May 10,

1979

GRANITE CITY STEEL,

a Division

of National Steel Corporation,

Petitioner,

v.

)

PCB 78—241

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,

Respondent.

OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD

(by Mr. Dumelle):

Petitioner has requested a variance from Section 9(a)

of

the Act

and Rule 206(d) of the Board’s Air Pollution

Control Regulations.

The Agency has recommended that a

variance be granted.

Petitioner and the Agency filed a Stip-

ulation of Facts.

No hearing was held.

Rule 206(d)

limits the emission of carbon monoxide from

sintering plants, blast furnaces,

and basic oxygen furnaces

to a standard of 200 ppm, corrected to 50

excess air.

Peti-

tioner operates an integrated steel mill

in Madison County

which includes

a sintering plant,

two basic oxygen furnaces

and two blast furnaces.

Carbon monoixde emissions from these

facilities exceed the standard by 19,689 ppm; 18,907 ppm;

and 2,913 ppm after correction respectively.

Petitioner has not installed any controls on these emis-

sions.

Petitioner has proposed that the standard in Rule

206(d) be changed in a pending regulatory proceeding

(R78—1).

Petitioner and the Agency have asked the Board

to consider the

relevant portions of R78-1 in this matter.

Petitioner has investigated two different control systems

to meet the present standard.

These are catalytic oxidation

and

thermal

incineration,

Catalytic oxidation has been

dis-

counted

because

it has never been demonstrated on

steel

making

operations.

Thermal incineration,

while

feasible,

would

re-

quire

large amounts of natural gas which would cost $36,748!

day

if

available and would require

$14.42 million in capital

costs.

If

fuel

oil were used,

fuel

costs would be higher and

increased particulate and sulfur

dioxide emissions would

result.

33—44 9

---

—2—

Exhibits L and

0 in R78—1 comprise Petitioner’s

efforts

to ascertain the effect these emissions

are having on ambient

carbon monoxide levels.

Exhibit L calculates a

maximum one

hour concentration of 2,334 ppm and a maximum eight hour con-

centration of 1,142 ppm.

These values

compare favorably with

the national and state ambient standards of 35 ppm and

9 ppm.

These results were then

combined with carbon monoxide emissions

from

local mobile sources in Exhibit 0.

Under atmospheric

conditions which maximized Petitioner’s contribution, the

highest projected level was 4,50 ppm.

This

level was charac-

terized as an ultraconservatively high hybrid of the one hour

and eight hour standards.

Denial of

a variance in this instance would constitute

an arbitrary or unreasonable hardship on Petitioner.

Imme-

diate compliance would require a sharp cutback in operations,

at significant cost to Petitioner.

This cost

is rendered

unreasonable when it is compared with the minor

improvements

in ambient carbon monoxide levels which would result.

The

Board concludes that the long range solution to Petitioner’s

noncompliance

lies in the resolution of

R78—1.

In order to satisfy the requirements of Section 113(d) of

the Clean Air Act,

the Board will make the following conclu-

sions.

Petitioner

is presently unable to comply with Rule

206(d) of the

Air

Pollution Control Regulations and Section

9(a)

of the Act,

Notice and opportunity for public hearing

have been provided through the

procedure in Section 37 of

the Act.

The only interim control possible in this case

is cur-

tailment of operations

in the event that

air quality in the

area should be in jeopardy.

During

normal operation of the

facilities,

emission levels will remain at the levels stated

in the Petition,

If carbon monoxide concentrations at the

nearest monitoring site reach State

and Federal maxima, Peti-

tioner will monitor its operations for upset conditions and

report its findings

to the Agency.

Since Petitioner operates

a major source,

it must go on notice that

it may be

liable

for non—compliance penalties under Section 120 of the Clean

Air Act.

This variance shall terminate on June 30,

1979 or

upon completion of the proceedings in R78-1,

whichever occurs

first.

This Opinion constitutes the Board’s

findings of fact and

conclusions

of law in this matter,

33—450

---

ORDER

1)

Petitioner

is presently unable to

comply with Rule

206(d) of the

Air Pollution Control

Regulations

and Section 9(a)

of the

Act.

2)

Petitioner is hereby

granted a variance from Section

9(a)

of the Act

as

it pertains to Petitioner’s car-

bon monoxide emissions and Rule 206(d)

of the Air

Pollution

Control Regulations until June

30,

1979

or until the Board takes

final action in R78-1,

whichever occurs first.

3)

Within 45

da~ of the date of this Order, Petitioner

shall execute a Certificate of Acceptance and Agree-

ment to be bound

by the

terms

of this variance.

This

Certificate

shall

be forwarded to the Illinois Envir-

onmental Protection Agency, Enforcement

Programs,

2200 Churchill Road,

Springfield,

Illinois

62706.

This 45 day period shall be

held in abeyance

if this

matter

is appealed.

The

form of said Certification

shall be

as follows:

CERTIFICATION

I

(We), ________________________,

having read and fully

understanding the Order in PCB 78-241, hereby accept that Order

and agree to be bound by all of

its terms and conditions.

SIGNED _______________________

TITLE _________________________

DATE ___________________________

on notice that it may be liable

penalties under Section 120 of

Christan L, Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution

Board, here~’certify the above Opinion and Order were

o,p the

~

day of

1979 by

a

4)

Petitioner must go

for

non—compliance

the Clean Air Act.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

I,

Control

adopted

vote of

trol Board

33—45 1