ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    October 18,
    1979
    ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
    PROTECTION AGENCY,
    Complainant,
    v.
    )
    PCB 78—193
    VALLEY VIEW PUBLIC SCHOOLS,
    COMMUNITY UNIT DISTRICT NO. 365U,
    and
    CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT BOARD OF THE
    STATE OF ILLINOIS,
    Respondents.
    MR. WILLIAM E. BLAKNEY, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, APPEARED ON BEHALF
    OF THE COMPLAINANT.
    MR. GEORGE A. MARCHETTI, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT VALLEY VIEW
    PUBLIC SCHOOLS, COMMUNITY UNIT DISTRICT NO. 365U.
    OPINION
    AND
    ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by Mr. Werner):
    This matter comes before the Board on the July 24, 1978 Complaint
    brought by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
    (“Agency”).
    On October
    3, 1978, Respondent Valley View Public Schools, Community
    Unit District No.
    365U
    (“School District”)
    filed a Motion to Join an
    Additional Party which requested that the Illinois Capital Development
    Board be joined as
    a party-respondent on the ground that,
    under state
    law,
    the Capital Development Board alone has the power to correct any
    defects in the construction of the air conditioning compressor at the
    elementary school
    (which allegedly emitted sounds above allowable
    levels), since the Capital Development Board prepared the plans,
    supervised the construction, and constructed the Independence School
    (“facility”).
    See: Capital Development Board Act,
    Ill. Rev. Stat.,
    Ch.
    127, Sections 771 et
    ~a•
    (1977).
    In essence, the School District
    indicated that it had no authority to correct the problem, because the
    physical plant of the facility is beyond the School District’s
    jurisdiction
    (i.e., jurisdiction by statute has been vested in another
    State agency
    -
    the Illinois Capital Development Board).
    On October
    5,
    1978, the Hearing Officer in this case filed a Report on the
    Pre—Hearing Conference between representatives of the School District,
    the Illinois Attorney General’s office, and the Illinois Capital
    Development Board.
    35—513

    —2—
    On November 3,
    1978, the Agency filed its Motion for Leave to
    File an Amended Complaint,
    Instanter and the Amended Complaint
    (which named the Illinois Capital Development Board as a Respondent).
    Count
    I of the Amended Complaint alleged that, from May 5,
    1977 until
    the date of filing of the Amended Complaint, the Respondents allowed
    the operation of an air conditioning unit to emit sounds beyond the
    boundaries of the Independence School onto nearby residential property
    in violation of Rule 202 of Chapter
    8:
    Noise Regulations.
    Count II of
    the Amended Complaint alleged that the noise emitted from the air
    conditioning unit unreasonably interfered with the enjoyment of life
    and with the lawful activities of neighboring residents thereby
    causing noise pollution in violation of Rule 102 of Chapter
    8:
    Noise
    Regulations.
    On November 16, 1978,
    the Board granted the Agency leave
    to file the Amended Complaint.
    Concurrently, on November 16,
    1978,
    the School District filed a Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint as
    to party-respondent Valley View Community Unit District No.
    365U.
    On
    November 28,
    1978, the Agency filed an Objection to the Motion to
    Dismiss the Amended Complaint as to party-respondent Valley View.
    On
    November
    30,
    1978, the Board denied the School District’s Motion to
    Dismiss the Amended Complaint.
    After various motions for continuances were granted,
    a hearing
    was held on June
    7, 1979.
    At the hearing, the parties indicated that
    more time was needed to secure the approval of public funds to correct
    the defect in the original design of the air conditioning unit and
    requested that the hearing be recessed for a period not to exceed
    45 days.
    On July
    24, 1979, another hearing was held in which the
    parties
    indicated that a Stipulation of Facts and Proposal for
    Settlement had been reached.
    However, no court reporter attended or
    transcribed this hearing.
    On July 31,
    1979, the Hearing Officer
    filed a Report of Proceedings
    in lieu of a court reporter’s transcript
    pertaining to the July hearing.
    On August 23, 1979, the Board entered
    an Interim Order which remanded this case to the Hearing Officer for
    the scheduling of another hearing to take place within the presence
    of a court reporter.
    On September
    27,
    1979,
    a hearing was held which
    was duly transcribed by a court reporter.
    The parties filed the
    Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement on October
    2,
    1979.
    Valley View Public Schools, Community Unit District No.
    365U,
    operates the Independence School which
    is located at 230 Orchard
    Drive
    in Bolingbrook, Will County, Illinois.
    The Capital Development
    Board of the State of Illinois was added as a Respondent in this case
    because, pursuant to state law, it possesses the statutory responsi-
    bility for construction and repair
    (or supervision thereof)
    at the
    Independence School.
    The elementary school is located in a primarily residential
    neighborhood on land that is classified as Class A under Rule 201(a)
    of Chapter
    8:
    Noise Regulations.
    (See: Exhibit A of the Stipulation

