YORK HIGH NEIGHBORHOOD

COMMITTEE, JANET HODGE, FRED

HODGE, PATRICIA BENNETT, DAVID

BENNETT, SHEILA TRANT, MIKE TRANT,

JOE VOSICKY, JEAN CONROY, PETER

CONROY, FRANK SOLDANO, JOSEPH

REAMER, ELIZABETH LALIBERTE, and

CHARLES LALIBERTE,

Complainants,

)

v .

)

PCB 05-93

DISTRICT 205,

)

Respondent.

)

ELMHURST PUBLIC SCHOOLS,

TO: SEE ATTACHED LIST

NOTICE OF FILING

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on the

,.7 7

i

day of July, 2006, the undersigned

caused to be filed with the Illinois Pollution Control Board, James R

. Thompson Building, 100

West Randolph Street, Suite 11-500, Chicago, Illinois 60601, Complainants' Rule 216

Admission of Fact and Admission of Genuineness of Documents in the above captioned matter,

a copy of which is hereby served upon you .

Joseph

sicky, Jr .

PROOF OF SERVICE

The undersigned, being first duly sworn, on oath deposes and states that a true and

accurate c2py of the foregoing Notice of Filing with documents was served by depositing on the

02 71

- day of July, 2006, in the U.S

. Mail at Chicago, Illinois with the proper first class

postage prepaid, addressed as

shown above; under penalties as provided by law pursuant to 735

ILLS 5/1-109 I certify that the statements set forth in this instrument are true and correct, except

as

to matters therein stated to be on information and belief and as to such matters the

undersigned certifies as

aforesaid that he verily believes the same to be true .

Joseph Vosicky, Jr .

Joseph F. Vosicky, Jr., pro se

345 Elm Park Ave .

Elmhurst, IL 60126

(630)530-1542

ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

(Citizens Enforcement - Noise)

RECEIVED

JUL 2 7 2006

Pollution

STATE OF

Control

ILLINOIS

Board

---

J.

Todd Faulkner

Franczek Sullivan P .C.

300 South Wacker Drive, Suite 3400

Chicago, IL 60606

Patricia and David Bennett

346 Elm Park

Elmhurst, IL 60126

Joe Vosicky

345 Elm Park

Elmhurst, IL 60126

Frank Soldano

446 Elm Park

Elmhurst, IL 60126

Elizabeth and Charles Laliberte

481 Alma

Elmhurst, IL 60126

Dr

. Lynn Krizic, Supt .

Elmhurst Public Schools

130 West Madison Street

Elmhurst, IL 60126-4838

SERVICE LIST

Janet and Fred Hodge

435 Elm Park

Elmhurst, IL 60126

Sheila and Mike Trant

251 Berkley

Elmhurst, IL 60126

Jean and Peter Conroy

448 Elm Park

Elmhurst, IL 60126

Joseph Reamer

215 Fairview

Elmhurst, IL 60126

David Bennett

222 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2400

Chicago, IL 60601

---

YORK HIGH NEIGHBORHOOD

COMMITTEE, JANET HODGE, FRED

HODGE, PATRICIA BENNETT, DAVID

BENNETT, SHEILA TRANT, MIKE TRANT,

JOE VOSICKY, JEAN CONROY, PETER

CONROY, FRANK SOLDANO, JOSEPH

REAMER, ELIZABETH LALIBERTE, and

CHARLES LALIBERTE,

ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

Complainants,

)

v.

)

PCB 05-93

ELMHURST PUBLIC SCHOOLS,

)

DISTRICT 205,

)

Respondent .

)

(Citizens Enforcement - Noise)

RECEIVED

CLERK'S OFFICE

JUL 212006

Pollut

on

OF

Board

RULE 216

ADMISSION OF FACT AND

ADMISSION OF GENUINENESS OF DOCUMENTS

Complainants, YORK HIGH NEIGHBORHOOD COMMITTEE, and the individual

Complainants, pursuant to the Rules and Procedures of the Illinois Pollution Control Board and

Illinois Supreme Court Rule 216, propound the following requests for admission of facts and for

admissions of the genuineness of certain documents

:

1 .

