ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
February 27,
1992
JOHN ZARLENGA and
)
JEAN
ZARLENGA,
)
)
Complainants,
)
V.
)
PCB 89—169
(Enforcement)
PARTNERSHIP CONCEPTS,
)
HOWARD EDISON, BRUCE MCCLLAREN,
)
COVE DEVELOPMENT COMPANY,
)
THOMAS O’BRIEN, BLOOMINGDALE
)
PARTNERS,
an Illinois Limited
)
Partnership,
and GARY LAKEN,
)
)
Respondents.
JAMES
M.
LOCKWOOD
APPEARED
ON
BEHALF
OF
COMPLAINANT,
AND
NORMAN B. BERGER APPEARED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT.
FINAL OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by J. Anderson):
This matter is before the Board on a noise complaint filed
on October 23,
1989 by John and Jean Zarlenga (“Zarlenga”).
The
complaint named Partnership Concepts, Howard Edison,
Bruce
McClaren, Cove Development Company, and Thomas O’Br.ien as
respondents
(“respondents”).
In the Board’s May 9,
1991 Interim
Opinion and Order, the Board found that respondents had violated
Section 24 of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act
(“Act”)
and 35
Ill.
AdIn. Code 900.102.
The Board ordered respondents to
submit
a report on the methods of reducing or eliminating the
noise pollution.
That report has been submitted, and this matter
is now ripe for the Board’s decision regarding a remedy for
respondents’ violation of the Act and Board regulations.
A
summary of the background of this case follows.
BACKGROUND
As previously stated, the Zarlengas filed their complaint on
October 23,
1989.
In their complaint, the Zarlengas alleged that
the air conditioners, generators,
fans, and swimming pool
dehumidifier located at the respondents’ apartment complex (One
aloomingdale Place)
emit excessive noise beyond the boundaries, of
the complex in violation of Section 24 of the Environmental
Protection Act
(Ill.
Rev. Stat.
1991,
ch.
111½, par.
1024)
(“Act”).
On May 9,
1991,
the Board issued an Interim Opinion and
Order finding that the noise emitted from One Bloomingdale Place
unresasonably interfered with the Zarlengas’ enjoyment of life
and constituted a violation of Section 24 of the Act and 35 Ill.
130—193
2
AdTn. Code 900.102.
While several remedial options were mentioned at hearing,
there were certain informational deficiencies in the record with
regard to a program to reduce the noise being emitted from the
complex.
Therefore,
in order to assist the Board
in. determining
the most appropriate remedial action for the abatement of the
noise,
the Board ordered respondents to have a competent
individual or firm prepare a report describing,
evaluating,
and
analyzing, to the maximum extent possible, all methods of
control.
The Board also noted that each control option should
include the anticipated noise reduction resulting from the
implementation of each option, cost of implementation,
and an
estimate of a reasonable time for implementation.
The Board retained jurisdiction in this matter pending
receipt of the report and final disposition of the case.
The
report was to be filed with the Board and the Zarlengas on or
before July 31,
1991.
The Board also provided the Zarlenga’s
with the opportunity to file a motion requesting a hearing on the
contents of the report. That motion was to be filed on or before
August 21,
1991.
On June 28,
1991,
respondents filed a motion for a 60-day
extension of time in which to comply with the Board’s May 9,
1991
Interim Opinion and Order.
On July 11,
1991, the Board granted
the motion and directed the respondents to file the noise report
no later than September 30,
1991.
On September 27,
1991,
respondents filed
a second motion asking for an additional 30
days in which to file the noise report.
On October 24,
1991, the
Board granted the motion and directed the respondents to file the
report no later than October 31,
1991.
On October 31,
1991, respondents filed their report of noise
control options with the Board.
On January
6,
1992,
the
Zarlengas filed a response to respondents’ noise report.
In
their response,
the Zarlengas state that,
after talking with Mr.
Gregory Zak of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(“Agency”), they have decided to “stand on the report” and to
forego any further pleadings with the Board.
