EPA 9(W9 78-315
FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
United States Steel Corporation
Number 8 Blast Furnace
Fairfield, Alabama
UNITED STATES
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV
345 Courtland Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30308

-------
r	C
At PHOlt
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV
345 COURTLAND STREET
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 3030S
July 31, 1978
TO: ALL INTERESTED GOVERNMENTAL AGENCIES, PUBLIC GROUPS,
AND CONCERNED INDIVIDUALS
The enclosed final environmental impact statement (EIS) for the United
States Steel Corporation number eight blast furnace is hereby submitted
for your review and comment. This document has been prepared pursuant
to Section 102(2)(c) of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA).
Public Law 91-190.
The United States Steel Corporation has applied for an NPDES Permit to
discharge wastewater from the number eight blast furnace which is under
construction at their Fairfield Works. They have applied for their other
necessary state parmits and approvals.
The final environmental impact statement may be reviewed at the EPA Region
IV office and also at the public libraries listed below:
Birmingham Main Library, 2020 7th Avenue North, Birmingham
Avondale Branch, 509 40th Street, Birmingham
East Ensley Branch, 900 14th Street, Ensley
East Lake Branch, 5 South 77th Street, Birmingham
Ensley Branch, 1201 25th Street, Ensley
Georgia Road Branch, 501 43rd Street, Birmingham
Huffman Branch, 501 Huffman Road, Birmingham
North Birmingham Branch, 3200 27th Street North, Birmingham
Parke Memorial Branch, 1814 11th Avenue South, Birmingham
Pratt City Branch, 820 2nd Street, Pratt City
Slossfield Branch, 1916 25th Court North, Birmingham
Smithfield Branch, 18th Avenue West, Birmingham
Southside Branch, 26th Avenue Southwest, Birmingham
West End Branch, 1241 Tuscaloosa Avenue Southwest, Birmingham
Woodlawn Branch, 5709 1st Avenue North, Birmingham
Wylara Branch, 4300 7th Avenue, Birmingham
The 30-day period required for a public review of the final EIS before
administrative action can be taken begins on the date that the EIS was
made available to EPA, Office of Federal Activities, (July 26, 1978>.
Please bring this notice to the attention of all persons who would be
interested in this matter.
Enclosure