Wight & Co

. is an architectural firm which contracted with ELMHURST PUBLIC

SCHOOLS, DISTRICT

205,

for the purpose of remodeling and reconstructing York

Community High School

.

2 .

Shen, Milsom & Wilke, Inc

. are professional technology consultants in acoustics

.

3 .

Shen, Milsom & Wilke, Inc

. "conducted field measurements of ambient noise levels

in the vicinity of York Community High School in Elmhurst, Illinois in order to

assess the acoustical impact of rooftop mechanical equipment on neighboring

residential communities" on or about August

23, 2002

and made a written report of

their findings and recommended noise mitigation options to Wight & Co

. on

September 11, 2002 .

---

4.

A true and accurate copy of Shen, Milsom & Wilke, Inc .'s report to Wight & Co.

dated September 11, 2002 is attached hereto as Exhibit "A" .

5 .

Shen, Milsom & Wilke, Inc . conducted noise measurements at seven (7) different

positions as noted on a site plan attached to their September 11, 2002 letter report as

an Appendix which "Noise Level [readings] with Rooftop Equipment On" measured

in A-weighted sound pressure levels, in order to simulate the response of the human

ear expressed in units of decibels (dBA), revealed varying sound levels from 48 dBA

to 75 dBA.

6.

Shen, Milsom & Wilke, Inc .'s September 11, 2002 report determined that "in order

for residences to not be readily aware of the noise emissions from the equipment, that

the noise mitigation for the equipment will need to reduce background noise levels

at the residential property line at night to the minimum ambient noise level in . . . the

40 to 43 dBA range."

7.

Based on their field measurements of August 23, 2002, Shen, Milsom & Wilke, Inc .

determined that "it will be necessary to provide noise mitigation for the cooling

towers as well as the exhaust fans in order to reduce noise levels at the residences

[positions 1-7] to acceptable levels ."

8.

That as of July 13, 2006, during the telephonic conference conducted by Bradley P .

Halloran, Hearing Officer of the Illinois Pollution Control Board, Todd Faulkner,

attorney for the Respondent, ELMHURST PUBLIC SCHOOLS, DISTRICT 205,

represented that the level of noise emissions from the equipment is still out of

compliance .

Respectfully submitted,

York High Neighborhood Committee

and Individual Complainants

David E . Bennet, pro se

Jbs'eph F . Vosicky, Jr ., pro se

---

September 11, 2002

Mr

. Scott Flanagan

Wight & Co .

814 Ogden Avenue

Downers Grove, IL 60515

Re:

York Community High School

Rooftop Mechaakal Equipment

Exterior N be Evaluation

Dear Scott ;

We have conducted field measurements of ambient

ise levels in the vicinity of

York Community High School in Elmhurst, IL in o

r to assess the acoustical

impact of rooftop mechanical equipment on neighbor ng residential communities

.

This

document contains the results of our site survey and offers our comments

and recommendations on proposed options for midge ing noise emissions from

the rooftop equipment .

Existing Conditions

During our site visit conducted on Friday OB .23-02, a

rooftop mechanical equipment located on the north

high school was undertaken

. We noted that equipme

induced draft cooling towers and two (2) MX Plant

science laboratory exhaust fans

. The cooling towers

center of the roof with one of the exhaust fate situat

towers. The other exhaust fan is located slightly nosh

closer to the west side of the roof. The new building

residential homes along the entire north and west sidt of the building .

It is our understanding that when this equipment is I

complaints from the neighboring residences to the

that noise emissions from the equipment are audible

ow understanding that the town of Elmhurst curtail

ordinance that dictates maximum allowable sound p

in decibels. at residentisl property lines or other zon

YEW YO11a • HONE

. Writ • WAsi fNCTfW, nC

• CHtC.4C0 • SAN

Pas

1

r flash Alver*4 Plat, Sw11n 14M

fhkgw,11 .606t

i

I

M

Shent&Wilke,lsom

itrc

epg scsd WSw1e1 W Iw.a$nofltrtae pea

(112) S,S9-{SNS ran (S12) SS9 •S Y9 :4

,,-mwl1 :Ihi.I.waI td .MMwinna+Nn

physical inspection of

d of the new wing of the

it consisted of three (3) BAC

s Corporation AXIJET-S

arc located at the north

A In between two of the

of the cooling towers and

a located adjacent to

operation, there have been

rth Bind west of the building

a disturbance. It is also

has no applicable noise

sure level values, measured

g adjacencies.

