
when
the
noise
is moderately
loud
if
the
noise
occurs
only
rarely
and
for
short
intervals.
Examples
which
have
been
cited
are
a
dog
bark,
a
slammed
car
door,
and
a
noon-hour
factory
whistle.
However,
the
same
noises
may
become
highly
objectionable
if
repeated
too
often.
Therefore,
regulations
based
on
community
response
should
correctly
include
provisions
limiting
the
duration
of
noises.
Current
Board
noise
regulations
do
recognize
some
aspects
of
time-variation
of
sounds.
These
include
limitations
on
impulsive
sound
(5901.104),
including,
by
separate
amendments
in
1982
and
1983
respectively,
special
considerations
for
blasting
noise
(5901.109);
and impact forging operations
(5901.105); these
provisions
remain
unaltered
under
the
current
proposed
amendments.
However,
current Board
regulations fail to give
consideration to the general issue of fluctuating,
time-variant
noises.
The reason
is historical.
At the time of the 1973
rulemaking the state of acoustical
science and technology was
such that the ability to identify and quantify certain types
of
noises to accurately reflect community response,
specifically
steady-state
noises,
was generally agreed upon.
This state of
conditions was reflected
in
the standards as then recommended by
the American National Standards Institute,
Inc.
(“ANSI”)
for
noise control.
In promulgating its noise regulations,
the Board
relied upon ANSI and adopted its then current recommendations,
and these remain the basis of the Board’s current noise
regulations.
At that time the Board,
as did ANSI, also
recognized
that
the instrumentation had not yet been fully
developed and available to properly reflect community response to
fluctuating noise.
However,
in ensuing years acoustical science and technology
has advanced such that
a new and more broadly encompassing method
of identifying and quantifying noise that better reflects
community response has evolved.
Specifically,
the ANSI
measurement procedure now reflects community response not only
for steady-state noise, but also for fluctuating,
time-variant
noise,
after
correcting for ambient,
or background,
noise.
It
is
updating of the existing regulations to reflect
this new
methodology which is the principal impetus
for CM’s proposal and
the Board’s proposed amendments.
In
so doing,
the Board believes
that
compliance
expectations
and enforcement are enhanced by
utilizing current ANSI based methodology and instrumentation for
fluctuating noise.
THE LEQ MEASUREMENT
The major proposed amendment
to existing regulations
Consists
of identification of the Leq (as defined
at
35
Ill. Adm.
Code 900.101), with
a one-hour reference time,
as the measurement
which shall
be utilized
to determine compliance
with the sound
75.121
93—491
—17—
emission
standards
of
Part
901*.
The
rationale
for
this
amendment
is the determination that Leq
is the most comprehensive
measurement of community response to noise because it best
combines
consideration
of
both
steady-state
and
time-variant
noise.
This
determination
was
detailed
in
the
the
First
Notice
Proposed
Opinion
and
Order,
p.
9-12,
and
therefore
will
not
be
repeated
here.
It
is
significant
to
note
that
the
loudness
standards
of
Part
901,
including
both
broad
spectrum
noises
and
noise
of
limited
frequency
range,
are
not
altered
by
the
proposed
amendments.
Moreover,
for
steady-state
noises,
measurement
via
either
present
procedures
or
Leq
will
produce
the
same
results.
It
is
only
for
fluctuating
noises
that
the
Leq
measurement
provides
a
deviation
from
the
present
rule.
This
is
done
by
giving
weight
to
both
loudness
and
duration
of
the
noise,
commensurate with considerations
of community response.
THE FIRST NOTICE PROPOSAL AS ADOPTED BY THE BOARD
Based on the record amassed by then,
the Board adopted for
first
notice
a
modified
version
of
GM’s
proposal.
This
reflected
the
Board’s
basic
agreement
with
CM’s
contention
that
this
is
not
a site-specific issue, and that current Agency noise measurement
techniques are not in substantial conformity with ANSI,
as
intended by the Board
in adopting
the
noise
regulations.
The
Board’s
proposal tracked that of GM to the extent that it
included
a
1 hour Leq
averaging,
except
as applied to blasting
noise; the blasting noise exception is important to maintain
relative consistency with federal mining regulations.
See
Opinion,
R80-9/lO.
Ambient sound correction was provided for.
The impulsive noise rule was amended to delete the required use
of noise measurement by
a fast dynamic characteristic,
to conform
with the amendments
to the measurements rule.
The Board, however, added
a procedure to allow for
justification of use of alternative measurement procedures where
it can be demonstrated that such alternative procedures provide
a
higher degree of correlation of the characteristics of the sound
emission to human response.
This provision was included,
in
part,
to allow for adjustments in situations
such as those
“noise
sources about which the Agency receives complaints operating
as
little as 1/2 hour per week.”
See Agency Comments,
p.
12.
However, it also reflected concerns not fully addressed
in the
record,
which dealt mainly with prominent discrete tones
as an
example,
concerning possible unintentional blunting of the
impulsive noise rules, particularly as they relate to noises of
high magnitude but short duration.
*
An exception is made for the sound emission standards of
901.109 due
to the special characteristics of noises
considered
there.
75.122
93—492
-18-
CHANCES FROM THE FIRST NOTICE PROPOSAL
In its First Notice Opinion,
the Board specifically
requested comments on the alternative justification procedure
embodied
in proposed Sections 900.101, 900.103(b)(2) and
901.130.
GM responded at length.
