Document ID: EPA-HQ-OAR-2003-0051-0169
Agency: epa
Document Type: Supporting & Related Material
Title: 
Posted Date: 2004-05-28T04:00Z

6560­
50­
P
ENVIRONMENTAL
PROTECTION
AGENCY
40
CFR
Part
63
[
OAR­
2003­
0051;
FRL­
]

RIN
2060­
AJ96
National
Emission
Standards
for
Coke
Oven
Batteries
AGENCY:
Environmental
Protection
Agency
(
EPA).

ACTION:
Proposed
rule;
amendments.

SUMMARY:
On
October
27,
1993,
pursuant
to
section
112
of
the
Clean
Air
Act,
the
EPA
issued
technology­
based
national
emission
standards
to
control
hazardous
air
pollutants
emitted
by
coke
oven
batteries.
This
proposal
would
amend
the
standards
to
include
more
stringent
requirements
for
certain
by­
product
coke
oven
batteries
to
address
health
risks
remaining
after
implementation
of
the
1993
standards.

We
are
also
proposing
amendments
to
the
1993
standards
for
emissions
of
hazardous
air
pollutants
from
non­
recovery
coke
oven
batteries.

DATES:
Comments.
Comments
must
be
received
on
or
before
[
insert
date
60
days
after
publication
in
the
Federal
Register].

ADDRESSES:
Submit
your
comments,
identified
by
Docket
ID
No.

OAR­
2003­
0051,
by
one
of
the
following
methods:

!
Federal
eRulemaking
Portal:

http://
www.
regulations.
gov.
Follow
the
on­
line
2
instructions
for
submitting
comments.

!
Agency
Website:
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
edocket.

EDOCKET,
EPA's
electronic
public
docket
and
comment
system,
is
EPA's
preferred
method
for
receiving
comments.
Follow
the
on­
line
instructions
for
submitting
comments.

!
E­
mail:
a­
and­
r­
docket@
epa.
gov.

!
Fax:
(
202)
566­
1741.

!
Mail:
NESHAP
for
Coke
Oven
Batteries
Docket,

Environmental
Protection
Agency,
Mailcode:
6102T,

1200
Pennsylvania
Ave.,
NW.,
Washington,
DC
20460.

Please
include
a
total
of
2
copies.
In
addition,

please
mail
a
copy
of
your
comments
on
the
information
collection
provisions
to
the
Office
of
Information
and
Regulatory
Affairs,
Office
of
Management
and
Budget
(
OMB),
Attn:
Desk
Officer
for
EPA,
725
17th
St.
NW.,
Washington
DC
20503.

!
Hand
Delivery:
Environmental
Protection
Agency,

1301
Constitution
Avenue,
NW.,
Room
B102,

Washington,
DC.
20460.
Such
deliveries
are
only
accepted
during
the
Docket's
normal
hours
of
operation,
and
special
arrangements
should
be
made
for
deliveries
of
boxed
information.

Instructions:
Direct
your
comments
to
Docket
ID
No.
OAR­

2003­
0051.
The
EPA's
policy
is
that
all
comments
received
3
will
be
included
in
the
public
docket
without
change
and
may
be
made
available
online
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
edocket,

including
any
personal
information
provided,
unless
the
comment
includes
information
claimed
to
be
Confidential
Business
Information
(
CBI)
or
other
information
whose
disclosure
is
restricted
by
statute.
Do
not
submit
information
that
you
consider
to
be
CBI
or
otherwise
protected
through
EDOCKET,
regulations.
gov,
or
e­
mail.
The
EPA
EDOCKET
and
the
federal
regulations.
gov
websites
are
"
anonymous
access"
systems,
which
means
EPA
will
not
know
your
identity
or
contact
information
unless
you
provide
it
in
the
body
of
your
comment.
If
you
send
an
e­
mail
comment
directly
to
EPA
without
going
through
EDOCKET
or
regulations.
gov,
your
e­
mail
address
will
be
automatically
captured
and
included
as
part
of
the
comment
that
is
placed
in
the
public
docket
and
made
available
on
the
Internet.
If
you
submit
an
electronic
comment,
EPA
recommends
that
you
include
your
name
and
other
contact
information
in
the
body
of
your
comment
and
with
any
disk
or
CD­
ROM
you
submit.
If
EPA
cannot
read
your
comment
due
to
technical
difficulties
and
cannot
contact
you
for
clarification,
EPA
may
not
be
able
to
consider
your
comment.
Electronic
files
should
avoid
the
use
of
special
characters,
any
form
of
encryption,

and
be
free
of
any
defects
or
viruses.

Docket:
All
documents
in
the
docket
are
listed
in
the
4
EDOCKET
index
at
http://
www.
epa.
gov/
edocket.
Although
listed
in
the
index,
some
information
is
not
publicly
available,
i.
e.,
CBI
or
other
information
whose
disclosure
is
restricted
by
statute.
Certain
other
information,
such
as
copyrighted
materials,
is
not
placed
on
the
Internet
and
will
be
publicly
available
only
in
hard
copy
form.
Publicly
available
docket
materials
are
available
either
electronically
in
EDOCKET
or
in
hard
copy
form
at
the
NESHAP
for
Coke
Oven
Batteries
Docket,
Docket
ID
No.
OAR­
2003­
0051
or
A­
79­
15,
EPA/
DC,
EPA
West,
Room
B102,
1301
Constitution
Ave.,
NW,
Washington,
DC.
The
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
Public
Reading
Room
is
(
202)
566­
1744,
and
the
telephone
number
for
the
Air
Docket
is
(
202)
566­
1742.

FOR
FURTHER
INFORMATION
CONTACT:
Ms.
Lula
Melton,
Emission
Standards
Division,
Office
of
Air
Quality
Planning
and
Standards
(
C439­
02),
Environmental
Protection
Agency,

Research
Triangle
Park,
NC
27711,
telephone
number
(
919)

541­
2910,
fax
number
(
919)
541­
3207,
e­
mail
address:

melton.
lula@
epa.
gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION:

I.
General
Information
A.
Does
this
action
apply
to
me?
5
Categories
and
entities
potentially
regulated
by
this
action
include:

Category
NAIC
code1
Examples
of
regulated
entities
Industry
331111
324199
Existing
by­
product
coke
oven
batteries
subject
to
emission
limitations
in
40
CFR
63.302(
a)(
2)
and
non­
recovery
coke
oven
batteries
subject
to
new
source
emission
limitations
in
40
CFR
63.303(
b).
These
are
known
as
"
MACT
track"
batteries.

Federal
government
Not
affected.

State/
local/
tribal
government
Not
affected.

1
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
§
63.300
of
the
national
emission
standards
for
coke
oven
batteries.
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.

B.
What
should
I
consider
as
I
prepare
my
comments
for
EPA?

Do
not
submit
information
containing
CBI
to
EPA
through
EDOCKET,
regulations.
gov
or
e­
mail.
Send
or
deliver
information
identified
as
CBI
only
to
the
following
address:
6
Roberto
Morales,
OAQPS
Document
Control
Officer
(
C404­
02),

U.
S.
EPA,
Research
Triangle
Park,
NC
27711,
Attention
Docket
ID
No.
OAR­
2003­
0051.
Clearly
mark
the
part
or
all
of
the
information
that
you
claim
to
be
CBI.
For
CBI
information
in
a
disk
or
CD
ROM
that
you
mail
to
EPA,
mark
the
outside
of
the
disk
or
CD
ROM
as
CBI
and
then
identify
electronically
within
the
disk
or
CD
ROM
the
specific
information
claimed
as
CBI.
In
addition
to
one
complete
version
of
the
comment
that
includes
information
claimed
as
CBI,
a
copy
of
the
comment
that
does
not
contain
the
information
claimed
as
CBI
must
be
submitted
for
inclusion
in
the
public
docket.
Information
so
marked
will
not
be
disclosed
except
in
accordance
with
procedures
set
forth
in
40
CFR
part
2.

C.
Where
can
I
get
a
copy
of
this
document
and
other
related
information?

In
addition
to
being
available
in
the
docket,
an
electronic
copy
of
today's
proposed
amendments
is
also
available
on
the
Worldwide
Web
(
WWW)
through
the
Technology
Transfer
Network
(
TTN).
Following
the
Administrator's
signature,
a
copy
of
the
proposed
amendments
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
7
regarding
the
TTN
is
needed,
call
the
TTN
HELP
line
at
(
919)

541­
5384.

D.
Will
there
be
a
public
hearing?

If
anyone
contacts
the
EPA
requesting
to
speak
at
a
public
hearing
by
[
insert
date
20
days
after
publication
in
the
Federal
Register],
a
public
hearing
will
be
held
on
[
insert
date
30
days
after
publication
in
the
Federal
Register].
If
a
public
hearing
is
requested,
it
will
be
held
at
10
a.
m.
at
the
EPA
Facility
Complex
in
Research
Triangle
Park,
North
Carolina
or
at
an
alternate
site
nearby.

E.
How
is
this
document
organized?

The
information
presented
in
this
preamble
is
organized
as
follows:

II.
Background
A.
What
is
the
statutory
authority
for
development
of
the
proposed
amendments?
B.
What
is
our
approach
for
developing
these
standards?
C.
What
is
unique
about
the
regulatory
regime
for
coke
ovens?
D.
How
does
today's
action
comply
with
the
requirements
of
section
112(
d)(
8)
and
(
i)(
8)
that
specifically
apply
to
regulation
of
coke
ovens?
E.
What
is
cokemaking?
F.
What
HAP
are
emitted
from
cokemaking?
G.
What
are
the
health
effects
associated
with
these
HAP?
III.
Summary
of
the
Proposed
Amendments
A.
What
are
the
affected
sources
and
emission
points?
B.
What
are
the
proposed
requirements?
IV.
Rationale
for
the
Proposed
Amendments
A.
How
did
we
estimate
risks?
B.
What
did
we
analyze
in
the
risk
assessment?
C.
How
were
cancer
and
noncancer
risks
estimated?
D.
How
did
we
estimate
the
atmospheric
dispersion
of
emitted
pollutants?
8
E.
What
factors
are
considered
in
the
risk
assessment?
F.
How
did
we
calculate
risks?
G.
How
did
we
assess
environmental
impacts?
H.
What
are
the
results
of
the
risk
assessment?
I.
What
is
our
decision
on
acceptable
risk
and
ample
margin
of
safety?
J.
What
determination
is
EPA
proposing
pursuant
to
CAA
section
112(
d)(
6)?
K.
Why
are
we
amending
the
1993
NESHAP
requirements
for
door
leaks
on
non­
recovery
batteries?
L.
What
are
the
estimated
cost
impacts
of
the
proposed
amendments?
V.
Statutory
and
Executive
Order
Reviews
A.
Executive
Order
12866:
Regulatory
Planning
and
Review
B.
Paperwork
Reduction
Act
C.
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
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
and
Safety
Risks
H.
Executive
Order
13211:
Actions
that
Significantly
Affect
Energy
Supply,
Distribution,
or
Use
I.
National
Technology
Transfer
Advancement
Act
II.
Background
A.
What
is
the
statutory
authority
for
development
of
the
proposed
amendments?

Section
112
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
(
CAA)
establishes
a
two­
stage
regulatory
process
to
address
emissions
of
hazardous
air
pollutants
(
HAP)
from
stationary
sources.
In
the
first
stage,
after
EPA
has
identified
categories
of
sources
emitting
one
or
more
of
the
HAP
listed
in
the
CAA,

section
112(
d)
calls
for
us
to
promulgate
national
technology­
based
emission
standards
for
sources
within
those
categories
that
emit
or
have
the
potential
to
emit
any
9
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
(
known
as
"
major
sources"),
as
well
as
for
certain
"
area
sources"
emitting
less
than
those
amounts.
These
technology­
based
standards
must
reflect
the
maximum
reductions
of
HAP
achievable
(
after
considering
cost,
energy
requirements,
and
non­
air
health
and
environmental
impacts)

and
are
commonly
referred
to
as
maximum
achievable
control
technology
(
MACT)
standards.
The
EPA
is
then
required
to
review
these
technology­
based
standards
and
to
revise
them
"
as
necessary,
taking
into
account
developments
in
practices,
processes
and
control
technologies,"
no
less
frequently
than
every
8
years.

The
second
stage
in
standard­
setting
is
described
in
section
112(
f)
of
the
CAA.
This
provision
requires,
first,

that
EPA
prepare
a
Report
to
Congress
discussing
(
among
other
things)
methods
of
calculating
risk
posed
(
or
potentially
posed)
by
sources
after
implementation
of
the
MACT
standards,
the
public
health
significance
of
those
risks,
the
means
and
costs
of
controlling
them,
actual
health
effects
to
persons
in
proximity
to
emitting
sources,

and
recommendations
as
to
legislation
regarding
such
remaining
risk.
The
EPA
prepared
and
submitted
this
report
("
Residual
Risk
Report
to
Congress,"
EPA­
453/
R­
99­
001)
in
March
1999.
The
Congress
did
not
act
on
any
of
the
10
recommendations
in
the
report,
triggering
the
second
stage
of
the
standard­
setting
process,
the
residual
risk
phase.

Section
112(
f)(
2)
requires
us
to
determine
for
each
section
112(
d)
source
category
whether
the
MACT
standards
protect
public
health
with
an
ample
margin
of
safety.
If
the
MACT
standards
for
HAP
"
classified
as
a
known,
probable,

or
possible
human
carcinogen
do
not
reduce
lifetime
excess
cancer
risks
to
the
individual
most
exposed
to
emissions
from
a
source
in
the
category
or
subcategory
to
less
than
one
in
one
million,"
EPA
must
promulgate
residual
risk
standards
for
the
source
category
(
or
subcategory)
whichas
necessary
to
provide
an
ample
margin
of
safety.
The
EPA
must
also
adopt
more
stringent
standards
to
prevent
an
adverse
environmental
effect
(
defined
in
section
112(
a)(
7)

as
"
any
significant
and
widespread
adverse
effect
.
.
.
to
wildlife,
aquatic
life,
or
natural
resources
.
.
.."),
but
must
consider
cost,
energy,
safety,
and
other
relevant
factors
in
doing
so.

B.
What
is
our
approach
for
developing
these
standards?

Following
our
initial
determination
that
the
individual
most
exposed
for
the
emissions
category
considered
exceeds
a
one
in
a
million
excess
individual
cancer
risk,
oOur
approach
to
developing
standards
is
based
on
a
two­
step
determination
of
acceptable
risk
and
ample
margin
of
safety.

The
first
step,
consideration
of
acceptable
risk,
is
only
a
11
1
This
reading
is
confirmed
by
the
Legislative
History
to
section
112(
f);
see,
e.
g.,
"
A
Legislative
History
of
the
Clean
Air
Act
Amendments
of
1990,"
vol.
1,
page
877
(
Senate
Debate
on
Conference
Report).

2
Legislative
History,
vol.
1
p.
877,
stating
that:
".
.
.
the
managers
intend
that
the
Administrator
shall
interpret
this
requirement
[
to
establish
standards
reflecting
an
ample
margin
of
safety]
in
a
manner
no
less
protective
of
the
most
exposed
individual
than
the
policy
set
forth
in
the
Administrator's
benzene
regulations
.
.
.."
starting
point
for
the
analysis
that
determines
the
final
standards.
The
second
step
determines
an
ample
margin
of
safety
which
is
the
levels
at
which
the
standards
are
set.

The
termterms
"
individual
most
exposed,"
"
acceptable
level,"
and
"
ample
margin
of
safety"
isare
not
specifically
defined
in
the
CAA.
However,
section
112(
f)(
2)(
B)
refers
positively
to
theEPA's
interpretation
of
that
terme
terms
"
acceptable
level"
and
"
ample
margin
of
safety"
provided
in
our
1989
rulemaking
(
54
FR
38044,
September
14,
1989),

"
National
Emission
Standards
for
Hazardous
Air
Pollutants
(
NESHAP):
Benzene
Emissions
from
Maleic
Anhydride
Plants,

Ethylbenzene/
Styrene
Plants,
Benzene
Storage
Vessels,

Benzene
Equipment
Leaks,
and
Coke
By­
Product
Recovery
Plants,"
essentially
directing
EPA
to
use
the
interpretation
set
out
in
that
notice1
or
to
utilize
approaches
affording
at
least
the
same
level
of
protection2.
The
EPA
likewise
notified
Congress
in
its
Residual
Risk
Report
that
EPA
intended
to
useutilize
the
Benzene
NESHAP
approach
in
making
12
3
"
Residual
Risk
Report
to
Congress"
at
page
ES­
11,
EPA­
453/
R­
99­
001.

4
Id.
section
112(
f)
residual
risk
determinations.
3
In
the
Benzene
NESHAP
(
54
FR
38044,
September
14,

1989),
we
stated
as
an
overall
objective:

.
.
.
in
protecting
public
health
with
an
ample
margin
of
safety,
we
strive
to
provide
maximum
feasible
protection
against
risks
to
health
from
hazardous
air
pollutants
by
(
1)
protecting
the
greatest
number
of
persons
possible
to
an
individual
lifetime
risk
level
no
higher
than
approximately
1
in
1
million;
and
(
2)
limiting
to
no
higher
than
approximately
1
in
10
thousand
[
i.
e.,
100
in
a
million]
the
estimated
risk
that
a
person
living
near
a
facility
would
have
if
he
or
she
were
exposed
to
the
maximum
pollutant
concentrations
for
70
years.

As
explained
more
fully
in
our
Residual
Risk
Report,
these
goals
are
not
"
rigid
line[
s]
of
acceptability,"
but
rather
broad
objectives
to
be
weighed
"
with
a
series
of
other
health
measures
and
factors."
4
C.
What
is
unique
about
the
regulatory
regime
for
coke
ovens?

The
proposed
amendments
are
case­
specific
for
HAP
emissions
from
coke
oven
doors,
lids,
offtake
systems,
and
charging.
As
explained
below,
Congress
enacted
a
unique
regulatory
regime
for
control
of
coke
oven
HAP
emissions.

Thus,
because
these
emissions
are
treated
uniquely
under
the
CAA,
the
methods
and
policies
reflected
in
the
proposed
13
amendments
should
not
necessarily
be
construed
as
setting
a
precedent
for
future
rules
under
the
residual
risk
program
established
by
section
112(
f).

As
explained
in
more
detail
later
in
this
preamble,

emissions
from
charging,
door
leaks,
and
topside
(
lids
and
offtake
systems)
leaks
are
subject
to
specific
statutory
requirements
and
schedules.
In
particular,
section
112(
d)(
8)
established
a
deadline
of
December
31,
1992
for
the
promulgation
of
MACT
standards
for
designated
emission
points
from
these
sources
and
established
special
requirements
for
the
standards.
In
addition,
section
112(
i)(
8)
established
the
framework
for
an
alternative
regulatory
approach
that
allowed
these
sources
to
defer
residual
risk
standards
until
2020
by
electing
to
meet
two
tiers
of
more
stringent
standards
reflecting
the
lowest
achievable
emission
rate
(
LAER)(
a
technology­
based
standard
more
stringent
than
MACT).
The
regulations
(
58
FR
57911,

October
27,
1993)
included
a
second
set
of
additional,
more
stringent
standards
for
MACT
track
batteries
that
must
be
met
on
and
after
January
1,
2003,
unless
superseded
by
residual
risk
standards
promulgated
under
section
112(
f).

D.
How
does
today's
action
comply
with
the
requirements
of
section
112(
d)(
8)
and
(
i)(
8)
that
specifically
apply
to
regulation
of
coke
ovens?

Section
112
includes
several
provisions
that
14
specifically
govern
our
implementation
of
section
112(
d)
and
(
f)
with
respect
to
coke
ovens.
First,
section
112(
d)(
8)

sets
specific
minimum
targets
for
technology­
based
standards
promulgated
for
emissions
from
charging,
door
leaks,
and
topside
leaks
at
coke
ovens.
Section
112(
i)(
8)
establishes
two
"
tracks"
of
technology­
based
standards
and
specifies
different
compliance
timetables
depending
on
the
track
chosen
by
the
source.
These
tracks
are
generally
referred
to
as
the
MACT
track
and
the
LAER
track.

