36836 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 135 / Friday, July 13, 2001 / Proposed Rules

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION

AGENCY

40 CFR Part 63

[FRL–6768–3]

RIN 2060–AE48

National Emission Standards for

Hazardous Air Pollutants: Integrated

Iron and Steel Manufacturing

AGENCY: Environmental Protection

Agency (EPA).

ACTION: Proposed rule.

SUMMARY: This action proposes national

emission standards for hazardous air

pollutants (NESHAP) for integrated iron

and steel manufacturing facilities. The

EPA has identified integrated iron and

steel manufacturing facilities as a major

source of hazardous air pollutant (HAP)

emissions. 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 application of the

maximum achievable control

technology (MACT).

The HAP emitted by facilities in the

integrated iron and steel manufacturing

source category include metals

(primarily manganese and lead with

small quantities of other metals) and

trace amounts of organic HAP (such as

polycyclic organic matter, benzene, and

carbon disulfide). Exposure to these

substances has been demonstrated to

cause adverse health effects, including

chronic and acute disorders of the

blood, heart, kidneys, reproductive

system, and central nervous system.

DATES: Comments. Submit comments on

or before October 11, 2001.

Public Hearing. If anyone contacts the

EPA requesting to speak at a public

hearing by August 3, 2001, a public

hearing will be held on August 13, 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–2000–44,

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 Number

A–2000–44, 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–2000–44

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: Phil

Mulrine, Metals Group, Emission

Standards Division (MD–13), U.S. EPA,

Research Triangle Park, NC 27711,

telephone number (919) 541–5289,

electronic mail address:

mulrine.phil@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–2000–44. 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: Mr. Roberto Morales, U.S.

EPA, OAQPS Document Control Officer,

Attn: Phil Mulrine, 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

Integrated iron and steel mills .......................................... 3312 331111 Steel companies, sinter plants, blast furnaces, basic oxygen process furnace shops.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 135 / Friday, July 13, 2001 / Proposed Rules 36837

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

whether your facility is regulated by this

action, you should examine the

applicability criteria in § 63.7781 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 statutory authority for

NESHAP?

B. How do we develop NESHAP?

C. What source category is affected by this

proposed rule?

D. What processes are used at integrated

iron and steel manufacturing facilities?

E. What HAP are emitted and how are they

controlled?

F. What are the health effects associated

with emissions from integrated iron and

steel manufacturing processes?

II. Summary of the Proposed Rule

A. What are the affected sources and

emission points?

B. What are the emission limitations?

C. What are the operation and maintenance

requirements?

D. What are the initial compliance

requirements?

E. What are the continuous compliance

requirements?

F. What are the notification, recordkeeping,

and reporting requirements?

G. What are the compliance deadlines?

III. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed

Standards

A. How did we select the affected sources?

B. What criteria are used in the

development of NESHAP?

C. How did we determine the bases and

levels of the proposed standards?

D. How did we select the initial

compliance requirements?

E. How did we select the continuous

compliance requirements?

F. How did we select the notification,

recordkeeping, and reporting

requirements?

IV. Summary of Environmental, Energy, and

Economic Impacts

A. What are the air emission impacts?

B. What are the cost impacts?

C. What are the economic impacts?

D. What are the non-air health,

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 Statutory Authority for

NESHAP?

Section 112 of the CAA requires us to

list categories and subcategories of

major sources and area sources of HAP

and to establish NESHAP for the listed

source categories and subcategories. The

category of major sources covered by

today’s proposed NESHAP, Integrated

Iron and Steel Manufacturing, was listed

on July 16, 1992 (57 FR 31576). Major

sources of HAP are those that have the

potential to emit greater than 10 tons/yr

of any one HAP or 25 tons/yr of any

combination of HAP.

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 emission

reduction, any non-air quality health

and environmental benefits, and energy

requirements. Emission 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, or

eliminating emissions of HAP 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

standards that are no less stringent than

a certain minimum baseline, we refer to

this as the ‘‘MACT floor.’’ 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.

We may take alternative approaches

to establishing the MACT floor,

depending on the type, quality, and

applicability of available data. The three

approaches most commonly used

involve reliance on State regulations or

permit limits, source test data that

characterize actual emissions, and use

of a technology floor with an

accompanying demonstrated achievable

emission level that accounts for process

and/or air pollution control device

variability.

Section 112(d) allows us to

distinguish among classes, types, and

sizes of sources within a category or

subcategory. For example, we can

establish classes of sources within a

category or subcategory based on size

and establish a different emission

standard for each class, provided both

standards are at least as stringent as the

MACT floor for that class of sources.

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 emission reduction (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.

We then translate the selected

regulatory alternative into a proposed

rule. The public is invited to comment

on the proposal during the public

comment period. Based on an

evaluation of these comments, we reach

a final decision and promulgate the

standards.

C. What Source Category Is Affected by

This Proposed Rule?

Section 112(c) of the CAA requires us

to list all categories of major and area

36838 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 135 / Friday, July 13, 2001 / Proposed Rules

sources of HAP for which we will

develop national emission standards.

We published the initial list of source

categories on July 16, 1992 (57 FR

31576). ‘‘Integrated Iron and Steel

Manufacturing’’ is one the source

categories on the initial list. The listing

was based on our determination that

integrated iron and steel manufacturing

facilities may reasonably be anticipated

to emit a variety of HAP listed in section

112(b) in quantities sufficient to be

major sources.

An integrated iron and steel

manufacturing facility produces steel

from iron ore. The integrated iron and

steel manufacturing source category

includes sinter production, iron

production, and steel production.

D. What Processes Are Used at

Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing

Facilities?

The primary processes of interest

because of their potential to generate

HAP emissions include sinter plants,

blast furnaces that produce iron, and

basic oxygen process furnaces (BOPF)

that produce steel. There are also

several ancillary processes, including

hot metal transfer, desulfurization, slag

skimming, and ladle metallurgy. Iron

and steel are produced at 20 plant sites

in the United States (U.S.) that have a

total of 39 blast furnaces, 50 BOPF, and

9 sinter plants. Integrated iron and steel

plants are located in ten States;

however, the majority of the iron and

steel is produced in Indiana, Ohio, and

Illinois.

The sintering process converts finesized raw materials, including iron ore,

coke breeze, limestone, mill scale, and

flue dust, into an agglomerated product

(sinter) of suitable size for charging into

the blast furnace. The raw materials are

mixed with water to provide a cohesive

matrix and then placed on a continuous

traveling grate called the sinter strand.

A burner hood at the beginning of the

sinter strand ignites the coke in the

mixture, after which the combustion is

self supporting and provides sufficient

heat (2,400 to 2,700 degrees Fahrenheit)

to cause surface melting and

agglomeration of the mix. On the

underside of the sinter strand are a

series of windboxes that draw

combusted air down through the

material bed into a common duct

leading to a gas cleaning device (either

a venturi scrubber or a baghouse).

The fused sinter is discharged at the

end of the sinter strand where it is

crushed and screened. Undersize sinter

is recycled to the mixing mill and back

to the strand. The remaining sinter

product is cooled in open air or in a

circular cooler with mechanical fans.

The cooled sinter is crushed and

screened for a final time, then the fines

are recycled and the product is sent to

be charged to the blast furnace.

Generally, 2.5 tons of raw materials,

including water and fuel, are required to

produce 1 ton of product sinter.

Iron is produced in blast furnaces by

the reduction of iron bearing materials

with a hot gas. The large, refractory

lined furnace is charged through its top

with iron ore, iron ore pellets, sinter,

flux (limestone and dolomite), and coke,

which provides fuel and forms a

reducing atmosphere in the furnace.

Many modern blast furnaces also inject

pulverized coal to reduce the quantity of

coke required. Iron oxides, coke, coal,

and fluxes react with the heated blast air

injected into the bottom of the furnace

to form molten reduced iron, carbon

monoxide (CO), and slag. The molten

iron and slag collect in the hearth at the

base of the furnace. The by-product gas

is collected through offtakes located at

the top of the furnace and is recovered

for use as fuel.

The molten iron and slag are

removed, or cast, from the furnace

periodically. The casting process begins

with drilling a hole, called the taphole,

into the clay-filled iron notch at the base

of the hearth. During casting, molten

iron flows into runners that lead to

transport ladles. Slag also flows from

the furnace and is directed through

separate runners to a slag pit adjacent to

the casthouse, or into slag pots for

transport to a remote slag pit. At the

conclusion of the cast, the taphole is

replugged with clay. The area around

the base of the furnace, including all

iron and slag runners, is enclosed by a

casthouse.

The blast furnace by-product gas,

which is collected from the furnace top,

contains CO and particulate matter

(PM). As a fuel, the blast furnace gas has

a low heating value, about 75 to 90

British thermal units per cubic foot

(Btu/ft3). Before it can be efficiently

burned, the PM must be removed from

the gas. Initially, the gases pass through

a settling chamber or dry cyclone to

remove about 60 percent of the

particulate. Next, the gases undergo a

one or two stage cleaning operation. The

primary cleaner is normally a wet

scrubber, which removes about 90

percent of the remaining particulate.

The secondary cleaner is a high-energy

wet scrubber (usually a venturi) which

removes up to 90 percent of the

particulate that eludes the primary

cleaner. Together, these control devices

provide a clean fuel with less than 0.02

grains per dry standard cubic foot (gr/

dscf) of PM. A portion of this gas is fired

in the blast furnace stoves to preheat the

blast air, and the rest is used in other

plant operations.

After the molten iron (called ‘‘hot

metal’’) is produced in the blast furnace,

it is transferred to the BOPF shop. Bricklined torpedo cars are used because

their insulating properties lower heat

loss from the iron. Hot metal transfer

occurs when the molten iron is

transferred (‘‘reladled’’) from the

torpedo car to the BOPF shop ladle.

Hot metal is desulfurized by adding

various reagents such as soda ash, lime,

and magnesium. The reagents are

usually injected pneumatically with

either dry air or nitrogen. Following

desulfurization, any slag formed is

skimmed from the ladle and the hot

metal is transferred to a BOPF.

In the BOPF, molten iron from a blast

furnace and iron scrap are refined by

lancing (or injecting) high-purity

oxygen. The input material is typically

70 percent hot metal and 30 percent

scrap metal. The oxygen reacts with

carbon and other impurities to remove

them from the metal. Because the

reactions are exothermic, no external

heat source is necessary to melt the

scrap and to raise the temperature of the

metal to the desired range for tapping.

For a BOPF, tapping begins when the

furnace is tilted to remove steel and slag

and ends when the furnace returns to an

upright position. The large quantities of

CO produced by the reactions in the

BOPF can be controlled by combustion

at the mouth of the furnace and then

vented to gas cleaning devices, as with

open hoods, or combustion can be

suppressed at the furnace mouth, as

with closed hoods.

The BOPF is a large (up to 400-ton

capacity) refractory lined pear-shaped

furnace. There are two major variations

of the process. Conventional BOPF have

oxygen blown into the top of the furnace

through a water-cooled lance (topblown). In the newer Quelle Basic

Oxygen process (Q-BOP), oxygen is

injected through tuyeres located in the

bottom of the furnace (bottom-blown). A

typical BOPF cycle consists of the scrap

charge, hot metal charge, oxygen blow

(refining) period, testing for temperature

and chemical composition of the steel,

alloy additions and reblows (if

necessary), tapping, and slagging. The

full furnace cycle typically ranges from

25 to 45 minutes.

Ladle metallurgy is a secondary step

of the steelmaking process performed in

a ladle after the initial refining process

in the BOPF is completed. The purpose

of ladle metallurgy (also referred to as

secondary steelmaking) is to produce

steel that satisfies the many stringent

requirements associated with surface

and internal quality as well as

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 135 / Friday, July 13, 2001 / Proposed Rules 36839

mechanical properties. Nearly all of the

integrated iron and steel facilities

perform some type of ladle metallurgy,

such as vacuum degassing, ladle

refining, reheating, alloy addition,

argon/oxygen decarburization, argon

stirring, and lance powder injection.

After the steel has been refined in the

BOPF and ladle metallurgy operations,

the molten metal is transferred to a

continuous casting operation where it is

cast and subsequently rolled into a

semi-finished product, such as a bloom,

billet, or slab.

E. What HAP Are Emitted and How Are

They Controlled?

1. Sinter Plants

The primary source of HAP emissions

from sinter plants (over 40 percent) is

the windbox exhaust. The windbox

exhaust is a high volume stream of hot

gases on the order of 300,000 to 600,000

dscfm. Control devices applied include

baghouses and venturi scrubbers. The

HAP emissions include HAP metal

compounds, primarily lead and

manganese, which comprise about 3

percent of the total PM. Organic HAP

compounds, including both volatile and

semivolatile HAP such as polycyclic

organic matter, are also emitted. The

organic compounds are formed from

oily materials, mostly rolling mill scale,

that are used in the sinter feed. Most

plants minimize emissions of organic

compounds by carefully monitoring and

limiting the quantity of oil introduced

with the sinter feed.

The discharge end emission points

include the crusher, hot screen and

various transfer points as the hot sinter

is conveyed to the cooler. The sinter

cooler stack is also an emission point.

These operations are a source of PM

emissions from the dusty sinter product

and account for only 7 percent of the

HAP emissions from the sinter plant.

The most significant HAP found in

emissions from the discharge and sinter

cooler is manganese, which comprises

only about 0.75 percent of the PM.

2. Blast Furnace Casthouse

The primary source of blast furnace

emissions is the casting operation.

Particulate emissions are generated

when the molten iron and slag contact

air above their surface. Casting

emissions are also generated by drilling

and plugging the taphole. The

occasional use of an oxygen lance to

open a clogged taphole can increase

emissions. During the casting operation,

iron oxides, magnesium oxide and

carbonaceous compounds are generated

as PM. The only significant HAP found

in the PM is manganese, which

comprises about 0.6 percent of the PM.

Casting emissions are controlled by

evacuation through capture hoods to a

baghouse or by suppression techniques.

The basic concept of suppression

techniques that use steam or inert gas is

to prevent the formation of pollutants by

preventing ambient air from contacting

the molten surfaces. Newer furnaces

have been constructed with evacuated

covered runners and local hooding

ducted to a baghouse.

3. Hot Metal Transfer, Desulfurization,

and Slag Skimming

Hot metal transfer from the torpedo

car into the BOPF shop ladle is

accompanied by the emissions of kish,

a mixture of fine iron oxide particles

together with larger graphite particles.

The reladling generally takes place

under a hood to capture these

emissions. Emissions during

desulfurization are created by both the

reaction of the reagents injected into the

metal and the turbulence during

injection. The pollutants emitted are

mostly iron oxides, calcium oxides, and

oxides of the compound injected. The

sulfur reacts with the reagents and is

skimmed off as slag.

The emissions generated from

desulfurization and slag skimming are

usually collected by a hood positioned

over the ladle and vented to a baghouse.

Many plants perform hot metal transfer,

desulfurization, and slag skimming at

the same station to take advantage of a

single capture and control system.

Manganese is the predominant HAP in

the PM emissions. The level of

manganese is expected to be comparable

to that of PM from the casthouse (on the

order of 0.6 percent).

4. Basic Oxygen Process Furnace

Emissions from the BOPF occur

during charging, the oxygen blow and

tapping. Fugitive emissions escape

through the BOPF shop roof monitor,

and stack emissions are released

through primary and secondary control

systems. The predominant compounds

emitted are iron oxides, and the most

significant HAP is manganese.

Manganese comprises about 1 percent of

the particulate, which is more than all

of the other HAP metals combined.

Emissions during oxygen blow

periods are controlled using a primary

hood capture system located directly

over the open mouth of the furnaces.

Two types of capture systems are used

to collect exhaust gas as it leaves the

furnace mouth: a closed hood design

that suppresses combustion, and an

open hood design that promotes

combustion. A closed hood fits snugly

against the furnace mouth, ducting all

PM and CO to a venturi scrubber. The

CO is flared at the scrubber outlet stack.

The open hood design allows

combustion air to be drawn into the

hood, thus burning the CO. Electrostatic

precipitators (ESP) and venturi

scrubbers are used as the primary

controls for open hood BOPF.

Charging and tapping emissions are

controlled by a variety of evacuation

systems and operating practices.

Charging hoods, tapside enclosures, and

full furnace enclosures are used to

capture these emissions and send them

either to the primary control device or

to a secondary device, usually a

baghouse. Almost all closed hood BOPF

have a secondary capture and control

system, whereas many open hood BOPF

rely on the primary system for capture

and control of fugitive emissions.

5. Ladle Metallurgy

Most BOPF shops have a ladle

metallurgy station where various

adjustments are made to the steel’s

physical and chemical properties.

Almost all ladle metallurgy stations are

enclosed or hooded, and any fume from

the vessel is ducted to a baghouse.

There are few data on the HAP

composition of ladle metallurgy

emissions; however, the composition

should be similar to that of emissions

from the BOPF (primarily manganese).

F. What Are the Health Effects

Associated With Emissions From

Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing

Processes?

There are a variety of metal HAP

contained in the PM emitted from iron

and steel manufacturing processes.

These include primarily manganese and

lead, with much smaller quantities of

antimony, arsenic, beryllium, cadmium,

chromium, cobalt, mercury, nickel, and

selenium. Organic HAP compounds are

released in trace amounts from the

sinter plant windbox exhaust and

include polycyclic organic matter (such

as polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons

and chlorinated dibenzodioxins and

furans), and volatile organics such as

benzene, carbon disulfide, toluene, and

xylene. These HAP are associated with

a variety of adverse health effects

including chronic and acute disorders of

the blood, heart, kidneys, reproductive

system, and central nervous system.

Manganese and lead comprise the

majority of the metal HAP emissions.

Health effects in humans have been

associated with both deficiencies and

excess intakes of manganese. Chronic

exposure to low levels of manganese in

the diet is considered to be nutritionally

essential in humans, with a

36840 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 135 / Friday, July 13, 2001 / Proposed Rules

recommended daily allowance of 2 to 5

milligrams per day. Chronic exposure to

high levels of manganese by inhalation

in humans results primarily in central

nervous system (CNS) effects. Visual

reaction time, hand steadiness, and eyehand coordination were affected in

chronically-exposed workers.

Manganism, characterized by feelings of

weakness and lethargy, tremors, a masklike face, and psychological

disturbances, may result from chronic

exposure to higher levels. Impotence

and loss of libido have been noted in

male workers afflicted with manganism

attributed to inhalation exposures. We

have classified manganese in Group D,

not classifiable as to carcinogenicity in

humans.

Lead is a very toxic element, causing

a variety of effects at low dose levels.

Brain damage, kidney damage, and

gastrointestinal distress may occur from

acute exposure to high levels of lead in

humans. Chronic exposure to lead in

humans results in effects on the blood,

CNS, blood pressure, and kidneys.

