ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
May 11,
1989
RICHARD
MOORE AND SALLY MOORE,
)
)
Complainants,
v.
)
PCB
87—171
ARCHER
DANIELS MIDLAND COMPANY,
Respondent.
RICHARD MOORE AND SALLY MOORE APPEARED PRO-SE;
MR. WAYNE
L.
BICKES APPEARED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(By R.C.
Flemal):
This matter comes before the Board upon an enforcement
action filed
on November
9, 1987
by Complainants Richard Moore
and Sally Moore against Respondent Archer Daniels Midland Company
(“ADM”).
Complainants allege that Respondent emits noise from
its Cogeneration Plant
in violation of
noise pollution
prohibitions found
in the Illinois Environmental Protection Act
(“Act”) at
Ill.
Rev.
Stat.
1987
ch.
111 1/2,
sec.
1023 and 1024,
and found
in Board regulations at 35
Ill.
Adin.
Code 900.102.
CornplainanLs request that Respondent be directed
to cease and
desist from further violations,
and
t:hat Respondent be ordered
to
take various specific steps
to reduce noise
emissions.
Hearings were
held August
5 and 29, 19831 at
the Macon
County Municipal Building,
Decatur, Illinois.
Complainants
presented
nine witnesses,
including
themselves,
who testified
to
the nature and affect upon them of noise emissions from the
Cogeneration Plant.
Respondents presented
three witnesses.
Two
interested citizens additionally made statements.
The parties
agreed not
to submit post—hearing briefs.
On February 23,
1989,
a Board interim order
requested status reports
from both sides.
Timely responses were filed
by Complainants on March 20,
1989 and
by Respondent
(“ADM Response’T)
on April
3,
1989.
1 Transcripts of
the two
hearings
aro separately paginated.
Accordingly,
and for use herein, citation to the record
of the
August
5 hearing
is
in the form “R.
at
“
and
to
the August
29
hearing
in the form “R2.
at
“.
—-
99—01
—2—
FACTS
Respondent operates
a cogeneration plant,
a facility which
produces both steam and electricity
(R.
at 104).
The
Cogeneration Plant
is located
in the extreme northeastern part
of
the City of Decatur
(R. at 103)
in an area zoned
for heavy
industry
(R. at 104).
The plant
is bordered
on the east by
a
park which includes a golf course,
campground,
and some boat
landings,
and on the north by fields
(R2.
at 17—18);
the nearest
general facilities
to the north are the grounds
of Richiand
Community College located approximately 1.25 miles distant
(R2.
at
19).
The Cogeneration Plant
is
a
new and innovative facility
designed
to generate power
and steam while simultaneously
limiting emissions of air pollutants.
The principal feature
of
the facility
is the use
of
fluic3ized
bed boilers
CR.
at 104),
which, with associated emission control devices, allows the
burning
of high—sulfur coals without corresponding high emissions
of
sulfur dioxide
(R.
at
105).
Construction was begun
in 1985
and the five individual boilers were put on line between February
and December 1987
(R. at 119).
Construction of the Cogeneration Plant was supported by the
State of Illinois through the Illinois Department
of Energy and
Natural Resources;
the State contributed $6,000,000
of
the
approximately $100,000,000 cost of construction
of the plant
(R.
at
109).
For ADM to receive State contributions,
it must use new
technology which can burn Illinois coal
(which has
a higher
sulfur content than other coals)
and still meet
the State
standards
for air emissions
(R.
at 110).
The agreement entered
into between the State and ADM states
that ADM must burn
substantially all Illinois coal
(Id.).
ADM expects,
at full
operation,
to burn about
a million tons of Illinois coal per year
(R.
at 111).
Presently,
over 90 percent of the coal used comes
from central Illinois
(R.
at 112).
Also,
as part of
the agreement for the state
funds,
ADM must
construct and maintain a steam
line between the cogeneration
plant
and the new Richland Community College and provide the
college with steam at no cost for
10 years
(R.
at 113).
Illinois
Department
of Energy and Natural Resources brings delegates from
other
countries who are concerned
about
the acid rain problem
to
the plant
to show them the new technology
(Id.).
The
ADM is
the
largest plant in the world
that is using
this new technology
(R.
at 114).
99—02
—3—
APPLICABLE LAWS AND REGULATIONS
The Act specifies at
Ill. Rev.
Stat.
1987 Ch.
lii
1/2 par.
1024
that:
No person shall emit beyond the boundaries of his
property
any noise which unreasonably interferes with
the enjoyment of
life
or with any lawful business or
activity,
so as
to violate any regulations
or
standard adopted by the Board under this Act.
