ILLINOIS
POLLUTION
CONTROL BOARD
March 19,
1982
IN THE MATTER OF:
)
PROPOSED AMENDMENT OF
)
P.76-14
RULES
101,
205,
206, AND 209
)
OF THE NOISE REGULATIONS
)
OPINION OF THE BOARD
(by
I.
Goodman):
The Forging Industry Association
(FIA)
and thirty
individual
forging companies on July 2, 1976 petitioned the Board to adopt,
by amending Rules 101 and 206 of the Board’s Chapter
8:
Noise
Regulations
(Chapter 8), relaxed emission limitations and other
requirements with respect
to new and existing impact forging
operations
(Industry Proposal).
Proponents alleged an inability
to comply with the existing Rule 206, especially within the three
years allowed by Rule 209.
The Illinois
Environmental
Protection Agency (Agency) on
August 23,
1976 also petitioned the Board to amend
Rules 101,
206
and 209 with respect to new and existing impact forging operations
arid to delete Rule 205 regulating sound emissions to Class C
land
receivers.
On October 14,
1976 the Board ordered the Agency
proposal to be treated as
a separate proposal, docketed R76—19,
but consolidated with R76-14 for purposes of hearing and decision.
The following public hearings were held:
September 22,
1976
Chicago
November
4,
1976
Springfield
December 13,
1976
Chicago
December 14,
1976
Chicago
February
15, 1977
Chicago
February 16,
1977
Rockford
May 2,
1977
Chicago
May
3,
1977
Chicago
December 18,
1978
Rockford
December 19,
1978
Rockford
February
21, 1979
Chicago
September 12,
1979
Chicago
The last four hearings were economic impact hearings, the
Illinois Institute of Natural Resources having filed economic
impact studies regarding the proposed rule changes.
Document ~lo,
78/03,
The Economic Impact of Proposed Forg~ingNoise Regulations
(R76-14,
-19), and Document No. 78/36,
Economic Impact of Removi~
Nume~icalLimits on Sound Emissions to Class C Land
(R76-19).
45-~565
On February
7,
1980
a Proposed Order was adopted by the
Board which would have modified Rules 101,
205,
206,
and 209,
as originally adopted on July 26,
1973 as
a part of Chapter 8.
Rule 101 would have been amended to include definitions for
A—weighted sound level and fast dynamic characteristic.
The
definitions for dB(A)
arid
sound level would have been deleted.
These definition changes were proposed to clarify the proposed
rules changes.
Rule 205 was to be deleted.
Rule 206,
Impulsive
Sound, would have been amended to delete limitations on impulsive
noise emitted to Class C land and
to increase the allowable
impulsive noise
levels emitted from forging operations to Class
A and Class B lands.
Rule 209 would have been changed to specify
the dates by which sources were to comply with Rule 206, as
proposed.
On July 24,
1980 the Opinion concerning the Proposed Order
was adopted.
The rulemaking was reproposed on September
4,
1980
and sent to First Notice.
Thereafter, the Illinois State chamber
of Commerce requested an extension of the public comment period
which was granted for P.76—14 only.
R76—19 proceeded to final
rulemaking on March
5,
1981.
Rule 205, Sound Emitted to Class
C Land, was deleted from Chapter
8 along with the companion
compliance dates in Rule 209(c).
By reference,
those portions
of the July 24,
1980 Opinion pertinent to R76-19 served as the
adopting Opinion.
Pursuant to the comments received in the time extended for
R76-14, three additional merit hearings were held in Chicago on
January 27, February 23 and 24,
1981.
Based on these,
FIA and
the Agency jointly prepared an Amended Version of the Industry
Proposal, which was filed August
3,
1981.
A public hearing was
held December 15,
1981 in Chicago.
ANALYSIS OF REVISED
REGULATIONS
Impulsive Sound
Formerly,
impulsive sound was measured in decibels using
the A-weighted sound
levels,
which most closely approximates the
way the human ear perceives sound.
During hearings there was
considerable testimony about an A—weighted fast measurement mode.
