ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL

BOARD

November

7,

1985

IN THE

MATTER

OF:

)

)

GENERAL

MOTORS

CORP.

)

PROPOSED

AMENDMENTS

)

R83—7

TO

35

ILL.

ADM.

CODE

)

900.103

AND

901.104

)

PROPOSED RULE.

FIRST NOTICE.

PROPOSED OPINION

AND

ORDER OF

THE

BOARD (by

7. Anderson):

!rocec3ural

History

This

matter

comes

before

the

Board

on

the

p&tition

for

change

of

the Board’s noise regulations, filed by General Motors

Corporation

(GM)

February

24,

1983

as

amended

April

13,

1984.

In

summary, GM proposes amendments to 35

Ill.

Mm.

Code

900.103(b)

‘Measurement Procedures’ applicable to Part 901 to require use of

one hour

Leg

averaging in determining compliance with the

regulations (except for blasting noise), as well as correction of

measurements for ambient noise,

and

amendment to 35 Ill. Mm.

Code 901.104 ‘Impulsive Sound’ by deletion of the required

measurement by ‘fast dynamic characteristic’

in conformance with

the proposed amendment to Section 900.103(b).*

GM’s assertion is

that these amendments are necessary to insure correct

implementation of the Board’s intention in adopting the original

noise regulations that sound measurements used to assess

compliance be ‘in substantial conformity with standards

established by the American National Standards Institute, Inc.

(ANSI)’,

See

R72—2, In The Matter Of: Noise Pollution Control

Re ulations, Order of July 23, 1973, Opinion of July

31,

1471, p.

Merit hearings were held on this proposal on June

22,

and

November 22—23, 1983, at which some economic data were

presented.

No separate economic impact hearings have been held,

given the determination of the Department of Energy and Natural

Resources (DENR) that:

*This Opinion refers to the rules as renumbered upon

codification; the record in part refers to the old rule

numbers.

The initial proposal referred to the applicable rules

prior

to codification, then numbered as Rules 103 and 206 of the

Chapter 8: Noise Regulations.

Prior to codification, Rule 206

‘Impulsive Sound’ was renumbered to Rule 205 in R76—l4, and upon

codification was renumbered to Section 901.104.

Old Rule 103 was

codified as 901.103.

66.355

---

“While

it

may

be

possible

to quantify some

of

the

costs

and

benefits

of R83~7, such

a study would be

costly

and

would

probably

not

contribute

much

beyond

what

has

already

been

entered

into

the

record.

Therefore,

the

following

criterion

specified

in Section

IV(d)

of PA 83~468 applies

in

this matter:

The

cost

of

making

a

formal

study

is

economically unreasonable

in

relation

to

the

value of

the study to

the Board in determining

the

adverse

economic

impact

of

the

reg u .1at ion.

(DENR Letter

of l2~23~83;see also DENR Letter

of 3—12—

84,)

Post—hearing comments were filed

by GM on April

13 and June

15,

1984,

and

by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

(Agency)

on May

3,

1984.

GM,

the Agency,

and DENR were

the only

active participants

in this proceeding.

Testimony on GM’s behalf

was presented by Richard

R. James,

former Vice President of Total

Environmental Systems,

Inc.

(TES),

a noise consulting

firm; James

H.

Pyne, GM Staff Engineer

in Plant Engineering

and Development,

Advanced Product and Manufacturing Staff, who

is

responsible for

overseeing and directing GM~sNoise Control Program;

Roy

F.

Larson,

Environmental Coordinator at the GM Central Foundry

in

Danville; and hoodford Van Tifflin, Supervisor

of Engineering

in

Plant Engineering Programs, GM Central Office.

Limited

testimony

in response

to Board questions was given on behalf of

the agency

by Major Hearn,Jr.

F actu~

GM~sIllinois operations

include

a gray

iron

foundry

located

partially

in Danville and partially in Tilton,

a

Fisher

Body

plant

in Willow Springs which fabricates

and assembles automobile

bodies,

and two Electro—Motive plants:

Plant #1

in La Grange,

which fabricates

and assembles diesel—electric

powered

railroad

locomotives, power generating units

for petroleum drilling rigs,

and diesel

power sources

for various applications, and Plant #2

in Chicago,

which primarily fabricates and welds primary engine

and

electric motor components.

Data from noise surveys at

the

Danville plant were those primarily used

to exemplify GM’s

concerns with

the wording and implementation of

the existing

rules,

although some data from the other plants was also

discussed.

The Agency began an investigation of noise emissions

at GM’s

Danville facility in 1978,

as

a result of

a complaint in

February,

1978

from a Tilton resident, Mr. Wayne

H.

Powers,

who

complained of a Nhigh pitch

tone sounding

like very large

electric motors~

As

a follow—up to

the complaint

the Agency

---

contacted

eight

other

residents,

5

of

whom

shared Mr.

Powers’

complaint.

See Agency

Comments

of 5~3~84,p~6

and Attach.

3—4.

The record of Agency monitoring activities

at Danville shows

that there were

at

least

seven

field

trips

to acquire data.

Measurements were taken pursuant to

the

criteria

adopted

by

the

Agency pursuant

to

Section

900~l03(h)

on

February

8,

1980

(Exh.

C).

The

first trip

was

on

May

17,

:1978,

and

the most recent was

on

January

29~ 1981.

Exhibit

“2”

summarizes

the

first

six

trips,

which

covers

eight

tests~

The

ninth

test

~as

on

January

29,

1981.

Exhibit

“2”

shows

each

of

the

tost

dates,

the

time

spent

by

the

Agency

r~rif

on

sits

the

type

of

analyzer

used,

the

total

sample

length

~i~rriod

of

observation),

range

of

levels

(or

•taverag&I

lev?.

1;

in

the

160

Hz

1/3

octave

band,

and

the

delta

(or

range

of

delta:;

used

to

define

the

presence

of

a

prominent

discrete

tone~

The

January

29,

1981,

test

was

conducted

between

the hours of l.~30a.m~and 1:30 p.m.