Children are particularly sensitive to the

chronic effects of lead, with slowed

cognitive development, reduced growth

and other effects reported. Reproductive

effects, such as decreased sperm count

in men and spontaneous abortions in

women, have been associated with lead

exposure. The developing fetus is at

particular risk from maternal lead

exposure, with low birth weight and

slowed postnatal neurobehavioral

development noted. Human studies are

inconclusive regarding lead exposure

and cancer, while animal studies have

reported an increase in kidney cancer

from lead exposure by the oral route.

We have classified lead as a Group B2,

probable human carcinogen.

Trace quantities of organic HAP, such

as chlorinated dibenzodioxins and

furans (CDD/F) and benzene, have been

detected in the windbox exhaust at

sinter plants. One CDD/F compound,

2,3,7,8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin

(2,3,7,8-TCDD, commonly called

‘‘dioxin’’) is listed singly as a HAP.

Other CDD/F compounds, many of

which cause adverse health effects in

the same way as dioxin, are HAP under

the definition of polycyclic organic

matter. Exposure to CDD/F mixtures

causes chloracne, a severe acne-like

condition, and has been shown to be

extremely toxic in animal studies.

Dioxin itself is known to be a

developmental toxicant in animals,

causing skeletal deformities, kidney

defects, and weakened immune

responses in the offspring of animals

exposed during pregnancy. Human

studies have shown an association

between dioxin and soft-tissue

sarcomas, lymphomas, and stomach

carcinomas. We have classified dioxin

as a probable human carcinogen (Group

B2).

Acute 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 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.

In addition to HAP, the proposed rule

also would reduce PM emissions, which

are controlled under national ambient

air quality standards. Briefly, emissions

of PM have been associated with

aggravation of existing respiratory and

cardiovascular disease and increased

risk of premature death.

We recognize that the degree of

adverse effects to health experienced by

exposed individuals can range from

mild to severe. The extent and degree to

which the health effects may be

experienced depends on:

• Pollutant-specific characteristics

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

environment, bioaccumulation, and

persistence);

• The ambient concentrations

observed in the area (e.g., as influenced

by emission rates, meteorological

conditions, and terrain);

• The 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 sources are each new and

existing sinter plant, blast furnace, and

BOPF shop at an integrated iron and

steel manufacturing facility that is a

major source. A new affected source is

one constructed or reconstructed after

July 13, 2001. An existing affected

source is one constructed or

reconstructed on or before July 13, 2001.

The proposed rule covers emissions

from the sinter plant windbox exhaust,

discharge end, and sinter cooler; the

blast furnace casthouse; and the BOPF,

BOPF shop roof monitor, and BOPF

ancillary operations (hot metal transfer,

hot metal desulfurization, slag

skimming, and ladle metallurgy).

B. What Are the Emission Limitations?

The proposed rule includes PM

emission limits and opacity limits as

well as operating limits for capture

systems and control devices. Particulate

matter and opacity serve as a surrogate

measures of HAP emissions.

1. Sinter Plants

The proposed PM emission limit for

the windbox exhaust stream, 0.3 pounds

per ton (lb/ton) of product sinter, is the

same for existing and new sinter plants.

The proposed rule limits PM emissions

from a discharge end to 0.02 gr/dscf for

an existing plant and 0.01 gr/dscf at a

new plant. The discharge end PM limit

is a flow-weighted average for one or

more control devices that operate in

parallel. A 20 percent opacity limit is

proposed for secondary emissions from

a discharge end at an existing sinter

plant; a 10 percent opacity limit is

proposed for a new sinter plant. The

proposed PM emission limits for sinter

cooler stacks are 0.03 gr/dscf for an

existing plant and 0.01 gr/dscf for a new

plant.

2. Blast Furnaces

The proposed PM emission limit for

a control device applied to emissions

from a casthouse is 0.009 gr/dscf for the

casthouse at a new or existing blast

furnace. The proposed opacity limits are

20 percent for a casthouse at an existing

blast furnace and 15 percent for a

casthouse at a new blast furnace (both

6-minute averages).

3. Basic Oxygen Process Furnaces

For primary emissions from BOPF, we

are proposing different PM emission

limits based on hood system (closed or

open). For BOPF with closed hood

systems, we are proposing a PM

emission limit of 0.024 gr/dscf which

would apply only during periods of

primary oxygen blow. For BOPF with

open hood systems, we are proposing a

PM emission limit of 0.019 gr/dscf

which would apply during all periods of

the steel production cycle. The primary

oxygen blow is the period in which

oxygen is initially blown into the

furnace and does not include any

subsequent reblows. The steel

production cycle begins when the

furnace is first charged with either scrap

or hot metal and ends 3 minutes after

slag is removed. The PM emission limits

are the same for BOPF at new and

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 135 / Friday, July 13, 2001 / Proposed Rules 36841

existing BOPF shops. The proposed PM

emission limits for a control device

applied solely to secondary emissions

from a BOPF are 0.01 gr/dscf for an

existing BOPF shop and 0.0052 gr/dscf

for a new BOPF shop. Secondary

emissions are those not controlled by

the primary emission control system,

including emissions that escape from

open and closed hoods and openings in

the ductwork to the primary control

system.

For the BOPF shop, a PM emission

limit of 0.007 gr/dscf is proposed for a

control device applied to emissions

from ancillary operations (hot metal

transfer, skimming, desulfurization, or

ladle metallurgy) at a new or existing

BOPF shop. For the BOPF roof monitor,

a 20 percent opacity limit is proposed

for secondary emissions from the BOPF

or BOPF shop operations in an existing

BOPF shop. This opacity limit is based

on 3-minute averages. For a new BOPF

shop housing a bottom-blown furnace, a

10 percent opacity limit is proposed (6-

minute average) except that one 6-

minute period not to exceed 20 percent

may occur once during each steel

production cycle. For a new BOPF shop

housing a top-blown furnace, a 10

percent opacity limit is proposed (3-

minute average) except that one 3-

minute period greater than 10 percent

but less than 20 percent may occur once

during each steel production cycle.

For capture systems applied to

emissions from a sinter plant discharge

end or blast furnace casthouse, the

proposed rule provides two options:

maintain the hourly average volumetric

flow rate through each separately

ducted hood at or above the level

established during the performance test,

or maintain the total hourly average

volumetric flow rate at the control

device inlet at or above the level

established during the performance test

with all capture system dampers in the

same positions as during the

performance test.

The same options are available in the

operating limits proposed for capture

systems applied to secondary emissions

from a BOPF. However, the averaging

period is the steel production cycle

rather than each 1-hour period.

The proposed operating limit for

baghouses requires that the bag leak

detection system alarm not sound for

more than 5 percent of the total

operating time in a semiannual

reporting period. For a venturi scrubber,

the hourly average pressure drop and

scrubber water flow rate must remain at

or above the level established during the

initial performance test. For an ESP, the

hourly average opacity must remain at

or below the level established during

the initial performance test. The

proposed rule requires plants to submit

information on monitoring parameters if

another type of control device is used.

The proposed rule also requires sinter

plants to maintain the oil content of the

feedstock at or below 0.025 percent.

This limit is based on a 30-day rolling

average.

C. 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

requirements in § 63.6(e) of the

NESHAP General Provisions. A written

operation and maintenance plan is also

required for capture systems and control

devices subject to an operating limit.

This plan must describe procedures for

monthly inspections of capture systems,

preventative maintenance requirements

for control devices, and corrective

action 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 24 hours, and completing all

corrective actions needed to fix the

problem as soon as practicable.

D. What Are the Initial Compliance

Requirements?

The proposed rule requires

performance tests to demonstrate that

each affected source meets all

applicable emission and opacity limits.

The PM concentration would be

measured using EPA Method 5, 5D, or

17 in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A. The

proposed rule also allows plants to use

a method developed by the American

Society for Testing and Materials

(ASTM), Standard Test Method for

High-Volume Sampling for Solid

Particulate Matter and Determination of

Particulate Emissions (ASTM D4536–

96). Plants may use this method instead

of the sampling equipment and

procedures required by EPA Method 5

or 17 when testing a positive pressure

baghouse, but must use the sample

traverse location and number of

sampling locations required by EPA

Method 5D. The EPA Method 9 in 40

CFR part 60, appendix A, is proposed

for determining the opacity of

emissions, with special instructions for

computing 3-minute averages. The

proposed testing requirements also

include procedures for establishing sitespecific operating limits for capture

systems and control devices and for

revising the limits, if needed, after the

performance test.

The proposed rule also requires a

performance test to demonstrate initial

compliance with the operating limit for

the oil content of the sinter plant

feedstock. This test would require

measurements of the oil content using

EPA Method 9071B (Revision 2, April

1998) for 30 consecutive days and

computing the 30-day rolling average.

To demonstrate initial compliance with

the proposed operation and

maintenance requirements, plants

would certify in their notification of

compliance status that they have

prepared the written plans and will

operate capture systems and control

devices according to the procedures in

the plan.

E. What Are the Continuous Compliance

Requirements?

The proposed rule would require

plants to conduct performance tests at

least twice during each title V operating

permit term (at midterm and renewal) to

demonstrate continuous compliance

with the emission and opacity limits.

Plants also would be required to

monitor operating parameters for

capture systems and control devices

subject to operating limits and carry out

the procedures in their operation and

maintenance plan.

For capture systems, a continuous

parameter monitoring system (CPMS) is

required to measure and record the

volumetric flow rate through each

separately ducted hood or the total

volumetric flow rate at the control

device inlet. Plants electing to monitor

the total volumetric flow rate also must

check the capture system dampers at

least once a day (every 24 hours) to

verify that all dampers are in the same

position as during the initial

performance test. To demonstrate

continuous compliance, plants must

keep records documenting compliance

with the rule requirements for

monitoring, the operation and

maintenance plan, and installation,

operation, and maintenance of CPMS.

For baghouses, plants would be

required to monitor the relative change

in PM loading using a bag leak detection

system and make inspections at

specified intervals. The bag leak

detection system must be installed and

operated according to the EPA guidance

document ‘‘Fabric Filter Bag Leak

Detection Guidance,’’ EPA 454/R–98–

015, September 1997. The document is

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

36842 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 135 / Friday, July 13, 2001 / Proposed Rules

with the manufacturer’s written

specifications and recommendations.

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.

To demonstrate continuous

compliance, the proposed rule requires

records of bag leak detection system

alarms and records documenting

conformance with the operation and

maintenance plan, as well as the

inspection and maintenance procedures.

For venturi scrubbers, plants would

be required to use CPMS to measure and

record the hourly average pressure drop

and scrubber water flow rate. To

demonstrate continuous compliance,

plants would keep records documenting

conformance with the monitoring

requirements and the installation,

operation, and maintenance

requirements for CPMS.

For ESP, plants would be required to

use a continuous opacity monitoring

system (COMS) to measure and record

the average hourly opacity of emissions

exiting each stack of the control device.

Plants must operate and maintain the

COMS according to the requirements in

§ 63.8 of the NESHAP General

Provisions and Performance

Specification 1 in 40 CFR part 60,

appendix B. These requirements include

a quality control program including a

daily calibration drift assessment,

quarterly performance audit, and annual

zero alignment.

To demonstrate continuous

compliance with the operating limit for

the sinter plant feedstock, plants would

be required to determine the oil content

every 24 hours (from the composite of

three samples taken at 8-hour intervals)

and compute and record the 30-day

rolling average oil content for each

operating day.

F. 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 4 to proposed subpart

FFFFF lists each of the requirements in

the General Provisions (§§ 63.2 through

63.15) with an indication of whether

they do or do not apply.

The plant owner or operator would be

required to submit each initial

notification required in the NESHAP

General Provisions that applies to their

facility. These include an initial

notification of applicability with general

information about the facility and

notifications of performance tests and

compliance status.

Plants would be required 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 plan for 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 the operation and maintenance plan

for capture systems and control devices

subject to an operating limit 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.

Semiannual reports are required for

any deviation from an emission

limitation, including an operating limit.

Each report would be due no later than

30 days after the end of the reporting

period. If no deviation occurred, 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.

G. What Are the Compliance Deadlines?

The owner or operator of an existing

affected source would have to comply

within [24 MONTHS OF PUBLICATION

OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal

Register]. New or reconstructed sources

that startup on or before the effective

date of the final rule must comply by

the effective date of the final rule. New

or reconstructed sources that startup

after the effective date of the final rule

must comply upon initial startup.

III. Rationale for Selecting the Proposed

Standards

A. How Did We Select the Affected

Sources?

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 integrated iron and

steel manufacturing facility, groups of

emission points, and individual

emission points. In selecting the

affected sources for regulation, we

identified the HAP-emitting operations,

the HAP emitted, and the quantity of

HAP emissions from the individual or

groups of emissions points. We

concluded that designating the group of

emission points associated with each of

the major processes as the affected

source is the most appropriate

approach. The major processes include

sinter production in a sinter plant, iron

production in a blast furnace, and steel

production in a BOPF shop.

Consequently, we selected the sinter

plant, blast furnace, and BOPF shop as

the affected sources. The proposed rule

includes requirements for the control of

emissions from the windbox exhaust,

discharge end, and cooler at sinter

plants; the blast furnace casthouse; the

BOPF shop including both primary and

secondary emissions from the furnace;

and the ancillary operations in the

BOPF shop (hot metal transfer,

desulfurization, slag skimming, and

ladle metallurgy).

B. How Did We Select the Pollutants?

For the proposed rule, we decided

that it is not practical to establish

individual standards for each specific

type of metallic HAP that could be

present in the various processes (e.g.,

separate standards for manganese

emissions, separate standards for lead

emissions, and so forth for each of the

metals listed as HAP and potentially

could be present). When released, each

of the metallic HAP compounds behave

as PM. As a result, strong correlations

exist between air emissions of PM and

emissions of the individual metallic

HAP compounds. The control

technologies used for the control of PM

emissions achieve comparable levels of

performance on metallic HAP

emissions. Therefore, standards

requiring good control of PM will also

achieve good control of metallic HAP

emissions. Therefore, we decided to

establish standards for total PM as a

surrogate pollutant for the individual

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 135 / Friday, July 13, 2001 / Proposed Rules 36843

1Lahl, Uwe. Sintering Plants of Steel Industry—

PCDD/F Emission Status and Perspective. In

Chemosphere, vol. 29, nos. 9–11, pages 1939–1945.

1994.

types of metallic HAP. In addition,

establishing separate standards for each

individual type of metallic HAP would

impose costly and significantly more

complex compliance and monitoring

requirements and achieve little, if any,

HAP emissions reductions beyond what

would be achieved using the surrogate

pollutant approach based on total PM.

For stack discharges, we have

traditionally relied on setting numerical

emission limits, sometimes coupled

with limits on opacity. In the case of

fugitive emissions, we have traditionally

relied on setting visible emission

standards, typically expressed as

opacity limits.

C. How did we determine the bases and

levels of the proposed standards?

• Sinter plant windbox exhaust

There are nine sinter plants in the

U.S.; however, only seven are currently

operating. The windbox exhaust is

controlled by a baghouse at four plants

and by a venturi scrubber at five plants.

Useful test data on actual emissions are

available for six of the nine plants, two

equipped with baghouses and four

equipped with venturi scrubbers. In

each case, the data reflect the results of

performance tests comprised of the

average of three test runs, expressed in

terms of total PM.

An initial characterization of

achievable performance based on

concentration (gr/dscf) suggested that

baghouses perform substantially better

than do scrubbers. Concentration values

recorded for the two baghouses are two

to nearly four times lower than those

recorded for the four scrubbers. Upon

closer scrutiny, we determined that

much of the difference in perceived

performance is due to the fact that

baghouses require the addition of

relatively large quantities of ambient air

to cool the hot windbox exhaust gases

prior to control, whereas scrubbers do

not. To correct for this difference, we

transformed the test results into a

pounds of PM emissions per ton of

sinter format. The test results expressed

in terms of the hourly mass rate were

converted to annual emissions assuming

8,760 hours per operating year. The

resultant annual emissions were then

divided by a best estimate of annual

sinter production for each plant (average

for the 5-year period from 1995 through

1999). The results range from 0.26 to

0.33 lb PM/ton of sinter. Averaging the

results for the top five performers

produces a MACT floor value of 0.29 lb

PM/ton of sinter. Relying on the median

value produces a MACT floor value of

0.30 lb/ton. Included among the top five

performers are two baghouses and three

venturi scrubbers, which indicates that

both control devices are capable of

achieving the MACT floor level of

control as expressed in the lb/ton

format.

The windbox exhaust gas can contain

appreciable quantities of organic HAP,

including both volatile and semivolatile

compounds. There is strong evidence

that demonstrates that the quantity of

organic HAP emitted is directly related

to the quantity and oil content of the

mill scale component of the sinter feed.

United States sinter plants limit organic

emissions by carefully monitoring and

limiting the oil content of the sinter

feed. This pollution prevention control

measure is an effective method for

preventing, and thus reducing,

emissions of organic HAP. Two plants

in Indiana have performed testing to

relate oil content with emissions of

volatile organic compounds (VOC). The

test results show a strong correlation

between oil content and potential VOC

emissions.

One of the organic pollutants of

concern that has been related to oil

content is a family of compounds called

polychlorinated dibenzodioxins and

furans (D/F). A 1994 paper 1 identified

sinter plants in Germany as one of the

most important industrial sources of

D/F. Tests showed an average

concentration in the windbox exhaust of

47 nanograms (ng) expressed in toxic

equivalency (TEQ)/per cubic meter (m3)

and annual emissions of 122 grams (g)

TEQ. The D/F emissions were attributed

to high levels of oils and chlorinated

organics in the waste materials recycled

to the sinter plant.

We decided to perform testing at two

representative facilities to characterize

D/F emissions from U.S. sinter plants,

one that uses a venturi scrubber as the

windbox control device and one that

uses a baghouse. The tests were

performed in 1997 on the venturi

scrubber in East Chicago, IN and on the

baghouse in Youngstown, OH. These

plants routinely monitor the oil content

of their sinter feed, which averages

0.014 percent oil at the East Chicago, IN

facility and 0.025 percent oil at the

Youngstown, OH facility. The average

D/F concentration from three 4-hour

runs at each plant ranged from 0.2 ng

TEQ/m3 at the East Chicago, IN facility

to 0.8 ng TEQ/m3 at the Youngstown,

OH facility, both far below the levels

reported for the German sinter plant.

Assuming typical operation of each

plant (310 days/yr), annual emissions

would range from 0.7 to 2.8 g TEQ/yr,

well below the levels indicated by the

German data. Based upon emission

factors derived from these test results,

we estimate nationwide emissions from

all U.S. sinter plants to be 26 g TEQ/yr,

which corresponds to less than 1

percent of current estimates of the

national inventory from all sources.

