ROGER L. YOUNG and ROMANA K. YOUNG v.
GILSTER-MARY LEE CORPORATION
Having previously found that respondent violated Section 24 of the Environmental Protection Act (Act) (415 ILCS 5/24 (2000)) and 35 Ill. Adm. Code 900.102, the Board evaluated respondent’s newly filed noise abatement program. The Board ordered respondent to cease desist from further violation of the Act.
Complainant was given an additional 60 days to respond to the report.
Rather, they asked the
Board to require respondent “to take substantive, effective steps to address the excess noiseemanating from the” facility. The followingdiscussion will summarize the steps taken by Gilster-Mary Lee to alleviate the noise emissionsand Gilster-Mary Lee’s response to the additional control measures suggested by complainants’witness. Report at 7.The vibrators replace hammers which had been used to pound on the side of trucks during theunloadi...
Allowed
Adobe Portable Document Format (.pdf) - application/pdf
... 
