MEMORANDUM   

DATE:		4/2/2021

TO:	New Source Performance Standards: Electric Arc Furnaces (EAFs) and Argon-Oxygen Decarburization Vessels (AOD): New Source Performance Standards - 40 CFR 60 Subparts AA & AAa Review; Docket ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0049

FROM:	Donna Lee Jones, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards (OAQPS), Research Triangle Park, NC 

SUBJECT:	Conference call with EAF Industry Representatives 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


SUMMARY

      A conference call was held on April 1, 2021, between the EPA and the Electric Arc Furnace (EAF) industry trade association representatives: Kelly Drye & Warren LLP, Steel Manufacturers Association (SMA), Specialty Steel Industry of North America (SSINA), and American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI), to discuss the status of the EAF New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) technology review.
      
      The industry representative began by explaining that they want to help the EPA with the NSPS technology review and, in this regard, have consulted with their members on issues that they have experienced with the current NSPS for EAFs. The industry representative stated that the problems the current rule include same issues in AA as well as AAa. It also was discussed how much of the EAF industry is covered by each trade association. 
      
      Dr. Jones explained that a rule review subgroup of the work group, which includes people from EPA Region V, Office of General Council, and an EPA test measurement expert, have reviewed the industry's comments about their problems with the current rule and appreciate the industry input. Dr. Jones explained the next steps in the regulatory process and the schedule to meet the court ordered proposal deadline for 11/1/2021 and final deadline for 11/1/2022. Dr. Jones agreed to send industry representatives a summary of the historical rule changes to the EAF NSPS rules (AA and AAa), including the previous technology review done in 1984. Dr. Jones explained that the statutory requirements of the CAA for making significant revisions to the current NSPS subparts AA or AAa, i.e., proposing new standards, would require publishing emissions guideline along with a federal plan. Part of the technology review also includes determining if a new subpart would be warranted to reflect improvements in technology. Dr. Jones explained that if there was a new subpart it would be called AAb and would affect EAF new sources after the date of the proposal (11/1/2021). 
      
      Industry representatives asked whether EPA planned to do a section 114 information collection request (ICR) to support the technology review. Dr. Jones stated that EPA did not plan to do either a survey or test request because of the timeline of the court-ordered deadline, but also because there was particulate matter (PM) data available to the EPA that was collected from the previous ICR sent for the EAF NESHAP in 2010 to collect mercury data, with concurrent PM data. As part of the ICR in 2010, the EPA had asked for test reports from previous years so there were a number of test reports from the facilities that received the ICR. The industry representatives asked whether the data was available to the public in the EAF NESHAP docket and Dr. Jones indicated in the affirmative and that she would send the docket information to the industry representatives after the meeting. Dr. Jones also offered to send the industry representatives a summary of the facility names and years of test dates of the docket material. 
      Dr. Jones asked the industry representatives if they could provide any information from the recent past years on EAF facilities that triggered new source review due to major modifications, knowing that anti-trust laws prevent the trade organization from searching for same information for the future. The industry representatives said they would try to make an estimate for the EPA.
      
      Dr. Jones explained that part of the regulatory process includes an environmental justice (EJ) analysis to determine if in the 5-mile radius around EAF facilities there is a higher percentage of demographic, minority, low income, and tribal areas as compared to the national average. In addition, the EJ analysis looks in a 50-mile radius for tribal land, which also includes off-reservation trust land. Industry noted they were aware of one EAF facility (Nucor Steel, Seattle) that was located on off-reservation trust land in Washington state. Dr. Jones asked if the industry representatives had any knowledge of problems or complaints made by the public about air pollution around any EAF facilities. Industry representatives did not indicate they knew of any complaints of this type.
      
      The industry representatives said they would relay the information discussed in this meeting with EPA to their members and will let Dr. Jones know if they or their member facilities have any follow-up questions or information to bring forward to the EPA.
      
ATTENDEES
      
Donna Lee Jones, EPA/OAQPS
Gabrielle Raymond, RTI International 

Wayne D'Angelo, Kelley Drye & Warren LLP
John Wittenborn, Kelley Drye & Warren LLP

Eric Stuart, Steel Manufacturers Association
Joe Green, Specialty Steel Industry of North America 

Paul Balserak, American Iron and Steel Institute

Dr. Ranajit Sahn, Consultant for EAF Industry


