ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    April
    28,
    1977
    C. EUGENE BURGETT,
    )
    Petitioner,
    v.
    )
    PCB 76—258
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
    )
    Respondent.
    Mr. Wayne L. Bickes, Attorney,
    appeared for the Petitioner;
    Mr. James Bumgarner, Attorney, appeared for the Respondent.
    OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by Mr.
    Zeitlin):
    This matter is before the Board on a Petition for Variance
    filed by
    C.
    Eugene Burgett on October
    18,
    1976,
    seeking relief
    from Section
    24 of the Environmental Protection Act
    (Act)
    and
    those portions of the Board’s Noise Pollution Control Regulations
    applicable to Petitioner’s facility.
    Ill. Rev.
    Stat., Ch. 111—1/2,
    §1024
    (1977);
    Ill.
    PCB Regs.,
    Ch.
    8,
    §101 et
    seq.
    A Recommendation
    was received from the Environmental Protection Agency
    (Agency)
    on
    December
    6,
    1976.
    Pursuant to a timely objection received on October 26,
    1976,
    the Board ordered the matter set for hearing.
    The hearing was held
    on March
    18,
    1977, and no citizens appeared to further object.
    Although no evidence was presented by either party at hearing,
    Petitioner did agree to
    the conditions on which the Agency based
    its Recommendation that the Variance be granted.
    Based on that
    agreement by Petitioner,
    the Agency reaffirms its Recommendation.
    The subject of this Variance is
    a sand and gravel pit operated
    by Mr.
    Burgett, d/b/a
    C.
    E. Burgett Construction Co., at R.F.D.
    #7,
    Decatur,
    Illinois.
    The production
    from
    Mx. Burgett’s operation is
    sold exclusively to municipalities for use in road construction.
    The sand and gravel pits constitutes Class
    “C”
    land,
    as defined in
    the Noise Pollution Control Regulations,
    and
    is adjacent to several
    residents which constitute Class
    “A” land,
    as defined in those same
    Regulations.
    Noise complaints were first made to the Agency about Mr.
    l3urgett’s
    operations
    in August,
    1973.
    The equipment involved in the operation,
    causing the admitted noise violations, included at that time a rock
    crusher, two end loaders, and a crane.
    After being contacted by the
    Agency regarding these violations,
    the Petitioner relocated his rock
    crushing operation
    at a cost of approximately $2,000.00;
    that change
    25
    —
    379
    —2—
    resulted in complete abatement of violation by that portion of
    Petitioner’s operations.
    Petitioner also refitted certain equipment
    with mufflers, at a cost of $lOO—$200.
    In addition, Mr. Burgett
    ha~relocated one of the end loaders to another location.
    These changes have not,
    however, resulted
    in complete compliance
    at the sand and gravel pit.
    As a result, Mr. Burgett is requesting
    a Variance to allow continued operation until November 15, 1977,
    after which date the site in question will be permanently closed.
    In recommending that the Variance be granted, the Agency noted
    that compliance at Mr. Burgett’s
    sand and gravel pit could only be
    achieved by the erection of a barrier costing approximately $60,000.
    The Agency also noted that Mr. Burgett has been cooperative in his
    past attempts to attenuate the noise levels resulting from his
    operations.
    Based on these
    facts and the imminent cessation of
    all activity at the site, the Agency recommends that a Variance be
    granted.
    After concluding operations
    on the site in November,
    1977,
    Petitioner intends to convert the existing sand and gravel pit to
    a recreational lake.
    The area surrounding that lake will be sub-
    divided.
    We agree that a Variance is warranted in this case.
    Respondent’s
    prior attempts at compliance should minimize the environmental harm
    done under the Variance.
    When weighed against the hardship involved
    were the Variance not granted,
    (the expenditure of $60,000 for con-
    struction of a barrier for only one additional season of operation),
    our decision to grant the Variance is further supported.
    The conditions to which Petitioner has agreed should further
    alleviate any problems which might result.
    Petitioner agrees that
    except for noises emitted by the end loader and crane remaining on
    the site, there will be no additional violations of the numerical
    limits for noise emissions in Rules 202 and 206.
    Petitioner agrees
    to operate that equipment in a manner intended to reduce the noise
    emitted as much as possible, and to operate that equipment only
    between 8:00 a.m.
    and 4:30 p.m.
    The amount of equipment on the
    site will not be increased,
    and Petitioner shall cease operation
    by November 15,
    1977, regardless of whether his production volume
    of 30,000 cubic yards have been achieved.
    We shall also require
    a standard certificate of acceptance.
    We shall not, however, grant the requested Variance from §24
    of the Act.
    Variance from the limitations in Rules 202 and 206 of
    Chapter
    8: Noise Pollution, will suffice.
    This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions
    of law of the Board in this matter.
    25
    —
    380
    —3—
    ORDER
    IT IS
    THE
    ORDER OF
    THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD that Petitioner
    C.
    Eugene Burgett be granted Variance from the noise emission limita-
    tions of Rules
    202 and 206 of Chapter
    8:
    Noise Pollution,
    of this
    Board’s Rules
    and Regulations for noise emissions from a Hough 120
    end loader and
    a BLH Lima crane
    to be operated at Petitioner’s
    Decatur,
    Illinois,
    sand and
    gravel pit,
    from the date of this Order
    until November 15,
    1977, conditioned upon compliance with the following:
    1.
    Except for that equipment
    for which Variance
    has been granted, Petitioner’s operation at said site
    shall comply with Rules
    202 and 206 of Chapter
    8: Noise
    Pollution.
    2.
    Petitioner shall operate such equipment in
    a
    manner intended to reduce, as much as possible, noise
    emissions therefrom.
    3.
    Petitioner shall operate said equipment only
    between the hours of 8:00 a.m.
    and 4:30 p.m.
    4.
    Petitioner shall not increase the amount or
    quantity of equipment operated on said site.
    5.
    Petitioner shall cease all activities on said
    site by November 15,
    1977.
    6.
    Petitioner shall, within thirty
    (30)
    days of
    the date of this Order, execute and forward to the Envi-
    ronmental Protection Agency, Control Program Coordinator,
    2200 Churchill
    Road, Springfield,
    Illinois
    62706, a
    Certificate of Acceptance
    in the following
    form:
    I,
    (We), _________________________
    having read
    the Order of the Illinois Pollution Control Board
    in
    case No. PCB 76-258, understand and accept said Order,
    realizing that such acceptance renders all terms and
    conditions thereto binding and enforceable.
    SIGNED
    TITLE
    DATE
    25
    —
    381
    —4—
    I, Christan L.
    Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
    Control Board, her~bycertify the above Opinion and Order weçe
    adopted on the ~
    day of
    _________,
    1977, by a vote of
    ~S-O
    Illinois Pollutio~
    25
    —
    382

    Back to top