ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD
    November 16,
    1978
    UNITED STATES STEEL CORP.,
    Petitioner,
    v.
    )
    PCB
    77—327
    ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
    Respondent.
    ORDER OF THE BOARD
    (by Mr. Goodman):
    On October
    3,
    1978,
    the Environmental Protection Agency
    (Agency) filed a Motion for Rehearing
    or Reconsideration
    of the
    Board’s September
    7,
    1978 Opinion and Order in this matter.
    Petitioner United States Steel
    Corp.
    (U.S.
    Steel)
    filed its Res-
    ponse on October 16,
    1978.
    In support of its Motion, the Agency argues that in a permit
    appeal the burden is on the Petitioner
    to prove, based upon its
    application,
    that its emissions will not cause a violation of the
    Act or Regulations and that the Board failed to find that U.S.
    Steel met its burden of proof.
    Furthermore,
    the Agency argues that
    the Board failed to find that, even
    if U.S.
    Steel’s cast house
    emissions are fugitive
    in nature, Rules
    203(a)
    and
    (b)
    do not apply.
    The intent of our Opinion was
    to interpret Rules 203(a)
    and
    (b) and 203(f),
    as well as
    the Rule 201 definition of “Fugitive
    Particulate Matter,”
    to mean, when read together,
    that Rules 203(a)
    and
    (b)
    do not apply to fugitive emissions.
    Such emissions are
    regulated by Rule 203(f).
    Our interpretation of the definition of
    fugitive emissions
    is that emissions which cannot be readily collec-
    ted and treated are fugitive
    in nature.
    We agree with the Agency’s interpretation of the burden of
    proof in a permit appeal.
    Oscar Mayer
    & Co.
    v.
    EPA, PCB 78-14
    (June 14,
    1978).
    U.S.
    Steel had the burden of proving, based upon
    its application,
    that its emissions are fugitive
    in nature and that
    they do not violate the Act or Regulations.
    The Board found that,
    although casting emissions can vary widely as to collectibility,
    the
    only information before the Board indicated that emissions from the
    casting operation
    at U.S.
    Steel’s blast furnace facility are not
    readily collectible and are thus fugitive in nature.
    That conclu-
    sion was based upon information
    in U.S.
    Steel’s application and the
    explanation of that information in the Stipulation of Facts and
    32—85
    —2—
    Petitioner’s Brief.
    That
    same
    information indicates that U.S.
    Steel’s
    casting operation does not violate Rule
    203(f).
    The Agency
    presented
    no evidence to rebut the information in
    the record indicating that
    the emissions are fugitive emissions and that they do not violate
    Rule 203(f).
    The Board, therefore,
    found in effect that U.S.
    Steel
    had met its burden of proof.
    The Board notes that its finding that
    the casting emissions
    in
    question are fugitive in nature applies
    only to U.S. Steel’s casting operation as portrayed in the record of
    this case and not to all cast house emissions.
    Having
    found
    that
    U.S.
    Steel
    met
    its
    burden
    of proving that
    its
    emissions
    fall
    under
    and
    comply
    with
    Rule
    203(f)
    and
    that
    Rules 203(a)
    and
    (b)
    do not apply
    to emissions governed by Rule
    203(f),
    the Board hereby denies the Agency’s Motion.
    IT IS SO ORDERED.
    I, Christan L.
    Moffett,
    Clerk of the Illinois Pollution
    Contro)~Board, hereby certfy
    the above Order was adopted on
    the
    j~
    day of
    /)o.V4$~~_
    t~t, 1978 by a vote of
    3~
    Christan
    L. MoffetV,
    rk
    Illinois Pollution C
    ol Board
    32—86

    Back to top