F A C S I M I L E

( 2 0 2 ) 3 4 2 - 8 4 5 1

w w w . k e l l e y d r y e . c o m

KELLEY DRYE & WARREN LLP

A LI MITE D LIABI LIT Y PART NER SHIP

WASHINGTON HARBOUR, SUITE 400

3050 K STREET, NW

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20007-5108

( 2 0 2 ) 3 4 2 - 8 4 0 0

N E W Y O R K , N Y

C H I C A G O , I L

S T A M F O R D , C T

P A R S I P P A N Y , N J

B R U S S E L S , B E L G I U M

A F F I L I A T E O F F I C E S

M U M B A I , I N D I A

D I R E C T L I N E : ( 2 0 2 ) 3 4 2 - 8 5 1 4

E M A I L : j w i t t e n b o r n @ k e l l e y d r y e . c o m

July 23, 2010

VIA ELECTRONIC MAIL

Dr. Donna Lee Jones

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711

Re: Proposed Section 114 Information Collection Request for

Electric Arc Furnace Steelmaking: Joint Comments of the

Steel Manufacturers Association and Specialty Steel Industry

of North America

Dear Dr. Jones:

On behalf of the Steel Manufacturers Association (SMA) and the Specialty Steel Industry

of North America (SSINA), we offer the following comments on the proposed Information

Collection Request (ICR) for information on emissions of mercury, particulate matter (PM),

carbon monoxide (CO) and other related information from electric arc furnace (EAF)

steelmaking facilities. These comments have been coordinated with the American Iron and Steel

Institute (AISI).

As noted below, the ICR requires the collection, processing and coding of significant

quantities of existing and new emissions information. The testing alone will consume a

minimum of 30 days and could take longer depending on the team needed to address data quality

issues. Moreover, some facilities may need to make physical modifications to conduct the

requested PM2.5 and mercury testing. Most significantly, the ICR may affect dozens of facilities

and multiple furnaces (EAF, AOD and LMF) and will consume the resources of the few testing

companies required to participate in such a sophisticated data collection effort. For all of these

reasons, SMA and SSINA do not believe it is reasonable to require completion and submission

of the ICR within 95 days. Instead, we recommend that EPA allow for submissions of the

questionnaire and existing data within 120 days, and submission of test results within 180 days.
Dr. Donna Lee Jones

July 23, 2010

Page Two

K E L LEY D R Y E & W AR R E N LLP

Individual facilities must be able to seek further time extensions on a case-by-case basis as

circumstances warrant.

The ICR suggests that it is “highly advisable” for each facility to prepare a site-specific

test plan prior to emission testing. The ICR also requests that notification of the testing be sent

to the local air regulatory agency and suggests that the plan should not be submitted to EPA for

approval prior to the testing. In order to avoid conflict with local agencies and/or future

questions on testing methodology, we recommend submitting the test plans to EPA for review

and approval. Additionally, we request clarification on the EPA point of contact should

questions arise during testing.

Our specific comments and recommendations to improve the draft ICR follow:

I. Questionnaire Part A: Facility Information

A. Question 6 (page 6)

Question 6 requests information about HAP emissions and classification of the facility.

We suggest that EPA rephrase Question 6 to focus the question more properly on mercury and

NSPS pollutant emissions from area source EAFs, which EPA acknowledges is the intended

purpose of the ICR. While some EAF facilities are co-located at major source facilities, those

facilities are not major sources because of EAF emissions.

While EPA’s authority to collect information is broad, the focus identified in the draft

ICR cover letter makes clear that EPA is seeking information to assist the Agency in conducting

a review of the MACT (mercury) provisions of Subpart YYYYY. Provisions dealing with other

HAPs are controlled by the GACT provisions of Subpart YYYYY and are not under review.

Therefore, emissions data for other HAP at these facilities are not relevant to the intended

purpose of the ICR.

We suggest that EPA instead ask if a facility is a major source for HAP, and if so, what

major source categories or subcategories apply under Section 112. Further, we believe that EPA

should remove language requesting the listing of specific HAP emitted at a facility as such

information is unnecessary and creates an additional response burden for the facilities when the

focus of the ICR is on a single specific HAP (mercury).

