ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
June 3, 1976
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Complainant,
v.
)
PCB 75—412
MODERN PLATING CORPORATION,
Respondent.
Mr. James K. Jenks and
Mr.
Harry B. Biackwood, Assistant Attorneys
General, appeared for the Complainant;
Mr. Robert J. Schmelzle, Attorney, appeared for the Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Mr. Zeitlin):
This matter is before the Board on a Complaint filed by the
Environmental Protection Agency (Agency) on October 20, 1975,
alleging that Respondent Modern Plating Corporation (Modern) violated
Section 24 of the Environmental Protection Act (Act) and Rules 102
and 202 of Chapter 8: Noise Pollution, of the Board’s Rules and
Regulations. Those violations were alleged to have taken place as
a result of noise emitted from Modern’s Freeport, Illinois manufac-
turing facility, during the period August 10, 1974
-
October 20, 1975.
A hearing was held in the matter at the Freeport City Hall on
December 4, 1975, at which the Agency presented the testimony of
citizen witnesses on the issues of noise emission and the resulting
interference with the citizens’ enjoyment of life and property. At
a continuation of that hearing on March 2, 1976, Modern and the
Agency submitted a Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement (Stipu-
lation) which forms the basis of this Opinion and Order.
Modern’s Freeport plant at 701-751 South Hancock Avenue (Class
C land) has been in operation since 1962, when Modern acquired the
plant for use as an electroplating and rustproofing job shop.
Employing 100 persons, Modern’s plant is of substantial economic
importance to the city of Freeport. To the south and east of the
plant are single-family houses (Class A land), from which most of
the noise complaints leading to this case have originated.
Noise sources at the Modern plant have included a dust collector
located outside the plant building, with two large blowers powered
by electric motors, and approximately 40 compressed air valves.
Additional sources are the plant’s public address system and other
noises such as employee—owned radios which can be heard through open
windows. Noises emitted include loud humming and roaring sounds arid
an occasional sudden, loud “booming” noise whose origin has not been
positively identified.
22—25
—2—
In the Stipulation, Modern agreed that these sources, as
measured in various noise surveys, have resulted in violations of
both Rules 102 and 202. These stipulated violations are more than
verified by the surveys (Stip. Ex. B through J) and by the testimony
of witnesses at the December 4, 1975 hearing. Indeed, in light of
the testimony at that hearing, our only difficulty with accepting
the Stipulation is the proposed penalty of $500.
There are two points which serve to mitigate the need for a
higher penalty. First, the Stipulation indicates that Modern has
already engaged consultants to alleviate the problems indicated
there and in the preceding testimony. Modern has agreed to the use
of those consultants to achieve compliance with the applicable Regu-
lations by May 1, 1976, a date already past, CR. 106). In addition
to achieving compliance with the Regulations whose violations were
alleged in the Complaint, Rules 102 and 202, Modern has also agreed
to remedy an apparent problem with the Rule
206
impulsive noise
standard by the same date, (Id.).
Second, as an indication of good faith, Modern has further
agreed to achieve compliance with the limitations of Rule 203,
limiting nighttime emissions from Class C to Class A land, by
December 31, 1976. The Board finds this particularly persuasive
in favor of acceptance of the Stipulation, with its $500 penalty,
because Modern is not required to meet the stricter limitations of
that rule. Rule 208(e) specifically exempts existing property-line-
noise—sources, such as Modern’s plant, from those significantly
lower limits during nighttime hours, and instead allows 24-hour
compliance with the Rule 202 limitations.
When providing the exemption in Rule 208 (e), the Board found
that it would significantly lessen the economic impact of the Noise
Regulations for existing sources by providing the additional 10 ciB(A)
allowance (at each level) between Rules 202 and 203. In the Matter
of Noise Pollution Control Regulations, R72-2, B PCB 7O~, 733 (1973).
By forgoing that exemption and the attendant economic benefit, Modern
will be providing the additional protection which the Board found
necessary for evening and nighttime hours. Id., 8 PCB at 718.
The Stipulation’s terms, taken together, will provide more
protection than is legally required for the residents near Modern~s
plant. In that it is those residents that the Regulations in question
were designed to protect, we find that the Stipulation in this case
will serve to assure compliance with the Act and our Regulations;
we shall therefore accept it.
A final point requires note. The Stipulation’s Proposed Settle-
ment makes no mention of the alleged violation, in the Complaint,
of §24 of the Act. We do not find this fatal to the Stipulation,
and shall dismiss that portion of the Complaint alleging such violation.
22—26
—3—
This Opinion constitutes 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. Respondent Modern Plating Corporation is found to have
violated Rules 102 and 202 of Chapter 8: Noise Pollution, of the
Pollution Control Board Rules and Regulations in the operation of
its Freeport, Illinois electroplating and rustproof ing facility
during the period August 10, 1974 to October 20, 1975.
2.
Respondent shall pay as a penalty for said violations the
sum of Five Hundred Dollars
C
$500), payment to be made within thirty
(30) days of the date of this Order to:
Environmental Protection Agency
Control Program Coordinator
Div. of Noise Pollution Control
2200 Churchill Road
Springfield, Illinois 62706
3.
Those portions of the Complaint in this matter alleging
violation of Section 24 of the Environmental Protection Act are
dismissed.
4. Respondent shall undertake a program of noise abatement
and control at its Freeport, Illinois plant which shall accomplish
the following objectives by the dates indicated:
(a) After May 1, 1976, no sounds shall be
emitted from said plant which exceed the levels
established by Rules 202 and 206 of Chapter 8:
Noise Pollution, of the Pollution Control Board
Rules and Regulations.
(b) After December 31, 1976, no sounds
shall be emitted from said plant which exceed
the levels established by Rule 203 of Chapter 8:
Noise Pollution, of the Pollution Control Board
Rules and Regulations.
Cc) By the dates indicated, as modified
at hearing, submit to the Environmental Protection
Agency reports on such abatement and control
program as are required by paragraphs 15 Cc) (iii)
through 15(c) (viii) of the Stipulation and Pro-
posal for Settlement in this matter.
22—27
—4—
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, he~Dy certif the above Opinion and Order we
adopted on the ~
day of
_________,
1976, by a vote of
0
Illinois Pollution
22—28