Rule: Air Pollutants, Hazardous National Emission Standards: Electric Arc Furnace Steelmaking Facilities

Friday,
December 28, 2007
Part III
Environmental
Protection Agency
40 CFR Part 63
National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants for Area
Sources: Electric Arc Furnace Steelmaking
Facilities; Final Rule
rwilkins on PROD1PC63 with NOTICES2
VerDate Aug<31>2005 22:45 Dec 27, 2007 Jkt 214001 PO 00000 Frm 00001 Fmt 4717 Sfmt 4717 E:\FR\FM\28DER2.SGM 28DER2
74088 Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 248 / Friday, December 28, 2007 / Rules and Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION information or other information whose B. Final MACT Standards for the Control
AGENCY disclosure is restricted by statute. of Mercury
Certain other material, such as C. Final GACT Standards for EAF and AOD
40 CFR Part 63 copyrighted material, will be publicly Vessels
available only in hard copy form. D. Final GACT Standards for Scrap
[EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–0083; FRL–8509–5] Management
Publicly available docket materials are
RIN 2060–AM71 E. Recordkeeping and Reporting
available either electronically in http:// Requirements
www.regulations.gov or in hard copy at IV. Summary of Comments and Responses
National Emission Standards for the National Emission Standards for A. Basis for Area Source Standards
Hazardous Air Pollutants for Area Hazardous Air Pollutants for Area B. Proposed MACT Standard for Mercury
Sources: Electric Arc Furnace Sources: Electric Arc Furnace C. Proposed GACT Standard for Metal HAP
Steelmaking Facilities Steelmaking Facilities Docket at the Other Than Mercury
AGENCY: Environmental Protection EPA Docket and Information Center in D. Proposed GACT Standards for Scrap to
Agency (EPA). the EPA Headquarters Library, EPA Control HAP Other Than Mercury
West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution E. Miscellaneous Comments
ACTION: Final rule. V. Impacts of the Final Rule
Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public
Reading Room is open from 8:30 a.m. to VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
SUMMARY: EPA is issuing national
4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory
emission standards for electric arc Planning and Review
furnace steelmaking facilities that are excluding legal holidays. The telephone
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
area sources of hazardous air pollutants. number for the Public Reading Room is C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The final rule establishes requirements (202) 566–1744, and the telephone D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
for the control of mercury emissions number for the Air Docket is (202) 566– E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
that are based on the maximum 1742. F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation
achievable control technology and FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. and Coordination With Indian Tribal
requirements for the control of other Phil Mulrine, Sector Policies and Governments
hazardous air pollutants that are based Program Division, Office of Air Quality G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of
on generally available control Planning and Standards (D243–02), Children From Environmental Health
Environmental Protection Agency, and Safety Risks
technology or management practices. H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That
DATES: This final rule is effective on Research Triangle Park, North Carolina Significantly Affect Energy Supply,
December 28, 2007. The incorporation 27711, telephone number (919) 541– Distribution, or Use
by reference of certain publications 5289; fax number (919) 541–3207, e- I. National Technology Transfer
listed in this final rule is approved by mail address: mulrine.phil@epa.gov. Advancement Act
the Director of the Federal Register as of SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Outline. J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions
December 28, 2007. The information presented in this to Address Environmental Justice in
preamble is organized as follows: Minority Populations and Low-Income
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a Populations
docket for this action under Docket ID I. General Information K. Congressional Review Act
No. EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–0083. All A. Does this action apply to me?
documents in the docket are listed in B. Where can I get a copy of this I. General Information
the Federal Docket Management System document?
C. Judicial Review A. Does this action apply to me?
index at http://www.regulations.gov II. Background Information for the Final Rule
index. Although listed in the index, III. Summary of Final Rule and Changes The regulated category and entities
some information is not publicly Since Proposal potentially affected by this final action
available, e.g., confidential business A. Applicability and Compliance Date include:
Category NAICS code1 Examples of regulated entities
Industry ..................................................... 331111 Steel mills with electric arc furnace steelmaking facilities that are area sources.
1 North American Industry Classification System.
This table is not intended to be B. Where can I get a copy of this C. Judicial Review
exhaustive, but rather provides a guide document?
for readers regarding entities likely to be Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean
affected by this action. To determine In addition to being available in the Air Act (CAA), judicial review of this
whether your facility would be docket, an electronic copy of this final final rule is available only by filing a
regulated by this action, you should action will also be available on the petition for review in the U.S. Court of
examine the applicability criteria in 40 Worldwide Web (WWW) through the Appeals for the District of Columbia
CFR 63.10680 of subpart YYYYY Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Circuit by February 26, 2008. Under
(National Emission Standards for Following signature, a copy of this final section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, only an
Hazardous Air Pollutants for Area action will be posted on the TTN’s objection to this final rule that was
Sources: Electric Arc Furnace policy and guidance page for newly raised with reasonable specificity
Steelmaking Facilities). If you have any proposed or promulgated rules at the during the period for public comment
questions regarding the applicability of
following address: http://www.epa.gov/ can be raised during judicial review.

this action to a particular entity, consult ttn/oarpg/. The TTN provides Moreover, under section 307(b)(2) of the
either the air permit authority for the information and technology exchange in CAA, the requirements established by
entity or your EPA regional various areas of air pollution control. this final rule may not be challenged
representative as listed in 40 CFR 63.13 separately in any civil or criminal
of subpart A (General Provisions).
Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 248 / Friday, December 28, 2007 / Rules and Regulations 74089
proceedings brought by EPA to enforce Toxics Strategy.2 Sierra Club sued EPA, the area source category list developed
these requirements. alleging a failure to complete standards under our Integrated Urban Air Toxics
Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA for the area source categories listed Strategy pursuant to CAA section
further provides that ‘‘[o]nly an pursuant to CAA sections 112(c)(3) and 112(c)(3). The revision changed the
objection to a rule or procedure which (k)(3)(B) within the time frame specified name of the listed area source category
was raised with reasonable specificity by the statute. See Sierra Club v. ‘‘Stainless and Nonstainless Steel
during the period for public comment Johnson, No. 01–1537, (D.D.C.). On Manufacturing Electric Arc Furnaces
(including any public hearing) may be March 31, 2006, the court issued an (EAF)’’ to ‘‘Electric Arc Furnace
order requiring EPA to promulgate Steelmaking Facilities.’’
raised during judicial review.’’ This
standards under CAA section 112(d) for
section also provides a mechanism for III. Summary of Final Rule and
those area source categories listed
us to convene a proceeding for Changes Since Proposal
pursuant to CAA section 112(c)(3).
reconsideration, ‘‘[i]f the person raising
Among other things, the court order, as A. Applicability and Compliance Date
an objection can demonstrate to the EPA amended on October 15, 2007, requires
that it was impracticable to raise such The final NESHAP applies to each
that EPA complete standards for 9 area
objection within [the period for public new or existing EAF steelmaking facility
source categories by December 15, 2007.
comment] or if the grounds for such that is an area source of HAP. The
On September 20, 2007 (72 FR 53814),
objection arose after the period for owner or operator of an existing area
we proposed NESHAP for the electric
public comment (but within the time source that does not have to install or
arc furnace (EAF) steelmaking area
specified for judicial review) and if such modify emissions control equipment to
source category. Other final NESHAP
objection is of central relevance to the meet the opacity limit for fugitive
will complete the required regulatory
outcome of the rule.’’ Any person emissions must comply with all
action for the remaining area source
seeking to make such a demonstration to applicable rule requirements no later
categories.
us should submit a Petition for Under CAA section 112(d)(5), the than June 30, 2008. The owner or
Reconsideration to the Office of the Administrator may, in lieu of standards operator of an existing area source that
Administrator, Environmental requiring maximum achievable control must install or modify emission control
Protection Agency, Room 3000, Ariel technology (MACT) under section equipment to meet the opacity limit for
Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., 112(d)(2), elect to promulgate standards fugitive emissions may request a
NW., Washington, DC 20460, with a or requirements for area sources ‘‘which compliance date for the opacity limit
copy to the person listed in the provide for the use of generally that is no later than December 28, 2010
preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION available control technologies or and must demonstrate to the satisfaction
CONTACT section, and the Associate management practices by such sources of the permitting authority that the
General Counsel for the Air and to reduce emissions of hazardous air additional time is needed. We revised
Radiation Law Office, Office of General pollutants.’’ As explained in the the compliance date from 2 years to 3
Counsel (Mail Code 2344A), preamble to the proposed NESHAP, we years if a facility can demonstrate the
Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 are issuing standards based on GACT for additional time is needed to install
Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, the control of the Urban HAP arsenic, controls after considering comments on
DC 20004. cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, the upgrades that some facilities may
and nickel from area source EAF need to meet the opacity limit. The
II. Background Information for the owner or operator of a new affected
steelmaking facilities.
Final Rule Section 112(c)(6) requires EPA to list, source must comply with all applicable
and subject to standards pursuant to rule requirements by December 28, 2007
Section 112(k)(3)(B) of the CAA (if the startup date is on or before
requires EPA to identify at least 30 section 112(d)(2) or (d)(4), categories of
sources accounting for not less than 90 December 28, 2007) or upon startup (if
hazardous air pollutants (HAP), which, the startup date is after December 28,
as the result of emissions of area percent of emissions of each of seven
specific HAP: Alkylated lead 2007).
sources,1 pose the greatest threat to
public health in urban areas. Consistent compounds, polycyclic organic matter, B. Final MACT Standards for the
with this provision, in 1999, in the hexachlorobenzene, mercury, Control of Mercury
Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy, polychlorinated biphenyls, 2,3,7,9-
The final standards for mercury are
EPA identified the 30 HAP that pose the tetrachlorodibenzofurans, and 2,3,7,8-
based on pollution prevention and
greatest potential health threat in urban tetrachloridibenzo-p-dioxin. Standards
require an EAF owner or operator who
areas, and these HAP are referred to as established under CAA section 112(d)(2)
melts scrap from motor vehicles either
the ‘‘Urban HAP.’’ See 64 FR 38715, July must reflect performance of MACT. On
to purchase (or otherwise obtain) the
September 20, 2007 (72 FR 53817), we
19, 1999. Section 112(c)(3) requires EPA motor vehicle scrap only from scrap
added EAF steelmaking facilities that
to list sufficient categories or providers participating in an EPA-
are area sources to this list of source
subcategories of area sources to ensure approved program for the removal of
categories under CAA section 112(c)(6)
that area sources representing 90 mercury switches or to fulfill the
solely on the basis of mercury
percent of the emissions of the 30 Urban alternative requirements described
emissions. As discussed in the preamble
HAP are subject to regulation. EPA below. EAF facilities participating in an
to the proposed NESHAP, we are
listed the source categories that account approved program must maintain
issuing MACT standards pursuant to
for 90 percent of the Urban HAP records identifying each scrap provider
CAA section 112(d)(2) for mercury
emissions in the Integrated Urban Air and documenting the scrap provider’s
emissions from all EAF steelmaking
participation in the EPA-approved
facilities that are area sources of HAP.

1 An area source is a stationary source of mercury switch removal program. A
hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions that is not The notice also announced a revision to
compliance option requires the EAF
a major source. A major source is a stationary
source that emits or has the potential to emit 10 2 Since its publication in the Integrated Urban Air facility to prepare and operate pursuant
tons per year (tpy) or more of any HAP or 25 tpy Toxics Strategy in 1999, EPA has revised the area to an approved site-specific plan that
or more of any combination of HAP. source category list several times. includes specifications to the scrap
provider that mercury switches must be least 80 percent of the mercury that contains mercury. The option
removed from motor vehicle bodies at switches, and (3) the program sponsor requires the facility to certify that the
an efficiency comparable to that of the must submit annual progress reports on only materials they are charging from
EPA-approved mercury switch removal the number of switches removed and motor vehicle scrap are materials
program (see below). An equivalent the estimated number of motor vehicle recovered for their specialty alloy, such
compliance option is provided for bodies processed (from which a as chromium in certain exhaust systems.
facilities that do not utilize motor percentage of switches removed is
C. Final GACT Standards for EAF and
vehicle scrap that contains mercury derivable).
EAF facilities that purchase motor AOD Vessels
switches. We have added a new
provision to the final rule for scrap that vehicle scrap from scrap providers that The final rule requires the owner or
does not contain motor vehicle scrap to do not participate in an EPA-approved operator to install, operate, and
require certification and records mercury switch removal program have maintain capture systems for EAF and
documenting that the scrap does not to prepare and operate pursuant to and AOD vessels that convey the collected
contain motor vehicle scrap. in conformance with a site-specific plan emissions to a venturi scrubber or
We expect most facilities that use for the removal of mercury switches. baghouse for the removal of PM. We are
motor vehicle scrap will choose to The facility’s scrap specifications must establishing separate emissions limits
comply by purchasing motor vehicle include a requirement for the removal of for new and existing EAF steelmaking
scrap only from scrap providers who mercury switches, and the plan must facilities that produce less than 150,000
participate in a program for removal of include provisions for obtaining tpy of stainless or specialty steel, and
mercury switches that has been assurance from scrap providers that for larger, non-specialty EAF
approved by the Administrator. The mercury switches have been removed. steelmaking facilities. The small
NVMSRP 3 is an approved program The plan must be submitted to the facilities are required to comply with a
under this final standard. In response to permitting authority for approval and PM emissions limit of 0.8 pounds of PM
comments, we are also identifying the demonstrate how the facility will per ton (lb/ton) of steel for each control
Vehicle Mercury Switch Removal comply with specific requirements that device serving an EAF or AOD vessel.
Program mandated by Maine State law include: (1) A means of communicating Alternatively, small specialty producers
as an EPA-approved program. Facilities to scrap purchasers and scrap providers may elect to comply with a PM limit of
choosing to use an EPA-approved the need to obtain or provide motor 0.0052 grains per dry standard cubic
program as a compliance option are vehicle scrap from which mercury foot (gr/dscf). The final rule also
required to assume all of the switches have been removed and the includes an opacity limit of 6 percent
responsibilities for EAF steelmakers as need to ensure the proper disposal of for melt shop emissions. All other EAF
described in the NVMSRP MOU. The the mercury switches, (2) provisions for steelmaking facilities (both existing and
NVMSRP is described in detail in obtaining assurance from scrap new) are required to meet a PM limit of
section III.D.1 of the preamble to the providers that motor vehicle scrap 0.0052 grains per dry standard cubic
proposed rule. In response to comments, provided to the facility meets the scrap foot (gr/dscf) for emissions from a
we are including in the final rule specifications, (3) provisions for control device for an EAF or AOD
periodic inspection, or other means of vessel. The opacity of emissions from
provisions for EPA-approved programs
corroboration to ensure that scrap melt shops from these sources is limited
that specify certain responsibilities that
providers and dismantlers are to 6 percent. We have clarified in the
the EAF steelmaking industry agreed to
implementing appropriate steps to final rule that the emission limits apply
in signing the MOU, including
minimize the presence of mercury to AOD vessels and do not apply to
developing a plan that demonstrates
switches in motor vehicle scrap, (4) ladle metallurgy operations.
how the facility is participating in the Performance tests are required for
program, documenting communication provisions for taking corrective actions
if needed, and (5) requiring each motor each emissions source to demonstrate
and outreach to scrap providers, and initial compliance with the PM and
corroboration to ensure mercury vehicle scrap provider to provide an
estimate of the number of mercury opacity limits. Provisions are included
switches are being removed. in the rule for conducting the tests. The
EAF facilities may also obtain scrap switches removed from motor vehicle
scrap sent to the facility during the owner or operator of an existing EAF
from scrap providers participating in steelmaking facility is allowed to certify
other programs if they obtain EPA previous year and the basis for the
estimate. The permitting authority may initial compliance with the emissions
approval of the program. To do so, the limits if a previous test was conducted
facility owner or operator must submit request documentation or additional
information from the owner or operator during the past 5 years using the
a request to the Administrator for methods and procedures in the rule and
approval to comply by purchasing scrap at any time. The site-specific plan must
establish a goal for the removal of at either no process changes have been
from scrap providers that are made since the test, or the owner or
least 80 percent of the mercury
participating in another switch removal operator can demonstrate that the test
switches. All documented and verifiable
program and demonstrate to the results, with or without adjustments,
mercury-containing components
Administrator’s satisfaction that the reliably demonstrate compliance despite
removed from motor vehicle scrap
program meets the following specified process changes.
counts towards the 80 percent goal. We
criteria: (1) There is an outreach All EAF steelmaking facilities are
have clarified in the final rule that the
program that informs automobile required to have or obtain a title V
owner or operator must operate
dismantlers of the need for removal of permit. We have clarified in the final
according to the plan during the review
mercury switches and provides training rule that sources that already have a title
and approval process, must address any
and guidance on switch removal, (2) the V permit are not required to obtain a
deficiencies noted by the permitting

