ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    October 30,
    1980
    PETER A.
    ZAJAC,
    )
    Complainant,
    v.
    )
    PCB 79—10
    CHICAGO TRANSIT AUTHORITY,
    a
    Municipal Corporation,
    Respondent.
    COMPLAINANT PETER A.
    ZAJAC
    APPEARED PRO SE.
    MS. LORETTA WEBER APPEARED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT.
    OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by
    I.
    Goodman):
    This matter is before the Board upon a citizen enforcement
    action filed December 20,
    1978.
    An amended complaint was filed
    and the Board authorized a hearing on February 15,
    1979; hearing
    was held on January 22,
    1980.
    The Board has received considerable
    public comment.
    In the complaint Mr. Peter A.
    Zajac
    (Zajac)
    alleges violations
    of Rule 102 of the Board’s noise pollution regulations
    (Chapter
    8)
    and of Section 24 of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act (Act).
    Section 24 prohibits any emission of noise which “unreasonably inter-
    feres with the enjoyment of life or with any lawful business or
    activity,
    so as to violate any regulation or standard adopted by
    the Board under
    tthel
    Act.”
    Rule 102 prohibits causing or allowing
    sound emissions beyond the boundaries of one’s property (realty or
    personalty)
    so as to cause noise pollution or so as to violate the
    Board’s noise regulations.
    Zajac appeared ~
    se, and was aware
    that he was entitled to have legal representation (R.10,20,26).
    The hearing officer maintained fair and orderly proceedings through-
    out, while allowing Zajac great latitude in the presentation of his
    case.
    The Board must, nevertheless, weigh the evidence presented
    to it;
    the burden is on a complainant to show that a respondent has
    violated a provision of the Act or a rule or regulation of the Board.
    The Board
    finds that Zajac failed to meet that burden in this case.
    As a matter of fact,
    Zajac produced little or no evidence at
    the hearing.
    It
    is difficult for the Board to make
    a finding that
    noise pollution has occurred based upon testimony concerning
    personal irritation from sounds produced by another.
    It
    is well
    known that noise is
    a highly subjective perception.
    While the
    sound of rock and roll music, or a Beethoven symphony, may be
    pleasing to the ear of one person,
    the same sound may be perceived
    by another as an irritating noise.
    —2—
    Although the Board did receive considerable public comment
    concerning this case,
    Zajac was the only person to testify for
    Complainant’s case at the hearing.
    Although most of the public
    comment concerned allegations of structural damage to buildings,
    the Chicago Transit Authority presented an engineering report at
    hearing purporting to show that no structural damage could occur
    from vibrations caused by its trains.
    No technical information
    concerning sound levels was presented at the hearing.
    While the Board is sensitive to noise problems in the envi-
    roninent, it may not make a finding of pollution and violation of
    the Act or the Board’s
    Rule 102 on so little evidence.
    The Board
    must therefore dismiss the complaint herein.
    This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and the conclu-
    sions of law of the Board in this matter.
    ORDER
    It is the Order of the Pollution Control
    Board that PCB 79-10
    be and is hereby dismissed.
    I, Christan L.
    Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
    Control Board,
    hereby certify that
    e above Opinion and Order
    was adopted on the~3~1’day of
    _____________,
    1980 by a
    vote of ~Q
    Christan L. Mo~ tt,
    Clerk
    Illinois Pollution Control Board

    Back to top