ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
April 28, 1977
INTERNATIONAL HARVESTER COMPANY,
Petitioner,
v
)
PCB 76—222
)
)
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
Respondent.
JOHN FLETCHER, ESQ., APPEARED ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER;
JAMES BUMGABNER, ESQ., APPEARED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Mr. Goodman):
This matter is before the Board upon a Petition for Variance
by International Harvester Company (Harvester) for the company’s
facility at Canton, Illinois (Canton). Hearing was held in this
matter on March 16, 1977 at which time both parties indicated that
they had agreed upon conditions for the proposed variance. One
citizen testified at the hearing, and objections to the variance
have been received by the Board.
The Canton Plant is engaged in the manufacture of farm equip-
ment, parts for industrial and construction equipment and other
miscellaneous parts. The manufacturing process includes shearing
of steel, punching, forging, welding and machining processes. The
Canton Plant normally employs between 1900 and 2200 employees, and
its products are shipped to other International Harvester Company
manufacturing facilities for use in their manufacture and assembly
of other products. The subject of the Variance Petition herein is
the Canton Plant’s Forge Shop and the noise emissions therefrom.
Harvester requests variance from Rules 202, 204, and 205 of Chapter
8, Illinois Pollution Control Board Rules and Regulations (Regulations).
In addition, the Agency suggests that variance from Rule 206 of the
Regulations is required; thus the Board will consider that Rule in
its deliberations.
25
—
367
—2—
The sources of the noise at the Canton Plant include a wide
variety of forge shop equipment, exhaust systems, and ventilation
equipment. The maximum current levels of noise emissions from the
Plant to surrounding properties are in the range of 51 to 87 dB, and
the level of steady-state noise emissions from the Plant range from
3 to 17 dB (Amended Petition, p.3). Harvester alleges that property
acquisitions have had the effect of extending the distance between
the Plant and land receiving the noise emissions at a cost of
$180,000.00. In addition the Company has used special materials in
replacing a portion of the forge shop roof and the West wall and
part of the East wall of Building 103, which materially reduces the
sound transmission, and has installed exhaust mufflers and other such
equipment on its hammers. These projects have cost Harvester
$400,000.00 to date (Amended Petition, p.5). Several additional
projects are in process in an attempt to further reduce noise emis-
sions from the Canton Plant, including relocation of hammers, modifi—
cation of exhaust vents, enclosure of equipment, etc. It is esti-
mated that the completion of these projects will cost an additional
$100,000.00 (Amended Petition, p.6).
Harvester has studied several alternatives including relocation
of the hammers, acquisition of additional adjoining land, enclosure
of existing buildings, outside contracts, etc. Harvester alleges
that it has yet to find a method which is both technologically and
economically feasible to reduce the noise emissions to within exist-
ing regulations. It supports this conclusion with the results of
noise consultation studies by Lyle F. Yerges of June 22, 1974, and
August 17, 1974, and Bolt, Beranek and Newman in 1971, copies of
which studies are presented as Exhibit 5 (Amended Petition, p.7).
These studies indicate the only technically feasible method of re-
ducing noise levels to within compliance is the complete enclosure
of the buildings. It is estimated that the complete enclosure of
the forging operation would cost approximately $9,000,000.00 (Exhibit
6). Harvester alleges that it would be arbitrary and unreasonable to
require it to spend $9,000,000.00 (approximately four times the book
value of the forge shop) to meet the requirements of the regulations
and requests variance from the existing noise emission standards
Rules 202, 204, and 205(206) for a period of 5 years.
The Agency has developed a very complete Recommendation in this
case including sound surveys, interviews with citizens, and estimated
cost data. The Agency concludes that Harvester should be granted a
variance for a period of time determined by the results in R 76-14
and R 76-19, proposed amendments to the Board’s Noise Regulations
with respect to forging noise. In addition the Agency suggests
conditions be put on the proposed variance which would result in
attenuation
of the present noise level and the continuation of on-
going research in reducing forge plant noise.
25
—
368
—3—
In its Recommendation the Agency details the noise problems at
Harvester’s facility, the adverse effects therefrom, and the cost
associated with both compliance and noncompliance with the regula-
tions. The Agency agrees that compliance with the steady-state noise
rules, i.e. Rules 202, 204, and 205, should await the results of
R 76-14 and R 76-19 and that Harvester should additionally be granted
variance from Rule 206, the impulse noise rule which is the subject of
the amendments under consideration (Agency Recommendation, Exhibit 4).
