111,1 tJ()
I
S
I’OL1~UF1ON
CONTw~I
FE;/~I~I
Auqust:
2 (
,
~
9o)
2
!~oN/,I
1
‘11~X
nid
SUSAN
)
‘1~X
,
Conipi
i
i
n~int~
PUN
~O—.1 22
(Enforcement)
S.
SCOTT
COGGESHALL
and
COGGESHALL
CONSTRUCTION
COMPANY,)
CHESTER
BROSS,
MIKE
BROSS,
CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,
Respondents.
ORDER OF
THE
BOARD
(by G.
T. Girard):
On July
12,
1993,
complainants
filed
a motion to reconsider
the Board’s June
17,
1993 opinion and order.
On July 19,
1993,
respondents filed a reply to that motion and a motion seeking
modification of the Board’s order.
On August
2,
1993
complainants
filed their response to the July 19 motion and a
motion to file instanter.
The motion to file instanter is
granted.
The Board will first address the complainants motion to
reconsider.
The complainants motion asks the Board to expand its
opinion and order to include
a timeframe within which the
respondents must take steps to alleviate the noise emissions from
the asphalt plant.
Specifically the complainants ask that the
Board require the respondents to complete the actions within “30
days after expiration of the 35 day period for appeal of the June
17,
1993” Board order.
(7/12/93 mot. at 2.)
The respondents reply that from
a “practical standpoint,
the
remedial work should be accomplished within a reasonable time
from and after the Order of this Board becomes
final”.
(7/19/93
rep.
at 1.)
However,
respondents maintain that 30 days
is not a
sufficient amount of time to complete all remedial steps due to
various factors including weather and usual construction delays.
The respondents believe that the work can be completed in eight
to twelve weeks from the date that the Board’s order becomes
final.
(7/19/93 rep.
at 2.)
The Board will grant the motion to reconsider and will
modify
its June
17,
1993 order to include
a specified timeframe
for completion of the remedial action.
The Board agrees that
a
timeframe
for completion
of
the remedial action is necessary.
However,
the
Board does not believe that
30 days
is sufficient to
complete
the
remedial
action.
Therefore,
the Board will amend
its Juno
17,
1~)93
order to
inciude
a
3
month
deac:liine
for
compi
et:
ion
of
the
remed
i ~
act
i
on
Next
tIe
licud s~
I
I
sil
ie.;r
tfe
1erpuirkst
~‘
notion
seeking
maci ii
icit ion
of
the
ficiri ‘n crdi
1 he
rerponPiit
r
ark
that
the
Noarci modify
pr~’virinn
1
its
Just
17,
isi~
nrUi
which
pray
i des
Construct
a
boa or
wail
~is
clss
to
t
is
inlet
of
the
I ire-wurner
fan
as
lois
I Pie
The
barrier
wa
I
shall
be
at
least
2. 5
feet
taller
than the
top of
the opening
for
the
burner
in
the end of
the drum.
The
length
of
the
wall
shall
be
three
times
its
height
and
it shall be centered at the burner.
The
barrier wall shall
be made of sound absorbing
material such as SoundBlox
or IAC Moduline
The respondents indicate that the contract purchaser of the plant
wishes to substitute
a new technology burner
in place of the
barrier wall described above.
(7/19/93 mot.
at
2.)
Dr. Paul
Schomer, the respondents expert,
indicated
in Exhibit A attached
to the motion that he can “reasonable expect that either of these
new technology burners would be sufficiently quieter than your
present burner so as to meet” the Board’s rules.
(7/19/93 mot.
att.
A.)
To complete his study Dr. Schomner indicates that he
will need at least
60 days.
The complainants indicate that the initial enforcement
action was filed in October of 1990 and on October 29,
1992, the
Board found a violation.
The Board then granted until April
15,
1993 for a study to be conducted by respondents to develop
potential remedial action plans for the site.
The complainants
state that the motion for modification does not point to any new
technology that has been developed since the respondents
submitted its study.
Further, the complainants assert that the
respondents have “presented no technical,
factual
or economic
basis for allowing respondents further time to restudy their own
proposal simply for respondents own convenience”.
(8/2/93
rep.
at 2.)
The Board
is not convinced that the respondents have
provided sufficient justification for modifying the June
17
order.
The respondents do not represent that this
is
a new
technology just developed.
The respondents also cannot assure
the Board that
a new burner will alleviate the noise violations.
Therefore,
the Board will deny the respondents’
motion for
modification.
The Board notes that nothing
in today’s order
precludes
the installation of
a quieter burner.
However,
the
provisions
of
the
June
17
order
must
also
be
followed.
As
the
Board
has
granted
compla inants’
motion
to
reconsider,
the
Board
wifl
repeat
the
June
17,
199
order
with
the
mod
i
~ i cat
i on
be
I ow.
ORI)ER
Respondents shall
take,
at
a minimum,
the
following steps to
alleviate
the
noise emissions
from
the
asphalt
plant
located
in
Macomb,
Illinois:
1.
Replace the existing wooden barrier wall around the
generator with
a
more permanent structure;
2.
Install
a
24”
by 72” stack silencer such as the
Industrial Acoustic Company’s IAC Model
SL3 silencer;
and
3.
Construct
a barrier wall as close to the inlet of the
fire—burner fan as feasible.
The barrier wall shall be
at least 2.5 feet taller than the top of the opening
for the burner
in the end of the drum.
The length of
the wall shall
be three times
its height and it shall
be centered at the burner.
The barrier wall shall be
made of sound absorbing material such
as SoundBlox
or
IAC Moduline
4.
The respondents shall complete all remedial
actions directed in this order no later than
November 26,
1993.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Board Member Ron
C.
Flemal dissents.
I, Dorothy N.
Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, do hereby certi~ythat the above order was adopted on the
__________
day of
7~-~/
,
1993,
by
a vote of
~6~/
-
,
/
Dorothy
M. Gnn,
Clerk
Illinois Po~lution Control Board