ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BC)M~D
March 16, 1978
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY,
Complainant,
and
CITIZENS FOR A BETTER
ENVIRONMENT,
an Illinois Not-For-Profit
corporation,
Intervenor,
v.
)
PCB 76—242
INTERLAKE,
INC.,
a Delaware
corporation,
Respondent.
MR.
LARRY BLACKWOOD,
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL, APPEARED ON BEHALF
OF COMPLAINANT;
MR.
W.
GERALD THURSBY~ROOKS, PITTS,
FULLAGAR
& POUST, APPEARED ON
BEHALF OF RESPONDENT;
MR.
MICHAEL
R.
BERMAN,
APPEARED
ON
BEHALF
OF
INTERVENOR.
OPINION
AND
ORDER
OF
THE
BOARD
(by
Mr.
Goodman):
This enforcement action was filed before
the
Board
on
September
28,
1976 by the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency (Agency)
alleging violation of
a
number
of
th~
Uo~~rd’
~
7\i r
Pollution
Regu-
lations
and
Section
9(a)
of
the
Illinois
Environmental
Protection
Act
(Act)
by
Interlake,
Incorporated
(Interlake)
at
Interlake~s
facility located on
South
Torrence
Avenue,
Chicago,
Illinois.
Citizens For A Better Environment
(CBE)
petitioned
for
Leave
to
Intervene
in the case
and
was
granted intervention by the Hearing
Officer herein.
Hearinci
was
held
in this matter on December 15,
1977,
at which time the
Agency
submitted
an amended complaint and,
together with Interlake,
submitted
a Proposed Stipulation
and
Settlement Agreement
(Stipulation).
CBE took no part
in the Pro-
posed Stipulation;
there
were
no
comments by the public at the
29
—
~41
2—
hearing.
Although CBE
was
not
a
party
to
the
Proposed
Stipula-
tion,
in their December
30,
1977 letter
to
the
Board
they
stated,
“CBE does not oppose the Motion For A
Leave
to
Amend
Complaint
nor the Stipulation
arid Settlement
Agreement~
The
Proposed
Stipulation
includes
a
lengthy
description
of
the
interlake
facilities
involved,
along
with
a
description
of
operations
and
the
emissions
that
occur
during
those
operations.
Briefly,
the
facility
is
an
integrated
iron
and
steel
production
complex
in
the
heavily
industrialized
Calumet
area
of
southern
Cook
County,
Illinois.
Included
in
this
facility
is
Interlake~s
coke
manufacturing
plant
consisting
of
two
50
oven
coke
batteries
along
with
their
various
support
facilities.
The
total
complex
employs
approximately
4,000
persons
and produces about.
1,300,000
tons
of
carbon
steel
each
year.
The
coke
plant
produces
approximate:Ly
2.000 tons
of
coke
each
day,
operating
24
hours
per
day
every day
of
the
year.
The
production
of
coke
is
generally
divided
into four stacres:
“charging,
~coking,
~‘pushing,
and
Uquench:Lnq,
Charging
in-
volves
the
placing
of
coal
into
one
of
the
coke
ovens;
coking
is
baking
the
coal
in
an
oxygen
free
atmosphere
whack
reduces
it
to
non-volati~e
cone
while
driving
ott
c
a
i~e
seponents
of
the
coal.
Pushing
involves
the
expulsion
of
the
coke
by
literally
pushing
it
through
the
oven
onto
a
quench
car,
after
which
the
red
hot
coke
is
quenched
in
an
intense
shower
of
water.
At
various
times
during
these
stages of
raanufactura~ a
certain
amount
of
particulate
matter
smoke,
and
volatile material
is
emitted
into
the
atmosphere,
These
emissions
are the
subject
of
the
AgencyFs
complaint
against
Interlake
in this matrer.
The
area
in
which
:tnterlak&
s
coke
manufacturine
niant
is
located
clearly
has
a
pollution
problem.
rIbs
Ecenec
believes
that
the
level
of
particulate
matter
in.
Il
ambient
air
in
the
area
of
the
plant
is
among
the
highest
in the country.
It notes
that
monitoring
stations
in
the
area
have
recorded
an
annual
mean
concentration
of
suspended
particuictec
t:hct
has
far
ex—
ceeded the
national
primary
standard
of
75
micrograms
scmr
cubic
meter in each
one of
the
last seven
years,
snd
in
fact: was,
in
most cases, more
than
double
that
level,
The location of
the
Interlake
facilities
and
other
steel
plants
along witn
the
monitoring
stations
and
the
annual
mean
tota:L suspended
particu—
lates
recorded
at
these
stations
is
shown
in
Exhibits
A
and
B
to
the
Stipulation.
Interlake
admits
its
contr.ibution
to
the
particulate
matter
in
the
ambient
air
hut argues that
its
facility
is
only
one
of
a
very
large
number
of
sources
of suspended
particu—
lates
in
the
southeast
area
of
the
City
of
Chicago.
In
particular,
it
notes
that
there
are
two
other
coke
oven
facilities
in
the
area.
The
parties
agree
that
the
only
way
to
manage
such
ambient
air
29
342
—3—
quality problems is for each of the contributing sources to be
reasonably controlled.
The Agency alleges that Interlake’s coke plant has been
operated in violation of Rules
102 and 203(d) (6) (b) (iii)
of
the Board~sAir Pollution Control Regulations
(Regulations)
and
Section 9(a)
of the Act.
It cites particular occurrences during
the coking operation which are prone to produce a high level of
emissions to the atmosphere.
