Browse: Departments   Dates   Agencies  

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

U.S. Customs and Border Protection

CFR Citation: 40 CFR Part 63

RIN ID: RIN 2060-AM71

EPA ID: [EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0083; FRL-8470-2]

NOTICE: Part II

DOCUMENT ACTION: Proposed rule; notice of revisions to source category lists.

SUBJECT CATEGORY: Revision of Source Category Lists for Standards Under Sections 112(c) and 112(k) of the Clean Air Act; and National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Area Sources: Electric Arc Furnace Steelmaking Facilities

DATES: Comments must be received on or before October 22, 2007, unless a public hearing is requested by October 1, 2007. If a hearing is requested on the proposed rule, written comments must be received by November 5, 2007. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act, comments on the information collection provisions must be received by OMB on or before October 22, 2007.

DOCUMENT SUMMARY: EPA is adding electric arc furnace steelmaking facilities to the list of source categories subject to regulation under Clean Air Act (CAA) section 112(c)(6) and revising the area source category list for the Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy. At the same time, EPA is proposing national emission standards for electric arc furnace steelmaking facilities that are area sources of hazardous air pollutants (HAP). The proposed standards establish requirements for the control of mercury emissions that are based on the maximum achievable control technology (MACT) and requirements for the control of other hazardous air pollutants that are based on generally available control technology or management practices.

SUMMARY: Environmental Protection Agency,

SUPPLEMENTAL INFORMATION

I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

The regulated category and entities affected by this proposed action include:
Examples of regulated Category NAICS code \1\ entities Industry....................... 331111 Steel mills with electric arc furnace steelmaking facilities. \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
[[Page 53815]]
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. What should I consider as I prepare my comments for EPA?

Do not submit information containing CBI to EPA through http://www.regulations.gov or email. Send or deliver information identified
as CBI only to the following address: Roberto Morales, OAQPS Document Control Officer (C40402), Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, North Carolina 27711, Attention Docket ID EPAHQOAR20040083. Clearly mark the part or all of the information that you claim to be CBI. For CBI information in a disk or CDROM that you mail to EPA, mark the outside of the disk or CDROM as CBI and then identify electronically within the disk or CDROM the specific information that is claimed as CBI. In addition to one complete version of the comment that includes information claimed as CBI, a copy of the comment that does not contain the information claimed as CBI must be submitted for inclusion in the public docket. Information so marked will not be disclosed except in accordance with procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2.

C. Where can I get a copy of this document?

In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of this notice and proposed action will also be available on the Worldwide Web (WWW) through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following signature, a copy of this proposed 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.

D. When would a public hearing occur?

If anyone contacts EPA requesting to speak at a public hearing concerning the proposed rule by October 1, 2007, we will hold a public hearing on October 5, 2007. If you are interested in attending the public hearing, contact Ms. Pamela Garrett at (919) 5417966 to verify that a hearing will be held. If a public hearing is held, it will be held at 10 a.m. at the EPA's Environmental Research Center Auditorium, Research Triangle Park, NC, or an alternate site nearby.

E. How is this document organized?

The information in this preamble is organized as follows: I. General Information

A. Does this action apply to me?

B. What should I consider as I prepare my comments to EPA?

C. Where can I get a copy of this document?

D. When would a public hearing occur?

E. How is this document organized?

II. Background Information

A. What is the statutory authority for the proposed NESHAP?

B. What criteria did EPA use in developing this proposed NESHAP? III. Addition and Revision to Source Category Lists

IV. Proposed NESHAP for EAF Steelmaking Facilities

A. What area source category is affected by the proposed NESHAP?

B. What are the production processes and emissions sources?

C. Summary of the Proposed Requirements

D. What is our rationale for the proposed MACT and GACT standards?
V. Impacts of the Proposed Standards

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 LowIncome Populations
II. Background Information
A. What is the statutory authority for the proposed NESHAP?

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. Johnston, No. 011537, (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).
\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.

We added electric arc furnace (EAF) steelmaking facilities to the Integrated Urban Air Toxics Strategy Area Source Category List on June 26, 2002 (67 FR 43112). The inclusion of this source category on the section 112(c)(3) area source category list is based on 1990 emissions data, as EPA used 1990 as the baseline year for that listing. This source category was listed as contributing a percentage of the total area source emissions for the following ``Urban HAP'': arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, mercury, nickel, and
trichloroethylene. We subsequently discovered that the 1990 emissions data for trichloroethylene was for a few specialty EAF facilities that used trichloroethylene in vapor degreasing. These emission units at both major and area sources are already subject to standards for halogenated solvent cleaning under 40 CFR part 63, subpart T. Consequently, we are not proposing any additional standards for trichloroethylene from 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 2,3,7,8tetrachloridibenzopdioxin. Congress targeted these HAP for regulation because of their persistence and tendency to bioaccumulate in the environment. These HAP are also [[Page 53816]]
associated with adverse health effects such as nervous system damage and reproductive effects. We published an initial list of source categories under CAA section 112(c)(6) on April 10, 1998 (63 FR 17838). As discussed below in section III of this preamble, we are adding 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.

