ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL

BOARD

March

6,

1.980

IN

THE

MATTER OF:

PROPOSED

AMENDMENT

of RULES 101,

R76—14 and

205,

206 and 209 of the NOISE

R76—19

REGULATIONS

PROPOSED OPINION OF THE

BOARD

(by Mr. Goodman):

The Forging Industry Association (FIA)

and

thirty indi-

vidual forging companies on July 2, 1976 petitioned the

Board to adopt, by amending Rules 101 and 206 of the Board’s

Noise

Pol lution

Control

Regulations

(Noise

Regulations),

certain

emission

limitations

and

other

requirements

with

respect

to

new

and

existing

impact

forging

operations

(Industry

Proposal).

Proponents

alleged

an

inability

to

comply

within

three

years

of

the

effective

date

of

Rule

206

as

allowed

by

Rule

209(h)

of

the

Noise

Regulations.

The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency)

on August 23, 1976 also petitioned the Board to amend Rules

101,

206 and 209 with respect to

new

and existing impact

forging operations and to delete Rule 205 regulating sound

emissions to Class C land receivers.

On October 14, 1976

the Board ordered the Agency proposal to be treated as a

separate proposal, docketed R76—19,

but

cpnsolidated with

R76-14 for purposes of hearing and decision.

The following

public hearings were held:

)

)

)

)

)

September

22,

1976

November

4,1976

December 13, 1976

December 14,

1976

February 15, 1977

February

16,

1977

May 2,

1977

May 3,

1977

December 18,

1978

December 19,

1978

February

21,

1979

September 12,

1979

Chicago

Springfield

Chicago

Chicago

Chicago

Rockford

thicago

Chicago

Rock

ford

Rockford

Chicago

Chicago

The Board acknowledges the assistance of Carolyn S. Hesse,

Technical Assistant, in the drafting of this Opinion, and the

assistance of Roberta Levinson in serving as Hearing Officer.

---

—j)—

The latter

four

hearings were economic impact hearings.

Prior

to those hearings,

the Illinois Institute of Natural

Resources filed economic impact studies regarding the

proposed rule changes, Document No.

78/03, The

Economic Impact of Proposed Forging Noise Regulations

(R76-14,—19), and Document No.

78/36, Economic Impact

of

Removing Numerical Limits on Sound Emissions to

Class C Land

(R76—19).

These studies were filed

in

accordance with Section

6 of the Environmental Protection

Act.

HISTORY OF

THE

REGULATIONS

On July

26,

1973,

the Board adopted Chapter

8:

Noise

Regulations.

Included in those regulations are Rule

205,

Sound Emitted to Class C Land,

and Rule 206, Impulsive

Sound, which are the subject of

these proceedings.

Both the

Agency and Industry Proposals suggest changes

to Rule 206

which would allow higher sound levels to be emitted to Class

A (primarily residential

use) and Class B

(primarily certain

types of business

use) receiving lands,

Regarding emission

levels from existing forging operations

to Class A land,

industry seeks a 66-dB(A) limitation while the Agency seeks

a

61—dB(A)

limitation.

Both Proposals agreed on emission

levels to Class B land and on emission levels from new

operations

to Class A lands.

The Agency proposed deleting

Rule 205 entirely;

at hearing, industry witnesses concurred

with this deletidn.

The Proposed Order adopted on February

7,

1980 amends

Rules

101,

205,

206 and 209 as follows.

To the definitions

in Rule

101 have been added definitions for A—weighted sound

level and fast dynamic characteristic.

Definitions

for

dB(A)

and sound

level are deleted.

These definition changes

clarify those rule changes which were proposed for adoption.

Rule

205

is deleted.

Rule

206,

Impulsive Sound,

(1) deletes

the limitations

on impulsive noise emitted to Class C land;

(2) increases

the

allowable

impulsive noise levels emitted

from forging operations to Class A and Class B lands;

and

(3) adds

a provision grandfathering the existing use

classifications

of

land located within 1000 feet of the

property line of a forge plant,

thus establishing which

classification

is to be used for purposes of enforcing this

regulation,

unless

a subsequent

land use classification at

the time of new forge plant construction would allow a

less

restrictive limitation to apply.

Rule 209 specifies the

dates by which sources are to comply with Rule 206.

