BEFORE THE
ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
Complainant,
dPIGINAL
RECEIVED
CLERK'S
OFFICE
APR 1 1 2008
STATE OF ILLINOIS
DANIEL J. BEERS,
Pollution Control Board
V S.
?
PCB No. 2004-204
DAVE CALHOUN (LET IT SHINE CAR
WASH),
Respondent.
STIPULATION AND PROPOSAL FOR SETTLEMENT
The Complainant, DANIEL J. BEERS,
pro se,
and the Respondent, LET IT SHINE,
LLC (incorrectly named in the Complaint as DAVE CALHOUN (LET IT SHINE CAR
WASH)), by his attorney, Peter R. Jennetten, have agreed to the making of this Stipulation
and Proposal for Settlement and submit it to the Illinois Pollution Control Board for
approval. The parties agree that the Statement of Facts contained herein represents a fair
summary of the evidence and testimony which would be introduced by the parties if a
hearing were held. The parties further stipulate that the Statement of Facts is made and
agreed upon for purposes of settlement only and that neither the fact that a party has
entered into this Stipulation nor any of the facts stipulated herein shall be introduced into
evidence in any other proceeding regarding the claims asserted in the Complaint except
as otherwise provided herein.
JURISDICTION
The Board has jurisdiction of the subject matter herein and of the parties consenting
hereto pursuant to the Illinois Environmental Protection Act, 415 ILCS 5/1
et seq.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
A. Parties
1.
Let It Shine, LLC owns and operates the Let It Shine Car Wash at 2115 Cherry
Lane, Pekin, Illinois.
2.
Daniel J. Beers owns and resides at 203 Cottage Grove Ave., Pekin, Illinois.
B. Site Description
1.
As initially constructed and at the time of the initial Complaint, the Let It
Shine Car Wash was a concrete block, steel and glass structure with three manual wash
bays and one automatic wash bay. The automatic wash bay includes blowers to dry
vehicles as they exit the wash.
2.
Since the Complaint was filed, one of the manual bays was converted to a dog
wash. This bay is the closest part of the structure to the Beers residence. The automatic
wash bay is the furthest part of the structure from the Beers residence.
3.
The Beers residence is located to the east and uphill from the car wash. They
are adjoining properties.
4.
The car wash is located at the edge of a commercial area within the City of
Pekin, Illinois, as depicted in the photographs attached as Exhibit A.
5.
The Beers residence is located on a residential street adjacent to the
commercial area as depicted in the photographs attached as Exhibit B.
2
,'
1
C. Allegations of Violation
1.?
Daniel J. Beers filed a Formal Complaint (PCB 04-204) alleging excessive noise
in violation of §§23 and 24 of the Act and §900.102 of the Code. The claim pursuant to §23
was stricken by Order of the Board dated July 22, 2004.
EVALUATION BY RETAINED EXPERTS
A. Complainant's Expert, Greg Zak
1.
Greg Zak is a noise consultant retained by the Complainant to evaluate and
give opinions regarding the alleged noise violations.
2.
Mr. Zak was present at the Beers residence on September 23, 2004 and
October 19, 2004. He interviewed Mr. and Mrs. Beers and took some measurements of
noise emanating from the car wash, but he "made no attempt to strictly follow the IPCB
measurement procedures needed to establish a violation under Section 901 of the Board's
noise regulations." Exhibit C (Initial Report of Greg Zak).
3.
A copy of Mr. Zak's report outlining his factual findings and opinions is
attached as Exhibit C.
4.
Mr. Zak opined that there was a nuisance violation of the noise standards.
He further opined that a properly constructed fence breaking line of sight between the car
wash and the Beers residence could provide an effective noise barrier. Exhibit C at 2.
5.
Construction of a fence consistent with Mr. Zak's recommendations would
require a fence up to 16 feet high at some portions of the fence, due to the slope of the Beers
property. This fence would violate City of Pekin zoning requirements and would require
3
a variance prior to construction. Respondent obtained an estimate for construction of the
fence which was slightly over $12,000.
6.?
Mr. Zak also recommended that mufflers be obtained and installed on the
blowers for the automatic wash bay.
B. Respondent's Expert, Paul D. Schomer, Ph.D., P.E.
1.
The Respondent retained Dr. Paul Schomer to evaluate the alleged noise
violations and potential remedies.
2.
Dr. Schomer visited the site twice in 2006 and took a number of
measurements and evaluated the structure of the site. A copy of his report is attached as
Exhibit D. His report addressed only the proposed remedy and did not dispute Mr. Zak's
conclusion that there was a nuisance violation of the noise standard.
3.
Dr. Schomer developed a more cost-effective approach to the construction of
a sound barrier. His approach involves the construction of a noise barrier extending from
the exit of the automatic wash bay by a distance of four feet. It would extend up to the roof
line and then run parallel to the roof up to the peak, as shown in his report. Exhibit D at
8. This barrier will break the line of sight between the blowers causing the noise problem
and the Beers residence. This solution "provides enhanced noise mitigation over the
complainant-proposed property line barrier wall." Exhibit D at 9.
4.
Respondent obtained estimates for the necessary work, including
construction of the barrier, purchase of the mufflers, and extension of the concrete pad for
the exit from the automatic wash bay. The estimates add up to $7,661.13. The barrier
4
proposed by Dr. Schomer will be more effective and less expensive to install and maintain
compared to the proposal put forward by Mr. Zak.
5.?
Construction of the barrier proposed by Dr. Schomer would not require a
variance from the City of Pekin.
APPLICABILITY
1.?
This Stipulation shall apply to and be binding upon the Complainant and the
Respondent, and any officer, director, agent or employee of the Respondent, as well as any
successors or assigns of the Complainant or the Respondent.
TERMS OF SETTLEMENT
1.
The parties and their experts, Mr. Zak and Dr. Schomer, met at the site on
April 17, 2007. The parties discussed the cause of the noise and potential solutions. All
parties agreed that construction of the barrier proposed by Dr. Schomer, in conjunction
with the mufflers recommended by Mr. Zak, was the most appropriate solution.
