[Federal Register: December 28, 2007 (Volume 72, Number 248)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 74087-74116]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr28de07-24]
[[Page 74087]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 74088]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
40 CFR Part 63
[EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0083; FRL-8509-5]
RIN 2060-AM71
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Area
Sources: Electric Arc Furnace Steelmaking Facilities
AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Final rule.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: EPA is issuing national emission standards for electric arc
furnace steelmaking facilities that are area sources of hazardous air
pollutants. The final rule establishes requirements for the control of
mercury emissions that are based on the maximum achievable control
technology and requirements for the control of other hazardous air
pollutants that are based on generally available control technology or
management practices.
DATES: This final rule is effective on December 28, 2007. The
incorporation by reference of certain publications listed in this final
rule is approved by the Director of the Federal Register as of December
28, 2007.
ADDRESSES: The EPA has established a docket for this action under
Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0083. All documents in the docket are
listed in the Federal Docket Management System index at http://www.regulations.gov
index. Although listed in the index, some
information is not publicly available, e.g., confidential business
information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by
statute. Certain other material, such as copyrighted material, will be
publicly available only in hard copy form. Publicly available docket
materials are available either electronically in http://www.regulations.gov
or in hard copy at the National Emission Standards
for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Area Sources: Electric Arc Furnace
Steelmaking Facilities Docket at the EPA Docket and Information Center
in the EPA Headquarters Library, EPA West, Room 3334, 1301 Constitution
Ave., NW., Washington, DC. The Public Reading Room is open from 8:30
a.m. to 4:30 p.m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The
telephone number for the Public Reading Room is (202) 566-1744, and the
telephone number for the Air Docket is (202) 566-1742.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Phil Mulrine, Sector Policies and
Program Division, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (D243-
02), Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North
Carolina 27711, telephone number (919) 541-5289; fax number (919) 541-
3207, e-mail address: mulrine.phil@epa.gov.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Outline. The information presented in this
preamble is organized as follows:
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
B. Where can I get a copy of this document?
C. Judicial Review
II. Background Information for the Final Rule
III. Summary of Final Rule and Changes Since Proposal
A. Applicability and Compliance Date
B. Final MACT Standards for the Control of Mercury
C. Final GACT Standards for EAF and AOD Vessels
D. Final GACT Standards for Scrap Management
E. Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
IV. Summary of Comments and Responses
A. Basis for Area Source Standards
B. Proposed MACT Standard for Mercury
C. Proposed GACT Standard for Metal HAP Other Than Mercury
D. Proposed GACT Standards for Scrap to Control HAP Other Than
Mercury
E. Miscellaneous Comments
V. Impacts of the Final Rule
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With
Indian Tribal Governments
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From
Environmental Health and Safety Risks
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect
Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use
I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions to Address
Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income
Populations
K. Congressional Review Act
I. General Information
A. Does this action apply to me?
The regulated category and entities potentially affected by this
final action include:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Examples of regulated
Category NAICS code\1\ 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 exhaustive, but rather provides a
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this
action. To determine whether your facility would be regulated by this
action, you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR
63.10680 of subpart YYYYY (National Emission Standards for Hazardous
Air Pollutants for Area Sources: Electric Arc Furnace Steelmaking
Facilities). If you have any questions regarding the applicability of
this action to a particular entity, consult either the air permit
authority for the entity or your EPA regional representative as listed
in 40 CFR 63.13 of subpart A (General Provisions).
B. Where can I get a copy of this document?
In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of
this final action will also be available on the Worldwide Web (WWW)
through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a
copy of this final action will be posted on the TTN's policy and
guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at the following
address: http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/. The TTN provides information
and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control.
C. Judicial Review
Under section 307(b)(1) of the Clean Air Act (CAA), judicial review
of this final rule is available only by filing a petition for review in
the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by
February 26, 2008. Under section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA, only an
objection to this final rule that was raised with reasonable
specificity during the period for public comment can be raised during
judicial review. Moreover, under section 307(b)(2) of the CAA, the
requirements established by this final rule may not be challenged
separately in any civil or criminal
[[Page 74089]]
proceedings brought by EPA to enforce these requirements.
Section 307(d)(7)(B) of the CAA further provides that ``[o]nly an
objection to a rule or procedure which was raised with reasonable
specificity during the period for public comment (including any public
hearing) may be raised during judicial review.'' This section also
provides a mechanism for us to convene a proceeding for
reconsideration, ``[i]f the person raising an objection can demonstrate
to the EPA that it was impracticable to raise such objection within
[the period for public comment] or if the grounds for such objection
arose after the period for public comment (but within the time
specified for judicial review) and if such objection is of central
relevance to the outcome of the rule.'' Any person seeking to make such
a demonstration to us should submit a Petition for Reconsideration to
the Office of the Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, Room
3000, Ariel Rios Building, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC
20460, with a copy to the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT section, and the Associate General Counsel for the
Air and Radiation Law Office, Office of General Counsel (Mail Code
2344A), Environmental Protection Agency, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW.,
Washington, DC 20004.
II. Background Information for the Final Rule
Section 112(k)(3)(B) of the CAA requires EPA to identify at least
30 hazardous air pollutants (HAP), which, as the result of emissions of
area sources,\1\ pose the greatest threat to public health in urban
areas. Consistent with this provision, in 1999, in the Integrated Urban
Air Toxics Strategy, EPA identified the 30 HAP that pose the greatest
potential health threat in urban areas, and these HAP are referred to
as the ``Urban HAP.'' See 64 FR 38715, July 19, 1999. Section 112(c)(3)
requires EPA to list sufficient categories or subcategories of area
sources to ensure that area sources representing 90 percent of the
emissions of the 30 Urban HAP are subject to regulation. EPA listed the
source categories that account for 90 percent of the Urban HAP
emissions in the Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy.\2\ Sierra Club
sued EPA, alleging a failure to complete standards for the area source
categories listed pursuant to CAA sections 112(c)(3) and (k)(3)(B)
within the time frame specified by the statute. See Sierra Club v.
Johnson, No. 01-1537, (D.D.C.). On March 31, 2006, the court issued an
order requiring EPA to promulgate standards under CAA section 112(d)
for those area source categories listed pursuant to CAA section
112(c)(3). Among other things, the court order, as amended on October
15, 2007, requires that EPA complete standards for 9 area source
categories by December 15, 2007. On September 20, 2007 (72 FR 53814),
we proposed NESHAP for the electric arc furnace (EAF) steelmaking area
source category. Other final NESHAP will complete the required
regulatory action for the remaining area source categories.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ An area source is a stationary source of hazardous air
pollutant (HAP) emissions that is not a major source. A major source
is a stationary source that emits or has the potential to emit 10
tons per year (tpy) or more of any HAP or 25 tpy or more of any
combination of HAP.
\2\ Since its publication in the Integrated Urban Air Toxics
Strategy in 1999, EPA has revised the area source category list
several times.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Under CAA section 112(d)(5), the Administrator may, in lieu of
standards requiring maximum achievable control technology (MACT) under
section 112(d)(2), elect to promulgate standards or requirements for
area sources ``which provide for the use of generally available control
technologies or management practices by such sources to reduce
emissions of hazardous air pollutants.'' As explained in the preamble
to the proposed NESHAP, we are issuing standards based on GACT for the
control of the Urban HAP arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese,
and nickel from area source EAF steelmaking facilities.
Section 112(c)(6) requires EPA to list, and subject to standards
pursuant to section 112(d)(2) or (d)(4), categories of sources
accounting for not less than 90 percent of emissions of each of seven
specific HAP: Alkylated lead compounds, polycyclic organic matter,
hexachlorobenzene, mercury, polychlorinated biphenyls, 2,3,7,9-
tetrachlorodibenzofurans, and 2,3,7,8-tetrachloridibenzo-p-dioxin.
Standards established under CAA section 112(d)(2) must reflect
performance of MACT. On September 20, 2007 (72 FR 53817), we added EAF
steelmaking facilities that are area sources to this list of source
categories under CAA section 112(c)(6) solely on the basis of mercury
emissions. As discussed in the preamble to the proposed NESHAP, we are
issuing MACT standards pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2) for mercury
emissions from all EAF steelmaking facilities that are area sources of
HAP. The notice also announced a revision to the area source category
list developed under our Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy pursuant
to CAA section 112(c)(3). The revision changed the name of the listed
area source category ``Stainless and Nonstainless Steel Manufacturing
Electric Arc Furnaces (EAF)'' to ``Electric Arc Furnace Steelmaking
Facilities.''
III. Summary of Final Rule and Changes Since Proposal
A. Applicability and Compliance Date
The final NESHAP applies to each new or existing EAF steelmaking
facility that is an area source of HAP. The owner or operator of an
existing area source that does not have to install or modify emissions
control equipment to meet the opacity limit for fugitive emissions must
comply with all applicable rule requirements no later than June 30,
2008. The owner or operator of an existing area source that must
install or modify emission control equipment to meet the opacity limit
for fugitive emissions may request a compliance date for the opacity
limit that is no later than December 28, 2010 and must demonstrate to
the satisfaction of the permitting authority that the additional time
is needed. We revised the compliance date from 2 years to 3 years if a
facility can demonstrate the additional time is needed to install
controls after considering comments on the upgrades that some
facilities may need to meet the opacity limit. The owner or operator of
a new affected source must comply with all applicable rule requirements
by December 28, 2007 (if the startup date is on or before December 28,
2007) or upon startup (if the startup date is after December 28, 2007).
B. Final MACT Standards for the Control of Mercury
The final standards for mercury are based on pollution prevention
and require an EAF owner or operator who melts scrap from motor
vehicles either to purchase (or otherwise obtain) the motor vehicle
scrap only from scrap providers participating in an EPA-approved
program for the removal of mercury switches or to fulfill the
alternative requirements described below. EAF facilities participating
in an approved program must maintain records identifying each scrap
provider and documenting the scrap provider's participation in the EPA-
approved mercury switch removal program. A compliance option requires
the EAF facility to prepare and operate pursuant to an approved site-
specific plan that includes specifications to the scrap
[[Page 74090]]
provider that mercury switches must be removed from motor vehicle
bodies at an efficiency comparable to that of the EPA-approved mercury
switch removal program (see below). An equivalent compliance option is
provided for facilities that do not utilize motor vehicle scrap that
contains mercury switches. We have added a new provision to the final
rule for scrap that does not contain motor vehicle scrap to require
certification and records documenting that the scrap does not contain
motor vehicle scrap.
We expect most facilities that use motor vehicle scrap will choose
to comply by purchasing motor vehicle scrap only from scrap providers
who participate in a program for removal of mercury switches that has
been approved by the Administrator. The NVMSRP \3\ is an approved
program under this final standard. In response to comments, we are also
identifying the Vehicle Mercury Switch Removal Program mandated by
Maine State law as an EPA-approved program. Facilities choosing to use
an EPA-approved program as a compliance option are required to assume
all of the responsibilities for EAF steelmakers as described in the
NVMSRP MOU. The NVMSRP is described in detail in section III.D.1 of the
preamble to the proposed rule. In response to comments, we are
including in the final rule provisions for EPA-approved programs that
specify certain responsibilities that the EAF steelmaking industry
agreed to in signing the MOU, including developing a plan that
demonstrates how the facility is participating in the program,
documenting communication and outreach to scrap providers, and
corroboration to ensure mercury switches are being removed.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Additional details can be found at http://www.epa.gov/mercury/switch.htm
and in section IV.D.1 of this preamble. In
particular, see the signed Memorandum of Understanding.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
EAF facilities may also obtain scrap from scrap providers
participating in other programs if they obtain EPA approval of the
program. To do so, the facility owner or operator must submit a request
to the Administrator for approval to comply by purchasing scrap from
scrap providers that are participating in another switch removal
program and demonstrate to the Administrator's satisfaction that the
program meets the following specified criteria: (1) There is an
outreach program that informs automobile dismantlers of the need for
removal of mercury switches and provides training and guidance on
switch removal, (2) the program has a goal for the removal of at least
80 percent of the mercury switches, and (3) the program sponsor must
submit annual progress reports on the number of switches removed and
the estimated number of motor vehicle bodies processed (from which a
percentage of switches removed is derivable).
EAF facilities that purchase motor vehicle scrap from scrap
providers that do not participate in an EPA-approved mercury switch
removal program have to prepare and operate pursuant to and in
conformance with a site-specific plan for the removal of mercury
switches. The facility's scrap specifications must include a
requirement for the removal of mercury switches, and the plan must
include provisions for obtaining assurance from scrap providers that
mercury switches have been removed. The plan must be submitted to the
permitting authority for approval and demonstrate how the facility will
comply with specific requirements that include: (1) A means of
communicating to scrap purchasers and scrap providers the need to
obtain or provide motor vehicle scrap from which mercury switches have
been removed and the need to ensure the proper disposal of the mercury
switches, (2) provisions for obtaining assurance from scrap providers
that motor vehicle scrap provided to the facility meets the scrap
specifications, (3) provisions for periodic inspection, or other means
of corroboration to ensure that scrap providers and dismantlers are
implementing appropriate steps to minimize the presence of mercury
switches in motor vehicle scrap, (4) provisions for taking corrective
actions if needed, and (5) requiring each motor vehicle scrap provider
to provide an estimate of the number of mercury switches removed from
motor vehicle scrap sent to the facility during the previous year and
the basis for the estimate. The permitting authority may request
documentation or additional information from the owner or operator at
any time. The site-specific plan must establish a goal for the removal
of at least 80 percent of the mercury switches. All documented and
verifiable mercury-containing components removed from motor vehicle
scrap counts towards the 80 percent goal. We have clarified in the
final rule that the owner or operator must operate according to the
plan during the review and approval process, must address any
deficiencies noted by the permitting authority within 60 days, and may
request changes to the plan.
An equivalent compliance option is provided for EAF owners or
operators who do not utilize motor vehicle scrap that contains mercury.
The option requires the facility to certify that the only materials
they are charging from motor vehicle scrap are materials recovered for
their specialty alloy, such as chromium in certain exhaust systems.
C. Final GACT Standards for EAF and AOD Vessels
The final rule requires the owner or operator to install, operate,
and maintain capture systems for EAF and AOD vessels that convey the
collected emissions to a venturi scrubber or baghouse for the removal
of PM. We are establishing separate emissions limits for new and
existing EAF steelmaking facilities that produce less than 150,000 tpy
of stainless or specialty steel, and for larger, non-specialty EAF
steelmaking facilities. The small facilities are required to comply
with a PM emissions limit of 0.8 pounds of PM per ton (lb/ton) of steel
for each control device serving an EAF or AOD vessel. Alternatively,
small specialty producers may elect to comply with a PM limit of 0.0052
grains per dry standard cubic foot (gr/dscf). The final rule also
includes an opacity limit of 6 percent for melt shop emissions. All
other EAF steelmaking facilities (both existing and new) are required
to meet a PM limit of 0.0052 grains per dry standard cubic foot (gr/
dscf) for emissions from a control device for an EAF or AOD vessel. The
opacity of emissions from melt shops from these sources is limited to 6
percent. We have clarified in the final rule that the emission limits
apply to AOD vessels and do not apply to ladle metallurgy operations.
Performance tests are required for each emissions source to
demonstrate initial compliance with the PM and opacity limits.
Provisions are included in the rule for conducting the tests. The owner
or operator of an existing EAF steelmaking facility is allowed to
certify initial compliance with the emissions limits if a previous test
was conducted during the past 5 years using the methods and procedures
in the rule and either no process changes have been made since the
test, or the owner or operator can demonstrate that the test results,
with or without adjustments, reliably demonstrate compliance despite
process changes.
All EAF steelmaking facilities are required to have or obtain a
title V permit. We have clarified in the final rule that sources that
already have a title V permit are not required to obtain a new title V
permit as a result of this area source rule. However, sources that
already have a title V permit must include the requirements of this
rule through a permit reopening or at
[[Page 74091]]
renewal according to the requirements of 40 CFR part 70 and the title V
permit program. See 40 CFR 70.7(f). The final rule requires each EAF
steelmaking facility to monitor the capture system, PM control device,
and melt shop; maintain records; and submit reports according to the
CAM requirements in 40 CFR part 64. The existing part 64 rule requires
the owner or operator to establish appropriate ranges for selected
indicators for each emissions unit (i.e., operating limits) such that
operation within the ranges will provide a reasonable assurance of
compliance with the emissions limitations or standards.
The CAM rule requires the owner or operator to submit certain
monitoring information to the permitting authority for approval. This
information includes: (1) The indicators to be monitored; (2) the
ranges or designated conditions for such indicators, or the process by
which such indicator ranges or designated conditions will be
established; (3) performance criteria for the monitoring; and if
applicable, (4) the indicator ranges and performance criteria for a
CEMS, COMS, or predictive emissions monitoring system. The owner or
operator also must submit a justification for the proposed elements of
the monitoring control device (and process and capture system, if
applicable) and operating parameter data obtained during the conduct of
the applicable compliance or performance test.
If monitoring indicates that the unit is operating outside of the
acceptable range established in its permit, the owner or operator must
return the operation to within the established range consistent with 40
CFR 64.7(d).
D. Final GACT Standards for Scrap Management
In addition to meeting PM and opacity limits reflecting GACT, we
are also requiring EAF facilities to restrict the use of certain scrap
or follow a pollution prevention plan for scrap inspection and
selection that minimizes the amount of specific contaminants in the
scrap.
The requirements are based on two pollution prevention approaches
depending on the type of scrap that is used, and a facility may have
some scrap subject to one approach and other scrap subject to the other
approach. One provision is for scrap that does not contain certain
contaminants and simply prohibits the processing of scrap containing
these contaminants (restricted scrap). Compliance is demonstrated by a
certification that the scrap does not contain the contaminants. This
scrap management approach is expected to be most useful to stainless
and specialty steel producers with stringent scrap specifications that
do not permit the use of motor vehicle scrap and scrap containing free
organic liquids. The other approach for scrap that may contain certain
contaminants is more prescriptive and requires a pollution prevention
plan, scrap specifications, and procedures for determining that these
requirements are met. This pollution prevention approach was developed
primarily for carbon steel producers that accept motor vehicle scrap
and many other types of ferrous scrap.
Under the restricted scrap provision, the plant owner or operator
must agree to restrict the use of certain scrap, including metallic
scrap from motor vehicle bodies, engine blocks, oil filters, oily
turnings, machine shop borings, transformers and capacitors containing
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), lead-containing components,
chlorinated plastics, or free organic liquids. The restriction on lead-
containing components does not apply to the production of leaded steel
(where lead is obviously needed for production).
The other scrap management provision requires the plant owner or
operator to prepare a pollution prevention plan for metallic scrap
selection and inspection to minimize the amount of chlorinated
plastics, lead (except for the production of leaded steel), and free
organic liquids. This plan must be submitted to the permitting
authority for approval. The owner or operator is required to keep a
copy of the plan onsite and train plant personnel with materials
acquisition or inspection duties in the plan's requirements.
The plan must include specifications for scrap materials to be
depleted (to the extent practicable) of lead-containing components
(except for the production of leaded steel), undrained used oil
filters, chlorinated plastics, and free organic liquids. The plan must
also contain procedures for determining if these requirements are met
(e.g., visual inspection or periodic audits of scrap suppliers) and
procedures for taking corrective actions with vendors whose shipments
are not within specifications.
E. Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements
Area sources subject to the requirements for EAF and AOD vessels
are subject to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements of the part
64 CAM rule. The general recordkeeping requirements of the part 64 rule
directs the owner or operator to comply with the recordkeeping
requirements for title V operating permits in 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(ii),
which require records of analyses, measurements, and sampling data. The
part 64 rule also requires the owner or operator to maintain records of
monitoring data, monitor performance data, corrective actions taken,
any written quality improvement plan (QIP), any activities undertaken
to implement a QIP, and other supporting information required by the
part 64 rule (such as data used to document the adequacy of monitoring,
or records of monitoring maintenance or corrective actions).
