35326 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules

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

melton.lula@epa.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Comments. Comments and data may

be submitted by electronic mail (e-mail)

to: air-and-r-docket@epa.gov. 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 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:

Category SIC NAICS

Example of

regulated

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

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules 35327

whether your facility is regulated by this

action, you should examine the

applicability criteria in § 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:

• Reducing the volume of emissions

of HAP, or eliminating the emissions

through process changes, substitution of

materials, or other modifications;

• Enclosing systems or processes to

eliminate emissions;

• Collecting, capturing, or treating

such pollutants when released from a

process, stack, storage, or fugitive

emissions point;

• 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

• 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 bestcontrolled 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 bestperforming 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

35328 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules

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 steelproducing 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 gunflue 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°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°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 selfignite 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.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules 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 nonrecovery 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 (longterm) 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 POMbearing 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:

• Pollutant-specific characteristics

(e.g., toxicity, half-life in the

environment, bioaccumulation, and

persistence);

35330 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules

• Ambient concentrations observed in

the area (e.g., as influenced by emission

rates, meteorological conditions, and

terrain);

• Frequency and duration of

exposures; and

• 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:

• Observe and record the opacity of

fugitive pushing emissions for four

consecutive pushes each day for each

battery.

• 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 ×

coking time)/24 hours or 0.63 × coking

time. The corrective action would be

considered successful if neither of the

opacity observations for two

consecutive daytime pushes exceed the

opacity trigger.

• 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 ovendirected 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.

• 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:

• 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.

• Measure and record the temperature

of all flues on each oven at least once

a month.

• Determine and record the time each

oven is charged and pushed and the net

coking time for each oven.

• 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.

• Remove the oven from service for

repairs if any flue temperature

measurement is below the lowest

acceptable minimum temperature. After

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

• 0.004 grain per dry standard cubic

foot (gr/dscf) where a cokeside shed is

used as the capture system.

• 0.017 pound per ton (lb/ton) of coke

if a moveable hood vented to a

stationary control device is used to

capture emissions.

• 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.

• 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:

• Be capable of detecting PM at

concentrations of 10 milligrams per

actual cubic meter or less and provide

an output of relative PM loading;

• 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

• 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.

35332 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules

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 byproduct 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) Byproduct 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:

• Frequency and method of recording

underfiring gas parameters and battery

operating temperature;

• Procedures to prevent pushing an

oven out of sequence, pushing

prematurely, and undercharging or

overcharging; and

• 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 (§§ 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,

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

35334 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules

1CAA 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).

We analyzed data from 15 wellcontrolled batteries at eight coke plants.

The batteries have different

combinations of oven height and type of

underfiring systems. Eight are fourmeter gun flue batteries, three are fourmeter 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.

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 wellcontrolled 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 ×

coking time in hours/24 hours = 0.63 ×

coking time).

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

• 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.

35336 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules

• 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.

• 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 nongreen 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 byproduct 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

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules 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/ft2). 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 (landbased) 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/ft2. 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

35338 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules

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.

• 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.

• 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 hydrocarbonladen 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

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules 35339

2We 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.

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.

• 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 sixminute 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 fourmeter batteries and one tall battery).2

The daily average opacity rarely exceeds

15 percent for any battery. These data

35340 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules

3We 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.

indicate that each of these batteries is

well controlled for stack emissions.

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 § 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.

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,

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

35342 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules

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 costbenefit 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 costeffective, 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 leastcostly, most cost-effective, or leastVerDate 11<MAY>2000 17:52 Jul 02, 2001 Jkt 194001 PO 00000 Frm 00018 Fmt 4701 Sfmt 4702 E:\FR\FM\03JYP2.SGM pfrm01 PsN: 03JYP2
Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules 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

farmer.sandy@epa.gov, 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.

35344 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules

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 onetime 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; onetime purchase and installation of

continuous monitoring systems; onetime preparation of a standard operating

procedures manual for baghouses; onetime 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, § 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?

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

§ 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.

§ 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.

§ 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 § 63.2.

§ 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 § 63.7340.

Several of these notifications must be

submitted before the compliance date

for your affected source.

35346 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules

§§ 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?

(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.

§ 63.7291 What emission limitations or

work practice standards must I meet for

fugitive pushing emissions if I have a byproduct 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

§ 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 § 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:

X Y = ∗ 0 63 . (Eq. 1)

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.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules 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 § 63.6(g), you may

request to use an alternative to the work

practice standards in paragraph (b) of

this section.

§ 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 § 63.6(g), you may

request to use an alternative to the work

practice standards in paragraph (a) of

this section.

§ 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 § 63.6(g), you may

request to use an alternative to the work

practice standard in paragraph (a) of this

section.

§ 63.7294 What work practice standard

must I meet for soaking?

(a) For each new or existing byproduct 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 § 63.6(g), you may

request to use an alternative to the work

practice standard in paragraph (a) of this

section.

§ 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 § 63.7352, as make-up water.