2.
The Respondent, Let It Shine, LLC, agrees to take the following actions to
mitigate the noise projected toward the Beers property:
a.
Respondent will obtain and install blower mufflers from
Stenberg Welding & Fabricating, Inc., 223 N. Omland Ave.,
Fosston, MN, 56542. The parties understand that the mufflers
are prototypes. They are believed to be helpful, but
performance is not guaranteed or warranted by the
manufacturer.
b.
Respondent will install a 4-foot noise barrier wall as described
in Dr. Schomer's report. The barrier will be composed of metal
and glass.
5
i
c.?
Respondent will install the noise mitigation measures no later
than June 30, 2008.
3.?
Discussion of §03.302(c) factors:
a.
The character and degree of injury or interference with the
health, general welfare and property.
As set forth in Mr. Zak's report, noise from the car wash has
interfered with the Beers' peace and enjoyment of their home.
There have been no other noise complaints.
b.
The social and economic value of the pollution source.
The car wash provides a useful services to car owners in the
Pekin area by providing a convenient location to clean and
maintain their vehicles and pets.
c.
The suitability of the location.
The car wash is located in a commercial area of the city. It sits
near the corner of a major intersection. On the same corner are
a large grocery store and a gas station. A Walgreens drugstore
is on the opposite corner from the grocery and other businesses
are located nearby. The location is convenient for customers of
the car wash. The Beers residence is located on the first
residential street adjoining this area.
d.
The technical practicability and economic reasonableness of
mitigation.
The nature of the blowers makes them inherently noisy, much
like a hair dryer. It cannot be eliminated. Addition of the
mufflers is expected to diminish the noise slightly.
Construction of a barrier will deflect the sound away from the
Beers residence. The parties agree that these mitigation
measures are both practical and reasonable.
6
e.?
Any subsequent compliance.
As part of this Stipulation, the Respondent has agreed to install
mitigation measures which are expected to bring the facility in
compliance with the noise standards.
WHEREFORE, the parties respectfully request that the Board accept this agreement
and issue an order adopting the foregoing Stipulation and Proposal for Settlement as
written.
DANIEL. BEERS Complainant
203 Cottage Grove Ave.
Pekin, IL 61554
Telephone: (309) 346-3235
LET IT SHINE, LLC (incorrectly named as
DAVE CALHOUN (LET IT SHINE CAR WASH)),
Respondent
By:
?
Peter R. Jennetten
QUINN, JOHNSTON, HENDERSON & PRETORIUS
227 N.E. Jefferson St.
Peoria, IL 61602-1211
Telephone: (309) 674-1133
Facsimile: (309) 674-6503
I:\ 1 \ Civil\ Beers v. Calhoun 101 050 066\ beers stip sett proposal.wpd
7
118IHX3
NOISE SOLUTIONS BY GREG ZAK, INC.
36
BIRCH DRIVE
CHATHAM, ILLINOIS
62629
(217) 483-3507
(217) 483-5667-FAX
E-mail: grezzataiustice.com
November 1, 2004
By: First Class Mail and E-mail
Mr. Dan Beers
203 Cottage Grove
Pekin, IL 61554
Phone: 309-346-3235
E-mail: djbeers@gries.net
RE: Beers
v. Calhoun
PCB #2004-204
Summary of Visit to the Residence of Dan Beers
Dear Mr. Beers:
The following summarizes our visit to your residence:
Greg and Pat Zak of Noise Solutions by Greg Zak arrived at 203 Cottage Grove Avenue in Pekin on
September 23, 2004 at approximately 1:45 PM. At that time, we introduced ourselves to you and your
wife, Joann. You indicated that you had lived at your residence for approximately 15 years, and prior to
that time, it had been your family home. The Let It Shine Car Wash located at 2115 Cherry Lane has been
in operation for about one year. We then proceeded to the backyard area of your property to discuss and
view the car wash facilities that are causing the noise problem.
We set up our noise measurement instrumentation in order to measure the daytime sound levels on the
window sill of the second floor hallway area_ We took measurements using a precision analyzer and
microphone. After calibrating the analyzer, measurements were taken between 2 and 3 PM. We found that
the daytime noise levels in the area prevented us from accurately measuring the operations of the car wash.
Vehicular noise from motorcycles, trucks and SUVs along with car wash noise was a part of the immediate
location we were testing. Due to this situation, we agreed that it would be necessary to return to your home
during the evening hours to obtain nighttime measurements. Additionally, a map was drawn and
photographs were taken of the car wash, as well as the surrounding area. We left your residence at 3:50
PM.
A return visit to your residence was made on October 19, 2004. We arrived at your home at 10 PM and
began ambient (background) measurements at 10:11 PM. These were taken in the same location used
previously, with the same precision analyzer and microphone. After establishing the ambient level
;
Mr. Dan Beers, November 1, 2004
2
measurement of 46.9 dB(A), we measured the noise resulting from the car wash facilities, which was
primarily emanating from the blowers. While our measurements were reasonably accurate, we made no
attempt to strictly follow the IPCB measurement procedures needed to establish a violation under Section
901 of the Board's noise regulations. We measured a dB(A) level of 60.9 at 10:28 PM. We do, however,
feel confident that our measurement is sufficiently accurate to establish a probable Section 900.102
violation.
Our measurements taken on October 19, 2004 are documented in Table 1 below.
Designation
Measurement
Time
31.5
Hz.
63
Hz.
125
Hz.
250
Hz.
500
Hz.
1K
Hz.
2K
Hz.
4K
Hz.
