(~f5)fi(;~/7f\flR

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS ~

IN THE MATTER OF:                 

rj~

PROPOSED SITE SPECIFIC REGULATION 

)

R04-ll

APPLICABLE TO AMEREN ENERGY    

)

(Site Specific~~

GENERATING COMPANY, ELGIN, ILLINOIS)  

Rulemaking 

Noise)     

ARb

AMENDING 35 ILL. ADM. CODE 901

NOT ICE

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that 

I have today filed with the Office

of the Clerk of the Pollution Control Board the Pre-Filed

Testimony of Howard Chinn, P.E. of Office of the Illinois

Attorney General, a copy of which is hereby served upon you.

Respectfully submitted,

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,

ex rel. 

LISA MADIGAN,

Attorney General of the State

of Illinois

MATTHEW J. DUNN, Chief

Environmental Enforcement/

Asbestos Litigation Division

ROSEMARIE CAZEAU, Chief

Environmental Bureau

Assistant Attorney General

BY:

JOEL

J9J

J. STERNSTEIN

JJft~4~~

Assistant Attorney General

Environmental Bureau

188 W. Randolph Street, 20th Floor

Chicago, IL 60601

(312) 814-6986

Dated: January 7, 2004

SERVICE LIST

Ms. Dorothy Gunn

Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board

James R. Thompson Center

100 W. Randolph, Suite 11-500

Chicago, IL 60601

(312) 814-3620

Mr. John Knittle, Esq.

Hearing Officer

Illinois Pollution Control Board

1021 North Grand Avenue East

Springfield, Illinois 62794

(217) 278-3111

Mr. Scott Phillips, Esq.

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

Division of Legal Counsel

1021 North Grand Avenue East

P.O. Box 19276

Springfield, Illinois 62794-9276

(217) 782-5544

Office of Legal Services

Illinois Department of Natural Resources

One Natural Resources Way

Springfield, IL 62702-1271

(217) 782-6302

Ms. Marili McFawn, Esq.

Schiff, Hardin & Waite

6600 Sears Tower

Chicago, Illinois 60606

(312) 258-5519

Realen Homes

Attn: Al Erickson

1628 Colonial Parkway

Inverness, Illinois 60047

Village of Bartlett

Attn: Bryan Mraz, Attorney

228 5. Main St.

Bartlett, Illinois 60103

~flEN~~

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS 

\WJfjT~

~

1JAH ~‘

7 2004

~ur ~

IN THE MATTER OF:          

)

POLLmO~CONTROL BOARL~

PROPOSED SITE SPECIFIC REGULATION 

)

R04-ll

APPLICABLE TO AIVIEREN ENERGY    

)

(Site Specific

GENERATING COMPANY, ELGIN, ILLINOIS)  Rulemaking 

Noise)

AMENDING 35 ILL. ADM. CODE 901

PRE-FILED TESTIMONY OF HOWARD CHINE, P.E.,

OFFICE OF THE ILLINOIS ATTORNEY GENERAL,

OPPOSING THE PROPOSED SITE SPECIFIC REGULATION APPLICABLE TO

AMEREN ENERGY GENERATING COMPANY, ELGIN, ILLINOIS

AMENDING 35 ILL. ADM. CODE 901

Howard Chinn, P.E., of the Office of the Illinois Attorney

General submits the following comments in opposition to Ameren

Energy Generating Company’s request for a site-specific

rulemaking for its peaker power plant facility in Elgin Illinois:

1.  My name is Howard Chinn. I am a professional engineer

and have been employed by the Office of the Illinois Attorney

General for approximately 30 years. During that time, I have

developed an extensive expertise with noise pollution, including

the Illinois Pollution Control Board’s (“Board”) noise

regulations and the proposed amendments to those regulations.

1. Ameren Energy Generating Company’s (“Ameren”) proposed

site specific regulation (“proposal”) for its Elgin, Illinois

peaker plant facility (“facility”) is premature and is a

preemptive act to disenfranchise the future residents of the

Village of Bartlett who will live near the facility. Those

future residents may be adversely impacted by noise emissions

1

from the Ameren facility. Ameren’s proposal may deprive those

future residents of their rights in any future hearings on noise

emissions from the facility.

3. Ameren’s proposal is contrary to the legislative intent

of Section 23 of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act’

(“Act”) which provides that:

The General Assembly finds that excessive

noise endangers physical and emotional health

and well being, interferes with legitimate

business and recreational activities,

increases construction costs, depresses

property values, offends the senses, creates

public nuisances, and in other respects

reduces the quality of our environment.

It is the purpose of this Title to prevent

noise which creates a public nuisance.