The general reporting requirements of part 64 require the owner or
operator to submit monitoring reports to the permitting authority in
accordance with the requirements for facilities with title V operating
permits. The title V reporting requirements in 40 CFR 70.6(c)(1) and 40
CFR 71.6(c)(1) include a 6-month monitoring report, deviation reports,
and annual compliance certifications. The part 64 reporting
requirements specify that the 6-month monitoring report include: (1)
Summary information on the number, duration and cause (including
unknown cause, if applicable) of excursions or exceedances, as
applicable, and the corrective actions taken; (2) summary information
on the number, duration and cause (including unknown cause, if
applicable) for monitor downtime incidents (other than downtime
associated with zero and span or other daily calibration checks, if
applicable); and (3) a description of the actions taken to implement a
QIP during the reporting period. Upon completion of a QIP, the owner or
operator must include in the next summary report documentation that the
implementation of the plan has been completed and reduced the
likelihood of similar levels of excursions or exceedances occurring.
All EAF steelmaking facilities subject to this NESHAP are also
subject to certain specified requirements of the NESHAP general
provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A). The general provisions include
requirements for initial notifications; startup, shutdown, and
malfunction records and reports; recordkeeping; and semiannual excess
emissions and monitoring system performance reports. The information
required in these records and reports is similar to the information
required by the CAM rule (40 CFR part 64) and the operating permits
rules (40 CFR parts 70 and 71).
The NESHAP also includes specific recordkeeping and reporting
requirements for area source facilities subject to requirements for
control of contaminants from scrap. The area
[[Page 74092]]
source facilities are required to keep records to demonstrate
compliance with the requirements for their pollution prevention plan
for minimizing the amount of chlorinated plastics, lead, and free
organic liquids charged to a furnace or for the use of only restricted
scrap and the site-specific plan for mercury or any of the mercury
compliance options.
As noted above, facilities subject to the site-specific plan for
mercury are required to keep records and submit semiannual reports on
the number of mercury switches removed by the scrap providers or the
weight of mercury recovered from those switches, an estimate of the
percent of mercury switches recovered, and certification that the
recovered mercury switches were managed at RCRA-permitted facilities.
We have clarified that the requested information can be aggregated in
the semiannual report and does not have to reported separately for
every scrap shipment. Facilities participating in an EPA-approved
program for switch removal must keep records that identify their scrap
providers and document that they participate in an approved switch
removal program. The final rule requires more extensive records for a
site-specific plan than for an approved program because extensive
recordkeeping, reporting, and measurement of success are already
required for approval of such a removal program, the NVMSRP being the
prime example.
All facilities subject to the requirements for the control of
contaminants from scrap are required to submit semiannual reports
according to the requirements in Sec. 63.10(e) of the general
provisions. The report must identify any deviation from the rule
requirements and the corrective action taken.
IV. Summary of Comments and Responses
We received a total of 20 comments on the proposed NESHAP from two
trade associations representing the steelmaking industry, two trade
associations representing the scrap recycling industry, two
associations representing State agencies, six environmental groups,
four State agencies, two companies, a consultant, and one private
citizen during the public comment period. Sections IV.A through IV.E of
this preamble provide responses to the significant public comments
received on the proposed NESHAP.
A. Basis for Area Source Standards
Comment: One commenter stated that EPA's decision to issue GACT
standards for mercury pursuant to section 112(d)(5), instead of MACT
standards pursuant to section 112(d)(2) and (d)(3), is arbitrary and
capricious because EPA provided no rationale for its decision to issue
GACT standards. The commenter further stated that EPA's proposed GACT
for mercury emissions from EAFs does not satisfy section 112(d)(5) of
the CAA because EPA is relying on a voluntary program to keep switches
that contain mercury out of the EAF rather than evaluating potential
reduction measures that are commercially available.
Response: The commenter evidently misread the proposed rule. The
proposed standard for mercury is based on MACT and is not based on
GACT. As we explained at proposal (72 FR 53816), EAF steelmaking
facilities were listed under CAA section 112(c)(6) solely on the basis
of mercury emissions, and we proposed standards for mercury under CAA
section 112(d)(2) that reflect the performance of MACT. We identified
the MACT floor (72 FR 53822) as the pollution prevention approach of
using scrap only from scrap providers that are first removing mercury
switches pursuant to an EPA-approved program. We also evaluated more
stringent beyond-the-floor options for MACT (72 FR 53824). Additional
discussion of our MACT determination is provided in section IV.B.1 of
this preamble. Since the commenter did not address any aspect of the
actual proposal, further response is unnecessary.
If, against all natural readings, the comment is construed as
stating that EPA must first provide a rationale as to why it is not
issuing a MACT standard before it can issue a GACT standard under CAA
section 112(d)(5) for HAP other than mercury, we disagree with the
commenter for the reasons set forth in the final rules for Acrylic and
Modacrylic Fibers Production, Carbon Black Production, Chemical
Manufacturing: Chromium Compounds, Flexible Polyurethane Foam
Production and Fabrication, Lead Acid Battery Manufacturing, and Wood
Preserving (72 FR 38880, July 16, 2007). We reiterate that we do not
view the commenter as having raised an issue with respect to GACT vs.
MACT for HAP other than mercury; however, we provide this response in
an abundance of caution to the extent the comment is, in some way,
construed in this manner.
B. Proposed MACT Standard for Mercury
We determined at proposal that the MACT floor and MACT for mercury
emissions was the pollution prevention practice of removing mercury
switches from end-of-life vehicles before the vehicles were crushed and
shredded for use in EAFs. MACT would be implemented by EAF owners or
operators purchasing scrap only from scrap providers that were
participating in an EPA-approved program for switch removal, operating
pursuant to an EPA-approved site-specific plan (of equal effectiveness
to an EPA-approved program) that ensured scrap providers had removed
mercury switches, or by not melting scrap from end-of-life vehicles. We
further proposed that the National Vehicle Mercury Switch Recovery
Program (NVMSRP) met the requirements of an EPA-approved program.
However, we received several comments questioning how the effectiveness
of an EPA-approved program would be ensured and suggestions for
improving aspects of the rule related to program transparency,
enforceability, and implementability. We have incorporated several of
these suggested improvements into the final rule, and we address these
comments and describe these improvements in detail in section IV.B.3 of
this preamble. The improvements include developing and maintaining a
plan showing how the facility is participating in the approved program,
documentation of communication to suppliers of the need for them to
remove mercury switches, or other means of corroboration by the
facility to ensure suppliers are implementing switch removal
procedures. We note here that the Administrator is committed to
evaluating the effectiveness of the approved program on a continuing
basis and is a party to the agreement that established the NMVSRP. The
parties (including the Administrator) recently reviewed the program's
effectiveness after 1 year. The 1-year review showed reasonable
progress, with recycling programs now available in every State. The
national program was slightly ahead of the schedule projected for
start-up. We now expect switch removals to steadily increase over the
next year as these programs begin to fully operate. If the
Administrator finds the program to be ineffective at the next scheduled
review under the MOU, or at any time as provided in the rule, the
Administrator may disapprove the program in whole or in part (e.g., for
a particular State), and participation in the program would no longer
be a
[[Page 74093]]
compliance option, leaving EAF owners or operators obliged to develop
site-specific programs for EPA approval in order to meet the
requirements of this rule. Under the site-specific program, it would
fall on the EAF owner or operator to provide a detailed accounting of
switches removed and vehicles processed from all of their scrap
providers to enable the Administrator or permitting authority to
evaluate whether the facility is in compliance with the switch removal
requirements. The somewhat lower documentation feature of the NVMSRP
provides a strong incentive to all of the parties involved in switch
removal to make every effort to ensure the NVMSRP is effective on a
continuing basis. However, if the national program were to prove
unsatisfactory and be subsequently disapproved as a compliance option,
the burden would be on the EAF owner or operator to implement a site-
specific approach. In either case (whether a national program or site-
specific program), we have codified an approach that provides
accountability and measures of effectiveness as described in detail in
section IV.B.3 of this preamble.
We also considered a standard based on the performance of activated
carbon injection (ACI) with continuous monitoring for mercury as a
beyond-the-floor option, and as we discuss in detail in section IV.B.1
of this preamble, we rejected this option for several reasons. In
summary, ACI has not been demonstrated for EAFs, its effectiveness is
highly uncertain due in large part to the extreme variability in
mercury loading from this batch operation (e.g., it is difficult to
design and estimate the capacity of the ACI system that would be needed
to handle the highly variable loading of mercury), and it would likely
result in the landfilling of large quantities of hazardous waste (EAF
dust) that is currently recycled (pursuant to RCRA subtitle C
standards) to recover its zinc content. In addition, it would be
costly, and the continuous monitoring that would be needed to assess
the effectiveness of ACI is not feasible for the majority of EAF
facilities because they have baghouses without stacks. (See 72 FR
53817.)
1. Emission Controls and an Emission Limit for Mercury
Comment: One commenter stated that the proposed standard for
mercury does not satisfy the requirements of section 112(d)(5) of the
CAA because EPA is relying solely upon a voluntary program to keep
switches from cars out of the EAF rather than evaluating the potential
reduction measures that are commercially available. One commenter noted
that EPA's calculated cost effectiveness of $11,000/pound (lb) of
mercury for ACI is similar to the cost effectiveness anticipated by EPA
for municipal waste combustors and medical waste incinerators, and it
is well below the control costs expected from implementation of the
utility boiler Clean Air Mercury Rule--all rules where a technology-
based standard for mercury is based upon performance of ACI. The
commenter notes that without further analysis to determine the non-air
quality health and environmental impacts and energy requirements, it
appears that ACI is a cost effective control for mercury emissions and
was rejected by EPA prematurely. Several commenters recommended that
EPA require controls beyond the vehicle switch removal program. One of
these commenters stated that ACI is widely used on other combustion
sources (e.g., municipal waste combustors, medical waste incinerators,
and hazardous waste incinerators) and that ACI has already been
successfully applied to iron and steel melters in Europe. The commenter
stated that coal-fired boilers use ACI successfully, and no
circumstances specific to EAFs have been identified that would indicate
that EAFs could not use the same technology efficaciously. The
commenter noted that the State of New Jersey estimated the cost to
implement source separation and to install ACI on an existing baghouse
to be less than $1.80 per ton of scrap processed. The commenter claimed
that the cost of compliance is minimal compared to the price of a ton
of steel ($360 to $780/ton) or a ton of scrap ($300/ton) and is not
expected to cause any facility to close. The commenter believes these
cost estimates indicate that add-on controls for mercury for EAFs are
cost effective when the impacts of mercury emissions on human health
and the environment are weighed.
Several commenters requested that EPA include a mercury emission
limit and monitoring strategy for EAFs rather than relying solely on a
voluntary program. Three commenters said it is important to establish
an emission limit and require testing for mercury because 40 to 50
percent of the mercury comes from non-automobile sources and would not
be removed by the switch removal program. One commenter requested that
EPA establish a mercury emission limit, require appropriate testing to
verify compliance, and require add-on emission controls if the emission
limit is not met. Another commenter suggested that EPA set a mercury
emission standard that uses a tiered approach towards demonstrating
compliance, e.g., sources that emit less than a certain amount of
mercury per year may be allowed to comply with the pollution prevention
standard along with a mercury emissions monitoring requirement. The
commenter continues by stating that more stringent mercury monitoring
should be required for more significant mercury emitters with the
understanding that if a certain level is not reached within a given
time frame (e.g., three years), the source must install mercury
emissions controls and implement associated monitoring. Another
commenter requested a protective backstop for the MACT requirement,
including advanced mercury emissions removal technology and continuous
emission monitoring systems (CEMS) for facilities that do not meet the
mercury pollution prevention standards.
One commenter stated that two EAFs in Michigan have mercury
emission limits and must perform stack testing. This commenter asks
that if EPA determines that an emission limit is not practical for the
area source standard, EPA should consider a percent reduction standard
similar to what is required in the State of New Jersey (75 percent).
The commenter asks that measures and targets be established and
consequences identified if targets are not achieved. The commenter said
measures and targets include an estimate of mercury-containing devices
collected, inlet and outlet stack testing, and baghouse dust analysis
to confirm reduced mercury inputs and emissions. The commenter stated
that identifying spikes in the mercury concentration of baghouse dust
provides information to conduct additional quality control on scrap
shipments.
Two commenters claimed that ACI is not a demonstrated technology
for EAFs and that there is a great deal of uncertainty about its
potential effectiveness due in large part to the high variability of
mercury emission levels. The commenters also stated that the use of ACI
would have a negative effect on recycling EAF dust because the mercury
in the dust makes it necessary to landfill the dust instead of
recycling it. The commenters agreed with EPA's pollution prevention
approach and stated that EPA properly explained the technological and
economic feasibility difficulties associated with developing and
enforcing a mercury emission limit for EAFs, including the fact that
continuous monitoring for mercury from EAFs is impractical.
Response: At proposal, we determined that the MACT floor for
[[Page 74094]]
mercury was a pollution prevention approach based on preventing mercury
switches from entering the EAF. We also explained at proposal that
standards requiring pollution prevention were not work practices under
section 112(h), and even assuming for the sake of argument that they
were work practices, it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce an
emissions limit for mercury within the meaning of section 112(h) (72 FR
53817). We received no adverse comments on or challenges to our MACT
floor determination or our conclusion that pollution prevention
standards were not work practices under section 112(h).
We evaluated ACI as a beyond-the-floor control option for mercury
emissions and rejected the option for several reasons (72 FR 53824). We
also considered the feasibility of establishing an emission limit for
mercury and explained in detail why we chose instead an approach based
on a pollution prevention standard (72 FR 53816). We disagree that the
proposed standard for mercury relies solely on a voluntary program to
keep mercury switches out of the scrap supply. First, there is nothing
voluntary about the obligations of EAF owners or operators under the
rule. They are not in compliance with the rule unless they obtain scrap
from dealers participating in an effective program to remove mercury
switches. Moreover, the standard contains detailed requirements for
preparing and operating a pollution prevention plan that must be
approved by the Administrator, specific criteria that will be used by
the Administrator to review and approve plans, criteria for approval of
switch removal programs to ensure they are effective, and reporting and
recordkeeping requirements (including progress reports). The
Administrator can evaluate the success of an approved switch removal
program based on progress reports that provide the number of mercury
switches removed, the estimated number of vehicles processed, and the
percent of switches removed. Based on this evaluation, the
Administrator may subsequently disapprove a previously approved switch
removal program or a site-specific plan. An example of an existing
switch recovery program that has been documented as successful is the
one implemented by the State of Maine, which was one of the first such
programs and was in place in advance of the NVMSRP. The Maine program
is now fully operational and reported a recovery rate of over 90
percent for mercury switches in 2006.
The commenters provided no new information or additional facts with
respect to ACI that were not considered and addressed at proposal when
we evaluated it as a beyond-the-floor option (72 FR 53824, 53825) and
concluded that:
Based on the fact that activated carbon injection is not a
demonstrated mercury control technology for EAF facilities, the
uncertainty in design and performance of the add-on controls and
hence of the actual mercury emission reductions for EAF facilities,
the cost impacts per ton of emission reduction, and the adverse
energy and solid waste impacts, we determined that control beyond
the floor is not warranted for mercury. Therefore, we are proposing
that the removal of mercury switches from the scrap before it is
melted in the EAF represents MACT for mercury for new and existing
EAF facilities.
We emphasize again that ACI was not rejected as a beyond-the-floor
option solely on the basis of cost effectiveness. We concluded that ACI
has not been demonstrated for EAFs and that there is a great deal of
uncertainty in design (e.g., the carbon capacity that would be needed
to treat a highly variable inlet loading of mercury) and potential
performance (i.e., how much mercury would actually be removed), and
hence of the actual mercury emission reductions that might be achieved.
We also considered and discussed the adverse energy and solid waste
impacts.
2. Monitoring for Mercury
Comment: Several commenters stated that stack monitoring for
mercury emissions from EAFs was needed to assess the effectiveness of
the NVMSRP and other programs. These commenters believe it is important
to have information on the actual emissions, the emissions impact of
pollution prevention measures, and an indication of need for additional
actions that may be needed to further reduce mercury emissions. One
commenter stated that CEMS are essential to establish that the
voluntary switch removal program reduces emissions. Another commenter
requested that the monitoring program include a requirement to test
emissions within 6 months of publication of the final rule to establish
a baseline for each facility.
One commenter stated that although the proposal states that no
feasible methods of emissions testing exist for any EAF facility (e.g.,
continuous emissions monitoring), there are monitoring technologies
that are adaptable for use by any facility in this industry. The
commenter noted that batch process emissions are tested and monitored
in many industrial sectors, and EPA has established emission standards
for many batch processes without requiring the use of continuous
monitors, including Pesticide Active Ingredient Manufacturing and
Miscellaneous Organic Chemical Manufacturing. The commenter also noted
that EPA has recently promulgated the ``sorbent tube'' method for
sampling stack gases at coal-fired power plants (40 CFR part 75,
appendix K). The commenter believes that because this method of
monitoring mercury is capable of sampling flue gases over any period of
time (hours or even days), there appears to be little impediment to
using this method to sample ``batch'' processes like those at an EAF.
Another commenter also noted that CEMS are available and in use at
other types of mercury-emitting facilities.
One commenter stated that data from frequent monitoring will be
essential to determine if actual reductions in mercury emissions have
been achieved in order to determine whether the ``sunset'' of the
pollution prevention standard in 2017 should be allowed to occur. One
commenter was concerned that if there are no mercury emission
standards, it may be very difficult for EPA to conduct its residual
risk determination. The commenter wonders how EPA will calculate
residual risk when there has been no attempt to establish a baseline of
mercury emissions, determine the effectiveness of the switch removal
program, or measure emissions after controls are implemented. One
commenter stated that at least one steel mill of which they are aware
has reported higher levels of mercury emissions since starting to
participate in the NVMSRP. The commenter notes that frequent monitoring
is needed to determine whether the program is effective.
One commenter suggested that EPA require facilities to keep records
of the sources of scrap metal entering the facility in a manner that
allows correlation of scrap sources with elevated mercury emissions and
that these records be available to the Agency and accessible for public
review.
Response: At proposal, we considered the use of CEMS for mercury
(72 FR 53817):
We therefore examined the technological and economic feasibility
of continuous monitoring for mercury from these sources. We note
first that mercury CEMS are not demonstrated for EAF, raising a
threshold question of their technical feasibility for all EAF.
Furthermore, most EAF discharge emissions from positive pressure
baghouses without stacks. Continuous mercury monitoring would not be
technically feasible for these EAF (i.e., stackless EAF), even
assuming that mercury CEMS were otherwise
[[Page 74095]]
demonstrated for EAF. This is because volumetric flow rate and
concentration would need to be determined by CEMS to measure the
mass emission rate of mercury, and without a stack, it is nearly
impossible to obtain an accurate measurement of volumetric flow rate
or to obtain representative measurements of mercury concentration in
the discharged emissions. Indeed, EPA has previously determined that
the use of continuous opacity monitoring systems (COMS) was not
feasible for positive pressure baghouses without stacks for this
reason.
The commenters did not address any of these points that we made at
proposal. After further consideration of CEMS, we continue to believe
that CEMS are not feasible for monitoring baghouses without stacks.
One commenter stated that batch processes such as EAF steelmaking
could be monitored for mercury emissions using the sorbent tube method.
We agree that there are monitoring methods for mercury that can be used
for batch processes; however, the problem with applying CEMS or the
sorbent tube method is because of baghouses without stacks, not because
steelmaking is a batch process. We received no other comments that
addressed, much less refuted, EPA's view of the fundamental
shortcomings of applying mercury CEMS to EAFs without stacks that were
discussed at proposal.
We discuss in much greater detail in section IV.B.3 of this
preamble the monitoring requirements of the rule and how they are used
to determine the effectiveness of the standard. We have developed
monitoring requirements that are appropriate for the pollution
prevention standard, and since we have concluded it is not necessary or
appropriate to establish a mercury stack emission limit, it is not
appropriate and in most cases it is infeasible to require monitoring
for mercury emissions.
The lack of a mercury emission standard will not affect our ability
to conduct a residual risk assessment in the future. We will by that
time have historical data on the effectiveness of the MACT standard,
and mass balance approaches as well as innovative methods for sampling
and analysis of sources or ambient air concentrations may provide
additional data.
