Source: https://www.federalregister.gov/documents/2005/08/30/05-17193/national-emission-standards-for-hazardous-air-pollutants-for-integrated-iron-and-steel-manufacturing
Timestamp: 2018-02-24 02:49:16
Document Index: 700632822

Matched Legal Cases: ['art 63', 'art 63', 'art 63', 'art 63', 'art 60', 'art 63', 'art 63', 'art 63', 'art 63', '§\u200912', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', 'art 63', 'art.\n17', 'art 63', '§\u200963', 'art 63', '§\u200963', 'art 63', '§\u200963', '§\u200963', '§\u200963']

Federal Register :: National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants for Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing
A Proposed Rule by the Environmental Protection Agency on 08/30/2005
Comments. Comments must be received on or before October 31, 2005.
70 FR 51306
51306-51317 (12 pages)
OAR-2002-0083
FRL-7962-2
2060-AM76
05-17193
A. Why Are We Proposing To Revise the Emission Limitations?
Sinter Coolers
Discharges Inside Buildings
Parametric Operating Limit for Electrostatic Precipitators
B. Why Are We Proposing To Amend Monitoring Requirements for Baghouses?
Baghouses Without Exhaust Stacks
COMS as an Alternative to Bag Leak Detection Systems
C. Why Are We Proposing To Revise the Requirements for Repeat Performance Tests?
D. Why Are We Proposing To Revise the Definition of “Ladle Metallurgy” To Exclude Vacuum Degassing?
IV. Impacts of the Proposed Amendments
https://www.federalregister.gov/d/05-17193 https://www.federalregister.gov/d/05-17193
Public Hearing. If anyone contacts EPA requesting to speak at a public hearing by September 19, 2005, a public hearing will be held approximately 30 days following publication of this action in the Federal Register.
Submit your comments, identified by Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0083, by one of the following methods:
E-mail: a-and-r-docket@epa.gov, Attention Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0083 and mulrine.phil@epa.gov.
Mail: U.S. Postal Service, send comments to: EPA Docket Center (6102T), Attention Docket Number OAR-2002-0083, 1200 Pennsylvania Ave., NW., Washington, DC 20460.
Hand Delivery: In person or by courier, deliver comments to: EPA Docket Center (6102T), Attention Docket ID Number OAR-2002-0083, 1301 Constitution Avenue, NW., Room B-102, Washington, DC 20004. Such deliveries are only accepted during the Docket's normal hours of operation, and special arrangements should be made for deliveries of boxed information. Please include a total of two copies. We request that a separate copy of each public comment also be sent to the contact person for the proposed action listed below see(FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT).
Instructions: Direct your comments to Docket ID No. OAR-2002-0083. EPA's policy is that all comments received 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. (For additional information about EPA's public docket, visit EDOCKET on-line or see the Federal Register of May 31, 2002 (67 FR 38102).
Docket: All documents in the docket are listed in the 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 material, such as copyrighted material, 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 at the EPA Docket Center, Docket ID Number OAR-2002-0083, EPA West Building, 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 EPA Docket Center is (202) 566-1742. A reasonable fee may be charged for copying docket materials.
Mr. Phil Mulrine, U.S. EPA, Office of Air Quality Planning and Standards, Emission Standards Division, Metals Group (C439-02), Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone (919) 541-5289, fax number (919) 541-5450, e-mail address: mulrine.phil@epa.gov.
This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be affected by this action. To determine whether your facility would be regulated by this action, you should examine the applicability criteria in 40 CFR 63.7781 of subpart FFFFF (NESHAP for Integrated Iron and Steel Manufacturing). If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult either the air permit authority for the entity or your EPA regional representative as listed in 40 CFR 63.13 of subpart A (General Provisions).
Public Hearing. If a public hearing is held, it will begin at 10 a.m. and will be held at EPA's campus in Research Triangle Park, North Carolina, or at an alternate facility nearby. Persons interested in presenting oral testimony or inquiring as to whether a public hearing is to be held should contact Ms. Barbara Miles, Metals Group (C439-02), Emission Standards Division, U.S. EPA, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, telephone (919) 541-5648.
