CLERK’S
OFFTCI~
F:\CLIENTS\L T D-noise\Pleadings\Motion-1O1 .520.wpd
August28,
2003
AUG
2
82003
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
STATE OF ILLINOIS
Pollution Control Board
KAREN & ANTHONY ROTI, et a!,
)
)
Complainants,
)
)
v.
)
PCB99-19
)
(Enforcement
-
Noise
-
Citizens)
LTD COMMODITIES,
)
)
Respondent,
)
LTD COMMODITIES’ SECTION 101.520 MOTION
FOR RECONSIDERATION AND MODIFICATION AND STAY
Respondent, LTD Commodities, Inc., by its attorneys, Baizer & Kolar, P.C., pursuant to
35
Illinois Administrative
Code
§101.520,
moves the Illinois
Pollution
Control Board
(“PCB”) to
reconsider, modify and stay
enforcement ofits
July 24, 2003, decision.
In support ofthis motion,
LTD states as follows:
Introduction
1.
On February
15,
2001, the PCB
issued its interim decision regarding this case.
While the PCB found LTD’s nighttime trucking operations a nuisance, the PCB board made the
following finding:
“The Board finds that eliminating LTD’s nighttime operations would not be
economically reasonable.
.
.
.“
(February
15,
2001, decision, p. 30).
The PCB also found that $300,000 was “a significant sum” to construct a noise wall on LTD’s
property.
LTD relied upon these findings by the PCB in preparing for the remedy phase of this
case.
Thus, LTD was shocked by the PCB’s July 24, 2003, decision which requires LTD to shut
down its nighttime trucking operations until it builds a noise
wall costing between $623,350 and
$3,000,000.
Modifications ReQuested
2.
For the reasons set forth in this motion, LTD requests the following specific
modifications to
the PCB’s
July 24, 2003, decision:
A.
Allow LTD to
conduct nighttime trucking operations while it works with noise
consultant George Kamperman, P.E. to examine ways to reduce noise at the site to
the same level as offered by the wall proposed by Dr. Paul Schomer.
B.
Allow LTD to
conduct nighttime trucking operations while it works with Mr.
Kamperman on a noise wall proposal/estimate for the north and
east property lines
of the LTD property.
C.
Allow LTD to conduct nighttime trucking operations while it obtains a specific
proposal/estimate to demolish the retaining wall and build a retaining wall and
noise wall as a unified structure.
D.
Allow LTD to conduct nighttime trucking operations while it pursues pennission
from the Village of Bannockburn to
build a wall on the north and east property
lines and/or in the location ofthe existing retaining wall.
E.
Allow LTD to use the backup beeper on its yard tractor during daytime hours.
F.
Clarify that the PCB’s decision regarding disconnecting backup beepers only
applies to the yard tractor at LTD
and does not apply to over-the-road trucks not
owned or operated by LTD.
G.
Allow LTD to load and unload trailers between 10:00 p.m.
and 6:00 a.m. provided
its truck dock doors are closed.
2
H.
After the Village of Bannockburn has made its decision regarding the noise wall
proposals, reopen the hearing to allow LTD to present evidence regarding the
specific proposals submitted to Bannockburn and Bannockburn’s decision on the
wall proposals.
I.
After the Village ofBannockburn has made its decision regarding the noise wall
proposals, reopen the hearing for presentation offindings and recommendations
by Mr. Kamperman.
J.
After the Village ofBannockburn has made its decision regarding the noise wall
proposals, reopen the hearing for consideration ofan appropriate remedy.
Shutting Down LTD’s
Nighttime
Trucking Operations
Will Harm LTD And Its Employees
3.
At that original hearing, LTD president and CEO Michael Hara testified that
eliminating LTD’s second shift would
“destroy” LTD.
(February
15,
2001, decision, p.
14).
According to
Mr. Hara, even with a second shift lasting until
10:00 p.m., LTD could not ship its
Christmas orders.