The
LAER
track
batteries
are
those
sources
that
elected
to
meet
more
stringent
technology­
based
standards
beginning
in
1993.
The
LAER
standards
become
more
stringent
over
time
with
the
final
LAER
technology
standards
becoming
effective
in
2010.
The
LAER
track
batteries
are
exempt
from
any
residual
risk
standards
until
2020.
Consequently,
today's
proposed
amendments
would
not
set
residual
risk
standards
for
LAER
track
batteries.

Today's
proposed
amendments
would
instead
apply
to
those
existing
by­
product
coke
oven
batteries
that
chose
the
MACT
track
(
five
batteries
at
four
plants).
These
existing
by­
product
coke
oven
batteries
were
required,
beginning
in
1995,
to
comply
with
the
1993
MACT
standards
promulgated
for
charging,
door
leaks,
and
topside
leaks.
Unlike
the
LAER
track
batteries,
the
MACT
track
batteries
are
not
entitled
to
an
extension
of
the
residual
risk
compliance
date.
Thus,
15
5
See
Legislative
History,
vol.
1,
p.
868,
where
Sen.
Durenberger
stated
that
"
EPA
shall
consider
the
combined
risks
of
all
sources
that
are
colocated
with
such
sources
within
the
same
major
source."
The
Senator
continued,
however,
that
these
standards
need
not
be
set
at
the
same
time,
provided
"
the
standard
for
the
categories
in
the
first
today's
action
determines,
in
accordance
with
section
112(
f)(
2),
that
residual
risk
standards
are
required
for
MACT
track
batteries
and
accordingly
proposes
residual
risk
standards
for
them.

The
specific
provisions
in
section
112(
d)(
8)
and
(
i)(
8)

only
apply
to
charging,
door
leak,
and
topside
leak
emissions
at
coke
oven
batteries.
Our
initial
list
of
source
categories
published
on
July
16,
1992
(
57
FR
31576)

also
contains
a
category
entitled,
"
Coke
Ovens:
Pushing,

Quenching,
and
Battery
Stacks."
We
promulgated
MACT
standards
for
these
emission
points
on
April
14,
2003
(
68
FR
18008).
An
assessment
and
decision
on
any
potential
residual
risk
standards
for
those
emission
points
is
required
by
2011.

Because
the
pushing,
quenching,
and
battery
stack
emission
points
are
an
integral
part
of
the
same
facilities
covered
by
the
MACT
standards
for
charging,
door
leaks,
and
topside
leaks
(
they
not
only
are
part
of
the
same
process
but
emit
the
same
HAP),
we
believe
it
is
important
to
consider
emissions
from
all
of
these
points
in
assessing
the
risk
associated
with
HAP
emissions
from
coke
ovens.
5
As
16
group
must
be
sufficiently
stringent
so
that
when
all
residual
risk
standards
have
been
set,
the
public
will
be
protected
with
an
ample
margin
of
safety
from
the
combined
emissions
of
all
sources
within
a
major
source."
explained
more
fully
below,
we
have
determined
that
it
is
unnecessary
to
address
total
facility
risk
in
this
proposal,

and
have
determined
further
that
it
is
reasonable
to
defer
a
total
facility
risk
determination
until
we
make
a
residual
risk
determination
for
the
pushing,
quenching,
and
battery
stack
emission
points.
Thus,
our
determination
of
the
in
order
to
ensure
that
the
public
is
protected
with
an
ample
margin
of
safety,
level
EPA's
determination
of
the
risk
posed
byfor
the
total
coke
oven
facility
(
all
emission
points
from
coke
oven
batteries)
is
not
part
of
this
proposal
but
will
not
be
fully
addressed
whenuntil
residual
risk
assessments
for
all
coke
plant
source
categories
are
completed.
Nonetheless,
we
include
estimates
of
total
facility
risks
in
today's
proposal,
and
we
believe
that
the
standards
we
are
setting
today
for
charging,
doors,
and
topside
leaks
are
sufficiently
stringent
so
that
when
all
residual
risk
standards
have
been
set
for
coke
plant
source
categories,
the
public
will
be
protected
with
an
ample
margin
of
safety
from
the
combined
emissions
from
all
emission
points
from
coke
oven
batteries.

E.
What
is
cokemaking?
17
In
a
coke
oven
battery,
coal
undergoes
destructive
distillation
to
produce
coke.
The
coke
industry
consists
of
two
sectors,
integrated
plants
and
merchant
plants.

Integrated
plants
are
owned
by
or
affiliated
with
iron­
and
steel­
producing
companies
that
produce
furnace
coke
primarily
for
consumption
in
their
own
blast
furnaces.

There
are
nine
integrated
plants
owned
by
six
iron
and
steel
companies.
These
plants
account
for
72
percent
of
United
States
(
U.
S.)
coke
production.
Independent
merchant
plants
produce
furnace
and
foundry
coke
for
sale
on
the
open
market.
Foundry
coke
is
used
in
foundry
furnaces
for
melting
scrap
iron
to
produce
iron
castings.
There
are
ten
merchant
plants.
As
of
April
2003,
there
are
19
coke
plants
operating
56
coke
oven
batteries;
46
are
by­
product
batteries,
and
ten
are
non­
recovery
batteries.

A
typical
by­
product
battery
consists
of
40
to
60
adjacent
ovens
with
common
side
walls
made
of
high
quality
silica
and
other
types
of
refractory
brick.
A
weighed
amount
or
specific
volume
of
coal
is
discharged
from
the
coal
bunker
into
a
larry
car­­
a
charging
vehicle
that
moves
along
the
top
of
the
battery.
The
larry
car
is
positioned
over
the
empty,
hot
oven;
the
lids
on
the
charging
ports
are
removed;
and
the
coal
is
discharged
from
the
hoppers
of
the
larry
car
into
the
oven.
Typically,
the
individual
slot
ovens
are
36
to
56
feet
long,
1
to
2
feet
wide,
and
8
to
20
18
feet
high,
and
each
oven
holds
between
15
and
25
tons
of
coal.

The
coal
is
heated
in
the
oven
in
the
absence
of
air
to
temperatures
approaching
2,000
degrees
Fahrenheit
(

F)
which
drives
off
most
of
the
volatile
organic
constituents
of
the
coal
as
gases
and
vapors,
forming
coke
which
consists
almost
entirely
of
carbon.
The
organic
gases
and
vapors
that
evolve
are
removed
through
an
offtake
system
and
sent
to
a
by­
product
plant
for
chemical
recovery
and
coke
oven
gas
cleaning.

Coking
temperatures
generally
range
from
1,650
to
2,000

F
and
are
on
the
higher
side
of
the
range
to
produce
blast
furnace
coke.
Coking
continues
for
15
to
18
hours
to
produce
blast
furnace
coke
and
25
to
30
hours
to
produce
foundry
coke.

At
the
end
of
the
coking
cycle,
doors
at
both
ends
of
the
oven
are
removed,
and
the
incandescent
coke
is
pushed
out
of
the
oven
by
a
ram
that
is
extended
from
the
pusher
machine.
The
coke
is
pushed
through
a
coke
guide
into
a
special
rail
car,
called
a
quench
car,
which
transports
the
coke
to
a
quench
tower,
typically
located
at
the
end
of
a
row
of
batteries.
Inside
the
quench
tower,
the
hot
coke
is
deluged
with
water
so
that
it
will
not
continue
to
burn
after
being
exposed
to
air.
The
quenched
coke
is
discharged
onto
an
inclined
"
coke
wharf"
to
allow
excess
water
to
drain
19
and
to
cool
the
coke.

There
are
two
non­
recovery
plants
(
ten
non­
recovery
batteries)
operating
in
the
U.
S.
As
the
name
implies,
this
process
does
not
recover
the
chemical
by­
products
as
does
the
by­
product
coking
process.
All
of
the
coke
oven
gas
is
burned
and
instead
of
recovery
of
chemicals,
this
process
allows
for
heat
recovery
and
cogeneration
of
electricity.

Non­
recovery
ovens
operate
under
negative
pressure
and
are
of
a
horizontal
design
(
as
opposed
to
the
vertical
design
used
in
the
by­
product
process).

F.
What
HAP
are
emitted
from
cokemaking?

The
primary
HAP
emitted
from
cokemaking
are
"
coke
oven
emissions,"
which
includes
many
organic
compounds.

Constituents
of
primary
interest
because
of
adverse
health
effects
include
semi­
volatiles,
such
as
polycyclic
organic
matter
(
POM)
and
polynuclear
aromatic
hydrocarbons
(
PAH).

The
emissions
also
include
volatile
organic
compounds,
such
as
benzene,
toluene,
and
xylene.

Emissions
occur
at
multiple
stages
of
the
coking
process.
Coke
oven
emissions
can
be
released
when
the
oven
is
charged
with
coal.
During
coking
with
the
oven
under
positive
pressure,
emissions
occur
from
leaking
doors,
lids,

and
offtakes.
On
rare
occasions
during
an
equipment
failure
or
process
upset,
coke
oven
emissions
may
occur
from
bypass
stacks.
We
promulgated
emission
standards
for
each
of
these
20
emission
points
with
limits
for
charging,
doors,
lids,
and
offtakes
and
a
requirement
to
flare
any
bypassed
coke
oven
gas
(
40
CFR
part
63,
subpart
L)
in
1993.

Coke
oven
emissions
are
also
released
from
pushing,

quenching,
and
battery
stacks.
As
noted
earlier,
we
promulgated
MACT
standards
that
address
these
three
emission
points
(
40
CFR
part
63,
subpart
CCCCC)
in
2003.

Emissions
of
HAP
also
occur
from
the
by­
product
plant
that
recovers
various
chemicals
from
the
coke
oven
gas.
The
primary
HAP
in
these
emissions
is
benzene.
We
promulgated
the
NESHAP
for
benzene
emissions
from
coke
by­
product
recovery
plants
(
40
CFR
part
61,
subpart
L)
in
1989.

G.
What
are
the
health
effects
associated
with
these
HAP?

The
toxic
constituents
of
coke
oven
emissions,
the
listed
HAP,
include
both
gases
(
e.
g.,
volatile
organic
chemicals
such
as
benzene)
and
respirable
particulate
matter
(
PM)
of
varying
chemical
composition.
In
addition
to
the
noncarcinogenic
effects,
there
is
concern
over
the
potential
carcinogenic
and/
or
cocarcinogenic
effects
of
POM,
as
well
as
various
aromatic
compounds
(
e.
g.,
benzene),
trace
metals
(
e.
g.,
arsenic,
beryllium,
cadmium,
and
nickel).

The
HAP
that
would
be
controlled
by
the
proposed
amendments
are
associated
with
a
variety
of
adverse
health
effects.
These
adverse
health
effects
include
chronic
health
disorders
(
e.
g.,
cancers,
blood
disorders,
damage
to
21
the
central
nervous
system,
and
respiratory
lesionseffects)

and
acute
health
disorders
(
e.
g.,
irritation
of
skin,
eyes,

and
mucous
membranes
and
depression
of
the
central
nervous
system).

The
degree
of
adverse
health
effects
experienced
by
exposed
individuals
can
range
from
mild
to
severe.
The
extent
and
degree
to
which
the
health
effects
may
be
experienced
depend
on
various
factors,
many
of
which
have
been
considered
to
the
extent
feasible
in
the
risk
assessment
performed
for
the
proposed
amendments
and
discussed
later
in
this
preamble.
Those
factors
include:

°
Pollutant­
specific
characteristics
(
e.
g.,
toxicity,

half­
life
in
the
environment,
bioaccumulation,
and
persistence);

°
Ambient
concentrations
observed
in
the
area
(
e.
g.,

as
influenced
by
emission
rates,
meteorological
conditions,

and
terrain);

°
Frequency
and
duration
of
exposures;
and
°
Characteristics
of
exposed
individuals
(
e.
g.,

genetics,
age,
preexisting
health
conditions,
and
lifestyle),
which
vary
significantly
with
the
population.

Studies
of
coke
oven
workers
who
were
exposed
to
higher
levels
of
coke
oven
emissions
than
the
populations
affected
by
this
proposed
rule
have
reported
an
increase
in
cancer
of
the
lung,
trachea,
bronchus,
kidney,
prostate,
and
22
other
sites.
Chronic
(
long­
term)
human
exposure
of
workers
to
coke
oven
emissions
mayhas
also
been
associated
with
conjunctivitis,
severe
dermatitis,
and
lesions
of
the
respiratory
system
and
digestive
system.
We
have
classified
coke
oven
emissions
as
a
Group
A,
known
human
carcinogen.

One
of
the
more
important
constituents
of
coke
oven
emissions
(
from
a
health
effects
point
of
view)
is
the
trace
metal
arsenic,
a
known
human
carcinogen.
Studies
of
humans
occupationally
exposed
to
higher
levels
of
arsenic
than
the
populations
affected
by
this
proposed
rule
by
the
inhalation
route
have
found
increased
incidence
of
lung
cancers.,
while
ingestion
of
inorganic
arsenic
in
drinking
water
has
been
linked
to
a
form
of
skin
cancer
and
also
to
bladder,
liver,

kidney,
and
lung
cancer.
Chronic
(
long­
term)
inhalation
exposure
to
inorganic
arsenic
has
also
been
associated
with
irritation
of
the
skin
and
mucous
membranes,
and
with
neurological
injury.
Animal
studies
of
inhalation
exposure
have
indicated
developmental
effects.
Chronic
oral
exposure
has
resulted
in
gastrointestinal
effects,
anemia,
peripheral
neuropathy,
skin
lesions,
hyperpigmentation,
and
liver
or
kidney
damage
in
humans.

Another
important
constituent
of
coke
oven
emissions,

benzene,
is
a
known
human
carcinogen.
Increased
incidence
of
leukemia
(
cancer
of
the
tissues
that
form
white
blood
cells)
has
been
observed
in
humans
occupationally
exposed
to
23
benzene,
and
we
have
derived
a
range
of
inhalation
cancer
unit
risk
estimates
for
benzene.
The
value
at
the
high
end
of
the
range
was
used
in
this
assessment.
Chronic
(
long­
term)
inhalation
exposure
has
caused
various
disorders
in
the
blood,
including
reduced
numbers
of
red
blood
cells
and
aplastic
anemia,
in
occupationally
exposed
humans.

Reproductive
effects
have
been
reported
in
women
exposed
by
inhalation
to
high
levels
of
benzene,
and
adverse
effects
on
the
developing
fetus
have
been
observed
in
animal
tests.

III.
Summary
of
the
Proposed
Amendments
A.
What
are
the
affected
sources
and
emission
points?

The
affected
sources
are
each
coke
oven
battery
subject
to
the
emission
limitations
in
40
CFR
63.302
or
40
CFR
63.303
(
i.
e.,
the
MACT
track
batteries).
As
noted
above,

the
proposed
amendments
cover
emissions
from
doors,
topside
port
lids,
offtake
systems,
and
charging
on
existing
byproduct
coke
oven
batteries
and
emissions
from
doors
and
charging
on
new
and
existing
non­
recovery
batteries.

B.
What
are
the
proposed
requirements?

For
existing
by­
product
batteries,
the
proposed
amendments
would
limit
visible
emissions
from
coke
oven
doors
to
4
percent
leaking
doors
for
tall
batteries
and
for
batteries
owned
or
operated
by
a
foundry
coke
producer.

Short
batteries
would
be
limited
to
3.3
percent
leaking
24
doors.
Visible
emissions
from
other
emission
points
would
be
limited
to
0.4
percent
leaking
topside
port
lids
and
2.5
percent
leaking
offtake
systems.
No
change
would
be
made
in
the
limit
for
charging
 
­
emissions
must
not
exceed
12
seconds
of
visible
emissions
per
charge.
Each
of
these
visible
emission
limits
would
be
based
on
a
30­
day
rolling
average.

The
proposed
amendments
would
replace
the
less
stringent
limits
that
became
effective
on
January
1,
2003,
for
MACT
track
batteries
and
are
equivalent
to
the
limits
that
will
become
effective
on
January
1,
2010,
for
LAER
track
batteries.
We
are
not
proposing
to
amend
the
standards
for
new
by­
product
batteries.

The
monitoring,
reporting,
and
recordkeeping
requirements
in
the
existing
MACT
standards
would
continue
to
apply
to
existing
by­
product
coke
oven
batteries
on
the
MACT
track.
These
requirements
include
daily
performance
tests
to
determine
compliance
with
the
visible
emission
limits.
Each
performance
test
must
be
conducted
by
a
visible
emissions
observer
certified
according
to
the
test
method
requirements.
and
provided
by
the
applicable
enforcement
agency
at
the
company's
expense.
A
daily
inspection
of
the
collecting
main
for
leaks
is
also
required.
Specific
work
practice
standards
must
also
be
implemented
if
required
by
the
provisions
in
40
CFR
63.306(
c).
Under
the
existing
standards,
companies
must
25
make
semiannual
compliance
certifications;
report
any
uncontrolled
venting
episodes
or
startup,
shutdown,
or
malfunction
events;
and
keep
records
of
information
needed
to
demonstrate
compliance.

We
are
also
proposing
amendments
for
the
improved
control
of
charging
emissions
from
a
new
non­
recovery
battery
(
i.
e.,
constructed
or
reconstructed
on
or
after
[
insert
date
of
publication
in
the
Federal
Register].

Fugitive
charging
emissions
would
be
subject
to
an
opacity
limit
of
20
percent.
A
weekly
performance
test
would
be
required
to
determine
the
average
opacity
of
five
consecutive
charges
for
each
charging
emissions
capture
system.
Emissions
from
a
charging
emissions
control
device
would
be
limited
to
0.0081
pounds
of
PM
per
ton
(
lb/
ton)
of
dry
coal
charged.
A
performance
test
using
Method
5
(
40
CFR
part
60,
appendix
A)
would
be
required
to
demonstrate
initial
compliance
with
subsequent
performance
tests
at
least
once
during
each
title
V
permit
term.
If
any
visible
emissions
are
observed
from
a
charging
emissions
control
device,
the
owner
or
operator
would
be
required
to
take
corrective
action
and
followup
with
a
visible
emissions
observation
by
Method
9
(
40
CFR
part
60,
appendix
A)
to
ensure
that
the
corrective
action
had
been
successful.
Any
Method
9
observation
greater
than
10
percent
opacity
would
be
reported
as
a
deviation
in
the
semiannual
compliance
26
report.
The
proposed
amendments
would
also
require
the
owner
or
operator
to
implement
a
new
work
practice
standard
designed
to
ensure
that
the
draft
on
the
oven
is
maximized
during
charging.

We
are
also
proposing
a
work
practice
standard
for
the
control
of
door
leaks
from
all
non­
recovery
coke
oven
batteries
on
the
MACT
track.
The
owner
or
operator
would
be
required
to
observe
each
coke
oven
door
after
each
charge
and
record
the
oven
number
of
any
door
from
which
visible
emissions
occur.
If
a
coke
oven
door
leak
is
observed
at
any
time
during
the
coking
cycle,
the
owner
or
operator
would
be
required
to
take
corrective
action
and
stop
the
leak
within
15
minutes
from
the
time
the
leak
is
first
observed.
No
additional
leaks
would
be
allowed
from
doors
on
that
oven
for
the
remainder
of
that
oven's
coking
cycle.

However,
we
are
also
proposing
to
allow
up
to
45
minutes
instead
of
15
minutes
to
stop
the
leak
for
no
more
than
two
occurrences
per
battery
during
each
semiannual
reporting
period.
The
limit
of
two
occurrences
per
battery
would
not
apply
if
a
worker
must
enter
a
cokeside
shed
to
take
corrective
action
to
stop
a
door
leak.
In
this
case,
45
minutes
would
be
allowed
to
stop
the
leak,
and
the
evacuation
system
and
control
device
for
the
cokeside
shed
must
be
operated
at
all
times
that
there
is
a
leaking
door
under
the
cokeside
shed.
The
owner
or
operator
would
also
27
be
required
to
identify
malfunctions
that
might
cause
a
door
to
leak,
establish
preventative
measures,
and
specify
types
of
corrective
actions
for
such
events
in
its
startup,

shutdown,
and
malfunction
plan.
Recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements
necessary
to
demonstrate
initial
and
continuous
compliance
are
also
proposed.

