ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
July 19, 1985
VILLAGE OF ADDISON,
)
Complainant,
v.
)
PCB 84—160
TEDIO PRINTING COMPANY,
)
Respondent.
LOFTUS, DUFF
& GARRITY,
LTD.
(MR. HUBERT
J.
LOFTUS AND PATRICK
M.
~OFTUS,
OF COUNSEL) APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE COMPLAINANT.
ERBACCI, SYRACUSE
& CERONE,
LTD.
(MR. ANTHONY
G.
ERBACCI, OF
COUNSEL) APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by J.D. Dumelle):
This matter comes before
the Board on
art
October
31,
1984
Complaint filed by the Village of Addison
(Village)
which alleged
that Tedio Printing Company (Company)
operated its two heatset
web offset presses
so as
to cause
air pollution in violation of
Section 9(a)
of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act
(Act)
and noise pollution
in violation of Section
24
of
the Act.
The
Village alleges that air pollution was caused by smoke and odor
coming from the ink and enamel coated paper as
it ran through
Tedio’s drying
ovens, while noise pollution came from the cutting
blades
on each press sheeter.
The Village requests
the Board
to
direct Tedio
to “cease and desist” from the alleged violations of
the Act.
A hearing was held on April
1, 1985 at which members
of
the public were present.
The Village filed a memorandum
in
support of
its position on May 28,
1985, and Tedio
filed
its
post—hearing brief on June
3, 1985.
On July 12, 1985,
the Village filed a motion to amend the
record
to include
a permit denial letter sent to Tedio
by the
Agency on June 11, 1985,
regarding the construction and operation
of
the afterburner/stack heater
for Tedio’s two Web Offset
Presses.
Tedio responded to that motion on July 5,
1985
(problems with the mail apparently explain the unusual timing
of
the
filing of these documents).
Upon review of that document the
Board has concluded that it contains insufficient material
evidence
to justify
its admission at such late date.
Therefore,
the motion
to amend
is hereby denied.
Tedio Printing Company is located
in
a leased building
at
930 National Avenue
in Addison,
Illinois.
(R. 189).
The plant
is located
in an industrially zoned area known as the Addison
Industrial Park and
its rear yard abuts
a residential
neighborhood known
as the Heritage Subdivision that
is zoned
for
65-87
—2—
single-family and duplex dwellings.
Various
industrial
properties
in the Addison Industrial Park are located directly to
the east and west of Tedio’s lot.
The lot also lies directly
south of the backyards of some houses on Heritage Drive, which
were built
long before Tedio began
its printing operations
in
1982.
(See Village’s Exhibit #6).
There
is
a ten—foot high
fence covered with
a plastic—type material which
is set
approximately 30 feet
inside Tedio’s property line separating
its
printing plant from the residences and serving as
a buffer
between the industrial
and residential areas.
The fence
potentially cuts down noises
to some minor
extent
and helps
to
shield
the residential dwellers from the possible aesthetic
unsightliness of
the
industrial
space.
(R.
190—195).
In addition
to
its main printing plant, Tedio also has a
warehouse located about
30
feet west of the main plant which
is
used to store paper prior
to printing.
Because of the nature
of
Tedio’s printing business,
it
is sometimes necessary to bring
paper from the storage warehouse
to the main plant
in the middle
o~a shift
to begin a new printing job.
Forklift trucks are used
to bring
the needed paper from the warehouse
to the plant.
This
retrieval process sometimes occurs during
the night and
necessitates the opening of the plant doors.
Tedio has
indicated
that most of the paper
is moved from the warehouse
to
the main
plant during daylight hours and that schedules are designed
to
minimize any nighttime movements between buildings.
(R.
206—208)
The plant presently includes two American Type Foundry (ATF)
heatset web offset lithography presses and one non—heatset Color
King web offset press
(Press *3) which was recently installed.
(R.
163).
The first heatset web offset press
(Press #1) was
installed about three years ago when the plant opened
in April,
1982.
The second heatset web offset press
(Press *2) was
installed
in July, 1984,
at which time complaints from
neighboring residents pertaining to excessive smoke and odor
first began.
(R.
163;
R.
189—190).
Printing is customarily done
until
all jobs are finished, even
if this means operating the
presses up
to
24 hours a day,
7 days a week during peak seasons
(See Village Group Exhibit #10; Tedio’s Exhibit #1).
The printing process
of lithography involves printing from a
plain surface (such as a metal plate) on which the image to be
printed
is ink—receptive and the blank area
is ink—repellant.
Heatset lithography involves the application of heat to the
printing paper
in order
to drive the solvents out of
the
ink.
