ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

May 5, 1988

C.S. NORCROSS, INC.,

Petitioner,

)

PCB 87—206

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY,

Respondent.

MR. MICHAEL A. STICK, ESQ, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER, C..S.

NORCROSS, INC.;

MR. JOSEPH E. SVOBODA, ESQ.., APPEARED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT,

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by J.D. Dumelle):

This matter comes before the Board upon Petitioner, C,.S.

Norcross, Inc’s., filing of a PeLition For Variance on December

22, 1987. In sum, Petition requests a 15 month variance from

this Board’s nighttime prohibition against impact forging

cperations (set forth at 35 Ill. Adm. Code 90L105). issuance of

the requested variance would allow Petitioner to conduct forging

cperations from 1:00 am. to 7:00 a.m.

As noted above, this Petition was initially filed on

December 22, 1987. On January 7, 1988, the Board issued an Order

mandating the submission of additional information. On January

15, 1988, Petitioner supplied the additional data by filing its

Response. On January 21, 1988, the Board accepted the Petition

as an Amended Petition For Variance and set the matter for

hearing.. Hearing was held on March 18, 1988, at 138 E. Hall,

City of Bushnell, McDonough County, Illinois; no members of the

public attended. After hearing this matter was submitted to the

Board without briefs; however, on March 14, 1988, the Agency

filed its “Agency Statement”. On March 24, 1988, the Board

issued an Order construing the Agency Statement as the Agency

Recommendation mandated by Ill. Rev. Stat. ch. 111 1/2 par.

1037. Pursuant to statute, Petitioner is entitled to a final

decision on its Petition no later than May 16, 1988.

BACKGROUND

Petitioner has conducted a forging operations facility

currently employing approximately 157 people at 195 N. Dean

Street, Bushnell, Illinois for approximately 81 years.. During

89—91

—2—

much of that time it operated on a 24—hour, three shift

schedule. tn October of 1983, this Board promulgated noise

emission limitations, which limit impulsive sound levels at

daytime and nighttime levels. Daytime emissions for existing

impact forging operations are limited to 58.5 Leq. and nighttime

emissions are limited to 53.5 Leq.

Because Petitioner’s facility could not meet the nighttime

standards the practical effect of the promulgated rule was to

restrict Petitioner’s hours of operation; nighttime is defined

at 35 Ill. Adm. Code 901.105 as “those 8 hours between 10:00 p.m.

and 7:00 a.m. which are not part of the 16 continuous daytime

hours 

On May 2, 1985, Petitioner obtained a site—specific rule

change effectively allowing forging operation until 1:00 a.m.

Monday thru Saturday. In the matter of C.S. Norcross and Sons

Co., R83—3l.

Petitioner’s operation results in impulse sounds which are

regulated as noted above. Metal is heated to approximately 2200

degrees Fahrenheit, then inserted between dies; pressure is then

applied. The pressure is supplied by repeated impact of the

upper and lower die, which is fastened to an anvil. The anvil, a

guided ram and the attached machinery are commonly known as a

“forge hammer”. The sounds produced by the forge hammer are

impulsive in nature andoriginate primarily from the impact

between the upper die and the lower die. Petitioner’s facility

utilizes thirteen forging hammers ranging in size from 800 to

5,000 pounds, the largest hammers producing the most noise. R.

26. It should be noted that Petitioner’s two largest hammers

4,000 pounds and 5,000 pounds are not involved in this

Petition. Pet. p. 10; R.. pp. 26, 27.

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

Although it is true that noise emissions from Petitioner’s

facility are not an immediate danger to health, noise emissions

are regulated by the Environmental Protection Act and by Board

regulations. At page 5 of the Petition For Variance, it is

admitted that in 1983 forty—five residences had potential

exposure to sound levels in excess of the maximum allowed under

35 Ill. Adm. Code 901.105(c). Petitioner asserts that the total

number of residences exposed to excess emission has decreased 

——

although no lesser figure is given.. Pet.. p. 6.

It should be noted that in preparing its variance

application Petitioner consulted with the neighboring

community. According to the testimony of John Gormley, at least

one resident from each neighboring household was solicited in

order to ascertain and accommodate community concerns.. R. 30.

This explains why the largest hammers are not included in this

variance. With one exception the community favors granting

Petitioner the requested variance. Furthermore, it should be

89—92

—3—

noted that attached to the Petition For Variance, Petitioner has

included the signatures and addresses of 41 neighbors, all

residing within 1500 feet of the forging plant and all supporting

the requested variance. The one exception was merely an inquiry

which sought to ensure that Petitioner would not operate the two

largest hammers as a result of the variance. As noted above the

two largest hammers are not involved in this variance request and

will not be operated between 1:00 a.m. and 7:00 a.m..

Additionally, the record of hearing indicates that the public did

not attend the hearing 

——

notwithstanding proper notice. This

also indicates a lack of community opposition to the variance.

Noise emissions of this sort are often in the nature of a

nuisance—type of activity and the Board is not unmindful that the

community supports the proposal.

Notwithstanding, the Board is also aware that Petitioner is

operating on the third shift despite this being a violation of

Petitioner’s site—specific rule and despite the violation of this

Board’s general regulations. R. 46. Petitioner should be

advised that violations of this order will not be tolerated.

