Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2002-0085-0003
Agency: epa
Document Type: Proposed Rule
Title: National Emission Standards forHazardous Air Pollutants for Coke Ovens:Pushing, Quenching, and Battery Stacks;Final Rule
Posted Date: 2003-04-14T04:00Z

Monday,

April
14,
2003
Part
III
Environmental
Protection
Agency
40
CFR
Part
63
National
Emission
Standards
for
Hazardous
Air
Pollutants
for
Coke
Ovens:
Pushing,
Quenching,
and
Battery
Stacks;
Final
Rule
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
14:
38
Apr
11,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00001
Fmt
4717
Sfmt
4717
E:\
FR\
FM\
14APR3.
SGM
14APR3
18008
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
71
/
Monday,
April
14,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
40
CFR
Part
63
[
Docket
ID
No.
OAR
 
2002
 
0085;
FRL
 
7462
 
3]

RIN
2060
 
AH55
National
Emission
Standards
for
Hazardous
Air
Pollutants
for
Coke
Ovens:
Pushing,
Quenching,
and
Battery
Stacks
AGENCY:
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA).
ACTION:
Final
rule.

SUMMARY:
This
action
promulgates
national
emission
standards
for
hazardous
air
pollutants
(
NESHAP)
for
coke
ovens.
The
final
standards
establish
emission
limitations
and
work
practice
requirements
for
control
of
hazardous
air
pollutants
(
HAP)
from
pushing,
quenching,
and
battery
stacks
at
new
and
existing
coke
oven
batteries.
The
HAP
emitted
from
pushing,
quenching,
and
battery
stacks
include
coke
oven
emissions,
as
well
as
polycyclic
organic
matter
(
POM)
and
volatile
organic
compounds
(
VOC)
such
as
benzene
and
toluene.
Exposure
to
these
substances
has
been
demonstrated
to
cause
chronic
and
acute
health
effects.
These
final
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
EPA
previously
promulgated
emission
standards
addressing
emissions
from
coke
oven
charging,
topside
leaks,
and
door
leaks.
EFFECTIVE
DATE:
April
14,
2003.

ADDRESSES:
Docket.
The
official
public
docket
is
the
collection
of
materials
used
in
developing
the
final
rule
and
is
available
for
public
viewing
at
the
EPA
Docket
Center
(
EPA/
DC),
EPA
West,
Room
B102,
1301
Constitution
Ave.,
NW.,
Washington,
DC.

FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT:
Lula
Melton,
Metals
Group
(
C439
 
02),
Emission
Standards
Division,
U.
S.
EPA,
Research
Triangle
Park,
NC
27711,
telephone
number
(
919)
541
 
2910,
electronic
mail
(
e­
mail)
address,
melton.
lula@
epa.
gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION:

Regulated
Entities.
Categories
and
entities
potentially
regulated
by
this
action
include:

Category
NAICS
*
Example
of
regulated
entities
Industry
............................................................
331111,
324199
.......
Coke
plants
and
integrated
iron
and
steel
mills.
Federal
government
.........................................
...................................
Not
affected.
State/
local/
tribal
government
...........................
...................................
Not
affected.

*
North
American
Industry
Classification
System.

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
§
63.7281
of
the
final
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.
Docket.
The
EPA
has
established
an
official
public
docket
for
this
action
under
Docket
ID
No.
OAR
 
2002
 
0085.
The
official
public
docket
consists
of
the
documents
specifically
referenced
in
this
action,
any
public
comments
received,
and
other
information
related
to
this
action.
Although
a
part
of
the
official
docket,
the
public
docket
does
not
include
Confidential
Business
Information
or
other
information
whose
disclosure
is
restricted
by
statute.
The
official
public
docket
is
the
collection
of
materials
that
is
available
for
public
viewing
at
the
Air
Docket
in
the
EPA
Docket
Center
(
EPA/
DC),
EPA
West,
Room
B102,
1301
Constitution
Ave.,
NW,
Washington,
DC.
The
EPA
Docket
Center
Public
Reading
Room
is
open
from
8:
30
a.
m.
to
4:
30
p.
m.,
Monday
through
Friday,
excluding
legal
holidays.
The
telephone
number
for
the
Reading
Room
is
(
202)
566
 
1744,
and
the
telephone
number
for
the
Air
Docket
is
(
202)
566
 
1742.
Electronic
Docket
Access.
You
may
access
the
final
rule
electronically
through
the
EPA
Internet
under
the
``
Federal
Register''
listings
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
fedrgstr/.
An
electronic
version
of
the
public
docket
is
available
through
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
and
comment
system,
EPA
Dockets.
You
may
use
EPA
Dockets
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
edocket/
to
view
public
comments,
access
the
index
listing
of
the
contents
of
the
official
public
docket,
and
to
access
those
documents
in
the
public
docket
that
are
available
electronically.
Although
not
all
docket
materials
may
be
available
electronically,
you
may
still
access
any
of
the
publicly
available
docket
materials
through
the
docket
facility
in
the
above
paragraph
entitled
``
Docket.''
Once
in
the
system,
select
``
search,''
then
key
in
the
appropriate
docket
identification
number.
Worldwide
Web
(
WWW).
In
addition
to
being
available
in
the
docket,
an
electronic
copy
of
the
final
rule
will
also
be
available
on
the
WWW
through
the
Technology
Transfer
Network
(
TTN).
Following
signature,
a
copy
of
the
final
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.
Judicial
Review.
This
action
constitutes
final
administrative
action
on
the
proposed
NESHAP
for
coke
oven
pushing,
quenching,
and
battery
stacks
(
66
FR
35326,
July
3,
2001).
Under
CAA
section
307(
b)(
1),
judicial
review
of
the
final
rule
is
achievable
only
by
filing
a
petition
for
review
in
the
U.
S.
Court
of
Appeals
for
the
District
of
Columbia
Circuit
by
June
13,
2003.
Under
CAA
section
307(
b)(
2),
the
requirements
that
are
the
subject
of
this
document
may
not
be
challenged
later
in
civil
or
criminal
proceedings
brought
by
EPA
to
enforce
these
requirements.
Outline.
The
information
presented
in
this
preamble
is
organized
as
follows:

I.
Background
A.
What
Is
the
Source
of
Authority
for
NESHAP?
B.
What
Criteria
Are
Used
in
the
Development
of
NESHAP?
C.
How
Did
We
Develop
the
Final
Rule?
II.
Summary
of
the
Final
Rule
A.
What
Are
the
Affected
Sources
and
Emission
Points?
B.
What
Are
the
Requirements
for
Pushing?
C.
What
Are
the
Requirements
for
Soaking?
D.
What
Are
the
Requirements
for
Quenching?
E.
What
Are
the
Requirements
for
Battery
Stacks?
F.
What
Are
the
Operation
and
Maintenance
(
O&
M)
Requirements?
G.
What
Are
the
Notification,
Recordkeeping,
and
Reporting
Requirements?
H.
What
Are
the
Compliance
Deadlines?
III.
Summary
of
Responses
to
Major
Comments
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
14:
38
Apr
11,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00002
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
14APR3.
SGM
14APR3
18009
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
71
/
Monday,
April
14,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
A.
Why
Did
We
Select
a
Work
Practice
Standard
for
Fugitive
Pushing
Emissions?
B.
What
Changes
Did
We
Make
to
the
Work
Practice
Standard
for
Fugitive
Pushing
Emissions?
C.
What
Changes
Did
We
Make
to
the
Requirements
for
Pushing
Emission
Control
Devices
(
PECD)?
D.
What
Changes
Did
We
Make
to
the
Requirements
for
Quenching?
E.
What
Were
the
Major
Comments
on
the
Proposed
Standard
for
Battery
Stacks?
F.
What
Changes
Did
We
Make
to
the
Requirements
for
Soaking?
G.
What
Changes
Did
We
Make
to
the
O&
M
Requirements?
H.
Why
Did
We
Change
the
Compliance
Dates
for
Existing
Sources?
IV.
Summary
of
Environmental,
Energy,
and
Economic
Impacts
A.
What
Are
the
Air
Emission
Reduction
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.
Statutory
and
Executive
Order
Reviews
A.
Executive
Order
12866:
Regulatory
Planning
and
Review
B.
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
C.
Regulatory
Flexibility
Analysis
D.
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
E.
Executive
Order
13132:
Federalism
F.
Executive
Order
13175:
Consultation
and
Coordination
With
Indian
Tribal
Governments
G.
Executive
Order
13045:
Protection
of
Children
From
Environmental
Health
&
Safety
Risks
H.
Executive
Order
13211:
Actions
That
Significantly
Affect
Energy
Supply,
Distribution,
or
Use
I.
National
Technology
Transfer
Advancement
Act
J.
Congressional
Review
Act
I.
Background
A.
What
Is
the
Source
of
Authority
for
NESHAP?
Section
112
of
the
CAA
requires
the
EPA
to
establish
technology­
based
regulations
for
all
categories
and
subcategories
of
major
and
area
sources
emitting
one
or
more
of
the
HAP
listed
in
section
112(
b).
Major
sources
are
those
that
emit
or
have
the
potential
to
emit
at
least
10
tons
per
year
(
tpy)
of
any
single
HAP
or
25
tpy
of
any
combination
of
HAP.
We
previously
listed
the
category
of
major
sources
covered
by
today's
final
rule,
``
Coke
Ovens:
Pushing,
Quenching,
and
Battery
Stacks,''
on
July
16,
1992
(
57
FR
31576).
This
action
is
a
rulemaking
under
section
307(
d)
of
the
CAA.

B.
What
Criteria
Are
Used
in
the
Development
of
NESHAP?
Section
112
of
the
CAA
requires
that
we
establish
NESHAP
for
the
control
of
HAP
from
both
new
and
existing
major
sources.
The
CAA
requires
the
NESHAP
to
reflect
the
maximum
degree
of
reduction
in
emissions
of
HAP
that
is
achievable.
This
level
of
control
is
commonly
referred
to
as
MACT.
The
MACT
floor
is
the
minimum
level
allowed
for
NESHAP
and
is
defined
under
section
112(
d)(
3)
of
the
CAA.
In
essence,
the
MACT
floor
ensures
that
the
standard
is
set
at
a
level
that
assures
that
all
major
sources
achieve
the
level
of
control
at
least
as
stringent
as
that
already
achieved
by
the
bettercontrolled
and
lower­
emitting
sources
in
each
source
category
or
subcategory.
For
new
sources,
the
MACT
floor
cannot
be
less
stringent
than
the
emission
control
that
is
achieved
in
practice
by
the
best­
controlled
similar
source.
The
MACT
standards
for
existing
sources
cannot
be
less
stringent
than
the
average
emission
limitation
achieved
by
the
best­
performing
12
percent
of
existing
sources
(
for
which
we
have
emissions
information)
in
the
category
or
subcategory
or
by
the
best­
performing
5
sources
(
for
which
we
have
or
could
reasonably
obtain
emissions
information)
for
categories
or
subcategories
with
fewer
than
30
sources.
In
developing
MACT,
we
also
consider
control
options
that
are
more
stringent
than
the
floor.
We
may
establish
standards
more
stringent
than
the
floor
based
on
the
consideration
of
cost
of
achieving
the
emissions
reductions,
non­
air
quality
health
and
environmental
impacts,
and
energy
impacts.

C.
How
Did
We
Develop
the
Final
Rule?
We
proposed
the
NESHAP
for
the
Coke
Ovens:
Pushing,
Quenching,
and
Battery
Stacks
source
category
on
July
3,
2001
(
66
FR
35326).
We
provided
a
90­
day
comment
period
for
the
proposed
rule.
We
received
a
total
of
18
comment
letters.
A
copy
of
each
of
these
comment
letters
is
available
in
the
docket
for
this
rulemaking
(
Docket
No.
OAR
 
2002
 
0085).
The
final
rule
reflects
full
consideration
of
all
the
comments
we
received.
Major
public
comments
on
the
proposed
rule
along
with
our
responses
to
these
comments
are
summarized
in
this
document.
A
detailed
response
to
all
comments
is
included
in
the
Background
Information
Document
(
BID)
for
the
promulgated
standards
(
Docket
No.
OAR
 
2002
 
0085).
Since
publication
of
the
proposal,
six
coke
plants
with
12
batteries
have
permanently
closed.
The
plants
have
closed
primarily
because
of
the
distressed
economic
condition
of
the
iron
and
steel
industry,
and
none
of
the
closures
are
due
to
the
cost
of
installing
emission
control
systems.
The
requirements
in
the
final
rule
take
into
account
the
levels
of
control
that
have
been
demonstrated
as
achievable,
including
in
some
cases
levels
achieved
by
batteries
that
are
no
longer
operating.
We
believe
it
is
appropriate
to
consider
all
of
the
data
collected
and
relied
upon
for
the
proposed
rule.
These
data
reflect
the
level
of
performance
of
batteries
operating
concurrently
with
this
rulemaking
effort,
and
provide
useful
and
relevant
information
about
the
emission
limits
that
such
sources
can
achieve.

II.
Summary
of
the
Final
Rule
A.
What
Are
the
Affected
Sources
and
Emission
Points?
The
affected
source
is
each
new
or
existing
coke
oven
battery
at
a
plant
that
is
a
major
source
of
HAP
emissions.
A
new
affected
source
is
one
constructed
or
reconstructed
after
July
3,
2001.
An
existing
affected
source
is
one
constructed
or
reconstructed
on
or
before
July
3,
2001.
The
final
rule
covers
fugitive
pushing
emissions,
emissions
from
control
devices
applied
to
pushing
emissions,
and
emissions
from
quenching,
soaking,
and
battery
stacks.

B.
What
Are
the
Requirements
for
Pushing?

1.
By­
Product
Coke
Oven
Batteries
With
Vertical
Flues
We
proposed
two
options
for
controlling
fugitive
pushing
emissions
 
numerical
opacity
limits
(
Option
1)
and
a
work
practice
standard
(
Option
2).
Based
on
comments
received
on
the
proposed
rule
and
further
consideration
of
the
proposed
options,
we
are
promulgating
a
work
practice
standard.
Under
the
work
practice
standard,
owners
or
operators
must
observe
and
record
the
opacity
from
four
consecutive
pushes
each
operating
day.
If
the
average
opacity
of
the
six
highest
15­
second
consecutive
readings
for
any
individual
push
is
more
than
30
percent
for
a
short
battery
or
35
percent
for
a
tall
battery,
the
owner
or
operator
must
take
corrective
action
and/
or
increase
coking
time
to
fix
the
problem
within
a
specified
time
frame.
To
demonstrate
the
corrective
action
and/
or
increased
coking
time
was
successful,
the
owner
or
operator
must
observe
two
additional
daytime
pushes
for
the
oven
after
completing
the
corrective
action.
If
the
corrective
action
is
not
successful,
the
owner
or
operator
must
take
additional
corrective
action.
If
the
second
attempt
to
fix
the
problem
is
not
successful,
the
failure
must
be
reported
as
a
deviation,
and
the
owner
or
operator
must
again
take
corrective
action
or
increase
the
coking
time.
Each
subsequent
failure
to
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
14:
38
Apr
11,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00003
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
14APR3.
SGM
14APR3
18010
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
71
/
Monday,
April
14,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
fix
the
problem
on
the
same
oven
must
also
be
reported
as
a
deviation.
We
have
included
provisions
to
qualify
an
oven
for
decreased
coking
time
after
it
is
placed
on
increased
coking
time,
which
requires
a
demonstration
that
the
opacity
is
30
percent
or
less
for
a
short
battery
or
35
percent
or
less
for
a
tall
battery
when
the
oven
is
operated
on
the
decreased
coking
time.
If
an
oven
fails
to
qualify
for
decreased
coking
time,
it
must
be
returned
to
the
previously
established
increased
coking
time,
or
the
owner
or
operator
may
implement
some
other
corrective
action
or
increased
coking
time.
If
the
facility
implements
some
other
corrective
action
or
increased
coking
time,
it
must
confirm
that
the
selected
action
was
successful.
If
an
individual
oven
fails
to
qualify
for
a
decreased
coking
time
in
two
or
more
consecutive
attempts,
the
failure
on
the
second
and
any
subsequent
attempts
must
be
reported
as
a
deviation.
The
final
rule
requires
that
observers
taking
opacity
readings
to
comply
with
the
work
practice
standard
for
pushing
must
be
certified
according
to
Method
9
in
40
CFR
part
60,
appendix
A.
Opacity
observations
begin
with
the
first
detectable
movement
of
the
coke
mass.
The
plant
owner
or
operator
must
identify
each
oven
that
cannot
be
read
using
Method
9
due
to
obstructions,
interferences,
or
sun
angle
and
must
propose
alternative
procedures
to
observe
these
ovens.
To
demonstrate
initial
compliance,
the
plant
owner
or
operator
must
certify,
as
part
of
the
notification
of
compliance
status,
that
the
plant
will
meet
each
of
the
requirements
in
the
work
practice
standard.
Records
of
all
observations
and
calculations
are
needed
to
document
continuous
compliance.
Additional
records
are
required
in
each
instance
where
pushing
emissions
from
an
oven
exceed
30
percent
opacity
for
a
short
battery
or
35
percent
opacity
for
a
tall
battery.

2.
By­
Product
Coke
Oven
Batteries
With
Horizontal
Flues
Plant
owners
or
operators
must
prepare
and
implement
a
written
plan
to
prevent
incomplete
coking.
The
plan
must
establish
minimum
flue
temperatures
at
different
coking
times
and
a
lowest
acceptable
minimum
flue
temperature.
The
minimum
temperatures
must
be
established
based
on
a
study
conducted
by
the
plant
that
establishes
minimum
flue
temperatures
at
different
minimum
coking
times
and
an
absolute
minimum
flue
temperature.
The
plan
must
be
submitted
to
the
Administrator
for
approval.
The
authority
to
approve
the
work
practice
plan
is
retained
by
the
Administrator
and
is
not
delegated
to
the
State,
local,
or
tribal
agency.
In
implementing
the
plan,
owners
or
operators
must
measure
and
record
the
temperature
of
all
flues
on
two
ovens
per
day
within
the
2
hours
before
the
scheduled
push
time.
If
the
measured
temperature
is
below
the
minimum
established
for
an
oven's
coking
time,
the
coking
time
must
be
increased
by
the
amount
specified
in
the
plant's
written
plan.
If
the
flue
temperature
measurement
is
below
the
lowest
acceptable
minimum
temperature,
the
oven
must
be
removed
from
service
for
repairs.
If
a
flue
temperature
is
below
the
lowest
acceptable
minimum
after
return
to
service,
the
owner
or
operator
must
report
the
event
as
a
deviation.
No
performance
test
is
required
to
demonstrate
initial
compliance
with
the
work
practice
standards.
The
plant
owner
or
operator
must
certify,
as
part
of
the
notification
of
compliance
status,
that
the
plant
has
submitted
the
written
plan
to
prevent
incomplete
coking
and
the
supporting
study
to
the
Administrator
for
review
and
approval,
and
that
the
plant
will
meet
each
of
the
requirements
in
the
work
practice
standard
beginning
no
later
than
the
first
day
that
compliance
is
required
according
to
§
63.7283
of
the
final
rule.
If
the
plan
is
disapproved,
the
owner
or
operator
must
revise
the
plan
as
directed
by
the
Administrator
and
resubmit
it
for
approval.
If
an
original
or
re­
submitted
plan
has
not
been
approved
by
the
applicable
compliance
date,
the
owner
or
operator
must
operate
in
accordance
with
the
last
plan
submitted
to
the
Administrator.
Plant
owners
or
operators
must
demonstrate
continuous
compliance
by:
(
1)
Measuring
and
recording
flue
temperatures
for
two
ovens
a
day
and
for
all
ovens
in
each
battery
at
least
once
a
month,
and
(
2)
recording
the
time
each
oven
is
charged
and
pushed
and
the
net
coking
time.
Plant
owners
or
operators
must
keep
additional
records
to
show
that
the
correct
procedures
were
followed
if
any
measured
flue
temperature
is
below
the
minimum
flue
temperature
or
the
lowest
acceptable
minimum
temperature.

3.
Non­
Recovery
Coke
Oven
Batteries
The
final
work
practice
standards
require
plant
owners
or
operators
to
visually
inspect
each
oven
prior
to
pushing
by
opening
the
door
damper
and
observing
the
bed
of
coke.
The
oven
cannot
be
pushed
unless
the
visual
inspection
confirms
that
there
is
no
smoke
in
the
open
space
above
the
coke
bed,
and
that
there
is
an
unobstructed
view
of
the
door
on
the
opposite
side
of
the
oven.
Plant
owners
or
operators
must
demonstrate
initial
compliance
by
certifying
in
their
initial
notification
of
compliance
status
that
they
will
follow
the
work
practice
standards.
Plant
owners
or
operators
must
demonstrate
continuous
compliance
by
maintaining
records
of
each
visual
inspection.

4.
Emission
Control
Devices
We
are
establishing
emission
limits
for
particulate
matter
(
PM)
as
a
measure
of
control
device
performance.
Plant
owners
or
operators
that
currently
use
capture
and
control
equipment
must
continue
to
use
such
equipment
and
must
meet
the
applicable
PM
emission
limits.
The
limits
differ
in
form
and
numerical
value
depending
on
the
type
of
capture
system
used
(
cokeside
shed
or
moveable
hood)
and
whether
the
control
device
is
stationary
(
land­
based)
or
mobile.
Where
a
cokeside
shed
is
used
as
the
capture
system,
the
PM
limit
is
0.01
grain
per
dry
standard
cubic
foot
(
gr/
dscf).
If
a
moveable
hood
vented
to
a
stationary
control
device
is
used
to
capture
emissions,
the
PM
emission
limit
is
0.02
pound
per
ton
(
lb/
ton)
of
coke
pushed.
For
mobile
scrubber
cars
that
do
not
capture
emissions
during
travel,
the
emission
limits
are
0.03
lb/
ton
of
coke
for
short
batteries
and
0.01
lb/
ton
of
coke
for
tall
batteries.
For
mobile
scrubber
cars
that
capture
emissions
during
travel,
the
limit
is
0.04
lb/
ton
of
coke.
We
have
also
established
operating
limits
for
control
devices
and
capture
systems
applied
to
pushing
emissions.
If
a
venturi
scrubber
is
used,
the
daily
average
pressure
drop
and
scrubber
water
flow
rate
must
remain
at
or
above
the
minimum
level
established
during
the
initial
performance
test.
The
final
rule
provides
two
options
for
a
capture
system
applied
to
pushing
emissions:
(
1)
Maintain
the
daily
average
fan
motor
amperes
at
or
above
the
minimum
level
established
during
the
initial
performance
test,
or
(
2)
maintain
the
daily
average
volumetric
flow
rate
at
the
inlet
of
the
control
device
at
or
above
the
minimum
level
established
during
the
initial
performance
test.
The
final
rule
requires
a
performance
test
for
each
control
device
to
demonstrate
it
meets
the
emission
limit.
The
concentration
of
PM
is
to
be
measured
using
EPA
Method
5
or
5D
in
40
CFR
part
60,
appendix
A.
The
testing
requirements
also
include
procedures
for
establishing
operating
limits
for
venturi
scrubbers
and
capture
systems
and
for
revising
the
limits,
if
needed,
after
the
performance
test.
To
demonstrate
continuous
compliance
with
the
applicable
emission
limit,
plant
owners
or
operators
must
conduct
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
14:
38
Apr
11,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00004
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
14APR3.
SGM
14APR3
18011
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
71
/
Monday,
April
14,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
1
``
Fabric
Filter
Bag
Leak
Detection
Guidance,''
EPA
454/
R
 
98
 
015,
September
1997,
available
on
the
TTN
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
ttnemc01/
cem/
tribo.
pdf
performance
tests
for
each
control
device
at
least
twice
during
each
term
of
their
title
V
operating
permit
(
at
midterm
and
renewal).
If
a
baghouse
is
applied
to
pushing
emissions,
plant
owners
or
operators
must
monitor
the
relative
change
in
PM
loading
using
a
bag
leak
detection
system
and
make
inspections
at
specified
intervals.
The
basic
inspection
requirements
include
daily,
weekly,
monthly,
or
quarterly
inspections
of
specified
parameters
or
mechanisms
with
monitoring
of
bag
cleaning
cycles.
Each
bag
leak
detection
system
must
be
capable
of
detecting
PM
at
concentrations
of
10
milligrams
per
actual
cubic
meter
or
less
and
provide
an
output
of
relative
PM
loading,
and
be
installed
and
operated
according
to
EPA
guidance.
1
If
the
system
does
not
work
based
on
the
triboelectric
effect,
it
must
be
installed
and
operated
consistent
with
the
manufacturer's
written
specifications
and
recommendations.
In
addition,
the
bag
leak
detection
system
must
be
equipped
with
an
alarm
system
that
will
alert
operators
if
PM
is
detected
above
a
preset
level.
The
proposed
requirement
that
a
bag
leak
detection
system
must
not
sound
for
more
than
5
percent
of
the
time
in
a
semiannual
period
has
been
deleted
from
the
final
rule.
To
demonstrate
continuous
compliance,
the
final
rule
requires
plant
owners
or
operators
to
maintain
records
of
corrective
actions
taken
in
response
to
bag
leak
detection
system
alarms.
They
must
also
keep
records
documenting
conformance
with
the
inspection
and
maintenance
requirements.
If
a
venturi
scrubber
is
applied
to
pushing
emissions,
plant
owners
or
operators
must
monitor
the
daily
average
pressure
drop
and
scrubber
water
flow
rate
using
continuous
parameter
monitoring
systems
(
CPMS).
The
CPMS
must
measure
and
record
the
pressure
drop
and
scrubber
water
flow
rate
at
least
once
per
push
and
determine
and
record
the
daily
average
of
the
readings.
To
demonstrate
continuous
compliance
with
the
operating
limits,
plant
owners
or
operators
must
maintain
the
daily
average
pressure
drop
and
scrubber
water
flow
rate
at
levels
no
lower
than
those
established
during
the
performance
test.
Valid
monitoring
data
must
be
available
for
all
pushes.
Section
63.7331
of
the
rule
establishes
requirements
for
the
installation,
operation,
and
maintenance
of
continuous
monitoring
systems.
The
final
rule
requires
owners
or
operators
to
prepare
a
site­
specific
monitoring
plan
for
CPMS
that
addresses
installation,
performance,
operation
and
maintenance,
quality
assurance,
and
recordkeeping
and
reporting
procedures.
These
requirements
replace
the
more
detailed
performance
specifications
contained
in
the
proposed
rule.
For
a
capture
system
applied
to
pushing
emissions,
plant
owners
or
operators
are
required
to
check
the
fan
motor
amperes
or
the
volumetric
flow
rate
at
least
once
each
8­
hour
period
to
verify
the
daily
average
is
at
or
above
the
level
established
during
the
initial
performance
test
and
to
record
the
results
of
each
check.

C.
What
Are
the
Requirements
for
Soaking?
The
final
rule
contains
a
work
practice
standard
to
address
emissions
that
occur
during
soaking,
which
is
the
period
prior
to
pushing
when
an
oven
is
dampered
off
the
collecting
main
and
vented
to
the
atmosphere
through
an
open
standpipe
to
relieve
oven
pressure.
Plant
owners
or
operators
must
prepare
and
implement
a
plan
to
mitigate
potential
soaking
emissions.
Each
plan
must
include
measures
and
procedures
to
train
topside
workers
to
identify
the
cause
of
soaking
emissions
and
to
take
corrective
measures
to
reduce
or
eliminate
such
emissions.
If
soaking
emissions
are
caused
by
leaks
from
the
collecting
main,
actions
must
be
taken
to
eliminate
the
emissions,
such
as
reseating
the
damper,
cleaning
the
flushing
liquor
piping,
applying
aspiration,
putting
the
oven
back
on
the
collecting
main,
or
igniting
the
emissions.
If
soaking
emissions
are
not
caused
by
leaks
from
the
collecting
main,
a
designated
responsible
party
must
be
notified,
who
must
then
determine
whether
the
cause
of
emissions
is
incomplete
coking.
If
so,
the
oven
must
either
be
put
back
on
the
collecting
main
until
coking
is
complete,
or
the
emissions
must
be
ignited.
To
demonstrate
initial
compliance,
the
plant
owner
or
operator
must
certify,
as
part
of
the
notification
of
compliance
status,
that
the
plant
has
submitted
the
written
plan
for
soaking
to
their
permitting
authority
for
review
and
approval,
and
that
each
of
the
requirements
in
the
work
practice
standard
will
be
met
beginning
no
later
than
the
first
day
that
compliance
is
required
according
to
§
63.7283
of
the
final
rule.
To
demonstrate
continuous
compliance,
plant
owners
or
operators
must
keep
records
documenting
conformance
with
these
requirements.

D.
What
Are
the
Requirements
for
Quenching?
The
equipment
and
work
practice
standards
for
quenching
apply
to
all
coke
oven
batteries.
Each
quench
tower
must
be
equipped
with
baffles
such
that
no
more
than
5
percent
of
the
cross
sectional
area
of
the
tower
may
be
uncovered
or
open
to
the
sky.
Baffles
must
be
cleaned
each
day
that
the
quench
tower
is
used
except
when
the
highest
measured
ambient
temperature
during
the
day
is
below
30
degrees
Fahrenheit.
Each
quench
tower
must
be
inspected
at
least
monthly
for
damaged
or
missing
baffles
and
blockage.
If
the
monthly
inspection
reveals
any
damaged
or
missing
baffles,
plant
owners
or
operators
must
initiate
repairs
within
30
days
and
complete
repairs
as
soon
as
practicable.
The
final
rule
also
limits
the
total
dissolved
solids
(
TDS)
content
of
water
used
for
quenching
to
1,100
milligrams
per
liter
(
mg/
L).
The
final
rule
includes
an
alternative
to
the
TDS
limit
that
achieves
an
equivalent
level
of
HAP
control.
The
plant
owner
or
operator
may
establish
a
site­
specific
constituent
limit
for
the
HAP
that
are
characteristic
of
coke
oven
emissions
(
benzene,
benzo(
a)
pyrene,
and
naphthalene).
The
constituent
limit
is
based
on
analyses
of
at
least
nine
samples
of
the
quench
water
for
TDS,
benzene,
benzo(
a)
pyrene,
and
naphthalene.
The
HAP
limit
is
the
highest
sum
of
the
concentrations
of
the
HAP
in
any
single
sample
that
meets
the
TDS
limit
of
1,100
mg/
L.
We
also
replaced
the
definition
of
``
clean
water''
with
a
definition
of
``
acceptable
makeup
water,''
which
includes
surface
water
from
a
river,
lake,
or
stream;
water
meeting
drinking
water
standards;
storm
water
runoff
and
production
area
clean
up
water
except
for
water
from
the
byproduct
recovery
plant
area;
process
wastewater
treated
to
meet
effluent
limitations
guidelines;
any
of
these
types
of
water
that
have
been
used
only
for
non­
contact
cooling
or
in
water
seals;
or
water
from
scrubbers
used
to
control
pushing
emissions.
To
demonstrate
initial
compliance,
the
plant
owner
or
operator
must
certify,
as
part
of
the
notification
of
compliance
status,
that
the
equipment
standard
has
been
met,
and
that
the
work
practice
requirements
regarding
baffle
repair
and
cleaning
will
be
met
beginning
no
later
than
the
first
day
that
compliance
is
required
according
to
§
63.7283
of
the
final
rule.
The
owner
or
operator
must
also
conduct
an
initial
performance
test
to
demonstrate
that
the
TDS
content
of
quench
water
does
not
exceed
1,100
mg/

VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
14:
38
Apr
11,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00005
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
14APR3.
SGM
14APR3
18012
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
71
/
Monday,
April
14,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
L
or
that
the
concentration
of
benzene,
benzo(
a)
pyrene,
and
naphthalene
does
not
exceed
the
site­
specific
constituent
limit.
To
demonstrate
continuous
compliance,
plant
owners
or
operators
are
required
to
maintain
baffles
in
each
quench
tower
to
meet
the
rule
requirements,
test
quench
water
for
TDS
at
least
weekly
or
at
least
monthly
for
benzene,
benzo(
a)
pyrene,
and
naphthalene,
and
keep
records
documenting
conformance
with
the
work
practice
requirements
regarding
baffle
repair
and
cleaning.
Backup
quench
stations
at
existing
coke
oven
batteries
that
are
used
for
less
than
5
percent
of
the
quenches
in
a
12­
month
calendar
period
are
not
subject
to
the
baffle
requirements
for
quench
towers.
However,
backup
quench
stations
at
new
batteries
are
subject
to
the
requirements
for
baffles.

