ILLINOIS

POLLUTION

CONTROL

BOARD

June

21,

1973

ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION

AGENCY

)

P2—221

#72—249

v.

)

#72—250

)

#72—251

LACLEDE STEEL

COMPANY

)

#73-118

LARRY

~R.EATON, SPECIAL ASST.

ATTORNEY GENERAL, APPEARED ON

BEHALF OF ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

F.

WILLIAM

MCCALPIN and JOSEPH WEYHRICH~

RANDALL

ROBERTSON,

APPEARED

ON

BEHALF

OF

LACLEDE

STEEL

COMPANY

OPINION AND

ORDER

OF

THE

BOARD

(BY

SAMUEL

T.

LAWTON,

JR.):

Case #72-221 is an enforcement action filed by the Environmental

Protection Agency against LaClede Steel Company.

The amended com-

plaint alleges that Respondent,

in the operation of its Alton steel

mill,

and

particularly in the operation of its electric melt shop,

caused particulate emissions since July 1, 1970 and, specifically,

on six dates in 1971,

so as to cause air pollution in violation of

Section 9(a)

of

the

Environmental Protection

Act.

The compi.aint likewise alleges that the same operation caused

particulate emissions in violation of specified limits set forth in

Rule 3-3.2132 of the Rules

and

Regulations Governing the Control

of Air Pollution.

The

second

count

of

the

complaint alleges that particulate

emissions

from

the

foregoing

plant

violated

Rule

203(b)

of

the

air

pollution

regulations

of

the

Illinois

?ollution Control Board since

April

14,

1972,

an~that

as

a

consequence

thereof,

Respondent

was

obliged

to

meet

the

particulate

limitations

set

forth

in

Rule

203(a)

of

said

Re~u1ations.

Case #73—118 is a proceeding filed by Laclede Steel Company

under Section 40 of the Environmental Protection Act seeking review

ot an operating

permit

denial for which Laclede had made application

to the Agency on August

31,

1972.

The

x~emainingproceedings are variance petitions

seeking

relief

from various provisions of the Air Pollution Regulations and the

Regulations Governing the Control of Air Pollution,

as well as

Section 9(a) of

the

Environmental Protection

J~ct,

all as will be

set

fQrth

mare

fully

below.

8—317

---

—2—

Subsequent to the filing of the complaint,

variance petitions

and appeal above set forth, extensive pre—trial discovery, motions,

briefs, arguments,

and four days of public hearings s~ereheld,

after

which the parties entered into

a stipulation with the view of dis-

posing of pending matters before the Board.

The stipulation pro-

vides as follows:

“Subject to the conditions hereinafter set forth,

Complainant, Environmental Protection Agency,

and Respondent,

Laclede Steel Company, stipulate and agree as follows:

1.

Since 1969 or earlier Respondent has been engaged

in a program to expand and improve

its system for controlling

emissions from its electric melt shop.

(The term electric

melt shop

as used herein means the facility at Respondent’s

Alton plant containing its two electric arc furnaces and

continuous casting machine

‘the

primary production units’l,

and the material handling systems and equipment associated

with the primary production units and all auxiliary units,

systems and equipment provided for the proper operation of

the primary production units.)

Based upon

a study performed

by an independent source a comprehensive program utilizing

canopy hoods over the electric arc furnaces,

an improved

direct evacuation control

system, two additional new bag-

houses and interconnecting ducts was adopted.

Bids were

sought

from

various manufacturers and fabricators, and in

July,

1971, Respondent entered into

a contract under which

American Air Filter Co. agreed to perform certain engineering

and to supply the required materials.

A copy of that contract

is attached hereto.

Since

the Fall of 1971 Respondent’s

employees have been engaged in constructing and installing

the new system which will cost approximately $4,200,000.

By

June

30,

1973,

the canopy hoods, the two new baghouses and

associated and supplementary components will be installed

and ouerating.

This will eliminate the largest part of

Respondent’s emissions and bring it into compliance with

applicable laws and regulations.

The remaining portion of

the new system will be installed as conditions permit but in

any event not later than May 30,

1975.

2.

