ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
May 21,
1991
CARL MADOUX, ALICE MADOUX,
)
GLENN MOODY
AND
MARGARET MOODY,
)
Complainants,
PCB 90—149
V.
)
(Enforcement)
)
STRADERS LOGGING
AND
LUMBER
)
MILL,
)
Respondent.
JAMES
S.
SINCLAIR
APPEARED
ON
BEHALF
OF
COMPLAINANTS.
ROBERT
D.
LARSON
APPEARED
ON
BEHALF
OF
RESPONDENT.
INTERIM OPINION
AND
ORDER
OF
THE
BOARD
(by
G.
T.
Girard):
This matter is before the Board on a complaint filed July
17,
1990 and an amended complaint filed August
6,
1990, by Carl
and Alice Madoux and Glenn and Margaret Moody
(complainants).
The complaint alleges that respondent is in violation of Sections
9 and 24 of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act
(the Act).
(Ill. Rev.
Stat.
ch.
111 1/2,
par.
1009 and 1024).
Hearing was
held on June 27,
1991 in Alton,
Illinois.
Pursuant to the
hearing officer’s scheduling order, the complainant filed its
closing brief on August 12,
1991 and respondent filed its closing
brief on September 3,
1991.
Complainant filed a reply brief on
September 16, 1991.
FACTS
Respondent, the Strader Lumber Mill,
located in Worden,
Illinois, began operations in 1988; however, lumber mills have
been in operation at the Strader site since the late 1950’s.
(C.Br.
4, R.Br.
2.’)
The record indicates that the respondent
has added some new equipment and replaced older equipment with
newer models since taking over the operation.
(See generally Tr.
at 25-30.)
In addition, the respondent has developed the
operation to the extent that there is little to no waste product
from the operations.
The lumber mill is located in an area which is zoned for
The
complainant’s
brief
is
cited
as
“C.Br.”;
the
respondent’s brief is cited as “R.Br..”; the transcript is cited as
“Tr. at”; and the complaint is cited as “Comp.”.
133—453
2
industrial use.
(Tr. at
277.2)
Mr. Carl Nadoux and his wife
Mrs. Alice Madoux had their home built
in 1955.
Mr.
Glenn Moody
and his wife Mrs..Margaret Moody moved into their home in 1971.
The Madoux and Moody homes are approximately 700 feet to the west
northwest of the sawmill.
The area around the lumber mill and
the complainants’ homes includes a train track,
a dirt or gravel
road known as “Sawmill Road”
(R.Br.
5), farm land and a pipe mill
operation.
(Exh.
3.)
The pipe mill is the subject of another
enforcement case currently pending before the Board.
(See Madoux
et.
al.
v.
B
& M Steel,
PCB 90—148).
Complainants all testified at hearing concerning alleged
noise from the saws, the debarker and trucks entering and leaving
the facility as well as the
dust allegedly from the lumber mill.
Mr. Steven Strader co-owner of the sawmill was called by the
complainants as a hostile witness pursuant to Section 103.209 of
the Board’s rules; he also testified on behalf of respondents.
Complainants also called two neighbors
and Mr. Gregory Zak of
the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency)
to testify
on their behalf.
Mr. Madoux was the first of the complainants to testify.
He
indicated that the amount of sound coming from the Strader mill
was “different” than the amount of sound coming from the
operations of the previous owner,
Mr. Fred Decker
(herein
referred to as “the Decker operation”).
(Tr.
at 103.)
He
further indicated that the sound was “intermittent” and included
saws, the debarker and the sound of lumber dropping.
(Tr. at
108.)
Mr. Nadoux stated that the sounds generally are emitted
“froin
seven’in the morning until four o’clock, 4:30” and
sometimes the sound of lumber dropping and chain saws could be
heard two or three days a week until “10:30,
11:00”.
(Tr.
at
108,
109.)
Mr. Madoux stated that the noise can be heard outside
and sometimes in the house.
He stated that the noise “sort of
gets on your nerves and you just
f.eel like you just want to
leave”.
(Tr. at 112.)
He further stated that he and his wife
have left their home as a result of the noise.
(Tr. at 112.)