program has a goal for the removal of at authority within 60 days, and may new title V permit as a result of this area
3 Additional details can be found at http://
request changes to the plan. source rule. However, sources that
www.epa.gov/mercury/switch.htm and in section
An equivalent compliance option is already have a title V permit must
IV.D.1 of this preamble. In particular, see the signed provided for EAF owners or operators include the requirements of this rule
Memorandum of Understanding. who do not utilize motor vehicle scrap through a permit reopening or at
renewal according to the requirements approach is expected to be most useful the recordkeeping requirements for title
of 40 CFR part 70 and the title V permit to stainless and specialty steel V operating permits in 40 CFR
program. See 40 CFR 70.7(f). The final producers with stringent scrap 70.6(a)(3)(ii), which require records of
rule requires each EAF steelmaking specifications that do not permit the use analyses, measurements, and sampling
facility to monitor the capture system, of motor vehicle scrap and scrap data. The part 64 rule also requires the
PM control device, and melt shop; containing free organic liquids. The owner or operator to maintain records of
maintain records; and submit reports other approach for scrap that may monitoring data, monitor performance
according to the CAM requirements in contain certain contaminants is more data, corrective actions taken, any
40 CFR part 64. The existing part 64 rule prescriptive and requires a pollution written quality improvement plan (QIP),
requires the owner or operator to prevention plan, scrap specifications, any activities undertaken to implement
establish appropriate ranges for selected and procedures for determining that a QIP, and other supporting information
indicators for each emissions unit (i.e., these requirements are met. This required by the part 64 rule (such as
operating limits) such that operation pollution prevention approach was data used to document the adequacy of
within the ranges will provide a developed primarily for carbon steel monitoring, or records of monitoring
reasonable assurance of compliance producers that accept motor vehicle maintenance or corrective actions).
with the emissions limitations or scrap and many other types of ferrous The general reporting requirements of
standards. scrap. part 64 require the owner or operator to
The CAM rule requires the owner or Under the restricted scrap provision, submit monitoring reports to the
operator to submit certain monitoring the plant owner or operator must agree permitting authority in accordance with
information to the permitting authority to restrict the use of certain scrap, the requirements for facilities with title
for approval. This information includes: including metallic scrap from motor V operating permits. The title V
(1) The indicators to be monitored; (2) vehicle bodies, engine blocks, oil filters, reporting requirements in 40 CFR
the ranges or designated conditions for oily turnings, machine shop borings, 70.6(c)(1) and 40 CFR 71.6(c)(1) include
such indicators, or the process by which transformers and capacitors containing a 6-month monitoring report, deviation
such indicator ranges or designated polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), lead- reports, and annual compliance
conditions will be established; (3) containing components, chlorinated certifications. The part 64 reporting
performance criteria for the monitoring; plastics, or free organic liquids. The requirements specify that the 6-month
and if applicable, (4) the indicator restriction on lead-containing monitoring report include: (1) Summary
ranges and performance criteria for a components does not apply to the information on the number, duration
CEMS, COMS, or predictive emissions production of leaded steel (where lead and cause (including unknown cause, if
monitoring system. The owner or is obviously needed for production). applicable) of excursions or
operator also must submit a justification The other scrap management exceedances, as applicable, and the
for the proposed elements of the provision requires the plant owner or corrective actions taken; (2) summary
monitoring control device (and process operator to prepare a pollution information on the number, duration
and capture system, if applicable) and prevention plan for metallic scrap and cause (including unknown cause, if
operating parameter data obtained selection and inspection to minimize applicable) for monitor downtime
during the conduct of the applicable the amount of chlorinated plastics, lead incidents (other than downtime
compliance or performance test. (except for the production of leaded associated with zero and span or other
If monitoring indicates that the unit is steel), and free organic liquids. This daily calibration checks, if applicable);
operating outside of the acceptable plan must be submitted to the and (3) a description of the actions
range established in its permit, the permitting authority for approval. The taken to implement a QIP during the
owner or operator must return the owner or operator is required to keep a reporting period. Upon completion of a
operation to within the established copy of the plan onsite and train plant QIP, the owner or operator must include
range consistent with 40 CFR 64.7(d). personnel with materials acquisition or in the next summary report
inspection duties in the plan’s documentation that the implementation
D. Final GACT Standards for Scrap
requirements. of the plan has been completed and
Management The plan must include specifications reduced the likelihood of similar levels
In addition to meeting PM and for scrap materials to be depleted (to the of excursions or exceedances occurring.
opacity limits reflecting GACT, we are extent practicable) of lead-containing All EAF steelmaking facilities subject
also requiring EAF facilities to restrict components (except for the production to this NESHAP are also subject to
the use of certain scrap or follow a of leaded steel), undrained used oil certain specified requirements of the
pollution prevention plan for scrap filters, chlorinated plastics, and free NESHAP general provisions (40 CFR
inspection and selection that minimizes organic liquids. The plan must also part 63, subpart A). The general
the amount of specific contaminants in contain procedures for determining if provisions include requirements for
the scrap. these requirements are met (e.g., visual initial notifications; startup, shutdown,
The requirements are based on two inspection or periodic audits of scrap and malfunction records and reports;
pollution prevention approaches suppliers) and procedures for taking recordkeeping; and semiannual excess
depending on the type of scrap that is corrective actions with vendors whose emissions and monitoring system
used, and a facility may have some shipments are not within specifications. performance reports. The information
scrap subject to one approach and other required in these records and reports is
scrap subject to the other approach. One E. Recordkeeping and Reporting similar to the information required by
provision is for scrap that does not Requirements the CAM rule (40 CFR part 64) and the
contain certain contaminants and Area sources subject to the operating permits rules (40 CFR parts 70
simply prohibits the processing of scrap requirements for EAF and AOD vessels
and 71).
containing these contaminants are subject to the recordkeeping and The NESHAP also includes specific
(restricted scrap). Compliance is reporting requirements of the part 64 recordkeeping and reporting
demonstrated by a certification that the CAM rule. The general recordkeeping requirements for area source facilities
scrap does not contain the requirements of the part 64 rule directs subject to requirements for control of
contaminants. This scrap management the owner or operator to comply with contaminants from scrap. The area
source facilities are required to keep A. Basis for Area Source Standards B. Proposed MACT Standard for
records to demonstrate compliance with Mercury
the requirements for their pollution Comment: One commenter stated that
We determined at proposal that the
prevention plan for minimizing the EPA’s decision to issue GACT standards
MACT floor and MACT for mercury
amount of chlorinated plastics, lead, for mercury pursuant to section
emissions was the pollution prevention
and free organic liquids charged to a 112(d)(5), instead of MACT standards
practice of removing mercury switches
furnace or for the use of only restricted pursuant to section 112(d)(2) and (d)(3), from end-of-life vehicles before the
scrap and the site-specific plan for is arbitrary and capricious because EPA vehicles were crushed and shredded for
mercury or any of the mercury provided no rationale for its decision to use in EAFs. MACT would be
compliance options. issue GACT standards. The commenter implemented by EAF owners or
further stated that EPA’s proposed operators purchasing scrap only from
As noted above, facilities subject to GACT for mercury emissions from EAFs
the site-specific plan for mercury are scrap providers that were participating
does not satisfy section 112(d)(5) of the in an EPA-approved program for switch
required to keep records and submit
CAA because EPA is relying on a removal, operating pursuant to an EPA-
semiannual reports on the number of
voluntary program to keep switches that approved site-specific plan (of equal
mercury switches removed by the scrap
contain mercury out of the EAF rather effectiveness to an EPA-approved
providers or the weight of mercury
than evaluating potential reduction program) that ensured scrap providers
recovered from those switches, an
measures that are commercially had removed mercury switches, or by
estimate of the percent of mercury
available. not melting scrap from end-of-life
switches recovered, and certification
Response: The commenter evidently vehicles. We further proposed that the
that the recovered mercury switches
misread the proposed rule. The National Vehicle Mercury Switch
were managed at RCRA-permitted Recovery Program (NVMSRP) met the
facilities. We have clarified that the proposed standard for mercury is based
on MACT and is not based on GACT. As requirements of an EPA-approved
requested information can be aggregated program. However, we received several
in the semiannual report and does not we explained at proposal (72 FR 53816),
comments questioning how the
have to reported separately for every EAF steelmaking facilities were listed
effectiveness of an EPA-approved
scrap shipment. Facilities participating under CAA section 112(c)(6) solely on
program would be ensured and
in an EPA-approved program for switch the basis of mercury emissions, and we
suggestions for improving aspects of the
removal must keep records that identify proposed standards for mercury under rule related to program transparency,
their scrap providers and document that CAA section 112(d)(2) that reflect the enforceability, and implementability.
they participate in an approved switch performance of MACT. We identified We have incorporated several of these
removal program. The final rule requires the MACT floor (72 FR 53822) as the suggested improvements into the final
more extensive records for a site- pollution prevention approach of using rule, and we address these comments
specific plan than for an approved scrap only from scrap providers that are and describe these improvements in
program because extensive first removing mercury switches detail in section IV.B.3 of this preamble.
recordkeeping, reporting, and pursuant to an EPA-approved program. The improvements include developing
measurement of success are already We also evaluated more stringent and maintaining a plan showing how
required for approval of such a removal beyond-the-floor options for MACT (72 the facility is participating in the
program, the NVMSRP being the prime FR 53824). Additional discussion of our approved program, documentation of
example. MACT determination is provided in communication to suppliers of the need
All facilities subject to the section IV.B.1 of this preamble. Since for them to remove mercury switches, or
requirements for the control of the commenter did not address any other means of corroboration by the
contaminants from scrap are required to aspect of the actual proposal, further facility to ensure suppliers are
submit semiannual reports according to response is unnecessary. implementing switch removal
the requirements in § 63.10(e) of the If, against all natural readings, the procedures. We note here that the
general provisions. The report must comment is construed as stating that Administrator is committed to
identify any deviation from the rule EPA must first provide a rationale as to evaluating the effectiveness of the
requirements and the corrective action why it is not issuing a MACT standard approved program on a continuing basis
taken. and is a party to the agreement that
before it can issue a GACT standard
established the NMVSRP. The parties
under CAA section 112(d)(5) for HAP
IV. Summary of Comments and (including the Administrator) recently
other than mercury, we disagree with
Responses reviewed the program’s effectiveness
the commenter for the reasons set forth after 1 year. The 1-year review showed
We received a total of 20 comments in the final rules for Acrylic and reasonable progress, with recycling
on the proposed NESHAP from two Modacrylic Fibers Production, Carbon programs now available in every State.
trade associations representing the Black Production, Chemical The national program was slightly
steelmaking industry, two trade Manufacturing: Chromium Compounds, ahead of the schedule projected for
associations representing the scrap Flexible Polyurethane Foam Production start-up. We now expect switch
recycling industry, two associations and Fabrication, Lead Acid Battery removals to steadily increase over the
representing State agencies, six Manufacturing, and Wood Preserving next year as these programs begin to
environmental groups, four State (72 FR 38880, July 16, 2007). We fully operate. If the Administrator finds
agencies, two companies, a consultant, reiterate that we do not view the the program to be ineffective at the next
and one private citizen during the commenter as having raised an issue scheduled review under the MOU, or at
public comment period. Sections IV.A with respect to GACT vs. MACT for any time as provided in the rule, the
through IV.E of this preamble provide HAP other than mercury; however, we Administrator may disapprove the
responses to the significant public provide this response in an abundance program in whole or in part (e.g., for a
comments received on the proposed of caution to the extent the comment is, particular State), and participation in
NESHAP. in some way, construed in this manner. the program would no longer be a
compliance option, leaving EAF owners commercially available. One commenter emission standard that uses a tiered
or operators obliged to develop site- noted that EPA’s calculated cost approach towards demonstrating
specific programs for EPA approval in effectiveness of $11,000/pound (lb) of compliance, e.g., sources that emit less
order to meet the requirements of this mercury for ACI is similar to the cost than a certain amount of mercury per
rule. Under the site-specific program, it effectiveness anticipated by EPA for year may be allowed to comply with the
would fall on the EAF owner or operator municipal waste combustors and pollution prevention standard along
to provide a detailed accounting of medical waste incinerators, and it is with a mercury emissions monitoring
switches removed and vehicles well below the control costs expected requirement. The commenter continues
processed from all of their scrap from implementation of the utility by stating that more stringent mercury
providers to enable the Administrator or boiler Clean Air Mercury Rule—all rules monitoring should be required for more
permitting authority to evaluate whether where a technology-based standard for significant mercury emitters with the
the facility is in compliance with the mercury is based upon performance of understanding that if a certain level is
switch removal requirements. The ACI. The commenter notes that without not reached within a given time frame
somewhat lower documentation feature further analysis to determine the non-air (e.g., three years), the source must
of the NVMSRP provides a strong quality health and environmental install mercury emissions controls and
incentive to all of the parties involved impacts and energy requirements, it implement associated monitoring.
in switch removal to make every effort appears that ACI is a cost effective Another commenter requested a
to ensure the NVMSRP is effective on a control for mercury emissions and was protective backstop for the MACT
continuing basis. However, if the rejected by EPA prematurely. Several requirement, including advanced
national program were to prove commenters recommended that EPA mercury emissions removal technology
unsatisfactory and be subsequently require controls beyond the vehicle and continuous emission monitoring
disapproved as a compliance option, the switch removal program. One of these systems (CEMS) for facilities that do not
burden would be on the EAF owner or commenters stated that ACI is widely meet the mercury pollution prevention
operator to implement a site-specific used on other combustion sources (e.g., standards.
approach. In either case (whether a municipal waste combustors, medical One commenter stated that two EAFs
national program or site-specific waste incinerators, and hazardous waste in Michigan have mercury emission
program), we have codified an approach incinerators) and that ACI has already limits and must perform stack testing.
that provides accountability and been successfully applied to iron and This commenter asks that if EPA
measures of effectiveness as described steel melters in Europe. The commenter determines that an emission limit is not
in detail in section IV.B.3 of this stated that coal-fired boilers use ACI practical for the area source standard,
preamble. successfully, and no circumstances EPA should consider a percent
We also considered a standard based specific to EAFs have been identified reduction standard similar to what is
on the performance of activated carbon that would indicate that EAFs could not required in the State of New Jersey (75
injection (ACI) with continuous use the same technology efficaciously. percent). The commenter asks that
monitoring for mercury as a beyond-the- The commenter noted that the State of measures and targets be established and
floor option, and as we discuss in detail New Jersey estimated the cost to consequences identified if targets are
in section IV.B.1 of this preamble, we implement source separation and to not achieved. The commenter said
rejected this option for several reasons. install ACI on an existing baghouse to measures and targets include an
In summary, ACI has not been be less than $1.80 per ton of scrap
estimate of mercury-containing devices
demonstrated for EAFs, its effectiveness collected, inlet and outlet stack testing,
processed. The commenter claimed that
is highly uncertain due in large part to and baghouse dust analysis to confirm
the cost of compliance is minimal
the extreme variability in mercury reduced mercury inputs and emissions.
compared to the price of a ton of steel
loading from this batch operation (e.g., The commenter stated that identifying
($360 to $780/ton) or a ton of scrap
it is difficult to design and estimate the spikes in the mercury concentration of
($300/ton) and is not expected to cause
capacity of the ACI system that would baghouse dust provides information to
any facility to close. The commenter
be needed to handle the highly variable conduct additional quality control on
believes these cost estimates indicate
loading of mercury), and it would likely scrap shipments.
that add-on controls for mercury for Two commenters claimed that ACI is
result in the landfilling of large
EAFs are cost effective when the not a demonstrated technology for EAFs
quantities of hazardous waste (EAF
dust) that is currently recycled impacts of mercury emissions on human and that there is a great deal of
(pursuant to RCRA subtitle C standards) health and the environment are uncertainty about its potential
to recover its zinc content. In addition, weighed. effectiveness due in large part to the
it would be costly, and the continuous Several commenters requested that high variability of mercury emission
monitoring that would be needed to EPA include a mercury emission limit levels. The commenters also stated that
assess the effectiveness of ACI is not and monitoring strategy for EAFs rather the use of ACI would have a negative
feasible for the majority of EAF facilities than relying solely on a voluntary effect on recycling EAF dust because the
because they have baghouses without program. Three commenters said it is mercury in the dust makes it necessary
stacks. (See 72 FR 53817.) important to establish an emission limit to landfill the dust instead of recycling
and require testing for mercury because it. The commenters agreed with EPA’s
1. Emission Controls and an Emission 40 to 50 percent of the mercury comes pollution prevention approach and
Limit for Mercury from non-automobile sources and would stated that EPA properly explained the
Comment: One commenter stated that not be removed by the switch removal technological and economic feasibility
the proposed standard for mercury does program. One commenter requested that difficulties associated with developing
not satisfy the requirements of section EPA establish a mercury emission limit,
and enforcing a mercury emission limit