-------
EPA 904/9-78-015
NPDES Application Number:
AL0003646
FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
for
Proposed Issuance of a New Source National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Permit
to
United States Steel Corporation
Number 8 Blast Furnace
Fairfield, Alabama
prepared by
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
Atlanta, Georgia 30308
Approved:
Library Region IV
OS Smw-oasunte! J
343 CsEiS'kad Street
ALi&sta, 
-------
Summary Sheet For Environmental
Impact Statement
Number Eight Blast Furnace
United States Steel Corporation
( ) Draft
(X) Final
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV
345 Courtland Street N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30308
1.	Type of Action: Administrative (X) Legislative ( )
2.	Description of Action: The U. S. Steel Corporation is proposing to
modernize their facilities at the Fairfield, Alabama plant by addition
of the new (No. 8) blast furnace and auxiliaries. Accompanying this
action is the installation of a third Q-BOP (variant of the Basic Oxygen
Process) furnace, a 57-oven coke battery, 4 additional soaking pits, and
the idling of 4 old coke batteries.
These changes at the Fairfield plant will continue existing coking
capability and replace existing blast furnace operations at the U. S.
Steel Ensley plant. This will also restore the steelmaking capability
which was lost by shutting down the uncontrolled open hearth furnaces
at the Ensley plant. Moreover, successful operation of the new Fair-
field blast furnace will permit the phase-out of three Ensley blast
furnaces.
Blast Furnace No. 8 will be located immediately north of existing blast
furnace No. 7 at Fairfield operations. Fairfield Works is an integrated
steelmaking facility located within Opossum Valley and southwest of the
City of Fairfield, Alabama. Fairfield operations cover approximately
5,000 acres. The blast furnace complex area plan will occupy 13.15 acres.
i
-------
Blast Furnace No. 8 will be characteristic of the larger capacity, higher
top pressure facilities being constructed by the industry during this
decade. The use of beneficiated charge has increased output as well as
assisted control of the process from environmental considerations. The
three products of operation--molten iron, slag, and blast furnace gas-
are all of value and will be utilized.
Once in operation, the new blast furnace will require a different charge
than the older operating units. The new furnace will receive coke, iron
ore pellets, sinter and flux. The iron produced by this unit is estimated
to be approximately 1,825,000 tons per year, following break-in.
The existing capacity of the Fairfield-Ensley steel-producing complex is
3.5 million ingot tons per year. Implementation of the proposed action
would maintain this production capacity.
3. Summary of Environmental Impacts and Adverse Environmental Effects.
(A) Construction
The proposed new No. 8 blast furnace will be constructed on the Fairfield
complex immediately north of facilities for blast furnaces No. 5, 6 and 7,
which run south to north. Construction impacts are limited to excavating
for foundations and earthmoving over approximately 13.15 acres prior to
fabrication of the blast furnace. Sedimentation and siltation, due to
construction runoff, have been controlled during heavy rains. These
impacts have been mitigated by using proper construction practices and by
directing all surface runoff through the U. S. Steel Corporation final
retention pond for removal of suspended particulates. With construction
limited to the existing facility, no impacts to wildlife or vegetation
will occur. No archeological or historical sites recorded for the State
of Alabama are located on the site of the proposed project.
ii
-------
The new blast furnace will take a minimum of 29 months to construct with
a possible manpower peaking period around the twentieth month. Estimated
peaking daily manpower requirement will be approximately 1,200 men during
construction. The Birmingham SMSA will provide the major percentage of
this work force except for certain specialty subcontractors.
(B) Operation
Operation of the proposed No. 8 blast furnace at the Fairfield Works will
increase discharges approximately 1 mgd to Valley Creek through Opossum
Creek. The proposed action will result in increases of 1.3 lb per day
of cyanide, 2.6 lb per day of phenols, 52 lb per day of ammonia and
130 lb per day of total suspended solids loadings to Valley Creek.
Following the break-in period for the new blast furnace, the three remain-
ing blast furnaces at the Ensley Works will be shut down. The proposed
action will significantly reduce U. S. Steel Corporation discharges of
13.0 lb per day of cyanides, 1.8 lb per day of phenols, 103 lb per day
of NHj-N and 1,668 lb per day of total suspended solids to Village Creek.
A reduction of pollutants from improved municipal treatment facilities,
together with reduced loadings from the U. S. Steel facilities, may result
in some improvement to the backwaters of Bayview Lake.
Overall impacts on water quality will be a net reduction of 8.9 MGD of
wastewater, 1,538 lb per day of total suspended solids, 51 lb per day of
NH3-N, 11.7 lb per day of cyanides and a net increase of 0.8 lb per day
of phenols, discharged to the tributaries of Bankhead Reservoir.
Air emissions from the U. S. Steel Complex will improve over pre-1977
operations. The modernization program, which includes the new No. 8
blast furnace, is the result of a plan to phase out antiquated equipment
having high emission rates. The modern replacement facilities will uti-
lize the latest production technology and improved abatement technology
iii
-------
which is expected to result in a decrease of emission rates when consid-
ering the entire U. S. Steel Complex in the Birmingham area. Even though
there will be a reduction in emissions, modeling indicates the air quality
standards for particulates will be violated. However, there are inade-
quacies in the computer model employed as a predictive tool in the air
quality investigation. These inadequacies preclude complete acceptance
of the modeling results as far as the magnitudes of the predicted concen-
trations are concerned. An improvement in air quality from the standpoint
of total suspended particulates, will result due to the substantially
reduced emissions accompanying the modernization program.
Impacts to the biology of the receiving stream are difficult to ascertain
since only pollution tolerant organisms have been observed in Opossum
Creek and the upper reaches of Valley Creek near the confluence of Opossum
Creek. The increased discharges from No. 8 blast furnace to Valley Creek,
via Opossum Creek, may extend the area of impact further downstream toward
Bankhead Reservoir.
The termination of wastewater discharge from the three remaining blast
furnaces at Ensley will contribute to long-term biological recovery of
Village Creek.
The extractive industry and its attendant activities comprise the major
foundation of the economy of Birmingham and Jefferson County, Alabama.
Projections of future growth for the Birmingham area by local planners
rely heavily on assuming continuing growth of the iron and steel industry.
A reduction of 22 employees will occur when the three Ensley blast fur-
naces are shut down. Additional employment may be generated by other U. S.
Steel facilities at the Fairfield Works because of the increase availability
of iron at higher production rates from the No. 8 blast furnace and the
additional employment required to process this iron into final products for
shipment.
iv
-------
4. Alternatives to the Proposed Action:
A.	Build or no build
B.	Capacity alternatives
C.	Site location alternatives
D.	Wastewater treatment alternatives
E.	Air emission abatement alternatives
5.	The following Federal and State Agencies and interested parties
have submitted written comments on the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement:
United States Department of the Interior
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Region IV
Department of Health, Education, and Welfare, Public
Health Service, Center for Disease Control
United States Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation
Service, Auburn, Alabama
Department of the Army, Mobile District, Corps of Engineers
Department of Housing and Urban Development, Area Office,
Birmingham, Alabama
Alabama Air Pollution Control Commission
Dr. Joseph J. Gauthier
6.	This Final Environmental Impact Statement was made available to
the Office of Federal Activities on July 26. 1978	
v
-------
PREFACE
Federal Actions
This Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) covers the
proposed Number 8 blast furnace at the U. S. Steel Corporation,
at Fairfield Works. It fulfills EPA's responsibility under the
National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) which is prerequisite
to the pending issuance of a new source NPDES permit for this
facility.
Pursuant to regulations implementing the NEPA of 1969, this
statement on the construction of the Number 8 blast furnace was
prepared utilizing a third party consultant procedure. Under
this procedure, the applicant, U. S. Steel Corporation, nominated
Associated Water and Air Resources Engineers, Inc. (AWARE, Inc.)
as the contractor. AWARE, Inc. was then reviewed and approved
by the EPA, Region IV, for objectivity and qualifications. All
work completed by AWARE, Inc., was reviewed by EPA before final
publication.
Format
This Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) contains
four (4) major items of information. Chapter 1 is a brief sum-
mary of the Draft Environmental Impact Statement. While the FEIS
is designed to give an overview of the EIS process elements, the
DEIS must be consulted for more detailed coverage.
Chapter 2 contains the official public hearing transcript
and responses to substantive comments. Chapter 3 contains the
written comments received on the DEIS and the Agency's responses.
Chapter 4 is titled "Statement of Findings," comprising the
Agency's decisions on the issuance of an NPDES new source permit.
Appendix B presents the proposed NPDES permit.
vi
-------
A thirty (30) day comment period is initiated upon the con-
current receipt of this document by the EPA Office of Federal
Activities and the availability of the document to the public.
No Federal actions (issuance of permits) can take place during
this period so that comments from other agencies and the public
concerning these pending actions can be reviewed.
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section No.	Title	Page No.
REPORT ORGANIZATION
Summary Sheet	i
Preface	vi
Table of Contents	viii
List of Figures	x
CHAPTER 1	SUMMARY
1.1	Project Development
1.2	NEPA Overview	1-2
1.3	Project Background	1_3
1.4	Existing Facilities and New Source Features 1-4
1.4.1	Existing Facilities	1-4
1.4.2	New Source Features	1-10
1.5	Existing Environment and Projected Envir-
onmental Impacts	1_16
1.5.1	Air Quality	1_16
1.5.2	Water Quality	1-18
1.5.3	Biology	l_2i
1.5.4	Socio-Economic Considerations	1-22
1.6	Alternatives	1_24
1.6.1	Build or No-Build	1-24
1.6.2	Capacity Alternatives	i-26
1.6.3	Process Alternatives	1-26
1.6.4	Site Location Alternatives	1-26
1.6.5	Wastewater Treatment Alternatives	1-27
1.6.6	Emission Control Alternatives	1-28
1.7	Mitigative Measures	1-28
1.7.1	Construction	1-28
1.7.2	Operational Impacts	1-29
CHAPTER 2 TRANSCRIPT OF PUBLIC HEARING	2-1
CHAPTER 3 WRITTEN COMMENTS TO THE DEIS AND EPA	3-1
RESPONSES
CHAPTER 4 STATEMENT OF FINDINGS	4.*!
4.1	Agency Decision	4_1
4.2	Need for the Project	4_1
4.3	Air Quality	4_]
4.4	Water Quality	4_2
4.5	Biology	4.2
4.6	Manmade Environment	4_2
vi i i
-------
TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONT'D)
Section No.	Title
APPENDIX A
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Letter, April 15, 1976 to U.S. Steel
Corporation
APPENDIX B
Proposed NPDES Permit Modification
Page No.
A-l
B-l
ix
-------
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure No. Title	Page No.
1-1	General Arrangement - Fairfield and
Ensley Works	1-5
1-2 USSC Facilities in the Birmingham Area	1-6
x
-------
CHAPTER 1
SUMMARY
-------
CHAPTER 1
SUMMARY
1.1	PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
The United States Steel Corporation plans to sustain its
iron and steelmaking capacity at Fairfield, Alabama by replacement of
certain facilities. Discussions between U. S. Steel Corporation (USSC)
and Region IV of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) confirmed
that an environmental impact statement would be necessary with regard
to the proposed activities. EPA determined (see Appendix A) that the
new blast furnace would be considered a new source under the National
Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) Program, and thus be
subject to all provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (83 Stat 852). Additionally, EPA determined that all three new
facilities—the third Q-BOP furnace, new coke oven, and blast furnace-
would be considered new sources under Section 110 of the Clean Air Act.
Subsequently, EPA and USSC selected Associated Water and
Air Resources Engineers, Inc. (AWARE, Inc.) under a third party agree-
ment to prepare an environmental impact statement under the direction
of the Environmental Protection Agency. In the data acquisition, anal-
ysis and evaluation phases of this investigation, a large amount of
information was generated. Practical considerations precluded the
incorporation of all of this information into the Draft Environmental
Impact Statement. Consequently, a Technical Support Document was
prepared. The Technical Support Document and its Appendices contain
all of the data which were generated and evaluated. That information,
considered to be most pertinent to the definition of the environmental
baseline and the impact evaluation, was presented in the Draft Environ-
mental Impact Statement.
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement was made avail-
able to the public on May 12, 1978, and a public hearing was held on
June 15, 1978. This document presents a summary of the proposed action
1-1
-------
and its impacts on the environmental baseline, alternatives considered,
and measures employed to mitigate impacts. Also included in this docu-
ment are a transcript of the public hearing, copies of the comments
receivied on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement, and responses to
the comments.
1.2.	NEPA OVERVIEW
The authority of the preparation of an EIS as a result
of issuance of a new source NPDES permit was summarized in the Federal
Register on Tuesday, January 11, 1977, Part V, as follows:
"The National Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (NEPA), 42 USC 4321 et seq implemented by
Executive Order 11514 of March 5, 1970 and the
Council on Environmental Quality's (CEQ's)
Guidelines of August 1, 1973, require that all
agencies of the Federal Government prepare
detailed environmental statements on proposals
for legislation and other major Federal actions
significantly affecting the quality of the
human environment. The object of NEPA is to
build into the Agency decision-making process
an appropriate and careful consideration of all
environmental aspects of proposed actions,
explain potential environmental effects of pro-
posed actions and their alternatives for public
understanding, avoid or minimize adverse ef-
fects of proposed actions, and restore or en-
hance environmental quality as much as possible.
Section 511(c)(1) of the Federal Water
Pollution Control Act as amended (FWPCA) (Pub L
92-500) authorizes the Administrator to apply
NEPA to the issuance of a permit under section
402 of the FWPCA for the discharge of any pollu-
tant by a new source as defined in section 308
of the FWPCA. The discharge of a pollutant as
defined in section 502(12) of the FWPCA means
an addition of any pollutant to navigable waters,
the contiguous zone or the ocean from any point
source. The Environmental Protection Agency
published proposed regulations in the Federal
Register (40 FR 47714) on October 9, 1975,
entitled "New Source NPDES Permits, Preparation
of Environmental Impact Statements."
1-2
-------
1.3.
PROJECT BACKGROUND
The steel industry originally located in the Birmingham
area due to the availability of all of the raw materials necessary for
the making of iron and steel. In the latter part of the 19th Century,
Colonel Enoch Ensley amalgamated several of the larger mining and pro-
ductive concerns into the Pratt Coal and Iron Company. This company
was the forerunner of the present-day U. S. Steel facilities located
in the Birmingham area. ^These facilities make U. S. Steel the major
producer of steel in the South and contain the South's only fully
integrated iron and steelmaking complex.
In 1972, the open hearth facilities in Birmingham con-
sisted of 12, 225-ton furnaces at Fairfield and five, 145-ton furnaces
at Ensley. During the first six months of 1971, the combined produc-
tion was 3.5 million ingot tons per year with 2.7 million tons from
Fairfield and 0.8 million tons from Ensley.
Several years before air emission standards were
promulgated in Alabama, U. S. Steel was engaged in investigations to
replace open hearth steelmaking facilities at Fairfield Works with
basic oxygen furnaces as a means to achieve compliance with anticipated
standards.
About this time, U. S. Steel was investigating a variant
of the basic oxygen process (BOP), which became known as Q-BOP.
Research demonstrated that the grades of steel produced by Q-BOP would
cover the range of Fairfield product mix, including such items as rails,
axles, plates, and sheet and tin products. Also, the Q-BOP product was
comparable in quality to that produced in the conventional basic oxygen
process and open hearths. It was also demonstrated that, compared to
the BOP, the Q-BOP process had a potential for improved yields and
improved heat time. When it was clear the Q-BOP process was an improved
steelmaking technology, it was decided to install large-scale Q-BOP
steelmaking equipment in the No. 1 open hearth shop. Major facilities
consisted of two, 200-ton furnaces with auxiliaries, including gas-
cleaning equipment. Construction began in July, 1972.
1-3
-------
With the construction of the Q-BOP at Fairfield, the
elimination of air emissions and problems of obsolescence associated
with the open hearth furnaces at Ensley became matters of serious
concern for (J. S. Steel. Studies were undertaken with the intent of
finding a method of meeting pollution control requirements. In
October, 1974, a plan was finalized which would idle both blast fur-
nace and uncontrolled open hearth operations at Ensley. This proposal
included a third Q-BOP, teeming facilities, new soaking pits, a new
coke battery, and a new blast furnace at Fairfield, maintaining the
production capability of Fairfield Works at 3.5 million net tons per
year.
1.4.	EXISTING FACILITIES AND NEW SOURCE FEATURES
1.4.1.	Existing Facilities
1.4.1.1.	Introduction
Fairfield Works, which includes operations at Fairfield,
Ensley, and Wenonah, Alabama, is the largest and most diversified iron
and steelmaking complex in the South. An overview of these facilities
is presented in Figures 1-1 and 1-2. During a characteristic period
from September to the end of December, 1975, the following operations
were functioning at Fairfield Works:
Wenonah Operations
Sinter plant (4 strands operating)
Fairfield Operations
1.	Coke and coal chemicals plant {7 batteries
operating)
2.	Blast furnaces (3 operating)
3.	Q-BOP's (2 vessels)
4.	a. Plate mill (primary mill)
b. Billet mill (finishing mill)
1-4
-------
PAGE NOT
AVAILABLE
DIGITALLY
-------
FIG; 1-2. UNITED STATES STEEL OPERATION IN THE BIRMINGHAM AREA
1-6
-------
5.	Fairfield tin mill
a.	Pickling
b.	Cold rolling
c.	Cleaning
d.	Annealing
e.	Plating
f.	Temper rolling
g.	Side trimmers
6.	Merchant mill
7.	Cotton tie and hoop mill
8.	Structural mill and rail products
9.	Steel axles and forge shops
10.	Fairfield sheet mill
a.	Shears and trimmers
b.	Cold roll finishing
c.	Annealing
d.	No. 1 continuous galvanizing
e.	No. 2 continuous galvanizing
f.	No. 4 continuous galvanizing
g.	Temper rolling
h.	Coil painting
11.	Fairfield wire mill
a.	Wire drawing
b.	Wire annealing
c.	Wire galvanizing
d.	Woven fence
e.	Barbed wire
f.	Welded wire fabric mesh
g.	Nails
Ensley Operations
1. Ensley steel plant
a.	Blast furnaces (3)
b.	Open hearths (3)
1-7
-------
c.	Primary mills (including rail mill)
d.	Iron foundry
2.	Rail transportation shop
3.	Roll shops division of Fairfield Works
On December 31, 1975, one of the three remaining open
hearth furnaces at Ensley Operations was idled. On June 30, 1976, the
remaining two open hearth furnaces were shut down.
1.4.1.2.	No. 2 Coke Battery
A new 57-oven coke battery (No. 2 coke battery) is
scheduled to replace existing coke batteries Nos. 3, 4, 7 and 8. EPA
has designated this new battery a replacement facility. A coal pre-
heating and charging system will be installed in conjunction with the
No. 2 coke battery. A detailed description of coal handling and prep-
aration, coal preheating, coal charging, coking, quenching and the coke
by-product plant, with .emphasis, on emission controls and measures which
will be employed to minimize emissions, is presented in the Draft EIS.
The following measures have been included in the design
of the No. 2 coke battery to minimize particulate emissions:
1.	Hot coal charging car with sealing capabilities
to prevent blow-back.
2.	Mechanical gooseneck cleaners.
3.	Mud-sealing oven lids and gooseneck lids.
Doors of an improved design will be tested at other
U. S. Steel facilities to determine the most effective sealing edge in
reducing emissions. The most effective design will be used for the
Fairfield battery. The doors which will be installed will meet a ten
percent door leakage standard.
The design data for the individual ovens are as follows:
1.	Number of ovens—57
2.	Average oven width--18 in.
3.	Oven height—20 ft, 2 in.
4.	Oven height to coal line—19 ft, 2 in.
1-8
-------
5.	Effective (coal) volume--!,374 cu ft
6.	Oven length—47 ft, 7 in.
Characteristics for the underfiring stack are:
1.	Height above grade—350 ft
2.	Inside diameter at exit~16 ft, 9 in.
3.	Gas temperature at exit--500°F
4.	Gas velocity at exit—660 ft/min
5.	Emissions particulates in gas~94 tons/yr or
21.46 Ib/hr
6.	Emissions S0£ assuming 0-5 percent sulfur in
gas—454 lb/hr or 1,987 ton/yr
7.	Calculations used to determine emissions for
particulates and SOg are given in Appendix A-5
of the Technical Support Document.
1.4.1.3.	Third Q-BOP Furnace
An additional Q-BOP furnace is scheduled to replace
steelmaking capacity lost at Ensley with the closing of the open hearth
furnaces at that facility. Completion of this Q-BOP furnace will allow
U. S. Steel Corporation to maintain its 3.5 million ingot ton/yr steel-
making capacity at Fairfield Works. The third Q-BOP will be located
in the same building as the other two Q-BOP furnaces.
The third Q-BOP furnace will permit the required main-
tenance to ensure that two Q-BOP's will consistently produce the total
design capacity of 3.5 million ingot tons. Oxygen supply facilities
will prevent simultaneous operation of all three Q-BOP furnaces at
any time.
A detailed description of Q-BOP operation, including
information pertaining to emission controls, is presented in the Draft
EIS. Consistent operation of the Q-BOP shop, with implementation of
Blast Furnace No. 8, will result in an increased discharge of 0.3 mgd
of wastewater to the final effluent control pond.
1-9
-------
1.4.2.
Npw .Source Features
1.4.2.1.	Introduction
The new blast furnace at the Fairfield plant will be
characteristic of the larger capacity, high top pressure facilities
being constructed by the industry during this decade. The use of
beneficiated charge has increased output as well as assisted control
of the process for environmental considerations. These three products
of operation—molten iron, slag, and blast furnace gas are all of
value and will be utilized.
Once in operation, the new blast furnace will require
a different charge than the older operating units. The new furnace
will receive coke, iron ore pellets, sinter, and flux. The iron pro-
duced by this unit is estimated to be approximately 1,825,000 tons
per year, following break-in.
The No. 8 blast furnace will be located immediately
north of existing blast furnace No. 7 and will occupy 13.15 acres.
The new blast furnace will require a different charge than is given
the other blast furnaces. This charge will consist of iron ore pellets,
sinter, coke, and limestone. With the start-up of the No. 8 blast
furnace, the remaining furnaces (Nos. 5, 6 and 7) will receive a more
refined charge. The result should be improved performance and
reliability.
1.4.2.2.	Energy
In 1976, 16.57 MMBTU were required for each ton of iron
produced. Implementation of Blast Furnace No. 8 and phasing out of
1, 2 and 3 will result in a total energy requirement of 14.43 MMBTU per
ton, providing a savings of 2.14 MMBTU per ton of iron produced.
1-10
-------
1.4.2.3.	Design and Operational Parameters
Design Summary
1.	32-ft diameter
2.	26 tuyeres, 2 compartment tuyeres (separate nose
cooling)
3.	30 psi high top pressure (maximum)
4.	77,520 cu ft working volume
5.	Ratio working volume to sq ft of hearth is 96.4
