|
STATE OF |
) |
|
BEFORE THE INDIANA
DEPARTMENT |
||
|
|
|||||
|
COMMISSIONER OF THE
DEPARTMENT Complainant, v. UNITED STATES STEEL
CORPORATION, Respondent. |
) |
|
|||
AGREED
ORDER
The Complainant and the Respondent desire to settle
and compromise this action without hearing or adjudication of any issue of fact
or law, and consent to the entry of the following Findings of Fact and
Order. Pursuant to IC 13-30-3-3, entry
into the terms of this Agreed Order does not constitute an admission of any
violation contained herein. Respondent's
entry into this Agreed Order shall not constitute a waiver of any defense,
legal or equitable, which Respondent may have in any future administrative or
judicial proceeding, except a proceeding to enforce this Order.
I. FINDINGS OF FACT
1.
Complainant is the Commissioner (“Complainant”) of the
Indiana Department of Environmental Management, a department of the State of
2.
Respondent is United States Steel Corporation
(“Respondent”), which owns and operates an integrated steel mill with plant I.
D. No. 089-00121, located at 1 North Broadway in Gary, Lake County, Indiana
(“Site”).
3.
The Indiana Department of Environmental Management (“IDEM”)
has jurisdiction over the parties and the subject matter of this action.
4.
Pursuant to IC 13-30-3-3, on November 30, 1999, IDEM issued
a Notice of Violation (“NOV”) via Certified Mail to:
|
Kenneth Mentzel, Manager |
The Prentice-Hall Corporation |
|
Environmental Controls |
System, Inc. |
|
U. S. Steel Group |
Registered Agent for |
|
1 North Broadway |
USX Corporation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.
Pursuant to IC 13-30-3-3, on August 19, 2002, IDEM issued an
amended NOV via Certified Mail to:
|
Thomas Usher, President |
Corporation Service Company |
|
United States Steel Corporation |
Registered Agent for |
|
|
United States Steel Corporation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
6.
Pursuant to IC 13-30-3-3, on December 27, 2005, IDEM issued
an NOV via Certified Mail to:
|
Mr. J. P. Surma, President |
National Registered Agents, Inc. |
|
United States Steel Corporation |
Registered Agent for |
|
|
United States Steel Corporation |
|
|
|
|
|
|
7.
For those violations not enumerated in a Notice
of Violation, the Respondent waives issuance of a Notice of Violation and to
the settlement period of sixty (60) days as provided for by IC 13-30-3-3.
8.
Based on series of investigations, stack tests, and records
review, IDEM has reason to believe that Respondent, has violated the following
environmental rules and enforceable conditions within adopted Agreed Order
Cause No. A-960:
a.
Pursuant to 326 IAC 5-1-2(2)(B), opacity of visible
emissions (“VE”) from a facility located in Lake County shall not exceed an
average of 20% in any one six-minute averaging period unless otherwise
specified in 326 IAC 6-1-10.1.
b.
Pursuant to 326 IAC 3-5-1(c)(7), sources making coke from
coal shall monitor opacity on the underfire stack associated with each coke
oven battery.
c.
Pursuant to 326 IAC 6-10.1(e), VE opacity from the No. 1
basic oxygen process (“BOP”) facility’s
roof monitor and the No. 2 basic oxygen process facility’s (“Q-BOP”)
roof monitor at Respondent’s Site shall not exceed an average of 20% in any one
3-minute averaging period.
d.
Pursuant to 326 IAC 6-1-10.2(c)(1), no VE shall be permitted
from more than 10% of the observed coke oven doors on any coke oven battery.
The number of coke-side doors and push-side doors shall be counted in
determining compliance with this emission limit.
e.
Pursuant to 326 IAC 6-10.2(c)(2), no VE shall be permitted
from the charging system for more than a cumulative total of 125 seconds during
five (5) consecutive charging periods.
f.
Pursuant to 326 IAC 6-10.2(c)(3)(A), VE opacity from the
coke-side of a coke oven to be pushed, before the first movement of the coke
from the oven to the coke car begins, shall not exceed 20%. The opacity shall be determined on an
instantaneous basis at the top of the battery.
g.
Pursuant to 326 IAC 6-1-10.2(c)(3)(B), the VE opacity during
the pushing operation shall not exceed 20%.
The pushing operation shall be considered to begin with the first
movement of coke from the oven into the coke car and to the end when the quench
car enters the quench tower. The opacity
shall be determined using 40 CFR 60, Appendix A, Method 9, except that the
readings shall be taken at 15-second intervals.
Six consecutive readings shall be averaged to determine the opacity.
h.
Pursuant to 326 IAC 6-1-10.2(c)(5), no VE shall be permitted from more than 5% of the total offtake
piping in any coke oven battery. At no
time shall the VE from any gooseneck cap opening exceed 20%. An exclusion from this opacity limit shall be
allowed for two minutes after a gooseneck cap is opened. The opacity shall be determined on an
instantaneous basis.
i.
Pursuant to 326 IAC 6-1-11.1(d)(3)(A), during material
transfer, where wetting of material for fugitive particulate emissions control
is prohibitive to further processing or reuse of the material, VE opacity shall
not exceed 10% 3-minute average.
j.
Pursuant to 326 IAC 6-11.1(d)(7)(D), there shall be zero
percent (0%) frequency of VE observations from a building enclosing all or part
of a material processing equipment, except from a vent in the building.
k.
Pursuant to 326 IAC 6-11.1(d)(9), any fugitive particulate
matter (“PM”) facility or operation, located in Lake county, that is not specified
in this subsection shall meet a 20% 3-minute average opacity standard. Compliance with this limitation shall be
determined by 40 CFR 60, Appendix A, Method 9, except that the opacity standard
shall be determined as an average of 12 consecutive observations recorded at
15-second intervals. Compliance of any
operation lasting less than three minutes shall be determined as an average of
consecutive operations recorded at 15- second intervals for the duration of the
operation.
l.
Pursuant to Order Paragraph No. B(3)(c) of Agreed Order No.
A-960, et al., adopted on March 22, 1996 (“Order”), Respondent shall be
required to conduct performance tests in accordance with 326 IAC 3-2.1
(currently 3-6) and the protocol specified in Exhibit C of the Order, at the
electrostatic precipitator (“ESP”) stacks for the No. 2 and 3 Precarbonization
Systems. In a testing agreement issued
by IDEM=s Office of Enforcement on
July 6, 1998, this protocol was amended and a limit of 31.25 pounds per hour
for the filterable and condensable particulate matter (“PM/CPM”) emissions for
the Nos. 2 and 3 Precarbonization Line ESP stacks was established.
9.
The violations enumerated in Findings of Fact Paragraph No.
7 are based on the following findings:
a.
No. 4 Blast Furnace (“BF”)
i.
December 31,
1998 cast house VE exceeded the 20%
opacity limit during one 6-minute averaging period in violation of 326 IAC
5-1-2(2)(B);
furnace top VE exceeded the 20% opacity limit during
four 3-minute averaging periods in violation of 326 IAC 6-1-11.1(d)(9)
ii.
February 9, 1999 cast house VE exceeded the 20% opacity
limit during three 6-minute averaging periods in violation of 326 IAC
5-1-2(2)(B)
iii.
March 18, 1999 furnace top VE exceeded the 20% opacity
limit during three 3-minute averaging periods in violation of 326 IAC
6-1-11.1(d)(9)
iv.
September 9,
1999 furnace top VE exceeded the 20%
opacity limit during six 3-minute averaging periods in violation of 326 IAC
6-1-11.1(d)(9)
v.
September 17,
1999 furnace top VE exceeded the
20% opacity limit during four 3-minute averaging periods in violation of 326
IAC 6-1-11.1(d)(9)
vi.
