Amicus Curiae Brief — Gulf States Steel, Inc. v. LTV Corp., 113 S. Ct. 661 (1992) (No. 92-732)
Supreme Court brief1992
Ask Donna
What actually matters in this document.
Text
"f ue U
| NOV 24 1992
ron oe aeeee i ee
No. 92-732
IN THE
Supreme Court of the Unite? States
OCTOBER TERM, 1992
GULF STATES STEEL, INC. OF ALABAMA,
Petitioner,
¥.
THE LTV CORPORATION, et ai.,
Respondents.
On Writ of Certiorari to the
United States Court of Appeals
For the District of Columbia Circuit
BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE
OF THE STATE OF ALABAMA
IN SUPPORT OF
GULF STATES STEEL, INC. OF ALABAMA’S
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
James H. Evans
Attorney General
The State of Alabama
Marc Givhan
Chief, Antitrust Division
Office of the Attorney General
The State of Alabama
11 South Union Street
Montgomery, Alabama 36130
(205) 242-7328
Counsel for Amicus Curiae
The State of Alabama
* Counsel of Record
Balmar Legal Publ: shing Services, Washington, D.C. (202)682-9800
TABLE OF CONTENTS
I. INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE THE STATE
Ce EE. fc. a Wl ne ee ce ew
Il. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT .........
ee eee ee eee
A. LTV Had Prior Actual Notice From
The State Of Certain Environmental
Claims AtIssueIn This Case ......
B. The Escrow Deposit Monies Should
Be Restored To The Control Of The
District Court To Ensure LTV’s
Compliance With The Final
DE We eed & kn ae cs os
9s GEE 4's nc Kc Ska wh kee
ii
TABLE OF AUTHORITIES
CASES PAGE
California v. American Stores Co., 495 U.S. 271
CFD) wake a ee eee 2
Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail, 112 S. Ct.
FOR CUPRED on sk OS ee ee passim
In re Chateaugay Corp., 944 F. 2d 997
(fd Cie, FRE). ine ee ee 1]
Friends of the Earth v. Eastman Kodak Co., 656 F.
Supp. 513 (W.D.N.Y.), aff d, 834 F. 2d 295
(fu Oe. IT) ss ee eee ee 13
Sierra Club, Inc. v. Electronic Controls Design, Inc..,
909 F. 2d 1350 (Sth Gar. 1990) ........ 13
United States vy. LTV Corp., 1984-2 Trade Cas.
(CCH) § 66,133 (D.D.C.), appeal dismissed,
14 F. 24 31 (OA CART ha es 8
United States v. LTV Corp., No. 84-0884 (D.D.C.),
appeal dismissed, (D.C. Cir. Feb. 20,1986) ... 2,3,4,8
United States v. Vertac Chemical Corp., 756 F.
Supp. 1215 (E.D. Ark. 1991), aff d,
i)
961 F. 2d 790 GU Ge. TF) 6 we 13
STATUTES AND REGULATIONS
13 U kn Bae: e655 ee eee 2
SS USAn EB EASE bt ka @ kee eee 2
SiUSRS BG «sass oe hee 2
SlUBL. § Fee «6 de Ore eee 2
42 USG..4 TA 3 . 0 i RS 2
SEU SK. 3 FG | kc Glee eee 1]
Code of Alabama 1975 §22-22A-1 through 16 Le
iil
Alabama Pollution Control Rule and Regulation
I gn cig od eS wee 6 8
Alabama Pollution Control Rule and Regulation
0 ee ee eee oe ee
Alabama Pollution Control Rule and Regulation
ee ae
Alabama Pollution Control Rule and Regulation
I ate s+ Slee web ee
Alabama Pollution Control Rule and Regulation
ee ee ae ee
RULES
a
eek gic ea es
8,9
12, 13, 14
ee
No. 92-732
IN THE
Supreme Court of the United States
OCTOBER TERM, 1992
GULF STATES STEEL, INC. OF ALABAMA,
Petitioner,
¥.
THE LTV CORPORATION, et al.,
Respondents.
On Writ of Certiorari to the
United States Court of Appeals
For the District of Columbia Circuit
BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE
OF THE STATE OF ALABAMA
IN SUPPORT OF
GULF STATES STEEL, INC. OF ALABAMA’S
PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI
I. INTEREST OF AMICUS CURIAE
THE STATE OF ALABAMA
The State of Alabama (“State”), through its Attorney
General James H. Evans, hereby respectfully files this brief
amicus curiae, pursuant to Rule 36 of this Court and the parens
patriae authority of the State,! in support of Petitioner Gulf
States Steel, Inc. of Alabama’s (“GSSI’) October 26, 1992
| The Attorney General also specifically is authorized to represent the
State in any and all legal actions concerning the Alabama Environmental
Management Act, Code of Alabama, 1975 §§ 22-22A-1 through 16 (1990)
Id at § 22-22-A-13.
2
Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to reverse the June 12, 1992
decision and August 4, 1992 mandate of the Court of Appeals
in LTV Corp. v. Gulf States Steel, Inc., 969 F. 2d 1050 (D.C. Cir.
1992) (Wald, J).
This Court has held that the State has standing under
Section 16 of the Clayton Act, as amended, 15 U.S.C. § 26
(1988) to seek divestiture to ameliorate the anticompetitive
effects of an unlawful merger. See California v. American
Stores Co., 495 U.S. 271, 281-84 (1990). This case highlights
the importance of the role of the State in enforcing the terms of
such a divestiture.
The State’s interest here is to enforce orders of the District
Court of the District of Columbia (“District Court’’) implement-
ing the terms of an antitrust consent decree, under which
Respondents (“LTV”) had agreed to retain and assume environ-
mental liabilities ata Gadsden, Alabama steel mill that LTV was
required to divest, in exchange for the government’s approval
of LTV’s acquisition of Republic Steel Corporation. See United
States v. LTV Corp., 1984-2 Trade Cas. (CCH) § 66,133
(D.D.C.), appeal dismissed, 746 F.2d 51 (D.C. Cir. 1984)
(“August 2, 1984 Final Judgment’); United States v. LTV Corp.,
No. 84-0884 (D.D.C.), appeal dismissed, (D.C. Cir. Feb. 20,
The Alabama Department of Environmental Management (“ADEM”) has
been delegated and designated as the authorized state agency responsible for
enforcement of: (1) the Federal Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7401 et seq., as
amended; (2) the Federal Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. § 1251 et seq., as
amended; and (3) the Solid Waste Disposal Act, 42 U.S.C. § 3251 et seq., as
amended, and including 42 U.S.C. § 609 et. seg. See Code of Alabama 1975
§ 22-22-A-4(n) (1990). Moreover, ADEM has been authorized io take all
actions necessary and appropriate to secure to the State the benefits of these
environmental laws. See Code of Alabama, 1975 §§ 22-22A-1 through 16
(1990).
siacncciaiiiaaaaaaicei ieee alii ei
3
1986) (“December 17, 1985 Divestiture Order’). See Pet. GSSI
App. I, at 642; Pet. GSSI App. K, at 113a.?
The Court of Appeals erroneously held that LTV did not
have actual notice of the environmental claims at issue in this
case and therefore GSSI was precluded, as a matter of law, from
recouping expenses made for corrections to achieve and main-
tain environmental compliance at the Gadsden plant that arose
out of the conduct of Business prior to the January 31,1986
divestiture, see Pet GSSI App. A, at 22a-24a, even though
$19,590,000 of this amount was made under compulsion by and
subject to consent decrees with the State or ADEM. See State
App. V, at 76a through State App. CC, at 117a.
The State’s role in this case requires a brief discussion.
From the beginning, the State has sought to ensure that LTV
would assume environmental liabilities at the Gadsden plant,
which the District Court and its trustee found was a necessary
prerequisite to induce a new entrant to undertake the risk of
purchasing the Gadsden plant and placing it in a position so that
it could interject competition into the domestic steel industry.
On April 1, 1991, the State filed a motion to intervene, or in the
alternative to file as an amicus curiae before Judge Stanton of
the District Court for the Southern District of New York to
support the withdrawal of LTV’s adversary proceeding against
GSSI for collection of a $31 million balance remaining on a
promissory note from the Southern District of New York
(“Bankruptcy Court”) and transfer of venue to the District Court.
See LTV Corp. v. Gulf States Steel, Inc., No. 91-1826
(S.D.N.Y.).
On April 1, 1991, the State independently filed a motion in
the District Court to intervene in United States v. LTV Corp.,
No. 84-0884 (D.C.C.), to enforce its rights under the August 2,
2 In the interest of avoidiny the submission of duplicative materials, the
State has referenced herein certain documents found in GSSI’s Appendix,
which hereinafter will be designated as “Pet. GSSI App. __. at om
a
4
1984 Final Judgment. Asa result, on April 9, 1991, LTV filed
a motion for contempt against the State in the Bankruptcy Court
because the Attorney General declined to withdraw that motion,
which LTV contended was a violation of the automati¢ stay. On
April 10, 1991, the Bankruptcy Court held a hearing in which
the State also declined to participate to avoid the appearance of
submitting to that court’s jurisdiction. At that hearing, LTV was
advised by the Bankruptcy Court to withdraw its motion for
contempt. LTV did so.
On May 3, 1991, the District Court for the Southern
District of New York withdrew the reference of the adversary
proceeding and venue was transferred to the District Court. The
State was informed shortly thereafter by representatives of the
United States that it would oppose the State’s motion to inter-
vene in United States v. LTV Corp., No. 84-0884 (D.D.C.), but
would not oppose its participation as an amicus curiae or its
participation in the instant adversary proceeding. See Pet. GSSI
App. Y, at 203a. Rather than engage in an ancillary jurisdic-
tional dispute, on May 23, 1991, the State moved to intervene
in this case, or in the alternative, to file as an amicus curiae. On
June 5, 1991, the District Court denied the State’s motion to
intervene.
The District Court indicated, however, that the State’s
description of the environmental laws and regulations relevant
to this case and LT V’s compliance therewith prior to the dives-
titure would be of assistance. Therefore, on August 24, 1991,
the State filed an amicus brief, as requested, and submitted
affidavits prepared on July 31, 1991 by ADEM’s chief enforce-
ment officials. See Pet. GSSI App. W, at 198a; Pet GSSI App.
X, at 199a. On August 26, 1991, the District Court granted the
State’s motion to file as an amicus curiae.
Atan evidentiary hearing *-'d on August 27-28, 1991, ADEM
enforcement records and LTV 1. nal records concerning meet-
ings with ADEM enforcement c“ficials were admitted into
5
evidence. See, e.g., State App. E, at 24a through State App. U, at
75a.3 In addition, ADEM officials were called by GSSI to
testify on rebuttal, but the District Court informed them that their
testimony was not necessary and they did not take the stand.
After the hearing, the July 31, 1991 ADEM affidavits were
admitted into evidence.
In the Court of Appeals, the State also filed a similar amicus
brief attaching the July 31, 1991 ADEM affidavits and a
chronology of environmental compliance at the Gadsden plant,
referencing numerous ADEM enforcement records admitted in
the District Court. These documents demonstrate that LTV had
actual notice from the State of the “amount and circumstance”
of environmental claims at the Gadsden plant as of the time of
the divestiture — which were virtually identical to those sought
by GSSI in this case, as to water treatment, Coke Plant, and Basic
Oxygen Furnace (“BOF”) facilities at the Gadsden plant.
The Court of Appeals’ June 12, 1992 decision, however, is
devoid of any evidence that it considered the State’s participa-
tion therein or below— or even that it deemed the knowledge
of the state environmental officials relevant. Indeed, the Court
of Appeals went so far as to preclude ADEM enforcement
officials from testifying on remand as to what and when LTV
knew about GSSI’s environmental claims, by its denial of
GSSI’s Petition for Rehearing and Suggestion for Rehearing En
Banc, even though it opined that “[o]f course, knowledge of the
environmental problems at the plant is not the same as knowing
about the specific steps taken by the ADEM and the EPA to
require remedial action.” See Pet. GSSI A, at 22a.
References to the State’s Appendix, hereinafter will be designated as
“State App. ___, at___a.” Among the ADEM documents and LTV docu-
ments admitted by the District Court to evidence LTV’s actual notice of the
environmental claims at issue, are those attached hereto in State App. A, at
la; State App. E, at 24a through State App. U, at 74a.
6
Had the Court of Appeals followed the procedural and
substantive analysis in Rufo v. Inmates of Suffolk County Jail,
112 S. Ct. 748, 765 (1992), it would have upheld the District
Court’s December 5, 1991 finding and conclusion that “LTV
had timely notice, written and otherwise of GSSI’s indemnifica-
tion claims,” see Pet. GSSI App. B, at 39a, 95, because LTV
would have been required to demonstrate either that it assumed
environmental liabilities at the Gadsden plant pnor to divestiture
or that such assumption was no longer warranted. In either case,
LTV would have had to demonstrate that it had notice of the
“amount and circumstance” of GSSI’s environmental claims at
issue in this case.
Il. SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT
The contract at issue in this case concerns LTV’s obliga-
tions to the District Court, as contained in the August 2, 1984
Final Judgment — an antitrust consent decree to which the State
was and is an intended and direct beneficiary. Compare Rufo
112 S. Ct. at 757 (“A consent decree no doubt embodies an
agreement of the parties and thus in some respects is contractual
in nature. But it is an agreement that the parties desire and
expect will be reflected in and be enforceable as a judicial decree
....) (emphasis added) with LTV Opposition Brief at 1.
Since the Court of Appeals’ responsibility was to review a
Judicial decree, its selective “de novo” review was improper and
defective ab initio. Neither the January 31, 1986 Asset Purchase
Agreement nor promissory note can be reviewed independent
of the August 2, 1984 Final Judgment and the District Court’s
orders implementing the consent decree’s terms. Therefore,
LTV’s argument that this dispute concerns solely the terms of
the 1986 Asset Purchase Agreement between LTV and GSSI is
incorrect and misleading. The District Court's December 17,
1985 Divestiture Order required LTV to divest the Gadsden
plant, on terms that specifically incorporated by reference the
August 2, 1984 Final Judgment, which provided that LTV
7
could be required by the District Court’s trustee to retain and
assume all liabilities at the Gadsden plant as of the divestiture,
if LTV itself did not divest the plant within six months after entry
of the consent decree as a final judgment. Thus, this dispute
concerns the very “essence of [the] agreement,” as it is described
in the words of the preamble to the August 2, 1984 Final
Judgment. See Pet. GSSI App. I, at 93a. Accord Rufo 112 S. Ct.
at 759 (“None of the changed circumstances warranted
modification because it would violate one of the primary pur-
poses of the decree. . . .”).
The Court of Appeals’ erroneous adoption of LTV’s con-
tract analysis also failed to recognize that, as a matter of law, no
private party — not even GSSI — could obviate the terms of the
August 2, 1984 Final Judgment, without the specific agreement
of the United States or the District Court, which is found
nowhere in this record. See, e.g., Pet. GSSI App. E , at 58a, §/2;
Pet. GSSI App. Y, at 202a. Nor did the District Court’s Decem-
ber 17, 1985 Divestiture Order permit GSSI and LTV to do so
by amending the Asset Purchase Agreement, as LTV would have
this Court believe. Jd. The enforcernent and public policy rationale
for this is not difficult to understand — since horizontal competitors,
such as LTV and GSSI, certainly could find a way to reach an
accommodation that would suit their business needs, but work to
deny the public the environmental and competitive benefits of the
divestiture. /d. At the time of the divestiture, LTV had actual notice
from the State of certain environmental liabilities it was required to
retain and assume, as well as their “amount and circumstance[s].”
Other than compliance for the benzene NESHAP, those were
virtually identical to the environmental claims made by GSSI
below.
8
il. ARGUMENT
A. LTV HAD PRIOR ACTUAL NOTICE
FROM THE STATE OF CERTAIN
ENVIRONMENTAL CLAIMS AT
ISSUE IN THIS CASE.
The Court of Appeals’ failure to consider the relevance of
the record of the divestiture proceedings in United States v. LTV
Corp., No. 84-0884 (D.D.C.), appeal dismissed, (D.C. Cir. Feb.
20, 1986), and the enforcement records and affidavits from
ADEM enforcement officials, admitted into evidence by the
District Court, led to its erroneous ruling that LTV was
prejudiced by GSSI’s actions. There is no question that LTV
had actual notice from the State that its failure to achieve and
maintain compliance with the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (“NPDES”) permit requirements in 1984
violated both state and federal law. See Pet. GSSI App. T, at
172a-183a. See also Pet. GSSI App. W, at 198a. Therefore,
LTV had actual notice that NPDES compliance was an environ-
mental liability that it was required to retain and assume under
the August 2, 1984 Final Judgment. See Pet. GSSI App. T, at
175a-183a. Indeed, the $5,350,000 amount GSSI claimed for
NPDES compliance was for the same violations as those faced
by LTV and the amounts spent by GSSI were well within the
“5.2 million (1982 Dollars)” to “$20 million (1982 dollars)”
range that LTV expected would be required in 1986. See GSSI
App. T, at 182a-183a.; Pet. GSSI App. R, at 146a (10 million-13
million for Water Treatment for Coke Plant and Galvanizing
Line). See also Pet. GSSI App. S, at 164a, § 21.
In addition, LTV had actual notice from the State of LTV’s
failure, prior to January 31, 1986, to achieve and maintain
compliance with the following Alabama Pollution Control
Rules and Regulations at the Gadsden Coke Plant: Section
4.9.4(a) (Coke Oven Doors-Pushing); Section 4.9.6(a) (Coke
Oven Doors); Section 4.9.8 (Coke Oven Stacks); and at the
. 0 eo
9
BOF: Section 4.1.1 (BOF Roof Monitor); Section 4.9.8 (BOF
Combustion Stack); Section 4.17.1 (BOF Shop Roof Monitor)
See State App. E, at 24a through State App. U, at 74a. There-
fore, LTV had actual notice that compliance with regulations
governing the Coke Plant and BOF were environmental liabilities at
the Gadsden plant that LTV was required to retain and assume under
the August 2, 1984 Final Judgment. See Pet. GSSI App. R, at 146a
($6 million for B.O.F. Precipitator Repairs and No. 3 [Coke] Battery
Rehabilitation); Pet. GSSI App. T, at 170a- 172a, 175a-176a; and Pet.
GSSI App. X, at 199a-200a: State App. E, at 24a through State App.
U, at 75a. See also Pet.GSSI App. S, at 164a, § 21. Moreover, GSSI’s
environmental claims were for compliance with the same regulations
and in amounts known or foreseen by LTV prior to January 31, 1986.
Id. See also State App. V, at 76a through State App. CC, at 117a.
Therefore, LTV had actual notice of the “amount and cir-
cumstance[s]” of these environmental claims made by GSSI.
