1 BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
2
3
4 JAMES A. GLASGOW, VICKIE L. GLASGOW,
5 BILL HOPPE AND PAT HOPPE,
6 Complainants,
7 vs. No. PCB 00-221
8 GRANITE CITY STEEL,
9 Respondent.
10
11
12
13 Proceedings held on July 11, 2001 at 9:05 a.m., at the City
14 Hall, 2000 Edison Avenue, Mayor's Conference Room, Granite City,
15 Illinois, before Hearing Officer Steven C. Langhoff.
16
17
18 VOLUME II
19
20
21 Reported by: Darlene M. Niemeyer, CSR, RPR
CSR License No.: 084-003677
22
23 KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
11 North 44th Street
24 Belleville, IL 62226
(618) 277-0190
303
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 A P P E A R A N C E S
2
3 FREEARK, HARVEY, MENDILLO, DENNIS, WULLER,
CAIN & MURPHY, P.C.
4 BY: W. Jeffrey Muskopf
Attorney at Law
5 115 West Washington Street
Belleville, Illinois 62222
6 On behalf of the Complainants.
7
BABST, CALLAND, CLEMENTS & ZOMNIR, P.C.
8 BY: Chester R. Babst, III
Stacia A. Christman
9 Attorneys at Law
Two Gateway Center
10 Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15222
On behalf of the Respondent.
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
304
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 I N D E X
2
WITNESS PAGE NUMBER
3
4 GREG ZAK (continued)
Direct Examination (cont'd) by Mr. Muskopf.......... 316
5 Offer of Proof Examination by Mr. Muskopf........... 353
Direct Examination (cont'd) by Mr. Muskopf.......... 354
6 Cross Examination by Mr. Babst...................... 356
Redirect Examination by Mr. Muskopf................. 428
7
8 NED STUDHOLME
Direct Examination by Mr. Babst..................... 433
9 Cross Examination by Mr. Muskopf.................... 460
10
LARRY SIEBENBERGER
11 Direct Examination by Mr. Babst..................... 496
Cross Examination by Mr. Muskopf.................... 537
12
13 BOB HOLLORAN
Direct Examination by Ms. Christman................. 552
14 Cross Examination by Mr. Muskopf.................... 582
Redirect Examination by Ms. Christman............... 588
15
16 JOE RIBBING
Direct Examination by Mr. Babst..................... 590
17 Cross Examination by Mr. Muskopf.................... 603
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
305
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 E X H I B I T S
2
3 NUMBER MARKED FOR I.D. ENTERED
4
Complainant Exhibit 35 -- --
5 Complainant Exhibit 36 350 616
Complainant Exhibit 37 -- --
6 Complainant Exhibit 38 -- --
(Complainant Exhibits 39 through 42 were marked on 07-10-01.)
7 Complainant Exhibit 43 323 616
Complainant Exhibit 43 323 616
8
(Complainant's Exhibits C1 through C44, with the exception of C40
9 and C41 were admitted into evidence on page 616.)
10
Respondent Exhibit 1 498 618
11 Respondent Exhibit 2 500 618
Respondent Exhibit 2A 500 618
12 Respondent Exhibit 3 -- --
Respondent Exhibit 4 512 618
13 Respondent Exhibit 5 517 618
Respondent Exhibit 6 518 618
14 Respondent Exhibit 7 519 618
Respondent Exhibit 8 519 618
15 Respondent Exhibit 9 523 618
Respondent Exhibit 10 519 618
16 Respondent Exhibit 11 519 618
Respondent Exhibit 12 524 618
17 Respondent Exhibit 13 530 618
Respondent Exhibit 13A 530 618
18 Respondent Exhibit 14 531 618
Respondent Exhibit 15 -- --
19 Respondent Exhibit 16 593 618
Respondent Exhibit 17 594 618
20 Respondent Exhibit 18 -- --
Respondent Exhibit 19 599 618
21 Respondent Exhibit 20 602 618
Respondent Exhibit 21 600 618
22 Respondent Exhibit 22 601 618
Respondent Exhibit 23 596 618
23 Respondent Exhibit 24 -- --
Respondent Exhibit 25 -- --
24 Respondent Exhibit 26 434 618
306
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 E X H I B I T S
(continued)
2
3 NUMBER MARKED FOR I.D. ENTERED
4
Respondent Exhibit 27 445 618
5 Respondent Exhibit 28 445 618
Respondent Exhibit 29 446 618
6 Respondent Exhibit 30 446 618
Respondent Exhibit 31 446 618
7 Respondent Exhibit 32 397 618
Respondent Exhibit 33 397 618
8 Respondent Exhibit 34 -- --
Respondent Exhibit 35 -- --
9 Respondent Exhibit 36 566 618
10
Photos were marked Respondent A through Z......... Page 501
11 Photos were marked Respondent AA.................. Page 511
Photos were marked Respondent BB and CC........... Page 514
12 Photos were marked Respondent DD.................. Page 516
Photos were marked Respondent EE, FF and GG....... Page 523
13 Photos were marked Respondent GG, HH and II....... Page 564
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
307
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 P R O C E E D I N G S
2 (July 11, 2001; 9:05 a.m.)
3 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: Okay. Good morning everyone.
4 Welcome back. This is day two of the hearing PCB 00-221. It is
5 July 11th, and it is 9:05 in the morning.
6 Mr. Zak is on the stand, and he is reminded that he is
7 under oath. And Mr. Muskopf has some preliminary matters he
8 wishes to discuss. Go ahead, Mr. Muskopf.
9 MR. MUSKOPF: Thank you. The first one is I want to make a
10 motion to exclude witnesses. I guess Granite City Steel is
11 entitled to have a corporate representative, but when their other
12 witnesses arrive I would like to have them outside of the
13 presence of the other people giving testimony.
14 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: Yes, Mr. Babst?
15 MR. BABST: The witnesses that we are presenting from the
16 company are not testifying on the same issues. I would prefer
17 them to be here so that they can hear Mr. Zak testify and also be
18 in here for the rest of the testimony. I mean, no differently
19 than we did with the complainants yesterday as well as when we
20 took the complainants' depositions. As far as I understood, when
21 we took those they were all allowed to sit there and participate.
22 So I would ask that we be accorded the same treatment.
23 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: Okay. Thank you.
24 MR. MUSKOPF: I mean, parties, obviously, have an absolute
308
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 right to be in here the entire time. It is just the lay
2 witnesses. And experts can be here, too. It is the lay
3 witnesses that don't have the right to be present for all of the
4 testimony.
5 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: Okay. I understand your
6 argument, Mr. Muskopf. I am going to overrule your objection.
7 MR. MUSKOPF: Okay. The next issue I have is a late
8 disclosure problem. I had sent 213(f) and (g) interrogatories at
9 the outset of the case. I got a response on January 3rd of 2000
10 to Interrogatories and Requests for Production. My problem here
11 is with the late designation of 213(f) witnesses, which would be
12 fact witnesses. Mr. Siebenberger was disclosed at that time in
13 January of 2000. There was a supplemental response to my request
14 for production in February of 2001 and it didn't disclose,
15 obviously, any fact witnesses, 213(f) witnesses, because it was
16 simply supplementing a request for production.
17 Then I got a disclosure of opinion witnesses in June of
18 2001. Mr. Studholme was then disclosed as a 213(g) witness, and
19 that is not my complaint at this point. But what I am
20 complaining about is on June 27th of 2001, about 12 days before
21 the hearing yesterday, for the first time I was given the names
22 of Joseph Ribbing, and unnamed Surdex, S-U-R-D-E-X,
23 representative, a gentleman by the name of Jerry Pais, P-A-I-S, a
24 Joseph Wehner, W-E-H-N-E-R, and Bob Holleran, H-O-L-L-E-R-A-N.
309
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 I don't know how many times it was represented to me and
2 the Hearing Officer that all discovery had been completed. This
3 case has been in the stage where discovery had essentially been
4 completed. The only thing we needed to do was wrap up a couple
5 of experts. And then a very, very short time before this hearing
6 I get notice that there are one, two, three, four, five fact
7 witnesses that I certainly had no chance to take their
8 depositions if I wanted to or really do a decent job of
9 evaluating what they were going to say.
10 I didn't -- before I received the disclosure, less than two
11 weeks ago, I got no indication that there was going to be one.
12 It simply showed up in my office one day. I pointed out to the
13 Hearing Officer in the final pretrial that this could be an
14 issue. So, I mean, clearly the rules call for disclosure of
15 these kinds of witnesses 60 days before the hearing, and there
16 has been -- there is really no reason why -- no reason to justify
17 the late disclosure, and I don't think those witnesses should be
18 allowed to testify.
19 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: Thank you. Mr. Babst.
20 MR. BABST: I am honestly surprised at Mr. Muskopf's motion
21 here. In our prehearing conference on July 3rd Mr. Muskopf did
22 discuss this, but it is certainly not my recollection that he
23 said this could be an issue. In fact, he said that he could, if
24 he wanted to, have objected to that, but in cases where he is as
310
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 confident as he is, that he didn't see that as a problem and
2 voiced no concern and no objection at that time.
3 I have spoken with Mr. Muskopf on at least two occasions
4 since that time. We discussed the witnesses that I was going to
5 call. I discussed with him the scope of the testimony, and it
6 was certainly my very clear understanding that he had no problem
7 with those witnesses testifying. So the motion that is being
8 presented this morning is certainly inconsistent with everything
9 that he has represented, I believe, to the Hearing Officer and to
10 me over the past week, and I would request that his motion be
11 denied.
12 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: Okay. Thank you. Anything
13 else, Mr. Muskopf?
14 MR. MUSKOPF: Yes. The only agreement that we had was with
15 regard to exhibits, and with regard to the stipulation as to
16 expert qualifications. I certainly never said that I am going to
17 allow Mr. Babst to put on these witnesses, even though they have
18 been disclosed untimely. And, I mean, the issue is not when I am
19 making my motion to exclude these witnesses. The issue is when
20 these witnesses were disclosed.
21 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: I am going to overrule your
22 motion, Mr. Muskopf. Do you have anything else?
23 MR. MUSKOPF: Yes, I do. These fact witnesses were not
24 disclosed as opinion witnesses. They were disclosed as fact
311
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 witnesses, but the truth of the matter is that I expect Mr. Babst
2 is going to try to elicit opinions out of them. For instance --
3 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: Is there any other argument
4 other than that, without giving me for instances?
5 MR. MUSKOPF: No. I mean --
6 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: It would be appropriate to
7 object at that time when we have them on the stand.
8 MR. MUSKOPF: As opposed to a motion in limine, as I am
9 making now?
10 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: Go ahead and make your motion if
11 you want to.
12 MR. MUSKOPF: Okay. My motion in limine is simply that
13 these witnesses who have been designated as fact witnesses should
14 not be allowed to offer opinion testimony. And, for instance,
15 Mr. Babst moved to exclude testimony from Mr. Zak on the economic
16 reasonableness of moving the piles, or on the cost of moving the
17 piles. He specifically refers to that as opinion witness -- as
18 opinion testimony.
19 When you look at the motion in limine that I received for
20 the first time yesterday, in the early morning, however,
21 Paragraph 12, respondent hereby seeks to exclude any opinion
22 testimony from Zak dealing with the following areas:
23 A, testimony regarding the cost of moving coal piles or
24 designing, constructing, and maintaining a sound barrier.
312
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 B, testimony regarding the economic reasonableness of
2 Granite City moving coal piles or designing, constructing, and
3 maintaining a sound barrier. Paragraph 13 --
4 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: Thank you, Mr. Muskopf. I can
5 read Mr. Babst's motion in limine. I am afraid I don't
6 understand your argument. What exactly are you seeking to
7 exclude?
8 MR. MUSKOPF: Any opinion testimony from the witnesses Mr.
9 Babst has designated as fact witnesses. He has taken the
10 position that Mr. Zak can't give opinion testimony on these
11 matters that clearly call for opinion testimony, like the
12 economic reasonableness of moving the coal piles. But, yet -- so
13 he is saying that that is opinion testimony. But he has
14 designated fact witnesses on his side to testify to the same
15 thing. And he has taken the position that when his witnesses
16 testify to the matter it is a matter of fact. But when Mr. Zak
17 testifies to it, it is a matter of opinion and it should be
18 excluded because he has not been designated as an opinion witness
19 on those subjects. I am simply moving -- I would like a level
20 playing field in this hearing.
21 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: Thank you. Anything, Mr. Babst?
22 MR. BABST: Yes. My objection to Mr. Zak was not that he
23 was not designated. In fact, I think, the attempt was not to
24 designate him. My issue with Mr. Zak was with respect to those
313
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 areas he is not an expert. So if the coal pile issue becomes an
2 issue, and we have somebody that has looked at that, if that
3 individual has qualifications that Mr. Zak does not have, then I
4 would intend to show those qualifications. But I came here not
5 knowing and I still don't know what he is going to say with
6 respect to alternative means of reducing noise. So I am at
7 somewhat of a disadvantage and have to be able to respond to what
8 I hear Mr. Zak testify to.
9 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: Okay. Thank you. Anything
10 else, Mr. Muskopf?
11 MR. MUSKOPF: Well, I guess my --
12 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: Any additional argument?
13 MR. MUSKOPF: No.
14 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: Okay. Thank you. I am going to
15 overrule your motion in limine. Anything else this morning?
16 MR. MUSKOPF: Yes. I would ask that the Hearing Officer
17 reconsider his ruling on the motion in limine with regard to Mr.
18 Zak in compliance with noise regulations or specifically on the
19 subject of whether Mr. Zak can express the ultimate opinion that
20 the noise constitutes an unreasonable interference. And my
21 support for that is in Mr. Studholme's disclosure he is
22 designated as -- in respondent's disclosure of opinion witnesses
23 in which Studholme is the only expert disclosed, Mr. Studholme is
24 expected to testify that the respondent is currently in
314
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 compliance with all applicable Illinois laws and regulations
2 which are relevant to the allegations made by complainants in
3 this matter.
4 Well, I am just at a loss to understand why Mr. Studholme
5 can testify to those things. Mr. Babst has said in his
6 disclosure I intend to call Studholme to say that Granite City
7 Steel is in compliance with all Illinois laws and regulations.
8 That necessarily calls for the opinion that, since this is a
9 nuisance case, that the noise does not constitute an unreasonable
10 interference. So I am not sure why Mr. Babst's expert should be
11 allowed and why he can say that I intend to have my expert
12 testify to this matter and then on the other hand say that Mr.
13 Zak is not allowed to do such a thing.
14 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: Thank you. Mr. Babst?
15 MR. BABST: If it helps Mr. Muskopf, I do not intend to ask
16 Mr. Studholme whether he is of the opinion that there has been a
17 -- I am trying to think of the way to say this without double
18 negatives. But I am not going to ask him to testify to the
19 reasonableness of the interference.
20 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: Okay. Thank you. I am going to
21 overrule your motion, Mr. Muskopf.
22 MR. MUSKOPF: All right. Shall we proceed with Mr. Zak,
23 then?
24 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: Please. Just briefly, Mr. Zak
315
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 had just finished testifying concerning recommendations to the
2 back up beepers and the bulldozer. I believe you stated that
3 there were three categories of the bulldozer that you were going
4 to testify about, back up beeping, tracks, and engine. I believe
5 he is finished with the back up beeping. But that's where we
6 were so everyone remembers where we were.
7 DIRECT EXAMINATION (continued.)
8 BY MR. MUSKOPF:
9 Q. Mr. Zak, when we last talked, we were talking about your
10 suggestion that Granite City Steel disconnect the back up beepers
11 on the Caterpillars and instead have an observer that would be in
12 compliance with -- I guess it would be the federal regulations.
13 Do you recall that?
14 A. Yes. I think specifically it would be the OSHA
15 regulation for worker safety.
16 Q. Is there any cost associated with disconnecting the back
17 up beepers?
18 A. In my experience, having dealt with a number of
19 contractors, it generally has been simply -- a simple solution,
20 such as putting a switch on there for probably a few dollars or
21 even just temporarily disconnecting a wire at virtually no cost.
22 Q. Okay. Is there a cost associated with having an
23 observer present?
24 A. Again, it has been my experience that typically if there
316
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 is enough personnel around the area where there is a danger of
2 somebody being injured one of the people on the ground can be
3 designated as an observer. In that case the cost would be -- it
4 would be minimal really. And in those situations where there
5 really aren't the personnel there, in that kind of situation you
6 would not need the observer because there is nobody there to get
7 injured. Of course, then the cost in that situation would be
8 essentially zero.
9 Q. Okay. I guess that covers the back up beeper issue. We
10 were talking about the bulldozer and the three different noise
11 sources from the bulldozer. We talked about back up beepers. We
12 have not discussed it yet, but we did mention the clatter of the
13 tracks, and the engine noise. Do you have any solutions in mind
14 for the clatter of the tracks and the engine noise?
15 A. As far as the clatter of the tracks, I am not aware of
16 any retrofit kit that can be put on a machine like that to, in
17 essence, reduce or silence the clatter from the track. I believe
18 there may be some newer machines now that do have rubber tracks
19 as opposed to metal ones. But I would tend to rule that out
20 because of the cost of replacing the machinery. So the track
21 problem, I think it would best be addressed by a noise barrier
22 wall between the Granite City facility and the complainants in
23 this case.
24 Q. Can you give me some more detail about this acoustic
317
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 barrier that you just mentioned and what its specification would
2 be, how tall it needs to be, how long, the materials it should be
3 made of, where it should be positioned?
4 A. To answer your question, the noise barrier would be
5 located I would say as close to the coal pile as possible. On a
6 noise barrier we want to locate it in one of two locations for
7 maximum effectiveness. And that would be either as close as
8 possible to the noise source or as close as possible to the
9 receiver. In this situation it does not seem like it would be
10 very feasible to locate it very close to the receiver. So I
11 would say that what I would suggest would be to go with -- to be
12 located as close as possible to the coal pile.
13 In addition, the height, we need sufficient height on the
14 barrier to achieve what we call breaking line of sight. We have
15 got two homes there, both of which have second floor windows. I
16 would suggest breaking the line of sight to the second floor
17 windows from the machinery operating on the coal area, a barrier
18 of, say, perhaps 22 feet high and several hundred feet long could
19 accomplish that with the understanding that there would also have
20 to be some modification to the coal pile. The current height of
21 the coal pile is such that the machinery, when it climbs near the
22 top of the coal pile, even if we had a 22 foot barrier there,
23 would still be in the line of sight of the houses and then would
24 still have virtually the same noise problem.
318
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 In order to minimize that, what I would suggest would be to
2 maintain the height of the coal or the coal piles or however it
3 would be stacked there, to maintain the height such that when the
4 machinery is not operating on top of the coal it would still be
5 hidden by the barrier as one was looking out the second floor
6 windows of the homes, or conversely, if one was sitting on one of
7 the machines, for example, the Caterpillar, and looking over at
8 wall, they would not be able to see -- the operator would not be
9 able to see the second floor windows on either of the two homes,
10 the Glasgow home or the Hoppe home.
11 Q. Okay. Would it be helpful to look at the aerial survey
12 for you to draw on that map where you think the -- in terms of
13 the length, where you think the acoustic barrier should be
14 positioned?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. Okay. Here is a blue pen. Can you give us a rough
17 indication on there, understanding that it is not to scale or to
18 indicate the precise length of the barrier but, rather, to
19 propose a general idea as to where the barrier should be?
20 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: For the record, that is C34?
21 MR. MUSKOPF: Yes. Thank you.
22 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: Thank you.
23 THE WITNESS: I will go ahead and draw in the approximate
24 dimensions needed. My drawing here is such that the length of
319
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 the barrier is determined by how wide it has to be in order to
2 break the line of sight from the three coal piles to the
3 residential area, specifically the homes of the Hoppes and the
4 Glasgows. I have drawn a line on the aerial photograph with a
5 small perpendicular line to indicate the extent of the barrier,
6 and that is located just a little bit southwest of the three Xs
7 indicating the coal piles.
8 Q. (By Mr. Muskopf) If the coal piles were moved from their
9 present location, which is indicated by several Xs on Exhibit
10 C34, assuming those are the present locations, if those coal
11 piles were moved further along Edwardsville Road, away from the
12 Glasgow and Hoppe residences, and I guess that would be in sort
13 of a northeasterly direction, would the barrier then also need to
14 be extended to break the line of sight between the coal piles and
15 the Glasgow and Hoppe residences?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And tell me about the materials, the most cost effective
18 set of materials that would be needed to construct this barrier?
19 A. The most cost effective material is normally wood, and
20 you would want a wooden barrier that had a minimal thickness of
21 approximately one inch, and would have a weight per square foot
22 of at least two pounds or two pounds plus, and the -- one of the
23 most common materials I have seen used outdoor grade plywood.
24 Typically it comes in a half inch thick sheet, doubling the
320
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 sheets over to produce one inch of thickness, and using that as
2 the material.
3 The key factors of doing this is the barrier has to be
4 totally air tight and it also has to be, in essence, sealed to
5 the ground so there are absolutely no gaps of any kind at the
6 ground. So we are looking at a structure I will often describe
7 as being virtually water tight because if we have any holes,
8 cracks, imperfections, that would be the point where we would
9 have sound leaking through and would greatly diminish the
10 effectiveness of the barrier.
11 Q. Have you seen this type of barrier work in an effective
12 manner and approved by the Board in other cases?
13 A. Yes, I have. There have been a lot of cases, and I have
14 made no attempt to try to memorize all of the cases, but a few
15 that do come to mind would have been Thomas versus Carey
16 Companies in Decatur, Illinois. And in that case the company
17 built a barrier a few hundred feet long and something on the
18 order of approximately 15 feet high. In that case I estimated
19 the cost at $50,000.00. They bid it out and got it done for
20 $12,000.00.
21 MR. BABST: I would object to that on the basis of --
22 that's providing hearsay responses or giving information based on
23 something that he has been told by someone else.
24 MR. MUSKOPF: We have already covered this. I don't have
321
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 any other argument to make.
2 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: I am going to overrule your
3 objection.
4 THE WITNESS: To continue on, another case using this type
5 of barrier was in the case of Rokey versus LTD Commodities. In
6 that situation I was one of a number of consulting type people.
7 I represented the Illinois EPA. We had some private consultants
8 there also. It was a case before the Board. And we were looking
9 at a barrier in that situation of, oh, perhaps 10 to 14 feet
10 high, and having a length of several hundred feet. I think
11 probably in excess of 500 feet. The cost on that was in the area
12 of $100,000.00 to $300,000.00. I think that most of the
13 estimates -- there were some estimates of $100,000.00 to
14 $300,000.00, but most of the estimates were $300,000.00 on that
15 barrier.
16 Another situation where this solution was to be used was at
17 the complaint of Cohen versus Overland Trucking. And in that
18 situation I specified a barrier of 22 feet high, and several
19 hundred feet long. The barrier, however, was not constructed, as
20 the facility decided to move their trucking operation.
21 The other situation I had for a noise barrier was one of
22 about 15 feet high, approximately 200 feet long at a landfill.
23 The landfill was using heavy construction equipment, large
24 bulldozers, scrapers, the typical equipment you see for highway
322
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 building, and was hauling, very, very large amounts of material.
2 Actually it was much larger than what I had seen over at Granite
3 City Steel. And that 15 foot high barrier in that case gave us
4 quite a bit of noise reduction, reduced noise to much less than
5 half of what it was.
6 As far as the equipment was concerned, with that situation
7 I was asked by the landfill to go over the equipment in detail
8 and make any engineering recommendations for quieting the
9 equipment. The tracks, they were metal tracks. There was very
10 little I could see to do with the metal tracks. On the actual
11 equipment, though, they did improve the exhaust systems on there.
12 They went from standard heavy equipment exhaust mufflers to the
13 best available technology for a very, very quiet noise muffler.
14 So with the improved muffling and the wall with the heavy
15 equipment there we were able to bring the facility down into
16 compliance. And that case was heard before the Circuit Court in
17 Springfield, Illinois, and it was People versus Sangamon Valley
18 Landfill.
19 (Whereupon documents were duly marked for purposes of
20 identification as Complainant Exhibits C43 and C44 as of
21 this date.)
22 Q. (By Mr. Muskopf) Okay. Speaking of the amount of noise
23 reduction that this barrier would achieve, let me show you what
24 has been marked as C43 and C44.
323
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: I don't have those documents.
2 Does Mr. Babst have those documents?
3 MR. BABST: Yes, we have a full set.
4 MR. MUSKOPF: That's where I got them.
5 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: Okay. Wait a second. I am
6 sorry.
7 Q. (By Mr. Muskopf) These exhibits -- have you seen these
8 before?
9 A. No.
10 Q. Okay. These were provided to me by Mr. Babst. C43 is
11 entitled complainant videotape noise measurements. C44 is --
12 MS. CHRISTMAN: I think you are referring to those
13 different numbers.
14 MR. MUSKOPF: I am sorry?
15 MS. CHRISTMAN: What are the numbers marked on your
16 exhibits again?
17 MR. MUSKOPF: C43 and C44.
18 MS. CHRISTMAN: Okay. The Hearing Officer may have them
19 marked as -- as far as the Hearing Officer trying to locate
20 them --
21 MR. MUSKOPF: Well, then they would be Number 28.
22 MS. CHRISTMAN: Mr. Hearing Officer, for your reference.
23 (Ms. Christman passing documents.)
24 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: Thank you.
324
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 MR. BABST: This is a set for you, sir.
2 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: Thank you.
3 Q. (By Mr. Muskopf) I want you to assume that the figures,
4 the values -- excuse me. Exhibit C44 is entitled, BCCZ noise
5 analysis for 20 feet from Edwardsville Road on Alexander Avenue.
6 Now, I want you to assume that the noise level measurements on
7 these two exhibits are correct.
8 A. Okay.
9 Q. Assuming that we have the back up alarm and the
10 bulldozer engine noise on the coal pile reaching noise level
11 measurements of 77 dB(A) and over 70 dB(A), in that range, what
12 kind of noise reduction -- and I was taking those values from
13 C43. On C44, in the second column, we simply see maximum piles
14 events, which is the fourth row, and there is a value of 71.6
15 dB(A), with these measurements supposedly being taken on
16 Alexander Avenue, 20 feet from Edwardsville Road.
17 So assuming that that is basically the range of -- or the
18 -- yes, the range of sound level measurements that we are getting
19 from the bulldozers on the coal piles at the Hoppe and Glasgow
20 residents, what kind of noise reduction, in decibels, could we
21 expect to achieve by the barrier that you have proposed?
22 A. The barrier -- well, the barrier working in conjunction
23 with the lowering of the height of the coal.
24 Q. Right.
325
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 A. So we basically break the line of sight from the
2 equipment to the residential area. And, say, we used a barrier
3 of about 22 feet, which I basically got that information from
4 having actually measured, observed tollway barriers up in the
5 Chicago area. But using that 22 foot height, I would estimate
6 that you would probably see about a 15 dB(A) reduction in sound
7 level.
8 Q. Okay. That would be sufficient, in your opinion, to
9 substantially reduce the perceived noise level at the Glasgow and
10 Hoppe residence?
11 A. Yes, it would reduce it significantly. It may still
12 leave it somewhat above the actual Board numeric standard, but it
13 would bring it -- again, with the modifications, say, to the
14 mufflers and -- are we still just talking about the bulldozers?
15 Q. Yes.
16 A. And we are limiting it to that?
17 Q. For the moment.
18 A. Okay. Yes. Then that's what I would say, that you
19 would have a reduction down to probably just slightly above the
20 numeric standard.
21 Q. Have you covered the costs thoroughly of this kind of
22 barrier?
23 A. Yes. In several -- in quite a few cases. Because a
24 function of my position has always been to contact various
326
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 vendors, explain the details of the project, and ask for a quote
2 for what it would cost to install that. And a case in point was
3 the one in Decatur, Illinois, of Thomas versus Overland Trucking.
4 I contacted an acoustic fence --
5 Q. Cohen?
6 A. -- firm.
7 Q. You said Thomas versus Overland. Do you mean Cohen?
8 A. Oh, I am sorry. I stand corrected. I should have said
9 Thomas versus Carey Companies.
10 Q. Okay.
11 A. In that particular case I actually got a written bid
12 from a -- one of the -- well, really the only company in the area
13 that specializes in building noise barriers. And their bid was
14 $50,000.00. And then, like I say, subsequent to that, the
15 company, by its own bidding process, was able to find a company
16 that would do it for $12,000.00.
17 Q. If Granite City Steel did not want to reduce the
18 elevation of their coal piles such that the line of sight would
19 be broken by a 22 foot barrier, would they simply need to
20 increase the height of the barrier to break the line of sight?
21 A. They could. But it has been my experience that you
22 don't normally see barriers much higher than about 25 feet. Now
23 basing this upon both the excessive amount of barriers used by
24 the Illinois Department of Transportation, I work with IDOT quite
327
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 a bit, and they tend to limit it -- I have not seen any that are
2 over 25 feet. The Tollway Authority does have some that exceed
3 30 feet in height. They are extremely expensive.
4 So in looking at the cost here, it would seem to me that 22
5 feet is about as high as you can go and still not have a
6 tremendous cost burden for building that barrier. Typically in a
7 situation like this we are looking at probably $100,000.00 to
8 $300,000.00 depending on the cost of materials at the time and
9 depending on the bids received from the various contractors.
10 Q. Okay. So Granite City Steel would need to limit the
11 elevation of the coal pile to such that it -- so that the line of
12 sight between the top of the pile and the Hoppe and Glasgow
13 residences are broken by the 22 foot barrier?
14 A. That's correct.
15 Q. It is not going to do any good if they build a 22 foot
16 barrier and then have coal piles so high that you can see the
17 bulldozer from the Glasgow and Hoppe residences?
18 A. That's correct.
19 Q. Okay. What about the engine noise on the bulldozers?
20 A. Again, I addressed the engine noise. The main component
21 of the engine noise is the exhaust. If you treat the exhaust,
22 the mechanical noise of the engine itself, the turning of the
23 radiator fan blade creates some noise also. But by far and away
24 the dominant source of noise is the exhaust. And, again, there I
328
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 have suggested a number of times that a Nelson Model 400 muffler
2 be used to alleviate the problem and that has been adopted by the
3 Board in quite a few cases.
4 Q. How much do those cost to purchase and install per unit?
5 A. It has been a few years since I checked, but I think the
6 cost was around $500.00 and, you know, depending upon who did the
7 work, usually those things are done -- when you have those larger
8 companies, they just usually do it internally so that your
9 installation costs are not very high.
10 Q. All right. What about the -- let's go on to the other
11 pieces of heavy equipment that we see operating on the coal
12 piles, specifically what has been referred to as a high lift or a
13 front loader. Do you recognize either of those terms? Or would
14 you like me to show you a picture to tell you what --
15 A. No, I know what you mean.
16 Q. Okay.
17 A. I usually just refer to them as a front loader.
18 Q. Okay. So what do we do about the -- what is the
19 solution you are proposing to minimize the front loader noise?
20 A. Again, the barrier and reducing the elevation of the
21 coal pile and, say, potentially improving the exhaust system on
22 the front loader.
23 Q. Can we use the same type of muffler on the bulldozer
24 that you recommended, this Nelson? Can you put --
329
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 A. Yes, it is a Nelson Model 400, and as a matter of fact,
2 in Hoffman versus Columbia, in the Board's final decision on that
3 they ordered the company to -- or the city, because it was
4 actually a citizen versus city type of suit there. But the Board
5 ordered the city to install a Model 400 Nelson muffler on some of
6 their equipment there.
7 Q. Okay. Any other solutions that you see to the problem
8 with the noise from the front loaders? Barrier and muffler, are
9 those the two that --
10 A. Yes, that would be my suggestion.
11 Q. Okay. Then there are basically the dump trucks into
12 which the coal is loaded and it is carried around that area.
13 What do you see as the solution to that noise problem?
14 A. Again, since the trucks are operating on the highway, on
15 and off the highway --
16 Q. Actually, I was -- I am sorry. I didn't mean to --
17 let's make sure that we are talking about the same trucks. What
18 I am not talking about is the type of truck that is depicted in
19 C42, which is a semi-truck with a dump bed on the trailer.
20 What I am talking about are -- I don't think I have a
21 picture of it. You may recall in one videotape there was --
22 well, it is essentially a large dump truck and it is not used on
23 the roadway. It is only used around the coal piles and I believe
24 it is loaded from the coal piles and then taken to the coke oven?
330
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 A. Okay. Help me out a little bit on the question. I am
2 very familiar with the operations around quarries and coal mines,
3 and they have basically what they call a haulage truck. The
4 haulage truck does not leave the facility, and it is not street
5 legal, you might say. Are we talking about a vehicle similar to
6 that, where it is not really licensed for highway operation?
7 Q. Yes, that is my understanding.
8 A. Again, with that type of vehicle, the typical noise
9 treatment on that would be, again, improving the muffling system.
10 One thing I might add is for all of the vehicles there is to kind
11 of reiterate my suggestion on the back up beeper. What I have
12 seen done with some of our contractors years ago when we were
13 doing a lot of incineration work is they would put a switch on
14 their back up beeper. When they were operating in the facility
15 they would switch it off, and if they had highway operation after
16 that they would switch it back on again.
17 Q. That kind of switch is relatively minimal to purchase
18 and install, the cost?
19 A. Yes, a few dollars for the switch and I am sure less
20 than $100.00 to have someone cut a wire and insert the switch in
21 there and they are ready to go.
22 Q. What about the solution to the engine noise and the
23 tailgate banging from a truck like we see in C42?
24 A. On the tailgate banging, I have ran into that in a
331
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 number of other cases. And it has been my experience that
2 operation controls, say, telling the folks operating the
3 equipment, well, don't bang the tailgate has limited if very poor
4 results.
5 My suggestion on that would be to go with some type of a
6 rubber material that would still allow the gate to close but
7 would, in effect, cushion the gate as it comes down so it has to
8 strike the rubber material before it can latch. And then
9 actually by removing the metal on metal contact and having it
10 basically being a metal on rubber on metal type contact, that
11 would either totally eliminate or at the very least greatly
12 reduce the noise impact from the tailgate banging.
13 Q. Assuming that most of the trucks or a number of the
14 trucks used around the coal piles, like the one in C42, are not
15 owned or operated by Granite City Steel but, rather, by an
16 independent company that contracts to do the work for Granite
17 City Steel, how would -- how would we require them to install
18 that type of device?
19 A. Well, I was not aware of that, as far as I thought they
20 were all owned by Granite City Steel. Independents, what we did
21 on several of our construction sites was to put in the contract
22 of the outside vendor that was supplying trucks or whatever they
23 were supplying and the drivers, that they would not do certain
24 noisy operations. For example, we didn't really have much in the
332
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 way of tailgate problems. But if we had something like that,
2 what we would have done is put in the contract that the company
3 is not to allow the driver -- to instruct the driver to not bang
4 that tailgate, and if this does happen with any frequency that we
5 would terminate the contract then.
6 Q. Could you also specify in the contract that the trucks
7 used would have the type of rubber fitting that you have
8 described?
9 A. You could. You could do it that way also.
10 Q. Would that increase the cost of the contract, do you
11 think? For instance, if the trucking company is going to have to
12 install these, are they going to then want to pass that cost back
13 to Granite City Steel?
14 A. I would think so. If I owned the trucking company I
15 would not want to pay for it myself. I would want the person
16 requesting it to pay for that type of modification.
17 Q. Do you know about how much that modification would cost
18 per truck?
19 A. Looking at the material involved and we were talking
20 about, say, a relatively thin and very tough rubber, the material
21 would be very inexpensive. The installation might be a little
22 more involved. I would say we are looking at something in the
23 order of $100.00 to $500.00.
24 Q. Per truck?
333
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 A. Per truck.
2 Q. Okay. Have we covered the engine noise from the
3 semi-trucks?
4 A. Again, in a case like with the semi-trucks is simply
5 requiring -- again, I am assuming that we are still talking about
6 subcontractors and not Granite City Steel proper. And in that
7 situation you would, again, require that the mufflers on the
8 trucks meet state law, which state law says that the muffler on
9 any vehicle has to be equal to or better than the muffler that
10 came with that vehicle from the factory. And in the last ten
11 years most semi mufflers are pretty well designed. So assuming
12 that the trucks are not significantly more than ten years old,
13 the -- that would take care of the exhaust problem.
14 Q. Okay. Do you recall hearing some kind of metallic
15 screeching noises from the videotape or any testimony that there
16 has been such -- that there have been such noises?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Did you make any -- come to any conclusions as to what
19 the source of that metallic screeching noise was?
20 A. It sounded to me very similar to a situation I had with
21 the Agency about 20 years ago. We had a case of People versus
22 Illinois Terminal Railroad Association in Venice, Illinois. They
23 had a hump yard where they were classifying trains. In other
24 words, to put it in simpler terms, they were actually
334
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 constructing rail trains to go to all parts of the United States.
2 All the cars would go over a hump and after they passed over the
3 hump the tracks would begin to divide and subdivide and sub
4 subdivide, much like the roots on a tree.
5 The cars, as they were coming down there on a uniform hump,
6 some cars would be going too fast. And they were going too fast
7 and when they got to the train that they were going to couple to,
8 they would be going too fast and would actually cause damage to
9 that particular car or other cars.
10 To prevent that, they had a braking system on there. It
11 was a steel on steel braking system. It was a metal bar that
12 moved and actually squeezed against the rail wheels on the car to
13 slow it down, much like a disk brake does on a car nowadays.
14 What that would do was set up a tremendous squeal.
15 We had complaints from virtually almost the entire
16 population of the City of Venice on this situation. We looked
17 into all different types of solutions. We were not the only
18 ones. There was quite a bit of research done at that time on
19 that; lubricating the wheels, lubricating the braking bars;
20 adding water. There was a number of things that were tried, and
21 nothing worked very well.
22 What finally ended up happening there was a barrier was
23 used to contain the noise at the brakes. Again, that barrier was
24 a 14 foot high barrier, inclined at about 45 degrees, toward the
335
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 retard or the braking area. And that gave us a sound reduction
2 of approximately 30 decibels. We were dealing with a very high
3 frequency sound and also the barrier itself was lined with
4 fiberglass.
5 The configuration was a little bit unusual because in that
6 particular case the railroad was given a written bid, which they
7 showed me, from one of the major companies in acoustics for a
8 quarter of a million dollars to construct the barrier system.
9 And they asked our Agency if we had any ideas. I worked on that
10 one for several weeks and came up with a solution of using
11 recycled materials that the railroad had on hand. And they were
12 able to build a barrier with the same acoustic properties as this
13 company that had bid a quarter of a million dollars to do.
14 The net result there was we got the cost down from a
15 quarter of a million dollars to $60,000.00. And that did solve
16 our problem, almost. Actually, what happened there is they were
17 still a couple of decibels over. They had to go back to the
18 Pollution Control Board for a variance. I testified in that case
19 and explained to the Board why the company should be given a
20 variance, simply because they had done everything reasonable that
21 could be done to solve the noise problem.
22 Q. So the barrier that you have already described should
23 take care of the squealing of the brakes on the train cars in
24 this case?
336
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 A. I think it would. That squeal is a high frequency
2 squeal, and as long as we keep the point where that squeal is
3 coming from below the line of sight, it should be really reduced
4 by that barrier.
5 Q. Do you recall testimony that there is a noise associated
6 with the train cars coupling, the railcars on the far side of the
7 coal piles in this case?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. What do you see as a solution to that problem?
10 A. Now, my understanding is that the coupling is taking
11 place south of the piles.
12 Q. (Nodded head up and down.)
13 A. What I would suggest from a noise control point would be
14 using the coal itself to block a lot of that sound. And the
15 problem I can see, both when I was there and from all of the
16 photographs shown, is that we have distinct piles. If it is
17 feasible, what I would suggest doing is to basically level out
18 the top of the piles to create a coal barrier, so that your
19 operations on the other side with coupling and uncoupling would
20 largely be reflected away from the residential area. Right now
21 since we have distinct piles there is big leaks or valleys
22 between these piles and that's where the sound would come through
23 and then impact the residential area.
24 Q. Okay. Do you recall the noise that was -- that Vickie
337
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 made and we were trying to put it into words describing the noise
2 that she heard over at the coal piles. I think she ended up
3 describing it as perhaps a fast Jackhammer. And I think another
4 witness may have -- assuming that another witness testified that
5 it was a vibrator of some kind on the trucks to loosen the coal,
6 do you recall testimony along those lines?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. What is the solution to that?
9 A. What I would do there is go back to my experience in
10 Christiansen versus American Milling. There was a Board decision
11 on that case, and the main problem at that location was
12 vibrators. It was an operation that processed raw feed stock for
13 making animal food. The material they used for making the food
14 was called gluten. I would describe it as a wet floury mixture
15 that arrived either by semi-truck or by railcar and was extremely
16 hard to go out of either one. They had a hard time unloading it.
17 What they would do to unload it is they had a device where
18 the semi-truck would pull in there, and the trailer on the
19 semi-truck would be rotated 180 degrees. It was upside down.
20 And then they would apply a large vibrator to the truck and shake
21 it in order to get all of the gluten to fall out.
22 For the railcars it was exactly the same thing, a larger
23 device, the same configuration. They would flip the railcar 180
24 degrees and also they would shake that. The noise was
338
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 tremendous.
2 The solution finally used in that case, because they also
3 had air emission problems with the operation. So they had to
4 solve it both from the air pollution standpoint and from the
5 noise standpoint. And this is documented in the Board decision.
6 They went ahead and enclosed the operation. I had initially
7 suggested that they use a relatively small building for the
8 railcars and a small building for the trucks at a cost of, say,
9 $50,000.00 or thereabouts. This was ten years ago.
10 What that company did was they decided to build a very
11 large building, well over $100,000.00 and, again, it is
12 documented in some of the reports. And that did solve the
13 problem. But it involved enclosing the area where the shakers or
14 vibrators were being used to unload material.
15 It is a situation where the noise is loud enough that
16 barriers are just not terribly effective in getting the kind of
17 reduction that folks living in the neighborhood really want. A
18 barrier will reduce it, say, 10 or 15 decibels. But that still
19 is usually not enough to really avoid that very irritating type
20 sound.