Visual

observations

of

levels were

ma2~with

a

13&N

2209

SLM

and

1/3

octave filter

set.

The

data

was

airo

tape

recorded

for

subsequent

analysis.

This

analysis

consised

of

3

sample

periods

covering

116

seconds

of

data

from

the

B&K

2131,

which was set to

an

averaging

time

of

one

second.

The range

of

levels

in

the

160

Hz

1/3

octave

band

was

62

to 66 dB, with

the

deltas

ranging from 7

to

14

dB.

Data

collection

and

analysis

followed

one

of

two methods.

Exhibit

“L”

shows

the

method

used

by

the

Agency

for

each

test,

by

referring

to

“Filter

and

5Th

(Fast

or

Siow),~’

or

“Taped

B&K

2131.”

The

first

method

involved

visual

reading

of

the sound

level

in

each

1/3 octave band directly

from

the

readout meter

of

the

B&K

2209

sound

level

meter,

eouipped

with

a

B&K

1616

1/3

octave

band

filter

sets

No

record

was

provided

of

the

period

of

observation

or

methodology

used

to

determine

the

reported

levels.

The

second

method

involved

tape

recording

the

community

noise

at

the

test

sites~

This

recording

was

subsequently

analyzed

at

an Agency laboratory.

The

typical

analysis

procedure,

as

described

on

page

5

of

the

Agency~s Noise

Survey

Report.,

is

shown

in

Exhibit

“M.”

It

documents

the

Aqency

s

data

collection

and

analysis

procedures

~or

the

testing

conducted

on

July

19,

1979,

as

follows:

“The

data

was

accumulated

using

the

Nagra

IV—

SJ

taperecorder

and

magnetic

tape

at

7.5

inches

ocr

second

tape

speed

on

fast

channel

#1.

The

data

was

analyzed

by

playback

of

the

magnetic

tape

on

the

same

recorder

(Nagra IV—

SJ)

at

the

same

speed

(7~5 ips)

into

the Bruel

and

Kjaer

model

2:1,31

Digital

Frequency

third—

octave

analyzers

The

2131

supplies

the

information

to

tbe

Hewlett

Packard

9825A

calculator.

The

calculator

has

been

programmed

to

accept

the

information

and

apply

all

co~section

lactor.~

except:

those

necessary

due

hr

ambient

522

a

and

~rint

rhe

corrected

---

data

:

3

o taves

and

summed

octave

bands.

The

HP

id

‘P

or~ntouts are

included

in

this

report

3~ve.a1 averaging

times were used on

the

noice

sour’e

The

important fact is that

over

a

2

second

averaging

time

the prominent

discrete

tore

is

still

present.

Thereby

indica~ing,

tha

pure

tone can be characterized

as cor~~~r~lypresent.”

Two differc~t avrLaging times were used.

Three

sets of data

samples were ead

averaced

for one second,

and one set of data

was averaged

r2

~co

d

period.

The

32—second sample was

in

compliance

x

Loth

Rules

202

and

207.

The physi

o cc

environment

is

complex.

In

addition

to

noise producec

P

I~ere

are noise emissions

from

motor

vehicles

on

I~

ich

at

that

point

has

a

major

on—off ramp and

is elevated

on

1:

h berm

as well as

in—town traffic,

and noise

emissions

from

ra

ad

lines

and one switchyard

located

to

the

east

and

so

I

The source of

mm.

Iiç,I

pitch

tone” was determined

to

be

the

cupola fume

control

‘vstems at stacks

1,

2

&

3.

The schematic.

provided as Exhibit ~

shows

the 2000

HP fan which

draws cupola

emissions

through

the

scrubbers,

The

fundamental

tone of this

~an is related

to

the fan

RPM

and

the number of

fan

blades.

For

this

fan,

which

is

used

on

all

three stacks,

this tone

is

at 158

Hz.

In response to dscmsions with the Agency

in

1978,

GM

installed on an expe:

i

r

a

basis

a corrosion—resistant

Industrial

Acou.

ic

ai

cncer

in

the

No,

2

cupola.

This

did

not

correct

the

vio

atio~

noted

by the Agency and

completely

disintegrated

in

c

a

act

within

14

months

after

installation.

Testimony

of N.

‘a

~fl

r,

p..

6,

and

Exh.

E.

According to the

Agency,

(comments

~

“several”,

unspecified

operational

changes

were

also

n

‘ceasfully

implemented.

On

May

23,

1980,

the

Agency

issued

a

~Notice

of

Enforcement”

(Exh.

E)

alleging

violations

of

Then

:1cc

01, 202,

and

207

concerning

noise

nuisance,

emissi

n

or

~o

nds

from

Class

C

to

Class

A

land,

and

?rominent

discre

r.

r

ca

No

enforcement

action

has

ever

been

brought

before

the

B

ard~

This

does

not

reflect

Agency

judgment

that

any

problem

has

been

solved,

but

instead

reflects

the

severe

cutback

in

the

Agency

a

Noise

Control Staff

which

is

the

result

of

the

demise

of

ne

lederal

Noise Program and

its

funding

for

state

enforcement efforts,

See Agency Comments,

p.

13—19.

The

Agency

has

“pressed”

for

installation

by GM of

stack silencers

(Id.

p.

7),

GM has investigated tais option, and believes that stainless

steel

silencers

prdiced

by

TLT

Babcock are the

most

feasible

option.

Capital

inaThilation

and

mairtenance

costs will

require

an

expenditu..m~’

or

year

in

1~83)

for every year

in

which GM conti:

o

operatc,

due

to

the

need

to replace

the

---

5—

silencers

every

L..:

~ years due

to

corrosion.

The silencers are

designed

to hypo

~rThcally

achieve

a

24 dB

reduction

at

the

cupola.

Based

oi

extension

measurements

in Mr.

Power’s

yard

(described

in

more detail

below), GM asserts

that

the

effective

reduction

of

noise to that

receiving source

is

4

dB,

due

to

the

masking

of

the

scur.d from

the cupola

by

ambient,

non-GM

noise

sources.

