NOTICE OF FILING
SERVICE LIST
MOTION FOR EXTENTION OF TIME
AMEREN ENERGY GENERATING COMPANY
IN SUPPORT OFAMEREN SITE SPECIFIC NOISE RULE
PRE-FILED TESTIMONY OF GREG ZAK,of NOISE SOLUTIONS BY GREG ZAK
AMEREN SITE SPECIFIC RULE
TESTIMONY OF GREG ZAK
TABLE 1
ACROSS FROM UNIT 4
II. ILLINOIS STATUTES AND REGULATIONS
III. MEASUREMENTS
1. Measurement Procedures

IV. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
V. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Noise Solutions by Greg Zak Noise Report

ATTACHMENT A
ATTACHMENT- B

CLERK’S

OFF~CE

BEFORE THE ILLiNOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

DEC

20U3

TN THE MATTER OF:

STATE OF ILUNOIS

Pollution

Control Board

PROPOSED SITE

SPECIFIC REGULATION

)

APPLICABLE TO AMEREN ENERGY

)

R04-1

GENERATING COMPANY, ELGIN, ILLINOIS,

)

AMENDING

ILL. ADM. CODE 901

)

NOTICE

OF FILING

TO:

See attached Service List

Please take notice that today I have filed with the

Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board the following documents on behalf of the Petitioner

in this matter, in accordance with

Ill.

Adm. Code

102.424 in anticipation ofthe hearing in this

matter:

Pre-Filed

Testimony

Richard

Smith

Ameren

Energy

Generating

Company

Pre-Filed Testimony ofDavid J. Parzych ofPower Acoustics, Inc.

Pre-Filed

Testimony

Greg

Zak

of Noise

Solutions

Greg

Zak;

and

the

following documents to

be submitted as exhibits at hearing.

Power

Acoustics,

Inc.:

Compilation

of Sound Assessment

Studies

and

Reports,

and Resume ofDavid Parzych

Noise

Solutions

Greg

Zak:

Sound

Assessment

Report

for

Ameren

Elgin

Facility dated November

1, 2003

Resume ofGreg Zak

Also filed today

is Motion for an

Extension

of Time directed to

the Hearing Officer in

this matter, along with a

Certificate of Service

a copy of which

attached and

hereby served

upon you.

Respectfully submitted,

Marili McFawn

SchiffHardin &

Waite

6600 Sears Tower

Dated:

December 3, 2003

Chicago, Illinois

60606

312-258-5519

Cl-2\

1060935.1

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, the undersigned, certify that I have served documents described in the attached Motion

ofFiling, by depositing these documents with Federal Express on

December 3, 2003

for service

upon the Clerk ofthe Pollution Control Board

and Hearing Officer John Knittle.

The remainder

of those on the

Service List were served by depositing these documents in regular U.S.

mail

December 3, 2003.

Marili McFawn

CH2\ 1060957.1

SERVICE LIST

Ms. Dorothy Guim

Clerk of the Pollution Control Board

James R. Thompson Center

100 West Randolph

Suite

11-500

Chicago, Illinois 60601

Mr. John Knittle, Esq.

Hearing Officer

Illinois Pollution Control Board

1021 North Grand Avenue East

Springfield, Illinois

62794

Office ofLegal Services

Illinois Department of Natural Resources

One Natural Resources Way

Springfield, Illinois 62702-1271

Mr. Scott Phillips, Esq.

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

Division ofLegal Counsel

1021

North Grand Avenue East

P.O. Box

19276

Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276

Realen Homes

Attn.:

Al Erickson

1628 Colonial Parkway

Inverness, Illinois 60047

Mr. Joel Sternstein

Assistant Attorney General

Environmental Bureau

188 West Randolph St.,

20t~1

Floor

Chicago, Illinois

60601

Village ofBartlett

Attn.:

Bryan Mraz,

Attorney

228

South Main Street

Bartlett, Illinois 60103

CH2\ 1060953.1

RECEIVED

CLERK’S

OFFICE

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

DEC

2003

IN THE MATTER OF:

STATE OF ILLINOIS

Pollution

Control Board

PROPOSED

SITE SPECIFIC REGULATION

)

APPLICABLE TO AMEREN ENERGY

)

R04-1

GENERATING COMPANY, ELGIN, ILLINOIS,

)

AMENDING

ILL. ADM. CODE 901

)

MOTION FOR EXTENTION OF TIME

Petitioner moves the hearing officer in this matter to

grant Petitioner an

extension oftime

to file the Pre-Filed Testimony and Exhibits intended to be introduced at the hearing now

scheduled in this matter.

These documents were

served on the Clerk ofthe Board and those

persons on the Service List in

this matter on December 3, 2003.

Pursuant to the hearing officer’s order in this matter, these documents were to be filed

November 26, 2003.

That hearing officer order was dated November

17, 2003, but received by

Petitioner’s counsel on or after November 21, 2003.

Until

that time,

Petitioner’s counsel

believed that the filing date was set for December 3, 2003, based upon a telephone conversation

with the hearing officer on November

13, 2003.

Upon receipt ofthe Hearing Officer’s order,

counsel informed the Hearing Officer ofthe difficulty involved in meeting a November 26, 2003

filing date.

Pursuant to

Section

102.424 ofthe Board’s Procedural Rules, the Board’s hearing officer

may extend the date for filing these documents to

prevent material prejudice orundue delay.

Acceptance ofthis filing

at this time will serve for a more efficient hearing, and will not

materially prejudice any participant.

Accordingly, Petitioner respectfully request that the

Hearing Officer grant this motion as allowed under Section

101.522 and 102.242 ofthe Board’s

Procedural Rules.

Respectfully submitted,

Marili McFawn

SchiffHardin & Waite

6600

Sears Tower

Dated:

December 3, 2003

Chicago, Illinois

60606

312-258-5519

CH2\

1060950.1

CLERK’S

OFFICE

BEFORE THE

ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

DEC

2003

STATE OF ILLINc~IS

IN THE MATTER OF:

Pollution

ControlBoard

PROPOSED SITE SPECIFIC REGULATION

)

APPLICABLE TO AMEREN ENERGY

)

R04-1

GENERATING COMPANY, ELGIN, ILLINOIS,

)

AMENDiNG 35

ILL. ADM. CODE

901

)

PRE-FILEDTESTIMONY OF

RICHARD

C. SMITH

AMEREN ENERGY GENERATING COMPANY

Good Morning.

I am Richard C.

Smith.

I am the Manager ofGeneration

Services

at Ameren Energy Generating

Company.

I am responsible for project management,

engineering, outage planning,

safety, training, laboratory

services, and operation

and

maintenance ofAEG’s combustion turbine fleet as well as two cogeneration facilities.

possess bachelor’s and master’s degrees in

mechanical engineering and

am a Fellow of

the American

Society ofMechanical Engineers.

I am a licensed Professional

Engineer in

the States ofIllinois and Missouri.

I was responsible for leading the development of the Ameren Elgin

Energy Center

project

and was responsible for the construction and commissioning ofthe Facility.

my current position, I am responsible for operation and maintenance.

The Elgin Energy Center site location was selected because of the fact that the

property was in an industrial

setting that contained appropriate, compatible

land uses and

access

to ComEd’s

Spaulding Road substation.

Natural gas fuel supply would be

available through a proposed pipeline being developed by a joint venture between Nicor

and Natural Gas Pipeline Company ofAmerica.

Additionally, access to railroad

tracks

was in

close proximity

for transportation and delivery ofheavy equipment associated

with the combustion turbines.

When the Facility was still

in the design phase, Ameren considered the possible

noise effect on

the surrounding community.

For that reason, Anieren worked extensively

with the equipment supplier, Siemens Westinghouse, and engaged Mr. Dave Parzych of

Power Acoustics,

Inc. to

survey ambient noise sources at critical nearby receptor

locations which included existing residential locations and a commercial operation, and

perform an acoustical model analysis to

estimate the noise that may result from

operation ofthe four gas turbine unit facility.

Mr. Parzych will testify that a computer

noise model ofthe proposed Elgin facility, after taking into account the proposed noise

abatement controls now in place at this Facility,

estimated the sound pressure level to be

at or below the Board’s noise regulations at all then-existing residential receptors.

So,

even before the Facility was built, Ameren was diligent in its

efforts to comply with

applicable noise limitations. In addition, a robust public information program was

conducted in

order to inform local government

and residents ofAmeren’s intentions

which included information pertaining to

plant design.

Since that time, the character and the nature ofthe area has changed little.

The

area is heavily industrial.

As you

can see

on Attachment 2

to our Petition, the Facility is

located in

an industrial park and is surrounded by industrial

uses.

the immediate north

is the GE Capital Module Space,

an outside storage yard of temporary office trailers.

Immediately east ofthe Facility is a BFI Waste Systems facility.

Just further east is

Commonwealth Edison’s high powered transmission line corridor and an active railroad.

Also nearby to the

south

is the U.S. Can Company, a manufacturing facility.

the

immediate west is currently vacant property owned by Realen Homes, which at the time

of the Facility’s construction was intended for use as a balefill operation by the Solid

Waste Agency ofNorthern Cook Cpunty (known as “SWANCC”).

Just north of this area

is Bluff CityMaterials, a quarry and mining operation.

At the time the Facility was constructed and still today, the predominant industrial

character ofthe area results in heavy truck traffic

and other vehicular traffic on Gifford

Road and West Bartlett Road.

The quarry and mining operation contributes

a great

number ofdump trucks

and heavy equipment trucks.

The nature ofU.S.

Can Company’s

operations contribute many tractor trailer trucks.

During the sound surveys conducted by

Power Acoustics, Inc.

and Noise Solutions by Greg Zak, both monitored

significant noise

from these operations,

as well as from overhead air, traffic

and train noise.

The nature and character of the area has not

changed over the

years, and to our

knowledge, there have been no complaints

about noise from our power generation

facility.

When we learned that the unincorporated, vacated property across Gifford Road

from the facility was proposed for residential development, we engaged Dave Parzych of

Power Acoustics, Inc.

and shortly thereafter, Noise Solutions by Greg Zak to

update our

information about noise in the area and that generated by our Facility.

Both gentlemen

will testify about their investigations and recommendations which are the basis of

Ameren’s request forthe site specific noise limitations proposed in this Petition.

I hope that I have adequately informed you about the industrial nature and

character ofthe area where our Facility is located

and the

steps we took to

construct it to

minimize

any noise impact on that area.

I am also appearing here todayto answer

questions

you may have about our power generation facility in Elgin

and other questions

relevant to Ameren’s operations of this Facility.

I will also testify regarding the

operation ofthe Facility, the noise abatement control in place at the Facility, and the

potential costs of additional noise abatement control.

The Elgin Energy Center consists of four Siemens Westinghouse W5O1D5A

combustion turbines.

Each unit is capable of a rated maximum output of 135MW of

electric power generation.

At this point, you may want to refer to Attachment C of our

Petition filed October

28th

That Attachment is entitled “Simple Cycle Combustion

Turbine.”

Air, taken

in through the inlet filter and silencer, is compressed and

combined

with natural gas.

The air-fuel mixture is combusted and the hot gasses are expanded

through a multi-stage turbine to

produce shaft

rotation/torque.

The turbine shaft is

directly connected to a generator which is used to generate electric power.

Exhaust

gasses exit the system through

the exhaust silencers and stack.

As described in our Petition, the Facility is equipped with several different kinds

ofnoise abatement systems.

The turbine ofeach unit is enclosed and

equipped with

enclosure ventilation silencing.

Because the majority of the noise emitted

comes first

from the opening needed to get air into the turbine’s compressor, the inlet,

and then from

the opening needed

to get the combustion exhaust gasses

out ofthe turbine, both are

equipped with noise abatement controls.

The air intake for each turbine

is enclosed, and

intake is equipped with inlet silencer baffles.

This is combined with extensive

duct

structural stiffening and lagging as secondary noise attenuation to further reduce sound

radiating from the air intake system.

The noise abatement equipment at the exhaust outlet is state ofthe art.

The

silencer panels were designed specifically for this Facility to

attenuate the low frequency

31.5 Hz and 63

Hz octave bands while also providing substantial mid and

high frequency

noise reduction.

They are extra thick and longer than those used as comparable facilities,

in fact so long that a special horizontal section of silencer panels approximately 35

feet in

length and supported on the ground was used to accommodate the massive exhaust

silencer.

The traditional 50 foot high vertical exhaust stack was also used to provide an

additional

15 feet of silencers.

Finally,

to keep sound from radiating from the exhaust

ducting surfaces, an extra, secondary enclosure system was provided, which is

acoustically insulated

with

inch ormore steel plate.

As Mr. Parzych, who was retained

by Ameren during the design phase ofthis Facility to assess potential noise

from this

Facility, will testify further on the unique control characteristics ofthe noise control

system for the exhaust outlet.

As explained in our Petition,

and as I mentioned early, with the help ofPower

Acoustics,

Inc., during the design phase Ameren

evaluated the possible impact ofnoise

from the planned facility on the area to

determine the necessity and value ofequipping

the planned facility with nOise abatement

equipment beyond that standard to the industry.

Based on Mr. Parzych’s study,

Ameren determined that, as planned, the facility could

comply with the Board’s noise limitations at then existing residential areas.

Accordingly,

Atheren installed the state ofthe art exhaust silencing system and all the other noise

abatement controlsjust described.

The estimated cost for the noise abatement measures

for all four units was a total of$l 1,650,000.

More recently, Ameren again retained Mr. Parzych to study whether the Facility

would be able to

comply with the newly proposed residential areajust west and

across

the road from the Elgin Facility.

Mr. Parzych will testify that based upon actual

measurements in the field, he

determined that the Facility does comply with the Board’s

noise regulations at pre-existing residential areas, but may not be able to comply with the

Board’s Class A noise limitations at the Realen property despite the extensive sound

abatement equipment already in place.

For that reason, Ameren investigated the

technical

feasibility and costs of installing additional noise

control equipment at the

Facility.

While we investigated several approaches, prior to proceeding with any particular

abatement measure, a detailed sound

study would be required to

determine first the type

of noise that must be reduced, and then whether the proposed measure would sufficiently

abate the noise to meet the Board noise emission limitation.

Sound testing would

have to

be~

conducted to

determine the octave band sound power levels ofeach sound source, i.e.,

the gas turbine, inlet system, exhaust system, generator, transformers, or coolers.

