View
0
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
BEFORE THE ADMINISTRATOR UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
In the Matter of the a Oporating Permit for
BIG RIVER LLC to construct and operate a steel mill located in Mississippi County, Arkansas
PERMIT NO. 2305-AOP-R0
Issued by the Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality
PETITI STINCI THAT THE ADMINISTR.ATOR OBJECT TO 1551. ANCE OF THE PART '0 OPERATING PERMIT FOR •11IE BIG RIVER STF.E1... ITC FACILITY
TO: Hon. Gina McCarthy Administrator, United States Environmental Protection Money Arid Ross Building (AR) 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W. Washington, D,C. 20004
Pursuant to the Clean Act ("CAA" or "Act") .:;505(b)(2) and 40 C,F,R.
§70.8, Nucor Steel-Arkansas, a division of Nucor Corporation ("NSA"), and Nucor-
Yamato Steel Company ("NYS")(collectively referred to herein as "Nucor) hereby
petition the Administrator Of the U; -e• States Environmental Protection Anency
(^EPA") requesunn that she object to the final Part 70 Operatinn Permit No 2305-
A09-R0 (the "Perinit") issued to River Steel, LUC ("BRS") by the Arkansas
Department of Environmental Qualitv ("ADEQ"). The Permit authorizes the
construction and operation of a steel mill to be constructed and operated by BRS near
Osceola, in Mississippi Cou !, Arkansas (the "BRS Facility"). NSA and NYS both
operate steel mills in ``Mississippi County, Arkansas that are approximately 20 miles
from the site of the BRS Faci lity,
Nucor's Petition 60 days following the end of EPA's 45 day
period. Furthermore. Nucor preserved its right to raise these issues by
subm comments during the public comment period for the Permit; Nucor a lso
relies on public comments submitte by other parties as noted herein. A copy of
Nucor's public e is attached hereto as Attachment 1. A copy of ADEQ draft
permit No. 2305-AOP-R0 (the Draft Permit") ADEQ's Statement of Basis
("SOB -) is attached hereto as Attachment 2. A copy of the Permit and ADEQ's
Response to Comments ADEQ RTC - ) is attached hereto as Attachment 3. A copy
of BRS's final permit application (referred to in Nueor's Comments and in this
Petition as "Application. Rey. 2 -) submitted \\ ith in electronic pdf format on a
compact disc as Attachment 5. Nucor is submitting thirteen (13) attachments to this
Petition. A list of these Attachments
f the Petition. For the sake of
convenience, a printed copy of excerpts ucor Comments (Attachment
final Permit ADEQ Response to Comments (An, c 3 ), and selected elm il
correspondence (Attachments 9-13) are included with the printed copy of this
Petition. A copy of this Petition a Ad all thirteen Attachments are included n
electronic pdf format on a compact disc accompanying copy of this
Petition. All Attachments to the Petition are incorporated herein by reference.
N AN SUMMARY OF GRC U DS FOR OBJECTIOOBJECTION
Section 502 of the CAA makes it unlawful for anyone to operate a fac ility
such as the BRS Fac emit issued under 40 CFR Part 70, 42 USC
766 I a. The CAA. provides that
if permit contains provisions that ate determined by the Administrator as not in compliance with the applicable requirements of this chapter the Administrator shall . . object to its issuance.
42 USC §7661d(b)(1). Furthermore. the CAA provides that or does
not object within ,15 days after a permit s been prop
the MI
such action and the Admit ' -nor "shall an objectio
Toner demonstrated t -
-If this chapter, inc
in such period if the
-sect, any person may petition
45 day period, to take
e permit is not in cotmpliance with
merits of the applicable
implementation plan." 42 U.S.C. §7661d(b)(2), Where, as here, the Permit
incorporates the requirements ot n of Signif cant Deter PS. ")
program:, EPA has held that the Permit must fully comply with psi) requirements,and
that if it does not, the perm will not be in compliance with all applicable
requirements and EPA must object to the Permit. See, In the n hotter of Wisconsin
Power and Light , CohznWia GellCratiniZ
No. Ill 003090-P20: Pet ition
Number V-2008-1 (Oct. 8, 2009) at 8.
As explained he re nd in Nuco ADEQ
t he Administrator must object because the Permit to comply
le CAA. in m respects. Based on the proposed en.ission rates. the BRS
Facility is subject to PSD review for NO,, CO, PM, PM . Pl
VOC, lead and
greenhouse gases. (Attachment 3 , Permit. ) 5). The Arkansas State Implementation
Plan, pr nult,:ated by the Arkansas Pollution Control Ecology Commission
nc -porates federal PSI .
40 CFR
52 .21(a)(2) throughOM as of November 29. 2005. with ions not
relevant here. APC&EC Reg. 19.904. APC&EC Regulation 19 also establishes
increment consumptionlimits, requiring an assessment of effects on indusu -ial and
economic development and alternatives to such consunlptKln, whenever more than
50% of any annual incnme than 80% of any short term -n
consumed. APC&F.C. Reg, 19.904(C). In additn because it is subject to PSD
review, the BRS Facility is a "major source" for purposes of Title V of the CAA, and
equired t n operating permit pursuant APC&EC Regulation No. 26, the
Regulations kansas Operating Air Permit Program. Reg. 26.30?
:'accordingly. the Permit must'' . • le all applicable requirements for all relevant
emissions units" at the BRS Facility. C&ECT Reg. 26.304, APC&EC Reg, 26 also
contains e that the application be complete and contain 11 the ilafornlatton
required by Reg. 26.402 and
avb -irocessing of
application and the conditions of the perm] rovide for compliance with all
applicable requirements. APC&EC. Reg. 26.501. Rena. 26 also requires that ADEQ
prop- idea statement that sets forth the legal and factual basis for the draft permi t
conditions.
Following is a summary of Nucor's grounds for ;gar objection to the Permit. First,
pplieatioll way incomplete did not contain information necessary
determine whether all applicable requirements were met - p the requirements
for PSD review -- and was improperly processed by ADEQ. The Draft Pen
issued the day after BRS's third permit application. Application,Rev. 2. as received
by ADEQ. In fact, ADEQ pei litti • g staff was still working on ye fying modeling
submitted by BRS as late. as mid-afternoon on .lune 25, 2013, the day the Draft Permit
4
!though ADEQ had been working on the BRS project nths and
had already required BRS to submit ,o permit applications. ADEQ did not have.
to prix -‘t 'o e to verify that that application was complete
and that the final application. modeling, and supportingdocuments sat
applicable requirements. The ha to with which the Draft Permit was issued was due
in part to BRS's failure to subs pit a complete, timely and sensible permit applieatio
and in part due to the fact that agencies of the State of Arkansas — including the
Arkansas t System had made sizeable ,able finan I commitments to
the project, including_ a s , -estinent in the p -)ject. Because
considerations relating to other f na: grog arrangements were becoming of cdticai
importance (and perhaps were contingent on issuance of a draft permit), ADEQ issued
the Drafi Permit rather than conducting a proper review. As a re ult ADEQ
improperly processed an incomplete incomplr to permit ajpplication and prematurely issued
Draft Permit that contained numerous errors and was misleading, For example. the
Draft Permit stated that air quality acts For the i hr. NO„ NAAQS was 37.6 w.!/
or approximately 20% of the ,ndard (Attachment 2, Draft Peimit, p. S.); however,
because the actual projected impact -3
or 96% of the
S talldari
At chment 3. ADEQ RTC, p. I). Accordingly, the public was
presented with a draft permit showed the BRS Facility he 1-hour NO
NAAQS with a considerable margin of safety, but this mi represented the BRS
Facility's actual performance and dept is of critical information it " )uld
need to "know to make informed cc controls.
monitoring=, recordkeeping and uirements. For this and other reasons
stated in Nucor's Comments the Draft Permit did not provide adequate public notice
as required by the CAA.
