ILLINOIS
POLLUTION
CONTROL
BOARD
April
14,
1971
PURDY
CO.
)
)
)
v.
)
#71—2
)
)
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
)
Opinion
of the Board (by Mr. Currie):
Purd.y
operates
a
railroad
car
dismantling
operation
in
Madison,
Illinois
(R.
26).
Notwithstanding
the
fact
that
salvage
by
open
burning
has
been
against
IllinoLs
law
since
1965,
the
company
engaged
in
the
open
burning
of
railroad
boxcars
through
1970
(R.
34—36)
at
a
frequency
of
once
every
5
to
7
days
(R.
35).
Incredibly,
Purdy
has
no
idea
of
the
number
of
cars
that
were
burned
in
1970
(R.
31$)
and,
according
to
its
Plant
Superintendent,
the
company
keeps
no
record
whatsoever
of
the
number
of
wooden
cars it burns
(R. 36)
although
it can estimate the frequency of
its burning operations.
After repeated urgings of the Illinois Air Pollution Control
Board
(R. 17), on May 8, 1969, Purdy submitted an aD contaminant
emission reduction program (ACERP) more than one year after it
was due.
The ACERP, approved on May 29, 1969, stated categorically
that the purchase of wooden cars for open burning purposes would
be steadily reduced during the next two years:
It is anticipated that within a 24 month period,
we shall reduce our purchase of obsolete rail-
road cars at a rate of 12 1/2
per quarter
(Ex.
A, p.
2).
The Ac2RP, as we held in EPA v. Commonwealth Edison Co.,
#70_it
(Feb. 17, 1971), was itself a variance and therefore expired
one year after its issuance.
Purdy now asks us for permission
to continue burning railroad cars until June 30, 1971.
The
petition for variance does not specify how many cars Purdy would
like to burn in the open or what will occur after June 30, 1971
and makes no mention of the company’s compliance, or even progress
toward complSance, with the terms of the ACERP.
Indeed, attempts
‘-435
to adduce this latter but of evidence were resisted at the hear-
ing by the company’s counsel (R.
1011—107).
Testimony at the
hearing, however, leads us to believe that Purdy is requesting
permission to burn some twenty—nine refrigerator cars
(R.
57)
it presently has on its site in Madison and an indeterminate number
of cars it plans to acquire by June
30.
(ft.
1~1j,
93—96,
98,
99,
127, 128, 1411_lilT, 151).
The Company represents that it has not
burned any cars whatsoever since Dec. 22, 1970
(ft.
ItIt,
1117) and
it has not been forced to reduce its work force since that date
as a result of the discontinuance of the burning operations
(ft.
117).
We refuse to grant Purdy the permission it seeks and issue
a stern warning against the burning of such cars in violation of
our order.
The statute provides that .a variance may be granted only if
the
petitioner shows that compliance with the law would impose an arbitrary
or unreasonable hardship, and may be extended “only if satisfactory
progress has been shown”
(Environmental Protection Act, sections
35, 36(b), 37).
Purdy has failed to meet these burdens.
In addition
to resisting efforts to determine whether or not there had been
compliance with its ACERP, Purdy also advanced no proof that
the harm to the community would he tolerable were we to grant
the variance.
It fought the requirement that it produce a
map showing the location of its operations in relation to
neighboring residential communitite
(ft. 108) and, indeed, ad-
mitted that the burning would produce heavy black smoke for about
half an hour
(ft. 28,
58)
and then smolder for two to three hours
more
(ft.
28).
Such conditions are clearly detrimental to neighboring
residents and, in the wot’ds of Pufly’s Executive Vice President,
“it just isn’t a pretty business.”
(ft.
111k).
In a case decided recently, we denied the request for a
variance by Lipsett Steel Products, Inc., for similar boxcar burn-
ing operations (70—50, decided March 22, 1971).
Lipsett
conducted its burning operations with the assistance of a gas—
fired blower, a process which cut down emission levels to a point
nevertheless adjudged objectionable by the
Board.
Purdy
doesn’t
even use a hand fan to disperse the obnoxious emissions from the
burning boxcars.
It seems willing to let the emissions fallwhere
they may, regardless of the potential harm tote community.
And
we are asked to tondone such insensitive behavior by allowing Purdy
to burn twenty—nine cars plus perhaps several hundred
more
(ft.
11l1l_117) by June 30, 1971.
Purdy has no real program for emission control.
It wants
to do what we have refused to allow since 1965 except under rare
circumstances.
1t maintains that although no workers have been
laid off since burning operations have ceased, and although it
has
no
idea
of
the
impact
such
burning operations would have on
the
oemmunity,
and
although
it
has
no
idea
of
its
past
progress
1—436
(or
lack
of
same)
toward
compliance
with
its
ACEftP,
and
although
it
has
no
program whatsoever beyond June 30, 1971
it
should
be
granted permission to resume burning as many obsolete railroad
cars as it can obtain and
set
a
match
to
within
the
next
few
months.
We cannot countenance such a request.
It should also be noted that petitioners who expect us to
sanction their operations should tell us clearly and concisely
in their petitions exactly what they are requesting, for how
long and under what conditions.
Purdy’s petition herein was
woefully inadequate and it took a good deal of deductive reasoning
and mental gymnastics to
conform
the
pleading
to
the
proof
since
the evidence elicited at the hearing by Purdy’s counsel as to
the company’s intentions was equally unclear.
The petition for variance is denied.
Any further open burning
will be subject to severe money penalties.
This opinion constitutes
the Board’s findings of fact, conclusions of law, and order.
I,
ftegina
E.
ftyan,
certify
that
the
Board
has
approved
the
above Order and Opinion this
14
day of
Anril
,
1971
1—437