MOLINE
4101
FOURTH
AVENUE
•
MOLINE,
ILLINOIS
61~:6~-~fl
PHONE 309-762-5506
FAX
309-762-5508
March 16, 2004
Ms.
Marie E.
Tipsord
Hearing Officer
Illinois Pollution Control Board
100
W. Randolph, Suite 11-500
Chicago, IL
60601
Dear Ms.
Tipsord:
We have your Order R03-9 dated March
8, 2004 regarding site-specific rules
which relate specifically to forging companies
in our case.
In your order you
have requested that we notify you as to the necessity for a change in the site-
specific rule for Moline Forge or if the rule is no longer necessary.
In our case, the Final Opinion and
Order R83-33 dated December 20,
1984
is still
required and critical for Moline Forge to operate at this location as we have since
1918,
eighty-six years ago.
We are attaching a copy of the Final Opinion and
Order from our file for your reference.
It is our opinion that we are currently
meeting the limits set by the Order in R83-33
and that we would be unable
to
continue operations without the protection ofthis site-specific operational level.
For further information or questions we can be contacted at the address and phone
number shown above.
President
TGG:mm
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
December 20, 1984
~N THE MATTER OF:
)
PETITION OF MOLINE FORGE
)
R83-33
FOR A SITE-SPECIFIC
)
OPERATIONAL LEVEL PURSUANT
)
TO 35
ILL. ADM. CODE
901.105(d)
)
ADOPTED RULE.
FINAL OPINION AND ORDER.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by J. Marlin):
In its Proposed Opinion and Order
of August 2,
1984,
the
Board proposed to adopt a new rule,
35
Ill.
Adm.
Code 901.114.
First notice of this proposal was piblished at 8
Iii. Reg. 15274,
on August
24, 1984.
The Administrative Code Unit submitted a
comment on September
10,
1984, concerning Illinois Register first
notice format.
No other comments were received.
The Board made
a non-substantive change
in the wording of the proposed rule.
By order of the
Board
dated October
10, 1984,
the proposed
rule was submitted to the Joint Committee
on Administrative Rules
(“JCAR”).
JCAR second notice review commenced on October 22,
1984.
JCAR issued
a Certification of No Objection to this rulemaking on
November
8,
1984,
ending the second notice period.
This rulemaking was initiated
on November 23, 1983, when
Moline Forge petitioned
for a site-specific operational
level
for
its forging shop as an
alternative to compliance with the noise
limits contained
in
35
Ill.
Adm. Code 901.105
(old Rule 206 of
Chapter
8).
The Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (“Agency”)
filed its response
on January 24, 1984.
A p.iblic hearing was
held
in Peoria,
Illinois on March 12,
1984.
No members of the
ç&iblic
or press attended.
This hearing was scheduled with three
other similar
forging noise cases involving central
Illinois
shops in order
to conserve the time and funds
of
all the parties
involved.
A negative declaration was filed by the Illinois
Department
of Energy & Natural Resources on April
27,
1984.
The
Economic
and Technical Advisory Committee concurred
on July 18,
1984.
The Board appreciates the contribution of Kevin
F. Duerinck
who assisted
in drafting this Opinion.
2
Section 901.105(d)
allows an existing forging
shop to petition
the Board
for
a site—specific operational
plan which will limit
noise emissions from the shop.
Petitioner nust demonstrate that
it is technically and economically infeasible
for its shop to
meet the numerical limits.
Petitioner must also propose measures
to reduce impulsive noise where possible and assess the conse-
quential health
and
welfare impacts on the surrounding community.
Moline
Forge
is
located
at
4101 Fourth Avenue, Moline,
Illinois.
Its complex, covers two square blocks.
To the north
are railroad tracks, residences and the Mississippi River.
To
the east and south
are
commercial
and
then residential property.
To
the
west
is scattered residential, commercial
and industrial
property.
Significant
noise
sources
in
the area other than trains
include trucks using Highway 92 just south of the forge.
All the property surrounding the forge when
it was built in
1918 was vacant or used for farmland.
The forge shop itself is
marked as building X on Exhibit B to the petition.
The building
is 265
feet long,
120 feet wide and 55
feet high.