21 Q. So what do we do? Just discontinue the use of the
22 vibrators in this case?
23 A. I would suggest looking into some type of enclosure for
24 the vibrating operation. In other words, even dumping the main
339
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 load and then having a structure or a building wherein the last
2 little bit could be removed with a vibrator system. And what the
3 company did, what American Milling did is they had a metal floor
4 with slots in there and the material would then fall in the floor
5 and go through the slots. And then they would just remove it
6 from there.
7 And in this case using the same type of idea, the coal that
8 is remaining in the semi or even possibly railcars, could then be
9 augured out from underneath the building and put in the regular
10 stock pile.
11 Q. How much would a structure like that cost? Let's assume
12 it is just exclusively for the semi-truck trailers at this point
13 and not the railcars.
14 A. Given today's prices, I think they are significantly
15 higher than they were back in 1990 when we had the Christiansen
16 case against American Milling. I would say probably something in
17 the neighborhood of $100,000.00.
18 Q. What about another type -- that same type of enclosure
19 for the railcars?
20 A. Probably $150,000.00.
21 Q. Now, are there any other distinct types of sound that we
22 have not discussed in terms of the problems that they have been
23 causing or the solution that come to mind?
24 A. My understanding is that we are talking about just the
340
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 coal piles?
2 Q. Right. I think we covered yesterday the plant itself.
3 A. That's all I can recall.
4 Q. Vibration, I guess we don't want to leave that out, the
5 vibration that there has been testimony about.
6 A. My comments on vibration, first of all --
7 MR. BABST: I would object. I would at least ask that a
8 question be asked of Mr. Zak rather than just throwing up a
9 general category for him to go off on a monolog.
10 MR. MUSKOPF: I think I asked him -- I have been asking him
11 a series of questions in list fashion, what about this problem,
12 or what about that problem, with the same --
13 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: I will overrule the objection.
14 I believe the question was what about vibrations.
15 THE WITNESS: On the vibration topic, I need to add a
16 little bit of explanation to that. I have a very strong
17 suspicion that the problem in the houses when people are
18 describing vibration is the house actually shaking. But the
19 assumption has been made, and in my opinion quite probably
20 incorrectly, that what the people are experiencing is
21 ground-borne vibration going from the operation of the coal pile
22 and traveling to the residential area.
23 I reviewed the Vibra-Tech data, which indicated to me that
24 the ground in that area is a very poor conductor of vibration.
341
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 It has also been my experience when I did extensive studies in
2 the area of blasting vibration, back in the mid 1970s for the
3 Agency, that the ground does not do a good job of conducting
4 vibration. However, the air does a tremendously good job of
5 conducting infrasonic sound. Infrasonic sound is sound that is
6 below 20 hertz, which is below what the human ear can pick up.
7 But that sound that can go from, say, one hertz to 20 hertz, in
8 that area, will shake a structure, such as a house, and it can
9 shake it quite violently.
10 On one of my incineration projects, we had an extremely
11 large incinerator, that due to a flow problem, began to vibrate.
12 And it vibrated as its fundamental frequency, which turned out to
13 be eight -- 16 hertz. That 16 hertz was inaudible, yet we had
14 all the structures within about a quarter of a mile of that
15 incinerator were shaking. The geologists were convinced that it
16 was ground-borne.
17 I had taken extensive vibration measurements in my career
18 and also tens of thousands acoustic measurements. I had an
19 analyzer that could do both simultaneously and I began checking
20 to see if there was ground-borne vibration and what was being
21 carried in the air. The ground-borne part, once we got a few
22 feet away from the incinerator would disappear. It was not there
23 anymore. But the airborne was running about 90 decibels.
24 We got into the neighborhood and, again, there was
342
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 absolutely nothing in the ground, but we are measuring, again,
2 about maybe 88 decibels in the residential area. I then went
3 ahead and used my vibration pick up on a window that was
4 vibrating back and forth, and it also gave me exactly the same
5 frequency as the microphone did, which indicated that what was
6 exciting the window and exciting these homes was infrasonic sound
7 waves.
8 This was not surprising to me, because when I had done the
9 blasting work years before we found that by far and away the
10 greatest force impacting most noise complaints for blasting,
11 either from coal mines or from quarries was the air blast wave
12 and not the ground shaking. The air wave typically carries out
13 for several miles, and is very unsettling when you get hit by it
14 in a home. Whereas, the ground vibration, like I said, dampens
15 out very quickly.
16 There was one clue in the testimony of Mrs. Glasgow, where
17 she said that when she went in the basement the vibration was not
18 bad down there, but when she went upstairs the vibration was bad.
19 In the studies that I did back in the mid 1970s, and we did
20 publish a couple of papers on that, and they are available, we
21 found in those situations that there was one easy way to tell if
22 it was ground-borne or airborne without taking measurements. Was
23 if the basement was relatively stable and not shaking and the
24 house was, it was probably airborne. If the reverse was true,
343
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 where it was worse in the basement than it was in the house, then
2 it was a good chance that it was caused by ground vibration. And
3 I have done measurements in upwards of 20 or 30 different homes
4 in that period of time and have experienced it myself many times,
5 and her testimony did remind me very much of my experiences when
6 I was doing that study.
7 Q. (By Mr. Muskopf) So this is an acoustic and not a
8 seismic event that the Glasgows and Hoppes are complaining of?
9 A. That's my conclusion. And what needs to be done is
10 using a -- I would suggest a real time analyzer that will go
11 from, say, one hertz to, say, 40 hertz, and look and see how much
12 energy is present at those times that the people are complaining
13 about their houses shaking. Again, that is one thing that I have
14 done over all these years, is try and coordinate with both
15 companies and with people who are complaining about things so
16 that everybody is in sync. And the residents will say, yes, the
17 vibration or the noise or whatever it is, it is bad right now,
18 and then take the measurement at that time. And then take
19 measurements at the company property and figure out which piece
20 of equipment is causing the problem. And once that is known,
21 then looking to see what can be done to reduce the problem. At
22 this point in time there is really no way we can tell what piece
23 of equipment over there is causing this affect.
24 Q. I assume that the noise -- the acoustic barrier that you
344
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 described, the 22 foot acoustic barrier, would not take care of
2 this vibration problem?
3 A. Not at all. The reason it won't is that barriers are
4 effective for high frequency sound. The higher the frequency,
5 the more effective the barrier. Conversely, the lower the
6 frequency, the less effective the barrier. And once you get down
7 into the area of what I would describe to a layman as a rumbling
8 type sound or a bass sound, barriers really don't work because
9 the sound, due to the long waves you have present in that type of
10 sound, they can refract around and over the barrier. They are
11 very flexible and they can bend very easily. The high frequency
12 waves are much more directional and they can be controlled by a
13 barrier.
14 Q. There are consultants within the state or within this
15 area who are technically capable of doing the real time analysis
16 and setting up that equipment that you have described to
17 determine how to solve the vibration problem?
18 A. Yes. I mean, I can think of one individual who is
19 fairly close, Dr. Paul Schomer has done this type of thing many
20 times and has the equipment to do it.
21 Q. Do you have any idea how much an analysis like that
22 would cost?
23 A. Probably about $2,000.00.
24 Q. Okay.
345
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 A. That would be my guess looking at what Schomer normally
2 charges. I would say probably in the area of $2,000.00.
3 Q. Do you have any opinion as to whether a continuous noise
4 monitoring system would be appropriate in this case?
5 A. I would suggest against it. My experience with the
6 long-term monitoring systems is one where airplanes can cause you
7 to get data that is not -- that does not really apply to the
8 problem at hand. There are too many extraneous noise sources
9 that can impact that kind of system. So I really don't -- I
10 don't like long-term systems simply because of the fact that you
11 generally don't know what you are actually measuring.
12 Q. Okay. I would like to change topics for a moment. You
13 talked about the classification under the Illinois regulations of
14 both the Granite City Steel property and the Glasgow and Hoppe
15 property. Would you say that the Granite City Steel operations
16 are accurately classified as an industrial noise source?
17 A. Yes. I think it would fall under the classification of
18 the Appendix B in the Board's noise regulations as a Class E
19 property, or in simple terms, an industrial noise source.
20 Q. Okay. How would you classify the Glasgow and Hoppe
21 properties?
22 A. That would fall under the land classification of Class A
23 and, again, the simple term for it would be residential.
24 Q. What are the numerical limits for an industrial noise
346
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 source to a residential noise receiver?
2 MR. BABST: I am going to object as far as this line of
3 questioning. I don't believe it is relevant. The case has been
4 brought under the nuisance provision and not under the objective
5 standard provision unless Mr. Muskopf is changing his position on
6 that as well today.
7 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: Okay. Mr. Muskopf?
8 MR. MUSKOPF: We have already been through this and the
9 relevance is not that I am establishing a numerical noise
10 violation case, but Mr. Zak has testified at length to the
11 relevance of the numerical standards to determining the nuisance
12 violation.
13 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: How is it relevant, Mr. Muskopf?
14 MR. MUSKOPF: Mr. --
15 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: The Board knows what the
16 residential noise limits are, and we have -- we have heard
17 testimony of what those noise limits are, and this is a nuisance
18 case and we know that the Board can take into some consideration
19 the decibel readings when they make their decision on a nuisance
20 Board case. But how is this line of questioning, you know,
21 relevant to that?
22 MR. MUSKOPF: A simple question as to what the numerical
23 limits were for a foundation for has Mr. Zak seen any evidence
24 that there are noise level measurements that were above those
347
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 measurements.
2 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: Okay. I am going to overrule
3 the objection on that ground, on the grounds of relevance there.
4 Can you answer that question?
5 THE WITNESS: Yes, Mr. Hearing Officer. Could I have the
6 question read back, please?
7 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: Can you repeat the question, Mr.
8 Muskopf?
9 MR. MUSKOPF: I don't remember what it was.
10 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: Would you please read the
11 question back?
12 (Whereupon the requested portion of the record was read
13 back by the Reporter.)
14 THE WITNESS: Those limits would be under the -- under
15 Section 901.102(a) and (b), which are broken down into nine
16 octave bands for daytime and nine octave bands for nighttime. I
17 don't have all 18 numbers memorized. But what I could tell you
18 is the dB(A) equivalent of that, of those numbers, would be 61
19 daytime and 51 nighttime.
20 Then in addition another rule that would come into play
21 would be 901.104, which is the impulsive noise regulation, and
22 the limit there, which is measured in dB(A), would be 56 daytime
23 and 46 nighttime. Impulsive noise would be any type of clanging,
24 banging, explosions, anything of that nature, a very short
348
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 duration type of noise.
2 Q. (By Mr. Muskopf) Have you seen any evidence that any of
3 the noise level measurements taken in this case were in
4 exceedance of -- in excess of those limits?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Okay. Basically on -- can you describe some of the
7 measurements that you recall seeing and how far in excess of the
8 limits they were?
9 A. Yes. On the videotape the ones -- Mrs. Glasgow took
10 those, that videotape and those measurements, and I did not make
11 an attempt to memorize all of the numbers that she got. I
12 believe for, like, the back up beeper which would also classify
13 as an impulsive type sound, the measurements that I observed
14 there ran anywhere from 60 to 75 dB(A). The other areas, I
15 believe the nighttime emissions from the coke plant were running
16 about 70 dB(A), and that would be during the Board's nighttime
17 hours. So we are looking at at least a 20 decibel exceedance of
18 that.
19 Q. I was just asking for a general range, not particularly
20 categorized or itemized by a particular noise source, but a range
21 of values that you remember seeing that were in excess of the
22 limits?
23 A. The ones that I have just given you, and just to kind of
24 put them in perspective, you know, we are looking at levels that
349
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 approximately 100 times higher than the regulations would allow.
2 Q. Okay. So this is substantial exceedance, in your
3 opinion?
4 A. Yes.
5 (Whereupon a document was duly marked for purposes of
6 identification as Complainant Exhibit C36 as of this
7 date.)
8 Q. (By Mr. Muskopf) By the way, Exhibit C36, is this the
9 Vibra-Tech material that you recall reviewing?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Mr. Zak, is the testimony that you have heard and the
12 evidence that you have seen -- is the testimony that you have
13 heard from the complainants consistent with all of the evidence
14 you have seen in terms of the types of noise sources, the level
15 of -- the sound level measurements, have you seen any -- well, I
16 will just let you answer that question.
17 A. I am sorry. I didn't quite follow the question. Could
18 you please give it to me again?
19 Q. Sure. The testimony that you have heard from the
20 complainants as to the various noise sources and the levels, the
21 sound levels of those noises, is that testimony consistent with
22 the other evidence that you have seen in this case, either in the
23 way of videotape, or noise level measurements, or documentary
24 evidence? Are the two consistent with one another?
350
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 A. Yes. It appears to me that it all fits together quite
2 well. And one compliments the other. And I didn't see any
3 discrepancies in there, where any of the evidence was
4 contradicted with some other evidence. It all fit together well.
5 Q. Okay. Is the noise that has been discussed in this
6 case, is it of the type that is capable of causing the vibrations
7 that the complainants have described?
8 A. I think it would be and, again, I am basing that
9 assumption on my feeling that we are looking at an airborne
10 phenomenon coming from the Granite City facility over to the
11 residential area.
12 Q. Is the noise of the type that -- that it could cause --
13 that it could awaken the complainants from their sleep, as they
14 have described?
15 A. Yes. When the Pollution Control Board was in the
16 process of having public hearings on passing the regulations back
17 in 1972 and 1973, there was a lot of testimony given as far as
18 why our limits were reasonable. Industry wanted them higher.
19 Some of the environmental groups wanted them lower. I think what
20 we ended up with was a very good compromise designed to protect
21 people from -- the average person from being awakened at night
22 from sound or having an unreasonable disturbance in their house
23 or their backyard from sound emissions from another piece of
24 property. So, yes, I would say so.
351
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 Q. Okay. Is the noise described by the complainants of the
2 type sufficient to interfere with reading or concentration in an
3 otherwise quiet room in their homes?
4 A. Yes. From the levels I observed and the testimony, I
5 would say that we have a situation where these sound levels are
6 well over what would normally be considered intrusive.
7 Q. Is the noise that you have seen -- is the noise that you
8 have seen in this case of the quality and quantity that it could
9 be heard in every room of the complainants' houses as they have
10 described?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Is it -- is the noise of the type that it could cause
13 stress, as the complainants have described?
14 A. Yes. I would base that on having done this type of work
15 for the last 29 years, and having heard hundreds of people
16 testify as to the affects of noise and also knowing what the
17 noise level was that we were dealing with. In this situation
18 here these levels are very high compared to most cases. So, yes,
19 it would, I think, cause stress and, again, I am basing that on
20 the literature that is out there right now and also the testimony
21 of the complainants.
22 Q. Is the noise of a quality and quantity such that it
23 could depress the value of the complainants' properties?
24 A. Yes. And, again, what I would say in that situation is,
352
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 again, having dealt with all of the cases, many times that does
2 come up and it has come up for all these years that I have been
3 doing this type of work as to what the impact the noise can have
4 on property values. And I have never had a situation where
5 somebody said, well, it increased the property value. But I have
6 heard many people testify that it did decrease property values.
7 And I have also been present at a hearing where we have had a
8 realtor under oath testify that, yes, this would have a negative
9 impact on the property value.
10 MR. MUSKOPF: Okay. I would like to make an offer of proof
11 consistent with the Hearing Officer's motion in limine ruling.
12 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: Okay. Go ahead.
13 OFFER OF PROOF EXAMINATION
14 BY MR. MUSKOPF:
15 Q. Mr. Zak, do you have an opinion as to whether Granite
16 City Steel is in compliance with the Illinois regulations on
17 noise as it affects the Glasgows and the Hoppes?
18 A. No, I don't believe they are in compliance. I believe
19 that they are very significantly exceeding the -- what would be
20 considered the acceptable noise level.
21 Q. Do you need to elaborate on that at all, or have we
22 essentially covered the basis for that opinion?
23 A. Basing my testimony up to this point, it seems to me
24 that we have pretty much covered it pretty thoroughly.
353
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 MR. MUSKOPF: Okay. I am out of my offer of proof.
2 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: Okay.
3 DIRECT EXAMINATION (continued.)
4 BY MR. MUSKOPF:
5 Q. Have you seen any evidence that Granite City Steel has
6 taken any significant steps to reduce the impact of the noise on
7 the Glasgows and Hoppes?
8 A. I believe in some of the testimony a statement was made
9 by several of the folks that one of the noise sources had not
10 been very bad for the last month or two. It seems to me it might
11 have been the tailgate banging problem. But, again, there did
12 seem to be some effort on one aspect of the noise emissions from
13 the facility. But other than that, I really can't think of
14 anything that has been done there that is of a very significant
15 nature to reduce the noise.
16 Q. How long has this noise problem been going on? Is it a
17 short or long-standing duration?
18 A. Well, I need to understand the question better. Are we
19 looking at from the time the complaint was first made or are we
20 looking at the last 20 years or the last 40 years? The testimony
21 we had here was from one lady who lived there for 40 years and
22 then other folks who lived here for, say, four years. So what
23 type of time frame are we looking at.
24 Q. Simply the time frame as it affects the Glasgows and the
354
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 Hoppes?
2 MR. BABST: I am going to object with respect to I think
3 Mr. Zak is certainly qualified to testify as to the measurements
4 that he has seen and interpreting those. The only other basis he
5 would have to respond to this question is basically to repeat the
6 observations of the complainants in this case. I don't think we
7 need an expert to say I heard what they said and opine as to
8 that. He does not have any objective measurements beyond the
9 last few months.
10 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: Mr. Muskopf?
11 MR. MUSKOPF: I don't have a response to that.
12 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: I am going to sustain the
13 objection on the grounds of relevance. It has been testified to
14 and we don't need Mr. Zak's expert opinion on how long the,
15 quote, unquote, noise problems have been occurring.
16 Q. (By Mr. Muskopf) Mr. Zak, have you seen any evidence
17 that Granite City Steel has taken the complaints of the Hoppes
18 and the Glasgows with regard to the noise seriously?
19 MR. BABST: I object. That calls for a very subjective
20 determination that is certainly outside his area of expertise.
21 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: Mr. Muskopf?
22 MR. MUSKOPF: Mr. Zak is very expert in noise problems and
23 solutions and abatement, and he is eminently qualified to discuss
24 whether the actions taken by one noise violator are of the type
355
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 that would indicate that they are taking the problem seriously or
2 not.
3 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: I am going to sustain the
4 objection on that question. Will you ask another question,
5 please?
6 MR. MUSKOPF: I don't have any more.
7 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: Okay. Are you finished with Mr.
8 Zak?
9 MR. MUSKOPF: I will pass the witness.
10 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Babst?
11 CROSS EXAMINATION
12 BY MR. BABST:
13 Q. Mr. Zak, just to make sure that I understand things
14 before we get into discussing your opinions, the basis of your
15 opinions today, as I understand it, are the two videos, the
16 photographs you have seen, the deposition transcripts, a
17 financial statement of National Steel, logs and calendars
18 prepared by the complainants, correspondence between the
19 complainants and Granite City Steel, the Vibra-Tech study that
20 you spoke about a few minutes ago, answers to interrogatories,
21 the testimony that you have listened to over certainly yesterday,
22 and a visit to the area for about a half an hour, which occurred
23 about two months ago.
24 MR. MUSKOPF: I would --
356
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 Q. (By Mr. Babst) Is that a complete summary of what you
2 would have based your opinions on?
3 A. Yes.
4 MR. BABST: I am sorry. I was asking Mr. Zak a question.
5 I didn't --
6 MR. MUSKOPF: I was trying to make an objection.
7 MR. BABST: Oh, I thought you were --
8 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: Do you have an objection, Mr.
9 Muskopf?
10 MR. MUSKOPF: Well, the question has been asked and
11 answered very thoroughly. I don't think we need to go over it
12 again.
13 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: All right. The objection is
14 overruled.
15 Q. (By Mr. Babst) I would like to confirm, the day that you
16 did visit the site, am I correct that you were there for
17 approximately a half an hour; is that correct?
18 A. That's correct.
19 Q. And you took no noise measurements yourself, did you,
20 Mr. Zak?
21 A. That's correct.
22 Q. You did not witness the complainants taking noise
23 measurements in this case?
24 A. No, I did not.
357
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 Q. You have testified that the majority of cases in which
2 you have testified in the past have been under the nuisance
3 regulation, correct?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. In how many of those cases did you conduct measurements,
6 just a rough percentage?
7 A. I need a little bit of help here. Are we talking about
8 29 years, 20 years, the last five years? I am a little bit --
9 Q. Well, over the time that you have testified in these
10 cases. I think you said in your deposition that you have
11 testified in 100 of these cases?
12 A. Over 100.
13 Q. Okay. Over 100. How many of these cases did you
14 actually take measurements yourself, a rough percentage?
15 A. Fifty percent.
16 Q. You are testifying today under a subpoena that was
17 served on you; is that correct?
18 A. That's correct.
19 Q. If you would have finished testifying last night, would
20 you have returned today under that subpoena?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Are you required? Would you have been required to
23 return?
24 A. I would assume so. I typically -- in all these cases I
358
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 typically attend from the very beginning of the case to the very
2 end of the case. The only time I can ever remember leaving early
3 was a situation where each expert went in and testified and then
4 left and was not allowed to attend the proceeding, which is one
5 case out of perhaps 180 cases, and in this particular case I did
6 not attend the whole hearing. That was the only exception.
7 Q. Do you view yourself as an objective evaluator of the
8 noise conditions of this site or as an advocate for the
9 complainants?
10 A. No, I really try to be neutral on it and just simply
11 look at the facts, and if a solution is needed then I will
12 suggest what solutions, based on past experience, should work.
13 Q. So in the course of these cases if you hear evidence
14 elicited that you had not heard before, might you change your
15 mind on some of your opinions?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And if you, during the course of either your examination
18 or listening to somebody else, would conclude that you had a
19 misimpression about the facts of the case, would you be inclined
20 to change your opinion?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Now, in cases where individuals from the State of
23 Illinois contact you, what do you advise them? How do you advise
24 them? How do you get involved in this?
359
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 A. Typically what happens is I will receive a phone call
2 from a citizen that believes that they have a noise problem. The
3 person is not quite sure if there are even noise regulations in
4 Illinois, and they are not quite sure how loud the sound has to
5 be to really be a nuisance. I will talk to the person on the
6 phone, explain basically different things they can check.
7 One of my standard questions is, well, when you hear the
8 sound, is it as loud as a conversation between two people about
9 three feet apart, and in a lot of cases they will say, yes, it
10 is. And the normal level for a conversation three feet apart is
11 60 dB(A). And with the industrial daytime being 61, if they say
12 well, yes, it is louder than that, then we have a somewhat
13 subjective but something to go on there as far as the loudness or
14 intensity of the sound.
15 Then I will explain to the folks what they really want to
16 do is get together with whoever is emitting the noise, usually it
17 is industry, but not always, and try and work out a mutually
18 agreeable solution to the problem. I explain to them that it
19 takes a little bit of a give and take there. It is kind of a
20 negotiation process where, you know, both sides may not totally
21 like the end result, but that is far and away the best approach
22 to take, to try to work it out with the company.
23 If they -- I also advise them to send a letter, like a one
24 page letter to the company, if they have not talked to them yet,
360
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 explaining what the problem is, keeping it very friendly and
2 basically asking the company if they would be willing to solve
3 the problem, and if they are willing how long will it take to
4 solve it, how will they solve it, and then please respond to this
5 letter within 15 days. I also advise them to send the letter by
6 certified mail, return receipt requested.
7 Q. Let me ask you a question in what you just said. I am a
8 little bit confused. You say the industrial daytime level is 61
9 dB(A), and I am certainly not a noise expert. Could you just
10 point to me where that appears in the Illinois regs? I can't
11 find it.
12 A. You won't. It is not there. What that is, the numbers
13 that I gave you are the dB(A) equivalent of those nine octave
14 bands.
15 Q. Where do you find those? I don't find them here? Have
16 you calculated those?
17 A. Yes, I calculated those.
18 Q. Okay. Now, just to finish very quickly on the process
19 here, when you tell them to send a letter, do you tell them
20 specifically what to say in the letter?
21 A. If I could kind of sketch it out a little bit, I do tell
22 them a number of things to say in the letter. I stress in the
23 very beginning -- people will always ask me can you send me an
24 example. I will say I would rather not. Actually, I don't. I
361
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 don't send examples. I want the first letter to be the way that
2 that particular individual communicates, the way they write, keep
3 it on a one-to-one basis as much as possible with the company. I
4 will advise them basically to keep it -- ask a few questions, ask
5 to get together with the company.
6 I tell them that they are free to mention my name, that
7 they talked to me. And if the company has questions as far as
8 what noise is acceptable and what is not acceptable, or if they
9 have questions on what they can do to solve their problem, I ask
10 folks to put my name and phone number in the letter. And quite
11 often I get calls from the company saying the neighbor complained
12 and they gave us your phone number. And then we will get
13 together and discuss the problem.
14 There has been quite a few situations where I have told the
15 company basically the process to take to solve the problem, and
16 in some cases it is a very low cost and in some cases it is a
17 little more cost.
18 Q. Let me just -- I will try to ask my questions to be more
19 direct to allow for a shorter answer. The only reason I say this
20 is I have a plane and Mr. Muskopf said he was going to take 20
21 minutes with you, and that was about an hour and a half ago. So
22 I just want to make sure that we can finish today.
23 A. I apologize for being too verbal.
24 Q. That is fine. Let me just ask you, at some point in
362
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 time do you advise these people that if they don't receive an
2 acceptable response to send a more formalistic letter with
3 specific legal citations in it?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Do you provide them with that information, or do you
6 provide them about a draft letter to use?
7 A. I provide them with an example that was prepared by an
8 attorney a few years ago.
9 Q. Was that attorney someone that works for the IEPA or was
10 that a private practitioner?
11 A. No, that was a private practitioner. Her name is
12 Barbara Norman and she was --
13 Q. I am not interested in her name. I just want to know
14 whether --
15 A. I am sorry.
16 Q. That is what I mean. I would just like to ask you if
17 they worked for the IEPA, is it a private practitioner, and all
18 you had to do was tell me --
19 A. Yes, private practitioner.
20 Q. -- it was a private practitioner. If Mr. Muskopf feels
21 that it is important for us all to know what her name was, I am
22 sure that he will take care of that when I am finished.
23 Now, in the complaint here, in this particular case, did
24 you assist in preparing that complaint or reviewing and providing
363
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 comments in that complaint?
2 A. I take it you mean the formal complaint?
3 Q. Yes.
4 A. I provided an example done by the private practitioner.
5 I don't remember reviewing a draft of the complaint that the
6 Glasgows were going to send in. Once in awhile somebody will
7 just be very insistent upon my taking a look at it. I always
8 explain I am not an attorney, but I will look at it, if they
9 really insist that I do. But that is a very rare occurrence for
10 somebody to ask me to -- that they are very insistent upon my
11 reviewing the complaint.
12 Q. So your response is that you don't remember doing that
13 in the case of this complaint?
14 A. That's right.
15 Q. Okay. Now, you did visit the Glasgow and Hoppe
16 property. What was the purpose of that visit?
17 A. The purpose of the visit was since I was under subpoena,
18 to be prepared to testify, I think, in a more credible manner by
19 having actually been to the site and also going to the site is
20 very useful. It is -- there is no substitute for actually going
21 to the site as opposed to looking at videos and pictures and
22 reading written documents. I always make a -- every case I have
23 ever testified in I have gone to the site to look the site over.
24 Q. But you don't go for the purpose of identifying all
364
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 sources of noise in the area, do you?
2 A. No.
3 Q. And do you attempt to make sure that the complainants in
4 the cases that you get involved in measure all sources of noise
5 impacting their home?
6 A. I may suggest that they take a number of measurements
7 and measurements of the noise that is most bothersome to them.
8 Q. But you don't necessarily go through a list of potential
9 sources of noise in addition to the particular source that they
10 have identified?
11 A. No.
12 Q. Now, help me here. I would like to get into some of
13 your conclusions. You have said a number of times over the past
14 two days that in your opinion there was a significant exceedance
15 of the Illinois numerical standards, and because of that you felt
16 that that was some evidence of an unreasonable interference in
17 this case; is that correct?
18 A. That's correct.
19 Q. And I think you just told me that your conclusion on the
20 exceedance of the Illinois numerical standards is based not on
21 the regulations in the measurements we have seen, but what I need
22 is to understand your methodology, I guess, in making that
23 equivalency comparison between the IEPA regs and the
24 measurements; is that correct?
365
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 A. I don't understand the question.
2 Q. Well, let me ask you this. I have not focused on the
3 Illinois objective standards, because the pleadings didn't allege
4 a violation, and that had not been raised by Counsel. But in
5 looking at these standards last night, I was curious why the
6 allowable levels seem to go down so much as frequency increases,
7 but they don't go down in a set pattern.
8 I was wondering if you could explain that to me very
9 briefly? Please don't give me a treatise but if you could
10 explain briefly what that is. What do these attempt to reflect?
11 A. If we look -- again, trying to keep it -- I will try to
12 give it to you as general as possible. The frequencies go from
13 31.5 to 8,000.
14 Q. Nine bands, right?
15 A. Nine bands.
16 Q. Okay.
17 A. And it is obvious that at 31 and a half there are -- for
18 example, the daytime limit is 75 decibels at 31 and a half, and
19 when we get down to 8,000 we are only allowing 40 decibels. So,
20 or course, the question is, well, why do you allow so much at one
21 band and not so much in another band.
22 Q. Right.
23 A. The reason is it is largely based upon the noise
24 response of the human ear.
366
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 Q. Uh-huh.
2 A. At 31 and a half, the human ear would hear a 75 more as
3 a 35, because the human ear will be unable to hear it very well
4 and the actual amount has been measured. The actual measured
5 amount of hearing drop at that low frequency for humans is
6 approximately down by 40 decibels. So where I arrived at 35, I
7 subtracted the 40 decibels as a normal response of the human ear
8 to that frequency of the sound, and the actual -- that 75 would
9 be heard as a 35 to the average person.
10 Q. Let me stay with -- where are the nighttime limits?
11 Because that's what we talked about last night.
12 A. Here.
13 Q. Okay. So that I understand, now, at 31 and a half
14 hertz, the limit is on -- what did we say, we are on Class A
15 land?
16 A. Yes, Class A.
17 Q. Is 63?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And then as we go -- as the frequency increases, the
20 decibel level decreases?
21 A. That's correct.
22 Q. But my understanding is that these numbers, in terms of
23 the human ear and loudness and how the human ear will perceive
24 it, actually will give the same loudness to an individual; is
367
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 that correct?
2 A. I am not quite understanding your question.
3 Q. My question is that these numbers are different because
4 they are attempting to reflect the affect of sound at these
5 decibels on the human ear?
6 A. Yes. To elaborate a little bit, what we are basically
7 saying is that the low frequency end, which is 31 and a half, 63,
8 125 hertz, that particular area of sound is -- the human ear is
9 not very sensitive to it.
10 Q. Right.
11 A. So we allow somewhat higher numbers. The higher
12 frequency, say, 500, 1,000, 2,000, the mid frequency range there,
13 the ear is very sensitive to that.
14 Q. Uh-huh.
15 A. We get into, say, 4,000 or 8,000 hertz, the ear is still
16 fairly sensitive to that, too.
17 Q. But what you were doing when you developed this reg is
18 you were trying to get decibel levels for these various octave
19 bands that reflected basically the same level of annoyance for
20 the human ear?
21 A. Well, that's not all of it. Also --
22 Q. Is it part of it?
23 A. That's part of it, yes.
24 Q. Okay. So, I mean, am I incorrect that there is an
368
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 attempt here to correlate loudness to the human ear at different
2 frequency bands?
3 A. A little more goes into it than that. I think I can
4 answer it very shortly.
5 Q. Okay.
6 A. Typically the reason the low frequencies are important
7 is because when they -- you have a house like, for example, say,
8 we have a house, you know, in a city and there is a factory next
9 door and the factory is putting out quite a bit of low frequency
10 sound.
11 Q. Uh-huh.
12 A. That low frequency sound, when it hits the house, will
13 go right through it. Now, all the mid frequencies and the high
14 frequencies are filtered out by the house. So the person that is
15 inside the house what they are going to hear is the 31 and a half
16 hertz, and the 63 hertz, and possibly the 125 fairly distinctly.
17 But all of the other sound has been filtered out. If the person
18 is trying to sleep, and that's -- if a person is trying to sleep,
19 and they can hear this rumbling sound, it may keep them up. As a
20 matter of fact, there is a good chance it will keep them up.
21 That's why Illinois decided to go with octave bands as opposed to
22 a single dB(A) measurement.
23 Q. Are you suggesting that these bands were developed with
24 taking into consideration some general concept on what a house
369
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 does to affect sound waves as they hit the house?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. So there was actually -- this contemplates someone in
4 bed with a certain type of structured home, with a certain
5 percentage reduction in loudness; is that right?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Okay. But in the end result what these are attempting
8 to do is give us the same perceived sound at these different
9 octave bands?
10 MR. MUSKOPF: I will object. It has been asked and
11 answered.
12 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: Overruled.
13 THE WITNESS: No, it is not.
14 Q. (By Mr. Babst) Let me ask it a different way.
15 A. Sure.
16 Q. Have these regulatory standards been designed to reflect
17 human response for loudness?
18 A. Partially.
19 Q. So you are saying the loudness would not necessarily be
20 the same for each of these levels? Ignoring pitch. I am just
21 talking about loudness?
22 A. Right. Loudness and if we look at the various studies
23 of the -- the curves of the various studies done upon the human
24 ear sensitive to the various frequencies of sound. Our
370
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 regulations do not fit the actual -- those curves. It is
2 something of a compromise between those curves and the potential
3 impact of low frequency sound in structures.
4 Q. Is this the curve you are talking about? Are you
5 familiar with this?
6 A. Very much so, yes.
7 Q. Okay. I figured you would be. Now, could you do this
8 for me. Would you look at -- these are dB(A), and that's what
9 you are talking about, isn't it, in terms of making corrections
10 in a dB(A) decibel reading?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Okay. So your lower frequency is, what, 31 and a half?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. What correction is made at that frequency if you could
15 tell from that chart?
16 A. Okay.
17 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: For the record, is that an
18 exhibit of yours?
19 MR. BABST: Yes. I am sorry. I will make it one. It is
20 the Federal Interagency Committee on Noise, and it is figure B4,
21 and it is entitled, Frequency Responses for Sound Level Weighting
22 Characteristics.
23 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: Thank you.
24 (The witness reviewing document.)
371
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 THE WITNESS: Well, for example --
2 Q. (By Mr. Babst) What I would like you to do is at the
3 lower frequency, which is 31 and a half, what is the correction
4 factor?
5 A. Minus 40.
6 Q. Minus 40. Okay. Then would you look at your upper
7 range, which is 8,000 hertz. And what is the correction?
8 A. Approximately -- it looks like a minus two.
9 Q. Minus two, minus three?
10 A. Yes, something in there.
11 Q. Okay. Tell me what the difference is between the
12 limitation for 31.5 and 8,000 in the Illinois reg?
13 A. About 38.
14 Q. Is it coincidental that the difference here is also 38?
15 A. I am not quite -- if you could kind of explain to me
16 what you mean by the difference.
17 Q. You will agree that the difference in the range
18 regulated under your standard is the same as the correcting
19 factors under this graph; is that correct? We are talking about
20 a 38 decibel difference?
21 A. We can't really draw a line and say we are comparing,
22 say, 31 and a half to 8,000, and then just using that to kind of
23 cast over the entire regulation and say, well, we are stating
24 that the corrections -- the difference between two frequencies in
372
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 the EPA regulations versus the standard A-weighting frequency
2 chart happens to be -- at two points happens to coincide.
3 Q. What I am trying to establish here, Mr. Zak, is that
4 both the EPA methodology and the Illinois reg do reflect and they
5 were designed to reflect human response for loudness?
6 MR. MUSKOPF: I have got an objection. I don't know what
7 the relevance of the federal regulation could be to this case.
8 It is not governed -- this case is governed by the Illinois
9 regulation.
10 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: Okay. Overruled.
11 Q. (By Mr. Babst) Do you remember my question?
12 A. No. Could you please repeat it?
13 Q. Yes. Both -- in this case a guideline, and in this case
14 a standard, both of them are designed to reflect human response
15 to loudness. Do you agree or disagree with that?
16 A. Now, the actual --
17 Q. Now --
18 A. Well, I can't agree.
19 Q. Okay. Okay.
20 A. I have a question. Once I get it clarified, I will be
21 glad to answer the question.
22 Q. Okay.
23 A. This particular chart, while I am familiar with this --
24 with the actual graph itself, the Federal Interagency Committee
373
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 on Noise does not ring a bell off the top of my head. I am just
2 kind of wondering, you are saying, well, this is a regulation and
3 this is regulation.
4 Q. No, no. I said these are guidelines.
5 A. These are guidelines?
6 Q. Yes.
7 A. Okay.
8 Q. And you used this chart to come up with your 61 and 51,
9 didn't you?
10 A. Well, not exactly that chart. I actually go back to
11 ANSI standards and get it from there, which is not a chart. It
12 is actual numbers.
13 Q. But it is the same thing?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Sure.
16 A. The same basic idea, yes.
17 Q. So you use this same basic idea to come up with the Greg
18 Zak dB(A) limits for Illinois, did you not?
19 A. Yes, exactly.
20 Q. In looking at the video we had one value, and last night
21 you looked at a nighttime value of 70, as I recall?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. DB(A)?
24 A. Yes.
374
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 Q. What is the meter doing in the Radio Shack noise meter
2 that you suggested that the complainants' purchase? What is it
3 doing with respect to the sound waves that it receives?
4 A. Well, I think perhaps we could best describe it by the
5 chart we have got here wherein at the lower frequency end the
6 meter is subtracting quite a bit of measurement or sound level.
7 As we get into the -- as we go up the frequency, the meter
8 subtracts less and less and less until we get to 1,000 hertz
9 where the meter then reads it exactly. So it is a filtering
10 process with A-weighting wherein the low frequencies are
11 discriminated against more heavily than the mid and high
12 frequencies are.
13 Q. So the meter is basically making these subtractions,
14 correct?
15 A. That's correct.
16 Q. At the different octaves?
17 A. That's right.
18 Q. And it is doing that, again, to reflect the human
19 response to loudness? That's what this is intended to do?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. Okay. Does the meter average the octave band levels or
22 does it sum them in the meter itself? When it takes this and
23 gives us this one number, is it averaging all of these once it
24 makes the subtraction or is it summing them?
375
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 A. It is summing them.
2 Q. Okay. Before it does this, it does make this
3 correction? At the different octave levels it makes this
4 subtraction? I think you just said that.
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Okay. Is the number then a weighted and cumulated
7 number of the various decibels at different frequencies?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Okay. And this dB(A) scale corrects for human response
10 for loudness?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Then unless I am wrong, and you said there may be some
13 additional things we have to talk about here, both the Illinois
14 regulation, which deals with these separate nine octave bands,
15 and this dB(A) system with the meter, both of them correct for
16 human response to loudness?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Okay. Now, would you explain to me how you get -- and
19 let's take the nighttime level -- 51 is the equivalency between
20 the regulatory standards and a single dB(A) value?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. If you would explain to me how you did that?
23 A. Taking the nighttime regulations --
24 Q. Which is Class C, right?
376
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 A. We have got -- yes, for Class C.
2 Q. Okay.
3 A. And we have got a level of, say, 69 and 31 and a half
4 hertz. The equivalent after it is A-Weighted, if we A-Weight
5 that 69 then we have 29.
6 Q. Now, how do you A-Weight it?
7 A. Subtracting 40 decibels from it.
8 Q. From this? Or something similar to this?
9 A. Something similar to this.
10 Q. You just said on this chart at 31 and a half the
11 correction --
12 A. Uh-huh.
13 Q. -- is 40?
14 A. That's correct.
15 Q. Which you just said?
16 A. That's right.
17 Q. Okay.
18 A. So at 31 and half hertz what I would do is subtract 40
19 from the 69 leaving a 29.
20 Q. Uh-huh.
21 A. I would go to 63 hertz -- and I don't have these
22 memorized.
23 Q. That is all right.
24 A. So whatever the correction would be over here.
377
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 Q. I understand.
2 A. It would be less than 40. It would give me another
3 number. It is a fairly low level number.
4 Q. Right. And you would go through and do that with
5 each of --
6 A. Yes, and go through that with all nine octave bands.
7 Q. Okay.
8 A. Then I would have nine numbers and I would take those
9 nine numbers then and add them up logarithmically.
10 Q. Uh-huh.
11 A. And keep combining and combining and combining numbers
12 until I finally got down to a single number.
13 Q. Uh-huh.
14 A. That number would be 51.
15 Q. Okay. So what you have done is you have taken the
16 regulation numbers that have already been corrected for human
17 response to loudness? You have already agreed to that?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. And you have then used this and you have applied this
20 published table that also corrects for human response to
21 loudness, correct?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. So you have actually double counted the correction to
24 come up with your 51? It is already here, and you have taken it
378
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 again and you have subtracted it out once again? You have done
2 it twice, haven't you?
3 A. No.
4 Q. But it was done here first, correct? It is already
5 corrected?
6 A. That is not A-Weighted correction there.
7 Q. No, no, no. But it is already corrected to give us the
8 -- to reflect the human response to loudness? You have said
9 that?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. The subtraction that takes place here is to give us that
12 same number to respond or to reflect the human response to
13 loudness? You have said that, too? That's what this correction
14 is to do?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. So since it has already been done here you have now done
17 it -- you have taken this and you have done it again? You have
18 done it twice? You have taken an already adjusted number and you
19 have once again corrected it using this table; isn't that right?
20 A. That could be -- yes, I will -- I would like to have
21 some explanation, though, of that.
22 Q. But you do admit that you have basically done it twice?
23 It has been done here to start with and you have done it again
24 here in your calculation?
