1

ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

July 20, 2006

Proposed Rule. First Notice.

ORDER OF THE BOARD (by T.E. Johnson):

On October 20, 2005, the Board received a rulemaking proposal submitted by Vaughan & Bushnell Manufacturing Company (V&B) pursuant to Section 27 of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act (Act) (415 ILCS 5/27 (2004)). V&B seeks a site-specific rule amending a previously promulgated site-specific noise rule that would extend the allowable operational levels of its forging facility located at the intersection of Davis and Main Streets, Bushnell in McDonough County. On March 7, 2006, a hearing was held at City Hall, 138 Hail Street, Bushnell.   

By today’s action the Board adopts the proposed amendments for the purpose of first notice, pursuant to the Illinois Administrative Procedure Act (5 ILCS 100/1-1). The proposal will be published in the Illinois Register whereupon a 45-day public comment period will begin during which interested persons may file additional public comments with the Board.

BACKGROUND

V&B manufactures striking tools, and owns and operates a forging shop built in 1940 in Bushnell (facility). Pet. at 1,6. The facility consists of ten drop hammers capable of producing up to 2,500 lbs. of force in the production of striking tools. Pet. at 1. The facility is V&B’s primary production facility, and is located in an area of Bushnell that is primarily industrial. Pet. at 1-2. V&B is the largest employer in Bushnell, currently employing 230 people. Pet. at 6.

V&B asserts that currently the land uses in the immediate area, in addition to industrial, are agricultural, residential, rail transportation and vacant land. Pet. at 2. V&B asserts that because the facility has received a site-specific rule with regard to sound emissions, the Board’s noise regulation have generally not been applicable. Id. V&B contends that it is seeking an amendment to the previously promulgated rule that will establish a twenty-four hour period of operation. Id. V&B proposes that the site-specific rule amend the current rule at 35 Ill. Adm. Code 901.121. Pet. at 2-3.

In its statement of reasons, V&B asserts that the predominate industrial character of the area surrounding the facility creates heavy truck, vehicle and train traffic that combine to create an abundance of noise far in excess of the noise created by V&B at the facility. Pet. at 5. V&B asserts that due to the substantial heat created during the forging process, the facility requires extensive ventilation provided by a process called “natural cooling” in which doors to the outside are opened. Pet. at 7. V&B contends that sound emission is a consequence of the forging industry, and that although there have been advances in technology, such changes have not adequately replaced the “natural cooling” system that most forging shops utilize. Pet. at 8.

V&B asserts that placing sound barriers around the facility would have the side effect of reducing the air flow needed for the “natural cooling” of the shop, and that ventilation systems placed in or around the furnaces cost upwards of $500,000 each and would not permit the complete closure of the side openings, as fresh air must be permitted to enter the shop. Pet. at 8. V&B argues that technological advances in the forging industry have not created an economically reasonable alternative to the “natural cooling” system used by most forging shops and that neither sound barriers nor ventilation systems are economically reasonable. Pet. at 8,10.

V&B asserts that the facility complies with the applicable Board sound emission standards and limitations and that it does not, therefore, have an adverse environmental impact on the area. Pet. at 10.

Section 901.121  Vaughan & Bushnell Operational Level

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:

MARCH 7, 2006 HEARING

On March 7, 2006, a hearing was held in this matter at City Hall, 138 Hail Street, Bushnell, McDonough County. Jeremy M. Pelphrey appeared and participated on behalf of the petitioners. Mark V. Gurnik appeared and participated on behalf of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency). Many members of the public attended the hearing, with 12 providing public comment.

At the hearing, Dan Chambers, Butch Morning, and Mike Havens submitted written and oral testimony for V&B. The Agency did not provide any testimony. The transcript was received at the Board on March 15, 2006. Public comments were due on or before April 17, 2006. V&B timely filed a post-hearing comment.

V&B’s Testimony

Dan Chambers

Chambers is the manager of quality assurance for V&B. Tr. at 14. He testified that the company was incorporated in 1892 and began supplying hammers to Sears & Roebuck in 1897. Tr. at 15. Chambers stated that at the Bushnell facility, the company produces hammers, hatchets, heavy striking tools, and pry bars. Id. Chambers described the process at the facility. The bar steel is purchased and cut to length. The steel is heated to 2100 – 2200 degrees and placed in between two dyes before it is drop-forged to make the shape of the hammer. The drop forge process takes between five to eight blows ,depending on the size of the drop hammer and the size of the steel. After the forging operation, the hammerheads are ground, heated, inspected, and polished before being painted, re-polished and brand-stamped. Tr. at 15.

