BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL
BOARD
RECEIVED
IN
THE MATTER OF:
)
MAY 3, 0 2006
PROPOSAL OF VAUGHAN & BUSHNELL
)
R2006 - 11
MANUFACTURING
COMPANY OF
STATE OF ILLINOIS
)
Pollution Control Board
AMENDMENT TO A SITE-SPECIFIC RULE
)
35 ILL. ADM
. CODE 901 .121
)
VAUGHAN & BUSHNELL MANUFACTURING COMPANY'S
POST-HEARING COMMENTS
NOW COMES Vaughan & Bushnell Manufacturing Company ("Vaughan"), by and
through its attorneys, Davis & Campbell
L.L.C.,
and hereby provides the Illinois Pollution
Control Board ("Board") with its post-hearing comments, including responses
to questions by
the Board and issues raised through the course of this proceeding
.
SUMMARY OF PROCEEDING
As more fully explained in the Proposal of Amendment to a Site-Specific
Rule, the
Amendment to Proposal of Amendment to a Site-Specific Rule (collectively the "Proposal"),
and
the public hearing on the Proposal dated March 7, 2006 at City Hall
in Bushnell, Illinois
("Hearing"), Vaughan is seeking an amendment to the site-specific rule found at 35
Ill. Adm.
Code Section 901
.121 with respect to the operation of the Vaughan forging facility in Bushnell,
Illinois ("Shop")
. Hearing Transcript 1.
Currently, Vaughan is permitted to operate in a manner
inconsistent with the Sound Emission Standards and Limitations promulgated
by the Board
pursuant to 35 Ill
. Adm. Code Section 901
et seq.
Vaughan seeks an amendment to the
previously promulgated rule because the land-use
surrounding the Shop has dramatically
changed since the original rule was created, the community impact of the proposed amendment
is slight, the changing economy has made operation under the
original rule economically
unreasonable, and complete compliance is technically
infeasible.
(The original rule was
1
promulgated pursuant to the petition of Vaughan found at R83-32 in the Illinois Pollution
Control Board database offiles) . Therefore, Vaughan is requesting that the Board adopt the rule
proposed as the final rule applicable to its operations at the Shop .
DISCUSSION OF PROPOSAL AND TESTIMONY
RELIEF REQUESTED
Pursuant to the Proposal, Vaughan seeks an amendment to the previously promulgated
rule of the Board found at 35 Ill . Adm. Code Section 901 .121(b). Specifically, Vaughan requests
an amendment to the previous rule in order to operate its production facility an additional
four
and one-half hours
. Vaughan proposes the following amendment to the previously promulgated
rule (language proposed to be added by amendment is indicated by underscoring and language
proposed to be deleted by amendment is indicated by strike-outs)
:
Vaughan & Bushnell Manufacturing Company and the future owners
of the forging
facility located at the intersection of Davis and Main Streets, Bushnell, Illinois, shall comply
with the following site-specific operational level :
a)
Operate no more than ten hammers at any one time
during the hours of 6 :00 a.m.
and 1
:30 a.m. Monday through Sunday; and
b)
Operate no more than ten hammers at any one time during the hours of 1 :30 a.m.
and 6:00 a.m. Monday through Sunday .
SHOP and SURROUNDING COMMUNITY
Vaughan was incorporated in 1892 .
Tr. 15
.
The history of Vaughan and its operations
was illustrated at the Hearing by Vaughan employee Dan Chambers ("Mr
. Chambers"). Mr.
Chambers testified that at the City of Bushnell facility, the primary products manufactured
are
hammers and heavy striking tools
. Id. At the Shop, Vaughan currently employs more than 263
persons, which makes it the largest employer in the area . Tr. 16. Mr
. Chambers testified that
2
Vaughan's gross annual payroll for 2005 was $8
.4 million and its total expenditures to the City
of Bushnell for natural gas, water, and electricity (which greatly support the local economy) for
2005 exceeded $1,037,000
.00. Id. Mr
. Chambers also testified that Vaughan's operation in the
Shop is one of only two operations in the United States which manufactures hammers and heavy
striking tools . Id.