Such a

study would

then have to evaluate the effectiveness of the various sound source

treatments, including more inlet system silencing,

generator sound treatments beyond the

current enclosure, barrier walls, and exhaust sound

systems beyond the ~tateofthe art

system already provided.

The estimated cost for such a study

is $25,000.

This cost

estimate does not include the cost ofoperating the Facility for the purpose ofrecording

noise measurements of the various plant components.

Based upon Mr. Parzych’s and our past experience, we have examined the

feasibility and the cost of seven additional noise abatement measures.

However, before

explaining the derivation of the cost estimates provided on the Table of Estimated Costs

ofN

ise Abatement Measures, Attachment E to our Petition, I would like to make some

general

clarifications.

The estimates are order of magnitude in

the range of -25

+75,

which ought to be interpreted that real costs would likely fall within this range

around the figures presented

in Attachment E to the Petition.

Again, to establish

a more

accurate estimate requires a detailed sound study of the Elgin Facility that I just

described.

Also, some ofthe noise abatement measures have not been proven in

the

power industry and would require extensive research and testing

(e.g.,

a new redesigned

stack, or an active noise control system).

The cost estimate for each option is broken down into material, labor,

engineering, project management, AFUDC (construction interest), overhead and

contingency costs.

These are the major cost categories of a typical project and are used

develop cost estimates for Ameren projects.

The material costs were obtained from

Dave Parzych based upon his experience with the Ameren facility and other comparable

power generation facilities.

These estimates are based in part on industry rule ofthumb

pricing.

The labor costs are based on actual Elgin facility installation costs plus

uncertainty which is within the order ofmagnitude range.

The engineering, project

management, AFUDC, overhead and contingency percentages are based on typical

project cost percentages.

will

address

order

from

right

left

each

of the

seven

alternatives

listed

Attachment

Estimated

Costs

of Noise Abatement

Measures.

First

considered

the

installation ofadditional exhaust stack silencers for low, frequency noise reduction

(31.5

—

Hz).

Installing additional exhaust stack silencers will most likely not provide the required

low

frequency noise

reduction.

The

Facility

already

equipped

with

state

of the

art

control

measures

for this type

of noise.

Approximately forty feet of additional

exhaust

stack

with

silencers may be

required to

achieve

additional

reductions

low

frequency noise than

that

currently provided.

Because ofthe large amount ofnoise reduction that would be required to

comply with

the Board’s residential standards,

the likely success of this type of treatment

small.

Even

then, the

estimated cost

$6,000,000.

Also,

installation of such

equipment

would require approval and an ordinance from the

City of Elgin,

which would

be difficult to

obtain. The additional

stack would impair performance ofthe units by increasing backpressure

the

turbines,

which

would

degrade

efficiency

and

power

output,

which

would

then

adversely impact economic value ofthe Facility.

The

second approach investigated to reducing low

frequency noise reduction, 31.5-63

Hz, was

installing

new, redesigned

stack:

new

stack

would

require full

aerodynamic

modeling,

i.e.,

a physical scale model

to assure nearly“perfect” system aerodynamics

as well

as significant analytical

work to

insure that the

exhaust

system

would

achieve the necessary

criteria to

reduce low frequency noise beyond

that already achieved by the

equipment at the

Facility.

According to Mr. Parzych, there are no gas turbine exhaust stacks

currently available

in the United States that meets the necessary design criteria.

The

estimated cost for this R&D

approach

$18,000,000.

our judgment

that

this

option

would

also

degrade

unit

performance and economic value ofthe Facility.

The third alternative investigated was the installation of an active noise control system

for low frequency noise reduction, again sound in the 31.5

Hz octave bands.

This type

of technology

has been developed

under

a NASA

contract, but

it has not

been used

the

power

industry.

Such

active

noise

control

system

would

expected

work

conjunction with the existing passive silencing for low frequencynoise reductions.

Because it

would

experimental to

the power industry and at our Facility, the engineering team ~who

developed the system under contract for NASA would be have to first evaluate the feasibility

ofsuch a system for application to this Facility’s exhaust systems.

The

cost for this approach

is estimated at $6,000,000, and we associate a very low probability ofsuccess.

For additional reduction ofhigh frequencynoise, that is sound within the

1000 to 8000

octave

bands, the

installation of additional

inlet

silencers was

considered.

relatively

short section ofinlet silencing mayprovide noise reduction, only ifthe inlet system is found to

be a significant sound source at the higher frequencies.

However, the feasibility ofthis type of

noise

reduction

and

its

impact

the

Facility’s

operations

would

have

further

investigated.

The estimated cost is $600,000.

Our judgment is that this approach would have

little positive effect on the overall sound emissions from- the site.

Again, this approach would

degrade unit

performance

increase pressure drop through

the

inlets

and

would

therefore

negatively impact economicvalue of the Facility.

Also considered for reducing high frequency noise reduction,

the same range of 1000

8000

Hz, was

the

installation of an

additional

ducting

enclosure.

If the

inlet

ducting

found to

a significant

source

at the higher frequencies,

a secondary enclosure around

the

inlet ducting mayprovide noise reduction.

The estimated cost for this approach is $1,200,000.

Again, ourjudgment

is that this approach would

have little positive effect on the overall sound

emissions

from the

site.For mid

frequency noise,

that

sound

the

125

to500

Hz range,

installing a secondary enclosure around

the generator was evaluated.

However, to obtain the

full

effects

of such

enclosure,

additional

silencing

may

required

the

ventilation

ducting.

The estimated cost is $1,200,000.

Again,

ourjudgment

is that

this approach would

have little positive effect on the overall

sound emissions from

the

site.

This

approach would

be unique to the power industry for this type of Facility, and would require extra engineering

to avoid adverse operational impacts upon the existing generator enclosures.

Finally, to

reduce further mid and high frequency noise reduction at the

125

8000

Hz range, the cost of installing a barrier wall on thewest side ofeach unit was estimated.

The

costs factors

included

$35

per square foot,

and a wall

feet tall and

250 feet long.

While

installation ofa barrierwall maybe somewhat effective in reducing the midto high frequency

sound, its potential effectiveness would depend on the results of a detailed measurement and

analytical study.

The estimated cost is $3,600,000, and such barrierwalls would not be useful

in reducing emissions oflow frequency sound.

This Facility is already equipped with significant noise control equipment—probably

equipment

than used

other

combustion

turbine

sites

any

other

type of noise

source.

Since it is already controlled, and in large partbeyond the levels normally achieved at

peaker power plants, successfully reducing noise further is probably technically infeasible or

may

achieved

subject only to

much

R&D or through

a process of trial

and

error.

The

cost

estimates may appear high, but the actual costs might be much greater due to the experimental

nature of many of the approaches.

When compared

to the environmental

impact of the noise

in this

area,

and the high. levels of extraneous and

ambient noise levels due

to the industrial

activities in the area, Ameren believes that the costs are not economically reasonable.

Thank

you for the opportunity to

testify today,

arid I would

be pleased to

answer any

questions that the Board or its staff mayhave after our two expert witnesses have testified.

Petitioner, Ameren Energy Generating Company,

reserves the right to supplement or

modify this pre-filed testimony.

Respectfully submitted,

Ameren Energy Generating Company

/T~_~~

By:

“

Marili

McFawn

Dated:

December 3, 2003

Marili McFawn

SchiffHardin & Waite

6600 Sears Tower

Chicago, Illinois

60606

312-258-5519

CH2\

1060367.2

RECE.~VED

BEFORE

THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

DEC

20O~

IN THE MATTER OF:

STATE

OF ILLINOIS

utlon

Control Board

PROPOSED SITE

SPECIFIC REGULATION

)

R04-l

APPLICABLE TO AMEREN ENERGY

)

GENERATiNG COMPANY, ELGIN, ILLINOIS,

)

AMENDiNG 35 ILL. ADM. CODE 901

)

PRE-FILED TESTIMONY OF

DAVID J. PARZYCH, P.E., INCE. Bd. Cert.

OF POWER ACOUSTICS, INC.

IN SUPPORT

AMEREN SITE

SPECIFIC NOISE RULE

Ameren Energy Generating Company

(“Ameren”),

by and

through

its

attorneys, Schiff

Hardin

Waite, and

pursuant

35. Ill.

Adm.

Code

102.424,

submits

the

following Pre-Filed

Testimony

David

Parzych

Power

Acoustics,

Inc.

for

presentation

the

hearing

scheduled for December

17, 2003

this matter relating

the request for a

site specific

sound

regulation for the Ameren Elgin

Facility located at 1559 Gifford Road in

Elgin, ‘Illinois.

TESTIMONY OF DAVID J. PARZYCH, RE., INCE

Bd.

Cert.

principal

and

founder of Power

Acoustics,

Inc.,

career

acoustics

and

noise

control

engineering spans

more than

years.

Early

career,

acoustical

disciplines

ranged’ from

nuclear

submarines

commuter

airplanes.

Over the past

years,

however,

work has been focused

on power generation facilities

with

gas turbines, or combustion

turbines

as my primary interest.

My résumé is included in

the exhibit containing my written reports.

My testimony today will explain three noise

studies

involving the Ameren

Elgin Facility:

the

first

done

2000

and

predating

the

design

and

construction

of the

Facility;

the

second

measuring

sound pressure levels

from

the existing

Facility at existing

residential

areas

and

the

Realen

property; and

the third study to

estimate the

sound pressure levels at locations

at various

locations at the Realen property.

Ameren

also requested that

I assess

the

level of noise

control

equipnient

currently

the

Facility,

and

whether

additional

noise

control

measures

are

—

‘—

December 3,

2003

economically

techmcally

feasible

achieve

compliance

with

existing

residential

noise

emission

limitations

the

Realen

property

Finally,

will

address

how

the

requested

site

specific

sound

limitations

for

the

Ameren

Facility

were

developed

using

the

information

collected

myself and Greg Zak of Noise

Solutions

Greg

Zake

conjunction

with our

combined expertise in the field ofnoise-and its

control.

I have been involved

with

the acoustics of the Ameren Elgin’ Facility from

the time

the

Facility was in

its

conceptual stages

the

Fall of the year 2000

through

the present.

the

project’s conceptual stage, Power Acoustics,

Inc.

undertook the task of estimating the impact of

operating

four simple

cycle

Siemens-Westinghouse

501D5A gas

turbines at the Ameren

Elgin

site.

A PowerAcoustics,

Inc. report,

“Acoustical Evaluation and Ambient Sound Survey ofthe Amer~n

Simple Cycle Power Facility Proposed to be Built in Elgin, Illinois”,

was generated in November 2000

summarizing the ‘results of the

study.

My tasks

at the conceptual stage included measuring the

ambient

sound a~nearby

existing

residential

and

commercial

areas

and

estimating

the

sound

produced by

the

proposed Ameren Elgin

Facility

The

impact analysis

showed the

proposed

Ameren

Elgin

Facility,

containing

state-of-the-art

noise

control

features,

would

achieve

the

Illinois State Noise Regulations forthe zoning and property uses that existed at that time

most

recent

work

relating

this

Facility

started

June of 2003

and

continues

through the development of a new site-specific noise emission limitation for the Ameren Elgin

Facility.

Initially,

Ameren requested that I measure the

sound with

the Facility operational and

determine if the Facility met the noise requirements

at the nearby residential areas as projected in

the

initial

analysis performed

the

fall of 2000

Ameren

also

requested that

measure the

sound pressure

levels

across

the

street

the

western

side

of Gifford

Road

determine

the

impact of the Facility on what may become a new residential development

The sound tests were

accomplished with only a single gas turbine unit in operation

—

the one closest to

Gifford Road.

Subsequently, analytical techniques

were

used to

simulate the effects of the three

other’ units.

Power

Acoustics,

Inc.

report

dated

June

20th

2003,

“Analysis

and

Results

Acoustical

Measurements

Taken Near the Ameren Elgin, Illinois Power Facility During the Operation of the

Unit 4 SW5OJD5A

Gas Turbine

“,

summarizes the results.

—

December

3, 2003

The single unit operation was necessary to minimize the cost ofthe operational testing

and reduce the impact to the power grid since the power generated with all units operating would

exceed

450 MW.

Unfortunately, it is difficult to even give away power in the middle ofthe

night

with the moderate weather conditions that prevail at the time- ofyear Ameren needed to do

the

testing.

The results ofthe study after correcting for four unit operation showed that the

Illinois Noise Regulations were achieved at the existing residential areas.

However, at the

location adjacent to

the Ameren Elgin Facility on the west side of’Gifford Road, the corrected

results indicated ‘that the Facilitywould likely be in excess ofthe Illinois Octave Band Noise

Regulations if the property is used for residential purposes.

An additional

study was performed by Power Acoustics, Inc.

in July 2003 to

estimate the

sound pressure levels at locations enveloping the Realen property

accomplish this, the

sound

power

level of an individual gas turbine unit was estimated from the June 2003

sound

pressure

level measurements.

Sound

power

levels are different than sound

pressure

levels in

that

they are not impacted by sound propagation effects.

Sound power is the measure of sound-

energy that

is available to be radiated by the equipment

It can be

thought of similarly to the

wattage rating ofa light bulb

The bulb wattage crudely defines the amount

oflight

can

provide.

Although the actual amount ofthe light produced by the bulb will ultimately depend on

a vanety of factors, for example, its

efficiency, whether

has a lamp shade on

it,

and/or the color

of the room it is in.

Operational sound pressure levels from four unit operation were then estimated at various

locations on the Realen property using a theoretical sound propagation method that utilizes the

soundpower

information.

The results ofthat study were summarized in a letter to Bill Morse of

Ameren on July

11th

2003, which is included in the exhibit

containing my three written reports.

Basically, on the Realen property, the highest sound pressure levels were

estimated to occur

directly-west of the Ameren Elgin Facility at the closest position to

the gas turbine equipment,

while sound pressure levels decreased as distance

from the Facility increased to the west, north

or south.

‘

Ameren further asked

any additional noise control could be added to the Facility to

enable it to

achieve the residential. noise levels.

I concluded that generalizations could be made

—

4—

December

3, 2003

for known noise controls such as barrier walls andlor buildings that could further reduce the

sound from the Facility.

The monetary cost ofthese treatments, however, would likely be high

since the Facilitywas initially designed to be fully outdoors

Also, the acoustical benefits ofthe

treatments, if any, could not be accurately estimated without performing a detailed design study.

Finally, for a facility such as this that already has substantial noise

abatement built-in, estimating

the effectiveness ofadditional noise treatments is difficult even with results from a design study.