---

—3—

ANALYSIS

OF

THE

REVISED

REGULATIONS

Class

C

Receiving

Lands

(R76-19)

Virtually none of the evidence produced a~the merit

hearings supported maintaining Rule 20.

The primary reason

for having a Class

C sound limitation is to protect Class C

property receivers from levels which interfere with

conversations held at one— to three—foot distances or with

using

a telephone

(R.420).

The Board agrees that Class C

lands require

less protection than either Class ~ or Class B

lands

require because

the types of activity conducted on

Class

C

lands are less noise sensitive

(R.1083),

Since

Class

C

lands are typically used for manufacturing

operations

(R.1084),

they usually contain sources which emit

higher sound levels within their own property than they

receive from other property

(R,1082).

Class C land

operations emit within their property lines sound levels far

in excess of the limitations permitted in Rule

205

(R,1082).

Unoccupied farm land

is also classified

as Class

C

land,

However, over the years

the Agency has received very

few complaints

from Class C farm land receivers,

Only up to

3

of Class C receivers are bothered to any degree by noise

from any source.

It

is clear from the economic impact study

concerning these rule changes and from the evidence

in the

record that removing limitations affecting Class C receivers

would not regulate the major sources

of disturbance to these

receivers, which are nonstationary sources,

The Board~s

current Rule 102 is adequate

to enforce noise pollution

violations

in these situations

(R.1085—1086).

Sound Levels Emitted From Forge Plants

(R76—14)

During hearing,

there was much testimony

from

representatives

of the forging industry that meeting

original Rule 206,

adopted

in 1973,

is not technologically

feasible.

Noncompliance

is primarily due to the absence of

known methods of controlling the impact, or impulsive,

sound

emission levels from forge hammers at their sources.

The Noise Control Task Force

(NCTF).through the Forging

Industry Education and Research Foundation

(FIERF) performed

an extensive, three—volume study of existing forge plants to

determine the sources

of sound emissions and ways

of

controlling them

(Exhibits

16,

17 and 18),

Based on this

study,

it appears that the noise

is being caused by two

effects.

The first and primary contributor

to the peak

sound

level

is the sound generated when the ram,

driven

downward,

hits the metal work piece

(billet) and the die on

the anvil.

The second source of sound is caused by the

vibration of the ram and the columns which guide

it downward

---

—4—

due

to

the

sideways

movement

of

the

ram

between

the

columns

after

it

hits

the

die.

Since peak sound pressure levels are generally

proportional to blow strengths, reducing the blow strength

would reduce the

peak

sound level; however,

it would also

derate the hammer

(R.310).

There may be some operations in

which the

hammer

blow is stronger than necessary and could

be derated (R.319), but in the majority of forge shops derating

may

not be feasible.

In the

FIERF

study, shrouding the hammer was studied,

but

1.

If blow strength is reduced, the hammer would not

be able to produce the part.

2.

Since the columns maintain the die alignment,

to

reduce the columns’ vibrations by isolating them

from the

ran

before the

ram

strikes the work piece

may cause malalignment (R.322).

3.

The openings in retrofitting

any

shroud or enclosure

will need to be minimized in order to reduce the

amount of noise radiating past the treatment

(R.323).

Openings

are

necessary for access to the work piece.

4.

Dynamic

stresses in the shroud would have to be

minimized for safety

(R.323).

5.

In some cases a

ram

shroud could never be used due

to the given relationship between the

ram and

columns.

The buildings in which forge shops are operated are gen-

erally open structures which were not designed to reduce the

amount of sound radiating to the neighborhood.

A forge plant

must have adequate ventilation because of the amount of heat

generated inside the plant.

Consequently,

the structures were

designed with roof

and

side openings to provide natural ventila-

tion to dissipate the heat (R.103).

All of the forge plants

discussed

in

the

record

are

hot

forge

plants.

The

work

material,

typically

steel,

is

heated

to

around 2200°Fso that the material

is plastic enough to forge, since it cannot be forged while cold

(R.105—106).

After forging, the hot material is

put

onto skids,

and

when the skid is filled, it is usually moved outside to cool

(R.1043).

In addition to the skids loaded with hot material

(R.1044), the furnaces used to heat the material are major

sources of heat inside the plant (R.106).

