ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
March 28, 1974
ILLINOIS CENTRAL GULF RAILROAD,
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB 73—550
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent.
James T. Bradley, Attorney for Illinois Central Gulf Railroad
John T. Bernbom, Attorney for the EPA
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD (by Mr. Henss)
Illinois Central Gulf Railroad requests variance from
Rules 403, 404(f), 408(a) and 1002 of the Illinois Water Pollution
Control Regulations for a period of one year. Petitioner owns
and operates a facility known as the “Mechanical Facility at
South Joliet” for the maintenance, repair, fueling, sanding and
laundering of locomotives. The facility is located about 1/2
mile east of Illinois Route 53 and 1 mile north of Interstate 80
along the northern bank of Sugar Run Creek.
During normal operations Petitioner discharges 10 gallons
of waste water per minute into Sugar Run Creek. This increases
during and following rains. The waste water, consisting chiefly
of oil and chemicals, results from oil spills and certain main-
tenance practices in addition to liquid waste generated in
cleaning the locomotives. Chemicals in the waste water are
primarily radiator treatment chemicals and cleaning agents.
Petitioner states that an analysis of the waste water revealed:
40 mg/l oil, 60 mg/l BOD and 25 mg/l suspended solids.
The parties in this matter have presented a Stipulation of
Facts from which we are to decide the case. The Agency recommends
granting the variance, and after a review of this document we
agree that Petitioner has met its burden of proof.
Illinois Central Gulf Railroad became the surviving corpor-
ation through a merger of Illinois Central Railroad and Gulf
Mobile and Ohio Railroad in August 1972. Petitioner states that
~97
—2—
during and for some period after the merger negotiations the
“direction of railroad efforts to abate pollution at its
newly acquired railroad facilities throughout Illinois and
other States” were “substantially confused and disrupted”.
Essential abatement facilities were not included in the 1973
budget “because of additional time required to complete the
then on-going facility—merger survey”.
Consequently, Petitioner claims it was impossible to
“retain a pollution engineering report, together with the
preparation of plans, specifications and an estimate of project
cost, and to contract for the project so as to both construct
the facility and make it operational before December 31, 1973.”
Subsequent to the merger the following events occurred:
September—December
Petitioner attempted to obtain a
1972
Refuse Act Permit or a Corps of
Engineers Permit.
November 1972
Agency advised Petitioner of new
Federal NPDES requirements.
March 1, 1973
Preliminary plans and cost estimates
for proposed Joliet abatement facilities
were completed.
August 1973
Agency was provided with copy of pre-
liminary plans.
September 7, 1973
Petitioner provided Agency with copy
of Project Completion Schedule for
proposed waste treatment facility.
September 12, 1973
Petitioner filed application for
construction permit
for proposed waste
treatment facility.
September 18, 1973
Agency was provided with copy of final
plans and specifications for proposed
treatment facilities.
October 18, 1973
Agency informed Petitioner that its
Project Completion Schedule had been
disapproved.
October 29, 1973
Petitioner informed Agency of plans
to seek a variance since the treatm~
facilities could not be in operati::~
by December 31, 1973.
—3—
December 4, 1973
Agency issued permit for construction
and oDeration of the “Emergency Oil
and Spill Containment and Treatment
Facility for Joliet, Illinois”.
Petitioner’s “Emergency Oil and Spill Containment and Treat-
ment Facility” plan will provide oil collection pans to collect
spillage of fuel oil and other types of oil waste and a system
for collecting and carrying waste water to a two cell lagoon
system. The lagoon system will provide for containment and
treatment of the waste water prior to discharge of the liquid
into Sugar Run Creek. The Agency was of the opinion that the
complexity of the construction project warrants the 15 months
compliance schedule submitted by Petitioner.
Completion of the contract and construction phase of the
project will take at least 12 months. P~riother three
months ~s
required after completion of construction before the system can
be placed into operation. We were not told the specific need
for the additional three months, but a review of the plans indicates
that the time could be used for testing of electrical circuits,
piping systems, and other start—up procedures. The Agency has
approved the additional time period.
Petitioner claims that a denial of the variance would force
Petitioner to shut the facility down or risk monetary penalties.
A facility shutdown would severely disrupt maintenance practices
since all other similar facilities operated by Petitioner are
operating at capacti’y. Locomotives which are normally fueled
and maintained at the Joliet facility would be taken elsewhere,
resulting in a shortage of locomotives in the Joliet area, in--
creased fuel usage for the extra distance travelled, and the
serious disruption of a coal train operating between a southern
Illinois coal mine and Plaines, Illinois. Elimination of freight
car repair and maintenance could result in damage to the freight
cars and increase the likelihood of derailments.
We believe the record in this case is sufficient to satisfy
the requirements for the variance. Both parties recognize that
the Board is limited to granting variances for a period of one
year and that an extension of this variance may be required for
an additional period of up to three months.
The parties say that a ‘performance bond is neither required
nor recommended”, but it is our custom to require the posting of
bond for the more complex construction projects. This authority
is de~ivedfrom Section 36(a) of the Act. We shall require a
bond in this case.
— 899
—4—
ORDER
It is the Order of the Pollution Control Board that Illinois
Central Gulf Railroad is granted a variance from Rules 403, 404(c)
404 (f)
,
408 (a) and 1002 for its Joliet maintenance facility until
March 28, 1975 for the purpose of construction and operation of
the “Emergency Oil Spill Containment and Treatment Facilities” as
presented in the petition for variance. This variance is subject
to the following conditions:
1. Petitioner shall submit monthly progress reports
to the Environmental Protection Agency. Said
progress reports shall commence on April 28, 1974
and shall provide details of Petitioner’s progress
towards completion of the new waste treatment
facilities.
2. Petitioner shall not increase the strength or
quantity of discharges and shall take every
reasonable measure to limit spillage and to
contain discharges.
3. Petitioner shall, by April 28, 1974, post a
bond in the amount of $40,000 in a form
acceptable to the Environmental Protection
Agency, such bond to be forfeited in the
event Petitioner fails to install the new
waste treatment facilities by the end of
the compliance schedule. The bond shall be
mailed to: Fiscal Services Division,
Illinois EPA, 2200 Churchill Road, Springfield,
Illinois 62706.
I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
Board, hereby certify the above Opinion and Order wa adopted
this
~
day of
________
,
1974 by a vote of ____to~