ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

December 5,

1986

IN THE MATTER OF:

)

GENERAL MOTORS

CORP.

)

PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

)

R83-7

TO 35

ILL.

ADM. CODE

)

900.103 AND 901.104

)

PROPOSED RULE.

SECOND NOTICE.

OPINION

AND

ORDER OF THE BOARD (by J. Anderson):

By action on November

7,

1985,

the Board proposed for first

notice certain

amendments to the Board’s rules and regulations

governing noise; publication

of the proposed amendments occurred

in the Illinois Register, Volume

10,

Issue

10, page

4175 et seq,

dated March 7,

1986.

The proposed amendments were occasioned by

a petition filed

by General Motors Corporation

(“GM”) on February

24,

1983,

and the record established by the Board through

hearings and submitted comments,

as specified

in the First Notice

Proposed Opinion, which is incorporated by reference herein.

Subsequent to publication of

the proposed amendments,

the

Board received three Public Comments

(“PC”): PC #3 filed May 7,

1986,

by the Midwest Environmental Assistance Center;

PC #4 filed

May 12,

1986, by Commonwealth Edison; and PC *5 filed June 30,

1986,

by GM.

Based on

a review of the record, as augmented by these

public comments,

the Board herein adopts for second notice

amendments only

to Sections 900.103(b)

and 901.104.

The proposed

First Notice amendments which would have established an

alternative measurement procedure are not being adopted for

second notices publication for

the reasons expressed in detail

below.

RATIONALE FOR THE PROPOSED AMENDMENTS

When the Board originally promulgated regulations

in 1973 to

control noise pollution

(In The Matter Of: Noise Pollution

Control Regulations, R72—2,

8 PCB 653 and

8 PCB 703),

it did

so

under

the premise that community response constituted the

principal test against which a noise was

to

be

judged as

polluting

or non—polluting.

The Board believes today,

as

it did

in 1973, that community response

is indeed

the appropriate test.

Several factors are involved

in the level

of community

response

to

a given noise.

An obvious factor

is the loudness

of

the noise.

The Board gave recognition to this factor when it

established

the current regulations by promulgating the maximum

74-229

---

—2—

loudness

limits found at 35

ill.

Adm. Code 901.102 and 901.103;

these are unaltered under

the current proposed amendments.

A second factor

is the frequency of

sounds,

or pitch, with

certain frequencies having greater negative community response at

given loudness levels than others.

This factor

is also

recognized in

901.102 and 901.103 and remains unaltered under

the current proposed amendments.

It is also recognized in

restrictions on prominent discrete tones

(

901.106), which

likewise are not altered under the current proposal.

A third factor

is the duration

of the noise.

For example,

some noises have little negative community response even when the

noise

is moderately loud

if the noise occurs only rarely and for

short intervals.

Examples which have been cited are a dog bark,

a slammed car door,

and

a noon—hour factory whistle.

However,

the same noises may become highly objectionable

if repeated too

often.

Therefore, regulations based on community response should

correctly include provisions limiting the duration of noises.

Current Board noise regulations do recognize some aspects of

time—variation of

sounds.

These

include limitations on impulsive

sound

(

901.104),

including,

by separate amendments

in

1982 and

1983 respectively, special considerations for blasting noise

901.109);

and impact forging operations

(

901.105);

these

provisions remain unaltered under the current proposed

amendments.

However, current Board regulations fail

to give

consideration

to the general issue of fluctuating, time—variant

noises.

The reason is historical.

At the time of the 1973

rulemaking the state of acoustical

science and technology was

such that the ability to identify and quantify certain types of

noises

to accurately reflect community response, specifically

steady—state noises,

was generally agreed

upon.

This state of

conditions was reflected

in the standards as then recommended by

the American National Standards Institute,

Inc.

(“ANSI”)

for

noise control.

In promulgating its noise regulations,

the Board

relied upon ANSI and adopted

its then current recommendations,

and these remain the basis

of the Board’s current noise

regulations.

At that time the Board,

as did ANSI, also

recognized that the instrumentation had not yet been fully

developed and available

to properly reflect community response to

fluctuating noise.

