[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 192 (Thursday, October 3, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 62054-62056]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-25157]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[FRL-7389-9; CWA-HQ-2001-6013; CAA-HQ-2001-6013; RCRA-HQ-2001-6013]


Clean Water Act Class II: Proposed Administrative Settlement, 
Penalty Assessment and Opportunity To Comment Regarding IPSCO Steel, 
Inc.

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Notice.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: EPA has entered into a consent agreement with IPSCO Steel, 
Inc. (``IPSCO'' or ``Respondent'') to resolve violations of the Clean 
Water Act (``CWA''), Clean Air Act (``CAA''), and Resource Conservation 
and Recovery Act (``RCRA'') and their implementing regulations.
    The Administrator is hereby providing public notice of this consent 
agreement and proposed final order, and providing an opportunity for 
interested persons to comment on the CWA portions of this consent 
agreement, in accordance with CWA section 311(b)(6)(C), 33 U.S.C. 
1321(b)(6)(C).
    Respondent's Spill Prevention Control and Countermeasure (``SPCC'') 
plan was inadequate. Although required controls were in place, the plan 
did not include all of the guidelines codified at 40 CFR 112.7. EPA, as 
authorized by CWA section 311(b)(6), 33 U.S.C. 1321(b)(6), has assessed 
a civil penalty for these violations.
    Respondent failed to meet the CAA New Source Performance Standard 
(``NSPS'') requirements for Electric Arc Furnaces (``EAFs'') pursuant 
to 40 CFR part 60, subpart AAa in violation of CAA section 111, 42 
U.S.C. 4411. Additionally, Respondent failed to meet certain conditions 
listed in two of its Prevention of Significant Deterioration (``PSD'') 
Permits in violation of CAA section 110, 42 U.S.C. 7410, and Iowa's 
state implementation plan (``SIP''). EPA, as authorized by CAA section 
113(d)(1), 42 U.S.C. 7413(d)(1), has assessed a civil penalty for these 
violations.
    Respondent failed to properly label and date hazardous waste 
containers in accordance with 40 CFR 262.34(a)(2)

[[Page 62055]]

and (a)(3). The facility's RCRA contingency plan was inadequate when it 
failed to describe the precise location of emergency equipment in 
accordance with 40 CFR 265.52(e), referenced in 40 CFR 262.34(a). 
Respondent's training records were deficient, pursuant to 40 CFR 
265.16, as referenced in 40 CFR 262.34(a). Respondent failed to have 
universal waste training as required by 40 CFR 273.16. Respondent 
failed to label drums with the words ``used oil'' in accordance with 40 
CFR 279.22. EPA, as authorized by RCRA section 9008a, 42 U.S.C. 6928a, 
has assessed a civil penalty for these violations.

DATES: Comments are due on or before November 4, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Mail written comments to the Docket Office, Enforcement & 
Compliance Docket and Information Center (2201T), Docket Number EC-
2002-022, Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, U.S. 
Environmental Protection Agency, EPA West Building, 1200 Pennsylvania 
Avenue, NW., Room B133, Washington, DC 20460. (Comments may be 
submitted on disk in WordPerfect 9.0 or earlier versions.) Written 
comments may be delivered in person to: Enforcement and Compliance 
Docket Information Center, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA 
West Building, Room B133, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, 
DC. Submit comments electronically to [email protected]. Electronic 
comments may be filed online at many Federal Depository Libraries.
    The consent agreement, the proposed final order, and public 
comments, if any, may be reviewed at the Enforcement and Compliance 
Docket Information Center, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Rm. 
B133, EPA West Bldg., 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Washington, DC. 
Persons interested in reviewing these materials must make arrangements 
in advance by calling the docket clerk at (202) 566-1512 or (202) 566-
1513. A reasonable fee may be charged by EPA for copying docket 
materials.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Philip Milton, Multimedia Enforcement 
Division (2248-A), U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460; telephone (202) 564-
5029; fax: (202) 564-0010; e-mail: [email protected].

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Electronic Copies: Electronic copies of this 
document are available from the EPA Home Page under the link ``Laws and 
Regulations'' at the Federal Register--Environmental Documents entry 
(http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr).