The Shop houses an impact forging operation which is subject to the
Board's noise
emission regulations . It is located in the City of Bushnell at the intersection of Davis
and Main
Streets in an area that is almost exclusively composed of heavy industrial operations
. The Shop,
a drop-forge facility, is classified as an industrial land use .
To the immediate north of the Shop
is real estate consisting of several buildings owned by Vaughan but not used in the drop-forge
operation, the Silver Fox Tavern, two residential houses, and the City of Bushnell water
tower
and water treatment plant.
Immediately east of the Shop is a parking lot, the Archer Daniels
Midland manufacturing facility (which manufactures protein), a Burlington Northern
Railroad
Office, and Burlington Northern Railroad tracks
. To the immediate south of the Shop is a second
set of railroad tracks (the Keokuk Junction Railway Company), a vacant residence, a liquor store,
and the City of Bushnell's power plant and electrical maintenance
facility. Finally, to the
immediate west of the Shop is a parking lot and to the southwest are mobile homes, an FS Grain
Elevator, and the Norforge Manufacturing facility (a drop forge facility
similar to Vaughan's
Shop)
. Elsewhere in the area are different commercial concerns including a lumberyard
and a
second grain elevator .
The predominant industrial character of the area was described by Vaughan employee
William Mourning ("Mr. Mourning") at the Hearing
. Mr
. Mourning testified that the closest
residence to the Shop is more than 300 feet away and that, while several single family residences
are located beyond 300 feet from the Shop, these residences are subject to noise emissions
from
3
several geographically closer sources such as the Burlington Northern Railroad,
the Keokuk
Junction Railway Company and other industrial facilities .
Tr. 33. Also at the Hearing, Mr.
Mourning identified and described
Exhibit C to the Proposal, a map by which Vaughan
illustrated the industrial nature of the area surrounding the Shop
. See Tr. 29-34.
Taken as a whole, the evidence clearly describes and demonstrates the industrial
character of the area surrounding the Shop .
The operations of the Shop are but one small
component of the noise produced in this area . The activities of many other nearby industries
substantially create the area's ambient noise
. Furthermore, the industrial nature of the
surrounding businesses results in heavy truck traffic and other vehicular traffic
. All of these
sources contribute to the area's ambient and extraneous noise
. See Tr
. 99.
NOISE ABATEMENT MEASURES
Vaughan's production of striking implements
requires the use of impact forging
procedures .
The forging process consists of heating pieces of carbon or alloy steel ("work-
pieces") in furnaces to a temperature of approximately 2350 degrees Fahrenheit and then shaping
those work-pieces by forcing them between two dies
.
The upper die is attached to a guided ram
and the lower die is attached to the forge .
The upper die and ram are mechanically lifted and
then dropped onto the lower die with great force .
It is the pressure exerted by the ram or forge
hammer being dropped that forces the heated work-piece into the impression on the dies
. Each
forge hammer is capable of producing approximately
1,500 blows every hour
. The sound
produced by this process is impulsive and originates primarily from the impact between the
upper and lower die and the work-piece. Tr. 54.
Efficient production requires a constant flow of
materials between the furnaces and drop hammers as well as into and out of the Shop
.
The forging process creates a substantial amount of heat due to the extreme temperatures
to which the furnaces must heat the work-pieces to make them sufficiently malleable
. Fueling
4
the combustion in these furnaces requires a tremendous amount of oxygen
. Consequently, the
Shop requires extensive ventilation which can often only be accomplished by
opening several
doors to allow the free flow of outside air
. Tr. 42.
This natural ventilation system is widely
utilized in the forging industry
. However, one side effect is that noise escapes through these side
openings
. Id.
The Shop itself was created in 1940 and now houses ten drop hammers
capable of
producing up to 2,500 tbs
. of force in the production of striking tools
. Tr. 46. The Shop is a one-
story building that runs east and west
. The building itself was constructed in 1923 and is
composed principally of a structural frame with brick walls
. These walls are as much as twenty-
four inches thick in some spots
. There are openings on the east and south walls of the
Shop to
permit air to flow through and to permit access to the Shop
.
