ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

August 22, 1984

ILLINOIS

ENVIRONMENTAL

)

PROTECTION

 AGENCY,

)

Complainant,

)

v~

)

 PCB 81—18

CATERPILLAR

 TRACTOR COG,

a

)

California

 corporation,

)

)

Respondent,

GERHARDT

 BRAECKEL, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, APPEARED ON

 BEHALF

OF THE

 COMPLAINANT~

MARTIN, CRAIG,

 CHESTER & SONNENSCHEIN

 CM, THERESA YASDICK,

OF

COUNSEL)

 APPEARED ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENTS

OPINION

 AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

 (by W,

 J, Nega):

This matter

 comes before the Board on the February 5,

1981

Complaint

 brought by the Illinois Environmental Protection

Agency

(Agency) which

 alleged that the Respondent, Caterpillar

 Tractor

Company

 (Caterpillar), had commenced construction on Mold

 Line G

in its B

 Building and on Mold Line

 4 in its D Building at

its

 Mapleton

 plant without having first obtained the necessary

 con—

struction

 permits from the Agency in violation of Rule

 103(a) (1)

of Chapter

2;

 Air Pollution Regulations

 (now 35

 Ill.

 Adm,

Code 201.142)

 and Section 9(b) of the Illinois Environmental

Protection Act

 (Act),

Extensive

 discovery took place in this case, and

 the Board

entered two

 preliminary Orders pertaining to discovery

 matters on

December

1,

 1983 and February

 9, 1984.

A hearing

 was held on June 25,

 1984 and the parties

 filed a

Stipulation and

 Proposal for Settlement on June 26, 1984.

Caterpillar owns and operates a gray iron foundry,

 employing

approximately

 3,200 persons, in Mapleton, Peoria County,

 Illinois

(Mapleton plant)~

 Ferrous metals are processed, melted,

 and cast

at this

 facility.

 After being processed at the Mapleton plant,

the final

 products of the casting operations are then

 further

processed in

 other Caterpillar plants for

 ultimate

 utilization

in

the Respondent~s

~arthmoving construction equipment and.

 diesel

engines~

59-367

The

 two primary productcn areas at the Res~ndent~s

site

are housed

 in Building B and Building

D,

 (Stip~

2),

 Building B,

which was

 completed in 19f 8,

 is used to house several

 lines in

which castings

 are made c~molded.

 Mold Line S is among

the

molding lines

 whic~~were constructed before 1~7/and for

 which

most of the

 requisit~oermits were obtained.

 Btilding

 D, which

is

 a distinct

 structure who~eexterior was corpleted in

 1978, has

not

 been

as

 fully utilized

 as Building B.

 Aithotgb the

Respondent

 began it~irodu

 ion in Building

D

 ir 1978,

 a large

portion

 of Builciirg ~ wa’~li~i uncompleted

r

 ~lc.sedoff

 by a

partition

 and only

wo

 ioldinj lines were insta~led at

 that time.

(Stip.

2).

On

 August 17, 19~7 the Respondent a perm

 to operate

various process

 emission sources

 and. air po

I

 ior control

equipment then

 in use in Line G was renewed Ly tIe Agency.

 (See:

Exhibit 1).

 However, before 1979,

 the Reap ndent decided

 that

Mold Line G

 should be automated in orde~. to

u

 Ice it more

efficient

 in making certain castings.

Stt

 2-3)

 Additionally,

to meet

 anticipated product demand,

 the compary decided

 that an

additional mold

 line (i.e.,

 Mold Line 4)

qa.

 ~i~o required

in

Building D,

To

 accomplish the requisite automation

 f Lrre 5, the

Respondent

 founu it neceasarv to issue

a

 ~e ?~

o~r

purchase

orders in

 1979,

1980

 and 1981 so that pre ir~ at

 design

 work

by

the contractors

 courd be initiated;

 engineer rg

d

 awings

 could bG

prepared; and

 the pert nent designs, drawin

 a a~dblueprints

could be

 provided t

 th’~Respondent before

 ~3u~pment

was

installed.

 (Stip

3

 Lime G contracts e t~rJ

 i r~oin

1979

included a

 serie~

t

 i~eorders for

 production

equipment in

 ordc

 to automate Line G.

Si

 i prodiction

 equipment

included:

(1)

 sand sya~emequipment;

(2)

 mole ~nd flask

 handling

equipment;

(3)

 sha~Icc~eutequipment,

and

(4

s~a

d

 a~inging

and

hydraulic

 power unit egu~aun’t.

 (Stip.

~).

~he

 ~empany~s

1979

purchase orders

 were

t

r

 the design, developr

n

 production,

delivery,

 unloading, ard installation of such eguipment.

