MEMORANDUM   

DATE:		11/15/2022

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 Electric Arc Furnace Industry Representatives 
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


SUMMARY

      A Microsoft(TM) TEAMS conference call was held on November 10, 2022, between representatives from the EPA, the Steel Manufacturers Association (SMA), the American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI), the Specialty Steel Institute of America (SSINA), and various Electric Arc Furnace (EAF) company representatives to discuss the proposed rule changes as a result of the technology review of the EAF New Source Performance Standards (NSPS) (40 CFR part 60, subparts AA, AAa, and new AAb). The Industry representatives provided a draft agenda, attached to this memorandum. 
      
      The Industry representatives provided a recap of what they had recently emailed the EPA in response to the EPA's followup questions to Industry's written comments on the proposed rule. The industry responses included facility names (as CBI) for facilities where additional comments were provided regarding the proposed zero percent opacity limit. Also provided was clarification of the facility, referred to in an industry comment, that charged hot metal to an EAF and also a facility that was intending to do so in the future. The Industry also agreed to consult with their members on how to define a facility that produces various types of steel other than carbon steel for definition of potential particulate matter (PM) regulation for subcategories, in response to a submitted written industry comment that subcategories were needed. 
      
      The Industry reiterated their comment that the EPA has no authority to make the proposed changes to subparts AA and AAa citing how congress structured the CAA. They said any changes would result in what the industry calls "retroactive rulemaking." Industry questioned the reasoning and rationale for the proposed changes to 40 CFR part 60, subparts AA and AAa. The EPA Region V representatives explained their concerns with the current proposed rules in terms of monitoring of fan amps and damper positions. They said that fan amps can be impacted by temperature, have variable speeds, and are impacted by multiple non-EAF sources at the facilities. The EPA Region V representatives further explained that the reporting of damper position is not useful if it is for different time periods than when it was established during the compliance test, and also that the damper positions change frequently during EAF operation. The EPA Region V representatives explained static pressure monitoring is a good alternative to monitoring fan amps and damper positions. Industry asked if the explanations to the various proposed subparts AA and AA rule changes were in the docket; the EPA said they were not because they thought the changes were self-evident. 
      
      The EPA Region V representatives explained the rationale for the requirement to monitor opacity during the cycle when the highest emissions are expected. They said from their experience in inspections of steel mills, they have seen that facilities get good capture with direct shell evacuation control (DEC) during melting. But for charging and tapping, they see capture issues leading to higher emissions. 
      
      An EPA representative asked the Industry if they could identify what percent of facilities are using the following monitoring options: furnace static pressure; fan amp and damper position; and volumetric flow and damper positions. The Cleveland Cliffs (CC) representative said that many of the CC facilities are using fan amps and damper position. He said it's a good system that has worked for them but for other facilities a change to how EAF operation is monitored would require equipment to be purchased. 
      
      A Nucor representative stated in regard to the proposed zero percent melt shop opacity limit under subpart AAb, that six percent opacity, the limit in subpart AAa, allows for variability in operations whereas zero percent opacity does not. He said that a new facility can separate ladle metallurgy and EAF emissions, but if an existing source triggers the new NSPS due to a modification and has to meet the zero percent opacity limit it would be very difficult to retrofit in an existing facility and would involve redirecting air flows and installing capture equipment. Industry representatives commented that current facility data are not available that supports a zero percent shop opacity limit and they don't see any evidence in the record. They continued that zero percent opacity can't be met all the time, it's not the best system of emission reduction (BSER), and the costs would be incredibly high to achieve. An EPA representative mentioned they have seen another permit with a zero percent shop opacity limit for Finkl and Sons in Chicago, IL. An EPA Region V staff person asked why EAF facilities can't be designed to achieve zero percent shop opacity. An Industry representative said that the EAF facilities are large facilities with large bay doors where big equipment is coming in out, and that EAF operations are very dynamic. 
      
      An Industry representative questioned if EPA was going to finalize the changes to subparts AA and AAa noting that many facilities would be immediately out of compliance upon promulgation. An EPA representatives said that if there are costs associated with the proposed changes, they won't be finalized. Industry said they would provide the EPA with counts of facilities that would need to add monitoring equipment and incur costs. An Industry representative asked the EPA what type of rule change would be considered to incur minor costs. An EPA representative stated that having to write something down would be considered minor.
      
      Industry representatives stated that they were not able to comment on EPA's rationale for the subpart AA and AAa changes since the rationales were not available to them, and questioned if EPA would repropose or supplement the docket with the rationales. The EPA clarified that they would not be able to repropose because they are under a consent decree schedule to finalize by May 2023, but which is likely to be extended to August 1, 2023, due to extension of the comment period. The EPA further explained that if they were to re-propose they would have to renegotiate more time and another extension to the final rule date. 
      
      The EPA said they will add these meeting minutes to the docket. The Industry told the EPA that they would work on getting monitoring costs, but that it would take some time to coordinate. 
      
                                                                    (continued)

ATTENDEES
      
Donna Lee Jones, EPA/OAQPS
Chuck French, EPA/OAQPS
Alexandra Letuchy, EPA/Region V
Dakota Prentice, EPA/Region V
Gabrielle Raymond, RTI International 

Paul Balserak, American Iron and Steel Institute
Eric Stuart, Steel Manufacturers Association
Wayne D'Angelo, Kelley Drye & Warren, LLP, representing SMA
Joe Green, Kelley Drye & Warren, LLP, representing SSINA
Sean Alteri, Nucor Steel, Inc. 
Wayne Denton, Outokumpu Steel, Inc. 
Maria Eichelberger, North American Stainless, Inc. 
Julianne Kurdila, Cleveland Cliffs, Inc.
Tom Sanicola, SSAB, Inc. 
Rich Zavoda, Cleveland Cliffs, Inc. 


SMA Proposed Agenda for November 10, 2022 Conference Between EPA and Steel Associations
Proposed Revisions to the NSPS for Electric Arc Furnaces and Argon-Oxygen Decarburization Vessels
                        Docket No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0049
                                       

                              SMA Proposed Agenda
I.	Introductions;
II.	Review and discuss Steel Associations' responses to EPA's follow-up questions on October 17 and 24;
III.	Discuss EPA's proposed changes to Subparts AA and AAa, and the Steel Associations' questions and concerns regarding the trigger for and timing of proposed new compliance obligations (per October 18 email from Wayne D'Angelo);
IV.	Discuss other key aspects of Steel Associations' August 15 comment letter and any EPA questions or reactions to those comments;
V.	Discuss status of EPA's promulgation process, procedural outlook, and anticipated timing;
IV.	Discuss whether EPA requires any additional data or information from the Steel Associations.