GM

fur’ier

ôsserts that

installation

of such equipment

to achieve

compllrrce with the numerical limits

Part

901

(as

opposed

to the

nctse

~u±sance of

Section 900.102)

is

economim.ally

unreasonable,

basea on its

belief

that

the

Agency’s

noise

measurement

and

lysls procedures do not

correctly

measure

noise

emissions

-

:

ntended by the Board

in

adopting

the

noise

regulations.

5~

~erera1ly, testimony of N,

Van

Tifflin.

GM notes

th

based

on sound measurements

in

1981

at

its

two E1ectromot~1v ~c

its Fisher Body plant, by using

the Agency

measurement

tech:

~..

~ras employed at

the

Danville

plant,

that

a

measurer

could

ii

io~atxor~sof the

Board’

prominent

discrete

and

impulsive

so’

‘

s~

GM does not seek site

specific

relief

for each of

its

r

Ian

,

believing that

non-ANSI

complying

flaws

in the med

r

a~~ect not only GM, but the rest of the

regulated communi...

well,

GM’s basic position,

then,

is that

as

a

“good

corporate (itiZen”

the responsible

position for

it

to

take is

to

correct

a

generally applicable flaws

it

perceives,

rather

than

to

ast”n

only

its specific

“compliance”

problems.

GM ‘s

As ser tedFlaw’

‘:

~

ANSI Sl.l3-19

I

(Exhibit

D) requires

that

the measuring

technician

measure

und

over

a

sufficient

period

of observation

to obtain a

statis

a

~y

~epresentative

sound

level;

it does not

specify

the

lengt.:

the ooservation period.

It also requires

corrections

for

av’~r~.I

sounds

which

are

measured

along

with

the

source

in

quest

io

ANSI

Sl.13 F

I ~rovides methods for

determining

the

true

root

mean

square

~

~alues

of

the

sound

level

for

a

specified

period of

observe’:.

I’he

rms

sound pressure

level

is

also

known

as

the

“log

a

a

ape

sound pressure level,”

“equivalent

continuous

sound

rre~ure level,” and

“Leq”

when referring

to

the

equivalent

contin o~

und level,

For reasonably

steady sounds

this value

is ind:m~e1 oy the position of the

meter needle or

digital

readout

\aiue

ot

the

sound level meter.

When

fluctuations

in nhe meLd

readout due to variations in the

sound’s

amplitude

re~A,ude

direct readout,

ANSI S1.13 provides

procedures

for

estimating the

true rms value

that.

work well,

when

the variation

in

sic

sound

level

over the

period

of

observation

is reasonably stable and

sinusoidal,

ANSI’s

formula

for

averaging

indepencte:.

ad

‘iples

is:

/

N

(F/lU)

L

10

~‘

2

10

~

dBj

Eq.

1

---

—6—

Where:

N

=

total

number of observations

the level at each

observations,

ANSI

Sl.13

recommends

that if the time

scale of the

fluctuations

is

such

as

to

make

this

procedure

impractical, other

techniques,

such

as

direct

computation

of

the

rms

value by analog

or digital

means, are required.

The digital

method

utilizes

an

algorithm

conceptually

similar to the above formula,

GM asserts

that the Agency’s

measurement

procedures, adopted

February

8,

1980,

under

Rule

103(a)

Exhibit

“C”,

follow ANSI

Sl.13 very

closely, often

paraphrasing

whole

sections of

the

standard

--

except

at

one

very

important

point.

The Agency

modified

Equation

I

to

make

the input values

for

L.

the maximum

levels observed,

not

the

statistically

independent

samples

intended

by

ANSI,

This

means

that value

“L”

is

no longer the

true

mean

rms

level,

Now ~L” is instead the

log

avera,ge

of the

maximum values,

It

will

thus

always

be

greater

than the rms

value desired,

with

the

discrepancy

increasing

as the magnitude

of the

fluctuations

increase

and

as

the

pattern

of

the variation

in level

deviates

from sinusoidal,

GM further

asserts

that there was also

a discrepancy

in

Agency laboratory

procedures.

This

deviation

occurs

in the HP

9825A computer

program,

where

the

sample

output

levels

from

the

B&K 2131

are

averaged

and

printed

out.

This

deviation

occurs

because the HP

9825A

computer

program

is

written

to

arithmeticall

avera

e the levels,

Thus, equation

1 was changed

to yea

,

or

t

e

Agency’s measurements

at

Danville, to

the

following:

(N

L

=

TT

~

i~~l ‘~i

Eq.

2

Where:

N

total

number of samples

=

the level of

the

sample

output from the B&K

2131.

This

equation is not in agreement

with either

the published

Agency

measurement procedures

of February

8, 1980, or the ANSI

Sl.13-l97l

methods

for determining the true rms

sound pressure

level.

~M/TES FINDINGS

AT DANVILLE

A

comprehensive study of the impact of the

Danville plant’s

noise

emissions on the Tilton community environment

was conducted

jointly by

General Motors’

and TES personnel.

Data

were

collected

jointly

by

GM

representatives

and

analyzed by TES.

The

last completed

test

sequence

documented

noise

levels

over a 24

hour period,

at

the primary test site that was

also used by the

Agency

-

Mr.

Power’s yard.

664360

---

Exhibit

~N”

presents

the

results

of

the

1980 Power’s yard

tests as

1og-~mean-~averagesound pressure levels1 plus

or minus

one standard

deviation.

The

data

representing

each cupola’s

noise

emissions

has been separated

into

two

tables.

The upper

table

shows

the cupola noise emissions

in

conjunction

with

traffic and

railroad activities.

The lower

table

shows

the

average levels

in

each

1/3 octave band from

the

data

analysis

conducted

to

separate

the

plant

noise

from

other

ambient noise

sources.

This table presents the levels

in the

bands

adjacent

to

the cupola

noise out of context of

the ambient

environment.

however,

this

is

a

necessary step in defining the

1/3 octave band

containing

cupola noise components,

to judge

the

effect of noise

control

changes~

A

method similar

to that used

by the Agency was

used

in

analysis, although the GM/TES averaging

was done

logarithmically,

typically over periods of

16

seconds or more,

and was not

lip4ted to only the maximum levels

observed.

