Exhibit 99
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
Plaintiff, )
the States of Arkansas, )
Nebraska, and Utah, )
Plaintiff-Interveners, ) CIVIL ACTION NO.
V.
)
NUCOR CORPORATION, )
Defendant. )
)
)
- --------------------------
CONSENT DECREE
--------------
Table of Contents
I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE ........................................... -7-
II. APPLICABILITY .................................................... -8-
III. DEFINITIONS ...................................................... -9-
IV. FACTUAL BACKGROUND ............................................... -11-
V. CLEAN AIR ACT COMPLIANCE PROGRAM ................................. -13-
A. Electric Arc Furnace ("EAF") Pollution Prevention ("P2")
Measures .................................................... -13-
B. EAF Pilot of Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction
(SNCR) Technology ........................................... -15-
C. Lance Burner Pilot Project .................................. -17-
D. Reheat Furnace Control Technology Pilot Projects ............ -18-
E. Reheat Furnace Pilot Project for Selective Catalytic
Reduction ("SCR") Technology ................................ -18-
F. Establishing Emission Limits for Pilot Units ................ -20-
G. Initial Emissions Monitoring and Setting Emission Limits for
Non-Pilot Units ............................................. -21-
H. Construction and Operating Permits .......................... -22-
I. Demonstration of Compliance ................................. -24-
J. Phase-in Schedule for Non-Pilot Installations ............... -25-
K. Steel Fabrication Facilities ................................ -26-
L. New Source Performance Standards ............................ -27-
VI. CLEAN WATER ACT COMPLIANCE ....................................... -28-
A. First Flush Sampling ........................................ -28-
B. Best Management Practices/Storm Water Pollution Prevention
Plans ....................................................... -31-
C. Randomizing NPDES Sampling .................................. -35-
D. Biocide Monitoring .......................................... -35-
E. Measures at the Plymouth, Utah Facility ..................... -37-
VII. RCRA COMPLIANCE .................................................. -37-
A. Injunctive Relief Related to Waste Management ............... -37-
B. Closure at Nebraska ......................................... -42-
VIII. RCRA CORRECTIVE ACTION ........................................... -44-
A. Work to be Performed ........................................ -44-
B. RCRA Facility Assessments ................................... -47-
C. RCRA Facility Investigation ("RFI") ......................... -49-
D. Corrective Measures Study ("CMS") ........................... -52-
E. Corrective Measures Implementation ("CMI") .................. -54-
F. Interim Measures ("IM") ..................................... -56-
G. Stabilization Measures ...................................... -58-
H. Public Participation ........................................ -59-
I. Additional Work ............................................. -59-
J. Quality Assurance ........................................... -60-
K. Sampling and Data/Document Availability ..................... -62-
L. Access ...................................................... -64-
M. Record Preservation ......................................... -66-
N. Notification and Document Certification ..................... -68-
O. Financial Responsibility .................................... -72-
P. Indemnification ............................................. -73-
IX. EPCRA COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATION ................................... -73-
X. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM ("EMS") .......................... -74-
XI. COMPLIANCE AUDITS ................................................ -74-
XII. AGENCY APPROVALS ................................................. -74-
XIII. SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS .............................. -76-
XIV. GENERAL RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING .............................. -78-
XV. SELF-MONITORING .................................................. -80-
XVI. CIVIL PENALTY .................................................... -80-
XVII. STIPULATED PENALTIES ............................................. -83-
XVIII. RIGHT OF ENTRY ................................................... -107-
XIX. FORCE MAJEURE .................................................... -108-
XX. DISPUTE RESOLUTION ............................................... -112-
XXI. EFFECT OF SETTLEMENT ............................................. -115-
XXII. GENERAL PROVISIONS ............................................... -116-
XXIII. TERMINATION ...................................................... -123-
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA
FLORENCE DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
Plaintiff,
the States of Arkansas, )
Nebraska, and Utah, )
Plaintiff-Interveners ) CIVIL ACTION NO.
)
V. )
)
NUCOR CORPORATION,
Defendant. )
)
)
- --------------------------
CONSENT DECREE
--------------
WHEREAS, Plaintiff, the United States of America (hereinafter
"Plaintiff" or "the United States"), on behalf of the United States
Environmental Protection Agency (hereinafter, "EPA") has filed a Complaint
alleging that Defendant, Nucor Corporation (hereinafter, "Nucor" or
"Defendant"), has violated and is in violation of the following environmental
statutes and their implementing regulations at one or more of its steel
manufacturing and fabrication facilities: the Clean Air Act
("CAA"), 42 U.S.C.ss.7401 et seq., the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
("RCRA"), 42 U.S.C.ss.6901 et seq., the Emergency Planning and Community
Right-to-Know Act of 1986 ("EPCRA"), 42 U.S.C.ss.11001 et seq., and the Clean
Water Act ("CWA"), 33 U.S.C.ss.1251 et seq.
WHEREAS, the purpose of this Consent Decree is to address environmental
concerns which may be representative of compliance issues common throughout the
steel mini-mill industry and to achieve comprehensive resolution of those issues
in a progressive framework;
WHEREAS, this Consent Decree with Nucor is the first such
comprehensive, multi-media settlement in the steel mini-mill industry;
WHEREAS, this effort has been undertaken as a potential model for
addressing environmental compliance in the steel mini-mill industry in a
technically rigorous and efficient manner;
WHEREAS, EPA issued to Nucor a Notice of Violation ("NOV") with respect
to certain alleged Clean Air Act violations at its Hickman, Arkansas, facility
on July 13, 2000;
WHEREAS, EPA and Nucor have executed an Administrative Order on Consent
on September 27, 2000, pursuant to EPA's
-4-
administrative authority under Section 7003(a) of RCRA, 42 U.S.C.ss. 6973(a),
ordering Nucor to take action at its Norfolk, Nebraska facility to remedy
contamination alleged to have resulted from its past and present handling,
storage, transportation and/or disposal of K061 dust, a RCRA listed hazardous
waste under 40 C.F.R. ss. 261.32, and to take all necessary and appropriate
action to prevent future contamination by K061 dust.
WHEREAS, the United States further alleges that Nucor has similar RCRA
violations and hazardous waste contamination at one or more additional
facilities which may require similar corrective action and preventive measures
pursuant to Section 3008(h) of the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of
1980, as amended, 42 U.S.C.ss. 6928(h);
WHEREAS, the United States has alleged that Nucor has discharged
pollutants to the waters of the United States without a permit in violation of
Section 401 of the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C. ss. 1311, at one or more of its
facilities;
WHEREAS, the United States has alleged that Nucor has violated its
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System ("NPDES") permits (33 U.S.C.
ss.ss. 1311, 1342 and 1344) at one or more of its facilities;
-5-
WHEREAS, the United States has alleged that Nucor has violated its
Industrial Storm Water General Permits (33 U.S.C. ss.ss. 1311, 1342 and 1344) at
one or more of its facilities;
WHEREAS, the United States has alleged that Nucor has violated or is in
violation of the Emergency Planning and Community Right-To-Know Act of 1986
("EPCRA"), 42 U.S.C.ss.11001 et seq., at one or more of its facilities;
WHEREAS, Nucor has denied and continues to deny the violations alleged
in the Complaint, the NOV and in EPA's RCRA Administrative Order;
WHEREAS, the States of Nebraska, Utah and Arkansas ("Plaintiff
Intervenors"), have filed Complaints in Intervention alleging similar violations
under applicable state law and have joined this settlement as signatories to
this Consent Decree;
WHEREAS, the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental
Control shall execute this Consent Decree pursuant to state law Section 48-1-50
(Powers of Department);
WHEREAS, the States of Arkansas, Texas, and South Carolina shall
designate "Project Coordinators," as defined in Section III, to oversee the
requirements of Section VIII, RCRA Corrective Action;
-6-
WHEREAS, the United States and Nucor agree that settlement of this
action is in the best interest of the parties and in the public interest, and
that entry of this Consent Decree without further litigation is the most
appropriate means of resolving this matter;
WHEREAS, the United States and Nucor consent to entry of this Consent
Decree without trial of any issues.
NOW, THEREFORE, without any admission of fact or law, and without any
admission of the violations alleged in the Complaint, the NOV, or EPA's
Administrative Order, it is hereby ORDERED ON CONSENT AND DECREED as follows:
I. JURISDICTION AND VENUE
----------------------
1. The Complaint states a claim upon which relief can be granted
against Nucor under Sections 113 and 167 of the Clean Air Act, 42
U.S.C.ss.ss.7413 and 7477; 28 U.S.C.ss.1355; Sections 301, 402 and 404 of the
Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C.ss.ss.1311, 1342 and 1344; Sections 3008 and 7003 of
RCRA, 42 U.S.C.ss.ss.6928 and 6973; and Sections 312 and 313 of EPCRA, 42
U.S.C.ss.ss.11022 and 11023. This Court has jurisdiction of the subject matter
herein and over the parties consenting hereto pursuant to 28 U.S.C.ss.1345.
Venue is proper under 28 U.S.C.ss.1391(b) and (c). For purposes
-7-
of this Consent Decree, Nucor consents to and will not contest the jurisdiction
of this Court over this matter.
II. APPLICABILITY
-------------
2. The provisions of this Consent Decree apply to and are binding upon
the United States, Plaintiff Intervenors and Nucor as well as Nucor's officers,
employees, agents, successors and assigns. In the event Nucor proposes to sell
or transfer any of its real property or operations subject to this Consent
Decree, it shall advise in writing such proposed purchaser or
successor-in-interest of the existence of this Consent Decree, and shall send a
copy of such written notification by certified mail, return receipt requested,
to EPA before such sale or transfer, if possible, but no later than the closing
date of such sale or transfer. Nucor shall provide a copy of this Consent Decree
and applicable Consent Decree attachments to all vendors supplying pollution
control technology systems or contractual services as required by this Consent
Decree.
3. References to parties in this Consent Decree include the United
States, Nucor, and the relevant States, as Plaintiff Intervenors. Where
appropriate, the States will oversee the RCRA corrective action process and
other regulatory permits and approvals in accordance with the provisions of this
Consent Decree.
-8-
4. Notwithstanding any retention of contractors, subcontractors or
agents to perform any work required under this Consent Decree, Nucor shall be
responsible for ensuring that all work is performed in accordance with the
requirements of this Consent Decree. In any action to enforce this Consent
Decree, Nucor shall not assert as a defense the failure of its employees,
servants, agents or contractors to take actions necessary to comply with this
Consent Decree, unless Nucor establishes that such a failure resulted from a
Force Majeure event as defined in Section XIX (Force Majeure) of this Consent
Decree.
III. DEFINITIONS
-----------
5. Except as otherwise provided in this Consent Decree, definitions for
the terms presented herein shall be incorporated from the following statutes and
their corresponding regulations: Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C.ss.7401 et seq.;
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1980, as amended, 42 U.S.C.ss.6901 et
seq.; the Emergency Planning and Community Right-to-Know Act of 1986, 42
U.S.C.ss.11001 et seq.; the Clean Water Act, 33 U.S.C.ss. 1251 et seq.
6. The following definitions apply for the purposes of this Consent
Decree:
-9-
a. "Economic Feasibility." As defined further in the attached
protocols, pilot projects conducted pursuant to this agreement that are
demonstrated to cost $5,000 or less per ton of reduced emissions are
presumptively economically feasible. Pilot projects conducted pursuant to this
agreement that are demonstrated to cost in excess of $10,000 per ton of reduced
emissions are presumptively not economically feasible. Either of these
presumptions may be offset by such considerations as cross-media and off-site
environmental impacts and changes in energy consumption as provided in Clean Air
Act Section 169(3), 42 U.S.C. ss. 7479(3) ("Best Available Control Technology").
In all cases, economic feasibility shall be determined by calculating all costs
associated with the installation and implementation of the control measure in
question, including all costs associated with all process and plant
modifications necessary to accommodate the control measure.
b. "Entry of the Consent Decree" shall mean entry with the
Court after opportunity for public comment.
c. "Project Coordinator" shall mean, the EPA Regional Office
or, in the case of facilities located in the States of Texas, Arkansas and South
Carolina, the delegated state agency with the authority to oversee Nucor's
performance of the
-10-
requirements of Section VII, RCRA Corrective Action, under this Consent Decree.
d. "Representative Operations" shall mean a facility's usual
or normal operations in terms of unit and process design, rate and type of
production, and total emissions.
e. "Success," "Successful" or "Effective" shall mean, as
further defined in the attached protocols, pilot projects conducted pursuant to
this agreement that are shown to be technically and economically feasible.
IV. FACTUAL BACKGROUND
------------------
7. Nucor is a major manufacturer of steel and steel products and owns
and operates eight (8) steel mini-mills in seven (7) states. Nucor and Yamato
also operate the "Nucor-Yamato Steel" facility, a steel mini-mill in Arkansas,
under a joint venture agreement. In addition, Nucor has several divisions
associated with its manufacturing sites that include Nucor Cold Finish (3
sites); Nucor Fastener (1 site); Nucor Bearing Products (1 site); Nucor Building
Systems (3 sites); and the Vulcraft Divisions (7 sites).
8. The steel mini-mills receive, melt and cast scrap steel and scrap
substitutes into steel beams, shapes, bars, sheets, plate and products, or
rolls, which are further processed into
-11-
finished steel products. As a result of its operations, Nucor's mini-mills and
fabrication operations generate significant amounts of certain criteria air
pollutants: Carbon Monoxide ("CO"), Nitrogen Oxides ("NOx"), Sulfur Dioxide
("S02"), Volatile Organic Compounds ("VOCs"), and Particulate Matter ("PM").
Other pollutants include: water pollutants, including biochemical oxygen demand,
oil and grease, total suspended solids and zinc, K061 dust, a RCRA hazardous
waste, and other hazardous and solid wastes attendant to the steel manufacturing
and fabrication processes.
9. Nucor owns and operates the following fourteen (14) steel
manufacturing and fabrication facilities which are subject to the provisions of
this Consent Decree:
Location St. Joe, Indiana (Vulcraft)
--------
Berkeley/Huger, South
Carolina Blytheville,
Arkansas
("Hickman Mill")
Crawfordsville, Indiana
Darlington, South Carolina
Jewett, Texas
Norfolk, Nebraska
Armorel, Arkansas
("Nucor-Yamato Steel")
Plymouth, Utah
Brigham City, Utah (Vulcraft)
Florence, South
Carolina(Vulcraft)
Fort Payne, Alabama
(Vulcraft)
Grapeland, Texas(Vulcraft)
Norfolk, Nebraska (Vulcraft)
-12-
Operation
---------
Steel mini-mill
Steel mini-mill
Steel mini-mill
Steel mini-mill
Steel mini-mill
Steel mini-mill
Steel mini-mill
Steel mini-mill
Steel fabrication
Steel fabrication
Steel fabrication
Steel fabrication
Steel fabrication
Steel fabrication
V. CLEAN AIR ACT COMPLIANCE PROGRAM
--------------------------------
A. Electric Arc Furnace ("EAF") Pollution Prevention ("P2") Measures
-----------------------------------------------------------------
10. Nucor shall initiate pilot studies of P2 measures at the EAF at
Norfolk, Nebraska and at a second mini-mill to be identified by Nucor pursuant
to the schedule in the attached protocol (Attachment 1), for the purpose of
determining the impact of each on the reduction of NOx emissions from the
seventeen (17) existing EAFs. Nucor stipulates that these mills are generally
representative of Nucor EAF operations. The P2 pilots will be designed,
constructed, operated and evaluated in accordance with the Electric Arc Furnace
P2 Protocol, Attachment 1 to this Consent Decree. Nucor shall comply with the
schedule
-13-
for implementation of the P2 measures as set forth in Attachment 1.
11. If the pilots are successful, as defined in this Consent Decree and
the attached P2 Protocol, to include components of technical and economic
feasibility, Nucor shall implement the P2 measures at the pilot units and at all
remaining EAFs at the remaining mills in accordance with the protocol and a
schedule to be proposed by Nucor and approved by EPA pursuant to the P2
Protocol. If deemed successful, Nucor will continue to implement P2 measures for
the term of the Consent Decree, but shall have the option of implementing other
appropriate control measures upon EPA approval and provided they are found to be
at least as effective in controlling emissions.
12. If the P2 pilot projects are not deemed to be successful, Nucor may
discontinue their use at the pilot facilities and, in its final report under the
protocol, shall include an assessment of other new technologies and practices
that may be more effective and continue to explore new possible control measures
as part of the ongoing Design for Environment ("DfE") component of its
Environmental Management System ("EMS") as set forth in Section X.
-14-
13. Failure to implement the P2 pilot study in accordance with the
Protocol will subject Nucor to stipulated penalties as set forth in Paragraph
177(c) to this Consent Decree.
B. EAF Pilot of Selective Non-Catalytic Reduction (SNCR)Technology
---------------------------------------------------------------
14. Nucor shall undertake a pilot study of Selective Non-Catalytic
Reduction ("SNCR") technology for the control of NOx emissions from the EAF at
Norfolk, Nebraska, and at a second mini-mill to be identified by Nucor pursuant
to the schedule in the attached protocol, for the purpose of determining its
impact on the reduction of NOx emissions from the EAFs. The second pilot may be
omitted if Nucor and EPA, on the basis of the first test, both agree that
further investigation is unnecessary or unwarranted. Nucor stipulates that these
mills are generally representative of the seventeen (17) existing Nucor EAF
operations. The SNCR pilots will be designed, constructed, operated and
evaluated in accordance with the Electric Arc Furnace SNCR Protocol ("EAF SNCR
Protocol"), Attachment 2 to this Consent Decree. Nucor shall comply with the
schedule for implementation of the SNCR pilots as set forth in Attachment 2.
15. If the pilots are successful, as defined in this Consent Decree and
the attached EAF SNCR Protocol to include components of technical and economic
feasibility, Nucor shall install and implement the SNCR technology at the pilot
units and at all of
-15-
the remaining mini-mills where technically and economically feasible in
accordance with the protocol and a schedule to be proposed by Nucor within one
hundred twenty (120) days after completion of the SNCR pilot projects, and will
operate SNCR technology for the term of the Consent Decree. If deemed
successful, Nucor will install and operate SNCR technology on any new EAFs that
are constructed during the life of this Consent Decree and operate the
technology through termination of the Consent Decree. Nucor shall have the
option of implementing other appropriate control measures upon EPA approval and
provided they are found to be at least as effective in controlling emissions.
16. If the SNCR pilot projects are not deemed to be successful, use of
them at the pilot facilities may be discontinued and, in its final report under
the protocol, Nucor shall include an assessment of other new technologies and
practices that may prove more effective and continue to explore new possible
control measures as part of the ongoing Design for Environment ("DfE") component
of its Environmental Management System ("EMS").
17. Failure to implement the EAF SNCR pilot study in accordance with
the Protocol will subject Nucor to stipulated
-16-
penalties as set forth in Paragraph 177(d) to this Consent Decree.
C. Lance Burner Pilot Project
--------------------------
18. Nucor shall test "lance burner" equipment to determine its ability
to reduce NOx emissions from EAFs. Nucor shall test the technology at the Nucor
Steel mill in Plymouth, Utah. The lance burner pilot will be designed,
constructed, operated and evaluated in accordance with the Lance Burner
Protocol, Attachment 3 to this Consent Decree. Nucor shall comply with the
schedule for implementation of the lance burner pilot as set forth in
Attachment 3.
19. If the pilot is successful, as defined in this Consent Decree and
Lance Burner Protocol to include components of technical and economic
feasibility, Nucor shall install and implement the lance burner technology at
the pilot unit and at the remaining mini-mills where it is technically and
economically feasible in accordance with the protocol and the schedule set forth
in Attachment 3. If deemed successful, Nucor will install lance burner
technology, where appropriate, on any newly constructed EAFs prior to start-up.
Nucor shall have the option of implementing other appropriate control measures
upon EPA approval and provided they are found to be at least as effective in
controlling emissions. If the Lance Burner pilot project is
-17-
not deemed to be successful, use of them at the facility may be discontinued.
20. Failure to implement the lance burner pilot study in accordance
with the Protocol will subject Nucor to stipulated penalties as set forth in
Paragraph 177(e) to this Consent Decree.
D. Reheat Furnace Control Technology Pilot Projects
------------------------------------------------
21. Nucor shall implement a pilot study of Reduced NOx Burner ("RNB")
and Exhaust Gas Recirculation ("EGR") technology for the reduction and control
of NOx emissions from Norfolk reheat furnace NN2. Nucor stipulates that the NN2
reheat furnace operation is generally representative of Nucor reheat furnace
operations. The RNB/EGR pilot will be designed, constructed, operated and
evaluated in accordance with the RNB/EGR Protocol, Attachment 4 to this Consent
Decree. Nucor shall comply with the schedule for implementation of the RNB/EGR
pilot as set forth in Attachment 4.
22. Failure to implement the RNB/EGR pilot study in accordance with the
Protocol will subject Nucor to stipulated penalties as set forth in Paragraph
177(f)(i) to this Consent Decree.
E. Reheat Furnace Pilot Project for Selective Catalytic Reduction ("SCR")
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Technology
----------
-18-
23. Nucor shall implement a pilot study of Selective Catalytic
Reduction ("SCR") technology for the control of NOx emissions from two Reheat
Furnaces, one existing/retrofit and one new construction. The second pilot may
be omitted or refocused on a new unit if Nucor and EPA, on the basis of the
first test, agree that further investigation is unnecessary or unwarranted in
the manner contemplated by this provision. Nucor stipulates that the reheat
furnaces selected for this pilot are generally representative of the 11 (eleven)
existing Nucor reheat furnace operations and of proposed new construction of
furnaces with the SCR technology as an integral part of the reheat furnace
design. The SCR pilot will be designed, constructed, operated and evaluated in
accordance with the Reheat Furnace SCR Protocol ("SCR Protocol"), Attachment 5
to this Consent Decree. Nucor shall comply with the schedule for implementation
of the SCR pilot as set forth in Attachment 5.
24. Failure to implement the SCR pilot study in accordance with the
Protocol will subject Nucor to stipulated penalties as set forth in Paragraph
177(g)(i) to this Consent Decree.
25. Upon completion of the RNB/EGR and SCR pilots, Nucor will perform a
comparative evaluation of both technologies on the basis of technical and
economic feasibility. Based on its comparative analysis, Nucor shall propose to
EPA an analytical
-19-
method for selecting the preferred method (either RNB/EGR or SCR) for control of
NOx emissions from reheat furnaces, shall propose a selection pursuant to that
method, and shall provide support for the method and proposal. Upon EPA's
concurrence, Nucor shall implement and continue to operate the appropriate
EPA-approved technology at each reheat furnace. If Nucor constructs any new
reheat furnaces at existing or newly-constructed facilities during the life of
this Consent Decree, Nucor will install either RNB/EGR or SCR technology, as
appropriate for each reheat furnace, on the newly-constructed reheat furnaces
prior to start-up. Nucor shall have the option of implementing other appropriate
control measures at the pilot unit or any other unit upon EPA approval and
provided they are found to be at least as effective in controlling emissions
from each reheat furnace.
26. Failure to conduct a comparative analysis of the RNB/EGR and SCR
technologies or failing to install controls as appropriate on remaining reheat
furnaces will subject Nucor to stipulated penalties as set forth in Paragraph
177(g)(i) of this Consent Decree.
F. Establishing Emission Limits for Pilot Units
--------------------------------------------
27. After installation of the NOx controls and the permanent
installation of CEMS in accordance with Attachment 7, for each pilot unit, Nucor
shall implement a program of continuous
-20-
emission monitoring of the melt shop baghouse outlet in accordance with
Attachment 6.
28. Within thirty (30) days of completion of the emission monitoring in
accordance with Attachment 6 to this Consent Decree, the Protocol for
Establishing Emission Limits, Nucor shall report emission monitoring results and
propose for EPA approval the emission limits for that pilot unit, based on the
initial emission monitoring results and any other available information.
29. Within one hundred twenty (120) days of EPA's approval of Nucor's
proposed emission limits, Nucor shall begin operation of each pilot unit so that
resulting emissions are consistently at or below the established emission limit.
30. Failure to conduct initial emission monitoring of pilot units, to
report emission monitoring results to EPA, or failure to comply with the
emission limits established under this Section will subject Nucor to stipulated
penalties as set forth in Paragraph 177(h).
G. Initial Emissions Monitoring and Setting Emission Limits for Non-Pilot
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Units
-----
31. Within ninety (90) days of full operation of controls, the
permanent installation of CEMS in accordance with Attachment 7, and
implementation of any applicable P2 measures at all
-21-
non-pilot EAFs covered by this Consent Decree, Nucor shall implement a program
of continuous emission monitoring of the melt shop baghouse outlet in accordance
with Attachment 6.
32. Within thirty (30) days of completion of the emission monitoring in
accordance with Attachment 6, Protocol for Establishing Emission Limits, Nucor
shall report emission monitoring results to EPA and propose for EPA approval the
emission limits for that non-pilot unit, based on the initial emission
monitoring results, and any other available information.
33. Within one hundred twenty (120) days of EPA's approval of Nucor's
proposed emission limits, Nucor shall begin operation of the non-pilot unit so
that resulting emissions are consistently at or below the established emission
limit.
34. Failure to conduct initial emission monitoring of non-pilot units,
to report emission monitoring results to EPA or failure to comply with the
emission limits established under this Section will subject Nucor to stipulated
penalties as set forth in Paragraph 177(i).
H. Construction and Operating Permits
----------------------------------
35. For all pilot projects, Nucor shall, no later than ninety (90) days
following entry of this Consent Decree, apply for all necessary construction and
operating permits, as
-22-
appropriate, for new construction activities scheduled as of that date. For
other new construction or operating permits that are required in connection with
the testing and installation of new control measures under this Consent Decree,
Nucor will apply for new construction permits, operating permits, or waivers, as
appropriate, as required by the applicable State Implementation Plan ("SIP").
Where consistent with applicable State law and regulations, Nucor may, in a
permit application, specify ranges of operating conditions and production
practices so as to allow for production increases during the life of the permit,
subject to the emission limits established under Sections V. F. and V.G.
36. Following the successful completion of each pilot project and in
accordance with the phase-in schedule discussed in Section V. J., Nucor will
apply the results to the non-pilot facilities indicated in this Agreement. For
these facilities, Nucor will apply for new construction permits, or waivers, as
appropriate, as required by the applicable SIP. Within one hundred twenty (120)
days of completion of initial emission monitoring for all non-pilot units
subject to this Consent Decree, Nucor shall seek to modify all operating permits
and/or Title V permits, to modify emissions limits pursuant to the initial
testing required under Section V. G., above. Where consistent with applicable
State law and regulations, Nucor may, in a permit application, specify ranges of
operating conditions
-23-
and production practices so as to allow for production increases during the life
of the permit, subject to the emission limits established under Sections V. F.
and V.G.
37. Failure to apply for any permits or permit modifications as
required by this Section shall subject Nucor to stipulated penalties as set
forth in Paragraph 177(j).
I. Demonstration of Compliance
---------------------------
38. Nucor will demonstrate compliance with emission limits as required
under Sections V.F. and V.G. (emission limits for Pilot and Non-Pilot units) by
the use of Continuous Emissions Monitoring Systems ("CEMS") on all EAFs, and the
use of parametric monitoring in accordance with the appropriate protocols for
all reheat furnaces.
39. The CEMS pilot will be undertaken on the EAFs at Nucor Nebraska in
accordance with the attached CEMS protocol (Attachment 7).
40. Upon completion of the CEMS pilot, Nucor and EPA will evaluate its
success, as defined by the protocol and this Consent Decree.
41. If the CEMS pilot is determined to be successful, Nucor will
install the CEMS at all remaining EAF facilities, on a schedule to be agreed
upon by Nucor and EPA, with final
-24-
installation no later than one hundred twenty (120) days and full, calibrated
operation to occur within one hundred eighty (180) days of the installation of
pollution control technology at each unit.
42. Concurrently with its installation of the CEMS pilot, Nucor will
submit for EPA approval a proposal regarding parametric monitoring to
demonstrate compliance with NOx and CO emission limits for reheat furnaces.
43. Failure to implement the CEMS pilot in accordance with the
protocol, failure to install CEMS, as appropriate, on remaining EAFs, and
failure to submit a proposal for parametric monitoring for reheat furnaces will
subject Nucor to stipulated penalties as set forth in Paragraph 177(k).
J. Phase-in Schedule for Non-Pilot Installations
---------------------------------------------
44. Within ninety (90) days of completion of the EAF pilots, the Reheat
pilots, and the CEMS pilot, Nucor shall propose a phase-in schedule for the
implementation or installation of the appropriate technologies as required by
Part V of the Clean Air Act Compliance Program. Provided, however, that Nucor
shall immediately install controls when any reheat furnace has a modification,
as defined by 40. C.F.R. ss. 52.21, which results in a significant increase in
actual emissions of any criteria
-25-
pollutant. Upon EPA approval, the schedule shall be adopted and incorporated as
part of this Consent Decree.
45. Nucor's failure to propose a phase-in schedule as required by this
Section shall subject Nucor to stipulated penalties as set forth in Paragraph
177(l).
K. Steel Fabrication Facilities
----------------------------
46. This Section applies to the following Steel Fabrication facilities:
o Brigham City, Utah (Vulcraft)
o Florence, South Carolina (Vulcraft)
o Fort Payne, Alabama (Vulcraft)
o Grapeland, Texas (Vulcraft)
o Norfolk, Nebraska (Vulcraft)
o St. Joe, Indiana (Vulcraft)
47. Unless Nucor demonstrates that it has requisite controls for VOC
emissions or does not require permits pursuant to this Section:
a. No later than one hundred sixty (160) days from the lodging
of this Consent Decree, Nucor shall submit, for EPA approval, a proposal to
control VOC emissions from all coating lines through a combination of pollution
prevention, and/or other add-on control systems, and continue to pilot and
develop low-VOC based solutions for all painting operations with the goal of
converting completely to low-VOC based operations prior to the termination of
the Consent Decree. Product quality and market
-26-
limitations on the use of low-VOC based paint on Nucor products will be
considered.
b. Within sixty (60) days of EPA approval of Nucor's proposal
in Paragraph 47(a), Nucor shall submit a complete permit application for the
Fort Payne, Alabama facility to the appropriate permitting authority to permit
coating operations as "major stationary source" pursuant to 40 C.F.R. ss.
52.21(b)(1)(i)(b). Within sixty (60) days of the completeness determination for
the Fort Payne, Alabama application, Nucor shall submit for EPA approval a
proposed schedule for permitting the remaining facilities.
c. Failure to comply with the permitting and VOC-control
requirements of this Section will subject Nucor to stipulated penalties as set
forth in Paragraph 177(m).
L. New Source Performance Standards
--------------------------------
48. Nucor shall establish operating baselines as required by NSPS,
Subpart AA, 40 C.F.R. ss. 60.274 or NSPS, Subpart AAa, 40 C.F.R. ss. 60.274(a)
as applicable at the EAFs at each of the eight (8) mini-mills which are the
subject of this Consent Decree. Nucor shall establish the required baselines
within one hundred eighty (180) days of entry of this Consent Decree or as
required by Paragraph 49. Nucor shall perform the baseline testing in accordance
with the regulations, at representative conditions,
-27-
and the conditions during the testing shall accurately reflect current operating
parameters at each respective mini-mill. Nucor shall use the testing protocol in
Attachment 8 to this Consent Decree, unless Nucor consults with EPA at least
forty-five (45) days prior to conducting the required testing and EPA and Nucor
jointly develop an alternate protocol.
49. For facilities that are piloting control technology at EAFs under
the terms of this Consent Decree, where appropriate, Nucor shall re-establish
baselines concurrently with the installation of the control technologies
required by this Consent Decree. In the alternative to baseline testing required
by this section, where Nucor has performed baseline testing, it may petition EPA
for approval to use existing baseline data.
50. Failure to establish baselines as required by this Section will
subject Nucor to stipulated penalties as set forth in Paragraph 177(n).
VI. CLEAN WATER ACT COMPLIANCE
--------------------------
A. First Flush Sampling
--------------------
51. Nucor shall conduct eight (8) rounds of first flush storm water
sampling at each of the mini-mills listed in Paragraph 9 of this Consent Decree.
Sampling shall take place at all stormwater only outfalls sampled pursuant to
either its
-28-
stormwater, general or NPDES permit. In addition, Nucor shall identify other
significant conveyances of stormwater and sample the outfalls of such
conveyances as part of this sampling program.
52. Within forty-five (45) days of entry of this Consent Decree, Nucor
shall submit to EPA for approval a Sampling Plan for each of the mini-mills
listed in Paragraph 9. The Sampling Plan shall include, but not be limited to,
the specific location of the outfalls to be sampled, a detailed map with the
location of the outfalls to be sampled clearly marked, and a sampling and
laboratory quality assurance plan for the stormwater sampling program. Nucor
shall begin implementation of the Sampling Plan during the first full calendar
quarter following EPA's approval of the plan.
53. Nucor shall conduct the sampling, twice per quarter, to reflect
seasonal changes, until eight (8) successful sampling events occur.
54. Nucor shall collect First Flush samples in the selected locations
during the first thirty (30) minutes of a discharge resulting from a continuous
rainfall event of greater than 0.1 inches in magnitude at the site. Discharge to
ponds shall be sampled at the inlet to the pond. The storm event must be a least
seventy-two (72) hours after the previously measurable
-29-
storm event greater than 0.1 inches. The sample shall be collected mid-stream.