The paper
is then “passed over a set of chill
rollers which
actually sets the ink for drying”.
(R. 163).
In this process
there are visible smoke emissions when the inJ~dryer brings
the
temperature of the liquid
ink solvent “above its gas point,
where
it changes from a liquid
to a gas”.
(R.
164).
However,
there
are no emissions whatsoever from Press
#3 because non—heatset
lithography does not require the application
of heat to the
printing substrate
(i.e.,
paper)
since
the
ink dries
by the
65-88
—3—
process of oxidation.
(R. 163—164).
Before Tedio installed Press #2
in the latter part of July,
1984,
the complaints by neighboring residents generally related
to loud, constant noises emanating from the operations of Press
~1 which
resulted in sleep loss, annoyance, physical discomfort,
and the
inability to enjoy the use of property especially during
warmer weather when
the doors and windows
of Tedio’s facility
were open.
Neighbors also were disturbed at night when paper
from the warehouse was moved by forklift trucks to the main
printing plant.
After Press #2 was installed, additional
complaints related
to smoke and odor which also interfered with
enjoyment of homes and property.
(R. 19—22;
108—111;
116;
126;
128—133)
Shortly after Press #2 was installed,
the fence serving as
a
partial noise barrier separating
the residents wh~live adjacent
to the printing plant on Heritage Drive was blown down during
a
severe windstorm,
(R. 190),
Some residents of the Heritage
Subdivision contacted Tedio and complained about excessive noise
from Tedio’s facility and subsequently complained
to various
local, state,
and
federal officials about excessive noise, smoke,
and odor from the printing plant.
As a result of these
complaints,
a meeting of the Village of Addison’s land use
committee was held on August
7,
1984 with Tedio’s representatives
in attendance.
(R. 134;
190;
219—220).
An agreement was reached
between the parties
in which Tedio agreed
to re—erect as quickly
as possible the fence
in the rear yard and
to lower
the overhead
doors of Tedio’s facility halfway during nighttime hours to
control the noise
in exchange for a promise from the residents
to
cease
their numerous telephone calls and complaints
to Tedio,
the
Village, and the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(Agency).
(R. 190—191).
This agreement was short—lived,
Tedio stated
that, although
measures
to ensure that its doors were kept halfway closed began
the day after
the August
7, 1984 meeting, some communication
problems between shifts led
to some noncompliance wheTt employees
opened
the doors
to obtain ventilation while they were working
in
the hot weather,
(R. 192),
Further,
the Village indIcated that
even with the doors half—closed,
there were no noticeable
reductions
in noise
levels.
(R. 144;
229).
On the other hand
Tedio believes that the residents jumped
the gun and prematurely
began complaining.
(R. 192—195),
However, Tedio did take over
two months
to get the fence replaced due
to negotiations with the
insurance company and haggling with contractors.
Subsequently on November 14,
1984, Tedio’s representatives
attended a pre—enforcement compliance conference held at the
Maywood offices
of the Agency pursuant
to Section 31(d)
of the
Illinois Environmental Protection Act (Act),
At this conference,
Tedio agreed to install
an afterburner; forego some heavy
ink
coverage jobs even after the air pollution control equipment was
installed; and schedule certain
jobs when they would not
65-89
—4—
interfere with
the activities of
local
residents.
(R.
48—51).
Noise Pollution
The Village alleges that Tedio violated Section 24 of
the
Act which prohibits any person from emitting “beyond the
boundaries of his property any noise that unreasonably interferes
with
the enjoyment of life
,..,
so as
to violate
any regulation
or standard adopted by the Board.
In support of the alleged
noise pollution violations,
the Village produced and entered into
evidence three noise survey tests which were conducted on the
perimeter
of Tedio’s property.
The Village further presented
testimony by several witnesses who live in the vicinity of
Tedio’s plant~
The first noise
test, which was made at the south property
line of the residences on Heritage Drive on September 10, 1984,
was conducted by Alexis Risk Management Services.
(Village’s
Exhibit #3).
This test shows that Tedio exceeded both the
applicable daytime and nighttime noise
standards.
Daytime
exceedances are 5—10 db and nighttime exceedances
are 10—15 db
in
the 1000—8000 Hertz
range.
The second noise test was conducted on August 20,
1984 by
Mr. Donald Rudny,
a mechanical engineer.
This test was made at
865 Heritage Drive,
the residence of Mr. Rudny’s sister
and
mother.
(R. 74—75).
Mr. Rudny’s sister
asked him to perform
these tests because “some preliminary EPA measurements made prior
to that date indicated that the noise level was marginally in
violation of the Village ordinance and she felt that the noise
was very significant and that it should have been much more
in
violation than the EPA measurements indicated”.