379
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Okay. Now, suppose that you only want to count once for
3 human response to loudness, and you -- in that regard you assume
4 that the Illinois regulation, as you have said, has appropriately
5 done this. But you still want to get a single number to compare
6 with the 70 dB(A). What I would like to ask you is could you do
7 this. Listen to me carefully. Could you take each value and
8 convert each of these values into total energy? Are you with me
9 on that?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Could you then add these total energy values
12 arithmetically, take the log base ten of the sum of those numbers
13 and then multiply the result by ten? And my question to you is
14 if you did that, wouldn't that give you a dB(A) which is weighted
15 and cumulated with -- I am going to call this the dB I, the
16 Illinois standard -- which is also weighted and cumulated, and
17 then you would be able to compare apples to apples?
18 A. I am not following you.
19 Q. Okay. Let me go back then. The step that I just -- the
20 four-step process that I gave you --
21 A. Right.
22 Q. -- would that not be an appropriate way to derive a
23 single digit from the Illinois regulations that weights and
24 cumulates these values so that you could compare it with this,
380
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 without double counting, as you have admitted that you have done
2 in your calculation?
3 A. My honest answer to you, from the four-step process you
4 went through there, is without sitting down and going through it,
5 I don't know.
6 Q. But you do see that since it has already been taken into
7 account here and you are then taking that same correction here,
8 you are backing out what was already done in the regulatory
9 process?
10 A. No.
11 Q. But you have already admitted and agreed that you do
12 double count. You have admitted that it is already corrected
13 here, right?
14 A. Well, again, the double counting that we are talking
15 about here is apples and oranges.
16 Q. I think what --
17 A. These numbers are not based on the A-Weighted --
18 Q. I understand that, but what we are trying to do is we
19 are trying to get to a situation where we can actually look at
20 the -- you have taken an A-Weighted number 70 --
21 A. Correct.
22 Q. -- and you have tried to convert this so that you can
23 compare apples to apples?
24 A. That's correct.
381
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 Q. And what I am suggesting to you is that in your
2 calculation what you have done is you have double counted the
3 correction that was made in the original regulation, you have
4 taken it out again, from utilizing this chart, and you have -- as
5 a result you have ended up with a low number that does not
6 compare apples to apples, correct?
7 A. That's not correct.
8 Q. Okay. You have said that at Granite City the prominent
9 noise source in the area, in this particular case, is the steel
10 plant; is that correct? I think that you said in your
11 deposition that --
12 A. I would say it was the whole operation, the coal piles
13 and the plant.
14 Q. I said -- I am sorry. The steel plant is what I thought
15 I said.
16 A. I mean -- now I am still confused. So I want to be sure
17 I answer your question correctly.
18 Q. Is it your conclusion that the steel plant, the coal
19 piles, and the coke plant, the blast furnaces --
20 A. The facility.
21 Q. The facility is the prominent noise source in the area
22 of the complainants' homes?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. I think you said during your deposition that you felt
382
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 there was some street -- some street noises from Edwardsville
2 Road?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. That was based, I am taking it, on your one half hour
5 visit to the site?
6 A. No, that -- my visit to the site and also my viewing of
7 all of the videotape.
8 Q. Okay. Now, during -- let's deal with both of those
9 independently. During your site visit, did you feel that you
10 were able to evaluate all of the noise sources in the area?
11 A. Are you talking about in general terms?
12 Q. I am talking about -- well, I mean, do you -- just
13 answer my question. Do you feel that you were able to evaluate
14 all the potential noise sources in the area?
15 A. No.
16 Q. Okay. Are you sure that the complainants' tape focuses
17 on all of the noise sources in the area?
18 A. No.
19 Q. Would you want to have measurements of all of the sound
20 sources impacting an area before rendering an opinion in a
21 nuisance case?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And to follow-up on that, hypothetically, if I contacted
24 you regarding a noise issue I had and sent you tapes and I
383
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 described noises coming from Mr. Muskopf's operation but I failed
2 to mention that Mr. Langhoff was also doing something in the
3 area, that would, obviously, give you misleading information for
4 you to form an opinion, correct?
5 A. That's correct.
6 Q. I would also think it would make it difficult to design
7 a remedy?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Now, do you know if other noise sources were emitting
10 noises in the area in which the measurements were taken by the
11 Glasgows at the time that they took those measurements?
12 A. I would say any extraneous noise source would have been
13 minimal.
14 Q. But you don't know that?
15 A. Yes, I do. Because the videotapes are clear enough and
16 the sounds are clear enough, and the lack of traffic when the
17 measurements were being taken was very visible on Edwardsville
18 Road, so that I am confident that the data they have there is
19 good data.
20 Q. Any other possible sources of noise that could
21 influence? Could a plane have been traveling overhead?
22 A. I would have heard it.
23 Q. Even though you were shooting directly at the steel
24 plant?
384
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 A. Sure. The meter itself is not very directional.
2 Q. When you watch these videos and looked at the meter, you
3 are making this decision based upon you listening to the video on
4 your television set?
5 A. That's a portion of it. What I am seeing and any sound
6 I can hear on the tape.
7 Q. Sure. Let me ask you this. When you do watch the
8 video, do you try to correlate the sound being reflected in the
9 meter in front of Mrs. Glasgow with sound that you would be
10 picking up from the video? I mean, wouldn't you need a sound
11 meter to basically correlate those levels with what you are
12 hearing or didn't you ever even think about that?
13 A. I don't understand your question.
14 Q. Are you satisfied that a television set, like the one
15 Mr. Muskopf had yesterday, is going to give you the same
16 perceived noises, sound levels in your ear, as Mrs. Glasgow was
17 perceiving and the meter was perceiving at the time that she took
18 them?
19 A. Close enough.
20 Q. So you feel that the sound systems on these TVs are
21 pretty sophisticated?
22 A. The reason I say that is I spent about two years testing
23 various speakers in systems, so I am very familiar with systems
24 like that and checking to see if the fidelity is reasonable or
385
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 not.
2 Q. It would not be affected by how high you turned the
3 sound on your TV?
4 A. I didn't say that.
5 Q. I will ask you that. Would it be affected by how high
6 you turned the sound on your TV?
7 A. Yes. If you turn it up high enough, and it is designed
8 in such a way, you can overload the speaker and you will have a
9 big degradation in sound quality.
10 Q. Are there different quality of speakers in different
11 TVs?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. So would you make your adjustment and your sound based
14 upon your expert knowledge about the sound system in a particular
15 TV set?
16 A. And the sound quality. I would typically turn it down
17 to the point where I can hear some distortion. I spent quite a
18 bit of time doing this in anechoic chambers and adjusting it
19 downwards to reach the point where fidelity was the best.
20 Q. You are saying that your ear is kind of the equivalent
21 of another meter?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Based upon the tapes that you saw, was there any attempt
24 to record the sound levels from the traffic going by the homes of
386
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 the complainants?
2 A. I did not notice any -- I can't say that I noticed any
3 attempt to record it or not record it, although I did notice that
4 there was very little traffic present on the tapes.
5 Q. Does that mean that there would be very little traffic
6 on the road or would that mean that the tape could have been at a
7 time when no traffic was going by?
8 A. Either one.
9 Q. You wouldn't know?
10 A. That's right.
11 Q. Okay. If you were trying to conduct a scientific study
12 of this area to give yourself a full set of data to make an
13 intelligent and expert opinion, would you want to have some data
14 on the level of noise coming from traffic as it goes by this
15 four-lane road?
16 A. In Illinois we call that establishing the ambient, and I
17 would like to have some ambient information.
18 Q. If you were set up to evaluate the potential impact from
19 traffic going by their homes, how would you do that?
20 A. I would do it both once in the daytime and once at
21 night. Typically early afternoon in the daytime and typically
22 around 2:00 in the morning at night.
23 Q. What would you do?
24 A. I would set my instrumentation up, and I would take a --
387
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 in my case it would be a third octave band scan for a period of
2 about -- a period of ten minutes. And then I would exclude any
3 intermittent noise sources. An intermittent noise source would
4 be a few cars passing by on the road. That would be deleted from
5 the data. And conversely, measuring the plant noise, if a car
6 goes by, I stop measuring before the car sound -- before there is
7 any noise from the car. And after the car has passed by I go
8 back to measuring again. So the ambient is measured in the same
9 manner as the noise source is measured.
10 Q. There was no ambient taken in this particular case, as
11 far as you know?
12 A. I would say, yes, there was. The reason I am saying
13 that is there were periods where there would be a significant
14 drop in noise at the Granite City facility where the meter would
15 just drop from let's say 60, and it would say low on there which
16 is below 60. Those periods of time there was virtually no noise
17 on the road. There was -- the plant noise was no longer as loud,
18 although it was still the significant noise source in the area,
19 but yet we could see the levels were below 60.
20 Q. This assumes --
21 A. That would be ambient.
22 Q. For you to be, I think, comfortable with that you would
23 have to be certain that the readings that the Glasgows took were
24 reflective of normal activity; is that fair?
388
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 A. No.
2 Q. I mean, if I went out, Mr. Zak, and I just -- I know
3 there is a time when there is very little traffic on the road, on
4 a heavily traveled road, and I take some shots aiming at a
5 different source with not much traffic coming, you are satisfied
6 that that gives you the ambient levels you need to objectively
7 evaluate that property?
8 A. Yes. The reason that would be the case is under our
9 measurement procedures that we use we take ambient for ten
10 minutes. Typically we like to take that ten minute period when
11 the noise source of interest shuts down or goes off line for a
12 short period of time and then get the background sound.
13 But, again, like on traffic noise, if traffic is light, we
14 would not -- we would, in essence, erase all of the traffic
15 sound, both when we take the ambient and the noise source.
16 However, if we were next to a large highway that is heavily
17 traveled, then although traffic going by is continuous, since it
18 is continuous then it would be counted as part of ambient.
19 Q. You heard the testimony of some complainants yesterday
20 that truck traffic going by their house -- and I think it might
21 have been Mr. Glasgow -- awaken him?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. It is a perceived noise in the house?
24 A. Yes.
389
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 Q. On the tapes that you saw, are you satisfied that you
2 have data that reflects the noise levels from these trucks,
3 particularly these trucks that hit the bump, I guess, somewhere
4 near the Glasgow or Hoppe house?
5 A. Could you help me out? Could you repeat the question?
6 Q. What I am saying is you heard there is a noise level.
7 You know the source because they testified what it is. My
8 question to you is are you satisfied that you have adequate data
9 with respect to that source of sound that allows you to make this
10 -- to draw the opinions that you have?
11 A. Since that source is intermittent, it would not even
12 apply in our regulations. That data -- I would not need that
13 data.
14 Q. I am not talking about your regulations right now. I am
15 talking about trying to evaluate the data taken by the Glasgows
16 that was not taken pursuant to your regulation, and took the
17 A-Weighted average; is that correct?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Okay. To get to -- again, looking at the dB(A) levels,
20 wouldn't it be helpful for you to have dB(A) values of other
21 sources in the area?
22 A. The specific example you used with the trucks hitting
23 the bump, that would be, from all of the testimony, intermittent
24 enough that it would not fall under the category ambient or the
390
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 noise source of interest, and so, therefore, that data would be
2 something -- it would be data that we wouldn't want.
3 Q. I have read where in general if you look just worldwide
4 probably the greatest noise concern that raises these issues more
5 often than anything else is traffic; is that right?
6 A. That's correct.
7 Q. As a result of that wouldn't you have some interest in
8 potential impact of traffic on these homes?
9 A. As long as it didn't impact the ambient as it is defined
10 in measuring procedures, it would not be relevant to what we are
11 doing.
12 Q. Have you observed or did you get any information on
13 traffic count on Edwardsville Road?
14 A. No.
15 Q. So you have no idea whether it is one truck that goes
16 down there a day, or it is very busy? You have no idea about
17 traffic flow, is that fair, other than your half hour
18 observation?
19 A. That's correct, other than my half hour observation.
20 Q. Do you know what the speed limit is in front of the
21 homes?
22 A. I believe it is about 45 miles an hour.
23 Q. Do you know what the weight limit is?
24 A. I would have to kind of surmise. I would guess 80,000
391
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 pounds.
2 Q. So pretty heavy vehicles can go down that road?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Did you, in your half hour visit, notice any defects in
5 the road, any bumps, any indentations that could have the affect
6 of magnifying the sound as a truck or a car went by?
7 A. No.
8 Q. Hypothetically, if you have a source 450 feet away from
9 a home and there is a second source of equal or greater value, in
10 terms of impact on the home, would you recommend constructing a
11 sound barrier or wall 300 feet away from the home?
12 A. I am little bit confused on the second source. Help me
13 out. You are looking at two sources?
14 Q. Two sources, right. And they are of equal value, equal
15 levels. Or let's say the closer source may be a little bit
16 higher. Would you be inclined to recommend constructing a sound
17 barrier in a situation like that?
18 MR. MUSKOPF: Let me put an objection on the record first.
19 I don't -- the question, I think -- I object to the form of the
20 question. It is very vague and unclear as to whether it is in
21 the context of another noise source that is subject to the
22 Illinois regulations that is in the proceeding before the
23 Pollution Control Board, and whether Mr. Zak would recommend that
24 for what purpose, to keep the house completely quiet, to get the
392
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 other noise source in compliance with Illinois regulations. What
2 does the question mean?
3 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: Mr. Babst?
4 MR. BABST: Mr. Zak said he is expert not only in
5 understanding and explaining to us what different noise levels
6 mean, but he is also expert in designing solutions. I assume
7 when you design a solution you have a goal in mind, that you want
8 to reduce the impact to a particular source.
9 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: What about the form of the
10 question?
11 MR. BABST: I am sorry. I didn't find it to be difficult
12 to understand. I will rephrase it.
13 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: Thank you.
14 Q. (By Mr. Babst) Hypothetically, if you have a source that
15 is let's say -- let's use the Glasgows home as an example, and
16 450 feet away from that house is a steel plant, and you have
17 dB(A) readings from activities going on at the plant. You have
18 another source, let's say it is road traffic, and you have also
19 major readings of the traffic which is equal in terms of just
20 looking at dB(A) values, equal or greater levels than the source
21 at 450 feet. Would you recommend that a sound barrier wall be an
22 efficient way of addressing the noise problem experienced by the
23 people in the home?
24 MR. MUSKOPF: The same objection. If you are going to
393
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 design a noise solution it has to be with a particular goal in
2 mind. Is the goal to bring --
3 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: Is your objection to the form of
4 the question?
5 MR. MUSKOPF: Yes, the same objection.
6 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: Overruled.
7 THE WITNESS: To answer your question -- I will repeat to
8 make sure I have a clear picture of what we are saying here. We
9 are basically saying we have a noise source that is 450 feet away
10 and a noise source that is 300 feet --
11 Q. (By Mr. Babst) That is 100 feet away and the wall at 300
12 feet.
13 A. Okay. 100 feet away on the noise source. And you are
14 saying the -- both noise sources, as far as impact on the houses,
15 are about the same?
16 Q. Uh-huh.
17 A. What would be the effectiveness of putting the barrier
18 up for the one noise when we still have the other noise source
19 present? And the answer in that case would be adding the barrier
20 is going to reduce the total noise impact on the house, so it is
21 going to have some beneficial affect.
22 The other thing that is always looked at in a case like
23 that is what are the people complaining about. Again, keeping
24 this a hypothetical, but that is always a concern, what is --
394
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 what is the complaint. In this case -- in the hypothetical
2 example, if the complaint is about the sources 400 feet -- 450
3 feet away, then the barrier becomes much more important. If,
4 however, the complaint is the source that is closer, and there is
5 no complaint about the one that is 450 feet away, then there
6 would be no point of building the barrier at the 450 foot mark.
7 Q. So the goal, when you talked about the barrier wall, you
8 had talked about, at least my understanding was that you were
9 saying the reason why you were suggesting this is because it
10 would have a major impact, a positive impact on the home?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Under my hypothetical you are telling me that even if
13 that is not the case, then I look at it a different way, I don't
14 look at it from trying to evaluate the dB(A) impact on the home,
15 I then rely on what the individuals who have said it bothers them
16 say. If they say it is the source 450 feet away, then I would
17 basically look at that as being what I wanted to address in terms
18 of my proposed remedy?
19 A. I would look at both. It is not a black or a white. We
20 are dealing with an area here where both would be considered,
21 both the measurement and also what are the complaints in the area
22 being directed at.
23 Q. So if I --
24 A. We run into this all of the time in noise.
395
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 Q. Sure. So if at the end of the day when we are finished
2 testifying and Mr. Studholme is finished testifying, as you sit
3 there, if you are convinced that the impact in dB(A) values on
4 the home is nothing like what you are talking about or what you
5 assume in designing the remedy, could that affect your
6 conclusions that you have given today?
7 A. That is very hypothetical, but assuming -- that normally
8 would not happen. But taking it as a hypothetical only, I would
9 say yes.
10 Q. Okay. Because I think that in talking about the sound
11 barrier, and maybe you could help me, what was your projected
12 benefit in terms of noise reduction to the complainants' homes?
13 A. Approximately 15 dB(A).
14 Q. Okay. If you -- this is merely a hypothetical. If you
15 were satisfied that the impact would be more in the line of a
16 decibel and a half, could that affect your opinion with respect
17 to the solution that you have given this morning?
18 A. If I understand what you are saying, you are saying the
19 actual reduction would be one and a half decibels?
20 Q. Correct.
21 A. Then I would say the barrier is not a practical
22 solution.
23 Q. Thank you. Now, are there generally recognized
24 methodologies for making land use compatibility determinations
396
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 that you are familiar with?
2 A. Well, what I have been doing for 28 years would be
3 basically using what we call our Appendix B. The question has
4 occasionally arisen as far as how to determine land
5 classifications, and I have dealt with that from time to time.
6 MR. BABST: I would like this Federal Interagency Committee
7 on Noise document marked as Exhibit 32, and this Title 35, Part
8 901 marked as Exhibit 33.
9 (Whereupon said documents were duly marked for purposes of
10 identification as Respondent Exhibits 32 and 33 as of this
11 date.)
12 MR. BABST: Thank you.
13 Q. (By Mr. Babst) Mr. Zak, I am just showing you a cover
14 page from something entitled, Guidelines for Considering Noise in
15 Land Use Planning and Control, dated June 1980, and it has the
16 seals on the bottom of the United States Environmental Protection
17 Agency, the United States Department of Transportation, the
18 United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, and
19 the United States Department of Defense, and the Veterans
20 Administration. Have you ever seen this document?
21 A. No.
22 Q. So you are not familiar with it at all?
23 A. No.
24 Q. So you are not familiar, then, with any methodology
397
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 other than your use of Appendix B for attempting to deal with
2 land use compatibility determinations?
3 A. I wouldn't say that, because I had been subpoenaed and
4 testified as an expert in several zoning hearings as far as
5 determining what various land uses would have on each other,
6 especially the aspect of noise.
7 Q. Uh-huh, but in doing -- in preparing for that testimony
8 you never took a look at any available federal guidance on that
9 topic?
10 A. Generally I found it to be unreliable because they tend
11 to strictly look at transportation noise.
12 Q. So you have -- I assume, then, since you found them to
13 be unreliable that you have read them, or did you make your
14 decision or form your opinion that they were unreliable based on
15 something that someone told you?
16 A. I have done extensive reading, not that particular -- I
17 assume it is a publication that you have there?
18 Q. Uh-huh.
19 A. It is one or two pages?
20 Q. This was just the cover page. I wanted to know if you
21 were familiar with it?
22 A. That particular document I am not familiar with, but as
23 far as a lot of research studies that have been done on noise and
24 land use, land use planning related to noise, yes, I have done a
398
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 fair amount of reading as far as the ANSI standards, as far as a
2 lot of the publications put out by the IMA research lab on that.
3 MR. MUSKOPF: I would like to make an objection to the use
4 of that document and to the use of Respondent's 32. They have
5 not been disclosed to me. It is not any different than me
6 cross-examining Tic Weissenburger in the Young case with the St.
7 Louis Business Journal. It was not disclosed and --
8 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: I am going to overrule your
9 objection at this time. You can make your objection when they
10 are offered into evidence.
11 MR. BABST: Is Tic Weissenburger something I should know,
12 or is that --
13 MR. MUSKOPF: (Shook head from side to side.)
14 Q. (By Mr. Babst) Again, looking at you as an expert in
15 noise and what you are asked to do in these nuisance cases is to
16 balance the affects that are discussed by people that give you a
17 call, and the Board also looks at a number of other criteria so
18 that it is a balancing regulation; is that fair?
19 A. Oh, I think very fair, yes.
20 Q. Your experience, then, in looking at -- trying to keep
21 up with this balancing, you only apply the Illinois Appendix B
22 standards; is that fair?
23 A. For these kinds of cases, yes.
24 Q. Can you tell me, based on being an expert in this area,
399
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 is the Illinois standard commonly used to make land use
2 determinations, compatibility determinations?
3 A. No.
4 Q. More often I think in a vast majority of cases isn't the
5 dB(A) weighted average methodology certainly more prevalent?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And you are familiar with that methodology, are you not?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And what you have told us in this case what you do is in
10 order to try to deal with the fact that most people and most
11 methodologies deal with this dB(A) weighted average basis, you
12 have come up with your own way of converting the Illinois
13 standard to a dB(A) value so that you can make determinations?
14 A. Well, it is not exactly my way of doing it. It is in
15 compliance with the ANSI standard and in compliance with all of
16 the major publications that relate to noise control engineering.
17 Q. Your method that you explained to me in terms of taking
18 these values and backing out these correction figures, correct?
19 A. In other words -- so I understand the question, if I am
20 not explaining it the way --
21 Q. I know what you did.
22 A. Okay.
23 Q. You took each of these?
24 A. Yes.
400
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 Q. And you backed out from -- not from this chart, but from
2 something that you said is the same thing?
3 A. Yes.
4 MR. MUSKOPF: I would renew my objection to the document.
5 It has never been provided in discovery and has never been
6 disclosed to me.
7 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: Overruled.
8 Q. (By Mr. Babst) And that is basically how you try to come
9 up with an apples to apples comparison?
10 A. It is not in the case of trying. What I did is used the
11 major publications, actually books on noise control engineering,
12 for example, by Harris.
13 Q. Okay.
14 A. And by Boranic (spelled phonetically) and -- I have to
15 apologize. I have a mental block. Those are two of the major
16 publications.
17 Q. Let's deal with those two.
18 A. Sure.
19 Q. They both recommend that -- to take the Appendix B
20 system, the dB I system?
21 A. All right.
22 Q. To convert that to a dB(A) system, they explain how you
23 do it?
24 A. Exactly.
401
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 Q. They tell you in that -- in that, Mr. Zak, do they start
2 with these numbers that are already corrected to account for the
3 sensitivity of the human ear?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Okay. So you would agree that those publications
6 endorse double counting of that correction factor?
7 A. The whole world does it. It is how it is done.
8 Q. All right. Could I ask you, Mr. Zak, is this -- I am
9 showing you -- and certainly take your time. Is that Appendix B?
10 A. No.
11 Q. Or is there more to it than that?
12 A. This is 951. This would be the -- it appears to be one
13 of the diagrams out of our Rule 951, which is an Agency rule only
14 for measurement of sound published in 1980 and, no, it would not
15 have anything to do with the language you were quoting.
16 Q. Appendix B, I am assuming, is a published document?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Is it a promulgated appendix or is it a guideline? Is
19 it a regulation or just a guideline?
20 A. Oh, no. It is a regulation. That is part and parcel of
21 the Board's noise regulation.
22 Q. So that I am clear, in making a land use determination
23 for purposes of compatibility, you would not recommend nor would
24 you engage in an analysis on a dB(A) weighted basis?
402
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 A. I would prefer not to. I would prefer to go with either
2 -- at the very minimum the octave band as opposed to A-Weighted
3 measurement.
4 Q. In conducting an analysis in your way, can you construct
5 a model which would allow you to essentially determine the impact
6 of individual sound sources in an area?
7 A. What do you mean by model?
8 Q. Well, I mean, where you would have the overall affect,
9 you are going to end up with -- maybe not. I assume you would
10 end up with a single number value impacting a home, or you would
11 not?
12 A. That could be done.
13 Q. Okay. If you did that then you would -- what I am
14 asking you is can you construct a model whereby you said, okay, I
15 am going to treat this source over here and if I do that, what
16 will the impact be back to the homes, how would you do that or
17 could you do that?
18 A. Oh, yes, that has been part of the procedure for the
19 last 29 years. What is normally done is measurements are taken
20 at the residence in third octave band, and normally with the
21 cooperation of the facility measurements are taken at the
22 facility and so we have both the measurements at the house and
23 the facility, and we can compare what I call the acoustical
24 fingerprint of knowing the frequency breakdown, the two
403
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 measurements. And then, say, we are going to put a barrier in
2 there, we look at the barrier and the amount of sound reduction
3 that we get for that barrier at various octave bands and then
4 that gives us a very reliable predictor of what the sound
5 reduction is going to be at the house.
6 Q. And no accounting under what you just described for me
7 for any source that would be between the industrial facility and
8 the home, traffic, for example?
9 A. Traffic could be -- could enter into that.
10 Q. It didn't in what you just described to me, but you --
11 A. I gave you a very simple explanation. You told me to
12 keep it short. I could explain for an hour and a half to go
13 through a really good setup.
14 Q. You can tell what I am interested in. I want to know
15 whether you have just looked at a source without comparing --
16 without taking into consideration other sources that are out
17 there?
18 A. Oh, no. I take into consideration all sources.
19 Q. You have said that you did not measure the impact from
20 traffic in this case?
21 A. That's correct.
22 Q. And you feel they may have, but you are not sure that
23 the Glasgows measured traffic in this particular case?
24 A. There was some traffic on the tapes. Again, being very
404
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 late at night I would not expect there to be a lot of traffic in
2 an area like that.
3 Q. So because of your expectation about the area, without
4 consulting any traffic maps, you were satisfied that what they
5 did was representative of the traffic noise impacting their home?
6 A. I have been through that area many, many times in the
7 last 29 years, and I am familiar with it both at night and
8 daytime. Just the general vicinity, and especially that area
9 around Granite City Steel, I feel that what they had on the tape
10 was reasonably accurate for times of, say, midnight, 1:00 in the
11 morning.
12 Q. I would like to talk about some of the remedies that you
13 discussed with Mr. Muskopf. Let's start first with the back up
14 beepers. Your statement, I believe, was in terms of the cost.
15 It was very inexpensive, just put a switch in there and then it
16 is pretty much done?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Now, in response to questions concerning the cost of an
19 observer you said typically if there are enough personnel around
20 that one person can be the observer?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. And this assumes that there are excess personnel to
23 undertake a very important task, correct?
24 A. Based upon my experience of doing this type of work for
405
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 a number of years for the Agency, it has never been a significant
2 personnel problem to have somebody do it.
3 Q. So, I mean, the cases that you dealt with obviously have
4 had people that are under utilized, so they can be taken and say,
5 look, I know we are paying you eight hours a day and you do so
6 little that we want you to observe the trucks or whatever it is
7 backing up?
8 A. It has been my experience in all of the situations I
9 have dealt with where the concern is where you have got the
10 possibility of striking one of the individuals there with a piece
11 of machinery, that situation only arises infrequently. Normally
12 there is nobody anywhere near the machine. Where the danger
13 would arise is when the machine moves from one area to another,
14 and so for those short periods of time we would use an observer
15 to make sure that as the machine was backed up and moved to turn
16 it around and get it to another location that when it got to the
17 new location any back up it had to do there that an observer was
18 present.
19 Q. So if you would hear testimony in the respondent's case
20 that there are a significant number of people in vehicles moving
21 around in this area, could that change your view at least with
22 respect to the cost of an observer?
23 A. It could, yes.
24 Q. And if you hear testimony that there are multiple pieces
406
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 of large equipment and individuals walking around an area and
2 that it could create a safety problem or certainly a safety
3 concern, would that change your opinion with respect to the
4 acceptability of disconnecting the back up alarms?
5 A. No, I would say that the observer would take care of
6 that. So if there were a lot of people in the area, the observer
7 would still be able to warn anybody that there is a machine
8 backing up.
9 Q. With a sound horn, or how does the observer take care of
10 letting this truck know that this Caterpillar is backing up,
11 letting the individual over here know that? I am unclear how
12 that is done.
13 A. I have seen it done with a red flag where the person --
14 when the vehicle is backing up, he is staying at a fairly short
15 and safe distance there and watching the people in the area so
16 the person may get out of the way when the machine is backing up.
17 Q. Would you want the job of the person who has the red
18 flag with the vehicles the size you saw yesterday driving around?
19 MR. MUSKOPF: I would object. I don't know what could
20 possibly be relevant with --
21 MR. BABST: I will withdraw the question.
22 Q. (By Mr. Babst) If you hear testimony that a union safety
23 committee would have great concern about disconnecting the back
24 up alarms in areas where the members are working, would that have
407
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 any impact on your conclusion that this is a practical way to
2 address the noise from the back up alarms?
3 A. That question has never come up before. My concern
4 would be compliance with state and federal regulations. As far
5 as any union impact on that --
6 Q. You are a problem solver here. I am throwing another
7 variable to you. You are an expert. I am sure you don't get the
8 same set of variables every time. I am giving you another one
9 and asking you whether it could change your view?
10 A. I would doubt it. I mean, if there are very extreme
11 circumstances, something could be worked out. But overall I
12 would say that I would not expect there to be a union problem.
13 If there was a union problem it would be a case of sitting down
14 with management and labor and working the problem out.
15 Q. Do you understand how coal is used in the steel making
16 process?
17 A. No, I don't.
18 Q. Do you understand how a coke battery works?
19 MR. MUSKOPF: I will object. What is the relevance?
20 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: Overruled.
21 THE WITNESS: No.
22 Q. (By Mr. Babst) Do you understand what is done in a blast
23 furnace?
24 A. Yes.
408
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 MR. MUSKOPF: The same objection.
2 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: Overruled.
3 Q. (By Mr. Babst) Have you ever been in the Granite City
4 plant?
5 A. No.
6 Q. I think that Illinois probably has as many steel mills
7 as any state in the country. Have you ever been in any
8 integrated steel plant where steel is made from coke, limestone
9 and iron ore?
10 A. No.
11 Q. So your opinion as to the practicality of disconnecting
12 back up alarms is done with absolutely no understanding of the
13 source; is that fair?
14 A. No, it is not fair, because we are talking about a
15 situation where we are dealing with coal piles, not the plant
16 where the steel is being produced. If I could just kind of --
17 since you asked the question on that, I have been through a
18 number of foundries and have been through the whole process as
19 far as molten steel and various types of steel being used to
20 manufacture both large and small parts.
21 Q. I have been through many foundries and steel plants and
22 I don't believe there is much of a comparison.
23 MR. MUSKOPF: I would object. If you want to swear
24 yourself in and ask yourself some questions, then I --
409
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: That is enough, Mr. Muskopf.
2 Is there a question there, Mr. Babst?
3 MR. BABST: No.
4 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: Do you have any further
5 questions?
6 MR. BABST: I do.
7 Q. (By Mr. Babst) In terms of this wall that you have
8 proposed, you propose that it be 22 feet high?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Which means that some of this coal has to be moved
11 elsewhere? I mean, assuming the piles are greater than 22 feet
12 high, that means some coal has to go someplace else; is that
13 fair?
14 A. It could go between the piles, because part of my
15 suggestion was leveling off the tops of the piles in order to
16 provide some shielding for the rail operation where the railcars
17 are creating noise with the coupling and uncoupling.
18 Q. You understand from the testimony yesterday that these
19 piles are constant and the coal is brought in and taken out and
20 fed into the coke batteries, and that these are not permanent
21 walls that would provide -- I don't believe would provide what
22 you had suggested in your testimony with Mr. Muskopf?
23 A. Yes, I realize that.
24 Q. But if -- let me ask you this. If there is no room to
410
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 move this excess coal as they lower the piles as you have
2 suggested in this area, have you taken into account how that
3 issue would be dealt with?
4 A. No.
5 MR. BABST: Could I have your exhibit back again, Mr.
6 Muskopf?
7 MR. MUSKOPF: Which exhibit?
8 MR. BABST: The map, the aerial. Thank you.
9 Q. (By Mr. Babst) I am referring to Complainant's Exhibit
10 Number 34. I believe you drew in blue a rough approximation of
11 where you would propose to put this sound wall?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. And what you are saying is that the coal piles would be
14 directly behind the sound wall?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And I don't know if you know this, but I am asking. Do
17 you know that this is the road that the coal trucks come in to
18 bring coal to the coal piles?
19 A. That is what I would call a haulage road. You mean
20 on --
21 Q. Yes, the trucks come in this way.
22 A. -- Granite City Steel's property?
23 Q. Yes.
24 A. Okay. Yes, I can see that that is what it is.
411
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 Q. Now, did you pick up from the testimony yesterday that
2 these trucks come in and they dump their loads on this side of
3 the coal pile?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Could you tell me or did you take into account how the
6 trucks would be able to continue to bring coal in and dump in
7 this area of the coal pile with this wall here?
8 A. Until you pointed this out, I was not aware of where the
9 haulage road was. So it would require somewhat of what I would
10 call a minor route change in order to bring the coal in. I would
11 suggest myself, as just a suggestion, would be to see the
12 feasibility of dumping on the back side as opposed to dumping on
13 the front side.
14 Q. If I told you that there were railroad tracks on the
15 back side that would prohibit that from happening, would that
16 change your suggestion?
17 A. It could change it. If the only way to do it is the
18 current configuration, then it would be necessary to move the
19 wall a little bit closer to -- in other words, it would be moving
20 the wall -- let's see. This would be north over here. So it
21 would be moving the wall a little bit to probably the southwest,
22 I guess.
23 Q. Toward the haul road?
24 A. Toward the haulage -- actually, I would suggest to move
412
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 the wall just to the north of the haulage road.
2 Q. So you now -- I will let you do it, so I don't mess this
3 up. Where would you put the wall now, assuming the --
4 A. This is based upon the fact that this is the only way
5 that it is feasible to do this.
6 Q. I understand.
7 A. Okay.
8 (The witness drawing on exhibit.)
9 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: Could you label that maybe HW
10 for hypothetical wall or any other way that you want to?
11 THE WITNESS: Okay, Mr. Hearing Officer, with HW.
12 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: Let the record reflect it is
13 marked HW.
14 Q. (By Mr. Babst) By moving that wall, assuming that it
15 maintains its 22 foot height, would the coal piles now have to
16 become lower, or would that not affect it by moving toward the
17 Edwardsville Road?
18 A. The piles would have to be lowered. The reason for the
19 lowering would be the equipment would be working on top of the --
20 that would be working at the top of the coal piles would have to
21 break the line of sight to the residential area. At the present
22 time, the coal piles, the 22 foot high wall would not be
23 sufficiently high enough to break that line of sight.
24 Q. You recommended, I believe, that a wooden barrier,
413
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 approximately one inch of outdoor grade plywood would be used for
2 this wall?
3 A. As a minimum, yes. There would be -- they could use
4 masonry. They could use steel. I usually initially recommend
5 the wood wall simply because it is the least expensive.
6 Q. I recognize that. How practical do you think a one-inch
7 plywood wall would be with the size of this equipment, both in
8 terms of working these piles, trucks coming in here, spray trucks
9 coming down here? Would you feel, as an expert, that a plywood
10 fence would be a good application in a coal field with that type
11 of equipment?
12 A. I have seen it used in a landfill using heavier
13 equipment than that effectively.
14 Q. Was the landfill road running right -- basically
15 abutting the wall that you are talking about?
16 A. Yes, within about three feet of the wall.
17 Q. What would happen if one of these trucks bumped that
18 wall, that one-inch thick plywood?
19 A. A carpenter would have some -- would have a job to do.
20 Q. You feel that even with the size of that equipment and
21 with the possibility of coal being -- or some piece of rock being
22 thrown up, that this is a practical way to approach a sound wall
23 in this type of plant?
24 A. Being offered as the least expensive solution, there are
414
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 a number of other ways to do it that I have been involved with in
2 the past. The base of the wall could start out as masonry for
3 the first six feet or, conversely, it could be a combination of
4 steel and masonry. Another alternative I have seen used would be
5 a guardrail that would run the length of the wall. There are a
6 number of --
7 Q. Of course, any piece of equipment with anything hanging
8 over, a guardrail, which would be a few feet high, would bump
9 that and would create the same problem, would it not?
10 A. Yes. But we would have a problem whether we made it
11 with steel or even if we had masonry, which is, say, a concrete
12 wall several inches thick, and if the equipment bumps that it is
13 going to severely damage the equipment then.
14 Q. Another factor to throw into your equation here, I think
15 the Glasgows and the Hoppes testified that there is a -- there is
16 a drainage ditch that runs along here. Would you have any
17 concern with water, storm water, that would be heading in this
18 direction sitting in this area with its affect on one-inch
19 plywood? Do you think plywood is a pretty good application in an
20 environment like that?
21 A. I would say that your outdoor plywood that has been --
22 that is either painted or some other coating put on there would
23 normally last -- have an outdoor lifetime of around ten years.
24 Masonry or steel would have a very, very long lifetime.
415
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 Q. Your opinion, then, is that a plywood fence, 22 feet
2 tall, along the side of this haul road in a steel plant, an
3 active coal pile area, would last about ten years?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Do you have any idea how far down that wall would have
6 to be sunk to withstand the type of wind pressure that I would
7 imagine would affect it?
8 A. Are you referring to the wall, or are you referring to
9 the supports?
10 Q. Well, I guess the supports for the wall?
11 A. That would depend upon soil type and it also would
12 depend upon the actual design of the wall itself. There is a
13 myriad of designs and, again, as far as the amount, how far down
14 it would be necessary to go under the soil, that would all depend
15 upon the nature of the soil itself.
16 Q. Would that be a cost factor, how far down you would have
17 to go?
18 A. That's a cost factor contained in my $100,000.00 to
19 $300,000.00 estimate, yes.
20 Q. You assumed it would go as deep as any set of footers
21 that you could imagine?
22 A. If it went very deep it would be maybe perhaps close to
23 a $300,000.00 wall. If they didn't have to go very deep at all,
24 it may be closer to the $100,000.00 end. The biggest expense
416
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 here is not the plywood. The biggest expense is the support to
2 hold the plywood up.
3 Q. I would imagine. In the Carey case, the 200 foot by 15
4 foot high wall, what type of process, what type of business was
5 the Carey company in?
6 A. Trucking. It was a truck wash and a truck parking area.
7 Q. And the -- was it LTV, the second example you gave?
8 A. Oh, I am sorry. LTD.
9 Q. LTD. I am sorry. I just didn't hear you.
10 A. D as in dog.
11 Q. Okay. That was about a 10 to 14 foot high, and about
12 500 feet long, and you said that was closer to $300,000.00?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. And you said the other one, the 200 feet by 15 feet was
15 ultimately done for $12,000.00?
16 A. Yes. That was documented. There is actually -- it was
17 not a case of somebody telling me that on the phone. It was a
18 case of actual documentation being submitted that had that price
19 on it.
20 Q. Did it raise any questions with you that in one case you
21 have a slightly higher fence, a little bit shorter, but that cost
22 $12,000.00, and then you have -- I am sorry -- a taller fence.
23 And then you have a shorter fence that runs a little bit longer
24 that goes up to $300,000.00. What is the variable there? I
417
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 mean, that --
2 A. Oh, there is a number of variables. I can explain them
3 to you. The Carey Company's fence is in Decatur, Illinois. It
4 is an industrial area. It is the type of area where when they
5 put that particular fence up they were not concerned about
6 aesthetics at all. It was just a case of whatever would do the
7 job, period. It is rough construction, is what it really is.
8 It was exactly the opposite thing with the situation with
9 LTD. LTD is located in one of the more exclusive areas in
10 Chicago. The homes in the area typically run from $500,000.00 to
11 a million dollars. LTD has spent millions of dollars on their
12 building to make it as aesthetically pleasing as possible and,
13 again, they wanted their barrier to reflect the same aesthetics
14 as the building. So we are looking at a lot of cost there to
15 make it look pretty.
16 Q. Okay. You said that you would anticipate a 15 dB(A)
17 reduction. Could you tell me what the basis of that calculation
18 was?
19 A. The basis of the calculation would go back to a lot of
20 the published barrier data that is out there right now. Places
21 like the Wall Journal has been very helpful to me in the last
22 several years to determine barrier height and effectiveness.
23 Also, there are some publications by the Illinois Department of
24 Transportation that can provide good estimates as far as how much
418
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 noise reduction they expect for various barrier heights,
2 depending upon where the residential receiver is and depending
3 upon where the noise source is actually emanating from.
4 Q. And did you take those variables into consideration in
5 coming up with your 15 dB(A) estimate or did you just pull that
6 out of the Wall Journal?
7 A. Oh, no. It actually comes from several sources. Those
8 two sources. Also, I checked with the Noise Control Handbook by
9 Harris, and there is also a publication put out -- it was in The
10 Journal of the Acoustical Society of America back about 1974 that
11 went into great detail on how effective a barrier would be for
12 various octave bands. I used that also.
13 Q. Did you have the octave bands in this particular case to
14 consider in analyzing that?
15 A. No.
16 Q. But you were able to, nevertheless, make that judgment
17 without that piece of information?
18 A. It was an approximation, because I didn't have the
19 octave bands.
20 Q. You work a lot with the Illinois Department of
21 Transportation. Are you aware of guidelines that they have with
22 respect to highway project noise analyses and the use of noise
23 walls?
24 A. Yes.
419
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 Q. I will show you this document and ask you if you have
2 ever seen it?
3 MR. MUSKOPF: I am going to object to the use of the
4 document. It has not been provided previously in discovery.
5 MR. BABST: Would you mark this, please, as Respondent's
6 Exhibit 35.
7 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: Okay. I am going to -- do you
8 have any argument? I am considering Mr. Muskopf's objection.
9 MR. BABST: I did not know until I heard Mr. Zak testify
10 that he worked with and he has used as a reference his work with
11 the Illinois Department of Transportation. It seems to me that
12 if he has raised that, I am entitled to ask him questions about
13 it.