3. Ameren is also subject to and is required to comply

with the prohibition against nuisance noise at Section 24 of the

Act2 which provides that:

No person shall emit beyond the boundaries of

his property any noise that unreasonably

interferes with the enjoyment of life or with

any lawful business activity, so as to

violate any regulation or standard adopted by

the Board under this Act.

In addition, the Board’s noise pollution regulations state that

no person shall cause or allow the emission of sound beyond the

boundaries of his property “so as to cause noise pollution in

415 ILCS 5/23 (2002)

415 ILCS 5/24 (2002)

2

Illinois 

. . .“

Noise pollution is defined as “the emission of

sound that unreasonably interferes with the enjoyment of life or

with any4. lawfulEven

if,businessfor theor sakeactivity.”of argument,3   

the Board approves

Ameren’s proposal to change the numeric noise emission standards

applicable to its facility, Ameren would still be required to

comply with the nuisance noise prohibitions in the Act and the

Board’s regulations by prohibiting noise that unreasonably

interferes with the enjoyment of life.

5.  The numeric noise emission standards that Ameren seeks

to change are standards that the Board has adopted pursuant to

Section 25 of the Act4 which states in relevant part:

The Board shall, by regulations under this

Section, categorize the types and sources of

noise emissions that unreasonably interfere

with the enjoyment of life, or with any

lawful business, or activity, and shall

prescribe for each such category the maximum

permissible limits on such emissions.

6.  The federal Noise Control Act of l972~regulates

motors and engines. Ameren’s petition indicated that its

facility consists of four simple cycle combustion turbines. This

equipment is identified in the Noise Control Act as a major

source of noise; thus federal noise emission standards are

~ 35 Ill Adm. Code 900.102; 35 Ill. Adm. Code 900.101

~4l5 ILCS 5/25 (2002)

~Amended by P.L. 107-377 on December 31, 20Q2. 

Check

3

feasible for such equipment and may be developed in the future.

7.  According to Ameren’s proposal, there are already

residences in the area adjacent to Ameren’s facility that has

recently been reclassified as Class A land use.6 Therefore,

Ameren should have no expectation that any vacant undeveloped

land in that area would remain non-residential forever unless

Ameren acquired the land or parts thereof for a buffer zone.

According to testimony provided by Mr. Greg Zak at the Board

hearings on peaker plants, maintaining a buffer zone is one of

four strategies to control noise from peaker plants7.

8.  In its proposal, Ameren claims that it will continue to

operate the facility as designed to provide the maximum noise

control that is economically reasonable and technically

feasible.8 However, Ameren has not provided any credible

engineering design data or cost estimates to substantiate the

validity of this claim.

9. Ameren also claims that the exhaust silencing system

installed when the facility was built was state of the art and

6 Ameren proposal, page 1-2; based on information provided

by Ameren in the petition, the Village of Bartlett re-zoned the

Realen property as residential in June 2003. Therefore, the

property has been Class A for purposes of the Board’s noise

regulations since June 2003.

~ See In re: Natural Gas-Fired, Peak-Load Electrical Power

Generating Facilities (Peaker Plants), ROl-lO, Tr. 1 at 133-134,

IEPA Group Exh. 1, Zak at 4.

8Ameren proposal, page 4.

4

that it affords maximum noise control.9 This assertion is

unsupported. Ameren did not submit copies of any product

manufacturer’s labeling to support its claim.

10. During the Board peaker plant hearings, Greg Zak

testified that:

First, properly designed and installed

combustion air intake silencers reduce intake

noise by approximately 99.999 to 99.99999 in

the average peaker plant. Second, a

hardened acoustical enclosure completely

containing the gas turbine similarly controls

noise radiated from the turbine’s outer

shell. Third, properly designed and

installed combustion gas exhaust silencers

reduce exhaust noise by approximately 99.9999

to 99 999999 

10

11. Ameren has not presented any evidence in their petition

to demonstrate that the noise control measures implemented at

their peaker plant facility were able to achieve the reductions

of 99+. Ameren could not even quantify the reductions in noise

emissions.

12. Ameren also discussed several conceptual technical

alternatives under the heading “Technical Infeasibility and

Economic Unreasonableness of Further Reducing Low Frequency Noise

at the Turbine’s Exhaust”.” The cost estimates provided therein

9Ameren proposal, page 9, final paragraph.

See docket ROl-lO, Tr. 

at

132-134,

IEPA Group Exh. 

Zak at 4.

Check cite

~ Ameren proposal,

page 10.

5

are without any verifiable back-up data to confirm the validity

or authenticity of the numbers. Ameren provided no engineering

design data or technical specifications of any kind for any of

the technical alternatives discussed, opinions expressed, or

conclusions reached in that section of its proposal. The

discussions on the Experimental Active Noise Control are

unspecific13.