Second. BRS has not included, attd ADEQ has not required adequate technical
documentation supporting Best Available Cont,,.. BACT")
filet 'DS emission calculations, and quality impact analyses n of
the CA
sas State Implementation Plan ("Arkansas SIP") in APC,,C:EC
Comnussion Regulation No. 19, in
D requirements in Claw]
Third, BRS did not perform. and ADEQ did not require pre-construction
monitor m9, in the locality of the BRS Fac any criteria pollutants. e on
42 U.S.C. § 7475(e)(2). ADEQ did not explain its rationale for this dec ision,
though nodded ed ipacts for the BRS Facility were 100(!4, of the 12 PN
annual NAAQS. and 96% of the 188 1-hr NO, NAAQS. Of additional concern
t BRS's modeling sal c a unsubstantiated estimates of PM25
em oni the BRS ore, ADEQ cad not explain the rationale
for use of backiround concentration data from Dyersburg. TN for PM-1,5, instead of
from other available monitors at a re in( of the location than
the Dyersburc_ data. Use of background monitoring data from other PM-,
monitors ineludimi monitors ed in Marion, Arkansas. rt, Arkansas. and
Memphis, "Vennessee demonstrate that impacts from the BRS facility exceed the.
PM :: 5 annual NAAQS.
Fourth, after issuiltw the Draft Permit. ADEQ doubled the CO-c B CT limit in
the Permit from 0.0723 ton CO 2 ( to 0.155 ton to of steel) without
adequate explanation or justification. based solely on the unsupported comment frur
BRS that its future product rni in.n.tht result in increased CO ,j e emission rates. (See.
Attaclurent 3, ADEQ RTC, p. 2, Response to BRS Comment 4). BRS did not
provide any alternative enarios in the .Application . Rev. 2 to support the
hiLiher CO 2 e BACT emission rate contained in the Permit. Because this • hange
occurred after the Draft Permit was issued, Nucor, EPA and members of the tpubl.ic
did not have an unity to comment.
Fifth, the Permit us
'actors
for nd u eas
combus tiot rot supported. and ADEQ did not provide any rationale for
adopting those emission factors. The Permit sed on a PM2.5 emission factor for
natural gas combustion sources froze preliminarydata that is only 6.8cl:0 of the US
EPA AP-42 emission act(
r the I
BRS P1Vl air quality
pacts are 100% of the PM ,5. S. ADEQ should not have accepted the
proposed PM:.s emission factors vithout olden:. that the facility luld in fact meet
that emission level, In addition, BRS did not consider e-o (t . formation of PM.2 :.:
in its modeling and quality analy s. :in. because PIM2,5 impacts are 100(1-(, of
the P.M2; annual standard. ADEQ should have required analysis of secondary PAM_._
)act"
Sixth, as more- f 1 explained in Nucor's
because of errors in loc.: permittingprocess and iIl the cause
of ADEQ's failure- to explain adeq raft permitting decision in
the SOB„NDEQ did not provide the required opportunity for public participation in
the decision
.131: CIKGROVN
ADEQ issued a final Title rating. Permit, No. 2305-AOP-Rt0 to BRS on
or about September 18, 2013 (the - e Permit purports to authorize BRS
both to construct and to operate the BRS Facility mder APC&EC Reg. No. 26 and
19. Reg. 26 is the ArkansasTitle V Operating Permit Program regulation, and Reg.
19 is the Arkansas SIP (including PSI)). ADEQ issued a Draft Permit for the BRS
on June 25. A copy e
to EPA on June 26. 2013 EPA's 45 day comment period expired on August 10, 2013,
and the deadline for tiling a petition to object with EPA expires on October 10, 2013.
Emission units he proposed BRS Facility include two electric arc furnaces.
ladle metallurgy' furnaces. a RJ-1 degxtsser rind boiler_ casters. ladle preheaters, ladle
dugout heaters, vertical ladle hole widish preheaters, a pickling line,
carat annealing furnaces, rt deearburization line=, rolling mills, coating
matena and handling 'ons, conveyors. emergency generators,
cooling towers, and unpaved roads. Permit. p. 5) The BRS Facility
permitted 238.1 tpy of PM. 321.3 tpy of PM! 315.9 ipy of PM,.;, 350.3
of SO2. 194.1 tpy of VOC, 3949.7 tpy of CO. 1067 tpy of NO,, 0.9636181
lead, and 1,203,02( tpv of CO- le. for the proposed facility is located
ately 3.5 miles south of the town of Osceola.Arkansas, winch had a
population )f 7,75according. to the 20"i0 U.S. Census. The population of Osceola is
approximately 53% tninority, and according to 2010 Census data the povet
residents of Osceola was more than twice tl
eraire. The site of the
proposed BRS adjacent to the `l
-River. and will be built next to
and within a mile a 665 MW coal fired power plant Plum Point Energy Station.
The BRS
st approximately 81.2 billion to construct. Significant
financing for the actltty will be pro -1 by agencies of the State of Arkansas.
The Arkansas Development Financing Authc provide S120 mil
construction of the facility through state issued revenue bonds to be repand from aro
general revenues or special revenues appropriated by the Arkansas General Assembly.
The Arkansas leacher Retirement Systemw 'est 860 million, fora 20% equity
ownership in the BRS mill. Copies of economic eports prepared for the Arkansas
General Assembly to uppoat state financing r the BRS Facility are attached hereto
as Attac ts 7 and S.
The State f Arkansas's financine for the BRS mill required enactment of
legislation by t - Arkansas General Assembly, winch met during the spring o
2013. Laislan enablin. the State of Arkansas's financing and investment
mil included Acts 1084 and 1076. As a condition - .movi
the State required BRS to file an application for an air permit.
- it application th ADEQ on january,
2013. Because the air e incomplete, confusing, erroneous and lien(
contradictory, ADEQ required BRS to file a second air permit ap 1
second application was filed on March 5, 2013. Thereafter. the BRS ap
deemed administratively complete by ADEQ on or about March 14, 2013, and notice
of receipt o I tf
ublished on or about March 18, 2013.
Due to errors, design and calculation changes, and ongoing pplementa
information submitted by BRS. ADEQ required BRS to submit mplete air
permit application. Application. Rev. 2. (Attachment 5, Vols. 1 and Because
BRS had scheduled a mc-ting, of investors in the project, BRS requested that ADEQ
issue nd provide public notice of the Draft Permit prior to or at of this
investor ttteeting scheduled for June 25, 2013;2 As a result. the Application, Rev. 2
was submitted to ADEQ on June 24, 2013, The next day, on ,tune 25, 2013, without
proper review ')f the Application Rev. 2 and its supporting materials, ADEQ issued
the Draft Permit and an accompanying Statement of Basis ("SOB"), (Attachment 2),
ai ls dated January 29 and 30, 20 submitted herewith as Attachment 9,
Accordingly, BRS filed its
, em - ils dated June 20 and 21, 2013. at as - 10 and 13.
On June 26, ADEQ sent he Draft Permit and SOB to EPA for re e e of the
Draft Permit published on June 27, 2013.
ADEQ provided a public comment period c Draft Permit from June 27,
2013 through July 3tl, 2013
trod public hearing and public meeting
held by .A.DEQ on the Draft Perm
Arkansas. During that time written
comments were submitie 1 by NSA, NYS, EPA, and the Federal Land Manager for the
Mingo Wilderness ( MM ..). On September 18, 2013, ADEQ issued the final Permit
for the BRS Facility. A ,.-hment 3).