14 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: Mr. Muskopf?
15 MR. MUSKOPF: I don't have any further argument.
16 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: Okay. I am going to sustain Mr.
17 Muskopf's objection.
18 Q. (By Mr. Babst) In your work as -- as an expert in your
19 work specifically with the Department of Transportation in
20 Illinois, are there any criteria that you apply when you
21 determine whether a sound barrier is appropriate?
22 A. Yes. I can give you an example. In the case of Melon
23 versus IDOT, a case before the Pollution Control Board, the case
24 did not go to hearing. It was settled. The initial plans
420
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 drafted by IDOT were submitted to me for comment. And basically
2 there we were looking at a noise barrier of 15 foot height
3 constructed of outdoor grade plywood, and the length was
4 somewhere between 300 to 500 feet long. The projected cost by
5 IDOT was in the neighborhood of between $100,000.00 and
6 $130,000.00.
7 Given the information on the type of equipment used by
8 IDOT, the nearness of the neighbor, I had a few concerns as far
9 as the barrier concern to the extent that I thought it would be
10 better to move the operation within their property to the far
11 side. They did a cost analysis on that and the cost was
12 considerably higher than the cost of the barrier, to move part of
13 the operation.
14 So going with the barrier, and then the complainant and the
15 complainant's attorney asked my for an opinion of the final
16 version of that, and I went over the final version, which is very
17 similar to the initial proposal, and I agreed that in all
18 likelihood that would solve the problem.
19 Q. Let me ask the question again, Mr. Zak. All I wanted --
20 all I asked you is in working on matters with the Illinois
21 Department of Transportation are there criteria that are applied
22 in determining whether a sound wall is an appropriate noise
23 abatement technique? And, please, I am not interested in
24 anecdotal tale. I want to know whether there are criteria that
421
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 are applied in those cases in your work with the IDOT?
2 A. Now, are you asking me if I applied criteria or do they
3 apply criteria?
4 Q. To your knowledge, do they apply criteria?
5 A. Yes, I am sure they do.
6 Q. Do you know what they are?
7 A. In general terms, yes.
8 Q. What are they?
9 A. I have a publication that is about 15 years old, so it
10 may not be totally up-to-date. In their publication they
11 basically look at cost. They look at materials. They look at,
12 obviously, the amount of sound reduction needed, and the
13 feasibility of the barrier in that location versus an alternate
14 way of attacking the noise problem.
15 Q. Do they have a minimum decibel reduction that they find
16 must be established before they would recommend that noise
17 abatement technique?
18 A. The ones that I have seen are usually in excess of 6
19 decibels.
20 Q. Do you feel that that is a fair standard to apply in
21 evaluating cases like this?
22 A. No.
23 Q. Do you have a standard that you apply?
24 A. Yes.
422
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 Q. What is it? And I am talking now about a decibel
2 standard?
3 A. Yes, a minimum of 10 decibels reduction.
4 Q. And so that I understand, when you say a minimum of ten
5 decibel reduction, are you talking about the overall impact of
6 noise on a source? And in this case we are talking about these
7 two homes.
8 A. Could you kind of clarify your --
9 Q. Yes. I am curious whether your 10 decibel reduction is
10 based upon the reduction of a measured source here or whether it
11 is a 10 decibel reduction in the total amount of decibel level of
12 sound that is affecting these two homes?
13 A. Now, the problem I am unclear about is what you mean by
14 total decibel impact on the homes.
15 Q. The dB(A) -- taking a dB(A) reading. Calculating a
16 dB(A) reading for all of the sources of noise that affect these
17 homes, are you looking for a 10 decibel reduction?
18 A. Now, again, you are not -- I am not clear on all sources
19 of noise. Are we talking about --
20 Q. I am talking about traffic and --
21 A. -- airplanes flying over or not?
22 Q. Sure. Everything. Airplanes, being taken into account.
23 A. The 10 decibel reduction would apply to the noise source
24 of interest. In this case it would be the coal piles at Granite
423
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 City Steel. That's where we want the 10 dB reduction.
2 Q. I think you said earlier, though, that it would be
3 relevant to you what the overall reduction would be at the home,
4 taking all sources of sound into consideration?
5 A. That would be -- that would be true, but not in all
6 cases. The more universal case would be to look at the noise
7 source of interest and apply the ten dB there.
8 Q. But you did say earlier that you would take into account
9 all sources in evaluating whether that was a reasonable abatement
10 technique?
11 A. Yes, I would.
12 Q. I am just curious, on the tailgate solution that you
13 proposed, the rubber material to allow the gates to close without
14 metal on metal --
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. -- is that available and you have used that in other
17 cases? Or is this something that you think could be done?
18 A. No, it has been used. That particular acoustic
19 application has been used. I can't go into detail where it has
20 been used.
21 Q. No, my question was is it available or is it something
22 that would have to be basically designed?
23 A. There really is not any significant amount of design
24 work there. But you are asking is there a kit out there where
424
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 you just buy the kit and --
2 Q. I just want to make sure that it does not affect the
3 effectiveness of the trucking operation, so if there are people
4 out there using these types of rubber tailgates or rubber-lined
5 tailgates?
6 A. It is a technique that is usable, but as far as being
7 able to give you specific examples of some company right now that
8 is using that, I can't.
9 Q. Okay. I believe you have suggested that there be
10 another barrier wall constructed to address this, for lack of a
11 better term, this metallic screeching noise?
12 A. Well, no. That, perhaps, is a little unclear. My idea
13 there was the wall where you have been talking about all this
14 time would also take care of the screeching noise.
15 Q. So there is no second wall?
16 A. Not for that, no. No second wall.
17 Q. You are suggesting, though, then, the construction of
18 enclosures in areas where shakers are used, whether it is with
19 trucks or with railcars?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. And your estimate there is about $100,000.00 for the
22 tractors and about $150,000.00 for railroad cars?
23 A. Yes. It would basically be a simple pole building.
24 Q. With some subsurface area constructed to drop material
425
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 into, as I understood it?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. And an auger system to move it out into, I guess, a
4 conveyor or some other means of removal?
5 A. That's correct.
6 Q. You took all of that into account in your price?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And your price is based upon your one experience in this
9 case ten years ago?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. As an expert in the Illinois Noise Act and its
12 regulations, do you apply that statute and those regulations to
13 indiscernible sound waves, basically sound waves that can't be
14 heard by the human ear?
15 A. That's what we have the nuisance standard for.
16 Q. Mr. Zak, if I showed you evidence or -- I am not going
17 to show you. But when Mr. Studholme testifies, if you hear
18 evidence that there are single event levels of 81 to 83 decibels
19 at the property lines that we are talking about, would you
20 consider these sources to be a potential threat to sleep?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Mr. Zak, in your testimony regarding your opinion
23 regarding depressing property values, you don't know whether the
24 property value in this case, these two homes, has been affected
426
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 at all, do you? You made no inquiry to determine whether they
2 are affected?
3 A. In general terms I would have an idea that noise sources
4 tend to lower property values, but in this specific case I don't
5 have any direct knowledge of "X" number of dollars of
6 depreciation --
7 Q. Right.
8 A. -- for the noise source.
9 Q. And as far as whether Granite City has taken any
10 significant steps to reduce noise, your testimony is based upon
11 your observations and your listening to the complainants testify;
12 is that right?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. You have not talked to anyone at Granite City Steel to
15 determine what, if anything, they may have done?
16 A. No.
17 MR. BABST: No more questions.
18 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: All right. Thank you. Mr.
19 Muskopf?
20 MR. MUSKOPF: Can we talk about taking a lunch
21 break?
22 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: I think we are going to take a
23 quick break after we are done with Mr. Zak.
24 MR. MUSKOPF: Okay.
427
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 REDIRECT EXAMINATION
2 BY MR. MUSKOPF:
3 Q. Mr. Zak, is there anything that came to mind that -- you
4 were -- Mr. Babst was insistent that you answer his question and
5 that he keep you on a short leash with your answers, and he said
6 that I would have the opportunity to clear things up with you
7 after he was through. So I was wanting to take that opportunity
8 at this point.
9 Is there anything that you were asked by Mr. Babst that you
10 didn't get to give a full answer to that you would like to
11 address at this time?
12 A. Well, without being able to read the transcript -- it
13 has become a long session -- I really can't think of anything at
14 this time.
15 Q. Okay. Are there -- is there anything that you would
16 like to add or clarify with regard to the testimony that you just
17 gave on cross-examination?
18 A. Yes, there is one area that I would like to kind of
19 clarify a little bit, and that is the whole question of dB(A).
20 The dB(A) equivalents that I provide are simply designed to allow
21 somebody that does not have an octave band meter to come up with
22 an idea of whether or not they are in compliance with the State
23 noise regulations.
24 As far as the statement about double counting, it is not --
428
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 in my opinion and in the opinion of the experts that I am
2 familiar with, I have never heard the term come up about double
3 counting on the dB(A). But the dB(A) numbers that I have given
4 out are the ones that are recognized and used by all of the
5 prominent authorities in the acoustics field. The method of
6 calculating out the dB(A) equivalent for the various octave band
7 rules is the same methodology used by all of the experts that I
8 am familiar with that both sit on the ANSI committees and that
9 have published a number of publications on that topic.
10 Q. So would you say that methodology is widely accepted in
11 the scientific community?
12 A. I would say it is virtually used by the whole world.
13 Q. Is it -- are there competing methodologies, or is that
14 basically the standard methodology?
15 A. This is the first time I have ever came across a
16 statement about double counting in my 29 years.
17 Q. Okay. Is there anything else you would like to clear up
18 or add to?
19 A. I am sure I will think of it after I am done, but for
20 right now, no, I can't think of anything.
21 MR. MUSKOPF: All right. Nothing further.
22 MR. BABST: Nothing further.
23 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: Okay. Mr. Babst, you might want
24 to mark any of your exhibits that you might want to offer.
429
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 MR. BABST: Okay.
2 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: Thank you, Mr. Zak.
3 THE WITNESS: Thank you.
4 (The witness left the stand.)
5 MR. BABST: Can we take a short recess?
6 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: Yes. Let's go ahead and go off
7 the record.
8 (Discussion off the record.)
9 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: It is 12:25. We will take about
10 a half hour break, and we will be back at five till 1:00.
11 (Whereupon a lunch recess was taken from to 12:25 p.m. to
12 1:00 p.m.)
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
430
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 A F T E R N O O N S E S S I O N
2 (July 11, 2001; 1:00 p.m.)
3 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: Okay. We are back on the
4 record. Welcome back from lunch. It is one 1:00.
5 Mr. Muskopf, do you have anything else for your
6 case-in-chief?
7 MR. MUSKOPF: I rest my case-in-chief.
8 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: Thank you. Mr. Babst, you had
9 indicated that you wished to make an opening argument.
10 MR. BABST: Yes. Thank you. The steel making operation of
11 the Granite City Steel Division of National Steel Corporation has
12 been in its current location for about 100 years. During that
13 long period of time the company has developed a number of
14 programs to reduce noise and fugitive dust emissions.
15 Specifically with respect to dust, we will explain the
16 evolution of the Granite City Division fugitive dust control
17 plan. We will show that last year Granite City Division received
18 an NOV from -- a Notice of Violation from the Illinois EPA
19 specifically dealing with the fugitive coal dust emissions based
20 upon the complaints of the complainants. During the discovery
21 stage of this matter the Granite City Division met with the
22 IEPA's fugitive dust specialist, and as a result of those
23 discussions, the Granite City Division agreed to modify its
24 fugitive dust control plan to further enhance the control
431
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 practices on and around the coal piles.
2 The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency reviewed this
3 situation carefully and agreed that the proposed changes resolved
4 the issue raised in the Notice of Violation.
5 From a noise perspective, we will agree that the
6 complainants live in a noisy environment. Like complainants, we
7 conducted an investigation of the area in which they live. What
8 we did differently is we evaluated all noise sources consistent
9 with the methodology that is utilized for land use purposes by
10 the EPA, the FAA, and the Department of Transportation. Based
11 upon this more thorough analysis we will show that the dominant
12 noise source in the area of the complainants' homes is the heavy
13 traffic on Edwardsville Road and not the coal pile activities.
14 We will show that even the complete elimination of the coal
15 piles would have less than a two decibel impact on complainants'
16 property. We will show that single event levels of noise from
17 passing trucks and cars exceed the single event levels from coal
18 pile activities and that the likelihood of having sleep
19 interrupted remains unchanged.
20 We will show that the Granite City Division provides
21 enormous economic and social value to this area. We will also
22 show that the domestic steel industry is fighting for its very
23 existence because of foreign steel dumping. We will show how 17
24 steel companies are in bankruptcy at this time, and that many of
432
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 those companies have plants in Illinois. And we will show that
2 National Steel has lost approximately 260 million dollars over
3 the last two and a half years, and that is taking -- and that
4 they are taking an extreme -- they are taking extreme steps
5 towards cost-cutting measures in an attempt to survive. Thank
6 you.
7 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: Thank you, Mr. Babst.
8 MR. BABST: I would like to call as my first witness Mr.
9 Ned Studholme.
10 (Whereupon the witness was sworn by the Notary Public.)
11 N E D S T U D H O L M E,
12 having been first duly sworn by the Notary Public, saith as
13 follows:
14 DIRECT EXAMINATION
15 BY MR. BABST:
16 Q. Mr. Studholme, would you please give your full name for
17 the record.
18 A. Ned Studholme.
19 Q. And your current address?
20 A. It is P.O. Box 59, Batesville, Virginia, 22924.
21 Q. Are you employed, sir?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. By whom?
24 A. Science Applications International Corporation.
433
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 Q. And where is that located, or where is your office
2 located?
3 A. Charlottesville, Virginia.
4 Q. What is the size and type of business that SAIC is
5 involved in?
6 A. SAIC is a very large science and technology firm,
7 employee owned, with approximately five billion dollars in
8 revenues and 45,000 employees.
9 Q. How long have you been with this company?
10 A. Seven years.
11 Q. Can you briefly explain what your job responsibilities
12 are at the current time?
13 A. Yes, my title is Program Manager for Environmental
14 Planning, so I am responsible for a wide range of analyses and
15 evaluations that have to do with the affect of different actions
16 on the environment and for designing and evaluating solutions to
17 environmental problems.
18 Q. Would you explain to us your educational background,
19 please?
20 A. Yes. I have a Bachelor's Degree from George Washington
21 University in 1967, and a Master's Degree in urban and regional
22 planning in 1972 from George Washington University.
23 (Whereupon a document was duly marked for purposes of
24 identification as Respondent Exhibit 26 as of this
434
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 date.)
2 Q. (By Mr. Babst) Mr. Studholme, I am going to provide you
3 with what has been marked as Respondent's Exhibit Number 26, and
4 ask if you would identify that document?
5 A. Yes, this is my resume.
6 Q. Mr. Studholme, I would like to just briefly take you
7 through this and ask you if you could explain what you did when
8 you were employed by the United States Environmental Protection
9 Agency?
10 A. I was a consultant to the Environmental Protection
11 Agency, retained shortly after the Noise Control Act of 1972 was
12 enacted. I was primarily responsible for evaluating regulatory
13 approaches dealing with land use compatibility with noise.
14 Q. And would you go on and explain to us what you did when
15 you -- in your position as a research assistant at George
16 Washington University?
17 A. At George Washington University I was a research
18 scientist and I developed a document titled, the Role of State
19 Governments in the Regulation of Civil Air Carrier Airports and
20 Land Use for Noise Abatement Purposes.
21 Q. Moving on to your position as a Senior Planner between
22 1980 and 1987 with the EDAW Company, could you briefly tell us
23 about any noise related work that you did while with this
24 employer?
435
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 A. That employer did a very large volume of what is known
2 as NEPA compliance work. That is compliance with Section 1022(c)
3 of the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969. My primary
4 responsibilities there with respect to NEPA were to evaluate
5 noise and air quality affects from proposed development projects
6 or large governmental programs.
7 Q. In between 1987 and 1992 you worked with another
8 research corporation. Would you explain what you did as a
9 Program Director for that company?
10 A. That was much more of a technical position. While I was
11 there I developed the Area Equivalent Method Noise Model for the
12 FAA and continued to do NEPA compliance work. One of the
13 documents I developed was the Environmental Impact Statement for
14 the Deregulation of the Airline Industry.
15 Q. And finally I would ask in your position with Science
16 Applications International Corporation, if you could tell us a
17 little bit about in particular serving on the Interagency
18 Environmental Technology Office Program as a Special Advisor?
19 A. That was a program developed by -- then by President Al
20 Gore, and as a consultant -- as an SAIC consultant I was detailed
21 to the Interagency Environmental Technology Organization for one
22 year to develop better processes for the commercialization of
23 environmental technology in the private sector. There were other
24 people in the same organization who were trying to do the same
436
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 thing in the government. My job was to basically interview the
2 private sector concerns that had notable success or failure in
3 the development and commercialization of environmental technology
4 and to come up with reasons for success and failure and apply
5 those to the federal programs.
6 MR. BABST: I would like to offer Mr. Studholme as an
7 expert in evaluating noise measurements and the effectiveness of
8 available noise abatement technology.
9 MR. MUSKOPF: I think our stipulation covers that.
10 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: Yes, the stipulation does cover
11 that. Thank you, Mr. Babst.
12 Q. (By Mr. Babst) Mr. Studholme, have you done any
13 enforcement related work in the area of noise abatement?
14 A. No, I typically don't do enforcement work.
15 Q. What is the nature of your work and how does it differ
16 from enforcement related work?
17 A. As a planner I tend to develop noise management plans or
18 in some cases specific noise abatement procedures for individual
19 projects. More commonly, though, a large noise management plan
20 for a major installation.
21 Q. How does your work experience differ from the work
22 experience of Mr. Zak?
23 A. My understanding of Mr. Zak's experience is that he is
24 much more focused on a project by project analysis, almost an
437
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 engineering type evaluation application of standards and
2 developing solutions. Mine is much more oriented, in my opinion,
3 to developing solutions that reflect comprehensive -- address
4 comprehensively the problem of noise at a given location.
5 Q. Are you familiar with methods used to evaluate noise in
6 land use issues?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. Have you been asked here or to appear here today to
9 contradict Mr. Zak's testimony?
10 A. No.
11 Q. Is SAIC being paid by National Steel for your work?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Are you a salaried employee of this company?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. What hourly rate is SAIC charging for your services
16 today?
17 A. $195.00 per hour.
18 Q. In order to do compatible land use planning, you
19 obviously need some type of approach or methodology. Is there
20 any accepted methodology for making land use compatibility
21 determinations?
22 A. One of the biggest efforts that has gone on in the
23 Federal government in the noise arena has been to try -- or in
24 the early days after the Noise Control Act there were a number of
438
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 methodologies, metrics and models, and it became very difficult
2 to compare apples with oranges then. So there once was -- there
3 was formed the Interagency Committee on Noise, and they initiated
4 the process of gaining consensus. There is as of 1980 and more
5 recently updated in 1992 now a consensus among the important
6 federal agencies about exactly what metrics should be used to
7 determine land use compatibility and what models, how they should
8 be applied.
9 Q. Would you explain the methodology you have used in the
10 present case, beginning with an explanation of sound pressure and
11 frequency?
12 A. Yes. To go back to the basics very quickly, the two
13 most basic components are the sound pressure level, which is
14 measured in decibels, and the frequency of the sound, which is
15 measured in cycles per second or hertz. I think the Illinois
16 regulation has been in evidence. The Illinois regulation is a
17 good example of the combination of sound pressure level and
18 frequency to determine the affect on the human being. So you
19 have the decibel, which is sound pressure, and the pitch is the
20 cycles per second.
21 Basically what the federal agencies have agreed to is that
22 the weighting network to be used in meters that measure sound
23 level is to be the A Scale, which was discussed earlier today,
24 and that would be applied very closely to the same set of octave
439
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 bands that we have seen today, and it is the result of the sound
2 level meter using the A Scale to measure sound. It is mimicking
3 the human response to loudness.
4 So instead of just measuring sound pressure level with
5 almost no deference to the human response to the different
6 pitches, the A Scale has been determined to be very close to the
7 human response with respect to loudness for sound pressure level.
8 Therefore, they specified that the dB(A) metric be used for a
9 single event, such as an aircraft flying over or a truck driving
10 by that has a definite time history. It would be measuring dB(A)
11 on a meter. And the time history would be in seconds. So this
12 event would take a number of seconds.
13 They have specified that the sound exposure level is the
14 metric that would be used to take into consideration the duration
15 of a single event. Where when you are measuring dB(A) you really
16 only get an instantaneous reading that varies. The needle or the
17 digital readout is moving the whole time. The sound exposure
18 level is basically one number that takes into consideration all
19 of the noise that occurred during the event and its amplitude
20 adjusted for human sensitivity.
21 Then the sound exposure level, or SEL, for cumulative
22 long-term measurement, which is what they use exclusively for
23 determinations of language compatibility, is basically averaged
24 over one or two time periods. The most common time period that
440
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 they have all agreed to is the day and the night periods. There
2 are two periods. So the night period takes all of the sound
3 exposure levels, SELs, that occur during the night period. That
4 is defined and agreed to as 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m., and
5 increases those by ten decibels. There is a ten decibel penalty
6 applied to the night events to reflect that people are trying to
7 sleep and that more people are at home. And then during the day
8 no penalty is added. It is just whatever you measure, as long as
9 they are converted to sound exposure levels.
10 They add all the sound exposure levels up and
11 logarithmically average them over the time period and this
12 becomes the day-night average sound level, which is abbreviated
13 DNL, and the scientific notation for that is capital L, subscript
14 small D-M, LDM. They are interchangeable in conversation.
15 Q. What federal agencies use this methodology for
16 determining land use compatibility determinations?
17 A. The Environmental Protection Agency, the Department of
18 Defense, the Department of Transportation, the Veterans
19 Administration, Housing and Urban Development, also the CEQ
20 participated in the deliberations and supported the metric as
21 well.
22 Q. And how are multiple sounds considered in this
23 evaluation?
24 A. They are summed logarithmically over a given time
441
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 period, and then they are averaged over the time period, so that
2 you get one measure. For example, a DNL is the time averaged
3 A-Weighted sound level that has the same sound energy in it as
4 all of the time varying levels that occurred over a 24 hour
5 period considering a 10 dB penalty at night. That's the official
6 lay description of it.
7 Q. How do you calculate an average weighted sound level for
8 a period of time?
9 A. In simple terms, if I had ten sound exposure level
10 values that had been reported, or even a model would do this if
11 it was using a database, each of the SEL values would be
12 converted into an energy level and summed, and then the energy
13 would be converted back to a total by taking ten times the
14 logarithm base ten of that and multiplying by ten, and then you
15 would subtract ten times the logarithm of the number of seconds
16 in the period.
17 Another way of explaining it that is a little simpler is
18 when you obtain the sum of the energies you can also divide that
19 by the number of seconds. The reference is one second for the
20 SEL into that, and then just take ten times the logarithm base
21 ten of that times ten. And that basically is the time integrated
22 average A-Weighted sound level for the time period under
23 consideration.
24 Q. By using an average method aren't you kind of working
442
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 out or avoiding the peaks and valleys?
2 A. Yes. There initially was a lot of concern that this
3 averaging -- and I still do hear some of it from citizens groups
4 and people who may not fully understand the metric -- that the
5 averaging covers up somehow the fact that there are these big
6 annoying events. But, in fact, it actually -- taken in context
7 with the criteria that are applied to it, it actually does a very
8 good job of accounting for these events. An example I could give
9 is if we had a sound source in here for an hour, let's say for 30
10 minutes of an hour it was at 90 decibels, a very high level, 90
11 dB(A), and for the rest of time it was 50. The time integrated
12 average sound level, the DNL for that time period would be 87.
13 Q. Did you develop a sound model for the area in which the
14 Hoppes and the Glasgows live?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And how did you construct that model?
17 A. Basically like I normally do. I do it on Excel
18 spreadsheets so that it is very transparent and anyone can review
19 them and see exactly if the mathematics are correct or not. I
20 don't think the details of the model are very important at this
21 point. The idea was to identify all of the sources that impinged
22 on the properties at various different times of day and to try to
23 derive an estimate based on the noise levels that I measured and
24 based on the noise levels that the complainants have offered in
443
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 evidence of what the DNL values for those properties are today.
2 The reason for doing it in a model is because once it is in
3 the model you can take individual -- it is a disaggregated model.
4 In other words, each piece is in there separately. You can lower
5 or raise any piece of it, or you can take a whole one out, or you
6 can put a wall in and say it is a 15 dB reduction, and then
7 judge, based on that, what the remaining residual noise level
8 would be on the property considering all the noise in a
9 comprehensive way.
10 Q. And when did you take physical measurements yourself?
11 A. I went to the property on June the 19th and June the
12 20th.
13 Q. What time of day on those two days?
14 A. On the 19th I measured in the evening hours from
15 approximately 6:00 at night up until after 10:00 p.m. at night,
16 and then on the following day I measured from 7:00 in the morning
17 until 1:00. There were some -- on the second day there were some
18 excursions when I left the property and went and measured
19 individual sources on the mill property, but that was the time
20 period during which I took measurements.
21 Q. What type of instrumentation did you use?
22 A. I used a Quest Model 300 Precision Dosimeter and
23 something very similar to what -- a second instrument, just --
24 the dosimeter is something you program and setup. And then I had
444
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 a second instrument that was very similar to the equipment that
2 the complainants used, and I just used that to try to identify
3 locations from which to take measurements. I did not use the
4 simpler one for recording.
5 Q. And how did your measurements compare with the Radio
6 Shack device used by the complainants?
7 A. There was a very good correspondence. I believe that
8 their measurements are accurate.
9 (Whereupon documents were duly marked for purposes of
10 identification as Respondent Exhibits 27 and 28 as of this
11 date.)
12 Q. (By Mr. Babst) And do you recall -- I am going to show
13 you what has been marked as Respondent's Exhibits 27 and 28. I
14 would ask you if you could tell me what sources did you attempt
15 to measure?
16 A. Yes. I broke it down into evening traffic, something I
17 called a.m. traffic or morning traffic. Then the plant events, I
18 broke -- I distinguish between the steel plant noise, that would
19 actually be from the area of the main plant, as opposed to the
20 piles, and from the piles themselves. So I have maximum noise
21 readings from the plant, and maximum noise readings from the
22 piles. And then I got minimum noise levels from the plant and
23 from the piles, but by minimum I don't mean ambient. By minimum,
24 in my methodology, is the lower end of an event.
445
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 So to make it perfectly clear, if the plant was venting,
2 and it went up to 71 decibels, that would be the maximum. And
3 then during that event, it would tail off to say 65 or so before
4 the pressure was exhausted. So the minimum would be 65. Then I
5 did a plant ambient, which I obtained when there was no traffic
6 both during the day and at night, which meant the noise that the
7 plant made when there was no venting, and it did include warning
8 alarms. So if there was nothing unusual going on and the plant
9 was operating as normal that would be a plant ambient level.
10 Then I have -- I did not measure what I would call night traffic,
11 but I did derive a level for night traffic.
12 Q. How did you derive that level?
13 A. I looked at the traffic flow data that was provided to
14 me for the area and made standard adjustments for day and night
15 flows on urban arterial roads and adjusted the night numbers
16 down, obviously, for the fact that there would be less traffic at
17 night.
18 (Whereupon said documents were duly marked for purposes of
19 identification as Respondent Exhibits 29, 30 and 31 as of
20 this date.)
21 Q. (By Mr. Babst) I am going to show you what the
22 Respondent has marked as Exhibits 29, 30, and 31, and ask if you
23 can identify these exhibits?
24 A. Yes, these are the traffic flow data in map form that I
446
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 used to evaluate the nonmeasured traffic in my analysis.
2 Q. And basically, Mr. Studholme, what are these maps? What
3 do they represent?
4 A. These are official 1996 Average Daily Heavy Commercial
5 and other -- each one pertains to a particular type of traffic.
6 For example, the one I am looking at now pertains to Average
7 Daily Heavy Commercial Traffic. That would be the large semis
8 and heavy trucks on the map for specific road segments. The U.S.
9 Department of Transportation publishes average annual daily
10 traffic volumes, the number of vehicles passing that given point.
11 Q. Now, in constructing your model did you have to assign a
12 specific period of time during the day that certain levels would
13 be in existence?
14 A. Yes. I wanted to be in conformance with the federal
15 agency's approach, so I divided it between the day and the night
16 period, the day period being from 7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m., and
17 the night period being from 10:00 p.m. to 7:00 a.m.
18 Q. In the night period what did you do with respect to the
19 readings that you --
20 A. All events occurring at night were assigned a ten
21 decibel penalty.
22 Q. Did you review the complainants' tapes?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Are videos an acceptable means by which to evaluate
447
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 sound levels?
2 A. For reading the meter levels they are. That's one of
3 the ways I could determine that my measurements were consistent
4 with their measurements. The only caution I would have about
5 reviewing them on tape is that you need -- I actually set up a
6 sound level meter next to myself so that I could adjust the
7 volume so that I could get a closer idea what the site was
8 actually like when it was being measured. In other words, if the
9 meter was reading 65 on the set, I would adjust the volume so
10 that my meter was reading 65 so that the sound that was reaching
11 my ear corresponded to what was on that meter.
12 Q. Now, could you tell us very briefly what sources of
13 sounds you measured and what sources of sound you took data from
14 the complainants' tapes?
15 A. Okay. I will refer to the exhibits. First is Exhibit
16 Number 27. That reflects site one and site two. Site one is 20
17 feet from Edwardsville Road on Alexander.
18 Q. Just so that we all know, how does that -- where is that
19 relationally to the complainants' home?
20 A. Between the two complainant's homes.
21 Q. Okay.
22 A. On Alexander Avenue.
23 Q. Okay.
24 A. So without getting into the metrics, I measured traffic
448
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 during the afternoon from 20:25 to 21:45 hours over a one hour
2 period. And at that time I allowed the Dosimeter to just
3 accumulate all of the noise that arrived at that point and to
4 calculate an LEQ, which is exactly the same thing as a DNL or an
5 LDM, but it is not weighted. So I got an hourly average for the
6 traffic at that time.
7 Then I repeated the process on the following morning from
8 7:10 to 7:40. That's a shorter time period. That would be for
9 30 minutes. The reason that I did that is because the traffic --
10 once the traffic picks up to a point where there are large
11 platoons of cars moving by together the sound exposure level is
12 not as accurate. So at that time period it was valid. I was
13 there to observe the measurements during the full time.
14 Then I obtained also sound exposure levels. If you recall,
15 that is the single event metric, for autos in the near and far
16 lane, and trucks in the near and far lane. I also obtained a
17 plant noise reading with the traffic excluded at the same
18 location.
19 The vehicle flow for the 20:45 to 21:45 was approximately
20 210 vehicles per hour. And on the following morning the vehicle
21 flow was approximately 940 vehicles per hour.
22 Then I turned my attention to the bulldozers working the
23 coal pile. I obtained dB(A) readings. The reason that I didn't
24 use sound exposure level for those is because they are not an
449
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 event that has a short time history. They are on and they are in
2 one position going up and down the coal piles. So I measured two
3 sources. I measured them operating with the warning alarms and I
4 measured them operating with the warning alarms off with just
5 mechanical noise and engine noise from that location.
6 Then I did some specific measurements of full and empty
7 trucks going by from the same location, full and empty. In
8 addition, I obtained measurements of trucks striking an
9 regularity in the road surface on Edwardsville Road and measured
10 the affect of the trucks hitting the hump acoustically in the air
11 at that time.
12 Q. Okay.
13 A. I also measured the coal shaker from that location as it
14 was shaking coal in the yard approximately 800 or 1,000 feet
15 away. I obtained measurements at the coal shaker on the same
16 day, at the same -- 50 feet from the shaker.
17 The site two was 20 feet north of the alley on the
18 Alexander sidewalk behind the -- I can't keep the complainants'
19 names -- sorry.
20 Q. The Glasgows or the Hoppes?
21 A. Behind the Hoppes' residence.
22 Q. Okay.
23 A. That gave me very clear unobstructed shot of the plant
24 without their house screening the plant noise from site number
450
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 one. I obtained some readings of the plant there. Again, these
2 are ambient readings because at that time there were no
3 aberrations or upsets at the plant that would cause a single
4 event. While I was doing that I did observe five overflights
5 from aircraft at the same time. I managed to get a few of those.
6 Q. Okay. Now, what data from the complainants' tapes did
7 you use? And if you could, explain how you used this data?
8 A. Okay. I took notes based on observing the tape and
9 listening to the sounds about the likely source that was present
10 when the sound levels were taken. And I used their data verbatim
11 as it was.
12 So, for example, I have a time down here from their tapes.
13 The tape did have an hourly indication on it. On 09-10-2000 at
14 13:22 hours there was an event that was -- that had a high of 66
15 and a low of 60. And that appeared, to me, to be -- that was a
16 vibration. So I made a note about that.
17 Then on 09-11-2000 at 1:06 in the morning there was a
18 venting event. This was very useful for me because I was unable
19 to get any -- there were no upsets when I was taking
20 measurements. They actually did capture a venting event,
21 actually a couple of venting events and, you know, that ranged
22 from a high of 72 to a low of 64.
23 So I used all these numbers of different sources that I
24 have, for example, not only events. They had plant alarms. They
451
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 had the plant operating without the alarms. We had several back
2 up -- at the coal pile, then there were some pretty good data on
3 warning alarms for dozers and loaders backing up, there were
4 tailgate slams. There were dozers operating without the warning
5 signals. Let's see. The slamming tailgate. And, oh, yeah, we
6 had a truck in front of the piles going by the service road on
7 the property, and then one truck shaker, an hydraulic device used
8 to shake coal out of the truck.
9 Q. Did you include all sources in your model?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. All sound sources?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Is this model that you created consistent with the
14 modeling that you have done in other applications?
15 A. Yes, exactly the same.
16 Q. Is it generally accepted methodology in evaluating land
17 use compatibility?
18 A. Yes. It is not only accepted, it is preferred.
19 Q. With the model can you determine the impact of reducing
20 or eliminating an individual source?
21 A. Yes. The purpose of building a model like this is so
22 that you can then make variations, hypothetical variations in
23 sound sources or abatement strategies, and determine how
24 effective it would be in reducing the total noise on the property
452
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 in question.
2 Q. And how does this work?
3 A. Basically, there is a number of -- I can do this by
4 example a little bit easier. For example, since I broke these
5 out into different sources, I would have a category in the model
6 which was called -- a good example would be the coal piles. I
7 have a column for the piles, and there is day and a night
8 category for those. I used the maximum and minimum noise levels
9 that were -- that I measured and that they measured to come up
10 with an average level that was occurring during the time that
11 they were operating. Then I considered the percent of the time
12 in question, say, during the day, what percent of the time in
13 question is this activity that has this sound level associated
14 with it, based on measurements, going on. And this is based on
15 data provided to me by the plant personnel who know the lengths
16 of the shifts. And I would also offer that it is fairly -- the
17 estimates are on the high side for duration almost in every case.
18 There is no attempt to actually say that they are shorter than
19 they are.
20 Q. Have you run any type of sensitivity analysis to
21 determine how these numbers would change if either the sound
22 level or the duration of these events changed?
23 A. Yes. I knew that there were a lot of different factors
24 that would affect the output of the model. So I went in and I
453
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 did a sensitivity analysis that involved increasing every input
2 noise level by five decibels. And in the event where this is an
3 operation, such as a dozer operating, that's equivalent to
4 tripling the time period in which they were operating. So if my
5 assumption was that they were operating eight hours a day and I
6 added five decibels, it would be the same thing as assuming that
7 the measurement is right and that they were operating for 24
8 hours. Or on the other hand, that they only operate for eight
9 hours but that the measurement data was five decibels low. I did
10 that for every one of the sources. I also added to the
11 sensitivity analysis the coal shaker.
12 Q. Based upon your model, what was the dB(A) impact on the
13 complainant's homes?
14 A. It is -- this is actually -- the metric would be -- this
15 is an LDM value.
16 Q. Okay.
17 A. The LDM value for the complainants' property by the
18 model is 72.8 LDM -- or DNL, 72.8.
19 Q. And did you run an analysis showing what would happen if
20 the coal piles were both impacted in terms of reduction and up to
21 the point of being totally eliminated?
22 A. Yes, that would reduce the noise level to about 71.4 dB
23 or about a decibel and a half, in that range.
24 Q. And that 71.4, is that with the coal piles completely
454
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 eliminated?
2 A. That's with the equivalent of a 15 decibel reduction in
3 all sound coming from the coal piles, which is equivalent to it
4 be eliminated acoustically.
5 Q. Now, based upon this model what would happen if a sound
6 barrier was constructed in the position suggested by Mr. Zak,
7 with respect to the impact on the complainants' homes?
8 A. If Mr. Zak's assumption that it would, in fact, provide
9 a 15 dB reduction in the emissions from the coal pile, it would
10 be a one and a half dB benefit using the DNL method.
11 Q. Would a one and a half decibel difference be discernible
12 to the human ear?
13 A. In a laboratory setting with ear phones a young person
14 can detect one decibel. That is the basis for a decibel. But
15 outdoors or in the environment, it would have to be more than two
16 decibels. The most common change that people say is noticeable
17 is five decibels.
18 Q. Based on your study, what sound source dominants the
19 environment where the complainants' live?
20 A. Traffic noise.
21 Q. Based upon your own observation, what is the cause of
22 the louder traffic noises in the area of the complainants' homes?
23 A. On a single event basis, trucks. And in particular at
24 the extremes it would be the trucks hitting irregularities on the
455
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 surface of Edwardsville Road.
2 Q. From a land use compatibility perspective would the
3 noise environment in the area of complainants' homes change using
4 generally accepted land use criteria if the coal piles were
5 eliminated?
6 A. No, it would still fall under the same category.
7 Q. Based upon your own observations, did you experience any
8 vibrations while you were conducting your work near the
9 complainants' homes?
10 A. Particularly with respect to measurements of full and
11 empty trucks over the irregularity in the road surface. It was a
12 very noticeable vibration when the trucks went over that section
13 of roadway.
14 Q. Did you observe any vibrations caused other than by the
15 traffic going by the homes while you were there?
16 A. No.
17 Q. I would like to now turn toward the problem of sound
18 waking up an individual during the night. How does the federal
19 government use sound exposure levels to determine threats to
20 sleep?
21 A. Most commonly they use the sound exposure level metric,
22 the SEL metric that I discussed earlier. And there is an
23 established relationship between sound exposure level and the
24 percent of the population that is awakened by that level.
456
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 Q. And is that in a federally published guidance document?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Just so that people know where you came up with this.
4 A. Yes. It is actually in the Federal Agency Review of
5 Selected Airport Noise Analysis Issues, which includes many more
6 issues other than those at airports. It is by the Federal
7 Interagency Committee on Noise, dated August of 1992.
8 Q. Did you calculate SEL values in the area of the
9 complainants' homes?
10 A. Yes, for motor vehicles.
11 Q. Let me ask you this, because I think we talked a little
12 bit about this with Mr. Zak. Approximately what impact would a
13 framed home have in reducing these values?
14 A. With the windows open, it would be 15 decibels. That is
15 a common reduction. With windows closed, more like 25.
16 Q. And can you rank the noise sources in terms of their
17 potential impact on sleep based upon the reference to the federal
18 guidelines?
19 A. Yes. At that location the truck noise -- trucks
20 intermittently contribute the highest noise levels and the levels
21 that are most likely, given their SEL values, to interrupt sleep.
22 That is followed by the warning alarms on -- that are used on the
23 coal piles, and slightly below that would be the irregular
24 occasional upset event at the plant where there is venting or a
457
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 steam pipe ignition or something of that nature would come in
2 third there. And then below that it is pretty much a toss up.
3 Q. Now, using the federal guidelines what percentage of the
4 population would be awakened from measured traffic noises near
5 the complainants' homes?
6 A. If I -- I need to have a little dialogue on this because
7 I need to know, are we talking about closed windows or open
8 windows?
9 Q. I believe that the complainants' said that they don't
10 open their windows?
11 A. So it would be a 25 dB reduction.
12 Q. Okay.
13 A. So if we take let's say a truck at 80, which is -- there
14 are several values measured. That means that we are looking for
15 a 65 interior level, and that would be approximately 16 percent
16 of the population.
17 Q. What percentage would be disturbed from the warning
18 alarms on the vehicles from the Granite City coal piles?
19 A. Those are -- the higher levels of the warning alarms are
20 about five dB below that so we would come down to an even 60 dB,
21 so that would be more like 12 percent with a 25 dB reduction.
22 Q. Although there are no SEL measurements for the mobile
23 equipment at the coal piles, would these sounds be likely to
24 cause a greater or a lesser percentage of the population to be
458
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 disturbed than the warning alarms?
2 A. Less.
3 Q. Turning now to the sound wall proposed by Mr. Zak, Mr.
4 Zak has opined that this wall is technically practicable to
5 reduce or eliminate sound from the coal piles. Do you agree with
6 this?
7 A. Technically practical?
8 Q. Uh-huh.
9 A. I would agree that it is technically practical to reduce
10 it.
11 Q. Is it a -- let me ask you, with a sound wall is it a
12 good means for addressing low frequency sounds?
13 A. No. As he has testified, low frequency sound, again,
14 defining it as 20 hertz or below, easily penetrates most sound
15 barriers.
16 Q. Will a sound wall built along a busy road reflect any
17 sound? Will it reflect sound?
18 A. Yes. In this particular case my concern would be that
19 the back side of the sound wall would reflect traffic noise on
20 the complainants' properties and increase the traffic noise
21 levels.
22 Q. Based upon your analysis of noise levels near the
23 complainants' homes, in your opinion, would a sound barrier be an
24 effective means of reducing the dB(A) values at their property?
459
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 A. No, no. A decibel and a half is not enough. It is not
2 something that a normal person could detect.
3 Q. Would it be an effective means of eliminating noise
4 levels that could impact sleep?
5 A. If Mr. Zak's assumption about the 15 decibel reduction
6 is correct and noise events occur during sleeping time periods,
7 it could reduce the impact from the warning signals on the coal
8 piles.
