ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

June 17,

1993

RONALD E. TEX and

SUSAN

D.

 TEX,

)

Complainant,

v.

)

 PCB 90—182

(Enforcement)

S.

 SCOTT COGGESHALL and

)

COGGESHALL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,)

CHESTER BROSS, MIKE BROSS,

)

CONSTRUCTION COMPANY,

)

Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

 (by G. T. Girard):

On October 29,

 1992,

 the Board entered an interim opinion

and order finding respondents in violation of Section 901.102(a)

of the Board’s noise rules.

 (35 Ill. Adm. Code 901.102(a).)1

The BOard directed respondents to prepare a study of the

“economic reasonableness and technical practicability of the

control options outlined by Gregory Zak as well as any additional

options which it may deem appropriate to reduce the noise

emissions from the asphalt plant”.

 (10/29/92 at 16.)2

The

Board directed the respondents to file such study no later than

March 15,

 1993,

 and allowed the complainants until April 15,

1993

to respond.

The Board notes that on December 3,

 1992,

 the Board granted

a motion by the respondent suggesting the death of

S.

 Scott

Coggeshall and dismissed S.

 Scott Coggeshall from the proceeding.

The respondents filed the study on March 15,

 1993.

 Complainant,

after being granted an extension of time by the Board on April

22,

 1993,

 filed its response on May 5,

1993.

 On May 14,

 1993,

respondents filed a request for leave to file a reply.

 The Board

hereby grants the motion to file a reply pursuant to 35

 Ill.

 Adm.

Code 101.241(c).

1

 The Board directs readers to the October 29,

 1992, Interim

opinion and Order

for

 case details which will

not

be

 repeated

herein.

2

 The Board will cite the October 29,

 1992,

 Interim Opinion

and Order as “10/29/92 at

_“;

 the Board will cite the respondents

report as “R.rep. at

_“

 and the respondents reply as “R.rply at

_“;

 the Board will cite the complainants response as “C.res.

at

—

‘I

L~3-O

I 57

2

DISCUSSION

In detemining the proper remedy in an enforcement case, the

Board must consider the factors set forth in Section 33(c)

 of the

Environmental Protection Act

 (Act).

 (415 ILCS 5/33.)

 Section

33(c)

 of the Act provides:

In making its orders and determinations, the Board

shall take into consideration all the facts and

circumstances bearing upon the reasonableness of the

emissions,

 discharges,

 or deposits involved including,

but not limited to:

1.

 the character and degree of injury to,

or

interference with the protection of the

health, general welfare and physical property

of the people;

2.

 the social and economic value of the

pollution source;

3.

 the suitability or unsuitability of the

pollution source to the area in which it is

locate, including the question of priority of

location in the area involved;

4.

 the technical practicability and economic

reasonableness of reducing or eliminating the

emissions, discharges or deposits resulting

from such pollution source; and

5.

 any subsequent compliance.

The Board has previously considered the Section 33(c)

factors in this case.

 (See 10/29/93 at 13—15.)

 The Board finds

that the additional filings submitted pursuant to the October 29,

1993 Board order provide no new evidence regarding the Section

33(c)

 factors in this record,

 except for Section 33(c) (iv).

Therefore, the Board will not reiterate its previous holdings on

Sections 33(c)(i)(ii)(iii)

and

 (v).

 The discussion following

summarizes the parties’ positions regarding the economic

 reasonableness and technical practicability (Section 33(c) (iv))

of the control options.

Respondents’ study.

Respondents retained the services of Dr. Paul Schomer of

Schomer

 & Associates to study the noise problem at the plant.

According to respondents the study concentrates on determining

the predominant noise sources and developing noise mitigation

L~.3-Q

158

3

evaluation of the remedies recommended by Mr. Greg Zak of the

Agency.

Dr. Schomer’s study utilizes noise emission measurements

from the various components of the plant to determine the

contribution of each component to the overall noise emissions.

The noise measurements were obtained by monitoring the emissions

during full plant operation and when gradually decreasing the

plant operation sequentially by turning off the various plant

components3.

 (R.rep.

 Exh.

 B at 4.)

 Based on the results of the

noise monitoring,

 the study concludes that the predominant

sources of noise from the plant are the bag house blower

 (high

frequencies)

 and burner operation

 (low frequencies).

 (R.rep.

Exh.

 B at 7—S.)

 In addition,

 the study notes that the mechanical

equipment noise is important in the 1000

—

 2000 Hz range, and the

fire blower may contribute significantly at certain frequencies.

(R.rep Exh. B at 7-8.)

The study also includes a comparison of the noise emission

levels at full plant operation with the applicable standards

under the Board regulations.

 The comparison indicates that noise

levels must be reduced by

6,

3,

 7, and

 4 dB at 125,

 1000,

 2000,

and 4000 Hz bands,

 respectively, to comply with the Board

Standards.

 (R.rep Exh.

B,

 Fig.

 11.)

The respondents’ study includes an evaluation of the

following options for reducing the noise emission levels from the

plant:

1.

