ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
April
16,
1981
JAMES KAJI, DOROTHY KAJI,
ET AL.,
Complainants,
v.
)
PCB 80-46
R.
OLSON MANUFACTURING COMPANY,
INC.,
Respondent.
MR.
MARVIN LUSTGARTEN APPEARED ON BEHALF OF COMPLAINANTS.
MS. DIXIE
L.
LASWELL, ROOKS, PITTS, FULLAGAR AND POUST,
APPEARED ON
BEHALF OF RESPONDENT.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by I. Goodman):
This complaint was filed before the Board on March
18,
1980
by
James Kaji, Dorothy Kaji, and others
(Kaji)
alleging that
R.
Olson Manufacturing Company,
Inc.
(Olson)
is in violation of
Rule 102 of Chapter 8 of the Illinois Pollution Control Board’s
rules and regulations
(Noise Rules)
and Section 24 of the Illinois
Environmental Protection Act
(Act).
Hearings were held in this
matter on November 12,
13, and 14,
1980; no citizen testimony was
given at the hearings and the Board has received no public commenL.
The facility which is the subject of this complaint
is Olson’s
Chicago plant,
located on West Grand Avenue immediately adjacent
to two buildings owned by Kaji which are used by Kaji as
a
residence and a storage facility.
Olson’s facility produces
metal
stampings for approximately 120 companies and is the sole supplier
of certain types of these stampings (R.443—4).
The metal stampings
are made using
large punch presses which generate sound during
the
process.
It
is the sound made by these presses, particularly
that
from
a 200—ton press located in the building most adjacent to
Kaji,
which is the subject of Kaji’s complaint.
Kaji moved into his buildings in 1963
(R.409).
Olson’s
facility was already in existence at that time, but was not then
adjacent to Kaji’s buildings.
In 1965 Olson purchased three lots
which were between Kaji’s buildings and Olson’s facility and
constructed an addition to its plant in which several new pieces
of machinery, including presses, were installed.
Olson also
started a second shift which
still runs from 5:00 p.m. until
1:30
a.m.
the following morning.
In 1967 Olson installed a 100-ton
press in the new addition and in 1976 installed the 200—ton press
in question (R.95-6).
Olson presently employs
60 persons at the
plant and has annual payroll expenditures
of over $1,000,000
(R. 433—4).
41—245
—2—
Kaji alleges that the noise problem started with the
install-
ation of the large presses
in the expansion area
next
to his
buildings,
and that he had not been disturbed by Olson’s prior
operation in the original plant nor by the expansion itself.
At
hearing Kaji introduced evidence which indicated that the level
of sound inside the Kaji living quarters approached 87 decibels
during periods when Olson’s large presses were
in operation
(Cornpl.
Ex.1).
Kaji alleges that this constitutes a violation of the
numerical sound limitations contained in Rules
202 and 206 of
the
Noise
Rules, notwithstanding the fact that violations of these rules
were not alleged in the complaint or referenced at hearing.
Testing was conducted by an Agency technician, admittedly
a novice, who not only conducted
the
test indoors but at a point
less than 25 feet from the property line of the source.
Even
though,
as Kaji alleges,
it is impossible, given the plant and Kaji
building construction configurations,
to meet the 25—foot measurement
distance contained
in these rules, the Board cannot apply results
obtained by a novice inspector, even if doing the best he can,
in
this case.
This is not the sort of situation covered by the
numerical standards limitations; therefore, they do not apply.
The
Board will,
however, accept the report as evidence with respect
to Rule 102 as relevant to a finding of an unreasonable interference
with the enjoyment of life, even though Kaji’s brief has abandoned
an allegation of violations of Rule 102 in favor of allegations of
violations of Rules
202 and 206.
The Board,
therefore,
shall
con-
sider the issue of
a violation of Rule 102 and shall
weigh the
evidence in the record of such violation.
The testimony of the Kaji family indicates that they are
disturbed by the pounding noise created by Olson’s presses,
particularly at night,
and, in Mr. Kaji’s case, particularly when
he doesn’t feel well
(R.233—240,321--345,367—397,408—435).
Two
journals were admitted into evidence,
one kept by Mr.
Taji
and ti~e
other by Mrs.
Kaji, indicating the times when they were aware of
the pounding noise coming from the Olson facility (Compl.
Exs.3
and 4).
The Kajis allege a priority of
location in the area since their
complaints arose subsequent to the tine when they moved
in.
Olson
argues that not only is the neighborhood in question zoned
for
industrial purposes,
but it has been
so zoned since 1957
(Resp.
Ex.1).
Testimony of
a consultant hired by Olson indicates that Olson has
taken every reasonably available technical measure to abate the
sound emanating from the presses, such as installing isolators and
a masonry enclosure
(R.486,492).
Olson has received no other com-
plaints regarding sound other than those from the Kajis and maintainn
t±ata shutdown of the large presses would result
in the closure of
the plant
(R.447).
Olson further alleges that the plant could not b~
run economically on a one-shift basis and that there is no other
location available to which the presses could be moved.
In determining whether a violation of Rule 102 has occurred,
the Board must take into consideration the criteria listed in
Section 33(c)
of the Act, as well as other facts and circumstances
bearing upon the reasonableness of the sound emissions involved.
4 1—246
—3—
The record is clear that the Kajis are enduring intermittent
sound of a disturbing nature; the record indicates that they have
endured such sound for at least four years.
The record also
establishes the social and economic value of the pollution source
and, indeed,
this has not been challenged.
The suitability of
the
source to the area in which it is located is demonstrated by the
fact that the immediate neighborhood is predominantly industrial
in character.
As
to the question of priority of location, con-
sidering the character of the neighborhood and the fact that Kaji
was aware of such character when he moved in,
Kaji must reasonably
have expected that additional manufacturing facilities could
lawfully be added by Olson.
It is also clear from the record that
Olson has made reasonable attempts to reduce the noise emissions,
including construction of an unusual concrete brick structure as
an enclosure and mounting the presses upon a shock—absorbent medium.
Certainly
it would not appear to be economically reasonable to
require Olson to shut down
the
presses,
and consequently the enhir~
plant,
which is the outcome of the relief requested by Kaji.
After full consideration of all of the facts in record in this
matter, the Board comes to the conclusion,
somewhat reluctantly,
that although the Kajis may well be experiencing discomfort due
t~o
the noise created by Olson’s press operation,
Olson is engaged
in
an important manufacturing operation in a facility which is and has
been since 1957 suitably located within an area zoned for industrial
uses.
Olson’s operations have definite social and economic value to
the community.
Moreover,
Olson has reduced the sound emissions as
much as is technically and economically practicable.
The Kajis,
who
have lived in the building for some seventeen years, apparently with-
out complaint,
cannot now be heard to complain;
the neighborhood
has developed in a manner which was predictable at the time of
their
arrival.
The Board shall, therefore, dismiss this action.
This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions
of law of the Board in this matter.
ORDER
It is the Order of the Illinois Pollution Control Board that
the complaint in PCB 80—46 be and is hereby dismissed.
Mr. Dumelle dissents.
I,
Christan L.
Moffett,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify that the above Opinion and Order were adopted
on the /(~~dayof
_________,
1981 by a vote of
____
/
;
/J~,1
/
~
1~~2
~
V/
~/~ii~
—____
Christan L. Mof~ett,Cle~
Illinois Pollution Control Board
4 1—247