ILLINOIS POLLUTION CONTROL BOARD

May 3, 1972

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

#70—34

GRANITE CITY STEEL 

COMPANY

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, BY WILLIAM J, SCOTT, ATTORNEY GENERAL,

STATE OF ILLINOIS, BY HERBERT CAPLAN AND JOHN W. LESKEBA, ASSISTANT

ATTORNEY GENERALS; AND THOMAS C. SCHUENEMAN, DEPUTY DIRECTOR AND

FRED PRILLAMAN, BUREAU OF LEGAL SERVICES, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY;

GRANITE CITY STEEL COMPANY BY JENNER AND BLOCK, THOMAS S. SULLIVAN

AND LEAH HAMILTON; LEUDERS, ROBERTSON & KONZEN, BY RANDALL E. ROBERTSON

OPINION OF THE BOARD (BY MR. LAWTON):

This Opinion is pursuant 

to Order of the Board entered in this

cause on April 25, 1972 approving a Stipulation and Agreement between

the parties disposing of the complaint and providing for the installa-

tion of air pollution abatement equipment and the adoption of operation-

al procedures designed to control the emission of particulate matter

resulting from the operation of an integrated steel mill operated

by the Granite City Steel Company located in Granite City, Illinois.

Complaint (later amended) was filed against Granite City Steel

Company (“The Company”) by the Environmental Protection Agency (“The

Agency1’) on November 9, 1970, asserting that from June 1, 1967 to

the date of the filing of the amended complaint, Granite City Steel

Company had operated its by-product coke plant, quenching tower,

sintering plant, basic oxygen furnaces, blooming plant, rolling mill

and blast furnaces in violation of the Rules and Regulations Governing

the Control of Air Pollution with particular respect to particulate

emissions, Section 3 of the Air Pollution Control Act (Ill. Rev. Stat.,

Ch. 111—1/2, Par. 240.3 (1969) and Sections 9(a) and 9(b) o~the En-

vironmental Protection Act, (Ill. Rev. Stat., Ch. 111—1/2, Par. 1009(a)

and (b) (1970).

Answer was filed by the Company. Extensive discovery proceedings,

by way of depositions and Interrogatories, were pursued by both sides

and a series of pre-trial conferences was conducted by the Hearing

Officer to resolve various issues raised with respect to interroga—

tories and to establish procedures for the conduct of the hearing. A

motion to dismiss the complaint was filed by the Company alleging

constitutional and statutory grounds. The Clean Air Coordinating Coun-

cil and the League of Women Voters of Illinois were permitted to inter—

—

457

vene for the limited purpose of challenging the Company’s motion

to dismiss. By Opinion and Order of the Board entered on March 17,

1971, the Company’s Motion to Dismiss was denied.

Subsequent thereto, approximately thirty hearings were conducted

in the trial of the cause, principally in Granite City, with several

hearings in Chicago beginning in May and suspending in September,

1971. The Agency’s case in chief in support of the complaint was

substantially completed but 

was

interrupted in order to permit the

testimony of Dr. Werner Eisenhut, a witness introduced on behalf of

the Company from Essen, Germany, who, because of personal problems

was permitted by agreement to testify out of sequence. The Agency’s

presentation, to the extent completed, consisted principally of testi-

mony of various Agency employees, who testified as to their observations

with respect to particulate emissions and Ringelmann violations eminating

from the various facilities of the Company alleged to be in violation.

A substantial number of photographs were offered into evidence.

Officials of the Granite City Air Pollution Control Board and

several neighbors in the vi~nityof the coke ovens and basic oxygen

furnace also testified on behalf of the Agency to the alleged impact

on the community resulting from the operation o~ these facilities.

Several officials of Granite City Steel Company were called by the

Agency as adverse witnesses. The testimony of Dr. Eisenhut, on be-

half of the Company, related to the state of the arts of various abate-

ment facilities being employed throughout the world in regard to charging,

pushing and quenching inherent in the coking operation, which aspects

of his testimony will be considered in more detail below.

In the fall of 1971, both sides represented to the Hearing

Officer that they were in the process of formulating a settlement

proposal pursuant to the terms of which the Company’s steel—making

processes would be brought into ccmpiiance with the relevant statutory

and regulatory provisions relating to air pollution. Request was made

that the hearings be suspended so that the prospect of settlement could

be more fully explored.