112(d)(5) of the CAA because EPA is require appropriate testing to verify for EAFs, including the fact that
relying solely upon a voluntary program compliance, and require add-on continuous monitoring for mercury from
to keep switches from cars out of the emission controls if the emission limit EAFs is impractical.
EAF rather than evaluating the potential is not met. Another commenter Response: At proposal, we
reduction measures that are suggested that EPA set a mercury determined that the MACT floor for
mercury was a pollution prevention respect to ACI that were not considered without requiring the use of continuous
approach based on preventing mercury and addressed at proposal when we monitors, including Pesticide Active
switches from entering the EAF. We also evaluated it as a beyond-the-floor option Ingredient Manufacturing and
explained at proposal that standards (72 FR 53824, 53825) and concluded Miscellaneous Organic Chemical
requiring pollution prevention were not that: Manufacturing. The commenter also
work practices under section 112(h), Based on the fact that activated carbon noted that EPA has recently
and even assuming for the sake of injection is not a demonstrated mercury promulgated the ‘‘sorbent tube’’ method
argument that they were work practices, control technology for EAF facilities, the for sampling stack gases at coal-fired
it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce uncertainty in design and performance of the power plants (40 CFR part 75, appendix
an emissions limit for mercury within add-on controls and hence of the actual K). The commenter believes that
the meaning of section 112(h) (72 FR mercury emission reductions for EAF because this method of monitoring
53817). We received no adverse facilities, the cost impacts per ton of mercury is capable of sampling flue
comments on or challenges to our emission reduction, and the adverse energy gases over any period of time (hours or
MACT floor determination or our and solid waste impacts, we determined that
control beyond the floor is not warranted for
even days), there appears to be little
conclusion that pollution prevention mercury. Therefore, we are proposing that impediment to using this method to
standards were not work practices the removal of mercury switches from the sample ‘‘batch’’ processes like those at
under section 112(h). scrap before it is melted in the EAF an EAF. Another commenter also noted
We evaluated ACI as a beyond-the- represents MACT for mercury for new and that CEMS are available and in use at
floor control option for mercury existing EAF facilities. other types of mercury-emitting
emissions and rejected the option for facilities.
several reasons (72 FR 53824). We also We emphasize again that ACI was not
rejected as a beyond-the-floor option One commenter stated that data from
considered the feasibility of establishing frequent monitoring will be essential to
an emission limit for mercury and solely on the basis of cost effectiveness.
We concluded that ACI has not been determine if actual reductions in
explained in detail why we chose mercury emissions have been achieved
instead an approach based on a demonstrated for EAFs and that there is
a great deal of uncertainty in design in order to determine whether the
pollution prevention standard (72 FR ‘‘sunset’’ of the pollution prevention
53816). We disagree that the proposed (e.g., the carbon capacity that would be
needed to treat a highly variable inlet standard in 2017 should be allowed to
standard for mercury relies solely on a occur. One commenter was concerned
voluntary program to keep mercury loading of mercury) and potential
performance (i.e., how much mercury that if there are no mercury emission
switches out of the scrap supply. First, standards, it may be very difficult for
there is nothing voluntary about the would actually be removed), and hence
of the actual mercury emission EPA to conduct its residual risk
obligations of EAF owners or operators determination. The commenter wonders
under the rule. They are not in reductions that might be achieved. We
also considered and discussed the how EPA will calculate residual risk
compliance with the rule unless they when there has been no attempt to
obtain scrap from dealers participating adverse energy and solid waste impacts.
establish a baseline of mercury
in an effective program to remove 2. Monitoring for Mercury emissions, determine the effectiveness
mercury switches. Moreover, the of the switch removal program, or
standard contains detailed requirements Comment: Several commenters stated
that stack monitoring for mercury measure emissions after controls are
for preparing and operating a pollution implemented. One commenter stated
prevention plan that must be approved emissions from EAFs was needed to
assess the effectiveness of the NVMSRP that at least one steel mill of which they
by the Administrator, specific criteria
and other programs. These commenters are aware has reported higher levels of
that will be used by the Administrator
believe it is important to have mercury emissions since starting to
to review and approve plans, criteria for
information on the actual emissions, the participate in the NVMSRP. The
approval of switch removal programs to
emissions impact of pollution commenter notes that frequent
ensure they are effective, and reporting
prevention measures, and an indication monitoring is needed to determine
and recordkeeping requirements
of need for additional actions that may whether the program is effective.
(including progress reports). The
be needed to further reduce mercury One commenter suggested that EPA
Administrator can evaluate the success
emissions. One commenter stated that require facilities to keep records of the
of an approved switch removal program
based on progress reports that provide CEMS are essential to establish that the sources of scrap metal entering the
the number of mercury switches voluntary switch removal program facility in a manner that allows
removed, the estimated number of reduces emissions. Another commenter correlation of scrap sources with
vehicles processed, and the percent of requested that the monitoring program elevated mercury emissions and that
switches removed. Based on this include a requirement to test emissions these records be available to the Agency
evaluation, the Administrator may within 6 months of publication of the and accessible for public review.
subsequently disapprove a previously final rule to establish a baseline for each Response: At proposal, we considered
approved switch removal program or a facility. the use of CEMS for mercury (72 FR
site-specific plan. An example of an One commenter stated that although 53817):
existing switch recovery program that the proposal states that no feasible We therefore examined the technological
has been documented as successful is methods of emissions testing exist for and economic feasibility of continuous
the one implemented by the State of any EAF facility (e.g., continuous monitoring for mercury from these sources.
Maine, which was one of the first such emissions monitoring), there are We note first that mercury CEMS are not
monitoring technologies that are demonstrated for EAF, raising a threshold
programs and was in place in advance
adaptable for use by any facility in this question of their technical feasibility for all
of the NVMSRP. The Maine program is EAF. Furthermore, most EAF discharge
now fully operational and reported a industry. The commenter noted that emissions from positive pressure baghouses
recovery rate of over 90 percent for batch process emissions are tested and without stacks. Continuous mercury
mercury switches in 2006. monitored in many industrial sectors, monitoring would not be technically feasible
The commenters provided no new and EPA has established emission for these EAF (i.e., stackless EAF), even
information or additional facts with standards for many batch processes assuming that mercury CEMS were otherwise
demonstrated for EAF. This is because removal takes place under the NVMSRP switch capture rates so that a rate of 80
volumetric flow rate and concentration or under other switch removal percent or more is achieved within two
would need to be determined by CEMS to programs. to three years.
measure the mass emission rate of mercury, One commenter stated that two
and without a stack, it is nearly impossible 3. Effectiveness of the Pollution studies of switch removal and mercury
to obtain an accurate measurement of Prevention Standard for Mercury
volumetric flow rate or to obtain emission reductions do not constitute
representative measurements of mercury Comment: Several commenters stated evidence of a cause and effect
concentration in the discharged emissions. that requirements to verify the relationship between removal of
Indeed, EPA has previously determined that effectiveness of the NVMSRP and other switches and mercury reductions. The
the use of continuous opacity monitoring switch removal programs are needed commenter believes that documentation
systems (COMS) was not feasible for positive and that accountability is not based on a large number of studies can
pressure baghouses without stacks for this adequately addressed. The commenters determine the cause and effect
reason. claimed that there are no enforceable relationship. The commenter further
The commenters did not address any mechanisms to ensure effective states that because no monitoring or
of these points that we made at participation in or compliance with the testing of mercury emissions are
proposal. After further consideration of switch removal programs and identified required by the proposed rule, no
CEMS, we continue to believe that the need for increased recordkeeping evidence of correlation between
CEMS are not feasible for monitoring and reporting beyond just participation amounts of mercury emitted and the
baghouses without stacks. in a switch removal program. One quality of scrap can be demonstrated,
One commenter stated that batch commenter requested that EPA include and there would be no evidence that the
processes such as EAF steelmaking enforceable measures of accountability switch removal program is working to
could be monitored for mercury that include consequences if the reduce mercury emissions.
emissions using the sorbent tube programs do not meet their goals. Two Several commenters noted that the
method. We agree that there are commenters requested that quantifiable proposed rule is silent on what happens
monitoring methods for mercury that performance measures be included to if the 80 percent switch removal goal is
can be used for batch processes; verify the effectiveness of mercury not met. One commenter believes the
however, the problem with applying reduction programs. One commenter rule should include a final date when
CEMS or the sorbent tube method is requested written documentation and the goal is to be met and identify
because of baghouses without stacks, audits of program participation of emission standards to be met as an
not because steelmaking is a batch suppliers, evaluation of switch recovery alternative to the 80 percent removal
process. We received no other rates, and mercury emissions testing goal.
comments that addressed, much less and monitoring requirements. Another One commenter was concerned about
refuted, EPA’s view of the fundamental commenter suggested incorporating using an estimate of the percentage of
shortcomings of applying mercury verifiable measurement and mercury switches removed to determine
CEMS to EAFs without stacks that were accountability systems and using some whether an approved plan should
discussed at proposal. of the specific language from the MOU continue to be approved because the
We discuss in much greater detail in to make the scrap plans accountable and estimate of the percentage of mercury
section IV.B.3 of this preamble the enforceable. This commenter also switches removed is highly uncertain
monitoring requirements of the rule and requested that EPA revise the rule to and dependant on many assumptions.
how they are used to determine the include enforceable scrap specification The commenter stated that determining
effectiveness of the standard. We have requirements and binding contracts the effectiveness of site-specific mercury
developed monitoring requirements that with scrap suppliers (rather than a switch removal programs by comparing
are appropriate for the pollution ‘‘means of communicating’’) and require uncertain statistics with an aggressive
prevention standard, and since we have recordkeeping, reporting, and removal goal (80 percent) may cause
concluded it is not necessary or certification to assure that scrap meets effective programs to have their
appropriate to establish a mercury stack specifications, as well as contract approval revoked.
emission limit, it is not appropriate and termination in the event of deviations. Response: The NVMSRP resulted
in most cases it is infeasible to require This commenter also states that the from a two-year process of collaboration
monitoring for mercury emissions. switch removal requirements must be and negotiation among a diverse group
The lack of a mercury emission more than a ‘‘goal’’; they must be of stakeholders to create a dedicated
standard will not affect our ability to achieved through binding contracts nationwide effort to remove mercury-
conduct a residual risk assessment in establishing removal requirements and containing switches from end-of-life
the future. We will by that time have effective tracking, recordkeeping, and vehicles. The stakeholders included
historical data on the effectiveness of reporting requirements. Two EPA, automakers, steel manufacturers,
the MACT standard, and mass balance commenters noted that since there are environmental groups, automobile scrap
approaches as well as innovative no effective performance measures, recyclers, and State agency
methods for sampling and analysis of goals, or consequences for failure to representatives. These stakeholders
sources or ambient air concentrations remove switches, there is no strong signed an MOU detailing their
may provide additional data. incentive for the NVMSRP to continue respective responsibilities and
We cannot directly address the after the initial funding has been commitments in the national switch
commenter who claimed that one expended. recovery effort. This effort will result in
plant’s mercury emissions had Two commenters requested substantial reductions in mercury
increased since joining the NVMSRP achievement of specific switch recovery emissions from EAFs by removing the
because the commenter provided no percentages as the rule is implemented. majority of mercury from metal scrap. In
details to substantiate the claim. They suggest a ramped capture rate of addition, it will have environmental
However, there is no doubt that removal 30 percent for year one, 50 percent for benefits from reducing mercury
of mercury switches before motor year two, and 80 percent in year three. emissions from sources other than EAFs
vehicle scrap is melted will reduce The commenters believe it is essential and will reduce mercury releases to
mercury emissions, whether the that the rule require increasing mercury media other than air. We disagree with
the commenter that without testing for program effectiveness. The approved programs, which may include
mercury emissions, there would be no Administrator is one of the parties programs other than the NVMSRP. In
evidence that the switch removal committed to this review and addition, we are including these same
program is working to reduce mercury assessment of effectiveness, and the requirements in the option for
emissions. Many States have Administrator may disapprove the developing a site-specific plan for
implemented switch removal programs, program as a compliance option (in switch removal. The rule changes
and major environmental groups have whole or in part) at any time based on include:
participated in and signed agreements the assessment of effectiveness. • EAF owners or operators must
supporting the programs, both of which A key element of measuring the develop and maintain onsite a plan
are indications of the participants’ belief success of the program is maintaining a demonstrating the manner through
in the ability of such programs to reduce database of participants that includes which their facility is participating in
mercury emissions. EPA recounts this detailed contact information; the EPA-approved program. The plan
history not to show that the Agency is documentation showing when the must include facility-specific
blindly accepting the negotiated participant joined the program (or implementation elements, corporate-
agreement, but that EPA has examined started submitting mercury switches); wide policies, and/or efforts
the agreement anew in light of the records of all submissions by the coordinated by a trade association as
requirements of section 112(d) and finds participant including date, number of appropriate for each facility.
that the program resulting from that mercury switches; and confirmation that • EAF owners or operators must
agreement meets the statutory the participant has submitted mercury provide in the plan documentation of
requirements. The success of the switches as expected. Another direction to appropriate staff to
program has been documented by direct important element is aggregated communicate to suppliers throughout
measurements of mercury in switches information to be updated on a quarterly the scrap supply chain the need for the
removed, and as of November 28, 2007, basis, including progress reports, removal of mercury switches from end-
over 843,000 switches with 1,855 summaries of the number of program of-life vehicles. Upon the request of the
pounds of mercury have been recovered. participants by State, individual permitting authority, the owner or
As we stated in detail at proposal, this program participants, and records of operator must provide examples of
pollution prevention approach was State and national totals for the number materials that are used for outreach to
determined to be the MACT floor and of switches and the amount of mercury suppliers, such as letters, contract
MACT for reducing mercury emissions recovered. The program is also language, policies for purchasing agents,
from EAFs. Emissions of mercury result estimating the number of motor vehicles and scrap inspection protocols.
from the melting of scrap metal that recycled. The NVMSRP will issue • EAF owners or operators must
contains mercury components. When reports quarterly during the first year of conduct periodic inspections or provide
these components are removed prior to the program, every six months in the other means of corroboration to ensure
charging the scrap to an EAF, the second and third year of the program, that suppliers are aware of the need for
mercury emissions are prevented. and annually thereafter. The reports and are implementing appropriate steps
Thousands of automobile recyclers prepared by ELVS will include the total to minimize the presence of mercury in
have already joined the NVMSRP, number of dismantlers or other potential scrap from end-of-life vehicles.
although not all members have yet sent participants identified; the total number One commenter claimed that because
in recovered switches. (As we discuss in of dismantlers or others contacted; and no monitoring or testing for mercury is
more detail below, there is a lag time as the total number of dismantlers or required, there is no way to determine
dismantlers accumulate enough others participating. The annual report if the pollution prevention approach is
switches to fill a shipping container.) will include the total mercury (in reducing mercury emissions. We
Information on the program, including pounds) and number of mercury strongly disagree because the number of
scrap suppliers who have joined and the switches recovered nationwide; the total switches or weight of mercury recovered
number of switches they have turned in pounds of mercury recovered and is a direct measure of the amount of
to date, can be found on the End of Life number of mercury switches by State; mercury prevented from entering the
Vehicle Solutions Web site (http:// and an estimated national capture rate. environment. As we explained at
www.elvsolutions.org). Other information includes the total proposal and in an earlier comment
As we discussed at proposal, there are number and identity of dismantlers or response, it is not feasible to require
many elements in the NVMSRP that are others dropped due to inactivity or continuous emission monitoring at
designed to measure success and to withdrawal from the program. Mercury EAFs with baghouses without stacks,
evaluate its effectiveness. One year switch removal is already underway— and because of the variability in
following the effective date of the MOU more than 1,855 pounds of mercury mercury emissions from this batch
and each year thereafter, the parties or from over 843,000 switches have been process, periodic manual sampling is
their designees and EPA agreed to meet recovered to date by program inadequate and provides only a
to review the effectiveness of the participants. This represents almost 20 snapshot in time of the emissions.
program at the State level based upon percent of our estimated reduction in Commenters also asked what happens
recovery and capture rates. The parties mercury emissions of 5 tons per year if the 80 percent goal is not met.
to the agreement will use the results to once the final rule and NVMSRP are Another stated that there is a great deal
improve the performance of the program fully implemented. of uncertainty in estimating the percent
and to explore implementation of a The commenters make valid points of switches removed and that the use of
range of options in that effort. Two and that the effectiveness of the rule could this uncertain statistic could cause
one-half years from the inception of the be improved by incorporating certain effective switch removal programs to
program, the parties agreed to meet and elements that the steel manufacturers have their approval revoked. We
review overall program effectiveness have already agreed to in the MOU. We addressed these issues at proposal (72
and performance. This review will have revised the proposed rule to FR 53824) and we note again that the 80
include analysis of the number of provide more specificity to the EAF percent minimum recovery rate is a goal
switches that have been collected and owner or operator responsibilities and that all parties to the MOU agreed to
what factors have contributed to to improve the effectiveness of EPA- work toward. We recognize that 80
percent recovery will not be achieved in enhance effectiveness, the rule should anticipation of a future opportunity to
the first year or two; however, the stipulate enforceable consequences for dispose or recycle them. States that have
parties to the MOU agreed to aim for the EAF sector in the event that the just joined the national program are
collection of at least four million pollution prevention approach is not clearly in a ramp-up phase. There will
switches in the first three years of the sufficient to achieve necessary emission be an initial delay associated with many
NVMSRP and agreed to exceed this reductions. The commenter suggests new programs while individual
amount if possible. We believe that that if existing and proposed programs dismantlers accumulate sufficient
recovery of four million switches are not successful, then additional switches to make a shipment for
(approximately 4.4 tons of mercury at 1 emission control and monitoring recovery. It has been estimated that it
gram per switch) in the first three years requirements and/or further EAF may take from 6 to 12 months to fill a
is a good beginning for working toward financial support to the NVMSRP switch collection bucket that typically
recovery of 80 percent of mercury should be required. holds about 400 mercury pellets from
switches. It is necessary to acknowledge Response: The rule provides a strong switches. The same type of lag time in
that there will be an initial delay in incentive for EAF owners or operators to shipping was noted when one of the
many States that have recently joined continue their support for the NVMSRP first switch removal programs in the
the NVMSRP while individual even after the incentive fund is country was initiated by the State of
dismantlers accumulate sufficient depleted. Facilities that do not Maine.
switches to make a shipment for participate in an EPA-approved program The data show that during its first full
recovery. It has been estimated that it must develop and operate by site- year, the program has made significant
may take from 6 to 12 months to fill a specific switch removal plans that may progress, and as we pointed out earlier,
switch collection bucket (e.g., according prove to be more burdensome than that over 1,855 pounds of mercury has been
to the ELVS Web site at http:// of participating in the NVMSRP. The recovered, and this represents almost 20
www.elvsolutions.org, switches are rule requires that metal scrap purchased percent of our estimated annual
typically collected in 3.5 gallon buckets for use in an EAF be procured from a reduction in mercury emissions (5 tons
that can hold up to 450 mercury pellets supplier that removes mercury per year) once the rule is fully
from switch assemblies). convenience light switches. If an EAF implemented. The second year of the
Furthermore, the goal of removing 80 owner or operator fails to meet the program will shift from roll-out to
percent of the mercury switches is not requirements related to audits of ramping up participation and collection
the only criteria used to evaluate the suppliers, reporting, recordkeeping or rates. We should see significant progress
success of a program. In the proposed any other rule provisions, then the toward achieving 80 percent recovery of
rule, we explained that the owner or operator is at risk of being switches in the third year of program
Administrator can evaluate the success found in violation of the rule. If the implementation.
of an EPA-approved program at any facility is at risk of non-compliance Comment: One commenter questioned
time, identify States where because of the actions of a scrap the meaning of ‘‘80 percent’’ in the
improvements might be needed, provider, then it is in the interest of the reduction of mercury switches: Does it
recommend options for improving the owner or operator to take corrective refer to the convenience switches in one
program in a particular State, and if actions and fix the problem with the automobile, the total weight of mercury
necessary, disapprove the program as scrap provider or to terminate the scrap in switches in a vehicle being turned
implemented in a State from being used purchasing contract because of failure to into scrap, the total number of switches
to demonstrate compliance with the rule meet scrap specifications. and other sources of mercury in one
based on an assessment of this Comment: One commenter stated that vehicle, or none of the above.
performance. The evaluation would be a review of the End of Life Vehicle Response: ‘‘80 percent’’ switch
based on progress reports submitted to Solutions (ELVS) database indicates a recovery is the goal, and the percent of
the Administrator that provide the number of cases where individual switches recovered (the capture rate as
number of mercury switches removed, dismantlers are participants in the defined in the MOU) is the number of
the estimated number of vehicles NVMSRP, but have yet to submit mercury switches removed from end-of-
processed, and percent of mercury collected switches. life vehicles divided by the total
switches recovered. The Administrator Response: The ELVS Web site, which mercury switch population in end-of-
can assess the information with respect provides information on the NVMSRP life vehicles in a given time period (e.g.,
to the program’s goal for percent switch and its members, includes the date each year of the program) times 100.
recovery and trends in recovery rates. when a particular automobile or scrap Comment: One commenter objected to
For example, as the NVMSRP has recycler joined the program. As the the credit allowed in calculating the 80
ramped up, switch recovery rates have facility-specific data show, some percent mercury switch removal goal for
increased from 241,000 switches in recyclers joined the program during its site-specific plans. The commenter
2006 to 602,000 through the first 10 first year of implementation or even objected to the credit because it allows
months of 2007. earlier. We do not believe that this counting of mercury removed from
Comment: One commenter noted that should cause undue concern at this components other than convenience
in the NVMSRP MOU, funding was time. Some States had instituted lighting while the approved plan
negotiated with the understanding that statutorily mandated programs prior to requires only the removal of mercury
the EAF rule would provide strong the establishment of the national switches from convenience lighting. The
incentives for switch removal after the program and, therefore, have been commenter stated that the provision is
incentive fund was depleted. The operating for a longer period of time. not consistent with the MOU, which
commenter states that the proposed rule Automobile and scrap recyclers in these states that only mercury switches used
does not appear to provide such States have had more of incentive to for convenience lighting will be counted
incentives because there are no participate early on in the program. It is for purposes of measuring program
performance measures, goals, or possible that automobile and scrap performance. The commenter argued
consequences for failing to remove recyclers in those States have already that site-specific plans should not be
switches. The commenter further states submitted switches to be recycled, some held to a higher standard than the
that to provide accountability and of which may have been stored in NVMSRP.
Response: While it is true that only specified for the option of a site-specific 4. Other Sources of Mercury in Scrap
switches from convenience lighting plan for switch removal. The Comment: Several commenters
apply to the 80 percent minimum goal commenter went on to state that there claimed that a significant amount of
of the NVMSRP, ELVS accepts all is no incentive to meet the requirements mercury comes from sources other than
automobile mercury switches (including and no penalty for failing to do so. automobile scrap, including household
those from anti-lock brake systems Another commenter is concerned about and commercial appliances, heating and
(ABS)), and the automobile or scrap the proposed rule’s mechanism for air conditioning units, and industrial
recyclers that remove them are paid the approval of alternative switch recovery equipment. Some of these commenters
incentive fee of $1.00 per switch. We programs since States vary in their level suggested addressing these sources of
believe that this provides an incentive of participation in the NVMSRP and mercury by expanding the NVMSRP.
to remove switches from other systems have a variety of statutory and One commenter stated that the mercury
as well as for convenience lighting. In regulatory requirements, State level from sources other than automobiles
the requirements for site-specific plans, MOUs, State incentive funds, and other was on the order of 40 to 50 percent of
other sources of mercury are included in program components. The commenter the mercury in scrap. Another
determining the 80 percent goal, such as said that to ensure consistency and commenter noted that the counteracting
ABS, security systems, active ride enforceability, clear criteria and effect of increased use of ABS, more
control, and other applications. procedures that ensure any program’s mercury containing electronic devices
Inclusion of these other components in effectiveness need to be specified in the in cars, and other mercury-containing
the site-specific programs provides an rule. One commenter suggested the items, could conceivably lead to a net
incentive for their removal. These Administrator specifically consider the increase in the mercury in scrap
mercury-containing components participation rate of scrap suppliers to
contribute less mercury (13 percent processed by steel mills.
an area steel mill and the collection rate One commenter stated that the rule
compared to 87 percent from of the largest scrap suppliers to the should address these mercury sources to
convenience light switches), and they facility prior to approving the goals. One scrap metal by incorporation into the
are more difficult to locate, identify, and of the commenters noted that as NVMSRP or through the establishment
remove. Mercury-containing proposed, the rule directs the
components in ABS will be the and funding (by mercury product
Administrator to determine if NVMSRP manufacturers and the EAF sector) of
components other than convenience or alternative programs are adequately
light switches that are most often collection programs targeting other
recovering switches, but provides no products that contribute to scrap metal.
removed. The removal of these quantitative requirements.
components requires removing the rear The commenter suggested as an
Response: As we discussed above, the example a possible requirement that
seat and dismantling the ABS. We Administrator will evaluate the number
believe that if a dismantler chooses to mercury thermostat manufacturers and
of mercury switches removed, the the EAF sector could fund an expansion
take the time to remove and recover estimated number of vehicles processed,
mercury components from ABS or other of the Thermostat Recycling Corporation
and percent of mercury switches (TRC) program, a voluntary end-of-life
components, they should receive some recovered. (See § 63.10685(b)(1)(v) and
type of credit for doing so, thus they can mercury thermostat collection initiative
(b)(2)(iii)). The Administrator can assess supported by thermostat manufacturers.
include them in their 80 percent
the information with respect to the The commenter stated that the TRC is a
minimum recovery goal.
Comment: One commenter stated that program’s goal for percent switch well-established program but provides
at least two EAF facilities are exempt recovery and trends in recovery rates. no recovery incentives and has achieved
from the proposed rule because they are The criteria are not hard and fixed a poor national recovery rate.
collocated with major source integrated because flexibility is needed to consider Response: At proposal, we considered
iron and steel manufacturing facilities. potentially lower recovery rates as the the removal of other mercury-containing
The commenter noted that if these program is established and higher rates components in automobiles, such as
facilities are not covered by the rule and as the number of participants peaks. We switches in ABS, and determined the
choose not to participate in the have described earlier the database used option was not justified as a beyond-the
voluntary NVMSRP, then these facilities for documenting and measuring floor standard (72 FR 53824). These
and their suppliers will enjoy at least mercury switch recovery. We believe sensors are considerably more difficult
two competitive advantages over the 91 that this database provides sufficient and time consuming to remove than are
facilities that will have to comply with transparency to ensure that the program convenience light switches, and they
the rule: They will have lower costs and is making measurable program progress contribute much less mercury (e.g., 87
they will be free of any legal and assuring accountability while at the percent of the mercury in end-of-life
requirement to address mercury in the same time remaining flexible. vehicles comes from convenience light
scrap that they receive, generate, and or We have provided sufficient detail in switches). The commenters provided no
use as feedstock. The commenter also the rule for the criteria used to approve data or rationale to support that the
stated that scrap from any supplier who State and other switch removal removal of other sources of mercury
chooses to ignore mercury will programs: (1) There is an outreach from the scrap supply was economically
preferentially flow to these facilities program that informs automobile and technologically feasible as a
because there will be no legal or dismantlers of the need for removal of beyond-the-floor option.
voluntary obligation for that supply mercury switches and provides training We have no data or documentation
chain to address mercury. and guidance on switch removal, (2) the that non-automobile sources contribute
Response: As we stated at proposal, program has a goal for the removal of at 40 to 50 percent of the mercury as the
least 80 percent of the mercury commenters claim, and we have some
we plan to list EAFs as a major source

