ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
June 10,
1981
In The Matter Of:
Proposed Amendment
)
to Chapter
8:
Noise Regulations,
)
R80—9,
10
Rules
101,
206,
208,
and 209
ADOPTED RULE.
FINAL ACTION
FINAL OPINION OF THE BOARD
(by 3.
Anderson):
This Opinion is written in support of new Rule 210 and
amendments to Rules
101,
206, 208 and 209 of Chapter
8:
Noise
Regulations, adopted May
28,
1981 by the Board as final rules
to
become effective June
1,
1981.
By
letter of May 12,
1981,
JCAR
stated it had no objections to these rules.
Procedural History
In the original Chapter
8:
Noise Regulations, promulgated
in 1973,
Rule 209(f)
exempted “every owner or operator of Class C
land” who conducts necessary explosive blasting activities from
complying with the sound limitations contained in Rule 206
R72—2,
8 PCB
653,
702
(July
26,
31,
1973).
This original exemption was
granted because no method was known at that time for bringing
blasting noise into compliance with the Rule 206
limits.
As
a
result of the subsequent R76-16 proceeding, the exemption was
extended until January
1,
1981.
While some techniques to mitigate
the air blast and ground vibration of blasting had been developed
during the first exemption period, the Board granted the extension
because of its agreement with industry, the Illinois Institute of
Natural Resources
(Institute) and the Illinois Environmental Pro-
tection Agency (Agency)
that more research was needed to determine
the proper descriptor for human response to blasting noise.
The
single most important piece of research awaited by the parties was
a study
to be completed by the
US.
Bureau of Mines
(USBM)
tR76—16,
32 PCB
457,
458
(January
18,
1979).
On May 15,
1980,
the Mining Industry
Task Force on Impulsive
Noise and Vibration
(Task Force) proposed that the Board extend
the exemption until June
1,
1983.
The Task Force explained that
there had been a delay
in the USBM research schedule, but that
its research report on the “Human Response to Blast Noise and
*The Board wishes to express its appreciation for the
assistance of Kathleen M.
Crowley, Administrative Assistant to
J.
7~ndersonand Hearing Officer herein in the drafting of this
Opinion,
as well
as the aid of William Withrow,
Technical
Assistant to the Board.
42—79
2
Ground Structure Vibrations” was expected
to he completed
in
mid—1982
(Docket R80—9).
On July
10,
1980, the Agency proposed
enactment of certain “interim” sound limitations during this
waiting period
(Docket R80—10).
Each proposal was published
in the Environmental Register,
R80—9
in
#219,
June 23,
1980 and R80—10
in #221,
August
5,
1980.
By its Order of July 10,
1980,
the Board consolidated these
proposals for the purposes of hearing and decision.
Three hearings were held on the consolidated proposals
in
the
following locations:
Chicago
August 12,
1980
Springfield
August
13,
1980
Chicago
September 24,
1980
Evidence concerning each proposal’s merit and economic
impact ~ias
received at each hearing.
Separate economic impact hearings were
not held,
as the Institute had filed a statement in each case
Lha~
preparation of a formal economic impact statement was not tech-
nically feasible at that time due to lack of economic parameters
and essential data which would be available only after completion
of the USBM research
(R80—9,
Ex.
4 dated June
11,
1980 and R80—10,
Ex.
9 dated July
21, 1980).
As the final post-hearing subrnittals
were not filed with
the
Board until October 10,
1980,
it became apparent that there
was
insufficient time remaining before the expiration of
the
exemption
on January
1,
1981 for the Board to initiate and have completed
the
90 day, two—step notice procedures required under the provisions
of the Illinois Administrative Procedures Act
(APA).
Accordingly,
after its review of the hearing transcripts and exhibits,
on
December
4,
1980 the Board chose
to exercise its emergency rule-
making powers under the Environmental Protection Act
(Act)
as well
as the APA to extend the Rule 209(f)
exemption as
an emergency
rule effective through May
31,
1981
(the maximum period allowable
by the APA).