The 501D5A gas turbines and

supporting equipment found at the Ameren Elgin Facility

contain the largest amount

ofsound abatement I have ever seen supplied by Siemens-

Westinghouse for simple

cycle 501D5A gas turbines

Noise enclosures and ventilation

silencers

are used extensiyely to control the sound radiated by the gas turbines

and supporting power

generation equipment.

When the units are “buttoned up” with enclosures and enclosure

‘

ventilation silencing, the majority ofthe noise emitted by a gas turbine is generally observed

from two places:

first,

the opening needed to get air into the gas turbine’s compressor, and

second at the opening needed to

get the combusted gases out of the gas turbine.

These “holes” located at the gas turbine’s intake and

exhaust are the most difficult to treat

acoustically because they are linked directly to the noisiest internal

parts ofthe engine.

Ultimately, a gas turbine operates most efficiently with minimal blocking of its flow path

accomplish this, the intake

and exhaust flow paths

are treated with acoustically absorptive

parallel baffles that allow flow to pass through the open gaps that exist between the absorptive

sound baffles.

‘The silencers can provide a large amount of noise reduction while offering an

acceptable pressure loss to the gas turbine.

‘

The exhaust silencing at the Ameren

Elgin Facility, particularly that used for low

frequency noise control, are state-of-the-art for Siemens-Westinghouse 501D5A units.

The

silencer panels were dimensionally selected by Siemens-Westinghouse

attenuate the low

frequency 31.5 Hz and 63

Hz octave bands while also providing substantial mid and high

frequency noise reduction.

This required the silencer panels to be extra thick

and very long.

The

low

frequency silencer panels were so

long that Siemens-Westinghouse had

to’ deviate from its

normal practice ofplacing all the silencing in the vertical exhaust stack.

They developeda

‘

—5—

December 3, 2003

special horizontal section ofsilencer panels supported on the ground, approximately 40 feet in

length,

to accommodate the massive low frequency exhaust silencer.

To achieve even more

noise reduction, an additional

feet ofsilencers were included in the vertical portion ofthe

exhaust stack.

Finally,

to keep sound from radiating from the exhaust dücting surfaces, the duct

work includes one inch thick steel acoustically insulated with six inches of insulation

and an

internal steel liner facing the gas flow.

A secondary enclosure system was also provided to

encase the exhaust’ ducting.

This enclosure consists ofacoustically insulated quarter inch thick

steel plate.

A sketch ofthe major noise controls is shown in Diagram

Diagram

—

Elgin Noise Control Features

The exhaust silencer is providing about the maximum attenuation a silencer system of

this type can. Adding

length to the existing silencing will not likely provide any substantial

reduction in sound levels.

In the event that more low frequencynoise reduction is required, the

existing stack would probably have to be removed and a new one designed from scratch.

However, even with a completely redesigned exhaust stack, obtaining

more low

frequency sound

ELGIN

ENERGY CENTER

NOISE

 CONTROL,

DEVICES

INLET SILENCER

BAFFLES

OUTLET SILENCER

BAFFLES

—

December

3. 2003

attenuation than what currently exists would be questionable since the current design has already

challenged the state-of-the-art.

‘

As for the inlet system, substantial inlet silencing and

acoustical duct lagging were

provided for noise control. The silencer consists

8 feet ofparallel baffles specifically designed

to attenuate the high

frequency compressor noise.

The main inlet ducting consists ofan

external

steel wall that is 3/16 inch thick followed with 4 inches ofacoustical insulation and an internal

steel liner that

faces the air flowing into -the compressor.

To further,reduce the sound radiated by

the inlet ducting, a layer ofinsulation and

lightweight gauge steel were added externally to

encapsulate the main ducting.

The encapsulation is referred to as the “acoustical lagging”.

Other prominent sources ofsound within the simple cycle gas turbine power generation

facility include the air-cooled generator, heat exchangers and transformers.

Each of these

sources ofsound has a common need for air flow to provide cooling. They cannot be completely

enclosed.

For instance, while the generator resides within a sound enclosure, its air flow cannot

have major restrictions without seriously affecting its ability to generate electricity efficiently.

The need for air flow is also

a requirement with all ofthe fin-fan type heat exchangers

Placing

restrictions around the heat exchangers could cause

the equipment they support

to overheat and

ultimately could cause the facility to fail.

Transformers have similar cooling issues.

Any

additional noise control ofthese components could have a negative impact on the operational

efficiency ofthe Facility.

‘

Since the monetary and operational cost asso~iated

with acoustically modifying the

existing Ameren Elgin Facility was prohibitive and its

successful outcome questionable,

I was

asked to help determine obtainable site specific sound pressure level requirements.

This task is-

complicated by the limited amount of available operational data and an endless combination of

weather and operational possibilities that

can exist

On June

18, 2003

I had obtained sound

pressure level data with a single unit operating at base

load

This data was analytically corrected

four unit operation

Noise Solutions by Greg Zak had obtained sound pressure level data with

all four units in

base load operation

on September

2, 2003.

Both sets ofdata were taken under

weather conditions favorable

to sound propagation in the westerly direction.

Despite this, the

—

—,

December

3, 2003

data obtained may or may not be representative ofwOrst case conditions,

or conditions where the

equipment

produces its

maximum sound level.

For instance, aerodynamic sound sources, such

as fans and compressors that operate at constant rotational speeds can produce more noise when

the ambient temperatures are cooler and the

speed ofsound is low.

Under cooler conditions the

air is also denser so a larger mass ofair can be drawn into the gas turbine.

Also sound

propagation effects, such as atmospheric attenuation, are dependent on various combinations of

air temperature and humidity.

Forthese reasons, and many more, two sets ofsound pressure

level data cannot be

considered a statistical representation ofthe sound from the Facility.

Could

there be occasions under unknown weather and operational conditions when the Facility was

noisier than that measured?

Yes.

But, without several months of continuous operational data to

define the upper envelope of the Facility’s sound spectrum, the maximum cannot be

easily

obtained

However, collecting that amount and type ofdata is not feasible given that these types

of facilities do not operate continuously or at fixed operating levels and the cost ofoperating

them forjust acoustical testing is excessive

Even if that task was undertaken, there

is no way to

duplicate the endless weather conditions and operating levels to collect a statistically valid data

base

To determine the site specific sound pressure level requirements, a combination of the

sound pressure level

data measured by Greg Zak and myselfwas used.

Also factored in was

information supplied by Siemens-Westinghouse in,2000 that defines the equipment sound power

levels’.

The manufacturer’s sound power level data is auseful tool since it was assumed that

Siemens-Westinghouse would

attempt

to provide the upper envelope ofthe sound energy

produced by their equipment.

This

data also removes the unknown sound propagation .effects

related to the weather and ground compositionlcover.

Shown, in PAl Table

are comparisons of sound power level data provided by Siemens-

Westinghouse and

sound power levels estimated from June 2003 measurements made by

Power

Acoustics,

Inc.

I have included a small version ofthat

and Table

for your convenience.

A full

size version is also

attached.

‘

PAl Table

—

501D5A Sound-Power Level Comparison

—8—

December

3, 2003

Description

Octave

Band Center

Frequency.

31.5

125

250

500

1000

2000

4000

8000

Manufucuterersestimate

of Sound Power Level ofsingle

SOIDSA gas

turbine

and

balanceofpl

127.3

120.7

119,6

111.2

105.1

100.9

97.6

98.2

99.6

Saund Power Level

estImated from PM

June2003 measurements (July 11,2003

report)

125.7

119.0

114.4

106.3

103.8

104.5

103.4

99.2

94.5

Deltafrom Sound Power

Level

from PM

Measurements and SiemensWestinghouse

Data

1.6

5.2

5.0

1.3

-3.6

-5.8

-1.0

5.1

The differences between the Siemens-Westinghouse data and the PowerAcoustics data

are evident.

However, it does not appear that the Siemens-Westinghouse data is necessarily the

i.ipper envelope as was initially expected.

Shown in PAT Table 2 are comparisons ofthe range ofsound pressure levels that were

found to exist under conditions measured and with the Siemens-Westinghouse data factored

in.

PAl Table

Sound Pressure Levels Found/Estimated On West Side ofGifford Road.

Description

Octave

Band Center

Frequency.

31.5

125

250

500

1000

2006

4000

8000

Sound

PressureLevelof4units(eslimatedjutv

11,2003

PAl report).

Sound

Pressure Level of4

units Corrected

forDelta

from Siemens ~Vestlnghouse

Data

Greg

Zak

Measurements

Sept 2003

77.5

70.8

64.8

53.7

51.0

54.2

52.5

45.1

20.8

79.1

72.5

70.0

58.7

53.1

50.6

44 I

33.9

73.0

66.0

62.0

56.0

51.0

53.0

56.0

49.2

424

AverageofGreg

Zak Measurements,

PAl

Extrapolation

and

PAl

Entrap wIS-W

sound power

76.5

69.8

65.6

56.1

52.0

52.6

51.7

46.1

35.0

STD

Deviation

(POPULATION)

Average PlusSTD

Dcv

‘

2.6

2.8

2.0

0.9

3.9

2.2

5.6

79.1

72.5

68.9

58.2

52.9

54.t

95.6

48.3

40.7

t’roposed

Site Specific Rule

80.0

74.0

69.0

64.0

58.0

58.1)

50.0

40.0

Daytime Regulalion values

shown with

while

values

with “X”

exceed daytime standard

Note: Zak

data 4000 and 8000

Hz band was

discounted because of contamination by insect noise

leading to

)~o.~e:35Z)

Ocs.

As we developed the proposed site‘specific limits, we tried ~ostay within the existing

Illinois Daytime Noise standard.

However,

in the 31.5 Hz,

1000 Hz, 2000 Hz and 4000 Hz

octave bands, the Daytime standards did not adequately allow for the sound produced by these

units.

The levels proposed represent the maximum ofeither the Illinois Daytime Standard or the

average ofthe measured/synthesized values plus one

standard deviation and a safety factor as

deemed necessary.

The safety factor allows for unknowns caused by instrumentation

(measurement) uncertainty, uncertainty associated with

the operational parameters ofthe gas

turbine equipment, weather conditions and directivity

effects associated with various pieces of

the power plant equipment.

In my experience, uncertainties of3-5

dB are not

uncommon.

fact, many ofthe existing national and

international noise standards state that measurement

uncertainty alone is±3

dB.

My opinion is that the uncertainty could

be even larger than what we

have allowed for given the minimal amount of sound data available from this Facility.

This

analysis served as the basis

for the final requested site specific sound regulation for the Ameren

Elgin Facility.

—

‘

December

2003

This concludes my testimony summarizing my study and assessment ofthe Ameren Elgin

Facility noise levels, sound abatement and the explanation ofthe site specific

sound levels

proposed to the Board for adoption.

Thank you for the opportunity to testify today, and I would

be pleased to answer any questions that the Board may have at this time.

Petitioner, Ameren Energy Generating Company, reserves the right to supplement or

modify this pre-filed testimony.

Respectfully submitted,

Ameren Energy Generating Company,

Petitioner,

By:

 _______________

One ofits Attorneys

Dated:

December 3, 2003

Marili McFawn

SchiffHardin &

Waite

‘6600 Sears Tower

Chicago, Illinois

60606

312-258-5519

CH2\

1060049.1

Table

501D5A

Sound

Power Level Comparison

Description

Octave Band Center Frequency, Hz

31.5

125

250

500

1000

2000

4000

8000

Manufacuterers estimate of Sound

Power Level of single 501D5A gas turbine

and

balance

ofplantequipment

127.3

120.7

119.6

111.2

105.1

100.9

97.6

98.2

99.6

Sound Power

Level estimated from

PAl June 2003

measurements (July 11,2003 report)

125.7

119.0

114.4

106.3

103.8

104.5

103.4

99.2

94.5

Delta from Sound

Power

Level

from PA! Measurements and Siemens Westinghouse Data

1.6

1.7

5.2

5.0

1.3

-3.6

-5.8

-1.0

5.1

Table 2.

Sound Pressure

Levels

Estimated

at Gifford Road Location

Description

Octave Band Center Frequency,

31.5

125

250

500

1000

2000

4000

8000

Sound

Pressure Level of 4

units (estimated July 11,2003

PAl

report)

77.5

70.8

64.8

53.7

51.8

54.2

52.5

45.1

28.8

Sound

Pressure

Level of 4

units Corrected for Delta from Siemens

Westinghouse Data

79.1

72.5

70.0

58.7

53.1

50.6

46.7

44.1

33.9

GregZakMeasurementsSept2003

73.0

66.0

62.0

56.0

51.0

53.0

56.0

49.2

42.4

Average of Greg Zak Measurements, PA! Extrapolation and

PA! Extrap

w/S-W

sound

power corrections

76.5

69.8

65.6

56.1

52.0

52.6

51.7

46.1

35.0

STD Deviation (POPULATION)

2.6

2.8

3.3

2.0

0.9

1.5

3.9

2.2

5.6

Average Plus

STD Dev

79.1

72.5

68.9

58.2

52.9

54.1

55.6

48.3

40.7

Proposed Site Specific Rule

80.0

74.0

69.0

64.0

58.0

50.0

40.0

Daytime Regulation values shown

with

Vt.

while values with “X”~exceeddaytime

standard

Note:

Zak data 4000 and

8000 Hz band was discounted because of contamination by

insect noise leading to large

STD Dcv.

C112’

1060410.1

CLERK’S

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS

POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

PEC

20Q3

STATE

Of’ ILLINOIS

iN THE MATTER OF:

Pollution

Control Board

-PROPOSED SITE SPECIFIC REGULATION

)

APPLICABLE TO AMEREN ENERGY

)

R04-1

GENERATING

COMPANY,

ELGIN, ILLINOIS,,)

AMENDING

ILL. ADM. CODE 901

)

PRE-FILED TESTIMONY OF GREG ZAK,

of NOISE SOLUTIONS BY GREG ZAK

IN SUPPORT OF

AMEREN SITE

SPECIFIC RULE

Ameren Energy Generating

Company (“Ameren”),

and

through

its

attorneys,

Schiff

Hardin

Waite,

and

pursuant

Ill.

Adm.

Code

102.424,

submits

the following Pre-Filed

Testimony

of Greg

Zak

for presentation

at the

December

17,

2003

hearing

scheduled

the

above-referenced matter.

TESTIMONY OF GREG ZAK

Ladies and gentlemen, my name is Greg Zak.