The fast measurement mode
was
demonstrated to detect almost twice
as many impulse sounds then the slow measurement method.
There-
fore,
for purposes of determining compliance with the general
limitations for impulsive sound emissions, this mode is coupled
with the A-weighted network.
Former Rule 206, renumbered to be
Rule 205, reflects this change,
as well as being amended in
accordance with the deregulation of sound emitted to Class
C Lands
(See Docket R76—19).
The allowable sound
levels remain the same.
Accordingly,
the definition of “A—weighted Sound Level”
is adopted.
The definition of “Fast Dynamic Characteristic” is updated.
45—566
Sound Levels Emitted From Forge Plants
During hearing, there was much testimony from representatives
of the forging industry that meeting original Rule
206, adopted
in
1973,
is not technologically feasible.
Non—compliance is primarily
due to the absence of known methods
of controlling the impact,
or
impulsive,
sound emission levels from forge hammers
at their
sources.
As
a result,
suitably relaxed noise limitations are
necessary.
The Noise Control Task Force
(NCTF) through the Forging
Industry Education and Research Foundation
(FIERF) performed an
estensive,
three—volume study of existing forge plants to
determine the sources of sound emissions and ways of controlling
them (Exhibits 16,
17 and 18).
Based on this study,
it appears
that the noise is being caused by two effects.
The first and
primary contributor to the peak sound level
is the sound generated
when the ram, driven downward, hits the metal work piece and the
die on the anvil.
The second source of sound is caused by the
vibration of the ram and the columns which guide
it downward due
to the sideways movement of the ram between the columns after it
hits the die.
Since peak sound pressure levels are generally proportional
to blow strengths, reducing the blow strength would reduce the
peak sound level; however,
it would also derate the hammer
(P..
310).
There may be some operations
in which the hammer blow is
stronger than necessary and could be derated
(R.
319), but in the
majority of
forge shops derating is not feasible.
In the FIERF study,
shrouding the hammer was studied, but
this may cause
several problems:
1.
If blow strength is reduced,
the
hammer
would not
be able to produce the part.
2.
Since the columns maintain the die alignment,
to
reduce the columns’ vibrations by isolating them
from the ram before the ram strikes the work piece
may cause misalignment
(P..
322).
3.
The openings in retrofitting any shroud or
enclosure will need
to be minimized in order to
reduce the amount of noise radiating past the
treatment
(P..
323).
Openings are necessary for
access to the work piece.
4.
Dynamic stress
in the shroud would have to
minimized for safety
(P..
323).
5.
In some cases a ram shroud could never be used
due to the given relationship between the ram
and the columns.
45—567
4
The buildings
in which forge shops are operated are generally
open structures which were not designed to reduce the amount of
sound radiating to the neighborhood.
All of the forge plants
discussed in the record are hot forge plants.
A forge shop must
have adequate ventilation because of the amount of heat normally
generated inside the plant,
Consequently, the structures were
designed with roof and side openings to provide natural ventilation
to dissipate the heat
(R. 103),
The work material, typically
steel,
is heated to around 2200°Fso that the material
is plastic
enough to forge
(R.
105—106).
After
forging, the hot material
is
put onto skids,
and when the skid is filled,
it is usually moved
outside to cool
(P..
1043).
In addition to the skids loaded with
hot material
(R.
1044), the furnaces used to heat the material
are major sources of heat inside the plant
(P..
106).
The level of sound emissions radiated from some forge shops
can be reduced by 15 dB(A)
by closing the open windows and doors
or by covering them with silencers
(P..
517).
Additional
noise
reductions can be obtained by making structural changes
in the
building,
such as replacing a plain metal roof deck with one made
with asbestos—containing material, replacing sheet metal walls
with brick or concrete blocks,
and replacing plain glass windows
with double glass windows,
However,
in a typical, existing, unimproved forge
shop,
only
about 4
of the acoustical energy which radiates to the outside
does so through the structure itself;
the remaining 96
radiates
through the openings
(P..
523).