We surveyed the operators of all

seven active sinter plants, as well as the

two inactive plants, to obtain

information on the oil content of their

sinter feed. Four of the active plants

provided data that ranged in magnitude

from 976 samples collected over 1 year

(sampling about three times per day) to

14 samples collected over 14 months

(monthly sampling). All four plants

carefully monitor their sinter feed for oil

to minimize emissions of VOC. In

addition, plants with baghouses are

motivated to limit oil content due to

concerns over blinding of bags and

possible fire hazards. The other three

active plants and the two inactive plants

provided little data since none routinely

monitor oil content. The four plants

providing data reported long-term

averages of 0.014, 0.02, 0.02, and 0.025

percent, respectively. We conclude that

limiting substantially the oil content in

the sinter feed represents the MACT

floor for organic HAP in the windbox

exhaust.

We know of no control devices

besides venturi scrubbers and baghouses

that can achieve better emissions

reductions than that indicated by the

level of performance selected as the

MACT floor. As a result, we are

selecting 0.3 lb/ton as the standard. We

selected 0.3 lb/ton as opposed to either

0.29 or 0.30 lb/ton to provide a modest

but warranted margin of safety given the

relatively limited data available for this

standard setting and the inherent

uncertainty associated with the needed

transformations of the test data from

mass rate to mass per ton.

For the PM limit, we also considered

setting alternative concentration limits

that would be tailored to each type of

control device—baghouses and venturi

scrubbers. Concentration limits (e.g.,

gr/dscf) have several advantages over a

lb/ton format when determining

compliance. A lb/ton format requires

that three measurements be made very

accurately: The concentration of PM in

the exhaust gas, the volumetric flow rate

of exhaust gas, and the sinter

production rate. Concentration is

directly measured by EPA reference

methods (such as Method 5), and there

is no uncertainty introduced by

additional measurements or

calculations. The concentration limit is

a direct and accurate measure of how

36844 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 135 / Friday, July 13, 2001 / Proposed Rules

well the emission control device is

performing.

The two plants with baghouses

averaged 0.007 and 0.009 gr/dscf when

meeting the 0.3 lb/ton MACT floor level

of control. Individual runs ranged from

0.004 to 0.01 gr/dscf. Considering the

run-to-run variability, we conclude that

an appropriate alternative concentration

limit for baghouses used for the control

of windbox exhaust gases would be on

the order of 0.01 gr/dscf. As noted

previously, plants with baghouses

introduce large volumes of tempering

air to cool the windbox exhaust gas

prior to entering the baghouse, whereas

plants with venturi scrubbers do not.

Consequently, a concentration limit for

scrubbers, reflecting an equivalent level

of control as baghouses, would of

necessity be higher than one for

baghouses. The four plants equipped

with scrubbers recorded average

concentration values of 0.017, 0.017,

0.025, and 0.026 gr/dscf when meeting

the 0.3 lb/ton MACT floor level of

control. Individual runs ranged from

0.014 to 0.029 gr/dscf. Since all four of

these scrubbers represent MACT, an

alternative concentration limit for

scrubbers would be on the order of 0.03

gr/dscf considering run-to-run

variability. We request comments on

both the appropriateness of setting

concentration limits in addition or

instead of a lb/ton limit and on the

suggested values for these limits.

Relative to sinter feed oil content, we

know of no control measures beyond

this pollution prevention measure

which would be more effective in

limiting HAP organic emissions from

sinter plant windboxes. Based on our

review of the data obtained through our

survey on oil content, we select a limit

of 0.025 percent oil in sinter feed as

representative of the MACT floor.

Although 0.025 percent is the highest

average value reported by the four

plants, all of the averages are low, all are

indicative of careful control of oil

content, and for all intents and purposes

are indistinguishable.

• Sinter plant discharge end

The sinter plant discharge end is

comprised of sinter breakers (crushers),

hot screens, conveyors, and transfer

points that are designed to separate

undersize sinter and to transfer the hot

sinter to the cooler. In most cases, these

discharge end operations are housed in

a building. Emissions are usually

controlled by local hooding and

ventilation to one or more baghouses or

wet scrubbers. Seven plants use

baghouses and two plants use wet

scrubbers.

Existing State regulations include

both building opacity standards to limit

releases of fugitive emissions (those

escaping capture) and PM emission

standards assigned to control devices.

Five of the seven operating sinter plants

are subject to a building opacity limit.

One plant is subject to a 10 percent limit

(6-minute average), and four plants are

subject to 20 percent limits (6-minute

average). The PM limits for control

devices vary substantially from plant to

plant both in terms of format and

numerical values. Four plants have

concentration limits for total PM (0.01,

0.02, 0.02, and 0.03 gr/dscf), one has

concentration limits for PM–10, and

three have mass rate limits (42.9, 50,

and 50 lb/hr).

We have credible source test data on

actual emissions from only one plant—

the refurbished sinter plant in

Youngstown, OH. Captured emissions

from the discharge end are ventilated to

a relatively new baghouse (1991) for

control. We have no data from any

source on the opacity of fugitive

emissions that escape capture from the

discharge end.

In selecting the MACT floor for the

discharge end, we evaluated all of the

available information on control

measures, State regulations, and actual

emissions. Due to the limited

information on actual emissions

available, we concluded that the

available information on State

regulations provided the best and most

complete information for establishing

floor conditions for both the discharge

end building and control devices. We

believe that these State limits are in fact

a reasonable representation of what is

actually achieved in practice and are,

therefore, suitable proxies for

establishing MACT floor conditions.

The existing State emission limits

reflect a level of performance which we

would expect from the capture systems

and control devices which are currently

applied to the control of emissions from

sinter plant discharge ends.

As noted above, five plants are subject

to State standards that limit the opacity

of visible emissions released from the

discharge end building. These range

from 10 percent (one plant) to 20

percent (four plants). We chose the

median value as the MACT floor, which

is 20 percent opacity based on a 6-

minute average.

For control devices, we examined the

top five most stringent existing State

permit limits for total PM emissions.

These include the four concentration

limits cited above and a fifth value

derived from the lowest mass rate limit

to which a plant is subject (42.9 lb/hr),

which is equivalent to 0.02 gr/dscf. The

resulting five most stringent limits are

0.01, 0.02, 0.02, 0.02 and 0.03 gr/dscf.

Averaging these five values produces a

MACT floor limit of 0.02 gr/dscf.

We examined options to go beyond

the floor level of control. One option is

a concentration limit lower than the

floor level of 0.02 gr/dscf. For example,

the installation of a new pulse jet

baghouse could conceivably achieve a

concentration limit of 0.01 gr/dscf. We

estimate the capital cost of a new pulse

jet baghouse designed for a flow rate of

120,000 dscfm (typical for discharge

ends) to be $3.5 million and the total

annual cost to be $840,000 per year. We

estimate the corresponding reduction in

HAP metals achieved by reducing the

PM concentration from 0.02 to 0.01 gr/

dscf (for 120,000 dscfm and 0.75 percent

metal HAP in the PM) to be 0.34 tons

per year. The cost per ton of HAP is $2.5

million. We believe that the high cost,

coupled with the small reduction in

HAP emissions, does not justify this

beyond the floor alternative. We could

not identify any other beyond the floor

alternatives. Consequently, we chose the

floor level of control (0.02 gr/dscf) as

MACT.

For new source MACT, we chose an

opacity limit of 10 percent (6-minute

average) based on the most stringent

emission limit currently in place

(Sparrows Point, MD). For control

devices used on the discharge end, we

relied on test data for the baghouse at

the Youngstown, OH sinter plant. We

believe this baghouse represents the best

controlled similar source among the

seven operating plants. It is a relatively

recent installation (1991) and is a stateof-the-art pulse jet unit. The discharge

end at this facility is comprised of a

sinter breaker, single deck hot screen,

four-stack sinter cooler, and a double

deck cold screen. Capture systems are

used for the breaker, hot screen, cold

screen, and about 40 transfer points.

The capture system is ventilated to a

four compartment pulse jet baghouse

with polyester bags at a rate of 140,000

dscfm.

Three test runs were conducted in

1991. The runs range from 0.005 to

0.006 gr/dscf and average 0.006 gr/dscf.

Rounding the results of this single

performance test (average of three runs)

would support a new source MACT

concentration limit of 0.01 gr/dscf. We

believe that rounding from 0.006 to 0.01

is justified given the data are limited to

the one performance test conducted in

1991.

The numerical limit selected for the

standard is the same as that established

for MACT: (1) An opacity limit of 20

percent (6-minute average) for the

building and a concentration limit of

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 135 / Friday, July 13, 2001 / Proposed Rules 36845

0.02 gr/dscf for control devices for

existing sinter plants, and (2) an opacity

limit of 10 percent (6-minute average)

and a concentration limit of 0.01 gr/dscf

for new sinter plants.

For compliance demonstration

purposes, we are proposing a flowweighted average for emission control

devices on the discharge end. Some

plants employ multiple control devices

applied to the several emission points

that comprise the discharge end

(crushers, screens, conveyor transfer

points). For example, one plant routes

emissions from the crusher to one

baghouse, and emissions from screens

and conveyors are sent to a second

baghouse. Averaging emissions across

multiple control devices provides

flexibility and enhances achievability.

With this approach, some air pollution

control devices may under perform and

others may over perform provided that

the average concentration weighted by

volumetric flow rate meets the

concentration limit for the discharge

end.

• Sinter plant cooler

Sinter plant coolers are large diameter

circular tables through which ambient

air is drawn to cool the hot sinter after

screening. Seven plants operate sinter

coolers to cool the sinter product prior

to storage. Two plants that are not

currently operating have no cooler and

stockpile hot sinter directly. Of the

seven plants with coolers, three vent

directly to the atmosphere, one vents to

a cyclone, two vent to a baghouse, and

one vents half of the cooler exhaust to

a baghouse with the remainder vented

directly to the atmosphere. Five plants

are currently subject to State emission

limits expressed as concentration or

mass rate while two plants are not

subject to State emission limits.

Information on actual releases is limited

to one source test of controlled

emissions from the cooler located at the

Youngstown, OH plant that is equipped

with a baghouse.

We examined all of the available

information on controls, State limits,

and actual emissions. We decided that

existing State permit limits provide the

best information for establishing the

floor. Emission source test data on

actual emissions are limited to one

source. We believe that a technology

approach would provide a limit that is

less representative of actual

performance because it would result in

a floor based on cyclone control or a 50/

50 no control/baghouse control split

(technology for which we have no

emission test data from within this

source category).

Three plants are subject to State

permit limits on emission

concentrations (0.01, 0.03, and 0.03 gr/

dscf), and two plants are subject to State

mass rate permit limits. We converted

the mass rates in lb/hr to equivalent

concentration limits in gr/dscf based on

the volumetric flow rate through the

subject coolers. The two mass rate limits

resulted in equivalent concentration

values of 0.03 and 0.05 gr/dscf.

Averaging the five concentration limits

produces a floor value for existing

sources of 0.03 gr/dscf.

We considered a level of control

beyond the floor. A new pulse jet

baghouse installed on the sinter cooler

could reduce emissions to 0.01 gr/dscf.

We estimated the capital cost of a new

baghouse designed for a flow rate of

200,000 dscfm as $5.5 million with a

total annual cost of $1.3 million per

year. The reduction in HAP emissions

associated with reducing the PM

concentration from 0.03 to 0.01 gr/dscf

(at 0.75 percent HAP in the PM) is from

1.7 to 0.6 tons per year. The cost per ton

of HAP is $1.2 million. We believe that

the high cost, coupled with the small

emission reduction, does not justify this

beyond the floor alternative. We could

not identify any other beyond the floor

alternatives. Consequently, we selected

the floor (0.03 gr/dscf) as MACT for

existing sources.

We evaluated the source test data for

the baghouse located at Youngstown,

OH and the most stringent existing limit

to develop MACT for new sources. The

baghouse is a modern pulse jet unit that

averaged 0.009 gr/dscf during the test.

Individual runs were 0.005, 0.005, and

0.018. Coincidentally, the most stringent

existing State permit limit for sinter

coolers, which is applied at a different

plant, is 0.01 gr/dscf. Given that the

baghouse source test result and the most

stringent emission limit are ostensibly

the same, we selected 0.01 gr/dscf as the

proposed standard for sinter coolers at

new sinter plants.

• Blast furnace casthouse

The casthouse is a building or

structure that encloses the section of the

blast furnace where hot metal and slag

are tapped from the furnace. The

emissions from the blast furnace

casthouse are fugitive emissions that

escape through the roof monitor and

other building openings during tapping.

The emissions are primarily metal oxide

fumes that are formed when air contacts

the surface of the molten metal. Factors

affecting these emissions include the

duration of tapping, the exposed surface

area of metal and slag, and the presence

or absence of runner covers and flame

suppression, which reduce contact with

air.

As described previously, these

emissions are controlled in one of two

fundamentally different ways, flame

suppression or conventional ventilation

practices and control. Flame

suppression consists of blowing natural

gas over the iron runners and torpedo

cars. The combustion of the gas

consumes oxygen, which retards

(suppresses) the formation of emissions.

Ventilation practices employed include

the use of localized hooding and

ventilation applied at the iron trough

and iron and slag runners. Alternatively,

the casthouse may be totally enclosed

and evacuated. Eighteen of the 39 blast

furnaces have capture and control

systems, 16 are controlled by baghouses

and two are controlled by one wet

scrubber.

As a means for limiting fugitive

emissions of PM from the casthouse

during hot metal tapping, most States

have developed visible emission

standards that limit the opacity of

emissions discharged from the

casthouse roof monitor or other

openings. The most common limit is 20

percent (6-minute average), which is

applied to 24 of the 39 casthouses.

States also apply particulate limits on

gases discharged from control devices

used to capture tapping emissions. The

most common form is a concentration

limit, typically on the order of 0.01 gr/

dscf.

We evaluated the available

information on actual emissions, State

limits, and control measures in selecting

the floor for opacity from existing

casthouses. Attempts to locate actual

opacity data proved unsuccessful. Since

most of the States have developed

opacity standards, we concluded that

State regulations provided the best

information for establishing floor

conditions.

The most stringent opacity limit is 15

percent (6-minute average) and is

applied to two casthouses. The next

most stringent limit is 20 percent (6-

minute average), which is applied to 24

casthouses. For existing sources, we

selected the 20 percent opacity limit as

the floor for the roof monitor, which is

the median of the top five most stringent

limits and by far the most

representative.

As with existing sources, MACT for

new sources is also based on existing

State limits since we were unable to

locate and obtain data on actual

emissions. As noted above, the most

stringent State limit is 15 percent

opacity (6-minute average). This limit

applies to the casthouses for the

Number 7 blast furnace at East Chicago,

36846 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 135 / Friday, July 13, 2001 / Proposed Rules

IN and the Number 3 blast furnace at

Lorain, OH. Therefore, we have selected

15 percent opacity (6-minute average) as

the floor for new sources.

We also examined available

information on actual emissions, State

limits, and control measures to develop

the floor for control devices applied to

casthouse emissions. There are 18

casthouses equipped with hooding and

ventilation equipment to limit fugitive

emissions. Sixteen use a baghouse for

the control of captured emissions.

Industry survey information on the

baghouses indicate they are similar in

design and performance. Most are pulse

jet baghouses with air-to-cloth ratios of

around 4 feet per minute (fpm). We

selected baghouses with these minimum

design features as the MACT floor

technology for controlled emissions

from blast furnace casthouses.

To determine the level of control

associated with the use of a baghouse,

we obtained available performance test

data that characterized baghouse

performance for four of the 16

baghouses. The database includes a total

of eight source tests; four tests at one

facility, two tests at another facility, and

single tests at the two other facilities.

Each performance test is comprised of

three individual test runs. The three-run

averages for each of the eight tests range

from 0.002 to 0.009 gr/dscf. Results from

individual runs range from 0.001 to

0.009 gr/dscf.

The highest emitting unit is the

Granite City, IL facility for which we

have information on four independent

performance tests. The performance

tests range from 0.006 to 0.009 gr/dscf

with individual runs ranging from 0.003

to 0.009 gr/dscf. Three tests were

conducted in 1988 and one in 1985, and

all tests met the facility’s State limit of

0.01 gr/dscf.

Since each of the baghouses is

considered a MACT floor unit, we must

set the standard at a point that

accommodates the performance

indicated by the highest emitting unit

which we believe reflects a reasonable

worst-case scenario. Consequently, the

level of control associated with the

MACT floor is 0.009 gr/dscf. We believe

this emission limit represents a

reasonable expectation of performance

for an appropriately designed and well

maintained and operated baghouse used

to control blast furnace casthouse

emissions. Therefore, we selected a

concentration limit of 0.009 gr/dscf as

the MACT floor for both new and

existing blast furnace casthouses.

For the casthouse opacity standard,

we selected the same format and values

as that established for the MACT floors.

For existing casthouses, we selected an

opacity limit for the roof monitor of 20

percent using 6-minute averages. For

new casthouses, we selected an opacity

limit for the roof monitor of 15 percent

using 6-minute averages.

Relative to control devices, we

examined options for better emissions

reductions. However, we could find no

control alternatives that would provide

additional reductions in HAP emissions

for blast furnace casthouses beyond that

achieved by a well-designed and

operated baghouse. Consequently, we

have chosen the limit of 0.009 gr/dscf,

the level achieved in practice with the

use of a baghouse, as the standard for

both new and existing sources.

• BOPF primary emission control

systems

Primary emissions from the BOPF

refer to the particulate emissions

generated during the steel production

cycle which are captured and controlled

by the primary emission control system.

The majority of the emissions occur

during the oxygen blow. The oxygen

blow is the period in the steel

production cycle when oxygen is lanced

or injected into the vessel. Some shops

operate open hood furnaces and others

use closed hood systems. Open and

closed hood furnaces are very different

in terms of design and operation,

pollutant loading, and emissions. Open

hood systems are characterized by very

high primary exhaust air flow rates due

to the large quantities of combustion air

introduced at the furnace mouth to

support CO combustion. In contrast,

closed hood systems, which include

hoods that are tightly fitted to the vessel

to suppress CO combustion, are

characterized by much lower exhaust air

flow rates. Typical flow rates for open

hood systems are 200,000 to 500,000

acfm, while closed hood designs are

usually less than 100,000 acfm.

There are 50 BOPF located in 23

BOPF shops. The 50 BOPF include 34

furnaces with open hood systems at 16

shops and 16 furnaces with closed hood

systems at eight shops. All of the BOPF

have capture and control systems for the

primary emissions. For the open hood

systems, eight shops are controlled by

venturi scrubbers and eight shops are

controlled by ESP. All eight of the

closed hood shops are controlled by

venturi scrubbers. Each shop is subject

to existing State limits with a wide

variety of formats, including

concentration limits in gr/dscf and lb/

1,000 lb gas for PM or PM10, mass

emission rate limits in lb/hr, and

process weighted limits in lb/ton of

steel. In addition, the emission test

period required for compliance with the

existing State limits varies from testing

over the steel production cycle, only

during the oxygen blow, for 1-hour runs,

and for 2-hour runs.