6.	Three stoves (total heating surface 1,993,600 sq ft)
7.	2100°F hot blast—Bloom stove burners
8.	Mohr-Raco hot blast valves with automatic stove
changing controls
9.	210,000 cfm @ 60 psi wind max
10.	One Ingersoll-Rand axial turbo blower
11.	Two 900-psi steam pressure boilers (Combustion
Engineers' type)
12.	Two iron notches (with provisions to remove trough)
13.	Two 75-ton casthouse cranes (one 15-ton cinder
running crane)
14.	One cinder notch
15.	Two slag pits
16.	Bailey-Wurth mud guns—Woodings low profile iron
notch drills
17.	5,000 tons per day (6,000 tons peak hot metal)
capacity
18.	Six 250-ton submarine-type hot metal cars
19.	1,110 lb/NTHM coke equivalent
20.	150 lb/NTHM flux
21.	Liquid fuel injection (No. 6 fuel oil)
22.	Burden mix—60 percent pellets, 40 percent sinter
23.	Pellets, sinter and coke to be screened
24.	Conveyer charged furnace (60-in. belt to top speed
342 fpm)
1-11
-------
25.
26.
27.
28.
29.
30.
31.
Cutler hammer charging control system (two directors
for furnace operation linked to Honeywell 4400)
Stockhouse capacity (coke, 13.5 hr; sinter, 22.5 hr;
pellets, 29.8 hr; miscellaneous material, 30.0 hr)
Stockhouse has three coke, two sinter, two pellet,
four miscellaneous and two fines monolithic concrete
silos
Koppers-Wurth-type top "no bells" (nitrogen purge),
one 30-ton crane for servicing top
BAUMC0 gas cleaning system with closed water system
(Venturi type without septum valve)—both contact
and noncontact water systems are recycled
Channel cool externally bosh and hearth
Underhearth is water cooled
Operational Parameters
Raw Materials Required
Coke
Sinter
Pel lets
Flux (Limestone)
Products
Iron
Slag
Blast Furnace Gas
950,000 tons/yr
1,125,000 tons/yr
1,700,000 tons/yr
130,000 tons/yr
1,825,000 tons/yr
600 lb/ton hot metal
110 x 109 ACF
1.4.2.4.	Material Handling
The burden to be charged into No. 8 blast furnace includes
iron-bearing material, coke, and flux material. Iron-bearing material
will consist of iron ore pellets and sinter. Flux material will include
gravel, dolomite and limestone.
All burden materials will be delivered to the furnace
complex by railroad car and transferred to the stockhouse storage silos
1-12
-------
by conveyor systems. Coke will be transmitted directly from the coke
battery to the stockhouse silos by conveyors.
Pellets, coke, sinter and flux will be withdrawn from
the stockhouse silos by vibrating pan feeders and placed on belt
conveyors. Pellets, coke and sinter will be screened as the material
comes from the respective belt conveyors and deposited into weight
hoppers. The weight hoppers will discharge directly onto another
conveyor. Coke will be screened to remove minus 1/8-in. material.
Minus 1/4-in. material will be removed from the pellets and sinter.
Conveyors will transfer these materials to storage silos.
A dust collection system will be utilized to collect
dust that is generated when pellets, coke and sinter are screened. The
system consists of dry collection baghouse units in the stockhouse which
are connected by ducts to hoods positioned over each screen. Dust
accumulated in the collection units will be deposited in the storage
silos along with the materials removed by the screens for disposal by
railroad car.
1.4.2.5.	Waste Generation
1.4.2.5.1. Blast Furnace Gas Emission Summary
Raw Gas
50 lb dust/ton iron
125 tons/day dust (173.6 Ib/min)
Moisture - .004 lb H20/cu ft
Temperature - 350°F-500°F
Pressure - 4 to 30 psig
Dustcatcher
37.5 ton/day (52.1 Ib/min) or 30 percent
of total dust removed
1-13
-------
Gas Entering Scrubber
Moisture - .004 lb HgO/cu ft
Temperature - 350°F-500°F
Pressure - 4 to 30 psig
87.5 tons/day dust (121.5 Ib/min), 3 to 4
grains/scf
Flow - 149,000 to 297,000 scfm
Gas Composition - 26 percent CO, 14.4 percent C02>
1.6 percent 58 percent Ng
Clean Gas to Plant Gas Main
Moisture - 2.35 grains/scf
Dust Loading - .005 grains/scf (maximum)
Temperature - 100°F
Pressure - 20 in. H^O in plant main and 85 in.
H2O in Blast Furnace No. 8
1.4.2.5.2. Wastewater Treatment System Summary
Slurry Water (gas vessel to spiral classifier)
Dust Content (solids) - 2,180 ppm
Sp. Gravity (solids) - 3.5 to 4.5
Flow - 6,600 gpm
Temperature - 140°F (maximum)
Discharge from Spiral Classifier
1.0 ton/day solids
Slurry H2O (influent to thickeners)
3,300 gpm normal (per thickener)
6,600 gpm maximum to one 80-ft thickener
In - 2,180 ppm suspended solids
Out - 50 ppm (long-term average) normal
Cationic Polymer Feed - 5 ppm
Anionic Polymer Feed - 1 ppm
1-14
-------
Sludge (thickener underflow) to Vacuum Filters
Solids - 35 to 50 percent by weight
Specific gravity (solids) - 3.5 to 4.5
Vacuum Filter Discharge
Solids - 75 percent (minimum) by weight,
88.6 tons/day
Through Cooling Towers
Evaporation - 120 gpm (each)
Influent Temperature - 140°F (maximum)
Effluent Temperature - 90°F (maximum)
Blowdown (intermittent to plant treatment including
final effluent pond)
Flow - 430 gpm, 125 gal/ton iron
Long-Term Average Concentrations - Suspended Solids,
50 ppm; Cyanide (total), 15 ppm; Phenol, 1.0 ppm;
Ammonia (as NHg), 62 ppm
1.4.2.6.	Solid Waste
Solid waste management for the existing facilities
utilizes reuse and reclaiming operations and disposal in landfill
operations. Operation of the new No. 8 blast furnace and related
facilities will not result in a significant addition of solid waste
and present solid waste management practices are expected to continue
following implementation of the proposed modernization program.
1-15
-------
1.5.
EXISTING ENVIRONMENT AMD PROJECTED ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1.5.1.	Air Quality
1.5.1.1.	Existing Air Quality
A review of the data developed by the end of 1977 indi-
cates that Jefferson County's primary air quality problem is suspended
particulate matter in the atmosphere and photochemical oxidants. The
areas with the highest total suspended particulates (TSP) concentrations
center around the North Birmingham-Tarrant City area as well as much of
the Leeds area. Jefferson County has recommended that the more inten-
sive developments including industrial, commercial, and residential
land uses be encouraged within "cleaner" areas. In addition to particu-
lates, other pollutants currently measured in Jefferson County include
sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, nitrogen dioxide, and total nonmethane
hydrocarbons, all of which meet Ambient Air Quality Standards according
to the Jefferson County Board of Health.
General trends over the past four years (1971-1975)
indicate that there have been substantial reductions in both total and
point source emissions. The total point source emissions in 1971 were
151,321 tons per year which is 93.5 percent of the total emissions, but
by 1975 there was a 62 percent reduction achieved and the point source
emissions were down to 57,180 tons per year.* It was evident from the
data provided by Jefferson County that these reductions in total point
source emissions were still continuing in the years 1976 and 1977, but
the running averages of TSP obtained at the Jefferson County monitoring
stations are not significantly different than the Air Quality Standards
in 1977. To obtain a plan for attainment for 1977 and maintenance of
air quality standards in Jefferson County both the state and county
programs have been assigned tasks to analyze and define the additional
control requirements necessary to achieve the Federal Air Quality Standards.
^Annual Progress Report of Jefferson County Health Department, October 1975 -
September 1976.
1-16
-------
As a result of the measured violations of Federal Primary
Ambient Air Quality Standards for TSP and photochemical oxidants, the
I). S. Environmental Protection Agency designated those portions of
Jefferson County within central Birmingham and Leeds and the entire County
as non-attainment areas for TSP and photochemical oxidants, respectively,
and thus the schedule established by the State is for the development of
non-attainment SIP revisions.
1.5.1.2.	Impacts on Air Quality Associated with the Proposed Action
An air quality dispersion model was employed in the pre-
diction of ambient air quality conditions as a result of the proposed
action by the U. S. Steel Corporation. A detailed analysis has been
provided in the Technical Support Document to the Draft EIS. By pre-
dicting particulate concentrations at monitoring stations, it was found
that a reduction of 63 percent would occur as a result of the U. S. Steel
modernization program. The 63 percent reduction is believed to be of
the correct order of magnitude; however, there may be limits to and
inadequacies in the model. Because of these limits to and inadequacies
in the model, the magnitude of the numbers projected by the model must
be considered with caution. These inadequacies are discussed in detail
in the Draft EIS. Based on the total suspended particulate and analysis,
it is concluded that implementation of the proposed action will have a
positive impact on the air quality of the surrounding community.
No attempt was made to model pollutants other than total
suspended particulates. However, based on past and projected emission
rates for sulfur dioxide (SO2) and an analysis of the proposed process
modification and replacement facilities, it is anticipated that ambient
S02 and hydrocarbon concentrations will not increase as a result of the
proposed action. The U. S. Steel Corporation is presently in compliance
with appropriate emission regulations concerning SC^.
As part of the March 31, 1978, settlement agreement with
the Alabama Air Pollution Control Commission, the State of Alabama, the
Jefferson County Board of Health, the United States of America, and the
Administrator of the EPA, U. S. Steel Corporation must submit a hydrocarbon
offset to the Jefferson County Department of Health for the preheater
1-17
-------
and related coke battery facilities. This hydrocarbon offset will be
available for review by the public at the Jefferson County Health
Department prior to the start-up of the preheater. There will not
be a substantial environmental impact as a result of the proposed ac-
tion from the standpoint of pollutants other than total suspended par-
ticulates, providing the hydrocarbon emissions can be reduced to an
acceptable level.
1.5.2.	Water Quality
1.5.2.1.	Existing Water Quality
As a result of the comprehensive water quality surveys
performed on Opossum, Valley, Village Creeks, and Bankhead Reservoir,
an accurate description of the water quality conditions occurring during
the period of the survey was obtained as presented in detail in the
Technical Support Document to the Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
The results of the water quality surveys on Opossum and
Valley Creeks reveal that pollutants enter these streams from both point
and non-point source activities. Dissolved oxygen concentrations up-
stream of the confluence of Opossum/Valley revealed oxygen deficits
(indicating some biological activity). It must be indicated that the
biological surveys revealed that only limited biological activity occurs
in either of these streams. After the junction of the two streams,
dissolved oxygen deficits and/or BOD data indicate continued biological
activity and a high reaeration potential.
Generally, Opossum and Valley Creeks must be character-
ized as streams conducting large quantities of organics and nitrogenous
compounds capable of consuming significant quantities of oxygen. The
contribution of pollutants to these receiving streams results from
point and non-point source discharges.
Existing conditions occurring on Village Creek can be
characterized by streams conducting large quantities of organic and
nitrogenous oxygen-consuming materials with a substantially lower
1-18
-------
impact on dissolved oxygen deficit due to the presence of inhibitory
materials. Dissolved oxygen concentrations measured on Village Creek
were low (approaching 0 mg/1) in certain portions of the stream upstream
of Bayview Lake.
Surveys were conducted on Bankhead Reservoir to estab-
lish existing water quality conditions and to evaluate the influence of
Village and Valley Creeks on Bankhead Lake. The majority of contam-
inant concentrations in Bankhead Lake were found to increase below the
confluences of Village and Valley Creeks. However, high concentrations
of zinc and iron were measured upstream of the confluence with Village
Creek in Bankhead Reservoir. The pollutants observed in Village and
Valley Creeks are substantially diluted by the larger receiving body.
The dissolved oxygen levels were not reduced below 7.1 mg/1 during any
of the measurements of surface water taken in this investigation.
In summary, it appears that Opossum, Valley, and Village
Creeks all are substantially influenced by point and non-point discharges
in the Birmingham area. The poor water quality conditions occurring in
each of these receiving streams will preclude the accurate projection
of improved water quality conditions and discharge levels. It further
appears that the contaminants being discharged to Village, Valley, and
Opossum Creeks influence these streams throughout their entire length
and contribute substantially to the pollution load occurring in Bankhead
Reservoir.
1.5.2.2.	Impacts of the Proposed Action on Water Quality
For the purpose of this discussion, it has been assumed
that only the blast furnace is considered as a new source and, there-
fore the wastes from that source will be addressed with regard to their
influence on environmental impact. Based on the analysis presented
herein, it does not appear that small alterations of any dischargers to
these streams will cause a significant improvement, or degradation of
the existing water quality. It should be emphasized that not only
point source, but non-point source discharges, which are substantially
1-19
-------
more difficult to control, contribute to the poor water quality condi-
tions presently existing in Opossum and Valley Creeks.
In considering the future conditions with the proposed
action, the waste discharges contributed to receiving streams will be
shifted with regard to U. S. Steel's facilities. The present discharges
on Village Creek will be reduced substantially and some increase in
discharges to Valley Creek through Opossum Creek will occur. The pro-
posed action will reduce U. S. Steel Corporation discharge to Village
Creek as follows: 13.0 lb/day of cyanides; 1.8 lb/day of phenols;
103 lb/day of ammonia; and 1,668 lb/day of suspended solids. The future
conditions on Opossum and Valley Creeks with construction of the new
blast furnace will result in increased loadings as follows: suspended
solids increase 130 lb/day; cyanides increase 1.3 lb/day; phenols in-
crease 2.6 lb/day; and ammonia increases 52 lb/day (based on BATEA
effluent limitations).
The impact of the proposed action on Village Creek will
be to reduce the contributions of pollutants from the U. S. Steel facility.
As discussed for Valley Creek, a measurable alteration of the environ-
ment probably will not occur as a result of the proposed action. Similar
comments apply to an improvement in water quality conditions as a result
of reduction in waste load discharges by U. S. Steel to Village Creek.
Considering the large quantities of contaminants entering Village Creek
as a result of other point and non-point sources, the final accurate
prediction of improved water quality conditions must be questioned.
Nevertheless, it is appropriate to indicate that some improvement
to the backwaters of Bayview Lake will accompany the improvement in
the reduction of waste load discharges to Village Creek from municipal
facilities as well as U. S. Steel Corporation. The resulting improve-
ment below Bayview Lake is dependent on the lake recovery which may
not occur (for an extended period of time) even if all contaminants
cease to be discharged to this reservoir.
1-20
-------
An indication of the impact of the new blast furnace
on the water quality in Valley Creek at BAT levels of treatment can be
obtained from a water quality model of Valley Creek. According to
the model predictions the blast furnace will decrease the dissolved oxygen
in the river at the critical point by approximately 0.12 mg/1, increase
the ammonia nitrogen concentration by approximately 0.1 mg/1. increase
the phenol concentration by 0.012 mg/1 and increase the cyanide concen-
tration by 0.001 mg/1 at the 10-year seven-day low flow condition.
It must be kept in mind that these predictions are made
based on the assumption that all biological decay rates will remain
constant and that changes in the nature and level of waste loads to the
river have no effect on the kinetics of the biological processes taking
place in the river. However, significant changes in the nature and amount
of the waste being discharged to Valley Creek will take place. The dis-
charge of materials known to be inhibitory to biochemical oxidation will
be substantially reduced from the U. S. Steel discharge and there will
also be a substantial reduction in the amount of oxygen demanding mater-
ial. At the same time, it is expected that the discharge from the
Valley Creek Sewage Treatment Plant will approximately double in volume
and that the concentration of oxygen demanding material in the waste
will also increase as the plant is brought up to its designed capacity.
In light of the radical changes that are expected in the wastes dis-
charged to Valley Creek it can be anticipated that there will be changes
in the biological kinetics affecting the water quality of Valley Creek.
Exactly what this effect will be, however, cannot be determined with
present technology.
1.5.3.	Biology
Since the new source will be located on an existing
industrial site, development of a comprehensive biological inventory
for the plant site was not pertinent. The location of the site was
examined, however, with respect to the possible overlap of the site with
the range of any rare or endangered species of terrestrial and aquatic
1-21
-------
flora and fauna. In addition, field studies were conducted in order
to determine the status of the aquatic communities associated with those
streams impacted by the proposed action, viz., Opossum Creek, Valley
Creek, Village Creek, and Bankhead Reservoir. The results of the inves-
tigations are discussed in detail in the Draft Environmental Impact
Statement and the Technical Support Document, and support the conclusion
that all of the above streams are stressed from a biological standpoint.
During the course of the biological evaluation several
indices, e.g., diversity indices, autotrophic indices, and recovery
indices, were developed for use in impact projection. The results of
the recovery index analysis reveal that Opossum Creek, Village Creek
and Valley Creek all have a poor chance of rapid recovery. This is the
case with or without the new blast furnace.
1.5.4.	Socio-Economic Considerations
1.5.4.1.	Existing Socio-Economic Conditions
Basic trends in economic activity and population growth
in the Birmingham area have been influenced by the region's historical
development and progress. The early years were influenced by the metal
processing industries. Therefore, the early economy and its attend-
ant life-styles have carried over into the present time, still sub-
stantially dependent upon steel production and its related activities.
The major foundation of Birmingham's economy is its de-
pendency on extractive industries and directly related activities.
Investments in production facilities have resulted in an increase in
the skilled and managerial labor force; however, future growth will
depend more heavily upon the area's public and private institutions.
The public and private sectors will focus attention which will broaden
and diversify the economic base.
Birmingham's metals facilities have historically pro-
vided a significant portion of southern steel production. In 1920,
86 percent of southern steel production was produced in Birmingham.
1-22
-------
In 194-0, Birmingham produced 77 percent of southern steel. From 1940
to 1970, steel production in Birmingham remained fairly stable; however,
total steel output in the United States has increased. This has resulte
in Birmingham's decrease in the percentage share produced nationwide.
Nationwide, steel capacity increased less than 10 percent between 1960
and 1975.
To simulate the economic impacts to the region of not^
implementing the proposed modernization, a 50 percent decline in regional
steel production was assumed (Birmingham Regional Planning Commission).
A total 1980 steel and iron products value is estimated at $738,469,000,
therefore, a 50 percent reduction would reflect an output decline of
$369,235,000. This would associate with a decline of 11,234 employees
and a payroll loss of $127,854,000 based on an annual salary of $11,381
per employee. In terms of disposable personal income, $102,411,000 is
available for spending ($95,242,000 for personal consumption expendi-
tures; $7,169,000 for housing). Total projected decreases are thus:
(1973) Personal Consumption Related	*19?U'SSn
Decreased Steel Production	369,235,000.
(1973) TOTAL DECREASE	$471,646,000
The impacts of this decline in steel production on other
sectors in the overall regional economy are discussed in the Draft
Environmental Impact Statement.
1.5.4.2.	Impacts of the Proposed Action on Socio-Economic Conditions
The extractive industry and its attendant activities
comprise the major foundation of the economy of Birmingham and Jefferson
County, Alabama. This economy is substantially dependent upon steel
production and related activities. Projections of future growth for the
Birmingham area by local and state planners rely heavily on assuming
continuing growth of the iron and steel industry.
U. S. Steel is the primary influence in Birmingham's metal
facilities. Due to the fact that in 1975 the U. S.'s share of world
steel production was only 16.3 percent, an additional 35 million tons
1-23
-------
are needed by 1980. In order to maintain its existing production,
U. S. Steel proposes construction of a new blast furnace. This will
enable certain antiquated facilities to be phased out. An estimated
increase of 600,000 tons per year of steel will be produced at the new
facilities.
To assess impact to the economy, certain estimates must
be made. An estimate of regional output of iron and steel products
for 1980 dollar-wise is $738,469,000 (Birmingham Regional Planning
Commission Batelle-Columbus Laboratories, 1976).
Other estimates of types of direct changes to consider
are assumption of:
1.	A decrease in the regional output of iron and steel
products.
2.	A decrease in personal consumption spending as a
result of decreased payrolls.
At the present time, the economy of Birmingham area is
healthier than at any previous time. To continue this trend, proper
balances must occur in employment diversification. Any major decline in
expected expansion of any of these areas could result in higher rates
of unemployment. The only adverse impact would be a reduction of 22
employees assuming installation of blast furnace No. 8. This is an
insignificant effect on the overall economy. Details concerning this
evaluation can be found in the Technical Support Document.
1.6.	ALTERNATIVES
1.6.1.	Build or No-Build
From the turn of the century until the early years of
this decade, all of the steel which was produced at what is now Fairfield
Works was produced by the open hearth process. Nine furnaces were built
at Ensley, and later, twelve furnaces were built at Fairfield. Four of
the Ensley furnaces were permanently shut down in 1962. As production
rates increased through improved technology, environmental concerns
1-24
-------
heightened. The emissions from these furnaces became a matter of
great concern to the public and to U. S. Steel.
Due to obsolescence, it was quite clear that the years
of the Ensley open hearths were limited. The solution to the emission
problem at the remaining furnaces at Ensley had to be replacement
facilities or a permanent discontinuance of operations as the cost
of control equipment could not be justified in view of their limited
remaining life.
At Fairfi-eld, a decision was made in 1971 to install
precipitators on the 12 open hearth furnaces, but the advent of a new
steelmaking technology — the Q-BOP furnace ~ brought about the de-
cision to replace the 12 Fairfield furnaces with a two-furnace Q-BOP
facility, which provided control of steelmaking emissions at Fairfield.
A decision on shutting down the Ensley open hearths
without replacing the capacity was separately addressed. If the Ensley
open hearths were to be shut down without replacement, it would result
in a 25 percent loss in steelmaking capability; the future of this
plant would have been uncertain, and the effect on the community would
have been severe. It is indisputable that a loss in steelmaking cap-
ability would not complement and respond to the well documented economic
growth in the steel market in the South. Studies portrayed the op-
portunities available to U. S. Steel in maintaining its steelmaking
capability in the market area served by the Southern Steel Division,
and U. S. Steel moved forward with plans for new facilities to permit
continued production of raw steel required for operation with Ensley1s
open hearths shut down. This assured the future of Fairfield Works as