January 6, 2000 cast house VE exceeded the 20% opacity
limit during one 6-minute averaging period in violation of 326 IAC 5-1-2(2)(B)
b.
No. 8 BF
i.
i.August 8, 2001 cast house VE exceeded the 20% opacity
limit during two 6-minute averaging periods in violation of 326 IAC 5-1-2(2)(B)
ii.
September 3,
2002 furnace top VE exceeded the 20%
opacity limit during seven 3-minute averaging periods in violation of 326 IAC 6-1-11.1(d)(9)
iii.
September 27,
2002 furnace top VE exceeded
the 20% opacity limit during two 3-minute averaging periods in violation of 326
IAC 6-1-11.1(d)(9)
iv.
July 21, 2005 VE opacity exceeded 20% 6-minute
average once and was 35.4% in violation of 326 IAC 5-1-2(2)(B)
v.
August 3, 2005 VE opacity exceeded 20% 6-minute
average in violation of 326 IAC 5-1-2(2)(B)
c.
No. 13 BF
i.
June 16, 1999 furnace
top VE exceeded the 20% opacity limit during ten 3-minute averaging periods in
violation of 326 IAC 6-1-11.1(d)(9)
ii.
June 22, 1999 furnace
top VE exceeded the 20% opacity limit during three 3-minute averaging periods
in violation of 326 IAC 6-1-11.1(d)(9)
iii.
January 4, 2000 cast
house VE exceeded the 20% opacity limit during two 6-minute averaging periods
in violation of 326 IAC 5-1-2(2)(B)
iv.
January 29, 2002 during
loading of B-mix slag, the average instantaneous VE exceeded the 10% opacity
limit during two loading events in violation of 326 IAC 6-1-11.1(d)(3)(A);
VE were observed exiting the stock house building
through several building openings in violation of 326 IAC 6-1-11.1(d)(7)(D)
d.
No. 2 Boiler Stack:
i. June 7, 2000 boiler stack VE exceeded the 20% opacity limit
during two 6-minute averaging periods in violation of 326 IAC 5-1-2(2)(B)
ii. June 22, 2000 boiler stack VE exceeded the 20%
opacity limit during one 6-minute averaging period in violation of 326 IAC
5-1-2(2)(B)
e.
No. 5 Boiler Stack
i.
September 28, 2000 boiler
stack VE exceeded the 20% opacity limit during two 6-minute averaging periods
in violation of 326 IAC 5-1-2(2)(B)
f.
No. 1 BOP Melt Shop
i.
November 12, 1998 roof
monitor VE exceeded the 20% opacity limit during five 3-minute averaging
periods in violation of 326 IAC 6-1-10.1(e)
ii.
March 18, 1999 roof
monitor VE exceeded the 20% opacity limit during two 3-minute averaging periods
in violation of 326 IAC 6-1-10.1(e)
iii.
January 6, 2000 roof
monitor VE exceeded the 20% opacity limit during one 3-minute averaging periods
in violation of 326 IAC 6-1-10.1(e)
iv.
June 6, 2000 roof
monitor VE exceeded the 20% opacity limit during four 3-minute averaging
periods in violation of 326 IAC 6-1-10.1(e)
v.
June 22, 2000 roof
monitor VE exceeded the 20% opacity limit during two 3-minute averaging periods
in violation of 326 IAC 6-1-10.1(e);
VE were observed escaping from the main flux conveyor
that transports materials from the truck dump to the No. 1 BOP Melt Shop, then
into the building in violation of 326 IAC 6-1-11.1(d)(7)(D)
vi.
September 13, 2000 roof
monitor VE exceeded the 20% opacity limit during one 3-minute averaging period
in violation of 326 IAC 6-1-10.1(e)
vii.
September 29, 2000 roof
monitor VE exceeded the 20% opacity limit during one 3-minute averaging period
in violation of 326 IAC 6-1-10.1(e)
viii.
November 22, 2000 roof
monitor VE exceeded the 20% opacity limit during two 3-minute averaging periods
in violation of 326 IAC 6-1-10.1(e)
ix.
April 12, 2002 roof
monitor VE exceeded the 20% opacity limit during one 3-minute averaging period
in violation of 326 IAC 6-1-10.1(e)
x.
June 7, 2000 VE
from five (5) dumping operations at the flux handling truck dump station
exceeded the 20% opacity limit during two 3-minute averaging periods and three
(3) additional periods, where the dumping lasted less than three (3) minutes in
violation of 326 IAC 6-1-11.1(d)(9)
xi.
March 21, 2000 gas
cleaning scrubber stack VE exceeded the 20% opacity limit during three 6-minute
averaging periods in violation of 326 IAC 6-1-10.1(e)
xii.
January 8, 2002 VE
were observed escaping from the south desulfurization station during
desulfurization operations escaping from the collection hood main, flux conveyor that transports materials from
the truck dump to the No. 1 BOP Melt Shop, then into the building; VE were
escaping the building through the north door and the opening above the north
door in violation of 326 IAC 6-1-11.1(d)(7)(D)
g.
Coke Oven
i.
October 20, 1998 14
of 75 observed oven doors (18.7%) were leaking
in violation of 326 IAC 6-1-10.2(c)(1);
Ovens 9, 11, and 21 exceeded the 20% opacity limit in
6 consecutive readings during pushing (3 pushes were observed) in violation of
326 IAC 6-1-10.2(c)(3)(B)
ii.
December 11, 1998 VE
opacity at ovens 2, 8, 14, and 16 exceeded the 20% opacity limit in 6 consecutive
readings during pushing (4 pushes were observed) in violation of 326 IAC
6-1-10.2(c)(3)(B)
iii.
April 22, 1999 VE
opacity from the coke side of the battery, ovens 39 and 45, exceeded the 20%
opacity limit before the first movement of coke (3 pushes were observed) in
violation of 326 IAC 6-1-10.2(c)(3)(A)
iv.
April 29, 1999 VE
opacity at ovens 39, 43, and 45 exceeded the 20% opacity limit in six (6)
consecutive readings during pushing in violation of 326 IAC 6-1-10.2(c)(3)(B)
v.
April 25, 2000 9
of 80 observed oven doors (11%) were leaking in violation of 326 IAC
6-1-10.2(c)(1);
VE from ovens 24, 26, 28, 30, 32, and 34 exceeded the
limit of 125 seconds during five (5) consecutive charging periods and lasted
for a cumulative total of 189 seconds after oven 28 was exempted in violation
of 326 IAC 6-1-10.2(c)(2);
VE opacity from the coke side of the battery,
ovens 48 and 50 exceeded the 20% opacity
limit before the first movement of coke (2 pushes were observed) in violation
of 326 IAC 6-1-10.2(c)(3)(A);
VE opacity at ovens 48 and 50 exceeded the 20%
opacity limit in 6 consecutive readings during pushing (2 pushes were observed)
in violation of 326 IAC 6-1-10.2(c)(3)(B);
Coke-side standpipe’s No. 32 lid was open, emissions
lasted three (3) minutes and 25 seconds, and the maximum VE opacity after the
allowable two minutes, was 60% in violation of 326 IAC 6-1-10.2(c)(5)
vi.
August 18, 2000 11
of 100 observed oven doors (11%) were leaking in violation of 326 IAC
6-1-10.2(c)(1)
vii.
April 9, 2001 21
of 88 observed oven doors (24%) were leaking in violation of 326 IAC
6-1-10.2(c)(1)
viii.
viii. July 6, 2001 21
of 95 observed oven doors (17%) were leaking in violation of 326 IAC
6-1-10.2(c)(1)
ix.
