RECEKVE~J,
OFRCIAL. SEALSHARON PIPPIN
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL
CLERK’SL~EIVED
A. Lowe is in Compliance with State Noise Regulations.
B. County Misstated the Record Regarding Auto Turn.
C. County Staff Report Found that Criterion 3 was Met.

RECEKVE~J,

BEFORE

THE

ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

CLERK’S

OFI~u~

SEP 022003

Co-Petitioners,

)

No. PCB 03-22 1

STATE OF IWNOIS

)

(Pollution Control Facility Siting Ap~eOA&tb01~

Control Board

COUNTY BOARD OF McHENRY

COUNTY, ILLINOIS

)

Respondents.

)

NOTICE OF FILING

TO:

See Proof ofService

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on September 2, 2003, we filedwith the Illinois Pollution

Control Board, the attached Lowe Transfer, Inc.

and

Marshall Lowe’s RESPONSE

COUNTY

BOARD

OF McHENRY COUNTY’S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS DECISION

TO DENY SITING APPROVAL TO LOWE TRANSFER, INC.

in the above entitled matter.

LOWE TRANSFER, INC. and

MARSHALL LOWE

By:________

David W. McArdle

PROOF OF SERVICE

anon-attorney, on oath state that

served the foregoing Response on the following party, by hand

delivery to on this 2nd day of September, 2003:

SUBSCRIBED and SWORN to before

me this

2~d

day of September, 2003

Notary Public

~ “..J

David W. McArdle

Attorney Registration No. 06182127

ZUKOWSKI ROGERS FLOOD & MCARDLE

50 Virginia Street

Crystal Lake, Illinois 60014

(815) 459-2050

H:\LOWE\NOTFILERESPONSECHIC.TRANSFER.wpd

LOWE TRANSFER, INC. and

MARSHALL LOWE,

vs.

Hearing Officer

Bradley P. Halioran

Illinois Pollution Control Board

James R. Thompson Center

100 West Randolph Street, Stel 1-500

Chicago, IL 60601

)77aJ4

OFRCIAL. SEAL

SHARON PIPPIN

NOTARYPUgUC~~TATMOPtLUNO~s

MY CO$~ ER~8:O2,2UQ~

This document is printed on recycled paper.

BEFORE

THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL

BOAR)

LOWE TRANSFER, INC. and

)

RECEIVE I)

MARSHALL LOWE,

)

CLERK’S

OFFICE

Co-Petitioners,

)

No. PCB 03-221

vs.

)

(Pollution Control Facility Siting Appe~P

022003

COUNTY BOARD OF McHENRY

)

COUNTY, ILLINOIS

)

STATE OF IWNOIS

Respondents.

)

Pollution Control Board

NOTICE OF FILING

TO: See Proof 

of Service

PLEASE 

TAKE NOTICE that on September 2, 2003, we filed with the Illinois Pollution

Control Board, the attached Lowe Transfer, Inc. and Marshall Lowe’s RESPONSE

COUNTY BOARD OFMdHENRY COUNTY’S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS DECISION

TO DENY SITING APPROVAL TO LOWE TRANSFER, INC.

in the above entitled matter.

LOWE TRANSFER,

INC.

and

MARSHALL LOWE

By:_________

David W. McArdle

PROOF OF SERVICE

a non-attorney, on oath state that

served the foregoing Response on the following party, by hand

delivery on this 2~day of September, 2003:

Attorney for county Board ofMcHenry County, Illinois

Charles F. Heisten

Hinshaw and Culbertson

100 Park Avenue

Rockford, IL 

61105-1389

SUBSCRIBED and

SWORN to before

me this~ day of September 2003

lOF~iCLAL Sh~AL

Not

U ~

Commission ~xpire~ -~

David W. McArdle

Attorney Registration No. 06182127

ZUKOWSKI ROGERS FLOOD & MCARDLE

30 Virginia Street

Crystal Lake, Illinois 60014

(815) 459-2050

H:\LOWE\NOTFILERESPONSE.TRANSFER.wpd

This 

document is printed on recycled paper.

