ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
December
2,
1982
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
)
)
Complainant,
v.
)
PCB
80—111
)
CATERPILLAR TRACTOR COMPANY,
Respondent.
JOHN VAN VRANKEN, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, APPEARED ON BEHALF
OF COMPLAINANT;
RICHARD J. KISSEL AND JOANNA C.
NEW, MARTIN, CRAIG, CHESTER
&
SONNENSCHEIN, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by I. Goodman):
This matter comes before the Board on a May
30,
1980
complaint filed by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(Agency).
The complaint alleges that Caterpillar Tractor Company
(Caterpillar) violated the Environmental Protection Act
(Act) and
the Pollution Control Board regulations contained at 35
Xli. Mm.
Code. Subtitle C:
Water Pollution in the operation of its
waste—
water treatment plant located at its Mossville, Peoria County,
manufacturing facility.
Hearing was held in this matter on
March 25,
1982.
No citizen testified at hearing and the Board
has received no public comment in this matter.
The Agency’s complaint contains five counts.
Within all
five counts, violations of Sections 12(a),
(b) and
(f) of the Act
are alleged,
in conjunction with specific Board rule violations.
Count
I alleges violations of
35 Ill. Mm.
Code 309.102 in that
Caterpillar caused or allowed the discharge of effluent
from
its
Mossviile plant with BOD levels greater than the 20 mg/i permitted
by its NPDES permit, which was initially issued October 19, 1977
and modified December
5, 1978.
Count II alleges violations of
35 Ill. Adm.
Code 304.141 and 309.102 in that Caterpillar caused
or allowed the discharge of effluent with total suspended solids
greater than 25 mg/i permitted by its NPDES permits.
It further
alleges that the effluent discharged had levels exceeding
the
30 mg/i for suspended solids allowed pursuant to a Board—issued
variance granted November 29,
1979 through May 1,
1980 (Cater-
pillar v.
IEPA,
PCB 79—99).
Count III alleges violation~~U
35 111. Mm. Code 304.120(a) and 309.102 in that Caterpillar
caused or allowed effluent discharges containing fats, oils, and
50-33
2
grease
in excess of the 15 mg/i allowed by the original NPDES
permit;
in excess of the 30 mg/i allowed by the aforementioned
variance; and in excess of the 30mg/i allowed by the modified
NPDES permit.
Count IV cites violation of
35 Ill.
Adm.
Code
304.141 alleging a one-time exceedance of the 1.3 mg/i effluent
limitation for chromium allowed by the modified NPDES permit.
Count V alleges violations of
35
Ill. Mm. Code 305.102 and
309.102 in that Caterpillar failed to report to the Agency mass
quantities of BOD,
total suspended solids, oil and grease,
iron,
zinc,
and chromium discharged,
thus also failing
to comply with
the terms of the original and modified NPDES permits.
In support of
its Complaint,
the Agency submitted the two
NPDES permits issued by the United States Environmental Protec-
tion Agency
(USEPA)
to Caterpillar,
and the Discharge Monitoring
Reports
(DMRs) and noncompliance letters sent by Caterpillar to
the Agency during the period of alleged violations.
(Complainant’s Ex.
1.)
Caterpillar did not dispute the facts set out therein.
Instead Caterpillar acknowledged the exceedances, submitting t~,
charts which listed the excess amount of BOO,
total suspended
solids,
and oils and grease discharged, the violations of monthly
averages,
the dates of violations, and the probable causes of the
violations.
(Respondent’s Ex.
14 and
15..)
Caterpillar also
provided testimony and exhibits further explaining the causes of
violations and the efforts since
to correct the problems.
Caterpillar
did, however, deny the allegations contained
in Count
V pertaining to mass discharge reporting.
Based on Complainant’s Exhibit
1 and Caterpillar’s admissions
the Board finds Caterpillar in violation as alleged in Counts
I
through IV.
In determining the remedy appropriate for these
violations,
the Board will consider the factors contained in
Section 33(c)
of the Act.
Since the NPDES permit was initially issued
in October,
1977,
twenty—three exceedances of the BOO limitations have been recorded
along with eight monthly averages
in excess of that allowed by
permit.
