ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
April
7,
1983
JOHN
L. DONOVAN,
)
)
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB 81—134
)
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL
)
PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
Respondent.
CONCURRING OPINION (by J.D. Dumelle):
The length of time this variance
is being granted for is
too
long, in my opinion.
Instead of a
4 year period I would have
limited the variance to one or two years
in order to complete
existing contract work,
if such contracts do exist into the
future.
This operation is causing a continued nuisance to the community.
Windows and plaster are being cracked.
People are being startled.
Daytime sleeping is disturbed.
To argue that the cracked windows
and plaster is caused by the ground wave is irrelevant.
The
blasting, which exceeds Board noise standards, causes the ground
wave.
I do not believe that any additional significant noise
reduction can be achieved at this site.
The blasting location is
obviously too close to residences.
The operation should be
relocated.
The capital investment in this enterprise is
low,
The pit àost $12,000 and the berms $4,500
(R.
17).
That totals
$16,500.
Other equipment such as blasting mats and the recording
meter can be relocated to a new site.
In
4 years what will happen?
The nuisance of cracked wjndows
and plaster and disturbed sleep will have continued for that
entire period.
And since further blast intensity reduction seems
highly unlikely the matter will be again before the Board in
1987.
52-13
This
operation
does
not
h~t~r~
it~.
~e
where
it
is~
it
serves
a
national
market,
Some
other
ioo~t
t~s.
with
adequate
buffer
distance
around
it~
ought
to
~e
?oun~.
I,
christan
L~ Moffett~
Cle~K ~-~f the
I)i:Lnois
Pollution
Control
Board,
hereby certify ~nat
t1i~
:i
nyc
Concurring
Opinion
was filed on the
~ay ~±
—
1983.
a
L
Moffett.
Clerk
I:tlin~~
Pollution Coi~trol
Board
5244