ILLtN~I~POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
August 20, 1981
If~LINOISENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
)
AGENCY,
Complainant,
PCB 80—22
v.
)
PCB 80—193
Consolidated
CATERPILLAR TRACTOR COMPANY,
)
)
Respondent.
TOUN VAN VRANKEN, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, APPEARED ON BEHALF
OF
COMPLAINANT;
RICHARD
J. KISSEL AND JOANNA C.
NEW,
MARTIN, CRAIG, CHESTI~R&
SONNENSCHEIN, AND STEVEN C.
HOFFMAN APPEARED ON BEHALF OF
RESPONDENT.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by I. Goodman)
The
Board, on its own motion,
hereby consolidates PCB 80—22
and PCB 80-193 for the purpose of decision.
This matter is before the Board on the July 29,
1980
complaint filed by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(Agency) alleging that Caterpillar Tractor Company (Caterpillar)
has violated the Illinois Environmental Protection Act
(Act) and
certain sections of the Illinois Pollution Control Board rul~s
and regulations, Chapter 3:
Water Pollution, in the operation
of its manufacturing facility located in Mapleton,
Peoria County,
Illinois (Mapleton Plant),
and the variance petition filed by
Caterpillar on October 17,
1980.
Hearing was held in this matter
on February 27, 1981.
No citizen testified at the hearing
and
the Board has received no public comment in this matter.
The
Agency’s May 22,
1981 motion to file its reply brief instanter
is hereby granted.
The Agency’s complaint contains three counts of alleged
violation.
Count
I alleges violation of Sections 12(a)
and
12(f)
of the Act and Rules 401(a) and 901 of Chapter 3 in
that
Caterpillar caused or allowed the discharge of effluent from its
Mapleton Plant with a pH greater than 9.0 in violation of the
terms
of its NPDES permit.
Caterpillar admits the excursion.
Count II alleges violation of Sections 12(a)
and 12(f)
of the Act
and Rules 408(a),
410(a), and 901 of Chapter 3 in that Caterpillar
caused or allowed the discharge of effluent from its Mapleton
plant containing phenol concentrations in excess of 0.3 mg/l.
L~—167
—2—
Caterpillar admits
the excursion.
Count III alleges violation of
Sections
12(a) and 12(f) of the Act and Rules
501(c) and 901 of
Chapter
3
in that Caterpillar failed to report quantities of
biochemical oxygen demand, oil and grease,
total suspended solids,
trivalent and hexavalent chromium, phenol and total
iron on its
discharge monitoring reports required by Caterpillar’s UPDES permit.
Caterpillar argues that the conditions of its NPDES permit alleged
in Count
III
to have been violated have been stayed pursuant to an
appeal by Caterpillar to
the United States Environmental Protection
Agency
(USEPA).
The USEPA stayed its inclusion of mass discharge
limitations for certain pollutants.
When the State of Illinois
subsequently assumed the NPDES authority from USEPA,
the status
of the appeal remained the same.
No final Order concerning this
matter was ever entered by USEPA.
Thus the mass limitation
conditions of the permit remain stayed.
The reporting require-
ments ~
se were never stayed but reporting was contingent on a
determination as to the mass limitations requirements.
The Board
finds that Caterpillar has not violated its NPDES
permit by not reporting the mass discharges
in question,
as alleged
in Count III.
Furthermore,
from effluent concentration information
supplied to the Agency, mass discharge concentrations are
calculable.
Since Caterpillar admits the allegations of Counts
I
and II, the Board finds Caterpillar in violation as alleged in
those two counts.
In determining what remedy
is appropriate for
these violations the Board considers the factors contained in
Section 33(c) of the Act.
The Board in this case balances the
environmental impact of the admitted excursions with the efforts
put forth by Caterpillar
to correct the problems.
In considering the low level and the infrequency of
Caterpillar’sviolations of the pH and phenol limitations the Board
finds that little or no environmental harm has occurred.
The
question of Caterpillar’s efforts to correct the violations,
however,
and,
indeed,
its ability to do
so,
are not as clear.
With respect
to the pH violations the Agency alleges poor planninq
on
the part of Caterpillar, including lack of warning devices,
corrective procedures described as too little and too late, and
failure to have sufficient amounts of chemicals on hand to corcect
shifts
in the pH level.
Caterpillar,
on the other hand,
argues
that it had been operating a newly installed system and had
experienced numerous operational problems with the startup of
i~:’~
sludge dewatering system, which resulted in a buildup of high-p~i
lime.
Caterpillar states that the automatic acid feed system will
resolve any remaining pH control problems.