a major steel-producing facility, a matter of great significance to
Birmingham, to Alabama, and to the South. This decision on the part
of U. S. Steel Corporation would make Fairfield Works a modern, com-
petitive steelmaking operation.
1-25
-------
1.6.2.	Capacity Alternatives
Given that the open hearth furnaces at Ensley would be
shut down, at least nine alternatives were studied to maintain steel
production at Fairfield Works. Economic considerations dictated facil-
ity replacement in preference to installation of emission control equip-
ment on existing furnaces. In October, 1974 after the start-up of the
Q-BOP furnaces, a new plan was finalized which would displace both
blast furnaces and open hearth operations at Ensley. This plan included
a third Q-BOP furnace, teeming facilities, new soaking pits and a new
blast furnace at Fairfield.
1.6.3.	Process Alternatives
The blast furnace is the only available process for pro-
ducing molten iron, the principal feed stock for a Q-BOP furnace.
Therefore, no process alternatives were investigated.
1.6.4.	Site Location Alternatives
The new source, No. 8 blast furnace, is a support facil-
ity for steelmaking operations at Fairfield Works, replacing three
existing blast furnaces at Ensley. Its site location can be explained
easily and categorically with respect to locating it at another south-
eastern location, another location some place else in the country, or
at a Greenfield site. The advantages to locating the new blast furnace
at the Fairfield Works site are numerous and include the availability
of raw materials and ready access to major transportation routes. The
Fairfield Works site meets all necessary criteria for industrial develop-
ment, e.g., slope and topography requirements, geologic and soil require-
ments, access to utilities, etc. Furthermore, the new blast furnace
is needed to maintain steel production for the southeastern market and
must necessarily be located in close proximity to other components of
iron and steelmaking, e.g., coke batteries, Q-BOP's, etc. Fairfield
Works is the only fully integrated iron and steelmaking complex in
the South.
1-26
-------
The new blast furnace is to be located on the same base-
line and north of existing blast furnaces at Fairfield Works. These
existing furnaces are numbered 5, 6, and 7, from south to north. By
situating the new furnace here, it will be sequentially numbered and
known as "No. 8 blast furnace."
Because the existing coking operation lies close by,
this is the most advantageous location for a new furnace from the
standpoint of handling coke, which is one of the principal feedstocks
for a blast furnace. Also, this is the only area contiguous to the
existing blast furnace operation where there is available land for con-
structing a new furnace and its auxiliaries. For this reason, no other
local sites were seriously evaluated.
1.6.5.	Wastewater Treatment
The No. 8 blast furnace, as a new source, is required to
meet New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) identified as Best Avail-
able Demonstrated Control Technology (BADCT). The NSPS identified for
a blast furnace are the same as Best Available Technology Economically
Available (BATEA) and, consequently, the BADCT and BATEA effluent limi-
tations are identical. All of the Phase I guidelines pertaining to a
steel industrial category, including all guidelines pertaining to a
blast furnace, have been remanded by the courts. Therefore, the effluent
limitations appropriate to BADCT for a blast furnace could change.
A methodology for wastewater treatment, utilizing modifi-
cation and optimization of processes and existing treatment facilities,
has been selected by the U. S. Steel Corporation in accordance with the
assumption that the NPDES permit for Fairfield Works will be revised
to include the existing allocations, plus the BADCT allocations for a
new blast furnace. An alternative methodology would be BATEA as originally
defined to consist of BPT (Best Practicable Technology) plus treatment of
cooling tower blowdown via alkaline chlorination, pressure filtration,
carbon adsorption, and neutralization.
1-27
-------
1.6.6.
Emission Controls
Coke, pellets and sinter, as well as quantities of other
materials are transferred to the blast furnace by conveyor belts and
stored in silos. Screening occurs prior to injection of properly sized
materials to the blast furnace and produces emissions which are con-
trolled. Wet scrubber systems, precipitators or baghouses could be em-
ployed. Scrubbers were not selected because of the addition of mois-
ture which would require dewatering facilities and additional energy
requirements. Baghouses were selected because they were equivalent
technology to other particulate emission control techniques. The
material captured by the baghouse and fines from a screening operation
were all transferred to a silo. A transfer from the silo to the trans-
portation vehicle is also controlled using water sprays for dust sup-
pression. The properly sized material is transferred from the silos
to the collection belt which is a final process prior to injection into
the blast furnace. Belts handling sinter pellets and coke receive
emission control through the same baghouse previously described for the
screening operation. Therefore, alternatives described under that
technique apply here as well.
Emission control alternatives to those selected for the
No. 2. coke battery and third Q-BOP are discussed in detail in the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement.
1.7.	MEASURES TO MITIGATE ADVERSE ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS
1.7.1.	Construction Impacts
Temporary adverse impacts to air and water quality will
result from construction of the new No. 8 blast furnace.
Clearing, grubbing, and earthmoving can result in the
creation of a local dust problem. Truck traffic, which is anticipated
to involve 15 percent of the materials required for construction, will
generate additional dust. Roads were watered to mitigate impacts resulting
1-28
-------
from dust generation. Due to a policy of road paving, slagging, or
oiling, and the remoteness of the construction site from any public
area, the possibility of dust problems off-site is seen as minimal.
Dams were built to control drilling mud runoff. Storm-
water drainage from the construction site will be handled by the plant-
wide drainage system. It will be concentrated by pre-existing equipment
and given primary treatment to minimize the effect on Opossum Creek.
1.7.2.	Operational Impacts
1.7.2.1.	Air Quality
The following summary presents those emissions control
devices and process improvements which will be implemented to mitigate
adverse impacts to air quality as a result of operation of blast furnace
No. 8.
No. 8 Blast Furnace
1.	Material handling - Six separate baghouses with
separate fans.
2.	Unloading and transferring - Liquid type dust
suppression system.
3.	Clean gas flare stack - With twin burner heads to
control pressure in blast furnace gas distribution
main.
4.	Dustcatcher, reverse flow type - Large particles
drop out due to sudden change in direction and
decreased velocity.
5.	Venturi scrubbers - For cleaning and cooling blast
furnace gas.
6.	Seal valves above and below top hopper - Two hoppers
used alternately and pressurized with nitrogen.
In addition, the following emission controls and process
improvements will be implemented to mitigate adverse impacts to air
quality as a result of operation of the third Q-BOP and the No. 2 Coke
Battery:
1-29
-------
Third Q-BOP
1.	Drop-out doors - Large particles are allowed to
drop out of gas cleaning system.
2.	Venturi scrubbers - Gas cleaning and cooling.
3.	Flare stack - To burn CO in gas before releasing
to atmosphere.
4.	Furnace enclosure - To capture emissions during
blow.
5.	Secondary hood - To capture emissions during turn-
down, charging, etc.
6.	Charging doors - Equipped with air seals and water
seals to prevent dust escape.
7.	South mixer - Fume control system.
No. 2 Coke Battery
1.	Coke and coal preparation - The following units
are equipped with baghouses:
Three 10,000-ton silos
Pulverizer building
Mixer
100-ton bin
Secondary pulverizer
Coke transfer station
Belts A26A and A26B
2.	Wet scrubber - Premetering bin.
3.	Quench tower and baffle system.
4.	Venturi scrubbers - Preheaters, clean exhause gas.
5.	Pushing controls- One spot quench car with venturi.
6.	Improved charging cars.
7.	Improved doors.
In general, the entire modernization program, including
the construction of No. 8 blast furnace, the third Q-BOP, and Coke
Battery No. 2, constitutes the replacement of existing facilities having
high air emissions in an attempt to mitigate adverse air impacts.
1-30
-------
1.7.2.2.	Water Quality
Adverse impacts to water quality as a result of operation
of blast Furnace No. 8 will be mitigated by the implementation of a
wastewater management system which utilizes modification and optimiza-
tion of processes and existing treatment facilities.
1-31
-------
CHAPTER 2
TRANSCRIPT OF PUBLIC HEARINGS
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
PUBLIC HEARING
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IV
JUNE 15, 1978
U
z
Ml
%
>-
z
<
a.
The transcript of the proceedings heard in the	O
u
Cudworth Hall, Engineering Auditorium, University of	z
H
cc
Alabama, Birmingham, Alabama, commencing at 7:00 p.m.	o.
UJ
ec
the 15th day of June 1978.	^
H
Z
<
u
H
<
-oOo-
2-1
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
CONTENTS
Page
Cranscript of the Proceedings	3
Agenda of Hearing	26
Foint Public Notice
i'act Sheet
27
29
0
z
-oOo-	^
a.
5
O
U
o
z
H
u
O
a.
ui
tt
<
H-
Z
2
<
2-2
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
proceedings
MR. PERRY: Good evening, and welcome to this public
hearing. My name is Charles Perry, and I am the acting Regional
Counsel for EPA, United States Environmental Protection Agency,
Region IV, m Atlanta, Georgia. The Regional Administrator of
Revion IV, Mr. John C. white has designated me to conduct this
hearing here tonight. With me here on the panel to my right is
Mr. John Hagan, who is Chief of the EIS Branch for Region IV,
and to my left is Mr. Jim Patrick, and he is the Chief of the
Compliance Section-of the Water Enforcement Division.	z
The National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 requires £
<
an agency of the Federal Government to prepare an Environmental5
o
u
Impact Statement whenever the agency proposes to take federal o
actions significantly affecting the quality of human environment.
o
a.
Tonight s hearing is concerned with possible actions by EPA
<
with respect to the No. 8 blast furnace, a new facility at the 2
Fairfield Works of -- proposed by United States Steel Corpora-
tion.
United States Steel Corporation has applied to EPA for
modification of their existing National Pollutaht Discharge
Elimination System permit for this facility. We will refer to
that system tonight as the NPDES permit.
The issuance of the modification to their permit for the
No. 8 blast furnace is a federal act, requiring compliance with
provisions of The National Environmental Policy Act pursuant to
2-3
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Section 511 of the Clean Water Act of 1977. Accordingly, EPA
has commissioned the preparation of an Environmental Impact
Statement for this facility. The draft of this statement has
Deen prepared. The notice of its availability was published in
:he Federal Register, Volume 43, number 94, page 2,862, dated
lay 15, 1978.
This hearing is for the purpose of receiving comments on
:he draft Environmental Impact Statement, and the proposed
.ssuance of the modifications to the National Pollutant Dischar^i
u
Z
llimination System permit for U. S. Steel. Although no decisiofT
>
x
tas yet been made, EPA tentatively proposes to issue the modi- <
rications to the NPDES permit. The proposed modifications to g
(9
he NPDES permit contains limitations on the amounts of pollu- Z
u
ants allowed to be discharged into the waters of the United a.
ee
tates, and was drafted in accordance with the provisions of <
t-
z
he Clean Water Act of 1977, and all the lawful standards and <
5
egulations.
The explicit goal of this act, which we'll refer to as the
lean Water Act, is the elimination of discharge of pollutants
nto waters of the United States by 1985. To achieve this goal,
PA or the states, if they have received the NPDES authority,
ill issue permits to wastewater dischargers.setting limits and
ontrols on the discharge of pollutants. The act requires very
trict limits to be imposed when new sources, such as the Unitec
tates Steel No. 8 blast furnace which we are concerned with
2-4
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
iere tonight.
Once the permit is issued, the discharger is legally bound
.o meet its requirements, and any violation may subject the
jermitee to criminal and civil penalties.
Mr. James Patrick of the Water Division of EPA Region IV -¦
:he Enforcement Division of EPA Region IV, excuse me -- will
liscuss the NPDES permit for the facility later this evening,
•he pollutant limits and other conditions of the draft permit
ire tentative and open for comment.
u
All comments made here tonight or submitted in writing ~
*
>-
rithin the next two weeks will become part of the administra- ^
&
ive record concerning this facility. The information in the o
o
ecord will be used to determine the environmental compatibility
f the permit issuance and, if appropriate, to prepare a final o
UJ
PDES permit. This permit would be included in the final	^
£
nvironmental Impact Statement.	<
i-
In addition, you should be aware that all the subsequent <
omments on the No. 8 blast furnace and the draft Environmental
mpact Statement, whether received here tonight and transcribed
or the record or submitted at a later date, will be summarized
nd addressed in the final Impact Statement.
Mr. Russ Todd, the EIS Project Officer for this EIS will
ow present a description of the EIS process for this project.
MR. TODD: Good evening. I am Russell Todd, EPA
roject Officer for the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
2-5
I
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
on the proposed United States Steel Corporation No. 8 blast
furnace. The National Environmental Policy Act requires that the
responsible federal official prepare a statement of environmen-
tal impact (known as an EIS) for all major federal actions
significantly affecting the quality of the human environment.
Che purpose of the EIS is to provide government agencies and
:he public with information to insure appropriate environmental
.mpacts are considered in the decision making process on federal
ictions.	I
u
EPA's authority to prepare an EIS is stated in Section 511?
*
>¦
art C of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act as amended, \
a.
972. Two actions by EPA under this act are defined as major o
u
ederal actions, one of these is the issuance of a new source
h
oc
ater discharge permit. For these actions, the responsible o
UI
fficial, in this case the Regional Administrator, must deter-
h
ine if the potential for significant impacts exists. If so, $
h
hen an EIS must be prepared. In the case of the United States<
teel Corporation No. 8 blast furnace, the issuance of the new
Durce NPDES permit has been determined to significantly affect
le quality of the human environment.
The EIS preparation process utilized what we call the
lird Party concept. The United States Steel Corporation
jminated Associated Water and Air Resources, Inc. to be the
ivironmental consultant. EPA reviewed and subsequently approved
lis firm on their objectivity and qualification. Associated
2-6
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Water and Air Resources, Inc. was retained by the United States
Steel Corporation, however, EPA directed the consultant in the
preparation of the EIS. EPA retains responsibility for the con-
tent of the EIS.
Briefly, I would like to explain the format of the EIS.
The magnitude of the proposed project required a detailed
assessment of many potential areas of impact. The preliminary
draft was too bulky and complex for general distribution,
rherefore, a Draft EIS was developed by summarizing the three
u
/olume Supporting Report. This procedure is consistent with —
.ecent Council on ..Environmental Quality directives to reduce ^
a.
japerwork and make EIS'a more readable.	§
The draft EIS presents a general discussion of the	z
>ackground for the U.S.S.C. modernization program and of	o
UI
heir existing facilities. The environment is described as <
fr
t is today and how it would be with and without the proposed <
roject. Alternatives are discussed for capacity, site loca-
ion, wastewater treatment and air emission control. Because
f the existing water quality in Opossum and Valley Creeks and
he fact that Birmingham has been declared to be in a non-
ttainment area for particulates in air, the draft EIS emphasiz^
tie impacts to the streams receiving the treated wastewater and
3 the air emissions from the proposed project. The draft EIS
sntains a section on mitigative measures. Our efforts in
lis regard are not completed until we have your comment. Your
2-7
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
suggestions in this natter will be given careful consideration.
It should be understood that this draft impact statement
represents EPA's assessment of the project and proposed action.
rhe decision has not been made regarding permit issuance. That
decision will be printed in the final EIS. Your comments on
-his decision will likewise be given careful consideration.
Please be specific in your comments to the extent possible. An])
:omments you may have on improvements to the format or content
)f the EIS would also be appreciated. EPA desires to make the
u
x
SIS process responsive to the public.	—
*
>•
The draft EIS was made available to the public on Hay 12, *
A*
.978. The commenting period on the Draft EIS will officially o
o
:lose June 29, 1978. Comments received by that date will be z
H
:onsidered as if they had been presented here tonight. The o
Qm
Ui
cc
tailing address for comments is on the bottom of your agenda. <
Scheduling is difficult, but I anticipate having the	<
i—
inal impact statement available by late summer. Material
ontained in the Draft Impact Statement will not be published
gain in the final. It will be included by reference only,
he final EIS will consist of the Agency's statement of findings
he decision on the water discharge permit, any pertinent addi-
ional information or evaluations developed since publication of
he draft, substantive comments and Agency responses and the
ranscript of this hearing.
For those persons who have not received a copy of the
2-8
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Draft EIS, a limited number will u*
available at the registra-
tion desk.
Thank you for your attendance here tonight.
MR. PERRY: Thank you, Mr. Todd, i Kouid now like to
recognize Mr. James Patrick as the chief of the Compliance Sec-
tion of the Water Enforcement Bran^ v
h who will present a state-
ment on the modification of the HPDES permit_
MR. PATRICK: I've present
ented a copy of my statement
to the reporter to be entered ir.
the record. My name is James
R. Patrick, Jr. I am Chief of the rnm^i•	^
tne Compliance Section, Water
*
Enforcement Branch, Environmental	.	z
ientai Protection Agency, Region IV,<
Atlanta, Georgia. The EPA proposes to	• v 2
s Co modify permit number g
AL0003646 issued to United States qfa i „	o
states Steel Corporation for its z
operation in Fairfield, Alabama 			u
. Alabama, to allow for additional dis- o
fib
UJ
charges of pollutants to Opossum Pt-a t	^
opossum Creek which will result from <
the operation of a new No. 8 blast furnace.
The permit which we are proposing t-n m a • c	• a
r H^fing to modify was issued on
June 23, 1977, At that timf»
' construction of No. 3 blast
furnace was well under way and the	^ ^ ,
ne Preparation of the Environ-
mental Impact Statement for which this hearing is concerned was
being prepared. Since the new No. 8 blast furnace had been
identified as a new source in accordance with Title 40, Chapter
part 6, appendix A of the Code of Federal Regulations pertain-
ing to the preparation of Environmental Impact Statements as
published in the Federal Register. Volume 42, No. 7,
t-
z-
<
1,
2-9
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
ranuary 11, 1977, the allowances for its pollution load could not
lave been included in the original permit prior to completion
>f the environmental review process. It had been agreed with
Jnited States Steel Corporation, however, that pending a satis-
factory environmental review, this Agency would propose a permil:
nodification employing the new source performance standards as
:irst published on February 19, 1974, and promulgated on
lune 28, 1974, although these standards have been remanded by
:he Third Circuit Court.
U
2
Using U. S. Steel's projected production of 5,000 tons —
£
>er day of basic iron from No. 8 blast furnace, and the new source
performance standards, this Agency is proposing to modify the g
o
SPDES permit for outfalls serials 010-027 to Opossum Creek by x
P
adding the following quantities of pollutants to those already §
u
allowed by the permit:	<
£
Discharge Limitations
kg/day (lbs/day)	Other Units (Specif
Daily Avg. Daily Max. Dally Min. Daily May
(Gross)	(Gross)
rSS	59 (130) 177 (390)
CN-A	.6 (1.3) 1.8 (4.0)
Phenol	1.2 (2.6) 3.6 (8.0)
NH3-N	24 (52)	71 (156)
Sulfide	.7 (1.6) 2.3 (5)
Fluoride 47 (104) 142 (312)
pH std. units --	--	g.o	9.0
Although the operation of this furnace will cause a slight
increase of pollutants discharged to Opossum Creek it will re-
sult in a significant reduction in pollutants being discharged
2-10
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to Village Creek from the Ensley operations. The new blast
furnace at Fairfield will enable the phase-out of the existing
aid blast furnaces at the Ensley operations by December 31, 198]|
This is expected to reduce the discharges to Village Creek by
L3 pounds per day of cyanides, 1,8 pounds per day of phenols,
L03 pounds per day of ammonia nitrogen, and 1,668 pounds per
lay of total suspended solids. This plus the projected reduc-
:ions from improved municipal treatment facilities is expected
:o result in a very significant improvement in that creek.
•
u
The applicable water quality standards to Opossum Creek 5
ind its receiving water, Valley Creek, is still uncertain. The*
Alabama Water Improvement Commission reclassified this stream ^
u
;o industrial operations on December 19, 1977. This reclassify
h
:ation was disapproved by this Agency on April 13, 1978. The g
1*1
irinciple issue as it relates to this permit is with a toxicity*
h
if ammonia and cyanide. The allowed increases of these para- ^
leters is less than 10 percent and can be expected to have a ^
linimal effect on the toxicity of the stream.
MR. PERRY: Thank you, Mr. Patrick. I would now like
o recognize Mr. James L. Bryant who is an engineer with the
labama Water Improvement Commission.
MR. BRYANT: Mr. Chairman, Ladies and Gentlemen, I am
ames L. Bryant, an engineer with the Industrial Waste Control
ection of the Alabama Water Improvement Commission. On behalf
f Mr. James W. Warr, Director, Alabama Water Improvement
2-11
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Commission, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to
review the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and to present
these comments tonight.
We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
for the U. S. Steel Corporation No. 8 blast furnace, and are
concerned that this document was not prepared nor public comment:
received prior to construction of the facility. As this pro-
ject is practically completed and ready for start-up, we are
concerned that comments and statements received tonight could
u
z
have little significance when the Environmental Protection ™
>¦
A-gency considers the final approval of the project and modifi- <
%
cations to the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System g
o
permit.	5
u
The proposed action by U. S. Steel Corporation will	g
Ul
u
result in an increased discharge to Opossum Creek of 1.3 pounds<
z
per day cyanide, 2.8 pounds per day of phenol, 52 pounds per 3
<
day of ammonia, and 130 pounds per day of total suspended solids
Ihe Draft EIS rationalizes that this increase will have little
Dr no impact on the receiving stream for several reasons. One,
a pollutant offset or trade-off between Village Creek and Opossta
and Valley Creeks will make this project more acceptable because
those pollutants discharged by the Ensley blast furnaces to
Village Creek will be eliminated. Secondly, because biological
and chemical studies have shown that the existing water quality
of Opossum Creek and portions of Valley Creek is poor and suppoi
2-12
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
little or no aquatic life, the ad
cne Draft EIS, statements are Z
lade that the additional pollutant ^	I
F cants from the No. 8 blast furnacg
111 have little or no impact on t-v.« _	U
p z on the water quality of these g
treams. The existing conditions are -u	r- u	E
are such that no fish are g
a.
ound in Opossum Creek, and few, if anv -r« - •	u * *-
' any. in certain reaches of
alley Creek. It is unclear from the viewpoint of the Commissi|