I am the owner of Noise Solutions by Greg

Zak.

I am appearing here today on

behalf of the Petitioner,

Ameren, in

support of its

proposal

for a site specific rule for the noise

levels applicable to

its Elgin Facility.

I will testify regarding

the

sound measurements

taken by Noise Solutions by Greg Zak on

September 2,

2003,

and the

information

developed

based

upon

those

measurements.

will

also

explain

how

those

measurements compare to

the measurements taken and

developed

by Power Acoustics

Inc.,

and

how the site specific limitations

proposed by

Ameren

compare

the Illinois Pollution

Control

Board’s generally applicable noise emission, limitations.

I would

begin by briefly describing my experience in

both

the public

and private

sectors.

I have owned and operated Noise Solutions by Greg Zak since March of2001.

Prior to

entering

the

private

sector,

was

employed

the

Illinois

EPA.

have

over

years

experience dealing with

noise measurement,

noise control engineering,

and

the effects ofnoise

on people and

communities.

This

experience includes industrial,

commercial, residential, urban,.

rural and construction noise.

Many of you know me.

I have acted as a noise expert for my

firm

enforcement hearings before

the

Illinois

Pollution

Control Board.

When employed

the

Illinois EPA, I was a recognized noise expert

enforcement and regulatory hearings before the

Illinois Pollution

ControlBoard,

Federal Bankruptcy Court,

and in several Illinois Circuit Court

hearings related to

noise zoning and nuisance.

I have been a member ofa Society of Automotive

Engineering Committee,

and

a member of the American

National

Standards

Institute

Working

Group on

the Measurement

and

Evaluatio,n of Outdoor Community

Noise.

I was

selected by

Governor Edgar

sit

on the Blasting Task Force

mandated by House Joint Resolution

133

and

chaired

by the Illinois

Department of Natural Resources.

I represented

the Illinois

EPA, as

its

Noise Expert,

when testifying before the Illinois

Pollution

Control Board’s hearings

August

23,

2000

and

October

2000

the

matter

of:

“Natural

Gas

Fired,

Peak-Load

Power,

Generating

Facilities

(Peaker

Plants)”,

PCB

ROl-lO.

I have

also

frequently

testified

noise

enforcement hearings before the Board regarding noncompliance

and

appropriate

remedy.

The

noise

issues

have

dealt

with

frequently

involved

the

technical

practicability

and

economic

reasonableness ofreducing or eliminating the noise emissions from the source.

national

and

international

author

the

area

environmental

noise,

have

presented

papers

controlling

noise

national

and

international

noise

conferences.

currently

member

of the

working

group

for

the

American

National

Standards

Institute’s

American National Standard for “Quantities

and Procedures for Description and

Measurement of

Environmental Sound

Part

Sound Level Descriptors For Determination ofCompatible Land

Use, ANSI S12.9-199x--Part

5.”

I have passed the required written examination,

and have been

elected a

member

good

standing by

the Officers

and

Board

of Directors of the Institute

Noise Control Engineering (1NCE).

Ameren’s

request,

the night of September

2003,

Noise

Solutions by

Greg Zak

conducted

sound measurement test at the Elgin Facility while the facility was not operating and

while it was fully operational, that

is, with all

four units

at maximum load capacity.

The results

of this test are contained in

the noise

report attached to

my testimony.

In Table

of the

noise

report,

data

taken- September

2003

compared

the

measurements

taken

Power

Acoustics, Inc. (PAl) during its June, 2003 tests.

I will be referring often to this Table

On September 2, 2003,

the measurement location was

on the west side of Gifford Road,

directly across from Unit 4

and at the same approximate location ofthe measurements taken by

Power Acoustics,

Inc.

and

identified as “L-R2” in PAT’s reports

and in my report.

The weather

conditions

went from

clear to partly cloudy

and

the wind was

from

the east at approximately

mph

during

the

measurement period.

In order

closely

duplicate the

measurement

location

used

Power

Acoustics,

the

microphone

was

located

the

edge of a

very

weedy,

insect-

infested, field.

The close proximity of the microphone to the thick

4 to 6

foot high weeds would

later prove

problematic,

due

insect

noise

the high

frequency portion

of the

sound

spectrum.

The ambient measurements began around

9:00 pm to

ensure that the time between the

ambient

and

full load operation

would be as close together

as possible.

Ambient measurements

ceased at 9:30 pm,

as the Ameren Facility was in start-up mode by that time.

The-measurement

was

taken during

30-minute

period with

only

the quietest

minutes

of data being

used to

compile the

10 minute ambient.

This

very selective data gathering produced ambient

results

free of any extraneous noise

or noise

associated

with

the plant

start-up process.

should

noted

that

the area

was very

noisy due to

ground and air traffic.

The ambient was gathered

by working around

(pausing the

analysis instrumentation) the roar ofoverheadjet

traffic, the rumble ofdistant

railroad trains and

their whistles,

and

also

truck

and

automobile

traffic

Gifford

Road.

The

large

amount

extraneous

noise

not

reflected

the

ambient

measurements

all,

per

the

Board’s

measurement procedures.

One ofthe primary sources of ambient noise

was the US

Can

facility

located south ofthe Ameren Facility on Gifford Road.

Sounds that could be heard

from US

Can

included idling

trucks, back-up beepers,

and intermittent shouting by

workers.

These extraneous

noises are the type that mask and even drown out the noise from the Facility.

The results

from

this measurement period are found at Table

row 4:

“10

minute

Leq

Ambient.”

brief ‘explanation

of what

meant

the

measurement

of a

10-minute

Leq

ambient

order

here.

The term ambient

refers

all

of the sound

the area,

except

for

extraneous sound and

any sound emanating from the Ameren Facility.

Extraneous sound is

relatively

short

duration

and

comes

and

goes,

such as vehicle

passbys,

aircraft flyovers,

train

whistles,

and

forth.

The measurement instrumentation is

put

“pause mode”

avoid

including

extraneous sound during measurement.

It should be noted

that, the

same‘exclusion of

extraneous noise is used to measure the sound levels produced by the noise source ofinterest, the

Elgin Facility.

“Leq

“

as defined in the Board’s noise regulations and in this context means that

the

sound

energy

averaged

over

period

o.f

600

seconds

(10 minutes).

The

ten

minutes

referenced here are

a composite

of all

“chunks

of time” within the

30-minute

time

span (9

‘

9:30 pm) that were previously defined as ambient.

Measurements commenced at

10:00

and

ceased at

11:17

pm.

The facility was fully

operational

from

approximately

10:10

10:51

pm.

That is,

all

four units

were running

at full

load during that

time.

Of the

minutes ofmeasurements

collected,

I selected

the

minutes

representing the

loudest

sound

levels.

These measurements

were

recorded between

10:25

and

10:42 pmwhich

was

minute

time

span required

eliminate extraneous noise

from

other

sources.

The results of these

measurements are recorded in Table

1, row 3:

“Raw

10 minute

Leq

at 447 MW” as raw data.

This

Table

also

includes two

other versions of the data, rows

and

“Corrected

minute

Leq

at 447 MW”

and “Corrected and

rounded

10 minute

Leq

at 447 MW”.

The latter data

was rounded for ease of comparison with the existing Board noise emission limitations

and those

ofDuPage County and Cook County, as well as the site specific levels requested by Ameren.

Once

the

data

was

collected,

also

compared

the

results

with

the

measurements

obtained by Power Acoustics,

Inc.

on June 18, 2003.

At that time, just one unit was operating

full load and

extrapolation of that data was performed by Power Acoustics,

Inc.

simulate 4

units

at full operational load.

The sound pressure levels contained in

the Power Acoustics,

Inc.

(PAT)

report are found

at Rows

and

2 of Table

and

the measurements

obtained

Noise

Solutions by Greg Zak’(ZAK) are shown in Rows 3 through

Row

which

Table

of the

PAT

report,

shows

extrapolated

data

from

actual

measurements (10

minute

Leq)

taken of Unit

and

projected

include

Units

through

arrive at an

estimated sound

level

maximum.

Row

contains ambient measurements taken on

June

17 that are shown in the PAl report at its

Table

The ZAK data in Row

3 describes a

minute

Leq,

without

corrections,

measured

September

when

the

facility

was

fully

operational.

Row

represents

ambient

minute

Leq

measurement

which

shows

little

deviation from the PAl data, until the high frequency octave bands were measured.

The comparison documents a significant difference in

decibel levels at the

4000 Hz and

8000

Hz.

The difference of 15

dB higher at 4000 Hz and

higher at

8000 Hz

largely

due

excessive

insect

sounds

that

were

unavoidable

during

the

measurement

period.

surmise

that

when

PAT

took

its

measurements

June,

2003,

this

property,

including

the

measurement location, was not yet bordered by an

overgrowth of thick weeds and brush that

are

conducive

the harboring of a variety of insects.

This overgrown and

insect infested area was

the west ofthe microphone during the ZAK ambient measurement period

and would

account

for these high readings.

When the ZAK corrected levels in Row

are compared to

the levels obtained by

PAT, the

operational measurements at full capacity are considerably lower, with the exception of 2000 Hz.

At that octave band,

the PAl projection was

53.2 dB, while the ZAK measurement was

55.6

dB,

a difference of 2.4

dB.

Bear

mind that the PAl data represents a projection

from

the actual

measurement

unit running

the theoretical

sound

levels for

all

units.

Based

upon

experience,

2.4

difference between

extrapolated

data

and

actual

measurements

falls

well

within the many sources of potential

error in

making

extrapolation

from

the measurement of

one

running

unit

to’ the

actual measurement

of 4

units,

each with

its

own subtle characteristics

even though

each consists of the same turbine model and

other necessary equipment

and

noise

abatement controls.

Finally,

compared

Ameren’s

requested site-specific

noise

emission limitations

for the

Elgin Facility with a portion ofthe Board’s

current limits

listed

on the attached Table 2.

This

comparison demonstrates that the limitations proposed in this rulemaking are not significant.’

At the

31.5

Hz octave band,

the

limitation requested

equal

the current limit

for “Industrial Noise Commercial Receiver Limits”,

that

is,

C to

land use, at Section 901.103

of the

Board’s

rules.

The

limitations

requested

through

500

are

equal

the

“Industrial Noise to Residential

Receiver Limits”, that

is C

A land use, at Section 901.102(a)

of the Board’s rules,

and

are considerably below the

land use limits of Section 901.103.

At the

1000

Hz level,

the

limitation proposed is

only

higher than the 57

dB allowed

under the

limits for C to

land use.

At 2000 Hz, the 58 dB

limitation, while exceeding the C to

land use by

dB, would not

significantly penetrate a house ofmodern construction when the

windows

are closed, which

is the likely situation when the peakers are operating during periods

of very hot or cold weather.

At the .4000 Hz,level, the 50 dB limitation, while exceeding the C to

land use by

‘dB,

would

not significantly

exceed

the levels frequently generated by crickets,

locusts,

and

other insects.

Additionally,

4000 Hz

even

less

able

penetrate

house with

closed windows

than

2000

Hz.

And,

at the

800

Hz level,

the proposed 40

limitation

equal to

the present Section

901.102(a) limit,

and

lower than C to B land use limits.

Let me note here that the approximate A-weighted levels expressed

dB(A) are included in

Table

to provide

additional

perspective regarding the

noise

impact.

The A-weighted decibel

levels are not

proposed

for adoption

because

the Board’s

generally applicable

noise

emission

limitations dc~not include A-weighted decibel

limitations.

Yet

another ,perspective

may

helpful.

The character of the

sound

from

this

type of

power plant

often described

as similar

that

of noise

generated by airflow

from

ventilation

within an

office building.

This

type of noise, whether indoors or out of doors, often

is absorbed

into ambient noise.

And, furthermore, the

sound

emanating from this Facility has been reduced

with noise abatement equipment.

Care should

be taken not to

compare

it to

uncontrolled noise

sources.

Site specific

noise

emission

limitations

applicable

receiving

Class

lands

are

also

requested by Ameren.

Six ofthe nine numerical levels are the same as those

currently found at

Section 901.103 ofthe Board’s Class

B receiving lands.

However, at the remaining three octave

bands, the

1000,

2000,

and 4000 Herz octave bands, the Board’s noise limits are more stringent

than those requested by Ameren as its

site specific

limits for Class

A receiving

lands.

Ameren

proposes

that

the

Class

site

specific

noise

limits

adopted

at those

octave

bands

the same

numerical

value

those

proposed

for

Class

receiving

lands.

opinion,

any

environmental

impact

based

upon

those

numerical

changes

would

insignificant

consequence.

I also reviewed other state noise programs to

see if new or unique regulatory methods are

use.

My review of a report of noise regulation in

the U.S.

shows

that noise

abatement

is not

regulated by

states.

Six

states have very

little noise regulation.

Illinois

active than

the others in regulating noise.

I also

found that peaker noise is not regulated by the other Region

states,

California,

Texas,

or New

York.

And,

finally,

peaker noise

not

regulated

the

federal level.

Local

zoning

has

been

significant

factor

many

of the

noise

complaints

have

handled.

In my

experience with

the noise complaints filed with the Board,

it appears

that

local

zoning has

frequently

not

considered

the

land

buffer

component

of noise

control

making

zoning

decisions.

should

also

noted

that

the

Illinois

EPA

has

received

complaints

regarding peaker plant noise during my nearly 30-year career there.

conclude.

opinion, based

on the thousands

of measurements I have taken and

several

thousand

noise

complainants

have

interviewed,

the

likelihood

of noise

complaints

regarding the Ameren Facility from

the Realen property, should it

developed

residentially,

remote.

demonstrated

prior

comparison

other

acceptable

noise

levels,

any

environmental

impact

the Realen

property if

converted

residential

use will

minimal.

Likewise,

any

environmental

impact to

receiving

Class

lands,

if those

proposed numerical

values are adopted to

make the limitations for both types ofreceiving

lands consistent, would be

insignificant.

both

cases,

this

true

in part because

the

extraneous

noise

of the

area

comparable to and oftentimes greater than that attributable to the Ameren Facility.

As always,

I enjoyed testifying

before you

today.

Thank you

for the opportunity,

and

woufd be pleased to answer any questions

that the Board may have at this time.

Petitioner,

Ameren

Energy

Generating

Company,

reserves

the

right

supplement

modify this pre-filed testimony.

