ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
February 27, 1975
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Complainant
v.
)
PCB 74—251
THE EDWARD HOSPITAL DISTRICT,
Respondent
)
Mr. Frederick 3. Entin and Mr. James M, Bumgarner, appeared on
behalf of the Complainant;
Mr. Donald 3. Hennessey and Mr. Edward 3. Walsh, appeared on behalf
of the Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Mr. Dumelie):
This case involves an alleged noise nuisance caused by
the Edward Hospital District. On July 2, 1974 the Illinois
Environmental Protection Agency (Agency) filed with the
Board a complaint charging the Edward Hospital District
(Hospital) with emitting excessive sound from its central
heating and air-conditioning building so as to cause a
violation of Rule 102: Prohibition of Noise Pollution of
Chapter 8: Noise Regulations of the Pollution Control Board
Rules and Regulations; for every day from August 10, 1973
to the date of filing of the complaint.
The hospital is located in the City of Naperville in
DuPage County. It contains 151 beds and averages 6,000
patient days per month (R. 485-486). As shown in Agency
exhibit 2, land west of the hospital is largely vacant and
park areas while to the south is a residential area; the
closest residential street being Springwood Drive. The
hospital’s central heating and air-conditioning building
(boiler house) is located southwest of the hospital itself,
and is only 15 to 40 feet away from the property lines of
residents living on the north side of Springwood Drive, as
can be seen on Agency exhibit 2.
Between 1970 and 1972 the hospital was engaged in a
program that expanded the hospital and also built the boiler
house. The boiler house itself was put into operation in
August, 1972 (R. 458)
15
—
575
—2—
The first contact between the hospital and its neighbors
regarding the boiler house was a letter sent to the hospital
from Mr. Desch on November 9, 1970 (Agency exhibit 3)
expressing concern about possible nuisances from the construction
or future operation of the boiler house. Mr. Morris, the
hospital’s administrator, responded that the noise should be
less than that of the present units which were located under
hospital offices, but had not consulted with acoustical
engineers in making the statement (R. 590—591)
The first noise complaints following the start up of
the boiler house were received by the hospital on August 9
and August 10, 1972 from Messrs. Desch (Agency exhibit 4)
Warwick, and Dickerson (R. 485), all residents living on the
north side of Springwood Drive and directly south of the
boiler house. Mr. Morris responded to these complaints,
stating that the matter was being referred to the Building
and Grounds Committee of the hospital.
The next noise complaint in the record was sent February
1, 1973 from Desch to Morris (Agency exhibit 5). The letter
stated that even though usage of the air-conditioning equipment
was reduced because of the fall and winter weather, the
noise and vibration from the boiler house was not abated.
Mr. Desch again complained to the hospital on April 18,
1973 (Agency exhibit 6), stating that the noise was intolerable
and that little if any difference was noticed even though
remedial steps had been taken by the hospital. As will be
discussed later, these remedial steps were not completed
until June, 1973 (R. 588)
.
Agency exhibit 6 also mentioned
a meeting held between neighbors Desch and Arado, members of
the hospital board, and the hospital’s architects. Finally,
Desch complained on March 19, 1974 to the hospital that the
noise was worse than ever before and had kept him (Desch)
awake the previous night (Agency exhibit 7).
The attorney for the hospital objected to the introduction
of evidence and testimony concerning dates earlier than
August 10, 1973 on the basis that there was nothing to
comply with prior to the effective date of the Board’s Noise
Regulations (R. 57, 60—61). The Agency introduced the
evidence not to show specific violations but rather to show
the lack of response of the hospital to their neighbors (R.
60); which the Agency says is relevant to the imposition of
a penalty (R. 57). The hearing officer allowed the evidence
to be entered (R. 61).
15— 576
—3—
Testimony at the hearings concerning the alleged noise
nuisance was provided by eight citizens living south of the
hospital and boiler house, All noticed noise emissions from
the boiler house and described the impact of the noise on
their lives, the severity depending on the distance of their
house from the boiler house.