Hence,
it appears that covering
the open doors with silencers or other material would be an
effective way of reducing the energy radiating from the shop
(P..
523).
As the openings are reduced or covered, however, the need
for mechanical ventilation increases as the natural ventilation
is reduced or eliminated.
In addition openings are needed for
vehicular and other traffic
(R.
502-503).
An additional method of
reducing the amount of noise radiated
to the neighborhood
is to use barriers such as walls or berms.
Barriers placed 10-15 feet outside the perimeter of
a building can
achieve a 10 to
15 dB(A)
reduction
in sound emission levels
(P..
499—501).
To be effective barriers must reach higher than the
openings
in the plant wall
(P..
1119).
They can, however,
interfere with necessary traffic
(R. 499—501), reduce ventilation
(P..
1064-1066),
and may be prohibited by non-ownership of the
requisite property
(R.
499-501),
There was evidence that technology in controlling sound
emissions is improving
(R.
1054-1055).
The Danville Wyman-Gordon
plant, which owns and operates the largest forge and hammer shop
in the country
(P..
1028—1030),
operates an entirely different
technological approach to the manufacture of crank shaft
forgirigs
and alleges
it experiences
no noise problems
(R.
1037).
There was
also evidence that a 6,000-pound hammer equipped with a hydraulic
Lasco head was quieter than other 6,000—pound hammers
(P..
972—976).
45—568
5
Since the means and extent
of
abating noise differ for
existing and new forging operations,
Rule 206
is amended to dis-
tinguish between the two,
as well as
a new Rule 205 to distinguish
between impulsive noise in general and forging impulsive noise,
New forging operations are those for which construction commences
after the effective date of the amended Rule.
Any others are
existing forging operations.
Determination of Allowable Sound Emission Levels
Impulsive noise affects people who hear it by interfering
with speech and hearing and with degree of
relaxation,
When it
exists at night it can interfere with sleep.
One witness
testified that impulsive noise interferes more with the ability
to relax than does steady state noise, but that steady state noise
interferes more with speech than does impulsive noise
(R.
1219).
There
is no evidence in the record of the relative importance to
human health or welfare concerning relaxation,
speech, hearing,
sleeping, or other activities,
Existing impulsive sound emission levels of drop forge
hammers are estimated to be as high as
121 dB(A) for a 1,000—
2,000 pound hammer
(R.
240—241),
The typical hammer operates at
500-20,000 blows per shift
(R.
245).
The average time between
hammer strikes
is one to three seconds
(R.
439).
According to the record,
present daytime sound emission
levels result
in the stipulation that roughly 60
of the 45 forge
plants are not complying with present Rule
206
(R.
486),
The
present daytime limitation of
56 dB(A)
is exceeded by 62
of all
plants considered;
the limitation of
61 dB(A) by 53
of all plants;
the
limitation of
66 dB(A) by 44
of all plants,
the limitation
of 72—76 dB(A) by 9
of all plants, and the limitation of
82 dB(A)
and higher by 9
of all plants
(R.
1000).
There was also
testimony that 58
of the plants could meet a limitation of 66
dB(A),
at the present time
(R.
579—580,
583).
There was evidence
that 95
of all plants could meet
a limitation of 66 dB(A)
with
an emission improvement of between 5 and 20 dB(A), and 1
of
the
plants would have
to improve their emission levels by 35 dB(A)
to
reach this limit
(P.. 542—544).
The Agency presented data of sound emission levels from 45
forge plants
in Illinois
(Ex.
56).
At one of the shops
it tape
recorded the sound level of a 2,000—pound drop hammer
(P..
1013).
This tape was played back through a sound
level meter into a strip
chart recorder to determine which measurement mode would be the
most appropriate for measuring the impulsive noise
(R.
1013-1014).
For the same reasons explained above,
the A fast measurement mode
is the best.
In addition, however,
there was considerable
testimony which related maximum A-Weighted fast response levels
to the energy equivalent
sound
level,
or a time—weighted average
expressed in Leq,
Sound levels expressed in terms of Leq are
useful
in estimating effects on the health and welfare of persons
6
exposed
to
them.