Chambers testified that V&B has approximately 263 employees, and is the largest employer in Bushnell, a town of approximately 3,300 people. Tr. at 16. V&B has a gross annual payroll of 8.4 million dollars and paid the city of Bushnell $137,000,000 last year for water, gas and electricity, as well as $39,000 in property taxes. Id.  

Chambers testified that V&B produces between 13,000 and 15,000 pieces a day, with orders increasing by approximately 15 percent last year. Tr. at 17. V&B is penalized if they do not ship on time by some buyers, while other buyers – such as Lowe’s and Home Depot – have policies that require V&B to cancel the order if it cannot be filled promptly. Id. Chambers asserted that if a particular item is canceled too often, it is dropped from the store. Id. Chambers testified that to keep up with demand, V&B must increase the amount of hammers it produces. Id. Currently, he stated, V&B has ten drop hammers that run two shifts. Adding another drop hammer would require the construction of an additional building that would be very costly. Tr. at 18. Chambers testified that it was determined in November that to meet the demand for orders, V&B had to add a third shift in the forge shop. Id. A third shift was added at that time, and the company has added 30 employees. Id. Chambers testified that V&B has not received any complaints since it added the third shift. Tr. at 19, 21.

Back to top

Butch Mourning

 Mourning is the process engineer for V&B. Tr. at 28. Mourning testified that V&B is located directly across the railroad tracks from Archer Daniels. Tr. at 29. Mourning testified that it’s 300 feet from the forge area to the first residence. Tr. at 34. He testified that the forge shop itself is where the drop hammers are located and is 118 feet by 77 feet. Tr. at 38. Each drop hammer is part of a unit also containing a furnace and a press. Id. He testified that the majority of the scrap goes out the east door that is located no more than 12 feet from Main Street. Tr. at 42. Mourning testified that the door is opened and closed very often, and in the summer is also used for ventilation. Id. He testified that only the doors opening to the east and the south open to the outside, whereas the remaining doors lead to the interior of other buildings. Tr. at 45.

 Mourning testified that the hammers are installed according to manufacturer’s recommendation to minimize vibration and noise, and are also covered with sound dampening material including one to two inches of fabrica, a dense rubber-type material designed to absorb noise and vibration. Tr. at 47. V&B does not have any spray-on foam material on the walls because of the heat . Tr. at 48. He testified that V&B cannot build a berm around the site because they are very close to the street and such a berm would leave no room to get material in and out. Tr. at 51.

Mourning stated that the noise is created from the dropping of the hammer, and that the number of blows necessary for each piece of material varies, depending on the amount of steel that needs to be moved. Tr. at 55-56. He characterized the noise as not a constant, but an impact type noise. Tr. at 56. Mourning testified that fresh air is necessary because of the intense heat. Tr. at 57. He testified that it would cost an estimated $994,000 to seal up the building and install the necessary ventilation system, and even then, it would be necessary to open and close the door for getting scrap in and out of the building. Tr. at 60.

Mourning testified that it would not be feasible to install removable sound barriers in light of the number of times V&B employees go in and out of the door per day. Tr. at 63. He further testified that it is not feasible to move raw material in and out through any of the interior openings in the forge shop. Tr. at 64. Mourning testified that it is possible to forge with a forging press that would be quieter than a drop hammer, but that the cost of the equipment goes up tremendously. Tr. at 65. He testified that just one press alone would cost well over $850,000 which does not include the associated trim press and other necessary items. Tr. at 66. He testified that V&B has approximately 75,000 impacts per 24-hour shift. Tr. at 69.

Mourning testified that he was not directly involved in the study prepared by the Forging Industry Educational Research Foundation in 1977 that found it was not economically reasonable or technically feasible to have sound control at V&B. Tr. at 72. He did state that no similar studies have been conducted since that time. Tr. at 73. He testified that operations at the forge shop have not significantly changed since 1977, the only difference being that more parts per hour are being produced. Id. He testified that the surrounding neighborhood has become less residential since that time. Tr. at 76.

Mike Havens

Havens is a process engineer for V&B. Tr. at 77. He testified that the facility is primarily in an industrial area of Bushnell. Tr. at 78. In 2005, Havens performed several sound tests to determine the effects of adding a third shift to areas surrounding the forge shop. Tr. at 79. On July 13, 2005 and September 1, 2005, sound levels were taken with a sound meter. Id. Havens is not an expert on sound-gathering. Id. Havens used the meter to record the maximum reading at each location and identified the source of the noise. Tr. at 80. He checked the houses closes to the facility. Id. He testified that in many areas the main source of noise was not from V&B. Id.  