It produces
mainly forgings
for the agricultural
industry.
The forge shop
contains nine forging hammers weighing 2,500 to 8,000 pounds
apiece
and
nine furnaces.
The heat from the
furnaces, 2200°to
2350°F, raises the temperature
of the shop to 120°to 130°F.
Windows and roll-open doors draw fresh air into the building
and
a new open roof system with two fans draws warm air
out.
When
the outside temperature is over 100°F,
the work force is composed
of volunteers because temperatures inside
are
extremely hot.
The forging hammers current .operate from 6:00 a.m.
to 2:30
p.m. five days
per
week.
Historically,
at peak capacity the
hammers have operated two shifts from October
1 through April
30,
from 6:00 a.m. until
11:00 p.m.,
five days per week,
with oc—
cassional work on Saturday from 5:00 a.m. until 3:30 p.m.;
and
one shift from May
1
through September 30,
from 6:00 a.m. until
3:30 p.m.
five days
per
week with occassional work on Saturday
from 6:00 a.m. until 3:30 p.m.
At peak capacity 85 to 90 people
were employed compared with the current 65 people.
Moline Forge
requests that it be
allowed to operate its nine hammers six days
per
week,
from 6:00 a.m. until
11:00 p.m. Monday through Friday
and from 6:00
a.rn. until
3:30 p.m.
on Saturday (Petition at 10).
Production decreased from 1980 through 1982 as will be
shown
by the table below.
This resulted
in less hammer blows
and
less
impulsive noise.
The decline is expected to level
off in 1983.
(Petition
at’ 5).
Total no.
of
No.
of
.
Tonnage of all
forgings on hammers
b1ows/y~
forgings
1980
1,015,000
9,642,500
4,060
1981
972,000
9,234,000
3,644
1982
558,000
5,580,000
2,790
3
/
Permissible impulsive
sound levels
for existing forge shops
are found in 35
Ill. Adm.
Code 901.105.
The impulsive sound
level
emitted to residences (Class A land)
cannot exceet 58.5
Leg
during
the
day
or
53.5
Leq
at night.
As to commercial establishments
(Class B),
the level cannot exceed 64.5
Leq.
Based upon actual
noise level
measurements, Exhibit A to the petition shows that
the maximum noise level
is 70 Leq.
Approximately
418, residences
potentially could be exposed to sound levels in excess of 53.5
teq.
The
noise
level
and
the
number
of
residences
exposed
to
a
certain
noise
level
vary
depending
on
wind
velocity
and
direction.
Additionally,
the nighttime violations would not occur if
there
was no nighttime shift,
as in the present situation.
Even though there
are
418
residences theoretically exposed
to
the
maximum
noise
level,
there
have
been
no
noise
complaints
within
the
last
eight
years.
When
Moline
Forge
had operated late
at night in the
summer,
it had received three complaints from
residents.
The complaints terminated once Moline Forge reduced
its summer hours.
Various measures have been proposed to reduce the sound
levels at Moline Forge.
The ETA report prepared in
a prior Board
proceeding
(R76-14)
suggested that sound barriers could be installed
between the forge
shop and Class A residents to reduce the sound
levels.
The author of this report was and is the sound consultant
for Moline Forge herein.
He stated at hearing that this report
was compiled and suggestions made before
he had ever seen the
plant
(Tr.
33).
Upon
a tour of the plant he now states that
installation
of these barriers would impede
and
in
some areas
halt
the
flow
of
traffic
to the forge shop
(Exh.
E to the
petition),
thus impairing productivity.
He also proposed five
measures that would reduce
t-he sound levels from the forge
shop
by l7dBs (See Response filed 7/29/84), which included rebuilding
the side walls with brick or glass block and enclosing the forge
shop
in
a new warehouse.
In addition, the forge
shop roof will
not accept the weight of additional
fans and silencers (Exh.
D
to Petition).
Moline Forge cites a cost of over $1 million for this project.
The president of Moline Forge stated that it would have to shutdown
operations
if faced with such compliance costs
(Tr.
30).
Moline Forge tried to control excessive noise at its forge
shop.
Warehouse and die storage buildings were built between the
forge shop and Class A residences.