category and develop MACT standards switches, and (3) the program sponsor indications their estimate is quite high.
for HAP emissions, including mercury. must submit annual progress reports on For example, a report (available at
Comment: One commenter noted that the number of switches removed and http://www.epa.gov/region5/air/
the criteria by which the Administrator the estimated number of motor vehicle mercury/appliancereport.html)
will evaluate semiannual reports are not bodies processed. prepared for the State of Massachusetts
stated that mercury switches in obsolete rate of over 90 percent for all mercury ‘‘mercury switches’’ with ‘‘accessible
appliances accounted for less than 1 switches—not just convenience light mercury switches.’’
percent of the mercury in the solid switches. The commenter further added Response: We have defined mercury
waste stream. Most mercury-containing that the program meets or exceeds all of switch to include only those switches
components in appliances were phased the criteria that are identified in the that are part of a convenience light
out several years ago, and any that proposed rule as necessary to effect switch mechanism. Our information
might remain would contribute very mercury reductions from EAFs. indicates that these switches are
little mercury to the scrap supply One commenter recommended that accessible and are easily removed, and
compared to switches in automobiles. In EPA grant pre-approval of existing State it is important to the success of the
addition, end-of-life vehicles contribute programs. The commenter argued that pollution prevention program that they
approximately 7 times more in tons of pre-approval of the eight existing State be removed. Consequently, we are not
total metal to the scrap supply than do programs (which account for about adding the additional requirement that
obsolete appliances; consequently, these 1,900 participants), would eliminate the they be ‘‘accessible,’’ which would
factors suggest that end-of-life vehicles need for scrap providers participating in introduce additional uncertainty
are the primary contributor to mercury those programs to obtain EPA approval because of the judgment that must be
in the scrap supply. While some ABS of their site-specific plans. made as to what is accessible.
contained mercury sensors as we noted Comment: One commenter stated the
Response: We agree that State
at proposal, these too have been phased requirement in § 63.10685(b)(1)(B) for
agencies should be involved in
out and were much less common and assurances from scrap providers that
reviewing and approving or
contained less mercury than scrap meets specifications does not
disapproving site-specific pollution
convenience light switches. seem to allow for uncertainty or error.
prevention plans. We expect that the
The commenter suggested that the
5. Role of State Agencies State permitting authority will have a
language read ‘‘Provisions for obtaining
Comment: One commenter claimed better understanding of the facilities in
assurance from scrap providers that to
that State agencies would have little or their State and their site-specific
the best of their knowledge, motor
no say in approving site-specific operating conditions and any special vehicle scrap provided to the facility
pollution prevention plans and that circumstances. We are clarifying that meets the scrap specification’’.
State and/or local agencies should have the rule delegates to the States the Response: We disagree that the
more authority over such approvals. authority to implement and enforce change recommended by the commenter
Another commenter noted that part of those requirements in the rule dealing is necessary because the phrase ‘‘to the
the approval process can be delegated to with contaminants from scrap except for best of their knowledge’’ is subjective
the permitting authority, but there may the approval of national, State, or local and likely creates confusion rather than
be many varying programs and elements agency programs under the option for clarity. The EAF owner or operator must
of programs that individual companies approved mercury programs. We believe obtain assurance to their satisfaction
or facilities may wish to implement, that such broad programs should require that the scrap meets specifications.
some of which States do not have any EPA approval and that it is not Comment: One commenter said the
experience with. The commenter appropriate for a State agency to requirement in § 63.10685(b)(1)(ii)(C) for
recommends that EPA retain the evaluate and approve a national a means of corroboration to ensure that
responsibility for approving programs program or their own program. The rule scrap providers and dismantlers are
and provide clear criteria for an should be implemented by State air implementing appropriate steps to
acceptable program, and use these programs and not by solid and minimize the presence of mercury
criteria to approve existing State hazardous waste programs. switches in motor vehicle scrap should
programs that are not part of the We are also identifying the mercury be replaced with appropriate steps ‘‘to
NVMSRP. switch recovery program mandated by encourage the removal of accessible
Two commenters were concerned State law in Maine as an EPA-approved mercury switches from motor vehicles
about the ability of air agencies to program because they submitted to be shredded.’’
enforce a pollution prevention program documentation that the requirements Response: We disagree because
that will, in many cases, be overseen by are equivalent to (or more stringent corroboration to ensure that scrap
solid and hazardous waste programs. than) the approved national program. providers and dismantlers are
The commenters noted that the The program in Maine represents implementing appropriate steps to
requirements of the switch removal MACT, and we explained at proposal minimize the presence of mercury
program must be incorporated into air that MACT is a national, State, local or switches in motor vehicle scrap is
permits, and the provisions must be facility-specific switch recovery necessary to ensure the effectiveness
clearly understood and enforceable by program that meets specific criteria. No and credibility of the pollution
State air agencies in cooperation with other States made such requests or prevention requirements.
their counterparts in other media submitted information showing Comment: One commenter expressed
programs. The commenters are equivalency; consequently, we are not concern that the requirements in
concerned that if these provisions are currently identifying other State § 63.10685(b)(1)(ii)(C), (b)(1)(iii), and
not explicit in the program, this programs as EPA-approved in the final (b)(1)(v) may require scrap providers to
pollution prevention approach will not rule. divulge confidential business
be effective. information (CBI) or to provide sensitive
6. Comments on Specific Rule Changes
One State agency commenter asked information to EAF operators to comply.
that EPA approve the vehicle mercury Comment: One commenter stated that Response: It is in the interest of both
switch recovery program mandated by in § 63.10685(b)(1)(i) and (ii), the the scrap provider and EAF operator to
Maine State law as an EPA-approved requirement for removal of mercury provide the information required by the
program under the rule. The commenter switches from vehicle bodies used to rule and to establish procedures if
noted that the Maine program has been make scrap does not seem to recognize necessary to protect confidential
the most successful switch recovery the possibility of inaccessible switches. information. The requirements cited by
program to date, with a 2006 recovery The commenter suggests replacing the commenter refer to: (1) Periodic
inspections of scrap providers and to address any deficiency within 90 scrap processors participating in the
dismantlers to ensure appropriate steps days of receiving a written notice from brokered transaction.’’
are being taken to remove mercury the Administrator. The commenter Response: We disagree because the
switches; (2) estimates of the number of stated that recordkeeping and definition as proposed allows a broker
switches removed; and (3) semiannual compliance certification requirements to be considered a scrap provider. The
progress reports that provide the should be added consistent with the EAF owner or operator must ensure that
number of switches or weight of requirement. the broker receives scrap only from
mercury removed, number of vehicles Response: We continue to believe that suppliers participating in an EPA-
processed, estimate of the percent of the pollution prevention plans must be approved program, and we have
switches removed, and certification of submitted to the permitting authority for clarified this in the final rule. For the
proper disposal of the switches. This review and approval to ensure they site-specific option, the EAF owner or
information is an essential monitoring adequately address the requirements in operator must obtain assurance from all
component of the rule to measure the the rule. We are clarifying in the final scrap providers that mercury switches
effectiveness of a facility’s pollution rule that the owner or operator must have been removed and provide an
prevention program. The information on operate according to the plan as accounting of the number of switches
number of vehicles processed can be submitted during the review and removed and vehicles processed for all
aggregated for a facility if it is important approval process, operate according to scrap providers, along with all of the
not to reveal the number of vehicles the approved plan at all times after other requirements in the site-specific
processed by a given scrap provider. We approval, and address any deficiency plan.
do not see nor did the commenter identified by the permitting authority Comment: One commenter
identify exactly what component of the within 60 days following disapproval of recommended that the proposed
requested information would be CBI; a plan. We are also clarifying that the definition of ‘‘motor vehicle scrap’’ be
however, if the case can be made that owner or operator may request approval revised to refer to shredded scrap that
there is CBI involved, EPA and the to revise the plan and may operate contains shredded end-of-life vehicles.
permitting authorities have established according to the revised plan unless and The commenter explained that shredded
procedures for managing and until the revision is disapproved by the scrap typically includes shredded end-
safeguarding CBI and will, of course, of-life or obsolete appliances as well as
permitting authority.
utilize them. other materials. Alternatively, the
Comment: One commenter pointed to
Comment: One commenter objected to commenter suggested replacing the
the provision in § 63.10685(b)(2)(iii)
the requirement in § 63.10685(b)(1)(iii), definition of ‘‘motor vehicle scrap’’ with
which allows the Administrator to
which effectively compels scrap a definition of ‘‘shredded scrap’’, which
revoke approval for all or part of the would contain some fraction of
providers to collect switch removal
NVMSRP based on review of the shredded end-of-life vehicles.
information from all upstream sources
reported data. The commenter asked if Response: The definition of motor
of end-of-life vehicles. The commenter
the 90-day period between the vehicle scrap is specific to vehicles
stated that to impose such burdensome
revocation notice and the effective date processed in a shredder. We do not see
requirements on the suppliers of the
of the revocation provide sufficient time a need to revise the definitions as
regulated entity far exceeds the
for the Administrator to approve 100 suggested by the commenter.
Agency’s regulatory authority.
Response: The burden imposed by the site-specific plans under Comment: One commenter
Agency is on the EAF owner or operator § 63.10685(b)(1) and if there was a recommended that EPA revise
to obtain switch removal information process in place for seeking § 63.10685(b) to clarify that scrap that
because it is a critical monitoring reconsideration of revocation. does not contain motor vehicle scrap
component of the rule. The EAF owner Response: We are clarifying in the does not need to meet one of the three
or operator in turn must require this final rule that the authority for the compliance options for mercury. The
information from scrap providers, and if approval of site-specific plans is commenter suggested using the term
such information is not obtained, the delegated to the permitting authority. ‘‘motor vehicle scrap provider’’ instead
EAF owner or operator could be found This is what the proposed rule allowed of ‘‘scrap provider.’’ Otherwise, the
in violation of the rule. because this authority was not among commenter asked that EPA add a fourth
Comment: One commenter objected to those listed in the rule as not being compliance option under § 63.19685(b)
the proposed requirement for EPA delegated. We believe the 90-day period for scrap that contains no motor vehicle
approval of the scrap pollution is adequate for the approval process. scrap and require certification to that
prevention plan and mercury switch The rule has no formal process for effect for the scrap provider, contract for
removal plan if prior approval is needed seeking reconsideration of revocation. scrap, or scrap shipment. The
before the plan can be implemented or Comment: One commenter commenter stated that recordkeeping
a change made. The commenter argued recommended that the proposed and compliance certification
that prior approval would require all definition of ‘‘scrap provider’’ be requirements should be added
EAF operations to be shut down from revised because the definition includes consistent with the requirement.
the effective date of the rule until the brokers who have no oversight over Response: We have clarified in the
plan is approved (unless EPA can scrap preparation and delivery. final rule that the mercury switch
approve all plans in the limited time According to the commenter, a revised removal provisions and three
available), that the need to respond to definition should allow brokers to be compliance options apply to scrap that
scrap that is presently available considered ‘‘scrap providers’’ as a contains motor vehicle scrap. In
precludes the ability of the facility to contractual matter. The commenter addition, we have added a new
seek prior approval of changes, and that suggested that EPA define ‘‘scrap provision to the rule for scrap that does
it is unclear that EPA can provide provider’’ to mean ‘‘the final preparer of not contain motor vehicle scrap to
meaningful review of scrap plans. The scrap delivered to a steel mill, or a require a certification and
commenter suggested language that broker when a brokered transaction documentation through records that the
would require facilities to keep a copy specifies that the broker provide scrap does not contain motor vehicle
of the plan onsite and update the plan information to the steel mill from the scrap.
Comment: One commenter objected to scrap from end-of-life vehicles. Periodic According to the commenters, the
the requirement for facilities to submit audits or inspections of scrap suppliers Administrator ‘‘may distinguish among
a semiannual report of all scrap or dismantlers are one means of classes, types, and sizes of sources
shipments received under the site- complying with this requirement. within a category or subcategory’’ under
specific compliance option. The Although there are certainly other section 112(d)(l), and similarly, section
commenter recommended that EPA means to comply with this requirement, 112(c) authorizes EPA to establish
review scrap management records to we note that periodic audits or categories and subcategories of major
determine compliance. The commenter inspections of scrap suppliers or and area sources in a manner that is
provided recommended language for a dismantlers are consistent with the consistent with the list of categories and
semiannual report containing a agreement reached in the NVMSRP subcategories under Section 111. The
certification of compliance, along with among many stakeholders, including the commenters also indicated that section
records of how each motor vehicle scrap scrap providers. Some EAF facilities 111(b)(2) provides EPA with authority
provider, contract, or shipment already perform inspections of to ‘‘distinguish among classes, types,
complies with the rule. suppliers, and EAF facilities have and sizes within categories,’’ and
Response: We continue to believe that historical experience in ensuring the section 112 further provides that
an accounting of mercury switches and quality of the scrap they receive because ‘‘(n)othing in the preceding sentence
estimated number of vehicles processed of safety concerns (e.g., radiation or (referring to the desire to maintain
must be submitted in semiannual explosion hazards) and the direct effect consistency between source categories
reports because it is an important of scrap quality on steel quality. under Sections 111 and 112) limits the
monitoring provision that is necessary The corroboration requirement in the Administrator’s authority to establish
to determine if the site-specific plan is final rule, as described above, is an subcategories under this section, as
being implemented and to assess its important element of assuring program appropriate.’’
effectiveness. However, we are effectiveness and achieving the The commenters pointed out that in
clarifying that the information can be pollution prevention objective of section the preamble to the proposed rule (72
submitted in aggregate form and does 112(d)(2)(A). EPA is thus adopting the FR 53826), EPA stated that it may be
not have to be submitted for each requirement as an exercise of appropriate to consider a separate
shipment, which could include independent judgment, not simply subcategory of facilities based on the
hundreds of records for some large because it is in the agreement. technical and economic feasibility of
facilities. However, the owner or
operator must maintain records for each C. Proposed GACT Standard for Metal retrofitting pre-1983 (non-NSPS)
motor vehicle scrap provider, contract, HAP Other Than Mercury facilities. According to the commenters,
or shipment (as the commenter suggests) such subcategorization is not new and
1. Opacity Limit for the Melt Shop falls within the Agency’s discretion to
sufficient to demonstrate compliance
with the rule and must make these Comment: Two commenters stated create subcategories. The commenters
records available upon the request of the that a subcategory for older non-NSPS continued by stating that while age is
permitting authority. facilities is justified by the fact that the not specifically identified as a criterion
Comment: One commenter stated that non-NSPS status of these facilities has a for subcategorizing under Section 112,
the scrap specification requirements for direct bearing on the technical and age may have a direct correlation to the
mercury switches make unrealistic and economic feasibility of retrofitting to design of a facility, the production and
unenforceable demands of metal achieve the six percent opacity standard air pollution control equipment used by
purchasers. The commenter notes that during charging and tapping. According the facility, and other factors that allow
steel mill staff are required to assure to the commenters, these facilities, by for ‘‘class, type, or size’’ subcategory
that the scrap is clean by visiting virtue of their design, are of a different distinctions within an industry. The
suppliers (who may be hundreds of class and type from the NSPS facilities. commenters stated that courts have
miles away) by doing visual inspection The commenters concluded that the confirmed this relationship between age
of their facilities and treated scrap. The alternative standard described in the and allowable subcategorization factors
commenter further notes that suppliers proposal preamble with an opacity where there is a meaningful, discernable
change frequently, they buy from standard of six percent and an relationship between the age of the
middlemen, and they ship scrap from allowance of 20 percent opacity during facility and the basis for
combined sources. The commenter charging and tapping was appropriate subcategorization (e.g., the cost or
believes this shifts responsibility of for these non-NSPS facilities. The feasibility of retrofitting or the
‘‘ensuring’’ quality of scrap to the commenters provided a discussion of effectiveness of anti-pollution devices
steelmakers and makes no requirements EPA’s authority to establish such a on emissions) and cited American Iron
of the steelmakers themselves, but asks subcategory and information they and Steel Inst. v. EPA, 568 F.2d 244, 298
them to inspect members of an claimed indicated that EPA’s estimates (3rd Cir. 1977) (‘‘AISI’’) (also cited by
independent industry at large cost in of the costs to retrofit the non-NSPS EPA in the preamble to the proposed
staffing and travel when it is unlikely to facilities was understated. The rule). The commenters claimed that the
be effective. commenters also argued that applying courts have recognized that age may
Response: The rule applies to owners the NSPS to the non-NSPS facilities was play a direct role in a facility’s ability
or operators of EAF steelmaking not justified because the proposed to install anti-pollution devices (i.e.,
facilities, and it is the responsibility of standard was not as cost effective as retrofitting costs) and on the
these facilities to comply with the rule. EPA had estimated, and in addition, the effectiveness of reducing emissions
Among other things, the final rule cost effectiveness for HAP was much (citing American Iron and Steel Inst. v.
requires that EAF owners or operators EPA, 526 F.2d 1046, 1048 (3rd Cir.
higher than what EPA had determined