The Board’s regulati9ns prohibit noise pollution pursuant to
35
Ill. Adm.
Code 900.102
No person shall cause
or allow the emission of sound
beyond
the boundaries of his property,
as property
is
defined
in Section
25
of the Illinois Environmental
Protection Act,
so as
to cause noise pollution
in
Illinois,
or so as
to violate any provision of this
Chapter.
Noise Pollution
is defined
at 35
Ill. Mm.
Code 900.l~)l:
Noise Pollution:
The emission of sound that
unreasonably interferes with the enjoyment
of
life
or
with any lawful business or activity.
NATURE AND EFFECT OF THE SOUND EMISSIONS
Various of Complainants’ witnesses testified
to the nature
of the sound emissions from the Cogeneration Plant
and the effect
these sounds have on them.
The first
of these witnesses was Ms.
Linda Carter,
who resides along with her husband and
two children
at 3830 East Harrison Avenue,
Decatur, approximately one—half
mile from the plant
(R.
at 9—10);
the Carters have lived there
for twelve years
(R.
at 10).
Ms. Carter characterized sounds
from the plant as being
“very
loud”
and “unbearable” at times
(R.
3t
11,
12, 22).
She testified that the sound
“wakes us up
at
night”
CR.
at 11)
and that she has lost whole nights of sleep at
various times from May 1987
to ,June 1988
(R.
at 12, 18).
She
also testified
that her children were awakened by the noises and
that she had difficulty getting them back to sleep
(R.
at 12).
Among
other difficulties
she noted has been inability
to carry on
2 The Board’s regulations also provide for quantitative
limitations
on the emissions
of noise between properties,
as
at
35
Ill. Mm.
Code 901.106.
However,
these additional provisions
have not been raised
at issue either through claim or attempt
at
Proof
in the instant proceedings.
99—03
—4—
conversations outdoors
(R.
at 11, 17),
the need to turn up the
family TV
to allow
it
to be heard over the noise
(R. at 11),
and
an incident where one of her children’s teachers “had
to close
her windows
for her
to teach”
(R.
at 18—19).
Ms.
Carter
additionally noted
that she has on various occasions beginning
in
May 1987 contacted ADM
to voice
her complaints about the noise
emissions
(R. at 11—20).
Complainant’s second witness was
Ms.
Elnora Harlin, who
lives at 2635 East Geddes,
Decatur, approximately
21y~miles from
the Cogeneration Plant
(R.
at 23—24).
She characterized the
plant noise
as “very,
very loud”
and noted
that it caused her and
her husband
to shut their windows
to allow the TV to be heard and
to sleep at night
(R. at 24).
Ms. Harlin also noted that she has
complained
of
the noise to both the Decatur Police Department
and
to ADM directly
(R. at
25),
as
well as
to the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency (“Agency”)
(R.
at 26).
In an
independent statement Ms. Harlin likened the noise
to
a jet
engine or
a steam locomotive,
and noted
that it affects her
and
her husband’s ability
to concentrate
(R.
at 29).
Mr. Charles Davis appeared as Complainants’
third witness.
Mr.
Davis
lives
as 3735 East Harrison Avenue and operates an
early—morning delivery route in the northeast quadrant of
Decatur.
Mr.
Davis characterized noises coming from the
Cogeneration Plant
as sometimes being
a “big,
loud roar” and
sometimes “like
a bomb going off”
(R.
at 32).
He also noted
that
he can hear the sounds
along his whole business route which he
begins between 4:00 A.M.
and 4:30 A.M.
and that,
even though he
normally rises
at 3:30 A.M.,
he is wakened earlier on some
mornings by the noise
(Id.).
Complainant Richard Moore appeared
as Complainants’ fourth
witness.
Mr.
Moore has resided
at 3820 East Harrison Avenue,
Decatur,
for thirty—three years
(R.
at
35).
In response
to being
asked
to described
the noise from the Cogeneration Plant,
Mr.
Moore responded:
At first
it was like gunshots or explosions
and then
it trailed off into noises similar
to jet engines
gearing
up
to
take off or circling and
it seemed
to
reach
a peak and then trail
off and
then turn around
and come
right back
to
a peak.
(R.
at
35)
In response
to being asked
the effect of the noise,
Mr. Moore
responded:
It interrupted my sleep and activities around
and
about
the house
to
the point that sleep was
interrupted where
it was hard
to get up and go to
work the next day and be
at my full potential.