During the development of these proposed emissions standards, we discovered two EAF facilities that are colocated at integrated iron and steel plants that are major sources, of which we were previously not aware. We plan to list EAF steelmaking facilities as major sources under CAA section 112(c) and to develop national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (NESHAP) for them based on the performance of maximum achievable control technology (MACT). However, these two major sources are not needed to fulfill the CAA section 112(c)(6) requirement to develop standards for sources accounting for not less than 90 percent of the emissions of mercury so we are not pursuing such action in this rulemaking given the severe time constraints to which this rulemaking is subject.
B. What criteria did EPA use in developing this proposed NESHAP?

We are proposing standards for mercury in response to a court ordered deadline that requires promulgation of standards for listed CAA section 112(c)(6) source categories by December 15, 2007 (Sierra Club v. Johnson, no. 011537, D.D.C). The proposed standards for mercury emissions from all EAF steelmaking facilities that are area sources of HAP are consistent with CAA section 112(c)(6).

The court order in Sierra Club v. Johnson also requires EPA to issue standards for 10 source categories that EPA listed pursuant to CAA section 112(c)(3) and (k)(3)(B) by December 15, 2007. In response to this requirement, we are proposing standards based on generally available control technology (GACT) for the control of the Urban HAP arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, and nickel from area source electric arc furnace steelmaking facilities. The bases for these standards are described below.

Under CAA section 112(d)(5), we may 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.'' The alternative is to base standards on performance of MACT under section 112(d)(2) and (3) as described below. Additional information on the definition of ``generally available control technology or management practices'' is found in the Senate report on the 1990 amendments to the CAA (S. Rep. No. 101228, 101st Cong. 1st sess. 171172). That report states that GACT is to encompass:
* * * methods, practices and techniques which are commercially available and appropriate for application by the sources in the category considering economic impacts and the technical capabilities of the firms to operate and maintain the emissions control systems. Consistent with this legislative history, we can and do consider costs and economic impacts in determining GACT.

As provided in CAA section 112(d)(5), EPA is electing to propose standards under CAA section 112(c)(3) based on GACT for EAF steelmaking facilities that are area sources. As stated further below (see section IV.D.3 of this preamble), we do not believe that a choice to base standards for these area sources on GACT, rather than MACT, requires justification. However, should justification be required, we are proposing standards based on GACT rather than on MACT because these facilities are already well controlled for the metal HAP these sources emit, and a regulation based on GACT will appropriately allow us to consider the costs and economic impacts of more stringent regulations. See the discussion of particulate matter (PM) controls in section IV.D.4 of this preamble. We believe the consideration of costs and economic impacts is especially important for EAF area sources because, given their current wellcontrolled levels, a MACT floor determination could result in only marginal reductions in HAP emissions at very high costs for modest incremental improvement in control. The consideration of cost is especially important for the small businesses that operate small specialty and stainless steel EAF facilities.

We are proposing standards pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2) for mercury emissions from all EAF steelmaking facilities that are area sources of HAP. Standards established under CAA section 112(d)(2) must reflect performance of MACT. The MACTbased regulation can be based on the emissions reductions achievable through application of measures, processes, methods, systems, or techniques including, but not limited to: (1) Reducing the volume of, or eliminating emissions of, such pollutants through process changes, substitutions of materials, or other modifications; (2) enclosing systems or processes to eliminate emissions; (3) collecting, capturing, or treating such pollutants when released from a process, stack, storage or fugitive emission point; (4) design, equipment, work practices, or operational standards as provided in section 112(h) of the CAA; or (5) a combination of the above.\3\ \3\ Section 112(d)(4) (not relevant here) allows alternative riskbased standards for HAP which are threshold pollutants.

The MACT floor is the minimum control level allowed for NESHAP and is defined under CAA section 112(d)(3). For new sources, MACT standards cannot be less stringent than the emission control achieved in practice by the bestcontrolled similar source, as determined by the Administrator. The MACT standards for existing sources can be less stringent than standards for new sources, but they cannot be less stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the best performing 12 percent of existing sources in the category or subcategory (for which the Administrator has emission information) or the best performing 5 sources for categories or subcategories with fewer than 30 sources.

Although emission standards are often structured in terms of numerical emissions limits, alternative approaches are sometimes necessary and are authorized pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2). For example, in some cases, physically measuring emissions from a source may be not practicable due to technological and economic limitations. Sections 112(d)(2)(D) and 112(h) of the CAA authorize EPA to promulgate a design, equipment, work practice, or operational standard, or combination thereof, consistent with the provisions of CAA sections 112(d) or (f), in those cases where it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce an emission standard. Under CAA section 112(h)(2), the phrase ``not feasible to prescribe or enforce an emission standard'' includes situations in which the EPA determines that the HAP emissions cannot be emitted through a conveyance designed and constructed to emit or capture the emissions or the application of measurement methodology to a particular class of sources is not practicable due to technological and economic limitations.