(February
15,
2001, decision, p.
14).
Thus, based on Mr. Hara’s testimony
and other evidence in the record, the PCB found “that eliminating LTD’s nighttime operations
would not be economically reasonable.
.
.
.“
(February
15,
2001, decision, p.
30).
LTD relied
upon this
finding in planning its
presentation ofevidence forthe remedy hearing held last year.
While LTD recognized it was possible that the PCB would require it to build a wall, LTD felt
assured (based on the February
15,
2001, decision) that it could operate at nights while pursuing
permission from Bannockburn to build a wall.
3
4.
LTD is currently operating
a night shift beyond
10:00 p.m.
(Ex. A, Michael Hara
affidavit, par. 7).
It needs to operate beyond
10:00 p.m. to ship customer orders.
(Ex.
A,
Michael Hara affidavit, par. 7).
The PCB’s current decision requiring LTD to shutdown
nighttime operations until it builds a noise wall will be devastating to LTD’ s business and its
employees.
First, LTD’s 400 evening employees will have their weekly gross earnings reduced
by 25
based
on the reduction ofhours they can work each week.
(Ex. A, Michael Hara
affidavit, par.
4).
Moreover, it will be difficult for LTD to
recruit employees to work a six-hour
second shift.
(Ex. A, Michael Hara affidavit, par.
5).
With reduced hours and
difficulty
recruiting employees, LTD will be unable to
ship its merchandise during its busy season.
(February
15, 2001,
decision, p.
14).
LTD’s
2002 Season Was Atypical
5.
The PCB apparently believes that LTD can shutdown its nighttime operations
while pursuing permission to build a noise wall because it did not operate last season at nights
after October
18, 2002.
However, this conclusion by the PCB ignores the testimony by Jack
Voigt ofLTD that the shutdown was not permanent, but was based on business last season.
(October
16, 2002, hearing, p.
76, 83).
6.
The affidavit ofMr. Hara establishes that the 2002
season was not a typical
season.
LTD was able to
shut down its
second shift because ofa combination offactors.
Those
factors were as follows:
A.
A slow economy.
(Ex.
A, Michael Hara affidavit, par.
7).
B.
A longshoremen strike on the West Coast that delayed or blocked shipments to
LTD.
(Ex.
A, Michael Hara affidavit, par.
7).
4
C.
LTD adding a Naperville facility that lessened volume at Bannockburn.
(October
16, 2002, hearing, p. 76-77).
7.
This
season, there is no longshoremen’s strike affecting shipments to LTD.
Thus,
contrary to the assumption made by the
PCB, LTD cannot operate its business with trucking
operations limited to 6:00 a.m. to
10:00 p.m.
Subsequent Compliance Should Not Be Held Against LTD
8.
One ofthe section 42(h) factor considered by the
PCB
was “the presence or
absence of due diligence on the part ofthe violator in attempting to comply
with requirements of
the Act.”
As noted in the PCB’s decision, LTD has opened additional facilities in the past five
years.
Most recently, LTD opened a facility in Naperville which enabled LTD to shift some
shipping from Bannockburn to Naperville.
(October 16, 2002, hearing, p. 76-77).
This conduct
by LTD surely is some evidence ofits due diligence to reduce noise at the Bannockburn site.
However, the PCB relied upon this action by LTD to
conclude that LTD could operate at
Bannockburn without nighttime trucking operations.
This conclusion is not true.
LTD needs to
operate at night at Bannockbum to
process its orders.
Thus, it is unfair on the one hand to
examine LTD’s subsequent compliance and due diligence and then on the other hand cite
LTD’s
conduct as a reason to
shutdown LTD’s nighttime trucking operations.
Steve Mitchell Cannot Build
A Noise
Wall Where Proposed
By Dr. Schomer
9.
In its July 24, 2003, decision, the PCB states that “Steve Mitchell stated the Huff
Company could successfully build a wall in the proposed location.”