(R.
75—76).
Mr.
Rudny, who had prior
experience with International Harvester
Company involving
noise testing work on construction equipment
and diesel engines, conducted noise
tests with rented equipment
and
found that the noise emitted from Tedio’s facility
significantly exceeded the requisite nighttime standards and
marginally exceeded
the applicable daytime standards.
Daytime
measurements showed exceedances of the state standards of
approximately 5 db at 1000, 2000 and 4000 Hertz.
Nighttime
measurements showed exceedances of approximately 15 db in those
same ranges.
(R. 76—85; Village’s Exhibit #5.)
Thus,
the noise
test results
of Mr. Rudny’s noise survey were similar
to the
conclusions reached
in the noise
test conducted by Alexis Risk
Management Services
in that it showed Tedio to have exceeded both
the permissible daytime and nighttime noise
levels.
(See:
Village’s Exhibit #5).
The third noise test was conducted on March 19, 1985 by Mr.
Mark Tuckers
an in—house inspector in the Village’s building
department.
The Village leased
a precision sound
level meter,
octave filter
set, and other appropriate noise measurement
equipment from the Agency
An experienced Agency employee
,a
neighborhood resident, and the Village building and housing
65-90
—5—
administrator accompanied Mr. Tucker during
the testing.
(R.
146—151).
The results indicate that Tedio was
in violation of
the nighttime noise standards even with the plant’s overhead
doors
fully
closed,
but did not reveal any daytime violations
of
applicable standards.
(R.
150—151; and Village’s Exhibit #2).
Instead, during the daytime hours,
some decibel readings were
“exactly on”
the appropriate
limits.
(R.
153).
On
cross—examination, Mr. Tucker admitted that his noise readings
did not show the same degree of noise violations
that were
demonstrated by Mr. Rudny’s tests and indicated that Tedio’s
nighttime violations were less
than the other tests had shown.
(R.
152—156).
At the hearing, various residents of the Heritage
Subdivision testified that their
lives had been disrupted by
excessive noise
from Tedio’s facility.
Mrs. Betty Burrows
testified that she had often been awakened by late night noises
from Tedio’s printing plant.
(R.
110—111;
and Village’s Exhibit
#8.)
Mr. James Burrows testified that he complained about
the
excessive noise
from Tedio at Village Board meetings and
complained
to the Agency and the Governor.
(R.
117—122).
Another neighbor,
Mr. Hugo Liepins, testified that he was
bothered by loud noises from Tedio’s operations during the summer
months when
the plant’s doors were open.
(R.
126-127).
Mrs.
Pat
Rataj testified that when Tedio’s doors and windows are open,
she
is disturbed by noises from the presses and cutters and also
is
disturbed by the nighttime movements of
forklift trucks
bring
paper
from the warehouse into the main building.
(R.
129—133;
and village’s Exhibit #3).
She stated
that, during
the summer,
the overhead doors are open after midnight “on many occasions”.
(R.
134—135).
The noises,
according
to Mrs.
Rataj, are
“irritating
all tLe year around, not only in summer”.
(R.
141).
Mr. Anthorr~LaRocca,
the acting Village Manager,
testified
that he had received many complaints from neighborhood residents
pertaining
to Tedio’s operations and stated
that, during the
summer
of 1984,
he had personally heard noises from “machinery
operating”
at Tedio’s site while he was
in the Rataj’s
backyard.
(R.
157—161).
Tedio has acknowledged that a noise problem exists
at its
plant and has attempted
to develop
a noise abatement program to
eliminate the problems.
Mr. Ben Williams, the President and
part-owner
of Tedio,
testified that Industrial Noise Control,
Inc. was asked
to provide noise abatement equipment that will
bring Tedio into compliance with applicable nighttime noise
standards.
(R.
209—211; and Tedio’s Exhibit #4).
Mr. Williams
stated that he forwarded a purchase order
to buy
a flexible
curtain absorber
to surround various parts of
the printing press
and
to
cover
a
wall
adjacent
to
the
press,
and
a
portable
sound
absorption
curtain
screen
which
will
be
installed
to
the
rear
of
the
printing
presses
in front of the doors near
the entrance to
the
plant.
(R.
209—214;
R.
223;
and
Tedio’s
Exhibit #4—4A).
Although
these
sound
absorption
devices
were scheduled to be
delivered
to
Tedio
within
four
to
six
weeks
from
the
date
of
the
65-91
—6—
order,
they had not yet arrived at the time of the April
1, 1985
hearing.
