ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
June 25,
1981
GRANITE CITY STEEL DIVISION OF NATIONAL
STEEL CORPORATION,
)
Petitioner,
V.
)
PCB 81—44
ILLINOIS
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY,
)
Respondent.
MR.
RANDALL
ROBERTSON,
Lueders,
Robertson
& Konzen, appeared on
behalf of Petitioner;
MR. ROBERT C. SHARPE, Senior Air Attorney, Enforcement Programs,
appeared on behalf of Respondent.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by
I.
Goodman):
On March 19,
1981 Petitioner filed a petition for variance
from Rule
203(d)(5)(B) (iii)
of Chapter
2:
Air Pollution Control
Rules and Regulations
for a period of approximately two years.
Respondent’s Recommendation filed on April
10,
1981 supports grant:
of variance.
Rule
203(d)(5)(B) (iii), which states that Rules 202 and 203(a),
(b)
and
(c) shall not apply to byproduct coke plants,
specifies
that all pushing systems are to be equipped with particulate
matter control equipment designed to capture at least
90
of the
particulate emissions.
The equipment is to be maintained and
operated so as to achieve the design efficiency.
The rule
does
not require particular types of pushing system controls.
The petition states that while Battery
“B”
is undergoing
reconstruction for the next 15 months,
at a cost of $42 million
and employing some 200 construction personnel,
it will not always
be possible to employ the required particulate controls on the
pushing system of recently reconstructed Battery
“A”.
Thus,
without grant of variance, Petitioner alleges,
the reconstruction
of Battery
“B” will cause a violation of Rule 203(d)(5)(B)(iii)
because the use of the present control equipment on the pushing
operations of Battery
“A” unavoidably interferes with the con-
struction of Battery
“B” during certain phases of the construction.
Petitioner proposes to use its enclosed control equipment at all
times, but to leave it unenclosed during the times of interference
with construction.
Hearing was held,
upon receipt of an objection
to qrant
of variance, on June
4,
1981.
At
hear-inq ~
~,f~,evc~allabor and community organization:i
~~-;~‘
~F1t~
~
of variance.
No one at hearing objected to grant of variance.
42—129
2
Petitioner
operates
an
integrated
steel
manufacturing
facility in Granite City, Madison County, Illinois which employs
approximately 4,400 persons.
Granite City has a population of
about 40,000.
The nearest residential
land to the structure
housing Petitioner’s byproduct coke oven operations is located
1,000 feet away.
Granite City,
platted in 1893, was planned
by the initial owners of Petitioner as a place to locate their
facility in proximity to residential structures
for the employees
who were necessary to the manufacturing operations.
Petitioner’s byproduct coke oven operations begin with the
production of coke by heating coal in three batteries containing
up to
61 coke ovens
each.
Coal
is heated, after being charged into
the top of the coke oven, via the application of the oven heat
through the oven flues.
While heating,
the coal gives off gases
and volatile materials and is reduced to carbon and ash,
or coke;
this process is known as the “coking” of
coal.
The coke is then
transferred to a pushing system.
At this point emissions of
particulate matter occur.
During normal operations,
Petitioner
maintains adequate controls on the pushing system,
e.g.,
a railcar—
like vehicle with appendages allowing car enclosure,
which prevents
the majority of the particulates from being emitted.
The coke
is
then transported
along a track located parallel to each coke oven
battery to a quench tower.
The quenched coke is charged into blast
furnaces,
along with limestone and iron ore,
to produce molten
iron.
Coking operations occur all day long and during every day
of the week.
Petitioner’s three batteries
(“A,”
“B,” and
“C”)
produce daily about
2,500 tons of coke,
for which some 3,500 tons
of coal are needed, three—fourths of which
is mined in this state.
Although the hot coked coal from Battery
“A”
is presently
loaded onto enclosed traveling receiving cars
(the “GCS/PCS”
pushing system emission control methodology), these cars are of
such length that the enclosure apparatus projects into the
construction site of Battery
“B” at the point of loading of the
nearest 18 ovens of Battery
“At’
(Pet.,
p.6).
Petitioner states
that it is possible to use the enclosed cars during nighttime
Battery
“A” operations (apparently because no construction would
then be occurring),
thereby minimizing emissions to the maximum
extent possible during reconstruction.
The daytime controls would
consist of receiving cars which are not enclosed and which are of
a
short enough length not to interfere with construction.
Any other
control approach, such as altering Petitioner’s pushing schedules,
would jeopardize efficient operation and maximum production of coke
from Battery
“A”, because battery heat imbalance can damage
refractories
(R. 49—0).
In February of 1979, Battery
“A” was shut down for
reconstruction;
it started up on April
8,
1980.
Two months later,
Petitioner’s other two batteries were shut down.
Petitioner testi-
fied that it has a duty pursuant to a consent decree to rebuild all
three batteries
(R.70-1).
The consent decree is not part of the
record in this matter.
At present, Petitioner’s sole inplant
supply of coke to produce molten iron is that produced from coal
42—130
3
coked
in
Battery
“A.”
