ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
May 19, 1994
SCOTT
AND
KAREN
THOMAS,
)
)
Complainants,
PCB 91—195
v.
)
(Enforcement)
)
CARRY COMPANIES OF ILLINOIS,
)
)
Respondent.
OPINION
AND
ORDER
OF
THE
BOARD
(by
E.
Dunham):
This matter is
before
the
Board
on
a
complaint
filed
by
Scott and Karen Thomas (complainants) on October 16,
1991.
On
August
5,
1994, the Board found that the noise and dust emanating
from respondent’s property unreasonably interfered with
complainants’ enjoyment of life.
Respondent was ordered to study
the economic reasonableness and technical feasibility of any
control options which it may deem appropriate to reduce the noise
and dust emissions from its facility.
These studies were filed
on December 1,
1993.
Complainants filed a response to the
studies on January 19,
1994.
On January 27,
1994, respondent
filed
a reply to complainant’s response.
Having previously found respondent in violation of the air
and noise provisions of the Environmental Protection Act
(415
ILCS 5/1 et seq.
(1992)), the sole matter,
before the Board at
this time is to order an appropriate remedy to abate the
nuisance.
Both complainant and respondent have presented
compliance alternatives.
Each party states measures proposed by
the other are infeasible.
Based on the record, the Board must
order a course of action to abate the nuisance.
Carry Companies
(Carry) has paved its parking lot since the
Board’s finding of violation.
The parties are in agreement that
the dust problem has been remediated by the paving of the lot.
Accordingly, the Board will not require Carry to impose
additional measures in relationship to the dust problem.
Carry Companies presented a report prepared by Shiner
Associates based on acoustical measures performed in October of
1993.
The report recommends operational changes,
including:
1)
closing the doors to the trailer wash bays during washing;
2)
closing the doors to the wash building at all times during the
night;
3) restricting truck traffic to the south half of the yard
at night and;
4) repairing yard tractor brakes.
In their response, complainants argue that the report
submitted by respondent fails to conform to the Board’s order in
that the report focuses on numerical standards instead of
addressing the “nuisance” which is to be abated.
In addition,
2
the complainants state that the report fails to address the
economic reasonableness of the control measures.
The Thomas’s
also discuss the implementation and effectiveness of the changes
presented by respondent.
The complainants request the Board to
adopt the changes recommended by Gregory Zak at hearing.
In its August 5,
1993 interim opinion and order the Board
summarized Mr.
Zak’s testimony as follows.
At the hearing,
Mr.
Zak proposed several methods
to reduce the impact of the noise on the Thomas’s.
Mr.
Zak proposed an acoustic barrier as a partial solution.
(Tr. at 254.)
Mr.
Zak testified that a barrier fence
of the sort he was recommending would cost
approximately $55,000.
Mr.
Zak described the barrier
fence as the key element to the entire noise control
proposal.
(Tr.
at 285.)
He also recommended equipping
the tractors with better mufflers, paving the parking
lot and remodelling the wash building.
(Tr. at
268-269.)
Mr.
Zak believes that it would cost between
$500 and $1,000 per unit to replace the mufflers on the
trucks.
(Tr. at 277.)
He stated that it would cost
around $2,000 to remodel the building.
He also
recommended
that
the
trucks
park
only
at
the
south
end
of the Carry property.
(Tr. at 278 and 280.)
The Carry Companies’ report stated that the barrier fence
is not practical.
Specifically, the report noted the distance of
the source and receiver from the fence and the height
requirements
for
such
a
fence
to
be
effective.
Carry
also
notes
that a variance from the City of Decatur will be required for
construction of the fence.
Carry also objects to implementation
of the recommendations made by Mr.
Zak, because Mr.
Zak has never
set foot on Carry’s property, conducted noise studies at the site
or
observed
first
hand
many
of
the
noises
complained
of.
(Tr.
at
293—295.)
Carry
also
notes
that
it
has
obtained
an
estimate
of
$16,000
for
a
wood
fence.
However,
Carry
maintains
that
this
represents a significant expense especially considering the
technical
ineffectiveness
of
such
a
barrier.
Respondent contends that some operational controls were
implemented in 1991 and 1992.
(Tr. at 440 and 450.)
However, the
complaints from the Thomas’s continued at least to January, 1994,
according to an affidavit filed with the Board on January 19,
1994
by
Karen
Thomas.
The
failure
of
operational
controls
alone
to eliminate the nuisance convinces the Board that, although
continued implementation and enforcement of the operational
controls
will
be
crucial
to reducing noise, additional measures
must
be
taken
to
eliminate
the
nuisance.
The
Board
finds
that
of
the
other
recommendations
contained
in
the
report
the
construction
of
a
barrier
fence
is
the
most
economically
reasonable
and
technically
feasible.
Therefore,
the
Board
finds
3
that a properly designed barrier fence must be installed to abate
the nuisance caused by non—compliance by respondent’s employees
with prescribed work rules.
With regard to the
45
dB(A)
mufflers,
the
Board
has
required
the
installation
of
mufflers
in
other
cases
in
the
past.
In
Christianson v. The American Milling Co.
(March 11,
1992),
PCB
90—59,
the Board required that a single front end loader be
retrofitted with a 45 dB(A) muffler.
In Madoux v.
Straders
Loggin~s
and
Lumber
Mill
(November
19,
1992),
PCB
90-149,
the
Board
required
installation of similar mufflers on two pieces of
heavy equipment used by the respondent in that case.
While the
Board believes that retrofitting the trucks with 45 dB(A)
mufflers
would
reduce the noise level, the Board finds that
requiring
the
installation of mufflers on the entire fleet of
trucks is not feasible.
The Board will not order installation of
expensive mufflers on an unspecified number of vehicles,
potentially encompassing the entirety of respondent’s fleet given
the
facts
as
presented
in
this
case.
This opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
conclusions of law in this matter.
ORDER
The respondent,
Carry Companies,
shall undertake all
measures
necessary
to
cease
and
desist
from
further
violations of Section 9(a),
23 and 24 of the Act.
In addition,
respondent
shall undertake the following measures to reduce noise
emissions:
1.
Carry
Companies
shall
immediately
implement
and
enforce
the operational controls suggested by Shiner
Associates, those being:
a.
Close all wash bay doors while washing trailers;
b.
Close the north bay doors at all times at night;
c.
Use only the south half of the lot at night to the
extent practicable; and
d.
Repair truck brakes to eliminate noise as needed.
2.
Carry Companies shall install a sound barrier fence at
least 14 feet in height along the entire northern
boundary of their property according to good
engineering practice.
Installation of the fence shall
be completed by September 30,
1994.
4
IT IS SO ORDERED.
R.C. Flemal and J. Theodore Meyer dissented.
Section 41 of the Environmental Protection Act,
(415 ILCS
5/41
(1992)), provides for appeal of final orders of the Board
within 35 days of the date of service of this order.
The Rules
of the Supreme Court of Illinois establish filing requirements.
(See
also
35 Ill. Adm. Code 101.246, Motion for Reconsideration.)
I, Dorothy N. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that the above o inion and order was
adopted on the
/7w-i-’
day of _______________________,
1994,
by a vote of
~
~Dorothy
N. G)a~n, Clerk
Illinois Po~3futionControl Board