Further, Mr. Nadoux testified that he received a 16
reduction in
the neighborhood value on his property tax due to the noise in
the area.
(Tr. at 113, Exh.
34.)
In his testimony,
Mr. Madoux also discussed four tape
recordings marked as Exhibits 36,
37,
38, and 39, which were
accepted as exhibits by the hearing officer.
(Tr. at
114 and
211.)
Respondent objected at hearing to the admission of the
2
The Board notes that in
tile case of Madoux et.
al.
v.
B
&
M Steel, PCB 90-148, the record indicates that the area around the
pipe mill
is
zoned
residential.
However,
the record
in
this
proceeding indicates the area is zoned industrial and that
is not
disputed.
1
:~
:3—4
54
3
tape recordings and renewed the objection in respondent’s brief.
(R.Br.
10, Tr. at
113 and 211.)
Mr. Madoux did not describe the
tape recorder used in making the tapes
.
However, Mr. Gregory
Zak with the Agency examined the tape recorder
and described it
as fairly good for nuisance type hearings because it is equipped
with an automatic level control which adjusts to incoming sounds
whether close or far away.
(Tr.~at 217.)
This has the effect of
overriding ambient background sounds when the noise source
is
operating.
(Tr. at 217.)
The mill sounds here were a prominent
discrete tone.
(Tr.
at 217.)
The Board has previously held that a key issue in admitting
audio tapes is “the accuracy of the homemade tape’s
representation of actual noise levels at relevant locations on
complainant’s property”.
(Kvastak v
St. Michael’s Lutheran
Church, PCB 89-182,
114 PCB 772, August 30,
1991).
Although Mr.
Zak testified to the quality of the tape recorder, Mr. Madoux did
not describe the tape recorder.
In addition, the model of the
recorder is unknown.
Therefore, the Board is unable to determine
the “accuracy” of the tapes representation of the noise levels.
Thus, the Board will not admit the tapes for the purpose of
determining noise levels on the Nadoux’s property.
The Board
will admit the tape recordings only for the purpose of indicating
what sounds are being emitted.
With regards to the issue of air pollution,
Mr. Madoux
stated that:
“I had no problems with dust”, under the Decker
operation.
(Tr. at 109.)
With the Strader mill,
Mr. Madoux
asserts that dust covers his truck as well as the gazebo located
on his property.
Mr. Madoux also asserts that you can see
sawdust in the air at times.
(Tr. at 110-111.)
Mr. Madoux also
offered Exhibits 31-33, which he asserts show sawdust on his
property and in the air around the sawmill.
On cross examination, Mr. Madoux admitted that he has
complained to the City of Worden on several occasions about the
condition of Sawmill Road, which is a public road going by his
home.
He indicated that he had made efforts to get the city to
treat the road in a manner which would lessen the dust.
(Tr.
at
118—119.)
Mr. Madoux also testified that some of the photos
showing dust in the air, which were admitted as exhibits in this
proceeding,
show road dust.~’ (Tr.
at 123,
129.)
He also admitted
that a nearby railroad track created noise
in the area.
(Tr.
at
126.)
Alice Madoux was the next of the complainants to testify.
In addition to supporting her husband’s statements,
she stated
that she and her husband were dis~turbedby trucks going out of
the Strader mill.
Log trucks allegedly go by their home between
six and 6:30
in the morning and,
in addition, a closed transport
truck leaves the facility around 2:30 or 3:30 in the morning.
(Tr.
at 159.)
This noise,
including the trucks stopping at the
133—455
4
intersection and revving the motors prior to accelerating from
the stop,
is also disturbing according to the Madouxs.
(Tr. at
159, 174.)
Mrs. Madoux described
a “log” she had been keeping from
December 1990 until June 1991.
The “log” consisted of three
columns, the first column showing the month,
day and year.
The
second column shows activities of the pipe mill and the third
column is the activities of the sawmill.
(Tr. at 163—165.)
Mrs.
Madoux did not testify as to any specific entries in the “log”.
When the “log” was offered as Exhibit 35, respondents’ attorney
objected to admittance.
He stated:
I would object to 35 particularly.
That
purports to be this log, and there’s been
insufficient foundation with regard to the
accuracy and contents.