The level of sound emissions radiated from some forge shops

can be reduced by 15 dB(A) by closing the open windows and doors

• or by covering them with silencers

(R.517).

Additional noise

reductions can be obtained by making structural changes in the

---

—5—

building,

such

as

repiacinq

a

plain

metal

roof

t-Ieck

with

one

made

with

asbestos—containing

material,

replacing

sheet

metal

walls with brick or concrete blocks,

and

replacing

plain

glass

windows with double glass windows.

However,

in

a typical, existing,

unimproved

forge

shop,

only about 4

of the acoustical energy which radiates

to the

outside does

so through the structure

itself; the remaining

96

radiates through

the openings

(R.523).

Hence,

it appears

that

covering the open doors with silencers

or other material would

be an effective way

of reducing the energy radiating from the

shop (R.523).

As the openings are reduced, or covered, however,

the need for mechanical ventilation increases as the natural

ventilation

is reduced or eliminated.

Tn addition,

there is a

need

for openings so

that vehicular and other traffic

is not

prevented

(R.502—503).

An additional

method

of

reducing

the

amount

of

noise

radiated to the neighborhood

would

he

to use barriers

such as

walls or berms.

Barriers placed 10-15 feet outside the peri-

meter of

a building can achieve

a 10— to 15—dB(A) reduction in

sound emission levels

(R.499—501).

Barriers must reach higher

than the openings in the plant wall

to be effective

(R.1119).

Barriers,

however, can interfere with necessary vehicular and

other traffic

(R.49~9—501),

may

reduce ventilation

(R.1064—1066),

and may he prohibited by nonownership of the requisite property

(R. 499—501).

There was evidence that

technological improvements

in

controlling

sound emissions are umovingr~ (R.1054—1055).

The

Danville Wyman—Gordon plant, which owns and operates the

largest forge and hammer shop in the country

(R.1028—1030),

operates an entirely different technological approach to the

manufacture of crank shaft forgings and alleges

it experiences

no noise problems

(R.1037).

There was also evidence that

a

6,000-pound

hammer

equipped

with

a hydraulic Lasco head was

quieter than other 6,000—pound hammers

(R.972—976).

Det~rminationof Allowable Sound Emission Levels

Impulsive noise affects people who hear

it by interfering

with speech and hearing and with degree of relaxation; when

it

exists at night it can interfere with sleep.

One witness testi-

fied that impulsive noise interferes more with

the

ability to

relax than does steady state, or background,

noise, hut that

steady state noise interferes more with speech than does impul-

sive noise

(R.1219).

There

is

no evidence in the record of the

relative importance to human health or welfare of relaxation,

speech, hearing,

sleeping,

or other activities.

Existing

impulsive sound emission levels of drop forge

hammers are estimated to range as high as

121

dT3(A)

for

a

1000—

2,000

pound

hammer

(R.240—241).

The

typical

hammer

operates

at

---

—6—

500—20,000 blows per shift

(R.245).

The average time between

hammer strikes

is one to

three seconds

(R.439).

According

to the record, present daytime sound emission

levels result in the situation that roughly

60

of the 45

forge plants are not complying with present Rule 206

(R.486).

The present daytime limitation of

56 dB(A)

is

exceeded by 62

of all plants; the limitation of

61 dB(A)

by

53

of all plants; the limitation of

66 dB(A)

by 44

of all

plants,

the limitation of

72—76 dB(A)

by

9

of all plants,

and the limitation of

82 dB(A)

and higher by

9

of all

plants

(R.1000).

There was also testimony

that 58

of

the plants could meet a limitation of

66

d13(A),

and 48

could meet 61 dB(A), at the present time

(R.579-580,

583).

There was evidence that 95

of all plants could meet

a

limitation of

66 dB(A) with an emission improvement of

between

5 and 20 d13(A),

and

1

of the plants would have to

improve their emission levels by

35 dB(A)

to reach this

limit

(R.542—544).

The Agency presented data of

sound emission levels from

all 45 forge plants

in Illinois

(Ex.56).

At one of the

shops it tape recorded the sound level

of a 2,000—pound drop

hammer

(R.1013).

This tape was played back through a sound

level meter

into

a strip chart recorder to determine which

measurement mode would be the most appropriate for measuring

the impulsive noise (R.1013—1014).

