ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
January
18, 1979
IN THE MATTER OF:
PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF THE
)
R76-16
NOISE REGULATIONS,
RULE 209(f)
OPINION OF THE BOARD
(by Mr. Goodman):
On July 19,
1976,
the Institute for Environmental Quality
and the Mining Industry Task Force on Impulsive Noise and
Vibration
(Task Force)
filed a regulatory proposal before the
Board seeking to extend by two years the deadline by which mining
and quarrying operations conducting explosive blasting activities
were to comply with Rule 206 of the Noise Regulations
(Chapter 8
of the Board’s Rules and Regulations)
.
The proposal, which was
docketed R76-l6, was later amended to extend the compliance date
by three years
to August
9,
1979.
Rule 206 limits the emission
of impulsive sound.
The Board conducted four hearings on this proposal in the
following locations:
December
8,
1976
Chicago
January 26, 1976
Edwardsville
May
2,
1977
Chicago
July
12, 1977
Springfield
The last two hearings were economic impact hearings conducted
pursuant to Section
27(b)
of the Environmental Protection Act.
On August
3,
1978,
the Board proposed a final draft
Orde-r,
subject to a 60-day public comment period.
In its final draft
Order, the Board proposed to extend the Rule 209(f) compliance
date to January
1,
1980,
subject to those regulated complying
with a “Code
of Standard Practices” detailed in the Rule.
How-
ever, based upon the public comment received and for reasons
which will be detailed, the Board on November 30,
1978, adopted
an extension of compliance to January
1,
1981, without the pro-
posed “Code of Standard Practices” included
in the draft Order.
The Board wishes to express its appreciation for the excel-
lent work done in this matter by Roberta Levinson, Administrative
Assistant to the Board and Hearing Officer herein.
32—457
—2—
The Board’s Noise Regulations, Chapter
8 of the Board’s
Rules and Regulations, became effective in 1973.
In Rule 209
(f), the Board allowed the mining and quarrying industries
three years, to August
9,
1976, to comply with the impulsive
sound standards of Rule 206.
The three year delay was allowed
because no method was known at the time for bringing blasting
operations into compliance with the Rule 206 limits.
In 1975,
the Institute for Natural Resources
(Insitute)
(then known as the Institute for Environmental Quality) con-
tracted with Kamperman and Associates to conduct a study of the
blasting noise problem in Illinois, the results of which were
reported in a report entitled “Quarry Blast Noise Study”
(Ex.
1,
Att.
D).
The study concludes,
in part, that the A-weighted
sound measuring scale of Rule 206
is not a proper descriptor
for blast noise produced by quarry and surface mining operations
and that more research is needed to determine the proper descriptor.
In early 1976, the Institute formed the Mining Industry Task
Force on Impulsive Noise and Vibration to recommend meaningful
and enforceable regulations.
The Task Force requested an exten-
sion of the Rule 209(f) compliance date in order to allow
additional research to be done into the appropriate descriptor
for human response to blasting noise as well as into methods
for control of blasting noise.
Testimony was presented during the hearings on the inadequacy
of the A—weighted scale for describing
human
response to quarry
and surface mining blast noise
(R.
101).
Until recently, air
blast energy from confined explosives was thought to be concen-
trated in the audible spectrum ranging from 20 to 20,000 hertz
and was measured with conventional sound level meters equipped
with A,
B or C weighting functions.
However,
several years ago
wide band transducers and recording equipment revealed that a
large portion of the air blast was concentrated in the frequency
range below 20 hertz because of the large dimensions of the rock
being blasted.
Furthermore,
the preceptible blast noise inside
structures was found to be primarily associated with the vibra-
tion of various parts and objects within a structure.
Noise
was generated not only by air-borne waves,
but by ground waves
which cause structures to vibrate
(R.l02).
In many instances,
the noise measured within a dwelling may be greater than that
measured outside because
a building resonates and amplifies the
interior noise level
(Ex.
1, Att.
D,
pp.7,
9).
One Agency witness described his involvement with investi-
gation of citizen complaints
(R.298)
and
his resulting conclu-
sion that dB(A)
fast was an inappropriate descriptor.