Tr. 43. The north and west walls
are interior walls with openings to the remainder of the Vaughan facility
. The roof is made
entirely of wood rafters, sheet metal, and tar (for sound dampening purposes)
.
The Shop is equipped with two kinds of noise abatement control measures
; structural
dampening and source reduction
. The structural dampening is a result of the actual construction
of the Shop itself
. As indicated above, the materials of the Shop construction act as a sound
dampening tool to prevent the escape of noise into the surrounding community
.
Noise source
reduction techniques are employed by way of the method in which the drop-hammers are
installed
. The drop-hammers are installed according to the manufacturer's recommendation
to
achieve the greatest possible minimization of vibration and noise
.
Tr. 46. The base of each
drop-hammer is anywhere from 15-18 feet below the ground and is comprised of reinforced
concrete, criss-crossed oak timbers, and two full inches of fabrics (a dense rubber material which
absorbs noise and vibration) . Tr. 47.
The noise abatement control measures utilized by Vaughan
is consistent with that which is commonly used in the drop-forge industry
.
5
Regardless of the noise abatement technology employed, drop-forge facilities will and do
emit noise which cannot be eliminated completely .
Tr. 50.
Raw material must be continuously
delivered to the Shop and the finished product along with waste material must be continuously
removed from the Shop . Tr.. 39.
Two doors are located in the Shop through which raw materials
and finished product are transferred in and out . Tr
. 41. All drop forge facilities must incorporate
such doors to deliver and remove raw material and finished products
from their facilities.
Because such doors must be open for a length of time to permit the delivery
and removal
process, sound will necessarily escape from any drop forge facility during these periods,
a fact
which noise abatement technology cannot eliminate
.
SOUND LEVEL MEASUREMENT SURVEY
Three sound level measurement surveys were conducted by Vaughan employee and
engineer Mike Havens ("Mr.
Havens") in 2005
. The survey measurements quantified the sound
decibel level from all sound sources at various locations near the Shop
. Measurements were
made under representative community conditions at various times in a twenty-four hour period
.
Mr
. Havens testified at the Hearing that he utilized a Radio Shack sound level meter (model
332055) which is capable of measuring ambient noise from 50 to 126 decibels
.
Tr. 79. While
Mr
. Havens testified that he is not a qualified expert on sound emissions data gathering
and that
he was not familiar with the Board's regulations regarding sound level measurement, he
maintained that he followed the manufacturer's manual when operating the sound level
meter.
Tr. 89.
Mr
. Havens tested the ambient noise at several locations surrounding the Shop and within
the general area that could reasonably be perceived as being impacted by the proposed
amendment to the site-specific rule
. The noise levels attributable to the drop-hammers measured
approximately 55 decibels during the four and one-half hours of operation as proposed by
6
Vaughan
. The Board has noise rules in place which currently limit the sound emissions from an
impact forging operation during those four and one-half hours to 53 decibels
. To put things into ~
perspective, at the Hearing Mr
. Havens indicated that the ambient noise level within the room in
which the Hearing was conducted measured between 58 and 65 decibels
. Tr. 79.
Mr
. Havens testified at the Hearing that he conducted the sound level measurement
surveys and that the information he collected is reflected in the Proposal
. Id.
Because each of
the sound sources in the area were audibly distinct, Mr
. Havens ascertained during the sound
level measurement surveys which of the surrounding sources he believed had the greatest
contribution to the sound level readings . Tr. 82.
As indicated in his testimony at the Hearing,
Mr
. Havens was able to identify only one point of testing in which the sound emitted from
Vaughan, and attributable to the impact of the drop hammers, was in excess of the current
regulations promulgated by the Board
. See Tr
. 79-88. That point of testing was immediately
outside the large door of the Shop at a time when it was open to transfer raw material into the
Shop
. However, there are no residences in this area
. The sound level measurement survey
conducted during the proposed four and one-half hours of operation which tested the sound level
near the closest residence was 59 decibels but such reading was attributable to other noise
sources in the area and not the operation of Vaughan's impact forging
. Thus, operations during
the four and one-half hours as proposed by Vaughan will have only minimal impact on the
community .