A proposed stipulation and agreement was thereafter submitted

to the Board, which, because of certain procedural aspects was not

deemed acceptable, These objections were later removed by modifica-

tion of the agreement which, as modified, was resubmitted ~o the Board.

The Board directed the Hearing Officer to resume public hearings pursuant

to Pollution Control Board Procedural Rule 333. Two additional days of

hearings were conducted in Granite City limited to the elements of the

proposed stipulation and agreement. After consideration of the tran-

scripts and exhibits the Board, on April 25, 1972, entered its order

approving and adopting the stipulation of settlement as the Order of

the Board. The principal features of the Agreement will be considered

below:

4 —

458

The Company agrees to establish a scholarship fund payable

to the University of Illinois for studies related to environmental

quality, through undergraduate and graduate college level disciplines,

in the amount of $150,000.00, to be administered by the President

of the University of Illinois; $50,000.00 is to be paid within seven

days of the entry of the Order and an additional $50,000.00 on or

before January 2, 1973 and the balance by July 1, 1973.

The Company agrees to install and operate an AISI coke oven

charging air quality control system on or before thirty months from

the date of the Order, which installation is anticipated to cost

approximately $2,150,000. This facility is represented by various

witnesses who constitute the most advanced state of th~arts in the field

of coke oven charging operations. Dr. Eisenhut testif~~that

.xperimentation was presently being conducted with five t~es of

pollution control devices used in the coke charging proces~. They

were, first, Larry cars with wet scrubbers; second, gravity ea~rs;

third, Larry cars with steam Venturi scrubbers; fourth, the Re~er

Conveyor; and fifth, pipe line charging (R.3444—3491), It was h~e

opinion that for ada~’tatiOn to existing coking faci1ities,nth~gráv~tv

car with the AISI modifications would represent the best technology

available and would abate charging emissions by 96 to 98. Use of

the gravity car would preclude the need for pre-ignitiori of charging

gasses required when wet scrubbers were utilized, and would not

possess the additional weight that has made the addition of other

abatement devices on the car unsuitable, The gravity car would not

employ a scrubber but is designed in a manner so that as the coal is

charged from the car through the charging holes, the gases are sucked

into a collecting main through the employment of steam vapor jets

and at the same time, a temporary seal is formed at the point of en-

trance preventing the escape of gas at this location. The American

car designed for use by the Company is an advanced version of the

German car with improved closure mechanism and valving. Automatic

lid-lifting devices are employed precluding the need for moving of

the car before the lids are replaced. Plans and specifications for the

AISI coal charging car are included in the record as Exhibits 84, 85

and 86. In addition, a leveling bar is utilized which prevents

emissions from the leveling door. The cabin of the operator is

air-conditioned. The entire operation is automatic, eliminating the

need for any manual labor. Donald Cairns on behalf of the Company,

described the operation as follows: (April 12, 1972, R.39).

“We have automatic onespot lidding of the ovens,

that is the car comes up to the oven to be charged

with the drop sleeves in place, the lids are removed

magnetically, the drop sleeves fall into place, the

coal is charged into the oven, and then any off gases

of smoke which might evolve during charging are sucked

over into the by—product main through steam, improved

steam aspiration at the stand pipe. Then the charging

sleeve is withdrawn, and the charging hole lid is replaced

magnetically with this control.”

—

459

The agreement provides for improved work rules with respect

to the self—sealing doors on the coke ovens. These doors are self—

closing and according to Dr. Eisenhut (R. 3515-19) there are 

ilO

doors

presently available that are better able to prevent emissions during

coking. The knife-edged self-sealing doors appear superior to the

back pressure doors that have been employed in Germany which minimize

the amount of cleaning necessary but resulted in cracking of the oven

walls. The work rules provided in the agreement require constant

supervision, continuing door maintenance and prompt repair of any

defective doors. Additional doors and separate alloy steel door seals

will be kept on hand and refractories for lining doors will be main-

tained.