We cannot directly address the commenter who claimed that one
plant's mercury emissions had increased since joining the NVMSRP
because the commenter provided no details to substantiate the claim.
However, there is no doubt that removal of mercury switches before
motor vehicle scrap is melted will reduce mercury emissions, whether
the removal takes place under the NVMSRP or under other switch removal
programs.
3. Effectiveness of the Pollution Prevention Standard for Mercury
Comment: Several commenters stated that requirements to verify the
effectiveness of the NVMSRP and other switch removal programs are
needed and that accountability is not adequately addressed. The
commenters claimed that there are no enforceable mechanisms to ensure
effective participation in or compliance with the switch removal
programs and identified the need for increased recordkeeping and
reporting beyond just participation in a switch removal program. One
commenter requested that EPA include enforceable measures of
accountability that include consequences if the programs do not meet
their goals. Two commenters requested that quantifiable performance
measures be included to verify the effectiveness of mercury reduction
programs. One commenter requested written documentation and audits of
program participation of suppliers, evaluation of switch recovery
rates, and mercury emissions testing and monitoring requirements.
Another commenter suggested incorporating verifiable measurement and
accountability systems and using some of the specific language from the
MOU to make the scrap plans accountable and enforceable. This commenter
also requested that EPA revise the rule to include enforceable scrap
specification requirements and binding contracts with scrap suppliers
(rather than a ``means of communicating'') and require recordkeeping,
reporting, and certification to assure that scrap meets specifications,
as well as contract termination in the event of deviations. This
commenter also states that the switch removal requirements must be more
than a ``goal''; they must be achieved through binding contracts
establishing removal requirements and effective tracking,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements. Two commenters noted that
since there are no effective performance measures, goals, or
consequences for failure to remove switches, there is no strong
incentive for the NVMSRP to continue after the initial funding has been
expended.
Two commenters requested achievement of specific switch recovery
percentages as the rule is implemented. They suggest a ramped capture
rate of 30 percent for year one, 50 percent for year two, and 80
percent in year three. The commenters believe it is essential that the
rule require increasing mercury switch capture rates so that a rate of
80 percent or more is achieved within two to three years.
One commenter stated that two studies of switch removal and mercury
emission reductions do not constitute evidence of a cause and effect
relationship between removal of switches and mercury reductions. The
commenter believes that documentation based on a large number of
studies can determine the cause and effect relationship. The commenter
further states that because no monitoring or testing of mercury
emissions are required by the proposed rule, no evidence of correlation
between amounts of mercury emitted and the quality of scrap can be
demonstrated, and there would be no evidence that the switch removal
program is working to reduce mercury emissions.
Several commenters noted that the proposed rule is silent on what
happens if the 80 percent switch removal goal is not met. One commenter
believes the rule should include a final date when the goal is to be
met and identify emission standards to be met as an alternative to the
80 percent removal goal.
One commenter was concerned about using an estimate of the
percentage of mercury switches removed to determine whether an approved
plan should continue to be approved because the estimate of the
percentage of mercury switches removed is highly uncertain and
dependant on many assumptions. The commenter stated that determining
the effectiveness of site-specific mercury switch removal programs by
comparing uncertain statistics with an aggressive removal goal (80
percent) may cause effective programs to have their approval revoked.
Response: The NVMSRP resulted from a two-year process of
collaboration and negotiation among a diverse group of stakeholders to
create a dedicated nationwide effort to remove mercury-containing
switches from end-of-life vehicles. The stakeholders included EPA,
automakers, steel manufacturers, environmental groups, automobile scrap
recyclers, and State agency representatives. These stakeholders signed
an MOU detailing their respective responsibilities and commitments in
the national switch recovery effort. This effort will result in
substantial reductions in mercury emissions from EAFs by removing the
majority of mercury from metal scrap. In addition, it will have
environmental benefits from reducing mercury emissions from sources
other than EAFs and will reduce mercury releases to media other than
air. We disagree with
[[Page 74096]]
the commenter that without testing for mercury emissions, there would
be no evidence that the switch removal program is working to reduce
mercury emissions. Many States have implemented switch removal
programs, and major environmental groups have participated in and
signed agreements supporting the programs, both of which are
indications of the participants' belief in the ability of such programs
to reduce mercury emissions. EPA recounts this history not to show that
the Agency is blindly accepting the negotiated agreement, but that EPA
has examined the agreement anew in light of the requirements of section
112(d) and finds that the program resulting from that agreement meets
the statutory requirements. The success of the program has been
documented by direct measurements of mercury in switches removed, and
as of November 28, 2007, over 843,000 switches with 1,855 pounds of
mercury have been recovered.
As we stated in detail at proposal, this pollution prevention
approach was determined to be the MACT floor and MACT for reducing
mercury emissions from EAFs. Emissions of mercury result from the
melting of scrap metal that contains mercury components. When these
components are removed prior to charging the scrap to an EAF, the
mercury emissions are prevented.
Thousands of automobile recyclers have already joined the NVMSRP,
although not all members have yet sent in recovered switches. (As we
discuss in more detail below, there is a lag time as dismantlers
accumulate enough switches to fill a shipping container.) Information
on the program, including scrap suppliers who have joined and the
number of switches they have turned in to date, can be found on the End
of Life Vehicle Solutions Web site (http://www.elvsolutions.org).
As we discussed at proposal, there are many elements in the NVMSRP
that are designed to measure success and to evaluate its effectiveness.
One year following the effective date of the MOU and each year
thereafter, the parties or their designees and EPA agreed to meet to
review the effectiveness of the program at the State level based upon
recovery and capture rates. The parties to the agreement will use the
results to improve the performance of the program and to explore
implementation of a range of options in that effort. Two and one-half
years from the inception of the program, the parties agreed to meet and
review overall program effectiveness and performance. This review will
include analysis of the number of switches that have been collected and
what factors have contributed to program effectiveness. The
Administrator is one of the parties committed to this review and
assessment of effectiveness, and the Administrator may disapprove the
program as a compliance option (in whole or in part) at any time based
on the assessment of effectiveness.
A key element of measuring the success of the program is
maintaining a database of participants that includes detailed contact
information; documentation showing when the participant joined the
program (or started submitting mercury switches); records of all
submissions by the participant including date, number of mercury
switches; and confirmation that the participant has submitted mercury
switches as expected. Another important element is aggregated
information to be updated on a quarterly basis, including progress
reports, summaries of the number of program participants by State,
individual program participants, and records of State and national
totals for the number of switches and the amount of mercury recovered.
The program is also estimating the number of motor vehicles recycled.
The NVMSRP will issue reports quarterly during the first year of the
program, every six months in the second and third year of the program,
and annually thereafter. The reports prepared by ELVS will include the
total number of dismantlers or other potential participants identified;
the total number of dismantlers or others contacted; and the total
number of dismantlers or others participating. The annual report will
include the total mercury (in pounds) and number of mercury switches
recovered nationwide; the total pounds of mercury recovered and number
of mercury switches by State; and an estimated national capture rate.
Other information includes the total number and identity of dismantlers
or others dropped due to inactivity or withdrawal from the program.
Mercury switch removal is already underway--more than 1,855 pounds of
mercury from over 843,000 switches have been recovered to date by
program participants. This represents almost 20 percent of our
estimated reduction in mercury emissions of 5 tons per year once the
final rule and NVMSRP are fully implemented.
The commenters make valid points that the effectiveness of the rule
could be improved by incorporating certain elements that the steel
manufacturers have already agreed to in the MOU. We have revised the
proposed rule to provide more specificity to the EAF owner or operator
responsibilities and to improve the effectiveness of EPA-approved
programs, which may include programs other than the NVMSRP. In
addition, we are including these same requirements in the option for
developing a site-specific plan for switch removal. The rule changes
include:
EAF owners or operators must develop and maintain onsite a
plan demonstrating the manner through which their facility is
participating in the EPA-approved program. The plan must include
facility-specific implementation elements, corporate-wide policies,
and/or efforts coordinated by a trade association as appropriate for
each facility.
EAF owners or operators must provide in the plan
documentation of direction to appropriate staff to communicate to
suppliers throughout the scrap supply chain the need for the removal of
mercury switches from end-of-life vehicles. Upon the request of the
permitting authority, the owner or operator must provide examples of
materials that are used for outreach to suppliers, such as letters,
contract language, policies for purchasing agents, and scrap inspection
protocols.
EAF owners or operators must conduct periodic inspections
or provide other means of corroboration to ensure that suppliers are
aware of the need for and are implementing appropriate steps to
minimize the presence of mercury in scrap from end-of-life vehicles.
One commenter claimed that because no monitoring or testing for
mercury is required, there is no way to determine if the pollution
prevention approach is reducing mercury emissions. We strongly disagree
because the number of switches or weight of mercury recovered is a
direct measure of the amount of mercury prevented from entering the
environment. As we explained at proposal and in an earlier comment
response, it is not feasible to require continuous emission monitoring
at EAFs with baghouses without stacks, and because of the variability
in mercury emissions from this batch process, periodic manual sampling
is inadequate and provides only a snapshot in time of the emissions.
Commenters also asked what happens if the 80 percent goal is not
met. Another stated that there is a great deal of uncertainty in
estimating the percent of switches removed and that the use of this
uncertain statistic could cause effective switch removal programs to
have their approval revoked. We addressed these issues at proposal (72
FR 53824) and we note again that the 80 percent minimum recovery rate
is a goal that all parties to the MOU agreed to work toward. We
recognize that 80
[[Page 74097]]
percent recovery will not be achieved in the first year or two;
however, the parties to the MOU agreed to aim for collection of at
least four million switches in the first three years of the NVMSRP and
agreed to exceed this amount if possible. We believe that recovery of
four million switches (approximately 4.4 tons of mercury at 1 gram per
switch) in the first three years is a good beginning for working toward
recovery of 80 percent of mercury switches. It is necessary to
acknowledge that there will be an initial delay in many States that
have recently joined the NVMSRP while individual dismantlers accumulate
sufficient switches to make a shipment for recovery. It has been
estimated that it may take from 6 to 12 months to fill a switch
collection bucket (e.g., according to the ELVS Web site at http://www.elvsolutions.org
, switches are typically collected in 3.5 gallon
buckets that can hold up to 450 mercury pellets from switch
assemblies).
Furthermore, the goal of removing 80 percent of the mercury
switches is not the only criteria used to evaluate the success of a
program. In the proposed rule, we explained that the Administrator can
evaluate the success of an EPA-approved program at any time, identify
States where improvements might be needed, recommend options for
improving the program in a particular State, and if necessary,
disapprove the program as implemented in a State from being used to
demonstrate compliance with the rule based on an assessment of this
performance. The evaluation would be based on progress reports
submitted to the Administrator that provide the number of mercury
switches removed, the estimated number of vehicles processed, and
percent of mercury switches recovered. The Administrator can assess the
information with respect to the program's goal for percent switch
recovery and trends in recovery rates. For example, as the NVMSRP has
ramped up, switch recovery rates have increased from 241,000 switches
in 2006 to 602,000 through the first 10 months of 2007.
Comment: One commenter noted that in the NVMSRP MOU, funding was
negotiated with the understanding that the EAF rule would provide
strong incentives for switch removal after the incentive fund was
depleted. The commenter states that the proposed rule does not appear
to provide such incentives because there are no performance measures,
goals, or consequences for failing to remove switches. The commenter
further states that to provide accountability and enhance
effectiveness, the rule should stipulate enforceable consequences for
the EAF sector in the event that the pollution prevention approach is
not sufficient to achieve necessary emission reductions. The commenter
suggests that if existing and proposed programs are not successful,
then additional emission control and monitoring requirements and/or
further EAF financial support to the NVMSRP should be required.
Response: The rule provides a strong incentive for EAF owners or
operators to continue their support for the NVMSRP even after the
incentive fund is depleted. Facilities that do not participate in an
EPA-approved program must develop and operate by site-specific switch
removal plans that may prove to be more burdensome than that of
participating in the NVMSRP. The rule requires that metal scrap
purchased for use in an EAF be procured from a supplier that removes
mercury convenience light switches. If an EAF owner or operator fails
to meet the requirements related to audits of suppliers, reporting,
recordkeeping or any other rule provisions, then the owner or operator
is at risk of being found in violation of the rule. If the facility is
at risk of non-compliance because of the actions of a scrap provider,
then it is in the interest of the owner or operator to take corrective
actions and fix the problem with the scrap provider or to terminate the
scrap purchasing contract because of failure to meet scrap
specifications.
Comment: One commenter stated that a review of the End of Life
Vehicle Solutions (ELVS) database indicates a number of cases where
individual dismantlers are participants in the NVMSRP, but have yet to
submit collected switches.
Response: The ELVS Web site, which provides information on the
NVMSRP and its members, includes the date when a particular automobile
or scrap recycler joined the program. As the facility-specific data
show, some recyclers joined the program during its first year of
implementation or even earlier. We do not believe that this should
cause undue concern at this time. Some States had instituted
statutorily mandated programs prior to the establishment of the
national program and, therefore, have been operating for a longer
period of time. Automobile and scrap recyclers in these States have had
more of incentive to participate early on in the program. It is
possible that automobile and scrap recyclers in those States have
already submitted switches to be recycled, some of which may have been
stored in anticipation of a future opportunity to dispose or recycle
them. States that have just joined the national program are clearly in
a ramp-up phase. There will be an initial delay associated with many
new programs while individual dismantlers accumulate sufficient
switches to make a shipment for recovery. It has been estimated that it
may take from 6 to 12 months to fill a switch collection bucket that
typically holds about 400 mercury pellets from switches. The same type
of lag time in shipping was noted when one of the first switch removal
programs in the country was initiated by the State of Maine.
The data show that during its first full year, the program has made
significant progress, and as we pointed out earlier, over 1,855 pounds
of mercury has been recovered, and this represents almost 20 percent of
our estimated annual reduction in mercury emissions (5 tons per year)
once the rule is fully implemented. The second year of the program will
shift from roll-out to ramping up participation and collection rates.
We should see significant progress toward achieving 80 percent recovery
of switches in the third year of program implementation.
Comment: One commenter questioned the meaning of ``80 percent'' in
the reduction of mercury switches: Does it refer to the convenience
switches in one automobile, the total weight of mercury in switches in
a vehicle being turned into scrap, the total number of switches and
other sources of mercury in one vehicle, or none of the above.
Response: ``80 percent'' switch recovery is the goal, and the
percent of switches recovered (the capture rate as defined in the MOU)
is the number of mercury switches removed from end-of-life vehicles
divided by the total mercury switch population in end-of-life vehicles
in a given time period (e.g., each year of the program) times 100.
Comment: One commenter objected to the credit allowed in
calculating the 80 percent mercury switch removal goal for site-
specific plans. The commenter objected to the credit because it allows
counting of mercury removed from components other than convenience
lighting while the approved plan requires only the removal of mercury
switches from convenience lighting. The commenter stated that the
provision is not consistent with the MOU, which states that only
mercury switches used for convenience lighting will be counted for
purposes of measuring program performance. The commenter argued that
site-specific plans should not be held to a higher standard than the
NVMSRP.
[[Page 74098]]
Response: While it is true that only switches from convenience
lighting apply to the 80 percent minimum goal of the NVMSRP, ELVS
accepts all automobile mercury switches (including those from anti-lock
brake systems (ABS)), and the automobile or scrap recyclers that remove
them are paid the incentive fee of $1.00 per switch. We believe that
this provides an incentive to remove switches from other systems as
well as for convenience lighting. In the requirements for site-specific
plans, other sources of mercury are included in determining the 80
percent goal, such as ABS, security systems, active ride control, and
other applications. Inclusion of these other components in the site-
specific programs provides an incentive for their removal. These
mercury-containing components contribute less mercury (13 percent
compared to 87 percent from convenience light switches), and they are
more difficult to locate, identify, and remove. Mercury-containing
components in ABS will be the components other than convenience light
switches that are most often removed. The removal of these components
requires removing the rear seat and dismantling the ABS. We believe
that if a dismantler chooses to take the time to remove and recover
mercury components from ABS or other components, they should receive
some type of credit for doing so, thus they can include them in their
80 percent minimum recovery goal.
Comment: One commenter stated that at least two EAF facilities are
exempt from the proposed rule because they are collocated with major
source integrated iron and steel manufacturing facilities. The
commenter noted that if these facilities are not covered by the rule
and choose not to participate in the voluntary NVMSRP, then these
facilities and their suppliers will enjoy at least two competitive
advantages over the 91 facilities that will have to comply with the
rule: They will have lower costs and they will be free of any legal
requirement to address mercury in the scrap that they receive,
generate, and or use as feedstock. The commenter also stated that scrap
from any supplier who chooses to ignore mercury will preferentially
flow to these facilities because there will be no legal or voluntary
obligation for that supply chain to address mercury.
Response: As we stated at proposal, we plan to list EAFs as a major
source category and develop MACT standards for HAP emissions, including
mercury.
Comment: One commenter noted that the criteria by which the
Administrator will evaluate semiannual reports are not specified for
the option of a site-specific plan for switch removal. The commenter
went on to state that there is no incentive to meet the requirements
and no penalty for failing to do so. Another commenter is concerned
about the proposed rule's mechanism for approval of alternative switch
recovery programs since States vary in their level of participation in
the NVMSRP and have a variety of statutory and regulatory requirements,
State level MOUs, State incentive funds, and other program components.
The commenter said that to ensure consistency and enforceability, clear
criteria and procedures that ensure any program's effectiveness need to
be specified in the rule. One commenter suggested the Administrator
specifically consider the participation rate of scrap suppliers to an
area steel mill and the collection rate of the largest scrap suppliers
to the facility prior to approving the goals. One of the commenters
noted that as proposed, the rule directs the Administrator to determine
if NVMSRP or alternative programs are adequately recovering switches,
but provides no quantitative requirements.
Response: As we discussed above, the Administrator will evaluate
the number of mercury switches removed, the estimated number of
vehicles processed, and percent of mercury switches recovered. (See
Sec. 63.10685(b)(1)(v) and (b)(2)(iii)). The Administrator can assess
the information with respect to the program's goal for percent switch
recovery and trends in recovery rates. The criteria are not hard and
fixed because flexibility is needed to consider potentially lower
recovery rates as the program is established and higher rates as the
number of participants peaks. We have described earlier the database
used for documenting and measuring mercury switch recovery. We believe
that this database provides sufficient transparency to ensure that the
program is making measurable program progress and assuring
accountability while at the same time remaining flexible.
We have provided sufficient detail in the rule for the criteria
used to approve State and other switch removal programs: (1) There is
an outreach program that informs automobile dismantlers of the need for
removal of mercury switches and provides training and guidance on
switch removal, (2) the program has a goal for the removal of at least
80 percent of the mercury switches, and (3) the program sponsor must
submit annual progress reports on the number of switches removed and
the estimated number of motor vehicle bodies processed.
4. Other Sources of Mercury in Scrap
Comment: Several commenters claimed that a significant amount of
mercury comes from sources other than automobile scrap, including
household and commercial appliances, heating and air conditioning
units, and industrial equipment. Some of these commenters suggested
addressing these sources of mercury by expanding the NVMSRP. One
commenter stated that the mercury from sources other than automobiles
was on the order of 40 to 50 percent of the mercury in scrap. Another
commenter noted that the counteracting effect of increased use of ABS,
more mercury containing electronic devices in cars, and other mercury-
containing items, could conceivably lead to a net increase in the
mercury in scrap processed by steel mills.
One commenter stated that the rule should address these mercury
sources to scrap metal by incorporation into the NVMSRP or through the
establishment and funding (by mercury product manufacturers and the EAF
sector) of collection programs targeting other products that contribute
to scrap metal. The commenter suggested as an example a possible
requirement that mercury thermostat manufacturers and the EAF sector
could fund an expansion of the Thermostat Recycling Corporation (TRC)
program, a voluntary end-of-life mercury thermostat collection
initiative supported by thermostat manufacturers. The commenter stated
that the TRC is a well-established program but provides no recovery
incentives and has achieved a poor national recovery rate.