However,

in ensuing years acoustical science and technology

has advanced

such that a new and more broadly encompassing method

of identifying and quantifying noise that better

reflects

community response has evolved.

Specifically, the ANSI

measurement procedure now reflects community response not only

for steady—state noise,

but also for fluctuating, time—variant

noise, after

correcting for ambient,

or background, noise.

It is

updating of the existing regulations to reflect this new

methodology which

is the principal

impetus for GM’s proposal and

74-230

---

—3—

the Board’s proposed amendments.

In so doing, the Board believes

that compliance expectations and enforcement are enhanced by

utilizing current ANSI

based methodology and instrumentation for

fluctuating noise.

THE LEQ MEASUREMENT

The major proposed amendment to existing regulations

consists

of identification of the Leg (as defined at

35 Ill. Adm.

Code 900.101), with a one—hour reference time, as the measurement

which shall be utilized to determine compliance with the sound

emission standards of Part 901*.

The rationale for this

amendment is the determination that Leg is the most comprehensive

measurement of community response

to noise because

it best

combines consideration

of both steady—state and time—variant

noise.

This determination was detailed

in the the First Notice

Proposed Opinion and Order,

p. 9—12,

and therefore will not be

repeated here.

It

is significant to note that the loudness standards

of

Part 901, including both broad spectrum noises and noise

of

limited frequency range, are not altered by the proposed

amendments.

Moreover, for steady—state noises, measurement via

either present procedures or Leq will produce the same results.

It is only for fluctuating noises that the Leg measurement

provides

a deviation from the present rule.

This is done by

giving weight to both loudness and duration of the noise,

commensurate with considerations of community response.

CIRCUMSTANCES AT GM’S DANVILLE FACILITY

It

is not disputed that the impetus,

in part, for GM having

acted

to propose amendments

to the Board’s noise regulations

stems from difficulties it has experienced

in complying with the

existing

regulations at its Danville, Illinois, facility.

GM

contends that it wishes to respond to these difficulties.

However,

it also contends that,

given the fluctuating character

of its noise,

it does not know how to comply with regulations

where compliance is measured as

if the noise were steady—state.

GM further allows that promulgation of the proposed rule would

not necessarily bring facilities,

its own or others,

into

compliance.

Rather, GM believes that the proposed rule would

allow investment, where needed,

in control measures which would

assure compliance.

GM,

in essence, has asserted that its problem

is not due

to

its own special

site specific circumstances,

but,

rather,

is due

to a flow

in the regulation itself.

GM is asserting that all

emitters

of fluctuating noise are similarly situated,

in that the

*

An exception

is made for the sound emission standards of

901.109 due

to the special characteristics of noises considered

there.

74.231

---

—4—

current Board regulations do not articulate the community

response related methodology for determining compliance.

CHANGES FROM THE FIRST NOTICE PROPOSAL

In its First Notice Opinion, the Board specifically

requested comments on the alternative justification procedure

embodied in proposed Sections 900.101, 900.l03(b)(2) and

901.130.

GM responded at length.

The Board

is persuaded, based

on GM’s response and its own further

reflection,

to remove the

alternative justification procedure from the proposed rule.

The proposed procedure reflected the Board’s concern as to

whether there might be value

in creating a separate procedural

mechanism,

utilizing the adjusted standard mechanism embodied

in

Section 28.1 of the Act.

The mechanism was potentially useful

for possible special noise situations,

where

a person might wish

to show that a different measurement procedure better correlates

to human response, notwithstanding the ANSI approach

of

correlating sound emission to community response.

GM asserted that the alternative measurement procedure may

have hidden pitfalls.

It pointed out that any procedure should

reflect community response;

to do otherwise is “likely to do what

the single—exceedence rule now does: measure emissions for

compliance with an arbitrary standard not based on community

response”.

(P.C.

#5,

p.

10)

GM pointed out that a correlation with human response will

always be inferior to the collective human testimony which forms

the basis

of community response, which in turn the Leg measures

numerically.

GM further asked the question: “in the presence of

a one—hour Leg, what will Rule 901.130

the

alternative

procedure

do for citizens that cannot be achieved in a nuisance

case under Rule 900.102?” (P.C.