We
are
also
proposing
an
amendment
to
clarify
that
the
work
practice
standard
for
charging
that
applies
to
existing
non­
recovery
batteries
in
40
CFR
63.303(
a)(
2)
also
applies
to
new
non­
recovery
batteries.
These
work
practices
are
described
in
40
CFR
63.306(
b)(
6).

As
specified
in
the
CAA
section
112(
f)(
4)(
A),
the
owner
or
operator
of
an
existing
by­
product
coke
oven
battery
on
the
MACT
track
would
have
to
comply
with
the
proposed
amendments
within
90
days
of
the
effective
date
of
the
final
rule
amendments.
We
are
also
proposing
that
non­
recovery
coke
oven
batteries
on
the
MACT
track
comply
within
90
days
(
or
upon
startup
for
a
new
non­
recovery
battery
which
comes
into
existence
after
[
insert
date
of
publication
in
the
Federal
Register]).

IV.
Rationale
for
the
Proposed
Amendments
A.
How
did
we
estimate
risks?

Cancer
and
noncancer
health
impacts
caused
by
environmental
exposures
generally
cannot
be
isolated
and
28
measured
directly.
Even
if
it
were
possible
to
do
so,
we
would
not
be
able
to
use
measurements
to
assess
the
impacts
of
future
or
alternative
regulatory
control
strategies.
As
a
result,
modeling­
based
risk
assessment
is
used
as
a
tool
to
estimate
health
risks
for
many
EPA
programs.
In
risk
assessments,
there
are
many
possible
levels
of
analysis
from
the
most
basic
screening
approach
to
the
more
refined,

detailed
assessment.

Our
"
Residual
Risk
Report
to
Congress"
(
EPA­
453/
R­
99­

011)
provides
the
general
framework
for
conducting
risk
assessments
to
support
decisions
made
under
the
residual
risk
program.
The
1999
Report
to
Congress
acknowledged
that
each
risk
assessment
design
would
have
some
common
elements.

In
general,
each
assessment
would
contain
a
problem
formulation
phase
where
the
content
and
scope
of
each
assessment
would
be
specified,
an
analysis
phase
where
the
exposure
and
effects
relationship
would
be
evaluated,
and
the
risk
characterization
phase
where
the
risks
would
be
calculated
and
interpreted.
While
the
final
risk
assessment
used
to
support
the
decisions
in
these
proposed
amendments
used
advanced
modeling
of
site­
specific
data
for
many
modeling
parameters
and
population
characteristics
derived
from
census
data,
we
also
used
default
assumptions
for
exposure
parameters
 
some
of
which
are
assumed
to
be
health
29
6
Additional
details
are
provided
in
Table
2­
10
of
the
residual
risk
assessment
in
the
rulemaking
docket.
protective
(
e.
g.,
exposure
frequency
and
exposure
duration).
6
We
did
not
quantitatively
evaluate
the
uncertainty
of
the
exposure
default
assumptions
because
analyses
of
similar
exposure
parameters
and
assumptions
done
for
other
risk
assessments
showed
that
while
the
deterministic
risk
estimates
are
likely
to
overestimate
risk,
they
were
within
a
reasonable
range
for
a
typical
high­
end
risk
estimate.
In
consideration
of
that
result,
we
decided
that
an
additional
uncertainty
analysis
was
not
necessary
for
this
assessment
because
it
would
not
have
altered
the
decision
made
to
promulgate
further
standards.
The
approach
used
to
assess
the
risks
associated
with
our
coke
oven
standards
is
consistent
with
the
technical
approach
and
policies
described
in
the
Report
to
Congress.

B.
What
did
we
analyze
in
the
risk
assessment?

We
performed
a
detailed
risk
assessment
for
the
four
by­
product
coke
facilities
(
five
MACT
track
batteries).

Given
the
small
number
of
facilities,
we
chose
to
analyze
each
of
these
facilities
in
a
site­
specific
manner.
As
described
earlier,
there
are
multiple
source
categories
associated
with
coke
ovens,
each
with
its
own
standards.

There
are
two
MACT
standards
that
affect
this
industry
(
i.
e.,
the
1993
NESHAP
for
charging,
topside
leaks,
and
door
30
leaks
and
the
2003
NESHAP
for
pushing,
quenching,
and
battery
stacks),
as
well
as
the
1989
NESHAP
for
coke
byproduct
recovery
plants
and
the
1990
NESHAP
for
benzene
waste
operations.
Using
an
iterative
assessment
approach,

Wwe
assessed
emissions
and
estimated
risks
from
all
emission
points
at
each
coke
facility.
The
initial
screening­
level
analysis
considered
all
emission
points
to
determine
if
the
risk
from
the
various
emission
pointsto
the
individual
exposed
to
the
maximum
estimated
concentration
exceeded
1
in
a
million
to
the
individual
most
exposed
to
emissions
from
these
sources
to
determine
if
a
residual
risk
standard
was
necessary.
This
analysis
was
used
to
determine
if
a
more
refined
analysis
was
necessary.
A
more
refined
analysis
wasFurther
analyses
were
used
to
refine
the
residual
risk
assessment
to
determine
the
maximum
individual
risk
and
the
risk
distribution
around
the
facilities.
Results
from
the
refined
analysis
are
presented
in
Table
1
of
this
preamble.

Emission
points
associated
with
the
coking
process
include:
charging,
door
leaks,
topside
leaks,
pushing,

quenching,
battery
stacks,
and
the
by­
product
recovery
plant.
To
estimate
baseline
risks
(
both
baseline
facilitywide
emissions
and
baseline
of
1993
MACT
emission
points),

we
assumed
that
each
battery
was
in
compliance
with
its
required
performance
level
and
that
emission
rates
were
equivalent
to
those
allowed
by
the
NESHAP.
31
Emission
estimates
for
individual
batteries
were
based
on
battery­
specific
data
such
as
coking
time;
the
number
of
doors,
lids,
and
offtakes
on
each
battery;
and
the
number
of
charges
per
year,
as
well
as
the
performance
standards
for
those
emission
points
(
5
percent
leaking
doors,
0.6
percent
leaking
lids,
3
percent
leaking
offtakes,
and
12
seconds
of
visible
emissions
per
charge).
For
the
facility
with
two
operating
coke
batteries,
emission
estimates
for
both
batteries
were
combined
to
yield
a
risk
estimate
from
the
facility.
The
battery
characteristics
were
obtained
from
a
survey
of
the
industry
and
from
an
EPA
report
that
assessed
control
performance
for
these
emission
points
at
a
coke
facility
that
is
similar
to
those
included
in
this
assessment.
Information
on
the
tons
of
coke
produced
and
the
tons
of
coal
charged
were
also
obtained
from
the
industry
survey.
Emission
estimates
were
based
on
emission
factors
for
each
emissions
point
and
the
applicable
regulatory
emissions
limit.
Our
uncertainty
analysis
shows
that
overall,
the
use
of
site­
specific
data
and
emission
factors
results
in
emission
estimates
that
may
vary
by
a
factor
of
2
to
3.
Additional
information
on
the
uncertainty
analysis
is
included
in
the
risk
assessment
document.

Emissions
from
pushing,
quenching,
and
battery
stacks
were
derived
from
two
EPA
tests,
one
at
a
battery
producing
foundry
coke
and
one
at
a
battery
producing
furnace
coke.
32
Pushing
emission
estimates
included
fugitive
emissions
and
emissions
from
control
devices.
Because
emissions
vary
depending
on
the
type
of
push
experienced
(
e.
g.,
"
green"

pushes
result
when
coal
is
not
fully
coked),
emission
factors
were
used
for
the
range
of
pushes
experienced.

Supporting
data
for
estimating
the
number
and
frequency
of
green
pushes
were
obtained
from
visible
emission
observations
at
several
facilities.
We
then
calculated
an
overall
pushing
emissions
rate
based
on
the
frequency
of
green
pushes
and
emission
factors
for
each
type
of
push.

Emissions
from
quenching
and
battery
stacks
were
based
on
emissions
tests.

Emissions
from
the
by­
product
recovery
plant
were
estimated
from
information
on
the
type
of
processes
at
each
facility,
emission
factors
for
each
process,
and
the
facility
capacity.
Emissions
from
equipment
leaks
were
based
on
the
number
of
equipment
components
at
each
facility,
the
composition
of
process
liquids,
and
emission
factors
for
each
component.
Emissions
from
benzene
waste
operations
were
estimated
from
site­
specific
data
on
the
quantity
of
benzene
in
wastewater.
In
assessing
risk
from
all
of
the
emission
points
mentioned
above,
we
used
a
combination
of
site­
specific
data
and
estimation
techniques
as
inputs
to
the
models
used
to
evaluate
risk
and
hazard.

Our
analysis
of
non­
recovery
batteries
on
the
MACT
33
track
indicates
that
emissions
from
charging
and
door
leaks
are
relatively
low.
There
are
no
emissions
from
lids
and
offtakes
because
existing
non­
recovery
batteries
in
the
U.
S.

do
not
have
these
emission
points.
There
are
no
emissions
from
door
leaks
during
most
normal
operations
because
the
ovens
usually
operate
under
negative
pressure.
Our
modeling
approach
based
on
allowable
emissions
under
MACT
(
zero
percent
leaking
doors
for
non­
recovery
batteries)
would
estimate
no
door
leak
emissions
at
all.
However,
we
recently
obtained
information
that
indicates
certain
equipment
failures
or
operating
problems
can
temporarily
create
a
positive
pressure
in
an
oven
and
cause
a
door
to
leak.
These
events
are
considered
to
be
short
in
duration
and
the
problem
can
be
quickly
remedied
(
typically
within
5
to
15
minutes).
In
order
to
ensure
that
door
leak
emissions
are
minimized,
we
have
addressed
these
equipment
failures
and
operating
problems
in
our
proposed
amendments
to
the
1993
NESHAP.
The
proposed
revisions
would
require
that
corrective
actions
be
implemented
promptly
if
such
events
occur.

With
respect
to
emissions
from
charging,
non­
recovery
ovens
are
operated
under
maximum
draft
during
charging,
and
the
organic
compounds
that
may
be
generated
during
the
process
are
mostly
contained
within
the
oven
and
combustion
system.
A
small
amount
of
charging
emissions
may
escape
34
7
Constituents
of
coke
oven
emissions
selected
for
this
assessment
include:
acenaphthene,
anthracene,
from
an
oven
through
the
opening
used
for
charging.

However,
all
non­
recovery
batteries
have
a
capture
hood
and
baghouse
to
control
these
emissions.

Our
review
of
the
non­
recovery
technology
indicates
that
emissions
are
relatively
low
(
based
on
available
test
data),
and
our
proposed
revisions
to
the
MACT
standards
would
ensure
that
they
remain
low.
Consequently,
we
concluded
that
we
would
not
anticipate
any
adverse
public
health
or
environmental
impacts
due
to
emissions
from
charging
and
coke
oven
doors
at
non­
recovery
batteries.

C.
How
were
cancer
and
noncancer
risks
estimated?

The
primary
HAP
emitted
by
this
category
are
coke
oven
emissions
which
include
POM,
PAH,
benzene,
and
other
air
toxics
known
or
suspected
to
cause
cancer
and
other
health
problems.
For
estimating
cancer
health
risk
due
to
inhalation
exposure,
emissions
were
based
on
the
determination
of
the
benzene
soluble
organics
(
BSO)
fraction
that
was
used
as
the
surrogate
for
coke
oven
emissions
in
the
epidemiology
study
which
established
coke
oven
emissions
as
a
human
carcinogen.
In
the
assessment
of
noninhalation
risk,
coke
oven
emissions
were
characterized
and
speciated
(
i.
e.,
individual
constituents
were
identified).
A
set
of
14
constituents7
was
selected
based
on
an
analysis
of
their
35
benz(
a)
anthracene,
benzo(
a)
pyrene,
benzo(
b)
fluoranthene,
benzo(
k)
fluoranthene,
cadmium,
chrysene,
fluoranthene,
fluorene,
indeno(
1,2,3­
cd)
pyrene,
lead,
mercury,
and
pyrene.
persistence,
bioaccumulation,
and
toxicity
(
PBT).
Emission
estimates
were
determined
for
all
constituents
identified
based
on
measurements
of
the
chemical
composition
of
the
emissions
from
various
emission
sources.
For
this
risk
assessment,
emission
estimates
for
coke
oven
emissions
(
as
BSO)
were
determined
for
by­
product
batteries'
charging,

door
leaks,
topside
leaks,
fugitive
pushing,
and
quenching
emission
points.
Emission
rates
for
individual
constituents
were
estimated
for
the
pushing
control
device
and
battery
stack
emission
points.
Emission
rates
were
estimated
for
the
HAP
compounds
known
to
be
emitted
from
the
by­
product
recovery
plant
(
benzene,
xylene,
and
toluene).

To
characterize
the
risk
from
exposure
to
these
HAP,

toxicity
information
was
integrated
with
results
from
the
exposure
assessment.
For
this
assessment,
we
modeled
exposures
to
the
total
population
living
within
50
km
of
each
of
these
facilities
and
estimated
the
exposure
concentrations
where
people
live
and
the
cancer
risks
associated
with
exposures
estimated
the
maximum
concentration
where
a
person
actually
lives
and
the
cancer
risk
for
that
individual
exposed
to
coke
oven
emissions
and
to
the
individual
constituents
for
which
we
have
cancer
unit
36
risk
factors.
WhenWhere
reference
values
for
noncancer
effects
were
available,
we
also
evaluated
whetherthe
potential
hazard
associated
with
those
effects
are
likely
to
occur
for
that
same
individual.
The
selection
and
use
of
cancer
unit
risk
factors
and
reference
dose
or
concentration
values
for
this
assessment
follows
the
approach
outlined
in
the
1999
"
Residual
Risk
Report
to
Congress."
The
approach
used
to
assess
the
risks
associated
with
our
coke
oven
standards
is
likewise
consistent
with
the
technical
approach
and
policies
described
in
the
report.
Our
assessment
has
also
been
peer­
reviewed
to
ensure
that
its
methodology
rests
on
sound
scientific
principles,
and
we
have
revised
the
assessment
document
to
reflect
comments
made
as
part
of
the
peer­
review
process.
The
assessment
document,
comments
made
during
the
peer
review,
and
a
summary
of
our
responses
to
those
comments
are
included
in
the
docket
for
the
proposed
amendments.

D.
How
did
we
estimate
the
atmospheric
dispersion
of
emitted
pollutants?

As
described
in
our
Report
to
Congress,
risk
assessments
may
use
a
variety
of
models
to
describe
the
fate
and
transport
of
HAP
released
to
the
atmosphere.
The
models
chosen
must
be
appropriate
for
the
intended
application.
In
the
fairly
unique
case
of
coke
ovens,
the
collective
heat
rising
from
various
emission
points
can
significantly
enhance
37
the
rise
of
the
emissions
plume,
functioning
like
a
"
representative"
stack.
In
order
to
include
this
aspect
in
the
modeling,
we
used
the
Buoyant
Line
and
Point
Source
(
BLP)

dispersion
model.
The
BLP
model,
however,
was
not
designed
to
consider
the
effects
of
the
surrounding
terrain
on
dispersion
nor
to
model
deposition
of
HAP
as
the
plume
disperses.
To
allow
consideration
of
these
parameters,
we
coupled
the
BLP
model
with
the
Industrial
Source
Complex
Short
Term
(
ISCST3)
model.
In
this
application,
we
used
the
BLP
model
to
estimate
the
plume
height
and
then
used
that
value
as
an
input
to
the
ISCST3
model.
The
ISCST3
model
was
used
to
simulate
the
subsequent
dispersion
and
transport
of
the
emissions.
Site­
specific
inputs
to
the
BLP
model
such
as
facility
location,
battery
layout,
dimensions,
orientation,

and
operating
temperatures
were
provided
by
the
industry.

Both
the
BLP
and
the
ISCLT3
models
have
undergone
standard
scientific
peer
reviews
prior
to
this
assessment.

The
concept
of
coupling
these
two
models
together
was
peerreviewed
for
the
first
time
as
part
of
this
assessment.
The
reviewers
agreed
with
the
modeling
concept
and
approach.

Monitoring
data
may
be
useful
for
evaluating
modeling
approaches
used
to
estimate
ambient
concentrations
(
see
the
risk
assessment
document
for
discussion
of
when
this
is
appropriate).
For
the
sites
and
pollutants
included
in
this
risk
assessment,
no
monitoring
data
were
available.
38
Therefore,
it
was
not
possible
to
evaluate
the
modeling
approach
beyond
what
was
done
in
the
peer
review.
Moreover,

even
if
comprehensive
and
high
quality
monitoring
data
were
available,
they
would
not
be
adequate
by
themselves
for
estimating
site­
specific
exposures
and
the
impacts
of
alternative
control
strategies.

E.
What
factors
are
considered
in
the
risk
assessment?

The
risk
assessment
was
designed
to
generate
a
series
of
risk
metrics
that
would
provide
information
for
a
regulatory
decision.
The
metrics
consider
both
the
maximum
individual
risk
and
the
total
population
risk,
the
latter
providing
perspective
on
the
potential
public
health
impact
by
addressing
each
of
the
following
questions:

°
How
many
people
living
around
the
four
by­
product
facilities
have
potential
risk
greater
than
1
in
a
million?

°
How
many
people
are
there
at
various
risk
levels?

°
What
are
the
impacts
for
different
routes
of
exposure
(
e.
g.,
inhalation
and
ingestion)?

In
addition,
we
are
to
determine
if
any
adverse
environmental
effects
exist.

Consistent
with
standard
atmospheric
dispersion
modeling
practice,
we
assessed
inhalation
risks
within
50
kilometers
(
km)
(
about
30
miles)
of
each
of
the
four
facilities.
The
annual
average
concentrations
at
the
areaweighted
centers
of
census
blocks
or
block
groups
were
39
estimated
using
the
ISCST3
model
for
each
emission
point.

Based
on
the
number
of
people
residing
in
each
block
or
block
group
along
with
the
estimated
concentrations
in
each
block
or
block
group,
we
generated
an
estimate
of
risk
for
all
people
living
within
50
km
(
about
30
miles)
of
each
coke
facility,
including
an
identification
of
which
census
block
group
had
the
estimated
maximum
air
concentration.
For
this
estimate,
we
assumed
that
the
individuals
are
exposed
to
the
maximum
level
of
coke
oven
emissions
allowed
by
the
1993
NESHAP
and
that
they
would
be
exposed
to
these
emissions
24
hours
a
day
for
70
years.
Where
risk
estimates
exceeded
1
in
a
million,
we
identified
the
number
of
people
at
the
various
risk
levels
exceeding
1
in
a
million
(
i.
e.,
the
population
risk
distribution).

Because
of
their
chemical
and
physical
properties,
some
HAP
are
known
to
present
potential
health
risks
as
a
result
of
deposition,
persistence,
and
bioaccumulation
in
environmental
media
other
than
air.
As
a
result,
exposure
to
these
HAP
may
occur
by
ingestion
as
well
as
by
inhalation.
Fourteen
constituents
of
coke
oven
emissions
were
identified
as
PBT
chemicals
(
i.
e.,
they
are
environmentally
persistent,
they
may
bioaccumulate,
and
are
toxic).
Emissions
of
these
pollutants
are
transported
from
the
emission
site
by
atmospheric
processes
and
removed
from
the
air
by
both
wet
and
dry
deposition.
Upon
deposition,
40
they
may
cycle
through
various
environmental
compartments,

such
as
soil,
plants,
animals,
and
surface
water.
The
movement
of
these
constituents
through
these
compartments
can
be
modeled
using
a
fate
and
transport
model
in
order
to
estimate
human
exposure
through
the
ingestion
pathway.