On July 13, 2005, he took measurements with the forge shop not running, and on September 1, 2005, he took varying measurements with the forge shop running about nine hammers and not running. TR. at 84. Havens testified that he has not received any complaints from the public regarding sound levels or noise pollution at the facility. Tr. at 88.

PUBLIC COMMENTS

 A number of public comments were received at the hearing. V&B also filed a written public comment on May 30, 2006. The Board will first summarize the public comments received at hearing, and then address V&B’s written comment.

Public Comments Made at Hearing

The mayor of Bushnell Steve Russell testified that approximately 45 trains per day come through Bushnell. Tr. at 97. He testified that the noise from the trains definitely impacts Bushnell, especially in the Spring when the windows are open, and that the trains run at night as well as the day. Tr. at 99. He testified that the city of Bushnell has a big demand for jobs. Tr. at 100. He stated that he and the Bushnell city council unanimously were in favor of the request of V&B to increase their hours to meet demand for their products. Id. He testified that he has had no complaints about the plant during his time as alderman and mayor – three years. Tr. at 101.

 Steve Holland is the president of the Bushnell Economic Development Corporation, and has been the city attorney for 30 years. Tr. at 102. He testified that there is no zoning in Bushnell, but that the location of the facility is primarily manufacturing. Tr. at 103. He testified that the trains have a far bigger negative impact than V&B would ever have. He testified that the Development Corporation totally supports the request of V&B and noted that it is important that V&B continues to be a part of the community. Id. Holland stated that he can recall no complaints regarding V&B’s facility. Tr. at 104.

Richard P. Myers is the State Representative for the 94th legislative district. Tr. at 104. He testified that he has represented the residents of Bushnell for 12 years and supports the proposal of V&B. Tr. at 104-05. He feels that V&B is an integral part of the economy of Bushnell, McDonough County and the entire region. Tr. at 105. He testified that in the 12 years he has represented the district, he has had numerous complaints concerning noise and air pollution, but never once has he received any complaints from anybody in Bushnell regarding V&B. Tr. at 107.

Michael Steelman is the Chairman and Chief Executive Officer for Farmers & Merchants Bank of Bushnell. Tr. at 108. He is also the secretary and director of the Bushnell Economic Development Corporation, and has lived in Bushnell since 1955. Id. He testified that the bank is located three blocks from the facility. Id. He stated that the economic well being of V&B is central to the city of Bushnell, and that the city has a unique mix of commercial and retail businesses all within a six-block area of downtown. Tr. at 109. He testified that the manufacturing plants have always been located in the downtown area and that the city has no applicable zoning laws. Id. He testified that the bank and the development corporation fully support the proposal. Tr. at 110.

Don Swartzbaugh is the president of the Bushnell Chamber of Commerce. Tr. at 111. He testified that the Chamber fully supports the proposal. Id. Daniel Roberts is a resident of Bushnell, and he has lived at 123 South Dean Street that is less than one block southwest from the facility for 18 years – marked as location 8 on Exhibit C to the proposal. Tr. at 111-12. He testified that he had not noticed any additional hammer activity even though V&B had been running the third shift for weeks. Tr. at 112. He testified that he has no objection and the facility doesn’t impact him at all. Id. Mike Howell is a Bushnell city alderman, and is employed by V&B. Tr. at 113. He testified that V&B has always been a good partner with Bushnell, and he supports the proposal. Id.  

 Justin Hood lives on the corner of Davis and Dean, across the street to the north of the facility – marked as location 3 on Exhibit C to the proposal. Tr. at 114. He has a family of four and has resided at the house for over five years. Id. He testified that there has been no noticeable difference in the running of the hammers since V&B has gone to a third shift. Id. He testified that there is not any excessive noise that comes from the forgings and there are plenty of other sources of noise in the area. Tr. at 115.

 Ron Miller is an employee of V&B. Tr. at 116. He testified that shutting down the furnaces for four or five hours only to restart them prior to the next shift is inefficient and would make V&B less competitive. Tr. at 117-18. Dave Norton is a Bushnell City Alderman. Tr. at 121. He has a place of business two blocks from the facility. Tr. at 122. He testified that as he sits in his office the light fixtures and windows rattle as the trains go through, but that he never hears V&B’s hammers. Id.  