Leg
measurements
reflect
reduction
in
reverberations, whereas A-fast weighted measurements do not
because of the differences between reverberated and dead sound.
While reverberations do not necessarily impair speaking,
they do
have an impact on the health and welfare of persons exposed.
If
the
limits
for
forging
noise
are
not
expressed in Leq,
there may
be
no
incentive
to reduce this type of sound.
Therefore,
the
Board finds Leq the appropriate measurement to express noise
limits
for
forging
noise,
The technical information offered about available noise
abatement measures supports separate sound emission limitations
for new and existing forging operations.
The economic information,
detailed below, coupled with the technical data,
support relax-
ation of the Board’s current 56 dB(A) daytime standard for all
forging operations.
Both the Agency and the FIA agree that
a
relaxation
to
at
least
61
dR(A)
is
needed.
The
Agency
will
not
concede that a greater lessening
is necessary or wise and the FIA
did
not
convincingly
prove
the
61 dB(A)
limit
is economically
infeasible
for
all
forging
operations.
The Board is unwilling to
relax
the
limitation
beyond
66 dB(A) when the supporting economic
data
is
at
best
only
marginally
reliable.
For existing forging
operations
a
daytime
standard
at
the
higher
end
of
the
scale
is
adopted.
New
forging
operations
will
have
to
comply
with
a
relaxed,
but
still
more
stringent
limitation,
In
the
record,
these
limitations
were
in
dB(A).
They have been converted to
Leg’s
in accordance with the reasoning set out above,
Economic_Evidence1
The author of the Economic Impact Study,
Doc. No. 78/03,
chose three measurements of cost.
One measurement was
“base
case”
estimates of costs to the entire forging industry.
These
costs,
however,
could be twice as high as true costs would he.
The
second
measure
was
estimates
of
cost to all plants of reducing
emissions by
6
dB(.k).
These figures are similarly subject to
error.
The third measure was estimates of cost to 10 particular
plants,
both individually and in the aggregate
(Ex. 70,
p.
iv.).
The author relied on data derived by Bolt, Beranek and Newman,
Inc.
(BBN)
to develop adjusted statewide cost estimates and,
from these
estimates,
the
base
case
estimates.
Although
there
is
considerable
diversity
among
plants,
BBN
statistics
were
not
derived
on
a
plant—
by—plant basis but rather from a model
(Ex.
70,
pp. 11—13).
Benefits of sound emission reduction were calculated by
analyzing the distribution of homes around plants and studies
regarding
the
contribution
of
sound
emission
levels
to
differential
property
values
(Ex.
70, pp.
iv-v).
Although benefits can he
measured by monetarizing physical effects
of sound on human life
‘The dollar amounts in this Section are expressed
in 1978
dollars.
45—4
70
and human activities,
and have been covered extensively in
literature,
the author did not include these physical effects
in
his assessment of benefits,
He instead measured benefits
in terms
of damage to transactions engaged in “in which,
implicitly, we
place a value on reduced
noise”,
Buying
a house was singled out
as one of these transactions
(Ex,
70,
p.
58).
An accurate evaluation of the economic reasonableness of any
proposed reduction from the present 56 dB(A)
level
is difficult
based on the entire hearing record.
Essentially,
the author
states that costs exceed benefits at any level
(including the
present one)
(R. 1319—1320),
and the Agency states that benefits
exceed costs
at any level
(P..
1619).
Even though cost-benefit
comparisons are factors in determining the reasonableness of an
economic impact, they are not the only factors which should be
considered.
The disparity between the author’s and the Agency’s
conclusions
is illustrated below.
The Agency states that the author’s costs should be revised
downward because
(1)
the least—complying plant
in a group was
used as the compliance cost model
for each plant within the group
(groupings were made according to actual emissions)
(P..
1678);
(2) lighting costs are 75
lower than the costs used by the author
(P..
