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

NUCOR PETITION TO OBJECT

ARKANSA ' DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTALQUALITY

PERMIT NO. 2305-A0P-R0

BIG RIVER STEEL, LLC

ATTACHMENT NO. 1

NUCOR COMMENTS ON DRAFT PERMIT