Amerenand

do

shouldnot

seemimmediatelyto apply

proceedto

Ameren’swithfacility.’the

detailed2

noise study that they mention in the proposal.’3 This noise

study is a prerequisite to an engineering feasibility evaluation

and economic analysis of alternative control technologies.

14. Ameren’s proposal indicated that many of the area’s

ambient noise sources contribute mid and high-frequency noise,

such as airplane flyovers, trains, car and truck traffic. Ameren

claimed that people usually react by physically “closing out” the

noise sources.’4 However, Ameren did not provide any citations

for this opinion. There is a discernable difference between the

noise from Ameren’s facility, which is continuous in character,

as opposed to the transient noise emitted by airplanes, trains,

and automobiles.

15. Ameren also asserts that •noise from the facility has

12

Id.

13 Ameren proposal, page 11, paragraph 2(a).

14

Ameren proposal, page 11, paragraph 2(b).

little or no impact on residences because the facility generally

operates either during hot or cold weather. During hot and cold

weather, Ameren claims that most people close their windows and

doors in order to operate air conditioning or heating units’5.

Again, Ameren provides no facts, references, or citations in

support of its assumption.

16. Ameren’s $1.2 million estimate to provide an enclosure

for the facility to control mid-frequency noise is

unsubstantiated.’6 Ameren provided no cost breakdown or an

engineering basis for the costs associated with such an

enclosure. Ameren’s other cost estimates for controlling mid and

high frequency17.

On Decembernoise

are3, also2003, unsubstantiated.’Ameren

filed several7  

documents

supporting its proposal with the with the Board including a copy

of the Acoustical Evaluation and Ambient Sound Survey (dated

November 30, 2000) (“Survey”) and a copy of Analysis and Results

of Acoustical Measurements Taken Near the Ameren Elgin, Illinois

Power Facility (dated June 20, 2003) (“Measurements”)

18. The Survey is a pre-construction report which

indicates that:

significant but achievable sound

‘~Id.

16Ameren proposal, page 11-12.

17

Id.

7

treatments would be necessary to achieve the

acoustical requirements of the facility.

Illinois noise regulations were found to be

The Survey

achievableconclusionwithindicatedfour unitthat:operation.”8

It is unlikely that simple noise abatement

“fixes” such as barrier walls would

completely solve the problem. It is probable

that a building would be required over the

gas turbines, generators, and inlet ducting

to approach the Illinois Daytime Noise

Regulations and mitigate the mid frequency

issues.

Based on my past experience with another electric generating

facility (even though of a different design), I believe that

Ameren should undertake an engineering feasibility study,

including a cost estimate, to fully evaluate the concept of a

building around the facility that would mitigate noise emissions.

19. Ameren contends that other peaker power plants should

not be compared to their facility unless the other plants are

equipped with identical manufacturer’s equipment.2° This is

absurd and technically illogical. Ameren presented no

information on their equipment selection process to indicate that

they considered and/or evaluated other peaker plants on the

market that had a lower noise emission rating.

20. During the hearings for docket ROl-lO in December 2000,

18 Survey, page 4.

19

Survey, page 18.

20

Ameren proposal, page 15.

Illinois EPA indicated that as of November 6, 2000, there were 67

air permits for existing and proposed power plants using simple

or combined cycle turbines in Illinois. At that point, none of

the owners of those facilities had submitted a petition for

relief from the Illinois noise regulations. To date, it appears

that no other peaker power plants have submitted such petitions.

Ameren has presented no convincing or compelling information to

demonstrate that there are extenuating circumstances that would

warrant a site specific regulation for its Elgin facility.

21. The County of Du Page retained Versar, an environmental

consultant, to review environmental issues related to peaker

plants. During the peaker plant hearings before the Board,

Versar indicated that peaker plant noise may be a concern.

Versar provided information at the hearing on six proposed peaker

plants, five in Illinois and one in Maryland, from four different

developers. The five proposed peaker plants in Illinois were

expected to meet Illinois’ noise regulations.

22. Ameren’s contention that peaker power plants are not

regulated on a federal level is inaccurate.2’ The federal Noise

Control Act of 1972, as amended, references the type of equipment

employed in a peaker power plant.

23. Ameren’s contention that Illinois is probably the most

active state in the union in terms of noise regulation is also

2!

Ameren proposal, page 16.

9

inaccurate.22 The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency no

longer has a noise control program.

24. Ameren also indicated that, like other Midwest states,

noise from peaker power plants is not specifically regulated in

Illinois.23 This is misleading and a contradiction of Ameren’s

previous position that it is regulated by the noise provisions in

the Act and the Board’s regulations.