Nhen

GM/mS

sampled

for the “with—ambient”

condition,

they

typically

averaged uninterrupted periods of 3.4

minutes

or

6.8’

minutes.

Mr~James

used an

‘ear and eye’

judgment

to select

single

samples to make up

a

composite,

“without—ambient—noise”

period.

This was done by sampling when he both

heard

the tone

and could

see that the 158 Hz spike was not

affected by other

noise components

in the

160

Hz 1/3 octave band.

These tables

represent

the average of all the 1980 data

(representing normal

operations)

that they have analyzed from TES test

site tapes

at

Power’s yard.

There

are

significant differences between

Exhibit N values

and those

documented by the Agency.

The

1981 data

is the most comprehensive of

all,

This test

involved

8—1/2 hours of tape-recorded data,

taken beginning

the

evening

of

June

30, 1981, and ending approximately

24 hours

later,

late

in the afternoon of July

1,

1981.

The

taping

sessions

were usually 1—1/2 to

3 hours

long,

and

were

timed

so

as

to record

significant operating periods.

Taped

data included

samples from

early evening,

late night through

to shut down after

midnight,

early morning start—up, midday,

and late

afternoon.

These

tapes

were analyzed

to determine the 15—minute

equivalent

continuous

sound

pressure

levels

in

the

frequency

bands

of

interest.

Environmental

conditions during data

acquisition

placed the

test site

downwind

of

the

plant.

This condition

favors

propagation

of plant sounds

toward

the

test

site,

GM asserts

that the importance of

the results

of this test

period

is

in

the

observed

short—term

variations

in

the

community

sounds

and

the acceptable degree of contribution from the foundry

cupolas when

evaluated over

a longer period

of observation.

The

level of

the 160Hz

1/3 octave band varies from

a

low

of

55 dB

at

4:15 p.m.

on

duly

1,

to

a

high

of

69

dB

at

11:30

p.m.

on June

30.

Corresponding

differences

show

up

in

the

values

of the delta

---

—8—

used

to

judge

prominence

of

the fan

tone

at

158

Hz.

This

variation

over

a day makes

it extremely unlikely that levels

resulting

from analysis of the short—term sampling

times,

of

one

second

to

15 seconds,

as used by the Agency,

bear any

relationship

to

the equivalent continuous sound pressure

level

over a longer

and

more

reasonable

period

of

observation.

Using

the 8—1/2 hours

of test data,

for the periods

of

the

day

and

night when the plant was operating,

we see average daily noise

levels of

63

dB

for

the

160Hz

1/3 octave

band,

66 dB

for

the

125

Hz

octave

band,

and a delta

of

7.5

for

the

160

Hz

1/3

octave

band

containing

the

fan

tone,

GM

asserts

that

the

plant’s

sound

emissions

clear),.y comply with Rule 207, based

upon

a

“reasonable”

period of

observation as permitted by ANSI,

GM’s

position,

then,

is that the Agency’s

tests of

foundry

and other

community noises

in Tilton produced

skewed data.

The

data samples

were too short

to accurately evaluate

whether

the

plant’s sound

levels violate Part 901,

and that the

misleading

nature

of

the data was then compounded by the

Agency’s inaccurate

version of

the

ANSI

formula

for

determining

equivalent

continuous

(or rms) sound

Prossure

levels.

~0NS

USEPA NOISE STUDIES_AND

THE_PROPOSAL

~E-H0URLe

AVERAGING

On July 26,

1973,

the Board adopted Former

Chapter

8

of the

Illinois

Pollution

Control Board Rules and

Regulations,

Illinois’

first

comprehensive

noise pollution control

regulations.

In

its

July

31, 1973

Opinion

in

support

of

the

noise regulations,

the

Board

described

the

regulations

as

“designed

to

protect

people

in

the State

from the unreasonable exposure

to

environmental noise

burdens,”

Opinion

of

the

Board, R72—2

at

20

(July

31,

1973).

The

entire

record

in

R72—2

reflects

a concern

for

establishing

maximum

noise

levels

based

upon

anticipated

community

response

(“a regulation

should be based on the

likelihood

of compliant”),

as

well

as

a

concern that the standards

adopted

be economically

and technically

feasible,

See Opinion

R72—2,

at

35—39

(extensive

analysis of

technical feasibility and economic

reasonableness

of

proposed

regulations),

The

limits presently contained

in Part

901 were established

following

an examination and analysis

of community

noise

annoyance.

In addition to the protection afforded

to the general

public by

Part 901, Part 900 accommodated the

specific individual

by entitling

that person

to bring

a

complaint,

under Section

900.102,

that

a

particular

noise

source

is

emitting sound

“so as

to cause

noise

pollution

in

Illinois,,..”

Specific

measurement procedures

were

not

established by the

Board

in

R72—2,

In explaining

the measurement

procedure

established

in Rule 103,

the Board stated:

---

“This

rule

establishes

the basic techniques

to

be

used

in measur:Lng

sound

levels

by

reference

to

specific published standards

such

as

those

of

the

American

National

Standards

Institute,

Inc.

(ANSI).

Much

testimony

appears

in

the

record,

mainly from

industry,

urging

that

the

techniques

be

specified

in more

detail

as

part

of

the

regulation~

This

was

felt

to

be

impractical

given

the

uniqueness

of

each

measuring

location

in

the

state

and

the

periodic

development

of

new

and

more

advanced

tech arunes.

F ii ing

the

techniques

with

the

Secretary

of

State

helore

applying

them

should

give

aufficient

notice

of

their

nature

and

provisions

to

interested

persons.

Application

of

the

measurement

techniques

to

specific

situations

must

be

done

on

an

individual

basis

and

cou:Ld

be

a

subject

to

cha:Llenge

in

an

enforcement

proceeding.”

Opinion,

R72—2,

at

23.

More

specifically,

the problem

of measuring varying,

non—

steady noise

emissions

was

not

resolved

in

R72—2, primarily due

to the absence

of accurate

and efficient

instrumentation to

measure such

noise at

that time.

