[Federal Register Volume 66, Number 128 (Tuesday, July 3, 2001)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 35326-35357]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 01-16192]



[[Page 35325]]

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

Part II





Environmental Protection Agency





-----------------------------------------------------------------------



40 CFR Part 63



National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Coke 
Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2001 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 35326]]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[FRL-6939-2]
RIN 2060-AH55


National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Coke 
Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks

AGENCY: Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: This action proposes national emission standards for hazardous 
air pollutants (NESHAP) for new and existing coke oven batteries. The 
EPA has identified coke oven batteries as a major source of hazardous 
air pollutants (HAP) emissions. These NESHAP address emissions from 
pushing, quenching, and battery stacks. Emission standards previously 
promulgated address emissions from charging, topside leaks, and door 
leaks.
    These proposed standards will implement section 112(d) of the Clean 
Air Act (CAA) by requiring all major sources to meet HAP emission 
standards reflecting the application of the maximum achievable control 
technology (MACT). The HAP emitted by this source category include coke 
oven emissions, polycyclic organic matter, and volatile organic 
compounds such as benzene and toluene. Exposure to these substances has 
been demonstrated to cause chronic and acute health effects.

DATES: Comments. Submit comments on or before October 1, 2001.
    Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the EPA requesting to speak at a 
public hearing by July 23, 2001, a public hearing will be held on 
August 2, 2001.

ADDRESSES: Comments. By U.S. Postal Service, send comments (in 
duplicate if possible) to: Air and Radiation Docket and Information 
Center (6102), Attention Docket Number A-2000-34, U.S. EPA, 1200 
Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460. In person or by courier, 
deliver comments (in duplicate if possible) to: Air and Radiation 
Docket and Information Center (6102), Attention Docket No. A-2000-34, 
Room M-1500, U.S. EPA, 401 M Street, SW., Washington, DC 20460. The EPA 
requests a separate copy also be sent to the contact person listed 
below (see FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
    Public Hearing. If a public hearing is held, it will be held at the 
EPA Office of Administration Auditorium, Research Triangle Park, NC 
beginning at 10 a.m.
    Docket. Docket No. A-2000-34 contains supporting information used 
in developing the proposed standards. The docket is located at the U.S. 
EPA, 401 M Street SW, Washington, DC 20460 in room M-1500, Waterside 
Mall (ground floor), and may be inspected from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m., 
Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Lula Melton, Metals Group, Emission 
Standards Division (MD-13), U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, 
telephone number (919) 541-2910, electronic mail address 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#bbd6ded7cfd4d595d7ced7dafbdecbda95dcd4cd"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="127f777e667d7c3c7e677e73527762733c757d64">[email protected]</span></a>.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Comments. Comments and data may be submitted by electronic mail (e-
mail) to: <a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#8feee6fda2eee1eba2fda2ebe0ece4eafbcfeaffeea1e8e0f9"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="badbd3c897dbd4de97c897ded5d9d1dfcefadfcadb94ddd5cc">[email protected]</span></a>. Electronic comments must be 
submitted as an ASCII file to avoid the use of special characters and 
encryption problems and will also be accepted on disks in 
WordPerfect<Register> version 5.1, 6.1 or Corel 8 file format. All 
comments and data submitted in electronic form must note the docket 
number: A-2000-34. No confidential business information (CBI) should be 
submitted by e-mail. Electronic comments may be filed online at many 
Federal Depository Libraries.
    Commenters wishing to submit proprietary information for 
consideration must clearly distinguish such information from other 
comments and label it as CBI. Send submissions containing such 
proprietary information directly to the following address, and not to 
the public docket, to ensure that proprietary information is not 
inadvertently placed in the docket: Attention: Roberto Morales, U.S. 
EPA, OAQPS Document Control Officer, c/o Lula Melton, 411 W. Chapel 
Hill Street, Room 740B, Durham, NC 27711. The EPA will disclose 
information identified as CBI only to the extent allowed by the 
procedures set forth in 40 CFR part 2. If no claim of confidentiality 
accompanies a submission when it is received by the EPA, the 
information may be made available to the public without further notice 
to the commenter.
    Public Hearing. Persons interested in presenting oral testimony or 
inquiring as to whether a hearing is to be held should contact Mary 
Hinson, Metals Group, Emission Standards Division, U.S. EPA, Research 
Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone number (919) 541-5601, in advance of 
the public hearing. Persons interested in attending the public hearing 
must also call Mary Hinson to verify the time, date, and location of 
the hearing. The public hearing will provide interested parties the 
opportunity to present data, views, or arguments concerning these 
proposed emission standards.
    Docket. The docket is an organized and complete file of all the 
information considered by the EPA in the development of this proposed 
rule. The docket is a dynamic file because material is added throughout 
the rulemaking process. The docketing system is intended to allow 
members of the public and industries involved to readily identify and 
locate documents so that they can effectively participate in the 
rulemaking process. Along with the proposed and promulgated standards 
and their preambles, the contents of the docket will serve as the 
record in the case of judicial review. (See section 307(d)(7)(A) of the 
CAA.) The regulatory text and other materials related to this 
rulemaking are available for review in the docket or copies may be 
mailed on request from the Air Docket by calling (202) 260-7548. A 
reasonable fee may be charged for copying docket materials.
    World Wide Web (WWW). In addition to being available in the docket, 
an electronic copy of today's proposed rule will also be available on 
the WWW through the Technology Transfer Network (TTN). Following 
signature, a copy of the rule will be placed on the TTN's policy and 
guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at http://www.epa.gov/ttn/oarpg. The TTN provides information and technology 
exchange in various areas of air pollution control. If more information 
regarding the TTN is needed, call the TTN HELP line at (919) 541-5384.
    Regulated Entities. Categories and entities potentially regulated 
by this action include:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                    Example of regulated
             Category                SIC    NAICS          entities
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Coke oven batteries...............   3312   331111  Coke plants at
                                                     integrated iron and
                                                     steel companies.
                                            324199  Coke plants not at
                                                     integrated iron and
                                                     steel companies.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a 
guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this 
action. To determine

[[Page 35327]]

whether your facility is regulated by this action, you should examine 
the applicability criteria in Sec. 63.7281 of the proposed rule. If you 
have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a 
particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR 
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section.

Outline

    The information presented in this preamble is organized as 
follows:

I. Background

    A. What is the source of authority for development of NESHAP?
    B. What criteria are used in the development of NESHAP?
    C. What source category is affected by the proposed rule?
    D. What is cokemaking?
    E. What HAP are emitted from cokemaking?
    F. What are the health effects associated with emissions from 
pushing, quenching, and battery stacks?

II. Summary of the Proposed Rule

    A. What are the affected sources and emission points?
    B. What are the requirements for pushing?
    C. What are the requirements for soaking?
    D. What are the requirements for quenching?
    E. What are the requirements for battery stacks?
    F. What are the operation and maintenance requirements?
    G. What are the notification, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements?
    H. What are the compliance deadlines?

III. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Standards

    A. How did we select the affected source?
    B. How did we select the pollutants?
    C. How did we determine the bases and levels of the proposed 
standards?
    D. How did we select the operation and maintenance requirements?
    E. How did we select the notification, recordkeeping, and 
reporting requirements?

IV. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts

    A. What are the air quality impacts?
    B. What are the cost impacts?
    C. What are the economic impacts?
    D. What are the non-air environmental and energy impacts?

V. Solicitation of Comments and Public Participation

VI. Administrative Requirements

    A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review
    B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism
    C. Executive Order 13084, Consultation and Coordination with 
Indian Tribal Governments
    D. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from 
Environmental Health Risks and Safety Risks
    E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995
    F. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small 
Business Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 
U.S.C. et seq.
    G. Paperwork Reduction Act
    H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

I. Background

A. What Is the Source of Authority for Development of NESHAP?

    Section 112 of the CAA requires us (the EPA) to establish 
technology-based regulations for all categories and subcategories of 
major and area sources emitting one or more of the HAP listed in 
section 112(b). Major sources are those that emit or have the potential 
to emit at least 10 tons per year (tpy) of any single HAP or 25 tpy of 
any combination of HAP. Additional standards may be developed later 
under section 112(f) to address residual risk that may remain even 
after application of the technology-based controls.

B. What Criteria Are Used in the Development of NESHAP?

    The NESHAP for new and existing sources developed under section 112 
must reflect the maximum degree of reduction of HAP emissions that is 
achievable taking into consideration the cost of achieving the 
emissions reductions, any non-air quality health and environmental 
benefits, and energy requirements. Emissions reductions may be 
accomplished through promulgation of emission standards under section 
112(d). These may include, but are not limited to:
    <bullet> Reducing the volume of emissions of HAP, or eliminating 
the emissions through process changes, substitution of materials, or 
other modifications;
    <bullet> Enclosing systems or processes to eliminate emissions;
    <bullet> Collecting, capturing, or treating such pollutants when 
released from a process, stack, storage, or fugitive emissions point;
    <bullet> Design, equipment, work practice or operational standards 
or any combination thereof if it is not feasible to prescribe or 
enforce an emission standard (including requirements for operator 
training or certification); or
    <bullet> A combination of the above.
    Section 112 requires us to establish a minimum baseline or 
``floor'' for standards. For new sources, the standards for a source 
category or subcategory cannot be less stringent than the emission 
control that is achieved in practice by the best-controlled similar 
source. The standards for existing sources can be less stringent than 
the standards for new sources, but they cannot be less stringent than 
the average emission limitation achieved by the best-performing 12 
percent of existing sources (excluding certain sources) for categories 
and subcategories with 30 or more sources. For categories and 
subcategories with fewer than 30 sources, the standards cannot be less 
stringent than the average emission limitation achieved by the best-
performing five sources.
    For NESHAP developed to date, we have used several different 
approaches to determine the MACT floor for individual source categories 
depending on the type, quality, and applicability of available data. 
These approaches include determining a MACT floor based on: (1) 
Emissions test data that characterize actual HAP emissions from 
presently controlled sources included in the source category, (2) 
existing federally-enforceable emission limitations specified in air 
regulations and facility air permits applicable to the individual 
sources comprising the source category, and (3) application of a 
specific type of control technology for air emissions currently being 
used by sources in the source category or by sources with similar 
pollutant stream characteristics.
    To determine the MACT standard, we evaluate several alternatives 
(which may be different levels of emission control or different levels 
of applicability or both) to select the one that best reflects the 
appropriate MACT level. The selected alternative may be more stringent 
than the MACT floor, but the control level selected must be technically 
achievable. In selecting an alternative, we consider the achievable HAP 
emissions reductions (and possibly other pollutants that are co-
controlled), cost and economic impacts, energy impacts, and other 
environmental impacts. The objective is to achieve the maximum degree 
of emission reduction without unreasonable economic or other impacts. 
The regulatory alternatives selected for new and existing sources may 
be different because of different MACT floors, and separate regulatory 
decisions may be made for new and existing sources.

C. What Source Category Is Affected by the Proposed Rule?

    The source category affected by the proposed rule is defined as 
pushing, quenching, and battery stacks at coke plants. Section 112(c) 
of the CAA requires us to list all categories of major and area sources 
of HAP for which we would develop national emission standards. We 
published the initial list of source categories on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 
31576). The list contains a category

[[Page 35328]]

entitled ``Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks'' based 
on our determination that coke oven batteries are (or are a part of) a 
major source of HAP emissions and emit several of the HAP listed in 
section 112(b) of the CAA. Emissions data show that coke oven batteries 
emit, or have the potential to emit 10 tpy or more of coke oven 
emissions or 25 tpy or more of coke oven emissions and other listed 
HAP.

D. What Is Cokemaking?

    The coke industry consists of two sectors, integrated plants and 
merchant plants. Integrated plants are owned by or affiliated with 
iron- and steel-producing companies that produce furnace coke primarily 
for consumption in their own blast furnaces. There are 14 integrated 
plants owned by nine iron and steel companies. These plants account for 
80 percent of United States (U.S.) coke production. Independent 
merchant plants produce mostly foundry coke for sale on the open 
market. Foundry coke is used in foundry furnaces for melting scrap iron 
to produce iron castings. There are 11 merchant plants. Although coke 
is produced in 11 States, two-thirds of the capacity is in three 
States: Indiana, Pennsylvania, and Alabama. As of January 2000, there 
were 25 coke plants operating 68 coke oven batteries; 58 were by-
product batteries, and 10 were non-recovery batteries.
    A by-product battery consists of 20 to 100 adjacent ovens with 
common side walls made of high quality silica and other types of 
refractory brick. Typically, the individual slot ovens are 11 to 16.8 
meters (m) long, 0.35 to 0.5 m wide, and 2.5 to 6 m high. The walls 
separating adjacent ovens, as well as each end wall, are made up of a 
series of heating flues. Most by-product batteries in the U.S. (56 out 
of 58) use a vertical flue design. Each oven wall typically has 25 to 
37 flues that run vertically from the bottom to the top of the oven, 
and the flues heat the walls of adjacent ovens. The heating (underfire) 
systems for vertical flue batteries fall into two general classes: 
underjet and gun-flue. In the underjet heating system, the flue gas is 
introduced into each flue from piping in the basement of the battery, 
and the gas flow to each flue can be metered and controlled. The gun-
flue system introduces the gas through a horizontal gas duct extending 
the length of each wall slightly below the oven floorline. Two by-
product batteries referred to as Semet Solvay batteries have horizontal 
flues with physical and operational characteristics that differ 
substantially from vertical flue batteries.
    In a coke oven battery, coal undergoes destructive distillation to 
produce coke. A weighed amount or specific volume of coal is discharged 
from the coal bunker into a larry car--a charging vehicle that moves 
along the top of the battery. The larry car is positioned over the 
empty, hot oven; the lids on the charging ports are removed; and the 
coal is discharged from the hoppers of the larry car into the oven. 
Each oven holds between 15 and 25 tons of coal. To minimize the escape 
of gases from the oven during charging, steam aspiration is used to 
draw gases from the space above the charged coal into a collecting 
main. The charging port lids are replaced and peaks of coal that form 
directly under the charging ports are leveled.
    The coal is heated in the oven in the absence of air to 
temperatures approaching 2,000 deg.F which drives off most of the 
volatile organic constituents of the coal as gases and vapors, forming 
coke which consists almost entirely of carbon. The organic gases and 
vapors that evolve are removed through an offtake system and sent to a 
by-product plant for chemical recovery and coke oven gas cleaning. Air 
is prevented from leaking into the ovens by maintaining a positive back 
pressure of about 10 millimeters (mm) of water.
    Coking temperatures generally range from 1,650 to 2,000 deg.F and 
are on the higher side of the range to produce blast furnace coke. 
Coking continues for 15 to 18 hours to produce blast furnace coke and 
25 to 30 hours to produce foundry coke. The coking time is determined 
by the coal mixture, moisture content, rate of underfiring, and the 
desired properties of the coke. When demand for coke is low, coking 
times are extended and temperatures lowered. Battery shut downs are 
avoided because cooling the battery results in structural damage.
    At the end of the coking cycle, the oven is dampered off the 
collection main, and the standpipe cap is opened to relieve oven 
pressure. This period in the coking cycle is called soaking. Volatile 
gases exiting through the open standpipe are ignited if they fail to 
self-ignite and are allowed to burn until the oven has been pushed. 
Doors at both ends of the oven are removed, and the incandescent coke 
is pushed out of the oven by a ram that is extended from the pusher 
machine. The coke is pushed through a coke guide into a special rail 
car, called a quench car, which traverses the coke side of the battery. 
The quench car carries the coke to a quench tower, typically located at 
the end of a row of batteries. Inside the quench tower, the hot coke is 
deluged with water so that it will not continue to burn after being 
exposed to air. The quenched coke is discharged onto an inclined ``coke 
wharf'' to allow excess water to drain and to cool the coke.
    There are two non-recovery plants operating in the U.S. As the name 
implies, this process does not recover the chemical by-products as does 
the by-product coking process discussed above. All of the coke oven gas 
is burned, and instead of recovery of chemicals, this process allows 
for heat recovery and cogeneration of electricity. Non-recovery ovens 
are of a horizontal design (as opposed to the vertical slot oven used 
in the by-product process) with a typical range of 30 to 60 ovens per 
battery. The oven is generally between 9 and 14 m long and 1.8 to 3.7 m 
wide. The internal oven chamber is usually semi-cylindrical in shape 
with the apex of the arch 1.5 to 3.7 m above the oven floor. Each oven 
is equipped with two doors, one on each side of the horizontal oven, 
but there are no lids or offtakes as found on by-product ovens. The 
oven is charged through the oven doorway with a coal conveyor rather 
than from the top through charging ports.
    After an oven is charged, carbonization begins as a result of the 
hot oven brickwork from the previous charge. Combustion products and 
volatiles that evolve from the coal mass are burned in the chamber 
above the coal, in the gas pathway through the walls, and beneath the 
oven in sole flues. Each oven chamber has two to six downcomers in each 
oven wall, and the sole flue may be subdivided into separate flues that 
are supplied by the downcomers. The sole flue is designed to heat the 
bottom of the coal charge by conduction while radiant and convective 
heat flow is produced above the coal charge.
    Primary combustion air is introduced into the oven chamber above 
the coal through one of several dampered ports in the door. The dampers 
are adjusted to maintain the proper temperature in the oven crown. 
Outside air may also be introduced into the sole flues; however, 
additional air is usually required in the sole flue only for the first 
hour or two after charging. All gas flow is a result of the natural 
draft (there are no exhausters), and the oven is maintained under a 
negative pressure. Consequently, the ovens do not leak as do the by-
product ovens maintained under a positive pressure. The combustion 
gases are removed from the ovens and directed to the stack through a 
waste heat tunnel that is located on top of the battery centerline and 
extends the length of the battery.

[[Page 35329]]

    Pushing and quenching operations are similar to those at by-product 
coke oven batteries. One difference in pushing is that the height of 
fall of the hot coke is less for the non-recovery oven because of its 
horizontal rather than vertical design. With respect to emissions, 
there are two major advantages of the non-recovery process: (1) The 
ovens operate under negative pressure which eliminates leaks from 
doors, lids and offtakes during coking; and (2) wastewater and solid 
wastes associated with by-product recovery plants are not generated.

E. What HAP Are Emitted From Cokemaking?

    The primary HAP emitted from cokemaking is listed as ``coke oven 
emissions,'' which includes many organic compounds. Constituents of 
primary interest because of adverse health effects include semi-
volatiles such as polycyclic organic matter (POM) and polynuclear 
aromatic hydrocarbons (PAH). The emissions also include volatile 
organic compounds, such as benzene, toluene, and xylene.
    Coke oven emissions can be released when the oven is charged with 
coal. During coking with the oven under positive pressure, emissions 
occur from leaking doors, lids, and offtakes. On rare occasions during 
an equipment failure or process upset, coke oven emissions may occur 
from bypass stacks. We have developed emission standards for each of 
these emission points with limits for charging, doors, lids, and 
offtakes and a requirement to flare any bypassed coke oven gas (40 CFR 
part 63, subpart L).
    Coke oven emissions are also released from pushing and quenching, 
and emissions are especially heavy when the coal is not fully coked. 
This condition is called a ``green push'' and results in a large plume 
of emissions when the coke is pushed. These emissions typically 
overwhelm any capture system that may be employed at the oven to 
control particulate emissions. Green pushes are minimized by diligent 
work practices that include routine operation and maintenance 
procedures. In addition, diagnostic procedures are initiated when a 
green push occurs to determine its cause followed by corrective actions 
to prevent its recurrence. Additional procedures used to control 
emissions from quench towers include prohibiting the use of untreated 
wastewater for quenching, using baffles in the quench tower to control 
particulate matter, and maintaining the baffles in good operating 
condition.
    Coke oven emissions also occur from battery stacks when raw coke 
oven gas leaks through cracks in the oven wall and into the heating 
flues. Battery stack emissions are controlled by monitoring the stack 
opacity when each oven is charged, and if a high opacity occurs, by 
implementing diagnostic procedures to determine the cause of the 
problem and taking corrective actions.
    Emissions of HAP also occur from the by-product plant that recovers 
various chemicals from the coke oven gas. The primary HAP in these 
emissions is benzene. We promulgated NESHAP for benzene emissions from 
by-product plants (40 CFR part 61, subpart L).

F. What Are the Health Effects Associated With Emissions From Pushing, 
Quenching, and Battery Stacks?

    The HAP that would be controlled with this proposed rule are 
associated with a variety of adverse health effects. These adverse 
health effects include chronic health disorders (e.g., blood disorders, 
damage to the central nervous system, and respiratory lesions) and 
acute health disorders (e.g., irritation of skin, eyes, and mucous 
membranes and depression of the central nervous system). We have 
classified coke oven emissions and benzene as known human carcinogens 
and seven PAH components as probable human carcinogens.
    No information is available on the effects of coke oven emissions 
in humans from acute (short-term) exposure. Animal studies have 
reported weakness, depression, shortness of breath, general edema, and 
effects on the liver from acute oral exposure to coke oven emissions. 
Chronic (long-term) exposure to coke oven emissions in humans results 
in conjunctivitis, severe dermatitis, and lesions of the respiratory 
system and digestive system. Studies of coke oven workers have reported 
an increase in cancer of the lung, trachea, bronchus, kidney, prostate, 
and other sites. Animal studies have reported tumors of the lung and 
skin from inhalation exposure to coal tar. We have classified coke oven 
emissions as a Group A, known human carcinogen.
    The term POM defines a broad class of compounds that includes the 
PAH compounds, of which benzo[a]pyrene is a member. Skin exposures to 
mixtures of PAH cause skin disorders in humans and animals. No 
information is available on the reproductive or developmental effects 
of POM in humans, but animal studies have reported that oral exposure 
to benzo[a]pyrene causes reproductive and developmental effects. Human 
studies have reported an increase in lung cancer in humans exposed to 
POM-bearing mixtures including coke oven emissions, roofing tar 
emissions, and cigarette smoke. Animal studies have reported 
respiratory tract tumors from inhalation exposure to benzo[a]pyrene and 
forestomach tumors, leukemia, and lung tumors from oral exposure to 
benzo[a]pyrene. We have classified seven PAH compounds (benzo[a]pyrene, 
benz[a]anthracene, chrysene, benzo[b]fluoranthene, 
benzo[k]fluoranthene, dibenz[a,h]anthracene, and indeno[1,2,3-
cd]pyrene) as Group B2, probable human carcinogens.
    Acute (short-term) inhalation exposure of humans to benzene may 
cause drowsiness, dizziness, headaches, as well as eye, skin, and 
respiratory tract irritation, and, at high levels, unconsciousness. 
Chronic (long-term) inhalation exposure has caused various disorders in 
the blood, including reduced numbers of red blood cells and aplastic 
anemia in occupational settings. Reproductive effects have been 
reported for women exposed by inhalation to high levels, and adverse 
effects on the developing fetus have been observed in animal tests. 
Increased incidence of leukemia (cancer of the tissues that form white 
blood cells) has been observed in humans occupationally exposed to 
benzene. We have classified benzene as a Group A, known human 
carcinogen.
    Acute (short-term) inhalation of toluene by humans may cause 
effects to the central nervous system (CNS), such as fatigue, 
sleepiness, headache, and nausea, as well as irregular heartbeat. 
Adverse CNS effects have been reported in chronic abusers exposed to 
high levels of toluene. Symptoms include tremors, decreased brain size, 
involuntary eye movements, and impaired speech, hearing, and vision. 
Chronic (long-term) inhalation exposure of humans to lower levels of 
toluene also causes irritation of the upper respiratory tract, eye 
irritation, sore throat, nausea, dizziness, headaches, and difficulty 
with sleep. Studies of children whose mothers were exposed to toluene 
by inhalation of mixed solvents during pregnancy have reported CNS 
problems, facial and limb abnormalities, and delayed development. 
However, these effects may not be attributable to toluene alone.
    We recognize that the degree of adverse health effects experienced 
by exposed individuals can range from mild to severe. The extent and 
degree to which the health effects may be experienced depend on:
    <bullet> Pollutant-specific characteristics (e.g., toxicity, half-
life in the environment, bioaccumulation, and persistence);

[[Page 35330]]

    <bullet> Ambient concentrations observed in the area (e.g., as 
influenced by emission rates, meteorological conditions, and terrain);
    <bullet> Frequency and duration of exposures; and
    <bullet> Characteristics of exposed individuals (e.g., genetics, 
age, preexisting health conditions, and lifestyle), which vary 
significantly with the population.

