ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

March 19, 1987

CHICAGO, CENTRAL AND PACIFIC

RAILROAD,

Petitioner,

v.

)

PCB 87—30

ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL

)

PROTECTION AGENCY,

)

Respondent.

ORDER OF THE BOARD (by B. Forcade):

On March 9, 1987, the Chicago, Central and Pacific Railroad

(“CCPR”), by its consultant, NYP and Associates, filed a petition

for variance. That petition appears to request a permanent

variance from Section 22.2 of the Environmental Protection Act

(“Act”) as that Section might require individual vehicle identi-

fication for transporters of hazardous waste. That petition

contains a number of conceptual and procedural defects. The

Board will identify some of those defects and provide the

petitioner 45 days to file an amended petition curing those

defects. However, the Board notes that the relief that CCPR

appears to request (permanent relief) is not available through

the mechanism pf a variance. Second, the Board notes that the

transportation of hazardous waste is subject to an intricate

scheme of state and federal regulations. In appropriate

circumstances, the Board may grant temporary relief, from some of

those regulatory requirements if they are identified with

sufficient particularity and the circumstances justify temporary

relief. Today’s petition fails to identify the legal require-

ments from which CCPR seeks relief with sufficient particularity

and fails to provide sufficient factual basis for granting

temporary relief. The Board urges CCPR to review the provisions

of 35 Ill. Adm. Code Part 104 in detail and to advise the Board

in writing, within 45 days, regarding how CCPR intends to

proceed.

The Board finds that the March 9, 1987, petition for

variance filed by CCPR is deficient in that it fails to include:

1) A clear and complete statement of the

precise extent of the relief sought,

including specific identification of the

particular provisions of the regulations

or Board Order from which the variance is

sought;

76-376

---

—2—

2) A description of the business or activity

of the petitioner including the size of

the business and number of employees and

a description of the location and area

affected by petitioner’s operations;

3) The quantity and types of materials used

in the process or activity for which the

variance is required and a full descrip-

tion of the particular process or activ-

ity in which the materials are used;

4) Data describing the nature and extent of

the present failure to meet the numerical

standards or particular provisions from

which the variance is sought and a fact-

ual statement why compliance with the Act

and regulations was not or cannot be

achieved by the required compliance date;

5) A detailed description of the existing

and proposed equipment or proposed method

of control to be undertaken to achieve

full compliance with the Act and regu—

lations, including a time schedule for

the implementation of all phases of the

control program from initiation of design

to program completion and the estimated

costs involved for each phase and the

total cost to achieve compliance;

6) An assessment, with supporting factual

information, of the environmental impact

that the variance will impose on human,

plan, and animal life in the affected

area, including, where applicable, data

describing the existing air and water

quality which the discharge may affect;

7) Past efforts to achieve compliance

including costs incurred, results

achieved, permit status;

8) A discussion of the availability of

alternate methods of compliance, the

extent that such methods were studied,

and the comparative factors leading to

the selection of the control program

proposed to achieve compliance;

76-377

---

—3—

9) A statement of the measures to be

undertaken during the period of the

variance to minimize the impact of the

discharge of contaminants on human,

plant, and animal life in the affected

area;

10) A concise factual statement of the

reasons the petitioner believes that

compliance with the particular provisions

of the regulations or Board Order would

impose an arbitrary or unreasonable

hardship;

11) A statement indicating whether the Board

may grant the requested relief consistent

with the Resource Conservation and

Recovery Act

and Federal

Regulations

adopted pursuant thereto; and

12) Proof of service upon the Illinois

Environmental Protection Agency.

Unless an amended petition curing the above—noted defects is

filed within 45 days, this matter will be subject to dismissal

IT IS SO ORDERED.

I, Dorothy M. Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, h~rebycertif that the above Order was adopted on

the 7’f~day of

____________,

1987, by a vote of

~

Dorothy M. /Gunn, Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board

76-378