EPA v. REPUBLIC STEEL, INC. (F/K/A REPUBLIC ENGINEERED PRODUCTS, INC.)

Case summary

Republic Steel violated the Clean Air Act, the Title V permit requirements, and the Standards of Performance for Steel Plants: Electric Arc Furnaces and Argon-Oxygen Decarburization Vessels Constructed After August 17, 1983 (?NSPS AAa?), 40 C.F.R. ? 60.270a et seq., at its Canton, Ohio facility. Specifically, Republic violated the emission limit for lead from the baghouse controlling emissions from the facility's two electric arc furnaces during a stack test conducted from August 5 to 8, 2008. In addition, Republic violated the 3% opacity limit on three days in 2009 and 2010 and the pressure drop requirements across two of the baghouses at the Facility on 12 days from 2008 to 2010. Republic also failed to check and record pressure drop across the baghouse, visible fugitive particulate emissions, and furnace pressure on several occasions from 2008 through 2010. On November 10, 2010, EPA and Republic met to discuss the August 27, 2010, FOV. During the meeting, Republic representatives stated that the August 2008 stack test failure was an anomaly. Republic performed a stack test in November 2008 that shows compliance with its Title V permit emission limit for lead. During the meeting, EPA requested Republic to show that the lead emission limit violation of August 2008 was in fact an anomaly and not a reoccurring event. Subsequently, EPA issued a Section 114 information request requiring Republic to conduct a stack test. In June 2011, Republic conducted the stack test. Results show compliance with the emission limit for lead in the Title V permit. In January 2012, EPA issued another Section 114 information request asking Republic to provide, among other things, a detailed explanation of the factors responsible for the differences in lead emission rates measured during the August 2008, November 2008 and July 2011 stack tests. In March 2012, Republic responded to EPA?s information request. In its response, Republic stated that there were no significant differences in the operation of the two EAFs or the baghouses during the stack tests. Republic stated that a potential factor influencing the lead levels in the emissions is the type of scrap charged to the furnace during the emission tests. However, Republic claims that there is no correlation between scrap lead content of the charge and the lead emissions measured during the stack tests. On May 14, 2012, EPA and Republic held a conference call to discuss Republic?s response to EPA?s information request including, but not limited to, Republic?s Scrap Management Plan (SMP). During the call, EPA suggested some improvements to SMP. In June 2012, Republic submitted a revised SMP in which it added text regarding scrap specifications and its scrap inspection procedures. EPA reviewed the revised SMP and determined that it is better than the initial SMP submitted by Republic in response to EPA?s information request and addresses EPA?s concerns related to the lead emissions. The estimated cost of these changes is about $10,000. EPA and Republic engaged in several months of discussions over the possibility of Republic implementing a comprehensive lead emissions related supplemental environmental project in Canton, Ohio. As requested by Republic, EPA provided assistance to the company by gathering information on potential lead related projects and non-profit organizations that would undertake such projects. Republic ultimately decided to pay the agreed upon civil penalty in the amount of $259,000.

Defendants (1)

• REPUBLIC STEEL, INC.Named in complaintNamed in settlement

Facilities (1)

• REPUBLIC STEEL

  2633 EIGHTH STREET NE, CANTON, OH, 447042311

  Registry ID: 110012566927

Statutes cited

• CAA 502 — Operating Permits (Title V)
• CAA 111 — New Source Performance Standards

Enforcement conclusions (1)

• REPUBLIC STEEL, INC. (F/K/A REPUBLIC ENGINEERED PRODUCTS, INC.)entered 2014-02-28

  Primary law: CAA

  Federal penalty: $259,000

Timeline (4 milestones)

• 2014-02-28Final Order Issued
• 2014-02-28Complaint Filed/Proposed Order
• 2014-03-03Enforcement Action Data Entered
• 2014-04-03Air Resolved