As indicated above, Vaughan is located in the City of Bushnell which serves as a cross-
road for at least two railroad tracks
. Those tracks are actively used, resulting in trains frequently
rolling through the city
. In fact, as City of Bushnell Mayor Steve Russell testified at the Hearing,
as many as 45 to 50 trains travel through the City of Bushnell every day
.
Tr. 96
. At each street
crossing the trains sound their horn, creating an abundance of noise twenty-four hours a day
. Tr.
7
98.
The noise emitted from each blow of the horn and from the train engine itself was measured
at 98 decibels . Tr. 81.
Such noise within and throughout the City of Bushnell, twenty-four hours
a day, is far in excess of the sound emitted by Vaughan's forging operations
.
COMMUNITYIMPACT
The result of the proposed change in Vaughan's hours of operation will have
only a
minimal impact on the community immediately surrounding the Shop
. The sound emitted from
the Shop and attributable to the drop-hammers is minimal when considered in the context of the
industrial nature of the surrounding community .
Additionally, the sound actually produced by
the drop-hammers during the proposed hours of operation has previously
been shown to be
around 55 decibels, close to the 53 decibel standard promulgated by the Board for sound
levels
during the hours of operation the proposed amendment would encompass
. Such levels of sound
will have only a slight impact on the community in general and residents thereof in particular
.
At the Hearing, many residents of the City of Bushnell were present
and provided
testimony in support of the Proposal
. See Tr. 119.
As previously discussed, the City of
Bushnell's Mayor testified at the Hearing
.
His testimony included that he and the city council
are unanimously in favor of the request of Vaughan to increase their hours of operation to meet
the demand for their products .
Tr. 100.
He further testified that as an alderman for the City of
Bushnell for two years and the Mayor for one year, he has not received a
single complaint
concerning the sounds emitted by Vaughan's manufacturing operations
. Tr. 101.
The city attorney for the City of Bushnell also testified at the Hearing that he has acted in
such capacity for about 30 years and that during his tenure he also has not received
a single
complaint concerning the sound emitted by Vaughan
. Tr. 104.
The city attorney further testified
that most of the houses and residences that existed around the Shop at the time of the
original
Petition of Vaughan in 1984 are no longer standing and that as such, the community impact
of
8
the increased hours of operation, and the sounds created thereby, would be minimal compared to
the economic benefit the City of Bushnell will receive
from the increased production of II
Vaughan. Tr. 103.
Illinois State Representative Richard P
. Myers, representative of the 90 Legislative
District (the Legislative District in which the City of Bushnell is located), also testified at the
Hearing that he has represented the residents of Bushnell in the Illinois legislature for 12 years
and during that time he has received no noise complaints regarding Vaughan. Tr. 107.
Representative Myers further testified that Vaughan has a significant impact on the industrial
base in the City of Bushnell and that its continued existence in the community is essential to the
economy of the area . Tr. 105 .
Michael Steelman, chairman and chief executive officer of Farmers & Merchants State
Bank of Bushnell, testified at the Hearing that his bank is located only three blocks from the
Shop and that the "sounds of forging, which, if ever heard and certainly rarely heard,
are the
economic heartbeat of [the City of Bushnell]". Tr. 110. Also, in his role as a director of the
Bushnell Economic Development Corporation, Mr. Steelman testified that the Bushnell
Economic Development Corporation fully supports the Proposal . Id.
Don Swartzbaugh, president of the Chamber of Commerce for the City of Bushnell also
testified at the Hearing that the Chamber fully supports the Proposal
. Tr. 111 . Mr.
Swartzbaugh's testimony was supported by Mike Howell, alderman for the City of Bushnell,
who testified that without the additional hours of operation at the Shop the economy of the
community would suffer . Tr. 113.