(R.
at
35).
99—04
—5—
Mr.
Moore further recited the incident
of
a family reunion that
he and his wife hosted
at which several children were caused
to
cry and conversation had to
be moved
indoors due to the noises
from the Cogeneration Plant
(R. at 37).
Ms.
Jean Crowell, resident at 3821 East Harrison Avenue,
Decatur,
since
1934
(R.
at 42) appeared
as Complainants’
fifth
witness.
She stated
her concurrence with
the characterization of
the noise
by earlier witnesses
(Id.)
and emphasized the
difficulty of carrying on outdoor conversations and hosting
company outdoors while
the noises
are being emitted
(R.
at
43).
She also testified that the sounds were comparable
to
a jet plane
taking
off
(Id.).
Mr. Loren
Lill appeared as Complainants’
sixth witness.
Mr.
Lill has resided at
3281 East Harrison Avenue,
approximately one
mile from the site
of the ne~zCogeneration Plant,
for
forty—one
years
(R.
at 45—46).
Mr.
Lill characterized the noise from the
plant as being like
a jet
and like
a train going
by all night
long
(R. at 46).
He noted that the noise
keeps him awake
(R.
at
46, 47,
49)
and that he and his wife have difficulty carrying on
conversations outdoors when the noise
is emitted
(R.
at 49).
Mr.
Lill testified
that he has phoned ADM about
the noise,
and has
also contacted the Agency
(R.
at 46).
Mr. George Baine,
2401 Julie Avenue,
Decatur,
appeared as
Complainants’ seventh witness.
Mr. Baine testified that the
Cogeneration Plant noises have affected both he and his family
(R.
at 58)
and personally has been stressed by the noises
(R.
at
53).
Complainant Ms.
Sally Mooreappeared
as Complainants’ eighth
witness.
In response
to the question of why noise from the
Cogeneration Plant bothers her, Ms.
Moore responded:
Because
it
is
so devastating
to me.
It’s
a different
kind of noise.
It’s
a noise
I can’t get used to and
it
just,
it’s nerve racking and
it’s just the volume
of the noise and the way the noise
is.
There’s no
way that you can let
it go
to your subconscious and
leave
there and go on your business.
...
I
have
tried,
there’s
no way.
It’s just too devastating.
(R.
at 59).
She added
that
in comparison to other neighborhood noises, such
as trains,
backup beepers from vehicles and fans from blowers at
a nearby plant,
the noise from Cogeneration Plant
is much more
distracting
(R.
at 59—60).
Upon advice from
the Agency,
she telephoned ADM starting in
June,
1987
(R.
at
60, 63).
She called again in August
to tell
them that the noise had kept her
family up all night
(R.
at
99—05
—6—
63).
On September
25, 1987,
a representative of ADM called
Ms.
Moore
in response to a letter that Ms. Moore had sent
to ADM
(R.
at
65).
She was told to
“be patient with
us”
and that the
noise
would not happen
at night, weekends or holidays (Id.).
Based upon
Ms. Moore’s notes,
the noise went nonstop from
June
1
to
10,
1987 and again nonstop from June
25
to July 4,
1987
(R at
66).
In one particular
incident,
she and
three neighbors
were sitting beside
a pool,
but the noise was so bad that they
virtually could
not talk to each other
(Id.).
Similar
disturbances
in conversations also occurred
(Id.).
In sum,
Ms.
Moore
felt that during the last 15 months,
her life had not been
the same due
to the disturbing noise from ADM
(R.
at
68).
Complainant’s presented
Mr. Gregory T.
Zak as
their final
witness.
Mr.
Zak
is an employee
of the Agency with the
title of
Environmental Protection Specialist
(R.
at
71).
His main
responsibility
is noise control engineering
for
steam release and
induced draft fans
(R.
at
82).
Mr.
Zak testified he has been
involved in taking several
thousand noise measurements
(R.
at
74).
Mr.
Zak had listened
to audio tapes3 and now testified that
the noise he heard “sounded
like steam release,
and
in
a much
lower intensity,
an induced draft fan or possibly more than one
induced fan”
(R at 80,
83).
He also testified that the normal
solution
is
to install a silencer on the exhaust, between the
exhaust outlet and
the top of the stack,
where
the fan
is located
(R. at 84).
Mr.
Zak also testified that based upon
a frequency
of
1,000
Hertz,
he
would
expect
to
see
approximately
a
35
to
40
decibel reduction in that particular frequency band with the
installation of good quality silencers
(R.
at 85—86).
