FRANCZEK

SULLIVANp.c.

ATrORNEYS AT LAW

300 SOUTH WACKER

DRIVE

SUITE 3400

CHICAGO, ILLINOIS 60606

STEVEN

J.

1’EARLMAN

PHONE 312-986-0300

312-786-6142

FAX

312-986-9192

sjp@franczek.com

http://www.franczck.com

November 10, 2005

RECEIVED

CLERK’S OFFICE

VIA

FACSIMILE

AND

U.S.

MALL

NOV 1 02005

Bradley

P.

Halloran

STATE OF ILLINOIS

Hearing Officer

Pollution

Control

Board

Illinois Pollution Control Board

James R. Thompson Center, Ste. 11-500

100 W. Randolph Street

Chicago, Illinois 60601

Re:

York H(qh Ne~qhborbood

Committee v. Elmhurst Public Schools, District

205

(PCB 05-93)

Dear Officer Halloran:

In the status hearing of September 15, and in the Order ofSeptember 16, the parties

were directed to submit a written status report. Based on your comments at the last status

conference

and in view ofthe face ofthe September

16nI~

Order, it appeared that you wanted

the parties to confer and jointly prepare and submit a status report for purposes of

efficiency. With that in mind, I sent the Complainants a proposed joint report, but they

declined my offer to submit a joint status update. The “Status Report” the Complainants

have submitted is replete with arguments and does not appear to reflect the sort of status

update the parties were directed to provide.

As another initial matter, it is worth noting that the September

16th

Order correctly

provides that the parties agreed that the District would order and install low sound fan

blades in order to resolve this action. The District agreed upon this course ofaction based

on repeated assurances it

received from

the architect that will be involved in the

implementation of the low sound fan blade package that this course of action will resolve

the issues around which the Complaint in this matter revolve. Based on the architect’s

estimates of the costs of various methods of sound-attenuation, it is readily apparent that

this is the most cost-effective and sensible means of resolving this action.

Contrary to the Complainants’ assertions in their “Status Report,” this measure

cannot accurately be characterized as an “experiment.” Indeed, the District provided

287189.1

---

FRANC ZEK

SULLIVAN

P.C.

BradleyP.Halloran

ATtORNEYS AT LAW

November 10, 2005

Page 2

Complainants with a copy of the architect’s report containing assurances that this measure

would effectively resolve the issues addressed in the Complainants’ Complaint. Moreover,

the District invited the Complainants to attend

—

and the Complainants did in fact attend

—

a number of meetings with the architect where the effectiveness and cost of the low sound

fan blade option were discussed at length. The District has been given no reason to doubt

the architect’s assurances that the low sound fan blades will be effective. However, in the

spirit ofcooperation, the District informed Complainants that in the unlikely event that this

measure does not prove to be effective, it is willing to consider other cost-effective methods

ofsound attenuation.

As the District informed the Complainants, it has started the process of instituting

this measure in order to resolve this action. As the District informed Complainants a while

ago,

it

learned after receiving the September l6t~~Order that it needed to open the

implementation of the low sound fan package to public bidding. To this end, the architect

then published an advertisement for bids on the District’s behalf. Due to potential bidders’

need for sufficient time to complete their respective estimates, bidding is set to close on

November 14. The District remains hopeful that the Board of Education will ratify the

lowest bid as soon as practicable and that the implementation process will commence

immediately thereafter.

Lastly, the District has continued to voluntarily cease its operation of the chillers at

issue in the Complaint from 10:00 p.m. through 7:00 a.m. Again, the interests of safety

and prudence require the District to monitor the impact of this change for a reasonable

period of time.

Very truly yours,

Is! Steven J. Pearlman

Steven J. Pearlman

cc:

Joe Vosicky, Esq.

David Bennett, Esq.

287189.1

---

David E.

Bennett

RECEIVED

346

Elm

Park

CLERK’S OFFICE

Elmhurst, IL 60126

NOV Jo

(312)609-7714

STATEI u ion OFControlILLINOIS

Board

November

VIA E-MAIL

Bradley P. Halloran, Esq.

Hearing Officer

Illinois Pollution Control Board

James

R.

Thompson Center

100 W. Randolph Street, Suite 11-500

Chicago, IL 60601

Re:

York High Neighborhood Committee, et al.

V.

Dear Mr. Halloran:

Attached please find the Complainants’ Status Report regarding the above-noted matter.

Sincerely yours,

•.~-~)A~L~27~

David E. Bennett

cc:

Steven J. Peariman, Esq.

Joseph F. Vosicky, Esq.