B. Question 11 (page 7)

Again, in order to focus the ICR more properly on NSPS pollutants and mercury

emissions, we suggest that Question 11 be amended to read as follows:

a) Is the facility subject to Title V permit?

b) If yes, please provide a copy of the most current Title V permit
Dr. Donna Lee Jones

July 23, 2010

Page Three

K E L LEY D R Y E & W AR R E N LLP

c) Is the facility subject to Part 63, Subpart YYYYY?

d) If so, please indicate the selected compliance option(s)

___ Site Specific Plan for Mercury switches

___ Option for Approved mercury programs

___ Option for specialty metal scrap

___ Scrap that does not contain motor vehicle scrap

e) Is the facility subject to NSPS?

f) If so, please indicate which NSPS limits apply

___ Subpart AA

___ Subpart AAa

(g) Is the facility subject to a state Hg emission limit? If so, please identify

the limit and identify the regulation

C. Question 12 (page 7)

For this question, which seeks information on normal facility production hours, we

suggest that EPA request the facility to identify a specific year deemed to be a normal operating

year for the facility, as normal production in the EAF industry differs substantially on a year to

year basis due to market conditions.

D. New Question 16

We suggest that EPA add additional questions to Part A that would request

information on the type of charging system and chemical inputs used at a facility’s EAF. This

information is relevant because emissions, particularly CO emissions, are highly dependant on

the type of charging and burner systems. Question 16 could read as follows:

a. What type of charging system does your EAF employ? Please describe

specifically (i.e. Consteel or shaft furnace, twin shell, etc.)

___ Top Charge

___ Side Charge

___ Continuous charging system
Dr. Donna Lee Jones

July 23, 2010

Page Four

K E L LEY D R Y E & W AR R E N LLP

b. Does the EAF employ a sidewall burner system?

___ If so, please describe the burner system

II. Questionnaire Part B: Prior Testing (page 9)

A. Primary Control Device

Question 1 of Part B refers to the “primary control device” as the emission unit for EAF

exhaust. We request clarification on what EPA would consider to be the primary control device

for an EAF with multiple baghouses. We suggest that EPA presume the primary control device

to be the baghouse serving the direct evacuation control (DEC) off the EAF. If there is no

DEC, the baghouse primarily responsible for controlling emissions from melting and refining

operations should be considered the primary control device. Other baghouses collecting

emissions from the EAF (such as roof monitors to collect melt shop emissions) should not also

need to be tested for mercury or the NSPS pollutants. We seek confirmation of this

understanding.

B. Use of Existing Test Data

EPA requests in the draft ICR that facilities submit testing reports for the preceding five

years, but the ICR only would allow facilities to submit test results in lieu of requiring collection

of new data if such tests are less than two years old. This differs significantly from the Area

Source Rule, which allowed facilities to certify initial compliance based upon a previous

performance test as long as it was conducted within the last five years.

1

Further, the two-year

window proposed in the draft ICR would not allow some facilities that conducted performance

testing early for the Area Source Rule to reuse that data. The Area Source Rule required

performance testing within 180 days of June 30, 2008. Facilities that demonstrated compliance

either prior to June 30, 2008, or relatively soon thereafter, would find themselves outside of the

proposed two-year testing window, while facilities that happened to test later would be able to

use Area Source Rule testing data.

It would be appropriate for EPA to allow for the use of any previous official emissions

test conducted within the last five years (or that was eligible to be used to meet the performance

test requirement of the Area Source Rule) as long as approved EPA test methods were utilized.

Further, we believe that EPA should conform the testing requirements for the ICR to match the

testing provisions in the Area Source Rule and/or the NSPS. This will allow ready comparisons

of data from those facilities providing pre-existing test data and those that perform testing in

response to the ICR.

Further, regarding the request for test reports within the last five years, we seek

clarification that EPA is seeking test reports collected for compliance purposes, and not tests

1

See 40 C.F.R. §63.10686(d)(6).
Dr. Donna Lee Jones

July 23, 2010

Page Five

K E L LEY D R Y E & W AR R E N LLP

conducted for engineering purposes which do not necessarily comport with EPA approved

testing methods. Moreover, we believe this request should be limited to test report summaries

rather than complete testing reports and should be focused on test reports relevant for mercury

and NSPS parameters, rather than for any tested parameter.

Finally, the ICR requires that all of the data regarding previously conducted emission

tests be entered and coded into the ERT Data Base. We request that companies be allowed to

enter and code only data from test reports that relate to the mercury or NSPS pollutant testing

relevant to this potential rulemaking activity.