9 MR. BABST: Okay. I have no other questions.
10 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: Thank you, Mr. Babst. Mr.
11 Muskopf?
12 MR. MUSKOPF: Thank you.
13 CROSS EXAMINATION
14 BY MR. MUSKOPF:
15 Q. How are you, Mr. Studholme?
16 A. Fine. Thank you.
17 Q. Good. I guess I -- Mr. Babst asked you whether you are
18 here to contradict Mr. Zak's testimony. I thought your answer at
19 that time was no?
20 A. (Nodded head up and down.)
21 Q. Was that right?
22 A. That's correct.
23 Q. Okay. But did you just say some things recently that
24 were contrary to what Mr. Zak said? For instance, you disagree
460
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 that the barrier he proposed would be effective in reducing the
2 impact of the noise from the coal piles?
3 A. Yes, I did.
4 Q. Okay. What else do you disagree with him about in
5 broad, general, understandable terms?
6 A. Actually, the only -- the basic disagreement all stems
7 from whether you consider only one source of noise, you know,
8 targeting a particular source of noise in determining whether
9 something is feasible or not, or you look at everything
10 holistically and try to determine what the actual change in noise
11 environment will be if you take an action. That's the
12 difference.
13 Q. Do you know what the Illinois regulations look to as far
14 as that goes? Do they focus on one specific noise source, or do
15 they take the entire universe of the noise sources into account
16 in a nuisance case?
17 A. I think that they are written to take a single source
18 into consideration. But that would be based on my knowledge of
19 901, Section 901, where they have the individual levels. It is
20 pretty obvious that they are technically the best. That is what
21 they are intended for. I am not convinced that that is what it
22 is under 900.
23 Q. Okay.
24 A. I can be wrong. I am not an expert on those
461
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 regulations.
2 Q. All right. Have you worked on any cases previously in
3 which you have taken a look at those two regulations, 900 and
4 901?
5 A. No, I have not.
6 Q. Okay. So this is your first exposure to those
7 regulations?
8 A. That's correct.
9 Q. In any context?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Do you know anything about the history behind the
12 promulgation of those regulations?
13 A. No.
14 Q. Did you have any participation in promulgating those
15 regulations?
16 A. No.
17 Q. Have you ever seen how the Pollution Control Board
18 applies those regulations?
19 A. No.
20 Q. Are you aware of any case in which the Pollution Control
21 Board has applied those regulations? I guess that is kind of the
22 same --
23 A. No.
24 Q. -- question I just asked you.
462
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 A. No.
2 Q. What experience do you have in measuring stationary
3 noise as opposed to transportation noise like from planes, buses,
4 cars, trucks and trains?
5 A. A great deal of it on military installations. For
6 example, I have an active project now where there is original
7 equipment training operation, training school, and a major
8 defense installation which is on the edge of it that operates
9 heavy equipment. We went there and measured extensively
10 stationary noise and also, of course, large weapons.
11 Q. From what distance did you measure those noises?
12 A. These have been referenced distances of -- the nearest I
13 have been is 25 feet and the furthest away has been 5,000 meters.
14 Q. Did you use equipment in those instances similar to the
15 equipment that you used to measure the noise from the coal piles
16 and the plant?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Are you familiar with the ANSI standards, as they are
19 used and applied by the Illinois Pollution Control Board for the
20 measurement of sound levels?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Did you consider yourself a qualified observer in the
23 circumstances that you have described in which you took
24 measurements from the coal piles and the plant?
463
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 A. No.
2 Q. Why not?
3 A. I was doing -- I was not following all of the
4 requirements in the Illinois reg or pertaining to the ANSI
5 standards, because at that time the 901 Section was, and still is
6 not, an issue. So I used a more general approach, similar to --
7 a little bit more sophisticated than the complainants, but not in
8 complete compliance with either the Illinois requirements or the
9 ANSI requirements.
10 Q. Okay. How are you not in compliance with either the
11 Illinois or the ANSI requirements?
12 A. Basically not taking temperature, humidity, and wind
13 direction, readings of that nature, although I am well aware of
14 the affects and why those are required.
15 Q. Any other ways in which you were not in compliance with
16 the Illinois regs or the ANSI standards?
17 A. Probably the duration of some of my measurements might
18 not have been sufficiently long.
19 Q. What, like a half hour too short?
20 A. Well, I would have to look at the Illinois regs to see
21 exactly how long you have to measure. I am just saying
22 conjecture that it might be too short.
23 Q. What was your longest measurement time period?
24 A. One hour.
464
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 Q. And the other one was one half hour?
2 A. In terms of long-term measurements, yes, where I let the
3 meter accumulate the time.
4 Q. Your undergraduate degree is a Bachelor of Arts degree?
5 A. That is correct.
6 Q. As opposed to a Bachelor of Science degree?
7 A. That's correct.
8 Q. It was in sociology, correct?
9 A. Correct.
10 Q. Is it fair to say that in your undergraduate education
11 you didn't have any courses in physics or in acoustics, those two
12 subjects?
13 A. Correct.
14 Q. Okay. Then your Master's Degree is urban and regional
15 planning?
16 A. That's correct.
17 Q. Did you have any formal education, then, in that program
18 in engineering, physics, acoustics, or electronics?
19 A. I was a fellow at the urban transportation center where
20 I did research in the transportation noise field and did my
21 Master's thesis on the noise affects of Interstate Highway 66
22 through Arlington, Virginia. In terms of a course in physics or
23 acoustics, no, I did not have that in graduate school.
24 Q. Have you ever had any formal education in physics or
465
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 acoustics?
2 A. Just high school physics. Formal education relating to
3 a degree, no.
4 Q. Okay. Then what about any formal education in the
5 subjects of engineering or -- well, let's just say in electronics
6 first?
7 A. No.
8 Q. What about engineering?
9 A. No engineering courses.
10 Q. Okay. What kind of instrumentation did you use when you
11 were at the EPA? You were actually -- or you were hired as a
12 consultant by the EPA?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. How long of a time period were you employed as a
15 consultant?
16 A. About three years, three or four years.
17 Q. A full-time position?
18 A. No, no. I was consultant. Hourly. That's correct.
19 Q. About how much time over those three years can you
20 estimate in hours or weeks, for instance, did you spend in that
21 consulting capacity?
22 A. Probably half time.
23 Q. What kind of instrumentation did you use when you were
24 acting as a consultant for the EPA?
466
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 A. It was regulatory development work relating to the
2 promulgation of regulations that the EPA was required to
3 promulgate under the Noise Control Act.
4 Q. So you were not out in the field with --
5 A. No.
6 Q. Okay. I should finish my question. You were not out in
7 the field with noise measurement instrumentation working with
8 it --
9 A. No.
10 Q. -- in your capacity as a consultant with the EPA?
11 A. There is an exception. I was involved in a 12 airport
12 study where we did anecdotal measurements. But that was a
13 hand-held sound level meter.
14 Q. Not a precision --
15 A. Not sophisticated, no.
16 Q. We are talking about like a Radio Shack noise meter?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Or the Quest meter that you talked about?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Not precision instrumentation?
21 A. Right.
22 Q. I guess in general terms would it be fair to
23 characterize your approach to this particular noise issue and
24 contrast it to Mr. Zak's approach as yours being a more general
467
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 approach and his being a very case specific approach?
2 A. No.
3 Q. Would it be fair to characterize the use of modeling in
4 that way, that modeling is a general approach and using -- taking
5 measurements of specific noise sources in a specific case is case
6 specific?
7 A. Yes, I use it for case specific.
8 Q. Okay. Well, what application -- I am interested to know
9 what application do the Illinois Pollution Control Board
10 regulations have to this general broad approach as you have
11 described? Well, actually, I understand you are characterizing
12 this as case by case specific, but what application do the
13 Illinois Pollution Control Board regs have to that type of
14 approach when we are talking about a nuisance as it affects these
15 four people?
16 A. My understanding is that determination needs to be made
17 about whether there is unreasonable interference with the use and
18 enjoyment of their property, which is the major component of the
19 land use compatibility issue. So the connection there is I
20 wanted to use the -- nationally the best established methodology,
21 given the time constraints that we are under, to make a credible
22 estimate of what the total sound level on the property is.
23 Because it is really the -- under Section 900 we are really
24 talking about nonquantitative criteria for making this
468
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 determination and, of course, some of it can be related to
2 guidelines and standards that have numerical values associated
3 with them. And in my experience the best and the most equitable
4 ones to use are the ones that have been endorsed by the federal
5 agencies.
6 Q. Well, do you have any training or experience in
7 psychoacoustics?
8 A. No.
9 Q. As a general proposition, we could have some crickets
10 chirping on a summer evening and they could be making noise at
11 the same decibel level as someone playing rap music, right? And
12 someone might find that the crickets are pleasing, even though
13 they have the same sound pressure levels as the rap music?
14 A. That's correct.
15 Q. Have you been present for any of the complainants'
16 testimony at this hearing?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. And did you hear them say that the traffic noise
19 generally does not bother them with the exception of a
20 motorcycle, or a car without a muffler, or a truck going
21 particularly fast, and that the sounds that do bother them are
22 the back up beepers and the screeching, the metal screeching
23 noise from the coal piles, the plant noise, and the other noise
24 sources that they testified to?
469
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 A. Yes, with the exception of the screeching. I was not
2 here. I came in after that.
3 Q. Okay. Well, so, again, what bearing does it have --
4 let's say that a certain segment of the population will wake up
5 out of a sleep statistically from -- when they hear noise at a
6 certain decibel level from traffic. What application does that
7 have in this case when we have four real life people who have
8 said that this traffic noise essentially does not bother them,
9 but what really does bother them is the noise from the coal piles
10 and the plant?
11 A. If we are making a determination about unreasonable
12 interference it seems some normal comparisons are in order. I
13 don't consider a 12 or a 15 percent probability of being awakened
14 to be either high or low. It is pretty much what happens. But
15 this is a dense urban area and the sound levels in dense urban
16 areas typically are in the low to mid 70s, which is, you know,
17 what their property is.
18 So I find it -- personally, not being an attorney, I find
19 it quite difficult to ignore the affects of the other sources
20 when evaluating whether it is reasonable or not, as a
21 professional person. I tend to want to know if we take these
22 actions what will the overall affect on their property be.
23 Rather than giving, in my view, undue weight to the nuances of
24 what is bothering them, just the things that they are picking up
470
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 at this time.
2 Q. So what you are saying is that they have their
3 subjective accounts of how bothersome the various noise sources
4 are in the neighborhood, and what you are doing is taking a look
5 objectively and comparing those subjective complaints to this
6 more objective statistical standard?
7 A. I don't know if I am making a comparison that directly.
8 I am trying to -- basically what I am doing is I am trying to be
9 as independent as possible, and I am applying the methodology
10 that normally apply in these situations. Admittedly, not under a
11 nuisance allegation, but the question is still the same one
12 ethically, is this unreasonable enough so that the party that is
13 making the noise needs to take some action.
14 Q. Well, you are not in any way suggesting that these four
15 people right here are hypersensitive?
16 A. No.
17 Q. Or less than credible in the testimony that you have
18 heard?
19 A. No.
20 Q. Okay. What relevance does SEL have to the Board
21 regulations and decisions?
22 MR. BABST: Objection. I think that calls for a legal
23 conclusion as far as what is relevant to the Board. I think the
24 only person who seems to not be a lawyer and freely opines to
471
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 that is Mr. Zak. We have not presented Mr. Studholme as a lawyer
2 or as an expert in interpreting PCB cases. So I think it is an
3 improper question to ask the witness.
4 MR. MUSKOPF: I just want to object to -- I don't think we
5 need these sort of offhanded --
6 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: Do you have a response?
7 MR. MUSKOPF: Yes, I do. I want to object to any offhanded
8 responses -- any little digs against Mr. Zak or anyone else. I
9 think we can keep this professional.
10 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: I didn't hear any digs against
11 Mr. Zak. I heard an objection. I have not heard any response
12 from you that --
13 MR. MUSKOPF: Well, okay. I can --
14 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: Mr. Studholme isn't an attorney.
15 MR. MUSKOPF: Right. He is taking -- my response to the
16 objection is what Mr. Studholme is doing is looking at Illinois
17 regulations, and he is applying them to this factual circumstance
18 here. He is also saying that -- he is also talking about SEL. I
19 am wondering what -- I understand that -- I am not asking him to
20 come to a legal conclusion or to act as an attorney. I am just
21 asking him what bearing does that have on the regulations that we
22 are all talking about that are basis for this complaint.
23 MR. BABST: I think the basic issue here is the standards
24 that should be applied in a nuisance case. Do they have to be
472
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 the 901 standards or can accepted federal methodologies be
2 applied. That's the only reason that we have presented Mr.
3 Studholme today, not as anyone to opine as to what the Pollution
4 Control Board should or should not do with respect to that issue.
5 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: Anything else, Mr. Muskopf?
6 MR. MUSKOPF: No.
7 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: Unfortunately, I am going to
8 have to ask you to read back the question to me, please.
9 (Whereupon the requested portion of the record was read
10 back by the Reporter.)
11 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: I am going to allow Mr.
12 Studholme to answer the question, and overrule your objection.
13 THE WITNESS: Basically the SEL is one of the best metrics
14 to use in determining the affects of varying sound levels on
15 sleep interference. I consider the interference with sleep to be
16 a very important factor in determining whether there is an
17 unreasonable interference with the use and enjoyment of property.
18 Q. (By Mr. Muskopf) So not having read or reviewed any
19 Board decisions, you don't know whether the Board has ever
20 applied SEL in a nuisance case, do you?
21 A. No, I don't.
22 Q. Are you aware -- you would not know whether the Board
23 has ever looked at any modeling like you performed in this case,
24 in a --
473
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 A. No, I don't.
2 Q. -- nuisance case?
3 A. No.
4 Q. Or even in a numerical violations case?
5 A. No.
6 Q. Do you know what the -- now, the Board requires a one
7 hour LEQ, right? Is that your understanding, or do you know?
8 A. That's my understanding, yes.
9 Q. Okay. But you are still suggesting that the DNL over a
10 24 hour period is meaningful in a case like this, despite the
11 fact that the Board's standard is a one hour LEQ?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. The Respondent's Disclosure of Opinion Witnesses
14 document that has been provided to me in discovery, have you ever
15 seen that before?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. It has your C.V. attached?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Is what is set forth here as to what your opinions are
20 going to be and what your opinions are and the basis for those
21 opinions, is that accurate?
22 A. No.
23 Q. What is inaccurate about that?
24 (The witness reviewing document.)
474
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 A. In the first place, I have not offered any testimony on
2 the economic aspects.
3 Q. Okay.
4 A. And, for the record, I am reading a statement. Mr.
5 Studholme is expected to testify that the respondent is currently
6 in compliance with all applicable Illinois laws and regulations
7 which are relevant to the allegations made by complainants in
8 this matter. To be more specific, that is a true statement under
9 Section 900.
10 Q. Okay. I am through with that, if you are.
11 A. Sure.
12 Q. Do you feel comfortable with your familiarity with the
13 Illinois regulations to express that kind of opinion in this
14 case?
15 A. With Section 900 I do.
16 Q. Okay. Have you -- you have never read a 900 Board
17 opinion, right?
18 A. No, I haven't, no.
19 Q. Are you familiar with ANSI standard 12.9, Section 12.9,
20 Part 3, 1993?
21 A. I don't know.
22 Q. Okay. Well, are you aware that ambient noise
23 measurement requirements under that standard require the
24 exclusion of traffic passbys unless there are no significant
475
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 breaks in the traffic?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Did you use that -- did you apply that standard or that
4 rule in your modeling?
5 A. Yes. I was trying to get a plant ambient, so I obtained
6 the plant ambient noise levels when there was no traffic. In
7 this particular situation --
8 Q. The -- I am sorry. Go ahead.
9 A. The traffic noise is so dominant that I included traffic
10 noise as a nonambient event.
11 Q. Okay. So you did include -- you excluded that in the
12 nighttime?
13 A. I took measurements with and without traffic. And I
14 have not characterized anything in my testimony as being an
15 ambient noise level with the exception of plant ambient.
16 Q. Okay. There was some testimony earlier that you were
17 relying upon these state -- these maps essentially of traffic
18 that were put out by the State of Illinois?
19 A. (Nodded head up and down.)
20 Q. How did you -- what part of your opinion is based upon
21 those maps?
22 A. I wanted to make sure that the anecdotal data that I
23 collected observing the traffic when I was there, I had one count
24 that was 940 and the other was 240, as you recall in my
476
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 testimony.
2 Q. Yes.
3 A. I wanted to know -- you know, in order to get a good
4 idea of what a true 24 hour period is you would need a lot more
5 traffic counting than that. So I looked at State data for
6 Edwardsville Road to see what the traffic volumes were to make
7 sure that I was not biasing it one way or the other. In the end
8 actually the volumes on Edwardsville Road would have indicated
9 higher levels than I measured, but I did not use them.
10 Q. All right. So based on the limited -- and you were
11 there observing traffic on Edwardsville road for how long?
12 A. The actual measurement period of the traffic would have
13 been a one hour LEQ on the first day, and a 30 minute LEQ on the
14 second day, and the additional -- probably an additional 20
15 minutes of intermittent measurements to get individual vehicles
16 beyond -- after the half hour.
17 Q. You did some kind of traffic count yourself, did you
18 not?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Okay. How did you perform that?
21 A. Well, I didn't have to operate that particular meter
22 because it is programmable. So I counted them by hand and took
23 notes.
24 Q. So you were standing at the site, and you were simply
477
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 watching cars or trucks, vehicles go by and you count them --
2 A. That's correct.
3 Q. -- by eye?
4 A. That's correct.
5 Q. And you consider that to be a reasonably reliable
6 scientific method of counting traffic?
7 A. I wanted to know -- actually, it would not be a good
8 idea technically to make any traffic noise level measurements
9 using the LEQ measurement without counting the traffic. Because
10 then I knew that at 240 I had this level, and at 940 I had that
11 level, and you can mathematically establish a relationship
12 between the growth in the traffic influencing the sound level.
13 You can then make a better model. You can extrapolate to higher
14 or lower traffic levels.
15 Q. Were you not there at night to count the traffic like
16 that and that's why you were taking data from the maps and
17 plugging them into your model?
18 A. No. The primary reason to do it was I knew that I had a
19 limited sample of what the traffic was, and I wanted to know if
20 it was, in fact, higher or lower on a 24 hour period. And so I
21 looked at the average annual daily traffic and compared those
22 levels with the normal variation in flows at the times when I
23 measured them to see if I was pretty close, and it was close.
24 The levels would have actually been higher if I used the State
478
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 volume levels. But I stayed with the measure, because those were
2 more realistic.
3 Q. Okay. So what you are saying is that you correlated
4 your data based, obviously, and I am sure you would admit, on a
5 very limited sample period to the data that you got from the
6 maps, right?
7 A. Correct.
8 Q. Okay. Those maps were -- they are dated 1996. Do you
9 know when that data was collected?
10 A. No.
11 Q. Do you have any idea whether it is current? I mean,
12 that is --
13 A. I know that --
14 Q. -- several years ago, right?
15 A. I know that 1996 would not be considered current.
16 Q. Did you ask for current data?
17 A. This is the data that I was provided with when I asked
18 for available information on traffic volume.
19 Q. Okay. So you didn't get the map and say, oh, this is
20 1996, and, Mr. Babst, do you have anything more current than that
21 this?
22 A. No, I didn't.
23 Q. Okay. How many hours do you have in this file or does
24 your firm have in the file at this point?
479
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 A. In the file?
2 Q. Well, how much time have you or your firm spent on this
3 case?
4 A. To date, probably slightly over 100 hours.
5 Q. So, let's see, at almost $200.00 an hour and you have
6 100 hours?
7 A. I am sorry. That is not the correct rate.
8 Q. Okay. What is the correct rate?
9 A. The rate for research and analysis is $130.00 an hour.
10 Q. I see. So you have got a variable rate scale and it
11 depends on what you are doing as to how much your firm charges?
12 A. Right.
13 Q. And you are saying $195.00, is that your time for in
14 court --
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. -- or in hearing appearances?
17 A. Yes, 50 percent more.
18 Q. Okay. So considering the variable rate scale that you
19 have discussed, can you give us an estimate as to how much your
20 total bill has come to at this point in time?
21 A. It is probably, including traveling expenses, it is
22 probably between $15,000.00 and $20,000.00.
23 Q. How did you distinguish the traffic noise or
24 discriminate between traffic noise and any other noise source
480
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 when you came to the conclusions that you have got set forth here
2 in -- well, in this report?
3 A. Okay. Exhibit C44?
4 Q. Yes, but it is numbered differently from the one that
5 Mr. Babst gave you.
6 A. These are actually the summary data that -- the correct
7 exhibit for the raw data is 27.
8 Q. This one?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Okay.
11 A. This is accomplished by paying very close attention to
12 the sound level meter. The meter, even when it is in the LEQ
13 mode and is storing information, does give a readout every
14 second. The difference between the noise level when the vehicles
15 are not present, i.e., gaps, and the levels when the vehicles are
16 present.
17 Q. Okay. So it was done at the site with the meter -- or
18 with the dosimeter or with the --
19 A. The dosimeter.
20 Q. So you basically stood there and activated or
21 deactivated the dosimeter to take data or exclude data based on
22 your own observations about what the traffic conditions were?
23 A. Yes. I was trying to -- I did that with respect to
24 through observation with respect to each source to isolate them.
481
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 Q. So to simplify it, if you want to find out what the
2 sound level of the traffic is, according to the method that you
3 use to determine that, what you did is waited so that you didn't
4 get beeper noise from the bulldozer, or any other noise from the
5 coal pile or the plant, you waited until there was none of that
6 noise?
7 A. Right.
8 Q. And then you would measure the level of the noise from
9 the cars or the traffic on Edwardsville Road?
10 A. That's a correct statement with one slight explanation,
11 and that is, of course, there always is some measurable noise.
12 So the criteria that I would use would be a competing noise would
13 be at least ten decibels below the source that you are measuring
14 and that level would be less than one decibel.
15 Q. Do you have any opinion as to whether it would have been
16 a more precise method to simply record all of the sound -- record
17 all of the sound level -- excuse me. Do you have any opinion as
18 to whether it would have been more accurate to make a recording
19 of the sound levels in that area and then including -- and not
20 discriminating between sources, then taking that data and putting
21 it through an analyzer afterwards and excluding the data on that
22 basis, to isolate the sound levels of various noise sources?
23 A. You could do it the latter way with an analyzer, but you
24 need to be present for the whole time period and you pretty much
482
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 have to make the same decisions and earmark when these events are
2 occurring. For a monitoring session of this duration, I consider
3 them to be equivalent with the exception that you don't have a
4 hard copy printout of the event at the end by not using the
5 analyzer.
6 Q. What were you told about the conditions the two days
7 that you were at the Granite City Steel facility, about whether
8 they were typical or atypical of --
9 A. I was told that they were atypical because there were no
10 dozers operating on the coal piles. So we arranged to have the
11 dozers operated, and in addition there were no coal delivery
12 trucks operating on Edwardsville Road, and the plant arranged for
13 the contractor to drive full and empty trucks down the road as
14 well. Admittedly, we were trying to create a situation where I
15 could measure each source independently.
16 Q. Who made the decisions as to what kinds of activity and
17 the locations of the various activities and the quantity of the
18 activity for your experiment? For instance, did you say I would
19 like to see two bulldozers operating at the same time, one going
20 up the front of the pile and one working on the side, and while
21 they are operating I would like to see a front loader dumping
22 coal into a dump truck, and I want to see a big 18 wheeler come
23 in here and dump its load? I want to know who made the decisions
24 as to what conditions under which you did your testing, what the
483
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 conditions were under which you did your testing?
2 A. I made those decisions. It was testing. It was not an
3 experiment.
4 Q. Okay. Well, excuse me. I didn't mean to --
5 A. Okay.
6 Q. -- be imprecise.
7 A. Okay.
8 Q. On what basis did you make that decision?
9 A. Partly my experiences in doing similar jobs at other
10 locations and partly the way this particular -- the physical
11 characteristics of the coal piles at the site and gaining an
12 understanding of the -- we talked to operational personnel about
13 how they operate the coal piles, which side they drive the dozers
14 on, which side the loaders operate on and how the coal moves. I
15 spent some time learning how the plant actually works. And then
16 I tried to anecdotally with my small meter, that I didn't use for
17 recording purposes, determine where the dominant noise sources
18 were. I made those decisions myself.
19 Q. And were you attempting to replicate on a representative
20 basis the conditions under which the coal pile operations
21 normally take place?
22 A. No. I actually was avoiding that. What I wanted to do
23 was to measure the different pieces of the coal pile operation so
24 that later on if somebody told me, well, we have 450 trucks and
484
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 the dozer operates for eight hours but takes a break, then I can
2 take the data that I have and apply it mathematically.
3 Q. I see. So you wanted the variables to be as discreet as
4 possible so you could get --
5 A. Right.
6 Q. And then you plugged them in and manipulate --
7 A. Right.
8 Q. -- them to replicate the conditions?
9 A. To try to represent the operational conditions. It is
10 just too difficult to -- the measuring period would be very long
11 to capture all of the conditions.
12 Q. Then who made the decision as to -- so then I suppose
13 you gained additional information from somebody at Granite City
14 Steel about what the typical conditions or the representative
15 conditions are so you knew how to manipulate the data within your
16 model?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Okay. Who gave you that information?
19 A. I can't remember his -- well, primarily Larry
20 Siebenberger.
21 Q. What were the -- is there a detailed list of those
22 conditions, that you took -- that you based your model on? Or,
23 excuse me, based -- put into your model to come up with the
24 results that you have?
485
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 A. There are handwritten notes concerning the duration and
2 the percentage of time the various activities occur that were
3 immediately put into the Excel spreadsheet. Then what I usually
4 do is I write protect it so that they can't change, and make it a
5 permanent copy that I workup from there.
6 Q. What were the conditions under the -- precisely, what
7 were the conditions under the scenario that you ran?
8 A. For the piles?
9 Q. Yes, the coal piles?
10 A. Okay. We are talking about the primary run, now, and
11 not the sensitivity analysis? Really there were two --
12 Q. Okay.
13 A. -- the first time through.
14 Q. Right.
15 A. Let me find the right one.
16 Q. What you are saying with your sensitivity analysis, is
17 that when you upped it?
18 A. Yes, five decibels or a threefold increase.
19 Q. Okay. Right. So if the bulldozer is running for five
20 minutes under your -- under the adjustment that you made, it
21 would be running for 15?
22 A. Right.
23 Q. Okay.
24 A. Okay. So I have -- let me do the date. I broke it into
486
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 day and night. Do you want to go through all of them or just an
2 example.
3 Q. First I want to get the same exhibit you have got. Okay.
4 That is --
5 A. Exhibit 28.
6 Q. You might have mine, too. Do you? Yes, you do. It is
7 C44?
8 MR. BABST: It is just different numbers.
9 THE WITNESS: Okay.
10 Q. (By Mr. Muskopf) I will just get that back.
11 A. Sorry.
12 Q. That's all right.
13 A. Do you want me to go through all of them or just --
14 Q. I would like to know --
15 A. Sure.
16 Q. For instance, how many bulldozers were running and were
17 there any front loaders running at the same time?
18 A. Okay. The way this particular run is set up -- let me
19 just start at the top and work down. Is that okay? So I can
20 follow all the sources. So during the day period, I have the off
21 peak traffic levels occur 60 percent of the time, and the peak
22 hour traffic levels occur 40 percent of the time. The maximum
23 plant events, five percent. The maximum pile events, 25 percent.
24 That is of a 15 hour period, okay.
487
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 The minimum plant events, five percent. The minimum pile
2 events, 50 percent. Plant ambient, 100 percent, because it is
3 always there. And then one percent of actually night traffic
4 during the day. That is to throw in a very small volume because
5 the night traffic was a small volume during the night period.
6 During the night cycle, I will run down the same
7 calculations. Off peak traffic, one percent, because it is at
8 night and there is not very much of it. Peak hour traffic, one
9 percent. Let me jump to the bottom. Night traffic is 100
10 percent. Maximum plant events, five percent of the time.
11 Maximum pile events, 2.5 percent of the time. Minimum plant
12 events, five percent of the time. Minimum piles events, 2.5
13 percent. Plant ambient, 100 percent.
14 Q. So how many bulldozers were running under this scenario?
15 A. Under this scenario it would not matter whether there
16 was one bulldozer operating for one hour or two bulldozers
17 operating for half an hour.
18 Q. How about the hydraulic vibrator? Was it running under
19 this scenario?
20 A. Yes. The vibrator is included in the data for maximum
21 pile events, yes.
22 Q. Was there any screeching from the railcars?
23 A. No, I don't have anything on the railcars.
24 Q. Did you -- what about the engine noise from the dump
488
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 trucks? Is that included in this scenario?
2 A. I have truck noise levels that would include engine
3 noise, but not discreet from the tailgate slams or the vibrators
4 or --
5 Q. Okay. When I am talking about dump trucks, what I don't
6 mean is this, like the one on C42.
7 A. Okay.
8 Q. What I am talking about are the ones that are used
9 almost exclusively in the yard or off of the highway, and they
10 are -- did you see any of those operating?
11 A. No.
12 Q. Okay. So they wouldn't be included in your modeling at
13 all, the operation of those kinds of trucks?
14 A. No.
15 Q. But you did have the operation of the kinds of trucks
16 that we see in C42 in your model?
17 A. Right.
18 Q. Okay. So basically of all of the variables that you did
19 have plugged into this scenario, they were all occurring at the
20 same time under your maximum plant events scenario? So, for
21 instance, there were --
22 A. They were assigned to two portions of a 24 hour period
23 as a percentage of the time when those activities were occurring.
24 So, for example, plant ambient is 100 percent of the time.
489
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 Q. Okay.
2 A. To give you a good example -- unless you want me to
3 stop? Is that enough?
4 Q. That's fine. Thanks. Are you aware that a one hour
5 exceedance of the Board's regulations would be a potential
6 violation even over a period of a day, a week, a month, or a
7 longer period under Board regulations?
8 A. Would you repeat the question, please?
9 Q. Yes. Under Board regulations are you aware that even an
10 exceedance of one hour, that would be a potential violation, even
11 if it occurred over a period of a day, a week, a year, or so
12 forth?
13 MR. BABST: I would object on the basis of relevance.
14 Again, we are not talking about a 901 standard. And also I have
15 not proffered Mr. Studholme as an expert on the regulatory
16 program, particularly 901.
17 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: Mr. Muskopf?
18 MR. MUSKOPF: Well, we talked about a lot of different
19 standards. If the 901 standard is not relevant, I don't know why
20 the federal standards that we talked about or the OSHA standards
21 that have been talked about would be relevant either, but all of
22 that has come in, too. What we are talking about are guidelines
23 that are established, and whether those guidelines can have any
24 application to a nuisance case. Mr. Zak has established that the
490
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 numerical limits clearly do. Mr. Studholme has talked about
2 federal regulations and has opined that they have application as
3 a measure -- as an objective measure to balance against the
4 subjective complaints.
5 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: Okay.
6 MR. BABST: Mr. Studholme has testified about his
7 application of these -- the federal methodology. It is
8 ultimately for the Board's decision in terms of what they apply
9 in determining what is an unreasonable interference in this case.
10 I am not offering Mr. Studholme here today to argue what that
11 ultimate outcome should be.
12 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: Anything else, Mr. Muskopf?
13 MR. MUSKOPF: No.
14 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: Okay. I am going to sustain the
15 objection. You are asking for Mr. Studholme's personal knowledge
16 on the violations of the regulations. You can argue that in your
17 brief, certainly.
18 Q. (By Mr. Muskopf) Mr. Studholme, let's assume that there
19 was no traffic present, whatsoever, on Edwardsville Road. And we
20 had a measurement period of one hour and that's it, one hour
21 only. Would Mr. Zak's proposed barrier result in the 15 decibel
22 dB(A) reduction that he talked about?
23 (The witness reviewing documents.)
24 A. No.
491
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 Q. Why not?
2 A. Because the plant level would remain unchanged.
3 Q. All right. Let's exclude the plant level. No plant
4 noise. No traffic noise. We have a one hour time measurement
5 period. Would the barrier that Mr. Zak talked about result in
6 approximately a 15 dB(A) reduction from the coal pile noise to
7 the complainants' homes?
8 A. I would have to answer that again as no.
9 Q. Why not?
10 A. A 15 dB reduction is about the maximum you can get from
11 that type of a wall at the height he has proposed, which is fair
12 to say a 15 dB reduction is possible, but they would have to
13 occur at ground level. Since some of these noise levels are
14 higher up on the pile, even though the line of sight is blocked,
15 you are not going to get 15 decibels from the line of sight when
16 it is only a foot. So I think in practice when it is in
17 operation it would not be 15. That is my opinion.
18 Q. Okay. So what you are saying is that even if the line
19 of sight is broken between the homes and the bulldozer, that you
20 need an additional elevation on the wall to achieve a 15 dB
21 reduction?
22 A. Yes. I was just commenting on his proposed design.
23 Q. You are not saying that -- okay. He talked about a 22
24 foot high wall, right?
492
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 A. Right.
2 Q. What he was saying is that under that scenario with the
3 levels of the coal piles being reduced to make sure that there is
4 no line of sight between the equipment on the pile and the homes,
5 you are saying that even under that scenario you are not going to
6 get 15?
7 A. I don't believe you would with a 22 foot wall, given the
8 height of the dozers. I think there would be 15 dB reduction
9 when they were lower down, but it is very typical to limit these
10 basic walls to about a 15 dB reduction for that frequency.
11 Without more detailed engineering work it would be conjecture.
12 It is possible. It is possible. But I would have my doubts.
13 Let's put it that way, to be professional.
14 Q. I want to make sure we are understanding each other,
15 because I think we may be missing.
16 A. Okay.
17 Q. The bulldozer, under his scenario, would not be over the
18 line of sight of the wall from the Hoppe and Glasgow residence,
19 and you are saying even though you couldn't see the bulldozer it
20 would still be high enough on the pile that I suppose, what,
21 sound would go over?
22 A. Oh, yes. I am sorry. Yes. The mathematics of it are
23 that its function -- it is a function of the difference between
24 the level of the source elevation and the top of the barrier.
493
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 And my experience has been that for a simple wall you can get 15
2 decibels when the source -- when there is a difference in
3 elevation of 22 feet that is certainly possible. I am just
4 calling into question whether you can get 15 when there is only a
5 one or two foot difference. I have not analyzed it. I am just
6 calling it into question. I am not saying he is wrong. I am
7 just saying that I would look at it a bit more with respect to
8 the elevation of the vehicles and how often they are operating.
9 Q. What were the cases under which you did some kind of
10 solution analysis of the decibel -- the dB(A) reduction of the
11 barrier of the type that Mr. Zak has talked about?
12 A. The ones that are closest to this particular situation
13 is the equipment operator school at Fort Indian Town Gap, a
14 military installation where they had proposed consideration of a
15 wall.
16 Q. Okay. And how high was the wall in that case?
17 A. We looked at -- in that case it was proposed to be a
18 concrete wall on a berm, you know. And we looked at a range of
19 heights from a pure berm and then extending the berm up with
20 concrete to 8, 15.
21 Q. Did you -- have you been involved in a project in which
22 materials similar to the ones Mr. Zak has proposed have been used
23 in building an acoustic wall or an acoustic barrier?
24 A. I have not done the analysis for a wood wall before.
494
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 Q. How would a -- let me tweak one of the variables in your
2 model and ask you how it would affect what comes out, the result.
3 Let's say that the irregularity in the pavement was fixed. What
4 kind of noise reduction would we get at the Glasgow and Hoppe
5 residences?
6 A. I couldn't give you a DNL value without, you know,
7 making an adjustment in the model. But methodology would be the
8 measurement of truck traffic on Edwardsville Road includes the
9 noise from the irregularity in the road. I know what those
10 levels are. So I would go back to the basic data and eliminate
11 those and, therefore, the average levels for the trucks would
12 come down, and then I would put that into the traffic levels and
13 put that into the model.
14 Q. Okay.
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. But as you sit here today, you don't have a sense of
17 what kind of reduction we would get?
18 A. Honestly, I don't.
19 Q. Can you venture a wild guess?
20 A. I am sorry. Because they are so high. You know, if
21 they were not up in the 80s. It is just -- one thing about
22 acoustics is that it is sometimes not -- you don't get the result
23 you think you will when you are comparing really high single
24 events with moderate levels. So I would not want to conjecture.
495
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 MR. MUSKOPF: Okay. Thank you. Pass the witness.
2 MR. BABST: No questions.
3 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: Okay. No questions. Thank you,
4 Mr. Studholme.
5 (The witness left the stand.)
6 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: We will take a five minute
7 break. We will be back in five minutes.
8 (Whereupon a short recess was taken.)
9 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: All right. We are back on the
10 record. Okay, Mr. Babst.
11 MR. BABST: We call Larry Siebenberger.
12 (Whereupon the witness was sworn by the Notary Public.)
13 L A R R Y S I E B E N B E R G E R,
14 having been first duly sworn by the Notary Public, saith as
15 follows:
16 DIRECT EXAMINATION
17 BY MR. BABST:
18 Q. Would you please state your name.
19 A. Larry Siebenberger.
20 Q. What is your home address?
21 A. 5 Timber Waters Court, Swansea, Illinois.
22 Q. And with whom are you employed?
23 A. Granite City Division of National Steel.
24 Q. What is your title?
496
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 A. My title is Manager of Environmental Technology.
2 Q. How long have you been with the Granite City Division of
3 National Steel?
4 A. For 29 years.
5 Q. And during that 29 years, have you been in the
6 environmental department for the entire time?
7 A. No.
8 Q. Could you just briefly explain to us what you have done
9 during the course of your employment at Granite City?
10 A. Well, I graduated in 1971 from Southern Illinois
11 University with a Bachelor of Arts in chemistry, and subsequently
12 received a Master of Science in environmental studies. I started
13 with Granite City Steel at that time, in October of 1971, when
14 the environmental department was starting up.
15 My first function was to work to organize and set up our
16 wastewater analysis lab, and I worked in that area for a while.
17 I believe in 1977 or thereabouts I became manager of analytical
18 services, continuing to do some work with the lab,
19 responsibilities with the lab. But I also was beginning to do
20 work in the air programs area.
21 In 1983 I became Director of the Environment Department and
22 was director there until 1985, when I went into operations and
23 became director of cold rolled coated products in operations. I
24 held that position until 1991, when I moved back into the
497
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 environmental department basically in my current position.
2 Q. What are the job responsibilities in your current
3 position?
4 A. I am primarily responsible for the air programs,
5 although I also -- I am involved in the water and the waste
6 programs that we have.
7 Q. As part of your job responsibilities are you or have you
8 been required to become familiar with the history of steel making
9 operations at this facility currently known as the Granite City
10 Division of National Steel Corporation?
11 A. Yes, I have.
12 Q. To obtain information regarding the general history of
13 the plant prior to your employment, have you relied upon any
14 documents?
15 A. Yes, I have.
16 (Whereupon a document was duly marked for purposes of
17 identification as Respondent Exhibit 1 as of this
18 date.)
19 Q. (By Mr. Babst) I am going to show you what has been
20 marked as Respondent's Exhibit Number 1, and ask if you can
21 identify those documents?
22 A. Yes. The first document which is titled, History of the
23 Blast Furnace Property, I obtained actually off our internet. It
24 is based upon a book called the Condensed History of the Blast
498
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 Furnace Property, by Clarence H. Blye. The document entitled,
2 History of Granite City Steel was compiled by our public
3 relations department. And the remaining pages I have taken from
4 a book which basically was a -- the History of Granite City that
5 was published in 1995.
6 Q. Can you tell us approximately how long the coke making
7 and blast furnace operations have been operating at their current
8 place?
9 A. The coke making facilities have been at that location
10 for approximately 80 years.
11 Q. During that period of time what would have been the raw
12 material needed to operate the coke batteries?
13 A. Coal.
14 Q. Do you know the approximate capacity of the ovens when
15 they started versus what they are today?
16 A. Yes. The original -- there was originally two ovens or
17 two batteries built there, which had 40 ovens each, and they
18 consumed approximately 725,000 tons of coal annually.
19 Q. Today do you know approximately how many tons of coke
20 you produce?
21 A. The two batteries that we currently operate consume
22 approximately 860,000 tons per year.
23 Q. Based upon your personal knowledge, not on any of these
24 documents, how long have the coal piles been located in the east
499
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 end of the plant?
2 A. My personal knowledge, since 1971, I have seen coal
3 piles located there.
4 Q. As part of your job is it necessary for you to
5 understand the industrial processes being conducted at Granite
6 City?
7 A. Yes.
8 (Whereupon two documents were duly marked for purposes of
9 identification as Respondent Exhibit 2 and 2A as of this
10 date.)
11 Q. (By Mr. Babst) As a starting point can you locate on
12 what has been marked as Respondent's Exhibit 2, and Respondent's
13 Exhibit 2A, and start with 2, if you could, Mr. Siebenberger, and
14 would you indicate the location of the steel making operations at
15 Granite City Steel?
16 A. Okay. First of all, I guess if I could explain, I guess
17 this plat plan, the highlighted area is basically the area that
18 we own. The operations that we operate are the steel making
19 operations. We have the blast furnace and coke plant complexes
20 in this location (indicating).
21 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: That is labeled 10 on Exhibit 2.
22 THE WITNESS: And the steel making and finishing operations
23 are located in this area (indicating).
24 Q. (By Mr. Babst) Would you indicate the numbers on the
500
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 map?
2 A. It looks like 1, 2, 3, 36, 38, 44, 43, 4, 5, 70, 91 and
3 29.
4 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: Thank you.
5 THE WITNESS: Uh-huh.
6 Q. (By Mr. Babst) Could you identify the basic raw
7 materials that are used in the steel making process?
8 A. The primary raw materials are coal, iron pellets, flux,
9 scrap, and oxygen.
10 Q. And beginning with coke making operations, could you
11 explain how coal is introduced into the coke ovens?