55. Nucor shall document in field notes the sample location, sampling
method, date and time of sample collection, sample handling procedures,
preservative used, and the name of the sampler or sampling device.
56. Nucor shall submit to EPA and the NPDES permitting authority a
Sampling Report in accordance with Section XIV of this Consent Decree (General
Recordkeeping and Reporting) with documentation of the sampling event,
chain-of-custody, and analytical data. The Sampling Report shall include the
name of the laboratory performing the analysis, the name of the analysis, the
date of analysis, the analytical technique used, the detection limits, any NPDES
permit excursions that are noted, hard copy of any electronic deliverables, the
field notes prepared by the sample collector, and rain fall records documenting
that the sampling event met the requirements of First Flush as set forth in
Paragraphs 52 and 54.
57. Nucor shall analyze the following parameters using the specified
methods: pH (40 C.F.R. Part 136, Method 150.1); Biochemical Oxygen Demand
(Method 5210b, Standard Methods for the Examination of Water and Wastewater);
Total Suspended Solids (Method 2540D, Standard Methods for the Examination of
Water and
-30-
Wastewater); Oil and Grease (40 C.F.R. Part 136, Method 413.1 or 1664); Volatile
Organic Compounds (40 C.F.R. Part 136, Appendix A, Method 1624); Semi-volatile
Organic Compounds (40 C.F.R. Part 136, Appendix A, Method 1625); Metals (40
C.F.R. Part 136, Appendix C, Method 200.7); Total Organic Carbon (SW-846, Method
9060).
58. Failure to submit a complete Sampling Plan, to conduct First Flush
Sampling, to analyze all parameters as required in Paragraph 57 or, to submit a
complete sampling report, shall subject Nucor to stipulated penalties as set
forth in Paragraph 177(o).
59. Failure to comply with NPDES permit conditions shall subject Nucor
to stipulated penalties as set forth in Paragraph 177(s).
B. Best Management Practices/Storm Water Pollution Prevention Plans
----------------------------------------------------------------
60. Within two hundred ten (210) days of entry of this Consent Decree,
Nucor shall develop Best Management Practices("BMP") and Storm Water Pollution
Prevention ("SWPP")Plans for each of the facilities listed in Paragraph 9 and
provide the plans to EPA and to the appropriate state permitting authority for
review and approval.
-31-
61. For facilities where BMP or SWPP Plans exist at the time of
execution of this Consent Decree, Nucor shall revise the plans in accordance
with this Section. Within two hundred ten (210) days of entry of this Consent
Decree, Nucor shall provide EPA and the appropriate state permitting authority
with the revised plans for review and approval.
62. Where a BMP/SWPPP is not included in a facility's individual NPDES
permit, Nucor shall seek to include a provision requiring such a BMP/SWPPP in
its permit.
63. Each BMP/SWPP Plan (hereafter "the plan(s)") shall, as appropriate,
be consistent with the requirements set forth in the Final National Pollutant
Discharge Elimination System Storm Water Multi-Sector Permit, 60 FR 50804
(September 29, 1995), and the guidelines set forth in EPA's Guidance Manual for
Developing Best Management Practices, Office of Water, October 1993 (EPA
833-B-93-004)(BMP Guidance), as well as applicable state laws and regulations.
64. Within thirty (30) days of entry of this Consent Decree, Nucor
shall modify its SWPP Plan for the Hickman facility to add SW-2 as an outfall
Nucor will sample as part of compliance with its Storm Water General Permit,
ARR00A000.
-32-
65. In addition to appropriate actions set forth in the Final
Multi-Sector permit, and the BMP Guidance, Nucor shall include in the plan:
a. specific measures to prevent, to the maximum extent
practicable, any water from coming into contact with K061 dust;
b. a requirement to inspect K061 processing and handling areas
once per day while the EAF is in operation and after each load;
c. a list of all process equipment which is in contact with or
close proximity to the contact water systems or which is located outside without
secondary containment and which has the potential to discharge any contaminant,
via a leak or rupture, in such a manner that it may come into contact with water
that may be discharged off the site via an NPDES outfall, storm water outfall,
or sheet flow. Process equipment does not include light mobile equipment;
d. a requirement to conduct inspections each calendar week of
all listed equipment, memorialized in writing;
e. a requirement to properly store all co-products and scrap
metal to prevent, to the maximum extent practicable, contamination of
stormwater, and to contain contaminated runoff and control releases;
-33-
f. specific measures to control particulates from flowing off
the co-products and scrap metal storage surfaces using structures that contain
and capture settleable solids;
g. An evaluation of storage of materials within the level of a
100 year flood plain and whether the materials could be moved or additional
protection measures could be implemented;
h. a detailed description of an investigation of all cross
connections between stormwater piping (including, any other channelized
conveyance) and process water piping, aimed at minimizing pollutant loading to
either stormwater or process water discharges;
i. a list by functional description of all on-site
contractors, a review of all stormwater impacts from operations of on-site
contractors, and specific measures for mitigating any such impacts.
66. Nucor shall conduct a review of all effluent or stormwater
discharge sampling standard operating procedures to assure compliance with 40
C.F.R. Part 136.
67. Failure to develop complete BMP and SWPP plans or to seek to modify
Nucor's NPDES permits to require BMP Plans as required by this Section will
subject Nucor to stipulated penalties as set forth in Paragraph 177(p).
-34-
C. Randomizing NPDES Sampling
--------------------------
68. Subject to applicable limitations in state permits, Nucor shall use
a random date generator to select sampling days for all NPDES sampling beginning
with the first full calendar quarter following entry of the Consent Decree,
except where sampling from outfalls is dependent on storm water events.
Provided, however, that Nucor shall be relieved of analyzing samples for those
constituents where holding periods over non-business days would invalidate the
samples, where sampling must be scheduled by the analyzing laboratory, and when
facilities are not producing a discharge for sampling. The random sampling day
selection process shall be memorialized in Nucor's NPDES standard operating
procedures, any NPDES training materials, instructions or other materials used
to instruct NPDES sample collectors on proper sampling procedures, and as a
component of Nucor's EMS. The date generator shall be designed so that Nucor
shall have no more than twenty-four (24) hours prior knowledge of the day of a
sampling event.
69. Failure to conduct NPDES sampling on the dates identified by the
random date generator as required by this Section will subject Nucor to
stipulated penalties as set forth in Paragraph 177(q).
D. Biocide Monitoring
------------------
-35-
70. Within ninety (90) days of entry of this Consent Decree, Nucor
shall submit a Biocide Discharge Monitoring Plan to EPA for its review and
approval for each of the steel mini-mills listed in Paragraph 9. The Biocide
Discharge Monitoring Plan shall provide for the monitoring of biocide
concentrations in discharges from the facility for any biocide used at the
facility within the three (3) preceding years by either (a) sampling twice per
month for a period of two (2) years; or (b) a mass-balance calculation of the
concentration of the biocide and monthly acute and quarterly chronic whole
effluent toxicity testing for a period of two (2) years. The plan shall specify
the sampling locations and sampling methodologies. Nucor shall commence
monitoring within thirty (30) days of EPA's approval of the Biocide Discharge
Monitoring Plan. Nucor shall incorporate the results of the biocide sampling in
all its reports to EPA and the appropriate permitting authority. Nucor may
identify areas where no biocides are thought to have been handled or discharged
and, upon EPA's concurrence, such areas may not be included in the sampling
plan. If no biocide "hit" occurs in a given area in the first several rounds of
sampling, Nucor may petition the EPA to have that area removed from the sampling
plan.
71. Failure to monitor and report the results of the testing and/or
calculations required by this Section, will subject Nucor to stipulated
penalties as set forth in Paragraph 177(r).
-36-
E. Measures at the Plymouth, Utah Facility
---------------------------------------
72. Nucor shall verify that the leak in the wall of the non-contact
cooling basin has been repaired, and that a reliable, long-term solution to
avoid any further such leaks has been implemented.
73. Nucor shall develop Standard Operating Procedures for maintaining
compliance with Total Dissolved Solids ("TDS") levels, and provide documentation
to EPA of the TDS levels measured in any discharge from the facility.
Documentation for this Section shall be sent to the State of Utah and EPA within
thirty (30) days of the entry of this Consent Decree.
VII. RCRA COMPLIANCE
---------------
74. All documents submitted to EPA pursuant to this Section shall be
reviewed and approved by EPA and/or the overseeing State in accordance with
Section XII (Agency Approvals).
A. Injunctive Relief Related to Waste Management.
---------------------------------------------
75. For each facility subject to this Consent Decree, Nucor shall
comply, with respect to all waste generated after the lodging of the Decree,
with all applicable RCRA generator requirements at 40 C.F.R. ss. 262.34 (40
C.F.R. Part 265 including ss. 265.16, and Subparts D and J) and 40 C.F.R. Part
268 pursuant to this Section.
-37-
76. No later than March 31, 2001, Nucor shall complete a RCRA facility
compliance assessment and shall submit to EPA a certification, signed by a
responsible official, setting forth the facility's compliance status with the
applicable hazardous waste generator requirements at 40 C.F.R. Part 262 with
regard to its on-site management of K061 dust and other hazardous wastes
currently generated at each of its steel mills and Vulcraft facilities. The
certification shall be accompanied by a schedule for correction of any instances
of noncompliance noted therein. Upon EPA approval of this plan and schedule,
Nucor will complete the corrective action in accordance therewith and shall
certify to EPA compliance upon completion. Failure to comply with the RCRA
generator requirements in this Paragraph shall subject Nucor to stipulated
penalties in accordance with Paragraph 177(t).
77. No later than January 31, 2001, Nucor shall either (a) submit to
EPA information and analysis supporting a hazardous waste determination
demonstrating that waste thinner and paint waste accumulations, including
containers, at the Vulcraft facility in Brigham City are not hazardous wastes
under RCRA, or (b) certify that the facility is in full compliance with 40
C.F.R. ss. 262.34 and applicable Part 265 provisions with regard to these
satellite accumulation areas.
-38-
78. Within forty-five (45) days of the lodging of this Consent Decree,
Nucor shall submit to EPA and the Utah Department of Environmental Quality
("UDEQ"), for review and approval, a personnel training program for the Vulcraft
facility in Brigham City, Utah, that fully complies with the requirements of 40
C.F.R. ss. 265.16. In addition, within thirty (30) days of receipt of EPA's
comments on the personnel training plan for the Nucor facility in Plymouth,
Utah, Nucor shall submit to EPA, with a copy to UDEQ, a training plan which
incorporates EPA's comments and is in compliance with 40 C.F.R. ss. 265.16.
79. Within thirty (30) days of the entry of this Consent Decree, Nucor
shall submit to EPA, with a copy to UDEQ, a revised contingency plan for the
Nucor facility in Plymouth, Utah, which reflects current facility conditions and
complies with the requirements of 40 C.F.R. Part 265, Subpart D. The updated
contingency plan shall be distributed to the local responders, and Nucor shall
provide documentation to EPA and UDEQ demonstrating that the new plan has been
distributed.
80. No later than January 31, 2001, Nucor shall submit documentation to
EPA, with a copy to UDEQ that all containers of hazardous waste at the Nucor
facility in Plymouth, Utah, are properly labeled, closed and managed in
accordance with 40 C.F.R. ss. 262.34.
-39-
81. Nucor shall, immediately upon entry of this Consent Decree, cease
storage and/or disposal of hazardous waste generated after the Consent Decree
except in RCRA-permitted or exempt units, as applicable. Nucor shall, no later
than March 31, 2001, submit to EPA a certification, signed by a responsible
official, stating that it is not storing and/or disposing of hazardous waste
generated after entry of this Consent Decree except in RCRA-permitted or exempt
units, as applicable, at each of its steel mills and Vulcraft facilities.
82. Nucor shall immediately upon entry of this Consent Decree, cease
the placement of hazardous waste on the land without meeting the requirements at
40 C.F.R. Part 268. Nucor shall, no later than March 31, 2001, submit to EPA a
certification, signed by a responsible official, stating that it is in
compliance with the applicable land disposal restriction regulations at each of
its steel mills and Vulcraft facilities with respect to hazardous waste
generated after the entry of this Consent Decree.
83. As part of the RCRA K061 Dust BMP Plan required to be submitted in
accordance with Paragraph 84, Nucor shall, in the State of Arkansas, comply with
the requirements of 40 C.F.R. Part 265, Subpart J, with respect to the
management of K061 dust in silos. At all other facilities Nucor may in the RCRA
K061 Dust
-40-
BMP Plan submitted in accordance with Paragraph 84 either: (a) submit
certification to EPA that Nucor is in compliance with the requirements of 40
C.F.R. Part 265, Subpart J, with respect to the management of K061 dust in silos
at each of its mini-mills, or (b) unless otherwise required under applicable
state law, submit to EPA a proposal for prevention of releases of K061 dust from
the silos at each of its mini-mills..
84. Nucor shall, within one hundred twenty (120) days of the entry of
this Consent Decree, submit to EPA a detailed description of all existing K061
dust management practices at all of its mini-mills for EPA review and approval.
Nucor shall within one hundred fifty (150) days of entry of this Consent Decree,
submit for EPA review and approval a RCRA K061 Dust BMP Plan for its management
of K061 dust at the Norfolk, Nebraska facility. For the seven remaining
mini-mills, Nucor shall submit for EPA review and approval, at sixty (60)-day
increments thereafter, a RCRA K061 Dust BMP Plan for its management of K061
dust. All RCRA K061 Dust BMP Plans required by this Paragraph shall be completed
within five hundred seventy (570) days after entry of the Consent Decree. These
RCRA K061 Dust BMPs must address: all necessary construction and installation of
K061 dust storage and transfer equipment to prevent to the maximum extent
practicable, in accordance with good engineering practice, releases of K061
dust; construction of concrete pads under the
-41-
current and planned baghouses or equally effective control measures to prevent
releases into the environment; the periodic inspection of these pads or other
control measures; the frequency for vacuuming these pads; the subsequent
management of the collected dusts as hazardous waste; and a schedule for
implementation of the plan. The plans must also provide for collection and
proper management of any rainwater which may collect on or run onto these
controlled areas. Immediately upon approval of the BMPs by EPA, Nucor shall
begin to implement the plan in accordance with any schedules contained therein.
85. As part of the RCRA K061 Dust BMP Plan required to be submitted in
accordance with Paragraph 84, Nucor shall submit a plan to EPA for an enclosed
K061 dust transfer operation at each of its steel mills, using good engineering
practices to prevent, to the maximum extent practicable, releases of K061 dust,
and to facilitate the development of RCRA K061 Dust BMPs pursuant to paragraph
84.
86. All notices and certifications required by Section VI.A.
(Injunctive Relief Related to Waste Management) shall be sent to: Robert
Parrish, U.S. EPA Headquarters, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W, Mail Code 2248A,
Washington DC 20460.
B. Closure at Nebraska
-------------------
-42-
87. Nucor shall, no later than one hundred eighty (180) days from the
lodging of this Consent Decree, submit to the Nebraska Department of
Environmental Quality (NDEQ), for review and approval a closure plan which
complies with the requirements of 40 C.F.R. Part 264, Subpart G, with a copy to
EPA's Project Coordinator identified in Paragraph 147 below. The closure plan
shall address closure of the K061 disposal areas around former Baghouses A and C
and the current NN3 Baghouse at the Norfolk, Nebraska facility. Nucor shall,
upon approval of the closure plan by the NDEQ, initiate and complete all closure
activities according to the schedules set forth in the approved closure plans.
88. Nucor shall, within sixty (60) days of completion of final closure
at the Norfolk, Nebraska facility, submit to the NDEQ a certification that these
hazardous waste management units for each facility have been closed in
accordance with the specifications in the approved closure plans, with a copy to
EPA's Project Coordinator identified in Paragraph 147 below. The certification
must be signed by the owner or operator and by an independent registered
professional engineer.
89. Nucor shall, within one hundred eighty (180) days from the lodging
of this Consent Decree, submit to the NDEQ documentation of financial assurance
for the closure cost estimates, pursuant to 40 C.F.R. Part 264, Subpart F, for
closure
-43-
of the areas of the soils around former Baghouses A and C and the current NN3
Baghouse.
VIII. RCRA Corrective Action
----------------------
90. This Section (RCRA Corrective Action) applies to the following
facilities:
Nucor, Darlington, SC Nucor, Jewett, TX
Nucor, Berkeley, SC Nucor, Norfolk, NE
Nucor, Crawfordsville, IN Nucor, Plymouth, UT
Nucor, Blytheville, AR Nucor-Yamato, Armorel, AR
(Hickman Mill)
A. Work to be Performed
--------------------
91. Nucor is hereby ordered to perform the acts specified in this
Section, in the manner and by the dates specified herein. All work undertaken
pursuant to this Consent Decree shall be performed in a manner consistent with:
the Scopes of Work attached hereto as Attachments 10, 11, 12 and 13; all EPA or
State approved RCRA Facility Assessment Workplans, Interim Measures Workplans,
RCRA Facility Investigation Workplans, Corrective Measures Study Workplans,
Corrective Measures Implementation Workplans, and any other relevant EPA or
State approved Workplans; RCRA and other applicable Federal and State laws and
their implementing regulations; and applicable EPA and State guidance documents.
92. Nucor is not required to duplicate any investigative or remedial
work which has previously been performed at the
-44-
facilities subject to this Consent Decree and which would satisfy the
requirements of this Consent Decree to the designated Project Coordinator's
satisfaction. Rather, Nucor will be required to reference, and where necessary
provide copies of, the document or report which details the activities
previously performed and the results of those activities. Nucor is required to
do any and all additional work necessary to satisfy the requirements of this
Consent Decree to the designated Project Coordinator's satisfaction.
93. All work performed pursuant to Section VIII of this Consent Decree
shall be under the direction and supervision of a professional engineer,
hydrologist, geologist, or environmental scientist with expertise in hazardous
waste cleanup. Nucor's contractor or consultant shall have the technical
expertise sufficient to adequately perform all aspects of the work for which it
is responsible. A team of independent consultants, proposed by Nucor and
approved by EPA and managed by independent counsel, will oversee the work. A
Project Oversight Director, approved by EPA, will be appointed by Nucor and will
coordinate efforts of the independent consulting team. Within ten (10) days,
after the entry of the Consent Decree, Nucor shall also designate a Primary
Corporate-Wide Project Director. After approval of each workplan and within
fifteen (15) days of retaining outside engineers, hydrologists, geologists,
and/or
-45-
environmental scientists and any other contractors or consultants and their
personnel to be used in carrying out the terms of this Consent Decree, Nucor
shall notify the designated EPA or State Project Coordinator(s) in writing, of
the name, title, and qualifications of said professionals, consultants, and/or
contractors. Nucor shall identify whether any contractor is on the List of
Parties Excluded from Federal Procurement or Non-Procurement Programs. EPA and
the relevant States reserve the right to disapprove Nucor's contractor or
consultant. If EPA or the State disapproves a contractor or consultant, then
Nucor must, within thirty (30) days of receipt from EPA of written notice of
disapproval, notify the designated Project Coordinator, in writing, of the name,
title, and qualifications of any replacement. EPA's or the State's disapproval
shall not be subject to review under Section XX, Dispute Resolution.
94. To facilitate effective communication during the corrective action
process, Nucor's project managers and technical consultant shall periodically
meet with appropriate EPA and/or state Project Coordinators and prior to
submission of all work plans and reports required under this Section.
95. Within two hundred forty (240) days of entry of this Consent
Decree, Nucor shall submit to EPA a comprehensive initial assessment and
corrective action schedule, subject to EPA review
-46-
and approval, for all mini-mills. This schedule will include a priority-based
timeline for interim measures and further investigations. Based on review of the
initial assessment and schedule, the Project Coordinator for each facility will
notify Nucor of whether a RCRA Facility Assessment ("RFA"), RCRA Facility
Investigation ("RFI"), and/or Stabilization Measure is necessary for that
facility.
96. Due to the complexity of determining the potential presence and/or
extent of contamination at all eight (8) mini-mills, Nucor and EPA recognize
that a phased approach to facility assessment and investigations is necessary.
B. RCRA Facility Assessments
-------------------------
97. Within sixty (60) days, but no earlier than three hundred (300)
days after the entry of the Consent Decree, after receiving written notice from
the EPA or State Project Coordinator of the requirement to submit an RFA
Workplan, Nucor shall submit to the respective designated Project Coordinator
for review and approval an RFA Workplan meeting the requirements of the RFA
Scope of Work (Attachment 10). Each RFA Workplan shall detail the methodology
Nucor shall use to: (1) identify each of the solid waste management units
("SWMUs") and areas of concern ("AOCs") at the facilities; (2) identify and
present all information regarding potential and actual releases of hazardous
-47-
waste constituents from each SWMU and AOC; (3) present recommendations regarding
the need for further investigation and any necessary interim measures at the
facility.
98. Within thirty (30) days of receipt of the designated Project
Coordinator's approval of Nucor's RFA Workplan, pursuant to Section XII (Agency
Approvals) of this Consent Decree, Nucor shall begin to implement the approved
RFA Workplan in accordance with the schedule contained herein and meeting the
requirements of the RFA Scope of Work (Attachment 10). Nucor shall furnish all
personnel, materials, and services necessary for, or incidental to, performing
the RFA at the facility. Nucor shall also submit to the designated Project
Coordinator an electronic copy of the approved RFA Workplan in Adobe Portable
Document Format (PDF) on a CD-ROM that incorporates all changes and/or revisions
that may be required for approval.
99. In accordance with the EPA or State approved RFA Workplan schedule,
Nucor shall submit to the Project Coordinator for review and approval a draft
RFA Report meeting the requirements of the RFA Scope of Work (Attachment 10).
100. Within thirty 30 days of receipt of the Project Coordinator's
comments on the draft RFA Report, or within such longer period of time
designated by the Project Coordinator, Nucor shall submit four copies of the
final RFA Report completed
-48-
in a manner consistent with the RFA Scope of Work contained in Attachment 10 and
addressing the Project Coordinator's comments. Nucor shall also submit an
electronic copy of the approved RFA Report in PDF format on a CD-ROM. The
Project Coordinator will review this submittal in accordance with Section XII of
this Consent Decree.
101. Following review of the RFA Report, the Project Coordinator will
notify Nucor in writing whether a RCRA Facility Investigation (RFI) is necessary
at the facility.
C. RCRA Facility Investigation ("RFI")
-----------------------------------
102. For the Norfolk, Nebraska facility with sixty (60) days, but no
earlier than three hundred (300) days after entry of this Consent Decree; and
for the remaining seven (7) mini-mill facilities, within sixty (60) days of
written notice from the Project Coordinator, Nucor shall submit for the Project
Coordinator's review and approval an RFI Workplan meeting the requirements of
the RFI Scope of Work (Attachment 11).
103. The RFI Workplan shall detail the methodology Nucor shall use to:
(1) characterize the potential pathways of contaminant migration; (2)
characterize the source(s) of contamination; (3) define the degree and extent of
contamination; (4) identify actual or potential receptors; and (5) support the
development of alternatives from which a corrective measure will
-49-
be selected by EPA or the State. A specific schedule for implementation of all
of the above activities shall be included in the RFI Workplan. Specifically, the
RFI Workplan shall include a sampling and analysis plan designed to provide the
following information, if applicable:
(a) Determination of site-wide groundwater and surface water quality
and distributions of dissolved hazardous wastes and hazardous
constituents beneath the site;
(b) Determination of whether releases of hazardous waste or hazardous
constituents to the groundwater are migrating beyond the facility
boundaries. If so, the vertical and horizontal extent of those releases
must be sufficiently defined to prepare an evaluation of contaminated
groundwater;
(c) Determination of the vertical and horizontal extent of hazardous
wastes and hazardous constituents in soils and sediments sufficient:
(1) to prepare a site-wide map of soil contamination; and
(2) to prepare an evaluation of the risks associated with
exposure to contaminated soils and sediments or contaminated
surface water; and
-50-
(d) Determination of the extent of hazardous wastes and hazardous
constituents in soil gas(es) sufficient to prepare an evaluation of the
risks associated with exposure to soil gas(es).
The RFI Workplan shall also include: (1) a Project Management Plan; (2) a Data
Collection Quality Assurance Plan; (3) a Data Management Plan; (4) a Health and
Safety Plan; (5) a Baseline Risk Assessment Plan; and (6) a Community Relations
Plan, as specifically defined in Attachment 11.
104. Upon EPA or State approval of Nucor's RFI Workplans pursuant to
Section XII (Agency Approvals) of this Consent Decree, Nucor shall conduct a
Facility Investigation in accordance with the EPA- or State-approved RFI
Workplan. Nucor shall furnish all personnel, materials, and services necessary
for, or incidental to, performing the RFI at the facility. Nucor shall also
submit an electronic copy of the approved RFI Workplan in Adobe Portable
Document Format S("PDF") on a CD-ROM that incorporates all changes and/or
revisions that may be required for approval.
105. In accordance with the State or EPA-approved RFI Workplan
schedule, Nucor shall submit to the Project Coordinator for review and approval
a draft RFI Report meeting the requirements of the RFI Scope of Work (Attachment
11) ("RFI
-51-
Report"). The report must specifically address (1) the nature, extent and
distributions of dissolved hazardous wastes and hazardous constituents in
groundwater and surface water; (2) the extent of hazardous wastes and hazardous
constituents in soils and sediments; (3) the extent of hazardous wastes and
hazardous constituents in soil gas(es); and(4) a baseline risk assessment for
exposure to contaminated soils, groundwater, surface water and soil gas.
106. Within sixty (60) days of receipt of the Project Coordinator's
comments on the draft RFI Report, or within such longer period of time
designated by the Project Coordinator, Nucor shall submit to EPA four (4) copies
of the final RFI Report completed in a manner consistent with the RFI Scope of
Work contained in Attachment 11 and addressing EPA's comments. Nucor shall also
submit an electronic copy of the approved RFI Report in PDF format on a CD-ROM.
EPA or the State will review this submittal in accordance with Section XII
(Agency Approvals) of this Consent Decree.
107. Following review of the RFI Report, the Project Coordinator will
notify Nucor in writing whether a RCRA Corrective Measures Study ("CMS")is
necessary at the facility.
D. Corrective Measures Study ("CMS")
---------------------------------
-52-
108. Within ninety (90) days following notification from the EPA or
state Project Coordinator, Nucor shall submit its CMS Workplan. The CMS Workplan
shall be written in accordance with the CMS Scope of Work in Attachment 12.
109. Upon approval by the Project Coordinator pursuant to Section XII
(Agency Approvals) of this Consent Decree, Nucor shall conduct the CMS in
accordance with the approved Workplan and the requirements of the CMS Scope of
Work (Attachment 12).
110. In accordance with the EPA- or state-approved Workplan schedule,
Nucor shall submit to the Project Coordinator for review and approval a draft
CMS Report meeting the requirements of the CMS Scope of Work (Attachment 12).
The report shall provide a detailed description of the activities conducted by
Nucor to fulfill the requirements of the CMS Scope of Work. The Project
Coordinator will review this submittal in accordance with Section XII (Agency
Approval) of this Consent Decree.
111. Within sixty (60) days of receipt of the Project Coordinator's
comments on the draft CMS Report, Nucor shall submit to the Project Coordinator
four (4) copies of the final CMS Report, completed in a manner consistent with
the CMS Scope of Work and shall incorporate the Project Coordinator's comments.
Nucor shall also submit an electronic copy of the approved CMS Report in PDF
format on a CD-ROM. The Project
-53-
Coordinator will review this submittal in accordance with Section XII (Agency
Approval) of this Consent Decree.
112. In accordance with Section VIII. H. of this Consent Decree, EPA or
the State Project Coordinator will provide the public with an opportunity to
submit written and/or oral comments and an opportunity for a public meeting
regarding the proposed cleanup standards and remedy for the facility.
E. Corrective Measure Implementation ("CMI")
-----------------------------------------
113. Within ninety (90) days of Nucor's receipt of notification of
EPA's or the State's selection of the corrective measure(s), Nucor shall submit
to the Project Coordinator a Corrective Measures Implementation Workplan ("CMI
Workplan"). The CMI Workplan is subject to approval by EPA or the State Project
Coordinator and shall be developed in a manner consistent with the CMI Scope of
Work incorporated herein and contained in Attachment 13.
114. The CMI Workplan shall be designed to facilitate the design,
construction, operation, maintenance, and monitoring of corrective measures at
the facility. In accordance with Attachment 13 herein, the CMI Workplan shall
also include the following sections:
o Program Management
o Public Involvement Plan
-54-
o Design Plans and Specifications
o Operation and Maintenance
o Cost Estimate
o Project Schedule
o Construction Quality Assurance
o Data Collection Quality Assurance
o Data Management.
115. Concurrent with the submission of a CMI Workplan, Nucor shall
submit to the Project Coordinator a CMI Health and Safety Plan in accordance
with Attachment 13.
116. EPA or the State will review the CMI Workplan and notify Nucor in
writing of EPA's approval, approval with conditions, disapproval, or disapproval
with comments in accordance with Section XII (Agency Approvals) of this Consent
Decree.
117. Upon EPA's or the State's approval of Nucor's CMI Workplan
pursuant to Section XII of this Consent Decree, Nucor shall implement the CMI in
accordance with the EPA- or State-approved CMI Workplan. Nucor shall furnish all
personnel, materials, and services necessary for, or incidental to, performing
the CMI at the facility. Nucor shall also submit an electronic copy of the CMI
Workplan in PDF format on a CD-ROM that incorporates all changes and/or
revisions that may be required for approval.
118. Nucor shall submit a Corrective Measures Implementation Report to
the Project Coordinator in accordance with the EPA- or
-55-
State-approved CMI workplan schedule meeting the requirements of the CMI Scope
of Work (Attachment 13). EPA or the State will review the report in accordance
with Section XII (Agency Approval) of this Consent Decree. Nucor shall also
submit an electronic copy of the report in PDF format on a CD-ROM that
incorporates all changes and/or revisions that may be required for approval.
119. Nucor shall submit a Corrective Measures Completion Report to the
Project Coordinator within one hundred twenty (120) days of the completion of
all remedial activities meeting the requirements of the CMI Scope of Work
(Attachment 13). EPA or the State will review the report in accordance with
Section XII of this Consent Decree. Nucor shall also submit an electronic copy
of the report in PDF format on a CD-ROM that incorporates all changes and/or
revisions that may be required for approval.
F. Interim Measures ("IM")
-----------------------
120. In the event Nucor identifies an immediate or potential threat to
human health or the environment, Nucor shall notify the Project Coordinator
verbally within forty-eight (48) hours of discovery and notify EPA or the
relevant State in writing within ten (10) days of such discovery summarizing the
immediacy and magnitude of the potential threat(s) to human health or the
environment, or within such other time as agreed to by the EPA or
-56-
the relevant States. Upon written request of EPA or the State, Nucor shall
submit to EPA or the State an IM Workplan meeting the requirements of Paragraph
123 below. If EPA or the State determines that immediate action is required, the
Project Coordinator may verbally authorize Nucor to act prior to the Project
Coordinator's receipt of the IM Workplan.
121. If EPA or the State identifies an immediate or potential threat to
human health or the environment, EPA or the State will notify Nucor in writing.
Within five (5) days of receiving written notification, Nucor shall submit to
the Project Coordinator an IM Workplan that identifies interim measures which
will mitigate the threat. If EPA or the State determines that immediate action
is required, the Project Coordinator may verbally require Nucor to act prior to
Nucor's receipt of written notification.
122. All IM Workplans shall ensure that the interim measures are
designed to mitigate immediate or potential threat(s) to human health or the
environment, and should be consistent with the objectives of, and contribute to
the performance of, any long-term remedy which may be required at the facility.
123. The IM Workplan shall be written to include the components
recommended in the RCRA Corrective Action Interim Measures Guidance document
(EPA/530-SW-88-029, June 1988). The
-57-
components shall include, when appropriate as determined by the Project
Coordinator, the IM Objectives; a Health and Safety Plan; a Public Involvement
Plan (Community Relations Plan); a Data Collection Quality Assurance Plan; a
Data Management Plan; Design Plans and Specifications; an Operation and
Maintenance Plan; a Project Schedule; an IM Construction Quality Assurance Plan;
and Reporting Requirements.
G. Stabilization Measures
----------------------
124. Within sixty (60) days of agreement between Nucor and the
designated EPA or State Project Coordinator that Stabilization Measures are
appropriate at a mini-mill, Nucor shall submit to EPA or the state Project
Coordinator a workplan detailing any corrective actions or other response
measures necessary to control current environmental and human exposures to
contaminants to within acceptable risk levels. Such measures shall be consistent
with the objectives of, and contribute to the performance of, any long-term
remedy which may be required at the facility. The workplan may include one or
more of the components specified above in Paragraph 123, when appropriate, as
determined by the EPA or state Project Coordinator.
125. Upon EPA or State Project Coordinator approval of Nucor's
Stabilization Measures Workplan, pursuant to Section XII (Agency Approval) of
this Consent Decree, Nucor shall implement
-58-
the appropriate workplan in accordance with the schedules contained therein.
