ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
December 2,
1982
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF ILLINOIS,
Complainant,
v.
)
PCB 75—80
UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION,
Respondent,
and
ILLINOIS ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY,
Complainant,
v.
)
PCB 75—141
CONSOLIDATED
UNITED STATES STEEL CORPORATION,
)
Respondent.
MR. THOMAS R.
CHIOLA, ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, APPEARED ON
BEHALF OF COMPLAINANTS.
MR. GLEN E. NELSON, ATTORNEY, APPEARED ON BEHALF OF RESPONDENT.
OPINION AND ORDER OF THE BOARD
(by I.
G. Goodman):
This matter is a consolidation of two enforcement cases
brought against the United States Steel Corporation
(U.S.
Steel)
alleging violations of Chapter
2:
Air Pollution of the Board’s
Regulations at U.S.
Steel’s facility in Chicago, Illinois commonly
referred to as “South Works.”
Docket No. PCB 75—80 was filed by
the People of the State of Illinois on March
14, 1975 alleging
violation of emission limitations and permit regulations.
A sub-
stantially similar Complaint was filed by the Illinois Environ-
mental Protection Agency (Agency)
on April
2,
1975 in Docket No.
PCB 75—141.
The two actions were consolidated by Board Order on
May
8,
1975.
Further action on these matters was effectively stayed by
the First District Appelate Court on October
1,
1975 by an Order
in United States Steel Corporation v. Pollution Control Board,
64
Ill.
App.
3d,
34
(1st Dist. 1978), staying the application of
certain air rules as to U.S.
Steel pending
final determination of
50-07
2
that case.
On August
18,
1978,
the Appellate Court decided the
case and the Stay Order expired.
On August
3,
1979, Complainants
filed a Second Amended Complaint which enlarged the scope of the
allegation of violation of the Illinois Environmental Protection
Act
(Act) and the Board’s Rules.
In September of 1979, the Board adopted new regulations with
respect to steel manufacturing processes which were subsequently
presented to the United States Environmental Protection Agency
(USEPA)
as amendments to the State Implementation Plan.
On
September 3,
1981, USEPA took final action on the amendments,
approving, conditionally approving,
and disapproving certain
sections of these regulations
(46 F.R.
44172).
This action is
currently under appeal before the U.S. Court of Appeals.
On
October
12,
1982, the parties presented at hearing
a proposed
Settlement Agreement to the Board.
Although Citizens for a
Better Environment
(CBE) had been granted leave to intervene in
this matter in September of 1979,
CBE withdrew as Intervenor in
September of
1982,
and is therefore not a party to the proposed
Settlement Agreement.
The subject of these proceedings
is the U.S.
Steel South
Works,
an iron and steel plant whose facilities include a sinter
plant, electric arc steel making
furnaces,
an Argonne—Oxygen
Decarburization vessel
(AOD),
a basic oxygen process steel making
shop, blast furnaces,
a cast house, and numerous other facilities.
During the iron and steel making process,
U.S. Steel emits partic-
ulate matter as defined in Chapter
2:
Air Pollution Control
Regulations (Regulations).
The facility is located in the south-
east part of Chicago,
Air Quality Control Region 67
(40 CFR 81.14).
This area is very heavily industrialized and is designated as
non—attainment
for
the
primary
and
secondary
standards
of
Total
Suspended
Particulate
matter
(TSP).
The
TSP
standards
of
Rule
307 have been exceeded on an annual geographic mean basis in each
of the years 1975 through 1981 and on a 24—hour concentration
basis
for certain days in that time period.
U.S.
Steel’s electric arc furnace shop contains two 200 ton
and one 100 ton electric arc furnaces and the AOD.
Although con-
trolled with a wet scrubber control device, the furnaces emit
particulate matter during charging and tapping operations and
also suffer leakage around the electrode ports during meltdown
and refining.
The AOD apparently also sufferes some leakage
during operation.
The sinter plant agglomerates small partic—
ulates of iron—bearing materials so that they may be recycled
through the blast furnaces.
The basic oxygen process facility (BOP Shop) produces steel
by refining molten iron produced by the blast furnaces.
During
this process, oxygen is injected into the BOP vessels containing
50-08
3
molten iron and steel scrap resulting in the evolution of a
considerable amount of TSP.
The problems at the BOP Shop are
similar
in nature to those discussed previously concerning the
electric arc furnace shop.
The flux handling system at the BOP
Shop was also the subject of one of the complaints.
However, the
parties have agreed that the allegations concerning this system
will be mooted by a control device that is to be installed to
satisfy occupational
safety and health requirements.
Emissions from the blast furnaces and blast furnace cast
house have been and continue to be a very difficult subject with
regard to TSP controls.
Recognizing the difficulty of collecting
such emissions,
the Board,
in PCB 77—327, found that emissions
at South Works were considered fugitive
in character due to the
apparent inability of U.S.
Steel
to effectively collect them.
Nonetheless,
the new steel regulations adopted in 1979 specifically
require that castings emissions be controlled
(Rule 203(d)(5)(E)).
