|
STATE OF |
) |
|
BEFORE THE INDIANA DEPARTMENT |
||
|
|
|||||
|
COMMISSIONER OF THE DEPARTMENT Complainant, v. CITIZENS Respondent. |
) |
2003-12852-A, 2003-13140-A, 2003-13586-A, 2004-14030-A, 2004-14214-A, 2004-14381-A, 2005-14594-A, 2005-14928-A, 2006-15350-A, 2006-15388-A, and 2006-15403-A |
|||
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 fact or 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
1.
Complainant
is the Commissioner of the Indiana Department of Environmental Management
(“Complainant”), a department of the State of
2.
Respondent
is Citizens Gas & Coke Utility (“Respondent”), which owns and operates coke
oven batteries, Plant I.D. No.
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
|
David Griffiths, President |
Carey B. Lykins, President |
|
Citizens Gas & Coke Utility |
Citizens Gas & Coke Utility |
|
|
|
|
|
|
5.
Both records reviews and inspections were conducted for the
Site by representatives of IDEM’s Office of Air Quality (“OAQ”) and the City of
E/H
a.
Pursuant
to 326 IAC 5-1-2(2)(A), opacity from a source or facility located in Marion
County, Indiana, shall not exceed an average of thirty percent (30%) opacity in
any one (1) 6-minute averaging period.
The Excess Emissions Reports, prepared by Respondent and submitted to IDEM, for
Third and Fourth Quarters 2002; First, Second, Third and Fourth Quarters 2003;
First and Second Quarters 2004; and First, Second, Third and Fourth Quarters
2005, for the E/H Batteries Underfire Stack demonstrated opacity in excess of
thirty percent (30%) for at least one (1) 6-minute averaging period during each
quarter, in violation of 326 IAC 5-1-2(2)(A).
Respondent contends that the circumstances described in Findings of Fact Paragraph
No. 6 below and, in particular, Findings of Fact Paragraph No. 6(j), provide
the factual background that explains and mitigates the issues related to the
operation of the E/H Battery during the time periods discussed in Findings of
Fact Paragraph No. 5(a). Respondent refers the reader to Findings of Fact Paragraph
No. 6.
b.
Pursuant
to 326 IAC 11-3-2(f), oven door emissions requirements shall be as
follows: on and after
On
On May 23 and
On
Respondent contends these events were isolated, non-recurring events which had
no systemic root cause that could be identified and addressed. Respondent continues its program of door
inspections and submittal of reports, which minimize the potential for further
violations.
c.
Pursuant
to 326 IAC 11-3-2(b)(4), visible emissions from the charging system, including
any open charge port, offtake system mobile jumper pipe, or larry car, shall be
limited as follows: On and after
On August 22, September 18, and
On five (5) days, from
Respondent contends that issues with charging emissions arose at both batteries,
in large part, as the result of the constantly changing coal supply discussed
in Findings of Fact Paragraph No. 6 below and, in addition, less than optimum
coal Respondent has had to purchase because of problems with its coal suppliers. This new coal often has a higher percentage
of coal fines. The higher percentage of coal
fines has two detrimental effects on charging emissions. First, additional
fines get pulled off in the aspiration steam and plug up the goosenecks. This carbon buildup, within the goosenecks,
in turn blocks the flow of gases through the gas collection system during
charging (as well as during the coking cycle).
As described in Findings of Fact Paragraph No. 7 below, Respondent has
replaced the gooseneck cleaning equipment to achieve reductions in charging
emissions. Second, additional coal fines
also cause coal to flow more slowly into the empty oven, which leads to
longer-than-desired charging times and, therefore, a greater potential for
exceeding the charging limits. To mitigate
the issues caused by additional coal fines, Respondent has, among other things,
used additives that increase the flow rate of coal into the empty ovens.
d.
Pursuant
to 326 IAC 3-5, affected facilities are required to continuously monitor the
applicable emissions. The Respondent is
required to continuously monitor opacity emissions at the E/H Battery Underfire
Stack and at the Battery No. 1 Underfire Stack.
During the Fourth Quarter of 2002, the Respondent experienced opacity monitor
downtime at the Battery No. 1 Underfire Stack, in violation of 326 IAC 3-5.
During the Third Quarter of 2005, the Respondent experienced opacity monitor
downtime at the Battery No. 1 Underfire Stack, in violation of 326 IAC 3-5.
Respondent contends the following facts explain and mitigate
the issues raised in Finding of Fact Paragraph No. 5(d): Opacity monitor down
time in the Third Quarter 2005 relates to two occurrences on July 7 and 22,
2005, in which the calibration statistics relay board, and then the replacement
board itself, failed. These boards are solid-state electrical units that, on
average, last up to ten (10) years. Two
such boards failing in the same unit weeks apart is a rare occurrence and would
not be predicted by the manufacturer or prevented through normal inspection and
maintenance of the continuous opacity monitors (“COMs”). The electronic nature of the relay boards
made the problem difficult to diagnose. In spite of the difficulty involved,
the problem was addressed in one (1) day in the first instance and within six
(6) hours in the second instance. In
order to prevent maintenance-related costs and monitor down time, although the
COMs have otherwise performed well, Respondent replaced the Battery No. 1 COMs
in 2006.
e.