H. Public Participation
--------------------
126. EPA or the State will provide the public with an opportunity to
review and comment on the approved Corrective Measures Study Report and a
description of the proposed corrective measure(s), including EPA's or the
State's justification for proposing such corrective measure(s) (the "Statement
of Basis").
127. Following the public comment period, EPA or the State will select
the appropriate corrective measures for this facility.
128. EPA or the State will notify Nucor of the final corrective measure
selected by EPA in the Final Decision and Response to Comments (RTC). The
notification will include EPA's or the State's reasons for selecting the
corrective measure.
I. Additional Work
---------------
129. EPA or the State may determine or Nucor may propose that certain
tasks, including investigatory work, engineering evaluation, or
procedure/methodology modifications, are necessary in addition to the tasks
included in any EPA- or State-approved workplan, when such additional work is
necessary to meet the
-59-
purposes set forth in Attachment 13, CMI. In the event EPA or the State
determines that additional work is necessary, EPA or the State will specify in
writing the basis for its determination. Nucor may request the opportunity to
meet or confer with EPA or the State to discuss the additional work within
fifteen (15) days after the receipt of such determination. If required by EPA or
the State, Nucor shall submit for EPA or State approval a workplan for the
additional work. Such workplan shall be submitted within ninety (90) days of
receipt of the determination that additional work is necessary, or according to
an alternative schedule established by EPA or the State. Upon approval of a
workplan, Nucor shall implement the appropriate workplan in accordance with the
schedule and provisions contained therein.
J. Quality Assurance
-----------------
130. Nucor shall follow EPA guidance for sampling and analysis.
Workplans shall contain quality assurance/quality control and chain of custody
procedures for all sampling, monitoring, and analytical activities. Deviations
from the approved Workplans must be approved by EPA or the State prior to
implementation and must be documented, including the reasons for the deviations.
Applicable guidance include, but are not limited to, "EPA Requirements for
Quality Assurance Project Plans (EPA QA/R-5)", "EPA Guidance for Quality
Assurance Project Plans (EPA
-60-
QA/G-5)" and such other applicable guidance identified by EPA or the State.
131. The name(s), addresses, and telephone numbers of the analytical
laboratories Nucor proposes to use must be specified in the applicable
Workplan(s).
132. All Workplans required under this Consent Decree shall include
data quality objectives for each data collection activity to ensure that data of
known and appropriate quality are obtained and that data are sufficient to
support their intended use(s).
133. Nucor shall monitor the sampling and analysis activities to ensure
that high quality data is obtained by its consultant or contract laboratories.
Nucor shall ensure that laboratories used by Nucor for analysis perform such
analysis according to the latest approved edition of "Test Methods for
Evaluating Solid Waste, (SW-846)," or other methods deemed satisfactory to EPA.
If methods other than EPA methods are to be used, Nucor shall specify all such
protocols in the applicable workplan. EPA or the State may reject any data that
does not meet the requirements of the approved workplan or EPA analytical
methods and may require re-sampling and additional analysis.
134. Nucor shall ensure that the laboratories it uses for analyses
participate in a quality assurance/quality control
-61-
program equivalent to that which is followed by EPA. Field laboratories shall
follow a written QAPP approved by EPA as part of the RFI workplan required by
Paragraph 103. EPA may conduct a performance and quality assurance/quality
control audit of the laboratories chosen by Nucor before, during, or after
sample analyses. Upon request by EPA or the State, Nucor shall have its
laboratory perform analyses of samples provided by EPA or the State to
demonstrate laboratory performance. If the audit reveals deficiencies in a
laboratory's performance or quality assurance/quality control, re-sampling and
additional analysis may be required.
135. Nucor shall validate all data prior to its submittal to the
Project Coordinator. Data shall be validated in accordance with the EPA
guidelines "USEPA Contract Laboratory Program National Functional Guidelines for
Organic Data Review" (EPA, February 1994) and "USEPA Contract Laboratory Program
National Functional Guidelines for Inorganic Data Review" (EPA, February 1994),
or alternative criteria provided in the approved workplan.
K. Sampling and Data/Document Availability
---------------------------------------
136. Nucor shall submit to EPA or the overseeing State, upon request,
the results of all sampling or tests or other data generated by its agents,
consultants, or contractors pursuant to this Consent Decree. Nucor shall submit
all laboratory data
-62-
(including field laboratory data) including QA/QC data in the electronic format
required for data transfer by EPA's contract laboratory program.
137. Notwithstanding any other provisions of this Consent Decree, the
United States retains all of its information gathering and inspection
authorities and rights, including the right to bring enforcement actions,
including criminal enforcement, related thereto, under RCRA, The Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act, 42 U.S.C. ss. 9601 et
seq. ("CERCLA"), and any other applicable statutes or regulations.
138. Nucor shall notify the Project Coordinator in writing at least
thirty (30) days before engaging in field activities identified by the workplans
under this Consent Decree as requiring Project Coordinator oversight. If Nucor
believes it must commence emergency field activities without delay, Nucor may
seek emergency telephone authorization from the Project Coordinator or, if the
Project Coordinator is unavailable, his/her alternate, to commence such
activities immediately. Nucor shall provide a letter to EPA or the State within
five (5) days of this oral authorization and document the reason for the
emergency field activity and the action taken to respond to that emergency. At
the request of EPA, Nucor shall provide or allow
-63-
EPA or the state or their authorized representative to take split or duplicate
samples of all samples collected by Nucor pursuant to this Consent Decree.
Similarly, at the request of Nucor, EPA or the State shall allow Nucor or its
authorized representative(s) to take split or duplicate samples of all samples
collected by EPA or the State under this Consent Decree.
139. Nucor may assert a business confidentiality claim covering all or
part of any information submitted or obtained by EPA pursuant to this Consent
Decree. Any assertion of confidentiality must be accompanied by information that
satisfies the items listed in 40 C.F.R. ss. 2.204(e)(4) or such claim shall be
deemed waived. Information determined by EPA to be confidential shall be
disclosed only to the extent permitted by 40 C.F.R. Part 2. If no such
confidentiality claim accompanies the information when it is submitted to or
obtained by EPA, the information may be made available to the public by EPA
without further notice to Nucor. Nucor agrees not to assert any confidentiality
claim with regard to any physical or analytical data.
L. Access
------
140. EPA or the State, their contractors, employees, and any EPA or
State representatives are authorized to enter and freely move about the
facilities subject to this Consent Decree for the purposes of, inter alia:
interviewing facility personnel and
-64-
contractors; inspecting records, operating logs, and contracts related to the
facility; reviewing the progress of Nucor in carrying out the terms of this
Consent Decree; conducting such tests, sampling, or monitoring as EPA deems
necessary; using a camera, sound recording, or other documentary type equipment;
and verifying the reports and data submitted to EPA or the State by Nucor. Nucor
agrees to provide EPA or the State and their representatives access at all
reasonable times to the facility and subject to Paragraph 141 below, to any
other property to which access is required for implementation of this Consent
Decree. Nucor shall permit such persons to inspect and copy all records, files,
photographs, documents, including all sampling and monitoring data, that pertain
to work undertaken pursuant to this Consent Decree, and that are within the
possession or under the control of Nucor or its contractors or consultants.
141. To the extent that work being performed pursuant to this Consent
Decree must be done beyond the facility property boundary, Nucor shall use its
best efforts to obtain access agreements necessary to complete work required by
this Consent Decree from the present owner(s) of such property within thirty
(30) days of approval of any workplan for which access is required. "Best
efforts" as used in this paragraph shall include, at a minimum, a certified
letter from Nucor to the present owner(s) of such property requesting access
agreement(s)
-65-
to permit Nucor, EPA or the State and their authorized representatives to access
such property, and the payment of reasonable sums of money in consideration of
granting access. Any such access agreement shall provide for access by EPA or
the State and their representatives. Nucor shall ensure that the Project
Coordinator has a copy of any access agreement(s). In the event that agreements
for access are not obtained within thirty 30) days of approval of any workplan
for which access is required, Nucor shall notify EPA or the State in writing
within fourteen (14) days thereafter of both the efforts undertaken to obtain
access and the failure to obtain such agreements. EPA or the State may, at its
discretion, assist Nucor in obtaining access. In the event EPA or the State
obtains access, Nucor shall undertake EPA- or State-approved work on such
property.
142. Nothing in this Section limits or otherwise affects EPA's or the
State's right of access and entry pursuant to applicable law, including RCRA and
CERCLA.
143. Nothing in this Section shall be construed to limit or otherwise
affect Nucor's liability and obligation to perform corrective measures including
corrective measures beyond the facility boundary, notwithstanding the lack of
access.
M. Record Preservation
-------------------
144. Nucor shall retain, during the pendency of this Consent Decree and
for a minimum of six (6) years after its termination,
-66-
all data, records, and documents now in its possession or control or which come
into its possession which relate in any way to this Consent Decree or to
hazardous waste management or disposal at the facilities listed in Paragraph 90.
Nucor shall notify EPA or the State in writing ninety (90) days prior to the
destruction of any such records, and shall provide EPA or the State with the
opportunity to take possession of any such records. Such written notification
shall reference the effective date, caption, and docket number of this Consent
Decree and shall be addressed to either the State Project Coordinator or to:
Rob Parrish
U.S. EPA Headquarters
1200 Pennsylvania Ave., N.W
Mail Code 2248A
Washington DC 20460
145. Nucor further agrees that within thirty (30) days of retaining or
employing any agent, consultant, or contractor for the purpose of carrying out
the terms of this Consent Decree, Nucor will enter into an agreement with any
such agents, consultants, or contractors whereby such agents, consultants, or
contractors will be required to provide Nucor a copy of all documents produced
pursuant to this Consent Decree.
146. All documents pertaining to this Consent Decree shall be stored by
Nucor in a centralized location at the facility to
-67-
afford ease of access by EPA or the State and their representatives.
N. Notification and Document Certification
---------------------------------------
147. Unless otherwise specified, all reports, correspondence, notices,
or other submittals relating to or required under this Consent Decree shall be
in writing and shall be sent to the following Project Coordinators:
Nucor, Norfolk, Nebraska:
------------------------
Ken Herstowski, ARTD/RCAP
U.S. EPA, Region 7
901 N. 5th St.
Kansas City, Kansas 66101
Telephone (913) 551-7631
Fax (913) 551-7947
Email herstowski.ken@epa.gov
Nucor, Crawfordsville, Indiana:
------------------------------
Joe Boyle
U.S. EPA, Region 5, DRE-9J
77 West Jackson Blvd.
Chicago, Illinois 60604-3507
Telephone (312) 886-4434
E-mail boyle.joseph@epa.gov
Nucor, Jewett, Texas:
--------------------
Ata-Ur-Rahman, PhD, Manager
Texas Natural Resource Conservation Commission
P.O. Box 13087
Austin, Texas 78711-3087
Telephone (512) 239-2276
Fax (512) 239-2346
E-mail arahman@tnrcc.state.tx.us
-68-
Nucor-Yamato, Armorel, Arkansas and Hickman Mill,
-------------------------------------------------
Blytheville, Arkansas:
----------------------
Chris Hemann
Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality
Box 8913
Little Rock, Arkansas
Telephone (501) 682-0856
Fax (501) 682-0565
e-mail: Hemann@adeq.state.AR.US
Nucor, Darlington, South Carolina and Nucor,
--------------------------------------------
Berkeley/Huger, South Carolina:
------------------------------
John Litton, Director
Division of Waste Management
S.C. Department of Health and Environmental Control
2600 Bull St.
Columbia, SC 29201
Tel: (803) 869-4172
Fax: (803) 869-4002
email: litton@columbia34.dhec.state.sc.us
Nucor, Plymouth, Utah:
---------------------
Janice Pearson
Technical Enforcement Program (8ENF-T)
USEPA Region 8
999 18th St., Suite 500
Denver, CO 80202-2466
Tel: (303) 312-6354
Fax: (303) 312-6409
email: pearsonjanice@epa.gov
148. EPA or a State may change its designated Project Coordinator at
any time by providing written notice to Nucor.
149. The absence of the Project Coordinator from the facility shall not
be cause for the stoppage of work.
-69-
150. Within ten (10) days of the entry of this Consent Decree, Nucor
shall notify EPA in writing of the identity of its eight (8) on-site Project
Coordinator(s) by providing the Project Coordinator's name, title, company
affiliation (if not an employee of Nucor), mailing address, telephone number,
fax number and e-mail address, if any. Nucor's Project Coordinator shall be
responsible for overseeing the implementation of this Consent Decree and for
designating a person to act in his/her absence. All communications directed to
Nucor's designated Project Coordinator shall be deemed received by Nucor. Nucor
may change its designated Project Coordinator by providing written notice to EPA
or the State as to the new Project Coordinator's name, title, company
affiliation (if not an employee of Nucor), mailing address, telephone number,
fax number and e-mail address, if any, at least five (5) days prior to making
the change.
151. Three copies of all documents submitted pursuant to this Consent
Decree shall be hand delivered, sent by certified mail, return receipt
requested, or by overnight express mail to the Project Coordinator or to other
addressees designated.
152. Any report or other document submitted by Nucor pursuant to this
Consent Decree which makes any representation concerning Nucor's compliance or
noncompliance with any requirement of this Consent Decree shall be certified by
a
-70-
responsible corporate officer of Nucor or a duly authorized representative. A
responsible corporate officer means: a president, secretary, treasurer, or
vice-president of the corporation in charge of a principal business function, or
any other person who performs similar policy or decision-making functions for
the corporation.
153. The certification required by Paragraph 152 above shall be in the
following form:
"I certify that this document and all attachments were prepared under
my direction or supervision in accordance with a system designed to
evaluate the information submitted. I certify that the information
contained in or accompanying this submittal is true, accurate, and
complete. As to those identified portion(s) of this submittal for which
I cannot personally verify the accuracy, I certify that this submittal
and all attachments were prepared in accordance with procedures
designed to assure that qualified personnel properly gathered and
evaluated the information submitted. Based on my inquiry of the person
or persons who manage the system, or those directly responsible for
gathering the information, or the immediate supervisor of such
person(s), the information submitted is, to the best of my knowledge
and belief, true, accurate, and complete. I am aware that there are
significant penalties for submitting false information, including the
possibility of fine and imprisonment for knowing violations."
Signature:________________________
Name: ____________________________
Title: ___________________________
Date: ____________________________
-71-
O. Financial Responsibility
------------------------
154. At the time of the RFI Workplan submittal(s), Nucor shall submit
to EPA or the State: (i) a cost estimate for implementation of the corrective
action work required under this Consent Decree, which shall include direct and
indirect capital costs, operation and maintenance costs and any other costs
attributable to the implementation of the corrective action requirements of this
Consent Decree; and (ii) documentation of financial assurance in an amount equal
to the cost estimate described above, to guarantee completion of the work
required pursuant to this Consent Decree. Such financial assurance shall be in
any one or a combination of the following, and shall be consistent with the
provisions of this Consent Decree and 40 C.F.R. Part 265, Subpart H:
a. A performance or surety bond;
b. A letter of credit;
c. A trust fund; or
d. A financial test or corporate guarantee from a parent, sibling or
higher tier parent corporation.
155. If at any time EPA or the State determines that Nucor has
defaulted in its responsibilities with regard to this Consent Decree, EPA or the
State may undertake to complete the tasks set forth in this Consent Decree,
utilizing the proceeds of the foregoing financial assurance, unless Nucor used
the financial test without EPA or State objection as the means of providing
financial assurance.
-72-
P. Indemnification
---------------
156. Nucor agrees to indemnify and save and hold harmless the United
States Government, the participating States, their agencies, departments,
agents, and employees, from any and all claims or causes of action arising from
or on account of acts or omissions of Nucor or its officers, employees, agents,
independent contractors, receivers, trustees, and assigns in carrying out
activities required by this Consent Decree. This indemnification shall not be
construed in any way as affecting or limiting the rights or obligations of Nucor
or the United States or States under their various contracts.
IX. EPCRA COMPLIANCE CERTIFICATION
------------------------------
157. Within one hundred twenty (120) days of the entry of this Consent
Decree, Nucor shall provide EPA with certification of compliance with all
applicable EPCRA requirements at the Hickman, Arkansas mini-mill. The
certification shall be signed by a responsible corporate officer. If Nucor has
not achieved compliance with all EPCRA requirements within one hundred twenty
(120) days of entry of the Consent Decree, Nucor shall certify to the areas of
compliance, identify all areas of non-compliance, and provide EPA with a
schedule for achieving full compliance. Once Nucor achieves full compliance,
Nucor will send EPA a supplemental certification of compliance that verifies
full
-73-
compliance. Within one hundred twenty (120) days of Nucor's completion of its
compliance audits pursuant to Section XI of this Consent Decree, it shall
certify compliance as required by this paragraph for the remaining facilities.
X. ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT SYSTEM ("EMS")
---------------------------------------
158. Nucor shall develop and implement a corporate-wide Environmental
Management Plan for the facilities identified in Paragraph 9 of this Consent
Decree in accordance with Attachments 14, 15, and 16.
XI. COMPLIANCE AUDITS
-----------------
159. Nucor shall establish as part of its EMS a comprehensive
Environmental Compliance Management System, which will include conducting a
comprehensive review of the compliance status, programs and practices of the
facilities identified in Paragraph 9, to address and correct any instances of
non-compliance. The ECMS program is set out in Attachment 16.
XII. AGENCY APPROVALS
----------------
160. This Section sets forth the procedures to be used for EPA or State
review, comment and approval of plans or other documents as required pursuant to
this Consent Decree.
-74-
161. For all plans, reports (other than progress reports), schedules,
specifications, manuals, or other documents (hereinafter collectively referenced
as "submittal(s)") submitted pursuant to this Consent Decree, EPA or the State
will either approve the submittal or disapprove the submittal and provide
comments. If EPA or the State disapproves a submittal and provides comments,
Nucor shall revise the submittal to incorporate the comments and resubmit the
revised submittal within 14 days of receipt of the comments. If the revised
submittal does not incorporate EPA or State comments, EPA or the State may, in
its sole discretion, unilaterally modify the submittal and provide Nucor with
the modified submittal, which, subject to Section XX (Dispute Resolution), will
be considered the EPA- or State-approved final submittal.
162. Once approved, all submittals required by this Consent Decree
shall be fully incorporated into and made an enforceable part of this Consent
Decree.
163. Upon receipt of EPA's or the State's written approval of a
submittal, Nucor shall commence work and implement any approved activities in
the submittal, where applicable, in accordance with the schedule and provisions
contained therein.
164. Verbal advice, suggestions, or comments given by EPA or State
representatives will not constitute an official approval,
-75-
nor shall any oral approval or oral assurance of approval be considered binding.
165. "Acceptable" shall mean that the quality of submittals or
completed work is sufficient to warrant EPA review in order to determine whether
the submittal or work meets the terms and conditions of this Consent Decree,
including Attachments, scopes of work, approved work plans and/or EPA's written
comments and guidance documents. Acceptability of submittals or work, however,
does not necessarily imply that they will be approveable. Approval by EPA of
submittals or work establishes that those submittals were prepared, or work was
completed, in a manner acceptable to EPA.
166. Nucor's submittals must be both acceptable to EPA and timely in
order to be in compliance with the terms and conditions of this Consent Decree.
XIII. SUPPLEMENTAL ENVIRONMENTAL PROJECTS
-----------------------------------
167. Nucor shall implement the following Supplemental Environmental
Projects ("SEPs") with an aggregate after-tax net present cost of at least $4
million in accordance with Attachment 17 to this Consent Decree:
1. Continuous Emissions Monitoring. Nucor shall spend at least
$2 million on the installation, calibration and operation of
Continuous Emission
-76-
Monitoring Systems on its EAFs to assure continuous compliance
with the emission limits established under this Consent Decree
and to allow Nucor to quickly determine the need for
maintenance or adjustment of the control technology systems.
2. Community Based SEPS. Nucor shall spend at least $2 million
on three (3) or more of the following SEPs in the communities
at or near Nucor facilities:
(a) Wind mill power generation;
(b) Scrap recycling days;
(c) Creation of wetland "buffer zones";
(d) Emergency equipment donations;
(e) Sanitary sewer line expansion;
(f) Community facility asbestos abatement projects;
and
(g) Up to $50,000 for community-based recycling
education projects.
168. Nucor agrees that in any public statements regarding the funding
of these SEPS, Nucor must clearly indicate that these projects are being
undertaken as part of the settlement of an enforcement action for alleged
environmental violations. Nucor shall not be able to use or rely on the emission
reductions generated as a result of its performance of the SEPs in any federal
or state emission averaging, banking, trading, or similar emission compliance
program.
169. Failure to implement the SEPs as required by this Section or
failure to provide EPA with a quarterly report or Project Completion Report as
required by Attachment 17 to this
-77-
Consent Decree shall subject Nucor to stipulated penalties as set forth in
Paragraph 177(w).
XIV. GENERAL RECORDKEEPING AND REPORTING
-----------------------------------
170. Beginning with Nucor's first full fiscal calendar quarter after
entry of this Consent Decree, Nucor shall submit a calendar quarterly progress
report to EPA within thirty (30) days after the end of each of Nucor's fiscal
calendar quarters during the life of this Consent Decree. This report shall
contain the following:
a. For RCRA reporting, following the effective date of this
Consent Decree, and throughout the period during which this Consent Decree is
effective, Nucor shall provide the Project Coordinator with quarterly progress
reports. The progress reports shall include the following information:
(i) A description of the activities completed during
the reporting period pursuant to Section VIII;
(ii) Summaries of all findings;
(iii) Summaries of all EPA- or State-approved changes
made to the RFI or CMS during the reporting period;
(iv) Summaries of all contacts, during the reporting
period, with representatives of the
-78-
local community, public interest groups or State
government concerning activities at the site;
(v) Summaries of all problems or potential problems
encountered during the reporting period;
(vi) Actions being taken to rectify problems
encountered;
(vii) Changes in Project Coordinator, principal
contractor, laboratory, and/or consultant during the
reporting period;
(viii) Projected work for the next reporting period;
and
(ix) Other relevant documentation, including, but not
limited to copies of laboratory/monitoring data
received and/or generated during the reporting
period.
b. For implementation of the requirements of Sections V, VI,
VIII (Compliance Programs) above;
(i) a summary of the emissions data as required by
Sections V. F. V. G. of this Consent Decree for the
calendar quarter;
(ii) a description of any problems anticipated with
respect to meeting the Compliance Programs of
Sections V, VI, VII of this Consent Decree;
(iii) a description of all SEP implementation
activity in accordance with Section XIII this Consent
Decree.
-79-
171. The calendar quarterly report shall be certified by the corporate
officer responsible for environmental management and compliance for Nucor
Corporation, as follows:
"I certify under penalty of law that this information
was prepared under my direction or supervision in accordance
with a system designed to assure that qualified personnel
properly gather and evaluate the information submitted. Based
on my directions and my inquiry of the person(s) who manage
the system, or the person(s) directly responsible for
gathering the information, the information submitted is, to
the best of my knowledge and belief, true, accurate, and
complete."
172. Failure to report as required by this Paragraph shall subject
Nucor to stipulated penalties as set forth in Paragraph 182.
XV. SELF-MONITORING
---------------
173. Within one hundred (100) days of entry of this Consent Decree,
Nucor shall develop and commence implementation of a program for monitoring and
documenting its compliance with the terms of this Consent Decree. Failure of
Nucor to develop a self-monitoring program and to conduct the required
self-monitoring in accordance with this Paragraph will subject Nucor to
stipulated penalties as provided in Paragraph 177(b).
XVI. CIVIL PENALTY
-------------
-80-
174. Within thirty (30) calendar days of entry of this Consent Decree,
Nucor shall pay to the United States a civil penalty of $9 million dollars
($9,000,000) as follows: Nucor shall pay to the United States a civil penalty in
the amount of $7,500,000. Of this total amount paid to the United States, $2
million shall be in settlement of the United States claims related to
allegations of CAA violations at Nucor's facility in Fort Payne, Alabama. Nucor
shall pay the balance of the civil penalty amount to the Plaintiff-Intervenors
as follows: Nucor shall pay $500,000 to Plaintiff-Intervenor, the State of
Arkansas, which amount shall include payment of $154,075 in settlement for RCRA
claims under a Consent Administrative Order, "In the Matter of: Nucor Steel,
P.O. Box 30, Armorel, Arkansas 7230, EPA ID No. ARD98327843" Provided that the
Order is finalized prior to the deadline for payment of civil penalties under
this Section. Nucor shall pay $500,000 to Plaintiff-Intervenor, the State of
Nebraska, and $500,000 to Plaintiff-Intervenor, the State of Utah.
a. The monies owed to the United States shall be paid by
Electronic Funds Transfer ("EFT") to the United States Department of Justice, in
accordance with current EFT procedures, referencing the USAO File Number and DOJ
Case Number 90-5-2-1-06407/1, and the civil action case name and case number of
the District of South Carolina. The costs of such EFT shall
-81-
be Nucor's responsibility. Payment shall be made in accordance with instructions
provided to Nucor by the Financial Litigation Unit of the U.S. Attorney's Office
in the District of South Carolina. Any funds received after 11:00 a.m. (EST)
shall be credited on the next business day. Nucor shall provide notice of
payment, referencing the USAO File Number and DOJ Case Number 90-5-2-1-06407/1,
and the civil action case name and case number, to the Department of Justice and
to EPA, as provided in Paragraph 212 (Notice).
b. The monies owed to Plaintiff-Intervenor, the State of
Arkansas shall be made payable to the Arkansas Department of Environmental
Quality, via overnight mail delivery, to William Eckert, Chief, Legal Division,
P.O. Box 8913, Little Rock, Arkansas 72219.
c. The monies owed to Plaintiff-Intervenor, the State of
Nebraska, shall be paid in the form of two (2) checks payable in equal amounts
to the District Court of Madison County and the District Court of Stanton
County, Nebraska, and mailed to William L.Howland, Assistant Attorney General,
2115 State Capitol Building, Lincoln, NE. 68509.
d. The monies owed to the Plaintiff-Intervenor, the State of
Utah, shall be paid to the Utah Department of Environmental Quality/Hazardous
Substances Mitigation Fund, in
-82-
care of Dianne R. Nielson, Executive Director, Utah Department of Environmental
Quality, 168 North 1950 West, Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-4850.
175. Upon entry of this Decree, this Decree shall constitute an
enforceable judgment for purposes of post-judgment collection in accordance with
Rule 69 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the Federal Debt Collection
Procedure Act, 28 U.S.C. 3001-3308, and other applicable federal authority. The
United States shall be deemed a judgment creditor for purposes of collection of
any unpaid amounts of the civil and stipulated penalties and interest.
176. No amount of the civil penalty to be paid by Nucor shall be used
to reduce its federal or state tax obligations.
XVII. STIPULATED PENALTIES
--------------------
177. Nucor shall pay stipulated penalties to the United States for each
failure by Nucor to comply with the terms of this Consent Decree, provided,
however, that the United States may elect to bring an action for contempt in
lieu of seeking stipulated penalties for violations of this Consent Decree. The
stipulated penalties will be calculated in the following amounts:
a. Section XVI - Requirement to pay a Civil Penalty and to
Escrow Stipulated Penalties.
-83-
(i) For failure to pay the civil penalty as specified
in Part XIII of this Consent Decree, Nucor shall pay
an additional $30,000 for each day that the payment
is delayed plus interest on the amount overdue at the
rate specified in 31 U.S.C. ss. 3717.
(ii) for failure to escrow stipulated penalties as
required by Paragraph 183, $4,000 per day.
b. Section XV - Requirement to Develop a Self-Monitoring
Program. For failure to develop an self-monitoring program as required by
Section XIII, per day:
lst through 30th day after deadline - $800
31st through 60th day after deadline - $1600
Beyond 60th day - $3000
c. Section V. A. - Requirements related to the P2 study. For
failure to meet the deadlines set forth in Attachment 1 of this consent decree,
per unit, per day:
1st through 30th day after deadline - $1,500
31st through 60th day after deadline - $3,200
Beyond 60th day - $6,800 per day;
-84-
d. Section V. B. - EAF SNCR pilot study and EAF installation
at Norfolk, Nebraska facility:
(i) For failure to meet the Norfolk, Nebraska EAF
SNCR pilot study deadlines as set forth in Attachment
2 to this consent decree:
1st through 30th day after deadline - $1,500
31st through 60th day after deadline - $3,200
Beyond 60th day - $6,800 per day;
(ii) For failure to install the SNCR system at
Norfolk, Nebraska on or before the deadline set forth
in Attachment 2 to this consent decree:
1st through 30th day after deadline - $1,500
31st through 60th day after deadline - $3,200
Beyond 60th day - $6,800 per day;
e. Section V. C. - Lance Burner Pilot for the Plymouth, Utah
facility. For failure to meet the deadlines set forth in Attachment 3 of this
consent decree:
1st through 30th day after deadline - $1,500
31st through 60th day after deadline - $3,200
Beyond 60th day - $6,800 per day;
-85-
f. Section V. D. - Reheat Furnace Control Technology Pilot
Projects:
(i) RNB/EGR Pilot at the Norfolk, Nebraska facility.
For failure to meet the deadlines set forth in
Attachment 4 of this consent decree:
1st through 30th day after deadline - $1,500
31st through 60th day after deadline - $3,200
Beyond 60th day - $6,800 per day;
g. Section V. E. - Reheat Furnace Pilot Project of SCR
Catalytic Reduction (SCR) Technology;
(i) SCR Pilot. For failure to meet the deadlines set
forth in Attachment 5 of this Consent Decree or
failure to conduct a comparative analysis or failure
to install controls:
1st through 30th day after deadline - $1,500
31st through 60th day after deadline - $3,200
Beyond 60th day - $6,800 per day;
h. Section V. F. - Establishing Emission Limits for Pilot
Units:
-86-
(i) For failure to conduct initial emission
monitoring of pilot units, to report emission
monitoring results within thirty (30) days of
completion of emission monitoring, or to propose
emission limits in accordance with Attachment 6:
1st through 30th day after deadline - $1,500
31st through 60th day after deadline - $3,200
Beyond 60th day - $6,800 per day;
(ii) For failure to meet any emission limit for pilot
facilities to be established pursuant to Section V.
F. of this Consent Decree per violation:
$1,200 for every excursion over the
established mission limit but less than 5%
over the limit;
$3,000 for every excursion over 5% but less
than 10% of the established emission limit;
$10,000 for every excursion over 10% but
less than 20% of the established emission
limit;
-87-
1.2 times the value established in the
applicable section of the EPA Stationary
Source Civil Penalty Policy for every
excursion more than 20% over the established
emission limit.
i. Section V. G. - Emission Limits for Non-Pilot Units:
(i) For failure to conduct initial emission
monitoring of non-pilot units, to report emission
monitoring results within thirty (30) days of
completion of emission monitoring, or to propose
emission limits in accordance with Attachment 6:
1st through 30th day after deadline - $1,500
31st through 60th day after deadline - $3,200
Beyond 60th day - $6,800 per day;
(ii) For failure to meet any emission limit for
non-pilot facilities to be established pursuant to
Section V. G. of this Consent Decree per violation:
-88-
$1,200 for every excursion over the
established emission limit but less than 5%
over the limit;
$3,000 for every excursion over 5% but less
than 10% of the established emission limit;
$10,000 for every excursion over 10% but
less than 20% of the established emission
limit;
1.2 times the value established on the
applicable section of the EPA Stationary
Source Civil Penalty Policy for every
excursion more than 20% over the established
emission limit.
j. Section V. H. - Construction and Operating Permit:
(i) For failure to meet the deadlines regarding
construction and operating permits at pilot and
non-pilot facilities as set forth in Section V.H. of
this Consent Decree per day, per unit:
1st through 30th day after deadline - $10,000
-89-
31st through 60th day after deadline - $15,000
Beyond 60th day - $20,000 per day.
k. Section V. I. - Demonstration of Compliance:
(i) For failure to meet any deadlines in the CEMS
pilot, Attachment 7 to this Consent Decree per
deadline:
1st through 30th day after deadline - $1,500
31st through 60th day after deadline - $3,200
Beyond 60th day - $6,800 per day.
l. Section V. J. - Phase-in Schedule for Non-Pilot
Installations:
(i) For failure to propose a phase-in schedule or to
install controls as required in accordance with the
proposed schedule.
1st through 30th day after deadline - $3,000
31st through 60th day after deadline - $4,500
Beyond 60th day - $6,000 per day;
-90-
m. Section V. K. - Steel Fabrication Facilities:
(i) For failure to submit a proposal for EPA approval
to control VOC emissions from all coating lines
through a combination of pollution prevention,
low-VOC based coatings and other add-on control
systems, per facility, per day:
1st through 30th day after deadline - $3,000
31st through 60th day after deadline - $4,500
Beyond 60th day - $6,000 per day;
(ii) For failure, to submit PSD permit applications
to the appropriate permitting authorities by the
deadlines specified for the fabrication facilities,
to permit the coating operations as "major stationary
source(s)" pursuant to 40 C.F.R.ss.52.21
(b)(1)(i)(b):
1st through 30th day after deadline - $1,500
31st through 60th day after deadline - $3,200
Beyond 60th day - $6,800 per day;
-91-
n. Section V.L. - New Source Performance Standards.
(i) For failure to establish operating baselines, per
facility, per day:
1st through 30th day after deadline - $1,500
31st through 60th day after deadline - $3,200
Beyond 60th day - $6,800 per day;
o. Section VI. A. - First Flush Sampling.