Respectfully submitted,

____5

By:

~‘

..-~,-

Marili McFawn

Dated:

December 3, 2003

Marili

McFawn

SchiffHardin

& Waite

6600 Sears Tower

Chicago, Illinois

60606

312-258-5519

TABLE

MEASURED AND EXTRAPOLATED SOUND PRESSURE LEVELS

FOR AMEREN ELGIN UNITS 1,2,3

AND

4, LOCATED AT L-R2

ON GIFFORD

ACROSS FROM UNIT

Data

Source

Description

Date

2003

31.5

Hz.

125

Hz.

250

Hz.

500

Hz.

dB(A

PAT’

Table

9, Extrapolated Total

6-20

78.4

71.8

63.5

rnd

55.0

 53.2

 45.7

 31.9

---

PAl1

Table 6, Ambient

6-17

58.1

59.6

55.2

48.3

46.9

45.9

40.7

33.7

22.1’

---

ZAK2

Raw

minute Leg

at 447

9-2

73A

66~5

62~

57M

53.0

53.4

55~5

492

42A

 60.1

ZAK2

minute

Leg

Ambient

9-2

592

59~

54~

 49.7

 49.2

 44~ 44.4

 48.7

423

517

ZAK2

Corrected

10 minute

Leg

at 447

Corrected and rounded

10 minute

Leq

at 447_MW

9-2

714

65~5

61.9

56M

507

527

55~5

5&8

Ii Daytime Class A and DuPage Co.

‘

---

40

---

II Nighttime Class A

and DuPage Co.

---

Cook CountyMl toA

---

72

71

65

57

51

‘

32

---

901.103C-~A

---

901.103 C

B

---

Site Specific Rule Requested C

A

---

---

Site Specific Rule Requested C ~3B

---

‘

Power Acoustics, Inc.

Report ofJune, 2003

***

Noise Solutions by Greg Zak Report of September, 2003

Notes:

Table .1

above describes the

comparison of sound pressure

levels contained in the

Power Acoustics, Inc.

(PAl) report

(Rows

and 2) with measurements

obtained by Noise

Solutions by Greg Zak (ZAK)

shown in Rows

through

9

TABLE 2

ACOMPARISONOF

CURRENT

NOISE LIMITS IN ILLINOIS

WITH

THE

AMEREN

 ELGIN

FACiLITY SITE-SPECIFIC NOISE

EMISSION LIMITATIONS

OCTAVE BAND

CENTER

‘

FREQUENCY IN

HERTZ (HZ)

INDUSTRIAL NOISE

TO COMMERCIAL

RECEIVER LIMITS

Section

901.103

AMEREN

ELGIN

FACILITY SITE-

SPECIFIC

NOISE

EMISSION

LIMITATIONS

COMMERCIAL

NOISE TO

COMMERCIAL

RECEIVER LIMITS

Section 901.103

INDUSTRIAL N0

TO RESIDENTIAl

RECEIVER

LIMIT

Section

901

.1 02a

31.5

80dB

 80dB

79dB

75dB

63HZ

79 dB

 78 dB

 74 dB

125HZ

74dB

69dB

72dB

69dB

250

69dB

64dB

500HZ

63dB

58dB

58dB

1000 HZ

57dB

58dB

‘

52dB

2000 HZ

52dB

58dB

46dB

47dB

4000HZ

48dB

50dB

41dB

43dB

8000HZ

45dB

40dB

39dB

40dB

APPROX.

A-WT

dB (A)

64 dB (A)

62 dB (A)

(A)

CH2\

1059845.1

RECEIVED

NOISE

SOLUTIONS

GREG ZAi~LE~’so~

BIRCH DRIVE

DEC

2003

CHATHAM, ILLINOIS 62629

(217) 483-3507

‘

STATE OF

ILLINOIS

(217) 483-5667-FAX

Pollution Control Board

E-mail: ~re~zak~justice.com

Sound Assessment Report

for

Ameren Elgin Facility

Greg Zak, INCE

Member of the Institute of

Noise Control Engineering

November

2003

‘

INTRODUCTION

Ameren Energy Generating Company, through its attorneys,

retainedNoise Solutions by Greg Zak to conduct a

sound assessment at its

Elgin Facility located at

1559

Gifford Road in Elgin

September 2

and

3, 2003.

The

designated

location for measurement was to be

across from

the Facility,

the west side of Gifford Road,

proximity

potential

residential

development

proposed

Realen

Homes

(“Realen

Realen

Property”).

The

objective

was

the

determine

the

current

sound

ambient

levels

the

Elgin

Facility,

well

the

operational sound levels, while

all

peaker units were operating

at maximum

load.

We would then document

those

levels, analyze for compliance with Illinois noise regulations, report the results,

and compare those results

previous studies.

Based

upon

the results

of that

survey and

evaluation,

the conclusion, with,a

reasonable

degree of scientific

certainty,

that

noise

emissions

from

the

peaker

units

the

Ameren

Elgin

Facility,

would

exceed

the

allowable

limits

of Section

901.1 02b

for

Class

Land impacting

Class

A Land under

Title

35,

Sub-Title

Chapter I ofthe Illinois

Administrative Code (Illinois Noise Regulations)

at the Realen property if converted to

residential use.

for the Board’s limitations

at Section 901.103

for Class

Land impacting

Class

Land,

noise emissions from

the Elgin Facilitymay exceed those limits if any commercial

facilities are located near the

Elgin Facility.

II.

ILLINOIS STATUTES AND REGULATIONS

The

land use, where the

Elgin Facility peaker units

are located,

classified

under Appendix

B (Standard Land

Use

Coding Manual), of Part

901

of the

State of Illinois

Noise Regulations

(Title

35,

Sub-title

Chapter I of

the Illinois

Administrative Code).

The appropriate classification is

code

# 4812,

which

designates an

“electric

generation plant.”

This represents

Class

C in terms ofPart

901.

Any residential property in

the vicinitywould

designated as Class A and any commercial property as Class B.

In terms of compliance, it is

the Class

Class

regulatory

limits

of 901.102(b)

and

the

Class

regulatory

limits

of 901.103

that

are

controlling, peaker

facilities

are

considered a

Class

land use,

and

need

achieve

the

compliance

levels

specified

each octave

band

for Class

(emitter)

Class A (receiver)

during

daytime

and

nighttime

hours

and

Class

C to Class

B at all hours.

See Illinois Noise Regulation Tables below.

Illinois

Noise Regulation Tables

Section

901.102

Sound Emitted to Class A Land

Except as elsewhere in this Part provided, no person shall

cause or allow

the emission ofsound

during daytime hours from

any property-line-noise-source located

on any Class A,

B or C land to

any receiving Class A land which exceeds any allowable octave band sound pressure level

specified in

the-following table, when measured at any point within such receiving Class A land,

provided, however, that no measurement of sound pressure levels shall be

made less than 25

feet

from such property-line-noise-source.

Noise Solutions by

Greg Zak

‘

Noise

Report

Octave Band Center

Allowable Octave Band

Sound Pressure Levels (dB) of Sound

Frequency

(Hertz)

Emitted to

any Receiving Class A Land

from

Class

C Land

Class

B Land

Class A Land

31.5

‘

-‘

-‘

32

b)

 Except as elsewhere in this Part provided, no person

shall cause or allow the emission of sound during

nighttime

hours

from

 any property-line-noise-source located on any

Class

land

any

receiving Class

A land which exceeds any allowable octave band sound pressure

 level specified in the

following table, when measured at any point within such receiving Class A land, provided, however,

that no measurement ofsound pressure levels shall be made less than 25 feet from such property-line-

noise-source.

Octave Band Center

 Allowable

Octave Band

Sound Pressure Levels (dB) of Sound

Frequency(Hertz)

 Emitted to anyReceiving ClassA Land from

Class C Land

 ClassB Land

 Class A Land

31.5

‘63

125

250-

500

47

40

40

1Q00

-‘

8000

32

25

 25”

Section

901.103

Sound Emitted to Class B

Land

Except as elsewhere in this Part provided, no person

shall

 cause

 or allow the emission of sound from any

 property-line-noise-source located on any Class A, B or C land to any receiving Class B land which exceeds

any allowable octave band sound pressure level, specified in the following table, when measured at any

point

within suchreceiving Class B land, provided, however, that no measurement of sound pressure levels shall be

made less than 25 feet from such property-line-noise-source.

Noise Solutions

by Greg Zak

 Noise

Report

Octave Band Center

Allowable Octave Band Sound Pressure Levels (dB) ofSound

Frequency (Hertz)

Emitted

to any Receiving Class

B Land from

Class

C Land

Class

B Land

Class A Land

31.5

125

250

500

1000

2000

4000

8000

32”

III.

MEASUREMENTS

Upon arriving in the area, we proceeded

select a

measurement location

and

then become

familiar with the

topography, weather conditions,

and suitability of

 the site for testing purposes.

 Various photographs were also

taken

 before proceeding to the plant office. A preparatory meeting was held at the Arneren Elgin

Facility

Office located at 1559 Gifford Road, Elgin, IL at 7:35PM on September 2, 2003. We discussed the best time

(most

 representative) to obtain measurements ofthe ambient or background noise present in the areawhen the

Facility was not operating. The Facility personnel suggestedcompleting the ambient noise measurement before

the 9:30 PM start-up, as shutting everything down after 11 PM could take several hours, thus delaying the

ambientmeasurement until the early hours ofthemorning.

After

this brief meeting, we

set

our instrumentation at

Site

See

Diagram, Attachment A.

This

location

would be on the west side of Gifford Road, as close as possible to the measurement location used by David

Parzych ofPower Acoustics,

Inc. and

identified by him as “L-R2

 on Gifford across from Ameren Unit

4.”

(See

“Analysis

and

Results

of Acoustical

Measurements

Taken

Near

the

Ameren

Elgin,

Illinois

Power

Facility

During the Operation of theUnit 4 SW5O1D5A Gas Turbine”, 6-20-03,page 16, Table 9).

We decided

to begin ambient measurements around 9 PM in order to

ensure that the

 time between the ambient

and full-facility operation would be as close together as possible, since the Facility personnel anticipated they

would begin their start-up at, 9:30 PM. During the entire measurement period, for both ambient and operational

measurements taken,

 it became necessary to pause the analyzer a number of times in order to avoid recording

extraneous noise

sources,

such as

airplane flyovers,

truck,

train

ahd

other

types

of vehicle

sound emissions.

One of the primary sources

of ambient noise

was the

U.S.

Can

Company

the

south

with

its

idling

trucks,

back-up beepers, and intermittent shouting

by workers.

See

attached Table

1, row

 4, “10 minute

Leq

 Ambient”.

The dominant noise source in the area in

terms of the highest

Leq

levels present,

when we

were

taking

our

measurements that evening,was extraneous noise.

The

Ameren

Elgin

 Facility, with its

peaker units,

located

 1559 Gifford Road in Cook County,

Ilinois.

The Ameren Facility borders the GE Capital Module Space to the north, and BFI Waste Systems Facility and

Commonwealth Edison’s high-powered

transmission

line

corridor to

the

east.

Running both

north

and

south,

the E E & J Railroad crosses Route 20 to the north.

 South of the facility are two construction companies and

U.S. Can Company.

 To the west

 is Gifford Road, and to the west of Gifford Road,

 is the Realen property.

Noise

Solutions by Greg Zak

Noise Report

Also, bordering the Facility to the northwest and west is Bluff City Materials.

The area also consists ofvarious

industrial plants, whose business is light and heavy-dutymanufacturing.

The Facility personnel were

instructed by

Ameren to

run the

peaker units

at maximum load capacity from

approximately 10

PM to

11-PM and

to

run the wet compression pumps on the two units so-equipped.

No water

would be injected as it would not increase power output due to the atmospheric conditions present that evening.

These pumps were being run

to simulate as noisy a condition for plant operation as possible.

The Facility was fully

operational from approximately

10:10

10:51

PM.

Measurements commenced at

10:00

and ceased at

11:17

PM.

We then returned to

the office to

discuss our findings

and

 verify the operational

conditions

occurring at the Facility, while

we were

taking

sound

level

measurements

at Site

We’ left the

Elgin Facility at

12:10 AM on September 3, 2003.

The

final

portion

of the

sound

assessment

project

was

the

analysis

fieldwork

measurement

data,

comparison with the State ofIllinois regulatory limits, and the preparation of a written report that documentsthe

measurement results.

‘

1. Measurement Procedures

Since

1987

the Illinois

Pollution

Control Board

has required a

1-hour ambient

corrected

Leq

measurement for

noise

sources, while ambient measurements of 10 minutes

duration have been accepted by the Board.

For the

purposes ofthis

study,

it was decided to take all measurements using a duration long enough to obtain

a steady,

non-changing reading rather than 1 hour.

 This methodologyproduces the same sound level measurements that

would be obtained over a full hourbut in

a shorter period of time, in this case, several measurements were taken

over a period of 41 minutes. Themain factor that went into this decision was the difficulty experienced by the

Elgin Facility in keeping all 4 peakers running at full loadwithout

any equipment interruption at the Facility for

full hour.

For all measurements, it was noted

that

after the analyzer ran

for a very short period of time, there

was no significant change in the level measured from that point until all of the data hadbeen gathered.

 It was

obvious

that to

extend any ofthe

short duration measurements

full

1-hour would not

have changed any of

the results. The

 1 0-minute sample in Table

 1 was chosen as the mostrepresentative for compliance purposes as

it represents the longest and loudest sample.

 It also compares very closely with the 10-minute measurement

preceding it and the 10-minute measurement following

it.

 Lastly, the Board

has opened a rulemaking to

make

regulatory changes to

 its noise measurement procedures and has proposed to adopt the type of short

period

measurement procedures we used in this study.

Ambient daytime measurements

were

taken from

9:00

9:30 PM on

September

2003

determine the

background sound levels at Site

See Attachment

1 and Table

The analyzer was calibrated before and after the ambient measurements were taken.

 Battery condition of all

equipment was monitored continuously.

 Weather observations were made prior to and

 at the end of the

measurement period.

During this

test, the weather conditions

went

from clear to partly cloudy,

wind speeds of

5 mph from the east were blowing directly from

the peakers

the microphone,

and

the wind

was from the

east.

 In order to closely duplicate the measurement location used

Power

Acoustics,

the

microphone

was

lOcated at the edge ofa very weedy, insect-infested, field.

The close proximity ofthe microphone

to the thick 4

foot high weeds would

later prove

 be problematic, due to insect

noise

the high

frequency portion of

the sound spectrum.