And because the
witness did not testify from the log on
direct examination,
I didn’t think it was
appropriate for me to cross examine her about
the log.
.
..
(Tr. at 210—211.)
The Board agrees that admittance of the “log” as proof that
violations occurred is not appropriate.
However, the “log” was
discussed in direct examination by Mrs. Madoux and the
respondent’s attorney did not attempt to cross examine Mrs.
Madoux, even on the limited testimony presented.
The testimony
presented did specify what was generally in the “log”.
Therefore,
the Board will consider Exhibit 35 for the purpose of
corroborating Mrs. Madoux’s testimony regarding the sounds
emanating from the sawmill.
Mrs. Madoux stated that the noise interferes with
conversation in the backyard and she has had to keep windows
closed because of the noise.
(Tr. at 169,
162.)
However, on
cross examination Mrs. Madoux stated that the noise did not cover
up the sound of conversation, but instead interfered by annoying
her when she was trying to hold
a conversation.
(Tr. at 170.)
Mrs. Madoux further stated that the sound is annoying and nerve
racking and that she and her husband cannot use the deck in the
backyard because of the noise.
(Tr. at 160.)
Mrs. Madoux also
stated that the noise has “awakened some of our family that’s
been visiting with us”.
(Tr. at 161.)
Mrs. Madoux also alleges that sawdust is a problem and could
be seen blowing in the air.
Mrs. Madoux stated that the sawdust
covers the deck and gazebo in the backyard.
(Tr.
at 161.)
Margaret Moody was the next complainant to testify.
She
described the noise problem as:
being created by log truck and dumping logs
33—456
5
as late as 2:00 a.m,
saws running at 11:00
p.m., chainsaws occasionally running,
and the
sound of a “chipper type of thing”.
(C.Br.
9.)
Mrs. Moody stated that the noise interferes with the use of her
yard and it is distracting if she tries to converse with someone
or read.
(Tr.
at 191.)
Mrs. Moody stated that dust collects in the window sills and
that she can tell the difference between sawdust and other types
of dust.
She further stated that she is unable to use an attic
fan because of the dust.
(Tr. at 192.)
Mrs. Moody asserts that
the dust that collects is sawdust.
(C.Br.
10.)
Mr.
Glenn Moody was the fourth complainant to testify.
Mr.
Moody also supported the previous testimony by complainants.
In
addition, he indicated that there are two high pitched sounds
which he believes are saws at the mill.
(Tr.
at 204.)
He stated
that these sounds are typically heard five days a week after 7:00
or 7:30
in the morning and until 2:00 p.m. or 4:00 p.m.
(Tr. at
206.)
Mr. Moody testified that the sounds interfere with his use
of his yard and are very annoying.
(Tr. at 207.)
In addition,
Mr. Moody testified that windows in his home are kept closed to
keep the noise out.
(Tr. at 207.)
With regards to dust on the property, Mr. Moody testified
that sawdust gets into the house and collects on vehicles.
(Tr.
at 207.)
Two
other neighbors testified on behalf of the complainants.
Mr. Charles Zirges, who lives across from the Madouxs testified
that he believes the sound which is annoying to him is the
debarker.
(Tr. at 13.)
He also testified that he has observed
sawdust in the air, although it has never reached his property.
(Tr. at 13.)
Mr. John Fleming also testified that he could hear
sounds from the mill and that the sounds are annoying.
(Tr. at
148.)
He further stated that there had been noise coming from
the sawmill prior to the Straders taking over.
(Tr. at 152.)
Mr. Fleming indicated on cross examination that he could not
say
if dust was coming from the sawmill.
He stated that there
is
a dust problem,
“but it’s just dust”.
(Tr. at 152.)
Mr. Gregory Zak
,
a noise technical advisor with nineteen
years experience with the Agency, testified pursuant to subpoena
on behalf of the complainants.
(Tr.
at 213.)
In this case, he
reviewed tape recordings and reco~dssupplied by the complainants
and the respondents, and he visited the site two times.
(Tr. at
214.)
The sawmill was in operation when he visited the site.
(Tr.
at 205.)
He indicated that he could not hear chainsaws or
the debarker, and based on the testimony offered at hearing, he
13 3—4
5 7
6
felt that the machine was not operating when he was at the site.