EFFORTS AT COMPLIANCE

As noted above, Petitioner’s facility is old. Nonetheless,

Petitioner has indicated several attempts at lowering

emissions. Petitioner’s witness Mr. Dale Stump, outlined several

attempts to limit sound emissions including the use of acoustical

absorbers, pads, mats and sound/shock absorbers. R. 50.

Additionally the facility is looking for a way to segregate the

loudest operations (the wheelabrator) from other, less noisy

operations. However Mr. Stump also testified that no final

decisions have, as yet, been made.

HARDSHIP

Petitioner has introduced much evidence that it is suffering

hardship based upon the current standards. Specifically, the

company must forgo realizable profits as a result of the

nighttime noise limitations..

Because customer orders cannot be adequately filled,

business is slipping away. Petitioner has already lost several

major customers. R. 13. The loss of these customers includes

not only short term injury but also long term losses in terms of

unrealized future revenues (the amount of current lost sales was

estimated at $1.5 

—

$2 million). This does not include

additional, future business turned away for inability to accept

the additional contracts. Notably, Petitioner is too heavily

burdened to fill orders from its parent company. R. 10.

Unfilled orders from the parent company, alone, amount to losses

of $120,000 

—

$150,000/month.

89—93

—4—

Because Petitioner has been unable to operate during

nighttime it has been forced to utilize overtime hours among its

current workcrew. Petitioner is averaging fourteen hours of

overtime per man per week, R. 11. This has added to financial

pressures due to additional costs of production.

The main purpose of the requested variance is to provide

Petitioner with sufficient time to make a final business decision

as to whether there is adequate, continuing business to justify

increased permanent production. Petitioner states that it would

examine the feasibility of designing a new facility which would

be located far from residential uses, with a metal structure and

which would afford the use of several baffling devices. R. 18.

By allowing Petitioner to operate according to the requested

variance, Petitioner claims it will be able to reduce its backlog

of orders satisfying existing customers; and accept new orders

enhancing its ability to attract continuing new businesses

This, it is asserted, will correct a current poor cash flow and

provided the necessary information for a decision on whether to

build the additional facility. At the end of the variance,

Petitioner may decide to construct the new facility or may decide

against it 

——

but Petitioner will discontinue its third shift and

return to operations congruent with the conditions set forth in

R8 3—3 1.

Whatever ambiguities remain concerning Petitioner’s plant(s)

and operations, the fact remains that at the end of 15 months

Petitioner will once again be in compliance.

By all evidence presented, Petitioner has been a good

neighbor and citizen. Its facility is old 

——

but working 

——

and

orders are picking up. Short term expansion of Petitioner’s

operation hours is expected to generate many new jobs and income

for the community; long term plant construction will generate

permanent jobs and growth. Petitioner’s anticipated period of

non—compliance is short and any adverse environmental impact

would be minimal. The request for variance is granted.

The Board notes that Petitioner’s plan of (eventual)

compliance is not truly a compliance plan; rather it is solely a

promise to halt nighttime operations upon the expiration of the

variance. The Board’s action in granting this variance is

limited to the unique facts of this case, only. And should not

be construed as precedence concerning a compliance plan of this

sort.

ORDER

C.S. Norcross, tnc.., is hereby granted variance from 35 Ill.

Adm. Code 901.105(c) for its manufacturing complex located at 195

N. Dean Street, Bushnell, McDonough County, Illinois, subject to

the following conditions.

89—94

—5—

1.  This variance shall expire on July 31, 1989.

2.  Petitioner shall not operate its 4,000 lb. or 5,000 lb.

forging hammers, or any similar such equipment during

the nighttime hours between 1:00 a.m. and 7:00 a.m.

3.  Petitioner shall conduct its operations such that the

noise emission measured at the nearest class ‘A’ land

is no greater than 70 Leg.

4.  Petitioner shall conduct its facility in compliance

with all applicable rules of the Board and the

Environmental Protection Act..

5..   Within forty five (45) days of the date of this Order,

the Petitioner shall execute a Certificate of

Acceptance and Agreement agreeing to be bound by the

terms and conditions of this variance which shall be

sent to:

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

Division of Water Pollution Control

Compliance Assurance Section

2200 Churchill Road, P.O. Box 19276

Springfield, Il 62794—9276

This variance shall be void if Peitioner fails to

execute and forward the certificate within the forty

five day period.. The forty five day period shall be

held in abeyance during any period that this matter is

being appealed. The form of said Certification shall

be as follows:

CERTI Fl CATION

I, (We), C..S. Norcross, Inc.., having read the Order of the

Illinois Pollution Control Board, in PCB 87—106, dated May 5,

1988, understand and accept the said Order, realizing that such

acceptance renders all terms and conditions thereto binding and

enforceable.

Petitioner                 

By: Authorized Agent

Title                    

Date

89—95

—6—

Section 41 of the Environmental Protection Act, Ill. Rev..

Stat. 1985 ch. 111 1/2 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   

.3~-’

day of 

1988 by a vote

of

7-0

Dorothy M.. Gunn, Clerk

Ilinois Pollution Control Board

89—9 6