(R.
211;
221—223).
The Board concludes that Tedio has violated Section 24
of
the Act.
All three noise surveys show violations of 35
Ill. Adm.
Code 901.102(b)
which establishes nightime noise limitations and
two of the three surveys show violations of 35
Ill. Adm. Code
901.102(a) which establishes daytime noise limitations.
Tedio
points out that Mr. Rudny used rented equipment, was asked by his
sister
to perform the tests,
and that he
is not
a qualified
environmental expert.
However, his testimony shows knowledge of
the equipment,
he calibrated
the meter
to insure
its accuracy,
and his results are quite similar
to those of Alexis Risk
Management.
While
there
are differences with the Village’s tests
which show no daytime violations;
the record contains no evidence
to show that both surveys could not be accurate.
Several factors
such as wind speed and direction, placement of the meters,
and
Tedio’s operating conditions
at the time of the tests could
explain
the discrepancies.
For these reasons, the Board
finds
that Mr. Rudny’s noise survey has probative value.
These
results, as well as the substantial citizen testimony as
to
interference with the enjoyment of
their lives and property of
residents in the vicinity of Tedio are largely unrebutted and
show violations of Section
24
of the Act.
Further,
the factors
which the Board must consider
under Section 33(c)
of the Act
bearing
on
the reasonableness of the emissions (discussed under
the penalty section below), demonstrate that Tedio has caused an
unreasonable interference with the area residents’
enjoyment
of
life and property.
AIR POLLUTION
The Village also alleges
a violation of Section 9(a) of
the
Act which proscribes air pollution, which
in turn is defined
in
Section 3(b)
of
t’he Act,
in relevant part,
as “the presence
in
the atmosphere of one or more contaminants in sufficient
quantites and
of such characteristics and duration as
to
unreasonably interfere with the enjoyment of
life or property.”
The Village alleges that such unreasonable interferenäe resulted
from smoke
and odor emissions from Tedio’s property.
There
are visible smoke and odor emissions during the
heatset process which occur
in Press #1 and Press #2 due
to the
volatilization of the liquid
ink solvent.
(R.
164).
To control
smoke and odor emissions, Tedio installed an emission control
device on the print line dryer
exhausts in January,
1985,
pursuant
to its informal agreement at the pre—enforcement
conference.
On
March
11,
1985,
the
Village
of
Addison
retained
Dr.
Sander
Sundberg,
as
its
environmental
consultant
to
conduct
tests
relating
to
alleged
smoke
and
odor
emissions
from
Tedio’s
printing
plant.
(R.
33—34).
Dr.
Sundberg
visited
the
vicinity
of
Tedio
on
six
occasions
on
four
different
days.
(R.
34
and
65-92
—7--
39).
On
two
of
these
days (March 19 and
March
20,
1985),
his
visits
were
unannounced.
On
three
of
these
visits
he
was
accompanied
by
Mr.
Mark
Tucker
of
the
Village.
Ms.
Jean
Damlos
of
the
Agency
once
went
with
Dr.
Sundberg
during
his
smoke
arid
odor
testing.
(R.
34—40).
On
March
26,
1985,
Dr.
Sundberg
performed
a
stack
test
on
Tedio’s
emission
control
device
in
order
to
ascertain
if
it
was
functioning
properly.
Dr.
Sundberg
subsequently
testified
at
the
hearing
that
he
believed
the
device
that
was
installed
on
Tedio’s
equipment
was
a
‘~stack heater”
rather
than
a
“catalytic
afterburner”
and
indicated
that
he
believed
that
a
catalytic
afterburner
is
a
more
effective
apparatus.
(R.
39;
R.
44).
Dr.
Sundberg
testified
that,
under
normal
operating
conditions,
an
afterburner
should
heat
up
the
contaminant
gas
stream
at
1100
to
1400
degrees
Fahrenheit
or
higher
and
maintain the temperature
for
a
period
of
0.3
to
0.5
seconds,
(R.
36).
Dr.
Sundberg
stated
that,
while
the
temperature
in
the
middle
of
the
flame
in
the burner was
1400
degrees
Fahrenheit,
the temperature
at
the
top of the stack approximately six feet down from the flame
averaged about
400 degrees Fahrenheit,
(R,
37—39).
This sharp
drop off
in temperature
indicates that the gas stream might not
be
heated
the
requisite
0.3
to
0.5
seconds
and,
therefore,
is
“relatively
ineffective
in
removing
(combusting)
odorous
material.”
(Village’s Exhibit #1,
page 13).