25. Ameren stated that they conducted two field sound

measurement projects to correctly assess the potential

environmental impact of the sound pressure level on the Realen

property. Ameren indicated that the weather conditions were

nearly perfect for measuring sound; there were moderate

temperatures and humidity, and no wind.24 Atmospheric conditions

significantly influence sound propagation, especially wind

direction and speed. A discernible difference in sound level is

noted when measurements are taken downwind and then taken upwind

from the same noise source. Noise may be amplified by low cloud

cover. A complete discussion of this subject is beyond the scope

of my comments. Nevertheless, I do not believe that the two

measurement surveys in the Ameren proposal are representative of

sound pressure levels under varying atmospheric conditions.

22

Id.

23

Id.

24

Ameren proposal, pages 17-18.

26. The two measurements indicated that the octave bands

exceeding the Board’s noise emission standards are 1 kHz and 2

kHz. There is no reasonable or rational basis to justify a site

specific rulemaking for the other octave bands. The extrapolated

values should not be used in lieu of actual measurement data for

purpose of assessing the potential exceedence of noise emission

limits 

25

27. Ameren correctly indicated, and I concur, that the ~wo

sets of sound pressure level data cannot be considered a complete

statistical representation of sound from the facility. However,

Ameren is incorrect in their claim that conducting more actual

measurements while the facility fully operational is not

feasible.26 The variables are not, as Ameren claims, “far too

numerous” to run a sufficient number of tests to create an

adequate data base for decision making purposes.27 I recommended

that Ameren take at least three additional sets of noise

measurements following the upcoming adoption of the amendments to

the Board noise regulations.28 Ameren should take those

measurements when all four units at the facility are fully

25

See Ameren proposal, page 23.

26

Id.

27

Id.

28

See Board docket R03-9, In re: Proposed New and Updated

Rules for Measurement and Numerical Sound Emissions Standards

Amendments to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 901 and 910.

11

operational and when those units are in a start-up mode. Each of

the sound measurements be taken under similar atmospheric

conditions but at different receptor locations. The measurements

should be taken when the ambient noise level is at its lowest.

Pursuant to the Board’s noise regulations, the atmospheric

conditions must be fully documented and include both cloud cover

and precipitation. The measurements should be compiled in a

report and should include a scaled map identifying all physical

features and topography. The “Detailed Noise Study” that Ameren

described in the proposal should be conducted at the same time if

practicable 

~29

28. During the Board hearings held pursuant to docket ROl-

10, Mr. Erjavec of Indeck indicated that Indeck’s peaker plants

were designed to meet the Board’s nighttime numeric noise

standards at all times because those plants may be called upon to

operate at any time and because sound attenuation cannot be

increased at night.30 He also added that Indeck’s peaker plants

are meeting Illinois noise standards via buffer zones or designed

noise silencing measures.3’

29. Indeck’s consultant indicated in the public hearing for

docket ROl-lO that:

29

Ameren proposal, page 11, paragraph 2 (a)

30

Docket ROl-lO, Tr.l at 240-241.

31

Docket ROl-lO, Tr.l at 242, Indeck Exh. 1, 2.

While it is true that low frequency noise is

more difficult to mitigate than high

frequency noise, that doesn’t mean that it

can’t be controlled at all. For example, a

reasonably substantial building envelope can

contain much of the equipment noise inside

the building, and barriers can provide a

noise reduction of at least five (dB) at any

frequency, provided they block the line of

sight between the noise source and

receiver 

32

Thus, Ameren should be able to contain its noise emissions at all

levels with a building that blocks the line of sight between the

facility and the proposed residences that will be built nearby.

30. For all of the reasons cited above, in recognition of

the record developed by the Board in docket ROl-lO, and in the

interest of fulfilling the purpose of Title VI of the Act to

prevent noise which creates a public nuisance, the Office of the

Attorney General respectfully requests that Ameren’s proposal be

denied.

32

Docket ROl-lO, Indeck Exh.2, ERM Report at 38.

Respectfully submitted,

PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,

ex

rel. 

LISA MADIGAN,

Attorney General of the State

of Illinois

MATTHEW J. DUNN, Chief

Environmental Enforcement/

Asbestos Litigation Division

ROSEMARIE CAZEAU, Chief

Environmental Bureau

Assistant Attorney Gene al

BY:

7~~J

~

JOEL J. STERNSTEIN

Assistant Attorney General

Environmental Bureau

188 W. Randolph Street, 20th Floor

Chicago, IL 60601

(312) 814-6986

14

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I, JOEL J. STERNSTEIN, an Assistant Attorney General,

certify that on the 7th day of January 2004, I caused to be

served by First Class Nail the foregoing to the parties named on

the attached service list, by depositing same in postage prepaid

envelopes with the United States Postal Service located at 100

West Randolph Street, Chicago, Illinois 60601.

JOEL

TJ~

J. STERNSTEIN