E.
What
Are
the
Requirements
for
Battery
Stacks?
The
final
rule
requires
plant
owners
or
operators
to
monitor
the
opacity
of
emissions
from
each
battery
stack
using
a
continuous
opacity
monitoring
system
(
COMS)
and
to
meet
specified
opacity
limits
at
all
times.
The
opacity
limits
are
a
daily
average
of
15
percent
for
a
byproduct
coke
oven
battery
on
a
normal
coking
cycle
and
a
daily
average
of
20
percent
for
a
by­
product
coke
oven
battery
on
a
batterywide
extended
coking
cycle.
A
battery
is
on
batterywide
extended
coking
if
the
average
coking
time
for
all
ovens
in
a
battery
is
increased
by
25
percent
or
more
over
the
manufacturer's
specified
design
rate.
Initial
compliance
must
be
demonstrated
through
a
performance
test
using
a
COMS.
The
opacity
of
emissions
from
each
battery
stack
must
be
monitored
for
24
hours
and
the
daily
average
determined.
A
performance
evaluation
is
also
required
to
show
that
the
COMS
meets
Performance
Specification
(
PS)
1
in
appendix
B
to
40
CFR
part
60.
To
demonstrate
continuous
compliance,
plant
owners
or
operators
must
monitor
opacity
using
the
COMS
and
determine
and
record
the
24­
hour
average
opacity.

F.
What
Are
the
Operation
and
Maintenance
(
O&
M)
Requirements?
All
plant
owners
or
operators
are
required
to
prepare
and
implement
a
written
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
plan
according
to
the
O&
M
requirements
in
40
CFR
63.6(
e).
Operation
and
maintenance
plans
are
also
required
for
each
by­
product
coke
oven
battery
and
for
capture
systems
and
control
devices
applied
to
pushing
emissions.
The
plan
for
general
O&
M
of
each
byproduct
coke
oven
battery
must
address
procedures
(
and
frequency
of
measurements,
where
appropriate)
for
underfiring
gas
parameters,
flue
and
cross­
wall
temperatures,
preventing
ovens
from
being
pushed
before
they
are
fully
coked,
preventing
overcharging
and
undercharging
of
ovens,
and
inspecting
flues,
burners,
and
nozzles.
The
O&
M
plan
for
capture
systems
and
control
devices
applied
to
pushing
emissions
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
1
working
day,
and
completing
all
corrective
actions
needed
to
fix
the
problem
as
soon
as
practicable.
To
demonstrate
initial
compliance,
plant
owners
or
operators
must
certify
in
their
notification
of
compliance
status
that
they
have
prepared
the
plan
according
to
the
rule
requirements
and
that
the
plant
will
operate
according
to
the
plan
beginning
no
later
than
the
first
day
that
compliance
is
required
under
§
63.7283
of
the
final
rule.
To
demonstrate
continuous
compliance,
plant
owners
or
operators
must
adhere
to
the
requirements
in
the
plan
and
keep
records
documenting
conformance
with
these
requirements.

G.
What
Are
the
Notification,
Recordkeeping,
and
Reporting
Requirements?
The
notification,
recordkeeping,
and
reporting
requirements
rely
on
the
NESHAP
General
Provisions
in
40
CFR
part
63,
subpart
A.
Table
1
of
the
final
rule
(
subpart
CCCCC)
shows
each
of
the
requirements
in
the
General
Provisions
(
§
§
63.2
through
63.15)
and
whether
they
apply.
The
final
rule
requires
the
owner
or
operator
to
submit
each
initial
notification
in
the
NESHAP
General
Provisions
that
applies
to
them.
An
initial
notification
of
applicability
with
general
information
about
the
plant
must
be
submitted
within
120
days
of
April
14,
2003
(
or
for
a
new
affected
source,
120
days
after
becoming
subject
to
the
rule).
A
notification
of
performance
tests
must
be
provided
at
least
60
calendar
days
before
each
test.
A
notification
of
compliance
status
must
be
submitted
within
60
calendar
days
of
the
compliance
demonstration
if
a
performance
test
is
required
or
within
30
calendar
days
if
no
performance
test
is
required.
For
the
work
practice
standard
for
pushing
for
a
by­
product
coke
oven
battery
with
horizontal
flues,
plant
owners
or
operators
must
provide
prior
written
notification
of
the
date
the
study
of
flue
temperatures
will
be
initiated.
Other
notification
requirements
that
may
apply
are
shown
in
Table
1
of
the
final
rule
(
subpart
CCCCC).
The
final
rule
requires
plant
owners
or
operators
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.
All
records
must
be
kept
for
a
total
of
5
years,
with
the
records
from
the
most
recent
2
years
kept
onsite.
The
final
rule
also
requires
that
the
current
O&
M
plans
be
kept
onsite
and
available
for
inspection
upon
request
for
the
life
of
the
affected
source
or
until
the
affected
source
is
no
longer
subject
to
the
rule
requirements.
We
revised
the
reporting
requirement
for
battery
stacks
from
monthly
to
quarterly
in
response
to
comments.
For
other
affected
sources,
semiannual
reports
are
required
for
any
deviation
from
an
emission
limitation
(
including
an
operating
limit),
work
practice
standard,
or
O&
M
requirement.
Each
report
is
due
no
later
than
30
days
after
the
end
of
the
reporting
period.
If
no
deviation
occurred
and
no
continuous
monitoring
systems
were
out
of
control,
only
a
summary
report
is
required.
If
a
deviation
did
occur,
more
detailed
information
is
required.
An
immediate
report
is
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
permitting
authority
that
the
source
was
operating
in
accordance
with
the
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
plan.

H.
What
Are
the
Compliance
Deadlines?

We
revised
the
compliance
date
for
an
existing
affected
source
from
2
years
to
3
years
after
April
14,
2003.
New
or
reconstructed
sources
that
startup
on
or
before
April
14,
2003.
New
or
reconstructed
sources
that
startup
after
April
14,
2003
must
comply
upon
initial
startup.

VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
14:
38
Apr
11,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00006
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
14APR3.
SGM
14APR3
18013
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
71
/
Monday,
April
14,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
III.
Summary
of
Responses
to
Major
Comments
A.
Why
Did
We
Select
a
Work
Practice
Standard
for
Fugitive
Pushing
Emissions?
We
proposed
an
opacity
standard
for
fugitive
pushing
emissions
as
one
potential
option
for
controlling
sources
in
the
category.
Because
we
were
uncertain
about
the
feasibility
of
an
opacity
standard
for
this
emission
point,
we
also
proposed
a
work
practice
standard.
We
refer
to
the
opacity
standard
as
Option
1
and
the
work
practice
standard
as
Option
2.
Both
options
would
require
observing
four
consecutive
pushes
per
day
and
determining
the
average
opacity
of
each
push.
The
opacity
limits
proposed
were
20
percent
for
short
batteries
and
25
percent
for
tall
batteries
based
on
the
average
of
four
pushes.
We
proposed
a
work
practice
standard
that
would
be
triggered
if
the
average
opacity
of
any
single
push
exceeded
30
percent
for
short
batteries
and
35
percent
for
tall
batteries.
Comment:
Four
commenters
stated
a
preference
for
a
work
practice
standard.
Two
commenters
said
that
EPA
has
not
and
cannot
adequately
subcategorize
batteries
to
account
for
the
range
in
performance
achievable
by
batteries
implementing
a
state­
of­
the­
art
O&
M
program
for
the
minimization
of
green
pushes.
The
commenters
stated
there
are
not
enough
data
to
set
standards
for
each
subcategory
reflecting
the
performance
of
the
top
sources
over
time
and
under
the
worst
foreseeable
conditions.
Therefore,
the
opacity
standard
(
Option
1)
must
be
rejected.
One
commenter
prefers
an
opacity
standard
over
a
work
practice
standard
because
he
believes
a
work
practice
standard
could
cause
several
problems:
(
1)
It
would
not
allow
them
to
effectively
manage
their
long­
term
wall
and
end
flue
replacement
program;
(
2)
the
constant
change
from
taking
ovens
out
of
service
and
putting
them
back
into
service
would
result
in
damage
to
the
battery;
and
(
3)
many
of
the
actions
required
by
the
work
practice
standard
would
disrupt
the
heating
system,
damage
refractory,
and
increase
emissions
in
other
areas
of
the
battery.
Three
commenters
urged
EPA
to
combine
the
opacity
standard
with
the
work
practice
standard.
One
commenter
noted
that
the
opacity
standard
does
not
require
that
an
oven
be
repaired,
and
the
work
practice
standard
may
not
be
sufficient
to
keep
a
problem
oven
from
continuing
to
operate.
Two
commenters
prefer
a
combination
because
it
would
more
closely
approach
their
existing
State
standards.
Another
commenter
prefers
the
opacity
standard
but
would
support
combining
it
with
the
work
practice
standard
if
it
improved
compliance.
Response:
The
insight
provided
by
several
commenters
and
further
consideration
of
the
two
options
we
proposed
lead
us
to
conclude
that
a
work
practice
standard
that
requires
owners
or
operators
to
take
appropriate
corrective
action
and
to
confirm
that
they
have
successfully
addressed
problem
ovens
is
the
most
effective
approach
to
control
fugitive
pushing
emissions.
A
work
practice
standard
is
appropriate
because
pushing
emissions
are
fugitive
in
nature
and
are
not
emitted
through
a
conveyance
designed
to
capture
and
control
HAP.
Moreover,
there
is
no
practicable
measurement
methodology
to
determine
the
mass
emission
rate
of
HAP
in
these
fugitive
emissions.
Section
112(
h)
of
the
CAA
explicitly
permits
a
work
practice
standard
in
lieu
of
an
emission
standard
when
emissions
cannot
be
emitted
through
a
conveyance.
We
concluded
an
opacity
limit
as
proposed
would
not
be
appropriate
because
coke
oven
batteries
cannot
entirely
avoid
green
pushes.
While
facilities
can
significantly
reduce
the
frequency
of
green
pushes
by
carefully
monitoring
emissions
and
responding
quickly
to
diagnose
and
repair
problem
ovens,
they
cannot
eliminate
them
altogether.
(
For
example,
a
flue
may
become
plugged
unexpectedly
during
coking.)
Any
steps
that
we
might
take
to
allow
for
the
periodic
exceedance
of
an
emission
limit
(
such
as
averaging
across
several
pushes)
would
undermine
the
purpose
of
the
standard
by
allowing
malfunctioning
ovens
to
continue
operating
without
diagnosis
or
repair.
Therefore,
the
most
meaningful
approach
is
to
establish
a
work
practice
standard
that
requires
coke
oven
facilities
to
identify
and
successfully
remedy
problems
that
result
in
increased
emissions.
Accordingly,
considering
the
nature
of
the
pushing
operation,
it
is
appropriate
for
EPA
to
establish
a
work
practice
standard
that
uses
opacity
observations
to
identify
problem
ovens
(
those
which
produce
green
pushes)
and
requires
corrective
action
to
diagnose
and
correct
the
problem.
There
was
a
fundamental
flaw
in
the
opacity
standard
as
proposed
in
that
it
would
not
ensure
that
an
oven
producing
green
pushes
is
repaired.
If
the
four­
push
average
exceeds
the
opacity
standard,
one
or
more
of
the
ovens
may
have
serious
problems
that
require
immediate
attention
to
prevent
subsequent
green
pushes.
However,
these
problem
ovens
would
not
have
to
be
observed
again
for
90
days,
and
during
that
90­
day
period,
many
green
pushes
could
occur.
Additionally,
an
opacity
standard
based
on
the
average
of
four
pushes
does
not
reliably
indicate
when
a
green
push
has
or
has
not
occurred.
We
analyzed
data
from
two
batteries
that
had
frequent
green
pushes
to
compare
the
effectiveness
of
the
opacity
standard
and
work
practice
standard
in
identifying
green
pushes.
We
found
cases
where
the
four­
push
average
had
one
oven
with
a
green
push
(
an
opacity
of
more
than
30
percent),
but
the
proposed
opacity
standard
was
not
exceeded
because
the
other
pushes
had
low
opacity.
We
also
found
cases
where
the
20
percent
opacity
standard
was
marginally
exceeded,
but
none
of
the
pushes
were
green
(
i.
e.,
all
four
pushes
were
less
than
30
percent).
In
contrast,
the
work
practice
standard
is
triggered
by
opacity
observations
of
individual
ovens.
When
a
green
push
occurs,
the
problem
oven
is
identified.
This
oven
is
then
placed
on
a
remedial
track
that
requires
appropriate
repairs
in
a
reasonable
period
of
time.
Consequently,
the
work
practice
standard
will
not
allow
green
pushes
to
occur
unabated.
Several
commenters
urged
us
to
combine
the
performance
standard
(
an
opacity
limit)
with
the
work
practice
standard.
While
we
are
not
adopting
a
specific
performance
standard
in
the
form
of
a
hard
and
fast
opacity
limit,
and
we
do
not
believe
that
such
a
standard
would
provide
a
feasible
mechanism
for
identifying
and
remediating
individual
problem
ovens,
we
do
recognize
the
benefits
of
having
a
mechanism
to
prevent
ongoing
failure
to
repair
problem
ovens.
Therefore,
we
have
revised
the
work
practice
standard
to
ensure
that
ovens
are
properly
repaired.
As
proposed,
the
work
practice
standard
could
have
allowed
individual
problem
ovens
to
continue
to
operate,
while
cycling
through
corrective
actions
without
ever
being
properly
repaired.
Consequently,
we
revised
the
work
practice
standard
to
require
an
owner
or
operator
to
report
a
deviation
after
two
consecutive
unsuccessful
attempts
at
corrective
action
and/
or
increased
coking
time
and
after
two
consecutive
unsuccessful
attempts
to
decrease
coking
time
on
the
same
oven.
In
addition,
subsequent
consecutive
failures
to
repair
or
remediate
the
same
oven
must
be
reported
as
deviations.
There
is
adequate
time
provided
to
correct
any
problems
during
the
two
attempts
 
20
days
or
more.
An
owner
or
operator
may
also
remove
an
oven
from
service
for
as
long
as
necessary
to
conduct
repairs.

VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
14:
38
Apr
11,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00007
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
14APR3.
SGM
14APR3
18014
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
71
/
Monday,
April
14,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
This
approach
accurately
reflects
the
performance
of
the
best­
controlled
facilities
in
the
category
that
already
implement
oven
diagnosis
and
repair
programs
to
successfully
identify
and
remedy
problems
that
lead
to
increased
emissions.
Most
of
the
best­
controlled
batteries
will
seldom
have
an
oven
that
enters
the
oven­
directed
program,
and
our
data
show
that
none
have
had
the
types
of
continuing
problems
that
would
result
in
a
deviation
under
the
final
rule.
We
believe
that
the
work
practice
standard
can
be
coordinated
with
a
long­
term
repair
program.
The
batteries
upon
which
the
MACT
floor
is
based
have
a
long­
term
repair
program
to
address
major
repairs.
This
long­
term
program
includes
procedures
for
minimizing
impacts
on
adjacent
ovens
and
preventing
excess
emissions
when
ovens
must
be
removed
from
service.
In
addition,
these
batteries
have
effective
procedures
for
identifying
problem
ovens
and
making
short­
term
repairs.
There
is
no
legitimate
reason
why
this
type
of
approach
cannot
be
implemented
at
other
coke
oven
batteries.

B.
What
Changes
Did
We
Make
to
the
Work
Practice
Standard
for
Fugitive
Pushing
Emissions?
Comment:
Four
commenters
requested
revisions
to
the
work
practice
standard.
They
requested
that
the
final
rule
require
that
all
pushes
be
read
exactly
according
to
EPA
Method
9
(
40
CFR
part
60,
appendix
A).
They
suggested
that
Method
9
observations
begin
with
the
first
detectable
movement
of
the
coke
mass
because
this
would
ensure
that
observations
are
made
through
the
entire
pushing
sequence
and
would
be
consistent
with
how
the
data
were
generated
for
the
proposed
rule.
They
also
requested
that
we
not
require
``
independent
certified
observers''
because
all
Method
9
certified
observers
are
qualified
and
should
be
treated
the
same.
The
commenters
asked
that
we
allow
the
observation
of
more
than
four
pushes
per
day
so
that
every
oven
can
be
observed
at
least
once
every
3
months.
In
addition,
the
commenters
asked
that
we
clarify
that
the
pushing
schedule
can
be
changed
for
operational
reasons,
but
not
``
solely''
for
the
purpose
of
changing
the
sequence
of
observations.
They
suggested
we
add
a
definition
for
``
increased
coking
time''
to
prevent
confusion
with
``
batterywide
extended
coking
time,''
which
is
a
term
used
only
in
the
provisions
for
battery
stacks.
Response:
We
agree
with
some
of
these
suggested
revisions
and
do
not
agree
with
others.
We
do
not
agree
that
all
ovens
must
be
read
exactly
as
required
by
Method
9
(
40
CFR
part
60,
appendix
A)
because
we
are
aware
that
the
view
of
opacity
from
some
ovens
may
be
obstructed
within
the
sector
required
by
the
method.
In
this
situation,
the
observer
may
need
to
find
an
alternative
position
to
make
opacity
observations.
We
added
a
provision
to
the
final
rule
requiring
plant
owners
or
operators
to
identify
ovens
that
cannot
be
observed
according
to
Method
9
and
develop
alternative
procedures
to
determine
if
green
pushes
are
occurring
on
those
ovens.
The
alternative
procedures
must
be
submitted
to
the
permitting
authority
for
review
and
approval.
Facilities
must
operate
according
to
these
procedures
beginning
no
later
than
the
applicable
compliance
date.
Based
on
the
information
we
received,
there
are
only
a
few
ovens
that
fall
into
this
category.
We
have
written
the
final
rule
to
state
that
Method
9
observations
should
begin
with
the
first
detectable
movement
of
the
coke
mass.
In
addition,
we
agree
that
any
Method
9
certified
observer
is
qualified
to
make
Method
9
opacity
observations
and
have
changed
the
provision
to
reflect
this.
We
also
agree
that
more
than
four
ovens
may
be
observed
each
day
because
doing
so
provides
more
scrutiny
of
performance
and
greater
assurance
that
every
oven
can
be
observed
at
least
once
every
90
days.
With
respect
to
the
comment
on
changing
pushing
schedules,
we
do
not
believe
that
the
precise
language
that
the
commenter
suggests
is
appropriate
(
specifically
the
word
``
solely''
would
create
an
extraordinarily
difficult
burden
of
proof
for
purposes
of
enforcement).
However,
we
do
agree
with
the
general
idea
underlying
the
commenter's
recommendation,
and
we
have
written
the
final
rule
to
acknowledge
that
there
may
be
legitimate
operational
reasons
for
changing
the
pushing
schedule.
If
an
oven's
pushing
schedule
is
changed
and
that
oven
was
previously
scheduled
to
be
one
of
the
four
consecutive
ovens
to
be
observed,
the
operator
must
keep
records
to
document
the
legitimate
operational
reason
for
changing
the
schedule.
We
have
added
a
definition
for
``
increased
coking
time''
to
prevent
confusion
with
``
batterywide
extended
coking
time,''
which
is
a
term
used
only
in
the
provisions
for
battery
stacks.
Comment:
Several
commenters
said
that
the
rule
should
not
mandate
that
an
oven
be
taken
out
of
service
if
corrective
actions
are
unsuccessful.
In
addition,
commenters
requested
that
after
taking
corrective
actions
or
extending
the
coking
time,
we
allow
two
coking
cycles
before
requiring
the
facility
to
demonstrate
that
the
action
was
successful.
They
believe
it
is
necessary
to
observe
only
one
push
rather
than
two
to
show
the
action
was
successful.
Finally,
the
commenters
asked
that
we
drop
the
requirement
to
obtain
the
permitting
authority's
permission
to
return
an
oven
to
service
and
instead
change
this
to
a
notification
requirement.
Response:
We
added
a
provision
that
requires
plant
owners
or
operators
to
report
a
deviation
after
two
unsuccessful
attempts
at
repair,
and
with
this
requirement,
we
believe
that
it
is
not
necessary
to
require
that
an
oven
be
removed
from
service.
Our
goal
at
proposal
was
to
require
that
an
oven
be
removed
from
service
for
repair
to
avoid
endless
cycling
of
unsuccessful
repairs.
This
is
accomplished
in
the
final
rule
by
requiring
that
the
owner
or
operator
repair
the
problem
oven,
and
by
requiring
the
owner
or
operator
to
bring
any
two
or
more
consecutive
failures
to
repair
the
same
oven
to
the
attention
of
the
permitting
authority
by
reporting
the
failure(
s)
as
a
deviation.
Based
on
the
comments
requesting
more
time
to
fix
problem
ovens
before
they
are
removed
from
service,
we
investigated
the
time
that
might
reasonably
be
required
to
take
corrective
action
and
to
demonstrate
that
it
was
successful.
We
discovered
that
there
can
be
some
situations
in
which
it
would
be
difficult
to
obtain
valid
opacity
observations
within
the
time
period
in
the
proposed
rule.
For
example,
the
opportunity
to
make
opacity
observations
according
to
the
prescribed
procedures
depends
on
coking
time,
number
of
daylight
hours,
sun
angle,
and
other
factors.
In
some
cases,
it
may
take
several
days
to
meet
the
criteria
in
the
opacity
procedures
for
a
specific
oven,
especially
during
the
winter
months
for
ovens
with
22
to
26
hour
coking
times.
Consequently,
we
have
written
the
final
rule
to
require
that
the
opacity
observations
to
demonstrate
that
corrective
action
and/
or
increased
coking
time
was
successful
be
made
on
the
first
two
pushes
that
can
be
observed
according
to
the
procedures
for
opacity
observations
after
the
allowed
number
of
days.
We
decreased
the
time
period
to
complete
corrective
action
or
increase
coking
time
because
the
time
period
no
longer
includes
the
demonstrative
observations.
We
have
written
the
final
rule
to
allow
either
10
days
or
the
number
of
days
determined
using
an
equation,
whichever
is
greater.
Depending
on
coking
time,
the
time
period
allows
batteries
10
to
about
20
days
to
diagnose
the
problem,

VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
14:
38
Apr
11,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00008
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
14APR3.
SGM
14APR3
18015
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
71
/
Monday,
April
14,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
implement
corrective
action
or
increased
coking
time,
and
stabilize
oven
temperatures.
After
that
period,
the
next
two
pushes
that
can
be
observed
according
to
the
procedures
must
be
observed
to
evaluate
the
success
of
corrective
action.
Days
during
which
the
oven
is
removed
from
service
do
not
count
in
the
allowed
number
of
days.
We
also
revised
the
standard
to
allow
two
attempts
at
repair
in
case
the
problem
is
not
initially
diagnosed
properly
or
in
case
a
second
independent
problem
develops.
We
do
not
agree
that
two
coking
cycles
are
always
necessary
to
stabilize
an
oven
after
corrective
actions
are
taken.
We
believe
there
is
one
case
in
which
two
coking
cycles
are
needed
to
allow
the
oven
temperature
to
stabilize
 
when
an
oven
that
was
placed
on
increased
coking
time
has
been
repaired
and
the
owner
or
operator
attempts
to
qualify
for
decreased
coking
time.
We
have
written
the
final
rule
to
reflect
this.
There
is
adequate
time
within
the
allowed
number
of
days
following
corrective
action
or
increased
coking
time
to
allow
the
oven
temperatures
to
stabilize.
Adequate
time
is
also
provided
for
ovens
removed
from
service
because
the
time
during
which
the
oven
is
not
operating
is
not
counted
in
the
allowed
number
of
days.
Relative
to
the
comment
that
only
one
observation
is
needed
to
demonstrate
the
problem
has
been
corrected,
we
continue
to
believe
that
two
pushes
should
be
observed
rather
than
one
to
provide
assurance
that
the
repair
was
successful.
We
agree
that
it
is
not
necessary
for
a
permitting
authority
to
approve
returning
an
oven
to
service,
and
the
permitting
authority
may
not
be
able
to
act
within
a
time
frame
that
is
consistent
with
the
legitimate
needs
of
the
operator.
In
addition,
this
requirement
places
a
burden
on
the
permitting
authority
that
they
may
not
want
and
may
not
have
the
resources
or
expertise
to
implement.
Comment:
Three
commenters
stated
that
batteries
with
horizontal
flues
would
be
subject
to
significantly
less
stringent
standards
than
batteries
with
vertical
flues.
They
requested
that
these
batteries
be
subject
to
the
same
pushing
requirements
as
by­
product
batteries
with
vertical
flues.
Response:
As
stated
in
the
proposal
preamble,
unlike
vertical
flue
batteries
which
include
25
to
37
individual
flues
along
each
oven
wall,
the
horizontal
flue
system
of
the
Semet
Solvay
design
includes
only
five
horizontal
flues
which
convey
the
combustion
gases
from
top
to
bottom
in
serpentine
fashion.
Because
the
hot
combustion
products
flow
from
one
flue
to
the
next,
the
heat
control
of
each
upper
flue
materially
affects
the
heating
conditions
in
the
next
flue
down.
Each
flue
in
the
horizontal
design
affects
a
larger
percentage
of
the
total
coke
mass
than
for
the
vertical
flue
design.
Consequently,
the
occurrence
of
a
heating
or
combustion
problem
in
any
of
the
single
horizontal
flues
could
have
a
significant
adverse
effect
on
the
degree
and
uniformity
of
coking
across
the
entire
length
of
the
coke
bed.
Therefore,
since
these
differences
in
design
and
operation
affect
pushing
emissions,
we
developed
a
separate
subcategory
for
batteries
with
horizontal
flues.
There
are
two
batteries
with
this
design,
and
the
work
practice
standard
is
based
on
the
procedures
used
by
these
batteries
to
prevent
green
pushes.
We
have
received
no
technical
information
that
indicates
this
subcategorization
was
inappropriate.
However,
after
we
reviewed
the
proposed
work
practice
standard,
we
concluded
a
revision
was
needed
to
ensure
that
a
source
would
not
be
permitted
to
operate
its
ovens
below
the
lowest
acceptable
minimum
flue
temperature.
The
source
is
required
to
evaluate
coking
time,
coking
temperature,
and
factors
associated
with
incomplete
coking
to
develop
minimum
flue
temperatures
and
coking
times.
The
source
must
then
submit
to
the
Administrator
(
or
delegated
authority)
for
review
and
approval
a
written
plan
that
establishes
minimum
flue
temperatures
for
different
coking
times,
and
that
establishes
the
lowest
acceptable
minimum
flue
temperature
for
oven
operation.
The
plan
must
also
include
appropriate
operation
and
maintenance
procedures
to
ensure
compliance
upon
plan
implementation.