OBJECTION TO PART 70 PERMITS
In ti.'-viewin O. a petitio
it, the Administrator must
object where petitioners "demonstrate" that the permit is not incompliance with the
requires en - Hof the Clean Air Act, requirements of tl e applicable
implementation plan." 42 U.S.C. 766 1 d The Administrator has explained that
EPA will "generally look to see whether he Petitioner has shown. that the state did not
comply with its SIP-approved regulations governing PSI) permitting or whether the
state's exercise discretion under such regulations was unreasonable or arbitr- 153
ADEQ transmitted the BRS Draft Permit to EPA for review on June 26, 2013,
'ing EPA's 45 day review period as required by CAA §505(b)(2), 42 U.S.C.
3 In the Matter of Louisville Gas and Electric Company, TI Conn Kentucky (hereinafter "Trimble"), Part 70/PSD Air Quality Permit #V-02-043 Revisions 2 and 3. Order Responding to Issues Raised in April 28, 2008 and March 2, 2006 Petitions and Denying in Part and Granting in Part Requests for Objection to Permit. Atqmst 12, 2009 at 5 (citing In re East Kentucky Power Cooperative, Ivry, (Hugh L. Spu•lock Generating Stati(m) Petition No. II3-2006-4 (Order on Petition) (August 30, 2007); In re Pacific Coast Building Products, Inc. (Order on Petition) (December 10, 1999): In re Roosevelt Regional Landfill Disposal Com, (O rder on Petition) (May 4, 1999).
61 d(b)(2) NSA and NYS file ih
vithin sixty days following the end of
EPA's rev,
fired by CAA 5(b)(2), 42 U.S.C. §7661d(h)(2). The
Administrator has sixty days to
Permit on September 18. 2013, and tl
terminate or revoke such permit"
is Petition. ADEQ issued the Final
e .Administrator shall "modify,
42 U.S.C. §7661dth (3),
For the reasons ns surnmal eabove and for those discussed in more detail
below, the Administrator )bject to the Permit within 60 days upon receipt of this
Petition, required by section. 505 of the Clean Air Act, because the Permn
the applicable requirements of the. Act and the Arkansas SIP.
PETITION FOR OBJECTION
A. THE MODELING SUPPORTING E PSD ANALYSIS IS FLAWED A\ ) DOES NOT DEMONSTRATE THAT THE BRS FACILITY WILL NOT CAUSE OR CONTRIBUTE TO A VIOLATION OF THE NATIONAL AMBIENT AIR QUALITY STANDARD
Clean Air Act Sect ion 165 and 40 CFR 552.21, as incorporated by APC&EC Reg.
9,904, require that the owner or operator of a proposed source demonstrate that the
allowable emissions from the proposed source would not cause or o air
pollution in violation of any national ambient air quality standard ("NAAQS") in any -
air quality --ol region. 42 U.S.C. §7475(a)0
10 C.F.R. §52.21(k). The
Permit does not -- u compliance with the PN12 5 N AQS as required by Section
process fails to assure compliance with Section 165
rmation to determine, among other things, he
was properly determined; the permit , to
11
Of the CAA. T1 - 1
because there is inadequ
background content
, ro t l
dare emissions that will!. 1; the
analysis improperly excluded areas using the invalidated PM-2.5 "significant a
d the permit and permit analysis fails to address secondary a cat ate
formation.
1. ADEQ conducted tan nadequate review (t.. lack pund data,
In its com cuts of he Draft Permit, Nucor stated:
Plantwide Condition No, 7 requirc.s post-construction amf ie nt monitoring for PMIO, PM and NO:, Given the fact that modeljug submitted in support of the Application, Rev, 2 shows that the impact from BRS's emissions is equal to the NA.AQS for annual PM, f,, and that the earlier modeling Or lacility showed exceedanc es of the PMIG NAAQS, ADEQ should require pre-construction ambient air monitoring, As noted in other comments, questions exist about BRS's use of background concentrations for from monitors at Dyersburg, TN. . Neither the SOB nor the Permit adequately explains why A DEQ chose to require post-construction ambient air monitoring, but not pre-construction monitoring_ In light of the decision in Sierra Cluby.±PA, 705 I-7 .3d 548 (D,C,Cir, Jan. 22 2013), ADEQ should require site-specific pre-construction ambient air monitoring for this facility
cut 1, Nucor Comment 21), In Comment 34, Nucor stated:
The map on page 496 of 533 in. Application Volume II indicates that the background concentration for PM, 5 from the Dyersburg, TN monitor is 104 ug•in'. BRS has applied a background concentration of 9.44 pg,,ni' to the modeled NAAQS impacts to determine the cumulative impact. The 3-ye,,v average of annual PM2.5 monitoring data from U.S EPA's AIRS website is 1 i 42 up. m' „ Usinag the background concentration of 10.42 in - a cumulative annual PM,, c impact of at least 12.89 ug:m \+hich 7,4% above the 12
ual NAAQS. ADEQ should verify the background concentration and determine if NAAQS analyses are required.
In addition. ADEQ should explain why use of the Dyersburg, TN monitoring data is representative of air quality in Osceola in lieu of site-specific pre-construction monitoring for this project. Site-specific pre-construction monitoring should be required.
12
(Attachment 1, Nucor Comment 21). In its response to Nucor's Comment ADEQ
stated that the Sierra Club v. EPA case "does t affect permitting authority's
ability to evaluate the use of existing monitoring data in place of site specific data. In
his permit, ADEQ has relied on existing monitors to establish backgroun d
response to Nucor's Comment 34, A.DEQ stated its reason why It chose one set
of on.itorin data from Dyersburg, TN over another set of monitoring from
Dyersburg, and further d Appendix W for its authorittito use a regional site o
determine background inhere are no other monitors located in the vicinity of the
source. (Se-, ADEQ RTC). However. ADEQ did not explain why the
Dyersburg location was rep- entative of air quality in the location of the BRS
Facility did not explain why other available nearby inonitorine data should not
have been used or considered.
ADEQ did not adequately explain the basis its ehoite of Nbackground
monitoring data. As the D. C, Circuit ade clear in Sierra Club v. EPA,
The statute= explicitly status that one putpose of the monitoring requirement is to determine whether emissions proposed source or modification will exceed the increments or NAAQS... We logically infer front this statement that Congress intended the monitc requirement to establish the baseline air quality in an area before the owner of a proposed source or modification even applies for a PSD permit, flan area's pro-existing ambient PM:,=, concentration is so high that a violation of the NAAQS or increment is imminent, a source below the Sy-1C may nevertheless cause a violation if built or modified. This is true even if the source's projected ambient impact on PM :2,i is so low that the difference in air quality before and after construction would be impossible to measure with accuracy. But a permitting authority cannot know how close mi area is to violating the NAAQS or increment unless it knows the existin2 ambient concentrations of PNIzi before a source is constructed or inodified.
