ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
November 19,
1992
CARL MADOUX, ALICE MADOUX,
)
GLENN MOODY,
AND
MARGARET
)
MOODY,
Complainants,
)
PCB 90—148
(Enforcement)
v.
B
& N STEEL SERVICE CENTER,
INC.,
Respondent.
JAMES
S.
SINCLAIR, STOBBS
& SINCLAIR APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE
COMPLAINANTS;
PAUL H.
LAUBER, FARRELL & LONG,
P.C. APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE
RESPONDENT.
OPINION
AND
ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by G.T. Girard):
This matter initially came before the Board on the August
6,
1990,
formal complaint filed by Carl Madoux, Alice Madoux, Glenn
Moody, and Margaret Moody (collectively, complainants) against B
& M Steel Service Center,
Inc.
(B
& M Steel).
The Board accepted
this matter for hearing on August 30,
1990.
The Board held a
public hearing on June 30,
1991, at Alton.
Members of the public
attended and participated at hearing.
The complainants filed
their post—hearing brief on August 12,
1991.
B
& M Steel filed
its response brief on September 5,
1991.
The complainants
filed
a reply brief on September 18,
1991.
On May 21,
1992, the Board issued an interim opinion and
order finding the respondent in violation of Section 24 of the
Illinois Environmental Protection Act (the Act)
(Ill. Rev.
Stat.
1992,
ch.
111 1/2, par.
1024).
The Board’s interim order
directed the respondent to file a report detailing all measures
that it believes would be effective to reduce the noise emissions
at its facility and more specifically from the Pettibone
forklifts and the pipe-striking-pipe.
(Madoux et. al.
v.
B
& M
Steel Service Center,
Inc., May
21,
1992,
—
PCB
hereinafter
cited as “May 21 at”.)
On September
1,
1992, the respondent filed its report with
the Board and on September 30,
1992, the complainants filed their
reply.1
Respondent states that it “is willing to or already has
1
The respondent’s report will be cited as “Res.
rep.
at”;
the respondent’s document prepared by Engineering Dynamics
International will be cited as
“EDI
rep.
at”; the complainants’
O137-OIL~J
2
taken some measures to reduce identifiable sound emissions” from
its property.
(Res.
rep. at 1.)
B
& M indicated that in order to address the two major
complaints of noise from the Pettibone forklift equipment and
noise of pipe-on—pipe sound its consultant had developed two
suggestions.
The first remedy which B
& M has already
accomplished was to install “new, more efficiently designed
mufflers” on the Pettibone forklifts.
(Res. rep. at 2.)
In
addition,
B
& N installed engine side covers to muffle some of
the sound other than exhaust.
(Res.
rep.
at 2.)
The total cost
of these improvements “was approximately $1816.00”.
(Res. rep.
at 2.)
The second control option offered by B
& N is to redesign
the sorting rack facilities to control the distance the pipe must
travel before hitting the sorting table or other pipe.
(Res.
rep. at 2.)
B
& N indicated that it should be able to design and
implement these changes within 120 days of a determination by the
Board.
(Res. rep.
at 2.)
The cost estimate set forth by B
& N
is “approximately $7980.00”.
(Res. rep. at
2.)
The complainants’ reply maintains that the report filed by B
& M’S consultants is inadequate.
Complainants cite to numerous
alleged flaws in the study in support of their positions.
Therefore,
complainants have several reservations concerning the
proposed remedies offered by B
& N.
Specifically, complainants
ask for verification of the installation of the mufflers and side
panels including specific information regarding the type and
model of muffler installed.
(Corn. rep. at 7.)
In addition, the
complainants expressed concern as to whether or not the second
remedy suggested by B
& M will reduce noise.
(Com.
rep.
at 7.)
Noise report
The noise evaluation report filed by B
& N includes sound
level data measured at various locations in and around the B
& N
facility, including measurements taken near the property line of
one of the complainants.
The report also includes a discussion
of the control options for reducing noise emissions from B
& M’s
operation.
The report includes long term noise measurement data made
with Larson Davis 700—20 dosimeters and tape recordings made
using a Nagra SJ recorder.
Based on the analysis of noise
measurement data, the report concludes that:
(i) the pre—existing
mufflers used on the Pettibones were adequate and that little,
if
any, benefit was gained by replacing the mufflers.
(EDI rep. at
9); and
(ii)
the levels of pipe noise do not warrant labeling
reply will be cited as “Com. rep.
at
“.
Ot370~2
3
them a nuisance, particularly when compared with other common
sounds and when considering the larger picture of the acoustical
environment.
(EDI rep.
at 9.)
The noise control options discussed in B
& M’s report
address both yard vehicles
(Pettibones) and pipe handling
operations.
The report states that replacing mufflers and re-
installing the side panels did not have significant effect on
noise emissions.
However,
the report recommends that the
mufflers on the Pettibones be maintained in good working order
and replaced at the end of their normal life
(EDI rep. at 10).
The EDI report includes a brief evaluation of three
alternative options to reduce noise emissions from the pipe
handling operation:
(i)
interior building acoustical treatment;
(ii)
acoustical barrier wall at north property line; and
(iii)
redesigning the pipe sorting rack facilities.