II. Summary of the Proposed Rule

A. What Are the Affected Sources and Emission Points?

    The affected source is each new or existing coke oven battery at a 
coke plant that is a major source of HAP emissions. A new affected 
source is one constructed or reconstructed after July 3, 2001. An 
existing affected source is one constructed or reconstructed on or 
before today's date. The proposed rule covers fugitive pushing 
emissions, emissions from control devices applied to pushing emissions, 
and emissions from quenching, soaking, and battery stacks.

B. What Are the Requirements for Pushing?

1. By-product Coke Oven Batteries with Vertical Flues
    We are proposing two options for controlling fugitive pushing 
emissions--numerical opacity limits (Option 1) and work practice 
standards (Option 2). Based on comments received on the proposed rule, 
we will promulgate Option 1, Option 2, or a combination of the two 
options. Under both options, the requirements are the same for new and 
existing batteries.
    Option 1 (the numerical standard) limits the daily average opacity 
of fugitive pushing emissions to 20 percent for a short battery and 25 
percent for a tall battery. A short battery has ovens that are less 
than five m high, and a tall battery has ovens that are five m high or 
more. The daily average opacity would be determined from opacity 
observations made for four consecutive pushes per battery per day. The 
average opacity per push would be determined by averaging the six 
highest consecutive observations made at 15-second intervals.
    Option 2 (the work practice standard) is based on an opacity 
trigger for a single push that would require the plant to correct the 
problem or remove the oven from service. The proposed work practice 
requirements are:
    <bullet> Observe and record the opacity of fugitive pushing 
emissions for four consecutive pushes each day for each battery.
    <bullet> If the average opacity of the six highest consecutive 
readings for any individual push is more than the opacity trigger (30 
percent for short batteries and 35 percent for tall batteries), take 
corrective action to fix the problem and demonstrate that the 
corrective action has been successful within a certain number of days. 
Plants must calculate the allowed number of days using the equation, 
(15 pushes  x  coking time)/24 hours or 0.63  x  coking time. The 
corrective action would be considered successful if neither of the 
opacity observations for two consecutive daytime pushes exceed the 
opacity trigger.
    <bullet> If the oven-directed procedure has not been successful 
within the allowable number of days, remove the oven from service until 
repairs are completed. Observe two daytime pushes within the first four 
pushes after the oven is returned to service. If neither push exceeds 
the opacity trigger, the corrective action was successful and the oven 
may be taken out of the oven-directed program. If the opacity trigger 
was exceeded for either push, the oven must be removed from service and 
the process repeated. If any oven is removed from service more than 
four times in any semiannual reporting period as a result of exceeding 
the opacity trigger, the oven must not be returned to service without 
the permission of the permitting authority. Plants would also be 
required to mitigate possible adverse effects on adjacent ovens due to 
removing the oven from service.
    <bullet> If extended coking is the corrective action, keep the oven 
on extended coking until the problem is corrected and the plant 
demonstrates the corrective action has been successful.
    Under Option 1, plants would be required to conduct a performance 
test to demonstrate initial compliance with the applicable opacity 
limit. In the test, an independent certified observer would make 
opacity observations according to the procedures in EPA Method 9 (40 
CFR part 60, appendix A) for four consecutive pushes, calculated from 
the six highest 15-second readings for each push. No performance test 
would be required to demonstrate initial compliance with the work 
practice standards in Option 2. The plant owner or operator would 
certify, as part of the notification of compliance status, that the 
facility will meet each of the requirements in the work practice 
standard.
    Under Options 1 and 2, continuous compliance would be demonstrated 
by opacity observations. Both options allow two batteries to be treated 
as a single battery if they are served by the same pushing equipment 
and contain a total of no more than 60 ovens. An independent certified 
observer would determine the daily average opacity from four 
consecutive pushes for each battery every day and for each oven in a 
battery at least every 3 months. The proposed rule prohibits plants 
from altering an oven's pushing schedule to change the sequence of 
pushes designated for observation.
    Records of all observations and calculations needed to document 
compliance would be required for Options 1 and 2. Additional records 
would be required under Option 2 if the opacity trigger is exceeded.
2. By-Product Coke Oven Batteries with Horizontal Flues
    Under the work practice standards, plants would be required to 
operate each battery according to a written plan designed to prevent 
green pushes. The plan would establish minimum flue temperatures at 
different coking times and a lowest acceptable minimum flue temperature 
consistent with the prevention of green pushes. Provisions are included 
in the proposed rule for performing a study to determine the minimum 
flue temperatures. After developing a plan, plants would be required 
to:
    <bullet> Measure and record the temperature of all flues on two 
ovens per day for each battery within 2 hours of the scheduled pushing 
time. Two batteries can be treated as one if both are served by the 
same pushing equipment and contain a total of no more than 60 ovens.
    <bullet> Measure and record the temperature of all flues on each 
oven at least once a month.
    <bullet> Determine and record the time each oven is charged and 
pushed and the net coking time for each oven.
    <bullet> If the measured flue temperature is below the minimum flue 
temperature for that coking time, extend the coking time for the oven 
by the amount specified in the plan for that flue temperature before 
pushing the oven and take corrective action. While the oven is on 
extended coking, continue to measure the flue temperatures within 2 
hours of the scheduled pushing time until the measurements prior to two 
consecutive pushes meet the minimum temperature requirements for the 
extended coking time. An oven could be returned to the battery's 
general pushing schedule once the heating problem is corrected.
    <bullet> Remove the oven from service for repairs if any flue 
temperature measurement is below the lowest acceptable minimum 
temperature. After

[[Page 35331]]

repairing the oven, follow the procedures in the written plan for 
returning the oven to service after the repairs are complete. Plants 
also must take temperature measurements within 2 hours of the scheduled 
pushing time. If any flue temperature measurement is below the minimum 
flue temperature in the plan, plants would repeat the procedures for 
extended coking.
    No performance test would be required to demonstrate initial 
compliance with the work practice standards. The plant owner or 
operator would certify, as part of the notification of compliance 
status, that the facility has submitted the written plan to prevent 
green pushes and the supporting study to their permitting authority for 
review and approval, and that the plant will meet each of the 
requirements in the work practice standard.
    Continuous compliance would be demonstrated by: (1) Measuring and 
recording flue temperature measurements for two ovens a day for each 
battery and for all ovens in each battery at least once a month, and 
(2) recording the time each oven is charged and pushed with the net 
coking time. Additional records would be required to show that the 
correct procedures were followed if any measured flue temperature is 
below the minimum flue temperature or the lowest acceptable minimum 
temperature.
3. Non-Recovery Coke Oven Batteries
    The proposed work practice standards require plants to visually 
inspect each oven prior to pushing by opening the door damper and 
observing the bed of coke. The oven cannot be pushed unless the visual 
inspection confirms that there is no smoke in the open space above the 
coke bed, and that there is an unobstructed view of the door on the 
opposite side of the oven. Plants would demonstrate initial compliance 
by certifying in their initial notification of compliance status that 
they will follow the work practice standards. Continuous compliance 
would be demonstrated by maintaining records of each visual inspection.
4. Control Devices
    We are proposing emission limits for particulate matter (PM) as a 
measure of control device performance. Facilities that currently use 
capture and control equipment must continue to use such equipment and 
must meet the applicable emission limitations. The proposed PM limits 
for a control device applied to pushing emissions from a coke oven 
battery are:
    <bullet> 0.004 grain per dry standard cubic foot (gr/dscf) where a 
cokeside shed is used as the capture system.
    <bullet> 0.017 pound per ton (lb/ton) of coke if a moveable hood 
vented to a stationary control device is used to capture emissions.
    <bullet> If a mobile scrubber car that does not capture emissions 
during travel is used, 0.023 lb/ton of coke for a short coke oven 
battery or 0.010 lb/ton of coke for a tall coke oven battery.
    <bullet> 0.039 lb/ton of coke if a mobile scrubber car that does 
capture emissions during travel is used.
    Operating limits are also proposed for control devices and capture 
systems applied to pushing emissions. If a baghouse is used, the alarm 
on the bag leak detection system must not sound for more than 5 percent 
of the total operating time in a semiannual reporting period. If a 
venturi scrubber is used, the daily average pressure drop and scrubber 
water flow rate must remain at or above the minimum level established 
during the initial performance test. Two options are proposed for a 
capture system applied to pushing emissions: (1) Maintain the fan motor 
amperes at or above the minimum level established during the initial 
performance test, or (2) maintain the volumetric flow rate at the inlet 
of the control device at or above the minimum level established during 
the initial performance test.
    The proposed rule requires a performance test for each control 
device to demonstrate it meets the emission limit. The concentration of 
PM would be measured using EPA Method 5 or 5D in 40 CFR part 60, 
appendix A. The proposed testing requirements also include procedures 
for establishing operating limits for venturi scrubbers and capture 
systems and for revising the limits, if needed, after the performance 
test. To demonstrate continuous compliance with the applicable emission 
limit, plants would be required to conduct performance tests for each 
control device at least twice during each term of their title V 
operating permit (at midterm and renewal).
    If a baghouse is applied to pushing emissions, plants would monitor 
the relative change in PM loading using a bag leak detection system and 
make inspections at specified intervals. The basic inspection 
requirements include daily, weekly, monthly, or quarterly inspections 
of specified parameters or mechanisms with monitoring of bag cleaning 
cycles by an appropriate method. Each bag leak detection system must:
    <bullet> Be capable of detecting PM at concentrations of 10 
milligrams per actual cubic meter or less and provide an output of 
relative PM loading;
    <bullet> Be installed and operated according to our guidance 
(``Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance,'' EPA 454/R-98-015, 
September 1997, available on the TTN at http://www.epa.gov/ttnemc01/cem/tribo.pdf). If the system does not work based on the triboelectric 
effect, it must be installed and operated consistent with the 
manufacturer's written specifications and recommendations; and
    <bullet> Be equipped with an alarm system that: (1) Will alert 
operators if PM is detected above a preset level, and (2) has a 
sensitivity that is never increased by more than 100 percent or 
decreased by more than 50 percent over a 1-year period, unless a 
responsible official certifies, in writing, that the baghouse has been 
inspected and found to be in good operating condition.
    To demonstrate continuous compliance with the operating limit, 
plants would be required to maintain each baghouse such that the 
operating limit is not exceeded and keep records of bag leak detection 
system alarms. They also would be required to keep records documenting 
conformance with the inspection and maintenance requirements.
    If a venturi scrubber is applied to pushing emissions, plants would 
monitor the daily average pressure drop and scrubber water flow rate 
using continuous parameter monitoring systems (CPMS). The CPMS would 
measure and record the pressure drop and scrubber water flow rate at 
least once per push and determine and record the daily average of the 
readings. To demonstrate continuous compliance with the operating 
limits, plants would maintain the daily average pressure drop and 
scrubber water flow rate at levels no lower than those established 
during the performance test. Valid monitoring data must be available 
for all pushes. In addition, plants must keep records documenting 
compliance with the proposed installation, operation, and maintenance 
requirements for the CPMS.
    For a capture system applied to pushing emissions, plants would be 
required to check the fan motor amperes or the volumetric flow rate at 
least once each 8-hour period to verify it is at or above the level 
established during the initial performance test and to record the 
results of each check.

[[Page 35332]]

C. What Are the Requirements for Soaking?

    A work practice standard is proposed for emissions that occur when 
the oven is prepared for pushing by venting the oven to the atmosphere 
(soaking). If the gases from the standpipe do not ignite automatically, 
plants would be required to manually ignite the gases within 3 minutes 
after opening the standpipe cap.
    To demonstrate initial compliance, the owner or operator would 
certify, in the notification of compliance status, that the work 
practice requirements will be met. To demonstrate continuous 
compliance, plants would keep records documenting the automatic or 
manual ignition of vented gases from each standpipe. If the gases do 
not ignite automatically, the records would include the time the 
standpipe cap is opened and the time the gases are manually ignited.

D. What Are the Requirements for Quenching?

    The proposed equipment and work practice standards for quenching 
apply to all coke oven batteries. Plants would be required to equip 
each quench tower with baffles that cover at least 95 percent of the 
cross-sectional area, clean the baffles daily, and inspect each quench 
tower at least monthly for damaged or missing baffles and blockage. If 
the monthly inspection reveals any damaged or missing baffles, plants 
must repair or replace them within 1 month (i.e., before the next 
inspection). The proposed rule also requires plants to use clean water 
as makeup water.
    To demonstrate initial compliance, the plant owner or operator 
would certify, as part of the notification of compliance status, that 
the equipment standard has been met and the work practice requirements 
will be met. To demonstrate continuous compliance, plants would be 
required to maintain baffles in each quench tower to meet the rule 
requirements and keep records documenting conformance with the work 
practice requirements.

E. What Are the Requirements for Battery Stacks?

    The proposed opacity standards apply to all coke oven by-product 
batteries. The proposed rule requires plants to monitor the opacity 
exiting each battery stack using a continuous opacity monitoring system 
(COMS).
    The proposed opacity limits are a daily average of 15 percent for a 
by-product coke oven battery on a normal coking cycle and a daily 
average of 20 percent for a by-product coke oven battery on battery-
wide extended coking.
    The proposed rule requires a performance test to demonstrate 
initial compliance with the applicable opacity limit. Using a COMS, 
plants would measure the opacity of emissions from each battery stack 
for 24 hours and determine the daily average. A performance evaluation 
is also required to show that the COMS meets Performance Specification 
1 in appendix B to 40 CFR part 60.
    To demonstrate continuous compliance, plants would monitor opacity 
using the COMS and would determine and record the 24-hour average 
opacity of all recorded 6-minute measurements. Other operational 
requirements are based on requirements in the 40 CFR part 63 General 
Provisions. Monthly compliance reports would also be required.

F. What Are the Operation and Maintenance Requirements?

    All plants subject to the proposed rule would be required to 
prepare and implement a written startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan 
according to the operation and maintenance requirements in 40 CFR 
63.6(e). Operation and maintenance plans would also be required for: 
(1) By-product coke oven batteries, and (2) capture systems and control 
devices applied to pushing emissions from any coke oven battery.
    The plan for general operation and maintenance of each by-product 
coke oven battery would cover:
    <bullet> Frequency and method of recording underfiring gas 
parameters and battery operating temperature;
    <bullet> Procedures to prevent pushing an oven out of sequence, 
pushing prematurely, and undercharging or overcharging; and
    <bullet> Frequency and method for inspecting flues, burners, and 
nozzles.
    The operation and maintenance plan for capture systems and control 
devices applied to pushing emissions would describe procedures for 
monthly inspections of capture systems, preventative maintenance 
requirements for control devices, and corrective actions requirements 
for baghouses. In the event of a bag leak detection system alarm, the 
plan must include specific requirements for initiating corrective 
action to determine the cause of the problem within 1 hour, initiating 
corrective action to fix the problem within 1 working day, and 
completing all corrective actions needed to fix the problem as soon as 
practicable.
    To demonstrate initial compliance, plants would certify in their 
notification of compliance status that they have prepared the plans 
according to the rule requirements. To demonstrate continuous 
compliance, plants must adhere to the requirements in the plan and keep 
records documenting conformance with these requirements.

G. What Are the Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting 
Requirements?

    The proposed notification, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements rely on the NESHAP General Provisions in 40 CFR part 63, 
subpart A. Table 1 to proposed subpart CCCCC shows each of the 
requirements in the General Provisions (Secs. 63.2 through 63.15) and 
whether they apply.
    The proposed rule requires the owner or operator to submit each 
initial notification in the NESHAP General Provisions that applies to 
them. An initial notification of applicability with general information 
about the facility must be submitted within 120 days of the effective 
date of the final rule (or for a new affected source, 120 days after 
becoming subject to the rule). A notification of performance tests must 
be provided at least 60 calendar days before each test. A notification 
of compliance status must be submitted within 60 calendar days of the 
compliance demonstration if a performance test is required or within 30 
calendar days if no performance test is required. Other notification 
requirements that may apply are shown in Table 1 to subpart CCCCC.
    The proposed rule requires plants to maintain the records required 
by the NESHAP General Provisions that are needed to document 
compliance, such as performance test results; copies of startup, 
shutdown, and malfunction plans and associated corrective action 
records; monitoring data; and inspection records. Except for the 
operation and maintenance plans for by-product batteries, capture 
systems, and control devices, all records must be kept for a total of 5 
years, with the records from the most recent 2 years kept onsite. The 
proposed rule requires that both operation and maintenance plans be 
kept onsite and available for inspection upon request for the life of 
the affected source or until the affected source is no longer subject 
to the rule requirements.
    Plants would make monthly reports of any deviation from the 
emission limits for battery stacks. For other affected sources, 
semiannual reports would be required for any deviation from an emission 
limitation (including an operating limit), work practice standard,

[[Page 35333]]

or operation and maintenance requirement. Each report would be due no 
later than 30 days after the end of the reporting period. If no 
deviation occurred and no continuous monitoring systems were out of 
control, only a summary report would be required. If a deviation did 
occur, more detailed information would be required.
    An immediate report would be required if there were actions taken 
during a startup, shutdown, or malfunction that were not consistent 
with the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan. Deviations that occur 
during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction are not violations 
if the owner or operator demonstrates to the authority with delegation 
for enforcement that the source was operating in accordance with the 
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan.

H. What Are the Compliance Deadlines?

    The owner or operator of an existing affected source would have to 
comply within 24 months of the effective date of the final rule. New or 
reconstructed sources that startup on or before the effective date of 
the final rule must comply by the effective date. New or reconstructed 
sources that startup after the effective date must comply upon initial 
startup.

III. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed Standards

A. How Did We Select the Affected Source?

    Affected source means the collection of equipment and processes in 
the source category or subcategory to which the emission limitations, 
work practice standards, and other regulatory requirements apply. The 
affected source may be the same collection of equipment and processes 
as the source category or it may be a subset of the source category. 
For each rule, we must decide which individual pieces of equipment and 
processes warrant separate standards in the context of the CAA section 
112 requirements and the industry operating practices.
    We considered three different approaches for designating the 
affected source: The entire coke plant, groups of emission points, and 
individual emission points. We did not designate the entire coke plant 
as the affected source because this broad approach would require us to 
establish the MACT floor by the total HAP emissions indicative of best-
performing facilities. Applying a single MACT floor to groups of 
processes and fugitive emission points would be impracticable.
    We concluded that designating the group of emission points 
associated with the coke oven battery as the affected source is the 
most appropriate approach. The battery is the basic operating unit for 
the emission points covered under the proposed rule, and the overall 
condition and operation of the battery has a direct effect on emissions 
from pushing, quenching, and battery stacks. This is also consistent 
with previous State and Federal rules for cokemaking operations.
    In selecting the coke oven battery as the affected source for 
regulation, we identified the HAP-emitting operations, the HAP emitted, 
and the quantity of HAP emissions from the individual or groups of 
emission points. As a result, the proposed rule includes emission 
limits or standards for the control of emissions from pushing, soaking, 
quenching, and battery stacks.

B. How Did We Select the Pollutants?

    Coke oven emissions are the dominant HAP emitted from pushing, 
soaking, quenching, and battery stacks. We decided to establish 
standards for opacity as a surrogate for coke oven emissions from 
pushing and battery stacks. For control devices applied to pushing 
emissions, we established standards for PM as a measure of the level of 
performance of the equipment.
    Opacity limits have traditionally been used in State and Federal 
standards because of the strong correlation to PM. In addition, there 
is no practical way to capture and measure all of the specific HAP 
compounds in fugitive pushing emissions. Standards for opacity also 
limit coke oven emissions, and opacity provides a measure of battery 
performance in terms of minimizing the frequency of green pushes.
    For control devices applied to pushing emissions, PM standards 
provide a meaningful measure of the device's level of performance, and 
PM is easily measured using EPA reference methods. The technologies 
that control PM achieve comparable levels of performance for coke oven 
emissions. Therefore, good control of PM will also generally achieve 
good control of coke oven emissions.

C. How Did We Determine the Bases and Levels of the Proposed Standards?

Pushing From By-Product Batteries with Vertical Flues
    Coke oven emissions occur during pushing from incomplete coking, 
which results in a ``green'' push. Green pushes can be caused by 
overcharging an oven, cold flues due to plugging or poor combustion, 
non-uniform heating, and cold spots on the ends of ovens. Emissions 
from green pushes range from moderate (relatively small amounts of 
green coke) to severe (large amounts of green coke). Green pushes 
generate voluminous plumes of emissions that can overwhelm the capture 
systems which are used to control the comparatively small amounts of PM 
emissions during ordinary operation. Consequently, capture and control 
systems used for PM emissions from pushing are only marginally more 
effective, for example, no more than 10 percent for movable hoods on 
severely green pushes.
    The most effective measures for purposes of reducing HAP emissions 
from pushing are to: (1) minimize the frequency of green pushes by 
implementing a preventative maintenance program for the battery, and 
(2) implement work practices that include diagnostic procedures to 
identify the cause of green pushes and to trigger corrective actions to 
prevent recurrence. Batteries that have implemented these procedures on 
a continuing basis have few green pushes and, thus, substantially lower 
levels of HAP emissions. Once such measures have been implemented, the 
remaining HAP benefits of capture and control are substantially 
lessened.
    State and local regulations limit opacity from batteries during 
pushing using different formats. One of the most common formats is the 
average opacity of four pushes determined from the six highest 
consecutive opacity readings taken at 15-second intervals. This format 
is consistent with Method 9 in appendix A to 40 CFR part 60. Other 
batteries have opacity limits based on a single push, and some have 
limits based on any instantaneous opacity observation.
    We obtained opacity data for pushing from State agencies and 
several coke plants with vertical flues. Although the data are in 
different formats, we were able to use the data to identify batteries 
that are low emitters and have only infrequent green pushes. We 
gathered additional opacity data from the low-emitting batteries that 
we had identified. An important part of the data collection effort was 
to use a consistent methodology for the opacity observations to allow 
us to compile all of the data on a uniform basis. The data were 
collected using EPA Method 9 and analyzed based on the six highest 
consecutive 15-second readings per push. Observations were made from 
the time coke began to fall from the oven until the quench car entered 
the quench tower.