conduct periodic inspections or provide to be unacceptable in other rulemakings. 1975) (also cited by EPA), recognizing
other means of corroboration to ensure The commenters noted that CAA the ‘‘special problem’’ in requiring a
that suppliers are aware of the need for section 112 grants the EPA authority to one-size-fits-all anti-pollution device in
and are implementing appropriate steps categorize and subcategorize based on industries where there is considerable
to minimize the presence of mercury in class, type, and size of source. variation in the age of facilities).
The commenters stated that they are included in EPA’s estimates. In difference (i.e., age in and of itself is not
not seeking subcategorization based addition, the commenters claimed that a basis for subcategorization). However,
strictly on the age of the facility, but EPA’s estimates of emission reductions we are not convinced that there is any
rather to recognize that non-NSPS were overstated because some of the basis for subcategorization because the
facilities (those that were constructed dust assumed to be collected by the non-NSPS plants have no physical
prior to 1983 and not subsequently improved capture system would have differences that are impediments to the
modified) face design and equipment settled within the melt shop rather than installation of the necessary and widely-
challenges in achieving the opacity being emitted as fugitive emissions demonstrated capture and control
standards that more modern facilities through the melt shop roof. The systems for fugitive emissions.
are engineered to meet. According to the commenter also stated that the Moreover, as we discuss in detail below,
commenters, non-NSPS facilities are a improved capture efficiency estimated even if (against our view) it is
different ‘‘class’’ or ‘‘type’’ of facility for three facilities (from 85 percent to 95 appropriate to subcategorize, GACT
from NSPS facilities, and consistent percent) assumed an open roof monitor; would be the same for NSPS plants and
with the cases cited, the non-NSPS however the improvement in capture is non-NSPS plants.
status of certain EAF steelmaking more likely from 90 percent to 95 We stated at proposal that GACT for
facilities bears directly on the technical percent because these facilities do not fugitive emissions from the melt shop
and economic feasibility of reducing have open roofs. The commenter includes hoods to capture the fugitive
fugitive emissions and warrants a believes that the emission reductions for emissions escaping during charging,
separate subcategory. The commenters these facilities is about half of that melting, and tapping, and ducting the
claimed that non-NSPS facilities vary estimated by EPA. emissions to a baghouse. All EAF
substantially in design and compliance The commenter also stated that EPA’s facilities have capture and control
requirements, but in almost all cases the cost effectiveness estimate of $160,000/ systems for emissions from charging,
buildings are not fully closed and the ton of HAP was higher than what had melting, and tapping, and this
furnace design and emission capture been accepted in other rulemakings: technology has been applied to many
systems are such that modifications are $6,800/ton chlorine rejected and $1,100/ other industries (e.g., iron and steel
required to achieve the NSPS standards. ton chlorine accepted (hazardous waste foundries, integrated iron and steel
According to the commenters, these combustors); $45,000/ton hydrogen plants). However, most EAF steelmaking
design and equipment differences are chloride rejected (industrial boilers); facilities have better capture systems for
reasonable bases on which to justify a $90,000/ton acrylonitrile rejected charging and tapping emissions than do
non-NSPS subcategory. (acrylic and modacrylic fibers); $724 to some of the affected non-NSPS plants.
The commenters provided $9,000/ton of organic HAP accepted We have identified no technical reason
information concerning the (halogenated solvent cleaning); and that the capture and control systems
modifications and retrofitting that $300 to $10,000/ton of organic HAP demonstrated by plants subject to the
would be required at the non-NSPS accepted (gasoline distribution). The NSPS to achieve an opacity limit of six
facilities to meet the six percent opacity commenters stated that it was percent cannot be applied industry
limit. In addition, the commenters inappropriate to compare the particulate wide. The technology for upgrading the
submitted estimates of the costs and matter (PM) cost effectiveness of the capture and control of emissions from
identified additional non-NSPS proposed rule with that of mobile charging and tapping is generally
facilities not previously included in source programs because those available and includes new or
EPA’s analysis of impacts. The programs were geared towards redesigned capture hoods, higher
commenters noted that there are 11 non- addressing PM while the area source evacuation rates, and in some cases,
NSPS facilities that cannot currently rule is focused on HAP emissions. The additional baghouse capacity, all of
meet the NSPS opacity limit (rather than commenters believe the proper which have been accounted for in our
the six identified at proposal) and comparison is with respect to the cost cost estimates.
estimated that the capital cost to meet effectiveness of HAP emission Not only is this type of technology
the standard as $85 to $99 million reductions as described above. routinely utilized, but there is no
instead of EPA’s estimate at proposal of Response: We proposed a standard of technical impediment to its
$29 million. Among the plants six percent opacity for the EAF melt applicability in this source category.
identified by the commenter was one shop for all plants in the source category The commenters stated that ‘‘buildings
plant that the commenter stated could (i.e., no subcategories) as GACT because are not fully closed and the furnace
meet the opacity limit 99 percent of the about 90 percent of the existing facilities design and emission capture systems are
time, but the commenter claimed that are subject to and achieve this level of such that modifications are required to
costs would be incurred to address control, and the technology used by achieve the NSPS standards’’, but this
trivial and infrequent excursions to these facilities is generally available. We merely indicates that some type of
ensure the facility could meet the limit requested comment on an alternative upgrade would be required for plants to
100 percent of the time. based on a subcategory for older meet the standards, not that these older
The commenters stated that applying facilities and an alternative standard of plants cannot be physically enclosed so
the NSPS opacity limit to the non-NSPS six percent opacity except for 20 percent that they were able to achieve the NSPS
plants was less cost effective than EPA’s opacity during charging and tapping (72 opacity limit. Moreover, these sources’
estimates at proposal because costs were FR 53826). We also requested fugitive emissions consist of the same
underestimated and emission supporting documentation in sufficient HAP in the same concentration as all of
reductions were overestimated. The detail to allow characterization and the NSPS plants. (See the HAP
commenters cited the higher capital representativeness of the data. concentration data presented in
costs described above and also stated The commenters claimed that there ‘‘Electric Arc Furnace Impacts
that other costs, such as lost revenue are meaningful differences between Analysis’’, Docket Item 0074 in Docket
due to downtime to perform upgrades plants that are subject to the NSPS and Number EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–0083.) In
and annual operating costs (including those that are not subject to it, although addition, a number of pre-NSPS EAFs
increased power consumption and they correctly acknowledged that age have in fact upgraded to meet a 6
maintenance labor) had not been can only be a proxy for some process percent opacity limit. Not only are these
sources’ fugitive emissions comparable cost estimate because it is based on the capital cost estimates for the wholesale
to those of the remaining non-upgraded cost for a new facility, including new replacement of EAFs. The estimates
facilities, but their costs are comparable process equipment, in addition to new provided by the commenter were for the
as well, as are the cost effectiveness of capture and control equipment for capital cost of replacing EAFs, including
the emission reductions. (See the results emissions. For our revised impacts in one case purchasing a used 20-ton
of the cost survey of plants that have analysis, we estimated the cost for EAF to replace existing furnaces with a
previously upgraded as discussed in emission capture and control equipment capital cost of $4.2 million and in
‘‘Electric Arc Furnace Impacts only and used a capital cost of $16.3 another case installing a new 40-ton
Analysis’’, Docket Item 0074 in Docket million that the commenter attributed to furnace at a cost of over $70 million. We
Number EPA–HQ–OAR–2004–0083.) a new baghouse and ancillary requested several times but did not
EPA therefore does not believe that equipment associated with emission receive any opacity data showing
the remaining non-NSPS plants are of a control; however, we note that it could whether this plant could or could not
different class or type than the universe be more economical to upgrade the meet the opacity limit, and we do not
of sources meeting the 6 percent opacity existing baghouses, and the cost think it appropriate to assume a new
standard. They produce the same estimate of $16 million was based on an and larger EAF would need to be
product by the same means, are capable EAF steelmaking facility that was installed at a cost of many millions of
of controlling opacity by the same several times larger than this plant, dollars to address trivial and infrequent
means at the same effectiveness, appear making even this estimate highly excursions even if they had occurred.
to be identically situated to non-NSPS conservative. (The estimated impacts, Excursions that occur one percent of the
EAFs which meet the 6 percent including the revised cost estimates, are time or less could well be outliers and
standard, and (as discussed below) are documented in ‘‘Revised Analysis of a result of an equipment failure that is
capable of meeting that standard at Impacts’’ in the rulemaking docket.) not preventable (i.e., a malfunction).
reasonable cost and cost effectiveness. We also reviewed the available Moreover, a rare excursion could be
Moreover, even if (against our views) information on costs associated with caused by a preventable equipment
subcategorization would be appropriate, lost production when the upgrades are failure or operating error, in which case
EPA believes GACT for the subcategory installed. Prior to proposal, we sent a the event might be considered a
would be the NSPS standard. The detailed cost survey to several plants deviation. If the excursion occurs
standard reflects readily available that had made substantial upgrades to because of a particular sequence or
technology (as just discussed) at improve the capture and control of overlapping of cycles since this facility
reasonable cost and cost effectiveness. fugitive emissions. One plant stated that has multiple small furnaces, then
EPA carefully reviewed the detailed cost the installation was performed as much careful attention to scheduling of
information submitted by the as possible over a 1 year period during operations might be a solution. In any
commenters for upgrading non-NSPS normal operations, the final tie-in of the event, the commenter and facility did
plants to meet the proposed opacity control system to the EAF was made not provide sufficient information, a
limit. The cost estimates are higher than during a regularly-scheduled production credible cost estimate, or any opacity
those we developed at proposal outage of two weeks, and sufficient data; consequently, we do not have
reflecting that there are certain unique inventory was maintained to supply sufficient information to conclude that
or site-specific factors for several plants customers. A second plant also said that the facility would incur significant costs
that would result in costs higher than most of the installation was completed for upgrading.
those we generated that did not include during normal operations, final tie-in Our revised estimate of the cost for
site-specific cost elements. We have was during two different scheduled non-NSPS to meet the NSPS opacity
accordingly revised the cost analysis outages of two weeks, and sufficient limit is a capital cost of $69 million and
from proposal and used the inventory was maintained to supply a total annualized cost of $13 million
commenters’ estimates of capital cost for customers. A third plant replied that per year. These costs average less than
most of the non-NSPS plants (using the they could not provide a reliable one percent of sales, will not affect the
average for those cases where a range of estimate of any costs that might have profit margin significantly, and will not
costs were provided for a given plant). been due to lost production during the cause plant closures. Consequently, the
We have also incorporated the installation. Based on the actual technology to meet the NSPS is
commenters’ estimates on the increased experience of plants that have made economically feasible, which supports
operating costs when they provided upgrades, we believe that significant our view that the emission control
such estimates (e.g., increased costs due to lost production can be technology is ‘‘generally available.’’
consumption of electricity and labor for avoided by installation as much as We also re-examined our estimates of
operation and maintenance). When possible during normal operation, final the emission reductions attributable to
estimates of operating cost were not tie-in during a regularly-scheduled revised standards (the key input, along
provided, we developed estimates of outage for maintenance, and building with cost, to assessing cost
operating costs for electricity, labor for sufficient inventory to supply customers effectiveness). The commenters stated
operation and maintenance, and dust during the short period of production that for three plants, the reductions
disposal based on the size of the shutdown. should be based on improving capture
upgraded system. The commenter identified one plant efficiency from 90 percent to 95 percent
We did not accept the commenters’ that could meet the opacity limit 99 rather than the improvement of 85
full estimate of cost for one non-NSPS percent of the time, but claimed that percent to 95 percent that was used in
plant. The commenters provided a costs would be incurred to address our impacts analysis. We have
capital cost estimate of $30.5 million to trivial and infrequent excursions to acknowledged there is a great deal of
replace the entire existing melt shop at ensure the facility could meet the limit uncertainty in this estimate;
this plant, including a new and larger 100 percent of the time. The commenter consequently, we have developed
EAF to replace two small ones, new did not include any cost estimates for estimates of HAP metal (and PM, their
EAF transformers, new cranes and other this plant in their estimates of total costs surrogate) emission reductions using
ancillary equipment, and other for meeting the opacity limit and only both ranges for improved capture
modifications. We disagree with this provided a qualitative discussion and efficiency. For plants that provided
evacuation rates, we estimated the emissions from the EAF, and because described as capturing ‘‘emissions’’
emission reductions from the design they are in particulate form, they can be generated from the EAF and other
evacuation rate and a PM concentration captured and removed from the gas metallurgy operations.
of 0.01 gr/dscf in the captured stream at high efficiency by control Response: We agree and have made
emissions. The commenters stated that devices designed to capture particulate this revision.
they believed this estimate is high matter (such as baghouses). The nature Comment: One commenter noted that
because some of the dust that is of these emissions and the HAP the proposed rule identifies opacity
captured by the upgraded system would composition are unique to iron and steel standards for melt shops exclusive to
have settled out in the melt shop and melting furnaces such as EAFs and are EAF or ladle metallurgy operations
not be emitted as fugitive emissions. quite different from the emissions from (LMO) and no other sources. The
However, the estimate of 0.01 gr/dscf is other processes and operations that do commenter requested that the term
an unbiased average estimate that we not involve melting metal scrap at high ‘‘melt shop’’ be defined so that the
believe is roughly accurate within a temperatures. applicability of the opacity standard is
factor of two. We had information from There are adverse health effects accurately applied. The commenter
one plant that indicated the associated with the metal HAP emitted further claimed that the current
concentration of fugitive emissions from EAFs. Hexavalent chromium and requirement restricting the opacity
before control was 0.02 gr/dscf (a factor certain forms of nickel are known standard to the operation of an EAF or
of two higher than our estimate). The human carcinogens. Lead is toxic at low LMO is unenforceable. The commenter
lower end is bounded by 0.005 gr/dscf concentrations, and children are said that based on States’ experiences,
(a factor of two lower) because at that particularly sensitive to the chronic many different operations occur within
concentration a baghouse would not be effects of lead. Chronic exposure to a melt shop, and without having at least
needed to meet the PM emission limit manganese affects the central nervous one other person positioned within the
of 0.0052 gr/dscf. Consequently, we did system. Additional details on the health building viewing all operations within,
not revise this aspect of our estimates of and environmental effects of these HAP it would be impossible to know whether
emission reductions. can be found at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/ emissions observed outside of a
After making the changes to the atw/hlthef/hapindex.html. In addition, building were associated with all the
estimates of costs, emissions, and approximately 50 percent of the PM activities of a melt shop or solely the
emission reductions described above, emissions are in the form of fine EAF or LMO. The commenter suggested
the cost effectiveness is $15,000/ton for particulate matter, and EPA studies removing the exclusivity of the opacity
PM and $250,000/ton for HAP metals. have found that fine particles continue standard to EAF and LMO.
As we stated at proposal, we believe the to be a significant source of health risks Response: We disagree. The
cost effectiveness for PM is well within in many urban areas. procedures for conducting opacity
the range of acceptability and is in line Accordingly, even considered as a observations are the same as those in the
with the cost effectiveness for PM for separate subcategory, EPA believes that NSPS, and these procedures have been
other rules (72 FR 53826). We further GACT for these sources would be the used successfully for over 20 years to
noted at proposal that the cost current NSPS standard, due to technical enforce the NSPS. In addition, our
effectiveness for PM is within the range feasibility at reasonable cost and cost opacity data and GACT determination
we have accepted previously for control effectiveness. were based on the procedures for
of PM emitted by mobile sources, and Furthermore, we have incorporated conducting opacity observations as
we continue to believe that these mobile into this final rule certain provisions of required by the NSPS.
source rules provide a reasonable the General Provisions (40 CFR part 63,
2. Ladle Metallurgy Operations
benchmark for PM cost effectiveness. subpart A) that afford sources additional
We also disagree with the flexibility. For example, existing sources Comment: Two commenters stated
commenters’ assertions that the cost can request an additional year to that LMO should not be covered by the
effectiveness for metal HAP is comply with the standard if they can EAF area source rule because it would
unacceptable. The final GACT standard demonstrate to the permitting authority be inconsistent with the area source
for EAFs will provide reductions of 52 that such additional time is needed to listing of EAF steelmaking facilities
tons per year of compounds of install controls. See 40 CFR (which does not mention LMO). The
chromium, lead, manganese, and nickel, 63.6(i)(4)(1)(A). In addition, EPA’s area source listing reflects the fact that
which are all urban HAP for which this regulations implementing CAA section EAF emissions are the source of the vast
category was listed pursuant to sections 112(l) provide further flexibility. majority of PM (and potential HAP)
112(c)(3) and 112(k). EPA listed these Specifically, 40 CFR part 63, subpart E emissions at these facilities. The
metal compounds as urban HAP provides that a State may seek approval commenters stated that coverage of
because of their significant adverse of permit terms and conditions that LMO will require additional controls at
health effects. A large portion of the differ from those specified in a section many facilities to address minimal HAP
reductions of these urban HAP will 112 rule, if the State can demonstrate emissions. The commenters claimed
occur in the urban areas that EPA that the terms and conditions of the that EPA has not collected information
identified in the Integrated Urban Air permit are equivalent to the on LMO emissions or the cost of
Toxics Strategy. See CAA 112(k)(3)(C). requirements of this rule. The controlling them and also noted that
The primary HAP emitted from procedures for seeking approval of such LMO is not covered by the NSPS. The
melting iron and steel scrap are a permit are set forth in detail in 40 CFR commenters claim that HAP metals have
manganese and lead with smaller levels 63.94. been removed from the steel in the EAF
of chromium and nickel. These metals Comment: One commenter noted the by the time it reaches the post
(especially manganese) are inherent proposal requires that a capture system processing stage of the LMO. The
components of the scrap that is melted, must collect ‘‘gases and fumes,’’ while commenters indicated that there are 12
and at the high temperatures used in the a capture system is defined as collecting facilities with a separate LMO baghouse
EAFs, the HAP metals are unavoidably ‘‘particulate matter.’’ The commenter (i.e., not ducted to the baghouse
vaporized and emitted. These metal believes that neither of these terms is associated with the EAF), seven with
HAP are present in particulate matter correct; the capture system should be the LMO located in a separate building,
and six facilities that stated LMO nickel, which are alloys used in making that the lb/ton limit applies only to wet
fugitive emissions are separate from specialty and stainless steel. scrubbers.
EAF melt shop emissions. The We evaluated the impacts of Another commenter recommended
commenters stated that these facilities including AOD vessels in the proposed that the PM limit for the small stainless
will need to take steps to ensure they area source standard. We identified only steel subcategory be expressed in grain
can meet the NSPS limits. One one plant that did not control AOD loading or similar fashion per industry
commenter also stated that argon- vessels with a baghouse, and we practice instead of a lb/ton format. The
oxygen decarburization (AOD) vessels estimated the cost of replacing the wet commenter explained that it is not
should not be covered by the area scrubber with a baghouse. For this possible to demonstrate continuous
source rule for the same reasons given plant, both the EAF and AOD vessels
above for LMO (except that AOD vessels compliance with the lb/ton format
are vented to a single wet scrubber; because not all particulate matter is
are covered by the NSPS). The consequently, our cost estimate was
commenter provided no information released at the same time (i.e., the
based on a baghouse designed to control control device may continue to release
similar to that provided for LMO on emissions from both operations. We
AOD vessels with separate baghouses or PM after the end of a production run).
evaluated the cost and cost effectiveness
located in separate buildings. The commenter stated that the testing
for this plant at proposal in our
Another commenter requested that provisions do not fully address this
determination of GACT for small
EPA clarify that LMO is not covered by problem.
stainless steel producers (72 FR 53827).
the standard or, if it is subject to the The commenter did not identify any Response: The threshold for small
standard, which it complies if it is additional plants that did not have a stainless steel facilities is based on
equipped with a side draft hood or close baghouse for the AOD vessel, and the potential production as determined
fitting hood even if there is no commenter provided no data or other from the operating capacity of the EAF
additional canopy collection. information showing that any other in tons per year multiplied by the
Response: We agree with the maximum number of operating hours
AOD vessels could not meet the
commenters that the area source listing per year. We are clarifying that the
proposed emission limits.
and 1990 emissions inventory for EAFs
Consequently, we believe that we have potential production can be based on
did not include LMO. The PM
adequately evaluated the potential the maximum production or maximum
emissions from LMO are a small
impacts of the proposed rule on AOD number of permitted operating hours if
percentage of the emissions from EAF
vessels and conclude that the NSPS specified in the facility’s operating
operations, and as the commenters note,
limits for AOD vessels represent GACT permit. Otherwise, the potential
the percent HAP in the PM from LMO
for these vessels at carbon steel and production would be based on the EAF
is lower than that from EAFs because
the more volatile HAP metals are large specialty steel facilities. production capacity and maximum
removed during the EAF melting 3. Small Stainless Steel Subcategory operating hours.
process. Consequently, we are clarifying We agree with the commenters that
that the area source rule applies only to Comment: One commenter submitted
facilities in the small stainless steel
EAFs and AOD vessels. two comments on the subcategory for
subcategory that are equipped with
We disagree with the one commenter small stainless steel producers. The
baghouses should be allowed to
who suggested that AOD vessels also commenter asked if the 150,000 tons per
demonstrate compliance exclusively
should not be covered by the area year threshold applies to actual
with the more stringent PM of 0.0052 gr/
source standard for many of the same production or to potential facility
production capacity. The commenter dscf rather than 0.8 lb/ton as well for
reasons that were applied to LMO. several reasons. There are existing
Although the use of LMO was not very also asked that facilities in this
subcategory be given the option of plants equipped with baghouses that
widespread in 1990, AOD vessels have already must meet the more stringent
been used at specialty and stainless complying with the more stringent
emission limit of 0.0052 gr/dscf that was PM limit of 0.0052 gr/dscf;
steel facilities for many years. In fact, consequently, requiring them to also
AOD vessels were included in the 1983 proposed for other EAF facilities. The
commenter stated that some facilities in demonstrate compliance with the less
NSPS, and we included AOD vessels in
the subcategory already have this limit stringent limit is unnecessarily
our GACT determination for EAF
in their permit and that they should not burdensome. We also agree that a
steelmaking facilities. Many AOD
be required to demonstrate compliance concentration format is more
operations are vented to and controlled
by the same baghouses that are used to with the 0.8 pounds per ton (lb/ton) appropriate for baghouses because
control EAF emissions; consequently, limit as well. The commenter also baghouses are typically designed to
the 1990 emissions inventory would claimed that without the option of meet an outlet concentration expressed
have included AOD emissions even complying with the 0.0052 gr/dscf limit, in gr/dscf. On the other hand, wet
when the emission source was small facilities might be discouraged scrubbers are typically designed to
identified as the EAF. Thus when we from upgrading pollution control achieve a percent reduction in PM, and
listed the EAF steelmaking area source equipment because the permitting emissions are more relatable to steel
category under section 112(c)(3), we authority could translate the lb/ton limit production (i.e., higher steel production
considered and included facilities with into a concentration limit more stringent rates result in higher inlet loadings,
AOD emissions as part of the source than 0.0052 gr/dscf. which usually results in higher
category that we needed to meet the 90 One commenter stated that the 0.8 emissions at the outlet for wet
percent requirement for emissions of the lb/ton limit should not be applied to scrubbers). The test procedures are clear
Urban HAP arsenic, cadmium, baghouses because a concentration limit for determining compliance with the lb/
chromium, lead, manganese, and nickel. in gr/dscf is more appropriate for ton limit, and the plant with the wet
The comments with respect to HAP baghouses. The commenter said that PM scrubber has previously determined
metals are also not applicable to AOD emissions from a baghouse are not emissions in this format; consequently,
vessels because AOD emissions contain linearly related to steel production rates. we are not revising the testing
high percentages of chromium and The commenter asks that EPA clarify provisions.
4. Particulate Matter Limit for EAFs change would allow the majority of Response: The final rule, like the
Comment: One commenter identified turning and borings to be recycled while proposal, allows certain materials
a plant that was not included in the avoiding possible emissions of generated internally (e.g., baghouse
analysis of impacts at proposal. The chlorinated compounds. bags) to be charged to the EAF. We agree
commenter stated that the facility could Response: We disagree with the that these materials should be identified
meet the opacity limit of six percent; commenter because this provision is and described in the facility’s pollution
however, compliance with the PM designed to prevent significant amounts prevention plan, and this is reflected in
emission limit of 0.0052 gr/dscf will of oil or other free organic liquids from the final rule language. These materials
require upgrades to the baghouse, and entering the EAF with the scrap. These are only those that are generated
other modifications will be required. organic liquids contribute to the internally; consequently, they cannot be
The commenter estimated the capital emissions of organic HAP such as used as a loophole for incoming scrap.
cost for the upgrades as $1.9 million. benzene and polycyclic organic matter. The inspector should be aware that the
Response: We have evaluated the Comment: One commenter asks EPA presence of chlorinated plastics, lead, or
commenter’s estimated cost for to clarify the meaning of taking free organic liquids in these internal
upgrades in our revised analysis of corrective action under process materials or maintenance
impacts. However, it is not clear that § 63.10685(a)(1)(iii), which requires the materials should be relatively rare, and
these costs should be attributed entirely facility to include in the scrap if present, only exist in small quantities
to the area source standard. Our management plan procedures for and only as described in the site-
discussion with plant representatives ‘‘taking corrective actions with vendors specific pollution prevention plan.
prior to proposal indicated that a whose shipments are not within Comment: Two commenters stated
performance test showed that the specifications.’’ The commenter asked that the metallic scrap restrictions are
baghouse achieved 0.0052 gr/dscf or to what extent a scrap provider has any vague, difficult, and practically
less. In addition, bag replacement is a recourse when corrective actions are unenforceable. The commenter requests
typical and recurring maintenance deemed necessary. that EPA either define the terms ‘‘to the
expense for baghouses, and bags would Response: The procedures for taking extent practicable’’ and ‘‘standard
be replaced periodically even in the corrective actions must be described by industry practice’’, set a particular
absence of the area source standard. the EAF owner or operator in the site- standard, or make the requirements
Assuming the new bags and other specific pollution prevention plan and voluntary. Another commenter asked
modifications achieve a nominal these procedures may vary depending what the term ‘‘to the extent
reduction of only 0.001 gr/dscf, the on the type of scrap, scrap provider, and practicable’’ means in practice, and if
improvements are cost effective and other factors, some of which may be there is no definition, how can the
reasonable for reductions in PM unique to the facility. The concept is not compliance provisions lead to corrective
emissions ($5,100/ton). Since this is the a new one because EAF owners or actions.
only plant in the subcategory that might operators have historically taken Response: We do not see the need to
be impacted by the PM emission limit, corrective actions when scrap does not codify a definition of ‘‘practicable’’ but
the estimate of cost effectiveness also meet their specifications. The area note here that our intent is that
represents the industry-wide estimate of source rule places no direct something is practicable if it is capable
cost effectiveness. (All estimates of requirements on the scrap provider; of being put into practice and is feasible.
impacts of the final standard are however, we expect that the scrap However, we believe that the term
documented in the rulemaking docket.) provider would work with customers ‘‘standard industry practice’’ does not
Comment: One commenter suggested (the EAF owners or operators) to resolve have a significantly clearer meaning,
that the PM limit should be based on the any questions of recourse with respect and in fact, may not result in as much
average performance of the best to corrective actions. removal. We are deleting the term in the
performing 12 percent of sources (i.e., Comment: Several commenters final rule and continue to use the term
the MACT floor). believe the following proposed language ‘‘to the extent practicable’’ as it relates
Response: We discussed in detail in creates a potential loophole for sources to the removal of lead-containing
the proposal preamble (72 FR 53816) to charge otherwise unacceptable components such as batteries and wheel
that the standard is based on GACT materials: ‘‘The requirements for a weights.
rather than MACT for Urban HAP other pollution prevention plan do not apply
than mercury. The methodology to the routine recycling of baghouse E. Miscellaneous Comments
suggested is the MACT methodology for bags and other internal process or 1. General Provisions
establishing floors, which is neither maintenance materials in the furnace.’’
required nor appropriate in determining These commenters believe the language Comment: One commenter objected to
what constitutes GACT. presents a loophole that renders the the requirement for SSM plans and
pollution prevention plan unenforceable reports because the burden of the
D. Proposed GACT Standards for Scrap and should be removed. One commenter recordkeeping and reporting
To Control HAP Other Than Mercury suggests these exemptions not be requirements are not commensurate
Comment: One commenter objected to allowed unless specifically identified in with the small quantity of pollutants
the definition of ‘‘free organic liquid’’ the pollution prevention plan and covered by the rule. If SSM plans are
for turnings and borings because most approved by the Administrator. Two required in the final rule, the
turnings and borings contain significant commenters noted that under the commenter recommended that the plan
quantities of oil. The commenter proposed language, if an inspector requirements be limited to the operation
recommended that the prohibition on found chlorinated plastics, lead or free of the EAF and LMO and associated
free organic liquids not include metal organic liquids in an EAF’s feedstock, control devices. The commenter was
working fluids that contain less than the inspector would need to concerned that the SSM requirements
one percent chlorinated compounds or demonstrate that these wastes did not could be read to apply to problems with
less than 0.1 percent of a carcinogen. stem from ‘‘internal process materials or the pollution prevention plans. The
The commenter explained that this maintenance materials.’’ commenter recommended that Table 1
to Subpart YYYYY should indicate the permit that caps emissions below major Response: Although facilities with a
limitation of the SSM requirements. source thresholds. The commenter title V permit do not have to obtain a
Response: We agree that the SSM asked that the proposed rule be revised new title V permit as a result of this area
requirements do not apply to the to require a title V permit only for those source rule, sources that already have a
pollution prevention plans. Sources facilities that are major sources. title V permit must include the
must comply with the pollution Response: Section 502(a) of the CAA requirements of this rule through a
prevention plans at all times, including requires sources subject to regulation permit reopening or at renewal
periods of SSM. Therefore, separate under section 112 of the CAA to obtain according to the requirements of 40 CFR
requirements governing SSM are not a permit to operate. However, Section part 70 and the title V permit program.
necessary. 502(a) authorizes the Administrator, in See 40 CFR 70.7(f).
Comment: One commenter stated that his discretion, to ‘‘promulgate
because the rule requires compliance regulations to exempt one or more 4. Performance Tests
with the compliance assurance source categories (in whole or in part) Comment: One commenter
monitoring (CAM) provisions, Table 1 to from the requirement of (title V) if the recommended that the provision
subpart YYYYY should indicate that the Administrator finds that compliance allowing use of a previous performance
monitoring requirements in § 63.8(a) with such requirements is test to demonstrate compliance be
through (c) of the general provisions (40 impracticable, infeasible, or revised to include a time frame for
CFR part 63, subpart A) apply only if a unnecessarily burdensome on such action by the permitting authority. The
continuous opacity monitoring system categories * * * .’’ EPA promulgated a commenter expressed concern that the
or continuous emission monitoring rule interpreting section 502(a) and facility may be exposed to a compliance
system (CEMS) is used. therein stated that EPA may only risk if the source submits a test and the
Response: We agree and will make exempt a category from Title V permitting authority deems the prior
this clarification. permitting if we find compliance to be test unacceptable. The commenter was
‘‘impracticable, infeasible, or concerned that the requirement to test
2. Compliance Date within 180 days of the compliance date
unnecessarily burdensome,’’ and we
Comment: Two commenters requested determine that exempting the category would not be adequate if permitting
that three years be allowed for non- would not adversely affect public authority has delayed action on the
NSPS facilities to install or modify health, welfare, or the environment. source’s notification of compliance
controls to meet the opacity limit. The (See 70 FR 75,320 and 75,323, December status report. The commenter provided
commenters stated that a series of 19, 2005.) Nowhere in our rule did we rule language that would require that
events must occur to improve controls: establish a presumption in favor of the prior test be deemed approved if not
Conceptual and detailed engineering exempting sources from title V deemed unacceptable within 60 days.
studies must be conducted to determine permitting, and the statute leaves such Response: We agree that in the rare
what is needed to achieve compliance, determinations to the discretion of the event that a permitting authority takes
a budget must be established and capital Administrator. months to deem that a prior test is
funding requests initiated and approved The decision to exempt a source unacceptable, there may not be
by company management, the project category from title V requirements is sufficient time to arrange and conduct a
must be contracted out (after a made on a case-by-case basis according performance test within 180 days of the
competitive bidding process), necessary to the facts of the particular source compliance date. We are revising the
building permits obtained, and category. The commenter has identified provision in the rule to state that if a
construction initiated. The commenters one EAF steelmaking facility (in a permitting authority determines a prior
asked that EPA provide for the full population of over 90 facilities) that performance test is unacceptable to
three-year compliance period allowed does not currently have a title V permit. demonstrate compliance, a performance
under the CAA in order to avoid a The commenter does not explain, test must be performed with 180 days of
proliferation of extension requests. however, why an exemption from title the compliance date or within 90 days
Response: We recognize that certain V is appropriate for this source category, of receipt of the notification of
facilities will require extensive where, as here, 99 percent of the disapproval of the prior test, whichever
upgrades, including new capture facilities in the source category have is later.
systems, new baghouses, and site- title V permits. We refer the commenter
5. Funding for State and Local Agencies
specific modifications to improve to the detailed justification underlying
control of fugitive emissions and meet exemption of other area source Comment: One commenter stated that
the melt shop opacity limit. categories from title V. (For example, in order for these rules to be
Consequently, we agree that it is see 72 FR 38871, July 16, 2007.) We implemented properly, EPA should
appropriate to allow up to three years to continue to believe that title V provide sufficient additional funds to
achieve compliance for those facilities permitting is necessary for this source State and local clean air agencies. The
that demonstrate to the satisfaction of category. The record in this case does commenter said that in recent years,
the permitting authority that additional not demonstrate that compliance with Federal grants for State and local air
time is needed to install or modify title V permitting would be programs have amounted to only about
emission control equipment to meet the impracticable, infeasible, or one-third of what they should be, and
opacity limit. unnecessarily burdensome for the budget requests for the last two years
sources in this category. have called for additional cuts.
3. Title V Permit Comment: One commenter stated that According to the commenter, additional
Comment: One commenter stated that § 63.106890(d) should be revised area source programs, which are not
the title V permit program is for major because the language could have the eligible for title V fees, will require
sources of criteria pollutants or HAP. unintended consequence of forcing significant increases in resources for
The commenter stated that there was facilities that already have a title V State and local air agencies beyond what
one small specialty steel EAF facility permit to obtain a new permit. The is currently provided. The commenter
that was not a major source for any commenter provided suggested language claims that without increased funding,
pollutant and that the facility has a State to clarify the requirement. some State and local air agencies may
not be able to adopt and enforce V. Impacts of the Final Rule reporting requirements are specifically
additional area source rules. We estimate that the final standards authorized by section 114 of the CAA
Response: State and local air will reduce mercury emissions from (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information
programs are an important and integral EAF by an estimated 5 tons per year submitted to EPA pursuant to the
part of the regulatory scheme under the (tpy) and will reduce emissions of other recordkeeping and reporting
CAA. As always, EPA recognizes the metallic HAP (primarily manganese requirements for which a claim of
efforts of State and local agencies in with some lead, nickel and chromium) confidentiality is made is safeguarded
taking delegations to implement and by about 52 tpy. Emissions of PM will according to Agency policies set forth in
enforce CAA requirements, including be reduced by 865 tpy. 40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
the area source standards under section The capital cost of the final standards The final rule requires all facilities to
112. We understand the importance of is estimated as $69 million. The total submit a one-time notification of
adequate resources for State and local annualized cost of the final rule is applicability and notification of
agencies to run these programs; estimated at $13 million/yr, including compliance status required by the
however, we do not believe that this the annualized cost of capital and the NESHAP general provisions (40 CFR
issue can be addressed through today’s annual operating costs for emissions part 63, subpart A). The notification of
rulemaking. control systems. The additional cost of compliance status must include
EPA today is promulgating standards monitoring, reporting, and compliance certifications for various
for the EAF Steelmaking area source recordkeeping attributable to the final rule requirements. The general
category that reflect what constitutes provisions also require preparation of a
rule, including the preparation of scrap
MACT for mercury emissions and GACT test plan for performance tests and
management plans and scrap
for the Urban HAP other than mercury advance notification of the date the
specifications, is estimated as $122,000
for which the source category was performance test is to be conducted.
per year. No adverse economic impacts The provisions for the control of
listed. MACT and GACT standards are are expected for large or small entities. contaminants from scrap require the
technology-based standards. The level Secondary impacts will include an owner or operator to prepare a pollution
of State and local resources needed to increase in the generation of hazardous prevention plan to minimize the amount
implement these rules is not a factor waste (865 tpy) and an increase in of chlorinated plastics, lead, and free
that we consider in determining what electricity usage (23,000 megawatt- organic liquids that are charged to the
constitutes GACT or MACT. Moreover, hours per year) from additional fans and furnace and to submit the plan to the
we note that the rule for EAF fan capacity associated with baghouse Administrator for approval. Facilities
steelmaking facilities requires all installations and upgrades to meet the must keep the plan onsite and train
affected facilities to have a title V opacity standard. certain employees in the plan’s
permit; consequently, the comment requirements. Alternatively, the facility
about loss of fees from title V permit VI. Statutory and Executive Order
Reviews must restrict the type of scrap charged
exemptions is not pertinent for this rule. to the furnace. For mercury, facilities
Although the resource issue cannot be A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory must prepare a site-specific plan for
resolved through today’s rulemaking for Planning and Review removal of mercury switches, submit
the reason stated above, EPA remains Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR the plan to the Administrator for
committed to working with State and 51735, October 4, 1993), this action is a approval, and submit semiannual
local agencies to implement this rule. ‘‘significant regulatory action’’ because progress reports containing information
State and local agencies that receive it may raise novel legal or policy issues. on the mercury switches that have been
grants for continuing air programs under Accordingly, EPA submitted this action removed would also be required.
CAA section 105 should work with their to OMB for review under Executive Alternatively, facilities must purchase
project officer to determine what Order 12866, and any changes made in motor vehicle scrap only from suppliers
resources are necessary to implement response to OMB recommendations that participate in an approved program
and enforce the area source standards. have been documented in the docket for for the removal of mercury switches or
EPA will continue to provide the this action. recover only material for its specialty
resources appropriated for section 105 alloy content that does not contain
grants consistent with the statute and B. Paperwork Reduction Act mercury switches. Facilities are
the allotment formula developed The information collection required to maintain records to
pursuant to the statute. requirements in this rule have been demonstrate compliance with the
6. Secondary Nonferrous Metal submitted for approval to the Office of selected option. Records of specific
Production Management and Budget (OMB) under information are required for plants
the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. electing to comply with the site-specific
Comment: One commenter asked that 3501 et seq. The information collection plan for mercury; semiannual progress
EPA clarify that the rule does not apply requirements are not enforceable until reports are also required.
to EAFs that are used to produce OMB approves them. All area source facilities are required
nonferrous metals, where nonferrous The information requirements are to conduct performance tests to
metal means ‘‘any pure metal other than based on notification, recordkeeping, demonstrate initial compliance with the
iron or any metal alloy for which a and reporting requirements in the applicable PM and opacity limits.
metal other than iron is its major NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR Existing facilities are allowed to certify
constituent by percent in weight.’’ part 63, subpart A), which are initial compliance based on the results
Response: We agree. The types of mandatory for all operators subject to of a previous performance test that
facilities identified by the commenter national emission standards, and the meets the rule requirements. All
are covered under other source recordkeeping and reporting facilities must monitor capture systems
categories depending on the type of requirements in the part 64 CAM rule, and PM control devices for EAF and
metal produced (e.g., secondary which are based on the requirements in AOD vessels, maintain records, and
nonferrous metals, secondary the operating permits rule (40 CFR parts submit reports according to the part 64
aluminum, secondary copper, etc.) 70 and 71). These recordkeeping and CAM requirements. These reports
include deviation reports, semiannual significant economic impact on a associations and company
monitoring reports, and annual substantial number of small entities. representatives to discuss the proposed
compliance certifications. Small entities include small businesses, rule and have included provisions such
Consistent with § 63.6(e) of the small not-for-profit enterprises, and as the lb/ton limit for small facilities
general provisions, all plants are small governmental jurisdictions. that address their concerns. We have
required to prepare and operate by a For the purposes of assessing the also included a subcategory based
startup, shutdown, and malfunction impacts of this final rule on small partially on facility size that allows
plan, and make an immediate report if entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A more individualized consideration of
a startup, shutdown, or malfunction was small business that meets the Small EAFs in the subcategory, which include
not consistent with their plan. Plants Business Administration size standards small businesses.
also must keep records and make for small businesses at 13 CFR 121.201
semiannual reports according to the (whose parent company has fewer than D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
requirements in § 63.10. 1,000 employees for NAICS code Title II of the Unfunded Mandates
The annual average monitoring, 331111); (2) a small governmental Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
reporting, and recordkeeping burden for jurisdiction that is a government of a Law 104–4, establishes requirements for
this collection (averaged over the first 3 city, county, town, school district, or Federal agencies to assess the effects of
years of this ICR) is estimated to total special district with a population of less their regulatory actions on State, local,
2,393 labor hours per year at a cost of than 50,000; and (3) a small and tribal governments and the private
$121,573. This includes 2.7 responses organization that is any not-for-profit sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA,
per year from each of 91 respondents for enterprise which is independently EPA generally must prepare a written
an average of about 9.7 hours per owned and operated and is not statement, including a cost-benefit
response. There are no additional dominant in its field. analysis, for proposed and final rules
capital/startup costs or operation and After considering the economic with ‘‘Federal mandates’’ that may
maintenance costs associated with the impacts of this final rule on small result in expenditures by State, local,
final rule. entities, I certify that this action will not and tribal governments, in the aggregate,
Burden means the total time, effort, or have a significant economic impact on or to the private sector, of $100 million
financial resources expended by persons a substantial number of small entities. or more in any 1 year. Before
to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose The small entities directly regulated by promulgating an EPA rule for which a
or provide information to or for a this final rule are approximately nine written statement is needed, section 205
Federal agency. This includes the time EAF steelmaking facilities owned by of the UMRA generally requires EPA to
needed to review instructions; develop, small businesses. We have determined identify and consider a reasonable
acquire, install, and utilize technology that the requirements for these small number of regulatory alternatives and
and systems for the purposes of business owned facilities consist of adopt the least costly, most cost-
collecting, validating, and verifying preparing a scrap selection plan or effective, or least burdensome
information, processing and mercury switch removal plan and alternative that achieves the objectives
maintaining information, and disclosing maintaining records to document of the rule. The provisions of section
and providing information; adjust the compliance with these requirements. 205 do not apply when they are
existing ways to comply with any The requirements of the part 63 General inconsistent with applicable law.
previously applicable instructions and Provisions include notifications, Moreover, section 205 allows EPA to
requirements; train personnel to be able records, semiannual reports, and a adopt an alternative other than the least
to respond to a collection of startup, shutdown and malfunction costly, most cost-effective, or least
information; search data sources; plan. The information required in these burdensome alternative if the
complete and review the collection of information collection requirements is Administrator publishes with the final
information; and transmit or otherwise very similar to the information rule an explanation why that alternative
disclose the information. collection requirements in 40 CFR parts was not adopted. Before EPA establishes
An agency may not conduct or 64, 70, and 71. We have determined that any regulatory requirements that may
sponsor, and a person is not required to the nine or fewer EAF steelmaking significantly or uniquely affect small
respond to a collection of information facilities (less than 10 percent of the governments, including tribal
unless it displays a currently valid OMB total number of facilities) will governments, it must have developed
control number. The OMB control experience an impact of about $3,500 under section 203 of the UMRA a small
numbers for EPA’s regulations in 40 per year per facility, which is less than government agency plan. The plan must
CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When one percent of total revenues. provide for notifying potentially
this ICR is approved by OMB, the Electric arc furnaces and AOD vessels affected small governments, enabling
Agency will publish a technical at all EAF steelmaking facilities that are officials of affected small governments
amendment to 40 CFR part 9 in the area sources are already equipped with to have meaningful and timely input in
Federal Register to display the OMB capture systems and control devices. We the development of EPA regulatory
control number for the approved have identified ten plants that may have proposals with significant Federal
information collection requirements to upgrade emission capture and control intergovernmental mandates, and
contained in this final rule. systems at a total capital cost of $69 informing, educating, and advising
million and a total annualized cost of small governments on compliance with
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act $13 million per year. However, none of the regulatory requirements.
The Regulatory Flexibility Act these plants are owned by small EPA has determined that this final
generally requires an agency to prepare businesses. rule does not contain a Federal mandate
a regulatory flexibility analysis of any Although this final rule will not have that may result in expenditures of $100
rule subject to notice and comment a significant economic impact on a million or more for State, local, and
rulemaking requirements under the substantial number of small entities, tribal governments, in the aggregate, or
Administrative Procedure Act or any EPA has nonetheless tried to reduce the to the private sector in any 1 year. Thus,
other statute unless the agency certifies impact of this rule on small entities. We this final rule is not subject to the
that the rule would not have a held meetings with industry trade requirements of sections 202 and 205 of
the UMRA. EPA has determined that significant,’’ as defined under Executive (incorporated by reference—see § 63.14);
this final rule contains no regulatory Order 12866, and (2) concerns an and ASTM D2216–05, ‘‘Standard Test
requirements that might significantly or environmental health or safety risk that Methods for Laboratory Determination
uniquely affect small governments. In EPA has reason to believe may have a of Water (Moisture) Content of Soil and
addition, the final rule is not subject to disproportionate effect on children. If Rock by Mass’’ (incorporated by
section 203 of the UMRA. the regulatory action meets both criteria, reference—see § 63.14).
EPA must evaluate the environmental Consistent with the NTTAA, EPA
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism conducted searches to identify VCS in
health or safety effects of the planned
Executive Order 13132, entitled rule on children, and explain why the addition to these EPA methods. No
‘‘Federalism’’ (64 FR 43255, August 10, planned regulation is preferable to other applicable VCS were identified for EPA
1999), requires EPA to develop an potentially effective and reasonably Methods 1A, 2A, 2D, 2F, 2G, 5D, 9,
accountable process to ensure feasible alternatives considered by the 9095B, or ASTM D2216–05. The search
‘‘meaningful and timely input by State Agency. and review results are in the docket for
and local officials in the development of EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 this final rule.
regulatory policies that have federalism as applying only to those regulatory One VCS was identified as applicable
implications.’’ ‘‘Policies that have actions that are based on health or safety to this final rule. The standard ASME
federalism implications’’ are defined in risks, such that the analysis required PTC 19.10–1981, ‘‘Flue and Exhaust Gas
the Executive Order to include under section 5–501 of the Order has Analyses,’’ is cited in this final rule for
regulations that have ‘‘substantial direct the potential to influence the regulation. its manual method for measuring the
effects on the States, on the relationship This final rule is not subject to the oxygen, carbon dioxide, and carbon
between the national government and Executive Order because it is based on monoxide content of the exhaust gas.
the States, or on the distribution of technology performance and not on This part of ASME PTC 19.10–1981 is
power and responsibilities among the health or safety risks. an acceptable alternative to EPA Method
various levels of government.’’ 3B.
This final rule does not have H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That The search for emissions
federalism implications. It will not have Significantly Affect Energy Supply, measurement procedures identified 12
substantial direct effects on the States, Distribution, or Use other VCS. The EPA determined that
on the relationship between the national This final rule is not a ‘‘significant these 12 standards identified for
government and the States, or on the energy action’’ as defined in Executive measuring emissions of the HAP or
distribution of power and Order 13211, ‘‘Actions Concerning surrogates subject to emissions
responsibilities among the various Regulations That Significantly Affect standards in this final rule were
levels of government, as specified in Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use’’ (66 impractical alternatives to EPA test
Executive Order 13132. The final rule FR 28355, May 22, 2001) because it is methods. Therefore, EPA does not
does not impose any requirements on not likely to have a significant adverse intend to adopt these standards for this
State and local governments. Thus, effect on the supply, distribution, or use purpose. The reasons for the
Executive Order 13132 does not apply of energy. Further, we have concluded determinations for the 12 methods are
to the final rule. that this final rule is not likely to have discussed in a memorandum included
any adverse energy effects because in the docket for this final rule.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation energy requirements will not be For the methods required or
and Coordination With Indian Tribal significantly impacted by the additional referenced by this final rule, a source
Governments pollution controls or other equipment may apply to EPA for permission to use
Executive Order 13175 entitled that are required by this rule. alternative test methods or alternative
‘‘Consultation and Coordination with monitoring requirements in place of any
Indian Tribal Governments’’ (65 FR I. National Technology Transfer
required testing methods, performance
67249, November 6, 2000), requires EPA Advancement Act
specifications, or procedures under
to develop an accountable process to As noted in the proposed rule, section § 63.7(f) and § 63.8(f) of subpart A of the
ensure ‘‘meaningful and timely input by 12(d) of the National Technology General Provisions.
tribal officials in the development of Transfer and Advancement Act
regulatory policies that have tribal (NTTAA) of 1995 (Pub. L. 104–113, 15 J. Executive Order 12898: Federal
implications.’’ This final rule does not U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use Actions To Address Environmental
have tribal implications, as specified in voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in Justice in Minority Populations and
Executive Order 13175. It will not have its regulatory activities, unless to do so Low-Income Populations
substantial direct effects on tribal would be inconsistent with applicable Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629,
governments, on the relationship law or otherwise impractical. The VCS February 16, 1994) establishes Federal
between the Federal government and are technical standards (e.g., materials executive policy on environmental
Indian tribes, or on the distribution of specifications, test methods, sampling justice. Its main provision directs
power and responsibilities between the procedures, and business practices) that Federal agencies, to the greatest extent
Federal government and Indian tribes, are developed or adopted by VCS practicable and permitted by law, to
as specified in Executive Order 13175. bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to make environmental justice part of their
The final rule imposes no requirements provide Congress, through OMB, mission by identifying and addressing,
on tribal governments. Thus, Executive explanations when the Agency does not as appropriate, disproportionately high
Order 13175 does not apply to this rule. use available and applicable VCS. and adverse human health or
This final rule involves technical environmental effects of their programs,
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of standards. EPA cites the following
policies, and activities on minority