(July 24, 2003, decision, p.
11).
The “proposed location” by Dr. Schomer is adjacent to the existing retaining wall in the
5
fabric that supports the retaining wall.
Mr. Mitchell clearly testified that he could not build a
wall in that area.
Mr. Mitchell testified as follows:
Q.
And so you have apparently had some communications or contact with the
structural engineer regarding the issue of there being support fabric holding up the
retaining wall?
A.
Not with an engineer.
I had some communication either from you or from
Mr. Kaiser, I don’t remember who it was but somebody toldus there was some
fabric in there.
Ithen asked our structural engineer
is that an issue,
can we go
through thefabric and he
would recommendagainst that, at least until he saw
some drawings ofwhat was in
there.
Q.
As
you sit here today, it’s
your understanding that a wall
Mr. Schomer, Dr.
Schomer proposes would have to be outside the area where there is fabric based
on your engineer?
A.
That’s how I understand it, that’s correct.
(October
15,
2002, hearing, p. 245)(emphasis added).
Edward Anderson was the only
engineer
to
testify regarding the support fabric.
His testimony established that a wall cannot be
built
where Dr. Schomer proposed it be
built.
(July 24, 2003, decision, p.
4).
To avoid the support
fabric, a wall would have to
be built in the parking lot, which is in the middle of the noise source
and the receiving properties.
All parties agree a wall in the parking lot would not be effective.
(July
24, 2003, decision, p. 9).
Thus, the PCB’s order that LTD build a wall where proposed by
Dr. Schomer is based on the misunderstanding that Mr. Mitchell could build a wall at that
location.
6
There Is
No
Evidence Bannockburn
Will Amend Its Ordinances To Approve A Noise Wall
10.
Besides incorrectly assuming that LTD can operate without a night shift, the PCB
decision assumes that the Village ofBannockburn will approve a noise wall at LTD.
As noted by
PCB chairperson Thomas E.
Johnson and member Michael E. Tristano in their dissenting
opinion, “obtaining village approval for the construction ofthe noise wall is questionable.”
LTD
believes it is very unlikely that Bannockburn will amend its ordinances to approve such a tall
noise wall.
LTD
believes it is especially unlikely that Bannockburn will approve a wall in the
locationproposed by Dr. Schomer because the wall will reduce parking at LTD’s facility.
Thus,
by allowing LTD to
conduct trucking operations at night only if it builds a noise wall where
proposed by Dr.
Schomer, LTD believes the PCB has effectively permanently shutdown LTD’s
nighttime trucking operations.
LTD Should Be Allowed The Option Of A Property Line Noise Wall
11.
The testimony in the record is that a property line noise wall is a viable
alternative.
Both Dr. Schomer and Dr. Tom Thunder testified a property line noise wall would
be effective.
(Dr. Paul Schomer, October
15, 2002, p.
145; Dr. Tom Thunder, October 15, 2002,
p.
262; December 9, 2002,
p. 20).
Mr. Mitchell testified that he could put a wall “within a foot
or so” ofLTD’s north property line.
(Steve Mitchell, October
15,
2002,
p.
251).
12.
Regarding the Weber home, a property line noise wall is still
an alternative.
Dr.
Schomer curves his wall to the southeast to
provide protection to the Webers.
A separate noise
wall possibly
could be
constructed along LTD’s east property line or northeast ofthe warehouse
to provide noise relief to the Weber family.
LTD
should be allowed to present this alternative to
7
Bannockburn.
Presenting two alternatives to
Bannockburn will increase the chance of having a
noise wall approved.
PCB Definition Of Nighttime Trucking Operations
13.
In its decision, the PCB defines “trucking operations as the loading or unloading
of trucks, moving trailers with the yard tractor,
and the coupling
and uncoupling oftrailers.”
The
PCB has ordered that LTD cease such operations between 10:00 p.m.
and 6:00 a.m.
This
definition of “trucking operations”
is unnecessarily restrictive.