Response: At proposal, we considered the removal of other mercury-
containing components in automobiles, such as switches in ABS, and
determined the option was not justified as a beyond-the floor standard
(72 FR 53824). These sensors are considerably more difficult and time
consuming to remove than are convenience light switches, and they
contribute much less mercury (e.g., 87 percent of the mercury in end-
of-life vehicles comes from convenience light switches). The commenters
provided no data or rationale to support that the removal of other
sources of mercury from the scrap supply was economically and
technologically feasible as a beyond-the-floor option.
We have no data or documentation that non-automobile sources
contribute 40 to 50 percent of the mercury as the commenters claim, and
we have some indications their estimate is quite high. For example, a
report (available at http://www.epa.gov/region5/air/mercury/appliancereport.html
) prepared for the State of Massachusetts
[[Page 74099]]
stated that mercury switches in obsolete appliances accounted for less
than 1 percent of the mercury in the solid waste stream. Most mercury-
containing components in appliances were phased out several years ago,
and any that might remain would contribute very little mercury to the
scrap supply compared to switches in automobiles. In addition, end-of-
life vehicles contribute approximately 7 times more in tons of total
metal to the scrap supply than do obsolete appliances; consequently,
these factors suggest that end-of-life vehicles are the primary
contributor to mercury in the scrap supply. While some ABS contained
mercury sensors as we noted at proposal, these too have been phased out
and were much less common and contained less mercury than convenience
light switches.
5. Role of State Agencies
Comment: One commenter claimed that State agencies would have
little or no say in approving site-specific pollution prevention plans
and that State and/or local agencies should have more authority over
such approvals. Another commenter noted that part of the approval
process can be delegated to the permitting authority, but there may be
many varying programs and elements of programs that individual
companies or facilities may wish to implement, some of which States do
not have any experience with. The commenter recommends that EPA retain
the responsibility for approving programs and provide clear criteria
for an acceptable program, and use these criteria to approve existing
State programs that are not part of the NVMSRP.
Two commenters were concerned about the ability of air agencies to
enforce a pollution prevention program that will, in many cases, be
overseen by solid and hazardous waste programs. The commenters noted
that the requirements of the switch removal program must be
incorporated into air permits, and the provisions must be clearly
understood and enforceable by State air agencies in cooperation with
their counterparts in other media programs. The commenters are
concerned that if these provisions are not explicit in the program,
this pollution prevention approach will not be effective.
One State agency commenter asked that EPA approve the vehicle
mercury switch recovery program mandated by Maine State law as an EPA-
approved program under the rule. The commenter noted that the Maine
program has been the most successful switch recovery program to date,
with a 2006 recovery rate of over 90 percent for all mercury switches--
not just convenience light switches. The commenter further added that
the program meets or exceeds all of the criteria that are identified in
the proposed rule as necessary to effect mercury reductions from EAFs.
One commenter recommended that EPA grant pre-approval of existing
State programs. The commenter argued that pre-approval of the eight
existing State programs (which account for about 1,900 participants),
would eliminate the need for scrap providers participating in those
programs to obtain EPA approval of their site-specific plans.
Response: We agree that State agencies should be involved in
reviewing and approving or disapproving site-specific pollution
prevention plans. We expect that the State permitting authority will
have a better understanding of the facilities in their State and their
site-specific operating conditions and any special circumstances. We
are clarifying that the rule delegates to the States the authority to
implement and enforce those requirements in the rule dealing with
contaminants from scrap except for the approval of national, State, or
local agency programs under the option for approved mercury programs.
We believe that such broad programs should require EPA approval and
that it is not appropriate for a State agency to evaluate and approve a
national program or their own program. The rule should be implemented
by State air programs and not by solid and hazardous waste programs.
We are also identifying the mercury switch recovery program
mandated by State law in Maine as an EPA-approved program because they
submitted documentation that the requirements are equivalent to (or
more stringent than) the approved national program. The program in
Maine represents MACT, and we explained at proposal that MACT is a
national, State, local or facility-specific switch recovery program
that meets specific criteria. No other States made such requests or
submitted information showing equivalency; consequently, we are not
currently identifying other State programs as EPA-approved in the final
rule.
6. Comments on Specific Rule Changes
Comment: One commenter stated that in Sec. 63.10685(b)(1)(i) and
(ii), the requirement for removal of mercury switches from vehicle
bodies used to make scrap does not seem to recognize the possibility of
inaccessible switches. The commenter suggests replacing ``mercury
switches'' with ``accessible mercury switches.''
Response: We have defined mercury switch to include only those
switches that are part of a convenience light switch mechanism. Our
information indicates that these switches are accessible and are easily
removed, and it is important to the success of the pollution prevention
program that they be removed. Consequently, we are not adding the
additional requirement that they be ``accessible,'' which would
introduce additional uncertainty because of the judgment that must be
made as to what is accessible.
Comment: One commenter stated the requirement in Sec.
63.10685(b)(1)(B) for assurances from scrap providers that scrap meets
specifications does not seem to allow for uncertainty or error. The
commenter suggested that the language read ``Provisions for obtaining
assurance from scrap providers that to the best of their knowledge,
motor vehicle scrap provided to the facility meets the scrap
specification''.
Response: We disagree that the change recommended by the commenter
is necessary because the phrase ``to the best of their knowledge'' is
subjective and likely creates confusion rather than clarity. The EAF
owner or operator must obtain assurance to their satisfaction that the
scrap meets specifications.
Comment: One commenter said the requirement in Sec.
63.10685(b)(1)(ii)(C) for a means of corroboration to ensure that scrap
providers and dismantlers are implementing appropriate steps to
minimize the presence of mercury switches in motor vehicle scrap should
be replaced with appropriate steps ``to encourage the removal of
accessible mercury switches from motor vehicles to be shredded.''
Response: We disagree because corroboration to ensure that scrap
providers and dismantlers are implementing appropriate steps to
minimize the presence of mercury switches in motor vehicle scrap is
necessary to ensure the effectiveness and credibility of the pollution
prevention requirements.
Comment: One commenter expressed concern that the requirements in
Sec. 63.10685(b)(1)(ii)(C), (b)(1)(iii), and (b)(1)(v) may require
scrap providers to divulge confidential business information (CBI) or
to provide sensitive information to EAF operators to comply.
Response: It is in the interest of both the scrap provider and EAF
operator to provide the information required by the rule and to
establish procedures if necessary to protect confidential information.
The requirements cited by the commenter refer to: (1) Periodic
[[Page 74100]]
inspections of scrap providers and dismantlers to ensure appropriate
steps are being taken to remove mercury switches; (2) estimates of the
number of switches removed; and (3) semiannual progress reports that
provide the number of switches or weight of mercury removed, number of
vehicles processed, estimate of the percent of switches removed, and
certification of proper disposal of the switches. This information is
an essential monitoring component of the rule to measure the
effectiveness of a facility's pollution prevention program. The
information on number of vehicles processed can be aggregated for a
facility if it is important not to reveal the number of vehicles
processed by a given scrap provider. We do not see nor did the
commenter identify exactly what component of the requested information
would be CBI; however, if the case can be made that there is CBI
involved, EPA and the permitting authorities have established
procedures for managing and safeguarding CBI and will, of course,
utilize them.
Comment: One commenter objected to the requirement in Sec.
63.10685(b)(1)(iii), which effectively compels scrap providers to
collect switch removal information from all upstream sources of end-of-
life vehicles. The commenter stated that to impose such burdensome
requirements on the suppliers of the regulated entity far exceeds the
Agency's regulatory authority.
Response: The burden imposed by the Agency is on the EAF owner or
operator to obtain switch removal information because it is a critical
monitoring component of the rule. The EAF owner or operator in turn
must require this information from scrap providers, and if such
information is not obtained, the EAF owner or operator could be found
in violation of the rule.
Comment: One commenter objected to the proposed requirement for EPA
approval of the scrap pollution prevention plan and mercury switch
removal plan if prior approval is needed before the plan can be
implemented or a change made. The commenter argued that prior approval
would require all EAF operations to be shut down from the effective
date of the rule until the plan is approved (unless EPA can approve all
plans in the limited time available), that the need to respond to scrap
that is presently available precludes the ability of the facility to
seek prior approval of changes, and that it is unclear that EPA can
provide meaningful review of scrap plans. The commenter suggested
language that would require facilities to keep a copy of the plan
onsite and update the plan to address any deficiency within 90 days of
receiving a written notice from the Administrator. The commenter stated
that recordkeeping and compliance certification requirements should be
added consistent with the requirement.
Response: We continue to believe that the pollution prevention
plans must be submitted to the permitting authority for review and
approval to ensure they adequately address the requirements in the
rule. We are clarifying in the final rule that the owner or operator
must operate according to the plan as submitted during the review and
approval process, operate according to the approved plan at all times
after approval, and address any deficiency identified by the permitting
authority within 60 days following disapproval of a plan. We are also
clarifying that the owner or operator may request approval to revise
the plan and may operate according to the revised plan unless and until
the revision is disapproved by the permitting authority.
Comment: One commenter pointed to the provision in Sec.
63.10685(b)(2)(iii) which allows the Administrator to revoke approval
for all or part of the NVMSRP based on review of the reported data. The
commenter asked if the 90-day period between the revocation notice and
the effective date of the revocation provide sufficient time for the
Administrator to approve 100 site-specific plans under Sec.
63.10685(b)(1) and if there was a process in place for seeking
reconsideration of revocation.
Response: We are clarifying in the final rule that the authority
for the approval of site-specific plans is delegated to the permitting
authority. This is what the proposed rule allowed because this
authority was not among those listed in the rule as not being
delegated. We believe the 90-day period is adequate for the approval
process. The rule has no formal process for seeking reconsideration of
revocation.
Comment: One commenter recommended that the proposed definition of
``scrap provider'' be revised because the definition includes brokers
who have no oversight over scrap preparation and delivery. According to
the commenter, a revised definition should allow brokers to be
considered ``scrap providers'' as a contractual matter. The commenter
suggested that EPA define ``scrap provider'' to mean ``the final
preparer of scrap delivered to a steel mill, or a broker when a
brokered transaction specifies that the broker provide information to
the steel mill from the scrap processors participating in the brokered
transaction.''
Response: We disagree because the definition as proposed allows a
broker to be considered a scrap provider. The EAF owner or operator
must ensure that the broker receives scrap only from suppliers
participating in an EPA-approved program, and we have clarified this in
the final rule. For the site-specific option, the EAF owner or operator
must obtain assurance from all scrap providers that mercury switches
have been removed and provide an accounting of the number of switches
removed and vehicles processed for all scrap providers, along with all
of the other requirements in the site-specific plan.
Comment: One commenter recommended that the proposed definition of
``motor vehicle scrap'' be revised to refer to shredded scrap that
contains shredded end-of-life vehicles. The commenter explained that
shredded scrap typically includes shredded end-of-life or obsolete
appliances as well as other materials. Alternatively, the commenter
suggested replacing the definition of ``motor vehicle scrap'' with a
definition of ``shredded scrap'', which would contain some fraction of
shredded end-of-life vehicles.
Response: The definition of motor vehicle scrap is specific to
vehicles processed in a shredder. We do not see a need to revise the
definitions as suggested by the commenter.
Comment: One commenter recommended that EPA revise Sec.
63.10685(b) to clarify that scrap that does not contain motor vehicle
scrap does not need to meet one of the three compliance options for
mercury. The commenter suggested using the term ``motor vehicle scrap
provider'' instead of ``scrap provider.'' Otherwise, the commenter
asked that EPA add a fourth compliance option under Sec. 63.19685(b)
for scrap that contains no motor vehicle scrap and require
certification to that effect for the scrap provider, contract for
scrap, or scrap shipment. The commenter stated that recordkeeping and
compliance certification requirements should be added consistent with
the requirement.
Response: We have clarified in the final rule that the mercury
switch removal provisions and three compliance options apply to scrap
that contains motor vehicle scrap. In addition, we have added a new
provision to the rule for scrap that does not contain motor vehicle
scrap to require a certification and documentation through records that
the scrap does not contain motor vehicle scrap.
[[Page 74101]]
Comment: One commenter objected to the requirement for facilities
to submit a semiannual report of all scrap shipments received under the
site-specific compliance option. The commenter recommended that EPA
review scrap management records to determine compliance. The commenter
provided recommended language for a semiannual report containing a
certification of compliance, along with records of how each motor
vehicle scrap provider, contract, or shipment complies with the rule.
Response: We continue to believe that an accounting of mercury
switches and estimated number of vehicles processed must be submitted
in semiannual reports because it is an important monitoring provision
that is necessary to determine if the site-specific plan is being
implemented and to assess its effectiveness. However, we are clarifying
that the information can be submitted in aggregate form and does not
have to be submitted for each shipment, which could include hundreds of
records for some large facilities. However, the owner or operator must
maintain records for each motor vehicle scrap provider, contract, or
shipment (as the commenter suggests) sufficient to demonstrate
compliance with the rule and must make these records available upon the
request of the permitting authority.
Comment: One commenter stated that the scrap specification
requirements for mercury switches make unrealistic and unenforceable
demands of metal purchasers. The commenter notes that steel mill staff
are required to assure that the scrap is clean by visiting suppliers
(who may be hundreds of miles away) by doing visual inspection of their
facilities and treated scrap. The commenter further notes that
suppliers change frequently, they buy from middlemen, and they ship
scrap from combined sources. The commenter believes this shifts
responsibility of ``ensuring'' quality of scrap to the steelmakers and
makes no requirements of the steelmakers themselves, but asks them to
inspect members of an independent industry at large cost in staffing
and travel when it is unlikely to be effective.
Response: The rule applies to owners or operators of EAF
steelmaking facilities, and it is the responsibility of these
facilities to comply with the rule. Among other things, the final rule
requires that EAF owners or operators conduct periodic inspections or
provide other means of corroboration to ensure that suppliers are aware
of the need for and are implementing appropriate steps to minimize the
presence of mercury in scrap from end-of-life vehicles. Periodic audits
or inspections of scrap suppliers or dismantlers are one means of
complying with this requirement. Although there are certainly other
means to comply with this requirement, we note that periodic audits or
inspections of scrap suppliers or dismantlers are consistent with the
agreement reached in the NVMSRP among many stakeholders, including the
scrap providers. Some EAF facilities already perform inspections of
suppliers, and EAF facilities have historical experience in ensuring
the quality of the scrap they receive because of safety concerns (e.g.,
radiation or explosion hazards) and the direct effect of scrap quality
on steel quality.
The corroboration requirement in the final rule, as described
above, is an important element of assuring program effectiveness and
achieving the pollution prevention objective of section 112(d)(2)(A).
EPA is thus adopting the requirement as an exercise of independent
judgment, not simply because it is in the agreement.
C. Proposed GACT Standard for Metal HAP Other Than Mercury
1. Opacity Limit for the Melt Shop
Comment: Two commenters stated that a subcategory for older non-
NSPS facilities is justified by the fact that the non-NSPS status of
these facilities has a direct bearing on the technical and economic
feasibility of retrofitting to achieve the six percent opacity standard
during charging and tapping. According to the commenters, these
facilities, by virtue of their design, are of a different class and
type from the NSPS facilities. The commenters concluded that the
alternative standard described in the proposal preamble with an opacity
standard of six percent and an allowance of 20 percent opacity during
charging and tapping was appropriate for these non-NSPS facilities. The
commenters provided a discussion of EPA's authority to establish such a
subcategory and information they claimed indicated that EPA's estimates
of the costs to retrofit the non-NSPS facilities was understated. The
commenters also argued that applying the NSPS to the non-NSPS
facilities was not justified because the proposed standard was not as
cost effective as EPA had estimated, and in addition, the cost
effectiveness for HAP was much higher than what EPA had determined to
be unacceptable in other rulemakings.
The commenters noted that CAA section 112 grants the EPA authority
to categorize and subcategorize based on class, type, and size of
source. According to the commenters, the Administrator ``may
distinguish among classes, types, and sizes of sources within a
category or subcategory'' under section 112(d)(l), and similarly,
section 112(c) authorizes EPA to establish categories and subcategories
of major and area sources in a manner that is consistent with the list
of categories and subcategories under Section 111. The commenters also
indicated that section 111(b)(2) provides EPA with authority to
``distinguish among classes, types, and sizes within categories,'' and
section 112 further provides that ``(n)othing in the preceding sentence
(referring to the desire to maintain consistency between source
categories under Sections 111 and 112) limits the Administrator's
authority to establish subcategories under this section, as
appropriate.''
The commenters pointed out that in the preamble to the proposed
rule (72 FR 53826), EPA stated that it may be appropriate to consider a
separate subcategory of facilities based on the technical and economic
feasibility of retrofitting pre-1983 (non-NSPS) facilities. According
to the commenters, such subcategorization is not new and falls within
the Agency's discretion to create subcategories. The commenters
continued by stating that while age is not specifically identified as a
criterion for subcategorizing under Section 112, age may have a direct
correlation to the design of a facility, the production and air
pollution control equipment used by the facility, and other factors
that allow for ``class, type, or size'' subcategory distinctions within
an industry. The commenters stated that courts have confirmed this
relationship between age and allowable subcategorization factors where
there is a meaningful, discernable relationship between the age of the
facility and the basis for subcategorization (e.g., the cost or
feasibility of retrofitting or the effectiveness of anti-pollution
devices on emissions) and cited American Iron and Steel Inst. v. EPA,
568 F.2d 244, 298 (3rd Cir. 1977) (``AISI'') (also cited by EPA in the
preamble to the proposed rule). The commenters claimed that the courts
have recognized that age may play a direct role in a facility's ability
to install anti-pollution devices (i.e., retrofitting costs) and on the
effectiveness of reducing emissions (citing American Iron and Steel
Inst. v. EPA, 526 F.2d 1046, 1048 (3rd Cir. 1975) (also cited by EPA),
recognizing the ``special problem'' in requiring a one-size-fits-all
anti-pollution device in industries where there is considerable
variation in the age of facilities).
[[Page 74102]]
The commenters stated that they are not seeking subcategorization
based strictly on the age of the facility, but rather to recognize that
non-NSPS facilities (those that were constructed prior to 1983 and not
subsequently modified) face design and equipment challenges in
achieving the opacity standards that more modern facilities are
engineered to meet. According to the commenters, non-NSPS facilities
are a different ``class'' or ``type'' of facility from NSPS facilities,
and consistent with the cases cited, the non-NSPS status of certain EAF
steelmaking facilities bears directly on the technical and economic
feasibility of reducing fugitive emissions and warrants a separate
subcategory. The commenters claimed that non-NSPS facilities vary
substantially in design and compliance requirements, but in almost all
cases the buildings are not fully closed and the furnace design and
emission capture systems are such that modifications are required to
achieve the NSPS standards. According to the commenters, these design
and equipment differences are reasonable bases on which to justify a
non-NSPS subcategory.
The commenters provided information concerning the modifications
and retrofitting that would be required at the non-NSPS facilities to
meet the six percent opacity limit. In addition, the commenters
submitted estimates of the costs and identified additional non-NSPS
facilities not previously included in EPA's analysis of impacts. The
commenters noted that there are 11 non-NSPS facilities that cannot
currently meet the NSPS opacity limit (rather than the six identified
at proposal) and estimated that the capital cost to meet the standard
as $85 to $99 million instead of EPA's estimate at proposal of $29
million. Among the plants identified by the commenter was one plant
that the commenter stated could meet the opacity limit 99 percent of
the time, but the commenter claimed that costs would be incurred to
address trivial and infrequent excursions to ensure the facility could
meet the limit 100 percent of the time.
The commenters stated that applying the NSPS opacity limit to the
non-NSPS plants was less cost effective than EPA's estimates at
proposal because costs were underestimated and emission reductions were
overestimated. The commenters cited the higher capital costs described
above and also stated that other costs, such as lost revenue due to
downtime to perform upgrades and annual operating costs (including
increased power consumption and maintenance labor) had not been
included in EPA's estimates. In addition, the commenters claimed that
EPA's estimates of emission reductions were overstated because some of
the dust assumed to be collected by the improved capture system would
have settled within the melt shop rather than being emitted as fugitive
emissions through the melt shop roof. The commenter also stated that
the improved capture efficiency estimated for three facilities (from 85
percent to 95 percent) assumed an open roof monitor; however the
improvement in capture is more likely from 90 percent to 95 percent
because these facilities do not have open roofs. The commenter believes
that the emission reductions for these facilities is about half of that
estimated by EPA.