8K
Hz.
dB(A)
Ambient
Nighttime
22:11:12
49.8 56.3 53.6 49.9
41.2
41.3
38.1 29.6
20.8
46.9
Car Wash
Blowers
Nighttime
22:28:56
51.8 60.3
61.2
53.7
55.5 55.8 55.5
50.1
40.5
60.9
901.102b
B to A
Nighttime
Limit
63
61
55
47
40
35
30
25
25
Table 1. Noise Levels on Beers Property (Nighttime)
During our visit, you indicated how the noise from the car wash facilities affected you and your wife's day-
to-day activities. You described it as a constant interference in your daily lives, when attempting to spend
time in and especially outside of your home. In our opinion, your description of the loss of enjoyment and
use of your property, due to the noise from the car wash, is good evidence of a nuisance violation. It was
further noted by you that the sudden and sometimes constant (dependent on the time of the day or night)
noise from the car wash facilities interferes with your ability to sleep, which is a detriment to both physical
and mental health.
We have been involved in many cases related to noise from car wash equipment. Our recommendation,
which has successfully worked in the past, would be to retrofit the blowers with silencers and provide a
noise barrier between the noise source and the noise receiver. It should be noted that from the standpoint
of noise control, a sufficiently high fence can be one of the simplest and most cost effective methods of
mitigating noise impact on an abutting residential neighbor. The ability to decrease the sound level is
based on the height and proper design of the fence. The fence, if properly constructed, allows the facility to
meet the noise limits. Proper construction means a fence that is solid, has a minimum density of 1 lb per
square foot, and is 99% airtight from the ground to a height of 10 feet (or higher, where appropriate). The
fence should be located in a position such that it blocks line of sight on both its sides and top in
relationship to the Beers residence.
Mr. Dan Beers, November 1, 2004
3
It is concluded, in our opinion and experience, with a reasonable degree of scientific certainty that the noise
emissions from the Let It Shine Car Wash, exceed the allowable limits of Sections 900.102 of Title 35,
Sub-Title H, Chapter I of the Illinois Administrative Code.
Sincerely,
Greg Zak,
INCE
ai
c:\zak\Beers\Report Ltr-1 1-1-04
■■•
-FES
1-•
J
Consultants in Acoustics and Noise Control
Paul D. Schomer, Ph.D., P.E.
Member; Board Certified
Institute of Noise Control Engineering
2117 ROBERT DRIVE
CHAMPAIGN, ILLINOIS 61921
PHONE• t2171 359-6602
FAX: (2171 359-3303
Mitigation of Noise from the Let It Shine Car Wash to the Beers Residence
12 February 2007
INTRODUCTION
Mr. Beers of 203 Cottage Grove, Pekin, IL has filed a complaint with the Illinois Pollution
Control Board regarding noise from the Let It Shine car wash located at 2115 Cherry Lane in
Pekin, next door to his residence. Mr. Greg Zak has visited this site and made the following
recommendations:
"Our recommendation, which has successfully worked in the past, would be to
retrofit the blowers with silencers and provide a noise barrier between the noise
source and the noise receiver. It should be noted that from the standpoint of noise
control, a sufficiently high fence can be one of the simplest and most cost
effective methods of mitigating noise impact on an abutting residential neighbor.
The ability to decrease the sound level is based on the height and proper design of
the fence. The fence, if properly constructed, allows the facility to meet the noise
limits. Proper construction means a fence that is solid, has a minimum density of
1 lb per square foot, and is 99% airtight from the ground to a height of 10 feet (or
higher, where appropriate). The fence should be located in a position such that it
blocks line of sight on both its sides and top in relationship to the Beers
residence."
Paul Schomer Ph.D., P.E, of Schomer and Associates, Inc. was retained to review the Zak study
for efficacy and develop possibly more prudent recommendations. Dr. Schomer visited this site
twice in 2006.
The car wash noise sources are directly behind the Beers residence to the west. Figure 1 is a
picture of the Beers residence from the back yard. The garage forms a large noise barrier to
sound from the car wash that would otherwise reach the Beers residence if measured at the
specified height of 4 ft. Nevertheless, the upstairs bedrooms have a clear line of sight view to the
car wash exit and the west blower inside the car wash (Figure 2). So a barrier, to be of value,
must block line of sight to the top of the upstairs windows. This requires a tall fence, far taller
than is permitted by Pekin City Code or is likely to be permitted. Therefore, this paper explores
alternatives to mitigation that meet City Code and provide for greater noise mitigation than does
the Zak solution. Figure 3 is an aerial view of the site. The approximate complainant-
recommended barrier wall position is shown as a heavy blue line.
EXHIBIT
MEMBER FIRM, NATIONAL COUNCIL OF ACOUSTICAL CONSULTANTS
httpliwww.SchornerAndAssociateszorn ?
Email: schorner4'SchomerAndA,
Let It Shine Car Wash
?
February 12, 2007
Figure 1. The west side of the Beers residence. Note that the garage blocks all noise from the
west from reaching the first floor of the Beers residence.
Schomer and Associates, Inc.
?
2?
Champaign, IL
61821
Let It Shine Car Wash
?
February 12, 2007
Figure 2. The exit from the automatic car wash at Let It Shine. The car drying blowers to either
side of the exit are quite evident, and the west (left in picture) blower has line of sight to the
Beers residence. There is also a higher up center blower that is not very evident in this picture.
Schomer and Associates, Inc.?
3?
Champaign, IL 61821
4-ft long barrier wall
Zak-proposed barrier wall
Solid Red Line is 20 degrees
With respect to face of carwash
Dashed red line is 16 degrees
With respect to face of carwash
PLAN
VIEW
Let It Shine Car Wash
?
February 12, 2007
Figure 3. An aerial view of the site. The approximate complainant-proposed barrier wall
position is shown as a heavy blue line.
Schomer and Associates, Inc.?
4
?
Champaign, IL 61821
Elevation of top of house windows
25.6 ft
Let It Shine Car Wash
?
February 12, 2007
ANALYSIS
Figure 4 is used to estimate the height above ground level at the car wash exit that a fence must
be if it is to block line of sight from the left blower to the tops of the Beers' upstairs windows.
