ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
August 24,
1978
FRANK’S
CAR
WASH,
INC.,
an
)
Illinois corporation,
)
Petitioner,
vs.
)
PCB 78—116
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by Dr. Satchell):
On April 24,
1978 Frank’s Car Wash,
Inc.
(Frank’s)
filed
a petition for variance from Board Rule 202 of Chapter
8:
Noise
Pollution Regulations.
The Environmental Protection Agency
(Agency)
filed its recommendation on May 22,
1978.
A hearing
was held on this matter on June
27, 1978.
At the hearing the
petition was amended to include requests for variance from
Rules 102 and 204 of Chapter 8
as well as Rule 202.
Also at
the hearing Mr. Richard Petersen, an objector, testified.
This same facility was the subject of a previous enforcement
case befor~the Board PCB 76-238,
25 PCB 375
(1977).
That case
was resolved through a stipulated settlement that included a
compliance plan.
Frank’s Car Wash, located at 217 West Illinois Avenue,
Aurora,
Kane County, Illinois was built in the fall of 1974 on land zoned
commercial; however, the area surrounding the facility has both
residential and commercial establishments.
The facility employs
approximately
5 to
8 persons.
It operates from 8:00 a.m. until
6:00 p.m. Monday through Saturday and from 9:00 a.m. until 2:00 p.m.
on Sunday, fifty-two weeks per year.
The main source of noise
is
the drying equipment used at the facility.
Frank’s has carried out the compliance plan agreed on in
PCB 76-238.
Efforts made before and after the compliance plan
include:
a noise suppression kit was purchased from the blower
manufacturer and installed;
a wall approximately ten feet tall and
twenty-four feet long was constructed on the west property line;
and a roof was constructed between the car wash building and the
noise abatement wall.
These three programs resulted in lowering
the noise at the nearest residence from one to thirty dB depending
on the octave band.
The attenuation provided by the barrier
is
in fair agreement with that predicted by theory.
Petitioner states he knows of no other methods for reducing
the current noise levels.
The Agency believes that several
other techniques do exist.
However, most of these do not work
out well with the physical characteristics of Frank’s Car Wash.
31—27j
—2—
A barrier perpendicular to and connected to ~theexisting barrier
could be built at an approximate cost of $430.
However, this
would make it nearly impossible to maneuver the vehicle exiting
the car wash to Illinois Avenue and creates a possible safety
hazard since the vehicle must maneuver three ninety—degree turns
in a very small area.
Acoustical foam could be applied to the
barrier wall and roof,
but the excess noise appears to be due
to reflections from the street curb and berm located across the
street.
The wet environment of the car wash can bring about
deterioration of the foam material over time.
The Agency does not
recommend this method.
The current A-weighted sound emission is 56.2 dB(A);
before
noise abatement it was 81 dB(A) with a measured ambient of
44 dB(A).
If the car wash were to reduce its emissions to exactly meet the
limits of Rule 202, the A-weighted sound level would
be 54.5 dB(A).
Petitioner’s business runs
65 hours per week.
As defined by
Chapter
8 all hours of operation are during daytime hours.
The
Agency estimates that the noise emitting equipment operates about
40
of the hours of operation.
According to USEPA criterion steady
sound levels such as those produced by the car dryer have been
found to interfere with outdoor communication.
The noise abatement
equipment already installed by Frank’s has provided substantial
improvement over the original levels for conversation.
If the
noise were reduced to the levels of Rule 202, the improvement
would be negligible.
Indoors during the summer there is a small
chance of speech interference and no interference during the
winter.
Since all car wash operations occur during daytime hours,
little sleep disruption would be expected.
However,
if sleep
interference does occur even in the summer months only minimal
interference is indicated.
After Agency communications two neighbors objected to the
variance,
three were in favor, and the remaining eight not
responding.
Mr. Richard Petersen testified at the hearing.
He
does object to the noise.
The area was zoned commercial when
Mr. Petersen purchased the house
in 1974
(R.
23,
26).
Frank’s
Car Wash was being built at that time and Mr. Petersen was aware
of it
(R.
27).
Appendix III of the Agency’s recommendation also
shows
a heavy traffic volume on Illinois Avenue which would also
contribute heavily to the ambient noise level.
The traffic
volume estimated per day is
12,096 cars,
1,440 medium trucks and
860 heavy trucks.
The Agency recommends the grai~tof a five year variance
subject to certain conditions.
The Board agrees.
The Board finds
that Frank’s has made a substantial effort to resolve the problem.
Further abatement procedures would be disruptive to business while
giving only negligible abatement of the noise.
The Board
finds
that arbitrary and unreasonable hardship would be suffered should
this variance be denied.
A five year variance is granted subject
to the Agency’s conditions.
31—272
—3—
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact and
conclusions of law in this matter.
ORDER
It is the order of the Pollution Control Board that Frank’s
Car Wash,
Inc.
is granted a variance from Rules
102, 202 and
204
of Chapter
8:
Noise Pollution Regulations as to the operations
of its car wash for five years from the date of this order subject
to the following conditions:
1.
That throughout the period of the Variance, Petitioner
shall properly maintain existing noise control equipment
presently installed on the car wash dryers, specifications
of which are more particularly described in the
Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement approved by the
Board in EPA v. Frank’s Car Wash,
Inc., PCB 76-238.
2.
That throughout the period of the Variance, Petitioner
shall properly maintain the barrier and its roof at
the car wash exit,
specifications of which are more
particularly described in Stipulation and Proposal for
‘Settlement approved by the Board in EPA v. Frank’s
Car Wash,
Inc., PCB 76-238;
and,
shall insure that no
leaks are permitted to develop or exist either between
blocks or between the barrier and its roof and the car
wash building.
3.
That throughout the period of the Variance, Petitioner
shall not operate the car wash between the hours of
10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.,
local
time.
4.
That throughout the period of the Variance, no new
equipment installed and no equipment repair at the car
wash shall increase the octave band sound pressure
levels over those shown in Figure
1, Exhibit
4, of
the
Agency’s recommendation hereby incorporated by
reference as
if fully set forth herein, measured at
the residential property presently occupied by
Mr.
Clyde Hartman to the west of the car wash or those
shown in Figure 7, Exhibit 4, of the Agency’s recommendation,
measured at the property of Rambling Rose Realty across
the street from the car wash and to the south of it.
5.
That throughout the period of the Variance, Petitioner
shall report to the Agency any economically reasonable
and technologically practicable means of further
abatement which may become available through advances
in the state of the art.
6.
That Petitioner shall execute and forward to
the
Environmental Protection Agency, Division of Noise
Pollution Control, Enforcement Section, 2200 Churchill
Road, Springfield, Illinois 62706 within forty-five
(45)
days after the date of the Board Order herein a
31_273
—4—
Certificate of Acceptance and Agreement to be
bound to all the terms and conditions of the
variance.
This 45 day period shall be held in
abeyance for any period during which this matter
is appealed.
The form of said Certification to
be as follows:
CERTIFICATION
Frank’s Car Wash,
Inc.
has received and understands the
Order of the Illinois Pollution Control Board in PCB 78-116 and
hereby accepts said order and agrees to be bound
to all the terms
and conditions thereof.
NAME
TITLE
DATE
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, hereb~certify the above Opinion and Order were
adopt~donthe
,~,)4
day of
___________,
1978 by a vote
c2A~I7~
~
Christan L. Moff~~)C1erk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
31—274