The EPA's argument also fails to address Congress's mandate results of the a to the public at th of Congress's stated pm assure that any decision to which" the PSD provisions apply
d by 165(e) be made availa a PSD permit. . Indeed, one
the PSD provisions was "to red air pollution in any area to
made only after careful evaluation
13
)i -1 an nioi - or preeonstrueti ,
M i tlit •!,; tue i)rocedur.i l'UtOrincL, tthfic ):i cifattion
. ■ 11:!FL'S:., \ ...,Ii.CA111 ,..",11 that the public :sl -rJH anc the air qui..111\ e la to allio \\. for informed liarticipation in 1St) application
fl. iiLsa C ichti nuietilie LI' A 11;..is_no,iiiitlioritx . tO
exeritt stirpliedj
705 must either (a) teaune deip
(h) provide an a( itejuStttcattofl of ■-■ hy lie supposedly repl e ,e nt,0 1 ,, mon i to ng
data are, in fact, representative and whether pre-construction monitoring should have
been reotni ed
In tic' ens'. ,.vhere the modeled impact of the BRS Fau.inty essent:allv . :ru es
VAQS IBCIL and d!...; uss!oii .4- the basis
for the background a initty decision m ie,iinied to give effect ;,1 the unambiguously
expressed intent of Cong.ress in Section 165 of the Act, as inlet preted liv the court in
the (.1111) 1:1 this mere invocation ofAlit :: \'‘' that
AIWA'S does not meet the standard established by
the Act or the it awns And ADE() should have explained its
rationale for usin,i' the Dyersburg data or requii cd pre-construction monitoring,
Fut - OIL:Em t!iCI BRS nor ADl it en attempted to explain why PN ,1::
1 is re. , etative of air ,;nali , \ in
AR. Dyersburg. approximately 4o miles northeast of Osceola, and there no
Nucor note:, dial tic Tennessee Department it 1 nvimninental ( - kaiser\ ation chara,:icrizes !.1;e 1) ,,eisbarg monitor i5 a - nep,ihliolhood - scale monitor lather than a "regional . ' one 1 losest "regional - al the BRS site is. in .\ lin ion,
It sh ould be u sod data establisl; :vAltil:ints hkS nicked daui kr Plx,ht, and so -I"miLes k the:“)1.1:11., picked data for NO: from a location in Marion. AR scmile 35 miles to the south-southwest, and picked data for rY1.2: from Dyersburg, TN some 40 miles to the
14
discussion as to any (actors about the Dyersburg. location that would make it
represe alive of the site (tithe I3RS Facility. Furthermore. there is no discussion
reeadint use cif Pt\l : 5 monitOnflU data from any of c following locations as
backp.round:
\1\ 1C11.
\NC\\ it .\ Is', • •
tt.th-sotithw rosK. 40 miles ,ttuth
miles west AR -- aiThro\lithitc es south
Stuttgart, AR approximately I mi le s 0 LI t 11- SOU t hWeSt
r h Little Rock. ,Ad: appro\imately 145 miles southwest
It should be noted that the final Air 0 t Analysis Report (Attachment '
Application, Rev. 2„Appendix C. 1
hows that the wind blow s primarily from
the south aMl southwest, sngestinti that in data from the
southwest of the tiRS Facility location would be more appropriate than n u n
data from a location to the northeast. Based u BRS's modeled PM. . impact (42.56
tt2:in, use H nin-ki dtu u au nv of these other loations as
background ts. i.t 1 Is t ' ve int-pacts. all of tA hick k2.\ (Ted
he annual PN12.5 \.\.\QS of 12 p(..Crii:
N4cmphi, Nitirwit. AR. N•
North 1 utie Rock. AR little:la. AR Stuttatirt.
Backt,.trtquid
0
Cumulative Ow )
I 1-1 13.12 13,02
northeast. ' unti1 Air Quality .\n,th,sis Report. •\tL,t,unent \pplictition, Rev, 2, :\ppcn:11\ 16, n a- to an> at 11,:."-- 2 !, , :;.:t1,: , ns is
lity in 0
Attat.Thitic .1 Rev, 2.. 'ix C, p,
Data obtained From LP.\ AirData website database.
15
In fact, in an it
ADEQ email ated IFebruary 6.2'013, after the first BRS pe
application had been submitted, ADEQ permitting staff observed that "the new
is 1 )
Look114.! at our monitors they seem to istently vading 10 or
11 outside of [Little Rock]." A copy of this entailother discussing the
of PM2,5 backnround data across the state are submitted herewith as
Attachment I I, In spite of this observation, when i ed the Draft Permit ADEQ
did not provide any explanation as to why
fbackground concentrations
Dyersburg. T'N were representative or appropriate. Consequently, BRS did not
satisfy the requirement -140 CFR k to demonstrate that its emissions would
not cause or contribute to air 11 .zm in violat of a NAAQS.
. The modeling is deficient t excluded. areas based solely on bein ,- below the si,:nificant mpac
Nucor's Comment No. 30 stated:
NAAQS and increment modeling tiles appear to include only the receptors that were significant in the significance modeling, rather than all receptors within the radius of impact,
In its response, ADEQ stated:
Modeling, by BRS met the requirements o p Tdix W, Areas where BRS had an insignificant impact, as determined by the SIL, were excluded from modelim4 as allowed by EPA idance_
ent 3, ADEQ RTC). This response demonstrates that ADEQ and
BRS did not properly inctdel and analyse the ambient impact of PM-,,-;
D.C. Circuit Court of
cals decis 'In1 Club \ 3d 458
(D.C. Cir. 2013). In that case, the Court vacated the sig:nificant impact
level ( S1L -). Thus. there is no SIL to apply to PM: Even so. ADEQ must
rerun the modeling analysis because the modeled value for I PM,;
cumulative )act is 12.00 (equal to the NAAQS) versus a S level of 0.3
te ;m 2 See. e.g., 40 C.F.R. §52.21(k). Thus, it is possible that areas with an
impact below the SIL but above 0.1 ttg m could demonstrate an exceedance
of the PM NAAQS in violat ion of APC&EC Reg. 19.904. Further. EPA's
modeliwa.guidanee to exclude receptors below the Sit_ applies only to the 1-
hr. average NO and SO: NAAQS, because of the form of the NAAQS (98 th
and 99 h percentile of the maximum daily 1-hour average NO2 and SO :
concentration, respectively; US EPA memorandum. dated March 1, 2011).
Other averagimt periods for 502 and NO2 and other criteria pollutants
continue to use. the radius of impact based on the most distant extent of the
SIL. 9
The Court in Sierra Club found that where the SE, is greater than the
difference between background and the 'NAAQS, the SU., provides no
assurance of compliance ith the NAAQS. Sierra Club, 705 F.3d 458.
Because there is no way to determine whether the PM:.5 NAAQS was violated,
EPA must object to the permit and remand it back to ADEQ to clarify BRS's
impact compared to the PM:.5 NAAQS or revoke the permit.
See Attachment 4, Application, Rev. 2. Appendix C. p., C-17. Similarly, the modeled value for 1-hour NO: is 181 8 in (within 4% of the NAAQS of 188
versus a S1L level of 7.52 it(,t in'. See, pp. C-11, C-17.
As discussed below, the Permit is based on use of an unproven emission factor for PM2 from natural gas combustion that is 68% of the AP-42 emission factor. If the AP-42 emission factor had been used, it is likely that additional receptors exceeding the NAAQS would be identified.
17
frilled prevcrly consider secondary= formation of particulate, which would cause or contribute to a NAAQS e\ceedance given the cumulative impact of the BRS Facility is cc-mai to the PN1- '.\;AAQS
Nucor suited:
Recent draft EPA guidance (March 4, 2013) for PM- mod indicates that projects that have significant emi siC ns of both P and P11 2 .: precursors (SO2 and NO N ) should evaluate secondary formation of PM2.5. it is not clear that secondary PM , ; emissions were included in the PM:, air quality analysis submitted by BRS„ BRS meets Case 3 since emissions from the proposed mill exceed the PSD significant emissions rate for direct emissions of PM 2.: as well as for NO N and SO:, Case 3 calls for assessing secondary impacts of P.M15.. It is not clear that BRS has conducted any form of secondary impacts assessments for Given that the current PM: :: analysis results in
cts very near or equal to the NAAQS. ADEQ should properly assess the impacts of secondary PN1 : and document this assessment in the permitting reeo ri
ADEQ's response was succinct: "ADEQ
:o 1 idance.