C.
What
Changes
Did
We
Make
to
the
Requirements
for
Pushing
Emission
Control
Devices
(
PECD)?

Comment:
Two
commenters
stated
that
there
is
no
legal
basis
for
setting
MACT
standards
for
PECD
given
EPA's
conclusion
at
proposal
that
PECD
are
not
part
of
the
MACT
floor
for
pushing.
One
commenter
also
stated
that
EPA
has
no
legal
authority
to
set
operating
limits
for
PECD
because
they
are
simply
a
surrogate
for
the
underlying
emission
limits.
In
addition,
PECD
should
not
be
regulated
because
the
emissions
do
not
contain
HAP.
The
commenter
said
the
limits
and
monitoring
are
not
necessary
and
are
duplicative
of
other
existing
requirements,
including
State
implementation
plans,
title
V
permits,
and
the
compliance
assurance
monitoring
program.
Response:
We
believe
emission
limits
for
PECD
are
appropriate
and
warranted.
As
we
explained
in
the
preamble
to
the
proposed
rule,
there
are
several
reasons
we
do
not
believe
it
is
appropriate
to
include
PECD
as
a
component
of
the
MACT
floor
for
pushing.
However,
we
also
indicated
at
proposal
that
operation
of
these
controls
does
have
some
HAP
reduction
benefits
(
although
we
are
unable
to
specifically
quantify
these
benefits
in
terms
of
either
HAP
or
PM),
and
there
is
little
doubt
that
these
devices
help
to
reduce
HAP
emissions,
including
POM
and
trace
metals.
Thus,
while
minimizing
the
frequency
of
green
pushes
is
the
basis
for
the
MACT
floor,
and
achieving
this
objective
will
significantly
decrease
the
emission
benefits
of
the
add­
on
control
devices,
these
devices
will
continue
to
reduce
HAP
emissions
to
some
degree
on
a
continuing
basis.
The
EPA
has
reasonably
concluded
that
it
is
important
to
ensure
that
the
benefits
related
to
the
operation
of
these
controls
are
maintained,
and
the
appropriate
way
to
accomplish
this
is
to
require
that
coke
plants
operate
existing
PECD
at
all
times
in
a
manner
consistent
with
good
air
pollution
control
practices.
Accordingly,
today's
requirements
establish
emission
limitations
for
existing
control
devices
that
reflect
the
performance
of
well­
operated
PECD.
The
costs
associated
with
the
PECD
requirements
include
those
for
periodic
Method
5
testing,
parametric
monitoring
(
such
as
bag
leak
detection
systems),
and
monthly
inspections
of
capture
and
control
systems.
These
costs
are
only
$
4,600
per
year
for
a
typical
coke
plant,
which
is
a
minimal
cost
relative
to
the
overall
costs
of
the
final
rule
(
less
than
0.5
percent).
While
we
are
not
able
to
quantify
the
HAP
emission
reductions
associated
with
operation
of
PECD
or
with
the
PECD
requirements
in
the
final
rule,
we
believe
the
requirements
preserving
these
existing
benefits
of
PECD's
and
ensuring
proper
operation
of
control
devices
is
warranted.
For
example,
bag
leak
detection
systems
and
monthly
inspections
will
ensure
that
corrective
actions
are
taken
promptly
when
the
systems
are
not
operating
properly,
and
these
actions
will
reduce
excess
emissions
that
might
have
occurred
in
the
absence
of
the
continuous
monitoring.
We
do
not
believe
that
the
limits
will
duplicate
existing
State
requirements
because
the
limits
are
generally
equivalent
to
or
more
stringent
than
those
currently
required
by
State
agencies
or
contained
in
existing
operating
permits.
By
establishing
these
limits
in
national
standards,
we
will
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
14:
38
Apr
11,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00009
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
14APR3.
SGM
14APR3
18016
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
71
/
Monday,
April
14,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
ensure
that
emissions
from
PECD
do
not
increase
in
the
future
if
existing
State
limits
are
relaxed
or
if
operating
permits
are
modified.
Comment:
One
commenter
stated
that
the
proposed
emission
limits
are
based
on
very
limited
data
and
that
the
limits
are
not
achievable.
In
support
of
this
claim,
the
commenter
submitted
statistical
analyses
that
indicate
that
their
``
statistically­
derived
values''
are
much
higher
than
the
proposed
limits
and
should
be
used
in
lieu
of
the
proposed
values.
Several
commenters
submitted
additional
test
data
for
EPA
to
consider
and
asked
for
higher
limits.
Response:
We
reviewed
the
additional
test
data
submitted
by
the
commenters.
These
new
data
include
additional
tests
on
mobile
scrubber
cars
used
on
short
batteries
and
baghouses
applied
to
cokeside
sheds.
We
also
reexamined
our
approach
for
selecting
appropriate
emission
limits.
We
believe
that
it
is
not
necessary
to
use
statistical
analyses
to
account
for
variability
because
these
control
devices
operate
uniformly
over
time,
and
the
data
indicate
there
is
little
variability
when
the
device
is
operating
properly.
In
addition,
we
have
data
for
most
of
the
affected
control
devices,
including
multiple
tests
for
some
units.
We
believe
the
large
database
inherently
accounts
for
variability
and
choosing
the
highest
three­
run
average
means
that
100
percent
of
the
test
results
are
below
the
limit.
However,
to
account
for
inherent
variability
in
the
performance
of
the
control
devices
(
to
more
accurately
reflect
the
actual
performance
of
existing
controls
over
time),
we
established
the
limits
in
the
final
rule
by
rounding
the
highest
test
results
to
two
decimal
places.
The
two
additional
tests
for
mobile
scrubber
cars
used
on
short
batteries
include
one
result
slightly
below
the
proposed
limit
and
another
slightly
higher
than
the
proposed
limit.
The
tests
were
conducted
using
approved
methods
and
appear
to
be
representative
of
normal
operation.
In
addition,
the
results
expanded
the
database
for
this
subcategory
from
three
tests
to
five
tests.
The
averages
for
the
five
tests
ranged
from
0.012
to
0.025
lb/
ton
of
coke.
We
rounded
0.025
lb/
ton
to
0.03
lb/
ton
and
established
this
value
as
the
limit
for
mobile
scrubber
cars
for
short
batteries.
We
also
reviewed
additional
test
data
for
three
batteries
equipped
with
a
cokeside
shed
and
baghouse,
including
three
tests
conducted
on
a
6­
meter
battery
at
one
plant
and
four
tests
conducted
on
two
4­
meter
batteries
designated
Batteries
1
and
4
at
a
second
plant.
The
proposed
limit
for
existing
cokeside
sheds
and
baghouses
was
0.004
gr/
dscf.
With
the
additional
data,
we
now
have
results
for
ten
tests
at
five
batteries
with
cokeside
sheds
and
baghouses.
All
three
tests
on
the
6­
meter
battery
are
below
the
proposed
limit
of
0.004
gr/
dscf
with
values
of
0.0009,
0.0024,
and
0.0013
gr/
dscf.
The
additional
data
for
the
two
4­
meter
batteries
plus
one
test
result
which
we
previously
had
gives
us
a
total
of
five
tests
for
that
plant,
four
tests
for
Battery
1
and
one
test
for
Battery
4.
The
company
acknowledged
that
a
1984
test
which
averaged
0.02
gr/
dscf
was
performed
under
unrepresentative
conditions
because
of
operational
problems
with
the
baghouse
during
the
test.
We
examined
the
other
test
reports
for
Battery
1
and
found
that
a
test
conducted
in
1984
averaged
0.004
gr/
dscf,
a
1988
test
averaged
0.0036
gr/
dscf,
and
a
1998
test
averaged
0.01
gr/
dscf.
The
test
reports
indicate
that
sampling
was
performed
under
representative
conditions.
Consequently,
we
revised
the
emission
limit
for
batteries
with
cokeside
sheds
to
0.01
gr/
dscf
to
reflect
the
level
that
has
been
demonstrated
as
achievable.
No
additional
data
were
submitted
for
two
types
of
capture
and
control
systems:
mobile
scrubber
cars
on
tall
batteries
and
mobile
scrubber
cars
that
capture
during
travel.
We
chose
as
limits
the
highest
three­
run
average
for
each
of
these
systems
 
0.01
lb/
ton
for
mobile
scrubber
cars
on
tall
batteries
and
0.04
lb/
ton
for
mobile
scrubber
cars
that
capture
during
travel.
We
believe
the
data
show
that
these
limits
are
achievable
because
they
have
been
achieved
at
several
different
batteries
over
time.
Comment:
One
commenter
requested
that
the
5
percent
operating
limit
for
bag
leak
detection
system
alarms
be
deleted.
The
commenter
argued
that
the
5
percent
of
the
operating
time
limit
on
alarms
is
arbitrary.
In
addition,
the
commenter
stated
that
EPA
had
not
demonstrated
that
a
bag
leak
detection
system
is
workable
for
pushing
emissions
given
the
intermittent
operation
of
PECD
(
e.
g.,
1
to
2
minutes
during
a
push,
which
occurs
every
15
to
20
minutes).
Response:
We
reexamined
the
proposed
operating
limit
of
5
percent
for
bag
leak
detection
systems
and
concluded
it
was
not
applicable
for
PECD.
The
proposed
limit
was
adopted
from
other
rules
and
was
not
based
on
data
associated
with
baghouses
applied
to
pushing
emissions.
We
do
not
believe
we
can
establish
an
appropriate
limit
in
this
application
because
of
the
intermittent
operation
of
baghouses.
For
most
systems,
the
device
operates
only
during
the
push,
which
is
1
to
2
minutes
every
10
to
15
minutes.
In
addition,
we
have
no
information
on
the
effect
of
the
initial
surge
when
full
evacuation
is
applied
at
the
beginning
of
the
push.
Thus,
given
that
emissions
from
PECD
are
not
the
major
focus
of
today's
final
rule
and
are
not
included
as
part
of
the
MACT
floor
calculation,
we
believe
it
is
appropriate
to
delete
the
5
percent
operating
limit
for
bag
leak
detection
systems.
However,
we
are
requiring
that
corrective
actions
be
initiated
within
1
hour
of
an
alarm.

D.
What
Changes
Did
We
Make
to
the
Requirements
for
Quenching?
Comment:
One
commenter
stated
that
the
definition
of
``
clean
water''
needs
to
be
clarified
because
it
would
be
difficult
or
impossible
for
plant
owners
or
operators
to
prove
that
some
sources
of
water
meet
the
definition.
As
proposed,
``
clean
water''
is
defined
to
mean
surface
water
from
a
river,
lake,
or
stream;
water
meeting
drinking
water
standards;
water
that
has
been
used
for
non­
contact
cooling;
or
process
wastewater
that
has
been
treated
to
remove
organic
compounds
and/
or
dissolved
solids.
The
commenter
recommended
that
the
definition
be
revised
to
state
that
any
water
can
be
used
except
untreated
process
wastewater
from
the
by­
product
plant.
Another
commenter
agreed
and
further
stated
that
plant
owners
or
operators
should
be
allowed
to
use
any
source
of
makeup
water
that
has
been
used
historically
and
previously
deemed
acceptable
by
EPA.
One
commenter
requested
that
the
definition
include
water
that
is
used
in
seals
on
standpipes;
otherwise,
the
plant
owner
or
operator
would
have
to
draw
an
additional
200,000
gallons
per
day
from
Lake
Michigan
and
treat
the
same
amount
of
water
before
discharge.
Another
commenter
requested
that
storm
water
and
wash
down
water
associated
with
non­
recovery
plants
be
added.
The
commenter
stated
that
this
water
does
not
pick
up
toxic
chemicals
at
non­
recovery
plants,
and
using
this
water
for
quenching
eliminates
discharge
to
the
watershed
and
reduces
the
amount
of
water
drawn
from
the
water
supply.
Other
commenters
requested
that
the
proposed
definition
of
``
clean
water''
be
tightened
by
developing
minimum
quality
standards
for
quench
water.
Two
commenters
suggested
that
``
clean
water''
be
defined
as
meeting
Federal
safe
drinking
water
standards.
Two
other
commenters
asked
that
EPA
establish
a
limit
for
TDS
because
the
solids
contain
metals.
Commenters
also
noted
that
the
definition
includes
process
water
that
has
been
treated
to
remove
organic
compounds
and/
or
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
14:
38
Apr
11,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00010
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
14APR3.
SGM
14APR3
18017
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
71
/
Monday,
April
14,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
dissolved
solids.
They
stated
that
removal
of
both
solids
and
organics
should
be
required,
and
EPA
must
establish
appropriate
levels
of
treatment.
If
an
appropriate
level
of
treatment
cannot
be
defined,
then
all
process
wastewater
should
be
prohibited
for
quenching
coke.
One
commenter
suggested
that
return
water
from
the
quench
tower
and
all
process
wastewater
be
prohibited,
whether
treated
or
not.
This
commenter
further
stated
that
if
EPA
chooses
to
allow
treated
process
water,
then
daily
sampling
and
analysis
must
be
required
to
ensure
the
treatment
process
is
removing
the
contaminants.
Response:
We
agree
that
altering
the
definition
of
``
clean
water''
is
necessary
to
clarify
what
types
of
water
can
be
used
as
makeup
water.
We
also
agree
that
it
is
appropriate
to
establish
TDS
limits
to
control
quench
water
quality.
Our
intent
at
proposal
was
that
untreated
process
wastewater,
whether
contaminated
with
solids,
organic
compounds,
or
both,
should
not
be
used
for
quenching.
These
contaminants
have
been
shown
to
increase
HAP
emissions
from
quenching,
and
most
plants
have
abandoned
the
practice
of
disposing
of
untreated
wastewater
in
the
quenching
process.
Process
wastewater
must
be
treated
to
remove
solids
and
organics,
as
necessary,
before
it
can
be
used
for
quenching.
This
can
be
ensured
by
requiring
that
process
wastewater
be
treated
to
meet
effluent
limitation
guidelines.
It
was
not
our
intent
to
prohibit
the
use
of
non­
contact
process
water,
cooling
water,
or
other
miscellaneous
sources
of
water
that
would
not
contribute
to
additional
emissions
from
pushing.
For
example,
the
water
used
to
seal
standpipe
caps
and
storm
water
are
not
process
wastewater.
To
address
the
above
concerns,
we
have
replaced
the
term
``
clean
water''
in
the
proposed
rule
with
the
term
``
acceptable
makeup
water,''
which
is
defined
in
the
final
rule
to
mean
surface
water
from
a
river,
lake,
or
stream;
water
meeting
drinking
water
standards;
storm
water
runoff
and
production
area
cleanup
water
except
for
water
from
the
by­
product
recovery
plant
area;
process
wastewater
treated
to
meet
effluent
limitations
guidelines;
any
of
these
types
of
water
that
has
been
used
only
for
non­
contact
cooling
or
in
water
seals;
or
water
from
scrubbers
used
to
control
pushing
emissions.
We
believe
this
change
accommodates
most
if
not
all
of
the
concerns
stated
in
the
comments.
Water
used
for
quenching
is
usually
taken
from
a
sump
near
the
base
of
the
quench
tower
and
consists
of
recycled
water
and
makeup
water.
Recycled
water
is
the
runoff
from
quenching
that
is
returned
from
the
quench
tower
to
the
sump.
Makeup
water
is
from
some
other
source,
such
as
a
river
or
lake,
and
is
added
to
replenish
the
water
lost
by
evaporation
during
quenching.
Dissolved
solids
in
the
quench
water
contribute
to
HAP
and
PM
emissions
during
quenching.
We
reviewed
data
from
tests
at
quench
towers
and
found
that
HAP
emissions
increase
as
the
TDS
level
in
the
quench
water
increases.
Several
States
have
established
TDS
limits
for
the
quench
water
to
ensure
that
high
levels
of
solids
are
not
present
to
contribute
to
emissions
from
the
quench
tower.
We
agree
with
commenters
who
requested
that
TDS
limits
be
established
in
the
final
rule
and
that
the
quench
water
be
sampled
periodically.
We
reviewed
the
available
data
on
TDS
levels
in
quench
water.
However,
we
have
only
limited
data,
much
of
the
data
included
the
use
of
byproduct
plant
wastewater
which
is
no
longer
used
for
quenching,
and
we
could
not
validate
the
procedures
that
were
used
for
sampling
and
analysis
by
the
various
plants.
In
addition,
we
have
only
one
data
point
for
reporting
plants,
which
does
not
reflect
the
variability
in
TDS
levels
over
time.
We
also
reviewed
existing
State
and
local
TDS
requirements
and
found
that
most
of
the
existing
limits
are
in
the
range
of
800
to
1,500
mg/
L.
We
evaluated
the
five
most
stringent
State
limits
(
12
percent
of
36
quench
towers)
applied
to
quench
towers
at
coke
plants
that
were
operating
during
the
development
of
the
proposed
rule.
Two
quench
towers
(
one
in
Michigan
and
one
in
Ohio)
are
subject
to
a
limit
of
800
mg/
L,
two
others
in
Illinois
are
subject
to
a
limit
of
1,200
mg/
L,
and
one
in
Illinois
is
subject
to
a
limit
of
1,500
mg/
L.
We
chose
the
mean
value
of
1,100
mg/
L
as
the
MACT
floor.
We
chose
the
mean
value
rather
than
the
median
value
(
1,200
mg/
L)
because
we
usually
use
the
median
value
when
that
value
is
associated
with
a
specific
source
and
the
operation
of
a
particular
emission
control
technology.
In
this
case,
the
mean
value
is
more
appropriate
because
the
State
limits
are
not
directly
related
to
the
level
of
control
achieved
by
a
particular
control
technology.
We
also
evaluated
the
test
method
used
by
the
plants
that
comprise
the
MACT
floor
and
determined
that
all
of
these
plants
measure
TDS
by
drying
the
filterable
residue
at
103
to
105
°
C.
(
There
is
an
alternative
TDS
method
that
specifies
drying
at
180
°
C.)
Our
data
indicate
that
the
lower
drying
temperature
is
more
appropriate
for
coke
plant
quench
water
because
the
higher
temperature
evaporates
some
organic
PM
and
results
in
an
inaccurate
measure
of
TDS.
This
organic
PM
contributes
to
the
total
TDS
and
emissions
at
the
normal
temperatures
of
the
quench
water
before
it
is
used
for
quenching.
Consequently,
we
specify
that
TDS
must
be
determined
by
drying
the
filterable
residue
at
103
to
105
°
C.
We
believe
the
existing
limits
are
a
reasonable
proxy
for
TDS
levels
that
can
be
achieved,
and
they
account
for
the
normal
variability
in
TDS
levels.
For
example,
the
available
data
indicate
that
TDS
concentrations
in
clean
makeup
water
are
usually
less
than
600
mg/
L.
We
reviewed
data
for
several
plants
and
concluded
that
TDS
in
quench
water
is
about
twice
that
in
makeup
water.
Therefore,
we
believe
a
level
of
1,100
mg/
L
TDS
or
less
is
indicative
of
acceptable
quench
water.
Consequently,
we
are
establishing
this
level
in
the
final
rule
as
the
maximum
TDS
allowed
in
quench
water.
We
are
also
requiring
weekly
sampling
of
the
quench
water
to
ensure
that
water
quality
is
maintained.
Although
a
TDS
limit
is
a
proven
historical
method
for
limiting
emissions
from
quenching,
we
believe
that
plant
owners
or
operators
can
achieve
equivalent
levels
of
HAP
control
by
limiting
the
HAP
in
quench
water.
To
provide
additional
flexibility,
we
included
in
the
final
rule
an
alternative
to
develop
a
site­
specific
limit
for
the
quench
water
for
the
HAP
that
are
indicators
of
coke
oven
emissions
 
benzene,
benzo(
a)
pyrene,
and
naphthalene.
To
qualify
for
the
alternative,
a
plant
owner
or
operator
must
sample
and
analyze
at
least
nine
quench
water
samples
for
TDS,
benzene,
benzo(
a)
pyrene,
and
naphthalene.
The
alternative
HAP
limit
is
the
highest
sum
of
the
concentrations
of
the
HAP
in
any
single
sample
that
meets
the
TDS
limit
of
1,100
mg/
L.
Comment:
Two
commenters
noted
that
baffles
control
PM
and
that
EPA
had
not
explained
why
PM
is
a
suitable
surrogate
for
HAP
emissions
from
quenching.
One
commenter
said
that
the
requirement
for
95
percent
coverage
of
quench
towers
by
baffles
is
unclear
and
that
coverage
cannot
be
measured.
Another
commenter
stated
that
the
95
percent
coverage
requirement
is
too
lenient
and
will
allow
the
release
of
significant
emissions.
The
commenter
noted
that
two
layer
baffles
which
cause
two
changes
in
flow
direction
have
been
installed
and
successfully
used
at
coke
plants
in
Allegheny
County,
Pennsylvania.
Several
commenters
stated
that
it
is
difficult
or
impossible
to
wash
and
repair
baffles
in
cold
and
inclement
weather
because
water
lines
freeze
and
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
14:
38
Apr
11,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00011
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
14APR3.
SGM
14APR3
18018
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
71
/
Monday,
April
14,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
severe
weather
makes
the
process
dangerous.
One
commenter
said
the
company
does
not
allow
work
on
the
quench
tower
during
freezing
weather
due
to
safety
concerns.
One
commenter
recommended
that
baffles
be
cleaned
daily
or
as
often
as
weather
conditions
allow
and
that
repair
of
damaged
or
missing
baffles
be
initiated
within
30
days
and
completed
as
soon
as
practicable.
Materials
needed
for
repair
are
not
always
available
in
a
short
time
frame.
Three
commenters
said
that
their
experience
indicates
that
monthly
cleaning
of
baffles
is
adequate
and
added
that
additional
cleaning
should
be
performed
if
the
upward
flow
of
the
steam
plume
is
obstructed.
These
commenters
also
noted
that
it
may
not
be
possible
to
complete
repairs
to
damaged
baffles
prior
to
the
next
scheduled
monthly
inspection
and
suggested
that
a
requirement
to
initiate
repairs
prior
to
the
next
inspection
is
more
appropriate.
Two
commenters
noted
that
some
plants
have
backup
quench
stations
that
are
used
when
the
primary
quench
tower
is
unavailable
because
of
maintenance
or
malfunction.
These
backup
stations
are
used
only
a
small
amount
of
the
time,
and
they
are
not
designed
to
capture
quenching
emissions
(
i.
e.,
they
have
no
stacks
or
baffles).
Both
commenters
requested
that
EPA
clarify
that
backup
quench
stations
are
not
subject
to
the
requirements
for
baffles.
Response:
We
agree
with
the
comment
that
baffles
reduce
PM
emissions.
In
addition,
we
believe
that
baffles
also
reduce
the
emission
of
HAP
metal
compounds
contained
in
the
particles
of
grit
released,
as
well
as
semivolatile
and
VOC
such
as
polycyclic
aromatic
hydrocarbons
(
PAH)
and
benzene,
when
green
coke
is
quenched.
Semivolatile
organic
compounds
evolve
from
green
coke
and
condense
to
form
fine
PM
or
condense
on
other
particles
during
the
quenching
process.
Consequently,
baffles
reduce
emissions
of
both
metal
and
organic
HAP.
To
clarify
the
provision
for
95
percent
coverage,
we
revised
the
coverage
requirement
to
read
that
no
more
than
5
percent
of
the
cross
sectional
area
of
the
quench
tower
can
be
exposed
to
the
sky
when
viewed
from
below.
We
understand
there
are
several
different
designs
and
configurations
used
for
baffles.
However,
there
are
many
different
factors
that
affect
emissions
from
quench
towers.
For
example,
it
is
likely
that
the
design
of
the
quench
tower
affects
the
level
of
emission
control
and
may
also
affect
the
choice
of
baffle
type
and
configuration.
Consequently,
we
do
not
believe
it
is
appropriate
to
prescribe
in
the
final
rule
the
use
of
a
particular
baffle
type
or
design
and
have
provided
the
flexibility
for
the
owner
or
operator
to
make
this
determination.
However,
all
types
of
baffles
must
have
adequate
coverage
to
provide
effective
emission
control
for
quench
towers.
We
believe
requirements
for
daily
cleaning,
monthly
inspection,
and
prompt
repair
of
damaged
baffles
are
reasonable
and
necessary
to
ensure
that
they
are
well
maintained.
These
practices
are
common
at
many
coke
plants,
and
the
frequencies
are
based
on
industry
responses
to
a
nationwide
survey.
However,
we
agree
that
repairing
baffles
during
inclement
weather
conditions
is
a
personnel
safety
issue.
We
also
agree
that
there
may
be
operational
problems
when
baffles
are
washed
during
freezing
weather.
Consequently,
we
revised
the
requirement
to
wash
baffles
daily
to
allow
daily
washing
to
be
suspended
when
the
highest
measured
ambient
temperature
throughout
the
day
is
less
than
30
degrees
Fahrenheit.
We
understand
that
the
time
needed
for
repair
can
vary
depending
on
the
extent
of
repair
needed
and
the
availability
of
materials.
Therefore,
we
have
written
the
final
rule
to
require
that
the
repair
of
damaged
or
missing
baffles
be
initiated
within
30
days
and
that
the
repairs
be
completed
as
soon
as
practicable.
We
gathered
information
on
the
use
of
backup
quench
stations
by
surveying
coke
plants.
A
total
of
nine
coke
plants
among
the
12
responding
to
the
survey
have
13
backup
quench
stations.
Only
one
of
these
13
backup
quench
stations
is
equipped
with
baffles,
and
the
stations
are
typically
used
less
than
5
percent
of
the
time.
Based
on
the
information
we
received,
we
conclude
that
MACT
for
backup
quench
stations
at
existing
coke
oven
batteries
does
not
include
the
installation
of
baffles.
We
have
specified
in
the
final
rule
our
subcategorization
of
backup
quench
stations,
and
we
have
defined
this
subcategory
as
those
quench
stations
that
are
used
for
less
than
5
percent
of
quenches
for
any
coke
oven
battery
in
any
12­
month
period.
However,
the
best­
controlled
similar
source
has
baffles
in
the
backup
quench
station.
Consequently,
the
requirements
for
installing,
inspecting,
cleaning,
and
repairing
baffles
applies
to
backup
quench
stations
at
new
batteries.
In
addition,
the
TDS
limit
applies
to
backup
quench
stations
because
the
existing
State
limits
we
used
to
determine
the
MACT
floor
apply
to
quench
water,
whether
it
is
used
in
regular
quench
towers
or
backup
quench
stations.
There
is
no
reason
to
permit
the
use
of
higher
TDS
levels
for
quenching
merely
because
a
backup
quench
station
is
used.

E.
What
Were
the
Major
Comments
on
the
Proposed
Standard
for
Battery
Stacks?

Comment:
One
commenter
stated
that
EPA
has
not
adequately
subcategorized
batteries
in
developing
the
MACT
for
battery
stacks,
and
that
the
EPA
should
have
distinguished
among
short
and
tall
batteries,
pulse­
fired
batteries,
batteries
using
preheated
coal,
batteries
of
older
design,
and
foundry
coke
batteries
that
are
consistently
operated
at
longer
coking
times.
The
commenter
also
stated
that
each
battery
is
unique
with
respect
to
the
factors
that
affect
battery
stack
emissions.
Consequently,
the
O&
M
program
required
to
control
these
emissions
differs
from
battery
to
battery.
The
factors
affecting
emissions
include
the
age
and
condition
of
the
battery's
refractory,
the
condition
of
the
stack
canal,
the
battery
design,
sealing
carbon,
coal
properties
and
coke
specifications,
and
the
design
and
efficiency
of
the
byproduct
recovery
plant.
Response:
We
disagree
with
the
commenter
that
we
have
not
subcategorized
batteries
adequately
in
establishing
performance
standards
for
battery
stacks.
Our
current
database
shows
that
the
proposed
opacity
limits
have
been
achieved
on
a
continuing
basis
by
numerous
batteries
with
a
variety
of
physical
and
operational
differences.
We
do
not
believe
that
more
subcategories
are
needed
beyond
those
in
the
proposed
rule.
At
proposal,
we
had
months
of
COMS
data
demonstrating
that
the
limits
for
by­
product
batteries
had
been
achieved
by
ten
of
the
46
by­
product
batteries.
After
proposal,
we
obtained
data
for
six
additional
batteries
that
also
achieve
the
proposed
limits.
In
total,
we
have
13
months
of
data
for
each
of
five
batteries,
18
months
of
data
for
each
of
eight
batteries,
and
12,
50,
and
65
months
of
data
for
each
of
three
batteries.
Our
database
now
covers
35
percent
of
all
by­
product
batteries,
spanning
all
types
and
ages
and
covering
all
seasons
of
the
year.
Among
the
16
batteries
demonstrated
to
have
achieved
the
proposed
MACT
opacity
limits
are
short
and
tall
batteries,
furnace
and
foundry
coke
batteries,
and
batteries
with
gun
flue
and
under
jet
underfiring
systems.
Also
included
are
batteries
that
use
pulse
firing,
preheated
coal,
and
underfiring
gas
with
and
without
desulfurization.
They
range
in
age
from
8
to
46
years.

VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
14:
38
Apr
11,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00012
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
14APR3.
SGM
14APR3
18019
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
71
/
Monday,
April
14,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
2
While,
in
the
proposal,
we
described
this
as
a
``
technology
approach''
and
referred
to
good
O&
M
as
the
``
MACT
technology,''
these
were
merely
short
hand
references
for
EPA's
detailed
analysis
of
the
measures
employed
by
best
facilities
to
achieve
the
greatest
degree
of
emissions
reductions.
In
fact,
the
emission
limit
for
battery
stacks
is
based
on
the
level
of
performance
that
the
best
existing
sources
consistently
achieve,
as
demonstrated
by
actual
emission
test
data
(
in
the
form
of
COMS
readings).
We
examined
the
data
to
determine
if
subcategories
are
needed
for
different
battery
designs
as
mentioned
by
the
commenter.
We
could
find
no
difference
in
performance
levels
achieved
by
short
vs.
tall
batteries,
under
jet
vs.
gun
flue,
furnace
vs.
foundry
coke,
or
the
other
factors
mentioned
by
the
commenter.
We
found
a
difference
in
performance
when
batteries
are
placed
on
extended
coking,
which
reduces
sealing
carbon
on
the
oven
walls.
Consequently,
we
developed
a
separate
emission
limit
for
batteries
on
extended
coking.
We
also
acknowledge
that
batteries
operating
routinely
on
coking
cycles
that
are
longer
than
that
for
which
they
are
designed
could
qualify
as
extended
coking.
To
accommodate
this,
we
have
revised
the
definition
for
``
batterywide
extended
coking''
to
mean
increasing
the
average
coking
time
for
all
ovens
in
a
battery
by
25
percent
or
more
over
the
manufacturer's
design
rate.
Comment:
One
commenter
stated
that
EPA
must
develop
a
work
practice
standard
for
battery
stacks
because
it
is
not
feasible
to
set
performance
standards.
The
commenter
noted
that
EPA
uses
three
approaches
to
determine
MACT
floors
(
emissions
data,
existing
emission
limits
from
State
regulations
or
operating
permits,
or
technology).
We
used
the
technology
approach
for
battery
stacks.
The
commenter
believes
that
the
use
of
a
technology
approach
for
battery
stacks
is
inappropriate
because
the
technology
is
not
an
air
pollution
control
device
but
is
good
O&
M.
The
commenter
further
states
that
good
O&
M
results
in
widely
varying
degrees
of
emission
control.
Good
O&
M
is
not
a
``
technology''
for
the
purposes
of
applying
the
technology
approach
because,
unlike
an
add­
on
control
device,
good
O&
M
cannot
be
associated
with
specific
emission
control
levels
at
different
batteries.
The
only
way
to
establish
a
floor
for
battery
stacks
is
to
use
actual
emissions
data.
However,
EPA
does
not
have
enough
emissions
data
to
subcategorize
batteries
adequately
or
to
characterize
performance
over
time
and
under
the
worst
foreseeable
operating
conditions.
The
commenter
provided
details
for
a
suggested
work
practice
program
for
battery
stacks.
The
program
would
be
implemented
when
a
daily
average
opacity
trigger
is
exceeded.
The
commenter
suggests
that
the
values
EPA
proposed
for
the
emission
limits
(
15
percent
for
normal
coking
time
and
20
percent
for
extended
coking
time)
be
used
as
the
triggers.
The
work
practice
program
would
include
requirements
for
worker
training
as
well
as
procedures
for
controlling
oven
to
flue
leakage,
including
diagnostic
procedures
for
identifying
problem
ovens
and
a
list
of
corrective
actions.
Response:
The
EPA
established
the
MACT
floor
for
battery
stacks
by
identifying
the
level
of
performance
consistently
achieved
by
the
bestperforming
units.
Because
units
in
this
category
currently
do
not
use
add­
on
control
devices
to
reduce
stack
emissions,
we
looked
at
other
measures
employed
by
existing
facilities
in
order
to
identify
the
best­
performing
units.
Specifically,
we
looked
at
equipment,
work
practices,
and
operational
factors
that
reduce
emissions
at
existing
facilities.
We
identified
good
systematic
operation
and
maintenance,
along
with
operation
of
COMS
to
monitor
stack
opacity,
as
the
most
important
factors
affecting
the
level
of
emissions
from
coke
oven
battery
stacks.
In
fact,
we
determined
that
all
of
the
bestperforming
batteries
employ
measures
that
have
the
same
basic
features,
including
COMS
monitoring
to
identify
problems,
ongoing
systematic
maintenance
of
oven
walls,
and
procedures
for
prompt
and
efficient
repair
of
damaged
ovens.
We
also
identified,
based
on
the
large
amount
of
available
COMS
data,
the
level
of
performance
that
units
employing
such
measures
are
consistently
achieving.
Therefore,
this
approach
identifies
what
is
being
done
at
existing
facilities
to
reduce
coke
oven
emissions
from
battery
stacks
and
correlates
those
control
activities
to
a
specific
level
of
performance.
Because
a
sufficient
number
of
units
in
the
category
are
employing
these
control
strategies
and
achieving
the
identified
emissions
limitation,
this
limit
is
MACT
for
existing
sources.
2
Contrary
to
the
commenter's
assertion,
there
is
no
basis
to
conclude
that
any
existing
battery,
with
appropriate
repairs,
monitoring
and
maintenance,
would
be
unable
to
achieve
a
similar
level
of
control.
Therefore,
it
was
reasonable
here
for
EPA
to
use
this
approach
to
identify
the
best
units
and
to
establish
emission
limits
based
on
the
performance
of
those
units.
Because
the
opacity
data
used
to
establish
the
emissions
limits
are,
in
fact,
representative
of
what
a
well
operated
coke
oven
battery
can
achieve
(
with
comprehensive
O&
M,
continuous
monitoring,
and
an
efficient
repair
program),
it
is
not
only
reasonable
but
required
that
EPA
establish
such
a
limit.
Because
these
emissions
are
emitted
through
a
stack,
can
be
measured,
and
could
be
captured
and
controlled
with
the
application
of
available
emission
control
technologies,
it
would
not
be
appropriate
for
EPA
to
establish
a
work
practice
standard
in
lieu
of
an
emissions
standard.
Thus,
the
CAA
requires
us
to
develop
an
emission
standard
in
this
case
because
a
work
practice
standard
is
allowed
in
lieu
of
an
emission
standard
only
if
it
is
not
feasible
to
prescribe
or
enforce
an
emission
standard.
The
primary
factor
affecting
battery
stack
emissions
is
the
condition
of
oven
walls.
Batteries
that
are
well
maintained
can
achieve
the
MACT
limits.
When
the
walls
are
allowed
to
deteriorate
and
cracks
occur,
coke
oven
emissions
escape
through
the
cracks
into
the
underfiring
system
and
lead
to
high
stack
opacity.
Another
important
factor
in
meeting
the
proposed
limit
is
using
COMS
for
diagnostic
purposes.
When
an
opacity
spike
occurs,
the
last
oven
charged
can
be
identified
and
corrective
actions
can
be
made
to
repair
the
oven.
High
stack
opacity
may
on
occasion
be
caused
by
combustion
problems,
which
also
result
in
HAP
emissions.
However,
these
are
easily
remedied
by
proper
adjustment
and
operation
of
the
underfiring
system.
We
identified
batteries
with
good
O&
M
practices,
and
we
collected
opacity
data
from
their
COMS
to
characterize
the
level
of
control
they
have
achieved.
As
discussed
earlier,
these
batteries
are
representative
of
the
types
currently
operating,
and
aside
from
the
effect
of
extended
coking,
we
found
no
basis
to
develop
additional
subcategories.
The
opacity
limits
identified
as
MACT
have
been
achieved
by
these
different
types
of
batteries
by
using
good
O&
M
procedures.
The
performance
level
associated
with
the
floor
has
been
demonstrated
as
achievable
and
is
representative
of
the
performance
of
the
top
performing
sources.
We
agree
that
a
good
work
practice
program
is
essential
to
maintain
control
of
battery
stack
emissions
and
that
we
derived
the
emission
limits
based
on
the
best­
controlled
batteries
which
have
such
programs.
However,
a
work
practice
standard
alone
would
not
ensure
that
battery
stacks
are
well
maintained
on
a
continuing
basis.
In
contrast,
a
performance
standard
will
ensure
that
battery
stack
emissions
are
well
controlled
and
allows
plant
owners
or
operators
the
flexibility
to
implement
a
site­
specific
program
appropriate
for
their
operation.
In
addition,
we
are
obligated
under
the
CAA
to
set
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
14:
38
Apr
11,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00013
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
14APR3.
SGM
14APR3
18020
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
71
/
Monday,
April
14,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
numerical
emission
limitations
unless
it
is
infeasible,
and
we
must
prescribe
requirements
for
continuous
monitoring
whenever
possible.
Moreover,
we
have
battery
stack
emissions
data
for
16
batteries
that
cover
many
months
of
operation.
Comment:
Two
commenters
claimed
that
EPA
arbitrarily
and
improperly
excluded
critical
COMS
data.
Specifically,
3
years
of
data
were
excluded
for
Battery
1
at
Bethlehem
Steel,
Burns
Harbor,
and
all
of
the
data
for
U.
S.
Steel
Gary
Works
were
excluded.
The
commenter
said
that
EPA
excluded
the
Burns
Harbor
data
because
end
flue
repairs
were
suspended
in
1994,
but
noted
that
twice
as
many
end
flue
repairs
were
made
in
1993
and
after
1994
than
in
previous
years.
The
commenter
said
that
EPA
excluded
the
Gary
Works
data
because
they
do
not
represent
periods
of
good
systematic
O&
M.
The
commenter
further
stated
that
the
data
for
two
tall
batteries
at
Gary
Works
should
be
included
because
they
represent
the
battery's
performance
prior
to
a
$
150
million
program
of
end
flue
and
through
wall
repair.
There
is
no
basis
for
excluding
these
data,
and
EPA
must
account
for
all
operating
periods
(
other
than
startups,
shutdowns,
and
malfunctions)
to
accurately
reflect
a
source's
performance
under
the
most
adverse
operating
conditions
over
time.
The
commenter
provided
details
on
periods
of
startup,
shut
down,
and
malfunction
events
that
occurred
during
31
days
of
the
2
years
of
data
for
Gary
Works.
The
commenter
concluded
that
EPA
must
include
all
of
the
data
for
Battery
1
at
Burns
Harbor
and
the
data
for
Gary
Works
(
except
for
the
31
days
they
identified)
in
the
MACT
floor
analysis.
Another
commenter
asked
that
all
of
the
data
supplied
for
Battery
1
at
Burns
Harbor
be
included
in
the
analysis
because
it
represents
consistent
operating
practices
over
the
period.
Response:
We
strongly
disagree
that
our
exclusion
of
certain
COMS
data
was
inappropriate.
The
data
that
we
did
not
use
were
not
generated
at
a
facility
while
it
was
implementing
an
effective
O&
M
program.
We
explained
that
the
data
for
Battery
1
at
Burns
Harbor
collected
in
the
early
1990'
s
do
not
represent
proper
MACT
level
O&
M
because
repairs
were
decreased
to
maintain
production
while
adjacent
Battery
2
was
being
rebuilt.
The
data
clearly
show
that
abandoning
repairs
increased
opacity,
which
averaged
8.1
percent
prior
to
1996
and
4.8
percent
afterwards.
It
is
also
apparent
that
the
earlier
data
show
high
opacity
spikes
(
daily
averages
of
35
to
40
percent)
that
are
indicative
of
damaged
oven
walls
and
clearly
show
that
good
O&
M
practices
were
not
in
place.
By
definition,
good
O&
M
means
that
the
opacity
spikes
identified
by
the
COMS
would
have
been
investigated,
problems
diagnosed,
and
repairs
made.
When
repairs
were
resumed
and
better
O&
M
procedures
were
followed,
the
daily
average
opacity
was
consistently
maintained
below
15
percent
for
subsequent
months.
We
have
50
consecutive
months
of
data
for
Battery
1
showing
that
it
achieves
the
MACT
emission
limit
on
a
continuing
basis.
In
addition,
these
are
the
most
recent
data
which
indicate
that
the
battery
has
improved
with
age
rather
than
deteriorated
with
age.
It
is
obvious
that
the
measures
taken
in
the
early
1990s
to
maintain
oven
walls
were
not
the
same
as
those
taken
in
subsequent
years,
and
this
has
been
confirmed
by
company
data
that
show
no
end
flue
repairs
in
1994.
A
similar
situation
exists
at
U.
S.
Steel
Gary
Works.
We
obtained
documentation
from
the
company
that
shows
that
batteries
were
not
employing
good
O&
M
during
high
opacity
events.
Equipment
malfunction
or
untimely
repair
was
the
cause
of
most
exceedances
during
that
time
period.
However,
subsequent
events
confirm
that
oven
repairs
and
good
systematic
O&
M
resulted
in
batteries
achieving
the
emission
limit.
After
a
$
150
million
program
of
end
flue
and
through
wall
repairs,
the
four
batteries
at
Gary
Works
have
improved
performance
significantly
and
can
meet
the
battery
stack
limit.
We
have
COMS
data
for
13
recent
months
that
show
the
four
batteries
have
achieved
the
MACT
level
of
control.
Moreover,
these
batteries
also
show
improved
performance
rather
than
deterioration
as
they
age.
Comment:
One
commenter
stated
that
EPA's
emission
estimates
for
battery
stacks
are
based
on
a
flawed
correlation
between
opacity
and
HAP.
The
commenter
said
that
no
correlation
exists
because
high
opacity
can
be
caused
by
situations
that
do
not
indicate
the
presence
of
HAP,
such
as
poor
or
incomplete
combustion
and
the
presence
of
sulfates.
The
commenter
noted
that
the
data
from
two
EPA
tests
(
ABC
Coke
and
Bethlehem
Steel,
Burns
Harbor)
show
no
correlation
between
opacity
and
PAH,
extractable
organics,
or
metal
HAP.
The
commenter
concluded
that
EPA
has
not
met
its
burden
of
demonstrating
that
opacity
is
a
reasonable
surrogate
for
HAP
emissions.
Response:
It
is
well
established
that
opacity
is
directly
correlated
with
the
concentration
of
particles
in
emissions.
Our
tests
have
shown
that
the
particles
emitted
during
coke
oven
pushing
contain
HAP
compounds,
including
POM
and
metals.
Higher
opacities
mean
a
higher
concentration
of
particles
and
therefore
higher
concentrations
of
HAP.
The
correlation
of
opacity
and
HAP
is
also
supported
by
the
common
industry
practice
of
using
COMS
to
detect
leaks
in
oven
walls.
Coke
oven
gas
escapes
from
ovens
with
cracked
or
damaged
walls
and
results
in
increased
battery
stack
opacity.
These
coke
oven
emissions
that
are
detected
with
the
COMS
are
a
listed
HAP.
The
two
batteries
that
we
tested
had
very
low
opacities
(
2
to
5
percent),
and
it
is
not
possible
to
develop
a
clear
correlation
over
such
a
narrow
range.
The
emissions
from
these
wellcontrolled
batteries
are
not
representative
of
batteries
that
have
high
opacity
emissions
from
their
battery
stacks.
Infrequently,
higher
opacity
occurs
because
of
combustion
problems
which
result
in
the
formation
of
products
of
incomplete
combustion
that
also
contain
HAP.
For
example,
such
emissions
contain
a
variety
of
PAH
such
as
benzo(
a)
pyrene.
All
the
available
data
related
to
poor
performing
batteries,
including
the
available
emissions
data
and
the
historical
use
of
COMS
to
detect
coke
oven
emissions,
indicate
that
coke
oven
emissions
can
be
appropriately
identified
by
looking
at
opacity.
Therefore,
limiting
opacity
is
an
appropriate
mechanism
for
limiting
such
emissions
from
coke
oven
battery
stacks.
Comment:
Two
commenters
stated
that
COMS
should
be
used
for
diagnostic
purposes
only
and
not
as
an
enforcement
tool.
One
commenter
cited
an
industry
survey
that
identified
26
COMS
used
on
27
batteries
and
stated
that
they
are
used
as
a
diagnostic
tool.
Most
of
these
COMS
are
no
longer
commercially
available
and
cannot
meet
EPA's
PS
1
requirements.
Consequently,
it
is
inappropriate
to
use
data
generated
by
these
COMS
to
set
standards
or
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
an
opacity
limit.
Another
commenter
also
stated
that
the
COMS
do
not
meet
PS
1
requirements
and
added
that
EPA
should
not
base
emission
limits
on
data
that
were
collected
by
methods
less
stringent
than
those
that
will
be
used
to
determine
compliance.
One
commenter
noted
that
there
are
demonstrated
inaccuracies
that
make
COMS
unreliable
at
opacity
levels
below
10
percent.
This
is
important
because
battery
stack
opacity
is
below
5
percent
most
of
the
time
at
virtually
all
batteries,
so
a
large
number
of
unreliable
data
points
would
be
averaged
with
fewer
reliable
data
points
to
calculate
the
daily
average
opacity.
Another
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
14:
38
Apr
11,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00014
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
14APR3.
SGM
14APR3
18021
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
71
/
Monday,
April
14,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
commenter
stated
that
COMS
readings
are
inaccurate
and
that
only
opacity
data
generated
by
Method
9
observations
should
be
used
to
determine
compliance.
Response:
We
proposed
a
performance
standard
for
battery
stacks
in
the
form
of
an
opacity
limit.
The
COMS
have
been
well
established
as
the
preferred
method
to
show
continuous
compliance
with
an
opacity
limit.
The
data
we
collected
from
the
U.
S.
Steel
batteries
at
Clairton
and
the
more
recent
data
from
the
new
COMS
installed
at
U.
S.
Steel
Gary
Works
were
from
devices
that
meet
PS
1
requirements.
Moreover,
while
we
agree
that
COMS
are
subject
to
greater
imprecision
at
low
opacity,
this
imprecision
is
inherent
in
the
data
we
used
to
develop
the
opacity
limits;
therefore,
these
limits
already
account
for
this
imprecision.
Additionally,
the
limits
have
been
shown
to
be
achievable
by
numerous
batteries
over
time.
Consequently,
we
believe
that
COMS
are
an
appropriate
tool
for
enforcement
of
the
standard
that
was
based
on
data
collected
by
COMS.
We
do
agree
with
the
commenter
that
COMS
should
also
be
used
for
diagnostic
purposes.
A
COMS
is
an
important
part
of
good
systematic
O&
M
that
we
identified
as
the
MACT
floor
technology.
The
COMS
will
provide
information
on
problem
ovens
in
need
of
repair,
and
diagnostic
procedures
coupled
with
corrective
action
will
provide
good
control
of
HAP
emissions
from
battery
stacks.
We
do
not
believe
observations
by
Method
9
should
be
used
to
determine
compliance.
A
COMS
provides
data
in
a
more
timely
manner,
monitors
emissions
continuously,
and
is
the
only
reasonable
way
to
collect
enough
data
to
determine
a
daily
average
opacity.

F.
What
Changes
Did
We
Make
to
the
Requirements
for
Soaking?
Comment:
Several
commenters
requested
that
we
remove
the
soaking
work
practice
and
recordkeeping
requirements
from
the
final
rule.
They
claim
that
soaking
emissions
cannot
be
considered
as
part
of
the
rule
because
they
were
addressed
in
the
1993
negotiated
coke
ovens:
Charging,
topside,
and
door
leaks
NESHAP
(
40
CFR
part
63,
subpart
L),
which
addressed
charging
emissions
and
emissions
from
leaking
topside
port
lids,
offtake
systems,
and
doors.
The
commenters
state
that
the
1993
coke
ovens:
charging,
topside,
and
door
leaks
NESHAP
allow
up
to
three
ovens
to
be
dampered
off
the
main
and
not
counted
when
determining
daily
compliance
with
the
offtake
system(
s)
standard,
and
as
a
result,
are
specifically
addressed
in
the
previous
negotiated
coke
ovens:
charging,
topside,
and
door
leaks
NESHAP.
Two
commenters
expressed
support
for
the
proposed
soaking
standards.
Response:
Soaking
emissions
were
not
specifically
addressed
in
the
regulatory
negotiations
for
the
coke
ovens:
charging,
topside,
and
door
leaks
NESHAP.
The
emissions
points
that
were
negotiated
include
charging,
topside
port
lid
leaks,
offtake
system(
s)
leaks,
door
leaks,
and
bypass
or
bleeder
stacks.
For
offtake
systems,
the
coke
ovens:
charging,
topside,
and
door
leaks
NESHAP
limit
the
percent
allowed
to
leak
during
the
coking
cycle.
The
only
discussion
regarding
soaking
is
a
clarification
in
the
test
method
about
whether
open
standpipes
on
ovens
dampered
off
the
main
would
be
counted
as
offtake
leaks.
There
was
no
discussion
of
the
voluminous
emissions
that
can
occur
when
the
standpipes
are
opened
on
an
oven
containing
green
coke
and
the
emissions
do
not
ignite.
We
believe
soaking
emissions
are
part
of
the
pushing
operation
because
they
occur
when
the
oven
is
taken
off
the
collecting
main
in
preparation
for
pushing.
These
emissions
should
be
addressed
by
the
MACT
standards
because
they
have
not
been
addressed
previously
by
EPA,
they
are
a
source
of
coke
oven
emissions
(
a
listed
HAP),
and
reasonable
control
measures
are
available
to
reduce
emissions.
Comment:
Two
commenters
requested
an
alternative
work
practice
requirement
for
soaking
emissions
instead
of
the
proposed
requirement
that
the
emissions
be
ignited.
Because
soaking
emissions
are
often
not
readily
ignitable,
several
commenters
noted
the
potential
danger
involved
in
the
proposed
requirement
to
ignite
open
standpipes
since
the
flame
is
often
invisible
and
igniting
the
emissions
could
cause
serious
injury
if
the
person
igniting
the
flame
doesn't
see
it
or
is
standing
downwind
from
the
standpipe.
Several
commenters
stated
that
the
proposed
requirement
carries
an
enormous
administrative
burden
associated
with
the
tracking,
recording,
and
documenting
the
lighting
off
of
standpipes.
One
commenter
said
that
any
benefits
associated
with
the
proposed
soaking
requirements
are
far
outweighed
by
the
administrative
costs.
Response:
After
the
close
of
the
comment
period,
we
visited
several
coke
plants
specifically
to
observe
and
discuss
soaking
emissions.
We
determined
visible
emissions
from
soaking
stem
from
two
causes:
leaks
from
the
collecting
main
(
i.
e.,
the
standpipe
is
not
completely
sealed
from
the
main)
and
incomplete
coking
(``
green''
coke).
The
cause
of
emissions
can
be
determined
by
introducing
a
small
amount
of
aspirating
steam/
liquor
into
the
standpipe.
If
this
stops
the
emissions,
the
cause
of
emissions
is
a
leak
from
the
collecting
main.
Corrective
actions
from
collecting
main
leaks
include
reseating
the
damper
dish,
cleaning
the
flushing
liquor
distribution
piping,
or
leaving
the
aspirating
steam
or
liquor
cracked
on.
If
introducing
aspirating
steam/
liquor
does
not
stop
the
emissions,
the
cause
is
incomplete
coking.
Further
investigation
(
for
example,
by
opening
charging
lids
and
observing
the
coke
mass)
will
determine
if
the
entire
charge
or
only
a
small
portion
is
undercoked.
Emissions
from
incomplete
coking
(
e.
g.,
from
a
cold
spot)
can
be
ignited
by
partially
or
fully
removing
the
oven
lid
nearest
the
standpipe,
cracking
open
and
then
closing
an
adjacent
standpipe
cap,
partially
opening
the
opposite
aspirating
steam
valve
for
a
short
time
on
a
dual
main
battery,
or
manually
igniting
emissions.
In
light
of
our
increased
understanding
of
soaking
emissions
and
their
causes
and
remedies,
we
have
replaced
the
proposed
requirements
for
soaking
with
a
more
comprehensive
work
practice
requirement.
If
there
are
visible
emissions
from
a
standpipe
during
soaking,
plant
personnel
must
immediately
investigate
the
cause
and
take
corrective
action.
Work
practices
are
triggered
by
visible
emissions
from
standpipes
that
do
not
ignite
automatically.
These
work
practices
include
eliminating
soaking
emissions
that
result
from
leaks
from
the
collecting
main
and
either
igniting
the
emissions
or
continuing
coking
if
they
are
caused
by
incomplete
coking.
We
understand
that
there
are
times
when
igniting
standpipes
can
be
dangerous.
If
flames
are
invisible
(
i.
e.,
there
are
no
visible
emissions
from
the
standpipe),
there
is
no
need
to
attempt
ignition.
If
there
are
visible
emissions
that
do
not
automatically
ignite,
several
things
can
be
done
to
encourage
selfignition
such
as
partially
or
fully
removing
the
oven
lid
nearest
the
standpipe,
cracking
open
and
then
closing
an
adjacent
standpipe
cap,
or
partially
opening
the
opposite
aspirating
steam
valve
for
a
short
time
on
a
dual
main
battery.
We
know
of
at
least
one
plant
with
three
batteries
that
require
their
workers
to
manually
ignite
emissions
when
they
do
not
ignite
automatically.
Devices
are
available
to
ignite
these
emissions
safely
and
at
a
reasonable
distance
from
the
open
standpipe.
The
work
practice
standard
requires
owners
or
operators
to
train
workers
in
the
procedures
to
reduce
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
14:
38
Apr
11,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00015
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
14APR3.
SGM
14APR3
18022
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
71
/
Monday,
April
14,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
soaking
emissions,
and
each
plant
should
address
all
aspects
of
safety.
We
do
not
believe
that
the
revised
standard
jeopardizes
the
safety
of
plant
workers.
We
agree
with
the
commenters
that
the
proposed
standard
would
have
imposed
unnecessary
administrative
burdens
related
to
soaking
emissions.
Accordingly,
we
have
eliminated
the
requirement
to
document
the
ignition
of
soaking
emissions
every
time
an
oven
is
dampered
off
the
main.
Instead,
plant
owners
or
operators
must
prepare
and
operate
at
all
times
according
to
a
written
work
practice
plan
for
soaking.

G.
What
Changes
Did
We
Make
to
the
O&
M
Requirements?
Comment:
Several
commenters
suggested
changes
to
the
general
batterywide
O&
M
plan.
One
comment
was
to
delete
the
requirement
to
measure
or
compute
the
air:
fuel
ratio.
They
noted
that
the
air:
fuel
ratio
is
not
normally
measured,
and
it
would
be
impractical
to
do
so
given
that
it
would
require
flow
measurements
of
every
oven's
air
box
and
gas
orifice
to
calculate
the
air:
fuel
ratio.
Another
commenter
asked
that
the
requirement
for
procedures
to
prevent
pushing
an
oven
out
of
sequence
be
deleted.
The
commenter
argued
that
any
oven
placed
on
extended
coking
would
of
necessity
be
pushed
out
of
sequence.
Another
comment
was
to
delete
the
requirement
for
procedures
to
prevent
undercharging
an
oven
because
it
has
no
effect
on
emissions.
In
addition,
procedures
for
measuring
the
volume
of
coal
are
not
appropriate
because
many
plants
calculate
coal
volume
rather
than
measure
it.
Response:
We
agree
that
it
may
be
impractical
to
measure
air:
fuel
ratio
since
it
is
a
calculated
value
at
most
plants.
Different
parameters
may
be
monitored
at
different
plants
to
ensure
the
underfiring
system
is
operating
properly.
Consequently,
we
have
written
the
final
rule
to
require
that
the
O&
M
plan
include
the
frequency
and
method
of
recording
underfiring
gas
parameters.
We
are
also
clarifying
the
pushing
an
oven
out
of
sequence
requirement.
Our
intent
is
to
prevent
an
oven
from
being
pushed
ahead
of
schedule
before
it
is
fully
coked.
We
have
added
language
to
the
final
rule
that
clarifies
this
intent.
Relative
to
undercharging
an
oven,
we
disagree
with
the
commenter
that
undercharging
does
not
produce
emissions.
Our
research
and
discussions
with
coke
plant
operators
indicate
that
undercharging
an
oven
can
produce
excess
carbon
on
oven
walls,
which
can
result
in
pushing
difficulties
and
excess
pushing
emissions.
Consequently,
we
are
retaining
the
requirements
for
procedures
to
prevent
both
undercharging
and
overcharging
ovens
in
the
work
plan.
We
understand
that
not
all
plant
owners
or
operators
measure
the
volume
of
coal;
some
calculate
the
volume
from
weight
and
bulk
density.
We
have
written
the
language
in
the
final
rule
to
require
procedures
for
determining
coal
volume
rather
than
the
measurement
of
coal
volume.

H.
Why
Did
We
Change
the
Compliance
Dates
for
Existing
Sources?

Comment:
Several
commenters
said
3
years
should
be
allowed
to
achieve
compliance.
They
note
that
we
provided
no
rationale
for
providing
for
only
2
years
to
comply
and
should
give
the
full
3
years
allowed
under
the
CAA.
Two
years
may
not
provide
enough
time
because
of
the
substantial
work
that
must
be
done
at
many
plants,
and
it
may
be
difficult
to
raise
the
necessary
capital
to
make
the
batteries
compliant.
Response:
The
CAA
requires
that
compliance
occur
as
expeditiously
as
practicable,
but
no
later
than
3
years
after
the
effective
date
of
the
standard.
(
See
CAA
section
112(
i)(
3).)
We
agree
with
the
commenters
that
many
batteries
will
require
extensive
repairs
in
order
to
comply
with
the
final
rule.
As
a
result,
we
have
written
the
final
rule
to
provide
the
3
years
allowed
under
the
CAA.
We
estimate
that
23
batteries
will
need
major
repairs
(
oven
patching,
endflues,
and
through
walls)
with
capital
costs
of
$
2.4
million
to
$
9.3
million
per
battery.
In
light
of
the
cost
and
time
required
to
complete
necessary
repairs
at
many
facilities,
we
believe
that
a
period
of
3
years
is
necessary
in
order
to
allow
sufficient
time
for
all
existing
facilities
to
meet
the
requirements
of
today's
final
rule.

IV.
Summary
of
Environmental,
Energy,
and
Economic
Impacts
A.
What
Are
the
Air
Emission
Reduction
Impacts?

Accurate
emission
estimates
are
difficult
to
make,
especially
for
fugitive
pushing
emissions.
When
green
pushes
occur,
most
of
the
organic
HAP
escape
the
capture
system
and
are
unmeasurable.
Our
estimate
for
pushing
emissions
is
based
on
our
best
estimates
of
the
capture
efficiency
and
frequency
of
green
pushes.
For
battery
stacks,
we
have
opacity
and
emissions
data
for
the
best­
controlled
batteries.
We
had
to
extrapolate
the
test
data
to
account
for
higher
emissions
from
batteries
with
higher
battery
stack
opacities.
At
the
proposal
stage,
we
estimated
that
coke
oven
emissions,
measured
as
methylene
chloride
extractable
organic
compounds
from
pushing,
quenching,
and
battery
stacks,
would
be
reduced
to
approximately
500
tpy
from
a
baseline
level
of
about
1,000
tpy.
However,
six
coke
plants
have
permanently
closed
since
proposal.
Our
current
best
estimate
is
that
baseline
emissions
of
680
tpy
will
be
reduced
to
390
tpy.
The
final
rule
will
also
significantly
reduce
emissions
of
other
HAP,
such
as
metals,
benzene,
toluene,
and
other
volatile
compounds
that
are
not
included
with
the
extractable
organics.
However,
we
do
not
have
a
reliable
means
of
estimating
the
overall
reductions
of
these
other
HAP
emissions.
Today's
final
rule
will
also
reduce
emissions
of
PM.

B.
What
Are
the
Cost
Impacts?
As
with
the
emission
estimates,
there
is
some
uncertainty
in
the
cost
estimates.
However,
we
obtained
data
from
the
best­
controlled
plants
for
their
emission
controls,
oven
repairs,
and
work
practices.
After
proposal,
we
collected
additional
information
on
the
extent
of
repairs
needed
and
their
costs.
We
then
applied
these
costs
to
those
batteries
that
we
project
would
be
impacted
by
the
rule
and
developed
revised
cost
estimates.
We
estimate
that
23
batteries
may
require
major
repairs
and
could
incur
aggregate
capital
costs
of
$
2.4
to
$
9.3
million
to
rebuild
ovens
to
meet
the
final
standards
for
pushing
and
battery
stacks.
Relative
to
add­
on
air
pollution
controls,
we
believe
that
three
batteries
will
have
to
install
baffles
in
their
quench
towers
to
control
quenching
emissions.
We
do
not
believe
that
any
plant
will
need
to
upgrade
or
install
new
control
devices
to
meet
the
final
PECD
standard.
Monitoring
is
also
an
important
component
of
MACT
and
the
cost
estimate.
Approximately
20
batteries
will
need
to
install
COMS
on
their
battery
stacks.
In
addition,
44
batteries
are
expected
to
incur
the
cost
of
visible
emissions
observers
for
daily
observation
of
pushing
emissions,
and
18
bag
leak
detection
systems
must
be
installed.
The
cost
of
control
and
monitoring
associated
with
the
above
measures
is
expected
to
result
in
nationwide
capital
costs
of
about
$
90
million
and
total
annualized
cost
of
$
20
million
per
year.

C.
What
Are
the
Economic
Impacts?
We
conducted
a
detailed
assessment
of
the
economic
impacts
associated
with
the
final
rule.
We
expect
the
compliance
costs
associated
with
the
final
rule
to
increase
the
price
of
coke,
steel
mill
products,
and
iron
castings
and
to
reduce
their
domestic
production
and
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
14:
38
Apr
11,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00016
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
14APR3.
SGM
14APR3
18023
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
71
/
Monday,
April
14,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
consumption.
We
project
the
market
price
of
furnace
coke
to
increase
by
almost
3
percent,
while
the
market
price
for
foundry
coke
should
remain
unchanged.
We
expect
domestic
production
of
furnace
coke
to
decline
by
348,000
tons,
or
3.9
percent.
For
foundry
coke,
we
expect
domestic
production
to
remain
unchanged.
In
terms
of
industry
impacts,
we
project
the
integrated
steel
producers
to
experience
a
slight
decrease
in
operating
profits,
which
reflects
increased
costs
of
furnace
coke
inputs
and
associated
reductions
in
revenues
from
producing
their
final
products.
Our
analysis
indicates
that
one
of
the
captive
batteries
may
stop
supplying
furnace
coke
to
the
open
market
but
will
continue
to
satisfy
internal
coke
requirements
for
integrated
steel
production.
Through
the
market
impacts
described
above,
the
final
rule
will
produce
impacts
within
the
merchant
segment.
We
project
merchant
plants
producing
furnace
coke
as
a
whole
to
experience
profit
increases
in
response
to
the
final
rule.
We
also
project
other
merchant
plants
producing
foundry
coke
and
some
integrated
steel
plants
to
lose
profits.
Furthermore,
the
economic
impact
analysis
indicates
that
two
of
the
13
merchant
batteries
producing
furnace
coke
are
at
risk
of
closure,
while
none
of
the
foundry
coke
producing
batteries
are
at
risk
of
closure.
For
more
information,
consult
the
economic
impact
analysis
supporting
the
final
rule.