    —3—
    of Facts and Proposal for Settlement).
    The air conditioning unit
    generally operates five days a week,
    during the summer period between
    May 1 and September 30, from 7:30
    AM.
    to 4:00
    P.M.
    daily.
    This air
    conditioning unit
    is located at the northwest corner of the school at
    ground level and constitutes a property-line—noise source which
    is
    capable of emitting sounds beyond the boundaries of the property.
    (See: Exhibit A).
    The Agency was contacted during mid-September of 1976 by nearby
    residents who complained of being disturbed by noise emanating from
    the school’s air conditioning unit.
    (Stip.
    3).
    On May 5,
    1977, the
    Agency conducted a noise survey to measure the level of noise emissions
    from the air conditioning unit to adjacent residential property.
    This
    noise survey
    revealed that the
    noise
    emissions from the air condition-
    ing unit were in excess of the limits prescribed of the Board’s Noise
    Regulations.
    (See:
    Exhibit B).
    On September
    8,
    1978, the Respondent
    Capital Development Board completed its noise control insulation work
    on the school’s air conditioning unit.
    (See:
    Exhibit C).
    However,
    a
    noise survey conducted by Agency inspectors on September 13,
    1978
    indicated that this installation did not lower the noise emitted by
    the school’s air conditioning unit to acceptable
    levels.
    (See:
    Exhibit D).
    The proposed settlement agreement provides that the Respondents
    agree to:
    (1)
    promptly construct an acoustic barrier structure, with
    silencer, which will enclose the school’s air conditioning unit;
    (2)
    install sound panels to the facility’s masonry wall within the
    area enclosed by the acoustic structure,
    if noise measurements
    conducted by the Agency indicate that such additional steps are
    necessary to reduce noise to acceptable levels, and
    (3)
    to accomplish
    further sound reductions,
    if necessary,
    to meet the requirements of
    Rule 202 of the Board’s Noise Regulations.
    The Agency has agreed to
    promptly conduct the requisite noise measurements after being notified
    by the Respondents that the necessary construction has been completed.
    The parties believe that no penalty should be imposed in the present
    case.
    (Stip.
    8).
    In evaluating this enforcement action and proposed settlement,
    the Board has taken into consideration all the facts and circumstances
    in light of the specific criteria delineated in Section 33(c) of
    Illinois Environmental Protection Act.
    The Board finds the stipulated
    agreement acceptable under Procedural Rule 331 and Section 33(c)
    of
    the Act.
    The Board finds that the Respondents have violated Rules 102
    and 202 of Chapter
    8:
    Noise Regulations.
    The Respondents are hereby
    directed to follow the compliance program and schedule set forth in
    the Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement.
    No penalty shall be
    assessed against the Respondents.
    35—515

    —4—
    This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
    conclusions of law in this matter.
    ORDER
    It is the Order of the Illinois Pollution Control Board that:
    1.
    The Respondents have violated Rules 102 and 202 of Chapter
    8:
    Noise Regulations.
    2.
    The Respondents shall comply with all the terms and conditions
    of the Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement filed October 2,
    1979,
    which is incorporated by reference as if fully set forth herein.
    I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board, hereby certify that
    he above Opinion and Order were ado~ted
    on the
    J~I~’
    day of
    __________________,
    1979 by a vote of 4j.-~
    ~
    Illinois Pollution C
    ol Board
    35—516

    Back to top