Comment submitted by Paul R. Tourangeau, Director, Colorado Air Pollution Control Division, Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE)

October 22, 2007 National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Area Sources Electric Arc Furnace Steelmaking Facilities Docket Environmental Protection Agency Air and Radiation Docket and Information Center Mailcode: 2822T 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington, DC 20460 Re: State of Colorado Comments on the Electric Arc Furnace NESHAP Docket ID No. EPA-HQ-OAR-2004-0083 To Whom It May Concern: This letter provides written comments from the Colorado Department of Public Health and Environment (CDPHE) on the Proposed Rule for the National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Electric Arc Furnace Steelmaking Facilities. Thank you in advance for considering these comments. Mercury pollution is a serious environmental and public health threat in Colorado and throughout the United States. In Colorado alone, 17 reservoirs are impaired for fish consumption due, in part, to atmospheric deposition of mercury. To address this extensive issue, Colorado has appropriately implemented one of the nation?s more stringent mercury-reduction programs. Although CDPHE commends the innovative pollution prevention approach that EPA is taking in the proposed regulation, CDPHE believes the proposal is deficient in several respects. Generally, CDPHE noted the rule?s lack of enforceable accountability and emissions monitoring requirements to assess and verify mercury pollution reductions. We also note that the limited scope of the proposed regulation does not address other potential contributors of mercury to scrap metal. Through these comments, Colorado respectfully highlights the following issues. Accountability While the proposed rule relies heavily on the effectiveness of pollution prevention plans to reduce mercury emissions, states have little or no say in approving such site- specific plans. States and/or local agencies should have more authority over such approvals. In addition, states have previously called upon EPA to include in its regulations an approach to verify the effectiveness of mercury source reduction programs such as the National Vehicle Mercury Switch Recovery Program (NVMSRP ) and/or alternative switch removal efforts. This verification should be achieved through written documentation and audits of program participants, evaluation of switch recovery rates, and mercury emissions testing/monitoring requirements. Such accountability measures were not adequately addressed in the proposed rule. For example, the proposed rule includes no enforceable measures or mechanisms to ensure effective participation or compliance with NVMSRP or other switch removal programs. Thus, the proposed rule provides no mechanism to improve switch collection should the NVMSRP fail to achieve its collection targets. Quantifiable performance measures, such as the fraction of switches collected from end-of-life vehicles, should be included in the rule. Enforceability Metallic scrap restrictions exemptions, as proposed, are vague and therefore make the restrictions and exemptions difficult and practically unenforceable. For example, the proposed rule commonly uses the phrase "to the extent practicable". 40CFR63:10685 (a)(1)(i) requires that scrap materials must be depleted "to the extent practicable" of undrained used oil filters, chlorinated plastics, and free organic liquids. This phrase is also associated with the removal of lead-containing components. Additionally, the proposed rule defers to removal of lead-containing components from scrap according to "standard industry practice." While the intent is clear, it is nearly impossible to ensure 100% removal. It is suggested that EPA define these above-mentioned terms (or at least set boundaries/criteria), set a particular standard, or make these requirements voluntary. Also, exemptions from pollution prevention plans allowing the charging of recycled "baghouse bags or other internal process or maintenance materials in the furnace" should not be allowed unless specifically identified in the pollution prevention plan and approved by the Administrator. If not, these exemptions create a potential loophole for sources to charge otherwise unacceptable materials in the EAF. The proposed rule sets an 80% switch removal goal but is silent on what happens if these goals are not met. The rule should include a ?date final? when the goal(s) will be met and identify the emission standards to be met (instead of the 80% switch removal goal). In addition, the Administrator should specifically consider the participation rate of scrap suppliers to an area steel mill and the collection rate of the largest scrap suppliers prior to approving the goals, measuring the progress towards those goals, and in setting emission standards. Also, the proposed rule identifies opacity standards for the melt shop exclusive to the EAF or ladle metallurgy operations, but not to other sources. Based on CDPHE?s experiences, many different operations occur within the melt shop, including ladle preheating, slag handling, diesel vehicle operation, etc. As currently written, this standard will be extremely difficult to enforce. Thus, CDPHE suggests removing the proposed rule?s exclusivity to EAF or ladle metallurgy operations. Monitoring/ Evaluation of Program It is suggested that EPA set specific mercury emission standards and use a tiered approach towards demonstrating compliance rather than merely setting an 80% collection ?goal.? For example, sources that emit less than a certain amount of mercury per year might be allowed to comply with the proposed rule's work practice standards, along with some sort of mercury emissions monitoring requirement. However, for more significant emitters, more stringent monitoring should be required and done so with the understanding that if a certain mercury emission standard is not achieved in a given timeframe (e.g., three to four years), the source should install mercury emissions controls and implement associated monitoring. Although the rule dismisses the feasibility of emissions testing, monitoring technologies do exist that might be adaptable for use by this industry. Information regarding a residual risk determination is absent in the rule and should be included. Since there are no set mercury emission standards, it would appear very difficult for EPA to conduct its residual risk determination. In closing, Colorado has gone to great lengths to adopt one of most encompassing mercury programs in the nation. Given Colorado's strong commitment to minimizing the release of and impacts from mercury, Colorado respectfully requests that EPA?s rule for Electric Arc Furnaces be crafted to ensure such emissions are similarly minimized. If Colorado can be of any assistance in this matter, please contact Theresa Amoroso of my staff at 303-692-3111. Sincerely, Paul R. Tourangeau Director, Colorado Air Pollution Control Division