However,
his
off—site observations of ambient odor and his odor survey did
riot
indicate any untoward odors,
Thus,
Dr. Sundberg’s environmental
evaluation
indicated
that
Tedio’s
emission
control
device
is
less
than
completely
effective
in
controlling smoke and odor, but that
it
“will
reduce
the visual opacity by increasing the exhaust
temperature
and
reducing
condensation
of
solvent,
and
it
will
also
facilitate
the
dispersion
of
odorous
material
by
increasing
the
effective
stack
height.”
(Village’s
Exhibit
#1,
page
13.)
Ms.
Jean
Damlos,
an
environmental
specialist
on
air
pollution
who
is
employed
by
the
Agency,
testified that Tedio
promised,
inter
alia,
to
install
a
catalytic afterburner
to
control
emissions
and
smoke,
(R.
151).
However,
after
the
installation
of
the afterburner,
Ms.
Damlos’ March 26,
1985
inspection
found
that
it was not
a catalytic or thermal
afterburner
as
she
had
seen
on
similar printing presses at other
facilities,
Instead,
the
equipment
was
a
“stack
heater”
which
“warmed
the
gases
up
to
a
higher
temperature
than
they
would
have
been
without
the
heater”
and
was,
in
her
opinion,
less
efficient.
(R.
54;
R.
60).
She
also
stated
that Tedio had not
yet
received
an
Agency
permit
for
its
afterburner.
(R.
52—53).
On
the
other
hand,
Mr.
Ben Williams testified that Tedio had
placed
an
order
for
an
afterburner
before
he
was
told
that
such
equipment
was
required and stated that the word “catalytic”
was
brought
up
at
the pre—enforcement conference
and
he
“didn’t
know
what
the
word
meant,”
(R.
226—227),
He
indicated
that
he
was
trying
in
good
faith
to
comply with applicable
regulations
and
to
eliminate
any
problems
at
the plant.
(R,
227—233).
Mr.
Williams
testified
that
he
didn’t
file
any application
for
a permit prior
65~93
—8—
to
the
installation
of
the
afterburner
because
he
was
unaware
that
a
permit
was
required until Ms.
Damlos visited the plant and
told
him
that
a
permit was necessary.
(R.
199).
After
Ms.
Damlos mailed him the forms,
Tedio “expedited
it
as
quickly
as
possible”
and
had Tn—Heating Company prepare the documents.
(R.
199—200; and Company Exhibit
#1).
After
the application form was
filled out,
he “hand carried them to
the
Maywood
office
of
the
EPA
for them to review,
and it was filed.”
(R.
200).
Tedio
subsequently
received
a
Certificate
of
Incompleteness
from
the
Agency which notified Tedio that additional
information was
required.
(R.
200—201;
see: Company Exhibit #2).
Tedio has
prepared
the additional requested information, but had not yet
transmitted
it
to
the Agency as of the date of
the hearing.
(R.
200—203).
On
March
27~ 1985,
the
Tn—Heating
Company
inspected
the
afterburner.
Their
service report
indicates that the afterburner
is
operating
efficiently
and
that the digital temperature
read—out indicated that a temperature of 1408 degrees was reached
during operations.
(R.
203—204;
and Tedio’s Exhibit
#3).
Mr.
Fred Valentine,
a partner of Tn—Heating,
Inc.,
testified that
the
incinerator
afterburner
that
was
installed has a chamber on
top
of
the roof where
a flame
at
1400
degrees
covers
the
entire
opening
and
all
the
emissions
have
to
pass
through
this
flame
before
they are exhausted,
thereby eliminating the smoke and the
odor.
(R.
166—167).
Mr. Valentine
stated that “the thermal
coupler
(sic)
is located just above the flame, approximately
6
to
12 inches above the flame, and the read—out
is located downstairs
by the presses”
so that the temperature
is taken at the thermal
coupler location
and
then
is
transmitted
to
the
digital
read—out
device
(sic)
in the plant.
(R.
167—168).
Although the
incinerator afterburner
is designed
to burn the gases off at
the
flame,
the temperature varies
in the flue or the stack at various
distances away from the actual
flame.
(R.
170—171).
The system
is
designed
so
that
the
flame
sometimes
becomes
visible
through
the top of the flue depending on the amount of ink that is used
in
the
printing
and
if
alcohol
is
being
run
in
the
fountain
solution.
(R.
170).
Although
Mr.
Valentine
stated
that
his
firm’s “experience”
in installing these afterburners indicated
the
afterburner,s
effectiveness,
on
cross—examination
he
admitted
that he had not done any actual air quality tests
to see
if
Tedio’s afterburner was effective
in removing odorous materials
from the contaminant air stream,
(R.
