Date: April 23, 2010 

Subject: Minutes of the April 16, 2010 Meeting with 

Representatives of the Electric Arc Furnace Steelmaking Industry 

From: Gabrielle Raymond and Marvin Branscome, RTI International 

EPA Contract No. EP-D-06-118; EPA Work Assignment No. 4-21 

RTI Project No. 0210426.004.021 

To: Donna Lee Jones, OAQPS/SPPD/MMG (D243-02) 

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711 

I. Introduction

A meeting with representatives of the electric arc furnace (EAF) steelmaking industry was 

held at the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency facility in Research Triangle Park, NC on 

April 16, 2010. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss the pending information collection 

request for source testing, the upcoming EAF rule amendments for mercury, and the status of 

industry participation in the National Vehicle Mercury Switch Removal Program (NVMSRP). 

This memorandum summarizes the topics discussed during the meeting. 

II. Attendees

John Wittenborn, Kelley, Drye & Warren LLP 

Eric Stuart, Steel Manufacturers Association (SMA) 

Edgard Bertaut, Specialty Steel Industry of North America (SSINA)/Allegheny Technologies 

Lawrence Kavanagh, American Iron and Steel Institute (AISI) 

Bob Downie, Gerdau Ameristeel Corporation 

Mike Peters, Commercial Metals Company (CMC) Americas 

Steve Rowlan, Nucor Corporation 

Steve Fruh, EPA/OAQPS/SPPD 

Donna Lee Jones, EPA/OAQPS/SPPD/MMG 

 Marvin Branscome, RTI International 

Gabrielle Raymond, RTI International 
2 

III. Discussion

The major topics discussed during the meeting included the following: (1) section 114 

testing requests for EAFs; (2) upcoming EAF mercury rule and potential subcategories; and 

(3) status of industry participation in the NVMSRP and signing of the new the Memorandum of 

Understanding (MOU). The agenda is attached along with a summary of EPA/OAQPS’s position 

on the NVMSRP MOU. 

Section 114 Test Request 

EPA discussed the tentative schedule for the 114 testing request with industry 

representatives: (1) draft 114 request for review by industry tentatively planned for the end of 

May 2010; (2) mailing of the signed requests by June 2010 (and placed in docket); and 

(3) approximately 90 days for the testing results to be sent to EPA. Pollutants to be addressed are 

mercury, for purposes of the NESHAP, as well as fine particulate matter (PM) less than 2.5 

micrometers in diameter (called PM-2.5) and carbon monoxide (CO) for the update and review of 

the NSPS (subpart AA and AAa), which is overdue. 

A primary concern expressed by the steel industry representatives about the required 

mercury emission testing is related to the high variability in mercury emissions that industry 

believes is due to differences in the types of scrap used, types of products produced, and batch 

processes, among possibly other factors. An industry representative stated that the quantity of 

shredded automobile scrap used is highly variable even at the same plant, and the EAF operator 

does not know how much of the scrap comes from shredded automobiles. This further 

underscores the need to know the types and quantities of scrap charged to enable EPA to identify 

any correlations of these and other factors to the levels of mercury emissions. 

EPA representatives explained that the variability in mercury emissions will be accounted 

for in the request by requiring a minimum of one month of continuous testing of mercury 

emissions. This time frame should incorporate the variability of emissions at the facility over time 

due to changes in scrap and/or product mix. In addition, EPA plans to send testing requests to a 

representative mix of different types of EAF facilities, including those producing carbon steel and 

those producing stainless or specialty steels with no shredded automobile scrap charged. EPA also 

will be requesting details on the types and amounts of scrap charged during all of the testing, as 

well as the quantities of other materials charged to the EAF. 

Another concern of industry was the expense and difficulty of performing continuous 

measurement of the volumetric flow rate during the month (or more) of testing. Since a few 

Nucor facilities are already equipped with continuous emissions monitoring systems (CEMS), 

they, consequently, also have continuous measurement of volumetric flow rate; but other EAF 

facilities do not have this continuous measurement already set up. The steel industry 

representatives pointed out that they monitor fan amperage as a result of the New Source 

Performance Standard (NSPS), and that a fan amperage curve could be used to provide a 

reasonable measure of volumetric flow rate. EPA agreed to follow-up on this issue with the EPA 

measurement experts. 
3 

The industry representatives strongly encouraged EPA to require mercury emission testing 

at all EAF steelmaking facilities to ensure that the entire industry was represented. The EPA 

explained that such an approach would require more time because of the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) approval process. However, EPA agreed to consider the possibility of 

requiring more extensive testing beyond the nine companies under current consideration. The 

EPA asked about the possibility of voluntary testing to get additional mercury emissions data; 

however, the steel industry representatives said it was highly unlikely that any company would test 

voluntarily and that a Section 114 request would be needed. The EPA representatives explained 

that the more data EPA has to formulate the rule, the better the rule will be in terms of 

incorporating the various types of processes and scrap used; and, if the industry wants the rule to 

represent them adequately, they should be interested in supplying data whether it is required or 

not. Another idea that EPA suggested was for a few facilities of a similar type to support one test 

among them so as to spread the cost over more than one facility. Industry volunteered to provide 

the names of facilities that could be tested and/or facility characteristics that should be reflected in 

the initial 114 facilities so as to be representative of the industry. 

 

EAF Mercury Rule Amendments and Potential Subcategories 

The EPA explained that it was likely that the mercury emission test results would be used 

to develop mercury emission limits. The limits may or may not require all facilities to put on addon controls, depending on the level(s) of the limit(s) and the emissions at each individual facility. 