Mr. Desch described three types of noise from the
boiler house: a loud rushing noise from the cooling tower,
a rumbling noise from the boiler, and noise from the emergency
generator (R. 47—48). The generator sounded like an unmuffled
diesel engine (R, 54). It is the rumbling noise that on
many occasions has prevented him from sleeping (R. 48-49)
Other effects are that he is not able to use his screened—in
porch or backyard since the noise started;
the
noise being
worse in late summer or fall of 1973 (P. 50-51). Although
the noise has not changed his living pattern, it does keep
him from sleeping (P. 52). The rumbling noise can be heard
throughout the house except for the basement, while the
rushing noise can only be heard outside (R. 50, 53). Although
he heard a low level rumbling ncise last night, (R. 77) the
boiler house had not operated since November 25, (Respondent
exhibit 6). His efforts to deal with the hospital were
ineffectual until the Agency became involved and he thinks
that, although the proposed settlement is a good solution,
there should be a finding of delay against the hospital (R.
84, 90)
Mr. Braun lives across Springwoocl Drive, approximately
300 feet from the boiler house (R. 103)
.
He notices a
whishing and rumbling noise which, on occasions since August
10, 1973, has been an irritant when conversing with neighbors
in his front yard, and at one time one could only converse
outside with a raised voice level (R. Ill). The noise was
not so prominent in 1974 as in 1973 (R. 112)
.
Mr. Braun
describes the noise as an irritant rather than excessive or
a nuisance, and is aware that other neighbors are far more
bothered (R. 124-125). While standing in the Dickerson’s
backyard, he observed the noise to be very loud (R. 130).
Mr. Zimmerschied’s house is about 400 feet from the
boiler plant to the south and west. He has lived there
since February, 1972 but the noise did not become too obnoxious
until the summer of 1974 (P. 132-134). The noise does not
interfere with conversation or sleep but is just annoying
(P. 138)
.
He finds the intensity, pitch and undulation of
the noise to be the annoyance (P. 142). A neighbor’s lawnmower
is more annoying but one only hears it an hour a week
(P.
141). He does not hear the rushing noise like neighbors
closer to the boiler house do (P. 136)
15 —577
4—
Mr. Dickerson lives on the north side of Springwcod
Drive and his property is 40 feet from the boiler house (P.
147), He has resided there for 16 years. The noise is
definitely
annoying and ~re\rents
him from using his patio
(P. 150)
,
At least 50 times
since
August 10, 1973
the
noise
has
caused him to leave his bedroom in the
middle of
the
night and go down to the basement to escape the sound (P.
148—149). The last time this occurred was several weeks ago
CR.
152)
.
His soft spoken wife has to repeat herself when
the noise occurs (R. 151)
.
He says the noise has improved
hut has never
been acceptable; this, however, contraaicts
his letter of November, 1973 (Respondent exhibit 1) which
states in part that the
boiler noise has been reduced to an
acceptable level.
Mr. Niman lives next door to Mr. Dickerson and his
property is 15 feet to
25 feet due south of the boiler
house
(P. 169). The
noise that bothers him considerably is a low
frequency rumbling noise that prevents him from using
his
yard due to the annoyance and requirement to raise ones
voice when conversing (P. 170)
.
Inside his house, the noise
results in raised noise level conversation, he has to turn
on the hi-fl to drown out the noise, and the noise interferes
with their sleep (P. ibid)
.
He is not affected by the
waterfall noise from the cooling tower as much as by the
rumbling from the boiler (P. 172). He cites construction
noise as being louder, but it doesn’t.occur 24—hours a day
as does the boiler house noise (R. 177). Regarding the
effects of improvements made by the hospital, he says the
generator noise is now less than before, but the boiler
house is “as loud and penetrating as ever” while at a
slight change in pitch (P. 178). The noise still interferes
with his sleep.