It concluded that the A

fast measurement mode was the most nearly accurate

(R.1021),

both because the A—weighted network most closely

approximates the way the human ear perceives sound and

because the A fast measurement mode was able to detect from

140 hammer impulses

all

impulses, whereas the A slow

measurement mode detected only

76 of them (R.1015).

There was considerable testimony which tried to relate

maximum A—weighted fast response sound levels to the energy

equivalent sound level, or

L

level,

a time—weighted

average which can he express~ in dB(A)tS.

Sound levels

expressed in terms of L

are useful

in estimating

effects

on the health and welfa~ of persons exposed

to them.

However,

for purposes of enforcing

a regulation

limiting

impulsive sound emissions,

the Board finds that the most

appropriate method is the use of A-weighted

sound levels,

measured with the fast dynamic characteristic.

Rule 206(d)

provides that for purposes of enforcing Rule

206 only certain land use classifications

in effect shall he

the applicable

land use classifications

unless subsequent

changes would result in applicability of less restrictive

limitations on the impact forging operation.

This rule is

included

so that forge plants will not be penalized

if a new

use classification would require reductions

in sound emission

---

—7—

levels.

The Industry Proposal specified a distance of one

mile from the property line.

However, the

Board

believes

that one mile would be an excessive distance; the distance

of 1000 feet was selected because the Board believes that,

since sound levels are attenuated by 20 dB(A) at 1000 feet,

this distance is sufficient

ECONOMIC EVIDENCE

R76—19

(Illinois Institute of Natural Resources’ economic impact

study (Study—19), Doc. No. 78/36, June, 1979.)

Study-19 concludes that the benefits of removing the limita-

tions are approximately three times as much as the costs which

would be entailed.

Benefits are comprised primarily of industry’s

avoided costs of sound abatement and of the state’s avoided costs

of enforcement of the limitations.

Specific costs and benefits of

control technologies are the same as those set forth in its study

concerning R76-14

(Study—14) to the extent they concern forge

plants.

Since 14 forge plants were out of compliance with only

the regulation regarding emissions to Class C receiving land,

repealing that regulation would save those sources compliance

costs

(R.162).

No evidence was produced at hearing of the costs to owners

other Class C lands.

R76-14

(Illinois Institute of Natural Resources’ economic impact

study (Study—14), Doc. No.

78/03, October,

1978.)

The author of Study—14 chose three measures of cost.

One

measure was “base case” estimates of cost to the entire forging

industry.

These costs, however,

could be twice as high as true

costs would be.

The second measure was estimates of cost to all

plants of reducing emissions by 6 dB(A).

These figures are similar-

ly subject to error.

The third measure was estimates of cost to

10 particular plants,

both

individually and in the aggregate

(Ex.70,

p.iv.).

The author relied on data derived by Bolt, Beranek and

Newman,

Inc.

(BBN) to develop adjusted statewide cost estimates

and, from these estimates,

the base case estimates.

Although

there is considerable diversity among plants, BBN statistics were

not derived on a pjant-by-plant basis but rather from a model

(Ex.70, pp.11—13).

1 Six architecturally representative plants, including complying

plants and multiple shop plants, were used to identify fourteen

all shop elevations.

From this examination a reference struc—

---

—8—

Benefits of

sound emission reduction were calculated by

analyzing the distribution

of homes around plants and studies

regarding the contribution of sound emission levels

to differen-

tial property values

(Ex,70, pp.iv—v).

Although benefits can

be measured by monetarizing physical effects of sound on human

life and human activities,

and have been covered extensively—

in literature,

the author did

not

include these physical effects

in his assessment

of benefits.

He instead measured benefits in

terms of damage to transactions engaged

in “in which, implicitly,

we place a value on

reduced

noise”;

buying a house was singled

out

as one

of these transactions,

(Ex,70, p.58).

The author then provides discussion of various mathematical

equations expressing

the relationship among characteristics

determining the value of a house to the desirability of these

characteristics——that

is, that the value of a house

is

a function

of these characteristics.

One of these equations was utilized

by John

P. Nelson and derived from data of the Washington,

D,

C.

SMSA; another was utilized by Roger J, Vaughn and Larry Huckins

and derived

from Chicago area traffic noise data

(Ex,70,

pp.58-60)

Although these authors used different values for the noise index

variable

in the equation, the regression coefficient derived by

both,

used in conjunction. with the variable~s contribution

to the

equation,

was the same

(Ex,70,

pp.61—64).