The commenter also stated that EPA's cost effectiveness estimate of
$160,000/ton of HAP was higher than what had been accepted in other
rulemakings: $6,800/ton chlorine rejected and $1,100/ton chlorine
accepted (hazardous waste combustors); $45,000/ton hydrogen chloride
rejected (industrial boilers); $90,000/ton acrylonitrile rejected
(acrylic and modacrylic fibers); $724 to $9,000/ton of organic HAP
accepted (halogenated solvent cleaning); and $300 to $10,000/ton of
organic HAP accepted (gasoline distribution). The commenters stated
that it was inappropriate to compare the particulate matter (PM) cost
effectiveness of the proposed rule with that of mobile source programs
because those programs were geared towards addressing PM while the area
source rule is focused on HAP emissions. The commenters believe the
proper comparison is with respect to the cost effectiveness of HAP
emission reductions as described above.
Response: We proposed a standard of six percent opacity for the EAF
melt shop for all plants in the source category (i.e., no
subcategories) as GACT because about 90 percent of the existing
facilities are subject to and achieve this level of control, and the
technology used by these facilities is generally available. We
requested comment on an alternative based on a subcategory for older
facilities and an alternative standard of six percent opacity except
for 20 percent opacity during charging and tapping (72 FR 53826). We
also requested supporting documentation in sufficient detail to allow
characterization and representativeness of the data.
The commenters claimed that there are meaningful differences
between plants that are subject to the NSPS and those that are not
subject to it, although they correctly acknowledged that age can only
be a proxy for some process difference (i.e., age in and of itself is
not a basis for subcategorization). However, we are not convinced that
there is any basis for subcategorization because the non-NSPS plants
have no physical differences that are impediments to the installation
of the necessary and widely-demonstrated capture and control systems
for fugitive emissions. Moreover, as we discuss in detail below, even
if (against our view) it is appropriate to subcategorize, GACT would be
the same for NSPS plants and non-NSPS plants.
We stated at proposal that GACT for fugitive emissions from the
melt shop includes hoods to capture the fugitive emissions escaping
during charging, melting, and tapping, and ducting the emissions to a
baghouse. All EAF facilities have capture and control systems for
emissions from charging, melting, and tapping, and this technology has
been applied to many other industries (e.g., iron and steel foundries,
integrated iron and steel plants). However, most EAF steelmaking
facilities have better capture systems for charging and tapping
emissions than do some of the affected non-NSPS plants. We have
identified no technical reason that the capture and control systems
demonstrated by plants subject to the NSPS to achieve an opacity limit
of six percent cannot be applied industry wide. The technology for
upgrading the capture and control of emissions from charging and
tapping is generally available and includes new or redesigned capture
hoods, higher evacuation rates, and in some cases, additional baghouse
capacity, all of which have been accounted for in our cost estimates.
Not only is this type of technology routinely utilized, but there
is no technical impediment to its applicability in this source
category. The commenters stated that ``buildings are not fully closed
and the furnace design and emission capture systems are such that
modifications are required to achieve the NSPS standards'', but this
merely indicates that some type of upgrade would be required for plants
to meet the standards, not that these older plants cannot be physically
enclosed so that they were able to achieve the NSPS opacity limit.
Moreover, these sources' fugitive emissions consist of the same HAP in
the same concentration as all of the NSPS plants. (See the HAP
concentration data presented in ``Electric Arc Furnace Impacts
Analysis'', Docket Item 0074 in Docket Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0083.) In
addition, a number of pre-NSPS EAFs have in fact upgraded to meet a 6
percent opacity limit. Not only are these
[[Page 74103]]
sources' fugitive emissions comparable to those of the remaining non-
upgraded facilities, but their costs are comparable as well, as are the
cost effectiveness of the emission reductions. (See the results of the
cost survey of plants that have previously upgraded as discussed in
``Electric Arc Furnace Impacts Analysis'', Docket Item 0074 in Docket
Number EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0083.)
EPA therefore does not believe that the remaining non-NSPS plants
are of a different class or type than the universe of sources meeting
the 6 percent opacity standard. They produce the same product by the
same means, are capable of controlling opacity by the same means at the
same effectiveness, appear to be identically situated to non-NSPS EAFs
which meet the 6 percent standard, and (as discussed below) are capable
of meeting that standard at reasonable cost and cost effectiveness.
Moreover, even if (against our views) subcategorization would be
appropriate, EPA believes GACT for the subcategory would be the NSPS
standard. The standard reflects readily available technology (as just
discussed) at reasonable cost and cost effectiveness. EPA carefully
reviewed the detailed cost information submitted by the commenters for
upgrading non-NSPS plants to meet the proposed opacity limit. The cost
estimates are higher than those we developed at proposal reflecting
that there are certain unique or site-specific factors for several
plants that would result in costs higher than those we generated that
did not include site-specific cost elements. We have accordingly
revised the cost analysis from proposal and used the commenters'
estimates of capital cost for most of the non-NSPS plants (using the
average for those cases where a range of costs were provided for a
given plant). We have also incorporated the commenters' estimates on
the increased operating costs when they provided such estimates (e.g.,
increased consumption of electricity and labor for operation and
maintenance). When estimates of operating cost were not provided, we
developed estimates of operating costs for electricity, labor for
operation and maintenance, and dust disposal based on the size of the
upgraded system.
We did not accept the commenters' full estimate of cost for one
non-NSPS plant. The commenters provided a capital cost estimate of
$30.5 million to replace the entire existing melt shop at this plant,
including a new and larger EAF to replace two small ones, new EAF
transformers, new cranes and other ancillary equipment, and other
modifications. We disagree with this cost estimate because it is based
on the cost for a new facility, including new process equipment, in
addition to new capture and control equipment for emissions. For our
revised impacts analysis, we estimated the cost for emission capture
and control equipment only and used a capital cost of $16.3 million
that the commenter attributed to a new baghouse and ancillary equipment
associated with emission control; however, we note that it could be
more economical to upgrade the existing baghouses, and the cost
estimate of $16 million was based on an EAF steelmaking facility that
was several times larger than this plant, making even this estimate
highly conservative. (The estimated impacts, including the revised cost
estimates, are documented in ``Revised Analysis of Impacts'' in the
rulemaking docket.)
We also reviewed the available information on costs associated with
lost production when the upgrades are installed. Prior to proposal, we
sent a detailed cost survey to several plants that had made substantial
upgrades to improve the capture and control of fugitive emissions. One
plant stated that the installation was performed as much as possible
over a 1 year period during normal operations, the final tie-in of the
control system to the EAF was made during a regularly-scheduled
production outage of two weeks, and sufficient inventory was maintained
to supply customers. A second plant also said that most of the
installation was completed during normal operations, final tie-in was
during two different scheduled outages of two weeks, and sufficient
inventory was maintained to supply customers. A third plant replied
that they could not provide a reliable estimate of any costs that might
have been due to lost production during the installation. Based on the
actual experience of plants that have made upgrades, we believe that
significant costs due to lost production can be avoided by installation
as much as possible during normal operation, final tie-in during a
regularly-scheduled outage for maintenance, and building sufficient
inventory to supply customers during the short period of production
shutdown.
The commenter identified one plant that could meet the opacity
limit 99 percent of the time, but claimed that costs would be incurred
to address trivial and infrequent excursions to ensure the facility
could meet the limit 100 percent of the time. The commenter did not
include any cost estimates for this plant in their estimates of total
costs for meeting the opacity limit and only provided a qualitative
discussion and capital cost estimates for the wholesale replacement of
EAFs. The estimates provided by the commenter were for the capital cost
of replacing EAFs, including in one case purchasing a used 20-ton EAF
to replace existing furnaces with a capital cost of $4.2 million and in
another case installing a new 40-ton furnace at a cost of over $70
million. We requested several times but did not receive any opacity
data showing whether this plant could or could not meet the opacity
limit, and we do not think it appropriate to assume a new and larger
EAF would need to be installed at a cost of many millions of dollars to
address trivial and infrequent excursions even if they had occurred.
Excursions that occur one percent of the time or less could well be
outliers and a result of an equipment failure that is not preventable
(i.e., a malfunction). Moreover, a rare excursion could be caused by a
preventable equipment failure or operating error, in which case the
event might be considered a deviation. If the excursion occurs because
of a particular sequence or overlapping of cycles since this facility
has multiple small furnaces, then careful attention to scheduling of
operations might be a solution. In any event, the commenter and
facility did not provide sufficient information, a credible cost
estimate, or any opacity data; consequently, we do not have sufficient
information to conclude that the facility would incur significant costs
for upgrading.
Our revised estimate of the cost for non-NSPS to meet the NSPS
opacity limit is a capital cost of $69 million and a total annualized
cost of $13 million per year. These costs average less than one percent
of sales, will not affect the profit margin significantly, and will not
cause plant closures. Consequently, the technology to meet the NSPS is
economically feasible, which supports our view that the emission
control technology is ``generally available.''
We also re-examined our estimates of the emission reductions
attributable to revised standards (the key input, along with cost, to
assessing cost effectiveness). The commenters stated that for three
plants, the reductions should be based on improving capture efficiency
from 90 percent to 95 percent rather than the improvement of 85 percent
to 95 percent that was used in our impacts analysis. We have
acknowledged there is a great deal of uncertainty in this estimate;
consequently, we have developed estimates of HAP metal (and PM, their
surrogate) emission reductions using both ranges for improved capture
efficiency. For plants that provided
[[Page 74104]]
evacuation rates, we estimated the emission reductions from the design
evacuation rate and a PM concentration of 0.01 gr/dscf in the captured
emissions. The commenters stated that they believed this estimate is
high because some of the dust that is captured by the upgraded system
would have settled out in the melt shop and not be emitted as fugitive
emissions. However, the estimate of 0.01 gr/dscf is an unbiased average
estimate that we believe is roughly accurate within a factor of two. We
had information from one plant that indicated the concentration of
fugitive emissions before control was 0.02 gr/dscf (a factor of two
higher than our estimate). The lower end is bounded by 0.005 gr/dscf (a
factor of two lower) because at that concentration a baghouse would not
be needed to meet the PM emission limit of 0.0052 gr/dscf.
Consequently, we did not revise this aspect of our estimates of
emission reductions.
After making the changes to the estimates of costs, emissions, and
emission reductions described above, the cost effectiveness is $15,000/
ton for PM and $250,000/ton for HAP metals. As we stated at proposal,
we believe the cost effectiveness for PM is well within the range of
acceptability and is in line with the cost effectiveness for PM for
other rules (72 FR 53826). We further noted at proposal that the cost
effectiveness for PM is within the range we have accepted previously
for control of PM emitted by mobile sources, and we continue to believe
that these mobile source rules provide a reasonable benchmark for PM
cost effectiveness.
We also disagree with the commenters' assertions that the cost
effectiveness for metal HAP is unacceptable. The final GACT standard
for EAFs will provide reductions of 52 tons per year of compounds of
chromium, lead, manganese, and nickel, which are all urban HAP for
which this category was listed pursuant to sections 112(c)(3) and
112(k). EPA listed these metal compounds as urban HAP because of their
significant adverse health effects. A large portion of the reductions
of these urban HAP will occur in the urban areas that EPA identified in
the Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy. See CAA 112(k)(3)(C).
The primary HAP emitted from melting iron and steel scrap are
manganese and lead with smaller levels of chromium and nickel. These
metals (especially manganese) are inherent components of the scrap that
is melted, and at the high temperatures used in the EAFs, the HAP
metals are unavoidably vaporized and emitted. These metal HAP are
present in particulate matter emissions from the EAF, and because they
are in particulate form, they can be captured and removed from the gas
stream at high efficiency by control devices designed to capture
particulate matter (such as baghouses). The nature of these emissions
and the HAP composition are unique to iron and steel melting furnaces
such as EAFs and are quite different from the emissions from other
processes and operations that do not involve melting metal scrap at
high temperatures.
There are adverse health effects associated with the metal HAP
emitted from EAFs. Hexavalent chromium and certain forms of nickel are
known human carcinogens. Lead is toxic at low concentrations, and
children are particularly sensitive to the chronic effects of lead.
Chronic exposure to manganese affects the central nervous system.
Additional details on the health and environmental effects of these HAP
can be found at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/hlthef/hapindex.html. In
addition, approximately 50 percent of the PM emissions are in the form
of fine particulate matter, and EPA studies have found that fine
particles continue to be a significant source of health risks in many
urban areas.
Accordingly, even considered as a separate subcategory, EPA
believes that GACT for these sources would be the current NSPS
standard, due to technical feasibility at reasonable cost and cost
effectiveness.
Furthermore, we have incorporated into this final rule certain
provisions of the General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A) that
afford sources additional flexibility. For example, existing sources
can request an additional year to comply with the standard if they can
demonstrate to the permitting authority that such additional time is
needed to install controls. See 40 CFR 63.6(i)(4)(1)(A). In addition,
EPA's regulations implementing CAA section 112(l) provide further
flexibility. Specifically, 40 CFR part 63, subpart E provides that a
State may seek approval of permit terms and conditions that differ from
those specified in a section 112 rule, if the State can demonstrate
that the terms and conditions of the permit are equivalent to the
requirements of this rule. The procedures for seeking approval of such
a permit are set forth in detail in 40 CFR 63.94.
Comment: One commenter noted the proposal requires that a capture
system must collect ``gases and fumes,'' while a capture system is
defined as collecting ``particulate matter.'' The commenter believes
that neither of these terms is correct; the capture system should be
described as capturing ``emissions'' generated from the EAF and other
metallurgy operations.
Response: We agree and have made this revision.
Comment: One commenter noted that the proposed rule identifies
opacity standards for melt shops exclusive to EAF or ladle metallurgy
operations (LMO) and no other sources. The commenter requested that the
term ``melt shop'' be defined so that the applicability of the opacity
standard is accurately applied. The commenter further claimed that the
current requirement restricting the opacity standard to the operation
of an EAF or LMO is unenforceable. The commenter said that based on
States' experiences, many different operations occur within a melt
shop, and without having at least one other person positioned within
the building viewing all operations within, it would be impossible to
know whether emissions observed outside of a building were associated
with all the activities of a melt shop or solely the EAF or LMO. The
commenter suggested removing the exclusivity of the opacity standard to
EAF and LMO.
Response: We disagree. The procedures for conducting opacity
observations are the same as those in the NSPS, and these procedures
have been used successfully for over 20 years to enforce the NSPS. In
addition, our opacity data and GACT determination were based on the
procedures for conducting opacity observations as required by the NSPS.
2. Ladle Metallurgy Operations
Comment: Two commenters stated that LMO should not be covered by
the EAF area source rule because it would be inconsistent with the area
source listing of EAF steelmaking facilities (which does not mention
LMO). The area source listing reflects the fact that EAF emissions are
the source of the vast majority of PM (and potential HAP) emissions at
these facilities. The commenters stated that coverage of LMO will
require additional controls at many facilities to address minimal HAP
emissions. The commenters claimed that EPA has not collected
information on LMO emissions or the cost of controlling them and also
noted that LMO is not covered by the NSPS. The commenters claim that
HAP metals have been removed from the steel in the EAF by the time it
reaches the post processing stage of the LMO. The commenters indicated
that there are 12 facilities with a separate LMO baghouse (i.e., not
ducted to the baghouse associated with the EAF), seven with the LMO
located in a separate building,
[[Page 74105]]
and six facilities that stated LMO fugitive emissions are separate from
EAF melt shop emissions. The commenters stated that these facilities
will need to take steps to ensure they can meet the NSPS limits. One
commenter also stated that argon-oxygen decarburization (AOD) vessels
should not be covered by the area source rule for the same reasons
given above for LMO (except that AOD vessels are covered by the NSPS).
The commenter provided no information similar to that provided for LMO
on AOD vessels with separate baghouses or located in separate
buildings.
Another commenter requested that EPA clarify that LMO is not
covered by the standard or, if it is subject to the standard, which it
complies if it is equipped with a side draft hood or close fitting hood
even if there is no additional canopy collection.
Response: We agree with the commenters that the area source listing
and 1990 emissions inventory for EAFs did not include LMO. The PM
emissions from LMO are a small percentage of the emissions from EAF
operations, and as the commenters note, the percent HAP in the PM from
LMO is lower than that from EAFs because the more volatile HAP metals
are removed during the EAF melting process. Consequently, we are
clarifying that the area source rule applies only to EAFs and AOD
vessels.
We disagree with the one commenter who suggested that AOD vessels
also should not be covered by the area source standard for many of the
same reasons that were applied to LMO. Although the use of LMO was not
very widespread in 1990, AOD vessels have been used at specialty and
stainless steel facilities for many years. In fact, AOD vessels were
included in the 1983 NSPS, and we included AOD vessels in our GACT
determination for EAF steelmaking facilities. Many AOD operations are
vented to and controlled by the same baghouses that are used to control
EAF emissions; consequently, the 1990 emissions inventory would have
included AOD emissions even when the emission source was identified as
the EAF. Thus when we listed the EAF steelmaking area source category
under section 112(c)(3), we considered and included facilities with AOD
emissions as part of the source category that we needed to meet the 90
percent requirement for emissions of the Urban HAP arsenic, cadmium,
chromium, lead, manganese, and nickel. The comments with respect to HAP
metals are also not applicable to AOD vessels because AOD emissions
contain high percentages of chromium and nickel, which are alloys used
in making specialty and stainless steel.
We evaluated the impacts of including AOD vessels in the proposed
area source standard. We identified only one plant that did not control
AOD vessels with a baghouse, and we estimated the cost of replacing the
wet scrubber with a baghouse. For this plant, both the EAF and AOD
vessels are vented to a single wet scrubber; consequently, our cost
estimate was based on a baghouse designed to control emissions from
both operations. We evaluated the cost and cost effectiveness for this
plant at proposal in our determination of GACT for small stainless
steel producers (72 FR 53827). The commenter did not identify any
additional plants that did not have a baghouse for the AOD vessel, and
the commenter provided no data or other information showing that any
other AOD vessels could not meet the proposed emission limits.
Consequently, we believe that we have adequately evaluated the
potential impacts of the proposed rule on AOD vessels and conclude that
the NSPS limits for AOD vessels represent GACT for these vessels at
carbon steel and large specialty steel facilities.
3. Small Stainless Steel Subcategory
Comment: One commenter submitted two comments on the subcategory
for small stainless steel producers. The commenter asked if the 150,000
tons per year threshold applies to actual production or to potential
facility production capacity. The commenter also asked that facilities
in this subcategory be given the option of complying with the more
stringent emission limit of 0.0052 gr/dscf that was proposed for other
EAF facilities. The commenter stated that some facilities in the
subcategory already have this limit in their permit and that they
should not be required to demonstrate compliance with the 0.8 pounds
per ton (lb/ton) limit as well. The commenter also claimed that without
the option of complying with the 0.0052 gr/dscf limit, small facilities
might be discouraged from upgrading pollution control equipment because
the permitting authority could translate the lb/ton limit into a
concentration limit more stringent than 0.0052 gr/dscf.
One commenter stated that the 0.8 lb/ton limit should not be
applied to baghouses because a concentration limit in gr/dscf is more
appropriate for baghouses. The commenter said that PM emissions from a
baghouse are not linearly related to steel production rates. The
commenter asks that EPA clarify that the lb/ton limit applies only to
wet scrubbers.
Another commenter recommended that the PM limit for the small
stainless steel subcategory be expressed in grain loading or similar
fashion per industry practice instead of a lb/ton format. The commenter
explained that it is not possible to demonstrate continuous compliance
with the lb/ton format because not all particulate matter is released
at the same time (i.e., the control device may continue to release PM
after the end of a production run). The commenter stated that the
testing provisions do not fully address this problem.