[[Page 35334]]

    We analyzed data from 15 well-controlled batteries at eight coke 
plants. The batteries have different combinations of oven height and 
type of underfiring systems. Eight are four-meter gun flue batteries, 
three are four-meter underjet batteries, and four are six-meter 
underjet batteries. The number of pushes observed for each battery 
ranges from 45 to 1,539 with a total of 3,630 data points. We examined 
the frequency of high opacity pushes and concluded that this group of 
batteries represents good performance in terms of minimizing green 
pushes. For example, the average opacity per push never exceeds 30 
percent for nine of the short batteries, and the other two short 
batteries exceed 30 percent only once. Two of the tall batteries never 
exceed 35 percent, and the other two exceed it only once.
    In general, the opacities during pushing for tall batteries are 
higher than those for short batteries. This is due to the longer flame 
height needed in tall batteries that makes uniform heating more 
difficult. In addition, the greater height of fall of the coke from a 
tall oven can result in more visible emissions. Consequently, we 
developed separate subcategories for short and tall batteries. We also 
examined underfiring systems and found no difference in the performance 
of gun flue and underjet systems.
    We investigated the technology used at these good performing 
batteries to minimize the frequency of green pushes. This information 
was collected from site visits, discussions with industry experts, a 
survey of industry practices, and publications. There are two important 
components of the technology--routine operation and maintenance 
procedures for the general battery and a work practice program for 
green pushes.
    A good operation and maintenance program includes several elements 
that help prevent green pushes. These include checking coal properties 
(bulk density and moisture) to prevent overcharging an oven or 
undercoking wet coal, checking flue temperatures and cleaning flues and 
burners to avoid cold flues, documenting coking time and following the 
pushing schedule to avoid pushing an oven early, and operating the 
underfiring system properly to ensure complete coking. When a green 
push occurs, diligent work practices are initiated to identify the 
cause of the green push and to take corrective actions to fix the 
problem. Corrective actions may include cleaning blocked flues or 
burners, placing an oven on an extended coking time, or repairing a 
damaged oven.
    We conclude that batteries that are implementing this technology 
are successful in minimizing the frequency of green pushes. 
Furthermore, because at least 15 of 58 batteries (more than 12 percent) 
use these procedures, we conclude that this is the floor technology for 
fugitive emissions from pushing.
    We also examined opportunities for a level of control beyond the 
floor. It is our opinion that capture and control systems applied to 
pushing emissions do not contribute materially to the control of HAP 
emissions from green pushes. Consequently, we conclude that the floor, 
which is based on the technology for minimizing the frequency of green 
pushes, represents MACT for new and existing sources.
    We are proposing two distinct options for the implementation of 
standards and other requirements for pushing. One is an opacity 
standard, and the other is a work practice standard.\1\ We are 
considering an opacity limit because most State regulations include 
opacity limits. We are considering a work practice standard because we 
believe that it may provide a more effective means of ensuring that 
proper corrective action is taken to avoid green pushes. We request 
comments on the two options. After consideration of comments on these 
options, we will promulgate one of these options or a combination of 
the two options.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ CAA section 112(h) allows the establishment of work practice 
standards in lieu of emission standards when pollutant specific 
emission standards are not feasible (such as in the case of fugitive 
pushing emissions when they are not captured and confined in a 
conveyance).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The format for the proposed opacity limit is the average opacity of 
four consecutive pushes (based on the six highest consecutive 15-second 
observations during each push) using Method 9 in 40 CFR part 60, 
appendix A. This format can accommodate an occasional (unavoidable) 
green push if the other pushes are well controlled, and it is 
consistent with the 6-minute average (24 observations) typically used 
for Method 9.
    We analyzed our database described earlier based on the averages of 
four pushes. For short batteries, more than 99 percent of the averages 
of four pushes are less than 20 percent opacity. For tall batteries, 
more than 99 percent of the averages of four pushes are less than 25 
percent. The database shows that these opacities have been achieved by 
batteries using MACT, and these opacities are used as the standard for 
the opacity limit option.
    We also considered an opacity limit based on a 30-day rolling 
average. However, a 30-day rolling average does not provide a good 
distinction between well-controlled and poorly-controlled batteries, 
and it is not effective in achieving our goal of minimizing green 
pushes.
    The proposed work practice standard has an opacity level per push 
that triggers diagnostic procedures and corrective actions when 
exceeded. We chose the average opacity per push rather than averaging 
over multiple pushes because the goal of the work practice standard is 
to identify a problem oven that produces a green push. Once a problem 
oven is identified, diagnostic procedures to determine the cause are 
initiated and corrective actions are taken to fix the problem.
    We analyzed our data for the group of well-controlled batteries 
previously described based on the average opacity per push to 
characterize the frequency of green pushes. We examined potential 
trigger levels of 20, 25, 30, and 35 percent. The batteries that were 
well-controlled have several pushes that exceed 20 and 25 percent, and 
we do not believe that these opacities represent a green push. However, 
opacities of 30 and 35 percent occur when there are high individual 
opacity readings characteristic of green coke. In addition, these 
opacities are seldom exceeded by well-controlled batteries. Nine of the 
short batteries do not exceed 30 percent opacity, and the other two 
exceed 30 percent only once. Similarly, two of the four tall batteries 
do not exceed 35 percent opacity, while the other two exceed 35 percent 
once. Consequently, we selected opacity triggers of 30 percent for 
short batteries and 35 percent for tall batteries. These levels are 
appropriate as a trigger to identify a problem oven and to initiate 
corrective actions.
    We also considered what amount of time would be appropriate to 
investigate the cause of a green push, perform repairs or corrective 
actions, and demonstrate that the problem has been corrected. We 
decided that the time limit should be based on a number of pushes to 
compensate for differences in coking time for furnace and foundry coke 
batteries. We believe 15 pushes is a reasonable estimate of the maximum 
time required after considering that about half of the pushes can occur 
at night when it is more difficult to assess greenness and impossible 
to perform Method 9 observations. We transformed the estimate of 15 
pushes to a number of days to be calculated from the battery's coking 
time (15 pushes  x  coking time in hours/24 hours = 0.63  x  coking 
time).

[[Page 35335]]

    We selected EPA Method 9 in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A, for opacity 
observations to be consistent with the test data used to develop the 
proposed standard. We chose initial compliance provisions that would 
use this method for both the emission limit option (Option 1) and the 
work practice standard (Option 2). For the emission limit option, four 
consecutive pushes must be observed using EPA Method 9. Initial 
compliance is demonstrated if the average for the four pushes is below 
the limit.
    For the work practice option, initial compliance is demonstrated 
through observation of the four requisite pushes. If any push exceeds 
its opacity trigger, the oven-directed procedures must be implemented 
to demonstrate initial compliance.
    Daily vigilance is required to prevent green pushes and to take 
corrective actions when they occur. Consequently, we conclude that 
daily inspection of four consecutive pushes per battery would be needed 
to demonstrate continuous compliance and to ensure that green pushes 
were identified. Compliance with the opacity limit option must be 
determined daily.
    The work practice option also requires the daily inspection of four 
consecutive pushes per battery to demonstrate continuous compliance. If 
the opacity trigger is exceeded for any push, continuous compliance 
must be demonstrated by diagnosing the cause of the problem, assigning 
the problem oven to the oven-directed program, taking appropriate 
corrective actions, and demonstrating that the problem has been 
corrected by two subsequent opacity observations that are below the 
trigger.
<bullet> Pushing From By-product Batteries With Horizontal Flues
    The vast majority of by-product batteries in the U.S. have vertical 
flues (56 out of 58 batteries). Two batteries in Holt, AL, however, 
have horizontal flues that materially affect pushing emissions and 
possible approaches to regulation. Both are Semet Solvay batteries with 
an antiquated design built in the early 1900's. Battery 1 was built in 
1903 and is comprised of 40 ovens, and Battery 2 was built in 1913 and 
has 20 ovens. We are establishing a subcategory for batteries with 
horizontal flues because of unique physical and operational differences 
from vertical flue batteries.
    Unlike vertical flue batteries which include 25 to 37 individual 
flues along each oven wall, the flue system of the Semet Solvay design 
includes only five horizontal flues which convey the combustion gases 
from top to bottom in serpentine fashion. Because the hot combustion 
products flow from one flue to the next, the heat control of each upper 
flue materially affects the heating conditions in the next flue down. 
Each flue in the horizontal design affects a larger percentage of the 
total coke mass than for the vertical flue design. Consequently, the 
occurrence of a heating or combustion problem in any of the single 
horizontal flues could have a significant adverse effect on the degree 
and uniformity of coking across the entire length of the coke bed.
    As with other types of coke oven batteries, the primary source of 
HAP emissions from batteries with horizontal flues is the occurrence of 
green pushes. To develop MACT for batteries with horizontal flues, we 
visited the plant and held discussions with plant personnel to learn 
more about their operation and how the production of green coke could 
be minimized. Both existing batteries currently use a combination of 
coking time and flue temperature controls and routine operation and 
maintenance to control HAP emissions. The most important factor 
affecting the production of green coke is a combination of coking time 
and flue temperature. If the flue temperature is too low at a given 
coking time, green coke will be produced. Consequently, we find that 
monitoring flue temperatures and coking time and taking corrective 
actions if the temperature is too low is the MACT floor for batteries 
with horizontal flues. Temperature measurements are made prior to the 
push, and if a low temperature is detected, the coking time is extended 
to prevent a green push. Routine operation and maintenance include 
monitoring underfiring gas parameters and adjusting as necessary; 
implementing procedures to avoid pushing out of sequence, pushing 
prematurely, or overcharging an oven; and routine inspection of flues, 
burners, and nozzles. We know of no practical approach to setting an 
emission limitation that could be feasibly implemented or enforced that 
would result with the same degree of assurance in emission reductions 
to that achieved by these work practices. Consequently, these work 
practices are also the MACT floor for new units.
    We are proposing a work practice standard for batteries with 
horizontal flues. The standard implements MACT by requiring that the 
temperature of all of the flues on two ovens in each battery be 
measured each day, and that the temperature of all flues in each oven 
must be measured at least once per month. The plant must perform a 
study to establish minimum flue temperatures to prevent green pushes, 
and the results must be documented in a plan that is submitted for 
approval to the applicable permitting authority. The study must include 
consideration of different means for determining the minimum flue 
temperatures, such as the percent volatile matter in the coke, the 
color of emissions, the density and duration of emissions, and whether 
emissions continue during quench car travel. The study must also 
establish the time and lowest acceptable minimum temperature 
correlation for which extended coking can be used. This minimum 
represents the lowest temperature at which coal can reasonably be 
expected to be fully coked no matter how long the coking time is. If 
flue temperatures fall below this minimum, the oven must not be charged 
with coal again until the problem is corrected.
    If the flue temperatures are less than the established minimum for 
the oven's coking time, the coking time of the oven must be extended by 
an amount prescribed in the plan prior to pushing to prevent a green 
push. Oven-directed procedures must be used to find the cause of the 
low temperature and to correct the problem. The flue temperatures must 
be measured on any oven placed on extended coking prior to the next two 
consecutive pushes to ensure that the problem has not worsened. If any 
flue temperature is below the lowest minimum for complete coking 
established in the plan, the oven must be removed from service.
    We developed initial compliance provisions that are consistent with 
the work practice standard. We require that the work practice plan and 
supporting documentation be submitted to the applicable permitting 
authority for review and approval. As part of a plant's notification of 
compliance status, we require a signed statement certifying that the 
flue temperatures of two ovens will be measured each day, and the flue 
temperatures on all ovens will be measured at least once per month.
    Daily vigilance is required to prevent green pushes and to take 
corrective action when they occur. Consequently, we conclude that daily 
measurements of the flue temperatures of two ovens per battery would be 
needed to demonstrate continuous compliance. In addition, temperature 
measurements must be made on each oven at least once per month. We 
require that a plant keep all necessary records documenting conformance 
with the work practice plan and that the records be made available to 
the permitting authority upon request.

[[Page 35336]]

<bullet> Pushing From Non-recovery Batteries
    Non-recovery coke oven batteries differ from by-product coke oven 
batteries both physically and operationally. Physically, the ovens that 
comprise non-recovery batteries are horizontal in configuration (short 
and wide) unlike the vertically configured slot ovens (tall and narrow) 
used in the by-product recovery design. In addition, non-recovery 
batteries have no underfiring systems and do not burn clean coke oven 
gas for heating. Rather, non-recovery batteries are heated by the 
complete combustion of the raw gases evolved during the coking process 
in the free space above the coke bed and in flues in the oven walls and 
floors.
    The principal difference operationally is that the non-recovery 
batteries are maintained at all times under negative pressure rather 
than positive pressure. This results in the virtual elimination of door 
leaks and, relative to limiting pushing emissions, allows for the 
visual inspection of the coke mass throughout the coking cycle 
including just prior to pushing. If the coal is not fully coked, the 
coking time can be extended to avoid a green push. In addition, PM 
emissions are lower from non-recovery ovens because the height of fall 
of the coke mass is about 50 percent less than that of by-product 
ovens. Based on these dissimilarities and their effect on emissions, we 
conclude that it is appropriate to establish separate requirements for 
non-recovery batteries.
    There are two non-recovery coke plants in the U.S., one in Vansant, 
VA with six batteries and another in East Chicago, IN with four 
batteries. Both plants have cokeside sheds. At the Vansant plant, the 
sheds act as large settling chambers with no ventilation. The four East 
Chicago batteries are equipped with sheds that are ventilated along the 
entire length of the battery to baghouses for particulate control.
    The MACT floor for non-recovery batteries is based on the control 
measures used at both plants to prevent green pushes. Prior to each 
push, a small door (oven damper) on the oven is opened, and the bed of 
coke is observed to determine whether it is fully coked. This is 
possible because the oven configuration provides an unobstructed view 
of the free space across the entire length of the coke bed. If the oven 
is not fully coked (as indicated by smoke or an obstructed view of the 
opposite side of the oven), the coking time is extended, and the oven 
is not pushed until coking is reasonably complete. We believe that this 
pollution prevention control measure provides the most effective 
demonstrated approach to reducing, if not virtually eliminating green 
pushes. Therefore, we conclude that the inspection of each oven prior 
to pushing, coupled with extended coking if needed, constitutes the 
floor technology for both new and existing non-recovery coke oven 
batteries. We know of no practical approach to setting an emission 
limitation that could be feasibly implemented or enforced that would 
result with the same degree of assurance in emission reductions to that 
achieved with a work practice standard.
    To implement MACT, we selected a work practice standard to minimize 
the frequency of green pushes that requires use of the control measures 
associated with the MACT floor. Specifically, each oven must be 
inspected prior to each push, and ovens may be pushed only if there is 
no smoke in the open space above the coke bed and there is an 
unobstructed view of the door on the opposite side of the oven. If 
these conditions do not exist (indicating incomplete coking), the 
coking time must be extended.
    We developed initial compliance provisions that are consistent with 
the work practice standard. As part of a plant's notification of 
compliance status, we require a signed statement certifying that each 
oven will be inspected prior to pushing and that the oven will be 
pushed only if coking is complete.
    We developed continuous compliance provisions to ensure that plants 
keep all necessary records verifying that each oven is inspected prior 
to pushing, and that ovens are pushed only if coking is complete. We 
require that records be made available to the permitting authority upon 
request.
<bullet> Capture and Control Systems
    In addition to good operating and maintenance practices to prevent 
green pushes, most batteries are equipped with capture and control 
systems for routine PM emissions from pushing. There are 30 control 
devices applied to pushing emissions at 56 coke oven batteries, and 
there are three combinations of capture and control systems used. The 
most common capture system is a moveable hood. There are 19 moveable 
hood systems. Sixteen moveable hood systems serving 30 batteries are 
vented to a baghouse, and three systems serving four batteries are 
vented to a venturi scrubber. There are 15 batteries equipped with 
cokeside sheds that enclose the entire length of the battery and are 
served by six baghouses. There are six batteries equipped with cokeside 
sheds that serve as settling chambers and are not ventilated. Seven 
batteries are equipped with mobile scrubber cars which transport 
venturi scrubbers. Six batteries do not have capture and control 
systems.
    Most of these capture and control systems were installed as a 
result of State implementation plan requirements to limit PM emissions 
in nonattainment areas. Most HAP emissions from pushing occur as a 
result of pushing moderately green to severely green coke. During such 
an event, capture systems designed and installed primarily to address 
routine PM emissions from non-green pushes are typically overwhelmed. 
Visual observations indicate that the capture efficiency during a 
moderately to severely green push is poor with significant amounts of 
fume and smoke escaping capture both during the actual push and during 
quench car travel. The only control measure that has been demonstrated 
to be effective at mitigating these emissions is eliminating or 
minimizing the frequency of green pushes.
    While it is reasonable to expect that the current use of capture 
and control systems for purposes of reducing PM emissions also results 
in some HAP emission benefits, we do not have sufficient data regarding 
capture effectiveness to quantify these benefits. However, any HAP 
emission benefits from the use of capture and control equipment must 
result primarily from the reduction of emissions during moderately to 
severely green pushes (when significant amounts of HAP emissions 
typically occur). Accordingly, any HAP emission benefits of capture and 
control systems are rendered less significant (and less certain) by the 
adoption of requirements aimed at eliminating or minimizing the 
frequency of green pushes. That is, when a coke mixture is fully coked 
(i.e., in the absence of green pushes) there are very little HAP 
emissions during pushing, because most HAP have been removed from the 
coke mixture and converted to other useful products through a by-
product recovery process or combusted in order to provide heat energy 
for the coking process. Therefore, very little HAP emissions are 
captured and, overall, there is no significant additional reduction in 
the emissions of HAP. Consequently, we are unable to identify HAP 
emission benefits that would be useful for purposes of evaluating the 
individual or relative performance of different types of capture and 
control equipment applied to pushing. For these reasons, we do not 
believe that it is appropriate at this point to include capture and 
control systems as a

[[Page 35337]]

component of the MACT floor for pushing.
    Nonetheless, we believe that it is appropriate for owners and 
operators of coke oven batteries to operate such facilities, at all 
times, in a manner consistent with good air pollution control 
practices. We believe that this includes the proper operation of any 
capture and control systems. Therefore, we believe that it is 
appropriate for us to establish requirements to ensure proper operation 
of such systems and to ensure that these control devices perform within 
reasonable limits wherever such systems are installed. Such operational 
limitations will help to minimize emissions from coke oven batteries to 
the level contemplated by the MACT floor, by mitigating the impact of 
occasional green pushes. Accordingly, it is appropriate for these 
limits to differ depending on the type of capture system being used.
    We believe that the best measure of proper operation for capture 
and control equipment is emissions performance. Therefore, in order to 
ensure proper operation of such equipment, we are proposing emission 
performance requirements for capture and control equipment applied to 
pushing.
    We considered the design and operation of the capture and control 
systems in developing emission limits. Two important distinctions 
evident between moveable hoods and cokeside sheds are their method of 
operation and ventilation rate. Sheds are ventilated at all times while 
moveable hoods are ventilated only during pushes (about 2 minutes every 
10 to 20 minutes). Sheds have much higher ventilation rates (150,000 to 
480,000 actual cubic feet per minute (acfm)), and they capture 
emissions from door leaks as well as pushing. Another difference is 
that many moveable hood systems mix cooling air with the hot gases from 
pushing prior to treatment in a baghouse. These differences can have a 
significant influence on the selection of the format most appropriate 
for the type of capture and control system regulated.
    Most moveable hood systems are subject to existing PM emission 
limits expressed in lb/ton of coke pushed. This format is more 
appropriate than a concentration format (gr/dscf) for several reasons. 
Both pounds emitted and the quantity of coke produced during an EPA 
Method 5 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A) test run can be determined with 
reasonable accuracy while sampling over several pushes. These 
measurements are not dependent on how long the ventilation fan is 
running before or after the push or the amount of ambient air that is 
admitted to cool the gases prior to the baghouse. On the other hand, 
concentration is not a meaningful measure of performance for this type 
of system because the resulting measurement can be quite variable 
depending on how the system is operated and when sampling is started 
and stopped. For example, if the fan runs longer or more cooling air is 
admitted, the resulting concentration measurement will be lower. 
Consequently, we selected a lb/ton format as the most appropriate for 
moveable hood systems that ventilate only during the push.
    A concentration format is more appropriate for cokeside sheds than 
a lb/ton format. Because cokeside sheds ventilate continuously and 
capture emissions from points other than pushing, performance is much 
less dependent on the quantity of coke pushed. In this case, 
concentration can be determined with reasonable accuracy because the 
ventilation rate is continuous and relatively constant. In addition, 
concentration has been used in many State and Federal regulations 
because it has been shown to be one of the best measures of control 
performance for a baghouse, which is the type of control device used on 
sheds. For these reasons, we conclude that a concentration format (gr/
dscf) is the most appropriate for control devices used on cokeside 
sheds.
    We have source test data for three of the six coke plants that use 
cokeside sheds and baghouses. The data consist of three individual test 
runs per baghouse. All three baghouses are similar in design and 
operation (i.e., pulse jet units with polyester bags, operated at air-
to-cloth ratios of 5 to 5.5 acfm/ft<INF>2</INF>). The test results for 
one plant range from 0.001 to 0.004 gr/dscf and average 0.003 gr/dscf. 
The three runs conducted at another plant range from 0.003 to 0.004 gr/
dscf and average 0.004 gr/dscf. Results for the third plant range from 
0.002 to 0.003 gr/dscf and average 0.002 gr/dscf. Considering that all 
three baghouses are designed and operate similarly, the highest three-
run average recorded is 0.004 gr/dscf, and no individual test run 
exceeded 0.004 gr/dscf, we conclude that an appropriate limit for the 
proposed standard is 0.004 gr/dscf. This limit accounts for variability 
in the performance of the control technology and represents the level 
of performance that has been demonstrated to be achievable by these 
units using the MACT.
    As discussed previously, the most common capture and control system 
for pushing emissions is a moveable hood that is ducted to a stationary 
(land-based) control device, usually a baghouse. These systems have a 
hood that is usually moved along the battery by a belt system. During 
pushing, the moveable hood is connected to a fixed duct that evacuates 
the gases to the stationary control device. Evacuation rates range from 
about 100,000 to 150,000 acfm. Some of these systems cool the hot gases 
from pushing by mixing with ambient air prior to the baghouse.
    We have test data on control devices serving 12 of 19 moveable hood 
systems, 12 are baghouses and one is a land-based venturi scrubber. The 
baghouses are mostly pulse jet units and operate at air-to-cloth ratios 
of 5 to 6 acfm/ft<INF>2</INF>. The venturi scrubber is a medium to high 
energy unit, operating at a pressure drop of 50 to 60 inches of water.
    The test results for the 12 systems are quite variable from plant 
to plant and among individual runs at a single plant. Five of the tests 
averaged less than 0.010 lb/ton, and eight averaged 0.010 to 0.017 lb/
ton. The two baghouses with the highest three-run averages averaged 
0.016 and 0.017 lb/ton, respectively. Both are pulse jet units that are 
similar in design and operation to the other baghouses with lower 
recorded average emissions. Since we are unable to draw any meaningful 
distinctions between the lower and higher emitting units, we can only 
conclude that the higher test results represent normal variability 
under a reasonable worst situation. Therefore, we conclude that a limit 
of 0.017 lb/ton is appropriate for a standard for a moveable hood 
vented to a stationary control device, and we have selected this limit 
for such units.
    Mobile scrubber cars are operated at five plants and serve seven 
batteries. During pushing, the hood is positioned above the quench car, 
the scrubber car air mover is activated, and the gases are pulled 
through the scrubber and are subsequently discharged to the atmosphere. 
Two of the five scrubber cars that serve three batteries have the hood 
affixed to the mobile scrubber car which is coupled to the quench car. 
This allows operation and capture both during pushing and travel to the 
quench tower. The other three scrubber cars serving four batteries have 
hoods affixed to the coke guide and door machine and cannot travel to 
the quench tower. Ventilation rates are on the order of 40,000 to 
70,000 acfm. These rates are about half those used for the moveable 
hoods with land-based controls.
    We have test data for all five mobile scrubber cars. The test data 
indicate that emissions, expressed in lb/ton of coke, are affected by 
both oven size, and whether emissions are captured only