Assuming the fence is located near to the mutual property line, the result is a fence that must be
at least 17 ft above the surface of the car wash.
The attenuation of the barrier will not be a constant. The least attenuation occurs for sound
emitted from the top edge of the west blower to the tops of the Beers' windows, the most
attenuation occurs for sound emitted from the bottom edge of the west blower to the bottoms of
the Beers' windows. Table 1 lists these calculated attenuations using the methods of ISO 9613
Part 2 for BEST, WORST, and INTERMEDIATE attenuation by the proposed property line
wall.
Height of camera =5.25 ft
?
Current height of wall + fence =12 ft
?
Height of line tangent
Tallest relevant noise
?
With 7 ft source, height of wall to eclipse
?
to wall on house = 18.1ft
source = 7 ft
?
top of windows is =17 ft
?
Height to window tops = 25.6 ft
Figure 4. Calculation of wall and window heights above the car wash ground surface.
Schomer and Associates, Inc. ?
5
?
Champaign, IL 61821
Let It Shine Car Wash
?
February 12, 2007
Table 1. Computed attenuations for the Zak wall for the indicated source and receiver heights
(feet) above the ground surface of the car wash. The noise barrier top is rounded up from 16.75
ft and assumed to be 17 ft above the ground surface of the car wash. The calculations use the
method in ISO 9613 Part 2.
ZAK Wall GROUND
=
0, 1, 1
WORST MIDDLE
BEST
SOURCE HEIGHT
7
6.5
6
RECEIVER HEIGHT
25.6
23.1
20.6
31 Hz
4.8
4.8
4.8
63 Hz
4.8
4.8
4.8
125 Hz
4.8
4.8
4.5
250 Hz
4.8
4.8
5.0
500 Hz
4.8
4.9
5.3
1
kHz
4.8
4.9
5.7
2
kHz
4.8
5.1
6.5
4
kHz
4.8
5.4
7.7
8
kHz
4.8
5.9
9.5
The calculations show, as expected, that breaking line of sight yields about 5 dB of attenuation.
Because the barrier is relatively far from both the car wash and the residence, there is little
difference between the BEST and WORST case calculations. The alternative we propose is a
short barrier wall attached to the car wash structure. A 4-ft long wall is just barely feasible in
terms of vehicles making the turn when exiting the car wash, but it does break line of sight
between the blower and the Beers residence. Moreover, because it is close to the source, the
"MIDDLE" and BEST attenuations are significantly larger than those yielded by a property line
wall (Table 2). Figures 3 and 5 show details of this proposed wall. Figure 6 is used to evaluate
the height of this proposed wall and it shows that the height of the building at this point, about
12 ft, is probably insufficient to obtain maximum noise barrier performance, so a slanting roof
top extension has been added (Figure 7).
We also evaluated the potential for reflections off the long wall of the building across the street
of the car wash and residence. While the potential for reflections exists, there is insufficient
space to install any potentially mitigating noise wall. Also, such a barrier wall would be a safety
hazard.
Schomer and Associates, Inc.
?
6?
Champaign, IL 61821
2ft
Let It Shine Car Wash
West Fan
6 ft
7.5 ft
Solid red lines are 20 degrees
With respect to face of carwash
West fan is parallel to south wall.
Fan inlet grill is 22 inches from south wall.
Fan inlet grill center is 21 inches from edge of door
opening.
Bolt-to-bolt diameter is 20 inches.
4-ft barrier wall
February 12, 2007
PLAN VIEW
Dashed red lines are 16 degrees
...With respect to face of carwash
•
et.„
•■■■„
Figure 5. Close-up of the proposed barrier wall geometry.
Table 2. Computed attenuations by the 4-ft extension wall for the indicated receiver heights
(feet) above the ground surface of the car wash. For this vertical barrier, the effective barrier
"height" above the source in feet is indicated. The calculations use the method in ISO 9613 Part
2.
4-ft barrier wall GROUND=0, 0, 0
WORST
MIDDLE
BEST
EFFECTIVE BARRIER
HEIGHT
0.2
1.8
3.3
31 Hz
4.8
4.9
5.1
63
Hz
4.8
4.9
5.3
125 Hz
4.8
5.1
5.8
250 Hz
4.8
5.4
6.7
500 Hz
4.8
5.9
8.0
1
kHz
4.8
6.8
9.9
2
kHz
4.8
8.2
12.2
4
kHz
4.8
10.1
14.8
8 kHz
4.8
12.4
17.6
Schomer and Associates, Inc.
?
7
?
Champaign, IL 61821
ELEVATION VIEW
4-ft barrier wa
12 ft up
I?
4 ft
Let It Shine Car Wash
?
February 12, 2007
Garage door opening
7.5 ft up
Fan bottom
6 ft up
Figure 6. This figure evaluates the height of the 4-ft wall and shows that the car wash door
opening contains line of sight (the door perimeter does not block it). Therefore, the roof edge
extension shown in Figure 7 is added to the 4-ft-long barrier wall.
Figure 7. Proposed noise barrier structure. The extension is 4-ft long.
Schomer and Associates, Inc.
?
8?
Champaign, IL 61821
Let It Shine Car Wash
?
February 12, 2007
CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS
Within a reasonable degree of engineering and scientific certainty, the proposed mitigating
structure (Figures 3, 5 and 7) provides enhanced noise mitigation over the complainant-proposed
property line barrier wall. Moreover, this structure meets code and will not be opposed by the
City of Pekin.
Therefore, it is recommended that this structure be substituted for the complainant-proposed
property line noise barrier wall.
Pau c omer, P .
P.E.
Member, Board Certified, Institute of Noise Control Engineering
Schomer and Associates, Inc.
?
9?
Champaign, IL 61821
Rfl
•■••••••,
flSS
wJ
flT
J
Consultants in Acoustics and Noise Control
Paul D. Schomer, Ph.D., P.E.