The drafte was on March 4. 2013, lication for
this permit had been veeived and review sta ehment 3, ADEQ RTC),
The CAA is emphatic that a PhD permit cannot ;annot he issued if it will re ult in a
aticnr of the NAAQS. CAA §-165(a)(3)(B); 42 U.S.C. '7475(a)(3)(B). Nucor it
its ccm meets pointed out that there are multiple so -u iubt concerning the 131Z.S
Facility's impact on the NAAQS. including questions mission rates
assign d to major and in) nits, questions about background
concentrations used by BRS and ADEQ, and questions about the extent of secondary
stattranary source emissions that might occur. All of these factors suggest that the
Nucor notes that A DEQ did fo the March 4, 2013 PM : , ; draft Guidance by using the highest. 8' highest modeled impact, instead of the highest, first highest modeled impact as specified in the current PM:: modeling guidance, i.e. :SEPA. Memorandum from Stephen D. Page. -Modeling Procedures for Demonstrat9 Compliance with PM :s . : NAAQS,” ,March 23. 2010, ADEQ's use of highest, S' highest values without adopting other sections of the March 4, 2013 draft guidanc including secondary formation of PM-2,e, is inconsistent with that guidance. ADEQ's actions in accepting and rejecting parts of various guidance documents without explanation or rationale is troubling.
18
BRS Fac.ilit 's projected impact on the PM:;. ; N AQS is questionable. Considering
these doubts,ADEQ in this situation cannotsimply refuse, on the basis that EPA's
guidanceguidanc e is late in 11 St UlOn, lury to ensure that the BRS
Facility will not "cause or contribute"NAAQS violation.
Nucor is not insisting that ADEQ must follow EPA's • -alt guidance.
Nevertheless, ADEQ must analyse the facts belore it and exp:o in why inits judenient
secondary eniissiolas should be wholly disre4catded when the precursor emission rate
are sigi ficant and the direct PN ,I , ;emission s ) the NAAQS threshold
ounted and choice of background
nonitorina location). There is no such detennination in the record. All the record
ADEQ's statement that t is not bound by EPA
ithout any
discussion of ADEQ's statutory obligations. Because the direct PM-' e
already place the fa 1 NAAQS, it is error for ADEQ to Lvhollydisreg.,
potent], impact of precursor emissions and, as a result, it has not been demonstrated
that ' ruction or operation of such
ill not a
contribute to, air pollution in excess of an ambient air quality ndard."
L Al)EQ P model.] analysis appears to be based on an unsupported value.
In Comment 33. Nucor pointed out that there were inconsistencies in the modeling
data presented concerning the BRS Facility. Spec f cally. the Draft Pe di .ated a
mod
the BRS Facility of - for PM_,;. (Attachment
2. Draft Permit, p. 8). However, the increment analysisshowed an annual impact of
2.53 p(.2. , ' for PM:::: and the '_umulative analysis showed an impact of 2.56 olt
(=Attachme 4, pp. C.- I I and C-17). ADEQ responded to N tine!nt that the
ittcre-tuent analysis was based on an earlier un and was being revised down to the
19
I CAR 1:1
Vt)(jtkEC:
B. 1 )1f)..\ NI R . 1 . •
Clean . t
NAAQS ue of 2,4 a. n.Nt)EQ, did nct ttt tltaneart
Comments, tt\ Iucb is that there does not seem to he a basis for the 2,47 pa in - value.
The materials nIit1e.1 vith the Permit show inodded values or ")..5' , uc n and 2.56
the Pelinit tvidy I, to Ntn . di by AD!
s a:lid .5o ia ii
(Attachment
Nucor retiticA.'d consultant to rerun A EIZMOD with the model inputs
presented and it au in impact As best as Nucor can determine, th-
2.4
that a as never cited to the
public 5 ? at a pieest..i in tit.: rIRS modelinji ia ltve , ate used,
then the etanulative impact (10 no int) hi • PM.: \\inch is the
NAAQS standard k.tv.tictly, l ''' Thus. the ernis-tioas data of any modeled
st, ts improperly 1101
v ac tbuut. . c.uld le .atl. to an
Reg, 10„9.;„t-I1H',,:ir ;!:,S to p:0\ ide an arta! .,:s of the air qunlit triplet projected
for the area as a icu It of 12.eneral corm -nett:nil, iesicktntial. industrial or other prowtl
BRS \I:,: . Air Qu,ilitt. , Cl tort also shov. ;lice impact of 2.55 a rn ..rd a 0 ''''' ' .00c in, ,ihu) of 2, (Attachment a. pp. C-7 and
FUI111:111:10FC, "it.; n 2 e :ri s sidi liuntits for natural gas comhastittn sour: es i:sed instead Jt1 unsubJ!:tritiated ;dues u--el in the Application. Re\ - . 2, the PM,.5 impacts of the 13RS Facility would double. resulting. in NAAQS exceethinees.
20
a sociated with the ource " 42 U.S.C. ,;7475(a)(0); 40 C,F.R. addition
to this requirement, AP(.1'&.E.0 Reg. 19.904(C) state
)% of
available annual incren
80% of any short term increment is consumed. an
assessment is required of the "effects that the proposed consumption con umption 1 °ould have upon
the industrial nd ecommi development thin the area of the proposed source" and
"alternatives -o such consumption, includinalternative si
source or portions thereof. , '
In its Comments No. 5, and 4 2 Nucor pointed out that BRS's
additiona cts analysis d
consistent with NSA and NYS's
experiences regarding_ industrial, and residential gro ■ h around their
mills, and contradicted ublished reports and sworn testimony by BRS representa
about sig.nificant indt and residential growth that was expected to
aeCO pa
and operation of the BRS Facilit. NSA and NYS also
commented that BR.S did not discuss or analyze any alternatives. including alternate
BRS
For example. Nucor attached to its Comments sworn testit
Executive Director of the Arkansas Economic Development Commission Arkansas
Public S rvice Commission Docket No. 13- 2-P in which he stated that e
the direct economic impact of BRS ''do not include the imp ha could be felt -om
oose to locate near the hill to tape advantage of ady
supply of steel and reduced transport; . One needs to look no further than
Blytheville to know that these types of locations are a strong possibility. Tenaris, an
Argentine pipe and tube manufacturer. l ocated its facility within a fe y miles of the
existing Nucor mill near Blytheville to have ready access to Nucor's steel. The
AEDC and BRS are already_ ursuin potential customers for 1 -1 BRS's
output. phas.s di. (Attachment 1 Comments on Draft Perirtit. Ex.
13). In the sane docket, the Chairman and CEO of BRS testified:
-Sew BRS's payroll, there 11 likely he a number of s and customers that also locate in the area. , From a customer perspective. we typically see steel service centers, steel processors, and pipe mills locate in close proximity to new mills in an attempt to reduce transportation costs and gain direct access to steel. From a support industry perspective, the BRS mill will have a number of support entities that will provide BRS with raw materials, maintenance services, material handling services, and various day-to-day needs such as cafeteria services.
Id. Num its 11111=`, in li 'ou A:rkaltsas is consist
1
Following is a hat of sonic of the and businesses
(and their ADEQ identification numbers) - d support or were
customers of the Nucor nulls or otherwise located near the Nucor mills and that had
ental permits ed by ADEQ after NYS be an operations in 1989' 3 :
Kinder Morgan Bulk Terminals N 47-00516 International Mill Service —3FIN 47-002 Air Liquide (2 locations) - 47-00241; 47-00962 Hars,:o AFIN 47-00243 luor ,_:anic Recycling — AFIN 47-00245 Ma \ crick Tube — AFIN 47-00251 Razorback Concrete (2 location) AFIN 47-00257; AF1N 47- 00260 Burlington Northern (2 location) FIN 47-00260; AFIN 47-00436 Huntco Steel AFIN 47-00264 Paco Steel AFIN 47-00274 Friedman Industries '-- AFIN 47-00246 AllMet Industries AFIN 47-00247 1psco Tubulars AFIN 47-00445 .1MS Russell Metals — AFIN 47-00480 Hackett Multisery - AFIN 47-00486 Skyline Steel AFIN 47-00493 Hartford Steel — AFIN 47-00522 Siemens Industries -- AFIN 47-00907 Atlas Tube — ANN 47-00909 Precoat Metals — AFIN 47-00914 PIZO Operating Company — AFIN 47-00931
Information obtained on October 4 and 5, 2013 from ADEQ's online Facility and Pert-nit Summary (PDS) database for permitted facilities located in Mississippi County. Arkansas, (AFIN prefix 47), with AFIN numbers greater than '.NYS (AFIN suffix 00202).
