PCB 76—195

TIUIION CONTROL

 BOARD

 ~iry 20, 1977

PCB 76—195

t”s c~

c

srtin,

 Craig,

 Chester

Sonnenschein and

til,

 C~ar~s

or

 ~terpi11ar

 Tractor Company, appeared

o~.~ahai1

Hsncrabjc, ~,1,J_o. J

o~

 ttorney General

 of the State of

 ~a~5a~a

 Raiak, appeared

 on behalf ‘of Respondent.

OPINIYT

 N’) ~DUP

 CF iHE

BC~r~D

(by Mr.

 Goodman):

Tile ~es’Lt~s

:~—

Ia

 r~sac Board on a

 Petition for Variance filed

~uI

28

~9

 ~aaerp~l

 r Tractor

 Company

 (Caterpillar)

 for its

s~ai Iactu~e~g

 ilaty

 is 3oliet,

 Illinois.

The

 Environmental Protec—

sion Ages’y

 (I~eacv

 ti~cds~sRecommendation

 on September 14,

 1976,

d hearir

 s rel3

thi

 ratter on

 November 17,

 1976.

 No public

~‘

 Irnar:

 a by

 ~te Board.

r

r

 c~t~

 c sion of

 a series of variances granted by

tse BoarO

 Irol

a

~es

8

b)

 1,1),

 962,

 and 102 of Chapter

 3, Water Pollu—

tior

ReguJ~~i

)h~

 sos-I recent of the

 previously granted variances

ass gra

tcd

on

 \prii

2~,

 wherein

 Caterpillar was granted variance

sntll

 J-ily

~

 !~7ojn

P’)B

is~467~.

The

 subject of the variance petition

 ~stt~rpr~1ra s Jotiet plant ahich

 employs about 6,000 people in the

arufacturc of esrlh mossing and construction

 machinery equipment.

PCB

5~tC~ tI~

 Dsard continued the interim limit of

 130 mg/i of

HOD1

 on a no~thy

 as raje b’rars,

The

 Board granted this six month

variancr ~-o~~aoIe Catsrpillas to fully document the environmental im-

 pact,

 if any

 or their discharges upon Dresden Island Pool

 in the Des

24

—

617

—2—

Plaines River.

 In addition Caterpillar was to present evidence with

regard to the possibility of using surge tanks or lagoons to trap spii~~,

and was to document its alleged delay in equipment delivery with re-

spect to its proposed treatment plant.

 The instant petition addresses

the three issues presented by the Board in PCB 75-467.

On January

10,

 1977 Caterpillar filed a Motion to Strike,

the

subject of which was a letter from the Agency to the United States

Environmental Protection Agency proporting to withdraw its condi-

tional certification of a draft NPDES permit.

 Since the Board con-

siders the original certification of the draft NPDES permit by the

Agency to be immaterial to the determination of this proceeding,

it

finds no difficulty in granting Caterpillar’s Motion to Strike the

letter withdrawing the said certification.

Caterpillar~s hardship and good faith in this matter has been

documented completely in the prior Board Orders granting variance

and will therefore not be repeated here.

 The issue before the Board

here is the balance of potential danger to the environment against that

hardship,

 and whether Caterpillar has considered alternate methods of

interim control prior to the installation of its treatment plant.

 Caterpillar had originally proposed that the treatment plant be in opera-

tion by July

1,

 1977 but due to some minor miscalculations and problems

both in deliv~ryof equipment and the labor situation at the facility,

they now have determined that a date of April

1,

 1978 would be the

earliest that the treatment plant could be put on

 line.

 In its

Recommendation the Agency agrees that the April

1,

 1978 date is reason~

able and testimony presented at the hearing leads the Board to accept

Caterpillar’s allegation that the delay was unavoidable

 and beyond its

control

 (R. 43—47).

Testimony at the hearing and exhibits presented have convinced

the Board that interim control procedures to lower the BOD5 load on

the Des Plaines River prior to operation of the proposed treatment

plant are impractical

 (R.143).