(Tr. at 217.)
It was Mr.
Zak’s opinion that the noise from the sawmill
does “represent an exigence of” Section 900.102 of Title 35.
(Tr.
at 220.)
He stated that this is the type of situation which has
been found to constitute noise pollution in other cases.
(Tr. at
220.)
He identified two similar cases of sawmill operations in
which he has been involved in connection with noise situations.
(Tr. at 221.)
Mr.
Zak stated that noise and dust pollution frequently go
hand in hand.
(Tr. at 227.)
He saw clouds of dust rise from
various parts of the sawmill facility when he was at the site,
and he was surprised in that he has rarely seen so much dust at a
site other than a limestone operation.
(Tr. at 228.)
Steven Strader testified both as an adverse witness pursuant
to Section 103.209 of the Board Rules and as a witness on behalf
of the respondent.
Mr. Strader indicated that he is one of the
owners of Straders Sawmill along with his father, Bobby,
and his
brother, Patrick.
(Tr. at 16.)
Mr. Strader explained how the
sawmill operates,
including how the saws and debarker are used.
He also testified that many improvements have been made since the
purchase of the mill by his family.
Mr.
Strader stated that at
the time of the Strader purchase, there was one main sawmill
building.
A building which houses the scrag mill and lumber
grading shed have been added.
Two
other buildings have been
improved and the sawmill, carriage and track have been replaced
with an automatic sawmill and a Brewco band saw has been added to
the operation.
(Tr. at 21.)
Mr. Strader further testified that the logs processed at the
mill are sold as grade lumber to brokers, as pallet stock to
pallet manufacturers, as railroad ties directly to a chemical
company, as retail lumber and farm lumber to the public,
as mulch
to wholesalers for nurseries,
as fire wood to the public, and as
chippings to a paper company.
(Tr.
at
31..)
Sawdust is given away
with a charge made only for loading it.
(Tr. at 31.)
The
proceeds of loading the sawdust are contributed to a local church
and amount to around $200.00 per month and have been as high as
$700.00 per month.
(Tr. at 36.)
The additional equipment and
improvements made by Straders to the facility have been financed
through the Bank of Edwardsville.
It is the Straders’ intent to
repay’the loans through the business.
(Tr. at 37.)
According to Mr. Strader,
his business commences operations
at 7:00 a.m. and the mill runs until 4:00 p.m.
(Tr. at 38.)
Grading of lumber occurs in the grading shed starting at 5:30
p.m.
and stops at varying times between 7:00 p.m. and 9:30 p.m.
(Tr.
at 38.)
Articulating endloaders are used to move bundles of
lumber and logs on the yard.
(Tr.
at 38.)
Grading is done one,
33—458
7
two,
or three nights each week, and could be as many a five
nights in a week.
(Tr.
at 38)
The mill has operated on
Saturdays,
but is always closed on Sunday.
Mr. Strader testified that the system used to remove sawdust
from the mill operation is through four blowers which operate
when the machine they serve operates.
(Tr. at 74.)
Exhibit 26
shows a pile of sawdust coming from the main sawmill and the pipe
from the blower for that machine.
(Tr.
at 75.)
The sawdust
is
sucked up by the blower and propelled through a PVC pipe which
exits outdoors into an open pile on the ground.
(Tr.
at 75.)
The
band saw blower is shown in Exhibit 22.
(Tr. at 69.)
Dust falls
from a collection hopper into a three sided bin on the ground
where it is picked up by people wanting sawdust.
(Tr. at 69,
70.)
Mr. Strader indicated that in addition to the mill equipment
itself, the operation also has two articulating loaders on the
yard continuously.
(Tr.
at 77.)
These consist of an L-50
Michigan and IT-12 Caterpillar.
(Tr.
at 78.)
There are also two
tractor trailers which are used in connection with moving logs
and product to and from the mill.
(Tr.
at 78.)
The mufflers on
the loaders are as factory installed.
(Tr. at 293.)
Mr.
Zak proposed a potential solution to the noise problem
created here by enclosing the operation of the sawmill to contain
and reduce the sound being generated.
(Tr. at 223, 224.)
