ILLINOIS

POLLUTION CONTROL

BOARD

October

28,

1976

ENV IRON.MENTAI.. PROTECTION

AGENCy,

Complainant,

PCB 75—267

TERMINAL

RA.ILROAD

ASSOCIATION

OF

ST.

LOUIS,

a

Missouri

Respondent.

INTERIM

OPINION AND ORDER

OF THE

BOARD

(by Mr.

Zeitlin):

This mutter

is before

the Board on a Complaint filed by the

Environmental Protection

Agency

(Agency)

on July

9,

1975.

That

Complaint alleged

that,

from August

10, 1973 until the filing

of

the Comelaint,

Respondent

Terminal Railroad Association of St. Louis

(Terminal Railroad)

caused and allowed the emission of noise from

its railway switching

terminal in the city of Venice,

Madison

County,

Illinois,

in

violation of Rules

102

and 202 of Chapter

8:

Noise Pollution,

of this

Board~s

Rules and Regulations, and Section

24

of the Environmental

Protection Act

(Act).

Ill.

Rev.

Stat.,

CE,

lll~~-l/2,§1024

(1975);

Ill. PCB Regs.,

Rules 102 and 202.

A hearinq was held

in this matter on February

19,

1976,

at

which the parties submitted a

Stipulation and Proposed Settlement

(Stipulation), which was

filed with the

Board

on June 21,

1976.

In

an Interim Order entered

July 22,

1976,

the

Board on its own Motion

granted the parties leave

to amend that Stipulation to reflect

certain actions which

have been taken by Terminal Railroad for noise

abatement purposes.

A

Supplemental Stipulation was filed by the

parties pursruant to that

Interim Order on September

17,

1976,

.indice t

I.e.

those results

m

isi

Miii

rued

Venice

swi Lcliinq

yo~’d cuiu;

i:;Ls

vi

32 pere

I

le1 railway

tracks,

where railroad cars are received and switched

by a numping operation to appropriate

tracks for removal.

Switching

operations are conducted

24 hours

a day,

seven days a week, with

1,200

to 1,100 cars being humped

per day.

This case is concerned with

an automatic retarder system

constructed hetween

1972 and 1974 at the Venice switching yard.

That

.svstem.

consisting

of one master retarder and five group

retarders, along with a

sixth group of secondary retard~rsnow

being construc’ted, reduces the

speed of railroad cars by grasping

tt~emetal wheel of the car.

The parties stipulate that in approxi-

mately 20 per cent

of

retarder operations,

a high pitched,

screeching

24

—

119

---

—2—

sound is produced.

Five investigations

by the Agency between

November,

1974 and July

5,

1975 indicated that retarder noise

exceeded

the limitations

in Rule

202 for the 2,000 and 4,000 Hertz

levels, and constituted

a prominent,

discreet tone, violating Rule

207.

Respondent’s switching yard

is bordered on three sides

by resi-

dential areas,

(Stip.

Ex.

2), the residents

of which have complained

about noise from Respondent’s retarders,

(Stip. Lx.

3(a)-Fl).

The difficulty with this matter arises from the stipulation of

the

parties

that

proven

technology

to

allow

compliance

with

Rules

202

and

207

did

not

exist

with

respect

to Terminal Railroad’s

retarders during the period of the Agency’s investigation;

the

parties

further agreed that,

at the time of the Stipulation

in

this matter, proven technology still did not exist.

Terminal Railroad did, however, agree

to experimentally install

sound barriers around the retarders of

a new type designed by Agency

personnel.

That

barrier,

completed

in

October,

1975,

did

achieve

a noise level reduction of 18 dB, which

still was not enough to

bring

the

facility

into

compliance

with

Rule

202.

Subsequently,

Respondent also installed noise-attenuating material

in conjunction

with

those

barrjers

in accord with specifications provided by the

Agency.

The original Stipulation

filed in this matter provided for

construction of such barriers with sound—absorptive materials for

all retarders

in the Venice switching yard by May

1,

1976.

Subsequent

to our July 22,

1976 Interim Order,

additional

sound level tests were conducted by the Agency.

The result,

in

Exhibit

1 to the Supplemental Stipulation,

indicate a continued

violation of Rule 207,

and perhaps a conti.

ad violation of Rule

202.

Those tests, however, also indicate that

a considerable effort

has been made by Respondent,

and that noise emissions

from Respondent’s

retarders has been significantly reduced.

Prior to

installation

of

the

barriers

,

the hi qhcs I:

I

(‘VU

1

i:ecordvd

i

I

I

lie

2

,

500

lIz 1/3

—

octave

band

were

80—85

dB.

Subsequent

to

insLai.laLi~onof

the

barriers,

the

highest

levels

at.

that

1/3—octave

bond

are

60—65

013.

Respondent

has

thus

achieved

a

reduction

of

20-25

dB

at

that

level,

(Supplemental

Stip.,

¶4).

The

Supplemental

Stipulation

also

indicates

that

any

inter-

ference with the enjoyment of

life or property resulting

from noise

emission by Respondent’s retarders has been greatly reduced,

or even

eliminated.

An Agency canvass of the residential areas near the

retarders showed that of approximately 65 households canvassed,

none

of

the

residents

felt

that retarder was still

a noise problem,

(Supplemental

Stip.,

¶6).

24

—

120

---

—3—

In light of the substantial reduction

in noise emissions and

the results of the Agency’s canvass

in th~area,

we find the stipu-

lated settlement

in this matter to he generally acceptable.

That

Stipulation,

although not providing

for penalty, provided for a

finding

of violation by Terminal Railroad and construction

of the

noise barriers described above.

In the Supplemental Stipulation,

the parties agree that any continuing violations should properly

be the subject of a Variance Petition before this Board.

We agree with the parties that the proper forum in this case

for examination of those issues

is

a Variance proceeding.

However,

the simple fact of those continuing violations troubles us.

The

parties’ stipulation as to proven technology, although stipulated,

is

not supported by either testimony or proof.

We therefore feel that the case must be remanded for further

proceedings

to supply the necessary testimony and/or evidence showing

more clearly the appropriate levels of present technology,

as related

to the problems at Terminal Railroad’s Venice switching yard deline-

ated above.

Without such additional testimony or evidence we are

unable

to give full acceptance

to the Stipulation

in this matter.

We note finally that Respondent admits violation of Rule 207

on

the Stipulatbon,

although the original pleadings

do not allege

such violation.

The Complaint should be amended appropriately.

INTERIM ORDER

IT IS THE ORDER OF THE POLLUTION

CONTROL

BOARD that this matter

be remanded to the Hearing Officer for such proceedings

as may be

appropriate,

in conformity with the foregoinu

Interim Opinion.

Mr. Jacob Dumelle concurred.

I,

Christan L. Moffett,

Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control

Board, hereby c~tify the a ove Interim Opinion and Order

were adopted on the

i~

day of

,

1976,

by

a vote

of

Christan

L. Moffett,~~erk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

24

—

121