LTD’s docks have doors that can
be closed while trailers are loaded and unloaded.
These doors may not be able to be
closed with
tractors still attached.
However, to the extent that LTD can load and unload trailers behind
closed truck dock doors, it should be allowed to
do so between 10:00 p.m.
and 6:00
a.m.
Backup Beeper On Yard Tractor
14.
In its July 24, 2003, decision, the PCB required LTD to “cease and desist from
using backup warning beepers at the Bannockburn facility at any time and replace any backup
warning beeper used on a yard tractor with either a human spotter or a strobe light.”
15.
LTD does not have control over all backup beepers at its site.
Many over-the-road
trucks that come to
LTD have backup beepers.
LTD has no authority to disconnect the backup
beepers on the over-the-road trucks.
16.
Requiring LTD to disconnect the backup beeper on its yard tractor during daytime
hours is
dangerous and contrary to the evidence in the record.
All evidence in this case focused
on the backup beeper being a nuisance at night.
During the
day, the Complainants
are at work.
For most ofLTD’s busy season, Complainants’ children are at school.
Quite simply, the
majority ofthe complaints concerned the backup beeper on the yard tractor during nighttime
8
hours.
Leslie Weber testified that she heard the beeper after 10:00 p.m. while laying in bed.
(Tr.
477).
She also heard it in the early morning hours while in bed.
The noise would
wake her at
times and she would drive to LTD
to investigate.
(Tr. 448-50,
530).
Paul Rosenstrock likewise
found the backup beeper a nuisance in the nighttime hours.
He made a log ofthe backup beeper
in the 10:00 p.m. hour.
(Tr.
578-580).
Karen Roti testified that the noise would affect her at
night and that she would take “Tylenol with codeine or Benadryl or a couple beers” to
fall asleep.
(Tr. 714, 776-77).
Regarding the nuisance allegation, the PCB
found: “In summary,
complainants allege that, as a result ofthe continuing noise from LTD, they have been unable to
sleep and enjoy quiet activities
around the home.”
(February
15, 2001, decision, p. 22).
17.
Since the noise complaints centered on the backup beeper at night, LTD
volunteered to disconnect the beeper during nighttime operations.
(October
16, 2002, hearing, p.
53).
LTD never volunteered to disconnect the backup beeper during daytime hours.
18.
At night, a strobe light provides a reasonable alternative to
a backup beeper since
the light
is easily visible in the dark.
However, during the day shift, a strobe light would
merely
blend in with the daylight and may not provide adequate warning to dock workers and over-the-
road truckers.
Moreover, with a dock pilot directing trucks during the day, trucking operations
will slow down and the yard tractor will idle
for a longer time while a dock pilot determines if it
is safe to backup.
19.
For the above reasons, LTD requests that the PCB modify and/or reconsider its
decision and
allow LTD to
use the backup beeper between 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m.
Moreover,
LTD requests that the PCB clarify its decision that backup beepers
on over-the-road trucks need
not be disconnected.
9
LTD’s Presentation Of Evidence
20.
Complainants will
no
doubt respond to this motion by arguing that LTD
should
have presented a specific plan for a property line noise wall at the hearing last fall.
However,
LTD did not provide specific plans for a property line noise wall because it received assurance
from Dr. Thunder that a property line noise wall was a reasonable alternative and would
cost less
than the wall proposed by Dr.
Schomer.
Moreover, since the PCB previously found a $300,000
wall to be a “significant sum,” LTD rightly considered it very unlikely the PCB would order
construction ofa wall costing between $623,350 and
$3,000,000.
Quite simply, in reliance on
the PCB’s February
15, 2001, decision, it was reasonable for LTD to assume that a worst case
scenario would be
a PCB order that LTD petition the Village of Bannockburn for permission to
build a noise wall on its property by the retaining wall and/or on the north property line.