He
proposed enclosing the debarker in a separate building at
a
projected cost of approximately $4,281.08; enclosing scrag mill
building at a cost of approximately $285.56; and enclosing the
grading shed at a cost of $269.71.
(Tr. at 224,
225.)
He also
proposed that all of the hOles, cracks and gaps in the. building
be closed, and that the buildings not be opened except when
taking material in or out.
(Tr. at 225.)
To control noise from
the articulating loaders, Mr.
Zak proposed the installation of a
better muffler system at a cost of $350.00 to $450.00 per
machine.
He also suggested that cyclones or a containment
building be used to collect dust from the various mill machines,
rather than permitting it to be exhausted into the open air to
fall on the ground.
(Tr.
at 226.)
According to Mr.
Zak’s
computations, the total cost for the solution he proposed was in
the range of $6,000.00 to $10,000.00.
It was his opinion that
enclosure of the operation would have the effect of significantly
reducing noise from the mill.
(Tr. at 228.)
ANALYSIS
The complainants allege that the respondents have violated
Sections 9 and 24 of the Act.
(Cbmp.
at 2.)
The complainant
does not rely on numerical quantification of the noise or dust
emissions to prove a violation.
Therefore, this
is a “nuisance”
case and such quantification is immaterial
in determining whether
such a violation has occurred.
(Ferndale Heights Utilities .Co.
I
3:3—459
8
v.
Illinois Pollution Control Board,
44
Ill. App.
3d 967, 358
N.E.2d
1224,
1228
(1st Dist 1976).)
The Act and Board rules
prohibit both noise and air pollution.
With regards to “nuisance noise”, the prohibitions in the
Act and Board regulations turn on the degree to which the noise
interferes with a complainant’s normal activities.
Thus, Section
900.102 of the Board’s rules provides:
No person shall cause or allow the emission
of sound beyond the boundaries of his
property
.
.
.
so as to cause noise pollution
in Illinois,
or so as to violate any
provision of this Chapter.
The rules define “noise pollution” as “the emission of sound that
unreasonably interferes with the enjoyment of life or with any
lawful business or activity.”
35 Ill.
Adm. Code 900.101
(1987).
Section 24 of the Act prohibits noise pollution in almost
identical terms:
No person shall emit beyond the boundaries of
his property any noise that unreasonably
interferes with the enjoyment of life or with
any lawful business or activity,
so as to
violate any regulation or standard adopted by
the Board under this Act.
Ill.
Rev.
Stat.
1989,
ch.
111½, par.
1024.
In addition, with regards to air pollution,
Section 9(a)
of
the Act provides:
No person shall cause or allow the discharge
or emission of any contaminant into the
environment in any State so as to cause or
tend to cause air pollution in Illinois,
either alone or in combination with
contaminants form other sources,
or so as to
violate regulations or standards adopted by
the Board under this Act.
Ill.
Rev.
Stat.
1989,
ch.
111½,
par.
1009.
Section 3.03 of the Act defines “Air Pollution”
as:
the presence in the atmosphere of one or more
contaminants in sufficient quantities an of
such characteristics and duration as to be
injurious to human,
plant, or animal
life,
to
133—460
9
health,
or to property or to unreasonably
interfere with the enjoyment of life or
property.
Ill. Rev.
Stat.
1989,
ch.
111½,
par.
1003.03.
Thus,
under the Act and Board regulations,
a noise or air
violation has occurred if the complainant has proven that the
complained of noise or dust has unreasonably interfered with the
complainant’s enjoyment of life or with his pursuit of any lawful
business or activity.
The Board will first address the issue of the dust from the
sawmill.
The testimony by complainants indicate that sawdust
collects on their properties from the mill.
However, the
complainants also admit that they have complained to the City of
Worden about the condition of Rawmill Road.
The complainants
maintain that they can tell the difference between sawdust and
other types of dust and Mrs. Moody claims that she only has a
problem with sawdust.
Mr.
Zirges indicated that he can see dust
rising from the operation of the sawmill,
but it does not reach
his property.
Mr. Fleming testified that the area is a just a
dusty area.
The record in this proceeding clearly indicates that
the Madoux and Moody properties are surrounded by farm fields,
railroad tracks and Sawmill Road.