On May 20, 2003 (68 FR 27646), we issued the NESHAP for integrated iron and steel manufacturing facilities (40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFFF). The NESHAP implement section 112(d) of the Clean Air Act (CAA) by requiring all major sources to meet emission standards for hazardous air pollutants (HAP) reflecting application of the maximum achievable control technology (MACT). The NESHAP establish emission limitations for emission sources in each new or existing sinter plant, blast furnace, and basic oxygen process furnace (BOPF) shop.
After promulgation of the NESHAP, five steel companies and one trade association filed a petition for review challenging the final standards (AK Steel Corporation et al. v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, no. 03-1207, DC Cir.). The petitioners raised issues concerning:
Failure to respond to substantive industry comments questioning the definitions, subcategorization, control technologies identified, emission standards, testing and monitoring, and other aspects of the rule;
Failure to provide justification for setting standards for ladle metallurgy operations, sinter plant discharge ends, and sinter coolers;
Failing adequately to consider health threshold levels and to allow for alternative emission standards, performance testing requirements or monitoring methods that are demonstrated to provide comparable protection to public health and the environment.
EPA and petitioners anticipate that the amendments to the NESHAP proposed in this notice will resolve these concerns, and EPA and industry petitioners have entered into a settlement agreement whereby EPA agreed to sign a notice proposing these amendments by September 23, 2005. See 70 FR 36383, June 23, 2005 (public notice of settlement agreement pursuant to section 113 of the CAA; EPA received no adverse comment on this notice of settlement).
The proposed amendments would revise the applicability of the emission limits for sinter cooler stacks at new and existing sinter plants. The revised limits would apply to each sinter cooler instead of to each sinter cooler stack. We are also proposing a 10 percent opacity limit for a sinter cooler at an existing sinter plant instead of the current particulate matter (PM) emission limit of 0.03 grains per dry standard cubic feet (gr/dscf). The proposed amendments would also clarify (in a new footnote to Table 1 of 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFFF) that PM limits do not apply to discharges inside a building or structure housing a discharge end at an existing sinter plant, inside a casthouse at an existing blast furnace, or inside an existing BOPF shop that is subject to a roof monitor opacity limit. We are proposing to change the frequency for conducting subsequent performance tests from twice each permit term to once each permit term for emission units equipped with a baghouse. Repeat performance tests would still be required at least twice each permit term for a sinter cooler at an existing sinter plant, for each unit equipped with a control device other than a baghouse, and for each affected source without a title V operating permit.
The proposed amendments would revise the operating limit in 40 CFR 63.7790(b)(3) for an electrostatic precipitator (ESP) that controls emissions from a BOPF to require that the hourly average opacity of emissions from the control device be maintained at or below 10 percent.
Section 63.7830(b) of the NESHAP requires a bag leak detection system for each baghouse used to meet a PM limit. The proposed amendments would add an alternative allowing plants to use a continuous opacity monitoring system (COMS) to monitor the opacity of emissions exiting each control device stack. A bag leak detection system or Start Printed Page 51308COMS would not be required for a positive-pressure baghouse not equipped with exhaust gas stacks that was installed before August 30, 2005.
We are proposing to revise the requirements for operation and maintenance (O&M) plans. The proposed amendments would expand the corrective action procedures in 40 CFR 63.7800(b)(4) to apply to baghouses equipped with COMS in addition to those with bag leak detection systems. Plants would be required to initiate corrective action if a bag leak detection system alarm is triggered or if emissions from a baghouse equipped with a COMS exceed an hourly average opacity of 5 percent.
We are also proposing to add corrective action procedures for other types of control devices. If a venturi scrubber equipped with continuous parameter monitoring systems (CPMS) or an ESP equipped with a COMS exceeds the opacity operating limit, plants would be required to take corrective action consistent with their site-specific monitoring plan. New provisions in 40 CFR 63.7833 would require plants to initiate corrective action to determine the cause of the exceedance within 1 hour and to measure operating parameter value(s) for the emission unit within 24 hours of the exceedance. If the measured value(s) meet the applicable operating limit, the corrective action is successful and the emission unit would be in compliance with the applicable operating limit. If the initial corrective action is not successful, additional corrective action would be required within the next 24 hours. Plants would re-measure the operating parameter(s) and if the corrective action is successful, the emission unit would be in compliance with the applicable operating limit. If the second attempt at corrective action is not successful, the plant would report the exceedance as a deviation in the next semiannual compliance report.