On the same date however, the Board authorized
publication of the APA first notice of a modified version of
the
Agency’s interim sound limitation proposal.
Both the emergency
exemption rule and the first notice of the proposed interim sound
limitation rules appeared
in the Illinois Register,
Vol.
5, January
2,
1981,
at respectively pp.
266—269, and pp.
5—11 as well
as in
Environmental Register
#229,
December 18,
1980.
The Board decided
to extend
the exemption on an emergency basis
(thereby maintaining
the status quo)
“to insure that the quarrying industry has ample
time to determine first, whether
its blasting activities are cur-
rently
in compliance with the proposed limits,
and secondly, how
and when compliance can be achieved so that any necessary petitions
for variance can be timely filed.”
R80—9,
10,
(Emergency) Order
of December
4,
1980.
42—80
3
Second notice of the proposed rules, amended in response
to public comments received during the first notice period, was
authorized by the Board by its Order of April
2,
1981.
Other
amendments were made during the second notice period in response
to comments made by the Joint Committee on Administrative
1~ules
(JCAR).
The
Technical
Record
The record in the R76—16 proceeding was incorporated into
this record
(R.
7).
To the extent that technical evidence
presented in this proceeding is cumulative to earlier evidence
discussed
in the Board’s R76—16 Opinion,
it will not be
discussed
in detail here.
Both the Agency and the Task Force agree that considerable
progress has been made in efforts to
develop a better understanding
of the human and structural response to explosive blasting, and
to develop blasting technologies which will minimize that response
(see R76—16 Opinion,
p.
3,
R.
26—27).
While the coal mining and
quarry industries had already been voluntarily seeking to reduce
noise levels,
the federal Office of Surface Mining Reclamation and
Enforcement
(OSMRE)
promulgated regulations applicable only
to the
surface coal mining industry which were designed to minimize the
adverse effect of its blasting activities on building structures,
30 CFR §816.64 and §816.65,
44 Federal Register 15404—405, March
13,
1979.
The Illinois Department ot Mines and Minerals
(IDMM)
has adopted identical regulations,
and is funded to enforce the
federal regulations, §1816.64 and §1816.65,
4 Illinois Register
236—241, September 12,
1980.
The numerical limits contained in
these regulations are to be measured using the C—weighted,
slow
response sound descriptor advocated
in R76~16
(see Opinion,
p.
2—3),
as well as by measuring for
sound pressure
level peaks.
As a result of industries’
voluntary and enforced control
activities,
the number of complaints concerning blasting noise
annoyance received by both industry and the Agency has diminished
since the completion of the R76-16 hearings
(R.
15,
57—60).
In
the hearings in this proceeding and
in R76—16,
the Agency and the
Task Force agreed that a C—weiqhted
s1o~,z response measurement
is
a better descriptor for response
to blast noise than is the A—
weighted fast response measurement of
current
Rule
206
(e.g.
R.
108—124,
276—313).
There
was
no
testimony
or
comment
suggesting
that
compliance
with
the
Rule
206
sound
limits
is
any
more
technically feasible currently
than
it
was
in
1973.
The Agency and the Task Force agree that the OSMRE based
Agency proposed sound
limits “are reasonably related to building
structure damage criteria”
(R.
15).
The Agency believes that
compliance with these limits is technically feasible,
through use
of delay
intervals, reduced charges, and proper stemming procedures
(R.
128).
The Task Force stated that “from a practical viewpoint”
it
“could
accept”
the
Agency’s
interim
regulations
based
on
OSMRE
4 2—81
4
limits
(e.g.
R.
220),
Testimony concerning C-slow
blast data
gathered by the
Illinois Coal Association supports these technical
feasibility assessments:
less than 5
of 594 data
points measured
under various blast conditions
exceeded the suggested 109 dB C—slow
limit
(R.
251—255,
Ex.
5,
R80—9,
10),
The ultimate issue
at hearing, therefore,
became a matter
of
whether the Board
should adopt any sound limitations
pending the
completion of the
USBM “Human Response” study,
or
whether the
Board should extend the previous Rule 209(f) exemption.