The Company agrees to install and operate a quench car water

fogging system and prepare and maintain work rules and procedures re—

lating to the system. This facility will be installed within six

months from the date of the entry of the Order at an estimated cost

of $60,000.00. The fogging system is an interim operation and

will be subject to review by the Board as set forth below. The

evidence received at our recent hearings on control of air contaminant

emissions CR 71-23) indicates that enclosed systems for control

of emissions from pushi~ng are commercially available. The regulation

requires their installation by December 31, 1974 (Rule 203(d) (6)

(B) (ii) (bb)). See opinion in the matter of emission standards,

R 71-23, April 13, 1972, p. 24.  Abatement equipment to control

emissions from the pushing of coke is still in the developmental

stage. Various types of hoods, both stationary and moveable,

have been under experimentation in Germany, Japan and to some extent,

in the United States CR. 3588—3635), Some metallurgical and wind

problems have developed which must be resolved in the use of this

facility. Also weight of the unit has created problems when attached

to a moving charge car. The fogging system to be employed by the

Company pursuant to the agreement is considered to be the best interim

method for minimizing emissions from the pushing operation pending the

improvement in the technology and reexamination by the Board. The

system to be employed is similar to that used by the Zoliverein Coke

Plant in Essen (R. 3632—3635). Water is sprayed out of two sides of the

quenching ear onto the coke. The unit is considered to have a 50

efficiency and is considered more effective than the hood particularly

since the system remains in operation during the movement of the car

from the pushing position to the quench station. The fogging system

is proposed as an interim method pending improved technology in this

field. Paragraph 6 of the 

agreement, page 11, provides as follows:

“At the end of twelve and twenty-four months from

the

date of an Order of the Pollution Control Board

approving this Stipulation, the Environmental Protection

Agency shall, in consultation with Granite City Steel

Company, evaluate (1) the effectiveness of the Water

Fogging System, and (2) the state of technology of control

of emissions from pushing of coke from coke ovens~ The

evaluation shall include a specific determination of the

reasonableness 

of any alternative method of control, if

4 —

460

any, based on the state of technology, econoi~ic

reasonableness and the emissions to be controlled.-

If at the end of either twelve month period, the

Environmental Protection Agency shall determine that

the Fogging System is not as effective a control of

pushing the coke from coke ovens as an alternative

system or systems, based on the state of technology,

economic reasonableness, and the emissions to be con-

trolled, then the Environmental Protection Agency shall

inform Granite City Steel Company and shall report to the

Pollution Control Board the system or alternative systems

which it determines should be installed and suggest a

reasonable time schedule for installation. Determinations

and evaluations of the Environmental Protection Agency

may be submitted to the Pollution Control Board by either

party for review and appropriate orders at the end of

twelve or twenty-four months.

During said twelve month periods, the Environmental Pro-

tection Agency and Granite City Steel Company shall inform

each other of improvement-s in the state of technology and

may request discussions and exchange of information related

to said improvements in the state of technology.”

It will be seen from the foregoing that the Board reserves jurisdiction

for such further orders as are appropriate in consideration of alter-

native systems which may develop over the next two-year period. Exhi-

bit 87 in the record is a review of the state of the art on control

of emissions from pushing coke, reviewing the various methods under

experimentation including forms of hoods and continuous movement de-

vices being developed throughout the world.

The Company agrees to install a quenching station baffle system

within six months from the date of the entry of the Order at an esti-

mated cost of $130,000.00 which again is represented to be the most ad-

vanced state of the arts for this particular facility. Two systems

have been used to abate emissions during the quenching operation. These

have been the use of water jets and the use of baffles (R.35l0—35l2).

The baffle system is considered a better form of emission control. The

quenching tower designed for Granite City Steel Company is divided into

three parts. A baffle consisting of wooden bars will be built into each

part. Steam produced during the quenching will be unable to emit direct-

ly into the atmosphere but will be changed in direction by the bars in

the baffle. As the dust-laden steam hits the baffles, the dust is re-

moved from the steam. Water jets are installed to force soot downward,

which is then flushed away into a settling basin.

The Company has already installed a smokeless excess blast fur-

nace gas bleeder burner stack at an approximate cost of $35,000,which pre-

vents the emission of carbon monoxide built up in the blast furnace from

entering the atmosphere and assures its burning without creating smoke

in the process.

—461

With respect to the sinter operation, the Company will in--

stall a Venturi Scrubber System on the Main Windbox, within 19-1/2

months from the date of the Order at a cost of $1,200,000 designed to

meet specified process weight rate values and in the alternative,

if the operation cannot be controlled to meet the standards set forth,

the sinter operation will be suspended until the standards specified

are met. Control of the Main Windbox emissions as proposed will

meet the recently adopted particulate emission standards for this

facility (Sec.203(a) and 203(d) (2)).