Indeed,

the

Board recognized

the difficulty

of measuring fluctuating sound

in

its Opinion

oh

R72—2.

At page

19

of

the

Board’s

Ouinion,

the

following

observation

is

fourith

“One

last

type of

sound

is fluctuating

sound,

where

the

sound

pressure

level

varies

with

time.

Some

SiiCflS

emit

noise

that

could

be

classified

as

fluctuating

and

there

is

also

machine

and

process

noise

that

varies

regularly

in

sound

level

with

time,

Little

informat

on

r’~

~v~iab1e

to

determine

its

relative

annoyance

to

non

—

f 1

uctuating

noise,

thmphasrs

supplied).

George

W.

Kamperman,

the

Agency’s acoustical

consultant

in R72—2,

confirmed the

absence

of

available

technology

to measure non—

steady,

fluctuating

noise

at

the

time

the

Board

considered

R72—2

in a recent

letter

to

Petitioner,

in

which

Kamperman

noted:

“In

1972,

1

had

independently

developed

laboratory

instrumentation

for

determining the

average

sound

level

(Leq)

for

time

varying

sounds.

There

were

no commercially available

instruments

for

determining

the average

Sound

level

when

the

proposed

noise

regulations

became

effective,”

Letter

to

Woodford

Van

Tifflin

(April

13,

1981)

at

2.

664363

---

The

availabii’~ty

o

only

in

the

t”~”.

hearings

on R83~1

ni.

i.

rumentation today

is reflected not

sethed by Pthitioner during

the public

~o

noted

by

Kamperman:

two

,

ars,

several

re

tharted

marketing

hr

led

sound

level

‘e~agesoun3 level,”

Id.

There

was

r

.~

~icepr~seted

a

ti”e

Board

in

R72—2

that

community

anncv~

~,

me

to

noise

is

best

determined

by

.

t

di

at on

r’iaximum

level

noise

emissions,

Re

~

~.

.

~ubcequert

to

the

adoption of

the

original

noiss

..s

a

thence

to

the

contrary.

Such

don;

States

Enviro~

Health and

We~

~.

(“Criteria

D~’

“Information

Protect

Publ

Safety”

(“Lev

MM);

a report

a

Control

(“ONPC

‘a

Control,”

puti..

“Sound

Level

or

Use”;

ANSI

Sl2 ~ 1

3

(dci

Assessment

of

If

gi

~

Residential

Conu

~

.

a

“Assessment

of Noic~

1996—1971

(bet

a

provides

suppor

.

clearly the

moe

noise.

The

USEPA

513.

a

directive

to th~

‘car

U.S.C.

4904(a),

a

a

noise which

refle~

indicating

the

ki

~ubl1c

health

o~

quantities

and ~

that:

‘a~ncd

r

the

report

of

the United

3

a.

~

(

SEPA)

entitled “Public

No~~a,”

pab

ished

July

27,

1973

report

of

USEPA

entitled

er

a..!.

Noise

Requisite

to

t

c

w

~‘1~

a~

Adequate

Margin of

so ished

in April,

1974

(Exhibit

r

Office

of

Noise

Abatement and

a..

ci a

1

a

National

Strategy

for

Noise

1,rii,

1917;

ANSI

S3,23—1980

entitled

I

i

TIme mination

of

Compatible

Land

1983

Draft)

entitled

“Method

for

lnouJ~,ive Soinds

with

Respect

to

a3.d

ISO

Recommendation

Rl996

entitled

e’~

cc

~o

C

nimunity

Response,”

ISO/R

o

)

“ach

of

these

documents

~

clair

that

Leg

averaging is

.~r

ptor

community

response

to

s..,

w~sprepared

pursuant

to the

C

u~d in

the

Noise

Control

Act,

42

publish

criteria

with respect

to

a.

it

c

trowledge

most

useful

in

a

r

t

all

dentifiable

effects on

the

.1

iay

be

expected

from

differing

a

‘~e

The

Criteria

Document sta~ed

v

humans

a...’

measurt.’

a

is

exp’~

ii-

describ

loss,

“In

the

pa~m

manufactureL

microproces.

i

capable

of

~o

instrument

portable

meters

p

th~effects

of noise

on

re

f

‘he

most

important

..

o~nrer..tal noise,

since

there

dance

that

it

accurately

.“

r

3

j

J~ession

of

hearing

th

~rabl~

evidence

---

that i~

sooJ.a.~.

o

hurran

annoyance

due

to

noise.”

t,.it

~a

Document

at

~

1~fterreviewing a

riumb~

a

other

criteria

used to

rate

community

response

to

noise,

the

Reprt

concluded

that

“to

date

the

one

measure of

noise

ti’

~ppeere

to

be

emerging

as

one

of

the

most

important

measura.

at

I

i

oniisntai.

roise

in terms

of

the effects

on man

is

the

Encrg,,

1

Noise

evel,

leg,

,.,“

Id.

at

2—10.

This conclusion ~a

ba~~zu

j~’aa t on

a

study undertaken

by

Task

Group #3

of

the

rJ...EPA

r

Aircraft/Airport Noise

Study,

which

found

that:

“The

~3

weighrc

ur’a

perioc

nightt’r.

measure

corre

behavi~

~.

ci

valent,

or

average

A—

lcvel

taken

over

a

24—hour

(i’~decibel penalty

applied

to

~jels, is

the simplest

noise

rc

ides

a

high

degree

of

‘a

‘1

annoyance,

complaint

‘t

ommunity reaction,”

This

conch

.

..

n~T~‘e3 by the subsequently

published

Levels Document

c

sent, which was more concerned with

establishing

maxius. h~’c.srather

than measurement

procedures,

nevertheless

noted

~

cr.teria for describing

time—varying

community

noise

T5

K~

~nto ducOunt both the

level

and

duration

of

the

n

.‘a...

.‘hc

Levels Document concluded

that:

“iin

or

a.

t

describe

the

effects

of

environmeuthi

misc

in

a

simple,

uniform

and

appropriate

w

y,

the best descriptors

are

the

long—ten

e

ii..