We are proposing an emissions standard for mercury pursuant to CAA section 112(d)(2)(A) that is based on pollution prevention measures which
[[Page 53817]]
``reduce the volume of, or eliminate emissions of, such pollutants through process changes, substitution of materials, or other modifications.'' We describe below why this standard establishes the MACT floor for mercury under section 112(d)(3), and further why we are not proposing beyondthefloor standards for mercury. We note first, however, that we do not view standards requiring (or directly based upon) pollution prevention to be work practices under section 112(h). This is because the statute specifically differentiates between emission standards requiring pollution prevention measures (``measures which reduce the volume of, or eliminate emissions of, such [HAP] through * * * substitution of materials'') and those requiring work practices, with only the latter requiring separate justification under section 112(h). Compare section 112(d)(2)(A) and (D).\4\ This is a reasonable construction, since there is reason to favor standards requiring use of pollution prevention measures, which eliminate HAP emissions altogether, over standards reflecting merely the capture of some portion of an emitted HAP. There is thus no reason to disfavor pollution preventionbased standards by allowing their use only if the section 112(h) criteria are also satisfied.
\4\ Such a standard is an ``emission standard'' since it ``limits the quantity * * * of emissions of air pollutants on a continuous basis''. See section 302(k)(definition of ``emission standard'').

However, even assuming, for the sake of argument, that the proposed pollution prevention standards for mercury are considered to be work practices, it is not feasible to prescribe or enforce an emissions limit for mercury, within the meaning of section 112(h). We believe that continuous emission monitoring systems (CEMS) for mercury concentration and volumetric flow rate would be needed for EAF, because EAF steelmaking is a batch process, and mercury emissions vary enormously from batch to batch as different scrap sources are processed. Indeed, emissions have been shown to vary by two orders of magnitude at a single plant.\5\ Cf. Mossville Environmental Action Now v. EPA, 370 F. 3d 1232, 1240 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (noting that EPA reasonably declined to establish MACT floor levels based on single emission level measurements from batch process operations because of constant change in those levels).
\5\ See ``Analysis of Mercury Emissions Test Data'' in Docket ID No. EPAHQOAR20040083.

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 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.^{6, 7}
\6\ For example, EPA estimated that 70 of 130 electric arc furnaces (EAF) subject to the new source performance standard (NSPS) were not required to install continuous opacity monitors because of the configuration of their baghouse. (See the EPA fact sheet for the NSPS amendments available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg/t1/fact_sheets/eaf_npsfs.pdf ).
\7\ Retrofitting such sources with stacks would be extremely costly for most electric arc furnaces (EAFs) to the point that it would not be economically practicable to do so. See ``Estimated Impacts of Proposed Area Source Standard for EAF'' in EPA Docket ID No. EPAHQOAR20040083. EPA believes that one takes a source as one finds it for purposes of applying section 112(h), and therefore that it is simply not technologically practicable to apply continuous mercury monitoring technology to a stackless EAF.

Some EAF do have stacks, and the limited amount of mercury emissions data from EAF which EPA has comes from such sources. These limited test data were collected using manual test methods and are therefore not reliable for determining an EAF's actual performance because these shortterm test results are not representative of the longterm operation of a cyclic batch process. The results of the different manual tests (typically 1hour runs) show a variability of over two orders of magnitude within a single source (as well as across sources) and reinforce the conclusion that continuous monitoring would be needed to prescribe and enforce a numerical emissions limit for mercury.\8\ As noted, CEMS are not demonstrated for these sources. For these reasons, we do not believe it technologically practicable to apply continuous measurement methodology to even EAFs with stacks. \8\ See ``Analysis of Mercury Emissions Test Data'' in EPA Docket ID No. EPAHQOAR20040083.

We also examined the possibility of setting a direct limit on the amount of mercury entering the EAF and thus limiting emissions.\9\ However, the scrap charged to EAF includes many shapes and sizes, bundles, discrete pieces, and various sizes of shredded metal. Accordingly, there is no way to obtain representative samples for analysis of mercury content to develop or enforce a mercury limit for the scrap. The number of mercury switches in the scrap (the predominant source of mercury in the scrap, and hence to an EAF) also cannot be determined for the same reasons. In addition, the switches would not be recognizable after scrap dealers have crushed and shredded incoming scrap. Consequently, we propose that it is not feasible or practicable to establish a limit for mercury in the scrap.
\9\ However, as explained in section IV.D.1 of this preamble, the standard we are proposing effectively establishes such a limit.