Children From Environmental Health standards: EPA Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, populations and low-income
and Safety Risks 2C, 2D, 2F, 2G, 3, 3A, 3B, 4, 5, 5D, and populations in the United States.
Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, 9 in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A; EPA EPA has determined that this final
April 23, 1997) applies to any rule that: Method 9095B, ‘‘Paint Filter Liquids rule will not have disproportionately
(1) Is determined to be ‘‘economically Test,’’ (revision 2, November 2004) high and adverse human health or
environmental effects on minority or of Water (Moisture) Content of Soil and Subpart YYYYY—National Emission
low-income populations because it Rock by Mass,’’ IBR approved for the Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
increases the level of environmental definition of ‘‘Free organic liquids’’ in for Area Sources: Electric Arc Furnace
protection for all affected populations § 63.10692. Steelmaking Facilities
without having any disproportionately * * * * *
high and adverse human health or Applicability and Compliance Dates
environmental effects on any (i) * * *
§ 63.10680 Am I subject to this subpart?
population, including any minority or (1) ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10–1981, (a) You are subject to this subpart if
low-income population. This final rule ‘‘Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses [Part you own or operate an electric arc
establishes national standards for the 10, Instruments and Apparatus],’’ IBR furnace (EAF) steelmaking facility that
area source category. approved for §§ 63.309(k)(1)(iii), is an area source of hazardous air
K. Congressional Review Act 63.865(b), 63.3166(a)(3), pollutant (HAP) emissions.
63.3360(e)(1)(iii), 63.3545(a)(3), (b) This subpart applies to each new
The Congressional Review Act, 5 63.3555(a)(3), 63.4166(a)(3),
U.S.C. 801, et seq., as added by the or existing affected source. The affected
63.4362(a)(3), 63.4766(a)(3), source is each EAF steelmaking facility.
Small Business Regulatory Enforcement
63.4965(a)(3), 63.5160(d)(1)(iii), (1) An affected source is existing if
Fairness Act of 1996, generally provides
that before a rule may take effect the 63.9307(c)(2), 63.9323(a)(3), you commenced construction or
agency promulgating the rule must 63.10686(d)(1(iii), 63.10702, reconstruction of the affected source on
submit a rule report, which includes a 63.11148(e)(3)(iii), 63.11155(e)(3), or before September 20, 2007.
copy of the rule, to each House of 63.11162(f)(3)(iii) and (f)(4), (2) An affected source is new if you
Congress and to the Comptroller General 63.11163(g)(1)(iii) and (g)(2), commenced construction or
of the United States. The EPA will 63.11410(j)(1)(iii), and Table 5 to reconstruction of the affected source
submit a report containing this final rule subpart DDDDD of this part. after September 20, 2007.
and other required information to the (c) This subpart does not apply to
* * * * *
U.S. Senate, the U.S. House of research and development facilities, as
(k) * * * defined in section 112(c)(7) of the Clean
Representatives, and the Comptroller
General of the United States prior to (1) * * * Air Act (CAA).
(d) If you own or operate an area
publication of the final rule in the (iv) Method 9095B, ‘‘Paint Filter
source subject to this subpart, you must
Federal Register. A major rule cannot Liquids Test,’’ revision 2, November
have or obtain a permit under 40 CFR
take effect until 60 days after it is 2004, IBR approved for the definition of part 70 or 40 CFR part 71.
published in the Federal Register. This ‘‘Free organic liquids’’ in § 63.10692.
action is not a ‘‘major rule’’ as defined * * * * * § 63.10681 What are my compliance
by 5 U.S.C. 804(2). This final rule will dates?
be effective on December 28, 2007. 3. Part 63 is amended by adding
(a) Except as provided in paragraph
subpart YYYYY to read as follows: (b) of this section, if you own or operate
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
an existing affected source, you must
Environmental protection, Air Subpart YYYYY—National Emission
achieve compliance with the applicable
pollution control, Hazardous Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
provisions of this subpart by no later
substances, Incorporation by reference, for Area Sources: Electric Arc Furnace
than June 30, 2008.
Reporting and recordkeeping Steelmaking Facilities (b) If you own or operate an existing
requirements. affected source, you must achieve
Sec.
Dated: December 14, 2007. compliance with opacity limit in
Stephen L. Johnson, Applicability and Compliance Dates § 63.10686(b)(2) or (c)(2) by no later
Administrator. 63.10680 Am I subject to this subpart? than December 28, 2010 if you
■ For the reasons stated in the preamble, 63.10681 What are my compliance dates? demonstrate to the satisfaction of the
title 40, chapter I, part 63 of the Code permitting authority that additional
Standards and Compliance Requirements
of Federal Regulations is amended as time is needed to install or modify
63.10685 What are the requirements for the emission control equipment.
follows: control of contaminants from scrap? (c) If you start up a new affected
63.10686 What are the requirements for source on or before December 28, 2007,
PART 63—[AMENDED]
electric arc furnaces and argon-oxygen you must achieve compliance with the
■ 1. The authority citation for part 63 decarburization vessels? applicable provisions of this subpart by
continues to read as follows: Other Information and Requirements no later than December 28, 2007.
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq. (d) If you start up a new affected
63.10690 What parts of the General
source after December 28, 2007, you
Provisions apply to me?
Subpart A—[Amended] must achieve compliance with the
63.10691 Who implements and enforces
this subpart?
applicable provisions of this subpart
■ 2. Section 63.14 is amended as upon startup of your affected source.
follows: 63.10692 What definitions apply to this
■ a. By adding paragraph (b)(63); subpart? Standards and Compliance
■ b. By revising paragraph (i)(1); and Tables to Subpart YYYYY of Part 63 Requirements
■ c. By adding paragraph (k)(1)(iv).
Table 1 to Subpart YYYYY of Part 63— § 63.10685 What are the requirements for
§ 63.14 Incorporations by reference. Applicability of General Provisions to the control of contaminants from scrap?
* * * * * Subpart YYYYY (a) Chlorinated plastics, lead, and free
(b) * * * organic liquids. For metallic scrap
(63) ASTM D2216–05, ‘‘Standard Test utilized in the EAF at your facility, you
Methods for Laboratory Determination must comply with the requirements in
either paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this exempted materials must be identified within 60 days following disapproval of
section. You may have certain scrap at in the pollution prevention plan. a plan. You may request approval to
your facility subject to paragraph (a)(1) (2) Restricted metallic scrap. For the revise the plan and may operate
of this section and other scrap subject to production of steel other than leaded according to the revised plan unless and
paragraph (a)(2) of this section provided steel, you must not charge to a furnace until the revision is disapproved by the
the scrap remains segregated until metallic scrap that contains scrap from permitting authority. The permitting
charge make-up. motor vehicle bodies, engine blocks, oil authority may change the approval
(1) Pollution prevention plan. For the filters, oily turnings, machine shop status of the plan upon 90-days written
production of steel other than leaded borings, transformers or capacitors notice based upon the semiannual
steel, you must prepare and implement containing polychlorinated biphenyls, compliance report or other information.
a pollution prevention plan for metallic lead-containing components, The plan must include:
scrap selection and inspection to chlorinated plastics, or free organic (A) A means of communicating to
minimize the amount of chlorinated liquids. For the production of leaded scrap purchasers and scrap providers
plastics, lead, and free organic liquids steel, you must not charge to the furnace the need to obtain or provide motor
that is charged to the furnace. For the metallic scrap that contains scrap from vehicle scrap from which mercury
production of leaded steel, you must motor vehicle bodies, engine blocks, oil switches have been removed and the
prepare and implement a pollution filters, oily turnings, machine shop need to ensure the proper management
prevention plan for scrap selection and borings, transformers or capacitors of the mercury switches removed from
inspection to minimize the amount of containing polychlorinated biphenyls, that scrap as required under the rules
chlorinated plastics and free organic chlorinated plastics, or free organic implementing subtitle C of the Resource
liquids in the scrap that is charged to liquids. This restriction does not apply Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
the furnace. You must submit the scrap to any post-consumer engine blocks, (40 CFR parts 261 through 265 and 268).
pollution prevention plan to the post-consumer oil filters, or oily The plan must include documentation
permitting authority for approval. You turnings that are processed or cleaned to of direction to appropriate staff to
must operate according to the plan as the extent practicable such that the communicate to suppliers throughout
submitted during the review and materials do not include lead the scrap supply chain the need to
approval process, operate according to components, chlorinated plastics, or promote the removal of mercury
the approved plan at all times after free organic liquids. This restriction switches from end-of-life vehicles. Upon
approval, and address any deficiency does not apply to motor vehicle scrap the request of the permitting authority,
identified by the permitting authority that is charged to recover the chromium you must provide examples of materials
within 60 days following disapproval of or nickel content if you meet the that are used for outreach to suppliers,
a plan. You may request approval to requirements in paragraph (b)(3) of this such as letters, contract language,
revise the plan and may operate section. policies for purchasing agents, and
according to the revised plan unless and (b) Mercury requirements. For scrap scrap inspection protocols;
until the revision is disapproved by the containing motor vehicle scrap, you (B) Provisions for obtaining assurance
permitting authority. You must keep a must procure the scrap pursuant to one from scrap providers that motor vehicle
copy of the plan onsite, and you must of the compliance options in paragraphs scrap provided to the facility meet the
provide training on the plan’s (b)(1), (2), or (3) of this section for each scrap specification;
requirements to all plant personnel with scrap provider, contract, or shipment. (C) Provisions for periodic inspections
materials acquisition or inspection For scrap that does not contain motor or other means of corroboration to
duties. Each plan must include the vehicle scrap, you must procure the ensure that scrap providers and
information in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) scrap pursuant to the requirements in dismantlers are implementing
through (iii) of this section: paragraph (b)(4) of this section for each appropriate steps to minimize the
(i) Specifications that scrap materials scrap provider, contract, or shipment. presence of mercury switches in motor
must be depleted (to the extent You may have one scrap provider, vehicle scrap and that the mercury
practicable) of undrained used oil contract, or shipment subject to one switches removed are being properly
filters, chlorinated plastics, and free compliance provision and others subject managed, including the minimum
organic liquids at the time of charging to another compliance provision. frequency such means of corroboration
to the furnace. (1) Site-specific plan for mercury will be implemented; and
(ii) A requirement in your scrap switches. You must comply with the (D) Provisions for taking corrective
specifications for removal (to the extent requirements in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) actions (i.e., actions resulting in scrap
practicable) of lead-containing through (v) of this section. providers removing a higher percentage
components (such as batteries, battery (i) You must include a requirement in of mercury switches or other mercury-
cables, and wheel weights) from the your scrap specifications for removal of containing components) if needed,
scrap, except for scrap used to produce mercury switches from vehicle bodies based on the results of procedures
leaded steel. used to make the scrap. implemented in paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(C)
(iii) Procedures for determining if the (ii) You must prepare and operate of this section).
requirements and specifications in according to a plan demonstrating how (iii) You must require each motor
paragraph (a)(1) of this section are met your facility will implement the scrap vehicle scrap provider to provide an
(such as visual inspection or periodic specification in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of estimate of the number of mercury
audits of scrap providers) and this section for removal of mercury switches removed from motor vehicle
procedures for taking corrective actions switches. You must submit the plan to scrap sent to your facility during the
with vendors whose shipments are not the permitting authority for approval. previous year and the basis for the
You must operate according to this plan
within specifications. estimate. The permitting authority may