D.
What
Are
the
Non­
Air
Environmental
and
Energy
Impacts?

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

V.
Statutory
and
Executive
Order
Reviews
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;
(
C)
Create
a
serious
inconsistency
or
otherwise
interfere
with
an
action
taken
or
planned
by
another
agency;
(
M)
Materially
alter
the
budgetary
impact
of
entitlement,
grants,
user
fees,
or
loan
programs
or
the
rights
and
obligations
of
recipients
thereof;
or
(
R)
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
final
rule
is
a
``
significant
regulatory
action''
because
it
may
raise
novel
legal
or
policy
issues.
As
such,
this
action
was
submitted
to
OMB
for
review.
Changes
made
in
response
to
OMB
suggestions
or
recommendations
will
be
documented
in
the
public
record.

B.
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
The
information
collection
requirements
in
the
final
rule
have
been
submitted
for
approval
to
OMB
under
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act,
44
U.
S.
C.
3501
et
seq.
An
information
collection
request
(
ICR)
document
has
been
prepared
by
EPA
(
ICR
No.
1995.02),
and
a
copy
may
be
obtained
from
Susan
Auby
by
mail
at
U.
S.
EPA,
Office
of
Environmental
Information,
Collection
Strategies
Division
(
2822T),
1200
Pennsylvania
Avenue,
Washington,
DC
20460,
by
e­
mail
at
auby.
susan@
epa.
gov,
or
by
calling
(
202)
566
 
1672.
A
copy
may
also
be
downloaded
off
the
Internet
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
icr.
The
information
requirements
are
not
enforceable
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
final
rule
requires
maintenance
inspections
of
control
devices,
two
types
of
written
plans
(
in
addition
to
the
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
plan
required
by
the
NESHAP
General
Provisions),
and
a
special
study
of
flue
temperatures
for
by­
product
coke
oven
batteries
with
horizontal
flues
(
with
notification
of
the
date
the
study
is
to
be
initiated).
Quarterly
reports
of
any
deviations
from
the
applicable
limits
for
battery
stacks
are
required,
with
semiannual
reports
for
other
affected
sources.
The
recordkeeping
requirements
require
only
the
specific
information
needed
to
determine
compliance.
The
annual
public
reporting
and
recordkeeping
burden
for
this
collection
of
information
(
averaged
over
the
first
3
years
after
April
14,
2003,
is
estimated
to
total
2,200
labor
hours
per
year
at
a
total
annual
cost
of
$
131,000.
This
estimate
includes
one­
time
performance
tests
and
reports,
preparation
and
submission
of
O&
M
plans,
and
a
special
study
of
flue
temperatures;
one­
time
purchase
and
installation
of
continuous
monitoring
systems;
one­
time
preparation
of
a
standard
operating
procedures
manual
for
baghouses;
onetime
preparation
of
a
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
plan,
notifications,
and
recordkeeping.
Total
capital/
startup
costs
associated
with
the
monitoring
requirements
over
the
3­
year
period
of
the
ICR
is
estimated
at
$
32,000
per
year,
with
operation
and
maintenance
costs
of
$
51,000
per
year.
Burden
means
the
total
time,
effort,
or
financial
resources
expended
by
persons
to
generate,
maintain,
retain,
or
disclose
or
provide
information
to
or
for
a
Federal
agency.
This
includes
the
time
needed
to
review
instructions;
develop,
acquire,
install,
and
utilize
technology
and
systems
for
the
purpose
of
collecting,
validating,
and
verifying
information;
adjust
the
existing
ways
to
comply
with
any
previously
applicable
instructions
and
requirements;
train
personnel
to
respond
to
a
collection
of
information;
search
existing
data
sources;
complete
and
review
the
collection
of
information;
and
transmit
or
otherwise
disclose
the
information.
An
Agency
may
not
conduct
or
sponsor,
and
a
person
is
not
required
to
respond
to,
a
collection
of
information
unless
it
displays
a
currently
valid
OMB
control
number.
The
OMB
control
number
for
EPA's
regulations
are
listed
in
40
CFR
part
9
and
48
CFR
chapter
15.

C.
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
The
EPA
has
determined
that
it
is
not
necessary
to
prepare
a
regulatory
flexibility
analysis
in
connection
with
the
final
rule.
The
EPA
has
also
determined
that
the
final
rule
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities.
For
purposes
of
assessing
the
impact
of
today's
final
rule
on
small
entities,

VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
14:
38
Apr
11,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00017
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
14APR3.
SGM
14APR3
18024
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
71
/
Monday,
April
14,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
small
entity
is
defined
as:
(
1)
A
small
business
according
to
the
U.
S.
Small
Business
Administration
size
standards
for
NAICS
codes
331111
and
324199
ranging
from
500
to
1,000
employees;
(
2)
a
small
governmental
jurisdiction
that
is
a
government
of
a
city,
county,
town,
school
district
or
special
district
with
a
population
of
less
than
50,000;
and
(
3)
a
small
organization
that
is
any
not­
for­
profit
enterprise
which
is
independently
owned
and
operated
and
is
not
dominant
in
its
field.
After
considering
the
economic
impacts
of
today's
final
rule
on
small
entities,
EPA
has
concluded
that
this
action
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities.
We
have
determined
that
three
of
the
14
companies
within
this
source
category
are
small
businesses.
Small
businesses
represent
21
percent
of
the
companies
within
the
source
category
and
are
expected
to
incur
19
percent
of
the
total
industry
compliance
costs
of
$
20.2
million.
The
average
total
annual
compliance
cost
is
projected
to
be
$
1.3
million
per
small
company,
while
the
average
for
large
companies
is
projected
to
be
$
1.5
million
per
company.
Under
the
final
rule,
the
mean
annual
compliance
cost,
as
a
share
of
sales,
for
small
businesses
is
2
percent,
and
the
median
is
1.8
percent,
with
a
range
of
0.3
to
5
percent.
We
estimate
that
two
of
the
three
small
businesses
may
experience
an
impact
greater
than
1
percent
of
sales,
and
one
small
businesses
will
experience
an
impact
greater
than
3
percent
of
sales.
We
performed
an
economic
impact
analysis
to
estimate
the
changes
in
product
price
and
production
quantities
for
the
firms
affected
by
the
final
rule.
Although
this
industry
is
characterized
by
average
profit
margins
of
close
to
4
percent,
our
analysis
indicates
that
none
of
the
coke
manufacturing
plants
owned
by
small
businesses
are
at
risk
of
closure
because
of
today's
final
rule.
In
fact,
the
one
plant
manufacturing
furnace
coke
is
projected
to
experience
an
increase
in
profits
because
of
market
feedbacks
related
to
higher
costs
incurred
by
competitors,
while
the
plants
manufacturing
foundry
coke
are
projected
to
experience
a
decline
in
profits
of
slightly
less
than
5
percent.
In
summary,
the
economic
impact
analysis
supports
our
conclusion
that
a
regulatory
flexibility
analysis
is
not
necessary
because,
while
a
few
small
firms
may
experience
initial
impacts
greater
than
1
percent
of
sales,
no
significant
impacts
on
their
viability
to
continue
operations
and
remain
profitable
are
indicated.
See
Docket
OAR
 
2002
 
0085
for
more
information
on
the
economic
analysis.
Although
the
final
rule
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities,
EPA
nonetheless
has
tried
to
reduce
the
impact
of
the
final
rule
on
small
entities.
We
have
made
site
visits
to
these
plants
and
discussed
potential
impacts
and
opportunities
for
emissions
reductions
with
company
representatives.
Company
representatives
have
also
attended
meetings
held
with
industry
trade
associations
to
discuss
the
rule
development,
and
we
have
included
provisions
in
the
final
rule
that
address
their
concerns.

D.
Unfunded
Mandates
Reform
Act
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.
Today's
final
rule
contains
no
Federal
mandate
(
under
the
regulatory
provisions
of
the
UMRA)
for
State,
local,
or
tribal
governments.
The
EPA
has
determined
that
the
final
rule
does
not
contain
a
Federal
mandate
that
may
result
in
estimated
costs
of
$
100
million
or
more
for
State,
local,
and
tribal
governments,
in
the
aggregate,
or
to
the
private
sector
in
any
1
year.
Thus,
the
final
rule
is
not
subject
to
the
requirements
of
sections
202
and
205
of
the
UMRA.
The
EPA
has
also
determined
that
the
final
rule
contains
no
regulatory
requirements
that
might
significantly
or
uniquely
affect
small
governments.
Thus,
today's
final
rule
is
not
subject
to
the
requirements
of
section
203
of
the
UMRA.

E.
Executive
Order
13132:
Federalism
Executive
Order
13132
(
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.''
The
final
rule
does
not
have
federalism
implications.
It
will
not
have
substantial
direct
effects
on
the
States,
on
the
relationship
between
the
national
government
and
the
States,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
among
the
various
levels
of
government,
as
specified
in
Executive
Order
13132.
None
of
the
affected
facilities
are
owned
or
operated
by
State
governments.
Thus,
Executive
Order
13132
does
not
apply
to
the
final
rule.

F.
Executive
Order
13175:
Consultation
and
Coordination
With
Indian
Tribal
Governments
Executive
Order
13175
(
65
FR
67249,
November
9,
2000)
requires
EPA
to
develop
an
accountable
process
to
ensure
``
meaningful
and
timely
input
by
tribal
officials
in
the
development
of
regulatory
policies
that
have
tribal
implications.''
The
final
rule
does
not
have
tribal
implications,
as
specified
in
Executive
Order
13175.
It
will
not
have
substantial
direct
effects
on
tribal
governments,
on
the
relationship
between
the
Federal
government
and
Indian
tribes,
or
on
the
distribution
of
power
and
responsibilities
between
the
Federal
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
14:
38
Apr
11,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00018
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
14APR3.
SGM
14APR3
18025
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
71
/
Monday,
April
14,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
government
and
Indian
tribes.
No
tribal
governments
own
or
operate
coke
oven
batteries.
Thus,
Executive
Order
13175
does
not
apply
to
the
final
rule.

G.
Executive
Order
13045:
Protection
of
Children
From
Environmental
Health
&
Safety
Risks
Executive
Order
13045
(
62
FR
19885,
April
23,
1997)
applies
to
any
rule
that:
(
1)
Is
determined
to
be
``
economically
significant,''
as
defined
under
Executive
Order
12866,
and
(
2)
concerns
an
environmental
health
or
safety
risk
that
EPA
has
reason
to
believe
may
have
a
disproportionate
effect
on
children.
If
the
regulatory
action
meets
both
criteria,
the
EPA
must
evaluate
the
environmental
health
or
safety
effects
of
the
planned
rule
on
children
and
explain
why
the
planned
regulation
is
preferable
to
other
potentially
effective
and
reasonably
feasible
alternatives
considered
by
the
Agency.
The
EPA
interprets
Executive
Order
13045
as
applying
only
to
those
regulatory
actions
that
are
based
on
health
or
safety
risks,
such
that
the
analysis
required
under
section
5
 
501
of
the
Executive
Order
has
the
potential
to
influence
the
regulation.
The
final
rule
is
not
subject
to
Executive
Order
13045
because
it
is
based
on
control
technology
and
not
health
or
safety
risks.

H.
Executive
Order
13211:
Actions
That
Significantly
Affect
Energy
Supply,
Distribution,
or
Use
This
final
rule
is
not
a
``
significant
energy
action''
as
defined
in
Executive
Order
13211
(
66
FR
28355,
May
22,
2001)
because
it
is
not
likely
to
have
a
significant
adverse
effect
on
the
supply,
distribution,
or
use
of
energy.
Further,
we
have
concluded
that
the
final
rule
is
not
likely
to
have
any
adverse
energy
effects.

I.
National
Technology
Transfer
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.
The
final
rule
involves
technical
standards.
The
final
rule
requires
plants
to
use
EPA
Methods
1,
2,
2F,
2G,
3,
3A,
3B,
4,
5,
5D,
and
9
in
40
CFR
part
60,
appendix
A,
and
PS
1
in
40
CFR
part
60,
appendix
B.
Consistent
with
the
NTTAA,
we
conducted
searches
to
identify
voluntary
consensus
standards
in
addition
to
these
EPA
methods.
One
voluntary
consensus
standard
was
identified
as
applicable
to
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).
Our
search
for
emissions
monitoring
procedures
identified
16
other
voluntary
consensus
standards.
We
determined
that
13
of
these
standards
identified
for
measuring
emissions
of
HAP
or
surrogates
would
not
be
practical
due
to
lack
of
equivalency,
detail,
or
quality
assurance/
quality
control
requirements.
The
three
remaining
consensus
standards
identified
in
the
search
are
under
development
or
under
EPA
review.
Therefore,
the
final
rule
does
not
require
these
voluntary
consensus
standards.
See
Docket
OAR
 
2002
 
0085
for
more
detailed
information
on
the
search
and
review
results.
Section
63.7322
of
the
final
rule
lists
the
EPA
test
methods
that
coke
plants
are
required
to
use
when
conducting
a
performance
test.
Most
of
these
methods
have
been
used
by
States
and
the
industry
for
more
than
10
years.
Nevertheless,
40
CFR
63.7(
e)
and
(
f)
allow
any
State
or
source
to
apply
to
EPA
for
permission
to
use
an
alternative
method
in
place
of
any
of
the
EPA
test
methods
or
performance
specifications
required
by
a
rule.

J.
Congressional
Review
Act
The
Congressional
Review
Act,
5.
U.
S.
C.
801
et
seq.,
as
added
by
the
Small
Business
Regulatory
Enforcement
Act
of
1996,
generally
provides
that
before
a
rule
may
take
effect,
the
agency
promulgating
the
rule
must
submit
a
rule
report,
which
includes
a
copy
of
the
rule,
to
each
House
of
the
Congress
and
to
the
Comptroller
General
of
the
United
States.
The
EPA
will
submit
a
report
containing
the
final
rule
and
other
required
information
to
the
U.
S.
Senate,
the
U.
S.
House
of
Representatives,
and
the
Comptroller
General
of
the
United
States
prior
to
publication
of
the
final
rule
in
the
Federal
Register.
The
final
rule
is
not
a
``
major
rule''
as
defined
by
5
U.
S.
C.
804(
2).

List
of
Subjects
in
40
CFR
Part
63
Environmental
protection,
Air
pollution
control,
Hazardous
substances,
Reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements.

Dated:
February
28,
2003.
Christine
Todd
Whitman,
Administrator.


For
the
reasons
stated
in
the
preamble,
title
40,
chapter
I,
part
63
of
the
Code
of
Federal
Regulations
is
amended
as
follows

PART
63
 
[
AMENDED]

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

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

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

Subpart
CCCCC
 
National
Emission
Standards
for
Hazardous
Air
Pollutants
for
Coke
Ovens:
Pushing,
Quenching,
and
Battery
Stacks
What
This
Subpart
Covers
63.7280
What
is
the
purpose
of
this
subpart?
63.7281
Am
I
subject
to
this
subpart?
63.7282
What
parts
of
my
plant
does
this
subpart
cover?
63.7283
When
do
I
have
to
comply
with
this
subpart?

Emission
Limitations
and
Work
Practice
Standards
63.7290
What
emission
limitations
must
I
meet
for
capture
systems
and
control
devices
applied
to
pushing
emissions?
63.7291
What
work
practice
standards
must
I
meet
for
fugitive
pushing
emissions
if
I
have
a
by­
product
coke
oven
battery
with
vertical
flues?
63.7292
What
work
practice
standards
must
I
meet
for
fugitive
pushing
emissions
if
I
have
a
by­
product
coke
oven
battery
with
horizontal
flues?
63.7293
What
work
practice
standards
must
I
meet
for
fugitive
pushing
emissions
if
I
have
a
non­
recovery
coke
oven
battery?
63.7294
What
work
practice
standard
must
I
meet
for
soaking?
63.7295
What
requirements
must
I
meet
for
quenching?
63.7296
What
emission
limitations
must
I
meet
for
battery
stacks?

Operation
and
Maintenance
Requirements
63.7300
What
are
my
operation
and
maintenance
requirements?

General
Compliance
Requirements
63.7310
What
are
my
general
requirements
for
complying
with
this
subpart?

Initial
Compliance
Requirements
63.7320
By
what
date
must
I
conduct
performance
tests
or
other
initial
compliance
demonstrations?

VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
14:
38
Apr
11,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00019
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
14APR3.
SGM
14APR3
18026
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
71
/
Monday,
April
14,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
63.7321
When
must
I
conduct
subsequent
performance
tests?
63.7322
What
test
methods
and
other
procedures
must
I
use
to
demonstrate
initial
compliance
with
the
emission
limits
for
particulate
matter?
63.7323
What
procedures
must
I
use
to
establish
operating
limits?
63.7324
What
procedures
must
I
use
to
demonstrate
initial
compliance
with
the
opacity
limits?
63.7325
What
test
methods
and
other
procedures
must
I
use
to
demonstrate
initial
compliance
with
the
TDS
or
constituent
limits
for
quench
water?
63.7326
How
do
I
demonstrate
initial
compliance
with
the
emission
limitations
that
apply
to
me?
63.7327
How
do
I
demonstrate
initial
compliance
with
the
work
practice
standards
that
apply
to
me?
63.7328
How
do
I
demonstrate
initial
compliance
with
the
operation
and
maintenance
requirements
that
apply
to
me?

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

Notifications,
Reports,
and
Records
63.7340
What
notifications
must
I
submit
and
when?
63.7341
What
reports
must
I
submit
and
when?
63.7342
What
records
must
I
keep?
63.7343
In
what
form
and
how
long
must
I
keep
my
records?

Other
Requirements
and
Information
63.7350
What
parts
of
the
General
Provisions
apply
to
me?
63.7351
Who
implements
and
enforces
this
subpart?
63.7352
What
definitions
apply
to
this
subpart?

Tables
to
Subpart
CCCCC
of
Part
63
Table
1
to
Subpart
CCCCC
of
Part
63
 
Applicability
of
General
Provisions
to
Subpart
CCCCC
What
This
Subpart
Covers
§
63.7280
What
is
the
purpose
of
this
subpart?
This
subpart
establishes
national
emission
standards
for
hazardous
air
pollutants
(
NESHAP)
for
pushing,
soaking,
quenching,
and
battery
stacks
at
coke
oven
batteries.
This
subpart
also
establishes
requirements
to
demonstrate
initial
and
continuous
compliance
with
all
applicable
emission
limitations,
work
practice
standards,
and
operation
and
maintenance
requirements
in
this
subpart.

§
63.7281
Am
I
subject
to
this
subpart?

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

§
63.7282
What
parts
of
my
plant
does
this
subpart
cover?

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

§
63.7283
When
do
I
have
to
comply
with
this
subpart?

(
a)
If
you
have
an
existing
affected
source,
you
must
comply
with
each
emission
limitation,
work
practice
standard,
and
operation
and
maintenance
requirement
in
this
subpart
that
applies
to
you
no
later
than
April
14,
2006.
(
b)
If
you
have
a
new
affected
source
and
its
initial
startup
date
is
on
or
before
April
14,
2003,
you
must
comply
with
each
emission
limitation,
work
practice
standard,
and
operation
and
maintenance
requirement
in
this
subpart
that
applies
to
you
by
April
14,
2006.
(
c)
If
you
have
a
new
affected
source
and
its
initial
startup
date
is
after
April
14,
2003,
you
must
comply
with
each
emission
limitation,
work
practice
standard,
and
operation
and
maintenance
requirement
in
this
subpart
that
applies
to
you
upon
initial
startup.
(
d)
You
must
meet
the
notification
and
schedule
requirements
in
§
63.7340.
Several
of
these
notifications
must
be
submitted
before
the
compliance
date
for
your
affected
source.

Emission
Limitations
and
Work
Practice
Standards
§
63.7290
What
emission
limitations
must
I
meet
for
capture
systems
and
control
devices
applied
to
pushing
emissions?

(
a)
You
must
not
discharge
to
the
atmosphere
emissions
of
particulate
matter
from
a
control
device
applied
to
pushing
emissions
from
a
new
or
existing
coke
oven
battery
that
exceed
the
applicable
limit
in
paragraphs
(
a)(
1)
through
(
4)
of
this
section:
(
1)
0.01
grain
per
dry
standard
cubic
foot
(
gr/
dscf)
if
a
cokeside
shed
is
used
to
capture
emissions;
(
2)
0.02
pound
per
ton
(
lb/
ton)
of
coke
if
a
moveable
hood
vented
to
a
stationary
control
device
is
used
to
capture
emissions;
(
3)
If
a
mobile
scrubber
car
that
does
not
capture
emissions
during
travel
is
used:
(
i)
0.03
lb/
ton
of
coke
for
a
control
device
applied
to
pushing
emissions
from
a
short
battery,
or
(
ii)
0.01
lb/
ton
of
coke
for
a
control
device
applied
to
pushing
emissions
from
a
tall
battery;
and
(
4)
0.04
lb/
ton
of
coke
if
a
mobile
scrubber
car
that
captures
emissions
during
travel
is
used.
(
b)
You
must
meet
each
operating
limit
in
paragraphs
(
b)(
1)
through
(
3)
of
this
section
that
applies
to
you
for
a
new
or
existing
coke
oven
battery.
(
1)
For
each
venturi
scrubber
applied
to
pushing
emissions,
you
must
maintain
the
daily
average
pressure
drop
and
scrubber
water
flow
rate
at
or
above
the
minimum
levels
established
during
the
initial
performance
test.
(
2)
For
each
hot
water
scrubber
applied
to
pushing
emissions,
you
must
maintain
the
daily
average
water
pressure
and
water
temperature
at
or
above
the
minimum
levels
established
during
the
initial
performance
test.
(
3)
For
each
capture
system
applied
to
pushing
emissions,
you
must:
(
i)
Maintain
the
daily
average
fan
motor
amperes
at
or
above
the
minimum
level
established
during
the
initial
performance
test;
or
(
ii)
Maintain
the
daily
average
volumetric
flow
rate
at
the
inlet
of
the
control
device
at
or
above
the
minimum
level
established
during
the
initial
performance
test.

§
63.7291
What
work
practice
standards
must
I
meet
for
fugitive
pushing
emissions
if
I
have
a
by­
product
coke
oven
battery
with
vertical
flues?

(
a)
You
must
meet
each
requirement
in
paragraphs
(
a)(
1)
through
(
7)
of
this
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
14:
38
Apr
11,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00020
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
14APR3.
SGM
14APR3
18027
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
71
/
Monday,
April
14,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
section
for
each
new
or
existing
byproduct
coke
oven
battery
with
vertical
flues.
(
1)
Observe
and
record
the
opacity
of
fugitive
pushing
emissions
from
each
oven
at
least
once
every
90
days.
If
an
oven
cannot
be
observed
during
a
90­
day
period
due
to
circumstances
that
were
not
reasonably
avoidable,
you
must
observe
the
opacity
of
the
first
push
of
that
oven
following
the
close
of
the
90­
day
period
that
is
capable
of
being
observed
in
accordance
with
the
procedures
in
§
63.7334(
a),
and
you
must
document
why
the
oven
was
not
observed
within
a
90­
day
period.
All
opacity
observations
of
fugitive
pushing
emissions
for
batteries
with
vertical
flues
must
be
made
using
the
procedures
in
§
63.7334(
a).
(
2)
If
two
or
more
batteries
are
served
by
the
same
pushing
equipment
and
total
no
more
than
90
ovens,
the
batteries
as
a
unit
can
be
considered
a
single
battery.
(
3)
Observe
and
record
the
opacity
of
fugitive
pushing
emissions
for
at
least
four
consecutive
pushes
per
battery
each
day.
Exclude
any
push
during
which
the
observer's
view
is
obstructed
or
obscured
by
interferences
and
observe
the
next
available
push
to
complete
the
set
of
four
pushes.
If
necessary
due
to
circumstances
that
were
not
reasonably
avoidable,
you
may
observe
fewer
than
four
consecutive
pushes
in
a
day;
however,
you
must
observe
and
record
as
many
consecutive
pushes
as
possible
and
document
why
four
consecutive
pushes
could
not
be
observed.
You
may
observe
and
record
one
or
more
non­
consecutive
pushes
in
addition
to
any
consecutive
pushes
observed
in
a
day.
(
4)
Do
not
alter
the
pushing
schedule
to
change
the
sequence
of
consecutive
pushes
to
be
observed
on
any
day.
Keep
records
indicating
the
legitimate
operational
reason
for
any
change
in
your
pushing
schedule
which
results
in
a
change
in
the
sequence
of
consecutive
pushes
observed
on
any
day.
(
5)
If
the
average
opacity
for
any
individual
push
exceeds
30
percent
opacity
for
any
short
battery
or
35
percent
opacity
for
any
tall
battery,
you
must
take
corrective
action
and/
or
increase
coking
time
for
that
oven.
You
must
complete
corrective
action
or
increase
coking
time
within
either
10
calendar
days
or
the
number
of
days
determined
using
Equation
1
of
this
section,
whichever
is
greater:

X
=
0.55
*
Y
(
Eq.
1)
Where:
X
=
Number
of
calendar
days
allowed
to
complete
corrective
action
or
increase
coking
time;
and
Y
=
Current
coking
time
for
the
oven,
hours.
For
the
purpose
of
determining
the
number
of
calendar
days
allowed
under
Equation
1
of
this
section,
day
one
is
the
first
day
following
the
day
you
observed
an
opacity
in
excess
of
30
percent
for
any
short
battery
or
35
percent
for
any
tall
battery.
Any
fraction
produced
by
Equation
1
of
this
section
must
be
counted
as
a
whole
day.
Days
during
which
the
oven
is
removed
from
service
are
not
included
in
the
number
of
days
allowed
to
complete
corrective
action.
(
6)(
i)
You
must
demonstrate
that
the
corrective
action
and/
or
increased
coking
time
was
successful.
After
a
period
of
time
no
longer
than
the
number
of
days
allowed
in
paragraph
(
a)(
5)
of
this
section,
observe
and
record
the
opacity
of
the
first
two
pushes
for
the
oven
capable
of
being
observed
using
the
procedures
in
§
63.7334(
a).
The
corrective
action
and/
or
increased
coking
time
was
successful
if
the
average
opacity
for
each
of
the
two
pushes
is
30
percent
or
less
for
a
short
battery
or
35
percent
or
less
for
a
tall
battery.
If
the
corrective
action
and/
or
increased
coking
time
was
successful,
you
may
return
the
oven
to
the
90­
day
reading
rotation
described
in
paragraph
(
a)(
1)
of
this
section.
If
the
average
opacity
of
either
push
exceeds
30
percent
for
a
short
battery
or
35
percent
for
a
tall
battery,
the
corrective
action
and/
or
increased
coking
time
was
unsuccessful,
and
you
must
complete
additional
corrective
action
and/
or
increase
coking
time
for
that
oven
within
the
number
of
days
allowed
in
paragraph
(
a)(
5)
of
this
section.
(
ii)
After
implementing
any
additional
corrective
action
and/
or
increased
coking
time
required
under
paragraph
(
a)(
6)(
i)
or
(
a)(
7)(
ii)
of
this
section,
you
must
demonstrate
that
corrective
action
and/
or
increased
coking
time
was
successful.
After
a
period
of
time
no
longer
than
the
number
of
days
allowed
in
paragraph
(
a)(
5)
of
this
section,
you
must
observe
and
record
the
opacity
of
the
first
two
pushes
for
the
oven
capable
of
being
observed
using
the
procedures
in
§
63.7334(
a).
The
corrective
action
and/
or
increased
coking
time
was
successful
if
the
average
opacity
for
each
of
the
two
pushes
is
30
percent
or
less
for
a
short
battery
or
35
percent
or
less
for
a
tall
battery.
If
the
corrective
action
and/
or
increased
coking
time
was
successful,
you
may
return
the
oven
to
the
90­
day
reading
rotation
described
in
paragraph
(
a)(
1)
of
this
section.
If
the
average
opacity
of
either
push
exceeds
30
percent
for
a
short
battery
or
35
percent
for
a
tall
battery,
the
corrective
action
and/
or
increased
coking
time
was
unsuccessful,
and
you
must
follow
the
procedures
in
paragraph
(
a)(
6)(
iii)
of
this
section.
(
iii)
If
the
corrective
action
and/
or
increased
coking
time
was
unsuccessful
as
described
in
paragraph
(
a)(
6)(
ii)
of
this
section,
you
must
repeat
the
procedures
in
paragraph
(
a)(
6)(
ii)
of
this
section
until
the
corrective
action
and/
or
increased
coking
time
is
successful.
You
must
report
to
the
permitting
authority
as
a
deviation
each
unsuccessful
attempt
at
corrective
action
and/
or
increased
coking
time
under
paragraph
(
a)(
6)(
ii)
of
this
section.
(
7)(
i)
If
at
any
time
you
place
an
oven
on
increased
coking
time
as
a
result
of
fugitive
pushing
emissions
that
exceed
30
percent
for
a
short
battery
or
35
percent
for
a
tall
battery,
you
must
keep
the
oven
on
the
increased
coking
time
until
the
oven
qualifies
for
decreased
coking
time
using
the
procedures
in
paragraph
(
a)(
7)(
ii)
or
(
a)(
7)(
iii)
of
this
section.
(
ii)
To
qualify
for
a
decreased
coking
time
for
an
oven
placed
on
increased
coking
time
in
accordance
with
paragraph
(
a)(
5)
or
(
6)
of
this
section,
you
must
operate
the
oven
on
the
decreased
coking
time.
After
no
more
than
two
coking
cycles
on
the
decreased
coking
time,
you
must
observe
and
record
the
opacity
of
the
first
two
pushes
that
are
capable
of
being
observed
using
the
procedures
in
§
63.7334(
a).
If
the
average
opacity
for
each
of
the
two
pushes
is
30
percent
or
less
for
a
short
battery
or
35
percent
or
less
for
a
tall
battery,
you
may
keep
the
oven
on
the
decreased
coking
time
and
return
the
oven
to
the
90­
day
reading
rotation
described
in
paragraph
(
a)(
1)
of
this
section.
If
the
average
opacity
of
either
push
exceeds
30
percent
for
a
short
battery
or
35
percent
for
a
tall
battery,
the
attempt
to
qualify
for
a
decreased
coking
time
was
unsuccessful.
You
must
then
return
the
oven
to
the
previously
established
increased
coking
time,
or
implement
other
corrective
action(
s)
and/
or
increased
coking
time.
If
you
implement
other
corrective
action
and/
or
a
coking
time
that
is
shorter
than
the
previously
established
increased
coking
time,
you
must
follow
the
procedures
in
paragraph
(
a)(
6)(
ii)
of
this
section
to
confirm
that
the
corrective
action(
s)
and/
or
increased
coking
time
was
successful.
(
iii)
If
the
attempt
to
qualify
for
decreased
coking
time
was
unsuccessful
as
described
in
paragraph
(
a)(
7)(
ii)
of
this
section,
you
may
again
attempt
to
qualify
for
decreased
coking
time
for
the
oven.
To
do
this,
you
must
operate
the
oven
on
the
decreased
coking
time.
After
no
more
than
two
coking
cycles
on
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
14:
38
Apr
11,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00021
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
14APR3.
SGM
14APR3
18028
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
71
/
Monday,
April
14,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
the
decreased
coking
time,
you
must
observe
and
record
the
opacity
of
the
first
two
pushes
that
are
capable
of
being
observed
using
the
procedures
in
§
63.7334(
a).
If
the
average
opacity
for
each
of
the
two
pushes
is
30
percent
or
less
for
a
short
battery
or
35
percent
or
less
for
a
tall
battery,
you
may
keep
the
oven
on
the
decreased
coking
time
and
return
the
oven
to
the
90­
day
reading
rotation
described
in
paragraph
(
a)(
1)
of
this
section.
If
the
average
opacity
of
either
push
exceeds
30
percent
for
a
short
battery
or
35
percent
for
a
tall
battery,
the
attempt
to
qualify
for
a
decreased
coking
time
was
unsuccessful.
You
must
then
return
the
oven
to
the
previously
established
increased
coking
time,
or
implement
other
corrective
action(
s)
and/
or
increased
coking
time.
If
you
implement
other
corrective
action
and/
or
a
coking
time
that
is
shorter
than
the
previously
established
increased
coking
time,
you
must
follow
the
procedures
in
paragraph
(
a)(
6)(
ii)
of
this
section
to
confirm
that
the
corrective
action(
s)
and/
or
increased
coking
time
was
successful.
(
iv)
You
must
report
to
the
permitting
authority
as
a
deviation
the
second
and
any
subsequent
consecutive
unsuccessful
attempts
on
the
same
oven
to
qualify
for
decreased
coking
time
as
described
in
paragraph
(
a)(
7)(
iii)
of
this
section.
(
b)
As
provided
in
§
63.6(
g),
you
may
request
to
use
an
alternative
to
the
work
practice
standards
in
paragraph
(
a)
of
this
section.

