Monday,

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

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

SUMMARY: This action promulgates national emission standards for hazardous air pollutants ( NESHAP) for coke ovens. The final standards establish emission limitations and work practice requirements for control of hazardous air pollutants ( HAP) from pushing, quenching, and battery stacks at new and existing coke oven batteries. The HAP emitted from pushing, quenching, and battery stacks include coke oven emissions, as well as polycyclic organic matter ( POM) and volatile organic compounds ( VOC) such as benzene and toluene. Exposure to these substances has been demonstrated to cause chronic and acute health effects. These final standards will implement section 112( d) of the Clean Air Act ( CAA) by requiring all major sources to meet HAP emission standards reflecting application of the maximum achievable control technology ( MACT). The EPA previously promulgated emission standards addressing emissions from coke oven charging, topside leaks, and door leaks. EFFECTIVE DATE: April 14, 2003.

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

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

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

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

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

* North American Industry Classification System.

This table is not intended to be exhaustive, but rather provides a guide for readers regarding entities likely to be regulated by this action. To determine whether your facility is regulated by this action, you should examine the applicability criteria in § 63.7281 of the final rule. If you have any questions regarding the applicability of this action to a particular entity, consult the person listed in the preceding FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section. Docket. The EPA has established an official public docket for this action under Docket ID No. OAR   2002   0085. The official public docket consists of the documents specifically referenced in this action, any public comments received, and other information related to this action. Although a part of the official docket, the public docket does not include Confidential Business Information or other information whose disclosure is restricted by statute. The official public docket is the collection of materials that is available for public viewing at the Air Docket in the EPA Docket Center ( EPA/ DC), EPA West, Room B102, 1301 Constitution Ave., NW, Washington, DC. The EPA Docket Center Public Reading Room is open from 8: 30 a. m. to 4: 30 p. m., Monday through Friday, excluding legal holidays. The telephone number for the Reading Room is ( 202) 566   1744, and the telephone number for the Air Docket is ( 202) 566   1742. Electronic Docket Access. You may access the final rule electronically through the EPA Internet under the `` Federal Register'' listings at http:// www. epa. gov/ fedrgstr/. An electronic version of the public docket is available through EPA's electronic public docket and comment system, EPA Dockets. You may use EPA Dockets at http:// www. epa. gov/ edocket/ to view public comments, access the index listing of the contents of the official public docket, and to access those documents in the public docket that are available electronically. Although not all docket materials may be available electronically, you may still access any of the publicly available docket materials through the docket facility in the above paragraph entitled `` Docket.'' Once in the system, select `` search,'' then key in the appropriate docket identification number. Worldwide Web ( WWW). In addition to being available in the docket, an electronic copy of the final rule will also be available on the WWW through the Technology Transfer Network ( TTN). Following signature, a copy of the final rule will be placed on the TTN's policy and guidance page for newly proposed or promulgated rules at http:// www. epa. gov/ ttn/ oarpg. The TTN provides information and technology exchange in various areas of air pollution control. If more information regarding the TTN is needed, call the TTN HELP line at ( 919) 541   5384. Judicial Review. This action constitutes final administrative action on the proposed NESHAP for coke oven pushing, quenching, and battery stacks ( 66 FR 35326, July 3, 2001). Under CAA section 307( b)( 1), judicial review of the final rule is achievable only by filing a petition for review in the U. S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit by June 13, 2003. Under CAA section 307( b)( 2), the requirements that are the subject of this document may not be challenged later in civil or criminal proceedings brought by EPA to enforce these requirements. Outline. The information presented in this preamble is organized as follows:

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

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

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

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

B. What Are the Requirements for Pushing?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

G. What Are the Notification, Recordkeeping, and Reporting Requirements? The notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements rely on the NESHAP General Provisions in 40 CFR part 63, subpart A. Table 1 of the final rule ( subpart CCCCC) shows each of the requirements in the General Provisions ( § § 63.2 through 63.15) and whether they apply. The final rule requires the owner or operator to submit each initial notification in the NESHAP General Provisions that applies to them. An initial notification of applicability with general information about the plant must be submitted within 120 days of April 14, 2003 ( or for a new affected source, 120 days after becoming subject to the rule). A notification of performance tests must be provided at least 60 calendar days before each test. A notification of compliance status must be submitted within 60 calendar days of the compliance demonstration if a performance test is required or within 30 calendar days if no performance test is required. For the work practice standard for pushing for a by product coke oven battery with horizontal flues, plant owners or operators must provide prior written notification of the date the study of flue temperatures will be initiated. Other notification requirements that may apply are shown in Table 1 of the final rule ( subpart CCCCC). The final rule requires plant owners or operators to maintain the records required by the NESHAP General Provisions that are needed to document compliance, such as performance test results; copies of startup, shutdown, and malfunction plans and associated corrective action records; monitoring data; and inspection records. All records must be kept for a total of 5 years, with the records from the most recent 2 years kept onsite. The final rule also requires that the current O& M plans be kept onsite and available for inspection upon request for the life of the affected source or until the affected source is no longer subject to the rule requirements. We revised the reporting requirement for battery stacks from monthly to quarterly in response to comments. For other affected sources, semiannual reports are required for any deviation from an emission limitation ( including an operating limit), work practice standard, or O& M requirement. Each report is due no later than 30 days after the end of the reporting period. If no deviation occurred and no continuous monitoring systems were out of control, only a summary report is required. If a deviation did occur, more detailed information is required. An immediate report is required if there were actions taken during a startup, shutdown, or malfunction that were not consistent with the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan. Deviations that occur during a period of startup, shutdown, or malfunction are not violations if the owner or operator demonstrates to the permitting authority that the source was operating in accordance with the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan.