(iv) The requirements of paragraph as submitted during the review and request documentation or additional
(a)(1) of this section do not apply to the approval process, operate according to information at any time.
routine recycling of baghouse bags or the approved plan at all times after (iv) You must establish a goal for each
other internal process or maintenance approval, and address any deficiency scrap provider to remove at least 80
materials in the furnace. These identified by the permitting authority percent of the mercury switches.
Although a site-specific plan approved from the motor vehicle scrap the scrap (3) Option for specialty metal scrap.
under paragraph (b)(1) of this section provider processes. Although a program You must certify in your notification of
may require only the removal of approved under paragraph (b)(2) of this compliance status that the only
convenience light switch mechanisms, section may require only the removal of materials from motor vehicles in the
the permitting authority will credit all convenience light switch mechanisms, scrap are materials recovered for their
documented and verifiable mercury- the Administrator will credit all specialty alloy (including, but not
containing components removed from documented and verifiable mercury- limited to, chromium, nickel,
motor vehicle scrap (such as sensors in containing components removed from molybdenum, or other alloys) content
anti-locking brake systems, security motor vehicle scrap (such as sensors in (such as certain exhaust systems) and,
systems, active ride control, and other anti-locking brake systems, security based on the nature of the scrap and
applications) when evaluating progress systems, active ride control, and other purchase specifications, that the type of
towards the 80 percent goal. applications) when evaluating progress scrap is not reasonably expected to
(v) For each scrap provider, you must towards the 80 percent goal; and contain mercury switches.
submit semiannual progress reports to (iii) The program sponsor agrees to (4) Scrap that does not contain motor
the permitting authority that provide the submit progress reports to the vehicle scrap. For scrap not subject to
number of mercury switches removed or Administrator no less frequently than the requirements in paragraphs (b)(1)
the weight of mercury recovered from once every year that provide the number through (3) of this section, you must
the switches, the estimated number of of mercury switches removed or the certify in your notification of
vehicles processed, an estimate of the weight of mercury recovered from the compliance status and maintain records
percent of mercury switches removed, switches, the estimated number of of documentation that this scrap does
and certification that the removed vehicles processed, an estimate of the not contain motor vehicle scrap.
mercury switches were recycled at percent of mercury switches recovered, (c) Recordkeeping and reporting
RCRA-permitted facilities or otherwise and certification that the recovered requirements. In addition to the records
properly managed pursuant to RCRA mercury switches were recycled at required by § 63.10, you must keep
subtitle C regulations referenced in facilities with permits as required under records to demonstrate compliance with
paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(A) of this section. the rules implementing subtitle C of the requirements for your pollution
This information can be submitted in RCRA (40 CFR parts 261 through 265 prevention plan in paragraph (a)(1) of
aggregated form and does not have to be this section and/or for the use of only
and 268). The progress reports must be
submitted for each scrap provider, restricted scrap in paragraph (a)(2) of
based on a database that includes data
contract, or shipment. The permitting this section and for mercury in
for each program participant; however,
authority may change the approval paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this
data may be aggregated at the State level
status of a site-specific plan following section as applicable. You must keep
for progress reports that will be publicly
90-days notice based on the progress records documenting compliance with
available. The Administrator may
reports or other information. paragraph (b)(4) of this section for scrap
change the approval status of a program
(2) Option for approved mercury that does not contain motor vehicle
or portion of a program (e.g., at the State
programs. You must certify in your scrap.
level) following 90-days notice based on (1) If you are subject to the
notification of compliance status that
the progress reports or on other requirements for a site-specific plan for
you participate in and purchase motor
vehicle scrap only from scrap providers information. mercury under paragraph (b)(1) of this
who participate in a program for (iv) You must develop and maintain section, you must:
removal of mercury switches that has onsite a plan demonstrating the manner (i) Maintain records of the number of
been approved by the Administrator through which your facility is mercury switches removed or the
based on the criteria in paragraphs participating in the EPA-approved weight of mercury recovered from the
(b)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section. If program. switches and properly managed, the
you purchase motor vehicle scrap from (A) The plan must include facility- estimated number of vehicles processed,
a broker, you must certify that all scrap specific implementation elements, and an estimate of the percent of
received from that broker was obtained corporate-wide policies, and/or efforts mercury switches recovered; and
from other scrap providers who coordinated by a trade association as (ii) Submit semiannual reports of the
participate in a program for the removal appropriate for each facility. number of mercury switches removed or
of mercury switches that has been (B) You must provide in the plan the weight of mercury recovered from
approved by the Administrator based on documentation of direction to the switches and properly managed, the
the criteria in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) appropriate staff to communicate to estimated number of vehicles processed,
through (iii) of this section. The suppliers throughout the scrap supply an estimate of the percent of mercury
National Vehicle Mercury Switch chain the need to promote the removal switches recovered, and a certification
Recovery Program and the Vehicle of mercury switches from end-of-life that the recovered mercury switches
Switch Recovery Program mandated by vehicles. Upon the request of the were recycled at RCRA-permitted
Maine State law are EPA-approved permitting authority, you must provide facilities. The semiannual reports must
programs under paragraph (b)(2) of this examples of materials that are used for include a certification that you have
section unless and until the outreach to suppliers, such as letters, conducted inspections or taken other
Administrator disapproves the program contract language, policies for means of corroboration as required
(in part or in whole) under paragraph purchasing agents, and scrap inspection under paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(C) of this
(b)(2)(iii) of this section. protocols. section. You may include this
(i) The program includes outreach (C) You must conduct periodic information in the semiannual
inspections or provide other means of
that informs the dismantlers of the need compliance reports required under
for removal of mercury switches and corroboration to ensure that scrap paragraph (c)(3) of this section.
provides training and guidance for providers are aware of the need for and (2) If you are subject to the option for
removing mercury switches; are implementing appropriate steps to approved mercury programs under
(ii) The program has a goal to remove minimize the presence of mercury in paragraph (b)(2) of this section, you
at least 80 percent of mercury switches scrap from end-of-life vehicles. must maintain records identifying each
scrap provider and documenting the (2) Exit from a melt shop and, due AOD vessel when emissions are
scrap provider’s participation in an solely to the operations of any affected combined with those from facilities not
approved mercury switch removal EAF(s) or AOD vessel(s), exhibit 6 subject to this subpart.
program. If you purchase motor vehicle percent opacity or greater. (5) To determine compliance with the
scrap from a broker, you must maintain (d) Except as provided in paragraph PM emissions limit in paragraph (c) of
records identifying each broker and (d)(6) of this section, you must conduct this section for an EAF or AOD vessel
documentation that all scrap provided performance tests to demonstrate initial in a lb/ton of steel format, compute the
by the broker was obtained from other compliance with the applicable process-weighted mass emissions (Ep)
scrap providers who participate in an emissions limit for each emissions for each test run using Equation 1 of this
approved mercury switch removal source subject to an emissions limit in section:
program. paragraph (b) or (c) of this section.
(1) You must conduct each PM C×Q×T
(3) You must submit semiannual
performance test for an EAF or AOD Ep = ( Eq. 1)
compliance reports to the Administrator P×K
for the control of contaminants from vessel according to the procedures in
Where:
scrap according to the requirements in § 63.7 and 40 CFR 60.275a using the
following test methods in 40 CFR part Ep = Process-weighted mass emissions of PM,
§ 63.10(e). The report must clearly lb/ton;
identify any deviation from the 60, appendices A–1, A–2, A–3, and A– C = Concentration of PM or total metal HAP,
requirements in paragraphs (a) and (b) 4: gr/dscf;
of this section and the corrective action (i) Method 1 or 1A of appendix A–1 Q = Volumetric flow rate of stack gas, dscf/
taken. You must identify which of 40 CFR part 60 to select sampling hr;
compliance option in paragraph (b) of port locations and the number of T = Total time during a test run that a sample
traverse points in each stack or duct. is withdrawn from the stack during steel
this section applies to each scrap
Sampling sites must be located at the production cycle, hr;
provider, contract, or shipment. P = Total amount of metal produced during
outlet of the control device (or at the
the test run, tons; and
§ 63.10686 What are the requirements for outlet of the emissions source if no K = Conversion factor, 7,000 grains per
electric arc furnaces and argon-oxygen control device is present) prior to any pound.
decarburization vessels? releases to the atmosphere.
(a) You must install, operate, and (ii) Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G (6) If you own or operate an existing
maintain a capture system that collects of appendix A–1 of 40 CFR part 60 to affected source that is subject to the
the emissions from each EAF (including determine the volumetric flow rate of emissions limits in paragraph (b) or (c)
charging, melting, and tapping the stack gas. of this section, you may certify initial
operations) and argon-oxygen (iii) Method 3, 3A, or 3B of appendix compliance with the applicable
decarburization (AOD) vessel and A–3 of 40 CFR part 60 to determine the emission limit for one or more
dry molecular weight of the stack gas. emissions sources based on the results
conveys the collected emissions to a
You may use ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10– of a previous performance test for that
control device for the removal of
1981, ‘‘Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses’’ emissions source in lieu of the
particulate matter (PM).
(incorporated by reference—see § 63.14) requirement for an initial performance
(b) Except as provided in paragraph test provided that the test(s) were
(c) of this section, you must not as an alternative to EPA Method 3B.
(iv) Method 4 of appendix A–3 of 40 conducted within 5 years of the
discharge or cause the discharge into the compliance date using the methods and
atmosphere from an EAF or AOD vessel CFR part 60 to determine the moisture
content of the stack gas. procedures specified in paragraph (d)(1)
any gases which: or (2) of this section; the test(s) were for
(v) Method 5 or 5D of appendix A–3
(1) Exit from a control device and the affected facility; and the test(s) were
of 40 CFR part 60 to determine the PM
contain in excess of 0.0052 grains of PM representative of current or anticipated
concentration. Three valid test runs are
per dry standard cubic foot (gr/dscf); operating processes and conditions.
needed to comprise a PM performance
and Should the permitting authority deem
test. For EAF, sample only when metal
(2) Exit from a melt shop and, due is being melted and refined. For AOD the prior test data unacceptable to
solely to the operations of any affected vessels, sample only when the demonstrate compliance with an
EAF(s) or AOD vessel(s), exhibit 6 operation(s) are being conducted. applicable emissions limit, the owner or
percent opacity or greater. (2) You must conduct each opacity operator must conduct an initial
(c) If you own or operate a new or test for a melt shop according to the performance test within 180 days of the
existing affected source that has a procedures in § 63.6(h) and Method 9 of compliance date or within 90 days of
production capacity of less than 150,000 appendix A–4 of 40 CFR part 60. When receipt of the notification of disapproval
tons per year (tpy) of stainless or emissions from any EAF or AOD vessel of the prior test, whichever is later.
specialty steel (as determined by the are combined with emissions from (e) You must monitor the capture
maximum production if specified in the emission sources not subject to this system and PM control device required
source’s operating permit or EAF subpart, you must demonstrate by this subpart, maintain records, and
capacity and maximum number of compliance with the melt shop opacity submit reports according to the
operating hours per year), you must not limit based on emissions from only the compliance assurance monitoring
discharge or cause the discharge into the emission sources subject to this subpart. requirements in 40 CFR part 64. The
atmosphere from an EAF or AOD vessel (3) During any performance test, you exemption in 40 CFR 64.2(b)(1)(i) for
any gases which: must monitor and record the emissions limitations or standards
(1) Exit from a control device and information specified in 40 CFR proposed after November 15, 1990
contain particulate matter (PM) in under section 111 or 112 of the CAA
60.274a(h) for all heats covered by the

