ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
May 22, 1975
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Complainant,
v.
)
PCB 74—250
CONSOLIDATION COAL COMPANY,
a Delaware Corporation, and
CONOCO, INC.,
a Delaware Corporation,
Respondent.
Mr. Frederic Benson, Assistant Attorney General, appeared
for Complainant;
Mr. Bill F. Green and Mr. Richard A. Green appeared on
behalf of Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Mr. Goodman):
On July 2, 1974, the Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA) filed a complaint against Consolidation Coal Company
and Conoco, Inc. alleging violation of Rule 102 of Chapter 8
of the Illinois Pollution Control Board Noise Regulations
which states that:
No person shall cause or allow the emission of
sound beyond the boundaries of his property so as
to cause noise pollution in Illinois, or so as to
violate any provision of this chapter of the
Illinois Environmental Protection Act.
The violation of Rule 102 occurred when the Respondent
Consolidation Coal Company (Consolidation) erected an air
shaft exhaust fan, i.e. Hillsboro Nine, Number 2 air shaft
exhaust fan. The equipment includes an 8-foot diameter
model M 96-50 DS Joy Manufacturing, axivane high capacity
mine fan, 1188 rpm, 100 hp. motor, connected to an air shaft
500 feet deep and contained in a steel housing.
The fan and housing are located on Consolidation’s
property which is surrounded by a community of private
residences. On April 25, 1973, at 3:00 a.m., Consolidation
commenced operation of the fan, running it twenty—four hours
a day, seven days a week. The noise from this fan caused
several residents to move downstairs in order to sleep.
Testimony at the hearings shows that communication at a
normal voice level outside of several homes became impos-
sible after the fan was in operation. In January of 1974 a
17
—g~
—2—
diverter was installed, but had little dampening effect upon
the noise levels being emitted from the fan. The EPA has
made a thorough investigation of the sounds being emitted
from Consolidation’s fan and the record adequately supports
a finding of a continuous violation of Rule 102 from April 25,
1973 to October 4, 1974.
After several hearings and extensive investigation by
the EPA, Consolidation and the EPA entered into a stipula-
tion by which a settlement of this action is proposed and
presented to the Board pursuant to Procedural Rule 333.
Part of said settlement proposal would require Con-
solidation to reduce the noise emitted by its No. 2 airshaft
exhaust fan and housing so that the noise levels near the
effected residences do not exceed the following limits:
Octave Band Sound Pressure
Octave Band Center Frequency Levels (dB) of Sound Emitted
31.5
69
63
67
125
62
250
54
500
47
1000
41
2000
36
4000
32
8000
32
The Board finds that the proposed levels of emission
are reasonable and orders Consolidation tb cease and desist
from exceeding said levels of emissions. The Board assesses
the stipulated penalty against Consolidation for violation
of Rule 102 in the amount of $3,500.00.
The Board finds that the defendant Conoco, although a
stockholder in Consolidation, does not control, manage, own,
or operate Hillsboro Mine, Number 2 air shaft exhaust fan.
We accept the stipulation and enter our order accordingly.
This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and con-
clusions of law of the Board.
ORDER
1. Consolidation Coal Company shall reduce the noise
emitted by its No. 2 air shaft exhaust fan and housing so
that the noise levels caused by said equipment measured at
the points set forth in Group Exhibit 4 near the residences
described therein does not exceed the limits set forth in
today’s Board Opinion. Complaince with these levels shall
be determined b~ employing ie sound measurement techniques
and procedures scr ~d b Rule 103 of Chapter Eight of
the Noise Regi:?at4ons; and
—3—
2. To reduce said sound levels, Consolidation Coal
Company shall purchase and install a “Fan Silencer”, the
specifications of which are more fully set forth in Exhi-
bit A attached to this Opinion and hereby incorporated by
reference as though fully set forth herein; and
3. Compliance by Consolidation Coal Company shall be
according to that set forth in Exhibit B, attached hereto
and hereby incorporated by reference as though fully set
forth herein; and
4. Consolidation Coal Company shall post a performance
bond without surety with the Environmental Protection Agency
in the amount of $10,000.00 within 35 days of this Order;
and
5. A penalty in the amount of $3,500.00 is assessed
against Consolidation Coal Company for violation of Rule L02
of Chapter 8 of the Pollution Control Board’s Noise Regu-
lations. Said amount shall be paid within 35 days of this
order by certified check or money order payable to the order
of the State of Illinois. Payment shall be made to:
Fiscal Services Division, Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency, 2200 Churchill Road, Springfield, Illinois 62706;
and
6. The Complaint against Continental Oil Company,
A/K/A Conoco, Inc., is hereby dismissed.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, hereby cer~fy the above Opinion and Order
were adopt~don the
~“~‘
day of
F’?’)
,
1975 by a
vote of
~b-O
Christan L. Moffet~,/j~érk
o~ALth?~
Illinois Pollution C~5~’?rolBoard
17 —87
FAN
SILENCER
SPECIFICATIONS
CONSOLIDATION COAL
CCMPMY
HILLSBORO MINE,
COFFEEN,
ILLINOIS
1.
Fan
Joy Model M96-SOD.S.
(8’-O”
Diameter)
-
High Capacity
Joy Axivane Mine Fan
2. Fan
Capacity
450,000
CFM
3. Static Pressure Drop
-
1/4 (inches of water)
Transition from
fan
cone to silencer should be
designed
to minimize pressure loss
4. Temperature Range
550
F to 650 F
S. Acoustical Requirements
Octave
Band
Mid
Frequency CPS
31.5
63 125 250
500 1000 2000 4000 8000
Sound Pressure
62
61
57
65
69
77
68
59
41
Level at Site “A”,
1300’ From
Fan
Required Level
69
67 62
54
47
41
36
32
32
DIL
(Dynamic
11
22
36
32
22
9
Insertion Loss)
Required at 1300’
Sound
Pressure
74
81
88
98
103
102
95
85
77
Level at
Fan
Background Level
47
44 38
28
26
24
22
42*
47*
Without
Fan
at
Site “A”
*
Cricket
and
Bird Noise
17—88
A
COMPLIANCE PLAN
October 1, 1974
Engineering specifications for fan silencer complete.
October 2, 1974
Specifications mailed to manufacturer.
October 25, 1974 Proposals received from manufacturer.
November 1, 1974 Silencer placed on order.
February 1, 1975* Silencer received from manufacturer.
February 15, 1975 Silencer in operation.
March 1, 1975
If sound levels, caused by fan and motor operation,
at the surrounding residences do not meet limits
specified in paragraph A, decision will be made
concerning acoustical coating of fan cone, sound
insulation of motor building, and air conditioning
of motor building.
7~sril
15, 1975
If required, acoustical coating of fan cone,
sound insulation of motor building, and air
conditioning of motor building completed.
~nding
scheduled delivery by manufacturer.
PLAN EXPENSE
~i1encer Unit
$40,000
Foundations
2,000
Installation
5,000
$47,000
E4~4 B
17—89