The pollution prevention approach which is the basis for the proposed MACT standard for mercury is discussed below in section IV.D.1 of this preamble.

III. Addition and Revision to Source Category Lists

Section 112(c)(6) of the CAA requires us to list categories and subcategories of sources accounting for not less than 90 percent of the aggregate emissions of each of seven specific HAP. Since the publication of the original 1998 CAA section 112(c)(6) source category list, we have collected additional data on mercury emissions in 1990 and performed another review of information on the 1990 baseline emissions inventory that served as the basis for the listing. In re evaluating the baseline inventory, we have determined that EAF steelmaking facilities emit mercury and contributed to the 90 percent of the aggregate emissions of mercury in 1990, and we have updated our estimates of the 1990 baseline year to reflect this contribution of mercury from EAF.\10\ Consequently, we are adding EAF steelmaking facilities to the list of source categories under CAA section 112(c)(6) on the basis of mercury emissions.
\10\ Additional information on the ``1990 Emissions Inventory of Section 112(c)(6) Pollutants'' is available at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/atw/112c6/112c6pg.html .

This notice also announces 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 changes the name of the listed area source category, ``Stainless and Nonstainless Steel Manufacturing Electric Arc
[[Page 53818]]
Furnaces (EAF)'' to ``Electric Arc Furnace Steelmaking Facilities.'' We are making this revision to clarify that the source category includes all types of steel made in EAF, such as stainless steel, carbon steel, specialty steel, and other grades and alloys of steel. This is simply a change in the name of the source category and does not change the universe of sources that were the basis of the original listing notice. IV. Proposed NESHAP for EAF Steelmaking Facilities
A. What area source category is affected by the proposed NESHAP?

The EAF steelmaking area source category consists of facilities engaged in the production of steel using EAF to melt primarily ferrous scrap to produce molten steel. The molten steel is refined by ladle metallurgy processing and subsequently cast into basic steel shapes that are further processed in rolling mills.

The U.S. steel industry produced about 106 million tons of raw steel in 2006, and approximately 93 ``minimills'' that melt ferrous scrap in EAF accounted for 57 percent of the total U.S. production. Critically, for purposes of the mercury standard proposed in this rule, the EAF at minimills produce steel by melting recycled ferrous scrap. The reason this is critical is that the mercury emitted by EAF comes almost exclusively from automotive scrap, and approximately 50 to 80 percent of this mercury can be eliminated from the scrap feed by pollution prevention measures carried out upstream of the EAF.

The production of steel in minimills has increased dramatically over the past 30 years. Minimills accounted for 10 percent of the national steel production in 1970, 30 to 40 percent in the 1980s, 40 to 50 percent in the 1990s, and (as noted) 57 percent in 2006. The growth has been attributed in part to an expansion in the types and quality of steel products that minimills can produce, including heavy structurals, rail, plate, specialty bar, hot rolled, cold rolled, galvanized, and stainless flat rolled products.

Most of the steel produced in EAF is carbon steel used in the manufacture of construction materials, automobiles, appliances, and other applications. Approximately 4 percent (about 2 million tons) is specialty and stainless steel, which are high value steel products. The types of steel are defined by their composition of alloying elements. Stainless and alloy steels contain less carbon and zinc and more chromium, manganese, and nickel than carbon steels. Some stainless steel grades contain 12 to 28 percent chromium and 4 to 25 percent nickel.

U.S. minimills are the largest recyclers of metal scrap in the world. Recycled iron and steel scrap nationwide in 2004 included 25 percent ``home scrap'' (from current operations at the plant), 26 percent ``prompt scrap'' (from plants manufacturing steel products), and 49 percent postconsumer scrap. The primary source of postconsumer scrap is the automobile, and in 2004, the steel industry recycled 14.2 million tons of iron and steel scrap from 14 million vehicles. B. What are the production processes and emissions sources?

Most EAF are equipped with three carbon electrodes that are raised or lowered through the furnace roof. When the electrodes are retracted, the furnace roof can be rotated to allow the charge of scrap steel by an overhead crane. Electric current that is passed between the electrodes and through the scrap generates heat to melt the scrap. The stages of each production cycle include charging (loading scrap and other raw materials into the furnace), melting, removing slag (a layer of impurities that forms on top of the molten steel), and tapping (pouring molten steel into a ladle). Operating cycles in this batch process range from 35 to more than 200 minutes; the longer cycle times are generally used when producing stainless and specialty steels. After tapping, the steel is transferred to the ladle metallurgy facility where it undergoes additional refining in a ladle to produce the desired final properties. After the composition and temperature are adjusted in the ladle metallurgy facility, the molten steel is transferred to the continuous caster, which forms the steel into semi finished shapes. The steel shapes are then processed in rolling mills to produce the final steel product.