The report states
that insulating the interior walls of the building would result
in reducing reverberant Sound by
4 dB in mid and high
frequencies.
(EDI rep.
at 10.)
The report does not include the
cost of applying such insulation;
however,
an estimate provided
at hearing indicated the cost to be $6960.
(Tr. 161-64.)
The EDI report indicates that constructing a barrier wall at
the north property line would reduce noise levels by
9
-
12 dBA
at 50 feet from the property line depending on the height of the
wall
(10’
or 20’).
(EDI rep.
at
10.)
The report states that
if
a barrier wall
is mandated,
a smaller (lengthwise) wall
constructed closer to the north door would be more effective.
(EDI rep.
at
11.)
The cost of
a concrete barrier wall has been
estimated to be $lOO/lin—ft for
a
10’ wall to $300/un—ft for
a
20’ barrier.
The third option discussed in the noise report involves the
redesigning of the sorting rack facilities.
The report states
that using web slings to catch pipes restricts the energy from
pipe contact and reduces the contact/impact sound generated by
pipe handling.
(EDI rep.
at 11.)
However,
the report does not
provide any estimates of the magnitude of sound reduction.
The
cost of redesigning the sorting rack has been estimated to be
$7980.
(Res.
rep.
at 2.)
This approach is one of the options
which has been chosen by B
& N to reduce the noise emissions froTr
pipe handling operations.
Complainant’s response
The response filed by the complainants take issue with
several points
in the report submitted by the respondent.
Mainly,
the complainants are concerned that the respondent has
undertaken to retry the case before the Board instead of
addressing the problems found by the Board
in its interim order.
The complainants specifically take issue with the numerical noise
OI37-OI~3
4
measurements included in the report to show that there is no
noise pollution.
(Com.
rep. at 1).
In addit!on, the
complainants take issue with contents of the report dealing with
the
“Summary
of Findings”, the “Procedures for Investigation and
Measurement”, and “Noise Reduction Measures”.
Specifically in the
“Summary
of
Findings”,
the
complainants
state that the citation to the noise regulations
is not correct
since
it deals with numerical standards.
The complainants also
note that the use of term “maximum”
in describing the sound
values is not explained clearly.
(Corn. rep. at 2.)
With regard to the “Procedures for Investigation and
Measurement”, the complainants maintain that the equipment used
was dated and the data collected was not handled within industry
standards for the measurement of noise.
(Comp. rep. at 3.)
In
addition, the complainants point out that all sound measurements
took place with the north door of the building open contrary to a
suggestion made at hearing by Mr. Gregory Zak.
(Comp. rep.
at
3.)
Lastly,
in reference to the “Noise reduction measures”,
the
complainants note that the report does not include the
specifications of the mufflers used on the Pettibones or discuss
other measures that may be needed to reduce noise emissions from
the Pettibones.
Regarding the pipe handling operation, the
complainants note that the report does not provide any estimates
of the noise reduction that would be achieved by redesigning the
pipe sorting rack facilities.
(Corn. rep.
at 5.)
In addition,
the complainants point out that the report does not consider Mr.
Zak’s proposal of enclosing the pipe handling operation as an
alternative method of noise reduction.
(Corn.
rep.
at 6.)
In conclusion, the complainants argue that the respondent’s
report does not adequately address the Board’s order to evaluate
alternative measures to reduce noise emissions.
The complainants
urge the Board not to accept the report and proposals set out in
the response.
The complainants maintain that the Board should
require the respondent to undertake further studies to evaluate
the noise reduction potential of redesigning the sorting rack
facilities.
The complainants also ask that the Board require
additional information regarding the measures used to control
noise emissions from the Pettibones.
DISCUSSION
As previously stated, the Board’s interim order required B
&
N to prepare a report of alternative options that would be
effective
in
reducing
the
noise
emissions
from
its
“Pettibone”
front
end
loaders
and
from
its pipe handling operations.
However,
although
control
measures
for
noise
emissions
were
discussed, the noise report filed by B
& M concentrates on trying
0! 37-0
LL~
5
to show that B
& M’s operation is not a source of noise
pollution.
As previously explained in the interim order, numerical
quantification of noise emissions is not controlling in
determining violations pursuant to Section 24 of the Act and 35
Ill.
Athn.
Code 900.102.
(May 21 order at
6.)
Moreover, the
Board has already found B
& N in violation of Section 24 of the
Act.
Therefore,
the Board will focus on the control measures
discussed in the report.
Regarding the complainants’ concerns
about the adequacy of the report to address the requirements of
the Board’s interim order,
the Board finds that the report
contains sufficient information to craft remedies to reduce noise
pollution.
The noise reduction measures are discussed below.
Noise reduction measures for yard vehicles
The Board notes that the respondent has already replaced
mufflers and re-installed the side panels on the Pettibories.
(Res. rep.
at 1.)
However, the noise report indicates that such
measures did not result
in significant numerical noise reduction.
(EDI rep. at 4.)
The complainants have stated that they believe
that properly installed mufflers of type recommended by Mr.