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL

CLERK’S

L~EIVED

OFFICE

LOWE TRANSFER, INC. and

)

MARSHALL LOWE,

)

2003

Co-Petitioners,

)

No. PCB 03-22 1

STATE OF ILLINOIS

)

Pollution Control Board

vs.

)

(Pollution Control Facility

)

Siting Appeal)

COUNTY BOARD OF McHENRY

)

COUNTY, ILLINOIS

)

Respondent

)

RESPONSE

TO COUNTY BOARD OF MdHENRY

COUNTY’S BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF ITS DECISION

TO DENY SITING APPROVAL TO LOWE TRANSFER, INC.

Co-Petitioners, Lowe Transfer, Inc. and Marshall Lowe submit this Reply Brief to the

brief filed by McHenry County on August 22, 2003.

Lowe is in Compliance with State Noise Regulations.

The County erroneously questioned the lack of

planning

for noise prevention or control

by Lowe. The various measures 

planned and implemented in the design for the Lowe facility

were enumerated in Lowe’s Memorandum filed on August 22, 2003. Co-Petitioner’s

Memorandum at pages 13 and 19-20.

Additionally, however, the Board’s attention is directed to the supporting letter filed by

Thomas D. Thunder from Acoustic Associates, Ltd. (C04025-C04027). Mr. Thunder is a

licensed audiologist and a certified noise control engineer. He has over 25 years experience in

assessing the compliance of existing and proposed commercial and industrial operations with

local, state, and federal noise standards.

Id.

THIS

DOCUMENT

IS PRINTED ~N RECYCLED PAPER

Mr. Thunder attended the public hearing on the siting application when issues and

concerns relating to noise were discussed. He also reviewed the Application’s Executive

Summary 

and

examined the 

site engineering drawings.

Id.

Mr. Thunder analyzed the sound level over distance for the equipment proposed for the

Lowe facility. He obtained the specifications for the proposed wheel loader from the

manufacturer’s representative. He confirmed the sound level given by the manufacturer by

comparing that sound level with the literature published by the U.S. Department of

Transportation for 

heavy trucks.

Id.

Using the standard formula for geometrical spreading of sound waves of 6 dB decrease

per doubling of distance, Mr. Thunder calculated the noise attenuation over the distance to the

nearest residents, a distance of about 1300 feet, would reduce the sound at the residents’ property

line to 50 dBA. Atmospheric and ground cover absorption would decrease the sound level

another 3 to 4 dB.

Id.

While the State of Illinois noise regulations apply to each ofnine different frequencies,

the effective overall limit for noise radiated from industrial to residential land during daytime

hours (7:00 a.m. to 10:00 p.m.) is 61 dBA. Based on his calculations, Mr. Thunder concluded

the noise generated by the proposed wheel loader at the Lowe facility would clearly meet the

state regulations at the nearest residential property.

Id.

Mr. Thunder further calculated sound levels for the equipment operating on the apron

without

the acoustical benefit of 

the

transfer building. The sound level at the nearest residential

property would be 51 dBA. If one factors in the acoustical barrier the transfer building will

THIS DOCUMENT IS PRINTED ~N RECYCLED PAPER

provide, there would be an additional

to 20 dB of sound attenuation. This sound reduction is

directly attributable to the ability of the concrete transfer building to contain sound.

Id.

An analysis of the noise impacts of the back-up alarms was also conducted by Mr.

Thunder. A typical back-up alarm has a sound level of 107 dBA at a distance of 4 V2 feet. Based

solely on the geometrical spreading of sound waves, Mr. Thunder concluded the sound level at

the nearest residential property would be

dBA. Because of the orientation and location of the

transfer building, the actual sound level to the residents would be less than 59 dBA. For trucks

operating inside the concrete transfer building, the sound would be reduced by an additional

substantial amount.

Id.

Mr. Thunder in his letter also discussed the effect of the ambient background noise levels.

Because the nearest residential development is near U. S. Route 14, a busy 4-lane highway, the

daytime ambient noise level will be fairly high, around 55 dBA. Any noise from the proposed

Lowe operation would typically be inaudible because the background noise would “mask” the

noise emanating from Lowe.