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

(
a)
You
must
comply
with
each
of
the
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
a)(
1)
through
(
4)
of
this
section.
(
1)
Prepare
and
operate
by
a
written
plan
that
will
eliminate
or
minimize
incomplete
coking
for
each
by­
product
coke
oven
battery
with
horizontal
flues.
You
must
submit
the
plan
and
supporting
documentation
to
the
Administrator
(
or
delegated
authority)
for
approval
no
later
than
90
days
after
completing
all
observations
and
measurements
required
for
the
study
in
paragraph
(
a)(
3)
of
this
section
or
April
14,
2004,
whichever
is
earlier.
You
must
begin
operating
by
the
plan
requirements
by
the
compliance
date
that
is
specified
in
§
63.7283.
The
written
plan
must
identify
minimum
flue
temperatures
for
different
coking
times
and
a
battery­
wide
minimum
acceptable
flue
temperature
for
any
oven
at
any
coking
time.
(
2)
Submit
the
written
plan
and
supporting
documentation
to
the
Administrator
(
or
delegated
authority)
for
review
and
approval.
Include
all
data
collected
during
the
study
described
in
paragraph
(
a)(
3)
of
this
section.
If
the
Administrator
(
or
delegated
authority)
disapproves
the
plan,
you
must
revise
the
plan
as
directed
by
the
Administrator
(
or
delegated
authority)
and
submit
the
amended
plan
for
approval.
The
Administrator
(
or
delegated
authority)
may
require
you
to
collect
and
submit
additional
data.
You
must
operate
according
to
your
submitted
plan
(
or
submitted
amended
plan,
if
any)
until
the
Administrator
(
or
delegated
authority)
approves
your
plan.
(
3)
You
must
base
your
written
plan
on
a
study
that
you
conduct
that
meets
each
of
the
requirements
listed
in
paragraphs
(
a)(
3)(
i)
through
(
x)
of
this
section.
(
i)
Initiate
the
study
by
July
14,
2003.
Notify
the
Administrator
(
or
delegated
authority)
at
least
7
days
prior
to
initiating
the
study
according
to
the
requirements
in
§
63.7340(
f).
(
ii)
Conduct
the
study
under
representative
operating
conditions,
including
but
not
limited
to
the
range
of
moisture
content
and
volatile
matter
in
the
coal
that
is
charged.
(
iii)
Include
every
oven
in
the
study
and
observe
at
least
two
pushes
from
each
oven.
(
iv)
For
each
push
observed,
measure
and
record
the
temperature
of
every
flue
within
2
hours
before
the
scheduled
pushing
time.
Document
the
oven
number,
date,
and
time
the
oven
was
charged
and
pushed,
and
calculate
the
net
coking
time.
(
v)
For
each
push
observed,
document
the
factors
to
be
used
to
identify
pushes
that
are
incompletely
coked.
These
factors
must
include
(
but
are
not
limited
to):
average
opacity
during
the
push,
average
opacity
during
travel
to
the
quench
tower,
average
of
six
highest
consecutive
observations
during
both
push
and
travel,
highest
single
opacity
reading,
color
of
the
emissions
(
especially
noting
any
yellow
or
brown
emissions),
presence
of
excessive
smoke
during
travel
to
the
quench
tower,
percent
volatile
matter
in
the
coke,
percent
volatile
matter
and
percent
moisture
in
the
coal
that
is
charged,
and
the
date
the
oven
was
last
rebuilt
or
completely
relined.
Additional
documentation
may
be
provided
in
the
form
of
pictures
or
videotape
of
emissions
during
the
push
and
travel.
All
opacity
observations
must
be
conducted
in
accordance
with
the
procedures
in
§
63.7334(
a)(
3)
through
(
7).
(
vi)
Inspect
the
inside
walls
of
the
oven
after
each
observed
push
for
cool
spots
as
indicated
by
a
flue
that
is
darker
than
others
(
the
oven
walls
should
be
red
hot)
and
record
the
results.
(
vii)
For
each
push
observed,
note
where
incomplete
coking
occurs
if
possible
(
e.
g.,
coke
side
end,
pusher
side
end,
top,
or
center
of
the
coke
mass).
For
any
push
with
incomplete
coking,
investigate
and
document
the
probable
cause.
(
viii)
Use
the
documented
factors
in
paragraph
(
a)(
3)(
v)
of
this
section
to
identify
pushes
that
were
completely
coked
and
those
that
were
not
completely
coked.
Provide
a
rationale
for
the
determination
based
on
the
documentation
of
factors
observed
during
the
study.
(
ix)
Use
only
the
flue
temperature
and
coking
time
data
for
pushes
that
were
completely
coked
to
identify
minimum
flue
temperatures
for
various
coking
times.
Submit
the
criteria
used
to
determine
complete
coking,
as
well
as
a
table
of
coking
times
and
corresponding
temperatures
for
complete
coking
as
part
of
your
plan.
(
x)
Determine
the
battery­
wide
minimum
acceptable
flue
temperature
for
any
oven.
This
temperature
will
be
equal
to
the
lowest
temperature
that
provided
complete
coking
as
determined
in
paragraph
(
a)(
3)(
ix)
of
this
section.
(
4)
You
must
operate
according
to
the
coking
times
and
temperatures
in
your
approved
plan
and
the
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
a)(
4)(
i)
through
(
viii)
of
this
section.
(
i)
Measure
and
record
the
percent
volatile
matter
in
the
coal
that
is
charged.
(
ii)
Measure
and
record
the
temperature
of
all
flues
on
two
ovens
per
day
within
2
hours
before
the
scheduled
pushing
time
for
each
oven.
Measure
and
record
the
temperature
of
all
flues
on
each
oven
at
least
once
each
month.
(
iii)
For
each
oven
observed
in
accordance
with
paragraph
(
a)(
4)(
ii)
of
this
section,
record
the
time
each
oven
is
charged
and
pushed
and
calculate
and
record
the
net
coking
time.
If
any
measured
flue
temperature
for
an
oven
is
below
the
minimum
flue
temperature
for
an
oven's
scheduled
coking
time
as
established
in
the
written
plan,
increase
the
coking
time
for
the
oven
to
the
coking
time
in
the
written
plan
for
the
observed
flue
temperature
before
pushing
the
oven.
(
iv)
If
you
increased
the
coking
time
for
any
oven
in
accordance
with
paragraph
(
a)(
4)(
iii)
of
this
section,
you
must
investigate
the
cause
of
the
low
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
14:
38
Apr
11,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00022
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
14APR3.
SGM
14APR3
18029
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
71
/
Monday,
April
14,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
flue
temperature
and
take
corrective
action
to
fix
the
problem.
You
must
continue
to
measure
and
record
the
temperature
of
all
flues
for
the
oven
within
2
hours
before
each
scheduled
pushing
time
until
the
measurements
meet
the
minimum
temperature
requirements
for
the
increased
coking
time
for
two
consecutive
pushes.
If
any
measured
flue
temperature
for
an
oven
on
increased
coking
time
falls
below
the
minimum
flue
temperature
for
the
increased
coking
time,
as
established
in
the
written
plan,
you
must
increase
the
coking
time
for
the
oven
to
the
coking
time
specified
in
the
written
plan
for
the
observed
flue
temperature
before
pushing
the
oven.
The
oven
must
continue
to
operate
at
this
coking
time
(
or
at
a
longer
coking
time
if
the
temperature
falls
below
the
minimum
allowed
for
the
increased
coking
time)
until
the
problem
has
been
corrected,
and
you
have
confirmed
that
the
corrective
action
was
successful
as
required
by
paragraph
(
a)(
4)(
v)
of
this
section.
(
v)
Once
the
heating
problem
has
been
corrected,
the
oven
may
be
returned
to
the
battery's
normal
coking
schedule.
You
must
then
measure
and
record
the
flue
temperatures
for
the
oven
within
2
hours
before
the
scheduled
pushing
time
for
the
next
two
consecutive
pushes.
If
any
flue
temperature
measurement
is
below
the
minimum
flue
temperature
for
that
coking
time
established
in
the
written
plan,
repeat
the
procedures
in
paragraphs
(
a)(
4)(
iii)
and
(
iv)
of
this
section.
(
vi)
If
any
flue
temperature
measurement
is
below
the
battery­
wide
minimum
acceptable
temperature
for
complete
coking
established
in
the
written
plan
for
any
oven
at
any
coking
time,
you
must
remove
the
oven
from
service
for
repairs.
(
vii)
For
an
oven
that
has
been
repaired
and
returned
to
service
after
being
removed
from
service
in
accordance
with
paragraph
(
a)(
4)(
vi)
of
this
section,
you
must
measure
and
record
the
temperatures
of
all
flues
for
the
oven
within
2
hours
before
the
first
scheduled
pushing
time.
If
any
flue
temperature
measurement
is
below
the
minimum
flue
temperature
for
the
scheduled
coking
time,
as
established
in
the
written
plan,
you
must
repeat
the
procedures
described
in
paragraphs
(
a)(
4)(
iii)
and
(
iv)
of
this
section.
(
viii)
For
an
oven
that
has
been
repaired
and
returned
to
service
after
removal
from
service
in
accordance
with
paragraph
(
a)(
4)(
vi)
of
this
section,
you
must
report
as
a
deviation
to
the
permitting
authority
any
flue
temperature
measurement
made
during
the
initial
coking
cycle
after
return
to
service
that
is
below
the
lowest
acceptable
minimum
flue
temperature.
(
b)
As
provided
in
§
63.6(
g),
you
may
request
to
use
an
alternative
to
the
work
practice
standards
in
paragraph
(
a)
of
this
section.

§
63.7293
What
work
practice
standards
must
I
meet
for
fugitive
pushing
emissions
if
I
have
a
non­
recovery
coke
oven
battery?
(
a)
You
must
meet
the
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
a)(
1)
and
(
2)
of
this
section
for
each
new
and
existing
non­
recovery
coke
oven
battery.
(
1)
You
must
visually
inspect
each
oven
prior
to
pushing
by
opening
the
door
damper
and
observing
the
bed
of
coke.
(
2)
Do
not
push
the
oven
unless
the
visual
inspection
indicates
that
there
is
no
smoke
in
the
open
space
above
the
coke
bed
and
that
there
is
an
unobstructed
view
of
the
door
on
the
opposite
side
of
the
oven.
(
b)
As
provided
in
§
63.6(
g),
you
may
request
to
use
an
alternative
to
the
work
practice
standard
in
paragraph
(
a)
of
this
section.

§
63.7294
What
work
practice
standard
must
I
meet
for
soaking?
(
a)
For
each
new
and
existing
byproduct
coke
oven
battery,
you
must
prepare
and
operate
at
all
times
according
to
a
written
work
practice
plan
for
soaking.
Each
plan
must
include
measures
and
procedures
to:
(
1)
Train
topside
workers
to
identify
soaking
emissions
that
require
corrective
actions.
(
2)
Damper
the
oven
off
the
collecting
main
prior
to
opening
the
standpipe
cap.
(
3)
Determine
the
cause
of
soaking
emissions
that
do
not
ignite
automatically,
including
emissions
that
result
from
raw
coke
oven
gas
leaking
from
the
collecting
main
through
the
damper,
and
emissions
that
result
from
incomplete
coking.
(
4)
If
soaking
emissions
are
caused
by
leaks
from
the
collecting
main,
take
corrective
actions
to
eliminate
the
soaking
emissions.
Corrective
actions
may
include,
but
are
not
limited
to,
reseating
the
damper,
cleaning
the
flushing
liquor
piping,
using
aspiration,
putting
the
oven
back
on
the
collecting
main,
or
igniting
the
emissions.
(
5)
If
soaking
emissions
are
not
caused
by
leaks
from
the
collecting
main,
notify
a
designated
responsible
party.
The
responsible
party
must
determine
whether
the
soaking
emissions
are
due
to
incomplete
coking.
If
incomplete
coking
is
the
cause
of
the
soaking
emissions,
you
must
put
the
oven
back
on
the
collecting
main
until
it
is
completely
coked
or
you
must
ignite
the
emissions.
(
b)
As
provided
in
§
63.6(
g),
you
may
request
to
use
an
alternative
to
the
work
practice
standard
in
paragraph
(
a)
of
this
section.

§
63.7295
What
requirements
must
I
meet
for
quenching?

(
a)
You
must
meet
the
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
a)(
1)
and
(
2)
of
this
section
for
each
quench
tower
and
backup
quench
station
at
a
new
or
existing
coke
oven
battery.
(
1)
For
the
quenching
of
hot
coke,
you
must
meet
the
requirements
in
paragraph
(
a)(
1)(
i)
or
(
ii)
of
this
section.
(
i)
The
concentration
of
total
dissolved
solids
(
TDS)
in
the
water
used
for
quenching
must
not
exceed
1,100
milligrams
per
liter
(
mg/
L);
or
(
ii)
The
sum
of
the
concentrations
of
benzene,
benzo(
a)
pyrene,
and
naphthalene
in
the
water
used
for
quenching
must
not
exceed
the
applicable
site­
specific
limit
approved
by
the
permitting
authority.
(
2)
You
must
use
acceptable
makeup
water,
as
defined
in
§
63.7352,
as
makeup
water
for
quenching.
(
b)
For
each
quench
tower
at
a
new
or
existing
coke
oven
battery
and
each
backup
quench
station
at
a
new
coke
oven
battery,
you
must
meet
each
of
the
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
b)(
1)
through
(
4)
of
this
section.
(
1)
You
must
equip
each
quench
tower
with
baffles
such
that
no
more
than
5
percent
of
the
cross
sectional
area
of
the
tower
may
be
uncovered
or
open
to
the
sky.
(
2)
You
must
wash
the
baffles
in
each
quench
tower
once
each
day
that
the
tower
is
used
to
quench
coke,
except
as
specified
in
paragraphs
(
b)(
2)(
i)
and
(
ii)
of
this
section.
(
i)
You
are
not
required
to
wash
the
baffles
in
a
quench
tower
if
the
highest
measured
ambient
temperature
remains
less
than
30
degrees
Fahrenheit
throughout
that
day
(
24­
hour
period).
If
the
measured
ambient
temperature
rises
to
30
degrees
Fahrenheit
or
more
during
the
day,
you
must
resume
daily
washing
according
to
the
schedule
in
your
operation
and
maintenance
plan.
(
ii)
You
must
continuously
record
the
ambient
temperature
on
days
that
the
baffles
were
not
washed.
(
3)
You
must
inspect
each
quench
tower
monthly
for
damaged
or
missing
baffles
and
blockage.
(
4)
You
must
initiate
repair
or
replacement
of
damaged
or
missing
baffles
within
30
days
and
complete
as
soon
as
practicable.
(
c)
As
provided
in
§
63.6(
g),
you
may
request
to
use
an
alternative
to
the
work
practice
standards
in
paragraph
(
b)
of
this
section.

VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
14:
38
Apr
11,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00023
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
14APR3.
SGM
14APR3
18030
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
71
/
Monday,
April
14,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
§
63.7296
What
emission
limitations
must
I
meet
for
battery
stacks?

You
must
not
discharge
to
the
atmosphere
any
emissions
from
any
battery
stack
at
a
new
or
existing
byproduct
coke
oven
battery
that
exhibit
an
opacity
greater
than
the
applicable
limit
in
paragraphs
(
a)
and
(
b)
of
this
section.
(
a)
Daily
average
of
15
percent
opacity
for
a
battery
on
a
normal
coking
cycle.
(
b)
Daily
average
of
20
percent
opacity
for
a
battery
on
batterywide
extended
coking.

Operation
and
Maintenance
Requirements
§
63.7300
What
are
my
operation
and
maintenance
requirements?

(
a)
As
required
by
§
63.6(
e)(
1)(
i),
you
must
always
operate
and
maintain
your
affected
source,
including
air
pollution
control
and
monitoring
equipment,
in
a
manner
consistent
with
good
air
pollution
control
practices
for
minimizing
emissions
at
least
to
the
levels
required
by
this
subpart.
(
b)
You
must
prepare
and
operate
at
all
times
according
to
a
written
operation
and
maintenance
plan
for
the
general
operation
and
maintenance
of
new
or
existing
by­
product
coke
oven
batteries.
Each
plan
must
address,
at
a
minimum,
the
elements
listed
in
paragraphs
(
b)(
1)
through
(
6)
of
this
section.
(
1)
Frequency
and
method
of
recording
underfiring
gas
parameters.
(
2)
Frequency
and
method
of
recording
battery
operating
temperature,
including
measurement
of
individual
flue
and
cross­
wall
temperatures.
(
3)
Procedures
to
prevent
pushing
an
oven
before
it
is
fully
coked.
(
4)
Procedures
to
prevent
overcharging
and
undercharging
of
ovens,
including
measurement
of
coal
moisture,
coal
bulk
density,
and
procedures
for
determining
volume
of
coal
charged.
(
5)
Frequency
and
procedures
for
inspecting
flues,
burners,
and
nozzles.
(
6)
Schedule
and
procedures
for
the
daily
washing
of
baffles.
(
c)
You
must
prepare
and
operate
at
all
times
according
to
a
written
operation
and
maintenance
plan
for
each
capture
system
and
control
device
applied
to
pushing
emissions
from
a
new
or
existing
coke
oven
battery.
Each
plan
must
address
at
a
minimum
the
elements
in
paragraphs
(
c)(
1)
through
(
3)
of
this
section.
(
1)
Monthly
inspections
of
the
equipment
that
are
important
to
the
performance
of
the
total
capture
system
(
e.
g.,
pressure
sensors,
dampers,
and
damper
switches).
This
inspection
must
include
observations
of
the
physical
appearance
of
the
equipment
(
e.
g.,
presence
of
holes
in
ductwork
or
hoods,
flow
constrictions
caused
by
dents
or
accumulated
dust
in
ductwork,
and
fan
erosion).
The
operation
and
maintenance
plan
must
also
include
requirements
to
repair
any
defect
or
deficiency
in
the
capture
system
before
the
next
scheduled
inspection.
(
2)
Preventative
maintenance
for
each
control
device,
including
a
preventative
maintenance
schedule
that
is
consistent
with
the
manufacturer's
instructions
for
routine
and
long­
term
maintenance.
(
3)
Corrective
action
for
all
baghouses
applied
to
pushing
emissions.
In
the
event
a
bag
leak
detection
system
alarm
is
triggered,
you
must
initiate
corrective
action
to
determine
the
cause
of
the
alarm
within
1
hour
of
the
alarm,
initiate
corrective
action
to
correct
the
cause
of
the
problem
within
24
hours
of
the
alarm,
and
complete
the
corrective
action
as
soon
as
practicable.
Actions
may
include,
but
are
not
limited
to:
(
i)
Inspecting
the
baghouse
for
air
leaks,
torn
or
broken
bags
or
filter
media,
or
any
other
condition
that
may
cause
an
increase
in
emissions.
(
ii)
Sealing
off
defective
bags
or
filter
media.
(
iii)
Replacing
defective
bags
or
filter
media
or
otherwise
repairing
the
control
device.
(
iv)
Sealing
off
a
defective
baghouse
compartment.
(
v)
Cleaning
the
bag
leak
detection
system
probe,
or
otherwise
repairing
the
bag
leak
detection
system.
(
vi)
Shutting
down
the
process
producing
the
particulate
emissions.

General
Compliance
Requirements
§
63.7310
What
are
my
general
requirements
for
complying
with
this
subpart?

(
a)
You
must
be
in
compliance
with
the
emission
limitations,
work
practice
standards,
and
operation
and
maintenance
requirements
in
this
subpart
at
all
times,
except
during
periods
of
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
as
defined
in
§
63.2.
(
b)
During
the
period
between
the
compliance
date
specified
for
your
affected
source
in
§
63.7283
and
the
date
upon
which
continuous
monitoring
systems
have
been
installed
and
certified
and
any
applicable
operating
limits
have
been
set,
you
must
maintain
a
log
detailing
the
operation
and
maintenance
of
the
process
and
emissions
control
equipment.
(
c)
You
must
develop
and
implement
a
written
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
plan
according
to
the
provisions
in
§
63.6(
e)(
3).
Initial
Compliance
Requirements
§
63.7320
By
what
date
must
I
conduct
performance
tests
or
other
initial
compliance
demonstrations?
(
a)
As
required
in
§
63.7(
a)(
2),
you
must
conduct
a
performance
test
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
each
limit
in
§
63.7290(
a)
for
emissions
of
particulate
matter
from
a
control
device
applied
to
pushing
emissions
that
applies
to
you
within
180
calendar
days
after
the
compliance
date
that
is
specified
in
§
63.7283.
(
b)
You
must
conduct
performance
tests
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
the
TDS
limit
or
constituent
limit
for
quench
water
in
§
63.7295(
a)(
1)
and
each
opacity
limit
in
§
63.7297(
a)
for
a
by­
product
coke
oven
battery
stack
by
the
compliance
date
that
is
specified
in
§
63.7283.
(
c)
For
each
work
practice
standard
and
operation
and
maintenance
requirement
that
applies
to
you,
you
must
demonstrate
initial
compliance
within
30
calendar
days
after
the
compliance
date
that
is
specified
in
§
63.7283.
(
d)
If
you
commenced
construction
or
reconstruction
between
July
3,
2001
and
April
14,
2003,
you
must
demonstrate
initial
compliance
with
either
the
proposed
emission
limit
or
the
promulgated
emission
limit
no
later
than
October
14,
2003,
or
no
later
than
180
calendar
days
after
startup
of
the
source,
whichever
is
later,
according
to
§
63.7(
a)(
2)(
ix).
(
e)
If
you
commenced
construction
or
reconstruction
between
July
3,
2001
and
April
14,
2003,
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
October
11,
2006,
or
after
startup
of
the
source,
whichever
is
later,
according
to
§
63.7(
a)(
2)(
ix).

§
63.7321
When
must
I
conduct
subsequent
performance
tests?
For
each
control
device
subject
to
an
emission
limit
for
particulate
matter
in
§
63.7290(
a),
you
must
conduct
subsequent
performance
tests
no
less
frequently
than
twice
(
at
mid­
term
and
renewal)
during
each
term
of
your
title
V
operating
permit.

§
63.7322
What
test
methods
and
other
procedures
must
I
use
to
demonstrate
initial
compliance
with
the
emission
limits
for
particulate
matter?
(
a)
You
must
conduct
each
performance
test
that
applies
to
your
affected
source
according
to
the
requirements
in
paragraph
(
b)
of
this
section.

VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
14:
38
Apr
11,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00024
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
14APR3.
SGM
14APR3
18031
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
71
/
Monday,
April
14,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
(
b)
To
determine
compliance
with
the
emission
limit
for
particulate
matter
from
a
control
device
applied
to
pushing
emissions
where
a
cokeside
shed
is
the
capture
system,
follow
the
test
methods
and
procedures
in
paragraphs
(
b)(
1)
and
(
2)
of
this
section.
To
determine
compliance
with
a
process­
weighted
mass
rate
of
particulate
matter
(
lb/
ton
of
coke)
from
a
control
device
applied
to
pushing
emissions
where
a
cokeside
shed
is
not
used,
follow
the
test
methods
and
procedures
in
paragraphs
(
b)(
1)
through
(
4)
of
this
section.
(
1)
Determine
the
concentration
of
particulate
matter
according
to
the
following
test
methods
in
appendix
A
to
40
CFR
part
60.
(
i)
Method
1
to
select
sampling
port
locations
and
the
number
of
traverse
points.
Sampling
sites
must
be
located
at
the
outlet
of
the
control
device
and
prior
to
any
releases
to
the
atmosphere.
(
ii)
Method
2,
2F,
or
2G
to
determine
the
volumetric
flow
rate
of
the
stack
gas.
(
iii)
Method
3,
3A,
or
3B
to
determine
the
dry
molecular
weight
of
the
stack
gas.
(
iv)
Method
4
to
determine
the
moisture
content
of
the
stack
gas.
(
v)
Method
5
or
5D,
as
applicable,
to
determine
the
concentration
of
front
half
particulate
matter
in
the
stack
gas.
(
2)
During
each
particulate
matter
test
run,
sample
only
during
periods
of
actual
pushing
when
the
capture
system
fan
and
control
device
are
engaged.
Collect
a
minimum
sample
volume
of
30
cubic
feet
of
gas
during
each
test
run.
Three
valid
test
runs
are
needed
to
comprise
a
performance
test.
Each
run
must
start
at
the
beginning
of
a
push
and
finish
at
the
end
of
a
push
(
i.
e.,
sample
for
an
integral
number
of
pushes).
(
3)
Determine
the
total
combined
weight
in
tons
of
coke
pushed
during
the
duration
of
each
test
run
according
to
the
procedures
in
your
source
test
plan
for
calculating
coke
yield
from
the
quantity
of
coal
charged
to
an
individual
oven.
(
4)
Compute
the
process­
weighted
mass
emissions
(
Ep)
for
each
test
run
using
Equation
1
of
this
section
as
follows:

Ep
=
×
×
×
C
Q
T
P
K
(
Eq.
1)

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

§
63.7323
What
procedures
must
I
use
to
establish
operating
limits?

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

§
63.7324
What
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
paragraph
(
b)
of
this
section.
(
b)
To
determine
compliance
with
the
daily
average
opacity
limit
for
stacks
of
15
percent
for
a
by­
product
coke
oven
battery
on
a
normal
coking
cycle
or
20
percent
for
a
by­
product
coke
oven
battery
on
batterywide
extended
coking,
follow
the
test
methods
and
procedures
in
paragraphs
(
b)(
1)
through
(
3)
of
this
section.
(
1)
Using
the
continuous
opacity
monitoring
system
(
COMS)
required
in
§
63.7330(
e),
measure
and
record
the
opacity
of
emissions
from
each
battery
stack
for
a
24­
hour
period.
(
2)
Reduce
the
monitoring
data
to
hourly
averages
as
specified
in
§
63.8(
g)(
2).
(
3)
Compute
and
record
the
24­
hour
(
daily)
average
of
the
COMS
data.

§
63.7325
What
test
methods
and
other
procedures
must
I
use
to
demonstrate
initial
compliance
with
the
TDS
or
constituent
limits
for
quench
water?
(
a)
If
you
elect
the
TDS
limit
for
quench
water
in
§
63.7295(
a)(
1)(
i),
you
must
conduct
each
performance
test
that
applies
to
your
affected
source
according
to
the
conditions
in
paragraphs
(
a)(
1)
and
(
2)
of
this
section.

VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
14:
38
Apr
11,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00025
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
14APR3.
SGM
14APR3
ER14AP03.001</
MATH>
18032
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
71
/
Monday,
April
14,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
(
1)
Take
the
quench
water
sample
from
a
location
that
provides
a
representative
sample
of
the
quench
water
as
applied
to
the
coke
(
e.
g.,
from
the
header
that
feeds
water
to
the
quench
tower
reservoirs).
Conduct
sampling
under
normal
and
representative
operating
conditions.
(
2)
Determine
the
TDS
concentration
of
the
sample
using
Method
160.1
in
40
CFR
part
136.3
(
see
``
residue
 
filterable''),
except
that
you
must
dry
the
total
filterable
residue
at
103
to
105
°
C
(
degrees
Centigrade)
instead
of
180
°
C.
(
b)
If
at
any
time
you
elect
to
meet
the
alternative
requirements
for
quench
water
in
§
63.7295(
a)(
1)(
ii),
you
must
establish
a
site­
specific
constituent
limit
according
to
the
procedures
in
paragraphs
(
b)(
1)
through
(
4)
of
this
section.
(
1)
Take
a
minimum
of
nine
quench
water
samples
from
a
location
that
provides
a
representative
sample
of
the
quench
water
as
applied
to
the
coke
(
e.
g.,
from
the
header
that
feeds
water
to
the
quench
tower
reservoirs).
Conduct
sampling
under
normal
and
representative
operating
conditions.
(
2)
For
each
sample,
determine
the
TDS
concentration
according
to
the
requirements
in
paragraph
(
a)(
2)
of
this
section
and
the
concentration
of
benzene,
benzo(
a)
pyrene,
and
naphthalene
using
the
applicable
methods
in
40
CFR
part
136
or
an
approved
alternative
method.
(
3)
Determine
and
record
the
highest
sum
of
the
concentrations
of
benzene,
benzo(
a)
pyrene,
and
naphthalene
in
any
sample
that
has
a
TDS
concentration
less
than
or
equal
to
the
TDS
limit
of
1,100
mg/
L.
This
concentration
is
the
site­
specific
constituent
limit.
(
4)
Submit
the
site­
specific
limit,
sampling
results,
and
all
supporting
data
and
calculations
to
your
permitting
authority
for
review
and
approval.
(
c)
If
you
elect
the
constituent
limit
for
quench
water
in
§
63.7295(
a)(
1)(
ii),
you
must
conduct
each
performance
test
that
applies
to
your
affected
source
according
to
the
conditions
in
paragraphs
(
c)(
1)
and
(
2)
of
this
section.
(
1)
Take
a
quench
water
sample
from
a
location
that
provides
a
representative
sample
of
the
quench
water
as
applied
to
the
coke
(
e.
g.,
from
the
header
that
feeds
water
to
the
quench
tower
reservoirs).
Conduct
sampling
under
normal
and
representative
operating
conditions.
(
2)
Determine
the
sum
of
the
concentration
of
benzene,
benzo(
a)
pyrene,
and
naphthalene
in
the
sample
using
the
applicable
methods
in
40
CFR
part
136
or
an
approved
alternative
method.
§
63.7326
How
do
I
demonstrate
initial
compliance
with
the
emission
limitations
that
apply
to
me?
(
a)
For
each
coke
oven
battery
subject
to
the
emission
limit
for
particulate
matter
from
a
control
device
applied
to
pushing
emissions,
you
have
demonstrated
initial
compliance
if
you
meet
the
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
a)(
1)
through
(
4)
of
this
section
that
apply
to
you.
(
1)
The
concentration
of
particulate
matter,
measured
in
accordance
with
the
performance
test
procedures
in
§
63.7322(
b)(
1)
and
(
2),
did
not
exceed
0.01
gr/
dscf
for
a
control
device
where
a
cokeside
shed
is
used
to
capture
pushing
emissions
or
the
processweighted
mass
rate
of
particulate
matter
(
lb/
ton
of
coke),
measured
in
accordance
with
the
performance
test
procedures
in
§
63.7322(
b)(
1)
through
(
4),
did
not
exceed:
(
i)
0.02
lb/
ton
of
coke
if
a
moveable
hood
vented
to
a
stationary
control
device
is
used
to
capture
emissions;
(
ii)
If
a
mobile
scrubber
car
that
does
not
capture
emissions
during
travel
is
used,
0.03
lb/
ton
of
coke
from
a
control
device
applied
to
pushing
emissions
from
a
short
coke
oven
battery
or
0.01
lb/
ton
of
coke
from
a
control
device
applied
to
pushing
emissions
from
a
tall
coke
oven
battery;
and
(
iii)
0.04
lb/
ton
of
coke
if
a
mobile
scrubber
car
that
captures
emissions
during
travel
is
used.
(
2)
For
each
venturi
scrubber
applied
to
pushing
emissions,
you
have
established
appropriate
site­
specific
operating
limits
and
have
a
record
of
the
pressure
drop
and
scrubber
water
flow
rate
measured
during
the
performance
test
in
accordance
with
§
63.7323(
a).
(
3)
For
each
hot
water
scrubber
applied
to
pushing
emissions,
you
have
established
appropriate
site­
specific
operating
limits
and
have
a
record
of
the
water
pressure
and
temperature
measured
during
the
performance
test
in
accordance
with
§
63.7323(
b).
(
4)
For
each
capture
system
applied
to
pushing
emissions,
you
have
established
an
appropriate
site­
specific
operating
limit,
and:
(
i)
If
you
elect
the
operating
limit
in
§
63.7290(
b)(
3)(
i)
for
fan
motor
amperes,
you
have
a
record
of
the
fan
motor
amperes
during
the
performance
test
in
accordance
with
§
63.7323(
c)(
1);
or
(
ii)
If
you
elect
the
operating
limit
in
§
63.7290(
b)(
3)(
ii)
for
volumetric
flow
rate,
you
have
a
record
of
the
total
volumetric
flow
rate
at
the
inlet
of
the
control
device
measured
during
the
performance
test
in
accordance
with
§
63.7323(
c)(
2).
(
b)
For
each
new
or
existing
byproduct
coke
oven
battery
subject
to
the
opacity
limit
for
stacks
in
§
63.7296(
a),
you
have
demonstrated
initial
compliance
if
the
daily
average
opacity,
as
measured
according
to
the
performance
test
procedures
in
§
63.7324(
b),
is
no
more
than
15
percent
for
a
battery
on
a
normal
coking
cycle
or
20
percent
for
a
battery
on
batterywide
extended
coking.
(
c)
For
each
new
or
existing
byproduct
coke
oven
battery
subject
to
the
TDS
limit
or
constituent
limits
for
quench
water
in
§
63.7295(
a)(
1),
(
1)
You
have
demonstrated
initial
compliance
with
the
TDS
limit
in
§
63.7295(
a)(
1)(
i)
if
the
TDS
concentration,
as
measured
according
to
the
performance
test
procedures
in
§
63.7325(
a),
does
not
exceed
1,100
mg/
L.
(
2)
You
have
demonstrated
initial
compliance
with
the
constituent
limit
in
§
63.7295(
a)(
1)(
ii)
if:
(
i)
You
have
established
a
site­
specific
constituent
limit
according
to
the
procedures
in
§
63.7325(
b);
and
(
ii)
The
sum
of
the
constituent
concentrations,
as
measured
according
to
the
performance
test
procedures
in
§
63.7325(
c),
is
less
than
or
equal
to
the
site­
specific
limit.
(
d)
For
each
by­
product
coke
oven
battery
stack
subject
to
an
opacity
limit
in
§
63.7296(
a)
and
each
by­
product
coke
oven
battery
subject
to
the
requirements
for
quench
water
in
§
63.7295(
a)(
1),
you
must
submit
a
notification
of
compliance
status
containing
the
results
of
the
COMS
performance
test
for
battery
stacks
and
the
quench
water
performance
test
(
TDS
or
constituent
limit)
according
to
§
63.7340(
e)(
1).
For
each
particulate
matter
emission
limitation
that
applies
to
you,
you
must
submit
a
notification
of
compliance
status
containing
the
results
of
the
performance
test
according
to
§
63.7340(
e)(
2).

§
63.7327
How
do
I
demonstrate
initial
compliance
with
the
work
practice
standards
that
apply
to
me?

(
a)
For
each
by­
product
coke
oven
battery
with
vertical
flues
subject
to
the
work
practice
standards
for
fugitive
pushing
emissions
in
§
63.7291(
a),
you
have
demonstrated
initial
compliance
if
you
certify
in
your
notification
of
compliance
status
that
you
will
meet
each
of
the
work
practice
requirements
beginning
no
later
than
the
compliance
date
that
is
specified
in
§
63.7283.
(
b)
For
each
by­
product
coke
oven
battery
with
horizontal
flues
subject
to
the
work
practice
standards
for
fugitive
pushing
emissions
in
§
63.7292(
a),
you
have
demonstrated
initial
compliance
if
you
have
met
the
requirements
of
paragraphs
(
b)(
1)
and
(
2)
of
this
section:

VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
14:
38
Apr
11,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00026
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
14APR3.
SGM
14APR3
18033
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
71
/
Monday,
April
14,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
(
1)
You
have
prepared
and
submitted
a
written
plan
and
supporting
documentation
establishing
appropriate
minimum
flue
temperatures
for
different
coking
times
and
the
lowest
acceptable
temperature
to
the
Administrator
(
or
delegated
authority)
for
review
and
approval;
and
(
2)
You
certify
in
your
notification
of
compliance
status
that
you
will
meet
each
of
the
work
practice
requirements
beginning
no
later
than
the
compliance
date
that
is
specified
in
§
63.7283.
(
c)
For
each
non­
recovery
coke
oven
battery
subject
to
the
work
practice
standards
for
fugitive
pushing
emissions
in
§
63.7293(
a),
you
have
demonstrated
initial
compliance
if
you
certify
in
your
notification
of
compliance
status
that
you
will
meet
each
of
the
work
practice
requirements
beginning
no
later
than
the
compliance
date
that
is
specified
in
§
63.7283.
(
d)
For
each
by­
product
coke
oven
battery
subject
to
the
work
practice
standards
for
soaking
in
§
63.7294,
you
have
demonstrated
initial
compliance
if
you
have
met
the
requirements
of
paragraphs
(
d)(
1)
and
(
2)
of
this
section:
(
1)
You
have
prepared
and
submitted
a
written
work
practice
plan
in
accordance
with
§
63.7294(
a);
and
(
2)
You
certify
in
your
notification
of
compliance
status
that
you
will
meet
each
of
the
work
practice
requirements
beginning
no
later
than
the
compliance
date
that
is
specified
in
§
63.7283.
(
e)
For
each
coke
oven
battery,
you
have
demonstrated
initial
compliance
with
the
work
practice
standards
for
quenching
in
§
63.7295(
b)
if
you
certify
in
your
notification
of
compliance
status
that
you
have
met
the
requirements
of
paragraphs
(
e)(
1)
and
(
2)
of
this
section:
(
1)
You
have
installed
the
required
equipment
in
each
quench
tower;
and
(
2)
You
will
meet
each
of
the
work
practice
requirements
beginning
no
later
than
the
compliance
date
that
is
specified
in
§
63.7283.
(
f)
For
each
work
practice
standard
that
applies
to
you,
you
must
submit
a
notification
of
compliance
status
according
to
the
requirements
in
§
63.7340(
e)(
1).

§
63.7328
How
do
I
demonstrate
initial
compliance
with
the
operation
and
maintenance
requirements
that
apply
to
me?

You
have
demonstrated
initial
compliance
if
you
certify
in
your
notification
of
compliance
status
that
you
have
met
the
requirements
of
paragraphs
(
a)
through
(
d)
of
this
section:
(
a)
You
have
prepared
the
operation
and
maintenance
plans
according
to
the
requirements
in
§
63.7300(
b)
and
(
c);
(
b)
You
will
operate
each
by­
product
coke
oven
battery
and
each
capture
system
and
control
device
applied
to
pushing
emissions
from
a
coke
oven
battery
according
to
the
procedures
in
the
plans
beginning
no
later
than
the
compliance
date
that
is
specified
in
§
63.7283;
(
c)
You
have
prepared
a
site­
specific
monitoring
plan
according
to
the
requirements
in
§
63.7331(
b);
and
(
d)
You
submit
a
notification
of
compliance
status
according
to
the
requirements
in
§
63.7340(
e).

Continuous
Compliance
Requirements
§
63.7330
What
are
my
monitoring
requirements?

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

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

(
a)
For
each
baghouse
applied
to
pushing
emissions,
you
must
install,
operate,
and
maintain
each
bag
leak
detection
system
according
to
the
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
a)(
1)
through
(
7)
of
this
section.
(
1)
The
system
must
be
certified
by
the
manufacturer
to
be
capable
of
detecting
emissions
of
particulate
matter
at
concentrations
of
10
milligrams
per
actual
cubic
meter
(
0.0044
grains
per
actual
cubic
foot)
or
less;
(
2)
The
system
must
provide
output
of
relative
changes
in
particulate
matter
loadings;
(
3)
The
system
must
be
equipped
with
an
alarm
that
will
sound
when
an
increase
in
relative
particulate
loadings
is
detected
over
a
preset
level.
The
alarm
must
be
located
such
that
it
can
be
heard
by
the
appropriate
plant
personnel;
(
4)
Each
system
that
works
based
on
the
triboelectric
effect
must
be
installed,
operated,
and
maintained
in
a
manner
consistent
with
the
guidance
document,
``
Fabric
Filter
Bag
Leak
Detection
Guidance''
(
EPA
 
454/
R
 
98
 
015,
September
1997).
You
may
install,
operate,
and
maintain
other
types
of
bag
leak
detection
systems
in
a
manner
consistent
with
the
manufacturer's
written
specifications
and
recommendations;
(
5)
To
make
the
initial
adjustment
of
the
system,
establish
the
baseline
output
by
adjusting
the
sensitivity
(
range)
and
the
averaging
period
of
the
device.
Then,
establish
the
alarm
set
points
and
the
alarm
delay
time;
(
6)
Following
the
initial
adjustment,
do
not
adjust
the
sensitivity
or
range,
averaging
period,
alarm
set
points,
or
alarm
delay
time,
except
as
detailed
in
your
operation
and
maintenance
plan.
Do
not
increase
the
sensitivity
by
more
than
100
percent
or
decrease
the
sensitivity
by
more
than
50
percent
over
a
365­
day
period
unless
a
responsible
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
14:
38
Apr
11,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00027
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
14APR3.
SGM
14APR3
18034
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
71
/
Monday,
April
14,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
official
certifies,
in
writing,
that
the
baghouse
has
been
inspected
and
found
to
be
in
good
operating
condition;
and
(
7)
Where
multiple
detectors
are
required,
the
system's
instrumentation
and
alarm
may
be
shared
among
detectors.
(
b)
For
each
CPMS
required
in
§
63.7330,
you
must
develop
and
make
available
for
inspection
upon
request
by
the
permitting
authority
a
site­
specific
monitoring
plan
that
addresses
the
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
b)(
1)
through
(
6)
of
this
section.
(
1)
Installation
of
the
CPMS
sampling
probe
or
other
interface
at
a
measurement
location
relative
to
each
affected
process
unit
such
that
the
measurement
is
representative
of
control
of
the
exhaust
emissions
(
e.
g.,
on
or
downstream
of
the
last
control
device);
(
2)
Performance
and
equipment
specifications
for
the
sample
interface,
the
parametric
signal
analyzer,
and
the
data
collection
and
reduction
system;
(
3)
Performance
evaluation
procedures
and
acceptance
criteria
(
e.
g.,
calibrations);
(
4)
Ongoing
operation
and
maintenance
procedures
in
accordance
with
the
general
requirements
of
§
§
63.8(
c)(
1),
(
3),
(
4)(
ii),
(
7),
and
(
8);
(
5)
Ongoing
data
quality
assurance
procedures
in
accordance
with
the
general
requirements
of
§
63.8(
d);
and
(
6)
Ongoing
recordkeeping
and
reporting
procedures
in
accordance
the
general
requirements
of
§
§
63.10(
c),
(
e)(
1),
and
(
e)(
2)(
i).
(
c)
You
must
conduct
a
performance
evaluation
of
each
CPMS
in
accordance
with
your
site­
specific
monitoring
plan.
(
d)
You
must
operate
and
maintain
the
CPMS
in
continuous
operation
according
to
the
site­
specific
monitoring
plan.
(
e)
For
each
venturi
scrubber
applied
to
pushing
emissions,
you
must
install,
operate,
and
maintain
CPMS
to
measure
and
record
the
pressure
drop
across
the
scrubber
and
scrubber
water
flow
rate
during
each
push
according
to
the
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
b)
through
(
d)
of
this
section
except
as
specified
in
paragraphs
(
e)(
1)
through
(
3)
of
this
section.
(
1)
Each
CPMS
must
complete
a
measurement
at
least
once
per
push;
(
2)
Each
CPMS
must
produce
valid
data
for
all
pushes;
and
(
3)
Each
CPMS
must
determine
and
record
the
daily
(
24­
hour)
average
of
all
recorded
readings.
(
f)
For
each
hot
water
scrubber
applied
to
pushing
emissions,
you
must
install,
operate,
and
maintain
CPMS
to
measure
and
record
the
water
pressure
and
temperature
during
each
push
according
to
the
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
b)
through
(
d)
of
this
section,
except
as
specified
in
paragraphs
(
e)(
1)
through
(
3)
of
this
section.
(
g)
If
you
elect
the
operating
limit
in
§
63.7290(
b)(
3)(
i)
for
a
capture
system
applied
to
pushing
emissions,
you
must
install,
operate,
and
maintain
a
device
to
measure
the
fan
motor
amperes.
(
h)
If
you
elect
the
operating
limit
in
§
63.7290(
b)(
3)(
ii)
for
a
capture
system
applied
to
pushing
emissions,
you
must
install,
operate,
and
maintain
a
device
to
measure
the
total
volumetric
flow
rate
at
the
inlet
of
the
control
device.
(
i)
For
each
by­
product
coke
oven
battery,
you
must
install,
operate,
and
maintain
a
COMS
to
measure
and
record
the
opacity
of
emissions
exiting
each
stack
according
to
the
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
i)(
1)
through
(
5)
of
this
section.
(
1)
You
must
install,
operate,
and
maintain
each
COMS
according
to
the
requirements
in
§
63.8(
e)
and
Performance
Specification
1
in
40
CFR
part
60,
appendix
B.
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.
(
2)
You
must
conduct
a
performance
evaluation
of
each
COMS
according
to
the
requirements
in
§
63.8
and
Performance
Specification
1
in
appendix
B
to
40
CFR
part
60;
(
3)
You
must
develop
and
implement
a
quality
control
program
for
operating
and
maintaining
each
COMS
according
to
the
requirements
in
§
63.8(
d).
At
minimum,
the
quality
control
program
must
include
a
daily
calibration
drift
assessment,
quarterly
performance
audit,
and
an
annual
zero
alignment
audit
of
each
COMS;
(
4)
Each
COMS
must
complete
a
minimum
of
one
cycle
of
sampling
and
analyzing
for
each
successive
10­
second
period
and
one
cycle
of
data
recording
for
each
successive
6­
minute
period.
You
must
reduce
the
COMS
data
as
specified
in
§
63.8(
g)(
2).
(
5)
You
must
determine
and
record
the
hourly
and
daily
(
24­
hour)
average
opacity
according
to
the
procedures
in
§
63.7324(
b)
using
all
the
6­
minute
averages
collected
for
periods
during
which
the
COMS
is
not
out­
of­
control.

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

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

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

(
a)
For
each
control
device
applied
to
pushing
emissions
and
subject
to
the
emission
limit
in
§
63.7290(
a),
you
must
demonstrate
continuous
compliance
by
meeting
the
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
a)(
1)
and
(
2)
of
this
section:
(
1)
Maintaining
emissions
of
particulate
matter
at
or
below
the
applicable
limits
in
paragraphs
§
63.7290(
a)(
1)
through
(
4);
and
(
2)
Conducting
subsequent
performance
tests
to
demonstrate
continuous
compliance
no
less
frequently
than
twice
during
each
term
of
your
title
V
operating
permit
(
at
midterm
and
renewal).
(
b)
For
each
venturi
scrubber
applied
to
pushing
emissions
and
subject
to
the
operating
limits
in
§
63.7290(
b)(
1),
you
must
demonstrate
continuous
compliance
by
meeting
the
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
b)(
1)
through
(
3)
of
this
section.
(
1)
Maintaining
the
daily
average
pressure
drop
and
scrubber
water
flow
rate
at
levels
no
lower
than
those
established
during
the
initial
or
subsequent
performance
test.
(
2)
Operating
and
maintaining
each
CPMS
according
to
§
63.7331(
b)
and
recording
all
information
needed
to
document
conformance
with
these
requirements.
(
3)
Collecting
and
reducing
monitoring
data
for
pressure
drop
and
scrubber
water
flow
rate
according
to
§
63.7331(
e)(
1)
through
(
3).
(
c)
For
each
hot
water
scrubber
applied
to
pushing
emissions
and
subject
to
the
operating
limits
in
§
63.7290(
b)(
2),
you
must
demonstrate
continuous
compliance
by
meeting
the
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
c)(
1)
through
(
3)
of
this
section.

VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
14:
38
Apr
11,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00028
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
14APR3.
SGM
14APR3
18035
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
71
/
Monday,
April
14,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
(
1)
Maintaining
the
daily
average
water
pressure
and
temperature
at
levels
no
lower
than
those
established
during
the
initial
or
subsequent
performance
test.
(
2)
Operating
and
maintaining
each
CPMS
according
to
§
63.7331(
b)
and
recording
all
information
needed
to
document
conformance
with
these
requirements.
(
3)
Collecting
and
reducing
monitoring
data
for
water
pressure
and
temperature
according
to
§
63.7331(
f).
(
d)
For
each
capture
system
applied
to
pushing
emissions
and
subject
to
the
operating
limit
in
§
63.7290(
b)(
3),
you
must
demonstrate
continuous
compliance
by
meeting
the
requirements
in
paragraph
(
d)(
1)
or
(
2)
of
this
section:
(
1)
If
you
elect
the
operating
limit
for
fan
motor
amperes
in
§
63.7290(
b)(
3)(
i):
(
i)
Maintaining
the
daily
average
fan
motor
amperes
at
or
above
the
minimum
level
established
during
the
initial
or
subsequent
performance
test;
and
(
ii)
Checking
the
fan
motor
amperes
at
least
every
8
hours
to
verify
the
daily
average
is
at
or
above
the
minimum
level
established
during
the
initial
or
subsequent
performance
test
and
recording
the
results
of
each
check.
(
2)
If
you
elect
the
operating
limit
for
volumetric
flow
rate
in
§
63.7290(
b)(
3)(
ii):
(
i)
Maintaining
the
daily
average
volumetric
flow
rate
at
the
inlet
of
the
control
device
at
or
above
the
minimum
level
established
during
the
initial
or
subsequent
performance
test;
and
(
ii)
Checking
the
volumetric
flow
rate
at
least
every
8
hours
to
verify
the
daily
average
is
at
or
above
the
minimum
level
established
during
the
initial
or
subsequent
performance
test
and
recording
the
results
of
each
check.
(
e)
Beginning
on
the
first
day
compliance
is
required
under
§
63.7283,
you
must
demonstrate
continuous
compliance
for
each
by­
product
coke
oven
battery
subject
to
the
opacity
limit
for
stacks
in
§
63.7296(
a)
by
meeting
the
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
e)(
1)
and
(
2)
of
this
section:
(
1)
Maintaining
the
daily
average
opacity
at
or
below
15
percent
for
a
battery
on
a
normal
coking
cycle
or
20
percent
for
a
battery
on
batterywide
extended
coking;
and
(
2)
Operating
and
maintaining
a
COMS
and
collecting
and
reducing
the
COMS
data
according
to
§
63.7331(
i).
(
f)
Beginning
on
the
first
day
compliance
is
required
under
§
63.7283,
you
must
demonstrate
continuous
compliance
with
the
TDS
limit
for
quenching
in
§
63.7295(
a)(
1)(
i)
by
meeting
the
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
f)(
1)
and
(
2)
of
this
section:
(
1)
Maintaining
the
TDS
content
of
the
water
used
to
quench
hot
coke
at
1,100
mg/
L
or
less;
and
(
2)
Determining
the
TDS
content
of
the
quench
water
at
least
weekly
according
to
the
requirements
in
§
63.7325(
a)
and
recording
the
sample
results.
(
g)
Beginning
on
the
first
day
compliance
is
required
under
§
63.7283,
you
must
demonstrate
continuous
compliance
with
the
constituent
limit
for
quenching
in
§
63.7295(
a)(
1)(
ii)
by
meeting
the
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
g)(
1)
and
(
2)
of
this
section:
(
1)
Maintaining
the
sum
of
the
concentrations
of
benzene,
benzo(
a)
pyrene,
and
naphthalene
in
the
water
used
to
quench
hot
coke
at
levels
less
than
or
equal
to
the
site­
specific
limit
approved
by
the
permitting
authority;
and
(
2)
Determining
the
sum
of
the
constituent
concentrations
at
least
monthly
according
to
the
requirements
in
§
63.7325(
c)
and
recording
the
sample
results.

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

(
a)
For
each
by­
product
coke
oven
battery
with
vertical
flues
subject
to
the
work
practice
standards
for
fugitive
pushing
emissions
in
§
63.7291(
a),
you
must
demonstrate
continuous
compliance
according
to
the
requirements
of
paragraphs
(
a)(
1)
through
(
8)
of
this
section:
(
1)
Observe
and
record
the
opacity
of
fugitive
emissions
for
four
consecutive
pushes
per
operating
day,
except
you
may
make
fewer
or
non­
consecutive
observations
as
permitted
by
§
63.7291(
a)(
3).
Maintain
records
of
the
pushing
schedule
for
each
oven
and
records
indicating
the
legitimate
operational
reason
for
any
change
in
the
pushing
schedule
according
to
§
63.7291(
a)(
4).
(
2)
Observe
and
record
the
opacity
of
fugitive
emissions
from
each
oven
in
a
battery
at
least
once
every
90
days.
If
an
oven
cannot
be
observed
during
a
90­
day
period,
observe
and
record
the
opacity
of
the
first
push
of
that
oven
following
the
close
of
the
90­
day
period
that
can
be
read
in
accordance
with
the
procedures
in
paragraphs
(
a)(
1)
through
(
8)
of
this
section.
(
3)
Make
all
observations
and
calculations
for
opacity
observations
of
fugitive
pushing
emissions
in
accordance
with
Method
9
in
appendix
A
to
40
CFR
part
60
using
a
Method
9
certified
observer
unless
you
have
an
approved
alternative
procedure
under
paragraph
(
a)(
7)
of
this
section.
(
4)
Record
pushing
opacity
observations
at
15­
second
intervals
as
required
in
section
2.4
of
Method
9
(
appendix
A
to
40
CFR
part
60).
The
requirement
in
section
2.4
of
Method
9
for
a
minimum
of
24
observations
does
not
apply,
and
the
data
reduction
requirements
in
section
2.5
of
Method
9
do
not
apply.
The
requirement
in
§
63.6(
h)(
5)(
ii)(
B)
for
obtaining
at
least
3
hours
of
observations
(
thirty
6­
minute
averages)
to
demonstrate
initial
compliance
does
not
apply.
(
5)
If
fewer
than
six
but
at
least
four
15­
second
observations
can
be
made,
use
the
average
of
the
total
number
of
observations
to
calculate
average
opacity
for
the
push.
Missing
one
or
more
observations
during
the
push
(
e.
g.,
as
the
quench
car
passes
behind
a
building)
does
not
invalidate
the
observations
before
or
after
the
interference
for
that
push.
However,
a
minimum
of
four
15­
second
readings
must
be
made
for
a
valid
observation.
(
6)
Begin
observations
for
a
push
at
the
first
detectable
movement
of
the
coke
mass.
End
observations
of
a
push
when
the
quench
car
enters
the
quench
tower.
(
i)
For
a
battery
without
a
cokeside
shed,
observe
fugitive
pushing
emissions
from
a
position
at
least
10
meters
from
the
quench
car
that
provides
an
unobstructed
view
and
avoids
interferences
from
the
topside
of
the
battery.
This
may
require
the
observer
to
be
positioned
at
an
angle
to
the
quench
car
rather
than
perpendicular
to
it.
Typical
interferences
to
avoid
include
emissions
from
open
standpipes
and
charging.
Observe
the
opacity
of
emissions
above
the
battery
top
with
the
sky
as
the
background
where
possible.
Record
the
oven
number
of
any
push
not
observed
because
of
obstructions
or
interferences.
(
ii)
For
a
battery
with
a
cokeside
shed,
the
observer
must
be
in
a
position
that
provides
an
unobstructed
view
and
avoids
interferences
from
the
topside
of
the
battery.
Typical
interferences
to
avoid
include
emissions
from
open
standpipes
and
charging.
Observations
must
include
any
fugitive
emissions
that
escape
from
the
top
of
the
shed,
from
the
ends
of
the
shed,
or
from
the
area
where
the
shed
is
joined
to
the
battery.
If
the
observer
does
not
have
a
clear
view
to
identify
when
a
push
starts
or
ends,
a
second
person
can
be
positioned
to
signal
the
start
or
end
of
the
push
and
notify
the
observer
when
to
start
or
end
the
observations.
Radio
communications
with
other
plant
personnel
(
e.
g.,
pushing
ram
operator
or
quench
car
operator)
may
also
serve
to
notify
the
observer
of
the
start
or
end
of
a
push.
Record
the
oven
number
of
any
push
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
14:
38
Apr
11,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00029
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
14APR3.
SGM
14APR3
18036
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
71
/
Monday,
April
14,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
not
observed
because
of
obstructions
or
interferences.
(
iii)
You
may
reposition
after
the
push
to
observe
emissions
during
travel
if
necessary.
(
7)
If
it
is
infeasible
to
implement
the
procedures
in
paragraphs
(
a)(
1)
through
(
6)
of
this
section
for
an
oven
due
to
physical
obstructions,
nighttime
pushes,
or
other
reasons,
you
may
apply
to
your
permitting
authority
for
permission
to
use
an
alternative
procedure.
The
application
must
provide
a
detailed
explanation
of
why
it
is
infeasible
to
use
the
procedures
in
paragraphs
(
a)(
1)
through
(
6)
of
this
section,
identify
the
oven
and
battery
numbers,
and
describe
the
alternative
procedure.
An
alternative
procedure
must
identify
whether
the
coke
in
that
oven
is
not
completely
coked,
either
before,
during,
or
after
an
oven
is
pushed.
(
8)
For
each
oven
observed
that
exceeds
an
opacity
of
30
percent
for
any
short
battery
or
35
percent
for
any
tall
battery,
you
must
take
corrective
action
and/
or
increase
the
coking
time
in
accordance
with
§
63.7291(
a).
Maintain
records
documenting
conformance
with
the
requirements
in
§
63.7291(
a).
(
b)
For
each
by­
product
coke
oven
battery
with
horizontal
flues
subject
to
the
work
practice
standards
for
fugitive
pushing
emissions
in
§
63.7292(
a),
you
must
demonstrate
continuous
compliance
by
having
met
the
requirements
of
paragraphs
(
b)(
1)
through
(
3)
of
this
section:
(
1)
Measuring
and
recording
the
temperature
of
all
flues
on
two
ovens
per
day
within
2
hours
before
the
oven's
scheduled
pushing
time
and
ensuring
that
the
temperature
of
each
oven
is
measured
and
recorded
at
least
once
every
month;
(
2)
Recording
the
time
each
oven
is
charged
and
pushed
and
calculating
and
recording
the
net
coking
time
for
each
oven;
and
(
3)
Increasing
the
coking
time
for
each
oven
that
falls
below
the
minimum
flue
temperature
trigger
established
for
that
oven's
coking
time
in
the
written
plan
required
in
§
63.7292(
a)(
1),
assigning
the
oven
to
the
oven­
directed
program,
and
recording
all
relevant
information
according
to
the
requirements
in
§
63.7292(
a)(
4)
including,
but
not
limited
to,
daily
pushing
schedules,
diagnostic
procedures,
corrective
actions,
and
oven
repairs.
(
c)
For
each
non­
recovery
coke
oven
battery
subject
to
the
work
practice
standards
in
§
63.7293(
a),
you
must
demonstrate
continuous
compliance
by
maintaining
records
that
document
each
visual
inspection
of
an
oven
prior
to
pushing
and
that
the
oven
was
not
pushed
unless
there
was
no
smoke
in
the
open
space
above
the
coke
bed
and
there
was
an
unobstructed
view
of
the
door
on
the
opposite
side
of
the
oven.
(
d)
For
each
by­
product
coke
oven
battery
subject
to
the
work
practice
standard
for
soaking
in
§
63.7294(
a),
you
must
demonstrate
continuous
compliance
by
maintaining
records
that
document
conformance
with
requirements
in
§
63.7294(
a)(
1)
through
(
5).
(
e)
For
each
coke
oven
battery
subject
to
the
work
practice
standard
for
quenching
in
§
63.7295(
b),
you
must
demonstrate
continuous
compliance
according
to
the
requirements
of
paragraphs
(
e)(
1)
through
(
3)
of
this
section:
(
1)
Maintaining
baffles
in
each
quench
tower
such
that
no
more
than
5
percent
of
the
cross­
sectional
area
of
the
tower
is
uncovered
or
open
to
the
sky
as
required
in
§
63.7295(
b)(
1);
(
2)
Maintaining
records
that
document
conformance
with
the
washing,
inspection,
and
repair
requirements
in
§
63.7295(
b)(
2),
including
records
of
the
ambient
temperature
on
any
day
that
the
baffles
were
not
washed;
and
(
3)
Maintaining
records
of
the
source
of
makeup
water
to
document
conformance
with
the
requirement
for
acceptable
makeup
water
in
§
63.7295(
a)(
2).