Pursuant
to 326 IAC 20-3-1(b), the air pollution control board incorporates by reference
40
“…no owner or operator shall cause to be discharged or allow to be discharged
to the atmosphere coke oven emissions from a by-product coke oven battery that
exceed any of the following emission limitations:
6. On
or after
(i)
For
coke oven doors:
(A)
4.3
percent leaking coke oven doors for each tall by-product coke oven battery
owned or operated by a foundry coke producer, as determined by the procedures
in 63.309(d)(1);…
(ii)
0.4
percent leaking topside port lids, as determined by the procedures in
63.309(d)(1);
(iii)
2.5
percent leaking offtake system(s), as determined by the -procedures in
63.309(d)(1);…”
On sixteen (16) separate days from August 11 to
On
Respondent contends these were isolated, non-recurring
events which had no systemic root cause that could be identified and
addressed. Nevertheless, Respondent
continues to enhance its preventative maintenance program for the doors on Battery
No. 1. The table provided in Findings of
Fact Paragraph No. 8 summarizes some of those efforts.
f.
Pursuant
to Prevention of Significant Deterioration (“
On ninety-six (96) separate days from
On twenty three (23) separate days from
On ten (10) separate days from
Respondent contends the following explains and mitigates the issues raised in
this Findings of Fact Paragraph No. 5(f):
In addition to the additional preventative maintenance tasks described
in Respondent’s response to Findings of Fact Paragraph No. 5(e) above (which
will likely continue to improve operations at the doors), Respondent believes
the 5% permit limit referenced above is not a proper, lawful, or achievable
limit for the Battery No. 1 doors. At
the time the 5% permit limit was imposed, Respondent is unaware of any other
coke oven battery that achieved the limit without an exception in the limit for
recently-charged doors. Respondent’s permit does not include this
exception. Respondent has accordingly
filed, on April 13, 2006, a request with IDEM to modify this permit term.
These issues are being addressed through the compliance schedule in Order
Paragraph No. 3.
g.
Pursuant
to 326 IAC 11-3-2(b)(4) visible emissions from the charging system, including
any open charge port, offtake system mobile jumper pipe or larry car shall be
limited as follows: On and after
On
On four (4) separate days from
On
Respondent contends that the coal fines issues discussed in connection with Findings
of Fact Paragraph No. 5(c) above apply with equal force to, and help explain
and mitigate, this claim.
BY-PRODUCTS RECOVERY PLANT
h. Pursuant to
On one hundred thirty five (135) separate days from
The Respondent contends the following facts explain, mitigate, and put this
issue into perspective: Historically,
Respondent relied upon the iron oxide system at the Site to desulfurize coke
oven gas which generated a spent iron oxide that had to be sent off-site for
disposal. Occasionally, testing of this
material indicated it was a hazardous waste.
To reduce hazardous waste generation, Respondent investigated using a
new desulfurization technology, and ultimately identified the vacuum carbonate
technology from
In 1992, engineering design began for a $27 million desulphurization complex.
Start-up was completed in August 1994. The
contract with the vendor called for 95% availability of the desulphurization
complex. Through June 2001, operating
time had averaged only 55%. A series of
design and operational problems caused Respondent to spend approximately $2
million dollars to keep the system running. Despite having what was believed to
be a state-of-the-art desulphurization complex, both the desulphurization plant
(to clean the gas down to 20 to 30 grains of H2S/100 scf), and, in
addition, the oxide boxes were required to reduce H2S to less than
20 grains of H2S/100 scf.
Eventually, Respondent decided to shut down the desulphurization complex in the
summer of 2002 and to rely solely on the oxide box technology. At the same time, Respondent developed a
nitrogen purge system that would avoid the generation of spent oxide chips as a
hazardous waste. Although Respondent had
used the oxide box technology successfully prior to 1994, and intermittently
from 1994-2002, operational difficulties experienced in the first several quarters
of return to full operation resulted in exceedances of the H2S limit
during that time. Oxide box operational
problems were addressed and since December 2004, Respondent has been in
continuous compliance with the 20 grains H2S/100 scf of coke oven
gas requirement.
6. The Respondent contends the
following facts and circumstances provide an explanation and partial mitigation
of the above-cited violations:
a. Beginning in the late 1990s, importation of foreign government-subsidized
coke at below-market prices substantially drove down the price of domestically produced coke.
The resulting decrease in revenue impaired domestic coke suppliers and
threatened the long-term viability of Respondent’s coke plant and many of its merchant
plant competitors. The market depression
began to turn around in 2003 after the U.S. Congress intervened and placed
import tariffs on imported coke.
b. Between August 2000 and March 2004, twelve (12) of
Respondent’s foundry customers filed bankruptcy. The resulting loss in income to the
Respondent from the debts discharged in these bankruptcies was $1.7 million.