In
January
and
February
of
1981,
30
of
the
coke purchased by Petitioner
to continue
steel
manufacturing
was
produced outside the United States; with only Battery
“A” in
operation,
Petitioner purchases almost 2,000 tons of coke for one
day’s operation to supplement the 850 tons of coke produced by
Battery “A.”
When all three batteries were operating an additional
amount
of
some 230 tons of coke had been purchased
(Pet, pp.4—5).
Petitioner’s application
for a construction permit for Battery
“B” is presently pending before the Agency.
Over the past year
the Agency has inspected Batteries
“A” and
“B” numerous times and
is well conversant with Petitioner’s entire facility.
The Agency
states that it cannot issue a construction permit for Battery
“B”
until Petitioner obtains a variance regarding Battery
A,
e.g., due
to the temporary use of unenclosed pushing cars, which the Agency
states
is not allowed under Rule 203(d)(5)(B)(iii)
(R.17,76).
However,
that rule does not specify whether controls must be
enclosed;
it specifies that any controls must be designed with a
minimum capture efficiency of 90.
The petition does not state
whether the proposed controls are designed to achieve 90
efficiency; the Board presumes that they are not.
The Agency’s modeling studies indicate that when the enclosed
car pushing controls are ~ot used,
emissions will increase “in the
area” by more than
5 ug/m
.
The Agency does not specify whether
this relates
to uncontrolled emissions or to the control oper-
ations specified in the petition; the Board presumes it refers to
uncontrolled emissions whenever enclosed pushing controls are not
used on Battery
“A” operations.
Petitioner estimates that for
every ton of coal charged,
0.47 lbs.
of uncontrolled particulate
emissions from the pushing operations of Battery
“A” will occur,
but that only 0.24 lbs. per ton will occur by pushing clean coke
and following good oven flue maintenance practices (R.68—9).
Petitioner estimates that grant of variance will add “less than
0.2 of one percent
(sic)” of its total annual allowable particulate
matter emission rate into the atmosphere,
and that any adverse
effect on ambient air quality in this nonattainment area will be
of no significance.
Emissions from Battery
“A” given variance are
estimated to total
7.4 tons “during this period of
variance”
(R.66).
Petitioner estimates the amount of particulate matter
which
is
not
emitted
due
to
nonoperation
of
Battery
“B”
to
total
9.9 tons for the period of variance
(R.71—2).
The Agency expresses
concern that without variance Battery
“A” would have to be shut
down
during
the
period
of
construction
of
Battery
“B”
given
the
physical
configuration
of
the
plant.
Battery
A,
although
a
source
“constructed”
from
February
of
1979
to
April
of
1980
(Pet.,
p.4),
is,
by
virtue
of
Petitioner’s
compliance
plan,
a
source
“modified”
after
September
6,
1979
due
to
changes
in
the
method
of
operation
of
air
pollution
control
equipment
on
its
pushing
system.
For
this
reason
the
compliance
date
for
Rule
203(d)
(5)(B) (iii)
is
upon
commencement
of
operation
of
Battery
“A”
after
grant
of
variance.
Rule
203(d)(5)(L)(i).
42—13
1
4
Petitioner states that the variance need not be made a
revision to the State Implementation Plan
(SIP)
(see 42 U.S.C.
§7410,
Section
110)
inasmuch
as
the
latest
possibT~date
of
attainment
of
the
primary
national
ambient
air
quality
standard
for
particulate
matter
concentrations
is
after
December
31,
1982.
However,
the
Board’s
Rule
307
standards
are
presently
effective
and
applicable
to
Petitioner
pursuant
to
Rule
304.
For
this
reason
the
Board
construes
the
petition
for
relief
to
include
request
for
variance
from
Rule
307.
The
Agency
states
that
no
SIP
revision
is
appropriate
until
Rule
203(d)(5)(B)(iii)
is
approved
by
the
USEPA
as
a
SIP
revision.
The
Board
notes
that
Petitioner
can
be
exposed
to
violations
of
the
SIP
beginning
after
December
31,
1982
were
that
rule
to
be
approved
and
this
variance
not
submitted
to
revise
the
SIP.
The
Agency
explicitly
recommends
variance
only
under
specific
conditions,
discussed
below.
The
Board
finds
that
compliance
with
the
Board’s
regulations
regarding
the
operation
of
Battery
“A”
pushing
controls
constitutes
an
immediate
hardship
of
an
unreasonable
nature,
both
because
of
the
physical
proximity
of
Battery
“B”
to
Battery
“A”
and
because
of
the
dependence
of
the
steel
manufacturing
process
upon
an
adequate
and
timely
coke
supply.
The
Board
therefore
grants
variance
from
Rules
102,
103,
203(d)(5)(B)(iii)
and
307
of
Chapter
2.
It
also
grants
variance
from
any
applicable
Agency
Rules
For
Issuance
of
Permits
to
New
or
Modified
Air
Pollution
Sources
Affecting
Nonattainment
Areas
(see
§9.1(e)
of
the
Act)
to
the
extent
they
would
expose
Petitioner
to
a
violation
of
§~9.1(f)(1)
and
(2)
of
the
Act.