I. Background

    IPSCO Steel, Inc., a steel manufacturer located in Muscatine, Iowa 
and incorporated in the State of Delaware, disclosed, pursuant to the 
EPA ``Incentives for Self-Policing: Discovery, Disclosure, Correction 
and Prevention of Violations' (``Audit Policy''), 65 FR 19618 (April 
11, 2000), that its SPCC plan failed to include a reference to each of 
the guidelines found in 40 CFR 112.7, in violation of the CWA section 
311(b)(3). Respondent disclosed that it had failed to record furnace 
pressure, fan amps, and damper positions on a ``once-per-shift'' basis. 
The NSPS for EAFs, 40 CFR part 60, subpart AAa, requires that furnace 
pressure, fan amps, and damper positions be checked and recorded on a 
``once-per-shift'' basis. The failure to record these readings during 
separate shifts is a violation of 40 CFR 60.274a(b) and CAA section 
111, 42 U.S.C. 7411. Respondent disclosed that it failed to maintain a 
logbook resulting in violations of requirements in its PSD permit no. 
94-A-561-S1 to (1) maintain records of startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction of its two coiling reheat furnaces; (2) monitor the inlet 
combustion air temperature and furnace combustion chamber temperature 
and record any times that the temperature exceeds 2100[deg]F; and (3) 
monitor percent of excess air supplied to the burners and record times 
when excess air exceeds 10 percent. Respondent disclosed that it failed 
to use ``emulsion'' for dust suppression on the slag-haul road in 
violation of its PSD permit no. 94-A-555-S1. IPSCO's outside 
contractor, Heckett Multiserve, used water rather than emulsion. 
Respondent disclosed that three rolloff boxes containing hazardous 
waste K061 and a 55-gallon drum of spent ethyl acetate were not 
properly labeled. IPSCO did not properly label rolloff boxes and drum 
with the words ``Hazardous Wastes'' and the date accumulation 
commenced, as required by 40 CFR 262.34(a). IPSCO disclosed that its 
RCRA contingency plan did not identify specifically the location of 
emergency response and communication equipment in the areas surrounding 
the emission control baghouse and other areas where hazardous materials 
are managed, as required by 40 CFR 262.34(a), which incorporates by 
reference 40 CFR 265.52(e). Respondent disclosed that its RCRA training 
records were deficient. The records did not include a written job title 
and description for each position that involves hazardous wastes and 
the names of those filling each position. Although this information is 
available at the plant, 40 CFR 262.34, which incorporates by reference 
40 CFR 265.16, requires that this information be maintained in one 
location. Respondent disclosed that its universal waste training 
program was deficient. IPSCO did not incorporate universal waste 
training into its RCRA training, which it provides to all employees, as 
required by 40 CFR 273.16. Finally, Respondent disclosed that three 
drums of used oil were not properly labeled. IPSCO did not have ``used 
oil'' labels on three drums containing used oil as required by 40 CFR 
279.22.
    EPA determined that Respondent met the criteria set out in the 
Audit Policy for a 100% waiver of the gravity component of the penalty 
for the CWA violation and certain CAA and RCRA violations. However, 
Respondent failed to satisfy some of the conditions set forth in the 
Audit Policy for certain CAA and RCRA violations and was assessed an 
appropriate and fair civil penalty ($16,790) to settle those 
violations. As a result, for those violations meeting the audit policy, 
EPA waived the gravity based penalty ($186,989) and proposed a 
settlement penalty amount of two thousand, nine hundred and fifty-three 
dollars ($2,953). Of this amount, $2,809 is attributable to the CAA 
violations; $77 is attributable to the RCRA violations; and $67 is 
attributable to the CWA violation. This is the amount of the economic 
benefit gained by Respondent, attributable to its delayed compliance 
with the CWA, RCRA, and CAA regulations. The total civil penalty 
assessed for settlement purposes is nineteen thousand seven hundred and 
forty-three dollars ($19,743). Respondent has agreed to pay this 
amount. EPA and Respondent negotiated and reached an administrative 
consent agreement, following the Consolidated Rules of Practice, 40 CFR 
22.13(b), on September 26, 2002 (In Re: IPSCO Steel, Inc. Docket Nos. 
CWA-HQ-2001-6013, CAA-HQ-2001-6013, RCRA-HQ-2001-6013). This consent 
agreement is subject to public notice and comment under CWA section 
311(b)(6), 33 U.S.C. 1321(b)(6).
    Under CWA section 311(b)(6)(A), 33 U.S.C. 1321(b)(6)(A), any owner, 
operator, or person in charge of a vessel, onshore facility, or 
offshore facility from which oil is discharged in violation of the CWA 
section 311(b)(3), 33 U.S.C. 1321(b)(3), or who fails or refuses to 
comply with any regulations that have been issued under CWA section 
311(j), 33 U.S.C. 1321(j), may be assessed a Class II civil penalty of 
up to $137,500 by EPA. Class II proceedings under CWA section 311(b)(6) 
are conducted in accordance with 40 CFR part 22.

[[Page 62056]]

    The procedures by which the public may comment on a proposed Class 
II penalty order, or participate in a Clean Water Act Class II penalty 
proceeding, are set forth in 40 CFR 22.45. The deadline for submitting 
public comment on this proposed final order is November 4, 2002. All 
comments will be transferred to the Environmental Appeals Board 
(``EAB'') of EPA for consideration. The powers and duties of the EAB 
are outlined in 40 CFR 22.4(a).
    Pursuant to CWA section 311(b)(6)(C), EPA will not issue an order 
in this proceeding prior to the close of the public comment period.

    Dated: September 26, 2002.
Rosemarie A. Kelley,
Acting Director, Multimedia Enforcement Division, Office of Enforcement 
and Compliance Assurance.
[FR Doc. 02-25157 Filed 10-2-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P