Respondent agrees that it will maintain its air

emission control system hereinabove described under the pro-

cedures set forth on the attached

‘Maintenance Program for EMS

Dust Collection System.’

Respon’dent will provide Complainant

with copies of all changes

in

or additions to said procedures

and

notify

it

of any deletions therefrom.

T~.

There is no dispute between the parties concerning the

aliega~ionscontained in Paragraph

1 of Count

I of the Amended

Complaint in PCB 72-221.

3—318

---

—3—

4.

With respect to the allegations of Paragraph

2 of said

Count

I:

a.

Complainant’s evidence offered by various wit-

nesses and photographs will show or tend to show that

the emissions of particulate matter from Respondent’s

electric melt shop have,

in the residential area to

the north of Respondent’s plant, soiled wash hanging

on clothes lines; prevented the enjoyment of fresh air

through open windows and the use of window fans;

become imbedded in

a freshly painted porch; dirtied

automobiles;

covered windows and desk tops in an

office with fine particles; deposited dirt on buildings,

furniture and appliances; interfered with outdoor

activities such as barbeques; and reduced the value

of real estate;

b.

Respondent’s opposing evidence will show or tend

to show that there has not been any objective reduction

in real estate values because of emissions of particu-

late matter from its electric melt shop,

that there

have been sporadic complaints in the past but much

lesser in number than is indicated by Complainant’s

evidence, and that the episodes shown by Complainant’s

evidence do not constitute violations of Section 9(a)

of the Environmental Protection Act on the dates and

within the time period alleged in the Amended Complaint;

c.

If this case were tried to completion, Respondent

would also have relied upon Section 49(e)

of the

Environmental Protection Act as

a defense to the charge

of

a violation of Section

9(a)

and would have introduced

evidence in support of that defense;

d.

If the Board finds

a violation of Section 9(a)

the

parties agree that

it

may enter an order under Section

33(b)

of the Environmental Protection Act requiring

or

directing Respondent to cease and desist from violations

of Section

9(a) and imposing a money penalty in an amount

not greater than $25,000.00.

5.

With respect to the allegations of Paragraph

3 of said

Count

I of the Amended Complaint and the allegations of Paragraph

6 of Respondent’s Answer thereto:

a.

It is stipulated and agreed by and between the

parties

hereto that said Paragraph 3 of the Amended

Complaint and said Paragraph

6 of Respondent’s Answer

thereto shall be and are hereby stricken and dismissed,

in all respects; and no evidence in respect of either

thereof

shall hereinafter be considered, except as is

contained in this Paragraph

5 of this Stipulation;

8—319

---

—4—

b.

It is stipulated and agreed by and between the

parties that,

for purposes

of

Rule

203(i)

(5)

of

‘Chapter 2:

Air Pollution’

of the Regulations of the

Illinois Pollution Control Board,

that Laclede Steel

Company has at all relevant times been an owner or

operator of an existing emission source which is required

to comply with Rule 3-3.2130 of the Regulations Governing

the Control of Air Pollution as amended Auqust 19, 1969;

said existing emission source including and primarily

consisting of the electric melt shop at the Alton plant

of Laclede Steel Company;

c.

It is stipulated and agreed by and between the parties

that neither party either admits or denies that,

in the

operation of the aforesaid electric melt shop, Laclede

Steel Company either complied with or violated the said

Rule 3-3.2130, but both parties further stipu1ate~and

agree that compliance with or violation of said

Rule 3-3.2130 at any time prior to date of the order

herein of the Pollution Control Board, shall not be

raised, questioned, contested or litigated for any pur-

pose whatsoever in any future action;

d.

It is stipulated and agreed by and between the parties

that,

in light of the foregoing, and for the most

propitious resolution of all matters concerned in any of

these proceedings,

for purposes of applying Rule 203 of

‘Chapter 2:

Air Pollution’ Regulations of the Illinois

Pollution Control Board,

to Laclede Steel Company, with

relation to the electric melt shop at its Alton plant,

the said Rule 203(i) (5)

shall be applicable and shall,

for all purposes, be considered to require compliance

with the applicable emission standards and limitations

of said Rule

203,

by, but in no event sooner than,

May 30,

1975.

