ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
July
24,
1980
IN THE MATTER OF:
PROPOSED AMENDMENT
of
RULES
101,
)
R76—14
205,
206 and 209 of the NOISE
)
R76—19
REGULATIONS
)
FINAL 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 Pollution 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 consolidated with
R76-14 for purposes of hearing and decision.
The following
public hearings were held:
September 22,
1976
Chicago
November 4,1976
Springfield
December 13,
1976
Chicago
December
14,
1976
Chicago
February 15,
1977
Chicago
February
16,
1977
Rockford
May
2,
1977,
Chicago
May
3,
1977,
Chicago
December 18,
1978
Rockford
December 19,
1978
Rockford
February 21,
1979
Chicago
September 12,
1979
Chicago
The BoardThc~knowledgesthe a~istanceof Carolyn
S.
Hesse,
Technical Assistant,
in the drafting of this Opinion, and the
assistance of Roberta Levinson
in serving
as Hearing Officer.
—2—
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 deletion.
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
and
(2) increases the allowable impulsive noise levels
emitted from forging operations
to Class A and Class B
lands.
Rule 209 specifies the dates by which sources are to
comply with Rule 206.
ANALYSIS OF THE REVISED REGULATIONS
Class C Receiving Lands
(R76—19)
Virtually none of the evidence produced at the merit
hearings supported maintaining Rule 205.
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
—3—
lands require less protection than either Class
A 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).
The Agency comments that under Rule 201(d),
certain
Class A lands when adjacent to Class B or C
lands may be
reclassified as B or C land by municipalities having zoning
jurisdiction over those
lands.
Thus, declares the Agency,
the effect of the Board’s deregulation of Class C lands as
receiving lands
(deleting Rule 205) creates the possibility
that municipalities can reclassify Class A lands as Class C
lands, thus leaving these
lands without protection from
noise pollution.
This
is
a misreading of Rule 201(d), which allows
reclassifications only of lands
“used as specified by
SLUCM Code~s
81,
83,
91, or 922
...“
These SLUCM Codes
generally categorize agricultural, forestry,
undeveloped,
and nonreserve forestry
(all non—Class A)
lands;
they are
not the Class A SLUCM Codes 110—190
(residential), 6513
(hospitals),
6516
(rest homes),
or 681—683
(schools) with
which the Agency is concerned.
Rule 201(d), does not permit
a municipality to reclassify these
lands with which the
Agency is concerned as these are Class
A lands not used
as specified by SLUCM Codes 81,
83,
91 or 922.
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.
—4—
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
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
this may cause several problems:
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 ram 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 he used due
to the given relationship between the ram and the
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°F so that the materia
is plastic enough to forge,
since it cannot be forged while coL
—5—
(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
building,
such as replacing a plain metal roof deck 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.
In 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 be 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.499—501),
may reduce ventilation
(R.1064—1066),
and may be prohibited by nonownership of the requisite property
(R.499—501).
There was evidence that technological improvements in
controlling sound emissions are
“moving”
(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 endrely 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).
Determination of 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—
—6—
fied that impulsive noise interferes more with the ability to
relax than does steady state, or background,
noise,
but 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 d13(A)
for a 1000—
2,000 pound hammer (R.240—241).
The typical hammer operates at
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 d13(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 dB(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 dB(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 be express~in d3(A)’s.
Sound levels
expressed in terms of
L
are useful in estimating effects
on
the health and welfar~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.
—7—
Rule 206(d)
as proposed by the Board on February 7,
1980 provided that for purposes of enforcing Rule 206 only
certain land use classifications
in effect shall be the
applicable land use classifications unless subsequent
changes
would
result
in
applicability
of
less
restrictive
limitations
on
the
impact
forging
operation.
This
rule
had
been included so that forge plants will not be penalized if
new use classifications would require reductions
in sound
emission
levels.
The
Industry Proposal specified
a distance
of one mile from the property line.
The Agency comments that uses of lands
located within
1,000
feet of these
impact forging operations should not be,
for
purposes
of
enforcement,
subject
to
later
reclassification.
These comments are well taken.
The effect of this provision
is
indirect zoning or zoning “freezes”
of lands within 1,000 feet
of impact forging operations because it inhibits specific uses
of
lands within this proximity to the forge plants.
For example,
municipalities which desired
to reclassify
a Class B land
(say,
a bakery or
a direct selling organization) to a Class
A land
(say,
a dental laboratory or a driving school) might
feel inhibited from doing so.
For this reason,
Rule 206(d)
has been deleted from the Proposed Order of February
7,
1980.
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
limitations are approximately three tLmes 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
or
operators
of
farm
land
to
control
their
sound
emissions
to
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
—8—
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 similarly 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 pla~t—by—plant
basis but rather from a model
(Ex,70, pp.11—i3).
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.6l—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 Le
=
A-weighted fast
—
5 dB(A).
This may have contributed to an un~erestimationof 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
1 Six architecturally representative plants,
including complying
plants and multiple shop plants, were used to identify fourteen
distinct elevations which were examined as representative of
all shop elevations.
From this examination a reference struc—
—9—
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 d13(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
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
be
70
higher 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 shops,
all
shops of a given plant were treated as
if they emitted the same
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
ture
(typical
shop) was developed and control costs derived
from
those
control
methodologies
judged
to
be
applicable
at
each
5—dB
increase.
Costs
of
the
applicable
methodologies
were
“estimated
with
the
aid
of
...
data supplied by
...
Holabird
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).
—10—
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 ~
(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.i562—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
be 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
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 Tiuckins 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
—11—
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 too
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
companies not using only Illinois forgings would be
lower
(R.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
(R.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
o.r occupier of
a $25,000 house
—12—
(R.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
(R.1479);
(4) outside research of
the effects of noise pollution other than those in the hearing
record would not have uncovered additional effects
(R.1481-1482).
Finally,
the
author’s
benefit
figures
excluded
benefits
which
could
accrue
to
hospitals
and
physically
immobile
persons
(R.1555-
1559),
to employment in the noise control abatement industry
(R.1534-
1536),
and
to
citizens
due
to
the
technology-forcing
policy
of
the
Illinois Environmental Protection Act
(Section 2)
(R,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
emission limitation are probably
less than $38.1 million
(or
$1.1 million per 34 noncomplying shops)
(R11313), 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)
(R,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
of benefits
is between $2.8 million and $9.3 million.
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.
1 Table
5 of Exhibit 74 gives costs for 61 and 66 dB(A)
but not for
56 dB(A).
—13—
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
Opinion
supports
the
Order
of
July
24,
1980.
Mr.
Werner
dissents.
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control
Board,
hereby
certify
that
the
above
Opinion
was
adopted
on
the
~s-J~
day of
________________,
1980
by
a
vote
of
4”_f
CJ~tan L. ~iof~t~~k
Illinois
Pollution
ontrol
Board