Emissions from the EAF occur during charging, melting, and tapping. Emissions may also occur when the molten steel is processed at the ladle metallurgy facility. The type and volume of emissions of HAP metals are affected by the quantity and type of HAP metals in the ferrous scrap being melted and the addition of certain alloys (e.g., chromium, manganese, and nickel). Some HAP metals, such as manganese, are an inherent and necessary component of ferrous scrap and the final steel product. Other HAP metals, such as mercury, arsenic, and cadmium, are undesirable elements introduced with the ferrous scrap. Other HAP metals, such as chromium and nickel, are introduced as alloying elements and are necessary to produce stainless and specialty steels.

Capture systems for emissions from EAF typically include direct shell evacuation control (DEC) systems; canopy hoods, side draft hoods, and tapping hoods; partial or total enclosures; scavenger duct systems; and building evacuation systems. The most common types of capture systems for ladle metallurgy are canopy hoods, side draft hoods, and close fitting hoods. Nearly all plants duct process and fugitive emissions to a baghouse. These capture systems and PM control devices are highly efficient for the capture and control of PM and HAP metals that are in particulate form, including the Urban HAP arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, manganese, and nickel. However, mercury emitted from the EAF is in vapor form and is not controlled by the PM control devices.

A detailed survey of 27 plants showed that EAF steelmaking facilities use scrap specifications, scrap management plans, and inspections to ensure that charge materials do not adversely affect the quality of steel or create dangerous operating conditions. Common requirements include testing for radiation; rejecting scrap containing sealed containers, hazardous materials, or explosives; and prohibiting materials such as lead, copper, oil, grease, batteries, and refrigerants. Most plants also require some type of visual inspection of incoming scrap. These scrap management procedures also serve to reduce HAP emissions by preventing HAP materials and precursors from entering the EAF and subsequently being emitted.

C. Summary of the Proposed Requirements

This section presents a summary of the requirements of the proposed rule. Additional details and the rationale for the proposed requirements are provided in the following section IV.D of this preamble.

1. Applicability and Compliance Dates

The proposed NESHAP applies to each new or existing EAF steelmaking facility that is an area source of HAP. We are proposing that 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 comply with all applicable rule requirements no later than six months after the date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register. We are proposing that the owner or operator of an existing area source that must install
[[Page 53819]]
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 two years after the date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register based on a demonstration to the satisfaction of the permitting authority that the additional time is needed. The owner or operator of a new affected source would be required to comply with all applicable rule requirements by the date of publication of the final rule in the Federal Register (if the startup date is on or before promulgation) or upon startup (if the startup date is after promulgation).

2. Proposed MACT Standards for the Control of Mercury

The proposed 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 proposed compliance option is for the EAF facility to prepare and operate pursuant to an EPA approved sitespecific plan that includes specifications to the scrap provider that mercury switches must be removed from motor vehicle bodies at an efficiency comparable to that of the EPAapproved 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 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 National Vehicle Mercury Switch Recovery Program (NVMSRP) \11\ would be an approved program under this proposed standard. Facilities choosing to use the NVMSRP as a compliance option would have to assume all of the responsibilities for steelmakers as described in the Memorandum of Understanding. The NVMSRP is described in detail in section IV.D.1 of this preamble.
\11\ 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 could also obtain scrap from scrap providers participating in other programs. To do so, the facility owner or operator would have to 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 easily derivable).

EAF facilities that purchase motor vehicle scrap from scrap providers that do not participate in an EPAapproved mercury switch removal program would have to prepare and operate pursuant to and in conformance with a sitespecific plan for the removal of mercury switches. The facility's scrap specifications would have to 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 would be submitted to the Administrator for approval and would 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, site visits, 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 Administrator would be able to request documentation or additional information from the owner or operator at any time. The sitespecific plan must establish a goal for the removal of at least 80 percent of the mercury switches. All documented and verifiable mercurycontaining components removed from motor vehicle scrap would count towards the 80 percent goal.

An equivalent compliance option would be provided for EAF steelmakers who do not utilize motor vehicle scrap that contains mercury. The option would require 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. Such materials are known not to contain mercury, and because the specialty steels must meet stringent product quality and performance specifications, automobile scrap with contaminants such as mercury, lead, zinc, and copper is not accepted.\12\
\12\ Letter from Joseph Green, Counsel to the Specialty Steel Industry of North America, to Steve Fruh, Environmental Protection Agency. Information Regarding Specialty Steel Industry Segment. July 30, 2004.
3. Proposed GACT Standards for EAF and Ladle Metallurgy Operations

We propose that the owner or operator would be required to install, operate, and maintain capture systems for EAF and ladle metallurgy operations that convey the collected gases and fumes to a venturi scrubber or baghouse for the removal of PM. We are proposing 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, nonspecialty EAF steelmaking facilities. The small facilities would be 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 ladle metallurgy operation and an opacity limit of 6 percent for melt shop emissions. All other EAF steelmaking facilities (both existing and new) would be 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 ladle metallurgy operation. The opacity of emissions from melt shops from these sources would be limited to 6 percent.