July 10, 2001 29
of 103 observed oven doors (28%) were leaking in violation of 326 IAC
6-1-10.2(c)(1);
Open pusher-side standpipe cap on oven 13 had 100% VE
opacity, which lasted longer than two minutes in violation of 326 IAC
6-1-10.2(c)(5)
x.
November 1, 2001 VE
from ovens 47, 49, 51, 53, 55, and 57 exceeded the limit of 125 seconds during
5 consecutive charging periods and lasted for a cumulative total of 369 seconds
after oven 47 was exempted in violation of 326 IAC 6-1-10.2(c)(2);
VE opacity at oven 4 exceeded the 20% opacity limit
in 6 consecutive readings during pushing (3 pushes were observed) in violation
of 326 IAC 6-1-10.2(c)(3)(B)
xi.
July 19, 2002 VE opacity at oven 33 exceeded the
20% opacity limit in 6 consecutive readings during pushing (4 pushes were
observed) in violation of 326 IAC 6-1-10.2(c)(3)(B)
xii.
July 24, 2002 21
of 94 observed oven doors (22%) were leaking in violation of 326 IAC
6-1-10.2(c)(1)
xiii.
October 15, 2002 VE
opacity at ovens 30 and 32 exceeded the 20% opacity limit in 6 consecutive
readings during pushing (2 pushes were observed) in violation of 326 IAC
6-1-10.2(c)(3)(B);
7 of 114 off-take assemblies were leaking,
resulting in 6% leakage exceeding the 5% limit in violation of 326 IAC 6-1-10.2(c)(5)
xiv.
May 1, 2003 VE
opacity at ovens 50 and 52 exceeded the 20% opacity limit in 6 consecutive readings
during pushing (4 pushes were observed) in violation of 326 IAC
6-1-10.2(c)(3)(B)
xv.
August 6, 2003 12
of 101 observed oven doors (11.9%) were leaking in violation of 326 IAC
6-1-10.2(c)(1)
xvi.
July 13, 2004 12
of 95 observed oven doors (12.6%) were leaking in violation of 326 IAC
6-1-10.2(c)(1);
VE opacity at ovens 4, 6, 8, and 10 exceeded the 20% opacity
limit in 6 consecutive readings during pushing (4 pushes were observed) in
violation of 326 IAC 6-1-10.2(c)(3)(B)
xvii.
September 14, 2004 17
of 102 observed oven doors (16.6%) were leaking in violation of 6-1-10.2(c)(1);
VE
opacity at oven 5 exceeded the 20% opacity limit in 6 consecutive readings
during pushing (4 pushes were observed) in violation of 326 IAC 6-1-10.2(c)(3)(B)
xviii.
October 5, 2004 VE
opacity at ovens 3 and 21 exceeded the 20% opacity limit in 6 consecutive
readings during pushing (8 pushes were observed) in violation of 326 IAC
6-1-10.2(c)(3)(B);
xix.
October 6, 2004 16
of 92 observed oven doors (17%) leaked in violation of 326 IAC 6-1-10.2(c)(1)
xx.
July 13, 2005 Door
emissions from more than 10% (26.6% out of 94 doors) of the observed oven doors
in violation of 326 IAC 6-1-10.2(c)(1);
VE opacity
at oven 18 exceeded 20% 6-minute average during pushing in violation of 326 IAC
6-1-10.2(c)(3)(B)
xxi.
July 29, 2005 VE
opacity of pushing emissions from ovens 46 and 32 exceeded 20% 6-minute average
in violation of 326 IAC 6-1-10.2(c)(3)(B);
xxii.
January 24, 2006 5.66%
of observed off-take assemblies were leaking, exceeding the 5% limit in
violation of 326 IAC 6-1-10.2(c)(5);
xxiii.
January 25, 2006 6.00%
of observed off-take assemblies were leaking, exceeding the 5% limit in
violation of 326 IAC 6-1-10.2(c)(5);
xxiv.
February 6, 2006 16.5%
of observed oven doors were leaking in violation of 326 IAC 6-1-10.2(c)(1);
xxv.
February 7, 2006 11.8%
of observed oven doors were leaking in violation of 326 IAC 6-1-10.2(c)(1);
xxvi.
February 9, 2006 12.9%
of observed oven doors were leaking in violation of 326 IAC 6-1-10.2(c)(1);
xxvii.
February 17, 2006 12.5% of observed oven doors were leaking in violation of 326 IAC
6-1-10.2(c)(1);
xxviii.
Feb. 19, 2006 5.77%
of observed off-take assemblies were leaking, exceeding the 5% limit in
violation of 326 IAC 6-1-10.2(c)(5);
xxix.
March 14, 2006 12.7%
of observed oven doors were leaking in violation of 326 IAC 6-1-10.2(c)(1);
xxx.
August 4, 2006 12.7
% of observed oven doors were leaking in violation of 326 IAC 6-1-10.2(c)(1);
xxxi.
October 5, 2006 21.7%
of observed oven doors were leaking in violation of 326 IAC 6-1-10.2(c)(1);
xxxii.
October 17, 2006 6.38%
of observed off-take assemblies were leaking, exceeding the 5% limit in
violation of 326 IAC 6-1-10.2(c)(5)
h.
COB No. 3
i. October 20, 1998 15 of 96 observed oven doors (15.6%) were
leaking in violation of 326 IAC 6-1-10.2(c)(1)
ii. December 11, 1998 VE opacity at ovens 13, 15, 17, and 23 exceeded
20% 6-minute average during pushing (4 pushes were observed). The opacity was 36.7% in violation of 326 IAC
6-1-10.2(c)(3)(B)
iii. April 22, 1999 VE from ovens 14, 16, 26, 28, 30,
and 32 exceeded the limit of 125 seconds
during 5 consecutive charging periods and lasted for a cumulative total of 186
seconds after oven 14 was exempted in violation of 326 IAC 6-1-10.2(c)(2);
13 of 114 off-take assemblies were leaking,
resulting in 11% leakage exceeding the 5% limit in violation of 326 IAC 6-1-10.2(c)(5)
iv. April 29, 1999 VE opacity at ovens 38, 40, and 42
exceeded 20% 6-minute average during pushing (3 pushes were observed) in
violation of 326 IAC 6-1-10.2(c)(3)(B)
v. April 14, 2000 VE opacity at ovens 7, 9, and
11exceeded 20% 6-minute average during pushing (4 pushes were observed) in
violation of 326 IAC 6-1-10.2(c)(3)(B)
vi. June 8, 2000 VE opacity at ovens 26 and 28 exceeded 20%
6-minute average during pushing (2 pushes were observed) in violation of 326
IAC 6-1-10.2(c)(3)(B)
vii. April 3, 2001 19 of 99 observed oven doors (19%) were
leaking in violation of 326 IAC 6-1-10.2(c)(1);
VE opacity from the coke side of the battery,
ovens 18 and 22, exceeded the 20% opacity limit before the
first movement of coke (3 pushes were observed) in violation of 326 IAC
6-1-10.2(c)(3)(A);
VE opacity at ovens 18 and 20 exceeded 20% 6-minute
average during pushing (3 pushes were observed) in violation of 326 IAC
6-1-10.2(c)(3)(B)
viii. April 9, 2001 19 of 107 observed oven doors
(18%) were leaking in violation of 326 IAC 6-1-10.2(c)(1)
ix. July 10, 2001 37 of 97 observed oven doors (38%) were leaking
in violation of 326 IAC 6-1-10.2(c)(1)
x. July 18, 2002 VE opacity at oven 14 exceeded 20% 6-minute
average during pushing (4 pushes were observed) in violation of 326 IAC
6-1-10.2(c)(3)(B)
xi. July 24, 2002 14 of 85 observed oven doors (16%) were leaking
in violation of 326 IAC 6-1-10.2(c)(1)
xii. October 15, 2002 VE opacity at oven 5 exceeded 20% 6-minute
average during pushing (3 pushes were observed) in violation of 326 IAC
6-1-10.2(c)(3)(B);
22 of 102 observed oven doors (22%) were leaking in violation
of 326 IAC 6-1-10.2(c)(1)
xiii. September 4, 2003 12 of 98 observed oven doors (12.2%)
were leaking in violation of 326 IAC 6-1-10.2(c)(1)
xiv. October 5, 2004 VE opacity at oven 57 exceeded the
20% opacity limit in 6 consecutive readings during pushing (1 push was
observed) in violation of 326 IAC 6-1-10.2(c)(3)(B)
xv. October 7, 2004 18 of 95 observed oven doors (18%) were
leaking in violation of 326 IAC 6-1-10.2(c)(1)
xvi. October 20, 2004 VE opacity at ovens 29, 31, 39, 43,
45, and 47 exceeded the 20% opacity limit in 6 consecutive readings during
pushing (10 pushes were observed) in violation of 326 IAC 6-1-10.2(c)(3)(B)
xvii. July 15, 2005 VE opacity from the offtake piping
was greater than 20% after 2 minutes of being opened in violation of 326 IAC
6-1-10.2(c)(5)
xviii. July 19, 2005 VE opacity from the offtake
piping was greater than 20% after 2 minutes of being opened in violation of 326
IAC 6-1-10.2(c)(5);
31 out
of 89 observed oven doors (34.8%) were leaking in violation of 326 IAC
6-1-10.2(c)(1)
xix. July 29, 2005 VE
opacity at ovens 7, 9, and 17 exceeded the 20% opacity limit in 6 consecutive
readings during pushing in violation of 326 IAC 6-1-10.2(c)(3)(B)
i.