Response: The threshold for small stainless steel facilities is
based on potential production as determined from the operating capacity
of the EAF in tons per year multiplied by the maximum number of
operating hours per year. We are clarifying that the potential
production can be based on the maximum production or maximum number of
permitted operating hours if specified in the facility's operating
permit. Otherwise, the potential production would be based on the EAF
production capacity and maximum operating hours.
We agree with the commenters that facilities in the small stainless
steel subcategory that are equipped with baghouses should be allowed to
demonstrate compliance exclusively with the more stringent PM of 0.0052
gr/dscf rather than 0.8 lb/ton as well for several reasons. There are
existing plants equipped with baghouses that already must meet the more
stringent PM limit of 0.0052 gr/dscf; consequently, requiring them to
also demonstrate compliance with the less stringent limit is
unnecessarily burdensome. We also agree that a concentration format is
more appropriate for baghouses because baghouses are typically designed
to meet an outlet concentration expressed in gr/dscf. On the other
hand, wet scrubbers are typically designed to achieve a percent
reduction in PM, and emissions are more relatable to steel production
(i.e., higher steel production rates result in higher inlet loadings,
which usually results in higher emissions at the outlet for wet
scrubbers). The test procedures are clear for determining compliance
with the lb/ton limit, and the plant with the wet scrubber has
previously determined emissions in this format; consequently, we are
not revising the testing provisions.
[[Page 74106]]
4. Particulate Matter Limit for EAFs
Comment: One commenter identified a plant that was not included in
the analysis of impacts at proposal. The commenter stated that the
facility could meet the opacity limit of six percent; however,
compliance with the PM emission limit of 0.0052 gr/dscf will require
upgrades to the baghouse, and other modifications will be required. The
commenter estimated the capital cost for the upgrades as $1.9 million.
Response: We have evaluated the commenter's estimated cost for
upgrades in our revised analysis of impacts. However, it is not clear
that these costs should be attributed entirely to the area source
standard. Our discussion with plant representatives prior to proposal
indicated that a performance test showed that the baghouse achieved
0.0052 gr/dscf or less. In addition, bag replacement is a typical and
recurring maintenance expense for baghouses, and bags would be replaced
periodically even in the absence of the area source standard. Assuming
the new bags and other modifications achieve a nominal reduction of
only 0.001 gr/dscf, the improvements are cost effective and reasonable
for reductions in PM emissions ($5,100/ton). Since this is the only
plant in the subcategory that might be impacted by the PM emission
limit, the estimate of cost effectiveness also represents the industry-
wide estimate of cost effectiveness. (All estimates of impacts of the
final standard are documented in the rulemaking docket.)
Comment: One commenter suggested that the PM limit should be based
on the average performance of the best performing 12 percent of sources
(i.e., the MACT floor).
Response: We discussed in detail in the proposal preamble (72 FR
53816) that the standard is based on GACT rather than MACT for Urban
HAP other than mercury. The methodology suggested is the MACT
methodology for establishing floors, which is neither required nor
appropriate in determining what constitutes GACT.
D. Proposed GACT Standards for Scrap To Control HAP Other Than Mercury
Comment: One commenter objected to the definition of ``free organic
liquid'' for turnings and borings because most turnings and borings
contain significant quantities of oil. The commenter recommended that
the prohibition on free organic liquids not include metal working
fluids that contain less than one percent chlorinated compounds or less
than 0.1 percent of a carcinogen. The commenter explained that this
change would allow the majority of turning and borings to be recycled
while avoiding possible emissions of chlorinated compounds.
Response: We disagree with the commenter because this provision is
designed to prevent significant amounts of oil or other free organic
liquids from entering the EAF with the scrap. These organic liquids
contribute to the emissions of organic HAP such as benzene and
polycyclic organic matter.
Comment: One commenter asks EPA to clarify the meaning of taking
corrective action under Sec. 63.10685(a)(1)(iii), which requires the
facility to include in the scrap management plan procedures for
``taking corrective actions with vendors whose shipments are not within
specifications.'' The commenter asked to what extent a scrap provider
has any recourse when corrective actions are deemed necessary.
Response: The procedures for taking corrective actions must be
described by the EAF owner or operator in the site-specific pollution
prevention plan and these procedures may vary depending on the type of
scrap, scrap provider, and other factors, some of which may be unique
to the facility. The concept is not a new one because EAF owners or
operators have historically taken corrective actions when scrap does
not meet their specifications. The area source rule places no direct
requirements on the scrap provider; however, we expect that the scrap
provider would work with customers (the EAF owners or operators) to
resolve any questions of recourse with respect to corrective actions.
Comment: Several commenters believe the following proposed language
creates a potential loophole for sources to charge otherwise
unacceptable materials: ``The requirements for a pollution prevention
plan do not apply to the routine recycling of baghouse bags and other
internal process or maintenance materials in the furnace.'' These
commenters believe the language presents a loophole that renders the
pollution prevention plan unenforceable and should be removed. One
commenter suggests these exemptions not be allowed unless specifically
identified in the pollution prevention plan and approved by the
Administrator. Two commenters noted that under the proposed language,
if an inspector found chlorinated plastics, lead or free organic
liquids in an EAF's feedstock, the inspector would need to demonstrate
that these wastes did not stem from ``internal process materials or
maintenance materials.''
Response: The final rule, like the proposal, allows certain
materials generated internally (e.g., baghouse bags) to be charged to
the EAF. We agree that these materials should be identified and
described in the facility's pollution prevention plan, and this is
reflected in the final rule language. These materials are only those
that are generated internally; consequently, they cannot be used as a
loophole for incoming scrap. The inspector should be aware that the
presence of chlorinated plastics, lead, or free organic liquids in
these internal process materials or maintenance materials should be
relatively rare, and if present, only exist in small quantities and
only as described in the site-specific pollution prevention plan.
Comment: Two commenters stated that the metallic scrap restrictions
are vague, difficult, and practically unenforceable. The commenter
requests that EPA either define the terms ``to the extent practicable''
and ``standard industry practice'', set a particular standard, or make
the requirements voluntary. Another commenter asked what the term ``to
the extent practicable'' means in practice, and if there is no
definition, how can the compliance provisions lead to corrective
actions.
Response: We do not see the need to codify a definition of
``practicable'' but note here that our intent is that something is
practicable if it is capable of being put into practice and is
feasible. However, we believe that the term ``standard industry
practice'' does not have a significantly clearer meaning, and in fact,
may not result in as much removal. We are deleting the term in the
final rule and continue to use the term ``to the extent practicable''
as it relates to the removal of lead-containing components such as
batteries and wheel weights.
E. Miscellaneous Comments
1. General Provisions
Comment: One commenter objected to the requirement for SSM plans
and reports because the burden of the recordkeeping and reporting
requirements are not commensurate with the small quantity of pollutants
covered by the rule. If SSM plans are required in the final rule, the
commenter recommended that the plan requirements be limited to the
operation of the EAF and LMO and associated control devices. The
commenter was concerned that the SSM requirements could be read to
apply to problems with the pollution prevention plans. The commenter
recommended that Table 1
[[Page 74107]]
to Subpart YYYYY should indicate the limitation of the SSM
requirements.
Response: We agree that the SSM requirements do not apply to the
pollution prevention plans. Sources must comply with the pollution
prevention plans at all times, including periods of SSM. Therefore,
separate requirements governing SSM are not necessary.
Comment: One commenter stated that because the rule requires
compliance with the compliance assurance monitoring (CAM) provisions,
Table 1 to subpart YYYYY should indicate that the monitoring
requirements in Sec. 63.8(a) through (c) of the general provisions (40
CFR part 63, subpart A) apply only if a continuous opacity monitoring
system or continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS) is used.
Response: We agree and will make this clarification.
2. Compliance Date
Comment: Two commenters requested that three years be allowed for
non-NSPS facilities to install or modify controls to meet the opacity
limit. The commenters stated that a series of events must occur to
improve controls: Conceptual and detailed engineering studies must be
conducted to determine what is needed to achieve compliance, a budget
must be established and capital funding requests initiated and approved
by company management, the project must be contracted out (after a
competitive bidding process), necessary building permits obtained, and
construction initiated. The commenters asked that EPA provide for the
full three-year compliance period allowed under the CAA in order to
avoid a proliferation of extension requests.
Response: We recognize that certain facilities will require
extensive upgrades, including new capture systems, new baghouses, and
site-specific modifications to improve control of fugitive emissions
and meet the melt shop opacity limit. Consequently, we agree that it is
appropriate to allow up to three years to achieve compliance for those
facilities that demonstrate to the satisfaction of the permitting
authority that additional time is needed to install or modify emission
control equipment to meet the opacity limit.
3. Title V Permit
Comment: One commenter stated that the title V permit program is
for major sources of criteria pollutants or HAP. The commenter stated
that there was one small specialty steel EAF facility that was not a
major source for any pollutant and that the facility has a State permit
that caps emissions below major source thresholds. The commenter asked
that the proposed rule be revised to require a title V permit only for
those facilities that are major sources.
Response: Section 502(a) of the CAA requires sources subject to
regulation under section 112 of the CAA to obtain a permit to operate.
However, Section 502(a) authorizes the Administrator, in his
discretion, to ``promulgate regulations to exempt one or more source
categories (in whole or in part) from the requirement of (title V) if
the Administrator finds that compliance with such requirements is
impracticable, infeasible, or unnecessarily burdensome on such
categories * * * .'' EPA promulgated a rule interpreting section 502(a)
and therein stated that EPA may only exempt a category from Title V
permitting if we find compliance to be ``impracticable, infeasible, or
unnecessarily burdensome,'' and we determine that exempting the
category would not adversely affect public health, welfare, or the
environment. (See 70 FR 75,320 and 75,323, December 19, 2005.) Nowhere
in our rule did we establish a presumption in favor of exempting
sources from title V permitting, and the statute leaves such
determinations to the discretion of the Administrator.
The decision to exempt a source category from title V requirements
is made on a case-by-case basis according to the facts of the
particular source category. The commenter has identified one EAF
steelmaking facility (in a population of over 90 facilities) that does
not currently have a title V permit. The commenter does not explain,
however, why an exemption from title V is appropriate for this source
category, where, as here, 99 percent of the facilities in the source
category have title V permits. We refer the commenter to the detailed
justification underlying exemption of other area source categories from
title V. (For example, see 72 FR 38871, July 16, 2007.) We continue to
believe that title V permitting is necessary for this source category.
The record in this case does not demonstrate that compliance with title
V permitting would be impracticable, infeasible, or unnecessarily
burdensome for the sources in this category.
Comment: One commenter stated that Sec. 63.106890(d) should be
revised because the language could have the unintended consequence of
forcing facilities that already have a title V permit to obtain a new
permit. The commenter provided suggested language to clarify the
requirement.
Response: Although facilities with a title V permit do not have to
obtain a new title V permit as a result of this area source rule,
sources that already have a title V permit must include the
requirements of this rule through a permit reopening or at renewal
according to the requirements of 40 CFR part 70 and the title V permit
program. See 40 CFR 70.7(f).
4. Performance Tests
Comment: One commenter recommended that the provision allowing use
of a previous performance test to demonstrate compliance be revised to
include a time frame for action by the permitting authority. The
commenter expressed concern that the facility may be exposed to a
compliance risk if the source submits a test and the permitting
authority deems the prior test unacceptable. The commenter was
concerned that the requirement to test within 180 days of the
compliance date would not be adequate if permitting authority has
delayed action on the source's notification of compliance status
report. The commenter provided rule language that would require that
the prior test be deemed approved if not deemed unacceptable within 60
days.
Response: We agree that in the rare event that a permitting
authority takes months to deem that a prior test is unacceptable, there
may not be sufficient time to arrange and conduct a performance test
within 180 days of the compliance date. We are revising the provision
in the rule to state that if a permitting authority determines a prior
performance test is unacceptable to demonstrate compliance, a
performance test must be performed with 180 days of the compliance date
or within 90 days of receipt of the notification of disapproval of the
prior test, whichever is later.
5. Funding for State and Local Agencies
Comment: One commenter stated that in order for these rules to be
implemented properly, EPA should provide sufficient additional funds to
State and local clean air agencies. The commenter said that in recent
years, Federal grants for State and local air programs have amounted to
only about one-third of what they should be, and budget requests for
the last two years have called for additional cuts. According to the
commenter, additional area source programs, which are not eligible for
title V fees, will require significant increases in resources for State
and local air agencies beyond what is currently provided. The commenter
claims that without increased funding, some State and local air
agencies may
[[Page 74108]]
not be able to adopt and enforce additional area source rules.
Response: State and local air programs are an important and
integral part of the regulatory scheme under the CAA. As always, EPA
recognizes the efforts of State and local agencies in taking
delegations to implement and enforce CAA requirements, including the
area source standards under section 112. We understand the importance
of adequate resources for State and local agencies to run these
programs; however, we do not believe that this issue can be addressed
through today's rulemaking.
EPA today is promulgating standards for the EAF Steelmaking area
source category that reflect what constitutes MACT for mercury
emissions and GACT for the Urban HAP other than mercury for which the
source category was listed. MACT and GACT standards are technology-
based standards. The level of State and local resources needed to
implement these rules is not a factor that we consider in determining
what constitutes GACT or MACT. Moreover, we note that the rule for EAF
steelmaking facilities requires all affected facilities to have a title
V permit; consequently, the comment about loss of fees from title V
permit exemptions is not pertinent for this rule.
Although the resource issue cannot be resolved through today's
rulemaking for the reason stated above, EPA remains committed to
working with State and local agencies to implement this rule. State and
local agencies that receive grants for continuing air programs under
CAA section 105 should work with their project officer to determine
what resources are necessary to implement and enforce the area source
standards. EPA will continue to provide the resources appropriated for
section 105 grants consistent with the statute and the allotment
formula developed pursuant to the statute.
6. Secondary Nonferrous Metal Production
Comment: One commenter asked that EPA clarify that the rule does
not apply to EAFs that are used to produce nonferrous metals, where
nonferrous metal means ``any pure metal other than iron or any metal
alloy for which a metal other than iron is its major constituent by
percent in weight.''
Response: We agree. The types of facilities identified by the
commenter are covered under other source categories depending on the
type of metal produced (e.g., secondary nonferrous metals, secondary
aluminum, secondary copper, etc.)
V. Impacts of the Final Rule
We estimate that the final standards will reduce mercury emissions
from EAF by an estimated 5 tons per year (tpy) and will reduce
emissions of other metallic HAP (primarily manganese with some lead,
nickel and chromium) by about 52 tpy. Emissions of PM will be reduced
by 865 tpy.
The capital cost of the final standards is estimated as $69
million. The total annualized cost of the final rule is estimated at
$13 million/yr, including the annualized cost of capital and the annual
operating costs for emissions control systems. The additional cost of
monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping attributable to the final
rule, including the preparation of scrap management plans and scrap
specifications, is estimated as $122,000 per year. No adverse economic
impacts are expected for large or small entities. Secondary impacts
will include an increase in the generation of hazardous waste (865 tpy)
and an increase in electricity usage (23,000 megawatt-hours per year)
from additional fans and fan capacity associated with baghouse
installations and upgrades to meet the opacity standard.
VI. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews
A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review
Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), this
action is a ``significant regulatory action'' because it may raise
novel legal or policy issues. Accordingly, EPA submitted this action to
OMB for review under Executive Order 12866, and any changes made in
response to OMB recommendations have been documented in the docket for
this action.
B. Paperwork Reduction Act
The information collection requirements in this rule have been
submitted for approval to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. The
information collection requirements are not enforceable until OMB
approves them.
The information requirements are based on notification,
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the NESHAP General
Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are mandatory for all
operators subject to national emission standards, and the recordkeeping
and reporting requirements in the part 64 CAM rule, which are based on
the requirements in the operating permits rule (40 CFR parts 70 and
71). These recordkeeping and reporting requirements are specifically
authorized by section 114 of the CAA (42 U.S.C. 7414). All information
submitted to EPA pursuant to the recordkeeping and reporting
requirements for which a claim of confidentiality is made is
safeguarded according to Agency policies set forth in 40 CFR part 2,
subpart B.
The final rule requires all facilities to submit a one-time
notification of applicability and notification of compliance status
required by the NESHAP general provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A).
The notification of compliance status must include compliance
certifications for various rule requirements. The general provisions
also require preparation of a test plan for performance tests and
advance notification of the date the performance test is to be
conducted.
The provisions for the control of contaminants from scrap require
the owner or operator to prepare a pollution prevention plan to
minimize the amount of chlorinated plastics, lead, and free organic
liquids that are charged to the furnace and to submit the plan to the
Administrator for approval. Facilities must keep the plan onsite and
train certain employees in the plan's requirements. Alternatively, the
facility must restrict the type of scrap charged to the furnace. For
mercury, facilities must prepare a site-specific plan for removal of
mercury switches, submit the plan to the Administrator for approval,
and submit semiannual progress reports containing information on the
mercury switches that have been removed would also be required.
Alternatively, facilities must purchase motor vehicle scrap only from
suppliers that participate in an approved program for the removal of
mercury switches or recover only material for its specialty alloy
content that does not contain mercury switches. Facilities are required
to maintain records to demonstrate compliance with the selected option.
Records of specific information are required for plants electing to
comply with the site-specific plan for mercury; semiannual progress
reports are also required.
All area source facilities are required to conduct performance
tests to demonstrate initial compliance with the applicable PM and
opacity limits. Existing facilities are allowed to certify initial
compliance based on the results of a previous performance test that
meets the rule requirements. All facilities must monitor capture
systems and PM control devices for EAF and AOD vessels, maintain
records, and submit reports according to the part 64 CAM requirements.
These reports
[[Page 74109]]
include deviation reports, semiannual monitoring reports, and annual
compliance certifications.
Consistent with Sec. 63.6(e) of the general provisions, all plants
are required to prepare and operate by a startup, shutdown, and
malfunction plan, and make an immediate report if a startup, shutdown,
or malfunction was not consistent with their plan. Plants also must
keep records and make semiannual reports according to the requirements
in Sec. 63.10.
The annual average monitoring, reporting, and recordkeeping burden
for this collection (averaged over the first 3 years of this ICR) is
estimated to total 2,393 labor hours per year at a cost of $121,573.
This includes 2.7 responses per year from each of 91 respondents for an
average of about 9.7 hours per response. There are no additional
capital/startup costs or operation and maintenance costs associated
with the final rule.
Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize
technology and systems for the purposes of collecting, validating, and
verifying information, processing and maintaining information, and
disclosing and providing information; adjust the existing ways to
comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements;
train personnel to be able to respond to a collection of information;
search data sources; complete and review the collection of information;
and transmit or otherwise disclose the information.
An agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required
to respond to a collection of information unless it displays a
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control numbers for EPA's
regulations in 40 CFR are listed in 40 CFR part 9. When this ICR is
approved by OMB, the Agency will publish a technical amendment to 40
CFR part 9 in the Federal Register to display the OMB control number
for the approved information collection requirements contained in this
final rule.
C. Regulatory Flexibility Act
The Regulatory Flexibility Act generally requires an agency to
prepare a regulatory flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice
and comment rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure
Act or any other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule
would not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of
small entities. Small entities include small businesses, small not-for-
profit enterprises, and small governmental jurisdictions.
For the purposes of assessing the impacts of this final rule on
small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business that
meets the Small Business Administration size standards for small
businesses at 13 CFR 121.201 (whose parent company has fewer than 1,000
employees for NAICS code 331111); (2) a small governmental jurisdiction
that is a government of a city, county, town, school district, or
special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small
organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is
independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of this final rule on small
entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant
economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The small
entities directly regulated by this final rule are approximately nine
EAF steelmaking facilities owned by small businesses. We have
determined that the requirements for these small business owned
facilities consist of preparing a scrap selection plan or mercury
switch removal plan and maintaining records to document compliance with
these requirements. The requirements of the part 63 General Provisions
include notifications, records, semiannual reports, and a startup,
shutdown and malfunction plan. The information required in these
information collection requirements is very similar to the information
collection requirements in 40 CFR parts 64, 70, and 71. We have
determined that the nine or fewer EAF steelmaking facilities (less than
10 percent of the total number of facilities) will experience an impact
of about $3,500 per year per facility, which is less than one percent
of total revenues.