Id.

Mr. Thunder concluded:

based on the large distance to the nearest residential community,

the strategic location of the transfer building, the type of building

construction, and the probable ambient noise in the area, this

facility as planned and designed should meet the Illinois noise limit

and pose negligible impact to the nearby residents.

Id.

The objector’s witness only speculated on possible noise effects. Mr. Thunder was the

~2~Yexpert to provide any evidence in the record. Lowe will be in compliance with the noise

regulations of the State of Illinois. The manifest weight of the evidence clearly and plainly

demonstrates Lowe has met its burden of proof regarding noise as a factor for Criterion 2.

THIS DOCUMENT

IS PRINTED ~N RECYCLED PAPER

County Misstated the Record Regarding Auto Turn.

The County 

in error 

states that calculations performed by Mr. Gordon, 

Lowe’s

principal design engineer, were “flawed” and, thus, provided 

abasis for the County to deny Lowe

on Criterion 2. County Brief at p. 10. In fact, the 

record reveals, any flaws in calculations using

the Auto Turn modeling program were committed by Mr. Nickodem not Mr. 

Gordon.

Auto Turn fs a computer program which simulates truck movements on different

roadways. (C00214, pp. 

45-47.). The program has standards for different trucks utilizing

differences in size and other factors. 

Id.

Mr. Nickod~mdid not do the Auto Turn modeling himself as the County readily admits

on page 10 of its brief. The modeling was performed by an associate in their Sheboygan office 

not by Mr. Nickodem. (C00214, pA.6). He supervised inputting the data 

and

instructing the

associate what he wanted for the evaluation. 

Id. However~

Mr. Nickodem testified he did ~

know the 

wheel base of the truck used in their modeling (C00215, p. 74);

did not know the

shortest wheel base for a truck that could hold 20 to 21 tons (C002l5, p.

75);

did not know

whether the wheel base used in their modeling was the maximum contained in the Auto Turn

program (C002.l

p. 77); and did not know the speed assumed for the truck in their modeling.

(C00218, p.’7).

Mr. Nickodem testified in running models with the Auto Turn program it is important to

know the speed assumed for the computer modeling. .(C002 18, p. 8). As the speed of a truck

increases, the truck would need a larger turning radius.

Id.

Yet, he had no knowledge of the

speed assumed in their modeling for the Lowe facility. (C002l8, p.7).

THIS DOCUMENT IS PRINTED G’J RECYCLED PAPER

Mr. Gordon testified that he used the standardized American Association of State

Highway and Transportation Officials (“AASHTO”) templates in the design contained in the

Application. (C00223, p. 7). The AASHTO templates are recognized in the industry as an

accepted design tool. (C00223, p. 29): Using the hand templates, a truck with a wheelbase 62

was able to maneuver through the ramps and tunnel with ease. (C00223, p. 13).

After the issue of the Auto Turn program was raised by Mr. Nickodem in his testimony,

Mr. Gordon ran the Auto Turn program using awheelbase 54. (C00223, p. 13). This is the most

common wheelbase for transfer trailer and trucks coming into a transfer station. (C0023, p. 26).

This would be a 45-foot 100 cubic yard transfer trailer with a conventional 19-foot tractor.

(C00223, p. 8).

Before running the Auto Turn modeling, date was entered into the computer program

reflecting the specifications of the most common transfer trailer and truck combination. This

was done because the Auto Turn program does not include a transfer trailer truck among the

standard trucks contained within its computer model.~(C00223, p. 18). Upon running the Auto

Turn program with the specifications for the typical transfer trailer and truck combination, Mr.

Gordon found there was no trouble traversing the site. (C00223, p. 9). The modeling with the

Auto Turn also demonstrated the transfer trailer and truck combination would have no trouble

maneuvering through the loading tunnel.

Id.

The modeling done on behalf of the obj ectors was done using the maximum standard

over-the-road truck configuration found in the Auto Turn program

the largest, tallest and

heaviest truck contained in the program. No attempt was made by Mr. Nickodem to use the

THIS DOCUMENT IS PRINTED ~ RECYCLED PAPER

elements of the Auto Turn program to create truck specifications that would accurately reflect the

design of atypical transfer trailer and truck combination.