This would
reduce
the noise to approximately one—lGth
of the sound
level
existing without the silencers
CR.
at 89).
Mr.
Zak referred
to
stack noise
(or induced draft fan noise)
as
a hum,
whereas steam—
release noise
is normally
a
roar
(Id.).
Under
cross examination Mr.
Zak noted
that he has not
personally heard sound emissions from the Cogeneration Plant
in
a
field setting
(R.
at
93).
~ Complainants atten~ptedto
introduce into the record two tape
recordings
(Complainants’
Exh.
1
and
2)
purporting
to represent
sounds emitted
from the Cogeneration plant
(R.
at 21, 48,
57).
The Hearing Officer initially denied admission of
the recordings
(Id.),
but subsequently reversed that
ruling over ADM’s objection
(R2.
at 35—36).
It
is these
tapes
to which Mr.
Zak
listened.
99—06
—7—
NOISE
SOURCES
A~D ADM
RESPONSES
Mr.
Terry
A.
Stoa,
the
manager
of
construction
engineering
at the Cogeneration Plant
(R. at 100—101), testified on behalf of
Respondent.
Mr.
Stoa noted
that there are three sources of loud
or significant noises which are,
or have been,
emitted from the
Cogeneration Plant
(R.
at
118, 121,
127,
139).
He further noted,
however,
that only one
of these was anticipated prior
to actual
appearance
of the noise,
and that all three have been or are in
the processes of being rectified.
Mr.
Stoa testified
that due to
the uniqueness of
the plant,
the only noise problem that ADM knew would occur before building
the plant
was noise from blowing out of steam lines during start-
up
(R.
at 118).
This
is necessary
to clean
the steam lines
and
to
protect
the
steam
turbines
from
damage
caused
by
particulates
that
might
be
in
the
pipes
(R.
at
118).
Mr.
Stoa
admitted
that
blowing out the steam lines makes
“a very loud noise”, but noted
that the noise
lasts
for about one—two minutes per
line,
and that
the
blowing
out
need
only
be
done
once
per
pipe
(R.
at
118—
119).
He
further
testified
that
the
“police
department
and
media” had
been
notified
prior
to
scheduling
of
the
line
blow
outs
(R. at 140),
that attempts where made
to conduct all blow
outs during daylight hours
(Id.),
and that all of the blowing out
is now completed
(R.
at
118).
Subsequent
to start—up ADM discovered two additional sources
of loud noise produced respectively from tripping
of safety
valves
and from the draft
fans.
The Cogeneration Plant utilizes
a system
of safety valves on the steam
lines,
the function of
which
is
to release excess pressure
in the lines
(R.
at 120).
Mr.
Stoa estimated that there are thirty—five
to forty such
valves within the Cogeneration Plant
(R2.
at 22—23).
The safety
valves do not release during normal operations
(R.
at 120).
However,
some
of
them do release when the turbines have
to be
shut down,
and ADM has experienced
a greater number
of turbine
shut-downs than they had anticipated
(R.
at 120—121).
In September
of 1987
ADNI conducted
a study
of all potential
noise sources
at the Cogeneration Plant, which showed that the
largest
source
appeared
to
be
steam
release
from
the
safety
valves
(R.
at
121).
ADM
thereafter
investigated
methods
of
silencing the safety valves
(Id.).
As
of the August
5,
1988
hearing date silencers had been installed on the safety valves
for Boiler
5
and orders had been placed
for more custom silencers
for installation on the remaining four boilers
(R.
at 121—123).
Mr.
Stoa stated his belief that these silencers would
be
installed by November 1988
CR. at 136).
The second unexpected
source
of noise discovered by ADM
is
related
to operation of exhaust system fans
(R. at 127, 152).
Unlike the sounds related
to steam release from the safety valves
99—07
—B—
or line blowing,
the sounds emitted
by the fans are continuous
(R. at 128).
i~tthe time of hearing,
ADM had contracted
for the
purchase and installation of silencers
to be
installed
in the
exhaust stack
(R.
at 129—130).
The stack silencers are intended
to provide a
10 decibel
reduction in noise
(R2.
at
25).
In overview,
Mr.
Stoa stated his belief that the
installation of the various silencers “will alleviate the noise
problem”
(R. at 145)
and the reduction will be such that ADM will
thereafter
be
in compliance with noise emission regulations
(R.
at 144).
Mr.
J.T. Weissenburger, president of
Engineering Dynamics
International and ADM noise consultant,
also testified regarding
ADM’s investigation of
its noise emissions and alleviation
efforts.