We
conducted
multimedia,
multipathway
exposure
modeling
(
using
the
EPA's
Indirect
Exposure
Model)
to
determine
if
emissions
from
coke
ovens
present
potential
risks
by
routes
of
exposure
other
than
inhalation.
Site­
specific
modeling
was
performed
for
all
four
facilities
using
information
collected
on
land
use,
population,
soil
types,
farming
activity,
and
watershed/
waterbody
locations
and
areas.
The
assessment
was
based
on
a
subsistence
farmer
scenario
located
where
land­
use
data
identified
actual
farming
activity
around
each
of
the
four
facilities
(
agricultural
lands
were
identified
at
distances
ranging
from
1.7
to
11
km
from
the
four
coke
facilities).
This
scenario
reflects
an
adult
living
on
a
farm
and
consuming
meat,
dairy
products,

and
vegetables
that
the
farm
produces.
The
animals
raised
on
the
farm
subsist
primarily
on
forage
that
is
grown
on
the
farm.
We
also
assumed
that
the
farm
family
fishes
in
nearby
waters
at
a
recreational
level,
and
that
they
eat
the
fish
they
catch.
These
results
allow
for
comparison
of
risks
by
ingestion
with
those
presented
by
inhalation.

F.
How
did
we
calculate
risks?
41
8
Residual
Risk
Report
to
Congress,
EPA­
453/
R­
99­
001,
March
1999,
pp.
94­
128.
Cancer
risks
were
characterized
for
the
inhalation
exposure
pathway
using
lifetime
excess
cancer
risk
estimates
which
are
calculated
as
the
product
of
the
unit
risk
estimate
(
URE)
(
the
unit
risk
estimate
is
an
upper­
bound
estimate
of
the
probability
of
developing
cancer
over
a
lifetime)
and
the
exposure
concentration
estimated
for
each
HAP.
The
cancer
risk
estimates
for
each
HAP
are
summed
across
all
carcinogenic
HAP.
These
estimates
represent
the
excess
probability
of
developing
cancer
over
a
lifetime
as
a
result
of
exposure
to
emissions
from
these
coke
ovens.

Noncancer
risks
were
characterized
through
the
use
of
hazard
quotient
(
HQ)
and
hazard
index
(
HI).
An
HQ
is
calculated
as
the
ratio
of
the
exposure
concentration
of
a
pollutant
to
its
benchmark
concentration.
An
HI
is
the
sum
of
HQ
for
HAP
that
target
the
same
organ
or
system.

The
maximum
individual
risk
was
estimated
deterministically.
More
probabilistic
presentations
and
analyses
(
ranging
from
simple
risk
distributions
to
more
quantitative
Monte
Carlo
simulations)
8
may
be
done
to
better
understand
the
assessment
uncertainty
and
variability.
As
our
Residual
Risk
Report
to
Congress
suggested,
we
would
consider
doing
a
probabilistic
analysis
after
considering
the
needs
and
scope
of
the
assessment.
This
is
consistent
42
9
Policy
for
Use
of
Probabilistic
Analysis
in
Risk
Assessment,
EPA
Science
Policy
Council.
May
15,
1997.
with
the
policy
of
EPA
as
stated
in
the
1997
"
Policy
for
Use
of
Probabilistic
Analysis
in
Risk
Assessment,"
which
states
".
.
.
it
is
not
the
intent
of
this
policy
to
recommend
that
probabilistic
analysis
be
conducted
for
all
risk
assessments
supporting
risk
management
decisions."
9
The
policy
also
states
".
.
.
probabilistic
methods
should
be
used
wherever
the
circumstances
justify
these
approaches."
As
discussed
earlier
in
this
preamble,
we
determined
that
this
level
of
refinement
was
not
necessary
for
this
risk
assessment
because
the
results
of
a
probabilistic
analysis
would
not
have
affected
the
regulatory
decision
made.

G.
How
did
we
assess
environmental
impacts?

In
order
to
assess
whether
the
continuing
emissions
from
these
four
coke
oven
facilities
could
contribute
to
adverse
environmental
effects,
we
performed
a
screeninglevel
ecological
risk
assessment.
We
intentionally
designed
this
assessment
to
be
protective
of
the
health
of
ecological
receptors.
It
was
not
intended
to
be
used
in
predicting
specific
types
of
effects
to
individuals,
species,

populations,
or
communities
or
to
the
structure
and
function
of
the
ecosystem.
We
used
the
assessment
to
identify
HAP
or
sources
which
may
pose
potential
risk
or
hazard
to
ecological
receptors
and,
if
so,
would
need
to
be
evaluated
43
in
a
more
refined
level
of
risk
assessment.

The
screening
endpoints
were
the
structure
and
function
of
generic
aquatic
and
terrestrial
populations
and
communities,
including
threatened
and
endangered
species,

that
might
be
exposed
to
HAP
emissions
from
these
four
facilities.
The
assessment
endpoints
were
relatively
generic
with
respect
to
descriptions
of
the
environmental
values
that
are
to
be
protected
and
the
characteristics
of
the
ecological
entities
and
their
attributes.
We
assumed
in
the
assessment
that
these
ecological
receptors
were
representative
of
sensitive
individuals,
populations,
and
communities
that
may
be
present
near
these
facilities.

The
HAP
included
in
the
ecological
assessment
were
the
metals
cadmium
and
lead
and
11
PAH:
acenaphthene,

anthracene,
benzo(
a)
pyrene,
benzo(
a)
anthracene,
chrysene,

benzo(
b)
fluoranthene,
benzo(
k)
fluoranthene,
fluoranthene,

fluorene,
pyrene,
and
indeno­
123(
cd)
pyrene.
We
derived
estimated
media
concentrations
for
each
of
these
HAP
from
the
media
concentrations
estimated
in
the
multipathway
exposures
assessment.
We
chose
exposure
pathways
to
reflect
the
potential
routes
of
exposure
through
sediment,
soil,

water,
and
air.
We
selected
these
environments
because
they
are
considered
representative
of
locations
of
generic
populations
and
communities
most
likely
to
be
exposed
to
the
HAP.
Within
these
environments
the
receptors
evaluated
44
consisted
of
two
distinct
groups:
terrestrial
and
aquatic
(
i.
e.,
including
aquatic,
benthic,
and
soil
organisms;

terrestrial
plants
and
wildlife;
and
herbivorous,

piscivorus,
and
carnivorous
wildlife).

The
chronic
ecological
toxicity
screening
values
used
in
the
assessment
were
estimates
of
the
maximum
concentrations
that
should
not
affect
survival,
growth,
or
reproduction
of
sensitive
species
after
long­
term
(
more
than
30
days)
exposure
to
HAP.
We
screened
HAP,
pathways,
and
receptors
using
the
ecological
HQ
method,
which
simply
calculates
the
ratio
of
the
estimated
environmental
concentrations
to
the
selected
ecological
screening
values.

H.
What
are
the
results
of
the
risk
assessment?

Table
1
of
this
preamble
summarizes
the
estimated
maximum
individual
risk
using
the
modeled
ambient
air
concentrations
from
the
final
air
modeling
assessment
and
risk
distribution
for
the
four
facilities
at
the
baseline
emissions
level
(
i.
e.,
risks
based
on
MACT
allowable
emission
levels
allowed
by
the
three
regulations
for
all
emission
points
assessed
across
the
four
coke
facilities).

Table
1
of
this
preamble
also
shows
the
estimated
risks
attributable
to
emissions
from
only
charging,
door,
and
topside
leaks
under
the
1993
NESHAP.
These
latter
emissions
contribute
about
38
percent
of
total
facility
HAP
emissions.
45
TABLE
1.
BASELINE
RISK
ESTIMATES
DUE
TO
HAP
EXPOSURE
BASED
ON
70­
YEAR
EXPOSURE
DURATION1
Parameter
Facility
1993
NESHAP
Maximum
individual
risk
from
facility
with
highest
risk
500
in
a
million
200
in
a
million
Annual
cancer
incidence
summed
for
all
four
facilities
(
cases/
year)
0.1
0.04
Population
at
risk
across
all
four
facilities
(
modeled
to
50
km)

>
1
in
a
million
900,000
300,000
>
10
in
a
million
50,000
8,000
>
100
in
a
million
300
8
Total
modeled
4,000,000
4,000,000
1
All
risk,
cancer
incidence,
and
population
estimates
are
rounded
to
one
significant
figure.

The
maximum
individual
facility­
level
risk
(
i.
e.,

modeled
risk
based
on
emission
levels
allowed
by
the
three
regulations
for
all
emission
points
assessed
across
the
four
coke
facilities)
associated
with
all
emission
sources
is
500
in
a
million
compared
to
200
in
a
million
for
emissions
only
from
those
processes
associated
with
the
1993
NESHAP.
This
level
of
risk
was
seen
at
only
one
of
the
four
facilities
assessed.
The
maximum
individual
facility­
level
risk
values
for
the
other
three
facilities
were
50,
100,
and
100
in
a
million
compared
with
risks
of
20,
50,
and
70
in
a
million,

respectively,
for
emissions
associated
with
only
the
1993
NESHAP.
46
The
annual
cancer
incidence
(
the
number
of
cancer
cases
estimated
to
occurpersons
each
year
who
are
estimated
to
suffer
from
cancer
as
a
result
of
this
level
of
exposure
to
coke
oven
emissions)
for
all
facilities
combined
is
0.1
and
0.04
cases
per
year
based
on
the
facility
level
versus
the
emissions
level
from
1993
NESHAP
sources,
respectively.

Across
all
four
facilities,
and
assuming
the
entire
population
is
exposed
for
70
years,
approximately
900,000
persons
(
approximately
20
percent
of
total
population)
are
estimated
to
be
exposed
to
risks
greater
than
1
in
a
million
for
the
total
facility
emissions
compared
to
300,000
persons
(
approximately
7
percent)
for
the
1993
NESHAP
emission
points.

The
population
living
near
coke
ovens
may
also
be
exposed
to
We
also
evaluated
potential
risks
for
adverse
health
effects
other
than
cancer.
The
estimated
maximum
inhalation
HI
for
any
noncancer
effect
from
an
entire
facility
is
0.4
for
hematologic
(
blood)
effects
due
to
benzene.
In
addition,
results
from
a
multipathway
risk
assessment
presented
in
the
supporting
risk
assessment
document
shows
that
cancer
risks
from
inhalation
exposures
exceed
cancer
risks
due
to
ingestion,
generally,
by
an
order
of
magnitude.
In
this
same
assessment,
the
noncancer
ingestion
HI
was
estimated
to
be
0.001.
This
level
was
seen
at
2
facilities
assessed
with
high­
end
exposure
factors.
47
The
multipathway
risk
assessment
presented
in
the
supporting
risk
assessment
document
shows
that
the
risks
from
inhalation
of
all
constituents
significantly
exceed
risks
due
to
ingestion.
In
general,
the
results
indicate
ingestion
risks
are
an
order
of
magnitude
lower
than
inhalation
risks
with
the
highest
facility
level
ingestion
HI
equal
to
0.001.
This
occurred
at
the
two
facilities
assessed
with
high­
end
exposure
factors.
In
addition,
the
results
indicate
no
significant
inhalation
noncancer
risks
exist.
The
estimated
maximum
inhalation
HI
for
any
noncancer
effect
from
an
entire
facility
is
0.4
for
hematologic
(
blood)
effects.
Because
benzene
is
the
only
HAP
affecting
the
hematological
system,
the
benzene
HQ
is
equal
to
the
hematological
HI
in
this
assessment.
Since
the
maximum
estimated
target­
organ
specific
HI
for
all
MACT
sources
at
the
facility
is
less
than
one,
we
believe
that
exposures
to
HAP
that
may
cause
adverse
health
effects
other
than
cancer
do
not
exceed
a
level
that
is
adequate
to
protect
public
health
with
an
ample
margin
of
safety.

The
results
of
a
screening­
level
ecological
assessment
show
that
each
of
the
coke
plants
had
ecological
HQ
values
less
than
1
for
all
pollutants
assessed.
Therefore,
it
is
not
likely
that
the
HAP
emitted
would
pose
an
ecological
risk
to
ecosystems
near
any
of
these
facilities.
It
is
also
not
likely
that
any
threatened
and
endangered
species,
if
48
10
We
updated
the
database
to
include
inspections
in
2003.
There
was
only
a
small
change
from
the
previous
database
used
in
the
risk
analysis
for
actual
emissions,
and
the
update
did
not
have
a
significant
impact
on
the
estimate
of
emissions
and
risks.
they
exist
around
these
facilities,
would
be
adversely
affected
by
these
HAP
emissions
because
they
are
not
likely
to
be
any
more
sensitive
to
the
effects
of
these
HAP
than
the
species
evaluated.

The
risk
analysis
assumed
that
all
emission
points
from
the
batteries
are
leaking
or
emitting
at
the
maximum
rate
allowable
under
the
1993
NESHAP
for
charging,
doors,
and
topside
leaks,
since
it
is
theoretically
possible
that
these
amounts
of
emissions
could
occur.
However,
this
assumption
(
although
theoretically
possible)
overstates
actual
emission
levels.
We
analyzed
1,000
to
2,600
daily
compliance
determinations
for
each
battery
to
compare
the
actual
average
emissions
to
the
maximum
rate
allowed
under
the
1993
NESHAP
as
modeled.
10
The
results
of
this
analysis
indicate
that
average
performance
is
better
than
the
current
MACT
limits
and
is
closer
to
the
more
stringent
2010
LAER
limits.

The
five
MACT
track
batteries
average
44
percent
of
the
MACT
limit
for
doors
leaks,
16
percent
of
the
limit
for
lid
leaks,
21
percent
of
the
limit
for
offtake
leaks,
and
27
percent
of
the
limit
for
charging.
An
average
performance
that
is
better
than
the
limit
is
to
be
expected
because
if
49
batteries
were
to
operate
on
average
at
the
level
of
the
1993
NESHAP,
they
would
likely
exceed
the
standards
a
high
percent
of
the
time.
Consequently,
facility
owners
and
operators
consistently
operate
below
the
standards
to
avoid
violations.

Table
2
of
this
preamble
repeats
(
from
Table
1)
the
estimated
risks
attributable
to
charging,
doors,
lids,
and
offtakes
at
the
baseline
level
(
i.
e.,
the
level
of
risk
assuming
emissions
from
the
batteries
are
at
the
maximum
allowed
by
the
1993
standards).
Table
2
of
this
preamble
further
projects
risks
at
the
2010
LAER
level,
a
level
of
risk
which
we
consider
to
provide
an
ample
margin
of
safety
to
protect
public
health
and
the
environment.
50
TABLE
2.
RISK
ESTIMATES
DUE
TO
HAP
EXPOSURE
BASED
ON
70­
YEAR
EXPOSURE
DURATION1
Parameter
1993
NESHAP
2010
LAER
Maximum
individual
risk
at
facility
with
highest
risk
200
in
a
million
180
in
a
million
Annual
cancer
incidence
summed
for
all
four
facilities
(
cases/
year)
0.04
0.03
Population
at
risk
across
all
four
facilities
(
modeled
to
50
km)

>
1
in
a
million
300,000
200,000
>
10
in
a
million
8,000
7,000
>
100
in
a
million
8
6
Total
modeled
4,000,000
4,000,000
1
The
maximum
individual
risk
estimate
of
180
in
a
million
is
presented
with
two
significant
figures
in
order
to
show
the
risk
reduction
expected
by
the
10
percent
decrease
in
emissions
we
anticipate
seeing
between
the
1993
and
2010
emission
levels.

The
maximum
individual
risk
is
200
in
a
million
for
the
baseline
and
180
in
a
million
for
the
2010
LAER
limits.
For
the
baseline,
93
percent
of
the
total
population
is
exposed
to
risk
levels
less
than
1
in
a
million
compared
to
95
percent
for
the
2010
LAER
limits.
However,
because
these
facilities
are
in
fact
performing
better
than
the
1993
NESHAP
limits
(
i.
e.,
they
could
already
meet
the
2010
LAER
limits),
the
actual
risk
differences
between
the
1993
and
2010
emission
levels
are
likely
to
be
smaller.

We
acknowledge
that
there
are
uncertainties
in
various
aspects
of
our
risk
assessment
due
to
the
use
of
some
51
modeling
and
exposure
assumptions.
In
this
risk
assessment,

the
use
of
these
assumptions
is
likely
to
result
in
our
overestimating
analysis,
and
that
some
assumptions
with
regard
to
these
uncertainties
could
result
in
overstating
the
maximum
individual
risk
and
the
magnitude
of
risk
experienced
by
individual
members
of
the
population.
For
example,
Tables
1
and
2
of
this
preamble
present
estimates
of
the
number
of
people
whose
individual
risk
exceeds
various
levels
(
e.
g.,
1
in
a
million,
10
in
a
million,
100
in
a
million)
under
different
scenarios
(
e.
g.,
1993
NESHAP,

2010
LAER).
We
based
these
estimates
on
an
assumption
that
everyone
in
the
modeled
population
(
4,000,000
people)
is
exposed
to
the
maximum
level
of
coke
oven
emissions
allowed
by
the
MACT
standard
rather
than
the
actual
emissions
known
to
occur
now,
and
that
they
were
exposed
to
these
emissions
in
one
place
of
residence
for
70
years.
Such
a
scenario
is
very
unlikely
because
individuals
typically
do
not
occupy
the
same
residence
for
such
a
long
period
of
time
(
e.
g.,
the
estimated
median
residential
occupancy
period
is
approximately
9
years,
and
less
than
0.1
percent
of
the
population
is
estimated
to
occupy
the
same
residence
for
greater
than
70
years).
Because
EPA
typically
assumes
that
an
individual's
excess
lifetime
risk
of
cancer
is
directly
proportional
to
their
duration
of
exposure
to
the
carcinogen(
s)
in
question,
reducing
the
duration
of
exposure
52
for
individuals
in
the
modeled
population
would
reduce
the
estimates
of
their
risk.
We
must
temper
this
fact
with
the
understanding
that
when
individuals
move
to
another
location,
they
are
replaced
by
new
residents
which
would
increase
the
total
number
of
people
exposed
beyond
the
4
million
assumed
in
this
assessment.
Also,
because
of
the
assumed
proportionality
described
above
if
a
more
detailed
exposure
duration
treatment
were
used,
the
predicted
cancer
incidence
in
the
total
exposed
population
would
not
change,

but
the
expected
distribution
of
risk
in
that
population
would
have
fewer
individuals
in
the
upper
risk
ranges.
In
addition,
the
risks
may
not
change
appreciably
for
individuals
moving
elsewhere
in
the
same
community.
As
a
result,
although
the
total
number
of
exposed
individuals
likely
would
be
greater
than
we
predicted
in
Tables
1
and
2
of
this
preamble
(
the
number
of
exposed
individuals
is
a
function
of
the
length
of
time
that
the
emissions,
as
modeled,
continue),
the
average
excess
lifetime
cancer
risks
for
individuals
in
the
exposed
population
are
likely
to
be
about
8
times
less
than
we
predicted.

We
compared
the
actual
average
emissions
from
the
five
batteries
to
the
maximum
emissions
rate
allowable
under
the
2010
LAER
limits
as
we
did
for
the
1993
MACT
standards.
The
average
performance
is
better
than
the
LAER
limits.
The
five
MACT
track
batteries
average
59
percent
of
the
LAER
53
limit
for
door
leaks,
24
percent
of
the
limit
for
lid
leaks,

25
percent
of
the
limit
for
offtake
leaks,
and
27
percent
of
the
limit
for
charging.

I.
What
is
our
decision
on
acceptable
risk
and
ample
margin
of
safety?

Section
112(
f)(
2)(
A)
of
the
CAA
states
that
if
the
MACT
standards
for
a
source
emitting
a:

.
.
.
known,
probable,
or
possible
human
carcinogen
do
not
reduce
lifetime
excess
cancer
risks
to
the
individual
most
exposed
to
emissions
from
a
source
in
the
category
.
.
.
to
less
than
one
in
one
million,
the
Administrator
shall
promulgate
[
residual
risk]
standards
.
.
.
for
such
source
category.

TWe
believe
that
the
risk
to
the
individual
most
exposed
to
emissions
from
coke
ovens
is
1
in
a
million
or
greater.
this
threshold
test
is
satisfied
here,
since
cCoke
oven
batteries
subject
to
the
proposed
rule
emit
known,
probable,
and
possible
human
carcinogens,
and,
as
shown
in
Tables
1
and
2
of
this
preamble,
we
estimate
that
the
maximum
individual
risk
(
discussed
below)
associated
with
the
1993
NESHAP
limits
is
200
in
a
million.
Even
if
we
were
to
consider
the
uncertainty
and
variability
in
the
exposure
and
modeling
assumptions
used
to
derive
our
estimate
of
maximum
individual
risk,
such
an
analysis
is
unlikely
to
change
any
decisions
that
would
be
made
based
on
that
level
of
risk.

risk
to
the
individual
most
exposed
to
these
emissions
is
54
greater
than
1
in
a
million.
Thus,
EPA
is
obligated
to
promulgate
further
standards
as
necessary
to
provide
an
ample
margin
of
safety
to
protect
public
health.