Mr. Peter Conroy

Mr.

& Mrs. Fred Hodges

CHICAGOI#~439I(.I

---

BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

YORK HIGH NEIGHBORHOOD

COMMITTEE (a voluntary organization)

Janet and Fred Hodge, Patricia and David

Bennett, Sheila and Mike Trant, Joe Vosicky,

Jean and Peter Conroy, Frank Soldano,

Joseph Reamer, Elizabeth and Charles

Laliberte

and

Case PCB 05-93

(Citizen’s Enforcement-Noise)

ELMHURST PUBLIC SCHOOLS,

DISTRICT 205

STATUS REPORT

Pursuant to an order of the Hearing Officer dated September 16, 2005, the Complainants submit

this Status Report concerning the proposed disposition of this case.

Status Report

I.

This status report covers a period beginning with the filing of the complaint on

November 15, 2004 and ending November 10, 2005.

2.

During the relevant period, the parties met numerous times and held various

discussions concerning this matter.

3.

On August 11, 2005 the members of the Complainants committee met with

representatives of the Elmhurst School District 205, their lawyer, and

their architect, Wight &

Company.

The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the findings of the sound survey

performed for the architect by Shiner & Associates (letter dated July 27, 2005) and to discuss

options proposed by the architect (letter dated July 27, 2005) to bring the sound levels of the

cooling towers into compliance with State regulations.

LHICAGO/#1438240 311/10/05

---

4.

The sound surveys performed for the Respondent by Shiner & Associates agreed

almost exactly with the surveys performed by the Complainants’ sound consultant and supported

the complaint that the current noise levels exceed the regulations ofthe State of Illinois.

5.

The Respondents have introduced cost as a factor in selecting mitigation

alternatives,

The Claimants have acknowledged their interest in minimizing costs to the

taxpayers of the District but have reminded the Respondent that the architect, in the school

construction permit application, certified that all work will be completed in accordance with all

applicable laws and regulations. The District’s contract with the architect should have required

conformance in accordance with the construction permit.

6.

To bring the cooling towers into compliance with the nighttime limits, the

Respondent proposes to not operate the cooling towers at night (between 10:00 p.m. and

7:00 a.m.). The Respondent expressed a caveat that if moisture or mold in the school resulted,

they would have to operate the cooling towers at night to prevent its development. Operation of

the cooling towers at night, therefore, would be at the discretion of the Respondent. In the

previous three years of operation the Complainants observed numerous instances of operation of

the cooling towers during nighttime hours. In some instances, during high demand, the cooling

towers operated continuouslythroughout the nighttime hours.

7.

Without the cooling towers being in compliance with the nighttime limits, if they

were operated at night, they would violate the Illinois regulations. The Respondent has been

informed by the Complainant that since this option is not a permanent solution it is not

acceptable to the Complainants.

8.

To bring the cooling towers into compliance with the daytime limits the

Respondent proposes a staged development of:

1) changing the fans to low sound fans,

-2-

UHICAUO/#1438246.3 11/10/05

---

determining its effectiveness; and then 2) adding intake/exhaust attenuation equipment, if

additional attenuation is needed; then 3) installation of a barrier wall if the foregoing alternatives

are unsuccessful. The Respondent committed to installing the low sound fans and estimated it

would require 6 to 8 weeks from the meeting ofAugust 11, 2005 to implement the installation.

9.

The Complainants have informed the Respondents that the proposed staged option

for compliance that is limited to compliance with day time limits is likely to prolong, not shorten

this proceeding, and therefore is not acceptable to Complainants. Complainants view the

changing of the fan blades as an experiment to determine if their installation will bring the

cooling towers into compliance with daytime limits only. Neither the District’s architect or

sound engineer will certify that this action will bring the cooling towers into compliance.

Complainants cannot enter into a final settlement agreement based upon such an experimental

solution, where the District’s consultants will not even vouch for its efficiency.

10.

The Respondents have been informed that the position ofthe Complainants is that

the cooling towers should be brought into compliance with all the State regulations, both day and

night. This compliance would have to be permanent and not subject to future review or

modification.

II.

In order to reach resolution of this matter, the District should comply fully with

nighttime and daytime limits required by the law by May 1, 2006, the beginning of the next

cooling season.

-3-

CH ICAQO/# I 43S246. 3 11/10/05

---

York High Neighborhood Committee

7 (

David B. Bennett

(312) 609-7714

By:

Jo4ffi F. Vo~icky

(312) 332-0116

.4-

(‘FIlCAGO~I 43824O.3 II /10/05