[[Page 35338]]

during pushing or during pushing and travel. The test data indicate 
that mass rate (lbs/hr) emissions are not affected materially by oven 
size. However, since six-meter batteries produce about twice as much 
coke per oven as do smaller four-meter batteries, emissions, adjusted 
for production, must of necessity be substantially lower for tall 
batteries than for short batteries.
    When emissions are captured during pushing and travel as opposed to 
pushing only, the scrubber operates on average about 1.5 to 2 minutes 
longer than for pushing only (about 1.5 minutes). Operating capture and 
control equipment for a longer time will result in more PM collected 
per pushing event and thus, of necessity, result in a higher value in 
the lb/ton format for pushing and travel versus pushing only. 
Consequently, we are developing emission limits for mobile scrubber 
cars to accommodate three variations that affect emissions: Tall 
batteries, short batteries, and batteries that capture during both 
pushing and travel.
    We have data from five tests of two identical scrubber cars that 
serve two six-meter batteries at the Gary, IN plant. These five tests 
include three runs each and were conducted over a 15-year period 
spanning 1982 to 1997. The three-run averages range from 0.002 to 0.010 
lb/ton. The average value is 0.005 lb/ton. Considering the variability 
in three-run averages, we conclude that an appropriate limit for tall 
batteries with mobile scrubber cars, as evidenced by the test data 
obtained for the Gary plant, is 0.010 lb/ton which is the highest 
three-run average recorded.
    We have data from three tests of a scrubber car that does not 
capture during travel and serves two short batteries at a plant in 
Erie, PA. These three tests are comprised of two runs per test and span 
3 recent years. The two-run averages are 0.015, 0.017, and 0.023 lb/
ton. Given that we have no basis to conclude that the variation shown 
in these results represents anything other than normal variability, we 
conclude that an appropriate limit for short batteries with mobile 
scrubber cars is 0.023 lb/ton. This limit has been demonstrated 
achievable during three separate tests over a 3-year period.
    We have data for three batteries served by two scrubber cars that 
capture and control emissions during both pushing and travel at plants 
in Warren, OH and Granite City, IL. Two tests at one battery averaged 
0.011 to 0.026 lb/ton, and three tests conducted on a scrubber car 
serving two batteries averaged 0.026 to 0.039 lb/ton. These scrubber 
cars are similar in design and operation, and both capture emissions 
during travel to the quench tower. Considering the similarity in 
operation of the scrubber cars and the variability in three-run 
averages, we conclude that an appropriate limit for mobile scrubber 
cars that also capture and control emissions during travel is 0.039 lb/
ton. This limit has been achieved during five tests conducted at three 
batteries over a 20-year period.
    We chose initial compliance provisions that require EPA Method 5 in 
40 CFR part 60, appendix A, to determine compliance. Operating limits 
for scrubbers (pressure drop and scrubber water flow rate) and capture 
systems (volumetric flow rate or fan amperes) must be established 
during the initial compliance test. The pressure drop and water flow 
rate for scrubbers must be measured at least once per push during each 
run of the initial compliance test and averaged across each run. The 
operating limits are the lowest average values during any run that 
meets the applicable emission limit. The volumetric flow rate or fan 
amperes must be recorded for each push during each run of the initial 
compliance test. The operating limit is the second lowest value 
recorded during any run that meets the applicable emission limit.
    To demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission limit, we 
require PM tests no less frequently than twice (at mid-term and 
renewal) during each term of the title V operating permit. We believe 
this frequency is appropriate because we are requiring continuous or 
periodic monitoring of capture and control systems to ensure they are 
operating properly. For baghouses, we chose continuous monitoring by a 
bag leak detector to ensure that corrective actions are taken when a 
leak occurs. The alarm must not sound for more than five percent of the 
operating hours in a semiannual reporting period. For scrubbers, we 
require that the pressure drop and scrubber water flow rate be 
monitored during each push to ensure that they are within the operating 
limit established during the initial performance test. The volumetric 
flow rate or fan amperes must be checked every 8 hours to ensure the 
capture system continues to operate as it did during the initial 
performance test.
<bullet> Soaking
    Emissions from soaking are most pronounced when green coke is 
produced. Consequently, the technology for fugitive pushing emissions 
that minimizes the frequency of green coke will also reduce emissions 
from soaking. However, most batteries also perform other procedures 
that reduce emissions from soaking.
    We reviewed the work practices at well-controlled batteries to 
determine the MACT floor for soaking operations. Most batteries have 
work practices in place to ensure that the gases from open standpipes 
are ignited during soaking. For example, survey responses show that 26 
of the 58 by-product batteries (more than the top 12 percent) have 
procedures to manually ignite the gases from the standpipe if they do 
not self ignite. Consequently, we determined that the floor and MACT 
for soaking for both new and existing units are a work practice 
standard that ensures that gases vented from the oven are ignited. We 
chose a time limit of 3 minutes after the standpipe cap is opened to 
manually ignite if necessary because it provides sufficient time for 
the topside worker who opened the standpipe to ignite the gases. 
Compliance is demonstrated through the maintenance of records that 
document conformance.
<bullet> Quenching
    Quenching emissions escape through quench towers with huge steam 
plumes that are released when hot incandescent coke is deluged with 
water. It is not feasible to capture or measure these emissions. 
Consequently, as allowed under section 112(h) of the CAA, we developed 
a quenching standard that is based on design, work practice, and 
operational requirements.
    We reviewed all current State regulations for quenching and 
determined that all quench towers are subject to design and operational 
standards. Most regulations prohibit the use of untreated wastewater as 
make-up water for quenching, require the use of baffles for grit 
elimination, and include minimum specifications for baffle coverage. 
These requirements are consistent with our objectives to eliminate the 
use of dirty hydrocarbon-laden water (as make-up water for quenching) 
and to improve grit elimination.
    Most States also limit total dissolved solids (TDS) in the make-up 
water used for quenching. The TDS limits range from 500 to 1600 
milligrams per liter (mg/L). We believe that a TDS limit is unnecessary 
to control HAP emissions during quenching because the primary 
contributor of HAP emissions during quenching is wastewater 
contaminated with organics from the by-product plant, and solids in the 
wastewater are not a source of HAP emissions except for trace metals.
    We surveyed all coke plants to determine what plants are doing to 
control quenching emissions. We found

[[Page 35339]]

that more than the top 12 percent were implementing specific work 
practices and equipment requirements. Of the 43 existing quench towers, 
40 have baffles, 22 have the baffles cleaned daily, 21 are subject to a 
TDS limit, 18 have the baffles inspected monthly, and at least 12 have 
baffles that cover 95 percent or more of the cross sectional area of 
the tower. Although only four of the eleven States with coke plants ban 
the use of untreated wastewater, no plants currently use untreated 
wastewater as make-up water for quenching.
    Based on our assessment of the survey results, we conclude that the 
MACT floor is as follows: (1) Using clean water (i.e., a prohibition of 
the use of untreated wastewater) as make-up water for quenching, (2) 
installing baffles that cover at least 95 percent of the cross 
sectional area of the quench tower (i.e., no more than 5 percent of the 
cross sectional area of the tower may be uncovered or open to the sky), 
(3) cleaning baffles daily, (4) inspecting baffles monthly for damaged 
or missing baffles and blockage, and (5) repairing or replacing any 
damaged or missing baffles within 1 month. A TDS limit is not included 
in the MACT floor because we do not believe one is necessary as 
discussed previously. No plants implement control measures more 
stringent than this floor, and no such more stringent controls are 
available and practicable. Consequently, there is no technology beyond 
the floor. We conclude that the floor is MACT for existing plants and 
for new plants since the best controlled similar plants are existing 
plants that implement MACT.
    The standard for quenching prohibits the use of untreated 
wastewater (i.e., dirty water) as make-up water for quenching and 
requires the installation and maintenance of baffles.
    We developed initial compliance provisions that are consistent with 
the design, work practice, and operational requirements. As part of a 
plant's notification of compliance status, we require a signed 
statement certifying that: (1) Only clean water will be used as make-up 
water for quenching, (2) each quench tower is equipped with baffles 
that cover at least 95 percent of the cross sectional area of the 
tower, (3) the baffles will be cleaned at least daily, (4) each quench 
tower will be inspected monthly for damaged or missing baffles and 
blockage, and (5) all necessary repairs will be made and any damaged or 
missing baffles will be repaired or replaced within 1 month (i.e., 
before the next inspection).
    We developed continuous compliance provisions to ensure that plants 
keep all necessary records verifying that baffles are maintained. The 
records must be available at any time for inspection.
<bullet> Battery Stacks
    There are 53 battery stacks that serve 58 batteries. Five plants 
have a pair of batteries served by one stack, and all other stacks are 
associated with a single battery. Battery stack emissions occur when 
raw coke oven gas leaks through oven walls into flues and when there is 
poor combustion in the underfiring system. Emissions from stacks are 
usually most noticeable when ovens are charged with coal. Elevated 
opacity values occur due to the substantial and sudden increase in oven 
pressure and the resulting leakage of raw coke oven gas into the flue 
system. The intensity and duration of the in-leakage and impact on 
stack opacity is a direct result of the physical condition of the oven 
walls and presence of sealing carbon.
    Coke oven emissions from battery stacks are controlled by good 
operation and maintenance which includes using a COMS in the stack. 
Good operation and maintenance involves identifying problem ovens that 
produce high stack opacity emissions when ovens are charged, diagnosing 
problems, and repairing ovens or adjusting the underfiring system. No 
batteries currently use add-on control devices for control of emissions 
from battery stacks.
    Most State and local regulations include opacity limits for battery 
stacks. Examples are 20 percent opacity on six-minute averages, 20 
percent opacity for 3 minutes per hour with a cap of 60 percent, and 30 
percent opacity with a cap ranging from 30 to 60 percent for 8 minutes 
per hour. Many require the operation of COMS for diagnostic purposes 
and as performance indicators. Some States and local agencies also 
require the use of COMS for continuous compliance determinations.
    Based on information from an industry survey and site visits, we 
determined that the batteries in Burns Harbor, IN and Clairton, PA use 
good operation and maintenance coupled with COMS to control stack 
emissions. These data represent the performance of 10 batteries--two at 
Burns Harbor and eight at Clairton. Battery stacks at both plants use 
COMS that trigger an alarm when the opacity suddenly increases. The 
oven that is charged when the alarm sounds is investigated for flue 
leakage and combustion conditions (flame characteristics, gas pressure, 
stack draft), and corrective actions are taken as needed. Minor repairs 
may include spray patching or silica dusting; and if the problem is 
severe, the oven may be taken out of service for more rigorous repairs 
including ceramic welding, brick replacement, or repair of the entire 
oven (e.g., end flue or through wall repairs).
    Routine and preventative maintenance are also important control 
measures and include a daily inspection of flues and walls, cleaning 
gas piping, checking the reversing mechanism and flue combustion, and 
measuring flue temperatures. If the removal of excess carbon results in 
inadequate carbon to seal cracks, the oven wall is sprayed before being 
charged with coal.
    Based on the control measures used by the top 12 percent of units 
for which we have data, the control measures associated with the MACT 
floor are good operation and maintenance (as described above) combined 
with COMS.
    No plants implement control measures more stringent than this 
floor. For example, no plants currently use add-on control devices to 
treat the emissions from the battery stack. Consequently, we conclude 
that this is the MACT floor for both new and existing units.
    In order to determine what emission limitation is achievable using 
the control measures associated with the MACT floor, we examined 
available opacity data for the units using these measures. We analyzed 
data for batteries with various underfiring systems and battery 
heights. Specifically, we analyzed data for two tall (six-meter) 
batteries at a coke plant in Burns Harbor, IN. Data for one tall 
battery cover a continuous period of 50 months, and data for the other 
tall battery cover a continuous period of 65 months. We also analyzed 
data for an 18-month period for eight batteries at another plant in 
Clairton, PA (seven short four-meter batteries and one tall 
battery).\2\ The daily average opacity rarely exceeds 15 percent for 
any battery. These data

[[Page 35340]]

indicate that each of these batteries is well controlled for stack 
emissions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ We also analyzed COMS data for four batteries at a plant in 
Gary, IN. We did not use these data, however, because we do not 
believe they represent periods of good systematic operation and 
maintenance associated with MACT. Some periods of several days of 
high opacity were documented as caused by cracks or holes in a 
single oven's walls. Good operation and maintenance would have 
resulted in the oven being repaired or taken out of service rather 
than continuing for several days. We found that several days of COMS 
readings that had not been flagged as invalid were due to a COMS 
malfunction. Other high opacity readings exist for these batteries, 
and while we do not have specific information concerning the cause 
of other such readings, we expect (based on the above information) 
that they may have been due to problems with the COMS, or other 
operation and maintenance issues. In any event, the information 
available to EPA suggests that these batteries did not consistently 
utilize the operation and maintenance techniques associated with the 
MACT floor. For these reasons, we do not believe the data for these 
batteries should be included in the MACT floor analysis.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    These batteries are representative of the various types of 
batteries in the U.S. in terms of oven height, types of underfiring 
systems, and battery age. They include both underjet and gun flue 
systems, oven heights that range from four to six meters, and battery 
ages from 6 to 46 years. The data also include temporal effects because 
they cover at least a 1-year period, and for two batteries cover a 4- 
to 5-year period.
    We examined the data to determine if there are differences in 
performance associated with oven height and type of underfiring system. 
Seven short batteries averaged 1 to 4 percent opacity, and three tall 
batteries averaged 3, 4, and 5 percent opacity. The average opacities 
of the short and tall batteries overlap, and there is no significant 
difference in the level of control that is achieved. Similarly, there 
is no difference in performance between underjet and gun flue 
underfiring systems.
    We evaluated several averaging times to determine an appropriate 
one for the standard. We determined that conventional short-term 
averaging times (such as 6-minute averages) are not appropriate for 
implementing good operation and maintenance. For example, problems with 
ovens or combustion systems can develop unexpectedly and lead to short-
term high opacity events. A longer averaging time is needed to allow 
adequate time to diagnose the problem and to take corrective actions.
    We also evaluated an averaging time based on a 30-day rolling 
average, which is consistent with the format used in the existing 
NESHAP for coke oven batteries (40 CFR part 63, subpart L). However, 
averaging over a 30-day period results in opacity limits of 10 percent 
or less. The average opacity would be dominated by many very low 
opacity readings, and the errors in COMS readings at low opacities can 
have a significant effect on the 30-day average.
    After analyzing the COMS data using different averaging times, we 
selected a daily averaging time as the most appropriate format for the 
standard. The data show that with few exceptions a daily average limit 
of 15 percent opacity has been achieved by the ten MACT batteries 99.7 
percent of the time.
    Data for five batteries at the Clairton, PA plant indicate that 
stack opacity increases when batteries are placed on extended coking 
time. The average opacities for batteries on extended coking are 
approximately twice those of batteries on a normal coking time. This 
results from less formation of protective sealing carbon that seals 
small cracks in the oven walls. Battery-wide extended coking is a 
relatively rare event and is used primarily when the demand for coke 
drops. We developed a daily average limit of 20 percent opacity for 
batteries on extended coking to reflect the level achievable by MACT 
batteries.
    We define extended coking as an increase of 25 percent or more in 
the normal coking time, based on data for one of the Clairton, PA 
batteries which showed an increase in stack opacity when the coking 
time was extended from 18 to 23 hours, an increase of about 25 percent. 
Data for three other batteries also in Clairton showed an increase in 
opacity when the coking time was increased from 18 to 36 hours.
    We considered developing procedures for an alternative opacity 
limit in the event a battery has implemented all of the components of 
MACT and cannot achieve the opacity standard. Such an approach would be 
similar to the adjustment to an opacity emission standard allowed in 
Sec. 63.6(h)(9) of the NESHAP General Provisions. However, we have been 
unable to develop criteria that would be used to allow an alternative 
opacity limit. We are requesting comments on appropriate criteria and 
supporting rationale.
    We also conclude that MACT for new plants is the same as MACT for 
existing plants since the best-controlled similar plants are existing 
plants that implement MACT.
    We considered whether there were any reasonable options available 
for above-the-floor controls for battery stacks during either regular 
or extended coking. As indicated above, no units currently use any 
other control measures, such as add-on controls,\3\ and we don't 
believe that add-on controls would provide additional HAP reductions 
significant enough to justify the installation and operational costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ We note that during the 1970's and 1980's, several batteries 
used add-on control devices (electrostatic precipitators or 
baghouses) to control particulate matter emissions from battery 
stacks. The use of thse devices was subsequently terminated as a 
result of several plant closures and the increased use of 
desulfurized coke oven gas.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Therefore, we are proposing the MACT floor limits, daily average 
limits of 15 percent opacity for batteries on a normal coking time and 
20 percent for batteries on an extended coking time, as MACT for both 
new and existing batteries.
    We require COMS because they are a part of the technology 
associated with MACT and provide a means of measuring opacity and 
showing continuous compliance. We selected the initial compliance 
provisions to be consistent with the format of the standard, which is a 
daily average opacity limit. Opacity measurements must be made with a 
COMS, and the daily average opacity must be determined. Compliance is 
demonstrated if the daily average does not exceed 15 percent for a 
battery on a normal coking cycle or 20 percent for a battery on 
extended coking.
    We selected a daily compliance determination to show continuous 
compliance because it is consistent with the derivation of the limit 
and is the approach used for other coke battery emission points 
regulated under the existing NESHAP for coke ovens (40 CFR part 63, 
subpart L). Each day, a new daily average is calculated from a 
continuous record of stack opacity provided by the COMS.

D. How Did We Select the Operation and Maintenance Requirements?

    Routine operation and maintenance for the batteries, capture 
systems, and control devices prevent excess emissions. We collected 
information from batteries that are well-controlled for pushing and 
stack emissions from industry surveys, site visits, and consultation 
with industry experts. For example, we obtained details on the battery 
preservation program used at a coke plant in Clairton, PA. 
Subsequently, we developed a list of the operation and maintenance 
procedures that are applicable to all batteries including routine oven 
repairs; maintaining the combustion system (inspection of flues, 
temperature measurements, monitoring air and fuel flow rates); control 
of coal quality; ensuring complete coking; and preventative maintenance 
for capture systems and control devices.

E. How Did We Select the Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting 
Requirements?

    We selected the notification, recordkeeping, and reporting 
requirements to be consistent with the NESHAP General Provisions (40 
CFR part 63, subpart A). Monthly reports for battery stacks and 
semiannual reports for other affected sources would also be required. A 
summary report would be submitted if no deviation occurred; more 
detailed information must be included if a deviation occurred; a 
monitoring system was out of control; or there was a startup, shutdown, 
or malfunction event. An immediate report would be required if actions 
taken to respond to a startup, shutdown, or malfunction were not 
consistent with the procedures in the startup,

[[Page 35341]]

shutdown, and malfunction plan. The records required by the proposed 
rule are the minimum needed to demonstrate continuous compliance.

IV. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and Economic Impacts

A. What Are the Air Quality Impacts?

    Accurate emission estimates are difficult to make, especially for 
fugitive pushing emissions. When green pushes occur, most of the 
organic HAP escape the capture system and are unmeasurable. Our 
estimate for pushing emissions is based on our best estimates of the 
capture efficiency and frequency of green pushes. For battery stacks, 
we have opacity and emissions data for the best-controlled batteries. 
We had to extrapolate the test data to account for higher emissions 
from batteries with higher battery stack opacities.
    Based on these approaches, we estimate that the proposed rule would 
reduce coke oven emissions, measured as methylene chloride extractable 
organic compounds, from pushing, quenching, and battery stacks to 
approximately 500 tpy from a baseline level of about 1,000 tpy. The 
proposed rule would also reduce emissions of other HAP, such as metals, 
benzene, toluene, and other volatiles that are not included with the 
extractable organics. Emissions of PM would also be reduced.

B. What Are the Cost Impacts?

    As with the emission estimates, there is uncertainty in the cost 
estimates. However, we obtained data from the best controlled plants 
for their emission controls, oven repairs, and work practices. We then 
applied these costs to those batteries that we estimate would be 
impacted by the proposed rule. We estimate that five batteries would 
incur capital costs to rebuild ovens to meet the proposed standards for 
pushing and battery stacks. In addition, we estimate that 40 of the 58 
by-product batteries would incur additional annual operating costs to 
implement a baseline program of diagnostic procedures and oven repairs 
similar to the programs already in place at well-controlled batteries. 
Three batteries would have to install baffles in their quench towers to 
control quenching emissions. Monitoring is also an important component 
of MACT and the cost estimate. Approximately 31 batteries would have to 
install COMS in their battery stacks, 56 would incur the cost of 
visible emissions observers for daily observation of pushing emissions, 
and 42 would install bag leak detection systems for control devices 
applied to pushing emissions. The control technology and monitoring are 
expected to result in a nationwide capital cost of about $12 million 
with a total annualized cost of $14 million per year.

C. What Are the Economic Impacts?

    We conducted a detailed assessment of the economic impacts 
associated with the proposed rule. The compliance costs associated with 
the proposed rule are expected to increase the price of coke, steel 
mill products, and iron castings and to reduce their domestic 
production and consumption. The price of furnace and foundry coke is 
projected to increase by about 1.5 and 3 percent, respectively. 
Domestic production of furnace coke is expected to decline by 180,000 
tons, or 2.3 percent, with foreign imports increasing by 167,000 tons, 
or 4.4 percent. For foundry coke, domestic production is expected to 
decline by only 1,500 tons, or 0.1 percent.
    In terms of industry impacts, the integrated steel producers and 
foundries with cupola furnaces are projected to experience a slight 
decrease in operating profits, which reflects increased costs of 
furnace and foundry coke inputs and associated reductions in revenues 
from producing their final products. Our analysis indicates that one of 
the captive batteries ceases to supply furnace coke to the market but 
continues to satisfy internal coke requirements at the integrated steel 
plant. Through the market impacts described above, the proposed rule 
has distributional impacts within the merchant segment. The majority of 
merchant facilities are projected to experience profit increase with 
the proposed rule; however, some facilities are projected to lose 
profits. Furthermore, the economic impact analysis indicates that one 
of the 13 merchant-owned batteries producing furnace coke is at risk of 
closure because of the proposed rule, while none of the foundry coke 
producing batteries are at risk of closure. For more information, 
consult the economic impact analysis supporting this proposed rule.