NOISE REPORT
As previously stated, on October 31,
1991, respondents
submitted a “Report of Noise Control Options for the Reduction of
sound Emissions from Mechanical Units at One Bloomingdale Place,
Bloomingdale,
IL” by Dennis Fleisher and Clete Davis of
Kirkegaard
& Associates
(“Kirkegaard”).
The report evaluates
that nature of the noise at One Blooiningdale Place, sets forth
several noise abatement options, and recommends a phased approach
to control the noise emitted from One Bloomingdale Place.
130—194
3
Nature of Noise
Kirkegaard analyzed the noise sources at One Bloomingdale
Place.
Kirkegaard first analyzed the individual air conditioners
serving the 64 apartment units on the side of the complex facing
the Zarlenga’s townhome.
For purposes, of the report, Kirkegaard
treated the 64 units as a single collective noise source.
‘(Report par. 2.1.2).
Kirkegaard’s measurements show the units to
produce a collective noise level of approximately 60 dB(A), as
measured at the Zarlenga’s property line.
(u.).
The second
source o~fnoise is a condensing unit for the dehumidifier
(the
“Zephyr” unit)
which serves the swinuuing pool.
(~.
par.
2.1.3).
Kirkegaard’s measurements show the Zephyr unit to produce a sound
level of approximately 50 dB(A)
at the Zarlenga.’s property.
(Id.).
The final noise source is the clubhouse air conditioner.
(~.
par.
2.1.4).
Kirkegaard’s report makes no recommendations
for noise control of this unit because sound measurements showed
that the unit produced no measurable sound above the daytime
ambient level.
(Id.).
Kirkegaard also determined the ambient background sound
level
(i.e.
the sound level which exists in the neighborhood
around One Bloomingdale Place resulting from normal human
presence and activity, but with all mechanical units at the
apartment complex turned off) to be 40 to 50 dB(A).
(ç~. par.
2.1.1).
Kirkegaard used the average ambient background noise
level
(i.e., 45 dB(a))
as a measure by which to evaluate the
effectiveness of the various noise abatement options.
(Id.).
Kirkegaard estimates that the maximum attainable noise
reduction from noise control measures applied to the Zephyr unit
alone with the 64 individual air conditioners operating in their
present state is
0 dB.
(~.
par.
3.0.1).
It then estimates that
the maximum attainable noise reduction from noise control
measures applied to only the 64 air conditioners with the Zephyr
unit operating in its present state is
10 dB.
(~.
par.
3.0.2).
Kirkegaard estimates that the maximum attainable noise reduction
at the Zarlenga’s property line will be 15 dB if noise control
measures are applied to both the 64 air conditioners and the
Zephyr unit.
(~.
par.
3.0.3).
In order to achieve a noise
level at the Zarlenga’s property line that is no higher than
background, Kirkegaard estimates that the sound emissiOns from
the noise sources must be reduced to a level at the Zarlenga’s
property line that is approximately
5 to 10 dB below the ambient
sound level
(i.e.,
45-50 db), which,
in turn,
calls for a
reduction in emitted sound at the source of at least 20 dB.
(;i~.).
Noise Control, Options
The Kirkegaard report states that noise control is based on
treating the noise at one or more of three locations:
at the
130—19~
4
sound source,
along the path of propagation, or at the receiver.
(~.
par.
4.1).
Other than a “no treatment” option, the
Kirkegaard report discusses three other noise control options.
One option applies the noise control at the Zarlenga’s townhome
(i.e.,
the receiver) and two additional options involve methods
to reduce noise emissions at the individual air conditioners
and/or at the Zephyr unit (i.e.,
the sources).
Sound control at the source is generally the most effective.
and efficient means of control.
(u.).
Sound control at the
receiver’ can be equally effective especially if the receivers are
physically separated by great distances.
(j~.).
Control along
the path is often problematic because sound does not travel in a
straight line thus making it difficult to determine the actual
path of the sound.
(a.).
Sound control along the path is also
difficult if there are several receivers.
(a.).
The various
control options are as follows:
1.
Installation of High-STC Windows in the Zarlenqa’s Townhome
The first option mentioned in the Kirkegaard report
is the
installation of acoustical windows with a higher Sound
Transmission Class
(STC)
rating on the bedroom windows of the
Zarlenga’s townhoine.