However,

the Study—14

author

used

a

second

BBN

report

to

adjust

the

equation

to

account

for

the

frequency

of

forge

hammer

strikes

in

the

noise

index

as

represented

by

the

relationship

L0

A—weighted

fast

-

5

dB(A).

This

may

have contributed to

an

un~erestimation

of

benefits

(Ex,70,

p.64—65).

The author gathered data for the benefits equation by

studying data developed by ETA Engineering,

Inc.

on 10 plants

and developing a statewide model,

From noise contour zones

drawn according to the emission levels of these

10 plants,

extrapolation to the

26 noncomplying

(at 56 dB(A)) plants was

made,

e.g.,

the number of

houses

within

each

contour

was

increased by

26/10.

This new number

of houses within each

contour was divided by the number of plants emitting at

levels

equal

to or greater than the levels given

for each contour.

For

each plant was then derived how many houses were affected by

ture

(typical shop) was developed and control costs derived

from those control

methodologies judged to he applicable at

each 5—dB increase.

Costs of the applicable methodologies were

“estimated with the

aid

of

...

data supplied by

Holahird

and Root.

The

frequency of applicability of each method

was

determined by reference to the actual characteristics of-

the

14 distinct elevations,”

Finally BBN costs were esti-

mated based on the incidence

and

degree of noncompliance

among shops as determined by an incomplete

ETA,

Inc.—Michigan

Technological University survey although the author utilized the

completed data when it became available

(Ex.70,

pp.13—14).

---

—9—

that

plant.

The

objective

was

to

measure

‘how

much sound reduc-

tion

would

accrue

to

the

houses

for

given

noise

reductions

by

the plants

(Ex.70,

pp.66—67).

Finally,

the author weighed the cost—benefit ratio achieved

(1)

by designing

a variant case where costs were assumed to be

50

lower than was calculated and benefits to he 70

~~er

than

was calculated; and

(2) by comparing data applicable

to the 10

plants used

to derive cost estimates,

In both analyses the author

found costs generally

to exceed benefits

(Ex.70, p.v).

In determining the percentage

of noncomplying ~os,

all

shops

of a given plant were treated as

if they emitted

the

sane

level

of

sound

Ex,70,

p.8).

Thus estimates

of how many

Illinois shops are not presently complying with the limitation,

as well

as how many could not comply with various proposed

limitations, may be inaccurate,

An accurate evaluation of

the economic reasonableness

of any

proposed reduction from the present 56 dB(A)

level

is difficult

based on Study—14 and the entire hearing record,

Essentially,

the author states that costs exceed benefits

at any level

(including the present one)

(R,1319—1320),

and the Agency states

that benefits exceed costs

at any level

(R.1619),

Even though

cost—benefit comparisons are factors

in determining the reason-

ableness of an economic impact,

they are not the only

factors

which should be considered.

The disparity between the author~s

and the Agency~s conclusions,

supported in part by witnesses

Croke and DeGraff,

is illustrated below.

Costs,

The Agency states

‘that the author’s costs should

he revised downward because

(1) the least—complying plant

in

a group was used as

the compliance cost model for each plant

within the group

(groupings were made according to actual emis-

sions)

(R,1678)

(see post);

(2)

lighting costs are 75

lower

than the costs used by the author

(R,1569);

(3) the method of

amortization of control costs,

the estimate of the number of new

or modified pieces of ventilatIon equipment needed,

and the esti-

mate

of fuel consumed

to maintain inplant temperatures

all over~-

estimate operating costs

(R,1572—1575);

(4) silencers coupled

with natural ventilation systems were not considered

(R,1562-1565,

1682,

1697);

(5) reduction in ventilation sizings will reduce

mechanical ventilation system costs

(R,1565;

and

(6)

costs

of

barriers

are two times too high

(R.1560—1562,

1644),

The Agency,

however,

does

state that the author properly considered engineer—

ing and consultant

fees

(R,1686—1689).

Conversely,

the author states that the Agency’s costs

should

ho revised upward because

(1) costs

of

nighttime operations are

excluded;

(2) the increased closing

of ventilation openings will

raise inplant noise and necessitate additional costs; and

(3)

costs of stopping production

to effectuate control technology

are excluded

(R.1769—1770).