C. Visual Emissions (VE)

For VE from the melt shop, we suggest that facilities be permitted to use VE data from

their most recent performance test or Title V annual compliance test, rather than a full five years

of such data. Some facilities collect Method 9 VE data from the meltshop on a daily basis.

Producing all of these data for a five-year period is burdensome and unnecessary.

III. Testing Requirements

A. Representative Testing – Multiple Baghouse Facilities

Some EAF facilities are configured with multiple furnaces, which may serve one or more

baghouses. We request that EPA clarify that if a facility has multiple control devices and

furnaces that all operate on the same scrap feed, the facility need only test a single EAF and

control device as long as that operation is representative of overall operations. In this

economic climate, requiring repetitive testing of multiple emission sources is unduly

burdensome and unnecessary. So long as similar scrap feed is utilized, the emissions data for

the source should be substantially similar to the emissions expected to be captured at a similar

source.

B. Heat Cycles

The requirement that PM and CO testing be conducted using three four-hour runs and an

integral number of heats is not workable in a melt shop with multiple furnace operations.

Furnace operations are generally staggered thus preventing the simultaneous collection of both

four-hour runs and an integral number of heat cycles for both furnaces. We suggest using

NSPS AAa as a reference.

We also recommend that EPA adopt a more flexible definition of “heat cycle” that would

allow facilities to define their heat cycle based on facility-specific operational factors as long as

the heat cycle begins or ends at the same point in the operation.

EPA should allow facilities to conduct ICR testing based upon current NSPS

requirements or approved alternatives.
Dr. Donna Lee Jones

July 23, 2010

Page Six

K E L LEY D R Y E & W AR R E N LLP

C. PM2.5 Testing

1. Appropriateness of Method 5 and 5D

The ICR lists Methods OTM027/OTM028 for PM2.5 testing. These methods should work

fine in negative pressure baghouses, positive pressure baghouses with a single stack, and some

positive pressure baghouses with multiple stacks. The problem arises when testing positive

pressure baghouses with a large monovent exhaust. Typically, the only place to test these

baghouses for PM emissions is the area directly above the bags or, in some installations, in the

throat of the monovent. At these measurement sites the velocity is usually less than 100 feet per

minute. At these low velocities a nozzle diameter between 1.000 and 1.500 inches is required to

sample near 0.75 cfm. The OTM027 equipment commonly available will not accommodate

nozzles anywhere near this size, and due to the current cyclone designs commercially available, a

larger nozzle cannot be made to meet the method specifications, A large nozzle would result in a

taper allowing for deposition of PM2.5 material on the inside of the nozzle. The same problem

exists with Method 201A.

Some facilities will not be able to meet or even come close to the isokinetic requirement

of 201A or OTM027. We suggest the use of a combination of Method 5D and OTM028 in

situations where velocity or other conditions prohibit the use of OTM027. EPA will need to

recognize that all filterable PM may be reported as PM2.5, thus giving a positive bias to the

results.

2. Sampling Ports

Some EAF facilities have stacks with three-inch sampling ports. While this may be

acceptable for performing a Method 5 analysis, a three-inch sampling port is not acceptable for

PM2.5 testing. We request that EPA grant additional time for testing at facilities that need to

perform physical modifications to the sampling port to enable testing.

3. Calibrated Flow Meters

We request that EPA clarify that facilities can use data from calibrated flow meters

(Continuous Emission Monitors, or CEMS) in lieu of calculating or tracking fan amps as a

testing parameter. This clarification should apply to both positive and negative pressure

baghouses. Conversely, facilities that have negative pressure baghouses should be able to

demonstrate the volumetric flows using fan curves and amperage, similar to the option provided

for positive pressure baghouses.

D. CO Testing

We request that EPA allow any facility currently operating certified CEMS for CO be

allowed to supply CEM data in lieu of data collected under Method 10.
Dr. Donna Lee Jones

July 23, 2010

Page Seven

K E L LEY D R Y E & W AR R E N LLP

E. Mercury Testing

1. Length of Testing

We suggest that EPA clarify that the 30-day requirement for mercury testing means 30

calendar (or consecutive) days of testing, and allow for periods of facility inactivity as long as

there are at least four data points provided.

2. Testing of multiple stacks

EPA suggests in the ICR that facilities with positive pressure baghouses collect the

sample for mercury at a single representative point in a single compartment (page 15). However,

elsewhere in the ICR (page 14), EPA states that sources with multiple outlets or stacks must test

all outlets or stacks simultaneously. We request clarification on these requirements. We also

refer EPA to our discussion in section III.A of these comments regarding multiple baghouses.