184—188).
At
the hearing, some of the residents of
the Heritage
Subdivision testified that their lives had been disrupted and
adversely affected by excessive smoke, odors,
and fumes from
Tedio’s printing plant.
Mrs. Barbara Maziarz testified that
she
has
lived
at
851
Heritage
Drive
for
13
years
(R.
19).
She first detected odors from Tedio
in
the summer of 1984 which
were “very strong,
burning, burning
in a way that
it burns your
skin,
it burns your eyes,
and
it burns your throat when you smell
it.
(R. l9-20)~
She has detected the same odors
since January,
1985, but they are somewhat less than the odors
in the summer.
65-94
—9—
(R.
20—21).
She
further
testified
that
the
smoke
makes
it
“impossible” to be outside “for any period of time”
(R.
21)
and
tnat she can distinguish
the odors coming from Tedio Printing
from the odors from L
& S Company by observing the “chimney on
Tedio
and
ventilators
on
L
&
S.”
(R.
21—22).
Mrs.
Betty
Burrows,
who
lives
at
859
Heritage
Drive,
testified
that
her
family was disturbed by “really heavy odor”
which
smelled
like
printing
oil burning which came right
into
their
apartment
and
family
room
from
Tedio
and
indicated
that
at
night
the
odors
are
“real heavy,” while during
the day
it
is
riot
so
bad.
(R.
108.109;
see: Village’s Exhibit *8).
Her
husband
testified
that
he
kept
a
log
which
accurately
indicated
emissions
of
smoke
and
odor
from
Tedio’s
printing
plant.
(R.
114).
He
indicated
that
the
smoke
is
not always
the
same
color
and
is
sometimes
“dark
blue”
or
“a
brownish
color”
(R.
116)
and
that
sometimes
there
is
an
odor
connected
with
the
smoke,
but
not
all
the
time
and
that
it
depends
on
the
direction
of
the wind
(R.
116).
He
described
the
periodic
odor
as
smelling like “rotten
eggs
or
burning
sulfur”.
(R.
116).
Mr.
Burrows
stated
that
the
“odor
is
the
same,”
but
that
Tedio
does not emit as much smoke
now because flames come from the chimney
(R.
117).
Mr. Burrows
said
it
was
easy to distinguish
the emissions from Tedio Printing
and L
&
S Company, because
“there is
a different smell
in the
smoke.”
(R.
119).
Two other local residents also complained
about the odors
coming from Tedio,
Mr. Hugo Liepins, who has lived at 870
Heritage Drive
for the last 12 years, testified that he was
bothered by “noxious”
odors which smelled like “burning oil” last
summer when
he went outside.
(H.
126).
In the colder weather,
when his house windows were normally closed, he did not detect
the
odors.
He
also complained about
a decline
in property values
and
stated
that
if
he
wanted
to
sell
his
house,
a
buyer
would
be
unavailable,
“with
such
filth
coming
in”
from
Tedio.
(R.
127).
Mrs.
Pat Rataj,
who
has
lived
at
865
Heritage
Drive
for
over
13
years,
testified that the odors started
in July or August of 1984
arid that there
is a “strange” gassy smell that “burns your eyes”
(R.
129)
and that she sometimes has to close all the doors and
windows
to avoid the smells,
(R.
129—130).
She can’t
use their
swimming pool or have guests
over,
thereby affecting
the use and
enjoyment of her home.
(R. 130, and see Village’s Exhibit #9).
The
Board
concludes
that
Tedio
has
violated
Section
9(a)
of
the
Act
by
emitting
odors
which
unreasonably
interfered
with
the
enjoyment of life and property of residents in the surrounding
area.
However, this violation has not been as well established
as
the noise violation,
The non—resident testimony appears
to
contradict that of the residents,
In
this regard, however,
the
Board
notes that the
residents
are
at the site all
of the
time,
day after
day., during the day and at night.
The non—residents,
however,
have been at the site
on
a
handful
of
days
during
normal
working
hours,~
This
could
explain
some
of
the
inconsistencies.
There
is
also
a
question
as
to
whether
the
residents
could
65-95
—10--
determine
specifically the origin of the odors.
The record
discloses that there
are other facilities
in
the
vicinity
which
cause
odors.
Finally,
monitoring
and
modeling
done
by
Dr.
Sundberg
indicates
that
an
unreasonable
interference with life
and property appears unlikely.
In attempting
to reconcile this evidence,
the Board
first
finds that for
the period
of time up to Tedio’s installation of
its
stack
heater, Tedio emitted odors which unreasonably
interfered with the enjoyment of
the life and property of
surrounding
residents.