In other amendments, we are proposing to clarify the requirements for establishing venturi scrubber parametric operating limits in 40 CFR 63.7824(b) by stating that plants may establish the limit during the initial performance test or during any other performance test that meets the emission limit. We are also proposing to revise the definition of “ladle metallurgy” by stating that vacuum degassing is not included in the definition. We are also proposing changes to Table 4 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFFF, which would clarify the applicability of certain monitoring, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the NESHAP General Provisions (40 CFR part 63, subpart A) to the rule and correct errors in certain entries.
The petitioners objected to the PM emission limit for sinter cooler stacks (0.03 gr/dscf) for a variety of reasons, including the lack of HAP data to support a standard, the de minimus nature of the emissions, and the high costs for testing and monitoring. In addition, several plants have coolers without stacks that cannot be tested by EPA Method 5 (40 CFR part 60, appendix A). Petitioners contend that an opacity limit would be technically feasible and consistent with State rules.
We agree with the commenters' concerns that the sinter cooler standard should accommodate coolers without stacks. For a sinter cooler at a new affected source, we are proposing to revise the current limit to apply to emissions from each sinter cooler rather than each sinter cooler stack. For sinter coolers at an existing affected source, we are proposing to revise the MACT floor based on State rules and new opacity data. As discussed below, the data clearly show that a 10 percent limit (6-minute average) provides a reasonably accurate picture of the performance achieved by the best-performing sources and can be achieved on a continuing basis.
Our review of sinter coolers indicate that some coolers do not have stacks, and their design and operation make it impractical to install a stack. As promulgated, the final rule does not apply an emission limit to coolers without stacks. We reviewed existing State regulations for sinter coolers and found that some States have opacity limits which provide a practical means for limiting emissions from coolers with and without stacks. The MACT floor based on current opacity limits is determined by the 10 percent (6-minute average) limit that applies to three sinter plants with five sinter coolers in Lake County, Indiana. See Indiana Administrative Code (IAC), 326 IAC 6-1-11.1(d)(7)(A)-(B). We attempted to obtain opacity data for these sources, but the coolers are seldom inspected by the State agency because they are such a low-emitting emission source. We also attempted to obtain self-monitoring data performed by the plants. Data were available for only one of the sinter plant coolers. The plant provided data for 366 observations covering 13 months. The 99th percentile of the observations was 8 percent opacity, and only two observations exceeded 10 percent. These data indicate that a MACT floor of 10 percent opacity based on current State regulations is a reasonable representation of the opacity that can be achieved on a continuing basis by sinter coolers. The proposed opacity limit would apply to the sinter cooler and any discharge of emissions from the cooler; it would not apply to the material transfer point where the sinter is removed from the cooler.
The petitioners explained that at some facilities, control devices discharge to the interior of buildings and not to the ambient air. Other facilities are able to meet opacity limits by using flame suppression and do not have a control device. Facilities with capture systems leading to a control device that then discharge within the building are in effect no different than those systems used to suppress emissions to meet the opacity limit for a building.
The petitioners are correct that the language of the emission limits in Table 1 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFFF (“emissions discharged to the atmosphere”), could be construed to include emissions discharged inside buildings. This is not our intent. In response to the petitioners' concerns, we are proposing amendments to Table 1 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFFF, that would add a footnote to each PM limit for a control device at an existing source stating that the limit does not apply to discharges inside a blast furnace casthouse, BOPF shop, or building housing the discharge end at a sinter plant. The applicable emission limit for these emissions and other fugitive emissions that are discharged through the roof monitor is the opacity limit for the building cited in Table 1 to 40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFFF.