As
discussed in the
R76—16 proceeding,
and reiterated here,
blasting
activities produce
both air—borne noise and ground—borne vibration.
Due to the lack of necessary human response data,
it “is difficult,
if not impossible,
to determine which effect
(air or ground) was
principally responsible
for
a
complaint” about annoyance from
blast activities
(R,
15),
The Task Force accordingly stated that
after receipt of results of
the
tJSBM
research as well as on—goinci
research
by
industry
itself,
“it
may be that when
the Task Force
is
ready
to
make
its final recommendations, they may go beyond
just
the
question
of noise and respond to
the entire
problem,
which
includes,
also,
ground
vibrations and where
those
standards
would
be”
(R.
34),
In
short, it is
the position of the
Task
Force
that
no
regulations
should be issued
by the Board until
such
time
as
the
data
exists
to
develop comprehensive
and final regulations
which
will
deal
with both human and structural response to blast
noise.
It
is
the
Agency’s
position that a regulatory
first step
should be taken pending
completion of the necessary research,
as
it is agreed
that the OSMRE noise limits “are reasonably related
to building
structure damage criteria”
(R,
15),
and
it is reason-
able to
assume
that final noise limits based upon human response
criteria
would
be
lower, that
is,
more restrictive
(R,
30,
167).
While it agrees
with the Agency that the OSMRE—based
limitations are
reasonable,
the Department of Mines and Minerals
favored
continuation of the exemption for the coal mining indusfry
which is
already
subject to the OSMRE regulations as adopted
and
enforced in
Illinois by IDMM,
It has stated that:
“applying
Rule 210 to coal mines will result
in
1)
an
unwarranted
burden on the taxpayers of the state
due
to duplication of
effort and enforcement of largely
identical
rules by two different state agencies;
and
2) confusion
in
enforcement and compliance
as a result
of those differences
that do exist between the PCB
Rule 210 and the
Department’s rules and regulations.”
(Public Comment
3,
and R.
211—13).
This modified exemption
approach was also suggested by
the Amax
Coal Company
(P.C.
4),
42—82
5
Economic Effects
As in R76—16,
the Illinois Institute of Natural Resources
(IINR)
determined that
it is technically infeasible
to do an
economic impact study
of either proposal at this time, due to lack
of necessary research.
Some cost information was however
developed at hearing held August 12-13 and September 24,
1980,
primarily relating to the Agency’s R80-10 proposal.
These
proposed rules were intended to provide relief from the general
sound limitations of Rule 206, which cannot be complied with by
either the coal mining or quarrying industries.
In the broadest
sense then, viewing
Rule 210 as the only alternative to Rule 206,
Rule 210 would represent an economic savings for both industries.
However, both industries have been exempt from Rule 206 since
1973.
Passage of Rule 210 will impose no additional costs on the
coal mining industry, which is
already required to comply with
these sound limits pursuant to
the aforementioned federal and
state mining regulations.
The
quarry
industry
is
not
federally
regulated.
However, at
hearing,
no
objection
was
made
by
this
industry to
these
Rule
210
limitations.
Arvid
Tienson
of
Material
Services and Chairman
of
the
Task
Force
explained
that
the quarry industry had already
taken
steps
to
quiet
its
blasts
to reduce
citizens
complaints.
The
quarry
industry
Task
Force
members
have stated
in
writing
that
they
are “...willing to accept the OSMRE
limits on an interim basis...”
(Interim Statement,
p.
9, May 15,
1980),
The Board therefore
assumes
there
will
be
little
or no economic impact on the
quarry
industry.
The
effect
on
the Agency’s
budget is anticipated
to be
minimal.
Agency
testimony was that it is currently investigating
complaints
against
quarry cases,
and so envisions no
extra costs
in
that
respect.
As to coal
mining,
it
was
pointed out
that
the
A?ency
“.
.
.might
be
doin9
some monitoring which
the Department
of
Mines
and
Minerals
is
doing.