 Caterpillar’s problem with BOD5 con-

cerns soluble material,

 the removal of which entails generally the

sort of treatment

 ‘that will

 he achinved hy the proposed

 t-rcat-ment

plant.

 Any inturim control of this BOD5 would likely demand

 a pro-

cess equivalent to the treatment plant both

 in cost and

 in time and

would,

 therefore,

 be of no practical use

 (R.144,l45)

Subsequent to the Order in PCB 75—467 Caterpillar contracted

with

 a well-known coinsulting firm for a study of the effect upon the

Dresden Island Pool of the Des Plaines River by Caterpillar’s effluent

at Joliet.

 Testimony by Kenneth Price of the firm of Clark, Dietz

&

Associates Engineers,

 Incorporated indicated that the investigation and

modeling studies carried on by the consulting firm showed that

Caterpillar’s effluent had very little effect on the River

 (R.l13-l35).

24

—

618

~-cedsome minor deficiencies

in

~sfute

 the conclusion.

 The Board,

acam

 to the environment caused by

~mc thc hardship imposed upon

with

 the Regulations.

t

it

&~?

n

it

ansi

ti~:nt

 at the hearing concerning the

 liLtosal

 the Agency indicating that

~c

aid

 erant success

 in lowering BOD~

~a c.

—

 —Crier procedures.

 Indeed, Petitioner’s

ti-c

 ~aes

 used by Caterpillar in order to

s~a

 Considering all the evidence,

ca~

ia-

 I—

 vesults

 of the last twelve months are

anulity of Caterpillar to control the

 9aimonth study indicated some ex—

‘I

—-‘

 ~rs_ons

 in the level of BOD5 which have

~a

 r-ailve months.

~r

c

~ n

 ~arci imposes interim limits that,

 the Petitioner

 to accomplish,

 still

-Sr

 psi-sidle to the environment,

 The present

tar

~

 rd upon

terp

i 1

1

r’ n

 eff1 nont

is

130

-t

 ~.stica1 analysis of the last twelve

~

 this level results

in

a

 90 per—

c

sair

 t~ “t

 -rn’

—

 by Caterpillar on a monthly average

las

a.

—

 t n~:

 saiwlelming evidence to indicate that

t~is

vet

 a d b

 ~isoge~

~-.

 either an upward or downward direc-

2

 tter-aio

viI

 no—Ti-rue the limit as

 imposed previously.

Tiui- t~

~Lr~

~i.

~ii~

U

t’ie

 findings of fact and conclusions of

—

Ci?

U

U-

—

t_L

1—-

6

f-

4U

:rc~~~ses

 a hOD5 level of 170 mg/i on

J

a

 a daily maximum basis.

itt

 a statistical study of the

-~~5onthperiod starting January,

1975

slsis

 indicates that at 170 mg/l there

h~ Caterpi1lar~seffluent will not ex-

 srop~sec1limit for the daily average is

±

 ~e the average monthly limit

 (Exhibits

d:~

 pa~a1lel analysis of the last twelve

:rsuc—15 August,

 1976 indicated that a lower

—

‘C

 iinrah history might be appropriate.

The

 r pa aid a limit of 100 mg/l BOD5

 as that

i_i

u5~

n-’

 a~an interim limit based upon projec—

J

ai~-

r:

inin—

 aits

a

Ia-

I a

i

the

ro

i-~

5r

2

Ss_C

in~

24

—

3 ~

—4—

ORDER

It

 is the Order of the Pollution Control Board that Caterpillar

Tractor Company be granted variance until April

1,

1978

 from Rule

404 (b) (ii)

 962 (a)

 and 102 of Chapter

 3 of the Water Regulations for

its Joliet,

 Illinois facility subject to the conditions

 imposed under

the Board Order of April

8,

1976

 in PCB 75-467, which Order

 is hereby

incorporated by reference as

 if fully setforth herein.

I,

 Christan L.

 Moffett,

 Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, hereby certify the above Opinion and Order were adopted on the

 day of

 1977 by

 a vote of

~

~iM~i.~erk

Illinois Polluti

 Control Board

24

—

620