ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

March 6, 1975

ILLINOIS CENTRAL GULF R.R. COMPANY)

Petitioner

)

v.

)

PCB 73—546

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

Respondent

)

OPINION AND ORDER of the Board (by Mr. Zeitlin)

The Petition for Variance in this matter was filed with

the Board on December 20, 1973. Petitioner Illinois Central

Railroad sought a variance from Rule 404(a) of the Water

Pollution Regulations to allow discharges of lubricating

oil, diesel fuel and other unnamed contaminants to a drainage

ditch adjacent to Petitioner’s railroad yards. The Environ-

mental Protection Agency (Agency) interpreted the petition

as requesting relief from Rules 404(f), 403 and 408 rather

than from Rule 404(a) and the Petitioner concurred with this

interpretation in an amended Petition filed on March 27,

1974.

Petitioner’s East St. Louis facility provides mainten-

ance and repairs for freight cars and locomotives. In the

course of maintenance and refueling, Petitioner alleged

unavoidable spills sometimes occur. Stormwater drainage

carries contaminants deposited on Petitioner’s land to two

drainage ditches tributary to the Mississippi River. Peti-

tioner proposed to install a sewer to collect and carry the

stormwater runoff to a two cell lagoon system where containment

and treatment will occur prior to discharge.

The Pollution Control Board (Board) entered an Order on

January 3, 1974, requiring Petitioner to submit the cost of

its proposed wastewater control facility. Petitioner disclosed in

a letter received by the Agency on January 21, l9?4, that

its proposed system would cost $459,500. The Agency submitted

its ~ecommendation in this cause on January 25, 1974. It

recommended that the subject Petition be denied until such

time as Petitioner: (a) submit contaminant discharge and

water quality data showing no substantial adverse environmental

impact, (b) submit a program for removing existing and

future ground accumulations of contaminant, (c) explain why

unavoidable spills occur at its facility, and (d) describe

what measures are being taken to improve housekeeping procedures.

Petitioner filed an amended Petition in response to these

recommendations on March 27, 1974. On April 18, 1974, the

Agency filed an objection to the Petition and requested that

a hearing be scheduled. The Agency submitted an ~mended

16—5

---

—2—

Recommendation on May 24, 1974. It recommended that

the

Petition be granted until November 15, 1974, subject to

several conditions. These conditions included the submittal

of monthly progress reports to the Agency; a program for

removing accumulated oil deposits; daily inspection of oil

absorbant materials and baffles in the ditches; a program of

quality control for the use of fuel oil, journal oil, and

lubricating oil; and results of samples taken immediately

after an appreciable rainfall.

A public hearing was held on June 13, 1974. At this

hearing the parties entered into various stipulations, and

agreed that Rule 203(a) as it applies to oil would also be

included in Petitioner’s variance request... The Agency

stipulated as to the authenticity of facts contained in the

Petition and the Petitioner stipulated to an agreement

concerning the recommendation made by the Agency. Two other

hearings were held on November 27, 1974 and on January 6,

1975. At these hearings testimony was given by Petitioner’s

witnesses as to why the proposed treatment facility had not

been placed in operation on November 15, 1974. Petitioner

cited a 48 day construction trades union strike and the

destruction of the manufacturer’s warehouse that was to

supply the pump station, as reasons for the delay.

Petitioner also cited interim measures that had been

taken to avoid spills. These included collection pans,

automatic shutoff valves, fuel modification kits, improved

maintenance of the fueling nozzles and education of the

employees as to the proper. procedures for fueling locomotives.

Testimony received on January 6, 1975 indicated that the

pump station was to placed in operation on January 8, 1975,

The Agency’s final amended recommendation was filed

with the Board on February 5, 1975. It indicated that all

of Petitioner’s treatment system appeared to be complete on

January 8, 1975 except for vegetating the berms of the

lagoons. The Agency therefore recommended that the present

petition for variance be granted, ending on January 10, 1975.

it is clear that Petitioner throughout these proceedings

has sustained a good fa:Lth effort in the attempt to make

this treatment facility operational. The short delay can

justifiably be attributed to the labor strike and to the

destruction of the pump manufacturer’s warehouse. Furthermore,

the record indicates

that

the Petitioner, upon notifi~ficn

of non-delivery of the pump in November, 1974, acted promptly

in an attempt to locate another source. Based on these

facts and the Agency’s recommendations, the Board concludes

that a grant of this retroactive variance is reasonable,

This Opinio~constitutes the findings of fact and

conclusions of law of the Board.

16—6

---

—3—

ORDER

It is the Order of the Pollution Control Board that

Petitioner, Illinois Central Gulf Railroad Company be

granted a variance from the requirements of Rules 408(a)

and 203(a) (as they relate to oil standards) and Rules 404(f)

and 403 of the Water Pollution Regulations for the period

December 20, 1973 to January 10, 1975.

I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Control Board, hereby certify the 1above Opinion

&

Order were

adopted on the

L’~’

day of

/7~A.~!J( ,

1975 by a vote of

.3

to ~

~

Illinois Pollutio ontrol Board

16

—

7