ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

April

~4,

1975

CATERPILLAR TRACTOR COMPANY,

Petitioner,

v.

)

PCB

75-54

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION AGENCY,

Respondent.

Mr.

Richard

J.

Kissell,

Martin,

Craig,

Chester

&

Sonnenschein,

appeared on behalf of petitioner;

Mr.

John

T.

Bernbom,

appeared on behalf of respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by Mr.

Dumelle):

This petition

for variance from

the Water Pollution

Regulations

(Chapter

3)

was filed on February

4,

1975.

Petitioner,

Caterpillar Tractor Company seeks

an extension

of

a variance previously granted

to

it on October

24,

1974

(Caterpillar

v.

EPA,

PCB 74-233,

14 PCB

237).

In PCB

74-

233,

the Board granted

a variance from Rules

205,

404(a),

404(b) (ii),

902,

903,

and 1002 from June

19,

1974 until

January

1,

1975.

In this petition Caterpillar requests

a

variance from Rules

404(b) (ii),

902 and 1002 effective

January

1,

1975 until July

1,

1977.

The Environmental Protection Agency filed

its Recommendation

which supported

the petition on March

12,

1975.

No public

hearing was held.

Caterpillar owns and operates

a manufacturing plant

on

Route

6 in Joliet.

The plant,

which employes approximately

6,000 persons, produces earth—moving

and construction machinery

and equipment.

Caterpillar discharges

its effluent

from the

Joliet Plant

into the Des Plaines River which has

a 7-day,

10-year low flow of

1,000 MGD.

Caterpillar,

which discharges

an average

flow of

.77

MGD

alleges that even based upon

a

maximum excess BOD5

discharge

of

70 ppm,

its effluent

would contribute only

0.3 percent additional

BOD load

to the

Des Plaines River.

In its original variance request, granted

in PCB

74-

233, Caterpillar alleged inability

to comply both with the

then applicable

BOD standard of Rule 404(a)

(30 mg/l)

and

16—473

---

—2—

with the more

stringent BOD requirement of Rule 404(b) (ii)

(20 mg/l)

effective December

31,

1974.

Caterpillar alleged

that

it had retained

a consulting firm

for the purpose

of

recommending

a plan

to correct

the effluent problem.

Our

Opinion

in PCB 74-233 granted the variance until January

1,

1975

so that Caterpillar could receive and review its consultant’s

recommendation.

In the instant petition,

Caterpillar again

alleges

its inability

to comply with the BOD standards

of

404 (b) (ii)

.

Caterpillar also states that its consulting

engineers

submitted

a report on November

7,

1974,

recommending

that

an activated sludge plant

be installed to facilitate

BOD removal.

The

recommendation was based on three factors:

1.

Treatability studies indicated that activated

sludge will provide stable and efficient operation;

2.

Activated sludge offers greater flexibility than

other treatment alternatives available,

including aerated

lagoon,

synthetic media trickling

filter,

biological

fixed

film rotating

disc and submerged

(upflow)

biological

filter;

3.

Activated sludge

is cost competitive with the

other biological treatment methods

studied.

As

a result

of this recommendation,

Caterpillar now proposes

the following

time schedule

for completion of the activated

sludge

system:

Commence

final design

—

May

1,

1975

Completion

of final design

-

December

31,

1975

Award of construction grant

-

June

1,

1976

Completion

of construction

—

July

1,

1977

Caterpillar provides

the following data regarding the

average monthly

levels of BOD

in

its effluent at

its Joliet

Plant.

DATE

BOlD

(mg/i)

June,

1974

116

July,

1974

56

August,

1974

91

September,

1974

86

October,

1974

69

November,

1974

69

December,

1974

62

January,

1975

127

These figures

are considerably higher than the earlier

averages presented

in PCB 7~233 and recorded in our Opinion

therein.

This

is understandable

in view of the fact that

the improper laboratory procedure which yielded low BOD

---

—3—

levels was not discovered until May,

1974.