He confirmed that the primary source
of continuous
noise
is the induced draft
fans of
the exhaust system
(R.
at
152),
and added
that this identification was made
in December
of
1987
(R.
at 153).
He further noted
that,
although the fan noise
emissions
are continuous,
variations
in atmospheric conditions,
including gradients
in air density, wind velocity,
and humidity,
can cause
the perception of
the emissions
to vary considerably at
differing distances and times
(R.
at 156—157).
In response
to the Board’s February 23,
1989 Order
for
a
status report on
its noise abatement efforts, ADM notes that each
of the three identified noise sources has been addressed.
ADM
states that all cleaning of steam lines
has been completed
(ADM
Response,
p.
1, 4).
It further adds that,
should
the
Cogeneration Plant ever be expanded,
and thereby require
installation of new steam
lines, silencer
equipment will be
installed on such lines prior
to performing any line blows
(Id.
at
5).
On the matter
of silencing safety release valves,
ADM states
that
it
has
now
installed
silencers
on
the
turbine
and
boiler
warm—up steam vents,
and on the header
and electromatic relief
valves
for each
of the five boilers
(ADM Response,
p.
5).
On the matter
of silencing the exhaust
fan noise, ADM states
that
it has installed stack silencers on both flues
of the stack
(ADM Response,
p.
5).
It adds that one of
the silencers was
placed
in service
in October
1988 and the second by December
7,
1988
(Id.).
SECTION 33(c) FACTORS
Section
33(c)
of
the Act requires the Board to consider
certain enumerated,
non—exclusive factors
in rendering its
decisions:
99—08
—9—
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 located,
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;
5.
any
economic
benefits
accrued
by
a
noncomplying
pollution source because
of
its delay
in
compliance with pollution control
requirements;
and
6.
any subsequent compliance.
Regarding the first 33(c)
factor,
the testimony as noted
above indicates that the sounds emitted by ADM’s Cogeneration
Plant
substantially
and frequently interfered with the
Complainant’s
use
and
enjoyment
of
their
property
as
well
as
that
of their
neighbors.
This interference was well beyond minor
annoyance or discomfort,
as
the sounds disrupted sleep,
leisure
and other activities.
However,
the
record.also contains several
abatement measures which were subsequently taken by ADM.
Considering these abatement measures,
it
is questionable (not-
withstanding the Board’s effort
to obtain this information via
status
reports)
whether
interference
of
the
magnitude
indicated
by the testimony continues
to occur.
The Board therefore finds
that although there was
a substantial
interference with the
general welfare and use of the physical property of
the
Complainants and other
nearby residents,
it
is questionable
whether that substantial
interference continues
to occur.
Concerning
the second Section 33(c) factor,
the record
indicates that the ADM Cogeneration Plant
has social
and economic
value.
As noted
above,
the Cogeneration Plant
is an innovative
facility designed to generate power and steam while
simultaneously limiting emissions of air pollutants,
as well
as
being
designed
to
use high—sulfur Illinois coal.
It follows
therefore
that the Cogeneration Plant has the social and economic
value of
a power plant
as well as the additional value of
encouraging the utilization and development of new technology
which aids
in the decrease of air pollutant emissions.
The
99—09
—10—
record further indicates that the Cogeneration Plant has economic
value because
it
is
a source of employment in an area where
unemployment
is higher than the national
and State average,
and
because
it encourages the use of Illinois coal
(See,
testimony of
Richard Lutovsky,
R2.
at
5-13; Respondent’s
Exh.
5).
The third Section 33(c) factor concerns the suitability of
the pollution source
to the area
in which
it
is located and
priority
of location.
As noted above,
the record indicates that
the Cogeneration Plant
is located
in an area that
is
zoned for
heavy industry,
that it borders recreational
areas and Richiand
Community College,
and
that there
are some nearby residences.
On
the priority
of
location issue,
it
is clear
that the nearby
residences have priority,
since
the Cogeneratiori Plant
is
a newly
constructed facility.
However,
the area
in which the Plant
is
located
is
zoned
for heavy industry,
and
it can
be assumed that
heavy industrial facilities such as the Cogeneration Plant would
be located
in such
an area.
Therefore,
the Board finds that the
Cogeneration Plant
is suitable
to the area
in which it
is
located.
Concerning the fourth 33(c) factor,
the testimony
of Messrs.
Zak, Stoa,
and Weissenburger
as noted
above indicates there are
technically practicable and economically reasonable means of
reducing
the emissions,
and that abatement devices have already
been installed.