(~.
par.
4.3 #2).
Kirkegaard estimates
that it will cost $16,000 to install the windows and that the
windows can be installed in about 10 days
(not including the
delivery time for the windows).
(a.).
Although this option
should reduce the noise within the Zarlengas bedrooms (assuming
that no sound can enter via other paths), this option will
provide no noise reduction in other areas of the Zarlenga’s
townhome or within the neighborhood.
(a.).
2.
Installation of Silencers on the 64 Air Conditioners
The next option discussed in the Kirkegaard report
is the
installation of intake and exhaust silencers on the air
conditioners serving the 64 apartments that face the Zarlenga’s
townhome.
(~.
par.
4.3 #3).
Kirkegaard estimates that it will
cost $103,100 to implement this option
(materials,
labor,
and
architectural and engineering design fees) and that it will take
60
to’ 90 days to complete the installation (not including
delivery time for the silencers and scheduling complications with
tenants).
(Id.).
Although this option will reduce the noise from the air
conditioners by over 20 dB, the silencers will provide a net
reduction of only 10 dB if the noise from Zephyr condensing unit
is not controlled.
(u.).
This option will also change the
appearance of One Bloomingdale Place because there will be a
total of 128 2’x 2’x 5’ galvanized metal silencers mounted to the
side of the building.
(Id.).
130—196
5
2a.
Installation of Silencers on the 64 Air Conditioners and
Zephyr Silencers
A variation on the above option involves the installation of
silencers on the Zephyr unit to reduce fan noise in addition to
the installation of silencers on the
64 air conditioners.
(Id.
par.
4.3 #3a).
Kirkegaard estimates that it will cost $106,600
(the $103,100 mentioned in option
2. plus $3500 for the Zephyr
unit silencers and the installation of those silencers)
to
implement this option.
(a.).
Assuming the work on the Zephyr
unit is acne concurrently with the installation of silencers on
the 64 air conditioners, Kirkegaard estimates that it will take
60 to 90 days to complete this project.
(a.).
Although it is impossible at this time to determine the
amount of sound that is coming from the Zephyr’s fans versus the
housing, Kirkegaard suspects that the more significant factOr is
the fan noise.
(u.).
Kirkegaard estimates that this option
will reduce the total noise output from One Bloomingdale Place by
13 to 20 dB depending on what percentage of the total Zephyr
noise is abated by the new silencers.
(Id.).
2b.
Installation of Silencer on the 64 Air Conditioners,
Zephyr Silencers,
and a Sound—Barrier Wall for the
Zephyr
If the Zephyr silencers do not adequately reduce noise,
Kirkegaard suggests the construction of a sound barrier wall
around the Zephyr.
(~.
par. 4.3 #3b).
The wall would be
constructed of 8-inch
CMU
to a height of approximately
6 to
8
feet and would surround the entire unit.
(u.).
Kirkegaard
estimates that the wall will cost
$18,000 to erect
(in addition
to the $106,600 quoted in option 2A above)
and that it could
reduce the total noise output from One Bloomingdale Place by
approximately 20 dB.
(Ia.).
As a result, the noise emitted from
One Bloomingdale Place would be equal to, or less than the
ambient noise level and no further significant reduction would be
possible.
(u.).
It is estimated that the time for construction
of the wall will take no more than 20 days.
(~.).
2c.
Installation of Silencers on the 64 Air Conditioners and
Relocation of the Zephyr
Another variation of the option presented in Option
2 above,
is the installation of silencers on the 64 air conditioners and
relocation of the Zephyr unit.
(~.
par. 4.3 #3c).
Kirkegaard
estimates that it will cost $13,500 to relocate the Zephyr unit
(in addition to the $103,100 quoted in option
2 above)
and that
the option could reduce the total noise output from One
Blooniingdale Place by approximately 20 dB.
(u.).
As a result,
the noise emitted from One Bloomingdale Place would be equal to,
or less than the ambient noise level and no further significant
130—19
7
6
reduction would be possible.