(i) For failure to submit the sampling plan within
forty-five (45) days of the entry of this Consent
Decree, per day, per facility:
1st through 30th day after deadline - $2,000
31st through 60th day after deadline - $5,000
Beyond 60th day - $10,000 per day;
(ii) For failure to collect a first flush sample or
failure to collect a first flush sample in compliance
with the time frames set forth in Section VI. A. of
this Consent Decree, for each missed or late sample
$5,000;
-92-
(iii) For failure to submit a complete sampling
report pursuant to Section VI. A. of this Consent
decree, Nucor shall pay a stipulated penalty of
$2,000 per report;
p. Section VI. B. - Best Management Practices/Storm Water
Pollution Prevention Plans.
(i) For failure to develop BMP and SWPP plans at the
facilities listed in Paragraph 9 of this Consent
Decree within the deadlines, per day, per facility:
1st through 30th day after deadline - $2,000
31st through 60th day after deadline - $5,000
Beyond 60th day - $10,000 per day;
(ii) For failure to revise existing BMP and SWPP
plans at the facilities listed in paragraph 8 of this
Consent Decree, per day, per facility:
1st through 30th day after deadline - $2,000
31st through 60th day after deadline - $5,000
Beyond 60th day - $10,000 per day;
-93-
(iii) For failure to seek the permit modifications
related to BMP/SWPP plans within the deadlines, per
day, per facility:
1st through 30th day after deadline - $2,000
31st through 60th day after deadline - $5,000
Beyond 60th day - $10,000 per day;
(iv) For failure to modify the SWPP plan for the
Hickman, Arkansas facility, per day:
1st through 30th day after deadline - $2,000
31st through 60th day after deadline - $5,000
Beyond 60th day - $10,000 per day;
q. Section VI. C. - Randomizing NPDES Sampling. For failure to
meet the deadlines set forth in Paragraph 68 above for initiation of randomized
NPDES sampling Nucor shall pay a $5,000 stipulated penalty and Nucor shall pay a
$10,000 stipulated penalty for each DMR monitoring period during which all NPDES
sampling events are not chosen at random;
r. Section VI. D. - Biocide Monitoring. Nucor shall pay a
stipulated penalty per facility of $5,000 for any month in
-94-
which the required biocide or WET sampling are not successfully completed;
s. NPDES Excursions.
(i) For failure to meet any discharge limitation in
any NPDES permit (including any interim limits) per
violation:
$5,000 for every excursion over the permit limit but
less than 20% over the limit;
$7,500 for every excursion over 20% but less than 50%
over the limit;
$15,000 for every excursion over 50% but less than
100% over the limit;
$ 20,000 for every excursion over 100% over the
limit.
(ii) $10,000 for every monitoring violation.
(iii) $5,000 for every reporting violation.
t. Section VII. A. RCRA Compliance Injunctive Relief Related
to Waste Management
-95-
(i) for failure to meet the deadline for submitting a
certification of compliance or failure to comply with
all applicable RCRA generator requirements under
Paragraphs 76:
1st through 30th day after deadline - $5,000
31st through 60th day after deadline - $10,000
Beyond 60th day - $20,000 per day;
(ii) for failure to comply with the deadlines set
forth in paragraph 77 in regard to a demonstration
that waste thinner, and paint waste accumulations,
including containers, are not hazardous wastes under
RCRA or to certify compliance with 40 C.F.R. ss.
262.34 and applicable Part 265 provisions at the
Vulcraft facility in Brigham City, Utah:
1st through 30th day after deadline - $5,000
31st through 60th day after deadline - $10,000
Beyond 60th day - $20,000 per day;
(iii) For failure to submit to EPA and the UDEQ, for
review and approval, a personnel training program for
the Vulcraft facility in Brigham City,
-96-
Utah, that fully complies with the requirements of 40
C.F.R. ss. 265.16 within forty-five (45) days of the
lodging of this Consent Decree, and for failure to
incorporate any EPA and UDEQ comments to the program
within forty-five (45) days of receiving such
comments:
1st through 30th day after deadline - $5,000
31st through 60th day after deadline - $10,000
Beyond 60th day - $20,000 per day;
(iv) for failure to submit to EPA and UDEQ a revised
contingency plan for the Nucor facility in Plymouth,
Utah, which reflects current facility conditions and
complies with the requirements of 40 C.F.R. Part 265,
Subpart D within thirty (30) days of the entry of
this Consent Decree:
1st through 30th day after deadline - $5,000
31st through 60th day after deadline - $10,000
Beyond 60th day - $20,000 per day;
(v) For failure to submit documentation to EPA and
UDEQ that all containers of hazardous waste at
-97-
the Nucor facility in Plymouth, Utah, are properly
labeled, closed and managed in accordance with 40
C.F.R. ss. 262.34 by January 31, 2001:
1st through 30th day after deadline - $5,000
31st through 60th day after deadline - $10,000
Beyond 60th day - $20,000 per day;
(vi) For failure to submit to EPA certification,
signed by a responsible official, stating that it is
not storing and/or disposing of hazardous waste
currently generated except in RCRA-permitted or
RCRA-exempt units by March 31, 2001:
1st through 30th day after deadline - $5,000
31st through 60th day after deadline - $10,000
Beyond 60th day - $20,000 per day;
(vii) For failure to submit to EPA a certification,
signed by a responsible official, stating that it is
in compliance with the applicable land disposal
restriction regulations (40 C.F.R. Part 268) at each
of its steel mills and Vulcraft facilities with
respect to hazardous
-98-
waste generated after entry of this Consent Decree by
March 31, 2001:
1st through 30th day after deadline - $5,000
31st through 60th day after deadline - $10,000
Beyond 60th day - $20,000 per day;
(viii) For failure to comply in the State of Arkansas
with 40 C.F.R. Part 265, Subpart J with respect to
management of KO61 dust in silos, or at the remaining
facility to comply with the deadlines for two
alternatives regarding prevention of K061 releases
from silos set forth in paragraph 83:
1st through 30th day after deadline - $5,000
31st through 60th day after deadline - $10,000
Beyond 60th day - $20,000 per day;
(ix) For failure to meet the deadlines for developing
a BMP Plan for its management of K061 dust at each of
its steel mills pursuant to the requirements set
forth in paragraph 84 and 85:
-99-
1st through 30th day after deadline - $5,000
31st through 60th day after deadline - $10,000
Beyond 60th day - $20,000 per day;
(x) For failure to submit a plan to EPA for an
enclosed K061 dust transfer operation at each of its
steel mills to prevent, to the maximum extent
practicable, releases of K061 dust pursuant to
Paragraph 84:
1st through 30th day after deadline - $5,000
31st through 60th day after deadline - $10,000
Beyond 60th day - $20,000 per day;
u. Section VII. B - Closure:
(i) for failure to submit to NDEQ and EPA the closure
plan, as described in Paragraph 87 above within one
hundred eighty (180) days of the entry of this
Consent Decree:
1st through 30th day after deadline - $5,000
31st through 60th day after deadline - $10,000
Beyond 60th day - $20,000 per day;
-100-
(ii) For failure to submit to NDEQ and EPA within
sixty (60) days of completion of final closure at the
Norfolk, Nebraska facility a certification that the
hazardous waste management units described in
paragraph 88 have been closed in accordance with the
specifications in the approved closure plans:
1st through 30th day after deadline - $5,000
31st through 60th day after deadline - $10,000
Beyond 60th day - $20,000 per day;
(iii) For failure to submit to the NDEQ documentation
of financial assurance for the closure cost
estimates, pursuant to 40 C.F.R. Part 264, Subpart F,
for closure of the areas of the soils around former
Baghouses A and C and the current NN3 Baghouse within
one hundred eighty (180) days from the entry of this
Consent Decree:
1st through 30th day after deadline - $5,000
31st through 60th day after deadline - $10,000
Beyond 60th day - $20,000 per day;
-101-
v. Section VIII -- RCRA Corrective Action --
(i) Unless there has been a written notice from the
Project Coordinator changing a compliance date, a
written modification from the Project Coordinator of
an approved workplan condition, or excusable delay as
defined in Section XIX, Force Majeure, if Nucor fails
to comply with the terms and conditions set forth in
this Consent Decree in the time or manner specified
herein, Nucor shall pay stipulated penalties as set
forth below. Compliance by Nucor shall include
completion of an activity under this Consent Decree
or a plan approved under this Consent Decree or
completion of any other requirement of this Consent
Decree in an acceptable manner and within the
specified time schedules in and approved under this
Consent Decree.
(ii) For failure to submit any RFI Workplan, if
required by Paragraphs 97 through 100, or any RFI
Workplan required by Paragraph 103, any RFI Report
required by Paragraphs 105 and 106, any CMS Report
required by Paragraph 110, or the CMI Workplan
required by Paragraph 113, Nucor shall
-102-
pay $2000 per day for the first seven days of such
violation, $5000 per day for the eighth through
twenty-first days of such violation, and $8000 per
day for the twenty-second day and each day of such
violation, thereafter.
(iii) For failure to complete any work required by
Paragraphs 117 (Corrective Measures Implementation),
120 (Interim Measures) or 129 (Additional Work),
Nucor shall pay: $1,500 per day for the first seven
days of such violation, $3,000 per day for the eighth
through twenty-first days of such violation, and
$5000 per day for the twenty-second day and each day
of such violation, thereafter.
w. Section XIII - SEPs
(i) For failure to meet all deadlines for
implementation of SEPs as set forth in Attachment 17:
1st through 30th day after deadline - $5,000
31st through 60th day after deadline - $10,000
Beyond 60th day - $20,000
-103-
178. Penalties shall begin to accrue on the day after complete
performance is due or the day a violation occurs, and shall continue to accrue
through the date of completion of performance or the date of correction of the
violation. Nothing herein shall prevent the simultaneous accrual of separate
stipulated penalties for separate violations of this Consent Decree. Penalties
shall accrue regardless of whether EPA or the State has notified Nucor of a
violation.
179. All penalties owed to the United States under this Section shall
be due and payable within thirty (30) days of Nucor's receipt from EPA or the
State of a written demand for payment of the penalties, unless Nucor invokes the
dispute resolution procedures under Section XX, Dispute Resolution. Such a
written demand will describe the violation and will indicate the amount of
penalties due.
180. Interest shall begin to accrue on any unpaid stipulated penalty
balance beginning on the thirty-first day after Nucor's receipt of EPA's or the
State's demand letter. Interest shall accrue at the Current Value of Funds Rate
established by the Secretary of the Treasury. Pursuant to 31 U.S.C. Section
3717, an additional penalty of 6% per annum on any unpaid principal
-104-
shall be assessed for any stipulated penalty payment which is overdue for ninety
(90) or more days.
181. Unless there has been a written notice from the Project
Coordinator changing a compliance date, a written modification from the Project
Coordinator of an approved workplan condition, or excusable delay as defined in
Section XIX, Force Majeure and Excusable Delay, if Nucor fails to comply with
the terms and conditions set forth in this Consent Decree in the time or manner
specified herein, Nucor shall pay stipulated penalties as set forth below.
Compliance by Nucor shall include completion of an activity under this Consent
Decree or a plan approved under this Consent Decree or completion of any other
requirement of this Consent Decree in an acceptable manner and within the
specified time schedules in and approved under this Consent Decree.
182. For failure to submit written quarterly progress reports in
accordance with the requirements of Paragraph 170, Nucor shall pay: $750 per day
for the first seven (7) days of such violation, $1000 per day for the eighth
through twenty-first days of such violation, and $2000 per day for the
twenty-second day and each day of such violation, thereafter;
a. Penalties shall begin to accrue on the day after complete
performance is due or the day a violation occurs, and shall continue to accrue
through the date of completion of
-105-
performance or the date of correction of the violation. Nothing herein shall
prevent the simultaneous accrual of separate stipulated penalties for separate
violations of this Consent Decree. Penalties shall accrue regardless of whether
EPA or the State has notified Nucor of a violation.
183. Should Nucor dispute its obligation to pay part or all of a
stipulated penalty, it may avoid the imposition of the stipulated penalty for
failure to pay a penalty due to the United States, by placing the disputed
amount demanded by the United States, not to exceed $50,500 for any given event
or related series of events at any one facility, in a commercial escrow account
pending resolution of the matter and by invoking the Dispute Resolution
provisions of Section XX within the time provided in this Paragraph for payment
of stipulated penalties. If the dispute is thereafter resolved in Defendant's
favor, the escrowed amount plus accrued interest shall be returned to the
Defendant, otherwise the United States shall be entitled to the escrowed amount
that was determined to be due by the Court plus the interest that has accrued on
such amount, with the balance, if any, returned to the Defendant.
184. The United States reserves the right to pursue any other remedies
to which it is entitled, including, but not limited to, additional injunctive
relief for Defendant's
-106-
violations of this Consent Decree. Nothing in this Consent Decree shall prevent
the United States from pursuing a contempt action against Nucor and requesting
that the Court order specific performance of the terms of the Decree.
185. The United States will not seek stipulated penalties and civil
penalties for the same violation of the Consent Decree.
XVIII. RIGHT OF ENTRY
--------------
186. Any authorized representative of EPA or an appropriate state
agency, including independent contractors, upon presentation of credentials,
shall have a right of entry upon the premises of Nucor's facilities identified
herein at any reasonable time for the purpose of monitoring compliance with the
provisions of this Consent Decree, including inspecting plant equipment and
inspecting and copying all records maintained by Nucor as required by the
Consent Decree. Reasonable time periods for monitoring and inspection shall be
considered in light of existing operational and equipment status, including
scheduled production shutdowns. The United States, states and their authorized
representatives shall make every effort to comply with facility safety
directives and to cooperate with Nucor in establishing reasonable requests for
copying and other use of Nucor's facilities and personnel. Nothing in this
Consent Decree shall limit the authority of EPA to conduct tests and inspections
-107-
under Section 114 of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. ss. 7414 or any other applicable
statutory or regulatory provision.
XIX. FORCE MAJEURE
-------------
187. If any event occurs which causes or may cause a delay or
impediment to performance in complying with any provision of this Consent
Decree, Nucor shall notify the United States in writing as soon as practicable,
but in any event within ten (10) business days of when Nucor first knew of the
event or should have known of the event by the exercise of due diligence. In
this notice Nucor shall specifically reference this Paragraph of this Consent
Decree and describe the anticipated length of time the delay may persist, the
cause or causes of the delay, and the measures taken or to be taken by Nucor to
prevent or minimize the delay and the schedule by which those measures will be
implemented. Nucor shall adopt all necessary measures to avoid or minimize such
delays.
188. Failure by Nucor to comply with the notice requirements of
Paragraph 187 as specified above shall render this Section voidable by the
United States as to the specific event for which the Nucor has failed to comply
with such notice requirement, and, if voided, is of no effect as to the
particular event involved.
-108-
189. The United States shall notify the Nucor in writing regarding
Nucor's claim of a delay or impediment to performance within thirty (30) days of
receipt of the Force Majeure notice provided under Paragraph 187. If the United
States agrees that the delay or impediment to performance has been or will be
caused by circumstances beyond the control of Nucor, including any entity
controlled by Nucor, and that Nucor could not have prevented the delay by the
exercise of due diligence, Nucor and the United States shall stipulate to an
extension of the required deadline(s) for all requirement(s) affected by the
delay by a period equivalent to the delay actually caused by such circumstances.
Such stipulation may, at the option of the United States and Nucor, be filed as
a modification to this Consent Decree pursuant to the modification procedures
established in this Consent Decree. Nucor shall not be liable for stipulated
penalties for the period of any such delay.
190. If the United States does not accept Nucor's claim of a delay or
impediment to performance, Nucor must submit the matter to this Court for
resolution to avoid payment of stipulated penalties, by filing a petition for
determination with this Court. Once Nucor has submitted this matter to this
Court, the United States shall have twenty (20) business days to file its
response to said petition. If Nucor submits the matter to this Court for
resolution and the Court determines that the delay or
-109-
impediment to performance has been or will be caused by circumstances beyond the
control of Nucor, including any entity controlled by Nucor, and that Nucor could
not have prevented the delay by the exercise of due diligence, Nucor shall be
excused as to that event(s) and delay (including stipulated penalties), for a
period of time equivalent to the delay caused by such circumstances.
191. Nucor shall bear the burden of proving that any delay of any
requirement(s) of this Consent Decree was caused by or will be caused by
circumstances beyond its control, including any entity controlled by it, and
that Nucor could not have prevented the delay by the exercise of due diligence.
Nucor shall also bear the burden of proving the duration and extent of any
delay(s) attributable to such circumstances. An extension of one compliance date
based on a particular event may, but does not necessarily, result in an
extension of a subsequent compliance date or dates.
192. Unanticipated or increased costs or expenses associated with the
performance of Nucor's obligations under this Consent Decree shall not
constitute circumstances beyond the control of Nucor, or serve as a basis for an
extension of time under this Section. However, failure of a permitting authority
to issue a necessary permit in a timely fashion is an event of Force Majeure
-110-
where the failure of the permitting authority to act is beyond the control of
Nucor and Nucor has taken all steps available to it to obtain the necessary
permit including but not limited to:
a. submitting a complete permit application;
b. responding to requests for additional information by the
permitting authority in a timely fashion;
c. accepting lawful permit terms and conditions; and
d. prosecuting appeals of any unlawful terms and conditions
imposed by the permitting authority in an expeditious fashion.
193. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Consent Decree, this
Court shall not draw any inferences nor establish any presumptions adverse to
either party as a result of Nucor delivering a notice of Force Majeure or
Nucor's or the United States' inability to reach agreement.
194. As part of the resolution of any matter submitted to this Court
under this Section, Nucor and the United States by agreement, or this Court, by
order, may in appropriate circumstances extend or modify the schedule for
completion of work under this Consent Decree to account for the delay in the
work that occurred as a result of any delay or impediment to performance agreed
to by the United States or approved by this
-111-
Court. Nucor shall be liable for stipulated penalties for its failure thereafter
to complete the work in accordance with the extended or modified schedule.
195. In the event that during the life of this Consent Decree, Nucor
would not otherwise be required to perform any of the obligations herein due to
changes in applicable Federal law or EPA regulations, Nucor may petition the
Court for relief from any such requirements, in accordance with Rule 60 of the
Federal Rules of Civil Procedures ("F.R.Civ.P"). However, this provision is not
applicable to the requirements to complete the supplemental environmental
projects referred to in Section XII of this Consent Decree or conduct the P2,
EGR/RNB, SCR and SNCR pilot demonstration projects pursuant to this Consent
Decree.
XX. DISPUTE RESOLUTION
------------------
196. The dispute resolution procedure provided by this Section shall be
available to resolve all disputes arising under this Consent Decree, except as
otherwise provided in Section XIX regarding Force Majeure, provided that the
party making such application has made a good faith attempt to resolve the
matter with the other party.
197. The dispute resolution procedure required herein shall be invoked
upon the giving of written notice by one of the
-112-
parties to this Consent Decree to another advising of a dispute pursuant to this
Section. The notice shall describe the nature of the dispute, and shall state
the noticing party's position with regard to such dispute. The party receiving
such a notice shall acknowledge receipt of the notice and the parties shall
expeditiously schedule a meeting to discuss the dispute informally not later
than fourteen (14) days from the receipt of such notice.
198. Disputes submitted to dispute resolution shall, in the first
instance, be the subject of informal negotiations between the parties. Such
informal negotiation process is to be defined by the parties and may include a
decision by a panel of chosen experts and/or representatives, facilitation or
mediation. Such period of informal negotiations shall not extend beyond sixty
(60) calendar days from the date of the first meeting between representatives of
the United States and the Defendant, unless the parties' representatives agree
to shorten or extend this period.
199. In the event that the United States (or "the State" if it is
acting as the Project Coordinator) and Nucor are unable to reach agreement
during such informal negotiation period, the United States shall provide the
Defendant with a written summary of its position regarding the dispute. The
position advanced by
-113-
the United States (or the State) shall be considered binding unless, within
forty-five (45) calendar days of the Defendant's receipt of the written summary
of the United States' (or the State's) position, the Defendant files with this
Court a petition which describes the nature of the dispute. The United States
(or the State) shall respond to the petition within forty-five (45) calendar
days of filing.
200. Where the nature of the dispute is such that a more timely
resolution of the issue is required, the time periods set out in this Section
may be shortened upon motion of one of the parties to the dispute.
201. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Consent Decree, in
dispute resolution, this Court shall not draw any inferences nor establish any
presumptions adverse to either party as a result of invocation of this Section
or the parties' inability to reach agreement. In resolving the dispute between
the parties, the position of the United States shall be upheld unless Nucor
demonstrates that it is not based on substantial evidence appearing in the
Record of Decision on the matter.
202. As part of the resolution of any dispute submitted to dispute
resolution, the parties, by agreement, or this Court, by order, may, in
appropriate circumstances, extend or modify the schedule for completion of work
under this Consent Decree to
-114-
account for the delay in the work that occurred as a result of dispute
resolution. Defendant shall be liable for stipulated penalties for its failure
thereafter to complete the work in accordance with the extended or modified
schedule.
XXI. EFFECT OF SETTLEMENT
--------------------
203. This Consent Decree constitutes full settlement of and, upon
Nucor's performance of the requirements herein, shall resolve all civil
liability of the Defendant to the United States for the CAA, RCRA, EPCRA, and
CWA violations alleged in the United States' Complaint. This Consent Decree
constitutes a compliance schedule with respect to the violations alleged in the
United States' complaint under the above-referenced laws.
204. The EAF and reheat furnaces identified in Paragraph 9 of this
Consent Decree are on a Schedule for Compliance with applicable PSD requirements
of the CAA for the life of this Consent Decree.
205. This Consent Decree is not a permit; compliance with its terms
does not guarantee compliance with any applicable federal, state or local laws
or regulations. Nothing in this Consent Decree shall be construed to be a ruling
on, or determination of, any issue related to any federal, state or local
permit.
-115-
XXII. GENERAL PROVISIONS
------------------
206. Other Laws. Except as specifically provided by this Consent
Decree, nothing in this Consent Decree shall relieve Defendant of its obligation
to comply with all applicable federal, state and local laws and regulations.
Subject to Paragraph 185, 203 and 204, nothing contained in this Consent Decree
shall be construed to prevent, alter or limit the United States' rights to seek
or obtain other remedies or sanctions available under other federal, state or
local statutes or regulations, by virtue of Defendant's violation of this
Consent Decree or of the statutes and regulations upon which this Consent Decree
is based, or for Defendant's violations of any applicable provision of law,
other than the specific matters resolved herein. This shall include the United
States' right to invoke the authority of the Court to order Nucor's compliance
with this Consent Decree in a subsequent contempt action.
207. For compliance certifications required by this Consent Decree,
Nucor's certification shall be in the manner pursuant to this Consent Decree.
208. Effect of EPA Guidance. For purposes of this Consent Decree,
references to specific guidance documents or guidance generally are not intended
to change the applicability, legal force or effect of such guidance.
-116-
209. Costs. Each party to this action shall bear its own costs and
attorneys' fees.
210. Public Documents. All information and documents submitted by the
Defendant to the United States pursuant to this Consent Decree shall be subject
to public inspection, unless subject to legal privileges or protection or
identified and supported as business confidential by the Defendant in accordance
with 40 C.F.R. Part 2.
211. Public Comments. The parties agree and acknowledge that final
approval by the United States and entry of this Consent Decree is subject to the
requirements of 28 C.F.R.ss.50.7, which provides for notice of the entry of this
Consent Decree in the Federal Register, an opportunity for public comment, and
consideration of any comments.
212. Notice. Unless otherwise provided herein, notifications to or
communications with the United States or the Defendant shall be deemed submitted
on the date they are postmarked and sent either by overnight receipt mail
service or by certified or registered mail, return receipt requested. Except as
otherwise provided herein, when written notification to or communication with
the United States, EPA, or the Defendant is required by the terms of this
Consent Decree, it shall be addressed as follows:
-117-
As to the United States:
Chief
Environmental Enforcement Section
Environment and Natural Resources Division
U.S. Department of Justice
P.O. Box 7611, Ben Franklin Station
Washington, DC 20044-7611
United States Attorney
District of South Carolina
1st Union Bldg.
1441 Main Street
Suite 500
Columbia, S.C. 29201
As to EPA, with copies to the appropriate Regional Office:
Director, Multimedia Enforcement Director
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Regulatory Enforcement
Ariel Rios Building
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
As to Nucor Corporation:
General Manager -- Environmental Affairs
Nucor Corporation
2100 Rexford Rd.
Charlotte, NC 28211
As to the State of Arkansas:
Richard A. Weiss
Interim Director
Arkansas Department of Environmental Quality
P.O. Box 8913
Little Rock, Arkansas 72219-8913
-118-
As to the State of Nebraska:
Mike Linder
Director, Nebraska Department of Environmental Quality
Suite 400
The Atrium
1200 N Street
P.O. Box 98922
Lincoln, Nebraska 68509-8922
As to Utah:
Fred G. Nelson
Assistant Attorney General
State of Utah
160 East 300 South, 5th Floor
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-0873
Dianne R. Nielson
Executive Director
Utah Department of Environmental Quality
168 North 1690 West
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-4850
As to the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control:
Alexander G. Shissias
Staff Counsel
South Carolina Department of Health and
Environmental Control
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, South Carolina 29201-1708
213. All EPA approvals or comments required under this Decree shall
come from:
-119-
Mark Pollins
Associate Director
Multimedia Enforcement Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Regulatory Enforcement
Ariel Rios Building
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
214. Any party may change either the notice recipient or the address
for providing notices to it by serving all other parties with a notice setting
forth such new notice recipient or address.
215. The information required to be maintained or submitted pursuant to
this Consent Decree is not subject to the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1980, 44
U.S.C.ss.ss.3501 et seq.
216. The undersigned representative of each Party to this Consent
Decree certifies that he or she is duly authorized by the Party whom he or she
represents to enter into the terms and bind that Party to them.
217. Modifications. Except as otherwise allowed by law, there shall be
no modification of this Consent Decree without written approval by the United
States and Nucor, and, if required, approval of such modification by the Court.
Nucor and EPA recognize that the pilot projects prescribed by this Agreement are
technically rigorous and subject to a broad range of variables that may render
pilot control measures technologically infeasible and warrant alternative
schedules for
-120-
pilot project implementation. Should the requirements of the pilot projects
prove infeasible or improvident due to technical limitations or other
considerations, Nucor and EPA agree to cooperate to modify the Consent Decree to
provide for alternative pilot control measures and revise pilot implementation
schedules.
218. Continuing Jurisdiction. The Court retains jurisdiction of this
case after entry of this Consent Decree to enforce compliance with the terms and
conditions of this Consent Decree and to take any action necessary or
appropriate for its interpretation, construction, execution, or modification.
During the term of this Consent Decree, any party may apply to the Court for any
relief necessary to construe or effectuate this Consent Decree.
219. Consultation and Variances. Nucor and the United States
acknowledge that the objectives and obligations specified in this Consent Decree
may, from time to time during the term of the Decree be significantly altered or
impacted by changes in circumstances and advances in knowledge or technology. To
assure that the compliance approaches specified herein are sufficiently flexible
to accommodate and take advantage of the changes, Nucor and the United States
will continuously consult concerning technical development and may agree upon
variances where
-121-
appropriate to efficiently achieve the objectives of this Consent Decree.
220. This Consent Decree constitutes the final, complete and exclusive
agreement and understanding among the parties with respect to the settlement
embodied in this Consent Decree. The parties acknowledge that there are no
representations, agreements or understandings relating to the settlement other
than those expressly contained in this Consent Decree. Protocols are attached to
and incorporated by reference into this Consent Decree.
221. Severability and Construction. In the event that (i) any provision
or authority of this Consent Decree or the application of this Consent Decree to
any party or circumstance is held by any judicial or administrative authority to
be invalid, or (ii) any judicial or administrative authority finds that Nucor
has sufficient cause not to comply with one or more provisions of this Consent
Decree, then, such provisions and any other provisions conditioned thereon,
shall be held invalid and all other provisions of this Consent Decree shall
remain in full force and effect, and Nucor's obligation to comply with all other
provisions of this Consent Decree shall not be affected thereby. In the event
that any provision of the Attachments are in
-122-
conflict with the Consent Decree, the language of the Consent Decree shall
govern.
XXIII. TERMINATION
-----------
222. This Consent Decree shall be subject to termination upon motion by
either party after the Defendant satisfies all requirements of this Consent
Decree. The requirements for termination include payment of all penalties for
which demand has been made, including stipulated penalties, that may be due to
the United States under this Consent Decree, installation of successful control
technology systems for pilot and nonpilot units as specified herein, EPA's
receipt of the first quarterly progress report following Nucor's compliance for
at least one year with all requirements herein. At such time, if the Defendant
believes that it is in compliance with the requirements of this Consent Decree
and the permits specified herein, and has paid the civil penalty and any
stipulated penalties required by this Consent Decree, then the Defendant shall
so certify to the United States, and unless the United States objects in writing
with specific reasons within sixty (60) days of receipt of the certification,
the Court shall order that this Consent Decree be terminated on Defendant's
motion. If the United States so objects to the Defendant's certification, then
the matter shall be submitted to the Court for resolution under Section XX
-123-
(Dispute Resolution) of this Consent Decree. In such case, the Defendant shall
bear the burden of proving that this Consent Decree should be terminated.
So entered in accordance with the foregoing this ________ day of
____________, 200___.
__________________________________
United States District Court Judge
for the District of South Carolina
-124-
FOR PLAINTIFF, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
/s/ Lois J. Schiffer Date 12/11/00
- -------------------------------- --------------------
Lois J. Schiffer
Assistant Attorney General
Environment and Natural Resources Division
U.S. Department of Justice
10th & Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20530
/s/ Dianne M. Shawley Date 12/7/00
- -------------------------------- --------------------
Dianne M. Shawley
Senior Attorney
Environment and Natural Resources Division
U.S. Department of Justice
1425 New York Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20005
Date 12/13/00
- -------------------------------- --------------------
J. RENE JOSEY
United States Attorney
District of South Carolina
By: /s/ EMERY CLARK
--------------------------------
EMERY CLARK
Assistant United States Attorney
District of South Carolina
Bar Number -
1st Union Bldg.
1441 Main Street
Suite 500
Columbia, South Carolina 29201
United States v. Nucor Corporation
-125-
United States v. Nucor Corporation
FOR U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY:
/s/ Steven A. Herman Date 12/8/00
- -------------------------------- --------------------
Steven A. Herman
Assistant Administrator
Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Ariel Rios Building
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20460
FOR U.S. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY:
/s/ Mark Pollins Date 12/8/00
- -------------------------------- --------------------
Mark Pollins
Associate Director
Multimedia Enforcement Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Office of Regulatory Enforcement
Ariel Rios Building
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20460
-126-
sFOR THE STATE OF ARKANSAS:
Date
- -------------------------------- --------------------
Charles L. Moulton
Assistant Attorney General
Utility/Environmental Division
Public Protection Section
Arkansas Attorney General
323 Center St., Suite 1100
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201
-127-
FOR THE STATE OF NEBRASKA:
Date
- -------------------------------- --------------------
William L. Howland #11941
Assistant Attorney General
2115 State Capitol Building
Lincoln, NE 68509
-128-
FOR THE STATE OF UTAH:
Date
- -------------------------------- --------------------
Fred G. Nelson
Assistant Attorney General
State of Utah
160 East 300 South, 5th Floor
Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-0873
-129-
For the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control:
Date
- -------------------------------- --------------------
Alexander G. Shissias
Staff Counsel
South Carolina Department of Health and
Environmental Control
2600 Bull Street
Columbia, South Carolina 29201-1708
-130-
FOR DEFENDANT, NUCOR CORPORATION:
/s/ Daniel R. DiMicco Date 9/29/00
- -------------------------------- --------------------
Daniel R. DiMicco
President and Chief Executive Officer
Nucor Corporation
2100 Rexford Road
Charlotte, NC 28211
/s/ J. Gordon Arbuckle
- --------------------------------
J. Gordon Arbuckle
Patton Boggs L.L.P.
2550 M Street, N.W.
Washington, DC 20037
Counsel for Nucor Corporation Date 9/29/00
--------------------
-131-
TABLE OF ATTACHMENTS
Attachment 1. Protocol for Piloting the Evaluation and
Implementation of Process Modifications on an
Electric Arc Furnace
Attachment 1A. Design for Environment (DfE) Protocol for
Demonstration on New Meltshop
Attachment 2. Protocol for Piloting the Design and Operation of
Selective Noncatalytic Reduction (SNCR) on an
Electric Arc Furnace
Attachment 3. Protocol for Lance Burner Installation
Attachment 4. Protocol for Evaluating Exhaust Gas Recirculation
and Reduced Non Burners on a Reheat Furnace
Attachment 5. Protocol for Evaluating Selective Catalytic
Reduction on a Reheat Furnace
Attachment 6. Protocol for Establishing Emission Limits for
Electric Arc Furnaces and Heat Furnaces
Attachment 7. Protocol for Piloting Continuous Emissions
Monitoring System
Attachment 8. Suggested Testing Protocol for Establishing
Baseline Values Required by NSPS Subpart AAa
Attachment 9. [Reserved]
Attachment 10. Scope of Work RCRA Facility Assessment (RFA)
Attachment 11. Scope of Work for a RCRA Facility Investigation
(RFI)
Attachment 12. Scope of Work for a Corrective Measures Study (CMS)
Attachment 13. Scope of Work for Corrective Measures Implementation
(CMI)
Attachment 14. Environmental Management System (EMS) / Environmental
Compliance Management System (ECMS) Implementation
Protocol
Attachment 14A. Design for Environment General Analytical
Protocol
Attachment 15. NEIC Compliance-Focused Environmental Management
System Elements
Attachment 16. Environmental Compliance Management System (ECMS)
Attachment 17. Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs)
Attachment 1
------------
Protocol for Piloting the Evaluation and Implementation of Process Modifications
on an Electric Arc Furnace
As required by this Consent Decree, Nucor will evaluate and implement
process modifications at its Norfolk facility. The modifications are aimed at
reducing Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) emissions from the electric arc furnace. This
protocol sets forth the process modifications that Nucor will evaluate and the
approach Nucor will use to evaluate the impact of these modifications. Any
provisions of this protocol, including schedule, may be modified by the written
agreement of the United States and Nucor at any time.