Beyond that loss, these customers represented approximately ten percent (10%)
of the coke plant’s production, or approximately $8.5 million in annual sales.
c. The coke plant lost $87.7
million during the period 2001-2004. The
coke plant’s cash operating loss for the twelve (12) months ending
d. In December 2001, LTV Steel,
Respondent’s largest customer with about 40% of the plant’s production,
declared bankruptcy. In addition to the
financial loss of $2.5 million in discharged debt, Respondent had no customer
to sustain continued production of blast furnace coke at the E/H Batteries.
e. As
result of lost business, beginning in January 2002, Respondent put the E/H Batteries into “hot idle” mode until
economic conditions could improve. The
ovens were kept closed and empty, with a minimum amount of heat provided to
avoid the most damaging effects of a complete cool down. A complete cool down would have required permanent
closure of the E/H Batteries.
f. Based on previous experience,
Respondent believed that no significant damage would occur to the ovens as a
result of the hot idle.
g. The hot idle caused more substantial
damage to the batteries than expected, as described in Findings of Fact Paragraph
No. 6(j) below. The various items of
damage, in turn, adversely affected battery operation and emissions. Appendix A (attached hereto and incorporated by reference)
describes the maintenance and repair activities performed by Respondent at the
E/H Batteries before and after the hot idle to return these batteries to good
working condition.
h. Respondent had to lay off eighty-five
(85) experienced coke battery employees as it went into hot idle. Only approximately twenty (20) of these
employees ultimately returned to work at the Site.
i. The E/H Batteries returned to
production in June of 2002 when a new coke contract was secured, although the
new contract was at a low price, below Respondent’s production costs at the
time.
j. After returning to production following
the 2002 hot idle, Respondent experienced problems at the E/H Batteries in the
following areas:
i. Prolonged and extreme temperatures decarbonized the oven
walls and led to burned out standpipes and warped or broken steel tie rods,
resulting in wall separation and cracking;
ii. An early retirement program led to a loss of significant
experience and expertise at all staffing levels, including oven operators and
troubleshooters; and
iii. Coal supply and market problems caused fluctuations in the
oven schedule upon the return to production.
k. The following circumstances have
contributed to the opacity exceedances at the E/H Batteries Underfire Stack:
i. Interruptions in production reduced carbon accumulation and
increased cracking and other damage to the ovens.
ii. Significant changes in available coal types and quality
resulted in an erratic production schedule, which in turn caused damage,
including “sticker” ovens.
l. In summary, beginning in the 1990s, subsidized imported
coke artificially reduced prices and threatened the entire domestic coke
industry including Respondent. In
addition, Respondent lost several major customers from bankruptcies in the
period 2000-2004. These two factors,
beyond Respondent’s control, led to a very substantial loss of business and
revenue, and to Respondent losing nearly $90 million in the period
2001-2004. These economic conditions led
to the E/H Battery hot idle in 2002. Unlike
a previous return to production following a hot idle in the 1980s, the 2002 hot
idle caused more substantial damage to the E/H Batteries than expected, which
in turn led to increased emissions while Respondent has, at a cost of $4
million, taken steps to repair the damage.
Those efforts are now complete. However, continued post-2002 disruptions
to Respondent’s coal supply, both in terms of quantity and quality, and
continued loss of customers have hampered Respondent’s recovery efforts and
adversely affected production cycles, which in turn adversely affects battery
operation and emissions.
7. In addition to the maintenance and repair activities
listed in Appendix A, Respondent further contends
it has taken the following steps to address opacity emissions exceedances at
the E/H Batteries underfire stack:
a. Pusher-side end flue repairs have been completed on oven
wall numbers E8, E9, E10, E11, E12, E13, E14, E15, E16, E17 and E18;
b. Pullman valves have been modified to prevent them from
closing on their own and forcing coke oven gas out through the flues;
c. The “Wobbe” system was upgraded in late 2005. This system allows
d. The E
e. The gooseneck is a bent section of pipe that connects the
vertical standpipe to the horizontal gas collector main. Carbon tends to build up in this section of
pipe and restricts the flow of gas from the vertical standpipe to the
horizontal gas collector main. To
relieve this problem, Respondent has
taken the following steps:
i. A new pump has been placed into operation to supply the
high pressure stream of water that spins the cleaning head inside the
gooseneck.
ii. Structural modifications have been made to the goosenecks.
8. Respondent
has taken the following steps to enhance the preventive maintenance program
associated with the doors on Battery No. 1:
|
Activity |
Time period |
Approximate Cost |
|
Added Environmental Supervisor |
June 2004 |
$62,750.00/yr. |
|
Rebuilt West Door Machine extractor and main car frame. |
Spring/Summer 2005 |
$200,000.00 |
|
Installed new door and rebuilt main car frame to cleaner
on the west door machine. |
Spring 2005 |
$75,000.00 |
|
Installed spotting device on the West door machine |
July 2005 |
$30,000.00 |
|
Installed oven cleaning data device on West door Machine. |
August 2005 |
$35,000.00 |
|
Installed water blasting system to clean doors. |
Spring 2005 |
$75,000.00 |
|
Rebuilt # 1 pusher door extractor. |
Spring 2005 |
$150,000.00 |
|
Installed new door cleaner on # 1 Pusher. |
Summer 2005 |
$50,000.00 |
|
Installed spotting device on # 1 Pusher. |
July 2005 |
$30,000.00 |
|
Installed oven cleaning data device on # 1 Pusher. |
August 2005 |
$10,000.00 |
|
Installing modified Saturn “Floating” doors. (To date, 15 have been installed) |
2004/2005 |
$8,000.00/each |
|
Rebuilt all Ikio doors and installed them on the battery. |
2004/2005 |
$100,000.00 |
|
Rotating a minimum of 3 doors/week for repair/rebuild
through Saturn shop and Respondent’s in house door repair. |
On-going |
$5,000.00 in-house |
|
Modify some doors to use soft seal gaskets. |
2006 |
$200,000.00 |
|
Installed new design standpipe cleaners. |
2003 |
$250,000.00 |
9.