Agency grab

samples indicated BOD concentrations

at

the following

levels:

DATE

BOD

(mg/l)

March

1,

1974

95

April

11,

1974

85

July

9,

1974

60

January

16,

1975

15

Caterpillar alleges that failure of the Board to grant

its instant variance request will impose

an arbitrary

and

unreasonable hardship

since

it cannot currently control

the

discharge of BOD to meet applicable

standards;

that enforcement

of the standards will jeopardize operation of the plant;

and

that the discharge will not cause significant harm to the

Des Plaines River.

Our Opinion in PCB 74—233 recognized CaterpillarTs good

faith in engaging a consultant prior

to filing the petition

therein.

The Agency,

in a recommendation to grant the

instant petition, filed on March 12,

1975, expressed an

opinion that Caterpillar has continued to act in good faith

in developing

an abatement program.

We agree that the

compliance plan proposed by Caterpillar continues to evidence

such good faith.

The Agency recommendation points out that on September

30,

1974, approximately three weeks before the Board’s

decision in PCB 74-233, Caterpillar was issued an NPDES

Permit for its Joliet facility (IL000 1732).

The dates

which Caterpillar sets out in this petition for the design,

construction,

and completion of the activated sludge system

are the same dates which are contained in the schedule of

compliance

in the NPDES Permit, and the Agency feels these

dates are a reasonable assessment of the actual time needed

for the completion of the system.

The NPDES Permit does not

specify

a numerical or effluent limitation for BOD for the

period from the date of issuance of the permit until the

proposed date of completion of the activated sludge plant on

June

30,

1977,

but Caterpillar is required to monitor its

effluent daily for gOD.

After June 30,

1977 until the

expiration date of the permit, Caterpillar is required to

meet a daily average BOlD5

limitation of

20 mg/l,

and a

daily maximum of

50 mg/l

We shall set a maximum of 130 mg/l

of BOD on

a monthly average basis.

The Agency

feels that although the compliance schedule

set out in Caterpillar’s NPDES Permit serves as a deterrent

from delay in completion of the activated sludge system,

a

variance issued by this Board should be limited to no more

than one year in order to insure that Caterpillar maintains

16—475

---

—4—

“good housekeeping and continues to exercise all possible

care to maintain its BOD discharge at the lowest possible

level”

(Agency Recommendation,

p.

6).

We agree that such a

time frame is appropriate.

Caterpillar also seeks variance from the permit requirement

of Rule 902 and

the filing of

a project completion schedule

requirement of Rule 1002.

As we pointed out in PCB 74—233,

Rules 902 and 903 were replaced by Rules 952

arid 953 effective

October 11,

1974 but suspended until the earlier of January

31,

1975,

or the date the U.S.

Environmental Protection

Agency fails

to approve the Illinois NPDES Permit Program.

These rules are now effective and Caterpillar needs the

variance regardless of the fact that it has an NPDES Permit.

Rule 1002

(b) (ii)

requires that a discharger,

“shall file a

project completion schedule” including “a time schedule for

the project’s completion which must meet the applicable

deadlines.”

We also grant a variance from this Rule.

The

Agency would subject such

a variance to the condition that

Caterpillar file a Project Completion Schedule indicating

compliance dates, notwithstanding. that such schedule fails

to meet the required applicable deadlines.

This would

appear to be unnecessary since Caterpillar has already filed

its compliance schedule in connection with its NPDES Permit.

This Opinion constitutes the Board’s findings of fact

and conclusions of law.

ORDER

1.

Variance trom Rules 404(b) (ii),

952,

953,

and 1002

is granted from January

1,

1975 until December 31,

1975

subject to the condition that Petitioner’s BOD discharge

not

be increased in strength or quantity beyond present levels

and in no month shall it exceed 130 mg/i on a monthly average

basis.

2.

The following checkpoint dates shall be met by

the Petitioner:

Commence final design

May 1,

1975

Complete final design

—

December 31, 1975

Award construction grant

-

June 1,

1976

Complete construction

—

July 1,

Control Board,

hereby certify the above Opinion and Order were

adopted on the~’~’ day of April,

1975 by a vote of

4.~-c~

ChristanL.

Moffett, perk

Illinois Thllution Control Board