We developed separate subcategories

for open and closed hood furnaces due

to the operational differences and

volumetric air flow rates between the

two designs. This subcategorization is

consistent with the development of

separate standards for open and closed

hood BOPF for the new source

performance standard (NSPS) in 40 CFR

part 60, subpart N.

We examined the available test data

for open hood BOPF, existing State

limits, and control measures to evaluate

options for selecting the MACT floor.

We concluded that the source test data

could not be used to rank the relative

performance of all of the shops for two

reasons. In several instances, the

periods during which testing was

conducted differed substantially from

plant to plant. Some plants tested only

during periods of oxygen blowing while

others tested during the entire

production cycle from charge to tap.

The emissions generated and the control

performance can be quite different

depending on the part of the production

cycle tested. For example, the largest

amount of emissions is generated during

the oxygen blow, and this period

presents the greatest challenge to the

control device. Another difficulty with

some of the source test data is that

measurements were made for PM–10

rather than for total PM which is the

basis for the proposed PM limit.

As discussed earlier, there are two

basic problems which prevent us from

assessing the relative stringency of

existing State limits and putting them

on a common basis. The existing State

limits are in different formats, and the

required testing periods associated with

the limits vary from plant to plant. Any

attempt to convert them to a common

basis requires assumptions on

parameters such as typical volumetric

flow rates and steel production rates,

both of which have the potential to

introduce significant errors in the

conversion.

Because the available data and State

limits are not useful to identify the five

best-performing sources, we opted for

the technology floor approach. Control

devices applied to primary emissions at

open hood shops include both ESP and

venturi scrubbers. We have source test

data and design information for seven of

the 16 open hood shops, five with ESP

and two with venturi scrubbers. The test

data indicate that the ESP perform better

than the venturi scrubbers. All the test

data (charge-to-tap measurements) for

the ESP are less than 0.019 gr/dscf. All

of the ESP are similar in design and

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 135 / Friday, July 13, 2001 / Proposed Rules 36847

operation. All have three to five fields

in series and operate at specific

collection areas greater than 300 square

feet per thousand cubic feet per minute.

Data for the two plants with venturi

scrubbers, operating at pressure drops of

25 to 35 inches of water, averaged 0.025

and 0.035 gr/dscf, respectively. Based

on these test data, we conclude the

existing inventory of ESP constitutes the

MACT floor technology for open hood

BOPF.

We examined the test data for the five

ESP for which we have both design

information and emission source test

data. As noted previously, all are similar

in design and operation. We have data

from 13 different source tests; seven

emission source tests at one facility,

three tests at another facility, and single

tests at three other facilities. Each of the

performance tests is comprised of three

individual test runs. Each run was

conducted over an entire furnace cycle

from charge to tap.

The three-run averages for each of the

13 tests range from 0.004 to 0.019 gr/

dscf. Results from individual runs range

from 0.003 to 0.025 gr/dscf. Since each

of the ESP is considered a MACT floor

unit, we must set the MACT floor at a

level that reflects a reasonable worstcase scenario and that accommodates

the ordinary and unavoidable variability

in the performance of the MACT

technology. We selected the highest

three-run average value of 0.019 gr/dscf

for the MACT floor.

We also believe that this emission

limit represents the best performance

that can reasonably be expected of an

appropriately designed and well

maintained and operated ESP applied to

open hood BOPF emissions. Therefore,

we selected 0.019 gr/dscf as the MACT

floor for open hood BOPF at both new

and existing BOPF shops.

We examined the available test data

for closed hood BOPF, existing State

limits, and control measures to evaluate

options for selecting the MACT floor. As

was the case with open hood BOPF, we

also had limited actual emission data

and a mixture of different formats for

State emission limits from closed hood

BOPF. We looked at the technology

used to control primary emissions from

closed hood BOPF and found that all 16

of the furnaces at the eight closed hood

shops use high-energy venturi

scrubbers. Closed hood systems produce

an exhaust gas high in CO which

precludes the use of other types of

control devices (such as baghouses or

ESP) due to potential explosion or fire

hazards.

We collected information on the

design and operation of these scrubbers

through an industry survey. These

scrubbers operate at a pressure drop of

50 inches of water or more, and most

have liquid-to-gas ratios greater than 10

gallons per thousand cubic feet of gas.

We selected high-energy venturi

scrubbers with a pressure drop of 50

inches of water or more as the floor

technology for closed hood BOPF.

We have recent test data for only one

of the eight closed hood shops. In

addition, we have performance test data

from five other furnaces that were

collected and used to develop the NSPS.

All tests include three test runs and all

were performed only during the oxygen

blow. Each of these plants use the

MACT floor technology for closed hood

shops, which is a high-energy venturi

scrubber with a pressure drop of 50

inches of water or more. The three run

averages for each of the six tests range

from 0.015 to 0.024 gr/dscf. Results from

individual runs range from 0.013 to

0.031 gr/dscf.

Since each of the scrubbers is

considered a MACT floor unit, we must

set the MACT floor emission limit at a

level that reflects a reasonable worstcase scenario and that accommodates

the ordinary and unavoidable variability

in the performance of the MACT

technology. We selected the highest

three run average value of 0.024 gr/dscf

as the MACT floor. We also believe that

this value represents the best

performance that can reasonably be

expected of an appropriately designed

and well maintained and operated highenergy venturi scrubber applied to

closed hood BOPF emissions. Therefore,

we have selected 0.024 gr/dscf as the

MACT floor for closed hood BOPF at

both new and existing BOPF shops.

We examined options for better

emissions reductions for open hood

BOPF. However, we could not find any

control alternatives that would provide

reductions in HAP emissions beyond

that demonstrated to be achievable by

ESP. Consequently, the floor (0.019 gr/

dscf) was chosen as the standard for

both new and existing sources.

We examined options for more

effective control for closed hood BOPF.

However, we could not find any

alternative that would provide greater

reductions in HAP emissions from

closed hood BOPF than high energy

venturi scrubbers. Consequently, the

MACT floor (0.024 gr/dscf) was chosen

as the standard for both new and

existing sources.

• BOPF secondary emission control

systems

Secondary or fugitive emissions occur

from the BOPF when the molten iron

and scrap metal are charged to the

furnace, and when the molten steel and

slag are tapped from the furnace. The

emissions generated are primarily metal

oxides formed when oxygen in the air

reacts with the molten iron or steel.

Twelve of the 23 BOPF shops have a

separate capture and control system for

BOPF charging and tapping emissions.

Ten of these shops use baghouses and

the other two use scrubbers. Existing

State limits for the control devices range

from 0.0052 to 0.015 gr/dscf and the

NSPS limit is 0.01 gr/dscf. The most

common limit is 0.01 gr/dscf. Available

data on secondary BOPF emissions are

limited to one test run at a facility using

a baghouse, for which we have limited

documentation. This one test run

measured a concentration value of 0.001

gr/dscf.

In selecting the MACT floor for

existing sources, we evaluated all of the

available information on existing

control measures, State regulations, and

actual emissions. Due to the limited

information on actual emissions

available, we concluded that State

regulations provided the best and most

complete information for establishing

floor limitations for secondary BOPF

emission control systems. We believe

that these State limits are in fact a

reasonable representation of what is

actually achieved in practice and are,

therefore, suitable proxies for

establishing MACT floor conditions.

The existing State emission limits

reflect a level of performance which,

based on engineering judgement, we

would expect from the capture systems

and control devices which are currently

applied to the control of emissions from

secondary BOPF emission control

systems.

We examined the top five most

stringent existing emission limits for

total PM. The five plants with the most

stringent secondary BOPF emission

State limits are subject to concentration

limits of 0.0052, 0.006, 0.01, 0.01 and

0.012 gr/dscf. Each of these is associated

with a facility with baghouse controls.

The median of the five values produces

a MACT floor limit of 0.01 gr/dscf.

It is not likely that one test run will

adequately reflect the full range of

performance of a particular technology,

and the results of the one available test

run appear to represent, at most, what

this type of control is able to achieve

under very favorable circumstances.

Therefore, we do not believe that it

represents the actual level of

performance that this technology is

capable of consistently achieving.

We believe that 0.01 gr/dscf

reasonably represents the average

emission limitation achieved by the best

performing five sources in the category.

36848 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 135 / Friday, July 13, 2001 / Proposed Rules

Consequently, we chose 0.01 gr/dscf as

the MACT floor for existing sources.

As with existing sources, MACT for

new sources is also based on existing

State limits since we have no credible

data on actual emissions beyond the

single test run. As noted above, the most

stringent State limit is 0.0052 gr/dscf.

Consequently, we chose 0.0052 gr/dscf

as the MACT floor for new sources.

Because of the limited amount of data

available, we could not identify any

basis for developing a limit more

stringent than the floor for either new or

existing BOPF shops. Consequently, we

chose the MACT floor as the standard

for new and existing BOPF shops, 0.01

gr/dscf for existing sources, and 0.0052

gr/dscf for new sources.

• Hot metal transfer, desulfurization,

slag skimming, and ladle metallurgy

There are several different ancillary

operations performed within the BOPF

shop: (1) Operations associated with the

molten iron before it is charged to the

BOPF (hot metal transfer,

desulfurization, and slag skimming),

and (2) treatment of the molten steel

after tapping (various ladle metallurgy

operations). The emissions from these

operations are primarily metal oxides

formed when oxygen in the air reacts

with the molten iron or steel.

Molten iron is transported from the

blast furnace casthouse to the BOPF

shop in a torpedo car and transferred to

a vessel at the reladling (or hot metal)

station, where it is usually desulfurized

and slag is skimmed from the surface.

Emissions from these operations are

captured by local hooding and

controlled by a baghouse. Existing State

emission limits for these operations

range from 0.0052 to 0.04 gr/dscf, but

most are on the order of 0.01 gr/dscf.

The steel from the BOPF is usually

transferred to a ladle where final

adjustments in temperature and

chemistry are made in an operation

known as ladle metallurgy. Emissions

from ladle metallurgy are captured by a

close fitting hood and ducted to a

baghouse. Existing State limits for ladle

metallurgy are a mixture of mass

emission rates in lb/hr and

concentration limits in gr/dscf. The

mass emission rate limits range from

0.42 to 7.5 lb/hr, and the concentration

limits range from 0.0052 to 0.02 gr/dscf.

In selecting the MACT floor for

existing sources, we evaluated all of the

available information on control

techniques, State regulations, and actual

emissions. Relative to information on

actual emissions, we have information

on three tests of hot metal transfer and

desulfurization and seven tests of ladle

metallurgy. Since all of the facilities

using controls use baghouses and have

similar types of emissions, we selected

baghouses as the MACT floor

technology for hot metal transfer,

desulfurization, slag skimming, and

ladle metallurgy.

To develop the MACT floor

limitation, we examined source test data

for three of the 23 baghouses that

control emissions from hot metal

transfer and desulfurization, and for

seven of the 20 baghouses that control

emissions from ladle metallurgy. Each

performance test is comprised of three

individual runs. The three-run averages

for the ten tests range from 0.001 to

0.012 gr/dscf. Results from individual

runs range from 0.001 to 0.021 gr/dscf.

Since each of the baghouses is

considered a MACT floor unit, we must

set the MACT floor at a level that

reflects a reasonable worst-case

situation and that accommodates the

ordinary and unavoidable variation in

the performance of the MACT

technology. We looked at both the

highest three-run averages and highest

individual runs measured. In this case,

both were obtained on the same

baghouse, 0.012 and 0.021 gr/dscf. An

examination of the test results on all ten

baghouses indicates that these results

are 2 to 2.5 times higher than those

obtained on the next highest emitting

unit, suggesting that this baghouse is

either an under performer or that the

test results include an outlier.

Eliminating the 0.021 gr/dscf value from

the three-run average produces an

average of 0.007 gr/dscf which is in line

with the next highest emitting unit’s

three-run average of 0.006 gr/dscf and

the highest individual run of 0.0085 gr/

dscf. Consequently, we believe the 0.021

gr/dscf value is an outlier and does not

reflect the level of performance

demonstrated to be achievable for a

baghouse applied to emissions from hot

metal transfer, desulfurization, and

ladle metallurgy operations.

We also believe that a concentration

limit of 0.007 gr/dscf represents the best

reasonable expectation of performance

for a baghouse applied to these emission

points. Therefore, we selected 0.007 gr/

dscf as the MACT floor limit for

emissions from hot metal transfer,

desulfurization, and ladle metallurgy

operations at both new and existing

BOPF shops.

We know of no control alternatives

that would provide additional

reductions in HAP emissions for hot

metal transfer, desulfurization, slag

skimming, and ladle metallurgy beyond

that achieved with baghouses.

Consequently, the MACT floor (0.007

gr/dscf) was chosen as the standard for

both new and existing sources.

• BOPF shop fugitive emissions

The BOPF shop is a building or

structure that houses several operations

involved in steelmaking. These include

hot metal transfer, desulfurization, slag

skimming stations; one or more BOPF

for refining iron into steel; and ladle

metallurgy stations. Fugitive emissions

from these operations in the BOPF shop

exit through the roof monitor and other

building openings.

In selecting the MACT floor for

existing sources, we evaluated all of the

available information on existing

control measures, State regulations, and

actual emissions. We were unable to

locate any opacity data to establish

MACT floors for BOPF fugitive

emissions based on actual opacity

readings. However, most States have

visible emission standards that limit

opacity from BOPF shops during all

periods of the production cycle. In

addition, there are existing NSPS

opacity limits applicable to fugitive

emissions from BOPF shops. We believe

that State regulations provide the best

and most complete information for

establishing floor limitations for fugitive

emissions from BOPF shops. We believe

that these State limits are in fact a

reasonable representation of what is

actually achieved in practice and are,

therefore, suitable proxies for

establishing MACT floor conditions.

The existing State opacity limits reflect

a level of performance which, based on

engineering judgement, we would

expect to be achievable for fugitive

emissions from BOPF shops.

We decided to look at top and bottom

blown furnaces independently based on

operational differences between the two

designs. For top blown furnaces, the

most stringent and also the most

common State standard is a 20 percent

limit (3-minute average) that is applied

to 13 of the 20 BOPF shops that operate

top blown furnaces. For bottom blown

furnaces, the BOPF shop with the most

stringent standard is subject to a 10

percent opacity limit (6-minute average,

with one exception per cycle up to 20

percent). A second shop has three

furnaces subject to a 20 percent limit (3-

minute average). A third shop has two

furnaces subject to a 20 percent limit (6-

minute average), and a third subject to

a 10 percent limit (3-minute average),

with one 3-minute average greater than

10 percent but less than 20 percent

applied only during hot metal transfer

or skimming operations. Similar to the

existing State standards, the NSPS for

top blown furnaces applies during the

entire production cycle. However, the

NSPS for bottom blown furnaces applies

only during periods of hot metal transfer

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 135 / Friday, July 13, 2001 / Proposed Rules 36849

and slag skimming. Both standards limit

opacity to less than 10 percent (3-

minute average), except that one 3-

minute average greater than 10 percent

but less than 20 percent can occur

during each applicable performance

period.

We are selecting a 20 percent (3-

minute average) opacity limit as the

MACT floor for existing sources for both

new and existing top blown and bottom

blown BOPF shops. In both cases, this

level of control corresponds to the

median level of control achieved by the

top five performing shops. For top

blown BOPF shops, the MACT floor for

new sources is an opacity limit of 10

percent (3-minute average), except for

one 3-minute average greater than 10

percent but less than 20 percent. This

limit is based on the most stringent

existing limit applicable to top blown

BOPF shops (the existing NSPS). For

bottom blown BOPF shops, we are

selecting a MACT floor limit of 10

percent opacity (6-minute average with

one exception per cycle up to 20

percent) for new sources, based on the

most stringent existing State limit. This

limit is more stringent than the NSPS

since it applies during all periods of the

production cycle rather than only

during hot metal transfer and skimming.

Because of the limited amount of data

available, we could not identify any

basis for developing a limit more

stringent than the floor for either new or

existing BOPF shops. Consequently, we

chose the MACT floor as the standard

for both new and existing bottom and

top blown BOPF shops. For both

existing bottom blown and top blown

BOPF shops, we selected an opacity

limit for fugitive emissions of 20 percent

using 3-minute averages. For new

bottom blown BOPF shops, we selected

an opacity limit for fugitive emissions of

10 percent opacity limit (6-minute

average, with one exception per cycle

up to 20 percent), which is based on the

most stringent State limit. For new top

blown BOPF shops, we are selecting an

opacity limit of 10 percent (3-minute

average), except that one 3-minute

average greater than 10 percent but less

than 20 percent can occur during each

steel production cycle.

D. How Did We Select the Initial

Compliance Requirements?

The proposed rule requires a

performance test for each control device

to demonstrate initial compliance with

the applicable PM limit, and the

reference method for PM is EPA Method

5 or 5D in 40 CFR part 60, appendix A

(or ASTM 4536–96). The proposed rule

also requires that a certified observer

conduct a performance test by EPA

Method 9 in 40 CFR part 60, appendix

A, to determine the opacity of fugitive

emissions. Consistent with Method 9

and the requirements of the NESHAP

General Provisions (40 CFR part 63,

subpart A), we are requiring that opacity

observations be made for at least 3

hours. We are also requiring that

compliance testing for PM and opacity

be performed during the production

period with the greatest emissions,

which is during tapping for the blast

furnace; during the steel production

cycle for open hood BOPF; and during

the oxygen blow for closed hood BOPF.

For the measurement of oil content,

we chose EPA Method 9071B, ‘‘nHexane Extractable Material for Sludge,

Sediment, and Solid Samples.’’ This

method is used to quantify low

concentrations of oil in solid materials

by extracting the sample with hexane to

dissolve the oil, evaporating the hexane,

and weighing the residue (oil). This is

consistent with the method specified in

Indiana’s regulation for the oil content

of sinter feed. Three samples of the

sinter feed must be taken at 8-hour

intervals each day. The three samples

are composited and analyzed for oil

content to provide a measure of the

percent oil in the sinter feed for that

day. The daily results are averaged over

a 30-day period on a rolling basis to

determine the 30-day rolling average.

We chose a format of a 30-day rolling

average for the standard because it is

consistent with the data on which the

limit is based, which were long term

averages of historical measurements,

and provides for dampening of possible

short-term intermittent spikes in oil

content.

We also require that certain operating

limits be determined during the initial

compliance test to ensure that capture

and control devices operate properly on

a continuing basis. All operating limits

must be established during a

performance test that demonstrates

compliance with the applicable

emission limit. During performance

tests for PM, operating limits must be

established for pressure drop and

scrubber water flow rate for venturi

scrubbers, and opacity (using a COMS)

for ESP. During opacity observations of

roof monitors, operating limits must be

established for capture systems used on

the sinter plant discharge end, blast

furnace casthouse, and BOPF secondary

emissions. Two options are available for

the operating limits for these capture

systems: (1) Establish a minimum

volumetric flow rate for each individual

duct, or (2) establish a minimum

volumetric flow rate for the total flow to

the control device along with settings

for damper positions.