 Merlin Evans lives one block northwest of the facility – across the street from location 2 on Exhibit C to the proposal – and has lived there for 16 years. Tr. at 122. He testified that the trains are the worst, and that he can feel the vibration of the noise from Norforge, but never from V&B. Tr. at 123. Bill Cameron testified that has lived in the area for over 30 years and has never had any problems with any noise from the drop hammering. Tr. at 124.

V&B’s Post Hearing Comment

V&B filed a post-hearing comment that addressed issues raised by the Board at hearing and provided additional argument on the proper avenue of relief. V&B provides a detailed summary of the testimony much of which the Board has noted above. The Board will summarize only those portions of V&B’s post-hearing comment not already addressed previously in this order.

V&B notes that Havens testified that he was only able to identify one point during his sound level survey in which the sound emitted from the facility was in excess of the current regulations promulgated by the Board, and that point of testing was immediately outside the large door of the facility when the door was open to transfer raw material into the shop. PC at 7. V&B assert there are no residences in that area. Id.  

V&B argues that based on the testimony elicited at hearing, the community health impact of the proposed change in hours of operation will be, at most, negligible, while the economic benefit to the city that will result from granting the proposed change would be far greater. PC at 10.

V&B argues that sound emission is an unavoidable consequence of the forging industry, and that technology in the area of sound dampening have not adequately replaced the “natural cooling” system most forging shops currently utilize. PC at 11. V&B asserts that though it might be possible in some situations to install sound barriers in front of the facility’s openings, the amount of sound actually dampened or reduced would be minimal when compared with the side effects of decreased cooling which results in unsafe conditions for the workers and greatly lowered production. Id. Additionally, V&B contends, due to the location of the facility, such sound barriers would cross city sidewalks and streets and block pedestrian and vehicle traffic making them technically infeasible. Id.  

V&B acknowledges that the ventilation systems discussed at hearing would keep the facility cooler and allow the side openings to be closed for longer periods of time, thereby reducing the duration of sound emissions. PC at 11. However, V&B contends that the ventilation systems cost upwards of $1,000,000 and would not permit the complete closure of the side openings as fresh air must still be allowed in the shop so that even though some reduction in sound emissions may result, the cost of the ventilation systems far outweighs the benefits making them economically unreasonable. PC at 12.

V&B agrees that the record of its previous petition for site-specific rulemaking (R83-32, Vaughn & Bushnell Manufacturing Petition for a Site-Specific Operational Level Pursuant to 35 Ill. Adm. Code 901 105(d)) should be incorporated into the record of this proceeding as it provides additional proof that the community impact of the proposed rulemaking is slight and that the original rule creates limitations that are no longer economically reasonable or technically feasible for V&B. PC at 12-13. V&B notes that in R83-32 it was asserted that approximately 50 residences would potentially be exposed to sound levels in excess of those allowed by Board rule, but that most of these residences no longer exist due to the increasing industrial nature of the facility’s location. Id. V&B asserts that only a handful of residences, all more than 300 feet from the facility, may be exposed to sound levels in excess of those allowed by the regulations. Id.  

V&B asserts that the sound level survey indicates that the area immediately surrounding the facility will be exposed to noise levels of approximately 55 decibels during the proposed four and one-half hours of additional operation proposed. PC at 14. V&B argues that for reasons consistent with those found in R83-32, such a sound level would have almost no perceivable impact on the public. Id. V&B asserts that they have demonstrated the requested relief is necessary and warranted, and the consequences to the community slight, primarily due to noise already present in the area. PC at 15-16.

DISCUSSION

The Board may adopt regulations specific to individual persons or sites. In promulgating regulations under the Act, the Board shall take into consideration the physical conditions and character of the surrounding areas, including the character of surrounding land uses, zoning classifications, as well as the technical feasibility and economic reasonableness of reducing the particular type of pollution. See 415 ILCS 5/27 (2004).

 V&B seeks a site-specific rule amending a previously promulgated site-specific noise rule that would extend the allowable operational levels at its facility. The Agency did not file any post-hearing comments, and did not object to the proposal at hearing.

 The Board finds that V&B has presented information indicating that adoption of the proposed site-specific rule for the purposes of first notice is warranted.