COB No. 5
i. December 31, 1998 VE opacity at ovens 12 and 14 exceeded the 20%
opacity limit in 6 consecutive readings during pushing (4 pushes were observed)
in violation of 326 IAC 6-1-10.2(c)(3)(B)
ii. April 17, 2000 VE opacity from the coke-side of the
battery, oven 9, exceeded the 20%
opacity limit before the first movement of coke (3 pushes were observed) in
violation of 326 IAC 6-1-10.2(c)(3)(A);
VE opacity at ovens 7 and 9 exceeded the 20% opacity
limit in 6 consecutive readings during pushing (3 pushes were observed) in
violation of 326 IAC 6-1-10.2(c)(3)(B)
iii. August 18, 2000 VE opacity at oven 14 exceeded the 20%
opacity limit in 6 consecutive readings during pushing (2 pushes were observed)
in violation of 326 IAC 6-1-10.2(c)(3)(B)
iv. November 28, 2000 VE opacity at ovens 35 and 49 exceeded the 20%
opacity limit in 6 consecutive readings during pushing (2 pushes were observed)
in violation of 326 IAC 6-1-10.2(c)(3)(B)
v. July 10, 2001 15 of 139 observed oven doors (11%) were
leaking in violation of 326 IAC 6-1-10.2(c)(1)
vi. October 30, 2001 VE opacity at oven 26 exceeded the 20%
opacity limit in 6 consecutive readings during pushing (3 pushes were observed)
in violation of 326 IAC 6-1-10.2(c)(3)(B)
vii. July 18, 2002 VE opacity at ovens
57 and 59 exceeded the 20% opacity limit in 6 consecutive readings during
pushing (3 pushes were observed) in violation of 326 IAC 6-1-10.2(c)(3)(B)
viii. May 1,
2003 VE opacity at oven
21 exceeded the 20% opacity limit in 6 consecutive readings during pushing (4
pushes were observed) in violation of 326 IAC 6-1-10.2(c)(3)(B)
ix. July
22, 2004 16 of 131 observed oven doors
(12.2%) were leaking in violation of 326 IAC 6-1-10.2(c)(1)
x. July
12, 2005 22 of 142 observed oven doors
(15.5%) were leaking in violation of 326 IAC 6-1-10.2(c)(1);
xi. May 8, 2006 16.42% of observed oven
doors were leaking in violation of 326 IAC 6-1-10.2(c)(1);
xii. July 19,
2006 18.94% of observed
oven doors were leaking in violation of 326 IAC 6-1-10.2(c)(1)
j.
COB No. 7
i. December 16, 1998 VE opacity at oven 44 exceeded the 20% opacity
limit in 6 consecutive readings during pushing (4 pushes were observed) in
violation of 326 IAC 6-1-10.2(c)(3)(B)
ii. April 27, 1999 VE opacity at ovens 10 and 12 exceeded
the 20% opacity limit in 6 consecutive readings during pushing (4 pushes were
observed) in violation of 326 IAC 6-1-10.2(c)(3)(B)
iii. April 17, 2000 VE opacity from the coke-side of the
battery, oven 48, exceeded the 20%
opacity limit before the first movement of coke (4 pushes were observed) in
violation of 326 IAC 6-1-10.2(c)(3)(A)
iv. August 18, 2000 22 of 148 observed oven doors (15%) were
leaking in violation of 326 IAC 6-1-10.2(c)(1)
v. April 9, 2001 20 of 123 observed oven doors (16%) were
leaking in violation of 326 IAC 6-1-10.2(c)(1)
vi. July 10, 2001 19 of 143 observed oven doors (13%) were
leaking in violation of 326 IAC 6-1-10.2(c)(1)
vii. October 30, 2001 VE opacity at ovens 69, 71 and 73 exceeded
the 20% opacity limit in 6 consecutive readings during pushing (4 pushes were
observed) in violation of 326 IAC 6-1-10.2(c)(3)(B)
vii. May 1, 2003 VE opacity at ovens 2, 4, and 77 exceeded the
20% opacity limit in 6 consecutive readings during pushing (4 pushes were
observed) in violation of 326 IAC 6-1-10.2(c)(3)(B)
viii August 4, 2005 VE opacity of pushing emissions at
oven 70 exceeded the 20% 6-minute average in
violation of 326 IAC 6-1-10.2(c)(3)(B);
ix. January
23, 2006 10.96% of observed oven
doors were leaking in violation of 326 IAC 6-1-10.2(c)(1);
x. March
8, 2006 7.97% of observed
off-take assemblies were leaking, exceeding the 5% limit in violation of 326
IAC 6-1-10.2(c)(5);
xi. June
16, 2006 5.80% of observed
off-take assemblies were leaking, exceeding the 5% limit in violation of 326
IAC 6-1-10.2(c)(5);
xii. August
25, 2006 12.00% of observed oven
doors were leaking in violation of 326 IAC 6-1-10.2(c)(1);
xiii. November
6, 2006 11.11% of observed oven doors
were leaking in violation of 326 IAC 6-1-10.2(c)(1);
xiv. November
9, 2006 5.97% of observed off-take
assemblies were leaking, exceeding the 5% limit in violation of 326 IAC
6-1-10.2(c)(5)
k.
No. 2 Q-BOP
i. June
17, 1999 VE from the roof
monitor exceeded the 20% opacity limit during two 3-minute averaging periods in
violation of 326 IAC 6-1-10.1(e)
ii. May
25, 2001 VE from the powdered
lime truck unloading operations exceeded the 20% opacity limit during one
3-minute averaging period in violation of 326 IAC 6-1-11.1(d)(9)
l.
Nos. 2 and 3 Precarbonization
C-Line
i. June
28, 2000 During the test, PM/CPM
emissions exceeded the 31.25 lbs/hour limit and were 33.46 lbs/hour in
violation of the Order
ii. January
23, 2003 During the test, PM/CPM
emissions exceeded the 31.25 lbs/hour limit and were 51.05 lbs/hour in violation
of the Order
iii. December
22, 2004 During the test, PM/CPM emissions
exceeded the 31.25 lbs/hour limit and were 43.03 lbs/hour in violation of the
Order
m.
