ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

November 22, 1974

ILLINOIS CENTRAL GULF RAILROAD, 

)

Petitioner,

v.

)

PCB 73—547

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Respondent.

Mr. Joseph W. Phebus, attorney for Petitioner.

Mr. Michael Ginsberg, attorney for Respondent.

Order of the Board (by Dr. Odell)

On December 21, 1973, Illinois Central Gulf Railroad

(Illinois Central) filed with the Pollution Control Board

(Board) a Petition For Variance from Rules 202(b), 203(b),

and 205(f) of the Illinois Air Pollution Regulations (Chapter

Two). Illinois Central sought a one—year variance from Rule

205(f) and a variance until June 30, 1976, from Rules 202(b)

and 203(b) of Chapter Two. Petitioner operates an open air

spray painting operation in Centralia, Illinois. The Illinois

Central paints approximately 3000 railroad cars yearly at the

facility. Some cars are painted inside and out, some are

stencilled for identification. In its Petition, Illinois

Central stated that a new painting facility was in the pre-

liminary design stage; it was not sch~du1edto be completed

until June 30, 1976.

On January 25, 1974, a Centralia resident filed with

the Board an objection to the grant of a variance claiming that

the spray painting operation was turning the town orange and

that “we no longer wash our windows, we scrape them.” The

Environmental Protection Agency (Agency) recommended on February

13, 1974, that a six-month variance be granted from Rule 205(f)

of Chapter Two and that a one—year variance be granted from

Rules 202(b) and 203(a). On March 8, the Illinois Central inde-

finitely waived the 90-day requirement of final Board action

under Section 38 of the Environmental Protection Act (Act).

The Petitioner filed an Amended Petition For Variance on

June 26, 1974, requesting a variance from Rule 202(b) and 203(b)

of Chapter Two to extend from January 1, 1974, through December

31, 1975. Petitioner estimated that it would have its new in-

door facilities completed by the end of 1975. Construction was

scheduled to begin on October 1, 1974, with completion fifteen

—

489

—2—

months later. A construction permit had been granted by the

Agency on May 25, 1974. At the present time, to minimize the

overspray problem, Illinois Central was building temporary

shielding walls around its outdoor operation. These walls

were expected to be completed by July 1, 1974. On an average

day 12.4 railroad cars are painted at the facility; the average

car receives 21.9 gallons of paint weighing 203.67 pounds.

Therefore, the average hourly process weight was calculated at

315.68 lbs,’hour.

The Agency filed its Amended Recommendation on August 21,

1974. The Agency felt that under Rule 203(c), Petitioner had to

comply with Rule 203 (a) not 203 (b). Since the Petitioner under

Rule 203(c) was in violation of Rule 203(b) on the effective date of

the Chapter Two Regulations, Illinois Central was required to

meet the Rule 203(a) standard by December 31, 1973. Based on

Illinois Central1s process weight of 315.68 lbs/hour, the allow-

able emission rate of particulates under Rule 203(a) is .95 lbs/

hour. The Agency stated that Petitioner’s proposed spray paint

facility with its four spray booths would limit particulate

emissions to .79 lbs/hour. The Agency noted that citizens

contacted did complain about spray paint from Illinois Central’s

operation on their automobiles and homes. However, the Agency

stated that the temporary painting facility would minimize over-

spray. The Agency did not state how effective the temporary

facilities would be in reducing the impact on area residents.

The Agency recommended that the Petitioner be granted a

variance from Rule 202(b) and Rule 203(a) of Chapter Two until

May 30, 1975, subject to certain reporting requirements as well

as the successful operation of the temporary overspray shielding

walls. The Agency stated that the December 1975 date was reason-

able.

A hearing was held on September 25, 1974, in Marion County,

Illinois. Respondent began the hearing by amending its Amended

Petition in two respects. First, Respondent agreed with the

Agency that Rule 203(a) not 203(b) was the applicable rule regard-

ing the particulate emissions. Second, Respondent sought a

variance until March 1, 1976, instead of the original December 31,

1975, date in the Amended Petition. Respondent called one witness

to establish arbitrary or unreasonable hardship under Section 35

of the Act. The Agency called no witnesses and no citizens came

forward to testify during the hearing. The testimony by the

Illinois Central employee established that the December 1975 dead-

line could not be met, because no bids had been submitted on

Petitioner’s original contract proposal; changes were made in

this contract, and all bid submissions were due by October 31,

1974 (R. 7). It is not known whether any contractors bid on this

revised contract. The witness testified that other facilities

were not available to do the paint work done at Centralia (R. 18).

The temporary shielding walls have been installed. Twenty-five

feet high walls have been constructed in an area relatively remote

from the homes of area residents on plant property to permit paint

spraying and undercoating.

14 —490

—3—

The highest rail cars painted at the fapility are

seventeen feet tall (R. 13). The witness was uncertain how

effective the walls were in controlling the 23 average over-

spray that occurs (R. 23, 25). He had only visited the site

once for a brief period (R. 22); he was also unsure of whether

overspray problems occurred near the ends of the shielding walls

(R. 22); he did not know how close neighbors were to the spray

operations (R. 22). The witness estimated that overspray was

reduced by a factor of five because of the walls (R. 32) 

There

are no walls at the old stenciling area where cars are sprayed

for identification purposes. However, only 10 of the total

caint sprayed at the facility is consumed in the stenciling pro-

cedure (R. 29). The facility employs 540 people (R. 12).

We grant the Petitioner a variance from June 26, 1974,

until May 30, 1975. While we agree with the Agency that a

variance is warranted, the inadequacies in the record do not

permit us to decide whether a variance should be granted to a

later date. Specifically, the record does not disclose the

effectiveness of the temporary walls in protecting neighbors

from overspray. While we note that no citizens came forward to

the hearing to protest the variance grant, under Section 35 of

the Act, Petitioner has the burden of proof to show arbitrary or

unreasonable hardship. Second, it is unclear why the variance

petition was filed as late as December 1973. Chapter Two be-

came effective in April 1972. While delays after the decision to

undertake compliance can be explained, the belatedness in start-

up was not answered. Third, the evidence was unconvincing on the

issue of whether compliance would be achieved by March 1976. The

record does not disclose whether the contract has now been let or

whether the fifteen month completion schedule is a term in the

contract, not merely an estimate subject to continual revision.

ORDER

IT IS THE ORDER of the Pollution Control Board that

Illinois Central is granted a variance from Rule 

202(b)

and

203(a) of Chapter Two from June 26, 1974, until May 30, 1975,

subject to the following conditions:

A. Petitioner shall submit monthly progress reports

to:

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

Division of Air Pollution Control

Control Program Coordinator

2200 Churchill Road

Springfield, Illinois 62706

The first monthly report is due January 1,

1975. Each report shall indicate progress

made toward completing the control program

outlined in Petitioner’s construction permit.

14

—491

—4—

B. Petitioner shall operate the temporary paint

spray facility according to the specifications

and location detailed in Petitioner’s Exhibit 9

of the Amended Variance request.

C. Petitioner shall operate this temporary paint

spray facility to minimize overspray impact on

the public until the completion of its new

paint spray operation.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

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

Board, hereby certify that the above Opinion and Order was

adopted on the 

day of 

~

1974, by a vote of

___

to p

Christan L~fett

—492