taff what the position of EPA is regarding the proposed modi- S
ication to the U. S. Steel permit in light of the fact that
PA has not yet taken a position on the classification of
possum and Valley Creeks.
As the State Agency responsible for certifying the discharge
accordance with Section 401 of the Federal Water Pollution
.ntrol Act Amendments of 1972, the Commission welcomes the
.portunity to receive comments tonight. Constructive comments
.11 be considered when a decision is to be made on certificaticn
2-13
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and on modification of the State Discharge Permit. Thank you.
MR. PERRY: Thank you. Are there other representa-
tives from the State here tonight? (No response.) All right,
^re there other representatives from federal agencies? (No
response.) Are there representatives of other governmental
arganizations who would like to make a statement here tonight?
(No response.) Are there any local elected representatives who
tfould like to make a statement? (No response.) If not, I will
nake a brief statement as to the conduct of the hearing. We
•
u
tfill now proceed with, I guess, the real purpose of what we're Z
tiere for tonight, and that is to receive public comments. It 5
¦H
A.
is the express goal of both the Clean Water Act and the National
u
Environmental Policy Act to encourage and provide for public ^
h
participation and input into determinations required by those g
a.
iu
statutes.
¦<
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement and the NPDES 2
mJ
J*
permit are, therefore, being discussed in this open forum to <
encourage full participation of the public in the decision makirig
process, to develop greater responsiveness of governmental action
to the public's concerns and priorities, and to develop improvec.
public understanding of the United States Steel Corporation and
the actions of this Agency has proposed to take with regard to
the facility. This hearing is being conducted pursuant to 40CFI|l,
Section 125.34 of our regulations and should be -- and should
represent to you an opportunity to make your views with respect
2-14
-------
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
to the project known to the governmental agencies charged with
responsibility of making decisions concerning this modifica-
tion, to the. permit.
Notice of this public hearing was published in the Birmingi:
am
*ews on May 14, 1978. In addition, copies of the public notice
,ere mailed to each of those individuals or organizations on the
iPA mailing list as well as all appropriate governmental agencies.
Before I proceed further, I would like to ask everyone hers
rtio is not already registered to please do so before you leave,
le ask that you register so that we will have a record of thoseSj
.n attendance, and also so that we can send you a notice of ourz
<
eterminations with regard to this facility. EPA personnel - |
u
started to say are at the registration table, but I don't «
hink there's anyone out there right at the moment. But we g
a.
Ud
ill make arrangements to take your registration card For *
hose of you who would like to be added to our mailing list, *
_i
e ask that you check the appropriate block on the card. If <
on have not already registered and wish to make an oral state-
ant here tonight, I would ask that after the names that we've
ailed that you feel free to do so and then please register witlji
ir personnel after the hearing. The complete agenda of the
»eting is also available at the registration desk outside for
lose persons who would like to have one, as well as a copy of
iblic notice and the fact sheet.
This hearing will be conducted informally. Formal rules
2-15
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
af evidence will not apply, and both oral and written statements
jill be accepted. Any and all persons present and desiring to
aake an oral statement or to submit written statements will be
ifforded the opportunity to do so. If you have a written state-
lent which will accompany your oral presentation, I would ask
:hat you give a copy of that written statement prior to your
leginning. If you have a lengthy written statement I ask that
our oral presentation be in summary form if at all possible.
11 presentations should be limited to ten minutes or less, and
«
u
may interrupt or cut short, if necessary, any oral presenta- 2:
ion exceeding this limit.	2
<
a.
The members of this panel may ask questions of any person ^
u
resenting oral statements where it is felt necessary to clarify
he nature or substance of the comments of any part thereof. g
a.
Ui
owever, the audience will not be permitted to ask questions of*
<
hose persons commenting for the record.	^
As we proceed with the agenda I would like to ask that <
ach person making a statement step up to the microphone, state
is or her name, and the interest or organization represented,
iiis hearing is being recorded by a court reporter and also by
xx recording devices for future transcription. In addition to
LI oral and written comments submitted tonight, the comment
jriod for the Draft Environmental Impact Statement remains open
>r an additional two weeks and allows the submission of further
jmments. We will hold the written record of this hearing and
2-16
-------
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
any other comments received as a matter of public record in the
Regional Office in Atlanta.
All right. At this time I would like to recognize the
representative of U. S. Steel, the permitee. I believe he
would like to make a statement at this time.
DR. PETERSON: Thank you. My name is Dr. Jack K.
Peterson and I am Manager-Environmental Control-South for
Jnited States Steel Corporation. I am pleased to present on
lehalf of United States Steel Corporation our comments concern-
.ng the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and proposed NPDES5
.ermit modification for the new No. 8 blast furnace at our z
airfield plant in Birmingham, Alabama. I request that this 2
u
tatement be made a part of the official record of chis hearing?
United States Steel Corporation looks forward to the un- §
O.
estricted operation of the new production facilities that are 5
part of our Fairfield modernization program. These facilitie^
_i
iclude two new coke oven batteries, a third Q-BOP steelmaking <
jrnace, and a new 5,000 ton per day blast furnace. Our modern
ition program will maintain existing capacity of 3% million
ins per year at our Fairfield plant.
By unrestricted operation we refer to all local, state and
tderal requirements that must be identified, agreed to, com-
ied with before and after these facilities begin operation.
believe that all such requirements have now been identified
d agreed to for all of our facilities except the No. 8 blast
rnace. The new blast furnace is the specific subject of this
2-17
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
hearing. We believe that the Environmental Impact Statement
should be approved as written and that the Fairfield NPDES
permit should be modified as indicated and promptly issued so
that the No. 8 blast furnace can be put into production without
costly delay.
The Fairfield No. 8 blast furnace replaces iron-making
capacity that will be retired at Ensley. For more legal than
logical reasons, the replacement of the Ensley blast furnaces
was the basis for EPA's determination that the No. 8 blast fur-
u
TL
nace should be considered a new source. Because we will dis- -
*
charge pollutants from the new blast furnace into Opossum Creek*
CL
the existing Fairfield NPDES permit must be modified to autho- o
u
rize this discharge and to delete the Ensley blast furnace dis-z
h
charges into Village Creek. EPA determined, more than two o
CL
III
OS
years ago, that this permit modification constituted a major
federal action. Consequently, the requirements of the Nationals
h
Environmental Policy Act were applicable and an Environmental *
Impact Statement was required.
United States Steel Corporation agreed to retain a consul-
tant, approved by EPA, to prepare the Environmental Impact Statej-
nent under EPA's administrative and editorial direction. AWARE
was retained over one year ago to prepare an Environmental Impact
Statement for EPA under the terms of a Memorandum of Understand
Lng dated March 30, 1977, between United States Steel Corpora-
tion and the United States Environmental Protection Agency. The
2-18
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
Draft Environmental Impact Statement, which is the subject of
this meeting today, was approved by EPA on May 12, 1978, and
distributed for comment. During this period United States Steej.
Corporation worked and cooperated with AWARE, the U. S. EPA,
state and local agencies as well as state, local and national
environmental groups in an effort to fully develop the informa-
:ion and facts needed to determine the incremental impact of thes
lew No. 8 blast furnace. This information is presented in the
)raft Environmental Impact Statement.
u
From the beginning, United States Steel Corporation believed
>¦"
:hat our modernization program was right from every point of <
riew -- economic, energy, environment, and community. This is o
o
till our belief and we are pleased that the findings of the z
H
cc
nvironmental Impact Statement confirm our belief. The incre- 2
UJ
oc
ental impact of the new No. 8 blast furnace is positive in ^
H-
Z
very respect.	<
H
<
The Draft Environmental Impact Statement is an EPA docu-
ent prepared by a consultant, Associated Water and Air Resources,
nc. United States Steel agrees with the conclusions of the
nvironmental Impact Statement; however, we do not agree with
11 of the methodology, certain assumptions, or the limited
sope of conclusions. We make this point because the EPA-AWARE
treatment of certain subjects was not as we would have handled
lem. For example, in determining the incremental impact of
le No. 8 blast furnace on ambient air quality, all major source!!
2-19
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
of air pollution had to be quantified. We feel EPA used very
liberal estimates and emission factors. Consequently, while
we did not agree on specific assumptions, we could agree on
the results of the study which shows that there will be a marke
-------
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
and Resource Development for the Bi™,- u
Birmingham Area Chamber of
Commerce.
The Birmingham Area Chamber of rw, •	r t.
or Commerce is one of the
largest business associations in at.k
Alabama with over 1900 member
firms and 4000 individual members Ths , .	, , „
ine Environmental Economics
Committee (EEC) of the Chamber is
dedicated to maintaining a
balance between environmental •*.
1 ality and economic well-being.
rhe Environmental Economics Conmit-t-*- •
ttee is vitally interested in
:he role of U. S. Steel Cort>or a *--,*« -
corporation m the Birmingham area and
/e offer these comments concerning *.u	u
lr*g the proposed modification z
>f National Pollutant Discharge Eli™,-*,	*
fa J-animation System permit	Z
[AL0003646) and the No. 8 blast	r,	5
furnace Environmental Impact o
tatement.	0
z
The EEC strongly supports the No. 8 blast furnace EIS and |
rges approval of the proposed modified NPDES permit.	\
A review of the construction and operational environmental^
npacts reveals that the proposed „ew No. 8 blast furnace wlll 5
ave a positive net result on our community. The construction
iase alone is now providing over 1000 construction jobs. Most
F these jobs have come from the Birmingham area labor force so
Jis action has been a factor in reducing our unemployment ratei
We view the operation of the new blast furnace as a plus
.so. Once No. 8 is functional, the three remaining blast
[maces at the Ensley works will be shut down, significantly
iducing the amount of pollutants now entering Village Creek.
2-21
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
U. S. Steel is the major employer in the four-county
Birmingham metropolitan area and likewise a major contributor
to our economy through payroll dollars. This total moderniza-
tion program is viewed as being most positive for individual
citizens and the Birmingham market. In addition to the directli
related jobs and dollars already mentioned, this committment als
acts as a stimulus for other corporate and private investment
in the community.
In summary, the EEC feels that industry, citizens and
u
¦r
local governments will all benefit by the operation of U. S. -
Steel's No. 8 blast furnace and the modification of the NPDES <
flk
permit. We urge swift approval on this matter. Thank you. <>
MR. PERRY: Thank you, Mr. Douglass. Now, the next z
h
ct
speaker that I have noted here is J. B. Brand, Jr. who is the g
Ul
oc
Director of Industrial Relations for the Associated Industries <
of Alabama.	^
»-
MR. BRAND: I am J. B. Brand, Jr., Director, Indus-
trial Relations, Associated Industries of Alabama. We repre-
sent some 1400 organizations statewide.
The AIA urges the Environmental Protection Agency to appro^<
the No. 8 blast furnace EIS in its present form, and to modify
the U. S. Steel NPDES permit in a timely manner so thattthis
curnace is authorized to begin production. U. S. Steel, its
lustomers, our community and the state, and the Fairfield works
amployees will benefit from this new facility.
2-22
-------
i
<
1C
u
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
U. S. Steel has apparently made a i
y woe a long range committment
to Birmingham, and to the South thyn u ,
» through this modernization
program. New coke ovens, modern 5 nnn «-	,
J,000 ton per day blast furnace
and a third Q-BOP steelmaking vessel ^
s ebsei represent a large invest-
ment by U. S. Steel in the future of „	,
of our community and state.
jobs and taxes supported v>tr *.u
by these facilities are sig-
nificant, but even more importantlv t-v.-,-
nciy, this committment is con-
tagious and will favorably affect othm- k • j * •
ocner business decisions m
:his area. We have reviewed th*» •
Environmental Impact Statement.
md frankly we cannot see how anvn^	, , , .	V
anyone can reasonably object to 5
:he proposed changes.
>-
z
<
Air emissions will be si^trf . i	2?
significantly reduced by retiring o
he Ensley blast furnace. The pn„i	W
me Ensley water discharges into g
illage Creek will be drasticallv	,	£
y reduced, and the small amount©
a.
f increase in pollutants discharoo^ •	*
arged into Opossum Creek probably
annot be measured in the 20 minin« ,	£
u m3-Llion gallons per day discharge.f
We understand that these new fanun	<
^acuities are more energy ^
fficient and we further under<5faTi^ *.u
unaerstand that U. S. Steel has agreed
3 install elaborate facilities for air	n
air and water pollution
)ntrol,
We believe that everyone gains from s. steel's modernl
ition program. There is no question in our mind that the Impact
:atement and the permit modification should be approved. Per-
>ps the comprehensive water quality section of the EIS will be
:lpful in resolving the current stream classification issues
2-23
-------
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I
of the Birmingham area. Thank you for this opportunity.
MR. PERRY: Thank you, Mr. Brand t«
Is there anyone
slse wh0 wishes to make a statement at this time? (Ho response.
:f not, I wish to thank all of you on behalf 0f the Etlvironmen_
al Protection Agency for your attendance and participation and
ooperation here this evening.
The comment period for this Draft-
rart Environmental Impact
tatement will remain open until the clnea u ,
<-ne close of business Thursday,
me 29, 1978. This will allow anyone u
-------
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
I wish to thank you again for appearing here this evening.
If there is no other business, I declare the hearing adjourned.
(Whereupon, the hearing was adj ourned.)
-oOo-
CERTIFICATE
GEORGIA)
FULTON COUNTY)
I, Diana Jordan, being a Notary Public in and for the
u
State of Georgia at Large, do hereby certify that the above 5
>-
and foregoing is a true and complete transcription of my steno-^
O.
graphic notes taken at the hereinabove set out time and place ©
and was reduced to typewriting by me personally.	Z
H
C£
WITNESS my hand and official seal this 20th day of June o
Ul
et
<
1978 at Atlanta, Fulton County, Georgia.
4—0. > •
Diana W. Jordan
T-348
(SEAL)
i
z
<
H
<
No; ry i iiSi'h, J:	at Lar*
My Commission Expires June I,
-oOo-
2-25
-------
RESPONSE TO THE PUBLIC HEARING COMMENT MADE BY MR. LARRY BRYANT,
ALABAMA WATER IMPROVEMENT COMMISSIOFT
The data developed in conjunction with the DEIS
on Opossum and Valley Creeks will be considered
by EPA in establishing appropriate stream
classifications.
2-26
-------
CHAPTER 3
WRITTEN COMMENTS TO THE DRAFT EIS
EPA RESPONSES
-------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION. AND WELFARE
REGION IV
101 MARIETTA TOWER. SUITS 1X5(X 1 503
ATLANTA. GEORGIA 30323
June 22, 1978	office of the
Principal Regional Official
Re: HEW 868-5-78
Mr. John E. Hagan III
Chief, EIS Branch
EPA, Region IV
345 Courtland St., N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30308""
Subject: U.S. Steel Corporation, Number 8 Blast Furnace Fairfield AL
EPA 904/9-78-007	rurnace, cairrieia, al
Dear Mr. Hagan:
u™nh^h/lVjf^l«f„f!ib^Chdrft.Environme',tal Impact Statement. Based
upon the data contained in the draft, it 1s our opinion that the proposed
the srnnl If	""pa(;t upon the human environment within
s revlf- The	statement has been
adequately addressed for our comnents.
Sincerely yours,
j
James E. Yarbrough
Regional Environmental Officer
Region IV, DHEW
cc: Ms. A. McGee i Dj	(T
lr,(	ZD •-
¦J -	pp;.
Mr. Raymond Goldberg	E
JUN 2 3 1978
3-1
-------
DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH. EDUCATION. AND WELFARE
PUBLIC HEALTH SERVICE
CENTER FOB DISEASE CONTROL
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30333
TELEPHONE: (404) 633-3311
June 22, 1978
}.}
"4. a»
i
Enforcement Division
Attn: Ms. Mona Ellison
OA.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30308
Dear Ms. Ellison:
We have reviewed the draft environmental impact statement on United
States Steel Corporation, Number 8 Blast Furnace, Fairfield, Alabama.
We are responding on behalf of the Public Health Service.
In our review of the proposed project, we found no consideration given
to occupational safety and health hazards, specifically nitrogen dioxide,
sulfur dioxide, carbon monoxide, and heat stress. The National Institute
of Occupational Safety & Health has established criteria documents for
these, and these documents could be used or indexed as a reference in the
statement.
The document stated ground water may be contaminated by industrial waste
but the statement is not quantified. We realize this is a concern of
EPA, but we are pointing it out as having a possible public health effect*
Thank you for the opportunity of reviewing this document. We would
appreciate receiving a copy of the final statement when it is issued.
Sincerely yours
William H. Foege, M.D.
Assistant Surgeon General
Director
3-2
-------
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
SOIL CONSERVATION SERVICE
P. 0. Box 311, Auburn, Alabama 36830 " 			—
June 23, 1978
Mr. John C. White
Regional Administrator
United States Environmental
Protection Agency
Region IV
345 Courtland Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30308
Dear Mr. White:
Staff specialists of the Soil Conservation c
have reviewed the Draft Environmental T™	lce to Auburn, Alabama,
States Steel Corporation Number 8 Bla<5l I Statement for the United
Staff comments listed according to	at Fairfield, Alabama,
vided below for your consideration.	location in the DEIS are pro-
for6erosion^can\e°identiiiec^by&1 lmgth^o fS ^ * Mgh Potential
slope, soil cover conditions, and thfsoil	?*eeP*ess o£.
each kind of soil. Sites having lone sin™. odlbllity factor for
little protective soil cover and being CoLn'	sf°Pes! 311(1
high erodibility factors have high potentiator S°*1S W1Th
ment measures that provide for reducing	i er°slon* T*~eat-
improving soil cover, creating roughness conditiSfof^he^oU6"^--
face and working across the contour will reduce erosion rates
Treatment measures such as quick revegetation, grassed waterways
terraces and diversions, sediment basins and n+v, *u j £
reduce water velocity should be used d^Cls^S?
Page 3-109, first paragraph, line 2: The Largemouth Bass Spotted
Bass, and White Bass are predators, not foragf or Sugh fish Sis
paragraph should be changed to reflect the presence of predator
Sp&ClGS•
In general the discussion of the fish populations of the streaas
involved does not indicate population values, production, or per-
cent of harvestable size fishes.
Page 3-110, Table 5-21: There are several errors in the spelling
of species names; for example, the Golden Redhorse species is
erythrurum not erythruram and the Blacktail Redhorse species is
poecilurum not poeilurum. This table should be reviewed and
corrected. The species for the Short-nosed Gar is omitted and
the genus for the Yarmouth is Lepomis not Chaenobryttus
3-3
-------
John C. White
2
Page 3-112, Table 3-23: The species for the White Crappie is Annularis,
not Anulams. This species is also omitted from Table 3-21, page 3-110.
Page 3-119, third paragraph: There are several errors in the spelling
of scientific names of plants. This table should be reviewed and cor-
rections made.
Page 3-143, Climax Forest: This paragraph should be rewritten to more
accurately reflect the forest succession. A true climax forest for
this area is not described in this paragraph.
Page 8-19, Table 8-9: Errors in spelling of species names are noted.
Table should be reviewed and corrected.
Page 8-20, Table 8-10: Errors in spelling are noted. This table
should be reviewed and corrected. The genus for the Warmouth is
not correct.
Page 8-26, Table 8-14:
Page 8-29, Table 8-15:
spelled.
Page 8-34, third paragraph: Errors in spelling of genera are noted.
This table should be reviewed and corrected.
Page B-3-3, Table B-2: This table lists many species which supposedly
occur or could occur in the Black Warrior Basin; the inclusion of some
species in this list is highly questionable. We suggest that this
table be reviewed and deletions made in order that the listings may be
more accurate. For example, Roseate Spoonbill, Ruffed Grouse, Ring-
necked Pheasant are not found in the basin.
Page B-6-1, Table B-7: Ironweed should be Ironwood. Table should be
reviewed and spelling errors corrected.
Page B-6-3, Table B-8: The table should be reviewed and spelling
corrected.
Page 3-124, paragraph 3.1.11.4, Agricultural Land: Approximate total
acres of prime farmland to be disturbed or altered as a result of this
proposed furnace should be addressed.
Species spelling for White Crappie is incorrect.
Eastern Cottonmouth species name is incorrectly
3-4
-------
John C. White
3
We appreciate the opportunity to review
such as this, and we hope that the	envir°nmental impact statements
benefit.	F	the c«nts provided will be of some
Sincerely,
y r
B. Lin^le
State Conservationist
cc:
EPA, Room 537, W. Tower, 401 M St S W
G. H. Loomis, Director, ESD, USDA-SCS* p'^ shinSton, D. C. 20460 (5 cys)
CI cy)	'	Box 2890, Washington, D. C. 20013
J. V. Martin, Director, STSC, P. o Bov
* B°X 6567> Worth, TX 76115 (1 cy)
3-5
-------
V-tMr °*
DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
AREA OFFICE
DANIEL BUILDING, 15 SOUTH 20TH. STREET, BIRMINGHAM, ALABAMA 35233
REGION IV
Pershing Point Plaza
1371 Peachtree Street/ N»E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30309
June 13, 1978
JN REPLY REFER TO:
4.2SS
Mr. John C. White
Regional Administrator
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV
345 Court!and Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30308
Dear Mr. White:
Subject: Draft Environmental Impact Statement
U.S. Steel Corporation
No. 8 Blast Furnace, Fairfield, Ala.
We are pleased to acknowledge receipt of the above referenced
request for HUD's comments under the requirements of the National
Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (P.L. 91-109).
We have reviewed the ^formation submitted along with your referral
and, to the extent of" available staff resources, have Investigated
the environmental impact, adverse effect, and commitment of resources
for the project involved. From the information available to us, we
feel that this project will have a long range positive effect on our
programs through a reduction of pollutants.
Your interest in this matter 1s appreciated.
Sincerely,
John E. Wilson
Area Director
3-6
-------
645 South McDcncugn Street Montgomery, Alabama 36130
Teleohone 205-834-65/0
ACTS No. 345-6770
June 29, 1978
Mr. John E. Hagan III, Chief
EXS Branch
Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV
345 Courtland Street, N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30308
Dear Mr. Hagan:
Works in Jefferson County.	e fairriej-a
The document entitled, "Draft Environmental Impact Statment" says
that the Fairfield air quality sampling station meets the primary air
quality standards for particulate matter. This statement is contained
on page 3-47 of the document. This statement is in error and should be
deleted. Based on EPA guidance, the proper basis for determining
whether an ambient monitoring station demonstrated attainment of the
standard included evaluating the concentrations monitored for the period
10/76 to 10/77 be assessed. The concentration monitored by the Fairfield