 The construction of barrier walls around the

burner and generator as well as adding a stack

silencer;

2.

 Re—engineering of the plant

 (as suggested by

Gregory Zak);

3.

 Encapsulating the plant

 (as suggested by Gregory

Zak); and

4.

 Moving the plant.

(R.rep.

 at 2.)

With regard to the suggestions offered by Mr.

Zak

 (points

2

and 3), Dr. Schomer’s study notes that both options would be very

expensive.

 According to the study,

 the cost of re—engineering

(and rebuilding)

 the plant or enclosing the plant in a reinforced

concrete structure could easily cost $100,000 or more.

 (R.rep.

~ The plant components include generator, mechanical equipment

and material feeds,

 bag house blower, and fire blower.

0iL~.3~0159

4

Exh. B at 10-il.)

 In addition, the study notes that enclosing

the plant in a reinforced concrete structure without noise

control would result in very high noise levels within the

structure.

 Such high noise levels would violate Occupational

Safety and Health Administration

 (OSHA) noise limits.

 (R.rep.

Exh. B at 10-11.)

 Further, with regards to the suggestion that

the plant be moved,

 respondents state the costs to move the plant

as well as obtaining an alternative site are “not economically

reasonable”.

 (R.rep.

 at 2.)

Dr. Schomer’s study recommends that the following steps be

taken to alleviate the noise levels:

1.

 Retain the wooden barrier wall installed around

the generator or replace the same with a more

permanent structure to minimize the generator

noise.

 The cost of a new permanent wall is

estimated to be less than $10,000;

2.

 Install a stack silencer to reduce the bag house

blower sound emitting from the stack.

 The cost of

the silencer is estimated to be in the order of

$5,000;

3.

 Install a barrier wall close to the inlet of the

fire—burner fan to reduce the burner noise.

The

cost of the barrier wall will be in the order of

$10, 000.

(R.rep. Exh. B at

 12..)

The study concludes that the recommended solutions are

 technically feasible,

 and the implementation of the same would

result in significant reduction of the noise levels at the

complainants’ structure.

 Further, the study notes that

implementing all the recommendations may not result in overall

compliance with the Board standards in the 1000 and 2000 Hz bands

due to mechanical equipment sound.

 (R.rep.

 Exh. B at 13.)

Finally, Dr. Schomer’s study notes that any further significant

reductions in the noise levels over the reduction that will be

realized by the recommended methods would require the re—

engineering of the plant.

 (R.rep. Exh.

 B at 13.)

Complainants’ response.

Complainants ask that the Board “direct that the plant be

moved as a technically practical and economically reasonable

means of bringing compliance” with the Board’s regulations.

(C.res. at 4.)

 In support of the position that moving the plant

is economically reasonable and technically feasible, the

complainants provided an affidavit from Michael J. McGillicuddy,

vice president and Macomb Branch Manager of Illinois Valley

Li

I

4 ~

—

S

Paving Company.

 Mr. McGillicuddy states that the cost of moving

a “Batch type plant”

 is approximately $75,000.

 (C.res.

 Exh. B.)

Complainants specifically responded to the remaining control

options as well.

 With regard to encapsulating the plant,

complainants state:

 “the Schoiner report agrees with Mr.

 Zak that

encapsulating the plant in concrete is the most expensive and

least—feasible alternative.”

 (C.res.

 at 2.)

 Regarding re—

engineering the plant, the complainants state:

 “Mr.

 Schomer

dismisses,

 in a cursory way, the possibility of re—engineering

because it would cost over $100,000.00.”

 (C.res.

 at 2.)

The complainants maintain the Dr.

 Schonier recommends the

least expensive procedure (that of constructed barrier walls and

adding a stack silencer), however;

 least expensive is not

“synonymous with economic reasonableness” according to

complainants.

 (C.res. at 2.)

 Further, the complainants state:

“Despite Mr. Schomer’s very considerable training, experience and

writings qualifying him as an acoustical expert, this very

considerable technical background does not establish him as an

economic expert qualified to evaluate the ‘economic

reasonableness’ of any option from the prospective

 (sic

 of the

cost of that option compared to the economic benefit to the plant

to the respondents and the present operator.”

 (C.res. at 3.)

Complainants also argue that respondents study does not

address,

 “in other than a conclusory manner”, the economic

reasonableness of any control measures except in Exhibits C and

D.

 (C.res. at 3.)

 The complainants then assert that Exhibit D,

an affidavit by Mike Hillyer,

 “is substantially different from

the testimony of witness Michael Hillyer”.

 (C.res. at 3.)

Respondents’ reply.

Respondents reply that the testimony of Mr. Hillyer did not

address “site availability for the asphalt plant nor did he

address costs of site amenities similar to the Deere Road plant

site”.

 (R.rply at 2.)

 The respondents assert that those costs

are addressed for the first time in Exhibit D of its report.

The

respondents also point out that the Illinois Valley Paving

Company operates a drum-mix plant while the Coggeshall plant is a

batch plant.

 (R.rply at 2.)