1569);
(3) the method of amortization of control costs,
the
estimate of the number of new or modified pieces of ventilation
equipment needed,
and the estimate of fuel consumed to maintain
inplant temperatures all overestimate operating costs
(P..
1572—
1575);
(4)
silencers coupled with natural ventilation systems
were not considered
(P..
1562—1565,
1682,
1697);
(5) reduction
in ventilation sizings will reduce mechanical ventilation system
costs
(P..
1565); and
(6) costs of barriers are two times too high
(P..
1560—1562,
1644),
The Agency,
however,
does state that the
author properly considered engineering and consultant fees
(P..
1686—1689),
Conversely, the author states that the Agency’s costs should
be revised upward because
(1)
costs of nighttime operations are
excluded;
(2) the increased closing of ventilation openings will
raise inplant noise and necessitate additional
costs;
and
(3)
costs of stopping production to effectuate control technology are
excluded
(R.
1769—1770),
The author, however, does say that the
Agency’s costs should be revised downward because of the data
used
in arriving at natural and mechanical ventilation equipment
and lighting
(P..
1763—1767).
The Agency states that the author’s benefits should he
revised upward because
(1) property values were underestimated
by a factor of 2,63
(R.
1613,
1635);
(2) home buyers are unaware
of sound emission effects in the environment until they have
lived in the home for a period of time
(R.
1580—1584);
(3) air-
port noise studies raise questions
as to effects on fetuses
(P..
1715);
(4) the traffic noise index used underestimated
damages
(R.
1587—1592);
and
(5) personal health effects benefits
are not considered
(P..
1788),
45—47
1
B
Conversely,
the author states that the Agency’s benefits
should be revised downward because
(1)
homes which are mobile
should not reap full benefits and
(2)
if plants could not meet
a 50—db(A)
level, benefits would be illusory
(P..
1771).
The
author, however,
states that in some areas the Agency’s benefits
would exceed costs by a factor of
2
(P..
1786).
Aside from the disparity between the cost and benefits
estimates made by the Author and Agency,
the Board finds
in the
record several questionable assumptions which appear to have been
made,
and some not to have been made.
The author assumed
(1)
buyers and occupiers of homes differ in their valuation of benefits
of
sound
reduction, ~
a buyer or occupier of
a $50,008 house
values sound reduction twice as much as a buyer or occupier of a
$25,000 house
(P..
1415—1423);
(2)
annoyance occurs primarily from
single,
defined emissions rather than multiple or repetitious
emissions
(P.,
1425—1432,
1557);
(3) hearing loss
is not a signi-
ficant enough factor to be taken into account
(P..
1479);
(4)
outside research of the effects of noise pollution other than
those
in the hearing record would not have uncovered additional
effects
(P..
1481—1482).
Finally,
the author’s benefit figures
excluded benefits which could accrue to hospitals and physically
immobile persons
(P.,
1555-1559), to employment
in the noise
oontrol abatement industry
(P..
1534—1536), and to citizens due
to the technology-forcing policy of the Illinois Environmental
Protection Act
(Section 2)
(R,1485—1488).
It
is clear to the Board from the testimony and documents
in the record that cost and benefit figures cannot he relied upon
with any reasonable accuracy.
Therefore,
it may not be
true,
as
the author asserts, that costs will be greater than benefits in
every instance.
Neither does the Board find,
as the Agency as-
serts, that benefits will be greater than costs
in every instance.
This means that the true costs
of meeting a 56 dB(A)
sound
emission limitation are probably less than $38.1 million
(or
$1.1 million per
34 noncomplying shops)
(R2 1313), but more than
whatever costs the Agency would calculate;
the true costs of
meeting
a
61 dB(A)
limitation are probably less than $28 million
(or $0.9 million per 30 noncomplying shops)
(P..
1313) but more
than $10.3 million (or $0.3 million per 30 noncomplying shops);
and the true costs of meeting a 66 dB(A)
limitation are probably
less than $20.9 million
(or $0.8 million per 26 noncomplying shops)
(P..