A. Approach for Norfolk Facility
Before initiating any testing program, Nucor will submit to EPA for
approval a detailed monitoring and testing plan. The plan will include a
description of the test methods to be used, a discussion of test procedures, and
a description of sampling locations.
1. Baseline testing - Nucor shall use continuous emissions monitors
(CEMs) to monitor and record Carbon Monoxide (CO), NOx, Sulfur Oxides (SOx),
Oxygen (O2), Carbon Dioxide (CO2), velocity, and temperature for a period of 30
days. During this time, Nucor will also periodically monitor the exhaust gas
moisture content. The data collected during this baseline testing period will
provide information on the impact of typical operating and process variables on
emissions. The data will also be used to identify a "worst case" combination of
operating variables (i.e. the combination of operating variables that results in
the highest rate of NOx emissions) which will be used in evaluating the process
modifications (see below). Nucor and EPA will meet at the conclusion of the
baseline testing to determine the conditions that should be used for next phase
of the process, that is, evaluation of the process modifications.
2. Evaluation of Process Modifications - Nucor will evaluate the impact
of the following process modifications on NOx and CO emissions:
- Replace carrier gas in carbon injectors
- Reduce roof ring gap
-1-
- Keep slag door closed when possible
- Improve foamy slag practice
- Run heats with single charge
Each of these process modifications will be implemented individually on
heats that represent the worst case conditions established in the baseline
testing. During each heat, Nucor will use the CEMs to monitor and record CO,
CO2, O2, NOx, and SOx emissions. Nucor will also monitor and record the exhaust
gas velocity and temperature and periodically monitor the exhaust gas moisture
content. If both EPA and Nucor agree that the data is representative or cannot
be repeated on a comparative basis, the specific process modification test will
be considered complete.
Nucor will implement all process modifications that are deemed to be
economically and technically feasible as defined in the Consent Decree.
3. Report to EPA - Nucor will prepare a report for EPA that will
include a discussion of the results, the process modifications that were
implemented and tested at the facility, any problems encountered in implementing
the process modifications, and the impact of the process modifications on NOx
and CO emissions. Nucor will also include a discussion on the merits of
conducting a pilot study at a second Nucor facility based on the effectiveness
of the Norfolk pilot study in reducing emissions. Nucor will also include a
recommendation for a second pilot facility and a schedule for implementing the
second pilot study.
4. Schedule for Norfolk pilot
Table 1 presents a schedule for the process modifications evaluation and
implementation pilot at the Norfolk facility.
TABLE 1. PROCESS MODIFICATIONS PILOT SCHEDULE
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACTIVITY PROJECTED DATE
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submit test plan to EPA March 15, 2001
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline testing May 15, 2001
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evaluation testing July 15 - September 15, 2001
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
Report to EPA November 15, 2001
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------
-2-
B. Second Pilot Study
Prior to beginning the second pilot study, Nucor will conduct a
preliminary technical and economic feasibility determination to identify those
process modifications that will also be evaluated for the second pilot program.
This preliminary evaluation will be based on data collected at the Norfolk
facility including information on emissions reductions and problems encountered
in implementing the modifications. It will also include an estimated cost for
installing the modification at the second pilot facility.
In addition to the process modifications identified for the Norfolk
facility, there are other process modifications that Nucor has identified that
may reduce NOx emissions. These modifications were not applicable to the Norfolk
facility, but they may be applicable to the second pilot facility. These
modifications include:
o Reduce furnace elbow gap
o Plug gaps in water-cooled panels
o Gravity feed carbon and lime
o Reduce power-on time
o Improve seal on slag door
Nucor will review these additional modifications to determine if they
are applicable to the second pilot facility. Nucor will then include the
applicable modifications in the evaluation and implementation program.
Prior to beginning the second pilot program, Nucor will submit a brief
report to EPA that will include a discussion of the process modifications that
will be implemented during the pilot and how those process modifications were
selected, an overview of the approach that will be used for implementing the
pilot, and a proposed schedule for the pilot.
-3-
Following completion of the second pilot, Nucor will prepare and submit
to EPA a report that will include a discussion of the results, the process
modifications that were evaluated and implemented at the facility, any problems
encountered in implementing the process modifications, and the impact of the
process modifications on NOx and CO emissions. The report will also include a
discussion of Nucor's recommendation concerning implementing the process
modifications at its remaining steel mills. This recommendation will be based on
an evaluation of the economic and technical feasibility of implementing the
process modifications at the two pilot facilities. If Nucor does not believe the
process modifications were successful, as defined by the consent decree, then
the report will also include an evaluation of other potential alternatives for
reducing NOx emissions.
-4-
Attachment 1-A
--------------
Design for Environment (DfE)
Protocol for Demonstration on New Meltshop
A. Introduction
Nucor will demonstrate the Design for Environment (DfE) approach to
designing and constructing its next new meltshop. This may be a "greenfield"
site or a new meltshop at a new facility. The DfE approach will be a key
component of the Nucor EMS and enhance the ability of the Environmental
Management System (EMS) over time to mitigate impacts with technology that
presently may not be viable but, in the future may become viable. During the
three to five year period for implementing and validating the EMS, Nucor will
likely upgrade an existing meltshop or construct a new facility. At such time
the DfE evaluation will be conducted.
B. Objectives
This project will demonstrate Nucor's approach to DfE analysis and will
result in an optimal design for the planned meltshop, subject to constraints of
available technology, economic factors, and the requirements of production,
quality and environmental regulation.
C. Approach
When a new meltshop is proposed many parameters are evaluated. The
conventional approach to the environmental requirements has been to evaluate
"what is required to obtain a permit?" In addition to answering this question,
Nucor's DfE demonstration for a new meltshop will entail a formal evaluation of
the environmental impact of equipment, facility layout and location selection.
The results of the DfE investigation will be included as part of the
decision-making process along with economic factors (e.g., markets,
"financials," transportation, growth estimates), labor, utility, and other
essential data that are considered when a facility is sited and built. If Nucor
conducts the demonstration for an existing facility, siting considerations will
be less relevant than with a greenfield DfE analysis.
The Nucor DfE analytical approach will emphasize the following
considerations:
-1-
o Optimal electric arc furnace (EAF) design, in light of
technology precedents, production requirements, product
quality issues, worker safety, economic considerations,
environmental regulations, and overall environmental impact;
o Pollution Prevention for EAFs, in light of the protocol for
piloting the implementation and evaluation of process
modifications on an electric arc furnace;
o Energy conservation and add-on pollution control technology
for EAFs, in light of the
- protocol for piloting the design and operation of
Selective Noncatalytic Reduction (SNCR) on an EAF,
- protocol for evaluating the operation of reduced
Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) burners with exhaust gas
re-circulation (RNB/EGR) on a reheat furnace,
- demonstration project for lance burner technology;
and
o Evaluation of pollution control technology for the reheat
furnaces.
o Evaluation of "reasonable" alternatives. Some alternatives can
be eliminated at an early level of review as clearly failing
to meet threshold feasibility criteria (such as relocating a
facility outside of the target market instead of using a
different site within the target market). The "reasonable"
alternatives will be evaluated more closely for economic
feasibility, technical feasibility, operational performance,
operational feasibility and environmental performance.
The DfE analysis will also take into account other potential "critical control
points" of significant emission in the meltshop. Activities to be reviewed
include release points of the following component operations of the meltshop.
Not all of these points will exist in any given meltshop
-2-
design. The DfE analysis will examine only those that are applicable to the
particular design.
o EAF and applicable operations (slagging, tapping, melting,
charging)
o Charge bucket
o AOD
o Ladle preheat & drying
o Tundish preheat & drying
o Alloy trimming station
o Ladle Metallurgy Furnace (LMF)
o Vertical holding stations
o Refractory related emissions
>> tundish , ladle & EAF tearout
>> tundish, ladle & EAF rebrick
o Pour backs
o Emergency conditions such as wash/breakouts (furnace, caster,
ladle)
o Shop Fugitives
o Ladle scraping/dumping
o Nozzle lancing
o Miscellaneous torches
o Miscellaneous natural gas comfort heating
o Medical waste/contraband burning/baghouse bags
o Personal Protective Equipment (PPE), grinding swarf, Cutting
Emissions
Points of release to the environment from meltshop operations will also
be evaluated for other potentially significant environmental impacts, such as
discharges to water, disposition to land, and other sources of waste generation
and other potential impacts.
The results of the DfE analysis will recorded in a document that
defines how the final decision was reached. The document will include the
original premise, the aspects that affected the environmental impacts, and the
alternatives that were identified and investigated as part of this process. The
criteria against which the alternatives were evaluated and final decision of
that process will also be recorded in this document.
The final stage of the DfE analysis of a new meltshop will include
implementation of the those findings and mitigation options that are appropriate
in light of the
-3-
analysis. Nucor will produce a report of the analysis, the alternatives
implemented and the impact of the implemented alternatives once that information
is attainable. Mitigation measures implemented through the DfE process will be
integrated with the EMS.
Steps in the DfE analysis, decision process, and coordination with the
Operate for Environment (OfE) program are set out in more detail in Attachment
14A.
-4-
Attachment 2
------------
Protocol for Piloting the Design and Operation of Selective
Noncatalytic Reduction (SNCR) on an Electric Arc Furnace
As required by this Consent Decree, Nucor will evaluate the use of
Selective Noncatalytic Reduction (SNCR) to reduce Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) emissions
from an electric arc furnace (EAF). This protocol sets forth the approach Nucor
will use to evaluate the effectiveness of SNCR. Any provisions of this protocol,
including schedule, may be modified by written agreement of the United States
and Nucor at any time.
A. Approach for Norfolk Facility
Before initiating any testing program, Nucor will submit a detailed
testing and monitoring plan to EPA for approval. The plan will include a
description of the test methods to be used, a discussion of test procedures, and
a description of sampling locations.
1. Feasibility Evaluation
Nucor and EPA will meet with SNCR vendors to determine the feasibility
of installing and operating an SNCR system on the Norfolk twin shell furnace.
Nucor will provide the vendors with information on the process and exhaust gas
characteristics of the Norfolk EAF. Because Nucor has only limited information
on the temperature profile of the exhaust gas, and this is a critical parameter
in the design of an SNCR system; Nucor will develop a temperature profile for
the EAF exhaust during this phase of the project. The temperature profile and
other exhaust gas parameters and characteristics will be used by the vendor to
develop a preliminary assessment of the estimated control efficiency for the
SNCR system, an estimated value for ammonia slip, and the estimated cost of
installing and operating the system. If Nucor and EPA agree, based on this
preliminary assessment, that SNCR is a feasible technology for pilot
installation and operation on an EAF, the vendor will provide a final design for
the SNCR system
2. Baseline Testing
Nucor shall use continuous emissions monitors (CEMS) to monitor and
record Carbon Monoxide (CO), NOx, Sulfur Oxides (SOx), Oxygen (O2), Carbon
Dioxide (CO2), ammonia, exhaust gas velocity, and temperature for a period of 30
days prior to
-1-
installing the SNCR system. Nucor will also periodically monitor the exhaust gas
moisture content.
3. Evaluation of SNCR Performance
After the SNCR system is operational, Nucor will begin testing to
determine the control efficiency achievable by SNCR. Nucor will use CEMS to
monitor and record CO, CO2, NOx, O2, Sox, velocity and temperature. Nucor will
also periodically monitor the exhaust gas moisture content. Because the
operation of a SNCR system has the potential to generate significant ammonia
emissions, Nucor will also use a CEM to monitor ammonia during this performance
evaluation period. If both EPA and Nucor agree that the data is representative
or cannot be repeated on a comparative basis, the SNCR test will be considered
complete.
4. Report to EPA
Nucor will prepare and submit to EPA a report that will include a
discussion of the SNCR system design, any problems encountered during SNCR
operation, the NOx control efficiency of the SNCR system, the impact of the SNCR
system on CO emissions, the impact of the SNCR system on ammonia emissions, and
the cost effectiveness of the SNCR system based on the final capital cost of the
system, the operating and maintenance costs of the system during testing, and
the control efficiency of the system. Nucor will evaluate these factors in
determining the success, as defined in the Consent Decree, of the SNCR pilot and
include a recommendation as to whether a second pilot study should be conducted.
Nucor will submit a copy of all electronic data to EPA with the report.
5. Schedule for Norfolk facility
Table 1 presents a schedule for the SNCR pilot study at the Norfolk
facility.
TABLE 1. SCHEDULE FOR SNCR PILOT STUDY AT NORFOLK
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACTIVITY PROJECTED DATA
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Feasibility Evaluation January 1 - March 15, 2001
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submit test plan March 15, 2000
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Baseline Testing May 15, 2001
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evaluation Testing November 15, 2001
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Report to EPA January 31, 2002
- -----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-2-
B. Second Pilot Study
If the SNCR system proves to be economically and technically feasible
based on the results at the Norfolk facility, Nucor will select a second
facility for piloting this technology. Prior to beginning the second pilot
study, Nucor will provide EPA with a brief report that summarizes the rationale
for selecting the second facility, presents an overview of the approach that
will be used for implementing the pilot study, and presents a proposed schedule
for the pilot.
Following completion of the second SNCR pilot study, Nucor will prepare
and submit to EPA a report that will include a discussion of the SNCR system
design, any problems encountered during the SNCR operation, the NOx control
efficiency of the SNCR system, the impact of the SNCR system on CO emissions,
the impact of the SNCR system on ammonia emissions, and the cost effectiveness
of the SNCR system. The report will also include Nucor's recommendation
concerning installation of the SNCR system at its remaining mills. This
recommendation will be based on an evaluation of the success of the SNCR systems
at the two pilot facilities. Nucor will also consider the economic and technical
feasibility of installing SNCR on each of its remaining mills. One option is
that Nucor will determine that SNCR may be economically and technically feasible
at some of their remaining mills but not at others. Facility specific factors
such as baseline emissions, temperature profiles, and ductwork configurations
could impact the economic and technical feasibility at any given facility. If
Nucor does not believe the SNCR pilot studies were successful, as defined by the
consent decree, then the report will also include an evaluation of other
potential alternatives for reducing NOx emissions at Nucor facilities.
-3-
Attachment 3
------------
Protocol for Lance Burner Installation
As required by this Consent Decree, Nucor will replace existing
oxyburners with lance burners on one of the electric arc furnaces (EAFs) located
at the Plymouth, Utah facility. This modification of the EAF is expected to
reduce Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) emissions. This protocol presents the approach Nucor
will use in evaluating the impact of lance burner technology on NOx and Carbon
Monoxide (CO) emissions. Any provisions of this protocol, including schedule,
may be modified by the written agreement of the United States and Nucor at any
time.
A. Approach for Utah Facility
Before initiating any test program, Nucor will submit a detailed test
plan to EPA for approval. The plan will include a description of the test
methods to be used, a discussion of the test procedures, and a description of
the sampling locations.
1. Baseline Testing
Because the Utah facility has two identical EAFs and the lance burners
will be installed only on one EAF initially, it is not necessary to conduct
baseline testing on the EAF to be modified before installing the lance burners.
The second EAF, on which lance burners will not be installed, will be operated
concurrently, and to the extent possible, using the same operating and process
variables as the lance burner EAF. Nucor will monitor NOx, Carbon Dioxide (CO2),
Oxygen (O2), and Oxygen (CO) emissions with continuous emissions monitors from
the unmodified EAF and use these results as the baseline for the modified EAF.
Nucor will also continuously monitor exhaust gas velocity and temperature and
periodically monitor exhaust gas moisture content.
2. Evaluation of Impact of Lance Burners
After the lance burners have been installed, Nucor will begin testing
to evaluate the impact of the lance burners on NOx and CO emissions. Nucor will
use a continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS) to monitor CO, NOx, CO2, O2,
Sulfur Oxides (SOx), exhaust gas velocity, and temperature for the
-1-
modified EAF exhaust gas. Nucor will also periodically monitor the exhaust gas
moisture content. If both EPA and Nucor agree that the data is representative or
cannot be repeated on a comparative basis, the lance burner test will be
considered complete.
3. Report to EPA
Nucor will prepare and submit to EPA a report that will include a
discussion of the lance burner design, any problems encountered while using the
lance burners, the impact of the lance burners on NOx and CO emissions, and the
cost effectiveness of the lance burners based on the capital cost of the burners
and associated modifications, the operating and maintenance costs of the system,
and the control efficiency of the system. Nucor will submit a copy of all
electronic data to EPA with the report.
The report will include Nucor's recommendation concerning installation
of lance burners at its remaining mills. This recommendation will be based on
the success, as defined in the consent decree, of the lance burner installation
at Utah. Nucor will also consider the economic and technical feasibility of
installing lance burners on all of its EAFs. One option is that Nucor may
determine that lance burners are economically and technically feasible for some
of its EAFs but not for others. EAF design, baseline NOx emission rates, or
other factors could impact the economic and technical feasibility for any given
EAF.
4. Schedule
Table 1 presents a schedule for the lance burner pilot study
at the Utah facility.
TABLE 1. SCHEDULE FOR LANCE BURNER PILOT STUDY
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACTIVITY PROJECTED DATE
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submit test plan to EPA March 15, 2001
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lance burner installation April 30, 2001
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evaluation test program June 30, 2001
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Report to EPA August 31, 2001
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-2-
Attachment 4
------------
Protocol for Evaluating Exhaust Gas Recirculation and Reduced Nox Burners on a
Reheat Furnace
As required by this Consent Decree, Nucor will evaluate the use of
exhaust gas recirculation and reduced NOx burners (EGR/RNB) on the new NN2
reheat furnace to be installed at their Norfolk facility. EGR/RNB is expected to
significantly reduce Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) emissions from reheat furnaces. This
protocol presents the approach Nucor will use for this pilot study. Any
provisions of this protocol, including schedule, may be modified by the written
agreement of the United States and Nucor at any time.
A. Approach for Norfolk Facility
Prior to initiating any testing program, Nucor will submit a detailed
testing and monitoring program to EPA for review and approval. The plan will
include a description of the test methods to be used, a discussion of test
procedures, and a description of the sampling locations.
1. Initial Testing
The NN2 reheat furnace is a new furnace that will be installed with EGR
and RNB. After installation and optimization of the furnace, Nucor will monitor
emissions from the furnace for a period of 5 days with the EGR system bypassed.
This will provide EPA with a NOx emissions value for the furnace when it is
operated with reduced NOx burners. During the test period, Nucor will monitor
and record NOx, Carbon Monoxide (CO), Carbon Dioxide (CO2), Oxygen (O2), and
Sulfur Dioxide (SO2) emissions from the furnace. Nucor will also determine the
exhaust gas temperature, velocity of the furnace exhaust gas, the molecular
weight of the exhaust gas, and the moisture content of the exhaust gas in
accordance with EPA methods 2, 3A, and 4.
2. Evaluation of EGR/RNB
After the initial testing period, Nucor will begin evaluating the
impact of the EGR/RNB system on NOx emissions. Nucor will use continuous
emissions monitors to monitor and NOx, CO, CO2, O2, and Sulfur Oxide (SOx)
emissions from the furnace. Nucor will monitor emissions at the maximum exhaust
-1-
gas flow rate for the furnace, an intermediate flow rate, and the minimum flow
rate of the furnace. This will allow Nucor to determine the effectiveness of the
EGR/RNB system under a range of operating conditions. Nucor will also determine
the exhaust gas temperature, the velocity of the furnace exhaust gas, the
molecular weight of the exhaust gas, and the moisture of the exhaust gas in
accordance with EPA methods 2, 3A, and 4.
3. Report to EPA
Nucor will prepare a report for EPA that will include the results of
the evaluation test program, any problems encountered in operating the furnace
that might be associated with the EGR/RNB system, and the cost effectiveness of
the EGR/RNB system based on the results of the evaluation test, the capital cost
of the system, and actual operation and maintenance costs of the system. Nucor
will submit a copy of all electronic data with the report.
4. Schedule
Table 1 presents the schedule for the EGR/RNB pilot study at
the Norfolk facility.
TABLE 1. SCHEDULE FOR EGR/RNB PILOT STUDY AT NORFOLK
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACTIVITY PROJECTED DATE
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Begin Installation of reheat furnace 3 months after permit issuance
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submit test plan to EPA 30 days before testing begins
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evaluation testing of EGR/RNB system 45 days after full operation commences
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Report to EPA 60 days after testing completed
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-2-
B. Evaluation of Control Technologies for Other Nucor Reheat Furnaces
Nucor has committed to installing either EGR/RNB or selective catalytic
reduction (SCR) on its remaining reheat furnaces. In conjunction with the
EGR/RNB pilot study at the Norfolk facility, Nucor is also conducting a SCR
pilot study on a reheat furnace at its facility located in Darlington, South
Carolina and on another reheat furnace to be identified later. At the conclusion
of these pilot studies, Nucor will prepare a report for EPA that presents a
comparison of these two technologies. The comparison will include an analysis of
the NOx control efficiency of each technology, the cost effectiveness of each
technology, and an analysis of other environmental and energy impacts associated
with each technology.
Nucor will include in the report a discussion of the factors that
should be considered in selecting the most appropriate technology for a given
furnace. These factors are expected to include furnace design, burner design,
baseline NOx emissions, configuration of the rolling mill, and the relative
amounts of time the furnace is operated at maximum and minimum flow rates.
-3-
Attachment 5
------------
Protocol for Evaluating Selective Catalytic Reduction on a Reheat Furnace
As required by the Consent Decree, Nucor will evaluate the use of
selective catalytic reduction (SCR) on a new reheat furnace to be installed at
its Darlington, South Carolina facility. SCR is expected to significantly reduce
NOx emissions from reheat furnaces. This protocol presents the approach Nucor
will use for this pilot study. Any provisions of this protocol, including
schedule, may be modified by agreement of the United States and Nucor at any
time.
A. Approach for Darlington Facility
Prior to initiating any testing program, Nucor will prepare and submit
to EPA for approval a detailed testing and monitoring plan. The plan will
include a description of the test methods to be used, a discussion of test
procedures, and a description of sampling locations.
1. Design and Installation of SCR System
Nucor will meet with SCR vendors to discuss the design of the SCR
system. Nucor will provide the vendors with specifications for the Darlington
reheat furnace, including exhaust gas flow rates, exhaust gas temperatures, and
predicted exhaust gas Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) concentrations. Nucor will develop a
request for quotation that will include a design for the SCR system, a price
quote for the system, guaranteed NOx removal efficiencies, and guaranteed
ammonia slip values.
Nucor will select the final design of the SCR system and the SCR system
vendor. Nucor will work with the vendor to install the SCR system. Nucor will
then operate the reheat furnace with the SCR system for sufficient period of
time to optimize the reheat furnace operation and SCR system performance.
2. Baseline Testing
After optimizing the furnace, Nucor will conduct baseline testing of
the reheat furnace. During the baseline test, the SCR system will not be
operational. Nucor will monitor and
-1-
record NOx, Carbon Monoxide (CO), Oxygen (O2), Carbon Dioxide (CO2), and Sulfur
Oxide (SOx) emissions from the furnace for a period of 5 days for the baseline
test. Nucor will also determine gas temperature, the velocity of the exhaust
gas, the molecular weight of the exhaust gas, and the moisture content of the
exhaust gas in accordance with EPA methods 2, 3A, and 4.
3. Evaluation of SCR System
Following the baseline testing, Nucor will begin evaluating the impact
of the SCR system on NOx emissions. Nucor will use continuous emission monitors
to monitor and record NOx, CO, O2, CO2, and SOx emissions. Nucor will also use a
CEMS to monitor ammonia emissions. Nucor will monitor emissions at the maximum
exhaust gas flow rate for the furnace, at an intermediate flow rate, and at the
minimum flow rate for the furnace. This will allow Nucor to determine the
effectiveness of the SCR system under a range of operating conditions. Nucor
will also determine the exhaust gas temperature, velocity of the furnace exhaust
gas, the molecular weight of the exhaust gas, and the moisture content of the
exhaust gas in accordance with EPA methods 2, 3A, and 4. If both Nucor and EPA
agree that the data is representative or cannot be repeated on a comparative
basis, the specific test will be considered complete.
4. Report to EPA
Nucor will prepare a report for EPA that will include the results of
the evaluation test program, any problems encountered in operating the furnace
that might be associated with the SCR system, and the cost effectiveness of the
SCR system based on the results of the evaluation test, the capital cost of the
system, and actual operation and maintenance costs of the system. Nucor will
submit a copy of all electronic data to EPA with the report.
5. Schedule
Table 1 presents the schedule for the SCR pilot study at the
Darlington facility.
-2-
TABLE 1. SCHEDULE FOR SCR PILOT STUDY AT DARLINGTON
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ACTIVITY PROJECTED DATE
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Design of reheat furnace 6 months after permit approval
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Fabrication of reheat furnace 18 months after permit approval
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Installation of reheat furnace 24 months after permit approval
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Submit test plan to EPA At least 30 days before testing begins
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Evaluation testing of SCR 45 days after full operation commences
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Report to EPA 60 days after testing completed
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
B. Second Pilot Study
If Nucor and EPA agree that SCR is economically and technically
feasible based on the pilot study at Darlington, Nucor will conduct a second SCR
pilot study on an existing reheat furnace. Nucor will include a recommendation
for the site for the second pilot study in its report to EPA on the Darlington
pilot study. Nucor will also include a schedule for implementing the second
pilot study in the report.
C. Evaluation of Control Technologies for Other Nucor Reheat Furnaces
Nucor has committed to installing either exhaust gas recirculation with
reduced NOx burners (EGR/RNB) or SCR on their remaining reheat furnaces. In
conjunction with the SCR
-3-
pilot study at the Darlington facility and on a second reheat furnace, Nucor is
also conducting an EGR/RNB pilot study on a reheat furnace at its facility
located in Norfolk, Nebraska. At the conclusion of these pilot studies, Nucor
will prepare a report for EPA that presents a comparison of the two
technologies. The comparison will include an analysis of the NOx control
efficiency of each technology, the cost effectiveness of each technology, and an
analysis of other environmental and energy impacts associated with each
technology.
Nucor will include in the report a discussion of the factors that
should be considered in selecting the most appropriate technology for a given
furnace. These factors are expected to include furnace design, burner design,
baseline NOx emissions, configuration of the rolling mill, and the relative
amounts of time the furnace is operated at maximum and minimum flow rates.
-4-
Attachment 6
------------
Protocol for Establishing Emission Limits for Electric Arc
Furnaces and Heat Furnaces
As required by this Consent Decree, Nucor will be implementing process
modifications and/or installing selective noncatalytic reduction (SNCR) on its
electric arc furnaces (EAFs) to reduce Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) emissions. Nucor
will also be installing selective catalytic reduction (SCR) or exhaust gas
recirculation with reduced NOx burners (EGR/RNB) on its reheat furnaces to
reduce NOx emissions. It is anticipated that these technologies will result in
lower NOx emission limits for these sources. This protocol presents the approach
for determining those emission limits after implementation of the applicable
technologies. Any provisions of this protocol, including schedule, may be
modified by written agreement of the United States and Nucor at any time.
A. Establishing Emission Limits for Electric Arc Furnaces
Following implementation of the process modifications and/or
installation of Selective Noncatalytic Reduction (SNCR) at the facility, Nucor
will establish an appropriate NOx emission limit for the EAFs. Nucor will
monitor NOx emissions with a continuous emission monitor for a period of at
least 90 days after the evaluation testing programs (see Attachments 1 and 2)
have been completed. At the end of this 90 day period, Nucor may petition EPA to
extend the monitoring period if the facility does not believe it has collected
sufficient data to establish an emission limit that is representative of the
facility's operations.
Following the completion of the monitoring period, Nucor will submit a
proposed NOx emission limit to EPA for review. Nucor will also submit supporting
data and calculations, including a copy of all electronic data. Following EPA
and Nucor agreement on the emission limit, Nucor will submit a permit
application to the appropriate agency with the proposed emission limit.
B. Establishing Emission Limits for Reheat Furnaces
Following installation of SCR or EGR/RNB on a reheat furnace, Nucor
will establish an appropriate emission limit for that furnace. Nucor will
monitor NOx emissions with a
-1-
continuous emissions monitor for a period of at
least 10 days after the evaluation test programs (see Attachments 4 and 5) have
been completed. At the end of this 10 day period, Nucor may petition EPA to
extend the monitoring period if the facility does not believe they have
collected sufficient data to establish an emission limit that is representative
of the facility's operations.
During this monitoring period, Nucor will also monitor all furnace and
control technology parameters to identify those parameters that may be used in a
parametric monitoring program for compliance demonstration purposes.
Following the completion of the monitoring period, Nucor will submit a
proposed NOx emission limit to EPA for review. Nucor will also submit supporting
data, including a copy of all electronic data, and calculations. Nucor will also
include a parametric monitoring proposal based on the information collected
during the monitoring period. Following EPA and Nucor agreement upon the
emission limit, Nucor will submit a permit application to the appropriate agency
with the proposed emission limit.
-2-
Attachment 7
------------
Protocol for Piloting Continuous Emissions
Monitoring System
As required by this Consent Decree, Nucor will install a continuous
emissions monitoring system (CEMS) at each of its steel production facilities.
Nucor has agreed to install CEMS as a supplemental environmental project and as
part of its Clean Air Act Compliance Program. The first CEMS installation will
be at Nucor's facility located in Norfolk, Nebraska. This protocol presents
Nucor's proposed approach for the CEMS installation at Norfolk. Any provisions
of this protocol, including schedule, may be modified by the written agreement
of the United States and Nucor at any time.
A. Norfolk System Design and Operation
Nucor will undertake a pilot study of a continuous emissions monitoring
system for significant and appropriate emission parameters, to include Nitrogen
Oxides (NOx), Carbon Monoxide (CO), Sulfur Oxides (SOx), Oxygen (O2), and
velocity at the Norfolk electric arc furnace (EAF). The CEMS will be designed to
meet the performance specifications included in Appendix B of 40 CFR 60. The
system will be operated in accordance with the quality assurance and quality
control specifications presented in Appendix F of 40 CFR 60.
B. Report to EPA
Following installation and operation of the CEMS at the Norfolk
facility, Nucor will prepare and submit to EPA a report summarizing the issues
encountered in designing, installing and operating the CEMS. The report will
include a discussion of the Norfolk CEMS design, the cost of installing and
operating the CEMS, and problems encountered in installing and operating the
CEMS. The report will also include a proposed approach for designing and
installing CEMS for the remaining Nucor steel mills. Because of differences in
EAF designs, ductwork configurations, and baghouse designs, each CEMS
installation is expected to be unique to a given facility. The report will also
include a schedule for installation of CEMS at the remaining mills.
-1-
C. Schedule
Table 1 presents the schedule for the Norfolk facility.
TABLE 1. SCHEDULE FOR CEMS INSTALLATION AT NORFOLK
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Activity Projected Date
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Complete preliminary design of CEMS April 15, 2001
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CEMS Installation Complete August 30, 2001
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
CEMS Troubleshooting and Optimization March 15, 2002
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Report to EPA May 1, 2002
- --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-2-
Attachment 8
------------
Suggested Testing Protocol for Establishing Baseline
Values Required by NSPS Subpart AAa1
This protocol outlines the specific requirements that should be met
when Nucor establishes baseline values as required by New Source Performance
Standards (NSPS), Subpart AA, 40 C.F.R. ss. 60.274 and NSPS Subpart AAa, 40
C.F.R. ss. 60.274a. The requirements for testing herein are not meant to be
all-inclusive, and do not relieve Nucor of its obligations to consult the
regulations and to comply with any provision applicable to the facility:
(1) Nucor must furnish EPA with a written report of the performance testing
to determine compliance with the particulate matter standards in ss.
60.272a(a)(1). The report must contain the information which is
specified in ss. 60.276a(f). The information which is specified in ss.
60.276a(f)(6) is also specified in ss. 60.274a(h);
(2) Nucor must submit the information for furnace static pressure and
volumetric flow rate which is specified in ss. 60.275a(f). This
information must be obtained during the particulate matter runs. If the
Reference Method 9 observations for shop opacity are used to determine
compliance with the standard in ss. 60.272a(a)(3) during the
particulate matter runs, this information must be submitted for the
periods of observation of the shop opacity;
(3) Nucor must conduct three (3) runs to determine compliance with the
standard for particulate matter in ss. 60.272a(a)(1). Reference Method
5D, a sampling time of at least four (4) hours per run, and a sample
volume of at least 160 dscf, are specified in ss. 60.275(e)(1).;
(4) The minimum total time for visible emission ("VE") observations is
three (3) hours (thirty (30, six (6)-minute-averages). Pursuant to ss.