Member; Board Certified
Institute of Noise Control Engineering
2117 ROBE.RT DRIVE.
CH MFAIGN, ILLINOIS 61E321
PHONE. • (217) 359-6602
FAX: 7217) 359-3303
PAUL D. SCHOMER
Acoustical Engineer
BS, Electrical Engineering, University of Illinois, 1965.
MS, Electrical Engineering-Acoustics, University of California, 1966.
Ph.D., Electrical Engineering-Acoustics, University of Illinois, 1971.
EXPERIENCE
Dr. Schomer has extensive experience, publications, and patents in the areas of environ-
mental noise and its assessment, human and community response to noise, instrumentation and
methodology for the measurement and monitoring of noise, architectural acoustics, and acoustical
measurements of building parameters. He is a consultant to industry and government, an adjunct
Professor of Electrical and Computer Engineering (Acoustics) and member of the graduate faculty
of the University of Illinois, and a research leader in acoustics. His recognition by his peers as an
international leader in the area of environmental noise is demonstrated by his chapters in reference
books, his over 35 refereed publications, his leadership in Standards organizations and professional
societies, and his awards and honors. Dr. Schomer is also standards Director for the Acoustical
Society of America.
As an international leader in the area of environmental noise, Dr. Schomer is chairperson of
the United States delegation to International Organization for Standardization (ISO) Acoustics and
Noise committees, chairperson of the American National Standards Committee dealing with noise,
chairperson of the ISO working groups which deal with environmental noise and with impulsive
noise measurement, chairperson of the American National Standards Institute working group which
deals with environmental noise, and he is the United States representative to the International
Organization for Standardization in the areas of aircraft noise and impulsive sources. He is the
Standards Director for the Acoustical Society of America, a member of the Society of Automotive
Engineers Aircraft Noise Committee, a principle contributor to current efforts in the area of
standardizing airport noise monitoring, and Executive Director, past vice-president for membership,
and twice a past member of the board of the Institute of Noise Control Engineering.
Dr. Schomer has 35 years of experience dealing with noise measurement and the effects of
noise on people and communities. This experience includes blast and mining noise, gunfire noise,
airport, aircraft, helicopter, construction and traffic noise, and general industrial and urban noise.
The citation for his selection as a Fellow of the Acoustical Society of America references his
studies on community response to noise, and most of his work with the National Academy of
Science has been concerned with noise assessment.
MEMBER FIRM I
NATIONAL
I
COUNCIL OF ACOUSTICAL CONSULTANTS
'.SchornerAndAssociates.comErnad: schomet r.SchornerAndAssociaies,com
résumé
Paul D. Schomer
MEMBERSHIPS AND AWARDS
Fellow - Acoustical Society of America.
Member, Board Certified, Institute of Noise Control Engineering
Selected as Corps of Engineers Engineer of the Year and One of the Top 10 Federal Engineers of
the Year (1990)—National Society of Professional Engineers
Several times a member of the board and/or officer; Institute of Noise Control Engineering.
Former Executive Director, Institute of Noise Control Engineering of the USA, Inc.
Standards Director, Acoustical Society of America
Chairman, Acoustical Society of America Committee on Standards
Head of U.S. Delegation, International Organization for Standardization, Technical Committee 43
(acoustics) and Subcommittee 1 (noise).
Convener (chairman), International Organization for Standardization, Working Group 45 dealing
with environmental noise assessment.
Chairman, S.A.E. Construction Site Sound Level Subcommittee, S.A.E. ConAg Committee.
Member, S.A.E. Aircraft Noise Committee and the noise monitoring subcommittee.
Reviewer for
Applied Mechanics Review, Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,
and
Noise
Control Engineering Journal.
Fellowship, University of Illinois (1968-1971).
Registered Professional Engineer (DC).
Member, Institute of Noise Control Engineering, Acoustical Society of America, Institute of
Electrical and Electronic Engineers, German Acoustical Society (DEGA), European Acoustical
Association
2
resume
Paul D. Schomer
BOOKS
Handbook of Acoustical Measurements and Noise Control, Chapter 50. Community Noise
Measurements,
2nd edition, John Wiley and Sons, Inc., New York, 1991.
Reference Data for Radio Engineers, Chapter 40. Electroacoustics,
7th edition, ITT Press, a
subsidiary of MacMillan, Inc., Indianapolis, 1985.
Reference Data for Radio Engineers, Chapter 40. Electroacoustics,
8th edition, Sams
Publishing, Prentice-Hall Computer Publishing, Indianapolis, 1993.
MAJOR JOURNAL PUBLICATIONS
"Overview of the theoretical development and experimental validation of blast sound absorbers,"
Noise Control Engineering Journal,
51(3), (May/June 2005).
"Basic results from full-scale tests at Ft. Drum,"
Noise Control Engineering Journal,
51(3),
(May/June 2005).
"Some Important Factors in Community Response to Sonic Booms," NOISECON 2004,
Institute
of Noise Control Engineering,
Baltimore, MD, USA, 12-14 July 2004.
"The importance of proper integration of and emphasis on the low-frequency sound energies for
environmental noise assessment,"
Noise Control Engineering Journal,
52(1), 26-39, (Janu-
ary/February 2004).
"Noise Assessments: Interaction with the Public—Simplicity and Truth Will Help,"
INTERNOISE 2003, Paper N706, pp 1216-1220, Seogwipo, Korea, 25-28 August 2003.
"Does the Soundscape Concept Have Real Utility," INTERNOISE 2003, Paper N161, pp 2825-
2826, Seogwipo, Korea, 25-28 August 2003.
"Noise Assessment Metrics and Criteria in a United States Department of Transportation Multi-
Modal Noise Model," NOISECON 2003, Paper No. 023,
Institute of Noise Control Engineering,
Cleveland, OH, USA, 23-25 June 2003.
"A statistical description of ground-to-ground sound propagation,"
Noise Control Engineering
Journal,
51(2), 69-80, (March/April 2003).