Performance tests would be required for each emissions source to demonstrate initial compliance with the
[[Page 53820]]
PM and opacity limits. Provisions are included in the proposed rule for conducting the tests. The owner or operator of an existing EAF steelmaking facility would be 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 would be required to obtain a title V permit. The proposed rule would require each EAF steelmaking facility to monitor the capture system, PM control device, and melt shop; maintain records; and submit reports according to the compliance assurance monitoring (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).

4. Proposed GACT Standards for Scrap Management

In addition to meeting PM and opacity limits reflecting GACT, we are also proposing that EAF facilities be required 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 proposed 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 would simply prohibit the processing of scrap containing these contaminants (restricted scrap). Compliance would be demonstrated by a certification that the owner or operator will not process scrap with 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 would 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), leadcontaining components, chlorinated plastics, or free organic liquids. The restriction on lead containing components would not apply to the production of leaded steel (where lead is obviously needed for production).

The other proposed scrap management provision would require 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 would be submitted to the Administrator for approval. The owner or operator would be 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 would include specifications for scrap materials to be depleted (to the extent practicable) of leadcontaining components (except for the production of leaded steel), undrained used oil filters, chlorinated plastics, and free organic liquids. The plan would 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.

5. Proposed Requirements for Recordkeeping and Reporting

Area sources subject to the proposed requirements for EAF and ladle metallurgy operations would be 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 6month monitoring report, deviation reports, and annual compliance certifications. The reporting requirements under part 64 requires that the 6month 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 proposed NESHAP would also be subject to certain specified requirements
[[Page 53821]]
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 proposed NESHAP also includes specific recordkeeping and reporting requirements for area source facilities subject to requirements for control of contaminants from scrap. The area source facilities would be 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 sitespecific plan for mercury or any of the mercury compliance options.

As noted above, facilities subject to the sitespecific plan for mercury would be required to keep records and submit semiannual reports on the number of mercury switches removed by the scrap provider 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 RCRApermitted facilities. In contrast, facilities participating in an EPAapproved program for switch removal must keep records that identify their scrap providers and document that they participate in an approved switch removal program. As discussed in more detail in section IV.D.1 of this preamble, we are proposing to require more extensive records for a sitespecific 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 would be required to submit semiannual reports according to the requirements in Sec. 63.10(e) of the general provisions. The report would identify any deviation from the rule requirements and the corrective action taken.
D. What is our rationale for the proposed MACT and GACT standards? 1. Proposed MACT Standard for Mercury

Background. Mercury enters the EAF steelmaking process almost exclusively with the ferrous scrap that is charged to the furnace. A few other materials are charged to the EAF in small quantities (e.g., coke, coal, lime); however, they contribute little mercury because they are used in very small quantities relative to the scrap charge and contain virtually no mercury in any case. The major source of mercury in ferrous scrap is convenience light switches in endoflife vehicles that contain 0.8 grams (g) to 1.2 g of mercury per switch. These switches (called mercury switches or tilt switches) control lights under the hoods and in the trunks of older model vehicles. The Ecology Center estimated that the vehicles retired in 2003 contained 8.5 million switches and 9.3 tons of mercury. Pilot studies in New Jersey and Michigan reported 0.54 to 0.8 mercury switches per vehicle processed. For 14 million vehicles recycled in 2004, the number of switches thus would be in the range of 7.6 to 11 million. Although mercury switches were phased out of automobiles in 2002, there is a 10 to 15 year supply of existing vehicles destined for recycling that still contain the switches. There are other components in automobile scrap which contain small amounts of mercury, such as antilock braking sensors, security systems, and active ride control systems. However, most of the mercury is contributed by convenience light switches, which are estimated to be the source of 87 percent of the mercury in motor vehicle scrap by the Ecology Center.\13\
\13\ The Ecology Center report and other information cited for mercury switches is available in EPA Docket ID No. EPAHQOAR2004 0083.

We have very limited data on the mercury species emitted from EAFs; however, the limited data indicate that over 99 percent of the mercury emissions are in the gaseous form, and about 93 percent of the gaseous mercury is elemental mercury. Although baghouses are highly efficient at removing HAP metals that are in the particulate phase, the baghouses do not control gaseous or vapor phase mercury and thus (for practical purposes) do not control mercury emissions from EAFs. No EAFs use add on controls for gaseous mercury emissions.

The limited test data show extreme variability (orders of magnitude) in mercury emissions from plant to plant and from the same plant over time as different batches of scrap are melted. The limited sampling results of input materials likewise indicate that the mercury content of scrap typically varies widely.\14\
\14\ See ``Analysis of Mercury Emissions Test Data'' in Docket ID No. EPAHQOAR20040083.