Never
did LTD envision (nor should it have) that the PCB would require a noise wall in a location that
would eliminate precious parking spaces
at a cost oftwo to ten times the original $300,000
estimate.
Most important, if the PCB gave any hint in its February
15, 2001, decision that it
would shut down nighttime trucking operations, LTD certainly would
have made a different
presentation of evidence at the hearing.
George Kamperman, P.E.
21.
Because the PCB decided to shut down LTD’s nighttime trucking operations
unless it built a noise wall, LTD decided to retain a new noise consultant to take a fresh look at
this case.
Joseph Kolar, LTD’s attorney, contacted George Kamperman, P.E. to review this
matter.
Mr. Kamperman has reviewed the PCB’s two decisions and other documents.
He is
willing
to
work with LTD on an expedited basis to
look for ways to
reduce noise at the
site.
10
Also, Mr. Kamperman is willing to work with LTD to present noise wall proposals to the Village
of Bannockburn.
A letter from Mr. Kamperman is attached hereto as exhibit B.
Stay
Regarding
July 24~,2003, Decision
22.
Pursuant to section 101.520, “a timely filed motion forreconsideration or
modification stays the effect ofthe final order until final disposition ofthe motion.
.
.
However, if the PCB denies LTD’s motion for reconsideration and modification, the stay
provided by section 101.520 will expire.
IfLTD must appeal this matter to the Second District
Appellate Court, Supreme Court Rule 335(g) provides that “application
for a stay ofa decision
or order ofan agency pending direct review in the Appellate Court shall ordinarily be made in the
first instance to the agency.”
Thus, if the PCB denies this motion for reconsideration and
modification, LTD hereby respectfully requests that the PCB stay
its decisions pending direct
review in the appellate
court.
Conclusion
23.
As noted by Mr. Hara in his affidavit, current economic conditions make it
difficult to conduct business.
(Ex. A, Michael Hara affidavit, par. 3).
In the current unstable
economy, the work-hour restraints imposed by the PCB will be harmful to LTD’s financial
stability.
(Ex. A, Michael Hara affidavit, par.
3).
LTD spent a lot ofmoney to
build its
warehouse addition based on the expectation that it could use the facility 24 hours a day.
(Ex. A,
Michael Hara affidavit, par.
3).
LTD is paying rent for a building in a premium location based on
the ability to
use the building 24-hours a day.
(Ex. A, Michael Hara affidavit, par. 3).
The
PCB’s July 24, 2003,
decision is financially harmful to LTD because it will not recoup the
investment on its warehouse addition and
it must pay the same rent
and utilities for a building
11
that can be used only 16 hours a day.
Moreover, local taxing districts will ultimately suffer as
well because LTD will be entitled
to
seek a reduction in its real estate assessment based on the
work-hourrestrictions imposed by the PCB.
A lower assessment will mean less real estate taxes
from LTD
for local schools and other taxing districts.
24.
LTD respectfully requests that the PCB grant the modifications
requested in
paragraph 2 of this motion so that LTD can further address the noise complaints while not
jeopardizing LTD’s financial well being.
WHEREFORE, LTD
respectfully requests that the PCB provide the following relief:
A.
Stay the effect of the July 24, 2003, order in accordance with section 101.520;
B.
Reconsider and modify the July 24, 2003, order in accordance with paragraph 2 of
this motion;
C.
Ifthe PCB denies this motion,
stay the effect of the February
15, 2001
and July
24, 2003,
decisions pending appellate review;
D.
Allow LTD to file a reply to any response filed by Complainants;
and
B.
Provide such other and
further relief as is just and equitable.
LTD Commodities
By
c~$~
(~
/cc&,
~seph
~
Kolar, one Of Its Attorneys
ATTORNEYS
FOR RESPONDENT
BAIZER & KOLAR, P.C.