The author,

however,

does say that

---

—10—

the Agency’s

costs

should be revised downward because of the

data used in arriving at natural

and

mechanical ventilation

equipment and lighting (R.1763—1767).

Benefits.

The Agency states that the author’s benefits

should be revised upward because

(1) property values were

underestimated by a factor of 2.63

(R.1613, 1635);

(2) home

buyers are unaware of sound emission effects in the

environment

until

they

have

lived

in

the

home

for

a

period

of time (R.1580—1584);

(3)

airport

noise

studies

raise

questions as to effects on fetuses

(R.1715);

(4) the traffic

noise index used underestimated damages (R.1587—1592);

(5)

the Vaughn and Huckins study and model produced

statistically nonsignificant results, including an under-

estimation of benefits by one—half of what other models have

yielded (R.1594-1598);

and

(6) personal health effects

benefits are not considered

(R.1788).

Conversely, the author states that the Agency’s

benefits should be revised downward because

(1) homes which

are mobile should not reap full benefits and

(2) if plants

could not meet a 50—dB(A) level, benefits would be illusory

(R.1771).

The author, however, states that in some areas

the Agency’s benefits would exceed costs by a factor of 2

(R.1786).

In

trying

to

summarize

the

disparity

between

the

cost

and

benefit

estimates

made

by

the author and the Agency, the

Board

looks

to

testimony

of

these

participants

themselves

regarding

the

merits

of

their

own

studies.

First,

the

Agency nowhere in the record states that its benefit figures

are

overstated.

The

Agency

admits

its

cost

figures

are

understated to the extent that data supplied to it

specifying the percentage of wall surface areas which

openings comprise were based on a plant’s having one wall

with openings and not two, three, or four walls with

openings

(R.1700,

1827-1828).

However, this does not mean

that the figures are inaccurate by some factor of 2,

3, or

4,

but

rather that the per wall percentage of openings

figure used may not be as representative as if a percentage

had

been

derived

from

measurements

taken

from

all

four

walls.

This

does

not

appear

to

be

a

significant

error

statistically when the Agency’s study is taken as a whole.

In addition, however, the Agency’s cost figures for barriers

may not have included costs of labor

(R.1648); this error

would make the barrier cost estimates tob low but not

statistically

unreliable

except

in

isolated

cases.

The

second

point

the

Board

notes

from

the

record

is

that

the

author’s

cost

figures

may

be

overstated

for

additional

reasons:

(1)

payroll

and sales figures are too

high

because

if

figures

for

complying

plants

had

been

included, per plant figures would be about 40

less

(R.1359—1361);

(2) costs of automobiles manufactured by

---

—11—

companies not using only Illinois forgings would be lower

(11.1404—1405);

(3) the increased price of forgings was based

on the assumption that competition among forge plants would

not prevent any increases from being passed on to the consumer

(R.1533, 1548—1549);

(4) the average area of an elevation is too

large by at least 35

(R.1314); and

(5) the use of silencers will

produce lower costs than stated (R.1314).

It should be noted

that the author himself states that the cost figures should be

used for ‘benchmark purposes’

(R.1313).

These reasons, however, are much less significant than

the further reason, pointed out by both the Agency and the

author, that the measure used to derive costs of sound emission

reductions was not the actual decibel decrease necessary but

the approximate decrease.

The decibel decrease upon which costs

were then calculated was overestimated in this manner:

plants

were grouped into ranges of their actual emission levels, e.g.,

87—91 dB(A), and costs calculated for all plants in those ranges

based upon the given that all plants actually emitted at the

upper level, or 91, rather than at the lower level, or 87, or at

any intermediate level

(11.1314,

1371—1375, 1678).

This error

overestimates costs for all plants in the lower range of each

grouping.

Further, the choice of actual emission levels influences

both the degree of emission reduction necessary and the type of con-

trol technology which would be feasible and, therefore, the extent

of costs to be incurred.

Lastly, the Board finds in the record several questionable

assumptions which appear to have been made, and some not to have

been made.

