ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

January

8,

1987

CITIZENS OF BURBANK,

Complainants,

v.

)

PCB 84—124

OVERNITE TRUCKING,

Respondents.

INTERIM ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by

B. Forcade):

On August 1,

1985,

the Board entered an Interim Opinion and

Order

in this matter which found that Overnite Transportation

Company (“Overnite”) had violated 35 Ill. Adm. Code 900.102 and

201.141,

as well

as Section 24 and 9 of the Illinois

Environmental Protection Act (“Act”).

That Opinion and Order

found unreasonable noise emissions and unreasonable odor

emissions

from Overnite’s facility and found that those emissions

constituted

a

substantial

interference

with

enjoyment

of

life

for

complainants.

After

making

this

finding

of

a

noise

and

odor

public nuisance violation, the Board retained jurisdiction and

ordered Overnite to prepare and submit a report on the methods,

cost and timing of pollution reduction options.

Overnite filed

reports on June 16,

1986, and July 3,

1986.

Citizens of Burbank

(“Citizens”)

filed collective comments regarding the report on

July 28,

1986.

On January 7,

1987, Overnite filed a response to

the complainant’s comments.

By today’s Interim Order,

the Board

will command implementation of several pollution reduction

concepts identified

in the report.

The Board will also require

monitoring after

those improvements are made and will retain

jurisdiction

pending

receipt

of

a

final

report

demonstrating

completion

of

the

required

activities.

NOISE

The Board’s August

1,

1985, findings of noise emission

violations were based on a public nuisance legal theory applied

to

the

citizen testimony

in this proceeding.

Subsequent to that

finding, Overnite retained ETA, Incorporated

to evaluate the

noise and odor problem (“Noise and Odor Analysis for Overnite

Transportation Company, filed June 16, 1986,

hereinafter Report

No.

1)

and to investigate mitigation measures (“Addendum Number

1

to

Noise

Level

and

Odor

Analysis

for

Overnite

Transportation

Company,

filed July 3,

1986, hereinafter Report No.

2).

Report

No.

I included results of a survey of area residents and included

results

of

noise

monitoring

in

the

affected

area.

The

residen-

tial survey identified the yard horses, trucks at the pump area,

74-344

---

—2—

truck repairs and noise by workers as the predominant sources.

The primary time for noise complaints was from 10:00 p.m. until

early morning.

The noise monitoring portions of Report No.

1

evaluated noise impacts at four locations along the southern

perimeter of Overriite,

at various times.

In evaluating the

monitoring results, ETA concluded (Report No.

1,

p.

10):

“Examination

of

these

figures

shows

that

the

allowable

night noise

levels

are

exceeded

at

most frequencies.

The majority of the daytime

events

only

exceed

the

allowable

levels

for

certain frequencies.

The degree of exceedance

is

considerably

less

than

for

the night con-

dition.

Events

recorded

during

north

winds

showed slightly higher noise levels than those

recorded

with

south

winds.

Monitoring loca-

tions

at

a

further

distance

from

Overnite

produced

lower

sound

levels;

although

peak

values in excess of the allowable levels were

recorded at all locations.”

Report No.

2 described two technologically feasible and

effective methods for reducing noise levels.

The first is to

permanently reduce the maximum

RPM

of the yard tractor,

presumably by some form of mechanical alteration to the engine.

The second method

is to construct a twelve foot tall solid wall

across the southern perimeter

of the property and the southern

400 feet of the east property line.

ETA estimated that

implementation of these measures could result

in a 10 dB(A)

reduction in noise (which represents a 90

reduction

in energy

and approximately a 50

reduction in perceived noise).

The Board

believes that the approach outlined represents a viable approach

to minimize noise impacts

in the affected area.

The Board cannot

determine,

on the record presented by ETA, that these measures

will be sufficient

to reduce noise impacts to levels below

“unreasonable interference.”

The Board will order that the

RPM

reduction and the twelve

foot tall noise barrier options be implemented.

Because the ETA

reports do not specify the amount of RPM reduction or the design

materials for the noise barriers, these matters will be left to

Overnite’s discretion.

Instead of specifying the noise reduction

modifications in detail,

the Board will require Overnite to

conduct post—modification noise monitoring.

This monitoring

should be conducted

in a manner that will allow comparison with

the pre—modification testing done by ETA and allow estimates of

the noise reduction achieved by the modifications.

The Board

will also set

a June 1,

1987, deadline for completion of the

modifications.

74-345

---

—3—

The Board notes some discrepancy between Overnite’s January

7,

1987,

comments and the ETA reports concerning site

geography.

The ETA reports urge

a 400—foot wall along the east

property line and describe that property line as adjoining

a

flood basin used for storm water retention.

The Overnite

comments of January 7,

1987, urge the Board

to allow engineering

discretion

in determining the length of the wall along the west

fenceline which abuts the vacant land used for stormwater

retention.