Well, those costs should
balance
out
because
if
one
group
is
making
the measurements,
another group
wouldn’t
have
to”
(R.
183—184),
These
regulations
impose no duty or additional
responsibility
on
the
Department
of
Mines and Minerals, but coordination
of
monitoring
with
IEPA
may result
in cost savings to that Department:.
The
Rules
As
Adopted
Prior
to
a
discussion
of the specific rules
as
adopted,
some
general
remarks
should be made.
The Board adopted
the
substance
of the Agency’s proposals, with some editorial changes,
as
it
has
been convinced that the Agency’s proposal
is in fact
a technologi-
cally feasible and economically reasonable first step in providing
relief from explosive blasting noise.
To continue an eight year
long
exemption pending receipt of federal research, completion of
42—83
6
which has already been once delayed, would be
in dereliction of the
Board’s
responsibility under Section 25 of the Act to “prescribe
for
each
noise
source
category
the maximum permissible limits on
such noise emissions.
Rule 101 Definitions
While these definitions are in the main self explanatory,
it
should
be
noted
that
reference
has
been
made
to
the
currently
existing
version
of
the
ANSI
document
S1,4-1971--(R1976)--and
the
phrase
“or
subsequent
revisions”
has
been
deleted.
Reference
to
a
specific
document,
which
is
being
filed
with
the
Secretary
of
State
for
greater
public
availability,
will
insure
that
no
question
can
be
raised
concerning
the
applicable “Specifications
for Sound
Level
Meters”.
Rule
208
Exceptions
Rule
209
Compliance
Dates
These
rules
have
not
been
modified
from
the
proposed
version.
Rule
208(h)
refers
to
Rule
210
as
establishing
sound
limits
as
an
exception
to
the
Rule
206
general
limits.
The
Rule
209(f)
exemp-
tion to Rule 206 has been deleted
in its entirety.
Rule 210
Impulsive Sound From Explosive Blasting
In recognition of the possibility
of further delay in
completion
of
the
USBM
“Human
Response”
research,
and
the
resulting
delay
in
initiation
of
the
Board’s
“second
step”
human
response
rulemaking,
the
termination date the Board proposed to
include
in
these
“interim”,
OSMRE—based
regulations
has
been
deleted.
The
Board
chose
not
to
exempt
the
coal
mining
industry
from
regulation
under
the
Environmental
Protection
Act,
as
it
believes
that
relief
to
the
public
from
the
effects of blasting noise should
not
be
dependent
upon
the
continuing
authority
of
and
federal
support
for
the
Department of Mines and Minerals to administer
a
federal
noise
control
program.
To
eliminate
regulatory
inconsis-
tency problems for the coal mining industry,
the Board has amended
the proposed rules to coincide with IDMM rules
in all but one
respect:
IDMM additionally requires that emergency nighttime
blasting be done only after
its specific permission has been
received.
The Board again notes that the Task Force intends to propose
human response related noise limits once federal research into
human response to blast noise
is completed.
If the jurisdiction
of the Agency
to monitor explosive blasts from coal mines is
removed,
its ability to provide input into the Board’s regulatory
process may
be curtailed.
In addition, while the Board and IDMM
regulations are now virtually identical, in the future the regu-
latory response of the Board and OSMRE to the human response data
or other factors may not be identical.
This could result
in
42—84
7
undesireable enforcement gaps.
On the whole,
coordination of
monitoring efforts between the Agency and IDMM appears to the
Board to be the most efficient and least disruptive approach to
the dual jurisdiction issue.
Finally,
in response to JCAR comments,
the Board amended
Rule 210 to provide that sound measurements may be taken from “any
point of interference with the reasonable use of” receiving Class
A or B
land.
The Board wishes
to emphasize that this change in
language is not indicative of a change in past practice in the
noise area.
Instead,
it makes explicit the approach the Board has
taken in past actions regarding noise regulations.
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board,
hereby certify that the above Opinion was adopted
on the
/~
“
day of ¼1~~
,
1981 by a vote of
d/~
Christan
L.
Mofé~,~
Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
42—85