6.

Respondent consents and agrees that on and after May 30,

1975 the emission standards and limitations of Rule 203 to be

applied to its electric melt shop shall be those contained in

Rule 203(a).

7.

The parties acknowledge that Complainant has been tem-

porarily prohibited

from proceeding with a presentation of the

issues raised by Count II of the Amended Complaint; and the parties

agree that by reason of the provisions of this Stipulation the

issuesraised in said Count II have become moot and that said

Count may be dismissed by the Pollution Control Board.

8

—

320

---

-5-

8.

Coincidentally with the entry by the Pollution Control

Board in Docket Nos. PCB 72-221 and 73-118 of an order in sub-

stantially the form appended hereto, Respondent will withdraw

or

the

Board

may

dismiss

the

requests

for

variances

which

are

the bases of Docket Nos. PCB 72-249,

72-250 and 72-251 now pend-

ing before the Pollution Control Board.

9.

In

view

of

the

agreements

and

settlements

reached

herein,

the parties agree that Docket No.

73-118 may be terminated by

the issuance of an operating permit for Respondent’s electric

melt shop, at its Alton plant, as requested by Respondent in its

application

which

forms

part

of

the

record

of

the

Environmental

Protection Agency filed by said Agency with the Pollution Control

Board

in

Docket

No.

PCB

73-118.

10.

The p.rovisions of this Stipulation shall become effective

and binding only upon approval thereof by an order of the Pollution

Control

Board.

A

draft

of

such

order

in

the

form

contemplated

by the parties is attached hereto.

If the Pollution Control Board

fails or refuses to enter such an order

(or one otherwise agreeable

to the parties thereto), then this Stipulation shall be null and

void and the statements, agreements and stipulations

of the parties

as set forth herein shall not be considered as admissions nor used,

introduced or sought to be introduced as evidence in any further

proceedings in Docket Nos.

PCB 72—221,

72—249,

72—250,

72—251

or 73—118, or in any other proceeding of any nature instituted

by Complainant or by any other person,

firm, corporation or

governmental agency.”

The Laclede Steel Company has adopted a maintenance program for

dust collection which provides as follows:

“Laclede

will on a routine basis lubricate all moving parts

and equipment in accordance with the manufacturer’s recommended

procedure.

Laclede will on a routine basis inspect all equipment asso-

ciated with the collecting system.

This inspection will include,

but not be limited

to, the following:

substation equipment; cooling

tower, pumphouse; main fans and motors; reverse air fans and

motors;

conveyors;

conveyor drives; water cooled sections, hoses;

piping;

dampers; damper drives;

and electrical control centers.

Included also will be inspection on a routine basis of ducts,

hoods, framework and housing for signs of wear from corrosion,

erosion, excessive heat,

and excessive moisture, along with

inspection of gauges, thermocouples and all other instruments to

insure accurate functioning.

In the baghouses each bag will be inspected on a routine

basis for holes or tears.

Manometer readings in the baghouses

will be recorded to check the efficiency of the cleaning cycle.

8—321

---

—6—

The procedures for these inspections and necessary checklists

and report forms will be worked out by the Engineering Department

in cooperation with American Air Filter Corporation and other

suppliers.

All reports are

to be prepared by the Central Main-

tenance Department which is and will be responsible for the main-

tenance of

the system and will be submitted to the Engineering

Department for review.

The Engineering Department will issue any

required

work

orders

to the Maintenance Department for any work

which these reports or periodic visual inspections by the Engineer-

ing Department reveal to be required.

‘Routine basis’

as used herein means such frequency of the

particular action involved

as

may be reasonably determined by the

Engineering Department to provide for proper operation of the

system and the protection

of Lacled&s investment.”

Pursuant

to

the

stipulation,

the

parties

have

submitted

a

proposed

orm of order which provides as follows:

“On

May

23,

1972

the

Environmental

Protection

Agency

filed

a

Complaint against Laclede Steel Company alleginq that

the

latter

had

caused

or

allowed

emissions

from

its

electric

melt

shop

located in Alton,

Illinois,

to violate Section 9(a)

of

the

Environmental Protection Act and Rule 3-3.2132 of the Rules

and

Requlations Governing Control of Air Pollution.

