ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    September
    2, 1976
    CATERPILLAR
    TRACTOR
    COMPANY,
    )
    )
    Petitioner,
    v.
    )
    PCB 76—131
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
    )
    Respondent.
    DISSENTING OPINION
    (by Mr.
    Dumelle):
    The Petitioner has asked for variance from Rule 103(b) (6)
    of Chapter
    2, Air Pollution Control Rules and Regulations.
    It
    asserts that an arbitrary and unreasonable hardship will result
    if it must “go through the expense and delay of a detailed modelling
    and monitoring study”.
    The six plants which are the subject of the variance are in
    three recognizably separate airsheds.
    The Mossville, East Peoria
    and Morton plants are in the Peoria airshed.
    The Aurora and
    Joliet plants are in the Chicago airshed.
    The third airshed is
    the Decatur one.
    Depending upon the extent of monitoring and modelling
    required by the Agency it is possible that considerable expense
    and lengthy delays could in fact result before the operating
    permits could be issued.
    If, for example, two full years of
    air quality and meteorological data are required by the Agency
    and if these data must be gathered anew by Caterpillar, then
    ~expenditure
    of perhaps
    a million dollars or more is involved.
    On the other hand,
    if existing air quality data from State
    and local networks are permitted by the Agency to be used by
    Caterpillar, then the cost could be far lower.
    On the basis of what is before us we simply do not know
    the extent of the Agency’s requirement upon Caterpillar.
    I would
    not have dismissed the case but would have set it for hearing
    to allow the Petitioner to meet its statutory burden of proving
    an arbitrary and unreasonable hardship.
    23
    —
    389
    —2—
    The compliance plan requirement for this variance would
    come after the threshold determination under Rule 103(b) (6)
    that air quality standards are endangered.
    We have granted varianc~from the requirement to obtain
    a landfill permit because of expense.
    Yet the borings required
    in a landfill permit application are essential in determining
    whether a hazard to ground water quality will be created by the
    permit issuance.
    Modelling and/or monitoring are needed to
    determine
    the hazard
    (if any)
    to air quality.
    What is at
    issue
    is whether those requirements, as set by the Agency,
    constitute an arbitrary and unreasonable hardship.
    Submitted by:
    I, Christan L. Moffett,
    Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control
    Board,
    h reby certify the above Dissenting Opinion was submitted on
    the _______day of September.
    Christan
    L.
    Moffett, Clerk~&
    illinois Pollution Control Board
    23
    —
    390

    Back to top