Testimony regarding that period of time
is nearly unrebutted,
Residents testified at length regarding
such interference and testitied that they could determine that
Tedio
was
the source of the odors,
The installation of
the
stack
heater,
however,
may
in
large
part have cured
the problem.
Certainly, Dr. Sundberg’s study
indicates that to be the case.
On the other hand,
the residents
indicate
that unreasonable odors continued,
though to a somewhat
lesser
degree.
In reviewing Mr.
Burrows’
log (Village Exhibit
8),
which
is the most complete record
emissions
from
Tedio’s
facility, most of the entries after
the installation of
the
stack
heater relate
to flames and smoke
rather than odors, whereas the
bulk of the citizens’ complaints
rests on odors.
Tedio
points
out
that
while
residents
maintained
that
a
sulfur—smelling,
bluish—gray
smoke
was
emanating
from
Tedio’s
plant,
none
of
the
three
environmental
specialists
employed
by
the Village and the Agency who made unannounced inspections
of
the plant and surrounding areas detected any such emissions or
odors,
Ms. Damlos testified that when
she
visited
the
Tedio
plant
in August and September, 1984,
she detected a faint odor
and
smoke on only one occasion,
(R.
57—58)
She also testified
that
in
her
inspections
in
February
and
March,
1985,
she
could
detect
no
visible
emissions
and
only
a
faint
odor
near
the
Tedio
warehouse;
she
could
not
detect
any odor
in the residential
area.
(R.
62),
Dr.
Sundberg
also
testified
that
on
his
visits
he
detected
no
significant
odors
(H.
40).
In
light
of this
conflicting
testimony,
Tedio
submits
that
the
testimony of
the
environmental
specialists
must
be
given
greater
weight
than
that
of
the
residents
and
that
their
inspections
make
it
clear
that
if the residents have had
a
problem
with
smoke
and
odor
since
January,
1985,
Tedio’s
operations
are
not responsible for them,
Tedio submits that Dr.
Sundberg’s
March
1985
report
must
be
dispositive of the question
of
whether
or not Tedio
is responsible
for the odors,
and cites
the
following
Section:
Under
the
conditions that the Tedio plant was
operating at on March 26,
1985,
dispersion
modeling
indicates
that there
is minimal impact on the
ambient environment,
Under conditions projected
for
the operations of two print
lines
65-96
—11—
simultaneously at normal and heavy
loadings,
it
is
possible that extremely sensitive observers may
perceive an odor.
(Village
Exhibit No.
1,
p.
13).
However,
this conclusion
is
specifically
limited
to
March
26,
1985,
and certainly does not stand
for the proposition that
Tedio
has not, and
is not, causing
air pollution.
What
it does
show is
that under some operating
conditions,
the
stack
heater
operates effectively.
On the other
hand,
the
citizen
testimony
indicates that it does not always operate
effectively.
The
Board
concludes that the preponderance of the evidence supports the
finding
of
a violation of Section 9(a)
of the Act both before
and
after
Tedio’s installation of its stack
heater,
although
the
extent of violation has diminished
since
its
installation.
PENALTY
Under Section
33(c)
of the Act the Board is required
to take
into
consideration factors relating
to the reasonableness of the
emissions.
First,
the Board
is to consider
the
character
and
degree
of
injury.
As
the testimony
shows,
the
noise
and
odor
emanating
from Tedio has caused
significant
interference
with
the
general
welfare of area residents,
The
interference,
however,
has
apparently
lessened
to some
extent,
especially
as
regards
odors,
but
some remains.
Second,
Tedio
does
have
social
and
economic
value~
However,
Tedio’s
method
of
operation
is
such
that
its
social
value is
reduced
by
the
pollution
it
causes.
Third,
while
the suitability
of
the
site
location
is
indicated
by
the
fact
that Tedio’s property is zoned for its current use,
there
is no question that the
residents
of
the
Heritage
Subdivision
have clear priority
of
location,
as
almost all of
the
complaining
residents have lived
in
the
area
for
many years while
Tedio
has
only been
in
business
since
April,
1982.
One
of
the
inherent
problems
involved
here
is
that
there
exists
a
proximity
between
the
industrial
and
residential
zones
which
exacerbates
any noise, odor~, or smoke problems that occur.
Fourth, there
is
no question that it is technically practicable and economically
reasonable
to reduce emissions
to meet Board standards.
Although Tedio has claimed
a
willingness
to
correct
the
noise
and
air
pollution problems
and
has
taken
various
steps
to
rectify
the
situation,
the fact remains
that
the
problems
have
persisted
since at least
the latter part of July,
1984 when Tedio
installed
Press
*2 and did not
expeditiously
replace the fence
which
was
blown down
in a severe
windstorm.