COB - Underfire Stack Continuous
Opacity Monitoring (“COM”) Violations
i. 2nd Quarter 1999 2nd
Quarter 1999 - COM Downtime - COB No. 3 in violation of 326 IAC 3-5-1(c)(7);
2nd Quarter 1999 - COM Exceedances at COB
Nos. 2, 3, 5, and 7 in violation of 326 IAC 5-1-2(2)(B)
ii. 3rd Quarter
1999 3rd Quarter 1999 - COM
Downtime at COB No. 2 in violation of 326 IAC 3-5-1(c)(7);
3rd Quarter 1999 - COM Exceedances at COB
Nos. 2, 3, 5, and 7 in violation of 326 IAC 5-1-2(2)(B)
iii. 4th Quarter
1999 4th Quarter 1999 -
COM Downtime at COB Nos. 2, 3, 5, and 7 in violation of 326 IAC 3-5-1(c)(7);
4th Quarter 1999 - COM Exceedances at COB
Nos. 2, 3, and 7 in violation of 326 IAC 5-1-2(2)(B)
iv. 1st Quarter
2000 1st Quarter 2000 -
COM Downtime at COB Nos. 2, 3, 5, and 7 in violation of 326 IAC 3-5-1(c)(7);
1st Quarter 2000 - COM Exceedances at COB
Nos. 2 and 3 in violation of 326 IAC 5-1-2(2)(B)
v. 2nd Quarter
2000 2nd Quarter 2000 -
COM Exceedances at COB Nos. 2 and 3 in violation of 326 IAC 5-1-2(2)(B)
vi. 3rd Quarter
2000 3rd Quarter 2000 -
COM Exceedances at COB Nos. 2 and 3 in violation of 326 IAC 5-1-2(2)(B)
vii. 4th Quarter
2000 4th Quarter 2000 -
COM Exceedances at COB Nos. 2, 3, and 5 in violation of 326 IAC 5-1-2(2)(B)
vii. 1st Quarter
2001 1st Quarter 2001 -
COM Exceedances at COB Nos. 2 and 3 in violation of 326 IAC 5-1-2(2)(B)
viii. 2nd
Quarter 2001 2nd
Quarter 2001 - COM Exceedances at COB No. 3 in violation of 326 IAC 5-1-2(2)(B)
ix. 3rd Quarter
2001 3rd Quarter
2001 - COM Downtime at COB No. 7 in violation of 326 IAC 3-5-1(c)(7);
3rd Quarter 2001 - COM Exceedances at COB
Nos. 2 and 3 in violation of 326 IAC 5-1-2(2)(B)
x. 4th Quarter
2001 4th Quarter 2001 -
COM Exceedances at COB Nos. 2, 3, and 5 in violation of 326 IAC 5-1-2(2)(B)
xi. 1st Quarter
2002 1st Quarter 2002 -
COM Downtime at COB No. 5 in violation of 326 IAC 3-5-1(c)(7);
1st Quarter 2002 - COM Exceedances at COB
No. 3 in violation of 326 IAC 5-1-2(2)(B)
xii. 2nd Quarter
2002 2nd Quarter 2002 -
COM Exceedances at COB Nos. 2 and 3 in violation of 326 IAC 5-1-2(2)(B)
xiii. 3rd
Quarter 2002 3rd
Quarter 2002 - COM Downtime at COB No. 7 in violation of 326 IAC 3-5-1(c)(7);
3rd Quarter 2002 - COM Exceedances at COB
No. 3 in violation of 326 IAC 5-1-2(2)(B)
xiv. 4th Quarter
2002 4th Quarter
2002 - COM Exceedances at COB No. 3 in violation of 326 IAC 5-1-2(2)(B)
xv. 1st Quarter
2003 1st Quarter 2003 -
COM Exceedances at COB Nos. 3 and 5 in violation of 326 IAC 5-1-2(2)(B)
xvi. 2nd Quarter
2003 2nd Quarter
2003 - COM Exceedances at COB Nos. 2, 3, and 7 in violation of 326 IAC 5-1-2(2)(B)
xvii. 3rd
Quarter 2003 3rd Quarter
2003 - COM Exceedances at COB Nos. 2, 3, 5, and 7 in violation of 326 IAC
5-1-2(2)(B)
xviii.
4th Quarter of 2003 4th Quarter 2002 - COM exceedances at COB No. 3
in violation of 326 IAC 5-1-2(2)(B)
xix. 1st Quarter of 2003 1st
Quarter 2003 - COM exceedances at COB Nos. 3 and 5 in violation of 326 IAC
5-1-2(2)(B)
xx. 2nd
Quarter of 2003 2nd Quarter 2003 - COM exceedances at COB Nos. 2,
3, and 7 in violation of 326 IAC 5-1-2(2)(B)
xxi. 3rd Quarter
of 2003 3rd Quarter 2003 - COM exceedances at COB Nos. 2,
3, 5, and 7 in violation of 326 IAC 5-1-2(2)(B)
xxii. 4th
Quarter of 2003 4th
Quarter 2003 – COM exceedances at COB Nos. 2, 3, 5, and 7 in violation of 326
IAC 5-1-2(2)(B)
xxiii.
1st Quarter of 2004 1st Quarter 2003 – COM exceedances at COB Nos. 2, 3, and
7 in violation of 326 IAC 5-1-2(2)(B)
xxiv.
2nd Quarter of 2004 2nd Quarter 2003 – COM exceedances at COB Nos.
2, 3, 5, and 7 in violation of 326 IAC 5-1-2(2)(B)
xxv.
3rd Quarter of 2004 3rd Quarter 2003 – COM exceedances at COB Nos.
2, 3, 5, and 7 in violation of 326 IAC 5-1-2(2)(B)
xxvi.
4th Quarter of 2004 4th Quarter 2003 – COM exceedances at COB Nos.
2, 3, 5, and 7 in violation of 326 IAC 5-1-2(2)(B)
xxvii. 1st Quarter of 2005 1st Quarter 2005 – COM exceedances at COB Nos.
2,3,5, and 7 in violation of 326 IAC 5-1-2(2)(B)
xxviii. 2nd Quarter, 2005 2nd Quarter 2005 – COM exceedances at COB Nos. 2,
3, 5, and 7 in violation of 326 IAC 5-1-2(2)(B)
xxix. 3rd Quarter of 2005 3rd Quarter 2005 – COM exceedances at COB Nos. 2,
3, 5, and 7 in violation of 326 IAC 5-1-2(2)(B)
xxx. 4th Quarter of 2005 4th Quarter 2005 – COM exceedances at COB Nos. 2,
5, and 7 in violation of 326 IAC 5-1-2(2)(B)
xxxi. 1st Quarter of 2006 1st Quarter 2005 – COM exceedances at COB Nos. 2,
5, and 7 in violation of 326 IAC 5-1-2(2)(B)
xxxii 2nd Quarter of 2006 2nd Quarter 2006 – COM exceedances at COB Nos. 2, 5,
and 7 in violation of 326 IAC 5-1-2(2)(B)
10.
Respondent shut down COB No. 3 in October 2005.
11.
On June 12, 2002, Respondent conducted a testing for PM
emissions on the No. 2 Precarbonization Line. The results of this test
demonstrated compliance with the provisions of Agreed Order in Cause Nos.
A-960, et al. and the July 6, 1998, testing agreement.
12.
On June 13, 2002, Respondent conducted testing for PM
emissions on the No. 3 Precarbonization Line. The results of this test
demonstrated compliance with the provisions of Agreed Order in Cause Nos.
A-960, et al. and the July 6, 1998, testing agreement.
13.