All facilities are likely to be required by the rule to do at least one source test to show compliance 

with the limit, if one is developed. The rule could also accommodate facilities that do not use auto 

scrap as a separate category. The rule can be as complicated as it needs to be to reflect the range 

in industry operations. EPA representatives stressed that continued participation in the NMVSRP 

can only help industry in terms of meeting any future mercury rule. 

Industry representatives were concerned with the mercury emission test results being used 

as credible evidence and how results from different mercury test methods could be comparable to 

each other. An industry representative made the comment that the state of Ohio has limited the 

amount of shredded steel scrap that could be charged to 15 percent shredded steel for any single 

charge in the permit for one of their facilities. An obvious potential distinction for subcategories 

would be carbon steel vs. stainless and specialty steel producers because the latter do not use 

shredded automobile scrap. There are certain other types of products that do not use shredded 

scrap or that use smaller quantities than others. Industry representatives also noted that there is 

variability in the different regions of the country pertaining to scrap mix content, market demands, 

and final products. The industry representatives agreed to provide more information on these 

potential differences among plants or products that affect mercury emissions. 

National Vehicle Mercury Switch Recovery Program 

The EPA strongly encouraged the industry to continue to support the NVMSRP and to sign 

the new MOU. A summary of EPA’s reasons for the continued support of the NMVSRP was 

provided to the industry representatives and is attached here. The industry representatives stated 

that, for the record, they support the NVMSRP in its mission and also want to continue using the 
4 

program as a compliance option to meet the mercury requirements in the area source rule for EAF. 

They see the funding issue as a separate item from the program, as discussed below. 

The steel industry had invested $2 million in the program initially, as did the automobile 

makers. The funding was used for outreach and implementation for the first few months of the 

program; however, the funds were later devoted to paying incentives ($2 per switch) to 

dismantlers to encourage participation. Although the initial funding was depleted on July 20, 

2009, the industry believes that this hasn’t affected switch collection yet. The steel industry 

representatives stated they thought that the program should subsequently be self sustaining, i.e., 

there would be no need to pay a “bounty” for switches removed because switch removal would be 

expected in order for scrap automobiles to enter the scrap supply. 

The industry stated, as they have done a number of times this year, that they are hesitant to 

provide additional funding for the NMVSRP program unless they know the program will continue 

to be a compliance option for the EAF mercury requirements. The reason is that if they have to 

install add-on controls for mercury, they feel there would be no reason to also fund the NVMSRP. 

They stated that their share of the funding was expected to be about $11 million, and although the 

funding was intended to support the program until its termination in 2017, most of the money 

would be spent in the early years when most of the mercury switches are expected to be recovered. 

However, a national meeting with the steel industry board to be held in mid-May will address the 

issue of the industry’s continued financial support of the NMVSRP and the decision to be made 

for the industry on the funding for the NMVSRP is ultimately in the hands of the board. 

The steel industry believes the NMVSRP program is working well, especially in light of 

2009 steel production levels which had dropped to 40 to 50 percent of capacity. They further 

explained that they were performing a study to obtain mercury switch data from the processing of 

100,000 automobiles to better estimate the number of mercury switches available for removal. 

The original estimated number of available mercury switches for removal was based on a 2002 

mercury switch study in Michigan with a data base of 1,000 automobiles and the R.L. Polk and 

Co. database of vehicle registrations. They expressed a concern that the previously reported 

recovery rate (about 30 percent) may have been understated because of the high uncertainty in the 

denominator of the calculation (i.e., how many mercury switches are available to be removed). 

IV. Action Items

Industry 

• The industry representatives will provide a list of facilities that could be tested and/or 

facility characteristics that should be included to represent the full industry spectrum. 

• The industry representatives will provide information and ideas for potential subcategories 

that reflect the potential differences among plants or products that affect mercury 

emissions, ability to control the emissions, or “size, type, or class.” 

• The industry will provide an example of fan amperage curve, how it is developed (e.g., 

how many measurements would be needed to develop it?), how monitoring amperage 

continuously would be translated into a daily volumetric flow. 
5 

EPA 

• The EPA will provide an example of questions on scrap and other materials charged to 

furnaces during the mercury emission tests. 

• EPA will check with testing experts at EPA for use of fan amp curves to determine 

volumetric flow rates on a continuous basis during the one month of mercury testing. 

. 
6 

Meeting Agenda 

EPA’s Sector Policies and Programs Division and Steel Industry Representatives 

April 16, 2010 

U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 

1. Introductions 

2. Section 114 testing request for EAFs 

• Mercury testing for review of area source MACT standard 

• PM and PM2.5 testing for review of the NSPS 

• Send to nine companies 

• Voluntary testing of additional facilities 

3. Upcoming EAF mercury rule 

• Potential regulatory options 

• Schedule 

4. Potential subcategories (industry questions and comments) 

• EPA may “distinguish among classes, types, and sizes of sources...” 

• Carbon vs. stainless and specialty steel 

• Size? 

• Other? 

5. Status of industry participation in the National Vehicle Mercury Switch Removal 

Program (NVMSRP) and the Memorandum of Understanding 
7 

April 16, 2010 

MEETING WITH STEEL INDUSTRY REPRESENTATIVES 

CONTINUED PARTICIPATION BY STEELMAKERS IN NVMSRP

• EPA strongly encourages continued participation as a pollution prevention measure. 

• Approximately $50 million could be available from Congress (“cash for clunkers 

program”) to keep the program viable and working for the next few years. 

• “Win-win” for all stakeholders in reducing mercury releases by pollution 

prevention; demonstrates how stakeholders can work together to address mercury 

issues cost effectively. 

• Continues to reduce mercury release not only to air, but in landfills (auto shred 

residue), water runoff at shredders, etc. 

• Avoids potential bad publicity for all if program is deemed a failure. 

• It is worth continuing at least for the near term until scrap auto supply no longer 

contains mercury switches.