The Company further agrees to install and operate a bag house

cleaner on the sinter breaker process to be installed within sixty

days from the later of the date of theentry of the order or the date

the sinter process is next operated after the entry of the Order.

This will likewise bring the breaker process into compliance with the

new particulate regulation 203(a).

Surety bonds, each in the amount of the installation cost of

each facility, respectively, in accordance with the terms of the

agreement and payable on forfeiture to the Environmental Protection

Agency are to be furnished, guaranteeing installation and performance

of all of the facilities above provided. Forfeiture shall take place

upon non—compliance with the terms of the agreement. The forms of

bonds are incorporated in the stipulation and order of the Board.

Provision is made for inspection of all of the eouiprnent and

installations covered by the agreement. Compliance with particulate

regulations shall be determined by procedures described in ASNE Power

Test Code 27-1957 and results submitted to the Environmental Protection

Agency.

The AISI Coke Oven Air Quality Control System shall be operated

at the best attainable effectiveness using the best available technology

and methods within its basic design capabilities as fabricated and

installed in accordance with basic design drawings within 30 months.

Determination of whether such operation does, in fact, meet these stan-

dards shall be determined in a proceeding before the Pollution Control

Board. Provision is made in the Stipulation and Order for 

the

author-

ization for inspection and investigation by the Agency and notification

to the Company. The Company, during the entire period of the Agreement,

shall continue a research and development program evaluating existing

in-house pollution control equipment, investigate new technology and pro-

cesses and program the installation of improved control equipment to

comply with higher emission standards as required by law.

The Agreement further provides that during the time specified

for the completion of the program, for each named facility,

no enforcement

action shall be brought pursuant to Sections 31(a) and Cc) of the

Environmental Protection Act for particulate air contaminant emissions

beyond the limitations of the regulation applied to each facility, pro-

viding a variance of the Board or bond is then in effect.

4 —

462

Variances are provided for the following operations for

the periods indicated:

Coke oven operation, including transporting coke to quench

tower (except charging) for twelve months;

Quenching operations 

—

six months;

Sinter breaker process stack 

60 days from the date

of the Order or date of operation after Order, whichever

is later;

Charging and any operation of which charging is considered

a part 

one year, with completion anticipated in thirty

months;

Sinter process 

—

main windbox 

—

one year, with completion

anticipated in 19-1/2 months.

The Company shall make application to the Board for desired extensions

of variance beyond the original one—year allowance.

If the Company shows satisfactory progress to the Agency, ex-

tension of the variance shall be recommended by the Agency to the

Board. For purposes of extending variance “satisfactory progress” as

used in the Environme,ntal Protection Act shall be substantial compliance

with the program of installation as set forth in the Stipulation.

Attached to the Stipulation as an exhibit is the proposed compliance

program for each facility, respectively, together with work rules and

operational procedures to be employed to assure compliance with all

provisions of the Order.

In addition to the above facilities covered by variation with

respect to which specific installations are to be made, work rDles

and operational procedures are embodied in the agreement for the basic

oxygen furnace, the blooming mill, the hot strip mill and the steam

generating facility for which no new installations are provided nor

variances granted. Procedures to be employed in the event of upset

and breakdown are included and details as to research development and

reports are provided. Expenditures totaling in excess of $4,000,000

will be made for installation of equipment to implement the abatement

program and should be completed within thirty months from the date

hereof.

The testimony of witnesses for the Environmental Protection

Agency and the Company support the view that the proposed installations

represent the most advanced state of the arts for abatement equipment

and control of particulate emissions for each facility involved. Coxm-

parison between the specifics of emission control

to be achieved by

the equipment to be installed compared with the regulations for air

4 —

463

contaminant emissions recently adopted by the Board sustains the view

that the Granite City Steel Company will be in compliance with the new

regulations upon completion of contemplated installation program, ai-

though by reason of the variances allowed and anticipated, the dates

of actual compliance may, in some instances, go beyond those expressly

specified in the regulations.  The testimony of Dr. Werner Eisenhut

(R. pp. 3416—3912) supporiE the view that the installations proposed

with respect to the coking operation and specifically, as to the

charging by the AISI Larry car, the fogging mechanism to be employed

during pushing, and the baffle system to be installed in the tower for

quenching, represent the most advanced abatement facilities in the world

at the present time.