(b) As provided in § 63.6(g), you may

request to use an alternative to the work

practice standards in paragraph (a) of

this section.

§ 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]

§§ 63.7297–63.7299 [Reserved]

Operation and Maintenance

Requirements

§ 63.7300 What are my operation and

maintenance requirements?

(a) As required by § 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

35348 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules

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.

§§ 63.7301–63.7309 [Reserved]

General Compliance Requirements

§ 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 § 63.2.

(b) During the period between the

compliance date specified for your

affected source in § 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 § 63.6(e)(3).

§§ 63.7311–63.7319 [Reserved]

Initial Compliance Requirements

§ 63.7320 By what date must I conduct

performance tests or other initial

compliance demonstrations?

(a) As required in § 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 § 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

§ 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

§ 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 § 63.7(a)(2)(ix).

§ 63.7321 When must I conduct

subsequent performance tests?

For each control device subject to an

emission limit for particulate matter in

§ 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.

§ 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 § 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.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules 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 (Ep) for each test run

using Equation 1 of this section as

follows:

E CQT

P K p = × ××

(Eq. 1)

Where:

Ep = 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.

§ 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

§ 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 sitespecific 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

§ 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

§ 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 § 63.7290(a).

(3) Establish revised operating limits

according to the applicable procedures

in paragraph (a) or (b) of this section.

§ 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 § 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

§ 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.

35350 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules

(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

§ 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

§ 63.8(g)(2).

(3) Compute and record the 24-hour

(daily) average of the COMS data.

§ 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

§ 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 processweighted mass rate of particulate matter

(lb/ton of coke), measured in accordance

with the performance test procedures in

§ 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 § 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

§ 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 § 63.7323(b)(1); or

(ii) If you elect the operating limit in

§ 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

§ 63.7323(b)(2).

(b) For each by-product coke oven

battery with vertical flues subject to the

opacity limit in § 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 § 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 byproduct coke oven battery subject to the

opacity limit for stacks in § 63.7296(a),

you have demonstrated initial

compliance if the daily average opacity,

as measured according to the

performance test procedures in

§ 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

§ 63.7340(e).

§ 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

§ 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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

§ 3.7340(e).

§ 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 § 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 § 63.7340(e).

(b) [Reserved]

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules 35351

§§ 63.7328–63.7329 [Reserved]

Continuous Compliance Requirements

§ 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

§ 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 § 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

§ 63.7331(c) or the volumetric flow rate

according to the requirements in

§ 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 § 63.7331(e).

§ 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

§ 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

§ 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.

35352 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules

(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 § 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 § 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 § 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

§ 63.7324(c) using all the 6-minute

averages collected for periods during

which the COMS is not out-of-control.

§ 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.

§ 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 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

§ 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 § 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 § 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

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules 35353

subsequent performance test and

recording the results of each check.

(2) If you elect the operating limit for

volumetric flow rate in

§ 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 63.7331(e).

§ 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

§ 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

§ 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 § 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 § 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 § 63.7292(a)(1), assigning the

oven to the oven-directed program, and

recording all relevant information

according to the requirements in

§ 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 § 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 § 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 § 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 § 63.7295(a)(1);

and

(2) Maintaining records that

document conformance with the

washing, inspection, and repair

requirements in § 63.7295(a)(2) through

(4).

§ 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 § 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 § 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

§ 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 § 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

§ 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 § 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.

§ 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

35354 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules

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 § 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 §§ 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 § 63.6(e).

§§ 63.7337–63.7339 [Reserved]

Notification, Reports, and Records

§ 63.7340 What notifications must I submit

and when?

(a) You must submit all of the

notifications in §§ 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 § 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 § 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

§ 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 § 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

§ 63.10(d)(2).

§ 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 § 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 § 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 § 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

§ 63.10(d)(5)(i).

(5) If there were no deviations from

the continuous compliance

requirements in § 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 §§ 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

§ 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

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

§ 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.

§ 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

§ 63.10(b)(2)(xiv).

(2) The records in § 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

§ 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

§ 63.10(b)(2)(vi) through (xi).

(2) Monitoring data for COMS during

a performance evaluation as required in

§ 63.6(h)(7)(i) and (ii).

(3) Previous (that is, superceded)

versions of the performance evaluation

plan as required in § 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

§ 63.6(h)(6) for visual observations.

(d) You must keep the records

required in §§ 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.

§ 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

§ 63.10(b)(1).

(b) As specified in § 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 § 63.10(b)(1). You can keep

the records offsite for the remaining 3

years.

§§ 63.7344–63.7349 [Reserved]

Other Requirements and Information

§ 63.7350 What parts of the General

Provisions apply to me?

Table 1 to this subpart shows which

parts of the General Provisions in

§§ 63.1 through 63.15 apply to you.

§ 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

35356 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 128 / Tuesday, July 3, 2001 / Proposed Rules

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 § 63.7291(b) for

a by-product coke oven battery with

vertical flues, fugitive pushing

emissions in § 63.7292(a) for a byproduct coke oven battery with

horizontal flues, fugitive pushing

emissions in § 63.7293 for a nonrecovery coke oven battery, soaking for

a by-product coke oven battery in

§ 63.7294(a), and quenching for a coke

oven battery in § 63.7295(a) under

§ 63.6(g).

