ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
January
13,
1983
WILL COUNTY PRODUCE COMPANY and
S
& T COMPANY,
Petitioners,
v.
)
PCB 82—129
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by J.
Anderson):
This matter comes before the Board on the October 25,
1982
petition for variance of the Will County Produce Company
(Company).
The Company seeks variance from the noise emission limitations
of Rule 204 “Sound Emitted to Class B Land”
of Chapter
8:
Noise
Pollution.
On November
15,
1982 the Company moved to amen9
its
petition
to add as
a petitioner
S
& T Company, owner of the real
estate on which its facility is located, which motion
is granted.
On January
5,
1983 the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(Agency)
filed its Recommendation in support of variance with
conditions.
Hearing was waived and none has been held.
The Company operates a wholesale institutional food
distributorship located at 250 Republic Avenue,
Joliet-~.
The
facility is located
in an exclusively commercial area,
and
operates year—round approximately 10 hours per day,
5 days per
week.
The primary source of sound emission
is four refrigeration
units located on the north side of the facility.
Operation of
these units was the subject of an enforcement action before
the
Board,
IEPA v. Will Coun~yProduce
Co.,
PCB 77—133
(Sept.
15,
1977).
This was brought by the Agency in response
to complaints
from an officer of the Three Sisters Beauty Salon,
which is
located in
a building directly north of
the facility.
The
Board
accepted a stipulated settlement requiring the Company to install
a
lined,
sound absorptive barrier on the outside of its building,
and if noise violations persisted,
to line the inside wall of the
barrier facing the refrigeration units.
In the event violations
continued, the Company was directed to apply for a Board variance.
In April,
.1980 the Attorney General filed
suit in
the WiU
County Circuit Court seeking enforcement of the Order.
Compiian~
was reached
in October,
1981,
and final judgment entered pursuant
to stipulation on December 21,
1981.
Peopl~y~_Will_Coun~
Produce Co.,
No.
80CH87.
51-19
2
The Company has expended in excess of $10,000 to build the
required lined barrier and to line the building wall facing the
barrier.
According to the Agency, these actions resulted
in the
amount of noise emitted to the beauty salon property ranging from
0 dB at 31,5 Hz to 16 dB at 8000 Hz,
However,
in order
to achieve
compliance with Rule 204,
additional reductions ranging from
½
dB
at 8000 Hz to
5 dB at 2000 Hz are needed,
In response to Agency inquiry concerning this variance
petition, one of the owners of the beauty salon indicated that she
opposes grant of variance.
While admitting that there has bean a
substantial
reduction in noise,
she stated that the refrigeration
unit noise interferes with the owners’ ability
to work (do hair,
facials, etc.)
outside on the patio of their beauty parlor.
However,
she also remarked that she doesn’t want to force the
Company to spend
“a lot of money” to reduce the noise.
The Agency suggests that compliance could be achieved
in one
of two ways.
The first would involve relocation of the refriger-
ation units to the south side of the building,
it having been
determined that the building roof cannot support their weight.
This would involve installation of new refrigerant lines
(and
possibly flow pumps)
at a cost in excess of $250,000;
it could
also result
in installation of larger refrigeration units to
handle back pressure.
The other method would involve replacement of the existing
plywood noise barrier with a more sound absorptive model.
Installation of a heavier concrete block barrier or a commercial
sound panel type barrier would cost between $85,000 and $135,000.
The Company asserts that denial of variance would impose and
arbitrary or unreasonable hardship, given its past efforts and
expenditures.
It states that the background noise
level of the
exclusively commercial surrounding area
is already close to the
applicable noise limits.
It reminds the Board that
in PCB 77—133,
a survey answered by 19 of
52 nearby commercial establishments
indicated no objection to the Company’s noise.
The Agency recommends grant of variance with conditions.
It
notes
that of the
3 responses received from the 11 businesses
contacted concerning this variance,
2 responded that they had no
objection.
In relation to the objection of the beauty salon, the
Agency analyzed the effect of the noise on the salon’s outdoor
activities,
based on a USEPA document titled “Information on
Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect Public Health
and Welfare With An Adequate Margin of Safety”.