E. How Did We Select the Continuous

Compliance Requirements?

For continuous compliance, we chose

periodic performance testing for PM and

opacity, which is consistent with

current permit requirements. We

consulted with several States on how

they were implementing title V

permitting requirements for

performance tests. In general,

performance tests are repeated every 2.5

to 5 years, depending on the magnitude

of the source. Consequently, we decided

that performance tests should be

repeated no less frequently than twice

per permit term of a source’s title V

operating permit (at mid-term and

renewal).

Continuous compliance provisions

were also established for capture

equipment used on the discharge end,

blast furnace casthouse, and BOPF

secondary emissions to ensure the

emissions are captured. There are two

options: (1) Monitor the volumetric flow

rate in each individual duct, or (2)

monitor the total volumetric flow rate to

the control device in combination with

damper positions. These parameters

must be in the range established during

the EPA Method 9 performance test. We

believe this monitoring will be

sufficient to assure that ventilation

adequate for the capture of fugitive

emissions consistent with that

demonstrated during the initial

performance test will be maintained.

We also developed procedures to

ensure that control equipment is

operating properly on a continuous

basis. When baghouses are used, the

alarm for the bag leak detection system

must not sound for more than 5 percent

of the time in any semiannual reporting

period. Venturi scrubbers must be

monitored for pressure drop and

scrubber water flow rate, and they must

not fall below the limits established

during the performance test.

Electrostatic precipitators must be

monitored for opacity using COMS. The

opacity must not exceed the operating

limit established during the

performance test. If a facility uses

equipment other than a baghouse,

venturi scrubber, or ESP to control

emissions from an affected source, the

owner or operator would be required to

send us a monitoring plan containing

information on the type of device,

performance test results, appropriate

operating parameters to be monitored,

operating limits, and operation and

maintenance.

For demonstrating continuous

compliance with the oil content

standard on sinter plant feed, we chose

daily sampling and analysis of sinter

36850 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 135 / Friday, July 13, 2001 / Proposed Rules

plant feed with daily compliance

determined against a 30-day rolling

average.

F. 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). One-time

notifications are needed by EPA to

know what facilities are subject to the

standard, if a facility has complied with

the rule requirements, and when certain

events such as performance tests and

performance evaluations are scheduled.

Semiannual compliance reports

containing information on any deviation

from the rule requirements are also

required. These reports would include

information on any deviation that

occurred during the reporting period; if

no deviation occurred, only summary

information would be required.

Consistent with the General Provisions,

we also require an immediate report of

any startup, shutdown, or malfunction

where the actions taken in response

were not consistent with the startup,

shutdown, and malfunction plan. This

information is needed to determine if

changes to the plan need to be made.

Records would be required of

information needed to document

compliance with the rule requirements.

These notifications, reports, and records

are the minimum needed to ensure

initial and continuous compliance.

IV. Summary of Environmental, Energy,

and Economic Impacts

Generally, we do not expect the

impacts of the proposed rule to be very

serious or significant. Most plants have

and continue to operate air pollution

control equipment sufficient to meet all

or most of the emission limitations

contained in the proposed rule. Our best

projection is that four plants will have

to upgrade or install new control

equipment on one or more of the

affected sources. One plant does not

have controls for fugitive emissions

from their blast furnace casthouse and

may have to install a capture and

control system. One plant is expected to

install new venturi scrubbers for their

primary emission control system in the

BOPF shop, and another plant will need

to upgrade their venturi scrubbers. One

of these plants may also need to install

a capture and control system for fugitive

emissions from the BOPF because they

operate a closed hood BOPF without a

capture system. Two plants use venturi

scrubbers as the control devices for

fugitive emissions from the BOPF; these

plants may need to replace the

scrubbers with baghouses.

A. What Are the Air Emission Impacts?

The installation of new controls and

upgrades discussed in the preceding

paragraph will result in reductions in

emissions of metal HAP and PM. We

estimate that the new capture and

control system for the blast furnace

casthouse will reduce these emissions

by 90 percent, a reduction of 2 tons per

year (tpy) of HAP and 324 tpy of PM.

The new BOPF scrubbers at one plant

and upgrade at another will result in a

50 percent reduction in emissions, 2.8

tpy of HAP and 315 tpy of PM. The new

capture and control system for fugitive

emissions from the BOPF would result

in a 90 percent reduction in emissions,

6 tpy of HAP and 600 tpy of PM. We

expect that the upgrade or replacement

of the two scrubbers used as controls for

BOPF fugitive emissions would result in

a 50 percent reduction in emissions, 2.7

tpy of HAP and 270 tpy of PM. Overall,

the proposed standard is expected to

reduce metal HAP emissions by 13 tpy

and PM emissions by about 1,500 tpy.

B. What Are the Cost Impacts?

The nationwide capital and annual

costs of new and upgraded capture and

control systems are estimated at $34

million and $5.9 million/yr,

respectively. The total nationwide

annual costs (including monitoring and

recordkeeping) are about $6.2 million/

yr. These costs are based on a new

primary control system for one BOPF

shop, upgraded controls at another, two

new capture and control systems for

secondary BOPF emissions, and one

new capture and control system for a

blast furnace casthouse. In addition, the

estimate includes the cost of bag leak

detection systems for baghouses.

C. What Are the Economic Impacts?

We conducted a detailed economic

impact analysis to determine the

impacts of the proposed rule on both the

industry and the U.S. market for steel

mill products. We estimate the

economic impacts in both areas to be

negligible. We project the price of steel

mill products, in aggregate, to increase

by less than 0.1 percent with domestic

production from integrated mills

declining by only 3,100 short tons. This

slight decline in production at affected

integrated mills is somewhat offset by

increases at nonintegrated domestic

steel producers (600 short tons) and

foreign imports (600 short tons). In

terms of industry impacts, the integrated

steel producers are projected to

experience a slight decrease in operating

profits of $5.2 million annually, which

reflects increased costs of compliance

and associated reductions in revenues

from producing final steel mill

products. In addition, we don’t foresee

any individual integrated facility being

in jeopardy of closure because of the

proposed standards.

Based on the market analysis, the

annual costs to society of the proposed

rule are projected to be $5.9 million. As

a result of slightly higher prices for steel

mill products, the final consumers of

these products will incur an additional

$1.7 million annually. Integrated steel

mills are expected to decline $5.2

million annually in profits related to

directly incurred control costs and

reduced product revenues. Nonintegrated steel mills that directly

compete with integrated mills in these

markets and are unaffected by today’s

proposed rule will experience a slight

increase in profits of $0.6 million.

Similarly, foreign steel producers will

also experience a slight increase in

profits of $0.4 million due to the slightly

higher prices and increases in imports

to the U.S. market. For more

information, consult the economic

impact analysis supporting this

proposed rule.

D. What Are the Non-Air Health,

Environmental, and Energy Impacts?

Implementation of the rule as

proposed would be expected to result in

a small increase in solid waste: 3,200

tpy of sludge and 1,200 tpy of dust. The

energy increase could be expected to be

24,000 megawatt-hours per year,

primarily due to the energy

requirements of new venturi scrubbers.

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 detailed

analysis with your comments to allow

use 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–2000–44 (see

ADDRESSEES).

We are requesting comments on two

specific issues. The first is whether the

emission limit for the windbox exhaust

at sinter plants should be expressed in

terms of lb/ton of sinter (0.3 lb/ton),

concentration (0.01 gr/dscf for

baghouses and 0.03 gr/dscf for

scrubbers), or a combination. The

second issue is whether MACT

standards are warranted for the

discharge end and sinter cooler at sinter

plants and for ladle metallurgy

operations in the BOPF shop. The

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 135 / Friday, July 13, 2001 / Proposed Rules 36851

discharge end contributes only 1

percent of the HAP emissions from

sinter plants, and the cooler contributes

less than 10 percent. Ladle metallurgy

contributes less than 1 percent of the

HAP emissions from BOPF shops.

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

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. None of the

affected facilities are owned or operated

by State governments, and the proposed

rule would not preempt any State laws

that are more stringent. Therefore, 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. In

addition, the proposed rule is required

by statute and, if implemented, will not

impose any substantial direct

compliance costs. Thus, the

requirements of section 6 of the

Executive Order do not apply to this

proposed 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 integrated iron and steel

manufacturing facilities. 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

36852 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 135 / Friday, July 13, 2001 / Proposed Rules

influence the regulation. This proposed

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 leastburdensome 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 $6 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 today’s proposed rule on small

entities, small entity is defined as: (1) a

small business according to Small

Business Administration (SBA) size

standards for NAICS code 331111 (i.e.,

Iron and Steel Mills) of 1,000 or fewer

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.

Based on the above definition of small

entities, the Agency has determined that

there are no small businesses within

this source category that would be

subject to this proposed rule. Therefore,

because this proposed rule will not

impose any requirements on small

entities, I certify that this action will not

have a significant economic impact on

a substantial number of small entities.

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. 2003.01), and

a copy may be obtained from Sandy

Farmer by mail at the Office of

Environmental Information, Collection

Strategies Division (2822), U.S.

Environmental Protection Agency, 1200

Pennsylvania Avenue, NW, Washington,

DC 20460, by e-mail at

farmer.sandy@epa.gov, or by calling

(202) 260–2740. A copy also may 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 rule would require applicable

one-time notifications required by the

General Provisions for each affected

source. As required by the NESHAP

General Provisions, all plants would be

required to prepare and operate by a

startup, shutdown, and malfunction

plan. Plants also would be required to

prepare an operation and maintenance

plan for capture systems and control

devices subject to operating limits.

Records would be required to

demonstrate continuous compliance

with the monitoring, operation, and

maintenance requirements for capture

systems, control devices, and

monitoring systems. Semiannual

compliance reports also are required.

These reports would describe any

deviation from the standards, any

period a continuous monitoring system

was ‘‘out-of-control,’’ or any startup,

shutdown, or malfunction event where

actions taken to respond were

inconsistent with startup, shutdown,

and malfunction plan. If no deviation or

other event occurred, only a summary

report would be required. Consistent

with the General Provisions, if actions

taken in response to a startup,

shutdown, or malfunction event are not

consistent with the plan, an immediate

report must be submitted within 2 days

of the event with a letter report 7 days

later.

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 5,512 labor

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 135 / Friday, July 13, 2001 / Proposed Rules 36853

hours per year at a total annual cost of

$352,302, including labor, capital, and

operation and maintenance.

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 13, 2001, a comment to OMB is best

assured of having its full effect if OMB

receives it by August 13, 2001. The final

rule will respond to any OMB or public

comments on the information collection

requirements contained in this proposal.

H. National Technology Transfer and

Advancement Act

Section 12(d) of the National

Technology Transfer and Advancement

Act (NTTAA) of 1995 (Public Law 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 rule involves technical

standards. The EPA proposes to use

EPA Methods 1, 2, 2F, 2G, 3, 3A, 3B, 4,

5, 5D, 9, and 17 in 40 CFR part 60,

appendix A; Performance Specification

1 (PS–1) in 40 CFR part 60, appendix B;

and OSW 846 Method 9071B.

Consistent with the NTTAA, we

conducted searches to identify

voluntary consensus standards in

addition to these EPA methods. No

applicable voluntary consensus

standards were identified for EPA

Methods 2F, 2G, 5D, 9, and OSW 846

Method 9071B. The search and review

results have been documented and

placed in Docket A–2000–44.

One voluntary consensus standard

was identified as applicable to PS–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 PS–1 (65 FR 48920,

August 10, 2000).

Another voluntary consensus

standard, ASTM D4536–96, Particulate

(Matter) Modified High Volume, is being

proposed as an alternative to the

sampling equipment and procedures in

Method 5 or 17 in conducting emissions

testing of positive pressure baghouses.

The ASTM D4536–96 equipment and

procedures would be used in

conjunction with the sample traverse

and calculations as described in Method

5D for the application. We invite

comments on whether including this

ASTM standard method is appropriate

for this or other applications.

In addition to the voluntary

consensus standards we propose to use

in this rule, our search for emissions

monitoring procedures identified 15

other voluntary consensus standards.

We determined that 12 of these 15

standards were impractical alternatives

to EPA test methods for the purposes of

this proposed rule. Therefore, we do not

propose to include these 12 voluntary

consensus standards in this proposed

rule. Our detailed review comments for

these 12 standards are in Docket A–

2000–44.

Three of the 15 voluntary consensus

standards identified in this search were

unavailable at the time the review was

conducted for the purposes of this

proposed rule because they are under

development by the voluntary

consensus body. Our review comments

for these three standards are in Docket

A–2000–44.

The EPA invites comment on the

compliance demonstration requirements

proposed in this rule and specifically

invites the public to identify

potentially-applicable voluntary

consensus standards. Commentors

should also explain why this regulation

should adopt these voluntary consensus

standards in lieu of or in addition to

EPA’s standards. Emission test methods

and performance specifications

submitted for evaluation should be

accompanied with a basis for the

recommendation, including method

validation data the procedure used to

validate the candidate method (if a

method other than Method 301, 40 CFR

part 63, appendix A, was used).

The EPA test methods and

performance specifications that would

be required for integrated iron and steel

manufacturing facilities are included in

§§ 63.7822, 63.7823, and 63.7831 of the

proposed rule. Under § 63.8 of the

NESHAP General Provisions in 40 CFR

part 63, subpart A, a source may apply

to EPA for permission to use alternative

monitoring in place of any of the EPA

testing methods.

List of Subjects in 40 CFR part 63

Environmental protection,

Administrative practice and procedure,

Air pollution control, Hazardous

substances, Iron and steel,

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.

Subpart A—[Amended]

2. Section 63.14 is amended by

adding paragraph (b)(20) to read as

follows:

§ 63.14 Incorporations by reference.

* * * * *

(b) * * *

(20) ASTM D4536–96, Standard Test

Method for High-Volume Sampling for

Solid Particulate Matter and

Determination of Particulate Emissions,

36854 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 135 / Friday, July 13, 2001 / Proposed Rules

IBR approved [EFFECTIVE DATE OF

FINAL RULE] for § 63.7822.

* * * * *

3. Part 63 is amended by adding

subpart FFFFF to read as follows:

Sec.

Subpart FFFFF—National Emission

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for

Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing

Facilities

What This Subpart Covers

63.7780 What is the purpose of this

subpart?

63.7781 Am I subject to this subpart?

63.7782 What parts of my plant does this

subpart cover?

63.7783 When do I have to comply with

this subpart?

63.7784–63.7789 [Reserved]

Emission Limitations

63.7790 What emission limitations must I

meet?

63.7791–63.7799 [Reserved]

Operation and Maintenance Requirements

63.7800 What are my operation and

maintenance requirements?

63.7801–63.7809 [Reserved]

General Compliance Requirements

63.7810 What are my general requirements

for complying with this subpart?

63.7811–63.7819 [Reserved]

Initial Compliance Requirements

63.7820 By what date must I conduct

performance tests or other initial

compliance demonstrations?

63.7821 When must I conduct subsequent

performance tests?

63.7822 What test methods and other

procedures must I use to demonstrate

initial compliance with the emission

limits for particulate matter?

63.7823 What test methods and other

procedures must I use to demonstrate

initial compliance with the opacity

limits?

63.7824 What test methods and other

procedures must I use to establish and

demonstrate initial compliance with the

operating limits?

63.7825 How do I demonstrate initial

compliance with the emission

limitations that apply to me?

63.7826 How do I demonstrate initial

compliance with the operation and

maintenance requirements that apply to

me?

63.7827–63.7829 [Reserved]

Continuous Compliance Requirements

63.7830 What are my monitoring

requirements?

63.7831 What are the installation,

operation, and maintenance

requirements for my monitors?

63.7832 How do I monitor and collect data

to demonstrate continuous compliance?

63.7833 How do I demonstrate continuous

compliance with the emission

limitations that apply to me?

63.7834 How do I demonstrate continuous

compliance with the operation and

maintenance requirements that apply to

me?

63.7835 What other requirements must I

meet to demonstrate continuous

compliance?

63.7836–63.7839 [Reserved]

Notifications, Reports, and Records

63.7840 What notifications must I submit

and when?

63.7841 What reports must I submit and

when?

63.7842 What records must I keep?

63.7843 In what form and how long must I

keep my records?

63.7844–63.7849 [Reserved]

Other Requirements and Information

63.7850 What parts of the General

Provisions apply to me?

63.7851 Who implements and enforces this

subpart?

63.7852 What definitions apply to this

subpart?

63.7853–63.7879 [Reserved]

Tables to Subpart FFFFF of Part 63

Table 1 to Subpart FFFFF of Part 63—

Emission and Opacity Limits

Table 2 to Subpart FFFFF of Part 63—Initial

Compliance with Emission and Opacity

Limits

Table 3 to Subpart FFFFF of Part 63—

Continuous Compliance with Emission

and Opacity Limits

Table 4 to Subpart FFFFF of Part 63—

Applicability of General Provisions to

Subpart FFFFF

Subpart FFFFF—National Emission

Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants

for Integrated Iron and Steel

Manufacturing Facilities

What This Subpart Covers

§ 63.7780 What is the purpose of this

subpart?

This subpart establishes national

emission standards for hazardous air

pollutants (NESHAP) for integrated iron

and steel manufacturing facilities. This

subpart also establishes requirements to

demonstrate initial and continuous

compliance with all applicable emission

limitations and operation and

maintenance requirements in this

subpart.

§ 63.7781 Am I subject to this subpart?

You are subject to this subpart if you

own or operate an integrated iron and

steel manufacturing facility that is (or is

part of) a major source of hazardous air

pollutant (HAP) emissions on the first

compliance date that applies to you.

Your integrated iron and steel

manufacturing facility 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.

§ 63.7782 What parts of my plant does this

subpart cover?

(a) This subpart applies to each new

and existing affected source at your

integrated iron and steel manufacturing

facility.

(b) The affected sources are each new

or existing sinter plant, blast furnace,

and basic oxygen process furnace

(BOPF) shop at your integrated iron and

steel manufacturing facility.

(c) This subpart covers emissions

from the sinter plant windbox exhaust,

discharge end, and sinter cooler; the

blast furnace casthouse; and the BOPF

shop including each individual BOPF

and shop ancillary operations (hot metal

transfer, hot metal desulfurization, slag

skimming, and ladle metallurgy).

(d) A sinter plant, blast furnace, or

BOPF shop at your integrated iron and

steel manufacturing facility is existing if

you commenced construction or

reconstruction of the affected source

before July 13, 2001.