Electric arc furnaces and AOD vessels at all EAF steelmaking
facilities that are area sources are already equipped with capture
systems and control devices. We have identified ten plants that may
have to upgrade emission capture and control systems at a total capital
cost of $69 million and a total annualized cost of $13 million per
year. However, none of these plants are owned by small businesses.
Although this final rule will not have a significant economic
impact on a substantial number of small entities, EPA has nonetheless
tried to reduce the impact of this rule on small entities. We held
meetings with industry trade associations and company representatives
to discuss the proposed rule and have included provisions such as the
lb/ton limit for small facilities that address their concerns. We have
also included a subcategory based partially on facility size that
allows more individualized consideration of EAFs in the subcategory,
which include small businesses.
D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act
Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, EPA
generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-benefit
analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal mandates'' that
may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, in
the aggregate, or to the private sector, of $100 million or more in any
1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement
is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires EPA to identify
and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt
the least costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative
that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205
do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover,
section 205 allows EPA to adopt an alternative other than the least
costly, most cost-effective, or least burdensome alternative if the
Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that
alternative was not adopted. Before EPA establishes any regulatory
requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small
governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under
section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must
provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling
officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely
input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant
Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and
advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory
requirements.
EPA has determined that this final rule does not contain a Federal
mandate that may result in expenditures of $100 million or more for
State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the
private sector in any 1 year. Thus, this final rule is not subject to
the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of
[[Page 74110]]
the UMRA. EPA has determined that this final rule contains no
regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect
small governments. In addition, the final rule is not subject to
section 203 of the UMRA.
E. Executive Order 13132: Federalism
Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.''
``Policies that have federalism implications'' are defined in the
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and
responsibilities among the various levels of government.''
This final rule does not have federalism implications. It will not
have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government,
as specified in Executive Order 13132. The final rule does not impose
any requirements on State and local governments. Thus, Executive Order
13132 does not apply to the final rule.
F. Executive Order 13175: Consultation and Coordination With Indian
Tribal Governments
Executive Order 13175 entitled ``Consultation and Coordination with
Indian Tribal Governments'' (65 FR 67249, November 6, 2000), requires
EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure ``meaningful and timely
input by tribal officials in the development of regulatory policies
that have tribal implications.'' This final rule does not have tribal
implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. It will not have
substantial direct effects on tribal governments, on the relationship
between the Federal government and Indian tribes, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities between the Federal
government and Indian tribes, as specified in Executive Order 13175.
The final rule imposes no requirements on tribal governments. Thus,
Executive Order 13175 does not apply to this rule.
G. Executive Order 13045: Protection of Children From Environmental
Health and Safety Risks
Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any
rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant,'' as
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental
health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets
both criteria, EPA must evaluate the environmental health or safety
effects of the planned rule on children, and explain why the planned
regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably
feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Order has the
potential to influence the regulation. This final rule is not subject
to the Executive Order because it is based on technology performance
and not on health or safety risks.
H. Executive Order 13211: Actions That Significantly Affect Energy
Supply, Distribution, or Use
This final rule is not a ``significant energy action'' as defined
in Executive Order 13211, ``Actions Concerning Regulations That
Significantly Affect Energy Supply, Distribution, or Use'' (66 FR
28355, May 22, 2001) because it is not likely to have a significant
adverse effect on the supply, distribution, or use of energy. Further,
we have concluded that this final rule is not likely to have any
adverse energy effects because energy requirements will not be
significantly impacted by the additional pollution controls or other
equipment that are required by this rule.
I. National Technology Transfer Advancement Act
As noted in the proposed rule, section 12(d) of the National
Technology Transfer and Advancement Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-
113, 15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus
standards (VCS) in its regulatory activities, unless to do so would be
inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. The VCS are
technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods,
sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or
adopted by VCS bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress,
through OMB, explanations when the Agency does not use available and
applicable VCS.
This final rule involves technical standards. EPA cites the
following standards: EPA Methods 1, 1A, 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, 2G, 3, 3A,
3B, 4, 5, 5D, and 9 in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A; EPA Method 9095B,
``Paint Filter Liquids Test,'' (revision 2, November 2004)
(incorporated by reference--see Sec. 63.14); and ASTM D2216-05,
``Standard Test Methods for Laboratory Determination of Water
(Moisture) Content of Soil and Rock by Mass'' (incorporated by
reference--see Sec. 63.14).
Consistent with the NTTAA, EPA conducted searches to identify VCS
in addition to these EPA methods. No applicable VCS were identified for
EPA Methods 1A, 2A, 2D, 2F, 2G, 5D, 9, 9095B, or ASTM D2216-05. The
search and review results are in the docket for this final rule.
One VCS was identified as applicable to this final rule. The
standard ASME PTC 19.10-1981, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses,'' is
cited in this final rule for its manual method for measuring the
oxygen, carbon dioxide, and carbon monoxide content of the exhaust gas.
This part of ASME PTC 19.10-1981 is an acceptable alternative to EPA
Method 3B.
The search for emissions measurement procedures identified 12 other
VCS. The EPA determined that these 12 standards identified for
measuring emissions of the HAP or surrogates subject to emissions
standards in this final rule were impractical alternatives to EPA test
methods. Therefore, EPA does not intend to adopt these standards for
this purpose. The reasons for the determinations for the 12 methods are
discussed in a memorandum included in the docket for this final rule.
For the methods required or referenced by this final rule, a source
may apply to EPA for permission to use alternative test methods or
alternative monitoring requirements in place of any required testing
methods, performance specifications, or procedures under Sec. 63.7(f)
and Sec. 63.8(f) of subpart A of the General Provisions.
J. Executive Order 12898: Federal Actions To Address Environmental
Justice in Minority Populations and Low-Income Populations
Executive Order 12898 (59 FR 7629, February 16, 1994) establishes
Federal executive policy on environmental justice. Its main provision
directs Federal agencies, to the greatest extent practicable and
permitted by law, to make environmental justice part of their mission
by identifying and addressing, as appropriate, disproportionately high
and adverse human health or environmental effects of their programs,
policies, and activities on minority populations and low-income
populations in the United States.
EPA has determined that this final rule will not have
disproportionately high and adverse human health or
[[Page 74111]]
environmental effects on minority or low-income populations because it
increases the level of environmental protection for all affected
populations without having any disproportionately high and adverse
human health or environmental effects on any population, including any
minority or low-income population. This final rule establishes national
standards for the area source category.
K. Congressional Review Act
The Congressional Review Act, 5 U.S.C. 801, et seq., as added by
the Small Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996,
generally provides that before a rule may take effect the agency
promulgating the rule must submit a rule report, which includes a copy
of the rule, to each House of Congress and to the Comptroller General
of the United States. The EPA will submit a report containing this
final rule and other required information to the U.S. Senate, the U.S.
House of Representatives, and the Comptroller General of the United
States prior to publication of the final rule in the Federal Register.
A major rule cannot take effect until 60 days after it is published in
the Federal Register. This action is not a ``major rule'' as defined by
5 U.S.C. 804(2). This final rule will be effective on December 28,
2007.
List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63
Environmental protection, Air pollution control, Hazardous
substances, Incorporation by reference, Reporting and recordkeeping
requirements.
Dated: December 14, 2007.
Stephen L. Johnson,
Administrator.
0
For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 63 of
the Code of Federal Regulations is amended as follows:
PART 63--[AMENDED]
0
1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:
Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401 et seq.
Subpart A--[Amended]
0
2. Section 63.14 is amended as follows:
0
a. By adding paragraph (b)(63);
0
b. By revising paragraph (i)(1); and
0
c. By adding paragraph (k)(1)(iv).
Sec. 63.14 Incorporations by reference.
* * * * *
(b) * * *
(63) ASTM D2216-05, ``Standard Test Methods for Laboratory
Determination of Water (Moisture) Content of Soil and Rock by Mass,''
IBR approved for the definition of ``Free organic liquids'' in Sec.
63.10692.
* * * * *
(i) * * *
(1) ANSI/ASME PTC 19.10-1981, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses [Part
10, Instruments and Apparatus],'' IBR approved for Sec. Sec.
63.309(k)(1)(iii), 63.865(b), 63.3166(a)(3), 63.3360(e)(1)(iii),
63.3545(a)(3), 63.3555(a)(3), 63.4166(a)(3), 63.4362(a)(3),
63.4766(a)(3), 63.4965(a)(3), 63.5160(d)(1)(iii), 63.9307(c)(2),
63.9323(a)(3), 63.10686(d)(1(iii), 63.10702, 63.11148(e)(3)(iii),
63.11155(e)(3), 63.11162(f)(3)(iii) and (f)(4), 63.11163(g)(1)(iii) and
(g)(2), 63.11410(j)(1)(iii), and Table 5 to subpart DDDDD of this part.
* * * * *
(k) * * *
(1) * * *
(iv) Method 9095B, ``Paint Filter Liquids Test,'' revision 2,
November 2004, IBR approved for the definition of ``Free organic
liquids'' in Sec. 63.10692.
* * * * *
3. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart YYYYY to read as follows:
Subpart YYYYY--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Area Sources: Electric Arc Furnace Steelmaking
Facilities
Sec.
Applicability and Compliance Dates
63.10680 Am I subject to this subpart?
63.10681 What are my compliance dates?
Standards and Compliance Requirements
63.10685 What are the requirements for the control of contaminants
from scrap?
63.10686 What are the requirements for electric arc furnaces and
argon-oxygen decarburization vessels?
Other Information and Requirements
63.10690 What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?
63.10691 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
63.10692 What definitions apply to this subpart?
Tables to Subpart YYYYY of Part 63
Table 1 to Subpart YYYYY of Part 63--Applicability of General
Provisions to Subpart YYYYY
Subpart YYYYY--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air
Pollutants for Area Sources: Electric Arc Furnace Steelmaking
Facilities
Applicability and Compliance Dates
Sec. 63.10680 Am I subject to this subpart?
(a) You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate an
electric arc furnace (EAF) steelmaking facility that is an area source
of hazardous air pollutant (HAP) emissions.
(b) This subpart applies to each new or existing affected source.
The affected source is each EAF steelmaking facility.
(1) An affected source is existing if you commenced construction or
reconstruction of the affected source on or before September 20, 2007.
(2) An affected source is new if you commenced construction or
reconstruction of the affected source after September 20, 2007.
(c) This subpart does not apply to research and development
facilities, as defined in section 112(c)(7) of the Clean Air Act (CAA).
(d) If you own or operate an area source subject to this subpart,
you must have or obtain a permit under 40 CFR part 70 or 40 CFR part
71.
Sec. 63.10681 What are my compliance dates?
(a) Except as provided in paragraph (b) of this section, if you own
or operate an existing affected source, you must achieve compliance
with the applicable provisions of this subpart by no later than June
30, 2008.
(b) If you own or operate an existing affected source, you must
achieve compliance with opacity limit in Sec. 63.10686(b)(2) or (c)(2)
by no later than December 28, 2010 if you demonstrate to the
satisfaction of the permitting authority that additional time is needed
to install or modify emission control equipment.
(c) If you start up a new affected source on or before December 28,
2007, you must achieve compliance with the applicable provisions of
this subpart by no later than December 28, 2007.
(d) If you start up a new affected source after December 28, 2007,
you must achieve compliance with the applicable provisions of this
subpart upon startup of your affected source.
Standards and Compliance Requirements
Sec. 63.10685 What are the requirements for the control of
contaminants from scrap?
(a) Chlorinated plastics, lead, and free organic liquids. For
metallic scrap utilized in the EAF at your facility, you must comply
with the requirements in
[[Page 74112]]
either paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section. You may have certain
scrap at your facility subject to paragraph (a)(1) of this section and
other scrap subject to paragraph (a)(2) of this section provided the
scrap remains segregated until charge make-up.
(1) Pollution prevention plan. For the production of steel other
than leaded steel, you must prepare and implement a pollution
prevention plan for metallic scrap selection and inspection to minimize
the amount of chlorinated plastics, lead, and free organic liquids that
is charged to the furnace. For the production of leaded steel, you must
prepare and implement a pollution prevention plan for scrap selection
and inspection to minimize the amount of chlorinated plastics and free
organic liquids in the scrap that is charged to the furnace. You must
submit the scrap pollution prevention plan to the permitting authority
for approval. You must operate according to the plan as submitted
during the review and approval process, operate according to the
approved plan at all times after approval, and address any deficiency
identified by the permitting authority within 60 days following
disapproval of a plan. You may request approval to revise the plan and
may operate according to the revised plan unless and until the revision
is disapproved by the permitting authority. You must keep a copy of the
plan onsite, and you must provide training on the plan's requirements
to all plant personnel with materials acquisition or inspection duties.
Each plan must include the information in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through
(iii) of this section:
(i) Specifications that scrap materials must be depleted (to the
extent practicable) of undrained used oil filters, chlorinated
plastics, and free organic liquids at the time of charging to the
furnace.
(ii) A requirement in your scrap specifications for removal (to the
extent practicable) of lead-containing components (such as batteries,
battery cables, and wheel weights) from the scrap, except for scrap
used to produce leaded steel.
(iii) Procedures for determining if the requirements and
specifications in paragraph (a)(1) of this section are met (such as
visual inspection or periodic audits of scrap providers) and procedures
for taking corrective actions with vendors whose shipments are not
within specifications.
(iv) The requirements of paragraph (a)(1) of this section do not
apply to the routine recycling of baghouse bags or other internal
process or maintenance materials in the furnace. These exempted
materials must be identified in the pollution prevention plan.
(2) Restricted metallic scrap. For the production of steel other
than leaded steel, you must not charge to a furnace metallic scrap that
contains scrap from motor vehicle bodies, engine blocks, oil filters,
oily turnings, machine shop borings, transformers or capacitors
containing polychlorinated biphenyls, lead-containing components,
chlorinated plastics, or free organic liquids. For the production of
leaded steel, you must not charge to the furnace metallic scrap that
contains scrap from motor vehicle bodies, engine blocks, oil filters,
oily turnings, machine shop borings, transformers or capacitors
containing polychlorinated biphenyls, chlorinated plastics, or free
organic liquids. This restriction does not apply to any post-consumer
engine blocks, post-consumer oil filters, or oily turnings that are
processed or cleaned to the extent practicable such that the materials
do not include lead components, chlorinated plastics, or free organic
liquids. This restriction does not apply to motor vehicle scrap that is
charged to recover the chromium or nickel content if you meet the
requirements in paragraph (b)(3) of this section.
(b) Mercury requirements. For scrap containing motor vehicle scrap,
you must procure the scrap pursuant to one of the compliance options in
paragraphs (b)(1), (2), or (3) of this section for each scrap provider,
contract, or shipment. For scrap that does not contain motor vehicle
scrap, you must procure the scrap pursuant to the requirements in
paragraph (b)(4) of this section for each scrap provider, contract, or
shipment. You may have one scrap provider, contract, or shipment
subject to one compliance provision and others subject to another
compliance provision.
(1) Site-specific plan for mercury switches. You must comply with
the requirements in paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (v) of this section.
(i) You must include a requirement in your scrap specifications for
removal of mercury switches from vehicle bodies used to make the scrap.
(ii) You must prepare and operate according to a plan demonstrating
how your facility will implement the scrap specification in paragraph
(b)(1)(i) of this section for removal of mercury switches. You must
submit the plan to the permitting authority for approval. You must
operate according to this plan as submitted during the review and
approval process, operate according to the approved plan at all times
after approval, and address any deficiency identified by the permitting
authority within 60 days following disapproval of a plan. You may
request approval to revise the plan and may operate according to the
revised plan unless and until the revision is disapproved by the
permitting authority. The permitting authority may change the approval
status of the plan upon 90-days written notice based upon the
semiannual compliance report or other information. The plan must
include:
(A) A means of communicating to scrap purchasers and scrap
providers the need to obtain or provide motor vehicle scrap from which
mercury switches have been removed and the need to ensure the proper
management of the mercury switches removed from that scrap as required
under the rules implementing subtitle C of the Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) (40 CFR parts 261 through 265 and 268). The
plan must include documentation of direction to appropriate staff to
communicate to suppliers throughout the scrap supply chain the need to
promote the removal of mercury switches from end-of-life vehicles. Upon
the request of the permitting authority, you must provide examples of
materials that are used for outreach to suppliers, such as letters,
contract language, policies for purchasing agents, and scrap inspection
protocols;
(B) Provisions for obtaining assurance from scrap providers that
motor vehicle scrap provided to the facility meet the scrap
specification;
(C) Provisions for periodic inspections or other means of
corroboration to ensure that scrap providers and dismantlers are
implementing appropriate steps to minimize the presence of mercury
switches in motor vehicle scrap and that the mercury switches removed
are being properly managed, including the minimum frequency such means
of corroboration will be implemented; and
(D) Provisions for taking corrective actions (i.e., actions
resulting in scrap providers removing a higher percentage of mercury
switches or other mercury-containing components) if needed, based on
the results of procedures implemented in paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(C) of
this section).
(iii) You must require each motor vehicle scrap provider to provide
an estimate of the number of mercury switches removed from motor
vehicle scrap sent to your facility during the previous year and the
basis for the estimate. The permitting authority may request
documentation or additional information at any time.
(iv) You must establish a goal for each scrap provider to remove at
least 80 percent of the mercury switches.
[[Page 74113]]
Although a site-specific plan approved under paragraph (b)(1) of this
section may require only the removal of convenience light switch
mechanisms, the permitting authority will credit all documented and
verifiable mercury-containing components removed from motor vehicle
scrap (such as sensors in anti-locking brake systems, security systems,
active ride control, and other applications) when evaluating progress
towards the 80 percent goal.
(v) For each scrap provider, you must submit semiannual progress
reports to the permitting authority that provide the number of mercury
switches removed or the weight of mercury recovered from the switches,
the estimated number of vehicles processed, an estimate of the percent
of mercury switches removed, and certification that the removed mercury
switches were recycled at RCRA-permitted facilities or otherwise
properly managed pursuant to RCRA subtitle C regulations referenced in
paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(A) of this section. This information can be
submitted in aggregated form and does not have to be submitted for each
scrap provider, contract, or shipment. The permitting authority may
change the approval status of a site-specific plan following 90-days
notice based on the progress reports or other information.
(2) Option for approved mercury programs. You must certify in your
notification of compliance status that you participate in and purchase
motor vehicle scrap only from scrap providers who participate in a
program for removal of mercury switches that has been approved by the
Administrator based on the criteria in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through
(iii) of this section. If you purchase motor vehicle scrap from a
broker, you must certify that all scrap received from that broker was
obtained from other scrap providers who participate in a program for
the removal of mercury switches that has been approved by the
Administrator based on the criteria in paragraphs (b)(2)(i) through
(iii) of this section. The National Vehicle Mercury Switch Recovery
Program and the Vehicle Switch Recovery Program mandated by Maine State
law are EPA-approved programs under paragraph (b)(2) of this section
unless and until the Administrator disapproves the program (in part or
in whole) under paragraph (b)(2)(iii) of this section.
(i) The program includes outreach that informs the dismantlers of
the need for removal of mercury switches and provides training and
guidance for removing mercury switches;
(ii) The program has a goal to remove at least 80 percent of
mercury switches from the motor vehicle scrap the scrap provider
processes. Although a program approved under paragraph (b)(2) of this
section may require only the removal of convenience light switch
mechanisms, the Administrator will credit all documented and verifiable
mercury-containing components removed from motor vehicle scrap (such as
sensors in anti-locking brake systems, security systems, active ride
control, and other applications) when evaluating progress towards the
80 percent goal; and
(iii) The program sponsor agrees to submit progress reports to the
Administrator no less frequently than once every year that provide the
number of mercury switches removed or the weight of mercury recovered
from the switches, the estimated number of vehicles processed, an
estimate of the percent of mercury switches recovered, and
certification that the recovered mercury switches were recycled at
facilities with permits as required under the rules implementing
subtitle C of RCRA (40 CFR parts 261 through 265 and 268). The progress
reports must be based on a database that includes data for each program
participant; however, data may be aggregated at the State level for
progress reports that will be publicly available. The Administrator may
change the approval status of a program or portion of a program (e.g.,
at the State level) following 90-days notice based on the progress
reports or on other information.