The Court of Appeals also failed to recognize that LTV could
have made the expenditures necessary to bring the Gadsden plant into
environmental compliance prior to closin g and was given that oppor-
tunity by the State on many occasions. See State App. E, at 24a
through State App. U, at 75a. Indeed, the record clearly reflects
that in September 1985, LTV had notice that the “amount and
circumstance[s]” of potential environmental claims at the
Gadsden plant would be, at least:
(1) Water Treatment $7,000,000-10,000.000
for Coke Plant
(2) B.O.F. Precipitator Repairs 3,000,000
(3) Hot Strip/Cold Strip Water
Treatment [Galvanizin g Line} 3,000,000
(4) No. 3 Battery Rehabilitation 3,000,000
(5S) Additional Solid Waste Disposal
Area 2,000,000
Total $18,000,000-2 1,000,000
10
See Pet. GSSI App. R, at 146a. See also Pet. GSSI App. T, at
170a-183a.
All environmental claims sought by GSSI and awarded by the
District Court’s December 2, 1991 Order, other than $9,000,000
for benzene control, were for environmental corrections made by
GSSI under compulsion by and subject to consent decrees with the
State or ADEM, and in amounts in accord with or of which LTV
had prior actual knowledge. See State App. V, at 76a through
State App. CC, at 117a. Compare Pet. GSSI App. R, at 145a-
146a; Pet. GSSI App. T, at 170a-183a; and Pet. GSSI App. S, at
165a (“In the first two years after the sale to Brenlin, the cash
financial impact on LTV will be $99.2 million. The total cash
financial impact of the Brenlin proposal on LTV over the years is
$263.5 million. Additional cash penalties would be incurred that
cannot be calculated. These penalties, would result from... (f)
costs of post-closing funding for... Environmental compliance.”’)
with Pet. GSSI App. Z, at 204a:
(1) Coke Water Treatment Plant $3,350,000
(2) BOF Corrections 5,500,000
(3) Galvanizing Line Water
Treatment Plant 2,000,000
(4) Coke Plant
(No. 2 and No. 3 Battery) 8,740,000
Total $19,590,000
See also State App. V, at 189a; State App. W, at 198a.
LTV decided that it was advantageous to its financial
interests to defer and let GSSI make the necessary expenditures
for environmental compliance. Thus, LTV was not “deprived of
the opportunity to participate in the defense and settlement of
the underlying claims,” for which it was held responsible,
contrary to the conclusion of the Court of Appeals. Compare
Pet. GSSI App. A, at 24a with Pet. GSSI App. W, at 198a, § 3B;
1]
Pet. GSSI App. X, at 200a § 3E. Compare also State App. E, at
24a through State App. U, at 75a with State App. V, at 76a
through State App. CC, at 117a. LTV was the beneficiary of
the delay. Compare Pet. GSSI App. A, at 23a with Rufo, 112 S.
Ct. at 758 (consent decrees may not be modified unless there are
“changes in circumstances that were beyond the defendants’
control and were not contemplated by the court or the parties
when the decree was entered.”). See Pet. GSSI App. S, at 164a,
q 21.
It should also be noted that these were not environmental
liabilities GSSI voluntarily assumed. Indeed, GSSI had to be
compelled by the State to achieve environmental compliance at
the Gadsden plant. See State App. V, at 76a through State App.
CC, at 117a. GSSI was then left to pursue LTV to recover the
expenses made.* The State could have brought an enforcement
action against LTV prior to the divestiture to compel environ-
mental compliance, but this would Clearly have delayed the
divestiture, and “threatened the continued operation (or sale) of
the plant.” See State App. S, at 68a: Pet. GSSI App. B, at
36a-37a. Instead, the State allowed the divestiture to proceed
and decided to seek enforcement only if LTV did not live up to
its obligations. LTV has not done so and for that reason the State
initiated its April 1, 1991 enforcement action in the District
Court and now files as an amicus curiae in support of GSSI’s
October 26, 1991 Petition for a Writ of Certiorari regarding the
District Court’s award of $19,590,000 from the escrow funds.
+ This is analogous to how response costs are incurred and paid by a
“potentially responsible party,” under the Comprehensive Environmental
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, 42 U.S.C. § 9607
(1988). See e.g.. In re Chateaugay Corp., 944 F2d 997,999-1000 (2d Cir.
1991).The State takes no position, however. regarding the $9,000,000
amount claimed by GSSI for benzene control since those monies were
expended to comply with enforcement letters fromn EPA’s Regional Office,
rather than ADEM.
> ADEM enforcement records admitted into evidence below and the
July 31, 1991 ADEM affidavits Support the District Court’s award of
aati,
12
B. THE ESCROW DEPOSIT MONIES
SHOULD BE RESTORED TO THE
CONTROL OF THE DISTRICT COURT
TO ENSURE LTV’S COMPLIANCE WITH
THE FINAL JUDGMENT.
There is no question that the Court of Appeals’ June 12,
1992 decision and August 4, 1992 mandate, modified the
August 2, 1984 Final Judgment de facto by releasing to LTV the
$31 million GSSI deposited into an escrow and made subject to
the control of the District Court. See Pet. App. G, at 62a. Surely
the Court of Appeals realized that these funds represented the
most immediate, and perhaps only, means by which LTV can
be compelled to assume its environmental liabilities at the
Gadsden plant, given LTV’s bankruptcy. See Pet. GSSI App.
A, at 27a.
If the Court of Appeals had adhered to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b)
the issue of whether there was a significant change in fact or law
to warrant such a release would have been before the Court. See
Rufo, 112 S. Ct. at 758. LTV, however, could not have met that
burden. LTV could not have cloaked itself in the protection of
the bankruptcy laws, as LTV agreed to exemptto its pre-existing
obligations to the State to retain and assume pre-divestiture
environmental liabilities at the Gadsden plant from modification
based on hardship. See GSSI App. I, at 93a.
Moreover, since the District Court’s December 5, 1991
Order determined only that LTV was required to retain and
assume certain environmental Jiabilities at the Gadsden plant which
GSSI sought to recoup from the escrow deposit, the District Court
did not reach, nor was it asked to determine, whether there were
other environmental liabilities that LTV was required to retain and
assume at the Gadsden plant, that were not sought by GSSI in this
$19,590,000 to GSSI for water treatment and corrections to the Coke plant
and BOF facilities at the Gadsden plant. See e.g., State App. E, at24a through
State App. U, at 74a; Pet. GSSI App. W, at 198a; Pet. GSSI App. X, at 199a.
13
proceeding — such as solid waste disposal, as admitted by LTV
in 1985, compare Pet. GSSI App. R, at 146a and State App. A, at
1a with State App. B, at 3a; other water treatment facilities and BOF
corrections, which the State compelled GSSI to correct after the
August 26, 1991 hearing, see State App. C, at 8a; State App. D, at
15a or other State enforcement actions that may be required prior
to August 2, 1994, when the August 2, 1984 Final Judgment
expires, such as potential underground environmental claims which
may in fact be LTV’s responsibility. By prematurely releasing the
escrow deposit funds, the Court of Appeals modified the August 2,
1984 Final Judgment de facto by allowing LTV to evade these
habilities, and leaving them to be bome either by GSSI or the taxpayers.
Thus, this Court should grant GSSI’s Petition for a Writ of
Certiorari to review whether the Court of Appeals’ release of the
escrow funds to LTV, prior to a determination bein g made that LTV
has assumed all environmental liabilities required under the August
2, 1984 Final Judgment, modified the Final Judgment de facto
without compiiance with the procedural and substantive require-
ments of Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) and this Court’s Rufo decision. This
Court should issue a writ of certiorari to restore the escrow deposit
monies to the control of the District Court pending this Court’s review
of this case and until a/l of LTV’s environmental habilities under the
August 2, 1984 Final Judgment are determined.6
Environmental trust funds have been authorized to permit district courts
to enforce obligations assumed under consent decrees. See generally, Sierra
Club, Inc. v. Electronic Controls Design, Inc., 909 F.2d 1350, 1355 (9th Cir.
1990); Friends of the Earth v. Eastman Kodak Co., 656 F. Supp. 513
(W.D.N.Y.), aff d., 834 F.2d 295 (2d Cir. 1987); and United States v. Vertac
Chemical Corp., 756 F. Supp. 1215 (E.D. Ark. 1991), aff d, 961 F.2d 796 (8th
Cir. 1992). Since the escrow deposit continues to accumulate market interest,
LTV’s financial interests are protected until a final determination is made.
14
IV. CONCLUSION
Nothing less than the integrity of the antitrust consent
decree process is at stake in this case. The citizens of Alabama
look to this Court to ensure that LTV is made to assume
environmental liabilities at the Gadsden plant, as required by the
August 2, 1984 Final Judgment and the District Court’s im-
plementing orders and to make clear that the requirements of
this Court’s Rufo decision with regard to Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 (b)
also applies to civil antitrust consent decrees, particularly since
many of these governmental decrees are subject to review by
the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
For the reasons set forth above, this Court should grant
GSSI’s October 26, 1991 Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to
review and reverse the June 12, 1992 decision and August 4,
1992 mandate of that court.
Respectfully submitted,
James H. Evans
Attorney General
The State of Alabama
Marc Givhan™
Chief, Antitrust Division
Office of the Attorney General
The State of Alabama
11 South Union Street
Montgomery, Alabama 36130
(205) 242-7328
Counsel for Amicus Curiae
The State of Alabama
“Counsel of Record
ia
Table of Contents
ig op ate cae ee
PI rik pee cs we Ae ee
EE ane, Sei oprah 4.
RS hia 5c aig’ Ge Oe ee
Ee oeccorey gh ree ee
Dear eee i Sie) ae
ER aarti aie eae oe re
SEEGERS RS ae Reet ei a
oc Se LT Sb os eae
a rege UE, peat. et on gee
I so Sean Uo ee
Serres aon,
IE 4. ea? ee hl eee
NS 0-54 ure ey ec
CE EN 6.0 poh ks 1 gee
ES Oe oa oy Uk Un ee
~~ re ee
eS enn 8
cn esa oe
I sg 0S) et
fe en le ee
Ss 56's iv a wn VOL Re
eet
565 a5 Seay Sloe buy ye MO
5 vs ee ay ore a,
ee oc wh vcs woe o Set
et aetna an
APPENDIXBB ..................__.
II 5 io hs wy <.e ¥ x5! w kcaiorg Ge
la
APPENDIX A
LTV Steel
Departmental Correspondence
Date: January 18, 1985
Subject: See Below
To:
R.R. Basinski
D.G. Berkebile
W.B. Bredbeck
C. Broman
D.F. Brown
J.M. Carroll
F.P. Cooper
R.V. Culp
J.D. Donohoe
B.J. Fedak
J.R. Fulton
M.A. Gipko
W.A. Goodwin
P.J. Grandy
S.A. Green
R.M. Hanna
S. Hansen
No:
T.J. Harlan
M.L. Harmon
D.J. Harper
K.W. Hazard
J.R. Humphrey
D.C. Imel
T.J. Kachur
J. R. Kosko
L.E. Larson
A. McDonald
O.J. Mantenieks
D.H. Miller
S. Muryn
D.G. Nemec
R.L. Nemeth
H.L. Page
D.E. Papajcik
J.M. Potwora
R.E. Ross
W. Russell
J.T. Samuels
P.N. Schlingman
G.Q. Seese
S.S. Sephton
J. Skubak
L.B. Smith
E.M. Stewart
D.H. Wakelin
W.L. West
M.S. Wilcox
F.R. Winn
D.E. Winston
L.D. Wisniewski
D.A. Woodring
T.A. Zalenski
R.V. Zavoda
Subject: Hazardous and Solid Waste Amendments of 1984
Summary of New Law and Potential Impacts on
LTV Steel Company
Enclosed for your information is a copy of a Summary of
the RCRA Amendments as passed by Congress and signed by
President Reagan on November 8, 1984. The summary was
prepared by the law firm of Collier, Shannon, Rill and Scott.
The amendments require that USEPA take specific action
in rulemaking within definite time frames. There are many such
2a
“hammer” provisions imposed on USEPA to ensure that strin-
gent restrictions as set forth in the amendments take effect
“automatically” should USEPA fail to develop the necessary
rulemaking provisions.
It is extremely difficult to predict the full impact of these
new laws until the agency publishes their interpretation in
rulemaking fashion. However, it is now anticipated that the
regulations will have a very significant impact on LTV Steel
Company’s handling and disposal practices regarding primarily
hazardous wastes. Unfortunately, the costs associated with the
handling and disposal of these wastes traditionally generated
from the making and finishing of steel are also most likely to
increase. Most of these increased costs will be passed on by
vendors providing services for the handling and ...
‘rea
3a
APPENDIX B
ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
IN THE MATTER OF:
GULF STATES STEEL, INC.
174 South 26th Street
Gadsden, Alabama 35904
EPA ID. NO. AID 004014973
ORDER NO. 92-082-HW
FINDINGS
Pursuant to the provisions of the Alabama Environmental
Management Act, Ala. Code §§22-22A-] through 22-22A-16
(1990 Replacement Vol.), the Alabama Hazardous Wastes
Management and Minimization Act of 1978, Ala. Code §§22-
30-1 through 22-30-20 (1990 Replacement Vol.), the Alabama
Department of Environmental Management, (“the Depart-
ment’’) makes the following FINDINGS:
1. Gulf States Steel, Inc. (hereinafter “Gulf States’’)
operates an integrated steel making facility located in Gadsden,
Alabama.
2. On December 6, 1990, the Department promulgated the
Method 1311 Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
(TCLP) and ADEM Admin Code R. 335-14-2-.03(5) which is
the procedure and regulation for determining whether a solid
waste exhibits the characteristic for toxicity and is therefore a
hazardous waste.
3. Gulf States generates, at its Gadsden facility, D018
(Benzene) hazardous waste pursuant to ADEM Admin Code R.
335-14-2-.03(5) and is managed in a hazardous waste unit.
4. ADEM Admin. Code R. 335-14-8-.07(4)(d) states:
da
...Interim status for each land treatment, storage, or
disposal facility which is in existence on the effective
date of statutory or regulatory amendments under the
AHWMMaA that render the facility subject to the
requirement to have an AHWMMA permit will be
terminated twelve months after the date on which the
facility first becomes subject to such permit require-
ment unless:...
....2. The owner or operator certified, on or before the
date twelve months after the date on which the facility
first becomes subject to such permit requirement, that
such facility is in compliance with all applicable
groundwater monitoring and financial responsibility
requirements ....
5. Gulf States failed to provide the Department with cer-
tification that it had complied with the financial responsibility
requirements of ADEM Admin. Code R. 335-14-6-.08 on or
before December 6, 1991 thereby losing its interim status clas-
sification pursuant to the requirements of 335-14-8-.07(4)(d)2.
6. A review of the Financial Assurance test subrnitted by
Gulf States revealed that it did not meet the requirements of
ADEM Admin. Code R. 335-14-6-.08(4)(e)1(i)I and 335-14-6-
.08(6)(e)1(i)(1) in that Gulf States failed to meet any two of the
three requirements to assure compliance with this regulation.
ORDER
Based on the foregoing FINDINGS and pursuant to Ala.
Code §§22-22A-5(10), 22-22A-5(18), 22-30-20 and 22-30-
19(a) and (b) (1990 Replacement Vol.), itis hereby ORDERED:
A. That not later than 30 days from notice of receipt of this
Order, Gulf States shall submit to the Department proof of
adequate financial assurance for all closure and post-closure
activities that meets the requirements of ADEM Admin. Code
R. 335-14-6-.08. That not later than 30 days from notice of
‘ ns
Sa
receipt of this Order, Gulf States shal] submit to the Department
proof of adequate sudden and non-sudden liability coverage for
the regulated unit. In the event that Gulf States cannot comply
with the timeframe described above, Gulf States shall provide
the Department with proof that reasonable Steps have been taken
to obtain the required coverage and/or financial assurance. The
Department may extend such timeframe in writing upon receipt
of a written request therefor, by Gulf States. Such written
request for an extension shall be submitted to the Department in
advance of the above mentioned deadline. In the event that Gulf
States cannot obtain non-sudden liability coverage within 30
days of the receipt of notice of this Order, Gulf States shall
submit a status report, to the Department, once every 30 days,
thereafter, describing the steps that have been taken and are
being taken to obtain the required coverage.
B. Prior to June 1, 1992, Gulf States shall cease managing
hazardous waste in the regulated unit. The Department may, in
writing, extend such timeframe. Such request shall be in writing
and received by the Department prior to above mentioned
deadline.
C. That not later than 180 days after receipt of notice of
the Department’s appro’: of Gulf State’s closure plan, Gulf
States shall have compteteud closure activities of all hazardous
waste management wits in accordance with the approved
Closure Plan and the requirements of ADEM Admin. Code R.
335-14-6-.06(4). As part of its closure activities, Gulf States
Shall determine if the hazardous waste unit has impacted the
groundwater beneath its facility.
D. That in the event that the Department or Gulf States
determines that all hazardous waste or hazardous constituents
cannot be removed from any on-site hazardous waste manage-
ment unit, Gulf States shall comply with the requirements of
ADEM Admin. Code Chap. 335-14-6 and 335-14-8 and Shall
submit to the Department within 180 days of such determination
6a
a complete post closure permit application, including a
groundwater corrective action plan, and all applicable permit
fees in accordance with the requirements of ADEM Admin.
Code. R. 335-14-8-.01(1)(c) and 335-1-6-.04 and ADEM
Admin. Code Rules 335-14-8-.02.
E. That not later than 30 days from receipt of notice of this
Order, Gulf States shall pay a civil penalty to the Department in
the amount of $46,000.00.
F. That the failure to comply fully with the terms and
conditions of this Order shall constitute cause for the commen-
cement of legal action for the recovery of civil penalties,
criminal fines, or other appropriate relief by the Department
against Gulf States.
G. That the issuance of this Order does not preclude the
Department from seeking criminal fines or other appropriate
relief against Gulf States for the violations stated herein.
ORDERED and ISSUED this 6th day of April, 1992.
/s/
Leigh Pegues, Director
Alabama Department of
Environmental Management
1751 Cong. W.L. Dickinson Drive
Montgomery, Alabama 36130
(205) 271-7700
7a
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, James G. Stevens, hereby certify that I have served the
foregoing proposed Administrative Order, Order No. 92-082-
HW upon Gulf States Steel Inc., by sending the same postage
paid, through the U.S. Mail, as Certified Mail No. P 825 089
250, with instructions to forward and return receipt requested
to:
Mr. Buster Stewart
Gulf States Steel, Inc.
174 South 26th Street
Gadsden, Alabama 35904
DONE this 6th day of April, 1992.
/s/
James G. Stevens
8a
APPENDIX C
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR
ETOWAH COUNTY, ALABAMA
STATE OF ALABAMA,
Plaintiff,
VS.
GULF STATES STEEL, INC.,
Defendant.
CIVIL ACTION NO.