monitoring site for this time period was 77 ugm-3. This is in excess of
the primary air quality standard.
In my letter of February 9, 1978, to Mr. Russell Todd regarding the
preliminary draft environmental impact statement, I indicated that the
EIS did not contain a short-term air quality analysis. An explanation
of why no short-term analysis was included should be addressed, especially
in view of the imposition of this requirement on the DEIS prepared for
Ideal Cement.
If any of these comments require clarification, please advise.
Yours very truly,
i/
James W. Cooper, Director
Division of Air Pollution Control
Alabama Air Pollution Control Commission
JWC/REG:ldg
3-7
-------
United States Department of the Interior
OFFICE OF THE SECRETARY
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20240
JUN 2 9 ^78
Mr. John C. White
Regional Administrator, IV
Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street
Atlanta, Georgia 30 308
Dear Mr. White:
Thank you for your letter of May 12? 1978, transmitting
copies of the Environmental Protection Agency's draft
environmental statement for U.S. Steel Corporation Number
8 Blast Furnace, located in Jefferson County, Alabama.
The final statement should discuss the potential for
impacts on ground water from coal in storage. It should
also discuss pertinent details of the construction of
wastewater-management ponds and potential effects of
seepage from the ponds or infiltration to ground water
following accidental or planned release of contaminants
from any other point in the wastewater system. We
recommend that the final statement discuss mitigation
measures to prevent adverse impacts to ground water.
Minor Comments
The final statement should correct a sentence on page 2-6,
paragraph 3 of the draft. It should include words to the
effect that iron is reduced by carbon monoxide through
the partial combustion of coke, and not by the coke itself.
Please note that, contrary to the statement on page 2,
paragraph 1, fuels are not beneficiated. If the state-
means beneficiated charge, we recommend the final
statement notes that this operation is only done
occasionally.
ER-78/45 3
3-8
JUL 5 1978
-------
The flow chart, in figure 2-4, should be deleted because
the process is too complicated to ho ue-Lei:ect because
this simplistic form. About one-half ofU*h»eiy+
strip is normally sold as such wi^hf oSS^^f ^he
product going to a cold tandem min +0 ^ J naxx or rv ,
sheet and strip. This, in tuSn^goes	c°ld™lled
and temper mills to be sold as cold ronpn annealing
or else to the electrolytic tin^ine I££ d ??eet Strlp'
sheet mills left in the United States or>Va f6 n£
"sheet mills" means mills that process cut^heet The
process?atSment Sh°Ul<1 re°0gnize the complexity if Sis
We hope these comments will be helpful to you in the
preparation of a final impact statement.
jjipcerely,
/t
Larfcy t. Meierotto
SECRETARY
3-9
-------
REPLY TO
ATTENTION- OF:
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
MOBILE DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P. 0. BOX 2288
MOBILE, ALABAMA 3662B
Barnett/rwr/FTS 534-2724
SAMPD-EE
15 June 1978
Mr. John C. White
Regional Administrator
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region IV
345 Courtland Street
Atlanta, GA 30308
Dear Mr. White:
We have reviewed the Draft Environmental Statement for the United States
Steel Corporation, Number 8 Blast Furnace, Fairfield, Alabama, and we
have the following comments:
a.	Page 3-71, Flow Frequency Table - It appears that the last
column heading is incorrect. The percentage should be substantially
higher than five percent.
b.	Page 3-84, Navigation, Paragraph 1 - Navigation from Mobile,
Alabama, to Mile 22 on the Locust Fork and Mile 46 on Mulberry Fork is
provided by six locks and dams on the Tombigbee and Black Warrior Rivers.
c.	Page 3-86, Section 3.1.9.1.3 - Plants in title of section should
be changed to Plans.
d.	Page 3-86, Section 3.1.9.1.3 - Beginning in June 1978, the U. S.
Army Corps of Engineers is scheduled to conduct a water quality manage-
ment study of Oliver, Holt, and Bankhead Lakes on the Black Warrior River.
The study will include biological, chemical, and physical parameters of
water and sediment. General objectives of the study are to: (1) establish
base-line conditions for future comparisons; (2) identify water quality-
environmental problems; (3) collect data to develop guidance for reservoir
control-discharge water quality relationships; (4) study special problems
and collect data necessary to develop criteria for solutions to such
problems; and, (5) collect data that will provide an adequate data base
and understanding of project conditions to facilitate coordination with
State agencies to implement watershed pollution control.
3-10
-------
SAMPD-EE
Mr. John C. White	15 June 1978
e. CEQ Guidelines for Preparation r «
inent (CFR Title 40, Chapter V, Part 15001 ^nvironmental Impact State-
statement should cover eight points Th sta5es t^at an environmental
concerning: (1) the relationship of the & Su^ect EIS does n°t have sections
policies, and controls for the affected *>ro*)OSe<* action to land-use plans,
environmental effects which cannot be6	^ any Pr°bable adverse
between short-term uses of man's envir^	and' ^ the relationship
enhancement of long-term productivity 0nment and the maintenance and
Thank you for the opportunity to co»CTt on this docUBent.
Sincerely yours,
/ ^ I
MASK ANTHONY >Ph/. D	/
Acting Chief	"	J
Environment and Resources Branch
2 3-11
-------
the University of^Hubatnu in Birmingham j university station / BIRMINGHAM, alabama 35294
University College /department of biology/ (205) 934-4685	juiy 28, 1978
Mr. John E. Hagan, III
Chief, EIS Branch
EPA, Region:IV
345 Courtland St, NE
Atlanta, GA 30308
Dear Mr. Hagan:
I have reviewed the EIS for USS Blast Furnace Number 8 and wish to submit
the following comments.
Taking all factors into consideration, including economic as well as
environmental, I agree with the recommended permit modifications. Although
the operation of the Number 8 Blast Furnace will result in increased discharge
of toxic wastes into Valley Creek this is more than offset by the decrease
of toxic wastes discharged into Village Creek. Furthermore, the evidence
presented in the EIS indicates that since three old furnaces will be closed
down, the new furnace operation will not result in significant increases in
the air pollution problem.
I was particularly pleased to see the non-point runoff study that was a
part of this EIS. The non-point problem has not been adequately addressed
in the Areawide 208 Study that is presently being completed, due to limited
availability of funds. The studies presented here are a welcome addition
to the small amount of work on non-point sources that has been done in
the Birmingham area.
One point was not clear to me as I reviewed the data. When the discharges,
(002 and 004) which amount to about 9M6D, are discontinued, what will be the
effect of this decreased volume on concentrations of toxic materials discharged
from other sources in Valley Creek? It is also not clear as to how this de-
crease in water volume in the stream will affect reaeration rates.
My only real objection to this EIS is that it appears to have been initiat-
ed by EPA and carried out because of a technicality rather than because of the
likelihood of a serious, adverse environmental impact. It seems to me that
the changes in toxic wastes discharged into Valley and Village Creeks could
have been determined without an extensive EIS. The only unique contribution
of this EIS was the modeling effort on air quality. This study could have
been conducted by itself to determine the impacts of closing the old furnaces
and operating the new one.
3-12
AN AFFIRMATIVE ACTION / EQUAL. OPPORTUNITY EMPLOYER
-------
Mr. John E. Hagan, III
Page 2
The conditions of Village and Valley Creek have been studied as Dart
of the areawide 208 Project. Considering the known conditions and classifica-
tions of these streams, it seems that the extensive sampling that was done
in this EIS was disproportionate to the need. When industries have to oav
for actions such as this EIS, the cost is ultimately transferred to the con-
sumer. The effort expended by EPA is also at taxpayer expense. I feel
that an EIS should originate from local actions, and only when a serious
concern for the environment is expressed.
Although Village and Valley Creeks presently have low stream classifi-
cations, environmentalists have not abandoned the hope of approaching the
zero discharge goals of Public Law 92-500. J£e^ifficult task is to achieve
water quality goals in a cost effective way that will not be economically
detrimental. United States Steel Corporation is to be congratulated on the
efforts they have made. It is my sincere hope that they will continue to
work toward improving water quality in Birmingham and in other parts of
the United States.
Joseph <3. Gauthier, Ph.D
Associate Professor of Biology, UAB
Technical Committee
3-13
-------
RESPONSE TO THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE, REGION IV
No response required.
RESPONSE TO THE DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, EDUCATION AND WELFARE, PUBLIC
HEALTH SERVICE, CENTER FOR DISEASE CONTROL
The proposed modernization is not anticipated to impact
adversely, from the standpoint of occupational safety
and health hazards, over and above the existing
environment.
RESPONSE TO THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE, SOIL CONSER-
VATION SERVICE
Page 3-109: All of the fish mentioned are acknowledged
to be predators. However, only seven fish were collected,
in total, of these three species.
Page 3-110; Table 3-21: The following species designations
and spellings are corrected:
Golden redhorse: Moxostoma erythrurum
Blacktail redhorse: Moxostoma poecilurum
Shortnose gar:	Lepisosteus platostomus
Warmouth:	Lepomis gulosus
Page 3-112: The following spelling correction is made:
White crappie:	Pomoxis annularis
Page 3-119: The following spelling corrections are made:
Ironwood:	Carpinus caroliniana
Sweetgum:	Liquidambar styraciflua
Sassafras:	Sassafras albidum
White ash:	Fraxinus americana
River cane:	Arundinaria qiqantea
Honeysuckle:	Lonicera sempervirens
3-14
-------
Page 3-143: The accuracy of the comment is acknowledged.
Page 8-19; Table 8-9; The following spelling corrections
are made:
Stonerol1er:	Campostoma anomalum
Bullhead minnow: Pimephales vigilax
Blacktail redhorse: Moxostoma poecilurum
Page 8-20; Table 8-10: The following spelling corrections
are made:
Blacktail redhorse:	Moxostoma poecilurum
Skipjack herring.	Alosa chr.ysochloris
B1ack redhorse:	Moxostoma duquesnii
Bluegill.	Lepomis macrochirus
Warmouth:	Lepomis gulosus
Page 8-26; Table 8-14: The following spelling correction
is made:
White crappie:	Pomoxis annularis
Page 8-29; Table 8-15: The following spelling correction
is made:
Eastern cottonmouth. Agkistrodon piscivorus piscivorus
Page 8-34: See corrections for page 3-119.
Page B-3-3; Table B-2: The reader should infer from the
"A":(accidental) key, that these species may not be
permanent residents of the basin but rather were only
sited there at one time.
Pages B-6-1 to B-6-4; Tables B-7 and B-8: The following
spelling corrections are made (including deletions of
capital letters and insertion of a hyphen).
Blood root:	Sanquinaria canadensis
Laurel oak:	Quercus hemisphaerica
Hawthorn:	Crataegus uniflora
3-15
-------
Spurge-nettle:	Cnidoscolus stimulosus
Shining sumac:	Rhus copal Tina
Scarlet oak:	Quercus coccinea
Black locust:	Robinia pseudo-acacia
Cucumbertree:	Magnolia acuminata
Southern bayberry:	Myri ca cerifera
Page 3-124: The new blast furnace and related facilities
will be located on an existing industrial site. No
prime farmland will be disturbed nor altered.
RESPONSE TO THE DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT
No response required.
RESPONSE TO THE ALABAMA AIR POLLUTION CONTROL COMMISSION
The statement, "However, the Fairfield air quality
sampling station nearest to the Fairfield Works meets
the primary ambient air quality standards for particu-
late matter." will be deleted from Page 3-47 of the
Draft Environmental Impact Statement as requested. This
statement was based on the most recent single year of
data (1977). Two years of data are required in deter-
mining attainment status which minimizes the changes
of relying on a single year's data, which might re-
flect abnormally favorable meteorological conditions.
In 1976, the Fairfield air quality sampling station vio-
lated the primary standard for particulate matter.
The proposed modernization by the U. S. Steel Corpora-
tion involves replacement of antiquated facilities and
it has been demonstrated, through an analysis of emission
rates and mathematical modeling, that this will have a
positive impact on ambient air quality.
3-16
-------
RESPONSE TO THE UNTTFD VmjmmVLOUHZ INTERIOR
The proposed modernization i„cluding construction and
operation of the No a hi*,.* ^
hat+	„ .	8 blast furnace, the No. 2 coke
battery, a third Q-BOP ¦Fnv,„,
.	umace and four soaking pits
will not result in any impact* t« a
anj . XL	"ipacts to groundwater over
above those which may result +1, • +•
result from the existing
environment. For thic	,
f	eason a detailed evaluation
of groundwater impacts was not made.
Iron is reduced by the carbon monoxide from the partial
combustion of coke and not by the coke itself. This
statement will sup©rs©dp +»«j. .
nrr,	^perseae the statement on page 2-6 of
the DEIS. Also the Final	ftc ,•
- ... incorporates a change
from beneficiated fuels"	+« ..u
a tea	to "beneficiated charge."
Beneficiated charge is used all of the time, however.
response to the army CORPS OLENGINEERS^MOBILE nicr..rr
Comment a: The last minm*. u j.
1 column heading on the Flow
Frequency Table, page 3-71 of the DEIS
should be changed from 5% to 50%.
Comment b: No response required
Comment c: Page 3-86, Section 3.1.9.1.3., the word
plant should be changed to plans, as
recommended.
No response required.
The points to be addressed which are suggested
in the CEQ guidelines have been addressed in
the text of the DEIS rather than in specific
sections.
The proposed project will not significantly
change the land use plan, since it is part of
a modernization program on an existing facility.
Comment d:
Comment e:
3-17
-------
Adverse impacts which cannot be avoided
will be the increased discharge of total
suspended solids, phenols, ammonia, and
cyanide to Opossum Creek and Valley Creek.
The modernization program will not change
the impact from the existing facility
either for short-term uses or long-term
productivity. It is designed to maintain
existing production following phase-out
of older facilities.
RESPONSE TO DR. JOSEPH GAUTHIER
No response required.
3-18
-------
CHAPTER 4
STATEMENT OF FINDINGS
-------
CHAPTER 4
STATEMENT OF FINDINGS
4-1-	AGENCY DECISION
the EPA Reafnn^rVt '!T COmprehen5i,'e "EPA review of this project,
Tt to ;! L?r	"Ue thS "0d1"«' -f'	Per-
to the U. S. Steel Corporation to include the discharge fro* the
operation of the No. 8 blast furnace EPA in* „
npmnt	¦ •	intends to issue this NPDES
permit following the expiration of the thirtv	^ • • * *•
_ •> i_*ul •	™ day administrative
waiting period which begins upon issuance of the Final EIS.
4-2-	NEED FOR THE PROJECT
.	. . . Steel Corporation could not justify investing
in expensive emission control equipment fn*	.
j	..	for some of the old, antiquated
iron and steelmakmg facilities Cnn
at +t,a c • u ,, . .	truction of the No. 8 blast furnace,
at the Fairfield Works, is part of a moderniya+i™	^ u
u ,,	uuernization program proposed by
the company which will allow phasing out of antim + a u- u •
s 0T antiquated high air emis-
sion equipment. Latest technology in	, !
^ n emission control and process opera-
tions will enable the company to decrease a-i* « ¦ •
. .	wcrease air emissions and yet main-
tain its existing production capacity.
4.3.	AIR QUALITY
Ambient air quality modeling analyses reveal that an
overall reduction in TSP concentrations win occur w1th the 1nsta„a.
tion of the proposed new facilities. This „ii, have , posjtjve impact
with regard to the influence of the new facilities on the air quality
of the surrounding coranunity and should contribute to improved general
environmental conditions. A reduction in U. s. Steel's emissions
and concomitant improvement in air quality would result from
application of best technology to both new and existing sources,
including the construction of the proposed new blast furnace.
4-1
-------
4.4.	WATER QUALITY
Construction of the No. 8 blast furnace at the Fairfield
Works, and the idling of Nos. 1, 2, and 3 blast furnaces at the Ensley
Works will shift wastewater discharges from Village Creek to Opossum
Creek and Valley Creek. The projected increases in discharge of pollu-
tants to Opossum and Valley Creeks from the proposed project are:
130 lb/day for suspended solids
1.3 lb/day for cyanides
2.6 lb/day for phenols
52 lb/day for ammonia
(based on BATEA effluent limitations)
According to the model predictions, the blast furnace will
decrease the dissolved oxygen in Valley Creek at the critical point by
approximately 0.12 mg/1 , increase the ammonia concentration by approxi-
mately 0.1 mg/1, increase the phenol concentration by 0.012 mg/1 and
increase the cyanide concentration by 0.001 mg/1 at the 10-year, 7-day
low flow condition.
4.5.	BIOLOGY
The proposed action will increase loadings of suspended
solids, cyanides, phenols and ammonia to Opossum and Valley Creeks.
This will exert additional stress to surviving organisms in the upper
reaches of the streams and increases the possibility of extending the
area of impact downstream.
4.6.	MANMADE ENVIRONMENT
The Agency's evaluation of comments and its internal
assessment did not discover impacts which would be unacceptable to
the area of the Fairfield Works. Once built, the visual quality will
not be much different than at present.
4-2
-------
APPENDIX A
U. S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY LETTER,
APRIL 15,1976, to U. S. STEEL CORPORATION
-------
APPENDIX A
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
PEG I ON IV
1421 pi:achti?i.:c: sr.. n. n
ATLANTA, CiCOrtGI A 30309 4A0W:WHC
APR 15 197G
CERTIFIKD mail
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Mr. James L. Hamilton, III
United States Steel Corporation
COO Grant Street
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230
Dear Mr. 1 Jamil ton:
As a result of various meetings and discussions with my staff I
have made the following determinations relative to the discharge to the
navigable waters of the JJnited States frow your Fairfield/Alabama plant
expansion:
BLAST FURNACE
1.	Construction of this facility was not in progress as of
February 19, 1974,
2.	This facility falls within the Iron and Steel industrial
category.
3.	New Source Performance Standards for this industrial' category
were proposed in the Federal Register on February 19, 1974.
4.	There is a New Source Performance Standard within this category
which can reasonably be considered applicable to the facility.
5.	The expansion is of sufficient magnitude that it can reasonably
be expected to have sufficient flexibility to achieve the applicable
New Source Performance Standards.
fts a result of these determinations I_have concluded that because
this expansion has the flexibility to aciiieve app 1 lcab' 1 c" iNaw Source
Performance Standards and construction of it did not begin prior to the
New Source Performance Standards proposal date,
1&Ii.ty.J_s _a now source. Therefore, in accordance with Section
511(c)"(If"of the""Federal' Water Pollution Control Act, as amended (33 USC
1311), I have ruled that issuance of an NPDES permit to this facility
is subject to all provisions of the National Environmental Policy Act
of 1969 (S3 Stat. 852).
( RECEIV£D~^
UWJLD STAUS Mill CORPORA! I(;fl
API! 1 'J 197G
yCWVIHOmiBITAl CMiTROU
-------
2
QliOP UNIT AND COK1: OVKHS
1.	Construction of this facility was not in progress as of
February 19, 1.974.
2.	This facility falls within the Iron and Steel industrial
category.
3.	New Source Performance Standards for.this industrial category
were proposed in the Federal Register on February 19, 1974.
4.	There is a New Source Performance Standard within this category
which can reasonably be considered applicable to this facility.
5.	This expansion is not of sufficient magnitude that it can
reasonably be expected to have sufficient flexibility to achieve the
applicable New Source Performance Standards.
As a result of these dj^t crinij) a t i on s_ T h'ave, ^ c.o» c 1 nd c d_ that ..because^
this expansion ,] _qcks..riic	fiojsj.bi 1 ity„ fp, ,p;C]iicye, n)jp.ij.cnbl p J*iow. Source
Pcrform.n |i £Q..S,t;o.ncU! r.c.U J'he., exjj and Q-d..	tj i i s, f a ci 1 ijvv (i$.jin.
cxistin,source. Therefore, in accordance with Section 511 (c)(1) of
the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended (33 USC 1311), 1
have ruled that issuance of an NPDHS permit to this facility 5s not
subject to any provisions of the National.Environmental Policy Act of
1969 (83 Stat. 852).
You may submit a request for an,.adjugUcato.ry..h.earing..and7pr Jcgal
The
request and two copies thereof must be submitted to the Regional Hearing
Clerk, Environmental Protection Agency, 1421 Peachtree Street, K'.H.,
Atlanta, Geoi'gia 30309. The submission, of the request will be within
the time period if mailed by Certified Mail before the 20th day. The
request must:
1.	State the name and address of the porson making'such requestj
2.	Include an agreement by the requestor to be subject to
examination and cross-examination and to make any employee or consultant
of such requestor or other person represented by the requestor available
for examination and cross-examination at the expense of such requestor
or such other person upon the request of the Presiding Officer, on his
own motion, or on the motion of any party;
%
3.	State with particularity the reasons for the request; and
4.	State with particularity the issues proposed to be considered
at the hearing.
-------
3
Additional information on adjudicatory hearings mi i
is found at Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations Sori-i^Ki docisions
Federal RcRisf.or 27081.	" section 125,36, 39,
If you have further questions concerning this matter m
contact: Mr. William J I. C lowaril of our Water Jiiiforcement r->* 1 , Rc
404/520-2017.	wancli at
cc: Mr. James W. Warr
Alabama IfIC
-------
APPENDIX B
PROPOSED NPDES PERMIT MODIFICATIONS
-------
26
AGENDA
PUBLIC HEARING
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency-
Region TV
June IS, 1978
Public Hearing to receive comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Statement
(EIS), the proposed issuance of a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination
System (NPDES) permit for the
United States Steel Corporation
Fairfield Works
Fairfield, Alabama
Opening Statement - Charles A» Perry, Acting Regional Counsel,
EPA, Region IV
EIS Process - Russell L. Todd, EIS Branch, EPA, Region IV
NPDES Permit - James R. Patrick, Chief, Compliance Section,
EPA, Region IV
Other Federal and State Agency Presentations
Local Elected Representatives
Conduct of the Hearing - Charles A. Perry
Statement by U.S. Steel
Public Comments
Closing Statement - Charles A. Perry-
Mailing Address for Comments : Mr. John E. Hagan III, Chief EIS Branch
Environmental Protection Agency, Region IV
345 Courtland Street N.E.
Atlanta, GA 30308
B-2
-------
JOINT
PUBLIC NOTICE
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region IV, Water Enforcement Branch
345 Courtland Street, N. E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30308
404/881-2328
in conjunction with
Alabama Water Improvement Commission
perry H-jn Office Park, 3815 Interstate Court
Montgomery, Alabama 36109
205/277-3630
Public Notice No. PH78AL0017	Date: May 14, 1978
NOTICE. OF PUBLIC INFORMATION HEARING ON DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT, NOTICE
OF PROPOSED MODIFICATION OF NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM PERMIT,
AND NOTICE OF CONSIDERATION FOR STATE CERTIFICATION
The U. S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) proposes to modify
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit number AL0003646
issued to U. S. Steel Corporation, 600 Grant Street, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania
15230, for its Fairfield District Works, Post Office Box 599, Fairfield,
Alabama 35064.
The applicant proposes to discharge wastewaters from a new (No. 8) blast
furnace (SIC 3312) through their existing wastewater treatment facilities,
discharge serial 010 through 027, into O'Possum Creek, a tributary of Valley
Creek. The blast furnace wastewater will be pretreated to meet new source
performance standards for the Iron and Steel Subcategory as published in the
Federal Register, January 28, 1974 (remanded 3 CR, 11/7/75).
The receiving waters, O'Possum Creek and Valley Creek, were classified
by the Alabama Water Improvement Commission as Industrial Operations on
December 19, 1977. This classification was disapproved by the U. S. Environmental
Protection Agency on April 13, 1978.
The above referenced new source performance standards, for a production of
5,000 tons per day of basic iron, allow the following quantities:
kg/day (lbs/day)	Other Units (Specify)