The Board is persuaded,
based
on GM’s response and its own further reflection,
to remove the
alternative justification procedure from the proposed rule.
The proposed procedure reflected the Board’s concern as to
whether there might be value in creating
a separate procedural
mechanism, utilizing the adjusted standard mechanism embodied
in
Section
28.1 oF the Act.
The mechanism was potentially useful
for possible special noise situations, where
a person might wish
to show that a different measurement procedure better correlates
to human response, notwithstanding the ANSI approach of
correlating sound emission to community response.
CM asserted that the alternative measurement procedure may
have hidden pitfalls.
It pointed out that any procedure should
reflect community response;
to do otherwise
is “likely to do what
the single-exceedence rule now does:
measure emissions for
compliance with an arbitrary standard not based on community
response”.
(P.C.
#5,
p.
10)
GM pointed out that
a correlation with human response will
always
be inferior to the collective human testimony which forms
the basis
of community response, which in turn the Leq measures
numerically.
CM further asked the question: “in the presence of
a one-hour Leq,
what will Rule 901.130 the
alternative
procedure
do for citizens that cannot be achieved in
a nuisance
case under Rule 900.102?”
(P.C.
#5,
p.
10)
The Board acknowledges that utilizing “human response” would
impart an inconsistent overlay on the Board’s regulations,
regulations which have always defined compliance in terms of
community response.
And, if the Board were to change the
alternate demonstration
so as
to be based on
community response,
rather than human response,
ther,e would be an even greater
question as
to whether the procedure
is
a useful tool.
Leq is
the generally accepted best measurement of community response at
present.
If future developments and/or circumstances change
this
situation,
such a change would require
a full rulemaking
proceeding,
since the change would be of general applicability.
On reflection,
the Board believes that the procedure would
not be a useful tool,
especially as measured against the Board’s
existing procedural mechanisms already available to any person
seeking a remedy, e.g. by way of an enforcement action (based on
nuisance or otherwise),
a regulatory amendment,
or
a variance.
Therefore,
the Board has deleted the proposed First Notice
language
in Sections 900.101, 900.103(b)(2), and 901.130.
75.123
93—493
—19—
ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS
Two economically-based arguments
in opposition to the
proposed amendments were reasserted
in the public comments during
the first notice period.
These relate
to the cost of replacing
and/or adapting existing noise meters such that these can measure
Leq, and added manpower needed to make noise measurements.
The Agency reasserted that the noise meters presently owned
by the Agency,
and presumably at least some of those owned by
other entities who measure noise, are not equipped to measure
Leq.
Some confusion has existed throughout the record
in this
matter as to the costs which would
be involved
in adapting these
meters to Leq measurement.
The latest estimate
is that the cost
per meter would be approximately $610 (PC
#5,
p.
14).
The Board
does not believe that this cost is prohibitive.
Moreover, as
existing meters require replacement, they would be expected to be
replaced by Leq-capable meters anyway since these are the current
standard of the industry.
The Board also notes that the updated
meters need be used only for enforcement, not for
routine
assessment.
The gathering
of one-hour Leq data suitable for enforcement
actions
may, under some circumstances, require longer measurement
times than required under the present rule.
Thus, manpower needs
may be larger.
However, the Board believes that this
is
a small
price to pay relative to the gains
to be made with respect to
strengthening the noise regulations both as to enforceability and
compliance expectations.
ORDER
The Board directs the Clerk to cause the following adopted
final rules to be filed with the Secretary of State.
Title
35:
Environmental Protection
Subtitle
H:
Noise
Chapter
I:
Pollution Control Board
Section 900.103
Measurement Procedures
(a)
No change
(b)
Procedures Applicable Only to
35 Ill. Adm. Code 901
All measurements and all Mmeasurement procedures
to
determine whether emissions of sound comply with 35 Ill.
Adm.
Code 901 shall
be in substantial conformity with
ANSI
S1.6-l967, ANSI S1.4-l971
--
Type
I Precision, ANSI
S1.11-1966 and ANSI S1.13-1971
Field MethodT, and shall,
with the exception of measurements to determine whether
emissions of sound comply with
35 Ill. Adm. Code
901.109, be based on Leg averaging,
as defined
in 35
Ill.
Adm.
Code 900.101, using
a reference time of one
75-124
93—494
-20-
hour.
All such measurements
and measurement
procedures
shall
correct
or provide
for the correction of such emissions
for the
presence of ambient noise as defined
in ANSI Sl.l3-l971.
(c-e)
No change
Section 901.104
IMPULSIVE SOUND
Except as elsewhere
in this Part provided, no person shall
cause or allow the emission of impulsive
sound from any
property-line-noise-source
located on any Class
A,
B,
or
C
land to any receiving Class
A or
B land which exceeds
the
allowable A-weighted
sound levels1
~easu~ee wi~ ~as~
~yfia1~ie
e~ae~er~st~e1 specified
in the following table when
measured at any point within such receiving
Class
A or B
land, provided,
however,
that no measurement of sound levels
shall
be made less than 25 feet such from property-line--
noise-source.
IT IS
SO ORDERED.
J.
D.
Dumelle and
B.
Forcade dissented.
I, Dorothy
M.
Gunn,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that the
abcrc’~e Final Opinion and Order was
adopted on the ~~~--day
of ______________________,
1987,
by
a
vote of
_________.
/
/~-
//
_~/
//
/L
~
~
/
Dorothy N.
Gi.(nn,
Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
75-125
93_4~~