We also examined scrap specifications that may be in use to reduce mercury emissions. Three companies reported in their survey responses that their scrap specifications prohibited mercurycontaining components. However, there was no measure of effectiveness of the written specification.

Over the past few years, there has been an increasing awareness that a highly effective way of reducing mercury releases to the environment from scrap using entities like EAFs is to remove mercury switches from endoflife vehicles prior to crushing, shredding, and melting. Numerous interested parties have been involved at the local, State, and national level in the development and implementation of switch removal programs, including local and State environmental agencies, national and local environmental groups, steel recyclers, steel producers, automobile makers, various EPA offices, and others. Many successful State and local switch removal programs are already in place, and more are expected in the future.

Several State programs for mercury switch removal have been implemented, and there are many different variations. Some programs are mandated by law, and others are voluntary. Some offer financial incentives provided by different stakeholders, some specify financial incentives to be provided by automobile makers, and some have no financial incentives. Some have a strict accounting of switches removed and requirements for proper collection, management, and disposal of the switches.

There have been direct measurements of the mercury emission reductions that can be achieved at minimills by switch removal programs. For example, a pilot program administered by the New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection reported a reduction of 50 percent in mercury emissions when the EAF melted scrap that had been processed in a switch removal program.\15\ We also identified one minimill in Minnesota that had implemented a mercury switch removal program that included removal prior to processing in their onsite shredder and a system for paying other
[[Page 53822]]
scrap suppliers to remove switches. This program has resulted in a quantifiable reduction in environmental releases of mercury. These two studies confirm that a national mercury switch removal program for end oflife vehicles will reduce mercury emissions.
\15\ ``Mercury Switch Data Collection Pilot Project.'' Prepared by K.L. Woodruff. New Jersey Department of Environmental Protection. March 24, 2004.

Switch removal programs reduce mercury releases to all media. Switch removal reduces mercury releases to air, water, and land when automobiles are crushed and shredded prior to delivery to the minimills. Mercury contamination of auto shred residue (plastics, fabrics, and other unwanted materials in the automobile) is reduced making safer the further management of the material. The switches themselves are isolated and managed in RCRA subtitle C hazardous waste management facilities where they are subject to stringent regulatory control. As a result of the mercury switch removal programs, mercury emissions are reduced at all facilities which use the scrap as raw material, including not only EAFs but integrated iron and steel plants and iron and steel foundries. Finally, mercury emissions are reduced from scrap that is exported and melted in furnaces in other countries.

The National Vehicle Mercury Switch Recovery Program (NVMSRP).\16\ A significant step forward in reducing mercury emissions was made on August 11, 2006 when a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) was signed by representatives of the steel industry, automobile makers, scrap recyclers, environmental groups, State and local agencies, and EPA.\17\ The MOU established the NVMSRP, and this program has been implemented and is already removing and recovering mercury switches from endof life vehicles before the metallic scrap is recycled at EAFs (and other steelproducing entities).
\16\ This section describes the national switch recovery program in detail. As discussed in the following sections of this preamble, the proposed rule does not codify these details as part of the proposed standard for mercury emissions. The proposed rule requires the owner or operator to: (1) Certify they are participants in the national program and that scrap is purchased only from scrap providers participating in such a national program, (2) maintain records documenting such participation, and (3) submit semiannual reports if there are any deviations from the requirements. However, the proposed rule also allows an owner or operator to comply with the proposed rule if they can demonstrate that they are
participating in a program that is equivalent to the national program and is of demonstrably equal effectiveness.
\17\ Additional details and the signed Memorandum of
Understanding can be found at http://www.epa.gov/mercury/switch.htm.

The NVMSRP is the result of a twoyear collaborative effort involving EPA, the End of Life Vehicle Solutions Corporation (ELVS),\18\ the American Iron and Steel Institute, the Steel Manufacturers Association, the Institute of Scrap Recycling Industries, the Automotive Recyclers Association, Environmental Defense, the Ecology Center (Ann Arbor), and representatives of the Environmental Council of the States. The goal of the NVMSRP is to significantly reduce air emissions of mercury from steelmaking facilities that utilize auto shred by substantially reducing the number of mercury containing switches in scrap automobiles before they are crushed and shredded for recycling. This is being accomplished through education and outreach for those removing switches; removal, collection and management of switches; transport of the switches to a qualified retorter that has the permits that allow for managing the switches under RCRA subtitle C; recordkeeping and accountability of mercury recovery; scrap selection and corroboration; and review and improvement of the NVMSRP. The vehicle manufacturers and steelmakers have created a threeyear, $4 million dollar implementation fund in support of the program. The fund will support the implementation of the NMSRP through incentive payments to those entities recovering (i.e. pulling) the switches. Performance will be assessed on a regular basis by all of the participating parties.
\18\ ELVS is a nonprofit corporation established by several motor vehicle manufacturers who are listed at http://www.elvsolutions.org/about.htm .