The Board is unable to determine whether the

perimeter subject to fencing

is east or west of the facility.

ODORS

The Board’s August 1,

1985, findings of odor emission

violations were based on a public nuisance legal theory that was

supported by the citizen testimony in this proceeding.

In ETA’s

Report No.

1, the residents survey identified the odor as “oily

and smokey” and “a heavy diesel smell.”

ETA personnel detected

noticeable diesel odors on one occasion during on—site

monitoring.

Because of the difficulties

in ascribing numerical

values or analytical testing

to odors, ETA chose to evaluate a

surrogate,

hydrocarbons.

ETA modelled hydrocarbon levels at several receptors sited

to represent the residential area directly south of the facility

under worst case meteorology.

This effort utilized the USEPA

Intergrated Puff dispersion model with assumptions about

Overnite’s operations and emissions data from the standard 13—

mode federal diesel emission cycle testing conducted in 1979.

Using this approach, ETA was able to estimate the reduction in

ambient hydrocarbon concentrations that could be achieved by

changes

in Overnite’s operational procedures.

Under current

operating practices,

idling trucks awaiting fuel line—up at the

fuel bay (the lines may be 100

to 200

feet long).

Also,

drivers

will start their trucks and then return to the office to secure

paperwork and delivery instructions

(this may result in 12 to 24

trucks idling at one time).

When the maximum ambient

concentrations calculated with these operational practices were

compared with maximum calculated concentrations using different

operational practices,

the reductions were significant

(Report

No.

1, pp.

19,

21):

74.346

---

—4—

M~thunc~trati~

c~a1x~flata3

fran

cj~erath~E

at cX’er~itEThx~kirg

(ge)

100’ reftElirg*

a)0’ reft~.lirg~ 6 tr~x~s 12 tnx~ 24 tr~x~

q.~e

q~

at idle

at

idle

at idle

Orrait

45

77

45

74

Af~

c~ratia~1

OaT~s

II

23

~e:

AU reftz?lir~g

~

frdhr~

BTfl5

~E

frantiu~idlirg inref~th~

t~.

The operational changes involve reducing or eliminating the

current practice

of having trucks await refueling immediately

adjacent to the fuel bay on the south end of the property.

Instead,

trucks would line up for fueling north of the main

terminal and only move south

to the fuel bay when it was free.

The second operational change would be to provide drivers all

relevant paperwork and instructions for daily activities prior to

allowing access to the trucks for start—up.

This would,

in

theory,

reduce

the start—up time and

reduce the number of trucks

at idle to no more than six at one time.

The Board believes the operational changes described have

the potential

to reduce odor emissions below the level of

“unreasonable interference” and will order

their implementa-

tion.

Because the operational changes appear capable of rapid

implementation,

the Board will set a deadline of 30 days from the

date of this Order.

Today’s Order will also require that Overnight prepare a

final report after completion of the modifications to minimize

noise and operational changes to minimize odor.

This report must

list the actual modifications made, type of material employed,

and date of completion.

After modifications are completed,

Overnight must monitor noise levels in the area in a manner that

will allow the final report to compare post—modification noise

levels with the results obtained

in Report No.

1.

This report

must be served on the parties and filed with the Board within 90

days of completion of

the modifications.

Unless the Complainants

request

a hearing to present evidence that the modifications and

changes did not reduce noise and odor to reasonable levels,

the

Board will proceed to close this docket.

Any such request must

be made within

30 days after

the final report

is served on

Complainants.

74.347

---

—5--

To summarize today’s Order, Overnight

is required:

1.

To adopt operational changes, not later than February

8,

1987,

that prohibit more than one truck awaiting fuel south

of the north edge of the terminal building and that prohibit

drivers from starting trucks in the morning prior

to

receiving

all schedules and paperwork.

2.

To

implement modifications, not later than June

1,

1987,

which:

a)

permanently reduce maximum yard tractor RPM; and

b)

construct a twelve

foot tall solid noise barrier along

the southern perimeter of the facility and

so much of

the eastern or western perimeter as is necessary to

reduce noise emissions

to compliant levels.

3.

Prepare

a final report within

90 days of the completion of

items No.

1 and No.

2,

but

in no event

later

than September

1, 1987, which explains the changes made and attempts

to

quantify the noise reductions achieved.

This report shall

be

served on complainants and filed with the Board.

4.

The

Board

retains

jurisdiction

in

this

matter

pending

final

disposition.

IT

IS

SO

ORDERED.

I,

Dorothy

M.

Gunn,

Clerk

of

the

Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board, hereby certify tha

the above Interim Order was adopted n

the

~

day

of

____________________,

1987, by a vote

Dorothy

M.

Gu?n,

Clerk

Illinois

Poll1ution

Control

Board