This did not effectively
reduce the noise level, however.
Petitioner has continued to
support the research conducted by the Forging Industry Education
and Research Foundation.
The
Board
will
grant
Moline
Forge’s
site—specific
operational level
for nine hammers,
two shifts Monday through
Friday and one
shift on Saturday.
The consultant does not fore-
see any adverse health effects from 70 Leq (Petition at 32).
The
1~gencystates that there would be no danger of hearing loss to
area residents (Agency Response at 4).
4
Although
no
specifiö
numerical
noise
level
limitations
are
being
imposed,
it
is
assumed
that
noise
levels
will
approximate
those testified to by Moline Forge and its witnesses.
Moline
Forge should make efforts to lessen noise levels
in the future as
equipment is replaced and new technology for noise suppression
becomes available.
In the event that noise levels from the forge
shop
become
excessive,
citizens
have the right to initiate proceedings
to change the rule which accompanies this opinion.
The following operational plan as set out in the attached
Order will
be incorporated into 35
Ill.
Adm. Code 901.114.
Moline Forge will
be required to comply upon the filing of the
rule
with
the
Secretary
of
State
of
Illinois.
ORDER
The Board hereby adopts the following rule,
to be codified as
35
Ill.
Adm. Code 901.114,
and instructs the Clerk to file this rule
with the Secretary of State:
TITLE 35:
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
SUBTITLE H:
NOISE
CHAPTER
I:
POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
PART 901
SOUND
EMISSION
STANDARDS
AND
LIMITATIONS
FOR
PROPERTY
LINE-NOISE-SOURCES
Section 901.114
Moline Forge Operational
Level
Moline Forge and future owners of the forging facility located
at
4101
Fourth
Avenue,
Moline,
Illinois,
shall
comply
with
the
following
site-specific
operational
level:
a)
Operate
rio
more
than
nine
forging
hammers
at
any
one
time;
and
b)
Operate
its forging hammers only between the hours
of 6:00 a.m. until
11:00 p.m. Monday through Friday
and from 6:00 a.m. until 3:30 p.m.
on Saturdays.
IT
IS SO ORDERED.
I,
Dorothy N.
Gunn,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board,
hereby certify that tl~eabove Opinion and Order was adopted
on
the
~
day of
________________,
1984 by a vote of
/2?
/L~J
Dorothy M. (~‘nn, C1e~k
Illinois Pol’lution Control Board
fN THEMATTER OF:
PROPOSED
NEW
AND UPDATED RULES
FOR
MEASUREMENT AND NUMERICAL
SOUND EMISSIONS
STANDARD
AMENDMENTS TO
35
ILL.
ADM.
CODE
901
and
910
ILLINOIS POLLUTION
CONTROL
BOARD
March
8. 2004
HEARING
OFFICER
ORDER
)
R03-9
)
(Rulemaking
-
Noise)
)
)
The Board opened
this
rulemaking to propose updated regulations
governing noise found
in
35
III. Adm.
Code Subtitle H, pursuant
to
Sections 27 and
28 of the Illinois
Environmental
Protection Act,
(415 ILCS
5/27-5/28 (2002) and
35
III. Adm.
Code Part
102 Subpart
B.
On July
1 0,
2003, the Board
proceeded to
first notice in
this
proceeding.
On March
4. 2004.
the Board
determined that additional
hearings should be held in
this matter
and as
a result
the first-notice
would need
to be republished.
The Board
further determined that administrative
economy
supports including
the site-specific changes
in the new first notice.
In order
to
Fully address the issue ofsite-specific rules, all
entities, which currently have
site-specific rules.
should
notify the Board concerning the potential disposition oithe site-
specific
rule.
For example, if the site-specific rule is no
longer necessary. a public
comment to
the Board stating that position would suffice.
If changes
in
the site-specific rule are sought,
a
more substantive
comment or even testimony would be
necessary to
fully explain
the change and
the need for the change.
Please contact the hearing officer for additional
information at the
address and telephone number below.
The Board
~villhold
an additional
hearing in this
matter.
The specific dates and
times
for
those hearings will
be set
forth in
a future hearing officer order.
IT
IS
SO
ORDERED.