Thereafter, on

December

4,

:1972,

the

Environmental

Protection

Agency

filed

an

Amended Complaint

modifving

in

some

respects the allegations of

the original Complaint and adding a second Count alleging

that

Laclede

Steel

Company

was

on

April

14,

1972,

and

subsequently

so

operating its electric melt shop as to be in violation

of

Rule

203

(b)

of the Regulations issued on the latter date.

On or about

June 20,

1972, Laclede Steel Company filed three petitions

seek--

ing

variances,

respectively,

from the provisions of Rules

233(c)

and 202(b)

of the Air Pollution Regulations issued on April 14.

1972,

and

from Section 3-3.2130 of the Regulations Governing the

Control of Air Pollution as amended August 19,

1969, and

the

provisions

of Section 9(a)

of the Environmental Protection Act.

Finally,

on August 31,

1972, Laclede Steel Company filed

an

Application for an Operating Permit for its electric melt shop

After

several

intervening

revisions

and

resubmissions

that operat---

ing permit application was denied by the Environmental Protection

Agency on February 28, 1973 following which Laclede Steel Company,

on March

19,

1973,

filed a Petition for Review

of

said denial

under the provisions of Section

4~0of

the

Environmental

Protection

Act.

The foregoing constitute the several matters now before this

Board

under

the

docket numbers listed

in the caption hereof.

After extensive pre-trial discovery, motions, briefs and

arguments,

four days of public hearings and

numerous

pre—hearin~

conferences the Agency and Laclede Steel Company have entered into

a Stipulation by which they propose to settle these related cases.

That Stipulation has been presented to the Board under

the

provi-

sions of Rule 333 of the Board’s Procedural Rules.

8

—

322

---

—7—

Having considered

the

Stipulation and the entire record in

these

proceedings,

the

Board

finds

and

orders:

1.

Respondent

is found

to

have violated

Section

9(a)

of

the

Environmental

Protection

Act

by

emissions

into

the

atmosphere

from its electric

melt

shop;

2.

Respondent

is

hereby

ordered

to

cease

and

desi~t

from

any

further or

future

violations of Section 9(a)

of

the

Environ-

mental

Protection

Act

by

means of emissions into

the

atmosphere

from its electric melt shop;

3.

There

is

hereby

imposed

on

Respondent because of said

violation of Section

9(a)

as found by the Board a money penalty

in

the

amount of $25

,

000.

4.

The Board finds that Rule 203(i) (5)

of

‘Chapter

2: Air

Pollution’

of the Requlations of the Illinois Pollution Control

Board is applicable

to

Respondent with respect to ifs electric

melt shop and that it shall by

May

30,

1975 comply with the

provisions of Rule 203(a)

of said Regulations with re~pecfto

its electric

melt

shop;

5.

Count

Ii

o:

the

Amended Complaint fil~din Docket Nc.

?CB 72—221 is dismissed;

5~

The proceedino:s

in Dock~tNo~.PCB 72—249,

72—250, and

72-~2s:L

are

hereby

dismissed;

7.

The Environmental Protection Agency

is directed to issue

an

Operating Permi.t for Respondent’s electric

melt

shop pursuant

to the Application therefor as contained in the record of the

Aqency filed by said Agency with the Pollution Control Board in

Docket

~Jo.

PCB

73—118;

P.

The Stipulation filed in these proceedings is hereby

expressly

aDprcved and adopted as constituting part of this

Order.

Appended

to

the stipulation is an

exhIbit

containing the proposal

and

soecifications

submitted

by

American Filter Company, which

nroposals

have

been accepted by Laciede and

which

constitute the basis

for

the

compliance

pronram

hereinabove in the stipulation set forth.

Transcripts

of

the

hearinqs

have

been

submitted

to the Board and

a

review

~f

the

teStllft:)fl.y

estahir

shes

that.