(e) A sinter plant, blast furnace, or

BOPF shop at your integrated iron and

steel manufacturing facility is new if

you commence construction or

reconstruction of the affected source on

or after July 23, 2001. An affected source

is reconstructed if it meets the

definition of ‘‘reconstruction’’ in § 63.2.

§ 63.7783 When do I have to comply with

this subpart?

(a) If you have an existing affected

source, you must comply with each

emission limitation and operation and

maintenance requirement in this

subpart that applies to you no later than

[2 YEARS AFTER 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], then you must comply with

each emission limitation 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 and operation and

maintenance requirement in this

subpart that applies to you upon initial

startup.

(d) If your integrated iron and steel

manufacturing facility is an area source

that becomes a major source of HAP, the

following compliance dates apply to

you:

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 135 / Friday, July 13, 2001 / Proposed Rules 36855

(1) Any portion of the existing

integrated iron and steel manufacturing

facility 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 integrated

iron and steel manufacturing facility

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 § 63.7840.

Several of these notifications must be

submitted before the compliance date

for your affected source.

§§ 63.7784–63.7789 [Reserved]

Emission Limitations

§ 63.7790 What emission limitations must I

meet?

(a) You must meet each emission limit

and opacity limit in Table 1 to this

subpart that applies to you.

(b) You must meet each operating

limit for capture and control devices in

paragraphs (b)(1) through (5) of this

section that applies to you.

(1) For each capture system applied to

emissions from a sinter plant discharge

end or blast furnace casthouse, you

must:

(i) Maintain the hourly average

volumetric flow rate through each

separately ducted hood in the capture

system at or above the minimum level

established during the initial

performance test; or

(ii) Maintain the total hourly average

volumetric flow rate at the control

device inlet at or above the minimum

level established during the initial

performance test and all capture system

dampers in the same position as during

the initial performance test.

(2) For each capture system applied to

secondary emissions from a BOPF, you

must:

(i) Maintain the average volumetric

flow rate through each separately

ducted hood in the capture system for

each steel production cycle at or above

the minimum level established during

the initial performance test; or

(ii) Maintain the total average

volumetric flow rate at the control

device inlet for each steel production

cycle at or above the minimum level

established during the initial

performance test and all capture system

dampers in the same position as during

the initial performance test.

(3) For each baghouse applied to meet

any particulate emission limit in Table

1, you must operate the baghouse such

that the bag leak detection system does

not alarm for more than 5 percent of the

total operating time in any semiannual

reporting period.

(4) For each venturi scrubber applied

to meet any particulate emission limit in

Table 1, you must maintain the hourly

average pressure drop and scrubber

water flow rate at or above the

minimum levels established during the

initial performance test.

(5) For each electrostatic precipitator

applied to emissions from a BOPF, you

must maintain the hourly average

opacity of emissions exiting the control

device stack at or below the level

established during the initial

performance test.

(6) An owner or operator who uses an

air pollution control device other than

a baghouse, venturi scrubber, or

electrostatic precipitator must submit a

description of the device; test results

collected in accordance with § 63.7822

verifying the performance of the device

for reducing emissions of particulate

matter to the atmosphere to the levels

required by this subpart; a copy of the

operation and maintenance plan

required in § 63.7800(b); and

appropriate operating parameters that

will be monitored to maintain

continuous compliance with the

applicable emission limitation(s). The

monitoring plan identifying the

operating parameters to be monitored is

subject to approval by the

Administrator.

(c) For each sinter plant, you must

maintain the 30-day rolling average oil

content of the sinter plant feedstock at

or below 0.025 percent.

§§ 63.7791–63.7799 [Reserved]

Operation and Maintenance

Requirements

§ 63.7800 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

each capture system and control device

subject to an operating limit in

§ 63.7790(b). Each plan must address

the elements in paragraphs (b)(1)

through (3) of this section.

(1) Monthly inspections of the

equipment that is important to the

performance of the total capture system

(i.e., 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 also must 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) 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 repair the

bag leak detection system.

(vi) Shutting down the process

producing the particulate emissions.

§§ 63.7801–63.7809 [Reserved]

General Compliance Requirements

§ 63.7810 What are my general

requirements for complying with this

subpart?

(a) You must be in compliance with

the emission limitations 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 § 63.7783 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).

36856 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 135 / Friday, July 13, 2001 / Proposed Rules

§§ 63.7811–63.7819 [Reserved]

Initial Compliance Requirements

§ 63.7820 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 within

180 calendar days of the compliance

date that is specified in § 63.7783 for

your affected source to demonstrate

initial compliance with each emission

and opacity limit in Table 1 to this

subpart that applies to you, and the 30-

day rolling average oil content limit for

the sinter plant feedstock in

§ 63.7790(c).

(b) For each 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 § 63.7783.

(c) If you commenced construction or

reconstruction between July 13, 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

AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION

OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal

Register] or no later than 180 days after

startup of the source, whichever is later,

according to § 63.7(a)(2)(ix).

(d) If you commenced construction or

reconstruction between [INSERT DATE

OF PUBLICATION OF THIS PROPOSED

RULE IN THE Federal Register] 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 AFTER 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).

§ 63.7821 When must I conduct

subsequent performance tests?

You must conduct subsequent

performance tests to demonstrate

compliance with all applicable emission

and opacity limits in Table 1 to this

subpart no less frequently than twice (at

mid-term and renewal) during each term

of your title V operating permit.

§ 63.7822 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 paragraphs (b)

through (h) of this section.

(b) To determine compliance with the

applicable emission limit for particulate

matter in Table 1 to this subpart, follow

the test methods and procedures in

paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section.

(1) Determine the concentration of

particulate matter according to the

following test methods in appendix A to

part 60 of this chapter:

(i) Method 1 to select sampling port

locations and the number of traverse

points. Sampling ports 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.

(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, 5D, or 17, as applicable,

to determine the concentration of

particulate matter. You can also use

ASTM D4536–96 (incorporated by

reference—see § 63.14) as an alternative

to the sampling equipment and

operating procedures in Method 5 or 17

when testing a positive pressure

baghouse, but you must use the sample

traverse location and number of

sampling points described in Method

5D.

(2) Collect a minimum sample volume

of 60 dry standard cubic feet of gas

during each particulate matter test run.

Three valid test runs are needed to

comprise a performance test.

(c) For each sinter plant windbox

exhaust stream, you must complete the

requirements of paragraph (c)(1) and (2)

of this section:

(1) Include procedures in your source

test plan for measuring and recording

the sinter production rate for each test

run in tons per hour; and

(2) Compute the process-weighted

mass emissions (Ep) for each test run

using Equation 1 of this section as

follows:

E C Q

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;

P = Production rate of sinter during the

test run, tons/hr; and

K = Conversion factor, 7,000 gr/lb.

(d) If you apply two or more control

devices in parallel to emissions from a

sinter plant discharge end, compute the

average flow-weighted concentration for

each test run using Equation 2 of this

section as follows:

C

C Q

Q

w

i

i

n

i

i

i

n = =

=

∑

∑

1

1

(Eq. 2)

Where:

Cw = Flow-weighted concentration, gr/

dscf;

Ci = Concentration of particulate matter

from exhaust stream ‘‘i’’, gr/dscf;

and

Qi = Volumetric flow rate of effluent gas

from exhaust stream ‘‘i’’, dscfm.

(e) For a control device applied to

emissions from a blast furnace

casthouse, sample for an integral

number of furnace tapping operations

sufficient to obtain at least 1 hour of

sampling for each test run.

(f) For a primary emission control

device applied to emissions from a

BOPF with a closed hood system,

sample only during the primary oxygen

blow and do not sample during any

subsequent reblows. Continue sampling

for each run for an integral number of

primary oxygen blows.

(g) For a primary emission control

system applied to emissions from a

BOPF with an open hood system and for

a control device applied solely to

secondary emissions from a BOPF, you

must complete the requirements of

paragraphs (g)(1) and (2) of this section:

(1) Sample only during the steel

production cycle. Discontinue sampling

during periods of abnormal operation.

Record the start and end time of each

steel production cycle and each period

of abnormal operation; and

(2) Sample for an integral number of

steel production cycles. The steel

production cycle begins when the scrap

or hot metal is charged to the furnace

(whichever operation occurs first) and

ends 3 minutes after the slag is emptied

from the vessel into the slag pot.

Consecutive cycles are not required for

determining compliance.

(h) For a control device applied to

emissions from BOPF shop ancillary

operations (hot metal transfer,

skimming, desulfurization, or ladle

metallurgy), sample only when the

operation(s) is being conducted.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 135 / Friday, July 13, 2001 / Proposed Rules 36857

§ 63.7823 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)

through (d) of this section.

(b) You must conduct each visible

emissions performance test such that

the opacity observations overlap with

the performance test for particulate

matter.

(c) To determine compliance with the

applicable opacity limit in Table 1 to

this subpart for a sinter plant discharge

end or a blast furnace casthouse:

(1) Using a certified observer,

determine the opacity of emissions

according to Method 9 in appendix A to

part 60 of this chapter.

(2) Obtain a minimum of 30 6-minute

averages. For a blast furnace casthouse,

make observations during tapping of the

furnace. Tapping begins when the

furnace is opened, usually by creating a

hole near the bottom of the furnace, and

ends when the hole is plugged.

(d) To determine compliance with the

applicable opacity limit in Table 1 to

this subpart for BOPF shops:

(1) For an existing BOPF shop:

(i) Using a certified observer,

determine the opacity of emissions

according to Method 9 in appendix A to

part 60 of this chapter except as

specified in paragraphs (d)(1)(ii) and

(iii) of this section.

(ii) Instead of procedures in section

2.4 of Method 9 in appendix A to part

60 of this chapter, record observations

to the nearest 5 percent at 15-second

intervals for at least three steel

production cycles.

(iii) Instead of procedures in section

2.5 of Method 9 in appendix A to part

60 of this chapter, determine the 3-

minute average opacity from the average

of 12 consecutive observations recorded

at 15-second intervals.

(2) For a new BOPF shop housing a

bottom-blown BOPF:

(i) Using a certified observer,

determine the opacity of emissions

according to Method 9 in appendix A to

part 60 of this chapter.

(ii) Select the highest and second

highest sets of 6-minute average

opacities for each steel production

cycle.

(3) For a new BOPF shop housing a

top-blown BOPF:

(i) Determine the opacity of emissions

according to the requirements for an

existing BOPF shop in paragraphs

(d)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section.

(ii) Select the highest and second

highest sets of 3-minute average

opacities for each steel production

cycle.

(4) Opacity observations must cover

the entire steel production cycle and

must be made for at least three cycles.

The steel production cycle begins when

the scrap or hot metal is charged to the

furnace (whichever operation occurs

first) and ends 3 minutes after the slag

is emptied from the vessel into the slag

pot. Consecutive cycles are not required

for determining compliance.

(5) Determine and record the starting

and stopping times of the steel

production cycle.

§ 63.7824 What test methods and other

procedures must I use to establish and

demonstrate initial compliance with the

operating limits?

(a) For a capture system applied to

emissions from a sinter plant discharge

end or blast furnace casthouse and

subject to an operating limit in

§ 63.7790(b)(1) for flow rate, you must

establish a site-specific operating

limit(s) according to the procedures in

paragraph (a)(1) or (2) of this section.

(1) If you elect the operating limit in

§ 63.7790(b)(1)(i) for the volumetric flow

rate through each separately ducted

hood:

(i) Using the continuous parameter

monitoring system (CPMS) required in

§ 63.7830(a)(1), measure and record the

actual volumetric flow rate through each

separately ducted hood in the capture

system during each visible emissions

performance test.

(ii) Compute and record the hourly

average volumetric flow rate for the

performance test. Your operating limit is

the lowest hourly flow rate value in a

test that meets the opacity limit.

(2) If you elect the operating limit in

§ 63.7790(b)(1)(ii) for total flow rate and

damper position:

(i) Using the CPMS required in

§ 63.7830(a)(2), measure and record the

total volumetric flow rate at the control

device inlet during each visible

emissions performance test.

(ii) Compute and record the hourly

average flow rate for the performance

test. Your operating limit is the lowest

hourly flow rate value in a test that

meets the opacity limit.

(iii) Record the position of each

damper for the capture system damper

position during the visible emissions

performance test. Your operating limit is

the position of each damper.

(b) For each capture system applied to

secondary emissions from a BOPF and

subject to an operating limit in

§ 63.7790(b)(2) for flow rate, you must

establish a site-specific operating

limit(s) according to the procedures in

paragraph (b)(1) or (2) of this section.

(1) If you elect the operating limit in

§ 63.7790(b)(2)(i) for the volumetric flow

rate through each separately ducted

hood:

(i) Using the CPMS required in

§ 63.7830(b)(1), measure and record the

actual volumetric flow rate through each

separately ducted hood in the capture

system for each steel production cycle

during the visible emissions

performance test.

(ii) Compute and record the average

volumetric flow rate for each steel

production cycle during the

performance test. Your operating limit is

the lowest average flow rate value in a

test that meets the opacity limit.

(2) If you elect the operating limit in

§ 63.7790(b)(2)(ii) for total flow rate and

damper position:

(i) Using the CPMS required in

§ 63.7830(b)(2), measure and record the

total volumetric flow rate at the control

device inlet for each steel production

cycle during the visible emissions

performance test.

(ii) Compute and record the average

flow rate for the performance test. Your

operating limit is the lowest average

flow rate value in a test that meets the

opacity limit.

(iii) Record the position of each

damper for the capture system damper

position during the visible emissions

performance test. Your operating limit is

the position of each damper.

(c) For a venturi scrubber subject to

operating limits for pressure drop and

scrubber water flow rate in

§ 63.7790(b)(4), you must establish sitespecific operating limits according to

the procedures in paragraphs (c)(1) and

(2) of this section.

(1) Using the CPMS required in

§ 63.7830(d), measure and record the

pressure drop and scrubber water flow

rate during each run of the particulate

matter performance test.

(2) Compute and record the hourly

average pressure drop and scrubber

water flow rate for each individual test

run. Your operating limits are the lowest

average pressure drop and scrubber

water flow rate value in any of the three

runs that meet the applicable emission

limit.

(d) For an electrostatic precipitator

subject to the operating limit in

§ 63.7790(b)(5) for opacity, you must

establish a site-specific operating limit

according to the procedures in

paragraphs (d)(1) and (2) of this section.

(1) Using the continuous opacity

monitoring system (COMS) required in

§ 63.7830(e), measure and record the

opacity of emissions from each control

device stack during each run of the

particulate matter performance test.

36858 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 135 / Friday, July 13, 2001 / Proposed Rules

(2) Compute and record the hourly

average opacity for each individual test

run. Your operating limit is the highest

hourly opacity in any of the three runs

that meet the emission limit.

(e) You may change the operating

limits for a capture system, venturi

scrubber, or electrostatic precipitator if

you meet the requirements in

paragraphs (e)(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 compliance with the

applicable emission limitation in Table

1 to this subpart.

(3) Establish revised operating limits

according to the applicable procedures

in paragraphs (a) through (d) of this

section.

(f) To determine compliance with the

operating limit for the oil content of the

sinter plant feedstock in § 63.7790(c),

follow the test methods and procedures

in paragraphs (f)(1) through (3) of this

section.

(1) Sample the feedstock three times

a day (once every 8 hours), composite

the three samples each day, and analyze

the composited samples using Method

9071B ‘‘Test Methods for Evaluating

Solid Waste, Physical/Chemical

Methods,’’ EPA Publication SW–846

(Revision 2, April 1998) (Incorporated

by reference).

(2) Continue the sampling and

analysis procedure for 30 consecutive

days.

(3) Compute and record the 30-day

rolling average using that day’s value

and the 29 previous daily values.

§ 63.7825 How do I demonstrate initial

compliance with the emission limitations

that apply to me?

(a) For each affected source subject to

an emission or opacity limit in Table 1

to this subpart, you have demonstrated

initial compliance if:

(1) You meet the conditions in Table

2 to this subpart; and

(2) For each capture system applied to

emissions from a sinter plant discharge

end or blast furnace casthouse and

subject to the operating limit in

§ 63.7790(b)(1), you have established

appropriate site-specific operating

limit(s) and:

(i) If you elect the operating limit in

§ 63.7790(b)(1)(i) for flow rate, you have

a record of the actual volumetric flow

rate through each separately ducted

hood measured during the performance

test in accordance with § 63.7824(a)(1);

or

(ii) If you elect the operating limits in

§ 63.7790(b)(1)(ii) for total flow rate and

damper position, you have a record of

the total volumetric flow rate at the inlet

to the control device measured during

the performance test and the position of

each damper during the test in

accordance with § 63.7824(a)(2); and

(3) For each capture system applied to

secondary emissions from a BOPF and

subject to the operating limit in

§ 63.7790(b)(2), you have established

appropriate site-specific operating

limit(s) and:

(i) If you elect the operating limit in

§ 63.7790(b)(2)(i) for flow rate, you have

a record of the actual volumetric flow

rate through each separately ducted

hood measured during each steel

production cycle in the performance test

in accordance with § 63.7824(b)(1); or

(ii) If you elect the operating limits in

§ 63.7790(b)(2)(ii) for total flow rate and

damper position, you have a record of

the total volumetric flow rate at the inlet

to the control device measured during

each steel production cycle in the

performance test and the position of

each damper during the test in

accordance with § 63.7824(b)(2); and

(4) For each venturi scrubber subject

to the operating limits for pressure drop

and scrubber water flow rate in

§ 63.7790(b)(4), 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 § 63.7824(c); and

(5) For each electrostatic precipitator

subject to the opacity operating limit in

§ 63.7790(b)(5), you have established an

appropriate site-specific operating limit

and have a record of the opacity

measurements made during the

performance test in accordance with

§ 63.7824(d).

(b) For each existing or new sinter

plant subject to the operating limit for

the oil content of the feedstock in

§ 63.7790(c), you have demonstrated

initial compliance if the 30-day rolling

average of the oil content of the

feedstock, measured during the initial

performance test in accordance with

§ 63.7824(f), is no more than 0.025

percent.

(c) For each emission limitation that

applies to you, you must submit a

notification of compliance status

according to § 63.7840(e).

§ 63.7826 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:

(1) You have prepared the operation

and maintenance plan according to the

requirements in § 63.7800(b); and

(2) You will operate each capture

system and control device according to

the procedures in the plan; and

(3) You submit a notification of

compliance status according to the

requirements in § 63.7840(e).

(b) [Reserved]

§§ 63.7827–63.7829 [Reserved]

Continuous Compliance Requirements

§ 63.7830 What are my monitoring

requirements?

(a) For each capture system applied to

emissions from a sinter plant discharge

end or blast furnace casthouse and

subject to an operating limit in

§ 63.7790(b)(1), you must meet the

requirements in paragraph (a)(1) or (2)

of this section.