Tenark y, Prospect Steel --- \I:1N 47-00943
In response to Nucor's Comments, ADE() ignored the information ih:iniicd by
Nucor and sin;: ,...ated that the Bi\. r.sistent with i permit
appl catio PA had not piat:
the However, wle: ter orier ...nt applicants had more or I
additional impacts analysis or whetherI PA commented on this issue is irrelevant,
The ,...dihnonal imp analysis rcquireinent is part of the Clean Air Act and the
Arh,:nsas SIP, , Di I ,-..1 Fad lov ;1 Furthemiore..ApCx:FC R,.., 2.. i
Cii. i •.1 the detail of the ass...:snie shall be "continersi vial the
degree of pro. , ad acretnent c. , asumption. A DEQ did not provide any anii!ysis of
this factor in its explanation as to why BRS•s supc.,rticial analysis was satislitetory. 14
Vaeit t:ad with the c increment consunir on and an air quality impact
he
1:11'1111;i11 , 11:ik.T;1‘!) , Ii -,t1
that the State of ,A,:i...atsus and
BRS expected to see signilicant corm industrial and reidential wowth, ADE()
should have required an adequate more extensive additional impacts analysis. and
<1 -k)e.lti hive rerpnicl BP.S
liftS did rat ifiea :ion tar impacts
analyiiiis to ,\DI...t) until 2:44 PM on June 35, 2013, the same day that the Draft Permit
■VaS issued. See. Attachment Nucor Comments, Ex. A, email dated June 25. ')01 3,
2:44 PM, a lso cabrnitted separately as Attachment 12,
ADE() .11,1 lure to do so derir rr'.a ,na itat the Penn it Joe,
with all pl ram cuts Pa. a a predicted increment ccnsumn
• As described below. BRS did not provide A DEQ with BRS's justiiiy,iti ,, n for its additional impacts analysis until the afternoon that the Draft Permit \‘.is issued.
23
the BRS
:hi; l rai iCfl I LicftL1l'sind s .-hort term
meremen o ond PM2fi (and w mii; annual PM ) ,,NAAOS and was
96°/), of the 1-hour NO 2 NAAQS), and be.• pi County',
a..; te:‘tri.
records)iii IL ac the
both e d irtd ii lici were pursi . dt.ci diitiii,il and
industrial i.irowth a reialt of and new the fiRS mills, ADEQ should have required a
more robust and detailed :Ai:kin:on:II in , uciutlilia iii' alternative
a-Jelin] muensurate
with :..1 .1c ,..ed and the are.) .iftected. - Because
BRS's )act could impact. 1), t'ac t , c, that BRS and the state of
Arkan s :. lip v ii ',acme near the BV`-) posstble eNpansion by the facilities
that :le a ‘.1, to the B. ,,.5 'ate. !tkSu, 1.1iltire to provide a ileisitled
i.i , iated
part permit and v, a a Inc mAcOle tot publii
therek ,.•epriving the public at 11
itt lily 0 comment, For the
Administrator must ok)tect.
\\D PER'.\11T ',,TIC)N D(1)1.• '.,;( CoN't .\ !,o1 it \P' l';•RFC)R.\
\ I }'S[S 1( .11; hf) )1 . CON . 1\1\ RI:(t 'Hal) 13)' pAR 7t)
AN 1) )1 1)10(1"liSS1•1) PR9l'I 1 ,', I V...
40 C.1-.1 . 01)LLtiL iliti , - submit - ,111
or mike auv
APC&L.0 C. 2ii).402 111,:ewise requires it permit applicant to submit certain
information, including additional MI ;Mon requiredADEQ to verify which
requirements are applicable to the source'' and the "calculations fo>r the above. -
APC&EC Reg. 26,407 states that to be deemed complete an application must provide
all the information required by ection 26,402, APC&EC Re& provides that a
permit may be cd only iIADFQ has " ed a complete application for a
permit- and "the process ing of the perm and the conditions of the permit
for compliance with all applicable requirements." Furthermore, 40 CFR
§52,21(a)(2)(i
I1CW
Mona source shall
construction ut a permit that states that the source will meet with th
cuts of 40 CFR §§ (i) through W(0).
The BRS permit plication and the Final Permit does no
requirements because the permit application is incomplete in several
respects, does not contain ufficient infortmation to determine compliance with all
applicable requirements or contains conflicting information, and was improperly
processed and analysed. The Permit ) does not contain a statement that the BRS
Fa- ty presented in the BRS Permit Application) will meet the requirements
PSD review. Instead, ADEQ issued a permit that ADEQ relieves would satisfy all
applicable requirements, regardless of whether BRS's Permit Application indicated
that it could or would be able to meet such requirements.
. The emission factors for natural gas combustion used to issue Draft Permit are eonflictinc.
In its Comment No, 14, Nucor stated:
In the Draft Permit, page 10, there discrepancy between thin factors used to model emissions for natural airs sources, and the emissions for natural gas sources requested by BRS as BACT limits. Modeling and ADEQ's review and permit decision should have been conducted based on the requested BACT emission limits and not on limits or operating conditions that ADEQ thinks will satisfy applicable
5
1 quiren1,2nis \ DEQ shi,a11,1tc% le,\ l'ilc1 11 i t i u....,11,., determine ' nethei :he tJiu us cdi,'"1 •'s
J.:can:et:lents „n,i, ,,11harieteritics Cri,1• ph, ant di .i
\ D1 (,) I satisnes apt . line:lien DI 0 1 , ie...a.r.:n :ant t l'i , 'Ilai e ■ '1111 : i)i .CL:ILi 11:101. ;I:Itl n :Rh:II:011;1 puldi.:
)eliod, sh , u1,,, ca
The PN1 P.V1 e1 :5 emission factor for natural i.t.as cmnbustion sources used in the
model nu., 01)0052 lb/IvIMBtu. EPA 1 s iiictor is 0.0076
lb \ 1\11..itu. Thus, the proposed emission limit for BRS 1 s natural as combustion
sourvc is abodi t'i.; of the BACT emission Inuit consistently listed in the RBLC,
which isfesaine tcn' as in .A,P-42. If AP used for natural gas
- would nim than double,
ne
I t
InCtittU n We r ne li';: complian;e with
NAAQ. 3, ADLQ Res t.,nse t, c„:cinments, p. 13). Howe\ et ., there is
no :lemon-annual in the Permit Application that the BRS Facility will be able to
die 1,1 limits for natural gas emissions ici in modeliq, Since BACT is
an emission lunit representing the best in:ail:11)1c control technology that is achievable
the 42 U.S.C. §7479(3), ADI. ul, o. n'iincd a demonstration that
an) . would be ahic t nee! inc 'kt , s';' 1. 1. in the NAAQS
modelu ADEQ did no: 6 mit 11 cri tio n
•I n iIIC: ; is 1 and In these .,:oniments„ L.PA -slit , t:ed how ,..ompliance wit cinis.-inn combusticn sources u1,1 „leniou,.fts i t cd AD1 1..c) ves..p..alds.d that iestwy and r1 z[ 1,-,-,:aild be
icquued tor the,' sou:„..es :ruse - ernissuai pr.ap „ t ,13Ai. 1 arc much er than any Fi.:( . 1 limits :n ,in Similarsou! •ttadanent 3, Dr() RTCd•
Hoy, Feeause the at pact of emissions from theTkS mvilitv is already projected to equal the ,PIV1 25 NAAQS, this demonstration should be made before the permit is issued, not idler the facility has been constructed and is operating,
\DEC) ,taled that. 0-6...1. , ase„.1 in the in:d• we IV
oin-Heie, and BR'S has not dein..,!1,, RS Facility \Yill
contribute to a NAAQS violation. and the Permit is not m compliance with applicable
requirements.
