ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
June
22,
1978
UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION,
)
Petitioner,
v.
)
PCB 77—317
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Respondent.
MR. CLIFTON A.
LAKE,
ROOKS, PITTS, FULLAGAR AND POUST, APPEARED
ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER;
MS. LORETTA WEBER, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, APPEARED ON
BEHALF OF RESPONDENT.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by Mr. Goodman):
On December
2,
1977,
United States Steel Corporation
(USS)
filed this Petition for Review of Permit Denial before the Board
alleging that the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency
(Agency) had unlawfully denied USS’s operating permit application
for its manufacturing plant in Waukegan,
Illinois
(Waukegan Works).
A hearing was held in this matter on February
2,
1978,
at which
the
parties
indicated
a
Stipulation
of
Fact
would
be
filed
with
the
Board
with
briefs
to
be
presented
by
both
parties.
No
citizens
appeared
at
the
hearing,
and
the
Board
has
received
no
public
comment
in
this
matter.
The
Stipulation
of
Fact
as
presented
by
the
parties
herein
indicates
that
USS
operates
a
heat
treating
facility
for
steel
wire
products
at
the
Waukegan
Works
facility.
The
particular
process
in
question
here
is
known
as
oil—tempering;
a
process
which increases the tensile strength and fatigue resistance of
high carbon and alloy steel wires.
In this case the wire
is
heated
to
a
high
temperature,
quickly
quenched
in an oil bath
and
thereafter
heated
to
a
low
temperature
to
relieve
thermal
30-516
—2—
stresses caused by the quenching.
The high temperature and sudden
cooling at a controlled rate is necessary to produce the metallur-
gical structure needed to give the needed physical characteristics.
Tests conducted at the Waukegan facility indicate an average
emission rate of 1.33 lbs./hr.
The average weight of steel wire
heat treated during each test was calculated as
0.89 tons per hour.
These two figures result in a particulate emission factor of 1.49
pounds per ton of wire processed, which is the figure both parties
have stipulated for the purpose of this proceeding.
Using this
emission factor and the maximum design process rate as indicated
in paragraph
(5)
of the Stipulation of Fact,
the total maximum
particulate emission rate from the steel wire heat treating process
is 11.54
lbs./hr.
During the course of heat treating 7.75 tons per
hour of wire and 26.5 tons of oil
is circulated through the process.
Make-up oil is added to the heat treating operation at a rate of
61.4 lbs./hr.
The protective coating operation introduces
an
additional 38.23 tons per hour of oil in the process.
The quenching
oil processing tank loses quenching oil through vaporization and
splattering during the quench, particulate emissions during the oil
cooling process, and drag-out,
i.e.,
the oil clinging to the wire
as it emerges from the oil bath which is apparently burned off
during the drawing or tempering process.
Losses from the cooling
and protective coating bath would include the same as those in the
heat
treating
bath.
Given the preceding facts, the Board must determine what
constitutes the process weight rate in this case.
In denying
the permit application,
the Agency determined that the process
weight rate should be the amount of oil added to the process’s
make-up, which,
in this case, amounted to 6L4 pounds of oil per
hour.
Since this amount is less than 100 ibs,/hr., the minimum
0.55 lbs./hr. emission limitation would apply resulting in a
limitation much less than the 11.54 pounds of particulate emis-
sion admitted by USS.
USS on the other hand argues that the weight of the steel
wire heat treated or the weight of the oil used
in the heat treat-
ing bath or some combination thereof should determine the process
weight rate.
Any of the foregoing would result in an allowable
emission rate above that determined as USS’s actual emission rate.
In its argument, USS turns
to the definition of process weight
rate
as found in Rule 201 of the Regulations, which reads
as
follows:
Process ~
Rate:
The actual weight or
30—5
17
engineering approximation thereof of all
materials
except liquid and gaseous
fuels and combustion
air,
introduced into any process per hour.
For a cycli-
cal or batch operation,
the process weight
rate
shall be determined by dividing such actual
weight
or engineering approximation thereof by
the
number
of hours of operation excluding any time
during
which the equipment is ld1e~ For continuous pro-
cesses, the process weight rate shall be
determined
by dividing such actual weight at engineering ap-
proximation thereof by the numbe
of hours
in one
complete operation,
excluding anl time during
which
the equipment is idle.