In
2004, Respondent voluntarily agreed to provide Mostardi-Platt Environmental
("MP"), a contractor hired by IDEM, full access to Respondent's coke
making facility, records, and personnel to allow MP to perform an evaluation of
operations at the facility for the purpose of identifying possible measures
that could be taken to further improve environmental performance at the
facility above and beyond what is required by law.
The resulting
10. A modern data logger and data acquisition
and handling system has been installed by Respondent at the Site for compliance
with the opacity monitoring requirements of the Pushing Quench Battery Stack
NESHAP that should fully address data loss from software system failures.
11. During 2002, Respondent shut down the Desulphurization
Complex and began using oxide box technology to desulfurize coke oven gas. Since December 2004, the Respondent has been
in continuous compliance with the 20 grains H2S/100 scf of coke oven
gas requirement.
12. Beginning on
13. This Agreed Order resolves the violations
cited in the City of
14. The E/H Underfire Stack was in compliance
with 326 IAC 5-1-2(2)(A) for the 1st and 2nd Quarters of
2006.
15. 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 his 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 Agreed Order, Respondent
shall comply with IC 13-30-2-1, 326 IAC 5-1-2(2)(A), 326 IAC 3-5, 326 IAC 20-3-1(b), 326 IAC 11-3-2(f) and 326 IAC 11-3-2(b)(4).
3. IDEM concludes that Respondent cannot immediately achieve compliance
with the limit of 5% leaking doors (“5
a.
Respondent shall
comply with the following requirements:
i.
As requested by
IDEM’s response to Respondent’s
ii. By
no later than twenty four (24) months following the Effective Date of this
Agreed Order, Respondent shall also submit an analysis of “best practices to
reasonably minimize emissions from leaking doors on coke batteries.” This analysis shall be developed by, among
other things, surveying other coke manufacturing facilities (to the extent
allowed by these facilities) that are of comparable design and operating
characteristics to Battery No. 1.
iii. To
further minimize emissions during this 24-month period, Respondent shall
implement the additional door maintenance practices at Battery No. 1 described
below:
A. Enhanced Training Program -
An enhanced training program will be
initiated within four (4) months of the Effective Date of this Agreed
Order. The program shall be designed and
implemented by internal and/or external personnel and will include the
following components:
Refresher training on procedures, work instructions, equipment design, and
regulatory requirements related to compliance with environmental requirements
for Battery No. 1 door leaks.
Personnel to be trained include all battery shift supervision, battery
operations personnel (machine operators and chargers), environmental utility
personnel, and environmental repair personnel.
A key component of the training program shall be evaluation and feedback. EPA Method 303 data shall be used to compare
performance of individual work crews before and after the initial training
sessions. The resulting information shall
then be used to focus subsequent training on subject matter and personnel where
the data suggest the greatest opportunity for additional positive impact is
available.
B. Survey of Door Condition
and Follow up Repairs - The battery
shift supervisor shall conduct a survey of the condition of the doors once per
shift. The supervisor shall ensure that
any doors found to have problems that could impact door leaks are addressed in
a timely manner.
b. During
the term of this compliance schedule, Respondent shall comply with the limit of
4.3
c. This compliance schedule
becomes effective upon the Effective Date of this Order and shall remain in
effect until IDEM issues a final determination in response to the LAER analysis
submitted under Order Paragraph No. 3(a)(i).
4. Upon the
Effective Date of this Agreed Order, Respondent shall implement the revised
Flue Cap Management Plan attached hereto
and incorporated by reference as “Appendix B.”
This plan supersedes the Flue Cap Management Procedure-E & H Battery
in Agreed Order Case Nos. 2000-9522-A, 2000-9681-A, 2001-10161-A, 2001-10535-A,
2001-10611-A, 2001-10862-A 2001-11085-A, 2002-11224-A, and 2002-11365-A.
5. Upon
the Effective Date of this Agreed Order, Respondent shall implement the revised
Corrective Action Plan for Damaged and Leaking Brickwork-E/H Battery, which is
attached hereto and incorporated by reference as “Appendix C.” This plan supersedes the Corrective Action
Plan for Damaged and Leaking Brickwork-E/H Battery in Agreed
Order Case Nos. 2000-9522-A, 2000-9681-A, 2001-10161-A, 2001-10535-A,
2001-10611-A, 2001-10862-A, 2001-11085-A, 2002-11224-A, and 2002-11365-A.