Daily Avg
Daily Max
Daily Mia.
Daily Max

(Gross)
(Gross)
TSS
59(130)
177(390)
mmtm

CN-A
.6(1.3)
1.3(4,0)

wm+m
Phenol
1.2(2.6)
3.6(8.0)
.. ,

NH3-N
24(52)
71(156)
VMM
—
Sulfide
.7(1.6)
2.3(5)

_
Flouride
47(104)
142(312)

—
pH. std. units


6.0
9.0


B-3


-------
2
The above quantities are. specific limitations of the pre-treatment facilities
during periods when the discharge from serial 010 through 027 are affected by
rai nfall.
This modification will increase the limitations for discharge serial 010
through 027 as follows:
PRESENT LIMITATIONS
Effluent Characteristic
Discharge Limitations
kg/day (lbs/day)	Other Units (Specify)

Daily Avg
Daily Max
Daily Avg
Daily Max
Flow—m3/Day (MGD)
—
—
—
—
Temperature °C(°F)
—
—
—
35(95)
Ammonia-Nitrogen
—
789(1740)
—
—
Cyanide
—
23(50)
—
—
Phenols
—
15.8(35)
—
—
TSS
1856(4125)
3651(8050)
—
—
Total Zinc
16.3(36)
32.7(72)
—
—
Oil & Grease
354(780)
744(1641)
—
—
T. D. Iron
136(300)
272(600)
—
—
COD
5761(12690)
9563(21074)
—
—
Total Chromium
4.5(10)
13.5(30)
—
—
Tin
70(155)
140(310)
—
—
Fluoride
276(609)
435(959)
—
—
PROPOSED LIMITATIONS
Effluent Characteristic
Flow—m3/Day (MGD)
Temperature °C(°F)
Ammonia-Nitrogen
Cyanide
Phenols
TSS
Total Zinc
Oil & Grease
T. D. Iron
COD
Total Chromium
Tin
Fluoride
Discharge Limitations
kg/day (lbs/day)	Other Units (Specify)
Daily Avg
1930(4255)
16.3(36)
354(780)
136(300)
5761(12690)
. 4.5(10)
70(155)
323(713)
Daily Max
860(1896)
24'. 5(54}
19.5(43)
3S23(8440)
32.7(72)
744(1641)
272(600)
9568(21074)
13.5(30)
140(310)
577(1271)
Daily Avg
Daily Max
35(55)
B-4
-------
The proposed modifications are tent=f
public. The modified permit will expire o^June^ 3^982 comment from the
_ The Environmental Protection Agency (fpm u
envi ronmenta 1 impact statement on United Sta«- cS prePared a draft
eight blast furnace. The proposed blast furnaL	CorP°ration number
• • Steel Fairfield Works southwest of Birminnh • 136 constructed at the
A,abama-	rm,ngham ,n Jefferson County,
The draft environmental impact statempnt ,.,-m u
Office of Federal Activities and to the public o V 7ode available t0 the EPA
The Regional Administrator of EPA has determined	' 1978' by EPA' Re9ion Iv-
to foster further public participation on the omnrSL3 P^ilc heaHn9 w1'n be held
permit. The public hearing is scheduled for jSne iS?«lfication of the NPDES
7:00 p.m. in Cudworth Hall, Engineering Auditorium r'r	and wil1 begin at
Birmingham, 1919 8th Avenue South. Both oral and wHHVersity of Alabama 1n
and a transcript of the hearing proceedings will ho m Ien comments wil1 be accepted
record, written comments are encouraged The	For the accuracy of
to fix reasonable limits on the time all'owed fornJS I lcer reserves the r19ht
ror oral statements.
A fact sheet which outlines the applicant'* 			
EPA's proposed pollutant limitations and conditionsisalM5^''?" "?•
the EPA. A copy of the draft permit is appended ?o I J*bJ?,by Wr't'"9
document and is also available from the EPA,"Region nTnfft^ El^ summarY
application, supporting data, draft environmental impact stS' J®
received and other information are available for review anw
Courtland Street, N.E., Atlanta, Georgia 30308, betweL C?PV'n9 jV?f a
and 1.:30 p.m., Monday through Friday. A copying machine is avaMabl'I for
public use at a charge of 20 cents per page.
The Alabama Water Improvement Commission has been r«„
the discharge in accordance with the provisions of Sectionta?'l
Water Pollution Control Act, as amended (P.L. 92-500) ? ° •th® Federal
comment on the state certification of this discharge are	"!!
same in writing to the state agency address above within 30 h ? IHi\
of this notice. Since a public hearing will be he"d ° P	-?fe
hear and receive comments relative to state certification	agency will
Persons wishing to comment upon or object to the project, the NPDES
permit modification, the proposed permit limitations and conditions, and/or
the draft E1S are invited to respond in writing by June 29 , 1978, to
Enforcement Division, U. S. Environmental Protection Agency, 3k5 Courtland
Street, N.E., Atlanta, Georgia 30308, Attn: Ms. Mona Ellison. The NPDES
number (AL00036A6) should be included in the first page of comments. All
comments received by June 29, 1978, will be considered in the formulation
of final determinations regarding the final EIS and the NPDES permit
modification and permit conditions. Response to all substantive comments made
at this public information hearing will be published in the final EIS.
Requests for adjudicatory hearings on the NPDES permit may be filed after the
B-5
-------

Regional Administrator makes the above described determinations. Additional
information regarding an adjudicatory hearing is available in the July 2b, 197^.
Federal Register, 39> page 27081 or by contacting the Legal Support Branch,
Enforcement Division, at the address above or at ^0^/881-3506.
Copies of the draft EIS which include the draft NPDES permits and the
Supporting Report are also available for review at the following libraries:
Birmingham Main Library, 2020 7th Avenue North
Avondale Branch, 509 J+Oth Street, Birmingham
East Ens ley Branch, 900 lAth Street, Ens ley
East Lake Branch, 5 South 77th Street, Birmingham
Ens ley Branch, 1201 25 th Street, Ens ley
Georgia Road Branch, 501 ^3rd Street, Birmingham
Huffman Branch, 501 Huffman Road, Birmingham
North Birmingham Branch, 3200 27th Street North, Birmingham
Parke Memorial Branch, 1814 11th Avenue South, Birmingham
Pratt City Branch, 820 2nd Street, Pratt City
Slossfield Branch, 1916 25th Court North, Birmingham
Smithfield Branch, 18th Avenue West, Birmingham
Southside Branch, 26th Avenue Southwest, Birmingham
West End Branch, 12^1 Tuscaloosa Avenue Southwest, Birmingham
Woodlawn Branch, 5709 1st Avenue North, Birmingham
Wylam Branch, 4 300 7th Avenue, Birmingham
Please bring the foregoing to the attention of persons who you know will
be interested.
B-6
-------
\ UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
^	REGION W
'*<. fRO^
345 COURTLANO STREET
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30308
FACT SHEET
MODIFICATION FOR
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
PERMIT TO DISCHARGE TREATED WASTEWATER
TO U.S. WATERS
Permit No. AL 0003646		Date May 14, 1978
1. SYNOPSIS OF APPLICATION This fact sheet pertains to the proposed
modification of the NPDES permit to increase effluent limitations
which result from the start up of a new (No. 8) blast furnace.
a.	Name and Address of Applicant
United States Steel Corporation
600 Grant Street
Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania 15230
b.	Description of Applicant's Operation
No. 8 blast furnace will produce molten basic iron (SIC 3312)
c.	Production Capacity of Facility
5,000 tons/day
d. Applicant's Receiving Waters
Opossum Creek
e. Description of Pollution Abatement Facilities
B-7
-------
f. Description of Discharges (as reported by applicant)
Additions to Serial 010 thru 027.
None at the present time, the facility is new and is
scheduled to begin discharge by the end of September.
2. PROPOSED EFFLUENT LIMITATIONS
Additions to Serial 010 thru 027.
Permitted Maxima Temperature -
Permitted pH P.anfce (std. units) -
Effluent Characteristic
No limit.
TSS
CK-A
Phenol
KU3-H
Sulfide
Flouride
x>H. std. units
kg/day
(lbs/day)
Daily Avg
Daily Max
(Gross)
(Gross)
59(130)
177(390)
.6(1.3)
1.8(4.0)
1.2(2.6)
3.6(3.0)
24(52)
71(156)
.7(1.6)
2.3(5)
47(104)
142(312)
Discharge Limitations
Other Units (Specify)
Daily Mia. Daily Max
6.0
9.0
B-8
-------
3. MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
The applicant will be required to monitor regularly fo- fl-- vi t> isc
parameters limited in Section 2 above with sufficient '-ea-j-ncv to -Isu-'e
compliance with the permit conditions. Frequency, ref--ds -f	ing
and reporting dates will be specified in the final permit!	* ' '
14. PROPOSED COMPLIANCE SCHEDULE FOR ATTAINING EFFLUENT Liv -
Effluent limitations are to be met on the effective date of the permit.
5. PROPOSED SPECIAL CONDITIONS WHICH WILL HAVE A <3Tr'JT7To — T1P,,„m
ON THE DISCHARGE	A SIGNIFICANT IMPACT
The quantities shown in Section 2 become 1 imitat-innc ,+ ' • * u
No. 8 blast furnace wastewater is dischargeS Jo Jhe tota mi^^aVwasL
stream upon a rainfall that would cause the total mill effluent to
exceed its limits.
6. WATER QUALITY STANDARDS AND EFFLUcNT STANDARDS APPLIED TO ^HE DISCHARGE
The quantities shown in Section 2 are based on the New Source Performance
Standards for basic iron blast furnaces as published in the Federal Register,
January 28, 1974. These standards were remanded by the third circuit
court on November 7, 1975.
The receiving waters were classified as industrial operations by the
AWIC on December 19, 1977. This classification was disapproved by the
EPA on April 13, 1978.
rw a . o /.
B-9
-------
7 . PROCEDURES FOR THE FORMULATION OF FINAL DF.TERM1 MAT I ONS
a. Comment Period
The Environmental Protection Agency proposes to issue an NTDF.S porr.lt to
this applicant subject to the effluent limitations and .special conditions
outlined above. These determinations are tentative and open to comment froi-
the public.
Interested persons are invited to subr.it written comments regarding permit
issuance or the proposed permit limitations and conditions to the following
address:
Enforcement Division
Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland Street, M. E.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
ATTN: Mona Ellison
All comments received within 30 days of the date of this fact sheet will
be considered in the formulation of final determinations with regard to
proposed permit issuance.
b. Public Hearings
The Regional Administrator has determined that a public hearing will be
held in order to foster further public participation with regard to the
proposed permit issuance. The hearing is scheduled' for
Both oral and written comments will be accepted; however, for the accuracy
of the record, written comments are encouraged. The Regional Administrator
or his designee reserves the right to fix reasonable limits on the time
allowed for oral statements.
Following the public hearing, the Regional Administrator may make such
modifications in the terms and conditions of the proposed permit as may
be appropriate and shall issue or deny the permit. Notice of issuance or
denial will be circulated to those who participated in the hearing and to
appropriate persons on the EPA mailing list.
If the permit is issued, it will become effective 30 days following date of
issuance and will be the final action of EPA unless an adjudicatory hearing
is granted.
B-10
-------
C. Adjudicatory Hearing and/or Legal Decision
If the determinations are substantially unchanged, any interested person
may submit a request for an adjudicatory hearint-, and/or legal decision on
the permit and its conditions within ten days of the receipt of the notice
described above. If the determinations are substantially changed, ar.v
interested person may submit a request for an adjudicatory hearing a:-.i:/cr
legal decision within ten days of the date of the public notice or cf the
date of becoming aware of the determinations, whichever comes first. Such
requests will be within the time period if mailed by certified r.ail within
the ten-day period to the Regional Hearing Clerk, Environmental Protection
Agency, 345 Courtland Street, Atlanta, Georgia 30303 . All requests must:
(i)	State the name and address- of the person making such request;
(ii)	Identify the interest of the requestor which is affected by
the proposed issuance, denial or modification of the permit contained in the
determination of the Regional Administrator;
(iii)	Identify any persons whom the request represents;
(iv)	Include an agreement by the requestor to be subject to ex-
amination and cross-examination and to make any employee or consultant of
such requestor or other person represented by the requestor available for
examination and cross-examination at the expense of such requestor or such
other person upon the request of the Presiding Officer, on his own motion,
or on the notion of any party.
(v)	State with particularity the reasons for the request;
(vi)	State with particularity the issues proposed to be considered
at the hearing; and
(vii)	Include proposed terms and conditions which, in the judgment
of the requestor, would be required to carry out the intendment of the Act.
The granting of a request will stay only the contested portions of the
permit. Uncontested provisions of the permit shall be considered issued
and effective and the permittee must comply with such provisions. The final
Agency decision on the permit provisions contested at an adjudicatory hearing
will be made in accordance with Title 40, Code of Federal Regulations,
Section 125.36 found at 39 Federal Register 270S1, et. soq.
B-l 1
-------
DRAH
Permit No. AL 0003646
Application No. AL 076 OYM 3 000610
AUTHORIZATION TO DISCHARGE UNDER THE
NATIONAL POLLUTANT DISCHARGE ELIMINATION SYSTEM
1. In compliance with the provisions of the Federal Water Pollution Control Act, as amended,
(33 U.S.C. 1251 et. seq; the "Act"),
United States Steel Corporation
is authorized to discharge from a facility located at
United States Steel Corporation
Fairfield District Works
P. 0. Box 599
Fairfield, Alabama 35064
to receiving waters named
Discharge Serial Nos. 002 thru 009 enter Village Creek
Discharge Serial Nos. 010 thru 027 enter Opossum Creek
Discharge Serial No. 029 enters Valley Creek
in accordance with effluent limitations, monitoring requirements and other conditions set forth
in Parts I, II, and III hereof.
2.	This permit shall become effective on
3.	This permit and the authorization to discharge shall expire at midnight,
4. Signed this day of
Regional Administrator
CPA Form 3320-4 (10-73)
B-12
-------
Papc 2 <>l' 16
Pcrmii No. AL 0003646
MONITORING AND REPORTING
5 • Representative Sampling
Samples and measurements taken as reauir a
and nature of the monitored discharge 6 lere'n be representative of the volume
6. Reporting
Monitoring results obtained during the orevi
each month and reported on a Discharge \J/?US#.niCJnt'1 shall be suirnnarxprf for
postmarked no later than the 2Sth dav of th tonn? Report Form (EPA No. 3320-1),
period. The first report is due on	P m°nth following the completed reporting
these, and all other reports required	*	' DuPlicate signed copies of
Administrator and the State at the following addres^'^ ^ submitted to the ReSional
S. ENVISCHMcNTAl PROTECTION AGENCY
R-ZCJChl iV
Mr\it...	' ^ANCH	AL Water Improve. Comm.
34i> C0ofi7L\.s!D STREET, Nu	State Ofc Bldg.
ATLANTA, GEORGIA 303C3	Montgomery, AL 36130
^' Definitions
a. The "daily average" discharge means tho j- ,
month divided by the number of d to^ ^scharge by weight during a calendar
commercial facility was operatine |\Wl fu m°nth ^ the Production or
permit, the daily average discharge shall hl w	ily sampIin? is required by thls
measured daily discharges bv weight divided 1"™^ by the summation of 3,1 the
calendar month when the n,easu^ttsteretat	^ dUri"8 'he
calendar	dlscharge meajls t,le total discharge by weight during any
8.	Test Procedures
Test procedures for the analysis of pollutant*	*	> .•	. j
pursuant to Section 304
-------
Pj(!c 3 nt 16
Porinil No. AL 0003646
d.	The analytical techniques or methods used; and
e.	The results of all required analyses.
10.	Additional Monitoring by Permittee
If the permittee monitors any pollutant at the location(s) designated herein more
frequently than required by this permit, using approved analytical methods as specified
above, the results of such monitoring shall be included in the calculation and reporting of
the values required in the Discharge .Monitoring Report Form (EPA No. 3320-1). Such
increased frequency shall also be indicated.
11,	Records Retention
All records and information resulting from the monitoring activities required by this
permit including all records of analyses performed and calibration and maintenance of
instrumentation and recordings from continuous monitoti~<* instrumentation shall be
retained for a minimum of three (3) years, or longer if requested by the Regional
Administrator or the State water pollution control agency.
B-14
-------
Papc 4 0f 16
Permit No. AL 0003646
MANAGEMENT REQUIREMENTS
12. Change in Discharge
All discharges authorized herein shall be consistent with the terms and conditions of this
permit. The discharge of any pollutant identified in this permit more frequently than or
at a level in excess of that authorized shall constitute a violation of the permit
Any anticipated or detected new or different discharges of pollutants
must be reported to the Regional Administrator. Following such report,
the permit may be modified to specify and limit any pollutants not
previously limited.
13.. Noncompliance Notification
If, for any reason, the permittee does not comply with or will be unable to comply with
any daily maximum effluent limitation specified in this permit, the permittee* shall
provide the Regional Administrator and the State with the following information, in
writing, within five (5) days of becoming aware of such condition:
a.	A description of the discharge and cause of noncompliance; and
b.	The period of noncompliance, including exact dates and times: or, if not corrected,
the anticipated time the noncompliance is expected to continue, and steps being
taken to reduce, eliminate and prevent recurrence of the noncomplying discharge.
14,	Facilities Operation
The permittee shall at all times maintain in good working order and operate at optimum ef-
ficiency all treatment or control facilities or systems installed or used by the permittee
to achieve compliance with the terms and conditions of this permit.
15.	Adverse Impact
The permittee shall take all reasonable steps to minimize any adverse impact to navigable
waters resulting from noncompliance with any effluent limitations specified in this
permit, including such accelerated or additional monitoring as necessary to determine the
nature and impact of the noncomplying discharge.
If-Bypassing
Any diversion from or bypass of facilities necessary to maintain compliance with the
terms and conditions of this permit is prohibited, except (i) where unavoidable to prevent
loss of life or severe property damage, or 
-------
•!
I	Page 5 of 16
Permit No. AL 0Q03646
17 • Removed Substances
Solids, sludges, filter backwash, or other pollutants removed in the course of treatment or
control of wastewaters shall be disposed of in a manner such as to prevent any pollutant
from such materials from entering navigable waters.
18. Power Failures
In order to maintain compliance with the effluent limitations and prohibitions of this
permit, the permittee shall either:
a.	In accordance with the Schedule of Compliance contained in Part I, provide an
alternative power source sufficient to operate the wastewater control facilities;
or, if such alternative power source is not in existence, and no date for its implementation
appears in Part I,
b.	Halt, reduce or otherwise control production and/or all discharges upon the
reduction, loss, or failure of the primary source of power to the wastewater control
facilities.
RESPONSIBILITIES
19.- Right of Entry
The permittee shall allow the head of the State water pollution control agency, the
Regional Administrator, and/or their authorized representatives, upon the presentation of
credentials:
a.	To enter upon the permittee's premises where an effluent source is located or in
which any records are required to be kept under the terms and conditions of this
permit; and
b.	At reasonable times to have access to and copy any records required to be kept under
the terms and conditions of this permit; to inspect any monitoring equipment or
monitoring method required in this permit; and to sample any discharge of pollutants.
10, Transfer of Ownership or Control
In the event of any change in control or ownership of facilities from which the authorized
discharges emanate, the permittee shall notify the succeeding owner or controller of the
existence of this permit by letter, a copy of which shall be forwarded to the Regional
Administrator and the State water pollution control agency.
21. Availability of Reports
Except for data determined to be confidential under Section 308 of the Act, all reports
prepared in accordance with the terms of this permit shall be available for public
I Vi.
fj	<
S ; * 4 ¦"*» * * I
B-16
-------
f
J
Page 6 of 16
Permit No. AL 0003646
inspection at the offices of the State water pollution control agency and the Regional
Administrator. As required by the Act, effluent data shall not be considered confidential.
Knowingly making any false statement on any such report may result in the imposition of
criminal penalties as provided for in Section 309 of the Act.
22, Permit Modification
After notice and opportunity for a hearing, this permit may be modified, suspended, or
revoked in whole or in part during its term for cause including, but not limited to, the
following:
a.	Violation of any terms or conditions of this permit;
b.	Obtaining this permit by misrepresentation or failure to disclose fully all relevant
facts; or
c.	A change in any condition that requires either a temporary or permanent reduction or
elimination of the authorized discharge.
23. Toxic Pollutants
If a toxic effluent standard or prohibition (including any schedule
of compliance specified in such effluent standard or prohibition)
is established under Section 307(A) of the Act for a toxic pollutant
which is present in the discharge and such standard or prohibition
is more stringent than any limitation for such pollutant in the
permit, and the Agency seeks to revise or modify the permit in
accordance with the toxic effluent standard or prohibition, the
permittee shall have notice and opportunity for hearing, with right
of appeal, on the method of application of the toxic standard or
prohibition if such application requires the use of discretion,
judgement, or calculation by the permitting Agency. This provision
is subject to the attached agreement.
24. Civil and Criminal Liability
Except as provided in permit conditions on "Bypassing" (Part II, A-5) and "Power
Failures" (Part II, A-7), nothing in this permit shall be construed to relieve the permittee
from civil or criminal penalties for noncompliance. This provision is subject to
the attached agreement.
25 0Ot7 and Hazardous Substance Liability
Nothing in this permit shall be construed to preclude the institution of any legal action or
relieve the permittee from any responsibilities, liabilities, or penalties to which the
permittee is or may be subject under Section 311 of the Act.
26.State Laws
Nothing in this permit shall be construed to preclude the institution of any legal action or
relieve the permittee from any responsibilities, liabilities, or penalties established pursuant
to any applicable State law or regulation under authority preserved by Section 510 of the
Act.
B-17
-------
Pag« 7 of 16
Permit No. AL 0003646
27. Property Rights
The issuance of this permit does not convey any property rights in either real or personal
property, or any exclusive privileges, nor does it authorize any injury to private property
or any invasion of personal rights.
28,. Severability
The provisions of this permit are severable, and if any provision of this permit, or the
application of any provision of this permit to any circumstance, is held invalid, the
application of such provision to other circumstances, and the remainder of this permit,
shall not be affected thereby.
29. Other Requirements
This permit shall be subject to an agreement between United States
Steel Corporation and the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
attached hereto.
a.	The "daily average" concentration means the arithmetic average
(weighted by flow value) of all the daily determinations of concen-
tration made during a calendar month. Daily determinations of concen-
tration made using a composite sample shall be the concentration of
the composite sample. Ivhen grab samples are used, the daily determina-
tion of concentration shall be the arithmetic average (weighted by
flow value) of all the samples collected during that calendar day.
b.	The "daily maximum" concentration means the daily determination
of concentration for any calendar day.
c.	"Weighted by flow value" means the summation of each sample concen-
tration times its respective flow in convenient units divided by the
total flow.
d.	For the purpose of this permit, a calendar day is defined as any
consecutive 24-hour period.
e.	For discharge serial numbers 010-027 from the Fairfield Works, all
e.ffluent limitations, except temperature, pH and dissolved oxygen, shall be
based upon "net daily loadings or concentrations," which are defined as the
net difference between the product of inlet volume times inlet concentration
times a volume-to-weight conversion factor of 8.34, and the product of
discharge volume; times discharge concentration times the same 8.34 factor;
or the net difference between inlet and outlet concentrations.
B-IS
-------
LUENT LIMITATIONS AND MONITORING REQUIREMENTS
ing the period beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting through the term of this permit,
permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall(s) serial number(s) 002 ; Blast Furnace (Ensley Works)
ch discharges shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below:
fluent Characteristic
Discharge Limitations
kg/day (lbs/day)
Daily Avg	Daily Max
Flow—m3/Day (MGD)
Temperature, °C(°F)
Ammonia-Nitrogen
Cyanide
Phenols
TSS
214(472)
6.8(15)
643(1417)
-n-
20.9(46)
Other Units (Specify)
Daily Avg	Daily Mi^x
35(95)
41 mg/1
67 mg/1
Monitoring Requirements
Measurement
Frequency
Once/Week
Once/Week
Once/Week
Once/Week
Once/Week
Once/Week
Sample
Type
Instantaneous
Grab
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
*This limit shall become effective on January 1, 1982. An interim effluent limitation of 46 Kg/day(100 lb/day)
daily maximum shall be effective from the effective date of the permit thru December 31, 197ft, an^ an interim
final effluent limitation of 23 Kg/day(50 lb/day) daily maximum shall be effective from January 1, 1979,
thru December 31, 1981.
The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units and shall be monitored
once/week with a grab sample.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.
? 00