D. What Are the Non-air Environmental and Energy Impacts?

    The technology associated with MACT relies primarily on pollution 
prevention techniques in the form of work practices and diagnostic 
procedures to prevent green pushes and leakage through oven walls. 
Consequently, there are no significant non-air environmental and energy 
impacts.

V. Solicitation of Comments and Public Participation

    We seek full public participation in arriving at final decisions 
and encourage comments on all aspects of this proposal from all 
interested parties. You need to submit full supporting data and a 
detailed analysis with your comments to allow us to make the best use 
of them. Be sure to direct your comments to the Air and Radiation 
Docket and Information Center, Docket No. A-2000-34 (see ADDRESSES).
    We are specifically requesting comments on proposed Options 1 and 2 
for fugitive pushing emissions. Proposed Option 1 is an opacity limit 
based on the average of four pushes. Proposed Option 2 is a work 
practice standard that includes opacity triggers based on a single 
push. Exceeding the applicable trigger requires corrective action to 
identify and correct the problem that caused the green push.
    We are also specifically requesting comments on procedures for 
developing an alternative opacity limit for battery stacks in the event 
a battery has implemented all of the components of MACT and cannot 
achieve the opacity standard. We are requesting comments on appropriate 
criteria and supporting rationale.

VI. Administrative Requirements

A. Executive Order 12866, Regulatory Planning and Review

    Under Executive Order 12866 (58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the EPA 
must determine whether the regulatory action is ``significant'' and 
therefore subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget 
(OMB) and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order 
defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to 
result in a rule that may:
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more or 
adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the 
economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public 
health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or 
communities;
    (2) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlement, grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in 
the Executive Order.
    Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been 
determined

[[Page 35342]]

that this regulatory action is not a ``significant regulatory action'' 
because none of the listed criteria apply to this action. Consequently, 
this action was not submitted to OMB for review under Executive Order 
12866.

B. Executive Order 13132, Federalism

    Executive Order 13132, entitled ``Federalism'' (64 FR 43255, August 
10, 1999), requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure 
``meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the 
development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.'' 
``Policies that have federalism implications'' is defined in the 
Executive Order to include regulations that have ``substantial direct 
effects on the States, on the relationship between the national 
government and the States, or on the distribution of power and 
responsibilities among the various levels of government.'' Under 
Executive Order 13132, EPA may not issue a regulation that has 
federalism implications, that imposes substantial direct compliance 
costs, and that is not required by statute, unless the Federal 
government provides the funds necessary to pay the direct compliance 
costs incurred by State and local governments, or EPA consults with 
State and local officials early in the process of developing the 
proposed regulation. The EPA also may not issue a regulation that has 
federalism implications and that preempts State law unless the EPA 
consults with State and local officials early in the process of 
developing the proposed regulation.
    If EPA complies by consulting, Executive Order 13132 requires EPA 
to provide to OMB, in a separately identified section of the preamble 
to the rule, a federalism summary impact statement (FSIS). The FSIS 
must include a description of the extent of EPA's prior consultation 
with State and local officials, a summary of the nature of their 
concerns and the Agency's position supporting the need to issue the 
regulation, and a statement of the extent to which the concerns of 
State and local officials have been met. Also, when EPA transmits a 
draft final rule with federalism implications to OMB for review 
pursuant to Executive Order 12866, EPA must include a certification 
from the Agency's Federalism Official stating that EPA met the 
requirements of Executive Order 13132 in a meaningful and timely 
manner.
    This proposed rule does not have federalism implications. It will 
not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship 
between the national government and the States, or on the distribution 
of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, 
as specified in Executive Order 13132. None of the affected facilities 
are owned or operated by State governments, and the proposed rule 
requirements will not supercede State regulations that are more 
stringent. Thus, the requirements of section 6 of the Executive Order 
do not apply to this rule.

C. Executive Order 13084, Consultation and Coordination with Indian 
Tribal Governments

    On January 1, 2001, Executive Order 13084 was superseded by 
Executive Order 13175. However, this proposed rule was developed during 
the period when Executive Order 13084 was still in force, and so tribal 
considerations were addressed under Executive Order 13084. Development 
of the final rule will address tribal considerations under Executive 
Order 13175. Under Executive Order 13084, EPA may not issue a 
regulation that is not required by statute, that significantly or 
uniquely affects the communities of Indian tribal governments, and that 
imposes substantial direct compliance costs on those communities, 
unless the Federal government provides the funds necessary to pay the 
direct compliance costs incurred by the tribal governments, or EPA 
consults with those governments. If EPA complies by consulting, 
Executive Order 13084 requires EPA to provide to OMB, in a separately 
identified section of the preamble to the rule, a description of the 
extent of EPA's prior consultation with representatives of affected 
tribal governments, a summary of the nature of their concerns, and a 
statement supporting the need to issue the regulation. In addition, 
Executive Order 13084 requires the EPA to develop an effective process 
permitting elected officials and other representatives of Indian tribal 
governments ``to provide meaningful and timely input in the development 
of regulatory policies on matters that significantly or uniquely affect 
their communities.''
    Today's proposed rule does not significantly or uniquely affect the 
communities of Indian tribal governments. No tribal governments own or 
operate coke oven batteries. The proposed rule is required by statute 
and will not impose any substantial direct compliance costs. 
Accordingly, the requirements of section 3(b) of Executive Order 13084 
do not apply to this action.

D. Executive Order 13045, Protection of Children from Environmental 
Health Risks and Safety Risks

    Executive Order 13045 (62 FR 19885, April 23, 1997) applies to any 
rule that: (1) Is determined to be ``economically significant,'' as 
defined under Executive Order 12866, and (2) concerns an environmental 
health or safety risk that EPA has reason to believe may have a 
disproportionate effect on children. If the regulatory action meets 
both criteria, the EPA must evaluate the environmental health or safety 
effects of the planned rule on children and explain why the planned 
regulation is preferable to other potentially effective and reasonably 
feasible alternatives considered by the Agency.
    The EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those 
regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that 
the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has 
the potential to influence the regulation. This rule is not subject to 
Executive Order 13045 because it is technology based and not based on 
health or safety risks. No children's risk analysis was performed 
because no alternative technologies exist that would provide greater 
stringency at a reasonable cost. Further, this proposed rule has been 
determined not to be ``economically significant'' as defined under 
Executive Order 12866.

E. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995

    Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 (UMRA), Public 
Law 104-4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the 
effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal 
governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, the 
EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a cost-
benefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with ``Federal 
mandates'' that may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal 
governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $100 
million or more in any 1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for 
which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally 
requires the EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of 
regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most cost-
effective, or least-burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives 
of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are 
inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows the EPA 
to adopt an alternative other than the least-costly, most cost-
effective, or least-

[[Page 35343]]

burdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final 
rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before the 
EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or 
uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it 
must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government 
agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected 
small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to 
have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory 
proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and 
informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with 
the regulatory requirements.
    The EPA has determined that this proposed rule does not contain a 
Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $100 million or 
more to either State, local, or tribal governments, in the aggregate, 
or to the private sector in any 1 year. The maximum total annual cost 
of this proposed rule for any year has been estimated to be less than 
$19 million. Thus, today's proposed rule is not subject to sections 202 
and 205 of the UMRA. In addition, the EPA has determined that this 
proposed rule contains no regulatory requirements that might 
significantly or uniquely affect small governments because it contains 
no requirements that apply to such governments or impose obligations 
upon them. Therefore, today's proposed rule is not subject to the 
requirements of section 203 of the UMRA.

F. Regulatory Flexibility Act (RFA), as Amended by the Small Business 
Regulatory Enforcement Fairness Act of 1996 (SBREFA), 5 U.S.C. et seq.

    The RFA generally requires an agency to prepare a regulatory 
flexibility analysis of any rule subject to notice and comment 
rulemaking requirements under the Administrative Procedure Act or any 
other statute unless the agency certifies that the rule will not have a 
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. 
Small entities include small businesses, small organizations, and small 
governmental jurisdictions.
    For purposes of assessing the impacts of the proposed rule on small 
entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business ranging from 
500 to 1,000 employees; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a 
government of a city, county, town, school district or special district 
with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization 
that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and 
operated and is not dominant in its field.
    After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed rule on 
small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant 
impact on a substantial number of small entities. In accordance with 
the RFA, we conducted an assessment of the proposed rule on small 
businesses within the coke manufacturing industry. Based on SBA size 
definitions for the affected industries and reported sales and 
employment data, we identified three of the 18 companies within this 
source category as small businesses. Although small businesses 
represent 16 percent of the companies within the source category, they 
are expected to incur only 11 percent of the total industry compliance 
costs of $14.3 million. The average total annual compliance cost is 
projected to be $533,000 per small company, while the average for large 
companies is projected to be $840,000 per company. Under the proposed 
rule, the mean annual compliance cost, as a share of sales, for small 
businesses is 1.3 percent, and the median is 1.4 percent, with a range 
of 0.04 to 2.4 percent. We estimate that two of the three small 
businesses may experience an impact greater than 1 percent of sales, 
but no small businesses will experience an impact greater than 3 
percent of sales.
    We performed an economic impact analysis to estimate the changes in 
product price and production quantities for the firms affected by this 
proposed rule. Although this industry is characterized by average 
profit margins of close to 4 percent, our analysis indicates that none 
of the coke manufacturing facilities owned by small businesses are at 
risk of closure because of today's proposed rule. In fact, the two 
facilities manufacturing furnace coke are projected to experience a 
slight increase in profits because of market feedbacks related to 
higher costs incurred by competitors, while the one facility 
manufacturing foundry coke is projected to experience a decline in 
profits of slightly more than 1 percent.
    In summary, the economic impact analysis supports today's 
certification under the RFA because, while a few small firms may 
experience initial impacts greater than 1 percent of sales, no 
significant impacts on their viability to continue operations and 
remain profitable are indicated. See Docket A-2000-34 for more 
information on the economic analysis.
    Although this proposed rule will not have a significant economic 
impact on a substantial number of small entities, we have nonetheless 
worked aggressively to minimize the impact of this proposed rule on 
small entities, consistent with our obligations under the CAA. We have 
made site visits to these plants and discussed potential impacts and 
opportunities for emission reductions with company representatives. 
Company representatives have also attended meetings held with industry 
trade associations to discuss the proposed rule, and we have included 
provisions in the proposed rule that address their concerns.

G. Paperwork Reduction Act

    The information collection requirements in this proposed rule will 
be submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 
U.S.C. 3501 et seq. An information collection request (ICR) document 
has been prepared by EPA (ICR No. 1995.01), and a copy may be obtained 
from Sandy Farmer by mail at the Office of Environmental Information, 
Collection Strategies Division, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 
(2822), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC 20460, by e-mail at 
<a href="/cdn-cgi/l/email-protection#553334273830277b26343b312c153025347b323a23"><span class="__cf_email__" data-cfemail="6f090e1d020a1d411c0e010b162f0a1f0e41080019">[email protected]</span></a>, or by calling (202) 260-2740. A copy may also be 
downloaded off the Internet at http://www.epa.gov/icr. The information 
requirements are not effective until OMB approves them.
    The information requirements are based on notification, 
recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the NESHAP General 
Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are mandatory for all 
operators subject to NESHAP. These recordkeeping and reporting 
requirements are specifically authorized by section 112 of the CAA (42 
U.S.C. 7414). All information submitted to the EPA pursuant to the 
recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a claim of 
confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to Agency policies in 
40 CFR part 2, subpart B.
    The proposed rule requires maintenance inspections of control 
devices, two types of written plans (in addition to the startup, 
shutdown, and malfunction plan required by the NESHAP General 
Provisions), and a special study of flue temperatures for by-product 
coke oven batteries with horizontal flues. Monthly reports of any 
deviations from the applicable limits for battery stacks are required, 
with semiannual reports for other affected sources. The recordkeeping 
requirements require only the specific information needed to determine 
compliance.

[[Page 35344]]

    The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this 
collection of information (averaged over the first 3 years after the 
effective date of the final rule) is estimated to total 11,000 labor 
hours per year at a total annual cost of $710,000. This estimate 
includes one-time performance tests and reports (with repeat tests 
where needed); subsequent tests, preparation and submission of 
operation and maintenance plans, and a special study of flue 
temperatures; one-time purchase and installation of continuous 
monitoring systems; one-time preparation of a standard operating 
procedures manual for baghouses; one-time preparation of a startup, 
shutdown, and malfunction plan with semiannual reports if procedures in 
the plan were followed or emergency reports if they weren't followed; 
monthly and semiannual deviation summary reports; and inspections, 
notifications, and recordkeeping. Total capital/startup costs 
associated with the monitoring requirements over the 3-year period of 
the ICR is estimated at $46,000 per year, with operation and 
maintenance costs of $76,000 per year.
    Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources 
expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or 
provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time 
needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize 
technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating, and 
verifying information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any 
previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to 
respond to a collection of information; search existing data sources; 
complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or 
otherwise disclose the information.
    An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required 
to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a 
currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control number for EPA's 
regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.
    Comments are requested on the EPA's need for this information, the 
accuracy of the burden estimates, and any suggested methods for 
minimizing respondent burden, including through the use of automated 
collection techniques. Send comments on the ICR to the Director, 
Collection Strategies Division (2822), U.S. Environmental Protection 
Agency (2136), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington, DC 20460; and 
to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, Office of 
Management and Budget, 725 17th Street, NW, Washington, DC 20503, 
marked ``Attention: Desk Officer for EPA.'' Include the ICR number in 
any correspondence. Because OMB is required to make a decision 
concerning the ICR between 30 and 60 days after July 3, 2001, a comment 
to OMB is best assured of having its full effect if OMB receives it by 
August 2, 2001. The final rule will respond to any OMB or public 
comments on the information collection requirements contained in this 
proposed rule.

H. National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act

    Section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement 
Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Pub. L. 104-113; 15 U.S.C 272 note), directs EPA 
to use voluntary consensus standards in their regulatory and 
procurement activities unless to do so would be inconsistent with 
applicable law or otherwise impracticable. Voluntary consensus 
standards are technical standards (such as material specifications, 
test methods, sampling procedures, business practices) developed or 
adopted by one or more voluntary consensus standard bodies. The NTTAA 
directs EPA to provide Congress, through annual reports to OMB, with 
explanations when an agency does not use available and applicable 
voluntary consensus standards.
    This proposed rulemaking involves technical standards. The EPA 
proposes to use EPA Methods 1, 2, 2F, 2G, 3, 3A, 3B, 4, 5, 5D, and 9 in 
40 CFR part 60, appendix A, and Performance Specification 1 in 40 CFR 
part 60, appendix B. Consistent with the NTTAA, we conducted searches 
to identify voluntary consensus standards in addition to these EPA 
methods.
    One voluntary consensus standard was identified as applicable to 
Performance Specification 1. The standard, ASTM D6216 (1998), Standard 
Practice for Opacity Monitor Manufacturers to Certify Conformance with 
Design and Performance Specifications, has been incorporated by 
reference into Performance Specification 1 (65 FR 48920, August 10, 
2000).
    Our search for emissions monitoring procedures identified 16 other 
voluntary consensus standards. We determined that 13 of these standards 
identified for measuring emissions of HAP or surrogates would not be 
practical due to lack of equivalency, detail, or quality assurance/
quality control requirements. The three remaining consensus standards 
identified in the search are under development or under EPA review. 
Therefore, we do not propose to use these voluntary consensus standards 
in the proposed rule. See Docket A-2000-34 for more detailed 
information on the search and review results.
    The EPA requests comments on the proposed compliance demonstration 
requirements in the proposed rule and specifically invites the public 
to identify potentially applicable voluntary consensus standards. 
Commenters should also explain why this proposed rule should adopt 
these voluntary consensus standards in lieu of, or in addition to, 
EPA's methods. Emission test methods and performance specifications 
submitted for evaluation should be accompanied with a basis for the 
recommendation, including method validation data and the procedures 
used to validate the candidate method (if a method other Method 301 in 
40 CFR part 63, appendix A was used).
    Section 63.7322 of proposed subpart CCCCC lists the EPA test 
methods that coke plants would be required to use when conducting a 
performance test. Most of these methods have been used by States and 
the industry for more than 10 years. Nevertheless, Sec. 63.7(e) and (f) 
of the NESHAP General Provisions in 40 CFR part 63, subpart A, allows 
any State or source to apply to EPA for permission to use an 
alternative method in place of any of the EPA test methods or 
performance specifications required by the proposed rule.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR Part 63

    Environmental protection, Administrative practice and procedure, 
Air pollution control, Coke ovens, Hazardous substances, 
Intergovernmental relations, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: January 19, 2001.
Carol M. Browner,
Administrator.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, title 40, chapter I, part 
63, of the Code of Federal Regulations is proposed to be amended as 
follows:

PART 63--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 63 continues to read as follows:

    Authority: 42 U.S.C. 7401, et seq.

    2. Part 63 is amended by adding subpart CCCCC to read as follows:

Subpart CCCCC--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants for Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks

Sec.

What This Subpart Covers

63.7280   What is the purpose of this subpart?
63.7281   Am I subject to this subpart?

[[Page 35345]]

63.7282   What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?
63.7283   When do I have to comply with this subpart?
63.7284-63.7289   [Reserved]

Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards

63.7290   What emission limitations must I meet for capture systems 
and control devices applied to pushing emissions?
63.7291   What emission limitations or work practice standards must 
I meet for fugitive pushing emissions if I have a by-product coke 
oven battery with vertical flues?
63.7292   What work practice standards must I meet for fugitive 
pushing emissions if I have a by-product coke oven battery with 
horizontal flues?
63.7293   What work practice standards must I meet for fugitive 
pushing emissions if I have a non-recovery coke oven battery?
63.7294   What work practice standard must I meet for soaking?
63.7295   What work practice standards must I meet for quenching?
63.7296   What emission limitations must I meet for battery stacks?
63.7297-63.7299   [Reserved]

Operation and Maintenance Requirements

63.7300   What are my operation and maintenance requirements?
63.7301--63.7309   [Reserved]

General Compliance Requirements

63.7310   What are my general requirements for complying with this 
subpart?
63.7311-63.7319   [Reserved]

Initial Compliance Requirements

63.7320   By what date must I conduct performance tests or other 
initial compliance demonstrations?
63.7321   When must I conduct subsequent performance tests?
63.7322   What test methods and other procedures must I use to 
demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limits for 
particulate matter?
63.7323   What procedures must I use to establish operating limits?
63.7324   What test methods and other procedures must I use to 
demonstrate initial compliance with the opacity limits?
63.7325   How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission 
limitations that apply to me?
63.7326   How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the work 
practice standards that apply to me?
63.7327   How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the operation 
and maintenance requirements that apply to me?
63.7328-63.7329   [Reserved]

Continuous Compliance Requirements

63.7330   What are my monitoring requirements?
63.7331   What are the installation, operation, and maintenance 
requirements for my monitors?
63.7332   How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate 
continuous compliance?
63.7333   How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the 
emission limitations that apply to me?
63.7334   How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the work 
practice standards that apply to me?
63.7335   How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the 
operation and maintenance requirements that apply to me?
63.7336   What other requirements must I meet to demonstrate 
continuous compliance?
63.7337-63.7339   [Reserved]

Notifications, Reports, and Records

63.7340   What notifications must I submit and when?
63.7341   What reports must I submit and when?
63.7342   What records must I keep?
63.7343   In what form and how long must I keep my records?
63.7344-63.7349   [Reserved]

Other Requirements and Information

63.7350   What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?
63.7351   Who implements and enforces this subpart?
63.7352   What definitions apply to this subpart?
63.7353-63.7379   [Reserved]
Tables to Subpart CCCCC
    Table 1 to Subpart CCCCC--Applicability of General Provisions to 
Subpart CCCCC

Subpart CCCCC--National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air 
Pollutants for Coke Ovens: Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks

What This Subpart Covers


Sec. 63.7280  What is the purpose of this subpart?

    This subpart establishes national emission standards for hazardous 
air pollutants (NESHAP) for pushing, quenching, and battery stacks at 
coke oven batteries. This subpart also establishes requirements to 
demonstrate initial and continuous compliance with all applicable 
emission limitations, work practice standards, and operation and 
maintenance requirements in this subpart.


Sec. 63.7281  Am I subject to this subpart?

    You are subject to this subpart if you own or operate a coke oven 
battery at a coke plant that is (or is part of) a major source of 
hazardous air pollutants (HAP) emissions on the first compliance date 
that applies to you. Your coke plant is a major source of HAP if it 
emits or has the potential to emit any single HAP at a rate of 10 tons 
or more per year or any combination of HAP at a rate of 25 tons or more 
per year.


Sec. 63.7282  What parts of my plant does this subpart cover?

    (a) This subpart applies to each new or existing coke oven battery 
at your coke plant.
    (b) This subpart covers emissions from pushing, soaking, quenching, 
and battery stacks from each affected source.
    (c) An affected source at your coke plant is existing if you 
commenced construction or reconstruction of the affected source before 
July 3, 2001.
    (d) An affected source at your coke plant is new if you commence 
construction or reconstruction of the affected source on or after July 
3, 2001. An affected source is reconstructed if it meets the definition 
of ``reconstruction'' in Sec. 63.2.


Sec. 63.7283  When do I have to comply with this subpart?

    (a) If you have an existing affected source, you must comply with 
each emission limitation, work practice standard, and operation and 
maintenance requirement in this subpart that applies to you no later 
than [2 YEARS FROM THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE 
Federal Register].
    (b) If you have a new affected source and its initial startup date 
is on or before [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal 
Register], you must comply with each emission limitation, work practice 
standard, and operation and maintenance requirement in this subpart 
that applies to you by [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE 
Federal Register].
    (c) If you have a new affected source and its initial startup date 
is after [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal 
Register], you must comply with each emission limitation, work practice 
standard, and operation and maintenance requirement in this subpart 
that applies to you upon initial startup.
    (d) If your coke plant is an area source that becomes a major 
source of HAP, the following compliance dates apply to you.
    (1) Any portion of the existing coke plant that is a new affected 
source or a new reconstructed source must be in compliance with this 
subpart upon startup.
    (2) All other parts of the coke plant must be in compliance with 
this subpart no later than 2 years after it becomes a major source.
    (e) You must meet the notification and schedule requirements in 
Sec. 63.7340. Several of these notifications must be submitted before 
the compliance date for your affected source.

[[Page 35346]]

Secs. 63.7284--63.7289  [Reserved]

Emission Limitations and Work Practice Standards


Sec. 63.7290  What emission limitations must I meet for capture systems 
and control devices applied to pushing emissions?