USS argues
that the definition allows a total weight of
anything
put in the
System to be used in the determination
of process weights
other than certain fuels and combustion air.
A classic example
of this
thinking leading to an absurd result would
be the painting
of a steam
engine where one would allow the locomotive’s
weight
to be added
to,the weight of the paint in order to
arrive at a
process weight rate,
In arguing this view, USS cites
Johnson and
Johnson v, EPA,
8 ~PCB 149
(1973), where the Board
said it inter-
preted the
Rule to exclude only what is expressedly
excluded.
The Board
notes
that both parties herein seem to
accept the fact
that Johnson
and Johnson has beeh confined to its
facts
by subse-
quent Opinions.
See
~
12 PCB
497
(1974).
If any question still remains,
the Board
hereby con-
fines our
reasoning in Johnson and Johnson to the
facts of that
case.
There has been much
discussion concera~:
z~
process weight
rate with respect
to
a prior Board decision, Collier
Carbon and
c~calC22~~ion~0Env
ironmenta1~Proteetion Agenc
,
POB 77-48.
In an
unfortunate and unne~essarypiece of dictum,
the Board stated
that
the quench water was not to be included in the
process weight
rate.
Since this holding was not necessary to the
determination
of the case and since
the issue had not been particularly well
argued,
the Board finds that it no longer agrees with
that holding
in Collier
Carbon, PCB
77-48.
The Board could engage in a game of semantics with respect
to the Regulation, defining what is or
is not a process
and there-
fore what was or was not introduced, but we will instead step
back
out
of
the trees and look at the forest.
Process weight
regu-
lation has two general purposes.
The first is of course
to pre-
serve
the environment.
The second is
to
utilize
an approach that
relates
emissions in some matter directly to the productivity
of
30~5~8
—4—
the process which creates
them.
As with all Regulations of this
type,
there will be some
situations which,
so to speak,
fall
through the cracks.
It is the Board~sduty to resolve these
situations
as best it
can based on the facts
of the
particular
situation.
In this case,
certainly the amount of heat that must
be
absorbed by the bath from
the steel bears a direct relation
to the emissions created by
the process.
The weight of
the
steel is a convenient measure
of this heat.
We,
therefore,
find
that the weight of the steel in
this case should be considered
as part of the process weight
rate.
In addition,
since USS
will be held liable
for that part of the cooling medium
which
in turn becomes part of the
emissions due to the process,
and
since this part of the cooling
medium bears a direct
relation-
ship to the amount of
emissions,
USS must be given credit for
the weight of material thus
lost.
In this case the weight
of
the make—up oil
to the quench bath is an imperfect but
reason-
able measure of this
loss and should also be considered
as
part
of the process.weight
rate,
Referring to the data
supplied by
the parties
in
their Stipulation of Fact,
the weight of the
wire treated in
the process amounts
to 7,75 tons per hour
and
the make-up oil
added to the quench bath amounts
to 61.4
lbs./hr.
The Board finds,
therefore,
that the total process weight rate
is
15,561.4 lbs./hr.
Inserting
that process weight
into the equation
stated in Rule 203(b),
the Board
finds that the allowable
emission
rate for the process
is 16.21 lbs,/hr,
Turning again to the
Stipulation of Fact
as presented by the parties,
the total
maximum
particulate emission rate
from the steel wire heat treating
pro-
cess
is stated as 11.54 lbs/hr., well
withir the 16.21
lbs./hr.
which we calculate
as
the allowable emission rate for
the process.
The Board finds,
therefore,
that the process
in
question meets the
limitations of Rule 203(b)
and that
the Agency was
incorrect in
denying USS’ permit application
for the reasons
stated.
This Opinion
constitutes the findings of fact and
conclusion
of law of the Board
in this matter.
ORDER
It is
the
Order of the Pollution Control Board that the
Agency’s denial
of USS’ permit application be reversed and
this cause
be remanded to the Illinois Environmental Protection
Agency
for
further consideration consistent with this Opinion.
Mr.
Werner
concurs.
30~5I9
—5—
I,
Christan
L.
Moffett, Clerk ot the
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board,
hereby
cert~ify
the
above
Opinion
and
Order
were
adopted
on the
day ~
1978
by
a
vote
ot~
______
1\
QA~
___
Christan
L~Mnffe~
lerk
Illinois Pollution
ontrol
Board
30-520