Similarly,

in

 98’ the Respondent issued

a

 series of

purchase

 orders

 for air pollution control eqarpment and pro-

duction

 equipment f’r rutomated Line G inc~adi~g

(1)

 a new dust

collector;

(2)

 moto ized cranes;

and

(3)

 steet m~tal

installation

for ventilation

 ard dust collection

 (includirte ~ortnection

of the

dust collector

 in~ta’ledwith Building

B

I

 ~9~8;.

 Moreover, in

1980, the

 Responden~replaced the shakeout

ma~re~

 slinger

machine,

 turnover

 a ch~e, and mold frame cleaisr for Line

 G and

relocated the

 moic ceding tunnel and pourir

 area,

 (Stip.

4),

Additionally,

 in 198

 the company issued pur’haee orders

 for:

(1)

 a core

 sand

 ren’o ~a

 3ystem, and

 (2’

 a new ±urrace and

the

relocation

 of anot~r fi~nace. Caterpillar

 al~~d

 construction

activity on

 Line G c~nfebruary

2,

1981

 This crstruction

activity was

 not rearmed

 rntil March 23,

 1981 when the

 company

was

 notified

that.

con~ruct

permit

wc~

i

Icc

~sued

by

the

Agency.

Concomitanti~ Lrr~

coct:act~

were

~nto

and

 con-

struction

 work

Lir’

i

ace

cturirg

~i

 ro general

time

period.

 The Reap’ ridet~e~

nto

u’

architectural

and

eng

ncc’~rg i~n

for

s~c r

Building

and

design

work

t~c

rt~

 r~ ~eu~pmi

on

October

31,

 197d.

 I~c~

r

r~

r~

 is~ucc

Ia

 order

for

the

design

and

 of’

cc:

u

 ~cnt for

Line

4

 January

(rte~piIla~

c

 ~nto

another

contract

Februa~

fir

Ci

aid

engineering

 firm

 IIc~r

v~.

 ‘~i

rk

t

 be ~

 ~ction

 with

the planning

and

c

 ‘3

 cer~~

 t~ru

r

 y pertaining

to the

 necessary

c

3

 casing

the

molding

 capacity

ii

Ii

 ~rg r,

~u

I

 ~ciu ed at

various

 times during

t ~

 tervrj Iet~err

 a~dlate

1982.

 (Stip.

4),

Rec~lord

r’o

contract on

 June

26,

 w~tIa gerer~

~

 further

develop the

 unfini I~d;a

 ci Building

 rolding

activities.

Subsequ

Noverrber

Lr

 3ec~pondent

poured the

 footings

 ~ aor~ mcldrrg m

 n’~4.

In

addition to

 these ~rc‘~u”lydelireated

c

~

t~e

Respondent

issued a purchase

 ~rd.r on Fohrua y

25

 installation

of the molding

 ega~~r~TF~re~’ia’slycr4~r

 ~ry 3,

 1980)

and for the

 design, ~cr~

 pnent, and ~n~’ J

 f a complete

sand system.

 (S~’a

4 ~

At the

same

~

 r~oa cur

‘~

 ~re being

issued and

 contrc~a

 r d~

 LI’

 comc

‘~

 e process

of

meeting with

 rep~e

 of the kg~

r

 ocr 17,

1980,

the

 Respondert

d

ts

 ~o~i r

 ~arv~for its

Mapleton

plant

 with

 P c~~v ~efresen~at3 cc

 x~day

(i.e.,

November

18,

 1980,

 A~~ y nerr~onne

on

r

 ~pection

of

Building B

 and Bu~lI

 P t~ bserv~cc~r

Ic

t.

~he site.

On

November 24,

1980

ii-

 npaay su

nit

Ca

 at~on

for a

construction

 and ope~~’ting

 permit for 1ir~C

 hxhibit 2)

to

the Agency.

 (Stip.

)

 Sinriarly, oi

 I) c4nt

~

 1980,

 Caterpillar

submitted

 its appl~c~rrnr

LOt a constracti

‘~

 p r~’ for Line

 4 to

the Agency,

 (See:

 ~xLrbrt 3).

 Accorth.

j

 ‘~c

Ltne G permit

application

 form, t’~c~‘~poident indicated

a

 ~ie emissions

and

process

 weight rate were not anticipated ~o in~re~ccover

 previously

allowed levels,

 ~xhi it ~ also showed th t

 a~ro cuitional

 dust

collectors were

 expecael to be added

 (i.e

a

 e~cxrelynew

 dust

collector and

the

CXi ~trng

 c.ust collector

in

 ~i. cc. in

1968

 which

was to be

 connected and made operable),

~

 .c. trr dated

December 24,

 1980,

 tie Agen~yindicated ti

q

a

 ~ reject the

permit application

 filed Sovamber 24,

 198)

Cc

 ek of sufficient

information.

 (See’

 Exhibit 4).