In addition, however, the Agency points out that Harvester can attenu-
ate the noise level during the term of the proposed variance.
Two letters of objection were received by the Board concerning
this proposed variance. The Agency received one of these letters
(Agency Recommendation, Attachment 1) and two other letters re-
questing that the proposed variance be granted (Agency Recommendation,
Attachments 3 and 4). In addition the Agency interviewed three of
the signors of the letter of objection and eight residents concerning
the noise emissions of the Harvester facility (Agency Recommendation,
Attachment 2). One letter of objection argued that the objector’s
vacant lot, zoned commercial, might be depreciated in value if the
variance is granted. The second letter, signed by twelve citizens,
argued that a further increase in the noise of Harvester’s operation
would result wherein “it will no longer be possible to live in this
area with any degree of comfort”.
Attachment 2 to the Agency’s Recommendation contains interviews
with three of the citizens objecting to the variance petition and
interviews with eight additional residents constituting a “sampling”
on the West side of the Harvester plant. The three complainants in-
terviewed complained for the most part about trucks coming from the
North side of the plant in low gear in passing their homes. The West
side residents stated that the noise did not bother them (3), that
they are slightly bothered by the noise (3) or that they were annoyed
by the noise (2). Disregarding the effect of the noise emissions on
value of the empty lot, the main objection of the citizens interviewed
appears to be the truck traffic on the streets adjacent to Harvester’s
facility and the apparent feeling by many that a variance will allow
Harvester to increase the noise emissions from the facility. Indeed,
the only citizen in attendance at the hearing (who was also one of
the objectors) stated “what I wanted to know is, do they expect to
add additional noise on the Northeast of the building, anymore
appliances or anything for more noise?” Mr. Fletcher responded on
behalf of Harvester “and so that in the event any new equipment was
added, the noise attenuating characteristics and anything that had
to be done in order to keep the noise levels down would be done.”
(R. 11—12).
Balancing the effect of Harvester’s noise emissions on the
25
—
369
—4—
surrounding area with the extreme cost associated with immediate com-
pliance using the only known method, i.e., total enclosure, and
considering that the noise problem is now the subject of regulatory
hearings, the Board finds that it would place an arbitrary and un-
reasonable hardship upon Harvester to deny the proposed variance.
However, the Board will impose conditions upon the variance in order
to relieve the impact of Harvester’s noise emissions on the surround-
ing area to the extent possible and to safeguard that area from any
increase in those emissions.
This Opinion constitutes the findings of facts and conclusions
of law of the Board in this matter.
ORDER
It is the Order of the Pollution Control Board that International
Harvester Company be granted variance from
Rules
202, 204, 205 and
206 of the Board’s Noise Regulations until April 1, 1979 or until
the final determination in regulatory proceedings R 76-14 and R 76—19,
whichever event shall occur first, under the following conditions:
1. Harvester shall reduce the ventilation openings by
partially closing the large overhead doors on the West
side of the plant when possible to reduce the noise emis-
sions.
2. Harvester shall maintain its participation in on-
going research in reducing the forge plant noise, specifi-
cally the 1974 Industrial Noise Control Research Project
sponsored by the Forging Industry Educational and Research
Foundation.
3. Harvester shall report to the Agency every six months,
beginning from the date of this Order, on the results of
its activity with respect to 1 and 2 above.
4. Harvester shall not increase the noise emission from
the Canton facility during the term of this Variance.
5. Harvester shall execute and forward to the Environmental
Protection Agency, Division of Noise Pollution, Enforcement
Section, 2200 Churchill Road, Springfield, Illinois 62706 and
the Pollution Control Board a Certification of Acceptance and
25
—
370
—5---
agreement to be bound to all terms and conditions of this
Order. The form of said certification shall be as follows:
CERTIFICATION
I (We)
,
_______________________________________having read and fully
understanding the Order of the Illinois Pollution Control Board in
PCB 76-222 hereby accept said Order and agree to be bound by all of
the terms and conditions thereof.
SIGNED__________________________
TITLE____________________________
DATE______________________________
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certif the above Opinion and Order yere adopted on the
~
day of
-
,
1977 by a vote of ~-O
Christan L. Moffet?/)~lerk
Illinois Pollution ‘e~trol Board
25
—
371