Zak
(Nelson Model
400) would reduce the Pettibone noise.
(Corn. rep.
at
5
& 7.)
In this regard,
the Board notes that the noise report
does not include specifications of the new mufflers replaced on
the Pettibones.
However,
B
& M has stated that it obtained
information as to the manufacturer, make and model of the muffler
from Mr.
Zak.
(Res. rep.
at 2.)
In order to ensure that proper
measures are undertaken by B
& N to reduce noise emissions from
Pettibones,
the Board will direct B
& N to install Nelson Model
400 mufflers on its Pettibones if they have not already done so.
Noise reduction measures for pipe handling operation
In order to reduce noise emissions from pipe handling
operations,
control measures must be implemented to reduce noise
generated from activities within the building and the open yard.
B
& N performs cutting and bundling operations within the
building, and inspection and sorting of pipes is performed
outside the building in the yard.
(Tr. at 176—81.)
The options discussed in the respondent’s noise report for
attenuating noise emissions from within the building include
insulating the interior walls,
and constructing a barrier wall
close to the north door of the building.
In addition to these
measures, Mr Zak suggested that the noise emissions may be
reduced by keeping the building doors closed during operation
(Tr.
168.)
B
& N has not proposed to undertake any measures to
reduce noise emissions generated from its activities within the
building.
However,
since the record indicates that the
activities within the building generate noise emissions,
the
0137-01ti5
6
Board will direct the respondent to apply insulation to the
building’s interior walls and roof, and close all building doors
during operation.
B
& N has proposed to redesign its sorting rack facilities
to reduce noise emissions from its pipe handling activities
performed in its open yard.
The other options discussed in the
noise report include constructing a barrier wall along B
& M’s
north property line.
Another option suggested by Mr.
Zak
involves enclosing the inspection and sorting rack facilities
within a insulated steel building.
(Tr. at 161-64.)
The Board
notes that B
& N will incur considerable cost if
it is required
to construct a building ($23,766)
or a 200-foot barrier wall
($20,000.)
On the other hand,
the option proposed by B
& M to
redesign the sorting rack facilities would be less expensive
($7980)
The proposed modification of sorting rack involves the
reduction of the distance a pipe must travel before hitting the
sorting table or another pipe and using web slings to catch the
pipes.
B
& M has noted that this modification results in
reduction of sound intensity by lessening the impact.
(Res.
rep.
at 2.)
B
& M has not provided any estimate of noise reductions
that would be achieved by redesigning the sorting rack.
Since
the impact of pipe on pipe contact is the primary cause of noise
emissions from B
& M’s facility, the Board believes that measures
to lessen the impact energy would result in significant noise
reduction.
In this regard, Mr.
Zak has also noted in his
testimony that modification of operating procedures is an
effective method of noise reduction.
(Tr. at 155-56
& 158.)
Therefore,
the Board will direct B
& N to implement the
modifications to its sorting rack facilities.
CONCLUSION
The Board finds that the report submitted by respondent’s
is
sufficient to allow the Board to determine what remedy should be
applied.
The Board notes however,
that there are several areas
of deficiencies in the report as well as the report’s attempt to
declare the noise emissions a non-nuisance.
That latter
determination was already made in the Board’s May 21,
1992,
interim opinion and order.
The Board directs the respondent to undertake the following
remedies:
(1)
install Nelson Model 400 mufflers on its Pettibones
if
it has not already done so;
(ii) apply fiberglass insulation
to the interior walls and roof of its existing building;
(iii)
close all doors leading in or out of its building during
operation except for when entering or exiting; and
(iv) redesign
all sorting facilities as set forth
in its response to the Board.
Further, the Board directs the respondent to cease and desist
from vioiation of Section 24 of the Act,
01310R6
7
ORDER
The respondent,
B
& M Steel,
shall undertake all measures
necessary to cease and desist from further violations of Section
24 of the Act.
In addition respondent shall undertake the
following measures to reduce noise emissions:
1.
the respondent shall install Nelson Model 400
mufflers on its Pettibones if it has not
already done so;
2.
the respondent shall apply fiberglass
insulation to the interior walls and roof of
its existing building;
3.
the respondent shall close all doors leading
in or out of its building during operation
except for when entering or exiting;
4.
the respondent shall redesign all sorting
facilities as set forth in its response to
the Board;
5.
the respondent shall cease and desist from
further violation of Section 24 of the Act.
Section 41 of the Environmental Protection Act
(Ill. Rev.
Stat.
1991,
ch.
111 1/2, par.
1041) provides for the appeal of
final orders of the Board within 35 days.
The Rules of the
Supreme Court of Illinois establish filing requirements.
(But
see also 35 Ill.
Adm. Code 101.246, Motions for Reconsideration,
and Castenada v.
Illinois Human Rights Commission
(1989),
132
Ill.2d 304,
547 N.E.2d 437.)
Board Member R.
C.
Flemal dissents.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
I, Dorothy N. Gunn,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that the above opinion and order was
adopted on the
/9~
day of
7~’-~/~&y
,
1992, by~avote
of
(~,—J.
(1
I
Control Board