12 A. Yes. At the coke ovens the coal is contained in some
13 bunkers on top of the battery. It is placed in a mobile hopper
14 car, which is called a Larry car. A measured amount of coal is
15 placed in that car. That car can traverse on a set of rails on
16 top of the battery above the particular coke oven that is going
17 to be charged. And then it will discharge the coal after it
18 seals up with that oven into that particular oven.
19 (Whereupon photographs were duly marked for purposes of
20 identification as Respondent Exhibits A through
21 Z as of this date.)
22 Q. (By Mr. Babst) I am going to show you a series of
23 photographs during the discussions about the operations at
24 Granite City.
501
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 A. Okay.
2 MR. BABST: These should be in order for both the Hearing
3 Officer and Mr. Muskopf. I have labeled them by letter as I give
4 them to Mr. Siebenberger, which may help.
5 Q. (By Mr. Babst) I would ask if you could identify those
6 three photographs and explain what they do show?
7 A. Okay. Well, the photograph -- the first photograph is a
8 picture of what we call the push side of the coke ovens, of the
9 coke battery. You can see the -- some of the individual ovens,
10 the doors. And then you can see the large piece of equipment
11 there is the pushing machine.
12 Q. How many coke batteries do you have?
13 A. We currently operate two coke batteries.
14 Q. How many ovens are there in each coke battery?
15 A. There are 45 individual ovens in each battery.
16 Q. Could you look at Photograph B and describe what is
17 shown there?
18 A. Yes, this is a picture, I believe, from the coke side of
19 one of the batteries, and you can see some of the individual --
20 you can see the individual ovens with the doors in place. And
21 then you can see one oven in which the doors have been removed.
22 Q. What is the temperature, or the approximate temperature
23 of the -- I assume that is coke?
24 A. This particular oven is empty, but the coke, I believe,
502
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 is around 2,200 degrees when it comes out of the oven.
2 Q. What takes place during this part of the process?
3 A. Well, when the coal has been charged into an individual
4 oven, the oven is sealed and the coal is baked for a period of
5 approximately 16 hours.
6 Q. What comes -- in addition to the coke that you generate,
7 what other by-products are generated during this process?
8 A. Well, during this baking there is a destructive
9 distillation of the coal and that drives off volatile compounds
10 which are involved as a gas that we call coke oven gas.
11 Q. What do you do with the gas?
12 A. That gas is transported by pipeline to our coke
13 by-product facility.
14 Q. What takes place, very briefly, in the coke by-products
15 plant?
16 A. At the by-products plant, the gas is processed where we
17 remove coal tar, ammonia sulfate, and lye oil, which are
18 commercial products that are sold.
19 Q. Do you know the amount of coke that is produced on an
20 annual basis today?
21 A. I know we charge approximately 860,000 tons of coal, and
22 the coke production is 500 and some-odd thousand tons.
23 Q. Do you know whether this amount of production has
24 increased, decreased, or remained the same over the last five
503
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 years?
2 A. The amount of production on the coke batteries?
3 Q. Yes.
4 A. It has remained relatively the same.
5 Q. Okay. Are you --
6 A. There are slight fluctuations.
7 Q. Are the coke batteries subject to air pollution
8 regulations?
9 A. Yes, they are.
10 Q. How frequently do you monitor particulate emission
11 sources on the top side of the battery and coming from the coke
12 oven doors?
13 A. Under the federal NESHAP regulations, the top side and
14 the doors are monitored on a daily basis by an independent
15 contractor.
16 Q. And what is the level of compliance that you have
17 achieved over the last, let's say three years?
18 A. We have consistently complied with those requirements.
19 Q. Would you tell me where the coke is taken after it is
20 cooled in the coke battery?
21 A. When the coke is pushed from the oven after the baking
22 process it is pushed into the car that we see on the third
23 photograph. The car is taken down to the quench tower where the
24 coke is quenched with water and then after that the quenched coke
504
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 is carried by conveyor either over to the blast furnaces or could
2 be placed into storage if we have to.
3 Q. Let me show you the next four pictures that have been
4 marked as D, E, F and G, and ask if you would identify those
5 pictures starting with D?
6 A. Yes. The first photograph is of our two blast furnaces,
7 A and B blast furnaces. And the material that is in front of the
8 blast furnaces -- this is a view actually from the south of the
9 blast furnaces -- are some of the various raw materials that are
10 used in the blast furnaces.
11 Q. On drawing 2A I would ask if you could identify the
12 location of the two blast furnaces at Granite City?
13 A. The blast furnaces are located right here (indicating).
14 Q. Could you mark that on the map with BF?
15 A. (Witness complied.)
16 Q. If you would, would you go back and mark where the two
17 coke batteries are, and mark those as CB.
18 A. (Witness complied.)
19 Q. How many blast furnaces are at Granite City?
20 A. Two.
21 Q. And would you go through those pictures and explain what
22 they show?
23 A. Well, do you want me to explain a little bit about the
24 process?
505
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 Q. Uh-huh.
2 A. Okay. The raw materials that are put into the blast
3 furnaces are iron pellets, the coke that we produce, and flux.
4 They are charged into the top of the furnace. The furnace is an
5 enclosed process. They are charged into the top of the furnace,
6 and this mixture is called burden. Hot blast air is forced up
7 through the refractory lined furnace. And as a result of the
8 reaction of that hot blast air with the burden, heat is produced
9 and a reducing atmosphere causes the iron pellets to melt and the
10 iron oxide reduced to liquid elemental iron, which pools at the
11 base of the furnace. The flux is used as a -- is liquefied and
12 it removes some of the impurities from the iron, such as sulfur.
13 MR. MUSKOPF: Excuse me. I want to put an objection on the
14 record. If this isn't expert testimony, I don't know what is.
15 Mr. Siebenberger has not been disclosed as an expert witness at
16 all in this case.
17 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: Overruled.
18 MR. BABST: Thank you.
19 MR. MUSKOPF: Can I have a running objection?
20 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: Sure. Noted.
21 THE WITNESS: When the -- after the iron has pooled in the
22 bottom of the furnace and accumulated to enough of a level, we
23 tap the furnace, and this next picture is showing some of the
24 molten iron being cast into the refractory line torpedo cars, as
506
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 we call them.
2 Q. (By Mr. Babst) The last two pictures that I gave you
3 there, which are --
4 A. Yes, F and G.
5 Q. -- F and G.
6 A. These two pictures show some of the environmental
7 controls that we have on our blast furnaces. As I stated
8 earlier, the process is essentially closed as far as the furnace
9 itself is concerned. The hot blast air comes off the furnace as
10 blast furnace gas. It is scrubbed in a scrubber system and it is
11 used in the plant as a fuel.
12 When we cast the furnace in the cast house where the molten
13 iron and slag come out, we have two bag houses which capture any
14 potential emissions that are generated, particularly emissions
15 that are generated from that particular process.
16 Q. What is the temperature, the approximate temperature of
17 the molten iron that comes out of the blast furnace?
18 A. Approximately 2,600 degrees Fahrenheit.
19 Q. Do you know approximately what the capacity is for
20 making molten iron at your facility?
21 A. I think last year we produced about 2.2 million tons,
22 and our permitted capacity is about 3.5 million -- I am sorry --
23 3.1 million tons.
24 Q. And could you tell us now where the molten iron goes
507
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 after it is produced at the blast furnace?
2 A. It is transported over to our basic oxygen furnace
3 process.
4 Q. I will show you what I have marked as H, I, J and K, and
5 ask you if you could identify those pictures and explain very
6 briefly what takes place at the basic oxygen furnace?
7 A. The first picture is a view of the basic oxygen furnace
8 shop from the outside, from the exterior. The molten iron, which
9 is produced in the blast furnace, is transported over here. It
10 is transferred into a ladle, which is shown on picture I. It is
11 then desulfurized and skimmed, and the molten iron is charged
12 into the basic oxygen furnace, which is actually depicted on
13 picture K. And picture J shows the scrap which is the other raw
14 material used at the steel making at the basic oxygen furnace and
15 is also charged into the vessel.
16 Q. What is the approximate temperature of the steel when it
17 is produced?
18 A. After the heated steel is blown, the temperature is
19 around 3,200 degrees Fahrenheit.
20 Q. Do you know how much steel you do produce here at the
21 plant?
22 A. I think last year we made about 2.6 million tons. We
23 have a permitted capacity of about 3.5 million tons.
24 Q. Are there environmental controls on the basic oxygen
508
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 furnace shop?
2 A. Yes, we have extensive controls. All of the raw
3 materials coming in are controlled in enclosed conveyors with bag
4 houses. The molten iron, any point that it is transferred or
5 processed is controlled, any particular emissions are controlled
6 by bag house. And the emissions from the vessel itself are
7 controlled by the electrostatic precipitator, which is the large
8 structure that you see on the right of the shop on photograph H.
9 Q. I will show you photographs that have been marked as
10 Respondent's Exhibits L and M, and ask if you can explain as the
11 molten steel now processes through the plant, what that shows?
12 A. Yes. After the steel is produced it is transferred
13 again in a refractory ladle to the continuous casters. Picture L
14 is an external picture of our two continuous casters. The steel
15 is put into a copper water-cooled mold, where the steel is
16 cooled, and it is cooled from its liquid state into a solid slab
17 form and the slabs are produced in a continuous strand, thus the
18 name continuous caster. And picture M shows a picture of some of
19 the slabs that are coming off one of our continuous casters.
20 Q. I will show you what has been marked as pictures N and O
21 and ask if you can identify those?
22 A. Yes. This is a picture of some of the slabs that have
23 been produced at the continuous caster that are stored in our
24 slab yard. That is picture N. Picture O is a picture of a piece
509
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 of equipment that we call a kress hauler, which is used to
2 transport these slabs to the hot strip mill.
3 Q. Now I will show you pictures that have been marked as P
4 through T, and ask if you can identify those pictures and explain
5 how they fit into the process?
6 A. Yes. Picture P is just a view from the south looking at
7 our -- the external of our building of the hot strip mill. At
8 the hot strip mill, the slabs are reheated in reheat furnaces.
9 Picture Q is a picture of a slab which has been reheated
10 and is exiting one of the slab furnaces.
11 Picture R then shows the slab as it is proceeding through
12 the hot strip mill. It is rolled through a set of roughing
13 mills, which begins to reduce the size of the slab, the thickness
14 of the slab. And you can see from that picture that it begins to
15 lengthen.
16 And picture S shows the slab, which at this point is much
17 thinner, proceeding through the seven finishing stands, which
18 also are rolling and reducing the hot slab.
19 In picture T you can see that what has now been transformed
20 into a strip of steel is exiting the final finishing stand, and
21 after this picture it goes to a coiler where the strip is now
22 coiled into a steel coil.
23 Q. Would you identify photographs U and V? Are these the
24 coils you just mentioned?
510
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 A. Yes. Photograph U shows -- as a matter of fact, you can
2 see the conveyor where the coils that have just been made on the
3 hot strip mill are being transported out to our coil storage
4 area.
5 And picture V is just a picture of one of the yards where
6 we store our coils.
7 Q. Now, can you -- does the company sell steel in that
8 condition?
9 A. Yes, this is actually the predominant form of steel that
10 we sell, the hot rolled steel.
11 Q. Can it also -- is the facility also capable of further
12 processing steel?
13 A. Yes.
14 (Whereupon a photograph was duly marked for purposes of
15 identification as Respondent Exhibit AA as of this date.)
16 Q. (By Mr. Babst) Would you explain -- I am going to show
17 you photographs W, X, Y, Z, and AA and ask if you could just
18 briefly explain the finishing end of the process?
19 A. Sure. Picture W is a picture of our pickling operation,
20 and this is where we can take the hot rolled steel and we can
21 clean it in an acid bath. That is to remove any oxides that are
22 on the strip.
23 Picture X is a picture of the scrubber system that we have
24 on our pickling operation to control the acid fume that is
511
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 generated.
2 Picture Y is a picture of the next process, which would be
3 the cold mill where we take the pickled strip and we cold reduce
4 it through four rolling stands and produce a cold rolled product.
5 Picture Z is the next process where we can take the cold
6 rolled steel and we can run it through one of our two galvanizing
7 lines and we can either produce a galvanized or a galvaloom
8 coated sheet steel.
9 And then picture AA is just a picture of what the final
10 galvanized product, the coiled strip looks like when it is --
11 before it is shipped out of our facility.
12 Q. What are the final products that are sold out of this
13 mill?
14 A. Well, basically right now we either sell a hot roll coil
15 or a hot roll band, which is produced off our hot mill. We can
16 sell a cold rolled coil, which is produced off the cold mill. Or
17 we can sell a galvanized or galvaloom coil.
18 (Whereupon a document was duly marked for purposes of
19 identification as Respondent Exhibit 4 as of this date.)
20 Q. (By Mr. Babst) Let me show you what has been marked as
21 Respondent Exhibit Number 4, which is a -- I would ask you if can
22 identify it?
23 A. Yes, this is actually probably one of the best brochures
24 that we have had for our facility, which shows the layout of our
512
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 facility and some of the various operations there, and then gives
2 you a flow diagram depicting the various processes and the
3 materials used.
4 Q. Does this brochure accurately reflect the processes that
5 you have just described?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. Okay. We will turn now to the fugitive dust program at
8 the plant. You have discussed that Granite City Division
9 controls particulate emissions from these processed sources. Are
10 there other sources of particulate emissions that Granite City
11 generates other than these processed sources?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. Does Granite City follow any type of program to control
14 these fugitive dust emissions?
15 A. Yes, we do.
16 Q. How long has the Granite City Division maintained a
17 fugitive dust control program?
18 A. Well, in my knowledge I know since 1971 we have been
19 applying fugitive dust controls, particularly to our roads at
20 that point in time.
21 Q. At some point in time did the Division formalize its
22 program with the State of Illinois?
23 A. Yes. I believe the first time that we formalized our
24 fugitive program was in 1981, and that was submitted to the
513
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 Illinois EPA.
2 Q. Has the program changed since 1981?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Could you briefly describe how the program has changed
5 since that time?
6 A. I think some of the major changes occurred -- in 1984 we
7 had our first major paving program in the plant. Prior to that
8 point in time virtually all of the roads in the plant were
9 unpaved. So we paved a significant portion of the roads in 1984,
10 and began to sweep and/or flush those paved roads.
11 Q. Just to kind of interrupt the process here, could you
12 explain to the Hearing Officer what is meant by the fugitive dust
13 emissions? Where are they generated?
14 A. Fugitive dust emissions are -- generally, that would be
15 considered an emission that is coming off an open source, such as
16 a roadway, a storage pile, as opposed to being a processed
17 emission which is generated either from a process stack or a vent
18 or a combustion stack.
19 Q. Now, following the paving of road program in 1984, did
20 Granite City obtain any equipment to clean the paved surfaces?
21 A. Yes. We purchased -- we had a spray truck, but we also
22 purchased a sweeper, which we use to sweep the roads.
23 (Whereupon photographs were duly marked for purposes of
24 identification as Respondent Exhibits BB and CC as of this
514
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 date.)
2 Q. (By Mr. Babst) I show you what has been marked or what I
3 have marked as BB and CC, and ask if you can identify what these
4 photographs depict?
5 A. Yes, BB is a picture of one of the spray trucks that we
6 have. It is putting down a dust suppressant on one of our
7 unpaved roads.
8 CC is a picture of a sweeper, which is a vacuum sweeper in
9 this case, which can vacuum and sweep the paved roads.
10 Q. At some point after 1984 did you take any action with
11 respect to the use of the gate near the coal pile to minimize
12 fugitive dust emission?
13 A. Yes, in 1991, which is when we made that gate a one-way
14 in gate. Up until that point in time we had allowed vehicles,
15 trucks to enter and exit that gate. And so as far as the truck
16 traffic coming into that gate, we actually made it a one-way
17 gate, in only and we paved about the first 175 feet of the
18 unpaved road within the gate on our plant property.
19 Q. Would this change have had any impact on the amount of
20 dust generated on Edwardsville Road?
21 A. Yes. One of the reasons -- well, the primary reason we
22 did that was for that very reason. We were trying to reduce any
23 material which could be drug out from our plant from the trucks
24 that were exiting that gate. So by making it a one-way in gate
515
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 and directing the traffic through our plant, not another gate, we
2 basically minimized the potential for any material to be drug out
3 on to Edwardsville Road.
4 Q. Would you show on Exhibit 2A how the traffic was
5 rerouted through the plant?
6 A. Well, what we did was we directed the traffic after --
7 in the case of the coal piles, after they delivered their coal to
8 these areas, the trucks proceed out and behind the blast
9 furnaces, and one of the pictures shows the view of the pellets
10 and the raw materials. This road is right along that -- behind
11 those raw material storage piles. And it proceeds towards the
12 west, and the truck traffic eventually exits our plant at what we
13 call the west gate, which is approximately at 20th Street and
14 Edwardsville Road.
15 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: Would you mark with arrows the
16 route that you just laid out. Just a few arrows.
17 THE WITNESS: Yes.
18 (Witness drawing on Exhibit 2A.)
19 Q. (By Mr. Babst) Approximately how much further down
20 Edwardsville Road away from the complainants' homes is the gate
21 that the trucks now exit?
22 A. That has got to be a half a mile anyway.
23 (Whereupon said photograph was duly marked for purposes of
24 identification as Respondent Exhibit DD as of this date.)
516
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 Q. (By Mr. Babst) I would ask you if you can identify
2 picture DD, and I would ask if that refers to the truck route
3 that you described?
4 A. Yes. This is the road behind the blast furnaces and the
5 storage areas, and you can see one of the coal trucks, which an
6 empty coal truck at that point is going towards the west gate.
7 Q. Were there any other changes to the fugitive plan that
8 would have particularly affected this area of the plant?
9 A. Yeah, in 1993, we did some additional paving throughout
10 the plant, but in particular in this area we paved the coal -- I
11 guess what I heard earlier referred to as the coal haul road. It
12 is the road after you come in the east gate, which proceeds down
13 towards the east in front of our current coal storage area.
14 Q. Could you mark that as CH, please?
15 A. Yes. (Witness complied.)
16 Q. Explain to us how paving a road improves fugitive dust
17 control?
18 A. Well, you know, it is generally as part of reducing
19 fugitive emissions it is accepted that by paving a road and
20 flushing or sweeping that road the level of control of dust is
21 much higher than it is in trying to treat an unpaved road.
22 (Whereupon a document was duly marked for purposes of
23 identification as Respondent Exhibit 5 as of this date.)
24 Q. (By Mr. Babst) Mr. Siebenberger, let me show you what
517
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 has been marked as Respondent's Exhibit Number 5, and ask if you
2 can identify this document?
3 A. Yes. This is a -- this is a Notice of Violation letter
4 that we had received from the Illinois Environmental Protection
5 Agency, dated June 26th of 2000.
6 Q. And can you tell me what that notice of violation
7 pertained to?
8 A. Yes. It was -- it says it pertains to fugitive dust,
9 which was observed by two of the Illinois EPA people, and based
10 on other available information, which included citizen
11 complaints. And this dust was apparently observed from our coal
12 pile storage area.
13 Q. The Notice of Violation does indicate that at least in
14 part it was based upon citizen complaints?
15 A. Yes, it does.
16 Q. Did Granite City Division respond to that Notice of
17 Violation?
18 A. Yes, we did.
19 (Whereupon a document was duly marked for purposes of
20 identification as Respondent Exhibit 6 as of this date.)
21 Q. (By Mr. Babst) I am going to show you what has been
22 marked as Respondent's Exhibit Number 6, and ask if you can
23 identify that document?
24 A. Yes, this is our initial response to the Notice of
518
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 Violation, which in Illinois EPA terms is called a Compliance
2 Commitment Agreement.
3 Q. Following your submission of that Compliance Commitment
4 Agreement, did you have additional discussions with the Illinois
5 EPA concerning the Notice of Violation and what might be done to
6 resolve the matter?
7 A. Yes, we did.
8 (Whereupon documents were duly marked for purposes of
9 identification as Respondent Exhibits 7 and 8 as of this
10 date.)
11 Q. (By Mr. Babst) I show you what has been marked as
12 Respondent's Exhibit Number 7 and 8, and ask if you can identify
13 those documents?
14 A. Yes. Exhibit Number 7 is a letter from the Illinois EPA
15 confirming that they have received our Compliance Commitment
16 Agreement and also confirming that we have requested a meeting
17 with them.
18 Exhibit 8 is a -- is actually a follow-up submittal to the
19 meeting that we held with them with some additional information
20 there.
21 Q. What is the date of that letter?
22 A. I am sorry. October 5th of 2000.
23 (Whereupon documents were duly marked for purposes of
24 identification as Respondent Exhibits 10 and 11 as of this
519
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 date.)
2 Q. (By Mr. Babst) I am going to now show you what has been
3 marked as Respondent Exhibits Number 10 and 11, and ask if you
4 can identify those documents and what they pertain to?
5 A. Yes. Exhibit 10 is a revision to our fugitive
6 particulate emission operating program with the Illinois EPA.
7 This submittal included the changes that we made as a result of
8 our discussions with the Illinois EPA.
9 Q. Could you describe what those changes were?
10 A. Well, the primary focus was on fugitive emissions from
11 the coal piles, and I think while we -- you know, it is
12 recognized that we have applied various fugitive controls over
13 the years to that area, that the discussion was over what more we
14 could do.
15 The first recommendation of the State was could we consider
16 moving the piles. And we -- in the meeting I explained to them
17 that we looked at that preliminarily, and because of the fact
18 that that area is divided by railroad right-of-ways that we would
19 have to move the piles on to the other sides of the railroad
20 right-of-ways, which would cause a considerable expense in terms
21 of trying to set up a system then that would be able to convey
22 the coal back to our area. So that was a very expensive
23 proposition.
24 Q. You say very expensive. Without giving a specific
520
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 amount, was there any approximation? Are we talking thousands,
2 tens of thousands, or --
3 A. No, it is in a number of millions of dollars.
4 Q. Okay.
5 A. So what we did was then we focused on what further
6 improvements could we put into the program that we have.
7 Q. And what further improvements did you ultimately propose
8 or did you negotiate with the Illinois EPA?
9 A. Well, in addition to the -- you know, we have this paved
10 road, which at that point we were already sweeping or flushing
11 five to six days a week. Any day that we would haul coal we
12 would flush or clean that road, at least once, and in many cases
13 we do it more than once.
14 In addition to that road we agreed to water or treat the
15 access areas to the piles and this would be the areas off the
16 paved road that the tracks back up to the piles. And this was in
17 an attempt to reduce the emissions there or the potential for
18 emissions there. Again, that is done on an every day basis that
19 we are delivering coal to those piles.
20 The second thing that we did was we looked at or we agreed
21 to use another -- a new type of -- new for us -- of a dust
22 suppressant. We had used dust suppressants in the past on the
23 coal piles, and they are effective to a point. But particularly
24 when you get to extreme weather conditions, high wind conditions,
521
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 their effectiveness is not as good as this new product which is a
2 polymer, an organic polymer, and this material you can spray on
3 the piles and it actually forms more or less a shell on to the
4 pile, which we believe will offer increased effectiveness, even
5 under the more adverse meteorological conditions that can occur.
6 The third thing that we did was we agreed to purchase a
7 devoted piece of equipment. Prior to this we had two spray
8 trucks and three sweepers, I believe, in the plant, which we
9 shared. The spray trucks which actually located in the steel
10 works side. We have miles of roads here that we have to treat
11 throughout the plant. And in order to have a piece of equipment
12 available all the time for treatment of the coal piles, the roads
13 and the blast furnace area we agreed to purchase an additional
14 sprayer truck. So we did that. And this truck also had to have
15 the capability of being able to spray to the tops of the piles at
16 whatever height we would store at.
17 And, finally, what we agreed to do was in -- we said that
18 by 9:00 every morning we would have checked what the weather
19 forecast was for that day, and based on that we would observe the
20 piles and perform whatever treatment we felt that would be
21 necessary based on that forecast. This is an attempt to in cases
22 of where there may be some high winds coming that we could get
23 out early and get them treated before they actually came upon us.
24 So these steps were the new steps or the additional steps that we
522
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 put into our program.
2 Q. And who at the Illinois EPA did you deal with to resolve
3 the Notice of Violation?
4 A. I guess three individuals primarily; Ken Irwalay
5 (spelled phonetically), who is with the Springfield Compliance
6 Group; Mr. John Justice, who is the manager of the Collinsville
7 Office; and Ms. Sarah Phelps, who is an engineer that works for
8 the Illinois EPA in the Collinsville office.
9 (Whereupon a document was duly marked for purposes of
10 identification as Respondent Exhibit 9 as of this date.)
11 Q. (By Mr. Babst) Let me show you what has been marked as
12 Respondent's Exhibit Number 9, and ask if you can identify that
13 document?
14 A. Yes. This is the MSD sheet, the material safety data
15 sheet for one of the products, one of the polymer type products
16 that can be used as a dust suppressant. It is called Soil
17 Cement.
18 (Whereupon photographs were duly marked for purposes of
19 identification as Respondent Exhibits EE, FF, and GG as of
20 this date.)
21 Q. (By Mr. Babst) I will now show you three pictures,
22 marked as EE, FF, and GG, and ask if you can identify those three
23 pictures?
24 A. Yes. Picture EE is a picture of the truck that we
523
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 purchased for the blast furnace area. In this picture it is
2 spraying a dust suppressant on the access areas to the coal
3 piles.
4 Then picture FF is essentially the same truck, different
5 view, and, again, it is spraying some of the areas around the
6 piles.
7 Then picture GG is a picture of -- in this case it is the
8 Soil Cement being sprayed on to a coal pile. You can see to do
9 that we either use a hose or a turret, which is located on top of
10 this truck, and we can spray the entire pile or just the top of
11 the pile, or whatever portion of the pile that we need to.
12 Q. Mr. Zak has been identified as the authority on noise
13 pollution for the Illinois EPA. Are you aware of whether the
14 Illinois EPA has designated an authority for fugitive dust in
15 this area?
16 A. Yes, I believe Sarah Phelps is considered the local
17 authority with the Illinois EPA on fugitive dust.
18 Q. Is this the individual that you dealt with in resolving
19 the June of 2000 Notice of Violation?
20 A. Yes. She was primarily the person who our conversations
21 with were with, who our discussions were with, regarding what
22 types of additional controls that she thought would best address
23 this problem.
24 (Whereupon a document was duly marked for purposes of
524
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 identification as Respondent Exhibit 12 as of this date.)
2 Q. (By Mr. Babst) I show you what has been marked as
3 Respondent's Exhibit Number 12, and ask if you can identify that
4 document?
5 A. This is a letter from the Illinois EPA dated November
6 6th of 2000, which states that the Illinois EPA has accepted our
7 proposed Compliance Commitment Agreement, and basically that's
8 it. So that resolved that issue.
9 Q. Well, let me ask you, yesterday we saw videotapes of
10 dust being generated in the area of the coke plant. Does the
11 mere generation of dust in the area of the coal piles mean that
12 this dust will migrate off the plant property?
13 A. No. In most cases it actually doesn't. I mean, with
14 the coal pile operations, it is not going to be uncommon to see
15 some dust generated. But having that dust -- a sufficient
16 quantity of that dust generated and having winds which will carry
17 that dust off the property is not that frequent of a situation.
18 Q. When is the dust blown off your property?
19 A. The biggest issue -- well, it can be blown off our
20 property if the winds are high enough, basically.
21 Q. And in terms of affecting the complainants' residences,
22 in what --
23 MR. BABST: Excuse me. I would ask that laughing and
24 smirking be kept at a minimum during my examination of Mr.
525
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 Siebenberger.
2 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: That is perfectly reasonable. I
3 would ask that everyone would refrain from laughing and smirking
4 during the questioning.
5 MR. BABST: Thank you.
6 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: Including the witness.
7 (Laughter.)
8 Q. (By Mr. Babst) Does the wind speed have to be of some
9 level to take the coal dust off the property?
10 A. Yes. You know, I heard a number of the citizens say
11 yesterday that when winds -- when we get winds up in the 20 to 25
12 mile per hour range that that's when they observed dust coming
13 off the piles. When it gets up in that range with the dust
14 suppressants that we previously used, you know, the efficiency of
15 those dust suppressants definitely was affected.
16 Q. Are the new procedures that you discussed designed to
17 further reduce the likelihood that dust will blow from the
18 property over the property line?
19 A. That is what they were designed for. It was -- the use
20 of the new dust suppressant, which is more effective in terms of
21 controlling fugitive emissions at higher winds, and with the
22 availability of the equipment and checking the piles first thing
23 in the morning we hope that we can react or actually react prior
24 to the situation of when the winds can get to that speed, that we
526
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 can treat the piles and hopefully prevent any dust from coming
2 off them.
3 Q. Was the Illinois EPA satisfied with the enhancements to
4 the fugitive dust program worked out between the Agency and the
5 company?
6 MR. MUSKOPF: I am going to object. The witness is in no
7 position to make that kind of a determination. It calls for
8 either an expert opinion or hearsay, and we don't have -- it is
9 improper for those two reasons.
10 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: Overruled.
11 THE WITNESS: Yes. Based on the compliant -- based on the
12 letter that we received, accepting or Compliance Commitment
13 Agreement, I assume that they are.
14 Q. (By Mr. Babst) Since entering into the program and
15 receiving the acceptance letter from the Illinois EPA, have you
16 received any additional Notices of Violation or complaints from
17 the Agency regarding fugitive dust from this area of the plant?
18 A. No, we have not.
19 Q. In the year 2001, to your knowledge, have you or anyone
20 in your department that you know of received any complaints about
21 fugitive dust emissions from the complainants?
22 A. We have not.
23 Q. Now, did your office at various times over -- and going
24 back beyond 2001, receive calls from the complainants about
527
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 fugitive dust?
2 A. Yes, we have.
3 Q. Can you tell us what your procedure was in the
4 environmental control department to deal with those calls?
5 A. Typically those calls would come into our department,
6 and I think Mr. Hoppe mentioned Connie Hickman, who is an
7 engineer that works for me, would receive those calls. And once
8 she received those call, she would inform me of that. And the
9 typical process would be to contact -- either she would go
10 observe herself or she would contact someone out in the area. If
11 in this case it was the coal pile area, she would try to contact
12 someone out there to confirm if there were -- if there were
13 fugitive emissions which could be leaving our property line. And
14 if there were, then we would immediately contact our driver of
15 our spray truck and as quickly as we could get the equipment out
16 there try to address the problem.
17 Q. Do you know whether Ms. Hickman gave the complainants
18 her home phone number to call in the event that she was not at
19 work?
20 A. Yes, she did.
21 Q. Were you present yesterday during the testimony of the
22 complainants?
23 A. Yes, I was.
24 Q. And did you watch the videotapes and look at the
528
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 pictures that they brought?
2 A. Yes, I did.
3 Q. Were the videos taken before or after the modifications
4 of the fugitive dust control plan?
5 A. Before.
6 Q. How does the EPA, the federal EPA and the Illinois EPA
7 characterize the pollutant fugitive dust that is generated on
8 roadways, raw material piles, parking lots?
9 A. It is characterized as a particulate.
10 Q. Does the EPA have a National Ambient Air Quality
11 Standard for particulate matter?
12 A. Yes, they do.
13 Q. Do you know whether that standard is set to protect
14 public health?
15 A. Yes, based upon the Clean Air Act, I believe that's the
16 requirement.
17 Q. How does the EPA determine whether an area either has
18 attained compliance with this standard or is in nonattainment
19 with that standard?
20 A. Well, the ultimate measure is through ambient air
21 quality monitors that they use to measure the particulate in the
22 community.
23 Q. What is the National Ambient Air Quality Standard for
24 particulate matter, if you know?
529
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 A. For PM10 particulate it is 50 micrograms per cubic meter
2 on an annual average, and 150 micrograms per cubic meter on a 24
3 hour average.
4 (Whereupon documents were duly marked for purposes of
5 identification as Respondent Exhibits 13 and 13A as of
6 this date.)
7 Q. (By Mr. Babst) Let me show you what has been marked as
8 Respondent's Exhibits 13 and 13A, and ask if you can identify
9 these documents?
10 A. Yes. These are copies of -- this is the cover page and
11 one other page of the Illinois Annual Air Quality reports.
12 Exhibit 13 is the 1998 report, and Exhibit 13A is the 1995
13 report. These reports are put out by the Illinois Environmental
14 Protection Agency.
15 Q. Before I ask you anything about those reports, Mr.
16 Siebenberger, do you know how many monitors there have been in
17 the Granite City area to monitor particulate matter?
18 A. It has varied over time, but historically we have had --
19 at least I know from 1992 through 1998 that we had at least four
20 monitors in the City of Granite City and since then there are two
21 monitors operating in the city.
22 Q. Are any of those four that were in the City of Granite
23 City located near the complainants' homes?
24 A. There was one monitor, which was located at 2420 -- let
530
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 me see. (The witness reviewing document.) Yes, it is at 2420
2 Nameoki.
3 Q. Can you tell roughly where that monitor is on either
4 Exhibit 2A or 2?
5 A. Yes. That monitor would be approximately here
6 (indicating).
7 Q. Would you mark it with this -- just put a large M on
8 Exhibit Number 2?
9 A. An N?
10 Q. An M, as in monitor. If you can, could you --
11 A. (Witness complied.)
12 Q. -- put a C in the general area where the complainants'
13 homes are located?
14 A. (Witness complied.)
15 Q. Do you know how many particulate monitors there are in
16 the City of Chicago?
17 A. I believe in the entire City of Chicago there are two.
18 Q. Is the Granite City area in attainment for the National
19 Ambient Air Quality Standard for particulate matter?
20 A. Yes, it is.
21 (Whereupon a document was duly marked for purposes of
22 identification as Respondent Exhibit 14 as of this date.)
23 Q. (By Mr. Babst) Now I show you what has been marked as
24 Respondent's Exhibit Number 14, and ask if you can identify that
531
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 document?
2 A. This is a copy of the Federal Register Notice from the
3 U.S. EPA announcing their direct final rule where they have
4 approved the redesignation of the Granite City area to attainment
5 with the National Ambient Air Quality Standards for particulate.
6 Q. And what is the date of that again?
7 A. The effective date of the approval is May 11th of 1998.
8 Q. Could you pull out the two Illinois reports that we were
9 looking at a minute ago. Could you look at the monitoring
10 results for the monitor that you have just indicated with the
11 letter M and read for me the monitored results? I believe you
12 said that the standard for particulate matter is 50. Could you
13 read the results for this particular monitor?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And identify it by year?
16 A. Okay. It looks like 1992 is the first year that they
17 had sufficient data to report it, and it was at 39 micrograms per
18 cubic meter.
19 Q. How does that compare with the other three monitoring --
20 air monitoring stations in Granite City?
21 A. That is the lowest reading as compared to the other
22 three.
23 Q. Could you give us the monitored readings for the -- for
24 that same monitor for the other periods that are reflected in
532
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 those documents?
2 A. Okay. Well, in 1992 it looks like two of the other
3 three had enough data to report. The 23rd and Madison monitor
4 was at an annual average of 41 micrograms. And the 15th Street
5 and Madison monitor was at an average of 50 micrograms per cubic
6 meter.
7 Q. And what is the most recent monitored data for the
8 monitoring station nearest the complainants' homes?
9 A. Currently -- let's see. 1998, which is the most recent
10 they have here, it was at 32 micrograms per cubic meter.
11 Q. How does that compare with the other monitoring stations
12 in Granite City?
13 A. In Granite City, the 23rd and Madison is at 38
14 micrograms. The 15th and Madison is at 46 micrograms. And the
15 2040 Washington monitor is at 40 micrograms.
16 Q. And, again, how does that -- how do those numbers
17 compare with the National Ambient Air Quality Standard?
18 A. I believe all of the monitored data in Granite City
19 since 1990 has been in attainment with the standards.
20 Q. Mr. Siebenberger, turning now toward the noise
21 complaints that have been testified to by the complainants, the
22 Hoppes have testified that they have registered complaints from
23 time to time since sometime in the mid to late 1980s. Have these
24 complaints concerned dust emissions, noise emissions, or both?
533
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 A. To my knowledge, the complaints, up until January of
2 2000, all were regarding dust.
3 Q. Do you know when the Glasgows began to complain about
4 noise or vibrations in their home?
5 A. To my knowledge in mid 1999 the Glasgows began reporting
6 vibrations up through early 2000.
7 Q. Did you become involved in the noise issue at any time?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. And did the company do anything in response to those
10 complaints?
11 A. I was not directly involved at the time, but they -- I
12 knew a vibration study was conducted, and that information was --
13 and a meeting was held with the Glasgows, I believe, and the
14 results of that study were discussed.
15 Q. Were you present at that meeting?
16 A. I was not.
17 Q. Do you know whether the company has taken any steps in
18 recent years in an attempt to lower noise emissions from this
19 area of the plant?
20 A. The ones that I am familiar with are I know that during
21 some of the initial phone calls -- I believe they were from Mrs.
22 Glasgow -- when we investigated -- primarily, you know, the
23 complaint was of vibration. So what we started looking for was
24 was there something different going on in the operation out there
534
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 than what would normally be going on, assuming that there was
2 some change.
3 So in doing that, I know one of the problems -- or one of
4 the issues that we found was at one time there was a particular
5 dozer operator who liked to -- I don't know if it was always in
6 front of their place, but he liked to come down and bang the
7 blade of his dozer on the ground. So we -- that operator was
8 instructed not to do that.
9 There was one other occasion where we had one -- some of
10 our equipment down and we had a larger dozer out there than what
11 we would use out there normally. That was a one time occurrence.
12 I don't know whether that was the actual cause of the problem or
13 not.
14 Then after that, when the complaints continued, we held
15 discussions trying to figure out what we could do. And based on
16 the complaints, I know tailgate slamming was of a particular
17 issue of complaint. So we worked with the trucking firm that we
18 use, and they instructed their drivers to minimize the tailgate
19 slamming when they dumped the coal. And I guess, based on some
20 of the testimony I have heard, I guess that apparently has had
21 some effect. I mean, they have reduced that.
22 The other thing that we did was on the back up alarms, we
23 replaced the back up alarms on the pieces of equipment used out
24 in the coal storage area, the dozers, and the front-end loaders,
535
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 with a type of alarm that instead of putting out a steady signal
2 of what I believe is 112 decibels, it detects the background
3 noise and then it puts out a signal five decibels above that
4 level. And the attempt here was that if it didn't need to be at
5 112, we wanted an alarm that could still properly warn the people
6 in the area, but not be any louder than it had to be.
7 Q. In the year 2001 have you received any complaints
8 concerning noise from either of the complainants?
9 A. Yes, Mr. Hoppe, and I believe he said it in his
10 testimony, called or security office, I think on Father's Day,
11 and it was regarding a venting noise that he heard. We had an
12 upset in the plant at that particular time where we had lost some
13 plant air, which is the compressed air that is used to regulate
14 some of our processes. As a result of that, we ended up having
15 to vent some steam for a period of time.
16 Q. Is that a normal operation or is that a result of a
17 malfunction?
18 A. It is definitely a malfunction.
19 Q. Over the last two years have you received any other
20 noise complaints other than the noise complaints registered by
21 the complainants?
22 A. To my knowledge, there is only two that I can think of.
23 Mr. -- and I heard his name mentioned, too. Mr. Casmer Skubish
24 called me on two occasions that I can think of, where he was
536
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 calling regarding some venting sounds that he or his neighbors
2 had heard. And in both cases I investigated the source of the
3 noise and got back to him. And I know in both cases it was some
4 sort of an upset in the plant that caused us to temporarily vent.
5 MR. BABST: No further questions.
6 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: Thank you. Mr. Muskopf.
7 MR. MUSKOPF: Thanks.
8 CROSS EXAMINATION
9 BY MR. MUSKOPF:
10 Q. Mr. Siebenberger, how are you this afternoon?
11 A. Fine.
12 Q. Good. I have a few questions for you, as you might have
13 guessed. As I understand your testimony, you tried to make
14 operational changes at the coal piles near the Glasgow and Hoppe
15 homes and one of those changes is to instruct your -- essentially
16 make the gate there a one-way gate?
17 A. Right.
18 Q. Okay. You are not saying that no vehicles -- why did
19 you do that?
20 A. We did that, I think as I stated, in order to minimize
21 the amount of material that could be drug out on to Edwardsville
22 Road.
23 Q. Okay. So you agree that there is dust associated with
24 vehicles exiting that gate?
537
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 A. There can be, yes.
2 Q. Okay. And you are not saying that no vehicles ever exit
3 that gate, are you?
4 A. Well, I saw in one of the pictures that there was a
5 truck that appeared to be. So, apparently, on -- as I understand
6 it, it is a very infrequent occasion. There may be a truck or
7 two that -- those are not coal trucks. But there may be other
8 trucks from the plant that may exit that gate.
9 Q. Okay. So you are not saying that as an absolute matter
10 your directive has been followed to the letter?
11 A. No. Of the many, many trucks that go in we may have one
12 or two that go out.
13 Q. All right. Are there any penalties associated with
14 going out the gate the wrong way?
15 A. No, not that I am aware of.
16 Q. You live in Swansea, but you have been to the Sky View
17 Drive In?
18 A. Many years ago.
19 Q. You know what it is like to try to go in through the
20 exit, right?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. Have you thought about putting in one of those things?
23 A. I have not.
24 Q. Is that a possibility? That would ensure that no one
538
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 would go out the wrong way, right?
2 A. I suppose it would help, yes.
3 Q. Okay. As I understand it, also the paving allows you to
4 sweep the roads, correct?
5 A. Two sweep or flush them, yes.
6 Q. How often do you sweep -- well, are there any paved
7 roads in the immediate vicinity of the coal piles there on your
8 property?
9 A. Yes, I believe as I described the coal haul road, which
10 is the road that runs parallel to Edwardsville Road.
11 Q. Can we use the map. Where does the payment begin on
12 that road?
13 A. Well, as I said before, I think the first 175 feet of
14 the road coming in the gate is paved.
15 Q. Okay.
16 A. And then this road is paved from here down to here
17 (indicating).