Although acknowledg:Lii
the problems inherent with the startup of the new facility, we
nevertheless find that Caterpillar had had sufficient time in ~ihic3i
to correct this environmental problem, especially considering the
well known methods and readily available equipment for such control.
The Board will therefore order Caterpillar to cease and desist
further violation of the pH limitation contained
in its NPUES
permit.
43—1 M~
—3—
With respect to the phenol violation the Agency argues
that
Caterpillar has been violating the permit’s
limitation since
1977
and cannot project compliance until
1984.
The Agency suggests that
this is better addressed in a variance proceeding before the Board,
and insists that an immediate cease and desist Order
is appropriate
in this case.
Caterpillar argues that its determination of the
cause of the violations has been hampered by problems related to
increases in phenol discharge concentrations due to the disposal
of waste core sand and other phenol—bearing material.
These
discharges had masked the fact that phenol pickup in the dust col-
lector wastewater system was causing excessive phenol concentration
levels.
After receiving a preliminary engineering report from a
consultant, Caterpillar established a program to determine the best
method of control.
Caterpillar has an ongoing inhouse research
effort to determine the extent of the problem and the best method
to be used to correct it.
One witness indicates that the evaluation
will be completed by January
1,
1982,
and estimates that design and
construction of appropriate facilities will require an additional
18 months
to
2 years
(R.79).
The Agency recommends the variance not be granted
in PCB
80—193 citing the enforcement case in PCB 80—22.
On May 28,
1981,
pursuant to a stipulation and joint motion by both parties,
the
record in PCB 80—22 was incorporated in PCB 80-193.
The Board
will issue one order herein determining both cases.
The Board finds that, given the fact that certain occurrences
masked the cause of the problem, it was not unreasonable for
Caterpillar to have waited as long as it did before engaging in
a detailed study of the situation.
Caterpillar proceeded in a
reasonable manner considering the facts in this case.
Given the
additional fact that the evidence
in the record indicates little
or no harm to the environment from the phenol violations
(see
Ex.9),
the Board finds that it would impose an arbitrary and
unreasonable hardship on Caterpillar
to issue an immediate cease
and desist Order with respect to the violations.
Caterpillar
will be ordered to submit by January
1,
1982 to the Agency
for
its approval a proposal for compliance with the phenol discharge
limitation by January
1,
1984.
In the interim period, Caterpillar
will be ordered to report the status of its compliance program
and the Board will impose a daily maximum phenol discharge
limitation of 0.7
rng/l, which reflects Caterpillar’s actual
performance.
(Exhibit 1.)
The Board finds that no purpose will be served by imposing a
penalty for the violations
found herein.
The Board shall retain
jurisdiction in this matter.
This Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions
of law of the Board in this matter.
43—169
—4—
ORDER
1.
Caterpillar Tractor Company is found to have
violated Sections
12(a)
and 12(f) of the
Environmental Protection Act and Rules 401(a),
408(a),
410(a),
and 901 of Chapter 3:
Water
Pollution Rules and Regulations,
as alleged in
Counts
I and II.
2.
Caterpillar Tractor Company is found not to have
violated Sections
12(a) and 12(f)
of the Illinois
Environmental Protection Act and Rules 501(c) and
901 of Chapter 3: Water Pollution Rules and
Regulations,
as alleged in Count III.
3.
Caterpillar Tractor Company shall immediately cease
and desist further violation of its NPDES permit
with respect to the pH of the discharge of the
effluent from its treatment plant in Mapleton,
Illinois.
4.
Caterpillar Tractor Company shall
submit to the
Illinois Environmental Protection Agency by
January 1, 1982 for its approval a proposal for
final compliance with its phenol discharge
limitation.
5.
Caterpillar Tractor Company shall report to the
Agency with regard to the status of its compliance
program not less than every
3 months starting
April
1,
1982.
6.
Until January 1,
1984 or until
Caterpillar Tractor
Company completes its compliance program as
approved by the Agency, whichever first occurs,
the phenol discharge from its treatment plant in
Mapleton, Illinois shall not exceed 0.7 mg/i as
a daily maximum average concentration.
7.
Caterpillar Tractor Company shall cease and desist
violation of the phenol standard by January
1,
1984.
8.
The Board shall retain jurisdiction in this matter.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
I,
Christan L. Moffett,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, hereby certify that the above Opinion and Order
were adopted on the c~~Y~__day
of
~iLh
~.c-~E
,
1981 by a
vote of..S-C__.
Christan
L.
Moffetit/ Clerk
Illinois Pollutioi~~bntrolBoard
43—170