He noted
that sound measured as dB(A)
fast consists predominantly of high-
er audio frequencies not generally associated with window rattling
and house shaking.
However, annoyance to many of the complainants
32—458
—3—
was the shaking of their houses and the shock of the blast
(R.299,
304,
305,
306,
309,
310).
In the examples cited,
there appeared
to be little relationship between the dB(A)
fast reading and the
perceived annoyance.
For example,
in one instance the blasts
monitored did not register on the dB(A)
fast meters, yet four fam-
ilies sent
in complaint forms to the Agency due to indoor effects.
The blasts were perceptible due to ground vibration or low
frequency air blast
(R.301).
In another instance, complainants
found one blast registering 74 dB(A)
fast more annoying than
a blast registering 80 dB(A)
fast.
The blast resulting in the
smaller dB(A)
reading involved a much larger amount of explosive
material.
The witness also indicated that no blast greater than
90 dB(A)
had been recorded
(R.303).
The Board agrees with industry, the Institute and the
Agency that more research is needed to determine the proper
descriptor for human response to blasting noise.
The Task Force
included with its initial request a summary of research programs
recently completed as well as those which are currently being
conducted
(Ex.
1).
A witness from the U.S. Bureau of Mines
(USBM)
testified at the hearing about a study being conducted by USBM
to determine levels of blast noise and blast-induced ground and
structure vibration which are perceptible, annoying and intoler-
able to humans
(R.l80).
The witness also discussed other USBM
research projects aimed at preventing damage to structures
(R.279,
183).
The Illinois Coal Operators Association described a measure-
ment program in which it
is engaged
(P.C.
#17).
The Board expects
such research to be completed far enough in advance of the ex-
tended compliance date to allow meaningful, substitute regulations
to be promulgated,
if necessary.
Testimony was also presented on recently available tech-
niques for mitigating both air blast and ground vibration
effects.
Witnesses described
the
use of sequential timers which,
in conjunction with delay electric blasting caps,
subdivide the
blast into a large number of small explosions timed to detonate
at precise times determined by the geometry and size of the blast.
The recent advent of non—electric,
low noise explosive delay
devices has also provided means for obtaining delays
(R.103—104,
387).
These techniques are currently being employed throughout
the country
(R.ll2—ll3).
In addition to these systems, specific procedures for reducing
noise and vibration were described
(R.104).
These techniques,
many of which were outlined in the “Code of Standard Practices”
which were described at hearing and agreed to by industry, in-
clude the following:
32—459
—4—
1.
Maintain accurate drilling and use setbacks to
determine burden on the following shot;
2.
Use drill patterns having nearly equal spacing—to—
burden ratios;
3.
Use proper stemming height, which is about equal
to the burden at the bottom of the stemming, and proper
stemming materials;
4.
Avoid the use of uncovered explosives such as
detonating cord;
5.
Use a longer delay interval between rows than
between holes in a row and avoid long delays between holes;
6.
Keep the rate of blast progression along the face
subsonic, preferably less than 500 feet per second,
to elimi-
nate beam formation;
7.
Avoid blasting under inclement weather conditions
or early or late in the day when temperature inversions may
be present; and
8.
Be sure the blast proceeds in the proper sequence
(R.l04—ll3, Ex.
4).
One witness describing these techniques indicated that
in most
instances
(80—90
of the time)
the noise level could be brought
below 130 dB
(R.133).
Several citizens who reside near blasting operations testi-
fied at the hearings.
Much of the testimony concerned damage
to homes caused by ground vibration,
including the cracking of
concrete block foundations
(R.75,
82,
87,
200), basement floors
(R.87), porches
(R.216), plaster walls
(R.216), and panelling
(R.2l3).
Windows were shattered
(R.200),
fixtures came loose
(R.214), and wells ran dry (R.87).
Citizens described the
noise as very disturbing
(R.73), creating nervousness
(R.2l0,
219),
causing apprehension due to the constant possibility
of an unexpected blast
(R.211),
having a startling effect
(R.211),
and causing sleep and communication interference
(R.88).
