ILLINOIS
LOLLW~IONCDNTROL
BOARD
February
15,
1979
HOWELL
ASPHALT
CX)MPANY,
INC.,
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB
78—292
ENVILONMENTAL
PLOTEC’PION
AGENCY,
)
Respondent.
OPINION
AND
ORDER
OF
THE
BOARD
(by
Mr.
Dt~elle):
Petitioner
has
requested
a
five
year
variancE
from
Chapter
8:
Noise
Regulations.
The
Agency
has
recormiended
that
the
variance
be
granted
subject
to
certain
conditions.
No
hearing
was
held.
Petitioner operates a plant in Effingharn
which
produces
hot
asphalt
fran
various grades of
crushed
aggregate (CA).
As part of
this
operation the CA is
unloaded from an adjacent railroad siding.
Most of the CA falls by gravity
into
an
unloading
pit when the
doors
of each hopper car
are
opened.
The
remainder
is
removed
by
shaking
the
hopper
car.
During
this
“car
shakeout”,
the
standards
of
Rule
204
of Chapter
8 (Sounds
Emitted
to Class B
land
from
a
Class C source) are violated.
Petitioner has
attempted
to
remedy
the vio-
lations
through
the construction of a concrete
barrier
ninety
feet
long,
twenty feet high, and eight inches thick at a cost of $17,931.59.
Although
the barrier
has
attenuated
noise
levels,
violations
have
still
been
recorded.
Additional attempts to date have either been ineffective or have
damaged
the
hopper car, which belongs to the Illinois Central Gulf Railroad
(ICG).
Neither
Petitioner nor its consultants are aware of
any
system
which will result in
total
compliance.
Petitioner claims that if a variance is denied,
it will
be
forced
to
either reduce its plant capacity or cease operations.
If the remainder of the
CA was
removed
by hand labor, Petitioners’ employees would be subject to
hazards
and capacity would be reduced to seven or eight loads
per
day instead
of
the
present
40.
Even
though
the
hopper
cars
are
unloaded
only
three
days
per
week,
Petitioner
cannot
use
the
other
four
days
to
unload
by
hand
because
the
ICG requires
a
“substantial
dernurrage
charge”
if
hopper
cars
are
kept
longer
than
24
hours.
Petitioner
perceives
“no perceptible
harm
to
the
public”
if it is allowed five years to pursue improvements to the present barrier.
In its Reconii~ndation,the Agency agrees with Petitioners’ allegations.
The A-weighted equivalent sound levels were 85.7 db(A) without the barrier and
70.5 db(A) with the barrier.
USEPA has recc~nendeda level of 70 db or less
Leg
(yearly
energy
average sound level) to protect against hearing loss with
an
adequate
margin
of safety.
Through an
equation listed in
Exhibit
4
attached
to
the
Recatinendation,
Leg
before
the
barrier
was
installed
was
calculated
at
66.4—72.4
db.
Since the barrier, Leg has
dropped
to
51.2-57.2
db.
Since
the
noise receiver in this case is a cai~ercialestablishment, no interference
with sleep or recreation is anticipated.
USEPA has recomended a
standard
of
32—559
2
40—45 db(A)
for interior sound levels to allow 100
intelligibility of speech.
Since
the barrier was installed,
indoor noise
in the vicinity is 61 db(A) with
windows open and 51 db(A) with windows closed.
Consequently, scrr~inter-
ference is expected 40 times per day,
three days per week,
for 1-4 minutes,
during eight
to nine rrx~nthsper year.
The Agency concludes that
this inter-
ference
is not great
and has been substantially reduced by construction of the
barrier.
The Agency states that even by theoretical calculations,
a 20
foot barrier
would not be sufficient
to con~plywith Rule 204.
Actual reductions have shown
the barrier less effective than the theoretical
in the 31.5 Hz and 500—8000 Hz
octave bands,
rrore effective
in the 63 Hz and 125 Hz octave bands, and equal
to the theoretical
in the 250 Hz octave band.
The theoretical height of an
adequate barrier would be
50
feet with side extensions
to reduce diffraction.
Costs are speculated as
~.
.
.
very high due to wind with the attendant benefits
over a 20
feet barrier being noderate—a theoretical reduction of 7 db(A)”.
The Agency admits that a 50
foot barrier,
like
the present one, may fail
to
meet expectations.
When the Board adopted the noise standards it stated the following:
“In controlling noise one can either quiet
the source directly,
block the noise transmission paths either at
the source or at the
point of reception,
or protect the individual with devices such as
ear plugs.