(2) Approval of alternative opacity

emission limitations for fugitive

pushing emissions (Option 1) in

§ 63.7291(a) and battery stacks in

§ 63.7296(a) for a by-product coke oven

battery under § 63.6(h)(9).

(3) Approval of major alternatives to

test methods under § 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and

(f) and as defined in § 63.90.

(4) Approval of major alternatives to

monitoring under § 63.8(f) and as

defined in § 63.90.

(5) Approval of major alternatives to

recordkeeping and reporting under

§ 63.10(f) and as defined in § 63.90.

§ 63.7352 What definitions apply to this

subpart?

Terms used in this subpart are

defined in the Clean Air Act (CAA), in

§ 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 byproduct coke oven battery or a nonrecovery 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 SemetSolvay 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 byproducts 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 § 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

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

§§ 63.7353–63.7359 [Reserved]

Tables to Subpart CCCCC

Table 1 to Subpart CCCCC.

Applicability of General Provisions to

Subpart CCCCC

As required in § 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:

Citation Subject Applies to Subpart

CCCCC? Explanation

§ 63.1 ...................................................... Applicability .......................................... Yes.

§ 63.2 ...................................................... Definitions ............................................. Yes.

§ 63.3 ...................................................... Units and Abbreviations ....................... Yes.

§ 63.4 ...................................................... Prohibited Activities .............................. Yes.

§ 63.5 ...................................................... Construction/Reconstruction ................ Yes.

§ 63.6(a), (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g),

(h)(2)(ii)–(8).

Compliance with Standards and Maintenance Requirements.Yes.

§ 63.6(h)(2)(i) .......................................... Determining Compliance with Opacity

and VE Standards.

No ......................... Subpart CCCCC specifies Method 9

(40 CFR Part 60) for determining the

opacity of fugitive emissions from

pushing under Option 1 for proposal.

§ 63.6(h)(9) ............................................. Adjustment to an Opacity Emission

Standard.

Yes ........................ Except subpart CCCCC specifies additional information to be submitted.

§ 63.7(a)(3), (b), (c)–(h) .......................... Performance Testing Requirements .... Yes.

§ 63.7(a)(1)–(2) ....................................... Applicability and Performance Test

Dates.

No ......................... Subpart CCCCC specifies applicability

and dates.

§ 63.8(a)(1)–(3), (b), (c)(1)–(3), (c)(4)(i)–

(ii), (c)(5)–(8), (f) (1)–(5), (g) (1)–(4).

Monitoring Requirements ..................... Yes ........................ CMS requirements in § 63.8(c)(4)(i)–

(ii),(c)(5), (c)(6), (d), and (e) apply

only to COMS for battery stacks.

§ 63.8(a)(4) ............................................. Additional Monitoring Requirements for

Control Devices in § 63.11.

No ......................... Flares are not a control device for

Subpart CCCCC affected sources.

§ 63.8(c)(4) ............................................. Continuous Monitoring System (CMS)

Requirements.

No ......................... Subpart CCCCC specifies requirements for operation of CMS.

§ 63.8(f)(6) .............................................. RATA Alternative .................................. No ......................... Subpart CCCCC does not require

CEMS.

§ 63.8(g)(5) ............................................. Data Reduction .................................... No ......................... Subpart CCCCC specifies data that

can’t be used in computing averages

for COMS.

§ 63.9 ...................................................... Notification Requirements .................... Yes ........................ Additional notifications for CMS in

§ 63.9(g) apply only to COMS for

battery stacks.

§ 63.10(a), (b)(1)–(b)(2)(xii), (b)(2)(xii)

(b)(2)(xiv), (b)(3), (c)(1), (6), (c)(9)–

(6), (c)(9), (15), (d), (e)(1)–(2), (e) (4),

(f).

Recordkeeping and Reporting Requirements.Yes ........................ Additional records for CMS in

§ 63.10(c) (1)–(6), (9)–(15), and reports in § 63.10(d) (1)–(2) apply only

to COMS for battery stacks.

§ 63.10(b)(2)(xi–(xii) ................................ CMS Records for RATA Alternative ..... No ......................... Subpart CCCCC doesn’t require

CEMS.

§ 63.10(c) (7)–(8) .................................... Records Parameter Monitoring

Exceedances for CMS.

No ......................... Subpart CCCCC specifies record requirements.

§ 63.10(e)(3) ........................................... Excess Emission Reports .................... No ......................... Subpart CCCCC specifies reporting requirements.

§ 63.11 .................................................... Control Device Requirements .............. No ......................... Subpart CCCCC does not require

flares.

§ 63.12 .................................................... State Authority and Delegations .......... Yes.

§§ 63.13–63.15 ....................................... Addresses, Incorporation by Reference, Availability of Information.Yes.

[FR Doc. 01–16192 Filed 7–2–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P