The NESHAP establish an operating limit for ESP that control emissions from a BOPF. Plant operators are to set the site-specific limit based on COMS measurements made during the performance test. The commenters contend that variations in BOPF operations make it impractical to set a parametric limit based on a short-term performance test. In addition, the presence of water vapor or steam, which is necessary for optimizing ESP performance, raises issues of interferences in COM readings. The commenters support a 20 percent opacity limit (6-minute average), consistent with State regulations, permit Start Printed Page 51309requirements, and the NESHAP for Industrial, Commercial, and Institutional Boilers and Process Heaters (69 FR 55218, September 13, 2004). The petitioners also stated that exceedance of the parametric limit should result in triggering corrective action rather than a violation.
We agree with the petitioners' arguments and are proposing to change the ESP operating limit to a fixed opacity level of 10 percent. This proposed operating limit would be an hourly average to be consistent with other parametric operating limits for control devices. We are also proposing that plant operators take corrective action if the operating limit for an ESP or venturi scrubber is exceeded. The proposed amendments would require plant operators to initiate corrective action within 1 hour. If the limit is still exceeded after 24 hours (i.e., the corrective action was unsuccessful), plant operators would need to take additional corrective action. If the operating limit is exceeded after 24 more hours, we are proposing that the exceedance would be reported as a deviation in the semiannual compliance report. These provisions would not apply in the event of a malfunction, which would be handled according to the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan.
The NESHAP require a bag leak detection system for each baghouse used to meet the PM limits. The petitioners point out that EPA's “Fabric Filter Bag Leak Detection Guidance” (EPA-454/R-98-015, September 1997) states that only fabric filters with exhaust stacks are covered by this guidance. Some of the emissions sources covered by the NESHAP use positive pressure baghouses which do not use an exhaust stack. EPA has recognized this problem in other rules.
We agree with the commenters that bag leak detection systems should not be required for fabric filters without exhaust stacks. In response to the commenters' concerns, we are proposing to revise the rule to clarify that bag leak detection systems are required only for negative pressure baghouses and positive pressure baghouses with a stack.
The petitioners also point out that some companies already have COMS in place, may be required to install COMS due to State, local, or permit requirements, or may opt for COMS instead of bag leak detection systems if given the choice. These companies should not be required to operate duplicative baghouse monitoring systems.
We agree that COMS, which provide a direct measure of opacity, are certainly a suitable alternative to bag leak detection systems. In response to the petitioners' concerns, we are proposing to increase the flexibility of the NESHAP by adding COMS as a monitoring alternative. This approach is consistent with several other MACT standards, as well as the recent amendments to the new source performance standards (NSPS) for electric arc furnaces (70 FR 8523, February 22, 2005). The proposed amendments would require that the COMS for baghouses meet the same requirements as COMS for ESP. The same corrective action requirements for baghouses also would apply. If a bag leak detection system alarm is triggered or emissions from a baghouse equipped with a COMS exceed an hourly average opacity of 5 percent, the proposed amendments would require plants to initiate corrective action within specified time limits. We are proposing the 5 percent trigger because it is consistent with other MACT standards as well as with the amendments to the NSPS for electric arc furnaces cited above.
The petitioners asked EPA to amend the rule to reduce the costs associated with demonstrating continuous compliance, particularly for well-controlled emissions sources. We are proposing to reduce the frequency of repeat PM and opacity performance tests from twice each permit term to once per term for emission units equipped with a baghouse. The reduced frequency would apply to minor emission units equipped with baghouses because performance would be continuously monitored by a bag leak detection system or COMS.
Vacuum degassing is an advanced steel refining process to remove oxygen, hydrogen, and nitrogen in a vacuum to produce ultra-low carbon steel for certain applications. As such, this process could fall within the definition of “ladle metallurgy.” The petitioners argue that EPA did not acknowledge the fundamental control technology differences for vacuum degassing operations compared to ladle metallurgy operations which are typically controlled by baghouses. They explain that many BOPF shops have vacuum degassing facilities and all use steam ejector/condenser systems; baghouses are not suitable control systems because of the inherent moisture in the gas downstream of the steam ejectors. Although PM emissions are low, these facilities would not be able to achieve the limit for new or existing ladle metallurgy operations.