Stro that limits be dcmonstr.:ted
be achieyal -.1,.. -tantial financial comm , '
includ es from t:me Stak.: • Arkansas and its apcnece Ii the
BRS Facility einilot achieve the lower, modeled numbers, there will he substantial
preSSLtre can the problem : A has recognized in prior guld;ni,'
I '11 C:Inli; I:1, .1,, • r to permit :Stla I ' 'e
-Juice tt ,..'rn .:it limit that it ta ntaehieve so
that it iincline requirements, \\ !mile Nucor is not opp,i,ed I lo\va Units
per se, it does believe that those limits should be ackno\■ kdpcd as "hevond BALI —
and that the general nublic has a right to know when the limits may not
the public .i:! t111clI1e- fas:,111Y.
EPA. ..truenon Prior to I--mite of PSD Permit, at 2 j tei. 1 0, 1 9 st r1t is e\treinely thlricult to deny km; nee ;t r ■ crtnit when it result, in ii eminplcted portion of a prolt,..-et haviti ,„.. to !villain idle hcaeire, in order to a \ id iicv t..‘quity argument:- at a later time. It is beL.'i it , any constructi, , ii rather than to have a "while :in our FPA, "Construction \e',1 ,.itie,! at
I ii.iicIc I, . Chu les \A IP( A it the (iP J.
I i1l'l Ii: 0 ,ii. Ct 'SIr 'l'0; Paid. c :'c; tnnccct Iiit.dt FUCI,ii. t.PtCttl
n0-0 ' 1.,:ement he milkirp,2 costly, , ,a pc:Tnancnt 11:\ clinciit :tad later argue that retiot1ttm.,!.. if PSD requirement., or denial of the permit \c aid unreasonably inter [ere %;•ith their investment, 1.
7'7
BRS adequately demonstrate the b s or its proposed PMT, : emision ii tors.
In its 25 NSA and NYS stated'
The Application, Rev. 2 contains emission factors for EA. lAtii) and Table 2-2a, consisting of 0.0018 g Iscf for PM and 0.0024 gridsef for PM :, Neither the Application, the Draft Permit nor the SOB adequately explain the derivation of the emission factor for PM15, An emission factor of 0.0052 grldsci for PM25 should be used to establish emission rates from the FAI's, including in odeling.
tense. ADEQ stated, a BACT analysis, a facilitycan propose a limit less
than those ac 'ed by other facilities. In this case BRS proposed a lower limit at
required to show compliance that emission rate through testing. tachment 3,
ADEQ RTC, p. However, there no demon the Application, Rev. 2
how the .0024 izr:ciscf
ion factor for PIVI , s was derived or developed, and there
is no demonstration in the < pplication, Rev. the BRS Facility will be able to
n rate. Rather than blindly acceptinsg BRS's "proposed limits",
ADEQ should have required additional information supporting the development of
that em ssion factor, and infortttatron dernonstratin that BRS's proposed emission
limit was in fact achievable. This is required by 40 C.F.R. 52.21 (n) and APC&EC
Reg. 6.402, and by the policy considerations set forth above in the EPA memoranda
prohibiting pre-construction permitting.
Furthermore, because BRS's modeling showed that cumulative impacts from
the BRS Facility were equal to N.AAQS, it was even more important for
ADEQ to conduct a rigorous analysis of the basis BRS's P!v1,... proposed emission
rates and emission limits
_allowing the o be built and then
de termthrough testing whether or not the fa complied with applicable
requ t
The BRS facili esic.2n -was ncompletc in critical ways that affected the validity of the air quality model:I -lc!.
In Comments 4 and
Nucor commented that the permit application was
incomplete because BRS had not finali7cd the design and placement of all emission
sources,includin calculation of baghouse loading rates. Because tlae ) ed
s from the proposed BRS facility are equal to the PM , , NAAQS, NSA and
NYS requested that the draft perm be thdrawn until final engineering is completed
and additional modeling can be completed. , • In response s, at pages 10
and 15„ADEQ stated that The Department can only issue a permit decision sed on
the application eceivc." However, ADEQ had other options available to it instead
uing the Draft Permit under these circumstances. It could have required that
BRS submit additional MI to support its permit application, includingfinal
engineering design and source location e strations that the BRS Facility
the emission es used in modeling. .ADEQ also could have denied the
application. Instead ADEQ issued the draft permit. based on incomplete
information, because [IRS needed a draft permit sued in order to procee
lirrancixtg plans. Moreover, as discussed below it was ADEQ's intention to
such problems after the Draft Permit was issued and during the public comment
period.
e -Permit does not ,:ontain enforceable't CQI1C
(;0 ;11.171 1 .101 -1,:e
The Permit prominently relies upon a "Dust Control Plan for Miscellaneous
Sources" and a "Roadway Dust Control Plan." See Permit, Specific Conditions 95,
100 and 108. NSA and NYS commented in Comment No. 40 that • he permit should
29
the minimuI I required plan elements for these dust control plans:
not list any minimum plan elements or criteria. The pe rnti
ord throughputdata (lo
the permit does
-equirement
does but the mere kaTir
sp-cift` w=hen thewhen control plan must be )areci and should list the minimum
required Plan elements or criteria. - ADEQ's response was the "the requirement for a
t control plan for miscellaneous s ed with same due date as the
roadway dust control plan." ADEQ Response to Comments. p. 23. This response is
inadequate. In in the Mauer of: Allioni Encri., Generan Station ;
Penn t No. 460033090-P20, Petition No. V-2009-02 (Aii(!, na ter
"A//iant") the Administrator held that a Title V permit
ncy must include in the
public record for review a
emenl required to determine compliance with the
conditions of the permit. In this case. Nucor commented that the permit should list
not demonstrate that the emissions are M ich requires that the water
be applied ar a certain rate or when needed, and there is no explanation just
keeping track of the amount of w :tier applied will maintain )roper controls. .-
Admi
in Alliant, the permitting authority must explain how the proposed
monitoring will lead to compliance. ADEQ has failed
The Permit does not curium n adequate morttorinc. recordkeeprng nd
reporting requirements to comply with_ther,.outrements of 4.0 70,b(1)(0(1)(131 because it does not provide 'test method.
Specific Condition 93 of the Permit sta tes:
The pertnittee tests [sic] the TDS of each of the coohnu towers initially and
every six months thereafter. This testing shall he conducted in accordance
with Plantwide Condition 3 with a method approved by the Department before
the first test is performed.
comment, Nucor stated: "In Specific Condition 93 concerning testing of TDS in
too ling towers, no test method is specified." (Attachment I. Nucor Comment 19).
30
ADEQ responded that "The condition was updated to state that testizng earn be
conducted by a method approved by the Dcpartmen e achment, 2,
ADEQ RTC, pa(4e 14 of 30). ADEQ's handling of the TDS ssue and its response to
Nucor ; inadequate. In the _ ./h unt decision
.Administrator held that a Title Vperminimmu agency inns e public record
for review any elennet ompliance nth the conditions of a
permit, In this case, it is clear that the method r inirw TDS is critical to
determining whether the BM will he in long term compliance. However.
)oss ).1.e to determinefrom the record how compliance is to be determil
ADEQ's response postpones resolutii, is issue to beyond the
Title V process. ADEQ cannot refuse to provide public notice ind an opportunity to
comment on cot ttori
) r01' ins. See...1
t at 13-14. Similarly ADEQ
cannot defer critic' o beyond the pertaining nod, As the Ado strator
stated in C.S. Steel Gra,Iite Works, " pe•rnnittitn= authoritiesdo not have the
discretion to issue a ) hout specify methodoloov needed to
Fissure compliance applicable requirements in the tide \r ) tlw latter
-I Stows Steel Corporation Gran
CAPP Permit No.