For envirorinental noise control only the first
two
methods are suitable and while quieting the noise source directly is
preferred,
it
is often not possible so
that blocking the noise
transmission path beccmes
the technique used
in many
instances
Materials used
for noise control can be subdivided into four
classes (EPA Lx.
125):
a)
sound absorbing materials
-
porous materials that convert
sound
energy into heat
b)
sound barriers
-
dense,
lirrp
masses that reflect rmst
sound
and
transmit
little sound
c)
vibration isolation
-
resilient materials that do not transmit
vibration
d)
vibration darrping
-
materials
to inhibit vibrations.
These materials
can
then be used
in four general classes of noise control
systens.
a)
rriifflers and silencers
—
for gas flow silencing of
fans,
ccnpressors
or high pressure gas discharges
b)
barriers
-
to block sound transmissions,
for exarrple partitions
or enclosures
c)
sound
absorption
—
acoustical
tile,
curtains
d)
vibration isolation
-
pads,
cushions between source and structure
to reduce structureborne sound transmission.”
(In the Matter of Noise Pollution Control Regulations, R72—2, 8 PGB 703,
737, July 31,
1973)
It would appear that Petitioner has followed the Board’s guidance in nDst
respects.
One
possible exception is the failure
to mention any sound absorbing
32—560
3
materials that might be
used to cover the present barrier.
The Board
is aware
of the problems
faced
in covering an outdoor barrier and the attendant maintenance
costs.
In
the
future,
this alternative should at
least be explored nonetheless.
The Board agrees
that any harm being caused by Petitioner’s present operation
is outweighed by the hardship which would be
incurred should this variance be
denied.
Although the Agency’s recomnended conditions are appropriate
for the
most part,
a five year variance
is not warranted.
The Board would rather
limit relief to
three years
to encourage Petitioner
to investigate
the use of
sound absorbing materials.
If
further relief
is necessary,
it
can always be
requested.
Petitioner has requested a variance without specifying any particular
rule or rules
in Chapter
8.
The Agency has specifically recarrnended a variance
fran Rule 204.
The
Board would rather grant relief fran Rules 204 and 102
with the proviso that this variance is
limited to noise fran the “car shake—out”
so
that
this matter cannot he relitigated
in the next
three years.
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and conclusions of
law in this matter.
ORDER
It
is the Order of the Pollution Control Board
that Petitioner be granted
a variance fran Rules
1.02 and 204 of Chapter
8: Noise Pollution for three
years
fran the date of
this Order
for the emissions fran Petitioner’s “car
shake—out” operations subject
to the following conditions:
A.
Throughout
the duration of
the variance, Petitioner shall maintain
the existing barrier
to the specifications described in Petitioner’s exhibits
9 and
10,
in constant good repair and operation.
B.
Throughout
the duration of
the variance, Petitioner shall
install no
new
or additional
railroad car shakers
at
the site.
C.
Throughout
the duration of
the variance, Petitioner shall not relocate
the existing railroad car shaker to any other
location at
the site.
D.
Throughout
the duration of
the variance, Petitioner shall not
exceed the after—barrier energy average shown
in
figure 2 of Exhibit
1 attached
to the Agency’s Recarmendation.
E.
Throughout
the duration of
the variance, Petitioner shall perform
literature reviews
to
investigate new technology for reducing railroad car
shaker noise,
including the use of sound absorbing materials
to cover the
existing barrier.
F.
Throughout
the duration of
the variance, Petitioner shall report
every 12 months
to the Agency the results of its investigation into new technology
for reducing railroad car shaker noise.
G.
Petitioner shall
execute and forward
to the Envirormental Protection
Agency, Division of Noise Pollution Control, Enforcement Section, 2200 Churchill
Road,
Springfield,
Illinois 62706, within 45 days after
the date of this
Order,
a Certification of Acceptance
and
Agreement
to he bound
to all the
terms and conditions of the Variance.
This 45 day period shall be held in
abeyance during any period this matter
is being appealed.
The Certificate
shall read as
follows:
32—561
4
GERTIFICATI~~
Howell Asphalt
Ccxrpany,
Inc.,
an Illinois Corporation,
is aware of
and
understands the Order of
the Illinois Pollution Control Board
in
PCB
78-292 and hereby accepts that Order
and
agrees to be bound by
all of
its tens and conditions.
-DiVELL
ASPHALT CtMPANY,
INO.
By ________________________
Authorized Agent
Title
or Carpany Position
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board,
hereby certify the above Opinion and Order were adopted on
the
1~5~
day of
_____________,
1979 by a vote of
________________.
~
Christan L. Moffett, (~rerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
32—562