This rule contemplates capture of emissions, but a reading of
that rule reveals the struggle that the Board underwent trying
to define a rule consistent with the available technology.
In
addition,
that rule was disapproved by USEPA in September,
1981.
Since the adoption of the steel regulations in 1979 by the Board,
a new technology has been recognized which bypasses the capture
problem simply by depressing the emission of TSP in the first
place.
It appears that this new technology holds great promise
for the future control of emissions which are particularly
resistent to the available forms of capture.
Proposed Settlement Agreement
During the seven year pendency of this matter, many changes
have occurred both from a legal and a technical standpoint.
New
rules have replaced old rules, new facilities and processes have
replaced the old,
and new control technology has come on the
scene.
In recognition of these facts,
and
in order to bring about
a solution to the TSP problem at South Works,
the parties herein
have proposed an innovative and far-ranging proposal for settle-
ment of this litigation.
The Settlement Agreement appears to be
premised on a commitment by U.S. Steel
to the overall compliance
plan demanded by Rule 203(d)(5)(L).
The parties note that certain
commitments with respect to that compliance plan go beyond the
scope of the complaints herein.
U.S.
Steel
states that it never-
theless submits to the jurisdiction of the Board with respect to
those commitments and waives any requirement of legal process with
respect thereto.
It is the avowed intention of the parties that
the commitments,
if approved by the Board, be submitted to
TJSEPA
as
a revision of the Illinois State Implementation Plan (SIP).
Although the proposed Settlement Agreement appears to be
a
reasonable resolution of these proceedings and indeed a reasonable
resolution of the TSP emissions at South Works,
the Board is very
concerned that some of the proposed limitations constitute a
50-09
4
site—specific regulation for South Works without the benefit of
proceedings pursuant to Section 28 of the Illinois Environmental
Protection Act (Act).
Although the Board might well agree with
the technology and the limitations proposed in the Settlement
Agreement, Section 28 proceedings would have to be instituted in
order for those limitations to be given the dignity of a permanent
Board rule.
With that caveat in mind, the Board will address the
proposed compliance plan contained in the Settlement Agreement.
Proposed Compliance Plan
Although the Board’s Steel Mill Rule (Rule 203(d) (5) calls
for compliance with a process weight rate limitation with respect
to emissions from blast furnaces, or, in the alternative, a very
loose capture equipment design limitation, the parties propose an
opacity limitation for the cast house roof monitor and furnace
shell emissions.
It
is proposed that the emissions shall not
exceed 20
opacity on a six minute average basis beginning each
minute during the casting period, observations to be made in
accordance with a standard method (Reference Method
9)
40 CFR 60,
Appendix
A.
This proposal
is a reflection of the new non-capture
control technology (particulate suppression) mentioned above.
This technology apparently suppresses the evolution of particulate
matter by denying
in some manner the availability of oxygen to the
hot metal.
The oxidation of the hot metal by the ambient air is
responsible,
in great measure, for the production and emission of
particulate matter.
The state—of—the—art status of this process
is evinced by U.S. Steel’s request for confidential status of
Exhibit
A, which is
a general illustration of how the process is
addressed to South Works’
facilities.
The proposed Settlement
Agreement also contains provisos for reevaluating the 20
opacity
limitation after two years of experience, and dates of compliance
and specific work rules with respect to certain equipment in the
blast furnace shop.
The standard for allowable TSP emissions from the balance of
the equipment,
i.e., the AOD electric steel making
furnaces, and
the SOP furnaces,
is proposed to be determined by
a process weight
rate equation contained in the Settlement Agreement.
This equation
is exactly the same as that contained in Rule 2O3(a)
of the Rules,
which is entitled Particulate Emission Standards and Limitations
for Existing Process Emission Sources.
This is the limit required
by Rule 203(d)(5), Steel Manufacturing Processes,
promulgated in
1979.
It appears that the balance of the proposed Stipulation
concerns Rule 203(d)(5)(L) compliance dates and Rule 104,
Compliance Programs and Project Completion Schedules.
With respect to the AOD vessel,
U.S.
Steel proposes either
to discontinue operation of the vessel or notify the Agency of
its intent to install certain additional controls pursuant to a
stated schedule with final compliance by June 30,
1984.
Certain
other work rules are noted and U.S.
Steel agrees to utilize good
50-10
5
operating and maintenance practices at the existing baghouse
collector during any period of construction.
This constitutes
a delay in final compliance
from the December 31, 1982 date
contained in Rule 203(d)(5)(E).
The proposed Settlement Agreement addresses the electric
arc furnace steel making facility on a furnace-by—furnace basis,
but generally calls
for compliance with the process weight rate
equation previously addressed or by establishing what appears
to be a bubble-type limitation containing the AOD and the three
electric arc furnaces.
With respect to the basic oxygen process
shop, the proposed
compliance plan is a combination of work rules, equipment instal-
lation
(fume and particulate suppression), equipment replacement,
compliance with Rule 202(b), opacity,
and the aforementioned
process weight rate equation.