    (a) You must not discharge to the atmosphere emissions of 
particulate matter from a control device applied to pushing emissions 
from a new or existing coke oven battery that exceed the applicable 
limit in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section.
    (1) 0.004 grain per dry standard cubic foot (gr/dscf) if a cokeside 
shed is used to capture emissions.
    (2) 0.017 pound per ton (lb/ton) of coke if a moveable hood vented 
to a stationary control device is used to capture emissions.
    (3) If a mobile scrubber car that does not capture emissions during 
travel is used:
    (i) 0.023 lb/ton of coke for a control device applied to pushing 
emissions from a short coke oven battery; or
    (ii) 0.010 lb/ton of coke from control device applied to pushing 
emissions from a tall coke oven battery.
    (4) 0.039 lb/ton of coke if a mobile scrubber car that captures 
emissions during travel is used.
    (b) You must meet each operating limit in paragraphs (b)(1) through 
(3) of this section that applies to you for a new or existing coke oven 
battery.
    (1) For each baghouse applied to pushing emissions, you must 
operate the baghouse such that the bag leak detection system, if 
applicable, does not alarm for more than 5 percent of the total 
operating time in any semiannual reporting period.
    (2) For each venturi scrubber applied to pushing emissions, you 
must maintain the daily average pressure drop and scrubber water flow 
rate at or above the minimum levels established during the initial 
performance test.
    (3) For each capture system applied to pushing emissions, you must:
    (i) Maintain the fan motor amperes at or above the minimum level 
established during the initial performance test; or
    (ii) Maintain the volumetric flow rate at the inlet of the control 
device at or above the minimum level established during the initial 
performance test.


Sec. 63.7291  What emission limitations or work practice standards must 
I meet for fugitive pushing emissions if I have a by-product coke oven 
battery with vertical flues?

    (a) Opacity limit (Option 1). [Note: This is one of two options 
being proposed for comment. Based on comments we receive on proposed 
subpart CCCCC, we will promulgate Option 1 in this paragraph (a) or 
Option 2 in paragraph (b) of this section or some combination of these 
two options.] You must not discharge to the atmosphere fugitive pushing 
emissions from a new or existing by-product coke oven battery that 
exhibit an opacity, as determined by the procedures in Sec. 63.7324(b), 
in excess of 20 percent for each short battery and 25 percent for each 
tall battery.
    (b) Work practice standard (Option 2). [Note: This is one of two 
options being proposed for comment. Based on comments we receive on 
proposed subpart CCCCC, we will promulgate Option 1 in paragraph (a) of 
this section or Option 2 in this paragraph (b) or some combination of 
these two options.] You must comply with each of the requirements in 
paragraphs (b)(1) through (11) of this section for each new or existing 
by-product coke oven battery.
    (1) Observe and record the opacity of fugitive pushing emissions 
from four consecutive pushes each operating day.
    (2) Conduct all opacity observations using the procedures in 
Sec. 63.7324(b)(1) through (3).
    (3) Do not alter the pushing schedule so as to change the sequence 
of consecutive pushes to be observed in any day.
    (4) Observe and record the opacity of emissions from each oven at 
least once every 3 months. If an oven cannot be observed during any 3-
month period because it has been taken out of service, you must observe 
and record the opacity of emissions from the oven during the first 
daytime push once the oven is brought back into service.
    (5) If the average opacity of the six highest consecutive 15-second 
readings (or the actual number of readings if there are fewer than six 
readings) for any individual push is more than 30 percent for any short 
battery or 35 percent for any tall battery, you must take corrective 
action and demonstrate that corrective action was successful within the 
allowed number of days according to Equation 1 of this section, or 
remove the oven from service:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JY01.012

Where:

X = Number of days allowed to take corrective action and demonstrate 
that the corrective action has been successful; and
Y = Normal coking time for the oven, hours.

    (6) To demonstrate that corrective action was successful, observe 
and record two consecutive daytime pushes for the oven within the 
allowed number of days. If neither observation exceeds the applicable 
opacity trigger, the corrective action was successful, and you may 
return the oven to normal status. If an opacity observation for one or 
both of the two consecutive pushes exceeds the applicable opacity 
trigger, the corrective action was not successful. If the corrective 
action was not successful within the allowed number of days, remove the 
oven from service until repairs have been completed.
    (7) When an oven is removed from service and is subsequently 
returned to service after repairs have been completed, observe and 
record two daytime pushes of the oven within the first four pushes 
after the oven is returned to service to confirm that the repairs were 
successful. You have demonstrated that the repairs were successful if 
neither of the observations exceeds the applicable opacity trigger. If 
the opacity trigger is exceeded for either push, the repair was not 
successful, and you must remove the oven from service until additional 
repairs or corrective action are completed and you demonstrate in 
accordance with this paragraph(b)(7) that the subsequent repairs were 
successful.
    (8) If any oven is removed from service more than four times in any 
semiannual reporting period as a result of exceeding the opacity 
trigger, remove the oven from service and notify your permitting 
authority. You may not return the oven to service until your permitting 
authority determines that you have taken all appropriate actions and 
provides you written authorization to return the oven to service.
    (9) If you use extended coking as the corrective action, keep the 
oven on extended coking unless you correct the problem. You may return 
to normal coking time only after you have demonstrated, based on the 
observation of the first two consecutive daytime pushes while on normal 
coking time, that neither of the observations exceeds the applicable 
opacity trigger. If either observation exceeds the applicable opacity 
trigger, you must return the oven to extended coking or remove the oven 
from service until repairs or other corrective actions have been 
completed.
    (10) You may decrease your extended coking time after you have 
demonstrated, based on the observation of the first two consecutive 
daytime pushes after the coking time was reduced, that neither of the 
observations exceeds the applicable opacity trigger. If either 
observation exceeds the applicable opacity trigger, you must return the 
oven to the previous extended coking time or remove the oven from 
service until repairs or other corrective actions have been completed.

[[Page 35347]]

    (11) If you remove an oven from service, take measures to mitigate 
possible adverse effects on adjacent ovens due to removing the oven 
from service.
    (c) As provided in Sec. 63.6(g), you may request to use an 
alternative to the work practice standards in paragraph (b) of this 
section.


Sec. 63.7292  What work practice standards must I meet for fugitive 
pushing emissions if I have a by-product coke oven battery with 
horizontal flues?

    (a) You must comply with each of the requirements in paragraphs 
(a)(1) through (6) of this section.
    (1) Prepare and operate by a written plan designed to prevent green 
pushes from each by-product coke oven battery with horizontal flues. 
The written plan must establish minimum flue temperatures at different 
coking times and the lowest acceptable minimum flue temperature.
    (i) The minimum flue temperatures must be based on a study 
conducted by the plant that considers different means for correlating 
flue temperature and coking time, including the percent volatile matter 
in the coke, the color of emissions, the opacity and duration of 
emissions, and whether emissions continue during quench car travel.
    (ii) Submit the written plan and supporting documentation to the 
applicable permitting authority for review and approval.
    (2) Measure and record the temperature of all flues on two ovens 
per day for each battery within 2 hours of the scheduled pushing time 
for each oven. If two or more batteries are served by the same pushing 
equipment and total no more than 60 ovens, the batteries as a unit can 
be considered a single battery.
    (3) Measure and record the temperature of all flues on each oven at 
least once each month.
    (4) Record the time each oven is charged and pushed. Calculate and 
record the net coking time for each oven.
    (5) If any measured flue temperature for an oven is below the 
minimum flue temperature for an oven's coking time established in the 
written plan, extend the coking time of the oven by the amount 
specified in the written plan for that flue temperature before pushing 
the oven. For any oven put on extended coking you must:
    (i) Use oven-directed procedures to find the cause of the low flue 
temperature. Take corrective action to fix the problem;
    (ii) Continue to measure and record the flue temperatures for the 
oven within 2 hours of the scheduled pushing time until the 
measurements prior to two consecutive pushes meet the minimum 
temperature requirements for the extended coking time; and
    (iii) Once the heating problem has been corrected, the oven may be 
returned to the battery's general coking schedule. Measure and record 
the flue temperatures for the oven within 2 hours of the scheduled 
pushing time for the next two consecutive pushes. If any flue 
temperature measurement is below the minimum flue temperature for that 
coking time established in the written plan, repeat the procedures in 
paragraphs (a)(5)(i) and (ii) of this section.
    (6) If any flue temperature measurement is below the lowest 
acceptable minimum temperature for complete coking established in the 
written plan, remove the oven from service for repairs. After repairing 
the oven, you must:
    (i) Follow the procedures outlined in the written work practice 
plan to return the oven to service after repairs are complete; and
    (ii) Measure and record the flue temperatures for the oven within 2 
hours of the scheduled pushing time. If any flue temperature 
measurement is below the minimum flue temperature for that coking time 
established in the written plan, repeat the procedures in paragraph 
(a)(5) of this section.
    (b) As provided in Sec. 63.6(g), you may request to use an 
alternative to the work practice standards in paragraph (a) of this 
section.


Sec. 63.7293  What work practice standards must I meet for fugitive 
pushing emissions if I have a non-recovery coke oven battery?

    (a) You must meet the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of 
this section for each new and existing non-recovery coke oven battery.
    (1) You must visually inspect each oven prior to pushing by opening 
the door damper and observing the bed of coke.
    (2) Do not push the oven unless the visual inspection indicates 
that there is no smoke in the open space above the coke bed and that 
there is an unobstructed view of the door on the opposite side of the 
oven.
    (b) As provided in Sec. 63.6(g), you may request to use an 
alternative to the work practice standard in paragraph (a) of this 
section.


Sec. 63.7294  What work practice standard must I meet for soaking?

    (a) For each new or existing by-product coke oven battery, you must 
manually ignite within 3 minutes after opening the standpipe cap any 
gases vented to the atmosphere from a standpipe during soaking that do 
not ignite automatically.
    (b) As provided in Sec. 63.6(g), you may request to use an 
alternative to the work practice standard in paragraph (a) of this 
section.


Sec. 63.7295  What work practice standards must I meet for quenching?

    (a) You must meet each of the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) 
through (5) of this section for each quench tower for a new or existing 
coke oven battery.
    (1) You must equip each quench tower with baffles such that at 
least 95 percent of the cross-sectional area of the tower is covered.
    (2) You must wash the baffles in each quench tower daily.
    (3) You must inspect each quench tower monthly for damaged or 
missing baffles and blockage.
    (4) You must repair or replace all damaged or missing baffles 
before the next scheduled inspection.
    (5) You must use clean water, as defined in Sec. 63.7352, as make-
up water.
    (b) As provided in Sec. 63.6(g), you may request to use an 
alternative to the work practice standards in paragraph (a) of this 
section.


Sec. 63.7296  What emission limitations must I meet for battery stacks?

    (a) You must not discharge to the atmosphere any emissions that 
exit the stack of a new or existing by-product coke oven battery and 
exhibit an opacity greater than the applicable limit in paragraphs 
(a)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (1) Daily average of 15 percent opacity for a battery on a normal 
coking cycle.
    (2) Daily average of 20 percent opacity for a battery on 
batterywide extended coking.
    (b) [Reserved]


Secs. 63.7297-63.7299  [Reserved]

Operation and Maintenance Requirements


Sec. 63.7300  What are my operation and maintenance requirements?

    (a) As required by Sec. 63.6(e)(1)(i), you must always operate and 
maintain your affected source, including air pollution control and 
monitoring equipment, in a manner consistent with good air pollution 
control practices for minimizing emissions at least to the levels 
required by this subpart.
    (b) You must prepare and operate at all times according to a 
written operation and maintenance plan for the general operation and 
maintenance of new or existing by-product coke oven

[[Page 35348]]

batteries. Each plan must address, at a minimum, the elements listed in 
paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this section.
    (1) Frequency and method of recording underfiring gas parameters, 
including at a minimum, measurement of fuel: air ratio and fuel flow 
rate.
    (2) Frequency and method of recording battery operating 
temperature, including measurement of individual flue and cross-wall 
temperatures.
    (3) Procedures to prevent pushing an oven out of sequence or 
pushing prematurely.
    (4) Procedures to prevent undercharging and overcharging of ovens, 
including measurement of coal moisture, coal bulk density, and volume 
of coal charged.
    (5) Frequency and procedures for inspecting flues, burners, and 
nozzles.
    (c) You must prepare and operate at all times according to a 
written operation and maintenance plan for each capture system and 
control device applied to pushing emissions from a new or existing coke 
oven battery. Each plan must address at a minimum the elements in 
paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) Monthly inspections of the equipment that are important to the 
performance of the total capture system (e.g., pressure sensors, 
dampers, and damper switches). This inspection must include 
observations of the physical appearance of the equipment (e.g., 
presence of holes in ductwork or hoods, flow constrictions caused by 
dents or accumulated dust in ductwork, and fan erosion). The operation 
and maintenance plan must also include requirements to repair any 
defect or deficiency in the capture system before the next scheduled 
inspection.
    (2) Preventative maintenance for each control device, including a 
preventative maintenance schedule that is consistent with the 
manufacturer's instructions for routine and long-term maintenance.
    (3) Corrective action for all baghouses applied to pushing 
emissions. In the event a bag leak detection system alarm is triggered, 
you must initiate corrective action to determine the cause of the alarm 
within 1 hour of the alarm, initiate corrective action to correct the 
cause of the problem within 24 hours of the alarm, and complete the 
corrective action as soon as practicable. Actions may include, but are 
not limited to:
    (i) Inspecting the baghouse for air leaks, torn or broken bags or 
filter media, or any other condition that may cause an increase in 
emissions.
    (ii) Sealing off defective bags or filter media.
    (iii) Replacing defective bags or filter media or otherwise 
repairing the control device.
    (iv) Sealing off a defective baghouse compartment.
    (v) Cleaning the bag leak detection system probe, or otherwise 
repairing the bag leak detection system.
    (vi) Shutting down the process producing the particulate emissions.


Secs. 63.7301-63.7309  [Reserved]

General Compliance Requirements


Sec. 63.7310  What are my general requirements for complying with this 
subpart?

    (a) You must be in compliance with the emission limitations, work 
practice standards, and operation and maintenance requirements in this 
subpart at all times, except during periods of startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction as defined in Sec. 63.2.
    (b) During the period between the compliance date specified for 
your affected source in Sec. 63.7283 and the date upon which continuous 
monitoring systems have been installed and certified and any applicable 
operating limits have been set, you must maintain a log detailing the 
operation and maintenance of the process and emissions control 
equipment.
    (c) You must develop and implement a written startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction plan according to the provisions in Sec. 63.6(e)(3).


Secs. 63.7311-63.7319  [Reserved]

Initial Compliance Requirements


Sec. 63.7320  By what date must I conduct performance tests or other 
initial compliance demonstrations?

    (a) As required in Sec. 63.7(a)(2), you must conduct a performance 
test for each coke oven battery within 180 calendar days of the 
compliance date that is specified in Sec. 63.7283 for your affected 
source to demonstrate initial compliance with the emission and opacity 
limits in this subpart.
    (b) For each work practice standard and operation and maintenance 
requirement that applies to you where initial compliance is not 
demonstrated using a performance test or opacity observation, you must 
demonstrate initial compliance within 30 calendar days after the 
compliance date that is specified for your affected source in 
Sec. 63.7283.
    (c) If you commenced construction or reconstruction between July 3, 
2001 and [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal 
Register], you must demonstrate initial compliance with either the 
proposed emission limit or the promulgated emission limit no later than 
[180 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal 
Register] or no later than 180 calendar days after startup of the 
source, whichever is later, according to Sec. 63.7(a)(2)(ix).
    (d) If you commenced construction or reconstruction between July 3, 
2001 and [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal 
Register], and you chose to comply with the proposed emission limit 
when demonstrating initial compliance, you must conduct a second 
performance test to demonstrate compliance with the promulgated 
emission limit by [3 YEARS AND 180 DAYS FROM THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF 
THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal Register], or after startup of the 
source, whichever is later, according to Sec. 63.7(a)(2)(ix).


Sec. 63.7321  When must I conduct subsequent performance tests?

    For each control device subject to an emission limit for 
particulate matter in Sec. 63.7290(a), you must conduct subsequent 
performance tests no less frequently than twice (at mid-term and 
renewal) during each term of your title V operating permit.


Sec. 63.7322  What test methods and other procedures must I use to 
demonstrate initial compliance with the emission limits for particulate 
matter?

    (a) You must conduct each performance test that applies to your 
affected source according to the requirements in Sec. 63.7(e)(1) and 
the conditions detailed in paragraph (b) of this section.
    (b) To determine compliance with the emission limit of 0.004 gr/
dscf for particulate matter from a control device applied to pushing 
emissions where a cokeside shed is the capture system, follow the test 
methods and procedures in paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section. To 
determine compliance with a process-weighted mass rate of particulate 
matter (lb/ton of coke) from a control device applied to pushing 
emissions where a cokeside shed is not used, follow the test methods 
and procedures in paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section.
    (1) Determine the concentration of particulate matter according to 
the following test methods in appendix A of 40 CFR part 60.
    (i) Method 1 to select sampling port locations and the number of 
traverse points. Sampling sites must be located at the outlet of the 
control device and prior to any releases to the atmosphere.
    (ii) Method 2, 2F, or 2G to determine the volumetric flow rate of 
the stack gas.

[[Page 35349]]

    (iii) Method 3, 3A, or 3B to determine the dry molecular weight of 
the stack gas.
    (iv) Method 4 to determine the moisture content of the stack gas.
    (v) Method 5 or 5D, as applicable, to determine the concentration 
of particulate matter in the stack gas.
    (2) During each particulate matter test run, sample only during 
periods of actual pushing when the capture system fan and control 
device are engaged. Collect a minimum sample volume of 30 cubic feet of 
gas during each test run. Three valid test runs are needed to comprise 
a performance test. Each run must start at the beginning of a push and 
finish at the end of a push (i.e., sample for an integral number of 
pushes).
    (3) Determine the total combined weight in tons of coke pushed 
during the duration of each test run according to the procedures in 
your source test plan for calculating coke yield from the quantity of 
coal charged to an individual oven.
    (4) Compute the process-weighted mass emissions (E<INF>p</INF>) for 
each test run using Equation 1 of this section as follows:
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TP03JY01.013

Where:

E<INF>p</INF> = Process weighted mass emissions of particulate 
matter, lb/ton;
C = Concentration of particulate matter, gr/dscf;
Q = Volumetric flow rate of stack gas, dscf/hr;
T = Total time during a run that a sample is withdrawn from the 
stack during pushing, hr;
P = Total amount of coke pushed during the test run, tons; and
K = Conversion factor, 7,000 gr/lb.


Sec. 63.7323  What procedures must I use to establish operating limits?

    (a) For a venturi scrubber applied to pushing emissions from a coke 
oven battery, you must establish site-specific operating limits for 
pressure drop and scrubber water flow rate according to the procedures 
in paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section.
    (1) Using the continuous parameter monitoring systems (CPMS) 
required in Sec. 63.7330(b), measure and record the pressure drop and 
scrubber water flow rate for each particulate matter test run during 
periods of pushing. A minimum of one pressure drop measurement and one 
scrubber water flow rate measurement must be obtained for each push.
    (2) Compute and record the average pressure drop and scrubber water 
flow rate for each test run. Your operating limits are the lowest 
average pressure drop and scrubber water flow rate values recorded for 
any push in any of the three runs that meet the applicable emission 
limit.
    (b) For a capture system applied to pushing emissions from a coke 
oven battery, you must establish a site-specific operating limit for 
the fan motor amperes or volumetric flow rate according to the 
procedures in paragraph (b)(1) or (2) of this section.
    (1) If you elect the operating limit in Sec. 63.7290(b)(3)(i) for 
fan motor amperes, measure and record the fan motor amperes during each 
push sampled for each particulate matter test run. Your operating limit 
is the second lowest fan motor amperes recorded during any of the three 
runs that meets the emission limit.
    (2) If you elect the operating limit in Sec. 63.7290(b)(3)(ii) for 
volumetric flow rate, measure and record the total volumetric flow rate 
at the inlet of the control device during each push sampled for each 
particulate matter test run. Your operating limit is the second lowest 
volumetric flow rate recorded during any of the three runs that meets 
the emission limit.
    (c) You may change the operating limit for a venturi scrubber or 
capture system if you meet the requirements in paragraphs (c)(1) 
through (3) of this section.
    (1) Submit a written notification to the Administrator of your 
request to conduct a new performance test to revise the operating 
limit.
    (2) Conduct a performance test to demonstrate that emissions of 
particulate matter from the control device do not exceed the applicable 
limit in Sec. 63.7290(a).
    (3) Establish revised operating limits according to the applicable 
procedures in paragraph (a) or (b) of this section.


Sec. 63.7324  What test methods and other procedures must I use to 
demonstrate initial compliance with the opacity limits?

    (a) You must conduct each performance test that applies to your 
affected source according to the requirements in Sec. 63.7(h)(5) and 
the conditions detailed in paragraphs (b) and (c) of this section.
    (b) To determine compliance with the opacity limit of 20 percent 
for a short battery or 25 percent for a tall battery for fugitive 
pushing emissions (Option 1), follow the test methods and procedures in 
paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section.
    (1) Determine and record the opacity of fugitive emissions for four 
consecutive pushes per battery. If two or more batteries are served by 
the same pushing equipment and total no more than 60 ovens, the 
batteries as a unit can be considered a single battery. All 
observations and calculations for the initial performance test, 
compliance monitoring, and subsequent performance tests must be made by 
an independent Method 9 certified observer using Method 9 in appendix A 
of 40 CFR part 60.
    (2) Begin observations for a push when the coke begins to fall into 
the quench car. End observations of a push when the quench car enters 
the quench tower. Remain stationary whenever possible while observing 
emissions during travel to the quench tower. Do not reposition after 
the push to observe emissions during travel.
    (i) For a battery without a cokeside shed, observe fugitive pushing 
emissions from a position that provides an unobstructed view and avoids 
interferences from the topside of the battery at least 10 meters from 
the quench car. This usually requires the observer to be positioned at 
an angle to the quench car rather than perpendicular to it. Typical 
interferences to avoid include emissions from open standpipes and 
charging. Read the opacity of emissions above the battery top with the 
sky as the background where possible. Record any push not observed 
because of obstructions or interferences.
    (ii) For batteries with a cokeside shed, the observer must be 
positioned to observe fugitive emissions that escape from the open end 
of the shed nearest to the oven being pushed. Observations must include 
any fugitive emissions that escape from the top of the shed or from the 
area where the shed is joined to the battery. If the observer does not 
have a clear view to identify when a push starts, a second observer 
must be positioned to observe the start of the push and notify the 
observer when to start the Method 9 readings. Radio communications with 
other plant personnel (e.g., pushing ram operator or quench car 
operator) may also serve to notify the observer of the start of a push. 
Record any push not observed because of obstructions or interferences.
    (3) Record opacity observations to the nearest 5 percent at 15-
second intervals as required in section 2.4 of Method 9 (40 CFR part 
60, appendix A). The requirement in section 2.4 of Method 9 for a 
minimum of 24 observations does not apply, and the data reduction 
requirements in section 2.5 of Method 9 do not apply. The requirement 
in Sec. 63.6(h)(5)(ii)(B) for obtaining at least 3 hours of 
observations (30, 6-minute averages) to demonstrate initial compliance 
does not apply.