(1) If you elect the operating limit in

§ 63.7790(b)(1)(i) for flow rate, you must

at all times monitor the hourly average

actual volumetric flow rate through each

separately ducted hood using a CPMS

according to the requirements in

§ 63.7831(a).

(2) If you elect the operating limits for

flow rate and damper position in

§ 63.7790(b)(1)(ii), you must at all times

monitor the average hourly total

volumetric flow rate at the inlet to the

control device using a CPMS according

to the requirements in § 63.7831(a) and

make a visual check at least once every

24 hours to verify that each damper for

the capture system is in the same

position as during the initial

performance test.

(b) For each capture system applied to

secondary emissions from a BOPF and

subject to an operating limit in

§ 63.7790(b)(2), you must meet the

requirements in paragraph (b)(1) or (2)

of this section.

(1) If you elect the operating limit in

§ 63.7790(b)(2)(i) for flow rate, you must

at all times monitor the average actual

volumetric flow rate through each

separately ducted hood for each steel

production cycle using a CPMS

according to the requirements in

§ 63.7831(a).

(2) If you elect the operating limits for

flow rate and damper position in

§ 63.7790(b)(2)(ii), you must at all times

monitor the average total volumetric

flow rate at the inlet to the control

device for each steel production cycle

using a CPMS according to the

requirements in § 63.7831(a) and make a

visual check at least once every 24

hours to verify that each damper for the

capture system is in the same position

as during the initial performance test.

(c) For each baghouse subject to the

operating limit in § 63.7790(b)(3) for the

bag leak detection system alarm, you

must at all times monitor the relative

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 135 / Friday, July 13, 2001 / Proposed Rules 36859

change in particulate matter loadings

using a bag leak detection system

according to the requirements in

§ 63.7831(b) and conduct inspections at

their specified frequencies according to

the requirements in paragraphs (c)(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 other 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.

(8) Inspect fans for wear, material

buildup, and corrosion through

quarterly visual inspections, vibration

detectors, or equivalent means.

(d) For each venturi scrubber subject

to the operating limits for pressure drop

and scrubber water flow rate in

§ 63.7790(b)(4), you must at all times

monitor the hourly average pressure

drop and water flow rate using a CPMS

according to the requirements in

§ 63.7831(c).

(e) For each electrostatic precipitator

subject to the opacity operating limit in

§ 63.7790(b)(5), you must at all times

monitor the hourly average opacity of

emissions exiting each control device

stack using a continuous opacity

monitoring system (COMS) according to

the requirements in § 63.7831(f).

§ 63.7831 What are the installation,

operation, and maintenance requirements

for my monitors?

(a) For each capture system applied to

emissions from a sinter plant discharge

end or blast furnace casthouse that is

subject to operating limits in

§ 63.7790(b)(1) for flow rate and for each

capture system applied to secondary

emissions from a BOPF that is subject to

operating limits in § 63.7790(b)(2) for

flow rate, you must install, operate, and

maintain each CPMS according to the

requirements in paragraphs (a)(1)

through (4) of this section.

(1) Locate the flow sensor and other

necessary equipment such as

straightening vanes in a position that

provides a representative flow and that

reduces swirling flow or abnormal

velocity distributions due to upstream

and downstream disturbances.

(2) Use a flow sensor with a minimum

measurement sensitivity of 2 percent of

the flow rate.

(3) Conduct a flow sensor calibration

check at least semiannually.

(4) At least monthly, inspect all

components for integrity, all electrical

connections for continuity, and all

mechanical connections for leakage.

(b) For each baghouse subject to the

operating limit in § 63.7790(b)(3) for the

bag leak detection system alarm, you

must install, operate, and maintain each

bag leak detection system according to

the requirements in paragraphs (b)(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 obtain a copy

of this guidance document by contacting

the National Technical Information

Service (NTIS) at 800–553–6847. 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.

(7) Where multiple detectors are

required, the system’s instrumentation

and alarm may be shared among

detectors.

(c) For each venturi scrubber subject

to the operating limits in § 63.7790(b)(4)

for pressure drop and scrubber water

flow rate, you must install, operate, and

maintain each CPMS according to the

requirements in paragraphs (c)(1) and

(2) 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.

(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.

(iv) At least monthly, inspect all

components for integrity, all electrical

connections for continuity, and all

mechanical connections for leakage.

(d) You must install, operate, and

maintain each CPMS for a capture

system applied to emissions from a

sinter plant discharge end or blast

furnace casthouse and each CPMS for a

venturi scrubber according to the

36860 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 135 / Friday, July 13, 2001 / Proposed Rules

requirements in paragraphs (d)(1)

through (3) of this section.

(1) Each CPMS must complete a

minimum of one cycle of operation for

each successive 15-minute period. You

must have a minimum of three of the

required four data points to constitute a

valid hour of data.

(2) Each CPMS must have valid

hourly data for at least 95 percent of

every averaging period.

(3) Each CPMS must determine and

record the hourly average of all recorded

readings.

(e) You must install, operate, and

maintain each CPMS for a capture

system applied to secondary emissions

from a BOPF according to the

requirements in paragraphs (e)(1)

through (3) of this section.

(1) Each CPMS must complete a

minimum of one cycle of operation for

each successive 15-minute period

during a steel production cycle.

(2) Each CPMS must have valid data

for at least 95 percent of every averaging

period.

(3) Each CPMS must determine and

record the average of all recorded

readings for a steel production cycle.

(f) For each electrostatic precipitator

subject to the opacity operating limit in

§ 63.7790(b)(5), you must install,

operate, and maintain each COMS

according to the requirements in

paragraphs (f)(1) through (4) of this

section.

(1) You must install each COMS and

conduct a performance evaluation of

each COMS according to § 63.8 and

Performance Specification 1 in

appendix B to 40 CFR part 60.

(2) You must develop and implement

a quality control program for operating

and maintaining each COMS according

to § 63.8. At a minimum, the quality

control program must include a daily

calibration drift assessment, quarterly

performance audit, and annual zero

alignment of each COMS.

(3) You must operate and maintain

each COMS according to § 63.8(e) and

your quality control program. 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.

(4) You must determine and record

the hourly average opacity using all the

6-minute averages collected for periods

during which the COMS is not out of

control.

§ 63.7832 How do I monitor and collect

data to demonstrate continuous

compliance?

(a) Except for monitoring

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 an

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 to fulfill

a minimum data availability

requirement, if applicable. You must

use all the data collected during all

other periods in assessing compliance.

(c) A monitoring malfunction is any

sudden, infrequent, not reasonably

preventable failure of the monitoring to

provide valid data. Monitoring failures

that are caused in part by poor

maintenance or careless operation are

not malfunctions.

§ 63.7833 How do I demonstrate

continuous compliance with the emission

limitations that apply to me?

(a) For each affected source subject to

an emission or opacity limit in

§ 63.7790(a), you must demonstrate

continuous compliance according to the

requirements in Table 3 to this subpart.

(b) For each capture system applied to

emissions from a sinter plant discharge

end or blast furnace casthouse and

subject to an operating limit in

§ 63.7790(b)(1), you must demonstrate

continuous compliance by completing

the requirements in paragraphs (b)(1)

and (2) of this section:

(1) If you elect the operating limit for

flow rate in § 63.7790(b)(1)(i):

(i) Maintaining the hourly average

volumetric flow rate through each

separately ducted hood at or above the

level established during the initial or

subsequent performance test;

(ii) Inspecting and maintaining each

capture system CPMS according to

§ 63.7831(a) and recording all

information needed to document

conformance with these requirements;

and

(iii) Collecting and reducing

monitoring data for the actual

volumetric flow rate through each

separately ducted hood according to

§ 63.7831(d).

(2) If you elect the operating limits for

flow rate and damper position in

§ 63.7790(b)(1)(ii):

(i) Maintaining the hourly average

total volumetric flow rate at the control

device inlet at or above the level

established during the initial or

subsequent performance test and all

capture system damper positions in the

same positions as during the initial or

subsequent performance test;

(ii) Inspecting and maintaining each

capture system CPMS according to

§ 63.7831(a) and recording all

information needed to document

conformance with these requirements;

(iii) Collecting and reducing

monitoring data for the total volumetric

flow rate at the control device inlet

according to § 63.7831(d); and

(iv) Checking all capture system

dampers at least once each day (24

hours) to verify each damper is in the

same position as during the initial or

subsequent performance test and

recording all information needed to

document conformance with these

requirements.

(c) For each capture system applied to

secondary emissions from a BOPF and

subject to an operating limit in

§ 63.7790(b)(2), you must demonstrate

continuous compliance by completing

the requirements in paragraphs (c)(1)

and (2) of this section:

(1) If you elect the operating limit for

flow rate in § 63.7790(b)(2)(i):

(i) Maintaining the average volumetric

flow rate through each separately

ducted hood for each steel production

cycle at or above the level established

during the initial or subsequent

performance test;

(ii) Inspecting and maintaining each

capture system CPMS according to

§ 63.7831(a) and recording all

information needed to document

conformance with these requirements;

and

(iii) Collecting and reducing

monitoring data for the actual

volumetric flow rate through each

separately ducted hood according to

§ 63.7831(e).

(2) If you elect the operating limits for

flow rate and damper position in

§ 63.7790(b)(2)(ii):

(i) Maintaining the average total

volumetric flow rate at the control

device inlet for each steel production

cycle at or above the level established

during the initial or subsequent

performance test and all capture system

damper positions in the same positions

as during the initial or subsequent

performance test;

(ii) Inspecting and maintaining each

capture system CPMS according to

§ 63.7831(a) and recording all

information needed to document

conformance with these requirements;

(iii) Collecting and reducing

monitoring data for the total volumetric

flow rate at the control device inlet

according to § 63.7831(e); and

(iv) Checking all capture system

dampers at least once each day (24

hours) to verify each damper is in the

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 135 / Friday, July 13, 2001 / Proposed Rules 36861

same position as during the initial or

subsequent performance test and

recording all information needed to

document conformance with these

requirements.

(d) For each baghouse subject to the

operating limit for the bag leak detection

system alarm in § 63.7790(b)(3), you

must demonstrate continuous

compliance by completing the

requirements in paragraphs (d)(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. 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 § 63.7830(c)(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 § 63.7831(b)(6), you must

include a copy of the required written

certification by a responsible official in

the next semiannual compliance report.

(e) For each venturi scrubber subject

to the operating limits for pressure drop

and scrubber water flow rate in

§ 63.7790(b)(4), you must demonstrate

continuous compliance by completing

the requirements of paragraphs (e)(1)

through (3) of this section:

(1) Maintaining the hourly 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

venturi scrubber CPMS according to

§ 63.7831(c) 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

§ 63.7831(d) and recording all

information needed to document

conformance with these requirements.

(f) For each electrostatic precipitator

subject to the site-specific opacity

operating limit in § 63.7790(b)(5), you

must demonstrate continuous

compliance by completing the

requirements of paragraphs (f)(1) and (2)

of this section:

(1) Maintaining the hourly average

opacity of emissions no higher than the

site-specific limit established during the

initial or subsequent performance test;

(2) Operating and maintaining each

COMS and reducing the COMS data

according to § 63.7831(f).

(g) For each new or existing sinter

plant subject to the operating limit for

the feedstock oil content in § 63.7790(c),

you must demonstrate continuous

compliance by completing the

requirements of paragraphs (g)(1)

through (3) of this section:

(1) Sampling and recording the oil

content of the sinter plant feedstock

every 24 hours according to the

performance test procedures in

§ 63.7824(f);

(2) Computing and recording the 30-

day rolling average oil content for each

operating day; and

(3) Maintaining the oil content of the

feedstock no higher than 0.025 percent

at all times.

§ 63.7834 How do I demonstrate

continuous compliance with the operation

and maintenance requirements that apply to

me?

(a) For each capture system and

control device subject to an operating

limit in § 63.7790(b), you must

demonstrate continuous compliance

with the operation and maintenance

requirements in § 63.7800(b) by

completing the requirements of

paragraphs (a)(1) through (3) of this

section:

(1) Making monthly inspections of

capture systems according to

§ 63.7800(b)(1) and recording all

information needed to document

conformance with these requirements;

(2) Performing preventative

maintenance for each control device

according to § 63.7800(b)(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

§ 63.7800(b)(3) and recording all

information needed to document

conformance with these requirements.

(b) You must maintain a current copy

of the operation and maintenance plan

required in § 63.7800(b) 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.

§ 63.7835 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 § 63.7790

that applies to you. This includes

periods of startup, shutdown, and

malfunction. You also must report each

instance in which you did not meet

each operation and maintenance

requirement in § 63.7800 that applies to

you. These instances are deviations

from the emission limitations and

operation and maintenance

requirements in this subpart. These

deviations must be reported according

to the requirements in § 63.7841.

(b) Startups, 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).

§§ 63.7836–63.7839 [Reserved]

Notifications, Reports, and Records

§ 63.7840 What notifications must I submit

and when?

(a) You must submit all of the

notifications in §§ 63.6(h)(4) and (5),

63.7(b) and (c), 63.8(f)(4), and 63.9(b)

36862 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 135 / Friday, July 13, 2001 / Proposed Rules

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

AFTER THE DATE OF PUBLICATION

OF THE FINAL RULE IN THE Federal

Register].

(c) As specified in § 63.9(b)(3), if you

start 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 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 the completion

of the performance test according to

§ 63.10(d)(2).

§ 63.7841 What reports must I submit and

when?

(a) Compliance report due dates.

Unless the Administrator has approved

a different schedule, you must submit a

semiannual compliance report to your

permitting authority according to the

requirements in paragraphs (a)(1)

through (5) of this section.

(1) The first compliance report must

cover the period beginning on the

compliance date that is specified for

your affected source in § 63.7783 and

ending on June 30 or December 31,

whichever date comes first after the

compliance date that is specified for

your source in § 63.7783.

(2) The first compliance report must

be postmarked or delivered no later than

July 31 or January 31, whichever date

comes first after your first compliance

report is due.

(3) 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.

(4) Each subsequent compliance

report must be postmarked or delivered

no later than July 31 or January 31,

whichever date comes first after the end

of the semiannual reporting period.

(5) 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(3)(iii)(A) or 40 CFR 71.6(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 (4) of

this section.

(b) Compliance report contents. Each

compliance report must include the

information in paragraphs (b)(1) through

(3) of this section and, as applicable,

paragraphs (b)(4) through (8) of this

section.

(1) Company name and address.

(2) Statement by a responsible official,

with that 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 §§ 63.7833 and 63.7834

that apply to you, a statement that there

were no deviations from the emission

limitations or operation and

maintenance requirements during the

reporting period.

(6) If there were no periods during

which a continuous monitoring system

(including a CPMS or COMS) was outof-control as specified in § 63.8(c)(7), a

statement that there were no periods

during which the CPMS was out-ofcontrol during the reporting period.

(7) For each deviation from an

emission limitation in § 63.7790 that

occurs at an affected source where you

are not using a continuous monitoring

system (including a CPMS or COMS) to

comply with an emission limitation in

this subpart, the compliance report must

contain the information in paragraphs

(b)(1) through (4) of this section and the

information in paragraphs (b)(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 a CPMS or COMS) to comply

with the emission limitation in this

subpart, you must include the

information in paragraphs (b)(1) through

(4) of this section and the information

in paragraphs (b)(8)(i) through (xi) 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 was inoperative,

except for zero (low-level) and highlevel checks.

(iii) The date, time, and duration that

each continuous monitoring system 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 including 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) A brief description of the

process units.

(ix) A brief description of the

continuous monitoring system.

(x) The date of the latest continuous

monitoring system certification or audit.

(xi) A description of any changes in

continuous monitoring systems,

processes, or controls since the last

reporting period.

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 135 / Friday, July 13, 2001 / Proposed Rules 36863

(c) 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).

(d) 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 operation

and maintenance requirement 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 for an affected source to

your permitting authority.

§ 63.7842 What records must I keep?

(a) You must keep the following

records:

(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, 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

required in § 63.6(h)(6) for visual

observations.

(d) You must keep the records

required in §§ 63.7833 and 63.7834 to

show continuous compliance with each

emission limitation and operation and

maintenance requirement that applies to

you.

§ 63.7843 In what form and how long must

I keep my records?

(a) Your records must be 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.

§§ 63.7844–63.7849 [Reserved]

Other Requirements and Information

§ 63.7850 What parts of the General

Provisions apply to me?

Table 4 to this subpart shows which

parts of the General Provisions in

§§ 63.1 through 63.15 apply to you.

§ 63.7851 Who implements and enforces

this subpart?

(a) This subpart can be implemented

and enforced by us, the United States

Environmental Protection Agency (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

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 that will not be

delegated to State, local, or tribal

agencies are specified in paragraphs

(c)(1) through (4) of this section.

(1) Approval of alternative opacity

emission limits in Table 1 to this

subpart under § 63.6(h)(9).

(2) Approval of major alternatives to

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

(f) and as defined in § 63.90.

(3) Approval of major alternatives to

monitoring under § 63.8(f) and as

defined in § 63.90.

(4) Approval of major alternatives to

recordkeeping and reporting under

§ 63.10(f) and as defined in § 63.90.

§ 63.7852 What definitions apply to this

subpart?

Terms used in this subpart are

defined in the Clean Air Act, in § 63.2,

and in this section as follows:

Bag leak detection system means a

system that is capable of continuously

monitoring relative particulate matter

(dust) loadings in the exhaust of a

baghouse to detect bag leaks and other

upset conditions. A bag leak detection

system includes, but is not limited to,

an instrument that operates on

tribroelectric, light scattering, light

transmittance, or other effect to

continuously monitor relative

particulate matter loadings.

Basic oxygen process furnace means

any refractory-lined vessel in which

high-purity oxygen is blown under

pressure through a bath of molten iron,

scrap metal, and fluxes to produce steel.

This definition includes both top and

bottom blown furnaces, but does not

include argon oxygen decarburization

furnaces.

Basic oxygen process furnace shop

means the place where steelmaking

operations that begin with the transfer

of molten iron (hot metal) from the

torpedo car and end prior to casting the

molten steel, including hot metal

transfer, desulfurization, slag skimming,

refining in a basic oxygen process

furnace, and ladle metallurgy occur.

Basic oxygen process furnace shop

ancillary operations means the

processes where hot metal transfer, hot

metal desulfurization, slag skimming,

and ladle metallurgy occur.

Blast furnace means a furnace used

for the production of molten iron from

iron ore and other iron bearing

materials.

Bottom-blown furnace means any

basic oxygen process furnace in which

oxygen and other combustion gases are

introduced into the bath of molten iron

through tuyeres in the bottom of the

vessel or through tuyeres in the bottom

and sides of the vessel.

Casthouse means the building or

structure that encloses the bottom

portion of a blast furnace where the hot

metal and slag are tapped from the

furnace.