H. What Are the Compliance Deadlines?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

V. Statutory and Executive Order Reviews A. Executive Order 12866: Regulatory Planning and Review Under Executive Order 12866 ( 58 FR 51735, October 4, 1993), the EPA must determine whether the regulatory action is `` significant'' and, therefore, subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget ( OMB) and the requirements of the Executive Order. The Executive Order defines a `` significant regulatory action'' as one that is likely to result in a rule that may: ( 1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $ 100 million or more or adversely affect in a material way the economy, a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or tribal governments or communities; ( C) Create a serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by another agency; ( M) Materially alter the budgetary impact of entitlement, grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or ( R) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive Order. Pursuant to the terms of Executive Order 12866, it has been determined that this final rule is a `` significant regulatory action'' because it may raise novel legal or policy issues. As such, this action was submitted to OMB for review. Changes made in response to OMB suggestions or recommendations will be documented in the public record.

B. Paperwork Reduction Act The information collection requirements in the final rule have been submitted for approval to OMB under the Paperwork Reduction Act, 44 U. S. C. 3501 et seq. An information collection request ( ICR) document has been prepared by EPA ( ICR No. 1995.02), and a copy may be obtained from Susan Auby by mail at U. S. EPA, Office of Environmental Information, Collection Strategies Division ( 2822T), 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, Washington, DC 20460, by e mail at auby. susan@ epa. gov, or by calling ( 202) 566   1672. A copy may also be downloaded off the Internet at http:// www. epa. gov/ icr. The information requirements are not enforceable until OMB approves them. The information requirements are based on notification, recordkeeping, and reporting requirements in the NESHAP General Provisions ( 40 CFR part 63, subpart A), which are mandatory for all operators subject to NESHAP. These recordkeeping and reporting requirements are specifically authorized by section 112 of the CAA ( 42 U. S. C. 7414). All information submitted to the EPA pursuant to the recordkeeping and reporting requirements for which a claim of confidentiality is made is safeguarded according to Agency policies in 40 CFR part 2, subpart B. The final rule requires maintenance inspections of control devices, two types of written plans ( in addition to the startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan required by the NESHAP General Provisions), and a special study of flue temperatures for by product coke oven batteries with horizontal flues ( with notification of the date the study is to be initiated). Quarterly reports of any deviations from the applicable limits for battery stacks are required, with semiannual reports for other affected sources. The recordkeeping requirements require only the specific information needed to determine compliance. The annual public reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection of information ( averaged over the first 3 years after April 14, 2003, is estimated to total 2,200 labor hours per year at a total annual cost of $ 131,000. This estimate includes one time performance tests and reports, preparation and submission of O& M plans, and a special study of flue temperatures; one time purchase and installation of continuous monitoring systems; one time preparation of a standard operating procedures manual for baghouses; onetime preparation of a startup, shutdown, and malfunction plan, notifications, and recordkeeping. Total capital/ startup costs associated with the monitoring requirements over the 3 year period of the ICR is estimated at $ 32,000 per year, with operation and maintenance costs of $ 51,000 per year. Burden means the total time, effort, or financial resources expended by persons to generate, maintain, retain, or disclose or provide information to or for a Federal agency. This includes the time needed to review instructions; develop, acquire, install, and utilize technology and systems for the purpose of collecting, validating, and verifying information; adjust the existing ways to comply with any previously applicable instructions and requirements; train personnel to respond to a collection of information; search existing data sources; complete and review the collection of information; and transmit or otherwise disclose the information. An Agency may not conduct or sponsor, and a person is not required to respond to, a collection of information unless it displays a currently valid OMB control number. The OMB control number for EPA's regulations are listed in 40 CFR part 9 and 48 CFR chapter 15.

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

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

D. Unfunded Mandates Reform Act Title II of the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act of 1995 ( UMRA), Public Law 104   4, establishes requirements for Federal agencies to assess the effects of their regulatory actions on State, local, and tribal governments and the private sector. Under section 202 of the UMRA, the EPA generally must prepare a written statement, including a costbenefit analysis, for proposed and final rules with `` Federal mandates'' that may result in expenditures by State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or by the private sector, of $ 100 million or more in any 1 year. Before promulgating an EPA rule for which a written statement is needed, section 205 of the UMRA generally requires the EPA to identify and consider a reasonable number of regulatory alternatives and adopt the least costly, most costeffective or least burdensome alternative that achieves the objectives of the rule. The provisions of section 205 do not apply when they are inconsistent with applicable law. Moreover, section 205 allows the EPA to adopt an alternative other than the leastcostly most cost effective, or leastburdensome alternative if the Administrator publishes with the final rule an explanation why that alternative was not adopted. Before the EPA establishes any regulatory requirements that may significantly or uniquely affect small governments, including tribal governments, it must have developed under section 203 of the UMRA a small government agency plan. The plan must provide for notifying potentially affected small governments, enabling officials of affected small governments to have meaningful and timely input in the development of EPA regulatory proposals with significant Federal intergovernmental mandates, and informing, educating, and advising small governments on compliance with the regulatory requirements. Today's final rule contains no Federal mandate ( under the regulatory provisions of the UMRA) for State, local, or tribal governments. The EPA has determined that the final rule does not contain a Federal mandate that may result in estimated costs of $ 100 million or more for State, local, and tribal governments, in the aggregate, or to the private sector in any 1 year. Thus, the final rule is not subject to the requirements of sections 202 and 205 of the UMRA. The EPA has also determined that the final rule contains no regulatory requirements that might significantly or uniquely affect small governments. Thus, today's final rule is not subject to the requirements of section 203 of the UMRA.