Unlike the objector’s, Mr. Gordon used the flexibility of the Auto Turn program to input

the specifications of the most common transfer trailer and truck combination instead of using the

maximum standard truck contained in the program. (C00223, p. 18). This approach provides for

a modeling more accurately reflecting the trucks that will actually be used on a transfer station

site.

Lowe’s witness, Mr. Gordon, modeled the traffic flow through the facility using both the

AASHTO standardized templates and the Auto Turn program providing inputs specific to the

actual track and trailer combinations most common for transfer stations. Under the analysis of

both of these methods, the trucks proposed to be used for the Lowe facility had no difficulty

maneuvering through the site and the loading tunnels. Lowe’s design meets industry standards.

The manifest weight of the evidence clearly and plainly demonstrates Lowe has met its burden of

proof regarding the designed traffic flow as it relates to Criterion 2.

County Staff Report Found that Criterion 3 was Met.

The County in its brief elToneously takes the position the Lowe facility was not designed

to minimize the incompatibility with the surrounding area and minimize the effect of the transfer

station on the value of the surrounding properties. This position clearly has no support in the

evidence contained in the record as discussed in the Lowe’s Memorandum filed on August 22,

2003..

Additionally, it should be noted the County hired Patrick Engineering as a consultant for

the siting application review process. A member of the firtn attended all the public hearings.

THIS DOCUMENT IS PRINTED ~N RECYCLED PAPER

(C00178- C00227). Patrick Engineering along with the staff from the McHemy

County

Department of Planning and Development, the McHenry County State’s Attorney Office and the

McRemy County Department of Environmental Health prepared a detailed report. (C03 852-

C03 992). The report was prepared following a review of the Application, the transcripts, the

exhibits, the public comment and the record as a whole.

Id.

This report contains the following discussion of “minimize” as it relates to Criterion 3:

The wording of the criterion implies that there will be externalities

associated with the development of a transfer station. The key to

this criterion is the word

minimize.

Externalities do not need to be

completely mitigated but must be managed to an extent to where

they are minimal. (C03870).

In its review of the size of the Lowe facility, County staff stated as follows:

Mr. Harrison’s Lowe’s witness on pràperty values testimony

indicated that the Northbrook transfer station was 2.42 acres and

handled 350 tons per day and the ARC facility is 3.28 acres and

handles 922 tons per day, which would indicate the 2.64-acre site

Lowe is not unusually small when compared to the size versus

tonnage of other transfer facilities in Illinois. (C03 869).

The application and testimony contained information regarding the impact of the

proposed transfer station on the character of the area and sun-ounding property values. In

analyzing the Lowe Application, County staff found “the impact of noise will be reduced by the

use of a concrete building, the sunken ramps, by the use of the scale house building, and with

berms”. (C03 870). County staff additionally found “steps have been proposed to minimize

odors, such as keeping all waste indoors, tarping in the tarping tunnel, daily floor cleaning and

not storing waste overnight”.

Id.

The County staffconcurred with the testimony presented by Lowe’s witnesses that effort

was put into the design of the Lowe facility to minimize incompatibility with the chatacter of the

THIS DOCUMENT IS PRINTED

RECYCLED PAPER

surrounding area. County staff found the testimony of Lowe’s witnesses, 

Larry Peterman and

Frank Harrison, indicated this criterion had been met. 

Id.

The manifest weight of the evidence 

clearly and plainly demonstrates Lowe has met its

burden of proof regarding Criterion 3.

Respectfully submitted,

LOWE TRANSFER, INC. and

MARSHALL LOWE

By: Zukowski, Rogers, Flood & McArdle

By:_________

David W. McArdle

Attorney No: 06182127

ZIJKOWSKI, ROGERS, FLOOD & MCARDLE

Attorney for Lowe Transfer, Inc, and Marshall Lowe~

50 Virginia Street

Crystal Lake, Illinois 60014

815/459-2050; 815/459-9057 (fax)

THIS DOCUMENT IS PRINTED ~N RECYCLED PAPER