ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL
    BOARD
    May 6, 1976
    GEORGE E.
    SAMPLE,
    Complainant,
    v.
    )
    PCB 75—442
    ROBERT L. AND SHIRLEY PECKHAN,
    )
    Respondents.
    OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Mr. Zeitlin):
    This matter is before the Board on a formal Complaint filed by
    Mr. Sample on November 12, 1975, alleging that Respondents operated
    an attic exhaust fan between 8:30 A.M. and 10:00 P.M. daily during
    the summer of 1975, in violation of Rules 102 and 202 of Chapter 8:
    Noise Pollution, of the Board’s Rules and Regulations. A hearing
    was held in the matter on January 15, 1976 in Edwardsville, Illinois.
    Mr. Sample and the Peckhams are neighbors in East Alton, Illinois,
    residing at 138 Dalewood and 130 Dalewood, respectively. The Record
    indicates that starting around July, 1975, the Peckhams operated an
    attic fan for home cooling purposes, (Compi. Ex. 1, p. 3; R. 8—10).
    The fan being located close to Mr. Sample’s bedroom window, he
    complained to the Peckhams about its noisy operations on several
    occasions during July and August, 1975
    CR.
    8-15).
    Mr. Sample then went to the Environmental Protection Agency
    (Agency) for assistance. Although the Agency stated to Mr. Sample
    that it has a policy against handling “neighbor—to-neighbor” com-
    plaints, it nonetheless conducted a noise survey for him, measuring
    the sound from the Peckhain’s attic fan, (Compl. Ex. 1, containing
    a letter from the Agency to Mr. Sample, with attached noise survey
    results).
    The Agency’s noise survey notwithstanding, we cannot find a
    violation by Respondents of Rule 202. Rule 208(a) of Chapter 8:
    Noise Pollution, providing an exception for the applicable standard
    Land Use Classification Manual Codes, precludes such a finding.
    The allegation of a violation of Rule 202 must be dismissed.
    21 —335
    —2—
    Turning to the alleged Rule 102 “nuisance” violation, the
    Board has before it on that issue only the mutually contradictory
    evidence of Complainant and Respondents. Mr. and Mrs. Sample’s
    testimony in support of this allegation is, essentially, met
    equally by direct contradiction from the Peckhams. We are not
    in a position to choose among these witnesses who
    is
    to be believed
    and, for that reason, are unable to find a violation of Rule 102.
    That allegation must also be dismissed.
    Besides those evidentiary problems, the Record here contains
    basic flaws as regards the factors which the Board must consider
    under S33(c) before finding a violation. For example, the only
    evidence on the subject of technical and economic feasibility is
    in Respondent’s Exhibit 1, which simply states that the movement
    of the Sample’s fan would require rewiring and, therefore, some
    added expense. (Note that Respondent’s Ex. 1 is a two paragraph
    letter from a “contractor,” purporting to make an expert judgement
    on the subject of the fan’s proper placement.)
    Given these shortcomings in the Record, we cannot find a
    violation. Even if we could, it is not certain that any judgement
    could be made on a record such as this regarding the appropriate
    remedy.
    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 this matter
    be dismissed without prejudice.
    I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
    Control Board, her~bycertify the above Opinion and Order we e
    adopted on the
    (p~~
    day of
    I).)
    ,
    1976, by a vote of
    ~.
    Illinois Pollution C ol Board
    21
    — 336

    Back to top