CISCO • PKPNCVVON

• OENVNN •

HOU8l0N

---

Septttnber t l, 2002

Mr, Scott Flanaaan

Pase

1

n•

YorkCotneatnitvtiithSchool-ROOM Mechanical44114

EuouiotNoicEvahu~ion

wisae A Co.

Survey Procedure

In order to quantify the current conditions, an instrum

ambient sound pressure levels was conducted

at vari

high school building and near adjacent residences

. N

conducted at 7 diflerent positions as noted

in the attach

Appendix. Each

measurement was conducted for tong

intervals in order to capture the average short tam son

various environmental conditions noted in the table be

of these positions were

conducted with the rooftop equ p rent in operation and

with the equipment turned off in order to assess the

residences

. We should point out that most of the mess

tamed off were documented to attempt to best repres

levels in the area (i

.e

. minimal to no vehicular traffic o

order to capture the wont case condition where the

most noticeable to residential occupants

. Other back

depicting extraneous neighborhood activity were also

vehicular traffic, etc.)

For reference, the human ear does not perceive so

same manner as those

at higher frequencies (i .e., so

seem as loud as those of equal intensity at higher fro

A-weighting network is provided in sound analysis s

response of the human ear . A-weighted sound level

decibels

(dB). These levels in dB are used by the en

damage risk and community annoyance impact . Th

federal, state, and local noise ordinances

. The

sym

used to denote A-weighted sound levels. Based on

that noise levels for this analysis would be meas

pressure levels (d8A).

Survey Results

The table below summarizes the results of our nois survey at the various

positions noted in the Appendix

. As is noted above a number of measurement

In a residential neighborhood such as this, backgrounc

fluctuate over time with daytime noise levels typicall)

increased vehicular traffic activity and other events,

noise levels are usually quitter due to less activity

.

24 to 48 hour period to measure statistical noise data

fluctuations in sound pressure levels over time would

infonnation on the 'quietest' noise levels in these are

check' survey that was conducted as part of this ant sis will still give some

indication of the perceived impact of rooftop mechan cal equipment on the

residences

survey y to record

locations near the new

measurements were

site plan in the

ly 10 to 15 second

d pressure levels due to

w. Measurements at each

ustical impact at the

rements with equipment

t the 'quietest' ambient

other extraneous noise) in

top equipment would be

and noise measurements

en (i.e. aircraft flyovers,

noise levels tend to

being higher due to

le nighttime background

instrumented survey for a

at would document

rovide more definitive

s. However, the 'spot

at low frequencies in the

ds at low

frequency do not

uencies)

. Thus, the

ems to simulate the

are expressed in units of

ear to evaluate hearing

o

values are also used in

I dB(A) or dBA are typically

's fact, it was determined

in A-weighted sound

Shen Milsom & Wilke, Inc

.

---

Wlsht & Co.

September 11, 2002

Mr

. Scott Flansgan

Page 3

Ievents

re

: York

involved

Communlw

some

Hish

extraneous

School-Rooftop

noise

Mechanical

sources coeurttg

Eau®trifat

in

Exterior

the vicinity

Noise Evaluation

which

have been documented accordingly

.