Samples taken in compliance with the monitoring requirements specified above shall be taken at the following location(s):	o
nearest accessible point after final treatment but prior to actual discharge or mixing with the
receiving waters.
o ^
o
o
u>
•C-
ON
c
fc. "* '
-------
2. During the period beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting through the term of this permit,
the permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall(s) serial number(s) 003-009 ; Ensley Mills
Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below:
Effluent Characteristic	Discharge Limitations
kg/day (lbs/day)	Other Units (Specify)
Monitoring Requirements
Measurement Sample

Daily Avg
Daily Max
Daily Avg
Daily Max

Frequency
Type
Flow—m3/Day (MGD)
—
	
	
	.

Once/Week
Instantaneous
Temperature °C(°F)
—
—
	
35(95)

Once/Week
Grab
TSS
—
—
50 mg/1
100 mg/l
*
Once/Week
Composite
Oil & Grease
—
—
18 mj»/l
30 mg/1
*
Once/Week
Grab
Iron
—
—
5 mg/1
10 mg/1
*
Once/Week
Composite
Zinc
—
—•
1 Blg/1
2 me/1
*
Once/Week
Composite

The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units and shall be monitored
once/week with a grab sample.
-0 T)
r% u
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.	I. ^
p
Samples taken in compliance with the monitoring requirements specified above shall be taken at the following location(s):	' 0
nearest accessible point after final treatment but prior to actual discharge or mixing with the	t-
receiving waters. .	g K
o
t_j
o
x>
*Concentration discharge limitations are combined flow weighted averages.	^
-------
During the period beginning on the effective date of this thermit and lasting through June 30, 1977,
the permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall(s) serial number(s) 010-027, Fairfield Works.
Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below:
Effluent Characteristic
Flow—m 3/Day (MGD)
Temperature °C(°F)
Ammonia-Nitrogen
Cyanide
Phenols
TSS
Oil & Grease
T.D. Iron
COD
Total Chromium
Total Zinc
Tin
Fluoride
Discharge Limitations
kg/day (lbs/day)
Daily Avg
1800(4000)
291(640)
136(300)
5761(12690)
4.5(10)
41(90)
70(155)
202(446)
Daily Max
789(1740)
23(50)
15.8(35)
3510(7300)
631(1391)
272(600)
9568(21074)
13.5(30)
74(163)
140(310)
320(705)
Other Units (Specify)
Daily Avg
Daily Max
35(95)
Monitoring Requirements
X
•j-	*>' •
v..
Measurement
Frequency
Continuous
Continuous
Once/Week
Once/Week
Once/Week
Once/Week
Once/Week
Once/Week
Once/Week
Once/Week
Once/Week
Once/Week
Once/Week
Sample
Type
Recorder
Recorder
24-Hour
24-Hour
24-Ilour
24-Hour
Grab
24-Hour
24-Hour
24-Hour
24-Hour
24-Hour
24-Hour
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
Composite
The pll shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units and shall be monitored
once/week with a grab sample.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.
Samples taken in compliance with the monitoring requirements specified above shall be taken at the facility
already established and defined as the Opossum Creek Monitoring Station.
A weekly average D.0» concentration of 5.0 mg/1 shall be maintained in the discharge. This parameter
shall be monitored five times per week using a grab sample. After a neriod of one vear the monitoring
frequency may be modified based upon an evaluation of the data.
-------
Proposed Modification
During the period beginning on the modi f ication effective date and lasting through the term of the permit,
the permittee is authorized to discharge from outiall(s) serial nurnber(s) 010-027; Fairfield Works.
Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below:
Effluent Characteristic

Discharge Limitations

Monitoring Requirements

kg/day (lbs/day) Other Units (Specify)






Measurement
Sample

Daily Avg
)aily Max' Daily Avg
Daily Max
Frequency
Type
Flow—m3/Day (MGD)
—
— —:
—
Continuous
Recorder
Temperature °C(°F)

	
35(95)
Continuous
Recorder
Ammonia-Nitrogen
—
860(1896]
—
Once/Week
24-Hour Composite
Cyanide
—
24.5(54)
—
Oncc/Wack
24-Hour Composite
Phenols
—
19.5(43)
—
Once/Week
24-Hour Composite
TSS
1930C4255)
3828(8440)
—
Once/Week
24-Hour Composite
Total Zinc
16.3C36)
32.7(72)
—
Once/Weck
24-Hour Composite
Oil & Grease
354(700)
744(1641)
—
Once/Wcck
Grab
T. D. Iron
136(300)
272(600)
—
Once/Week
24-Hour Composite
COD
5761(12690)
9568(21074)
—
Once/Wcck
24-Hour Composite
Total Chromium
4.5(10)
13.5(30)
—
Once/Week
24-Hour Composite
Tin
70(155)
140(310)
—
Once/Week
24-Hour Composite
Fluoride
323(713)
577(1271")
—
Once/Week
24-Hour Composite
The pH shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9.0 standard units and shall be	? ~
monitored or.ee/wcok v/ith grab samples.	< 2
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.
Samples taken in compliance with the monitoring requirements specified above shall be taken
at the facility already established and defined as the Opossum Creek Monitoring Station.
A weekly average D.O. concentration of 5.0 mg/1 and a daily minimum of 4.0 mg/1 shall be
maintained in the discharge. This parameter shall be monitored five times per week using
a. grab sample. After a period of one year, the monitoring frequency may be modified based
upon an evaluation of the data.
-------
During the period beginning on the effective date of this permit and lasting through the term of thi3 permit,
the permittee is authorized to discharge from outfall(s) serial number(s) ' 029A and 029{Sinteriig Plant) .
Such discharges shall be limited and monitored by the permittee as specified below:
Effluent Characteristic	Discharge Limitations
kg/day (lbs/day)	Other Units (Specify)
Daily Avg Daily Max	Daily Avg
DSN 029A - Sanitary Wastewaters: (Effective July	1, 1977)
Flow—m3/Day (MGD) — —	—
Fecal Coliform —	200/100ml
BOD — —	30 me/1
Daily Max
400/100ml
45'"nw»/l
Monitoring Requirements
t-
--3
V
CT. -
Measurement
Frequency
Once/Month
Once/Month
Once/Month
Sample
Type
Instantaneous 1
Grab
2A—jinur" Homoosite
DSN 029 w Process and Sanitary:
Flow-m /Day(MGD)
Temperature
TSS
Oil & Grease
C(°F)
40 mg/1
10 mg/1
35(95)
60 mg/1
20 mg/1
Once/Week
Once/Week
Once/Week
Once/Week
Instantaneous
Grab
24-Hour Composite
Grab
The pi I shall not be less than 6.0 standard units nor greater than 9 4 5 standard units and shall be monitored at
029 once/week with grab "samples. This requirement will become effective on July 1, 1977.
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.
Samples taken in compliance with the monitoring requirements specified above shall be taken at the following location(s):
nearest accessible point after final treatment but prior to actual discharge or mixing with the
receiving waters.	o £
o
u>
o
JS
r» fu
3 3
f NJ
£ °n
-------
6.
A.
B.
The following limits shall be used to determine compliance with discharge numbers 010-027 during
periods of rainfall or rainfall drainage. In the event the discharge of any wastewater from
discharges 010-027 exceeds the parameters set out on pages 11 thru 16 of 21 by reason of rainfall
or rainfall drainage, the Company must show compliance with this Dermit by proving that the performance
values so established in tVa section nrc bcin^ net nt	treatment s-'stem.*
Effluent Characteristic
Tin Mill
Flow—m3/Day (MGD)
Oil & Grease
TSS
COD
Conductivity, (imhos
pll, std. units
Coke Works
Flow-m3/Day(MGD)
COD
Phenols
Cyanide
Ammonia-Nitrogen
pll, std. units
Discharge Limitations
kg/day (lbs/day)	Other Units (Specify)
Daily Avg
Daily Max
(Gross)
197(435)
978(2157)
4385(9658)
1761(3879)
2.3(5)
19 im
Daily Hin. Daily Max
6.0.
2539
10.0
Monitoring Requirements
Measurement
Frequency
6.0
9.0
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Sample
Type
Instantaneous
Grab
24-Hour Composite
24-Hour Composite
Grab
Crab
Instantaneous
24-Hour Composite
24-Hour Composit€
24-Hour ComDOsitc
24-Hour Composite
Grab
J
J
*Rainy days will be determined by rainfall that Is greater than or equal to 0.1".	^
**0n sampled days affected by rainfall or rainfall drainage.
I?
"TJ
1
<8
z

o
u
>

t-1
o
o
o
o
M
ON
to

or*



ON

-------
6. Continued
Effluent Characteristic	Discharge Limitations
kg/day (lbs/day)	Other Units (Specify)
Monitoring Requirements
Daily Avg
Wire Mill
Flow-m^/Oay(VGO)
TSS
Conductivity, ymhos
pH, std. units
Daily Max
(Gross)
86(189)
Daily Min. Daily Max
6.0
2068
12.0
D.l» From effective date of this	permit until July 1, 1977,
Q-BOP's (2)
Flow-m^/Day (MGD) —	— — —
TSS 		2fU(4A9) — —
Conductivity, ymhos —	— — 745
pH, std. units —	— 6.0 9.0
D.2. From July 1, 1977, untilthe	expiration date of this permit,
Q-BOP's (3)
Flow-m3/Day (MGD) —	— — —
TSS —	306(674)
Conductivity, ymhos —	— — 745
pll, std. units —	— 6.0 9.0
Measurement
Frequency
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
**
Sample
Type
Instantaneous
24-lIour Composite
Grab
Grab
Ins tantaneous
24-lIour Composite
Grab
Grab
Instantaneous
24-Hour Composite
Grab	5 f
Grab	£¦
x £
O -P-
**0n sampled days affepted by rainfall or rainfall drainage.
o
o
u>
-------
Proposed Modification
6. Continued
Effluent Characteristic
00
i
ro
CT>
Discharge Limitations
kg/day (lbs/day)	Other Units (Specify)
Monitoring Requirements
Daily Avg Daily Max
(Gross)	(Gross)
E. 1. Blast Furnaces (No. 5, 6,6 7)
Daily Min. Daily Max
Measurement
Frequency
Sample
Type
E. 2.
Flow-in3/Day (MGD)
—
—
—
—

**

Instantaneous
TSS
—
304(670)
	
—

**

24-Hour Composite
pH, std. units
	¦
	
6.0
9.0

**

Grab
From modification
effect i ve
date until expiration of
the permit,




Blast Furnace (No
. 8)







Flow-m3/Day(MGD)
—
—

—
On
Days of
Rain
Instantaneous
TSS
59(130)
177 (3%
—
—
On
Days of
Rain
24-Hour Composite
CN-A
.6(1.3)
1.8(4,0,
—
—
On
Days of
Rain
Grab
Phenol
1.2(2.6)
3.6(8.0)
—
—
On
Days of
Rain
Grab
NH3-N
24(52)
71(156)
—
—
On
Days of
Rain
24-Hour Composite
Sulfide
.7(1.6)
2.3(5)
—
—
On
Days of
Rain
24-Hour Composite
F1uori de
47(104)
142(312)
—
—
On
Days of
Rain
24-Hour Composite
dH. std. units
—
—
6.0
9.0
On
Days of
Rain
Grab
There shall be no discharge of floating solids or visible foam in other than trace amounts.
Samples taken in compliance with the monitoring requirements specified above shall be taken at the following location(s):
nearest accessible point after final treatment but prior to actual discharge or mixing with trie.
receiving waters.
**0n sampled days affected by rainfall or rainfall drainage.
p? r3
3 O
> o
r* m
O •
O cr*
o
o
C\
-------
Page 16 of 16
Permit No, AL 0003646
B. SCHEDULE OF COMPLIANCE
1' S!LP®rm!ttee Sbf achiele LcomPIiance the effluent limitations specified for
discharges in accordance with the following schedule:
I. Discharge Serial No, 002: Permittee shall achieve zero discharge of cyanide
by January 1, 1982. An acceptable compliance schedule shall be submitted
to EPA and AWIC on/or before January 1, 1981, to include steps to be taken
to achieve zero discharge of cyanide by January 1, 1982. The following
compliance schedule shall apply:
Effective date of permit-Achieve interim cyanide effluent limitation of
46 kg/day(100 lbs/day) daily maximum.
September 1, 1977 - Submit Progress Report.
July 1, 1978 - Submit Progress Report.
January 1, 1979-Achieve interim final cyanide effluent limitations of
23 kg/day(50 lbs/day) daily maximum and begin preliminary engineering.
April 1, 1979 - Submit Progress Report.
January 1, 1980-Submit Progress Report.
September 1, 1980 - Submit Progress Report.
July 1, 1981 - Submit Progress Report.
January 1, 1982-Achieve zero discharge of cyanide.
II. Discharge Serial Nos. 003-009: There shall be no sanitary discharges from
Ensley Mills after June 30, 1977.
III. Discharge Serial Nos. 010-027: Attain final zinc (total) limitations by
July lr 1977.
IV. Discharge Serial No. 029: Attain pH limitations by July 1, 1977.
V, Discharge Serial No. 029A: Attain BOD and fecal coliform limitations
by July 1, 1977.
2. No later than 14 calendar days following a date identified in the above schedule of
compliance, the permittee shall submit either a report of progress or, in the case of
specific actions being required by identified dates, a written notice of compliance or
noncompliance. In the latter case, the notice shall include the cause of noncompliance,
any remedial actions taken, and the probability of meeting the next scheduled
requirement.
B-27
-------