Nothing
in
this
Opinion
is
intended
to
interfere
with
the
Agency’s
duty
under
§39(d)
of
the
Act,
where
applicable,
to
issue
either
a
permit
to
construct
Battery
“B”
or
a
revised
permit
to
operate
Battery
“A..”
There
is
nothing
in
the
record
as
to
whether
Petitioner’s
facility
and/or
batteries
are
“major”
sources
as
defined
in
the Agency’s Rule
4.9,
although
a
“major
construction
permit
petition”
is
presently
pending
with
the
Agency
regarding
Battery
“B”
(R.9,17),
Regardless
of
the
attainment
date
of
the
national
ambient
air
quality
standards
for
particulate
matter,
the
Board
may
grant
variances
from
state
requirements
for
a
period
of
up
to
five
years.
Section
36(b)
of
the
Act.
The
compliance
plan
submitted
projects
a
completion
of
the
construction
project
within
93
weeks
after
construction
commences;
the
Board
will
grant
variance
through
May
1,
1983
consistent
with
this
timetable.
Because
the
length
of
variance
extends
beyond
the
final
attainment
date
under
the
CAA
of
December
31,
1982,
the
Board
will
require
that
Petitioner
keep
the
Agency
satisfactorily
informed
of
all
construction—related
events.
In
addition
to
informing
the
Agency
of
the
beginnings
and
ends
of
each
of
the
four
construction
phases,
Petitioner
shall
inform
the
Agency
of
any
construction—related
occurrences
(labor
strikes;
facility
damage;
source
malfunctions;
equipment
delivery
delays
or
malfunctions;
citizen
complaints
or
inquiries;
etc.).
Petitioner’s
May
8,
1981
motion
to
expedite
decision,
agreed
to
by
the
Agency
(R.83),
is
granted.
42—132
5
This Opinion constitutes the findings of
fact and conclusions
of law of the Board in this matter.
ORDER
It
is
the
Order
of
the
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board
that
Granite
City
Steel
Division
of
National
Steel
Corporation
be
and
hereby
is
granted
variance
from
Rules
102,
103,
203(d)(5)(B)(i.ii)
and
307
for
pushing
operations
related
to
its
Battery
“A”
and
reconstruction
of
its
Battery
“B”
at
its
Granite
City,
Madison
County,
facility
through
May
1,
1983
upon
the
following
terms
and
conditions.
1.
Granite
City
Steel
Division
of
National
Steel
Corporation
shall
adhere
to
the
construction
schedule,
Exhibit
A,
Table
1
to
its
Petition,
which
schedule
is
hereby
incorporated
as
if
fully
set
forth
herein.
2.
During
all
times
indicated
in
Paragraph
I
of
this
Order,
both
enclosed
and
unenclosed
pushing
systems
shall
be
maintained
and
operated
by
Granite
City
Steel
Division
of
National
Steel
Corporation
so
as
to
minimize
emissions
of
particulate
matter
to
the
greatest
extent
practicable.
3.
Granite
City
Steel
Division
of
National
Steel
Corporation
shall,
within
five
days
of
their
occurrence,
send
written
notice
of
the
beginnings
and
ends
of
the
four
construction
phases
outlined
in
the
schedule
referred
to
in
Paragraph
1
of
this
Order
to
the
Illinois
Environmental
Agency,
Regional
Manager,
115A
West
Main
Street,
Collinsville,
Illinois.
4.
Granite
City
Steel
Division
of
National
Steel
Corporation
shall,
within
fourteen
days
of
their
occurrence,
send
written
or
telephone
notice
of
any
and
all
occurrences
which
may
affect
ability
to
comply
with
the
schedule
referred
to
in
Paragraph
1
of
this
Order
to
the
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Agency
Regional
Manager,
115A
West
Main
Street,
Collinsville,
Illinois
5.
Within forty-five days of the date of this Order,
Petitioner
shall
execute
and
forward to the Illinois Environmental
Protection Agency,
2200 Churchill Road, Springfield,
Illinois
62706, a Certificate of acceptance and agreement to be bound to
all terms and conditions of this variance.
This forty-five day
period shall be held in abeyance for any period during which this
matter is being appealed.
The form of the certificate shall
he
as
follows:
CERTIFICATE
I,
(We),
________________________________,
having read
the Order of the Illinois Pollution Control Board in PCB 81—44
dated ___________________________,
understand and accept the said
Order,
realizing that such acceptance renders
all terms and
conditions thereto binding
and enforceable.
42—133
6
Petitioner
By:
Authorized Agent
Title
Date
I,
Christan
L.
Moffett,
Clerk
of
the
Illinois
Pollution
Control Board,
hereby ~~rtify that the above Opinion and Order
was adopt~don the
~
~
day of
~
.
,
1981
by
a
vote of
‘~-(~
(TI
Illinois
Pol
Board
42— 134