City of Bushnell resident Daniel Roberts testified at the Hearing that his residence is
located at what is designated as location "eight! 'on Exhibit C to the Proposal (within 300 feet of
the Shop) and that he has resided there for the past 18 years . Tr. 111 . Mr
. Roberts further
9
testified that it came to his attention at the Hearing that Vaughan was currently operating during
the four and one-half hours as requested in the Proposal and that he hadn't noticed any additional
hammer activity . Tr. 112. Furthermore, Mr
. Roberts stated that he does not believe that
Vaughan's operation impacts his health and well being
. Id.
Local resident Justin Hood testified at the Hearing that his residence is located at what is
designated as location "three" on Exhibit C to the Proposal (across the street from the Shop) and
that he has lived there for five and one-half years
. Tr. 114. Mr
. Hood testified that he and his
family go to bed between 8 p .m. and 10 p .m
. every night and that they have not been disturbed
by any excessive noise from the Shop even though it is currently operating throughout the night
.
Id.
Finally,
. local resident Merlin Evans testified at the Hearing that his residence is located at
what is designated as location "two" on Exhibit C to the Proposal (adjacent to the Shop) and that
he has lived there for 16 years . Tr. 122. Mr
. Evans testified that during the time he has resided
at that location, his health and well being has not suffered as a result of the forging operation at
the Shop. Tr. 122-124.
Based on the testimony elicited at the Hearing from the local government officials and
residents of the City of Bushnell the community health impact of the proposed change in
Vaughan's hours of operation will be only negligible, if any
. The sound emitted from the Shop
and attributable to the drop-hammers is minimal when considered in the context of the industrial
nature of the surrounding community
. However, as the above testimony suggests, the economic
benefit to the City of Bushnell that will result from granting Vaughan its Proposal is far greater
than the slight health impact to the community .
TECHNICAL FEASIBILITY and ECONOMIC REASONABLENESS
As previously indicated, sound emission is an unavoidable consequence of the forging
10
industry. Mr. Mourning testified at the Hearing that although there have been advances
in
technology in the area of sound dampening as it relates to the forging industry,
such changes in I I
technology have not adequately replaced the "natural cooling" system most forging
shops must
currently utilize.
Tr. 50.
Mr. Mourning explained that it is possible in some situations to install
sound barriers
which would be placed in front the Shop's openings to the outside with the purpose of
dampening or reducing the amount of sound which escapes through those openings
. Tr. 51.
However, while these sound barriers may block some of the sound emissions, they also have the
side effect of blocking the air flow which creates the "natural cooling" of the Shop .
Tr. 57. As
Mr
. Mourning testified at the Hearing, the amount of sound actually dampened
or reduced by
these sound barriers is minimal when compared with the side effects of decreased cooling, which
results in unsafe conditions for the workers and greatly lowered production
. Tr. 50.
Additionally, due to the location of the Shop, such sound barriers would cross the city sidewalks
and streets and block pedestrian and vehicle traffic.
Thus, the sound barriers are not technically
feasible .
Mr
. Mourning also testified at the Hearing that recent advances in technology have
resulted in an advanced ventilation system which could be placed above or around the furnaces .
This sort of ventilation system would extract much of the escaping heat from the furnaces before
it permeates the entire building, keeping the Shop cooler and thereby permitting the side
openings of the building to be closed for longer periods of time, which would reduce the duration
of sound emissions . Tr. 57.
However, these ventilation systems cost upwards of $1,000,000
.00
and would not permit the complete closure of the side openings of the building as fresh air must
still be allowed to enter the Shop. Tr. 61-62.
Thus, although some degree of reduction in sound
emissions may be achieved through this technology, the costs of such ventilation
systems far
11
outweigh their benefit making them economically unreasonable.
Although there have been advances in technology in the area of sound dampening as
it
relates to the forging industry, such changes in technology have not adequately replaced the
"natural cooling" system and/or are currently technically unfeasible and economically
unreasonable in practical application
.
In addition to the lack of technically feasible and economically reasonable technological
advances in the forging industry, Vice President Mr . Ronald Miller ("Mr
. Miller") testified at the
Hearing that Vaughan is facing increased competition from U .S. striking tool manufacturers who
have either moved their operations to China (i .e., Stanley Tools and Cooper Tools) or are
outsourcing hammers from Chinese operations . Tr. 116-117. The increased competition is the
result of lower manufacturing costs and greater manufacturing output in China . Id.