Ambient Noise Levels At

Various

Positions Near Yor c Gamunity High School

Decibel Values

Reported in A-Weighted Sound Pressure Levels (rot 20pPs)

In reviewing the survey

data, it can be seen that the cunitein ambient noise frvels

at the

wrresidential tooareas

p equipmentadjacent

to

in

the

operanew tonbuilding

. iswas

d d increase

moat c ear

by

y

as

noticeable

mu

bas-89at

an

positions

increase

closer

of 10

to

d8A

the

would

rooftop

subjectively

equipment

be

(positions

perceiv eel

"s, 3,

as

5,

a doubling

and 6). For

of the

reference,

yielded

overall noise

a 1-4

level

dBA difference

in a respective

in noise

area

level

. Measuremen

with the

a

units

at positions

turned on

I

and

and

off

4

.

only

This

would be perceived as a just noticeable increase in nt ise level with the units on .

Measurements at position 7 did not indicate any char go in ambient noise level ue

to the fact that construction vehicles were in operation at the north end ofthe

position

activitybuilding

equipment

.

which

5

operating

or 6

unfortunately

would

conditionsbe

perceived

tended

. However,

here

to cover

during

we

or

expect

mantimes :

that

any

of

similar

minimal

change due

conditions

communityto

the

to

noiseBased

reduce

on

rnitipation

noise

the

levels

results

for

at

of

thethe

this

cooling

residencessurvey,towerswein

believe

as

uestlon

wellthat

as

totheit

.

willcxltauatbe necessary

.iynstocider

to provideto

to le rev

is no applicable noise ordinance at dictates mnim.im allowable decibel

Since

levels

thereat

Shot Milsom & Wilke, Inc

.

Posidonlost

Test Condition

Noise

Rooftop

O∎ (dBA)Level

tgnipmestWith

Off

Noise

Rooftop

(d8A)

Level

EquipmentWith

1

Aircraft Noise

75

NA

I

No Aircratt Noise

48

47

2

_

Garbage

with

operating

equipmentTruck

onlyNoise

52

43

3

extraneous

No significantnoiseambient

52

44

4

extraneous

No significantnoiseambient

49

44

5

extraneous

No significantnoiseambient

51

43

6

extraneous

No significantnoiseambient

52

45

7

Construction Noise

55

;

55

---

Wight Io Co .

September 11 .

. 2002

Mt

. Scott Planagae

age 4

cc

residential

york Community

property

Hithlines,

Schnnl

we

-

believ

Rnnllep

Medhankat Eeufomsot ktcriwr Noise Evaluation

for

-

done

aware

ofthe

noise

emissions It

Ont,4bthe

noise mitigation for the

,iiipment

tvtti neat

c

background

noise levels

ttfth~Ua~et>

the at UIPT

to the m

nop3

tent noise level in dr

anal-wc

assume rooftop

m n wou

a operating uring evening and nighttime hours)

. Based on

our survey results, we expect this will need to be in th 40 to 43 dBA range

.

Noise Mitigation Options

In reviewing the mechanical and acoustic performan" data for the rooftop

equipment as provided by the manufacturers, it was d aermined that the majority

of the noise transmitting to the neighboring residence

; was due to the cooling

towers

. Although measurements with the exhaust fins running only was not

possible during our survey, from our review and analysis of published sound

ratings

. we anticipate that they white they are not the Sominent contributing factor

to the noise issue, they also will require noise mitigat on treatment to meet the

suggested levels noted above at the residences

.

In order to achieve appropriate cooling tower noise

era in the vicinity of the

central plant, with towers, running at full capacity we recommend the following

noise mitigation treatment in order to attempt to appnach the estimated nighttime

ambient noise level

;

1 .

Provide sound attenuator sections at t

the cooling tower

. We should caution

sound attenuator sections for an indu

difficult duo to static pressure drop co

propeller fans at the top

. The followis

e air intake and discharge of

that providing effective

draft tower is

often

siderations with the

g presents some options

:

a

. BAC offers a low noise sound attenuation package that

incorporates air intake

or discharge sound

attenuetors to reduce fan ise and

open water fall

noise

. We have reviewed a sound attenuation

packages offered by BAC d believe that the option

utilizing both intake and

huge sound attenuation

will provide a noticeable

ction In noise levels at the

residences . Based on our

aiysis. we calculate that

background noise levels ould be in the 45 dBA range

withthis sound attenuatio package . This would mean

that with this option alone

under the expected quietest

conditions at the residenc a, cooling town noise would

be slightly above ambien noise levels In the area .

b

. Provide cone eatcnsions . fen discharge. This will

serve to provide better si flow conditions, further

orient fan noise upward, and thus provide some noise

reduction at street I I I atiobe

. However, air intake

Shen Milsom & Wilke, Inc

.