Other citizens generally confirmed, to varying degrees,
the nuisance caused by the boiler house. Mrs. Kelleher
lives more than 200 feet away from the boiler house, on the
south side of Springwood Drive. She notices a rumbling
sound (P. 192) which sounds like a low flying plane or
muffled bomber planes in the movies (R. 185). She is not
bothered by the noise except at night; when she says that
the noise has awakened her 2 or 3 times a week since August
10, 1973, including as recently as 2 or 3 weeks ago (R,
186). She would consider the noise to be noise pollution at
night (P. 190). Mrs. Niman generally supports her husband’s
testimony and says that the rumbling noise prevents her from
sleeping and rattles windows CR. 194—195)
.
Mr. Millar’s
property is 150 feet from the boiler house~ He describes an
objectionable noise as being rumbling and hissing together
(P.
202)
.
In comparison with other noises, he says it is
15—578
“5—
not as noisy as a power mower but is comparable to a diesel
truck at equal distances (P. 207). The noise lessened in
the fall of 1972 but there has been little reduction since
(P. ibid).
It seems clear to us that a noise nuisance has and is
occurring in the neighborhood south of the hospital. The
noise has interfered with sleep, made conversation more
difficult, and prevented the enjoyment of porches and backyards.
No one consulted a doctor as a result of the noise so there
is no medical evidence of harm. Our Rule 102, however, is
intended to prevent
“the ethission
of sound that unreasonably
interferes with the enjoyment of life”, and we find in this
case that there has been interference with the enjoyment of
life because of
the noise emitted by
the boiler house.
In making this determination in accordance with
Section
33c of ttie Act, we find that, irrespective of the high
social and economic value of the hospital, the noise emissions
interfere with the health, general welfare, and physical
property with the residents by interferring with sleep,
hindering conversation and preventing the enjoyment of
backyards and patios as described previously. We also find
that although the boiler house is located
on hospital property,
it is closer to the residential area than to the hospital
(See Agency exhibit 2) and that the residential area was in
existence prior to the construction of the hospital. In
addition the agreed to compliance program demonstrates the
technical practicability and economic reasonableness of
abating the noise pollution.
The Agency presented several noise surveys consisting
of sound level measurements taken in the vicinity of the
boiler house. These surveys, Agency exhibits 10, 11, 13,
14, 15, and 16 were entered into evidence, over the objection
of the Respondent, not to show any violation of numerical
limits, but rather as background for the Agency’s estimation
of the impact of the noise being emitted. We will not
discuss the Agency’s survey activities here since the important
question is the impact of the noise as felt by the residents.
As stated previously, we have concluded that the noise
emissions have violated Rule 102. We must next determine
whether the hospital has acted expeditiously in attempting
to alleviate the noise problem.
Construction of the new addition to the hospital and
the new boiler plant building (boiler house) began in November,
1970 and was completed in August, 1972 (P. 42, 531). Immediately
thereafter complaints about the boiler house noise were
received by the hospital, in particular on August 9 and 10
from neighbors Desch, Dickerson and Warwick CR. 485). The
15 —579
—6—
hospital
then
contacted the local noise consulting firm of
Bolt,
Beranek, and
Newman, Inc. (BEN) who made a noise
survey of the boiler house to identify the major sources of
the noise (R. 585), the report to the hospital being made
october
4, 1972 at
a cost of $1,600 CR. 488). Included in
the report was an offer to provide
further
assistance in
“defining the noise control treatment needed” CR. 585).
The hospital then proceeded to implement noise control
measures that were reconmiended by its architect CR. 586).
These measures consisted of operating the cooling
tower fan
at a
low speed,
operating the boiler in the “low fire”
combustion mode, and installing baffles on the boiler air
intake. The intent was to
deal
firstly with changes that
could be implemented with a
minimum “amount
of design and
analysis and time—consuming considerations” CR. 605).
In
fact, the hospital was not charged for the change in cooling
tower fan
speed
and the change in boiler combustion
mode
CR.
581); and the intake baffle was installed at a cost to the
hospital of $2,290 CR. 588).