6. Respondent
is assessed a civil penalty of One Million Four Hundred Twenty Thousand Three
Hundred Sixty-Four Dollars and Fifty Cents ($1,420,364.50) of which One Million
Three Hundred Ten Thousand Seven Hundred Fifty-Five Dollars and Fifty Cents
($1,310,755.50) is the gravity-based portion and One Hundred Nine Thousand Six
Hundred Nine ($109,609.00) Dollars is the economic benefit of non-compliance
portion of the civil penalty.
7. Within
thirty (30) days of the Effective Date of this Agreed Order, Respondent shall
remit to the Environmental Management Special Fund One Hundred Nine Thousand
Six Hundred Nine ($109,609.00) Dollars.
8. Upon
the Effective Date of this Agreed Order, Respondent shall remit to the
Environmental Management Special Fund a total of One Hundred Seventy Thousand Two
Hundred Fifty-Four Dollars and Twenty Cents ($170,254.20) in eight (8) quarterly
installments of Twenty-One Thousand Two Hundred Eighty-One Dollars and Seventy-Eight
Cents ($21,281.78), until the $170,254.20 civil penalty is paid in full. The first installment of the civil penalty
shall be due and payable to the Environmental Management Special Fund on
9. Upon the Effective Date of this Agreed
Order:
a. In
lieu of payment of the balance of the gravity-based civil penalty, Respondent
shall perform and complete (or cause to be performed and completed) the
following emission reduction-related projects (“Projects”):
i. Removal
and Destruction of Benzene from the Gas Supply Wastewater Project attached hereto
and incorporated by reference at “Appendix D;”
ii.
E/H
Battery Modular End Flue Replacements Project (beyond what is needed for
compliance) attached hereto and incorporated by reference at “Appendix E”. In the event the E/H Battery underfire stack
opacity emissions exceed thirty percent (30%) for more than three percent (3%) of
the operating hours for a calendar quarter and the corrective action taken to
return to compliance includes modular end flue replacements, the modular end
flue replacements that are needed to return to compliance shall not be
considered Projects by IDEM;
iii. Benzene
Removal Through Powerhouse Tank Blanketing Project attached hereto and
incorporated by reference at “Appendix F;”
iv. Benzene
Removal Through Vapor Recovery for Tar Loading Project attached hereto and
incorporated by reference at “Appendix G;”
v. Handheld
Leak Detection and Repair (LDAR) Imaging Camera Project attached hereto and
incorporated by reference at “Appendix H;”
vi. Expanded
Collector Main Cleaning Project attached hereto and incorporated by reference
at "Appendix I;"
vii. Program Investment Opportunities in the Southeast Neighborhood Area attached
hereto and incorporated by reference at “Appendix J”;
viii. Or other Projects mutually agreed upon by and between
Complainant and Respondent.
b. Upon
the Effective Date of this Agreed Order, on March 1 and October 1 of each year,
written notice and documentation shall be submitted to IDEM which substantiates
all actions taken and costs incurred with respect to the implementation of each
Project.
c. If
a minimum of $2,010,000.00 is not expended on the Projects by
10. In
the event the terms and conditions of the following paragraphs are violated,
the Complainant may assess and the Respondent shall pay a stipulated penalty in
the following amount:
|
Violation |
Penalty |
|
Failure to comply with Order Paragraph No. 4- |
|
|
Failure to submit a list of smoking flues with the quarterly opacity
report |
$1,000.00/Reporting quarter |
|
Failure to comply with Order Paragraph No.5- |
|
|
Failure to perform bi-annual oven inspections |
$1,000.00/event |
|
Failure to keep a record of all planned inspection and maintenance
activities |
$1,000.00/event |
|
Failure to submit record of all planned inspection and maintenance
activities monthly. |
$1,000.00/event |
11. 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 other violations 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.
12. 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:
|
Cashier’s Office |
|
Indiana Department of Environmental Management |
|
|
|
|
13. This Agreed Order shall apply to and be binding upon the
Respondent, its successors and assigns. The Respondent's signatory to this Agreed
Order certifies that he/she is fully authorized to execute this document and
legally bind the party he/she represents.
No change in ownership, corporate, or partnership status of the
Respondent shall in any way alter its status or responsibilities under this
Agreed Order.
14. 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.
15. If
the parties are unable to agree upon any requirement or other matter described
herein, or in the event a dispute should arise among the parties regarding the
implementation of the requirements of this Agreed Order, the parties shall
attempt to resolve the dispute through negotiation for at least thirty (30)
calendar days. If the parties do not
resolve the dispute, IDEM and the Respondent agree to allow a mutually agreed
upon mediator to
make the final
binding decision, as long as both parties are allowed to present an oral
argument and a brief on their position. Respondent shall implement, or cause to be
implemented the requirement as decided by the mediator within fifteen (15) days
after receiving the decision of the mediator.
16. “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.
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.
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.
17. 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.