Marie F. Tipsord
Hearing Officer
Illinois
Pollution Control
Board
100
West Randolph, Suite
11-500
Chicago, Illinois
60601
(312) 814-4925
tipsom~
i pcb ,state. i I.us
E C
•~
CLEFK’S
GF~CE
200Li
STi~TE
CF (LUI4OIS
FOilut~Con~rcl oaca
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
March
4, 2004
IN
THE MATTER OF:
‘
)
)
PROPOSED NEW AND UPDATED RULES
)
R03-9
FOR MEASUREMENT AND NUMERICAL
)
(Rulemaking
-
Noise)
SOUND EMISSIONS
STANDARDS
)
AMENDMENTS TO
35
ILL. ADM. CODE
)
901
and9lO
)
ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by G.T. Girard):
On, February 20, 2003, the Board offered this proposed rulemaking for public comment.
The proposal updated regulations governing noise
found in
35 Iii. Adm. Code Subtitle H,
pursuant to Sections 27 and 28 ofthe Illinois Environmental Protection Act, (415 ILCS
5/27-
5/28
(2002) and 35 Iii. Adm.
Code Part 102
Subpart B.
After two hearings the Board proceeded
to first notice with this rulemaking on July
10,
2003.
First notice was published on July
25,
2002.
.27
111. Reg.
11908.
On October
16, 2003, the Board issued an order addressing five public comments.
Those
comments were
from Scot Forge (PC 3), Vaughn and Bushnell Manufacturing (PC 4), Intermet
DecaturFoundry (PC 7), Boughton Trucking and Materials Inc.
(PC 6) (Boughton), and the’
Illinois Association ofAggregate Producers (Association) (PC
5).
Boughton and the Association
requested a third hearing and the Board agreed to hold a third hearing.
The remaining three commenters sought changes in site-specific regulations governing
the respective companies.
The Board
acknowledged áomments, however the Board noted that
most ofthe relevant sections had not been noticed as a part ofthe first-notice required under the
Illinois Administrative Procedure Act
(5
ILCS
100/1-1
et. seq.
(2002)) (APA).
Therefore, the
newly suggested changes
to relevant sections would require first-notice publication before the
Board could proceed.
To avoid undue delay in this proceeding, the Board encouraged the
companies to petition the Board for site-specific changes in future rulemaking dockets.
On February 9, 2004, the Board held a third hearing.
Scot Forge presented testimony in
support ofa change in
the site-specific rule currently applicable to Scot Forge.
Tr3 at
5-10.
Scot
Forge also agreed to examine the opinion
and
order (Atlas Forging Division of Scot Forge R83-
34
(Dec.
30,
1984)) that granted the site-specific rule
and
to provide additional comment on the
applicability and need for a site-specific change.
—
The hearing officer noted at hearing, that prior to the hearing, the Association notified the
hearing officer that the Association did not receive notice ofthe hearing
and
would be unable to
attend.
Tr.3
at 30-31.
The hearing officer stated that a review ofthe Board’s records indicated
that notice had not been sent to the Association.
Id.
Instead ofseeking a postponement ofthe
third hearing, the Association was willing to
accommodate the Board and supply only written
comments if sufficient
time could be given.
Id.
2
Under theAPA a rule cannot beadopted or filed more than one year after the first-notice
period begins.
5
ILCS
100/5-40(e). (2002).
Ifthe Board gives the Association sufficient time to
prepare written comments, the Board is unlikely to be able to
complete this
rulemaking under the
APA timeframes.
Therefore, the Board will need to restart the
APA
procedures for this proposal.
The Board finds that administrative economy supports including the site-specific changes
in the new first notice.
Prior
to publishing the proposal for a second first notice, the Board will
hold two additional
hearings, to
ensure that a complete record is developed.
The additional
hearings
and the second
first notice will allow companies
seeking a site-specific change to fully
participate and to
allow the Association the opportunity to testify.
The hearing officer is directed
to set those hearings.
IT IS
SO
ORDERED.
I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board,
certify that the Board
adopted the above order on March 4, 2004, by a vote of5-0.
~—.
A.
DorothyM.
Gu.nn, Clerk
Illinois Pollution
Control Board