[[Page 35350]]

    (4) Calculate and record the average of the four consecutive pushes 
using the six highest consecutive 15-second readings for each push (or 
the actual number of readings if there are fewer than six readings).
    (c) To determine compliance with the daily average opacity limit 
for stacks of 15 percent for a by-product coke oven battery on a normal 
coking cycle or 20 percent for a by-product coke oven battery on 
batterywide extended coking, follow the test methods and procedures in 
paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) Using the continuous opacity monitoring system (COMS) required 
in Sec. 63.7330(d), measure and record the opacity of emissions from 
each battery stack for a 24-hour period.
    (2) Reduce the monitoring data to hourly averages as specified in 
Sec. 63.8(g)(2).
    (3) Compute and record the 24-hour (daily) average of the COMS 
data.


Sec. 63.7325  How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the emission 
limitations that apply to me?

    (a) For each coke oven battery subject to the emission limit for 
particulate matter from a control device applied to pushing emissions, 
you have demonstrated initial compliance if you meet the requirements 
in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section that apply to you.
    (1) The concentration of particulate matter, measured in accordance 
with the performance test procedures in Sec. 63.7322(b)(1) and (2), did 
not exceed 0.004 gr/dscf for a control device where a cokeside shed is 
used to capture pushing emissions or the process-weighted mass rate of 
particulate matter (lb/ton of coke), measured in accordance with the 
performance test procedures in Sec. 63.7322(b)(1) through (4), did not 
exceed:
    (i) 0.017 lb/ton of coke if a moveable hood vented to a stationary 
control device is used to capture emissions.
    (ii) If a mobile scrubber car that does not capture emissions 
during travel is used, 0.023 lb/ton of coke from a control device 
applied to pushing emissions from a short coke oven battery or 0.010 
lb/ton of coke from a control device applied to pushing emissions from 
a tall coke oven battery.
    (iii) 0.039 lb/ton of coke if a mobile scrubber car that captures 
emissions during travel is used.
    (2) For each venturi scrubber applied to pushing emissions, you 
have established appropriate site-specific operating limits and have a 
record of the pressure drop and scrubber water flow rate measured 
during the performance test in accordance with Sec. 63.7323(a).
    (3) For each capture system applied to pushing emissions, you have 
established an appropriate site-specific operating limit, and:
    (i) If you elect the operating limit in Sec. 63.7290(b)(3)(i) for 
fan motor amperes, you have a record of the fan motor amperes during 
the performance test in accordance with Sec. 63.7323(b)(1); or
    (ii) If you elect the operating limit in Sec. 63.7290(b)(3)(ii) for 
volumetric flow rate, you have a record of the total volumetric flow 
rate at the inlet of the control device measured during the performance 
test in accordance with Sec. 63.7323(b)(2).
    (b) For each by-product coke oven battery with vertical flues 
subject to the opacity limit in Sec. 63.7291(a) for fugitive pushing 
emissions (Option 1), you have demonstrated initial compliance if the 
average opacity of four consecutive pushes, calculated from the six 
highest consecutive 15-second readings (or the actual number if there 
are fewer than six readings) for each push, as determined using the 
performance test procedures in Sec. 63.7324(b), is no more than 20 
percent for a short battery or 25 percent for a tall battery.
    (c) For each new or existing by-product coke oven battery subject 
to the opacity limit for stacks in Sec. 63.7296(a), you have 
demonstrated initial compliance if the daily average opacity, as 
measured according to the performance test procedures in 
Sec. 63.7324(c), is no more than 15 percent for a battery on a normal 
coking cycle or 20 percent for a battery on batterywide extended 
coking.
    (d) For each emission limitation that applies to you, you must 
submit a notification of compliance status containing the results of 
the performance test according to Sec. 63.7340(e).


Sec. 63.7326  How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the work 
practice standards that apply to me?

    (a) For each by-product coke oven battery with vertical flues 
subject to the work practice standards for fugitive pushing emissions 
(Option 2) in Sec. 63.7291(b), you have demonstrated initial compliance 
if you certify in your notification of compliance status that you will 
meet each of the work practice requirements.
    (b) For each by-product coke oven battery with horizontal flues 
subject to the work practice standards for fugitive pushing emissions 
in Sec. 63.7292(a), you have demonstrated initial compliance if you 
have met the requirements of paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section:
    (1) You have prepared and submitted a written plan and supporting 
documentation establishing appropriate minimum flue temperatures for 
different coking times and the lowest minimum temperature for which 
extended coking can be used to the applicable permitting authority for 
review and approval; and
    (2) You certify in your notification of compliance status that you 
will meet each of the work practice requirements.
    (c) For each non-recovery coke oven battery subject to the work 
practice standards for fugitive pushing emissions in Sec. 63.7293(a), 
you have demonstrated initial compliance if you certify in your 
notification of compliance status that you will meet each of the work 
practice requirements.
    (d) For each by-product coke oven battery subject to the work 
practice standard for soaking in Sec. 63.7294(a), you have demonstrated 
initial compliance if you certify in your notification of compliance 
status that you will meet each of the work practice requirements.
    (e) For each coke oven battery, you have demonstrated initial 
compliance with the work practice standards for quenching in 
Sec. 63.7295(a) if you certify in your notification of compliance 
status that you have met the requirements of paragraphs (e)(1) and (2) 
of this section:
    (1) You have installed the required equipment in each quench tower; 
and
    (2) You will meet each of the work practice requirements.
    (f) For each work practice standard that applies to you, you must 
submit a notification of compliance status according to the 
requirements in Sec. 3.7340(e).


Sec. 63.7327  How do I demonstrate initial compliance with the 
operation and maintenance requirements that apply to me?

    (a) You have demonstrated initial compliance if you certify in your 
notification of compliance status that you have met the requirements of 
paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section:
    (1) You have prepared the operation and maintenance plans according 
to the requirements in Sec. 63.7300(b) and (c);
    (2) You will operate each by-product coke oven battery and each 
capture system and control device applied to pushing emissions from a 
coke oven battery according to the procedures in the plans; and
    (3) You submit a notification of compliance status according to the 
requirements in Sec. 63.7340(e).
    (b) [Reserved]

[[Page 35351]]

Secs. 63.7328-63.7329  [Reserved]

Continuous Compliance Requirements


Sec. 63.7330  What are my monitoring requirements?

    (a) For each baghouse applied to pushing emissions from a coke oven 
battery, you must at all times monitor the relative change in 
particulate matter loadings using a bag leak detection system according 
to the requirements in Sec. 63.7331(a) and conduct inspections at their 
specified frequency according to the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) 
through (8) of this section.
    (1) Monitor the pressure drop across each baghouse cell each day to 
ensure pressure drop is within the normal operating range identified in 
the manual;
    (2) Confirm that dust is being removed from hoppers through weekly 
visual inspections or equivalent means of ensuring the proper 
functioning of removal mechanisms;
    (3) Check the compressed air supply for pulse-jet baghouses each 
day;
    (4) Monitor cleaning cycles to ensure proper operation using an 
appropriate methodology;
    (5) Check bag cleaning mechanisms for proper functioning through 
monthly visual inspection or equivalent means;
    (6) Make monthly visual checks of bag tension on reverse air and 
shaker-type baghouses to ensure that bags are not kinked (kneed or 
bent) or laying on their sides. You do not have to make this check for 
shaker-type baghouses using self-tensioning (spring-loaded) devices;
    (7) Confirm the physical integrity of the baghouse through 
quarterly visual inspections of the baghouse interior for air leaks; 
and
    (8) Inspect fans for wear, material buildup, and corrosion through 
quarterly visual inspections, vibration detectors, or equivalent means.
    (b) For each venturi scrubber applied to pushing emissions from a 
coke oven battery, you must at all times monitor the pressure drop and 
water flow rate using a CPMS according to the requirements in 
Sec. 63.7331(b).
    (c) For each capture system applied to pushing emissions, you must 
at all times monitor the fan motor amperes according to the 
requirements in Sec. 63.7331(c) or the volumetric flow rate according 
to the requirements in Sec. 63.7331(d).
    (d) For each by-product coke oven battery, you must monitor at all 
times the opacity of emissions exiting each stack using a COMS 
according to the requirements in Sec. 63.7331(e).


Sec. 63.7331  What are the installation, operation, and maintenance 
requirements for my monitors?

    (a) For each baghouse applied to pushing emissions from a coke oven 
battery, you must install, operate, and maintain each bag leak 
detection system according to the requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) 
through (7) of this section.
    (1) The system must be certified by the manufacturer to be capable 
of detecting emissions of particulate matter at concentrations of 10 
milligrams per actual cubic meter (0.0044 grains per actual cubic foot) 
or less;
    (2) The system must provide output of relative changes in 
particulate matter loadings;
    (3) The system must be equipped with an alarm that will sound when 
an increase in relative particulate loadings is detected over a preset 
level. The alarm must be located such that it can be heard by the 
appropriate plant personnel;
    (4) Each system that works based on the triboelectric effect must 
be installed, operated, and maintained in a manner consistent with the 
guidance document, ``Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance'' (EPA-
454/R-98-015), September 1997. You may install, operate, and maintain 
other types of bag leak detection systems in a manner consistent with 
the manufacturer's written specifications and recommendations;
    (5) To make the initial adjustment of the system, establish the 
baseline output by adjusting the sensitivity (range) and the averaging 
period of the device. Then, establish the alarm set points and the 
alarm delay time;
    (6) Following the initial adjustment, do not adjust the sensitivity 
or range, averaging period, alarm set points, or alarm delay time, 
except as detailed in your operation and maintenance plan. Do not 
increase the sensitivity by more than 100 percent or decrease the 
sensitivity by more than 50 percent over a 365-day period unless a 
responsible official certifies, in writing, that the baghouse has been 
inspected and found to be in good operating condition; and
    (7) Where multiple detectors are required, the system's 
instrumentation and alarm may be shared among detectors.
    (b) For each venturi scrubber applied to pushing emissions from a 
coke oven battery, you must install, operate, and maintain CPMS to 
measure and record the pressure drop across the scrubber and scrubber 
water flow rate during each push according to the requirements in 
paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (1) For the pressure drop CPMS, you must:
    (i) Locate the pressure sensor(s) in or as close to a position that 
provides a representative measurement of the pressure and that 
minimizes or eliminates pulsating pressure, vibration, and internal and 
external corrosion;
    (ii) Use a gauge with a minimum measurement sensitivity of 0.5 inch 
of water or a transducer with a minimum measurement sensitivity of 1 
percent of the pressure range;
    (iii) Check the pressure tap for pluggage daily;
    (iv) Using a manometer, check gauge calibration quarterly and 
transducer calibration monthly;
    (v) Conduct calibration checks any time the sensor exceeds the 
manufacturer's specified maximum operating pressure range, or install a 
new pressure sensor; and
    (vi) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity, all 
electrical connections for continuity, and all mechanical connections 
for leakage.
    (2) For the scrubber water flow rate CPMS, you must:
    (i) Locate the flow sensor and other necessary equipment in a 
position that provides a representative flow and that reduces swirling 
flow or abnormal velocity distributions due to upstream and downstream 
disturbances;
    (ii) Use a flow sensor with a minimum measurement sensitivity of 2 
percent of the flow rate;
    (iii) Conduct a flow sensor calibration check at least semiannually 
according to the manufacturer's instructions; and
    (iv) At least monthly, inspect all components for integrity, all 
electrical connections for continuity, and all mechanical connections 
for leakage.
    (3) You must install, operate, and maintain each venturi scrubber 
CPMS according to the requirements in paragraphs (b)(3)(i) through 
(iii) of this section.
    (i) Each CPMS must complete a measurement at least once per push;
    (ii) Each CPMS must produce valid data for all pushes; and
    (iii) Each CPMS must determine and record the daily (24-hour) 
average of all recorded readings.
    (c) If you elect the operating limit in Sec. 63.7390(b)(3)(i) for a 
capture system applied to pushing emissions from a coke oven battery, 
you must install, operate, and maintain a device to measure the fan 
motor amperes.
    (d) If you elect the operating limit in Sec. 63.7390(b)(3)(ii) for 
a capture system applied to pushing emissions from a coke oven battery, 
you must install, operate, and maintain a device to measure the total 
volumetric flow rate at the inlet of the control device.

[[Page 35352]]

    (e) For each by-product coke oven battery, you must install, 
operate, and maintain a COMS to measure and record the opacity of 
emissions exiting each stack according to the requirements in 
paragraphs (e)(1) through (4) of this section.
    (1) You must install each COMS and conduct a performance evaluation 
of each COMS according to the requirements in Sec. 63.8 and Performance 
Specification 1 in appendix B of 40 CFR part 60;
    (2) You must develop and implement a quality control program for 
operating and maintaining each COMS according to the requirements in 
Sec. 63.8(d). At minimum, the quality control program must include a 
daily calibration drift assessment, quarterly performance audit, and an 
annual zero alignment audit of each COMS;
    (3) You must operate and maintain each COMS according to the 
requirements in Sec. 63.8(e). Identify periods the COMS is out-of-
control, including any periods that the COMS fails to pass a daily 
calibration drift assessment, quarterly performance audit, or annual 
zero alignment audit; and
    (4) You must determine and record the hourly and daily (24-hour) 
average opacity according to the procedures in Sec. 63.7324(c) using 
all the 6-minute averages collected for periods during which the COMS 
is not out-of-control.


Sec. 63.7332  How do I monitor and collect data to demonstrate 
continuous compliance?

    (a) Except for monitor malfunctions, associated repairs, and 
required quality assurance or control activities (including as 
applicable, calibration checks and required zero and span adjustments), 
you must monitor continuously (or collect data at all required 
intervals) at all times the affected source is operating.
    (b) You may not use data recorded during monitoring malfunctions, 
associated repairs, and required quality assurance or control 
activities in data averages and calculations used to report emission or 
operating levels, or in fulfilling a minimum data availability 
requirement, if applicable. You must use all the data collected during 
all other periods in assessing compliance. A monitoring malfunction is 
any sudden, infrequent, not reasonably preventable failure of the 
monitor to provide valid data. Monitoring failures that are caused in 
part by poor maintenance or careless operation are not malfunctions.


Sec. 63.7333  How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the 
emission limitations that apply to me?

    (a) For each control device applied to pushing emissions from a 
coke oven battery and subject to the emission limit in Sec. 63.7290(a), 
you must demonstrate continuous compliance by:
    (1) Maintaining emissions of particulate matter at or below the 
applicable limits in paragraphs (a)(1)(i) through (iv) of this section.
    (i) 0.004 gr/dscf if a cokeside shed is used to capture emissions;
    (ii) 0.017 lb/ton of coke if a moveable hood vented to a stationary 
control device is used to capture emissions;
    (iii) If a mobile scrubber car that does not capture emissions 
during travel is used, 0.023 lb/ton of coke from a control device 
applied to pushing emissions from a short coke oven battery or 0.010 
lb/ton of coke from a control device applied to pushing emissions from 
a tall coke oven battery; and
    (iv) 0.039 lb/ton of coke if a mobile scrubber car that captures 
emissions during travel is used.
    (2) Conducting subsequent performance tests to demonstrate 
continuous compliance no less frequently than twice (at mid-term and 
renewal) during each term of your title V operating permit.
    (b) For each baghouse applied to pushing emissions from a coke oven 
battery and subject to the operating limit in Sec. 63.7290(b)(1), you 
must demonstrate continuous compliance by having met the requirements 
of paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this section:
    (1) Maintaining each baghouse such that the bag leak detection 
system alarm does not sound for more than 5 percent of the operating 
time during any semiannual reporting period. Follow the procedures in 
paragraphs (b)(1)(i) through (v) of this section to determine the 
percent of time the alarm sounded.
    (i) Alarms that occur due solely to a malfunction of the bag leak 
detection system are not included in the calculation.
    (ii) Alarms that occur during startup, shutdown, or malfunction are 
not included in the calculation if the condition is described in the 
startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan and all the actions you took 
during the startup, shutdown, or malfunction were consistent with the 
procedures in the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan.
    (iii) Count 1 hour of alarm time for each alarm when you initiated 
procedures to determine the cause of the alarm within 1 hour.
    (iv) Count the actual amount of time you took to initiate 
procedures to determine the cause of the alarm if you did not initiate 
procedures to determine the cause of the alarm within 1 hour of the 
alarm.
    (v) Calculate the percentage of time the alarm on the bag leak 
detection system sounds as the ratio of the sum of alarm times to the 
total operating time multiplied by 100.
    (2) Maintaining records of the times the bag leak detection system 
alarm sounded, and for each valid alarm, the time you initiated 
corrective action, the corrective action(s) taken, and the date on 
which corrective action was completed.
    (3) Inspecting and maintaining each baghouse according to the 
requirements in Sec. 63.7330(a)(1) through (8) and recording all 
information needed to document conformance with these requirements. If 
you increase or decrease the sensitivity of the bag leak detection 
system beyond the limits specified in Sec. 63.7331(a)(6), you must 
include a copy of the required written certification by a responsible 
official in the next semiannual compliance report.
    (c) For each venturi scrubber applied to pushing emissions from a 
coke oven battery and subject to the operating limits in 
Sec. 63.7290(b)(2), you must demonstrate continuous compliance by 
having met the requirements of paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this 
section:
    (1) Maintaining the daily average pressure drop and scrubber water 
flow rate at levels no lower than those established during the initial 
or subsequent performance test;
    (2) Inspecting and maintaining each CPMS according to 
Sec. 63.7331(b)(1) and (2) and recording all information needed to 
document conformance with these requirements; and
    (3) Collecting and reducing monitoring data for pressure drop and 
scrubber water flow rate according to Sec. 63.7331(b)(3).
    (d) For each capture system applied to pushing emissions from a 
coke oven battery and subject to the operating limit in 
Sec. 63.7290(b)(3), you must demonstrate continuous compliance by 
having met the requirements of paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this 
section:
    (1) If you elect the operating limit for fan motor amperes in 
Sec. 63.7290(b)(3)(i):
    (i) Maintaining the fan motor amperes at or above the minimum level 
established during the initial or subsequent performance test; and
    (ii) Checking the fan motor amperes at least every 8 hours to 
verify the amperes are at or above the minimum level established during 
the initial or

[[Page 35353]]

subsequent performance test and recording the results of each check.
    (2) If you elect the operating limit for volumetric flow rate in 
Sec. 63.7290(b)(3)(ii):
    (i) Maintaining the volumetric flow rate at the inlet of the 
control device at or above the minimum level established during the 
initial or subsequent performance test; and
    (ii) Checking the volumetric flow rate at least every 8 hours to 
verify the volumetric flow rate is at or above the minimum level 
established during the initial or subsequent performance test and 
recording the results of each check.
    (e) For each by-product coke oven battery with vertical flues 
subject to the opacity limit for fugitive pushing emissions (Option 1) 
in Sec. 63.7291(a), you must demonstrate continuous compliance by 
having met the requirements of paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this 
section:
    (1) Maintaining the daily average opacity of fugitive emissions at 
no more than 20 percent for a short battery or 25 percent for a tall 
battery; and
    (2) Determining and recording the opacity of fugitive emissions for 
four consecutive pushes per operating day according to the performance 
test procedures in Sec. 63.7324(b), and ensuring that each oven in an 
affected battery is observed at least once every 3 months.
    (f) For each by-product coke oven battery subject to the opacity 
limit for stacks in Sec. 63.7296(a), you must demonstrate continuous 
compliance by having met the requirements of paragraphs (f)(1) and (2) 
of this section:
    (1) Maintaining the daily average opacity at or below 15 percent 
for a battery on a normal coking cycle or 20 percent for a battery on 
batterywide extended coking; and
    (2) Operating and maintaining a COMS and collecting and reducing 
the COMS data according to Sec. 63.7331(e).


Sec. 63.7334  How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the work 
practice standards that apply to me?

    (a) For each by-product coke oven battery with vertical flues 
subject to the work practice standards for fugitive pushing emissions 
(Option 2) in Sec. 63.7291(b), you must demonstrate continuous 
compliance by having met the requirements of paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) 
of this section:
    (1) Determining and recording the opacity of fugitive emissions for 
four consecutive pushes per operating day according to the procedures 
in Sec. 63.7324(b)(1) through (3), and ensuring that each oven in an 
affected battery is observed at least once every 3 months; and
    (2) Assigning each oven observed that exceeds the opacity trigger 
of 30 percent for any short battery or 35 percent for any tall battery 
to the oven-directed program and recording all relevant information 
according to the requirements in Sec. 63.7291(b)(5) through (11), 
including but not limited to, daily pushing schedules, records of 
diagnostic procedures, corrective actions, and oven repairs.
    (b) For each by-product coke oven battery with horizontal flues 
subject to the work practice standards for fugitive pushing emissions 
in Sec. 63.7292(a), you must demonstrate continuous compliance by 
having met the requirements of paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of this 
section:
    (1) Measuring and recording the temperature of all flues on two 
ovens per day within 2 hours of the oven's scheduled pushing time and 
ensuring that the temperature of each oven is measured and recorded at 
least once every month;
    (2) Recording the time each oven is charged and pushed and 
calculating and recording the net coking time for each oven; and
    (3) Extending the coking time for each oven that falls below the 
minimum flue temperature trigger established for that oven's coking 
time in the written plan required in Sec. 63.7292(a)(1), assigning the 
oven to the oven-directed program, and recording all relevant 
information according to the requirements in Sec. 63.7292(a)(6) 
including, but not limited to, daily pushing schedules, diagnostic 
procedures, corrective actions, and oven repairs.
    (c) For each non-recovery coke oven battery subject to the work 
practice standards in Sec. 63.7293(a), you must demonstrate continuous 
compliance by maintaining records that document each visual inspection 
of an oven prior to pushing and that the oven was not pushed unless 
there was no smoke in the open space above the coke bed and there was 
an unobstructed view of the door on the opposite side of the oven.
    (d) For each by-product coke oven battery subject to the work 
practice standard for soaking in Sec. 63.7294(a), you must demonstrate 
continuous compliance by maintaining records that document the 
automatic or manual ignition of vented gases from each standpipe. If 
the vented gases do not ignite automatically, the records must include 
the time the standpipe cap is opened and the time the vented gases are 
manually ignited.
    (e) For each coke oven battery, you must demonstrate continuous 
compliance with the work practice standard for quenching in 
Sec. 63.7295(a) by having met the requirements of paragraphs (e)(1) and 
(2) of this section:
    (1) Maintaining baffles in each quench tower such that at least 95 
percent of the cross-sectional area of the tower is covered as required 
in Sec. 63.7295(a)(1); and
    (2) Maintaining records that document conformance with the washing, 
inspection, and repair requirements in Sec. 63.7295(a)(2) through (4).


Sec. 63.7335  How do I demonstrate continuous compliance with the 
operation and maintenance requirements that apply to me?

    (a) For each by-product coke oven battery, you must demonstrate 
continuous compliance with the operation and maintenance requirements 
in Sec. 63.7300(b) by adhering at all times to the plan requirements 
and recording all information needed to document conformance.
    (b) For each coke oven battery with a capture system or control 
device applied to pushing emissions, you must demonstrate continuous 
compliance with the operation and maintenance requirements in 
Sec. 63.7300(c) by meeting the requirements of paragraphs (b)(1) 
through (3) of this section:
    (1) Making monthly inspections of capture systems according to 
Sec. 63.7300(c)(1) and recording all information needed to document 
conformance with these requirements;
    (2) Performing preventative maintenance for each control device 
according to Sec. 63.7300(c)(2) and recording all information needed to 
document conformance with these requirements; and
    (3) Initiating and completing corrective action for a bag leak 
detection system alarm according to Sec. 63.7300(c)(3) and recording 
all information needed to document conformance with these requirements.
    (c) You must maintain a current copy of the operation and 
maintenance plans required in Sec. 63.7300(b) and (c) onsite and 
available for inspection upon request. You must keep the plans for the 
life of the affected source or until the affected source is no longer 
subject to the requirements of this subpart.