‘

Noise Solutions by Greg

Zak

Noise Report

The ambient measurements began around 9:00 PM to ensure that the time between the ambient and full load

operation

would

as close together

as possible.

Ambient

measurements

ceased at

9:30

PM,

as the Ameren

Facility was in

start-up mode by that time.

The measurement was taken during

a 30-minute

period with

only

the quietest

10 minutes ofdata being used to compile the 10-minute ambient.

This very selective data gathering

produced

ambient results

free of any extraneous

noise or noise

associated

with

the plant

start-up

process.

should

noted that

the

area was very

noisy

due

ground

and

air

traffic.

The

ambient was

gathered

working around

(pausing

the analysis

instrumentation)

the roar of overhead jet

traffic,

the

rumble of distant

railroad trains

and their whistles,

and also truck

and automobile traffic

on Gifford Road.

The

large amount

extraneous noise is not reflected in the ambient measurements at all,

per Board measurement procedures.

Given

the large amount of extraneous noise recorded,

and

based on

the thousands of measurements I have taken aiad

several thousand

noise complainants I have interviewed, my opinion is

that the likelihood of noise

complaints

from theRealen development regarding theAmeren Facility is remote.

During the period of time when the ambient was measured, the temperature was

65°

F at the beginning

ofthe

measurement period and

65°

F at the

end.

The humidity was 87

at the beginning of the measurement period

and

at the

end.

The barometric pressure was 30.06 in. Hg. at the beginning ofthe measurement period and

30.06 in. Hg.

 at’ the end.

 The measurement protocol generally followed that portion of the Illinois Pollution

Control Board’s (Board)

Leg

requirement for obtaining

ambient.

Measurements were

taken simultaneously

in one-third-octave band, octave band, and dB(A). Theprimary noise source

was the U.S.

Can Company to the

south, with idling trucks, back-up beepers,

and employees shouting.

Plane flyovers and

other traffic noise were

audible. Distance from

the testing site to

the exhaust stack on Unit

#4 was

169 yards

(507’).

The distance was

measured with Our firm’s

laser range finder

which is accurate to

+1-1

yard.

The peaker noise measurements started at

10:00 PM,

at Site

1, when the peaker units were

operational.

During

this test, wind speeds of 0

mph from th,e east were meas,ured at the microphone.

The temperature was

65°

at the beginning of the measurement period and 62°F at the end.

The humidity was 90

at the beginning of the

measurement period

and

at the

end.

The barometric pressure

was

30.06

in.

Hg.

at the beginning

of the

measurement period

and

30.06

in.

Hg.

at the

end.

Measurements

were

taken simultaneously

octave

band,

one-third-octave

band,

and

dB(A).

Measurements

commenced at

10:00

and

ceased

11:17

PM.

The

Facility personnel told us that all

4 peakers

were

fully operational

from approximately

10:10

10:51

PM.

the

minutes

of measurements -collected,

selected the

minutes

representing

the loudest

sound

levels.

These measurements were recorded between

10;25

and

10:42 PM

which was a 17-minute time span required to

eliminate extraneous noise

from other sources.

The results ofthese measurements are recorded in

Table

1, row

3: “Raw

10 minute

Leg

at 447 MW” as raw data.

This

Table also includes two

other versions ofthe data, rows

and

“Corrected

minute

Leg

at 447

MW and

“Corrected

and rounded

minute

Leg

447

MW”.

The

latter data was rounded

for ease of qomparison with

the existing Board noise

emission limitations

and those of

DuPage County and Cook County,

as well as the site specific levels requested by Ameren.

The one-third octave

band

measurements

indicated the presence

of no

prominent

discrete

tones

which

are regulated

under

Section

901.106 ofthe Board’s noise regulations.

Eciuipment

A Larson-Davis Laboratories Model 2900B

Real Time

Analyzer with

associated microphone

and

pre-amplifier

was used to perform the measurements.

This combination ofinstrumentation meets the requirements for a Type

Sound Level Meter, as defined in

American National Standards Institute

(ANSI) 5 1.4-1983 and

ANSI S1.4A-

1985.

This

instrumentation

also

meets the requirements of International

Electro-teclmical Commission

(IEC)

651

for a Type

SLM and IEC

804

for a Type

Integrating SLM.

(Note:

An integrating’ SLM

is preferred for

this

type

of measurement).

The

octave

band-filters

the

Model

2900B

Real

Time

Analyzer

meet

the

Noise Solutions by

Greg Zak

Noise

Report

requirements of IEC 225

and

ANSI S1.11-1985.

The microphone and pre-amplifier

were mounted

a tripod

 and separated from the analyzerby a 10-foot cable.

Calibration was performed using a

Larson-Davis

Laboratories

Model

250

calibrator that

meets

the

Type

requirements for acoustical calibrators.

Calibration was performed before

and after the measurements, and did

not vary by more

than

0.1

dB.

The measurements

were performed

 in accordance with applicable American

National Standards.

The Larson-Davis Laboratories

the factory

for

calibration

Attachment B,

2 pages).

Model

250

November

calibrator and

Model 2900B

Real Time Analyzer were returned

and

December

2002

(see

copies

Calibration

Certificates,

Photograph taken at Site

with camera pointed east toward Ameren Elgin Facility (see Attachment A, Map).

PHOTOGRAPH 2

Photograph taken on east side of Gifford Road with camera

pointed toward the west at Site

Diagram ofFacility.

See Attachment A,

I i-i-u iuu.i~~.i-’H

Noise Solutions by Greg Zak

Noise Report

IV.

RESULTS

AND DISCUSSION

The sound

study

objectives were to

determine by

field measurement the current noise daytime

and

nighttime

ambient levels, the operational levels with

all of the peakers running and compare

those levels to

the

State of

Illinois noise regulations.

The results

from

this measurement

period are found at

Table

row 4:,

“10

minute

Leg

Ambient.”

A brief

explanation of what

meant

the

measurement of a

10-minute

Leg

ambient

order

here.

The term

ambient refers to

all of the sound in the area, except for extraneous sound and

any sound emanating from the

Ameren Facility.

Extraneous sound is ofrelatively short duration and comes and goes, such as vehicle passbys,

aircraft

flyovers, train whistles,

and so forth.

The measurement instrumentation is

put in a

“pause mode”

avoid

including

extraneous

sound

during

measurement.

should

noted

that

the

same

exclusion

extraneous noise is used to measure the sound levels produced by the noise source of interest (Ameren Facility).

The term

“Leg”

defined in

the Board’s noise regulations

and

in this

context means

that the

sound

energy

averaged

over

a period

of 600

seconds (10 minutes).

The ten minutes referenced

here- are a

composite of all

“chunks oftime” within the 30-minute time span (9 to 9:30 PM) -that were previously defined as ambient.

Once the datawas collected, we also compared

the results with the measurements obtained

by Power Acoustics,

Inc.

on June

17, 2003.

At that time, just one unit was operating

at full load and an extrapolation ofthat data was

performed by Power Acoustics,

Inc.

simulate 4

units

at full operational

load.

The

sound

pressure

levels

contained

the

Power

Acoustics,

Inc.

(PAT)

report

are

found

Rows

and

Table

and

the

measurements obtained by Noise Solutions by Greg Zak (ZAK) are shown in Rows 3 through 6.

Row

which

is Table

of the

PAT report, shows

extrapolated data from actual measurements (10 minute

Leg)

taken ofUnit 4 and projected to

include Units

through

3 to

arrive at an estimated sound

level maximum.

Row

contains ambient measurements taken on

June

17 that are shown

the PAl report at

its

Table

The ZAK

data in Row

describes a

10-minute

Leg,

without corrections, measured on

September 2

when the

facility was

fully operational.

Row 4

represents an

ambient -10-minute

Leg measurement which

shows little

deviation

from

the PAT data, until the high frequency octave bands were

measured.

The sound levels we recorded were generally lower than or near the numerical limits

extrapolated by the June

Power Acoustics

report.

For example,

the levels at the

31.5

octave

band

were

decibels

lower than the

Power Acoustics’

number of 78.4, i.e.,

73.4

decibels

(the nighttime

standard

69 dB).

However, at the 2000

octave

band,

the

noise

level

was

measured

2.4

decibels

higher

than

projected

Power

Acoustics.

Therefore,

this results in sound levels approximately 20 decibels over the nighttime standard.

See Table

The

comparison

documents

significant

difference

decibel

levels

the

4000

and

8000

Hz.

The

difference of 15

dB higher at

4000

Hz and

higher at

8000 Hz

largely due

excessive insect sounds

that were

unavoidable during

the measurement period.

We surmise

that

when PAl

took

its

measurements

June, 2003,

this property, including

the measurement location, was

not yet bordered by an overgrowth of thick

weeds and brush that are conducive to the harboring of a variety of insects.

This overgrown and

insect-infested

area was

the west of the microphone

during

the ZAK ambient measurement period

and

would

account for

these high readings.

When

the

ZAK

corrected

levels

Row

are

compared

the

levels

obtained

PAl,

the

operational

measurements at full

capacity are considerably

lower, with

the exception of 2000 Hz.

The PAl projection was

53.2

dB, whilethe

ZAK measurement was

55.6

dB,

a difference of 2.4

dB.

It must be

borne

mind that the

Noise Solutions by

Greg Zak

Noise

Report

PAT data represents a projection

from

the

actual measurement of

unit running

to the theoretical

sound levels

for all

units.

has been my experience that

only a 2.4

difference between

extrapolated

data and

actual

measurements

falls

well

within

the

many

sources

of potential

error

making

extrapolation

from

the

measurement of one running

unit to

the actual measurement of 4 units,

each with its

own subtle characteristics

even though they consist ofthe same modern construction and model of unit.

Finally,

we compared Ameren’s requested

site-specific noise emission

limitations

for their Elgin

Facility with

portion of the Board’s

current

limits

listed

Table

This

comparison demonstrates

that

the

limitations

proposed in this rulemaking are not significant.

the

31.5

Hz octave

band,

the

limitation requested

equal to

the current limit for “Industrial

Noise

Commercial Receiver Limits”, that is,

C to B

land use, at Section 901.103

ofthe Board’s rules.

The limitations

requested at

63 Hz through 500 Hz are equal

to the “Industrial Noise to

Residential Receiver Limits”,

that

to A land use, at Section

901.102a ofthe Board’s rules,

and are considerably below the C to

B land use limits of

Section

901.103.

the

1000

level,

the

limitation proposed

only

higher than the

allowed under the limits for C to

B land use.

At 2000 Hz, the 58 dB

limitation, while exceeding the C to

B land

use by

dB, would not

significantly penetrate a house with the windows

closed during

periods of very hot or

cold weather.

At the 4000 Hz level, the

50 dB

limitation, while exceeding the

C to B

land use by 2

dB, would

not

significantly

exceed

the

levels frequently

generated by

crickets,

locusts,

and

other insects.

Additionally,

4000 Hz is

even less

able to penetrate a house with closed windows than is 2000

Hz.

the 8000 Hz level, the

proposed 40

limitation is

equal to the present

Section

901.1 02a limit, and 5

dB lower than C

B land use

limits.

When

ambient levels fall ten or more decibels below

the noise

source,

there is

correction needed.

This

because the actual correction is less than 0.5

dB, which is lost in the rounding process.

Ambient levels, within

or less ofthe levels measured for a noise sOurce, call

for assigning a zero to

any octave band measurements,

meeting this criteria per the ANSI standards.

The corrections

made for ambient effects are illustrated

Table

row

should

noted

that

4K Hz

and

ambient

levels

are within

less

of the

levels

measured for the Ameren Elgin Facility, thus

these two octave bands are assigned a zero.

The measured data was compared to

the applicable

Illinois noise regulations,

in the case ofthis

study,

Sections

901.102

(C -~A)and 901.103

(C -~B)

ofthe Board’s regulations.

Noise Solutions

Greg Zak

Noise Report

CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

concluded

with

reasonable

degree of scientific

certainty

that

noise

emissions

from

the Ameren

Elgin

Facility’s

four

peaker

units

will

exceed

the allowable

limits

of Section

90l.lO2b

of Title

35,

Sub-Title

Chapter I of the Illinois Administrative Code (Illinois Noise Regulations) at the Realen property if that property

is developed residentially.

order

avoid- exceeding

the

numerical

limits

Section

901.1 02b

for

Class C-)~Class

and

Section

901.103

for Class C-~ClassB

listed

Table

our recommendation would be

for the Ameren Elgin Facility to

pursue a

Site Specific

Rule change with

the Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board.

This

recommendation

based

upon the comparison of the Board’s existing

noise limitations

which may apply at the Realen

property and

the

minimum noise limitations considered necessary for Ameren

to comply with if the Realen property is developed

residentially.

In our opinion,

that

comparison

demonstrates

that

the difference

the between the

two

sets of

numerical

limits

not

significant.

Furthermore,

the

likelihood

of noise

complaints

based

upon

the

noise

emissions

from

the Ameren

Elgin

Facility is

remote due in

large part

the high

levels of extraneous noise in

the

area of the

this

Facility.

Finally,

for the

purposes

of continuity,

also

recommend

that

site

specific

numerical values be proposed for Class

receiving

lands

those

limitations

conform the Class

A limitations

requested by Ameren.

cc4ld

 Greg Zak, MA,

INCE

Member,

Institute ofNoise Control Engineering

Noise Solutions

by Greg Zak

Noise Report

CH2\

1060118.1

TABLE 1

-11

MEASURED

AND

EXTRAPOLATED SOUND PRESSURE LEVELS FOR

AMEREN

ELGIN

UNITS 1,2,3

AND

4, LOCATED AT L-R2 ON GIFFORD ACROSS FROM UNIT 4

Data

Source

Description

 Date

2003

31.5

Hz.

63

Hz.

125

Hz.

250

Hz.

500

Hz.

dB(A)

PAT’

Table 9, Extrapolated

Total

6-20

78.4

71.8

63.5

55.0

53.2

45.7

31.9

---

PAl’

Table 6, Ambient

6-17

58.1

59.6

55.2

48.3

46.9

45.9

40.7

33.7

22.1

---

ZAK2

Raw

10 minute

Leg

447 MW

9-2

73.4

66.5

62.6

57.0

53.0

53.4

55.6

49.2

42.4

60.1

ZAK2

lOminuteLeg

Ambient

9-2

59.2

59.6

54.8

49.7

49.2

44.6

44.4

48.7

42.3

53.7

ZAK2

 Corrected 10 minute

Leg

at 447 MW

9-2

73.4

65.5

61.9

56.0

50.7

52.7

55.6

58.8

ZAK2

Corrected and

rounded

10 minute

Leg_at 447 MW

9-2

Daytime Class

and

DuPageCo.

