ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARD
October
4, 1979
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Complainant,
v.
)
PCB 78—258
K.
L. OIL COMPANY,
an Illinois
)
corporation, d/b/a
K
& L AUTO WASH,
Respondent.
MR.
WILLIAM
J.
BARZANO, JR., ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, APPEARED
ON
BEHALF
OF
THE
COMPLAINANT.
MR.
EDWARD
N.
BURKE,
ATTORNEY
AT
LAW,
APPEARED
ON
BEHALF
OF
THE
RESPONDENT.
OPINION
AND
ORDER
OF
THE
BOARD
(by
Dr.
Satchell):
This
matter
comes
before
the
Board
upon
a
complaint
filed
September
29,
1978
by
the
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(Agency)
against Respondent K.
L. Oil Company,
an Illinois corporation,
d/b/a K
& L Auto Wash.
The complaint charged violation of Section
24 of the Environmental Protection Act
(Act)
and Rules
102 and 202
of Board Rules,
Chapter
8:
Noise Pollution,
in connection with the
operation of a gas station and car wash in Justice in Cook county.
The parties met on January 25,
1979 before a stenographer and in-
dicated that they would later submit a stipulation.
The Hearing
Officer, apparently arriving late, granted leave to file within
fifteen days written statements as to the proposed settlement and
further stated that no members of the public had appeared at the
hearing.
The parties entered into a stipulation, statement of
facts and proposal for settlement filed May 17,
1979.
This stip-
ulation was considered in an Interim Order dated June
7, 1979.
On
September 14,
1979 the parties filed a joint motion for entry of
a final order setting forth additional
facts and amending the terms
of the settlement.
Respondent’s car wash is classified as
a Class B land use
activity under the standard land use coding system of the U.
S.
Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration.
There is residential property which
is
a Class A land use in the
vicinity of the car wash.
Noise Rule 202 sets forth allowable
octave band sound pressure levels for sound emitted from Class B
land to Class A land during daytime hours.
Count II of the com-
plaint alleged that on various dates Respondent’s car wash emitted
noise which exceeded the sound pressure levels for the higher fre-
35—1449
—2—
quency octave bands.
Count
I alleged violations of the same pro-
visions by unreasonably interfering with the enjoyment of life.
At the
time of the proposed settlement,
Respondent had expended
over $9000 on noise control measures and expected it might have to
spend another $5000.
It
is not clear from the record what the final
cost of compliance was,
However,
on June 25,
1979 the Agency con-
ducted
a
survey
and
determined
that
the
car
wash
was
in
compliance
with the
sound pressure levels of Noise Rule 202.
In their joint
motion the parties have set forth the results of the test and agreed
to excise from the settlement agreement those provisions which con-
cerned contingencies dependent on an adverse outcome of the survey.
As it now stands the stipulation sets forth various sound
control steps which were completed prior to the noise survey.
Respondent represents that it “has voluntarily shut down the
facility on Sunday for an indefinite period of time.”
Respondent
agrees to limit operations to 7:00 a.m. to 9:00 p.m. Monday through
Friday and 8:00 a.m.
to 9:00 p.m.
on Saturday, Sunday and legal
holidays.
Respondent will also maintain all noise abatement
equipment
previously
installed
to
ensure
its
working
order.
The
stipulation
provides
for
no
penalty.
The
Board
finds that, con-
sidering
the
factors outlined in §33(c)
of the Act, no penalty is
necessary to aid in enforcement of the Act.
Procedural Rule 331 requires that a settlement be presented to
the Hearing Officer at a hearing in which all interested persons
may testify.
Since no persons appeared at the hearing in January,
it is moot whether they would have objected to subsequent modification
of the agreement.
The parties allege in the joint motion that the
citizen complainants have stated that the noise levels no longer
constitute an unreasonable interference with the enjoyment of
life.
Although this proceeding has been somewhat irregular,
the Board
finds that the letter and spirit of the hearing requirement have
been met and that the stipulation is acceptable under Procedural
Rule
331.
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
conclusions of law in this matter.
ORDER
Respondent
shall comply with the agreements contained in
the stipulation, statement of facts and proposal for settlement as
amended by the joint motion for entry of final order filed September
14,
1979 which are hereby incorporated by reference as
if fully set
forth.
IT IS SO ORDERED
—3—
I,
Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Baord, h~rebycertify
the above Opinion and Order were adopted
on
the
‘
day
of
_________,
1979 by a vote of
______
Q&tanMá?~er*
Illinois Pollution
rol Board
35—45 1