CV91-242-WWC
CONSENT DECREE
WHEREAS, the parties to the action are the Attorney
General, for and on behalf of the State of Alabama, and all its
agencies, boards, departments and subdivisions, as Plaintiff and
Gulf States Steel, Inc., a corporation, as Defendant; and
WHEREAS, Defendant, Gulf States Steel, Inc., (““GSSI’)
operates an integrated steelmaking facility in Etowah County,
Alabama; and
WHEREAS, GSSI has a permit authorizing discharge into
the waters of Alabama, issued by the Alabama Department of
Environmental Management (“ADEM”) on December 4, 1987
pursuant to the National Pollution Discharge Elimination Sys-
tem (“NPDES”) and the Alabama Water Pollution Control Act,
Ala. Code §22-22-1 through §22-22-14, subject to certain terms
and effluent limitations as more fully set forth in the permit
(NPDES Permit No. ALD 0055239); and
WHEREAS, ADEM, in certain administrative actions, and
plaintiff, State of Alabama, herein, have alleged violations of
the effluent limitations contained in GSSI’s NPDES permit; and
;
SS haha i ee are re
Nate Cod sth AY Sata ee ne TN
9a
WHEREAS, under Ala. Code §22-22A-5(18)b, the Attor-
ney General or ADEM may bring a civil action to enforce the
provisions of the Act and recover monies for violations of an
NPDES permit; and
WHEREAS, plaintiff, on behalf of the State of Alabama,
and all its agencies, boards, departments, and subdivisions, and
defendant, GSSI, by their respective attorneys, have agreed that
settlement of this matter is in the public interest and that entry
of this Consent Decree without further litigation is the most
appropriate means of resolving all matters of dispute between _
the parties regarding any and all alleged violations of NPDES
Permit ALD0055239; and,
WHEREAS, by entering this Consent Decree, GSSI makes
no admission of law or fact, and the parties agree that neither
the fact that this Consent Decree has been entered nor any of its
terms shall be admissible in any subsequent proceeding, except
for a proceeding to enforce the terms hereof;
NOW THEREFORE, before the taking of any testimony,
upon the pleadings, without adjudication of any issues of law or
fact herein, and without any admission of violation of law or
regulation, it is hereby ORDERED, ADJUDGED, and
DECREED as follows:
I.
JURISDICTION
This Court has jurisdiction of the Parties and the subject
matter pursuant to Ala. Code §§22-22-9(m) and 22-22A-5(18)b.
Il.
AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVES
Each of the undersigned representatives for each party
certifies that he or she is fully authorized by the party whom he
or she represents to enter into the terms and conditions of this
Decree and legally bind them to it.
10a
iil.
PARTIES BOUND
The provisions of this Decree are binding upon the State
of Alabama, its agents, officials, and employees and all of its
agencies, boards, departments and subdivisions and upon GSSI,
and its corporate parent, successors and assigns.
IV.
COMPLIANCE DATE
GSSI shall be in full compliance with the effluent limita-
tions of its NPDES permit no later than October 31, 1992, which
shall be referred to as the “Compliance Date.”
ws
ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS
In addition to the modifications required to meet the Com-
pliance Date Defendant GSSI agrees to perform the following
environmental projects, not otherwise required to be ac-
complished:
A. Barometric Condensers. GSSI will replace the
barometric condensers at the by-products coke plant with non-
contract type condensers, thereby eliminating a pollutant stream
of contact water, on the following schedule:
1. Complete engineering - March 20, 1992
2. Begin installation - March 23, 1992
3. Complete installation - September 30, 1992
B. Lagoon Aeration. To increase the dissolved oxygen
concentration of GSSI’s final effluent, GSSI will aerate its final
water lagoon on the following schedule:
1. Complete engineering - May 29, 1992
2. Begin installation - July 20, 1992
3. Complete installation - August 28, 1992
lla
C. Costs and Environmental Benefit. itis estimated by
the parties that the cost of the projects listed above will be
$1,005,000.00, and that such projects will confer an environ-
mental benefit over and above what‘is currently required. :
VI.
COSTS OF LITIGATION
The Defendant GSSI shall pay costs of litigation in the
amount of One Hundred Eighty Thousand ($180,000.00) to the
Attorney General’s Office. Payment of the costs shall be made
within thirty (30) days of the Court’s entry of this Decree, and
Shall be made by certified check payable to the office of the
Attorney General for deposit into said office’s operating fund
and made immediately available to said office for its general law
enforcement purposes.
ee See
iti abe <S —-
VIL.
RELEASE
In consideration of the understanding and completion of
the environmental projects described in Section V, the State of
Alabama, and all its agencies, boards, departments and sub-
divisions, agrees that any and ail actions, causes of action,
claims, rights, demands and requests for damages or other orders
of any type whatsoever against GSSI regarding NPDES Permit
No. ALD 0055239, including, but not limited to, those asserted
or which could have been asserted in this action are satisfied,
discharged and settled, and the State of Alabama, and all its
agencies, boards, departments and Subdivisions, hereby
releases, acquits and forever discharges GSSI, its shareholders,
directors, officers, agents, employees, representatives, attor-
neys, Successors and assigns from any and all liability for claims
asserted or capable of assertion in this action. Provided, how-
ever, that nothing in this consent decree precludes the Attorney
General from seeking injunctive relief against GSSI in order to
protect the health and safety of the citizens of Alabama.
en
12a
Provided, further, that nothing in this consent decree shall be
interpreted as a release of GSSI or any of its directors, officers,
agents, or employees from criminal liability for any act or acts
occurring before or after the date of this consent decree, or as
preventing in any way the Attorney General or the State of
Alabama from prosecuting for any such criminal acts. Further-
more, in consideration of the compliance date set forth herein
and the agreement by GSSI to continue to use its best efforts
prior to the compliance date to reduce effluent discharges in
excess of the effluent limitations set forth in its NPDES permit,
the State of Alabama, and all its agencies, boards, departments
and subdivisions, hereby covenants not to sue, or otherwise
penalize, or issue orders to, GSSI for any exceedances of its -
permitted effluent limitations that may occur prior to the Com-
pliance Date.
VI.
NOTICE REQUIREMENTS
Whenever, under the terms of this Consent Decree, notice
is required to be given, the communication shall be delivered,
by certified mail, or with a reputable delivery service, to the
parties’ representatives at the addresses listed below:
R. Craig Kneisel H. Thomas Wells, Jr.
Assistant Attorney General Maynard, Cooper, Frierson
Attorney General’s Office & Gale, P.C.
11 South Union Street 1901 6th Avenue, North
Montgomery, Alabama 36130 2400 AmSouth/Harbert Plaza
Birmingham, Alabama 35203
a
13a
IV.
EFFECTIVE DATE
This Decree shall become effective upon approval by the
parties and ratification and adoption by the Court.
CONSENTED TO:
FOR THE STATE OF ALABAMA
/s/
JAMES H. EVANS
ATTORNEY GENERAL
/s/
R. CRAIG KNEISEL
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY
GENERAL
/s/
WILLIAM D. LITTLE
ASSISTANT ATTORNEY
GENERAL
Attorney General’s Office
11 South Union Street
Montgomery, Alabama 36130
FOR GULF STATES STEEL, INC.
/s/
H. Thomas Wells, Jr.
Maynard Cooper, Frierson & Gale
1901 Sixth Avenue, North
| 2400 AmSouth/Harbert Plaza
| Birmingham, Alabama 35203
l4a
Costs of this Action are taxed to Defendant.
RATIFIED, ADOPTED, AND DONE this 23rd _ day of
March , 1992.
/s/
William W. Cardwell, Jr.
Circuit Judge
Dit cr Pema
15a
APPENDIX D
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
ETOWAH COUNTY, ALABAMA
ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT ;
Plaintiff,
¥.
GSSI, INC. d/b/a GULF STATES STEEL, INC.,
a wholly owned subsidiary of the Brenlin Corporation,
Defendant.
CIVIL ACTION NO.
CV 88-856-JSS
CONSENT ORDER
The parties to this Consent Order are the Plaintiff, Alabama
Department of Environmental Management (hereinafter “the
Department”), and the Defendant GSSI, Inc., doing business as
Gulf States Steel, Inc. (hereinafter “Gulf States”), an Alabama
corporation and a wholly owned Subsidiary of the Brenlin
Corporation.
This Consent Order shall apply to the claims of the Depart-
ment against Gulf States for any of the acts complained of by
the Department in its Motion to Enforce Consent Order.
Gulf States has denied the allegations presented in the
Department’s Motion to Enforce. Nevertheless, Gulf States has
agreed to the terms of this Consent Order in order to satisfy any
liability relating to the acts complained of by the Department in
its Motion to Enforce and to avoid the expense, inconvenience,
and distraction of protracted litigation.
The Department has agreed to the terms of this Consent
Order in order to terminate the controversy with Gulf States
regarding the allegations in its Motion to Enforce Consent Order
l6a
and the Department has determined that the terms contemplated
in this Consent Order are in the best interests of the citizens of
Alabama.
Therefore, the parties having filed a joint motion for Entry
of a Consent Order and good cause appearing, it is hereby
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED:
ARTICLE ONE
That with regard to emissions from the Basic Oxygen
Furnace (BOF) vessels, Gulf States Steel is ordered to comply
with the following schedule:
1. That effective immediately, and not later than 10 days
after issuance of this Order, the No. 2 Basic Oxygen Furnace
(BOF) vessel shall cease operation for the purpose of Gulf States
Steel installing moisture control sprays on the primary emission
control system of the melt shop. All new gas conditioning
equipment (moisture control sprays) and repairs to the system
must be installed and completed prior to the vessel being
operated again.
2. That effective immediately, and not later than 10 days
after issuance of this Order, Gulf States shall cease operation of
the No. 1 BOF vessel for the purpose of installing moisture
control sprays. All new gas conditioning equipment (moisture
control sprays) and repairs to the system must be installed and
completed prior to the vessel being operated again.
3. That Gulf States Steel shall maintain and operate the gas
conditioning equipment on the hoods of both vessels in a manner
which minimizes the emissions of particulate matter from the
BOF ESP.
4. That Gulf States shall construct an ESP which will
operate in parallel with the existing ESP in.controlling the
particulate matter emissions from BOF vessels and that the
ES, ME BIRR Te
17a
emissions from both paraliel ESPs will emanate from a single
Stack,
5. That the BOF shall be in full compliance no later than
January 1, 1993.
6. That stipulated penalties for any violations occurring
from the BOF after January 1, 1993 shall be due in accordance
with Article IV of this Consent Order for a period of 180
operating days of the BOF vessels.
ARTICLE TWO
That with regard to emissions from the Basic Oxygen
Furnace Building (BOFB) monovent, Gulf States Steel is re-
quired to comply with the following schedule:
1. No later than 10 days after issuance of this Order,.Gulf
States will complete the engineering for the installation of a
baghouse for the ancillary sources in the BOFB.
2. Construction of the baghouse to the ancillary sources in
the BOFB will be completed by December 31, 1992.
3. The baghouse will be in operation no later than January
1, 1993.
4. The emissions from the baghouse shall not exceed an
opacity of 5% based on a six (6) minute rolling average or have
emissions exceeding 0.04 grains per dry standard cubic foot.
5. Gulf States Steel shall submit permit applications for
the baghouse no later than 60 days after this Consent Order has
been executed.
6. The BOFB monovent will be in full compliance (with
Paragraph 4 of this Article) no later than January 1, 1993.
7. Stipulated penalties for the BOFB monovent for any
violations occurring after January 1, 1993 shall be in accordance
with the provisions of Article IV of this Consent Order for a
period of 180 operating days of the BOFB monovent.
18a
ARTICLE THREE
1. That Gulf States Steel shall pay within ten (10) days of
the issuance of this Order a penalty in the amount of $250,000.00
for all violations of the ADEM Admin. Code 335-3 cited in
attached Appendix A which is incorporated as if fully set out
herein.
2. That in addition to the aforementioned penalty for past
violations, Gulf States Steel shall construct and operate a
baghouse to control fugitive emissions from the coke shaker
screens at the blast furnace. Emissions from the baghouse shall
not exceed an opacity of 5% based on a six (6) minute rolling
average or have emissions exceeding 0.04 grains per dry stand-
ard cubic foot. That Gulf States Steel shall submit permit
applications no later than 30 days after this Consent Decree is
executed and operation of the baghouse must begin within 180
days after the Consent Order is executed.
3. That said penalty fully relieves Gulf States Steel from
the imposition of any other sanction by the Department with
respect to the violations of the ADEM Admin. Code 335-3 cited
in attached Appendix A.
ARTICLE FOUR
That if Gulf States Steel shall fail to comply with the terms
of Article One, paragraph 5 or Article Two, paragraph 6 of this
Consent Order, it shall pay to the Department stipulated penal-
ties as follows:
One thousand dollars ($1,000.00) for the first viola-
tion of any specified paragraph and amounts increas-
ing in One Thousand Dollar ($1,000.00) increments
for each subsequent violation for the first one hundred
and eighty (180) operating days of the source. For
violations occurring after one hundred and eighty
(180) operating days or other just cause, the Depart-
ment may apply to the court for such other relief that
19a
may be appropriate or elect to exercise any other
available enforcement measures, including ad-
ministrative enforcement measures. Violations of the
compliance dates may be documented by inspections
of the Department personnel, EPA and/or the inde-
pendent certified visible emissions observer provided
for in Article Five, paragraph 2.
ARTICLE FIVE
1. That by the 10th of every month, Gulf States Stee] shall
submit to the Department a report which specifies the progress
it has made regarding all the scheduled activities detailed in this
Consent Order and record any and all problems which were
identified and corrected during the previous month which re-
lated to air pollution and the applicable regulations governing
air pollution control in Alabama.
2. That Gulf States Steel shall hire a Department approved
independent certified visible emissions observer to conduct
visible emissions evaluations which shall be performed at ran-
dom. Each week, two hours of visible emissions evaluations
shall be conducted on each source subject to this consent order
during operation of the source; i.e, ESP stack and the monovent
after each source’s applicable compliance date.
3. That an independent consultant competent with EPA
Method Testing and approved by the Department shall conduct
a mass emissions test on the ESP, once a month for a period
beginning on the compliance date for the BOF and ending 180
operating days after the compliance date. Furthermore, during
each mass emission test, an independent certified observer shall
conduct a visible emission evaluation on the ESP, which shall
be in addition to the aforementioned weekly visible emission
evaluation.
4. That more than one violation per day on each source
may be documented and stipulated penalties apply.
20a
5. Furthermore, that said weekly visible emissions evalua-
tion tests shall be made without any advanced notice to Gulf
States Steel and the results of the visible emissions observations
and the mass emissions tests as described in Paragraph 3 of this
Article shall be reported directly to the Department by the
independent observer and/or the independent mass emissions
test consultant by the 10th of every month.
6. That it is further understood that Gulf States Steel will
not be liable for violations of the opacity limits of the ESP that
occur during the mass emissions test if the ESP complies with
the mass emissions limits.
ARTICLE SIX
That if any event occurs which- causes delays in the
achievement of compliance or of any compliance schedule for
controlling emissions or maintenance of compliance at Gulf
States Steel’s facility called for in this Order, Gulf States Steel
shall as soon as possible, but no later than fifteen (15) days after
the occurrence, notify in writing the Director of the Alabama
Department of Environmental Management, describing in detail
the length of the delay, the precise cause or causes of the delay,
the measures taken and to be taken by Gulf States Steel to
prevent or minimize the delay, and the timetable by which those
measures will be implemented. Gulf States Steel shall employ
all reasonable measures to avoid or minimize any such delay. If
any delays are caused solely by circumstances entirely beyond
the control of the owners or operators of Gulf States Steel’s
facility or of any entity controlling, controlled by, or under
common control with the owners and operators, the time for
compliance or for performance of the appropriate compliance
schedules will be extended by the Director for a period equal to
such delay resulting from such circumstances. The burden of
proving that the delay is caused by circumstances entirely
beyond the control of the owners and operators of the facility
shall rest with Gulf States Steel.
:
-
4
2la
ARTICLE SEVEN
1. That any penalty due under Article Four of this Consent
Order shall be paid to the Alabama Department of Environmen-
tal Management within twenty (20) days of receipt by Gulf
States Steel of written notification by the Department of penal-
ties due under said article, unless contested by Gulf States Steel.
If Gulf States Steel contests the fact of a violation as alleged by
the Department, Gulf States Steel shall, within twenty (20) days
of receipt of notice of the violation, file a Notice of Contest with
the Court, which shall thereafter decide the contest.
2. That this Court shall maintain jurisdiction over each
source that is the subject of this Consent Order to ensure that the
terms of this Consent Order are complied with and to resolve all
disputes which may arise out of this Consent Order. However,
after the time period of applicability of stipulated penalties for
cach source has expired, the Department may elect to institute
any available enforcement measures, including administrative
enforcement measures, to remedy any future violations of the
ADEM Admin. Code 335-3 by the sources covered and dis-
cussed in this Consent Order.
3. That any assigns and successors of Gulf States Steel,
Inc., GSSI, Inc., or the Brenlin Corporation shall be liable and
held accountable under the terms of this Consent Order without
limitation.
DONE and ORDERED on this the 17th day of December,
1991.
/s/
Circuit Judge
22a
- APPENDIX A -
A. During inspection of the No. 3 Coke Battery, the
Alabama Department of Environmental Management identified
violations of ADEM Admin. Code R. 335-3-4-.09(8) on the
following dates:
July 27, 1989
November 21, 1989
December 6, 1989
May 18, 1990
October 24, 2989
November 29, 1989
January 10, 1990
May 30, 1990
August 17, 1990
B. During an inspection of the No. 3. Coke Battery and the
pushing process on December 1, 1989, the Alabama Department
of Environmental Management identified a violation of ADEM
~ Admin. Code R. 335-3-4-.09(4)(a).
C. During an inspection of the No. 2 Coke Battery on
February 23, 1990, the Alabama Department of Environmental
Management identified a violation of ADEM Admin. Code R.
335-3-4-.09(8).
D. During inspection of the Basic Oxygen Furnace ESP,
the Alabama Department of Environmental Management iden-
tified violations of ADEM Admin. Code R. 335-3-4-.01(1) on
the following dates:
January 25, 1989
April 18, 1989
September 15, 1989
October 24, 1989
November 14, 1989
November 29, 1989
December 13, 1989
January 1, 1990
April 2, 1990
June 18, 1990
August 17, 1990
March 24, 1989
April 26, 1989
October 5, 1989
November 1, 1989
November 21, 1989
December 6, 1989
December 27, 1989
February 12, 1990
May 18, 1990
July 19, 1990
October 10, 1990
23a
December 26, 1990
July 30, 1991
E. During inspection of the Basic Oxygen Furnace Build-
ing monovent, the Alabama Department of Environmental
Management identified violations of ADEM Admin. Code R.