A—weigl’ted

sound

level

(Leq)

ar

ariation

with

a

nighttime

weightinc

a

day~night sound

level

(Ldn)

,,.“

Le~

..

iment at

2,

The

USEPA’~

report entitled

a

Here,

the

USEPA

T’

of

the

day—night

hour period.

Nur..’~

‘a

noise levels

for

terms of an

aver

Department

of

Ho.’,

51.103

(1982),

Ii....

772

et seq,

and

C.F.R.

Al50.10lR~

I

r

teria levels are

found inONAC’s

Iatzoia’L Strategy for Noise Control.”

If

riaximum levels

represented

in terms

~oind Ic

el

(Ldn)

measured

over

a

24—

~J.,al

a~?fl~i~S

have adopted maximum

a

e

tleit jarisdiction

expressed

in

at

a

ci

a

.Jevel,

including

the

a

vu Dead

pr.~enr., see

24

C.F.R.

t

jhws’

t ministration,

see

23

C.F.R.

Aarcra

zcs

Administration,

see 14

~ z~....a~zonson this point

also

r

rent. standard

for

establishing

i

script

rs

for

determination

of

In ANSI S3.23~l980

(Exhibit

Q),

a

ed as

tne appropriate

e~azn

mmpatibility

between

3

0

ir

uii’ie.’t,”

ANSI

S3.23—l980

The most

re

‘a...

recommend a

time~

-

the appropriate

a

community response

a

day—night

average

“acoustical

mev~.

various land

usia

---

proposes

a

period

a’

o~ c

recent draft

propoa’a

high—energy

impulsi

communities,

ANSI

t’

sound

level

is

the p ‘rcr~

See ANSI S12.4-l98X

(

iar

The

Internatioru..

ISO Recommendation R

introduced as

an

cxl.’

ci

is

referred

to

in ~‘ev~

suggests methods

of

rr..~

“suitable for

predi~’a’.r

to be caused

by noise

Section 3.1.5

the ISO

“If

the

not

complicate’

r~

use of

Tahl

should

be

statistirul

the

A—weigh~

When

reviewing

tV~

standards

it

is

cl~~r

level

(Ldn)

measur

ra.’

measurement

criteria

community response

-‘a

The Model

Commc’~

The National

Inst3r’

the

Environmental

In

Control Septembe

Ordinance,

which

ae’~’

developing noise

rm

the equivalent

A’-~weig

twenty—four

(24)

“n

by the Model

Comma

exceedence of

the

decibel level,

as

does not exceed

tT

As previously

a

24

hour

Leq averac

a

disagreement with

enforcement by

rec

authorities.

The

d’

averaging

could

be

measurements,

it caf

The economic

Record

UI

(44) hours,

In

a

of assessement

of

e’ idential

O

y-night

average

conmental noise,”

r

ration

published

t,

which

was

mdzngs on

R72—2 and

(1inion on R72—2,

zr

a

manner

-

reaction

likely

1 thibit

S)

.

At

a

more

.‘or

the

-ad

Leg

am

a

ry

of

•

ternational

a mrage

sound

‘c~ely

accepted

irement of

?aa

developed

by

.‘t Officers

and

.‘zse

Abatement

cc Control

ties

that

are

ly

utilizing

a time

period

of

a

iod suggested

p~rmits

the

ong

as

the

1)

hour

period,

ci

‘

rather than

a

-f.Lect GM’s

p sed

to

aid

macnt

he

1 hour

Leq

imum hourly

24

hr. Leg.

In

addition

a,

SM concerning

No separate

to the previoush

---

—13—

the enforcement

scheme,

the Agency’s comments present data

concerning

the

costs

to the Agency of

the rule

change.

These

relate primarily

to

equipment

costs

and manpower costs.

Due to truncati~on

of the Agency’s noise control

staff,

an

integral part of its~

program

is the training of

local enforcement

officials

to investigate

noise complaints, through

the use of

aoun~monitoring

equipment

loaned them by the

Agency

free

of

charge.

The Agency

owns some 35—plus sound level

meters,

15

of

which were then on

Than,

none

of which were

capable of measuring

Leq.

GM presented

evidence

(Exh,

CC)

that adapters

for existing

equipment were

available for about $1,000 per

unit,

which

presumably would

be

borne by the Agency.

The Agency

is

also concerned about the

increase

in time

spent

in investigation

of complaints.

Using the

fast scale

measurement techniqt~,

the Agency asserts that

h0~20minutes are

occupied

in measurements;

one hour or more could

be spent in

obtaining an accurate

Len reading.

In

1984,

the

Agency employed

only two noise

inspectoth,

responsible for

investigating

the 250

noise complaints

filed with

the Agency between September,

1982,

and May,

1984.

The

Agency asserts that any additional

time spent

Investigating complaints

“could be terminal

to the

already

extremely fragile

program.”

The final source

of economic information

is the

DENR’s

letter determining

that the cost of making

a formal

EcIS

is

unreasonable

in

relation

to the value

of

a study

bothe

Board.

DENR ‘Dade ‘~1ear that

this determination was made on

the basis of

review of the 1973

USEPA document “Public Health and

Nelfare

Criteria for Noise,”

and ANSI 53.23—1980

(each of

which were

reviewed supra,

p.

8),

DENR agrees with GM’s

contention

that:

“(1)

IEPA’s

‘grab

sample’

noise

measurement

technique

is

incorrect,

and

(2)

the

‘grab

sample’

technique

is

not

an

adequate

descriptor

for community annoyance.”

DENR further

stated

that:

The

conclusion

that

IEPA

has

been

measuring

noise

incorrectly,

i.e.,

not

is

substantial

conformity

with

ANSI

under

Rule

103(b),

has

had

a

significant

impact

on

our

analysis

of

the economic

consequences

of R83—7,

Consider

the following:

if IEPA measurement

procedures

were

in

substantial conformity with ANSI,

then

R83—7

would

redefine

compliance

for

certain

firms which

were

out

of

compliance because

of

their

marginal

short—term

excursions

of

the

noise

standards.