Substantial testimony at the earlier hearings related to alter-

native means both employed e~nd under consideration to control emissions

from these operations, 

nuns. 

of which appears to assure abatement in.~amore

suitable form than those which are to be installed by the Company pur-

suant to this Agreement.

The Venturi Scrub1~eron the sinter process Main windbox and the

bag house to be employed in the sinter breaker process again represent

the best technology to achieve abatement from these sources. These

views were confirmed by Adolph Biss, Metallurgical Specialist employed

by the Division of Air Pollution, Illinois Environmental Protection

Agency (R. April 12, 1972, page 85).

Dr. John Roberts, manager of the Air Pollution Control Division

of the Illinois Environmental Protection Agency testified as follows:

(R. April 12, 1972, p. 81)

“The improvement in air quality as a consequence of

Granite City’s proposed program is expected to be sub-

stantial. According to the Agency’s calculations, com-

paring total emissions of particulate matter from the

Granite City Steel facilities immediately prior to the

filing of this suit in November of 1970 with emissions

of particulate matter which are expected following com-

pletion of the proposed control program by the end of

1974, and assuming good housekeeping procedures,, particulate

emission can be estimated to decrease by over 90. In

terms of improvements in air quality in the Granite City

area, this reduction in particulate emissions should lead

to a corresponding reduction of approximately 90 micrograms

per cubic meter in the annual geometric mean concentrations.

What this means to the citizen of Granite City is that the

average amount of particulate matter in the air will, after com-

pletion of this program, be cut approximately in half. In

terms of health benefits to the citizen of Granite City

this control program coupled with controls to be effected

by other industries in the Granite City area as a consequence

—

464

of their compliance with applicable air pollution con-

trol regulations, will reduce air pollution levels to

a safe margin below the national health—related standard.

In terms of economic benefits, I can cite a study by

I. Michelson and B. Tourin, ‘Comparative Method for

Studying Cost of Air Pollution.’ Public Health Report.

Vol. 81(6), pp. 505-511, June, 1966 concerning Upper.

Ohio River Valley in which a comparative analysis of annual

per capita cleaning costs incurred in two cities (Steuben—

ville with particulate levels comparable to those in

Granite City in 1970 and Uniontown comparable but higher

than those to be attained by 1975 in Granite City) showed

a cost saving of $84.00 per capita per year.”

At the last public hearing in Granite City on the proposed agree-

ment, some testimony was received regarding alleged excessive emissions

from the stack of the basic oxygen furnace. No variation is sought

for these facilities

nor is any new abatement equipment required to

be installed pursuant to the agreement and order. Electrostatic pre—

cipitators have been previously installed on the basic oxygen furnace

and both the Agency and the Company represent that this equipment,

plus the work rules, to be enforced, will assure compliance from this

source. However, if such does not prove to be the case, the Agency is

in no way foreclosed from taking such action as is appropriate to assure

that this portion of the operation be brought into compliance if, in

fact, it is not presently complying.

In the

record are several statements from government officials,

both state and municipal, and Southern Illinois University professors

questioning whether the University of Illinois at Champaign is the

appropriate recipient of the scholarship fund provided in the stipula-

tion. The view expressed by these persons is that since the Metro—East

Region has been the principal victim of

the Company’s past emissions,

the money should be expended in the area affected and more particularly,

at Southern Illinois

University.

While we are not without sympathy

to this expression of attitude, we are satisfied that the University

of Illinois,

with its medical, engineering and law schools, in addition

to its basic Liberal Arts and Science Programs is a suitable entity to

carry out the

objectives of the grant, particularly since the parties

have agreed to this program as part of the overall settlement of the

case ,and we are not disposed to alter this provision.

The agreement in the present case is a milestone in pollution

control and all parties involved are to be commended.

It represents

what is capable of achievement by cooperation between industry and the

State and furnishes a solution which is both technically feasible and

economically reasonable, to the benefit of the immediate community,

the Company itself and the people of the State of Illinois.

I, Christan Moffett, Clerk of the Illinois

Pollution ~trol

Board,

certify that the above Opinion was adopted on this 

day of May,

1972, by a vote ~

4

—

465