We agree with the petitioners that the definition of “ladle metallurgy” (a secondary steelmaking process that is performed in a ladle after initial refining in a BOPF to adjust the chemical and/or mechanical properties of steel) could be interpreted to include vacuum degassing. In response to the petitioners' concerns, we are proposing to revise the definition of “ladle metallurgy” to specifically exclude vacuum degassing.
The proposed amendments would not affect the level of emissions control required by the existing NESHAP or the nonair, health, environmental, and energy impacts. However, the costs of implementing the existing rule would be reduced in future years. For example, the proposed reduction in subsequent performance tests for an emissions source equipped with a baghouse would reduce the nationwide cost of PM testing over the next 5 years from $270,000/year to $180,000/year, a savings of $90,000/year.
(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; Start Printed Page 51310
It has been determined that these proposed amendments are not a “significant regulatory action” under the terms of Executive Order 12866 and are, therefore, not subject to OMB review.
This action does not impose any new information collection burden. The proposed amendments provide additional flexibility through revised requirements for monitoring operational parameters which would not increase the existing information collection burden. Other proposed amendments, such as the reduction in subsequent PM performance tests for certain emissions sources, is expected to decrease the information collection burden in future years. However, OMB has previously approved the information collection requirements contained in the existing regulations (40 CFR part 63, subpart FFFFF) under the provisions of the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. and has assigned OMB control number 2060-0517, EPA Information Collection Request (ICR) number 2003.02. A copy of the OMB approved ICR may be obtained from Susan Auby, by mail at the Office of Environmental Information, Collection Strategies Division, U.S. EPA (2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW., Washington, DC 20460, by e-mail at Auby.Susan@epa.gov, or by calling (202) 566-1672.
For the purposes of assessing the impacts of today's proposed amendments on small entities, small entity is defined as: (1) A small business as defined by the Small Business Administration's regulations at 13 CFR 121.201; (2) a small governmental jurisdiction that is a government of a city, county, town, school district, or special district with a population of less than 50,000; and (3) a small organization that is any not-for-profit enterprise which is independently owned and operated and is not dominant in its field.
After considering the economic impacts of today's proposed amendments on small entities, I certify that this action will not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities. The proposed amendments would not impose any requirements on small entities. There are no small entities in the regulated industry. We continue to be interested in the potential impacts of the proposed rule on small entities and welcome comments on issues related to such impacts.
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 tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector in any 1 year. Thus, today's proposed amendments are not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. In addition, EPA has determined that the proposed amendments contain no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments, because they contain no requirements that apply to such governments or impose obligations upon them.
Executive Order 13132, entitled “Federalism” (64 FR 43255, August 10, 1999) requires EPA to develop an accountable process to ensure “meaningful and timely input by State and local officials in the development of regulatory policies that have federalism implications.” “Policies that have federalism implications” are 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.” Start Printed Page 51311
The proposed amendments do not have federalism implications. They would not have substantial direct effects on the States, on the relationship between the national government and the States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of government, as specified in Executive Order 13132. None of the affected plants are owned or operated by State governments. Thus, Executive Order 13132 does not apply to the proposed amendments. In the spirit of Executive Order 13132, and consistent with EPA policy to promote communications between EPA and State and local governments, EPA specifically solicits comment on this proposed rule from State and local officials.
Executive Order 13175, entitled “Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments” (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.” The proposed amendments do not have tribal implications, as specified in Executive Order 13175. They would 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, as specified in Executive Order 13175. No tribal governments own plants subject to the MACT standards for integrated iron and steel manufacturing. Thus, Executive Order 13175 does not apply to today's proposed amendments. EPA specifically solicits additional comment on this proposed rule from tribal officials.
EPA interprets Executive Order 13045 as applying only to those regulatory actions that are based on health or safety risks, such that the analysis required under section 5-501 of the Executive Order has the potential to influence the regulation. The proposed amendments are not subject to the Executive Order because they are based on control technology and not on health or safety risks.