335-3-4-.17(1) on the following dates:
July 15, 1991
September 20, 1989
October 31, 1989
November 14, 1989
November 29, 1989
December 27, 1989
August 14, 1990
February 8, 1991
October 5, 1989
November 1, 1989
November 21, 1989
December 13, 1989
January 1, 1990
December 26, 1990
February 26, 1991
24a
APPENDIX E
Alabama Department of
Environmental Management
August 29, 1984
Mr. K.E. Hamby
Chief Engineer
LTV Steel Company
174 South 26th Street
Gadsden, AL 35901 |
RE: Facility No. 307-0008
Dear Mr. Hamby:
On August 15, 1984, Mr. John Hughes and Mr. Guy Brown
of the Air Division staff inspected the coke battery operations
at the Gadsden facility.
A visible emission evaluation of the #2 and #3 flue stacks
showed that neither were meeting the requirements of the
Alabama Department of Environmental Management, Air
Division Rules and Regulations, Section 4.9.8. Visible emis-
sions were greater than 20% opacity for a period greater than 3
minutes in an hour.
_Please explain the cause of said emissions and what actions
will be taken to correct these conditions. Written response
should be received by September 14, 1984.
Concerning the high number of standpipe lid leaks found
on Battery #3 during the above inspection, this appears to be a
maintenance problem correctable by proper supervision. It is
not the responsibility of these inspectors to point out those
conditions in order to have them corrected.
25a
; If there are any questions or clarification of the above is
j needed, please contact this office at 205/271-7861 in
Montgomery.
; Sincerely,
/s/
: Richard E. Grusnick, Chief
Air Division
REG/JTH:sd
NEARS ee A DO TE tl FED MAE IO DAIS, Hp RRO
26a
APPENDIX F
Alabama Department of
Environmental Management
September 25, 1984
MEMORANDUM
TO: Files
FROM: Ron Gore
SUBJECT: Meeting of September 21, 1984
with LTV Steel of Gadsden
Richard Grusnick, Sue Robertson, and I met with Billi
West, Buster Stewart, Ed Hamby, and Marylou Smith of LTV
Steel. The primary purpose of the meeting was to discuss
problems with the Nos. 2 and 3 coke batteries.
Bill West began by stating that the No. 2 battery was so far
past its useful life that no repairs could be made which would
bring the flue stack into compliance. He mentioned that some
measures, such as dusting with silicon dust for closing cracks,
could be tried but that these were stopgap. He inquired about
available enforcement mechanisms which would enable the No.
2 battery to operate until some agreed upon closure date.
Richard Grusnick mentioned EPA’s “limited life facility” policy
and the fact that this policy severely limits options on such
facilities. Mr. Grusnick said that any consent agreement or
similar enforcement mechanism for battery No. 2 would require
interim control measures, a firm date for closure with a surety
bond, and possibly penalties. Mr. Hamby and Mr. West dis-
cussed the coke shortages within LTV Steel and the loss of coke
oven gas that could result from a shutdown of battery No. 2.
Mr. West further delved into the issue of the “limited life
facility.” He stated that the policy allows for violating sources
OOS. eat inthe ~ nn lll
27a
to continue operation if a replacement facility is under construc-
tion. He wondered whether work scheduled on the No. 3 battery
to bring it up to its designed pushing rate could be considered
as a “replacement facility.” Mr. Hamby stated that maintenance
such as cleaning regenerators, flues and code side air boxes
would be performed to bring its production rate up from about
55 pushes per day (37 hour coke). Battery No. 3 is to be
inspected thoroughly next week to evaluate necessary work.
Bill West stated that they felt the No. 3 flue stack was in
compliance. Richard Grusnick indicated that we would make
an inspection within the next week to verify compliance.
Richard Grusnick then mentioned the EPA-State enforce-
ment agreement for FY 85 and the enforcement timetable it
contains. The LTV representatives agreed to send by November
1, 1984 a letter describing their plans for the coke batteries.
The next topic was Opacity problems from the BOF
precipitator. Mr. Grusnick stated that a letter would be sent
requiring a stack test by the end of October, in view of the fact
that it has not been tested since 1980. Mr. Hamby mentioned
labor problems and lack of maintenance as reasons for the poor
ESP performance. He said that LTV was considering a com-
plete internal rebuild of this 1965 vintage ESP. Ms. Robertson
emphasized malfunction reporting requirements for this unit, as
we had not received any calls from LTV on such incidents.
The differing EPA and Alabama interpretations of the
applicability of 4.1.1 opacity standards to casthouse and BOF
shop monovent emissions were discussed. LTV was told that
an opacity limit with an averaging time needs to be adopted to
insure that the BOF shop monovent emissions are minimized by
proper Gaw plate and furnace operation. Ms. Robertson stated
that she believes that we have performed enough opacity read-
ings to support a rollin g three minute average of 20%. However,
LTV wants to perform its own evaluation and agreed to com-
ment on this in its November 1, 1984 letter on the coke batteries.
28a
In discussing the sale of the plant, Bill West indicated that
Republic had until December 1, 1984 to sell the plant. Then the
court appointed trustee would have until May 1, 1985, to see the
plant. After May 1, 1985, it is unclear what will happen to the
plant.
RWG:sd
cc: John Hughes
DS Crews 4 -
PRISE NS AOL ED EE iB th! RIA LO a PE
a i
Ne ity SANE
29a
APPENDIX G
Alabama Department of
Environmental Management
September 25, 1984
Mr. K.E. Hambey
Chief Engineer
LTV Steel Company
174 South 26th Street
Gadsden, AL 35901
Dear Mr. Hambey:
The following is a summary of the topics discussed in our
meeting of September 20, 1984 as well as the dates by which
Republic will submit certain information to the Department:
Coke Battery No. 2 Flue Stack
Republic Steel will submit by November 1, 1984 a plan
addressing the mechanism and schedule that will be utilized to
return the flue stack to compliance with Section 4.9.8 of the
Department’s air regulations.
Coke Battery No. 3 Flue Stack
Republic indicated that any problems with the No. 3 stack
have been corrected. Members of my staff will inspect your
facilities in the near future to confirm compliance.
B.O.F. Precipitator Stack
During the inspection of August 28, 1984 visible emissions
in excess of Section 4.1.1 of the Department’s regulations were
observed from the B.O.F. precipitator stack. In order to verify
that the mass emissions are in compliance with Section 4.4.1,
an emission test for particulate matter is to be conducted by
30a
persons familiar with and using the EPA Sampling Train and
Test Procedure as described in the Code of Federal Regulations,
Title 40, Part 60, before October 31, 1984. The test report
should be submitted to the Department prior to November 15,
1984.
The Department must be notified at least 10 days in ad-
vance of the emission tests. A pretest meeting may be held if
Republic Steel so requests.
Redesignation to Attainment
It is the opinion of this Department that an opacity limit
must be established for the B.O.F. monovent as part of the
submittal to EPA to redesignate Etowah County as attainment.
If Republic will not agree to a limitation as a permit condition,
then another procedure such as a regulation change must be
used.
It was indicated that Republic wished to conduct visible
emission readings to supplement those conducted in the past. If
such readings are conducted, the Department should be notified
so that we can observe the operation of the furnace during part
of the observation periods.
The decision on whether a regulation change is the proce-
dure to be utilized in establishing an opacity limit should be
made as soon as possible. Your response to this issue is required
no later than November 1, 1984.
Name Change to LTV Steel Company
Please provide in writing the explanation given in the
meeting as to why it is not necessary for LTV Steel Company
to apply for Permits to Operate to be changed to their name. It
should be indicated who is responsible for compliance with the
environmental regulations at the Gadsden facility. This infor-
mation is requested prior to October 15, 1984.
3la
If clarification of the above is needed, please do not hesitate
to contact me at 205/271-7861.
Sincerely,
/s/
Richard E. Grusnick, Chief
Air Division
REG/SR:um
32a
APPENDIX H
Alabama Department of
Environmental Management
October 16, 1984
Mr. Kenneth Mean
Chief Engineer
LTV Steel Company
174 South 26th Street
Gadsden, AL 35901
Dear Mr. Mean:
As was discussed in our meeting of September 21, 1984,
and a subsequent letter to Mr. Ed Hamby confirming the results
of that meeting, LTV is to submit to this Department by Novem-
ber 1, 1984, a plan for bringing the flue stack on Battery #2 into
compliance with opacity standards as soon as possible.
However, since that meeting and letter, an inspection of
your facility by John Hughes of my staff revealed that two other
items regarding the coke batteries need mentioning. These
items were brought to the attention of Mr. Hamby and Mr.
Buster Stewart during Mr. Hughes’ October 2, 1984, inspection.
They are:
(1) The flue stacks on #3 battery violated opacity
limits (23 2 minutes greater than 20% compared
to the standard of 3 minutes or less per hour).
(2) 25.4% of the doors on Battery #2 leaked, in
violation of the allowed fifteen percent (15%).
In the reply to be submitted by LTV on the #2 flue stack
by November 1, please add similar plans for returning the
sources mentioned above into compliance.
Pa
tanec Vali Bb Daeshinas to tan bs
—e
33a
If you have any questions, please call me at 205/271-7861
in Montgomery.
Sincerely,
/s/
Richard E. Grusnick, Chief
Air Division
REG/RWG:sd
cc: Mr. John Hughes
34a
APPENDIX I
LTV Steel Company
October 31, 1984
Dr. Richard E. Grusnick
Chief, Air Division
Alabama Department of Environmental Management
1751 Federal Drive
Montgomery, Alabama 36130
Dear Dr. Grusnick:
In reply to ADEM’s requests of August 29 and October 16,
1984 regarding the Gadsden coke plant, LTV Steel submits the
following program to bring the facility into compliance with
Alabama air standards.
Following ADEM’s inspections of August 15 and October
2, 1984 it was determined that major capital must be spent on
battery No. 2 in order to bring it into compliance with regard to
the combustion stack and doors. It is proposed to begin two
projects early in November, the repair of pushing side spalls and
the regenerators, which would be completed by June 1, 1985.
In addition, a year-round maintenance program would be started
which would include an intensive patching program, an im-
proved door-repair program and foam spraying of the doors. It
is expected that initial patching on all ovens would be complete
by mid-June, 1985, at which time a second go-around would
begin. The other maintenance projects would continue on a
year-round basis. (See Schedule 1, attached)
With respect to battery No. 3, a similar program of major
repair and maintenance is proposed. The schedule is necessarily
longer than that of No. 2 because of preliminary engineering,
procurement and bidding that must precede the field work. A
35a
contractor has been retained to conduct an inspection of the
battery, which will begin the week of November 5, 1984.
Following his inspection and issuance of a report, LTV Steel
expects to proceed on the following repairs to the battery: gas
gun flues will be repaired; the waste heat boxes will be replaced;
and regenerator faces will be repaired. It is expected that these
major projects can be completed by mid-November, 1985.
In addition to the above, a year-round maintenance pro-
gram, similar to that proposed for battery No. 2, will be initiated.
Patching and dusting of all ovens will begin early in November,
with all ovens proposed to be covered by mid-June, 1985, at
which time a second go-around will begin. LTV Steel also plans
to increase door repairs on No. 3 battery and institute a foam-
spraying program. (See Schedule 2, attached)
With regard to the BOF monovent, as you are aware, a stack
test which will include visible emissions observations from the
monovent, will be conducted on October 29. As you requested,
the results of this test will be reported to you by November 15,
1984. At this time, LTV Steel will report to you as to what we
feel are appropriate visible emission limitations.
_ If you have any questions regarding the program proposed
above, please do not hesitate to call me.
Very truly yours
/s/
W.L. West
Director, Environmental Control
WLW: jc
0054a
be:
J.T. Bradford
W.L. Wiley
D.F. Brown
B.J. Fedak
D.H. Wakelin
M.L. Harmon
E.M. Stuart
J.N. Nichols
K.W. Means
J.D. Donohoe
T.A. Zalenski
36a
37a
APPENDIX J
Alabama Department of
Environmental Management
January 14, 1985
Mr. William L. West, Director
Corporate Environmental Control Department
LTV Steel Company
3100 East 45th Street
Cleveland, OH 44127
Dear Mr. West:
According to your letter of October 31, 1984, a contractor
was retained to perform an inspection on battery #3 and define
the scope of work on this battery. A copy of this report should
be forwarded to ADEM upon completion by the contractor.
Was a report similar to the one for battery #3 developed for
battery #2? If so, the report should also be submitted to ADEM.
If a report for battery #2 was not developed, please explain why
one was not developed.
The following information is also needed relative to the
proposed program for batteries #2 and #3.
1. The proposals for both batteries #2 and #3 should
contain more detailed descriptions, including man-
power and necessary materials involved, of the
proposed repairs.
2. A narrative relating the proposed repairs/maintenance
of the batteries to expected reductions in emissions.
38a
3. The field work portion of the schedule should include
the number of ovens that will be completed on a
bimonthly basis.
4. Please explain the difference between the scope of
work on batteries #2 and #3.
5. What are the specific dates for compliance for the
doors and flue stack for battery #2 and the battery #3
flue stack?
The BOF stack test submitted on November 13, 1984 has
been reviewed by the staff. Enclosed is a copy of our evaluation
sheet. All handwritten numbers above the printed numbers are
taken from the Guardian report.
In response to Ms. Harmon’s letter of November 29, 1985,
an evaluation of the 3 minute running averages that occurred
between beginning of charge and end of tapping indicates that
all averages above 25% occurred during the oxygen blow or
fluxing phase of the cycle. It is the opinion of the staff that these
emissions should not be occurring at this level and can be
corrected at minimal expense. Taking the above into considera-
tion, it would appear that a 3 minute, 20% opacity level is
appropriate.
In response to Ms. Harmon’s statement regarding the “ap-
parent conflict” with EPA’s method 9, the Director of ADEM
has the authority to specify test methods in accordance with
Section 1.8.1 of the Department’s air regulations.
I feel that another meeting between our staffs would be
beneficial in resolving these issues. I suggest January 28, 29, or
30 as good dates. The above information should be submitted
by January 28, 1985 even if we cannot meet during this time
frame.
Please contact Sue Robertson or Ron Gore at 205/271-7861
to confirm a time for our meeting. If you have any questions
regarding the above, please do not hesitate to call me.
eee ee
39a
Sincerely,
/s/
Richard E. Grusnick, Chief
Air Division
Aa -
REG/SR:um
Enclosure
cc: Buster Stewart
John Hughes
40a
APPENDIX K
Alabama Department of
Environmental Management
Mr. William L. West, Director
Corporate Environmental Control Department
LTV Steel Company
3100 East 45th Street
Cleveland, OH 44127
January 14, 1985 |
|
|
Dear Mr. West:
According to your letter of October 31, 1984, a contractor
was retained to perform an inspection on battery #3 and define
the scope of work on this battery. A copy of this report should
be torwarded to ADEM upon completion by the contractor.
Was a report similar to the one for battery #3 developed for
battery #2? If so, the report should also be submitted to ADEM.
If a report for battery #2 was not developed, please explain why
one was not developed. |
The following information is also needed relative to the |
proposed program for batteries #2 and #3. |
1. The proposals for both batteries #2 and #3 should
contain more detailed descriptions, including man- |
power and necessary materials involved, of the ,
proposed repairs.
2. Anarrative relating the proposed repairs/maintenance
of the batteries to expected reductions in emissions.
3. The field work portion of the schedule should include |
the number of ovens that will be completed on a
bimonthly basis.
4la
4. Please explain the difference between the scope of
work on batteries #2 and #3.
5. What are the specific dates for compliance for the
doors and flue stack for battery #2 and the battery #3
flue stack?
The BOF stack test submitted on November 13, 1984 has
been reviewed by the staff. Enclosed is a copy of our evaluation
sheet. All handwritten numbers above the printed numbers are
taken from the Guardian report.
42a
APPENDIX L
LTV Steel
Departmental Correspondence
Subject: Gulf States Steel Date: January 29, 1985
No. 3 Battery Inspection
To: J.N. Nichols
Attached is the report of the No. 3 Battery Inspection which was
conducted in November, 1984. The scope of the inspection
included oven refractory, steelwork, doors, jambs, heating, offtake
piping, and machinery.
Summary of Observations
Overall, the battery condition is good. There are, however,
some conditions which require attention. Wall, roof,
regenerator, and top refractories are generally good except for
several notable areas of deterioration: coke side wall spalls,
damaged gas gun block, and floor wear. Coke side spalls extend
from two io four flues and some coke side wall movement was
noted. Pusher side wall deterioration is generally limited to
vertical cracks and ram rub marks within the first flue. Exces-
sive carbon buildup is present at the oven wall/floor juncture
and at the oven ends. The latter condition may contribute to
improper support of the oven doors by the corbel brickwork
which will cause the aforementioned gun block deterioration.
Supporting steelwork and jambs are in good condition.
Door cleaning and repair frequency are inadequate to achieve
emissions standards. The battery heating system is in fair to
poor condition. The overall battery temperature is too high for
the present coking time and crosswall temperature profiles are
poor. The present condition of the heating system will limit the
gross coking time to 22 hours or 71 pushes per day. Cracked
43a
gooseneck and elbow castings are permitting flushing liquor to
spill onto the battery tops, buckstays, and doors. The No. 3
pusher ram is tracking to the north of the oven chamber. The
battery side door machine rail is badly worn and the coke guide
wheels are worn severely.
Major Recommendations
A complete list of recommendations begins on page 11 of the
report. Major recommendations are highlighted below.
A. Implement a trial heating program on ten consecutive
ovens to establish proper heating conditions. Following
completion of this program, adjust heating on the
remainder of the oven based upon trial results.
B. Closely monitor oven wall condition, particularly on the
coke side. Provide an inventory of coke side wall brick
for six walls, four flues deep, floor to roof.
C. Remove heavy carbon buildup at oven floors. Modify a
pusher side door to permit measurement of oven pressure
throughout the coking cycle. Adjust collecting main pres-
sure to assure a positive oven pressure at all times. A
negative pressure will permit air infiltration which will
aggravate carbon formation and refractory damage.
D. Investigate the cause of the pusher ram tracking to the
north. Shoe wear and/or ram misalignment are suspected.
E. Replace coke guide wheels and door machine inboard rail.
The above recommendations are complementary to the recom-
mendations made by Messrs. Hatters and Sundholm in the
attached trip report dated November 16, 1984. That report
recommends a patching/dusting program, improvements to the
heating system, and adoption of an intensive door repair pro-
gram.
A task force comprised of appropriate operating, maintenance,
environmental control, and engineering personnel has been
sn
44a
assigned to develop and implement programs necessary to ac-
complish the specified recommendations. Assistance is being
provided from Corporate Engineering, Research and other LTV
Coke Plant operations as required. Progress reports will be
issued on a monthly basis beginning in February.
ls/
B.J. Fedak, Director
Development Engineering
JILS:jg
cc: S.H. Beavers*
- J.T. Bradford, Jr.
D.F. Brown
W.R. Davidson*
W.C. Greer
H.D. Hatters*
W.H. Lusk*
K.W. Means**
E. Spirko*
J.L. Sundholm*
D.H. Wakelin
W.L. Weeks .
W.L. West**
W.G. Wiley, Jr.
*With wall inspection sheets.