In considering the character of the surrounding areas and land uses, the Board finds that V&B is appropriately located. Although the city of Bushnell does not have zoning classifications, the record shows the area in question to be heavily industrial in nature. In addition, Bushnell has heavy train traffic, with as many as 45 trains coming through the city during each 24-hour period. The area surrounding the facility is replete with ambient and extraneous noise to the extent that the extraneous noise masks the noise emitted from the facility in most, if not all, of the locations in the surrounding area. A number of city residents testified that the trains constituted the major source of noise in the area, and no resident testified that the noise from V&B’s facility created any negative impact.

The Board incorporated the record of R83-32 into this record at hearing. In R83-32, V&B presented a noise study finding that there would be no adverse effect to the land-use surrounding the facility, or the residences therein, from a sound emission of 63 decibels during the hours of 6:30 a.m. to 1:30 a.m. The record in the instant case reveals that not only are sound emissions of 63 decibels not emitted from the facility, but that the number of residences possibly affected by any emission from the facility has drastically lessened since 1983.

The Board finds that the installation of noise a batement equipment to dampen the sounds from the facility would not be economically reasonable or technically feasible. The record shows that sound barriers would not be effective because of the continual need for ventilation and to bring raw materials in and out of the shop. Further, due to the location of the facility, such sound barriers would necessarily have to be placed over sidewalks and streets. A ventilation system might eliminate the need to keep the doors open for air flow, but would not alter the fact that the doors would need to be continually utilized throughout the day to bring material in and out of the shop, thus minimizing any noise reduction benefits. V&B presented evidence showing the installation of a ventilation system would not be economically reasonable. Thus, any additional noise abatement at the facility would be costly and not likely to result in a significant reduction in noise emissions.

The Board finds that the change in hours of operation proposed by V&B for its facility is reasonable. The change is fully supported by the noise studies and evidence contained in the record. In addition, V&B has presented evidence regarding the character of the surrounding land area and land use highlighting the minimal impact that noise emissions from the V&B facility causes.

However, the Board has modified the language proposed by V&B to accomplish its objective. This modification by the Board does not alter the substance of the proposed regulation, but is merely an attempt to provide more clarity. V&B proposes that it comply with the following site-specific operational level:

The Board will modify the language to read that V&B must comply with the following site-specific operational level:

Back to top

CONCLUSION

 Based on the record developed to date in this matter, the Board finds that adoption of the proposed site-specific rule for the purposes of first notice is warranted.

Back to top

ORDER

The Board directs the Clerk to cause the filing of the following with the Secretary of State for first-notice publication in the Illinois Register.

Back to top

TITLE 35: ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

Back to top

SUBTITLE H: NOISE

CHAPTER I: POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

PART 901

SOUND EMISSION STANDARDS AND LIMITATIONS FOR PROPERTY LINE-NOISE-SOURCES

AUTHORITY: Implementing Section 25 and authorized by Section 27 of the Environmental Protection Act [415 ILCS 5/25 and 27].

SOURCE: Originally filed as Part 2 of Chapter 8: Noise Pollution, effective August 10, 1973; amended at 2 Ill. Reg. 27, p. 223, effective June 26, 1978; amended at 5 Ill. Reg. 6371, effective June 1, 1981; amended at 5 Ill. Reg. 8533, effective August 10, 1981; amended at 6 Ill. Reg. 10960, effective September 1, 1982; codified at 7 Ill. Reg. 13646; amended at 7 Ill. Reg. 14519, effective October 17, 1983; amended in R83-35 at 8 Ill. Reg. 18893, effective September 25, 1984; amended in R83-33, 26, 29, 30 and R83-34 at 9 Ill. Reg. 1405, effective January 17, 1985; Section 901.105(f)(1), (2) and (3) recodified to Sections 901.110, 901.111 and 901.112 at 9 Ill. Reg. 7147; amended in R83-25, 31 and 32 at 9 Ill. Reg. 7149, effective May 7, 1985; amended in R83-7 at 11 Ill. Reg. 3136, effective January 28, 1987; amended in R04-11, at 28 Ill. Reg. 11910, effective July 30, 2004; amended in R03-9 at 30 Ill. Reg.5533, effective March 10, 2006; amended in R06-11 at 30 Ill. Reg. _______________, effective _____________.

Section 901.121  Vaughan & Bushnell Operational Level

Vaughan & Bushnell Manufacturing Company and the future owners of the forging facility located at the intersection of Davis and Main Streets, Bushnell, Illinois, must comply with the following site-specific operational level:

a)  Operate no more than ten hammers at any one time; and

IT IS SO ORDERED.

I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board, certify that the Board adopted the above order on July 20, 2006, by a vote of 4-0.

Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

Back to top