Under section 12(d) of the National Technology Transfer and Advancement Act of 1995 (NTTAA), Public Law No. 104-113, § 12(d) (15 U.S.C. 272 note) directs EPA to use voluntary consensus standards (VCS) in its regulatory activities, unless to do so would be inconsistent with applicable law or otherwise impractical. The VCS are technical standards (e.g., materials specifications, test methods, sampling procedures, and business practices) that are developed or adopted VCS bodies. The NTTAA directs EPA to provide Congress, through OMB, explanations when the Agency does not use available and applicable VCS.
The proposed amendments do not involve technical standards. Therefore, EPA is not considering the use of any VCS.
2. Section 63.7790 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(3) to read as follows:
3. Section 63.7800 is amended by:
a. Revising the second sentence in the introductory text of paragraph (b);
b. Revising the introductory text of paragraph (b)(4);
(6) Corrective action procedures for electrostatic precipitators equipped with COMS. In the event an electrostatic precipitator exceeds the operating limit in § 63.7790(b)(3), you must take corrective actions consistent with your site-specific monitoring plan in accordance with § 63.7831(a).
4. Section 63.7821 is revised to read as follows: Start Printed Page 51312
5. Section 63.7823 is amended by revising the introductory text of paragraph (c) to read as follows:
(c) To determine compliance with the applicable opacity limit in Table 1 to this subpart for a sinter cooler at an existing sinter plant, a sinter plant discharge end, or a blast furnace casthouse:
6. Section 63.7824 is amended by:
a. Adding a second sentence to the introductory text of paragraph (b);
e. Revising the introductory text of newly designated paragraph (c) and newly designated paragraph (c)(3);
f. Revising the introductory text of newly designated paragraph (d); and
g. Revising the introductory text of newly designated paragraph (e) and newly designated paragraph (e)(4) to read as follows:
7. Section 63.7825 is amended by:
8. Section 63.7826 is amended by revising paragraph (b)(1) to read as follows:
9. Section 63.7830 is amended by revising paragraphs (b), (d), (e)(1), and (e)(2) to read as follows:
(b) Except as provided in paragraph (b)(3) of this section, you must meet the requirements in paragraph (b)(1) or (2) of this section for each baghouse applied to meet any particulate emission limit in Table 1 of this subpart. You must conduct inspections of each baghouse according to the requirements in paragraph (b)(4) of this section.
(1) Install, operate, and maintain a bag leak detection system according to § 63.7831(f) and monitor the relative change in particulate matter loadings according to the requirements in § 63.7832; or
(3) A bag leak detection system and COMS are not required for a baghouse that meets the requirements in paragraphs (b)(3)(i) and (ii) of this section. Start Printed Page 51313
10. Section 63.7831 is amended by:
a. Revising the introductory text of paragraph (a), revising paragraphs (a)(5) and (a)(6), and adding new paragraphs (a)(7) and (a)(8);
b. Revising the introductory text of paragraph (f); and
c. Revising the introductory text of paragraph (h) and revising paragraph (h)(4) to read as follows:
(6) Ongoing recordkeeping and reporting procedures in accordance with the general requirements of § 63.10(c), paragraph (e)(1), and paragraph (e)(2)(i);
(4) COMS data must be reduced to 6-minute averages as specified in § 63.8(g)(2) and to hourly averages where required by this subpart FFFFF.
11. Section 63.7833 is amended by:
b. Revising the introductory text of paragraph (d) and adding new paragraph (d)(4);
c. Revising the introductory text of paragraph (e), revising paragraph (e)(1), and adding new paragraph (e)(3);
(c) For each baghouse applied to meet any particulate emission limit in Table 1 to this subpart, you must demonstrate continuous compliance by meeting the requirements in paragraph (c)(1) or (2) as applicable, and paragraphs (c)(3) and (4) of this section:
(e) For each electrostatic precipitator subject to the opacity operating limit in § 63.7790(b)(3), you must demonstrate continuous compliance by meeting the requirements of paragraphs (e)(1) through (3) of this section:
(3) If the hourly average opacity of emissions exceeds 10 percent, you must follow the corrective action procedures in paragraph (g) of this section. Start Printed Page 51314
(1) You must initiate corrective action to determine the cause of the exceedance within 1 hour. During any period of corrective action, you must continue to monitor and record all required operating parameters for equipment that remains in operation. Within 24 hours of the exceedance, you must measure and record the hourly average operating parameter value for the emission unit on which corrective action was taken. If the hourly average parameter value meets the applicable operating limit, then the corrective action was successful, and the emission unit is in compliance with the applicable operating limit.