18 Q. That's the road that -- that exits at the far gate?
19 A. No.
20 Q. By Hucks or by - --
21 A. No, there is no exit here.
22 Q. Oh, there is not?
23 A. They have to turn and come back up.
24 Q. How often is that road swept?
539
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 A. We sweep or flush it at least one time each day that we
2 use the road.
3 Q. How many days of the week out of seven typically is that
4 road used?
5 A. Five to six.
6 Q. Is it done sort of on an as needed basis in someone's
7 opinion at your company?
8 A. Well, we treat it every day, and like I said, most days
9 I am sure it is flushed more than once. As to the exact timing
10 of when that is done, I don't know.
11 Q. Do you have any records of how often it is swept?
12 A. Yes, we do.
13 Q. Is there any reason that you don't have those here
14 today? You were not asked to bring them, I guess?
15 A. (Witness shrugging shoulders.)
16 Q. Those records would reflect, as far as you know,
17 accurately the number of times and the dates upon which the road
18 was swept or flushed?
19 A. Yes, we keep -- as part of our program, we keep records
20 of any sweeping or flushing of that road and we actually report,
21 I believe, quarterly any exception to that program.
22 Q. Who do you report those to?
23 A. The Illinois EPA.
24 Q. You are required under your compliance agreement with
540
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 the EPA to sweep and flush that road?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. So if you are not doing it -- how often is there a
4 variance, or how often do you not sweep or flush the road
5 according to that compliance schedule?
6 A. Really the only reason that we would not do it would be
7 if there is weather related -- you know, if it is raining that
8 day or if it is snow packed. If the weather conditions are such
9 that it would not warrant or it would make it a safety hazard if
10 we did something to the road, and we report those also, those
11 days that we would not do it for that reason. Other than that,
12 it would only be if for some reason we had an equipment problem
13 that would prevent us from doing it.
14 Q. Do you know how many days within the last year, and an
15 estimate would be fine, upon which there was activity at the coal
16 piles where you would be required to sweep or flush under your
17 compliance agreement, but have not done so, for whatever reason,
18 whether it is because of weather, equipment failure, or
19 something?
20 A. I don't.
21 Q. You don't have any estimate whatsoever?
22 A. It would be -- if at all, it might be two or three
23 times.
24 Q. So pretty minimum, in your view?
541
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Did anyone investigate -- you talked about the expense
3 of moving the coal piles that was investigated several years ago
4 and you talked about the problem with the railroad right-of-ways.
5 Did anyone ever investigate whether those could be purchased?
6 A. I don't know.
7 Q. Did anyone look into whether a conveyor system might be
8 a good solution to the transportation of the dust from the coal
9 piles to wherever it needs to go instead of loading and unloading
10 the trucks?
11 A. I don't know.
12 Q. How many times is spraying performed at the piles of the
13 piles themselves, on a daily basis?
14 A. Well, they are sprayed, again, based upon -- in our
15 current program, based upon the -- I guess there are a number of
16 factors. One, what the life of the product that we are spraying
17 on there is going to be, and also based upon what we will see as
18 the weather conditions for that given day. I mean, that is the
19 kind of factors that are looked at.
20 Q. So you use that soil sealant stuff out on the coal
21 piles?
22 A. That is one of the products that we use.
23 Q. And there is a water-based solution, some other kind?
24 A. Yes, or we can use water or we will use one of the -- it
542
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 is an oil based dust suppressant from -- that we use on the
2 roads.
3 Q. Okay. Out of all of those different treatment modes,
4 how many times does the spraying occur on the coal piles on a
5 daily basis?
6 A. I don't know on a daily basis. I mean, it is not -- it
7 typically is done on a day and would not be done again on that
8 day.
9 Q. Okay. And then it might not be done again for another
10 day or so? It just depends on someone with your company's
11 opinion of the conditions as to whether they warrant further
12 spraying or not?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. Who makes that decision as to whether to spray or not?
15 A. It would be between the supervisor of the truck -- of
16 the equipment operator, between him and the equipment operator,
17 that would observe and make that decision.
18 Q. Do you know who the supervisor is, in particular, by
19 name?
20 A. I don't.
21 Q. Do you have records of how often and what quantities of
22 material are sprayed?
23 A. We do how often. I am not sure on the quantities. I
24 know we do track quantities for road spraying, and we might on
543
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 the coal spray. I am just not positive on that. We do track it.
2 Q. And are you required to spray the piles themselves under
3 your compliance agreement?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. And what are the specific requirements under that
6 agreement?
7 A. Well, it is for us to, like I said, on a daily basis
8 assess, based upon the weather conditions, the weather forecast
9 for that day, and the conditions of the piles, the condition of
10 the piles being what the condition of the current treatment level
11 is, whether further treatment is warranted for that day.
12 Q. Is it your testimony that at this point in time you do
13 have a sprayer of some kind that is capable of reaching the tops
14 of the piles? And I know they vary in height or elevation, but
15 let's say the average elevation over the past six months?
16 A. Oh, yes.
17 Q. How much of your day is spent out at the coal piles?
18 A. I may be out in that area I would say on average maybe a
19 couple of times a week perhaps.
20 Q. And it was your testimony earlier that it is -- let's
21 see -- not that frequent of a situation that wind gusts take
22 airborne particles and coal dust from the piles across
23 Edwardsville Road, correct?
24 A. I think what I was saying was as far as winds actually
544
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 reaching speeds that could do that and then also being in the
2 direction where it would be carried off of our property, you
3 know, I don't think that is a real frequent situation.
4 Q. Do you think based on the amount of time that you spend
5 out there at the coal field that you are in a better position to
6 testify to the frequency that the dust is carried across
7 Edwardsville Road than the complainants are?
8 A. I don't know.
9 Q. They live there, right?
10 A. Yes, they do.
11 Q. You heard them testify.
12 A. Yes, they do.
13 Q. And they said that they are around the house at various
14 times, all four of them?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. So does it sound like they spend more time in that
17 immediate vicinity than you do?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Does it sound to you -- does it sound to you like they
20 pay fairly careful attention to when it is dusty and when it is
21 not, I mean airborne dust?
22 A. Yes. I mean, they -- apparently. I have heard them
23 testify that they can see dust and at times they have dust at
24 their home.
545
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 Q. So you were asked whether you have received any
2 complaints from any of the other people in that neighborhood. I
3 was wondering if your company sends anyone around door to door or
4 in any way asks any of the people that live there if they have a
5 problem with the dust or the noise?
6 A. No, not that I am aware of.
7 Q. Would it be your opinion that some people, even though
8 they have a problem, might not complain to the company about it?
9 A. I guess. I don't know. I mean, it could be.
10 Q. Okay. You were saying that the videotape was taken
11 before modifications were made to your fugitive dust program?
12 A. (Nodded head up and down.)
13 Q. I didn't recall. I caught some of the modifications,
14 but maybe I missed others in your testimony. You had a program
15 since 1971 and you changed it in 1981. There was another change
16 in 1991 where you made the gate a one-way gate. But what changes
17 have you made since then to your fugitive dust program that are
18 not reflected in your compliance agreement with the EPA?
19 A. Well, the program has been updated a number of times, I
20 mean, more than what just those dates are there, as far as the
21 compliance or the operating program that we submitted to the
22 State. And the other one that I can remember the date would be
23 in 1995 or 1996 we also did some additional paving where we paved
24 the roads around the coke ovens themselves and began to sweep and
546
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 flush those roads. Typically when we would do a program where
2 either we pave some roads or there is a shift in the normal
3 traffic pattern, that is updating the program.
4 Q. Okay. Other than paving can you think of any changes to
5 the fugitive dust program out at the coal piles that you all have
6 implemented since, let's say, the fall of 2000?
7 A. Fall of 2000. Well, the paving was done in 1993 of the
8 haul road, and as I -- I think as I had indicated, as part of the
9 additional program that we put in -- that we agreed to with the
10 Illinois EPA, we agreed to spray the access areas, to water or
11 put product on the access areas around the coal piles in addition
12 to flushing or sweeping the paved road. We agreed to purchase
13 the devoted piece of equipment to use this new encrusting agent
14 and to perform the inspection and check the weather by 9:00 in
15 the morning. Those were all steps that have been implemented or
16 have been put into our program.
17 Q. Okay. That was -- you are saying that that has been
18 later in time than the fall of the year 2000?
19 A. Yes. I believe the acceptance letter was November
20 something of 2000.
21 Q. Okay. Is that the acceptance letter that you are
22 talking about?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Okay. That is Respondent's Exhibit Number 12?
547
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 A. Yes, that's it.
2 Q. It is dated November 6th of 2000. Did you implement any
3 of these programs before this acceptance letter?
4 A. We tried. I know we tried the encrusting agent. You
5 know, we were doing some trials on it to see how it was -- how it
6 worked, because we didn't want to commit to something if it was
7 going to be a problem to use or didn't appear to be effective.
8 So we had conducted some trials with it.
9 Q. Okay. Exhibit Number 13 and Exhibit Number 13A,
10 respondent's exhibits --
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. -- these are the air quality reports that you talked
13 about?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Well, first of all, you were talking about the number of
16 monitors, and there are one, two, three, four in Granite City?
17 A. There were, yes, for a number of years.
18 Q. At least in 1998 and in 1995?
19 A. Right.
20 Q. And is it your experience in dealing with the EPA that
21 they typically put monitors in locations where they don't have
22 any dust problems?
23 A. I don't know what the exact criteria is for why they
24 locate the monitors where they do. But I am sure that is
548
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 probably a consideration.
2 Q. Does it appear to you, in looking at both of these
3 exhibits from 1998 and 1995, that Granite City has the highest
4 number of particles, on the whole, than any other city on these
5 two lists?
6 A. Just in general, it would appear that -- it looks like
7 the monitor down in East St. Louis has values that are pretty
8 comparable, and the other monitors -- let's see. The other
9 monitors look to be somewhat lower.
10 Q. Okay. How much does your company spend, on an annual
11 basis, for the fugitive dust program specifically limited to the
12 coal pile area?
13 A. I don't know.
14 Q. Do you have any information on the cost of the fugitive
15 dust program?
16 A. I don't. It is typically not -- at least to my
17 knowledge, we don't track that as a separate cost, per se. I
18 mean, it is just part of the plant costs for that area. So I
19 don't have that.
20 Q. In your duties as environmental director, did you ever
21 deal with any of the -- in any capacity with any of the claims of
22 industrial or occupational disease claims by any of the workers
23 at Granite City Steel?
24 A. No.
549
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 Q. Do you have any idea how many people have been diagnosed
2 with, let's say, asbestosis, or mesothelioma, or one of the forms
3 of -- or one of the diseases associated with asbestos exposure?
4 A. No.
5 Q. Do you have any idea how many people have lost their
6 lives working in that plant since it was established in the early
7 part of the last century?
8 A. No.
9 Q. Who would have that information in the plant?
10 A. Well, it sounds like most of the issues you have raised
11 there would be more safety and health issues, which would -- we
12 have a separate safety and health department.
13 Q. Okay. Do any of your workers out at the coal piles, are
14 they required to wear any kind of respirator or dust mask or
15 anything like that?
16 A. I don't know for sure, but I don't believe so. I don't
17 recall seeing them wear them.
18 Q. Okay. Do any of your workers that work around coal
19 dust, are they required to wear some kind of breathing
20 protection?
21 A. Again, I don't know for every worker. All I can say is
22 based on my knowledge on the ones that I have seen, no.
23 Q. Do you have any information as to toxicity of coal dust?
24 A. No.
550
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 Q. Do you know whether it is bad for people, or whether it
2 is benign, or what?
3 A. Only from -- well, I mean, I am aware of in the mining
4 industry, you know, the problems that have occurred with when you
5 have a sufficient exposure to the coal dust that it can be a
6 problem.
7 MR. MUSKOPF: Thank you, sir.
8 THE WITNESS: Okay.
9 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: Mr. Babst?
10 MR. BABST: No further questions.
11 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: All right. Thank you, Mr.
12 Siebenberger.
13 THE WITNESS: Uh-huh.
14 (The witness left the stand.)
15 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: All right. We are going to take
16 a quick break. We are going to reconvene at the Granite City
17 Steel Building. I will tell everyone where we are going to go.
18 We are going to do that now since it is 4:10, and we are likely
19 to get kicked out before we are through with another witness.
20 (Whereupon a short recess was taken to move to the Granite
21 City Steel Building.)
22 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: All right. We are back on the
23 record. We are reconvening in the Granite City Steel Building,
24 on the fourth floor, in the conference room. Thank you to
551
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 Granite City Steel people. We had to leave the courthouse -- or
2 the City Hall.
3 All right. Ms. Christman, call your next witness.
4 MS. CHRISTMAN: Bob Holloran.
5 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: Okay. Please swear in the
6 witness.
7 (Whereupon the witness was sworn by the Notary Public.)
8 B O B H O L L O R A N,
9 having been first duly sworn by the Notary Public, saith as
10 follows:
11 DIRECT EXAMINATION
12 BY MS. CHRISTMAN:
13 Q. Bob, please state your name and spell your last name for
14 the record.
15 A. My name is Bob Holloran. The last name is
16 H-O-L-L-O-R-A-N.
17 Q. What is your address?
18 A. I live at 1310 Green Elm Drive, in Fenton, Missouri.
19 Q. What is your current employer?
20 A. National Steel, Granite City Division.
21 Q. What is your job title?
22 A. I am the process manager for the coke plant, which
23 includes the coal conversion department, coal handling, and
24 by-products.
552
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 Q. How long have you been with Granite City Division?
2 A. About 12 years.
3 Q. And where did you work immediately before Granite City?
4 A. Prior to Granite City I worked at a coke plant in South
5 St. Louis by the name of Crondolette Coke. It was a merchant
6 coke facility.
7 Q. How long did you work there?
8 A. Approximately five years.
9 Q. Okay. Since you have been at Granite City, what jobs
10 have you held?
11 A. Initially hired in to Granite City Division as an
12 operations technology engineer in the iron making department, and
13 I worked primarily in the coke plant area but also had some
14 responsibilities at the blast furnace.
15 Q. In your current position, what are your job
16 responsibilities?
17 A. My current position is a process engineering type job
18 where I have the responsibilities for troubleshooting quality
19 problems with the coal and coke. I am also involved in
20 engineering upgrade projects that we have going on in the
21 by-products and the coal conversion areas.
22 Q. What hours do you normally work?
23 A. A typical day for me is 7:00 to 5:00.
24 Q. Is that Monday through Friday?
553
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 A. Yes.
2 Q. Do you ever work weekends?
3 A. Yes, I have operational weekend responsibilities about
4 every third weekend. The process managers and the area manager
5 have weekend coverage that we rotate through.
6 Q. Okay. Can you explain how the coal that is trucked into
7 Granite City Division is transferred into this general area, how
8 does it get here?
9 A. Basically the coals that we use at the Granite City
10 Division are all West Virginia mined coals. They are mined in
11 West Virginia, the coals are prepped through what we call the
12 preparation plant where the gang material is cleaned out of the
13 coal, it is loaded into railroad cars, loaded into barges in West
14 Virginia, transported via river down the Ohio River to Cairo,
15 Illinois, and then up the Mississippi and then unloaded at the
16 Behlmann River Terminal in St. Louis. At that point in time we
17 transport the coal from the barge in the St. Louis harbor into
18 the plant via tractor-trailer trucks.
19 Q. Is that the -- the Behlmann Company, that is the
20 trucking company?
21 A. Yes, they are.
22 Q. That's the only trucking company that comes in?
23 A. That's our -- they handle 100 percent of our coal
24 deliveries.
554
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 Q. Okay. Are the trucks, when they come in to Granite
2 City, tarped, covered?
3 A. Yes, they are.
4 Q. Does Granite City monitor or take note in any way
5 whether or not the trucks are covered?
6 A. Yes. We, as part of our contract with Behlmann
7 Trucking, is they must tarp all coal loads that come into the
8 plant. And we have a security guard at the east gate that
9 verifies that the trucks are tarped.
10 Q. So how often is there a truck coming in that is not
11 tarped? How frequently would that happen?
12 A. I don't know that we have ever had one not tarped.
13 Q. Okay. In the event that one was not, would the security
14 guard make note of that or contact anybody?
15 A. Yes, would contact the by-products and coal handling
16 foreman along with the Behlmann field representative that is in
17 the plant on a daily basis.
18 Q. Okay. The trucks enter -- the coal delivery trucks
19 enter through the east gate; is that right?
20 A. That's correct.
21 Q. I think you were in the room earlier. We were talking
22 about the fact that the coal trucks don't exit through the east
23 gate?
24 A. That's correct.
555
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 Q. Is there any -- are there any other trucks in the plant
2 that might exit through the east gate on occasion?
3 A. Yes, we have other trucks that may occasionally exit
4 through the east gate that are carrying other products or have
5 delivered products to the by-products area.
6 Q. Okay. And have those trucks that occasionally exit the
7 east gate traveled through the coal fields area, generally?
8 A. No, no. They basically travel through the entry
9 roadway, and then head in a westerly direction down to the coke
10 plant area, which is opposite of the coal field, and then on to
11 the by-products area.
12 Q. Okay. When the trucks come into the east gate then they
13 unload the coal from the trailers on to the coal piles; is that
14 right?
15 A. That's right. We have a designated coal pile that the
16 trucks deliver to.
17 Q. And how is the coal -- how is the coal gotten out of the
18 trucks? What do they do?
19 A. Basically the truck goes to the designated pile and once
20 the pile is clear from the previous truck dumping, then the truck
21 will back up to the designated pile, stop, make sure he is on
22 level ground, raise his bed, and dump the coal.
23 Q. Okay. Then the next step in the process is the
24 bulldozer pushes the coal up the piles; is that right?
556
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 A. That's right. The truck piles are basically heaped up
2 at the toe of the pile that we are building, and then the
3 bulldozer operator will push the coal up to the slope part of the
4 pile --
5 Q. Okay.
6 A. -- as we are building the pile.
7 Q. How many types of coal are used at the Granite City
8 Division?
9 A. We use three different types of coal.
10 Q. What are they?
11 A. Two high volatile type coals, and one low vol type coal.
12 Q. What are they called, the names?
13 A. The names are Black Bear, Elk Run, which is the coal
14 that is located at the entry point into the coal field there,
15 what we call our east gate, and then the Pinnacle coal is our low
16 volatile coal.
17 Q. Okay. So you have three types of coal coming in. How
18 many piles are there in the coal fields to store the three
19 different types?
20 A. Basically there are three coal piles per type of coal,
21 so we could have a total of nine piles and three designated
22 areas.
23 Q. All right. We are going to use Exhibits 2 and 2A that
24 we have been using, and whichever -- you can decide which one is
557
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 easier to point this out on. It might be the other one. What I
2 am going to ask you to do is locate the Elk Run piles and
3 describe where they are?
4 A. Okay.
5 Q. I don't know which one is easier of these to mark it on.
6 This one does not have all of the description?
7 A. Probably this one here would be easier to mark it on.
8 MS. CHRISTMAN: Okay. He is marking on Exhibit Number 2A
9 the area where the -- the general area where the Elk Run coal
10 piles are located.
11 Q. (By Ms. Christman) If you could just make three
12 approximate circles.
13 A. Okay. (Witness complied.)
14 Q. You can just write Elk Run or ER.
15 A. Okay. I will number them one, two, and three.
16 Q. Okay.
17 A. And ER.
18 Q. Okay. So these are the coal -- the three piles in the
19 coal field located, I guess, closest to the east gate, furthest
20 west of the coal piles; is that right?
21 A. That's correct.
22 Q. Okay. And those are the three that are generally in the
23 have vicinity of the complainants' home, as you understand?
24 A. Yes.
558
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 Q. Or I guess at the intersection of Alexander Street and
2 Edwardsville Road?
3 A. That's correct.
4 Q. Okay. Why are there three different types of coals used
5 at Granite City?
6 A. Basically to produce a coke that is of high enough
7 quality to use in our blast furnaces. We have to use a minimum
8 of three different types of coal. We have experimented with
9 various blends over the years, but basically we have a coal
10 handling facility that will handle three different types of coal,
11 and that's the way we make our coke, our coal mix blend for coke.
12 Q. Okay.
13 A. In other words, to explain a little bit more, the high
14 volatile coal is needed for strength in the produced coke, and
15 the low volatile type coal there actually lowers the volatility
16 of the blend and provides a higher fixed carbon for the coke that
17 we push from the ovens.
18 MR. MUSKOPF: I am going to renew my objection at this
19 point to this witness offering opinion testimony.
20 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: Thank you. Overruled.
21 MR. MUSKOPF: Could I have a running objection?
22 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: Of course. Noted.
23 Q. The suggestion was made earlier, and I am not sure
24 whether you were in the room at the time when Mr. Zak was
559
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 testifying. One of his suggestions is that you could -- instead
2 of having nine separate piles in this case, we are only going to
3 talk about Elk Run, three separate piles. That you could
4 basically build the piles altogether, level them out altogether,
5 all the coal piles to basically shield some operations that
6 happen further south. Is it possible to build the three
7 different types of coal piles all into one large pile like that?
8 A. That is possible, but not -- that is not a good way to
9 control our inventory. Due to the fact that we are dealing with
10 a coal that is used for coke making, it has a shelf life. In
11 other words, it loses its quality over time. Therefore, we
12 maintain three different piles on each type of coal there to keep
13 the shelf life from expiring on the coal, so that our coke
14 quality meets the minimum criterion.
15 Q. What would happen if you built the coal piles, all nine
16 of them, in all three different types of coals up together and
17 then you tried to unload them? What would happen if the coals
18 got mixed up? What would the result be?
19 A. If we had the three different types of coal get mixed in
20 one pile that could be disastrous for the operation.
21 Q. Why?
22 A. Typically we have a -- we run a blend that is a higher
23 percentage of high volatile coals and a lower percentage of the
24 low volatile coal so that when we put it into the coking chamber
560
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 on the ovens that we don't -- we make a blend that does not
2 expand too greatly, because it can damage the refractory walls
3 and actually not push from the oven. And if we make a blend that
4 is deficient in low vol, we can actually make a coke that won't
5 push from the oven because it would be a very weak coke. So it
6 is important that we control the blend percentages when we put
7 the coals together. And we actually have a process that does
8 that.
9 Q. If that happened, would it -- if it happened even
10 accidently, could it damage the coke batteries?
11 A. Oh, yes, very much so.
12 Q. Okay. So back in the coal fields, bulldozers push coal
13 up the pile. Once the pile is completely built or finished, then
14 it is a front-end loader that removes the coal from the piles; is
15 that correct?
16 A. Yes, the front-end loader extracts the coal from the
17 piles.
18 Q. Where do the front-end loaders deposit the coal?
19 A. They are loaded into railroad hopper cars that are used
20 inside the plant.
21 Q. Would the coal ever be unloaded from the front-end
22 loader into a vehicle other than a railcar?
23 A. Yes, it can be.
24 Q. What is that situation?
561
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 A. That happens on occasions if we are -- if we are short
2 on railroad hopper cars inside the plant, we may have to
3 transport the coal from the main pile to an auxiliary pile over
4 by our coal handling facility or mixing facility. And that coal
5 can be transported directly into a -- into an auxiliary feed
6 hopper and fed into the coal mixer building.
7 Q. That's not the primary way that you would transport coal
8 from the piles?
9 A. That's not the primary way. That's the occasional way
10 that we have to handle coal from time to time.
11 Q. And did you mention what vehicle was used to do that?
12 A. Pardon?
13 Q. When you are not using a railcar what vehicle would you
14 use to transfer the coal over?
15 A. We would use a front-end loader and load it into either
16 a tractor-trailer truck, which we have one of those and we have a
17 couple of Yuke type trucks there, too, that we transport coal
18 with.
19 Q. Okay. So the railcars are loaded by the front-end
20 loader and then where do they carry the coal to?
21 A. They take it over to the coal handling facility. We
22 have some unloading pits in coal handling and the cars are
23 dropped into the unloading pits and then on to the conveyor and
24 then the coal is conveyed through a series of conveyor belts into
562
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 the proper bin.
2 Q. Would you just describe that process a little bit?
3 A. Sure. Basically the coal is transported to coal
4 handling in designated railroad cars. The cars are unloaded by
5 direction of an operator in coal handling. He will run a
6 particular coal, say, for instance, Black Bear coal will be
7 called for via the communication system. He runs the Black Bear
8 coal over to the number one pan conveyor through a crusher, up
9 the number two belt into the center mixer bin, which is a
10 designated bin for Black Bear coal. In the opposite two bins we
11 will have Pinnacle and Elk Run. This is where the actual
12 controlled mixing takes place for putting together a
13 metallurgical coal blend.
14 Q. That's an indoor process now?
15 A. Yes, it is.
16 Q. Okay.
17 A. That moves inside to three storage bins and a pulverizer
18 floor. On the pulverizer floor the operator actually blends the
19 three coals together on a real time basis, pulverizes the coal,
20 controls the bulk density. Then that coal is discharged on the
21 output side of the pulverizer and then conveyed up to the coke
22 oven bunkers, over to the coke ovens, which Larry Siebenberger
23 has already described that process.
24 Q. Okay. Can you see on this map 2A, Exhibit 2A where coal
563
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 mixing is, coal handling or coal mixing?
2 A. The coal mixing building?
3 Q. Yes. Just put a CM for coal mixing?
4 A. The whole facility, basically?
5 Q. Sure, uh-huh.
6 A. Okay. It is actually this all inclusive right here
7 (indicating).
8 Q. Okay.
9 (The witness marking on Exhibit 2A.)
10 Q. (By Ms. Christman) Okay. So you are moving from the
11 three circles that say one, two, and three ER, the Elk Run piles,
12 if you are using Elk Run coal, into railcars and then they are
13 taken -- the railcars run over to the coal mixing area,
14 basically?
15 A. Right, via the railroad track and then unloaded,
16 transport via conveyor to the mixer bin. This is the actual
17 mixing building right here (indicating).
18 Q. Okay. Thanks. I think it might be marked on there. Is
19 the coke plant already labeled on Exhibit 2A?
20 A. Coke ovens.
21 Q. Coke ovens. Okay.
22 (Whereupon photographs were duly marked for purposes of
23 identification as Respondent Exhibits GG, HH, II as of
24 this date.)
564
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 Q. (By Ms. Christman) I am going to give you three pictures
2 that are marked in order with the pictures that we talked about
3 for Respondent's Exhibit 3. They are GG, HH, II. Can you just
4 describe what these pictures are showing?
5 A. Okay. GG is a coal delivery truck basically raising his
6 -- he is on the -- I guess on the haul road raising his tarp, I
7 guess is what he is doing.
8 Q. Okay.
9 A. HH is a coal delivery truck dumping coal on one of the
10 coal piles there. I can't tell which coal that is, but it looks
11 like maybe the Elk Run. And II illustrates the dozer operator
12 pushing coal up the pile.
13 Q. Okay. You can just leave the pictures there.
14 A. Okay.
15 Q. Does Granite City Division maintain records regarding
16 the volume of coal stored in the coal piles?
17 A. Yes, we do.
18 Q. Are those records maintained in the regular course of
19 business?
20 A. Yes.
21 Q. They would reflect the coal purchased and coal consumed?
22 A. That's correct.
23 Q. How much coal -- I think Larry may have talked about
24 this -- but just if you know, how much coal is trucked into
565
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 Granite City every year?
2 A. Approximately 850 to 860,000 tons a year.
3 Q. I am going to show you a graph.
4 A. Okay.
5 MS. CHRISTMAN: I would like to have this marked as
6 Respondent's Exhibit Number 36. Here is a copy for you, Mr.
7 Hearing Officer.
8 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: I have given you some stickers.
9 MS. CHRISTMAN: Oh, yes. Okay.
10 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: Could you mark it.
11 MS. CHRISTMAN: Yes, I can.
12 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: Thank you.
13 (Whereupon said document was duly marked for purposes of
14 identification as Respondent Exhibit 36 of this date.)
15 Q. (By Ms. Christman) Basically this is a graph. You can
16 identify what it is. It has to do with volumes of coal. Could
17 you explain what is on here?
18 A. Okay. Basically this is information from our aerial
19 surveys that are done on a quarterly basis. It shows the Elk Run
20 coal piles, number one, two, and three, which are on the map
21 here, what the actual cubic yardage of each pile is on the aerial
22 surveys that are done every quarter. And as you can see, the
23 piles fluctuate in size based on their -- on what kind of state
24 they are in. At one point in time it may be fully built, such as
566
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 if you look at the number one pile there on 10-30-98, there was
2 14,565 cubic yards. Then the next quarter it was down to 756,
3 which means it was probably being consumed at that time. So it
4 shows normal fluctuations of the coal piles being built and being
5 consumed.
6 Q. And what time period is represented on the graph and on
7 the tab form of the same information?
8 A. It represents the first quarter of 1997 through the
9 second quarter of this year.
10 MR. MUSKOPF: Could I have a copy of that, since I have not
11 seen it yet.
12 MS. CHRISTMAN: I am sorry. Here you go. Actually, you
13 have seen the data that is represented in this. We provided it
14 to you in Attachment C to our initial responses to
15 interrogatories.
16 Q. (By Ms. Christman) So does the graph, when you are
17 looking at the volume line, the linear black line, indicate an
18 increase, decrease, or remaining the same amount of coal in the
19 three piles closest to the complainants' homes over the past four
20 years?
21 A. It shows a decrease in size.
22 Q. Thank you. Can you describe whether in the last few
23 years there has been any discussions with the bulldozer operators
24 or the operators in that area on different methods for building
567
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 piles?
2 A. Yes. We had discussed some two years ago or so with the
3 dozer operators on being able to maximize coal storage and
4 minimize coal pile height. At that point in time we started
5 experimenting with a ramp style pile that normally would have
6 been peaked and elevated quite high, to going with a plateau type
7 pile where the pile is plateaued on top and compacted on top and
8 successfully -- have pretty much successfully been able to do
9 that with all of our piles.
10 Q. What does plateauing the top of the pile allow you to
11 do?
12 A. Well, basically it allows two things. Number one, it
13 allows the pile to be sprayed with the Soil Cement or the
14 encrusting agent quite easily. It makes the pile fairly regular
15 or homogeneous in size which aids the spraying compound as far as
16 being able to spray it very quickly and accurately. And it
17 actually helps us from a quality standpoint as far as shedding
18 water on the pile. During significant rain storms the piles
19 don't soak up as much water during the rainy season.
20 Q. So that's the method that the operators try to follow
21 now currently?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Going back to when the trucks are delivering coal into
24 the area, what is the regularly scheduled days and times of the
568
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 day that the trucks deliver coal to Granite City?
2 A. Typically we schedule trucks Monday through Friday. On
3 an annual basis we probably work about 50 percent of the
4 Saturdays on coal delivery. A lot of that is dependent upon mine
5 shipments and river conditions, as far as what coal is available
6 in town and when we can unload it.
7 Q. What hours on Monday through Friday and every other
8 Saturday or so?
9 A. Basically the delivery gates open from 6:30 until 2:30
10 in the afternoon.
11 Q. In other words, the gates are locked up until 6:30 in
12 the morning?
13 A. That's correct.
14 Q. So how many coal delivery trucks are usually unloading
15 on the piles at one time? In other words, how many coal delivery
16 trucks are inside the gates and raising their beds at the same
17 time?
18 A. It varies. Typically it is one truck at a time. But
19 when we are starting a new pile out and we have plenty of room to
20 dump we have as many as two or three trucks dumping in parallel.
21 As long as they are not right next to each other and there is no
22 danger of tip over, we can have two to three trucks dumping at
23 the same time.
24 Q. But it is typically one truck?
569
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 A. Typically one truck at a time.
2 Q. What is the scheduled days and times that the dozers are
3 operating, pushing coal up the piles?
4 A. Typically dozer number one is there at 6:30, and the
5 second dozer shows up around 7:00. So we have an overlap, an
6 overlap of two dozers at times.
7 Q. What is the scheduled days that they would operate?
8 A. Monday through Friday or Tuesday through Saturday,
9 depending on if we have a Saturday schedule of coal delivery.
10 Q. And then what time in the afternoons do the dozers --
11 what is the end of that shift?
12 A. Typically 2:30 is the end of the shift. Although we do
13 have -- from time to time we do have to keep the gate open late,
14 till 4:30 or 5:00, depending on the traffic conditions and river
15 conditions, as far as the unloading goes.
16 Q. That's 4:30 or 5:00 in the afternoon?
17 A. Uh-huh.
18 Q. So how many bulldozers are usually used on the piles at
19 the same time? Either two on -- you know, more than one on one
20 pile or more than one in the whole coal fields?
21 A. How many times do we have two dozers on the --
22 Q. Right. Like, how many dozers are usually operating at
23 the same time basically?
24 A. Typically one, but we have -- from time to time we may
570
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 have both dozers working the same pile. We could have two dozers
2 working one pile.
3 Q. You only -- how many types of coal would you receive in
4 a day?
5 A. One coal per day.
6 Q. So you are receiving one coal. That means you can only
7 work, at maximum, three piles at a time, the general situation?
8 A. Yes, the general situation we have -- for safety
9 reasons, and I am talking about coke oven safety reasons, for
10 protecting the assets, we deliver one coal, one scheduled coal
11 per day to a designated pile. Depending on the size of the other
12 piles there we may have back up coal where we can divert a couple
13 of trucks to the back up pile from time to time to relieve trucks
14 as they dump.
15 Q. Okay. What is the scheduled days and times that the
16 front-end loaders are unloading coal from the piles?
17 A. Typically the front-end loader is going to be loading
18 cars between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and noon for the -- we run
19 two shifts of coal handling. And the second shift is going to
20 unload coal from the period of 8:00 p.m. until midnight.
21 Q. What days of the week?
22 A. That is seven days a week.
23 Q. Are there any times that the front-end loaders would be
24 operating outside of those hours, 8:00 a.m. to noon, and 8:00
571
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 p.m. to midnight?
2 A. Possibly in the wintertime if we have frozen coal and
3 material handling problems, they may be out there at all
4 different types of hours.
5 Q. Due to the --
6 A. During the fair weather conditions typically not. They
7 are usually operating in that time frame.
8 Q. How many front-end loaders are typically operating in
9 the coal fields at any one time?
10 A. Basically one end loader per designated pile.
11 Q. If you are only generally working one pile then that is
12 one front-end loader?
13 A. Yes.
14 Q. How often would you use more than one front-end loader
15 in the area at the same time?
16 A. Well, if we had -- we could be simultaneously loading
17 Elk Run and Black Bear, our other high vol, or Elk Run and
18 Pinnacle, so one high lift could be working a different part of
19 the coal field.
20 Q. How often is that the case?
21 A. Maybe 50 percent of the time.
22 Q. The front-end loaders fill railroad cars. How many
23 railroad cars would you fill in a shift, in one of the four hour
24 shifts?
572
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 A. Approximately 10, 10 to 15, depending on the
2 availability of railroad cars.
3 Q. And how long does it take to fill a railroad car, a four
4 hour shift?
5 A. It takes about -- to fill five cars is approximately an
6 hour and a half.
7 Q. Okay. Once the railcars are loaded what is the schedule
8 that they run over to the coal handling area?
9 A. The cars are delivered to coal handling prior to the
10 midnight shift turn or the noon to 8:00 turn. So basically as
11 soon as the end loader has the car -- has the hopper cars loaded
12 then they are transported via engine over to coal handling.
13 Q. Generally all the railcars at one shot at the end of
14 either the 8:00 to noon shift, or the 8:00 p.m. to midnight
15 shift?
16 A. Correct.
17 Q. So there is not generally railcars being moved around
18 all the time? Maybe twice a day?
19 A. Well, basically at the end -- the cars are delivered in
20 a certain sequence to coal handling prior to their shift
21 starting.
22 Q. Okay.
23 A. And then at the end of the shift the cars are pulled
24 from coal handling and respotted in front of the piles.
573
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 Q. Okay.
2 A. So, for instance, from noon -- on the noon to 8:00 shift
3 the full cars will be delivered there sometime prior to noon, and
4 then at 8:00 p.m., when they have finished running the coal
5 handling shift, they would pull those empty cars and respot them
6 in front of the designated piles for reloading.
7 Q. Okay. When are the cars emptied at coal handling, then,
8 once the full cars are sent over? Is there a regular schedule
9 for that?
10 A. Yes, they are emptied on what I just described as the
11 noon to 8:00 shift.
12 Q. Okay.
13 A. The cars would be emptied at coal handling between the
14 hours of noon and 8:00 p.m., and then on the midnight turn. That
15 would be our second shift. Or actually our first turn. It would
16 be emptied between the hours of midnight and 8:00 a.m.
17 Q. What days of the week?
18 A. That is Sunday through Saturday, seven days a week.
19 Q. Okay. So going back to building one pile. If you are
20 -- when you are totally built off at a pile, about how long would
21 it take to do that if you were just continually building one
22 pile?
23 A. How long would it take to rotate if we had to --
24 Q. Right, to schedule the trucks in and basically build a
574
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 pile completely until you would try to plateau it off?
2 A. Oh, the way we are handling our coal right now?
3 Q. Uh-huh.
4 A. Okay. It takes approximately four days to build a pile.
5 Q. Okay. That's dependent on --
6 A. It could be consecutive days or it may be spread out
7 over a week or two, depending on river conditions and what barges
8 are in town available for unloading.
9 Q. Okay.
10 A. As far as consumption goes, the thing on pile size, the
11 average is probably going to be about 12 days. It will range 9
12 to 15 days to consume a pile.
13 Q. Okay. So we have pretty much covered the whole
14 operation in your area, the basics of coal coming in until it
15 goes over to be used at the coke plant?
16 A. Uh-huh, I think we have.
17 Q. We have talked about -- have we talked about the people
18 in the area? In other words, there would be truck drivers, and
19 we have talked about bulldozer operators, we have talked about
20 front-end loader operators, and those folks have supervisors, I
21 assume; is that correct?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. Okay.
24 A. Yes, they do.
575
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 Q. Is there other types? We have also talked about the
2 person who operates the sprayer trucks?
3 A. (Nodded head up and down.)
4 Q. And what other types of employees would be working in
5 that area, in your area of the plant?
6 A. Besides those you mentioned, we have laboratory
7 personnel, samplers, that have to go out to the field from time
8 to time to sample coal from the designated piles.
9 Q. Okay.
10 A. Our coal handling and by-products foreman is required to
11 go out and inspect the -- inspect the area prior to any
12 unloading. And then also comes back and makes regular trips
13 through the field to inspect progress on the coal piles.
14 Q. Okay.
15 A. And basically that's about it as far as personnel.
16 There are occasionally some maintenance personnel in the area.
17 We have a track inspector that is required to walk the tracks on
18 a daily basis in the coal yard. And then track maintenance crews
19 from time to time have to come out and repair track. And then,
20 of course, the railroad engine crew is there on a shift to shift
21 basis moving hopper cars around, either full or empty.
22 Q. Okay. Are there currently -- we have been talking about
23 back up alarms throughout the testimony in this hearing. Are
24 there currently back up alarms on each piece of heavy equipment
576
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 used in your area of the plant?
2 A. All pieces of equipment have back up alarms.
3 Q. Are there back up alarms or safety alarms in other areas
4 of the mill?
5 A. Yes, yes, there are.
6 Q. Why are there back up alarms used in your area, in the
7 mill generally, and specifically in your area?
8 A. To notify -- to notify all the people that work in the
9 area that equipment is in motion, so that they aware of the
10 hazards.
11 Q. So, in other words, to notify all of the different types
12 of people that we were just talking about that large, heavy
13 equipment is in motion?
14 A. Right, that could be impacted by, you know, moving
15 equipment.
16 Q. And this is basically a safety issue?
17 A. Yes, it is.
18 Q. What safety positions or safety issues are you involved
19 in at the plant? Do you do any safety related work?
20 A. Yes, I am -- I basically administrate and conduct the
21 coke plant supervisors safety meeting, the managers supervisor
22 safety meeting every month. I also meet with the area safety
23 reps for the coal handling department, the coal conversion
24 department, and the by-products department, the hourly person
577
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 that is basically responsible for bringing any safety concerns
2 from the department, you know, to the management level.
3 Q. Okay.
4 A. And then once a month we have a labor management safety
5 meeting, which I attend those on a regular basis also.
6 Q. So you have a good idea of what is a serious safety
7 issue in your area of the plant?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Okay. Would you say that the use of back up alarms is a
10 serious safety issue or concern in the coal fields area?
11 A. Yes, it is. It is a very serious issue, that all
12 equipment in our plant have either motion alarms or back up
13 alarms, depending on where it is operating.
14 Q. What is the risk involved if back up alarms are not
15 used? In other words, what are they designed to protect, what
16 event, what type of events?
17 A. Accidental contact of pieces of -- two pieces of mobile
18 equipment or more, which would result in serious injury and
19 equipment damage, property damage, the size of the equipment that
20 we are talking about here.
21 Q. So it has been suggested that there are other methods,
22 for example, using an observer and disconnecting back up alarms
23 to achieve the same safety affect of an audible alarm.
24 A. Uh-huh.
578
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 Q. In your opinion would it be -- would there be an
2 increased risk of injury in your area if that option were
3 followed, if you just used an observer rather than an audible
4 alarm for each piece of equipment?
5 A. Yes. Due to the congested area with multiple pieces of
6 equipment and multiple departments working in the area, I think
7 it would be a serious risk to have a safety person versus the
8 audible alarms that we use currently.
9 Q. What do you think -- do you think that's the reason that
10 the Granite City Division has not disconnected back up alarms at
11 this point in time?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. For example, if you use -- if you were able to assign a
14 person to act as flagman and indicate to other operators or
15 people in the area when machinery is backing up, what do you
16 think could be -- what do you think could be the issues that
17 could happen there that would increase the risk? In other words,
18 why is that riskier than using an audible alarm?
19 A. Well, number one, there is a risk to the person doing
20 the flagging, you know, being able to -- you know, have 360
21 degree peripheral vision to see all of the equipment moving
22 around. You would have to have -- in my opinion, you would have
23 to have some sort of radio communication between all of the
24 pieces of moving equipment to let the truck, the high lift, the
579
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 dozer operator know who is moving and to halt operations until
2 they are contacted back.