---

Il Nighttime

Class A

and DuPage Co.

---

54~

---

Cook County Ml

to A

---

‘

---

‘

 901.103 C

---

‘

Site Specific Rule

Requested

---

Site

Specific Rule

Requested C

---

Noise Solutions

by, Greg

Zak

Noise

Report

MAP

ATTACHMENT A

I

—

~-,

Location

microphone

on September

2,

2003

___________________________________________________

—

Larson Davis

~2559

Larson Davis

2900

Schaevilz

P3061

-1 5PSI

Hewlett Packard

34401A

Hewlett Packard

34401A

Larson Davis

MTS10001~1

Larson Davis

PRM9O2

Larson

Davis

j~~915

2504

12 Monthr~()3f~2~’)3

0661

12 Months

04.V512003

17590

12 Months

04/1712003

3146A10352

12 Months

0~l7/2O03

US36033460

Months

08/22/2003

0111

l2Moritfls

09112P2003

0480

12 Months

09/17/2003

0112

12 Months

108)4/2003

10476-1

2002~0630

~890

230848

243025

09121-2002

2002~3989

Relative Humidity: 24

Affirmations

This

Certificate

attests that

thIs instrument

has been

calibrated

under

the

slated

conditions

with Measurement

and

Test

equipment

(M&TE) Standards

traceable to

the

U.S.

National

Institute

Standards

and

Technology

(NIST).

All

the

Measurement Standardshave been calibrated

to their manufacturers’ specified accuracy

uncertainty.

Evidence of traceability

and

accuracy is

or,

fits at

Corporate

Headquarters.

acceptable

accuracy ratio

between the

Standard(s)

and

the item

calibrated has been rnalntamed.

This instrument meets or exceeds themanufaciure?s

publishedspecification unless noted.

This

calibration complies with the

requirements of ISO 17025

and ANSI Z540.

The collective uncertainty

the Measurement

Standard used does notexceed 25

the applicable tolerancefor each characteristic calibrated unless otherwisenoted.

Due to

state-of-the-art lImitations,

4:1

calIbration

ratios

are not possible

pressure measurraTrent standards,

microphones

and acoustic Calibrators.

Calibration ratios for thesetypes ofdevices

are

limited toil.

-The

results

documented

this

certificate

relate

only

the

item(s)

calibrated

tested.

one

year

calibration

recommended, however calibration

interval assignment and adjustment

are the responsibility

the end

user.

This certificate

may not

be reproduced, except

full, without the written approval

the

issuer.

Before:

114.02

dB,

250.0 Hz ~

1013 mbar.

Afler

114.02dB,

250.0

1013

fiber.

Technician:

Scott

Montgomery

Service

Ceriter

Larson Davis Laboratories. Utah

ATTACHMENT- B

Certificate

of Calibration

and Conformance

Certificate Number

2002-45865

Instrument

Model CAL25O,

Serial

Number 0761,

was

calibrated

11-22-2002.

The instrument meets factory specifications per Procedure D0001.8192.

Instrument

found to be in calibration as

received: YES

Date Calibrated:

11-22-2002

Calibration due:

11-22-2003

MANUFACTURER

MODEL

Calibration Standards

Used

SERIAL

NUMBER

INTERVAL

CAL

DUE

TRAcEABILrrV

Reference Standards are

traceable

the National

Institute of Standards and Technology

(14151)

Calibration Environmental Conditions

Temperature:

Centigrade

820

140,5

Pveo.

Lit~h

84601

Phone

801)

375-0177

(

4:-~’

ATTACHMENT B

Certificate of Calibration and Conformance

Certificate Number 2002-46556

Instrument

Model

2900,

Serial

Number 1070. was

calibrated

12-18-2002. The

instrument

meets

factory

specifications

per

Procedure

00001.8146,

ANSI S1.11

1986,

ANSI 81.4

1983,

1EC651-Typel

1979,

and

IEC 804-Type

11985,

1EC1043 Class

wt’ien normalized.

Instrumentfound to be in calibration as received: YES

Date

Calibrated: 12-18-2002

Calibration due: 12-18-~20O3

Calibration

Standards

Used

MANUFACTURER

MODEL

SERIAL

NUMBER

INTERVAL CAL DUE

TRACEABILITY

NO.

Larson

Davis

LDS~(3n,2~

0617/0104

12Months

OlI31I~

~-~473

Reference

Stisidardsare traceable tothe National Institute

Standardsand Technology (141ST)

Calibration Environmental Conditions

Temperature:

Centigrade

Relative Humidity: 26

Affirmations

This

Certificate

attests that this instrument

has

been calibrated

under the

stated

conditions

with

Measurement arid Test

Eqthprneitt

(M&TE)

Standards traceable to the U.S.

National

Institute

Standards and Technology (14151).

All

oil

the

Measrsrnent

Standards trase been calibrated totheir n,anufactiirws specifiedaccuracy! uncertainty.

Evidence of traceability

and accuracy

on The

at Corporate

Headquarters.

acceptable accuracy

ratio between the Standard(s) and the

item

calibrated has been maintained.

Thisinstrument medsorexceeds themanufacturer’s published specification terleas noted.

This calibrator, complies

with the requirements

ISO

17025 arid

ANSI Z540.

Thecollective

uncertainty

the Measurement

Standard used does notexceed

the applicable tolerance for each characteristic calibrated

unless otherwise noted.

Due to state.ot-the-azt limitatIons,

calIbration

ratios

are

not

possible on prmmte messinernent standards,

microphones

and acoustic calibrators.

Calibration ratios for these tyeesof devicesare limited

1:1.

The

results

docurnenled

this

certificate

relate

only

to the Item(s)

calibrated

tested.

one

year

calibration

recommended, liceevercalibration interest assignment end adjustment

are the responsibility

the end user.

This certificate

may

notbe reproduced,

except in (Ut,

withoutthe writtenapproval ofthe issuer.

Pot

receiveddata billie sameasshipped

data.

ri-

Technician: Brent Heaton

Service Center~

Larson DavIs Laboratories.

tibeT

Signed:

1681 Was

820

NorW

P1000.

LISt~-

84801

Phone (401) 375.0177

RECEWED

CLERKrS

OFFICE

NoIsE

SoLuTIoNs

GREG Z~K

42003

BIRCH DRIVE

STATE OF ILLINOIS

CHATHAM, ILLINOIS 62629

pollutIon

Control Board

(217)483-3507

(217) 483-5667-FAX

e-mail: 2re2zak(~justice.com

Greg Zak, INCE

RESUME

EXPERIENCE

Greg Zak has over 31

years of experience dealing with noise

measurement, noise control engineering

and the

effects of noise

 on people and communities. He established Noise Solutions

by Greg

Zak

March of 2001,

which has become

a full time activity since August

1, 2001.

Since

its inception, Noise

Solutions by Greg Zak

has served 41

clients from the power industry,

government, as well as private citizens.

Currently, Greg Zak has

appeared

before

the

Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board

private

noise

consultant

recognized

expert

witness.

In the past,

has acted

the- Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency’s noise

expert in nearly all

enforcement and regulatory hearings before the

 Illinois Pollution Control Board, and in several Illinois Circuit

Court hearings related to noise zoning and

nuisance. His experience includes industrial, commercial,

residential,

urban,

rural

and

construction

noise.

represented

the

Illinois

EPA,

the

EPA’s

Noise

Expert,

when

testifying

before the

Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board’s hearings

captioned “NATURAL

GAS

FIRED,

PEAK-

LOAD ELECTRICAL POWER GENERATING FACILITIES (PEAKER PLANTS)”, PCB ROl-lO, -August 23,

2000 and

October

2000.

He has been

a member of a

Society

of Automotive

Engineering Committee,

and

currently

a member ofthe

American National Standards Institute Working

Group

the

Measurement

and

Evaluation

Outdoor

Community Noise.

He was selected

Governor Edgar to

sit

the Blasting

Task Force

 mandated by

House

Joint Resolution 133 and chaired

by the Illinois Department ofNatural Resources.

Noise

issues

dealt

with

have frequently

involved

the technical

practicability and

economic

reasonableness of

reducing or eliminating the noise

emissions

from

the

source.

The ability to

work

with

the

public,

elected and

appointed

officials,

and

consultants

has been

a hallmark of Greg

Zak’s noise

program at

IEPA.

The

needs

both

the

Agency

and

the

public

have

been

carefully

balanced.

Thousands

Illinois

residents

with

noise

complaints have been assisted through his

self-help program.

national

and

international

author

the area of environmental

noise,

Greg Zak

has presented papers

controlling noise at national and

international noise conferences.

He is currently a member of the working group

for the American National

Standards

Institute’s American National

Standard for “Quantities and

Procedures

for

Description and Measurement ofEnvironmental Sound

Part

Sound Level Descriptors

For Determination of

CompatibleLand Use,ANSI S12.9-199x--Part

Greg Zak has passed the required written examination,

and

has been elected

a member in

good

standing by the

Officers

and

Board

Directors

the

Institute

of Noise

Control

Engineering

(INCE).

Sat

for

INCE

Greg Zak Resume’

7-29-03

Membership Exam on’December

14,

1995.

Received letter of notification of acceptance

for membership

from

the-President ofINCE dated

January

12, 1996.

CHRONOLOGY OF EXPERIENCE

IEPA

Noise Advisor

14+ years

Responsible for the I.E.P.A. Noise Program. Responsibilities included:

1) noise

control efforts in the solid waste area

and

assisting citizens with noise complaints.

Technical assistance

for federal,

state,

and

local governments

establish the degree of (or lack of) compliance

with Illinois

Noise

Regulations;

2) making noise

control engineering recommendations

for abating noise

emissions

for federal,

state,

and

 local

governments;

3) working with

both solid waste sites,

and manufacturers of acoustical materials and devices,

insure system

compatibility and obtain the desired noise reduction;

4) assisting the public with

a self-help procedure to obtain relief from various noise pollution sources (3000

4000 phone calls annually);

Advising counties and cities in the process ofdeveloping noise ordinances and noise

measurement standards

(provided classroom

instruction

for the

Will

County Sheriffs Department

July

‘99, and

for the Taylorville

Police Dept. in Jan. ‘98);

6) Answering questions from

industry,

consultants,

and

legislators,

as to

how

the various

noise

regulations

apply in different situations;

7) Advising

the State

Police, Crime

Lab on

measuring noise

from

guns equipped-with

silencers and

taking the

measurements for the lab;

Testifying

under

subpoena

expert, numerous

times,

environmental

noise

enforcement

cases,

variance

hearings,

and

regulatory

hearings

before

the

Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board.

Testifying

under

subpoena

as an

expert, numerous

times,

environmental

noise

enforcement

and

zoning

cases

before

Illinois

Circuit

Court.

Addressing environmental

noise

issues

zoning

cases

before county zoning boards

their request.

Below is a partial list of recent noise

hearings in which Greg Zak qualified as an

expert witness:

-Pollution Control Board

(ENFORCEMENT)

PCB 00-140, Knox v. Turns Coal Company, June 11,

2002.

PCB00-163, McDonough v. Robke (carwash),November 13, 2001.

PCB 00-2 19, Brill

v. Latoria d/b/a TL Trucking Foodliner, September 26, 2001.

PCB 00-221,

Glasgow, et.

a!. v.

Granite City Steel, July

11,2001.

PCB 00-90, Young v.

Gilster-Mary Lee Corporation, April

10, 2001.

PCB 99-19, Roti, et.

al. v. LTD Commodities, Inc., November 2,

1999.

 PCB 98-8 1, Cohen, et. al. v. Overland Trucking,May 13, 1998.

PCB 96-110, Sara Scarpino & Margaret Scarpino v.

Henry Pratt Company, October

11,

& July

19,

1996.

PCB 96-53, David and Susi Shelton v. Steven and Nancy

Crown, August 21,

& July 3,

1996.

PCB 93-15, Dorothy & Michael Furlan

v. University ofIllinois School ofMedicine, July 29,

1996.

PCB 96-22, Lew & PatriciaD’Souza v. Richard & Joanne Marraccini, December 12, 1995.

PCB 94-146, DorothyHoffman v. City ofColumbia, Illinois, December 11, 1995.

PCB 90-146, Village ofMatteson v. World Music Theatre et al., July 27, 1992.

PCB

91-195,

Thomas

Carry Companies of Illinois, Inc., July 22,

1992.

PCB 9 1-50, Christ v. Compost Enterprises, Inc., June 2,

1992.

PCB 90-182, Tex

v. Coggeshall, et al., January 9,

1992.

Greg Zak Resume’

7-29-03

PCB 91-30,

 Curtis, Diesing,

 Vii.

 Crystal Lake

 v. Material Service Corp.,

 Vii. of Lake

 in the

 Hills,

December 17& 18, 1991.

PCB 90-149, Moody

& Madoux v. Strader’s Logging

& Lumber, 6-27-91.

PCB 90-148, Moody & Madoux v. B&M Steel Service, June 26, 1991.

PCB

90-59,

Christianson v. American Milling Company, 6-27 &

 9-6-90.

PCB 90-108, Stratton

 v. Little Caesar’s Pizza, August 30, 1990.

PCB 89-169,

 Zarlenga v. Partnerships Concepts, et a!., July

7 &

24,

1990.

PCB 89-205, Zivoli v. Prospect Dive

 and Sport Shop, June 14, 1990.

PCB 89-179, Martin v. OakValley Wood Products, Inc., 2-2& 4-6-90.

PCB 88-171, Hagan v. Brainard, January 17,19-89.

PCB 87-171, Moore v. Archer Daniels Midland, August

29,

1988.

PCB

87-139, Annino

v. Browning Ferris Industries, Jan. 13,

1988.

U.S.

Bankruptcy Court,

 Northern Dist.

 Ill., East. Div., Case # 91 B 11678, (re. One B!oomingdaie Place,

PCB92-178)

Testimony, January 3, 4, & 28, 1994; Deposition,

January20 & 21,

1994.

Deposition, January

1993; Testimony, June 29,

1993.

Pollution Control Board (RULEMAKING);

R91-25,

Amendments to.

I.A.C.