"On Normalizing DNL to Provide Better Correlation with Response,"
Sound & Vibration,
pp 14-
23, December 2002.
"Further Results Using Loudness-Level Weighting to Assess Noise Annoyance," NTERNOISE
2002, Paper No. N489,
Institute of Noise Control Engineering International,
Dearborn, Ml, USA,
19-21 August 2002.
"Alternative Methods to A-Weighting for Environmental Noise Assessment," NTERNOISE
2002, Paper No. N475,
Institute of Noise Control Engineering International,
Dearborn, MI, USA,
19-21 August 2002.
3
résumé
Paul D. Schomer
"Evaluation of loudness-level weightings for assessing the annoyance of environmental noise,"
Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,
110(5)
Pt. 1, 2390-2397, (November 2001).
"Criteria for the Assessment of Noise Annoyance," NOISECON 2001, Paper No. NC01_018,
Institute of Noise Control Engineering USA,
Portland, Maine, 29-31 October 2001.
"Use of the New ISO 226 Equal Loudness Contours as a Filter to Assess Noise Annoyance,"
NTERNOISE 2001, Paper No. 197,
Institute of Noise Control Engineering International,
The
Hague, Holland, 27-30 August 2001.
"A statistical description of blast sound propagation,"
Noise Control Engineering Journal,
49(2),
79-87, (March/April 2001).
"Using fuzzy logic to validate blast noise monitor data,"
Noise Control Engineering Journal,
48(6),
193-205, (November/December 2000).
"A comparison between the use of loudness level weighting and loudness measures to asses
environmental noise from combined sources," INTERNOISE 2000, Paper No. 101,
Institute of
Noise Control Engineering International,
Nice, France, 27-30 August 2000.
"A test of proposed revisions to room noise criteria curves,"
Noise Control Engineering Journal,
48(4), 124-129, (July/August 2000).
"Proposed revisions to room noise criteria,"
Noise Control Engineering Journal,
48(3), 85-96,
(May/June 2000).
"Loudness-Level Weighting for Environmental Noise Assessment,"
Acustica and Acta Acustica,
86(1), 49-61 (January/February 2000).
"Revision to the ISO 1996 series--Description, measurement and assessment of environmental
sound," 1NTERNOISE 98, Paper No. 190,
Institute of Noise Control Engineering International,
Christchurch, New Zealand, November 1998.
"On spectral weightings to assess human response, indoors, to blast noise and sonic booms,"
Noise
Control Engineering Journal,
46(2), 57-71, (March/April 1998).
"Evaluation of a re-analysis of the relationship between the results obtained in laboratory and field
studies on the annoyance caused by high-energy impulsive sounds,"
Noise Control Engineering
Journal,
45(6), 251-255 (November/December 1997).
"A comparative study of human response, indoors, to blast noise and sonic booms,"
Noise Control
Engineering Journal,
45(4), 169-182 (July/August 1997).
"The new ANSI method for assessing combined noise environments; comparison with other
methods," INTERNOISE 97, 1047-1052,
Institute of Noise Control Engineering International,
Budapest, Hungary, August 1997.
"On the contribution of noticeability of environmental sounds to noise annoyance,"
Noise Control
Engineering Journal,
44(6), 294--305 (November/December 1996).
4
résumé
Paul D. Schomer
"Penalties for assessing helicopter noise annoyance—There is none?" NOISE-CON 96, 581-584,
Institute of Noise Control Engineering,
Seattle, WA, September 1996.
"A Comparative Study of Human Response to Blast Noise and Sonic Booms," INTERNOISE 96,
Institute of Noise Control Engineering International,
Liverpool, UK, July 1996.
"Development of a New ANSI Standard for Assessment of Combined Noise Environments,"
INTERNOISE 96, 3265-3270,
Institute of Noise Control Engineering International,
Liverpool,
UK, July 1996.
"25 Years of progress in noise standardization,"
Noise Control Engineering Journal,
44(3), 141-
148 (May/June 1996).
"Human and community response to military sounds: Results from field-laboratory tests of small
arms, 25 mm cannon, helicopter and blast sounds,"
Noise Control Engineering Journal,
43(1), 1-13
(January/February 1995).
"Amendments to ISO Part 2: The Impulse Noise Penalty," INTERNOISE 95,
Institute of Noise
Control Engineering International,
851-856, Newport Beach, CA, USA, 1995.
"New descriptor for high-energy impulsive sounds,"
Noise Control Engineering Journal,
42(5),
179-191 (September/October 1994).
"SoundProp Fast, accurate prediction of sound propagation under varying weather conditions and
over hard or soft surfaces," INTERNOISE 94, 555-558,
Institute of Noise Control Engineering
International,
Yokohama Japan, August 1994.
"A revised statistical analysis of blast sound propagation,"
Noise Control Engineering Journal,
42(3), 95-100 (May/June 1994).
"Human and community response to military sounds: Results from field-laboratory tests of small
arms, tracked vehicles, and blast sounds,"
Noise Control Engineering Journal,
42(2), 71-84
(March/April 1994).
"Activity and sleep interference; A new measurement technique," INTERNOISE 93,
Institute of
Noise Control Engineering International,
Leuven, Belgium, July 1993.
"Time-average aircraft noise descriptors; Confusion with no benefit," IN I
ERNOISE 92, 2, 987-
992,
Institute of Noise Control Engineering International,
Toronto, Canada, July 1992.
"On Using the Generalized Concept of Loudness to Predict Annoyance," INTERNOISE 91,
Institute of Noise Control Engineering International,
Australia, December 1991.
"Decibel annoyance reduction of low-frequency blast attenuating windows,"
Journal of the
Acoustical Society of America,
89(4), April 1991.
"Descriptors for Community Noise Assessment; logical Extensions to DNL," NOISECON 90,
Institute of Noise Control Engineering,
Austin TX, October 15-17 1990.
"Reduction of Wind Noise for Unattended Blast Noise Monitoring,"
Noise Control Engineering
5
résumé
?