Lad ede

‘

s operation

has

caused

the

emission

of

particuial:es

of

a

degree

and

intensity

to

coast

:Ltoto

in teriarence

wi

ca

the

en~ovment

~i

:~fE1,

thereb

creating

a

‘~

a

L~tii

~CL

~

i

~

(cd

ne

11~ronmenta_

1’ ~

neL:~ove t~c:

:~

) i

C

p:~nlt:i

to

be

aarrar~ted

and

wiLl

imooso

it

as

na~ot o.t

o.~r final

order,

---

We have reviewed the program of compliance and believe that its

implementation will result in a substantial improvement of the air

quality in the Alton area.

We note that while the stipulated order

makes no reference to compliance with the particulate emission limita-

tions contained in the Rules and Regulations Governing the Control

of

Air

Pollution presently in effect, no variance from these rules

is provided and the present order gives no protection should violation

of these rules be

asserted.

Furthermore, the Company will be obliged

to reduce its emissions immediately pursuant to the cease and desist

provisions of the Order to comply with Section 9(a) of the Act so as

not to cause air pollution.

The Order will require compliance with

the provisions

of the newly-enacted air pollution regulations by the

operative date of May 30,

1975, with respect to Rule 203(a), which is

the more stringent regulation related to new equipment and operation,

applicable to

a company not presently in compliance with existing

regulations or subject to a variance.

Pursuant to the agreed Order, we shall impose a penalty in the

amount of $25,000 for the violations

of Section 9(a) aforesaid, and

direct that the Company cease and desist any violation with respect

to said section.

The variance petitions

#72—249, #72—250 and #72—251 are dismissed.

The Agency is directed to issue an operating permit for LaClede’s

electric melt shop pursuant to application as contained in the reocrd

of

proceeding

#73-118.

The

stipulation

and

all

documents

appended

thereto,

particularly

the

Maintenance

Program

for

EMS

Dust

Collection

System

and

the

e~thibit

designated Exhibit 11 are approved

and

incorporated

herein

by

refer-

ence.

This opinion constitutes the findings of fact and conclusions of

law

of

the

Board.

IT IS THE ORDER of the Pollution Control Board that:

1.

Respondent is found to have violated Section 9(a)

of the Environmental Protection Act by emissions into

the atmosphere from its electric melt shop,

as alleged

in the complaint;

2.

Respondent

is

hereby

ordered

to

cease

and

desist

from

any further violations of Section 9(a) of the

Environmental

Protection Act as

a consequence of emissions into the

atmosphere

from

its

electric

melt shop;

—8—

8

—

324

---

3.

There

is

hereby

imposed

on

Respondent because of said

violation of Section

9(a)

as

found

by

the

Board,

a

money

penalty

in

the

amount

of

$25,000.

Penalty

payment

by

certified check or money order payable to the State of

Illinois

shall

be

made

to

Fiscal

Services

Division,

Illinois Environmental Protection Agency,

2200 Churchill

Drive, Springfield, Illinois 62706 by July 21,

1973;

4.

The Board finds that Rule 203(i)

(5)

of

“Chapter

2:

Air

Pollution”

of

the Regulations of the Illinois Pollution

Control

Board

is

applicable to Respondent with respect

to

its

electric melt shop and that it

shall,

by

May

30,

1975,

comply

with

the

provisions

of

Rule

203(a)

of

said

Regulations

with

respect

to

its

electric

melt

shop;

5.

Count

II

of

the Amended Complaint

filed

in

#72-221

is

dismissed;

6.

The proceedings in Case Nos.

72-249, 72-250 and 72-251

are

hereby

dismissed;

7.

The

Environmental Protection Agency is directed to issue

an

Operating

Permit

for Respondent’s electric melt shop

pursuant

to

the

application

therefor

as

contained

in

the

record

of

the

Agency

filed

by

said

Agency

with

the

Pollution

Control

Board

in

Case

#73-118;

8.

The Stipulation filed in these proceedings is hereby

expressly approved and adopted as constituting part of

this

Order.

I, Christan Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois Pollution Control Board,

certify

that

the

above

Opinion

and

Order

was

adopted

on

the

‘~I ~

day

of

June,

1973,

by

a

vote

of

4~

to

~

üI

~.fY7~f

téL

—9—