In
the
1989
Benzene
NESHAP,
the
first
step
of
the
ample
margin
of
safety
framework
is
the
determination
of
acceptability
(
i.
e.,
are
the
estimated
risks
due
to
emissions
from
these
facilities
"
acceptable").
This
determination
is
based
on
health
considerations
only.

The
determination
of
what
represents
an
"
acceptable"

risk
level
is
based
on
a
judgment
of
"
what
risks
are
acceptable
in
the
world
in
which
we
live"
(
54
FR
38045,

quoting
the
Vinyl
Chloride
decision
at
824
F.
2d
1165)

recognizing
that
our
world
is
not
risk­
free.

In
the
1989
Benzene
NESHAP,
we
determined
that
a
maximum
individual
risk
of
approximately
100
in
a
million
should
ordinarily
be
the
upper
end
of
the
range
of
acceptable
risks
associated
with
an
individual
source
of
pollution.
We
defined
the
maximum
individual
risk
as
"
the
estimated
risk
that
a
person
living
near
a
plant
would
have
if
he
or
she
were
exposed
to
the
maximum
pollutant
concentrations
for
70
years."
We
determined
that
aexplained
that
this
measure
of
risk
"
is
an
estimate
of
the
upperbound
of
risk
based
on
conservative
assumptions,
such
as
continuous
exposure
for
24
hours
per
day
for
70
years."
We
acknowledge
that
maximum
individual
risk
of
approximately
55
100
in
a
million
should
ordinarily
be
the
upper
end
of
the
range
of
acceptable
risks
associated
with
an
individual
source
of
pollution.
This
presumptive
level"
does
not
necessarily
reflect
the
true
risk,
but
displays
a
conservative
risk
level
which
is
an
upper
bound
that
is
unlikely
to
be
exceeded."

Understanding
that
there
are
both
benefits
and
limitations
to
using
maximum
individual
risk
as
a
metric
for
determining
acceptability,
the
Agency
acknowledged
in
the
1989
Benzene
NESHAP
that
"
consideration
of
maximum
individual
risk...
must
take
into
account
the
strengths
and
weaknesses
of
this
measure
of
risk."
Consequently,
the
presumptive
risk
level
of
100
in
a
million
provides
a
benchmark
for
judging
the
acceptability
of
maximum
individual
risk,
but
does
not
constitute
a
rigid
line
for
making
that
determination.

In
establishing
a
presumption
for
the
acceptability
of
maximum
individual
risk,
rather
than
a
rigid
line
for
acceptability,
we
explained
in
the
Benzene
NESHAP
that
risk
levels
should
also
be
weighed
with
a
series
of
other
health
measures
and
factors.
These
include,
including:

°
The
numbers
of
persons
exposed
within
each
individual
lifetime
risk
range
and
associated
incidence
within,
typically,
a
50
km
(
about
30
miles)
exposure
radius
around
facilities;
56
°
The
science
policy
assumptions
and
estimation
uncertainties
associated
with
the
risk
measures;

°
Weight
of
the
scientific
evidence
for
human
health
effects;

°
Other
quantified
or
unquantified
health
effects;

°
Effects
due
to
co­
location
of
facilities
and
co­
emission
of
pollutants;
and
°
The
overall
incidence
of
cancer
or
other
serious
health
effects
within
the
exposed
population.

In
some
cases,
these
factors
may
provide
a
more
realistic
description
of
the
magnitude
of
risk
in
the
exposed
population
than
that
provided
by
"
maximum
individual
risk."

We
consider
the
level
of
risk
resulting
from
the
1993
NESHAP
limits
to
be
acceptable
for
this
source
category.

The
principal
factors
in
our
decision
are
that
risk
to
a
most
exposed
individual
from
lifetime
exposure
are
within
the
risk
range
acceptableAlthough
the
calculated
level
of
maximum
individual
risk
(
200
in
a
million)
is
greater
than
the
presumptively
acceptable
level
of
maximum
individual
risk
under
the
Benzene
NESHAP
formulation
(
in
this
case,
200
in
a
million),
and
that
93
percent
of
the100
in
a
million),

we
also
considered
other
factors
in
making
our
determination
of
acceptability,
as
directed
by
the
Benzene
NESHAP.
The
principal
factors
that
influenced
our
decision
are
the
following
facts:
approximately
93
percent
of
the
exposed
57
population
has
risks
less
than
1
in
a
million;
approximately
8
people
in
the
exposed
population
have
risks
exceeding
100
in
a
million;
the
annual
incidence
of
cancer
resulting
from
the
1993
NESHAP
limits
is
estimated
as
0.04
cases,
or
1
case
per
25
years;
and,
in
practice
facilities
are
achieving
emissions
levels
less
than
the
1993
NESHAP
limits,
such
that
the
actual
risks
from
those
sources
are
less
than
those
presented
in
today's
notice.
We
believe
that
the
levels
of
these
measures
of
risk,
when
considered
in
combination,
are
acceptable.
In
addition,
no
significant
noncancer
health
effects
or
adverse
ecological
impacts
would
be
anticipated
at
this
level
of
emissions.
Therefore,
the
risks
associated
with
the
1993
NESHAP
limits
are
acceptable
after
considering
maximum
individual
risk,
the
population
exposed
at
different
risk
levels,
the
projected
absence
of
noncancer
effects
and
adverse
ecological
effects,
estimation
uncertainty,
and
the
other
factors
described
earlier.

In
the
second
step
of
the
ample
margin
of
safety
framework,
we
considered
setting
standards
at
a
level
which
may
be
equal
to
or
lower
than
the
acceptable
risk
level
and
which
protect
public
health
with
an
ample
margin
of
safety.

In
making
this
determination,
we
considered
the
estimate
of
health
risk
and
other
health
information
along
with
additional
factors
relating
to
the
appropriate
level
of
control,
including
costs
and
economic
impacts
of
controls,
58
technological
feasibility,
uncertainties,
and
other
relevant
factors.

We
considered
options
that
might
provide
a
level
of
control
more
stringent
than
the
acceptable
risk
level
for
this
source
category
(
1993
NESHAP).
One
obvious
option
is
to
evaluate
the
2010
LAER
limits,
since
these
limits
are
already
specified
in
the
statute
as
benchmarks.
Our
review
of
the
data
shows
that
these
limits
can
be
achieved
by
the
MACT
track
batteries
and
will
result
in
improved
emission
control.
Three
of
the
batteries
have
never
exceeded
the
2010
LAER
limits
for
all
four
emission
points.
The
historical
data
show
that
the
remaining
two
batteries
have
exceeded
the
limit
for
doors
in
a
few
instances.
These
same
two
batteries
have
never
exceeded
the
2010
LAER
limits
for
charging
and
offtakes.
One
of
these
two
batteries
has
occasionally
exceeded
the
limit
for
lids.
The
control
technology
for
these
emission
points
is
a
work
practice
program
that
includes
procedures
to
identify
leaks
and
to
seal
them
when
they
occur.
Increased
diligence
in
controlling
door
and
lid
leaks
will
allow
these
batteries
to
achieve
compliance
with
the
2010
LAER
limits.
The
additional
effort
to
control
door
and
lid
leaks
will
not
require
additional
personnel.
The
available
information
indicates
that
an
increase
in
maintenance
labor
and
sealing
materials
will
be
the
primary
components
of
any
small
59
increase
in
costs.
The
cost
is
estimated
at
$
4,500/
yr
based
on
the
projected
number
of
additional
leaks
to
be
sealed
and
a
conservative
estimate
of
30
minutes
of
labor
per
leak.

We
also
considered
the
feasibility
of
emission
limits
more
stringent
than
the
2010
LAER
limits.
We
analyzed
emissions
data
from
the
four
by­
product
coke
plants
consisting
of
3
to
7
years
of
daily
compliance
demonstrations
for
each
battery.
The
inspection
data
show
that
the
batteries
have
achieved
the
2010
LAER
limits
a
high
percentage
of
the
time.
However,
the
data
also
show
that
there
is
variability
in
the
level
of
control
that
is
achieved
over
time,
and
emission
limits
that
are
never
to
be
exceeded
must
account
for
this
variability.
Variability
can
be
introduced
by
a
number
of
factors,
such
as
the
type
of
seals
(
metal,
luted,
or
water
seals);
coking
conditions
(
cycle
time,
temperature,
coal
mix,
oven
pressure,
whether
furnace
or
foundry
coke
is
produced);
battery
features
(
design,
age,
condition
of
brickwork
and
structural
steel);

weather
conditions;
different
work
crews;
as
well
as
the
variability
inherent
in
Method
303
inspections.

For
door
leaks,
recent
Method
303
inspection
data
show
that
three
batteries
have
consistently
achieved
the
2010
LAER
limits,
but
these
batteries
have
had
compliance
determinations
that
approached
those
limits
(
e.
g.,
3.5
percent
leaking
doors
compared
to
a
limit
of
4
percent).
60
The
other
two
batteries
sometimes
were
higher
than
the
proposed
limit
of
4
percent
leaking
doors
and
reported
maximum
values
of
4.7
and
4.4
percent
leaking.
These
two
batteries
averaged
only
one
door
leak
during
inspections.

Considering
that
leaks
cannot
be
entirely
eliminated
at
all
times,
we
are
not
certain
that
more
stringent
limits
that
approach
zero
door
leaks
can
be
achieved
consistently.
The
data
show
that
the
2010
LAER
limits
have
been
achieved
a
high
percent
of
the
time;
however,
the
data
do
not
show
that
these
batteries
have
achieved
more
stringent
levels
on
a
not­
to­
be­
exceeded
basis.

The
data
show
a
similar
situation
for
lid
leaks
and
the
proposed
limit
of
0.4
percent
leaking
lids.
All
five
batteries
on
average
perform
below
the
limit.
However,
the
batteries
approach
or
exceed
the
2010
limit
on
occasion
due
to
inherent
variability.
One
battery
had
maximum
values
that
exceeded
the
limit
(
up
to
0.5
percent
leaking
lids),

one
battery
had
maximum
values
equal
to
the
limit
(
0.4
percent
leaking
lids),
and
three
batteries
approached
the
limit
at
0.3
percent
leaking
lids.
All
of
the
batteries
averaged
less
than
one
lid
leak
during
the
inspections
with
averages
of
0.1
to
0.3
lid
leaks
per
inspection.

For
offtake
leaks,
two
batteries
approached
the
limit
of
2.5
percent
leaking
with
inspection
results
of
2.4
percent
leaking.
The
other
three
batteries
had
maximum
61
values
of
1.3
to
1.9
percent
leaking.
The
average
number
of
leaking
offtakes
during
the
inspections
ranged
from
0.1
to
0.9
leaks.
Considering
that
these
batteries
approach
or
exceed
the
2010
limits
for
lids
and
offtakes
on
occasion
while
averaging
less
than
one
leak
per
inspection,
we
cannot
conclude
that
limits
more
stringent
than
those
proposed
have
been
demonstrated
as
achievable
on
a
consistent
basis.

For
charging,
all
five
batteries
consistently
met
the
proposed
limit
of
12
seconds
per
charge
with
maximum
values
of
4
to
9
seconds
per
charge.
We
evaluated
the
feasibility
of
a
more
stringent
emission
limit
for
charging.
The
data
indicate
that
a
limit
of
9
seconds
per
charge
has
been
achieved
by
the
five
batteries
on
a
consistent
basis.

However,
charging
emissions
contribute
only
8
percent
of
the
total
emissions
from
the
four
emission
points,
and
a
25
percent
reduction
in
the
charging
emission
limit
would
result
in
only
a
2
percent
reduction
in
overall
emissions.

A
more
stringent
charging
emission
limit
would
achieve
only
a
negligible
reduction
in
emissions
and
risk
while
increasing
the
potential
for
non­
compliance.
Consequently,

we
determined
that
a
more
stringent
charging
emission
limit
is
not
warranted.

We
considered
one
other
option
that
would
reduce
risk
beyond
the
2010
LAER
levels­­
requiring
facilities
to
convert
to
the
non­
recovery
cokemaking
technology.
We
considered
62
this
technology
because
of
its
potential
environmental
benefits
and
because
Congress
required
that
we
evaluate
this
technology
as
a
basis
for
emission
standards
for
new
coke
oven
batteries.

Replacing
existing
batteries
with
non­
recovery
batteries
would
be
financially
crippling
to
the
industry.

The
construction
of
a
non­
recovery
battery
requires
a
capital
investment
on
the
order
of
hundreds
of
millions
of
dollars
(
about
$
300
per
ton
of
coke
capacity).
For
example,

the
capital
cost
to
replace
batteries
on
the
MACT
track
ranges
from
$
50
to
$
290
million
per
plant
based
on
the
existing
coke
capacity
at
these
plants.
The
domestic
coke
industry
is
currently
economically
depressed,
and
the
lower
cost
of
imported
coke
has
adversely
affected
domestic
production.
Based
on
recent
trends
that
show
a
continuing
decline
in
domestic
coke
capacity
due
to
shutdowns,
these
coke
facilities
would
be
more
likely
to
permanently
close
rather
than
construct
new
non­
recovery
batteries.
For
example,
12
of
the
30
coke
plants
operating
in
1993
have
permanently
shut
down,
and
five
of
these
plants
were
on
the
MACT
track.
Consequently,
we
determined
that
requiring
the
replacement
of
existing
batteries
with
non­
recovery
batteries
was
not
a
reasonable
or
economically
feasible
option.

We
examined
more
closely
the
current
performance
of
the
63
MACT
track
batteries,
emissions
and
risks
based
on
current
performance,
and
the
potential
cost
impacts
of
the
2010
LAER
limits.
As
with
many
industrial
processes,
performance
of
coke
oven
batteries
is
variable
from
day
to
day.

Recognizing
this,
the
MACT
and
LAER
standards
are
30­
day
averages
of
seconds
of
charging
and
percent
of
leaking
doors,
lids
and
offtakes.
A
consequence
of
this
is
that
longer­
term
averages
(
a
year
or
longer)
necessarily
will
be
lower
than
the
highest
30­
day
average
during
the
same
time
period
 
40%
to
73%
for
percent
of
leaking
doors,
and
lower
for
the
other
parameters,
based
on
the
level
of
emissions
control
achieved
during
recent
visible
emission
inspections.

This
results
in
actual
emissions
lower
than
would
occur
if
all
facilities
emitted
consistently
at
the
allowable
30­
day
average
limits:
7.3
tons
per
year
BSO
based
on
actual
visible
emission
observations
vs.
11.2
tons
per
year
based
on
allowable
visible
emissions.

In
Table
3
of
this
preamble,
we
provide
risk
estimates
for
these
current
"
actual
emissions".
64
TABLE
3.
RISK
ESTIMATES
BASED
ON
ACTUAL
EMISSIONS1
Parameter
Based
on
current
actual
emissions1
Maximum
individual
risk
at
facility
with
highest
risk
140
in
a
million
Annual
cancer
incidence
summed
for
all
four
facilities
(
cases/
year)
0.02
Population
at
risk
across
all
four
facilities
(
modeled
to
50
km)

>
1
in
a
million
200,000
>
10
in
a
million
6,000
>
100
in
a
million
6
Total
modeled
4,000,000
1
Based
on
the
level
of
emission
control
achieved
during
visible
emissions
inspections
conducted
from
1995
through
2003
(
nationwide
emissions
estimated
as
7.3
tons/
yr).

When
we
examined
compliance
records
for
the
four
facilities,
we
found
that
they
all
met
all
the
2003
MACT
levels
for
charging
and
for
percent
of
leaking
doors,
lids
and
offtakes,
except
for
one
battery
at
one
facility,
for
PLD,
in
the
first
years
after
the
MACT
rule
was
published
(
but
before
the
2003
level
took
effect).
After
that
time,

that
facility
stayed
below
the
2003
MACT
level.
That
facility's
30­
day
PLD
levels
were
above
the
2010
LAER
level
several
times
into
1998,
but
then
stayed
below
that
level
since
that
time.

Two
batteries
at
a
second
facility
stayed
consistently
below
the
2003
MACT
level
for
PLD,
but
had
a
number
of
65
events
where
the
30­
day
average
exceeded
the
2010
LAER
level,
as
recently
as
2001
and
2002.
Similarly,
one
battery
at
that
facility,
while
staying
below
the
2003
MACT
level
for
PLL,
had
a
few
episodes
when
it
exceeded
the
2010
LAER
level.

For
the
other
facilities
and
for
the
other
parameters,

the
batteries
showed
consistent
compliance
not
only
with
the
2003
MACT
levels,
but
with
the
2010
LAER
levels.
In
some
cases,
the
maximum
30­
day
averages
in
the
compliance
history
would
have
been
relatively
close
to
the
2010
LAER
levels
(
3.0
percent
maximum
vs.
3.3
percent
2010
LAER
PLD
level
for
one
facility,
for
example)
but
most
would
be
less
close.

Given
this
compliance
history,
we
believe
that
only
one
facility
would
need
to
alter
its
practices
in
any
way
to
consistently
meet
the
levels
being
proposed
here,
equivalent
to
the
2010
LAER.
The
available
information
indicates
that
an
increase
in
maintenance
labor
and
sealing
materials
will
be
the
primary
components
of
any
small
increase
in
costs.

The
cost
is
estimated
at
$
4,500/
yr
based
on
the
projected
number
of
additional
leaks
to
be
sealed
and
a
conservative
estimate
of
30
minutes
of
labor
per
leak.
We
estimate
that
this
facility's
annual
emissions
will
decrease
by
about
0.1
tons/
yr.
We
anticipate
no
additional
actions
or
costs
at
the
other
three
facilities,
and
consequently
no
change
in
their
emissions.
66
We
estimate
that
there
will
be
very
small
changes
in
the
resulting
risks
because
the
one
facility
that
we
expect
to
take
action
as
a
result
of
the
levels
being
proposed
has
a
relatively
small
fraction
of
the
total
modeled
population,

its
estimated
maximum
risk
level
is
substantially
below
100
in
a
million,
and
the
total
reduction
in
emissions
is
likely
to
be
relatively
small
(
from
7.3
tons/
yr
to
7.2
tons/
yr).

The
maximum
individual
risk
at
the
facility
with
the
highest
risk
will
not
change,
nor
will
the
number
of
people
at
a
risk
above
100
in
a
million.
We
anticipate
very
small
decreases
in
the
total
annual
cancer
incidence
summed
across
all
four
facilities
and
in
the
estimated
number
of
people
at
a
risk
above
10
in
a
million
and
1
in
a
million.
These
decreases
are
well
within
the
noise
level
of
our
ability
to
estimate
such
changes.

We
determined
that
the
2010
LAER
limits
provide
an
opportunity
for
additional
control
and
are
achievable
and
reasonable.
We
further
conclude
that
these
coke
oven
batteries
can
achieve
the
2010
LAER
limits
at
a
reasonable
cost.
Establishing
more
stringent
limits
or
requiring
the
non­
recovery
technology
is
not
technologically
or
economically
feasible.
Therefore,
we
find
that
control
to
the
2010
LAER
levels
would
provide
an
ample
margin
of
safety
to
protect
public
health
and
the
environment.