36864 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 135 / Friday, July 13, 2001 / Proposed Rules

Certified observer means a visible

emission observer certified to perform

EPA Method 9 opacity observations.

Desulfurization means the process in

which reagents such as magnesium,

soda ash, and lime are injected into the

hot metal, usually with dry air or

nitrogen, to remove sulfur.

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 operation and maintenance

requirement;

(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 in this subpart during startup,

shutdown, or malfunction, regardless of

whether or not such failure is permitted

by this subpart.

Discharge end means the place where

those operations conducted within the

sinter plant starting at the discharge of

the sintering machine’s traveling grate

including (but not limited to) hot sinter

crushing, screening, and transfer

operations occur.

Emission limitation means any

emission limit, opacity limit, or

operating limit.

Hot metal transfer station means the

location in a basic oxygen process

furnace shop where molten iron (hot

metal) is transferred from a torpedo car

or hot metal car used to transport hot

metal from the blast furnace casthouse

to a holding vessel or ladle in the basic

oxygen process furnace shop. This

location also is known as the reladling

station or ladle transfer station.

Integrated iron and steel

manufacturing facility means an

establishment engaged in the

production of steel from iron ore.

Ladle metallurgy means a secondary

steelmaking process that is performed

typically in a ladle after initial refining

in a basic oxygen process furnace to

adjust or amend the chemical and/or

mechanical properties of steel.

Primary emission control system

means the combination of equipment

used for the capture and collection of

primary emissions (e.g., an open hood

capture system used in conjunction

with an electrostatic precipitator or a

closed hood system used in conjunction

with a scrubber).

Primary emissions means particulate

matter emissions from the basic oxygen

process furnace generated during the

steel production cycle which are

captured and treated in the furnace’s

primary emission control system.

Primary oxygen blow means the

period in the steel production cycle of

a basic oxygen process furnace during

which oxygen is blown through the

molten iron bath by means of a lance

inserted from the top of the vessel (topblown) or through tuyeres in the bottom

and/or sides of the vessel (bottomblown).

Responsible official means

responsible official as defined in § 63.2.

Secondary emission control system

means the combination of equipment

used for the capture and collection of

secondary emissions from a basic

oxygen process furnace.

Secondary emissions means

particulate matter emissions that are not

controlled by a primary emission

control system, including emissions that

escape from open and closed hoods,

lance hole openings, and gaps or tears

in ductwork to the primary emission

control system.

Sinter cooler means the apparatus

used to cool the hot sinter product that

is transferred from the discharge end

through contact with large volumes of

induced or forced draft air.

Sinter plant means the machine used

to produce a fused clinker-like aggregate

or sinter of fine iron-bearing materials

suited for use in a blast furnace. The

machine is composed of a continuous

traveling grate that conveys a bed of ore

fines and other finely divided ironbearing material and fuel (typically coke

breeze), a burner at the feed end of the

grate for ignition, and a series of

downdraft windboxes along the length

of the strand to support downdraft

combustion and heat sufficient to

produce a fused sinter product.

Skimming station means the locations

inside a basic oxygen process furnace

shop where slag is removed from the top

of the molten metal bath.

Steel production cycle means the

operations conducted within the basic

oxygen process furnace shop that are

required to produce each batch of steel.

The following operations are included:

scrap charging, preheating (when done),

hot metal charging, primary oxygen

blowing, sampling, (vessel turndown

and turnup), additional oxygen blowing

(when done), tapping, and deslagging.

The steel production cycle begins when

the scrap or hot metal is charged to the

furnace (whichever operation occurs

first) and ends after the slag is emptied

from the vessel into the slag pot.

Top-blown furnace means any basic

oxygen process furnace in which oxygen

is introduced into the bath of molten

iron by means of an oxygen lance

inserted from the top of the vessel.

Windboxes means the compartments

that provide for a controlled distribution

of downdraft combustion air as it is

drawn through the sinter bed of a sinter

plant to make the fused sinter product.

§§ 63.7853–63.7879 [Reserved]

Tables to Subpart FFFFF of Part 63

Table 1 to Subpart FFFFF of Part 63

Emission and Opacity Limits

As required in § 63.7790(a), you must

comply with each applicable emission

and opacity limit in the following table:

For . . . You must comply with each of the following . . .

1. Each windbox exhaust stream at a new or

existing sinter plant..

You must not cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any gases that contain particulate

matter in excess of 0.3 lb/ton of product sinter.

2. Each discharge end at an existing sinter

plant.

a. You must not cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any gases that exit from one or

more control devices that contain particulate matter in excess of 0.02 gr/dscf; and

b. You must not cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any secondary emissions that exit

any opening in the building or structure housing the discharge end that exhibit opacity greater than 20 percent (6-minute average).

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 135 / Friday, July 13, 2001 / Proposed Rules 36865

For . . . You must comply with each of the following . . .

3. Each discharge end at a new sinter plant ..... a. You must not cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any gases that exit from one or

more control devices that contain, on a flow weighted basis, particulate matter in excess of

0.01 gr/dscf; and

b. You must not cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any secondary emissions that exit

any opening in the building or structure housing the discharge end that exhibit opacity greater than 10 percent (6-minute average).

4. Each sinter cooler stack at an existing sinter

plant.

You must not cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any gases that contain particulate

matter in excess of 0.03 gr/dscf.

5. Each sinter cooler stack at a new sinter

plant.

You must not cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any gases that contain particulate

matter in excess of 0.01 gr/dscf.

6. Each casthouse at an existing blast furnace a. You must not cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any gases that exit from a control

device that contain particulate matter in excess of 0.009 gr/dscf; and

b. You must not cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any secondary emissions that exit

any opening in the casthouse or structure housing the blast furnace that exhibit opacity

greater than 20 percent (6-minute average).

7. Each casthouse at a new blast furnace ........ a. You must not cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any gases that exit from a control

device that contain particulate matter in excess of 0.009 gr/dscf; and

b. You must not cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any secondary emissions that exit

any opening in the casthouse or structure housing the blast furnace that exhibit opacity

greater than 15 percent (6-minute average).

8. Each basic oxygen process furnace (BOPF)

at a new or existing BOPF shop.

a. You must not cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any gases that exit from a primary

emission control system for a BOPF with a closed hood system that contain particulate matter in excess of 0.024 gr/dscf during the primary oxygen blow; and

b. You must not cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any gases that exit from a primary

emission control system for a BOPF with an open hood system that contain particulate matter in excess of 0.019 gr/dscf during the steel production cycle; and

c. You must not cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any gases that exit from a control

device used solely for the collection of secondary emissions from the BOPF that contain particulate matter in excess of 0.01 gr/dscf for an existing BOPF shop or 0.0052 gr/dscf for a

new BOPF shop.

9. Each hot metal transfer, skimming,

desulfurizaiton, and ladle metallurgy operation at a new or existing BOPF shop.

You must not cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any gases that exist from a control

device that contain particulate matter in excess of 0.007 gr/dscf.

10. Each roof monitor at an existing BOPF

shop.

You must not cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any secondary emissions that exit

any opening in the BOPF shop or any other building housing the BOPF or BOPF shop operation that exhibit opacity greater than 20 percent (3-minute average).

11. Each roof monitor at a new BOPF shop ..... a. You must not cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any secondary emissions that exit

any opening in the BOPF shop or other building housing a bottom-blown BOPF or BOPF

shop operations that exhibit opacity (for any set of 6-minute averages) greater than 10 percent, except that one 6-minute period not to exceed 20 percent may occur once per steel

production cycle.

b. You must not cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any secondary emissions that exit

any opening in the BOPF shop or other building housing a top-blown BOPF or BOPF shop

operations that exhibit opacity (for any set of 3-minute averages) greater than 10 percent,

except that one 3-minute period greater than 10 percent but less than 20 percent may occur

once per steel production cycle.

Table 2 of Subpart FFFFF to Part 63.—Initial Compliance With Emission and Opacity Limits

As required in § 63.7825(a)(1), you must demonstrate initial compliance with the emission and opacity limits according

to the following table:

For . . . You have demonstrated initial compliance if . . .

1. Each windbox exhaust stream at an existing

or new sinter plant.

The process-weighted mass rate of particulate matter from a windbox exhaust stream at a new

or existing sinter plant, measured according to the performance test procedures in

§ 63.7822(c), did not exceed 0.3 lb/ton of product sinter.

2. Each discharge end at an existing sinter

plant.

a. The flow-weighted average concentration of particulate matter from one or more control devices applied to emissions from a discharge end, measured according to the performance

test procedures in § 63.7822(d), did not exceed 0.02 gr/dscf; and

b. The opacity of secondary emissions from each discharge end, determined according to the

performance test procedures in § 63.7823(c), did not exceed 20 percent (6-minute average).

36866 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 135 / Friday, July 13, 2001 / Proposed Rules

For . . . You have demonstrated initial compliance if . . .

3. Each discharge end at a new sinter plant ..... a. The flow-weighted average concentration of particulate matter from one or more control devices applied to emissions from a discharge end, measured according to the performance

test procedures in § 63.7822(d), did not exceed 0.01 gr/dscf; and

b. The opacity of secondary emissions from each discharge end, determined according to the

performance test procedures in § 63.7823(c), did not exceed 10 percent (6-minute average).

4. Each sinter cooler stack at an existing sinter

plant.

The average concentration of particulate matter from a sinter cooler stack, measured according

to the performance test procedures in § 63.7822(b), did not exceed 0.03 gr/dscf.

5. Each sinter cooler stack at a new sinter

plant.

The average concentration of particulate matter from a sinter cooler stack, measured according

to the performance test procedures in § 63.7822(b), did not exceed 0.01 gr/dscf.

6. Each casthouse at an existing blast furnace a. The average concentration of particulate matter from a control device applied to emissions

from a casthouse, measured according to the performance test procedures in § 63.7822(e),

did not exceed 0.009 gr/dscf; and

b. The opacity of secondary emissions from each casthouse, determined according to the performance test procedures in § 63.7823(c), did not exceed 20 percent (6-minute average).

7. Each casthouse at a new blast furnace ........ a. The average concentration of particulate matter from a control device applied to emissions

from a casthouse, measured according to the performance test procedures in § 63.7822(e),

did not exceed 0.009 gr/dscf; and

b. The opacity of secondary emissions from each casthouse, determined according to the performance test procedures in § 63.7823(c), did not exceed 15 percent (6-minute average).

8. Each basic oxygen process furnace (BOPF)

at a new or existing BOPF shop.

a. The average concentration of particulate matter from a primary emission control system applied to emissions from a BOPF with a closed hood system, measured according to the performance test procedures in § 63.7822(f), did not exceed 0.024 gr/dscf; and

b. The average concentration of particulate matter from a primary emission control system applied to emissions from a BOPF with an open hood system, measured according to the performance test procedures in § 63.7822(g), did not exceed 0.019 gr/dscf; and

c. The average concentration of particulate matter from a control device applied solely to secondary emissions from a BOPF, measured according to the performance test procedures in

§ 63.7822(g), did not exceed 0.01 gr/dscf for an existing BOPF shop or 0.0052 gr/dscf for a

new BOPF shop.

9. Each hot metal transfer, skimming,

desulfurization, or ladle metallurgy operation

at a new or existing BOPF shop.

The average concentration of particulate matter from a control device applied to emissions

from hot metal transfer, skimming, desulfurization, or ladle metallurgy, measured according

to the performance test procedures in § 63.7822(h), did not exceed 0.007 gr/dscf.

10. Each roof monitor at an existing BOPF

shop.

The opacity of secondary emissions from each BOPF shop, determined according to the performance test procedures in § 63.7823(d), did not exceed 20 percent (3-minute average).

11. Each roof monitor at a new BOPF shop ..... a. The opacity of the highest set of 6-minute averages from each BOPF shop housing a bottom-blown BOPF, determined according to the performance test procedures in § 63.7823(d),

did not exceed 20 percent and the second highest set of 6-minute averages did not exceed

10 percent.

b. The opacity of the highest set of 3-minute averages from each BOPF shop housing a topblown BOPF, determined according to the performance test procedures in § 63.7823(d), was

less than 20 percent and the second highest set of 3-minute averages did not exceed 10

percent.

Table 3 to Subpart FFFFF of Part 63.—Continuous Compliance With Emission and Opacity Limits

As required in § 63.7833(a), you must demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission and opacity limits

according to the following table:

For . . . You must demonstrate continuous compliance by . . .

1. Each windbox exhaust stream at an existing

or new sinter plant.

a. Maintaining emissions of particulate matter at or below 0.3 lb/ton of product sinter, and

b. Conducting subsequent performance tests at least twice during each term of your title V operating permit (at midterm and renewal).

2. Each discharge end at an existing sinter

plant.

a. Maintaining emissions of particulate matter from one or more control devices at or below

0.02 gr/dscf, and

b. Maintaining the opacity of secondary emissions that exit any opening in the building or structure housing the discharge end at or below 20 percent (6-minute average), and

c. Conducting subsequent performance tests at least twice during each term of your title V operating permit (at midterm and renewal).

Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 135 / Friday, July 13, 2001 / Proposed Rules 36867

For . . . You must demonstrate continuous compliance by . . .

3. Each discharge end at a new sinter plant ..... a. Maintaining emissions of particulate matter from one or more control devices at or below

0.01 gr/dscf, and

b. Maintaining the opacity of secondary emissions that exit any opening in the building or structure housing the discharge end at or below 10 percent (6-minute average), and

c. Conducting subsequent performance tests at least twice during each term of your title V operating permit (at midterm and renewal).

4. Each sinter cooler stack at an existing sinter

plant.

a. Maintaining emissions of particulate matter at or below 0.03 gr/dscf, and

b. Conducting subsequent performance tests at least twice during each term of your title V operating permit (at midterm and renewal).

5. Each sinter cooler stack at a new sinter

plant.

a. Maintaining emissions of particulate matter at or below 0.01 gr/dscf, and

b. Conducting subsequent performance tests at least twice during each term of your title V operating permit (at midterm and renewal).

6. Each casthouse at an existing blast furnace a. Maintaining emissions of particulate matter from a control device at or below 0.009 gr/dscf,

and

b. Maintaining the opacity of secondary emissions that exit any opening in the casthouse or

structure housing the blast furnace at or below 20 percent (6-minute average), and

c. Conducting subsequent performance tests at least twice during each term of your title V operating permit (at midterm and renewal).

7. Each casthouse at a new blast furnace ........ a. Maintaining emissions of particulate matter from a control device at or below 0.009 gr/dscf,

and

b. Maintaining the opacity of secondary emissions that exit any opening in the casthouse or

building housing the casthouse at or below 15 percent (6-minute average), and

c. Conducting subsequent performance tests at least twice during each term of your title V operating permit (at midterm and renewal).

8. Each basic oxygen process furnace (BOPF)

at a new or existing BOPF shop.

a. Maintaining emissions of particulate matter from the primary emission control system for a

BOPF with a closed hood system at or below 0.024 gr/dscf, and

b. Maintaining emissions of particulate matter from the primary emission control system for a

BOPF with an open hood system at or below 0.019 gr/dscf, and

c. Maintaining emissions of particulate matter from a control device applied solely to secondary

emissions from a BOPF at or below 0.01 gr/dscf for an existing BOPF shop or 0.0052 gr/

dscf for a new BOPF shop, and

d. Conducting subsequent performance tests at least twice during each term of your title V operating permit (at midterm and renewal).

9. Each hot metal transfer, skimming,

desulfurization, and ladle metallurgy operation at a new or existing BOPF shop.

a. Maintaining emissions of particulate matter from a control device at or below 0.007 gr/dscf.

and

b. Conducting subsequent performance tests at least twice during each term of your title V operating permit (at midterm and renewal).

10. Each roof monitor at an existing BOPF

shop.

a. Maintaining the opacity of secondary emissions that exit any opening in the BOPF shop or

other building housing the BOPF or shop operation at or below 20 percent (3-minute average), and

b. Conducting subsequent performance tests at least twice during each term of your title V operating permit (at midterm and renewal).

11. Each roof monitor at a new BOPF shop ..... a. Maintaining the opacity (for any set of 6-minute averages) of secondary emissions that exit

any opening in the BOPF shop or other building shop housing a bottom-blown BOPF or

shop operation at or below 10 percent, except that one 6-minute period greater than 10 percent but no more than 20 percent may occur once per steel production cycle,

b. Maintaining the opacity (for any set of 3-minute averages) of secondary emissions that exit

any opening in the BOPF shop or other building housing a top-blown BOPF or shop operation at or below 10 percent, except that one 3-minute period greater than 10 percent but

less than 20 percent may occur once per steel production cycle, and

c. Conducting subsequent performance tests at least twice during each term of your title V operating permit (at midterm and renewal).

Table 4 to Subpart FFFFF of Part 63.—Applicability of General Provisions to Subpart FFFFF

As required in § 63.7850, you must comply with the requirements of the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR

part 63, subpart A) shown in the following table:

Citation Subject Applies to

Subpart FFFFF 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.

36868 Federal Register / Vol. 66, No. 135 / Friday, July 13, 2001 / Proposed Rules

Citation Subject Applies to

Subpart FFFFF Explanation

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

(h)(2)(ii)–(h)(9).

Compliance with Standards and Maintenance Requirements.Yes.

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

and VE Standards.

No ............................... Subpart FFFFF specifies Method 9 in

appendix A to part 60 of this chapter to comply with roof monitor

opacity limits

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

Dates.

No ............................... Subpart FFFFF specifies performance

test applicability and dates.

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

§ 63.8(a)(1)–(a)(3), (b), (c)(1)–(3),

(c)(4)(i)–(e), (c)(7)–(8), (f)(1)–(5),

(g)(1)–(4).

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

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

only to COMS for electrostatic

precipitators.

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

for Control Devices in § 63.11.

No ............................... Subpart FFFFF does not require

flares.

§ 63.8(c)(4) ........................................... Continuous Monitoring System Requirements.No ............................... Subpart FFFFF specifies requirements for operation of CMS.

§ 63.8(f)(6) ............................................ RATA Alternative ................................ No ............................... Subpart FFFFF does not require continuous emission monitoring systems.

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

§ 63.9(g) apply to COMS for electrostatic precipitator.

§ 63.9(g)(5) ........................................... DATA Reduction ................................. No ............................... Subpart FFFFF specifies data reduction requirements.

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

(b)(3), (c)(1)–(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 electrostatic

precipitators.

§ 63.10(b)(2)(xiii) .................................. CMS Records for RATA Alternative ... No ............................... Subpart FFFFF doesn’t require continuous emission monitoring systems.

§ 63.10(c)(7)–(8) ................................... Records of Excess Emissions and

Parameter Monitoring Exceedances

for CMS.

No ............................... Subpart FFFFF specifies record requirements.

§ 63.11 .................................................. Control Device Requirements ............. No ............................... Subpart FFFFF 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. 01–16289 Filed 7–12–01; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 6560–50–P