Unlike its competitors, Vaughan has long focused its marketing efforts on "Made in
U.S.A." which is important to the professional tradesmen who make a living with the tools as
well as to consumers who believe in an American made product . Tr. 118. Mr. Miller believes
that Vaughan can compete with its Chinese counterparts but in order to do so Vaughan must
expand its manufacturing output to meets its increased demand or lose sales and ultimately
customers. Id. The Proposal is the most technically feasible and economically reasonable means
of expanding Vaughan's manufacturing output .
PREVIOUS RECORD OF PETITION OF VA UGHAN
At the Hearing, the Board requested that the record of Vaughan's original petition for a
site-specific operational level, found in the Illinois Pollution Control Board database
of files and
designated as R83-32 ("R83-32 Record"), be incorporated into the record of the Proposal
. Tr.
73. Vaughan has considered the incorporation of such record and agrees to the action
of the
Board . The R83-32 Record provides additional proof that the land-use surrounding the Shop has
12
dramatically changed since the original rule was promulgated, the community impact of the
proposed amendment is slight, and the original rule creates limitations that are no longer 1
economically reasonable or technically feasible for Vaughan .
For example, in the R83-32 Record it was asserted that approximately 50 residences
would potentially be exposed to sound levels in excess of those allowed by the rules promulgated
by the Board
. As discussed above, most of those residences no longer exist due to the ever
increasing industrial nature of the Shop's location
. In fact, only a handful of residences, all
located more than 300 feet from the Shop, may now be exposed to sound levels in excess of
those allowed by the rules promulgated by the Board
.
Additionally, the R83-32 Record contains a discussion of the enormous costs associated
with installing and fitting ventilation systems in the Shop. However, George Kamperman, the
professional employed by Vaughan in 1983 to conduct an analysis of the feasibility of
implementing noise reduction systems concluded that such systems would have only minimal
dampening effects on the sound emitted by Vaughan but would have a substantial detrimental
effect on the amount of production at the Shop
.
The same remains true with today's ventilation
technology.
Furthermore, Mr. Kampernan also testified as part of the R83-32 Record that there
would be no adverse effect to the land-use surrounding the Shop, or the residences therein,
from
a sound emission of 63 decibels during the hours of operation proposed by Vaughan in the R83-
32 Record (which, at the time exceeded the sound levels promulgated by the Board for the
requested hours of operation). Similar to the petition found in the R83-32 Record, the Proposal
seeks a site-specific regulation which is in excess of the sound level standards promulgated by
the Board but for a different period of operation. The impact on the residences surrounding the
Shop of Vaughan's operations during the proposed four and one-half hours of operation will
be
13
minimal.
Thus,, the R83-32 Record provides additional support for granting the requested relief
.
WHY THE RELIEF REQUESTED SHOULD BE GRANTED
Testimony elicited at the Hearing evidences the changes in the community surrounding
the Shop such that approval of the Proposal is appropriate. While the R83-32 Record indicates
that many residences surrounded the Shop in 1983, testimony at the Hearing indicated that only
a
few of those residences are standing today
. Of the few residences still remaining in the area
surrounding the Shop, many of the owners of those residences attended the Hearing and testified
that the proposed hours of operation of the Shop would not have any negative impact on them
.
Vaughan has not only the support of the local residents, but the City of Bushnell
as a
whole, and even a state representative
. The City of Bushnell and the Bushnell Economic
Development Corporation have both submitted letters to the Board in support of the Proposal.
Numerous other individuals and corporations have
also testified in support of the relief
requested .
Although Vaughan did not hire a noise
professional to conduct field sound
measurements, it did provide a sound level measurement
survey conducted by one of its
engineers
. The sound level measurement survey produced results similar to the professional
survey conducted in 1983 when Vaughan petitioned the Board for its initial site-specific rule
as it
relates to the sound emitted from the Shop and attributable to drop-hammers . The sound level
measurement survey indicates that the area immediately surrounding the Shop will be exposed to
noise levels of approximately 55 decibels during the proposed
four and one-half hours of
operation and, for reasons consistent with those found in the R83-32 Record, such minimal
deviation from the 53 decibel sound level rule promulgated by the Board would have almost no
perceivable impact on the public.