(iv) You must develop and maintain onsite a plan demonstrating the
manner through which your facility is participating in the EPA-approved
program.
(A) The plan must include facility-specific implementation
elements, corporate-wide policies, and/or efforts coordinated by a
trade association as appropriate for each facility.
(B) You must provide in the plan documentation of direction to
appropriate staff to communicate to suppliers throughout the scrap
supply chain the need to promote the removal of mercury switches from
end-of-life vehicles. Upon the request of the permitting authority, you
must provide examples of materials that are used for outreach to
suppliers, such as letters, contract language, policies for purchasing
agents, and scrap inspection protocols.
(C) You must conduct periodic inspections or provide other means of
corroboration to ensure that scrap providers are aware of the need for
and are implementing appropriate steps to minimize the presence of
mercury in scrap from end-of-life vehicles.
(3) Option for specialty metal scrap. You must certify in your
notification of compliance status that the only materials from motor
vehicles in the scrap are materials recovered for their specialty alloy
(including, but not limited to, chromium, nickel, molybdenum, or other
alloys) content (such as certain exhaust systems) and, based on the
nature of the scrap and purchase specifications, that the type of scrap
is not reasonably expected to contain mercury switches.
(4) Scrap that does not contain motor vehicle scrap. For scrap not
subject to the requirements in paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this
section, you must certify in your notification of compliance status and
maintain records of documentation that this scrap does not contain
motor vehicle scrap.
(c) Recordkeeping and reporting requirements. In addition to the
records required by Sec. 63.10, you must keep records to demonstrate
compliance with the requirements for your pollution prevention plan in
paragraph (a)(1) of this section and/or for the use of only restricted
scrap in paragraph (a)(2) of this section and for mercury in paragraphs
(b)(1) through (3) of this section as applicable. You must keep records
documenting compliance with paragraph (b)(4) of this section for scrap
that does not contain motor vehicle scrap.
(1) If you are subject to the requirements for a site-specific plan
for mercury under paragraph (b)(1) of this section, you must:
(i) Maintain records of the number of mercury switches removed or
the weight of mercury recovered from the switches and properly managed,
the estimated number of vehicles processed, and an estimate of the
percent of mercury switches recovered; and
(ii) Submit semiannual reports of the number of mercury switches
removed or the weight of mercury recovered from the switches and
properly managed, the estimated number of vehicles processed, an
estimate of the percent of mercury switches recovered, and a
certification that the recovered mercury switches were recycled at
RCRA-permitted facilities. The semiannual reports must include a
certification that you have conducted inspections or taken other means
of corroboration as required under paragraph (b)(1)(ii)(C) of this
section. You may include this information in the semiannual compliance
reports required under paragraph (c)(3) of this section.
(2) If you are subject to the option for approved mercury programs
under paragraph (b)(2) of this section, you must maintain records
identifying each
[[Page 74114]]
scrap provider and documenting the scrap provider's participation in an
approved mercury switch removal program. If you purchase motor vehicle
scrap from a broker, you must maintain records identifying each broker
and documentation that all scrap provided by the broker was obtained
from other scrap providers who participate in an approved mercury
switch removal program.
(3) You must submit semiannual compliance reports to the
Administrator for the control of contaminants from scrap according to
the requirements in Sec. 63.10(e). The report must clearly identify
any deviation from the requirements in paragraphs (a) and (b) of this
section and the corrective action taken. You must identify which
compliance option in paragraph (b) of this section applies to each
scrap provider, contract, or shipment.
Sec. 63.10686 What are the requirements for electric arc furnaces and
argon-oxygen decarburization vessels?
(a) You must install, operate, and maintain a capture system that
collects the emissions from each EAF (including charging, melting, and
tapping operations) and argon-oxygen decarburization (AOD) vessel and
conveys the collected emissions to a control device for the removal of
particulate matter (PM).
(b) Except as provided in paragraph (c) of this section, you must
not discharge or cause the discharge into the atmosphere from an EAF or
AOD vessel any gases which:
(1) Exit from a control device and contain in excess of 0.0052
grains of PM per dry standard cubic foot (gr/dscf); and
(2) Exit from a melt shop and, due solely to the operations of any
affected EAF(s) or AOD vessel(s), exhibit 6 percent opacity or greater.
(c) If you own or operate a new or existing affected source that
has a production capacity of less than 150,000 tons per year (tpy) of
stainless or specialty steel (as determined by the maximum production
if specified in the source's operating permit or EAF capacity and
maximum number of operating hours per year), you must not discharge or
cause the discharge into the atmosphere from an EAF or AOD vessel any
gases which:
(1) Exit from a control device and contain particulate matter (PM)
in excess of 0.8 pounds per ton (lb/ton) of steel. Alternatively, the
owner or operator may elect to comply with a PM limit of 0.0052 grains
per dry standard cubic foot (gr/dscf); and
(2) Exit from a melt shop and, due solely to the operations of any
affected EAF(s) or AOD vessel(s), exhibit 6 percent opacity or greater.
(d) Except as provided in paragraph (d)(6) of this section, you
must conduct performance tests to demonstrate initial compliance with
the applicable emissions limit for each emissions source subject to an
emissions limit in paragraph (b) or (c) of this section.
(1) You must conduct each PM performance test for an EAF or AOD
vessel according to the procedures in Sec. 63.7 and 40 CFR 60.275a
using the following test methods in 40 CFR part 60, appendices A-1, A-
2, A-3, and A-4:
(i) Method 1 or 1A of appendix A-1 of 40 CFR part 60 to select
sampling port locations and the number of traverse points in each stack
or duct. Sampling sites must be located at the outlet of the control
device (or at the outlet of the emissions source if no control device
is present) prior to any releases to the atmosphere.
(ii) Method 2, 2A, 2C, 2D, 2F, or 2G of appendix A-1 of 40 CFR part
60 to determine the volumetric flow rate of the stack gas.
(iii) Method 3, 3A, or 3B of appendix A-3 of 40 CFR part 60 to
determine the dry molecular weight of the stack gas. You may use ANSI/
ASME PTC 19.10-1981, ``Flue and Exhaust Gas Analyses'' (incorporated by
reference--see Sec. 63.14) as an alternative to EPA Method 3B.
(iv) Method 4 of appendix A-3 of 40 CFR part 60 to determine the
moisture content of the stack gas.
(v) Method 5 or 5D of appendix A-3 of 40 CFR part 60 to determine
the PM concentration. Three valid test runs are needed to comprise a PM
performance test. For EAF, sample only when metal is being melted and
refined. For AOD vessels, sample only when the operation(s) are being
conducted.
(2) You must conduct each opacity test for a melt shop according to
the procedures in Sec. 63.6(h) and Method 9 of appendix A-4 of 40 CFR
part 60. When emissions from any EAF or AOD vessel are combined with
emissions from emission sources not subject to this subpart, you must
demonstrate compliance with the melt shop opacity limit based on
emissions from only the emission sources subject to this subpart.
(3) During any performance test, you must monitor and record the
information specified in 40 CFR 60.274a(h) for all heats covered by the
test.
(4) You must notify and receive approval from the Administrator for
procedures that will be used to determine compliance for an EAF or AOD
vessel when emissions are combined with those from facilities not
subject to this subpart.
(5) To determine compliance with the PM emissions limit in
paragraph (c) of this section for an EAF or AOD vessel in a lb/ton of
steel format, compute the process-weighted mass emissions
(Ep) for each test run using Equation 1 of this section:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR28DE07.004
Where:
Ep = Process-weighted mass emissions of PM, lb/ton;
C = Concentration of PM or total metal HAP, gr/dscf;
Q = Volumetric flow rate of stack gas, dscf/hr;
T = Total time during a test run that a sample is withdrawn from the
stack during steel production cycle, hr;
P = Total amount of metal produced during the test run, tons; and
K = Conversion factor, 7,000 grains per pound.
(6) If you own or operate an existing affected source that is
subject to the emissions limits in paragraph (b) or (c) of this
section, you may certify initial compliance with the applicable
emission limit for one or more emissions sources based on the results
of a previous performance test for that emissions source in lieu of the
requirement for an initial performance test provided that the test(s)
were conducted within 5 years of the compliance date using the methods
and procedures specified in paragraph (d)(1) or (2) of this section;
the test(s) were for the affected facility; and the test(s) were
representative of current or anticipated operating processes and
conditions. Should the permitting authority deem the prior test data
unacceptable to demonstrate compliance with an applicable emissions
limit, the owner or operator must conduct an initial performance test
within 180 days of the compliance date or within 90 days of receipt of
the notification of disapproval of the prior test, whichever is later.
(e) You must monitor the capture system and PM control device
required by this subpart, maintain records, and submit reports
according to the compliance assurance monitoring requirements in 40 CFR
part 64. The exemption in 40 CFR 64.2(b)(1)(i) for emissions
limitations or standards proposed after November 15, 1990 under section
111 or 112 of the CAA does not apply. In lieu of the deadlines for
submittal in 40 CFR 64.5, you must submit the monitoring information
required by 40 CFR 64.4 to the applicable permitting authority for
[[Page 74115]]
approval by no later than the compliance date for your affected source
for this subpart and operate according to the approved plan by no later
than 180 days after the date of approval by the permitting authority.
Other Information and Requirements
Sec. 63.10690 What parts of the General Provisions apply to this
subpart?
(a) You must comply with the requirements of the NESHAP General
Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A) as provided in Table 1 of this
subpart.
(b) The notification of compliance status required by Sec. 63.9(h)
must include each applicable certification of compliance, signed by a
responsible official, in paragraphs (b)(1) through (6) of this section.
(1) For the pollution prevention plan requirements in Sec.
63.10685(a)(1): ``This facility has submitted a pollution prevention
plan for metallic scrap selection and inspection in accordance with
Sec. 63.10685(a)(1)'';
(2) For the restrictions on metallic scrap in Sec. 63.10685(a)(2):
``This facility complies with the requirements for restricted metallic
scrap in accordance with Sec. 63.10685(a)(2)'';
(3) For the mercury requirements in Sec. 63.10685(b):
(i) ``This facility has prepared a site-specific plan for mercury
switches in accordance with Sec. 63.10685(b)(1)'';
(ii) ``This facility participates in and purchases motor vehicle
scrap only from scrap providers who participate in a program for
removal of mercury switches that has been approved by the EPA
Administrator in accordance with Sec. 63.10685(b)(2)'' and has
prepared a plan demonstrating how the facility participates in the EPA-
approved program in accordance with Sec. 63.10685(b)(2)(iv);
(iii) ``The only materials from motor vehicles in the scrap charged
to an electric arc furnace at this facility are materials recovered for
their specialty alloy content in accordance with Sec. 63.10685(b)(3)
which are not reasonably expected to contain mercury switches''; or
(iv) ``This facility complies with the requirements for scrap that
does not contain motor vehicle scrap in accordance with Sec.
63.10685(b)(4).''
(4) This certification of compliance for the capture system
requirements in Sec. 63.10686(a), signed by a responsible official:
``This facility operates a capture system for each electric arc furnace
and argon-oxygen decarburization vessel that conveys the collected
emissions to a PM control device in accordance with Sec.
63.10686(a)''.
(5) If applicable, this certification of compliance for the
performance test requirements in Sec. 63.10686(d)(6): ``This facility
certifies initial compliance with the applicable emissions limit in
Sec. 63.10686(a) or (b) based on the results of a previous performance
test in accordance with Sec. 63.10686(d)(6)''.
(6) This certification of compliance for the monitoring
requirements in Sec. 63.10686(e), signed by a responsible official:
``This facility has developed and submitted proposed monitoring
information in accordance with 40 CFR part 64''.
Sec. 63.10691 Who implements and enforces this subpart?
(a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by the EPA or a
delegated authority such as a State, local, or tribal agency. If the
EPA Administrator has delegated authority to a State, local, or tribal
agency, then that Agency has the authority to implement and enforce
this subpart. You should contact your EPA Regional Office to find out
if this subpart is delegated to your State, local, or tribal agency.
(b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this
subpart to a State, local, or tribal agency under 40 CFR part 63,
subpart E, the authorities contained in paragraph (c) of this section
are retained by the Administrator and are not transferred to the State,
local, or tribal agency.
(c) The authorities that will not be delegated to State, local, or
tribal agencies are listed in paragraphs (c)(1) through (6) of this
section.
(1) Approval of an alternative non-opacity emissions standard under
40 CFR 63.6(g).
(2) Approval of an alternative opacity emissions standard under
Sec. 63.6(h)(9).
(3) Approval of a major change to test methods under Sec.
63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f). A ``major change to test method'' is defined in
40 CFR 63.90.
(4) Approval of major change to monitoring under 40 CFR 63.8(f). A
``major change to monitoring'' is defined in 40 CFR 63.90.
(5) Approval of a major change to recordkeeping/reporting under 40
CFR 63.10(f). A ``major change to recordkeeping/reporting'' is defined
in 40 CFR 63.90.
(6) Approval of a program for the removal of mercury switches under
Sec. 63.10685(b)(2).
Sec. 63.10692 What definitions apply to this subpart?
Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act, in
Sec. 63.2, and in this section as follows:
Argon-oxygen decarburization (AOD) vessel means any closed-bottom,
refractory-lined converter vessel with submerged tuyeres through which
gaseous mixtures containing argon and oxygen or nitrogen may be blown
into molten steel for further refining.
Capture system means the equipment (including ducts, hoods, fans,
dampers, etc.) used to capture or transport emissions generated by an
electric arc furnace or argon-oxygen decarburization vessel to the air
pollution control device.
Chlorinated plastics means solid polymeric materials that contain
chlorine in the polymer chain, such as polyvinyl chloride (PVC) and PVC
copolymers.
Control device means the air pollution control equipment used to
remove particulate matter from the effluent gas stream generated by an
electric arc furnace or argon-oxygen decarburization vessel.
Deviation means any instance where an affected source subject to
this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source:
(1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this
subpart, including but not limited to any emissions limitation or work
practice standard;
(2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to
implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and that is
included in the operating permit for any affected source required to
obtain such a permit; or
(3) Fails to meet any emissions limitation in this subpart during
startup, shutdown, or malfunction, regardless of whether or not such
failure is permitted by this subpart.
Electric arc furnace (EAF) means a furnace that produces molten
steel and heats the charge materials with electric arcs from carbon
electrodes. An electric arc furnace consists of the furnace shell,
roof, and the transformer.
Electric arc furnace (EAF) steelmaking facility means a steel plant
that produces carbon, alloy, or specialty steels using an EAF. This
definition excludes EAF steelmaking facilities at steel foundries and
EAF facilities used to produce nonferrous metals.
Free organic liquids means material that fails the paint filter
test by EPA Method 9095B, (revision 2, dated November 1994)
(incorporated by reference--see Sec. 63.14) after accounting for water
using a moisture determination test by ASTM Method D2216-05
(incorporated by reference--see Sec. 63.14). If, after conducting a
moisture determination test, if any portion of the material passes
through and drops from the filter within the 5-
[[Page 74116]]
minute test period, the material contains free organic liquids.
Leaded steel means steel that must meet a minimum specification for
lead content (typically 0.25 percent or more) and for which lead is a
necessary alloy for that grade of steel.
Mercury switch means each mercury-containing capsule or switch
assembly that is part of a convenience light switch mechanism installed
in a vehicle.
Motor vehicle means an automotive vehicle not operated on rails and
usually operated with rubber tires for use on highways.
Motor vehicle scrap means vehicle or automobile bodies, including
automobile body hulks, that have been processed through a shredder.
Motor vehicle scrap does not include automobile manufacturing bundles,
or miscellaneous vehicle parts, such as wheels, bumpers or other
components that do not contain mercury switches.
Nonferrous metals means any pure metal other than iron or any metal
alloy for which an element other than iron is its major constituent by
percent in weight.
Scrap provider means the person (including a broker) who contracts
directly with a steel mill to provide scrap that contains motor vehicle
scrap. Scrap processors such as shredder operators or vehicle
dismantlers that do not sell scrap directly to a steel mill are not
scrap providers.
Specialty steel means low carbon and high alloy steel other than
stainless steel that is processed in an argon-oxygen decarburization
vessel.
Stainless steel means low carbon steel that contains at least 10.5
percent chromium.
Tables to Subpart YYYYY of Part 63
As required in Sec. 63.10691(a), you must comply with the
requirements of the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart
A) shown in the following table.
Table 1 to Subpart YYYYY of Part 63.--Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart YYYYY
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Citation Subject Applies to subpart YYYYY? Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec. 63.1(a)(1), (a)(2), (a)(3), Applicability......... Yes........................
(a)(4), (a)(6), (a)(10)-(a)(12),
(b)(1), (b)(3), (c)(1), (c)(2),
(c)(5), (e).
Sec. 63.1(a)(5), (a)(7)-(a)(9), Reserved.............. No.........................
(b)(2), (c)(3), (c)(4), (d).
Sec. 63.2........................ Definitions........... Yes........................
Sec. 63.3........................ Units and Yes........................
Abbreviations.
Sec. 63.4........................ Prohibited Activities Yes........................
and Circumvention.
Sec. 63.5........................ Preconstruction Review Yes........................
and Notification
Requirements.
Sec. 63.6(a), (b)(1)-(b)(5), Compliance with Yes........................
(b)(7), (c)(1), (c)(2), (c)(5), Standards and
(e)(1), (e)(3)(i), (e)(3)(iii)- Maintenance
(e)(3)(ix), (f), (g), (h)(1), Requirements.
(h)(2), (h)(5)-(h)(9), (i), (j).
Sec. 63.6(b)(6), (c)(3), (c)(4), Reserved.............. No.........................
(d), (e)(2), (e)(3)(ii), (h)(3),
(h)(5)(iv).
Sec. 63.7........................ Applicability and Yes........................
Performance Test
Dates.
Sec. 63.8(a)(1), (a)(2), (b), Monitoring Yes........................ Requirements apply if
(c), (d), (e), (f)(1)-(5), (g). Requirements. a COMS or CEMS is
used.
Sec. 63.8(a)(3).................. [Reserved]............ No.........................
Sec. 63.8(a)(4).................. Additional Monitoring No.........................
Requirements for
Control Devices in
Sec. 63.11.
Sec. 63.8(c)(4).................. Continuous Monitoring Yes........................ Requirements apply if
System Requirements. a COMS or CEMS is
used.
Sec. 63.8(f)(6).................. RATA Alternative...... Yes........................ Requirements apply if
a CEMS is used.
Sec. 63.9(a), (b)(1), (b)(2), Notification Yes........................
(b)(5), (c), (d), (f), (g), (h)(1)- Requirements.
(h)(3), (h)(5), (h)(6), (i), (j).
Sec. 63.9(b)(3), (h)(4).......... Reserved.............. No.........................
Sec. 63.9(b)(4).................. ...................... No.........................
Sec. 63.10(a), (b)(1), (b)(2)(i)- Recordkeeping and Yes........................ Additional records for
(v), (b)(2)(xiv), (b)(3), (c)(1), Reporting CMS in Sec.
(c)(5)-(c)(8), (c)(10)-(c)(15), Requirements. 63.10(c) (1)-(6), (9)-
(d), (e)(1)-(e)(4), (f). (15), and reports in
Sec. 63.10(d)(1)-
(2) apply if a COMS
or CEMS is used.
Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xiii)........... CMS Records for RATA Yes........................ Requirements apply if
Alternative. a CEMS is used.
Sec. 63.10(c)(2)-(c)(4), (c)(9).. Reserved.............. No.........................
Sec. 63.11....................... Control Device No.........................
Requirements.
Sec. 63.12....................... State Authority and Yes........................
Delegations.
Sec. Sec. 63.13-63.16........... Addresses, Yes........................
Incorporations by
Reference,
Availability of
Information,
Performance Track
Provisions.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
[FR Doc. E7-24837 Filed 12-27-07; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P