Sec. 63.7336  What other requirements must I meet to demonstrate 
continuous compliance?

    (a) Deviations. You must report each instance in which you did not 
meet each emission limitation in this subpart that applies to you. This 
includes periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction. You must also 
report each instance in which you did not meet

[[Page 35354]]

each work practice standard or operation and maintenance requirement in 
this subpart that applies to you. These instances are deviations from 
the emission limitations (including operating limits), work practice 
standards, and operation and maintenance requirements in this subpart. 
These deviations must be reported according to the requirements in 
Sec. 63.7341.
    (b) Startup, shutdowns, and malfunctions. During periods of 
startup, shutdown, and malfunction, you must operate in accordance with 
your startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan.
    (1) Consistent with Secs. 63.6(e) and 63.7(e)(1), deviations that 
occur during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction are not 
violations if you demonstrate to the Administrator's satisfaction that 
you were operating in accordance with the startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction plan.
    (2) The Administrator will determine whether deviations that occur 
during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction are violations, 
according to the provisions in Sec. 63.6(e).


Secs. 63.7337-63.7339  [Reserved]

Notification, Reports, and Records


Sec. 63.7340  What notifications must I submit and when?

    (a) You must submit all of the notifications in Secs. 63.6(h)(4) 
and (h)(5), 63.7(b) and (c), 63.8(e) and (f)(4), and 63.9(b) through 
(h) that apply to you by the specified dates.
    (b) As specified in Sec. 63.9(b)(2), if you startup your affected 
source before [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal 
Register], you must submit your initial notification no later than [120 
DAYS FROM THE DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal 
Register].
    (c) As specified in Sec. 63.9(b)(3), if you startup your new 
affected source on or after [DATE OF PUBLICATION OF THE FINAL RULE IN 
THE Federal Register], you must submit your initial notification no 
later than 120 calendar days after you become subject to this subpart.
    (d) If you are required to conduct a performance test, you must 
submit a notification of intent to conduct a performance test at least 
60 calendar days before the performance test is scheduled to begin as 
required in Sec. 63.7(b)(1).
    (e) If you are required to conduct a performance test, opacity 
observation, or other initial compliance demonstration, you must submit 
a notification of compliance status according to Sec. 63.9(h)(2)(ii).
    (1) For each initial compliance demonstration that does not include 
a performance test, you must submit the notification of compliance 
status before the close of business on the 30th calendar day following 
the completion of the initial compliance demonstration.
    (2) For each initial compliance demonstration that does include a 
performance test, you must submit the notification of compliance 
status, including the performance test results, before the close of 
business on the 60th calendar day following completion of the 
performance test according to Sec. 63.10(d)(2).


Sec. 63.7341  What reports must I submit and when?

    (a) Compliance report due dates. Unless the Administrator has 
approved a different schedule, you must submit monthly compliance 
reports for battery stacks and semiannual compliance reports for all 
other affected sources to your permitting authority according to the 
requirements in paragraphs (a)(1) through (4) of this section.
    (1) The first monthly compliance report for battery stacks must 
cover the period beginning on the compliance date that is specified for 
your affected source in Sec. 63.7283 and ending on the last date of the 
same calendar month. Each subsequent compliance report must cover the 
next calendar month.
    (2) The first semiannual compliance report must cover the period 
beginning on the compliance date that is specified for your affected 
source in Sec. 63.7283 and ending on June 30 or December 31, whichever 
date comes first after the compliance date that is specified for your 
affected source. Each subsequent compliance report must cover the 
semiannual reporting period from January 1 through June 30 or the 
semiannual reporting period from July 1 through December 31.
    (3) All monthly compliance report for battery stacks must be 
postmarked or delivered no later than one calendar month following the 
end of the monthly reporting period. All semiannual compliance reports 
must be postmarked or delivered no later than July 31 or January 31, 
whichever date is the first date following the end of the semiannual 
reporting period.
    (4) For each affected source that is subject to permitting 
regulations pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 71, and if the permitting 
authority has established dates for submitting semiannual reports 
pursuant to 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(a)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), 
you may submit the first and subsequent compliance reports according to 
the dates the permitting authority has established instead of according 
to the dates in paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this section.
    (b) Monthly compliance report contents. Each monthly report must 
provide information on compliance with the emission limitations for 
battery stacks in Sec. 63.7296. The reports must include the 
information in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3), and as applicable, 
paragraphs (c)(4) through (8) of this section.
    (c) Semiannual compliance report contents. Each compliance report 
must provide information on compliance with the emission limitations, 
work practice standards, and operation and maintenance requirements for 
all affected sources except battery stacks. The reports must include 
the information in paragraphs (c)(1) through (3) of this section, and 
as applicable, paragraphs (c)(4) through (8) of this section.
    (1) Company name and address.
    (2) Statement by a responsible official, with the official's name, 
title, and signature, certifying the truth, accuracy, and completeness 
of the content of the report.
    (3) Date of report and beginning and ending dates of the reporting 
period.
    (4) If you had a startup, shutdown, or malfunction during the 
reporting period and you took actions consistent with your startup, 
shutdown, and malfunction plan, the compliance report must include the 
information in Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(i).
    (5) If there were no deviations from the continuous compliance 
requirements in Sec. 63.7333(f) for battery stacks, a statement that 
there were no deviations from the emission limitations during the 
reporting period. If there were no deviations from the continuous 
compliance requirements in Secs. 63.7333 through 63.7335 that apply to 
you (for all affected sources other than battery stacks), a statement 
that there were no deviations from the emission limitations, work 
practice standards, or operation and maintenance requirements during 
the reporting period.
    (6) If there were no periods during which a continuous monitoring 
system (including COMS, continuous emission monitoring system (CEMS), 
or CPMS) was out-of-control as specified in Sec. 63.8(c)(7), a 
statement that there were no periods during which a continuous 
monitoring system was out-of-control during the reporting period.
    (7) For each deviation from an emission limitation in this subpart 
and for each deviation from the

[[Page 35355]]

requirements for work practice standards in this subpart that occurs at 
an affected source where you are not using a continuous monitoring 
system (including a COMS, CEMS, or CPMS) to comply with the emission 
limitations in this subpart, the compliance report must contain the 
information in paragraphs (c)(4) and (c)(7)(i) and (ii) of this 
section. This includes periods of startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
    (i) The total operating time of each affected source during the 
reporting period.
    (ii) Information on the number, duration, and cause of deviations 
(including unknown cause, if applicable) as applicable and the 
corrective action taken.
    (8) For each deviation from an emission limitation occurring at an 
affected source where you are using a continuous monitoring system 
(including COMS, CEMS, or CPMS) to comply with the emission limitation 
in this subpart, you must include the information in paragraphs (c)(4) 
and (c)(8)(i) through (xii) of this section. This includes periods of 
startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
    (i) The date and time that each malfunction started and stopped.
    (ii) The date and time that each continuous monitoring system 
(including COMS, CEMS, or CPMS) was inoperative, except for zero (low-
level) and high-level checks.
    (iii) The date, time, and duration that each continuous monitoring 
system (including COMS, CEMS, or CPMS) was out-of-control, including 
the information in Sec. 63.8(c)(8).
    (iv) The date and time that each deviation started and stopped, and 
whether each deviation occurred during a period of startup, shutdown, 
or malfunction or during another period.
    (v) A summary of the total duration of the deviation during the 
reporting period and the total duration as a percent of the total 
source operating time during that reporting period.
    (vi) A breakdown of the total duration of the deviations during the 
reporting period into those that are due to startup, shutdown, control 
equipment problems, process problems, other known causes, and other 
unknown causes.
    (vii) A summary of the total duration of continuous monitoring 
system downtime during the reporting period and the total duration of 
continuous monitoring system downtime as a percent of the total source 
operating time during the reporting period.
    (viii) An identification of each HAP that was monitored at the 
affected source.
    (ix) A brief description of the process units.
    (x) A brief description of the continuous monitoring system.
    (xi) The date of the latest continuous monitoring system 
certification or audit.
    (xii) A description of any changes in continuous monitoring 
systems, processes, or controls since the last reporting period.
    (d) Immediate startup, shutdown, and malfunction report. If you had 
a startup, shutdown, or malfunction during the semiannual reporting 
period that was not consistent with your startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction plan, you must submit an immediate startup, shutdown, and 
malfunction report according to the requirements in 
Sec. 63.10(d)(5)(ii).
    (e) Part 70 monitoring report. If you have obtained a title V 
operating permit for an affected source pursuant to 40 CFR part 70 or 
71, you must report all deviations as defined in this subpart in the 
semiannual monitoring report required by 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 
40 CFR 71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A). If you submit a compliance report for an 
affected source along with, or as part of, the semiannual monitoring 
report required by 40 CFR 70.6(a)(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 
71.6(a)(3)(iii)(A), and the compliance report includes all the required 
information concerning deviations from any emission limitation or work 
practice standard in this subpart, submission of the compliance report 
satisfies any obligation to report the same deviations in the 
semiannual monitoring report. However, submission of a compliance 
report does not otherwise affect any obligation you may have to report 
deviations from permit requirements to your permitting authority.


Sec. 63.7342  What records must I keep?

    (a) You must keep the records specified in paragraphs (a)(1) 
through (3) of this section.
    (1) A copy of each notification and report that you submitted to 
comply with this subpart, including all documentation supporting any 
initial notification or notification of compliance status that you 
submitted, according to the requirements in Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(xiv).
    (2) The records in Sec. 63.6(e)(3)(iii) through (v) related to 
startup, shutdown, and malfunction.
    (3) Records of performance tests, performance evaluations, and 
opacity observations as required in Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(viii).
    (b) For each COMS or CEMS, you must keep the records specified in 
paragraphs (b)(1) through (4) of this section.
    (1) Records described in Sec. 63.10(b)(2)(vi) through (xi).
    (2) Monitoring data for COMS during a performance evaluation as 
required in Sec. 63.6(h)(7)(i) and (ii).
    (3) Previous (that is, superceded) versions of the performance 
evaluation plan as required in Sec. 63.8(d)(3).
    (4) Records of the date and time that each deviation started and 
stopped, and whether the deviation occurred during a period of startup, 
shutdown, or malfunction or during another period.
    (c) You must keep the records in Sec. 63.6(h)(6) for visual 
observations.
    (d) You must keep the records required in Secs. 63.7333 through 
63.7335 to show continuous compliance with each emission limitation, 
work practice standard, and operation and maintenance requirement that 
applies to you.


Sec. 63.7343  In what form and how long must I keep my records?

    (a) You must keep your records in a form suitable and readily 
available for expeditious review, according to Sec. 63.10(b)(1).
    (b) As specified in Sec. 63.10(b)(1), you must keep each record for 
5 years following the date of each occurrence, measurement, 
maintenance, corrective action, report, or record.
    (c) You must keep each record on site for at least 2 years after 
the date of each occurrence, measurement, maintenance, corrective 
action, report, or record, according to Sec. 63.10(b)(1). You can keep 
the records offsite for the remaining 3 years.


Secs. 63.7344-63.7349  [Reserved]

Other Requirements and Information


Sec. 63.7350  What parts of the General Provisions apply to me?

    Table 1 to this subpart shows which parts of the General Provisions 
in Secs. 63.1 through 63.15 apply to you.


Sec. 63.7351  Who implements and enforces this subpart?

    (a) This subpart can be implemented and enforced by us, the U.S. 
EPA, or a delegated authority such as your State, local, or tribal 
agency. If the U.S. EPA Administrator has delegated authority to your 
State, local, or tribal agency, then that agency has the authority to 
implement and enforce this subpart. You should contact your U.S. EPA 
Regional Office to find out if this subpart is delegated to your State, 
local, or tribal agency.
    (b) In delegating implementation and enforcement authority of this 
subpart to a State, local, or tribal agency under subpart E of this 
part, the authorities

[[Page 35356]]

contained in paragraph (c) of this section are retained by the 
Administrator of the U.S. EPA and are not transferred to the State, 
local, or tribal agency.
    (c) The authorities in paragraphs (c)(1) through (5) of this 
section will not be delegated to State, local, or tribal agencies.
    (1) Approval of alternatives to work practice standards for 
fugitive pushing emissions (Option 2) in Sec. 63.7291(b) for a by-
product coke oven battery with vertical flues, fugitive pushing 
emissions in Sec. 63.7292(a) for a by-product coke oven battery with 
horizontal flues, fugitive pushing emissions in Sec. 63.7293 for a non-
recovery coke oven battery, soaking for a by-product coke oven battery 
in Sec. 63.7294(a), and quenching for a coke oven battery in 
Sec. 63.7295(a) under Sec. 63.6(g).
    (2) Approval of alternative opacity emission limitations for 
fugitive pushing emissions (Option 1) in Sec. 63.7291(a) and battery 
stacks in Sec. 63.7296(a) for a by-product coke oven battery under 
Sec. 63.6(h)(9).
    (3) Approval of major alternatives to test methods under 
Sec. 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and (f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
    (4) Approval of major alternatives to monitoring under Sec. 63.8(f) 
and as defined in Sec. 63.90.
    (5) Approval of major alternatives to recordkeeping and reporting 
under Sec. 63.10(f) and as defined in Sec. 63.90.


Sec. 63.7352  What definitions apply to this subpart?

    Terms used in this subpart are defined in the Clean Air Act (CAA), 
in Sec. 63.2, and in this section as follows:
    Baffles means an apparatus comprised of obstructions for checking 
or deflecting the flow of gases. Baffles are installed in a quench 
tower to remove droplets of water and particles from the rising vapors 
by providing a point of impact. Baffles may be installed either inside 
or on top of quench towers and are typically constructed of treated 
wood, steel, or plastic.
    Battery stack means the stack that is the point of discharge to the 
atmosphere of the combustion gases from a battery's underfiring system.
    Batterywide extended coking means increasing the average coking 
time for all ovens in the coke oven battery by 25 percent or more over 
the normal coking time.
    By-product coke oven battery means a group of ovens connected by 
common walls, where coal undergoes destructive distillation under 
positive pressure to produce coke and coke oven gas from which by-
products are recovered.
    Clean water means surface water from a river, lake, or stream; 
water meeting drinking water standards; water that has been used for 
non-contact cooling; or process wastewater that has been treated to 
remove organic compounds and/or dissolved solids.
    Coke oven battery means a group of ovens connected by common walls, 
where coal undergoes destructive distillation to produce coke. A coke 
oven battery includes by-product and non-recovery processes.
    Coke plant means a facility that produces coke from coal in either 
a by-product coke oven battery or a non-recovery coke oven battery.
    Cokeside shed means a structure used to capture pushing emissions 
that encloses the cokeside of the battery and ventilates the emissions 
to a control device.
    Coking time means the time interval that starts when an oven is 
charged with coal and ends when the oven is pushed.
    Deviation means any instance in which an affected source subject to 
this subpart, or an owner or operator of such a source:
    (1) Fails to meet any requirement or obligation established by this 
subpart, including but not limited to any emission limitation 
(including operating limits) or work practice standard;
    (2) Fails to meet any term or condition that is adopted to 
implement an applicable requirement in this subpart and that is 
included in the operating permit for any affected source required to 
obtain such a permit; or
    (3) Fails to meet any emission limitation or work practice standard 
in this subpart during startup, shutdown, or malfunction, regardless of 
whether or not such failure is permitted by this subpart.
    Emission limitation means any emission limit, opacity limit, or 
operating limit.
    Extended coking means increasing the charge-to-push time for an 
individual oven.
    Four consecutive pushes means four pushes observed successively. 
Exclude any push during which the observer's view is obstructed or 
obscured by interferences, and observe the next available push to 
complete the set of four pushes.
    Fugitive pushing emissions means emissions from pushing that are 
not collected by a capture system.
    Horizontal flue means a type of coke oven heating system used on 
Semet-Solvay batteries where the heating flues run horizontally from 
one end of the oven to the other end, and the flues are not shared with 
adjacent ovens.
    Independent certified observer means a visible emission observer 
certified to perform opacity observations under EPA Method 9 in 
appendix A of 40 CFR part 60 that is not an employee of or consultant 
to the owner or operator of the coke plant or coke oven battery.
    Non-recovery coke oven battery means a group of ovens connected by 
common walls and operated as a unit, where coal undergoes destructive 
distillation under negative pressure to produce coke, and which is 
designed for the combustion of the coke oven gas from which by-products 
are not recovered.
    Normal coking time means the batterywide coking time that is 
representative of routine operation.
    Oven means a chamber in the coke oven battery in which coal 
undergoes destructive distillation to produce coke.
    Pushing means the process of removing the coke from the oven. 
Pushing begins when coke first begins to fall from the oven into the 
quench car and ends when the quench car enters the quench tower.
    Quenching means the wet process of cooling (wet quenching) the hot 
incandescent coke by direct contact with water that begins when the 
quench car enters the quench tower and ends when the quench car exits 
the quench tower.
    Quench tower means the structure in which hot incandescent coke in 
the quench car is deluged or quenched with water.
    Remove from service means that an oven is not charged with coal and 
is not used for coking. When removed from service, the oven may remain 
at the operating temperature or it may be cooled down for extensive 
repairs.
    Responsible official means responsible official as defined in 
Sec. 63.2.
    Short battery means a by-product coke oven battery with ovens less 
than five meters in height.
    Soaking means that period in the coking cycle that starts when an 
oven is dampered off the collecting main and vented to the atmosphere 
through an open standpipe prior to pushing and ends when the coke 
begins to be pushed from the oven.
    Standpipe means an apparatus on the oven that provides a passage 
for gases from an oven to the collecting main or to the atmosphere when 
the oven is dampered off the collecting main and the standpipe cap is 
opened.
    Tall battery means a by-product coke oven battery with ovens five 
meters or more in height.
    Vertical flue means a type of coke oven heating system in which the 
heating flues run vertically from the

[[Page 35357]]

bottom to the top of the oven, and flues are shared between adjacent 
ovens.
    Work practice standard means any design, equipment, work practice, 
or operational standard, or combination thereof, that is promulgated 
pursuant to section 112(h) of the CAA.


Secs. 63.7353-63.7359  [Reserved]

Tables to Subpart CCCCC

Table 1 to Subpart CCCCC. Applicability of General Provisions to 
Subpart CCCCC

    As required in Sec. 63.7350, you must comply with each applicable 
requirement of the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart 
A) as shown in the following table:

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                  Applies to Subpart
             Citation                         Subject                   CCCCC?                Explanation
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.  63.1........................  Applicability.............  Yes..................
Sec.  63.2........................  Definitions...............  Yes..................
Sec.  63.3........................  Units and Abbreviations...  Yes..................
Sec.  63.4........................  Prohibited Activities.....  Yes..................
Sec.  63.5........................  Construction/               Yes..................
                                     Reconstruction.
Sec.  63.6(a), (b), (c), (d), (e),  Compliance with Standards   Yes..................
 (f), (g), (h)(2)(ii)-(8).           and Maintenance
                                     Requirements.
Sec.  63.6(h)(2)(i)...............  Determining Compliance      No...................  Subpart CCCCC specifies
                                     with Opacity and VE                                Method 9 (40 CFR Part
                                     Standards.                                         60) for determining the
                                                                                        opacity of fugitive
                                                                                        emissions from pushing
                                                                                        under Option 1 for
                                                                                        proposal.
Sec.  63.6(h)(9)..................  Adjustment to an Opacity    Yes..................  Except subpart CCCCC
                                     Emission Standard.                                 specifies additional
                                                                                        information to be
                                                                                        submitted.
Sec.  63.7(a)(3), (b), (c)-(h)....  Performance Testing         Yes..................
                                     Requirements.
Sec.  63.7(a)(1)-(2)..............  Applicability and           No...................  Subpart CCCCC specifies
                                     Performance Test Dates.                            applicability and dates.
Sec.  63.8(a)(1)-(3), (b), (c)(1)-  Monitoring Requirements...  Yes..................  CMS requirements in Sec.
 (3), (c)(4)(i)-(ii), (c)(5)-(8),                                                       63.8(c)(4)(i)-
 (f) (1)-(5), (g) (1)-(4).                                                              (ii),(c)(5), (c)(6),
                                                                                        (d), and (e) apply only
                                                                                        to COMS for battery
                                                                                        stacks.
Sec.  63.8(a)(4)..................  Additional Monitoring       No...................  Flares are not a control
                                     Requirements for Control                           device for Subpart CCCCC
                                     Devices in Sec.  63.11.                            affected sources.
Sec.  63.8(c)(4)..................  Continuous Monitoring       No...................  Subpart CCCCC specifies
                                     System (CMS) Requirements.                         requirements for
                                                                                        operation of CMS.
Sec.  63.8(f)(6)..................  RATA Alternative..........  No...................  Subpart CCCCC does not
                                                                                        require CEMS.
Sec.  63.8(g)(5)..................  Data Reduction............  No...................  Subpart CCCCC specifies
                                                                                        data that can't be used
                                                                                        in computing averages
                                                                                        for COMS.
Sec.  63.9........................  Notification Requirements.  Yes..................  Additional notifications
                                                                                        for CMS in Sec.  63.9(g)
                                                                                        apply only to COMS for
                                                                                        battery stacks.
Sec.  63.10(a), (b)(1)-             Recordkeeping and           Yes..................  Additional records for
 (b)(2)(xii), (b)(2)(xii)            Reporting Requirements.                            CMS in Sec.  63.10(c)
 (b)(2)(xiv), (b)(3), (c)(1), (6),                                                      (1)-(6), (9)-(15), and
 (c)(9)-(6), (c)(9), (15), (d),                                                         reports in Sec.
 (e)(1)-(2), (e) (4), (f).                                                              63.10(d) (1)-(2) apply
                                                                                        only to COMS for battery
                                                                                        stacks.
Sec.  63.10(b)(2)(xi-(xii)........  CMS Records for RATA        No...................  Subpart CCCCC doesn't
                                     Alternative.                                       require CEMS.
Sec.  63.10(c) (7)-(8)............  Records Parameter           No...................  Subpart CCCCC specifies
                                     Monitoring Exceedances                             record requirements.
                                     for CMS.
Sec.  63.10(e)(3).................  Excess Emission Reports...  No...................  Subpart CCCCC specifies
                                                                                        reporting requirements.
Sec.  63.11.......................  Control Device              No...................  Subpart CCCCC does not
                                     Requirements.                                      require flares.
Sec.  63.12.......................  State Authority and         Yes..................
                                     Delegations.
Secs.  63.13-63.15................  Addresses, Incorporation    Yes..................
                                     by Reference,
                                     Availability of
                                     Information.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[FR Doc. 01-16192 Filed 7-2-01; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6560-50-P


</pre><script data-cfasync="false" src="/cdn-cgi/scripts/5c5dd728/cloudflare-static/email-decode.min.js"></script></body>
</html>