60.275a(e)(4), test runs shall be conducted concurrently to demonstrate
compliance with ss. 60.272a(a)(1), (2), and (3), unless
- ----------
1 Facilities subject to NSPS, Subpart AA, should cross check monitoring
requirements with 40 C.F.R. 60.274.
-1-
inclement weather interferes. Therefore, VE observations using
Reference Method 9 to determine compliance of the melt shop emissions
with the opacity standard in ss. 60.272a(a)(3) and the control device
emissions with the opacity standard in ss. 60.272a(a)(2) should be
conducted for a minimum of three (3), sixty (60)-minute observation
periods;
(5) Nucor should record a fifteen (15)-minute average and establish a
baseline for fifteen (15)-minute averages for furnace static pressure
if meltshop opacity observations are not recorded in accordance with
60.272a(a)(3); and
(6) If the volumetric flow rates are recorded by Continuous Emission Rate
Monitoring Systems (CERMS), paragraph (h) of ss. 60.13 of NSPS Subpart
A, requires that the CERMS flow data must be reduced to 1-hour
averages. An averaging time for the baseline value for flow through
each separately ducted hood is not specified in NSPS Subpart AAa. As
such, compliance with standard for shop opacity in ss. 60.272a(a)(3) is
determined by a six (6)-minute average; whereas a one (1)-hour average
is specified for the CERMS flow data in ss. 60.13(h). Therefore, each
baseline value for the CERMS flow should be an 1-hour average. Each
baseline value for CERMS flow should be established at a value which is
less than the average reference method flow during the three (3) runs
of the compliance tests for particulate matter. Nucor can, perhaps, use
the data from relative accuracy tests to determine and justify the
amount by which the baseline value for CERMS flow should be less than
the average reference method flow during the compliance tests.
(7) Before conducting the tests. Nucor should review with its contractor
performing the tests the procedure for calculating isokinetic variation
for Reference Method 5D. EPA can not accept results for particulate
matter testing, and consequently the baseline values for furnace static
pressure and volumetric flow rate, if the correctly calculated
isokinetic variation is not within the specified range of 90% to 110%.
-2-
Attachment 9
[RESERVED]
Attachment 10
-------------
STATEMENT OF WORK FOR A RCRA FACILITY ASSESSMENT
I. PURPOSE
A. Purpose - The purpose of the RCRA Facility Assessment (RFA) is to
compile existing information and to fill in any data gaps to determine
whether past or present handling, storage, treatment, transportation or
disposal of any solid waste and/or hazardous waste could result or may
have resulted in releases to media that have the potential to threaten
human health and/or the environment.
B. Scope - the RFA consists of the following Tasks:
1. RFA Workplan
2. Preliminary Assessment Report
3. Sampling Visit
4. RFA Report
II. RFA WORKPLAN - The RFA Workplan shall contain the following elements:
A. Introduction/Purpose:
The RFA is the first step in the corrective action program.
The purpose of the RFA is to obtain facility-specific
information as follows:
1. Identify and gather information on releases or
potential releases from the facility;
2. Evaluate and identify regulated units, Solid Waste
Management Units (SWMUs), and other Areas of Concern
(AOCs) for releases to all media;
3. Make preliminary determinations regarding potential
or known releases of concern and the need for further
actions and interim measures at the facility; and
-1-
4. Screen from further investigation those regulated
units and SWMUs which do not pose a threat to human
health or the environment.
B. Plan for Conducting the Preliminary Review:
1. In conducting a Preliminary Review (PR), the
Respondent shall collect all pertinent information
regarding the facility from at least the following
State and EPA programs:
a. RCRA
b. Superfund
c. Air
d. TSCA
e. Water
2. It will be necessary to make prior arrangements with
each agency to review files, if any, for the
facility. In general, at least one (1) week's notice
is usually required in order to make the necessary
arrangements with staff to ensure that all files
that may be under staff review are returned to the
file area. It is the Respondent's responsibility to
ensure that all necessary arrangements are made with
the appropriate file clerk for each entity to review
the aforementioned files.
3. Information shall also be collected from the United
States Geological Survey (USGS).
4. Information shall also be collected from the US Fish
and Wildlife and State wildlife offices in regard to
the Endangered Species Act.
C. During the PR, the Respondent shall determine to the extent
possible:
1. All known or possible SWMUs and identify them
regardless of whether the SWMUs (old, new or
-2-
existing) at the facility are currently, had been,
or may be releasing hazardous constituents to the
environment;
2. Whether or not there are SWMUs (old, new or
existing) at the facility that are or may be
releasing hazardous constituents to the environment
including the extent of those releases;
3. The need for immediate corrective measures and the
status of any prior corrective measures at this
facility;
4. The focus of additional site investigation if
needed;
5. The identification of wells within one mile of the
facility and any information on these wells
including depth, date of construction, type and
purpose of construction and any analytical data;
and,
6. The need for a health assessment both on-site and
off-site.
D. Plan for Conducting the Visual Site Inspection:
The Respondent shall perform a Visual Site Inspection (VSI) to
verify existing SWMUs/AOCs and to observe and document any
additional SWMUs/AOCs and/or releases. The purpose of the VSI
is to:
1. Identify all SWMUs/AOCs that pose no problem to
human health or the environment;
2. Identify all SWMUs/AOCs which may present a threat
to human health or the environment;
3. Gather evidence of releases sufficient to compel the
owner/operator to conduct additional investigation;
4. Prioritize SWMUs/AOCs for further investigation; and
-3-
5. Identify the scope of subsequent investigations or,
if needed, immediate corrective actions.
The Respondent shall coordinate the VSI agenda with the Project
Coordinator at least thirty (30) days before performing the VSI. The
VSI shall be conducted in accordance with Chapters Three and Five
through Nine of the RFA Guidance.
E. Plan for Conducting the Sampling Visit.
If there are data gaps where a release cannot be determined, the
Respondent shall develop and submit to the Project Coordinator a
site-specific Sampling Plan for the Sampling Visit (SV). Upon approval
of the Sampling Plan, Respondent shall implement the plan.
III. Preliminary Assessment (PA) Report - Upon completion of the PR and VSI
the Respondent shall develop a Preliminary Assessment (PA) report
incorporating the results of the PR and VSI efforts. The PA report
shall contain all items set forth in the RFA Guidance including, but
not limited to, the completed attached checklist, a detailed map of the
facility with all well locations, list of all SWMUs and AOCs
(regardless of release potential), description of each well (if known),
photographic log, photographs, site geology, etc. The PA Report will
make recommendations as to whether or not additional sampling is
necessary to confirm or deny the release of any hazardous waste or
hazardous constituents from any particular SWMU at the facility. In
developing the PA Report, the Respondent shall provide strong
supportable evidence for a decision either for or against additional
sampling to fill data gaps at the facility. The PA Report shall include
the following:
A. All existing data that is pertinent to accomplishing the
objective of identifying all potential existing and closed
solid waste management units(SWMUs), areas of concern (AOCs)
and releases.
B. The data collected during the PR, including, at a minimum:
-4-
1. The former and current land use(s) within the
facility boundaries and adjacent to the facility;
2. The former and current owner(s) and/or operator(s);
3. Former and current activities conducted, products
produced, and processes conducted on-site;
4. Types and quantities of hazardous substances used
on- site (sources of this information include
manifests, inspections, MSDS, etc.);
5. Types and quantities of hazardous wastes generated
at the facility;
6. Former and current waste handling and disposal
practices;
7. The location of all past and present SWMUs at the
facility, their dates of operation, wastes managed
in each SWMU, construction details, and actual or
potential releases of hazardous waste or hazardous
constituents from each SWMU; The description of each
SWMU and AOC in the PA Report shall include, but not
be limited to:
a. Name of SWMU or AOC;
b. Description of SWMU/AOC (including the
location, construction details, physical
description, etc.);
c. Start-up and closure dates of operation;
d. Waste managed;
e. Release controls;
f. Release history; and
g. Photographs (including any in existence
prior to the VSI).
-5-
8. The location of all releases or potential releases of
hazardous waste or hazardous constituents from AOCs,
the date of release, and the volume of material
released;
9. Status and types of permits obtained by the facility;
10. Any existing analytical data for all media (soil,
sediment, groundwater, air, surface water, and
subsurface gas);
11. Any wells at the facility;
12. Depth to groundwater and direction of groundwater
flow at the facility;
13. Identification and a description of all wells within
a one (1)-mile radius of the facility boundaries. The
description of each well shall include the depth of
the well, the date of construction, the type and
purpose of construction, and presentation of any
analytical data obtained from each well;
14. The uses of groundwater within a one (1)-mile radius
of the facility boundaries;
15. The nearest downgradient surface water body;
16. Direction of surface water flow at the facility and
uses of surface water within five (5) downgradient
miles of the facility;
17. Endangered, threatened, or migratory species and
critical habitats found in the area of the facility;
18. Predominant wind direction; and
19. Location of nearest residences, schools, and any
sensitive populations.
-6-
The Project Coordinator will review the PA report and its
recommendations. If supportable data of any release at the
facility exists and leaves no data gaps, then upon the Project
Coordinator's approval of the PA report, the Respondent shall
proceed to develop the final RFA report including the
incorporation of any Project Coordinator comments on the PA
Report. If there are data gaps, then Respondent shall conduct
a Sampling Visit (SV). Respondent must submit to the Project
Coordinator for review and approval a Sampling Plan before
conducting the SV.
IV. Sampling Plan - Respondent shall submit to the Project Coordinator a
draft site-specific Sampling Plan as described in Chapter Four of the
RFA Guidance. The Sampling Plan shall include a QAPP prepared in
accordance with EPA guidance. Respondent shall conduct the Sampling
Visit in accordance with the approved Sampling Plan and Chapter Four
through Nine of the RFA Guidance. Respondent shall coordinate the visit
with the Project Coordinator at least thirty (30) days prior to the
date of the SV.
V. RFA Report - Respondent shall submit to the Project Coordinator a draft
RFA Report incorporating the PR, VSI, and results of the SV. Respondent
shall include, as appendices to the draft report, any supporting
materials including, but not limited to, checklists, field notes,
forms, letters, data, etc. The draft RFA report should be substituted
for the PA report if no SV is conducted.
-7-
CHECKLIST AND SIGNATURE PAGE
_____ Completed in accordance with EPA Guidance
_____ Aerial photographs reviewed and information from them is incorporated
into the submittal
_____ Historical operations and waste management practices investigated and
incorporated into the submittal
_____ Summary/Table of Regulatory History that supports evidence of a release
or potential release
_____ Figure illustrating surrounding land use
_____ Figure identifying each SWMU/AOC
_____ Figure illustrating surface water flow on- and off-site
_____ Figure illustrating groundwater flow direction
_____ Depth of groundwater stated
_____ Public and private wells identified within a one-mile radius of the
facility
_____ Groundwater use within a one-mile radius of the facility
_____ SWMU/AOC summary table
_____ All statements, ideas, and recommendations substantiated with
references
_____ Summary table of groundwater analytical data
_____ Summary table of soil analytical data including background analytical
data
_____ Figure identifying sampling locations and sample identification numbers
-8-
Attachment 11
-------------
SCOPE OF WORK FOR A RCRA FACILITY INVESTIGATION (RFI)
I. PURPOSE
A. Purpose - The purpose of the RFI is to determine the nature
and extent of releases of hazardous waste or constituents from
regulated units, solid waste management units, and other
source areas such as areas of concern at the Facility and to
gather all necessary data to support the Corrective Measures
Study.
B. Scope - the RFI consists of the following tasks:
1. RFI Workplan
2. Facility Investigation
3. Facility Investigation Analysis and RFI Report
4. Laboratory and Bench-Scale Studies
5. Periodic Reports
II. RFI Workplan - The RFI Workplan(s) shall include the following:
A. Project Management Plan - The Project Management Plan shall
include a discussion of the technical approach, schedules,
budget, and personnel. The Project Management Plan shall also
include a description of qualifications of personnel
performing or directing the RFI, including contractor
personnel. This plan shall also document the overall
management approach to the RFI, and include a detailed
schedule for conducting the RFI.
B. Data Collection Quality Assurance Plan - The Data Collection
Quality Assurance Plan ("DCQAP") shall document all monitoring
procedures: sampling, field measurements and sample analysis
to be performed during the investigation to characterize the
environmental setting, source area(s), and contamination in
the source area(s), so as to ensure that all information and
data and resulting
-1-
decisions are technically sound, statistically valid, and
properly documented. A source area may consist of a single
SWMU or AOC; or a group of SWMUs and AOCs which are
investigated together due to their proximity, design or other
common characteristic.
1. Data Collection Strategy - The strategy section of
the Data Collection Quality Assurance Plan shall
include but not be limited to the following
a. Description of the data quality objectives
based upon the intended uses for the data,
and the necessary level of precision and
accuracy for these intended uses;
b. Description of methods and procedures to be
used to assess the precision, accuracy and
completeness of the measurement data;
c. Description of the rationale used to assure
that the data accurately and precisely
represent a characteristic of a population,
parameter variations at a sampling point, a
process condition or an environmental
condition. Examples of factors which shall
be considered and discussed include:
(i) Environmental conditions at the
time of sampling;
(ii) Number of sampling points;
(iii) Representativeness of selected
media; and
(iv) Representativeness of selected
analytical parameters.
d. Description of the locations, including
their depiction on Facility map(s), of the
sampling points. Include in the description
any physical features that support the
proposed sampling point location.
-2-
e. Description of the measures to be taken to
assure that the following data sets
generated after the effective date of this
Order can be compared to each other:
(i) RFI data generated by the
Respondent over some time period;
(ii) RFI data generated by an outside
laboratory or consultant versus
data generated by the Respondent;
(iii) Data generated by multiple
consultants or laboratories; and
(iv) Data generated by an outside
consultant or laboratory over some
time period.
f. Details relating to the schedule and
information to be provided in quality
assurance reports. The reports should
include but not be limited to:
(i) Periodic assessment of measurement
data accuracy, precision, and
completeness;
(ii) Results of performance audits
(iii) Results of system audits;
(iv) Significant quality assurance
problems and recommended solutions;
and
(v) Resolutions of previously stated
problems.
g. Description of how the data will be
determined to have met the data quality
objectives in a, above.
-3-
2. Sampling - The sampling section of the Data
Collection Quality Assurance Plan shall discuss:
a. Selecting appropriate sampling locations,
depths, etc.;
b. Providing a statistically sufficient number
of sampling sites, such that a statistically
valid comparison can be made between
samples;
c. Measuring all necessary ancillary data;
d. Determining conditions under which sampling
should be conducted;
e. Determining which media are to be sampled
(e.g. groundwater, air, soil, sediment,
etc.);
f. Determining which parameters are to be
measured and where;
g. Selecting the frequency of sampling and
length of sampling period;
h. Selecting the types of sample (e.g.,
composites vs. grabs) and number of samples
to be collected;
i. Measures to be taken to prevent
contamination of the sampling equipment and
cross contamination between sampling points;
j. Documenting field sampling operations and
procedures, including:
(i) Documentation of procedures for
preparation of reagents or supplies
which become an integral part of
the sample (e.g., filters, and
adsorbing reagents);
(ii) Procedures and forms for recording
the exact location and specific
considerations associated with
sample acquisition;
-4-
(iii) Documentation of specific sample
preservation methods;
(iv) Calibration of field devices;
(v) Collection of replicate samples
(vi) Submission of field -biased blanks,
where appropriate;
(vii) Potential interferences present at
the Facility;
(viii) Construction materials and
techniques, associated with
monitoring wells and piezometers;
(ix) Field equipment listing and sample
containers;
(x) Sampling order; and
(xi) Decontamination procedures.
k. Selecting appropriate sample containers;
l. Sample preservation; and
m. Chain-of-custody, including:
(i) Standardized field tracking and
reporting forms to establish sample
custody in the field prior to and
during shipment; and
(ii) Pre -prepared forms containing
information necessary for effective
sample tracking.
3. Field Measurements - The Field Measurements section
of the Data Collection Quality Assurance Plan shall
discuss:
a. Selecting appropriate field measurement
locations, depths, etc.;
-5-
b. Providing a statistically sufficient number
of field measurements;
c. Measuring all necessary ancillary data;
d. Determining conditions under which field
measurements should be conducted;
e. Determining which media are to be addressed
by appropriate field measurements (e.g.,
groundwater, soil, sediment, etc.);
f. Determining which parameters are to be
measured and where;
g. Selecting the frequency of field
measurements and length of field measurement
period; and
h. Documenting field measurement operations and
procedures, including:
(i) Procedures and forms for recording
raw data and the exact location,
time, and facility-specific
considerations associated with the
data acquisition
(ii) Calibration of field devices;
(iii) Collection of replicate
measurements;
(iv) Submission of field -biased blanks,
where appropriate;
(v) Potential interferences present at
the Facility;
(vi) Construction materials and
techniques associated with
monitoring wells and piezometers
used to collect field data;
(vii) Field equipment listing;
-6-
(viii) Order in which field measurements
were made; and
(ix) Decontamination procedures.
4. Sample Analysis - The Sample Analysis section of the
Data Collection Quality Assurance Plan shall specify
the following:
a. Chain-of-custody procedures, including:
(i) Definition of a responsible party
to act as sample custodian at the
laboratory facility authorized to
sign for incoming field samples,
obtain documents of shipments, and
verify the data entered onto the
sample custody records;
(ii) Provision for a laboratory sample
custody log consisting of serially
numbered standard lab -tracking
report sheets; and
(iii) Specification of laboratory sample
custody procedures for sample
handling, storage, and dispersion
for analysis.
b. Sample storage procedures and storage times;
c. Sample preparation methods;
d. Analytical procedures, including:
(i) Scope and application of the
procedure;
(ii) Sample matrix;
(iii) Potential interferences;
(iv) Precision and accuracy of the
methodology; and
-7-
(v) Method detection limits.
e. Calibration procedures and frequency;
f. Data reduction, validation and reporting;
g. Internal quality control checks, laboratory
performance and system audits and frequency,
including:
(i) Method blank(s);
(ii) Laboratory control sample(s);
(iii) Calibration check sample(s);
(iv) Replicate sample(s);
(v) Matrix-spiked sample(s);
(vi) "Blind" quality control sample(s);
(vii) Control charts;
(viii) Surrogate samples;
(ix) Zero and span gases;
(x) Reagent quality control checks;
(xi) Preventative maintenance procedures
and schedules;
(xii) Corrective action (for laboratory
problems); and
(xiii) Sample turnaround time
C. Data Management Plan - The Data Management Plan shall document
and track investigation data and results. This plan shall
identify and set up data documentation materials and
procedures, project file requirements, and project related
progress reporting procedures and documents. The plan shall
also provide the format to be used to present the raw
-8-
data and conclusions of the investigation in the Facility
Investigation Analysis and RFI Report .
1. Data Record - The data record shall include the
following:
a. Unique sample or field measurement code;
b. Sampling or field measurement location and
sample or measurement type;
c. Sampling or field measurement raw data;
d. Laboratory analysis ID number;
e. Property or component measured; and
f. Results of analysis (e.g., concentration).
2. Tabular Displays - The following data shall be
presented in tabular displays:
a. Unsorted (raw) data;
b. Results for each medium, or for each
constituent monitored;
c. Data reduction for statistical analysis;
d. Sorting of data by potential stratification
factors (e.g., location, soil layer,
topography); and
e. Summary data.
3. Graphical Displays - The following data shall be
presented in geographical formats (e.g., bar graphs,
line graphs, area or plan maps, isopleth plots,
cross-sectional plots or transects, three
dimensional graphs, etc.);
a. Display sampling location and sampling
grids;
b. Indicate boundaries of sampling area and
areas where more data are required;
-9-
c. Display levels of contamination at each
sampling location;
d. Display geographical extent of
contamination;
e. Display contamination levels, averages, and
maxima;
f. Illustrate changes in concentration in
relation to distance from the source, time,
depth or other parameters; and
g. Indicate features affecting intramedia
transport and show potential receptors.
4. Previously generated data - Previously generated
data are not to be excluded from the RFI merely
because they were not collected using the procedures
and techniques described in the RFI Workplan.
However, the data management plan shall describe how
previously generated data will be evaluated against
the data quality objectives for the RFI and
qualified for the RFI report. The data management
plan shall also describe the documentation to be
included in the RFI report for such evaluation and
qualification of previously generated data.
D. Health and Safety Plan - The Respondent shall prepare a Health
and Safety Plan. The Health and Safety Plan is subject to
review and comment, but not approval, by EPA.
1. Major elements of the Health and Safety Plan shall
include:
a. Facility description including availability
of resources such as roads, water supply,
electricity and telephone service;
b. Description of the known hazards and
evaluation of the risks associated with the
incident and with each activity conducted;
-10-
c. A listing of key personnel and alternates
responsible for site safety, response
operations, and for protection of public
health;
d. Delineation of work areas;
e. Description of levels of protection to be
worn by personnel in work areas;
f. Establishment of procedures to control site
access;
g. Description of decontamination procedure for
personnel and equipment;
h. Establishment of site emergency procedures;
i. Emergency medical care for injuries and
toxicological problems;
j. Description of requirements for an
environmental surveillance program;
k. Routine and special training required for
responders; and
2. Establishment of procedures for protecting
workers from weather-related problems.
3. The facility Health and Safety Plan shall be
consistent with:
a. NIOSH Occupational Safety and Health
Guidance Manual for Hazardous Waste Site
Activities (1985);
b. EPA Order 1440.1 - Respiratory Protection;
c. EPA Order 1440.3 - Health and Safety
Requirements for Employees Engaged in Field
Activities;
d. Facility Contingency Plan;
e. EPA Standard Operating Safety Guide (1984);
-11-
f. OSHA regulations particularly in 29 CFR 1910
and 1926;
g. State and local regulations; and
h. Other EPA guidance as provided.
E. Community Relations Plan - The Respondent shall
prepare a plan for the dissemination of information
to the public regarding investigation activities and
results.
III. Facility Investigation - The Facility Investigation for the RFI shall
include those investigations necessary to: characterize the Facility
(Environmental Setting); define the source area(Source
Characterization); define the degree and extent of contamination in
source areas (Contamination Characterization); and identify actual or
potential receptors of source area contamination. A source area may
consist of a single SWMU or AOC; or a group of SWMUs and AOCs which are
investigated together due to their proximity, design or other common
characteristic. The investigations should result in data of adequate
technical quality to support the development and evaluation of a
corrective measure alternative or alternatives during the Corrective
Measures Study. All sampling and analyses shall be conducted in
accordance with the Data Collection Quality Assurance Plan. All
sampling locations shall be documented in a log and identified on a
detailed site map.
A. Environmental Setting - The Facility Investigation of RFI
shall collect information to supplement and verify existing
information on the environmental setting at the Facility and
characterize the following:
1. Hydrogeology - The RFI shall evaluate hydrogeologic
conditions at the Facility and provide the following
information:
a. A description of the regional and facility
specific geologic and hydrogeologic
characteristics affecting groundwater flow
beneath the Facility, including:
-12-
(i) Regional and facility specific
stratigraphy: description of strike
and dip, identification of
stratigraphic contacts;
(ii) Structural geology: description of
local and regional structural
features (e.g. folding, faulting,
tilting, jointing, etc.);
(iii) Depositional history;
(iv) Identification and characterization
of areas and amounts of recharge
and discharge;
(v) Regional and facility specific
ground water flow patterns; and
(vi) Characterize seasonal variations in
the ground water flow regime.
b. An analysis of any topographic features that
might influence the ground water flow
system.
c. Based on field data, test, and cores, a
representative and accurate classification
and description of the hydrogeologic units
which may be part of the migration pathways
at the Facility (i.e., the aquifers and any
intervening saturated and unsaturated
units), including:
(i) Hydraulic conductivity and porosity
(total and effective);
(ii) Lithology, grain size, sorting,
degree of cementation;
(iii) An interpretation of hydraulic
interconnections between saturated
zones; and
(iv) The attenuation capacity and
mechanisms of the natural earth
-13-
materials (i.e., ion exchange
capacity, organic carbon content,
mineral content, etc.).
d. Based on field studies and cores, structural
geology and hydrogeologic cross-sections
showing the extent (depth, thickness,
lateral extent) of hydrogeologic units which
may be part of the migration pathways
identifying:
(i) Sand and gravel deposits in
unconsolidated deposits;
(ii) Zones of fracturing or channeling
in consolidated or unconsolidated
deposits;
(iii) Zones of higher or lower
permeability that might direct and
restrict the flow of contaminants;
(iv) The uppermost aquifer: geologic
formation, group of formations, or
part of a formation capable of
yielding a significant amount of
ground water to wells or springs;
and
(v) Water-bearing zones above the first
confining layer that may serve as a
pathway for contaminant migration
including perched zones of
saturation.
e. Based on data obtained from groundwater
monitoring wells and piezometers installed
upgradient and downgradient of the potential
contaminant source, a representative
description of water level or fluid pressure
monitoring including:
(i) Water level contour and/or
potentiometric maps;
(ii) Hydrologic cross-sections showing
vertical gradients;
-14-
(iii) The flow system, including the
vertical and horizontal components
of flow; and
(iv) Any temporal changes in hydraulic
gradients, (e.g., seasonal
influences).
f. A description of man-made influences that
may affect the hydrogeology of the site,
identifying:
(i) Active and inactive local
water-supply and production wells
with an approximate schedule of
pumping; and
(ii) Man-made hydraulic structures
(pipelines, French drains, ditches,
unlined ponds, septic tanks, NPDES
outfalls, retention areas, etc.).
2. Soils - The RFI shall characterize the soil and rock
units above the water table in the vicinity of the
contaminant release(s). Such characterization may
include but not be limited to, the following
information:
a. SCS soil classification;
b. Surface soil distribution;
c. Soil profile, including ASTM classification
of soils;
d. Transects of soil stratigraphy;
e. Hydraulic conductivity (saturated and
unsaturated);
f. Relative permeability;
g. Bulk density;
h. Porosity;
i. Soil sorptive capacity;
-15-
j. Cation exchange capacity (CEC);
k. Soil organic content;
l. Soil pH;
m. Particle size and distribution;
n. Depth of water table;
o. Moisture content;
p. Effect of stratification on unsaturated
flow;
q. Infiltration;
r. Evapotranspiration;
s. Storage capacity;
t. Vertical flow rate; and
u. Mineral content.
3. Surface Water and Sediment - The RFI shall
characterize the surface water bodies in the
vicinity of the Facility. Such characterization
shall include, but not be limited to, the following
activities and information:
a. Description of the temporal and permanent
surface-water bodies including:
(i) For impoundments: location,
elevation, surface area, depth,
volume, freeboard, and purpose of
the impoundment.
(ii) For streams, ditches, drains,
swamps and channels: location,
elevation, flow, velocity, depth,
width, seasonal fluctuations, and
flooding tendencies (i.e., 100 year
event);
(iii) Drainage patterns; and
-16-
(iv) Evapotranspiration.
b. Description of the chemistry of the natural
surface water and sediments. This includes
determining the pH, total dissolved solids,
total suspended solids, biological oxygen
demand, alkalinity, conductivity, dissolved
oxygen profiles, nutrients, chemical oxygen
demand, total organic carbon, specific
contamination concentrations, etc.
c. Description of sediment characteristics
including:
(i) Deposition area;
(ii) Thickness profile; and
(iii) Physical and chemical parameters
(e.g., grain size, density, organic
carbon content, ion exchange
capacity, pH, etc.).
4. Air - The Facility Investigation of the RFI shall
characterize the climate in the vicinity of the
Facility. Such information shall include, but not be
limited to:
a. A description of the following parameters:
(i) Annual and monthly rainfall
averages;
(ii) Monthly temperature averages and
extremes;
(iii) Wind speed and direction;
(iv) Relative humidity/dew point;
(v) Atmospheric pressure;
(vi) Evaporation data;
(vii) Development of inversions; and
-17-
(viii) Climate extremes that have been
known to occur in the vicinity of
the Facility, including frequency
of occurrence.
B. Source Characterization - The Facility Investigation of the
RFI shall collect analytical data to adequately characterize
contamination from each source area for the wastes and the
areas where wastes have been placed, collected or removed
therein including: type; quantity; physical form; disposition;
and any facility characteristics which may affect their
release. A source area may consist of a single SWMU or AOC; or
a group of SWMUs and AOCs which are investigated together due
to their proximity, design or other common characteristic.
This shall include quantification of the following specific
characteristics, at each source area:
1. Source Area Characteristics:
a. Location of unit(s)/disposal(s) in the
source area;
b. Type of unit(s)/disposal(s) in the source
area;
c. Design features of unit(s)/disposal(s) in
the source area;
d. Operating practices (past and present)of
unit(s)/disposal(s) in the source area;
e. Period of operation of unit(s)/disposal(s)
in the source area;
f. Age of unit(s)/disposal(s) in the source
area;
g. General physical condition of
unit(s)/disposal(s) in the source area; and
h. Method used to close the unit(s)/disposal(s)
in the source area.
2. Waste Characteristics:
-18-
a. Type of waste placed in the
unit(s)/disposal(s) in the source area;
(i) Hazardous waste classification,
e.g. ignitable, corrosive, toxicity
characteristic (TCLP) listing;
(ii) Quantity of waste per unit or
disposal area; and
(iii) Chemical composition.
b. Physical and chemical characteristics;
(i) Physical form (solid, liquid, gas);
(ii) Physical description (e.g. powder,
oily sludge);
(iii) Temperature;
(iv) pH;
(v) General chemical class (e.g., acid,
base, solvent);
(vi) Molecular weight;
(vii) Density;
(viii) Boiling point;
(ix) Viscosity;
(x) Solubility in water;
(xi) Cohesiveness of the waste;
(xii) Vapor pressure; and
(xiii) Flash point.
c. Migration and dispersal characteristics of
the waste;
-19-
(i) Sorption;
(ii) Biodegrability, biotransformation;
(iii) Photodegradation rates;
(iv) Hydrolysis rates; and
(v) Chemical transformation,
particularly decomposition
products.
C. Contamination Characterization - The Facility Investigation of
the RFI shall collect analytical data on groundwater, soils,
surface water, and sediment contamination in the vicinity of
the Facility. This data shall be sufficient to define the
extent, origin, direction, and rate of movement of contaminant
plumes on-site and off-site. Data shall include time and
location of sampling, media sampled, concentrations found,
conditions during sampling, and the identity of the
individuals performing the sampling and analysis. The Facility
Investigation of the RFI shall address the following types of
contamination at the Facility:
1. Groundwater Contamination - A Groundwater
Investigation to characterize any plumes of
contamination at the Facility. This investigation at
a minimum will provide the following information:
a. A description of the horizontal and vertical
extent of any immiscible or dissolved
plume(s) originating from the Facility;
b. The horizontal and vertical direction of
contamination movement;
c. The velocity of contaminant movement;
d. The horizontal and vertical concentration
profiles of 40 C.F.R. Part 261, Appendix
VIII constituents in the plume(s) which are
reasonably expected to be present in any
hazardous waste or hazardous waste
-20-
constituents managed at the Facility. The
Appendix VIII constituents to be profiled
must include potential degradation products;
e. An evaluation of factors influencing the
plume movement; and
f. An extrapolation of future contaminant
movement.
2. Soil Contamination - An investigation to
characterize the contamination of soil and rock
units above the water table in the vicinity of the
contaminant release. The investigation shall provide
the following information:
a. A description of the horizontal and vertical
extent of contamination;
b. A description of contaminant and soil
chemical properties within the contaminant
source area and plume, including contaminant
concentration, solubility, speciation,
adsorption, leachability, exchange capacity,
biodegrability, hydrolysis, photolysis,
oxidation and other factors that might
affect contaminant migration and
transformation.
c. Specific contaminant concentrations;
d. The velocity and direction of contaminant
movement; and
e. An extrapolation of future contaminant
movement.
3. Surface Water and Sediment Contamination - An
investigation to characterize contamination in
surface water bodies in the area of the Facility
resulting from contaminant releases at the Facility.
The investigation shall include, but not be limited
to, the following information:
-21-
a. A description of the horizontal and vertical
extent of any immiscible or dissolved
plume(s) originating from the Facility, and
the extent of contamination in underlying
sediments;
b. The horizontal and vertical direction of
contaminant movement;
c. The contaminant velocity;
d. An evaluation of the physical, biological
and chemical factors influencing contaminant
movement;
e. An extrapolation of future contaminant
movement; and
f. A description of the chemistry of the
contaminated surface waters and sediments,
including pH, total dissolved solids,
specific contaminant concentrations, etc.
The Respondent shall document the procedures used in making the above
determinations.
D. Potential Receptors - The Facility Investigation of the RFI
shall collect data describing the human populations and
environmental systems that are susceptible to contaminant
exposure from the Facility. The following characteristics
shall be identified:
1. Current local uses and possible future uses of
ground-water:
a. Type of use (e.g., drinking water source,
municipal or residential, agricultural,
domestic/non-potable, and industrial); and
b. Location of groundwater users including
wells and discharge areas.