3 MR. MUSKOPF: I need to renew my objection, but on the
4 additional basis that the witness has not been designated as an
5 expert on safety issues.
6 MS. CHRISTMAN: I am not offering the witness as an expert,
7 Mr. Hearing Officer.
8 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: The objection is overruled and
9 noted.
10 Q. (By Ms. Christman) If you were to propose the use of
11 observers and disconnecting the back up alarms, would that have
12 to be addressed with the union safety committee?
13 A. Yes, it would.
14 Q. And in your experience would that be something that was
15 well received?
16 A. I believe it would not be well received.
17 Q. What would the union's concern be, do you think?
18 A. The safety of --
19 MR. MUSKOPF: Objection. It calls for speculation. Excuse
20 me. Sorry.
21 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: Overruled. You can answer.
22 THE WITNESS: The safety of the employees in the work area.
23 Q. (By Ms. Christman) And has your area of the plant had
24 any reductions in manpower recently in the last few years?
580
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 A. Yes, we have had some head count reduction.
2 Q. What do you think that percentage is in percent of
3 employees in your area?
4 A. All departments inclusive there including maintenance
5 and the heavy equipment department, I would say five to seven
6 percent.
7 Q. So are there any employees that generally work in your
8 area that are just hanging around and have extra sort of time in
9 their eight hour shift to act as a flagman or an observer?
10 A. None that I am aware of.
11 Q. How many pieces of equipment are usually in use in that
12 area at one time? In other words, how many observers do you
13 think you might need?
14 A. Well, depending on the activity and, obviously, when the
15 coal delivery is being made that's when it is the busiest time,
16 so I could anticipate having, you know, at least two, two
17 observers there.
18 Q. Okay.
19 A. One for truck and one for, you know, the heavy equipment
20 operations.
21 Q. And you just testified that you don't -- you don't have
22 two extra employees around that could do that position?
23 A. That's correct.
24 Q. So basically you have had manpower reductions recently,
581
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 and you think it would be a drastic increase in safety concerns.
2 Would you consider it a safe or a practical option to disconnect
3 the back up alarms on the heavy equipment that is used in your
4 area?
5 A. No, I do not. I would not.
6 MS. CHRISTMAN: I don't have any further questions.
7 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: Thank you, Ms. Christman. Mr.
8 Muskopf?
9 MR. MUSKOPF: I have just a couple.
10 CROSS EXAMINATION
11 BY MR. MUSKOPF:
12 Q. Mr. Holloran, how are you?
13 A. Fine. How are you?
14 Q. Fine. Thanks. How many serious injuries at Granite
15 City Steel are you aware of that have taken place from the time
16 you started working there?
17 A. How many serious injuries --
18 Q. Yeah?
19 A. -- have taken place? I don't know. Six. Ten.
20 Q. Any fatalities that you aware of?
21 A. Yes.
22 Q. How many?
23 A. Over what period of time? Over the last --
24 Q. Well, just out of the ones that you are aware of. You
582
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 said -- I asked first -- I am sorry. Over any period of time?
2 A. Four that I am, you know, very familiar with.
3 Q. Okay. Very familiar with?
4 A. In the iron making area.
5 Q. How did those people get killed?
6 A. Two persons at the blast furnace and then two persons at
7 the coke ovens. We had one employee at the blast furnace who was
8 basically burned to death from a tap hole incident.
9 Q. Is that when the tap hole exploded?
10 A. A tap hole explosion.
11 Q. Did it cause -- it basically spewed out a bunch of --
12 A. It spewed out and he was contacted with hot metal and
13 slag. And then we had a supervisor at the blast furnace that
14 became entangled in a vertical conveyor, a material conveyor
15 piece of equipment. And then at the coke ovens we had an
16 employee that was crushed by a coke side door machine between the
17 door machine and the handrail, as the door machine was moving
18 down the battery. And then the last fatality we had was on the
19 top side of the battery where an employee was crushed between the
20 Larry car, which is the coal charging car and a coal bunker.
21 Q. It sounds like some pretty bad ways to go out, huh?
22 A. Very bad.
23 Q. That is -- the four that you just described took place
24 over what time frame?
583
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 A. I would say in the last -- let' see. Sam Burch was
2 probably five years ago.
3 Q. So from about five years ago to the present is when the
4 ones --
5 A. Correct.
6 Q. -- that you just discussed took place?
7 A. That's correct.
8 Q. And you have been at that plant for how long?
9 A. For 12 years.
10 Q. Would you say that safety has improved from the time you
11 have been there to the present?
12 A. Overall it has, yes.
13 Q. Why do you all need to store so much coal, stockpile at
14 one time? Do you guys just want to make sure that you don't run
15 out?
16 A. That's correct.
17 Q. I mean, running out would be a --
18 A. That is a good question.
19 Q. -- bad thing for the plant, right?
20 A. Actually, you know, we are dependent upon our coal
21 supply from West Virginia. So there is mining issues, railroad
22 issues, and then, of course, the unpredictable, the river, being
23 able to get the coal from West Virginia to St. Louis. So we try
24 to maintain about a 30-day supply for each one of our commodities
584
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 at any point in time.
2 Q. Have you ever run out of one of the different types of
3 coal since you have been there?
4 A. We came close. We got -- we were down to about half a
5 day on the Elk Run coal at one time.
6 Q. Sounds too close for comfort. Have you ever looked into
7 building steel barriers between the different coal piles, which
8 would allow you to reduce the elevation of the piles and more
9 efficiently store the material in essentially a smaller amount of
10 space so you would have a smaller footprint and you could --
11 A. Uh-huh.
12 Q. Do you understand what I am saying?
13 A. Yes, I understand exactly what you are saying, having a
14 barrier wall --
15 Q. Yes.
16 A. -- between the piles.
17 Q. Yes.
18 A. We have never actually looked at it from a cost
19 standpoint, but I am familiar with what you are talking about.
20 Q. Are you familiar with other coal operations in which
21 coal piles are kept separately by such a method?
22 A. Yes, I have seen some operations that have divisional
23 walls between piles.
24 Q. So it is something that can be done?
585
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 A. Uh-huh.
2 Q. That was a yes, wasn't it?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. Okay.
5 A. I am sorry.
6 Q. That's all right. Can you tell the difference -- the
7 different types of coal by site? I mean, could you pick up one
8 chunk of each of the different kinds you have described, the Elk
9 Run and Black Bear, for instance, and tell them apart?
10 A. Probably not by just randomly grabbing a chunk of each
11 coal. But typically in the piles I can tell the difference
12 between the two.
13 Q. How do the truck drivers know which pile to dump on?
14 A. They have a -- we have a field correspondent that works
15 for the trucking firm and he ensures that the piles are -- you
16 know, that the truck drivers go to the proper pile.
17 Q. So which each driver he tells them you dump on this
18 pile?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Okay.
21 A. We have a series of truck drivers that come in there
22 throughout the day, and once they dump once on the correct pile
23 they know to go to that pile. Dozers are logically -- you know,
24 they are in place before the first truck arrives so that
586
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 designates the pile. Then we have a -- we have a message board
2 at the entrance to the gate there that also tells them which pile
3 -- which coal and which pile to dump on.
4 Q. Okay. Speaking of dozers, you were talking about the
5 hours of operation. You are not saying that they don't operate
6 at all, let's say, past midnight?
7 A. Past midnight?
8 Q. Yes.
9 A. If they do, it is very rare.
10 Q. Okay.
11 A. Very rare after midnight.
12 Q. You are not saying it can't happen, or that it has never
13 happened at least while you have been there?
14 A. True. Like in the flood of 1993 we had to bring some
15 coal into the plant on an emergency basis for obvious reasons,
16 the river coming up. And we did bring coal in around the clock
17 at that point in time.
18 Q. In the recent past, are you aware of any time that the
19 dozer has been operating after midnight?
20 A. No.
21 Q. How many trucks, how many loads basically are brought in
22 on an annual basis, could you say?
23 A. How many truckloads?
24 Q. Yes.
587
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 A. Basically it is, you know, 850,000 tons divided by about
2 25 tons per truck, so whatever that figure comes out to.
3 MR. MUSKOPF: Okay. That's all I have got. Thank you.
4 THE WITNESS: Okay.
5 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: Thank you. Ms. Christman?
6 MS. CHRISTMAN: I just have one question.
7 REDIRECT EXAMINATION
8 BY MS. CHRISTMAN:
9 Q. Mr. Muskopf wants to talk about employees that have lost
10 their lives in the mill. I understand that two of the recent
11 deaths occurred in the coke plant; is that right?
12 A. That's correct.
13 Q. Were there audible safety alarms in use on the pieces of
14 equipment that were involved in those accidents?
15 A. Yes.
16 Q. And even though audible alarms were in use, deaths
17 occurred?
18 A. That's correct.
19 MS. CHRISTMAN: That's all of my questions.
20 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: Mr. Muskopf?
21 MR. MUSKOPF: Nothing further.
22 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: Thank you. Mr. Holloran, I have
23 one small request for you. Would you on this exhibit -- is it
24 Exhibit 2 or 2A?
588
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 MR. BABST: It is Exhibit 2A.
2 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: Exhibit 2A, the one we are
3 using. Would you draw the other six piles of coal, meaning there
4 is --
5 THE WITNESS: We have these three.
6 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: Yes, and then you have another
7 group of three.
8 THE WITNESS: Right. We have three here.
9 (The witness drawing on Exhibit 2A.)
10 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: Would you label that with the
11 initials of Black Bear or whatever.
12 THE WITNESS: Okay. This would be Black Bear.
13 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: Thank you.
14 THE WITNESS: And then Pinnacle is -- let's see here.
15 Actually, this road is over -- actually, there is a -- okay.
16 Here is one. These are the Pinnacle.
17 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: Okay. Thank you very much. For
18 the record, he has made six more piles of coal, represented with
19 initials on 2A. Thank you very much.
20 THE WITNESS: You are welcome.
21 (The witness left the stand.)
22 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: All right. Call your next
23 witness, please.
24 MR. BABST: Joe Ribbing.
589
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 (Whereupon the witness was sworn by the Notary Public.)
2 J O E R I B B I N G,
3 having been first duly sworn by the Notary Public, saith as
4 follows:
5 DIRECT EXAMINATION
6 BY MR. BABST:
7 Q. Would you please state your name.
8 A. Joe Ribbing, R-I-B-B-I-N-G.
9 Q. What is your current address, Mr. Ribbing?
10 A. It is 3328 Colgate, in Granite City.
11 Q. And with whom are you employed?
12 A. With National Steel, Granite City Division.
13 Q. What is your title?
14 A. It is controller of the Division.
15 Q. How long have you been with the Granite City Division?
16 A. For 31 years.
17 Q. And could you basically, in very short order, lay out
18 your employment history since you have been with Granite City?
19 A. I started I guess about 1969, and I worked in different
20 organizations of the financial department; payroll, financial
21 analysis, financial planning. Most of the time I was always in
22 the financial department. And before I was controller I was
23 manager of financial analysis and planning.
24 Q. What is your educational background?
590
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 A. I have a Bachelor of Science degree in professional
2 accounting from Southern Illinois University in Edwardsville.
3 Q. And in your current position what are your job
4 responsibilities?
5 A. As Division controller I am responsible for the
6 financial administration of the Division, and that includes
7 basically financial planning, financial analysis, financial
8 reporting, payroll, basically anything to do with the financial
9 assets of the Division.
10 Q. As part of your job, do you monitor Granite City's
11 economic impact in the region?
12 A. Yes, we do.
13 Q. And do you maintain records of Division performance
14 trends?
15 A. Yes, we do.
16 Q. Have you reviewed those types of records prior to
17 testifying here today?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. Approximately how many employees are there at the
20 Granite City Division?
21 A. We have currently about 2,900 employees on the payroll
22 at this Division.
23 Q. Do you know approximately how many of those people live
24 in the tri-city area, Venice, Madison, Granite City?
591
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 A. Roughly about 30 percent, about 1,000 people.
2 Q. Do you know approximately how many of the employees here
3 are Illinois residents?
4 A. Historically it is about 90 percent.
5 Q. Do you know how many Granite City retirees are currently
6 drawing a pension?
7 A. It is a little over 3,000. The last I checked it was
8 3,100, somewhere in that area.
9 Q. And what is the monthly employment cost at Granite City?
10 A. It is over 20 million dollars a month.
11 Q. Are there many industries, services, or agencies here in
12 the tri-city area that do more than $10,000.00 worth of business
13 a year with Granite City?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. Are there companies or agencies that do more than
16 $100,000.00 worth of business with Granite City?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Can you give examples of some of the businesses or the
19 types of businesses that benefit from the Division being located
20 in Granite City?
21 A. Yes. There are a lot of processors in the area.
22 Heidtman Steel, Granite City Pickling, Affiliated Metals, Precoat
23 Metals, Farrell Alloys, those types of businesses. We also have
24 suppliers like Air Products and Stein, Incorporated, and other
592
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 businesses like Koetting Ford, and the different hardware stores,
2 we do business with those guys. Granite City Glass. A lot of
3 local businesses.
4 Q. Does the Granite City Division run a United Way program?
5 A. Yes, we do.
6 Q. For the year 2000 do you know what amount of money was
7 contributed to the United Way by Granite City employees?
8 A. The year 2000 was $322,000.00 by the employees.
9 Q. Did the Granite City Division donate any money in
10 addition to those monies provided by the employees?
11 A. Yes, $100,000.00.
12 Q. Has the Granite City Division supported any other
13 non-profit or charitable organizations in the tri-city area?
14 A. Yes, the Division contributes to a lot of organizations
15 throughout the community.
16 Q. Do you know how much the Granite City Division paid in
17 property taxes in the year 2000?
18 A. Over four million dollars.
19 (Whereupon a document was duly marked for purposes of
20 identification as Respondent Exhibit 16 as of this date.)
21 Q. (By Mr. Babst) I am going to show you what has been
22 identified as Respondent's Exhibit Number 16, and ask if you can
23 identify that document?
24 A. Yes. That is our property taxes that were paid in the
593
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 year 2000 and the distribution to the different taxing bodies
2 within the township.
3 Q. The Township of Granite City?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Where did you get this information?
6 A. That was off of our year 2000 tax bill.
7 Q. Could you just identify the specific areas that are
8 partially funded by Granite City Division taxes?
9 A. Yes. As we analyze our tax distribution we see that 53
10 percent of our tax dollars goes to the school district. About
11 ten percent of the four million dollars goes to the county.
12 Three percent goes to the township. Six percent goes to the
13 Metro-East sanitary sewer district. The park district receives
14 five percent of that money. The City of Granite City receives 16
15 percent. Southwestern Illinois Junior College receives about
16 three percent. And the library receives about four percent.
17 Q. Thank you. Are you familiar with the current financial
18 condition of National Steel Corporation?
19 A. Yes, I am.
20 (Whereupon a document was duly marked for purposes of
21 identification as Respondent Exhibit 17 as of this date.)
22 Q. (By Mr. Babst) I show you what has been marked as
23 Respondent's Exhibit Number 17, and ask if you can identify that
24 document?
594
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 A. It is a National Steel Corporation form 10-Q. It is a
2 quarterly document that is filed with the Security Exchange
3 Commission.
4 Q. Do you know, and could you tell me if you do, the net
5 income or the net loss that has been realized by National Steel
6 Corporation in 1998, 1999 and 2000?
7 A. Our net income in 1998 was 89 million dollars. We made
8 89 million dollars that year. In 1999, the corporation lost, I
9 believe, it was 29 million dollars. And in the year 2000 we lost
10 130 million dollars.
11 Q. Based upon Respondent's Exhibit Number 17, or based upon
12 your own knowledge, how much money did National Steel make or
13 lose in the first quarter of the year 2001?
14 A. The first quarter we lost 109 million dollars in the
15 quarter.
16 Q. Does the company attempt to project future earnings or
17 losses?
18 A. Yes, we do.
19 Q. Based upon the recent performance in the steel industry,
20 do you anticipate a quick turnaround from the standpoint of
21 profitability?
22 A. No.
23 MR. MUSKOPF: I am going to object. Excuse me. I am going
24 to object on the basis that it calls for an opinion that has not
595
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 been disclosed, and this witness has not been designated as an
2 opinion witness.
3 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: Okay. That is overruled.
4 Can you answer the question, Mr. Ribbing?
5 THE WITNESS: There will not be a quick turnaround in this
6 thing. We can see that.
7 (Whereupon a document was duly marked for purposes of
8 identification as Respondent Exhibit 23 as of this date.)
9 Q. (By Mr. Babst) Let me show you what has been identified
10 as Respondent's Exhibit 23, and ask if you can identify that
11 document?
12 A. That is a document of the stock prices for National
13 Steel Corporation on four individual dates for the last four
14 years.
15 Q. Would you tell me what those dates are and what the
16 value of the stock was on that date?
17 A. On June 6th of 19 -- I am sorry. On July 6th of 1998,
18 it was $11.94 a share. On June 21st, 1999, the share price was
19 $7.69 a share. On June 21st of the year 2000, it was $3.88 a
20 share. As of July 2nd of 2001, the share value was $1.85 a
21 share.
22 Q. Where did you get these figures?
23 A. These are closing figures for the New York Stock
24 Exchange on those dates.
596
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 Q. Between July 6th of 1998 and July 2nd of 2001, what is
2 the loss in book value, based upon those stock prices?
3 A. This equates to about an 85 percent loss in book value.
4 If you look at the math, it was about $11.94 in 1998, and it is
5 only a $1.85 now. That is about a $10.00 a share drop, and we
6 have 41 million shares. So that is over 412 million dollars loss
7 in book value in four years time.
8 Q. Can National Steel Corporation survive if these losses
9 continue at the current rate?
10 A. I would say it is very doubtful. We have never had
11 three consecutive years of losses at National Steel's history.
12 Q. What has the company done to try to survive this period
13 of time?
14 A. The corporation has tried to increase its prices. We
15 have tried to improve our product mix. But the concentration,
16 especially at the Divisions here, is to reduce our costs, to go
17 on a very aggressive cost-cutting role.
18 Q. And in trying to cut costs what type of cost-cutting
19 programs have you implemented?
20 A. We have basically sat down with all of our operating
21 departments, not only here at this Division, but other Divisions,
22 to reduce costs, to reduce overtime, to reduce maintenance, to
23 reduce any discretionary spending that we can.
24 Q. Have there been any manpower reductions?
597
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 A. Yes, there has.
2 Q. What have they been?
3 A. The most recent figures I have show that we have 148
4 hourly people that are no longer working here since the beginning
5 of the year and 13 salaried people that are no longer working
6 here.
7 Q. Is that at the Granite City Division alone?
8 A. That is just at this Division.
9 Q. Have the other business units of National Steel
10 Corporation done the same thing?
11 A. Yes, yes.
12 Q. Has the company sought vendor participation in its cost
13 cutting?
14 A. Yes, we have.
15 Q. Has the division shut down any of its facilities?
16 A. Yes, we have.
17 Q. What have you shut down?
18 A. At this Division we have shut down the number six
19 galvanizing line. We have shut down the number one roll former,
20 and we have shut down the number two roll former.
21 Q. And the reason for shutting those facilities down?
22 A. Basically the number six galvanizing line was the lack
23 of orders, unable to compete in the marketplace with the product
24 that it was making, and the same way with the roll formers. We
598
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 were unable to compete in the marketplace with the products.
2 Q. When was the number six galvanizing line built, do you
3 remember? If you don't know, that is fine.
4 A. I would say probably the early 1960s.
5 Q. Okay. Has the company, other than the Granite City
6 Division, shut down any of its other facilities?
7 A. Yes, it has.
8 Q. Could you tell us what those are?
9 A. Currently the number 48-inch galvanizing line at our
10 Midwest Division has been shut down.
11 Q. Have any businesses or product lines been sold to third
12 parties?
13 A. Yes, the roll formers at the Granite City Division have
14 been sold.
15 Q. Do you know whether National Steel is currently trying
16 to sell any of its other assets?
17 A. Yes, all of our noncore assets are basically on the
18 market right now.
19 Q. Are you generally aware of foreign steel making capacity
20 and imports?
21 A. Yes.
22 (Whereupon a document was duly marked for purposes of
23 identification as Respondent Exhibit 19 as of this date.)
24 Q. (By Mr. Babst) I am going to show you what has been
599
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 identified as Respondent's Exhibit Number 19, and ask if you
2 could identify that document?
3 A. Yes. That was a document prepared in our corporate
4 headquarters. It basically identifies the U.S. imports of
5 foreign steel from non North American Free Trade Association
6 countries. It indicates that in the years of 1994 through 1997
7 the average imports were about 15 percent of the market, but in
8 the year 2000 it is up to 17.4 percent of the U.S. market. It
9 has a comment that basically there is excess raw steel making
10 capacity out on the market that is more than two times as great
11 as total annual U.S. consumption.
12 Q. What is the trend in steel shipments for National Steel
13 Corporation?
14 A. Right now that shipment -- I am sorry -- that trend is
15 down.
16 (Whereupon said document was duly marked for purposes of
17 identification as Respondent Exhibit 21 as of this date.)
18 Q. (By Mr. Babst) I show you what has been marked as
19 Respondent's Exhibit Number 21, and ask if you could expand upon
20 that answer, based upon the graph that I have given you?
21 A. The information is that our quarterly shipments for the
22 year 1999 through the first quarter of 2000, and we see an upward
23 slope through the year of 1999, but a sharp decrease beginning
24 approximately the second quarter of 2000, and staying in a
600
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 depressed state for the third, fourth, and first quarter of 2000
2 and 2001.
3 Q. What is the difference in steel shipments from National
4 Steel over the last year?
5 A. On an annualized basis we try to be about a 6.5 million
6 ton shipping, and we are closer to about 5.6 the way the market
7 is running now.
8 (Whereupon a document was duly marked for purposes of
9 identification as Respondent Exhibit 22 as of this date.)
10 Q. (By Mr. Babst) Let me show you another graph and ask if
11 you can identify that? It is marked as Respondent's Exhibit
12 Number 22.
13 A. This one is the average selling price trend for the same
14 time period of 1999, 2000, and the first quarter of 2001. The
15 average selling price is about $465.00 a ton for maybe the first
16 seven quarters, and it has dropped to below $400.00 a ton in the
17 first quarter of 2000. It is at $396.00 a ton.
18 Q. Mr. Ribbing, if you took the loss in steel shipments
19 together with the loss in cost per ton, can you give me an
20 estimation of what National Steel has lost in revenues over the
21 last year?
22 A. If you take a look at this and we -- if we would say an
23 average shipment for the year is about six million tons and we
24 have lost about $65.00 on each of those tons, that equates to not
601
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 quite 400 million dollars in lost revenue over a year's time.
2 Q. That is as a result of the substantial drop in selling
3 price?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Do you know approximately when the last time National
6 Steel sold its product for less than $400.00 a ton?
7 A. In the mid 1970s we were selling at under $400.00 a ton,
8 so it has been over 25 years.
9 (Whereupon document was duly marked for purposes of
10 identification as Respondent Exhibit 20 as of this date.)
11 Q. (By Mr. Babst) I show you another document that has been
12 identified as Respondent's Exhibit Number 20, and ask if you
13 could identify that document?
14 A. Yes, this is a document -- the source of it was the
15 American Iron and Steel Exchange with some Washington law makers
16 on May 14th of this year. It was prepared by the American Iron
17 and Steel Institute, and it indicates that there were 18 steel
18 companies that have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy since 1997.
19 Q. Would you look at that list of 18 companies and if you
20 could identify companies with facilities in the State of
21 Illinois?
22 A. There is one, two, three, four, five.
23 Q. Five of the 18 have --
24 A. Five of the 18.
602
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 Q. -- facilities in Illinois? Do you know -- looking here
2 I see LTV Steel is in bankruptcy. Do you know whether this is
3 the first time they have been in bankruptcy?
4 A. No, it is not.
5 Q. Also looking at Wheeling-Pittsburgh Steel, which has
6 filed for bankruptcy in December of 2000, do you know whether
7 this is the first time that they have been in bankruptcy?
8 A. No, they both filed for bankruptcy in the mid 1980s.
9 Q. During your 31 years with the Granite City Division have
10 you ever seen a worse economic picture for the domestic steel
11 industry?
12 A. I have never seen it this bad.
13 MR. BABST: I have no further questions.
14 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: Thank you. Mr. Muskopf?
15 MR. MUSKOPF: Yes. Thank you.
16 CROSS EXAMINATION
17 BY MR. MUSKOPF:
18 Q. Mr. Ribbing, how are you?
19 A. Just fine.
20 Q. Good. Who is the highest paid executive at National
21 Steel?
22 A. I do not have access to everyone's salaries. There are
23 -- the salaries for the executives are reported in, I believe,
24 the 10-K report, which is filed with the SEC and I have not
603
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 looked at that. I would imagine it would be Mr. Tenoka (spelled
2 phonetically) though.
3 Q. Okay. We have the 10-Q. It is not in there?
4 A. Right.
5 Q. It would be in a different form?
6 A. It would be in a different form.
7 Q. Do you have any idea what the top paid executives of
8 National Steel get as compensation on an annual basis?
9 A. To be honest with you, I really -- it would be a guess.
10 I would say it was in the $200,000.00 range, but I --
11 Q. $200,000.00?
12 A. Per year.
13 Q. Okay. What is the top paid person at the Granite City
14 Division paid?
15 A. I do not have access to that.
16 Q. Take a guess at that one if you would not mind?
17 A. Hourly or salary people?
18 Q. Just whoever earns the most as a total compensation
19 package --
20 A. I --
21 Q. -- on an annual basis?
22 A. It would be strictly a guess. Maybe $160,000.00, but
23 that is strictly a guess.
24 Q. Is this a publicly-traded company?
604
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 A. Yes, it is.
2 Q. Who are -- are any of your employees -- how many average
3 workers do you have that are shareholders?
4 A. I couldn't tell you that.
5 Q. You know, production employees?
6 A. I would have -- I would not have access to that.
7 Q. Do you know what the unemployment rate is in Madison
8 County right now?
9 A. No, I don't.
10 Q. Do you have any idea?
11 A. (Shook head from side to side.)
12 Q. So you really couldn't say whether it is a good economy
13 in Madison County or not?
14 A. No, I couldn't.
15 Q. So let's say National Steel shuts its doors, you would
16 not be able to say whether these people employed by National
17 Steel, let's say hourly workers basically, would have difficulty
18 finding other jobs or not?
19 A. I would say they would have difficulty finding jobs,
20 because I think the work force is probably on -- is a little bit
21 older work force that we have here. And that a lot of these
22 people are probably entrenched in the types of jobs that they
23 have been handling, and they have been very specific, whether it
24 be welders or pipefitters. It is not just a lot of craftsmen
605
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 that we have. We have like laborers and people that their
2 specific jobs may be crane operators, and you are not going to
3 see that kind of heavy machinery in different places in Madison
4 County. So maybe it may not be as easy as what people think to
5 find jobs for these people.
6 Q. Do you know how much money your company spends on an
7 annual basis on the fugitive dust program at the coal piles?
8 A. No, I don't.
9 Q. Would you be able to put those figures together?
10 A. We really don't keep costs in that category, as far as
11 fugitive dust emission controls. I mean --
12 Q. What is the next big category that would -- that
13 fugitive dust emission controls would be a subcategory of that
14 you do keep figures on?
15 A. It would probably either be tools and supplies or repair
16 and maintenance type categories for different areas of the plant.
17 Q. Okay. Can I turn your attention to your 10-Q of this
18 year?
19 A. Okay.
20 Q. Thanks. To page 22.
21 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: What is the -- is it
22 Respondent's 17.
23 THE WITNESS: Yes, Exhibit 17.
24 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: Thank you.
606
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 THE WITNESS: I am sorry. What page?
2 Q. (By Mr. Muskopf) Page 22.
3 A. This is missing.
4 Q. I think I have two copies. I have another one in here.
5 This is also short. Okay. We can share. Let me hand you -- it
6 is unmarked, but it purports to be the 10-Q that you discussed
7 with Mr. Babst earlier.
8 A. Okay.
9 Q. Is that what it looks like to you? Does it appear to be
10 a copy of the first quarter 10-Q of your company?
11 A. I would agree with you.
12 Q. Okay.
13 A. Oh, no, that is -- that is the year 2000 10-K.
14 Q. I am sorry. Oh, so actually the highest paid
15 executive's compensation would be in that form, would it not?
16 Could I ask you to find that for me? I wonder how much money
17 those people make?
18 MS. CHRISTMAN: That is Respondent's Exhibit Number 18, if
19 you want to reference it in your binder, Mr. Hearing Officer.
20 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: Okay. Thank you.
21 Can you direct Mr. Ribbing to a page, Mr. Muskopf?
22 MR. MUSKOPF: I can't. I was simply asking him since he is
23 probably the most familiar person.
24 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: Okay. Thank you.
607
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 THE WITNESS: According to the table of contents on page
2 two it talks about executive compensation, item eleven, page 56
3 on part three, item eleven, executive compensation. And to be
4 quite honest with you. The information required in this item is
5 incorporated by reference from sections -- I think the last
6 sentence says with the exception of the information specifically
7 incorporated by reference, the company's proxy statement is not
8 to be deemed filed as part of this report for purposes of this
9 item. I am sorry. I thought executive compensations were filed
10 under 10-K.
11 Q. (By Mr. Muskopf) That's all right. So we can't tell
12 from this document is what you are telling us?
13 A. No.
14 Q. Okay. Well, let's go to page 22.
15 A. Okay.
16 Q. I am sorry. Was it the 1999 10-K?
17 A. Yes.
18 MR. BABST: This is the 2000 10-K.
19 THE WITNESS: The 2000 10-K.
20 Q. (By Mr. Muskopf) Okay. Mr. Babst was asking you about
21 the losses over the last two years, was he not?
22 A. Yes.
23 Q. And interestingly, if we go back three years, we see a
24 fairly substantial profit, do we not, in 1998?
608
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 A. I believe that was a good year, yes.
2 Q. What was the profit in 1998?
3 A. Well, in 1998 was 89 million dollars.
4 Q. And 1997 was even better than that, wasn't it?
5 A. Yes. 1998 is what we had talked about. 1997 was 203
6 million.
7 Q. Oh, that's right. We left off right before the good
8 year, the real good year, 203 million dollars profit in 1997,
9 right? And then in 1996, 43 million dollars?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Okay. So if you add up the losses and the profits over
12 the last five years in the row that we are talking about, over
13 the last five years there is still a profit of, let's see, you
14 are on this line, right?
15 A. 241.
16 Q. 241 million dollars? Does that look right to you?
17 A. About right.
18 Q. Where did all that 241 million dollars go in profit?
19 A. I would have to say the majority of it probably went
20 back into the business for capital expenditures.
21 Q. Okay. Would another capital expenditure right now at
22 this point in time or in the next six months of 4.8 million
23 dollars force your company or your Division to close its doors?
24 A. I could not answer that. It would severely hurt us.
609
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 Q. A 4.8 million dollar capital expenditure?
2 A. Yes. Any type of cash outlay right now would severely
3 hurt us.
4 Q. The steel industry is rather cyclical, isn't it?
5 A. Yes, it is.
6 Q. Are you aware of any initiative by our federal
7 government to mitigate the affects of the dumping of overseas
8 steel?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Is there presently a bill pending that you are aware of
11 in either the House or the Senate?
12 A. I believe that may be House Bill 808 or 809.
13 Q. If that passes do you think that will be a help for your
14 industry?
15 A. I don't know the details of that House Bill. I have
16 heard some generalities about it, but I don't know the specifics
17 of it. But it is not Section 201 that is being bantered about at
18 this point in time. There are two different things out there.
19 Q. But in general you are aware that the federal government
20 is attempting to address the problem that the steel industry is
21 suffering right now?
22 A. Yes, yes.
23 Q. Do you have any idea -- you have been there 31 years
24 right?
610
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 A. Uh-huh, yes.
2 Q. Well, let me ask you a different question first. How
3 much money does your company pay out for claims or compensation
4 for death or serious injury?
5 A. I don't have that total for any given year.
6 Q. Would it be done through your workers' compensation
7 carrier?
8 A. Yes, yes.
9 Q. Do you know what you pay in premiums for workers'
10 compensation?
11 A. I don't have that number with me. I don't know that.
12 Q. In your 31 years, how many fatalities do you recall at
13 Granite City Steel, approximately?
14 A. I would say that there has been over ten.
15 Q. Over ten in 31 years?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. In fact, there has been four in the past five years,
18 hasn't there?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. You said earlier that you did an economic analysis of
21 the benefits to the local community of Granite City Steel. I was
22 wondering if you -- no? Am I getting that wrong?
23 A. No, go on.
24 Q. You made sort of a face and so --
611
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 A. I am just trying to --
2 Q. Okay. I will slow down a little bit. Were you giving
3 some testimony earlier on direct examination, when Mr. Babst was
4 asking you the questions, about a study that you had performed or
5 figures that you have kept track of with regard to the economic
6 benefit derived from the local community from Granite City Steel?
7 A. I am trying to think. Is that the taxes?
8 MR. BABST: The Taxes, United Way.
9 THE WITNESS: Okay. Yes, yes.
10 Q. (By Mr. Muskopf) Have you ever looked at what the
11 economic burden is to the family of one of the workers at Granite
12 City Steel when that worker is killed on the job?
13 A. No, we have not.
14 Q. Have you ever done any economic study or seen any --
15 looked at the numbers on what the economic impact is when someone
16 loses a leg or an arm or --
17 MR. BABST: I am going to object just on the basis of
18 relevance. I have no idea what this has to do with this case.
19 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: Mr. Muskopf?
20 MR. MUSKOPF: Well, the relevance is, again, it is the
21 mirror of -- Granite City Steel is touting itself in this case as
22 being a wonderful benefactor of this local economy, and the
23 social and economic benefits that it provides. But there is a
24 flip side to that and there are social and economic costs to
612
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 operating a steel mill, too. I think if they are going to get to
2 say what a great positive affect they have on the local economy,
3 and the social effect, then we should be able to present evidence
4 that that benefit is offset by the costs that are associated with
5 it.
6 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: Okay. I am going to sustain Mr.
7 Babst's objection.
8 MR. MUSKOPF: Okay. No further questions. Thank you.
9 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: Thank you. Mr. Babst?
10 MR. BABST: No further questions.
11 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Ribbing.
12 THE WITNESS: Okay.
13 (The witness left the stand.)
14 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: Do you have anyone else?
15 MR. BABST: No sir.
16 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: Okay. We are off the record.
17 (Discussion off the record.)
18 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: Okay. We have just had a brief
19 off-the-record discussion regarding the filing of post hearing
20 briefs. The parties have agreed to a briefing schedule. Before
21 we get to any closing arguments, I will go ahead and read that
22 schedule into the record.
23 The transcript of the proceeding will be available from the
24 court reporter by July 23rd. I will establish a short comment
613
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 period of 14 days. The parties know to talk to the court
2 reporter following the hearing regarding the availability of the
3 transcript.
4 The complainant's brief will be due in 30 days or by August
5 10th. The mailbox rule will not apply, so you will need to have
6 it filed by that date.
7 The Respondent's brief will be due an additional 30 days
8 later, or by September 10th. And, again, the mailbox rule will
9 not apply, so you will have to have it filed by that date.
10 The transcript is usually put on the Board's web site
11 within a few days of its availability. I would just like to
12 briefly note that our web site address is www.ipcb.state.il.us.
13 All post hearing comments must be filed in accordance with
14 Section 101.628 of the Board's procedural rules. Public
15 comments, as I have said, must be filed by July 25th. The
16 mailbox rule set forth at 35 Ill. Admin. Code 101.102(d) and
17 101.144(c) will apply to any post hearing public comments.
18 Okay. Anything further before we get to the closing
19 arguments?
20 MR. MUSKOPF: No.
21 MR. BABST: No.
22 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Muskopf,
23 any kind of closing arguments, or are you going to reserve it for
24 the filing of the brief?
614
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 MR. MUSKOPF: The brief will be sufficient. I don't need
2 to make a closing argument now.
3 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: Thank you. Mr. Babst, any
4 closing argument?
5 MR. BABST: No, sir.
6 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: Okay. Thank you. At this time
7 I do want to ask again are there any members of the public
8 present that want to make statements on the record?
9 For the record, I have seen none for either of the two days
10 of testimony in this hearing.
11 Seeing none, I am required to make a statement as to the
12 credibility of witnesses testifying during this hearing. This
13 statement is to be based upon my legal judgment and experience
14 and, accordingly, I state that I found all of the witnesses
15 testifying to be credible. Credibility should not be an issue
16 for the Board to consider in rendering a decision in this case.
17 Now, briefly, I want to get to the admission of all of the
18 exhibits. Mr. Muskopf, do you have -- do you move at this time
19 to --
20 MR. MUSKOPF: Yes, I move for the admission of all of the
21 exhibits that I have identified thus far in this hearing, which
22 would be C1 through C44.
23 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: Yes. Any objections?
24 MR. BABST: No.
615
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: Okay. For the record, I will
2 not be admitting C40 and C41. I made that ruling earlier.
3 MR. BABST: Okay.
4 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: But I will take it with me back
5 to the Board's office, Mr. Muskopf, in case you want to make some
6 sort of motion to the Board.
7 MR. MUSKOPF: Right.
8 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: C1 through C44, with the
9 exceptions of C40 and C41 are admitted into the record.
10 (Whereupon said documents were duly admitted into evidence
11 as Complainant's Exhibits C1 through C44, with the
12 exception of C40 and C41, as of this date.)
13 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: All right. Mr. Babst or Ms.
14 Christman?
15 MS. CHRISTMAN: We would like to admit all of the exhibits
16 that were provided in the binder. They are Respondent's Exhibits
17 1 through 36, including 2A and 13A.
18 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: I don't see 34 or 35.
19 MS. CHRISTMAN: I think there was a numbering discrepancy.
20 There is no 34 or 35.
21 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: Okay.
22 MS. CHRISTMAN: So it is 1 through 33 and 36.
23 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Muskopf?
24 MR. MUSKOPF: I know I don't have any objection to 1
616
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 through 31, but that's all I have on my list. So I am unclear as
2 to what 32 and above are.
3 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: Exhibit 32 is the Federal
4 Interagency Committee on Noise graph frequency responses for
5 sound level weighting characteristics, used during Mr. Zak's
6 testimony.
7 MR. MUSKOPF: Right.
8 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: Exhibit 33 is the 35 Ill. Admin.
9 Code 901.102.
10 MR. MUSKOPF: Okay.
11 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: And then 36 is the amount of
12 coal -- the volume of coal stockpiles for the Elk Run coal, I
13 believe, only.
14 MR. MUSKOPF: Okay. So these are the only three I don't
15 have. I just object to -- I don't have any objection to 33, but
16 to 32 and 36 I do on the basis that they were not provided in
17 discovery to me.
18 MS. CHRISTMAN: Mr. Hearing Officer, the raw data for
19 Exhibit Number 36 was at least partially provided as a response
20 to -- Attachment C to Respondent's First Responses to
21 interrogatories, so maybe not in graphical form, but the raw data
22 that was used for this, that was provided months ago to Mr.
23 Muskopf.
24 MR. MUSKOPF: Well --
617
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 MS. CHRISTMAN: Exhibit 32 is -- I am sorry.
2 MR. MUSKOPF: I am sorry. Go ahead.
3 MS. CHRISTMAN: Exhibit 32 is basically a public document,
4 publically available. It is also the document that the
5 complainants' expert agreed is widely used and that a form of, a
6 tabular form, he also relied on.
7 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: And no problems with 33?
8 MS. CHRISTMAN: Exhibit 33 I don't think was objected to.
9 MR. MUSKOPF: No, I didn't object to that.
10 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: Anything further, Mr. Muskopf?
11 MR. MUSKOPF: No.
12 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: Okay. I am going to admit all
13 of the exhibits, Respondent's Exhibit 1 through 31, 32, 33 and
14 36, Exhibits 32 and 36 over the objections of the complainants.
15 So I have admitted those.
16 (Whereupon said documents were duly admitted into evidence
17 as Respondent Exhibits 1 through 33 and 36 as of this
18 date.)
19 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: Is there anything further from
20 either of the parties before we conclude the proceedings? Is
21 there anything I have forgotten?
22 MR. MUSKOPF: There is nothing that I am aware of.
23 HEARING OFFICER LANGHOFF: Okay. At this time I would like
24 to conclude the proceedings. It is Wednesday, July 11th, 2001,
618
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 at 6:02 p.m. We stand adjourned.
2 I thank you all for your participation, and everyone have a
3 good day and a good flight.
4 MS. CHRISTMAN: Thank you.
5 MR. MUSKOPF: Thank you.
6 MR. BABST: Thank you.
7 (The hearing concluded at approximately 6:02 p.m. The
8 hearing exhibits were retained by Hearing Officer
9 Langhoff.)
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
619
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190
1 STATE OF ILLINOIS )
) SS
2 COUNTY OF MONTGOMERY)
3 C E R T I F I C A T E
4
5 I, DARLENE M. NIEMEYER, a Notary Public in and for the
6 County of Montgomery, State of Illinois, DO HEREBY CERTIFY that
7 the foregoing 317 pages comprise a true, complete and correct
8 transcript of the proceedings held on the 11th of July A.D.,
9 2001, at the City Hall Building, the Mayor's Conference Room,
10 Granite City, Illinois, in the case of James A. Glasgow, Vickie
11 L. Glasgow, Bill Hoppe and Pat Hoppe v. Granite City Steel, in
12 proceedings held before Hearing Officer Steven C. Langhoff, and
13 recorded in machine shorthand by me.
14 IN WITNESS WHEREOF I have hereunto set my hand and affixed
15 my Notarial Seal this 26th day of July A.D., 2001.
16
17
18
19
Notary Public and
20 Certified Shorthand Reporter and
Registered Professional Reporter
21
CSR License No. 084-003677
22 My Commission Expires: 03-02-2003
23
24
620
KEEFE REPORTING COMPANY
1-800-244-0190