**Previously issued.
45a
APPENDIX M
LTV Steel
Departmental Correspondence
Subject: Gulf States Steel Date: February 11, 1985
No. 2 Battery Inspection
To: J.N. Nichols
Attached is the report of the No. 2 Battery Inspection which was
recently performed.
Summary of Condition
Overall, the battery condition is deemed to be fair to poor. End
flue deterioration is severe on both sides and is characterized by
spalls, wall shifting, vertical racks, and offsets. Roofs are in fair
to poor condition due to large cracks and spalls. Oven floors are
severely worn and may be weakened to the point where insuf-
ficient strength exists to support the pusher ram. Corbel brick-
work also is in poor condition. Coal and coke deposits on the
battery top prevented evaluation of top side refractories.
Buckstays on both sides exhibit bowing and twisting. Some
jamb castings (particularly on the coke side) were noted to be
bowed and hourglassed. Both the coke side and pusher side
benches are leaning out, a condition caused by the outward fan
of the battery. The inside door machine rail is in very poor
condition.
Fuel gas piping is in good condition and basement housekeeping
is considered outstanding. Collecting mains are in poor condi-
tion. Standpipes are in fair condition, while 13 gooseneck
Castings are crackéd.
46a
Recommendations
¥
After each push, the oven should be inspected to deter-
mine if the oven condition warrants the next scheduled
charge. Large cracks, holes, etc. should be repaired
before the charge to minimize stack leakage.
The end flue brick repair program which was imple-
mented in 1984 must be continued.
Patching techniques recently implemented in No. 3 Bat-
tery as the result of training provided by Didier, GmbH.
should be adopted on No. 2. Silica dusting should also
be implemented if overall oven patching is successful in
minimizing leakage through larger cracks.
End closures (buckstays, jambs, face plates) should be
regularly inspected. Buckstays which present imminent
interference with operations (door machine travel, door
removal) and those which provide insufficient bearing to
prevent leakage which is not correctable by reasonable
means such as patching, should be replaced. Jambs which
are in such condition that door emissions regularly occur
with a “good” door and with foam spraying should be
replaced.
Collecting main pressure which was observed at 7.5 mm
W.C. has been raised to 9.0 mm. This increase should aid
in sealing oven wall cracks and reduce stack emissions.
A regular program of damper cleaning and replacement
of deteriorated gooseneck castings is necessary to mini-
mize the risk of wall damage from flushing liquor.
In view of the overall battery condition and the inherent limited
remaining battery life, major expenditures to restore battery
integrity are not recommended.
47a
ls/
B.J. Fedak, Director
Development Engineering
JLS:jg
cc: S.H. Beavers
J.T. Bradford, Jr.
D.F. Brown
W.R. Davidson
W.C. Greer
H.D. Hatters
W.H. Lusk
K.W. Means
D.H. Miller
E. Spirko
J.L. Sundholm
D.H. Wakelin
W.L. Weeks
W.L. West
W.G. Wiley, Jr.
48a
APPENDIX N
GULF STATES STEEL CORPORATION
Gadsden, Alabama
Interoffice Correspondence
February 4, 1984
J.N. Nichols
Vice President - Operations
A meeting was held in Montgomery, January 31, 1985, to
discuss environmental issues related to the Coke Plant and
B.O.F. Attending from Gulf States Steel were K.W. Means and
E.M. Stewart. Present from LTV Environmental Control were
W.L. West and D.H. Miller. Representing ADEM were Richard
Grusnick, Sue Robertson, Ron Gore and John Hughes.
The meeting was opened with a discussion of the Coke
Plant. Mr. Grusnick stated that it was their preference to address
doors and No. 3 battery stack first, since they felt these items
would be brought into compliance early. Also, they have doubts
that the program outlined for No. 2 battery will bring the stack
into compliance. ‘He also stated that they only want to include
No. 2 battery stack in the “order” if we feel No. 3 battery and
No. 2 doors will be in compliance within the next 2-3 weeks.
The discussion began with doors and an update on the
spray-foam process. We related to them that we have sprayed
20 doors and 18 of them have been sealed. The ADEM wanted
to know what was involved in the foam process, and if we
planned to keep spraying after the battery achieved compliance.
We discussed the process and explained that foaming was a
temporary measure, and that the door repair program we had
outlined would achieve compliance; however, we planned to
spray-foam as necessary.
Ai Wb rrntenct, cadet est WCB
9 ed rn tall cae
Ps hy abbas Senshi bie ets inthis hsb, Oe
49a
At this point, we discussed our door repair program and
updated them on our plans to send doors to an outside shop, as
well as repair them in-house. Mr. Grusnick asked when we
would have the doors in compliance. We replied that we were
not prepared to set a definite date, since the foam process had
just begun this week, and we had no feel for how long it would
take to cover both sides of the battery. He then suggested that
we delay a decision on a date for a couple of weeks to allow time
to evaluate the foam process.
The discussion then turned to No. 3 stack. We updated the
ADEM on what progress we had made, such as patching/dust-
ing, the hiring of Didier Engineering to instruct us on patch-
ing/dusting, and the ceramic welding that is going on this week.
Mr. Grusnick asked if we felt patching/dusting was responsible
for the fact that their readings of December 4, and January 16,
showed the stack was in compliance. We replied that patch-
ing/dusting was partly responsible, but other things that had
been done also contributed. Again, they asked for a specific date
when we felt No. 3 stack would be in compliance. We replied
that we felt it would be difficult to say No. 3 would be in
compliance 100% of the time because of such things as air box
replacements remaining to be done. Again Mr. Grusnick
recommended that we delay a decision on this item. He stated
it was their preference to resolve these two issues and not have
them a part of the “order,” and let us continue with the rest of
the program as we had outlined.
The discussion then turned to No. 2 stack. The ADEM
expressed their doubts that the program outlined would bring
No. 2 stack into compliance due to the age of the facility. They
asked if we had any doubts. We replied that there were doubts
anytime you dealt with a battery of this age, and that we had no
experience with any similar work having been done. However,
we stated that we are more optimistic now than when we started
the program.
50a
The discussion centered on the “order”, and the ADEM
Stated it would require the posting of a performance bond. We
asked how much the bond would be, and they replied that it
would be difficult to say on a project of this type. Normally, the
bond is 10%-15% of the cost of installing the mechanism to
correct the problem.
At this time, the B.O.F. monovent was discussed. ADEM
reiterated their desire for 20% opacity for 3 minutes. We stated
that we felt this limit was too strict, and that 40% was more
appropriate. Ms. Robertson produced a document she had
obtained from the City of Cleveland relating to B.O.F. emissions
at 20% for 3 minutes. Mr. West disputed her figures, and after
some discussion, she agreed to recheck her information. Mr.
West was asked to supply ADEM with any opacity limitations
imposed on other LTV plants. ADEM was asked if they must
have some measurable standard, would they be willing to dis-
cuss some other area other than the B.O.F. They were not
receptive to this idea. Also they said the original list of items
they gave us in regard to the attainment issue, such as washing
roads, treating unpaved areas, etc., would now have to have a
measurable standard. They attributed this and many other
things to the U.S. EPA.
Mr. Grusnick stated that he had never been to our plant and
would like to meet at our plant within the next two weeks. A
‘meeting was scheduled for Friday, February 15, at 10:30 A.M.
at the Gadsden plant.
The meeting was then adjourned.
During pre-meeting discussions with Mr. West and Mr.
Miller, it was learned that Research personnel have done much
work in charging, blowing, and fluxing practices. This work
has led to improvements in B.O.F. emissions by eliminating
“slopping” during the process. This has not only improved
emissions, but also increased yields by 1%-2%. I recommend
Sla
that these people visit our plant and share their expertise with
Melt Shop operators.
/s/
K.W. Means
Works Engineer
KWM: bcb
cc: W.L. Weeks
G.W. Freeman
S.H. Beavers
R.H. Kimberley
E.M. Stewart
W.R. Davidson ,
R.L. Amos
52a
APPENDIX O
GULF STATES STEEL CORPORATION
Gadsden, Alabama
Interoffice Correspondence
February 8, 1985
K.W. Means
Chief Engineer
SUBJECT: Coke Plant Air Inspection
On February 7, 1985, Mr. John Hughes of the Alabama
Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) - Air
Division conducted an inspection at the Coke Plant. The results
are as follows:
Pass/Fail % Actual
N Batter
Stack Failed 20.5 min.)20%
opacity/hr.
Doors Failed 17.7% leaks
Topside Passed 8% leaks
Charging Holes Passed 1.5% leaks
No. 3 Battery
Stack Failed 13.8 min.)20%
opacity/hr.
Doors Passed 7% \eaks
Topside Passed 6% leaks
Charging Holes Passed <1% leaks
% Allowed
3 min.)20%
opacity/hr.
15% leaks
10% leaks
5% leaks
3 min.)20%
opacity/hr.
15% leaks
10% leaks
5% leaks
SSDNA GUN NalaaD aR eta atin cite esas A 9, Phas ig enchant APC len
Is
3
=
=
3
53a
Mr. Hughes said that he will return for another inspection
on either Monday or Tuesday of next week.
/s/
E.M. Stewart
Environmental Engineer
EMS: bcb
Attachment
ec: J.N. Nichols
G.W. Freeman
S.H. Beavers
W.L. West
M.L. Harmon
54a
APPENDIX P
Alabama Department of Environmental Management
February 22, 198
MEMO
TO: File
FROM: Sue R. Robertson, Chief
Planning/Development Branch
Air Division
SUBJECT: Meeting with Gulf States Steel
(307-0008)
On January 31, 1985, a meeting was held in Montgomery,
Alabama to discuss the compliance status of the #2 and #3 coke
batteries. Those in attendance were as follows:
Dave Miller LTV Steel - Pittsburgh, PA
Kenneth Mean GS Steel - Gadsden, AL
Buster Stewart GS Steel - Gadsden, AL
Bill West LTV Steel - Cleveland, OH
Ron Gore ADEM - Air Division
Sue Robertson ADEM - Air Division
Richard Grusnick ADEM - Air Division
John Hughes ADEM - Field Operations Division
The discussion centered around four topics: (1) doors on
#2 and #3 coke battery, (2) #3 battery flue stack, (3) #2 battery
flue stack, and (4) a BOF shop opacity standard.
Doors on #2 and #3 Coke Battery
Mr. Grusnick stated the last inspection of the doors on #2
coke battery indicated that emissions have increased since the
last inspection and percent opacity on the #3 doors have also
increased to 15.4% (appive2"»": regulation allows 15% leakage).
It was also asked whether the increased cleaning program,
i.e., removing tar build up which allows for more leaks until the
——
55a
doors were rebuilt or realigned, was the reason for the increased
leaks and was it anticipated that the number of leaks would
increase further before they decreased?
Kenneth Mean stated that the equipment has arrived for
foaming the doors. It has been recommended that foaming
should be done every 4th push. So far they have done 20 doors,
18 have stopped leaking. They are buying the foaming equip-
ment so that LTV will be able to keep the program up.
They are using contractors, in addition to their own main-
tenance shop, to speed up door repairs.
Mr. Mean stated that LTV felt that excess door leakage on
#3 battery during the last inspection was due to chuck door leaks
caused by the pusher machine not setting the door back properly
after leveling the coal. This problem had hopefully been cor-
rected.
Mr. Dave Miller explained that the foaming technique was
not like mud luting. Experience at the J&L plant had shown that
when used like the traditional mud luting, it interferes with the
door mechanism. Instead, the foam is placed on the door edge
prior to the door being returned to the oven after a push.
When discussing how the schedule in an Order would be
written, LTV felt that compliance would be demonstrated very
soon. It was decided to evaluate door performance during the
month of February to determine whether it should be in the
Order.
#3 Underfiring Stack
LTV felt that the dusting program has been a major part of
the success in reducing stack emissions. They are doing ceramic
welding on cracks in the oven walls this week, also.
LTV is of the opinion that the #3 battery probably will
continue to show compliance and probably should not be in-
cluded in the Order.
56a
#2 rfirin
The schedule submitted by LTV indicates all work regard-
ing the #2 stack will be complete by November 26, 1985.
Discussion with LTV indicated that they will not state that the
battery stack will be in compliance by this date. Bill West stated
that he felt more comfortable about the stack now than in
September, but it was still too early to tell.
In discussing the #2 stack, Kenneth Mean stated that the
cause of the last high V.E. was a hole in one of the batteries
which was found after the oven was pushed and was repaired
immediately. He stated that these types of emissions should not
be considered a violation. We responded that due to the age and
condition of #2 battery this type of problem was no longer
considered an isolated instance when enforcement discretion
was appropriate.
BOF Monovent
LTV feels that based on availability and confidence level
of existing equipment that a 3-minute rolling average was not
appropriate. Also, this stringent a limitation had not been ap-
plied to any of the other LTV installations.
I stated that the old J&L plant in Cleveland was subject to
the 3-minute-20% aggregate rule according to the Cleveland Air
Pollution Program. Mr. West then stated while that may be true,
Region V had determined that the 6-minute rolling average was
equivalent to the 3-minute rule.
It was decided that ! would contact “Wojo” of Region V
regarding this interpretation.
It was decided the next meeting would be at the Gadsden
facility in February.
SRR: um
57a
APPENDIX Q
LTV Steel
Departmental Correspondence
Subject: Air Pollution Control Issues - Gadsden
Date: February 28, 1985 a
To: W.G. Wiley No: 0411b
Representatives of LTV Steel, Gulf States Steel, and the
Alabama Department of Environmental Management met in
Gadsden on February 27, 1985 to discuss the issue of non-com-
pliance with the Alabama regulations. Following an inspection
of the coke plant and BOF areas, Mr. Richard Grusnick, Chief
of ADEM’s Air Division stated the agency’s position as follows.
(1) Since Gulf States has recently demonstrated com-
pliance with the door emission standards, ADEM
would not be taking any enforcement action on this
item but would expect the company to maintain
compliance.
(2) While ADEM believes that Gulf States Steel has
made significant improvements in battery stack
emissions, compliance still has not been achieved
on a consistent basis. The agency accepts the
program previously submitted by LTV Steel to
bring the stacks into compliance. ADEM, there-
fore, intends to issue an administrative compliance
order to Gulf States which would require the fol-
lowing:
(a) | Ademonstration of compliance at the end of
the aforementioned program (November 26,
1985). :
(b) Aperformance bond of $150,000 per battery
to assure the achievement of compliance.
58a
The compliance bond would be returned
upon a demonstration of compliance.
The LTV Steel and Gulf States Steel representatives agreed
with the agency’s position on doors. We did object to the
amount of the bond and the November 26 compliance date for
stack emissions. Mr. Grusnick explained that ADEM’s policy
requires a performance bond equal to 10% of the capital cost of
the air control system needed to assure compliance. In this case,
the agency estimated a baghouse would cost $1,500,000 per
battery. To the final compliance date, Mr. Grusnick was amen-
dable to a 60 day period after November 26 for a compliance
demonstration. Further discussions will be necessary to define
the compliance test.
Mr. Grusnick expects to have a draft order available for
review by LTV Steel and Gulf States Steel within two weeks.
The agency would be amenable to suggestions by the companies
as long as the order complies with the agency’s requirements.
The agency's lawyers will be involved with negotiations on the
order.
59a
APPENDIX R
Alabama Department of
Environmental Management
Qctober 1, 1985
FEDERAL EXPRESS
J.D. Donohoe
Law Department
LTV Steel Company, Inc.
25 West Prospect Street
Cleveland, Ohio 44101
Dear Mr. Donohoe:
Enclosed are the most recent revisions of the proposed
Administrative Order and Surety Bond for Gulf States Stee]
Corporation, which reflect the changes we discussed during the
conference calls on August 26, 1985.
lease let me have your comments as soon as possible.
Sincerely,
/s/
Kerry J. Allen
Associate General Counsel
KJA/rdg
Enclosures
cc: Mary Lou Harmon
Kenneth Means
William L. West
Richard Grusnick
60a
ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
IN THE MATTER OF
GULF STATES STEEL CORPORATION
GADSDEN, ALABAMA
ORDER NO. AP-85
FINDINGS OF FACT
Pursuant to the provisions of the Alabama Environmental
Management Act, §22-22A-1 et seg., Code of Alabama 1975
(1984) and the Alabama Air Pollution Control Act, §§22-28-1
et seq., Code of Alabama 1975 (1984), the Alabama Department
of Environmental Management (hereinafter, “the Department’’)
makes the following FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. Gulf States Steel Corporation (hereinafter, “Gulf
States”), previously CKH Corporation, owns and operates an
integrated steel mil! (hereinafter, “the Gadsden facility”) in
Gadsden, Etowah County, Alabama.
2. On August 15, 1984, the Gadsden facility was ob-
served to be in violation of Section 4.9.8 (Combustion Stacks)
Chapter 4 - Control of Particulate Emissions, of the
Department’s Air Division Regulations in that visible emissions
greater than twenty percent (20%) for periods aggregating more
than three (3) minutes in any consecutive sixty (60) minutes
were observed.
Visible Emission
Source Readings >20%
Flue Stack on 21 minutes
#2 Coke Battery
Flue Stack on 19.5 mirputes
#3 Coke Battery
6la
3. On August 28-29, 1984, the Gadsden facility was
observed to be in violation of Section 4.9.8 (Combustion Stacks)
Chapter 4 - Control of Particulate Emissions, of the
Departmient’s Air Division Regulations in that visible emissions
greater than twenty percent (20%) for periods aggregating more
than three (3) minutes in any consecutive sixty (60) minutes
were observed.
Visible Emission
Source Readings >20%
Flue Stack on lst Hour - 55 minutes
#2 Coke Battery 2nd Hour - 41.5 minutes
3rd Hour - 15 minutes
Flue Stack on Ist Hour - 13 minutes
#3 Coke Battery 2nd Hour - 4.75 minutes
4. On October 2, 1984, the Gadsden facility was ob-
served to be in violation of Section 4.9.8 (Combustion Stacks)
Chapter 4 - Control of Particulate Emissions, of the
Department’s Air Division Regulations in that visible emissions
greater than twenty percent (20%) for periods aggregating more
than three (3) minutes in any consecutive sixty (60) minutes
were observed.
Visible Emission
Flue Stack on Ist Hour - 23.5 minutes
#3 Coke Battery 2nd Hour - 0 minutes
3rd Hour - 14.25 minutes
5. On December 5, 1984, the Gadsden facility was again
observed to be in violation of Secticn 4.9.8 (Combustion Stacks)
Chapter 4 - Control of Particulate Emissions. of the
Department’s Air Division Regulations in that visible emissions
greater than twenty percent (20%) for periods aggregating more
than three (3) minutes in any consecutive sixty (60) minutes
were observed.
62a
Visible Emission
Source Readings >2
Flue Stack on 7 minutes
#2 Coke Battery
6. On January 16, 1985, the Gadsden facility was ob-
served to be in violation of Section 4.9.8 (Combustion Stacks)
Chapter 4 - Control of Particulate Emissions, of the
Department’s Air Division Regulations in that visible emissions
greater than twenty percent (20%) for periods aggregating more
than three (3) minutes in any consecutive sixty (60) minutes
were observed.
