ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
September 15, 1976
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
Complainant,
)
v.
)
PCB 75—123
INFRA-RED
FOODS
CORPORATION,
)
Respondent.
The
Honorable
William
J.
Scott,
Attorney
General,
by
Ms.
Helga
Huber
and
Mr.
Jeffrey
Herden,
appeared
on
behalf
of
Complainant
Mr. Donald Novotny appeared on behalf of Respondent
OPINION
AND
ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by Mr. Goodman):
This matter comes before the Pollution Control Board
(Board)
upon the Complaint filed by the Environmental Protection Agency
(Agency)
on March
19,
1975, charging Infra—Red Foods Corporation
(Infra-Red)
with violation of Rules 102 and 202 of the Noise
Pollution Regulations
(Chapter
8)
and Section
24 of the Act.
A
hearing was held on June
16,
1976,
in Chicago,
Illinois.
At the
hearing, the parties submitted a Stipulation of Facts
(Stipulation).
No citizen witnesses were present.
Two
preliminary matters require resolution.
At the hearing,
the Agency withdrew Count II of the complaint.
Count II, which
alleged violation of Rule 102, is hereby dismissed.
Also,
at
the hearing the Hearing Officer denied a motion by Respondent to
admit a noise survey conducted by Industrial Noise Surveys, In-
corporated.
The Hearing Officer,
at the conclusion of the hearing,
certified his ruling on admissibility to the Board for review.
The Board hereby overrules the ruling of the Hearing Officer and
admits Respondent’s Exhibit
1.
23
—~
427
—2—
Infra—Red owns and operates a frozen food processing plant
in Oak Park,
Cook County,
Illinois.
The plant in question consti-
tutes a Class C use within the meaning of Rule 201 of Chapter
8.
The plant incorporates
a refrigeration system which utilizes com-
pressors, evaporators, pump lines,
and associated machinery.
The alleged sources of noise are a compressor,
a number of
evaporators, pumps,
lines and associated machinery.
The compressor
is located in
a room on the north side of the plant and the evapo-
rator unit is located on the roof.
The evaporator coils are cooled
by air being blown over them from three horizontal
fans driven by a
5—horsepower motor.
The compressor room also houses two additional
evaporator units which are operated daily.
Four openings in the com-
pressor room allow ventilation of the equipment.
The Agency’s Complaint alleged that on January
8, 1975, during
daytime hours, Respondent caused or allowed the emission of sound
beyond the boundaries of its property, Class C land, to receiving
residential property,
Class A use, which exceeded the daytime limits
prescribed in Rule 202 of Chapter
8.
An Agency Noise Survey taken
at an apartment across an alley from the plant revealed the follow-
ing results:
Octave Band
Octave Band Sound
Octave Band Sound
Center Frequency
Pressure Levels
(dB)
Pressure Levels
(dB)
(Hertz)
(Infra—Red Plant
(Rule 202)
31.5
60.5
75
63
62
74
125
64
69
250
61
64
500
59.5
58
1000
54.5
52
2000
51
47
4000
46
43
8000
39.5
40
Attached to the Stipulation of Facts submitted by the parties
are several Noise Survey Reports prepared by the Agency.
The
parties stipulate that the reports show measurement of sound
received by the near—by apartment building in excess of the Board’s
Regulations.
Specifically, the reports dated November
11,
1974,
May 27,
1974, January
8,
1975,
and April 25,
1975, show excursions
over the limits set by Rule 202.
—3—
The
Agency recommended to Infra—Red certain remedial actions,
outlined in
the Stipulation,
aimed at reduced noise emissions from
the plant.
The Stipulation indicates that by July 24,
1975,
Infra-
Red had implemented the Agency’s suggestions and had taken several
additional steps toward improving the situation.
The Agency stipu-
lates,
and a July 24,
1975, Noise Survey Report confirms that the
actions taken by Infra-Red have significantly reduced the noise
emissions from its plant.