18. This Agreed Order shall remain in effect until Respondent has
complied with all terms and conditions of this Agreed Order and Complainant has
issued a resolution of cause letter.
|
TECHNICAL RECOMMENDATION: |
|
RESPONDENT: |
|||||
|
Department of Environmental Management |
|
Citizens Gas & Coke Utility |
|||||
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
By: |
|
|
By: |
|
|||
|
|
Janet Arnold, Acting Chief |
|
Printed: |
Jean Richcreek |
|||
|
|
Solid Waste/UST Section |
|
Title: |
Sr. Vice President |
|||
|
|
Office of Enforcement |
|
|
|
|||
|
Date: |
|
|
Date: |
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
COUNSEL FOR COMPLAINANT: |
|
COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT: |
|||||
|
Department of Environmental Management |
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
By: |
|
|
By: |
|
|||
|
|
Steve Griffin, Chief Environmental Section |
|
|
John M. Kyle, III Barnes & Thornburg, LLP |
|||
|
|
Office of the |
|
|
|
|||
|
Date: |
|
|
Date: |
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENT: |
|||||
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
|||||
|
|
|
|
By: |
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
James M. Hauck Hatchett & Hauck LLP |
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
Date: |
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|||
|
APPROVED AND ADOPTED BY THE INDIANA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL |
|||||||
|
MANAGEMENT THIS |
|
DAY OF |
|
, 2006. |
|||
|
|
|||||||
|
|
For The Commissioner: |
||||||
|
|
|
||||||
|
|
Signed on September 15, 2006 |
||||||
|
|
Matthew T. Klein |
||||||
|
|
Assistant Commissioner |
||||||
|
|
of Compliance and Enforcement |
||||||
APPENDIX A
The
following is a list of maintenance and repair activities performed at the E/H
Batteries before and after the hot idle:
|
Before Hot Idle |
After Hot Idle |
|
*Patch & Spray
(end flues, other areas of oven, standpipe bases) |
*Patch & Spray
(end flues, other of Oven, standpipe bases) -1,067 repairs |
|
*Silica Dusting |
*Silica Dusting-206
repairs |
|
*Standpipe Changes |
*Standpipe Changes-62
repairs |
|
*Tie-Rod Replacements
and Repairs |
*Tie-Rod Replacements
and Repairs-17 repairs |
|
*Parapets |
*Parapets-146 repairs |
|
*Regenerators |
*Regenators-6 repairs |
|
*End Flue Replacements
(Silica Brick) |
*End Flue Replacements
(Silica Brick) (No longer done in
favor of zero expansion modular type) |
|
*Pusher-side End
Flue Replacements |
*Pusher-side End
Flue Replacements |
|
(Zero-expansion modular type) |
(Zero-expansion modular type) |
|
|
*Patch & Spray
Standpipe Bases-169 repairs |
|
|
*Gunning-82 repairs |
|
|
*Ceramic Welding-32
repairs |
|
|
*Floor
replacement/repair-9 repairs |
APPENDIX B
FLUE
Flue Caps
may be removed from E & H Battery for the purposes of operating the battery
in a safe and efficient manner including, but not limited to, temperature
readings, flue cleaning, heating adjustments, flue inspections, and flue
repair. Flue caps shall be replaced within a reasonable time after the
completion of these activities.
Citizens
Gas & Coke Utility will maintain records of flue repairs. In addition, CGCU will submit to IDEM a list
of smoking flues where caps were left off longer than a single coking cycle,
plus any repair time, with the quarterly opacity report. This list will include:
|
a. A description of
the needed flue repair. |
|
b. A time table for
completing the repair. |
|
c. The date and
time the flue cap is removed. |
|
d. The date and
time the flue cap is replaced. |
|
e. An explanation
of why the flue repair required more than one coking cycle to repair. |
APPENDIX C
CORRECTIVE ACTION PLAN
DAMAGED
This Damaged
and Leaking Brickwork –E/H Battery Corrective Action Plan shall be implemented
until compliance with opacity regulations has exceeded 97% for at least four
(4) consecutive quarters, beginning with the first calendar quarter following
the adoption of this Agreed Order.
1.
Inspections: Respondent shall perform inspections of the
battery twice per year to determine the necessity for brickwork repair. After each inspection, repair work shall be
prioritized and performed in such a manner that the worst areas will be addressed
first, weather permitting, unless Respondent determines that another prioritization
is appropriate based on the results of the inspection. Repair activities shall include, but are not
limited to, silica dusting, patch & spray, panel patching/ceramic welding, tie
rod replacement, and end flue replacement (zero expansion modular type).
Respondent shall keep a record of all planned inspection and maintenance
activities intended to control underfire stack emissions which could result in
excessive loss of oven sealing carbon and subsequent brief periods of stack
visible emissions. Each record shall
include:
a.
the
date of the outage;
b. battery name;
c. oven number;
d. time that the oven was last pushed;
e. time that the oven was subsequently charged;
f.
the reason for
the outage, and;
g. the repair scheduled or performed.
2.
Silica
Dusting: Respondent shall dust one (1) oven
per day, three (3) days per week, weather permitting, unless there is other,
higher priority repair work, as determined by Respondent, in progress.
3. Patch
and Spray: Respondent shall perform a
P&S repair on oven doorjambs on an as-needed basis for minor repairs.
4. The
Respondent shall submit a copy of the above-referenced records to IDEM on a
monthly basis. In addition, all records
shall be retained a minimum of five (5) years.
Description of Types of
Repairs-These descriptions are not intended to set out additional requirements
to those above but simply to provide background information on the types of
repairs referenced above.