Visible Emission
Source Readings >20%
Flue Stack on 59.5 minutes
#2 Coke Battery
7. On February 7, 1985, the Gadsden facility was ob-
served to be in violation of Section 4.9.8 (Combustion Stacks)
Chapter 4 - Control of Particulate Emissions, of the
Department’s Air Division Regulations in that visible emissions
greater than twenty percent (20%) for periods aggregating more
than three (3) minutes in any consecutive sixty (60) minutes
were observed.
Visible Emission
Source —Readings >20%
Flue Stack on 20.75 minutes
#2 Coke Battery
Flue Stack on 13.75 minutes
#3 Coke Battery
8. On February 22, 1985, the Gadsden facility was ob-
served to be in violation of Section 4.9.8 (Combustion Stacks)
Chapter 4 - Control of Particulate Emissions, of the
Department’s Air Division Regulations in that visible emissions
63a
greater than twenty percent (20%) for periods aggregating more
than three (3) minutes in any consecutive sixty (60) minutes
were obeserved.
Visible Emission
Source Readings >20%
Flue Stack on 18.25 minutes
#3 Coke Battery
9. On March 14, 1985, the Gadsden facility was again
observed to be in violation of Section 4.9.8 (Combustion Stacks)
Chapter 4 - Control of Particulate Emissions, of the
Department’s Air Division Regulations in that visible emissions
greater than twenty percent (20%) for periods ag gregating more
than three (3) minutes in any consecutive sixty (60) minutes
were observed.
Visible Emission
Source Readings >20%
Flue Stack on 9.75 minutes
#2 Coke Battery
Flue Stack on 4.24 minutes
#3 Coke Battery
10. The lack of continual maintenance of Coke Batteries
#2 and #3 has contributed to the violations cited in items 2
through 9, above.
64a
ORDER
Based upon the foregoing FINDINGS OF FACT and pur-
suant to Code of Alabama §22-22A-5(10) and §22-28-10(2), it
is hereby ORDERED:
A.
Prior to a change in ownership or use of any source covered
by this Order, Gulf States shall notify each transferee, in writing,
of the existence of this Order and of its binding effect upon Gulf
States. A copy of such notification shall be provided to the
Department showing that a copy of this Order was provided to
each transferee by Gulf States. Gulf States shall be liable for all
requirements of this Order as to such source during any period
of ownership or use by Gulf States.
B.
1. Compliance with Section 4.9.8 of the Department's
Air Division Regulations shall be achieved for #2 Coke Battery
by November 30, 1985.
2. Compliance with Section 4.9.8 of the Department’s
Air Division Regulations shall be achieved for #3 Coke Battery
by October 31, 1985.
3. Compliance with Section 4.9.8 of the Department's
Air Division Regulations shall be determined by 40 C.F.R. 60,
Appendix A, Method 9 and the following procedures:
(a) Visible emission observers shall be certified in ac-
cordance with the procedures specified at 40 C.F.R. Part 60,
Appendix A, Method 9.
(b) The provisions of Method 9, Section 2.5, shall not be
used to determine compliance with the visible emission perfor-
mance standards.
65a
(c) In determining compliance, the emission standard
shall not be construed to require three consecutive minutes of
readings greater than twenty percent (20%) opacity.
(d) Each momentary observation that is recorded at 15-
second intervals shall be used to determine compliance with the
standard. Each observation that is greater than twenty percent
(20%) opacity shall be counted in determining the hourly ag-
gregated period.
(e) In making observations of stack emissions, the reader
shall be positioned in accordance with the provisions of Section
2.1 of Method 9.
(f) Visible emission observations for the determination
of compliance shall be conducted during the hours that the Coke
Battery is being charged and/or pushed.
C.
By November 1, 1985, Gulf States shall post Surety Bonds
in the total amount of $200,000 to insure compliance with the
above provisions. Said Surety Bonds are Surety Bond “A” and
Surety Bond “B”, which are attached hereto and hereby made a
part of this Order. The failure of Gulf States to comply with any
of the provisions of this Order shall constitute cause for the
forfeiture of part or all of the Surety Bonds, according to their
terms. Release of said Surety Bonds shall be made upon
demonstration of compliance for the applicable Coke Battery or
upon a bonafide and complete sale of the Gadsden facility by
Gulf States, according to the procedure described in each Bond.
D.
The terms and requirements of this Order shall terminate
only upon demonstration of compliance for both #2 and #3 Coke
Batteries, or upon a complete and bonafide sale of the Gadsden
facility, as specified in Surety Bond “A” and Surety Bond “B”,
and upon release of said Bonds by the Department. Failure to
66a
comply with the provisions of this Order shall constitute cause
for the commencement of legal action by the Depariment for the
recovery of civil penalties or other appropriate relief.
ORDERED and ISSUED this Ist day of October 1985.
Joe B. Broadwater, Director
Alabama Department of
Environmental Management
1751 Federal Drive
Montgomery, Alabama 36130
(205) 271-7700
67a
APPENDIX S
Alabama Department of Environmental Management
October 18, 1985
MEMORANDUM
TO: David Ludder, General Counsel
FROM: Kerry Allen, Associate General Counsel
SUBJECT: Proposed Administrative Order to Gulf States
Steel Corporation
A draft administrative order was sent to Gulf States Steel
Corporation on August 20, 1985, and a Show Cause meeting
was held on September 4. In attendance were Jim Donohoe,
attorney for LTV Steel, Mary Lou Harmon also of LTV, and
Stanley Holcolm and Kenneth Means of Gadsden, as well as
Richard Grusnick, Sue Robertson, and Ron Gore of the Air
Division, and myself.
Gulf States’ objections to the draft order were, as follows:
A. Findings of Fact - none stated.
B. Order portion:
l.
A great many of the requirements of the order for
repairs or replacement of ovens and components
have already been met (letter confirming this
received October 1).
Compliance demonstration should be defined
and the procedure for demonstration spelled out
in the order (agreed to by Air Division).
Gulf States did not intend and should not be
required to make a second repair cycle for all
ovens now repaired or needing repair (Gulf
States offered to inspect and patch ovens as
needed after each push).
68a
4. Bonds required by the order are too expensive
and present too great a risk for Gulf States’
precarious financial condition. Gulf States also
wished to demonstrate compliance earlier than
the date required by the draft order.
These and other adjustments in language and requirements of
the bonds and order were made and sent to all participants on
September 6. In a conference call on September 24 involving
the same personnel, Gulf States altered their offer to inspect and
repair ovens after each use, objected to the compliance test
procedures as outlined by the Department, and again objected
to the amount of the bonds to be obtained, as well as to the
forfeiture schedule.
As a result of two conference calls held on September 26, the
Department’s compliance test and forfeiture schedule were
agreed to. The bond amounts were lowered to $100,000 per
battery. Both the bonds and proposed order were again redrafted
and mailed on October 1. On October 9, Jim Donohoe called to
request a change in the bond language and to say he would know
in approximately one week if the bonds could be obtained. To
date, no word regarding the bond availability has been received.
RECOMM ATION:
Over one-half of the month (October) during which Gulf States
intended to demonstrate compliance for one of the batteries has
now elapsed. A great deal of time and energy has been expended
on meetings, correspondence, drafts and redrafts of documents
and telephone calls, even prior to involvement of this office.
Gulf States appears to be reluctant to commit to any definite
program to achieve long-term compliance of this facility be-
cause of the always-imminent sale of the plant, low profitability,
and what appears to be a general pattern of poor management
aimed at short-term results. Short of legal action, which may
threaten continued operation (or sale) of the plant, the
69a
Department’s options range from tolerating the violations to
EPA involvement, which becomes more likely with time.
With regard to the administrative order, I would recommend its
[...] in its present form should Gulf States agree to voluntarily
post bonds in the required amount, but would remind the Depart-
ment that the lack of statutory authority to require bonds makes
the order, or later forfeiture demands, subject to this defense.
In the event that the bonds cannot be obtained, or where no
definite determination is made in the next few days, I would still
recommend issuance of the order, omitting the bond require-
ment, redefining the compliance test procedure to coincide with
the present regulations, and prescribing a stringent but
reasonable repair schedule and recordkeeping requirements, as
determined by the Air Division to more likely result in continued
compliance, to remain in effect until appropriate controls are
installed or until all violations are eliminated for a six month
period or longer. Such requirements would be defensible as-
suming they were reasonable, likely to lead to continued or
greater compliance, similar to those already proposed (and
withdrawn) by Gulf States, and the Department was willing to
forego legal action for past and ongoing violations so long as
the order was obeyed. In the event of a prolonged administrative
or legal challenge to an order in this form, it could be withdrawn
and legal action to redress all past and continuing violations
could be instituted at that point.
KJA/rdg
oe Richard Grusnick
70a
APPENDIX T
LTV STEEL
LAW DEPARTMENT
DEPARTMENTAL CORRESPONDENCE
Subject: Coke Battery Nos. 2 & 3
ADEM Consen rN lation
Date: November 11, 1985
To: W.L. Weeks
No: 1806B
The purpose of this letter is to memorialize the substance
of various telephone conversations I have had with Kerry Allen
concerning the Administrative Order we have been negotiating
over the past several weeks with respect to the combustion
stacks of coke battery nos. 2 and 3 at Gadsden. As you know,
Kerry Allen is the Associate General Counsel of the Alabama
Department of Environmental Management (ADEM) and is the
principal ADEM lawyer involved in this matter.
By way of background, I think it is important to review, for
the record so to speak, the status of the negotiations between
Gulf States Steel and ADEM. Essentially, the terms of the
Administrative Order had been finalized. A copy of the latest
draft of that Order, which accompanied Kerry Allen’s October
1, 1985 letter to me, is attached. Among other things, the
proposed Order required the posting of a $100,000 surety bond
for each battery. The bonds would be forfeited or released -
pursuant to the terms of the Order.
At my request, Tom Ward attempted to secure the two
surety bonds in accordance with established procedures. In that
connection I enclose herewith a copy of Mr. Ward’s October 4,
1985 letter to Mr. Michael D. Ross of Marsh & McLennan, Inc.,
as well as a copy of Mr. Ross’s reply to Tom Ward of October
Tila
14, 1985. As you can see from this correspondence, Aetna is
unwilling to issue the surety bonds at this time. I have been
advised by Tom Ward that there is no possibility that any other
insurance company will issue these bonds to Gulf States Steel.
On October 20, 1985, I informed Kerry Allen that Gulf
States Steel was unable to secure the surety bonds at this time.
After reviewing the matter with Mr. Richard Grusnick, Ms.
Allen informed me that although it was displeased with that turn
of events, ADEM had not made a decision to initiate formal
enforcement action against Gulf States Steel with respect to the
combustion stacks of battery nos. 2 and 3. Ms. Allen further
informed me that ADEM would be inspecting the battery stacks
frequently and that the ADEM did not contemplate bringing any
formal enforcement action against Gulf States Steel so long as
the combustion stacks of battery nos. 2 and 3 were in compliance
with applicable regulations. Ms. Allen, of course, cautioned that
she could not speak for the U.S. EPA with respect to either past
or future violations of applicable regulations.
Under the circumstances, it does not appear that the posi-
tion of Gulf States Steel can be significantly enhanced by
continuing negotiations with the ADEM for an Administrative
Order. The only reasonable alternative to a surety bond, is for
Gulf States Steel to offer to put up cash or some other collateral
in lieu of the surety bonds. The significant advantage to Gulf
States Steel that the proposed Order would have provided,
namely protection against a formal enforcement action and
avoidance of potentially higher penalty exposure, appears, in
light of Ms. Allen’s remarks, to be obtainable without the
consent order if the battery stacks are maintained in compliance
with applicable regulations. The other principle advantage of
the Order would have been to forestall federal enforcement
action by the U.S. EPA. However, as long as the battery stacks
are maintained in compliance in the future, it would appear that
72a
the risk of feceral enforcement with respect to past violations is
minimal.
In view of the above, it is our recommendation that no
further efforts on our part be initiated to negotiate the proposed
Order. If you have any questions concerning the above com-
ments or would like to discuss the matter further in any way,
please do not hesitate to get in touch.
/s/
James D. Donohoe
JDD:cm
Enclosures
cc: M.L. Harmon
S. Holcombe
J.P. Kelly
K.W. Means
C.L. Medford
W.L. West
T.A. Zalenski
73a
APPENDIX U
Alabama Department of
Environmental Management
January 9, 1986
CERTIFIED MAIL, No. P 686 585 497
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Mr. Kenneth Means
Environmental/Engineering Manager
Gulf States Steel Corporation
174 S. 26th Street
Gadsden, AL 35901
Dear Mr. Means:
This Notice of Violation is issued for exceedances of
visible emission limits noted during inspections in December,
1985. The specific violations are:
Application Visible
ADEM Emission
Source Date Regulation Reading
#2 Coke Dec. 17,1985 Section 4.9.8 1314 minutes
Battery out of 15
Stack minutes
greater than
20% opacity
#2 Coke Dec. 27,1985 = Section 4.9.8 1614 minutes
Battery out of 60
Stack minutes
greater than
20% opacity
#2 Coke
Battery
Stack
#3 Coke
Battery
Stack
#3 Coke
Battery
Stack
Basic
Oxygen
Furnace
Shop Roof
Monitor
Basic
Oxygen
Furnace
Shop Roof
Monitor
. 30,1986 Section 4.9.8
. 27, 1985
Section 4.9.8
. 30, 1985
Section 4.9.8
. 27, 1985
Section 4.17.1
. 30, 1985 Section 4.17.1
414 minutes
out of 60
minutes
greater than
20% opacity
1144 minutes
out of 60
minutes
greater than
20% opacity
31 minutes
out of 60
minutes
greater than
20% opacity
3 minute
averages of
35.4%, 67.2%,
and 63.8%
3 minute
averages of
20.5%, 23.3%,
35.4%, 27.5%,
and 43.8%
Not later than January 24, 1986, you are requested to file
with the Department a full written report showing the steps that
have been taken and are being taken to correct the violations.
Such report should be mailed or delivered to the undersigned at
the Department. Failure to file a report showing expeditious
corrective actions could result in the revocation of your Permits.
75a
Should you have any questions concerning this matter,
please contact me at 205/271-7861.
Sincerely,
/s/
Richard E. Grusnick, Chief
Air Division
REG/RG:um
cc: John Hughes
76a
APPENDIX V
ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
June 13, 1986
CERTIFIED MAIL 686585753
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Mary Teresa Sobnosky
Amer Cunningham Brennan Co.
First National Tower
Akron, Ohio 44308
Dear Ms. Sobnosky:
RE: Gulf States Steel, Inc.
Enclosed please find Administrative Order No. 86-081-WP
which requires Gulf States Steel, Inc. to take certain actions
regarding the discharge of pollutants into waters of the State. In
issuing this Order, the Department has considered the comments
you made at our meeting. You will note that certain changes
have been made in accordance with the information you sub-
mitted at that meeting.
Please be advised that failure to comply with the terms of this
Order can result in penalties of up to $25,000 per day for each
violation, as well as possible criminal penalties.
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me.
77a
Sincerely,
/s/_
Olivia Hardy Hudgins
Associate General Counsel
Enclosure
cc: Charles Horn, Chief
Water Division
Jim Moore, Water Division
Industrial Branch
Dave Olson, EPA
Region IV
TT
78a
ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
IN THE MATTER OF
GULF STATES STEEL, INC.
GADSDEN, ALABAMA
ORDER NO. 86-081-WP
FINDINGS OF FACT
Pursuant to the provisions of the Alabama Environmental
Management Act, Code of Alabama 1975, §§ 22-22A-1 to
22-22A-15 (1984), the Alabama Water Pollution Control Act,
Code of Alabama 1975, §§ 22-22-1 to 22-22-14 (1984), and the
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System administered
by the Alabama Department of Environmental Management
(hereinafter, “the Department”) and approved by the Ad-
ministrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency pur-
Suant to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act § 402, 33
U.S.C. § 1342, the Department makes the following
FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. Gulf States Steel, Inc. (hereinafter, “the Operator’)
operates an integrated iron and steel production facility located
in Gadsden, Alabama.
2. Code of Alabama 1975, § 22-22-9(j) (6) (1984)
provides that “every person, prior to discharging any new or
increased pollution into any waters of this state Shall apply to
the [Department] in writing for a permit and must obtain such
permit before discharging such pollution.” ADEM Admin.
Code R. 6-6-.03 provides that “{n]o person shall discharge
pollutants from a point source into waters without first having
obtained a valid NPDES [National Pollutant Discharge Flimina-
tion System] permit... .”
79a
3. The NPDES permit issued to the previous owner of the
Gadsden facility expired September 1, 1980, and since that time
no NPDES permit has been issued for the Gadsden facility. The
Operator has initiated the process of obtaining a NPDES permit.
4. Qn February 14, 1986, the Operator discharged pol-
lutants and other industrial wastes from a point source to Black
Creek, a water of the state.
ORDER
Based upon the foregoing FINDINGS OF FACT and pur-
suani to Code of Alabama 1975, §§ 22-22A-5(10), 22-22-9(c),
22-22-9(j), and 22-22-9(1) (1984) and the National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System administered by the Department
and approved by the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency under the National Water Pollution Control
Act § 402, 33 U.S.C. § 1342 it is hereby ORDERED:
A. That not later than 180 days after receipt of notice of
this Order, the Operator shall either obtain a NDES permit
authorizing discharges from a point source to Black Creek, or it
shall terminate all unpermitted discharges from its facility to
waters of the state.
B. That the failure to comply wiih the provisions of this
Order shall constitute cause for the commencement of legal
action for the recovery of civil penalties, criminal fines, or other
appropriate relief by the Department against the Operator.
C. That issuance of this Order does not preclude the
Department from seeking civil penalties, criminal fines, or other
appropriate sanctions or relief against the Operator for the
violations stated herein.
ORDERED and ISSUED this 12th day of June 1986.
/s/
Leigh Pegues, Director
Alabama Department of
Environmental Management
1751 Federal Drive
Montgomery, Alabama 36130
(205)271-7700
8la
APPENDIX W
UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV, 349 COURTLAND STREET
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30365
March 30, 1987
Mr. John Poole, Jr.
Water Division
AL Dept. of Environmental Mgmt.
1751 Federal Drive
Montgomery, Alabama 36130
RE: Unresolved 301(g) Requests
Dear Mr. Poole:
According to our records, there are currently 3 pending
Section 301(g) variance requests for which ADEM has not yet
taken any action. These requests are:
Facility NPDES No. Parameter
Republic Steel -
Gadsden AL0003522 total phenols, NH3
Republic Steel -
Thomas AL0003531 total phenols, NH3
Reynolds Aluminum ALO000035 aluminum -
Alloys Plant
aluminum, fluoride -
Listerhill Plant
aluminum, NH3 -
Alabama
Reclamation
Plant
82a
Under the provisions of the recently - passed Water Quality Act
of 1987 (February 4, 1987), all pending applications as of the
date of enactment of this Act must be approved or disapproved
by the Administrator of EPA within 365 days of the date of
enactment. In order to meet this requirement, we request that
ADEM resolve these pending requests as soon as possible. As
you are aware, Region IV cannot review a request until State
action is completed. If a facility is not currently discharging, we
recommend that its 301(g) request be inactivated now and that
it be re-applied for upon resumption of the discharge.