Because

the IEPA procedures

used

to

determine

compliance

are

apparently

erroneous,

R83—7 does not redefine compliance;

it

specifies

procedures

for

determining

---

—14—

compliance

which

are

in

acco

If a

e

with

ANSI

and

USEPA

recommendations.

.‘33~~7 merely

clarifies

Rule

103(b)

becaL

the

Board

intended

measurement

procedurei~ to

track

ANSI

and

intended

noise

regulat’ao

to

retect

community annoyance.

I~ith

this

interpretation

mind,

an

assessment

of

the

economic

..guences

of

R83—7

is

relatively

straigit

~ard.

The

costs of the

proposed

regula’~i

~ll be

borne

in

large

part

by

the

lEPI

presented

testimony on

11/22/83,

which ~Iem. y delineate

the

cost

of

adapting

1EPA

r

.~.s

Level

meters

and other

equipment

to

acc’~a

-

cc

1

hour

Leq

measurement

technique.

‘P

dcoartment’s

independent

calculations

ag

nth

those

presented

by

GM.

The

IEP!L

.

lso

bear

added

manpower

costs

because

e’

..‘ollection

in enforcement

cases

will

requ

a

least

one

hour

of

staff

time,

However,

z

~oves

that

the

unquantifiable

benefit

of

Lov..nj

reliable

data

on

noise

emissions

far

out~eighs

the

added manpower and

other costs

‘-‘o the IEPA,

R83—7

may

impose

some

costs

r

larvate

firms

which

monitor

their

own nose

ei.lsszons

with

noise meters which

are

inconu’

i

with

the

1

hour

Leq.

However

few

‘ad-cIties

and

especially

few

small

businec~

.-

itor

their

own

noise.

If

an

industrl

.1

business

wanted

to monitor

noise,

an

aent

noise

consultant

would

normaL’

-

hired,

Municipalities will

not

be

~c ay

R83—7

because

the

proposed

re)

‘a.

-‘

is

only

applicable

to

measuremen

—..nijues

in

enforcement

cases

(Part

2

of

•,

as’-

8).

With

respect

to

the

benef

principal benefit

will

acca~

of

Illinois

because

the

IL’

concentrate on those

noise

ra

an

impact

on

health

anó

population.

Other

benefits

some

noise

emitters

whick-

determined

to

be

non—compL’a~

marginal

short—term

noise

~aa.

ci

certain

firms

will

not

ci

implement

controls

because

P.

not

violate

the

standards

~.s-

Board”

(DENR

Letter

of Deccan-

2—3).

.83—7,

the

a

citizens

cc

able

to

~

hich

have

tm

e

of

the

J.

accrue

IEPA

have

because

bf

tons,

i~.’e,,

i.’aq:ired

to

r

aise

does

L’rth

by

the

....

1983,

pp.

86~3ES

---

—15—

The

First

Notice

Proposal

As

Adopted

By

The

Board

Based

on

the

record

amassed

to

date,

the

Board

is

adopting

for

first

notice

a

modified

version

of

GM’s

proposal.

This

reflects

the Board’s basic agreement with GM’S contention

that

this

is not a site—specific issue, and that current Agency noise

measurement techniques

are not in substantial conformity with

ANSI, as intended by the Board

in adopting the noise

regulations.

The Board’s proposal tracks that of GM to the

extent

that it includes

a

1 hour

Leq averaging,

except

as

applied

to

blasting

noise;

the

blasting

noise

exception

is

important

to

maintain

relative

consistency with federal

mining

regulations.

See Opinion, R80—9/l0.

Ambient sound correction

is provided

for,

The

impulsive

noise

rule

is

amended

to

delete

the required

use

of

noise

measurement

by

a

fast

dynamic

characteristic,

to

conform

with

the

amendments

to

the

measurements

rule.

The

Board

has,

however,

added

a

procedure

to

allow

for

justification

of,

use

of

alternative

measurement

procedures

where

it

can

be

demonstrated

that

such

alternative

procedures

provide

a

higher degree of correlation of the characteristics of

the sound

emission

to

human

response.

This

provision

is included,

in part,

to

allow

for

adjustments

in

situations

such

as

those

“noise

sources

about

which

the

Agency receives complaints operating

as

little as 1/2 hour per week.”

See Agency Comments,

p.

12,

However,

it also reflects concerns not fully addressed

in this

record, which dealt mainly with prominent discrete tones as an

example, concerning possible unintentional blunting of

the

impulsive

noise

ruleS,*

particularly

as

they

relate

to

noises

of

high magnitude but short duration.

~~icRe9uestforComments

The Board poses

the following hypothetical, which

it wishes

to

have

addressed.

Consider

a noise source which

is quiet

(=

0

dB)

most

of

the

time,

but

which

lets

out

an

occasional

very

loud

noise

of

short

duration

(i.e.,

an

impulsive

noise).

Consider

further

that the noise source is on Class C land, and that the

noise

is received on Class A land,

The

modifications

would

appear

to

allow

this source

to

contribute

noise

at

the

receiving

site

as

long

as

the

combination

of

the intensity of the source noise and the duration

of the~~

*

In this context,

the Board must initially note that

the only

two

examples of

impulsive sound

contained

in the Section 900.101

definitions of

impulsive sound are “drop

forge hammer

and

explosive blasting”, an example

added in the

R80—9/1O

proceeding.

See also examples’ in R72—2 Opinion,

p.

18:

“blasts,

hammering,

impact of drop forges,

and

punch

presses.”

Neither

blasting

noise

nor

forging

noise

is

measured

for

compliance

by

use

of

fast

dynamic

characteristics:

the

former

is

measured by

a

slow

dynamic

characteristic,

and

the

latter

with

a

1

hour

Leq.

86~389

---

—16—

noise, over any given hour, does not produce an Leq

in

excess

of

56 dB during the day and 46 dB during the night.

This scenario would

allow the sounds and durations

as shown

in the followings table,

Note that the sound level

is the level

at

the

receiving site,

not

the

source

site.