excess of 0.8 pounds per ton (lb/ton) of test. does not apply. In lieu of the deadlines
steel. Alternatively, the owner or (4) You must notify and receive for submittal in 40 CFR 64.5, you must
operator may elect to comply with a PM approval from the Administrator for submit the monitoring information
limit of 0.0052 grains per dry standard procedures that will be used to required by 40 CFR 64.4 to the
ER28DE07.004</GPH>
cubic foot (gr/dscf); and determine compliance for an EAF or applicable permitting authority for
approval by no later than the (5) If applicable, this certification of refractory-lined converter vessel with
compliance date for your affected source compliance for the performance test submerged tuyeres through which
for this subpart and operate according to requirements in § 63.10686(d)(6): ‘‘This gaseous mixtures containing argon and
the approved plan by no later than 180 facility certifies initial compliance with oxygen or nitrogen may be blown into
days after the date of approval by the the applicable emissions limit in molten steel for further refining.
permitting authority. § 63.10686(a) or (b) based on the results Capture system means the equipment
of a previous performance test in (including ducts, hoods, fans, dampers,
Other Information and Requirements accordance with § 63.10686(d)(6)’’. etc.) used to capture or transport
§ 63.10690 What parts of the General (6) This certification of compliance emissions generated by an electric arc
Provisions apply to this subpart? for the monitoring requirements in furnace or argon-oxygen decarburization
(a) You must comply with the § 63.10686(e), signed by a responsible vessel to the air pollution control
requirements of the NESHAP General official: ‘‘This facility has developed device.
Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A) and submitted proposed monitoring Chlorinated plastics means solid
as provided in Table 1 of this subpart. information in accordance with 40 CFR polymeric materials that contain
(b) The notification of compliance part 64’’. chlorine in the polymer chain, such as
status required by § 63.9(h) must § 63.10691 Who implements and enforces polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and PVC
include each applicable certification of this subpart? copolymers.
compliance, signed by a responsible (a) This subpart can be implemented Control device means the air pollution
official, in paragraphs (b)(1) through (6) and enforced by the EPA or a delegated control equipment used to remove
of this section. authority such as a State, local, or tribal particulate matter from the effluent gas
(1) For the pollution prevention plan agency. If the EPA Administrator has stream generated by an electric arc
requirements in § 63.10685(a)(1): ‘‘This delegated authority to a State, local, or furnace or argon-oxygen decarburization
facility has submitted a pollution tribal agency, then that Agency has the vessel.
prevention plan for metallic scrap authority to implement and enforce this Deviation means any instance where
selection and inspection in accordance subpart. You should contact your EPA an affected source subject to this
with § 63.10685(a)(1)’’; Regional Office to find out if this subpart, or an owner or operator of such
(2) For the restrictions on metallic subpart is delegated to your State, local, a source:
scrap in § 63.10685(a)(2): ‘‘This facility or tribal agency. (1) Fails to meet any requirement or
complies with the requirements for (b) In delegating implementation and obligation established by this subpart,
restricted metallic scrap in accordance enforcement authority of this subpart to including but not limited to any
with § 63.10685(a)(2)’’; a State, local, or tribal agency under 40 emissions limitation or work practice
(3) For the mercury requirements in CFR part 63, subpart E, the authorities standard;
§ 63.10685(b): contained in paragraph (c) of this (2) Fails to meet any term or condition
(i) ‘‘This facility has prepared a site- section are retained by the that is adopted to implement an
specific plan for mercury switches in Administrator and are not transferred to applicable requirement in this subpart
accordance with § 63.10685(b)(1)’’; the State, local, or tribal agency. and that is included in the operating
(ii) ‘‘This facility participates in and (c) The authorities that will not be permit for any affected source required
purchases motor vehicle scrap only delegated to State, local, or tribal to obtain such a permit; or
from scrap providers who participate in agencies are listed in paragraphs (c)(1) (3) Fails to meet any emissions
a program for removal of mercury through (6) of this section. limitation in this subpart during startup,
switches that has been approved by the (1) Approval of an alternative non- shutdown, or malfunction, regardless of
EPA Administrator in accordance with opacity emissions standard under 40 whether or not such failure is permitted
§ 63.10685(b)(2)’’ and has prepared a CFR 63.6(g). by this subpart.
plan demonstrating how the facility (2) Approval of an alternative opacity Electric arc furnace (EAF) means a
participates in the EPA-approved emissions standard under § 63.6(h)(9). furnace that produces molten steel and
program in accordance with (3) Approval of a major change to test heats the charge materials with electric
§ 63.10685(b)(2)(iv); methods under § 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f). A arcs from carbon electrodes. An electric
(iii) ‘‘The only materials from motor ‘‘major change to test method’’ is arc furnace consists of the furnace shell,
vehicles in the scrap charged to an defined in 40 CFR 63.90. roof, and the transformer.
electric arc furnace at this facility are (4) Approval of major change to Electric arc furnace (EAF) steelmaking
materials recovered for their specialty monitoring under 40 CFR 63.8(f). A facility means a steel plant that
alloy content in accordance with ‘‘major change to monitoring’’ is defined produces carbon, alloy, or specialty
§ 63.10685(b)(3) which are not in 40 CFR 63.90. steels using an EAF. This definition
reasonably expected to contain mercury (5) Approval of a major change to excludes EAF steelmaking facilities at
switches’’; or recordkeeping/reporting under 40 CFR steel foundries and EAF facilities used
(iv) ‘‘This facility complies with the 63.10(f). A ‘‘major change to to produce nonferrous metals.
requirements for scrap that does not recordkeeping/reporting’’ is defined in Free organic liquids means material
contain motor vehicle scrap in 40 CFR 63.90. that fails the paint filter test by EPA
(6) Approval of a program for the
accordance with § 63.10685(b)(4).’’ Method 9095B, (revision 2, dated
removal of mercury switches under
(4) This certification of compliance November 1994) (incorporated by
§ 63.10685(b)(2).
for the capture system requirements in reference—see § 63.14) after accounting
§ 63.10686(a), signed by a responsible § 63.10692 What definitions apply to this for water using a moisture
official: ‘‘This facility operates a capture subpart? determination test by ASTM Method
system for each electric arc furnace and Terms used in this subpart are D2216–05 (incorporated by reference—
argon-oxygen decarburization vessel defined in the Clean Air Act, in § 63.2, see § 63.14). If, after conducting a
that conveys the collected emissions to and in this section as follows: moisture determination test, if any
a PM control device in accordance with Argon-oxygen decarburization (AOD) portion of the material passes through
§ 63.10686(a)’’. vessel means any closed-bottom, and drops from the filter within the 5-
minute test period, the material contains automobile body hulks, that have been operators or vehicle dismantlers that do
free organic liquids. processed through a shredder. Motor not sell scrap directly to a steel mill are
Leaded steel means steel that must vehicle scrap does not include not scrap providers.
meet a minimum specification for lead automobile manufacturing bundles, or Specialty steel means low carbon and
content (typically 0.25 percent or more) miscellaneous vehicle parts, such as high alloy steel other than stainless steel
and for which lead is a necessary alloy wheels, bumpers or other components that is processed in an argon-oxygen
for that grade of steel. that do not contain mercury switches. decarburization vessel.
Mercury switch means each mercury- Nonferrous metals means any pure Stainless steel means low carbon steel
containing capsule or switch assembly metal other than iron or any metal alloy that contains at least 10.5 percent
that is part of a convenience light switch for which an element other than iron is chromium.
mechanism installed in a vehicle. its major constituent by percent in
Motor vehicle means an automotive weight. Tables to Subpart YYYYY of Part 63
vehicle not operated on rails and Scrap provider means the person As required in § 63.10691(a), you
usually operated with rubber tires for (including a broker) who contracts must comply with the requirements of
use on highways. directly with a steel mill to provide the NESHAP General Provisions (40
Motor vehicle scrap means vehicle or scrap that contains motor vehicle scrap. CFR part 63, subpart A) shown in the
automobile bodies, including Scrap processors such as shredder following table.
TABLE 1 TO SUBPART YYYYY OF PART 63.—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART YYYYY

Applies to sub-
Citation Subject Explanation
part YYYYY?
§ 63.1(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(4), (a)(6), Applicability ............................................ Yes.

(a)(10)–(a)(12), (b)(1), (b)(3), (c)(1),
(c)(2), (c)(5), (e).
§ 63.1(a)(5), (a)(7)–(a)(9), (b)(2), (c)(3), Reserved ................................................ No.
(c)(4), (d).
§ 63.2 ....................................................... Definitions .............................................. Yes.
§ 63.3 ....................................................... Units and Abbreviations ......................... Yes.
§ 63.4 ....................................................... Prohibited Activities and Circumvention Yes.
§ 63.5 ....................................................... Preconstruction Review and Notification Yes.
Requirements.
§ 63.6(a), (b)(1)–(b)(5), (b)(7), (c)(1), Compliance with Standards and Mainte- Yes.
(c)(2), (c)(5), (e)(1), (e)(3)(i), (e)(3)(iii)– nance Requirements.
(e)(3)(ix), (f), (g), (h)(1), (h)(2), (h)(5)–
(h)(9), (i), (j).
§ 63.6(b)(6), (c)(3), (c)(4), (d), (e)(2), Reserved ................................................ No.
(e)(3)(ii), (h)(3), (h)(5)(iv).
§ 63.7 ....................................................... Applicability and Performance Test Yes.
Dates.
§ 63.8(a)(1), (a)(2), (b), (c), (d), (e), Monitoring Requirements ....................... Yes ................... Requirements apply if a COMS or
(f)(1)–(5), (g). CEMS is used.
§ 63.8(a)(3) .............................................. [Reserved] .............................................. No.
§ 63.8(a)(4) .............................................. Additional Monitoring Requirements for No.
Control Devices in § 63.11.
§ 63.8(c)(4) .............................................. Continuous Monitoring System Require- Yes ................... Requirements apply if a COMS or
ments. CEMS is used.
§ 63.8(f)(6) ............................................... RATA Alternative ................................... Yes ................... Requirements apply if a CEMS is used.
§ 63.9(a), (b)(1), (b)(2), (b)(5), (c), (d), Notification Requirements ...................... Yes.
(f), (g), (h)(1)–(h)(3), (h)(5), (h)(6), (i),
(j).
§ 63.9(b)(3), (h)(4) ................................... Reserved ................................................ No.
§ 63.9(b)(4) .............................................. ................................................................ No.
§ 63.10(a), (b)(1), (b)(2)(i)–(v), (b)(2)(xiv), Recordkeeping and Reporting Require- Yes ................... Additional records for CMS in § 63.10(c)
(b)(3), (c)(1), (c)(5)–(c)(8), (c)(10)– ments. (1)–(6), (9)–(15), and reports in
(c)(15), (d), (e)(1)–(e)(4), (f). § 63.10(d)(1)–(2) apply if a COMS or
CEMS is used.
§ 63.10(b)(2)(xiii) ...................................... CMS Records for RATA Alternative ...... Yes ................... Requirements apply if a CEMS is used.
§ 63.10(c)(2)–(c)(4), (c)(9) ....................... Reserved ................................................ No.
§ 63.11 ..................................................... Control Device Requirements ................ No.
§ 63.12 ..................................................... State Authority and Delegations ............ Yes.
§§ 63.13–63.16 ........................................ Addresses, Incorporations by Ref- Yes.
erence, Availability of Information,
Performance Track Provisions.
[FR Doc. E7–24837 Filed 12–27–07; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P

Rule: Air Pollutants, Hazardous National Emission Standards: Electric Arc Furnace Steelmaking Facilities

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Rule: Air Pollutants, Hazardous National Emission Standards: Electric Arc Furnace Steelmaking Facilities

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Friday,

December 28, 2007

Category NAICS code1 Examples of regulated entities

following address: http://www.epa.gov/ can be raised during judicial review.

facilities that are area sources of HAP.

deficiencies noted by the permitting

and enforcing a mercury emission limit

we plan to list EAFs as a major source

higher than what EPA had determined

policies, and activities on minority

within specifications. estimate. The permitting authority may

60.274a(h) for all heats covered by the

TABLE 1 TO SUBPART YYYYY OF PART 63.—APPLICABILITY OF GENERAL PROVISIONS TO SUBPART YYYYY

§ 63.1(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3), (a)(4), (a)(6), Applicability ............................................ Yes.

[FR Doc. E7–24837 Filed 12–27–07; 8:45 am]

You might also like