Also under the provisions of the new Act, requests for
301(g) variances are restricted to and can only be made for the
parameters ammonia, chlorine, iron, color, and total phenols
(AAP). Consideration of other parameters can only be given if
petitions are made and special listing criteria are met (see
enclosure).
Please advise me of the status of these pending requests.
Please call me at (404) 347-3012 if you have any questions.
Sincerely yours,
/s/
Marshall Hyatt
Environmental Scientist
Facilities Performance Branch
Water Management Division
Enclosure
83a
APPENDIX X
ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
July 14, 1987
Mr. Marshall Hyatt
Environmental Scientist
Water Management Division
Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street
Atlanta, GA 30365
Dear Mr. Hyatt:
Re: 301(g) Variance Request
Republic Steel - Gadsden NPDES No. AL0003522
Republic Steel - Thomas Plant NPDES No. AL0003531
This is in response to your March 30, 1987, !etter regarding the
status of several 301(g) variances requests on which the Depart-
ment has taken no formal action.
The Republic Steel facility in Thomas has been inactivated and
torn down. The variance request for this facility is no longer
valid.
The Republic Steel facility in Gadsden has been purchased and
is now Gulf States Steel, Inc. The Department has been working
on reissuance of Gulf States Steel’s NPDES permit for several
months. Our discussions with representatives of Gulf States
Steel indicate that they wish tc keep the variance request open
for the interim period, pending th utcome of negotiations and
issuance of their NPDES permit.
84a
As you may be aware, when the Iron and Steel Guidelines were
promulgated, the Gadsden facility was one of 21 facilities which
were excluded from meeting those guidelines pending develop-
ment of alternative guidelines for central treatment facilities. To
date, guidelines for the Gadsden plant have not been finalized
by EPA. Since we have no guidelines to utilize for a permitting
rationalizing we will be proposing a BPJ permit which will
address water quality standards and may or may not be in
accordance with existing Iron and Steel Guidelines.
In the absence of promulgated effluent guidelines, the Depart-
ment is notifying EPA that it is making no recommendation in
response to the 301(g) variance request for the Gulf States Steel
facility in Gadsden.
Should you have any questions regarding this matter, please do
not hesitate to contact me.
Sincerely,
/s/
John A. Poole, Jr.
Chief
Industrial Branch
Water Division
JAP: bjp
cc: Mr. Kenneth Means
Weston Services, Inc.
8Sa
APPENDIX Y
MAYNARD, COOPER, FRIERSON & GALE, P.C.
ATTORNEYS AT LAW
TWELFTH FLOOR WATTS BUILDING
BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA 35203
(205) 252-2889
TELECOPIER (205) 252-2958 or 251-1703
TELEX 38-3452
September 14, 1988
Mr. Kenneth Means
Mr. Buster Stewart
Gulf States Steel, Inc.
174 South 26th Street
Gadsden, Alabama 35904
Re: Administrative Order No. 88-C81-WP
Dear Kenneth and Buster:
Enclosed please find a new Findings of Fact executed by
Leigh Pegues. This new version corrects some typographical
errors that were in the old version
if vou have any questions about this please feel free to give
me a call.
Very truly yours,
/s/
H. Thomas Wells, Jr.
HTW, Jr./psr
Enclosure
86a
ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
September 12, 1988
Mr. Thomas H. Wells, Jr.
Maynard, Cooper, Frierson & Gale
Twelfth Floor Watts Building
Birmingham, Alabama 35203
Dear Mr. Wells:
RE: Administrative Order No. 88-081-WP
Our file # WP-15-157
Enclosed please find a copy of Administrative Order No.
88-081-WP in which several typographical errors included in
the original order have been corrected.
If you have any questions, please feel free to call me.
Sincerely,
—
Olivia H. Jenkins
General Counsel
OHJ/daf
Enclosure
87a
ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
IN THE MATTER OF
GULF STATES STEEL, INC.
GADSDEN, ALABAMA
NPDES PERMIT NUMBER AL0055239
ORDER NO. 88-081-WP
FINDINGS OF FACT
Pursuant to the provisions of the Alabarna Environmental
Management Act, Code of Alabama 1975, 3322-224. through
22-22A-16 (1984 and 1987 Cum. Supp.), the Alabama Water
Pollution Control Act, Code of Alabama 1975, §§22-22-1
through 22-22-14 (1984 and 1987 Cum. Supp.) and the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System administered by the
Alabama Department of Environmental Management
(hereinafter “the Department’) and approved by the Ad-
ministrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency pur-
suant to the Federal Water Pollution Centro] Act. § 402, 33
U.S.C. § 1342, the Department makes the following FINDINGS
OF FACT:
1. Gulf States Steel, Inc. (hereinafter “the Permittee’)
operates an integrated steel making facility located in Gadsden
Alabama.
2. On December 4, 1987 the Department issued NPDES
Permit Number AL0055239 to the Permittee authorizing the
discharge of pollutants, industrial wastes and other wastes sub-
ject te certain terms, limitations and conm#itions. form a point
source designated therein as DSN-001 to Black Creek, a water
of the state.
3. Among the terms, limitations and conditions contained
in said permit are daily maximum and daily average discharge
88a
limitations for ammonia nitrogen (NH3-N), total cyanide
(Cn,T), total zinc (Zn,T) and total lead (Pb,T). Said discharge
limitations are as follows:
NH3-N Cn,T Za,T Pb,T
(mg/l) = (mg/1) (mg/l) (mg/1)
Daily Maximum 0.67 0.02 0.18 0.03
Daily Average 0.67 0.02 0.18 0.03
4. The Permittee has violated these discharge limitations
as follows:
Date NH3-N Cn,T Zn,T Pb,T
(mg/l) (mg/1) (mg/l) (mg/1)
12/09/87 0.88 0.034 0.25 0.08
12/09/87 1.35 0.065 0.030 0.08
12/11/87 1.90 0.046 0.24 0.04
12/14/87 1.55 0.038 0.47 0.15
12/15/87 1.98 0.046 0.35
12/16/87 1.37 0.038 0.23
12/17/87 1.55 0.075 0.28
12/18/87 1.19 0.056 0.27
12/20/87 1.70 0.030 0.46
12/21/87 1.03 0.045 0.23
12/22/87 1.16 0.060 0.33
12/23/87 1.33 0.054 0.29
12/24/87 1.17 0.032 0.25
12/27/87 1.55 0.023
12/28/87 1.31 0.042 0.47
12/29/87 1.58 0.046 0.29
12/30/87 1.23 0.062 0.28
12/31/87 1.62 0.036 0.26
12/87 average 1.4] 0.050 0.30
01/03/88 1.15 0.03 0.29
01/04/88 1.39 0.10 0.25
01/05/88 1.29 0.05 0.20
89a
01/06/88 1.25 0.05
01/07/88 1.23 0.10 0.23
01/10/88 1.27 0.27
01/11/88 1.01 0.18 0.04
01/12/88 1.23 0.12
01/13/88 2.06 0.16
01/14/88 1.07 0.17
01/17/88 0.92 0.12
01/18/88 1.03 0.13 0.24
01/19/88 1.09 0.14
1/20/88 0.78 0.06
01/21/88 0.27 0.11 0.27
01/24/88 1.42 0.14
01/25/88 1.31 0.13
01/26/88 1.19 0.12
01/27/88 1.35 0.15 0.19
01/28/88 2.15 0.1 0.2
01/31/88 0.97 - 0.08
01/88 average 1.26 0.12
02/01/88 1.77 0.05
02/02/88 1.92 0.07
02/03/88 1.22 0.06 0.22
02/04/88 1.39 0.09
02/07/88 1.29 0.14 0.20
02/08/88 1.35 0.04
02/09/88 1.13 0.06 0.21
02/10/88 1.27 0.14 0.27
02/14/88 1.09 0.06
02/15/88 0.95 0.08
02/16/88 0.96 0.07
02/17/88 1.07 0.08
02/18/88 1.20 0.08 0.22
02/21/88 1.75 0.13 0.19
02/22/88 1.23 0.10 0.24
02/23/88 1.87 0.09
90a
02/24/88 1.44 0.07
02/25/88 5.58 0.11
02/28/88 1.03 0.04
02/29/88 0.92 0.11
02/88 average 1.49 0.08
03/01/88 0.87 0.15
03/02/88 0.85 0.09 0.21
03/03/88 2.09 0.10 0.23
03/06/88 1.15 0.13 0.25
003/07/88 1.07 0.11
03/08/88 1.34 0.16
03/09/88 1.03 0.10 0.20
03/10/88 1.21 0.13 0.19
03/13/88 1.03 0.16
03/14/88 0.88 0.11
03/15/88 0.85 0.13
03/16/88 0.95 0.10
03/17/88 1.01 0.07
03/20/88 0.90 0.06
03/21/88 1.15 0.10 0.19
03/22/88 1.10 0.11
03/23/88 1.35 0.08
03/24/88 1.29 0.10 0.20
03/27/88 0.97 0.07
03/28/88 1.67 0.11
03/29/88 1.22 0.05 0.20
03/30/88 1.10 0.07
03/31/88 1.35 0.06
03/88 Average 1.15 0.10
04/03/88 0.06
04/04/88 0.05
04/05/88 0.04 0.19
04/06/88 0.05 0.21
04/08/88 1.42 0.05
9la
04/10/88 1.11 0.04 0.23
04/11/88 1.27 0.05
04/12/88 1.42 0.11
04/13/88 5.72 0.16 0.19
04/14/88 4.00 0.16
04/17/88 1.31 0.05
04/18/88 1.03 0.03 0.26
04/19/88 1.11 0.04 0.19
04/20/88 1.03 0.05 0.21
04/21/88 1.93 0.07
04/24/88 1.33 0.06
04/25/88 1.15 0.06
04/26/88 0.92 0.08
(04/27/88 0.94 0.08 0.19
04/28/88 0.81 0.06 0.22
04/88 average 1.4] 0.07
05/01/88 0.81 0.05
05/02/88 0.74 0.06 0.19
05/03/88 0.76 0.06
05/04/88 0.85 0.07
05/05/88 0.99 0.05
05/08/88 1.31] 0.07
05/09/88 0.88 0.06
05/10/88 0.99 0.05 0.21
05/11/88 0.97 0.05
05/12/88 1.2] 0.08
05/15/88 0.92 0.05
05/16/88 1.01 0.07 0.22
05/17/88 1.39 0.07
05/18/88 1.31 0.08
05/19/88 1.23 0.07
05/22/88 1.23 0.05
05/23/88/ 1.03 0.05
05/24/88 0.92 0.03
05/25/88 1.07 0.04
92a
05/27/88 1.29 0.06
5/28/88 1.13 0.05
05/30/88 1.35 0.07
05/31/88 1.92 0.08
05/88 average 1.10 0.06
ORDER
Based upon the foregoing FINDINGS OF FACT and pur-
suant to Code of Alabama 1975, § 22-22A-5(10), 22-22-9(c),
22-22-9(g), 22-22-9(1), and 22-22-9(k) (1984 and 1987 Cum.
Supp.) and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination Sys-
tem administered by the Department and approved by the Ad-
ministrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
pursuant to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act § 402, 33
U.S.C. 1342, it is hereby ORDERED:
A. That not later than 60 days after receipt of notice of this
Order, the Permittee shall submit to the Department a pollution
abatement plan designed to bring the Permittee’s discharge into
compliance with the terms, limitations and conditions of
NPDES Permit Number AL0055239. Said plan shall be
prepared by a registered professional engineer licensed to prac-
tice in the State of Alabama and shall be prepared in accordance
with ADEM Admin. Code Chapter 6-3.
B. That not later than February 1, 1990 the Permittee shall
have achieved and shall continuously maintain compliance with
the terms, conditions and limitations of this Order.
C. That the failure of the Permittee to comply with any of
the provisions of this Order shall constitute cause for the ter-
mination of NPDES Permit Number AL0055239 and/or the
commencement of legal or other appropriate enforcement action
by the Department against the Permittee for the recovery of civil
penalties, criminal fines or other appropriate relief.
D. That the issuance of this Order does not preclude the
Department from seeking the recovery of civil penalties,
93a
criminal fines, or other appropriate relief against the Permittee
for the violations cited herein.
ORDERED and ISSUED this 19th day of August, 1988
/s/
Leigh Pegues, Director
4abama Department of
Environmental Management
1751 Cong. W.L. Dickinson Drive
Montgomery, Alabama 36130
(205) 271-7855
94a
APPENDIX Z
ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
February 20,1990
CERTIFIED MAIL (P 070 963 725)
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
K. W. Means
Gulf States Steel
174 South 26th Street
Gadsden, AL 35904
Dear Mr. Means:
Enclosed please find Administrative Order No. 90-074-WP
which requires Gulf States Steel to take certain actions regarding
the discharge of pollutants into waters of the State.
Please be advised that failure to comply with the terms of this
Onder can result in penalties of up to $25,000 pez day for each
violation as well as possible criminal penalties. Pursuant to
Code of Alabama 1975, §22-22A-7(c)(1) this Order may be
appealed by filing a request for hearing before the Environmen-
tal Management Commission within 15 days after receiving
notice of this Order. The request should be addressed to the
Chair of the Environmental Management Commission and
should comply with the requirernents of ADEM Admin. Code
R. 335-2-1-.04. Copies of ADEM Admin. Code, Division 2,
Environmental Management Commission regulations may be
obtained by submitting a request in writing along with a check
or money order for $1.25 for each copy requested. Written
requests should be sent to the attention of the Office of General
Counsel.
95a
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (2U5)
271-7977.
Yours very truly,
/s/
Olivia H. Jenkins
General Counsel
OH3J/daf
Enclosures
CC: Phil Davis, Water Division
Public Information Office
Doug Lankford, U.S. EPA, Region IV
96a
ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
IN THE MATTER OF
GULF STATES STEEL
GADSDEN, ALABAMA
NPDES PERMIT NUMBER AL0055239
ORDER NO. 90-074-WP
FINDINGS OF FACT
Pursuant to the provisions of the Alabama Environmental
Management Act, Ala. Code §§22-22-1 through 22-22A-16
(1984 and 1989 Cum. Supp.), the Alabama Water Pollution
Control Act, Ala. Code §§22-22-1 through 22-22-14 (1984 and
1989 Cum. Supp.), and the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System administered by the Alabama Department
of Environmental Management (hereinafter “the Department’)
and approved by the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency pursuant to the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act, §402, 33 U.S.C. §1342, the Department makes the
following FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. Gulf States Steel, Inc. (hereinafter “the Permittee’’)
operates an integrated steel] making facility located in Gadsden,
Alabama.
2. On December 4, 1987 the Department issued NPDES
Permit Number AL0055239 to the Permittee authorizing the
discharge of pollutants and other wastes from a point source
designated therein as DSN-001 to Black Creek, a water of the
state, subject to certain terms, limitations and conditions.
3. OnAugust 19, 1988 the Department issued administra-
tive Order No. 88-081-WP to the Permittee citing numerous
violations of NPDES Permit Number Al0055239.
97a
4. An error in Administrative Order No. 88-081-WP
required the Permittee to comply with “the terms, conditions and
limitations of this Order.”
5. The requirement should have been to comply with the
terms, conditions and limitations of NPDES Permit Number
AL0055239.
ORDER
Based upon the foregoing FINDINGS OF FACT and pur-
suant to Ala. Code §§22-22A-5(10), 22-22A-5(18), 22-22-
9(g), 22-22-9(i), and 22-22-9(k) (1984 and 1989 Cum. Supp.),
and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ad-
ministered by the Department and approved by the Ad-
ministrator of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
pursuant to the Federal Water Pollution Control Act §402, 33
U.S.C. 1342, it is hereby ORDERED:
A. That paragraph B of Administrative Order No. 88-
081-WP is hereby deleted in its entirety and the following
paragraph is substituted in its place:
That not later than March 1,1990 the Permittee shall have
achieved and shall continuously maintain, until the expiration
of said permit, compliance with NPDES Permit Number
AL0055239.
B. That the failure of the Permittee to comply with any
of the provisions of this Order shall constitute cause for the
termination of NPDES Permit Number AL0055239 and/or the
commencement of legal or other appropriate enforcement action
by the Department against the Permittee for the recovery of civil
penalties, criminal fines or other appropriate relief.
C. That the issuance of this Order does not preclude the
Department or others from seeking the recovery of civil penal-
ties, criminal fines, or other appropriate relief against the Per-
mittee for the violations cited herein.
98a
ORDERED and ISSUED this 21st day of February, 1990.
/s/
Leigh Pegues, Director
Alabama Department of
Environmental Management
1751 Cong. W.L. Dickinson Drive
Montgomery, Alabama 36130
(205) 271-7700
99a
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Olivia H. Jenkins, hereby certify that I have served Order
No. 90-074-WP, upon Gulf States Steel by sending the same
postage paid, through the U.S. Mail, as Certified Mail No. PO70
963 725, with instructions to forward and return receipt re-
quested to:
Mr. K. W. Means
Gulf Siates Steel
174 South 26th Street
Gadsden, Al 35904
Done this 21st day of February, 1990.
/s/
Olivia H. Jenkins
100a
APPENDIX AA
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR
ETOWAH COUNTY, ALABAMA
State of Alabama, ex rel
James N. Evans, Attorney General,
Plaintiff,
VS.
Gulf States Steel, Inc. of Alabama
Defendant.
- Civil Action No. W91-242-NWO
~ COMPLAINT
1. This action is brought by the State of Alabama on the
relation of James N. Evans, Attorney General, (‘Plaintiff’) to
enforce the provisions of the provisions of the Alabama Water
Pollution Control Act, and for declaratory judgment.
2. The Attorney General is authorized by Code of
Alabama 1975, §22-22A-5(2), §22-22-9(m), §22-22-9(n), §22-
22-9(0) and §22-22A-5(12) to enforce the provisions of the
Water Pollution Control Act found at Code of Alabama 1975,
§22-22-1 et seq. Additionally, the Attorney General, pursuant
to §22-22A-5(12), is the legal representative of the Alabama
Department of Environmental Management (“ADEM””) in all
legal actions.
3. Defendant, Gulf States Steel, Inc. of Alabama (herein
after Gulf States Steel), is a Delaware corporation qualified
under the laws of this State to do business in Etowah County,
Alabama.
4. Gulf States Steel operates an integrated steel making
facility in Gadsden, Alabama.
Wla
5. Defendant and its predecessor have had a history of
surface water violations for over 6 years. In addition, long
existing underground storage tanks on site and the presence of
benzene in a ditch on the site which leads to a water treatment
facility require an evaluation of Gulf States Steel site for ground
water Contamination.