Due

to

attenuation,

the sound closer to the site

would be assumed

to be still louder.

Permissible Duration

During

Any

Given

1

Hour

Sound Level

~

Night

100 dB

.14 sec

.014 sec

90 dB

1.43 sec

.14

sec

80

dB

14,3

sec

1.43

sec

75 dB

45.3

sec

4.53

sec

70 dB

2.4

mm

14,3

sec

65 dB

7,6

mm

45.3

sec

60 dB

23.9

mm

2.4

mm

Some

quite

loud noises, over some substantial durations,

would

thus

be allowed,

Moreover,

the noises need not be

in

single

pulses

each

hour.

For

example,

the

14,3

sec

of

80

dB

noise during

the day could come as ten separate pulses of

1.43

sec duration each hour.

A further perspective can be gained by reflecting on Exhibit

II, Figure

4, which

is discussed at

R. 325—328.

GM asserts

that

the

impulsive noise

in Figure

4 would

be

less objectionable than

the steady noise

of Figure

3,

and by presumed extension that the

Figure

4 noise

is fundamentally unobjectionable~

Perhaps

in

the

case of

the numbers given

this conclusion

is correct,

However,

what

if the noise pulse in Figure

4 were not

a small

2 dBs above

the theoretical standard, but some higher value?

The pulse

could

be

as high as 83.7 dB

(15 sec duration),

and the Leq would

still

be within the 60 dB limit,

Alternatively,

there could be pulses

of 83,7 dB of

I

sec duration averaging four minutes apart.

Given

this

scenario

of 15 aggregate seconds of

83 dB every hour, should

this

be

judged as less objectionable than the Figure

3 data,

or

unobjectionable overall?

The

Board

also

requests

comment on the relationship of sound

limitations

in Sections 901.102 and

901.103,

and the sound

limitations

in Section 901.104

as applied

to this rulemaking.

In addition

to comment on these technical points,

the Board

specifically requests comments on the workability of

the

alternative justification procedure, as well as on the economic

effects

of adoption of this change.

Finally,

the Board is

hopeful that first notice

publication

of this proposal will

elicit comment from the

public and

the regulated community

concerning

this

state—wide

rule

change.

66~370

---

—17—

ORDER

The

Clerk

shall

cause first notice publication of

the

Title

35:

Environmental Protection

Subtitle H:

Noise

Chapter

I:

Pollution

Control

Board

Section 900.101

Definitions

Human Res onse:

the effect of noise on

eople,

includin

h

siolo

ical e

ects such as dama

e to

t

e

ear

and

ermanent or

tern

orar

hear

n

loss

and

s

cholo

ical effects suc

as

inter

erence

with

5

ee

or

s

eech

communication,

anno

ance,

and

loss

~

Section 900.103

Measurement

Procedures

(a)

No change

(b)

Procedures

Applicable

Only

to 35

Ill.

Adm. Code 901

1)

All measurements,

and all measurements procedures,

to

~

of

sound comply with 35

Ill.

Adm. Code 901 shall

be

in substantial conformity with

ANSI

Sl.6—l967,

ANSI

Sl,4—1971

——

Type

I

Precision,

ANSI

Sl.l1—1966 and ANSI S1.13—1971 Field Method,

and shall,

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

flI,

Adrn, Code 900.101,

using

a

referéñ~ETme

of one

hour.

All

such measurements and measurements procedures

shall correct o~providefor

the correction of such

emissions

for

the presence

of ambient K~i~i~isd~TTned

Tñ

ANSI

S1,13—l97L~

2)

Alternative

measurement

procedures may

be used which

are

not based on Leg averaging or which use

a measurement

time other

than one hour upon

a demonstration pursuant

to 35 Ill.

Adm. Code 901~l30that alternative

measurement procedures provide

a higher degree

of

correlation of

the characteristics of

the Sound emission

with human response than do the measurement procedures

of subsection

(b)(2)

above.

(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

66~371

---

—18—

allowable

A—weighted

sound

levels7

measa~e~w~l~i

fas~

~ynam4e e~afae~e~s#.~ey

specified

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.

Section

901,130

~

Alternative

Measurement Procedures

1)

This_section

s

ifies procedures for

demonstrations,

~ursuarit to_Section

28,1

of

the Act, that the

otherwise

ble

meas

urementproceduresof3~Il.Am.oe

900.103(b)_should not

be

used

by

the

Board

inrmiiri

~

demonstrations

a

also be made

in

variance,_entorcement,

~ulatorroceed~

2)

~

!~sal1beont

rtr

in~use

of an

alternative

m~

rocedure

to

plead ~

s~i~h

alternative procedure provides

a higher degree of

~~IatT~i~F

the characteristics

of the sound emissIon

human

res

onse

than

use of

the measuremen~~cedure

s

ecified

in

35

Ill. Adm,

Code 900,103(b).

Such party’s

~~tial

leading

s

all include a specification of the

alternative

measurement

eto

be ~mQo~d

and

a

justification of such procedure,

Suchj~ustificationshall

describe the characteristics

of tfiisound emission being

measured and shall

contrast the standard and alternatI~

~

rs.

3)

~fl

~

i 1e

a

~

the

~tialleadin,indicatintheirareementor

reement

with

use

of

an

alternative

measurement

standard,

and

reasons

therefore.

4)

~

~

hear

ins,

held

in

the’

action,

5)

~

rnakin

adeterminat

rsu

this Section,

the

Board will consider the

leadin

s and an

hearij~record.

Te

Boar

will issue an order

and enter

a

w~~~~nion

st at~

e

facts and

reasons

lead in

to

its

decision

to

___

or

disapprove

use

of

an

alternative

measurement

procedure,

IT

IS

SO

ORDERED,

J, Marlin concurred,

J.

D. Dumelle,

B,

S.

Forcade,

and J,

T, Meyer dissented.

66-~372

---

—19—

I, Dorothy

M. Gunn, Clerk of

the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, hereby certify that the above Proposed Opinion and Order

was adopted on

the ~

day of

,

1985,

by a vote

of

T~

__

7~

__

Dorothy

~

Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board

66~373