National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Area Sources: Electric Arc Furnace Steelmaking Facilities, 74088-74116 [E7-24837]

Agencies

• ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

[Federal Register Volume 72, Number 248 (Friday, December 28, 2007)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 74088-74116]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E7-24837]



[[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

Federal Register / Vol. 72, No. 248 / Friday, December 28, 2007 / 
Rules and Regulations

[[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 https://
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 https://
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: https://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 https://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 (https://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 reco