Thus, the entire area
surrounding the properties are areas which would produce dust.
Although, complainants allege that the dust on their properties
is sawdust, the exhibits do not clearly show that sawdust is
collecting on the properties.
Further, Mr. Fleming specifically
stated that the area is dusty and Mr. Zirges stated that he sees
sawdust in the air but it does not reach his property.
The Board
does not find the arguments of complainants persuasive.
Therefore,
the Board finds that the complainants have not shown
that the dust collecting on their properties is sawdust, and the
Board further finds that.
no violation of Section 9 of the Act
(air pollution)
has been shown.
The portion of the complaint
asserting violation of Section 9 of the Act will be dismissed.
With regards to the alleged violation of Section 24 of the
Act, the Board has previously determined in “nuisance noise”
proceedings that unreasonable interference is more than an
ability to distinguish sounds attributable to a particular
source.
Rather, the sounds must objectively affect the
complainant’s life or business activities.
See Kvatsak v.
St.
Michael’s Lutheran Church, PCB 89—182,
114 PCB 765,
773
(Aug.
30,
1990); Kochanski v. Hinsdale Golf Club, PCB 88—16,
101 PCB
11,
20-21
(July 13,
1989), rev’d on other grounds,
197
Ill. App.
3d
634,
555 N.E.2d 31
(2d Dist.
1990).
The Illinois Supreme Court has directed that the Board must
1:33—461
10
consider the facts of the case in light of the factors outlined
by 33 (c)
of the Act in determining whether unreasonable
interference has occurred under the Act and Board rules.
Wells
Manufacturing Co.
v.
PCB,
73
Ill. 2d 226,
232—33,
383 N.E.2d 148,
150—51
(1978)
(“nuisance” air pollution;
first four factors
only); g~ Ferndale Heights Utilities,
44
Ill. App.
3d at 967—68,
358 N.E.2d at 1228.
Those factors as set forth in Section 33
(c)
of the Act are as follows:
(i)
the character and degree of injury to, or
interference with the protection of the
health, general welfare and physical property
of the people;
(ii)
the social and economic value of the
pollution source;
(iii)
the suitability or unsuitability of the
pollution source to the area in which it is
located, including the question of priority
of location in the area involved;
(iv)
the technical practicability and economic
reasonableness of reducing or eliminating the
emissions
.
.
.
resulting from such pollution
source; and
(v)
any subsequent compliance.
Character and Degree of the Iniury or Interference
The complainants have testified that the sounds emanating
from the sawmill are of great annoyance to them and make the
complainants nervous.
The sounds interfere with the use of the
property and have forced the complainants to leave their homes.
The complainants have also testified that the noise from trucks
entering and leaving the facility along the public road disturb
their sleep.
Further,
Mr. Madoux testified that he received a
16
reduction in the neighborhood value on his property tax due
to the noise in the area.
(Tr. at 113,
Exh.
34.)
Further, the facts as discussed previously indicate that the
noise has interrupted the sleep of visitors to the complainants
property and the complainants find
it difficult to carry on
conversations and have been limited in the use of their
backyards.
Mr. Zak testified that it was his belief based on the tapes
and testimony of the complainants that the noise complained of
constitutes
a violation of the Board regulations as a “nuisance
noise”.
(Tr. at 220.)
133—462
11
Social or Economic Value of the Source
The record indicates that the sawmill operates at least
5
days a week and sometimes
6 days per week.
The mill employs
between
14 and 20 people and the business activity has increased
since
th.e Straders
purchased the property.
In addition, the
respondents donate proceeds from the sale of sawdust to a local
church.
(Tr. at 32—33.)
Suitability or Unsuitability of the Source
This record indicates that the area around the sawmill is
zoned for industrial use.
In addition, there are other
businesses
in the area,
including a pipe mill.
The area also
includes farm land,
a railroad track and a county garage.
As to the priority of location, the record is not clear as
to whether a sawmill operation existed at the site when Mr. and
Mrs. Madoux built their home.
The record shows a sawmill
operation has been in place since the “1950s” and the
complainants moved to the area in 1955 and 1971.
