ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

February 3~ 1977

ENVIRONMENTAL

 PROTECTION AGENCY,

Complainant,

v.

)

 PCB 75—267

TERMINAL RAILROAD ASSOCIATION OF

ST. LOUIS,

 a Missouri corporation,

Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

 (by Mr.

 Zeitlin):

This Enforcement matter has been the subject of

 a previous

Interim Opinion and Order of the Board adopted on October

28,

 1976.

We described there the circumstances which led to the filing of

the Agency’s Complaint regarding noise emissions from Respondent’s

Venice,

 Illinois switching yard.

 Our discussion

 there

 of the facts

and procedural matters relevant to this case need not be repeated

here.

In our October 28,

 1976 Interim Opinion and Order,

 the Board

indicated that

 a Stipulation and Proposed Settlement filed in the

case, along with

 a Supplemental Stipulation,

 were generally accept-

able

 in resolution of

 the matters raised in the Agency’s Complaint.

We were unable,

 however,

 to accept the unsupported findings by the

parties

 in the Supplemental Stipulation that complete compliance

by Respondent’s retarding operations

 at the Venice switching yard

could not,

 given the present levels of technical

 feasibility and

 economic reasonableness,

 achieve compliance with the relevant Noise

Pollution Control Regulations of this Board.

 Accordingly, we

remanded for further hearing limited

 to that subject.

A further hearing was then held on November

30,

 1976,

in

Edwardsvi, lie,

11.1

inois

BC)

Lb

Comp hi

man

and

Pespondeii

Liier(~’

introduced

testimony

and

evidence

supporting

their

earlier

conclusion

the

subject

technical

feasibility,

particularly

with

regard

to the level of proven technology.

 We find that record adequate,

and here approve the Stipulation and Proposed Settlement,

 and the

Supplemental Stipulation,

 in their entirety.

Testimony presented by both the Agency and Respondent indicates

that at the time the Complaint in this matter was filed,

 no similar

facility

 in the country was known to be in compliance with the

applicable Board Regulations.

 This was verified by both literature

search and on-site inspections

 in Kansas City and Minneapolis,

(R.

14,

21,

 42).

 Lubrication systems, costing between $250,000 and

24

—

665

—2—

$500,000 per system

 (excluding maintenance and operational costs),

had not been successful.

 The substitution of ductile iron shoes

for the steel ones normally used on the retarders would cost over

$100,000, work only

 in limited situations with very low speed

 (below

6 mph)

 humping, and would increase wear on those shoes by

 a factor

as high as 10.

 Computer control of retarders,

 estimated

 to cost

$1.5 million, would not reduce noise at all, but might decrease the

frequency of noise emissions,

 (e.g.,

R.

 18-21,

43,

 47).

As noted

 in our earlier Opinion,

 the abatement technique

actually adopted at the Venice yard was the construction of noise

barriers at each of the retarders.

 Although,

 as noted there,

 these

barriers did not achieve complete compliance with the relevant

Regulations,

 all 65 individuals who originally complained about

these noise emissions were satisfied with the noise reductions

achieved,

(R.

32)

 Those barriers were constructed at a cost of

approximately $82,000, by Respondent, based on an original design

by Agency expert Gregory T.

 Zak.

To achieve complete compliance,

 these barriers would have had

to achieve a reduction in noise levels of approximately 33 dB, based

on measurements taken 1,000 feet or more from the noise sources,

(R,

 26).

 The best reduction achieved prior to that time had been

approximately 20 -dB, measured at a distance of 100 feet from the

barrier, at which point the apparent noise reduction would be greater,

(R.

 27-28,

 42).

 Terminal Railroad’s efforts in this case have

achieved

 a reduction in noise levels

 5 dB greater than ever previously

achieved,

 with the measurements taken at a distance which would tend

to

greatly decrease the amount of such reduction,

(R.

28)

 In fact,

the method used here for abatement is being used and studied for

the solution of similar problems

 in other parts of the country,

 (Id.).

Based on this testimony and evidence, we find that Respondent

Terminal Railroad has acted in good faith to abate its admitted

violation.

 Despite the minor violations remaining, Terminal Railroad

has apparently done all that was possible under the circumstances

to abate its noise emissions and eliminate any difficulties or

inconveniences which those emissions may have

caused

the

surrounding

 residents.

 Based on that finding, and the findings

in

our

Interim

Opinion

and

Order

October

28,

 1976,

shall

enter

our final Order in this matter in accord with the Proposed Settle-

ment submitted by the parties.

This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions

of law of the Board in this matter.

—

666

—3—

ORDER

IT

 IS THE ORDER OF THE POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD that:

1.

 Respondent Terminal Railroad Association of

St. Louis

 is found to have operated its railway switching

yard in Madison County,

 Illinois,

 in violation of Section

24 of the Environmental Protection Act,

 and Rules 102(n),

202, and 207 of Chapter

 7 of the Board’s Regulations.

2.

 Respondent Terminal Railroad Association of St.

Louis shall comply with all provisions of the Settlement

agreement submitted by the parties to this matter.

I, Christan L. Moffett,

 Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control Board, hereby certif,y the above Opinion and Order were

adopted on the

 day of

1 977,

by

 a vote of

~

Christan L. Moffe1~ç’Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

—

667