513
Central Avenue, ~
Floor
Highland Park, IL
60035
847-433-6677
Fax:
847-433-6735
12
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned states that on August 28, 2003, he personally served the original and
nine copies of the foregoing LTD
COMMODITIES’ SECTION 101.520 MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION AND MODIFICATION AND STAY upon the Illinois
Pollution Control
Board at the following address:
Ms.
Dorothy M. Gunn
Clerk ofthe Illinois Pollution Control Board
100 West Randolph Street
Suite 11-500
Chicago, IL
60601
and one copy
by Federal Express for delivery on August 29 to the attorney listed below:
Steven P. Kaiser
35
B.
Wacker Drive, Suite
1750
Chicago, IL
60601
~
13
Exhibit
A
Affidavit
Michael Hara on oath states:
1.
I am President and ChiefExecutive Officer ofLTD
Commodities LLC.
I have
personal knowledge of the matters set forth in this affidavit.
2.
I have reviewed the Illinois Pollution Control Board’s two decisions regarding the
LTD property in Bannockbum, Illinois.
3.
The PCB’s most recent decision requiring that LTD shut down its
trucking
operations between
10:00 P.M. and 6:00 A.M. each day will create an undue hardship on LTD
and the more than 400 employees who work on LTD’s Bannockburn evening shift.
In a very
difficult economy to do business, the work-hour restraints imposed by the PCB will
be harmful
to LTD’s financial stability.
LTD is paying rent for a building in a premium location based on
the ability to use the building 24-hours a day.
LTD built its most recent warehouse addition
based on the expectation
that it could use the facility 24 hours a day.
The PCB’s decision is
financially harmful to LTD because it must pay the same rent and utilities for a building that can
be used only
16 hours a day.
Employees
Gross
Earnings
4.
IfLTD is unable to operate between 10:00 P.M. and 6:00 A.M.,
most ofLTD’s
lines, including our customer order fulfillment shipping operations, would virtually be shut
down.
Most ofthe 400 evening employees, who currently work past
10:00 P.M.,
will have their
work hours reduced by at least two hours per day, thus
reducing their gross earnings
by 25
or
more on a weekly basis.
This loss in gross earnings would be approximately $2,274 per
employee on an annual basis.
Ic3ir
I
L~
Currently LTD is forced to lease space from the North Shore Unitarian Church in Bannockburn
due
to limited parking availability in the company’s north parking lot adjacent to the receiving
area.
The company uses all
120 parking spaces at the church for its parking needs
in addition to
the 300
+
parking spaces in the LTD north lot.
Building a wall in the location required by the
PCB will eliminate approximately 40 parking
spots in LTD’s north lot, and thus exasperate an
already desperately limited parking situation.
Since during peak season LTD
uses every possible
parking space in its north and south lots, as well as all
parking available at the church, the
elimination of40 spaces
would create a substantial hardship for LTD and its employees.
The
loss of additional parking spaces would also affect the value ofthe overall property because any
prospective user of the LTD building needs
sufficient parking.
The existing parking at LTD is
barely sufficient.
Thus, the loss of additional spaces would
adversely affect the value ofthe LTD
property.
Conclusion
9.
In the PCB‘s original decision in this case, the PCB wrote “that eliminating
LTD’s nighttime operations would not be economically reasonable.”
However, the current PCB
decision is basically a turnabout on the original decision.
I havepersonal experience with the
approval process with the Village ofBannockburn.
I was involved in the approval process for
the addition to the LTD
warehouse.
Assuming Bannockbum would even approve
a wall, it is
impossible
to
obtain approval from Bannockburn to build a wall and then build the wall in less
than six months.
Thus, the PCB’s decision requiring that LTD build a wall before operating after
10:00 P.M.
effectively shuts LTD down at night for at least six months and possibly
longer.
10.
From the beginning of this
case,
LTD has taken
steps
to reduce noise
at
its
Bannockburn facility.
LTD has never conunitted to building a wall because no one assured LTD
that building a wall would appease the Lake Forest neighbors to
the north.