14
Vaughan reviewed whether there are technical means available for further reducing
sound emissions to levels sufficient to achieve compliance with the Board's noise regulations . 1 1
Vaughan investigated installing additional noise abatement equipment, as well as installing a
barrier partition to seal the Shop
. Because of its location and the exorbitant cost of such
technology, it was determined that these measures would be staggeringly financially burdensome
on Vaughan and minimally effective in reducing the level of noise emissions from the Shop
. In
all, there is no assurance that the technical means would effectively reduce sound emissions
to
levels that would achieve compliance .
Vaughan also reviewed the economic impact on itself and the City ofBushnell should the
Proposal not be granted . Due to increased competition from foreign production and the
increased demand for its product, Vaughan concludes that absent permission to operate
during
the four and one-half hour period as requested in the Proposal, it may be forced to join the ever
growing list of American companies that have no choice but to outsource much of their
operations . The result is an extreme detriment to the City of Bushnell
.
Finding no technically feasible or economically reasonable solution, Vaughan
filed this
Proposal which garnered the support of the community and the City of Bushnell
. Using the
sound level measurement surveys conducted in 2005 and informative economic factors, Vaughan
identified the extent of the relief necessary to continue their operations
. The site-specific relief
requested was developed by taking into account these factors as well as the expected impact
on
the community . Finally, Vaughan has demonstrated that allowing the Proposal will cause almost
no change in the sound emissions in this area and thus no negative impact on the community due
to the types and amount of extraneous and ambient noise already present in the
area given its
primarily industrial character
.
Vaughan has demonstrated that the requested relief is necessary and warranted,
and its
15
community consequences slight, primarily due to noise already present in the industrial
area in
which the Shop is located
. Vaughan therefore requests that the Board adopt the rule proposed as
the rule applicable to its operations at the Shop
.
Jeremy M . Pelphrey
DAMS & CAMPBELL L.L.C.
Attorneys for
Vaughan & Bushnell
Manufacturing Company
401 Main Street, Suite 1600
Peoria, Illinois 61602
Tel: (309) 673-1681
Fax: (309) 673-1690
jmpelphrevCidcamolaw.com
16
Respectfully submitted,
VAUGHAN & BUSHNELL MANUFACTURING
COMPANY
Jerem
Pelphrey
By:
IN THE MA 1 I ER OF :
PROPOSAL OF VAUGHAN & BUSHNELL
MANUFACTURING COMPANY OF
AMENDMENT TO A SITE-SPECIFIC RULE
35 ILL. ADM. CODE 901 .121
BEFORE THE ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board
100 W. Randolph Street, Suite 11-500
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Office of Legal Services
Chief, Legal Division
Illinois Department of Natural Resources
One Natural Resources Way
Springfield, Illinois 62702
Jeremy M . Pelphrey
DAVIS & CAMPBELL L .L.C.
Attorneys for VAUGHAN & BUSHNELL
MANUFACTURING COMPANY
401 Main Street, Suite 1600
Peoria, Illinois 61602
Tel : (309) 673-1681
Fax: (309) 673-1690
impelphreva.dcamplaw.com
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that he served a copy of the Vaughan & Bushnell Manufacturing
Company's Post-Hearing Comments in the above captioned matter, upon the following attorneys by
depositing a copy of the same in an envelope addressed as follows :
Division Chief of Environmental Enforcements
Office of Attorney General
188 W. Randolph Street, 20th Floor
Chicago, Illinois 60601
Division of Legal Counsel
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
1021 North Grand Avenue East
Post Office Box 19276
Springfield, Illinois 62794
and by depositing the envelope in the United States mail with first-class postage fully prepaid in
Peoria, Illinois on this 23`" day of May, 2006 .
Alt
Jeremy M . P lphrey