We
expect
that
implementation
of
the
proposed
limits
67
would
reduce
the
estimated
risk
that
a
person
living
near
a
facility
would
have
if
he
or
she
were
exposed
to
that
level
for
70
years.
For
example,
the
maximum
individual
risk
would
be
reduced
by
10
percent
(
i.
e.,
from
200
to
180
in
a
million
based
on
the
estimates
provided)
at
the
coke
plant
with
the
highest
risk.
Implementation
of
the
proposed
limits
would
also
ensure
that
we
provide
the
maximum
feasible
protection
against
the
estimated
health
risks
by
protecting
the
greatest
number
of
persons
with
an
individual
lifetime
risk
level
of
higher
than
1
in
a
million.
For
example,
95
percent
of
the
persons
living
within
50
km
of
the
coke
plant
would
be
exposed
at
risk
levels
less
than
1
in
a
million.
Additionally,
since
the
maximum
estimated
target­
organ
specific
HI
for
all
MACT
sources
at
the
facility
is
0.4,
we
believe
that
exposures
to
HAP
that
may
cause
effects
other
than
cancer
do
not
exceed
a
level
that
is
adequate
to
protect
public
health
with
an
ample
margin
of
safety.
Specifically,
the
maximum
estimated
target­
organ
specific
HI
for
all
MACT
sources
at
the
facility
meets
the
requirements
for
a
presumptive
ample
margin
of
safety,
that
is,
an
HI
<
1.
Emissions
would
be
reduced
from
11
tons/
yr
to
9.8
tons/
yr
at
a
cost
of
$
4,500/
yr.
No
coke
oven
batteries
are
projected
to
close
because
of
the
proposed
amendments.
Therefore,
we
find
that
control
of
existing
byproduct
coke
oven
batteries
to
the
2010
LAER
levels
will
68
protect
the
public
health
and
provide
an
ample
margin
of
safety
for
emissions
from
this
source
category.

As
noted
earlier,
this
analysis
relates
only
to
emissions
from
a
single
source
category
associated
with
coke
oven
batteries,
not
with
total
facility
risk.
When
the
residual
risk
review
for
other
source
categories
at
coke
plants
is
conducted,
the
Agency
will
evaluate
the
risk
associated
with
emissions
from
the
other
source
categories
and
will
ensure
that
an
ample
margin
of
safety
is
obtained
for
emissions
from
the
entire
facility.
Delaying
a
determination
of
facilitywide
risk
is,
for
practical
purposes,
a
necessity
here.
First,
EPA
has
only
recently
promulgated
MACT
standards
for
other
emission
points
at
coke
oven
facilities
(
i.
e.,
pushing,
quenching,
and
battery
stacks)
and
lacks
information
on
what
actual
emissions
will
be
once
those
standards
take
effect.
Such
information
is
directly
relevant
to
assessing
ample
margin
of
safety
(
from
the
standpoint
of
both
risk,
technical
feasibility,
and
cost).
Second,
at
least
one
of
the
facilities
involved
in
the
present
proposal
contains
a
LAER
battery
as
well
as
a
MACT
battery.
Facilitywide
determinations
of
risk
for
such
facilities
necessarily
must
be
delayed
due
to
the
statutory
delay
for
assessing
residual
risk
from
LAER
batteries.

Finally,
delaying
facilitywide
risk
determinations
is
consistent
with
the
legislative
history
in
CAA
section
69
11
Legislative
History
at
868
(
Senate
Debate
on
Conference
Report,
emphasis
added).

12
Id.

13
Id.
at
868­
69.
112(
f).
That
history
makes
clear
that
although
"
residual
risk
standards
shall
be
sufficient
to
protect
the
most
exposed
person
with
an
ample
margin
of
safety
from
the
combined
hazardous
emissions
of
an
entire
major
source,"
EPA
need
not
do
so
in
a
single
step.
11
Rather,
since
the
statute
establishes
a
staggered
schedule
for
issuing
standards:

.
.
.
the
residual
risk
standards
for
such
other
categories
do
not
have
to
be
set
until
the
prescribed
later
dates,
but
the
standards
for
the
categories
in
the
first
group
must
be
sufficiently
stringent
so
that
when
all
residual
risk
standards
have
been
set,
the
public
will
be
protected
with
an
ample
margin
of
safety
from
the
combined
emissions
of
all
sources
within
a
major
source.
12
Here,
as
shown
in
Table
1
of
this
preamble,
EPA
has
considered
total
baseline
emissions
and
considers
that
there
is
"
sufficient
room
so
that
the
combined
risks
from
all
parts
of
[
coke
oven
batteries]
do
not
exceed
the
ample
margin
of
safety
level."
13
J.
What
determination
is
EPA
proposing
pursuant
to
CAA
section
112(
d)(
6)?

Section
112(
d)(
6)
requires
us
to
review
and
revise
MACT
standards
as
necessary
every
8
years,
taking
into
account
70
14
Technical
review
of
LAER
track
standards
occurs
on
a
different
time
frame
than
MACT
track
batteries.
Section
112(
i)(
8)(
C)
requires
such
review
by
January
2007.
Thus,
we
are
not
considering
any
changes
to
LAER
track
battery
standards
in
this
rulemaking.
developments
in
practices,
processes,
and
control
technologies
that
have
occurred
during
that
time.
If
we
find
relevant
changes,
we
may
revise
the
MACT
standards
and
develop
additional
standards.
14
The
EPA
does
not
read
the
provision
as
requiring
another
analysis
of
MACT
floors
for
existing
and
new
sources.
First,
there
is
nothing
in
the
language
of
section
112(
d)(
6)
that
speaks
clearly
to
the
issue
of
whether
or
not
another
floor
analysis
is
required.
Indeed,
the
requirement
that
EPA
consider
"
practices,
processes,
and
control
technologies"
suggests
that
no
additional
floor
determination
is
required,
since
it
omits
mention
of
"
emission
limitation
achieved,"
the
critical
language
in
section
112(
d)(
3)
triggering
the
requirement
to
determine
floors
for
existing
sources.
Our
position
that
floors
are
not
required
to
be
redetermined
is
further
demonstrated
by
the
fact
that
the
provision
for
periodic
review
of
the
MACT
standards
was
included
in
the
1990
draft
legislation
(
i.
e.,

the
House
and
Senate
Committee
reported
bills)
before
the
floor
provisions
(
which
came
from
later
amendments
to
the
Committee
bills)
were
introduced.
71
The
EPA
also
believes
that
interpreting
section
112(
d)(
6)
as
requiring
additional
floor
determinations
could
effectively
convert
existing
source
standards
into
new
source
standards.
After
8
years,
all
sources
would
be
performing
at
least
at
the
MACT
levels
of
performance,
so
that
the
average
of
the
12
percent
of
those
best
performers
would
be
performing
at
a
lower
level
still,
probably
approaching
that
of
new
sources.
The
EPA
sees
no
indication
that
section
112(
d)(
6)
was
intended
to
have
this
type
of
inexorable
downward
ratcheting
effect.
Rather,
we
read
the
provision
as
essentially
requiring
EPA
to
consider
developments
in
pollution
control
at
the
sources
("
taking
into
account
developments
in
practices,
processes,
and
control
technologies,"
in
the
language
of
section
112(
d)(
6)),
and
assessing
the
costs,
non­
air
quality
effects,
and
energy
implications
of
potentially
stricter
standards
reflecting
those
developments.

Applying
these
principles
here
to
by­
product
coke
oven
batteries,
although
no
new
control
technologies
have
been
developed
since
the
original
standards
were
promulgated,
our
review
of
emissions
data
revealed
that
existing
MACT
track
batteries
can
achieve
a
level
of
control
for
door
leaks
and
topside
leaks
more
stringent
than
that
required
by
the
1993
NESHAP.
The
emissions
data
for
these
batteries
show
that
the
more
stringent
limits
for
LAER
track
batteries
have
been
72
achieved
in
practice
on
a
continuing
basis
through
diligent
work
practices
to
identify
and
stop
leaks.
However,
as
discussed
in
detail
in
the
consideration
of
more
stringent
limits
in
this
preamble,
the
data
also
show
that
the
batteries
are
not
consistently
"
over­
achieving"
the
proposed
2010
LAER
limits.
Consequently,
emission
limits
more
stringent
than
those
we
are
proposing
to
establish
under
section
112(
f)
(
i.
e.,
the
2010
LAER
limits)
are
not
warranted.

We
also
conducted
a
review
of
the
MACT
standards
for
new
by­
product
batteries.
Our
finding
in
this
review
was
that
there
should
be
no
change
in
these
standards
because
we
have
identified
no
new
technologies
or
control
techniques
that
would
support
limits
more
stringent
than
the
current
standards
for
new
by­
product
batteries.

We
also
reviewed
the
MACT
standards
for
new
and
existing
non­
recovery
batteries.
There
are
no
existing
nonrecovery
batteries
on
the
MACT
track
subject
to
the
requirements
in
40
CFR
63.303(
a).
Consequently,
we
are
not
revising
those
requirements.

Our
review
of
the
MACT
requirements
for
new
nonrecovery
batteries
indicated
that
additional
requirements
for
new
sources
are
warranted
based
on
the
performance
of
the
best­
controlled
existing
sources.
There
is
one
non­
recovery
plant
on
the
MACT
track,
and
it
is
subject
to
73
the
1993
NESHAP
limits
for
new
sources.
The
new
source
standard
in
40
CFR
63.303(
b)(
2)
requires
that
this
plant
install
a
capture
and
control
system
for
charging
emissions.

However,
at
the
time
the
NESHAP
were
developed,
no
information
was
available
that
could
be
used
to
develop
an
emissions
standard
for
charging
emissions.
Charging
emissions
are
controlled
primarily
by
using
a
high
draft
to
contain
emissions
within
the
oven's
combustion
system,
and
additional
control
is
provided
by
capturing
and
controlling
any
fugitive
emissions
that
escape
from
the
oven.
A
measure
of
the
effectiveness
and
performance
of
charging
emission
control
is
the
opacity
of
the
fugitive
emissions
that
escape
the
oven
and
its
capture
system.
In
1998
and
1999,
opacity
readings
for
charging
emissions
were
documented
at
this
non­
recovery
plant.
During
startup
in
1998,
the
plant
achieved
20
percent
opacity
(
3­
minute
average)
for
95
percent
of
the
charges
that
were
observed.
In
1999,
the
control
performance
improved
to
99
percent
of
the
opacity
observations
less
than
20
percent.
When
the
opacity
observations
were
averaged
over
five
charges,
the
variability
was
reduced,
and
a
20
percent
opacity
limit
was
achieved
over
99
percent
of
the
time.
The
few
exceedances
of
20
percent
were
caused
by
equipment
malfunctions,
changes
in
the
coal
grind,
or
inexperienced
operators.
These
data
indicate
that
a
limit
of
20
percent
opacity
(
averaged
over
74
five
charges)
can
be
achieved,
and
that
such
a
limit
ensures
that
charging
emissions
are
consistently
well
controlled.

This
limit
reflects
the
performance
of
the
best­
controlled
similar
source.
Consequently,
we
are
proposing
to
revise
the
standards
to
incorporate
a
limit
of
20
percent
opacity
for
charging
for
new
sources.

This
non­
recovery
plant
has
a
permit
requirement
that
oven
damper
adjustments
be
made
to
maximize
oven
draft
during
charging,
which
ensures
better
containment
of
charging
emissions
within
the
combustion
system.
We
believe
this
requirement
represents
an
improvement
in
control
technology
that
should
be
applied
to
new
sources.

Consequently,
we
are
proposing
a
requirement
for
new
nonrecovery
batteries
that
the
draft
on
the
oven
be
maximized
during
charging.
The
proposed
revisions
would
also
require
that
records
be
kept
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
the
work
practice
standard,
including
procedures
for
monitoring
damper
position
during
charging
to
ensure
that
the
draft
is
maximized.

Our
review
also
indicates
that
the
batteries
at
this
plant
are
equipped
with
a
baghouse
to
control
charging
emissions.
An
emission
limit
(
in
the
plant's
operating
permit)
of
0.0081
pounds
of
particulate
matter
per
ton
of
dry
coal
(
lb/
ton)
has
been
applied
to
and
achieved
by
these
batteries.
Consequently,
we
are
proposing
an
emission
limit
75
of
0.0081
lb/
ton
for
charging
emission
controls
at
new
nonrecovery
batteries.
We
are
also
proposing
a
daily
observation
for
visible
emissions
from
the
charging
emissions
control
device
to
ensure
it
operates
properly
on
a
continuing
basis.
If
any
visible
emissions
are
observed,

corrective
action
must
be
taken
to
find
and
remedy
the
cause
of
the
visible
emissions.
A
visible
emissions
observation
must
be
made
within
24
hours
by
Method
9
(
40
CFR
part
60,

appendix
A),
and
the
opacity
must
be
less
than
10
percent
to
demonstrate
that
the
corrective
action
was
successful.

The
EPA
views
all
of
these
proposed
changes
for
charging
as
reflecting
developments
in
practices
and
control
technologies
at
reasonable
cost
without
appreciable
non­
air
environmental
impacts.
Consequently,
these
proposed
requirements
for
new
sources
are
appropriate
under
section
112(
d)(
6).

We
also
reviewed
the
current
MACT
standards
for
door
leaks
in
40
CFR
63.303(
b)(
1),
which
require
either
zero
percent
leaking
doors
or
monitoring
the
pressure
in
each
oven
or
common
tunnel
to
ensure
the
ovens
are
operated
under
negative
pressure.
Both
of
these
options
are
based
on
monitoring
doors
once
each
day
of
operation.
The
intent
of
these
requirements
is
to
assure
that
no
doors
leak
during
normal
operation.
However,
as
explained
earlier
in
this
preamble,
following
these
practices
does
not
necessarily
76
result
in
no
leaks.
We
are
proposing
to
amend
the
MACT
standards
to
clarify
this
fact,
and
to
assure
that
the
extent
and
number
of
any
such
leaks
are
minimized.
At
the
same
time,
our
review
indicates
that
there
have
been
no
changes
in
technology
or
emission
control
that
would
warrant
more
stringent
emission
standards
for
these
sources.

Consequently,
we
are
not
proposing
more
stringent
requirements
for
coke
oven
doors
under
section
112(
d)(
6).

We
specifically
request
your
comments
on
our
review
of
the
1993
NESHAP
and
our
proposed
determinations
under
CAA
section
112(
d)(
6).

K.
Why
are
we
amending
the
1993
NESHAP
requirements
for
door
leaks
on
non­
recovery
batteries?

We
are
proposing
to
amend
the
1993
NESHAP
requirements
for
door
leaks
at
non­
recovery
batteries
on
the
MACT
track
to
ensure
that
the
existing
standards
reflect
maximum
achievable
control
technology.
The
current
MACT
standards
for
door
leaks
in
40
CFR
63.303(
b)(
1)
require
either
zero
percent
leaking
doors
or
monitoring
the
pressure
in
each
oven
or
common
tunnel
to
ensure
the
ovens
are
operated
under
negative
pressure.
The
intent
of
these
requirements
is
to
assure
that
no
doors
leak
during
normal
operation.
We
recently
obtained
information
from
the
affected
facility
that
indicates
certain
equipment
failures
or
operating
problems
can
temporarily
create
a
positive
pressure
in
a
77
non­
recovery
oven
and
cause
a
door
to
leak.
The
principal
operating
problems
that
can
cause
a
door
to
leak
include
plugging
of
an
uptake
damper
(
resulting
in
a
loss
of
oven
draft)
and
fouling
of
the
heat
exchanger
used
for
heat
recovery
(
resulting
in
a
positive
back
pressure).
These
events
are
very
infrequent
and
short
in
duration
because
the
problem
is
quickly
remedied
(
typically
in
5
to
15
minutes).

Our
review
of
the
door
leak
standards
indicates
that
the
current
requirements
in
the
1993
NESHAP
do
notshould
be
strengthened
to
ensure
that
a
door
leaks
does
not
occur
regularly
and
to
ensure
that
when
leaks
do
occur,
they
are
promptly
stopped.
The
current
standard
does
not
address
the
rare
occurrences
when
the
equipment
that
controls
the
oven's
draft
may
malfunction
and
cause
minor
leakage
around
the
door
area.
or
that
the
oven
pressure
does
not
become
positive
at
times
during
the
day
when
no
monitoring
is
performed.
In
addition,
the
current
standards
do
not
require
that
a
door
leak
be
promptly
stopped
if
one
occurs
(
since
the
assumption
is
that
leaks
will
not
occur).
We
are
proposing
to
supplement
the
current
requirements
with
additional
requirements
to
ensure
that
the
minor
leaks
resulting
from
these
rare
occurrences
are
promptly
corrected.

The
non­
recovery
plant
subject
to
the
MACT
standards
has
developed
procedures
to
assure
that
corrective
actions
are
taken
to
stop
leaks
within
15
minutes.
Problems
with
78
uptake
dampers
and
fouled
heat
exchangers
are
quickly
remedied,
and
the
plant
has
instituted
preventative
measures
to
minimize
their
occurrence.
Based
on
the
plant's
current
practices,
we
have
developed
a
proposed
revision
that
would
require
that
any
door
leak
be
stopped
within
15
minutes
by
taking
corrective
actions.
We
are
also
proposing
an
exception
that
would
allow
up
to
45
minutes
to
stop
the
leak
for
no
more
than
two
occurrences
per
battery
during
any
semiannual
reporting
period.
This
exception
is
designed
to
accommodate
the
situations
whererare
occurrences
when
15
minutes
may
not
be
enough
time
to
identify
the
cause
of
the
leak
and
take
corrective
actions
to
stop
the
leak.
We
are
allowing
up
to
45
minutes
to
stop
a
leak
if
a
worker
must
enter
a
cokeside
shed
to
take
corrective
action.
After
a
door
leak
has
been
stopped,
no
additional
leaks
would
be
allowed
from
that
oven
during
the
remainder
of
its
coking
cycle.
We
are
proposing
monitoring
provisions
to
require
that
each
door
be
observed
for
visible
emissions
immediately
after
charging.
We
are
also
proposing
that
the
startup,

shutdown,
and
malfunction
plan
be
expanded
to
identify
failures
that
create
door
leaks,
develop
corrective
actions
for
each
potential
failure,
and
establish
preventative
procedures
to
minimize
their
occurrence.
These
requirements
are
designed
to
ensure
that
even
if
an
infrequent
door
leak
occurs,
the
leak
is
stopped
promptly.
79
15
Additional
details
are
provided
in
the
supporting
statement
for
the
Information
Collection
Request.
The
primary
impact
of
the
proposed
amendments
on
the
affected
non­
recovery
plant
would
be
additional
labor
to
monitor
for
emissions
and
to
identify
and
correct
any
problems
associated
with
emissions
from
charging
and
doors.

The
revisions
would
not
impose
new
substantive
additional
controls
and
are
designed
to
assure
that
the
non­
recovery
plant
implements
its
current
procedures
on
a
continuing
basis.
The
plant
is
expected
to
incur
a
total
annualized
cost
of
about
$
28,000
per
year
as
a
result
of
the
proposed
revisions.
15
We
are
also
clarifying
that
the
work
practice
requirements
for
charging
for
existing
non­
recovery
plants
also
apply
to
new
non­
recovery
plants.
This
was
the
intent
of
the
original
rule;
however,
the
requirement
is
not
stated
clearly
in
the
1993
NESHAP.
This
revision
will
not
affect
the
non­
recovery
plant
subject
to
the
new
source
standards
in
the
1993
NESHAP
because
the
work
practice
requirements
have
already
been
incorporated
into
its
operating
permit.

However,
the
proposed
revision
will
clarify
that
the
work
practice
requirements
apply
to
non­
recovery
plants
that
might
be
constructed
in
the
future.

L.
What
are
the
estimated
cost
impacts
of
the
proposed
amendments?
80
We
evaluated
the
cost
impacts
of
the
proposed
amendments
for
existing
by­
product
coke
oven
batteries
and
concluded
that
the
MACT
track
batteries
can
achieve
the
2010
LAER
limits
with
only
a
minimal
increase
in
cost.
Our
conclusion
is
based
on
a
review
of
inspection
data
that
show
the
level
of
control
that
these
plants
are
currently
achieving.

The
results
of
several
years
of
daily
compliance
determinations
show
that
all
five
MACT
track
batteries
have
met
the
2010
LAER
limits
for
charging
and
offtakes
100
percent
of
the
time.
There
should
be
no
incremental
increase
in
costs
for
these
emission
points.

The
review
of
the
past
3
years
of
daily
compliance
determinations
for
door
leaks
shows
that
three
batteries
met
the
2010
LAER
limits
100
percent
of
the
time;
consequently,

these
batteries
will
incur
very
little
costs
beyond
those
currently
being
incurred
to
control
door
leaks.
One
plant
with
two
batteries
had
a
few
excursions
of
the
proposed
limit.
One
of
these
batteries
met
the
limit
99
percent
of
the
time,
and
the
other
met
it
95
percent
of
the
time.

