ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

February

19,

1976

CATERPILLAR

TRACTOR

COMPANY,

)

Petitioner,

V.

)

PCB

75-93

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Respondent.

Hugh B.

Thomas appeared on behalf of Petitioner.

Roger Zehntner appeared on behalf of Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by Mr. Goodman):

This matter comes before the Pollution Control Board

(Board)

upon the Petition for Variance filed by Caterpillar Tractor Company

(Caterpillar) on February 25,

1975.

Caterpillar seeks variance

from the permit requirement of Rule 103 and the particulate emission

limitation of Rule 203 of the Air Regulations for furnaces at its

gray iron foundry located on

US.

Route

24, Mapleton, Peoria County,

Illinois.

The Environmental Protection Agency

(Agency)

filed its

Amended Recommendation on June

3,

1975.

On June 5,

1975,

a hearing

was held at the Peoria County Courthouse.

Caterpillar has waived

its right under Section 38 of the Environmental Protection Act

(Act)

to a decision by the Board within

90 days after the filing of a

Petition.

Caterpillar’s Mapleton plant, which employs approximately

3,200 persons,

is engaged

in the melting and casting of ferrous

metal.

The products of this foundry operation are processed in

other plants owned by Caterpillar and are ultimately incorporated

in Caterpillar’s primary products, which include earthmoving and

construction equipment and diesel engines.

The foundry has twelve

(12) electric induction melt furnaces, each rated at a 25—ton

capacity and operated at a seven ton per hour process weight rate.

Ten to eleven of the induction furnaces are operated simultaneously

while the remaining furnace or furnaces are down for relining of the

refractory or maintenance.

The twelve furnaces are arranged in a

straight line and are all housed under one roof.

The roof has four-

teen ventilators mounted in a line over the melt furnaces.

These

20—91

---

—2—

ventilators evacuate to the atmosphere particulate emissions gene-

rated by the furnaces.

It is these particulate emissions for which

Caterpillar seeks

a variance.

Since September,

1972, Caterpillar has submitted four appli-

cations for an operating permit to the Agency.

Each has been denied.

The final application was denied on February 1,

1974, for failure to

show compliance with Rule 203.

Tests performed by Batelle Columbus

Laboratories in 1974, with the acquiescence of the Agency,

indicate

that each of Caterpillar’s furnaces emits

8.93 pounds of particulate

per hour.

This emission level violates the allowable emission level

of Rule 203(a), the applicable rule in this matter

(due to failure

to prove compliance with Rule 203(c)) by 7.18 pounds per hour.

When the total emissions for all twelve induction furnaces are aggre-

gated, Caterpillar’s Mapleton plant melt area, at a combined process

weight rate of 84 tons per hour, exceeds the Rule

203(a)

allowable

emission limit by approximately 80 pounds of particulate per hour.

In order to reduce the particulate emissions from the furnaces,

Caterpillar has proposed to install a duct system and cloth bag

filters through which the particulate emissions from the melt furnaces

will be vented.

Caterpillar has estimated, and the Agency agrees,

that the dust collection efficiency of this control system will be 99

percent.

Furthermore, when the expected control efficiency is applieu

to the aggregated emission levels when twelve furnaces are operating

simultaneously, compliance with the limitations of Rule 203(a)

should

be achieved.

Caterpillar alleges that

a requirement of immediate compliance

with Rules 103 and 203 would impose an arbitrary and unreasonable

hardship on Caterpillar in that it could result in cessation of

Caterpillar’s production activities.

The Board finds that, although Caterpillar has acted

in good

faith, Caterpillar’s petition for variance must be dismissed.

Cater-

pillar has failed to prove that its emissions do not contribute to

a violation of the ambient air quality standards and, therefore,

has

not met its burden under Procedural Rule 401(c),

nor has Caterpillar

shown that compliance will impose

au

arbitrary and unreasonable hard-

ship.

At the hearing, Caterpillar presented a preliminary report on

1974 ambient air monitoring data,

gathered by the Agency, which con-

tained data gathered at six monitoring stations in the Peoria area.

The report indicated no violations of the 24 hour particulate con-

centration regulation and one violation of the annual limitation.

However,

the data on the annual concentration gathered at three of

the monitoring stations, including the station closest to Caterpillar’s

20—92

---

—3—

facility, were incomplete.

In September,

1975,

the Agency published the final 1974 Annual

Air Quality Report.

The Board hereby takes official notice of that

document.

The report indicates that the annual particulate concentra-

tions at the monitoring station closest to Caterpillar, which is only

five miles northeast

(R 17)

and at the station

11 1/2 miles from

Caterpillar’s foundry

(R 34—35)

were in violation of the annual limi-

tation of

75 micrograms per cubic meter.

We have held that

a variance

may

be granted when the “hardship

imposed by refusing the variance so far outweighs the benefits

to the

community as to be arbitrary and unreasonable.”

EPA v. Lindgren

Foundry Company,

1 PCB 11.

The burden for proving arbitrary and un-

reasonable hardship is placed upon the Petitioner in of the Act SS31

(c)

and

35.

Caterpillar has alleaed that

a refusal by the Board to

grant the requested variance could result

in a cessation of Cater-

pillar’s production activities.

However, denial or dismissal of a

variance is not, in and of itself,

a shutdown order.

Eltra Corpora-

tion v.

EPA,

19 PCB 143.

Caterpillar has not proved that its particu-

late emissions do not cause or contribute to a violation of the

ambient air quality standards in the area affected.

Maintenance of

the ambient air quality is essential to the health arid welfare of

the people.

Therefore, Caterpillar has not met its burden of proving

that the hardship imposed by our dismissal of this variance petition

so far outweighs the benefit to public as

to be “arbitrary and un-

reasonable.”

The Board therefore dismisses Caterpillar’s Petition for

Variance.

ORDER

It is the Order of the Pollution Control Board that Caterpillar’s

Petition for Variance from Rules 103 and 203 of the Air Regulations

be and is hereby dismissed.

I, Christan L. Moffett, Clerk

of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board, h~rebycertify

he above Opinion and Order were adopted on

the

jg~’

day of

,

1976 by a vote of~ttp

c4stan~Nof~

Illinois Pollution

ntrol Board