96030056, Petition 1\sti,rnher V-2011 (quotmnc In the Moller of 117n. clobralor
ore, Permit o. 24-510-01886 (Order on Petition) at 10 (April 14. 2010).
oblem is compounded because ADEQ did not even specify the unit in which
TDS is to be determined. See, Attachment 3. Permit, Specific Conditions 92 and 93.
10eS 1101. e,mblish BA •ments.
The Permit does not apps
ish and set best available control
technology requirezlnents (BACT). The CAA requires that BACT be established by
31
the permitting authority on a case- • ease basis taking into account energy,
environmental and economic imp tcts and other costs. that are achievable for the
lac - 21 ;pph a ion of product - 1 ocresses and available methods, systems
and techniques for ontrol of pollutants. See, 42 C.S.C. §7=379(3). Critically. BACT
must include - 1
rol technologv 'is achievable through
lable methods. systems and techniques. - However, it appears that BRS proposed,
and ADEQ accepted, values chosen due to tl
~odelin ? rather than th ose
determined by the BACT process Attaclunent 3, NSi andNYS Comments 4 and
25, attd ADEQ RTC, pp, 10 and 16), Settin<ri BACT limits at modeled l
without completing the full BACT tee and considering the BACT
factors does not comply with PACT. The Permit should be remanded to ADEQ to set
both a BACT limit, based on
b e methods. systems and techniques
any
tdditional limits required to assure compliance v,
NAAQS as separate litttits
ADEQ's Draft Peru it does not comply
lie notice and ion requirements.
ADEQ's Draft Permit and its processing o Permit
inadequate and
because it relies on plans yet to be developed, nd was
issued knowing that information in the 'Permit Application was incomplete and
contradictory and that the Draft Permit would have be revised in order to correct
those oniiss a
d contradic tions. Thus, ADEQ's action deprived the public of
notice and opportunity for comment. As discussed above, Nucor ubnutt several
comments noting, the incomplete information in the Permit Application and
inconsistenc ies n the Draft Permit. These problems were known to ADEQ, but
ADEQ issued the Draft Permit anyway and decided that it could "fix'' these problems
e the Comment period. BRS's consultants dated June 17, 2013
(one week befbre the Draft )e sued 1. ADEQ permitting ed:
Just to let you know, we are n a "complete this permit this week deadline." We need the information sooner rather than later or we will have to write the permit with he information in front of us. That may result in some decisions you will not auee with and have to work out
raft period,
ml ADEQ email dated June 21. 2013 at 7:16 iV\ days before the
draft permit wais issued) ADEQ perm ing staff stated:
We should have the permit ready minus some final model numbers. There are things] in hey may not agree with but we had to put something the permit en w e were faced with contradictions in the application. They can address it in the draft if they want,
Cop submitted herewith as Attachment 13, and demonstrate that
the Draft Permit w, s issued based on incomplete or contradictory in fort ation with
knowled.w that the permit terms rind conditions woulc have to he modified in the
final permit. ADEQ should not have issued the ft Permit se
circumstance s ;- instead, it uld have required BRS to submit the additional
inform ation needed to process the Permit lication, or it should have denied the
ADEQ did not do so because o
d to have draft permit issued in
peon investor nice J un 7.5. 7 013. See email from BRS to
ADEQ dated June 2( 4:53 PM, submitted herewith as Attachment 1f1.
Some of the missing. and confused data were si g tit nd deprived the
'critical information. For example the Draft Permit stated that air quality
acts for the 1-hr NO NAAQS was or approximately 20% of the
standard (Attachment 2. Draft Permit, p. 8): however , the actual impact was 181,8
ng:rm 3 or 96% of the standard. (Attachment 3„ADEQ RTC, p 1). Accordingly,
because of errors in the Draft Permit , he public was presented with a draft permi t
1 ) ,:rrt
R.ility net the I-how \QS with a It.thlc in,11:nH1
safety, but th.n, misrepresented the actual performance and deprived
the public ,1 e)(1.'eli information would need to know to make imOrnied comment
C C T
thcn
notice the
that :in sr
11.1:1 th
applie:Ht: UHOly 111110;;;IT.
reasons - d herein, as well rout the Thor Comments suhnitted Oy `n , •\ and
N'YS, and the I:\. which an.ny htrein by ere: cue:: \'i S also
request thAt die i;;ini-trator revo La aid i
urthermore the
..A.DEQ faiL no. it inn 1)0 JIer the date of oh neti ,„ , to submIt a petmit revised to
lace! the ohi ,..nctwu 01 and NYS, to deny the Perirlit w i th 42 C.S.,C.
7661d(c). id \YS also ask the .\drintio.tr,tio; - lake uuh tr-A ,,ati:ns
, 11 13 - • . ,-1.11,:n C. o) . .th kir
'In.:CI:011 P because
it does not conform to the requtrc'tnetits of the Clean it Act. 42 U.S.C. §7477,
Date: 0,nt.. 'yr 0, 2013
34
Respectfully i n .itted
DOVER DIXON HORNE, PLLC Suite 3700 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 7201 (501) 375-9151 (501) 375-6484 (fax)
Mark H. Allison Ark. Bar No, 85001
Attorneys for Nucor Steel-Arkansas, a division of Nucor Corporation and Nucor-Yamato Steel Company
35
CERTIFICA1—
The undersigned affmns that a copy oldie fore noino Petition Requesti The Administrator Object To Issuance Of The Part 70 Operating Permit For The Bi River Steel LLC Facility has been sent to thef011owing by electronic delivery. overnight courier delivery, or C),S..M.ail, this 9' 'October, 2013.
n ght courier rdelivery. at d /fail overnight priority delivery) Han, Ran Cum, Regional Administrator United St;itc, Irnvironmental Protection Agency. Region VI Fountain Place, 12th Floor Suite 1200. 1445 Ross Avenue Dallas, TX 752W-2733
(by U.S. Mail) Hon. Teresa Marks Director Arkansas Department of I nvironmental Quality 5301 Northshore Drive North Little Rock, AR 72118-5317
r U.S. Mail) Dave Stickler Senior ;Managing. Director Big River Steel, LLC 2027 E. State Highway Osceola, AR 73207
Mark H. Allison
36
LAST OF ATTACHMENTS
ATTACHMENT 1 NUCOR COMMENTS ON DRAFT PERMIT
ATTACHMEN f 2 DRAFT PERMIT AND STATEMENT OF BASIS
ATTACHMENT 3 FINAL PERMIT AND RESPONSE TO COMMENTS
ATTACHMENT 4 JUNE 20, 2013 FINAL AIR QUALITY IMPACT ANALYSIS REPORT
ATTACHMENT 5 JUNE 21. 2013 APPLICATION, REV. 2
ATTACHMENT 6 MARCH 3. 2013 AIR QUALITY IMPACT ANALYSIS REPORT
ATTACHMENT 7 INS ECONOMIC REPORT ON BRS PROJECT
ATTACHMENT 8 REMI ECONOMIC REPORT ON BRS PROJCT
ATTACHMENT 9 JAN. 29 AND 30, 2013 EMATLS
All 10 JUNE 20, 2013 EMAIL
ATTACHMENT 11 FEB. 6 AND 7, 201$ EMAILS REGARDING BACKGROUND DATA
ATTACHMENT 12 JUNE 25, 2013 EMAILS REGARDING' ADDITIONAL IMPACTS ANALYSIS
ATTACHMENT 13 JUNE 17 AND 21, 2013 EMAILS REGARDING DRAFT PERMIT
Recommended