It appears that compliance for
the BOP Shop will be attained prior to December 31, 1982.
The proposed compliance plan for the sinter plant contains
certain work rules with respect to the operation of the facility.
The plan also contains provisions for testing methodology to be
used to demonstrate compliance by the control systems and calls
for notice to the parties with respect to such tests and observa-
tions.
In addition, there is a provision which calls for the
Board or a court to determine whether or not compliance has been
demonstrated in the event of a disagreement between the parties.
The proposed Settlement Agreement also recites certain
standard provisions concerning reporting requirements, a force
majeure agreement,
the effect of cessation of operations,
reservation of rights of the parties to seek regulatory changes
through rulemaking procedures under Sections 27 and 28 of the Act,
the requirement that U.S.
Steel apply for and qualify for all
construction and operating permits required for all sources at
South Works, and finally a payment in the sum of $100,000 to the
State within ninety days of the date of the Board Order,
such
sum
to be paid to the Environmental Protection Trust Fund.
The
proposed Settlement Agreement purports to settle and resolve any
and all violations by the identified TSP emission sources of
applicable air pollution regulations up to the date of the
agreement.
Considerations
As stated previously,
the proposed Settlement Agreement
appears to be a reasonable resolution to both of these proceedings
and of the TSP emissions at South Works.
The Board finds,
however,
that it may not promulgate site specific regulations by way of a
Compliance Order in an enforcement action regardless of whether
50-11
6
or
not
USEPA
might
accept
the
Order
as
a
SIP
revision.
The
Board
recognizes
the
advent
of
new
technology
in
an
area
in
which
it
is sorely needed.
It likewise acknowledges the extremely poor
economic situation that U.S.
Steel finds itself in today.
The
Board also takes note of recent legislation passed by the Congress
and signed by the President which allows a three year extension
for the steel
industry in meeting air pollution control standards
from December 31,
1982 to December 31,
1985
(“the Steel Stretch-
out Bill”).
Nevertheless, the Board must reject the proposed
Stipulation as it is presently constituted.
It is within the
Board’s power, however, to issue a delayed compliance order
in
such a case as this.
Such an order would allow
U.S. Steel a
limited
length of time within which to come in compliance with
Board
regulations
and
would
set
interim
limitations
to
be
met
by
U.S.
Steel
during
that
period
of
time.
This
would
allow
U.S.
Steel
to
develop
the
new
technology
and
to
propose
amendments
to
the
Steel
Mill
Regulations
or
a
site
specific
regulation
for
South
Works
pursuant
to
Sections
27 and
28
of
the
Act.
In
the
alternative,
if
U.S.
Steel
so
determines,
the
extension
of
time
can be used to come into compliance with the current regulations.
The Board shall make modifications with respect to the
proposed Stipulation and Settlement Agreement.
If the parties
herein will accept such modifications of the Stipulation that con-
strues the proposed Compliance Plan as interim limitations
until
December
31,
1985,
the
Board
Order
herein
shall
be
considered
the final resolution of these matters.
The Board proposes this
disposition of the proposed Stipulation and Settlement Agreement
in order
to expedite the resolution of this bewhiskered enforcement
action.
If the parties herein accept the modification proposed by the
Board to the proposed Stipulation and Settlement Agreement,
this
Opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions of law in
this matter.
ORDER
1.
United States Steel Corporation is found to have
violated
Rules
l03(b)(2)
and
203(d)
of Chapter
2:
Air
Pollution
of
the
Board’s
Regulations
and
Sections
9(a)
and 9(b) of the Illinois Environmental Protection Act
at its South Works facility in Chicago,
Illinois.
2.
United States Steel Corporation shall pay the sum of
$100,000 to the State of Illinois within ninety
(90) days
of the date of this Order, such sum to be paid into the
Environmental Protection Trust Fund for the purpose of
elimination or mitigation of conditions which pollute or
threaten to pollute the environment in Illinois.
Within
thirty
(30) days of the date of this Order,
United States
Steel shall file with the Illinois Environmental Protection
50-12
7
Agency a waiver of any rights of recovery of these monies
pursuant to Paragraph 1061 of Chapter 111½ of the Illinois
Revised Statutes.
3.
a.)
The parties herein shall execute their duties pursuant
to the Stipulation and Settlement Agreement filed October
12,
1982,
which Stipulation and Settlement Agreement is
hereby incorporated by reference as
if fully set forth
herein,
except that the Settlement Agreement is hereby
modified so as to terminate on December 31,
1985.
b.)
Within thirty
(30) days of the date of this Order,
the parties herein shall file with the Board an agree-
ment to be bound by the modification noted in
(a) above.
4.
The Board retains jurisdiction
in this matter for the
purpose of reconciling disputes between the parties.
IT
IS
SO
ORDERED.
Board
Members
3.
Anderson
and
N.
Werner
concurred.
I,
Christan
L.
Moffett, Clerk
of the Illinois Pollution
Control Board, hereby oertify that the above Opinion and Order
was adopted on the
~
day of
~
~
,
1982
by a vote of
______
Illinois
Pollution
Board
50-13