In response to the compliance problems associated with the
operation of the COMs at the COB underfire stacks, Respondent replaced these
COMs in December 1999.
14.
On August 10, 2000, Respondent completed the installation of
a new large bell at BF No. 4.
15.
On April 8, 1999, the terms of Agreed Order in Cause Nos.
A-2426, et al. (“1999 Order”) became effective.
Included in the 1999 Order are requirements for compliance with the
opacity standard at the BF No. 8. Order
Paragraph No. 2 of the 1999 Order required Respondent to observe visible
emissions from the top of BF No. 8 for four (4) hours per day, five (5) days
per week. Upon review of the opacity
reports for the time period of May 1, 1999, through February 29, 2000, numerous
violations of this requirement were noted.
Pursuant to Order Paragraph No. 3 of the 1999 Order, stipulated
penalties are assessed for these violations and hereby demanded by IDEM. IDEM has determined the stipulated penalties
to be One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00).
16.
Respondent contends that for exceedances other
than those associated with COB pushing and doors, the aforementioned exceedance
events were generally isolated and infrequent incidents. Each event was investigated and the cause identified
and corrected, but no systemic root cause
was identified. USS Gary Works
employs an ISO 14001 Certified Environmental Management System that identifies
and addresses key Environmental Objectives in each of its operating areas. These objectives are assigned
specific, measurable targets that require Environmental Programs and
Procedures to achieve. A structured Continuous Improvement methodology is
employed to insure progress in achieving the defined Environmental Objectives
and Targets.
17.
Respondent contends that, with respect to its COBs:
a. USS
Gary Works employs an ISO 14001 Certified Environmental Management System that
identifies and addresses key Environmental Objectives in each of its operating areas. These objectives are assigned
specific, measurable targets that require Environmental Programs and
Procedures to achieve. A structured Continuous Improvement methodology is
employed to insure progress in achieving the defined Environmental Objectives
and Targets.
b. USS
Gary Works Coke Operations has:
i. Instituted a system of Work Practice
Audits on all its coke batteries. These audits, conducted by a third party, check
on compliance with work practices and
procedures. Any audit deficiencies are followed up with focused employee training or retraining;
ii. Began
an Employee Involvement Program that involves the people closest to the work
activities and rewards compliance with work practices and procedures by measuring environmental compliance
by work areas and teams;
iii. Made
improvements in coke heating and procedures to prevent the pushing of “green
coke;”
iv.
Improved battery integrity by increasing
inspections and repairs as well as oven
thru-wall patching and replacements;
v. Installed new Continuous Opacity
Monitors (COMs) in December of 1999. The
COMS were replaced again in April of 2006 to comply with 40 CFR 63 Subpart CCCCC; and
vi. Conducted
compliance testing and began all parametric monitoring of its pushing,
quenching, soaking and battery stacks required by the new coke MACT (40 CFR 63
Subpart CCCCC).
18.
Respondent contends that, with respect to its
Precarbon Stack Tests:
a. Respondent failed three
(3) Stack Tests from June 28, 2000 to December 22, 2004;
b. Emissions testing was
conducted in August of 2004 at both Precarbon Nos. 2 and 3 to show compliance
with the Indiana SIP Limits. This testing required the simultaneous testing of
two (2) precarbon operating lines operating at greater than 95% capacity. The
results of this testing showed emissions at less than half of the allowable
level.
19.
In recognition of the settlement reached, Respondent waives
any right to administrative and judicial review of this Agreed Order.
II. ORDER
1.
This Agreed Order shall be effective (“Effective Date”) when
it is approved by the Complainant or her delegate, and has been received by the
Respondent. This Agreed Order shall have
no force or effect until the Effective Date.
2.
Upon the Effective Date of this Order, Respondent shall
comply with IC 30-30-2-1, 326 IAC
3-5-1(c)(7), 326 IAC 5-1-2(2)(B), 326 IAC 6-10.1(e), 326 IAC 6-1-10.2(c)(1),
326 IAC 6-10.2(c)(2), 326 IAC 6-10.2(c)(3)(A), 326 IAC 6-1-10.2(c)(3)(B), 326
IAC 6-1-10.2(c)(5), 326 IAC 6-1-11.1(d)(3)(A), 326 IAC 6-11.1(d)(7)(D), 326 IAC
6-11.1(d)(9), Part 70 operating permits, Agreed Order Cause Nos. A-960, et al.
and A-2426, et al., and other applicable regulations.
3.
No later than ten (10) days from the Effective Date of this
Order, Respondent shall, at COB Nos. 2, 5, and 7:
a.
observe at least six (6) consecutive pushes per day per COB
in accordance with procedures in 326 IAC 6.8-9-3(3)(B) and calculate percent
compliance in accordance with 326 IAC 6.8-9-3(3)(B) during pushing operations
for each COB using the following equation:
Percent (Total No. of
Observations – No. of Observed Violations) ∙ 100%
Compliance (%) =
Per Calendar Total No. of
Observations
Quarter
Pushing violations caused
by an emergency, as defined at 326 IAC 2-7-1(12), shall not be used to
determine percent compliance in the above calculation.
Respondent may, at its option,
on a per COB basis, reduce the number of pushes observed per COB from at least
six (6) per day to at least (4) per day after the above monitoring shows that
at least 99% compliance has been maintained for four (4) consecutive calendar
quarters.
b.
maintain on-site daily records of compliance with all
applicable VE regulations during pushing operations, separately for each COB,
for a period of at least five (5) years (unless specified otherwise in this
Agreed Order) and make them available to IDEM representatives on demand; and
c.
submit quarterly summaries of these records to IDEM’s
Northwest Regional Office (“NWRO”) not later than ten (10) days after the end
of each calendar quarter.
4.
No later than ten (10) days following the Effective Date of
this Order, Respondent shall:
a. with respect to pushing at COB Nos. 2, 5 or 7:
i.
in the event pushing fugitive visible emissions exceed
opacity limits at 326 IAC 6.8-9-3(3)(B) and are not attributable to an
emergency, as defined at 326 IAC 2-7-1(12), Respondent shall implement work
practices as described at 40 CFR 63.7291(a)(1) through (7) for the oven
exceeding opacity limits at 326 IAC 6.8-9-3(3)(B) to correct the problem.
ii. in the event compliance with 326 IAC 6.8-9-3(3)(B) cannot be
demonstrated after two (2) attempts to correct the problem, Respondent shall
submit to IDEM a written work plan and will not push that oven until all
elements of the written work plan are completed.
b. with respect to oven door leaks at COB Nos. 2, 5 and 7:
i. using daily door inspection data collected in accordance
with 40 CFR 63 Subpart L, determine the compliance status of each inspection
with oven door emission limits at 326 IAC 6-1-10.2(c)(1). Oven door emissions which are attributable to
an emergency, as defined at 326 IAC 2-7-1(12) shall not be included in the
calculation for compliance.
ii. in the event there is more than one (1) inspection in any
calendar month that exceeds applicable door emission limits for any single COB,
Respondent shall implement work practice standards for doors in accordance with
40 CFR 63.306 for that battery. Work
practices implemented at any single COB shall remain in effect until four (4)
consecutive calendar months of compliance with the applicable door emission
limits have been achieved for that particular COB.
iii. in the event there are more than two (2) inspections in any
calendar month that exceed applicable door emission limitations for any single
COB, Respondent shall revise the 40 CFR 63.306 work practices for oven doors,
implement the revised work practices and submit the revised work practices to
IDEM. Work practices on that battery shall remain in effect until four (4)
consecutive calendar months of compliance with the applicable door emission
limits have been achieved for that particular COB.
5.