 Similar~y,

ci ~anuary,

 1981,

the Agency

 also rec~trd :~rekeapondenlir

 )~.a.rir

16,

1980

permit

 applicatlor z~.ra construction pe~ut ~c

 ~tcc

4

 because

of a lack of

 informa~Lo~c. 3e~ Ex.rb~t

—4—

Representatives of the company and the Agency again met

on

February 9,

 1981 to discuss the additional information that

 would

required

 complete the permit applications.

 Following

 these

discussions,

 the company reapplied for a construction and

 operating

permit for Line G on March

4,

 1981.

 (See:

 Exhibit 6).

The

 Agency issued a joint construction and operating permit for

Line

 G on March 26, 1981.

 (See:

 Exhibit 7).

 The Agency

then

received,

 on April

17,

 1981,

 a revised permit application

 from

the Respondent which requested a construction permit for

 Mold

Line 4.

 This application also requested permission for an

 expanded

(1) melting capacity,

(2)

 sand core area, and

 (3) finishing

 area,

(Stip.

6).

 There were emission sources which were part of the

second phase of

 the installation of the Building D production

equipment in

each

 of these areas.

 (See:

 Group Exhibit 8). The

Agency subsequently

 granted the company a construction permit for

Mold

Line

 June 9,

 1981.

 (See:

 Exhibit

9).

Although the

 parties agree that the Respondent caused or

allowed

 the commencement of construction of production equipment

of a

 type

 capable of emitting specified air contaminants to

the

atmosphere and/or

 certain air pollution control equipment for

Mold Line G

and

 Line

 4 prior to obtaining the requisite con-

struction

 permits in violation of Rule 103(a)(1)

 of Chapter

2:

Air Pollution

 Regulations

 (now 35 Ill.

 Adm. Code 201.142),

 they

have

 a somewhat

 different view of the situation.

 The Respondent

believes that it

 acted in good faith throughout this period

of

time, and that the

 violation is merely ~technical~win nature,

On

the other hand,

 the Agency feels that the Respondent could

have

applied

for

 the necessary permits in a timely manner.

 In order

to

resolve

 their differences, Caterpillar and the Agency have sub-

mitted a proposed settlement agreement in which the company

admits its violations and agrees to pay a stipulated penalty of

$7,500.00 into the Environmental Protection Trust Fund,

In evaluating this enforcement action and proposed settle-

ment agreement, the Board has taken into consideration all the

facts

and

 circumstances in light of the specific criteria de-

 lineated in Section 33(c) of the Act and finds the settlement

agreement acceptable under 35

 Ill.

 Adm, Code 103.180.

The Board believes that the Agency is correct in its

fundamental premise that the permit system is at the heart of the

protection provided by the Illinois Environmental Protection Act

and that the

 effective administration of the system is based on

timely compliance,

 As the Agency states:

 ~‘securingconstruction

permits at an

early point in the planning process

is

 a preferred

management,

 as well as

 environmental, practice.~’

 (Stip.

7),

The Board

 finds that the Respondent,

 the Caterpillar

 Tractor

Company, has

 violated Rule 103(a)(1)

 of Chapter 2:

Air

 Pollution

Regulations

 (now

 35 Ill, Adm, Code 201.142) and Section 9(b)

of

the Illinois

 Environmental Protection Act. Accordingly,

the

Respondent

 will be ordered to pay the stipulated penalty

of

$7,500.00 to

 the Environmental Protection Trust Fund.

This

 Opinion constitutes the Board~sfindings of

 fact

and

conclusions

 of law in this matter.

ORDER

It is the

 Order of the Illinois Pollution Control

 Board

that:

1.

The

 Respondent,

 the Caterpillar Tractor Company,

has

violated

 Rule 103(a)(1)

 of Chapter

2:

Air

 Pollution

Regulations

 (now 35

 Ill. Adm,

 Code 201,142)

and

Section

 9(b)

 of the Illinois Environmental

 Protection

Act,

2.

 Within

 45 days of the date of this Order,

 the Respondent

shall,

 by certified check or money order payable

 to the

State of

 Illinois and designated for deposit

 into the

Environmental

 Protection Trust Fund, pay the

 stipulated

penalty

 of $7,500.00 which is to be sent

to:

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency

Fiscal Services Division

2200 Churchill Road

Springfield, Illinois

62706

3.

The

 Respondent shall comply with all the terms

and

conditions of the Stipulation and Proposal for

Settlement filed on June

26,

 1984, which

is

incorporated by reference as if fully set forth

 herein.

IS

 SO ORDERED,

I,

 Dorothy M.

 Gunn, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

 Control

Board hereby

 certify that the above Opinion and Order was

 adopted

on the

~

 day of

 1984 by a vote of

 ~~C)

Dorothy

 M, ~rnn, Clerk

Illinois Pollution Control Board