The Board notes, however,
that this im-
provement did not occur until after the Agency filed its Complaint
in this matter and that Respondent was first made aware of the
problem about April
1,
1974
(R.55).
The Board finds that Infra-Red has violated Rule 202 of Chapter
8
and
Section
24
of
the
Act.
In
fashioning
a
remedy,
the
Board
must
consider
the
factors
outlined
in
Section
33(c)
of
the
Act:
1)
the
degree of injury to the public;
2)
the social and economic value of
the pollution source;
3)
the suitability of the source to its
location; and
4)
the technical practicability and economic reason-
ableness of reducing the emissions.
The injury
to the public in
this matter is evidenced by noise complaints received by the Agency
from the manager and tenants of an apartment building across the
alley from Infra—Red
(see Stipulation, p.5).
The manager stated
that the loud machine noise emanating from Infra—Red was constant,
that even with all the windows closed,
the noise was not tolerable,
and the noise interferred with the sleep of tenants facing the
plant.
Furthermore,
at the hearing the Agency introduced a docu-
ment published by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, entitled
“Information on Levels of Environmental Noise Requisite to Protect
Public Health and Welfare.”
(R.13).
Based upon this document, the
Agency concluded that,
although the level of noise emitted by Infra-
Red would cause no hearing loss to the residents of the apartment
building,
it would interfere with indoor activities.
As to the
economic and social value of the plant, the Stipulation indicates
that Infra—Red, which has been at its present location since 1936,
employs about 35 people and last year had gross receipts of 1.9
million dollars.
Infra-Red is located in an area which is comprised of a combi-
nation of residences,
which are mainly apartment buildings,
and
commercial facilities.
Testimony at the hearing indicated that
the block on which the plant is located is
a main thoroughfare, often
traveled by heavy trucks adding to the ambient noise levels
(R.28).
The Infra-Red plant was built prior to the construction of the
apartments from which noise complaints were received by the Agency.
For the first few years after the apartments were built tenants were
23
—
429
—4—
not bothered by the noise.
However, after additional equipment was
installed,
around December,
1973,
it was alleged that the noise be-
came excessive.
The improvements Infra-Red made,
as stipulated to by the Agency,
indicate that reducing its noise emissions was technically practi-
cable and economically reasonable.
The improvements were made at
a
cost of $3,800.00
(R.50).
The Board finds that a penalty is appropriate for the violation
of Rule 202 and Section
24 of the Act found herein.
Infra-Red’s
noise emissions have seriously disturbed tenants in the apartment
building across the alley from the plant.
Although reducing its
emissions was technically and economically reasonable and Infra—Red
was aware of the problem since at least April,
1974,
Infra-Red did
not reduce
its emissions
to the level required by the Board’s Rules
until after the complaint in this matter was
filed.
The Board,
therefore,
assesses a penalty of
$2,000.00 for the violations
found
herein.
This Opinion represents the findings of fact and conclusions
of
law
of
the
Board
in
this
matter.
ORDER
It
is
the
Order
of
the
Pollution
Control
Board
that:
1)
Infra-Red
Foods
Corporation
is
found
to
have
violated
Rule
202
of
Chapter
8:
Noise
Pollution
Regulations
and
Section 24 of the Environmental Protection Act.
2)
For said violations,
Infra—Red shall pay
a penalty of
$2,000.00.
Payment shall be made by certified check or
money order payable to the State of Illinois,
Fiscal Services
Division, Environmental Protection Agency,
2200 Churchill
Road, Springfield, Illinois 62706.
Payment shall be made
within 45 days of the date of this Order.
3)
Infra-Red shall cease and desist from further violations
of Rule 202 and Section 24 of the Act.
23—430
—5—
4)
Count II of the Complaint is hereby dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
I,
Christan
L.
Moffett,
Clerk
of
the
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board,
ejeby certify th
above Opinion and Order were adopted on
the
/
“
day ~
1976 by a vote of
~
Illinois
Pollution
23—431