---

Wight

4c Co.

September 11 . 2002

Mr

. Scott Ftenspn

Page S

c

: Ymli Con nuoity High School

-Rootboo Mechanical Eouioment

ExteriorNoise

Evaluation

noise will still have to be addressed through using the

SAC package for

intake only sound attenuation

.

Background noise levels at the residences would be in

the 45 dBA range as well

.

2.

Although the sound attenuation options offered above will result in

a noticeable reduction in noise level

from the

cooling towers, there

would still be the

possibility

that complaints tram residences could

occur since the noise level would not fail below tbe

.expected

lowest ambient

noise Level in the neighborhood . Additional noise

mitigation treatment may be necessary to meet the estimated

nighttime ambient noise levels at the residences

. An additional

option for noise mitigation would be to provide a solid sound

barrier wall for the north and west sides of the cooling towers . The

wall should be located as close to the cooling towers as possible

(minimum required distance for maintenance clearance, etc .) and

extend to the height of the towers

. The walls would

need to be

constructed of a solid material with

sufficient

mace to reduce noise

transmission such

as a masonry wall or insulated metal panels

.

For thiss application, we offer the option of providing insulated

acoustical metal panels for the sound barrier wall, as all details

(termination, intersections, etc.) are part of the, package and

represent good acoustical design and installation practice

.

Manufacturers of such products are :

Industrial Acoustics Company : 'Moduline' Panels

Local Rep : The Huff Company 847-362-7449

United McGill ; 'Soundscreen' Panels

614-882-5455

The pricing, availability, and installation issues for the

prefabricated products are best addressed directly with the

manufacturer and/or their local

representative . The panels can also

be constructed by a sheetmetal shop and installed by a general

contractor, however, installation and coordination details would

have to be similar to the prefabricated and . 'pre-detailed' products .

An outline specification for the panels can be provided

.

3.

Variable frequency drive for fans should be used for noise control

purposescapacity, .

such

During

as during

times when

nighttime

towers

hours,

are not

operating

required

the

to

fans

run

atat

full

tower speeds will servo to reduce noise levels to some degree

.

This could translate into loss aggressive noise mitigation treatment

than was recommended above if the noise levels from the tower

fans at lower capacities is reduced noticeably

. However, we

Shen Milsorn & Wilke, Inc

.

---

-e

wipe & Co.

Septembet 11, 2002

Mr

. Scott Fbnagan

Page 6

le

: York Comtousity

caution

Hiah

that

School-Rooftop

this option

Mechanical

only gives

tauipmeat

better control

Exterior

over

"to

the

Evaluationsituation

and may not apply to all cases since towers may still have to run at

Ml capacity some of the time

.

For the exhaust fan that is located at the northwest end of the roof, we offer the

following suggestions for noise mitigation

:

L

provide the most effective sound attenuation available from the

rnanufact uer

. Based on past experience, discharge sound

attenuation is the main option available from manufacturers of this

type of exhaust do and would only partially mitigate noise

transmission to the residences .

2.

The only other method of mitigating noise emissions from this fan

would be to provide a local barrier wily enclosum for the fan that

extended at tact

to the top edge of the

fan (with packaged sound

attenuation option*1) and be constructed of similar materials as

was described above for the cooling towers .

We hope you will fund the above information useful. We are available to review

these options with your office and the school representatives

. Should there be any

questions or comments, do not hesitate to call.

Very Truly Yours,

Shea Milsom & Wilke, Inc.

Erik 7

. Ryerson

Associate

902467

cc

:

Patricia Surarow

-

Elmhurst Community District 205

Shen Milsom

&

Wilke, Inc.

---