Paul D. Schomer
Journal,
34(2), March/April 1990.
"Indoor human response to blast sounds that generate rattles,"
Journal of the Acoustical Society of
America,
86(2), August 1989.
"On a theoretical interpretation of the prevalence rate of noise-induced annoyance in residential
populations: High-amplitude impulse noise environments,"
Journal of the Acoustical Society of
America,
86(2), April 1989.
"The role of Helicopter noise-induced vibration and rattle in human response,"
Journal of the
Acoustical Society ofAmerica,
81(4),
April 1987.
"High-energy impulsive noise assessment,"
Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,
79(1),
January 1986.
"Assessment of community response to impulsive noise,"
Journal of the Acoustical Society of
America,
77(2), February 1985.
"Descriptor for rotary-wing aircraft noise," American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics,
October 1984.
"A survey of community attitudes towards noise near a general aviation airport,"
Journal of the
Acoustical Society
ofAmerica,
74(6), December 1983.
"Noise monitoring in the vicinity of a general aviation airport,"
Journal of the Acoustical Society of
America,
74(4), April 1983.
"Sampling strategies for monitoring noise in the vicinity of airports,"
Journal of the Acoustical
Society ofAmerica,
73(6), June 1983.
"An analysis of community complaints to noise,"
Journal of the Acoustical Society of America,
73(4), April 1983.
"Time of day noise adjustments or 'penalties',"
Journal of the Acoustical Society ofAmerica,
73(2),
February 1983.
"A model to describe community response to impulse noise,"
Noise Control Engineering Journal,
18(1), January/February 1982.
"The growth of community annoyance with loudness and frequency of occurrence of events,"
Noise
Control Engineering Journal,
17(1), July/August 1981.
"Temporal sampling requirements for estimation of long-term average sound levels in the vicinity
of aircraft,"
Journal of the Acoustical Society ofAmerica,
69(3), March 1981.
"Development of temporal sampling strategies for monitoring noise,"
Journal of the Acoustical
Society ofAmerica,
66(3), September 1979.
"High-amplitude/low-frequency impulse calibration of microphones; a new method,"
Journal of the
Acoustical Society ofAmerica,
65(2), February 1979.
6
resume
Paul D. Schomer
"Growth function for human response to large-amplitude impulse noise,"
Journal of the Acoustical
Society of America,
64(6), December 1978.
"Human response to house vibrations caused by sonic booms or air blasts,"
Journal of the
Acoustical Society of America,
64(1), July 1978.
"Statistics of amplitude and spectrum of blasts propagated in the atmosphere,"
Journal of the
Acoustical Society of America,
63(5), May 1978.
"Evaluation of C-weighted Lan for assessment of impulse noise,"
Journal of the Acoustical Society
of America,
62(2), August 1977.
"Correlation techniques applied to acoustical measurements in reverberant rooms,"
Journal of the
Acoustical Society of America,
56(5), 1974.
"Measurement and characterization of off-road construction vehicle noise," Noise Con73 , 247-
249, 1974.
STATE OF ILLINOIS REPORTS
Proposed Revisions to Property-Line-Noise-Source Measurement Procedures,
ENR Report
No. REEA91/10,
Illinois Department of Energy and Natural Resources, 1991.
Impulse Noise Study,
ENR Report No. REEA90/16,
Illinois Department of Energy and Natural
Resources, November 1990.
A Demonstration of Airport Noise Impact Mitigation,
ENR Report No. 83/25,
Illinois Depart-
ment of Energy and Natural Resources, June 1983.
The Economic Impact Study of Proposed Airport Noise Regulations, R774 Volume 1:
Technical Study of Public Airports in Chicago,
ENR Report No. 81/38,
Illinois Department of
Energy and Natural Resources, November 1981.
The Economic Impact Study of Proposed Airport Noise Regulations, R774 Volume 1:
Technical Study of Public Airports Outside Chicago,
ENR Report No. 81/02,
Illinois Depart-
ment of Energy and Natural Resources, January 1981.
Human and Community Response to Impulse Noise: A Literature Review,
II_EQ Report No.
78/07,
Illinois Institute for Environmental Quality, March 1978.
Motorcycle Noise Levels: A Report on Field Tests,
Report of the Illinois Task Force on Noise,
June 1975.
Control of Noise from Motor Vehicles Part III: Technical Study in Support of Proposed
Motor Vehicle Noise Regulations,
Report of the Illinois Task Force on Noise,
June 1974.
Sound Transmission Loss Between Spaces Connected by Multiple Paths: A New Measure-
ment Technique,
Ph. D. Thesis,
University of Illinois, August 1971.
7
résumé
Paul D. Schomer
PATENTS
Logarithmic Statistical Distribution Analyzer, Patent No. 3995500.
Microphone Droop and Sensitivity Measurement Device, Patent No. 4347410.
8
résumé
Paul
D.
Schomer
TYPICAL PROJECT EXPERIENCE
AIRPORT NOISE ASSESSMENT AND PART 150 STUDIES
Conducting the acoustical analysis and measurements contained within airport Part 150 studies
including (1) the generation of present and future, predicted noise contours, (2) the execution of
noise monitoring, the comparison of monitoring results with noise contours, and the analysis of
monitoring results by aircraft type, operation, and runway, and (3) the development and analysis of
noise mitigation strategies.
HELIPORT DESIGN AND ASSESSMENT
Assessment of the heliport noise. Establishing the need for mitigation. Assessing mitigation
alternatives.
ENTERTAINMENT NOISE
Evaluated measurements for a large, outdoor music venue. Evaluated band and DJ noise from a
club as it affected the neighborhood. Suggested mitigation methods. Evaluated measurement and
monitoring plans for an outdoor music performance arena.
EXPERT WITNESS REGARDING NOISE PREDICTION AND ITS EFFECTS ON PEOPLE
For the defense: Class action suit of homeowners against ARCO Oil.