These
two
batteries
have
hand­
luted
doors,
and
leaks
are
controlled
by
applying
sealing
material.
These
batteries
may
incur
minor
increases
in
labor,
supervision,
and
sealing
materials
to
achieve
the
small
improvement
in
control
that
is
needed.
81
Four
of
the
batteries
have
achieved
the
2010
LAER
limit
for
lid
leaks
100
percent
of
the
time
and
should
incur
little
additional
costs.
One
battery
achieved
the
limit
96
percent
of
the
time
and
may
incur
some
additional
cost.

However,
lid
leaks
are
not
difficult
to
control
because
they
only
require
the
application
of
sealant
to
a
flat
horizontal
surface.
Increased
diligence
in
identifying
and
stopping
lid
leaks,
perhaps
with
a
nominal
increase
in
labor,
may
be
required.
However,
this
increased
cost
is
expected
to
be
insignificant
because
only
a
small
improvement
in
control
would
be
required
to
meet
the
2010
LAER
limits
100
percent
of
the
time.

We
estimate
the
cost
of
additional
control
of
door
leaks
and
lid
leaks
at
one
plant
at
$
4,500/
yr
for
additional
labor
and
materials
to
identify
and
seal
leaks.

We
also
evaluated
the
cost
impacts
of
the
proposed
amendments
for
non­
recovery
batteries.
There
has
been
only
one
new
non­
recovery
plant
constructed
in
the
past
30
years,

and
we
have
no
indication
that
a
new
non­
recovery
battery
will
be
constructed
and
operated
in
the
next
5
years.

Consequently,
we
expect
no
cost
impacts
in
the
near
term
from
our
proposed
requirements
for
charging
for
new
nonrecovery
batteries.
Our
proposed
amendments
for
door
leaks
will
affect
one
non­
recovery
plant.
However,
this
plant
is
already
implementing
most
of
the
proposed
requirements
as
82
part
of
its
routine
operation.
We
expect
that
some
increased
labor
will
be
incurred
to
identify
and
correct
the
infrequent
occurrence
of
door
leaks.
In
addition,
there
will
be
some
burden
associated
with
reporting
and
recordkeeping
for
these
events.
We
estimate
that
the
additional
requirements
proposed
for
door
leaks
will
result
in
an
increase
in
total
annualized
cost
of
$
28,000
per
year.

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;

(
2)
create
a
serious
inconsistency
or
otherwise
interfere
with
an
action
taken
or
planned
by
another
agency;

(
3)
materially
alter
the
budgetary
impact
of
83
entitlement,
grants,
user
fees,
or
loan
programs
or
the
rights
and
obligations
of
recipients
thereof;
or
(
4)
raise
novel
legal
or
policy
issues
arising
out
of
legal
mandates,
the
President's
priorities,
or
the
principles
set
forth
in
the
Executive
Order.

Under
the
terms
of
Executive
Order
12866,
it
has
been
determined
that
this
regulatory
action
is
a
"
significant
regulatory
action"
because
it
raises
novel
legal
or
policy
issues.
As
such,
this
action
was
submitted
to
OMB
for
Executive
Order
12866
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
proposed
amendments
have
been
submitted
for
approval
to
OMB
under
the
Paperwork
Reduction
Act,
44
U.
S.
C.
3501
et
seq.
The
ICR
document
prepared
by
EPA
has
been
assigned
EPA
ICR
No.

1362.05.

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
national
emission
standards.
These
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements
are
specifically
authorized
by
section
114
of
the
CAA
(
42
U.
S.
C.
7414).
All
information
submitted
to
EPA
pursuant
to
84
the
recordkeeping
and
reporting
requirements
for
which
a
claim
of
confidentiality
is
made
is
safeguarded
according
to
Agency
policies
set
forth
in
40
CFR
part
2,
subpart
B.

The
proposed
amendments
would
establish
work
practice
requirements
designed
to
improve
control
of
door
leaks
applicable
to
all
non­
recovery
coke
oven
batteries.
The
owner
or
operator
also
would
be
required
to
add
certain
information
on
malfunctions
associated
with
door
leaks
to
the
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
plan.
New
nonrecovery
batteries
also
would
be
required
to
implement
the
same
work
practice
standards
that
already
apply
to
existing
non­
recovery
batteries.
Plant
owners
or
operators
would
be
required
to
submit
an
initial
notification
of
compliance
status
and
semiannual
compliance
reports.
Records
would
be
required
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
applicable
emission
limitations
and
work
practice
requirements.
Additional
requirements
would
apply
to
a
new
non­
recovery
coke
oven
battery,
but
none
are
expected
during
the
3­
year
period
of
this
ICR.
This
action
would
not
impose
any
new
or
revised
information
collection
burden
on
by­
product
coke
oven
batteries
subject
to
the
proposed
amendments.
These
batteries
are
currently
meeting
the
monitoring,

recordkeeping,
and
reporting
requirements
in
the
1993
NESHAP.

The
increased
annual
average
monitoring,
reporting,
and
85
recordkeeping
burden
for
this
collection
(
averaged
over
the
first
3
years
of
this
ICR)
is
estimated
to
total
448
labor
hours
per
year
at
a
cost
of
$
28,338.
This
includes
an
increase
of
three
responses
per
year
from
one
respondent
for
an
average
of
about
148
hours
per
response.
No
capital/
startup
costs
or
operation
and
maintenance
costs
are
associated
with
the
proposed
monitoring
requirements.

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
purposes
of
collecting,

validating,
and
verifying
information,
processing
and
maintaining
information,
and
disclosing
and
providing
information;
adjust
the
existing
ways
to
comply
with
any
previously
applicable
instructions
and
requirements;
train
personnel
to
be
able
to
respond
to
a
collection
of
information;
search
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
numbers
for
EPA's
regulations
in
40
CFR
part
86
63
are
listed
in
40
CFR
part
9.

To
comment
on
the
Agency's
need
for
this
information,

the
accuracy
of
the
provided
burden
estimates,
and
any
suggested
methods
for
minimizing
respondent
burden,

including
the
use
of
automated
collection
techniques,
EPA
has
established
a
public
docket
for
the
proposed
rule,
which
includes
this
ICR,
under
Docket
ID
number
OAR­
2003­
0056.

Submit
any
comments
related
to
the
ICR
for
the
proposed
rule
to
EPA
and
OMB.
See
the
ADDRESSES
section
at
the
beginning
of
this
notice
for
where
to
submit
comments
to
EPA.
Send
comments
to
OMB
at
the
Office
of
Information
and
Regulatory
Affairs,
Office
of
Management
and
Budget,
725
17th
Street,

NW,
Washington,
DC
20503,
Attention:
Desk
Office
for
EPA.

Because
OMB
is
required
to
make
a
decision
concerning
the
ICR
between
30
and
60
days
after
[
insert
date
of
publication
in
the
Federal
Register],
a
comment
to
OMB
is
best
assured
of
having
its
full
effect
if
OMB
receives
it
by
[
insert
date
30
days
after
date
of
publication
in
the
Federal
Register].

The
final
rule
amendments
will
respond
to
any
OMB
or
public
comments
on
the
information
collection
requirements
contained
in
the
proposal.

C.
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
The
Regulatory
Flexibility
Act
generally
requires
an
agency
to
prepare
a
regulatory
flexibility
analysis
of
any
rule
subject
to
notice
and
comment
rulemaking
requirements
87
under
the
Administrative
Procedure
Act
or
any
other
statute
unless
the
agency
certifies
that
the
rule
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities.
Small
entities
include
small
businesses,
small
not­
for­
profit
enterprises,
and
small
governmental
jurisdictions.

For
the
purposes
of
assessing
the
impacts
of
today's
proposed
amendments
on
small
entities,
small
entity
is
defined
as:
(
1)
a
small
business
having
no
more
than
1,000
employees,
as
defined
by
the
Small
Business
Administration
for
NAICS
codes
331111
and
324199;
(
2)
a
government
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
that
is
not
dominant
in
its
field.

After
considering
the
economic
impacts
of
today's
proposed
amendments
on
small
entities,
I
certify
that
this
action
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities.
Of
the
five
companies
subject
to
the
requirements
of
the
proposed
amendments,
one
company
(
operating
a
total
of
three
batteries)
is
considered
a
small
entity.
However,
the
proposed
amendments
will
not
impose
any
significant
additional
regulatory
costs
on
that
small
entity
because
it
is
already
meeting
the
stricter
88
emissions
limitations
for
by­
product
coke
oven
batteries
included
in
the
proposed
rule
amendments,
as
well
as
the
monitoring,
recordkeeping,
and
reporting
requirements.

Although
the
proposed
rule
amendments
will
not
have
a
significant
economic
impact
on
a
substantial
number
of
small
entities,
we
nonetheless
tried
to
reduce
the
impact
of
the
proposed
amendments
on
small
entities.
We
held
meetings
with
industry
trade
associations
and
company
representatives
to
discuss
the
proposed
amendments
and
have
included
provisions
that
address
their
concerns.
We
continue
to
be
interested
in
the
potential
impacts
of
the
proposed
amendments
on
small
entities
and
welcome
comments
on
issues
related
to
such
impacts.

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
cost­
benefit
analysis,
for
proposed
and
final
rules
with
"
Federal
mandates"
that
may
result
in
expenditures
by
State,

local,
and
tribal
governments,
in
the
aggregate,
or
by
the
private
sector,
of
$
100
million
or
more
in
any
1
year.

Before
promulgating
an
EPA
rule
for
which
a
written
89
statement
is
needed,
section
205
of
the
UMRA
generally
requires
the
EPA
to
identify
and
consider
a
reasonable
number
of
regulatory
alternatives
and
adopt
the
least
costly,
most
cost­
effective,
or
least­
burdensome
alternative
that
achieves
the
objectives
of
the
rule.
The
provisions
of
section
205
do
not
apply
when
they
are
inconsistent
with
applicable
law.
Moreover,
section
205
allows
the
EPA
to
adopt
an
alternative
other
than
the
least­
costly,
most
costeffective
or
least­
burdensome
alternative
if
the
Administrator
publishes
with
the
final
rule
an
explanation
why
that
alternative
was
not
adopted.
Before
the
EPA
establishes
any
regulatory
requirements
that
may
significantly
or
uniquely
affect
small
governments,

including
tribal
governments,
it
must
have
developed
under
section
203
of
the
UMRA
a
small
government
agency
plan.
The
plan
must
provide
for
notifying
potentially
affected
small
governments,
enabling
officials
of
affected
small
governments
to
have
meaningful
and
timely
input
in
the
development
of
EPA
regulatory
proposals
with
significant
Federal
intergovernmental
mandates,
and
informing,

educating,
and
advising
small
governments
on
compliance
with
the
regulatory
requirements.

The
EPA
has
determined
that
the
proposed
amendments
do
not
contain
a
Federal
mandate
that
may
result
in
expenditures
of
$
100
million
or
more
for
State,
local,
and
90
tribal
governments,
in
the
aggregate,
or
to
the
private
sector
in
any
1
year.
No
significant
costs
are
attributable
to
the
proposed
amendments.
Thus,
the
proposed
amendments
are
not
subject
to
the
requirements
of
sections
202
and
205
of
the
UMRA.
In
addition,
the
proposed
amendments
do
not
significantly
or
uniquely
affect
small
governments
because
they
contain
no
requirements
that
apply
to
such
governments
or
impose
obligations
upon
them.
Therefore,
the
proposed
amendments
are
not
subject
to
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
proposed
amendments
do
not
have
federalism
implications.
They
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,
91
as
specified
in
Executive
Order
13132.
None
of
the
affected
plants
are
owned
or
operated
by
State
governments.
Thus,

Executive
Order
13132
does
not
apply
to
the
proposed
amendments.

F.
Executive
Order
13175:
Consultation
and
Coordination
with
Indian
Tribal
Governments
Executive
Order
13175
(
65
FR
67249,
November
6,
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."
"
Policies
that
have
tribal
implications"
is
defined
in
the
Executive
Order
to
include
regulations
that
have
"
substantial
direct
effects
on
one
or
more
Indian
tribes,
on
the
relationship
between
the
Federal
government
and
Indian
tribes."

The
proposed
amendments
do
not
have
tribal
implications,
as
specified
in
Executive
Order
13175.
They
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
government
and
Indian
tribes.
No
tribal
governments
own
plants
subject
to
the
MACT
standards
for
coke
oven
batteries.
Thus,

Executive
Order
13175
does
not
apply
to
the
proposed
amendments.
92
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
proposed
amendments
are
not
subject
to
the
Executive
Order
because
they
are
not
economically
significant
as
defined
in
Executive
Order
12866
and
because
the
Agency
does
not
have
reason
to
believe
the
environmental
health
or
safety
risks
addressed
by
this
action
present
a
disproportionate
risk
to
children.
The
public
is
invited
to
submit
or
identify
peer­
reviewed
studies
and
data,
of
which
the
Agency
may
not
be
aware,
that
assessed
results
of
early
life
exposure
to
coke
oven
emissions.

H.
Executive
Order
13211:
Actions
that
Significantly
Affect
Energy
Supply,
Distribution,
or
Use
The
proposed
amendments
are
not
a
"
significant
energy
93
action"
as
defined
in
Executive
Order
13211
(
66
FR
28355,

May
22,
2001)
because
they
are
not
likely
to
have
a
significant
adverse
effect
on
the
supply,
distribution,
or
use
of
energy.
Further,
we
have
concluded
that
the
proposed
amendments
are
not
likely
to
have
any
adverse
energy
impacts.

I.
National
Technology
Transfer
Advancement
Act
Section
112(
d)
of
the
National
Technology
Transfer
and
Advancement
Act
(
NTTAA)
of
1995
(
Public
Law
No.
104­
113;
15
U.
S.
C
272
note)
directs
the
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
(
e.
g.,
material
specifications,
test
methods,
sampling
procedures,
business
practices)
developed
or
adopted
by
one
or
more
voluntary
consensus
bodies.
The
NTTAA
requires
EPA
to
provide
Congress,
through
the
OMB,

explanations
when
the
Agency
decides
not
to
use
available
and
applicable
voluntary
consensus
standards.

These
proposed
amendments
involve
technical
standards.

The
EPA
proposes
to
use
EPA
Methods
1,
2,
2F,
2G,
3,
3A,
3B,

4,
5,
5D
(
PM)
and
9
(
opacity)
of
40
CFR
part
60,
appendix
A.

Consistent
with
the
NTTAA,
we
conducted
searches
to
identify
voluntary
consensus
standards
in
addition
to
these
EPA
methods.
No
applicable
voluntary
consensus
standards
94
were
identified
for
EPA
Methods
2F,
2G,
5D,
and
9.
One
voluntary
consensus
standard
was
identified
as
an
acceptable
alternative
to
EPA
test
methods
for
the
purposes
of
the
proposed
amendments.
The
voluntary
consensus
standard
ASME
PTC
19­
10­
1981­
Part
10,
"
Flue
and
Exhaust
Gas
Analyses,"
is
cited
in
the
proposed
amendments
for
its
manual
method
for
measuring
the
oxygen,
carbon
dioxide,
and
carbon
monoxide
content
of
exhaust
gas.
This
part
of
ASME
PTC
19­
10­
1981­

Part
10
is
an
acceptable
alternative
to
Method
3B.

Our
search
for
emissions
monitoring
procedures
identified
14
voluntary
consensus
standards
applicable
to
the
proposed
amendments.
The
EPA
determined
that
12
of
these
standards
identified
for
measuring
PM
were
impractical
alternatives
to
EPA
test
methods
due
to
lack
of
equivalency,

detail,
specific
equipment
requirements,
or
quality
assurance/
quality
control
requirements.
The
two
remaining
voluntary
consensus
standards
identified
in
the
search
were
not
available
at
the
time
the
review
was
conducted
because
they
are
under
development
by
a
voluntary
consensus
body:

ASME/
BSR
MFC
13M,
"
Flow
Measurement
by
Velocity
Traverse,"

for
EPA
Method
2
(
and
possibly
Method
1)
and
ASME/
BSR
MFC
12M,
"
Flow
in
Closed
Conduits
Using
Multiport
Averaging
Pitot
Primary
Flowmeters,"
for
EPA
Method
2.
Therefore,
EPA
does
not
intend
to
adopt
these
standards
for
this
purpose.

Detailed
information
on
the
EPA's
search
and
review
results
National
Emission
Standards
for
Coke
Oven
Batteries:
Proposed
Amendments
­
page
95
of
112
95
is
included
in
the
docket.

Section
63.309
of
the
proposed
amendments
lists
the
EPA
test
methods
that
would
be
required.
Under
40
CFR
63.7(
f)

and
40
CFR
63.8(
f),
a
source
may
apply
to
EPA
for
permission
to
use
alternative
test
methods
or
monitoring
requirements
in
place
of
any
of
the
EPA
test
methods,
performance
specifications,
or
procedures.

List
of
Subjects
in
40
CFR
Part
63
Environmental
protection,
Air
pollution
control,

Hazardous
substances,
Reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements.

Dated:

Michael
O.
Leavitt,
Administrator.
96
For
the
reasons
stated
in
the
preamble,
title
40,
chapter
I,

part
63
of
the
Code
of
Federal
Regulations
is
proposed
to
be
amended
as
follows:

PART
63­­[
AMENDED]

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

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

Subpart
A
 
[
Amended]

2.
Section
63.14
is
amended
by
revising
paragraph
(
i)(
3)
to
read
as
follows:

§
63.14
Incorporations
by
reference.

*
*
*
*
*

(
i)
*
*
*

(
3)
ANSI/
ASME
PTC
19.10­
1981,
"
Flue
and
Exhaust
Gas
Analyses
[
Part
10,
Instruments
and
Apparatus],"
IBR
approved
for
§
§
63.309(
k)(
1)(
iii),
63.685(
b),
63.3360(
e)(
1)(
iii),

63.4166(
a)(
3),
63.4965(
a)(
3),
and
63.5160(
d)(
1)(
iii).

*
*
*
*
*

Subpart
L­
 
[
Amended]

3.
Section
63.300
is
amended
by:

a.
Redesignating
existing
paragraphs
(
a)(
3)
through
(
a)(
5)
as
(
a)(
5)
through
(
a)(
7);
and
b.
Adding
new
paragraphs
(
a)(
3)
and
(
a)(
4).

The
additions
read
as
follows:
97
§
63.300
Applicability.

(
a)
*
*
*

(
3)
[
date
90
days
after
publication
of
the
final
rule
amendments
in
the
Federal
Register],
for
existing
by­
product
coke
oven
batteries
subject
to
emission
limitations
in
§
63.302(
a)(
3)
and
for
non­
recovery
coke
oven
batteries
subject
to
the
emission
limitations
and
requirements
in
§
63.303(
b)(
3)
or
(
c);

(
4)
Upon
startup
for
a
new
non­
recovery
coke
oven
battery
subject
to
the
emission
limitations
and
requirements
in
§
63.303(
b),
(
c),
and
(
d).
A
new
non­
recovery
coke
oven
battery
subject
to
the
requirements
in
§
63.303(
d)
is
one
for
which
construction
or
reconstruction
commenced
on
or
after
[
insert
date
of
publication
in
the
Federal
Register];

*
*
*
*
*

4.
Section
63.302
is
amended
by
adding
new
paragraph
(
a)(
3)
to
read
as
follows:

§
63.302
Standards
for
by­
product
coke
oven
batteries.