No later than thirty (30) days after the Effective Date of
this Order, Respondent shall submit to IDEM a quarterly Refractory Repairs
Compliance Plan (“RRCP”) for COB Nos. 2, 5, and 7 detailing planned oven wall
repairs for the subsequent calendar quarter.
The RRCP shall include any planned end flue or through wall work and, in
addition, shall indicate if other repair work, such as panel patching or other
refractory restoration activities, is anticipated to be conducted during the
reporting period. After Respondent
submits its first quarterly RRCP, each subsequent RRCP submitted to IDEM shall
detail all relevant and appropriate repair work accomplished by Respondent
during one or more of the previous calendar quarters.
Flue caps may be removed
from COB Nos. 2, 5 and 7 for the purpose of operating each COB in a safe and
efficient manner. Respondent shall
develop and maintain records and provide IDEM a quarterly report listing smoking
flues where flue caps were left off for longer than one (1) complete coking
cycle for any reason other than those listed in (i) through (vii) below.
i.
taking a temperature reading;
ii.
observation of flue conditions;
iii.
determination of burners status;
iv. emergency situations;
v. maintenance of flues and burners;
vi. burning carbon from flues; or
vii. other reason mutually agreed upon in writing by
and between IDEM and Respondent.
6.
Upon the Effective Date of this Order,
Respondent shall, upon an exceedance of the 150 µg/m3 24-hour PM10
ambient air quality standard at the Gary IITRI monitoring site that (1) was
identified when the wind direction was emanating from between 300o
and 360o as measured on a windrose; and (2) when Respondent cannot
show to IDEM’s satisfaction that Respondent is not culpable for such
exceedance, implement an On-site Monitoring Compliance Plan (“MCP”) in
accordance with the following:
a. No later than ninety (90) days after
the culpability determination, Respondent shall submit to IDEM for its
approval:
i. MS-1 and MS-2 Monitoring Plans; and
ii. MS-1 and MS-2 Quality Assurance Plans
b. In installing and operating MS-1 and
MS-2, Respondent shall consider the following:
i. a tapered element oscillating microbalance
(“TEOM”) continuous air monitor(s), EPA-approved as a reference or equivalent
method, which provide(s) hourly PM10 and PM2.5 data; and
ii.
a 24-hour gravimetric monitor, EPA-approved as a
reference or equivalent method, which produces a total of 365 daily 24-hour
samples each calendar year, and utilizes filters enabling further analysis of
the collected samples.
c. In accordance with the MCP, Respondent
shall, subject to IDEM’s approval, install and begin operating two (2) on-site
monitoring stations (“MS”), located:
i. northwest from the Coke Plant,
approximately equidistant from the blast furnaces and the coke plant (“MS-1”);
and
ii. east of the Coke Plant, approximately
one quarter (1/4) of a mile from the Coke Plant (“MS-2”).
d.
Respondent shall:
i.
collect data as required by IDEM’s Indiana
Quality Assurance Manual, revised on January 1, 2006 (“QAM”), and incorporated
herein by reference;
ii.
provide the collected data to IDEM quarterly
within sixty (60) days after the end of each calendar quarter;
iii.
maintain the collected data and preserve the
samples on-site for a period of at least two (2) years after the collection
date and make the data available to IDEM representatives on demand in both hard
copy format and on-line;
iv.
analyze the collected samples and present the
analysis results to IDEM within thirty (30) days upon IDEM’s demand;
v.
use only IDEM-approved laboratories for the
sample analyses;
vi.
maintain and repair equipment at MS-1 and MS-2
as required by IDEM’s QAM; and
vii.
operate MS-1 and MS-2 for a minimum of two (2)
years, with discontinuation contingent upon the Gary IITRI monitoring site (ID
No. 180890022) meeting the PM10 National Ambient Air Quality
Standards.
e. Respondent shall maintain at least
ninety percent (90%) of valid daily data return.
f. This Order does not relieve Respondent
of (nor waive its rights to contest) any requirement of 326 IAC 6.8-11 if found
by IDEM to be causing or contributing to an exceedance under 326 IAC 6.8-11-3.
7.
All submittals required by this Agreed Order, unless
notified otherwise in writing, shall be sent to:
Edward Judson
Office of Compliance &
Enforcement
Indiana Department of
Environmental Management
100 North Senate Avenue,
Mail Code 60-02
Indianapolis, Indiana 46204-2251
8.
Respondent is assessed a total penalty in the
amount of Two Million Four Hundred Fifty-Seven Thousand Dollars
($2,457,000.00), composed of:
a. a civil penalty of Two Million Three
Hundred Fifty-Seven Thousand Two Hundred Fifty Dollars ($2,357,000.00) for the
violations described in Findings of Fact Paragraph No. 9; and
b. stipulated penalties of One Hundred
Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00) for the violations described in Findings of Fact
Paragraph No. 15 of this Order.
Within thirty (30) days of the Effective
Date of the Agreed Order, Respondent shall pay a portion of this civil penalty
in the amount of Four Hundred Seventy-One Thousand Four Hundred Dollars
($471,400.00) and the entire stipulated penalty of One Hundred Thousand Dollars
($100,000.00). Said penalty amounts
shall be due and payable to the “Environmental Management Special Fund.”
In lieu of payment of the remaining civil
penalty, Respondent shall perform and complete three (3) Supplemental
Environmental Projects (“SEPs”), valued at Three Million Six Hundred
Seventy-One Thousand Two Hundred Dollars ($3,671,200.00). Within thirty (30) days of completing each
SEP, Respondent shall submit to IDEM written notice and documentation which
substantiates all actions taken and costs incurred with respect to each SEP.
c. As SEP No. 1, Respondent shall provide
One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00) to the Environmental Learning
Center. Respondent shall complete this
SEP within thirty (30) days of the Effective Date of the Agreed Order.
d. As SEP No. 2, Respondent shall donate
approximately thirteen (13) acres of land and an existing warehouse building
located in Porter County, Indiana, to the Indiana Department of Natural
Resources or other appropriate not-for-profit entity for use as parkland and for
public access to the adjoining lakeshore.
The property is located adjacent to U. S. Highway 12. A description of the property is attached
hereto and incorporated by reference as Attachment A. This SEP is valued at Two Million Two Hundred
Twenty-Five Thousand Dollars ($2,225,000.00).
Respondent shall complete this SEP by no later than December 31, 2008.
e. As SEP No. 3, Respondent shall
identify, prioritize, arrange for the proper transport and disposal, and
replacement of polychlorinated biphenyl-containing or contaminated transformers
existing at the Site and Respondent’s Midwest Plant in Porter County, Indiana
(“Midwest Site”). Within sixty (60) days
of the Effective Date of the Agreed Order, Respondent shall submit a list of
such transformers (to be replaced with non-polychlorinated biphenyl-containing
or contaminated transformers) to IDEM.
Respondent shall expend no less than One Million Three Hundred Forty-Six
Thousand Two Hundred Dollars ($1,346,200.00) on this SEP. Additionally, Respondent shall complete this
SEP by no later than December 31, 2008.
In the event that the cost of SEP No. 3 is less than $1,346,200.00,
Respondent shall pay 50% of the difference between $1,346,200.00 and the actual
cost of the SEP.
In the event that the Respondent does not
perform SEP No. 1 and/or SEP No. 2, and/or SEP No. 3 within the prescribed
timeframes above, One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00) and/or One Million
One Hundred Twelve Thousand Five Hundred Dollars ($1,112,500.00) and/or Six
Hundred Seventy-Three Thousand One Hundred Dollars ($673,100.00), respectively,
plus interest established by IC 24-4.6-1-101 will be due within fifteen (15)
days from Respondent’s receipt of IDEM’s notice to pay. Interest, at the
rate established by IC 24-4.6-1-101, shall be calculated on the amount due from
the date which is thirty (30) days after the Effective Date of this Agreed
Order until the full civil penalty is paid.
