Puget Sound Clean Air Agency opens public-comment period on Nucor air permit and emission-calculation change

A month-long public-comment period is now open for two matters related to Nucor, the steel mill in North Delridge – renewal of its Air Operating Permit and also a proposed Order of Approval for a change in the way it “determines the amount of sulfur dioxide” that it’s releasing. While the Puget Sound Clean Air Agency says these involve NO change to what Nucor is, and is allowed to, emit, they want to hear from you if you have something to say, so we’re republishing the notice that just arrived in our inbox:

Puget Sound Clean Air Agency (the Agency) is seeking comments on a proposed Notice of Construction Order of Approval (NOC No. 10537) and a draft renewal Air Operating Permit (Permit No. 10281) for Nucor Steel Seattle, Inc. (Nucor), located at 2424 SW Andover Street in Seattle, Washington 98106. Nucor is a steel mill that releases particulate matter, carbon monoxide, oxides of nitrogen, sulfur dioxide, volatile organic compounds, and hazardous air pollutants to the outside air.

The proposed Order of Approval is for a change in the way Nucor determines the amount of sulfur dioxide they are releasing to the outside air. They currently use a method that relies on default data from the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency that is based on average data from steel mills across the country. The proposed Order of Approval is to allow Nucor to use data gathered from testing of their Seattle facility to calculate the amount of sulfur dioxide they are releasing. This will allow Nucor to have a more accurate method of determining their emissions. The proposal does not involve any physical changes to the site nor does it actually allow any increase in emissions, but rather more accurately defines what their emission increase was for a project permitted in 2008 for a modification to their cranes. It also allows for more accurate calculations of their past sulfur dioxide emissions and what they are expected to be in the future. The new emission calculation results in an updated emission increase calculation for the crane project of 29.6 tons per year of sulfur dioxide. This proposed Order of Approval would cancel a supersede the previous approval (Order of Approval No. 9669). That previous order of approval was included in the Air Operating Permit for this site. This proposed Order of Approval is included in this Public Notice for comments with the draft Air Operating Permit because the previous order of approval cannot be modified in the operating permit through an NOC decision alone.

The draft Air Operating Permit is a renewal of the current Nucor Air Operating Permit that is already in force. Air Operating Permits expire every five years and need to be renewed. This renewal incorporates all the new compliance requirements that have come into effect for Nucor since the previous permit was issued.

Copies of the proposed Order and the draft Air Operating Permit and all supporting material are available for review at the Agency’s office (address below). Please call Stella Nehen at (206) 689-4011 for an appointment. The information is also available on the Agency’s web site at this address: http://www.pscleanair.org/business/Permitting/Pages/AOPForComment.aspx

2 Replies to "Puget Sound Clean Air Agency opens public-comment period on Nucor air permit and emission-calculation change"

  • Friend O'Dinghus July 23, 2015 (4:24 pm)

    I am a little confused. I understand that Nucor is seeking a more accurate method of determining their actual emissions, versus a national average methodology. What I am unclear about is whether or not this will lead to more noxious smelling and potentially harmful emissions, or less. I presume they have done tests themselves and found that the national average methodology overstates their emissions, hence the desire for an accurate measurement criteria. If the opposite were to have been found true, then presumably they would prefer to keep that methodology, thereby maintaining higher actual emissions without the risk of surpassing the mandated maximums. I am also presuming that the later scenario would allow for higher profitability due increased production levels, or different product possibilities, or by being able to use a slightly cheaper grade of fuel source. I have never seen a person or entity that asks for a procedural rule change that has no ultimate benefit to themselves. In fact, if a proposed change costs a person or entity more in profits or proceeds, then it is usually fought against tooth and nail.

    Here’s my thoughts in a far simpler form:

    Any change in measurement methodology which ultimately leads to more stinky and/or more unhealthy emissions is a bad thing and I am against it. In the unlikely event that this change in measurement criteria leads to less stinky and/or healthful emissions is a good thing and I am for it.

    Anyone know which of these eventualities will occur because of this proposed change?

  • Friend O'Dinghus July 23, 2015 (6:20 pm)

    I am a little confused. I understand that Nucor is seeking a more accurate method of determining their actual emissions, versus a national average methodology. What I am unclear about is whether or not this will lead to more noxious smelling and potentially harmful emissions, or less. I presume they have done tests themselves and found that the national average methodology overstates their emissions, hence the desire for an accurate measurement criteria. If the opposite were to have been found true, then presumably they would prefer to keep that methodology, thereby maintaining higher actual emissions without the risk of surpassing the mandated maximums. I am also presuming that the later scenario would allow for higher profitability due increased production levels, or different product possibilities, or by being able to use a slightly cheaper grad of fuel source. I have never seen a person or entity that asks for a procedural rule change that has no ultimate benefit to themselves. In fact, if a proposed change costs a person or entity more in profits or proceeds, then it is usually fought against tooth and nail.

    Here’s my thoughts in a far simpler form:

    Any change in measurement methodology which ultimately leads to more stinky and/or more unhealthy emissions is a bad thing and I am against it. In the unlikely event that this change in measurement criteria leads to less stinky and/or more healthful emissions is a good thing and I am for it.

    Anyone know which of these eventualities will occur because of this proposed change?

Sorry, comment time is over.