2. Current local uses and possible future uses of
surface waters draining the Facility:
-22-
a. Domestic and municipal (e.g., potable and
lawn/gardening watering);
b. Recreational (e.g., swimming, fishing);
c. Agricultural;
d. Industrial; and
e. Environmental (e.g., fish and wildlife
propagation).
3. Human use of or access to the Facility and adjacent
lands, including:
a. Recreation;
b. Hunting;
c. Residential;
d. Commercial; and
e. Zoning.
4. A brief description of the biota in surface water
bodies on, adjacent to, or affected by the Facility.
5. A brief description of the ecology overlying and
adjacent to the Facility.
6. A brief description of any endangered or threatened
species at or near the Facility.
7. A description of any endangered or threatened
species near the Facility.
IV. Facility Investigation Analysis and RFI Report ("RFI Report") - A RFI
Report shall be submitted for the facility. The RFI Report may be
submitted separately for one or more operable units. Each report
submitted shall include all information necessary to support the
determination of the nature and extent of releases of hazardous waste
or constituents from each source area and to support the Corrective
Measures Study for the
-23-
respective operable unit(s). A source area may consist of a single SWMU
or AOC; or a group of SWMUs and AOCs which are investigated together
due to their proximity, design or other common characteristic. The RFI
Report shall include analyses and summary of all facility
investigations and their results. The objective of this task shall be
to ensure that the investigation data are sufficient in quality (e.g.,
quality assurance procedures have been followed) and quantity to
describe the nature and extent of contamination in the source area(s),
the potential threat to human health and/or the environment from that
contamination, and to support the Corrective Measures Study.
The RFI Report shall contain a history and description of ownership and
operation, solid and hazardous waste generation, treatment, storage and
disposal activities at the Facility at each source area.
Specifically, it shall provide;
1. Approximate dates and periods of past product and
waste spills, identification of the materials
spilled, the amount spilled, the location where
spilled, and a description of the response actions
conducted (local, state, or federal response units
or private parties), including any inspection
reports or technical reports generated as a result
of the response; and
2. Maps depicting the following:
a. General geographic location;
b. Property lines, with the owners of all
adjacent property clearly indicated;
c. Topography (with a contour interval
sufficient to depict the following
features), and surface drainage depicting
all waterways, wetlands, floodplains,
recharge areas, water features, drainage
patterns, and surface-water containment
areas within a two mile radius of the
Facility;
-24-
d. All tanks, buildings, utilities, paved areas
and other physical and structural features
of the Facility, as well as easements and
rights-of-way held by persons other than
Respondent at the Facility;
e. All source areas investigated showing SWMUs
and AOCs including hazardous waste
management units used for treatment, storage
or disposal at the Facility, including both
those areas which are currently in use and
those used in the past;
f. All underground tanks and pipes at the
Facility used for product, water or waste,
including both those tanks and pipes which
are currently being used and those used in
the past;
g. Surrounding land uses (i.e., the manner in
which the land is currently being used, such
as whether the land is used for residential,
commercial, agricultural, recreational
purposes); and
h. The location of all production and
groundwater monitoring wells, municipal and
residential groundwater wells within a two
mile radius of the Facility. The location of
all such wells shall be clearly identified
on the map and information provided as to
the elevations of the ground level at the
well and the top of the casing. All maps
shall be of consistent scale and include the
following:
(i) map scale and date;
(ii) surface water, including
intermittent streams;
(iii) orientation of map (north arrow);
(iv) legal boundaries of the hazardous
waste management facility;
-25-
(v) access control (fences, gates); and
(vi) location of operations units within
the hazardous waste management
facility site, where hazardous
waste is (or will be) treated,
stored or disposed (including
equipment cleanup areas). All maps
will be of sufficient detail and
accuracy to locate and report all
current and future work performed
at the Facility.
B. Data Analysis - The RFI Report shall include an analysis of
all facility investigation data to document the type and
extent, both horizontal and vertical, of contamination in
environmental media from each source area at the Facility
including any identifiable hot spots or sources of
contamination and their migration pathways. A source area may
consist of a single SWMU or AOC; or a group of SWMUs and AOCs
which are investigated together due to their proximity, design
or other common characteristic. The RFI Report shall include a
description of the extent of contamination
(qualitative/quantitative) in relation to background levels
indicative of the area where the facility is located, as well
as indicate the level of certainty of its conclusions. The RFI
Report shall include the following graphical data
presentations (e.g., bar graphs, line graphs, area or plan
maps, isopleth plots, cross -sectional plots or transects,
three dimensional graphs, etc.). The RFI Report shall include
an analysis of all data included to determine the rate and
extent of contaminants meets the data quality objectives of
the RFI. The RFI Report shall include an analysis of all data
to be used in the CMS also meet the data quality objectives of
the RFI. It shall also:
1. Display sampling locations and sampling grids;
2. Indicate boundaries of sampling area and areas where
more data are required;
-26-
3. Display levels of contamination at each sampling
location;
4. Display geographically the extent of contamination;
5. Display contamination levels, averages, and maxima;
6. Illustrate changes in concentration in relation to
distance from the source, time, depth or other
parameters; and
7. Indicate features affecting intramedia transport and
show potential receptors.
C. Protection Standards - The RFI Report shall identify all
relevant and applicable standards for the protection of human
health and the environment (e.g., National Ambient Air Quality
Standards, Federally -approved state water quality standards,
etc.).
V. Laboratory and Bench Scale Studies - The Respondent shall conduct
laboratory and/or bench scale studies to determine the applicability of
a corrective measure technology or technologies to facility conditions.
The Respondent shall analyze the technologies, based on literature
review, vendor contacts, and past experience to determine the testing
requirements.
The Respondent shall develop a testing plan identifying the type(s) and
goal(s) of the study(ies), the level of effort needed, and the
procedures to be used for data management and interpretation.
Upon completion of the testing, the Respondent shall evaluate the
testing results to assess the technology or technologies with respect
to the site -specific questions identified in the test plan.
The Respondent shall include in the RFI Report a summary of the testing
program and its results, both positive and negative.
-27-
VI. Periodic Reports
Periodic Reports will be submitted as required by the Order.
-28-
Attachment 12
-------------
SCOPE OF WORK FOR A CORRECTIVE MEASURES STUDY (CMS)
I. PURPOSE
The purpose of the Corrective Measure Study (CMS) is to develop and evaluate the
corrective action alternative or alternatives and to recommend the corrective
measure or measures to be taken at Respondent's facility. The Respondent will
furnish the personnel, materials, and services necessary to prepare the
corrective measure study, except as otherwise specified.
A. SCOPE - The Corrective Measure Study consists of the following
tasks:
1. Evaluation of the Corrective Measure Alternative or
Alternatives
2. Justification and Recommendation of the Corrective
Measure or Measures
3. CMS Report
4. Periodic Reports
II. Evaluation of the Corrective Measure Alternative or Alternatives
The following criteria shall be used to evaluate each corrective
measure alternative and its components that are evaluated for the CMS
Report based on technical, environmental, human health and
institutional concerns. The evaluation shall also include a cost
estimate for each corrective measure.
A. Technical, Environmental, Human Health, and Institutional
Factors
1. Technical
a. Performance - The Respondent shall evaluate
performance based on the effectiveness and
useful life of the corrective measure:
-1-
(i) Effectiveness shall be evaluated in
terms of ability to perform
intended functions, such as
containment, diversion, removal,
destruction, or treatment. The
effectiveness of each corrective
measure shall be determined either
through design specifications or by
performance criteria. Any specific
waste or site characteristics which
could potentially impede
effectiveness shall be considered.
The evaluation should also consider
the effectiveness of combinations
of technologies; and,
(ii) Useful life is defined as the
length of time the level of
effectiveness can be maintained.
Most corrective measure
technologies, with the exception of
destruction, deteriorate with time.
Often, deterioration can be slowed
through proper system operation and
maintenance, but the technology
eventually may require replacement.
Each corrective measure shall be
evaluated in terms of the projected
service lives of its component
technologies. Resource availability
in the future life of the
technology, as well as
appropriateness of the
technologies, must be considered in
estimating the useful life of the
project.
b. Reliability - The reliability of each
corrective measure shall be evaluated
including its operation and maintenance
requirements and its demonstrated
reliability:
(i) Operations and maintenance
requirements include the frequency
and complexity of necessary
operation and
-2-
maintenance. Technologies requiring
frequent or complex operation and
maintenance activities should be
regarded as less reliable than
technologies requiring little or
straightforward operation and
maintenance. The availability of
labor and materials to meet these
requirements shall also be
considered; and
(ii) Demonstrated and expected
reliability is a way of measuring
the risk and effect of failure. The
Respondent should evaluate whether
the technologies have been used
effectively under analogous
conditions; whether the combination
of technologies have been used
together effectively; whether
failure of any one technology has
an immediate impact on receptors;
and whether the corrective measure
has the flexibility to deal with
uncontrollable changes at the site.
c. Implementability - The Respondent shall
evaluate the implementability of each
corrective measure including the relative
ease of installation (constructability) and
the time required to achieve a given level
of response:
(i) Constructability is determined by
the conditions both internal and
external to the facility conditions
and include such items as location
of underground utilities, depth to
the water table, heterogeneity of
subsurface materials, and location
of the facility (i.e., remote
location vs. congested urban area).
The Respondent shall evaluate what
measures can be
-3-
taken to facilitate construction
under these conditions. External
factors which affect implementation
include the need for special
permits or agreements, equipment
availability, and the location of
suitable off-site treatment or
disposal facilities; and
(ii) Time has two components that shall
be addressed: the time it takes to
implement a corrective measure and
the time it takes to actually see
beneficial results. Beneficial
results are defined as the
reduction of contaminants to some
acceptable, pre-established level.
d. Safety - The Respondent shall evaluate each
corrective measure alternative with regard
to safety. This evaluation shall include
threats to the safety of nearby communities
and environments as well as those workers
during implementation. Factors to consider
are fire, explosion, and exposure to
hazardous substances.
2. Environmental - The Respondent shall conduct an
environmental assessment for each alternative
focusing on the facility conditions and pathways of
contamination actually addressed by each
alternative. The environmental assessment for each
alternative shall include, at a minimum, an
evaluation of: the short- and long-term beneficial
and adverse effects on environmentally sensitive
areas and an analysis of measures to mitigate
adverse effects.
3. Human Health - The Respondent shall assess each
alternative in terms of the extent to which it
mitigates short- and long-term potential exposure to
any residual contamination and protects human health
both during and after implementation of the
corrective measure. The assessment shall consider
the levels and
-4-
characterizations of contaminants on-site, potential
exposure routes, and potentially affected
populations. Each alternative shall be evaluated to
determine the level of exposure to contaminants and
the reduction over time. For management of
mitigation measures, the relative reduction of
impact will be determined by comparing residual
levels of each alternative with existing criteria,
standards, or guidelines acceptable to EPA.
4. Institutional - The Respondent shall assess relevant
institutional needs for each alternative, including
the effects of Federal, state and local
environmental and public health standards,
regulations, guidance, advisories, ordinances, or
community relations on the design, operation, and
timing of each alternative.
5. Other - The Respondent may evaluate such other
factors as may be relevant in the selection of the
corrective measure(s), if any, for the facility.
B. Cost Estimate
The Respondent shall develop an estimate of the cost of each
corrective measure alternative (and for each phase or segment
of the alternative). The cost estimate shall include both
capital and operation and maintenance costs.
1. Capital costs consist of direct (construction) and
indirect (nonconstruction and overhead) costs.
a. Direct capital costs include:
(i) Construction costs, i.e., costs of
materials, labor, and equipment
required to install the corrective
measure;
-5-
(ii) Equipment costs, i.e., costs of
treatment, containment, disposal
and/or service equipment necessary
to implement the corrective action;
(iii) Land and site development costs,
i.e., expenses associated with the
purchase of land and development of
existing property; and
(iv) Buildings and services costs, i.e.,
costs of process and nonprocess
buildings, utility connections,
purchased services, and disposal
costs.
b. Indirect capital costs include:
(i) Engineering expenses, i.e., costs
of administration, design,
construction supervision, drafting,
and testing of corrective measure
alternatives;
(ii) Legal fees and license or permit
costs, i.e., administrative and
technical costs necessary to obtain
licenses and permits for
installation and operation;
(iii) Startup and shakedown costs, i.e.,
costs incurred during corrective
measure startup; and
(iv) Contingency allowances, i.e., funds
to cover costs resulting from
unforeseen circumstances, such as
adverse weather conditions,
strikes, and inadequate facility
characterization.
2. Operation and Maintenance costs are
post-construction costs necessary to ensure
continued effectiveness of a corrective measure. The
Respondent shall consider the following operation
and maintenance cost components:
-6-
a. Operating labor costs, i.e., wages,
salaries, training, overhead, and fringe
benefits associated with the labor needed
for post-construction operations;
b. Maintenance materials and labor costs, i.e.,
costs for labor, parts, and other resources
required for routine maintenance of
facilities and equipment;
c. Auxiliary materials and energy, i.e., costs
of such items as chemicals and electricity
for treatment plant operations, water, sewer
service, and fuel;
d. Purchased services, i.e., sampling costs,
laboratory fees, and professional fees for
which the need can be predicted;
e. Disposal and treatment costs, i.e., costs of
transporting, treating, and disposing of
waste materials, such as treatment plant
residues, generated during operations;
f. Administrative costs, i.e., costs associated
with administration of corrective measure
operation and maintenance not included under
other categories;
g. Insurance, taxes, and licensing costs, i.e.,
costs of such items as liability and sudden
accidental insurance; real estate taxes on
purchased land or rights-of-way, licensing
fees for certain technologies, and permit
renewal and reporting costs;
h. Maintenance reserve and contingency funds,
i.e., annual payments into escrow funds to
cover (1) costs of anticipated replacement
or rebuilding of equipment and (2) any large
unanticipated operation and maintenance
costs; and
i. Other costs, i.e., items that do not fit any
of the above categories.
-7-
III. Justification and Recommendation of the Corrective Measure or Measures
The CMS Report shall include Respondent's recommendation, with
justification, of the appropriate corrective measure alternative based
upon the evaluation of the remedial alternatives. This recommendation
shall include summary tables which allow comparisons of the alternative
or alternatives to be easily understood. Tradeoffs among health risks,
environmental effects, and other pertinent factors shall be
highlighted.
IV. CMS Report
The CMS Report shall present the results of the evaluation of the
corrective measure alternatives and of the justification and
recommendation of the corrective measure(s) and include the recommended
corrective measure alternative. The CMS Report shall include:
A. The CMS Report shall contain an update to the information
describing the current conditions at the facility and the
known nature and extent of contamination as documented by the
RFI Report. It shall also include a facility-specific
statement of the purpose for the response measures, based on
the results of the RFI. The statement of purpose should
identify the actual or potential exposure pathways that should
be addressed by corrective measures.
B. The CMS Report shall include a statement of the corrective
action objectives and an explanation of the basis for these
objectives in terms of the following criteria:
1. Public health and environmental protection;
2. Information gathered during the RFI;
3. EPA Guidance; and
4. The requirements of any applicable Federal statutes.
-8-
At a minimum, all corrective actions concerning groundwater
releases from regulated units must be consistent with, and as
stringent as, those required under 40 C.F.R. 264.100.
C. The CMS Report shall include the initial screening of
corrective measure technologies used to eliminate those
technologies which have severe limitations for a given set of
waste and site-specific conditions or which have inherent
technology limitations. The CMS Report shall include a
detailed description of how each of these technologies compare
with the criteria set forth below and shall identify those
technologies that, based on these criteria, are infeasible to
implement, that rely on technologies unlikely to perform
satisfactorily or reliably, or that would not achieve the
corrective measure objective within a reasonable time period.
The criteria are as follows:
1. Site Characteristics-- Site data should be reviewed
to identify conditions that may limit or promote the
use of certain technologies. Technologies the use of
which are clearly precluded by site characteristics
should be eliminated from further consideration.
2. Waste Characteristics-- Identification of waste
characteristics that limit the effectiveness or
feasibility of technologies is an important part of
the screening process. Technologies clearly limited
by these waste characteristics should be eliminated
from consideration.
3. Technology Limitations-- During the screening
process, the level of technology development,
performance record, and inherent construction,
operation, and maintenance problems should be
identified for each technology considered.
Technologies that are unreliable, perform poorly, or
are not fully demonstrated may be eliminated in the
screening process. For example, certain treatment
methods have been developed to a point where they
can be implemented in the field without extensive
technology transfer or development.
-9-
D. The CMS Report shall include a detailed description of how
Respondent used good engineering practice to develop the
corrective measure alternative or alternatives based on the
corrective action objectives and analysis. Technologies can be
combined to form the overall corrective action alternative or
alternatives. The alternative or alternatives developed should
represent a workable number of option(s) that each appear to
adequately address all site problems and corrective action
objectives. Each alternative may consist of an individual
technology or a combination of technologies.
E. The CMS Report shall set forth in detail the evaluation of
corrective action alternatives using the factors set forth in
Task V, Evaluation of the Corrective Measure Alternative or
Alternatives, below.
F. The CMS Report shall include the corrective measures
objectives developed in accordance with paragraph B above.
G. A description of the screening of corrective measures
technologies conducted pursuant to paragraph C above,
including the following:
1. Review of Facility data that may limit or promote
the use of certain technologies;
2. Identification of waste characteristics that limit
the effectiveness or feasibility of technologies;
and
3. Identification of the level of technology
development, performance record, and inherent
construction, operation and maintenance problems for
each technology considered.
H. A description of the recommended corrective measure or
measures meeting the requirements set forth in Task VI,
including:
-10-
1. Description of the corrective measure or measures
and rationale for selection;
2. Performance expectations;
3. Preliminary design criteria and rationale;
4. General operation and maintenance requirements; and
5. Long-term monitoring requirements.
I. A summary of the RFI and impact on the selected corrective
measure or measures;
1. Field studies (groundwater, surface water, soil,
air); and
2. Laboratory studies (bench scale, pilot scale).
J. Design and Implementation Precautions;
1. Special technical problems;
2. Additional engineering data required;
3. Permits and regulatory requirements;
4. Access, easements, right-of-way;
5. Health and safety requirements; and
6. Community relations activities.
K. Cost Estimates and Schedules;
1. Capital cost estimates;
2. Operation and maintenance cost estimate; and
3. Project schedule (design, construction, operation).
-11-
V. Periodic Reports
Periodic Reports will be submitted as required by the Order.
-12-
Attachment 13
-------------
SCOPE OF WORK FOR CORRECTIVE MEASURES IMPLEMENTATION (CMI)
I. INTRODUCTION - Based on the outcome of the Corrective Measures Study
(CMS), the Respondent is responsible for the design, construction.
implementation, and continued performance monitoring of a corrective
action at the Facility. The selected corrective action must be
implemented and maintained until the corrective action objectives and
the conditions of the Order for Termination and Satisfaction have been
met.
A. Purpose - The purpose of the Corrective Measures
Implementation (CMI) is to operate, maintain and monitor the
performance of the corrective measure selected by EPA for
implementation by Respondent at the Facility.
B. Scope - Submittals required for the CMI include:
1. CMI Workplan
2. Operation and Maintenance (O & M) Plan
3. Corrective Measures Implementation Report
4. Corrective Measure Completion Report (CMCR)
5. Progress Reports.
II. CMI WORKPLAN - The CMI Work Plan shall contain the following elements:
A. Introduction/Purpose - Describe the purpose of the document
and provide a summary description of the project. Elements of
this description shall include:
1. Summary of the corrective action objectives;
2. Description of the corrective measure or measures
and rationale for selection;
3. Performance expectations;
-1-
4. Preliminary design criteria and rationale;
5. General operation and maintenance requirements;
6. Long term monitoring requirements;
7. Design and implementation precautions to include but
not limited to:
a. Special technical problems;
b. Additional engineering data required;
c. Permits and regulatory requirements; and
d. Access, easements, right-of-way.
8. Cost estimates, including the capital and O & M
costs.
B. Project Management Plan - Describe the construction management
approach including levels of personnel authority and
responsibility (including an organization chart), lines of
communication and the qualifications of key personnel who will
direct the corrective measure construction effort and provide
construction quality assurance/quality control (including
contractor personnel).
C. Project Schedule - The project schedule must include timing
for key elements of the bidding process, timing for initiation
and completion of all major corrective measure construction
tasks, and specify when the Construction Implementation Report
is to be submitted to EPA.
D. Construction Quality Assurance/Quality Control Plan - The
purpose of construction quality assurance is to ensure, with a
reasonable degree of certainty, that a completed corrective
measure will meet or exceed all design criteria, plans, and
specifications. The CMI Work Plan must include a Construction
Quality Assurance Plan to be implemented by Respondent.
-2-
E. Waste Management Procedures - Describe the wastes generated by
construction of the corrective measure and how they will be
managed.
F. Contingency Procedures - General contingency procedures to be
described in the text of the CMI Work Plan include the
following:
1. Changes to the design and/or specifications may be
needed during construction to address unforeseen
problems encountered in the field. Procedures to
address such circumstances, including notification
of EPA, must be included;
2. The CMI Work Plan must specify that, in the event of
a construction emergency (e.g., fire, earthwork
failure, etc.), Respondent shall orally notify EPA
within 24 hours of the event and will notify EPA in
writing within 72 hours of the event. The written
notification must, at a minimum, specify what
happened, what response action is being taken and/or
is planned, and any potential impacts on human
health and/or the environment;
3. Procedures to be implemented if unforeseen events
prevent corrective measure construction; and
4. List of all emergency contacts (including Phone
numbers).
G. Data Management and Documentation Requirements - The O&M Plan
shall specify that Respondent collect and maintain the
following information:
1. Progress Report Information;
2. Monitoring and laboratory data;
3. Records of operating costs; and
4. Personnel, maintenance and inspection records.
-3-
This data and information should be used to prepare Progress
Reports and the Corrective Measure Completion Report (CMCR).
H. Quality Assurance Project Plan\Sampling and Analysis Plan -
Sampling and monitoring activities may be needed for effective
operation and maintenance of the corrective measure. To ensure
that all information, data and resulting decisions are
technically sound, statistically valid, and properly
documented, Respondent shall prepare a Quality Assurance
Project Plan (QAPP)/Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP) to
document all monitoring procedures, sampling, field
measurements and sample analyses performed during these
activities. Respondent shall use EPA-approved procedures
described in the EPA Requirements for Quality Assurance
Project Plans for Environmental Data Operations (EPA QA/R-5).
I. Health and Safety Plan - Respondent shall submit to EPA a
Health and Safety Plan for all field activity, although it
does not require review and approval by EPA. The Health and
Safety Plan shall be developed as a stand alone document but
may be submitted with the CMI Workplan. The Health and Safety
Plan must, at a minimum, comply with all applicable
Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) requirements.
III. OPERATION & MAINTENANCE PLAN
Respondent shall prepare an O&M Plan that outlines procedures for
performing operations, long-term maintenance and monitoring of the
corrective measure. The O&M plan shall, at a minimum, include the
following elements:
A. Introduction/Purpose - Describe the purpose of the document
and provide a summary description of the project.
B. Corrective Action Objectives - Discuss the corrective action
objectives including applicable media cleanup standards.
-4-
C. Project Management - Describe the management approach
including levels of personnel authority and responsibility
(including an organizational chart), lines of communication
and the qualifications of key personnel who will operate and
maintain the corrective measures (including contractor
personnel).
D. System Description - Describe the corrective measure and
identify significant equipment, as applicable. Provide
schematics or process diagrams to illustrate system design and
operation.
E. Personnel Training - Describe the training process for O&M
personnel, as applicable. Respondent shall prepare, and
include in the technical specifications governing treatment
systems, the contractor requirements for providing:
appropriate service visits by experienced personnel to
supervise the installation, adjustment, start-up and operation
of the treatment systems, and training covering appropriate
operational procedures once the start-up has been successfully
accomplished.
F. Start-Up Procedures - Describe all applicable system start-up
procedures including any operational testing.
G. Operation and Maintenance Procedures - Describe normal
operation and maintenance procedures including:
1. A description of tasks for operation;
2. A description of tasks for maintenance;
3. A description of prescribed treatment or operation
conditions; and
4. A schedule showing the frequency of each O&M task.
H. Replacement Schedule for Equipment and Installed Components.
-5-
I. Waste Management Practices - Describe any wastes which may be
generated by operation of the corrective measure and how they
will be managed.
J. Corrective Measure Completion Criteria - Describe the process
and criteria for determining when corrective measures have
achieved corrective action objectives. Also describe the
process and criteria for determining when maintenance and
monitoring may cease. Satisfaction of the completion criteria
will trigger preparation and submittal of the CMCR.
K. Contingency Procedures - Describe, as applicable, the
following types of contingency procedures necessary to ensure
system operation in a manner protective of human health and
the environment:
1. Procedures to address system breakdowns and
operational problems including a list of redundant
and emergency back-up equipment and procedures;
2. Alternate procedures to be implemented if the
corrective measure suffers complete failure. The
alternate procedures must be able to prevent release
or threatened releases of hazardous wastes or
constituents which may endanger human health or the
environment or exceed media cleanup standards;
3. The O&M Plan shall specify that, in the event of a
major breakdown and/or the complete failure of the
corrective measure, Respondent shall orally notify
EPA within 24 hours of the event and will notify EPA
in writing within 72 hours of the event. Written
notification must, at a minimum, specify what
happened, what response action is being taken and/or
is planned, and any potential impacts on human
health and/or the environment; and
4. Procedures to be implemented in the event that the
corrective measure is experiencing major operational
problems, is not performing to
-6-
design specifications and/or will not achieve the
cleanup goals in the expected time frame.
If contingencies require modification of the corrective
measure in a substantive fashion which also requires physical
alteration of the monitoring or remediation equipment, a
Construction Work Plan shall be submitted by Respondent upon
receipt of a written request for the submittal from EPA. The
Construction Workplan shall provide all information necessary
to describe the proposed modification to the corrective
measure and provide justification for the necessity of the
proposed activities to the overall corrective measure
effectiveness.
IV. CORRECTIVE MEASURES IMPLEMENTATION REPORT
The purpose of the CMI Report is to document the construction and
implementation of the corrective measure at the Facility. Following
completion of the activities directed by the approved Construction
Workplan, Respondent shall submit a Construction Completion Report
which shall consist of the following:
A. Purpose;
B. Synopsis of the corrective measure, design criteria, and
certification that the corrective measure was constructed in
accordance with the Final Plans and Specifications;
C. Explanation and description of any modifications to the Final
CMI Work Plans and Specifications and why these were necessary
for the project;
D. Results of any operational testing and/or monitoring,
indicating how initial operation of the corrective measure
compares to the design criteria;
E. Summary of significant activities that occurred during
construction. Include a discussion of problems encountered and
how they were addressed;
F. Summary of all inspection findings (including copies of key
inspection documents in appendices); and
-7-
G. As built drawings or photographs.
V. CORRECTIVE MEASURES COMPLETION REPORT
A. Respondent shall prepare a CMCR when Respondent believes that
the corrective measure completion criteria have been
satisfied. The purpose of the CMCR is to fully document how
the corrective action objectives and corrective measure
completion criteria have been satisfied, and to justify why
the corrective measure and/or monitoring may cease. The CMCR
shall, at a minimum, include the following elements:
1. Synopsis of the corrective measure;
2. Corrective Measure Completion Criteria: Describe the
process and criteria for determining when the
corrective measure and maintenance and monitoring
may cease. Corrective measure completion criteria
were given in the EPA-approved O&M Plan;
3. Demonstration that the completion criteria have been
met. Include results of testing and/or monitoring,
indicating how operation of the corrective measure
compares to the completion criteria;
4. Summary of work accomplishments (e.g., performance
levels achieved, total hours of treatment operation,
total treated and/or excavated volumes, nature and
volume of wastes generated, etc.);
5. Summary of significant activities that occurred
during operations. Include a discussion of problems
encountered and how they were addressed;
6. Summary of inspection findings (including copies of
key inspection documents in appendices); and
7. Summary of total operation and maintenance costs.
-8-
VI. PROGRESS REPORTS
Respondent shall provide at a minimum quarterly progress reports on the
design, construction, implementation, and operation of the corrective
measure at the Facility. Quarterly Progress Reports shall contain the
following information to allow the EPA to monitor the progress of the
cleanup.
A. A description and estimate of the percentage of the corrective
measure construction completed.
B. A description of significant activities (e.g., sampling
events, inspections, etc.) and work completed/work
accomplishments (e.g., performance levels achieved, hours of
treatment operation, treated and/or excavated volumes,
concentration of contaminants in treated and/or excavated
volumes, nature and volume of wastes generated, etc.) during
the reporting period;
C. Summaries of all changes made in the corrective measure
construction during the reporting period;
D. Summary of system effectiveness. Provide a comparison of
system operation to predicted performance levels (applicable
only during operation of the corrective measure);
E. Summaries of all contacts with representatives of the local
community, public interest groups Federal or State government
during the reporting period;
F. Summaries of all findings (including any inspection results);
G. Summaries of all problems or potential problems encountered
during the reporting period;
H. Actions being taken and/or planned to rectify problems;
I. Changes in personnel during the reporting period;
J. Projected work for the next reporting period; and
-9-
K. The results of any sampling tests and/or other data generated
during the reporting period, as well as copies of the raw
data, field logs, etc. which were used to compile those
results.
L. Following completion of the corrective measure construction,
at the EPA's discretion, it may reduce the frequency of
progress reporting to semi-annual or annual reports only. The
frequency of reporting shall be proposed in the O & M Plan,
and approved by letter from the EPA to the facility.
-10-
Attachment 14
-------------
Environmental Management System (EMS) /
Environmental Compliance Management System (ECMS)
Implementation Protocol
Nucor will develop and implement an Environmental Management
System/Environmental Compliance Management System (EMS/ECMS) that meets the
criteria and schedule set out below.
A. Definitions
(These definitions apply only to the EMS provision of this Consent
Decree.)
"Action Plan" shall mean a comprehensive plan for bringing each
facility covered by this Consent Decree into full conformance with the EMS
provisions specified in this Section and fully addressing all Audit Findings
identified in the Audit Report.
"Audit Finding" means a written summary of all instances of significant
non-conformance with the comprehensive EMS developed pursuant to this Section
noted during the EMS Audit, and all significant areas of concern identified
during the course of the audit that, in the Consultant Auditor's judgement,
merits further review or evaluation for potential EMS, environmental, or
regulatory impacts.
"Audit Report" means a report setting forth the Audit Findings
resulting from the audit of a facility by the Consultant Auditor, which meets
all of the requirements set forth in this Section.
"Consultant Auditor" means the independent third-party hired by Nucor
and approved by EPA to conduct EMS Audits at Nucor Facilities, as required by
this Section, and who meets the requirements set forth in Paragraph 11.
"Corrective Measures" means those measures or actions appropriate to
bring the facility into full conformance with the comprehensive EMS required by
this Section.
"EMS Audit" means an audit of the EMS at a Nucor facility to determine
whether it conforms to (a) the "NEIC Compliance-Focused Environmental Management
System Elements" contained in Attachment 15, and (b) Nucor's own specifications
-1-
for the EMS as contained in the facility's EMS Manual. Nucor may demonstrate
through a matrix that each of the "Environmental Management System Elements" in
the Attachment correlate to an element of the Nucor EMS.
"EMS Development Plan" means a facility-specific plan for developing
the EMS at each Nucor facility, including a plan for developing documents and a
schedule for implementing tasks, with cross-references to the "EMS Elements"
contained in Attachment 15.
"EMS Manual" means a paper and/or electronic compilation of
documentation and information for each facility's comprehensive EMS; the Manual
may include a computer based integrated information system.
"Environmental Requirements" means all applicable Federal, State, and
local environmental statutes and regulations, including permits and enforceable
agreements between Nucor and the respective environmental regulatory
agency(ies).
"Initial Auditor(s)" means individual(s) meeting the requirements of
Paragraph 5 below, who are selected and/or contracted to perform the Initial EMS
Review and Evaluation.
"Initial Review and Evaluation" means an initial audit and assessment
of current environmental management practices to identify and assess potential
gaps between current practices and at least the key EMS elements listed in
Attachment 15.
"On-Site Contractor" to be covered by the program includes any
contractor who has operations located at the facility or who provides services
at the facility (for example, asbestos removal, demolition, painting, waste
handling, and construction) which may be associated with significant
environmental impacts.
B. Environmental Management System Requirements
1. Within 90 days of entry of this Consent Decree, Nucor shall develop
an EMS Implementation Plan and submit the plan to EPA for review and approval
pursuant to Section XII (Agency Approval). The EMS Implementation Plan shall
identify individuals (by position) who are responsible for EMS
-2-
implementation at corporate and facility levels and their respective
responsibilities and authorities. The plan shall also contain an implementation
schedule with milestones for each Nucor facility covered. At a minimum, the
milestones shall cover:
a. Completion of an Initial Review and Evaluation of the current
environmental management practices at each Nucor;
b. Completion of initial plans for development of implementing
documents and tasks (hereafter, EMS Development Plan) for each
Nucor facility; and
c. A schedule for completing all EMS Development Plan work and
tasks at each Nucor facility within 36 months after this
Consent Decree is lodged.