F. Specific Testing Comments

1. Use of Representative Data

The ICR would require facilities with positive pressure baghouses collecting PM and/or

PM2.5 data to sample one compartment only and would require that facilities select the

compartment that was most recently refitted with new bags. We believe that this requirement is

inconsistent with the requirement that EPA consider representative data in setting emissions

standards. Further, this requirement is inconsistent with NSPS and Area Source Rule

compliance testing protocols and would therefore result in data not readily comparable to that

previously collected by facilities in the industry. We urge EPA to allow facilities to determine a

compartment representative of normal operations. We recommend the use of NSPS AAa,

Method 1, and/or Method 5D as appropriate to select sampling points,

2. Flow Monitoring

Instead of requiring 30 days of flow monitoring for mercury testing, we encourage EPA

to allow for the use of flow data collected during PM testing to develop data on fan amps that

could be used as surrogate for calculating the flow during the thirty days of mercury testing.

Facilities could ensure that fan amps are maintained within 15% of the average values recorded

during PM testing.

3. Dilution

EPA suggests using temperature and/or CO2 as indicators of dilution. For EAFT

operations, temperature is not a good indicator of dilution. In addition, post-combustion may

affect CO2 levels. Therefore, assuming that all changes in temperature or CO2 are caused by

dilution is also inaccurate. EPA should allow facilities to compensate for dilution by adjusting
Dr. Donna Lee Jones

July 23, 2010

Page Eight

K E L LEY D R Y E & W AR R E N LLP

testing conditions for the facility. This could include blocking off, on a temporary basis, sources

of dilution air, after the flow measurement point, into the baghouse during testing.

4. Method 5D

EPA requires use of a single line, multi-point traverse. This approach is not consistent

with Method 5D and will therefore potentially provide data inconsistent with existing

compliance testing. (Section II.B includes discussion of consistent testing between prior test

data and ICR testing). The testing methods should follow EPA approved methods and be

consistent between rule development and compliance determination. We suggest using EPA

Method 5D guidelines for selection of data points.

5. OTM 027

We are advised that when performing testing for PM2.5 using EPA OTM 027, sampling

for four hours and obtaining a sample volume of 4.5 dscm is not possible. If facilities are held to

the 4.5 dscm sample volume the actual required run time will be over 6 hours. If facilities only

sample for four hours they will not be able to obtain the referenced sample volume. Specifying

this sample volume effectively may require three days of PM testing per baghouse, instead of

two days. Accordingly, we suggest that EPA eliminate volume requirements and instead require

that facilities test the sample volume obtained after four hours of testing.

6. Opacity Testing

For the meltshop, Table 1 in the ICR requires testing for the duration of the PM and

PM2.5 testing. This could be in excess of 24 hours of visual emissions for the meltshop. Further,

this would limit PM/PM2.5 testing to the daylight hours. We suggest using the same time

durations as NSPS AAa and MACT YYYYY, 30 minute readings or an aggregate total of 180

minutes of observation concurrent with the PM or PM2.5 testing.

7. CO2 and O2

The test methods listed in Table 1 for CO2 and O2 do not include Method 3. Since the

only purpose of the O2/CO2 measurements is to calculate the molecular weight of the baghouse

exhaust, Method 3 should be added as an alternative method. Additionally, O2 and CO2

measurements should only be necessary during the PM/PM2.5 and CO testing.

8. Moisture

Under the ICR, moisture measurements would be conducted simultaneously with all

pollutant tests. It should only be necessary to measure moisture during PM/PM2.5 testing. The

average moisture could be used in any subsequent calculations of flow.
Dr. Donna Lee Jones

July 23, 2010

Page Nine

K E L LEY D R Y E & W AR R E N LLP

9. Additional Comments

Please see the attached Table 1 (copied from the ICR and revised for additional

comments and suggestions).

IV. Conclusion

SMA and SSINA appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on the draft ICR and

would be happy to discuss these further at your convenience. We have refrained specifically

from commenting on the draft list of facilities which may receive the ICR. Individual companies

may wish to speak to you directly about the list or other company-specific issues.

Please let us know if you have any questions.

Respectfully submitted,

John L. Wittenborn

Counsel to the Steel Manufacturers Association

Joseph J. Green

Counsel to the Specialty Steel Industry of North

America