COUNT I
6. Plaintiff realleges paragraphs | through 4 above.
7. Pursuant to Code of Alabama 1975, §22-22-9(g), the
Alabama Department of Environmental Management
(“ADEM”) issued permit No. AL0055239 to Gulf States Steel
authorizing the discharge of pollutants from outfall serial num-
ber D6WO001 to Black Creek, a water of the State, subject to
certain limitations, terms and conditions.
8. Among the limitations contained in that permit are
daily average and daily maximum limitations for oil and grease
(O & G), ammonia nitrogen (NH3-N), cyanide (CN), lead (Pb),
Zinc (ZN), Phenols (PNEW), total suspended solids (TSS) and
daily minimum limitations for dissolved oxygen (DO) and daily
maximum limitations for pH (PH). Those limitations are as
follows:
TSS DO O&G NH3-N CN
Daily
Minimum — 3.5 mg/l — -- —
Daily
mg/1 9mg/1 — 6.0 mg/l .67 mg/l .02mg/l
Average
Daily
Maximum 22.5mg/l — 15.0mg/l .67 mg/l .02 mg/l
102a
Pb ZN PNEN pH
Daily
Minimum — <— — 6.0 S. U.
Daly
Average 03 mg/l ——.18 mg/l .03 mg/l 9S.U.
Daily
Maximum 03 mg/l —.18 mg/l .065 mg/l NA
9. During the following months, Gulf States Steel com-
mitted the following number of violations by discharging pol-
lutants from the point source into Black Creek in violation of
the discharge limitations set out in NPDES Permit Number
AL00552239:
MONITORING
DAYS OF REPORT
MONTH VIOLATIONS PARAMTER VIOLATIONS
April 1969 22 DO ]
TSS 2
NH3N 21
CN 3
EN 8
May 1989 22 NH3N 22
CN l
ZN 8
June 1989 Zi DO 5
TSS l
NH3N 20
CN 3
ZN )
103a
MONITORING
DAYS OF REPORT
MONTH VIOLATIONS PARAMTER VIOLATIONS
July 1989 14 DO 3
NH3N 6
CN 4
ZN Q
August 1989 22 DO 17
NH3N 3
Fb ]
ZN 14
September 1989 13 NH3N 4
CN 4
ZN 10
October 1989 13 NH3N 3
CN 4
ZN 10
November 1989 13 CN 5
ZN iO
December 1989 =19 TSS 3
NH3N 10
CN 19
ZN 7
PHEN al
January 1990 22 NH3N 9
CN 19
ZN 1]
PHEN 3
February 1990 19 NH3N 6
104a
MONITORING
DAYS OF REPORT
MONTH VIOLATIONS PARAMTER VIOLATIONS
July 1990 14 NH3N 10
CN 3
ZN 3
PHEN 3
August 1990 16 NH3N 18
ZN 3
PHEN 2
September 1990 14 NH3N 6
CN 5
Fb 2
PHEN 2
10. Code of Alabama 1975, §22-22A-5(18)(b), (c)
provides as follows:
In addition to any other powers and functions
which may be conferred upon it by law, the depart-
ment is authorized beginning October 1982 to:
* * * *
(b) Commence a civil action in the circuit
court of the county in which the defendant or any
material defendant resides or does business or in
which the violation occurred to recover a civil
penalty from such person for any violation of any
provision of law identified in subdivision (1) of this
section, any rule, regulation or standard promul-
gated by the department, any provision of any order
or any condition of any permit, license, certification
or variance issued by the department, provided
however, that no such civil action may be com-
menced against a person if an order assessing a
105a
civil penalty for such violation has been issued to
such person under paragraph a, of this subdivision.
Whenever such person is a corporation and the
violation is of a provision of law in chapter 22 of
this title, or any rule, regulation or standard promul-
gated by the department thereunder, or any
provision of any order or any condition of any
permit, license, certification or variance issued by
the department thereunder, the same civil penalties
that may be imposed upon the responsible cor-
porate officers in a civil action. Any person having
an interest which is or may be adversely affected
may intervene as a matter of right in any civil action
commenced under this paragraph. The attorney
general may also commence a civil action under
this paragraph.
(c) Any civil penalty assessed or recovered
under paragraph a. or b. of this subdivision shall not
be less than $100.00 or exceed $25,000.00 for each
violation, provided however, that the total penalty
assessed in an order issued by the department under
paragraph a. of this subdivision shall not exceed
25,000.00. Each day such violation continues shall
constitute a separate violation for purposes of this
subdivision. In determining the amount of any
penalty, consideration shall be given to the serious-
ness of the violation, including any irreparable
harm to the environment and any threat to the health
or safety of the public; the standard of care
manifested by such person; the economic benefit
which delayed compliance may confer upon such
person; the nature, extent and degree of success of
such person’s efforts to minimize or mitigate the
effects of such violation upon the environment;
such person’s history of previous violations; and
106a
the ability of such person to pay such penalty. Civil
penalties may be assessed under this subdivision
for any violation occurring within two years prior
to the date of issuance of any order under paragraph
a. of this subdivision or commencement of such
civil action under paragraph b. of this sub-
division...
Wherefore, Plaintiff requests that the Court:
A. Take jurisdiction of this matter.
B. Declare that Gulf States Steel violated the terms and
conditions of the permit issued by ADEM.
C. Assess a civil penalty against Gulf States Steel and in
favor of the plaintiff pursuant to §22-22A-5(18) (b) and (c) for
each and every day of violation of its NPDES permit.
D. Order defendant to take such corrective action as may
be required to insure that surface and ground water meet neces-
sary state and federal legal and regulatory discharge require-
ments.
E. Grant such other relief as may be appropriate.
F. Tax the costs of this action against the defendants.
RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED
JAMES H. EVANS
ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY:
/s/
R. CRAIG KNEISEL
Assistant Attorney General
107a
/s/
WILLIAM D. LITTLE
Assistant Attorney General
ADDRESS OF COUNSEL:
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
ALABAMA STATE HOUSE
11 SOUTH UNION STREET
MONTGOMERY, ALABAMA 36130
(205) 242-7406
108a
APPENDIX BB
Alabama Department of
avirunbernta! Management
May 30, 1991
CERTIFIED MAIL (P 831 862 203)
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
H. Thomas Wells
Maynard, Cooper, Frierson & Gale
1901 Sixth Avenue North
AmSouth/Harbert Plaza, Suite 2400
Birmingham, AL 35203-2602
Dear Tommy:
Enclosed please find Administrative Order No. 91-115-WP
which requires Gulf States Steel to take certain actions regarding
the discharge of pollutants into waters of the State.
Please be advised that failure to comply with the terms of this
Order can result in penalties of up to $25,000 a day for each
violation as well as possible criminal penalties. Pursuant to Code
of Alabama 1975, § 22-22A-7(c)(1) this Order may be appealed
by filing a request for hearing before the Environmental
Management Commission within 15 days after receiving notice
of this Order. The request should be addressed to the Chair of
the Environmental Management Commission and should com-
ply with the requirements of ADEM Admin. Code R. 335-2-1-
.04. Copies of ADEM Admin. Code, Division 2, Environmental
Management Commission regulations may be obtained by sub-
mitting a request in writing along with a check or money order
for $2.00 for each copy requested. Written requests should be
sent to the attention of the Office of General Counsel.
109a
If you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at (205)
271-7977.
Yours very truly,
/s/
Olivia H. Jenkins
General Counsel
OHJ:df/37
Enclosures
CC: Phil Davis, Water Division
Public Affaus Office
Doug Lankford, U.S. EPA, Region IV
Marilyn Elliott, Permits & Services
110a
ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
IN THE MATTER OF
GULF STATES STEEL
GADSDEN, ALABAMA
NPDES PERMIT NUMBER AL0055239
ORDER NO. 91-115-WP
FINDINGS
Pursuant to the provisions of the Alabama Environmental
Management Act, Ala. Code (1975), §§ 22-22A-1 through
22-22A-16 (1990 Rple. Vol.), the Alabama Water Pollution
Control Act, Ala. Code (1975), §§ 22-22-1 through 22-22-14
(1990 Rplc. Vol.), and the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination Systern administered by the Alabama Department
of Environmental Management (hereinafter “the Department’)
and approved by the Administrator of the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency pursuant to the Federal Water Pollution
Control Act § 402, 33 U.S.C. § 1342, the Department makes the
following FINDINGS OF FACT:
1. Gulf States Steel, Inc. (hereinafter “the Permittee’)
operates an integrated stee] making facility located in Gadsden,
Alabama.
2. On December 4, 1987 the Department issued NPDES
Permit Number ALOO55239 to the Permittee authorizing the
discharge of pollutants and other wastes from a point source
designated therein as DSN-00i to Black Creek, a water of the
state, subject to certain terms, limitations and conditions.
3. Among the terms, limitations and conditions of
NPDES Permit Number AL0055239 are daily maximum and
monthly average discharge limitations for ammonia as nitrogen
llla
(NH3-N), cyanide (CN,T), lead (Pb,T), total zinc (Zn,T) and
phenols (PHEN). Said limitations are as follows:
PARAMETER NH3-N CN,T Pb,T Zn,T PHEN
(mg/1) (mg/1) (mg/l) (mg/I) (mg/1)
Daily Maximum 0.67 0.02 0.03 0.18 0.085
Daily Average 0.67 0.02 0.03 0.18 0.03
4. On February 21, 1990 the Department issued Ad-
ministrative Order Number 90-074-WF to the Permittee citing
violations of said permit discharge limitations amd requiring it
to achieve compliance with the terms, limitations and conditions
of NPDES Permit Number AL0055239 no later than March 1,
1990.
5. On October 24, 1990 the Department issued Ad-
ministrative Order No. 91-001-WP to the Permittee again citing
violations of said permit discharge limitations and requiring it
to achieve compliance with the terms, limitations and conditions
of NPDES Permit Number AL0055239 no later than December
1, 1990.
6. The Permittee has violated the terms, limitations and
conditions of NPDES Permit Number AL0055239 as follows:
DATE NH-3N CN,T Pb,T Zn,T PHEN
(mg/1) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/1) (mg/1)
12/2/90 0.74 0.03
12/3/90 0.8 0.07
12/7/90 0.99 0.42
12/9/90 1.51 0.04
12/10/90 1.44 0.03
12/11/90 0.96
12/14/90 1.58 0.06
12/16/90 1.35 0.05
12/17/90 1.72 0.05
12/18/90 0.99
12/19/90 1.07
112a
DATE NH-3N CNT Pb,t Zn,T PHEN
(mg/1) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/1) (mg/1)
12/24/90 0.04 0.18
12/26/90 1.05
12/27/90 0.03
12/28/90 1.03 0.08 0.23
12/90 Avg. 0.92 0.03 0.05
1/2/91 0.71 0.03
1/3/91 215 0.04
1/4/91 0.58 0.03
1/6/91 1.62
1/7/91 0.78
1/8/91 3.16
1/9/91 2.21 0.21
1/11/91 0.07
1/13/91 0.76 0.05
1/14/91 0.04
1/15/91 0.06
1/16/91 0.05
1/19/91 0.36
1/20/91 0.03 0.2
1/21/91 0.06
1/22/91 0.03
1/23/91 0.04 0.24
1/28/91 0.11
1/30/91 0.04 0.23
1/91 Avg. 0.83 0.03 0.05
2/5/91 1.48
2/6/91 0.81 0.03
2/8/91 0.05
2/11/91 0.05
2/12/91 0.03
2/13/91 0.06
2/15/91 0.03
2/17/91 0.12
113a
DATE NH-3N CN,T Pb,T Zn,T PHEN
(mg/l) (mg/1) (mg/l) (mg/l) (mg/1)
2/18/91 0.73 0.06 0.1
2/19/91 0.04 1.23
2/20/91 0.28
2/24/91 0.04
2/25/91 0.05
2/26/91 0.69 0.04
2/27/91 0.03
2/91 Avg. 0.03 0.04
7. Qn November 30, 1990 the Permittee notified the
Department that it would not meet the December 1, 1990
compliance date contained in Administrative Order No. 91-00-
WP and requested an extension of the December 1, 1990 com-
pliance date to December 31, 1990. As grounds for said request,
the Permittee stated that equipment designed to modify the pH
adjustment in the second reaction basin had been placed into
-service on October 25, 1990, but before any results could be
obtained, a pump had developed a leak, leading to “virtual
destruction” of the pump. The Permittee informed the Depart-
ment that the pump had been removed and rebuilt but had just
become available for use, and insufficient time remained to
evaluate the efficacy of the modification. The Permittee re-
quested that the delay be considered a force majeure event.
8. On December 5, 1990 the Department responded to the
Permittee and denied the request for an exiension of the com-
pliance date.
9. The steps taken by the Permittee to minimize or
mitigate the effects of these violations upon the environment
have not resulted in compliance with the terms, limitations and
conditions of the permit.
10. The permit limitations are based upon water quality
standards, and violation of said limitations may result in viola-
ll4a
tions of said limitations may result in violation of water quality
standards.
11. The Permittee has the ability to pay a civil penalty.
ORDER
Based upon the foregoing Findings and pursuant to Ala.
Code (1975), §§ 22-22A-5(10), 22-22A-5(18), 22-22-9(g), 22-
22-9(i), and 22-22-9(k) (1990 Rplc. Vol.), and the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System administered by the
Department and approved by the Administrator of the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency pursuant to the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act § 402, 33 U.S.C. § 1342, it is hereby
Ordered:
A. That not later than November 1, 1991, the Permittee
Shall achieve compliance with NPDES Permit Number
AL0055239 and shall continuously maintain said compliance
each and every day thereafter until the expiration date of said
permit.
B. That not later than 30 days after receipt of notice of this
Order the Permittee shall pay to the Department a civil penalty
in the amount of Eighty-one Thousand Dollars ($81,000).
C. That the failure of the Permittee to comply with any of
this Order shall constitute cause for the termination of NPDES
Permit Number AL0055239 and/or the commencement of legal
or other appropriate enforcement action by the Department
against the Permittee for the recovery of civil penalties, criminal
fines or other appropriate relief.
D. That the issuance of this Order does not preclude the
Department from seeking the recovery of criminal fines or other
appropriate relief against the Permittee for the violations cited
herein.
ORDERED and ISSUED this 30th day of May, 1991.
11Sa
/s/
Leigh Pegues, Director
Alabama Department of
Environmental Management
1751 Cong. W. L. Dickinson Dr.
Montgomery, Alabama 36130
(205) 271-7700
ll6a
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Olivia H. Jenkins, hereby certify that I have served Order
No. 91-115-WP upon Gulf States Steel by sending the same,
postage paid, through the U.S. Mail, as Certified Mail No. P 831
862 203, with instructions to forward and return receipt re-
quested to:
H. Thomas Wells
Maynard, Cooper, Frierson & Gale
1901 Sixth Avenue North
AmSouth/Harbert Plaza, Suite 2400
Birmingham, AL 35203-2602
Done this 30th day of May, 1991.
/s/
Olivia H. Jenkins
117a
APPENDIX CC
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
ETOWAH COUNTY, ALABAMA
ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF
ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT
Plaintiff
Vv.
GSSI, INC. d/b/a
GULF STATES STEEL, INC.
a wholly owned subsidiary
of the Brenlin Corporation
Defendant
CIVIL ACTION NO. CV 88-856-JSS
CONSENT ORDER
The parties to this Consent Order are the Plaintiff, Alabama
Department of Environmental Management (hereinafter “the
Department’’), and the Defendant GSSI, Inc., doing business as
Gulf States Steel, Inc. (hereinafter “Gulf States”), an Alabama
corporation and a wholly owned subsidiary of the Brenlin
Corporation.
This Consent Order shall apply to the claims of the Depart-
ment against Gulf States for any of the acts complained of by
the Department in its Complaint.
Gulf States has denied the allegations presented in the
Department’s Complaint. Nevertheless, Gulf States has agreed
to the terms of this Consent Order in order to satisfy any liability
relating to the acts complained of by the Department in its
Complaint and to avoid the expense, inconvenience, and distrac-
tion of protracted litigation.
118a
The Department has agreed to the terms of this Consent
Order in order to terminate the controversy with Gulf States
regarding the allegations in its Complaint and the Department
has determined that the terms contemplated in this Consent
Order are in the best interests of the citizens of Alabama.
Therefore, the parties having filed a joint motion for Entry
of a Consent Order and good cause appearing, it is hereby
ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED:
ARTICLE ONE
That with regard to emissions from Coke Batteries No. 2
and No. 3, Gulf States Steel is ordered to accomplish the
following modifications:
1. Gulf States Steel will replace the fuel gas preheater and
install a filtering system for combustion air in accordance with
the following schedule:
A. Install fuel gas preheater on No. 3 coke battery by
July 30, 1988.
B. Install fuel gas preheater on No. 2 coke battery by
November 30, 1988.
C. Install filtering system for combustion air on No.
3 coke battery by December 31, 1988.
2. Gulf States Steel will make end flue repairs and
through wall repairs on the No. 2 coke battery in accordance
with the following schedule.
A. Complete coke side end flue repairs by December
31, 1988.
B. Complete push side end flue repairs by March 31,
1989.
C. Complete through wall repairs on four ovens by
June 1, 1989.
119a
3. Gulf States Steel will address door emissions in ac-
cordance with the following schedule:
A. (1) Complete design engineering for Saturn doors
by August 31, 1988.
(2) Modify 8 Saturn doors for No. 3 coke battery
by September 30, 1988.
(3) Complete instailation of 8 Saturn doors on
No. 3 battery by October 28, 1988.
(4) Submit to the Department by December 30,
1988 an interim evaluation report on the Saturn doors installed
on the No. 3 coke battery.
B. (1) Mectify 2? adeitional Saturn doors for instal-
iation on No. 2 and No. 3 coke batteries by December 15, 1988.
(2} Complete installation of 1G doors on No. 2
battery and an additional 12 doors on No. 3 battery by December
30, 1988.
C. (1) By April 27, 1989, complete an evaluation of
the Saturn doors and submit to the Department a plan and
schedule to achieve replacement of all doors on No. 2 coke
battery or an alternate method for achieving and maintaining
compliance with applicable method for achieving and maintain-
ing compliance with applicable regulations regarding doors.
This alternative plan and schedule shall have a final compliance
date no later than April 30, 1990.
(2) By April 27, 1989, complete an evaluation of
the Saturn doors and submit to the Department a plan and
schedule to achieve replacement of all doors on No. 3 coke
battery or an alternative method for achieving and maintaining
compliance with applicable regulations regarding doors which
plan and schedule shall have a final compliance date no later
than April 30, 1990.
120a
4. A. Gulf States Steel will achieve compliance with
Section 4.9.4(a) of the Alabama Air Pollution Control Rules and
Regulations relating to pushing on the No. 2 battery by July 1,
1989, and shall continuously maintain c
This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.
This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.