Interlake admits that emissions
from the coking operation contribute to the presence of particu-
late matter in the ambient air
in the area
in which
its coke
plant
is located, but alleges it has continuously improved the
control of particulate emissions since
1974,
In particular,
it
cites the modification of the charging equipment and changes
in
the charging procedure accomplished since 1974.
In addition to
these improvements,
Interlake agrees
to make certain modifications
by December
31, 1978
to further improve the control of charging
emissions and proposes to post a personal bond in the amount of
$25,000 guaranteeing such undertaking
(Stipulation, p.12, Exhibit
C).
Improper
operation of equipment by plant personnel is one of
the
most
serious problems with regard to the emissions from a
coking procedure.
Work rules determining the method by which the
coking operation
is carried out are a very important part of the
control of these emissions,
Interlake agrees that it will irnmedi-
ately modify its operating and maintenance
work
rules
in compliance
with those indicated
in
Exhibit
D to the Stipulation.
In addi-
tion,
Interlake agrees to use
its best efforts
to
insure that its
employees adhere to the proposed operating
and
maintenance work
rules at all times.
With regard to the emissions of
particulate matter from the
pushing operation,
Interlake alleges that
it
has
attempted to
control particulate emissions through good operating and
mainte-
nance
practices and through the extensive development of an
enclosed
pushing control car.
Interlake
hon
now
committed itself
to
the installation of a pushing
control
system
with particulate
collection equipment under a Consent Decree
entered
in an action
entitled United States of America v.
Interlake,
Inc.,
docketed
as No. 76~
,IntHetinitedStates
District Court for the
Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division,
which Consent
Decree
is hereby incorporated
by
reference
as
if fully set forth
herein
(Stipulation, Exhibit E).
The Consent Decree calls for
a compliance schedule starting with the date
of
entry of the
Decree and ending with full operation and compliance
in about 40
29
—
343
—.4—
months
(Consent Decree, Order
2).
The Consent Decree
further
sets forth the rights and duties of the parties with respect to
the eventual compliance with the Board~sRules by Interlake,
specifically
in regard to the pushing and quenching operations
at its coke plant.
Interlake’s duties under the complete compliance program,
including charging, coking, pushing and quenching,
are enumerated
under Section
3, Control Program,
of the Stipulation
(Stipulation,
p.14).
In addition to what has been discussed above, Interlake
agrees that failure to meet its commitments for reasons other
than a force majeure shall result in forfeiture of the bond and
shall entitle the Agency to bring an action to enforce any Board
Order or Regulation~
Interlake agrees to submit to the Agency
adequate applications for all necessary construction and operating
permits and to submit quarterly reports within
10 days of the close
of each calendar quarter for the duration of the program.
The
Agency agrees to forego other enforcement action pursuant to
Section 31(a)
and 31(b)
of the Act with respect to emissions of
particulate matter
so long
as Interlake is
in compliance with each
and every element of the compliance program.
As each element of
the compliance program is achieved, however, the Agency’s duty
under this condition shall cease,
In the event that operations at
Interlake’s coke plant terminate as a result of federal,
state or
municipal law or regulation or administrative order, etc.,
Inter-
lake’s obligations hereunder shall cease for the duration of such
interruption.
The Stipulation does not limit the rights of the
Agency or the State with regard to laws and regulations other than
the rules noted above.
The Agency believes that the compliance plan set forth in the
Stipulation will result in compliance by Interlake with the Board’s
Regulations and the Act with respect to the violations alleged in
the complaint.
The parties propose that in consideration of the
Stipulation, this action, PCB 76-242,
be dismissed with prejudice
for a time period extending from that date noted in the Agency’s
Complaint to the date of any Order by the Board accepting the
Stipulation.
In lieu of penalties for the alleged violations,
the
parties propose that Interlake donate $25,000 to the University of
Chicago,
$25,000
to
the Illinois Institute of Technology and
$25,000
to Northwestern University,
all for environmentally
oriented education.
In addition to these donations Interlake pro-
poses to spend approximately $25,000 on a study to be completed and
submitted to the Agency on or before November
8,
1978, of the
economic and technical feasibility of possible emission control
programs for its blast furnace cast house.
29— 344
—5—
The
Board
finds that further litigation by the
parties
in
this
matter and its attendant delay
in final compliance by
Interiake
is
not
in
the
best
interests
of the People of the State
of Illinois.
The
Board
finds
that the compliance program
developed as a result of the perseverance of the Agency and CBE
in cooperation
with
Interlake along with the other terms of the
Stipulation are a suitable resolution of this action.
The
Board
hereby accepts
the
Proposed Stipulation as presented at the
hear
-
ing on
December
15,
1977.
This
Opinion
constitutes
the
findings
of fact and conclusions
of law of the
Board in this matter.
ORDER
It
is the Order of the
Pollution Control Board that:
1.
Interlake,
Incorporated, shall execute the control
program contained
in the
Stipulation
and
Settlement
Agreement filed before the Board by the parties
on
December
15,
1977, which Stipulation and Settlement
Agreement
is
hereby
incorporated in
this
Order
as
if
fully set forth
herein.
2.
The
I:L:Linois Environmental Protection Agency
and
Interlake,
:ncorporated,
shall execute their
duties as
contained in the Stipulation noted in
(1)
above.
3,
This action, P03 76—242
is hereby
dismissed, with
prejudice,.
for the period of time contained in the
Complaint
filed
herein
up
to
the
date
of
this
Order.
Mr.
Young
and
.Mr. Jumeile
concur.
I,
Christan
B.
Moffett,
Clerk
of
the
Illinois
Pollution
Control
Board,
hereby
certify the
above
Opinion and
Order wer
adopted on
the~j~day
of
,
1978 by a vote of
p
Christan
L. Mof
Clerk
Illinois Pollution Control Board
29
—
345