During these boiler house modifications, BEN was not
consulted CR. 588) and the next contact
between
BEN
and
the
hospital was for a second BEN noise
survey
report in June,
1973 following the completion of the modifications CR. 491).
The conclusion of this report was that the “greatest noise
impact has been controlled, but significant noise impact
still exists” CR. 589). It should be
noted
that while the
october, 1972
BEN
report had identified as a significant
noise leak “louver opening located at the south end of the
boiler” CR. 587), baffling was
put
on only one of the openings,
the boiler air intake, and nothing was done to the louvered
opening for the generator until it was bricked up CR. 588).
The louvers for the generator on the south wall of the
boiler house were finally bricked up in 1974,
some time
before the Agency noise survey of
October
2, 1974 occurred
CR. 354, Agency
exhibit
16). Thus a
major
source of noise
was not controlled for a period of approximately
two
years
since its existence had first been reported.
Following the second BEN survey, in which
BEN
again
offered to help solve the remaining noise problem, the
hospital did ask BEN to continue their studies CR. 590).
However,
between the second
survey
of June, 1973 and
October,
1973 little activity on
the part of the hospital seems to
have occurred. In october, 1973 the hospital architect
and
BEN met to discuss methods of noise control for the hospital,
subsequent to which the hospital contracted
with
BEN
for a
15—580
report due January, 1974 but
actually received on March 25,
1974 (R. 566—567)
Although the record is not entirely clear7 it seems
that this latest BBN report contained noise abatement design
criteria to deal with four problems, two of which were the
roof mounted cooling tower and the boiler stack, also mounted
on the roof (R, 611). The roof installation would have
consisted of a sOund barrier for the cooling tower plus an
attenuator for the boiler stack (R. 624). The hospital did
not implement these suggestions directly but instead hopes
to relocate the cooling tower to
the ground
in the future
(R~ 625) and is proceeding witi~a boiler attenuator which at
the time of the hearings was under construction (R, 614)
The boiler attenuator being constructed was designed around
August 1, 1974 (R. 572)
BBN had submitted previously in 1973 (H. 612) a proposal
for a roof mounted attenuator that would cost between $75,000
and $100,000 (R. 571). The hospital architect did not
recommend it both because of
cost
and because there wasn’t
any guarantee that it would do the job according to Mr.
Morris’ recollection (R. 573).
The hospital’s efforts to reduce the boiler house noise
are summarized in Joint exhibit I. During 1974 the louvers
on the south wall were bricked up and
the emergency generator
exhaust was moved from the south wall to the north wall;
both changes documented in Agency exhibit 16.
The hospital cites the Agency’s refusal to provide
technical support as mitigation. We note, however, that the
hospital had hired noise consultants before the Agency
became involved with
the
case
(R~
331) Also, the Agency
did offer to make its sound level measurement data available
to the hospital (R. 296). We have no control over Agency
policy in providing or not providing technical consulting
services to the public, and we do not think that Agency
policy was a factor in creating the delays that we have
concluded have occurred,
The compliance plan, submitted jointly as Joint exhibit
1, will apparently cure the noise problem, and we will order
its implementation in addition to a cease and desist order
regarding
the violation of Rule 102.
The delays that have occurred are the fault of the
hospital. We cannot condone this behavior in the face of
the continuing noise pollution that resulted. We will not,
however, impose a monetary penalty
for
these delays since it
15— 581
—8—
would ultimately penalize the taxpayers of the hospital
district (R. 100) and because the residents impacted by the
noise were not insistent on a penalty hut rather were interested
in compliance by the hospital CR. 90, 126, 164)
This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact
and conclusions of law,
ORDER
The Edward Hospital District is ordered to cease and
desist
its violations of Rule 102 of Chapter 8: Noise Regulations by
June 15, 1975 by implementing the compliance program contained
in Joint Exhibit i~
I, Christen L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, hereby certify the above Opinion and Order were
adopted on the ~
day of February, 1975 by a vote of
_______
Illinois Pollution
Board
15
582