According to Caterpillar, these violations were due
primarily to unauthorized disposals and equipment malfunctions.
Over the course of the same two and one-half years
(October,
1977
until June,
1980), discharges exceeded the total suspended solbis
limitation ten times, and the monthly average seven times.
These
violations were also attributed primarily to unauthorized disposals
and equipment malfunctions.
It should be noted that three of these
violations occurred during the five months the variance was in
effect.
Between November, 1979 and June,
1980, the oil and grease
limitation was exceeded eleven times.
These too were attributed
to the same two causes along with unanticipated flow surges.
The
one excessive discharge of chromium, on or about May 16,
1979 was
attributed to equipment malfunction.
50-34
3
In addition to explaining the individual
and concurrent
causes, Caterpillar argued that many of the violations occurred
during
a period of construction.
Caterpillar
further offered
that it has taken steps to correct operational defects which
caused many of the violations.
A program was instituted
instructing plant personnel to avoid unauthorized disposals into
the facility’s
sewer system, and the subsequent need to forewarn
the waste water treatment operators when such disposals happen.
An advance warning system was also installed.
(R.
43—44).
Also,
since such disposals often precipitated BOO excursions,
Caterpillar
installed experimental respirometers, which will, hopefully,
directly alert the operators to possible BOO overloadings.
Since
this instrument will also monitor chemical oxygen demands, Cater-
pillar acknowledges that time is needed to determine if
it will
provide adequate warning.
To prevent hiomass growth, also a
probable cause of BOD exceedances, chlorine shocking
to gravity
filters now takes place at least weekly.
(R.
46—47).
A switch
to a non-glycol based hydraulic oil is expected to also prevent
BOD overloadings
in the event contaminated quench pit discharge’;
are misdirected to the treatment plant.
(R.
105).
To correct
the high flow surges, Caterpillar installed equalization tanks
in late 1978.
(R.
102).
As for the equipment malfunctions,
Caterpillar explained the time and amount of
repair each entailed,
Surge
tanks have been installed to allow for water retention
during future malfunctions.
(R.
125).
As for the excessive chromium discharged, Caterpillar claimed
that environmental harm was probably less than numerical recording
would indicate, because the treatment operators treated the
contaminated water a second time after noticing the contamination.
(R.
120).
Given Caterpillar’s efforts to correct the problems and
prevent future ones, the Board finds that any fine imposed
would not serve to further the enforcement of the Act.
The issue of mass discharge reporting
is analogous to
that
posed
in Illinois Environmental Protection Agency v. Caterpillar
Tractor Co.,
PCB 80—22,
80—193 Consolidated, August 20, 1981.
Therein the Board found that Caterpillar had not violated its
NPDES permit by not reporting mass discharges
in question, because
the USEPA had stayed the inclusion of mass discharge limitations.
The Board found that although the reporting requirements had not
been stayed per
Se, these requirements had been contingent on
the stayed requirement for mass limitations.
The same is true
in this case.
In an effort to distinguish this case,
the Agency
did elicit on cross—examination that the mass discharge amount
could not be calculated from the other figures submitted by
Caterpillar.
This, however,
is immaterial since the Board has
already found that Caterpillar is not bound by mass limitation
discharges in PCB 80—22 and PCB 80—193,
and therefore not
required
to report the same.
The Board so finds in this case.
50-35
4
This constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions ot
law by the Board in this matter.
ORDER
1.
Caterpillar Tractor Company is found
to have violated
Sections 12(a),
(b)
and
(f)
of the Environmental Protection
Act and 35 Ill.
Adm. Code 304.120(a),
304.141, and 309.102
as alleged in Counts
I through
IV.
2.
Caterpillar Tractor Company
is found not to have violated
Sections 12(a),
(b) or
(f) of the Environmental Protection
Act and 35 Ill. Adm. Code 305.102 and 309.102 as alleged
in Count V.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Board Member 3. Anderson concurred and 0. Anderson dissented.
I, Christan
L. Moffett,
Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, hereby c~rtifythat the above Opinion and Order
was adopted, on the
~
day of
‘4
~
—,
1982 by a
voteof
/,‘
/
Christan
L.
Moffett,’.,~ierk
Illinois Pollution Cbntrol Board
50-36