ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    July 12,
    1973
    )
    CITIZENS FOR A BETTER ENVIRONMENT
    )
    )
    )
    v.
    )
    PCB 72-463
    )
    )
    PROCTER ~ GAMBLE MANUFACTURING COMPANY
    )
    )
    OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by Mr.
    Dumelle)
    On December
    1,
    1972 Citizens for a Better Environment (“Citizens~’)
    filed an enforcement action against Procter ~ Gamble
    (“PF~G”) alleging
    water pollution from the P~Gplant on the North Branch of the Chicago
    River along North Avenue in Chicago.
    Also alleged were violations
    of
    Section 404(b)
    -
    discharge of deoxygenating wastes; Section 702(a)
    -
    discharge of mercury; Section 501(a)
    -
    failure
    to submit operating
    reports and Section 1002(b) (i)
    -
    failure
    to file
    a Project Completion
    Schedule on lead discharges.
    Hearing was held on January 15,
    1973 in Chicago.
    Citizens struck
    from the complaint the alleged Section 702(a) violation
    (mercury).
    Citizens presented. an application made to the Corps of Engineers for
    a discharge permit on June
    20, 1971 by P~G (Compl.
    Ex.
    1).
    In
    testimony the increase between intake and outfall
    in
    suspended solids
    from
    9 mg/l
    to
    42 mg/i and in lead from 0.48 mg/l
    at the intake
    to
    0.6 mg/l
    at
    the outfall
    (No.
    1)
    are given
    as the basis
    for “violations”
    (R.l6-17).
    The discharge
    level of lead of 0.6 mg/l
    is alleged
    to require
    a Project Completion Schedule since the Board’s effluent standards
    effective December 31,
    1973 hold lead at a
    level of 0.1 mg/l
    (R.
    54-
    55)
    Procter and Gamble’s witness, Mr. Carl Bals,
    the plant engineer,
    brought out that the outfalls
    in question use only non-contact river
    water and that the water does not contact any product process
    (R.67).
    He further stated that no
    lead or suspended solids are
    in any way
    added by the cooling water process
    (R.79).
    The P~Gsuction
    (intake)
    lines
    are now at the river bottom level because
    of failure to dredge.
    Consequently, according
    to Mr.
    Bals,
    slugs
    of material are drawn
    into
    the cooling system piping which would make
    its chemical characteris-
    tics vary from moment
    to moment
    (R.
    67).
    B
    —
    473
    -2-
    The main issue in this case
    is PE~G’sresponsibility for the
    dis-
    charge of suspended solids
    and lead in excess of standards.
    The
    requirement for a Project Completion Schedule follows from this
    presumed responsibility.
    The operative section
    of the Water Pollution Regulations for
    this case is Section 401(b).
    It states
    However,
    it
    is not the intent of these
    regulations
    to require users to clean
    up contamination caused essentially
    by upstream sources...
    Since no showing has been made that P~Gadds or
    has the capability
    of adding suspended solids or
    lead in its use of the river for cooling
    we find no violation.
    A detailed examination of the data table
    attached to the December 8,
    1971 letter to the Agency from
    PE1G shows
    reasonably parallel tracking of many of the pollution parameters be-
    tween intake and outlet
    (see pH, total
    solids, phosphorus, arsenic,
    copper,
    etc.)
    and bears out that
    the problem
    is
    that of “upstream”
    contamination
    (Compl.Ex.
    3).
    The use by Citizens
    of P~Gdata submitted to another pollution
    control agency
    (the Corps
    of Engineers)
    as evidence against P~Gis
    valid.
    However, Citizens does not succeed
    in hoisting P~Gon its
    own petard because of the reasons given above.
    The remaining charge,
    that of failing
    to submit operating reports,
    is
    also dismissed after examination of Section 501(a).
    This section
    requires operating reports
    of “every person discharging effluents
    to the waters of Illinois.’
    The Agency,
    in its letter of January 10,
    1973 to Citizens states
    Our records indicate that the Procter
    and Gamble Chicago Plant has two outlets
    of noncontact cooling water.
    Inasmuch
    as
    these do not constitute treatment
    plant effluents,
    no operation reports
    have been required (Compl.
    Ex.
    7).
    While
    an argument can be made that thermal discharges ought
    to
    make some
    sort of regular report the fact
    is that no
    such requirement
    has been imposed upon P~Gby the Agency.
    We cannot find them guilty
    of failure to report when they have
    no reporting
    requirement and have
    relied upon Agency permits which
    do not require reporting
    (Resp.
    Ex.
    4),
    It
    is
    the order of the Board that
    the charges
    in the complaint
    have been found
    to have no basis
    for the reasons stated above and
    the proceeding
    is dismissed.
    8—474
    -3-
    I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board, h~eby certify
    the above Opinion and Order were adopted on
    the
    /
    ~
    day of July,
    1973 by
    a vote of
    _____________________
    ~4”.
    ~
    Christan L. Moffett, Clerk
    Illinois Pollution Control Board
    8
    —
    475

    Back to top