Subtitle H: Noise

Pertaining to Definitions,

Measurement Procedures,

and Sound Emission Standards Relating to

Certain Noise Sources.-- November 25

& 26,

1991.

Pollution

Control Board

(VARIANCE);

-PCB

 88-188, Shell Oil, September 18, 1990.

Circuit

Court (ENFORCEMENT);

98-CH-16, People v.

Bobby-T’s, Inc., Mason County, October

13,

1999.

91-CH-242, People v. Watts

(Sangamon Valley Landfill), Sangamon County.

Deposition, October 15,

1993

;

Testimony, December

19,

1993.

93-CH-230, People v. Metro Ice Company, Inc., St. Clair County, October 14, 1993.

88-L-35, Lang v. Rangemasters Pistol

Club, Williamson County, December 4,

12,

1990.

Circuit

Court (ZONING);

89-L-95, Brown v. White, Adams County, Re. Factory noise, June 4

& 5,

1990.

89-CH-23, Lambrecht v. Will County, Re.

 Limestone

quarry development, February 22,

1990.

86-CH-22,

 Anderson v. CityofEffingham, Effingham County, Re. Truck stop, July 25, 1988.

County Zoning Board (ZONING)

At the request of local

authorities, Greg Zak testified regarding deficiencies

the

noise

study

and

report

prepared by INDECK for Petition No.

99-04, Public Hearing, McHenry County Zoning Board ofAppeals,

INDECK Request for a Conditional Use Permit

Allow the Construction

and

Operation

of an

Electrical

Generating Facility (gas turbine), April 16,

1999.

Petition No. 96-61, Construction & Operation of a Gravel Pit in McHenry County, March 27, & April

8,

1997.

City Planning Commission

(ZONING);

Hoffman Estates, residents v. Tyre Works, Inc., July 7, 1999.

Hoffman

Estates, residents v.

Tyre Works, Inc., June 19,

1996.

Effingham,

 Anderson v. Petro, Re. truck

stop, April

1989.

Below

partial

list

Pollution

Control Board

noise

hearings

which

Greg

Zak

was

involved

consultant

in resolving the conflict:

PCB 98-18, Metz, et.

al. v. U.S.

Postal

Service and

Bradley Real Estate,

Springfield, September

1, 2000.

PCB 98-84,

Behrmann

Okawville Farmers Elevator-St. Libory, February 4,

1999.

PCB 96-20, Norman,

et. al.

U.S.

Postal Service, Barrington,

January 2,

1997.

Greg Zak Resume’

7-29-03

PCB 96-69, Coming

v. Hegji, June 20,

1996.

PCB 92-38, Howard v. Caterpillar, Inc.,

September 3,

1992.

PCB 90-146, Village ofMatteson v. World Music Theatre et al., July 27,

1992.

PCB 90-201, Dravis v.M& D AG, April 29, 1992.

PCB

9 1-128, Druen v. Leonard, January 30,

1992.

PCB 89-44, Western v. Moline Corporation, October, 1991.

PCB 90-145, Corner v. GallatiñNational Balefill, September 3, 1991.

PCB

91-51,

Collins v. Roberts Fish & Food, June 14,

1991.

PCB 89-168, Daidone et a!. v.

Lexington Square, January 19,

1990.

PCB 88-199, People ofthe State of Illinois v.

Seegers Grain,

Inc., MarchlApril,

1989.

ACOUSTICAL SOCIETY OF AMERICA

Currently a member ofthe Model Ordinance Working Group, that is in the process ofdeveloping procedures for

regulating community noise.

ANSI COMMITTEE

Currently a member on the American National Standards Institute Working Group on the Measurement and

Evaluation of Outdoor Community Noise (S12-15).

SAE COMMITTEE.

Served as a member of the Society ofAutomotive Engineers Construction

Site Sound Level

Committee,

S.-A.E.

ConAg Committee (10-7-92 to

2-25-93).

INTERGOVERNMENTAL PROJECTS

City of Taylorville, Illinois,

1997-8, input was provided to

the City Attorney regarding how to

simplify the

state noise regulations

for inclusion into a local ordinance.

Noise monitoring equipment recommendations were

given

the Chief of Police.

seminar was given

the patrolmen

based

the newly

adopted ordinance,

equipment purchased, and measurement procedures used by the Illinois EPA. A written exam was prepared and

administered to all

attendees.

Illinois

State

Police,

1997,

noise

measurements

gunfire

were

taken

the

Chicago

lab.

These

measurements established that abatement

recommendations

totalling

approximately $30,000

were

successfully

implemented

at the Chicago lab after plans

for

shooting rooms

in the Lab

under construction

were reviewed

and

recommendations -were

made

minimize

gunfire

noise

impact

for areas

not

originally

designed

shooting

area (1996).

Noise

abatement

recommendations

totalling

approximately

$10,000

were

successfully

implemented

at the Springfield lab (1993), and

$8,000

at the Morton

lab (1995). Measured

gunfire noise

at the

forensic labs in

Springfield, Metro-East, Morton, Joliet, Carbondale,

and Rockford

for potential hearing damage

(1992-95).

Illinois Department of Conservation,

Reviewed plans

for shooting range (Des Plaines Range)

in Will

County

and

met with

design

engineers

suggest noise

abatement strategy (3-4-93).

Conducted a one

day

seminar for

Greg Zak Resume’

7-29-03

Conservation Police Officers on how to use

sound

level

meter

to measure boat

noise

enforce

the newly

enacted noise regulations for watercraft (7-2-92).

Illinois Department ofNuclear

Safety, Low Level Nuclear Waste Sites, reviewed, suggested changes, and met

with developers regarding

needed modifications

comply with Noise Regulations,

11-1-90.

Illinois Department of Agriculture,

measured noise emission levels from

HVAC and

emergency generator

headquarters,

submitted

detailed

noise

control

engineering

plans

mitigate

complaints

from

neighbors.

Attended several

meetings

and

assisted

the

Capital

Development

Board

with

technical

details

of solution.

Noise problems were solved, 6-1-90.

Illinois

Department

of Commerce

and

Community

Affairs,

reyiewed

and

suggested

changes

for plans

comply with Noise Regulations

fOr:

proposed Toyo

Koki

plant,

5-26-89;

and

proposed

UPS

facility in

Willow Springs, 5-4-89.

Illinois

Attorney

General.

Visited

K-5

Asphalt

Plant

DuPage

county

invitation

of,

and

with

representatives

of AG

make

recommendations

mitigate

noise

problems

(6-22-92).

Written

opinion

for

Howard Chinn, ChiefEngineer, on measuring

gunfire

noise on Fast meter response versus Leq

(52089).

Reviewed

detailed

1987-8 blasting

noise

and

vibration

study

Columbia

Quarry

Columbia.

Suggested

procedural changes in blasting protocol to minimize complaints from neighbors (4-7-89).

Noise measurements at Mervis

Industries

Danville with

a representative ofthe Attorney -General’s

Office,

along with consultant

and

attorney for Mervis regarding a pending enforcement action (7-15-88).

CHRONOLOGY OF PUBLISHED WRITINGS

Acknowledged

for

assistance

and

input,

as a

member of the

Blasting

Task

Force

the publication

entitled,

“Blasting Task Force Final Report, House Joint Resolution

133,

May, 1997.”

Acknowledged

for assistance

and input, as a member of the Working Group,

into ANSI S12.9-199x/Part

Dr. Paul D.

Schorner, Chairman ofthe Accredited Standards Committee entitled, “Quantities and Procedures for

Description and Measurement ofEnvironmental Sound

Part 5:

Sound Level Descriptors

For Determination of

Compatible Land Use, March,

1997.”

Acknowledged for assistance and input into; an

article prepared for the Construction Safety Council ofChicago

by Don Garvey, CIH, CSP, entitled,

“Community Noise Regulations,

1997.”

Acknowledged for assistance and

input,

member of the Working Group,

into ANSI

S 12.9-1996/Part 4

Dr.

Paul

Schomer,

Vice

Chairman

the

Accredited

Standards

Committee

entitled,

“Quantities

and

Procedures

for Description and

Measurement of Environmental

Sound

Part

Assessment Methods,

January,

1996.”

Acknowledged

for

assistance

and

input

into;

two

reports/studies prepared

for

the

Illinois

Pollution

Control

Board

Dr.

Paul

Schomer entitled,

“Impulse Noise

Study,

December

1990,”

and

-“Proposed

Revisions

Property-Line-Noise-Source Measurement Procedures, June

1991

.“

Greg Zak Resume’

7-29-03

NOISE

CONTROL AT THREE HAZARDOUS/TOXIC

WASTE

CLEANUP

AND INCINERATION SITES

IN ILLINOIS USA. Presented at INTER-NOISE 89 (International Noise Conference) in Newport Beach, Calif.

December

1989. Published in the INTER-NOISE 89 PROCEEDINGS.

Co-author

of,

“Illinois’

Experience

Tracking

Hazardous

Waste

Activities Through

Manifests

and

Annual

Reports”

presented

the

HAZPRO

PROFESSIONAL

SYMPOSIUM

Baltimore,

Maryland

May

16,

1985.

ESTABLISHMENT

CALIBRATION

LABORATORY

FOR

THE

ILLINOIS

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY, DIVISION

OF NOISE

POLLUTION CONTROL, presented at the National Noise

and

Vibration

Control

Conference

and

Exhibition,

April

1979,

and

published

the

1979

NOISEXPO

PROCEEDINGS.

Contributing

author

of Insertion

Loss

(or Gain)

of Windscreens

presented at

1978

Society of Automotive

Engineers Conference and published in Society ofAutomotive Engineers Proceedings.

Acknowledged for assistance and

input

into;

The Transfer Function of Quarry Blast Noise

and Vibration

into

Typical Residential

Structures, February

1977, prepared by Kamperman

& Associates, Inc.

under Contract 68-

01-4134

for the U.S.

Environmental

Protection Agency

Office of Noise Abatement

and

Control, Washington

D.C., 20460.

Performed

the

function

of Technical

Reviewer

for

the

U.S.

Department

of the

Interior,

Bureau

of Mines,

manuscript titled;

-“Blast Noise Annoys.” (1976)

Co-author of, “Quarry Blasting and

the Neighbors” presented at Inter-Noise

Washington D.C.

on April 6,

1976.

Acknowledged for assistance and

input into;

“Quarry Blast Noise Study”

by Kamperman & Associates,

Inc.

for

the Illinois Institute for Environmental Quality, December,

1975.

Acknowledged

for

assistance

and

input

into;

Blast Noise

Standards

and

Instrumentation,

Bureau

of Mines

Environmental Research Program Technical Progress Report 78,

May 1974, U.S. Department of the Interior.

Co-author of,

Comparison ofNoise Levels and

Citizen Complaints

presented at Inter-Noise 74

Washington

D.C.,

1974.

IEPA

Compliance Assurance Unit Manager

5 years

Responsible

for

the

supervision

sub-unit

managers

(2).

The

scope

responsibility

covered

insuring

compliance

all

facilities

required

to:

report

ground

water monitoring

data;

2) report

underground

injection

control wells;

submit copies of manifests

for individual

shipments of special

waste

(300,000 per

year); 4) issue hauling permits

transporters of special

waste;

submit annual reports (10,000) on hazardous

waste

activity;

insure

collection

all

fees

due

the

State

for

disposal,

treatment,

injection,

hauling

hazardous (special) waste; and 6) insure computer tracking of items

through

IEPA Noise Regional

Manager

3 years

Greg

Zak

Resume’

7-29-03

Responsible

for

the

supervision

of four

Environmental

Protection

Specialists

and

all

noise

field

operation

activities

in

central

and

southern

Illinois.

Responsible

for

the

calibration,

programming,

and

systems

development for all electronic systems

and

transducers.

IEPA

Environmental Protection Specialist I through

III

6 years

Responsible

for investigating

noise

complaints.

Investigation

included in

field interviews of complainants

and

alleged violators,

along with

sound level data gathering using precision sound level

meters and tape-recorders.

Detailed analysis was performed by Greg Zak in the laboratory.

Noise control engineering solutions were drawn

demonstrate the economic and technical

practicability solving noise problems

cases before the Illinois

Pollution Control Board (Board).

Meetings

were

held with

alleged violators to

arrive at

an, agreeable program of voluntary compliance with the

Illinois Noise

Regulations.

Technical data was prepared and

submitted

the Illinois

Attorney General for use

litigation.

Acted as the primary Agency representative

during

the

last

years

various

studies of air blast

and

ground

vibration peculiar to quarrying

and surface mining. In addition to

appearing as an expert witness for the Agency

before the Board, Greg Zak drew up

interim blasting noise and

vibration regulations

and presented these to the

Mining Industry Task Force on Impulsive Noise and

Vibration to which he was a member.

Greg Zak has appeared

as an

expert witness

for the Agency

the request -of the Board

the

acoustic

effectiveness

of the noise

barriers

designed

for

the

Terminal

Railroad

Association

St.

Louis

their

Venice, Illinois Classification

Yard.

Greg

Zak

established

Calibration

Laboratory

for the

Division

of Noise

Pollution

Control

along

with

the

laboratory

procedures

for insuring

traceability of calibration

work

the

National

Bureau

of Standards.

addition,

was

responsible

for

electronic

checks

insure

proper

functioning

field

and

laboratory

instrumentation.

USMC

Military Electronics Instructor

year

Responsible for discipline and

instruction of 30 marine students in basic electronics.

USMC

Radar

Technician

2 years

Responsible for maintenance and repair of several military radar systems.

CERTIFICATIONS

He has passed the required written examination,

and in December,

1995

was elected a member in good standing

the Officers and Board ofDirectors ofthe Institute of Noise Control Engineering

(INCE).

Sat

for

the

examination

for

certification

the

BOARD

HAZARD

CONTROL MANAGEMENT

CERTIFIED

HAZARDOUS

MATERIALS

MANAGER

May

17,

1985.

Received

certification

CERTIFIED HAZARDOUS MATERIALS MANAGER at the MASTERS LEVEL

(CHMM).

Greg

Zak

Resume’

7-29-03

EDUCATION

B.S., Biology, SanDiego State University, 1971.

-M.A., Public Administration, University ofIllinois at Springfield,

1974.

VETERAN

U.S.M.C.,

1963-1966, Radar Technician, Electronics Instructor. Honorably discharged as a Sergeant.

zak\resume.doc

CH2\

1060558.1

Due

t.o

the

volume

of this

pleading,

please

contact

the

Clerk’s

Office

312/814—3629

view

this

file.