For the plaintiff: Class action suit of homeowners against Peabody Coal Company.
Performed analysis of the physical noise and its predicted levels in the community. Performed
assessment of the received noise and its effect on individuals and the community.
For the defense: Analyzed the audibility of gun shot sound.
For the defense/plaintiff: Predicted, measured and analyzed noise from parked outdoor refrigerator
trucks in a special situation.
For the plaintiff: Predicted and analyzed the effect of strip-mining explosions on a distant factory
structure.
Analyzed the audibility of off-road truck noise in a quarry delivery plant. Analyzed the audibility of
a backup alarm in the presence of lawnmower noise. Analyzed the audibility of siren noise.
Analyzed the audibility of truck noise in the presence of other neighborhood noise.
For the community: Class action suits against airport noise.
GUN CLUBS/POLICE FIRING RANGES
Performed noise assessment and mitigation at several civilian and police small arms firing ranges
including siting, layout, operations, and noise mitigating structures and fixtures.
INDUSTRIAL NOISE CONTROL--OUTDOORS
Performed noise assessment and mitigation at a variety of outdoor industrial operations such as an
asphalt plant, a kitty-litter plant (similar drum to asphalt plant for drying clay), an ammunition
disposal plant (again a heated drum), and grain elevators.
MOTOR RACEWAY NOISE
Performed assessment, evaluated existing and planned mitigation and developed alternatives.
Evaluated management and operational plans and developed alternative strategies.
9
résumé
Paul D. Schomer
PRODUCT DEVELOPMENT
Design, testing and evaluation of outdoor warning sirens.
VEHICLE/HIGHWAY NOISE
Assessment of highway noise. Monitoring highway noise. Establishing the need for mitigation.
Assessing mitigation alternatives.
ILLINOIS NOISE REGULATIONS
Examination of the adequacy of existing noise regulations contained in Subtitle H, 35 Illinois
Administrative Code. Analysis of the existing rules and whether they appropriately encompass the
various types of discontinuous noise and specifically, impulse noise. Recommendations for
changes to sections of the Code dealing with definitions and regulatory levels.
REVISIONS TO ILLINOIS PROPERTY-LINE NOISE MEASUREMENT PROCEDURES
Examination of existing measurement procedures as related to American National Standards.
Recommendation of measurement procedures for determination of octave-band l -hour equivalent
levels corrected for background ambient. (No American National or International Standards exist
for this type of measurement, but these are the type required by the Illinois Pollution Control
Board.)
HUMAN AND COMMUNITY RESPONSE TO NOISE
Conducting and supervising international research experiments designed to explain, qualify and
quantify human and community response to noise of varying character, spectra and temporal
patterns. This research concentrates on comparing and contrasting special noises such as small
arms, rotary-wing aircraft, or large explosions to more common noise such as road vehicles or
artificially generated noise. A key to this work is conducting these experiments in real houses with
real sources of sound.
TEMPORAL SAMPLING STRATEGIES FOR MONITORING AIRPORT NOISE
Analysis of daily monitoring results from many of the nation's airports. Modeling of the results by
auto-regressive moving average (ARMA) models, and analysis of the results by "Monte Carlo"
methods. Recommendation of airport noise sampling strategies for obtaining the required degrees
of precision.
Law Offices
Quinn, Johnston, Henderson & Pretorius
Chartered
Telephone:
(309) 674-1133
227 N.E. Jefferson Street
email:
quinnlaw@qjhp.com
Fax: (309) 674-6503
Peoria, Illinois 61602
Website: http://www.qjhp.com
Karen
J. Johns •
n
Assistant to Peter R. Yennetten
April 10, 2008
Re: Beers v. Calhoun
PCB No. 2004-204
Our File No. 101 050 066
R. Michael Henderson
Murvel Pretorius, Jr.
Bradley W. Dunham
Robert H. Jennetten
Gregory A. Cerulo
Laurie M. Judd
Stanley L. Morris**
James A. Borland
David B. Collins*
John F. Kamin
Michael J. Holt**
Matthew B. Smith*
Peter R. Jennetten
Michael A. Kraft
Matthew J. Maddox
Jonathan A. Stump***
Laura A. Petersen
Kevin M. Miller*
Jo T. Wetherill
Adam P. Chaddock
VIA FEDEx
Mr. John Therriault
Office of the Clerk of the Board
Illinois Pollution Control Board
100 W. Randolph St.
Suite 11-500
Chicago, IL 60601
CLERKS
Z:
OFF/CE
dliZz
APR 1
r
2008
Pollution
ST
ATE
Control
OF
ILLI
NOIS
R
l NA
Board
Allison N. Bell
Melinda M. Rowe
Karle E. Koritz
Elizabeth F. Larsen
Patty L. Roberts
Daniel P. Hiser
of Counsel
W. Thomas Johnston
Lowell R. McConnell
(1911-1971)
Golden A. McConnell
(1914-1974)
Joseph
A. Leimkuehler
(1931-1974)
Thomas B.
Kennedy,
Sr.
(1912-1988)
William C. Nicol
(1911-1996)
John C. Newell, Jr.
(1915-1996)
Richard E. Quinn
(1928-2000)
Springfield Office
205 South Fifth Street
Suite 900
Springfield, IL 62701
Telephone: (217) 753-1133
Fax: (217) 753-1180
Dear Mr. Therriault:
Per our telephone conversation, enclosed is the original Stipulation and
Proposal for Settlement in the above matter. Due to the difficulties
encountered in filing this document electronically, you kindly offered to
make the appropriate number of copies. Could you please send us a file-
stamped copy of this document, or, alternatively, let me know when it is
available online?
Thank you for your assistance in this matter.
Very truly yours,
QUINT, JOHNSTON, HENDERSON & PRETORIUS
/ kjj
End.
By:
* Also Licensed to Practice in Iowa
*,* Also Licensed to Practice in Missouri
* 5
* Also Licensed to Practice in Michigan