(u.).
Assuming that the
relocation of the Zephyr unit is done concurrently with the
implementation of Option 2,
it would take 60 to 90 days to
implement this option.
(u.).
3.
Installation of a Centralized Air Conditioning System
This option involves the change from individual air
conditioners to a centralized system for the entire apartment
complex
(168 apartments).
(u.,
par. 4.3 #4).
This would
include a central chiller plant and individual inside units
having gas heating with a power vent system,
a chilled water
cooling coil, and fresh air intake.
(a.).
Kirkegaard estimates
that it will cost $854,200 (representing materials,
labor,
and
engineering and architectural design fees)
and take 90 to 120
days
(not including delivery time for major equipment and
possible scheduling complications with apartment owners) to
implement this option.
(a.).
Kirkegaard estimates that this option will reduce the noise
from the individual air conditioners by over 20 dB, but that it
will provide a net reduction of only 10 dB because of the
remaining noise from the Zephyr unit.
(u.).
The net reduction
will be 20 dB, however,
if the noise from the zephyr unit is also
reduced by at least 10 dB.
(~.).
3a.
Installation of Central Air Conditioning System and Zephyr
Silencers
In addition to centralizing the air conditioning system,
Kirkegaard suggests the installation of silencers to reduce the
noise from the Zephyr unit.
(~.
par. 4.3 #4a).
Kirkegaard
estimates that it will cost $857,700
(the $854,200 mentioned in
option
3 plus $3500 for the Zephyr unit silencers and the
installation of those silencers) to implement this option.
Assuming the work on the Zephyr unit is done concurrently with
the installation of silencers on the 64 air conditioners,
Kirkegaard estimates that
it will take 60 to 90 days to complete
this
project.
(a.).
Kirkegaard estimates that this option will reduce the total
noise output from One Bloomingdale Place by
13 to 20
dB. depending
on what percentage of the total Zephyr noise is abated by the new
silencers.
(u.).
3b.
Installation of Central Air Conditioning System,
Zephyr
Silencers, and Sound—Barrier Wall for Zephyr
If the Zephyr silencers do not adequately reduce noise,
Kirkegaard suggests the construction of a sound barrier wall
around the Zephyr.
(~.
par.
4.3 #4b).
The wall ~would be
constructed of 8-inch CMU to a height of approximately
6 to
8
130—198
7
feet and would surround the entire unit.
(~.).
Kirkegaard
estimates that the wall will cost $18,000 to erect
(in addition
to the $857,700 quoted in option 3A above)
and that it could
reduce the total noise output from One Bloomingdale Place by
approximately 20 dB.
(a.).
As a result, the noise emitted from
One Bloomingdale Place would be equal to or less than the ambient
noise level and no further significant reduction would be
possible.
(a.).
It is estimated that the time for construction
of the wall will take no more than 20 days.
(j~.).
3c.
Ins’tallation of Central Air Conditioning System and
Relocation of Zephyr
Another variation of the option presented in Option
3 above,
is the installation of a central air conditioning system and
relocation of the Zephyr unit.
(~4.
par. 4.3 #4c).
Kirkegaard
estimates that it will cost $13,500 to relocate the Zephyr unit
(in addition to the $854,200 quoted in option
3 above)
and that
the option could reduce the total noise output from One
Bloomingdale Place by approximately 20 dB.
(u.).
As
a result,
the noise emitted from One Bloomingdale Place would be equal to,
or less than the ambient noise level and no further significant
reduction would be possible.
(a.).
Assuming that the
relocation of the Zephyr unit is done concurrently with the
implementationof Option 3,
it would take 60 to 90 days to
implement this option.
(~.).
Recommendation
Kirkegaard recommends a phased approach to reduce the noise
being emitted from One Bloomingdale Place.
The phases are a
follows:
1.
Install intake and exhaust silencers on the 64
individual air conditioners.
2.
If the resulting noise reduction is found to be
acceptable to the Board and/or the Zarlengas,
proceed
no further.
3.
If the resulting noise reduction is deemed unacceptable
to the Board and/or the Zarlengas,
install silencers on
the Zephyr unit.