The Agency’s conclusions
(based on calculations which will
not be set forth here) was that prior to erection of the barrier,
the noise could have caused some hearing loss,
and would have
allowed
“normal voice satisfactory conversation” only at a
distance of
½
meter
(1.6 feet).
Presently, there
is no danger
of hearing
loss,
“Normal voice satisfactory conversation” is
possible at a distance of 1½ meters
(4.9 feet),
and “relaxed
conversation”
is possible at a distance of
½
meter
(1,6 feet).
51-2(1
3
Variance conditions suggested by the Agency are that the
variance be limited to the noise from the existing refrigeration
units, that the Company be precluded from installing any other
noise producing equipment along the north side of the building,
and that it maintain the barrier and yearly report on its
condition and effectiveness,
The Board
finds that,
given the minimal nature of
the noise
interference and the high costs
of achieving compliance as here
presented, that denial of variance would impose an arbitrary and
unreasonable hardship.
The Board notes that neither party has
suggested a maximum term for the variance.
As no plan for
ultimately achieving compliance has been included
in this petition,
it
would seem that the relief the Company may ultimately need
can he obtained only through a site—specific rule,
A long term
variance therefore has not been justified, particularly as the
Board also notes that neither party has addressed the question
of whether any improvements can be made to the existing harrier.
The Board will grant an 18 month variance,
subject to the
conditions.
During that time,
the Company shall
investigate the
economic and technical feasibility of achieving compliance by
improving the existing barrier,
and shall report its
findings
to
the Agency.
On or before September
1,
1983, the Company shall
then file a plan showing how it will come into compliance.
This
Order does not, however, preclude timely filing of a petition for
site specific rule change,
or a petition for variance from this
Order in the event such petition is
filed.
This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions
of
law of the Board in this matter,
ORDER
1)
Petitioners,
the Will County Produce Company (Company) and
S
&
T Company,
are hereby granted variance from Rule 204 of
Chapter
8:
Noise Pollution as
it relates
to sound from four
refrigeration units presently located on the north wall of
the Company’s facility at 250 Republic Avenue, Joliet,
subject to the following conditions:
a)
This variance shall terminate no later than July
1,
1984.
b)
This variance shall terminate at such earlier time as
either any of the existing units are replaced or
additional noise—producing equipment
is placed on
the
north wall,
c)
The Company shall
expeditiously investigate and report
to the Agency concerning the economic and technical
feasibility of achieving compliance through improving
its existing noise barrier.
51-21
d)
On or before September
1,
1983 the Company shall present
to the Agency a program (with increments of progress)
for achieving compliance with the noise regulations on
or before the end of the variance period,
and shall
adhere to that schedule.
e)
The Company shall maintain
its existing noise barrier in
best manner practicable and shall report
to the Agency
concerning
its condition and effectiveness on or before
September
1,
1983.
2)
Within forty—five days of the date of this Order, Petitioner
shall execute and forward to the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency,
2200 Churchill Road,
Springfield, Illinois
62706,
a Certificate of Acceptance and Agreement
to be
hound
to all terms and conditions of this variance,
This forty—
five day period shall be held in abeyance for any period
this
matter is being appealed.
The form of the certificate shall
be as follows:
CERTIFICATE
I,
(We),
_____
____
,
having read
the Order of t~TTTThois ~o~Tllifi~ñCon?~I~~f~TnPCB 82-129,
dated
______________-_____
,
understand and accept
the
said Order, realizing that such acceptance renders all terms and
conditions thereto binding and enforceable.
Petitioner
By:
Authorized Agent
Title
Date
IT
IS SO ORDERED,
Chairman Jacob D, Dumelle concurred,
I,
Christan
L.
Moffett,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, here~ycertify~thatthe above Opinion and Order
was
adoi~tedon the ~
day of
~
1983 by a vote
Pt.,
~
,..
.
~Th~J
y~
~
Christan
L, Moffett, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control
Board