(2) If the initial corrective action required in paragraph (g)(1) of this section was not successful, you must complete additional corrective action within the next 24 hours (48 hours from the time of the exceedance). During any period of corrective action, you must continue to monitor and record all required operating parameters for equipment that remains in operation. After this second 24 hour period, you must again measure and record the hourly average operating parameter value for the emission unit on which corrective action was taken. If the hourly average parameter value meets the applicable operating limit, then the corrective action was successful, and the emission unit is in compliance with the applicable operating limit.
12. Section 63.7834 is amended by revising paragraph (a) to read as follows:
(3) Initiating and completing corrective action for a baghouse equipped with a bag leak detection system or COMS according to § 63.7800(b)(4) and recording all information needed to document conformance with these requirements, including the time you initiated corrective action, the corrective action(s) taken, and the date on which corrective action was completed.
13. Section 63.7835 is amended by revising the first sentence in paragraph (a) to read as follows:
14. Section 63.7851 is amended by revising paragraph (c)(2) to read as follows:
(2) Approval of major alternatives to test methods under § 63.7(e)(2)(ii) and paragraph (f) and as defined in § 63.90, except for approval of an alternative method for the oil content of the sinter plant feedstock or volatile organic compound measurements for the sinter plant windbox exhaust stream stack as provided in § 63.7824(f).
15. Section 63.7852 is amended by revising the definition of term “Ladle metallurgy” to read as follows:
16. Table 1 to subpart FFFFF of part 63 is amended by revising entries 3, 5, 6, 7, 9, 10, and 11; and by revising the footnotes to read as follows:
3. Each discharge end at an existing sinter plant a. You must not cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any gases that exit from one or more control devices that contain, on a flow-weighted basis, particulate matter in excess of 0.02 gr/dscf 1 2 and
5. Each sinter cooler at an existing sinter plant You must not cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any emissions that exhibit opacity greater than 10 percent (6-minute plant. average).
6. Each sinter cooler at a new sinter plan You must not cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any gases that contain particulate matter in excess of 0.01 gr/dscf.
9. Each BOPF at a or existing shop a. You must not cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any gases that exit from a primary emission control system for a BOPF with a closed hood system at a new or existing BOPF shop that contain, on a flow-weighted basis, particulate matter in excess of 0.03 gr/dscf during the primary oxygen blow 2 3; and
11. Each ladle metallurgy operation at a new or existing BOPF shop You must not cause to be discharged to the atmosphere any gases that exit from a control device that contain particulate matter in excess of BOPF shop 2 or 0.004 gr/dscf for a new BOPF shop.
2 This concentration limit (gr/dscf) for a control device does not apply to discharges inside a building or structure housing the discharge end at an existing sinter plant, inside a casthouse at an existing blast furnace, or inside an existing BOPF shop that is subject to a roof monitor opacity limit in Table 1 to this subpart.
17. Table 2 to subpart FFFFF of part 63 is amended by revising entries 5 and 6 as follows:
5. Each sinter cooler at an existing sinter plant The opacity of emissions, determined according to the performance test procedures in § 63.7823(c), did not exceed 10 percent (6-minute average).
18. Table 3 to subpart FFFFF of part 63 is revised to read as follows: Start Printed Page 51316
As required in § 63.7833(a), you must demonstrate continuous compliance with the emission and opacity limits according to the following table.
19. Table 4 to subpart FFFFF of part 63 is amended by revising entry § 63.6(h)(2)(i) and entries §§ 63.8 through 63.10 as follows:
§ 63.10(e)(3) Excess Emission Reports No Subpart FFFFF specifies reporting requirements.
[FR Doc. 05-17193 Filed 8-29-05; 8:45 am]