Tedio
has
asserted
that
it
has made good
faith efforts
to
come
into
compliance
and
cites
its replacement of
the
fence;
its
installation
of
an
afterburner;
its purchase of various sound
absorption
barriers;
and
its efforts
to meet the concerns of
area
residents.
On
the
other
hand,
the complaining neighbors have basically argued that
Tedio
has
done “too little,
too late”
and
that
Tedio’s
efforts,
even
if well—intentioned have not resulted
in
a
resolution of the
65-97
—12—
problems
o1~ noise
and
air
pollution.
Expert
testimony,
while
differing
fri
its interpretation of the effects of Tedio’s control
measures,
has
indicated
that
a problem does,
in
fact, exist.
in
evaluating
all
the
facts and circumstances of the instant case,
and
analyzing
all
testimony
and
exhibits presented
at the
hearing,
the
Board
finds
that
a
$1,000
penalty is appropriate.
The
Board
will
order
Tedio
to:
(1)
cease
and
desist from
all
further
violations;
(2)
retain a professional engineer or
other
qualified
environmental
consultant
in
consultation
with
the
Agency
to
conduct
all
necessary
tests
on
the
afterburner
to
see
that
all
ira~i;:oper
smoke,
odors,
and
emissions
are
eliminated
and
insure
tha~: ~:~dio
is
in
compliance
with
all
applicable
air
pollution
dards~
including
appropriate
permits;
(3)
if
necessary,
~~editious1y
install
a
catalytic
afterburner
or
other
similar
de~:~~
which
wil:L1
in
fact,
eliminate
the
smoke,
odor,
and
other
er~ssioriviolations;
(4)
retain
a
professional
engineer
or
other
qu~)Lified
environmental
consultant
in consultation
with
the
Agency
conduct.
all
necessary
tests
on
the
sound
barriers
installed
to
tnsure
that
the
applicable
nighttime
and
daytime
noise
standa.
~s
are
met;
(5)
if
necessary,
additional
appropriate
noise
absorp~
~on barriers shall
be
expeditiously installed to
bring
Tedio~.
operation
into
full
compliance
with
all
applicable
noise
starida~ s;
and
(6)
pay
a
penalty
of
$1,000
to
aid
in
the
enforcement
.::l
the
Act,
This
0p~..:~ioriconstitutes
the Board’s findings of fact
and
conclusions
o.~ law
in
this
matter.
ORDER
It
is
tho
Order
of
the
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board
that:
1.
Ted:Lo
Printing
Ccmpany,
has
violated Sections 9(a)
and
24
of
the
i:liirzois
Environmental
Protection
Act.
2.
Tedio
shall
cease
and
desist
from further violations.
3,
Within
30 days
of
the
date
of
this
Order,
Tedio
shall,
by
certified
check
or
money
order
payable
to
the
State
of
Illinois,
pay
a
penalty
of
$1,000
which
is
to
be
sent
to:
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Fiscal
Services
Division
2200
Churchil.l
Road
Springfield,
IL
62706
4,
Within
4~ days
of
the
date
of
this
Order,
Tedio
shall
retain
a
professional
engineer or other qualified consultant
in
consulta~
~th
the
Agency
to
conduct
all
necessary
tests
on
the
afterb!u~rto see
that
all
improper
smoke,
odors,
and
emissions
i:niriat~,d an~l
to
insure
that
Tedio
is
in
85-98
—13—
compliance with all applicable
air pollution standards.
If
necessary, Tedio shall expeditiously install
a catalytic
afterburner
or other similar device which will,
in fact,
eliminate
the smoke, odor,
and other emission violations
to bring
Tedio’s operations
nto full compliance with all applicable
air
pollution standards.
Appropriate permits
for any pollution
control equipment shall
be obtained from
the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency.
5.
~1ithin45 days
of the date of this Order, Tedio shall
retain a professional engineer
or other qualified consultant
in
consultation with
the Agency to conduct all necessary tests
on
the sound barriers installed
to insure that the applicable
nighttime and daytime noise standards are met.
If necessary,
additional appropriate noise absorption barriers shall
be
expeditiously installed
to bring Tedio’s operations
into full
compliance with all applicable noise standards.
IT
IS SO ORDERED.
I,
Dorothy M. Gunn,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board,
hereby certify that the abov
Opinion and Order was
adopted on
the
/~_
day of
_____
____,
1985 by
a
vote of
~7-~)
.
~i,
/
___
___~.
orothy
M. GInn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
65-99