9.
In the event the terms and conditions of the following
paragraphs are violated, then
a. Complainant may assess and Respondent shall pay a stipulated
penalty in the following amount:
Violation Penalty
i. Order Paragraph No. 3(a) $1,000.00 per battery/day
ii. Order Paragraph No. 3(c) $500.00 per day
iii. Order Paragraph No. 4(a)(i) $1,000.00
per day
iv. Order Paragraph No. 4(a)(ii) $2,500.00
per day
v. Order Paragraph No. 4(b)(i) $1,000.00 per
battery/day
vi. Order Paragraph No. 4(b)(ii) $1,000.00 per day
vii. Order Paragraph No. 4(b)(iii) $500.00 per day/violation
viii. Order Paragraph No. 5 $1,000.00 per day/report
ix. Order Paragraph No. 6(a) or (c) $1,000.00 per
day;
b. Respondent waives issuance of a Notice of Violation and the
settlement period of sixty (60) days as provided for by IC 13-30-3-3, when
violations described in Order Paragraph No. 2 are observed and/or discovered.
10.
Stipulated penalties shall be due and payable within thirty
(30) days after Respondent receives written notice that the Complainant has
determined a stipulated penalty is due.
Assessment and payment of stipulated penalties shall not preclude the
Complainant from seeking any additional relief against the Respondent for
violation of the Agreed Order. In lieu
of any of the stipulated penalties given above, the Complainant may seek any
other remedies or sanctions available by virtue of Respondent’s violation of
this Agreed Order or Indiana law, including, but not limited to, civil
penalties pursuant to IC 13-30-4.
11.
Civil and stipulated penalties are payable by check to the “Environmental
Management Special Fund.” Checks shall
include the Case Number of this action and shall be mailed to:
Indiana Department of
Environmental Management
Cashier’s Office
100 North Senate Avenue,
Mail Code 50-10C
Indianapolis, Indiana
46204-2251
12.
“Force Majeure,” for purposes of this Agreed Order, is
defined as any event arising from causes totally beyond the control and without
fault of the Respondent that delays or prevents the performance of any
obligation under this Agreed Order despite Respondent’s best efforts to fulfill
the obligation. The requirement that the
Respondent exercise “best efforts to fulfill the obligation” includes using
best efforts to anticipate any potential force majeure event and best efforts
to address the effects of any potential force majeure event (1) as it is
occurring and (2) following the potential force majeure event, such that the
delay is minimized to the greatest extent possible. “Force Majeure” does not solely include changed
business or economic conditions, financial inability to complete the work
required by this Agreed Order, or increases in costs to perform the work.
13.
The Respondent shall notify IDEM by calling the case manager
within three (3) calendar days and by writing no later than seven (7) calendar
days after it has knowledge of any event which the Respondent contends is a
force majeure. Such notification shall
describe the anticipated length of the delay, the cause or causes of the delay,
the measures taken or to be taken by the Respondent to minimize the delay, and
the timetable by which these measures will be implemented. The Respondent shall include with any notice
all available documentation supporting its claim that the delay was
attributable to a force majeure. Failure
to comply with the above requirements shall preclude Respondent from asserting
any claim of force majeure for that event.
The Respondent shall have the burden of demonstrating that the event is
a force majeure. The decision of whether
an event is a force majeure shall be made by IDEM.
14.
If a delay is attributable to a force majeure, IDEM shall
extend, in writing, the time period for performance under this Agreed Order, by
the amount of time that is directly attributable to the event constituting the
force majeure.
15.
In the event that the civil and stipulated
penalties are not paid as required by Order Paragraph Nos. 8 & 9,
Respondent shall pay interest on any unpaid balances at the rate established by
IC 24-4.6-1-101. The interest shall continue to accrue until the civil and stipulated
penalties are paid in full.
16.
Compliance with the terms of this Agreed Order shall not
relieve Respondent from compliance with any and all applicable state and
federal regulations and/or permits.
17.
This Agreed Order shall apply to and be binding upon the
Respondent, its successors and assigns. The Respondent's signatories to this
Agreed Order certify that they are fully authorized to execute this document
and legally bind the parties
18.
they represent. No
change in ownership, corporate, or partnership status of the Respondent shall
in any way alter its status or responsibilities under this Agreed Order.
19.
In the event that any terms of the Agreed Order are found to
be invalid, the remaining terms shall remain in full force and effect and shall
be construed and enforced as if the Agreed Order did not contain the invalid
terms.
20.
The Respondent shall provide a copy of this Agreed Order, if
in force, to any subsequent owners or successors before ownership rights are
transferred. Respondent shall ensure that
all contractors, firms and other persons performing work under this Agreed
Order comply with the terms of this Agreed Order.
21.
This Agreed Order resolves (1) all air pollution
violations cited in the Notices of Violation noted herein; (2) all air pollution
violations noted in this Agreed Order which were not cited in a Notice of
Violation; and (3) all similar opacity and visible emissions violations at the
Site through December 1, 2006.
22.
The termination of Order Paragraph Nos. 3, 4, 5,
and 10(a)(i) through 10(a)(viii) of this Agreed Order shall be effective upon
the:
a. demonstration by Respondent of
continued operation in compliance with all applicable requirements as shown by:
(i) four (4) successive calendar quarters of equal to or greater than 99%
compliance with pushing visible emission standards per COB; and (ii) four (4)
successive calendar months showing no more than one (1) exceedance per month of
door leak visible emission standards per COB (hereinafter referred to as
“Compliance Demonstration”);
b. payment of any civil and stipulated
penalties due under this Order;
c. certification by Respondent to IDEM
that it has (i) paid the civil penalty and all stipulated penalties incurred;
and (ii) made the Compliance Demonstration; and
d. the failure of IDEM, within sixty (60)
days of submittal of the certification above, to provide to Respondent written
notice that IDEM has determined, on the basis of reasonable and sufficient
observations, that Respondent has not paid the penalties or made the necessary
Compliance Demonstration.
23.
The termination of the remainder of this Agreed
Order shall be effective upon the:
a. completion
of all SEPs as directed by Order Paragraph No. 8;
b. certification by Respondent to IDEM
that it has complied with Order Paragraph No. 8; and
c. the failure of IDEM, within sixty (60)
days of submittal of the certification above, to provide to Respondent written
notice that IDEM has determined, on the basis of reasonable and sufficient
observations, that Respondent has not complied with Order Paragraph No. 8.
Remainder of page left
blank intentionally
|
TECHNICAL RECOMMENDATION: |
|
RESPONDENT: |
|||||||||||
|
Department of Environmental Management |
|
United States Steel Corporation |
|||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
By: |
|
|
By: |
|
|||||||||
|
|
David P. McIver, Chief |
|
Printed: |
|
|||||||||
|
|
Air Section |
|
Title: |
|
|||||||||
|
|
Office of Enforcement |
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
Date: |
|
|
Date: |
|
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
COUNSEL FOR COMPLAINANT: |
|
COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT: |
|||||||||||
|
Department of Environmental Management |
|
|
|||||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
By: |
|
|
By: |
|
|||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
|
Office of Legal Counsel |
|
|
|
|||||||||
|
Date: |
|
|
Date: |
|
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
APPROVED AND ADOPTED BY THE INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL |
|||||||||||||
|
MANAGEMENT THIS |
|
DAY OF |
|
, 200 |
|
. |
|||||||
|
|
|||||||||||||
|
|
For The Commissioner: |
||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||
|
|
Signed on December 1,
2006 |
||||||||||||
|
|
Matthew T. Klein |
||||||||||||
|
|
Assistant Commissioner for |
||||||||||||
|
|
Compliance and Enforcement |
||||||||||||