 The respondent argues that it would

require

 6 weeks to move the Coggeshall plant and cost $100,000.

(R.rply at 2.)

Section 33(c) (iv).

The Board notes that all the alternatives considered

 in the

respondent’s noise study appear to be technically feasible.

However, the Board notes that there

 is a significant difference

between the implementation cost of the options recommended by the

respondent and the complainants,

 The option recommended by the

I

‘)

(~

UI”rU

6

respondents’ study, which includes the construction of barrier

walls and installation of a silencer would cost approximately

 $25,000.

 Whereas, the option supported by the complainants,

which essentially requires the plant to be moved to another

location would cost over $100,000.

 The options suggested by Mr.

Greg Zak, which

 includes encapsulation and re—engineering would

also cost more than $100,000.

 Therefore, the Board must evaluate

the economic reasonableness of implementing the various options

in crafting a remedy.

The Board notes that both parties seem to agree that

encapsulating the plant, which has been estimated to cost

$100,000 is expensive.

 Regarding re-engineering the plant,

Mr.

Zak stated that this option

 is not practicable because of the

cost which would exceed $100,000.

 (Tr. 1/8/92 at 106-110;

10/29/92 at 14.)

 Dr. Schomer agrees that re-engineering would

cost over $100,000.

 The complainants offer no evidence to refute

either Mr.

 Zak or Dr.

 Schomer.

The respondents’ study includes two different estimates of

the moving costs.

 The first estimate, which includes the cost of

moving a “batch” plant to a new site ranges from $60,000 to

$100,000.

 (R.rep.

 Exh.

C)

 The Second estimate, which includes

only the cost of acquiring land, establishing gas service, rock

base,

 fencing, maintenance buildings and building hook—ups ranges

from $256,416 to $411,416.

 (R.rep. Exh.

D.)

 The evidence

submitted by the complainants indicate that moving the plant

 would cost $75,000.

 (C.res.

 Exh. B.)

 The moving cost reflects

dismantling, moving, and erecting a batch type plant at a new

location.

 The complainants estimate that the total cost of

making the plant operable at the new site would be

 in the range

of $90,000 to $125,000.

 (C.res. Exh.

 B.) The total cost

includes,

 in addition to moving cost, the cost of site

preparation,

 land acquisition, and initial operation.

 The Board

notes that there is

 a significant difference between the

estimates of the moving costs provided by the complainants and

the respondents.

 However, the Board notes that even if it

considers the lower cost estimate, the cost of moving the plant

would be in excess of $100,000, which amounts to the same as that

of encapsulation or re—engineering.

Therefore, the Board finds moving the plant to be also in

the same category of the expensive options.

 In view of this, the

Board finds that encapsulation, re—engineering the plant,

or

moving the plant are not economically reasonable remedies.

The

Board believes that requiring the implementation of these options

would place a significant financial burden on the respondents.

Finally, the option recommended by the respondents, which

includes the construction of barrier walls and installation of a

stack silencer would cost in the order of $25,000.

~~3-Cj

I 62

7

The Board finds that the noise control methods recommended

by the respondents to be an economically reasonable and

technically feasible approach to reduce the noise problems at the

plant.

 The Board notes that the this option costs relatively

less than the other expensive alternatives discussed above, but

achieves a significant reduction in the noise levels.

 The Board

recognizes that implementing the recommended option may still

result in a violation of Section 901.102 standards by

 1 to

 2 dB

in the 1000 and 2000 Hz bands.

 However, considering the cost

implications, the Board believes that the respondents’

recommended option is the most appropriate solution.

CONCLUSION

Although complainants request that the Board direct that the

plant be moved, the Board is reluctant to direct such a step in

this case.

 As stated in the October

29,

 1992, Opinion, the plant

is in a suitable location in an area zoned for industry.

The

Board finds that moving the source at a cost of over $100,000 to

be economically unreasonable.

Therefore,

 after studying all the options the Board finds

that construction of barrier walls and the addition of a stack

silencer are economically reasonable and technically practicable

solutions which will bring respondent into compliance.

 However,

the Board notes that if the respondent is still

 in violation of

Section 901.102 standards after implementation of the measures,

the respondent could be liable for civil penalties under the Act,

absent site—specific relief.

ORDER

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

L3-0

163

8

made of sound absorbing material such as SoundBlox~or

IAC Moduline~

IT IS SO ORDERED

Board Member R.

C.

 Fleinal dissents.

Section 41 of the Environmental Protection Act (415 ILCS

5/41

 (1992)) provides for the appeal of final orders of the Board

within 35 days.

 The Rules of the Supreme Court of Illinois

establish filing requirements.

 (See also 35 Ill. Adm. Code

101.246, Notion for Reconsideration.)

I, Dorothy M. Gunn,

 Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, hereby certify that the above opinion a

 order was

adopted on the

/7~Z

 day of

____________________

1993, by a vote of

~,-/

~

A~’

~borothy

M.

 Gi~in, Clei~k

Illinois Polijition Control Board

~.3-OI 6~.