It is clear
that the respondents took over the operation of the sawmill in
1988.
Thus,
the respondents’ actual operation is later in time.
However,
a sawmill of some type has operated at the location for
over 30 years.
Technical Practicability and Economic Reasonableness of Control
Mr.
Zak suggested several control methods to reduce noise at
the facility.
The costs of the these methods, according to Mr.
Zak, could
be over $28,000.
(Tr. at 224.)
Mr. Strader
testified that Mr.
Zak’s estimates were low and that the business
was severely indebted and was attempting to pay off the debt with
the proceeds from the sawmill operation.
(Tr.
at 256.)
Any Subsequent ComDliance
The record does not indicate that the respondents have
subsequently complied with the provisions of the Act.
The record
does .indicate that an attempt was made by the complainants to
alleviate the noise problem with the respondents prior to filing
of this complaint.
However, the respondents did not reply to
letters sent by the complainants.
CONCLUSION
The complainants have shown that they have suffered
physically and economically as a result of the noise emanating
from respondents’ property.
Although, the facility does have
social and economic value and appears to be in a suitable
location, the harm resulting from
excessive noise at the
I 33—463
12
facility outweigh the benefits.
Therefore, after considering the
facts and circumstances of this case,
including the factors
outlined in Section 33(c) of the Act, the Board finds that the
respondent is emitting noise that constitutes an unreasonable
interference with the complainants’ enjoyment of life and lawful
activity,
in violation of Section 24 of the Act.
REMEDY
The Environmental Protection Act authorizes the Board to
impose sanctions on those it holds to have violated the Act or
Board regulations.
Section 42(a) authorizes the Board to impose
a civil penalty.
The fact that complainant in this case has not
requested that the Board impose such
a penalty, and a summary
consideration of the factors of Section 42(h)
of the Act in light
of the facts in the record,
induce the Board to conclude that
such a penalty is unwarranted in this case.
Section 33 authorizes the Board to issue an order as it
deems. appropriate under the circumstances.
The complainants
request that the Board issue an order:
directing the respondent to cease and desist
from further violations of the applicable
provisions of the Environmental Protection
Act and, more specifically,
to order the
respondent to alter its operations so that
the noise created by the sawmill is reduced
to an acceptable,
nonintrusive level either
by the installation of sound buffering
barriers, use of different equipment,
rearrangement of its operations or other
steps which are economically feasible.
(Comp. at 4.)
At this time the Board believes that the record lacks sufficient
information of both an economic and technical nature, to order
that the respondent cease and desist or to order other more
specific controls.
Therefore, the Board will issue this interim
order directing the respondent to address methods of reducing
noise emanating from respondents property,
including those
suggested by Mr.
Zak and the complainants as well as other
appropriate methods respondent may develop.
Respondent is
to
file such study with the Board.
The Board will allow the
complainants an opportunity to respond to the study submitted by
the respondents.
The Board will then issue a final opinion and
order describing the control methods the respondent shall take to
reduce emissions from its facility
This interim opinion constitutes the Board’s interim
findings of fact and conclusions of law in this matter.
I 33—464
13
ORDER
1)
The Board finds that the respondents’, Strader
Lumber Mill,
operations constitutes an
unreasonable interference with the complainants’
enjoyment of life and lawful activity in violation
of Section 24 of the Act.
2)
Respondent is hereby ordered to examine the economic
reasonableness and technical feasibility of
any
control options which it may deem appropriate to reduce
the noise emissions from its facility including those
set forth by Mr. Gregory Zak in his testimony
3)
The abovementioned studies shall be completed
no
later than September
1,
1992
and filed with the
Board and served on the complainant, by that date.
The complainant shall file a response to the
studies no later than
October
1,
1992.
The
studies will be presented to the Board so that the
Board may enter a final order describing the
control methods the respondent shall take to
reduce emissions from its facility.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
I, Dorothy M.
Gunn,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, do hereby certify that the above opinion and order was
adopted on the
-~‘--~‘~
day of
/)-7~’1
,
1992,
by a
vote of
_________.
.
“7
(‘1
(7
~7~/
)~~•
~
Dorothy M. ,,~inn, Clerk
Illinois Pø4lution Control Board
13:3—465