1. Silica
Dusting relies on the pressure differences between an empty oven, which is at
atmospheric pressure, and the heating flues, which are under negative stack
draft, to carry the fine silica dust particles into small cracks in the oven
walls. Large cracks will permit the
silica dust to pass through directly into the flues, so they must first be
sealed by patching. The silica dust is
aspirated to a discharge pipe located below the charging hole. A valve controls
the rate of dusting so that the dust will be distributed evenly throughout the oven
chamber. The procedure can take most of
a shift to complete.
2. Patch
and Spray repair entails troweling a mortar mixture on large cracks
(>1/8" wide) on the end flues to seal the cracks and to prevent raw
coke oven gas from entering the flue system and causing excess opacity. The end
flue area is then sprayed to fill smaller cracks in the brickwork.
3. Panel
Patch: Panel patching is done by
removing and replacing a section of brickwork on one end of an oven at a time. The oven to be repaired and the ovens
immediately adjacent to it are taken out of service to perform this
repair. After the oven door is removed,
loose material at the end flue area is raked out and the oven is scraped to
remove scaling, loose mortar, and carbon.
The deteriorated brick is removed and replaced with special "zero
expansion bricks." Gaps are
trowel-patched the area is sprayed with a mortar slurry and the excess is
removed by a scraper before the material sets up. After the patching work has
been completed, the walls and end flues are inspected.
4. End
Flues/Throughwalls: End Flue replacement
is accomplished by removing and replacing the brickwork with zero expansion
modular panels for the entire height of the battery from the battery bench to
the first several heating flues, and is performed on one end of an oven at a
time. A throughwall is a complete
rebuild of an internal heating wall. Once a repair oven and the adjacent ovens
are removed from service, insulation is placed on the surrounding heating walls
to minimize heat loss. The designated
brickwork is then removed and replaced.
5. Tie
rod replacement: Respondent has an
on-going program of tie-rod inspection and replacement. Joints in the brickwork
will expand if a tie-rod breaks. A
repair is accomplished by stabilizing the battery brickwork with chains across
battery width that attach to buckstays.
The broken tie-rod is then removed and replaced.
APPENDIX D
APPENDIX E
E&H BATTERY
MODULAR END FLUE REPLACEMENTS-BEYOND COMPLIANCE
APPENDIX F
BENZENE REMOVAL THROUGH POWERHOUSE
TANK BLANKETING
I.
Current Situation: A naphthalene scrubber is operated to remove naphthalene from the coke
oven gas, creating an enriched fuel product.
The naphthalene is absorbed by No. 2 fuel oil sprayed onto the gas. A number of other hydrocarbons, including
benzene, are also absorbed, although to a much lesser extent. The resulting enriched fuel oil is stored in
a tank called the “Powerhouse Tank,” which is vented to atmosphere. The oil is
sold and shipped off-site to customers.
II.
Project:
Citizens could seal the Powerhouse Tank so that it is not vented to atmosphere
and install a blanketing system. Storage tanks that are vented to the
atmosphere “breathe” out vapors during filling operations and “breathe” in air
during emptying operations. A blanketing system is used for sealed tanks so
that they can continue to “breathe”. Vapors pushed out of the tank during
filling operations would be captured by the blanketing system. Also, the
blanketing system would provide nitrogen gas to fill the tank during emptying
operations. The role of the blanketing system is to maintain a constant
pressure in the vapor space of the tank. The blanketing system would consist of
a pressure regulated nitrogen supply to the tank and a stainless steel vent pipe
with pressure control valve that would carry away tank vapors to the coke oven
gas main. The introduction point of the vapors would be located upstream of the
exhausters and would be under vacuum. The tank could be equipped with
pressure/vacuum relief valves so that the tank would be protected against
pressures outside of design limits in case the blanketing system fails or from
some other upset condition.
III.
Environmental Benefit: The Mostardi-Platt report identified the Powerhouse Tank
as a potential source of organic emissions. Mostardi-Platt recommended that
this tank be blanketed if it had a high organic content. We estimate that
approximately 18,000 pounds of benzene are stored in the tank per year but only
a fraction of this amount could be emitted to the atmosphere. Clearly, some of
the benzene is emitted along with other VOC’s as the tank breathes. This project would eliminate the venting of
benzene and other VOC’s from the Powerhouse Tank to the atmosphere.
IV.
Estimated Cost and Timing: Although detailed engineering has not been completed, the
preliminary estimated capital cost would be about $300,000. Maintenance and operation cost is estimated
to be $12,000 per year. The primary component of this cost is for maintaining
the steam tracing for the vent pipe and the steam heater for the nitrogen
service. We estimate that once final
plans and specifications would be complete and the project bid, construction
and final testing would take approximately 7 to 9 months.
BENZENE REMOVAL
THROUGH VAPOR RECOVERY FOR
I.
Current Situation: Coal tar is manufactured
through the coke making process. Citizens manufactures approximately 5 million
gallons of coal tar per year. The coal
tar is stored in tanks from which it is loaded into trucks and rail cars by
splash loading and sold to customers.
Although coal tar storage tanks are sealed from the atmosphere with the
use of tank blanketing systems, vapors generated during the splash loading
operation are released to the atmosphere.