1313) but more than $7.4 million
(or $0.3 million per 26 non-
complying shops),
From these wide ranges,
it can be estimated
that the cost of compliance with limitations of either 56,
61 or
66 dB(A)
could range from $300,000—$l,l00,000 per shop.
As to
the benefits of compliance with a 56,
61, or
66 dB(A)
limitation,
the Board estimates from Exhibits
70 and 74 that the total range
of benefits is between $2.8 million and $9.3 million.
45—572
Site
~eci
£
icO~erationalLeve1s
Subsequent
to Board
proposing these
noise limitations,
it
became apparent
that a small
number
of Illinois forging operations
could never achieve compliance for reasons technical and economic.
Normally an appropriate standard would he adopted.
For these
operation, however,
no
one standard or even site specific
limitation can be scientifically determined.
To effectively abate
noise from these operations, FIA and the Agency proposed permanent
site-specific operational
levels,
These are to be premised on
operational changes and abatement measures,
Although akin to site
specific rulemaking under Section 28 of the
Act,
Rule 206(d)
delineates the information petitioner must submit prior to public
hearing.
The economic and technical inability to comply with the
established
limits must be explained, along with the intended means
of
reducing noise
as much
as possible,
and the current and future
health and welfare impacts on the surrounding community,
Rule
206(d) differs from the Act
in that Petitioners have a limited
time within which
to apply for an individualized operational
level
and that the Agency must submit a Recommendation for each petition.
The Board will treat the petitions submitted pursuant to
Rule 206(d) jointly and individually.
For purposes of hearings
and economic impact studies,
the petitions will he consolidated
undec
one regulatory docket,
However,
at the conclusion,
those
forging operations satisfying Rule 206(d)’s requirements shall
be granted individual permanent operational
levels,
including
any necessary noise abatement measures,
These plans will then
become rules within Chapter
8.
The actual levels
of noise emitted
to receiving lands will be determinable only after the required
abatement measures and operational
levels are accomplished.
Subsequent modification of the plan will not be allowed, unless
approved by the Board,
if
an increase in decibel
levels,
measured
in Leq, emitted to Class
A or B Lands would result.
Surroundin~~j~seClassification
To avoid penalizing the forging operation which has complied
with the applicable noise
limitation,
Rule 206(e) has been added.
It provides that the use classification of the land surrounding
such an operation,
and any future modifications thereof,
is
preserved as of the effective date of this Rule.
The only
classification change that can occur is one which would
relax the
applicable noise limitations.
This
is not to say that
the
zoning
status of the surrounding
land cannot change.
For purposes
of
enforcing the sound limits and operational levels established in
Rule 206, however, only the appropriate land use classification
will be considered.
The Industry Proposal specified a distance
of one mile from the property
line for this purpose.
Nothing
in the record contested this distance,
so
it is accepted,
New
forging operations do not require the same protection.
Since
they are not confronted with inherent limitations, these shops
can be initially designed and constructed to comply with the
45—573
10
most stringent
standard
for sounds emitted to Class A lands (Rule
206(b)),
That way
they will
not be jeopardized by fluctuating
land classifications.
If this
method of compliance assurance
is
unacceptable, the shop has the alternative of providing a buffer
zone sufficient to prevent enforcement actions,
Conclusion
Relaxed noise limitations have been adopted for those forging
operations which can achieve them through reasonable technical and
economic measures.
However, the information produced in this
rulemaking evidenced major structural dissimilarities
in forging
operations,
often necessitating individually tailored means
to
abate their noise,
Also,
the economic evidence was disparate,
but nevertheless indicative of high costs to effectively renovate
existing shops.
For these operations,
the site-specific rule-
making mechanism is contained in Rule 206,
Thereby, individual
operational programs will, within a limited time frame,
abate
forging operation impact noise to the greatest extent reasonably
possible for the protection of those affected persons nearby.
I,
Christan
L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Boyd, hereby certify that the above Opinion was adopted
on the
/1
day of
~
1982 by a vote of
‘1—0.
~istanL.Moff~
Illinois Pollutio
ntrol
Board
.
45—574