§
63.7335
How
do
I
demonstrate
continuous
compliance
with
the
operation
and
maintenance
requirements
that
apply
to
me?
(
a)
For
each
by­
product
coke
oven
battery,
you
must
demonstrate
continuous
compliance
with
the
operation
and
maintenance
requirements
in
§
63.7300(
b)
by
adhering
at
all
times
to
the
plan
requirements
and
recording
all
information
needed
to
document
conformance.
(
b)
For
each
coke
oven
battery
with
a
capture
system
or
control
device
applied
to
pushing
emissions,
you
must
demonstrate
continuous
compliance
with
the
operation
and
maintenance
requirements
in
§
63.7300(
c)
by
meeting
the
requirements
of
paragraphs
(
b)(
1)
through
(
3)
of
this
section:
(
1)
Making
monthly
inspections
of
capture
systems
according
to
§
63.7300(
c)(
1)
and
recording
all
information
needed
to
document
conformance
with
these
requirements;
(
2)
Performing
preventative
maintenance
for
each
control
device
according
to
§
63.7300(
c)(
2)
and
recording
all
information
needed
to
document
conformance
with
these
requirements;
and
(
3)
Initiating
and
completing
corrective
action
for
a
bag
leak
detection
system
alarm
according
to
§
63.7300(
c)(
3)
and
recording
all
information
needed
to
document
conformance
with
these
requirements.
This
includes
records
of
the
times
the
bag
leak
detection
system
alarm
sounds,
and
for
each
valid
alarm,
the
time
you
initiated
corrective
action,
the
corrective
action(
s)
taken,
and
the
date
on
which
corrective
action
is
completed.
(
c)
To
demonstrate
continuous
compliance
with
the
operation
and
maintenance
requirements
for
a
baghouse
applied
to
pushing
emissions
from
a
coke
oven
battery
in
§
63.7331(
a),
you
must
inspect
and
maintain
each
baghouse
according
to
the
requirements
in
§
63.7331(
a)(
1)
through
(
8)
and
record
all
information
needed
to
document
conformance
with
these
requirements.
If
you
increase
or
decrease
the
sensitivity
of
the
bag
leak
detection
system
beyond
the
limits
specified
in
§
63.7331(
a)(
6),
you
must
include
a
copy
of
the
required
written
certification
by
a
responsible
official
in
the
next
semiannual
compliance
report.
(
d)
You
must
maintain
a
current
copy
of
the
operation
and
maintenance
plans
required
in
§
63.7300(
b)
and
(
c)
onsite
and
available
for
inspection
upon
request.
You
must
keep
the
plans
for
the
life
of
the
affected
source
or
until
the
affected
source
is
no
longer
subject
to
the
requirements
of
this
subpart.

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

(
a)
Deviations.
You
must
report
each
instance
in
which
you
did
not
meet
each
emission
limitation
in
this
subpart
that
applies
to
you.
This
includes
periods
of
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction.
You
must
also
report
each
instance
in
which
you
did
not
meet
each
work
practice
standard
or
operation
and
maintenance
requirement
in
this
subpart
that
applies
to
you.
These
instances
are
deviations
from
the
emission
limitations
(
including
operating
limits),
work
practice
standards,
and
operation
and
maintenance
requirements
in
this
subpart.
These
deviations
must
be
reported
according
to
the
requirements
in
§
63.7341.
(
b)
Startup,
shutdowns,
and
malfunctions.
During
periods
of
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction,
you
must
operate
in
accordance
with
your
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
plan.
(
1)
Consistent
with
§
§
63.6(
e)
and
63.7(
e)(
1),
deviations
that
occur
during
a
period
of
startup,
shutdown,
or
malfunction
are
not
violations
if
you
demonstrate
to
the
Administrator's
satisfaction
that
you
were
operating
in
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
14:
38
Apr
11,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00030
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
14APR3.
SGM
14APR3
18037
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
71
/
Monday,
April
14,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
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).

Notification,
Reports,
and
Records
§
63.7340
What
notifications
must
I
submit
and
when?

(
a)
You
must
submit
all
of
the
notifications
in
§
§
63.6(
h)(
4)
and
(
5),
63.7(
b)
and
(
c),
63.8(
e)
and
(
f)(
4),
and
63.9(
b)
through
(
h)
that
apply
to
you
by
the
specified
dates.
(
b)
As
specified
in
§
63.9(
b)(
2),
if
you
startup
your
affected
source
before
April
14,
2003,
you
must
submit
your
initial
notification
no
later
than
August
12,
2003.
(
c)
As
specified
in
§
63.9(
b)(
3),
if
you
startup
your
new
affected
source
on
or
after
April
14,
2003,
you
must
submit
your
initial
notification
no
later
than
120
calendar
days
after
you
become
subject
to
this
subpart.
(
d)
If
you
are
required
to
conduct
a
performance
test,
you
must
submit
a
notification
of
intent
to
conduct
a
performance
test
at
least
60
calendar
days
before
the
performance
test
is
scheduled
to
begin
as
required
in
§
63.7(
b)(
1).
(
e)
If
you
are
required
to
conduct
a
performance
test,
opacity
observation,
or
other
initial
compliance
demonstration,
you
must
submit
a
notification
of
compliance
status
according
to
§
63.9(
h)(
2)(
ii).
(
1)
For
each
initial
compliance
demonstration
that
does
not
include
a
performance
test,
you
must
submit
the
notification
of
compliance
status
before
the
close
of
business
on
the
30th
calendar
day
following
the
completion
of
the
initial
compliance
demonstration.
(
2)
For
each
initial
compliance
demonstration
that
does
include
a
performance
test,
you
must
submit
the
notification
of
compliance
status,
including
the
performance
test
results,
before
the
close
of
business
on
the
60th
calendar
day
following
completion
of
the
performance
test
according
to
§
63.10(
d)(
2).
(
f)
For
each
by­
product
coke
oven
battery
with
horizontal
flues,
you
must
notify
the
Administrator
(
or
delegated
authority)
of
the
date
on
which
the
study
of
flue
temperatures
required
by
§
63.7292(
a)(
3)
will
be
initiated.
You
must
submit
this
notification
no
later
than
7
days
prior
to
the
date
you
initiate
the
study.
§
63.7341
What
reports
must
I
submit
and
when?
(
a)
Compliance
report
due
dates.
Unless
the
Administrator
has
approved
a
different
schedule,
you
must
submit
quarterly
compliance
reports
for
battery
stacks
and
semiannual
compliance
reports
for
all
other
affected
sources
to
your
permitting
authority
according
to
the
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
a)(
1)
through
(
4)
of
this
section.
(
1)
The
first
quarterly
compliance
report
for
battery
stacks
must
cover
the
period
beginning
on
the
compliance
date
that
is
specified
for
your
affected
source
in
§
63.7283
and
ending
on
the
last
date
of
the
third
calendar
month.
Each
subsequent
compliance
report
must
cover
the
next
calendar
quarter.
(
2)
The
first
semiannual
compliance
report
must
cover
the
period
beginning
on
the
compliance
date
that
is
specified
for
your
affected
source
in
§
63.7283
and
ending
on
June
30
or
December
31,
whichever
date
comes
first
after
the
compliance
date
that
is
specified
for
your
affected
source.
Each
subsequent
compliance
report
must
cover
the
semiannual
reporting
period
from
January
1
through
June
30
or
the
semiannual
reporting
period
from
July
1
through
December
31.
(
3)
All
quarterly
compliance
reports
for
battery
stacks
must
be
postmarked
or
delivered
no
later
than
one
calendar
month
following
the
end
of
the
quarterly
reporting
period.
All
semiannual
compliance
reports
must
be
postmarked
or
delivered
no
later
than
July
31
or
January
31,
whichever
date
is
the
first
date
following
the
end
of
the
semiannual
reporting
period.
(
4)
For
each
affected
source
that
is
subject
to
permitting
regulations
pursuant
to
40
CFR
part
70
or
40
CFR
part
71,
and
if
the
permitting
authority
has
established
dates
for
submitting
semiannual
reports
pursuant
to
40
CFR
70.6(
a)(
3)(
iii)(
A)
or
40
CFR
71.6(
a)(
3)(
iii)(
A),
you
may
submit
the
first
and
subsequent
compliance
reports
according
to
the
dates
the
permitting
authority
has
established
instead
of
according
to
the
dates
in
paragraphs
(
a)(
1)
through
(
3)
of
this
section.
(
b)
Quarterly
compliance
report
contents.
Each
quarterly
report
must
provide
information
on
compliance
with
the
emission
limitations
for
battery
stacks
in
§
63.7296.
The
reports
must
include
the
information
in
paragraphs
(
c)(
1)
through
(
3),
and
as
applicable,
paragraphs
(
c)(
4)
through
(
8)
of
this
section.
(
c)
Semiannual
compliance
report
contents.
Each
compliance
report
must
provide
information
on
compliance
with
the
emission
limitations,
work
practice
standards,
and
operation
and
maintenance
requirements
for
all
affected
sources
except
battery
stacks.
The
reports
must
include
the
information
in
paragraphs
(
c)(
1)
through
(
3)
of
this
section,
and
as
applicable,
paragraphs
(
c)(
4)
through
(
8)
of
this
section.
(
1)
Company
name
and
address.
(
2)
Statement
by
a
responsible
official,
with
the
official's
name,
title,
and
signature,
certifying
the
truth,
accuracy,
and
completeness
of
the
content
of
the
report.
(
3)
Date
of
report
and
beginning
and
ending
dates
of
the
reporting
period.
(
4)
If
you
had
a
startup,
shutdown,
or
malfunction
during
the
reporting
period
and
you
took
actions
consistent
with
your
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
plan,
the
compliance
report
must
include
the
information
in
§
63.10(
d)(
5)(
i).
(
5)
If
there
were
no
deviations
from
the
continuous
compliance
requirements
in
§
63.7333(
e)
for
battery
stacks,
a
statement
that
there
were
no
deviations
from
the
emission
limitations
during
the
reporting
period.
If
there
were
no
deviations
from
the
continuous
compliance
requirements
in
§
§
63.7333
through
63.7335
that
apply
to
you
(
for
all
affected
sources
other
than
battery
stacks),
a
statement
that
there
were
no
deviations
from
the
emission
limitations,
work
practice
standards,
or
operation
and
maintenance
requirements
during
the
reporting
period.
(
6)
If
there
were
no
periods
during
which
a
continuous
monitoring
system
(
including
COMS,
continuous
emission
monitoring
system
(
CEMS),
or
CPMS)
was
out­
of­
control
as
specified
in
§
63.8(
c)(
7),
a
statement
that
there
were
no
periods
during
which
a
continuous
monitoring
system
was
out­
of­
control
during
the
reporting
period.
(
7)
For
each
deviation
from
an
emission
limitation
in
this
subpart
(
including
quench
water
limits)
and
for
each
deviation
from
the
requirements
for
work
practice
standards
in
this
subpart
that
occurs
at
an
affected
source
where
you
are
not
using
a
continuous
monitoring
system
(
including
a
COMS,
CEMS,
or
CPMS)
to
comply
with
the
emission
limitations
in
this
subpart,
the
compliance
report
must
contain
the
information
in
paragraphs
(
c)(
4)
and
(
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
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
14:
38
Apr
11,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00031
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
14APR3.
SGM
14APR3
18038
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
71
/
Monday,
April
14,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
applicable)
as
applicable
and
the
corrective
action
taken.
(
8)
For
each
deviation
from
an
emission
limitation
occurring
at
an
affected
source
where
you
are
using
a
continuous
monitoring
system
(
including
COMS,
CEMS,
or
CPMS)
to
comply
with
the
emission
limitation
in
this
subpart,
you
must
include
the
information
in
paragraphs
(
c)(
4)
and
(
8)(
i)
through
(
xii)
of
this
section.
This
includes
periods
of
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction.
(
i)
The
date
and
time
that
each
malfunction
started
and
stopped.
(
ii)
The
date
and
time
that
each
continuous
monitoring
system
(
including
COMS,
CEMS,
or
CPMS)
was
inoperative,
except
for
zero
(
low­
level)
and
high­
level
checks.
(
iii)
The
date,
time,
and
duration
that
each
continuous
monitoring
system
(
including
COMS,
CEMS,
or
CPMS)
was
out­
of­
control,
including
the
information
in
§
63.8(
c)(
8).
(
iv)
The
date
and
time
that
each
deviation
started
and
stopped,
and
whether
each
deviation
occurred
during
a
period
of
startup,
shutdown,
or
malfunction
or
during
another
period.
(
v)
A
summary
of
the
total
duration
of
the
deviation
during
the
reporting
period
and
the
total
duration
as
a
percent
of
the
total
source
operating
time
during
that
reporting
period.
(
vi)
A
breakdown
of
the
total
duration
of
the
deviations
during
the
reporting
period
into
those
that
are
due
to
startup,
shutdown,
control
equipment
problems,
process
problems,
other
known
causes,
and
other
unknown
causes.
(
vii)
A
summary
of
the
total
duration
of
continuous
monitoring
system
downtime
during
the
reporting
period
and
the
total
duration
of
continuous
monitoring
system
downtime
as
a
percent
of
the
total
source
operating
time
during
the
reporting
period.
(
viii)
An
identification
of
each
HAP
that
was
monitored
at
the
affected
source.
(
ix)
A
brief
description
of
the
process
units.
(
x)
A
brief
description
of
the
continuous
monitoring
system.
(
xi)
The
date
of
the
latest
continuous
monitoring
system
certification
or
audit.
(
xii)
A
description
of
any
changes
in
continuous
monitoring
systems,
processes,
or
controls
since
the
last
reporting
period.
(
d)
Immediate
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
report.
If
you
had
a
startup,
shutdown,
or
malfunction
during
the
semiannual
reporting
period
that
was
not
consistent
with
your
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
plan,
you
must
submit
an
immediate
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
report
according
to
the
requirements
in
§
63.10(
d)(
5)(
ii).
(
e)
Part
70
monitoring
report.
If
you
have
obtained
a
title
V
operating
permit
for
an
affected
source
pursuant
to
40
CFR
part
70
or
40
CFR
part
71,
you
must
report
all
deviations
as
defined
in
this
subpart
in
the
semiannual
monitoring
report
required
by
40
CFR
70.6(
a)(
3)(
iii)(
A)
or
40
CFR
71.6(
a)(
3)(
iii)(
A).
If
you
submit
a
compliance
report
for
an
affected
source
along
with,
or
as
part
of,
the
semiannual
monitoring
report
required
by
40
CFR
70.6(
a)(
3)(
iii)(
A)
or
40
CFR
71.6(
a)(
3)(
iii)(
A),
and
the
compliance
report
includes
all
the
required
information
concerning
deviations
from
any
emission
limitation
or
work
practice
standard
in
this
subpart,
submission
of
the
compliance
report
satisfies
any
obligation
to
report
the
same
deviations
in
the
semiannual
monitoring
report.
However,
submission
of
a
compliance
report
does
not
otherwise
affect
any
obligation
you
may
have
to
report
deviations
from
permit
requirements
to
your
permitting
authority.

§
63.7342
What
records
must
I
keep?

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

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

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

Other
Requirements
and
Information
§
63.7350
What
parts
of
the
General
Provisions
apply
to
me?

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

§
63.7351
Who
implements
and
enforces
this
subpart?

(
a)
This
subpart
can
be
implemented
and
enforced
by
us,
the
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
in
paragraphs
(
c)(
1)
through
(
6)
of
this
section
will
not
be
delegated
to
State,
local,
or
tribal
agencies.
(
1)
Approval
of
alternatives
to
work
practice
standards
for
fugitive
pushing
emissions
in
§
63.7291(
a)
for
a
byproduct
coke
oven
battery
with
vertical
flues,
fugitive
pushing
emissions
in
§
63.7292(
a)
for
a
by­
product
coke
oven
battery
with
horizontal
flues,
fugitive
pushing
emissions
in
§
63.7293
for
a
non­
recovery
coke
oven
battery,
soaking
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
14:
38
Apr
11,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00032
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
14APR3.
SGM
14APR3
18039
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
71
/
Monday,
April
14,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
for
a
by­
product
coke
oven
battery
in
§
63.7294(
a),
and
quenching
for
a
coke
oven
battery
in
§
63.7295(
b)
under
§
63.6(
g).
(
2)
Approval
of
alternative
opacity
emission
limitations
for
a
by­
product
coke
oven
battery
under
§
63.6(
h)(
9).
(
3)
Approval
of
major
alternatives
to
test
methods
under
§
63.7(
e)(
2)(
ii)
and
(
f)
and
as
defined
in
§
63.90,
except
for
alternative
procedures
in
§
63.7334(
a)(
7).
(
4)
Approval
of
major
alternatives
to
monitoring
under
§
63.8(
f)
and
as
defined
in
§
63.90.
(
5)
Approval
of
major
alternatives
to
recordkeeping
and
reporting
under
§
63.10(
f)
and
as
defined
in
§
63.90.
(
6)
Approval
of
the
work
practice
plan
for
by­
product
coke
oven
batteries
with
horizontal
flues
submitted
under
§
63.7292(
a)(
1).

§
63.7352
What
definitions
apply
to
this
subpart?

Terms
used
in
this
subpart
are
defined
in
the
Clean
Air
Act
(
CAA),
in
§
63.2,
and
in
this
section
as
follows:
Acceptable
makeup
water
means
surface
water
from
a
river,
lake,
or
stream;
water
meeting
drinking
water
standards;
storm
water
runoff
and
production
area
clean
up
water
except
for
water
from
the
by­
product
recovery
plant
area;
process
wastewater
treated
to
meet
effluent
limitations
guidelines
in
40
CFR
part
420;
water
from
any
of
these
sources
that
has
been
used
only
for
non­
contact
cooling
or
in
water
seals;
or
water
from
scrubbers
used
to
control
pushing
emissions.
Backup
quench
station
means
a
quenching
device
that
is
used
for
less
than
5
percent
of
the
quenches
from
any
single
coke
oven
battery
in
the
12­
month
period
from
July
1
to
June
30.
Baffles
means
an
apparatus
comprised
of
obstructions
for
checking
or
deflecting
the
flow
of
gases.
Baffles
are
installed
in
a
quench
tower
to
remove
droplets
of
water
and
particles
from
the
rising
vapors
by
providing
a
point
of
impact.
Baffles
may
be
installed
either
inside
or
on
top
of
quench
towers
and
are
typically
constructed
of
treated
wood,
steel,
or
plastic.
Battery
stack
means
the
stack
that
is
the
point
of
discharge
to
the
atmosphere
of
the
combustion
gases
from
a
battery's
underfiring
system.
Batterywide
extended
coking
means
increasing
the
average
coking
time
for
all
ovens
in
the
coke
oven
battery
by
25
percent
or
more
over
the
manufacturer's
specified
design
rate.
By­
product
coke
oven
battery
means
a
group
of
ovens
connected
by
common
walls,
where
coal
undergoes
destructive
distillation
under
positive
pressure
to
produce
coke
and
coke
oven
gas
from
which
by­
products
are
recovered.
By­
product
recovery
plant
area
means
that
area
of
the
coke
plant
where
process
units
subject
to
subpart
L
in
part
61
are
located.
Coke
oven
battery
means
a
group
of
ovens
connected
by
common
walls,
where
coal
undergoes
destructive
distillation
to
produce
coke.
A
coke
oven
battery
includes
by­
product
and
non­
recovery
processes.
Coke
plant
means
a
facility
that
produces
coke
from
coal
in
either
a
byproduct
coke
oven
battery
or
a
nonrecovery
coke
oven
battery.
Cokeside
shed
means
a
structure
used
to
capture
pushing
emissions
that
encloses
the
cokeside
of
the
battery
and
ventilates
the
emissions
to
a
control
device.
Coking
time
means
the
time
interval
that
starts
when
an
oven
is
charged
with
coal
and
ends
when
the
oven
is
pushed.
Deviation
means
any
instance
in
which
an
affected
source
subject
to
this
subpart,
or
an
owner
or
operator
of
such
a
source:
(
1)
Fails
to
meet
any
requirement
or
obligation
established
by
this
subpart
including,
but
not
limited
to,
any
emission
limitation
(
including
operating
limits)
or
work
practice
standard;
(
2)
Fails
to
meet
any
term
or
condition
that
is
adopted
to
implement
an
applicable
requirement
in
this
subpart
and
that
is
included
in
the
operating
permit
for
any
affected
source
required
to
obtain
such
a
permit;
or
(
3)
Fails
to
meet
any
emission
limitation
or
work
practice
standard
in
this
subpart
during
startup,
shutdown,
or
malfunction,
regardless
of
whether
or
not
such
failure
is
permitted
by
this
subpart.
Emission
limitation
means
any
emission
limit,
opacity
limit,
or
operating
limit.
Four
consecutive
pushes
means
four
pushes
observed
successively.
Fugitive
pushing
emissions
means
emissions
from
pushing
that
are
not
collected
by
a
capture
system.
Horizontal
flue
means
a
type
of
coke
oven
heating
system
used
on
Semet­
Solvay
batteries
where
the
heating
flues
run
horizontally
from
one
end
of
the
oven
to
the
other
end,
and
the
flues
are
not
shared
with
adjacent
ovens.
Hot
water
scrubber
means
a
mobile
scrubber
used
to
control
pushing
emissions
through
the
creation
of
an
induced
draft
formed
by
the
expansion
of
pressurized
hot
water
through
a
nozzle.
Increased
coking
time
means
increasing
the
charge­
to­
push
time
for
an
individual
oven.
Non­
recovery
coke
oven
battery
means
a
group
of
ovens
connected
by
common
walls
and
operated
as
a
unit,
where
coal
undergoes
destructive
distillation
under
negative
pressure
to
produce
coke,
and
which
is
designed
for
the
combustion
of
the
coke
oven
gas
from
which
byproducts
are
not
recovered.
Oven
means
a
chamber
in
the
coke
oven
battery
in
which
coal
undergoes
destructive
distillation
to
produce
coke.
Pushing
means
the
process
of
removing
the
coke
from
the
oven.
Pushing
begins
with
the
first
detectable
movement
of
the
coke
mass
and
ends
when
the
quench
car
enters
the
quench
tower.
Quenching
means
the
wet
process
of
cooling
(
wet
quenching)
the
hot
incandescent
coke
by
direct
contact
with
water
that
begins
when
the
quench
car
enters
the
quench
tower
and
ends
when
the
quench
car
exits
the
quench
tower.
Quench
tower
means
the
structure
in
which
hot
incandescent
coke
in
the
quench
car
is
deluged
or
quenched
with
water.
Remove
from
service
means
that
an
oven
is
not
charged
with
coal
and
is
not
used
for
coking.
When
removed
from
service,
the
oven
may
remain
at
the
operating
temperature
or
it
may
be
cooled
down
for
repairs.
Responsible
official
means
responsible
official
as
defined
in
§
63.2.
Short
battery
means
a
by­
product
coke
oven
battery
with
ovens
less
than
five
meters
in
height.
Soaking
means
that
period
in
the
coking
cycle
that
starts
when
an
oven
is
dampered
off
the
collecting
main
and
vented
to
the
atmosphere
through
an
open
standpipe
prior
to
pushing
and
ends
when
the
coke
begins
to
be
pushed
from
the
oven.
Soaking
emissions
means
the
discharge
from
an
open
standpipe
during
soaking
of
visible
emissions
due
to
either
incomplete
coking
or
leakage
into
the
standpipe
from
the
collecting
main.
Standpipe
means
an
apparatus
on
the
oven
that
provides
a
passage
for
gases
from
an
oven
to
the
atmosphere
when
the
oven
is
dampered
off
the
collecting
main
and
the
standpipe
cap
is
opened.
This
includes
mini­
standpipes
that
are
not
connected
to
the
collecting
main.
Tall
battery
means
a
by­
product
coke
oven
battery
with
ovens
five
meters
or
more
in
height.
Vertical
flue
means
a
type
of
coke
oven
heating
system
in
which
the
heating
flues
run
vertically
from
the
bottom
to
the
top
of
the
oven,
and
flues
are
shared
between
adjacent
ovens.
Work
practice
standard
means
any
design,
equipment,
work
practice,
or
operational
standard,
or
combination
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
14:
38
Apr
11,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00033
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
14APR3.
SGM
14APR3
18040
Federal
Register
/
Vol.
68,
No.
71
/
Monday,
April
14,
2003
/
Rules
and
Regulations
thereof,
that
is
promulgated
pursuant
to
section
112(
h)
of
the
CAA.
As
required
in
§
63.7350,
you
must
comply
with
each
applicable
requirement
of
the
NESHAP
General
Provisions
(
40
CFR
part
63,
subpart
A)
as
shown
in
the
following
table:

TABLES
TO
SUBPART
CCCCC
OF
PART
63
[
Table
1
to
Subpart
CCCCC
of
Part
63.
Applicability
of
General
Provisions
to
Subpart
CCCCC]

Citation
Subject
Applies
to
Subpart
CCCCC?
Explanation
§
63.1
.......................
Applicability
..........................................................
Yes.
§
63.2
.......................
Definitions
............................................................
Yes.
§
63.3
.......................
Units
and
Abbreviations
......................................
Yes.
§
63.4
.......................
Prohibited
Activities
.............................................
Yes.
§
63.5
.......................
Construction/
Reconstruction
................................
Yes.
§
63.6(
a),
(
b),
(
c),
(
d),
(
e),
(
f),
(
g),
(
h)(
2)
 
(
8).
Compliance
with
Standards
and
Maintenance
Requirements.
Yes.

§
63.6(
h)(
9)
..............
Adjustment
to
an
Opacity
Emission
Standard
....
Yes.
§
63.7(
a)(
3),
(
b),
(
c)
 
(
h).
Performance
Testing
Requirements
....................
Yes.

§
63.7(
a)(
1)
 
(
2)
.......
Applicability
and
Performance
Test
Dates
..........
No
..........................
Subpart
CCCCC
specifies
applicability
and
dates.
§
63.8(
a)(
1)
 
(
3),
(
b),
(
c)(
1)
 
(
3),
(
c)(
4)(
i)
 
(
ii),
(
c)(
5)
 
(
8),
(
d),
(
e),
(
f)(
1)
 
(
5),
(
g)(
1)
 
(
4).
Monitoring
Requirements
....................................
Yes
.........................
CMS
requirements
in
§
63.8(
c)(
4)
(
i)
 
(
ii),
(
c)(
5),
and
(
c)(
6)
apply
only
to
COMS
for
battery
stacks.

§
63.8(
a)(
4)
..............
Additional
Monitoring
Requirements
for
Control
Devices
in
§
63.11.
No
..........................
Flares
are
not
a
control
device
for
Subpart
CCCCC
affected
sources.
§
63.8(
c)(
4)
..............
Continuous
Monitoring
System
(
CMS)
Requirements
No
..........................
Subpart
CCCCC
specifies
requirements
for
operation
of
CMS.
§
63.8(
e)(
4)
 
(
5)
.......
Performance
Evaluations
....................................
Yes
.........................
Except
COMS
performance
evaluation
must
be
conducted
before
the
compliance
date.
§
63.8(
f)(
6)
...............
RATA
Alternative
.................................................
No
..........................
Subpart
CCCCC
does
not
require
CEMS.
§
63.8(
g)(
5)
..............
Data
Reduction
....................................................
No
..........................
Subpart
CCCCC
specifies
data
that
can't
be
used
in
computing
averages
for
COMS.
§
63.9
.......................
Notification
Requirements
...................................
Yes
.........................
Additional
notifications
for
CMS
in
§
63.9(
g)
apply
only
to
COMS
for
battery
stacks.
§
63.10(
a),
(
b)(
1)
 
(
b)(
2)(
xii),
(
b)(
2)(
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
battery
stacks.

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

§
63.10(
c)(
7)
 
(
8)
......
Records
of
Excess
Emissions
and
Parameter
Monitoring
Exceedances
for
CMS.
No
..........................
Subpart
CCCCC
specifies
record
requirements.

§
63.10(
e)(
3)
............
Excess
Emission
Reports
....................................
No
..........................
Subpart
CCCCC
specifies
reporting
requirements
§
63.11
.....................
Control
Device
Requirements
.............................
No
..........................
Subpart
CCCCC
does
not
require
flares.
§
63.12
.....................
State
Authority
and
Delegations.
.........................
Yes.
§
§
63.13
 
63.15
........
Addresses,
Incorporation
by
Reference,
Availability
of
Information.
Yes.

[
FR
Doc.
03
 
5625
Filed
4
 
11
 
03;
8:
45
am]

BILLING
CODE
6560
 
50
 
P
VerDate
Jan<
31>
2003
14:
38
Apr
11,
2003
Jkt
200001
PO
00000
Frm
00034
Fmt
4701
Sfmt
4700
E:\
FR\
FM\
14APR3.
SGM
14APR3