II.
Project: Consistent
with Mostardi-Platt recommendations, Citizens could install a vapor recovery
system that would capture the majority of any vapors generated during loading.
Such a system could consist of ducting that would enclose the openings in the
tanker truck and would direct the vapors to a scrubber. The vapors would be drawn into the scrubber
with either an ejector-venturi or a blower. Fuel oil that would be circulated
in the scrubber would absorb the hydrocarbons in the vapors. The cleaned vapors
would exhaust to atmosphere. A mist eliminator would be installed in the
scrubber to prevent the discharge of oil to the atmosphere.
III.
Environmental Benefit: It is estimated that this capture system would eliminate
approximately 80% of current hydrocarbon emissions. We estimate that 800 lbs.
benzene, 400 lbs. naphthalene, 400 lbs. toluene, and 100 lbs. xylene would be
captured annually.
IV.
Estimated Cost and Timing: Although detailed engineering has not been completed, the
preliminary estimated capital cost would be about $100,000. Maintenance and
operation cost would be about $8,000 per year. Pump maintenance would be the
primary cost. We estimate that once
final plans and specifications would be complete and the project bid, construction
and final testing would take approximately 6 to 8 months.
APPENDIX H
HANDHELD LEAK
DETECTION
I. Current Situation: Sources of Volatile Organic Compounds (VOCs)
in
II. Potential
Project: Respondent proposes providing IDEM with the funds to purchase a ThermaCAM
GasFindIR Camera (“ThermaCAM”) leak detection infrared imager. The ThermaCAM has the capability to quickly
scan large areas of a facility for leaks.
IDEM staff will use the ThermaCAM to verify compliance with LDAR
requirements. In addition, there is the
potential for reducing VOC emissions by locating previously unidentified leaks
and having them repaired.
III. Estimated
Cost and Timing: The cost of a ThermaCAM and the relevant accessories is approximately
$100,000.00. This Project shall be
completed no later than
APPENDIX I
EXPANDED COLLECTOR
I. Current
Situation: The collector main must have clear passages to allow for stable pressurization
of the battery. Unstable pressurization
leads to periods of over-pressurization which can cause door leaks. Traditionally, Citizens has cleaned the
collector main up to two times per year.
With changes in available coal supply and additional coal fines included
in the current coal mix on a regular basis, performance would likely be
enhanced with additional cleaning of the collector main.
II. Project:
Clean the collector main an additional time each year (three (3) times per
calendar year) for the next five (5) years, beginning in calendar year 2007.
III. Environmental
Benefit: This project will assist in lowering the pressure in the coke
ovens and in preventing coke
oven gas from leaking through the doors during coking.
V.
Estimated Cost and Timing: This task can cost up to $40,000 per iteration.
APPENDIX J
PROGRAM INVESTMENT OPPORTUNITIES IN THE SOUTHEAST NEIGHBORHOOD AREA
Respondent proposes
investing in Southeast Neighborhood Area community projects described below. These dollars are intended for areas in and
around the Southeast Neighborhood Area, the Southeast Community Organization
and
Program Investments will
include:
A. Southeast Community Organization youth
Programs
Through the community center and
neighborhood organization, there are several youth programs designed to keep
young people engaged in meaningful activities while they are not in
school. Activities to be funded would
include neighborhood clean-ups, beautification, and recycling projects. Funds would be administered by the Southeast Community
Organization (“SECO”).
$10,000.00
B. Kids and the Environment
The Boy Scouts and Girl Scouts offer
day and residential camp experiences during the summer for young people to
learn about the environment and the out of doors. The focus of the camps is to examine how
plants and animals live in harmony with the environment and why it is important
for humans to protect and care for our environment. The young people learn ways to keep our homes
clean without harming the environment, they learn to recycle and they explore
ways to reduce heating cost. This camp
offers the young people an understanding of ways to make our home (Earth) a
better place for all. For many urban
families, cost is a barrier to participation.
This initiative would provide 100 girls and 100 boys from the southeast
area a scholarship to attend Boy Scout camp or Girl Scout camp. These young people could be selected from
youth currently in scouting programs in the neighborhood and/or from youth participating
in programs with the Southeast community organization. Funds will be administered by Girl Scouts of
Hoosier Capital Council ($20,000.00) and Crossroads Council, Boy Scouts of
America ($20,000.00).
$40,000.00
C.
The emphasis of the environmental
studies curriculum at McFarland is environmental stewardship. The school has the largest biodome of its
kind in the city. Funds would be used to
develop the biodome into different habitats that represent various ecosystems and
climates as well as the necessary curriculum that supports the project. Funds could also be used to expand current
programming and student experiences in the environmental studies programs. Funds would be administered by the
$30,000.00
D. The mayor has launched a new initiative
to focus on the quality of life in six designated areas, including the
southeast area. These areas will receive
city funding and staff over the next three years. As with most city initiatives, there will be
a need for private sector dollars to fund parts of the initiative. The investment in this initiative is
designated for park improvements, public right of way beautification, or other
environmental projects that are identified during the initiative’s planning
process. Funds will be administered by
Local Initiative Support Corporation (LISC).
$20,000.00
Total funds to be
donated:
$100,000.00