4.
If, upon implementation of treatments
1 and 3, the’
noise reduction is found to be unacceptable to the
Board and/or the Zarlengas, construct a sound barrier
wall around the Zephyr unit.
(.I?~.
par. 5.0).
130—199
8
BOARD DISCUSSION
The Board recognizes that the respondents’ report does not
address either the structural or engineering feasibility of the
recommended course of action,
nor the cost—effectiveness of the
options in light of respondents’ current financial status as
debtor—in—possession of One Bloomingdale Place under Chapter 11
of the United States Bankruptcy Code.
The Board will craft its
order to mirror the phased approach recommended by Kirkegaard,
except that the Board will not in the first instance determine
whether ~thenoise reduction in a particular phase is feasible or
acceptable.
In order to avoid
a situation where the remedy is not
initiated in a timely manner, the Board will also order
respondents to cease and desist from violations of Section 24 of
the Environmental Protection Act and 35
Ill. Adm. Code 900.102 no
later than one year of the date of this Order.
Of course, the
Board realizes that such concerns as the time needed for
structural and engineering feasibility studies, weather
(as it
relates to the time needed to implement and test the
effectiveness each phase),
and the Bankruptcy proceeding may
affect respondents’ ability to implement the. Order
in a timely
manner.
Accordingly, we wish to emphasize that respondents have
the opportunity to file a motion for reconsideration of this
Order pursuant to 35
Ill. Adm. Code 103.241(b)
and
(C)
if the
above concerns have an impact upon the implementation of the
recommended course of action.
However,’ if the respondents file
such a motion,
the Board expects respondent to include sufficient
justification for the extension within the motion.
Finally, we also wish to emphasize that the Zarlengas have
the opportunity to petition this Board for relief
if
any dispute
arises during any phase of the work.
For example,
if there is a
dispute as to whether the silencers on the 64 air conditions are
sufficient to abate the noise to an acceptable level,
the
Zarlengas may file a motion for reconsideration with this Board
pursuant to 35 Ill.
Adm. Code 103.241(b)
and
(C).
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of facts and
conclusions of law in this matter.
ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, the Board hereby Orders
Bloomingdale Partners, Mr. Howard Edison, Mr.
Bruce McClaren,
and’
Mr. Gary Laken to undertake and perform the following actions:
1.
Install intake and exhaust silencers (IAC #5LFS 24’ x
24”) on the individual air conditioners servicing the
64 apartment units at One Bloomingdale Place that face
the petitioners’ townhome.
130—200
9
2.
If the resulti~ignoise reduction is found to be
acceptable to the Zarlengas, proceed no further.
3.
If the resulting noise reduction is deemed unacceptable
to the Zarlengas, install discharge silencers on the
Zephyr unit’s condenser fans.
4.
If, upon implementation of treatments 1 and 3, the
noise reduction is found to be unacceptable to the
Zarlengas, construct a 8—inch CHU sound barrier wall to
a height of 6 to 8 feet aroun~tthe Zephyr unit.
5.
The noise abatement program shall be in operation not
later than February 27,
1993.
6.
Respondents shall cease and desist from violations of
Section 24 of the Environmental Protection Act,
Ill.
Rev. Stat.
1991, ch. 111½, par.
1024, and 35 Ill.
Adin.
Code 900.102 effective upon attainment of compliance,
but in no case later than February 27,
1993.
Failure
to comply with the provisions of this Order may subject
respondents to civil penalties.
IT IS SO ORDERED
Board Member J. Theodore Meyer dissented.
Section 41 of the Environmental Protection Act,
Ill.
Rev.
Stat.
1991,
ch.
111½ par.
1041, provides for appeal of final
Orders of the Board within 35 days.
The Rules of the Supreme
Court of Illinois establish filing requirements.
I, Dorothy M. Gunn,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that the ab~yeFinal Opinion and Order was
adopted on the
~
~7~i
day of
~
of
~
________________,
1992~by a vote
Dorothy M. ,~inn, Clerk
Illinois Pô)~lutionControl Board
130—20
1
