ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL 

BOARD

October 9, 1975

ILLINOIS CENTRAL GULF RAILROAD,

)

CENTRALIA SHOP,

Petitioner,

)

v.

)

PCB

75—222

)

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

)

Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Mr. Goodman):

This case comes before the Pollution Control Board

(Board) upon a petition for variance

filed 

by Illinois

Central

Gulf Railroad (hereinafter “Illinois Central”) on

May 29, 1975. Illinois Central seeks variance from Rules

202(b) and 302(a) of the Air Pollution Regulations until

March 1, 1976. On November 22, 1974, the Board granted the

Petitioner a similar variance until May 30, 1975. (PCB 73—

547, 14 

PCB

489). Illinois Central now requests an exten-

sion of this date. No hearing has been held in this matter.

Illinois Central owns and operates a facility known as

the Centralia Shop located in Wamac, Illinois. It is Illinois

Central’s largest facility for building new freight cars and

making major repairs on damaged freight cars. An integral

part of this facility is an outdoor area in which the cars

are spray painted--including interior arid exterior painting

and identification stencilling.

The average number of cars

painted per day

is 12.4. The petition set forth the follow-

ing

calculations for current particulate

emissions:

Average density of paints used       

9

•

3 pounds/gallon

Average paint use (w/interior paint)  

34 gallons/hour

Average process weight rate      

316.2 pounds/hour

Overspray                  

25 overall

Current particulate emissions     

79.05 pounds/hour

Allowable emissions under Rule 203(a) are 0.95 pounds/

hour. Since the earlier variance Illinois Central has been

proceeding on a compliance plan which proposes to reduce

19—31

emissions to 0.79 pounds/hour. This plan calls for con-

struction of an enclosed facility utilizing a floor water

wash booth, two down draft dynaclean water wash booths and a

series of four wall mounted dry filter booths. In the

earlier case, Illinois Central sought variance until March

1, 1976. The Board granted the variance until only May 30,

1975, indicating that inadequacies in the record prevented a

decision as to whether a longer variance was warranted.

Specifically, the Board indicated that the record did not 1)

disclose the effectiveness of temporary walls built to

protect neighbors from overspray, 2) explain the tardiness

in applying for the variance and in initiating the com-

pliance plan, or 3) disclose whether compliance could ac-

tually be achieved 

by March, 1976.

Illinois Central stated in its petition that construc-

tion of the permanent 

spray

painting facility was begun on

December 5, 1974. As of the date of the petition the fol-

lowing progress had been made:

I.  All demolition, removal, and pile driving has been

completed.

2.  Materials for the building have been received and

erection is approximately 60 percent complete.

3,  Excavation, filling and grading is approximately 98

percent complete.

4.  Concrete work is approximately 90 percent complete.

5.  Plumbing work is approximately 75 percent complete.

6.  Fire protection is approximately 39 percent complete.

7.  Structural steel work is approximately 25 percent

complete.

8.  Electrical work is approximately 25 percent complete.

The long completion schedule was explained by the size

($2,727,000) and uniqueness of t~project. It is claimed

that no other railroad is operating a facility of the same

type, therefore requiring more engineering time. Financing

has been obtained from the Ililenie ir~.lewtrial Pollution

Control Financing Authority. I1JLI:noes Central further

stated in its petition that the contractor is required to

complete the job by mid-January, 1976, and is almost two

weeks ahead of schedule.

Illinois Central alleged several hardships which would

result if the variance were denied, Painting the freight

cars, it is alleged, is necessary to prevent deterioration,

to ensure visibility for purposes of safety and to comply

with “marking” requirements of the Association of American

Railroads and the Interstate Commerce Commission. To re-

place spray pointing with brush or roller painting would

19— 

—3—

increase costs from $8.25 to $154 per car and make a large

scale operation infeasible. Finally, Illinois Central

alleges that a denial would ultimately detract from the

companyle future revenue by inhibiting the publicity and

marketing functions of the painting.

The Agency filed its Recommendation in this matter on

August 26, 1975. It indicated that an Agency investigation

confirmed most of the foregoing facts, It recommended in

favor of the variance, conditioned on monthly progress

reports, and submittal of a performance bond equal to the

cost of the compliance program. It further recommended that

construction be required to be completed by February 1,

1976, since Illinois Central was already ahead of schedule.

In response to a June 6, 1975, Board Order seeking

additional information, Illinois Central filed an amended

petition which set forth ambient air quality data as ob-

tained from the Agencyle 1973 and 1974 Air Sampling Network

Reports. The nearest monitoring stations to the Centralia-

Wamac area are at Carlyle and Mt. Vernon, Illinois, Par-

ticulate data for both stations indicate compliance with

National Ambient Air Quality Standards as they relate to

both 24~hour and annual geometric mean concentrations.

Furthermore, from the nature of the emissions there would

seem to be more of a local nuisance problem than one of

contribution to ambient air problems at distant locations.

The Agency Recommendation indicated that although the area

surrounding the railroad yards is partly residential, the

population density is low, While several residents lodged

complaints with regard to “film” and “paint specks” settling

on their property, only one objected to granting the current

variance request. The Agency claims that the failure of

other residents to object is conditioned upon continued good

faith efforts to remedy the oversprs~ eroblem., Such good

faith seems indicated by Illinois

Central s completion of

its temporary shielding walls, which it claims has reduced

the distance of overspray

by

a fictor of five.

is fur-

ther indicated by the progress made to date on the new

enclosed

facility.

On the basis of the evidence presented above, the Board

is of the opinion that a sufficient case of hardship and

good faith has been made to warrant granting the requested

variance. The inadequacies in the earlier record have been

cured, since it appears that the temporary restraining walls

have been effective and that compliance can in fact be

achieved by March 1, 1976, We feel that a performance bond

in this instance is unnecessary, since Illinois Central has

19 —.

33

—4—

already

evidenced good faith in expending over half of the

estimated $2.7 million cost of the project, as it so alleges

in its reply to the Agency~sRecommendation. We agree with

the Agency that the earliest possible completion of the new

facility should be accomplished. Although Illinois Central

objects to moving up the completion date one month to Feb-

ruary 1, 1976, thus allowing no leeway for possible winter

construction delays, we note that the construction contract

calls for completion by mid-~January and that the contractor

was in fact two weeks ahead of schedule. Construction of

the new facility has already taken a long period of time and

we feel that Illinois Central should be able to meet this

advanced deadline,

This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and

conclusions of law of the Board in this matter.

ORDER

It is the Order of the Pollution Control Board that

Illinois Central Gulf Railroad, Centralia Shop is granted

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

May

30, 1975 until February 1, 1976, subject to the following

conditions:

I. Petitioner shall submit monthly reports indicating

progress on the control program outlined in its construction

permit. Such reports shall be due no later than the 15th of

each month following the month detailed in the report, and

be submitted to:

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

Division of Air Pollution Control

Control Program Coordinator

2200 Churchill Road

Springfield, Illinois 62706

2. Petitioner shall operate 

itb

temporary paint spray

facility so as to minimize overspray impact on the public

until completion of its new enclosed facility.

MR. DUMELLE DISSENTS.

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

Control Board, hereby certify the above ODinion and Order

were adopted on the 

___________

day of

1975 by a vote of 