(
a)
*
*
*

(
3)
On
and
after
[
date
90
days
after
publication
of
the
final
rule
amendments
in
the
Federal
Register];

(
i)
4.0
percent
leaking
coke
oven
doors
for
each
tall
by­
product
coke
oven
battery
and
for
each
by­
product
coke
oven
battery
owned
or
operated
by
a
foundry
coke
producer,

as
determined
by
the
procedures
in
§
63.309(
d)(
1);
(
ii)
3.3
percent
leaking
coke
oven
doors
for
each
byproduct
coke
oven
battery
not
subject
to
the
emission
limitation
in
paragraph
(
a)(
3)(
i)
of
this
section,
as
determined
by
the
procedures
in
§
63.309(
d)(
1);

(
iii)
0.4
percent
leaking
topside
port
lids,
as
determined
by
the
procedures
in
§
63.309(
d)(
1);

(
iv)
2.5
percent
leaking
offtake
system(
s),
as
determined
by
the
procedures
in
§
63.309(
d)(
1);
and
(
v)
12
seconds
of
visible
emissions
per
charge,
as
determined
by
the
procedures
in
§
63.309(
d)(
2).

*
*
*
*
*

5.
Section
63.303
is
amended
by:

a.
Redesignating
paragraphs
(
b)(
3)
and
(
b)(
4)
as
(
b)(
4)
and
(
b)(
5)
and
adding
new
paragraph
(
b)(
3);
and
b.
Adding
new
paragraphs
(
c)
and
(
d).

The
additions
read
as
follows:

§
63.303
Standards
for
non­
recovery
coke
oven
batteries.

*
*
*
*
*

(
b)
*
*
*

(
3)
For
charging
operations,
the
owner
or
operator
shall
implement,
for
each
day
of
operation,
the
work
practices
specified
in
§
63.306(
b)(
6)
and
record
the
performance
of
the
work
practices
as
required
in
§
63.306(
b)(
7).

*
*
*
*
*
(
c)
Except
as
provided
in
§
63.304,
the
owner
or
operator
of
any
non­
recovery
coke
oven
battery
shall
meet
the
work
practice
standards
in
paragraphs
(
c)(
1)
and
(
2)
of
this
section.

(
1)
The
owner
or
operator
shall
observe
each
coke
oven
door
after
charging
and
record
the
oven
number
of
any
door
from
which
visible
emissions
occur.
Emissions
from
coal
spilled
during
charging
or
from
material
trapped
within
the
seal
area
of
the
door
are
not
considered
to
be
a
door
leak
if
the
owner
or
operator
demonstrates
that
the
oven
is
under
negative
pressure,
and
that
no
emissions
are
visible
from
the
top
of
the
door
or
from
dampers
on
the
door.

(
2)
Except
as
provided
in
paragraphs
(
c)(
2)(
i)
and
(
ii)
of
this
section,
if
a
coke
oven
door
leak
is
observed
at
any
time
during
the
coking
cycle,
the
owner
or
operator
shall
take
corrective
action
and
stop
the
leak
within
15
minutes
from
the
time
the
leak
is
first
observed.
No
additional
leaks
are
allowed
from
doors
on
that
oven
for
the
remainder
of
that
oven's
coking
cycle.

(
i)
For
no
more
than
two
times
per
battery
in
any
semiannual
reporting
period,
the
owner
or
operator
may
take
corrective
action
and
stop
the
leak
within
45
minutes
(
instead
of
15
minutes)
from
the
time
the
leak
is
first
observed.

(
ii)
The
limit
of
two
occurrences
per
battery
100
specified
in
paragraph
(
c)(
2)(
i)
of
this
section
does
not
apply
if
a
worker
must
enter
a
cokeside
shed
to
stop
a
leaking
door
under
the
cokeside
shed.
The
owner
or
operator
shall
take
corrective
action
and
stop
the
door
leak
within
45
minutes
(
instead
of
15
minutes)
from
the
time
the
leak
is
first
observed.
The
evacuation
system
and
control
device
for
the
cokeside
shed
must
be
operated
at
all
times
there
is
a
leaking
door
under
the
cokeside
shed.

(
d)
The
owner
or
operator
of
a
new
non­
recovery
coke
oven
battery
shall
meet
the
emission
limitations
and
work
practice
standards
in
paragraphs
(
d)(
1)
through
(
4)
of
this
section.

(
1)
The
owner
or
operator
shall
not
discharge
or
cause
to
be
discharged
to
the
atmosphere
from
charging
operations
any
fugitive
emissions
that
exhibit
an
opacity
greater
than
20
percent,
as
determined
by
the
procedures
in
§
63.309(
j).

(
2)
The
owner
or
operator
shall
not
discharge
or
cause
to
be
discharged
to
the
atmosphere
any
emissions
of
particulate
matter
(
PM)
from
a
charging
emissions
control
device
that
exceed
0.0081
pounds
per
ton
(
lbs/
ton)
of
dry
coal
charged,
as
determined
by
the
procedures
in
§
63.309(
k).

(
3)
The
owner
or
operator
shall
observe
the
exhaust
stack
of
each
charging
emissions
control
device
at
least
once
during
each
day
of
operation
to
determine
if
visible
emissions
are
present
and
shall
record
the
results
of
each
101
daily
observation
or
the
reason
why
conditions
did
not
permit
a
daily
observation.
If
any
visible
emissions
are
observed,
the
owner
or
operator
must:

(
i)
Take
corrective
action
to
eliminate
the
presence
of
visible
emissions;

(
ii)
Record
the
cause
of
the
problem
creating
the
visible
emissions
and
the
corrective
action
taken;

(
iii)
Conduct
visible
emission
observations
according
to
the
procedures
in
§
63.309(
m)
within
24
hours
after
detecting
the
visible
emissions;
and
(
iv)
Report
any
6­
minute
average,
as
determined
according
to
the
procedures
in
§
63.309(
m),
that
exceeds
10
percent
opacity
as
a
deviation
in
the
semiannual
compliance
report
required
by
§
63.311(
d).

(
4)
The
owner
or
operator
shall
develop
and
implement
written
procedures
for
adjusting
the
oven
uptake
damper
to
maximize
oven
draft
during
charging
and
for
monitoring
the
oven
damper
setting
during
each
charge
to
ensure
that
the
damper
is
fully
open.

6.
Section
63.309
is
amended
by
adding
new
paragraphs
(
j)
through
(
m)
to
read
as
follows:

§
63.309
Performance
tests
and
procedures.

*
*
*
*
*

(
j)
The
owner
or
operator
of
a
new
non­
recovery
coke
oven
battery
shall
conduct
a
performance
test
once
each
week
102
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
the
opacity
limit
in
§
63.303(
d)(
1).
The
owner
or
operator
shall
conduct
each
performance
test
according
to
the
procedures
and
requirements
in
paragraphs
(
j)(
1)
through
(
3)
of
this
section.

(
1)
Using
a
certified
observer,
determine
the
average
opacity
of
five
consecutive
charges
per
week
for
each
charging
emissions
capture
system
if
charges
can
be
observed
according
to
the
requirements
of
Method
9
(
40
CFR
part
60,

appendix
A),
except
as
specified
in
paragraphs
(
j)(
1)(
i)
and
(
ii)
of
this
section.

(
i)
Instead
of
the
procedures
in
section
2.4
of
Method
9
(
40
CFR
part
60,
appendix
A),
record
observations
to
the
nearest
5
percent
at
15­
second
intervals
for
at
least
five
consecutive
charges.

(
ii)
Instead
of
the
procedures
in
section
2.5
of
Method
9
(
40
CFR
part
60,
appendix
A),
determine
and
record
the
highest
3­
minute
block
average
opacity
for
each
charge
from
the
consecutive
observations
recorded
at
15­
second
intervals.

(
2)
Opacity
observations
are
to
start
when
the
door
is
removed
for
charging
and
end
when
the
door
is
replaced.

(
3)
Using
the
observations
recorded
from
each
performance
test,
the
certified
observer
shall
compute
and
record
the
average
of
the
five
3­
minute
block
averages.
103
(
k)
The
owner
or
operator
of
a
new
non­
recovery
coke
oven
battery
shall
conduct
a
performance
test
to
demonstrate
initial
compliance
with
the
emission
limitations
for
a
charging
emissions
control
device
in
§
63.303(
d)(
2)
within
180
days
of
the
compliance
date
that
is
specified
for
the
affected
source
in
§
63.300(
a)(
4)
and
report
the
results
in
the
notification
of
compliance
status.
The
owner
or
operator
shall
prepare
a
site­
specific
test
plan
according
to
the
requirements
in
§
63.7(
c)
and
shall
conduct
each
performance
test
according
to
the
requirements
in
§
63.7(
e)(
1)
and
paragraphs
(
k)(
1)
through
(
4)
of
this
section.

(
1)
Determine
the
concentration
of
PM
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.
You
may
also
use
as
an
alternative
to
Method
3B,
the
manual
method
for
measuring
the
oxygen,
carbon
dioxide,
and
carbon
monoxide
content
of
exhaust
gas,
ANSI/
ASME
PTC
19.10­
1981,
"
Flue
and
Exhaust
Gas
104
E
C
Q
T
P
K
p
=
×
×
×
(
Eq.
1)
Analyses"
(
incorporated
by
reference,
see
§
63.14).

(
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
PM
in
the
stack
gas.

(
2)
During
each
PM
test
run,
sample
only
during
periods
of
actual
charging
when
the
capture
system
fan
and
control
device
are
engaged.
Collect
a
minimum
sample
volume
of
30
dry
standard
cubic
feet
(
dscf)
during
each
test
run.

Three
valid
test
runs
are
needed
to
comprise
a
performance
test.
Each
run
must
start
at
the
beginning
of
a
charge
and
finish
at
the
end
of
a
charge
(
i.
e.,
sample
for
an
integral
number
of
charges).

(
3)
Determine
and
record
the
total
combined
weight
of
tons
of
dry
coal
charged
during
the
duration
of
each
test
run.

(
4)
Compute
the
process­
weighted
mass
emissions
(
Ep)

for
each
test
run
using
Equation
1
of
this
section
as
follows:

Where:

Ep
=
Process
weighted
mass
emissions
of
PM,
lb/
ton;
C
=
Concentration
of
PM,
grains
per
dry
standard
cubic
foot
(
gr/
dscf);
105
Q
=
Volumetric
flow
rate
of
stack
gas,
dscf/
hr;
T
=
Total
time
during
a
run
that
a
sample
is
withdrawn
from
the
stack
during
charging,
hr;
P
=
Total
amount
of
dry
coal
charged
during
the
test
run,
tons;
and
K
=
Conversion
factor,
7,000
grains
per
pound
(
gr/
lb).

(
l)
The
owner
or
operator
of
a
new
non­
recovery
coke
oven
battery
shall
conduct
subsequent
performance
tests
for
each
charging
emissions
control
device
subject
to
the
PM
emissions
limit
in
§
63.303(
d)(
2)
at
least
once
during
each
term
of
their
title
V
operating
permit.

(
m)
Visible
emission
observations
of
a
charging
emissions
control
device
required
by
§
63.303(
d)(
3)(
iii)
must
be
performed
by
a
certified
observer
according
to
Method
9
(
40
CFR
part
60,
appendix
A)
for
one
6­
minute
period.

7.
Section
63.310
is
amended
by
adding
new
paragraph
(
j)
to
read
as
follows:

§
63.310
Requirements
for
startups,
shutdowns,
and
malfunctions.

*
*
*
*
*

(
j)
The
owner
or
operator
of
a
non­
recovery
coke
oven
battery
subject
to
the
work
practice
standards
for
door
leaks
in
§
63.303(
c)
shall
include
the
information
specified
in
paragraphs
(
j)(
1)
and
(
2)
of
this
section
in
the
startup,

shutdown,
and
malfunction
plan.

(
1)
Identification
of
potential
malfunctions
that
will
cause
a
door
to
leak,
preventative
maintenance
procedures
to
106
minimize
their
occurrence,
and
corrective
action
procedures
to
stop
the
door
leak.

(
2)
Identification
of
potential
malfunctions
that
affect
charging
emissions,
preventative
maintenance
procedures
to
minimize
their
occurrence,
and
corrective
action
procedures.

8.
Section
63.311
is
amended
by:

a.
Revising
paragraph
(
b)(
1)
and
adding
new
paragraphs
(
b)(
3)
through
(
7);

b.
Revising
paragraph
(
c)(
1)
and
adding
new
paragraph
(
c)(
3);

c.
Revising
paragraphs
(
d)(
1)
through
(
3)
and
adding
new
paragraphs
(
d)(
4)
through
(
9);
and
d.
Revising
paragraphs
(
f)(
1)(
i)
and
(
ii)
and
adding
new
paragraphs
(
f)(
1)(
iv)
through
(
ix).

The
revisions
and
additions
read
as
follows:

§
63.311
Reporting
and
recordkeeping
requirements.

*
*
*
*
*

(
b)
Initial
compliance
certification.
*
*
*

(
1)
Statement
signed
by
the
owner
or
operator,

certifying
that
a
bypass/
bleeder
stack
flare
system
or
an
approved
alternative
control
device
or
system
has
been
installed
as
required
in
§
63.307.

(
2)
*
*
*

(
3)
Statement,
signed
by
the
owner
or
operator,
107
certifying
that
all
work
practice
standards
for
charging
operations
have
been
met
as
required
in
§
63.303(
b)(
3).

(
4)
Statement,
signed
by
the
owner
or
operator,

certifying
that
all
work
practice
standards
for
door
leaks
have
been
met
as
required
in
§
63.303(
c).

(
5)
Statement,
signed
by
the
owner
or
operator,

certifying
that
the
information
on
potential
malfunctions
has
been
added
to
the
startup,
shutdown
and
malfunction
plan
as
required
in
§
63.310(
j).

(
6)
Statement,
signed
by
the
owner
or
operator,
that
all
applicable
emission
limitations
in
§
63.303(
d)(
1)
and
(
2)

for
a
new
non­
recovery
coke
oven
battery
have
been
met.
The
owner
or
operator
shall
also
include
the
results
of
the
PM
performance
test
required
in
§
63.309(
k).

(
7)
Statement,
signed
by
the
owner
or
operator,

certifying
that
all
work
practice
standards
in
§
63.303(
d)(
3)

and
(
4)
for
a
new
non­
recovery
coke
oven
battery
have
been
met.

(
c)
Notifications.
*
*
*

(
1)
Intention
to
construct
a
new
coke
oven
battery
(
including
reconstruction
of
an
existing
coke
oven
battery
and
construction
of
a
greenfield
coke
oven
battery),
a
brownfield
coke
oven
battery,
or
a
padup
rebuild
coke
oven
battery,
including
the
anticipated
date
of
startup.

(
2)
*
*
*
108
(
3)
Intention
to
conduct
a
PM
performance
test
for
a
new
non­
recovery
coke
oven
battery
subject
to
the
requirements
in
§
63.303(
d)(
2).
The
owner
or
operator
shall
provide
written
notification
according
to
the
requirements
in
§
63.7(
b).

(
d)
Semiannual
compliance
report.
*
*
*

(
1)
Certification,
signed
by
the
owner
or
operator,

that
no
coke
oven
gas
was
vented,
except
through
the
bypass/
bleeder
stack
flare
system
of
a
by­
product
coke
oven
battery
during
the
reporting
period
or
that
a
venting
report
has
been
submitted
according
to
the
requirements
in
paragraph
(
e)
of
this
section.

(
2)
Certification,
signed
by
the
owner
or
operator,

that
a
startup,
shutdown,
or
malfunction
event
did
not
occur
for
a
coke
oven
battery
during
the
reporting
period
or
that
a
startup,
shutdown,
and
malfunction
event
did
occur
and
a
report
was
submitted
according
to
the
requirements
in
§
63.310(
e).

(
3)
Certification,
signed
by
the
owner
or
operator,

that
work
practices
were
implemented
if
applicable
under
§
63.306.

(
4)
Certification,
signed
by
the
owner
or
operator,

that
all
work
practices
for
non­
recovery
coke
oven
batteries
were
implemented
as
required
in
§
63.303(
b)(
3).

(
5)
Certification,
signed
by
the
owner
or
operator,
109
that
all
coke
oven
door
leaks
on
a
non­
recovery
battery
were
stopped
according
to
the
requirements
in
§
63.303(
c)(
2)
and
(
3).
If
a
coke
oven
door
leak
was
not
stopped
according
to
the
requirements
in
§
63.303(
c)(
2)
and
(
3),
or
if
the
door
leak
occurred
again
during
the
coking
cycle,
the
owner
or
operator
must
report
the
information
in
paragraphs
(
d)(
5)(
i)

through
(
iii)
of
this
section.

(
i)
The
oven
number
of
each
coke
oven
door
for
which
a
leak
was
not
stopped
according
to
the
requirements
in
§
63.303(
c)(
2)
and
(
3)
or
for
a
door
leak
that
occurred
again
during
the
coking
cycle.

(
ii)
The
total
duration
of
the
leak
from
the
time
the
leak
was
first
observed.

(
iii)
The
cause
of
the
leak
(
including
unknown
cause,

if
applicable)
and
the
corrective
action
taken
to
stop
the
leak.

(
6)
Certification,
signed
by
the
owner
or
operator,

that
the
opacity
of
emissions
from
charging
operations
for
a
new
non­
recovery
coke
oven
battery
did
not
exceed
20
percent.
If
the
opacity
limit
in
§
63.303(
d)(
1)
was
exceeded,
the
owner
or
operator
must
report
the
number,

duration,
and
cause
of
the
deviation
(
including
unknown
cause,
if
applicable),
and
the
corrective
action
taken.

(
7)
Results
of
any
PM
performance
test
for
a
charging
emissions
control
device
for
a
new
non­
recovery
coke
oven
110
battery
conducted
during
the
reporting
period
as
required
in
§
63.309(
l).

(
8)
Certification,
signed
by
the
owner
or
operator,

that
all
work
practices
for
a
charging
emissions
control
device
for
a
new
non­
recovery
coke
oven
battery
were
implemented
as
required
in
§
63.303(
d)(
3).
If
a
Method
9
visible
emissions
observation
exceeds
10
percent,
the
owner
or
operator
must
report
the
duration
and
cause
of
the
deviation
(
including
unknown
cause,
if
applicable),
and
the
corrective
action
taken.

(
9)
Certification,
signed
by
the
owner
or
operator,

that
all
work
practices
for
oven
dampers
on
a
new
nonrecovery
coke
oven
battery
were
implemented
as
required
in
§
63.303(
d)(
4).

*
*
*
*
*

(
f)
Recordkeeping.
*
*
*

(
1)
*
*
*

(
i)
Records
of
daily
pressure
monitoring,
if
applicable
according
to
§
63.303(
a)(
1)(
ii)
or
§
63.303(
b)(
1)(
ii).

(
ii)
Records
demonstrating
the
performance
of
work
practice
requirements
according
to
§
63.306(
b)(
7).
This
requirement
applies
to
non­
recovery
coke
oven
batteries
subject
to
the
work
practice
requirements
in
§
63.303(
a)(
2)

or
§
63.303(
b)(
3).
111
(
iii)
*
*
*

(
iv)
Records
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
the
work
practice
requirement
for
door
leaks
in
§
63.303(
c).
These
records
must
include
the
oven
number
of
each
leaking
door,

total
duration
of
the
leak
from
the
time
the
leak
was
first
observed,
the
cause
of
the
leak
(
including
unknown
cause,
if
applicable),
the
corrective
action
taken,
and
the
amount
of
time
taken
to
stop
the
leak
from
the
time
the
leak
was
first
observed.

(
v)
Records
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
the
work
practice
requirements
for
oven
uptake
damper
monitoring
and
adjustments
in
§
63.303(
c)(
1)(
iv).

(
vi)
Records
of
weekly
performance
tests
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
the
opacity
limit
for
charging
operations
in
§
63.303(
d)(
1).
These
records
must
include
calculations
of
the
highest
3­
minute
averages
for
each
charge,
the
average
opacity
of
five
charges,
and,
if
applicable,
records
demonstrating
why
five
consecutive
charges
were
not
observed
(
e.
g.,
the
battery
was
charged
only
at
night).

(
vii)
Records
of
all
PM
performance
tests
for
a
charging
emissions
control
device
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
the
limit
in
§
63.303(
d)(
2).

(
viii)
Records
of
all
daily
visible
emission
observations
for
a
charging
emission
control
device
to
112
demonstrate
compliance
with
the
requirements
limit
in
§
63.303(
d)(
3).

(
ix)
Records
to
demonstrate
compliance
with
the
work
practice
requirements
for
oven
uptake
damper
monitoring
and
adjustments
in
§
63.303(
d)(
4).

*
*
*
*
*