Concerning
the fifth
33(c)
factor,
it
is questionable
whether the Respondent operates
a noncompliant pollution source
at this time.
The record indicates that ADM moved expeditiously
to correct any noise emissions from the Cogeneration Plant.
If
any benefit were to
be assessed,
it would be
the benefit
of
start—up and continued operation of the facility to date.
Concerning
the
sixth
33(c)
factor,
as
noted
above,
the
record
indicates
Respondent
has
made
a
substantial
effort
to
reduce noise emissions.
Noise sources have been assessed and
abatement devices have been installed.
REQUESTED
RELIEF
Complainants
request
a
five—element
relief
program.
The
first of
these
is
a cease
and desist order
and the remaining four
consist
of specific noise abatement actions
to be undertaken
by
ADM.
These four are:
1.
Installatidn
of blow—off silencers when steam
pipes
are
blown out;
2.
Installation of stack silencers;
99—10
—11—
3.
Installation of silencers,
capable of providing
a
50 decibel reduction,
at all steam venting
points;
and
4.
Completion
of the above installations by November
1988.
(R2.
at 38—39)
CONCLUSION
Based upon the record and after consideration of the Section
33(c)
factors,
the Board finds that the emissions from the
Cogeneration Plant substantially and frequently interfered with
Complainant’s use and enjoyment of their property,
and this
interference
was
unreasonable.
The
emissions
from
the
Cogeneration Plant therefore constituted
noise pollution pursuant
to
35
Ill. Mm. Code 900.101 and violated
35
Ill. Adm. Code
900.102 and Section
24 of
the Act.
Although,
as the Board’s
discussion indicates,
the Cogeneration Plant has social and
economic value and
is suitable
to the area
in which
it
is
located,
these factors are outweighed
by the substantial
interference with the health and general welfare of
the
Complainants,
and by the fact that there
are economically
reasonable and technically practicable means of reducing the
emissions.
However,
it
is apparent that ADM found
itself,
in its
construction of
its prototype Cogeneration Plant,
with serious
noise problems which
it had not anticipated,
and which at least
in
part
stemmed
from
the
fact
that
it
was
employing
a
new
and
socially—beneficial
technology.
We
cannot
find
that
ADM
lacked
diligence
in pursuing remedies once the noise problems were
discovered.
We note,
for example, ADM’S history
of discovery,
study,
and action as attested
to by Mr.
Stoa.
We
note
ADM’s
testimony
of
its
using
the
lessons
it
learned
at
the
Decatur
Cogeneration Plant in planning for the construction of a second
such
plant
(e.g.,
R.
at
133—134).
We
also
note,
for example, Mr.
Weissenburger’s testimony of his surprise, based on his
experience,
at how quickly ADM arranged
to purchase
an
appropriate
silencer
once
the
remedy had been identified
(R.
at
161).
Finally,
and critically, we note the advanced status of
noise abatement efforts undertaken by ADM as chronicled in ADM’s
April
3,
1989 response.
Therefore,
in finding that
a violation has occurred,
the
Board
cannot
identify
any
noise
abatement
efforts
which
it
would
now order ADM to undertake,
based upon this
record, other
than
those which ADM has already undertaken under
its own
Thitiative.
Moreover,
the Board finds that ADM’s noise abatement
actions
as now undertaken are
in substantial conformity with
99—11
—12—
those
requested
by
Complainants.
Accordingly,
the
Board
in
finding
violation
will
only
order
ADM
to
cease
and
desist
from
violations
of
the
Act
and
Board’s
regulations
by
operating
any
of
its
presently
identified
sources
of
noise
pollution
absent
existing noise abatement equipment.
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings
of fact and
conclusions of law
in this matter.
ORDER
The Board finds
that Respondents Archer Daniels Midland
Company has violated Section
24
of the Environmental Protection
Act
and
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code
900.102.
Respondent
shall
cease
and
desist
from
violations
of
the
Act
and
the
Board’s
regulations
by
operating
any
of
its
presently
identified
sources
of
noise
pollution
absent
existing
noise
abatement equipment.
Section
41 of the Environmental Protection Act,
Ill.
Rev.
Stat.
1987
ch.
1111/2
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.
IT
IS
SO
ORDERED.
I, Dorothy M.
Gunn, Clerk
of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board,
hereby certify that the above Opinion and Order was
adopted
on
the
/pCZ
day
of
—
,
1989,
by
a
vote
of
7—~
.
)2~
Dorothy
M.
91ünn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
99—12