2. Within 12 months of entry of this Consent Decree, Nucor shall
develop and implement (through the first internal review and validation cycle)
an EMS as a pilot at its facility in Berkeley/Hugar, South Carolina, and the
Vulcraft facility at Norfolk, Nebraska. Nucor agrees that the Berkeley mill is
generally representative of all Nucor EAF operations and that the Vulcraft
facility in Norfolk, Nebraska, is generally representative of all Vulcraft
plants so that the results of these pilots will have company-wide applicability.
The purpose of each EMS shall be to promote compliance with all environmental
requirements and enhance environmental performance. Each EMS shall, at a
minimum, cover the key elements listed in Attachment 15 (NEIC Compliance-Focused
Environmental Management System Elements).
3. Within 16 months after entry of this Consent Decree, Nucor will hold
a workshop for appropriate personnel and managers from all facilities covered by
this Consent Decree to share the experiences of the pilot EMSs and to enable
more efficient implementation at the other steel mills and Vulcraft facilities.
4. Within 36 months of entry of this Consent Decree, Nucor shall
implement a comprehensive EMS for each of the remaining Nucor facilities covered
by this Consent Decree in accordance with each EMS Development Plan. The purpose
of each EMS shall be to promote compliance with all environmental
-3-
requirements and enhance environmental performance. Shall be developed as
described in the following paragraphs.
5. In accordance with the schedule established in the approved EMS
Implementation Plan, Nucor shall conduct an Initial Review and Evaluation of
current environmental management practices at each Nucor facility. A team of at
least three (3) Initial Auditors shall conduct each initial Review and
Evaluation. At least one auditor on the team will possess the education and
experience qualifications for environmental auditors set out in ISO 14012. The
team of Initial Auditors will also include one or more other reviewers qualified
on the basis of technical or regulatory expertise to adequately evaluate the
EMS. The following information concerning the team shall be included in the EMS
Implementation Plan: (a) the name, affiliation and address of the Initial
Auditor(s) selected by Nucor to conduct the Initial EMS Review and Evaluation;
(b) evidence that one or more Initial Auditor(s) satisfies the qualification
requirements of ISO 14012 (First edition, 1996-10-01); and (c) that the team
conducting the Initial EMS Review and Evaluation, in composite, has a working
process knowledge of the Nucor facility being audited or similar operations and
has a working knowledge of applicable Federal and State environmental
requirements. The results of the Initial Review and Evaluation shall be
documented in a report prepared by the Initial Auditors and provided to Nucor
and, at the Agency's request, to EPA.
6. Within 18 months after entry of the Consent Decree, Nucor shall
prepare an EMS Development Plan for each facility, based on information gathered
during the Initial Review and Evaluation and other pertinent information. Each
EMS Development Plan shall follow a consistent format. Nucor shall submit each
Development Plan to EPA within 30 days of its completion, and the Agency may
submit any comments to be considered by Nucor within 60 days of receipt. The
submittal shall be in both paper hard copy and a mutually agreeable electronic
format.
7. Within 21 months after entry of this Consent Decree, Nucor shall
begin to implement the EMS Development Plans at all Nucor facilities covered by
the Consent Decree in accordance with the EMS Implementation Plan.
-4-
8. Within 24 months after entry of this Consent Decree, Nucor shall
complete an EMS Manual for each facility covered by the Consent Decree. Each EMS
Manual shall describe respective management systems, subsystems, and tasks in
detail and shall be organized to clearly address the key elements of the Nucor
EMS, which are correlated to the EMS elements listed in Attachment 10. Each
manual shall describe how each of the activities and programs correlating to the
elements in Attachment 15 is: (a) established as a formal system, subsystem or
task; (b) integrated into ongoing department operations; and (c) continuously
evaluated and improved.
9. In accordance with the schedule contained in the EMS Implementation
Plan, but not later than 36 months after this Decree is entered with the Court,
Nucor shall complete all work and tasks identified in the EMS Development Plans
and implement comprehensive EMSs at all Nucor Facilities covered by this Consent
Decree.
C. EMS Audit Program Requirements
10. Nucor shall develop and implement a two-year EMS Audit program to
assess whether an effective EMS has been implemented at each Nucor facility
covered by this Consent Decree. This audit program shall commence within 36
months of the entry of this Consent Decree, but no later than January 1, 2004,
and all audits shall be completed by December 31, 2005.
11. Within 30 months of the entry of this Consent Decree, Nucor shall
propose the names of at least one qualified independent auditing firm for EPA
approval as the EMS Consultant Auditor team for Nucor facilities. A team of at
least three Auditors shall conduct each EMS Audit. To be qualified, each audit
team must meet the following criteria: (a) the auditors cannot have been
involved in the Initial EMS Review and Evaluation; (b) at least the lead auditor
must meet the qualification requirements of ISO 14012 (First edition,
1996-10-01); (c) the audit team in composite must have expertise and competence
in the applicable regulatory programs under Federal and State environmental
laws; (d) no audit team member may directly own any stock in Nucor or in any
parent or subsidiary organization; (e) no audit team member may have any other
direct financial stake in the outcome of the EMS Audit conducted pursuant to
this Consent Decree; and (f) each audit team member must be capable of
exercising the same independent judgment and discipline that a certified public
accounting
-5-
firm would be expected to exercise in auditing a publicly held corporation. The
Consultant Auditor team shall be paid by Nucor in an amount sufficient to fully
carry out the provisions of this Consent Decree. If Nucor has any other
contractual relationship or potential conflict of interest with the Consultant
Auditor team, Nucor shall disclose to EPA such past or existing contractual
relationships or conflict. EPA shall notify Nucor in writing of its approval or
disapproval as expeditiously as possible.
12. If EPA determines that the proposed Consultant Auditor team does
not meet the qualifications, or that past or existing relationships with the
Consultant Auditor team would affect any Consultant Auditor's ability to
exercise the independent judgment and discipline required to conduct the EMS
Audit, such Consultant Auditor shall be disapproved and Nucor shall propose
another Consultant Auditor within 30 days of Nucor's receipt of EPA's
determination.
13. Nucor shall identify any and all site-specific safety precautions
and/or training requirements for the Consultant Auditors, and shall ensure that
the precautions are taken and requirements are met prior to conducting EMS
Audits of Nucor facilities.
14. Nucor shall require a Consultant Auditor team to conduct an EMS
Audit at each Nucor facility to evaluate the adequacy of EMS implementation,
from top management down, throughout each major organizational unit at the
facility, and to identify where further improvements should be made to the EMS.
Each EMS Audit shall be conducted in accordance with ISO 14011 (First edition,
1996-10-01), using ISO 14010 (First edition, 1996-10-01) as supplemental
guidance. Each audit team shall designate a qualified Lead Auditor. The
Consultant Auditor team shall assess conformance with the EMS Manual and shall
determine the following:
a. Whether there is a defined system, subsystem, program, or
planned task for each EMS element listed in Attachment 15;
b. To what extent the system, subsystem, program, or task has
been implemented, and is being maintained;
-6-
c. Adequacy of each Operation's internal self-assessment
procedures for programs and tasks composing the EMS;
d. Whether Nucor is effectively communicating environmental
requirements to affected parts of the organization,
contractors and on-site service providers;
e. Whether further improvements should be made to the EMS;
f. Whether there are observed deviations from Nucor's EMS
requirements or procedures; and
g. Whether continuous improvement is occurring.
15. Nucor shall require the Consultant Auditor team to develop and
follow an EMS Audit Plan for each EMS Audit conducted pursuant to this Consent
Decree, which incorporates the requirements in the above paragraph.
16. Designated representatives from EPA and other environmental
regulatory agencies shall be permitted to participate in the EMS Audit as
observers. Nucor shall make timely notification to designated regulatory
contacts regarding audit scheduling in order to make arrangements for observers
to be present. One or more Nucor representatives with a comprehensive
understanding of the EMS will accompany the audit team to assist the team in
understanding how the EMS works and applies to specific operations and
employees. Other Nucor representatives may also participate in the on-site
audits as an observer(s), but may not interfere with the independent judgment of
the Consultant Auditing team.
17. Within 60 days of the completion of the on-site portion of each EMS
Audit, Nucor shall direct the Consultant Auditor team to develop and submit an
Audit Report concurrently to Nucor and EPA. The Audit Report shall present the
Audit Findings and shall, at a minimum, contain the following information:
a. Audit scope, including the period of time covered by the
audit;
b. The date(s) the on-site portion of the audit was conducted;
-7-
c. Identification of audit team members;
d. Identification of Nucor representatives and regulatory agency
personnel observing the audit;
e. The distribution for the EMS Audit Report;
f. A summary of the audit process, including any obstacles
encountered;
g. Detailed Audit Findings, including the basis for each finding
and each Area of Concern identified;
h. Identification of any Audit Findings corrected or Areas of
Concern addressed during the audit, and a description of the
corrective measures and when they were implemented; and
i. Certification by the Consultant Auditor that the EMS Audit was
conducted in accordance with the provisions of this Decree.
18. If the Consultant Auditor team believes that additional time is
needed to analyze available information or to gather additional information,
Nucor may request that EPA grant the Consultant Auditor team such additional
time as needed to prepare and submit the Audit Report. EPA's decision whether to
grant additional time shall be final.
19. Follow-Up Corrective Measures. Upon receiving each Audit Report,
Nucor shall conduct a root cause analysis of the significant Audit Findings, as
appropriate, and investigate all significant areas of concern. Within 60 days of
receiving the Audit Report for each facility, Nucor shall develop an Action Plan
for fully addressing all significant areas of concern and expeditiously bringing
the facility into full conformance with the EMS provisions of this Decree and
the EMS Manual. The Action Plan shall include the result of any root cause
analysis, specific deliverables, responsibility assignments, and an
implementation schedule. Nucor shall implement the Action Plan in accordance
with the schedules set forth therein.
-8-
D. EMS Reporting
20. Nucor shall submit semi-annual progress reports to EPA summarizing
progress made in developing and implementing EMSs at each Nucor facility covered
by this Consent Decree. Progress reports shall be submitted to EPA within thirty
(30) days after the last day of June and December of each calendar year
commencing in 2001 until all required EMS activities are completed.
21. The progress reports, as appropriate, shall contain a summary of
how EMSs are being developed and implemented in accordance with this Section and
shall include the following information for each Nucor facility:
a. Estimated number of procedures that require documentation in
the EMS;
b. Number of procedures that have been documented and the unit
operation they cover; and
c. Description of other tasks or activities related to EMS
implementation completed during the reporting period.
22. The progress reports shall also contain information on the EMS
Audits required by this Section. The progress reports, as appropriate, shall
contain an EMS Audit schedule for the next six-month reporting period,
indicating the month during which the EMS Audit will be conducted at each Nucor
facility. The schedule may be revised by Nucor provided the required EMS Audits
are conducted in accordance with this Consent Decree. The progress report shall
list the dates and locations at which required EMS Audits were conducted during
the reporting period, the names and affiliations of personnel who conducted each
audit, and the date the Action Plan was approved by Nucor management. The
progress report, as appropriate, shall also contain a copy of the certification
by the Consultant Auditor, from audit reports completed during the reporting
period, that the required audits were conducted in accordance with the
provisions of this Decree.
E. Environmental Metrics
23. Nucor shall collect data on the Environmental Metrics listed below
for each Nucor facility on an annual basis for the purpose of measuring the
impacts of implementation of the EMS. Within 90 days after entry of this Consent
Decree, Nucor
-9-
shall propose detailed monitoring parameters and reporting format to EPA for
review and approval. Any revisions required by EPA shall be incorporated by
Nucor within 14 days of final communication by EPA. Environmental Metrics will
be developed for the following:
a. Spills and Accidental Releases
Number, contents and volume or mass of internally reported,
documented chemical (including petroleum) spills and accidental
releases, and whether they exceed a state or federal Reportable
Quantity.
b. Permit Exceedances
Number of instances when actual compliance monitoring data
results exceed reporting limits established in applicable state or
federal permits or standards.
c. Toxic and Pollutant Releases
Using 1999 as a base year, TRI, emission (air) and discharge
(wastewater) loading data will be normalized to annual throughput or
production. Releases to land will be further analyzed to account
separately for slag and other materials (e.g., non-hazardous solid
waste going to landfills).
d. Hazardous Waste Generation
Utilizing data from Biennial Reports and Hazardous Waste
Manifests, volumes of hazardous wastes generated will be normalized to
annual throughput or production.
e. Recycling
Utilizing TRI data and production records, (e.g., in-process
materials, solid wastes, hazardous wastes, process water, or storm
water) recycling rates will be normalized to annual throughput or
production.
f. Water and Energy Usage
Consumption of electricity, thermal energy (e.g., natural gas,
petroleum, etc.) and fresh water,
-10-
normalized to annual throughput or production and other factors (e.g.,
scrap grade).
F. EMS Reporting
24. Nucor shall submit semi-annual progress reports to EPA summarizing
progress made in developing and implementing EMSs at each Nucor facility covered
by this Decree. Progress reports shall be submitted to EPA within thirty (30)
days after the last day of June and December of each calendar year commencing in
2001 until all required EMS activities are completed.
25. The progress reports, as appropriate, shall contain a summary of
how EMSs are being developed and implemented in accordance with this Section and
shall include the following information for each Nucor facility:
a. Estimated number of procedures that require documentation in
the EMS;
b. Number of such procedures that have been documented and the
unit operations they cover; and
c. Description of other tasks or activities related to EMS
implementation completed during the reporting period.
26. The progress reports shall also contain information on the EMS
Audits required by this Section. The progress reports, as appropriate, shall
contain an EMS Audit schedule for the next six-month reporting period,
indicating the month during which the EMS Audit will be conducted at each Nucor
facility. The schedule may be revised by Nucor provided the required EMS Audits
are conducted in accordance with this Consent Decree. The progress report shall
list the dates and locations at which required EMS Audits were conducted during
the reporting period, the names and affiliations of personnel who conducted each
audit, and the date the Action Plan was approved by Nucor management. The
progress report, as appropriate, shall also contain a copy of the certification
by the Consultant Auditor, from audit reports completed during the reporting
period, that the required audits were conducted in accordance with the
provisions of this Decree.
-11-
27. The progress reports due within 30 days after the end of June, as
appropriate, shall include the data or summaries of the data collected during
the previous calendar year for the Environmental Metrics, as required by this
Section.
-12-
Attachment 14-A
---------------
Design for Environment
General Analytical Protocol
A. Introduction
Presented below is a protocol for the Design for Environment (DfE)
program by which the Company will assure that all material changes in equipment
or operations are implemented, based on appropriate analysis and consideration
of the implications of design and technology selections as they relate to
environmental and natural resource impacts, so as to optimize performance from
that perspective.
B. Objectives
The DfE program is a systematic way of assuring that whenever there is
a material alteration of a production unit or system, that the alteration is
designed taking into account the significant environmental and natural resource
aspects and impacts involved, the technically and economically feasible
alternative approaches that are available or that may be designed, the product
quality that the Company must maintain and other significant production and
market-response factors.
The result of this multiple-factor analysis will be production
processes, control technologies, and/or work practices that achieve an optimal
balance of production, quality and environmental control that also meets the
requirements of regulation and relevant markets.
C. Approach
The DfE program will focus on designing steel mini-mill production
processes to maximize recycling efficiency while minimizing their potential
adverse environmental impacts. The DfE program will also take into account
upstream and downstream environmental effects.
While the DfE program could operate as a stand-alone program, the Nucor
DfE program, in conjunction with the Operate for Environment (OfE) program, will
serve as the technical foundation for the Nucor Environmental Management System
(EMS). The DfE component of the Nucor EMS will enhance the ability of the EMS
over time to mitigate impacts with
-1-
technology that presently may not be viable but, in the future may become
viable.
The evaluation of "reasonable" alternatives will be a key element of
the DfE approach. Some alternatives can be eliminated at an early level of
review as clearly failing to meet threshold feasibility criteria (such as
relocating a facility outside of the target market instead of using a different
site within the target market). The "reasonable" alternatives will be evaluated
more closely for economic feasibility, technical feasibility, operational
performance, operational feasibility and environmental performance.
Like other broadly applicable analytical tools -- such as life-cycle
analysis, cost-benefit analysis, and risk assessment -- at its core, the DfE
approach is a common-sense conceptual paradigm, that needs to be adapted to the
demands of the issue at hand. A "coarse screen" level of analysis is appropriate
for lower impact changes; a more detailed inquiry would be appropriate for
changes that may involve significant impacts. The first principle in maximizing
the usefulness of the DfE approach is to set and maintain the appropriate level
of analysis.
D. Who performs the analysis
The DfE analysis will be conducted by Nucor technical and operations
experts in conjunction with external experts as appropriate. As part of the EMS,
the DfE approach assures that units are upgraded when physical changes occur.
E. Steps in DfE Analysis
As indicated above, the level of detail in the DfE factor-analysis will
be proportionate to the potential environmental impact associated with the
planned change. The analysis includes the following steps:
1. Determine whether the action in question meets the "significance"
threshold for initiating the DfE analysis. The threshold may be defined in terms
of investment dollars, expected change in emissions, or other relevant
regulatory and operational variables. This approach will be consistent with the
Nucor EMS approach to evaluating significant environmental aspects and impacts.
-2-
2. Define the objective of the project and the scope of the unit
operation to be considered.
3. Review available options for meeting the objective within the scope
of the unit operation to be considered. Options include:
a. Technology in use in the industry;
b. Practices in use in the industry;
c. Substitute materials available;
d. Technology in use in other industries that could be
adapted to use in mini-mills;
e. Practices in use in other industries that could be
adapted to use in mini-mills;
f. Potential for implementation of developing technology
as appropriate; and
g. Demonstration projects to test technologies and/or
practices that may be effective.
4. Determine the optimum approach to achieve objectives - operational
and environmental. This may involve conducting a project/feasibility analysis
(to be done by internal or external technical personnel) to assess options,
develop recommendations, or evaluate a decision. For new equipment and
modernization of existing equipment, the DfE factor analysis will include the
following technical, economic and regulatory considerations:
a. Overall effectiveness in reducing environmental
impacts (on site and off site emissions per ton)
b. Efficiency of control (energy or other resource
consumed per unit of emissions reduction)
c. Reliability/availability of control (impact or
down-time, start-up, shut-down, etc.)
d. Capital cost
e. Impact on production
f. Impact on product quality
g. Impact on recycling efficiency
h. Impact on pollution prevention efficiency
-3-
i. Impact on disposal cost
j. Impact on near-term and long-term scheduling and
options
k. Regulatory implications
l. Market location and viability
m. Employee health and safety issues
n. Other aspects & impacts peculiar to circumstances
5. Analysis of these factors may be performed in accordance with an
algorithm such as the following:
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Identify Impact
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
What Affects the Impact?
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Equipment Raw Operating Physical Control
Materials Practice Layout Technology
- ------------------------- ---------------------- ----------------------- ---------------------- ----------------------
Other What is Need new Can something be Evaluate all
Types available procedure changed? types
- ------------------------- ---------------------- ----------------------- ---------------------- ----------------------
Evaluate Each "Reasonable" Alternative
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Implement Appropriate Alternatives
- ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
6. Select a vendor. The company may issue an Request for Proposal
(RFP)/Request for Quote (RFQ). The RFP/RFQ may contain target criteria with
respect to environmental performance when appropriate.
7. Consult with EPA. Nucor will consult with EPA on changes that, as a
discrete modification, would result in an increase in Potential To Emit (PTE)
that would trigger New Source Review (NSR)/Prevention of Significant
Deterioration (PSD)/Best Available Control Technology (BACT) review.
-4-
G. Implement conclusions.
The final stage of the DfE analysis will include implementation of the
those findings that are appropriate in light of the analysis. For major DfE
analyses, Nucor will produce a report of the analysis, the alternatives
implemented.
H. Integrate with Operate for Environment (OfE) program.
As part of the OfE module of its EMS, Nucor will develop and implement
operating procedures as appropriate for the equipment or systems put in place
through the DfE program to see that objectives are achieved.
I. Reporting.
1. External reporting. The Company will notify the relevant permitting
authority of material changes made in accordance with legal requirements so that
the agencies are informed of current operating scenarios. Administrative permit
amendments may be appropriate in some instances.
2. Internal reporting. Facilities will provide results of DfE analysis
to the Corporate Environmental General Manager for review and approval and for
posting on the Company intranet for reference by other facilities as
appropriate.
J. Environmental Performance Reporting.
Divisions will evaluate environmental performance of operational
changes determined through the DfE process and will include results with the DfE
analysis as an amendment. Reporting may also be required to the relevant
Agencies.
-5-
Attachment 15
-------------
NEIC Compliance-Focused
Environmental Management System Elements
A. Environmental Policy
This policy, upon which the Environmental Management System (EMS) is
based, must clearly communicate management commitment to achieving compliance
with applicable federal, state, and local environmental statutes, regulations,
enforceable agreements, and permits (hereafter, "environmental requirements")
and continuous improvement in environmental performance. The policy should also
state management's intent to provide adequate personnel and other resources for
the EMS.
B. Organization, Personnel, and Oversight of EMS
1. Describes, organizationally, how the EMS is implemented and
maintained.
2. Includes organization charts that identify units, line management,
and other individuals having environmental performance and regulatory compliance
responsibilities.
3. Identifies and defines duties, roles, responsibilities, and
authorities of key environmental program personnel in implementing and
sustaining the EMS (e.g., could include position descriptions and performance
standards for all environmental department personnel, and excerpts from others
having specific environmental program and regulatory compliance
responsibilities).
4. Includes ongoing means of communicating environmental issues and
information to all organization personnel, on-site service providers, and
contractors, and for receiving and addressing their concerns.
C. Accountability and Responsibility
1. Specifies accountability and responsibilities of organization's
management, on-site service providers, and contractors for environmental
protection practices, assuring compliance, required reporting to regulatory
agencies, and corrective actions implemented in their area(s) of responsibility.
-1-
2. Describes incentive programs for managers and employees to perform
in accordance with compliance policies, standards and procedures.
3. Describes potential consequences for departure from specified
operating procedures, including liability for civil/administrative penalties
imposed as a result of noncompliance.
D. Environmental Requirements
1. Describes process for identifying, interpreting, and effectively
communicating environmental requirements to affected organization personnel,
on-site service providers, and contractors, and ensuring that facility
activities conform to those requirements. Specifies procedures for prospectively
identifying and obtaining information about changes and proposed changes in
environmental requirements, and incorporating those changes into the EMS.
2. Establishes and describes processes to ensure communication with
regulatory agencies regarding environmental requirements and regulatory
compliance.
E. Assessment, Prevention, and Control
1. Identifies an ongoing process for assessing operations, for the
purposes of preventing and controlling releases, ensuring environmental
protection, and maintaining compliance with statutory and regulatory
requirements. This section shall describe monitoring and measurements, as
appropriate, to ensure sustained compliance. It shall also include identifying
operations and waste streams where equipment malfunctions and deterioration,
operator errors, and discharges or emissions may be causing, or may lead to: (1)
releases of hazardous waste or other pollutants to the environment, (2) a threat
to human health or the environment, or (3) violations of environmental
requirements.
2. Describes process for identifying operations and activities where
documented standard operating practices (SOPs) are needed to prevent potential
violations or pollutant releases, and defines a uniform process for developing,
approving and implementing the SOPs.
-2-
3. Describes a system for conducting and documenting routine,
objective, self-inspections by department supervisors and trained staff,
especially at locations identified by the process described in E.1. above.
4. Describes process for ensuring input of environmental requirements
(or concerns) in planning, design, and operation of ongoing, new, and/or
changing buildings, processes, maintenance activities, and products.
F. Environmental Incident and Noncompliance Investigations
1. Describes standard procedures and requirements for internal and
external reporting of potential violations and release incidents.
2. Establishes procedures for investigation, and prompt and appropriate
correction of potential violations. The investigation process includes
root-cause analysis of identified problems to aid in developing the corrective
actions.
3. Describes a system for development, tracking, and effectiveness
verification of corrective and preventative actions.
4. Each of these procedures shall specify self-testing of such
procedures, where practicable.
G. Environmental Training, Awareness, and Competence
1. Identifies specific education and training required for organization
personnel, as well as process for documenting training provided.
2. Describes program to ensure that organization employees are aware of
its environmental policies and procedures, environmental requirements, and their
roles and responsibilities within the environmental management system.
3. Describes program for ensuring that personnel responsible for
meeting and maintaining compliance with environmental requirements are competent
on the basis of appropriate education, training, and/or experience.
-3-
H. Environmental Planning and Organizational Decision-Making
1. Describes how environmental planning will be integrated into
organizational decision-making, including plans and decisions on capital
improvements, product and process design, training programs, and maintenance
activities.
2. Requires establishing written targets, objectives, and action plans
by at least each operating organizational sub-unit with environmental
responsibilities, as appropriate, including those for contractor operations
conducted at the facility, and how specified actions will be tracked and
progress reported. Targets and objectives must include achieving and maintaining
compliance with all environmental requirements.
I. Maintenance of Records and Documentation
1. Identifies the types of records developed in support of the EMS
(including audits and reviews), who maintains them and where, and protocols for
responding to inquiries and requests for release of information.
2. Specifies the data management systems for any internal waste
tracking, environmental data, and hazardous waste determinations.
J. Pollution Prevention Program
Describes an internal program for preventing, reducing, recycling,
reusing, and minimizing waste and emissions, including procedures to encourage
material substitutions. Also includes mechanisms for identifying candidate
materials to be addressed by program and tracking progress.
K. Continuing Program Evaluation and Improvement
1. Describes program for periodic (at least annually) evaluation of the
EMS, including incorporating the results of the assessment into program
improvements, revisions to the manual, and communicating findings and action
plans to affected employees, on-site service providers, and contractors.
-4-
2. Describes a program for ongoing evaluation of facility compliance
with environmental requirements, and should specify periodic compliance audits
by an independent auditor(s). Audit results are reported to upper management and
potential violations are addressed through the process described in Section F
above.
L. Public Involvement/Community Outreach
Describes a program for ongoing community education and involvement in
the environmental aspects of the organization's operations and general
environmental awareness.
-5-
Attachment 16
-------------
Environmental Compliance Management System (ECMS)
A. Program Outline
Nucor will implement an Environmental Compliance Management System
(ECMS) taking into account the components outlined below.
1. Training
2. Compliance identification
3. Compliance monitoring
4. Preventive and corrective action
5. Management of change
6. Compliance audit and verification
7. Review and evaluation
B. Training Component
The ECMS Training component is both similar to and different from
general Environmental Management System (EMS) training. While general EMS
training is directed at gaining familiarity with Nucor operations, the Nucor
EMS, and general job functions, ECMS training is directed specifically at
compliance obligations. The following training is envisioned as occurring as
part of either ECMS or broader EMS training (in which case the ECMS specific
training could be dropped).
1. Initial Staff Training
2. Annual Refresher Training
3. Supplemental Training
C. Compliance Identification Component
The Compliance Identification component is focused at identifying
applicable and future applicable regulatory
-1-
requirements affecting Nucor Corporation facilities, processes and equipment.
The Compliance Identification component consists of the following elements:
1. Provision of regulations.
2. Access to Technical and Legal Resources.
3. Identification of Specific Environmental Requirements.
4. Compliance Calendaring.
5. Regulatory Development.
6. Issue Response.
D. Compliance Monitoring Component
The Compliance Monitoring component of the ECMS is directed at
identifying and monitoring compliance indicators to assure compliance with
applicable regulatory requirements. The Compliance Monitoring component should
consist of the following tasks, computerized (if possible to reduce workload):
1. Periodic Filing Confirmation.
a. Air Quality Compliance:
b. Water Quality Compliance:
c. Solid, Special, Used Oil, Universal and Hazardous
Waste Compliance
d. Community Right-to-Know Reports
2. Deviation and Violation Reporting
3. Periodic Summary Reporting.
4. Periodic Compliance Report.
E. Preventive and Corrective Action Component
The Preventive and Corrective Action component is a critical element
that takes the information gathered in the Compliance Monitoring component and
translates it into
-2-
proactive and reactive actions to ensure continued environmental compliance.
1. Facility Preventive Action
a. Trigger.
b. Action.
c. Reporting.
2. Facility Corrective Action
a. Triggers.
b. Action.
c. Reporting.
3. Corporate Preventive Action.
a. Triggers.
b. Action.
c. Reporting.
4. Corporate Corrective Action
a. Triggers.
b. Action.
c. Reporting.
F. Management of Change Component
This component of the ECMS is designed to work with the management of
change component of the EMS, within which it may be subsumed.
1. Review Trigger.
2. Pre-Change Review -- Initial Assessment.
3. Pre-Change Review -- Compliance Assessment.
4. Pre-Change Review -- Permitting.
5. Pre-Change Review -- Compliance Verification.
6. Routine Changes.
G. Compliance Audit and Evaluation Component
The Compliance Audit and Evaluation component serves as an independent
check upon the functioning of the ECMS. The
-3-
environmental compliance status of each facility will be reviewed, problems
detected, and corrective measures implemented to address any deficiencies
identified. The Audit and Evaluation component shall also evaluate how
deficiencies occurred and whether revisions are needed to the ECMS or EMS to
prevent future lapses or problems.
1. Audit Frequency.
2. Audit Team. The audit team for the different facilities
shall be comprised as follows:
a. Steel divisions.
b. Vulcraft divisions.
3. Audit Cycle Preparation.
a. Audit objectives.
b. Pre-Audit preparation.
c. Audit Schedule.
4. Audit Process.
a. Preaudit.
b. Preaudit Questionnaire.
c. On-Site Audit.
d. Interim Audit Report.
e. Draft Audit Reports.
f. Final Audit Report.
g. Followup actions.
h. Close Out Report.
i. Close Out Report Follow up.
5. Audit Report Format. The audit report shall consist of the
following sections:
a. Executive Summary.
b. Scope and Objectives.
c. Detailed Evaluation.
d. Summary ( of action items and recommendations)
H. Review and Evaluation Component
1. Audit Cycle Midpoint Evaluation.
2. Audit Cycle Completion Review and Evaluation.
-4-
a. Identify common problems and weaknesses.
b. Prepare recommendations on ECMS and EMS enhancement.
c. Audit cycle recommendations.
3. Management Review
a. Semiannual Reporting.
b. Audit Cycle Midpoint Report.
c. Audit Cycle Completion Report.
-5-
Attachment 17
Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs)
A. General Conditions
1. These Supplemental Environmental Projects (SEPs) will include a
schedule for development and implementation and will proceed independently,
according to the planned schedule. Nucor agrees to report to EPA on a quarterly
basis on the progress of its implementation of these SEPs in accordance with
Section XIV of this Consent Decree (Recordkeeping and Reporting). However, Nucor
agrees that it will report as soon as practicable any information obtained
during development or implementation of any of these SEPs which would materially
affect the success of each SEP.
2. As a component of this SEP, Nucor shall provide EPA with a summary
of its continuous emissions monitoring system (CEMS) data as part of its
quarterly report, unless otherwise required herein, and as required by the
various provisions of this Consent Decree, accordance with Section XIV.
3. Nucor may submit a request to EPA for approval of any proposed
changes to these approved SEPs, and EPA shall have fifteen (15) business days to
respond to the request. Resolution of any disputes arising in the context of
Nucor's SEP implementation will be handled in accordance with Section XX
(Dispute Resolution) of this Consent Decree.
4. In the first quarterly report following completion of each SEP,
Nucor shall submit to EPA for approval a report containing the following
information:
a. a narrative description of the development and/or
implementation of the SEP;
b. a certification that the SEP was installed and/or operated
as required by Paragraph C(3) of this Attachment;
c. a certification that the SEP has been completed in
accordance with the plans set forth in Sections B and C below, or as modified
with EPA approval.
-1-
5. Each SEP must be implemented in conformance with all
federal, state and local laws.
B. Continuous Emissions Monitoring Systems(CEMS) Installation and
Operation
1. Within 30 days of commencement of full-time operations of the
control technology system required by this Consent Decree, but in no event later
than three (3) months from startup and shake-down, Nucor shall install, certify
and quality assure in accordance with Appendix F, 40 CFR Part 60, and shall
thereafter operate CEM on each unit subject to this Consent Decree.
2. The CEMS shall monitor the following pollutants, unless otherwise
required by this Consent Decree: Nitrogen Oxides (NOx), Carbon Monoxide (CO), as
well as water content and flow rate.
3. Nucor shall continue to operate these controls through the
termination of this Consent Decree.
4. Where appropriate, Nucor shall incorporate the performance
requirements for operation of these CEMS into each facility's Title V permit at
the time it applies for its Title V permit or requests a modification to an
existing Title V permit.
C. Community Based SEPs:
1. Within 120 days of entry of this Consent Decree, Nucor shall provide
EPA with its proposed schedule for implementation of the community-based SEPs.
The SEPs shall include at least three (3) of the following projects:
a. Wind mill power generation;
b. Solid waste recycling days;
c. Creation of wetland "buffer zones";
d. Emergency equipment donations;
e. Sanitary sewer line expansion;
-2-
f. Community facility asbestos abatement projects; or
g. Up to $50,000 for community-based recycling
education projects.
2. Upon EPA's approval of the proposed SEPs, Nucor shall provide
notification to the appropriate state and local governments.
3. Nucor shall provide EPA with certification that each of the proposed
community-based SEPs has been completed in accordance with the approved
schedule.
-3-