Citizens
also indicated they had no advance notice of when blasts would
occur
(R.204,
225,
243)
and received little or no cooperation
from the owners or operators of the sites
(R.222)
.
Witnesses
felt the situation had worsened
in recent years
(R.75,
205,
222).
The Board also received written public comments from persons
residing near quarries and
surface mines, many of whom were
opposed to an extension of the compliance date
(Public Comment
Numbers
1,
2,
4,
6,
7,
8,
9,
10,
12,
14,
15).
32—460
—5--
The Agency presented testimony on complaints it received.
The Agency indicated that,
since
adoption of the Act in 1970,
it
had received complaints against 31 open pit surface mining
operations
in Illinois by a total of over 425 residents residing
throughout the State
(R.259).
The number of complaints had
definitely decreased in 1975 and 1976, the last two years for
which complaints were submitted.
The Agency submitted for the
record a summary of all complaints received
(Ex.
8)
as well as
the actual complaint file
(Ex.
12).
Section
6 of the Act requires the Institute to prepare an
economic impact study of all proposed regulations, and Section
27(b)
requires the Board to conduct economic impact hearings.
In this case, however, the Institute concluded that no economic
impact study could be conducted until the methodology for measure-
ment and control of blasting noise is further developed
(Ex.
21).
The Board, nevertheless, conducted the requisite economic impact
hearings.
Industry presented evidence during the technical
hearings on expenditures
it
has made in the last few years in an
effort to understand and reduce the impact of blasting noise
(H.
15,
342—346,
380,
395—399)
,
but
no
cost/benefit analysis of
the compliance date extension has been performed.
We note that
extending the compliance date undoubtedly has some economic im-
pact on the people of the State of Illinois.
The Board agrees,
however, with the Institute’s conclusion that until
human
response
to blasting noise
is understood and techniques to control the
noise to a tolerable level are developed, no meaningful cost/
benefit analysis can be performed.
The Board recognizes that blasting noise does seriously
interfere with the
lives
of many Illinois citizens residing
near open pit surface mining or quarrying operations.
However,
we find that more research
is needed before meaningful, enforce-
able regulations can be promulgated.
The Board had included
in
its proposed final draft Order a “Code of Standard Practices” to
which industry has agreed to comply
(See Supplementary Statement
filed by the Task Force on February
6,
1972).
However,
as the
Agency pointed out, this Code is difficult to enforce.
Further-
more,
Rule 102, which prohibits the emission of noise which
unreasonably interferes with the enjoyment of life,
is still
fully available to citizens injured by blasting noise.
Finally,
protection will be provided by recently adopted federal legisla-
tion, the Surface Mining Control and Reclamation Act of 1977,
32
U.S.C.
§1201, and Regulations promulgated thereunder, which
provide limits on decibels linear-peak and maximum peak particle
velocity.
The Board also notes that under Rule 209(f)
industry
has been and remains required to conduct its blasting activities
between 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.
at specified hours previously
announced to the local public.
Any deviation from this require-
ment triggers a requirement of compliance with Rule 206.
32—46 1
—6—
The Agency indicated in its public comment on the proposed
draft Order that it intends by February,
1979 to submit,
along
with the Task Force,
a comprehensive noise regulatory proposal
for noise emitted from explosive blasting operations described
in Rule 209(f).
The Board notes that this extension is the
second delay in compliance since Chapter
8 was adopted,
the first
delay having been included in Rule 209(f)
as originally adopted.
We have extended the date until January
1, 1981, to allow for
submittal and promulgation of appropriate regulations prior to
that time.
It is incumbent upon industry to develop the
necessary information and submit a regulatory proposal without any
delay.
It is also incumbent upon industry in the interim to employ
all available techniques to reduce the impact of blasting noise
on the citizens of the State of Illinois.
I, Christan L.
Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control koard, here
certify the above Opinion was adopted on
the
_______
day of
1978 by a vote of
.4/—~
c~LdrT\~
Christan L. Moffett,
7ç~(èçk
Illinois Pollution Co~t~lBoard
32—462