Finally, the MOU contains a provision providing that the agreement may terminate with the consent of the parties based on the phase out of automobiles containing mercury switches. A potential termination date mentioned in the MOU is December 31, 2017, a date when it is projected that 90 percent of vehicles containing mercury switches will be retired.\19\ EPA believes that any issues raised by this potential ``sunset'' provision are best addressed when EPA reexamines the MACT standard pursuant to section 112(d)(6) (which must occur no later than 2015). At that time, there will be robust information available as to switch removal rates and rate of fleet retirement.
\19\ The MOU states ``The NVMSRP will be implemented until December 31, 2017 based on estimates that 90% of the vehicles containing mercury switches would be retired by that time. If, before that date, based on Program data and other information, the Parties or their designees determine that the number of remaining Mercury Switches no longer constitutes a significant source of mercury, they may determine that the program should end. In such a case, the Parties may terminate this MOU through written notice to all signatories and Participants. If the Parties or their designees determine that the number of mercury switches is still significant after that date, they may extend the Program. If the Program is extended, the Parties and U.S. EPA may continue this MOU through written mutual consent of all parties and U.S. EPA.''

The NVMSRP was designed to harmonize with existing State programs and to be implemented StatebyState by the participants, in consultation with appropriate State agencies, in the remaining States to form a coordinated national program. The NVMSRP has shown success in just a few months following the MOU. As of July 9, 2007, programs were operational in 45 States, and 5,633 participants have collected more than 575,841 mercury switches with 1,267 pounds of mercury. Programs are expected to be implemented in all of the remaining States in 2007.

Proposed MACT floor determination. More than 12 percent of the EAF steelmaking facilities are participants in this national program and have been participants in previous State and local programs. We believe that these operations pursuant to the national program represent the best performers and best performance for mercurythe chief source of mercury in emissions is being removed from feedstockso that the MACT floor for new and existing EAF steelmaking facilities is for the owner or operator to operate pursuant to such a program; i.e., to obtain scrap only from scrap providers that are first removing mercury switches pursuant to the national program or an equivalent program of demonstrably equal effectiveness.\20\ We are also proposing that a switch removal program is the MACT floor for new sources because the bestcontrolled similar source is among those that prevent mercury switches from entering with the scrap.
\20\ We estimate that the mercury switch removal program will reduce mercury emissions to below 90 mg Hg/ton of steel produced (based on two State pilot program studies showing approximately 50 percent reduction from switch removal and average baseline mercury emissions of 180 mg Hg/ton), which results in an estimated reduction of 5 tpy of mercury. For perspective, 90 mg/ton of steel corresponds to a trace mercury level of 0.1 ppm in the steel scrap or the equivalent of about one mercury switch (one gram or 1,000 mg of mercury) per 10 tons of steel scrap (about one switch per ten end oflife vehicles at one ton of steel per vehicle). In contrast, we estimate that the MACT floor based on our limited mercury emissions test data, which comes from a time when switch removal agreements were not in place, would be 650 mg Hg/ton of steel. Additional details are provided in ``Analysis of Mercury Emissions Test Data'' in Docket ID No. EPAHQOAR20040083.

We examined the features of the NVMSRP and other switch removal programs to identify those features that would be the necessary components of a national emission standard to ensure that the program would be effective at reducing mercury emissions. These features include assurance that each
[[Page 53823]]
facility is participating in a switch removal program that has been approved by the Administrator, a program goal for the percent of switches removed (80 percent), a system that accounts for the number of switches (or quantity of mercury) removed and the number of vehicle bodies processed, a mechanism to ensure the switches are properly disposed of or recycled, and an outreach program that informs dismantlers of the need for removal of mercury switches and provides training and guidance for removal. The national program has these features, and we are proposing that these features represent the MACT floor for mercury for new and existing sources because this is the mercury control approach that is being used by the bestperforming sources.

The national program also has a mechanism to measure performance because the number of switches and amount of mercury recovered is reported by State, and from an estimate of the number of vehicles processed, the progress toward the goal of 80 percent removal can be determined. The MOU also includes ongoing measures to track and measure progress. For example, the parties will assess development and implementation of State plans and identification and participation of program participants at threemonth intervals for the first year following the effective date of the MOU. At sixmonth intervals thereafter, the parties will collectively review by State the status of implementation and participation in the program and make adjustments as necessary. The indicators to be reviewed will include the status of plans for 50State implementation, number of States where the program has been initiated, the status of Webbased information on the NVMSRP, the status of identification of dismantlers and dismantler participation in all States (starting with those States targeted for initial implementation), and the status of the mercury recovery database and rate of information collection.

The parties to the MOU expect that in the first three years of the program, capture rates will be ramping up due to the realities of progra

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) 5415289; fax number (919) 541 3207, email address: mulrine.phil@epa.gov.