The author assumed

(1) buyers and occupiers of homes

differ in their valuation of benefits of sound reduction, e.g.,

a buyer or occupier of a $50,000 house values sound reduction

twice as much as a buyer or occupier of a $25,000 house

(11.1415—1423);

(2) annoyance occurs primarily from single,

defined

emissions

rather

than

multiple

or

repetitious

emissions

(R.1425—1432,

1557);

(3)

hearing

loss

is

not a significant enough

factor

to

be

taken

into account

(11.1479);

(4) outside research of

the effects of noise pollution other than those in the hearing

record would not have uncovered additional effects

(11.1481—1482).

Finally, the author’s benefit figures excluded benefits which

could accrue to hospitals and physically immobile persons (11.1555-

1559), to employment in the noise control abatement industry

(11.1534-

1536), and to citizens due to the technology—forcing policy of the

Illinois Environmental Protection Act (Section 2)

(11.1485—1488).

It is clear to the Board from the testimony and documents

in the record that cost and benefit figures cannot be relied

upon with any reasonable accuracy.

Therefore, it may not

be true,

as the author asserts, that costs will be greater

than benefits in every instance.

Neither does the Board find,

as

the

Agency

asserts,

that

benefits

will

be

greater

than

costs

in

every

instance.

This means that the true costs of meeting a 56 dB(A)

sound

---

—12—

emission limitation are probably less than $38.1 million (or

$1.1 million per 34 noncomplying shops) (R~1313),but more than

whatever costs the Agency would calculate;’ the true costs of

meeting a 61—dB(A) limitation are probably less than $28 million

(or $0.9 million per 30 noncomplying shops)

(R.1313) but more

than $10.3 million (or $0.3 million

per

30 noncomplying shops);

and the true costs of meeting a 66—dB(A) limitation are probably

less than $20.9 million

(or $0.8 million

per

26 noncomplying shops)

(11.1313) but more than $7.4 million (or $0.3 million per 26 non-

complying

shops).

From these wide ranges,

it

can

be estimated

that the cost of compliance with limitations of either 56, 61 or

66 dB(A) could range from $300,000—$1,100,000 per shop.

As to

the benefits of compliance with a 56-, 61—, or 66—dB(A) limitation,

the Board

estimates

from

Exhibits

70

and

74 that the

total

range

CONCLUSION

Although

the

economic

information

offered

by

the

Agency

and

the

FIA

is

conflicting

and

disparate,

there

is

sufficient data

to

support

some

change

in

the

Board’s

current

56—dB(A)

daytime

limitation.

Both

the

Agency

and

the

FIA

agree

that

a

lessening

of

the

limitation

to

at least 61 dB(A) is needed.

The Agency

will

not

concede

that

a

less

restrictive standard is either

necessary

or

wise and the FIA has not convincingly proven that

industry compliance with a less restrictive standard is economic-

ally infeasible.

The Board is unwilling to allow higher than a

66—dB (A) standard when the economic data in support of this

limitation is at best only marginally reliable.

The Board, in light of the foregoing Opinion, accepts

industry’s proposal for a 66—dB(A) Class A daytime noise emission

limitation

rather

than

the

Agency’s

proposal

for

61

dB(A);

however,

the

56-dB(A)

limitation

shall remain in effect during the nighttime.

The

Board

is

ever

conscious

of

its

responsibility

to

assure

a

healthy environment for the citizens of Illinois and to consider

the economic impact of Board regulations.

At present, about half

of the forge plants within the State of Illinois emit sound levels

greater than 66 dB(A) to Class A property; therefore, the 66—dB(A)

limitation stands as an achievable goal.

Adopting the 66—dB(A)

level will not seriously compromise a healthy sound environment

in the

name

of reduced industrial costs nor will it dictate that

industry spend money in the vain pursuit of yet unachievable

goals.

This Proposed Opinion supports the Order of

February

7,

Table

5 of Exhibit 74 gives costs for 61 and 66 dB(A)

but not for 56 dB(A).

---

—13—

Mr. Jacob Durnelle dissented.

Mrs. Joan Anderson abstained,

I,

Christan

L.

Moffett,

Clerk

of

the

Illinois

Pollution

Control

B~ard,

hereby

certi y that the above Opinion was adopted

on the

1,

~

day of

ft~4i

,

1980 by a vote of

~3~4

Christan L. Moffe~t,Clerk

Illinois Po1iutt~ Control Board