However, LTD
is
willing
to hire a new noise consultant to prepare a detailed plan ofways
to
reduce noise to the
same
level as that offered
by the
noise wall
I)rOI)oscd
by Dr. Schomer
(reduce the noise
in
hail).
Also,
LTD
is
willing
to pay consultants to prepare
detailed
l)lalls (approved by
a noise engineer) to
build a wall on the north property line
and
I)resent such
plans to
the
Village
of Bannockburn.
11.
As the President and CEO of LTD,
I respectfully request that. LTD be
allowed
to
pursue the options addressed
in
paragraph
10
al)ove without. shutting down LTD’s business
between 10:00
P.M.
and 6:00 A.M..
Affiant says nothing further.
Subscribed and Sworn to
before me on August
~
2003
Notary Public
~
~
~~IcIAL$~L
BRIAN
V
WILL
NOTARY
~
STATE
OF ~LIJNOIS
ni
52
03
ASSOCIATES
INC.
312 Washington Avenue
Phone
608-254.5656
Wisconsin
Dells, WI 53965-1537
800-787-6624
FAX
608-253-5238
August 22,
2003
Joseph B. Kolar
Baizer & Kolar, P.C.
513
Central Avenue
Highland Park, IL 60035-3264
Subject:
Karen & Anthony Roti,
et al.,
v.
LTD Commodities,
PCB 99-19
Dear R. Kolar:
I have reviewed the documents you sent me last week:
1.
Illinois Pollution Control Board’s February
15, 2001,
interim decision;
2.
PCB’s July 24, 2003, decision;
3.
January 8,
1998, noise study by Tom Thunder;
4.
April 26, 2002, report by Dr. Paul Schomer; and
5:
.
Photographs ofth<D property;
.••
The noise barrier wall proposed by Paul
Schomer will provide some
noise relief to the
three homes north ofthe LTD op~rations One would hope that a noise bam~r
ofthis
magnitude would reduce the LTD noise emissions about
10’d13A with the result that the
LTD noises would soundone-hálfas l6üd as theydo presently.
One must keep mmmd
the barrier wall computations are based on a stable homogeneous atmosphere.
If there is
a breeze out ofthe southern quadrant and/or a temperature inversion overhead; the noise
reduction effectiveness may be reduced to one-half orless.
I would like to take a fresh look at this problem and
determine if it is feasible to achieve
the same degree of noise annoyance reduction by making
some practical changes in the
operations and noise generators at LTD.
People are most annoyed by impulsive sounds
and sounds with a fast onset, especially during late nighttime hours while trying to sleep.
The annoying sounds at LTD include impacts, quick air release, backup alarms, horns
and rapid engine acceleration.
This
would be a rather broad investigation
by visiting
LTD during a day to observe operations and make calibrated noise recordings to analyze
later in the office.
Near the completion ofmy
visit I would
like to
meet with the yard
supervisor to
discuss the issues that
I observed
and should be addressed to accomplish
meaningful noise reduction
Together we may discover changes that warrant further
consideration to befit the nearby residents
I would then analyze my recorded data to
provide an estimate ofthe magnitude ofnoise reduction that may be accomplished at
various ~outces ~nd overall.
Ifa ~iall or ~álls
at different loóãtibris ~o°tild‘still prove to
be the best solution we can consider these .options in the next phase.
The results ofthis
initial study would be summarized in a letter report.
Noise and Vibration
•
Environmental impact Studies
•
Building
Acoustics
KAMPERMAN
ASSOCIATES
INC.
Joseph
E. Kolar
August 22, 2003
Page 2 of 2
This Phase One study would be limited to
40 hours ofconsulting time and
I would
accomplish the study
in a time period ofone month.
For information on my background
and experience please go to
www.kamperman.com.
I look forward to working with you
on this challenging project.
Sincerely,
KAMPERMAN ASSOCIATES INC.
George W.
Kamperman, P.E., Bd.
Cert. INCE