#5,

p.

10)

The Board acknowledges that utilizing “human response” would

impart an inconsistent overlay on the Board’s regulations,

regulations which have always defined compliance

in terms of

community response.

And,

if the Board were to change

the

alternate demonstration so as to be based on community response,

rather than human response, there would be an even greater

question as to whether the procedure is a useful tool.

Leg is

the generally accepted best measurement of community response at

present.

If future developments and/or circumstances change this

situation, such a change would require

a full rulemaking

proceeding, since the change would be of general applicability.

On reflection,

the Board believes that the procedure would

not be a useful

tool, especially as measured against the Board’s

existing procedural mechanisms already available to any person

seeking a remedy,

e.g.

by way of an enforcement action

(based on

nuisance or otherwise),

a regulatory amendment, or a variance.

74-232

---

—5—

Therefore,

the Board has deleted the proposed First Notice

language in Sections 900.101, 900.103(b)(2), and 901.130.

ECONOMIC CONSIDERATIONS

Two economically—based arguments

in opposition to the

proposed amendments have been reasserted

in the public

comments.

These relate

to the cost of replacing and/or adapting

existing noise meters such that these can measure Leg, and added

manpower needed to make noise measurements.

The noise meters presently owned by the Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency (“Agency”), and presumably at

least some of those owned by other entities who measure noise,

are not equipped to measure Leg.

Some confusion has existed

throughout the record in this matter as to the costs which would

be involved

in adapting these meters to Leg measurement.

The

latest estimate

is that the cost per meter would be approximately

$610

(PC 45, p.

14).

The Board does not believe that this cost

is prohibitive.

Moreover,

as existing meters require

replacement,

they would be expected

to be replaced by Leg—capable

meters anyway since these are the current standard of the

industry.

The Board also notes that the updated meters need be

used only for enforcement, not for routine assessment.

The gathering of one—hour Leq data suitable for enforcement

actions will,

under some circumstances, require longer

measurement times than required under

the present rule.

Thus,

manpower needs will be larger.

However, the Board believes that

this

is

a small price

to pay relative to the gains to be made

with respect to strengthening the noise regulations both as to

enforceability and compliance expectations.

ORDER

The Board directs that second notice of the following

proposed rule be submitted to the Joint Committee on

Administrative Rules:

Title

35:

Environmental Protection

Subtitle H:

Noise

Chapter

I:

Pollution Control Board

Section 900.103

Measurement Procedures

(a)

No change

(b)

Procedures Applicable Only to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 901

All measurements and all Urneasurement procedures to

determine whether emissions of sound comply with 35 Ill.

Adm. Code 901 shall be in substantial conformity with

ANSI S1.6—1967,

ANSI

Sl.4—l97l

——

Type

I Precision, ANSI

Sl.1l—1966 and ANSI Sl.13—197l

Field Method~,and shall,

74-233

---

—6—

with the exception of measurements to determine whether

emissions of sound comply with 35 Ill. Adm. Code

901.109,

be based on Leg averaging,

as defined

in

35

i~1l. Adm.

Code 900.101, using

a reference time of one

hour.

All such measurements and measurement procedures

shall correct or provide for the correction of such

emissions for the presence of ambient noise as defined

in ANSI Sl.13—l97l.

(c—e)

No change

Section 901.104

IMPULSIVE

SOUND

Except as elsewhere

in this Part provided, no person shall

cause or allow the emission of impulsive sound from any

property—line—noise—source located on any Class A,

B,

or C

land to any receiving Class A or B land which exceeds the

allowable A—weighted

sound levels7 ~

wt~i~

~

~m~e

e~ae~e~i~e7specified

in the following table when

measured at any point within such receiving Class A or

B

land, provided, however,

that no measurement of sound levels

shall

be made less than 25 feet such from property—line—

noise—source.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

3.

D. Dumelle and B.

Forcade dissented.

I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk

of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, hereby certify that the above Opinion and Order was

adopted on the

~T~-

day

of

/~c~4t-&,-’

,

1986 by

a vote

of

~

/~

Dorothy M. Gpnn,

Cler’k

Illinois Pollution Control Board